Riya, Mike Gravel wrote an article with a title similar to that quote over at CommonDreams.org.

Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, was previously an ambassador at the U.N.  He not only has no hesitation to claim a desire to bring our troops home NOW, he has an understanding of the Middle East that I think the others do not.  He wants no war with Iran, understands that Ahmadiejad is really just a bit player, not “the Decider”, is firmly pro-choice, and thank goodness he looks like he likes to sit down and enjoy a good meal without jumping on his bike immediately afterward.  The spit-and-polished Democratic Trio are on my spam list now.  HRC’S vote to label the IRN a terrorist organization, she being the only democrat to do so, is so,so, well, what I would expect of her.  And now the US military and the CIA have been named terrorist organizations by the Iranian parliament.  Turn about…. How ridiculous.  Thanks, Hilary, for flushing diplomacy down the toilet for us.  As I read elsewhere, written by some blogger whose name I do not recall, and I may be paraphrasing,“we elected Democrats to end one war, not start another one.”

Good Lord willing, NonCredo, the idiots have bandied “anti-Semitic” around so much, it’s losing a lot of its sting.

Well said, NonCredo. And allow me to add that “anti-Semitism” has nothing to do with concern over Israel’s dangerous influence within the US government.

How can I, for one, be “anti-Semitic”, when I’m a libertarian, and the three most influential libertarians of the last century were all Jewish (Mises, Chodorov, and Rothbard)?

#103560 by Non Credo

..“Look, Cyrena. How can you be wondering whether the Israel lobby was not the crucial (not the only, but the crucial) source of pressure on Democrats to sign onto the Iraq war, and even more so the Iran war?”..

Ok, Ok..Non Credo,

Don’t fuss at me!! I just asked a question, because I honestly didn’t know!! I mean granted, I know a whole bunch of stuff, but I didn’t for sure, the answer to Felicity’s original question. And, her question included, why are only SOME of the dems and other politicians in the Executive and other branches not equally controlled by the Israel Lobby?
So, that was fair enough, and I’ll admit that while I haven’t read the Mearsheimer and Walt book, (because I didn’t know about it until you posted it here) I have at least STARTED Scott Ritter’s book. (which I’ve had for months, but just haven’t been able to get to).

So, cut me a little slack. I’m an old lady trying to do a gradute study program, and that keeps me hoppin’. (besides, I’ve also designated myself to be an “informer” to the Bloggers of what I actually DO know. For the rest of the stuff, I have YOU. (and, I knew I could count on you to get me up to speed).

Now of course I know a bunch of the other stuff about Israel’s influence, and I’m pretty knowledgeable on Israel’s 60 year criminal history in the Middle East. Matter of fact, I’m real up to date on that.

And, I’m even very well versed on the PNAC, and the Clean Break, and all of that. I also know that Israel is determined to control all of the oil in the Middle East, as well as all of the water, and all of the fish in that water, and pretty much everything else….in the Middle East. And, I know that a Zionist will defend their atrocious crimes against humanity, no matter what. So…I’ve got a general foundation here at least. I even know all of the Signatories to those above documents, and I know who all of the US criminals are, at least politicians who are behind Israel’s evil intentions…The House of Bush-Saud, The Players in the Carlyle Group, Condi, Cheney, all of the neoconners, Big Pharma, ALL CORPORTIONS…(including my own former employer).

So, I’m not totally ignorant on this. I just haven’t had a chance to identify all of the culprits in the lobby, and there must still be a reason why some politicans and public servants DON’T seem to be controlled by them or their ideology. (even though I realize that they don’t have a chance in hell, but they are still seemingly independent, like I hoped Obama would remain, but he’s been corrupted now as well).

And, I DID know that the plans to attack Iran had to be only because of Israel, because Iran is not a threat to the US, or anybody else. At least not because of their nuclear program, which is all perfectly legit (unlike Israels). And, I knew that Iran was part of the original attack plan (along with Iraq and Syria) from at least 12 years ago, put together by all of the folks who signed it, and then some.

So, that’s all I was trying to figure out, maybe a little on the cheap, since I haven’t read my books. Just trying to put the names with the Lobby. Who’s in, and who’s not.

I promise to read up. Can you give me an extension?

Non Credo Writes:
“America’s economic interests are exactly the opposite of served by any plan to go to war against Iran.
If you don’t understand how the Israel lobby is distorting US mideast policy contrary to our national interests, including our oil needs, then buy a copy of Mearshimer and Walt’s book on the Israel lobby, for a start.
(...unless you’re just a pro-Israel hack, come here purposely to help keep the Ameican public disinformed, of course.) “

So now my blog entry(s) suggests that America interests would be served by invading Iran? If you can find those comments from me please re-post them. Also… I certainly do believe in the strength of the Israeli lobby… and I do not believe that our national interest are served by our current policy in the middle east from a geopolitical stance nor a natural resource/economic position (i.e. oil) but the facts are that at this exact moment in history our economy and the economy of much of the developed world is reliant on oil… our foreign policy in the middle east is about oil… our invasion of Iraq was/is about oil… our military support of Israel and Saudi Arabia is about OIL!!! Does the US need to change this dynamic…YES! Will the Cheney/Bush administration do anything to reduce our reliance on oil… NO!

However, none of the above was actually the point of my entries in response to Eugene Robinson’s article…

My blog was about the requirement by the press for politicians to make pledges on what they would do regarding Iraq in 2009 and 2013 with only the current information on the state of Iraq and the rest of the world. I repeat… to do this is the foundation of a ideologically driven foreign policy such as we have seen with the Cheney/Bush administration that has lead this country to disaster. I am tired of being lied too. Any politician that states that they will today pledge themselves to one course of action SIX years from now is either lying to us or to themselves!

Last word… I did read Mearshimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” and found much of it well reasoned and referenced. However, some of their assertions were not supported by collaborating information/sources. Still… an important book.

#103426 by felicity
•  Hillary’s predictable, “If I’d known then what I know now, I never would have voted for it.”

EXACTLY Felicity! If she had known? WE DID! She’s a flippin’ Senator, why didn’t SHE? Isn’t that her job? And, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t she the one who said that when she voted for the invasion of Iraq, she “thought” she was just voting on an additional resolution to disarm Saddam? Talk about a fatal error!!!

That’s why Hillary is off the table. Obama had an edge initially, because he wasn’t in the senate at the time of the vote, and he had indeed made his own disapproval of the Iraq action known early on. But now that he had an opportunity to follow through with that, and commit to getting us out of there, he failed. So, he’s off the table too. Poor John Edwards – same thing, whatever his reasons might be. Bad gamble for all of them, unless the next election really is already a done deal. (Giuliani?) - In that case, we’re probably wasting our time.

Nope, we cannot survive another Bush Era Redux, because we haven’t survived this one. It’s only that there are still a few of us standing. (or at least not under the ground).

#103437 by felicity

•  #103434
Question - perhaps you can explain what the ‘hold’ is that the Israeli lobby has over not only the ‘front runners’ - seemingly not the ‘rear runners’ - but so many others in the two branches of government - but not everybody in those bodies. It’s important to explain why some cowtow to the lobby while others don’t seem to.
•  #103434 Felicity
Question - perhaps you can explain what the ‘hold’ is that the Israeli lobby has over not only the ‘front runners’ - seemingly not the ‘rear runners’ - but so many others in the two branches of government - but not everybody in those bodies. It’s important to explain why some cowtow to the lobby while others don’t seem to.
Now, I thought this was a real legitimate question, and I have the same. Is it ONLY the Israel lobby that they are cow-towing to? I think MONEY is a good answer. (notice that Kucinich, Gravel, and Richardson don’t have the millions in campaign donations that the others have.)

There was a “fundraising” event in my own area recently, for Obama. It was a $2.300k a plate event. (Guess who DID NOT get an invitation? – Must have been that relief postman, he always screws up the mail)

The event sponsor was certainly a “corporate sponsor” but I don’t know how close the connection is to the Israel Lobby. Still, that’s a whole lot of donation bucks. So, I would again call it what it is….standard politicking…pandering to those with the money, and saying what they want to hear. Gravel, and Kucinich at least, have apparently chosen to uphold their integrity over the money. (the same could be said for Richardson I suppose, though I don’t know as much about him).

They haven’t been willing to sell out, or do the standard thing of trying to play both ends against the middle. At least that’s my take.

So, apparently wherever the Big Corporate bucks come from, is who they will answer to. If that includes the Israel Lobby, (pretty impossible to deny that it does) then…there you have it
.

Non Credo writes:

“Oh yeah? And why the hell would you think that’s a good reason for us to continue our bloody occupation of Iraq - unless you’re another Israel-first asshole who doesn’t care about true US interests, security, or values?”

Well your point,  crudely put, is that our overriding concern in the middle east is Israel. But this premise is not supported by the facts of the last ~150 years of geopolitical policy. Is Israeli security the overriding theme behind the western powers (Britain, US, France, Germany etc..) interest and military imperialism in the middle east for the last century or so… NO ITS OIL!!!!

A Nuclear Iran threatens the “moderate” (if you can stomach the word) oil producing countries of the middle east. I believe that if/when the US finds itself deciding to protect Israel or oil … well… OIL WILL WIN!!!

But this is a digression from the thesis of my blog. Asking politicians to make “pledges” on incomplete information is what the Bush administration does every day! I personally have had enough of ideological arguments (both right AND left) that are bereft of analysis on how these policies affect the US and the world as a whole. Your answer to my blog is exactly what I read in the “right wing” blogs.

Try demanding intelligent discussions of American foreign policy and holding our politicians to the truth at the very least.

#103434

Question - perhaps you can explain what the ‘hold’ is that the Israeli lobby has over not only the ‘front runners’ - seemingly not the ‘rear runners’ - but so many others in the two branches of government - but not everybody in those bodies. It’s important to explain why some cowtow to the lobby while others don’t seem to.

Money?  An appreciable number of American voters committed to Israeli hegemony in the ME?

#103379
I wait with bated breath, when the war with Iran is disastrous, for Hillary’s predictable, “If I’d known then what I know now, I never would have voted for it.”  Same answer for her original failed health-care plan, “If I’d known then what I know now, I would have done it differently.”  Her vote for the Iraq war, “If I’d known then what I know now, I never would have voted for it.”

Obviously, Hillary doesn’t bother to know much before she makes up her mind to do something, a deadly flaw in a president, or anybody in a position of power.  Can we really survive a Bush era redux?

If I were to say to a cop who’d pulled me off the road for a traffic violation that if I’d known it was against the law, I wouldn’t have done it, chances are he’d say to me that it was my responsibility to know the traffic laws before I ever got on the road.

#103286 by PACRAT

•  ASK A SILLY QUESTION!
“Will you guarantee that the troops will be out of Iraq by the end of your term of office?’ A fool would answer “yes!”

PACRAT, I understand your “strategic” thinking on this. Because, it is of course how these candidates must view the political game of it all. BUT, on this one, I think they may have just screwed themselves. All three. I had hopes for Obama, but was worried way back when he first decided to run, that he would be either maliciously “targeted” with stupid slander, (and he has been) or that he would become corrupted by the nastiness of the politics of the New Century. Apparently he that has happened as well.
Unfortunately, in MY mind, I think they may have called this one wrong. I don’t think that a “fool” would answer ‘yes’ to the question, unless they were trying to stay so close to the center, and THAT….is stupid. Each and every one of them could have (even if they didn’t intend to withdraw or end the war) LIED. (I mean if we’re talking about politics as usual) they could have all said YES, I’ll end the war immediately. Then, once taking office, they could always come up with a variety of lies or even legitimate reasons for why it hasn’t happened.

So, Hillary has pretty much wiped herself right off of my ticket, as has John Edwards and Barack. (sorry to say about him). Hillary even MORE so; having just voted to blast Iran off the map. (If she doesn’t know that’s the point of the Kyle-Lieberman thing…to set up the attack on Iran, then she is stupid, and not qualified to be a leader).

I too wish that AL Gore would take his job back; the one that we hired him for 7 years ago. But, I don’t blame him a bit if he doesn’t wanna mess with it. So, we’re looking at Kucinich and Richardson now. Hagel would be acceptable – even to me, a life long dem, but the others have screwed themselves, just by this one non-answer. If they can’t even go so far as to indicate a willingness to stop the destruction immediately, then they can’t do what we so desperately need our leadership to do.

So, I don’t mind that I didn’t bother with the debate this time. Funny how things work out. Kucinich just got a vote, (at least from me) just because these three disqualified themselves. I think they should have answered YES.

That they cannot promise to extradite us in as much as 5 ½ years from now, what good are they? And, since we know that we are only in Iraq to steal oil, and since we know that Iran is not a threat to us, (or anybody else as a matter of their perfectly legal nuclear program) then we have to assume that these candidates know the same. So, why can’t they promise to leave? Don’t they at least know as much as we do?

They should. So, this must mean that they are fine with us stealing oil, and wiping Iran off the map. Is Biden still in the race? He’s screwed too. Very stupid…agreeing to give more money than the Crooks even asked for, and sponsoring the senate plan to divvy up the prize of Iraq, and Balkanize it, as if it is all there for OUR taking. That of course, is the Cheney et all mentality.

Yep. They really blew it. Probably just as well. This is pretty much all I needed to hear. Process of eliminated themselves. ALL of them. NOBODY can tell me that we can’t take our troops out of the Middle East as easily as we put them there.

Here again, they’ve made the fatal mistake of ignoring the majority of “we the people”, and pandering to the 1% of the SuperMonied among us, who of course want to continue the heist of the Middle East and all of it’s resources, and spend our blood and money to do it.

Others seem to be missing the point, the war is over 4 years old, we are not capable of “winning” as there is no enemy other than the one created by this nation.  Ourselves.  We have allowed King George, Dick Chaney, and Don Rumsfeld to run all over us.  We deserve to take the fall, and it will be a big one.  The turmoil in the middle east will continue for decades, as it has for decades.  We don’t belong there.  We don’t understand that our way of life is not theirs.  Live and let live.  Leave them alone.  Let them bask in misery and death.  Maybe they will all do each other in.  It’s not our job as citizens of the greatest country on earth to be the policeman of the world.  It is also a crime to invade another sovereign country unprovoked and exploit both them and us, the taxpayers, to enrich the multi national corporations who support this war and will continue to milk this cash cow.  The media’s darling top three play right into their hands.  Bring on Richardsen or Kucinich.  End it.  Now.  Stop funding it.  Just say no.

Heads up: Kucinich is looking for contributions to meet his $300,000 goal by Sep. 30 - that’s Sunday!  I think his campaign is a little over $200k at this point.  He needs our help.  Why?  Because our country desperately needs his help.

It’s encouraging to see people bringing up Kucinich so much on these Truthdig posts.  I hope the frequency of this increases. 

For anyone who doesn’t know, Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate with a bill (HR 676) for single-payer, NOT-FOR-PROFIT healthcare, the only candidate who has called for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, the only candidate who intends to pull the U.S. out of the corporate greed-friendly NAFTA and WTO on his first day in office, the only candidate who has pledged a full troop withdrawal within 3 months of taking office, and one of only two candidates who fully support gay marriage.  He is truly the people’s candidate.

