Make HuffPost Your HomePage
Get Email Alerts
Iran and the Imminent Threat Fallacy
Reflecting on his now infamous appearance before the UN Security Council in 2003, former Secretary of State Colin Powell has referred to his act of WMD drumbeating at the time as a "blot" on his long record of government service. "I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now," laments the former cabinet member. Given the benefit of hindsight, we now know that Powell's charges against Saddam Hussein were spurious at best, and downright deceitful at their very worst. While holding no vested interest in exonerating the general, I do think it's worthwhile for us to examine the full context of Powell's efforts to convince the global community of immediate bodily harm.
Critics likely scoff today when Iraq's alleged "yellow cake" and mobile bio-weapons labs come up in conversation, but the rush to create an imminent Iraqi threat has less to do with incompetent intelligence gathering, and much more to do with the administration's need to mobilize the country behind a war they had already decided on starting.
Saddam Hussein's regime was a blight on the entire Middle East. He oppressed and persecuted his own people, while instigating two wars that led to regional instability and rampant counter-proliferation. He financed Palestinian terrorism, and repeatedly threatened the security of our Israeli allies. If ever there was a war to be had on terrorism, there had to be a reckoning of sorts with Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime in order for us to conduct it. However, while these may have seemed like reasonable concerns to a few policy wonks and regional experts, such tangential threats and activities would be of much lesser concern to the average American citizen. Thus, the Bush administration was left with the task of convincing the American people -- along with the broader global community -- that deposing Hussein was essential for America's own domestic security.
Some might look back on this deception as a "neoconservative" ploy, but nothing could be further from the truth. An honest, dyed-in-the-wool neoconservative would never need to make a case like the one made by Powell. Their probable argument would rely more on how preemptive engineering would yield more fruitful, albeit less apparent, results for American security down the road. While arguably sharing the same whimsical outlook held by neoconservatives, the Bush administration instead went about convincing the American public that their own personal security was at risk as long as Saddam Hussein was allowed to rule over Iraq. Rather than outlining the same kind of foreign policy prescription as seen in the so-called Bush Doctrine, the administration instead appealed to an American populism that can be galvanized when directly threatened by a foreign adversary. Fermenting regional instability wasn't going to cut it; WMDs became a necessary component to the war narrative.
This narrative -- or rather, exploitation -- of American security dominates foreign policy discourse to this day. As a result, we get this week's kerfuffle over the imminent (or not so imminent) threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Referring to Iran's capabilities as "tiny," Senator Barack Obama shook the proverbial beehive that passes as foreign policy dialogue in this country today. As a result, we get rather puerile debates over the size of Iran's economy, or whether or not they've acted in a fashion similar to that of the Soviets or the Nazis. Not only does this litmus blur the legitimately horrible actions of these aforementioned regimes, but it makes dealing with lesser threats far more difficult.
The reality is that Iran has been contributing to regional instability in the Middle East for over 25 years. Attempted coups, assassination plots and terrorist finance are just the tip of an unstable iceberg that is revolutionary Iran. The Islamic republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini extended what likely would've been a two year border incursion with Iraq into a nearly decade's long war of attrition against what he viewed to be the Arab apostates in the region. The plan, from the Supreme Leader's perspective, wasn't merely to repel the Iraqis, but to also march on Lebanon and Jerusalem "through" Iraq (also known as "Operation Ramadan"). The girth of the regime's economy has never prevented it from exporting their revolution all over the Middle East, nor has it given solace to our allies having to deal with Iran's surrogates on the frontlines.
And it would be a mistake to assume that Iran has become any more rational today than they were twenty years ago. Indeed, the fact that they have exhibited pockets of rational behavior only makes dealing with the republic all the more difficult. Bloated and bureaucratized, Iran suffers more from diplomatic confusion than it does extremism. However, explaining such nuances to the American public (for example, the difference between their president and their various councils, the role of the IRGC and the appellate Supreme Leader, etc.) requires a more grownup conversation about foreign policy. It requires explaining the importance of vital interests overseas, and how the Iranians can threaten those interests if not brought to the negotiating table. It means distinguishing an imminent threat from a regional one, and requires explaining why it's necessary to deal with both rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.
To this point, Senator Obama has done just that. By exposing the "culture of fear" propagated by post-9/11 Republicans, Obama is attempting to talk to the American public as if they were adults, rather than children concerned only for their immediate sphere of safety. This week's "tiny" slip only panders to a foreign policy dynamic that Democrats have never been very good at. It makes the conversation about range, rather than importance.
Iran is not Hitler's Germany, nor is it Stalin's Soviet Union. It is, however, a serious threat to America's regional interests. Explaining the difference between the two will be important if Democrats hope to act globally and snap the imminent threat fallacy that has been promulgated by the Republican Party since the 9/11 attacks.
Kevin Sullivan is an associate editor for RealClearPolitics. He blogs regularly at Independent Liberal.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Timeout, folks. Let's refocus a bit. If the US and the rest of the world want to prevent Iran or any other Mideast nation from developing nuclear weapons, we need to arrange for our client Israel to forego its numerous, illegally developed nukes as part of a regional security treaty.
And if we want to be thorough, we need to require israel to agree to immediate inspections similar to those imposed on Iran - - to guarantee that it's not aiming its nuclear weapons at any European powers it might think needs a little pressure to keep backing its policies. Far-fetched? I think not. The world is entitled to answers here.
Absolutely! You know, the only logical endgame here is a nuclear weapons -free zone in the Middle East...for starters, so to speak!
Kevin, your analysis is a good start, but you've left out the most important part of the story: Iran's youth. We are seeing something of a secular revolution in the United States as our own young people have become engaged in the political process in unprecidented numbers. Iranian youth were responsible for the 1979 revolution in Iran, but the youth are overwhelmingly in favor of the West today. They are being oppressed brutally in Iran for any expression of western culture, but unlike the United States, the vast majority of the population in Iran is less than 25 years old, making these youth both the majority of the population and born after the revolution.
Let me lay those facts out again
1. Vast majority younger than 25
2. Favor Western culture
3. Brutally oppressed by the police and government
4. Born after the Iranian revolution
What this all boils down to is an impending re-revolution by people in favor of Western cultural expression. Unless we bomb them, of course, in which the same dynamics that make us rally around the flag will operate in Iran to rally the youth against us.
I say give it a bit more time to work itself out without our interference...
All the more reason to bomb them... if they are friendly, they can't be used as boogeymen and the weapons dealers lose profit. Without the profit motive for the weapons dealers, the politicians will find themselves losing out on some of their bribes... 'scuse me... campaign contributions.
Mr. Sullivan has given a fairly reasoned and comprehensive summation of the problems with our nations discourse on Iraq and Iran, but he doesn't seem to come to any conclusion.
In the last 20 years, Iran has invaded no other country, even though Saddam Hussein killed half a million Iranians. During that same time, the United States has sent troops to invade and/or launched air strikes against Somalia, Pakistan, Haiti, Liberia, Iraq, Colombia, the Philippines, Yemen, Afghanistan, Macedonia, Yemen again, Yugoslavia, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Sudan, Albania, Liberia, Zaire, Haiti again, Bosnia, Yugoslavia again, Somalia again, Kuwait, Iraq yet again, Liberia again, Panama, the Virgin Islands, Libya, Iran, Grenada, Lebanon, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Libya again and Iran again.
Which nation do you think the world really sees as a threat?
Would you like to also describe the motivations behind those attacks? The COMPLETE picture would be more, er, educational, wouldn't it, PROFESSOR?
Sorry, I'm not giving you a free history seminar.
Do your homework.
Are the real motivations simply those that have been asserted by those who launched the illegal and preemptive wars? No imperial power or terrorist fails to dress up its real motivations as something else. The Nazis staged a phony attack on a German radio station on the German-Polish on Aug 30, 1939 border to "justify" a planned, preemptive and illegal attack (for which 11 Nazis were sentenced to be hanged at Nuremberg) on September 1, 1939. Or we can go to the "Pentagon Papers" that gave internally the real motivations for the undeclared Vietnam War (also founded on lies and contrived pretexts and motivations) which were tin,tungsten, rice, oil, sageing area against China, control of the Indonesian oil shelf etc--motivations that had nothing to do with the official and public ones.
Many nations and peoples, all over the world, with some solid evidence and reasoning, regard the U.S. as the No 1 source and sponsor of state-sponsored terrorism.
Yes, Iran is a huge scary nasty threat to our very existence. But we can take them out with 3 days of air strikes. Somehow they're a grave threat and a pushover at the same time.
Admiral Fallon (the guy who was supposed to be the voice of reason) talking about Iran -
"Get serious," the admiral says. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."
http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon
Then consider this:
How can the left say there are WMD in Iraq because we sold it to them, but, at the same time, complain that none were found?
Before we go any further, I flew B-52s in Desert Storm and then did three tours of Operation Northern Watch in KC-135s, the last one as operations officer for the entire KC-135 operation in 2002.
Now, do you REALLY want to lecture me about Iraqi military capabilities?
The "we sold it to them" line is misleading. We did give Iraq some degree of support during the Iran-Iraq war. We sold them "dual use" chemicals that were ostensibly for civilian purposes but we knew could also be used in a chemical weapons program.
More importantly, we gave the Iraqis detailed intelligence on Iranian troop movements and at one point even provided standoff jamming of Iranian air defense radars. Not to mention waging an undeclared naval war with Iran during the 1980s (see USS Vincennes).
Keep in mind that Saddam was playing a very dangerous game. He had to look scary enough to keep the Iranians deterred but not so scary that we would take him out. It obviously didn't work.
What about all the innocent lives you take out in the process. The Iranian people are good people, they just don't have the leadership to overthrough the leadership of the country as it is right now. The Iranian people, are just like the Iraqi people, they also want a democracy. In Iran, they are affraid of the leadership, their affraid they will be beheaded if caught. In Iraq they just have a weak government that needs some kehonees.
Actually, we are the hugh scary nasty threat, not only to Iran, but to the entire world. It's been our ace in the hole for decades, our military might, our bully diplomacy. And check out our abysmal and shameful history with Iran.
History holds your answers!!!!!!
What would you do to protect your country???
If you were the head of the Iranian Government and your history told you the USA has installed the Shaq of Iran, Sadam in Iraq, and so many other dictators around the world.
What was DADDY BUSH thinking when he was the head if the C I A all those years???
Even supporting Ossam Ben Ladin with training, weapons, and logistics against Russia in Afgainstan.
Now we are in AFGANISTAN!!!!!!!
Did he not realize all this crap of his would come back on the American People one day??
Trying to control the whole world was stupid!!!!!!! and still is!!!!!!!!
No he had no Idea, No one did. Not even the Iraq's or Iran had any Idea what would take place 10 years down the road. Just like we Don't know what will happen in the next 10 years. so your point is mute.
"Iran is not Hitler's Germany, nor is it Stalin's Soviet Union. It is, however, a serious threat to America's regional interests."
America is not Hitler's Germany, nor is it Stalin's Soviet Union. It is, however, a serious threat to Iran's national freedom and interests.
Starting from the formation of the Anglo Persion Oil Company (now BP) in 1908 and the British occupation, through the election of a democratic Iranian government after WW II and through the overthrow of that government by the US and UK and installation of the Shah, to the overthrow of the Shah by the Iranians, Iran has had an unpleasant relationship with the UK and the US and the West in general.
Their fear of our interventionist and exploitive designs is well based in experience. Our fear of their influence and actions is just a cover for our designs.
If senate and the Congress allow bush and cheney to start bombing innocent iranians, they should all be thrown in jail.
Yes, why is congress so quiet about this. I know Hillary consented to the attack on Iran because
she signed the Kyl/Lieberman Act. But we should all petition congress and get our points across.
And when their re-election time comes up in 2012 we vote them all out. We have to send a message!
I would really like for someone to lay out the exact threats to the US from Iran. I can't think of any and I don't think anyone can make a credible list.
As far as I can determine, the only reason for US animosity toward Iran is that manufactured by the neocons and AIPAC.
The US needs a major change in our conduct of foreign policy.
They threaten "our" oil.
We threaten our own future by failing to aggressively plan and progress toward a less fossil fuel dependent way of life.
Perhaps one day MSM will have enough integrity to produce an article like this. They didn't do anything to warn us about the fallacy of Iraq war, didn't warn us of the dooming housing bubble, and are not going to say anything to educate the public against a war with Iran.
Yes we need a change, and that's with our corrupt media.
Do you think the public wants to hear it? I ran across an obscure article on the impending housing market meltdown about five months before it hit MSM, and I passed the news along. The thanks I got for that little service was to be branded a fear monger by people who couldn't connect the dots themselves and didn't want to hear it.
Reality is a biatch that no one, it seems, wants to know personally.
