Wednesday, February 22, 2012

US Demoncracy at Work

Bookle+

BookWorm

US Demoncracy at Work


Politics

In Republican Race, a New Breed of Superdonor

By , and
Published: February 21, 2012
Last June, Harold C. Simmons, a wealthy Texas businessman, sent a $100,000 check to Americans for Rick Perry, a “super PAC” preparing for Mr. Perry’s entry into the presidential race. A few months later, he donated $1 million to a different pro-Perry group through his company. In December, as Mr. Perry’s fortunes waned, Mr. Simmons wrote another check, this one for $500,000, to Winning Our Future, a super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich.
Multimedia

Related in Opinion

The Election 2012 iPhone App

Election 2012 iPhone App

A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

Readers’ Comments

But Mr. Simmons was not done. In mid-January, as Mr. Gingrich was headed toward a victory in the South Carolina primary, Mr. Simmons wrote a $100,000 check to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. And toward the end of the month, as Restore Our Future used his money to help bludgeon Mr. Gingrich with attack ads in Florida, Mr. Simmons sent yet another $500,000 check to Mr. Gingrich’s super PAC.
“He generally supports conservative Republican candidates,” said Chuck McDonald, a spokesman for Mr. Simmons. “I assume he was just trying to be helpful.”
Mr. Simmons’s contributions — all told, he has given more than $14 million to Republican super PACs so far this cycle — make him the exemplar of a new breed of superdonor in presidential politics. About two dozen individuals, couples or corporations have given $1 million or more to Republican super PACs this year, an exclusive club empowered by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and other rulings to pool their money into federal political committees and pour it directly into this year’s presidential campaign.
Collectively, their contributions have totaled more than $50 million this cycle, making them easily the most influential and powerful political donors in politics today. They have relatively few Democratic counterparts so far, with most of the leading liberal donors from past years giving relatively small amounts — or not at all — to the Democratic super PACs.
And unlike in past years, when wealthy donors of both parties donated chiefly to groups that were active in the general election campaign, the top Republican donors are contributing money far earlier, in contests that will determine the party’s presidential nominee.
“What unites them? They’re economic conservatives,” said Christopher J. LaCivita, a Republican strategist who helped advise Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a forerunner of this cycle’s super PACs, and who in 2008 co-founded another Republican advocacy group, the American Issues Project, that ran advertisements against President Obama.
“Most of these guys are serious business tycoons,” Mr. LaCivita added. “They’ve built something big — usually something bigger than themselves.”
Some of the superdonors, like Mr. Simmons and Robert J. Perry, a Texas homebuilder, are longtime backers of independent groups that were active in past campaigns, like the Swift Boat group, which in 2004 challenged the Vietnam War record of Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.
Several attend the exclusive, secretive gatherings of wealthy conservative donors hosted twice a year by the billionaire Koch brothers. Many move in the same social or political circles: Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino executive who is close to Mr. Gingrich, serves on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition with Paul Singer, a hedge fund executive and a top contributor to Restore Our Future.
Some of the million-dollar-plus donors, however, are relatively new to the world of big-league political giving and appear to be motivated by personal connections to particular candidates. Paul B. Edgerley and his wife, Sandra, for example, together gave $1 million to the pro-Romney super PAC. Mr. Edgerley is an executive at Bain Capital, Mr. Romney’s former firm.
A few of the megadonors gave through limited liability companies, shielding their identity. One $1 million donation to Restore Our Future came from F8 LLC, a company whose listed address in Utah leads to an accounting firm. A charitable foundation linked to Sandra N. Tillotson, co-founder of the skin care company Nu Skin, uses the same address. Ms. Tillotson was reimbursed by Restore Our Future in July for what appeared to be costs associated with a fund-raiser at her New York apartment. But Ms. Tillotson said in an e-mail Wednesday that she did not know who the owner of F8 LLC was and had not made a donation backing Mr. Romney’s campaign.
Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.
A version of this article appeared in print on February 22, 2012, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: In G.O.P. Race, A New Breed Of Superdonor.