DK08!!

Richardson was clear at the debate in New Hampshire, and he’s been advocating the entire campaign that the U.S. promptly (within a year) bring home ALL of our troops from Iraq.  Earlier this month he wrote an Op Ed in the Washington Post stating:

“The facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal—not a drawn-out, Vietnam-like process—would be the most responsible and effective course of action.  . . .President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam—with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, mostly civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing—the communists took over as soon as we left.” 

Read the full Op Ed at
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/articles?id=0186

Typical.  Since the end of WWII, Congress has abrogated its constitutionally mandated responsibility to declare war.  Only Congress can declare war, yet none of the wars we’ve been in since II has been declared by Congress - Korea, Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq - all ordered by presidents with the consent of Congress.  That’s not the way it’s supposed to work.  The Constitution says it’s not.

Now we have presidential candidates, a bunch of namby-mamby cowards who care more about winning an election than bringing our combat troops home.  Same difference - afraid to declare war, afraid to stop war.

Kudos to Robinson for highlighting the toothless quality in the top-tier candidates’ claims that they will end the war.  But his pondering of what kind of Kool-Aid was being served backstage implies that the noncommital remarks of these top contenders are somehow out of character.  In fact, Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are consistent in wanting to maintain the status quo because they are lackeys for the corporate behemoth that is the military industrial complex.  They are too entrenched in corporate America’s deep pockets to do otherwise.  Robinson should know that his focus on what these candidates should be doing or saying is a waste of time, because they don’t intend to do or say anything else.  Instead, perhaps he should concentrate on the folks that are saying what we all want to hear, like Kucinich or Gravel.  Kucinich had no problem saying that he intends to have ALL troops out by April 2009, three months after he assumes the Presidency.  He said it because that is what he intends to do.  Very simple.  Why can’t the media focus on the substantive candidates instead of air-brushed, soft-focus windbags like Clintobamadwards?  Because they serve the same masters.

It may be small comfort, but there is hope in the fact that the top three candidates did not mislead or lie in the Bush tradition.

Bush has set this precedent and the media has enabled him in his lies. The American media is a unified Pavlov dog accepting and giving legitimacy to BushCo deceits and tricks of propaganda. One thing attentive and informed people know is that Bush never communicates. He politicizes. There is always an agenda-based plan to any of his pronouncements and the plan does not include things that will help mankind unless it help Bush and friends first.

The point is that lying hasn’t yet become a standard with the Democrats just because the Bush administration used it and because the media permitted it.

Small comfort?

Are you a soldier opposed to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, etc? If so, if you had the opportunity to talk to the US President one on one, what would you say? And would you want it used in an antiwar novel that opens like this? - Deadline, Iraq - http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/deadline-iraq-2/

Of course one of these current Democratic (or Republican) candidates may likely be the next President - who is in any case fictitious in the novel (and otherwise?) - so obviously remarks need to be personally general, if otherwise specific. Antiwar non-soldiers are also invited to respond.

If you really think the Dems have any strategy at all, for anything, then you are woefully mistaken.  All they stand for is trying to get power from Republicans.  Total control of congress for 8 months now, and nothing.

Clinton + Obama + Edwards = 4 more years of war

These democratic candidates are beginning to look like our beloved Democratic leadership in DC.  Have they assumed victory to such a degree that they won’t answer questions and propose notions antithetical to their constituencies? 

And what’s up with Obama?  How long can he pull out “I opposed the war from the start” line to preface every statement that comes out of his mouth, which, by the way, appear to be fewer by the minute.  It’s either “I opposed the war f rom the start” or “I agree with Hillary”  Has he been offered a job already or what? 

I’m voting for Ralph Nader…again.

