LIVE STREAM at 12:15 pm: Hooman Majd

-


Join the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program and TWN publisher Steve Clemons from 12:15 pm to 1:45 pm TODAY for a discussion of Hooman Majd’s new book, The Ayatollahs’ Democracy: An Iranian Challenge.
— Andrew Lebovich

Comments

40 comments on “LIVE STREAM at 12:15 pm: Hooman Majd

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    ROFLMAO!!!!
    Hey questions, the blog propagandist has nothing but praise for your insane denials about the reach and the power of AIPAC and its finger agencies.
    Now questions, why do you think a propagandist would find your opinion attractive?

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    questions, Walter Russell Mead has written a post you’ll be interested in called “The Problem with J Street”, in which he goes too easy on Soros for my taste but really lets W&M’s “Israel Lobby” have it between the eyes for the shoddy conspiracy theory it is.

    Reply

  3. nadine says:

    POA, I don’t need advice on credibility from a 9/11 Truther.

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Nadine, sometimes your desire to twist the facts makes you seem, well, stupid.
    If your intent is to build a “secret” facility, you do not make a huge gouge in a mountainside, which will immediately be seen by satellite surveilance, and start moving in a parade of equipment, buildings, machinery, and personnel.
    In fact, saying the facility is “underground” is also a fallacy, a term simply used to buttress the non-existent and propaganda driven aura of “secrecy” our government, and Israel’s government, are attempting to foist upon a gullible public. The facility is in plain satellite view, carved into a mountainside, and easily monitored.
    And a bit of advice, Nadine. Your credibility here is already virtually nil, so what you say here is irrelevent. But if you are spamming any other sites with your constant stream of propaganda and hasbarist talking points, I suggest you refrain from saying something in one post, then two posts later, denying you said it. Unless, of course, you don’t care if all of your readers, wherever you post, are as aware of your BS as we are.
    You remind me of a local talk show host, Inga Barks on KERN Radio, who once remarked on the air that “The Red Cross hates Jews”. The comment offended me so much that I called in, and she and I went at it, on two occassions, on the air. She made a complete and utter ass of herself with thousands of listeners witnessing her sputtering stupidity. When her manager and the local paper got involved behind the scenes, she DENIED she had said it, and threatened to sue me if I insisted she had. Once again, she did this on the air, with the same audience who had heard her say it in the first place. She might just as well have prefaced her show with, “Good morning folks, this is Inga Barks, on Kern Radio, and I’m a liar”. She has been “relieved of duty” since, and now occassionally fills in on Mark Levin’s nationally syndicated show. Apropos, really, because now she can reach an audience that is a perfect fit with her ignorant bullshit.
    Apparently she has the same degree of self-respect and honesty that you seem to have….
    “Did it escape your notice that last year an entirely secret nuclear enrichment facility was discovered, at Nantanz if I recall correctly?”
    “It wasn’t my claim there was a secret facility…”
    Beautiful!

    Reply

  5. nadine says:

    Don, I gather that by your logic, if Iran builds a secret facility, which is discovered by Western intelligence agencies (no surprise, it was discovered some time before its discovery was announced), then it’s not secret because it’s been discovered.
    That’s literally what you’re saying – the secret facility is not secret because intelligence agencies discovered it.
    Discovery by intelligence agencies doesn’t constitute voluntary disclosure, now does it?
    Stop making excuses for Ahmedinejad and the Revolutionary Guard.

    Reply

  6. Don Bacon says:

    nadine’s been told all this, I even quoted from the UN report after they visited the “secret facility” and saw it was simply a hole in the mountain. So I didn’t even read her next comment.
    I think she has a place in the Obama administration. How about Deputy Under Secretary of State? Or Under Secretary Deputy of State? Something like that. She’s got the makings.

    Reply

  7. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Nadine says….
    “Did it escape your notice that last year an entirely secret nuclear enrichment facility was discovered, at Nantanz if I recall correctly?”
    Then she says….
    “It wasn’t my claim there was a secret facility…”
    She seems to be willing to blather on about something she knows nothing about, and then, in the next breath, deny the content of her blather. I suspect we can blame her ignorance on this subject on the lack of the talking point du jour script that we must assume she drew from when the issue was on the front pages. Simply put, too much time has elapsed since she read the script about how to talk about this “secret underground facility”.
    First, it wasn’t “Natanz”, it was the “Fordo” facility near Qom.
    Second, the French, the British, and the United States intelligence agencies knew about this site as it was being built. It was hardly a “secret”.
    Further, AchtungAintHeBad INVITED the UN in to inspect, and they found no evidence of illegal activity OR anything pointing to an Iranian attempt to enrich weapons grade fuel.

    Reply

  8. Don Bacon says:

    When I wrote Kennedy I was thinking of both Jack and Bobby. Ted, not so much. I was in Massachusetts in 1962, when the Speaker’s nephew Eddie McCormack (I had to go to wiki for a refresher on this) challenged Ted for the Senate.
    McCormack’s slogan was “I back Jack, but Teddy ain’t ready”. And in the “Eddy-Teddy’ debate: “Teddy, if your name was Edward Moore instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke.”
    Teddy’s claim to any fame was that he had made a trip to Germany. But he did win, because he was a Kennedy, and on one occasion later on he stood tall. When the battle for Hamburger Hill in Vietnam was chewing up soldiers and spitting them out dead, Ted gave a speech in the Senate. This was at a time when to be against the war was to be un-American, and the favorite charge made to anyone who questioned the government was Love It Or Leave It. Ted spoke:
    Calling for an End to Military Operations in Vietnam
    May 20, 1969 (extract)
    “I am compelled to speak on this question today for I believe that the level of our military activity in Vietnam runs opposite to our stated intentions and goals in Paris. But more importantly, I feel it is both senseless and irresponsible to continue to send our young men to their deaths to capture hills and positions that have no relation to ending this conflict.
    “President Nixon has told us, without question, that we seek no military victory, that we seek only peace. How then can we justify sending our boys against a hill a dozen times or more, until soldiers themselves question the madness of the action?
    “The assault on ‘Hamburger Hill’ is only symptomatic of a mentality and a policy that requires immediate attention. American boys are too valuable to be sacrificed for a false sense of military pride.
    “I was most disappointed that the President did not ask for a significant decrease in military operations and personnel in his speech of May 14th. I would ask him now to issue new orders to the field — orders that would spare American lives and perhaps advance the cause of peace.” //
    Again, Ted was certainly not perfect (Chappaquidick and Mary Lou Kopechne).
    But what is the chance of such a speech being given these days?
    “American boys are too valuable to be sacrificed for a false sense of military pride.”

    Reply

  9. nadine says:

    There has always been money in politics, DonS. What’s different now is that communication of news and opinion does not flow only from the top down, but also from the bottom up, and peer-to-peer. The gatekeepers can no long keep the gates.

    Reply

  10. DonS says:

    Yes, Don, you are right about the money. And as I was about to add, to Questions, before I had to break for dinner, that technology is also different, and maybe consequential.
    If we look at the rise of Fox and the influence it has on the public psyche, it’s important. When did it happen? I don’t remember, but we do know that they were cheerleaders for Bush Jr. Their ideological basis has become increadingly clear.

    Reply

  11. Don Bacon says:

    “I’ve been watching politics for over 50 years. What’s going on now ain’t so different.”
    Oh, I beg to differ. Politics is different now, I suspect because there’s so much money in it, so much more corruption. Senator Durbin said that the banks own the senate, and he should know.
    Remember Senators Fulbright, Kennedy, Humphrey, Gravel, Gruening, Morse, McCarthy? Congressmen Ervin, O’Neill? Just a few names of men who stood for something. I’m not saying they were perfect, who is, but they had some character. There may have been some Repubs too, but I don’t follow them much. Goldwater? Now, on a good day, we have Feingold?

