If Obama wagged the dog on Iran, would you support him?

[LittleBlue]

This Iran terror plot is looking more bogus by the day. Reading the Guardian's analysis is shocking.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/13/fbi-sting-saudi-ambassador-assassination-plot

If it turned out that this plot was manufactured by our own government, and that Obama knew about it but lied, would you support him? What if he used it as a casus belli to take military action against Iran?

Your thoughts please.

[TheWraith]

1. If Joe Biden shit solid gold, would you support him?

As long as we're talking crackpot hypotheticals which have no basis in reality.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. Would He Share The Bricks?

.

[TheWraith]

7. Either that or use them to improve Amtrak funding. nt

[LittleBlue]

4. The thing that troubles me somewhat is

that the president stated the evidence was out there for all to see.

So far there has been no evidence.

This is too eerily reminiscent of another president's tactics.

[Vanje]

10. Where have we heard that before?

[truedelphi]

35. Here's the "evidence" -

From the Guardian article:

The point person for the drug cartel was a confidential informant working with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). As a result, there has been some speculation already about whether or not this is a case of entrapment. Did the federal agent conduct much or all of the plot? Or did it actually originate with the accused? The complaint asserts that Arbabsiar wanted to participate in the assassination plot even before his encounter with the DEA agent. But the rest of the case and the plot – the who, what, when, where and how of the proposed crime – are disconcertingly unclear.

####

Just this past week, we had numerous articles posted on DU about the corrupting factor of the Drug War on the officers working that mission, and the informants, and how so much of everything is manufactured, in terms of "evidence." So much so that innocent people are made prisoners, in some case for life.

Now our nation may get to go to a war against a major nation, based on a drug snitches' supposed impeccable evidence?

[TheWraith]

40. You're citing an op-ed, not a news article.

You might want to actually check your facts.

[truedelphi]

68. Oh BS - I referred to the article cited in the OP beaue that is what is being discussed

However, the news article, Oct 13th, in The San Francisco Chronicle laid out the same scenario, and it was a news article.

This whole mess is based on the involvement and perception of a drug snitch.

[lunatica]

61. Unfortunately it looks like it

I'm generally a supporter of Obama, but I never have and never will support wars of Empire or for Capitalist gain.

[nichomachus]

41. The only "crackpot hypothetical"

Is that Obama is on our side

[SidDithers]

49. I can't wait for campaign season to officially begin at DU...

the air will be much cleaner around here.

Sid

[boppers]

52. Your fairy makes me smile. :)

Isn't that from some movie?

[Carolina]

57. Love Glenda the Good Witch

and unlike the posters of Obama with the same message, Glenda really did have things in control.

We sure could use some Glendas!!! Especially since we really are dealing with a 'man' behind the curtain!

[Bobbie Jo]

59. ....complete with a Magic Wand!

Perfect. :rofl:

[Umbral]

69. If Joe Biden shit solid gold, the Banksters would have employed him in the commodities market...

instead of planting him in the Senate.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. No.

Israel's very own aggressive behavior is the biggest driving force in ME violence and unrest.
OUR own aggressive behavior has been and will be the source of anger and worse for a decade to come.

Why would we want to make it worse?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. But They Aren't Accused Of Wanting To Blow A Tony Georgetown Restaurant To Kingdom Come

.

[truedelphi]

37. Again, many of us here are very dubious about the

"evidence" that this was going to happen.

A major drug snitch says it was gong to happen. Oh, boy that really nails it for you, maybe but not for a lot of us.

We have been down this road before, the road of the Shock Doctrine - "Weapons of Mass destruction" & "Must Bailout Too Big to Fail" and on and on.

But it is good for armament dealers and bankers.

[truedelphi]

29. And except for the YouTube videos, few people know that

450K people in Israel were in Tel Aviv, opposing the Big Banking establishments, opposing what passes for "Politics as Usual."

This in a nation of seven million people.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

46. They also protest their own Lieberman. With good reason

[lunatica]

63. The Middle East has a much longer memory than just a mere decades's worth

It goes back thousands of years.

[Supersedeas]

5. Thanks for the link

[tridim]

8. Obama is not stupid. nt

[TheKentuckian]

18. Neither are most that get us involved in adventures for profit.

Brains have little to do with doing the right thing, in fact it usually takes fairly substantial machinations to do dirt.

I'm not inclined to support such an action whether it is a scheme or not though.

If the war freaks wanted Iran, they should have gone for it first (or second after Saudi Arabia), at this point, it better be do or die.

[hulka38]

9. He did and I don't.

[the other one]

11. I thought from the start that it was a distraction from OWS

I think Obama's campaign theme is "If you don't re-elect me, you will get stuck with a Republican"

[JoePhilly]

12. Only if we can teach a unicorn to fart glitter. nt

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mimosa]

14. No.

One of my close friends has online pals in Iran. They are great people. But they can't do anything about their government. They do not want war any more than most of US.

[JustAnotherGen]

15. Nope

The conflict is between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Mexico. This is no Americas issue - and truthfully - I don't believe the story we are being told. And to be quite frank. . . We can't afford it.

[chill_wind]

16. K & R.

Thanks for the link. I don't know who knows what yet, but any scenario such as that on any of the parties' part with such grave implications would be extremely unforgiveable, just as it with BushCo was.

[Worship Money]

17. No, but let's be clear

The Islamic Republic is almost undoubtedly guilty, in a general sense, of the accusations being thrown at it. Even if this particular plot is bogus.

Which is not casus belli, of course. But I find these apologetics- for the state that is responsible for a lion's share of the heroin and child prostitution trade in Europe, Russia, and the Mid-East- disturbing, to say the least.

[chill_wind]

19. Yes, let's be clear. Define apologetics.

I find the wholesale equation of DUers' questions and wide-spread skepticism around this particular tale as "apologetics" for the Islamic Republic even more disturbing.

[Worship Money]

22. Please understand

As I said in my post, my accusation is NOT directed towards a questioning of this particular plot.

Rather, it's the continued zero-sum game that some here- and honestly, among liberals in general- that reject any and all criticism of a foreign regime on the grounds that our government is bad. Constantly equivocating every rotten, evil thing that governments like Iran, Russia, and China pull off with some act that our government commits...therefore, some type of nullification, and we just can't criticize them.

Some people are too eager to find their savior in some third world country. The Islamic Republic (note the distinction between the totalitarian regime and Iran itself) is not satisfied with just doing things it's "own way" and being left alone. The regime extends itself throughout the Middle East and into Europe (at the very least), selling weapons, drugs, and being extremely involved in slavery and child prostitution rings. It is fascist organization.

I'm tired of vile foreign governments being able to escape any and all criticisms for things that we liberals would never ever dream of letting go unscathed in this country.

[eridani]

47. No one here thinks that Iran will "save" jackshit.

It only offends imperialist sociopaths, not for drug dealing or oppressing women, but just because it exists and is not under the US military boot.

Bombing the shit out of people because they have icky leaders isn't very liberal either.

[Enrique]

54. we're not the ones trading with that regime

that's the Koch Brothers, Dick Cheney and Carly Fiorina. And we're not the ones approving the largest weapon sale in history to a regime that's just as evil, Saudi Arabia. That wasn't us, that was President Obama.

[LittleBlue]

21. Apologetics? You mean if I don't want to go to war with Iran

, or I oppose being lied to as a distraction tactic, I'm being an apologist for child prostitution?

[Worship Money]

24. Once again, pleast read the post

I clearly qualified my statement in the post itself, and noted that this plot is not in any way a satisfactory reason to engage in any sort of armed conflict with Iran.

However, the point of my post was to note my (correct) observation that many people use such incidents that involve culpability on our side to issue carte blanche towards Iran- or fill in any other foreign government- for their actions, and to escape any sort of responsibility for the vile things they get away with. We all too often give them the victim card, for actions that we would (rightly) crucify our government for even thinking about.

Please also note that I did not claim that this was an attitude promoted by all or even a majority of posters or liberals and general. But it is a portion, and it's a noticeable portion. That in and of itself is problematic.

While not synonymous with this "plot" story, this is an ongoing issue that needs to be discussed.

[LittleBlue]

26. Sorry, I thought when you said "these" apologetics

you meant the ones in this thread.

:hug:

[Worship Money]

34. No problem, friend

I should have been a bit more clear in my post.

[rhett o rick]

27. I will be clear. I dont want my government lying to me. Whether or not Iran is evil is another

issue.

[truedelphi]

33. How did Florida get into the discussion?

Few others on this board noted that the children of Katrina who got evacuated to the state of Florida were rounded up by state marshalls and taken away from the school and the teachers who were helping them settle in. During the same time period as when Saudi Arabia kept the ability of children to be sex workers legal.

And Florida is not responsible for the heroin as much as the cocaine.

But if it takes an all out war on Florida to change things there - I may be persuaded...

[provis99]

39. ah, redneck logic.

"Who cares if he didn't do it? He musta dun sumtin, so punish him anyways!"

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well....

Amid speculation over whether Israel is gearing up for a strike on Iran's nuclear program, the political and diplomatic consequences for the Obama administration cannot be overstated. Former military and civilian officials who have studied the potential fallout of an attack on Iran warn of a global backlash that goes beyond warfare. The economy, America's image, the prospect of regime change ... all are up in the air.
<>
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., expressed concern about what he called the "headlong rush" to talk about military options, saying "the people who are advocating that underestimate the blowback from that action."

But it's not off the Israelis' minds, nor the Obama administration's.

Dan Gillerman, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, told Fox News that Israel can act alone and that it's time for Obama to set an ultimatum, as well: Come clean, or "We will clean you out."

"Iran must realize that the military option is on the table -- that they're playing with fire," Gillerman said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/20/obama-faces-middle-east-train-wreck-iran-builds-nuclear-program/#ixzz1anKgDdOg


Article dated AUGUST 20, 2010


Were there speculative threads about what Obama "might" do then here at DU?

Of course there were. :shrug:

[LittleBlue]

23. I don't really understand the connection here

We're talking about using entrapment against a US citizen to produce a casus belli for war.

This isn't just about war, it's about lying to the American people by perverting the US justice system.

To me, aside from just the war aspect, that would be a serious offense.

[FrenchieCat]

38. I'm talking abou the fact that you would want to believe that Obama is capable of going to war

with Iran as a first resort to anything, and on top of it,
based on what you have now decided is a lie.

My point is that the same "Hair on fire" folks were speculating the
same thing about Pres. Obama an entire year ago.

The difference Now, is that you have decided to speculate that the government not only
would take us to war, but that they are also lying.

So you are upping the ante in reference to the mount of speculations
you are more than willing to heap onto this administration....

but my question to you is what evidence do you have that the administration is lying?
Because you read it somewhere from someone who doesn't really have evidence either?

See, I think you are stoking much more smoke than this administration is doing.
I think what you are doing is just as dangerous.....because you have allowed yourself,
without evidence, to concluded a bunch of shit. Is that supposed to be a liberal trait,
cause I don't think so.

[totodeinhere]

36. Considering the high stakes that are involved here, it just amazes me that

anybody in their right mind would even remotely contemplate turning our foreign policy over to the likes of Rick Perry or Herman Cain. Thank God we have a man with calm and prudent judgment in the White House.

[rug]

25. I'm sure he'd have a good reason.

And we'd see endless links to those good reasons.

[Maven]

28. If Obama lied to start a war with Iran

I would support his impeachment.

The same way I did with shrub.

[Lebam in LA]

30. No

[Scuba]

31. Not until he had assured me that every other possibility had been explored...

... to it's fullest extent. And then probably not.

[FiveGoodMen]

32. OH. MOTHER. FUCKING. HELL. NO!

I think there's a significant chance that he will do just that.

No, no, no I won't support him.

[walerosco]

42. What kind of war are we talking about?

Boots on the ground or Drone or war with proxies?

I will no longer support him if he puts boots on the ground in any country apart from the ones laready started by Shrub. I hate drone wars but I can live with it

[Hydra]

43. I got a definite "wag the dog" feeling the other day

Of course, I ran has always been on the neocon list of things to do, so it's just a matter of time.

[Autumn]

44. Fuck no. I can never support something like that

I don't care who does it.

[SkyDaddy7]

45. I guess anything Iran does is suppose to...

be allowed so that he will not be accused of "wagging the dog"? Obama is not going to start another war but he is the POTUS & has a job to do...Even if that job is letting the American people & the world know what Iran is doing.

The Iranian plot is bogus & Osama Bin Laden is alive!! :sarcasm:

[eridani]

48. What Iran is "doing" is being an independent country with a sizeable population

--which is located in the Middle East and not yet under the US military boot.

[stevenleser]

50. We're not going to war and dont have a reason to. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand... they have

a beef with Iran.

But we are not going to war with Iran.

[woo me with science]

55. And our corporate neocon government may be fomenting that beef.

This plot stinks to high heaven.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. For fuck's sake, he asked the AG to issue an opinion on whether or not it's an act of war

If Obama wanted to wag the dog, the bombs would be falling on Iran as we speak.

[AtomicKitten]

64. +1

[boppers]

53. Watch less TV.

The guardian paints this as a grifter offering to act as a middleman for a hit.

What's so shocking about that? Nothing, really, unless it also has talking heads, and flashy graphics, and hyperventilating conspiracy theories.

[Carolina]

56. NO!

[BlueIris]

58. I think it's kind of obvious that's what's going on, and I think anyone supporting invading Iran

is CRAZY. Not to mention self-destructive. He'd have to live in that post-nuclear holocaust, too.

[lunatica]

60. I don't support wars.

It's part of being a committed pacifist without the bleeding heart.

[MH1]

62. Ya know, I remember 'wag the dog' from the Clinton days.

It was the republicans claiming Clinton was just trying to change the subject from Lewinsky; Osama who? Nothing to see here, move along ...

How'd did that one work out, I wonder ....

[jefferson_dem]

74. The right wing liars are pulling the same shit with Obama.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=96078301

Sad to see some on DU doing their bidding.

[jefferson_dem]

65. Unrec.

Repug talking points bore me. :thumbsdown:

[LittleBlue]

71. Democrats can scrutinize our own leader and not be insecure

Or so I thought.

Let me ask you one question: If Bush did this, would we be wrong in scrutinizing it?

[jefferson_dem]

72. Scrutiny is fine.

On the other hand, trumped up speculation based on flimsy (at best) evidence that President Obama sought to lead us into war with Iran under false pretenses

...except the fact that we're not actually at war with Iran...

is the sort of outrageous bullshittery I expect from right wing propagandists ... not "Democrats".

FACT: Obama is not Bush, regardless of your best efforts to pretend it's so.

[and-justice-for-all]

66. FUCK NO...nt

[yellowcanine]

67. When you have to use two "ifs" and one "and that" your question does not deserve an answer.

This is the ultimate in hypothetical bs and a waste of everyone's time. Those are my thoughts.

[orpupilofnature57]

70. He would be what I was afraid he would become ,an agent for NWO .

[jefferson_dem]

73. They. Surround. Us.

:scared: :tinfoilhat: :scared:

[hatrack]

75. No. Fucking. Way.

If such, sand-pounding would be in order, and not by me.