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]

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]

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]

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]

To what?

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

""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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

In the presidential race, a GOP win would be disastrous. A Hillary win would be equally disastrous. I won't vote GOP. However, if Clinton is the Democratic choice, I'm doing a write-in vote. I'm not rolling over for the same-old wolf in Democratic clothing.

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

Sure the NIE released information to the surprise of the Bushwhackers. If you believe that, you believe the U-S still has a Constitution and a working system of checks and balances. More likely the Bushwhackers wanted to assure their supporters that Iran won't be able to fight back with nuclear weapons when the Neo-cons do attack. Give 'em time, they'll come up with some other reason to invade, just as they did with Iraq. It's obvious they want to do it, and it's also obvious they will.

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

Plus, I've got a "special" page for Hillary -- as well as offering a solution. Click here.

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

Bush's idea of Diplomatic Negotiations is the same as his view on cooperationg with Congress . Give me what I want FIRST and then we can have discussions . The man is the most ARROGANT SOB ( and I REALLY mean That Barbara but don't let it bother your beatiful mind ) I have ever seen . However Rudy might just give him a run for his money

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

525. NIE (2007) and Trojan horse (12/8/07)

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]

The IAEA has indicated Iran never had a nuke program in 2003, and in fact, Iran never had a nuke program at all. All they did was enrich some uranium to use in reactors to produce electrical power. For this, Bush and the neocons wanted to bomb them into oblivion. Now, we must remember that the neocons will do anything to stay in power. The Iranian bogeyman was an ideal scapegoat. Muslims, non-whites (not like the "Caucasion Neocons"), obviously "foreign devils," no doubt in league with Osama. Perfect fodder for the propaganda mills and FOX news. Look how it still is that Bush and company continue to talk trash about Iran. Pretty soon, we will be told because Iranians know how to read and write, this means they must be developing the potential of knowing about nukes. So, we must bomb them because of this. The rationale of Bush and company just gets more and more extreme when it comes to going after Iran. Now poor Bush, he wants so bad to make the Iranians into devils. The neocons are screaming at him, Tel Aviv keeps calling and is ringing his phone off the hook. Bush will inevitably find or create a reason to continue then going after Iran. After all, Tel Aviv will never be satisfied till Iran is pulverized.

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

Neo-Conservatism was spawned by the teaching of Leo Strauss, an apostate Jew who sympathized with the Nazis during the rise of Hitler. He tried to advise the Nazis not to be so overt; that their objective of conquest of at least the western hemisphere would more likely succeed with subtle methods. He was expelled by the Nazis who were fond of their immediate brutality. But Strauss found his way into the University of Chicago, overtly as a teacher of
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]

Not just Israel but the neo-con Jews who diktat US M-E policy.

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]

We no longer have a democracy, we are now ruled by massively powerful and greedy corporatism. There is little difference between the public and the private sector and wealthy corporate executives move back and forth freely between the boardroom and government. No one dares even bring up the subject of conflict of interest and if they do nothing seems to happen. Economic imperialism has long shaped US foreign policy. What Bush&Co are doing is nothing new...they are just blatantly exploiting US now instead of Chile or Argentina.

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

It’s laughable that the US, a nation which used Atomic bombs on a civilian population, is claiming that Iran does not have a right to a nuclear weapons program.

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]

Something stinks to the high sky.
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]

And as far as I can tell, you guys think I'm a "Neocon".

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]

blink. When this administration, on behalf of those they represent (not US citizens in general), decides it's time to attack Iran, they will. Facts, information, justification? They are simply inconveniences and bear no impact on the actions of this administration. This is a government of swine. They are pathological personalities (to borrow a phrase from Kurt Vonnegut) and data is only relevant if it supports what they have already decided to do. The corporate media, their handmaidens, will simply regurgitate the official story and American citizens will quietly accept that their government must be right. After all, no one seems to be questioning their authority or their accuracy. I am fed up, and no longer have any confidence that the citizens of this country (at least not more than 50% of them) can tell their arse fr/a hole in the ground.

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

Victory without values is a horrible heritage to give our children.

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]

It is so ironic that when it comes to Iran, the USA is essentially the new Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was Saddam who went to war with Iran and Iranian power mushroomed after Saddam was gone. Now, the USA is so upset over a condition they essentially created in the first place. But, finally, one really has to wonder why the USA removed Saddam. Fear of WMD's? It hardly seems likely, and nobody else but America (10,000) miles away and Israel (of course) were all that worried. That Saddam was a dictator? That has been OK for USA policy for years, if the dictator is on the side of America. But, we must conclude this personal vendatta, whatever it is, has costed the USA dearly. Now the USA has to pay the price in her own blood to keep Iranian influences out of Iraq, something Saddam once did for her for nothing. Not only that, the USA will not succeed, no matter what on the faked up, oh we just discovered the nuclear program we thought existed hasn't existed for years, if it ever even existed at all, and other kinds of trumped up nonsense. The USA must finally admit it is all about power, who holds power in the region, control of the oil supplies, her relentless support of Israel, that is driving the train.

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

U.S. policy in the Middle East and elsewhere has nothing to do with WMDs or the potential for others to get nukes, it has to do with power in the region, mainly for oil. I wish the left would stop discussing red herring issues like whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program, they are just propaganda used to distract people from the real issues.

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

True the Neo-cons have suffered a blow in their scheme of promoting certain corporate interests and the interests of a polity grafted in the geographical area of those corporate interests.But that does not absolve the US political leadership that has to determine the patameters of the American interests.Bush and his team and the political big wigs of the Republican party,have consitantly failed to doing their job in this respect.The American Voter must know of this gruesom failure anyway,even if their political system does not entitle them to impeaching or punshing their rulers who have brought so much pain,loss of lives, economic distress,loss of goodwill and international odium to the people.
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]

Its about the oil, and the down hill slope of peak oil is going to start no later than 2012. With as much as a 7% decline a year after. Good Luck fellow Americans, we have been set up to fail. Look at what the Europeans are doing to get ready and then look at us. The ruling class will take away all our rites and that is our future. Good luck and vote Dennis Kucinich

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

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran has become the hegemonic power over the world’s richest oil region, thanks to the Bush administration’s elimination of the Sunni Wahhabi Talibans in Afghanistan and Saddam’s Sunni regime in Iraq.
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]