Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditRepresentative Dennis Kucinich knows the neocon playbook used to lead our nation into war. That's why the courageous Congressman is doing everything he possibly can to ensure that the Bush administration fails in its effort to pull the same old tricks in manufacturing a war with Iran.
On October 10 Kucinich convened a panel of experts on Capitol Hill to answer two questions: is the Administration preparing for war? And is Iran an imminent threat?
Panelists included former chief weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay; retired Colonel Sam Gardiner of the National War College; Joseph Cirincione, senior vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress; Alfred Cummings, specialist in intelligence and national security foreign affairs at the Congressional Research Service; and Dr. Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council. There was unanimity around a few key points:
1) Iran is at least 5 years – but more likely 10 or more years – away from producing weapons-grade nuclear materials
2) Iran poses no imminent threat to the US, Israel, or its neighbors
3) The Bush administration has already selected the military option and is moving to make it operational
4) The consequences of a military confrontation with Iran are global and nightmarish
5) We should be pursuing multilateral negotiations and have missed key opportunities to do so – including not even responding to an Iranian offer to put recognition of Israel and suspension of its nuclear program on the table. Perhaps more than anything else, our refusal to engage Iran frustrates this panel.
There was also a consensus that the threat assessment conducted by the intelligence agencies should be declassified. Let dissenters voice their opinions before Congress. We should have learned this lesson from the intelligence failure in Iraq.
The panel suggested that the cheerleaders for this war are – you guessed it – Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. The Joint Chiefs are believed to be opposed to yet another catastrophic misadventure.
Some consequences of this insane déjà vu-like war would include: skyrocketing oil prices; Hezbollah attacks on Israel; Iranian attacks on US forces in Iraq; Iranian sabotage of pipelines in Iraq; Iran blocking Gulf oil flow; and threats to regional governments.
Cirincione summarized, "If you like the war in Iraq, wait until you see the war in Iran. It will be a massive, global war."
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
We are already at war with Iran,...in Iraq. The panel has missed the biggest point of all, despite these fruitful and relevent, ah, meetings,good thing ol' Dennis is on the job.....Iran is already moving in to fight us, not the other way around...
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 10:23am
1st....who is going to support Bush on such a war? The Republicans, who like John Warner, are now backpedalling as fast as they can AWAY from Iraq (or even James Baker III who is waiting until after the election to issue a report on how lousy Iraq is going)?
2nd....How will the PUBLIC support such a war? With polls running in the high 60s against Iraq?
The only "logic" to the idea of Bush/Cheney/Rummy attacking Iran...is in the minds of the conspiracy theorists (Scott Ritter has been predicting an "US invasion of Iran" since FEBRUARY 2005....and he predicted it would come in....JUNE 2005!!!).
NONE of them can explain HOW such an attack gets supported in the Congress (even one still controlled by the GOP...and especially not one likely to be atleast HALF Democratic controlled in 2007).
Does Bush just start launching missiles into Iran? Hyperbole aside, he is NOT a "dictator" and he would get REAMED (politically) by the Republicans for doing such a thing....garner NO support from the public....and likely face that impeachment that the other left-wing nutters have been calling for for four years.
This "Kucinich Committee" is like holding a committee to tell us "How bad it would be to blow up the Moon"....isn't going to happen, and nobody can explain HOW it would happen anyway!
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 10:24am
It is imperative that the U.S. congress pass a resolution prohibiting these crazy people in the administration to launch another war resulting in death of perhaps millions of people and causing hardship for millions more.
Posted by kevin99999 at 10/12/2006 @ 10:30am
wow, katrina's on a tear
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 10:38am
i do not fear our trying to strike north korea. three reasons.
1. we are to stretched militarily now. 2. china. despite recent cooperation, they would not allow it. 3. n. korea gotta da bomb
but iran... thats a real possiblity. reasons...
1. although overstretched logistically, we are set up in the region, have many troops and resources ready to go 2. iran has no china backing it. we are scared of china. cause they are big and bad. 3. they dont have nukes. 4. neocons (obverse democratic fascists) are getting desperate. they are still convinced the old boogyman sith mind tricks will work on the american public, whipping up enough scary hysteria to elect another pub in 08
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2006 @ 10:44am
based on hersch's two brilliant articles on the subject, on a tactical/strategic level, an invasion, or even just an aerial assault, of iran seems positively implausible. and this doesn't even touch the subject of the wider cultural war that would ensue. the united states would suffer near permanent damage as a result of an invasion of iran.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 10:45am
You know what often happens to the schoolyard bully right? A bunch of smaller kids knock him over and kick his teeth down his throat.
But then again, maybe Dubya is hearing them voices in his head again...
[from The Guardian- Friday October 07 2005]
Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."
So to all his Fundyvangenut followers this is all perfectly reasonable - and if it ends in "the Rapture" even better. The sooner he and his gets the bum rush, the safer we'll all be!
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/12/2006 @ 10:55am
We are already at war with Iran...in Iraq.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2006 @ 10:23am
Okay, suppose we are. We have 150,000 of the best trained and best equipped soldiers in history. The enemy has some agitators, mercenaries and like-minded hotheads. We are bogged down and looking for a way out, the alternative being an interminable and expensive struggle, the kind which has brought down many a nation. In the meantime the enemy nation is brazenly developing nuclear technologies and playing the UN like a violin.
If we're at war with Iran, we're getting our asses kicked.
Posted by MyParadigm at 10/12/2006 @ 11:02am
the issue isn't "war with" iran; the issue is "war in" iran.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 11:13am
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 10:24am
MASK, if your numerous posts are evaluated by the relative degree of intelligent concepts communicated per post you'd be solidly in the 2nd percentile with only RIO BLOTTO, LVLIBERTY1, and PONTIFICUS occupying the 1st percentile.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 11:14am
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/12/2006 @ 11:14am
FROM, I usually feel I have you over a barrel as far as making relative points....when snarky comments and "put-downs" are all you can offer in response.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 11:24am
"You know what often happens to the schoolyard bully right? A bunch of smaller kids knock him over and kick his teeth down his throat. "
And then the bully, so to speak, the larger guy on the block who keeps the rest of the little shits from killing each other, he gets up, sees the dentist, and comes back and slaughters the little pains in the ass for good...unless the "bully" is killed off, he most likely will return with a vengence.
"If we're at war with Iran, we're getting our asses kicked."
...Actually, I mis posted...I believe Iran is at war with us...and we are not fighting back, because, as someone said, we are looking for a way out, not deeper in. The Iranians, I think could be handled easiler than Iraq as the goals would be different...Iran has no money except oils sales and imports EVERYTHING, including gasoline...knock out their export capcity for a short while,IE., close their ports and they will fall. Their economy is in deep do-do now and is getting worse, also hit their desalination plants...and sit back...I'll bet it could be done with drones..
Not that I am advocating this...I believe Iran may fold on its own on their present course..
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 11:30am
iran is a fairly large country. several times larger than iraq in physical area as well as population (several meaning 3+). furthermore iran is chock full of rugged mountains, pock marked or potentially pock marked with caves, bunkers and weapons stashes. furthermore iran is chock full of martyrdom seeking shiite fanatics (so sad, considering old persia's enlightened zaratushtrian past). normally i would say that these obstacles would dissuade even the stupidest politicos from embarking upon another military industrial enriching, government budget draining fiasco, but...
i once thought none would be stupid enough to invade any middle eastern country without direct, verifiable, indisputable provocation. so...
here we go again?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2006 @ 11:36am
Maasch,
Does your ass feel better or worse after you pull shit out of it? What source are you using for your analysis on Iran's economy, and it's relative strength / weakness compared to Iraq's economy circa 2002?
Posted by freedomplease at 10/12/2006 @ 11:39am
It is true that war against Iran is already taking place in Iraq, just see who is losing, and get a taste of who will lose the next war. Besides, who will pay for it, the people of course.
Posted by areyouok at 10/12/2006 @ 11:41am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2006 @ 11:30am
Then you are a fan of bullying then?
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/12/2006 @ 11:53am
Posted by ZERO 10/12/2006 @ 11:53am
YIKES....ZERO offering a critical question of Ms vanden Heuvel in a "MASKian" mode?!??!!?
This is really going to nail the coffin lid shut on him and DARLA!
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 11:57am
Bushco. doesnt have the political capital necessary to garner support for an attack on Iran. However, if Plunger/Rese are correct, there will be an attack on a US aircraft carrier in the next four weeks that will make an attack necessary! I'm not saying I believe this will happen...........but I also wouldnt put anything past the Republicans at this point. Their love for power, and the proof they will do ANYTHING to keep it is already evident.
Posted by jpolston at 10/12/2006 @ 12:02pm
zero, one needn't look any further than either of hersch's two articles. the evidence is there: according to hersch, the united states has already drawn plans, has intelligence agents within the country, has drafted arguments against iran to use at the UN......yes, there is intense internal revolt amongst high ranking military officials, but remember, it's bush, cheney and rummy we're talking about. these are extraordinarily irrational people--you simply can't reason with them.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 12:10pm
JPOLSTON....what will the excuse be?
If Bush and Co DON'T attack Iran before the election...or in the following months?
From Seymour Hersh to PLUNGER...what will the "We'll attack Iran any day now" guys say?
You know there will be a reason....and it CERTAINLY won't be "We were wrong"...hehe
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 12:26pm
I believe plans have been drawn up to fight Iran..in fact I hope they are drawn up...the miliary draws up plans to attack everybody, in case some event forces the issue...to not have a plan is irresponsible..
My source on Iran and much of the mideast is a company that a friend of mine in Houston runs...a direct source oil producer who makes base compounds from everything for Glad bags to missle parts...he has been with the same company for 35 years and is a well head importer with a hands on relationship with a number of mideast oil companies...and many of these companies are defacto government entities...Iran has serious internal problems and yes, we are fucking with them..using their own people...good for us...Iran has to import almost everything except food and even there they have issues(fertilizers)....FREEDOM, just becuase you can't google it from a left wing author doesn't invalidate the ideas or informantion...despite all of your sourcing, other than those here, I don't see your positions pushes outside the blog here except the KVH on talking head shows...so back off...you don not have as much credibility as you think...and I don't give a shit what you think of my posts or where I get my info or from whom....
Zero is right..we are not going to invade Iran, ever,...there simpley is no need...we invaded Iraq for other reasons..WMDs or not, we were going in....Iraq is only 1 spoke in an ongoing war with jihadists that has been going on for 20 years or more.
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 12:32pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2006 @ 12:32am
hey maasch. how things going?
of course we have plans to invade iran. we probably have plans to invade france - dont mean we are going to do it.
the problem i see with the ongoing strugle with jihadists in terms of the iraq invasion is that 1) pre invasion iraq was opposed to jihadists and 2) we have succeeded in being responsible for the slaughter of between 55,000 and 655,000 iraqis, many of whom were every bit as innocent as those who died on 9/11.
oh well...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2006 @ 12:43pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2006 @ 12:32am
JOHN, I think it's more an ideological "article of faith", than actual political analysis or even REALISTIC thinking.
"Bush/Cheney want endless wars", "Bush/Cheney will use Iran War to boost GOP chances in November", "Neo-cons looking for world empire over oil", etc., etc., etc. And Dennis Kucinich (Mr. "Peace Department" himself) is buying into this Blogosphere nonsense and holding meetings and issueing statements on why, something that could never be accomplished, will fail.
And the fact that borderline nuts, like Sy Hersh, and the full-blown nuts, like RESE/PLUNGER posters, think this is going to happen...shows out much this is based on their near-religious view of Bush and Cheney as "Satan" capable of wielding incredible power and TOTAL influence over Americans....
while they simultaneously in other blog posts, clap themselves on the back because the poll numbers are in the tank, with posts like "HA! The American people have woken up! They, like we never did, aren't buying Dubya's line of b.s. anymore!"
Okay...fine....even true (by the polls)....so how will Bush go to war with Iran....if NOBODY (33% or less) will support him doing so?
At that point they either clam up...or go even MORE RESE/PLUNGER on you!
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 12:44pm
many of whom were every bit as innocent as those who died on 9/11.
oh well...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/12/2006 @ 12:43am |
most?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2006 @ 12:45pm
Okay...fine....even true (by the polls)....so how will Bush go to war with Iran....if NOBODY (33% or less) will support him doing so?
At that point they either clam up...or go even MORE RESE/PLUNGER on you!
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 12:44am
that makes good sense. maybe we need another pearl harbor...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2006 @ 12:47pm
LOC,
I do not support bullys,howebver, if you decide to go after one you had better finish the job, and on your terms..or you can expect a serious retaliation...most likely resulting in your position being eliminate or seriously diminished.
Just because one is the biggest guy on the block doesn't mean he is a bully..many of the biggest guys on the block are in fact gentile giants and it is the little Napoleans who end up starting something they can not finish due to over blown self confidence and a miss judgement of genteleness from one who has always been slow to anger..they never count on the harsh response they themselves evoke and cry foul when they are being thrashed...
a little different characteization than the simple bully on the block...it may be a little more complicated than that......
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 12:48pm
I wish liberals would make up their minds. They practically beat Bush over the head because he did not engage in unilateral talks with N Korea, now these so-called experts are calling for multilateral talks with Iran?!? This of course completely ignores the fact that the EU countries already tried to negotiate with Iran and failed miserably.
Fact is, NK and Iran have finally figured out that the UN and/or US won't do a damn thing to stop them from producing nukes and are ignoring all the threats. It's obvious there is no will to invade either country, thus no "ultimate" deterrent. I'll bet Libya is kicking themselves about now.
Posted by usc1 at 10/12/2006 @ 1:01pm
Ibble,
I am fine, thank you and things are going well..how are you?...whats up with your blog site you were going to start?
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 1:06pm
USC,
The US can't do it all alone and does need some outside support regarding NK..one would think the Chinese would not want them to cause so much crap on their borders but, maybe even the Chinese can't do anything. I would try the embargo and squeezes Kim a little tighter over time. It is plain as day that the only people who run to and believe in the UN are the liberals in the west..the rest of the world rolls their eyes and know the UN will not do anything...ever...they have no big stick...just a loud mouth that can not back itself up.
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 1:11pm
Posted by ZERO 10/12/2006 @ 1:10pm
As if we needed any more reasons to fear him (not him as a human being, but him as a leader in charge of...well, anything).
Posted by liveeasy at 10/12/2006 @ 1:14pm
that makes good sense. maybe we need another pearl harbor...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/12/2006 @ 12:47am
I'm sorry, should I have said..."At that point they either clam up...or go even MORE RESE/PLUNGER/IBBLE on you!"???
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 1:21pm
Darla,
The US will attack Iran if one thing happens..and that one thing is the Us is openly attacked by Iran resulting in American deaths ....in that case, the US will attack and destroy Iran...and the entire Congress will DEMAND Bush attack(Iran knows this)....and it won't matter what the UN does..we will treat the UN like the NKs and Irans of the world does..ignore it. All of Zeros bullet points are irrelevent..if he were really an astute expert with a respected knowledge base, he wouldn't be on this barely read blog..he would be in the pentagon...so I wouldn't put to much into his bullet points or his theorys.
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 1:22pm
the rest of the world rolls their eyes and....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2006 @ 1:11pm
You don't have to back anything up in your world do you John?
What kind of degree did you get at Marquette? I hope for Marquette's sake they didn't hand over a BSc to you.
SPEAK FOR YOURSELF JOHN....leave the "rest of the world" to speak for itself.
Posted by freedomplease at 10/12/2006 @ 1:22pm
Free:
How effective do you think the UN will be in resolving the issue with Iran, or N Korea for that matter?
Posted by usc1 at 10/12/2006 @ 1:30pm
Fredom,
Degreed in Chemistry and Biology and refused to enter Med school or Dental School...worked for 5 years for a chemical company using raw materials(petroleum based).
ah, and you? Whats your experience, with the world?
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 1:37pm
Free:
How effective do you think the UN will be in resolving the issue with Iran, or N Korea for that matter?
Posted by USC1 10/12/2006 @ 1:30pm
About as effective as it was with Iraq and the 15 or so resolutions....
or as effective it is with Dafur, Somalia, Bosnia, .....need we go on?
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 1:39pm
But Free, ...if you think a college degree is some sort of Bona fides, then you are a kook..
a little hands on experience...I am an importer and an exporter..and come in contact with many foriegners and travel internationally over the years, so I have picked up a few tid bits that can't be taught in school.........and a numbner of contacts...follow the money trails of the world and you can sometimes see the real motivations...and there are almost NO idealists...I am really curious..what is it you do,,exactly...?
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 1:44pm
Bush is a lame duck president . .
Posted by ZERO 10/12/2006 @ 12:02am
&
From a BBC film by Noam Shalev, an israeli "soft propaganda" specialist, entitled "Will Israel bomb Iran?": former israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak says, "Ultimately we are standing alone". He warns that Iran's nuclear reasearch facilities are hidden deep underground, so deep that "no conventional weapon can penetrate". And, warning "the West" beforehand exactly how much it will have to look the other way he mentions that some facilities are in crowded urban areas "where any attack could end up in civilian collateral damage".
There is nothing in the Bush administration's past behavior which indicates that it is capable of appropriately evaluating the consequences of it's actions, at least not in terms of the interests of the American people as a whole.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 1:47pm
USC,
Unlike Maasch, I don't reckon I know everything. And I certainly try to speak for myself rather than a group or in his latest...."the whole world". IN MY OPINION (since you asked for my opinion) The UN was never meant to be a tool exclusively for the foreign policy objectives of the USA (but don't tell John Bolton). Therefore, what the UN will accomplish in regards to "the issue with Iran or North Korea" depends in no small part as to what it is the collective nations of the UN think IS the issue....you have a predetermined opinion that neither North Korea or Iran should be in possession of nuclear technology. However, the UN does not seem to seriously object to Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, Great Britain....etc. having nuclear weapon capability.
In other words....as far as stated US foreign policy objectives are concerned the UN will probably be a highly INEFFECTIVE tool to meet those objectives (John Bolton was appointed to be the USA's top diplomat.....because the current administration is interested in undermining the UN.....kinda like the way they pick EPA chiefs).
Posted by freedomplease at 10/12/2006 @ 1:54pm
John Maasch,
I am only interested in your degree as my curiosity with your generalizations and lack of research inquisitiveness is astounding. I think it's been about a year now that I've watched you spew unsubstantiated vommit onto these blogs despite being repeatedly chastised by myself and others to actually provide some evidence for your innane ramblings.
You have an incredibly "shoot from the hip" cavalier attitude towards actual research, facts and generalizations....I suppose not too disimilar to our current President.
Since it seems to be of importance to you...
I have an undergraduate degree in Political Science, an MBA in International Business. I have a prosperous career in international trading. I have lived in four different countries on three different continents.
Posted by freedomplease at 10/12/2006 @ 2:07pm
Maasch and others. you must learn to see the world not as a bi-polar one, with the US against, Iran or N Korea. there are many other interests involved. Russia, China, the EU. etc. it is time the Us again becomes a partner with other countries, instead of an imperialist collossus.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/12/2006 @ 2:09pm
"Bush's" strategy in the Middle East is based on preventing Russia and China from gaining control of key energy resources. Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. are pawns in a much bigger game.
The Iranian regime is highly versed in this game and is playing its card to perfection. I was born in Iran and know a few things about the Mullahs' propensity to negotiate and maneuver their way out of any situation. After all, they end up working out a sweet deal with Reagan!
I don't believe the war's rhetoric for one second. These are just big boys' geopolitical posturing. Attacking Iran will be interpreted by the Russians as a clear attack against their interests. It is no accident that within that past few weeks, Iran's President has offered a set of highly attractive regional (Middle and Near East) propositions to the Russians. Early indications are that the Russians are biting. Similarly, attacking Iran will encroach on Chinese long-term interests, especially in the light of their recent 30 year, multi-billion dollar petroleum contract with Iran.
Dick Cheney is very familiar with Iran. He knows attacking Iran will not be beneficial to the Big Oil's interests. In addition, he knows very well that attacking Iran will unite its people with the government. He is also very familiar with Iranians' obsession with martyrdom. I am sure he remembers that to save their tanks, Iranians defused Iraqi mines by walking over them. Besides, Dick knows that a war with Iran will hand over the region to the Russian and the Chinese. It is no accident that the Russians and the Chinese head the fast expanding SCO club, with Iran as a observer member.
The recent US naval build up is in my view the administration's attempt to curb Russian and Chinese ambitions by positioning long-term naval presence in the Persian Gulf area. This is the new Cold War. This is where the real danger lies. A miscalculation by either of the powers could result in the use of WMDs.
I don't think US will attack Iran. Attacking Iran will hurt Big Business' short and long-term interests. At the end, Iran will end up with its nuclear program, minus the nuclear weapons part. EU will offer Iran a number of lucrative economical incentives, designed to slowdown the Russian and Chinese growing influence in Iran, and hope Iran turns into a neutral regional player.
Posted by Sal at 10/12/2006 @ 2:40pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 10/12/2006 @ 1:06pm
pretty good, JM. web site moribund right now. i am a lazy man who has been way too damn busy lately...got a week off coming up though and hope to devote some more time to it (my techy partner, unfortunately - bless him - is an even lazier man than i)
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 1:21pm
ha ha - good one. have you ever actually looked at the stuff? not the wild eyed alex jones crap, but the 9/11 scholars for truth? of COURSE I i would never question the official version of events (people who do that are CRAZY)since elements in our government would never do anything less than sterling. our government is, of course, completely imune to clever sociopaths. none could ever get elected nor appointed in our government...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/12/2006 @ 2:42pm
zero, have you read the articles? you can't look much further than them.......that's the whole point. hersch has had privileged access on this since rumours began to spread....
what other journalist is talking to CURRENT and former high ranking military officials about iran? name another journalist doing credible reporting on the subject?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 2:45pm
and my point was: unless hersch is lying, THERE IS evidence in his reports of an impending military operation....
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 2:46pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/12/2006 @ 2:42pm
"9/11 Scholars for Truth"?...you mean the group of 75 professors who claim various "insights" into metallurgy, engineering, and architecture.....69 of whom are HUMANITIES, POLITICAL SCIENCE, and PHILOSOPHY professors?
Oh, they do have Steven Jones (did you mean him?) and his "jet fuel won't burn steel" proclamations. BTW, did you know that jet fuel is IMPOSSIBLE to ignite inside the human body....yet if you drink it "amazingly" you die! (Gee, maybe I can joint 9SFT, now?...I WAS an English Comp major!)
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 2:46pm
Posted by DARLADOON 10/12/2006 @ 2:46pm
Notice in DARLA's World...the possibility of Sy Hersh being WRONG doesn't exist.
He's either right or "lying"!
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 2:47pm
ZERO
In your post from 1:06 you mentioned some factors that would work to restrain our action against Iran. While I risk maskifying, I feel compelled to pose some "what-if's":
What if "public consent" doesn't mean shit to BushCo? Nearly three quarters of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq, yet Chimpy is still mouthing the "stay the course" mantra.
What if BushCo just ignores "international law"? We are signatories to the Geneva Convention. Need I say more?
What if BushCo values the "consent of allies" as much as they did before invading Iraq? At its strongest, the "coalition of the willing" consisted of little more than the US, the UK, and a handful of bumfuck nations that need our resources too much to decline.
What if the "army is mired in Iraq", but the same chickenhawk neocon assholes who thought Iraq would be a "cakewalk" have decided once again that the whole adventure can be accomplished from the air with "smart" tactical nukes, "bunker-busters", and unmanned drones?
Finally, what if these asshats have decided that the original "congressional authorization" to fight the "war on terror" is still very much in effect, and applies to anything they might wish to do in Iran? (I have read that there are more than a few in our shadow government who feel that they can make that argument stick.)
No question, an attack on Iran would be, by all measures, patently insane.
The problem is, the actions of our government up to this point make Alice In Wonderland look like a peer-reviewed scientific treatise...
Posted by drhammer at 10/12/2006 @ 2:50pm
what part of this paragraph doesn't qualify as evidence of military activity against iran?
Current and former American military and intelligenc officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting dat and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enriched uranium
evidence can be gathered, from sources within the military, through testimony. this is, in fact, evidence. if it wasn't, then why hasn't the administration denied hersh's findings?
knowing kucinich, i'm certain he will refer to hersh's reports in pushing his proposal forward. a number of congressional figures have referred to seymour's works to support their arguments.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 3:20pm
Posted by SAL 10/12/2006 @ 2:40pm
Your comments leave out israel, which is the primary "attack Iran" cheerleader and has given many indications that they are considering use of nuclear weapons against Iran. And, Dick Cheney, who you portray as calculating, has stated several times that israel may attack Iran on it's own.
This lone rogue characterization of israel is a complete smokescreen, however, just as in the case of the Lebanon slaughter, for which the Democrats in Congress fell over each to provide political cover.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 3:33pm
each other
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 3:34pm
Add this to the reasons I think it's not going to happen....
DARLA and FROMREDBIRD do.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 3:49pm
Posted by ZERO 10/12/2006 @ 3:36pm
With Democrats like this Bush can take Republicans for granted.
Sen. Clinton Urges U.N. Sanctions Against Iran
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) accused the Bush administration of playing down the threat of a nuclear Iran and called for swift action at the United Nations to impose sanctions on the Iranian government.
The senator's statements, in which *** she said the administration should make it clear that all options remain on the table for dealing with the Iranians ***, came during a speech about the Middle East on Wednesday night at Princeton University. She criticized the White House for turning the problem over to European nations and said Iran must never be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.
"I believe we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations," Clinton said. "I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines."
http://tinyurl.com/ymvafh
Evan Bayh: Immediately upon the Senate reconvening, I am going to introduce a resolution calling upon the administration to immediately go to the United Nations and seek strong, comprehensive sanctions against the nation of Iran.
I do this because *** Iran presents a grave and growing danger, not only to the United States' security interests, but also to order in the world. ***
And time is running out. It may be measured in months before Iran has the technical capability -- not actually production, but the technical know-how -- which will lead it down the path to becoming a nuclear power.
And that is unacceptable.
We have to take strong action today to maximize our chances of avoiding two unpalatable alternatives tomorrow: either Iran becoming a nuclear power or *** the need for us to take military action to prevent that result. ***
It's most unfortunate that we are where we are today and, if action had been take four or five years ago, we perhaps wouldn't be at this juncture.
*** The president was right to label Iran part of the axis of evil, but then did nothing about it. ***
http://tinyurl.com/yjvroq
Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
*** U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. ***
http://tinyurl.com/yawtm2
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 3:50pm
zero, read:
The Bush administration has already selected the military option and is moving to make it operational
there is unanimity on this point. "is moving to make it operational." combine that with what hersh has reported, and which current high ranking military officials have corroborated for the record, and we have more than just a clear gathering of momentum. and in no way does this situation compare to a possible invasion of britain (your example). nor does it compare to north korea, as there is no evidence to prove that we are operating with a similar level of determination as iran.
i'm just curious what you're driving at.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 3:55pm
here is a nice report on how bush recently suggested the possibility of changing course (in iraq), but made no mention of his inflexibility on troop withdrawal or reduction.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610120008
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
Add this to the reasons I think it's not going to happen....
DARLA and FROMREDBIRD do.
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 3:49pm
MASK, you keyboard-pounding genius, I didn't say it was going to happen, I'm just pointing out why it isn't a foregone conclusion that it won't happen. But I've never previously expected you to differentiate between what someone is saying and what you say they're saying, have I?
Maybe I should go back in the archives and see what you were saying about the invasion of Iraq in early 2003. That should be a real treasure trove if you were around then. Or, maybe you could give us a synopsis of what you were saying then?
In the meantime, you could also enumerate among the reasons you think it's not going to happen the fact that Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, and Barack Obama apparently think it's vitally necessary.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
i, too, never said it was going to happen.
zero asked what evidence kucinich could (or would) produce, that could substantiate that an attack is imminent. whether it is imminent or not isn't relevant. the timing of the (potential) invasion doesn't invalidate the claim that an attack is in the works, is gathering momentum.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 4:17pm
would it matter if the invasion were two years away, as opposed to two months? clearly, kucinich's primary motivation is to stall the momentum, and open up the debate. there is no point in questioning the timing of the invasion; but if an invasion is unfolding, clearly we need to intercede, ask questions, and find answers.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 4:20pm
were saying about the invasion of Iraq in early 2003. That should be a real treasure trove if you were around then. Or, maybe you could give us a synopsis of what you were saying then?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
I was saying "Bush is going to invade Iraq"....I am NOW saying "Bush is NOT going to invade/attack Iran"....oddly believe I'll be proven right again....
as does even ZERO, for cripes' sakes.