    Reply

  12. nadine says:

    Don Bacon, Whatever do you mean you “corrected me”? how? by denying the reported facts? It wasn’t my claim there was a secret facility, I merely repeated the public announcement made by President Obama, PM Brown and President Sarkozy last Septemeber at the UN:
    “Obama, Sarkozy and Brown say Iran has secret nuclear facility
    By JONATHAN S. LANDAY
    MCCLATCHY NEWS SERVICE
    PITTSBURGH — President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain on Friday accused Iran of building a secret uranium enrichment facility that could have military uses and warned that the Islamic republic would face tougher U.N. sanctions unless it suspended its nuclear program by December.
    “The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program,” Obama asserted in a joint televised appearance with French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Pittsburgh, where they were attending the G-20 summit. The three leaders demanded that Iran give UN inspectors immediate and unfettered access to the secret plant.
    Uranium enrichment is used to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power plants and highly enriched uranium for nuclear bomb fuel.
    The extraordinary announcement came less than a week before talks between world powers and Iran on its nuclear program and could make it very difficult for Russia and China to continue opposing tougher sanctions on Tehran if it refuses to abide by U.N. resolutions to suspend its nuclear program.
    “At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively,” Obama said. “The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable.”
    Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2009/09/25/1251498/obama-sarkozy-and-brown-say-iran.html#ixzz12Tc48oTc

    Reply

  13. nadine says:

    “Ambitious politicians are going to work hard to figure out what voters really want, and deliver it to them. They’re going to want a healthy economy…because that will get them re-elected. ” (questions)
    Yup. Only 20% of the voters are progressives. It’s a center-right country (that’s not my opinion, btw, but the result of Pew and Gallup polls). Plus the progressive agenda is terribly destructive to a healthy economy, esp. if you are fool enough to push it when you’re already in a bad recession. Obama has put the “Great” in the “Great Recession.”
    These are basic, inherent problems with the progressive program, which as far as I can see, most progressives are still in denial over.

    Reply

  14. nadine says:

    “So, Hillary prefaced each remark with “I have been instructed to tell you”? If true, what does that tell us about the forcefulness, and the resultant effectiveness, of her so called “diplomacy”? Could she telegraph more clearly to Netanyahu that she was not on board with Obama?” (POA)
    To be fair, the SoS has to make clear when he or she is speaking directly for the President. But I concur, she made it clear that this (extremely idiotic, highly regrettable, and now reversed) course of action did not come from her, but directly from Obama, who knows better than anybody else in the world how to fix the Mideast. Gee, didn’t he promise to bring Mideast peace by now? I distinctly remember him promising to do so inside of one year after taking office. He promised this more than once.
    What words can you put to that? Let’s try: Arrogant. Vain. Incompetent. Naive. Dogmatic. And none too bright.
    What I’d really love to know is: What do Hillary and Bill Clinton say to each other about Obama in private?

    Reply

  15. DonS says:

    Questions, thanks for your references, and I will look at them.
    I’ve been watching politics for over 50 years. What’s going on now ain’t so different.
    What required in any era is ability to adapt to the requirements. What is usually missing in any analysis is a good deal of common sense.
    I stand by my opinion (what a surprise)
    p.s. – thanks for getting Nadine off the byline.

    Reply

  16. Don Bacon says:

    You have a very bad memory, nadine. Have you had a check-up recently? You’ve made the same false claim about a woo-woo “secret nuclear enrichment facility” several times and I’ve corrected you several times. You stand corrected again. Please don’t bring it up again, no matter what Barry Rubin says.
    I don’t remember how furious Sarkozy was, so I can’t help you there. But you know these Frenchmen, they’re so emotional. Perhaps somebody forced some Napa Valley “champagne” on him? Or does the Golden State have a secret champagne facility?

    Reply

  17. questions says:

    “The system needs — is dependent on — people who crave election and re-election so badly that they’re willing to do whatever it takes. Madison recognized the downside of that in Federalist 51, but he also realized that all that energy could be an enormous positive as well, because it could be harnessed. Ambitious politicians are going to work hard to figure out what voters really want, and deliver it to them. They’re going to want a healthy economy…because that will get them re-elected. They’re going to take the nation to war reluctantly and only when positive outcomes seem very likely at low costs (or if avoiding war will be highly costly)…because it will get them re-elected.
    They’re going to take representation seriously. That’s not actually guaranteed in a democracy It would be very easy for politicians to accept that most constituents don’t pay attention to most things that pols do, and so one might as well just ignore them — and after all, there’s always a job as a lobbyist if things don’t go well. But fortunately, most of our actual real-life pols want to stay in office, whatever the indignities, and so they give in to the paranoid belief that The People Are Watching at all times.
    (Yes, it’s a weird paradox: virtually no one in the district is paying attention to whatever their Members of Congress are doing, and yet everything’s on camera and all it seems to take is one moment of rudeness or disrespect or some other break in the representative relationship to doom a career).”
    http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/
    This blog is a wonderful read of politics by a political scientist who gets it!

    Reply

  18. questions says:

    http://b4bmorenews.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-244-accomplishments-of-president.html
    http://mediamatters.org/research/201001270003
    Read up on the filibuster, the Senate, the DW-NOMINATE scores of senators, the conservative bias of the Senate, the difficulty in getting a positive legislative program through vs. a negative (cutting programs) agenda through.
    Read up on the mess the world was in when Obama inherited it, the deep structural problems that have built up for many many years.
    Read up on Bush appointees’ burrowing in agencies.
    Then see if you think his problem is that he’s the first Black guy in the job so he’s careful….

    Reply

  19. nadine says:

    “Majd correctly points out that the nuclear enrichment is a “red herring.” The process is under 24/7 UN supervision and every gram of uranium is accounted for.” (Don Bacon)
    Don Bacon, every time you start to say something sensible, you vitiate with a nonsensical statement like this. Did it escape your notice that last year an entirely secret nuclear enrichment facility was discovered, at Nantanz if I recall correctly? Remember how furious Sarkozy was when Obama refused to make an issue of it at the UN? Are you seriously claiming that this underground, secret facility unknown to the UN was somehow “under 24/7 UN supervision”?

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The Jerusalem Post has an article up that claims….
    “The next day, at the regularly scheduled weekly breakfast meeting between the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama made his feelings clear. He was livid. As he saw it, the Israelis had purposely humiliated his vice president and tried to sabotage his peace plan. It was a personal affront, and he wouldn

    Reply

  21. DonS says:

    Let’s just say it’s been one disappointment after another for anyone who held onto the hope that Obama would be ‘a positive force for change’. Even given that the opposition Republicans came after him from the beginning with blood dripping from their fangs — something which Obama seemed not to have noticed — there has been a virtually total lack of force to the Presidency. “no drama Obama” the audience kept saying, and saying, and saying. And still no force and, not surprisingly, no nothing except continuous capitulation to the status quo, capitulating and rolling back on anything progressive that had any apparent opposition, accommodating big business and small minds of the reactionary right. No ‘looking backward’, of course, which has become a cynical byword for not just ignoring rampant abuse of privacy rights, and civil rights, but extending the reach of many of these totalitarian practices.
    One telling statistic: 60 votes became the new 50 votes in the Senate — poof — just like that. On everything. Without question. WITH a near 60 vote Dem margin for most of the time. Now how did that unquestionably happen? No force? I’d say so.
    Now we can say that any Democrat elected would have been put into a bind in foreign policy under the newly regurgitated “soft on” Republican meme, currently “soft on terrorism”. But it is hard to find a single instance in which this president has led on an issue of benefit to the underclass, the middle class, the progressive agenda, or even the enlightened liberal view point. The list is too long and too disgustingly documented to waste even more time on. So if he doesn’t exert himself on behalf of those constituencies (despite WH call for anyone who notices this gap to suck it up), exactly what is he advocating? By default, he is doing the bidding of the force of repression and regression.
    My view remains the same as my fear was after the election. That being a “person of color”, the very first as president, with no models, that the psychological impetus to act cautiously and fall into safe responses of blacks in roles to which they have recently gained entre — much like the black middle class syndrome elevated to a new level — would be too inexorable. Perhaps exacerbated by his own demeanor. But, for God sakes, the presidency is a job you are supposed to grow into, if you’ve got it in you. We’ve seen diminishment. My view of psychological incapacity, mostly subconscious, is perhaps a more generous one than those who argue for the psychologically crippling presence of hubris — in a back handed way — intentional pandering to your adversaries and oppressors (while ignoring your friends or taking them for granted). I don’t know about that, even though many of the earmarks are there.

    Reply

  22. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Bonkers.”
    Dangerously.
    Hillary Clinton is gonna ream this coward a new asshole at the end of his term. No fan of Hillary, obviously, but if she can do any one thing I would agree with, it would be to stuff Obama’s less than adequate balls down his throat until he chokes on ’em. Probably impossible, though. Can you actually choke on a pea?

    Reply

  23. Don Bacon says:

    To disagree with Mr. Shorr, the main thing standing against meaningful progress anywhere, including curbing nuclear, DADT, DOMA, domestic spying, ending wars, healthcare, fixing banking, I/P, etc. is not the “far right” but a lack of strong moral leadership from a president whose party controls both the Executive and the Legislature. (Control being an exaggeration in this case.)
    But we, some of us, knew that years ago. Obama is a guy whose first impulse upon entering upon a policy debate is to give up all his strong positions and settle for the worst possible outcome. He’s done it many times. As in the country song, if you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything.
    And Obama is falling, and failing. At this point I doubt if anyone would agree with him on what day it is. He’s toxic, and now even given to fantasizing (to Rolling Stone) that he’ll fare better with a Republican congress. Bonkers.

    Reply

  24. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Senate Ratification of New START: What’s At Stake
    By David Shorr – October 14, 2010, 12:05PM
    The only thing standing between the New Strategic Reductions Treaty (New START) and its ratification by the Senate is a purely ideological far right opposition to any form of nuclear arms control. (You can follow the legislative drama at Josh Rogin’s Cable blog.) As a political issue, arms control has become the foreign policy equivalent of the federal departments of energy and education — something the right wing can be against, without needing to know anything about what it actually does. It is also the foreign policy evidence for Jon Stewart’s thesis that Presidents Reagan and Nixon would be too moderate for today’s Republican party, since both viewed arms control as necessary and important.
    The argument on the merits has been thoroughly aired. The near-universal consensus of support is clear, and here I’d like to applaud Senators Richard Lugar, Bob Corker, and Johnny Isakson for their bipartisan support for the treaty in the Foreign Relations Committee. As we await a vote in the full Senate, let’s look at the costs of a failure to ratify the agreement. What will it mean for US foreign policy and national security if the extreme-Right’s histrionics succeed in holding the treaty hostage?
    1)The nations with the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals won’t have clear mutual understandings and rules for those forces. Arms control’s fundamental value is to give the nuclear superpowers basic predictability. It allows the two sides to know what to expect of each other; it sets parameters for the size and composition of these hyper-lethal forces. I think most people would prefer this kind of clarity and rules, as opposed to pure stand-off and suspicion.
    2)The US will lose its best and most intrusive measures to verify what Russia is doing with its strategic nuclear forces. The next time you hear an arms control opponent fulminate about the importance of verification, don’t believe them. Without New START, we won’t have the transparency measures and inspections that arms control agreements provide. Sorry, that’s only half the story. We actually lost those when the previous START treaty expired TEN MONTHS AGO!
    3)The United States won’t have a moral authority leg to stand on, when it comes to nuclear nonproliferation. Time for a very quick tutorial in Nonproliferation 101. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1970 (NPT) calls for countries without nuclear weapons never to get them; those that have n-weapons are supposed to disarm. Not hang onto the things — which the NPT effectively ruled taboo — but get rid of them. Realistically, there’s a long road between here and getting rid of our last nuclear weapons. Also realistically, we can do a lot more, and the world expects us to. Which is the point of New START, as an overdue disarmament next step (it’s been nearly 20 years since the last START agreement).
    It’s worth lingering on the point. According to the 40-year-old nuclear nonproliferation norm, disarmament by the nuclear powers is every bit as mandatory (even if hazy as to the time frame) as the requirement of the have-nots to forswear acquiring weapons. So, for all of those who don’t think America should disarm, I’d like to know how the United States will maintain any credibility in pressing other countries not to develop n-weapons. This is the point arms control opponents continually misrepresent (eventually one starts to suspect they’re doing so on purpose). No one thinks the moral example of New START by itself will get Iran to be more cooperative. But yes, it absolutely helps play offense rather than defense as we press Tehran. Put it this way, if you don’t think America’s blowing off arms control and disarmament makes it harder to keep the pressure on Iran, you’re not living in the real world. (For good ideas of what the US can/should do beyond New START’s modest reductions, see Joe Cirincione at Foreign Policy.)
    4)Is the world’s biggest power even capable of sigining international agreements any more? While we’re on the subject of credibility and moral authority, I want to ask, how should the world interpret an inability by the US Senate to ratify a mild incremental set of reductions in strategic nuclear forces? Which I guess goes to the heart of the bewildering far-Right worldview. Here’s how I interpret the message: “the rest of you can think what you want, but the United States will do as it damn well pleases.” How do you think that’s going to cut it in the 21st Century?
    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/14/senate_ratification_of_new_start_whats_at_stake/#more
    “Bewildering far-right worldview”? Seems Obama is of the same mindest. Oh, I forgot, he IS far- right. Or, might as well be.

    Reply

  25. Don Bacon says:

    In 1945 President Harry Truman believed it was necessary to incinerate tens of thousands of civilians in Tokyo, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, among other places. In the latter two cities the damage was done with nuclear weapons, the first and only times they have been used against people. Some believe it was done to impress the Russians. The effects of nuclear explosions last long after the smoke and dust clear.
    In Japan, it is said that a person who folds 1,000 cranes out of paper (origami) will have a long and healthy life. That’s because people believe these graceful white birds live for 1,000 years.
    On August 6, 1945, when Sadako Sasaki was not quite two, an atom bomb exploded over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Because her family lived on the outskirts, none of them were hurt and Sadako became a lively girl. She loved running and won many races but ten years after the bombing, she became ill. She had leukemia, which people began to call the A-bomb sickness because many other children like her also got the disease.
    In the hospital, Sadako decided to try to fold 1,000 cranes. It was easy at first but, as she became weaker and weaker, it became harder to make each fold. When she died, she had made only 644 cranes. Just before she died, she held up one of them and quietly said . . .
    “I will write Peace on your wings and you will fly all over the world.”
    The Japanese people still remember Sadako, so when a new world leader breaks a promise to curb nuclear weapons they are saddened. “I feel extreme regret,

    Reply

  26. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yet even a “subcritical” test telegraphs an active nuclear weapons development program. And these tests are undoubtedly conducted in the development of so-called “tactical” nuclear weapons designed to be used in the in the immediate field of battle rather than to attack a nation.
    It seems these sacks of shit in DC are bound and determined to design a nuclear weapon they can justify using.
    Anyway, what do we need nukes for? These pieces of shit are already swimming in enough blood to make a vampire envious…….
    http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/14/official-us-undercount-77000-iraqis-killed-in-five-years/
    Official US Undercount: 77,000 Iraqis Killed in Five Years
    Data Short of Iraqi Govt Figures and Far Short of Rights Group Estimates
    by Jason Ditz, October 14, 2010
    The latest in a growing number of underreported civilian death tolls by the US military came today, when they claimed only 77,000 Iraqis had been killed between January 2004 and August of 2008.
    While it seems incredible that 77,000 deaths would be small enough to count as an

    Reply

  27. Don Bacon says:

    February 18, 2010
    WASHINGTON

    Reply

  28. DonS says:

    “In September 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. . . Though it was signed by President Clinton, the Senate rejected the treaty by a vote of 51 to 48.”
    Da world policeman gotta carry a big stick. Uh, even it’s really irrelevant to preventing conventional warfare.
    Exactly towards who and what message is Obama sending with this test.
    Anyone?

