So whos gonna present the evidence in the UN? Shrek? Sorry but Bushs mouthpiece could claim that water is wet and the world would not believe him.
I think the next war agains Iran will begin without diplomatic niceties and building a legal case like last time but with an escalation or blackflag operation.
Posted by Greup at September 24, 2007 10:40 AMAnd no, claims from former White House staffer Brig. General Kevin Bergner don't count.
Or, for that matter, claims from former White House staffers like the MNF-I spokesman, Rear Admiral Mark I. Fox. Until October last year he was Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House Military Office (WHMO), responsible for overseeing all military support to the President.
Now, he's been moved to Iraq to fill the position of Communications Division Chief for Strategic Effects at the military's U.S. Embassy annex in the Green Zone. Those are the guys who did those bios on visiting Dems. He popped up yesterday to deny that the military had arrested yet another innocent Iranian businessman.
That such high-flying talent has been moved from the White House and Pentagon to Iraq - something I suspect is an anomaly in the expected career paths for such officially blessed officers - shows just how serious the administration is about controlling every message they can in order to fix the facts around the policy.
Regards, Cernig @ Newshoggers
Posted by Cernig at September 24, 2007 10:41 AMThe cheney/bush regime has already presented all of its hard evidence on the Iran-weapons connection to the U.N. (i.e. none).
Posted by jwrjr at September 24, 2007 10:50 AMExcellent summary review, Steve. When you're good, you're very, very good.
Posted by Marie at September 24, 2007 10:59 AMthe Scott Pelley audition for the open White House Spokesman job and the presentation of it by White House News Organization CBS is as bold a statement on the overreaching Control of the Media by the Conservative GOP that we have seen. It is basically just a cold slap to the face of anyone who was still trying to ask questions like "why does the news always favor Bush and slam the Dems"? They are not even trying to hide it any longer, they are just flat out tools of the Administration and GOP. Until that changes, which is doubtful, any attempt to steer America back on a moderate, sensible course will be very hard. Not a pleasant future.
Posted by T2 at September 24, 2007 11:11 AMif CBS News was still a news organization instead of a Viacom/Sumner Redstone GOP propaganda outlet
If is no longer in doubt. At a certain point, those people expressing outrage at the latest propaganda or hope that somehow our traditional media will revert to hard, unbiased news will have to accept reality for what it is.
We no longer live in a representative democracy. The will of the majority has no meaning. Our system is a military-industrial, corporatist state that must have never-ending war to sustain its power.
Glenn Greenwald had an excellent article over the weekend describing the relationship of Diane Feinstein to her constituents and to the existing power structure in DC. Bottom line - she is what she is ("by their deeds, you will know them" as a famous philosopher once said) and we've got to stop expecting a different outcome.
I'd suggest that his reasoning can be applied to the traditional media as well.
Posted by Jim Faith at September 24, 2007 11:38 AMAssume Iran is arming shi'ite militias with IEDs. Iran isn't doing half of what we did to the soviets in fueling the Afghan insurgency of the 80s. That was/is lauded as sensible strategy by the Reagan Right and today's neocons.
Should that military aid have brought threats of a soviet attack down on us? Or an actual attack? Why not, other than that we were a superpower?
The shi'ite militias supposedly being armed SUPPORT the shi'ite Iraq government WE installed! Iran is aiding a group in a neighboring country (Iraq shi'ites) they have aided and helped for only, oh, more than 25 years. The next largest group of shi'ites on the planet after them.
Apparently, as the designated Iraq civil war referee, only we get to decide the militias that will be armed. That isn't the way these things work, and that's why you don't want to get caught in civil wars. Unless your goal is to expand them.
I hadn't had the pleasure of noticing Mr. Pelley until last night. He does seem extremely hungry for weenies, cocktail, of course, that might be served at the banquet tables of the Cheney/Ledeen/Krystol et al, Froot Loop, Duck Soup, Colonial and Debating Society.
I simply couldn't believe my virgin ears when he started mouthing things like, "But the American people, believe that your country is a terrorist nation" and "You have American blood on your hands! Why?" and, one of my favorites, "The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There's no doubt about that anymore The denials are no longer credible sir"
Scott Pelley and the Steaming Goblet of Chutzpah It's funny that every time Pelley got spanked, with Ahmadinejad saying things like, "Well I'm amazed! How can you speak for the whole nation? You are representing a media and you are a reporter"" And later, "Are you an American politician?", I just don't remember hearing that on the TeeVee screen. All I saw was the gray haired, steely-eyed dogged, reporter slapping the evil raghead around with his righteous sword of truth.
It got a little surreal though when THE Reporter said, "You can show the world today that you are not pursuing a bomb. All you have to do is give the order. Open your nuclear facilities. (Mr. Ahmadinejad, tear down these walls!) Let the United Nations inspectors in there today and prove that there is no bomb program"
I think the President may have been smiling when he replied, "I think that you are a little behind the day's news. You might have been away on assingment" which I thought was rather kind since THE Reporter didn't seem to know about this:
DAVOS, Switzerland (CNN) -- International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammed ElBaradei said Friday he was calling for a timeout regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, hoping that talks on the matter can resume.
Whoopsie! THE Reporter replied grimly, "I'm familiar with the day's news" What a grotesque display! The pathetic nimrod was probably thinking to himself; He shoots! He SCORES! He certainly was shamelessly promoting every conceivable trumped up casus belli, for the benefit of the knuckle dragging rubes who were his real audience. What a shame that CBS News still has some tattered shreds of reputation to wave in front of the dogs of war profiteers.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 24, 2007 11:56 AMOf course, the Bush administration is "ramping up" anti-Iranian propaganda.
It's the grease to the leadup of the Cheney-led plans to invade Iran, using U.S. troops already on the ground in Iraq, U.S. troops are amassed on the border in Uzbekistan and from the 4 U.S. aircraft carriers currently in the Persian Gulf.
Despite the denials of a few tiny yappers on TLC who insist the Bush administration isn't planning to go to war with Iran, the wheels are in motion.
I want to think the Congress will rise up and prevent it but, the 110th Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are spineless cowards, incapable of going toe-to-toe with the worst neocon elements in the Bush administration.
If Bush and Cheney want war with Iran, that's precisley what will happen.
Posted by Christopher at September 24, 2007 11:58 AMfor pants-pissing peter:
"...it has been argued that the MoveOn ad was a "tactical" mistake. In what way? What tactical advantage did the Republicans gain from it? Every damn poll since General Petraeus set all the dogs and ponies to dancing shows that nothing he said moved the needle an inch in terms of support for the war. The country, you should pardon the expression, had MOVED ON. Certainly, Republican poo-flinging wasn't going to change that. The country hates the war, hates this president, and isn't particularly fond of his party. It hates the Democratic Congress because that Congress doesn't hate the war, the president, and his party enough...."
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 24, 2007 12:33 PMfor pants-pissing peter:
peter is busy contemplating how best to serve the republi-con party. That's why he has no time to explain the "honorable" Betrayus wearing a Bronze Star with a "V"...that is awarded posthumously...you know...after a person is dead
Posted by phidipides at September 24, 2007 12:42 PMWill the White House Moron Bring On Armageddon? June 2006
Writing on Antiwar.com, University of California Professor Jorge Hirsch explains the tripwire that the Bush Regime has laid for Iran in order to have an excuse to launch an attack on that country. Just as the Bush Regime planned to attack Iraq and then orchestrated a case based on lies, the Bush Regime has already planned to attack Iran. Only this time, nuclear weapons will be used.
Nuking Iran is an essential part of the attack plan. The U.S. lacks the necessary conventional military force to invade and occupy Iran, but the use of nuclear weapons against Iran has a wider purpose. The neocons are determined not to have any more embarrassments, such as the Iraqi insurgency. By nuking Iran they intend to send a wider message that the U.S. will use every means at its disposal to ensure its hegemony. The neocons believe that the use of nukes will convince Arabs and the wider world that there is no recourse to accepting America's will.
The neoconservatives could not care less about public opinion. Neocons are contemptuous of the American people. Leo Strauss taught neocons that it was their duty to deceive the clueless American people in order to implement their agenda of global domination. The neocons believe that they have a perfect right, even the obligation, to manipulate the public through propaganda and black ops in order to create acceptance and support for their wars of aggression.
Neocons are the epitome of evil, and they have succumbed to hubris. Like Hitler when he attacked the Soviet Union, neocons believe that their manipulative skills and use of military power will carry the day for their agenda. Hitler's hubris doomed Germany to destruction. What price will America pay for neocon hubris?
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9127
The price is the unthinkable.
Posted by Judith at September 24, 2007 12:50 PMChristopher:I want to think the Congress will rise up and prevent it but, the 110th Congress of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are spineless cowards, incapable of going toe-to-toe with the worst neocon elements in the Bush administration.
