Tuesday, February 13, 2007



About a month ago I figured out that Bush's war in Iraq was a goner because the Saudis were supplying Sunni insurgents with shoulder fired surface to air missiles that are taking down American helicopters, helicopters totally crucial in a region with an unsecured network of roads. I knew the military was talkin' out their asses when they said they have new tactics to defeat the missiles, especially when I noticed the kill rate for helicopters was rising. (About a week ago CNN had an Iraq-based helicopter pilot on for an interview and the talking head asked him what the tactic is and the pilot said it was staying out of areas that were known to have the missiles.)

But instead of addressing the Saudis and the shoulder fired missiles-- which will lead to a withdrawal of American forces as surely as American and Saudi-supplied shoulder fired missiles led to the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan-- the Bush Regime has decided to address the supplies coming into Iraq to help Shi'a militias from Iran. Their case is spurious at best. But the Bush Regime is eager to tie whatever they can to the Iranian government in order to further the trumped up case they are building as a pretext for attacking that country. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn't buying-- publicly isn't buying-- the hype.

Even worse for the Bush Regime's plot against Iran was an interview yesterday on CNN by Hillary Mann, Bush's former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs. Mann told CNN that Bush is "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict." Why would Bush do such a thing? (And why would so many members of the media and Congress-- including Democrats like Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer-- support him on that?) Ken asked a similar question an hour ago and I hope you've already read his piece. Mann's take is that the Bush Regime is determined to goad Iran into an action that will give the U.S. the cover for "limited strikes" against Iranian nuclear infrastructure and other targets of interest. Remember the old Neocon slogan, Anyone can go to Baghdad; real men go to Tehran from the heady days of 2003? They haven't given up on that psychotic, deranged dream (and they have every intention of dragging the rest of us along with them).

It is crucial we pressure Democratic congressmen and senators to put their foot down and to make them just say no. Democratic senators who are most prone to support an attack on Iran are Ben Nelson (NE), Evan Bayh (IN), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA), Max Baucus (MT), Joe Biden (DE), Bill Nelson (FL), Hillary Clinton (NY), and Tom Carper (DE). The most dangerous Democratic House members in this regard are Steny Hoyer (MD), Rahm Emanuel (IL), Howard Berman (CA), Jim Marshall (GA), Bud Cramer (AL), Vic Snyder (AR), Tim Holden (PA), Earl Pomeroy (ND), Collin Peterson (MN), Jim Matheson (UT), Chet Edwards (TX), Norman Dicks (WA), Dutch Rupperberger (MD), Allen Boyd (FL), Gene Taylor (MS), Dennis Moore (KS), Alan Mollohan (WV), Nita Lowey (NY), Steve Israel (NY), Bob Andrews (NJ), Steven Rothman (NJ), Tom Lantos (CA), Adam Smith (WA), Ron Kind (WI), Mike Ross (AR), David Scott (GA), Eliot Engel (NY), Adam Schiff (CA), Ellen Tauscher (CA), Nick Lampson (TX), Rick Larsen (WA), Ben Chandler (KY), and Dennis Cardoza (CA). If any of them critters work for you... let them know this is an issue that will determine how you vote in '08.


At 6:31 AM, Blogger cybermome said...

The most dangerous Democratic House members ???

I wonder how much these critters receive from AIPAC???

I shudder..

At 8:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Howie,

I've been ready with interest lately many of DWTs post attacking Dems who are not always acting in the best interests of the party and the nation. The posts have been informative and useful. Please don't misundestand what I'm about to say.

We need to stop doing that at least for now. I completely understand and support what you are trying to do and there will be a time and a place for that. Right now the Dems need us. All of us to not only stand behind them but to give them all the support we can give.

Taking on Bush and Cheney is going to very nasty and bloody. We may lose some of our own in the fight. If Bush Inc. knows anything it's how to destroy political enemies. If we damage our own, even Hoyer and Emmanuel, we only help Roves political assasination machine function more efficiently and anyone who doubts Roves ability to still do harm does so at their peril.

What we need to do is come togather,not only in moral support but to pool the resources of the online community (which is formitable) to help our pols with what they need most. Information. Yes information. If we've learned anything from Bush Inc it's that information is the key. In their case it was effective control and censorship of information. In our case it's effective collection and disemination of information.

Think about it. Everything we have found out about the crimes of Bush and the boys in a central data base or something like that available for quick access by Pols and pundits as well as the general public. There are probably other ways that someone smarter than me can think of to make better use of the resources out there.

If the last election proved anything it was the strength and depth of the progressive online community. Our Congressmen and women need the strength and depth now more that ever.

Sorry for the long post, Howie. I know I haven't had much to say lately. Believe me when I tell you that I agree we still have problems in our own ranks that must be dealt with. I have confidence that we can fix the problems in our own house but I don't want to bring the roof down while trying to fix the foundation.

At 8:38 AM, Blogger Xpatriated Texan said...

I was wondering how you went about determining exactly who is on your list. As I posted this morning over at Rothman's site, Mr. Rothman is supports the DeFazio Resolution that would limit the President's ability to drag us into war with Iran. The DeFazio Resolution insists that “military action against Iran without congressional approval does not fall within the president’s ‘commander-in-chief’ powers under the Constitution.” The Resolution also rejects “any suggestion” that legislation authorizing the Iraq war also applies to Iran.


Post a Comment

<< Home