Fox Attacks: Iran
"Fox Attacks: Iran" is a bold effort to provide Americans with a different view of our policy toward Iran than the one Fox News keeps pushing on us. While Fox beats the drums for war, Robert Greenwald has produced documentary evidence that unmasks the 'coverage' for what it is: propaganda to get Americans ready for a Bush administration attack on yet another Middle Eastern nation. Robert has done something remarkable. He has used his extraordinary media skills to make a short video - only three minutes - to educate the American people, using the Internet as a way to connect us.
The issue here is pretty simple. The war in Iraq, which Bush misled us into, has been a disaster. It caused us, and the Iraqi people, a great deal of suffering: more than 3,700 American casualties, more than 70,000 Iraqi casualties, 2 million Iraqis displaced within Iraq by violence fear, and another 2 million Iraqis living as refugees in Syria and Jordan. It has cost our nation a great deal of money, money which could have been better used in educating our children, providing health care to every American, rebuilding our bridges and infrastructure, and helping us move toward a new green economy.
And, ironically, it has made us less safe from the very serious problem of international terrorism.
Osama bin Laden is alive and well and, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, Al Quada is growing stronger throughout the world.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban is reemerging as a powerful adversary, using terrorist skills they learned in Iraq, and the situation there is becoming more difficult. One of the reasons for the reemergence of the Taliban is, in my view, that in order to fight the war in Iraq, the Bush administration has diverted military, intelligence and reconstruction resources away from Afghanistan.
In the midst of all this, the United States, because of Bush's actions, is held in lower regard by the international community than at any time in the modern history of our country.
And, now, there are increasing rumblings that Bush and Cheney are thinking of waging an attack on Iran. They are considering the possibility of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, and are also considering the possibility of cross-border raids into Iraqi territory.
I believe that the American people understand that with all our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with our active duty military and National Guard significantly over-extended, the last thing in the world that we want is a war in Iran. That is why I introduced S. Con Res. 13 - which would express the sense of Congress that the president should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.
A war with Iran, combined with what's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, would be an horrendous disaster. Here's what Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor, wrote recently: "An attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs."
A major military action against Iraq would almost certainly unleash a lengthy war with the Muslim world which would significantly increase the threat of attacks against the U.S. and our allies, as well as compound difficulties for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It would also strengthen President Ahmadinejad's position in Iran against the moderates there.
It would further isolate us with regard to world affairs.
It would likely dramatically increase the cost of oil, and throw the world economy into a recession.
And, if President Bush embarks on military action against Iran without consulting with Congress, it is likely to create a constitutional crisis in the United States.
Nonetheless, Fox News continues to beat the drums for war, war, war, against Iran.
Every American should watch Robert Greenwald's short video, for it shows us that the current Fox drumbeat for war is almost exactly the same as what Fox did, and most of the American media did, in the days before we invaded Iraq.
We know that most of what we were told then in that very loud and determined campaign about the dangers of Iraq turned out to be false. We need to be very, very careful that we don't follow another loud and determined campaign into another disastrous war.
Loading comments…
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
What would "The Party" do without Fox news?
Attaboy, Bernie! However, this statement.
"I believe that the American people understand that with all our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with our active duty military and National Guard significantly over-extended, the last thing in the world that we want is a war in Iran..."
...doesn't even address the real reason why we shouldn't attack Iran.
IT WOULD BE WRONG.
Set aside the latest line of tumbling dominoes, look past the avaricious eyes of this administration, and you'll see that - despite the ridiculous exercise and wasted resources in Iraq - Iran is not the biggest threat we face. Now, some may see the greatest threat in Washington, DC, but I choose to believe that it exists along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why would we go into Iran instead of Bin Ladin's happy day camp? Gosh, not oil...no, that couldn't be, I can't be that cynical, can I?
Of course I can.
it isn't cynicism. it is reality. and the biggest threat is in DC. it is nearly everyone in DC too. propaganda tanks, a feckless congress and caligula and his minions in the white house. oh and those blackwater bases that are starting to sprout throughout the country are pretty threatening too.
Saudi Arabia spend billions of dollars on military equipment and aircraft over the past 30 years.
Saudi Arabia spend billions on a welfare state for its largely unskilled population.
Saudi Arabia spend billions on its useless and profligate royal family.
Saudi Arabia almost went bankrupt in the 1990s when world oil prices dropped
No money means no welfare state and no internal security
No money means no "fat" contratcs with the US for military "toys.
