The time is long past for the leaders in the US to seriously consider negotiations, rather than a rush to war, as the better way to solve international problems. Are we back to "Bomb Iran" if increased sanctions don't work? What's wrong with these people? What good is a Democratic majority in the Senate if a sufficient number, less one, of Democratic senators are willing to undermine the Democratic president's policies and possibly join with Republicans to override a presidential veto?
Many questions, no real answers. A number of the senators in the list are up for reelection next year, and may have made the decision to support the bill for - Gasp! - political purposes. Since the Supreme Court ruled in "Citizens United" that corporations, organizations, and unions are people and entitled to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns, the senators keep in mind fund-raising for the next election.
Throwing down the gauntlet:
"If certain members of Congress want the United States to take military action, they should be up front with the American public and say so," Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement. "Otherwise, it’s not clear why any member of Congress would support a bill that possibly closes the door on diplomacy and makes it more likely that the United States will have to choose between military options or allowing Iran’s nuclear program to proceed."Bravo!
The list of renegade Democratic senators with check marks by those whose present terms end in January 1915:
Mark Begich - Alaska ✓
Michael Bennet - Colorado
Richard Blumenthal - Connecticut
Cory Booker - New Jersey ✓
Ben Cardin - Maryland
Bob Casey, Jr. - Pennsylvania
Chris Coons - Delaware ✓
Joe Donnelly - Indiana
Kirsten Gillibrand - New York
Kay Hagan - North Carolina ✓
Mary Landrieu - Louisiana ✓
Joe Manchin - West Virginia
Bob Menendez - New Jersey
Mark Pryor - Arkansas ✓
Chuck Schumer - New York
Mark Warner - Virginia ✓
Israel is the nuclear problem in the Middle East. Iran, unlike Israel, is a member of the IAEA and is regularly inspected. Our legislators might better curtail funding Israel's mischief making in the area rather than funding it.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't surprised that NY's senior senator, Chuck Schumer, signed on to the measure undercutting diplomacy -- he's been called the senator from Verizon and AIPAC. I was surprised at our new senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. She's spoken to Democratic clubs we belong to and seemed a fresh and smart face in the senate -- and she's not facing an election campaign. I emailed her and even wrote a letter with a stamp on it asking her to reconsider.
The lure of AIPAC money and the threat of well-funded primary election opposition didn't push this measure through, this time. AIPAC isn't looking invincible any more. I hope a foreign policy better for both the US and Israel can be achieved soon.
Murdoch, I was not at all surprised by Chuck Shumer, but Kirsten Gillibrand, yes.
DeleteAnd what about Pakistan and North Korea?
Israel's Likud party screams about nuclear danger from Iran, as Israel sits on a stockpile of nuclear weapons that both secret and flaunted. That's what makes the situation so hypocritical.
DeletePakistan and North Korea are part of the larger nuclear proliferation problem -- as is the US with its aging nuclear arsenal. (Forget the bombs -- depleted uranium shells and armor are making people sick at all our old battlefields.)
No sane person should want to see any more nuclear blasts for any reason. Fukushima is bad enough. But it seems that some people in authority are itching to use the toys in the closet. What's the use of having them if you can't play with them? The more reason for the US to cut back to a bare minimum for deterrence.
The point is that we live in a conflict based economy: real conflict, threatened conflict, encouraging others to endless conflict in order for the powers that be to MAKE MONEY ... oh, and to give young mostly men the chance to prove their manhood in the great adventure of war ... peace just isn't as profitable or adrenaline packed to satisfy the appetites of those who see themselves as rulers and makers.
ReplyDeleteJanuary 1915 - I see you, like me, are secretly stuck in the 20th century too!
ReplyDeleteMore and more, I think the US is the most worrisome of rogue states. Our interference in the affairs of the countries in the Middle East has been for ill, not for good, and is the root cause of anti-Americanism and attempts by extremists to retaliate with terrorist attacks.
ReplyDeleteThe vast amount of money that passes from AIPAC, military contractors, and manufacturers of military equipment into campaign chests insure that our leaders demand that we be at perpetual war. I credit the president for a saner approach to policy in the Middle East in this instance, but his failure to close Guantanamo and the continuing drone attacks in countries against whom we have not declared war, I still count against him.