Israel has been in the news a lot this week, although somewhat indirectly. The big story this week, of course, is that the intelligence gathered by the U.S. now seems to indicate that Iran gave up its quest to build a nuclear bomb back in 2003. The Dem machine wants to spin this as, at best, yet another example of flawed U.S. intelligence capability, and at worst, implies that Bush is behind yet another rush to war, this time in Iran (but thank God the faulty intelligence was exposed this time before Bush could do Iraq all over again!) Of course, even the N.Y. Times appeared to acknowledge that the other way to look at this was that the intelligence proves that we have been right to be very concerned about Iran, which up until just a few years ago was relentlessly pursuing a nuclear weapon. It also notes that Iran continues to produce enriched uranium, obstensively for its civilian nuclear program, and would likely have enough material for a bomb sometime in the middle of the next decade.
So, is it time to breathe a sign of relief? I don't think so, and apparently, neither does Israel. An Associated Press article today states:
"Israeli intelligence believes Iran is still trying to develop a nuclear weapon, Israel's defense minister said Tuesday, disputing a U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran has halted its program.
"It's apparently true that in 2003 Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a time. But in our opinion, since then it has apparently continued that program," Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio."
Barak also stated, "We cannot allow ourselves to rest just because of an intelligence report from the other side of the earth, even if it is from our greatest friend."
The article adds, "Not only does Israeli intelligence believe Iran is still pursuing a nuclear bomb, defense officials said this week, the Israelis are worried about the possibility that Iran might have already received ready-made nuclear material from North Korea, dramatically speeding up the process. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. In September, Israeli warplanes attacked a military target in Syria, a close Iranian ally. Foreign experts believe the installation was a nuclear facility built with North Korean assistance. Syria and North Korea have denied the charge."
So, it seems that Israel is by no means ready to let its guard down, even if many in the U.S. seem all too ready to welcome the intelligence report and are eager to embrace Iran as misunderstood 'good guys,' notwithstanding the fact that its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be "wiped off the map," as well as the fact that Iran continues to fund Islamic groups openly dedicated to Israel's destruction like Hezbollah and Hamas.
As we all know, Mark Kirk is well known as a strong advocate for Israel, but has also tried to take a stance against Iran based on rational, especially economic, action, and not fear-mongering as some have often alleged. But, Dan Seals is also a friend of Israel(!), his supporters claim. This debate is nothing new for the 10th District and was a popular subject among bloggers the last cycle. See here. Of course, Seals' clearest position on defense of Israel is the now famous video shot by 10th Dem peacenik and failed congressional candidate Lee Goodman, in which Seals famously choses "peace" over Israel in the event of an attack by Iran. Revisit this revealing video here (unfortunately, Lee Goodman apparently demanded that YouTube remove the excerpt of the video that was posted there, claiming copyright, so you have to search Goodman's "AtCenter Network" site (if you can stomach it)).
But, the new entry into the mix for 2008 is Jay Footlik. In case you didn't know by now, Footlik is Jewish. But, as Seals' Internet supporters point out, simply being a Jewish Democrat isn't the key to victory by itself, as every opponent Kirk has faced over the years besides Seals was a Jewish Democrat, and most were crushed. Many have also criticized Footlik as being a one-issue candidate, and this simply won't do it in a district where Kirk has been very successful in wooing a large chunk of the Jewish vote (for good reason).
I could go on, but that's more than enough setup for the topic tonight: What does everyone think about how the dynamics of Israel vs. Iran, the effect of the Jewish vote, and the likely result of the Seals/Footlik primary will effect the general election against Kirk this fall?
UPDATED: Hiram Wurf of Wurfwhile reports that the AFL-CIO endorsed Seals today over Footlik in the 10th Congressional race. Wurf states that "With endorsements from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Dan Seals is clearly the candidate of working people in the race." Wurf, would that be 'working people' that can hold a job, or does that include the employment-challenged folks like Seals?
UPDATED x2: Here's a quick link to the uploaded video of Dan Seals going out on a limb for Israel if attacked by Iran. Go get 'em, Dan!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
Big Labor Unions -- who brought you Rod Blagojevich -- now want to bring you unemployed Internet activist Dan Seals.
Dan can't even get a union job!
TA, has anyone asked why Iran gave up its nuclear program in 2003? As I recall, Libya also gave up its nuclear program in 2003. What could it have been about that year that inspired so many state-sponsors of terrorism to give up their weapons of mass destruction?
TA,
Anyone who reads the full NIE must conclude that Iran is a threat -- nor that anyone has been deceived. Let's remember that Kirk has been very clear in his public comments not to base any conclusion about Iran off the previous NIE. Rather he only quotes the IAEA and UNSC.
This new NIE is finally in line with what the IAEA, UNSC and EU-3 have said all along: Iran is enriching uranium in violation of its commitment under the NPT and UNSC resolutions; Iran will likely have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb as early as 2009; Iran is moving forward quickly with ballistic missiles to deliver a nuclear warhead.
These are all facts in the NIE. In my view, the opinions on this presented over at Ellen's blog constitute a complete abandonment of U.S. national security and a welcoming of Israel being wiped off the map as early as 2009.
Old Vike- I forget where I read it, but the analysis was that the Iranians simply couldn't make a efficient go of the process financially, i.e., the approach they were taking was just too expensive. But perhaps that's why the scheme is now to simply build up the civilian stockpile of uranium and buy the bomb-know how from N. Korea or something. The budget rationale doesn't make a ton of sense to me (you'd think Ammji-what's his name would spend whatever it took to get the bomb), so let me see what I can find out....
If you read the report it says:
1. Iran's bomb manufacturing program suspended in 2003
2. Iran's enriched uranium program is accelerating
3. Iran's missile program is building
Feel safe?
Ok, folks, it's time for every one to play open our eyes, open our ears and listen to the WHOLE story game.
The same author of the most recent intellegence report said just four months earlier in July, that in fact Iran was still developing nukes. Here's the story as broken yesterday by the Weekly Standard, with a link to the whole article:
"Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):
'Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.'"
Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp
Ok, next issue.
I am Spartacus and I Could be POTUS have hit this 'nail' on the head. Both of these posts are giving us the straight scoop on what we haven't been reading and seeing in the press. Bottom line is that Iran does indeed have the capacity, the ability and, under it's current maniac president, the WILL to destroy the State of Israel. Only Ms. Shrill and her followers say that Mark Kirk uses scare tactics when talking about the issue. She and her folks are simply ill informed, including one of the Jewish writers on the 10th Dem Newsletter site. He, she and they are partisans who speak from the Democratic playbook. Will Israel and this issue decide the next election. I don't think so. That roughly a bit over 20% of this district is Jewish is well known. That aside, people out here will be voting on issues that directing affect them and their daily lives. Not that a nuclear Iran does not put all of us in danger, it does that for sure, but we will find that healthcare, taxes, education and the environment will top the Israel issue. Mark Kirk's unprecedented leadership on the US/Israel partnership is applauded in DC by both sides of the aisle. He is also recognized by top leaders in Israel for his positive positions and his commitment to Israel's survival. Jay Footlik is Jewish. Would he be a good "vote" on this issue, of course. Does he have the background and the experience to LEAD in creative approaches to ensure Israel's future? Doubtful at best. Congressman Kirk does not pander to the Jewish community. When he was COS for his predecessor, John Porter, he helped write the legislation that ultimately helped free Soviet Jews in the mid to late 1980's. He understands this issue from many perspectives, is a human rights activist, has been lauded for his positions by many organizations. It was Congressman Kirk who made the request in November of 2001, in the first year of his first term in office, that Israel be attached to the US satellite, Eyes in the Sky, to give that nation added early warning that a missile attack was coming. That's the creative genius of this guy, hardly a fear mongering idea. That's part of his LEADERSHIP and his solid commitment to Israel. Even with all the legislation he has written and has had passed into law I still do not believe that the issue of Israel will, in the end, decide the election next November. Mark Kirk will be elected to a 5th term to represent us because he has EARNED it. He has addressed the issues that most matter out here and he is a Congressman dedicated to making this district, our country, all nations, including the State of Israel, a safer and better place. I'm proud to wear a Kirk for Congress button on my jacket!
TA, I agree with you about the "work challenged" Dan Seals. This guy can't hold a job yet Wurf says that he's the candidate of and for the working people. I guess Dan Seals just studies about, talks about and maybe dreams about getting a job. He surely can't get one and hold onto one these past many years. I'll bet he's kicking himself for having spent so much money on those degrees at great Universities, including the U of C. Does Affirmative Action have a role here? Can't wait to hear how he explains all of this in his upcoming debates.
Anon 9:18, I am waiting for those debates too, but of course, someone has to confront Seals on those issues. Will Footlik's people do it? Right now, I can't figure out Footlik's attack plan, because I haven't seen much evidence of it.
TA, it's an odd strategy, to be sure. None of Jay's media pieces even mention Dan Seals. You get one of the "squares" saying that he voted for Dan last time but now will be voting for Jay. I don't know about you, TA, but this is a whole new way of winning that I've never seen before. Jay has to know that he needs to BEAT Seals on 2/5 to face off with Congressman Kirk next November. I think both of these guys are arrogant and out of touch, each in their own way.
Yup. I get the impression that when Seals and Footlik both show up to these scheduled primary debates in January we've heard about (if they in fact go forward), each of them will be SHOCKED to find out they need to debate EACH OTHER, and Kirk won't even be there.
Even Hillary has figured out (maybe too late) that campaigning in the primary as if it was the general can be a risky gambit.
From what I understand, Footlik has been trying to get Seals to debate for some time now. If anyone can encourage Seals to a debate this month, I would love to attend and watch Footlik crush him.
Go jay !!!!!
Amadinejad never said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map." For starters, the man speaks Farsi, not English. Although it is convenient for fear mongers to translate his words in that manner, what he said does not conote violence. He believes that Israel was superimposed into the region by foreigners after WW1 and that it should be erased (with a pencil on a map; not a bomb on ground).
The leader of Iran is at least as rational as our own idiot President. He knows perfectly well that his country would be erradicated if he attacked Israel or the United States and, no, he isn't going to do it just to make some kind of statement.
The United States doesn't attack nuclear armed countries, and what the hawks really don't want to happen is for a country with a lot of oil suddenly to have a nuclear deterence. Look how much we've backed off of North Korea since they acquired one. Strangely, nobody is talking about N.K. nuking us to justify invading that country.
Anon 12:39- while we certainly welcome opposing views (that's what this blog is all about), and I appreciate your comment, I wonder if that is the position Seals will be taking when he is talking to the Jewish voters of the 10th Distict, although it would be in line with his statement on video.
Do you really think that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a friend of Israel? Or do you not care? Whether Ahmadinejad 'erases' Israel with violence, or he eliminates Israel by political means (I assume that's what you mean by using a "pencil"), I don't think the people in Israel and voters in the 10th District would appreciate either result. It's also not the position of the Israeli government, surprisingly.
Is Seals going to campaign on the notion that Israel has no right to exist? This is supposed to be "rational"?
Please, please, please tell me you have knowledge that this is Seals' position on Israel and I can stop campaigning for Mark Kirk right now, because it's all over, as Seals will get crushed.
It feels so strange writing here on the “dark side,” but I feel compelled.
Before we can have any discussion of whether Iran’s nuclear weapons situation will impact the Illinois 10 general election, we need to know who will be running and only half that equation is in place.
If Jay is the candidate, my guess is there will be little impact. Jay’s pro Israel credentials from his time in the Clinton White House to working for now Israeli President Shimon Peres and his time in private business with the son of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin are unmatched, even by Mark Kirk. Kirk’s record when it comes to Israel, however, is outstanding. If Jay runs against Mark, I feel this issue will be neutralized and the two will debate other issues of importance.
If Dan Seals manages to win the primary, he won’t get one single issue pro Israel vote. His comments about Israel’s conduct of the Second Lebanon War and the willingness to negotiate with Hamas pale in comparison to his “on the side of peace” statement.
Writing here feels pretty good. Perhaps I’ll try it again.
Come, join us... don't be afraid... walk towards the light...
TA, I have more respect than ever for you and for this Blog. You allowed a person to post something so outrageous, so over the top, and you have replied in the most dignified, intelligent manner. Thank You. The maniac president of Iran did say it in his Farsi language and it does translate into wanting Israel blown off the map. What kool aid is this person drinking. Rational Americans know that dictators like that president mean what they say, and say what they mean to do. Does this poster remember Adolph Hitler? The comments of that poster regarding how Israel came into being are also totally false and irrelevant. Hats off to you, TA, for answering and for letting us know that there are some mighty strange ideas from very odd folks in this district.
TA,
Just saw the video with Dan Seal's response "on the side of peace". Although I am not Jewish, I have always sympathized with the Isreali's and Dan Seals is no friend of Isreal - "on the side of peace" - exactly WHAT side is that? Isreal or Iran? Just goes to show if you give someone enough rope, they eventually hang themselves...
Scott - please keep writing. I enjoy reading the thoughful well-written flip side.
I don't know what position Seals will take, nor do I care. I didn't care for him last time, and I won't be voting for him this time.
I do not think anyone in the Middle East who is not Israeli is much of a friend to Israel and, no, I don't care. For reasons I already stated, I don't think Iran will attack Israel. However, the United States and Israel demonstratably are more than willing to attack people. Empirically, we are the threat, and we should stop rattling the sabre.
My understanding of Israel is that it was promised to a zionist British aristocrat, and other powerful Jewish europeans, by the allied powers near the end of WW1 when it became obvious they would win and carve up to Ottoman Empire. I think that is completely relavent to understanding why modern Arabs view Israel as an occupying power. I know the story goes back to Roman times, but that is the part I don't think is relavent. If someone feels I need an additional history lesson, please enhance my knowledge.
The bottom line is that Israel DOES exist, and it has nuclear weapons. That means it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
"Rational Americans," as demonstrated by multiple polls, don't want a war with Iran.
Anon 12:39- you are obviously an intelligent person, but your position just leaves me shaking my head in wonderment.
Clearly, the fact that Israel has nukes is a significant deterrant, and is probably all that has kept them from being overrun before now. But, that doesn't stop attacks and incursions that do not rise to the level of meriting a nuclear response (witness last summer's mortar/missile attacks), so the nuclear deterrent is a good defense against Armageddon, but is limited in other respects. And that is only to speak of overt attacks, which countries like Iran prefer to fight through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. You say that it's unlikely that Iran will attack Israel, but in many ways, they already have and continue to do so every day.
So, the idea that the U.S. and Israel are the instigators and/or aggressors and the cause of all unrest in the Middle East is ridiculous. Such arguments are the fodder of the "blame America" (I guess you would add, "blame Israel") crowd, whose ranks were somewhat diminished, perhaps, after American apologist John Kerry lost, but apparently such types still abound.
You seem to believe that because Israel was carved out of existing land after WWII, it somehow makes it less legitimate than other countries. We could argue that all day long. LOTS of other countries are former British colonies that were carved out of previously existing lands with little regard or forethought for the indigenous populace- why do you think we have such problems with Iraq? But, that fact alone is not justification for re-allocating the land Israel is sitting on. Jews have been there for 2000 years, and I don't think the circumstances of the formation of the country itself are justification for the aggression of Israel's neighbors, as you seem to suggest. Even the U.S. fought more than a few wars and has had a brief history as a colonial power. But maybe that's a bad example, since you probably believe that every ill that has befallen America has been caused by our own actions (what's your theory on 9/11, dare I ask?).
I agree that most rational Americans (and Israelies) don't want a war with Iran--the real question is how badly Iran wants a war with Israel. I betcha if they thought they could win, with few repercussions, the Iranian tanks would be rolling and the missiles flying tomorrow.
This is such a dumb topic but I will bite.
1. Jays job at the white house was held by a 22 year old in bush 43. Not tough stuff.
2. Jay/Dan would vote with the jimmy carter party on a regular basis. Mark stands with Israel-why change what's working.
3. Dan's Israel credibility is shot. He's gladly joined forces with the moveon/dailykos wing of the democratic party. Those are the losers that were hoisting the plo is a victim posters at the anti-wr on terror protests in 2002.
these are wackos, and we don't want em.
Sucks the bears are done.
If you say you are "for peace" as Dan Seals does, I say you are standing with the "religion of peace," which mostly stands for the end of Israel.
Post a Comment