411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 131 – Iran in Turmoil, Netanyahu Makes Demand, Maher vs. Obama, and Barney Frank is Your Pusher Man

Posted by Mark Radulich on 06.26.2009

This week's debate is kind of like a bride at her wedding, we got something old, something new, something used and something blue...confused? You should read this and then you'll know.

Never say that I don't read the comments section and take what is said to heart. I asked for some suggestions about what would be some interesting topics and one of you actually hipped me to a pretty good one. However, I am well aware that I can't make everybody happy all of time. It's inevitable that some of you won't appreciate the topics I choose for one reason or another, that's life and I'm OK with that.

In addition, to the question of a "liberal FoF" or "conservative FoF," this column is driven solely by those who offer to participate. It's not like I have a booking agent that I can task with getting the Fox News All-Star Panel when you all don't contact me. As much as it pains me to say this, I don't have Charles Krauthammer on speed dial. But, if Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader ever call me and say they want in, guess what, that's what your going to get and if it's all liberal, oh well. Lastly, there is no litmus test for being on here. I don't pay close attention to people's political persuasions on here. And if I did I don't think it would matter as most of the participants have been either libertarian or moderates. By all means though, if there are those of you out there that are hardcore lefties or rightwingers, come on in and participate, I would love to have you be a part of this.

One announcement for next week. My background as a social worker is in substance abuse counseling as well as children and family counseling. I've written tons of papers concerning both sides of drug war and now I want to take that experience and use it for a themed FoF called: Fact or Fiction: The Drug War Edition. I have one participant already by I need one more if anyone is interested in sharing their opinions on the War on Drugs. Let me know, [e-mail].

This week we have a pair of 411 contributors that I know you are going to love. First there's Aaron Scott Jockers aka The Weesel (no political affiliation mentioned). His opponent is comments occasionally here on 411 as null2099, and has always been a political junkie. He's also a pagan blog writer on another site and enjoys religious debates; ladies and germs here he is, James "TwoSnakes" Stovall.

Let's do this thing...

Ding Ding!

1) Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham are two among others criticising Obama for not initially condemning the crackdown of Iranian protesters in much more forceful terms, as did Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Angela Merkel of Germany. "The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," Graham said. However, given America's history in Iran, Obama's delicacy in the matters of Iranian politics and the possibility of revolution, is warranted.

The Weesel: Fact. The initial crackdown in itself was not illegal and was to be expected. There is no universal right to assemble nor to free speech under Iranian law. Now morally and ethically yes of course it was not appropriate by any means, however, that is not the place of a foreign administration to dictate. At the early beginning it seemed the Senators were making political hay for the sake of argument as the pragmatic side of the administration and backers including Henry Kissinger and Richard Luger both agreed with Mr. Obama.

As the crackdown became bloody, when Neda was killed, then yes of course it was time to speak out. But in the initial stages the United States had no place in eschewing cowboy diplomacy nor agitation rhetoric as the potential damage far outweighed the immediate moral satisfaction. From a longterm standpoint based on nuclear dilemma, and given our reputation and history of interference in Iranian politics this was the smart, strategic approach to start with.

James "TwoSnakes" Stovall: Both. From a moral standpoint I would like him to have made a stronger statement sooner, but from a strategic one it was better to let other nations speak first. It doesn't matter what Obama says. It's an independent theocracy, and statements from a country that is not even in diplomatic relations with Iran will have little effect either way. What would we have done if Iran said the hanging chads in Florida should have counted? Would we pay any attention at all? The truth is this is Both because it is just a political tool being used in this country by the minority party. For years I have heard neo-con talk show pundits scream about symbolism over substance on the part of the liberals. But when you are not making symbolic substance-less speeches then they can use that against you as well.

TwoSnakes you little devil, how am supposed to score this now? Doh! I suppose it's .5 and 1 as he chose both fact and fiction. On this issue I really had to fight my inner conservative talk radio show douche and follow my brain instead. Sure the President should make idealistic and tough speeches but we have such a special relationship with Iran that, like the song says, you have to know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em and know when to let France and Germany make the tough speeches. The last time we got directly involved in Iranian politics for our own benefit the Shah was tossed out of power, the clerics took over and Americans were taken hostage. As much as I relish the opportunity to call Dear Leader a coward, his behavior has actually been prudent and the Republicans are being unreasonable.

2) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu broke new ground with his speech Sunday, June 14. He voiced support for the first time for a Palestinian state. But he also attached a condition that no other Israeli leader has put on peace negotiations: Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

"A fundamental prerequisite for ending the conflict is a public, binding, and unequivocal Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people," argued Mr. Netanyahu, who said the issue lies at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Mr. Netanyahu is correct, Israel must be recognized by Hamas both publicly and in it's charter (which currently states that,"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." and "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.")