What makes you think that instead of being spineless, they have no objection to bombing Iran? Hillary and Edwards and to a lesser extent Obama have been signaling that we need to take care of Iran. I see a rather clever ploy by Harry & Nancy. This time they can stand on the sidelines unlike the last time when so many Democrats formally endorsed invading Iraq with the IWR. Then if the new war goes well, they can take credit for not having tied Bush/Cheney's hands. (Okay they are stupid enough not to recognize that the GOP will own the glory and find a way to blame the DEMs for not having publicly supported it.) And if it goes poorly, they can blame Bush/Cheney which they expect will give them an advantage in the next election. It's all a horrible, cynical game. One Americans are all too willing to overlook, and that includes Democratic voters who nominated a ticket in 2004 that supported the Iraq war and seem to be prepared to do it again for 2008.
That explains why Democrats infuriate me more than Republicans. I know what to expect from Republicans and want no part of that. Whereas, with Democrats, I get GOP colluders and milquetoast opposition from those that stop short of colluding. Anyone that opposed the invasion of Iraq is only deluding herself if she thinks that Hillary is the answer. Those that didn't oppose it but merely wants a more competent handling of the occupation, is also delusional because competence is an illusion that merely allows an occupation last longer than it would if incompetently managed.
Posted by Marie at September 24, 2007 01:01 PMJudith,
The Betrayus speech had a massive impact on the perceptions of this war:
"Polls show Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress and President Bush's nationally televised address have had little impact on Americans' distaste for the Iraq war and their desire to withdraw U.S. troops."
Well, then again, maybe not. But the republi-cons will likely have their little war with Iran. The only consolation is that their children will pay the piper on that one. Too bad it takes the rest of us with them.
Posted by phidipides at September 24, 2007 01:06 PMBush isn't the only one Iran owes for its recent empowerment.
As long as Ahmedinejad's here, he should visit Michael Ledeen & Co over at AEI and thank them for all those TOW missiles the Reagan administration got the Israelis to sell Iran back in the '80s. The reverse engineered Iranian TOW did a great job lighting up IDF armor in Lebanon last summer.
I wonder if Iran did anything to upgrade those Hawk air defense missiles Reagan sold them?
I am no longer sure of anything as it pertains to Americans. When Bush/Cheney uses nuclear weapons to hit Iran, opening pandora's box, what will be the response by the public?
Posted by Judith at September 24, 2007 01:26 PMWaht will be the public's response to the nuclear assault?
50% will approve of the whole idea immediately and another 20-25% will think it's their duty as a "patriot" to approve after the attack, now that we're "at war".
Might Makes Right. Congenital militarism.
Posted by euzoius at September 24, 2007 01:50 PMThat explains why Democrats infuriate me more than Republicans. I know what to expect from Republicans and want no part of that.
I hear, ya' Marie.
I was a third generation Democrat but all of that changed the day I heard Speaker Botox utter the now infamous words: "Impeachment is off the table." I became an Independent. Pelosi is a snake. Reid too.
Your analysis of the looming war with Iran makes perfect sense to me. I can easily imagine Pelosi and Reid standing along side General George as he addresses the nation before the first bombs are dropped on Tehran. So American. So patriotic. So full of shit.
Posted by Christopher at September 24, 2007 02:05 PMI can easily imagine Pelosi and Reid standing along side General George...
Just like yo can imagine that there are 4 US aircraft carriers currently in the Persian Gulf?
Posted by snark at September 24, 2007 02:20 PMYeah, I saw that, snark. You gotta hand it to Christopher, when he's wrong, (which is most of the time) he's wrong bigtime. 'Member the June 17th bombing of Iran? Or the Sept. 21st bombing of Iran? Uh huh. Such an imagination, that one.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 24, 2007 02:43 PM...U.S. troops are amassed on the border in Uzbekistan...
To invade Iran?
It's gonna be a long march. Uzbekistan doesn't share a border with Iran. Maybe Turkmenistan will let them pass through.
Posted by snark at September 24, 2007 02:50 PMMeanwhile, anybody notice that Hillary joined the dog pack savaging Ahmadinejad? What the heck was that all about? Is she moving right again already?
Posted by Julie at September 24, 2007 03:00 PMOne can't be a serious presidential candidate without demonizing Iran, even after the insanity of Iraq.
The fact that an official is elected by a country's citizenry is apparenly meaningless in our supposed era of "democracy-spreadin". If a democracy doesn't mirror our exact image of candidate selection, it's elections are a "sham", apparently.
AIPAC. But also the American militarist electorate. Sabre rattling sells.
Posted by euzoius at September 24, 2007 03:32 PMCoyote, stop answering yourself. How many times do you need to be busted before you break the habit? Everyone's on to you.
Posted by Christopher at September 24, 2007 04:00 PMIs she moving right again already?
Judith - You mean further right than she already is? LMAO!
One can't be a serious presidential candidate without demonizing Iran, even after the insanity of Iraq.
Yeah, I saw that Obama had joined the pack. Why does this kind of response leave me yearning for something a little more intelligent and mature as opposed to politically crude posturing? Sure, there's plenty to hate with Ahmadinejad's country (as well as much to admire), but if the guy had the guts to come to a country where it's pc to hate his guts, why not take the opportunity to try to broaden his perspectives a bit? I guess I'm thinking back to the early 80's when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam, cementing an agreement to provide Saddam with WMD's during a time when our government knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds. What if, instead of shaking his hand, Rumsfeld had figuritively twisted Saddam's arm up behind his back and told him to stop? Sometimes opportunities present themselves, and THAT'S they need to be grasped, not later when the blood is boiling.
Christopher, read "Julie", not "Judith". I don't imagine Judith needs words put in her mouth.
Posted by Julie at September 24, 2007 05:07 PMWhat was that I posted not so many days past?
Oh, that I was looking forward to the article and associated postings regarding President Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia University.
Needless to say, I am not disappointed. I anticipated that he (Ahmadinejad) would receive a Rather welcoming audience on these pages.
P.S.
"...without anyone ever disproving the content of those memos..."
False, but accurate?
The documents are fraudulent, what more proof is needed.
P.S.S.
But, hey, maybe the "false, but accurate" argument has some traction: phidipides, I am sure, has a document proving he has an IQ in excess of a banana.
megadittos on this one steve.
steve wrote: "...but you have to note the irony of Pelley’s question about Ahmadinejad’s behavior being so apt a description of Bush and his administration."
i have thought that so many times recently with almost everything i read about iran in the US propaganda machine i mean the fourth estate. these guys in the bought off free press ought to be picking up their weekly paychecks from the DOD and the white house.
it's business as usual in america, meaning there's gonna be another war.
Coyote, stop answering yourself.
Actually, I was talking to snark, who had caught you in two glaring mistakes only moments before I could comment on them. I pointed out a couple other mistakes of yours, while laughing at how uninformed you are. I know you're just a kid, but this is a very serious issue, and your attempts to distract and misinform don't help. Now run along, and next time, try to read a little current news before commenting. It just might save you further embarrassment.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 24, 2007 06:11 PMEveryone's on to you.
If that's so then everyone is as much an imbecile as you.
Posted by snark at September 24, 2007 07:07 PMIt's been nice without the bickering. I guess it was bound start again.
Posted by Judith at September 24, 2007 07:41 PMAll I did was point out two factual errors in Christoher's comment Judith. A comment in which he labelled those who disagree with him about an impending attack against Iran "tiny yappers". He has accused me in the past of blowing hot air but can't get his own 'bluster' straight. He suffers under the odd delusion that iamcoyote and I are the same person (an affliction which he seems to think you perhaps share). Excuse me if I set him straight.
Posted by snark at September 24, 2007 07:59 PMThe only reason the US and Israel are so excited about the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran is that they will not get to run roughshod over the entire Middle East, and more importantly, the oil reserves.
Can you imagine what kind of heart attack President Cheney would have, getting his crooked fingers into both Iraq and Iran oil fields? And all it would cost is a few nuclear cruise missiles, which the USAF can't keep track of anyway.
If the Goofers are going to lose in '08, which should happen, they at least want to a) dump Iraq, and possibly Iran on the Dem's and b) take the oil money and run. Oh, baby. Gotta get out, gotta get right out of here....
h/t to Freddie and the boys.
I don't think I've ever seen such putrid, sophomoric vituperation hurled at the visiting leader of a foreign country. Of course the ziofascists need to stoke the fires of hatred for their villain du jour, but I like to think that more people are waking up to the contrivances because it's so over the top.
Posted by nolocontendere at September 25, 2007 01:18 AMHe suffers under the odd delusion that iamcoyote and I are the same person (an affliction which he seems to think you perhaps share). Excuse me if I set him straight.
Snark, Christopher had me confused with another poster.
Posted by Judith at September 25, 2007 01:54 AMI guess that means you fall outside the scope of "everyone" then Judith.
Posted by snark at September 25, 2007 04:16 AMI don't think I've ever seen such putrid, sophomoric vituperation hurled at the visiting leader of a foreign country.
Nolocontendere, I agree with your accessment.
When Bush said "Ahmadinejad has American blood on his hands," I found the statement incredulous coming from a guy who has murdered 3,798 Americans and over a million Iraqis.
"I guess that means you fall outside the scope of "everyone" then Judith."
You lost me on that one Snark.
"Show us the proof of direct Iranian complicity, or STFU."
Amen, brudda!
Posted by bartcopfan at September 25, 2007 08:50 AM