Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
In 2006, a majority of voters - angry, disgusted and alarmed with our country's direction under Republican control - swept Democrats to majorities in Congress. They were then lulled into accepting the Party's self-serving rhetoric that if only voters delivered Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate and the presidency in 2008, they would be able to restore sanity and the rule of law to our nation.
Unfortunately, this turned out to be an intentional and cynical lie in the spirit of Lucy's duping the ever gullible Charlie Brown into hoping that just this once she might not laughingly yank the football away at the last second, leaving him flat on his back in the dust (again).
With all the hoopla around domestic issues such as health care reform, the economy, birthers, deathers, tea partiers, and other distractions, the spotlight has been absent from our much improved foreign policy under President Obama. In the echo chamber of the celebrity and fun-house mirror world of the so-called traditional media, folks wonder aloud why President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize.
Here is an example
The U.S. and its allies hoped to secure Iran's approval Friday for a proposed deal that would ship most of the country's uranium abroad for enrichment and ease Western fears about Iran's potential to make a nuclear weapon.
Allies in this case are France and Russia. Remember "freedom fries" (gastronomical trivia: French fries were originally from Belgium)? And when the Russians were still commies or something?
How about the "Axis of Evil?" and "we don't talk to __________(fill in the blank).
The draft agreement was formalized Wednesday after three days of talks in Vienna between Iran and world powers, including the U.S. The talks followed a similar meeting at the beginning of October in Geneva that included the highest-level bilateral contact between the U.S. and Iran in years. (bold mine)
Under the Vienna-brokered plan, Iran is required to send 1.2 tons (1,100 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium - around 70 percent of its stockpile - to Russia in one batch by the end of the year, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said Thursday.
The uranium would be further enriched in Russia, then go to France where it would be made into fuel rods that would be sent back to Iran for use in an unfortunately aging reactor.
Now, I'm not a fan of nuclear power, never was. But the stuff is out and about, and it's way better to have it under some form of control.
There is no certainty Iran will approve the agreement, but it's gotten this far! People are talking! The world is engaging!
It doesn't seem like a lot, because eight years of Bush & Co caused so many problems. But still, it's a vast, vast improvement.
It has been an amazing week in Iran, and you are no doubt seeing images that would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago.
For most of us, Iran has been a country about which we know very little...which, obviously, makes it tough to put the limited news we're getting into a proper context.
The goal of today's conversation is to give you a bit more of an "insider look" at today's news; and to do that we'll describe some of the risks Iranian bloggers face as they go about their business, we'll meet a blogging Iranian cleric, we'll address the issue of what tools the Iranians use for Internet censorship and the companies that could potentially be helping it along, and then we'll examine Internet traffic patterns into and out of Iran.
Finally, a few words about, of all things, how certain computer games might be useful as tools of revolution.
More Twittiocy from Jennifer S. Horn-Palin - now available in green:
Perhaps if Ms. Horn were not busy painting her face green in an attempt to leverage the Iranian situation into American partisan GOoPer politics, she would know where President Obama stands, i.e., on the side of the protestors, but in such a way that it doesn't get thousands of them killed. Unlike "Bomb-bomb-Iran" guy's cowboy diplomacy:
Adding: "Where does the Pres stand?" elwood reminds us: the president stands with the protesters, even to the degree of quietly working to keep the same New Media platform open that Green Horn is using against him.
I AM UNDER EXTREME PRESSURE TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE SHAM ELECTION. THEY HAVE CUT ME OFF FROM ANY COMMUNICATION WITH PEOPLE AND AM UNDER SURVEILLANCE. I ASK THE PEOPLE TO STAY IN THE STREETS BUT AVOID VIOLENCE
This is an Open Thread.
Adding: forget CNN's (depressingly predictable) epic fail on this. Imagine trying to understand this moment in Iranian history earlier than them, through the network nightly news and maybe a newspaper the next day. We may or may not see revolution in Iran, but I think we are witnessing in real time the digital revolution and its impact on both showing and being part of the story..
The New York times is reporter that Roxana Saberi, and American journalist operating in Iran is being released from prison today.
Saberi was originally arrested for buying alcohol and the charges escalated from there. She was ultimately convicted of Espionage and sentenced to Eight Years in prison.
Then it got interesting. Obama made friendly overtures to Iran while Clinton was rattling the sabre on Saberi's behalf. Ahmadinejad publicly asked the court to review its finding. Saberi got an appeal and the spy charges were dropped.
What really jumped out at me was this little footnote at the end of a story in the Times:
In the appeal, Mr. Nikbakht argued that the espionage charge should be lifted because the foreign ministry and the judiciary had previously said that there was "no hostility between Iran and the United States." The judges accepted the defense, he said.
Find the entire article here: Iran Releases Journalist Convicted of Spying for U.S.
No hostility? Definite progress being made in the Middle East. Now if we could only accomplish the same thing with Laura Ling and Euna Lee...
For eight years we heard a lot of bluster about "the axis of evil" but saw precious little action when it came to keeping nukes out of the hands of Iran.
Thankfully, it looks like things are about to change:
It's been my considered opinion that much of the saber rattling against Iran has been prompted by the reasonable fear that the missiles China has sent to protect Iran will be aimed at the U.S. Air Force bases in Iraq, where our troops, and all the military equipment and arms we've shipped in, are like so many sitting ducks.
Indeed, the presence of USAF bases is the only fact that's consistently indisputable in the supposed "conflict" with Iran. There's no evidence of nuclear weapons being built and the most recent claim that Iran is supplying conventional arms to the resistance forces has again been proven wrong in that, upon close inspection, the most recent cache turned out not to be from Iran at all and the press demonstration had to be called off.
If we don't want to assume the US military is making up false reports, we could just conclude that Iraqis refer to their compatriots, whose religious affiliation aligns them with Iran, as Iranians--not unlike JFK referring to himself as being from Berlin.
Watching the debate in Philadelphia, I was struck by the saber rattling of Senator Clinton in a response to a question about Iran. These words rang out: "massive retaliation" and "umbrella of deterrence."
She said: I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.
You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran.
I found this position startling, especially in connection to Clinton's rightward leanings as illustrated by her unflinching support for Kyl/Lieberman.
Then I saw this segment on Olbermann's Countdown featuring Rachel Maddows. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21...
Ms.Maddow wondered; "Why would something like this advance American interests?"
Later stating; "This is a huge reorientation of America's foreign policy and America's role in the world."
Hampsters, I dare say I may be one of the most hawkish diarists on this blog. I don't like the sound of this, at all!
Last week I sent a message to Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter, asking her to outline her position on Iran. I asked the Congresswoman if she had read the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities . The findings outlined in the NIE challenge the Bush administration's claim that Iran is a country determined to develop nuclear weapons. It stated that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003. More importantly, it noted that there is no evidence available that can prove that Iran has resumed nuclear weapons program.
I asked the Congresswoman if she would oppose military action against Iran in light of these recent revelations.
Here is the respose I received:
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I support having a strong national defense. However, that does not mean rushing to war without clear provocation, as we did in Iraq. The Iraq war has destabilized the region, weakened our military, and inflamed terrorist organizations worldwide. Our nation is far less safe because of the President's reckless march to war in Iraq.
We should not be naive about the potential danger from Iran, particularly if that nation should acquire nuclear weapons. However, I believe that there is no compelling reason to go to war with Iran at this time.
It is our patriotic duty, as citizens of a great democracy, to hold our leaders to the highest standards, especially in matters of war and peace. Thank you for your vigilance.
Sincerely
Carol Shea-Porter
Member of Congress
Like the Congresswoman, I believe that Iran should be prevented from attaining nuclear weapons. But military action would not be in the best interests of the United States, or the Middle East, at this time. The administration's approach to Iran's nuclear program appears to be based largely on speculation, rather than on verifiable intelligence. America should never engage in military action on such a basis.
I hope to convince other members of Congress to go on the record on this issue as well. We need to know where our representatives stand on this issue. If you live in the 2nd Congressional District in New Hampshire and are interested in contacting Congressman Paul Hodes about this matter please contact me.
David Anderson
davewanderson@care2.com
http://reasonableforeignpolicy...
Long before it was "popular", John Edwards was calling for a New Strategy for Iran (and the War on Terror in general)
Long before the NIE Report, threw water on the GOP's fiery rhetoric about the looming dangers of Iran, Edwards was saying we must learn the lessons of the Iraq War -- NOT Repeat them in Iran!
Long before the cynical Rumsfeld Memos were leaked (proving Edwards right), John Edwards was busy "reframing" the Global War on Terror, calling it "a 'bumper sticker' slogan Bush had used to justify everything ..."
Did Edwards get Media Attention and fanfare for his insightful and stateman-like leadership -- NO, but he DID help to change the national conversation!
So Much so, that insiders in NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), seem to have taken his advice that: "We've got to stand up to Bush and Cheney and the Neocons ..."
"When taken in concert with the statements and actions of the Administration over the past year regarding Iran, the National Intelligence Estimate reveals a pattern of willful deceit directed at the U.S. Congress, the American people, and the rest of the world on the critical matters of war and peace."
Today on All Things Considered: "If Iran did indeed give up its nuclear weapon program in 2003, what caused it? Oh, yes: the United States put over one hundred thousand troops next door."