With all due respect Eugene Robinson… we do not know what the next president will inherent in 2009 much less what 2013 will look like!
A nuclear Iran in fact not theory… collapse of the Saudi regime… Turkey invasion of northern Iraq… war between Pakistan and India (conventional, nuclear or both!)……. Just to name a minuscule number of scenarios possible.
In my opinion we should get out of Iraq… completely out of Iraq… before the 2008 elections. This however is not going to happen with the current policy (or lack there of) of the Bush administration. But to suggest that a future president should commit to a policy without knowing ALL OF THE FACTS at the time of the implementation of that policy is asking them to basically lie about their intentions or to repeat the mistakes of the Bush administration and move forward on policy based soly on ideological considerations instead of hard cold facts!
In this next election I want to vote for a realist… someone who knows that NO politician can get anything done without building coalitions and yes… compromising with others to develop a policy supported by the majority of Americans. After the last years of the Bush administration… I am more then done with lies and ideological driven policies.

There was a missing ingredient in the kool-aid.

With Clinton backing yet again another mistake of Bush pertaining to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, she proves she is unfit to be president. Also not enough experience as a politition as she has proven she will go along with anything this administration wants, denying the truth, even to the point of total ruination of this country,against the fact that the majority of Americans want out of Iraq and other wars generated by the Bush Bunch.This path she takes is a continuation of the bad policies we now are stuck with.

Edwards says he would have troops home by 2013. We will run out of soldiers well before then,provided there is still a country left and a presidency. According to many biblical,cultural and prophetical calculations,the world as we know it, everything ends December 21 2012. Well if that is true then Edwards won’t have to worry about fulfilling his campaign promise will he. I don’t necessarily believe in all these predictions, but it seems as if too many of the power that be do and are trying to make sure it happens.

Self fulfilling. The “front-runners” are by necessity hollow shills who support more of the same. I notice Mike Gravel gets not a word of comment on even these pages. Is that because he’s old, or because he’s so completely ignored by the media or because he can barely get a word in edgewise on any of these “debates”?

People are all ready resigning themselves to supporting the lesser of the evils. Don’t want to waste your vote, you know. Pantywaist liberals.

Let’s all get behind killing Iranian babies. That sounds like something everyone can agree on. The front-runners certainly do.

Mr. Robinson, what of Ron Paul, the only Republican who stands four-square for withdrawal from Iraq and no war with Iran? He has a vision, too ... and a far better one than his colleagues, who are all warmongering scoundrels (“Patriotism is the last refuge”, etc.).

Anyone who still thinks the Democrats are a “party of peace” is really dangerously deluded.

I’m not cutting them any slack, Mary.  I’m supporting Bill Richardson, who will bring the troops home as soon as he is elected.  Just because these people have the “star power” does not mean we have to vote for them.  Look at their resumes:  One and a half senate terms and married to a president; junior senator; one term senator.  Richardson: 15 years in congress, UN ambassador, energy secretary, and governor of New Mexico.  And he has over a 60% approval rating in his state!  Quit letting the media tell us who we should vote for.

I’m going cut the Dems some slack for the moment.  This is probably not a good time to be real specific on ones plan to get out of Iraq.  We do have a little more time before their positions will need to be put on the table.  Let’s not forget the Rove factor.  The Dems just aren’t as good at manipulation as the thugs.  No Dem Pres is going to let Iraq become their baggage when they know 70% of Americans want us out now.  I’m going to be looking at which candidate puts out some kind of a plan to get us off foriegn oil, it’s the ONLY permanent solution.  You know when that happens, the thugs will be out in such force we may have to rise up in the streets.  This is going to get a lot uglier before election day!.....

As Harry said ” If you put them all into a paper bag anyone you pulled out would be the same” Applies to both repugs and dimmos.
The problem being: The big business players of wall street and K street own each and every front-runner, on both sides.
Remember Iraq is very very good for business and the suckers..er a .. voters are picking up the tab.
Everything is fine and dandy in the Fascist Republic of Amerika.