No money ...there's always monty for the royal family.
Solution..
Price of oil up...Saudi Arabia is flush with cash.
Happy royals..ha
Oil prices up ...turn Dubai into a tax haven for miltinationals and a paradise for corporate scumbags (Cheney)
Oil Prices level? Oh my God. Party over
No...war with Iran... oil prices up, royals happy, contract with muiltinati
Senator Sanders:
You have been working hard throughout your political career to make life better for people like me. Thank you sir. And God bless you.
As for president Clown Shoes - he will do whatever he wants to do. The law does not apply to him and he has no political opposition. Neither does he have any internal restraints. No morals, no compassion, no judgment.
There is no Fox News. There is only Rupert Murdoch's opinion blasted over Faux News. Rupert Murderdoch is America's no 1 enemy.
Every one of us reading this post and making comments already knows perfectly well that attacking Iran is a done deal. Fox news isn't really trying to sell us on it because those of us with minds don't watch Fox news. I believe the strategy this time around (since nothing Bush says can be taken at face value any longer) is to completely circumvent the people. I don't think our government cares any longer whether we're on board or not. I think this entire Democratic majority charade was just to test the water - to see just how hard of a slap in the face we the people were willing to take. Why else have the Dems go out of their way to do exactly the opposite of what they were elected to do? And I didn't see a single newly elected Democrat being recalled. So the ploy worked. The government now knows the sad, inescapable truth: the American people are just one great big overstuffed paper tiger. It's that simple.
I should have said "invading Iraq" whwn this bloodbath started, but just give them a little time.
Members of the Fourth Estate, are you listening? The fawning residents of the White House Press corps can get a head start if they want to carry the Admistration's water for another illegal and unnecessary war.
The Washington Post ran about a thousand articles for invading Iran when this bloodbath started. Dissenting aarticles and opinions got Page 18 or no print at all and there were precious few of them.
The pen really is mightier than the sword. You can kill many more people with one as opposed to conventional weapons.
What insanity! If we attack Iran be prepared for some serious backlash. How about suicide bombers in our shopping malls, in our football stadiums, in our universities. I cannot believe for the life of me that it is even contemplated. We are over there....g
And, Iran has 3 times the land mass of Iraq and several times the population of Iraq.
Peace! GWB - WPE - WCE
Mark
"WCE" - "war criminal extraordinaire"
Can you say tactical nuclear strike? This is what's on the table folks. At least one nuke followed by demands which will not be met and massive Iranian strikes against Israel, then another american nuke and a possible Pakistani nuke launch against Israel, then instant worldwide pariah status for us and possible retaliation from Russia and China.
It will truly end up as USA against the world and we will lose.
We don't need to be "very, very careful."
Bush and Cheney need to be very, very impeached.
Sorry Mr Sander but if you did your job when you were given the authority 06 we wouldn't be worrying about Iran. So are you now going to consider impeachment now? It may be too late but the Democratic party has no one to blame but themselves for not hold up their constitutional duty.
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
Do something America: Read about America's history with Iran. About key members of this administration and their involvement with Iran's particular natural resources. Learn the truth and make an informed decision about the benefits of Iran.
Hint: Its got nothing to do with their nuclear program.
Senator Sanders:
Neither Dick nor Dubya can bomb Iran. All they can do is issue orders to generals, who pass them down to colonels, who pass them down to pilots at the captain or lieutenant level that actually fly the planes and release the bombs.
It's all well and good to push a "sense of the Congress" resolution to tell "the President" he must not issue the orders. It might be more effective, however, to explicitly tell all those people in the chain of command to not _obey_ them.
I recognize that such an approach would be denounced as borderline sedition. That can't be helped. A little sedition may be the only antidote to monarchy at this point.