    Reply

  29. Don Bacon says:

    In September 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Signed by 71 nations, including those possessing nuclear weapons, the Treaty prohibited all nuclear test explosions including those conducted underground. Both China and the United States signed the CTBT on 24 September 1996 but both have yet to ratify it. Though it was signed by President Clinton, the Senate rejected the treaty by a vote of 51 to 48.
    The CTBT has been signed and ratified by all the other UNSC states, all the countries in Europe and South America, and Australia, among others.
    One country, China, has adopted a universal no-first-use pledge. This is a pledge on the part of a nuclear weapon State not to be the first party to use nuclear weapons in a conflict or crisis. China also provides non-nuclear weapon states with unconditional

    Reply

  30. PissedOffAmerican says:

    And here we see another one of Obama’s efforts to staunch nuclear proliferation.
    Talk about “counterproductive”.
    Is there anything about this despicable piece of shit that isn’t framed disingenuously? Not only is the man a fraud, but so too are his touted accomplishments and policies. The Democrats will never get another vote from me. They are liars, and no different than those fuckin’ scumbags on the other side of the aisle. Make no mistake, the modern incarnation of this “Representative Government” is a scam, a not so carefully nurtured illusion. We are not “represented”, and have not been for some time now.
    Surely, Steve, being the insider he is, knew about this test when he asserted that this Administration has made “vast gains in restoring the non-proliferation commons and locking down nuclear and WMD materials”. Does someone as astute as Steve Clemons really think that tests such as these are constructive towards such an end considering our current witch hunt into the actions of Iran in its LEGAL pursuit of LEGAL nuclear capabilities?
    http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/14/japanese-officials-complain-as-us-admits-to-new-nuke-test/
    Japanese Officials Complain as US Admits to New Nuke Test
    Nagasaki Mayor Expresses ‘Extreme Regret’ Over Nevada Test
    by Jason Ditz, October 14, 2010
    Though the admission received very little attention in and of itself, the US Energy Department conceded this week that it had indeed conducted a

    Reply

  31. DakotabornKansan says:
  32. DonS says:

    “Obama and Clinton don’t suggest any longer that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. . . Obama has had some difficulty judging the intentions of people in his own country, for example Republicans, but we won’t go there. He knows the intentions of Iranians.” (DonB)
    And the point of course is that ‘intentions’ are not quantifiable and verifiable, but a moving target, clearly suitable for rousing the rabble to fear, hate, and bombing as Obama — or more likely Netanyahu – may choose.

    Reply

  33. JohnH says:

    You know that the Iranian nuke program is a red herring, because it is only the latest in a series of reasons given for US hostility. If the nuclear issue went away, it would quickly be replaced by some other red herring, just like the “reasons” for occupying Iraq shifted every few months.
    Like the Bush years, when the answer to every domestic problem was tax cuts, now any and every ME foreign policy problem is Iran.
    Today Ahmadinejad received a rock star reception in Lebanon. He drove into Beirut in an open vehicle, waving at crowds jamming freeway overpasses. What other world leader would dare to do this?
    At Bent Jebeil in southern Lebanon, two miles from the Israeli border, he delivered a speech to a full soccer stadium, probably the first ever given in support of those people by any world leader.
    Clearly Ahmadinejad’s message resonates. By comparison, the US’ message is clearly canned, and its behavior does not reflect those ideals. And that is a big part of the problem.

    Reply

  34. Warren Metzler says:

    I didn’t watch the program, but feel lead to respond to a point. I propose the US position on Iran is solely and only resentment out of them having bested us. The idiots that run our government have memories of steel for any person or country that won.
    It is irrational to have over 1,000 nuclear warheads, and claim some other country can’t have a few.
    It is irrational to claim we have moral objections to the action of a government, after our government has repeatedly committed the most heinous of crimes in most of the countries of the world.
    It is irrational to refuse to have diplomatic relationships with any country after we actively funded some of the world’s worst dictators, and even trained their military’s to do horrible things to their own citizens.
    And everyone, including those that run every government, acts rationally, if you can discover their true agenda; which is almost never the one they offer up for public consumption.
    Regarding Emily Henochowicz, Democracy Now did an extended interview with her, which I’m sure you can access in their archives on their web site. For her to grow up Jewish, and realize on her own, within a few months after being in Israel, the real Palestinian story, is quite commendable. Most people with gadzillions of more exposure than her can’t seem to detect a fraction of what she clearly saw.

    Reply

  35. DakotabornKansan says:

    POA,
    I had never heard of Emily before.
    Googled her name to find out more.
    As Naomi Klein said about Emily Henochowicz,

    Reply

  36. Don Bacon says:

    Obama and Clinton don’t suggest any longer that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. They claim that Iran has the intent to produce nuclear weapons. These are smart people because otherwise how could they judge not the actions but the intentions of people thousands of miles away that they’ve never even met?
    Obama has had some difficulty judging the intentions of people in his own country, for example Republicans, but we won’t go there. He knows the intentions of Iranians.
    As Rumsfeld said about Iraq: “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
    Mr. Majd has spent some time in Iran, and his feeling is that since the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwah against nuclear weapons, and such a development program couldn’t be kept secret, that he would not jeopardize his reputation by countering the fatwah. Of course if Iran is struck by military action then everything changes.

    Reply

  37. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Heroes and villains in Lebanon”
    “The fanfare over Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Lebanon raises fears of a step towards a Hezbollah takeover that would see Lebanon become an Iranian client state. While the provocative two-day tour could stoke more political turmoil in Beirut, the power projection on display is likely to boost Ahmadinejad’s popularity at home”
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LJ15Ak02.html
    If anything is causing Israel’s neighbors to be “client states” of Iran, it is the policies, rhetoric, and military adventures engaged in by Israel and the United States.

    Reply

  38. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This is utterly and shamelessly off topic.
    I’m really not a weepy kind of guy. It takes alot to tear at my heartstrings. But this girl, this Emily Henochowicz, can make tears well up in my eyes every time I visit her website. Her talent knows no bounds, and her resilence and unbelievable sensitivity is that of a very rare treasure of a human being. She epitomizes what we all should strive to be.
    Please, help her in her latest creative adventure. Donate what you can. Buy some artwork. Or just offer her some kind words. Such a gift to humanity should be nurtured and cherished.
    http://thirstypixels.blogspot.com/

    Reply

  39. Don Bacon says:

    I enjoyed listening to Mr. Majd. He has a good grasp of current events in Iran. However I believe that he like many others mis-casts the US-Iran difficulties as a nuclear issue when it it’s really an issue of hegemony.
    Iran has a key geostrategic location, between the Persian Gulf (or the Arabian Gulf in Pentagon-speak) and the Caspian Sea, and between Afghanistan and Iraq, plus it sits atop a lot of petroleum. Iran’s form of government and its nuclear program may be the current reasons for US antogonism but they weren’t a factor the last time the US backed the overthrow of the Iran government and they actually aren’t now.
    The US-driven UN sanctions imposed to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment are a dodge. Majd correctly points out that the nuclear enrichment is a “red herring.” The process is under 24/7 UN supervision and every gram of uranium is accounted for.
    Majd correctly states that US pressure on Iran, including threats and sanctions, are counter-productive. Iranians, like any other people, become more united in response to external threats and so do Iranians, including the Greens. We’re supposed to believe that US policy-makers don’t understand this universal human behavior? That they really believe that threats and sanctions will work?
    So like a lot of other things the government does, it makes no sense except that it keeps the US government-driven fear level higher and promotes the sales of military hardware in the region. That pays off in profits, so in this respect it does make sense. The largest US military sale in history was recently announced, to Saudi Arabia.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *