[Marxism] The big lie about Iran at the Democratic debate

[Eli Stephens <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Links and formatting in the original:
  http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html#5057340285524805554

To the surprise of few, last [Wednesday] night's Democratic debate featured yet 
another repetition of the big lie about Iran, this one delivered by questioner 
George Stephanopoulos and not only not rebutted, but reinforced by Clinton and 
Obama:

     "Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got 
them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel."

The words "nuclear option" are ambiguous, but since they are followed by the 
words "those weapons," it's 100% clear that what Stephanopoulos wasn't just 
talking about nuclear power, but was saying was "Iran continues to develop 
nuclear weapons."

Obama or Clinton could have taken the opportunity, as Dennis Kucinich did at 
one 
of the early Democratic debates*, to point out that this was a complete 
fabrication, rebutted by the total lack of evidence, the repeated positive 
statements by Iran's leaders disavowing any desire for nuclear weapons, a fatwa 
issued by Iran's supreme leader, and, last but not least, the U.S. government 
itself in the form of a National Intelligence Estimate.

Needless to say, not only did they not do that, they both took the opportunity 
to issue threats against Iran. Clinton vowed "massive retaliation" should Iran 
attack Israel, and has been portrayed as having issued the more "aggressive" 
response to the non-existent threat. Obama vowed only "appropriate action" in 
the event of such a hypothetical (and highly improbable) attack, which has been 
portrayed as more "diplomatic," but surely everyone (everyone in the leadership 
of the United States) thinks that an "appropriate action" in the event of an 
Iranian attack on Israel would be "massive retaliation." But Obama went even 
further, claiming that "no options [would be] off the table when it comes to 
preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and 
that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the 
region." "No options" is code for anything up to and including nuclear weapons, 
and Obama would be taking this action not just in the event of an attack on 
Israel, but if Iran obtained nuclear weapons or even if it "threatened" Israel 
or other "allies" (which would include Iraq), and in fact American politicians 
and media all pretty much agree that Iran has regularly "threatened" Israel and 
is doing more than "threatening" Iraq, but actively helping to attack its 
"government." Which means "all options are on the table" right now according to 
Obama.

By the way, doesn't the U.S. have to have a treaty with Israel in order to 
justify such a response, and even if it does, doesn't the President have to get 
a vote from Congress before launching a war? Or do Obama and Clinton think the 
law means as little as Bush does?

Update: *As a reminder, here's what Obama had to say at that debate a year ago 
about Iran's nuclear weapons:

     Obama: I understand that, but they're in the process of developing it. And 
I don't think that's disputed by any expert.

Presumably he wouldn't say today that he doesn't think it's "disputed by any 
expert," since the NIE has rather forcefully "disputed" it. But the fact that 
he 
was willing to make that statement a year ago, based on about as much evidence 
as George Bush had for invading Iraq, is telling.


_________________________________________________________________
Pack up or back up–use SkyDrive to transfer files or keep extra copies. Learn 
how.
http://www.windowslive.com/skydrive/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_skydrive_packup_042008
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu