Bloggers and Iran’s Fear

Iran is afraid of bloggers, and is instituting the death penalty to harshly curb their rights.

Via BoingBoing:

New legislation has been proposed in Iran that could make blogging a crime punishable by death. Cyrus Farivar has a story on today’s edition of the PRI radio show The World: Iran considers harsh penalty for some bloggers (3:30).

Over at Global Voices, Hamid Tehrani writes:

On Wednesday, Iranian members of parliament voted to discuss a draft bill that seeks to “toughen punishment for disturbing mental security in society.” The text of the bill would add, “establishing websites and weblogs promoting corruption, prostitution and apostasy,” to the list of crimes punishable by death.In recent years, some Iranian bloggers have been sent to jail and many have had their sites filtered. If the Iranian parliament approves this draft bill, bloggers fear they could be legally executed as criminals. No one has defined what it means to “disturb mental security in society”.

Such discussion concerning blogs has not been unique to Iran. It shows that many authorities do not only wish to filter blogs, but also to eliminate bloggers!

A translated English copy of the proposed legislation is here. [International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran]

Aside from being a gross violation of human rights, it is an admission by the Iranian government that they are too weak to stand up to opposition.  Apostasty will be used to silence religious criticism, and “corruption” is a catch-all that will surely be used to silence political opponents.

When a country resorts to murder to keep power, it eventually finds that a tighter grip is a weaker one.  All America needs to do is be diplomatic and friendly, depriving Iran of a common enemy to unite against.  As sympathetic friends, we’ll find ourselves in the better position of being inspirational to the brave people in Iran who fight back.

Dear Obama: Listen!

Please listen to Jamelle!  (US of Jamerica):

Obama’s little riff here basically sums up his foreign policy approach.  I actually wish he would use this language to challenge John McCain’s national security “credentials,” since it’s a pretty effective characterization.

Barack’s language is right on, and applies neatly to foreign policy.  From the difference between talking tough and needing to act out, to the wisdom of walking away and “saving it for when you need it”.  These points, especially given the state of our military and the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran(Pending Cheney pressing a big red button while Congress just watches), hit home in an easily understandable way.

McCain’s Credibility With the Press

Via Majikthise, Kevin Drum body slams John McCain’s credibility:

Let’s recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. “Man of conviction” cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Any one of these issues would be a major headache for a Democratic candidate, or for any “non-blessed-by-the-media” Republican candidate.  We need to pop the karma-bubble around John McCain, or face watching a man wearing a full body media narrative stroll into the White House.

McCain’s Dismal Foreign Policy Expertise

John McCain is going to run as an expert on foreign policy, an experienced heavyweight with security his centerpiece strength.

Which makes this pretty fucking alarming (via Greg Saunders at TMW, emphasis mine):

The foolishness of this John McCain “gaffe”, to use the media’s favorite understatement, should terrify anyone who actually thinks the commander-in-chief should have a basic understanding of the wars we’re fighting :

Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran.He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”

Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”

Wow. If foreign policy is supposed to be the area in which McCain is an expert, I’m terrified of what he might do to the economy.

McCain’s being transparent.  He wants to yell “boo, Al-Qaeda!” when pressed with a foreign policy question, even when it makes less than zero sense to do so.  If McCain’s experience amounts to staring at a wall while people whisper the answers in his ear he’d better come up with another angle to market his presidency.

Dana Perino Performs Stand Up for Press

AP (emphasis mine):

White House press secretary Dana Perino called the charges of stifling dissent “nonsense.”

“The president welcomes robust and healthy debate,” she said. “He has many members of his administration that represent different viewpoints. He has dissenting views on a variety of issues that get worked out through a policy process that is usually not fed out in the press.”

“There’s no one in the administration that is suggesting other than a diplomatic approach to Iran,” Perino said.

Of course not.

McCain’s Yes We Can Video

Most are familiar by now with this celebrity video interpretation of Obama’s inspiration:

Some dash clever deviants have made their own version, bitingly satirizing John McCain (via Indepdendent Basis):

The ending is priceless.

McCain the Warlord

With all the talk of the “independent vote” McCain is snapping up, it’ll be easy to get swept up in the media glow and view the man as a sane, reason-governed paragon of virtue. As a compromise candidate for a Republican field racked by distasteful failures and disunity.

John’s stance on war is not sane. We’ll do well as an electorate to remember this (ThinkProgress):

NBC’s Nightly News provided further details about McCain’s one-hour guided tour. He was accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” Still photographs provided by the military to NBC News seemed to show McCain wearing a bulletproof vest during his visit.

McCain recently claimed that there “are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk through those neighborhoods, today.” In a press conference after his Baghdad tour, McCain told a reporter that his visit to the market today was proof that you could indeed “walk freely” in some areas of Baghdad.

Catch that?  Walking through a market with 100 soldiers, helicopters and gunships, and a bulletproof vest, is walking freely.  This man doesn’t see the same world we live in.  So comments like these really make me shiver (Huffington Post):

Sen. John McCain told a crowd of supporters on Sunday, “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars.” Offering more of his increasingly bleak “straight talk,” he repeated the claim: “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

Iran?  Syria?  Where will Jolly old McCain drag this country next?  Is he prepared for the cost of war?

“And right now – we’re gonna have a lot of PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder] to treat, my friends,” he said. “We’re gonna have a lot of combat wounds that have to do with these terrible explosive IEDs that inflict such severe wounds. And my friends, it’s gonna be tough, we’re gonna have a lot to do.”

We are no friends of John McCain.  Friends don’t look into the heart of war’s consequences, into shattered spines and amputated legs, into children with hairline fractures in their personalities, and say “it’s gonna be tough”.  These are the words of men who inject us with fear and then offer to sell us security at the sale price of our rights and dignity as a nation.

And this man wants to be our next President.

Lying US into Iran

US Officials edited video and flat out lied in an effort to make Iran appear to be a danger to us.  Via Johnathen Schwarz at TMW:

Are you the kind of weirdo who thinks Congress should investigate when the Pentagon essentially fabricates a video of U.S. ships being “threatened” by Iran? Just because it could, you know, lead to a massive war based on lies? (Gareth Porter has an excellent run down of how things happened, here.)

If you are such a weirdo, you can contact Congress via Just Foreign Policy.

From the article (emphasis mine):

The new information that appears to contradict the original version of the incident includes the revelation that U.S. officials spliced the audio recording of an alleged Iranian threat onto to a videotape of the incident.

Also unraveling the story is testimony from a former U.S. naval officer that non-official chatter is common on the channel used to communicate with the Iranian boats and testimony from the commander of the U.S. 5th fleet that the commanding officers of the U.S. warships involved in the incident never felt the need to warn the Iranians of a possible use of force against them.

Further undermining the U.S. version of the incident is a video released by Iran Thursday showing an Iranian naval officer on a small boat hailing one of three ships. 

That didn’t stop US Officials from presenting a very different story:

The dramatic version of the incident reported by U.S. news media throughout Tuesday and Wednesday suggested that Iranian speedboats, apparently belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard navy, had made moves to attack three U.S. warships entering the Strait and that the U.S. commander had been on the verge of firing at them when they broke off.

Typical of the network coverage was a story by ABC’s Jonathan Karl quoting a Pentagon official as saying the Iranian boats “were a heartbeat from being blown up”. 

The rest of the article goes into even more detail, how parts of the messages received might not have even come from the Iranian patrol ships.

This hollow manipulation of the public trust to push us into another war, when we are already short troops for our side adventure in Iraq and are unable to contribute needed troops to Afghanistan, shows how purely incompetent the Republican approach to security is.  An approach, I might add, that every Republican save for the only isolationist in the race has endorsed, and the presumed front runner in the Democratic race, Hillary Clinton, has helped enable.

This story may or may not catch fire in the press, but there is something deeply wrong with any candidate who does not seize it and make a relevant message of truth and trust a part of their campaign.

Action Chimpy Comics!

Mock Paper Scissors making the world a look little darker by shining so bright. Sweet mercy, the funny!

It seriously is a bit of a kick in the pants. This panel really hits you with how frighteningly inept and bloodthirsty this administration is:

New York Times Wrong on Iran and the Democrats

Frank Rich has it absolutely wrong on Iran’s significance to the Democrats:

But what happens if President Bush does not bomb Iran? That is good news for the world, but potentially terrible news for the Democrats. If we do go to war in Iran, the election will indeed be a referendum on the results, which the Republican Party will own no matter whom it nominates for president. But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

For one, I think the consistent growling on the part of the public and legislators with backbone will keep us out of Iran.

This is an incredibly good thing.

Not simply because of it means we will not enter into a massive conflict of choice at a time when our military cannot handle our existing conflicts.  Nor soley because of the massive loss of life we will avoid.  Because it represents a clear victory for Democrats and sensible Republican allies against a power mad Executive.  Stopping a war with Iran is a badge of honor Democrats can take to the polls with pride.

We heard you on Iraq, we learned our lesson.  We stood up to the President and we won.

Stopping an unnecessary war with Iran would be a triumph.

But if we don’t, the Democratic standard-bearer will have to take a clear stand on the defining issue of the race. As we saw once again at Tuesday night’s debate, the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, does not have one.

For all of her faults, Hillary Clinton is still a Democrat, and can easily take a strong and clear stance on the defining issues of the race.  That includes Iraq, Health Care, and the Economy.  All issues on which Republicans (specifically Bush) are hurting in the face of an American public that wants a new direction.  Of course, momentum is growing against Hillary’s candidacy within the Democratic party.  I wouldn’t be so quick to write off the other candidates yet.

Mr. Biden got a well-deserved laugh Tuesday night when he said there are only three things in a Giuliani sentence: “a noun and a verb and 9/11.” But a year from now, after the public has been worn down by so many months more of effective White House propaganda, “America’s mayor” (or any of his similarly bellicose Republican rivals) will be offering voters the clearest possible choice, however perilous, about America’s future in the world.

The “clearest possible choice” sounds really good coming from trusted news personality Frank Rich.  But it is a load of bull.   If that clarity comes from the candidates offering needlessly bellicose positions, “perilous” only begins to describe the fallacy they’d be offering us.  Giuliani is the direct heir to Bush’s rotten throne and all the propaganda spewing out of it.  To suggest that whatever results from that bombardment is somehow “clear” is disingenuous.

The Democrats stand only to benefit from the Administration’s bloodthirsty stand on Iran, and the Republican’s candidates own support for that position.  Either way, Democrats come across as the party of peace, reason, and security.  After all, wars of choice actively make us less secure.  The American people understand this, as do the Democrats.  It is the Republican party that does not.  Regardless of whether or not Bush manages to drag us into another war, the Democrats will come out looking damn good in their opposition as the Republicans cower in spineless supplication.

CNN, Iran, Republicans and Ron Paul

For everything else about the candidate, he’s absolutely right about war. How sad that this is would even stand out.

In the recent Republican debate, candidates were asked about the President ordering strikes on Iran without authorization from congress:

The other topic that sparked fireworks was a provocative, albeit hypothetical, point of constitutional interpretation — would the U.S. president need Congress’ permission before launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities?

That’s bad reporting on CNN’s part. “hypothetical”? Bush has plans drawn up and the propaganda organ of the war machine in full gear.

Romney busts out of the gate with this bit of idiocy:

Responding first, Romney said as president, “you sit down with your attorneys” to determine whether such authorization is needed, but he said, “Obviously, the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat.”

He was immediately and forcefully shut down by Ron Paul:

Romney’s answer drew an incredulous retort from Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who said the president would “absolutely” need Congress’ OK before striking Iran.

“This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don’t we just open up the Constitution and read it?” Paul said. “You’re not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.”

This didn’t stop the rest of the candidates from joining in with Romney:

However, the panel’s general consensus was that the president should be able to launch an attack without authorization if the circumstances called for immediate action, but that he or she should go to Congress if time permits.

Wow. In a time crunch? Then the constitution no longer applies. Imagine one of those clowns in office during a natural disaster, with Bush and the rubber stamp congress’s lovechild: martial law decreed by the President. Would you trust any of them with that power?

“If you have a very narrow window to hit a target, the president’s going to have to take that on his shoulders,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter of California. “He has the right to do that under the Constitution as the commander in chief.”

He is command in chief of the military, not the country. We are in charge of him. And we give authorization for war through the Congress. The President has no such right.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona agreed that a president would have to move on a threat requiring immediate action, but “if it’s a long series of buildups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to Congress.”

McCain added, somewhat cryptically, “I believe that this is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.”

McCain is going with the “emergency zomg!” argument. But look at that last line. He’s being a creepy old man with insider political knowledge. Sometimes I love having this guy still involved in the debates. This line is only cryptic in the context of this article, the same one that suggests unauthorized strikes by the President are “hypothetical”. McCain was being uncharacteristically straight with the viewing public.

We should really be paying attention. With the exception of Ron Paul, every Republican candidate up there basically said the constitution can be disregarded in times of war with a shallow and obvious misinterpretation biased towards their own desire to conflate blood lust with strength.

Viewing the Candidates Through the Iran Vote

Here is why liberals cannot believe a word of Hillary’s talk on Iraq (Nezua, Unapologetic Mexican):

Here she goes again, authorizing war. I’m just curious…what will she say later, when the obvious disaster that bombing Iran would bring about has the People furious, out in the street, and demanding accountability? That she was duped? Again? That we ALL thought Iran was a grave threat?

This is damning. What will she say? Hillary took a long time, longer than any of the other candidates, to even come around in the weakest of ways as an anti-war candidate (if you can call her nuanced position even that). And now she goes and preps this nation for another round of blood, money, and perhaps even nuclear waste. Also notable was Obama’s brave abstention from the vote. What the fuck is that about? Cowardice. Unable to take a stand and get nailed to an issue as (gasp) having a position, Obama joined McCain in staying silent and ineffective.

And for all the talk about experience, well, here’s that argument shot to shit. Hillary has mountains of experience, and look at her vote! Now contrast that with freshman senator Webb (via Florida Democrat at Dailykos):

Senator Webb’s video at Think Progress urging a vote against this Amendment:
http://thinkprogress.org/…

We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war.

This is no way to lead, and no way to be a Democrat. It is a great way to drive us into another dangerous war even as we stretch our military to the breaking point losing two others in the region. At what point does the blatant disregard for the practical detriment to our security become enough of a crisis for us to end this madness? You’ll notice how many Senators, Republicans and Democrats, voted for this to pass.

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Ask to be connected to your Senator. Talk to a staff person. If you don’t get through Call or Email them directly.

Let your local candidates know they have won your active opposition in the future. Let’s do everything we can to keep the Hillarycrats and the Republicans from one more term of power. This nation cannot afford it.

Fox’s Latest Push on Iran

In an article titled U.S. Military Families Insulted By Ahmadinejad Visit, Fox News goes on to show once again that they are a propaganda organ for the Bush administration:

For military families who have lost loved ones in Iraq, watching Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak to students at Columbia University showed just how disconnected certain factions of American society have become to the sacrifices of their sons, daughters, parents and spouses.

Fucking Idiots. They are leaving the claims of the Bush administration that Iran is interfering in Iraq as unchallenged and agreed upon facts. What a ridiculous statement. What the article does go on to show is how disconnected some people are from reality (emphasis mine):

“There is no consideration for people who have sacrificed so much,” said Patricia Roberts of Lithonia, Ga. Her son, Army Spc. Jamaal R. Addison, was the first soldier from Georgia to die in Iraq. Roberts said she considers the Iranian president a “terrorist” and said she was “appalled” when she first heard of his speaking engagement at Columbia.

“How can we allow him to come here, to speak to our children, when he has already said that if we go there, he will kill us?” she asked.

Yes. How can we let someone come here who said he would retaliate if we invaded his country. Why, only a terrorist would say something like that, right?

The whole article has the corrosive smell of heavy manipulation, as they go on to quote those who have lost dear people in this war. As they use their words to push us towards yet another war of choice.

Don’t let them. Fight back.

The US and Israel

You hear it nearly every day. Whispered on far right websites and lefty blogs alike. Israel is running US foreign policy.

Bull-donkey!

It occurred to me, reading one of Chris’s excellent posts, just what the relationship really is:

Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney’s Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that:

“Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz and perhaps other sites in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out.”

That would be Cheney considering ordering Israel around. That’s when it hit me. The oppression of Palestinian. The massive arms deals. The insane obsession with terrorism at the cost of domestic policy. Israel is like a warlord or a dictatorship that can count on US money so long as it fights a common enemy. Israel is our security bitch. And right now our leadership is thinking about yelling “sic ’em!”.

The Bush cabal doesn’t really care what the consequences are for Israel. So a few Israelis die when Iran launches a brutal counter attack. Big deal.

That is the relationship Israel has with the US. The idea that they are controlling our policy is a fantasy born of the serious loads of lobbying cash they waste on Congress, and the stale racist myths about Jews running the world.

Israel would be better off saving all that lobbying cash and using it domestically, and telling the US to go fuck itself. I bet that would go a long way towards moving the peace process forward.

Bush’s Iranian Advisors

Apparently Bush sees Iranian advisors  behind the latest bombing in Lebanon (TPZoo):

 

A powerful bomb blast killed Lebanese politician Antoine Ghanem and, let’s not forget eight human beings not mentioned by name, yesterday. President Bush was quick to see Syria and, not surprisingly, Iran behind this atrocity.

“The Times” reports on another event in Syria, where a missile purportedly exploded while being armed with some of the most powerful chemical agents by Syrian military, helped by, unsurprisingly, Iranian advisers.

Does this sound like “yellowcake” to you?

 

Very much so. At this point Bush has an insurmountable credibility problem. What do you want to bet that in a matter of months (or even weeks), it comes out that there is absolutely no intelligence suggesting the involvement of Iran?

There is just no reason to take anything Bush says seriously anymore. He has repeatedly lied to get what he wants, and right now he wants to invade Iran. Why trust a single word he says?