-- TP
Thats a nice dream, but you REALLY don't want the US military to rebel against the civilian leadership. That would be a VERY VERY VERY BAD THING!!! The US with a rogue military is a extremely dangerous situation
yes. except in this case it would be refusing orders in order not to go to war, and could be made on legal grounds that the aggression would violate the constitution because war was not declared on Iran, and would violate international law as wars of aggression are illegal. in this case it would be a very very very good thing if the military refused orders.
a very very very bad thing would be if the military refused civilian orders in order to go to war, or stage a coup.
in the case that Rethymniotis makes this would be a very good thing. the military could strengthen its legal case if our supine congress would pass the resolution explicitly forbidding the president authorization to use force. i actually can't imagine a better scenario for our republic. this would be a peaceful means with a legal basis for destroying the dictatorship that our republic has become. it would also solve our constitutional crisis by reasserting the right of congress and congress alone to declare war. it would also show that our military is so committed to defending the constitution they will refuse orders from the president himself if he orders them into any military action that congress has not declared and approved.
unfortunately, i think congress may well be under threat by our military. i couldn't help but think that watching leahy reprimanding cheney and bush for being in contempt of court. yes they are in contempt. but, bush and cheney have the military, so what is congress going to do about it? their only hope is that we stand up and bring our ropes and torches into DC and demand they resign immediately or comply with the investigation. so, who is going to be the first to face the blackwater reinforced, "crowd control", when we hit DC??? can you say anthrax?
You are correct to warn against a "rogue military", but let's not conflate "civilian leadership" with presidential authority alone.
Either the US military is _our_ military, or it is the President's private militia, for him to order about like Moqtada al Sadr does the Mahdi Army. In normal times, we don't have to worry about which it is. These are not normal times.
-- TP
As Senator Sanders presents, this administration wants to attack Iran. The results would extablish this as a bigger blunder than the invasion of Iraq. The Iranian defense is quite stout and, in addition, the Muslim community would immediately support Iran. This extended Muslim effort on behalf of Iran would be a geometric increase. Cheney, Bush, et al, wish to attack Iran though our armed forces are over-burdened as it is. Even without an identifiable broad military incursion, the U. S. is currently conducting special operations in Iran. The Iranians have expressed outrage over the special operations and will rigorously defend themselves against any invading of their nation. The U. S. forces will be quite painfully bloodied by such a disaterous adventure. We must all take measures in accordance with the exertions of Bernie Sanders to prevent this absurd violation of Iranian territory.
Oh, here we go again.
"The Iranian defense is quite stout"
Where have we heard that one before?
The Iraq Republican Guard that was going to meet & defeat our troops first at their landing areas, than at the rivers, then at the bridges, then in Bagdad & then in Hussein's bedroom; how "stout" were they?
Yeah, Iraq was a cakewalk.
Too bad there aren't any troops available for another eternal occupation. Billions for bombs but not a penny for reparations, eh?
Attacking Iran is a very different military proposition to attacking Iraq. If you think that Iran would fold without doing inestimable damage to the US and the world economy via its oil supply and wrecking the Straights of Hormuz, you've been watching Fox News.
Listening to the average Republican talk sounds like listening to a Weimar Republic era National Socialist talk. Its truly mad.
JohnKemp says, "Oh, here we go again.
"The Iranian defense is quite stout"
Where have we heard that one before?
The Iraq Republican Guard that was going to meet & defeat our troops first at their landing areas, than at the rivers, then at the bridges, then in Bagdad & then in Hussein's bedroom; how "stout" were they?"
So what are you saying, that because Bush went 1 for 3 with the Adelman Cakewalk Scenario, that all predictions contrary to what he believes are null and void?
First, Saddam Hussein was afraid of competent generals. One military analyst (I think it was Barry McCaffrey) said that the Iraqi army wasn't functioning above the battalion level. That's a sign of an army that's been purged.
Iran's not a model of an open society, but it's been better at self-correction than Iraq. Former President Mohammed Khatami wasn't an Islamic Thomas Jefferson, but he was not the establishment's preferred candidate. That he was allowed to get 70% of the vote shows that the Iranian power structure got a little hint that they needed to reform themselves.
Also, Iran was embarrassed that Iraq, which they fought to a standstill for a decade, should be so swiftly routed by the US in the Persian Gulf War. They understood, as Hussein did not, that their armed forces needed the judgment of professionals.
Also, why does JohnKemp want us to judge the Iraq War solely by its conventional phase? Isn't the insurgency a better guide as to Bush's preparedness to fight? Besides, Iran is simply a bigger country than Iraq. Even if we pretend that their army is no more professional, they'd still pose a better barrier to a land invasion.
Um...
I was there and while it wasn't the landing at Normandy. It definitely wasn't nearly as easy as you want to make it seem.
Also you might want to give some credit to the most efficient killing machine in the history of the world; the United States Armed Forces. It wasn't because they were so bad it's because we were that Good.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