The Weesel: Fiction. Yeah I hear money grows on that tree. Kidding. Editor's Note: HA! The man's got jokes : ) Israel does not have to be recognized by Hamas, it has to be recognized by the Palestinian people. Hamas is a political party which is an ultra right wing group operating through terrorist methodology, based in Syria. It came into power in 2006 voted in over Fatah, a center left nationalist party. Hamas the Gaza Strip and Fatah the West Bank. Really though the Palestinian Territories are divided with neither group recognizing each othe since the civil war in 2007. Fatah already modified their charter following the 1993 Oslo accords to recognize Israel.

Conversely, Hamas is dedicated to the end of Israel as its leaders have made that clear again and again, and needs Israel to be seen as evil in order to cull popular opinion and remain in power. Without the charter Hamas ceases to function as its very existence requires the ideal of the destruction of Israel, Hamas itself is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement. What needs to happen is for the Palestinian people to free themselves of the dogma of Hamas. It is the population who will make the philosophic change through Fatah or another party and bring forward a real two state solution. The most Hamas could reasonably hope for is a ten or so year truce and that does not require official recognition.

James "TwoSnakes" Stovall: Fiction. Netanyahu doesn't want recognition, he wants political capital for the next time action is needed. It's smart to seem reasonable, but lets look at what else he said in that speech:

"I have already stressed the first principle – recognition. Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is: demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel."

And what is meant by that?

"In order to achieve peace, we must ensure that Palestinians will not be able to import missiles into their territory, to field an army, to close their airspace to us, or to make pacts with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. On this point as well, there is wide consensus within Israel."

So, we want to recognize you as a nation, if you will recognize us, and if we have complete military control of your "nation"

But wait, there's more.

"If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel's security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state."

So, if you agree to recognize us as a nation, and that we have the right to dominate your territory with our military, we will eventually get around to talking about you being a state, not just one of our territories. Note how the Jewish State is capitalized, yet he is not so quick to say Palestinian State?

"The territorial question will be discussed as part of the final peace agreement. In the meantime, we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements.

But there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives, to allow mothers and fathers to raise their children like families elsewhere. The settlers are neither the enemies of the people nor the enemies of peace. Rather, they are an integral part of our people, a principled, pioneering and Zionist public."

So, we, the official government you will be recognizing have no intention of creating settlements. But those crazy independent settlers, we can't keep them out of an Israeli territory not quite yet a Palestinian State.

"Above all else, the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. The Palestinian Authority will have to establish the rule of law in Gaza and overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit at the negotiating table with terrorists who seek their destruction."

How willing is a government controlled by an elected party going to be to ban itself from government? Really?

I am not saying the Palestinians are the wronged party in all this, or that I support them, but lets be realistic. Even peoples who have not been fighting forever would not accept those terms.

1.5 for 2. I have read these responses over and over again and all I can add is that the Palestinians voted Hamas in and therefore, if we're seeking a two-state solution at this time in history, with this government, then it is THIS government that is beholden to recognize Israel and stop with the formal talk of genocide. To me, by voting in Hamas the people of Palestine are saying they don't recognize Israel either and supports it's destruction. We voted in a large majority if Democrats and so I would argue that we support in large portions whatever it is the Democrats stand for. When we don't, they will be out of office. I believe this follows for Palestine as well. I could go on about the Middle East Problem but that's another column for another day.

You Spin Me Right Round Baby, Right Round Like a Record Baby...I mean SWITCH!

3) Self-described libertarian comedian Bill Maher recently criticized President Obama of being obsessed with appearing on TV and failing to come through on pre-election promises saying, "I don't want my president to be a TV star...You don't have to be on television every minute of every day — you're the president, not a rerun of ‘Law & Order'...TV stars are too worried bout being popular and too concerned about being renewed," and finally, "You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady — but so is Lindsay Lohan. And just like Lindsay, we see your name in the paper a lot but we're kind of wondering when you're actually going to do something." In addition, Maher criticized Obama's constant television coverage and said the president should focus on fixing the nation's problems instead. Bill Maher is correct in this instance.

James "TwoSnakes" Stovall: Fact. Hey, we liked Obama on TV, that's why he got elected. Now that he is in office he and his staff have concluded that his face on your screen is the best weapon they have. And it does work to a point, people will follow charisma. The problem is that the public is starting to look down the path and realize that like the funny "party" guy you used to know, the trip might be fun, but the end result isn't. Republican numbers are starting to edge up in some groups, not that I think they have anything to brag about; when both parties are out to harm the middle, it's only natural to lean away from whichever side is in power. That does not make the alternative better, it just confirms how desperate the middle is.

I personally think Maher is spot on, I'd rather see results than popularity. Popularity eventually runs out, and the President risks becoming the Sanjaya of the Oval Office.

The Weesel: Fiction. Fiction. FICTION! What America needs above everything else is a positive reinforcement of where we believe we are going. Right now times are tough and you see that and hear that every single day. Obama on TV is reassuring and comforting, and is using his own popularity to drive his policies which are less popular. Just like FDR's fireside chats, whether utilizing new media or giving his press conferences, Mr. Obama's presence remains something that the American public want to see. According to Gallup, his approval rating is at 60%, but the rate at the populace are dissatisfied with the state of the nation is at 67%.

His Rose Garden appearance was an attempt to reset the debate on Health Care as well as push a stronger stance on Iran. Right now America needs a leader and that leader must be visible to encourage us when all other signs point to continued negativity, even if his policies draw the ire of hardliners on either side of the aisle. To me it's amazing that certain Liberals have become upset that our President is not their Patron Lord and Saint and shock and horror because he's not spouting their bias - so now they don't want to hear him anymore. Awww, Et Tu BillMaherius?

1.5 for 3. "Awww, Et Tu BillMaherius?" Now that's damn funny right there, I don't care who you are. "Where are the questions about people like Bill Maher speaking out against Obama and his lies? Posted By: Michael (Guest) on June 18, 2009 at 11:59 AM" You're welcome sir.

4) Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts has introduced two pieces of legislation on marijuana -- one medical, and one recreational. The first would change federal law to allow states to experiment with medical marijuana without interference from Washington. And the second would drastically reduce federal penalties for "personal possession" of marijuana.

However, marijuana smoke has joined tobacco smoke and hundreds of other chemicals on a list of substances California regulators say cause cancer. The listing only applies to marijuana smoke, not the plant itself.

Despite this finding (and many more health related issues regarding marijuana) you are still hoping that the bill's Frank has submitted will pass in short order.

James "TwoSnakes" Stovall: Fact. It is amazing how things come full circle. Hemp once vital for National safety became a drug associated with "Lazy Mexicans" and violence in 1910. The Mexican Revolution happened and Mexican nationals flooded the U.S. bringing with it, at least modern myth has it, the use of recreational marijuana. The Great Depression made racial hate of cheap immigrant labor very acceptable, and marijuana was the perfect tool to bust some heads. It's worked pretty well too, if you look at all the people in jail, and all the property seized over the years. Now we get to 2009, and there really is a ton of violence over drugs on the border, and masses of illigal aliens are here to "do the jobs Americans won't do." I thought Mexico was in America to but I digress.

Legal marijuana would be a huge tax generator, and we could save on law enforcement in a time when some states cannot afford to keep prisons open. The parallels between marijuana and alcohol during Prohibition are undeniable.

With the exception of the years when the Federal Government gave hemp seeds to farmers because hemp was needed for the war effort, this is and always should have been a States rights issue. And in the current environment we need all the States rights we can hang on to.

The Weesel: Fact. As much as I hate to be so agreeable, the "Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008," or HR 5843 would remove Federal criminal penalties from possession of 100 grams or less and the not for profit transfer of one ounce of Marijuana. It would not affect laws on trafficking, growing, importing, or exporting nor remove it as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. As it stands right now, the FDA notes that "there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful," and "that no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use." But Marinol itself in a pill form has been approved and sanctioned so it's really a matter of semantics.

And then there's the economic aspect as James noted but I'll go further. In 2007, there were 775,137 arrests made on simple possession. While such cases rarely see incarceration, this is still your tax dollars and mine at a pricetag of greater fiscal and social costs. From John Gettman, PhD, "State and local justice costs for marijuana arrests are now estimated to be $7.6 billion, annual police costs are $3.7 billion, judicial/legal costs are $853 million, and correctional costs are $3.1 billion. In both California and New York, state fiscal costs dedicated to criminal marijuana law enforcement annually total over $1 billion for each state."

$1 billion. $1 Billion of your tax dollars and mine just because some people like to cloud their judgment, listen to interesting music, cough like crazy and sit around in a general daze to ignore the daily rigor of their lives. This harmless psychological addiction far outweighs the cost of this failed war on pot. HR 5843 would be the first step in removing unnecessary expenditures as well as free up law enforcement to regulate other Schedule 1 substances.

and the final score at the buzzer is 2.5 for 4. If there is a single person besides me who is conflicted on the decriminalization of marijuana or is outright against, by all means, send me an e-mail, show me some love because right now I feel like I'm on an island talking to a volleyball when it comes to the marijuana issue. But we'll get into more of that next week.

Thanks to both The Weesel and TwoSnakes for participating (and for having such awesome nicknames). If you would like to join in and play along too email me at [e-mail] or leave your email address in a comment and I'll contact you.

Again, come back next week for Mark "I'm a Mandated Reporter and Frankly I'm Mortified" Radulich Presents a very special Fact or Fiction: The Drug War In America.