32 Comments

Share your thoughts.
Thank you for your submission. We’ll notify you at ba***@msn.com when your comment has been approved.
  1. I hate to do this to you, NYT. Does it hurt to be stupid? I hope not.
    You are making this new political phenomenon, “SUPER-PAC,” some kind of deadly disease.
    Chill out. Small, chump change for the (habitually) rich folks. A million here, a couple million there and next thing you know is Democratic party gets into the game.
    Billion here. Billion there and trillions everywhere.
    We gotta have another, (fresh) war overseas.
    Don’t push Barack bin-Hussein. He has an option on Iran war. Syria war. North Korea war. If Pakistan does not accept the conditions for the next thousand years or so, a Pakistan war.
    Meshugas!
    …and I am Sid Harth@arabuhuru.org
    • Michael S. Levinson
    • St. Petersburg, Florida
    I am an independent write-in candidate for president, on the ballot for the primary in Arizona. My comment is totally public and personal:
    I bring to the table an inspired work of art, to change the course of human history on good ship Mother Earth. With my Vehicle for World Peace we get to Peace beginning with a peaceful night – all the worlds’ peoples participating in a dusk until dawn, think old blind Homer, TV show, with every line a delicate sensible rhyme. Think Dante of Divine Comedic fame.
    This conception is above the pay grades of all the candidates. So to the issue: Speech is the issue. With access to our airwaves, for substantive speech, leaders will come forward. In 2001 Congress, in an Appropriations Public Law, amended the Political Speech for Candidates Act ( my name), officially known as U.S.C. 47 § 312(a)(7) and removed 356 PBS stations from the Public Interest. Unconstitutional.
    Did you see even one debate on PBS in the last election? I am challenging the constitutionality of the Act and I am in three separate district courts, fighting for my entitlement to a three-judge court then directly to a session with the Supreme Coats.
    My (your) First Amendment right to deliver a political speech hinges on access to the tax payer funded non-commercial PBS funded network. Once i get those non-commercial doors opened and deliver a couple giant speeches laden with innovative substantive solutions, others will follow.
    I speak i win
    http://michaelslevinson.com
    • Lisa
    • Connecticut
    “But my motivation is, I owe this country so much.”
    This last quotation so aptly illustrates that absolute hubris these people have. I am happy to say that I have never felt that I “owe” my country so much that I feel entitled to buy an election. But how lovely for this man who can delude himself into thinking that he is doing us a favor by supporting Santorum.
    • Jay Arr
    • Texas
    Our country is on the auction block-thanks to a corrupted SCOTUS ( loaded with GOP appointees) and an outright attempt by conservative billionaires to literally own the country through their political lackeys, we as a democratic nation are in deep peril. The next Civil War will be between the super rich and the struggling working poor-if the GOP wins in 2012. God bless America.
    • Rankin Fyle
    • Atlanta
    Republicants are beholden to the 1% to fund their message.
    Says a lot about their message.
    Public funding for campaigns? anyone
    • rhdelp
    • Ellicott City, MD
    The economic conservatives finance the campaign, dictate policy behind the scenes while the candidates translate it into God and country. Obscene system.
    • Ruttsy
    • Il
    the extreme right wing majority of the supreme court must be thrilled to see their handiwork paying such handsome dividends.
    • Perry White, Daily Planet
    • WY
    As Progressives who would like to jettison this system, this year we can only play the game as the rules are spelled out.
    $250,000 gets you Obama’s ear, so they say. Pony up, rich progressives, and talk to him. We need Obama to emphasize his progressive side, not his conservative side.
    Obama may be the lesser of evils, but the other side is far worse: we get a Republican Congress and President, kiss goodbye to the America we used to know.
    • DVF
    • NY
    It is truly amazing how the NYT prints exactly what the administration tells them to print. Obama and the Democratic Super Pacs lead by George Soros will spend 4 times what the entire Republician machine will spend. The Dems want to give out just enough money to the poor to keep them from rioting, but keep them loyal to the group handing out the free money. The Dems are praticing the worst form of slavery on this planet. Wake up liberals.
    • Big M
    • NYC
    “A fool and his money are soon parted ”
    • Concerned
    • Washington
    “Mr. Friess said, adding that he had spoken to Mr. Adelson recently. “But my motivation is, I owe this country so much.” ”
    You are darn right he and his cronies owe this country so much. Trillions, in fact, because they have not paid their fair share of taxes since the Bush breaks kicked in.
    If these guys so love the USA why don’t they donate these billions to paying off the national debt instead of buying elections?
    • Texiam
    • Texas
    Future generations will view Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United with the same derision given to Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson. It is a blow to to democracy as expressed by the many. To give this much power to the uber rich cannot benefit liberty.
    • smartmoney1950
    • Vernon, BC
    How can we, as a people, not see the tremendous threat this is to democracy? Non one – repeat, no one – gives someone $100,000, $500,000 or a $1,000,000 and doesn’t expect to hold sway over them…PERIOD! It’s buying someone’s favor. And Conservatives that think they know what America needs most are the biggest spenders and undermine what America is al about. Stupid…Super Pacs should be outlawed immediately.
    • Carol Benedict Russell
    • Shelter Island, New York
    There are at least 313,000,000. (313 Million American citizens)
    and the Super Pacs reprsent only 1 percent of 313,000,000. or perhaps even less that this.
    because the Super Pacs represent who? Right themselves and only themselves !!!
    The truth; the bold and unashamed turth is this:
    The Super Pacs Represent themselves: or one per cent of 313,000,000.?
    Now let me know the Supreme Court’s reasoning for this represntation by a one percent
    minortity for a 99 per cent majority. There is only reason
    The Roberts Court is corrupt.and all those 5 Justices should tell us their individual
    reasons for voting on passage of the most corrupt law in US history: Citizens United !!!
    • Joe North
    • North Salem, NY
    Can we not admit that the system is broken with respect to both political parties? There are an equal number of millionaire/billionaire donors to the Democrat party as well. The wealthy and powerful got that way because they bought up the politicians of both parties. Anyone who thinks differently is out of touch.
    • llama
    • New York, NY
    I like how these people are described as “economic conservatives.” That means these people support and hope to increase the corporate welfare programs that sustain their fortunes. The free market is only for the middle class, well-connected economic elites must be given free money constantly.
    • johns
    • Sudbury MA
    A sad day. America has always had elections that were influenced by money. Now we have institutionalized this corruption with the stamp of approval of the United States Supreme Court. How other countries like Iran must be laughing. This is the democracy we envision for them? Run by the very wealthy to protect their economic interests. And candidates focused on their religion as the guiding force. Sound familiar?
    • RLS
    • Virginia
    Every major public policy failure can be tied to the corrupting influence of money. Former mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson, has thrown his hat in the ring and will limit donations to $100. He supports campaign finance reform and overturning Citizens United.
    A USA Today Gallup poll in the swing states found that 54% of Americans say a third major party is needed. “We launched the Justice Party because the entire system is so corrupt. It’s so diseased. We know that the public interest is not being served by anyone in the system right now, particularly the two dominant parties who have sustained this corrupt system and who are sustained by it.” http://www.justicepartyusa.net/
    Anderson’s positions:
    - End the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, subsidies for oil and gas, incentives to ship jobs overseas
    - Enact a financial transaction tax; invest the revenue in infrastructure, energy efficiency, clean energy, innovation, education (including free college or equivalent for four years)
    - Reform our financial system so that it serves the needs of small business and consumers; prosecute the illegal behavior that led to the meltdown
    - Environmental protection; enact climate change legislation
    - Medicare for all
    - End the wars; cut the waste in the military budget
    • Edward
    • Manhattan
    This reminds me of the 2008 election when Obama spent $1 billion on his campaign and McCain spent $250 million. Interestingly, this occurred despite Obama agreeing to limit campaign spending to $250 million. The solution to all of these problems is to have very low limits on campaign spending. Citizens should select a candidate based on his track record (which is often publicly available) not based on television ads and get out the vote efforts.
      • david
      • NYC/NC
      people need to stop paying any attention at all to political ads.
    • Banicki
    • Michigan
    A new way to destroy freedom and capitalism.
    Capitalism is broken and needs fixing or must be further regulated t0 protect the consumer and worker from oligopolies. This is directly related to the inequality of income in this country. If we desire to fix inequality, we must fix capitalism.
    The United States was founded on the principle that everyone is born with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Early on our forefathers decided the best economic model to reach these pursuits was capitalism. Free markets was chosen to best attain the nations economic objectives. Capitalism is here to serve society. Society is not here to serve capitalism. Read More: http://goo.gl/G0oPL
    • cmsvmom
    • Gulf Breeze FL
    These people own our country thanks to the supreme court. Democracy is an illusion at this point. Our votes are bought and sold, by these superpacs that sow division among us and limit our choice of candidates. The elitist masters of our political class care little about the American people, just their own shifting, clouded vision.
    • Duug
    • Black Mountain
    Further confirmation that we have the best form of government that money can buy.
    I fantasize that the populace will awake to this abuse of power and vote for anybody not a compromising Republican. Which would mean, of course, no Republicans at this time in history.
    • MSO
    • Berkeley, CA
    Slavery will become legal again once the Republicans have finished buying the government they want.
    • CDC
    • MA
    Truly frightening. Well at least here we have the names of the greatest threats to democracy and the people of the United States.
    • George Ohama
    • Maine
    Here is a look at the billionaire donors contributing to Romney’s Restore Our Future Super PAC:
    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2012/02/billionaire-republicans-who…
    For the month of January 2012, Restore Our Future raised an average of $213,000 per day, mainly from billionaires.
    • Peter
    • Upstate, NY
    Nauseating….
    Thank goodness they each still only have one vote.
    Think of how much good that money could have done through any number of charities.

Advertisements

Ads by Google what’s this?
Chromebooks have arrived
Less loading. More surfing.
Instant resume & 8 second startup.
google.com/chromebook

‘On The Table’: Options For Ending The Iran Standoff

by NPR Staff
Iran's state-run Press TV showed images of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring Tehran's research reactor on Wednesday.
EnlargeAFP/Getty ImagesIran’s state-run Press TV showed images of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring Tehran’s research reactor on Wednesday.
text size A A A
February 18, 2012
It was one of the more surreal photo ops this week: Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, live on Iranian TV, visiting a nuclear reactor. Ahmadinejad trumpeted his country’s nuclear progress, but denied, once again, that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons.
In Washington, officials weren’t buying it.
They rushed to repeat the official U.S. line — a line President Obama himself is fond of delivering.
“Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal,” he said.
But just what are those options? Can any of them stop Iran from getting the bomb?
This week, the bombs that made headlines were attacks against Israeli diplomats in New Delhi, India and in the Republic of Georgia. The wife of an Israeli diplomat was injured in New Delhi; the bomb in Georgia was defused. Investigators believe they were probably the work of Iranian agents. In Thailand, Iranians were caught preparing bombs that Thai officials said were also meant for Israeli diplomats.
Crude Attacks, Poor Planning
The Iranians may be getting serious in their declared intention to retaliate for the assassination of some of their nuclear scientists. But Scott Stewart, a terrorism analyst with the intelligence firm Stratfor, says he was struck by the amateurish quality of this week’s bomb operations. Even rudimentary car bomb attacks, he points out, require some expertise.
“Like any sort of terrorist attack like that, you really need to have good planning,” he says. “You need to have excellent surveillance; you really have to know the routine of your target, of course, then you need to make a good device — something that’s going to function as planned. And then you need to place it in a good spot where it’s going to be effective.”
The car bomb used against the Israeli diplomat’s wife in New Delhi proved ineffective. She was injured, but not killed. One of the Iranians in the Thailand operation managed only to blow his own legs off.
“In this case, we’re not seeing a lot of sophisticated tradecraft,” Stewart says, “so it could indeed be a case of them rushing things.”
If the Iranians are rushing retaliation, it could mean they are in disarray. It’s also possible these attacks — should they prove to be directed from Tehran — were done without expert help from Hezbollah. If so, the attacks may reveal as much about Iran’s weakness right now as its strength.
Letting Sanctions Play Out
Of all the options the U.S. says is on the table, Michigan Republican Mike Rogers says he believes sanctions are the best way to go. The impact they’ve already had on Iran, he says, proves they’re working.
“What we have done about cutting off their ability to get to the financial market has been devastating to them,” says Rogers, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee. “It has gotten their fangs out, clearly.”
That the response from Tehran has been further defiance is true enough, he says. “But they did slip in that they would go back to the negotiating table.”
Trouble on the streets of Iran may be pushing them there. People can’t get cash from the banks, Rogers says. Inflation is outrageous, food prices have shot up and gas shortages are common. “So the reason the regime is kind of buckling in is because they’re under that much pressure.”
“If we let that wait, and you let them understand that you’re serious, you will take out their nuclear enrichment capability if you have to, I think that can be a means to a peaceful end,” Rogers says.
Iran‘s Strategy
Iran might be willing to step up to the table, but it’s unclear whether it means to offer meaningful and binding nuclear compromises, says Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“Iran and the U.S. have two different philosophies of negotiation,” Sadjadpour says. “In the United States there is the famous book about negotiations called Getting to Yes. The Iranian equivalent of that book would be Staying on Maybe.”
Iran’s strategy may once have been playing for time, but now the tables have somewhat turned, he says.
For 23 years, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has sought to preserve the status quo by avoiding transformative decisions, Sadjadpour says. “Now, with these sanctions, Khamenei’s back is increasingly up against the wall. And he has two ways of seeking relief: One is in the form of a nuclear compromise, and the other is in the form of a nuclear weapon.”
What’s Israel Up To?
Meanwhile, Israel may be planning its own pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“Israel has made it very, very clear,” Rogers says.
Israel has “red lines,” he says, “meaning that if Iran gets so far in their nuclear weapons program that they can’t stop it, then all bets are off.”
That line isn’t far away, Rogers says.
If it did decide to attack, Sadjadpour says, Israel is confident it could set back Iran’s nuclear program one to three years, even without U.S. assistance. Yet, he warns, “if Israel starts it, they can’t finish it — and it would require U.S. involvement.”
“A unilateral Israeli strike is probably not in the best interests of the U.S.,” Rogers says. There’s a defense pact the U.S. has made with Israel that says the U.S. will defend Israel if attacked under any circumstances. If Iran retaliates, he says, the U.S. would be drawn in involuntarily.
How Much Time Do We Have?
Rogers believes Iran is close to getting the bomb. “That’s why they are so eager to brag about their enrichment capability,” he says.
If Iran were simply successful in one of its bomb attacks that might be enough to trigger forceful reactions.
“According to the law of averages, if Iran continues to aspire to commit these acts of terror, at some point they’re going to be successful,” Sadjadpour says. “They are going to hit their target, and if they hit either a major American target abroad or they strike on American soil, I think it’s going to be difficult for President Obama, in an election year, not to respond.”
Rogers, who was in Congress during the lead-up to the Iraq War, says the rising rhetoric between the countries makes military conflict all the more possible.
“If, God forbid, it gets to that point — and I hope it does not — you won’t see big troops on the ground,” he says. “It’ll be a dismantling of their capability to continue down this dangerous path of a nuclear weapon.”
NPR’s Tom Gjelten contributed to this report.

More Middle East

Podcast + RSS Feeds

Podcast RSS
  • Middle East
  • All Things Considered–

The Two-Way

Killing Continues In Syria, Two Western Journalists Among Victims

Troops loyal to President Bashar Assad reportedly executed nearly 30 young men in one incident.

Middle East

Activist: 2 Foreign Journalists Killed In Syria

A Syrian activist said they were killed by government shelling in the restive central city of Homs.

Remembrances

Journalist Marie Colvin Killed In Syrian Shelling

Marie Colvin was interviewed several times on Morning Edition — notably from Libya.

Comments

Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use. See also the Community FAQ.

Thank you for your comment. Please note we review some user comments to ensure they meet the NPR.org Community rules. For more information about this process, please read our explanation on how moderation works.
NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its website or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.
Sid Harth (navanavonmilita)
Sid Harth (navanavonmilita) wrote:
Lot has happened since publication of this news article. Iran has refused IAEA team access to some of their (secret) nuclear research facilities. Two day visit was supposed to iron out the differences in interpretations over whether Iran is committed to making a (crude) nuclear device in next couple of years, perhaps the next thirty to forty years, no less.
Israel has been warned against any attempt to attack Iran by many top level US government officials.
Since, Russia’s Putin is getting the top cop job this year and since he has lots of cash money from the oil and natural gas sales at high prices, he may play a spoil sport and throw some money and some strategic (secret) info to anyone affected.
Iran, on the contrary, would welcome such attention, knowing fully well that few strikes on her territory is what doctor ordered.
A unified, rejuvenated new country t keep the fight going on for the next thousand or so years. Not necessarily inside Iran’s territory but all over the world.
Something to think about.
…and I am Sid Harth@arabuhuru.org
Wednesday, February 22, 2012 9:19:37 AM
El Empecinado (Patriotic, but not dead.)
El Empecinado (Patriotic, but not dead.) wrote:
The demonization of Ahmadinejad has been efficeint and all encompassing, yet the man is there, touring a nuclear facility that the Israeli’s have already said that they would bomb. If our treaty says that we must defend Israel if they are attacked, it should be null and void if the Israeli’s attack unilaterally and without our agreement. Frankly, I believe that the Israeli disimformation machine may not be able to come up with enough lies to convince the American public to go back into another even bigger war to stop WMD’s AGAIN.
The stupidity of our public is almost limitless, yet can we really be THAT stupid?
Monday, February 20, 2012 8:25:23 PM
Luc S (pramjockey)
Luc S (pramjockey) wrote:
So, we’re going to trust the same government that gave us “Iraq has WMDs and is going to use them!” to tell us that Iran is creating a nuclear weapon, despite the IAEA’s findings to the contrary?
I think not.
Monday, February 20, 2012 4:09:24 PM
Amilcar Portillo (Kika234)
Amilcar Portillo (Kika234) wrote:
We should be talking about dismatling Israel’s nuclear capabilities rather than portraying Iran as the bad guys.
Monday, February 20, 2012 6:04:11 AM
Jeffery Wayne (cupppp)
Jeffery Wayne (cupppp) wrote:
This comment has been removed because it did not meet the NPR.org Community Discussion Rules.
Monday, February 20, 2012 1:50:28 AM
Fritz Striker (alda_marbles)
Fritz Striker (alda_marbles) wrote:
Love NPR, so it’s said.
However, a couple years ago I heard a clip on NPR: Journalist talking to Israeli man after palistinian missle attack. Journalist “[does this make you want to fight back?]“. Israeli man: “[no..no..we don't need to fight like this, we have had too much.]“. Journalist: “[but they fired missles at you, your town, does that make you want to retaliate?]“. Israeli: “[...no..]“. [.."but doesn't it make you mad?....]“, [..no..]
If you believe me, this went on for like a minute or so. What I got from that little interview is that the media loves a good war, and they won’t take no for an answer.
Iran is small enough to not be a threat to the U.S. (and only to Isael if Iran wants to be destroyed within minutes of an attack), yet big enough to make it an interesting headline.
I know some good doctors sit around for people to get sick, that’s life unfortuanately. And to that, I suspect that too many good journalist are waiting for a jetliner to fall out of air, just don’t try to MAKE it fall out of the air please.
Sunday, February 19, 2012 6:34:07 PM
Art Aficionado (Art_Aficionado)
Art Aficionado (Art_Aficionado) wrote:
barada nikto (_gort_) wrote:
Art Aficionado (Art_Aficionado) wrote:
“It begs the question of what that means and what happens to those who behave outwardly gay in Theocratic Iran.”
________________
Hey, I am no fan of any theocracy, or religion for that matter, but obviously they would be subject to the laws of Iran’s theocracy … that contrary to what we regularly hear in our media, most Iranians support. We have no right to force our ideologies on them … You cannot spread democracy through the barrel of a gun.
—
Good point. I wasn’t suggesting we should meddle in their internal affairs but, rather, that their harsh theocratic ideology might conflict with peaceful use of enriched U.
Sunday, February 19, 2012 6:24:02 PM
Jerry Vincent (Jerr7)
Jerry Vincent (Jerr7) wrote:
The Israelis seems to be looking for any reason that will justify their bombing of Iran & anyone else that is seen as a potential threat to their security. The U.S. has armed them well. Unfortunately the people of that region have never lived together in peace for very long. Have they?
Sunday, February 19, 2012 5:30:47 PM
Mikie Mouser (mikers)
Mikie Mouser (mikers) wrote:
Seems NPR is doing it’s best to shill for attacking Iran
U.S. media takes the lead on Iran
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/us_media_takes_the_lead_on_iran/singleton/
Many have compared the coordinated propaganda campaign now being disseminated about The Iranian Threat to that which preceded the Iraq War, but there is one notable difference. Whereas the American media in 2002 followed the lead of the U.S. government in beating the war drums against Saddam, they now seem even more eager for war against Iran than the U.S. government itself, which actually appears somewhat reluctant. Consider this highly illustrative, one-minute report yesterday from the nightly broadcast of NBC News with Brian Williams, by the network’s Chief Pentagon Correspondent Jim “Mik” Miklaszewski, which packs multiple misleading narratives into one short package:
Sunday, February 19, 2012 4:22:42 PM
barada nikto (_gort_)
barada nikto (_gort_) wrote:
Art Aficionado (Art_Aficionado) wrote:
“… the International community is reacting with understandable suspicion given that Ahmadinejad has made statements in the past suggesting Israel be politically “wiped off the map”.”
___________
I have heard that many times but have yet to read the exact quote in it’s context. I do know however that Iran does not support a two state solution on 1967 borders … as the world community, the Muslim world and even Hamas have been calling for. That leaves Iran and Israel that reject it … one wants to “wipe Israel off the map” the other wants to “wipe Palestine off the map” … Which would be worse is a matter of opinion, but maybe if Israel stopped actually doing it, Iran might end it’s mere threats.
Sunday, February 19, 2012 2:45:19 PM
View all comments (115)»
Ally Bank Ally Bank Ally Bank Ally Bank Ally Bank NPR thanks our sponsors
Become an NPR Sponsor

From The Ombudsman

NPR is committed to ensuring that the public can thoroughly review the network’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Every three months, an independent journalist analyzes NPR’s coverage; his assessments are posted on NPR’s public website.

podcast

Foreign Dispatch Podcast

Foreign Dispatch Podcast

A weekly podcast of the biggest news and best stories from NPR’s foreign correspondents from around the world.
Subscribe

podcast

Weekends on All Things Considered Podcast

Weekends On All Things Considered Podcast

Missed All Things Considered this weekend? Here’s the best of what you might’ve missed.
Feed
Subscribe in iTunes
Listen Now

@michele_norris On Twitter

Follow @michele_norris on Twitter.

@nprguyraz On Twitter

Follow @nprguyraz on Twitter.

@npratc On Twitter

  • Ever draw a cultural blank when a group of friends discuss something? Take me — I’ve never seen Star Wars. Send us YOUR cultural blind spot 5 days ago
Follow @npratc on Twitter.

more

about

Weather Afternoon: 11°c Drizzle Tonight: 9°c Drizzle

News

William Hague warned there was risk of an arms race in the Middle East if the Tehran regime developed a nuclear bomb
William Hague warned there was risk of an arms race in the Middle East if the Tehran regime developed a nuclear bomb

MPs keeping options open on Iran

21 Feb 2012

Sponsored links

$4.95 Domain Name Special
From The Original Domain Registrar. Hurry, $4.95 Domain Offer Ends Soon
www.NetworkSolutions.com
Get $75 of Advertising
Try Google AdWords. Claim Your $75 Coupon Now!
www.Google.com/AdWords
Support Israel’s Future.
America & Israel Stand Together Show Your Support Now!
AIPAC.org


MPs have backed the Government’s decision not to rule out military force against Iran as it continues to develop a nuclear arsenal.
Their support came as Foreign Secretary William Hague warned against backing down, telling the Commons there was risk of an arms race in the Middle East if the regime in Tehran thought it could develop a nuclear bomb without the threat of the West resorting to military action.
Mr Hague said allowing Iran such freedom would force its neighbours to develop their own warheads. If the UK and others withdrew any threat of military intervention, it would only embolden President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he added.
Speaking during a backbench-led debate in the Commons, Mr Hague described Iran’s enrichment of uranium in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions as a “crisis coming steadily down the track” as scientists in the country were “steadily developing” the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
Ruling out force “would increase tension and increase the likelihood of military conflict in the near term”, he said. “If Iran set about the development of nuclear weapons then other nations in the Middle East would do so as well,” Mr Hague told MPs. “I therefore do believe there would be a nuclear arms race in the region.”
Mr Hague insisted the Government remained “unswervingly committed” to diplomacy, but added “no prudent government” could rule out force. He told the Commons: “We should not relieve Iran of any of the military pressure it is currently facing. If we ruled out military action, Iran may perceive it can get away with aggressive military actions. Taking other options off the table may cause Iran to step up its aggressive and destabilising activity in the region.”
The Foreign Secretary was speaking in a backbench-led Commons debate where Tory MP John Baron called on MPs to demand the Government rules out using military force against Iran.
Mr Baron, a member of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee, said the West should abandon “sabre rattling” policies over Iran’s nuclear ambitions – adding war was only ever a “last resort”. Summing up the debate, the MP for Basildon and Billericay added: “My belief, in contrast to a lot of the contributions here tonight, is that we have not reached that point yet.”
But a cross-party amendment to Mr Baron’s motion, supported by heavyweights including former foreign secretaries Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Margaret Beckett as well as former defence secretary Bob Ainsworth, backed the Government to keep all its options open.
There was only a one-line whip on the vote on the amendment, giving MPs the freedom to support Mr Baron and vote against the Government. But instead they chose to overwhelmingly support the Government and voted through the amendment to the motion by 285 to 6, majority 279.

Sponsored links

Auto Body Repair Estimate
No Start Up Cost Online Software. Start A Free 14 Day Trial Now!
www.Web-est.com
BMW Oil & Filter Change
Great Deals For A BMW Oil & Filter. Print Coupons Online.
PhiladelphiaBMWService.com
Top 5 Depression Signs
Do You Have Depression? What The Doctor Is Not Telling You!
Hopeful-Livings.com
Wheel Alignment Coupons
Download & Print A Coupon For A Free Wheel Alignment. Good Anywhere
servicemountain.com

Don't Miss
  • Somalia

    Why a London Somali chose to run the most volatile capital in Africa

    As the world’s statesmen gather in London to discuss whether to take military action in Somalia, the man plucked from Camden to be mayor of its capital tells us what he hopes the talks will achieve
  • The Vagenda

    What’s on the Vagenda?

    A new satirical blog is piling up the hits by making feminism funny, says Rosamund Urwin. Women’s glossies in particular should run for cover
  • …and I am Sid Harth@sidileak.com
Posted by at

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)