The irony of an anti-labor Republican getting all in a froth about Iranian suppression of labor activists is indeed rich. Of course, the same might be said for the US House getting all in an uproar about violations of UN resolutions by Syria and Iran while ignoring those of Israel and the United States.

Unfortunately there will be lots of pressure on Dems to support HR690 to show their undying support for Israel, not that it is needed - they'll probably vote for this crap anyway.

This irony has a long history. The only union Reagan loved was Lech Walesa's.

Jon, I know I can always count on you to ruin an already perfectly crappy Monday.

My history thesis professor, who had been in the State Dept. in the 40s, 50s and 60s, said Americans were "like geese, waking up every morning to an entirely new world made just for them." He was stationed at different times in India, Iran and throughout the Middle/Near East, and I wish like hell he was still alive. I'd like to know that there is at least one person out there who understands the subject and is not completely batshit insane.

I guess it's a good sign if it's being left to conservative Republicans to make "the liberal case for war"...

Hi, Thanks for your website. I've recently discovered it (probably due to your "We Suck" piece on Arianna's site) I've been having a lot of trouble with my system (can't get on to a lot of comments sections) and wondered if my inability to highlight and send material from your site to others is my problem, or something you have on your website.

Thanks. Catherine in Cleveland Heights

Buermann - not really. Remember all the folks (including tons and tons of liberals) who lined up to support the invasion of Afghanistan based on the idea that it was a war for Feminism? And how the same argument was used in the leadup to the war in Iraq - even though Iraq was largely secular?

Sorry, but I won't be phoning this time. They've worn me out. Congratulations, Congress!

I sort of feel I have to apologize. It's my lousy congressman once again carrying war water for the Bush administration as he did with Iraq. He told us at his 2002 debate with the Democratic candidate that he saw the intelligence as a Naval Intelligence officer and he KNEW, not just thought or felt confident, but KNEW, there were WMD in Iraq. That sure shut up his opponent and helped him along to victory. When no WMD were found, no biggy, he simply hid from constituents for a long time, moved on to local issues like late trains and lake water and has now moved on to this new push for war. Kirk's most recent lie took place at a recent meeting in a church where he shut down a local peace activist with a simple denial of confirmed Iraq casualties.

Now as you point out, as a reliable and loyal member of Bush's pro-war cabal, he's suddenly passionate about labor rights in Iran and don't forget the plight of the Baha'is in Iran. I'd guess before this push for war he had no idea who they were. It all sounds so caring, but his real motive is staying in office. He's at risk and a good 50% of his constituents can't stand him and the other 50% simply hope he'll protect them, not from terrorists, but from the estate tax.

I sort of feel I have to apologize. It's my lousy congressman once again carrying war water for the Bush administration as he did with Iraq. He told us at his 2002 debate with the Democratic candidate that he saw the intelligence as a Naval Intelligence officer and he KNEW, not just thought or felt confident, but KNEW, there were WMD in Iraq. That sure shut up his opponent and helped him along to victory. When no WMD were found, no biggy, he simply hid from constituents for a long time, moved on to local issues like late trains and lake water and has now moved on to this new push for war. Kirk's most recent lie took place at a recent meeting in a church where he shut down a local peace activist with a simple denial of confirmed Iraq casualties.

Now as you point out, as a reliable and loyal member of Bush's pro-war cabal, he's suddenly passionate about labor rights in Iran and don't forget the plight of the Baha'is in Iran. I'd guess before this push for war he had no idea who they were. It all sounds so caring, but his real motive is staying in office. He's at risk and a good 50% of his constituents can't stand him and the other 50% simply hope he'll protect them, not from terrorists, but from the estate tax.

@Catherine: Your problem with the inability to correctly highlight, cut and paste sections of A Tiny Revolution is not yours alone. I'm not sure when this began to be so here; I'm pretty sure it wasn't that way a year ago, so it's something that changed in the underpinnings of the site.

I've had the same problem at Steve Clemons' thewashingtonnote.com since they did a redesign about a year ago: When I try to select text, all the text up to that point gets selected. This is not a problem with Explorer 7, which I'm using right now, but with Explorer 6.x. Haven't tested it using Foxfire on the s.o.'s system...

A workaround is to 'view source', find the passage you want and select text there. Sometimes you'll have to strip out html tags, but at least you'll be able to capture just the section you want.

Would somebody tell me why a treasonous pile of s*** in Congress, who is paid by American taxpayers to deal with American affairs, is spending his time condemning actions by a nation on the other side of the globe, for its actions taken (allegedly) against another country on the other side of the globe? This is what we're paying these s***heels for? Where in the Constitution does it say that this is a responsibility of any member of Congress? Doesn't this crapweasel have matters in this country to be spending his precious time addressing?

WTF???

No, Big M that's not what we're paying these worthless shitheels for.

That's what their real bosses at AIPAC and AEI pay them for though.

YOU could always BE the boss you are. Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100. TELL HER TO IMPEACH.