Only you, DARLA, Sy Hersh, RESE, PLUNGER, and Dennis Kucinich & Pals seem to think so....and when it DOESN'T happen...you either claim "We stopped it by exposing it!!!!" or "It's merely delayed" (Until January 2009, when you'll switch to the OTHER excuse).
Right now, this is like you claiming "I believe Bush will chop Laura up with a meat-axe by Spring 2007!!!" If it happened, I'd owe you a BIG apology (and would).
If it doesn't....you and Hersh and DARLA and Ms vanden Heuvel will find SOME way ....to NOT admit you were wrong!
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 4:26pm
Proof of the above....
"kucinich's primary motivation is to stall the momentum..."
Posted by DARLADOON 10/12/2006 @ 4:20pm
So...by Spring 2008 and no Iranian attack....Dennis will get credit for "stalling the momentum"...
of something that was never going to happen!
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 4:27pm
Freedom,
What do you trade in? What countrys? I import electonics(mp4s and such) and some tools on the side. It is not my main job so to speak, but it may evolve into it.. I am intetested in your work find it impressive. I disagree with all you post and don't like your personal barbs, but I appreciate an interesting back ground and most of the time can find some common ground somewhere.
Posted by john maasch at 10/12/2006 @ 4:35pm
And MASK seems to wish that Kucinich would stop stalling the momentum or even mentioning that there are some who don't think it's a good idea.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 4:36pm
KVH - Fager's wrote an article about you!
Posted by woodyee at 10/12/2006 @ 4:36pm
. . were saying about the invasion of Iraq in early 2003. That should be a real treasure trove if you were around then. Or, maybe you could give us a synopsis of what you were saying then?
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/12/2006 @ 4:03pm
I was saying "Bush is going to invade Iraq"....I am NOW saying "Bush is NOT going to invade/attack Iran"....oddly believe I'll be proven right again....
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 4:26pm
A little disingenous since everyone knew that Bush was going to invade Iraq. What you thought about it's necessity or chances of success would be interesting to know if you'd like to volunteer it. Remember- archives.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 4:40pm
Only you, DARLA, Sy Hersh, RESE, PLUNGER, and Dennis Kucinich & Pals seem to think so....and when it DOESN'T happen...you either claim "We stopped it by exposing it!!!!" or "It's merely delayed" (Until January 2009, when you'll switch to the OTHER excuse).
Right now, this is like you claiming "I believe Bush will chop Laura up with a meat-axe by Spring 2007!!!" If it happened, I'd owe you a BIG apology (and would).
If it doesn't....you and Hersh and DARLA and Ms vanden Heuvel will find SOME way ....to NOT admit you were wrong!
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 4:26pm
You really go off the deep end, don't you, over others not saying what you wish they would say? Why don't you believe Bush will chop Laura up with a meat-axe by Spring 2007???
???
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 4:43pm
i'll bask in the company of hersh, van den heuvel and kucinich any day of the week!
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 5:22pm
If it doesn't....you and Hersh and DARLA and Ms vanden Heuvel will find SOME way ....to NOT admit you were wrong!
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 4:26pm
You really go off the deep end, don't you, over others not saying what you wish they would say? Why don't you believe Bush will chop Laura up with a meat-axe by Spring 2007???
???
Posted by FROMREDBIRD 10/12/2006 @ 4:43pm
OK, I get it now, MASK. It isn't about a possibly horrific human disaster, it's all about your predictions.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 6:10pm
Just like the Disaster in Iraq, the supporters of an even more Disastrous occupation of Iran, are saying "There isnt going to be a war with Iran", or, "There already is a war with Iran", and of course "Liberal, Liberal, Liberal".
The neo-fascists are not going to come out and openly say, lets have a long dragged out quagmire. "It'll just be a few strikes", "It'll be over with in a couple of weeks", "Nobody is talking about a ground invasion".
Because, like in Iraq, if they tell the truth - then even Conservative Nuts admit - hardly any Americans will support them. But, if they tell LIES, anything to get their foot in the door, whatever they need to say to get the ball rolling, then it becomes "We have to finish the job".
The neo-fascists would even LIE by saying, "Troop reductions are in the forecast" - just like the LIES they told about Iraq. Its long past the time they said there would be troop reductions, and no troop reductions are on the horizon.
First step is, just like Sun Tzu says in the Art of War, deny you're going to war. Sun Tzu says that someone who really is going to war always says they arent, and someone who isnt going to war always says they are. So, take it from the TOP right-wing intellectuals - and the right-wingers here on this board really are the very very top intellectuals that the RNC still has, take it from their lies, saying "There isnt going to be any war".
America absolutely MUST NOT attack Iran, because it would be a Disaster Worse Than Iraq.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/12/2006 @ 6:30pm
Everyone here: copy and paste what you posted and forward it to your Senator, Congressman, and local newspapers. America must not attack Iran.
Posted by LiberalPride at 10/12/2006 @ 6:32pm
well, let's be serious people, the leading right wing intellectual making the pundit circles, on fox and elsewhere, has been recommending (recommending!) war with iran for months now. bill kristol. he thinks it's a positively splendid idea....
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2006 @ 8:19pm
I'm in phase with William Greider who writes in the nation that his gut instinct is that something terrible is going to happen around this election. I've been following world events closely for nearly 50 years, and right now the alarm bells are going off. It's like something you can see in your peripheral vision, you know it's there, but it disappears when you look straight at it.
We are dealing with a very dangerous administration that has accumulated great power and set itself the goal of reshaping the world by force and pressure, and is now seeing its power and opportunities slip away. They are players in the Big Game, and feel world control - through control of the remaining oil reserves - is still within their grasp, and they aren't easily going to allow the American people spoil it for them.
I can see the point of all the people who state the reasons why an attack on Iran isn't going to happen. They're right. It really doesn't make conventional sense. But when I think of everything I know about this administration and the neocons and oil imperialists around it, I can't imagine that they will go down without a fight. When I put myself in their shoes I feel certain that that they will pick a war on Iran. The twisted perverse logic of it is inescapable. Of course they can't do it without an Iranian attack on US forces to generate a public outpouring of support and anger. Of course they've thought of that. It can be arranged, and my gut tells me it will be. Remember the Maine? The Gulf of Tonkin incident? I'm old enough to remember the latter quite well. That's exactly what they need to happen before the elections to generate a spike of support for the president, so it will probably happen in the next three weeks.
How they think they're going to win this war I can't quite grasp. Sure the numbers of troops aren't there and Iraq has our military's hands full, but I remember that nuclear weapons were first developed and deployed in quantity against a non-nuclear Soviet Union to gain the upper hand on the cheap, and I've noted that the Bush Administration has been pushing the development of bunker-buster bombs. The answer to the puzzle may be that they're planning to nuke Iran, and use the wave of fear that spreads across the world and across the US to consolidate thier power. Who after all is going to stop them? There's no Soviet Union to check them, and China is far away. I can think of many reasons why it would be a terrible idea, but then I'm looking at it from the point of view of an ordinary person.
Call this paranoia if you will; I will write and admit I was wrong if the Bush presidency starts to fade away without starting this war. In the meantime I have written my Congressman and Senators to urge them to under no conditions vote for war authorization no matter what circumstances seem to be. We need leaders we can trust and this vote, after an apparent Iranian "act of infamy", will be a rigorous test of whom we can trust. I received a very thoughtful response from Jim McGovern. From Kerry I got a form letter. My guess is that he will forget that he's an anti-war leader and duck for cover when Iran sinks a warship or whatever event the Bush people manage to arrange.
Posted by CAH at 10/12/2006 @ 9:00pm
If it doesn't happen....what do the DARLA, FROMRED, and Hershs say?
If it does....I'll apologize here, openly and forthrightly.
If it doesn't....these intellectual cowards will come up with some excuse, likely some that is self-congratulatory like "We (or Hersh) prevented it by exposing it."
But NEVER, ever, ever, ever...admit they were wrong and CERTAINLY never apologize for the hysteria they created.
And that is why such people will be relegated to the dustbin of history and serious political/military analysis...not that they are wrong, but that they won't ever admit that they can be wrong!
...and if Ms vanden Heuvel wants to join them...that's her choice!
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2006 @ 9:50pm
If it doesn't happen....what do the DARLA, FROMRED, and Hershs say?
If it does....I'll apologize here, openly and forthrightly.
If it doesn't....these intellectual cowards will come up with some excuse, likely some that is self-congratulatory like "We (or Hersh) prevented it by exposing it."
But NEVER, ever, ever, ever...admit they were wrong and CERTAINLY never apologize for the hysteria they created.
And that is why such people will be relegated to the dustbin of history and serious political/military analysis...not that they are wrong, but that they won't ever admit that they can be wrong!
...and if Ms vanden Heuvel wants to join them...that's her choice!
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 9:50pm
WTF?
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha!!! Bwa-ha-ha-Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
It's a complete crackup!!! What an almighty mess!!!
The ship of state is sinking and the hamsters are scurrying around madly!
Posted by fromredbird at 10/12/2006 @ 11:10pm
If it doesn't....these intellectual cowards will come up with some excuse, likely some that is self-congratulatory like "We (or Hersh) prevented it by exposing it."
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 9:50pm
would that be like a certain intellectual coward believing that his posts caused a certain magazine to pull the campaign ads of a certain congressman?
(in case you're stumped mask, that self congratulating coward was you)
Posted by Will C. at 10/12/2006 @ 11:44pm
Posted by MASK 10/12/2006 @ 2:46pm
See the article here: J of Material Science
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/12/2006 @ 11:50pm
However, scientists from Underwriters Labs have a different view.... Burned?
So maybe we'll never know for sure...
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/12/2006 @ 11:55pm
Posted by ZERO 10/13/2006 @ 12:31am
Posted by ZERO 10/13/2006 @ 12:34am
It's agreed that they are worthless.
There is no moral opposition among the American political class to a new mass murder against Iran as long as it's done from the air. I think they are carefully calculating the blowback from that and their ability to contain it.
As far as the average American- if the political class enunciates enough times that it makes us safe from nuclear weapons, even though they don't exist, they will go along with it. They won't really squawk unless the blowback reaches them.
If Democrats like this get control of Congress it will make it that much easier for a new salesman to do the selling. I think it can go either way and I also think that a possible nuclear attack against Iran is on the table by either us or the israelis.
re: our discussion from yesterday, read this:
http://tinyurl.com/ymkbuc
Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 02:31am
However, scientists from Underwriters Labs have a different view.... Burned? (http://tinyurl.com/p6mdx)
So maybe we'll never know for sure...
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/12/2006 @ 11:55pm
The "scientists" from UL turn out to be one guy who used to work at a UL subsidiary and is now part of the Prison Planet constellation. Doesn't sound that scientific any more. I'm not disputing what he said but is there anyone who is backing up what he's saying and doesn't have a vested interest?
Indeed, ask Kevin Ryan, a leading figure in the conspiracy movement, and he'll tell you what started him down the conspiracy path.
"I first began to be suspicious ... after it was clear the Bush administration had lied to us about the reasons for going to war in Iraq," says Ryan, who was lab director at an Underwriters Laboratory subsidiary in South Bend, Ind., until he was fired after questioning official reports on the collapse of the twin towers.
http://tinyurl.com/yxhrxj
This sounds like the "photo" of E. Howard Hunt near the Texas School Book Depository building.
Posted by fromredbird at 10/13/2006 @ 02:46am
.
FALSE FLAG NUCLEAR WAR:
history...REPEATED?
Are we about to witness "USS LIBERTY II" and "9/11 - PART DEUX" all in the same attack?
Take 1 Israeli Submarine.
Place it off the coast of Iran.
Now position the USS Enterprise just outside the perimeter established by the Israeli sub.
The sub launches a nuclear tipped cruise missile at the Aircraft Carrier, vaporizing it in an instant - killing all 5,000 sailors on board ("worse than 9/11" - that's the key).
The Fleet Commander notifies the President that Iran has (apparently) just nuked the USS Enterprise.
The President declares a (FALSE FLAG) strike against our carrier to be no different that an attack against our soil, and clears the Israeli sub to launch what will appear to be a retaliatory strike against Iran, with a dozen nuclear missiles (all of which are pre-targeted using the targeting codes stolen by Israeli Spy Ariel Weinmann).
THINK IT CAN'T HAPPEN?
If the definition of "terrorism" includes threatening to cause harm to the population - to achieve political gain, Karl Rove is the number one terrorist on earth. Put Susan Ralston under oath and ask her how many terror alerts have been intentional false alarms designed to change the subject or "bury the lead."
When the recent London False Alarm caused every television in the US to feature the headline "TERROR IN THE SKIES," it was done with the specific intent to bury two other stories that broke hours later...that just happened to be about Israel: The AIPAC (Franklin) spy trial was NOT thrown out of court & US sailor, Ariel Weinmann, was arrested for transferring submarine secrets to Israel.
Considering Israel's nuclear-capable sub is about to unload on Iran, radio silence was required. No one heard these two stories, because the media was screaming about a nonexistent threat.Have you seen this?
Updated Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:04 PM EDT IRAN WAR PLAN EXPOSED! PREPARE FOR THE SINKING OF A U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER – The USS Enterprise - CVN-65! The existence of a hideous plan to sacrifice a U.S. Aircraft Carrier as a pretext for war with Iran is presently being uncovered!
The Hal Turner Show has been told that within the next five (5) weeks, the United States will "suffer" a missile attack upon the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, presently on patrol near the Persian Gulf. This attack will appear to be from numerous "Silkworm" and/or "Sunburn" missiles which will sink the vessel and kill most of the 5,000 crew onboard.
The "attack" will be blamed on Iran and thus provide the Bush Administration with an excuse to go to war with that nation. The Hal Turner Show has learned that the missiles used to attack the USS Enterprise will not be fired from or by Iran, but rather will be a "false flag operation" made to LOOK as though Iran carried out the attack! The USS Enterprise is the worlds first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It was Commissioned in 1961 and is due to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015. The ship was selected to be the "victim" of this "attack" due to its age.
THOSE PLANNING THE ATTACK ARE INSIDE THE U.S. AND ISRAELI GOVERNMENTS and view the loss of the Enterprise crew as a necessary sacrifice to induce Americans to support war against Iran. Put bluntly, the ship and crew are to be cannon fodder. I am being fed more information and expect to be able to name names as to who is behind this plan. Check back often. LIBERTY REDUX | Homepage | 10.01.06 - Found on Rawstory message board
Here is the DRESS REHEARSAL for the sinking of the USS Enterprise: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-17-ship-reef_x.htm
Aircraft carrier sunk in Gulf of Mexico to create artificial reef Updated 5/17/2006 4:38 PM ETIN THE GULF OF MEXICO (AP) -- As hundreds of veterans looked on solemnly, Navy divers blew holes in a retired aircraft carrier and sent the 888-foot USS Oriskany to the bottom of the sea Wednesday, forming the world's largest deliberately created artificial reef. Clouds of brown and gray smoke rose in the sky after more than 500 pounds of plastic explosives went off. The rusted hulk took about 45 minutes to slip beneath the waves, about four hours faster than predicted.
VIDEO: Navy ship sunk to create reef: Korean and Vietnam War veterans aboard charter boats watched from beyond a one-mile safety perimeter as the "Mighty O" went down in 212 feet of water, about 24 miles off Pensacola Beach. Lloyd Quiter of North Collins, N.Y., who served four tours on the ship in Vietnam, wept. "I'm a little stunned. It's a little hard to take," he said.
AND WHY DID THEY FEEL THE NEED FOR THE DRESS REHEARSAL? BECAUSE WHEN THEY TRIED IT A YEAR EARLIER, IT TOOK 25 DAYS TO SINK THE USS AMERICA WITH HIGH EXPLOSIVES! http://www.cdnn.info/news/industry/i050522a.html USS America 1048-ft aircraft carrier sunk off North Carolina powered by CYBER DIVER News Network. NORTH CAROLINA (22 May 2005) -- The retired aircraft carrier USS America is on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, sunk by the Navy in a series of explosive tests that upset some veterans.
The 84,000-ton, 1,048-foot warship that served the Navy for 32 years rests about 60 miles off the coast and more than 6,000 feet down, according to Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command.
She did not give a location, but the Navy previously said the explosions would take place off North Carolina. With the country (intentionally?) distracted by a sex scandal, and Rove's REAL October Surprise imminent, it's time to shift the focus back to Iran. The ONLY thing that would justify the cancellation of elections and the declaration of Martial Law would be a "Nuclear Crisis." The only thing that will prevent Bush's entire cabinet from going to prison is the cancellation of elections.
A FALSE FLAG attack on a US Naval vessel would be declared the equivalent of an attack on US soil. This would "justify" Israel attacking Iran with Sub-launched nukes. Keep in mind, both the sinking of the US vessel and the purported retaliatory strike could all come from one Israeli sub. As described above, it's tough to sink an aircraft carrier. Apparently the only way to ensure that there are no witnesses (see USS Liberty incident) is to vaporize it with a mini-nuke. Did we send any to Israel in the recent delivery?
The "terrorists" are in the White House - and run the Propaganda machinery. What did Ralston and Abramoff know about false terror alerts, and when did they know it? How many other Republicans know that the terror threats are MANUFACTURED? How many others know that 9/11 was an inside job that Cheney ran through NORAD? How many know that GHW Bush is the ACTUAL President, and everything we are being put through is specifically designed to cover the trail of his own criminality?
Assume that nearly every Congressman and Senator is being blackmailed. Once you see the ability of Israel (Comverse) to wiretap every phone, and realize that only men of low moral character are allowed to enter the political arena (through the AIPAC filter), it becomes crystal clear how the US Congress was effectively neutered.
The truth is the only cure for blackmail. Expose it all...URGENTLY.
It's time for the US Navy to step forward, and neutralize the Israeli sub and stop this madness.
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:10am
.
T H E
E N E M Y
O F
P E A C E
M I C H A E L
L E D E E N
Ledeen's ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America's manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.
Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an address entitled "Time to Focus on Iran -- The Mother of Modern Terrorism," for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, "the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."
With a group of other conservatives, Ledeen recently set up the Center for Democracy in Iran (CDI), an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran.
Quotes from Ledeen's works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about American attitudes toward violence. "Change -- above all violent change -- is the essence of human history," he proclaims in his book, "Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli's Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago." In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, "Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically ... it is time once again to export the democratic revolution."
Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed "total war," a concept pioneered by the 19th century Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz in his classic book "On War."
Ledeen's take on this idea is wedded to ideology. In summarizing his book "The War Against the Terror Masters" on the American Enterprise Institute Web site, he writes: "We wage total war because we fight in the name of an idea, and ideas either triumph or fail ... totally." In his reckoning, force is the only reliable strategy to enforce our ideology on our enemies. In the same summary he claims, drawing inspiration from Machiavelli: "We can lead by the force of high moral example ... [but] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our enemies, our power will be far greater."
http://www.alternet.org/story/15860/
A fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Ledeen holds a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin. In 1983, on the recommendation of Richard Perle, Ledeen was hired at the Department of Defense as a consultant on terrorism. While being investigated as a security risk by his supervisor, Noel Koch, it was learned from the CIA station that Ledeen had been carried in Agency files as an agent of influence of a foreign government: Israel.
After having his access to classified materials blocked he ceased working there. He next appeared at the National Security Council as a consultant working with NSC head Robert McFarlane. Ledeen was involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair -- an adventure that he documented in the book "Perilous Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra Affair." A prominent member of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) board of governors and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), he advocates "total war" inline with the "Grand Strategy for the Middle East" which advocates "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot and Egypt as the prize." Ledeen is presently a serving member on the China Commission and, with the support of DOD Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, he has since 2001 been employed as a consultant for the Office of Special Plans OSP). He is involved in the handling of classified materials and has high-level security clearances. He was also involved in election rigging of the 2000 election.
http://www.nogw.com/warforisrael.html
.
Conflicts and power
From an outstanding interview with Professor Ilan Pappe of Haifa University (my emphasis):
"I think that neo-conservatism is mainly a product of the Cold War, and I think as happened in Israel, so in the US, a lot of people benefit economically, sociologically, politically, from a situation of conflict which begins with the producers of arms, and it ends with the people who have a hold on the decision-making apparatus in the name of national security. And of course this was all lost in a way when the Soviet Union collapsed, and the cold war ended. And I think this group of people were looking for a new bogey man, a new threat to the national security of the US and they found it because of the very strong influence, I think, of Israel among other things, in the Arab world and the Islamic world. Of course, movements such as the Islamic Al-Qaeda did not help. They provided the pretext, and the context for even pushing these ideas even further. And what we have now is the same people, a next generation, who would do all they can to perpetuate the conflict, because they benefit from the conflict. They benefit from situations of wars, of conflicts, and so on, and I think this is what enforces their hold over the American policy making in the world at large, and in the Middle East in particular."
We often wonder why people like Ledeen seem to be so interested in creating conflict for the sake of conflict. One reason is that people who are aware of the timing of a conflict are in a position to make money off it. Another reason is that this constant conflict constitutes the sole reason why these people have any power. They create an escalating series of problems, and then have to remain in power to ‘solve' them. Of course, the solutions continue to lead to more conflicts. We can understand all the the talk about Iran as another example of creating a conflict which gives these characters something to do. While a civil war in Iraq benefits Likudniks in the American government and in Israel, it also benefits a guy like Cheney, whose only interest is in creating more power for Cheney. The United States has fallen into a vicious cycle where the jobs of the neocons and their fellow travelers like Cheney and Rumsfeld are dependent on their cleaning up the messes they have already started. An end to conflict would put them out of power, so we'll never see an end to conflict.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:11am
"The CDI's Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on "the future of Iran' sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute's Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney's leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Un Lubrani of Israel's Ministry of Defense.
Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: "Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster."
JINSA, a neoconservative organization established in 1976 that fosters closer strategic and military ties between the United States and Israel, also has its sights on Iran. At a JINSA policy forum in April 2003 titled "Time to Focus on Iran-The Mother of Modern Terrorism," Ledeen declared, "The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon."
JINSA, along with CSP, serves as one of the main institutional links to the military-industrial complex for neoconservatives. Ledeen served as JINSA's first executive director and was JINSA's "Godfather," according to Amitay. Amitay is a JINSA vice chair. JINSA board members or advisers also include former CIA director James Woolsey, former Rep. Jack Kemp and the AEI's Joshua Muravchik. After he joined the administration, Feith resigned from JINSA.'s board of advisers, as did Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton."
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Is_Iran_Next.html
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:11am
The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission states the following:
"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.
The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0329-11.htm
Philip D. Zelikow is Executive Director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, otherwise known as the 9-11 Commission.
There's a raft of evidence to suggest that Zelikow has personal, professional and political reasons not to see the commission hold Rice and other Bush officials accountable for pre-9/11 failings, and may be the de facto swing vote for Republicans on the panel.[1] http://antiwar.com/sperry/?articleid=2209 Here are just a few of them:
* He and Rice worked closely together in the first Bush White House as aides to former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft. Zelikow was director of European security affairs, and Rice was senior director of Soviet and East European affairs, as well as special assistant to the president. Rice reportedly hired Zelikow. Both started in 1989 and left in 1991.
* A few years after leaving the White House, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together called, "Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft."
* The two associated again when Zelikow directed the Aspen Strategy Group [2] http://www.aspeninstitute.org , a foreign-policy strategy body co-chaired by Rice's mentor Scowcroft. Rice, along with Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, were members.
∑ Zelikow also directed the Markle Foundation's Task Force on National Security in the Information Age [3] http://www.markletaskforce.org
under co-chairman James Barksdale, a Bush adviser and major Bush-Cheney donor. A 9/11 commissioner, Republican Sen. Slade Gorton, also served with Zelikow on the task force. (Interestingly, the pair serves together on yet another panel - The National Commission on Federal Election Reform - with Gorton acting as vice-chairman and Zelikow as executive director.)
* After the 2000 election, Zelikow and Rice were reunited when George W. Bush named him to his transition team for the National Security Council. Rice reportedly asked Zelikow to help organize the NSC under the Scowcroft model, which was insular and steeped in Cold War worldview.
* Former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke says he briefed not only Rice and Hadley, but also Zelikow about the growing al-Qaida threat during the transition period. Zelikow sat in on the briefings, he says.
* A month after the 9/11 al-Qaida attacks, President Bush appointed Zelikow to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which is chaired by Scowcroft.
* Zelikow's regular job, the one he'll return to after the commission releases it final report in late July, is director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. The center is dedicated to the study of the presidency, and maintains contact with the Bush White House, which fought the creation of the commission.
Kristen Breitweiser, a 9/11 widow, insists Zelikow has a "clear conflict of interest." And she suspects he is in touch with Bush's political adviser, Rove, which she says would explain why the White House granted him, along with just one other commission official, the greatest access to the intelligence briefing Bush got a month before the 9/11 suicide hijackings.
Phillip David Zelikow was appointed to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB) on October 8, 2001, by President George Walker Bush.
Zelikow (http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2001/zelikow-oct-8-2001.html) has served as Director of the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs since 1998. He is also White Burkett Miller Professor of History. He was director for European security affairs at the National Security Council from 1989 to 1991. In this position, Zelikow advised current PFIAB Chairman Brent Scowcroft and President George Herbert Walker Bush "on European issues, including the unification of Germany and the multinational coalition against Iraq."[4]
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2001/zelikow-oct-8-2001.html
"After serving in government with the Navy, the State Department, and the National Security Council, he taught at Harvard before assuming his present post in Virginia to direct the nation's largest research center on the American presidency. He was a member (2001-2003) of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and served as executive director of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald R. Ford, as well as the executive director of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age.
"Zelikow's books include The Kennedy Tapes (with Ernest May), Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (with Condoleezza Rice), and the rewritten Essence of Decision (with Graham Allison). Zelikow has also been the director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a policy program of the Aspen Institute."
He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[5]
http://www.americanpresident.org/action/about/philipzelikowbio.article.s html
According to Melvin Goodman, Zelikow "headed a case study project at Harvard and took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA. He used CIA documentation and produced case studies that exonerated the CIA from any charges of politicization of intelligence, particularly with regard to the Soviet Union." [6]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_D._Zelikow
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:12am
HUDSON INSTITUTE:
Meyrav Wurmser, an opponent of the Oslo peace accords and a central neoconservative figure, is a senior fellow at the right-wing Hudson Institute and a columnist for the Conrad Black-owned Jerusalem Post.
In 1996 she helped write a report for Israel's Likud party that urged Israel to break off then-ongoing peace initiatives. The report, which was titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" and was published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (an Israeli- and DC-based think tank) advised then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "to work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back" regional threats, help overthrow Saddam Hussein, and strike "Syrian military targets in Lebanon" and possibly in Syria proper. Coauthors of the report included Richard Perle, David Wurmser, and Douglas Feith. (6)
She also cofounded with Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in the Israeli military intelligence, the Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI). According to Jim Lobe, MEMRI specializes in translating and distributing "particularly virulent anti-U.S. and anti-Israel articles appearing in the Arab press to key U.S. media and policymakers." (8)
According to her Hudson Institute bio, Wurmser "helped to educate policymakers about the Palestinian Authority two-track approach to ‘negotiating peace' with Israel: calling for peace in the English press and with western policymakers while inciting hatred and violence through official Arab language media."
Although it describes itself as "non-partisan," MEMRI–which has offices in London, Washington, Jerusalem, and Berlin–has frequently been accused of being nothing more than a propaganda outfit of Israeli intelligence. According the Guardian, which dug up deleted pages from MEMRI's web site through the internet archive, "Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three–including [Yigal] Carmon–are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence. Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian." (10)
The Guardian's Brian Whitaker also reported: "Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any. Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises ‘the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel'. That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives." (10)
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1394
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:13am
http://paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=130386
Iraq: A War For Israel
Thursday January 05, 2006 (1728 PST)
The United States Invasion of Iraq in March-April 2003, and the occupation of the country since then, has cost more than fifteen hundred American lives and many tens of billions of dollars, and has brought death to many thousands of Iraqis.
Why did President Bush decide to go to war? In whose interests was it launched?
In the months leading up to the attack, President Bush and other high-ranking US officials repeatedly warned that the threat posed to the US and world by the Baghdad regime was so grave and imminent that the United States had to act quickly to bomb, invade and occupy Iraq.
On September 28, 2002, for example, he said: "The danger to our country is grave and it is growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given... This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
"On March 6, 2003, President Bush declared: "Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people, and to all free people... I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he`s a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I`ve got good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction... The American people know that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction." These claims were untrue. As the world now knows, Iraq had no dangerous "weapons of mass destruction," and posed no threat to the US. Moreover, alarmist suggestions that the Baghdad regime was working with the al-Qaeda terror network likewise proved to be without foundation.
So if the official reasons given for the war were untrue, why did the United States attack?
Whatever the secondary reasons for the Iraq war, the crucial factor in President Bush`s decision to attack was to help Israel. With support from Israel and America`s Jewish-Zionist lobby, and prodded by Jewish "neo-conservatives" holding high-level positions in his administration, President Bush -- who was already fervently committed to Israel -- resolved to invade and subdue one of Israel`s chief regional enemies. This is so widely understood in Washington that US Senator Ernest Hollings was moved in May 2004 to acknowledge that the US invaded Iraq "to secure Israel," and "everybody" knows it. He also identified three of the influential pro-Israel Jews in Washington who played an important role in prodding the US into war: Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon`s Defense Policy Board; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary; and Charles Krauthammer, columnist and author. [1]
Hollings referred to the cowardly reluctance of his Congressional colleagues to acknowledge this truth openly, saying that "nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on." Due to "the pressures we get politically," he added, members of Congress uncritically support Israel and its policies.
Some months before the invasion, retired four-star US Army General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said in an interview:
"Those who favor this attack [by the US against Iraq] now will tell you candidly, and privately, that it is probably true that Saddam Hussein is no threat to the United States. But they are afraid at some point he might decide if he had a nuclear weapon to use it against Israel." [2]
Fervently Pro-Israel
President Bush`s fervent support for Israel and its hardline premier is well known. He reaffirmed it, for example, in June 2002 in a major speech on the Middle East. In the view of "leading Israeli commentators," the London Times reported, the address was "so pro-Israel that it might have been written by Ariel Sharon." [3]
Condoleeza Rice, Bush`s National Security Advisor, echoed the President`s outlook in a May 2003 interview, saying that the "security of Israel is the key to security of the world." [4]
In an address to pro-Israel activists at the 2004 convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Bush said: "The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state." He also told the gathering: "By defending the freedom and prosperity and security of Israel, you`re also serving the cause of America." [5]
Long Range Plans
Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years.
In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled " A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an "effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right..." [6]
The authors of "A Clean Break" included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control.
The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated with two major pro-Zionist "neoconservative" research centers has come under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly. [7]
The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations.
JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, "have ascended to powerful government posts, where... they`ve managed to weave a number of issues -- support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general -- into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core... On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war -- not just with Iraq, but `total war,` as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it... For this crew, `regime change` by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative."
Samuel Francis, author, editor and columnist, has also looked into the "neo-conservative" role in fomenting war. [8]
"My own answer," he wrote, "is that the lie [that a massively-armed Iraq posed a grave and imminent threat to the US] was fabricated by neo-conservatives in the administration whose first loyalty is to Israel and its interests and who wanted the United States to smash Iraq because it was the biggest potential threat to Israel in the region. They are known to have been pushing for war with Iraq since at least 1996, but they could not make an effective case for it until after Sept. 11, 2001...
"What has been happening inside the Bush administration is no less a nest of treason than the Soviet spy rings of the New Deal era, and if political reality doesn`t demand its exposure, simple loyalty to the United States does."
In the aftermath of the 2001 Nine-Eleven terror attacks, ardently pro-Zionist "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration -- who for years had sought a Middle East war to bolster Israel`s security in the region -- exploited the tragedy to press their agenda. In this they were backed by the Israeli government, which also pressured the White House to strike Iraq.
The Jerusalem correspondent for the Guardian, the respected British daily, reported in August 2002: "Israel signaled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel." [9]
Three months before the US invasion, the well-informed Washington journalist Robert Novak reported that Israeli Prime Minister Sharon was telling American political leaders that "the greatest US assistance to Israel would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein`s Iraqi regime." Moreover, added Novak, "that view is widely shared inside the Bush administration, and is a major reason why US forces today are assembling for war." [10]
Israel`s spy agencies were a "full partner" with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq`s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, "badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed." [11]
For some Jewish leaders, the Iraq war is part of a long-range effort to install Israel-friendly regimes across the Middle East. Norman Podhoretz, a prominent Jewish writer and an ardent supporter of Israel, has been for years editor of Commentary, the influential Zionist monthly. In the Sept. 2002 issue he wrote: "The regimes that richly deserve to be overthrown and replaced are not confined to the three singled-out members of the axis of evil [Iraq, Iran, North Korea]. At a minimum, the axis should extend to Syria and Lebanon and Libya, as well as `friends` of America like the Saudi royal family and Egypt`s Hosni Mubarak, along with the Palestinian Authority, whether headed by Arafat or one of his henchmen."
Patrick J. Buchanan, the well-known writer and commentator, and former White House Communications director, has been blunt in identifying those who pushed for war: [12]
"We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America`s interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars and destroy the Oslo Accords. We charge them with deliberately damaging US relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people`s right to a homeland of their own. We charge that they have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity..."
Cui Bono? For whose benefit these endless wars in a region that holds nothing vital to America save oil, which the Arabs must sell us to survive? Who would benefit from a war of civilizations between the West and Islam?"
Answer: one nation, one leader, one party. Israel, Sharon, Likud."
Uri Avnery -- an award-winning Israeli journalist and author, and a three-time member of Israel`s parliament -- sees the Iraq war as an _expression of immense Jewish influence and power. In an essay written some weeks after the US invasion, he wrote: [13]
"Who are the winners? They are the so-called neo-cons, or neo-conservatives. A compact group, almost all of whose members are Jewish. They hold the key positions in the Bush administration, as well as in the think-tanks that play an important role in formulating American policy and the ed-op pages of the influential newspapers... The immense influence of this largely Jewish group stems from its close alliance with the extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalists, who nowadays control Bush`s Republican party. ..Seemingly, all this is good for Israel. America controls the world, we control America. Never before have Jews exerted such an immense influence on the center of world power."
In Britain, a veteran member of Britain`s House of Commons bluntly declared in May 2003 that Jews had taken control of America`s foreign policy, and had succeeded in pushing the US into war. "A Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians," said Tam Dalyell, a Labour party deputy and the longest-serving House member. "There is far too much Jewish influence in the United States," he added. [14]
Summary
For many years now, American presidents of both parties have been staunchly committed to Israel and its security. This entrenched policy is an _expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America`s political and cultural life. It was fervent support for Israel -- shared by President Bush, high-ranking administration officials and nearly the entire US Congress -- that proved crucial in the decision to invade and subdue one of Israel`s greatest regional enemies.
While the unprovoked US invasion of Iraq may have helped Israel, just as those who wanted and planned for the war had hoped, it has been a calamity for America and the world. It has cost tens of thousands of lives and many tens of billions of dollars. Around the world, it has generated unmatched distrust and hostility toward the US. In Arab and Muslim countries, it has fueled intense hatred of the United States, and has brought many new recruits to the ranks of anti-American terrorists.
Americans have already paid a high price for their nation`s commitment to Israel. We will pay an ever higher price -- not just in dollars or international prestige, but in the lives of young men squandered for the interests of a foreign state -- until the Jewish-Zionist hold on US political life is finally broken.
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:15am
DOV ZAKHEIM:
The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election," Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.
Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's infamous tract, "Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's entire design for renewed global conquest was laid down a full year prior to 9-11. On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas would require "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
see for yourself:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
Dov S. Zakheim was sworn in as the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense on May 4, 2001.
Left the Bush Administration in mid-2004 for Booz Allen.
How Does Zakheim Fit In ?
He helped mold the Mid-East policy, and controlled the Pentagon purse strings.
Thanks to him, Israel, and their militia (Turkey), are awash in F-15's, F-16's, and the latest in offensive and defensive missile systems. Israel has a space program, ICBM's, nukes, and lots more.
Zakheim, who is a dual Israeli/American citizen and a Shul Rabbi, has stalked the halls of US government for 25 yrs. He has set defense policy which influenced Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush Sr. and Jr. This rabid Zionist was the controller of the Pentagon when an audit discovered over a trillion dollars was missing.
Most of Israel's armament was obtained thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified as military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.
Zakheim is a rabid Zionist, who carries an Israel passport and is considered to be one of the top members of the secretive Illuminati . He predicts 9/11 and by sheer coincidence the Pentagon is hit by a remote controlled jet (Zakheim's ' SPC ' corporation is the premier company in the field).
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS
During his tenure as controller at the Pentagon from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004, over one trillion dollars was unaccounted for.
Military information is jeopardized, military contractors billed the US for Israeli items, $50 million fighter jets are classified as surplus and the list goes on and on. As the scandal of the missing trillion dollars surfaces the Rabbi quickly resigns.
LARRY SILVERSTEIN:
Larry Silverstein purchased a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease of the World Trade Center in July 2001, along with the above mentioned partner Westfield America for the shopping parts. Silverstein took control of the 10-million-square-foot trophy office complex just seven weeks before it was destroyed by terrorist attacks.
A federal jury on Monday ruled that the assault on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center was in fact two occurrences for insurance purposes. The finding in U.S. District Court in Manhattan means leaseholder Larry Silverstein may collect up to $4.6 billion, according to reports. [Forbes.com 12/06/04]
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:16am
MORE AIPAC / ADL PSYOPS
THIS is how desperate the ZIONISTS are to bomb Iran for the benefit of Israel. They TOTALLY FABRICATED THIS OUTRAGEOUS STORY, and the retraction will not be noticed.
INVESTIGATE WHO PLANTED THIS OUTRAGEOUS LIE TO COMPEL A NUCLEAR WAR!!!
Canada's National Post retracts report that Iranian Jews will be forced to wear yellow patches By Yossi Melman
For a few hours on Friday, many around the world were ready to believe a report in the media that Iran had decided that Jews living there would be forced to wear a yellow strip of material on their clothing to denote their religion.
Leaders of international Jewish organizations were quick to respond, and likened the decision to the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany.
The affair was sparked by a report Friday in Canada's National Post daily. According to the report, exiled Iranians had said that Jews in Iran (some 25,000 individuals) would be required to wear a yellow strip of material or yellow star on their clothing.
Members of other faiths, the report said, would also require color identification - red badges for Christians and blue strips of cloth for Zoroastrians.
As expected, the report was met with rage among human rights groups, and Jewish organizations in particular.
Canadian Jewish Congress chairman Bernie Farber saying he was "stunned" by the report on the Iranian law.
"We thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again," Farber said. "It's state-sponsored religious discrimination."
Rabbi Marvin Hier, the executive president of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, was also quick to respond, and called on the UN secretary general to exert pressure to get the law abolished.
Published: Saturday, May 20, 2006
Several experts are casting doubt on reports that Iran had passed a law requiring the country's Jews and other religious minorities to wear coloured badges identifying them as non-Muslims.
The Iranian embassy in Ottawa also denied the Iranian government had passed such a law.
A news story and column by Iranian-born analyst Amir Taheri in yesterday's National Post reported that the Iranian parliament had passed a sweeping new law this week outlining proper dress for Iran's majority Muslims, including an order for Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians to wear special strips of cloth.
According to the reports, Jews were to wear yellow cloth strips, called zonnar, while Christians were to wear red and Zoroastrians blue. The Simon Wiesenthal Center and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect.
Hormoz Ghahremani, a spokesman for the Iranian embassy in Ottawa, said in an e-mail to the Post yesterday, "We wish to categorically reject the news item.
"These kinds of slanderous accusations are part of a smear campaign against Iran by vested interests, which needs to be denounced at every step."
Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran -- including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament.
They denied any such measure was in place.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5c7bf231-1026-4448 -a122-d8c046057913&k=39818
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:17am
Halliburton Sold Iranian Oil Company Key Nuclear Reactor Components, Sources Say
Published Date: 2005/8/6 13:25:28 Reads : 6422
By Jason Leopold
© 2005 Jason Leopold
Scandal-plagued Halliburton -- the oil services company once headed by Vice President Cheney -- sold an Iranian oil development company key components for a nuclear reactor, say Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge into both companies' business dealings.
Halliburton was secretly working at the time with one of Iran's top nuclear program officials on natural gas related projects and sold the components in April to the official's oil development company, the sources said.
Just last week, a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, whose miltary unit just reported a 284 percent increase in its second quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the means to build a nuclear weapon.
With Iran's new hardline government now firmly in place, Iranian officials have rounded up relatives and close business associates of Iran's former President and defeated mullah presidential candidate Hashemi Rafsanjani, alleging the men were involved in widespread corruption of Iran's oil industry, specifically tied to the country's business dealings with Halliburton.
http://worldnewstrust.org/modules/AMS/article.php?storyid=919
Posted by plunger at 10/13/2006 @ 08:17am
The administration and our Congress have already wounded the U.S. Constitution. Last month, we buried the 4th amendment. Wouldn't it be nice and patriotic of our Congress to assert their rights under our ailing U.S. Constitution as the sole "decider" of acts of war. Next month I pray for two things: 1) The American electorate isn't totally brain dead and 2) E-voting corruption is not ignored "again" by the U.S. press. I still wave the flag, but I guess I am just cut and run.
Posted by freedom001 at 10/13/2006 @ 09:07am
Plunger - try to think for yourself
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2006 @ 12:36pm
Darla - don't you have some dying to do? You've mentioned how that would be a great adventure, but you seem to be a boring person who sits in a safe environement anonymously typing on a computer for most of the day. Where's your courage to go out and live, and risk dying - which you claim would be cool?
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2006 @ 12:38pm
Posted by URMYGYRO 10/13/2006 @ 12:38am
She's doing worse than that, URMY.....she's moving to Canada!
Posted by Mask at 10/13/2006 @ 1:54pm
Maasch:
My source on Iran and much of the mideast is a company that a friend of mine in Houston runs...a direct source oil producer who makes base compounds from everything for Glad bags to missle parts...he has been with the same company for 35 years and is a well head importer with a hands on relationship with a number of mideast oil companies
What kind of shit is this? explain to me how a company can be both "a direct source oil producer" and "well head importer"?
If you produce oil, you don't import it. Get your head out of your ass. I know you can do better than that.
Besides, the US imports roughly 25% of its oil from the ME and those imports are not controlled by some chump in Houston. Long and short oil contracts are negotiated directly between oil hedgers and producing ministries. And this, "mideast oil companies"? ALL mideast oil companies are nationally owned and operated and they don't sell oil direct to a guy who makes Glad Bags in Houston.
Posted by doumer at 10/13/2006 @ 3:09pm
If you produce oil, you don't import it.
without getting into someone else's argument, as I have not followed it, the above is not always true. the US, still a very large producer of oil consumes so much that we have to import a lot of it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2006 @ 3:37pm
All of this flailing, supposing, hand-wringing and auguring amounts to less than a pile of beans. Many of us believe that the neocons are intent on attacking Iran and would be willing to attempt another 'false flag' operation to galvanize support for it. That's it. It's what we believe, based on past experience and input from various sources.
Others here prefer to believe that our government is 'good' and has not and will not attempt such an insane venture.
Which is the correct perspective may never be known. For reasons other than the 'Bush good' arguments, an attack my not occur.
The real point is that, to a person, I get the impression that there is agreement that such a venture would be insanity and not in the interest of our republic. To that end, investigation and inquiry into the situation are warranted, with Congress exercising its responsibility to revoke the executive's permission to attack other entities without further approval from the legislature.
All in agreement say 'aye'. All opposed, 'nay'.
Posted by jlsolley at 10/13/2006 @ 4:52pm
Posted by JLSOLLEY 10/13/2006 @ 4:52pm
aye
well said. i do not disbelieve that some elements in our government were willing and able to at least allow a terrorist attack to occur. i dont find it impossible to believe that the secretive intelligence complex built up in this country to oppose the soviets in the cold war could contain competant sociopathic ideologues.
i am less convinced of the strategic competance of the neocon original gangstas than the tactical capabilities of our secret/military/industrial establishment.
regardless, these questions will not just disappear by ridicule and official silence. if anything, the longer it stays in the shadows, the more power it has in people's minds. if there was nothing shady in terms of our government's actions prior to 9/11, would it not be best to just get it all out in the open once and for all and shut up enough of the conspiracy theorists to be considered effectively shutting them up and ending any meaningful speculation?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/13/2006 @ 7:08pm
damn. did i unleash a rese/plunger typhoon?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/13/2006 @ 10:48pm
I think we should just declare war on all the nations of the world. that's the only way we can be completely safe.
Posted by johannesrolf at 10/13/2006 @ 11:20pm
Is there any available video of the Kucinich panel (Kay, Gardiner, Cirincione)? I don't see it on the CSPAN recent, nor did I spot it on a Google that led me here . . . .
Interesting that Kucinich made the statement in a piece on Global Research "The Bush Administration is preparing for war against Iran, using an almost identical drumbeat of weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, alleged links to Al Queda [sic], and even linking Iran with a future 911."
That's pretty close to saying "a future STAGED 911" -- inseparable, really. All the other items in the list are trumped up: "drumbeat of weapons of mass destruction, imminent threat, alleged links to Al Queda, and even linking" sc. of Iraq to the original 911. The implication is clear that the admin would not be waiting for the new 911, but engineering it.
Has anyone heard the audio of Bush in the Rose Garden on 9-15-06 selling his torture program? Here is a brief transcript of the section about KSM. The audio of this portion is here [CSPAN]
OK, he is not admitting to explosives being preplanted in the World Trade Center, per se. But he is coming as close as need be to plant in the minds of the great unwashed who still believe that Saddam was behind 9-11, &c., &c. He comes as close as Clinton did by saying "I did not have sex with that woman".
The purpose is to blunt the burgeoning awareness that 9-11 is an inside job, as, e.g., noted in the new NYT/CBS poll [Angus Reid] now some 84% of Americans suspect that some or all of the official line on 9-11 is a lie. (Hat tip to Craig Hill, Green of Vermont opposing Pat Leahy in the primary.)
Posted by ProudPrimate at 10/15/2006 @ 11:07am