Alert?! Cheney Winning the Inside Battles Again

-

cheney twn.jpg
Last September, I wrote a Salon.com article explaining the many reasons why despite neoconservative obsession with bombing Iran, President Bush would not do so. He had tacked a different direction.
Part of my case, though not all of it, rested on the fact that one of Vice President Cheney’s staff members had allegedly told a private group in Washington that the VP himself was frustrated with the President’s tilt towards Condi Rice, Bob Gates and others who emphasized a mix of diplomatic options over hard power gestures.
More recently, however, in the last six to eight weeks, many of my sources in the State Department, the White House, and the intelligence community tell me that the losers last summer and fall are winning again.
David Addington, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, is winning on virtually every battle he is fighting — from not moving forward on new legal protocols that would be more internationally palatable on combat detainee rights to shelving the Law of the Seas Treaty ratification. But they say that the level of tension in the White House over Iran is also growing — and the diplomatic game plan that before was dominant seems to have deteriorated significantly — particularly since the departure of former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns and the firing of Admiral William Fallon.
I’m not saying that war or conflict with Iran is imminent. In fact, I don’t think America, even under Bush, will strike Iran first — but I do think that there is an increasing chance of a trigger event driving a fast escalation of higher and higher consequence military options. This trigger could be a mistaken signal, a ship collision, an event engineered by the Israelis, or by the IRGC Al Quds force, or by some other splinter terrorist operation wanting to exploit regional tensions and the current fragility of affairs.
We need to talk more about this. While I was not a great fan of Barack Obama’s AIPAC speech last week with regard to Israel/Palestine, I did think that he focused in a constructive and important way on getting Iran policy right. He pinned the blame for lack of progress on Iran clearly on the inattention and wrong-headed strategy of the Bush administration — and this kind of sensible analysis and willingness to make a strategic jump in a new direction is what we need now. We need to demystify this challenge and derail the intentions of some who they will try to force the next President of the United States into a no choice situation.
Whereas David Wurmser allegedly (though he does deny it) said that Vice President Cheney felt it important to “tie the President’s hands” when it came to Iran and to generate an event that would undermine the diplomatic track — the worry now is that the crowd in power is really talking about tying the next President’s hands. . .tying perhaps Barack Obama’s hands.
This really could be cooking — and I think it’s important for White House watchers to realize that the folks we thought had knocked back the neocons are themselves losing leverage again.
Obama and his team need to speak to this, to demystify it, and to make sure that America does not find itself tripping into an accidental war that really was no accident.
– Steve Clemons

Comments

52 comments on “Alert?! Cheney Winning the Inside Battles Again

  1. Morton says:

    “I agree with Pauline, nothing wrong with referring to certain
    jewish elements as cabals.”
    I would have to agree with. But I do think Pauline, and anyone
    else, is duty bound to make the case.
    If you follow the bread crumbs of Pauline’s “argument”–
    admittedly not easy to do–you get something like this:
    Zios + international bankers + the Federal Reserve + Socialism
    = who else? but the Jews. Except not that tiny percentage who
    are religiously opposed to the State of Israel.
    Pauline should know, though, for reference that Naturei Karta
    very much believes in the Jewish return to Israel when God
    deems it time. Then the Palestinians can truly kiss their asses
    good-bye. They’re a little bit like the Hagees that way. But
    Pauline probably doesn’t know this, which is what makes her
    post so crazy.
    So the question is not whether there are, or could ever be,
    Jewish cabals. My argument is with what she is saying or
    communicating…or whatever it is she is doing. Glueing together
    a bunch of half-baked ideas lightly sauteed with terms and
    insinuations that blame the Jews for the world’s ills.

    Reply

  2. June says:

    “Whereas David Wurmser allegedly (though he does deny it) said that Vice President Cheney felt it important to “tie the President’s hands” when it came to Iran and to generate an event that would undermine the diplomatic track — the worry now is that the crowd in power is really talking about tying the next President’s hands. . .tying perhaps Barack Obama’s hands.”
    Steve, Steve, Steve. “Allegedly”? I am no fan of Cheney, but pardon me if I am incredulous of the aforementioned statement. Furthermore, how could this “crowd in power” tie Obama’s hands? This sounds very conspiratory.

    Reply

  3. Carroll says:

    I agree with Pauline, nothing wrong with referring to certain jewish elements as cabals.
    There are jewish or zionist, or maybe the correct description would be jewish zionist to distinguish them from plain jewish jews, who are money or banking cabals.
    Gen Clark got slurred when he famously said:
    Arianna Huffington;
    “New York money people” are pushing the U.S. into war with Iran, noting, “you just have to read what’s in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers.”
    “The phrase ‘New York money people’ struck unpleasant chords with many pro-Israel activists,” the Forward reports. “They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community.”
    Those like Clark in the political scene might still be affected by the slurs of the zionist but the rest of us don’t even have to bother with ‘code’ words and can say it straight out…it is what it is.
    If it hurts some jewish feelings or scares them, too bad, they can always refuse to go along with their zionist leaders, move to Israel or become pro american instead of pro israel. If jews want to be in the US power arena by being a “jewish israeli political party” like the republican party and the dem party they can expect to get nailed and knocked around like everyone else.

