General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Long And Winding Road... Wanna Know Why We Are Bombing In Syria ??? - Check THIS Out:
The ability to exercise this power with impunity is facilitated by the National Security Act of 1947. The thrust of the exposé is the Iran-Contra arms and drug-running operations which flooded the streets of our nation with crack cocaine. The significance of the documentary is probably greater today in 2007 than it was when it was made. We now have a situation in which these same forces have committed the most egregious terrorist attack on US soil and have declared a fraudulent so-called "War on Terror". The ruling regime in the US who have conducted the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, are now banging the war drum against Iran.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
arcane1
(38,613 posts) WillyT
(72,631 posts)Many have not seen this.
Sorry I missed PP's send off.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)You were missed at PP's thing but I'm hoping to get a gathering together soon, maybe a pre-midterm thing 
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Keep me informed... would love to attend.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I will definitely keep you posted on any gathering info!
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
enough
(13,761 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Aerows
(39,961 posts)
JEB
(4,748 posts)
leftstreet
(40,706 posts)
DURec
karynnj
(60,972 posts)I think it would have been better had they stayed and had they scheduled more hearings - both open and closed. What is clear is that in the brief interval that Congress returned to work, it seems the Obama administration was very forthcoming in sending their top national security team to any hearings asked for. The question is whether of not you bothered to watch any of them -- beyond the 30 second clips the media played. If you did not know of their existence, just go to the web sites of the appropriate committees (Armed Services and Foreign Relations - in the House and Senate) and look at the list of hearings - you can watch them on line.
As to the hearings on Iran/Contra, the earliest were ones held by a new subcommittee on terrorism that Kerry, then in his first year as Senator, ran. He fought to have the hearings and investigation even though it could have cost him his seat. He was also personally threatened - both his life and destroying his reputation with lies. Yet, his comments on that tape included only what he could prove, but showed more insight than most others.
karynnj
(60,972 posts)Thank you for the interview with the young Senator from Massachusetts.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)NOTHING done by the MIC is 'completely out in the open'.
This is all about Syria, which has proven to be a lot tougher than they anticipated when they sent in their 'proxy protesters' to do what they did in Libya.
They ran into quite a few problems, all their propaganda wasn't working the way it used to. And the more their 'proxy' killers murdered ordinary Syrians, the more they turned back to Assad. Syrians realized that those fighting and killing their citizens were NOT EVEN SYRIAN.
Then the UK Parliament for once, opted out of the invasion of Syria plan, mindfull that these are the actions that CREATE terrorists.
karynnj
(60,972 posts)stating the problem, and what his goals were and some big picture description of what he was calling on the military and his administration to do. He also sent Hagel, Kerry, and top military people to Congressional hearings. There was a public UN meeting last Friday that CSPAN covered. Obviously, the detailed attack plans will not be public.
You are not even speaking of what Obama is doing NOW. Instead, you seem to be speaking more about what you think the US did in 2011 - 2012, ignoring that Obama overruled many who wanted more US action, and the call last year for strikes to put a cost to Assad using chemical weapons. I understand why the RIGHT refuses to admit that the Obama administration pushing Syria to give up all their chemical weapons (though any number of industrial chemicals could also kill) is NOT a victory. In their case, unlike Obama or Kerry, who always said the goal of any response was to make CW use less likely, their goal was to have the US attack itself cause regime change. On the left, I think there was a leap to condemn Obama -- and then a complete inability to accept that Obama meant exactly what he had always said.
In contrast, in the Reagan years, there was NO public statement that the US would do any of things that this video shows. They did no go to Congress or the nation with anything on arming Iran -- while we were officially arming Iraq, the country they were fighting. On the Contras, it was even more extreme. They could not go to Congress. Congress had already expressly forbidden aid to the Contras. The entire Iran/Contra action was completely unConstitutional and illegal. The problem is that, though there were hearings and it did make the history books used in high schools, people like North and Eliott Abrams are still out there and treated like experts - rather than criminals.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)how Syria was persuaded to do that?
Has Obama received permission from the Syrian Govt to bomb their country? The UN? Has Congress voted on this latest 'war' we are now engaged in?
But for me it is no longer about the individual politicians. We have learned sadly that the US has policies regardless of WHO is in power, wrt to the ME, much like the British Empire's and as anyone can see, the UK is ALWAYS on board for 'action' in a region where they did so much harm over their history of involvement there.
How to change those policies is what the American people have to figure out now, not which president did this or that. We know now that every president will get involved in the ME unless the people find a way to stop these disastrous interventions.
And btw, it was because the UK Parliament finally rejected arming the so-called 'rebels' in Syria because they finally realized they were arming Extremists, that stopped the US a few months ago.
So now we have a new reason to get into Syria and begin our policies of Regime Change.
Anyone who doesn't see this, is wearing rose colored glasses.
We just invaded Syria, period. As has been predicted.
karynnj
(60,972 posts)was to avoid Obama striking. I followed the conferences in Geneva - and saw that in each instance, the concluding document was close to what Kerry asked for in his initial statements. I also saw that Lavrov and Kerry had to get involved again at the UN because BOTH the US and Russian UN ambassadors tried to shift the agreement.
Did you bother to watch the UN session last Friday? Did you even bother to notice that Syria's response to the US hitting ISIL and the AQ group was pretty muted and that BOTH the US and Syria spoke of Syrian having been alerted of the coming strikes? Did you see any significance to 5 Sunni Arab nations taking a stand against ISIL? Is it possible that this coalition could let the Sunnis act against their own extremists, both against those active now and moving to make becoming an extremist less attractive?
Obviously, you think the solution is for the US to simply leave and do nothing - forever in the future. I seriously doubt that will ever by the US position. I do think that what Obama is doing with the real coalition that he is working on is an effort to empower the Middle East to do what they need to eliminate their own extremism and to work together.
As to arming the rebels, Obama has been reluctant for the same reasons you cite. In addition, he has not changed his position to there needing to be a diplomatic solution to Syria.
Though I would prefer regular clear classes, rosy colored glasses are still better than the bitter, gray lens that you chose to view the world through while assuming that they are clear.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in violation of International law, and DO YOU SUPPORT the neocon policies of creating chaos in the ME, see Ledeen on this, destroying cultures, historical artifacts, attempting to 'Christianize and Westernize'
these societies' so they are 'more like us'?
I have no clue why you are so focused on the petty details of any of this. We KNOW now that Rove was not kidding when he told the press that 'We are an Empire Now'. I thought we voted to end those policies. THAT was naive thinking as we now know.
So, to get to the big picture, not who our favorite politicians are which has become so irrelevant in the scheme of things, the question facing American now is: 'Do you want to trade this Democracy for Empire or not'?
I know my answer, how do you feel about the fact that Rove was correct, that we ARE an 'Empire Now'?
karynnj
(60,972 posts)It is always easy to take grandiose comments (Rove's) and then imply that they are the guiding vision of the government. It is ridiculous to conflate Rove with either Obama or Kerry.
As to your questions:
Do I think there will be "regime change" in another sovereign country? It depends what you mean by regime change. I think governments change all the time and the question should be who causes the change. I assume that you are speaking of Syria. I think that there can not be peace there unless there is a government led by someone other than Assad. I do NOT think the US or EU or anyone else should depose him and install someone else. I think it possible - that as in Iraq with Maliki - Assad could step down and a new Syrian government (where like in Iraq, many people will be the old people) could be formed. I actually think Russia is in a better position to facilitate this DIPLOMATICALLY then the US.
I have never supported the neo con positions and I think that the left has distorted Obama's positions to imply that he has. As to Christianize or Westernize the middle east, there is no American statesman of his stature less guilty of that than John Kerry. Kerry has spoken of Islam as a faith since at least 2008 and has endured being ridiculed by the right - while ignored by the left - doing so. DU thread with links to recent and 2008 speech - http://www.democraticunderground.com/11094170
As to "Are we an empire now"? I don't go to Rove, but to Teddy Roosevelt, who after the Spanish American War under McKinley, was entirely behind the American empire. As to now, I would suggest that you consider that the right is blasting Obama for "leading from behind". They are very unhappy that Obama is NOT Bush - yet you apparently see little difference.
