I think that there is very good reason why we need to be concerned that Bush and Cheney want to start a pre-emptive war with Iran:
Why I think we must be concerned that Bush & Cheney will start a war with Iran
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 6, 2007 - 2:12pm.
August 15, 2007
U.S. Weighing Terrorist Label for Iran Guards
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 - "The Bush administration is preparing to declare that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is a foreign terrorist organization, senior administration officials said Tuesday.
If imposed, the declaration would signal a more confrontational turn in the administration's approach to Iran and would be the first time that the United States has added the armed forces of any sovereign government to its list of terrorist organizations..."
Jon Soltz in my opinion has been a champion for foreign policy truth in debates with top Neocon representatives and he has also been "Swift-Boated" by many Neocon blogs because of that:
IRAQ WAR DEBATE: Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org vs. Pete Hegseth of Vets for Freedom
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 26, 2007 - 3:51pm.
VIDEO: Jon Soltz was "Swift-Boated" by several Neocon blogs during YearlyKos!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 8, 2007 - 2:30am.
Jon Soltz debated Neocon Sal Russo of Move America Forward on Hardball on Wednesday, August 15 and he did an excellent job in my opinion. Here is the Hardball video link to watch this very interesting, intense, and fast paced debate:
http://video.msn.com...= (09:29)
Is the U.S. going to go to war with Iran?
Aug. 15: The U.S. will reportedly soon label Iran's elite Revolutionary guard Corps as a terrorist organization. Does this mean President Bush is turning up the heat on Iran, setting the stage for a possible war? Jon Soltz, co-founder of VoteVets.org, and Sal Russo of Move America Forward discuss.
Watching this video in my opinion will show you that even though Neocons are dead wrong on foreign policy, their top spokespeople are very strong when it comes to debate skills and being able to put their spin on an argument. Sometimes it can take a real professional like Gen. Wes Clark, Sen. Jim Webb, or Jon Soltz to credibly expose the errors of these kind of people to the general public!
Right below is the complete transcript of this debate where Jon Soltz provides an interesting analysis:
JOHN SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: "Well, I think, clearly, the president is moving towards-in that direction, towards Iran. When we surged inside of Iraq, it really had to do with Iran. It was an escalation of force so we could create more military-political leverage, in a sense.
This thing that happened today is a little more interesting, though. I really think that there's a battle inside the White House. The Cheneys really want to go to war with Iran. Condoleezza Rice today moved maybe in a little different manner with this diplomatic issue. I mean, this is a much better move than striking Iran..."
I will have to give Chris Matthews some credit on this one for making these blunt comments to Sal Russo:
MATTHEWS: "Mr. Russo, I am impressed-Mr. Russo, I am impressed by your view of Vice President Cheney's deliberative ability in the last several years, because I have noticed from the beginning he was wrong about the nuclear threat from Iraq, which he said was a threat to us.
I was impressed by the fact that he said that we would be met as liberators. I am impressed by the fact he said that the insurgency was in its last throes. He was wrong time and time again in advising this president..."
Supporting Jon Soltz and VoteVets.org is an excellent way I can see how to help avoid an unnecessary war of choice with Iran and to also help bring more attention to Bush's arrogant Neocon foreign policy as the middle of September approaches when Gen. Petraeus gives his report to Congress!
This is also cross-posted with comments on Gen. Wes Clark's blog:
Mitch Dworkin
http://securingameri...
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securinga...
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
--------------------
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 15
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show
Updated: 9:03 a.m. CT Aug 16, 2007
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. As we just learned from Senator John Edwards here on HARDBALL, he said he's worried that President Bush may be thinking about launching a preemptive strike against Iran, and Senator Edwards is calling on Congress to make sure the president can't act without its approval. So what's behind the president's turning up the heat on Iran? Is war really on the table?
For answers, we turn to Sal Russo of Move America Forward and Jon Soltz, co-founder of Votevets.com (SIC).
Let me go to Sal Russo. Sir, do you believe the president is raising the heat on Iran?
SAL RUSSO, MOVE AMERICA FORWARD: Of course he's raising the heat. You know, we know that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism, whether it's Hamas or providing IEDs to the insurgents in Iraq. So I think the president is doing the exact right thing, put the spotlight on Iran's activities, trying to develop diplomatic support to put pressure on Iran. And most importantly, once you identify the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, that allows the economic sanctions in terms of all their businesses and investments and puts economic pressure on Iran.
That economy is teetering today, and any kind of pressure is going to certainly make it a lot easier to deal with the Iranians. Much like President Reagan did with the Soviet Union, we've basically bankrupted the Soviet Union and brought an end to communism, we really need to do everything we can to bankrupt Iran so we can get rid of that rogue regime...
MATTHEWS: OK...
RUSSO: ... as quickly as possible.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to John Soltz. We did a number of those things that we're doing now before we went to war with Iraq. Is this the prelude to war, to another preemptive attack?
JOHN SOLTZ, VOTEVETS.ORG: Well, I think, clearly, the president is moving towards-in that direction, towards Iran. When we surged inside of Iraq, it really had to do with Iran. It was an escalation of force so we could create more military-political leverage, in a sense.
This thing that happened today is a little more interesting, though. I really think that there's a battle inside the White House. The Cheneys really want to go to war with Iran. Condoleezza Rice today moved maybe in a little different manner with this diplomatic issue. I mean, this is a much better move than striking Iran. Obviously, we sent two extra carrier groups to the region at the surge time. Also in the surge, we sent Patriot missile batteries to the region, which we pulled out of Iraq in 2003.
So I think the question now is, What do they do with this? This isn't necessarily a bad move. This is much better than war. But do they go the Condoleezza Rice route, where they engage the world and try to shut down these business relationships that Iran has, or do they go the Dick Cheney route and launch a preemptive strike on Iran with no diplomatic negotiation, which would be detrimental to Israel's security, with the Hezbollah militia on Israel's northern border, and would totally undermine our troops in Iraq because you'd have two major Shia militias rise up and start fighting American troops at a time when we're trying to just simply control Baghdad and fight al Qaeda in Iraq.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Russo, you can expect that the Iranian government's not going to like this, being squeezed and identified once again as an evil country, being identified as a terrorist organization. Do you expect this is going to beat up the heat between us and them and lead toward a war or this is going to lead away from a war?
RUSSO: Well, Chris, I think, very much like what I just said about Reagan putting pressure on the Soviet Union.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's talk about that region, though, where we've had a more recent experience with this president. This president is not named Reagan, his name is named Bush. He did not use economic pressure to get something done, he started a war. So will this guy do it again and start another war or not, or do you see this is an alternative route?
RUSSO: I don't think that the war in Iraq was done precipitously. We had tried through the U.N. for years and years and years to get Saddam Hussein to be cooperative, and we were unsuccessful.
MATTHEWS: Right, because the president was willing to take us to war if he didn't get what he wanted done economically. Do you believe this president is willing to take us to war he doesn't get done what he wants done economically?
RUSSO: No, I don't think any president wants war, and I don't think this president...
MATTHEWS: Will he take us to war?
RUSSO: ... wants...
MATTHEWS: Is he taking us toward that course?
RUSSO: No. I don't think this is a path to work. I think what this is a path to do is to get Iranians to wake up and recognize that their path of supporting terrorism doesn't work. We should never take off the table, as Senator Edwards did, the fact that we may strike. We want to have our enemies not sure what we're going to do. We want them fearful of what actions we might take. We want to get them to the table. We want to negotiate with them. We want them to give up their war on terrorism.
MATTHEWS: Do you expect this president -- (INAUDIBLE) last question to you, Mr. Russo. Do you expect this president to attack Iran before he leaves office?
RUSSO: I don't-you know, Chris, obviously, I don't know all the intelligence. And the one thing I do know is we don't want Iran with that rogue regime to be a nuclear power. And if we can't negotiate it away, we're going to have to take-and hopefully, with our allies, we're going to have to take it out and...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: So you'd like to see us-if the president has to leave office and leave Iran as it's moving toward-as you say, towards nuclear weapons, you would like to see us attack before he leaves office.
RUSSO: I would hope that we don't have to attack. I mean, I think if we can...
MATTHEWS: What does that mean? I mean, we've played this game before with Iraq. We said we wanted an inspection regime. We got an inspection regime. Then the president said that's not good enough. We called-then we attacked. At what point does the president say we're not going to go to war with Iran? When do we not declare war with them?
RUSSO: Well, first of all, I don't think you ever say until you do, but, you know, obviously, the intelligence in Iraq was maybe not the best. And some of the assumptions we based our decision on were not correct.
I mean, I think the war was the right decision, but not based on the intelligence that we had at the time. I think the situation in Iran is totally different. You know, we have a lot of options to take. They're a ways away from being a nuclear power. I think it's going to be something that the next administration, frankly, has to deal with it.
But I'm grateful that President Bush is putting pressure on Iran, which is a state sponsor of terrorism.
MATTHEWS: OK.
Read the tea leaves here a bit, Jon, if you can.
SOLTZ: Well...
MATTHEWS: Do you believe this act of declaring the Revolutionary Guard the-on-that main force of their political-sort of politically inspired-sort of the S.S. of Iran, I guess you would have to call it-do you think declaring them a terrorist organization is a prelude to military or to economic pressure on the Iranian government?
SOLTZ: I think there is a real debate in the White House, and this is a compromise.
Condoleezza Rice wants to use this to work with the world to try to, you know, go after their business transactions. I think Dick Cheney sees it as an opportunity, clearly, to brand the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. And he's really pushing towards this march for war.
There is no question they have made military maneuvers to increase, you know, what they think is military leverage. But where Mr. Russo is so wrong is that George Bush took the military option off the table with Iran four years ago when he invaded Iraq, because he strengthened Iran inside the region. He's hindered Israel's security.
And this is what is important to understand, because you have these two Shia militias that are invested in Iraq by Iran. Mr. Sistani, the leading Shia cleric in Iraq, is Iranian. So, I think, when you have nine out your 10 Army divisions stuck on the ground in combat in Iraq-we're at 15-month tours. We're having a debate in this country about the draft. Shooting, you know, a couple Air Force...
MATTHEWS: Who would you bet on, Condi Rice or Dick Cheney to have the president's ear, ultimately? Last time around, Colin Powell was challenging Dick Cheney, as we understand now. He lost the argument.
SOLTZ: Look, I...
MATTHEWS: Do you think Dick Cheney is going to lose the argument to Condi Rice this time?
SOLTZ: I don't think so at all. I think that Dick Cheney, if he had it his way, he would go with the neoconservative principles of forcible regime change.
I mean, this is what expedited the Iranian nuclear program. There needs to be a policy in this country never, ever to let countries like Iran get nuclear capacity.
MATTHEWS: Do you think Dick Cheney is a Dr. Strangelove? You make it sound like he is.
SOLTZ: Look, the guy is out to lunch when it comes to protecting America, supporting the military, destroying al Qaeda.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: And, basically, his policies...
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: ... absolutely ridiculous.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: Dick Cheney...
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: Listen, this is very simple.
RUSSO: Jon, you are-your organization is a Democratic organization. And you want to pick on Dick Cheney.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: The difference between you and I real simple.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: You are a Republican communications strategist. I am an Iraq war veteran. I fought on the ground in Iraq. I have dealt with Shias. I have trained Shias to train our soldiers to go to Iraq. I understand that Iraq is the first Shia Arab state.
(CROSSTALK)
RUSSO: Well, how come you never find a war that you think you should support to defeat terrorism?
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK. Let me Mr. Russo speak.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: I'm sorry.
Jon, you have to give Mr. Russo a chance.
Go ahead, Mr. Russo.
RUSSO: I mean, the problem that Jon is, he never has a solution. I mean, his solution is to follow Senator Obama and bomb Pakistan and...
SOLTZ: Let me give you a solution. Let me give you a solution.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Let Mr. Russo speak for 30 seconds. Then you can get back, Jon, please.
Go ahead, Mr. Russo.
RUSSO: You know, I mean, Dick Cheney has been a-I think, a fantastic vice president. He is one of the most thoughtful, decent human beings I have ever met.
And I think your characterization of him really fits in with what your
what your goal is with Vets For Freedom, which is they support Democratic candidates. Your interest is not American security. It's to elect Democrats. So, I wish you would just face up to that.
SOLTZ: No, our goal is to destroy al Qaeda, protect American, and limit countries like Iran from having nuclear weapons.
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: We have no military leverage with Iran because all we have is airpower. We have ground component force to invade the country.
(CROSSTALK)
RUSSO: Are you proposing a ground war on Iran?
(CROSSTALK)
RUSSO: I certainly don't think that is a very good decision. And I don't think anybody in the White House wants a ground war in Iran.
SOLTZ: I surely don't think so either.
But my question for you is, how is our military going to hold Iraq together if you strike Iran, when you have got the Mahdi army and the Badr Corps, and then you are going to have an even larger Shia-Sunni battle inside of Iraq, when our U.S. forces not only have to focus on defeating Sunni insurgents, but now a total rise-up the Mahdi army and the Badr Corps?
(CROSSTALK)
SOLTZ: We have no military...
(CROSSTALK)
RUSSO: You create a straw man that we're going to start a war with Iran. Nobody is suggesting we're starting a war with Iran.
SOLTZ: I just recommend everybody goes to our Web site, StopIranWar.com. Sign a petition. Tell the president that we need to have diplomatic negotiations, high-level diplomatic negotiations, with Iran. We need to look at Iran and create a shared vision for Afghanistan, a shared vision for Iraq...
(CROSSTALK)
RUSSO: You can't have a shared vision with a terrorist state.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: OK. Thank you, gentlemen.
RUSSO: The only thing they know is pressure.
MATTHEWS: Mr. Russo, I am impressed-Mr. Russo, I am impressed by your view of Vice President Cheney's deliberative ability in the last several years, because I have noticed from the beginning he was wrong about the nuclear threat from Iraq, which he said was a threat to us.
I was impressed by the fact that he said that we would be met as liberators. I am impressed by the fact he said that the insurgency was in its last throes. He was wrong time and time again in advising this president.
Anyway, thank you.
Up next: more on what is happening in politics today.
RUSSO: Thank you...