Now, Ted owes his career to the media saber rattling against Iran during Jimmy Carter's administration. So he's psychologically invested in stupid warmongering with Iran. But let's examine his question.
"What caused it?"
How about the fall of Saddam Hussein, who had actually gone to war with Iran and who was pretending to have stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction"? Wouldn't that be a pretty sensible reason for putting your own risky, expensive program on ice?
Yes, the Iraq War probably did result in Iran's decision. But it isn't the presence of troops - it's the absence of Iraq as a threat.
Of course, if America had debated spending trillions of dollars and thousands of US lives to make Iran the dominant power in the region, we might have chosen differently.
This is all pretty clear outside the beltway. Maybe that's why they call the foreign service area "Foggy Bottom."
(In light of today's news, I thought a reprise of Power's BH diary - apparently an exclusive - was in order. For the record, while I am sorry to see such a young, brilliant face in foreign policy leave Team Obama, I agree completely with her resignation. - promoted by Dean Barker)
Barack Obama continues to demonstrate the leadership that America needs to end the war in Iraq, to help stabilize the Middle East, and to turn the page on a foreign policy that has made the United States less safe. On the issue of Iran, Obama is the one candidate for President offering a clear, substantive break from the Bush-Cheney policy of saber rattling. Instead, Obama is standing up to the rush to war, and standing instead for tough, direct, and principled diplomacy.
Obama has been clear that now is not the time either to escalate the war in Iraq or to go to war in Iran. That's why he opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which, by arguing that we need to structure our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran, opened the door to military action against Iran. And that's why he introduced his own resolution in the Senate that makes it clear that the Bush Administration does not have the authority to go to war with Iran.
Obama's resolution -- introduced last week -- says in very plain language that George Bush has no congressional authority to attack Iran. Not from the Iraq War resolution. Not from Kyl-Lieberman. Not from any other action that Congress has taken. At a time when the Administration is beating the drums of war, Obama is concerned that Kyl-Lieberman opened the door to war -- this resolution would shut that door.
Hagel Calls Giuliani, Clinton `Cowboys' for Comments on Iran
By Jeff Bliss
Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were ``recklessly irresponsible'' and acting like ``cowboys'' for rejecting calls for direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program, charged Senator Chuck Hagel, a top Republican lawmaker.
Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who supports talks, was critical of Giuliani, the top Republican contender, and Clinton, a New York senator and leader of the Democratic field, for lambasting presidential rival Barack Obama, who proposed such discussions.
When world leaders ``hear leading presidential candidates talk like cowboys with the lowest common denominator being `I can be tougher than you, I'll go to war before you or we aren't going to talk to anybody,' that's recklessly irresponsible,'' Hagel said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air today.
-snip-
``We're over here sounding war calls,'' Hagel said. ``That's a very dangerous thing because it leads you into a cul-de-sac of war if you're not careful.''
Sitting down and talking to Iranian officials wouldn't be a sign of weakness, Hagel said. ``Great nations engage. What are we afraid of?'' he said. ``You shouldn't lead with the military option.''
Obama's Suggestion
Clinton, 60, in July called Obama, 46, ``irresponsible'' and ``frankly naïve'' in supporting talks. Giuliani, in a Nov. 2 interview, called Obama, an Illinois senator, ``naïve'' for suggesting that Iran could be persuaded to stop its nuclear program through negotiations.
-snip-
I love how the Edwards campaign is getting so bold and so...well...I guess it could be described as snarky. As others have said before me, the truth can never be an attack, but the truth can sure hurt. Here's another example.
Now John Edwards has asked Senator Clinton to answer 5 simple yes or no questions on Iraq. Should be easy, right? It also should be something a presidential candidate should be ready to do. Will she do it?
Last week, in a nationwide phone call organized by Progressive Democrats of America, Dennis Kucinich reportedly announced:
he will go before the U.S. House of Representatives on a point of personal privilege to move the impeachment of Dick Cheney. Mr. Kucinich stated he will bring the impeachment forward before Thanksgiving.
(More vlog from mbair. If you have video of New Hampshire events, put it up, we love it... - promoted by Mike Caulfield)
cross-posted at Daily Kos
This vlog contains Q & A for Dover and Exeter. At the Dover Town Hall Edwards received the Friends of the Earth endorsement. Exeter was old school retail politics at its best and Exeter had a very warm vibe because I taped it the day after the Red Sox won the World Series for the second time in four years.
Why is there an extraordinary disconnect between the strength and goodness of the American people and the government? Part of it is incompetence: there's no question about that. But I believe it's not just incompetence, I think it's also, if we're being honest, it's the creeping effect of corruption.
It did not start with George Bush ... I think it has been building up for twenty years. And what are the examples of it? They go on forever.
These things are not an accident. They are the direct result of the poison fruit of corruption.
Tonight's features are:
