COMMENTS: 184
Neocons Devastated by Iran Intel Bombshell, But Don't Count Them Out Yet
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Since the neoconservatives began to emerge as a political force in the mid-to-late 1970s, they have followed a consistent strategy of targeting the information flows inside the United States, paying particular attention to controlling the nation's intelligence analysts and purging independent thinking from the U.S. news media.
Those were the two key switching points that allowed the neocons to push out favorable information and suppress contrary facts to shape how Americans perceived reality. Thus, the neocons could guide the public on issues such as the severity of the Soviet threat in the late Cold War or the WMD danger from Iraq and Iran this decade.
That neoconservative strategy reached its zenith after the 9/11 attacks as the U.S. intelligence community and the Washington press corps caved under intense political pressure. Essentially, President George W. Bush and the neocons got to manipulate reality itself - and they used that power to scare the heck out of the American people.
Some grassroots resistance emerged to challenge these faux realities, but it didn't gain much traction on the national level until Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in late summer 2005 and Bush couldn't spin his administration's incompetent response.
Since then, the struggle has been up and down. Public revulsion over Bush's arrogance and the neocons' bloody fiasco in Iraq led to the Republican congressional defeat in 2006. But the Democrats then frittered away their advantage with a feckless approach on Iraq troop withdrawals and a failure to mount sustained investigations of administration wrongdoing.
Then, in fall 2007, Bush and the neocons sold the Iraq War "surge" as a great success, even though the result appears to be an open-ended U.S. military occupation of a hostile Arab country with one or two American soldiers and scores of Iraqis still dying each day.
Nevertheless, the neocons were again beating their chests and baiting their opponents as defeatists who want to undermine the troops.
Surprising Intel
But the neocons were dealt an unexpected body blow with the Dec. 3 release of a stunning U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago, a finding that contradicted Bush's belligerent rhetoric about Iran's nukes possibly provoking "World War III."
The National Intelligence Estimate knocked the wind out of the neocons' hope for a military confrontation with Iran before the end of Bush's term.
At a Dec. 4 press conference, Bush was left sputtering an unpersuasive claim that his warning about "World War III" on Oct. 17 was uttered while his intelligence advisers were keeping him in the dark about the new information that supported the NIE.
On Dec. 5, Bush tried to regain his political balance by blaming Iran for the doubts about its nuclear program.
"The Iranians have a strategic choice to make," Bush said in Omaha, Nebraska. "They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities and fully accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment program and come to the table and negotiate, or they can continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people. The choice is up to the Iranian regime."
Still, the NIE represented a declaration of independence by professional U.S. intelligence analysts who had been bullied by the neocons over the past three decades and especially during the run-up to the war with Iraq. [For the fullest account of this history, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege and Neck Deep.]
Campaign 2008
Though Bush and the neocons again find themselves on the defensive, the political battle is far from over. The neocons retain extraordinary strength within the U.S. news media as well as in the leading Washington think tanks and inside many of the presidential campaigns.
Except for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican contenders are enthusiastic backers of the neocon agenda of an imperial United States with an all-powerful Executive who will subordinate America's constitutional rights to the waging of an indefinite "war on terror."
While all the Democrats criticize Bush's approach to some degree, the neocons view purported front-runner, New York Senator Hillary Clinton, as an ally who often votes with neocon hawks, such as Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut. Until recently, Sen. Clinton was getting foreign policy advice from "surge" advocate Michael O'Hanlon.
So, if the early political handicapping holds up, the neocons could find themselves in the enviable position next fall of having a super-neocon Republican versus a neocon-lite Democrat. Then, whoever wins, the neocons can expect their policies in the Mideast to continue.
If that's how Election 2008 does turn out, the again-triumphant neocons might be looking to dish out some payback to those newly independent-minded CIA analysts. Plus, the neocons implicated in abuses during Bush's presidency could expect to get off scot-free.
Neither a new Republican administration nor a second Clinton presidency would likely seek accountability for the crimes and other misdeeds of the Bush years. Hillary Clinton likely would follow the forgiving pattern of her husband.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he appointed neoconservative Democrat James Woolsey to head the CIA. Then, in a gesture of bipartisanship, the new President pulled the plug on ongoing investigations of Reagan-Bush-era wrongdoing regarding secret arms deals with Iran and Iraq.
By turning out the lights on that history, President Clinton apparently felt he would gain some reciprocity from the Republicans. But Clinton's actions only emboldened the Republicans and gave the neocons time to regroup.
So, the neocons may have been staggered a few times in recent months, but it would be premature to count them out.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vox persona on Dec 8, 2007 12:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mushroom clouds and World War III
Posted by: greenfields
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sissy on Dec 8, 2007 3:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot, knowing this totally corrupt administration, believe for one second that the president or his vice said upon "just reading it last Wednesday", that they said, "Oh goody, maybe we won't have to go to WWIII now, let the people know".
Was it perhaps someone from Intelligence who was not going to let another Iraq happen? If anyone can shed some light on this question, I would be most appreciative. Perhaps I'm just not reading the right thing. I like to know the "where's and why's" of stuff like this.....
Thanks for any help.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who Released the NIE in the first place?
Posted by: John Annis
» RE: Who Released the NIE in the first place?
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Who Released the NIE in the first place?
Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Ex-CIA/NIE Officer Ray McGovern says:
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
» RE: Stop the Jewish power before its to late!
Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Stop the Jewish power before its to late!
Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Stop the Cracker power before its to late!
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Then stop acting so much like AIPAC every time you write, yellow
Posted by: channing
» RE: Then stop acting so much like AIPAC every time you write, yellow
Posted by: blitzmesser
» If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck............
Posted by: yellow
» RE: If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck............
Posted by: Lauren
» I mean't Alternet readers not authors of articles.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: yellow, I try to only answer "issues"
Posted by: channing
» RE: yellow issues part 2
Posted by: channing
» RE: First cousins by raverhill
Posted by: blitzmesser
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Dec 8, 2007 3:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't believe it? Just google 'Hillary Clinton AIPAC' and then try 'Rev. Hagee AIPAC', the self described Christian Zionist, and you will see that Hillary's agenda is not only a reflected by her abysmal voting record for the Bush agenda, but a committment to AIPAC for a nuclear invasion of Iran. She has tacitly endorsed of the rapture cult. She is the darling of the Israel lobby that has tirelessly pushed for invasion of Iran. Hillary = perpetual war.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary
Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary... supported by fascist Murdoch
Posted by: channing
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary... supported by fascist Murdoch
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary... supported by fascist Murdoch
Posted by: channing
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Dec 8, 2007 4:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Such manipulation of public sentiment has been a key part of the neocons' entire Iraq war enterprise. For those interested in a psychological analysis of this warmongering, I have also recently completed a brief online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration’s messaging targets our five core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. The video describes these warmongering appeals and offers suggestions for how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Neocon Manipulation
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Neocon Manipulation
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Neocon Manipulation
Posted by: Knot_Rich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sissy on Dec 8, 2007 4:29 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 8, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- so, the crazy left begot the crazy right.. a mother child reunion!!
That aside, there is an intersting twist to this story.. Iran, who denied that it had a nuclear program now admits they did and it ended in 2003! - The time we invaded Iraq - could that have had anything to do with it?
While the intel says there is currently no nuclear weapons program, the step from energy grade to weapons grade isnt that far..
Iran has had problems with the technology, which it got from Pakistan. I understand there are problems with the centrifuges which prohibit the move to weapons grade plutonium. But non the less the technology exists and there are no assurances that it can't or won't be restarted..
I suspect it's a sure bet that Iran will at some point possess nuclear weapons.
This is a great time for Bush to take what seems to be an "olive branch" from Iran and see if the issues can't be resolved through negotiation. I think he is correct in approaching Iran with caution - they have been an anti American government since the 1970's! But to not be willing to sit and talk with them now is insane
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: Democritus
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: they don't write his thoughts down...
Posted by: channing
» RE: Thanks rocketman, I actually agree with something you wrote
Posted by: channing
» RE: A Family affair - fresh talking point.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A Family affair - fresh talking point.
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: A Family affair - fresh talking point.
Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: particle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PerryBrass on Dec 8, 2007 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the Bushies have basically asked for "constant war," a continuing war, a constant "War on Terror," a war without even an enemy, shows that they know this truism, and are using it beautifully. Now, why can't we understand this?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The business of this country is Business
Posted by: John Annis
» British Imperialism
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 6:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Back Door Deal or a Squeeze Play
Posted by: Knot_Rich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Dec 8, 2007 7:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: channing
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: Chloe2005
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: left_libertarian
» Are Any Of You In Touch With Average Americans?
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Are Any Of You In Touch With Average Americans?
Posted by: Knot_Rich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Schroeder on Dec 8, 2007 7:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Forrest on Dec 8, 2007 7:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
very good point concerning President Clinton.
In 1998 Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and notably Donald Rumsfeld (and R. James Woolsey)
wrote a letter to then President Bill Clinton calling on him to remove ".... Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Of course the policy paper written by Richard Perle et al for the state of Israel in 1996:
(A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm) remains the master plan.
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
"This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Dec 8, 2007 7:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:Yes Dude
Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: srsmn
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: channing
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: Lauren
» Feeling a bit paranoid, are we?
Posted by: halg
» RE: Feeling a bit paranoid, are we?
Posted by: Lauren
» Thanks, Josh, and ...
Posted by: halg
» Already done ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Already done ...
Posted by: channing
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: blitzmesser
» Refresh the page works
Posted by: rocketman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: When In Doubt on Dec 8, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember, Saddam had been an agent of the US Government for years. They used him for their purposes.
Saddam had no WMD's...where was that a threat to the hugest army on the planet...a military that had over 700 instalations in some 130 countries on the globe.
Come on!
Reality check.
The neo-cons are imbedded like our "Journalists.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 25ghostcommander on Dec 8, 2007 7:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "neocons" are fascists, but not all fascists are neocons
Posted by: channing
» RE: "neocons" are fascists, but not all fascists are neocons
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: "neocons" are fascists, but not all fascists are neocons
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Dec 8, 2007 8:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The NIE has given 'substance' to on-going neocon and Zionist lies about Iran's desire to build a nuclear weapon. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons up to 2003. Proof is seldom produced by those involved in deceit by design.
Circumstances required a tactical change in pursuit of war and the NIE provided it. A more honest examination of the NIE's report can be read in this article
In the not too distant future (when the time is deemed right) Iran will be accused of RESTARTING a nuclear weapons programme that never existed in the first place. The NIE has deliberately placed a dangerous seed in the minds of those in opposition to Iran and especially in that section of the US poulation who are presently wavering in their stance toward Iran.
The NIE report is a carefully constructed piece that, at first glance, appears to be brave and independent-minded as if it is administering a slap to the warmongers in power, but the reality is quite different... it is written with a mind for the future, as a way of creating conflict with Iran in the future because the NIE report is ultimately based upon the lie that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Perhaps suggesting that the illegal invasion of Iraq halted the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Programme in 2003?
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: The NIE report doesn't specify,
Posted by: channing
» RE: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Programme in 2003?
Posted by: nap
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Knowmad on Dec 8, 2007 8:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to wake up and understand:
Your rights and freedoms and very way of life are at stake, not to mention potentially the well-being of virtually every lifeform on the planet.
You Americans simply have to stop this incessant babbling and do something...anything. If you're totally stumped, or shell-shocked, see my latest suggestion "Door-to-door" under the Dec. 7 Keith Olbermann NIE video. That could be a start, and once you get going other potential actions will become evident.
One very powerful analytical tool that always works when you don't know what to do is the simple, beautiful question: "Who benefits?" Try it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Better get at it!
Posted by: profedwards
» RE: Better get at it!
Posted by: Lauren
» Angry...and frustrated.
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Angry...and frustrated.Don't lose...
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Angry...and frustrated but not homicidal.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Angry...and frustrated but not homicidal.
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Dec 8, 2007 11:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neo-cons know that if they can't get Bush to attack Iran before leaving office it may not happen, and attacking Iran is crucial to David Rockefeller's plan for International Corporate Fascism..!
The entire plan for International Fascism and the New world Order hinges on this attack upon Iran which will spread into a regional conflagration and then eventually world war which is what they want for the sake of profit but also reducing world population by at least one third in the worlds poorest nations and the Middle east as well..
They hope to ignite a war between India and Pakistan with this attack upon Iran eventually and that war will kill perhaps hundreds of millions which Rockefeller and the Bilderbergers want in a bad way especially huge loses in Pakistan..
The Kyl Lieberman Bill, is really all Bush needs to attack the "Terrorists" of the Iranian Republican guard and the coming crack down of these dangerous Presidential decrees and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Bill S.1959 will allow Bush and his army no longer ours including Blackwater to crack down on and imprison any who attempt to resist this insanity..
All the plans and pieces for a crack down and attack upon Iran are in place..
Bush will attack Iran and then declare an emergency under NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 and S.1959 will put the final lid on American democracy Free Speech and dissent..
Watch and see..
The Democrats in Congress have betrayed us and betrayed America..
Their legacy will be that of those who allowed WWII and the worst human carnage and slaughter in world history..!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: Staggo
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au on Dec 8, 2007 12:34 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18800.htm (The Method to Bush’s Madness in Overthrowing Venezuela)
So, if the plans for Iran fail, the neocons, the Bilderbergers and the moneychangers may have their big war after all, by invading Venezuela. The world is waiting for something big to happen; to wake up one morning and to read all about it in the morning newspapers. Yes, the bombing of Iran. Or, inconceivable as it seems now, the bombing of Venezuela. I wonder if there are any signs at all.
Robert Hoogenboom
Sydney, Australia
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No one ever mentions Chavez's Venezuela.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Don't have to invade Venezuela...
Posted by: Lauren
» Invasion of Cuba a no-brainer
Posted by: herbal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bleppo on Dec 8, 2007 12:47 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be mass suicide for Iran to actually use a nuke, and you're wrong if you think otherwise: just look at the decades of Soviet-USA nuclear rivalry, or Pakistan-India, or North Korea-South Korea/USA.
M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) doesn't apply with Iran because for them it would be S.A.D. (self assured destruction): they cannot assure the destruction of the USA or even a single strike against it.
Regarding Israel and Iran, M.A.D. would apply just as it has for decades with the world's other nuclear rivalries. This is doubly true because not only does Israel have many nukes, but the USA would also use its nukes against an opponent of Israel's, just as the Bush admin is threatening to do preemptively now.
With the Iraq invasion, Neocons taught the rest of the world that if you have a nuke, you won't get invaded by the USA (e.g., North Korea and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan). Neocons go for the easy way out: attacking only vastly weaker countries, and cheating, lying, spinning.
It is equally ludicrous to think Iran would give a nuke to terrorists. As soon as they give a nuke away they'd lose control of it, and it could be used against them or a friendly country or sold or given away again.
NO country gives a nuke away.
And even if they did and it was used, S.A.D. would again apply because it would be traced back to them.
A friend high in the defense establishment told me that each nuke detonation has some kind of signature, radioactive, I think, that's traceable to the country of development. (I have not confirmed this, but he's written a few books on defense and speaks worldwide on defense matters.)
The Bush admin has succeeded in shaping the debate to attack Iran based on Iran's WMD capability.
Most people go along with this reasoning and only rebuff Bush/Cheney because Iran doesn't have nukes yet or is not close to developing them.
But, again, the propaganda Bush spinmeisters have won either way because almost everyone thinks it would be OK to strike Iran if it really did almost have nukes.
It's specious.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's name
Posted by: yellow
» RE: You forget that Israel's religion does not prohibit WMD's,
Posted by: channing
» RE: Yellow you have to be the...
Posted by: Lauren
» As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: yellow
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: yellow
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: yellow
» Channing you seem prejudiced.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: you're missing the point again
Posted by: channing
» Channing, Exactly what point am I missing........
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Thank you,
Posted by: channing
» RE: Thank you,
Posted by: yellow
» RE: You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's name
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's name
Posted by: yellow
» RE: You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's
Posted by: bleppo
» RE: So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon.
Posted by: Staggo
» RE: They signed major agreements with India, China and Russia
Posted by: channing
» RE: I went to a website on oil production and trade and they weren't on it.
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 12:51 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Chavez and Bush
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Dec 8, 2007 12:59 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Divine the rhetoric: I can assure you, the plans are still ON
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: I agree,though not with you Knowmad,
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 1:09 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not gonna happen sofla100...
Posted by: channing
» RE: Not gonna happen sofla100...
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Not gonna happen sofla100...
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ArtemInox on Dec 8, 2007 1:24 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We dont participate in creating the realities that make things happen or not happen. Every time I hear something about this politician or group trying to "sway public opinion", I think about the fact that public opinion doesnt really matter anymore. And when has it, really? What is "the public" going to do, riot? overthrow the gov't? How often does that happen in comparison to simply living with whatever form of insane government is in power at the time?
No one is removed from office because of the public. We are just along for the ride
http://www.addictedtoaggravation.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Dec 8, 2007 2:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Same old story
Posted by: Jim_ME_expert
» RE: Same old story
Posted by: willymack
» RE: Same old story
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Staggo on Dec 8, 2007 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hillary will probably lay off Iran.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Hillary will probably lay off Iran.
Posted by: left_libertarian
» I'm Naive? The Pentagon won't invade Iran in an election year. Hillary already opposes war in Iran.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Who wins in 2008? COLBERT!
Posted by: smendler
» RE: Who wins in 2008? COLBERT!
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: craiteri on Dec 8, 2007 3:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TarryFaster on Dec 8, 2007 4:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Dec 8, 2007 5:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kathaksung on Dec 8, 2007 6:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On 12/3, media reported that US National Intelligence Estimate said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The revelation caused a debate on Bush's Iran policy. The point missing in this debate is how could such an important information be learned by government and public so late - it took more than four years. (2003 - Dec. 2007) It took three years and eight months for US to get in World War II. ( Dec. 1941 - Japan surrender Aug. 1945) If US intelligence is so incompetent, that it took four years to reach an important conclusion, then by the time when they got a NIE of "Japan will attack Pearl Harbor", the war had finished already. This NIE of Iran is absurd. It's not intelligence but National History estimate.
This new NIE on Iran (2007) is a contradict to another one (2005) which asserted that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapon". If 2007 NIE took four years to conclude event of 2003, apply same efficiency on 2005 Assessment, does that mean "Iran seeking nuclear weapon" was something on 2001? Or more likely, this government just select information that fits its demand?
Review recent situation, Bush administration and media used to demonize Iran as a nuclear threat to the world. US had its Navy battle squadron gathered at Persian Gulf to show its force. Iran war for several times were just inches away from breaking off .
Bush administration also took a blind eye on that new assessment (Iran halted nuclear weapon programme). Bush knew that estimate in August.
Re: "Bush told Iran may have halted atom work
Thu Dec 6, 2007 7:03am GMT
By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush was told in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons programme,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN0565348320071206
Yet, two months later in October, he warns World War III if Iran goes nuclear. This proves he treated the NIE as a junk piece.
Then why the intelligence let out such a "junk" information (possibly a truth but not favored by Bush administration) at this time?
I think it is a part of Iran war tactic.
1, Iran will be directed to a nuclear weapon "trap". The war will be done in Bush's remnant term. Bush has a swift re-action to that new NIE. He insists Iran a threat despite new report. When Iran war breaks off, Bush will be painted as a hero.
2. A psychological operation to push Iran to a nuclear weapon trap. Iran may feel safe that Bush is under criticism for his aggressive Iran policy and accept a "special offer" from Russia's Putin. The special proposal maybe a bait of enriched uranium which can be also used in military weapon. (see #516. Iran war next stage (10/23/07)) It's a tactic to push Iran to accept a Trojan horse. Russia's nuclear deal with Iran is that Trojan horse.
Bush activated Iraq war. Bush tries to plant a Trojan horse in Iran. Bush will start war on Iran once the Trojan horse is planted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 525. NIE (2007) and Trojan horse (12/8/07)
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 8:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Iran Has Never Had a Nuke Program at All
Posted by: Lauren
» Exactly
Posted by: johndoraemi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on Dec 8, 2007 8:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Classics but to how use Platonic epigrams as subtle language in obtaining the kind of regime as proposed in "The Republic" of Plato. The principal teaching of the Republic is that government should be by philosophers, that is, literally from the ivory tower. The true philosopher is totally preoccupied with thinking that is the way to truth.
The true philosopher is not to be physically or emotionally involved with actual practice. That is, the philosopher in (his) high position avoids taking up weapons in war, or activities such as farming or carpentry. Hitler followed this mode as he conducted his war from the Wolfshantz where the generals came to him when summoned: He did not visit the generals' quarters, never rmind anybody in the field. Thus Wolvowitz, Perle, et. al. could do the "chicken hawk" chutzpah without a single qualm because of their belief in their intellectual brilliance and the perfection of "The republic". In "The Republic"it is said that it is proper to lie to the people if it is for the common good. While "The Republic" supported some kind of mental world of forms as part of nature and the higher part of nature it does not support a deity. But it supports imbuing people with religion as a matter of keeping order in the realm. I need to emphasize most students of Greek history and philosophy maintain that "The Republic" was not to be taken literally but as a thought experiment, a discussion of what might be considered an ideal State. Neo-Conservatism considers the object and ideal as absolute power Now, I have summarized only half of Neo-Conservatism. Here comes the other half of the poison intended to execute democracy:
Very few might now remember the dispute between the Trotskyites and the Stalinists. Primarily it was about the belief that there must be one supreme world power before there can be a just society (whatevere that means). while the dispute was about how this was to be accomplihed These programs and political battles were also accompanied by the belief in the use of lies and slander, to wear down the enemy.. I point to newspaper columnist Novak who inherited this literary history; and became the specialist in provocation. Originally Russia was to be the dominant power, then Germany. But with the ascent of Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld they found their opportunity in the United States and we are suffering the consequences.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Genesis of "perpetual war"
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jim_ME_expert on Dec 8, 2007 9:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch for the media to ramp up hate against Iran. I can just see Rupert Murdoch working OT to make sure the black nature of America is roused to angry action again, and again, and again ...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is will upset the Jews
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: This is will upset the Jews, but mostly because of the poor English grammer.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: This is will upset the Jews
Posted by: Nick
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on Dec 8, 2007 11:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's All About Economics
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: It's All About Economics
Posted by: kryptx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: left_libertarian on Dec 9, 2007 1:11 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can’t blame Iran for wanting to establish a nuclear weapons program since:
1 – In 1953 the US aided in overthrowing Iran’s elected leader.
2 – More recently the US invaded neighboring Iraq on the false grounds that the country had WMD.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nick on Dec 9, 2007 2:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush would never release and let anybody release this repot.
Clearly, Bush, Rumsfeld, that is now consultant
in Pentagon, CIA and MOSSAD preparing
another 9/11
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Another false flag on its way
Posted by: Missing Piece
Comments are closed-
Posted by: slydad on Dec 9, 2007 3:09 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to first realize that this report demonstrates some real key things. First of all that military intelligence is not a clear science. Just a few years ago, the NIE report stated that Iran's nuclear weapons program was in full swing. Now they're saying that it was halted in the fall of 2003. Which report do we want to believe? I think that this means we should believe the worst to be on the safe side.
But if this report is true, it means that our action in Iraq had yet another positive side effect. Remember that Libya relinquished their WMD's after we clobbered Saddam. Maybe we also caused Ahmadinejad to take a pause with what he was doing. No wonder he wants a Democrat in the Whitehouse. I think it's a safe bet that as soon as there is, his nuclear program will be back in business.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nonsense, it all points to politics
Posted by: sofla100
» Based on what you know
Posted by: slydad
» RE: Based on what you know
Posted by: yellow
» I'm not advocating war
Posted by: slydad
» RE: I'm not advocating war
Posted by: yellow
» Don't be so sure.
Posted by: slydad
» I think you need to explain that.
Posted by: slydad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 9, 2007 3:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulFDavis on Dec 9, 2007 4:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War without end along with turning out the lights on crimes against humanity by reason of executive order, executive privilege, and presidential pardon is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the freedoms our governmental leaders in the Oval Office abuse.
When the U.S. presidency fails to hold previous administrations accountabile for crimes and misdeeds, it condones and opens the floodgates of hell in government.
By turning out the lights out on our history in an effort to cover up our failed foreign policy and hypocritical misuses of what we call "democracy" we simultaneously ensure repeat failed performances for posterity.
Robert Parry's new book Secrecy & Privilege gives we the people of America much to think about.
What beyond imperialism and economic strength (accomplished via clandestine wars and demonization of nations abroad we label enemies) does America stand for anymore anyhow?
Paul F. Davis - author of United States of Arrogance
www.PaulFDavis.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 9, 2007 4:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 9, 2007 4:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hallaluya brother, Iran has dropped the dollar and NeoCons are going to drop some bombs
Posted by: Missing Piece
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ehsan on Dec 9, 2007 11:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a must for guidance of the Voter as to the crucial importance of being vigilant in the choice of their leadership.And also a reminder to those who earned the trust of the Voter and then betrayed it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Missing Piece on Dec 10, 2007 3:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Elie Elhadj on Dec 18, 2007 1:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On April 9, 2003, the U.S. won the battle against a tattered Iraq. But Iran, without firing a shot won the war for Iraq; a triumph for the Khomeini revolution, one of Shiism’s greatest moments since Saladin ended the rule of the Shii Fatimids in Cairo in 1171 A.D. The British think tank, Chatham House, in a report on August 22, 2006 concluded: “The greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded it as the most influential power in Iraq.”
The occupation of Iraq transferred control in Mesopotamia to Iraq’s 60% Shii majority; a cataclysmic event that turned Iran into an unstoppable locomotive.
To Sunnis, Shiis are heretics. In extremist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Shiis are discriminated against. The founder of the Saudi kingdom imposed on his Shii citizens the tax imposed on non-Muslims. Shii towns and villages today are pathetically poor despite the fact that they are located at the heart of Saudi Arabia’s oil region. In Bahrain, the Sunni ruling minority discriminates against the Shii majority. In Iraq, until the U.S. changed in 2003 the country’s power pyramid, the Shii majority was deprived. In Kuwait, Shiis, almost one-third of Kuwaitis, are second-class citizens. In Lebanon, Shiis, a third of the population, are underprivileged. In Syria, until seizing power in 1970, the Alawites, a Shii sect, lived in abject poverty under Sunni rule. In Yemen, the Zaydis, a Shii sect, are a third of Yemen’s twenty million people. Zaidis accuse the Sunni government of genocide.
Little wonder, therefore, that the Arab Shiis look to Iran for deliverance; leverage in Tehran’s arsenal in dealing with Arab oil Sheikhdoms. Egyptian President Mubarak declared recently that Shiis in Arab states were more loyal to Iran than to their own countries.
As a minority of about 15% of Muslims today, Shiism draws Shiis together. In Southern Iraq, Najaf and Karbala (Ali’s and Hussein’s burial places) are the holiest of holy Shii cities. Kazimayn, nearby, has the tombs of the Seventh and the Ninth Imams. Samarra has the tombs of the Tenth and the Eleventh Imams plus the revered Mosque of the Occultation, from where the Twelfth Imam allegedly disappeared (this mosque was blown up in the civil war on February 22, 2006 and again on June 13, 2007). In the cemeteries of these holy cities, many illustrious religious personalities from the world of Shiism are buried. In Iran, the Eighth Imam is buried in Mashhad, and in Qumm his sister is buried. Outside Damascus in Syria, Zainab, the Granddaughter of the Prophet and the sister of Hasan and Hussein, is buried. In commemorating the suffering of the Imams, pilgrimages pull millions of Shiis together. In the grand seminaries of Najaf, Karbala, Mashhad, and Qumm the best-known clerics teach. The prominent families of Najaf and Karbala trace their roots to long lines of marriages with the great families of Burjurid, Isfahan, Kirmanshah, Mashhad, and Qumm. Ayatollahs have cross-country followings. From Najaf and Karbala, Iranian clerics often led the Shii world. The so-called “historical ethnic enmity” between Arabs and Persians is an exaggeration. The conflict has always been between the rulers, not the Shii masses.
Washington needs today to deal with Iran as the major power in the world’s biggest oil region. GCC rulers in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE are feeble in dealing with Iran. These men are non-representative dictators pre-occupied in outdoing each other on who owns the more ostentatious palace and who flies the bigger private Airbus or Boeing airplane.
For more on this issue, please see:
http://journals.aol.com/eeh100/daring-opinion/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vox persona on Dec 8, 2007 12:50 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Mushroom clouds and World War III
Posted by: greenfields
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sissy on Dec 8, 2007 3:21 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cannot, knowing this totally corrupt administration, believe for one second that the president or his vice said upon "just reading it last Wednesday", that they said, "Oh goody, maybe we won't have to go to WWIII now, let the people know".
Was it perhaps someone from Intelligence who was not going to let another Iraq happen? If anyone can shed some light on this question, I would be most appreciative. Perhaps I'm just not reading the right thing. I like to know the "where's and why's" of stuff like this.....
Thanks for any help.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Who Released the NIE in the first place?
Posted by: John Annis
» RE: Who Released the NIE in the first place?
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Who Released the NIE in the first place?
Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Ex-CIA/NIE Officer Ray McGovern says:
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
» RE: Stop the Jewish power before its to late!
Posted by: Sissy
» RE: Stop the Jewish power before its to late!
Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Stop the Cracker power before its to late!
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Then stop acting so much like AIPAC every time you write, yellow
Posted by: channing
» RE: Then stop acting so much like AIPAC every time you write, yellow
Posted by: blitzmesser
» If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck............
Posted by: yellow
» RE: If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck............
Posted by: Lauren
» I mean't Alternet readers not authors of articles.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: yellow, I try to only answer "issues"
Posted by: channing
» RE: yellow issues part 2
Posted by: channing
» RE: First cousins by raverhill
Posted by: blitzmesser
Comments are closed-
Posted by: herbal on Dec 8, 2007 3:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't believe it? Just google 'Hillary Clinton AIPAC' and then try 'Rev. Hagee AIPAC', the self described Christian Zionist, and you will see that Hillary's agenda is not only a reflected by her abysmal voting record for the Bush agenda, but a committment to AIPAC for a nuclear invasion of Iran. She has tacitly endorsed of the rapture cult. She is the darling of the Israel lobby that has tirelessly pushed for invasion of Iran. Hillary = perpetual war.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary
Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary... supported by fascist Murdoch
Posted by: channing
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary... supported by fascist Murdoch
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary... supported by fascist Murdoch
Posted by: channing
» RE: Neocon Lite Hillary
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Dec 8, 2007 4:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Such manipulation of public sentiment has been a key part of the neocons' entire Iraq war enterprise. For those interested in a psychological analysis of this warmongering, I have also recently completed a brief online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It examines how the Bush administration’s messaging targets our five core concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. The video describes these warmongering appeals and offers suggestions for how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Neocon Manipulation
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Neocon Manipulation
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Neocon Manipulation
Posted by: Knot_Rich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sissy on Dec 8, 2007 4:29 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 8, 2007 5:29 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
- so, the crazy left begot the crazy right.. a mother child reunion!!
That aside, there is an intersting twist to this story.. Iran, who denied that it had a nuclear program now admits they did and it ended in 2003! - The time we invaded Iraq - could that have had anything to do with it?
While the intel says there is currently no nuclear weapons program, the step from energy grade to weapons grade isnt that far..
Iran has had problems with the technology, which it got from Pakistan. I understand there are problems with the centrifuges which prohibit the move to weapons grade plutonium. But non the less the technology exists and there are no assurances that it can't or won't be restarted..
I suspect it's a sure bet that Iran will at some point possess nuclear weapons.
This is a great time for Bush to take what seems to be an "olive branch" from Iran and see if the issues can't be resolved through negotiation. I think he is correct in approaching Iran with caution - they have been an anti American government since the 1970's! But to not be willing to sit and talk with them now is insane
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: Democritus
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: they don't write his thoughts down...
Posted by: channing
» RE: Thanks rocketman, I actually agree with something you wrote
Posted by: channing
» RE: A Family affair - fresh talking point.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A Family affair - fresh talking point.
Posted by: rocketman
» RE: A Family affair - fresh talking point.
Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A Family affair
Posted by: particle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PerryBrass on Dec 8, 2007 6:19 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the Bushies have basically asked for "constant war," a continuing war, a constant "War on Terror," a war without even an enemy, shows that they know this truism, and are using it beautifully. Now, why can't we understand this?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The business of this country is Business
Posted by: John Annis
» British Imperialism
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 6:56 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Back Door Deal or a Squeeze Play
Posted by: Knot_Rich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ellie1 on Dec 8, 2007 7:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: channing
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: Chloe2005
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: left_libertarian
» Are Any Of You In Touch With Average Americans?
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
» RE: Are Any Of You In Touch With Average Americans?
Posted by: Knot_Rich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Schroeder on Dec 8, 2007 7:21 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Forrest on Dec 8, 2007 7:27 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
very good point concerning President Clinton.
In 1998 Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and notably Donald Rumsfeld (and R. James Woolsey)
wrote a letter to then President Bill Clinton calling on him to remove ".... Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
http://newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
Of course the policy paper written by Richard Perle et al for the state of Israel in 1996:
(A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm) remains the master plan.
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
"This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sunlakedude on Dec 8, 2007 7:37 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE:Yes Dude
Posted by: Ellie1
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: srsmn
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: channing
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: Lauren
» Feeling a bit paranoid, are we?
Posted by: halg
» RE: Feeling a bit paranoid, are we?
Posted by: Lauren
» Thanks, Josh, and ...
Posted by: halg
» Already done ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Already done ...
Posted by: channing
» RE: What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: blitzmesser
» Refresh the page works
Posted by: rocketman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: When In Doubt on Dec 8, 2007 7:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember, Saddam had been an agent of the US Government for years. They used him for their purposes.
Saddam had no WMD's...where was that a threat to the hugest army on the planet...a military that had over 700 instalations in some 130 countries on the globe.
Come on!
Reality check.
The neo-cons are imbedded like our "Journalists.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: 25ghostcommander on Dec 8, 2007 7:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "neocons" are fascists, but not all fascists are neocons
Posted by: channing
» RE: "neocons" are fascists, but not all fascists are neocons
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: "neocons" are fascists, but not all fascists are neocons
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Dec 8, 2007 8:23 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The NIE has given 'substance' to on-going neocon and Zionist lies about Iran's desire to build a nuclear weapon. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons up to 2003. Proof is seldom produced by those involved in deceit by design.
Circumstances required a tactical change in pursuit of war and the NIE provided it. A more honest examination of the NIE's report can be read in this article
In the not too distant future (when the time is deemed right) Iran will be accused of RESTARTING a nuclear weapons programme that never existed in the first place. The NIE has deliberately placed a dangerous seed in the minds of those in opposition to Iran and especially in that section of the US poulation who are presently wavering in their stance toward Iran.
The NIE report is a carefully constructed piece that, at first glance, appears to be brave and independent-minded as if it is administering a slap to the warmongers in power, but the reality is quite different... it is written with a mind for the future, as a way of creating conflict with Iran in the future because the NIE report is ultimately based upon the lie that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons programme in 2003. Perhaps suggesting that the illegal invasion of Iraq halted the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Programme in 2003?
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: The NIE report doesn't specify,
Posted by: channing
» RE: Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Programme in 2003?
Posted by: nap
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Knowmad on Dec 8, 2007 8:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You need to wake up and understand:
Your rights and freedoms and very way of life are at stake, not to mention potentially the well-being of virtually every lifeform on the planet.
You Americans simply have to stop this incessant babbling and do something...anything. If you're totally stumped, or shell-shocked, see my latest suggestion "Door-to-door" under the Dec. 7 Keith Olbermann NIE video. That could be a start, and once you get going other potential actions will become evident.
One very powerful analytical tool that always works when you don't know what to do is the simple, beautiful question: "Who benefits?" Try it!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Better get at it!
Posted by: profedwards
» RE: Better get at it!
Posted by: Lauren
» Angry...and frustrated.
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Angry...and frustrated.Don't lose...
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Angry...and frustrated but not homicidal.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Angry...and frustrated but not homicidal.
Posted by: Knowmad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Dec 8, 2007 11:06 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neo-cons know that if they can't get Bush to attack Iran before leaving office it may not happen, and attacking Iran is crucial to David Rockefeller's plan for International Corporate Fascism..!
The entire plan for International Fascism and the New world Order hinges on this attack upon Iran which will spread into a regional conflagration and then eventually world war which is what they want for the sake of profit but also reducing world population by at least one third in the worlds poorest nations and the Middle east as well..
They hope to ignite a war between India and Pakistan with this attack upon Iran eventually and that war will kill perhaps hundreds of millions which Rockefeller and the Bilderbergers want in a bad way especially huge loses in Pakistan..
The Kyl Lieberman Bill, is really all Bush needs to attack the "Terrorists" of the Iranian Republican guard and the coming crack down of these dangerous Presidential decrees and the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Bill S.1959 will allow Bush and his army no longer ours including Blackwater to crack down on and imprison any who attempt to resist this insanity..
All the plans and pieces for a crack down and attack upon Iran are in place..
Bush will attack Iran and then declare an emergency under NSPD-51 and HSPD-20 and S.1959 will put the final lid on American democracy Free Speech and dissent..
Watch and see..
The Democrats in Congress have betrayed us and betrayed America..
Their legacy will be that of those who allowed WWII and the worst human carnage and slaughter in world history..!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: ArtemInox
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: Staggo
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: 21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au on Dec 8, 2007 12:34 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18800.htm (The Method to Bush’s Madness in Overthrowing Venezuela)
So, if the plans for Iran fail, the neocons, the Bilderbergers and the moneychangers may have their big war after all, by invading Venezuela. The world is waiting for something big to happen; to wake up one morning and to read all about it in the morning newspapers. Yes, the bombing of Iran. Or, inconceivable as it seems now, the bombing of Venezuela. I wonder if there are any signs at all.
Robert Hoogenboom
Sydney, Australia
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No one ever mentions Chavez's Venezuela.
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Don't have to invade Venezuela...
Posted by: Lauren
» Invasion of Cuba a no-brainer
Posted by: herbal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bleppo on Dec 8, 2007 12:47 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be mass suicide for Iran to actually use a nuke, and you're wrong if you think otherwise: just look at the decades of Soviet-USA nuclear rivalry, or Pakistan-India, or North Korea-South Korea/USA.
M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) doesn't apply with Iran because for them it would be S.A.D. (self assured destruction): they cannot assure the destruction of the USA or even a single strike against it.
Regarding Israel and Iran, M.A.D. would apply just as it has for decades with the world's other nuclear rivalries. This is doubly true because not only does Israel have many nukes, but the USA would also use its nukes against an opponent of Israel's, just as the Bush admin is threatening to do preemptively now.
With the Iraq invasion, Neocons taught the rest of the world that if you have a nuke, you won't get invaded by the USA (e.g., North Korea and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan). Neocons go for the easy way out: attacking only vastly weaker countries, and cheating, lying, spinning.
It is equally ludicrous to think Iran would give a nuke to terrorists. As soon as they give a nuke away they'd lose control of it, and it could be used against them or a friendly country or sold or given away again.
NO country gives a nuke away.
And even if they did and it was used, S.A.D. would again apply because it would be traced back to them.
A friend high in the defense establishment told me that each nuke detonation has some kind of signature, radioactive, I think, that's traceable to the country of development. (I have not confirmed this, but he's written a few books on defense and speaks worldwide on defense matters.)
The Bush admin has succeeded in shaping the debate to attack Iran based on Iran's WMD capability.
Most people go along with this reasoning and only rebuff Bush/Cheney because Iran doesn't have nukes yet or is not close to developing them.
But, again, the propaganda Bush spinmeisters have won either way because almost everyone thinks it would be OK to strike Iran if it really did almost have nukes.
It's specious.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's name
Posted by: yellow
» RE: You forget that Israel's religion does not prohibit WMD's,
Posted by: channing
» RE: Yellow you have to be the...
Posted by: Lauren
» As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: yellow
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: yellow
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: As a kid, all I ever heard is Jews talking peace and Arabs talking about throwing Jews into the sea
Posted by: yellow
» Channing you seem prejudiced.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: you're missing the point again
Posted by: channing
» Channing, Exactly what point am I missing........
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Thank you,
Posted by: channing
» RE: Thank you,
Posted by: yellow
» RE: You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's name
Posted by: opeluboy
» RE: You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's name
Posted by: yellow
» RE: You forget that unlike Israel, Iran is ruled by religious fanatics who would use Nukes in G-d's
Posted by: bleppo
» RE: So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon.
Posted by: Staggo
» RE: They signed major agreements with India, China and Russia
Posted by: channing
» RE: I went to a website on oil production and trade and they weren't on it.
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 12:51 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Chavez and Bush
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Bobsays on Dec 8, 2007 12:59 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Divine the rhetoric: I can assure you, the plans are still ON
Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: I agree,though not with you Knowmad,
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 1:09 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not gonna happen sofla100...
Posted by: channing
» RE: Not gonna happen sofla100...
Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Not gonna happen sofla100...
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ArtemInox on Dec 8, 2007 1:24 PM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We dont participate in creating the realities that make things happen or not happen. Every time I hear something about this politician or group trying to "sway public opinion", I think about the fact that public opinion doesnt really matter anymore. And when has it, really? What is "the public" going to do, riot? overthrow the gov't? How often does that happen in comparison to simply living with whatever form of insane government is in power at the time?
No one is removed from office because of the public. We are just along for the ride
http://www.addictedtoaggravation.com/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Dec 8, 2007 2:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Same old story
Posted by: Jim_ME_expert
» RE: Same old story
Posted by: willymack
» RE: Same old story
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Staggo on Dec 8, 2007 2:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hillary will probably lay off Iran.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Hillary will probably lay off Iran.
Posted by: left_libertarian
» I'm Naive? The Pentagon won't invade Iran in an election year. Hillary already opposes war in Iran.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: Who wins in 2008? COLBERT!
Posted by: smendler
» RE: Who wins in 2008? COLBERT!
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: craiteri on Dec 8, 2007 3:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TarryFaster on Dec 8, 2007 4:55 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Dec 8, 2007 5:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kathaksung on Dec 8, 2007 6:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On 12/3, media reported that US National Intelligence Estimate said Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The revelation caused a debate on Bush's Iran policy. The point missing in this debate is how could such an important information be learned by government and public so late - it took more than four years. (2003 - Dec. 2007) It took three years and eight months for US to get in World War II. ( Dec. 1941 - Japan surrender Aug. 1945) If US intelligence is so incompetent, that it took four years to reach an important conclusion, then by the time when they got a NIE of "Japan will attack Pearl Harbor", the war had finished already. This NIE of Iran is absurd. It's not intelligence but National History estimate.
This new NIE on Iran (2007) is a contradict to another one (2005) which asserted that Iran was "determined to develop nuclear weapon". If 2007 NIE took four years to conclude event of 2003, apply same efficiency on 2005 Assessment, does that mean "Iran seeking nuclear weapon" was something on 2001? Or more likely, this government just select information that fits its demand?
Review recent situation, Bush administration and media used to demonize Iran as a nuclear threat to the world. US had its Navy battle squadron gathered at Persian Gulf to show its force. Iran war for several times were just inches away from breaking off .
Bush administration also took a blind eye on that new assessment (Iran halted nuclear weapon programme). Bush knew that estimate in August.
Re: "Bush told Iran may have halted atom work
Thu Dec 6, 2007 7:03am GMT
By Tabassum Zakaria
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush was told in August that Iran may have suspended its nuclear weapons programme,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKN0565348320071206
Yet, two months later in October, he warns World War III if Iran goes nuclear. This proves he treated the NIE as a junk piece.
Then why the intelligence let out such a "junk" information (possibly a truth but not favored by Bush administration) at this time?
I think it is a part of Iran war tactic.
1, Iran will be directed to a nuclear weapon "trap". The war will be done in Bush's remnant term. Bush has a swift re-action to that new NIE. He insists Iran a threat despite new report. When Iran war breaks off, Bush will be painted as a hero.
2. A psychological operation to push Iran to a nuclear weapon trap. Iran may feel safe that Bush is under criticism for his aggressive Iran policy and accept a "special offer" from Russia's Putin. The special proposal maybe a bait of enriched uranium which can be also used in military weapon. (see #516. Iran war next stage (10/23/07)) It's a tactic to push Iran to accept a Trojan horse. Russia's nuclear deal with Iran is that Trojan horse.
Bush activated Iraq war. Bush tries to plant a Trojan horse in Iran. Bush will start war on Iran once the Trojan horse is planted.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: 525. NIE (2007) and Trojan horse (12/8/07)
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 8:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Iran Has Never Had a Nuke Program at All
Posted by: Lauren
» Exactly
Posted by: johndoraemi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GPFrank on Dec 8, 2007 8:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Classics but to how use Platonic epigrams as subtle language in obtaining the kind of regime as proposed in "The Republic" of Plato. The principal teaching of the Republic is that government should be by philosophers, that is, literally from the ivory tower. The true philosopher is totally preoccupied with thinking that is the way to truth.
The true philosopher is not to be physically or emotionally involved with actual practice. That is, the philosopher in (his) high position avoids taking up weapons in war, or activities such as farming or carpentry. Hitler followed this mode as he conducted his war from the Wolfshantz where the generals came to him when summoned: He did not visit the generals' quarters, never rmind anybody in the field. Thus Wolvowitz, Perle, et. al. could do the "chicken hawk" chutzpah without a single qualm because of their belief in their intellectual brilliance and the perfection of "The republic". In "The Republic"it is said that it is proper to lie to the people if it is for the common good. While "The Republic" supported some kind of mental world of forms as part of nature and the higher part of nature it does not support a deity. But it supports imbuing people with religion as a matter of keeping order in the realm. I need to emphasize most students of Greek history and philosophy maintain that "The Republic" was not to be taken literally but as a thought experiment, a discussion of what might be considered an ideal State. Neo-Conservatism considers the object and ideal as absolute power Now, I have summarized only half of Neo-Conservatism. Here comes the other half of the poison intended to execute democracy:
Very few might now remember the dispute between the Trotskyites and the Stalinists. Primarily it was about the belief that there must be one supreme world power before there can be a just society (whatevere that means). while the dispute was about how this was to be accomplihed These programs and political battles were also accompanied by the belief in the use of lies and slander, to wear down the enemy.. I point to newspaper columnist Novak who inherited this literary history; and became the specialist in provocation. Originally Russia was to be the dominant power, then Germany. But with the ascent of Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld they found their opportunity in the United States and we are suffering the consequences.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Genesis of "perpetual war"
Posted by: Lauren
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jim_ME_expert on Dec 8, 2007 9:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch for the media to ramp up hate against Iran. I can just see Rupert Murdoch working OT to make sure the black nature of America is roused to angry action again, and again, and again ...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This is will upset the Jews
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: This is will upset the Jews, but mostly because of the poor English grammer.
Posted by: yellow
» RE: This is will upset the Jews
Posted by: Nick
Comments are closed-
Posted by: macdon1 on Dec 8, 2007 11:58 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It's All About Economics
Posted by: Lauren
» RE: It's All About Economics
Posted by: kryptx
Comments are closed-
Posted by: left_libertarian on Dec 9, 2007 1:11 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can’t blame Iran for wanting to establish a nuclear weapons program since:
1 – In 1953 the US aided in overthrowing Iran’s elected leader.
2 – More recently the US invaded neighboring Iraq on the false grounds that the country had WMD.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nick on Dec 9, 2007 2:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush would never release and let anybody release this repot.
Clearly, Bush, Rumsfeld, that is now consultant
in Pentagon, CIA and MOSSAD preparing
another 9/11
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Another false flag on its way
Posted by: Missing Piece
Comments are closed-
Posted by: slydad on Dec 9, 2007 3:09 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have to first realize that this report demonstrates some real key things. First of all that military intelligence is not a clear science. Just a few years ago, the NIE report stated that Iran's nuclear weapons program was in full swing. Now they're saying that it was halted in the fall of 2003. Which report do we want to believe? I think that this means we should believe the worst to be on the safe side.
But if this report is true, it means that our action in Iraq had yet another positive side effect. Remember that Libya relinquished their WMD's after we clobbered Saddam. Maybe we also caused Ahmadinejad to take a pause with what he was doing. No wonder he wants a Democrat in the Whitehouse. I think it's a safe bet that as soon as there is, his nuclear program will be back in business.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Nonsense, it all points to politics
Posted by: sofla100
» Based on what you know
Posted by: slydad
» RE: Based on what you know
Posted by: yellow
» I'm not advocating war
Posted by: slydad
» RE: I'm not advocating war
Posted by: yellow
» Don't be so sure.
Posted by: slydad
» I think you need to explain that.
Posted by: slydad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 9, 2007 3:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulFDavis on Dec 9, 2007 4:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War without end along with turning out the lights on crimes against humanity by reason of executive order, executive privilege, and presidential pardon is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the freedoms our governmental leaders in the Oval Office abuse.
When the U.S. presidency fails to hold previous administrations accountabile for crimes and misdeeds, it condones and opens the floodgates of hell in government.
By turning out the lights out on our history in an effort to cover up our failed foreign policy and hypocritical misuses of what we call "democracy" we simultaneously ensure repeat failed performances for posterity.
Robert Parry's new book Secrecy & Privilege gives we the people of America much to think about.
What beyond imperialism and economic strength (accomplished via clandestine wars and demonization of nations abroad we label enemies) does America stand for anymore anyhow?
Paul F. Davis - author of United States of Arrogance
www.PaulFDavis.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 9, 2007 4:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 9, 2007 4:48 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Hallaluya brother, Iran has dropped the dollar and NeoCons are going to drop some bombs
Posted by: Missing Piece
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ehsan on Dec 9, 2007 11:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a must for guidance of the Voter as to the crucial importance of being vigilant in the choice of their leadership.And also a reminder to those who earned the trust of the Voter and then betrayed it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Missing Piece on Dec 10, 2007 3:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Elie Elhadj on Dec 18, 2007 1:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On April 9, 2003, the U.S. won the battle against a tattered Iraq. But Iran, without firing a shot won the war for Iraq; a triumph for the Khomeini revolution, one of Shiism’s greatest moments since Saladin ended the rule of the Shii Fatimids in Cairo in 1171 A.D. The British think tank, Chatham House, in a report on August 22, 2006 concluded: “The greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded it as the most influential power in Iraq.”
The occupation of Iraq transferred control in Mesopotamia to Iraq’s 60% Shii majority; a cataclysmic event that turned Iran into an unstoppable locomotive.
To Sunnis, Shiis are heretics. In extremist Wahhabi Saudi Arabia, Shiis are discriminated against. The founder of the Saudi kingdom imposed on his Shii citizens the tax imposed on non-Muslims. Shii towns and villages today are pathetically poor despite the fact that they are located at the heart of Saudi Arabia’s oil region. In Bahrain, the Sunni ruling minority discriminates against the Shii majority. In Iraq, until the U.S. changed in 2003 the country’s power pyramid, the Shii majority was deprived. In Kuwait, Shiis, almost one-third of Kuwaitis, are second-class citizens. In Lebanon, Shiis, a third of the population, are underprivileged. In Syria, until seizing power in 1970, the Alawites, a Shii sect, lived in abject poverty under Sunni rule. In Yemen, the Zaydis, a Shii sect, are a third of Yemen’s twenty million people. Zaidis accuse the Sunni government of genocide.
Little wonder, therefore, that the Arab Shiis look to Iran for deliverance; leverage in Tehran’s arsenal in dealing with Arab oil Sheikhdoms. Egyptian President Mubarak declared recently that Shiis in Arab states were more loyal to Iran than to their own countries.
As a minority of about 15% of Muslims today, Shiism draws Shiis together. In Southern Iraq, Najaf and Karbala (Ali’s and Hussein’s burial places) are the holiest of holy Shii cities. Kazimayn, nearby, has the tombs of the Seventh and the Ninth Imams. Samarra has the tombs of the Tenth and the Eleventh Imams plus the revered Mosque of the Occultation, from where the Twelfth Imam allegedly disappeared (this mosque was blown up in the civil war on February 22, 2006 and again on June 13, 2007). In the cemeteries of these holy cities, many illustrious religious personalities from the world of Shiism are buried. In Iran, the Eighth Imam is buried in Mashhad, and in Qumm his sister is buried. Outside Damascus in Syria, Zainab, the Granddaughter of the Prophet and the sister of Hasan and Hussein, is buried. In commemorating the suffering of the Imams, pilgrimages pull millions of Shiis together. In the grand seminaries of Najaf, Karbala, Mashhad, and Qumm the best-known clerics teach. The prominent families of Najaf and Karbala trace their roots to long lines of marriages with the great families of Burjurid, Isfahan, Kirmanshah, Mashhad, and Qumm. Ayatollahs have cross-country followings. From Najaf and Karbala, Iranian clerics often led the Shii world. The so-called “historical ethnic enmity” between Arabs and Persians is an exaggeration. The conflict has always been between the rulers, not the Shii masses.
Washington needs today to deal with Iran as the major power in the world’s biggest oil region. GCC rulers in Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE are feeble in dealing with Iran. These men are non-representative dictators pre-occupied in outdoing each other on who owns the more ostentatious palace and who flies the bigger private Airbus or Boeing airplane.
For more on this issue, please see:
http://journals.aol.com/eeh100/daring-opinion/
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
If the NFL Were More Lenient About Pot, Would the Players Get Involved in Less Drunken Violence?
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?
Power Grab: Comcast Has a New Name, but Merger With NBC Universal Still a Bad Idea




