Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Neocons Devastated by Iran Intel Bombshell, But Don't Count Them Out Yet

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted December 8, 2007.


The neocons may have lost a lot of clout with Bush, but it's dangerous to assume they are out of power.
Advertisement

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."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: neocons, iran, white house, bush, pentagon, iraq, propaganda

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Mushroom clouds and World War III
Posted by: vox persona on Dec 8, 2007 12:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The depraved contempt CheneyBu$hCo has for checks and balances and our Constitution knows no bounds. Their neocon agenda, well on its way toward completion, was thankfully derailed somewhat in these last couple years by an electorate finally arousing from their coma and putting in an opposition Congress, Katrina peeling off the veneer of a sinister administration, and a variety of scandals that grace our front pages daily. But as the article said, they're not out for the count yet. The National Intelligence Estimate shows me that our intel agencies may be as frightened of this criminal rogue junta as the rest of us, and are pulling back on the reins a bit. One would think that if Bush had complete control of these NIE's, the reports would have been buried, postponed indefinitely, or outright 'misplaced'. (What reports?) But 13 months is an eternity in the swirl of ominous world of neocon governance, so as Edward Abbey said, " A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who Released the NIE in the first place?
Posted by: Sissy on Dec 8, 2007 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most Americans in this past week, I have been absolutely stunned at the news that there has been no program in Iran since '03. What I am curious about and no doubt have missed in all my reading, who let it out?

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]

This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» RE: yellow issues part 2 Posted by: channing
» RE: First cousins by raverhill Posted by: blitzmesser
Neocon Lite Hillary
Posted by: herbal on Dec 8, 2007 3:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Robert Parry, as usual, is right on the mark. The real big election winner may well not be Hillary so much as the Republican neo-cons and Christian Zionists who win if she wins.

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 Posted by: Lauren
Neocon Manipulation
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Dec 8, 2007 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The neocon-propelled White House propaganda campaign laying the groundwork for military action against Iran dates back almost six years—to Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address in which he designated Iran as a founding member of the “axis of evil.” My YouTube video entitled “Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran” is available HERE. It offers a very brief but deeply troubling chronicle of the president’s public warmongering and demonization of Iran.

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
Parent's First Cousins?
Posted by: Sissy on Dec 8, 2007 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To what?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Family affair
Posted by: rocketman on Dec 8, 2007 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""neoconservative first was used derisively by democratic socialist Michael Harrington to identify a group of people (who described themselves as liberals) as newly stimulated conservative ex-liberals. The idea that liberalism "no longer knew what it was talking about" is neoconservatism's central theme.""" -

- 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: A Family affair Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: A Family affair Posted by: Lauren
» RE: A Family affair Posted by: particle
The business of this country is Business
Posted by: PerryBrass on Dec 8, 2007 6:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope that at some point someone will come out and say that what the neocons have in common with the "liberals" of this country is that the business of America is business, the business keeps getting bigger and bigger, war is great for business; and this country, like all mega-powers, like England before us, and Rome before England, knows that war, especially constant war, is the only consolidator of power. As long as you have a continuing threat, no one is going to question the "common wisdom" as John Kenneth Galbraith called it--i.e., the stupidity that commonly passes for knowledge.
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]

» British Imperialism Posted by: Jeff Hoffman
A Back Door Deal or a Squeeze Play
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This was a back door deal or a squeeze-play on the USA. Of course, Bush has known for years about the non-existent Iran WMD program. It's possible Putin (who just scored a major victory in Russia and solidified his power) told Bush he would expose him if he didn't come clean. Another possibility is the Iranians worked a secret deal with Bush. Probably, Bush said he would come clean if Iran agreed to work with him and the USA on ultimately installing a Shia strongman in Baghdad to hold Iraq together. The USA has been unhappy with Maliki, a USA puppet but way to weak to control anything much beyond Baghdad. They know from the Saddam experience that a dictator/stongman type could hold things together. It would have to be someone acceptable to the USA and Israel, but also Tehran would have to play ball, so this could have been the card played.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Last night progressive Democrats in New Jersey met
Posted by: Ellie1 on Dec 8, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to have a straw poll of presidential candidates. The winner was John Edwards, followed in order by Obama, Kucinich, and then Hillary. I don't understand this claim of her strong support. I am fairly active in progressive political circles, and I have met very few eager Hillary fans. Of course I live in a blue state (thank heavens) so perhaps I am getting an unrealistic view from here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Neo cons
Posted by: Schroeder on Dec 8, 2007 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it's not neo cons for new conservatives, maybe it's neo cons for new convicts. I think these guys have done their share of damage spewing the rhetoric along with the Bush administration or just writing his script. When enough of them are behind bars for having been found to be the traitors they are, then it will stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NotNeo cons butTheocons Posted by: nightgaunt
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Posted by: Forrest on Dec 8, 2007 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he appointed neoconservative Democrat James Woolsey to head the CIA."

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]

What's Wrong With The HTML?
Posted by: sunlakedude on Dec 8, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over the last few days most stories on Alternet have been showing up on the right or left margin, one or two words per row and you have to scroll all the way down the page to read the story. What is wrong with the coding? The HTML must have something wrong with it. Is anyone else having this problem?

[« 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: Joshua Holland
» 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
When in Doubt
Posted by: When In Doubt on Dec 8, 2007 7:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr Perry: I belive that Iraq was no threat to the USA until the USA invaded Iraq.
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]

25ghostcommander
Posted by: 25ghostcommander on Dec 8, 2007 7:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stop calling these things neo*cons--they are Fascist's. Just google--"the 14 points of Fascism" and decide for yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iran Halted Nuclear Weapons Programme in 2003?
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Dec 8, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The NIE report will not devastate the neocons, not at all, they will be silently pleased. AIPAC are over the moon with this report.

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]

Better get at it!
Posted by: Knowmad on Dec 8, 2007 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All this analysis and disagreement and rebuttal and re-rebuttal and on and on is fine if you're trying to figure out something benign that isn't urgent; i.e. without a 'DEADline'. However, you don't have that luxury here.

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
21st Century will be bloodier than 20th..Rockefeller wills it..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Dec 8, 2007 11:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These next 13 months will be the most dangerous the world has known since prior to WWII..

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]

No one ever mentions Chavez's Venezuela.
Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au on Dec 8, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With its constant attempts to undermine the US and the capitalist global control mechanisms such as the World Bank, its oil riches and US dependence for part of its oil, surely the neocons must have had it in its sights, and have big plans for it by now. Here's one guy who thinks so:

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]

So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon.
Posted by: bleppo on Dec 8, 2007 12:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. It would bring more stability to that region.

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]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Thank you, Posted by: channing
» RE: Thank you, Posted by: yellow
Chavez and Bush
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Chavez so far has out-smarted Bush. After the failed coup attempt against Chavez, as the USA was publicly gleeful that Chavez was deposed, a remergent Chavez threw spittle in Bushes face. Bush was busy celebrating his overthrow (Chavez) that never did happen, and Chavez emerged, victorious again over the neocons and the CIA Jackals. Of course, Chavez is a marked man, but he holds a pretty powerful card in that he can cut a good part of the USA's oil off very quickly. So, if the CIA or Blackwater Jackals are going to take him out, the slightest failure that proves a link to these Jackals, is death to oil for the USA. What the USA is busy doing most likely is funneling money to groups opposed to Chavez and trying to find a way to get to the Venezuelan ballot box, its a safer approach.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chavez and Bush Posted by: Lauren
Divine the rhetoric: I can assure you, the plans are still ON
Posted by: Bobsays on Dec 8, 2007 12:59 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't pay attention to the report: the attack will still happen. They have been waiting for some space to be created in Iraq, and for some more pressure to be applied on the Gulf 'allies'. But be assured, things are still on track. Oh, yeah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The NIE Lets Iran Know They are Toast for an Israeli/USA Attack
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 8, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without at least a nuke, Iran is toast for the USA/Israeli attack in the works. And, the USA let that be known with the release of the NIE. We can take you out, anytime you like, because we all know you cannot fully defend yourself. The USA wants Iran to buckle, that is, accept USA/Israeli policies and plans for the region.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Players and spectators
Posted by: ArtemInox on Dec 8, 2007 1:24 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I cant help but think that we, the public, dont really have a clue what is going on with this situation. Do any of us really think we have some real insight into current high level political agendas? Sure, we can see this and deduce that and put some things together, but what we see that has any shred of truth to it, is dwarfed by what happens that we never see or hear of, and never will.

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]

Same old story
Posted by: willymack on Dec 8, 2007 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Same old song. Since the election theft of 2000, the lies and criminal activity have been constant and unrelenting. Everything we hold dear is under attack, and the criminals in Washington are being allowed to get away with it, time and again. Want the truth? Don't look for it from the bushies. They create their own reality. It doesn't matter that they've had their illegal activities uncovered over and over again, because they've rendered themselves bulletproof by buying off the not-so-supreme court and congress. Don't expect things to change come Jan 20th, 2009, either. Look at what happened after the Democratic "victory" in 2006.

[« 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
Who wins in 2008?
Posted by: Staggo on Dec 8, 2007 2:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated