You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

September 25, 2007

Iran Iran Iran

The Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran was not voted on today. ThinkProgress has a statement by Harry Reid saying it is being revised and he currently neither supports nor opposes it.

Carah Ong has what appears to be the amendment's current language. The changes are small and essentially meaningless in terms of slowing the momentum toward war it would create. All they would do is provide cover for Senators like Reid to vote for it.

Ong also points out the Tom Lantos bill broadening sanctions on Iran passed today 397-16. The Senate version has been filed as an amendment to the FY08 Defense spending bill.

And Ong has remarks by Peter Galbraith today on Kyl-Lieberman.

Finally, Dennis Perrin is entertaining about the Ahmadinejad-in-NY explosion of warmongery.

Posted at September 25, 2007 08:45 PM | TrackBack

Lantos is mine. What the hell did he do today?

I mean, let's refuse to buy any oil from them. That'll teach 'em. And we'll let China sell them any guns they need.

As I understand it they've got a shitload of Russian cruise missles, which after some "action" would help to get the price of a barrel up to $200.

Posted by: Bob In Pacifica at September 25, 2007 09:06 PM

Lantos knows that his policy will fail on its stated objectives but promote a war later on.

BTW, here's a reminder of what Lantos was saying before the Iraq war, according to Haaretz:

"My dear Colette, don't worry," said Tom Lantos, the California congressman, as he tried to calm MK Colette Avital of the Labor Party, who was visiting Capitol Hill last week as part of a delegation of the Peace Coalition. "You won't have any problem with Saddam," the Jewish congressman continued. "We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you."

...In any case, he promised her that after America gets rid of all the regimes of evil, it will go straight to Syria, "and tell young Assad that's what will happen to him if he doesn't stop supporting terrorism."

Posted by: Carl at September 25, 2007 11:07 PM

Dennis Perrin is on target. But it's not just the Columbia crowd or the NYT pundits or CNN cliche mongers.
Most of the country can't tell the difference between one thing and another any longer.
You invite Milton Berle and you get "Ladies and Germs" and then almost all dicuss the show as if it had been Lenny Bruce or Nichols & May at their best a long time ago.
Puleeeese, bad vaudeville is still bad vaudeville, in political clothes or academic robes.

Posted by: donescobar at September 26, 2007 10:35 AM

In my letter to my "representative" i specifically mentioned the designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization as setting a dangerous precedent for adding portions of the militaries of other sovergn nations to the list. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Perhaps it would be a good idea to add paragraph (5) to your list of important excerpts from the Amendment. The US is citing their (the Guard) involvement in Iraq and Afganistan as justification for this designation; however, Karzai and Maliki have indicated that they serve a positive role in the stabilization of security. Although i less than trust these two leaders, i do think it would be a good idea to at least attempt to involve the Guard in the process rather than isolate them and instigate conflict with them. If the two governments that we installed want to attempt to work with Iran, why are we attempting to thwart that as long as they behave?

Posted by: Tony at September 26, 2007 12:42 PM

Oh, well, if Norm Coleman is on board, then we have nothing to worry about.

Harry Reid "neither supports or opposes it"?!!!!!!
Why the hell not. "What possible reason could there be for supporting such a warmongering piece of crap, no matter what kinds of changes are made?" she shrieked.

Posted by: catherine at September 26, 2007 01:01 PM

1. Long-standing tradition of being invaded. Used
to it and good at it.
2. About to split apart: Flemish vs French.
3. Great stuff to throw at invading soldiers: beer
and chocolate.
4. No known history of car/suicide bombing.
5. Excellent terrain for invading armies.

Petition, anyone? Slogans? Marches?
(Nobody in Europe will come to the aid of the Belgians. Everybody hates Brussels, except a few who love the statue of the peeing boy.)

Posted by: donescobar at September 26, 2007 03:28 PM