You also might want to read of the conference held in Jetta, that Kerry attended for the US. The goal of that conference was for the Sunni countries to stand against Sunni extremists that some of those countries had once aided and abetted. While the Bush people have mocked the coalition, that 5 Arab countries were involved in the air strikes and they and more are taking other actions against ISIL, this is pretty significant. Listening to Kerry and others it seems that this is the OPPOSITE of "empire". There is no talk of invading and occupying other countries. In fact, the talk is of containing ISIL to a level that the surrounding countries could ultimately be the only ones there. (Note that Syria was pretty understated about these strikes - other than saying that their UN person had been informed.)
Yes, I KNOW all of these things are "details", but it is from details that you have constructed your world vision too - and like everyone including me - you have selected the data points that fit your view of the world. The question is how many contrary data points would be needed to change your view of Obama. Where you say I have rose colored glasses, consider yours are pretty jaundiced. I admit that I will trust John Kerry, whose career spans decades, and President Obama, unless I have reason not to -- I KNOW my view will be more rosy than the truth, but at least I know the direction of my bias and, trust me, it is not unlimited. However, yours will be more yellow than the truth. The question is whether any actions on Obama's part could ever change your incredibly jaundiced opinion - and gave him a fraction of the benefit of the doubt you gave Putin.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)only wanting to do good.
Perhaps you should read what Churchill thought ought to be done with the people of the ME and maybe study how that THAT empire, now our ally in all this, destroyed as much of that culture as they could. And yes, Westernizing these 'camel jockeys' , remember that among all the other epithets, not just from Fox viewers and propagandists, but from some of our GENERALS. Gen. Miller: Treat the Iraqis like DOGS', And of course, we did.
We always find a few willing to join the invaders, the Brits were great at this, have some show 'elections' where a westernized puppet is installed, see Maliki and before him, Saddam, and on and on, because for some reason it is still important to pretend that any of our brutal invasions of these countries is somehow 'civilized'.
I have selected HISTORY, very recent HISTORY tp form my opinion. Droning and bombing and finding new, much more DANGEROUS excuses to do even more BOMBING, is what I see, and support for DICTATORS rather than the many democratic factions that actually DO exist in many of these counntries, SEE AFGHANISTAN. We are not interested in those who want peace.
As for Assad, politicians come and go YES. But when outside brutal terrorists are sent in to create Regime Change, when WE without acknowledging the legitimate government of any of these nations, just go in and start bombing, using one excuse or another, that is called REGIME CHANGE, which means without any input from the people.
Assad was reelected by a majority of Syrians, that might not have happened four years ago when many Syrians wanted someone new. But AFTER the invasion of their country by brutal outside extremist groups armed and funded by OUTSIDERS, many Syrians when interviewed, stated that they were far more afraid of these invaders than they ever were of Assad.
So we'll see if we consult the Syrian people, or just find a few of the usual suspects, see Iraq, to speak for them, when we get behind the next Regime Change.
Get back to me if I am proven wrong, I really, really hope so because those people do not need to become another Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan where I assume you think regime change was done just be the people without any interference from us.
karynnj
(60,972 posts)By the way, it is pretty ridiculous that you argue that I supported regime change in other countries. I marched - with my daughters and husband - against the Iraq war before it happened in DC and NYC.
But then again -- it is those jaundiced glasses of yours that focus not just on the US government, but anyone who won't buy your rather extreme world view. I guess you feel debate is easier when you make up who your opponent is and what he/she is saying.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)is intense. When you go to other civilized countries, they are far more informed about the Imperial history that created most of the problems in the ME and in Africa and where a majority of the PEOPLE oppose any and all further Imperial interventions.
But Americans are very isolated with few sources other than the Corporate Media, which you will remember if you opposed Iraq.
How is Libya and Syria any different from Iraq? I was called an extremist back then also, but I always considered the sources, at that Bush supporters, blinded by their partisan loyalty so it never bothered me one bit. Now I can and DO go back and ask them how they feel NOW about giving a President the powers of a king? They supported it vehemently then. I tried to tell them that one day a Democrat would inherit those powers, but they were blinded by their loyalty.
They thought YOU had an 'extremist world view' also. I haven't changed my views on our Imperial FPs, nothing has happened to cause me to do so, why have you changed yours?
Oh, and Churchill wasn't just a bigot in 'some or even many ways', he was a true bigot in every way, but so were the Imperialists for whom he worked. Our FPs are also bigoted, following the pattern of the British Empire. They are also classist.
I abhor bigotry and will never support the US becoming an Empire with all its implications. It may be too late, but I still oppose the same policies I opposed in 2003.
karynnj
(60,972 posts)It is pretty condescending to assume that you are better traveled or have read more from the rest of the world than I have or than others who disagree with you have. Not to mention, it is hard to take seriously your comment that our "FPs" (?) are bigoted and classist. If you mean the people who lead our foreign policy, they are Obama, Kerry and Biden at the moment - and that smear fails against all three.
Not to mention, somehow you never find similar reasons to complain about Putin, the former KGB head.
As to 2003, our policy now is extremely different than in 2003.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'extremist world views' if they have a different opinion than YOURS. Clearly you think YOU know everything while the rest of us are 'extremists' for not sharing your views.
You don't get to call DUers extremists without them responding to your personal attacks. It's almost funny that you believe YOU can attack others here with that vile insult and then complain when they respond with THEIR REASONS, no personal attack, for THEIR views.
Go read your comment in which you personally attacked me, then show me where I called you any names that could possibly have prompted such a personal attack.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Maybe more than that...
From Colonial times... to the Ottoman Empire... To Boundaries drawn after WWI... To the Cold War...
From Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953, to Allende in Chile in 1973... Honduras, Guatemala, San Salvador, the Middle East, Africa, etc, etc. etc...
The shit we did in the name of anti-Communism and the "Free Market"... has cost us dearly, and made numerous enemies.
When we are told that there are people from many many countries traveling to the Middle East to join ISIS...
You can't help but think that hatred for the U.S. and the "West"... has now been passed down for generations... and the chickens are coming home to roost.
karynnj
(60,972 posts)I would agree that one difficulty that Obama faced and faces is a huge well of distrust that was not of his making. Everything you speak of is part of what built that distrust. That is actually why it is such an accomplishment that he has been able to gain the support he has in the region on this effort.
As to his effort here, why not look at what he said he wanted to do in June - and compared it to his actions this summer. He urged Iraq to form its government from the election they just had and urged them to make it inclusive. Most pundits thought this impossible, but this was done even if it is still at a very early stage. The actions of US airlifts of aid and airstrikes with the ground action of others has saved lives and protected important dams that provide water and power for most of that area. Yet these are baby steps in terms of what needs to be done - and most of it must be done by the region, not the US - and most of it is not military.
In pushing against any US military action, what is ignored is the huge effort to build a coalition to act here. The most significant part is a Sunni coalition against their own extremists, who they have in the past funded, encouraged and helped allow their recruitment. You ignore that they are supporting US efforts to dry up the funding and to urge religious leaders to speak against the extremists. (In fact, consider Kerry's own history vs Iran/Contra and BCCI that led to his serious effort to be able to stop the money laundering of criminals and non state terrorists. Without his diligent investigation of the Contras, it is possible that the scandal would mostly have been arming Iran and negotiating for the hostages.)
You might even wonder if that same well of distrust for ANY US government is so firmly entrenched in the left that it is easier for many here to give him no benefit of the doubt. Some go even further, extending infinite benefit of the doubt to people like Manduro and Putin, while never giving Obama a break on anything.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)I wouldn't have recognized him from the frame in the OP. And I think your analysis is correct. I haven't watched the video, which probably explains Iran-Contra well, but the current admin is a world away from Reagan-Bush, and while there is no doubt still criminal subterfuge afoot, this administration is more likely to be a target than a perp.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
mckara
(1,708 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)More recent
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I seem to recall an Administration change since then......unless you're claiming that Barack Obama is a neo-con sellout like the others.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)lol
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)I feel physically ill seeing us bombing yet another country, knowing that no good will come of it, that billions will be wasted that could have fed and housed people in need. My hopes that Obama would be the peace President that he promised to be were long dead, but this event has conjured up once again the palpable sadness that I felt when those hopes were crushed the first time, like an old wound ripped open anew.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)of our success in this endeavor, I urge you to suit up and enlist, or have your sons and daughters suit up and enlist.
Even better, the next time that you are at a 1% DNC fundraiser, encourage the politicians who politically bandy war talk to JOIN you in urging their sons and daughters in enlisting.
Skin in the game makes all the difference in the world. Your flesh and blood, when it comes down to it, is always going to be much more precious than votes, political donations and grandstanding.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)If your philosophy is total isolationism (a time-honored Republican position), more power to you, but it's a naive philosophy that real Democrats in the real world don't share.
If not, then it appears that we're arguing about a matter of degrees.
BuelahWitch
(9,083 posts)Sure, if Senator Warren believes in this so wholeheartedly, she should also send her flesh and blood.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I think you can fan the flames of existing opinion, but not manufacture it whole.
cali
(114,904 posts)There is so much evidence that you can manufacture opinion whole within the field of Sociology that it's not even debated.
G_j
(40,569 posts)have you been paying any attention?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)No manufacturing there at all.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the answer is invade Iraq. That's manufacturing opinion, and that's exactly what the media did.
frylock
(34,825 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)psst. you dropped a name back there, in your failed appeal to authority argument.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Is that how deep into the cult of personality we really are expected to be? That if Warren supports it, that makes it right?
That was an incredibly embarrassing post for you.
choie
(6,907 posts)Sellout.....
cali
(114,904 posts)pressure and pressure from the Pentagon.
It's not all about different administrations.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
FlatStanley
(327 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)party over principle. it's what's for dinner.
FlatStanley
(327 posts)
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)FlatStanley
(327 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And he protects me
FlatStanley
(327 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I thank you once again, WillyT. You are exactly right in that we should examine this history to explain how a country that looses it's ability to work outside its domestic borders of the world IS CAPABLE of manufacturing any cause… certainly the insane "war on terror".
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I had seen all of that at one time or another.
But it was a wonderful reminder that It can happen here.
Not only can it happen here but it happened again and again and it is still happening here. Right now!
If you cannot see this you need to polish your glasses.
Those architects of Iran—Contra should have spent the rest of their lives in prison. Including Ronald Reagan.
Those abuses during Iran—Contra paved the way for even greater future abuses by George W Bush. In the case of Bush even a corrupt supreme court got involved in subverting the constitution. This nation has never recovered.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)White House Casts Light On 'Shadow'
WASHINGTON, March 5, 2002 (CBS)
Quote: “This is not the kind of thing you tell 10, 50 or 100 senators. If you do, you might as well tell the world." Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss.
(CBS) After lawmakers complained that they were kept in the dark, White House officials on Tuesday briefed top members of Congress about the "shadow government" that President Bush set up outside Washington as a safeguard against terrorism.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said two top Bush aides briefed Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. on Tuesday, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., "had been previously informed."
But House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., was not part of Tuesday's session. His spokesman Erik Smith said Gephardt did not know about the meeting until it ended. He said he did not know why Gephardt was not invited.
"We're disappointed, we don't understand why they would choose not to invite Mr. Gephardt," Smith said.
Fleischer told reporters that Gephardt's absence was "a scheduling matter," but when pressed on whether Gephardt was invited, Fleischer replied, "I don't make all the invitations here at the White House.”
CONTINUED…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-casts-light-on-shadow/
PS: If the Big One were to have come down, Democrats weren't going to come out from the other side of the three-foot thick solid steel nuclear-bomb resistant door to help rebuild America.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)Thanks for posting!
blm
(114,658 posts)It wasn't Obama or Kerry.
And they are NOT beating the war drums to attack Syria, either. In fact, they put together an effort that no WH has ever even contemplated - an effort to transition away from US responsibilities to defend in the region so that MUSLIM nations can pick up the slack and deal with their own crazies distorting the region's religion and their culture.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Leave it to Moyers to show us some critical thinking.
However, it makes me sad that I feel the need to point out, that at least when people voted for Ronald Reagan, they knew what he was all about. He was all about "Defense." (Which is another way of saying "War."
When we voted in 2008 it was supposed to be about change and hope. What it was NOT supposed to be about was BIGGER BANKS, a MORE CORPORATE-CONTROLLED JUDICIARY. And CONTINUAL ENDLESS WARS (Against people our own government armed with modern technological weaponry, either directly or indirectly.)
ctsnowman
(1,904 posts)Betray the nation and you get hired by a think tank or an anti think tank AKA Fox News.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)and say WillyT!
Will watch later, am occupying a bank at the moment.
