Robert Parry: Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran

Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran

By Robert Parry
September 28, 2007

So let me see if I’ve got this right: Hillary Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner for the presidential nomination, is demanding that George W. Bush take a more belligerent posture toward Iran.

In her view – and that of 75 other members of the U.S. Senate – President Bush hasn’t been aggressive or hasty enough in designating a large part of the Iranian military, the Revolutionary Guards, as an international terrorist organization.

The Senate resolution, approved on Sept. 26, recounts allegations that elements of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have supplied Iraqi Shiite militias with “explosively formed penetrator” bombs that have shattered U.S. armored vehicles and killed American troops.

In response, the Senate resolution calls on President Bush to list the Revolutionary Guards as “specially designated global terrorists.” In opposing the resolution, Sen. James Webb, D-Virginia, warned that the move could be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Despite Webb’s protest, 29 Democrats joined Republicans and neoconservative Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to pass the “sense of the Senate” resolution. The Democrats egging Bush on included Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, California’s Dianne Feinstein and Michigan’s Carl Levin.

Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Richard Lugar of Indiana were the only Republicans voting no. Democratic presidential hopefuls Joe Biden of Delaware and Chris Dodd of Connecticut also opposed the measure. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was absent but said he would have voted against it.

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092707.html

I read the whole piece. What a whackjob.
You're batting .999 Babylonsister, but you struck out on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry

Robert Parry
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Learn more about citing Wikipedia •
Jump to: navigation, search
For the British MP, see Robert Parry (MP).

Robert Parry is an American investigative journalist.

During the 1980s, Parry worked for Associated Press and Newsweek, and was credited with breaking a number of stories about the Reagan administration's actions in what came to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair. Along with his AP partner, Brian Barger, he was the first journalist to report on Lt. Colonel Oliver North's activities in the White House basement, and the first to describe the Nicaraguan Contras' involvement with cocaine traffickers. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984.<1>

In 1995, he established ConsortiumNews.com as an online ezine dedicated to investigative journalism. In 2000, shortage of revenue forced him to continue it on a part-time basis. From 2000 to 2004, he worked for the financial wire service Bloomberg.

Together with Norman Solomon, Parry examined General Colin Powell's past.<2> Other articles which ConsortiumNews.com has published report on the “October Surprise” controversy of the 1980 election, <3> the Contra-cocaine connection, <4> the war in Kosovo, <5>, the impeachment of President Clinton. <6>, how the Nazi exodus to South America contributed to the region’s bloody repression in the 1970s and 1980s <7>, Sun Myung Moon and his political influence. <8>, and America’s dangerous media imbalance. <9>

Daniel Pipes, writing for George Mason University's History News Network, said that Parry, along with five others, was part of a "handful of conspiracy theorists in the United States" because of his work on the October Surprise story.<10>

Parry has written several books, including Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & "Project Truth." (1999) and Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004).

And he slid.

when it comes to knowing what is really going on. I am sure Mario Cuomo, Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, and Barbara Boxer are conidered by some to be "whack jobs" on this subject too. :eyes:

But I certainly don't think he's a whackjob. Terrorism, at least as we have defined it up to this point, usually consists of an individual or group of individuals that commit violent acts for political purposes outside the direction of a government.

Some of these terrorist groups (like Hezbollah) may receive financial support and sympathy from a state but are not necessarily run by that state. Then again, in some cases perhaps they are -- it gets a little blurry.

That doesn't mean governments are incapable of terrorism, but when you have two countries fighting each other that is what we would typically call a war.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards are a branch of Iran's military. They cannot be considered terrorists in the way we have traditionally used the word. The act of designating them as terrorists IS a provocation, make no mistake about it.

The objective here is to brand them as terrorists so that the American people can be conditioned into thinking of them as such and thus will become more accepting of expanding the war to include Iran. I'd like to think this will fail and that there will be people fighting back against this definition.

It is for this same reason that the government and media back in 2003/2004 (and to a lesser extent today) were portraying the conflict in Iraq as America vs. the terrorists. It wasn't Americans vs. the Sunnis who were upset that they were stripped of their power. No -- we were up against al-Zarqawi and Al Qaeda in Iraq and a bunch of other crazies who were coming in through the porous borders. The numbers suggested otherwise -- almost all of the people we were fighting were (and are) Iraqis!

In my humble opinion, anyone who supported this resolution is part of the problem and is not worthy of our votes.

If the allegation are true then it should be considered an act of war. Our government need to stop BSing people.

Clinton charged that the Bush Admin was being too soft on Iran; within the week, both Cheney and Bolton made speeches making clear that the military option was very much on the table. I wish Icould find the exact date but some searching through the NYT archives didn't turn it up and frankly all of this has been going on for so long, the years have just melted into one another. But the point is: She's been doing this for a while. That is, not just sort of going along with Bush Admin warmongering but actually baiting them to do more of it. I can't recall statements of a similar type from many other Democratic Senators.

them warpig punks are so boring it is sickening. if hillary supports the ongoing atrocity in Iraq, she's a war criminal, and she should be careful...

Or we could be in for war and not just with Iran. I see other countries stepping in because we are starting to look like the bullies of the world. Like with Hitler, our country cant be allowed to gain control over the majority of the world through war, someone will have to step up at some point before we have toppled enough governments and put in our hand picked people and become the ruler of the world. Its not supposed to be this way. I do believe we will go after Iran before the elections but the government wants someone in there to continue the world mission and I think Clintons vote the other day shows what her intentions will be.

republicans. Its easy to do! however They Want her to be the nominee. Rove singled her out! she is the one they want to run against. Easy reason enough to not go there.

as fact. They've lied and could be lieing again or manipulating the information presented as evidence. The scary part of this amendment is exactly this: accepting intelligence as "evidence" and now accepted as "fact" by the Bush administration. He can now say that attacks by Iran on our troops is an accepted fact by congress and he can declare the need for military action against this agression when in fact it may be otherwise - no hearings - no truth.