War Propaganda for Attack on Iran Escalates, as Congressional Republicans Endorse Israeli Attack
July 24, 2010 • 10:01AM
The propaganda for an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran is escalating at a tremendous pace, and Congressional Republicans, not to be outdone by their Democratic Zionist Lobby competitors, are goading Israel to launch the initial attack on Iran at any moment they deem it "in their national interest." On July 22, forty-seven House Republicans, led by Rep. Louie Gohmert (Tex.), filed House Resolution 1553, before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, "Expressing support for the State of Israel's right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."
This outright war solicitation was couched in the psychotic rantings of the Christian Zionists, as expressed, for example, in the following: "Whereas with the dawn of modern Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, some 150 years ago, the Jewish people determined to return to their homeland in the Land of Israel from the lands of their dispersion."
The submission of H.R. 1553 precisely fits the roadmap to war, recently spelled out by former Bush 43 UN Ambassador John Bolton, who argued that "having visible congressional support in place at the outset will reassure the Israeli government, which is legitimately concerned about Mr.Obama's likely negative reaction to such an attack."
However, not everyone promoting a U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran is convinced that Obama is an obstacle. In a July 16 posting on The American Interest Online, Council on Foreign Relations resident scholar (sic) Walter Russell Mead asserted that Obama will likely order a military attack on Iran. Under the headline "Nuking Westphalia: Obama's Deep Convictions Point to War With Iran," he equated Obama with Woodrow Wilson, and argued that Obama, like Wilson, hates the Westphalia system of sovereign nation-states, and passionately believes in the need to create a Global Union, based on humanitarian interventionism. Mead also wrote that Obama believes in total nuclear disarmament, and therefore, cannot allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and thus trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. His conclusion: Obama would rather bomb Iran than see his utopian vision smashed by a nuclear-armed Iran that reinforces a super-Westphalian system of nuclear-armed states, invulnerable to "treaty-citing busybodies and international lawyers waving documents and babbling about binding accords."
"Those who think that President Obama's interest in basing his foreign policy on values make it unlikely that he would go to war haven't been paying attention. For Iran to get nukes it will have to destroy the world Obama wants to build.
"Will he, can he allow that to happen?
"There's a possibility that he will flinch or, to put it another way, that his Jeffersonian instincts for restraint will triumph over his Wilsonian ambition to build a better world. But Iran is not just on a collision course with America's core interests from a realist perspective. It is trying to destroy the world that American idealists want to build. That makes a conflict hard to avoid."
The pile-up of war propaganda from the "usual suspects" is also continuing, unabated, with the latest psycho-babble coming from CIA field agent-turned-neocon fanatic, Reuel Marc Gerecht, who wrote on July 26 in the Weekly Standard: "Should Israel Bomb Iran? Better safe than sorry."
Journalist Leon T. Hadar also wrote, "Is Obama Set on an Iran Strike?" and answered, "Yes," citing a sea-change in attitude at the Obama White House, since the Obama-Netanyahu recent summit meeting, and increasing pressure from the Washington War Party, to attack. "As the evolution of his Afghanistan policies has demonstrated," Hadar concluded, "Obama seems to lack the power and the will to resist the pressure from the War Party in Washington and has probably concluded that if you cannot beat them, joining them is the next best option."
Of course, none of these propaganda tracts strikes at the real heart of the war danger: Obama is a failed personality, and is in the process of precisely the kind of psychological meltdown that can lead to a flight-foward into a suicidal confrontation that will, ultimately, destroy the United States. http://www.larouchepac.com/node/15298
clifylq
http://www.gotclifylq.com/
http://www.igiveabuckusa.com/
http://clifylq.livejournal.com/
http://clifylq.blogspot.com/
http://supportbordercontrols.blogspot.com/
http://clifylq.livejournal.com/calendar
Gohmert Continues to Push ‘Terror Babies’ Debate on 14th Amendment
By Elise Foley 8/13/10 12:02 PM Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) reasserted his claim last night that Al Qaeda may be sending women to the U.S. to birth a contingent of future terrorists credentialed with American passports.
Gohmert argued with host Anderson Cooper, who asked him to provide proof to back up his claims about the phenomenon. He said “the evidence abounds” but failed to produce a source for his information, other than an anonymous former FBI agent. (Watch the video here.)
Observers note the argument is a convenient one, politically, because it can’t really be proven right or wrong in the short term. The effects of the supposed phenomenon are too far in the future: If “terror babies” are being born in the U.S., we won’t know it for about 20 years. The delayed impact of such measures is one of the main reasons Gohmert’s argument is unfounded, according to Ruben Navarrette Jr. He argued at CNN today that Gohmert and other Republicans are relying on fear-mongering to obscure the immigration debate: http://clifylq.livejournal.com/107830.html