    Reply

  4. Morton says:

    Pauline, if you wish to believe as Naturei Karta believes, I’m fine
    with that. I’m not a Zionist, particularly, and I certainly don’t
    require anyone else to be.
    However, I do largely disagree with this statement: “I agree with
    this Rabbi’s wisdom when he wrote, “Zionism Promotes Anti-
    Semitism and that Zionists do not represent true historical
    Jewry.”
    Anti-semitism has a long, illustrious career, long predating the
    rise of Zionism. As you know, even the pogroms and the
    holocaust predated Israel. So, Zionism is not the cause and,
    given what was wrought in WWII, in which about 99.99% of the
    people who perished were not Zionists, anything that Zionism
    contributes to the strength of this phenomenon is a drop in the
    bucket.
    This is just a fact, Pauline. Contemplate that.
    Here at home, we can see all the old footage of blacks being
    hosed, stoned, beaten up down South, and in the North, when
    they marched peacefully for rights that were promised them a
    century earlier, and should have been much earlier than that if
    the South and the Constitution hadn’t gotten in the way.
    Did the civil rights movement provoke white hatred? It certainly
    provoked some of the most heinous crimes in our history, but it
    would be hard to argue that MLK, Marcus Garvey, or Nat Turner
    or Frederick Douglass were the cause of racism. Did they
    increase the hatred? In some ways, I suppose, they did. They
    certainly brought it to the surface.
    Liberation movements have a long history of trying to do what
    the communists used call “intensifying the contradiction.” The
    idea was sort of this: People get used to their oppression. They
    become too busy with their daily lives and getting along to think
    about sitting down at a “whites only” lunch counter. Sure, they
    don’t like segregation, but they’ve learned to live with it. It’s the
    only life they’ve known, and they don’t think it will ever change.
    And they are afraid of the consequences of trying to change it.
    So, more ambitious liberation leaders have often argued that
    they had to make matters worse, at least temporarily, to
    motivate ordinary folk to throw off their shackles. Otherwise,
    they’ve argued, nothing would change and much worse is likely
    to come. And certainly there is some point to this line of
    reasoning: People don’t change unless they are in sufficient
    pain. Some of what you read about Zionists may fall into this
    category.
    It’s not a point of view I share. Except, of course, the Zionists
    were right about much of what happened to the Jewish people in
    the 20th century. And who knows what the future will bring?

    Reply

  5. whatflagtoday says:

    Please note that Obama wore an Israeli flag pin at the AIPAC event.

    Reply

  6. pauline says:

    I agree with this Rabbi’s wisdom when he wrote, “Zionism Promotes Anti-Semitism and that Zionists do not represent true historical Jewry.”
    The Rabbi’s writings don’t make the current ME conundrum any easier, but, imo, a lot clearer for those that take the time to seriously contemplate what his thoughts and writings conveyed.
    You disagree with that?
    Also, this web site that you obviously haven’t read, or maybe don’t want to understand, has much to contemplate. I find you paranoid for misplaced reasons.
    This source also states,
    “Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, recognized that anti-Semitism would further his cause, the creation of a separate state for Jews. To solve the Jewish Question, he maintained “we must, above all, make it an international political issue.”
    Herzl wrote that Zionism offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.” In his “Diaries”, page 19, Herzl stated “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.”
    Zionist reliance on Anti-Semitism to further their goals continues to this day. Studies of immigration records reflect increased immigration to the Zionist state during times of increased anti-Semitism. Without a continued inflow of Jewish immigrants to the state of “Israel”, it is estimated that within a decade the Jewish population of the Zionist state will become the minority.
    In order to maintain a Jewish majority in the state of “Israel”, its leaders promote anti-Semitism throughout the world to “encourage” Jews to leave their homelands and seek “refuge”.
    ***************
    You disagree with that, too?
    If I ask three Christian preachers about the meaning of life on earth — other than the typical generalities — I’ll probably get three different answers. Should someone not contemplate some or part of their responses, or should someone just stop seeking their own “answers” because of that?
    Unfortunately, there are many rabid Christians who interpret the Christian bible that Israel has every right to not only exist in the Holy Land (they certainly do), but to expand their territory into Palestine, Iran, and beyond — and take that “belief” to Armageddon if necessary while they’re at it. I would consider these rabid Christians “zionists”. (See John Hagee and his attempted “sheperding” of John McCain. If you don’t want to use google, call him up at Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas.)
    If you think you have better ideas from more “truthful” sources, so be it. At least I took the risk to share mine — and I will continue to do so regardless of your ranting.

    Reply

  7. Morton says:

    “Morton,
    As before you are wrong in your thinking. btw, What “code
    phrases” is the Rabbi using below?”
    Then what were you referring to?
    Pauline, ignorance becomes you. Thinking does not. Here are
    some basic ideas…
    • I’m tempted to say, what does your long quote have to do with
    the question at hand–maybe you can explain. But I’ll just start
    where you left off…
    • If an American says X about America, does that make it true?
    • Similarly, if a Jew says X about Israel or Judaism, does that
    make it true?
    • What do you make of all the rabbis living in Israel and out who,
    as learned and pious as Rabbi Weissmandl, have a different view
    of the state?
    • I see that the Rabbi asks questions, but doesn’t answer them
    and certainly doesn’t offer any proof for any answers that might
    be lurking there. Nor does he give us any reason to think they
    are questions with some basis in fact.
    I understand why you like this piece, though, because this is a
    technique frequently used right here on TWN. Ask the question,
    and it’s almost like giving the answer. It’s sort of like the push
    polling Rove and Atwater perfected against the Dems. “Should
    Pauline torture her cat seven days a week–or should she rest
    on Saturdays?”
    • Have you ever heard the expression 1 Jew, three opinions?
    • And lastly, the Internet’s ability to link to an infinite number of
    “sources” of varying degrees of reliability has given rise to what
    might be called “proof by link.” If you slap up a link, you’ve
    made your case. This was never true in the good ole days of
    pen and paper, but it seems to be the rule now.
    There’s an article in this month’s Atlantic entitled, “Is Google
    Making Us Stupid?” I have a feeling it’s about just this sort of
    phenomenon.

    Reply

  8. pauline says:

    Morton,
    As before you are wrong in your thinking. btw, What “code phrases” is the Rabbi using below?
    Ten questions to the Zionists
    by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl ZT”L
    Dean of Nitra Yeshiva
    1. IS IT TRUE that in 1941 and again in 1942, the German Gestapo offered all European Jews transit to Spain, if they would relinquish all their property in Germany and Occupied France; on condition that:
    a) none of the deportees travel from Spain to Palestine; and
    b) all the deportees be transported from Spain to the USA or British colonies, and there to remain; with entry visas to be arranged by the Jews living there; and
    c) $1000.00 ransom for each family to be furnished by the Agency, payable upon the arrival of the family at the Spanish border at the rate of 1000 families daily.
    2. IS IT TRUE that the Zionist leaders in Switzerland and Turkey received this offer with the clear understanding that the exclusion of Palestine as a destination for the deportees was based on an agreement between the Gestapo and the Mufti.
    3. IS IT TRUE that the answer of the Zionist leaders was negative, with the following comments:
    a) ONLY Palestine would be considered as a destination for the deportees.
    b) The European Jews must accede to suffering and death greater in measure than the other nations, in order that the victorious allies agree to a “Jewish State” at the end of the war.
    c) No ransom will be paid
    4. IS IT TRUE that this response to the Gestapo’s offer was made with the full knowledge that the alternative to this offer was the gas chamber.
    5. IS IT TRUE that in 1944, at the time of the Hungarian deportations, a similar offer was made, whereby all Hungarian Jewry could be saved.
    6. IS IT TRUE that the same Zionist hierarchy again refused this offer (after the gas chambers had already taken a toll of millions).
    7. IS IT TRUE that during the height of the killings in the war, 270 Members of the British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany.
    8. IS IT TRUE that this offer was rejected by the Zionist leaders with the observation “Only to Palestine!”
    9. IS IT TRUE that the British government granted visas to 300 rabbis and their families to the Colony of Mauritius, with passage for the evacuees through Turkey. The “Jewish Agency” leaders sabotaged this plan with the observation that the plan was disloyal to Palestine, and the 300 rabbis and their families should be gassed.
    10. IS IT TRUE that during the course of the negotiations mentioned above, Chaim Weitzman, the first “Jewish statesman” stated: “The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important”. Weitzman’s cohort, Greenbaum, amplified this statement with the observation “One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe”.
    There are additional similar questions to be asked of these atheist degenerates known as “Jewish statesmen”, but for the time being let them respond to the ten questions.
    These Zionist “statesmen” with their great foresight, sought to bring an end two two-thousand years of Divinely ordained Jewish subservience and political tractability. With their offensive militancy, they fanned the fires of anti-Semitism in Europe, and succeeded in forging a bond of Jew-hatred between Nazi-Germany and the surrounding countries.
    These are the “statesmen” who organized the irresponsible boycott against Germany in 1933. This boycott hurt Germany like a fly attacking an elephant – but it brought calamity upon the Jews of Europe. At a time when America and England were at peace with the mad-dog Hitler, the Zionist “statesmen” forsook the only plausible method of political amenability; and with their boycott incensed the leader of Germany to a frenzy. And then, after the bitterest episode in Jewish history, these Zionist “statesmen” lured the broken refugees in the DP camps to remain in hunger and deprivation, and to refuse relocation to any place but Palestine; only for the purpose of building their State.
    The Zionist “statesmen” have incited and continue to incite an embittered Jewish youth to futile wars against world powers like England, and against masses of hundreds of millions of Arabs.
    AND THESE SAME ZIONIST “STATESMEN” HEEDLESSLY PUSH THE WORLD TO THE BRINK OF ANOTHER TOTAL WAR – REVOLVING ENTIRELY AROUND THE HOLY LAND.
    What may befall the Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, of the Arab crescent, Europe, or the USA; is of no concern to these Zionist leaders. The rising anti-Semitism in the Western World is the product of their “statesmanship”.
    Under the guise of “love of Israel”, the Zionist “statesmen” seduced many Jews to replace devotion to the Torah and its Sages with devotion to the scoundrel who founded Zionism. It is of no little significance that Herzl originally sought conversion of the Jews as a solution to the problems of the Diaspora. When he realized that this was not acceptable to the Jewish masses, he contrived Zionism as a satisfactory alternative!
    A look into history reveals that this very same type of “statesmen” opposed the call of Jeremiah the prophet to yield to the minions of Nebuchadnezzar at the destruction of the first Temple. Five centuries later, Rabbi Yochonon Ben Zakai appealed to the people to surrender to Titus the Roman to avoid bloodshed. The “statesmen” rejected this appeal, and the second Temple was destroyed by the Romans. — And now for the past fifty years, the Zionist “statesmen” rebuff the leadership of our Sages; and continue in their policy of fomenting anti-Semitism. When will they stop?? Must every Jew in America also suffer?? – Even the Nazi monsters had more sense, and gave up their war before all Germany was destroyed. The Zionist “statesmen” ridicule the sacred oath which the Creator placed upon the Jews in the Diaspora. Our Torah, in Tractate Ksubos, folio 111, specifies that the Creator, blessed be He, swore the Jews not to occupy the Holy Land by force, even if it appears that they have the force to do so; and not rebel against the Nations. And the Creator warned that if His oath be desecrated, Jewish flesh would be “open property”, like the animals in the forest!! These are words of our Torah; and these concepts have been cited in Maimonides’ “Igeres Teimon”, “Be’er HaGola”, “Ahavas Yehonosson”, and in “Toras Moshe” of the Chasam Sofer.
    IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ALL THE SAGES AND SAINTS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF HITLER’S RISE DECLARED THAT HE WAS A MESSENGER OF DIVINE WRATH, SENT TO CHASTEN THE JEWS BECAUSE OF THE BITTER APOSTASY OF ZIONISM AGAINST THE BELIEF IN THE EVENTUAL MESSIANIC REDEMPTION.
    Yidden – merciful sons of merciful fathers – how much longer must holy Jewish blood continue to be shed??
    The only solution is:
    The Jewish people must reject, outright, a “Jewish State”.
    The Jewish people should accept the US compromise.
    We must depose the atheist-Zionist “statesmen” from their role as Jewish leaders, and return to the faithful leadership of our sages.
    We beseech the Nations to open all doors to immigration – not only the doors of Palestine.
    Peaceful, non-Zionist religious personalities in Palestine, (particularly from the native population) and their counterparts in the Diaspora, should engage in responsible, face-to face negotiations on behalf of the Jewish people, with the British and the Arabs; with an aim of amicable settlement of the Palestine issue.
    Every Jew is obliged to pray to the Blessed creator, for in Him lies all our strength. Let us bear in mind that our prayers be forthright. One should not entreat the Creator to provide a banquet on Yom Kippur, and one can not perform a ritual ablution with a dead bug in his hand. Similarly, we should avoid the untenable position of the robber who prays for Divine help in carrying out his crime. We should pray that Zionism and its fruits vanish from the Earth, and that we be redeemed by the Messiah with dispatch.
    A prisoner is released only when he has served his time, or if he is pardoned by the President for good behavior. If he attempts escape and is apprehended, his term is lengthened, besides the beating he receives when he is caught.
    Faithful Jews- for over three and one-half thousand years, in all parts of the world, through all trials, our grandfathers and grandmothers marched through seas of blood and tears in order to keep the Faith of the Torah unswervingly. If we have compassion for ourselves, for our women and children, and for the Jewish people, we will maintain our golden legacy today. We have been sentenced to exile by the King of Kings because of our sins. The eternal blessed be He, has decreed that we accept the exile with humble gratitude until the time comes, or until we merit His pardon through repentance if we seek to end the exile with force, G-d will catch us, as our sages have forewarned, and our sentence becomes longer and more difficult.
    Many times in the past have segments of our people been defrauded by false messiahs – but none of the false messiahs has been as fallacious and delusory as the lie of Zionism. With our historical experience as our guide, no retribution has been or will be greater than the retribution for giving credence to Zionism. If we wish our exile-sentence commuted, we must appeal through repentance; and through total physical and spiritual observance of the Sabbath, laws of family purity, and study of Torah.
    Let it be clearly understood that never in Jewish history (even in the time of Jeroboam or Achav) have such hostile atheists stood at the helm of the Jewish people as today.
    How can we plead to the Almighty for mercy while we tolerate these vile, “wicked” leaders as spokesmen! Beloved brothers – let us cleanse our ranks and cleanse our midst; let us entreat the Almighty through prayer, repentance, and fulfillment of mitzvos that He alone redeem us, immediately.
    see –
    http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/tenquestions.htm

    Reply

  9. Morton says:

    Sure, a cabal is a cabal: There’s nothing wrong with the word, and
    that wasn’t the point of my post.
    However, if you have a cabal of international bankers and “zios”
    you are talking about Jews pure and simple.
    It’s a code phrase, just like many other code phrases with which we
    are all familiar. Perhaps you aren’t familiar with this one.
    Now, if in fact, Pauline was not referring to Jews, she can say so.
    Oftentimes, language floats around, and people don’t know what
    they are saying, or the history they are tapping into.

    Reply

  10. Carroll says:

    Posted by Morton Jun 11, 1:26PM – Link
    Why don’t you rent a history book, Carroll.
    International banker, cabal, working against hardworking [fill in the
    name of the real folk] = Jew. Period.
    Even if you’re committed to obscuring the intended meaning, it still
    comes through, loud and clear. Sorry, but that is the history.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Frankly I don’t care about your jewish mental problems and obsessing.
    I am into calling a spade a spade these day or a fig a fig as someone suggested.
    Get some mental help for your problem of seeing everything discussed as being related to jews.
    A cabal is a cabal is a cabal, jewish or whatever other flavor they come in.

    Reply

  11. Carroll says:

    Posted by ej Jun 10, 1:49PM
    Neither greed nor psychopathic mentalities necessarily operate on logic or consquences.
    If they consider at all how the bigger picture consquences might rebound on them or their own goals it is only to plan to protect themselves from that rebound.
    Most of the time they can get away with it because they have insulated themselves with money or other protections from the fallouts.
    Sometimes not.
    Attacking Iran might be sometimes not.
    But in the meanwhile if they can make money playing that idea of course they would.
    For some attacking Iran might be winning the first prize and the money the second prize..for others the money may be first prize.

    Reply

  12. Morton says:

    Why don’t you rent a history book, Carroll.
    International banker, cabal, working against hardworking [fill in the
    name of the real folk] = Jew. Period.
    Even if you’re committed to obscuring the intended meaning, it still
    comes through, loud and clear. Sorry, but that is the history.

    Reply

  13. Carroll says:

    Posted by Morton Jun 10, 1:13PM – Link
    Ah yes, those “international bankers”–a cabal yet!–is out to get
    us “hardworking HONEST Americans.” Why not just quote the
    Elders of Zion while you’re at it? This shit just never dies. It’s just
    too appealing to the small-minded, or rather the no-minded.
    I thought people were just too embarrassed to proffer this garbage,
    but I guess we keep reaching for new lows.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    Oh please, spare us your simple minded, gee golly, phony Pollyana routine.
    There are and always have been “cabals”.
    Doug Feith and his fellows travelers in the OSP were a ‘cabal”.
    The Iran Contra operation came from a “cabal”.
    The Bass brothers secretly cornering the silver market was a “cabal”.
    The Gulf of Tonkin lie came from a “cabal.”
    The Israelis dressing up like Arabs and bombing the King David hotel was the plan of a “cabal.”
    Rent a brain….and buy a dictionary.

    Reply

  14. Kathleen says:

    kotzabasis… when the UN IAEA says Iran is developing nuclear weapons, I’ll believe it.

    Reply

  15. JohnH says:

    kotzabasis–your facts that there is an Iranian nuclear weapons program, please? In your response, please copy in all those US intelligence agencies that determined that there is NO active nuclear weapons program and published their findings in a National Intelligence Estimate. I’m sure they would be interested in facts they missed. Mohammed El Baradei would also be interested in knowing what he missed during all his on-site visits in Iran.

    Reply

  16. kotzabasis says:

    Don Bacon, you captiously quibbling about the words “Ahmadinejad regime” and “triumvirate leadership”. I’m referring to the present leadership of Iran which combines religious, political, and military personnel. I’m not scholastically, like you, referring to the definition of the above words. My basic error was that I did not put these words in quotation marks as I was mistaken in my belief that the political “stallions” of this blog had adequate imagination to see what I was about.
    As for your belief that “there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program”, you are entitled to your political naivety but you are not entitled to your facts.

    Reply

  17. Don Bacon says:

    The seriousness of the problem and the depth of Cheney’s influence was well stated above by kotzabasis.
    “The Ahmadinejad regime should be clearly given the option of immediately ceasing and dismantling its nuclear program or stand facing an indetermined force de frappe at an unspecified time. And it should be made crystal clear to the regime that this attack would be targeting the higher echelons of the government, the military, and its religious leaders. This threat against its triumvirate leadership could steer an existential turmoil in the latter that could lead to a “palace revolt” against the Ahmadinejad leadership replacing it with a moderate one which would yield to the demands of the international community.”
    Truth is the first casualty of war, and judging by the amount of disinformation in this quote the war has started.
    –There is no “Ahmadinejad regime” — A. is not the chief of state, and he was elected president. He might be de-elected in the upcoming election in Iran.
    –There is no triumvirate leadership in Iran. From the CIA Factbbok: chief of state: Supreme Leader Ali Hoseini-KHAMENEI (since 4 June 1989)
    head of government: President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD (since 3 August 2005); First Vice President Parviz DAVUDI (since 11 September 2005)
    –There is nothing illegal about Iran’s nuclear program and so demands to dismantle it are illegal. It has been fully vetted by the IAEA which stated in its most recent report that no enriched uranium is being diverted. There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program.
    –Any military attack upon Iran would result unacceptable losses to the US Fifth Fleet in the Gulf, as well as severe repercussions against US forces in Iraq.
    –Any attack on the religious leaders in Iran would result in severe repercussions against every US embassy in every Muslim country.
    –Any attack upon Iran would probably block the Gulf and drive gas prices to unforeseen heights.
    In their defense, people like kotzabasis can be excused for their ignorance as they parrot the government line. Or not excused — it’s a personal decision.

    Reply

  18. Kathleen says:

    JohnH… all of the reasons you raised.

    Reply

  19. JohnH says:

    DonS–And to think Ken Lay (RIP) is missing all the action!

    Reply

  20. Chicken Little says:

    Also by G. Edward Griffin:
    “The discovery of Noah’s ark”

    Reply

  21. DonS says:

    JohnH — on gaming the markets — much my speculation. Then, too, who is to say that $150/barrel oil is too high (for today’s market conditions of supply and demand), but even low for the probability (of the market discounting) an actual attack on Iran. Either way, the gamers win; its a mighty big piece of (potential) insider information to be jerking the markets around with, as Mofaz has done, intentionally or not.

    Reply

  22. pauline says:

    Morton,
    You’re claim of [international] bankers and other bankers [really, federal reserve bank owners] being just like their innocent small town banker brethen from Mayberry, NC. just trying make an honest dollar while keeping their small towns economically efficient is laughable.
    Let me borrow from Stephen Mccarthy’s review of “Creature from Jekyll Island”. It’s hopeless to continue this dialogue if you fail to see your errant thinking here. Try using a library as most have this on their shelves.
    “I will tell you plainly that regardless of what you think you know about the political spectrum, Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, civil rights and corporate greed, socialism and capitalism — regardless of how well informed you may think you are by reading mainstream news magazines and newspapers, listening to NPR and talk radio programs and watching political debates on nightly news TV shows — until you have read and digested G. Edward Griffin’s, ‘THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND’, you will never really understand contemporary American and global politics. But afterwards, the political puzzle will come together before your eyes, and never again will you follow the red herring into the brainwashing house of mirrors which is our current political milieu.”

    Reply

  23. Morton says:

    The ONLY reason the U.S. has ever been interested in the MIddle
    East is O.I.L. It’s that simple and that complicated. As far as
    making money goes, bankers ALWAYS want to make money–that’s
    what they do for a living. In times of disaster and good times, they
    are looking to make money–and there are almost always ways to
    do it. That shouldn’t surprise anyone.

    Reply

  24. JohnH says:

    ej–a very good question. Any action they might take carries significant risks of being destructive to the industrial economies that depend on Persian Gulf oil, particularly at a time when an aggressive action could trigger a price spiral that would make today’s record prices seem cheap by comparison. So you’re left wondering–is it about the delusion of maintaining status as top dog? Or is all the saber rattling just about spooking the markets to make money? Or is it that we bought all these weapons systems, so we have to use them to justify buying new ones?

    Reply

  25. ej says:

    I can look at some of the particulars that revolve around the Middle East and think that I may have an understanding.
    But in terms of any “big” picture – I’m in the weeds.
    Can someone here please explain to me, not in derogatory terms, what the neacons wish to accomplish with their aggressive approach to Middle East policy? What can possibly be gained by bombing Iran?
    I used to think that the war in Iraq and aggressive behavior toward other Middle Eastern countries was about controlling oil and protecting the dollar, but now that seems to simplistic.
    What should the long term picture look like in regards to our involvement in the Middle East keeping in mind global politics and economics, and our military and our domestic economics.
    I can’t connect the dots in anyway that makes sense of all of this.
    Anybody have any thoughts?

    Reply

  26. pauline says:

    Morton,
    Sorry to rub the salt in, but apparently you’ve not read “The Creature From Jekyll Island”, or travelled to the island off Georgia to live some American history, eh?
    The following “small-minded, no-minded” people reviewed it. Check out amazon.com for other reviews if your connection allows you that privilege.
    “A superb analysis deserving serious attention by all Americans. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.”
    Ron Paul
    Publisher/Editor, Ron Paul Report
    Member, House Banking Committee
    “What every American needs to know about central bank power. A gripping adventure into the secret world of the international banking cartel.”
    Mark Thornton
    Asst. Professor of Economics, Auburn Univ.
    Coordinator Academic Affairs,
    Ludwig von Mises Institute
    “A magnificent accomplishment – a train load of heavy history, organized so well and written in such a relaxed and easy style that it captivated me. I hated to put it down.”
    Dan Smoot
    Publisher/Editor, Dan Smoot Report

    Reply

  27. ... says:

    i guess you don’t believe in cabals, or groups lobbying for power or anything else along those lines… if the usa could get it’s ass out of trying to dictate what goes on around the globe it would be a good idea, but then for some reason it can’t seem to do it.. why???? why is it so preoccupied with the mideast???? why is it so preoccupied with whether iran, or iraq has or had nuclear weapons, when other countries in the same area are unwilling to be candid on what they do or don’t have???? these are questions many honest people seek an answer to.. perhaps you are not one of these people….

    Reply

  28. JohnH says:

    Speaking of cabals, how about this for an alternative explanation to what’s going on: “as trading started in London (Fiday), the market reacted to comments by the Israeli transport minister–and a former chief of the Israeli military–who said that an attack on Iran was ‘unavoidable.’ Then, as New York opened, Morgan Stanley, the investment bank, warned that prices could jump to $150 a barrel in two weeks.” [Javier Blas, Financial Times, 6/10/08]
    So could the Israeli transport minister be gaming energy markets–along with a sordid cast of usual suspects in the oil-marinated White House. Any rumor of a supply disruption is enough to send the markets into a tizzy, so why not take advantage of it for fun and profit? I mean, who’s to know if they’re really serious about attacking Iran or not? Might as well cash out before riding off into the sunset, or feather your nest before Armageddon, as the case might be.

    Reply

  29. Morton says:

    Ah yes, those “international bankers”–a cabal yet!–is out to get
    us “hardworking HONEST Americans.” Why not just quote the
    Elders of Zion while you’re at it? This shit just never dies. It’s just
    too appealing to the small-minded, or rather the no-minded.
    I thought people were just too embarrassed to proffer this garbage,
    but I guess we keep reaching for new lows.

    Reply

  30. pauline says:

    Why should hard-working, HONEST, progressive Americans think that the dark devils currently in the WH won’t be able to continue their black sorcery after Jan ’09?
    They wouldn’t think twice about having multiple false-flag operations shortly before/after the first minority is probably sworn into office — just to show they’re still in control and that the new president is just so-oo-oo inexperienced. They’ll believe in their sullied hearts that Americans and the world might start begging for the tough-minded neo-cons to come back in power.
    This cabal is so in-line with the zios and the international bankers, some might just have heart failure from their merrient and glee of gasoline going to $10/gal.

    Reply

  31. Kathleen says:

    To quote Darth Cheney… So? The authors of the Niger forgery already tried to concoct an incident the weekend of the New Hampshire primary with the phoney skirmish in the Straits of Hormuz.. remember the Phillipino Monkey?
    With the passage of the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment, Congressional approval for attacking Iran is already in place.
    Impeach now or forever live to regret it.

    Reply

  32. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Linda…
    We’ll soon know, won’t we? It suprises me that you are still underestimating the true depth of these people’s criminality, and have such optimism.
    And what “most people” want is completely irrelevant, or haven’t you noticed?
    Frankly, the only explanation for the emergency powers this administration has ceded itself is to assure themselves that they can effectively counter what “most people want” in time of an national emergency.

    Reply

  33. LInda says:

    POA,
    Agree with your first paragraph–but not your secod–not that I trust Cheney or this administration at all. Gates knows he doesn’t have the resources to fight three wars, and I think MSM, Congress, and public would put the brakes on it–even with MAJOR justification. If there is agreement about anything in US, most people don’t want a draft and having their sons and daughters fighting in Armageddon.
    We all are anxious and somewhat fearful because the past seven years has made US less safe and so much more vulnerable.

    Reply

  34. Morton says:

    “… and Israel is just the country to help him do it.”
    Hmmm. Why would Cheney need Israel to help him do it? Isn’t he
    capable of pulling it off all by his lonesome? Or is it too hard to
    believe that good old American boys and girls are capable of “doing
    it” themselves?

    Reply

  35. alan says:

    Steve: as someone who sat across the table when Nicholas Burns appeared from time to time I formed the impression that he was hawkish. American diplomats don’t hesitate to play the heavy and it is one of the things that pissed me off more often than not. Being tough, and using the threat of using the banking system against opponents was pretty sop. Another “tough guy” was Powell’s sidekick Richard Armitage’
    Didn’t these people ever think how we sniggered behind their backs? Not out of cowardice, I assure you; just out of a desire to take the heat and move on.
    I don’t look at Cheney and Addington in that way. These are serious bums; and they have a couple of Israelis already making noises. Time to keep a good lookout.

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Tonkin? No way. An attack on Iran will require a MAJOR justification. It is such an insane action that it will require a truly epic attack on American interests, probably on American soil.
    Dick Cheney is just the man to insure such an event occurs, and Israel is just the country to help him do it.

    Reply

  37. JohnH says:

    The only thing more dangerous than a wild beast is a wounded wild beast. While never severely harmed physically, the US has had its imperial pride battered. The sense of victimhood is palpable amongst those in power.
    When Bush came to power, America reigned supreme on virtually any measure of power. Bush and PNAC sought to solidify that position and make it eternal.
    Today, only eight years hence, America’s power is a shadow of its former self. Soft power is in the hand of OPEC, which holds the world’s lifeblood, oil. And in the hands of China, Japan, and OPEC, who underwrite the country and allow it to keep up appearances. And, to add insult to injury, hard power has shown its limits, the invasion and occupation of Iraq becoming almost Pyrrhic, its spiraling costs ever more dependent on the good offices of foreign underwriters.
    Iran stands as a symbol of defiance to the wounded beast, a daily reminder of its impotence. The administration must realize that there are no good hard or soft power options to secure US domination. Dreams of imperial hegemony have been shattered, and Iran is the most convenient scape goat.
    So what is the wounded beast’s sole remaining option? Lash out, come what may. To them, the risk of Armageddon is preferable to life without their imperial honor.

    Reply

  38. jon says:

    Gulf of Tonkin or Czech provocation, anyone? They await, or hope
    to provoke, the cassus belli that might minimally justify a reflexive
    strike of some sort. When British sailors were detained in the Shat
    al Arab, they practically begged the Brits to let them escalate.
    I’m surprised that the US hasn’t responded yet to Iranian shelling of
    MEK bases in Kurdistan.

    Reply

  39. kotzabasis says:

    Diplomacy is eminently the best way to resolve conflicts. But beyond a certain point the art of Talleyrand becomes completely ineffective and to continue it with an irreconcilable determined enemy is not only a barren exercise but also extremely dangerous, as one has to fight this enemy in the future when he will be much stronger at an immensely higher cost.
    In the case of Iran, diplomacy has reached its BARREN point. The Ahmadinejad regime should be clearly given the option of immediately ceasing and dismantling its nuclear program or stand facing an indetermined force de frappe at an unspecified time. And it should be made crystal clear to the regime that this attack would be targeting the higher echelons of the government, the military, and its religious leaders. This threat against its triumvirate leadership could steer an existential turmoil in the latter that could lead to a “palace revolt” against the Ahmadinejad leadership replacing it with a moderate one which would yield to the demands of the international community.

    Reply

  40. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    In this era wherein the heraldry of humanist-cum-civic world order is echoing its global voice, the neoconservatives’choice of war against Iran can not be encouraged by any liberal American whose vision for America seems to be different and forward looking than those policy makers whose negatively endorsed- policies in terms of ‘hyper power America’ has already done great damage to the American cause of global security, peace and prosperity.

    Reply

  41. Carroll says:

    I think a lot of us relaxed a bit after the NIE report, but I never have believed Cheney and the zios and neos gave up their plan to attack Iran.
    They are like undead vampires, you have to kill them, yes really kill them as in a stake thru the heart or exposure to sunlight to get rid of them.
    And I have absolutely no faith in congress preventing a war on Iran…with the help of the dems they already laid out resolutions to justify it last year.
    They all already got away with lying us into Iraq so who is going to actually stop them doing it again with Iran…no one.
    Jim Lobe, a friend of Steve’s, has been a “watcher” of the zios and neos and here is his current opinion:..use the link and read it all…I am just giving the first few paragraphs.
    http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=157#more-157
    War?
    Once again, notably in the wake of this week’s annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference and the visit here of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, there’s a lot of chatter about a possible attack by Israel and/or the United States on Iran. Olmert appears to have left the White House (and a dinner with Cheney Tuesday evening before the prime minister’s meeting with Bush) quite satisfied on this score, while rumors — most recently voiced by Daniel Pipes — that the administration plans to carry out a “massive” attack in the window between the November elections and Bush’s departure from office, particularly if Sen. Obama is his successor, continue to swirl around the capital.
    What to make of this? Is this real? Or is it psychological warfare designed to persuade Tehran that it really does face devastation if it doesn’t freeze its uranium enrichment program very, very soon and/or U.S. allies, Russia, and China that they have to put more pressure on Tehran or deal with the consequences of such an attack?
    As I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve generally been sceptical of the many reports over the last two years that an attack — either Israeli or U.S. — was imminent, as those reports had often warned at the time of their publication. After the release of the December NIE, I, like just about everyone else, became even more doubtful that Bush would order an attack before leaving office (and I didn’t think the Israelis would mount an attack without a green light from Washington), in part because neo-conservatives, who had been and remain the most eager champions of military action, seemed to simply give up on Bush and, in any event, were not showing any signs of orchestrating a major new media campaign to mobilize public opinion in that direction, as they did in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
    Since the abrupt resignation of Adm. Fallon as Centcom commander, which I saw as a major blow to the realist faction in the administration, and Cheney’s subsequent visit to the region, as I noted at the time, however, I’ve been increasingly concerned about the possibility of an attack, and the past week’s events have done nothing to allay that concern.
    Let me just lay out a few items, other than those mentioned above, that I find disturbing..”

    Reply

  42. kovie says:

    I too cringed while listening to Obama’s AIPAC speech last week. Clearly, he knows how to pander. Too well, in fact, as I’ve got to believe that more than a few in the audience wondered how sincere he really was given that he pretty much checked off every single point in the AIPAC loyalty test (no divided Jerusalem, Jewish state, do whatever is necessary w/Iran, etc.). To be credible–especially someone who’s generally pooh-pooh the sort of saber-rattling rhetoric and thinking that AIPAC tends to like, albeit more with respect to our government than Israel’s–it helps to have SOME daylight between your positions and those of your audience. I saw little, if any. Still, he did what he had to do to forestall possible hits at his flank in swing states like Florida, and perhaps Ohio, which have sizeable Jewish populations. Which I very much hope was what he had to do, and not what he really means. Of course, sincere or not, an awful lot of people are going to try to hold him to his promises if elected president. Hopefully, he will be a deft enough politician by then to be able to handle that eventuality well. I think he will. All sorts of ways to triangulate (in a good way) around that, as Clinton well knew.
    As to Iran, that’s where I hope Obama comes into play. Clearly, he’s the favorite to win the election (and spare me the nonsense about how they’re neck and neck in the polls with 5 months to go and how the electoral math doesn’t look that good, or how the Rev Wright will ultimately sink Obama–they’re not, it does and he won’t), and appears to command the respect of an increasing number of serious military and geopolitical thinkers who are not neocons (hint, hint, brownie points). I’m hoping that he will leverage both realities to put some pressure on the active duty officer corps, and those in other high places in the administration who are not part of Cheney’s inner circle–and perhaps among Israel’s military, political and intel leaders, that this must not happen, period, or else there will be consequences for them when he’s in office. Clearly he only has so much pull in such circles at this point, but as the Democratic presumptive nominee who beat the mighty Clinton machine and is favored to beat McCain, he does have some. I hope that he uses it wisely and well.
    Ways to do an end run around these Cheneyesque end-runners must be found. And fast. And Obama needs to lead this effort, however obliquely. Especially if he wants to prove himself worthy of being president, and to avoid inheriting an even bigger nightmare next January.

    Reply

  43. erichwwk says:


    at the last installment:
    see:
    http://www.lanl.gov/news/currents/martz_3-08.shtml
    for Joe Martz’s attempt to spin Hans Bethe
    No, if we want to understand fascism and force, it is best not to be buffeted about by the personality flavor of the moment.

    Reply

  44. erichwwk says:


    [cont]
    “Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons; and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.”
    [last paragraph of: http://www.lanl.gov/history/people/H_Bethe.shtml

    Reply

  45. erichwwk says:


    [cont]
    “Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons; and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.”
    [last paragraph of: http://www.lanl.gov/history/people/H_Bethe.shtml
    see:
    http://www.lanl.gov/news/currents/martz_3-08.shtml
    for Joe Martz’s attempt to spin Hans Bethe
    No, if we want to understand fascism and force, it is best not to be buffeted about by the personality flavor of the moment.

