Yourself, for example.
Can you imagine writing an article with the tone and argument like "Cooler Elites" <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070507/henwood> -- "Can we trust them? Do we have any choice?" -- about the power elites and ruling classes of Iran now or Yugoslavia in its twilight, or even the power elites and ruling classes of China or Russia today (neither of which is exactly on the list of America's worst enemies yet), let alone getting it published in The Nation, without devoting more space to the human rights violations and other problems caused directly or indirectly by them than to your main argument, mentions of which you can, as you in fact did in this article, get away with omitting when you are writing about the "investor and business coalition" and "their favorite politicians" in the USA?
The Nation is far from the only one that has double standards: one for the liberal power elites of the US-led multinational empire, another for those in the rest of the world. That is the norm of international inequality that we are all asked to observe in polite society (or else).
However much liberals and leftists complain of the Democratic Party or question liberalism or whatever between election years, most of them, including you, not only vote for Democratic politicians but also _actively campaign against_ those to the Left of the Democrats if they think that enough voters fail to vote for Democrats, resulting in Republican wins (and some, like the CP and many identity- or issue-based NGOs and unions, actively campaign _for_ the Democrats). It is in fact far easier to identify those who do _not_ support the liberal wing of the empire -- the ISO, Solidarity, some Greens, some anarchists, etc. -- than those who do, for the latter are too many, comprising a majority of liberals and leftists* in the USA.
Thus the Democratic Party continues its brand of liberal imperialism, largely committed to sanctions on Iran and support for Israel among other things, voted into power in part with the help of most liberals and leftists here. It's the same way in West Europe, too. When it comes down to it, most liberals and leftists there support the main social democratic party in their country, which does its own work to maintain the US-led multinational empire, albeit usually more moderately than the electoral duopoly here.
In short, most liberals and leftists (except the recalcitrant few named above) do not mind giving (what they like to call tactical but is in effect perpetual) support to the parties that are part and parcel of the ruling members of the empire, on the grounds that they are better than their domestic competitors, but few of them would give even a tiny little of the same to the governments, movements, parties really in the crosshairs of the United States government, often rejecting them altogether on the grounds that they do not share their values, that the enemy of their enemy is not their friend, etc. Strange -- seen objectively in terms of their respective casualties, the record of the Democratic Party, not just of the Republican Party, is _far worse_ than those of America's official enemies.
* But what's so Left about leftists today? After socialism and social democracy, does the term Left mean anything other than it is _relatively_ to the left of the main right-wing party? "Andie" says, "Well, I _am_ a liberal. And so are most of you" (at <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070702/012948.html>).
He is honest about himself, and he is quite right about others, too, imho. Similarly in Europe, formerly social democratic parties are becoming social liberal parties. A similar trend exists in the South, too, including much of Latin America: <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070709/012983.html>.
P.S. You've claimed many times: "without your provocations, there'd be little talk about that country [Iran] on this list except to expose and condemn the Bush admin's war plans."
What an odd thing to say! It's your moral and political obligation to expose and condemn not only the Bush administration's war plans but also economic sanctions, "democracy assistance," and all other aspects of imperialism, not only about Iran (which is the centerpiece of current imperial policy) but also other nations. What anyone else says about anything does not change your obligation.
Moreover, I have been posting data from well-established Iran Studies scholars and other reputable sources, of the sort excluded from or marginalized in the corporate media, and making arguments based on facts I have discovered. That's the same approach I take on any subject. I wonder why you find them provocative. -- Yoshie