According to Wikipedia Israel has 75 - 200 Nuclear Bombs and Iran has ZERO. Now, what again is the big threat Iran poses ? What are they going to do, throw sand from a Camel ? There are 2 reasons and 2 reasons only the NeoCons are interested in Iran : 1. The Caspian Sea Oil pipeline 2. Iran is 1 of only 7 Nations that don't have a Central Bank . There is nothing else going on. America has 5,000 + Nukes and the most powerful Military in the World . However , people are being driven from their homes. America, with over 5,000 Nuclear Weapons needs no further defense. The POINT of building Nuclear Weapons was to END War. Israel with 200 Nuclear Weapons can defend itself. America DOES need the Billions being spent on the Middle East spent in places the Government has forgotten, places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, Mississippi, New Jersey, Georgia , Arizona, Colorado, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Add to that that the USA and Britain conspired to overthrow the elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. Our Puppet Shah was installed and led directly to the Islamic Iran we have today!
Heck of a Job USA!
We seem to have a habit of creating these mad dogs then acting surprised when they bite us in the ass! Iran isn't much of a dog, though... it's a chihuahua to Israel's doberman.
I have one very serious question for everyone:
Does Senator Obama have the necessary foreign policy and national security credentials to say - forcefully, in public, and in no uncertain terms - that the military option in Iran is OFF THE TABLE!
If not, then he needs to select as his running mate, someone who does and who has already made that statement...and, I'm not talking about Governor Richardson!
It would be extraordinarily short-sighted for the president to ever tell another nation an option is completely off the table. A carrot only works when a stick is a viable option. It need not be the first option or even the third, but to tell Iran utilization of our military was off the table would serve no purpose other than to embolden the Iranians.
When did being a pacifist become a requirement for membership in the Democratic Party? When did the inability to understand there are times when use of the military is the best option become a requirement for membership in the Democratic Party? I have been a Democrat since my first vote, for George McGovern. I have never thought it was a sin or a crime to believe in the idea the security of this nation was of the utmost importance.
HERE IS THE RIGHT WEBSITE, THE ONE I GAVE BEFORE WAS WRONG. THIS NE SHOULD WORK.
THE ARTICLE BY THE WASHINGTON POST, IS A GREAT ARTICLE ABOUT OBAMA'S POLITICAL EXPERIENCE. IT IS A MUST READ
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
No one said anything about taking the option off the table, but it's one thing to leave an option to use force on the table and it's another to wave it in your opponents face using thinly veiled threats as the Bush Administration has done.
Teddy Roosevelt said to speak softly and carry a big stick, not speak belligerently when the whole world knows your stick is all but broken.
As long as our policy towards Iran is regime change (and it is) they have no incentive to talk to us. They're not going to negotiate themselves out of existence.
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LEARN ABOUT OBAMA, READ THIS NEWS STORY BY THE WASHINGTON POST.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR20080I0303303.html?referrer=digg
dead link
No way, unless he gets daily Intelligence feeds, he cannot make such claims without looking like a damn fool. I like his current stance. Willing to talk but not willing to yield American interests to the enemy.
THE WASHINGTONPOST WROTE A GREAT ARTICLE ON JANUARY 4, 2008, ABOUT OBAMA'S EXPERIENCE.
YOU CAN FIND IT BY GOOGLING THE TITLE: "JUDGE HIM BY HIS LAWS"
Here are the first few paragraphs (Please GOOGLE AND READ the rest of the article, it's worth it !)
People who complain that Barack Obama lacks experience must be unaware of his legislative achievements. One reason these accomplishments are unfamiliar is that the media have not devoted enough attention to Obama's bills and the effort required to pass them, ignoring impressive, hard evidence of his character and ability.
Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. (Another factor is reporters' fascination with the horse race at the expense of substance...)
I am a rarity among Washington journalists in that I have served in a state legislature. I know from my time in the West Virginia legislature that the challenges faced by reform-minded state representatives are no less, if indeed not more, formidable than those encountered in Congress. For me, at least, trying to deal with those challenges involved as much drama as any election. And the "heart and soul" bill, the one for which a legislator gives everything he or she has to get passed, has long told me more than anything else about a person's character and ability
Thanks for the heads up! This was informative.
It doesn't take "experienc" in Iran's case to know that the military option is off the table, all it takes is educating oneself about Iran. Senator Obama is indeed educated in that regard. But to put your mind at ease, he also has heavy-weight foreign policy advisors, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Clarke, and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig.
Krikit,
Of course, it doesn't take experience to know that the military option in Iran is most decidedly off the table. But, that was not my point. I'm saying that it will not be enough for Senator Obama to know that the military option, with respect to Iran at this stage of the game and for more reasons than one, is out of commission. He needs to be able to verbalize that in a public and forceful way if he expects to win the general...in my not so humble opinion. I don't believe he has the creds to do that...and, to be fair, not many do. I would dare say that none of the experts you mention would have the political courage to do it, either.
And, it will not be enough to have the heavyweight advisors - most of whom have not demonstrated that they know how to end the civil war in Iraq, by the way - because these advisors will not help get him elected. It will take a far cry more than an illustrious list of foreign policy and national security experts to put my mind at ease.
It is for this reason, and others, that I have resorted to advocating an Obama/Biden ticket - assuming that Senator Biden would also have full reign over the Iraq file (regardless of what the incoming SOS would have to say about it!!) to implement his strategy to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement in Iraq.
I wonder who is to take the fall for these war crimes? Would Bush, Rove, Rice Cheny try to place the blame on Powell? Who took the fall for Arms for hostages?
I would say Don Rummy would be the place to start.
Saddam Hussein did not just fall out of the sky and he did not become a thug and dictator without a lot of help and support. http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html
Why is it that so many people, having been lied to over and over, and into preemptive and aggressive wars founded on lies, contrived and engineered pretexts, and cherry-picked intelligence, the kind that got 11 Nazis sentenced to hang at Nuremberg, are prepared to believe the liars about anything--especially what other oil-rich nations really intend? See "Going to War: How Misinformation, Disinformation and Arrogance Led America Into Iraq" by Russ Hoyle. See also, "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths go to Work" by Paul Babiak and Robert Hare.
Why is it that the Iranian claims of no intention for nuclear weapons, and their Fatwa that all nuclear weapons, that indiscriminately slaughter millions of innocents, are anti-Islamic per se, are summarily dismissed, and, by those who have nothing to say about Israel's proven nuclear weapons or indeed themselves having nuclear weapons and actually having used them?
What gives ANY nation the right to hold and use weapons that can literally obliterate the whole planet?
My question is how can anyone believe anything said by the Iranian government?
Israel is thought to have nukes, but your contention that it is proven is false.
The US used nukes to end World War II to avoid an estimated million or more casualties. Given the thinking of the Japanese military the idea of surrender was not going to be an option and the government of our nation decided to use the most fearsome weapon available in order to save American and Japanese lives.
In answer to your last question, given the fact that so many other nations have nukes makes it irresponsible for the US to give ours up. Just as it would be foolish and almost suicidal for Israel to give up nukes, if they have them.
I liked this post, although I would add that Iran poses a threat to not just to U.S. regional interests, but to European interests and those of the Sunni regimes as well. They are a threat to regional stability by supporting terrorism and by pursuing both long range missile technology and enrichment technology (wanting all phases of the nuclear fuel cycle, which makes no sense for them economically). Even French intelligence believes that Iran will move towards nuclear weapons. The Saudis have already hinted that a nuclear Iran may force them to move in a nuclear direction as well.
But there are elements in the national security apparatus that are more nationalistic than Islamic, and wish to reach some modus vivendi with the U.S. The policy of containment of Iraq has failed for two decades - it is time to try to negotiate.
Merkel and Sarkozy were put in power by the CIA. No West German would have ever voted for
an East German and France voted for the female though the CIA spends millions of dollars to
get involved in elections the world over. So France is our ally now, before we called even
French Fries Freedom Fries.
Senator Obama has indicated a willingness to establish a dialogue with Iran and others in order to initiate productive diplomacy as opposed to the Cheney-Bush methods of isolation, provokation, "preemptive" attack, and forcible regime change. It would seem to be sensible to find out what these folks want, and to tell them what we want BEFORE concocting a detailed plan for international diplomacy or warfare.
The present administration has demonstrated a profound ignorance in all areas of foreign policy, but it never impaired their ability to have all the "answers" ready and invasion plans in hand. McCain appears to be following suit, displaying his lack of understanding with his never-ending stream of "gaffes". How many "gaffes" does it take before we can safely conclude he doesn't know what he's talking about?
People like McCain and Clinton who have pat answers, posturing, fixed ideas, failed policy reruns, and so on to offer as a substitute for true diplomacy are evidently unwilling to invest any effort into first understanding the situation. They are not attempting to find the best solution for the most people worldwide, as befits a world leader, only to implement the solution which their sponsors believe to be the most profitable for themselves, which represents a much smaller slice of humanity.
We've already experienced this brand of foreign policy, and most people worldwide don't like it. Maybe it's time to try something different.
The Clinton administration passionately sought rapprochement. Believing that the Iranian "moderates" had grown more powerful with the election of President Mohammed Khatami, the president and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright made public amends for real and imagined American sins against the Islamic Republic, and made a series of public and secret gestures calculated to show that the U.S. bore no ill will toward the mullahs.
Iran was secretly authorized to ship weapons into Bosnia in defiance of a United Nations embargo that was formally endorsed by the Clinton administration. Russia was secretly permitted to sell weapons and supply Iran's budding nuclear program, in violation of a law coauthored by Vice President Al Gore in his Senate years. Visas were issued to Iranian wrestlers and scholars, and some Iranian funds were unblocked.
This was all evidence of the American belief that an agreement could be reached. The Iranians exploited the opportunity, provided by our invitation to ship arms to the Muslims in the Balkans, by supporting a terror network in Bosnia. Mohammed Atta trained in Bosnia, from there he went to Hamburg, and thence to the U.S. Two other 9/11 terrorists -- Ramzi Binalshibh, and Said Bahaji -- were recruited into al Qaeda in Bosnian camps. We ignored the Iranian actions.
One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist". The United States has certainly sponsored a multitude of terror networks, to use your label. Like Reagan's insurgents and right-wing death-squads in Central America, or the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan which produced Osama bin Laden. Sponsoring illegal militias in other people's countries looks like a pretty bad idea, an activity likely to produce unexpected, undesireable results.
But that does not suffice as an argument to abandon diplomacy in favor of bullying or unilateral attack. In fact, it suggests that Cheney-Bush's sponsoring of insurgents and dirty tricksters inside Iran today is likely to produce similarly unpleasant blowback at some time in the near future, and we'd be better off to stop at once.
The US is not going to scare or threaten Iran into submission, so the only conceivable result for an agenda of escalating threats is war. "Do as we say or else" as a foreign policy doesn't offer any alternatives. Actual international diplomacy is a long-term strategy and not everything will go right. It still offers better prospects for peace and prosperity for more people than economic sanctions which punish the populace, threats of aggression which inspire and enable our adversaries, violence against innocent civilians and non-combatants, and military actions which cost untold lives, limbs, hearts, minds, and treasure.
I applaud you, for thinking with intelligence. See? we're not all, blue-collar-white dummies. No. I can tell you and everybody here, that the majority of Americans are thinking how we would love to be liked and respected in the world again. Not looking over our shoulder all of the time, so to speak. Or, maybe in actuality.
I could tell you a story of when I was a broker and salesperson in the seafood industry. The best absolute, best quality shrimp after our own domestic shrimp, was sought after and like "gold" to us seafood people. Guess. That high quality shrimp was from Venezuela. But, somehow we don't talk to people in South America anymore. Except of course, Bush's fav, Mexico.
Now, you probably won't believe this, but, now -- nearly all of the shrimp sold here in the US is coming from China. And the safety regs and FDA are not doing much inspections for freshness purity and health regulations. A piece of the "Washington Post" article by Bill Lambrecht, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Inspectors checking Chinese seafood arriving at U.S. ports in March made some unsettling discoveries: fish infected with salmonella in Baltimore and Seattle and shrimp with banned veterinary drugs in Florida.
Loading comments…
Naked tweeting: the next frontier in staged celebrity...
HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY! The American flag has been painted on bathing...
***SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO OF PALIN'S RESIGNATION SPEECH...
I wish Hunter S. Thompson had lived to see this. As Hunter said, "When the going gets weird, the...
I'm starting to believe that's a destination; the next step in life once you get...
Anyone who is in any way surprised by Sarah Palin's announcement today that she will...
Bar Refaeli stars in a new black and white video floating around the internet. Set to music and with...
Reporters are beginning to piece together an explanation for Sarah Palin's...
Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis is one tough cookie. Last week...
Fox News' Shepard Smith was having some trouble with a...
The U.S. economy lost 467,000 jobs in June as the...
I'm liveblogging the latest Iran election fallout. Email me with any news or thoughts, or follow me...
WASHINGTON — Now it can be told: President Obama says one of the best-kept secrets at the...
When Michelle Obama created an organic vegetable garden on...
From The Post Chronicle: Cankle Awareness Month is in July - Forget...
Posted May 21, 2008 | 06:03 PM (EST)