    Reply

  46. erichwwk says:


    “to make sure that America does not find itself tripping into an accidental war that really was no accident.”
    Yes. There is no such thing as accidentally tripping into war.
    It takes a lot of effort (flag waving and pin wearing, bugle blowing, and demonizing to gain the permission of honest people trying to get along and make an honest living to obfuscate reality enough for enough people to be willing to aid and abet murders and thieves to pull off the sort of evil we describe as war to fool ourselves into what we are really doing is not the sort of reprehensible behavior our children and grandchildren will be ashamed of and despise us for.
    It is easy to blame Cheney, Addington, Wurmser, et al, but the evil gene lies dormant everywhere. As are the good genes of Fallon, Webb, Hagel, Kucinich are also everywhere.
    To me until we get rid of building new nuclear weapons, the bad genes are winning. There is no way one can rationalizing burning ever increasing numbers of innocent civilians alive, without conceding that we prefer have succumbed to greed and selfishness, and theft and murder to making an honest living.
    The bomb should never have been built, and once built never deployed. But the illusionary power and monopoly it appeared to convey proved to much to give up, seeming to provide an ace in the whole, for every “bay of pigs” fiasco.
    Thus we have the “complex transformation” being marketed by RRW chief designer Joe Martz (and Burson-Marsteller) as an attempt to work for nuclear disarmament rather than nuclear primacy, ostensibly inspired by one of our heroes, Hans Bethe, despite the fact that LANL’s own website quote from Bethe’s open letter of 1993 that states:

    Reply

  47. erichwwk says:

    “to make sure that America does not find itself tripping into an accidental war that really was no accident.”
    Yes. There is no such thing as accidentally tripping into war.
    It takes a lot of effort (flag waving and pin wearing, bugle blowing, and demonizing to gain the permission of honest people trying to get along and make an honest living to obfuscate reality enough for enough people to be willing to aid and abet murders and thieves to pull off the sort of evil we describe as war to fool ourselves into what we are really doing is not the sort of reprehensible behavior our children and grandchildren will be ashamed of and despise us for.
    It is easy to blame Cheney, Addington, Wurmser, et al, but the evil gene lies dormant everywhere. As are the good genes of Fallon, Webb, Hagel, Kucinich are also everywhere.
    To me until we get rid of building new nuclear weapons, the bad genes are winning. There is no way one can rationalizing burning ever increasing numbers of innocent civilians alive, without conceding that we prefer have succumbed to greed and selfishness, and theft and murder to making an honest living.
    The bomb should never have been built, and once built never deployed. But the illusionary power and monopoly it appeared to convey proved to much to give up, seeming to provide an ace in the whole, for every “bay of pigs” fiasco.
    Thus we have the “complex transformation” being marketed by RRW chief designer Joe Martz (and Burson-Marsteller) as an attempt to work for nuclear disarmament rather than nuclear primacy, ostensibly inspired by one of our heroes, Hans Bethe, despite the fact that LANL’s own website quote from Bethe’s open letter of 1993 that states:
    “Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons; and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.”
    [last paragraph of: http://www.lanl.gov/history/people/H_Bethe.shtml
    see:
    http://www.lanl.gov/news/currents/martz_3-08.shtml
    for Joe Martz’s attempt to spin Hans Bethe
    No, if we want to understand fascism and force, it is best not to be buffeted about by the personality flavor of the moment.

    Reply

  48. Keith M Ellis says:

    Your fear of a trigger event leading to an escalating chain seems intuitively correct. But the reason you are worried about it as opposed to an outright unprovoked strike against Iran indicates to me that we still shouldn’t be that worried about this.
    I mean, really, given this administration and its history, it’s actually sort of remarkable that there’s such a strong push-back against the Iran hawks as we’ve seen. I get the strong impression that the military brass would come very close to insubordination if asked to initiate any conflict with Iran. And wouldn’t that necessarily happen given Iraq?
    That’s what I’m asking of you and those here who know more than I do about this: given our presence and Iran’s presence in Iraq, wouldn’t an air-strike almost certainly cause some sort of direct conflict in Iraq very quickly? There’s just too many opportunities for it, it seems to me. And I’m certain that everyone who is the tiniest bit realistic about Iraq and our overall military capability—especially the Pentagon—knows that we just can’t afford to engage with Iran. It would be a disaster.

    Reply

  49. Codefendant says:

    the losers last summer and fall are winning again
    They keep coming back, don’t they? Is the resurgence of the Iran Bombers driven by actual developments in Iran? By factions in Israel? By the imminent end of the Bush-Cheney administration? Is it part of a plan to elect McCain or to preempt the election?
    I can predict that the bombers won’t give up because they never do, but I cannot construct a rational explanation for their desperation to start a war with Iran. Does this make sense/profit for Bush, Cheney, Addington, and the corporate interests they look out for?
    Who is advising Obama on these issues? Are they tough enough, smart enough, informed enough, and numerous enough to prepare the candidate to resist the push to war?

    Reply

  50. Don Bacon says:

    There was no “diplomatic game plan” and I doubt that much has changed. Certainly Nicholas Burns was never any part of a diplomatic effort, he merely served as the chief sanctioneer against a country which has done nothing wrong. Burns: “Iran needs to learn to respect us. And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East.” There it is — America, because of the Carter Doctrine, is the big dog in the Middle East and a country (like Iran) which doesn’t accept that is an enemy of the civilized world. It’s been that way since 1954 at least.
    Obama might, might, have good intentions but he is not a miracle worker. If the Dem establishment is even more anti-Iran than the neocons, which because of its Jewish obeisance it appears to be, then Obama will be no more of a peace-maker than President Carter was allowed to be by the Scoop Jackson Democrats.
    Negotiate with Iran? Over what? Iran is in the cat-bird seat. Iran is the big winner of Operation Iraqi Freedom which resulted in the transformation of a secular anti-Iran state to a fellow Islamic Republic. The Iraqi Prime Minister and Defense Chief were in Tehran this past weekend talking about increased political and military cooperation. Meanwhile, the US-promoted SOFA is in big trouble, with thousands of Iraqis in the streets demanding a US military withdrawal.
    Iraq is enriching uranium in full compliance with the NPT, and they refuse to stop. Iran, second in world oil and first in gas, has important ties with Russia, India and China. So what’s Obama’s new “strategy” to be? Accept the inevitable or fight the good AIPAC fight? I’m afraid it will be the latter, with tiny changes.

    Reply

  51. easy e says:

    BREAKING: KUCINICH INTRODUCES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST BUSH…
    This evening on the House floor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is presenting 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush to Congress. “The first article Kucinich presented regarded the war in Iraq. ‘Article 1: Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq.’”
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/09/breakingkucinich-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-bush/

    Reply

  52. ... says:

    who wanted to keep impeachment off the table?? scottie McC will be talking with conyers june 20th and if they don’t screw it up, there is a chance to change things at this late point….

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *