War is a cash cow

why is it so hard for us to acknowledge that those who continually push us to get involved in yet another war are those who either themselves stand to make the most money from it or work for those who will...?

jeremiah goukla guest-blogs for glenn...

For people in the national/homeland security business, war with Iran would be a cash cow. They and their clients stand to benefit handsomely. Just stoking fears of war can get money flowing, from studies to retrofitting naval vessels. Bombing would be better, as even something as small as the Libyan war involved spending more than a billion dollars. But full-on war, that’s the mother lode. An invasion followed by an Iraq-style lingering occupation and reconstruction would open up hundreds of billions and possibly even trillions of taxpayer dollars for the grabbing.

time to revisit smedley butler...

War is a Racket by Smedley Butler is a famous speech denouncing the military industrial complex. This speech by two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient exposes war profits that benefit few at the expense of many. Throughout his distinguished career in the Marines, Smedley Darlington Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Chris Hedges: We have brought state terrorism, massive destruction, war and death to the Muslim world

hard-hitting stuff...

From a talk given by Chris Hedges on Saturday night in Washington, D.C., at the Occupy AIPAC protest, organized by CODEPINK Women for Peace and other peace, faith and solidarity groups.

The battle for justice in the Middle East is our battle. It is part of the vast, global battle against the 1 percent. It is about living rather than dying. It is about communicating rather than killing. It is about love rather than hate. It is part of the great battle against the corporate forces of death that reign over us—the fossil fuel industry, the weapons manufacturers, the security and surveillance state, the speculators on Wall Street, the oligarchic elites who assault our poor, our working men and women, our children, one in four of whom depend on food stamps to eat, the elites who are destroying our ecosystem with its trees, its air and its water and throwing into doubt our survival as a species.

[...]

We have not brought freedom, democracy and the virtues of Western civilization to the Muslim world. We have brought state terrorism, massive destruction, war and death. There is no moral distinction between a drone strike and the explosion of the improvised explosive device, between a suicide bombing and a targeted assassination. We have used the iron fist of the American military to implant our oil companies in Iraq, occupy Afghanistan and ensure that the Muslim world remains submissive and compliant. We have supported a government in Israel that has carried out egregious war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza and is daily stealing larger and larger portions of Palestinian land. We have established a network of military bases, some the size of small cities, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, and we have secured basing rights in the Gulf states of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. We have expanded our military operations to Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Egypt, Algeria and Yemen. And no one believes, except perhaps us, that we have any intention of leaving.

[...]

And since our elites have no vision it is up to us. The uprisings from Tunisia to Egypt to Greece to Occupy Wall Street to our gathering outside AIPAC’s doors in Washington are the same primal struggle for sanity, peace and justice, for a world wrenched free from the grip of those who would destroy it. And the abject fawning of our political elite, including Barack Obama, before AIPAC and its bank account is yet another window into the moral bankruptcy of our political class, another sign that the formal mechanisms of power are useless and broken. Civil disobedience is all we have left. It is our patriotic duty. We are called to make the cries of mothers, fathers and children in the squalid refugee camps in Gaza, in the suburbs of Tehran and in the bleak industrial wastelands in Ohio heard. We are called to stand up before these forces of death, the purveyors of violence, those whose hearts have grown cold with hatred. We are called to embrace and defend life with intensity and passion if we are to survive as a species, if we are to save our planet from the ravages of corporate greed and the specter of endless and futile war.

nothing i can add...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Putting the Iranians in a position where they have to do something to keep from being totally screwed

i just had yet another b.g.o. (blinding glimpse of the obvious)... the tactics being used by the management of american airlines i described in the previous post are the very same tactics being used by the obama administration against iran...

the b.g.o. isn't recognizing that the obama administration is using tactics calculated to provoke a bellicose reaction from iran... that part is clear... the b.g.o., for me, is seeing how the two sets of tactics are connected... both are a game of plausible deniability where, when the party (usually the relatively powerless underdog - employees, the 99% or, in this case, iran) finally has had enough of being kicked and prodded and the barks and snarls turn to attempts to bite, the provocateur can say, "see, we told you"...

i saw exactly the same dynamic at play when i worked at united airlines... senior management was obsessed with the notion that front-line employees, particularly the unionized ones, were lazy, untrustworthy and generally no damn good... when people are treated a certain way over time, they tend to respond out of that set of expectations... it's called psychological reciprocity...

glenn...

Several related points: (1) for those claiming that Obama has no other viable choice but to sanction and threaten Iran, recall that his own former adviser on Iran, Vali Nasr, harshly criticized the administration last month for failing to pursue a course of negotiations with Tehran; (2) The New York Times today has two Op-Eds on the sanctions regime being imposed on Iran — one pro and one con — which both make the point that the primary effect of this sanction regime is to cause serious suffering, even hunger, among the Iranian people; such “crippling” sanctions are usually advocated by the very same individuals who feign such concern for The Iranian People when it comes to railing against the abuses of their government (unnamed Israeli officials were quoted in the Israeli press today urging mass hunger as a means to force Iran to concede); (3) Noam Chomsky has a very dispassionate, excellent new article laying out some clear and basic facts about the Iran situation that are rarely aired; and (4) The Atlantic‘s Robert Wright explains why an air attack on Iran would almost certainly require ground force activity.

more glenn...

A few other related points: (1) the U.N. Security Council in 1981 harshly condemned the Israeli air attack on Iraq’s nuclear power facility as a “clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct”; that Resolution also “call[ed] upon Israel urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards” (via MediaLens, which notes that “even the US didn’t abstain”); (2) former Obama Pentagon official Colin Kahl argues today that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq made Iraqi proliferation more likely, not less likely; (3) a cartoon from VastLeft on Obama, Iran and sanctions; and (4) Chris Toensing of the Middle East Research Information Project has an excellent article rebutting the claim (issuing from the predictable circles) that Obama is not to blame for the sky-high tensions and possible war.

chomsky...

Concerns about Israel’s nuclear arsenal have long been expressed by some observers in the United States as well. Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, described Israel’s nuclear weapons as “dangerous in the extreme.” In a U.S. Army journal, Lt. Col. Warner Farr wrote that one “purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their `use’ on the United States”—presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies.

A prime concern right now is that Israel will seek to provoke some Iranian action that will incite a U.S. attack.

One of Israel’s leading strategic analysts, Zeev Maoz, in “Defending the Holy Land,” his comprehensive analysis of Israeli security and foreign policy, concludes that “the balance sheet of Israel’s nuclear policy is decidedly negative”—harmful to the state’s security. He urges instead that Israel should seek a regional agreement to ban weapons of mass destruction: a WMD-free zone, called for by a 1974 U.N. General Assembly resolution.

Meanwhile, the West’s sanctions on Iran are having their usual effect, causing shortages of basic food supplies—not for the ruling clerics but for the population. Small wonder that the sanctions are condemned by Iran’s courageous opposition.

The sanctions against Iran may have the same effect as their predecessors against Iraq, which were condemned as “genocidal” by the respected U.N. diplomats who administered them before finally resigning in protest.

The Iraq sanctions devastated the population and strengthened Saddam Hussein, probably saving him from the fate of a rogues’ gallery of other tyrants supported by the U.S.-U.K.—tyrants who prospered virtually to the day when various internal revolts overthrew them.

There is little credible discussion of just what constitutes the Iranian threat, though we do have an authoritative answer, provided by U.S. military and intelligence. Their presentations to Congress make it clear that Iran doesn’t pose a military threat.

Iran has very limited capacity to deploy force, and its strategic doctrine is defensive, designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy to take effect. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons (which is still undetermined), that would be part of its deterrent strategy.

The understanding of serious Israeli and U.S. analysts is expressed clearly by 30-year CIA veteran Bruce Riedel, who said in January, “If I was an Iranian national security planner, I would want nuclear weapons” as a deterrent.

i have the same sinking feeling of inevitability i had leading up to the start of the "shock and awe" campaign against iraq... i hope i'm wrong... otoh, such a monstrously and illegal act would only speed up the fall of the house of cards that been way too long in the coming... still, the resulting destruction and loss of life would be nightmarish in the extreme...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Dave Lindorff: President Obama his key advisors plus Biden, Clinton and Panetta are all currently war criminals for threatening Iran with attack

so, is this why obama doesn't want to hold the war criminals from the bush administration accountable...?

President Obama and His Key Advisors are a Gang of War Criminals

Under the Nuremberg Principles, later incorporated into the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a signatory, the planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, which is defined as a war started against another nation that does not pose an imminent threat of attack on the aggressor nation or nations, is the highest of war crimes, for which the perpetrators are liable for the death penalty. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of those above acts is an equally serious capital crime.

How then to explain the casual way that civilian and military leaders of the US and Israel are talking openly about plans and threats to attack Iran?

[...]

One would think that the magnitude of the unknown and dangerous potential consequences of a criminal attack on Iran by the US and its client state Israel would lead at least some news organizations to look into the very legality of such an attack.

But no. Apparently calling the leaders of this nation criminals is beyond the imagining of the so-called chattering class and its paymasters.

I’ll do it here though:

President Obama and his key advisors, as well as Vice President Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Panetta, are all currently war criminals for threatening Iran with attack. And if the US does attack Iran, either on its own or in support of an Israeli attack, they will be even worse war criminals, and will be deserving of the same fate met by Japan’s Imperial Army General and Prime Minister Hideki Tojo, and by Nazi Germany’s Foreign Minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop and Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel.

another perspective missing from our traditional news media...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The U.S. considers Iran to be a threat...?

izzat so... let's go to the visuals...

first, a comparison of military spending, iran vs. the u.s...



now, let's look at a map of the u.s. military bases that literally surround iran...



glenn comments...

Indeed: imagine if the blue in that map were the U.S. (rather than Iran), and the large red areas were Mexico and Canada (rather than Iran’s neighbors), and the stars represented Iranian military bases. Then further imagine that Iranian political leaders and media figures routinely told their population that it was the U.S. that was an aggressive, threatening power that had to be stopped: the mocking condemnations of that level of propaganda would be endless. Yet American political officials and commentators feel free to insist, with a straight face, that Iran is an aggressor nation posing a serious threat to the U.S.: such a serious threat, in fact, that war may be necessary to stop it. And there is, tragically, little doubt that if there is an attack on Iran by Israel — with direct U.S. involvement or, more likely, U.S. support and approval — there will be little opposition in either American political party, and even less challenge to the ludicrous claims about the Grave Iranian Threat that will be invoked to justify it.

yesterday, in response to the incessant sabre-rattling, people took to the streets...

Hundreds of protesters demonstrated Saturday in New York and pacifist groups took to the streets in dozens of other US and Canadian cities in a "Day of Mass Action" against a possible war with Iran.

About 500 protesters gathered in Manhattan's Times Square and marched to http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifthe headquarters of the US mission to the United Nations and to the Israeli consulate.

"No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations," read a banner leading the march.

The demonstrations came as Europe and the United States slapped tough new sanctions on Iran, and Israel this week launched new threats of military intervention if the Islamic republic fails to rein in its suspected nuclear development program.

There is heightened speculation that Israel is contemplating air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, fueled in part by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's comments to the Washington Post in which he said he believes there is a "strong possibility" that Israel will launch such air strikes this spring.

our super-rich elites know how effective war is as a tool to keep the u.s. population in line... so far, that strategy has bought them almost ten and a half years counting from the time of the start of the afghanistan war through the iraq war and right on to the present day... now, with iraq "finished" and afghanistan slated to "wind down" soon, i'm sure they're just itching to get another one going... my prediction...? this time it's not going to happen...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Robert Fisk: "Obama won the Nobel Prize for public speaking"

kinda seems that way, doesn't it...?

robert fisk...



and yet our new "war president" seems to not be properly embarrassed...

In becoming only the third sitting American president to receive the Nobel prize for peace, Mr. Obama presented himself as a wartime leader...

and he even has the gall to promote american exceptionalism...

He said that others more deserved the award, noting his “accomplishments are slight,” but he accepted the prize by endorsing a strong view of American exceptionalism.

“Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this,” Mr. Obama said. “The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.”

and afghans wonder why obama is being given a peace medal...

al jazeera...

Barack Obama, the US president, has received the Nobel Peace Prize at a ceremony in Oslo - days after he ordered an escalation of US involvement in the war in Afghanistan.

In making Obama the third sitting US President to win the award, the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama's co-operative approach to global issues.

But many critics say that Obama's resume is too thin to stand scrutiny with other Nobel peace laureates.

And for many Afghans, Obama's strategy of even more troops does not fit into their vision of what will bring peace.

joe bageant weighs in...

The Nobel Committee awarded the 2009 Peace Prize to the very person who dropped the most bombs and killed the most poor people on the planet during that year. The same guy who started a new war in Pakistan, beefed up the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and continues to threaten Iran with attack unless Iran cops to phony US-Israeli charges of secret nuclear weapons facilities. It's weapons of mass destruction all over again.

juan cole offers five things obama can do to redeem his prize...

[H]ere are the things Obama can do to redeem his prize.

1. Get out of Iraq on schedule. We can't stop their low-intensity conflicts, and they are more likely to compromise with each other if we are not there.

2. Resist calls for Iran to be bombed. Such a raid would guarantee that Iran would start a crash program to develop a nuclear weapon, and there would be no way to stop it short of full-scale war.

3. Stop allowing the CIA to operate drones with which to assassinate people. It is illegal and shameful. The US military must be in charge of defending the country by force or we are a police state.

4. Get the Palestinians a state by the end of 2011, even if by unilateral recognition. Palestinian statelessness is the biggest human rights scandal in the world, since citizenship is the right to have rights. This step alone would solve the bulk of US problems in the Arab world and would deal a deadlier blow to al-Qaeda than capturing Bin Laden.

5. Stick to the plan of beginning a US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in summer 2011. Karzai and the generals will attempt to embroil us in a decades-long quagmire. No one will remember his Nobel peace prize if President Obama lets that happen.

i'd like to add a sixth... fix afghanistan... bring in all the expert resources that can be rounded up and focus on building the infrastructure, the economy and creating jobs just as fast as humanly possible... forget about the bombing, forget about the troops, forget about the damn military solution... these people need shelter, clothes, food, income, and the means to provide for their families on an on-going basis... jesus h. christ...! why is that so hard to grasp...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Cutting out the middle-man

brasscheck tv...

Why don't we shoot ourselves?

One of the plans entertained at a meeting presided over by Dick Cheney was for the US to manufacture Iranian gun boats and order Navy SEALs dressed in Iranian military uniforms to attack US ships.

It was rejected because "you can't have Americans killing Americans?"

The New Yorker refused to include this story in its reporting.

As Sy Hersch put it so well: "Editors are mice training to be rats."

yeah, why DON'T we just shoot ourselves...? easier... cheaper... you don't have to go to all the trouble of creating another war as an excuse...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

"He's very radical, this president. He's probably the most radical president we've ever had."

al jazeera interviews sy hersh...

Al Jazeera's Ghida Fakhry talks to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh about his latest article in New Yorker magazine, claiming that US congressional leaders have agreed to a presidential request for up to $400 million in funding for covert operations against Iran.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Iranian weapons in Iraq...? Do tell...!

gareth porter doing what he does best - honest, shoe-leather, professional journalism...

The U.S. military command in Iraq continues to talk about an alleged pipeline of Iranian weapons to Iraqi Shiites opposing the U.S. occupation, implying that they have become dependent on Iran for indirect-fire weapons and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs).

But U.S. officials have failed thus far to provide evidence that would support that claim, and a long-delayed U.S. military report on Iranian arms is unlikely to offer any data on what proportion of the weapons in the hands of Shiite fighters are from Iran and what proportion comes from purchases on the open market.

When Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner was asked that question at a briefing May 8, he did not answer it directly. Instead Bergner reverted to a standard U.S. military line that these groups "could not do what they're doing without the support of foreign support [sic]." Then he defined "foreign support" to include training and funding as well as weapons, implicitly conceding that he did not have much of a case based on weapons alone.

Bergner's refusal to address that question reflects a fundamental problem with the U.S. claims about Iranian weapons in Iraq: if there are indeed any Iranian rockets and mortars, and RPGs in the Mahdi Army's arsenal of stand-off weapons, they represent an insignificant part of it.

Reports by the U.S. command in Iraq over the past 15 months cited only a handful of Iranian weapons out of hundreds counted in caches found in Shiite areas. Nearly 700 mortars and rockets were reported by specific caliber size, along with a handful of RPGs, in nearly two dozen caches. Of that total, only four rockets were reported as being of Iranian origin, and another 15 were listed as possibly being Iranian.

that sorry-assed gang of criminals currently occupying the white house is still trying to lay the groundwork for attacking iran...

p.s. not that it has the slightest bearing on this post, but, ironically enough, i had lunch yesterday at an iranian restaurant...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Don't bomb Iran

from true majority...

"Don't let this administration lead America into another conflict in the Middle East. One war is already too much.

I urge you to support S. Res. 356, which would require that any military action against Iran be explicitly approved by Congress."

you can also send a message to your senators at the above link...

p.s. i've lost count of the things i've signed in the past few years... i have no idea if signing anything makes the slightest bit of difference, but i do know this... all things considered, i'd rather put my name up against something i feel strongly about than not...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Pelosi sucks up to Israel and badmouths Iran

god, i wish she would just go away... permanently...

sucking up to israel...

The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said Sunday that when it comes to backing Israel, she and President George W. Bush are united.

Pelosi is leading a bipartisan congressional delegation marking Israel's 60th anniversary. She said the Jewish state was the one issue where American political rivals saw eye to eye. Pelosi is a Democrat, while Bush is a Republican.

"We're not on the opposite sides as far as Israel is concerned," she said. "There are no divisions between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to support for the state of Israel."

trashing iran...

Washington must assert to the rest of the world that if they want to be friends with America, they need to do more to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, visiting US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said Sunday in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post.

Pelosi said the US needed to be more "proactive" in saying to the countries of the world - including Russia, China and the Muslim countries in Asia - that "one of the pillars of US foreign policy is to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to anyone."

The US needed to make it clear to everyone, including the Europeans, that their polices on this issue would be a term of friendship with the US, and a measuring stick of benefits they could derive from that friendship, she said.

The US cannot stop nuclear proliferation alone, Pelosi said, adding that "if these weapons proliferate, they are a threat to everyone, not just to the US, and not just to Israel."

could she be any more obvious about carrying water for bush...? could she signal any more strongly her support for endless war...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Well, whaddaya know...! Zawahiri and al Qaeda support McCain...

who woulda thunk it...?

juan cole...

Well, it turns out that al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri has declared that he is actually on McCain's side in wanting to destroy Iran. Al-Zawahiri is hurt that McCain keeps confusing hyper-Sunni al-Qaeda with radical Shiism: "Ayman al-Zawahiri said al-Qaeda wants to see the destruction of Iran - a Shiite nation battling the terrorists . . . "The dispute between America and Iran is a genuine struggle, and the possibility of the US striking Iran is real," al-Zawahiri said. . ." Al-Zawahiri hopes that the US struggle with Iran will destroy the latter and weaken the former, putting al-Qaeda in a position to administer the coup de grace.

ain't it interestin'...?!?!

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Pepe Escobar wonders what Israel REALLY bombed in Syria and I wonder what the hell's going on in D.C.

pepe's up first...



now, HERE'S some questions and concerns even MORE troubling...

ips' jim lobe via alternet...

Are the latest accusations and tough language leveled against Iran, Syria, and North Korea evidence of a resurgence by the remaining hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush hoping for a final confrontation against one or more members of the revised 'axis of evil' before his term next January?

That's the big question here this week, particularly following Thursday's long-awaited intelligence briefings to Congress about alleged North Korean involvement in the construction of a 'covert nuclear reactor' in Syria that was destroyed in a raid by Israeli warplanes in September last year.

According to some interpretations, the briefing's timing and content appeared deliberately designed to raise tensions between Washington, on the one hand, and Pyongyang and Damascus, on the other, potentially derailing ongoing long-running negotiations between the State Department and North Korea and Turkish-mediated peace feelers between Israel and Syria.

That Vice President Dick Cheney, whose opposition to engaging both North Korea and Syria and support for 'regime change' in both countries is both well known and of long standing, had pushed hard for the briefing to take place has added to speculation that a major power play by the hawks to reverse the diplomacy that has dominated Bush's second term is underway.

Rumours that the State Department's point man on North Korea, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill -- whose latest accord with Pyongyang negotiated in Singapore earlier this month has been the target of fierce right-wing attacks led by Cheney chum, former U.N. Amb. John Bolton -- has told associates that he will resign next month have added to concerns that the hawks have regained the initiative, at least on that front.

Add the promotion of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq who has overseen the past year's 'surge' of U.S. troops, to take over the U.S. Central Command (Centcom) this summer, as well as the increasingly harsh charges against Iran's alleged interference in Iraq that have been coming out of the Pentagon in recent days.

All these developments are seen by some as an answer to the prayers of neo-conservatives, in particular, who had largely given up hopes that Bush could be persuaded to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.

speaking entirely for my un-connected, barely-informed self, i have NEVER figured that bush and his criminal compadres had given up on attacking iran...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Iran - when I don't want 2 + 2 + 2 to add up to 6

ok... here's the first + 2, hadley in israel talking about iran with olmert...

Visiting US national security advisor Stephen Hadley was to discuss Iran's nuclear programme with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Tuesday night, public radio said.

A senior Israeli official confirmed the meeting was to take place but declined to give details.

The announcement came just hours after the deputy commander of Iran's army Mohammad Reza Ashtiani warned that his country would "eliminate Israel from the global arena" if it were attacked by the Jewish state.

Stewart Tuttle, the spokesman for the US embassy, said Hadley's talks with top Israeli officials would cover "issues of mutual interest, and a good guess is these will include Iran."

here's the second + 2, a story about israel test-firing a ballistic missile designed to be used against iran...

Israel has conducted a test of a ballistic missile aimed at simulating an Iranian attack on Israel.

The test of the "Blue Sparrow" on Tuesday came after Israel's foreign minister said in Qatar the day before that Iran represented "the extremists in the region" and was "a threat and challenge to the entire region".

Mohammed Rada Ashtiani, the deputy commander of the Iranian army, responded on Tuesday by saying that they would "eliminate it from the global arena" if Israel took any action against them.

Israel's missile test follows confirmation from a senior Israeli defence official that the US has agreed to connect the Jewish state to its ballistic missile early warning system "to protect" the regime against any missile attack.

and here's the third + 2 claiming that a u.s. strike on iran is "nearing," quoting on an anonymous source, "a leading member of america's jewish community"... (and, yes, it's from that notoriously right-wing nut-job news site, newsmax, so when you read it, think sock puppet...)

Contrary to some claims that the Bush administration will allow diplomacy to handle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, a leading member of America’s Jewish community tells Newsmax that a military strike is not only on the table – but likely.

Israel is preparing for heavy casualties,” the source said, suggesting that although Israel will not take part in the strike, it is expecting to be the target of Iranian retribution.

“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.

Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.

Tensions in the region have been rising.

While Israel was conducting the largest homefront military exercises in its history last week, Israel’s National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer warned Tehran about expected attacks on the Jewish state.

“An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation,” he said.

here's my view, for what it's worth... with the global financial markets still experiencing a slo-mo collapse, with the domestic economy swirling ever closer to the drain, with staggering, near-daily revelations about bush administration war crimes and criminal usurpations of executive power, the administration desperately needs more than the temporary distraction of a full-bore attack on obama's "elitism"... it needs something that will provide a MAJOR-LEAGUE distraction, and the ramping up of the rhetoric against iran and the increasing tempo of the war drums are not comforting signs at all...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The WaPo catapults the Bush administration Iran propaganda on page 1

what kind of hidden perks and bennies do you suppose the wapo reaps for splashing bush administration spin and talking points all over its front page...? there simply HAVE to be some, wouldn't you agree...?

Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.

she-e-e-e-eeeit, vern, you don't think they just GOTTA manufacture reasons to stay in iraq and to attack iran, do ya...? huh...? do ya...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

If the Bush criminals have their way, the U.S. WILL attack Iran and NEVER leave Iraq

while most of the attention the past week has been focused on iraq, just LOOK at the intense push that the bush criminal cabal has been quietly putting on justifying its psychotic obsession with attacking iran...

from think progress...

On his radio show this morning, Bill Bennett told the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol — who had a personal meeting with President Bush yesterday — that a “conclusion” he drew was that the hearing was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.” After suggesting that Iran may “have to pay some price at some point on their own soil,” Kristol said that President Bush authorizing an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not “out of the question”:

BENNETT: Do you think there’s any chance that, and we won’t ask you to reveal anything confidential, do you think there’s any chance that we might take some action against some aspect of the Ira…against Iran, let’s put it that way, before the president leaves office?

KRISTOL: We didn’t really talk about that, in all honesty, directly. I don’t think it’s out of the question. I think people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.

but bill kristol is just a propaganda sock puppet, repeating the talking points of his masters... for that matter, so is petraeus...

The top U.S. commander has shifted the focus from al-Qaida to Iranian-backed "special groups" as the main threat to a democratic Iraq — a significant change that reflects both the complexity of the war and its changing nature.

The shift was articulated this week in Washington by Gen. David Petraeus, who told Congress that "unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

and, i suppose one could make the argument, as so many already have, that george is merely a sock puppet of dick cheney...

President George W. Bush issued a stark warning to Iran to stop interfering in Iraq on Thursday and characterized Iran and al Qaeda as "two of the greatest threats to America."

In a speech at the White House, Bush, who has accused Iran of backing militant groups in southern Iraq and providing explosives to extremists in the country, said Tehran had a choice in its relations with Iraq.

"(It) can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran," Bush said.

"If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners."

i would, however, challenge anyone who called the state-owned china daily newspaper a sock puppet of the bush cabal...

As the Bush administration draws closer to the end of its tenure in office, the prospect of a US military strike against Iran is increasing, partly caused by the serious misjudgment of each other's strategies.

The Bush administration, which calibrated its rhetoric about military strikes against Iran in recent months, is getting more agitated about the Iran issue.

The administration considered Iran would be the biggest beneficiary of its toppling of the Saddam government in Iraq and had expected it to behave.

However, contrary to its expectations, Iran, Washington alleges, has tried every means to enhance its influence in Iraq, therefore becoming the biggest obstacle to improving the security situation of that country.

And the US is increasingly concerned about Iran's role in the Israel-Palestine conflict, Lebanon, Afghanistan and even in the Muslim world where Iran is seen as the leader of the Shi'ites.

Such developments, undoubtedly, has set the stage for conflict between the two countries.

btw, i suddenly realized why the bush criminals are so obsessed with iraq and iran and don't place that much emphasis on afghanistan... it's simple... iraq and iran = oil... afghanistan = only a pipeline route...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Petraeus, the Iraq circus ringmaster, leads the chorus in indicting Iran

yeah, it's not only about making goddam sure the u.s. stays in iraq for the next 10,000 years, it's also about making goddam sure that every possible piece of groundwork is laid for our NEXT war against iran... bastard sons-of-bitches...

Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate , barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad.

then we have THE SUPREME GRAND EXALTED BASTARD SON-OF-A-BITCH, JOE LIEBERMAN...

"[A]s I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there's a kind of 'hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq' and most of all 'speak of no progress' in Iraq.

[...]

Hey, let's be honest about this. The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we've got to give some credit for that."

[...]

Naturally, Lieberman was quick to inject Iran into these proceedings, dutifully asking the leading question, "Let me ask you first, are the Iranians still training and equipping Iraqi extremists who are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers?"

then there's the voice of reason...

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

[...]

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.

talk...? why, THAT'S only for WUSSIES... REAL AMERICANS go to war...

Obama has taken fire from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican presumptive nominee John McCain for his offer to talk, if elected president, with the leaders of several US foes including Iran.

talking is free, easy to do, and might actually accomplish something, but since it doesn't feed the giant, gaping maw of the government-military-industrial corporatocracy, why the hell would we want to TALK, fercryinoutloud...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The drums pushing war with Iran continue to thunder

the madmen who dare to call themselves our "leaders" will stop at nothing to achieve their dark aims... reality and truth play no part... meanwhile, we are purposefully distracted by the staged dramas of the presidential campaign and transsexuals having babies... what a world...!

The Bush regime will tell any lie and orchestrate any event in order to “finish the job” in the Middle East.

“Finishing the job” means to destroy the ability of Iraq, Iran, and Syria to provide support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Syria might simply give up and become another American client state. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Israel can steal the rest of the West Bank along with the water resources in southern Lebanon. That is what “the war on terror” is really about.

The entire world knows this. Consequently, the US and Israel are essentially isolated. The US can only count on the support that it can bribe and pay for.

At the NATO-Russian summit in Bucharest, Romania, on April 4, Russian President Putin said: “No one can seriously think that Iran would dare attack the U.S. Instead of pushing Iran into a corner, it would be far more sensible to think together how to help Iran become more predictable and transparent.”

Of course it would, but that is not what the warmonger Bush regime wants.

these people are certifiably insane...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Attempting to read the tea leaves about a pending war with Iran

william l. polk, writing in juan cole's informed comment, referencing the march 12 article in u.s. news and world report, “6 signs the U.S. may be headed for war in Iran,” carefully lays out the reasons why he thinks the bush administration, either itself or by using israel as a proxy, is poised for imminent war with iran... it's a bit lengthy but quite thorough...

from the u.s. news article, here are the six reasons

1. Fallon's resignation

2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria

4. Warships off Lebanon

5. Israeli comments

6. Israel's war with Hezbollah

here's polk...

[A] massive build-up of forces inevitably creates the “climate” of war. Troops and the public, on both sides, come to accept its inevitability. Standing down is difficult and can entail loss of “face.” Consequently, political leaders usually are carried forward by the flow of events.

polk quotes from the 2005 national defense strategy of the u.s...

“America is a nation at war…[and] will defeat adversaries at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing…[rather than employing] A reactive or defensive approach…Therefore, we must confront challenges earlier and more comprehensively, before they are allowed to mature…In all cases, we will seek to seize the initiative and dictate the tempo, timing, and direction of military operations.” In short, as Henry Kissinger pointed out in The International Herald Tribune, April 14, 2006, it is an assertion of the intention to engage in preëmptive or “first strike” warfare.

[...]

Iran is the major perceived adversary capable of doing what National Defense Strategy of the United States of America termed “adopting threatening capabilities, methods, and ambitions…[to] 1) limit our global freedom to act, 2) dominate key regions, or 3) attempt to make prohibitive the costs of meeting various U.S. international commitments.”

if there was ever a time when the bush administration could take advantage of a major global distraction to take the stage and divert people's attention from the massive disaster it has become, it's now... while i'm not going to sit around, soiling my tighty-whities thinking about it, nevertheless, we would all do well to keep it in mind as a serious possibility...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Robert Parry nails HRC's strategy: "An unqualified black man is cutting line in front of a better qualified white woman"

that about sums it up, dontcha think...?

The cumulative effect of Clinton’s attacks on Obama’s qualifications – combined with her campaign’s efforts to turn many white voters against him as the “black candidate” – has buoyed Republican hopes for November.

By simultaneously marginalizing and dirtying up Obama, the Clinton campaign also has tamped down the excitement of many Democrats, especially the young, for a candidate that they see as offering a refreshing message of hope and change.

Replacing Obama’s message of reform and reconciliation is a Clinton message of resentment and victimization, as voiced by former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro who claimed that Clinton confronts “sexist media” bias as a woman while Obama gets an easy ride because he’s black.

[...]

The idea that a black man in America, who was raised by a single mother and who bears an exotic foreign-sounding name, would be deemed “very lucky” struck many Americans as a bizarre choice of words. But it fits with a key sub rosa theme of the Clinton campaign, that an unqualified black man was cutting line in front of a better qualified white woman.

it also bodes ill for stopping the drum-beating for war with iran, particularly now that fallon has been unceremoniously shoved aside...

Since Fallon’s sudden resignation, intelligence sources have said they do not foresee an imminent U.S. assault on Iran, although one source said Fallon quit, in part, over a new White House demand for an updated attack plan.

More likely, the sources say, the issue of how to deal with Iran will pass to the next president. In that regard, McCain and Clinton promise more tough talk and belligerence, while Obama vows to speak directly with Iran’s leaders over how to reduce tensions.

although parry only hints at it obliquely, i am not at all sure that an attack on iran isn't in the cards before the end of bush's term...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments