Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Cheney Urging Strikes On Iran
WASHINGTON - President Bush charged Thursday that Iran continues to arm and train insurgents who are killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, and he threatened action if that continues.
At a news conference Thursday, Bush said Iran had been warned of unspecified consequences if it continued its alleged support for anti-American forces in Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had conveyed the warning in meetings with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad, the president said.
Bush wasn't specific, and a State Department official refused to elaborate on the warning.
Behind the scenes, however, the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.
The debate has been accompanied by a growing drumbeat of allegations about Iranian meddling in Iraq from U.S. military officers, administration officials and administration allies outside government and in the news media. It isn't clear whether the media campaign is intended to build support for limited military action against Iran, to pressure the Iranians to curb their support for Shiite groups in Iraq or both.
Nor is it clear from the evidence the administration has presented whether Iran, which has long-standing ties to several Iraqi Shiite groups, including the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al Sadr and the Badr Organization, which is allied with the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki, is a major cause of the anti-American and sectarian violence in Iraq or merely one of many. At other times, administration officials have blamed the Sunni Muslim group al Qaida in Iraq for much of the violence.
For now, however, the president appears to have settled on a policy of stepped-up military operations in Iraq aimed at the suspected Iranian networks there, combined with direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling.
The U.S. military launched one such raid Wednesday in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite Sadr City district.
But so far that course has failed to halt what American military officials say is a flow of sophisticated roadside bombs, known as explosively formed penetrators, into Iraq. Last month they accounted for a third of the combat deaths among U.S.-led forces, according to the military.
Cheney, who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said.
The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to talk publicly about internal government deliberations.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that "we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq."
Lea Anne McBride, a Cheney spokeswoman, said only that "the vice president is right where the president is" on Iran policy.
Bush left no doubt at his news conference that he intended to get tough with Iran.
"One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for . . . people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs (improvised explosive devices), that kill Americans in Iraq," he said.
He also appeared to call on the Iranian people to change their government.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."
The Bush administration has launched what appears to be a coordinated campaign to pin more of Iraq's security troubles on Iran.
Last week, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, said Shiite militiamen had launched 73 percent of the attacks that had killed or wounded American troops in July. U.S. officials think that majority Shiite Iran is providing militiamen with EFPs, which pierce armored vehicles and explode once inside.
Last month, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a multinational force spokesman, said members of the Quds force had helped plan a January attack in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, which lead to the deaths of five American soldiers. Bergner said the military had evidence that some of the attackers had trained at Quds camps near Tehran.
Bush's efforts to pressure Iran are complicated by the fact that the leaders of U.S.-supported governments in Iraq and Afghanistan have a more nuanced view of their neighbor.
Maliki is on a three-day visit to Tehran, during which he was photographed Wednesday hand in hand with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unconfirmed media reports said Maliki had told Iranian officials they'd played a constructive role in the region.
Asked about that, Bush said he hadn't been briefed on the meeting. "Now if the signal is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart-to-heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive. I don't think he in his heart of hearts thinks they're constructive either," he said.
Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai differed on Iran's role when they met last weekend, with Karzai saying in a TV interview that Iran was "a helper" and Bush challenging that view.
The toughening U.S. position on Iran puts Karzai and Iraqi leaders such as Maliki in a difficult spot between Iran, their longtime ally, and the United States, which is spending lives and treasure to secure their newly formed government.
A senior Iraqi official in Baghdad said the Iraqi government received regular intelligence briefings from the United States about suspected Iranian activities. He refused to discuss details, but said the American position worried him.
The United States is "becoming more focused on Iranian influence inside Iraq," said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss private talks with the Americans. "And we don't want Iraq to become a zone of conflict between Iran and the U.S."
Proposals to use force against Iran over its actions in Iraq mark a new phase in the Bush administration's long internal war over Iran policy.
Until now, some hawks within the administration - including Cheney - are said to have favored military strikes to stop Iran from furthering its suspected ambitions for nuclear weapons.
Rice has championed a diplomatic strategy, but that, too, has failed to deter Iran so far.
Patrick Clawson, an Iran specialist at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said a strike on the Quds camps in Iran could make the nuclear diplomacy more difficult.
Before launching such a strike, "We better be prepared to go public with very detailed and very convincing intelligence," Clawson said.
© McClatchy Newspapers 2007



143 Comments so far
Show AllCHENEY IS THE TERRORIST,BIGGER THAN BUSHIT. IRAN HAS THE SECOND LARGEST MILITARY IN EUROPE AND FRIENDS WITH ALL THE OPEC OIL PRODUCING COUNTRIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST WILL BE FIGHTING ALONG SIDE IRAN AND THEY WILL TAKE OUT ISRAEL ALSO. THE MIDDLE EAST OWES BUSH NOTHING. BUSH AND CHENEY WILL DESTROY THE AMERICAN ARMY OF VOLUNTEERS AND RESERVIST. SOMEBODY WITH BALLS HAS GOT TO IMPEACH SOMEBODY
BEFORE THE IDIOT DECLARES MARTIAL LAW AND CALLS UP THE DRAFT. IMPEACHMENT NOW!
Question is how many Americans are going to be brainwashed and duped into believing Iran is arming the insurgency in Iraq?
Just like our braindead public was brainwashed into believing Saddam was a threat, and had wmd's. This is like a really bad case of alzheimers.
Will America fall for this crap? how does 33% of the American public give this administration any credibility?
When are those Iranian maniacs going to realize that unilateral disarmament and conveyance of all oil and other natural resources as a tribute to their Washington masters (actually to the oil corporation cronies of the masters) is the only path that leads to salvation and to admittance into the community of approved nations? Uncle Dick is waiting.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government,..."
Heck, monkeys could do better that this current government.
Let's see, we were lied to by this guy about WMD in Iraq and now he wants us to believe him about this, with no proof. This guy will never get it.
Bush and Cheney will find that Iran will NOT be as easy as Iraq to invade. And look how hard it is to handle Iraq. I am counting on the Iranian's strength of purpose they've held strong to since the Revolution to get them through American imperialism and oil addiction.
"My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential."
Thats funny. This could be applied directly to the American people.
They have proof... The labels on the weapons say they are from Iran... Because if Iran wants to illegally and secretly funnel weapons accross a secure border where they have a risk of being confiscated, they're not going to take off the labels... they're going to leave the Iranian trademark labels on the weapons. LOLx10.
Like a label is hard to forge.
What a joke. The administration can't even come up with a decent lie to brainwash the public... and yet a significant portion of our braindead public is going to believe even an irrational and illogical lie. And the people that believe this are going to say with a straight face "There is proof, Iranian labels were on the weapons."
They're going to fall for it... watch and see. They pretty much already have.
So what roles do China and Russia play in this? What will be their reaction?
It's coming you know; The irrefutable fabricated "proof" that Iran is building and shipping arms (and bogeymen) to Iraq. The US will then bomb and shell certain Iranian targets. The Iranians,enraged, will again rise up en mass and the Repugs will then have to delay the general elections (for national security) and\or declare marshall law. Just wait and see........
of course, McClatchy fails to inform its readers that EFPs are not a new/ advanced technology...give me a break! the label comment hits the same note.....
china and russia will most likely side with iran on this one which is why all of Bush's bluster is just that...in his heart of hearts...bwahaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!
the principle supply of suicide bombers is Saudi Arabia.
the principle supply of weapons is "lost" american weapons, and unguarded weapons' caches from saddam's time. and weapons supplied by americans to the new iraqi "security forces."
patrick cockburn said some time ago, these iraqis were supposed to have been sophisticated enough to have nuclear and bio-chemical weapons, but now they can't make IED's and EFP's w/o iran's help?
you'd think dick-bush might lose that smirk after getting their asses reamed in iraq, but you'd be in the reality based community, wouldn't you?
For Claudius,
I'm not sure what the Russians might do but I believe that the Chinese will warn the Dick branch of our govt to stand down or face the consequences of them selling off the US teasury bills they hold. Depression here we come.
Somebody should disconnect this motherfu~!rs pacemaker.
limric,
Thanks. That is my impression and fear too.
Iran is a problem. We can bomb and escalate eventually causing more problems for the U.S. or how about retreating completely from Iraq? Let Israel take out Iran. Ask the Arab League to help with stability in Iraq. What you say...we won't...why...ah, it's THE OIL!!!!!
They're going in (notice I said "they" and not "us"). It has long been decided. The media and the Democrats are complicit. There may be a little fussing here and there, but they'll cave and accept government claims of this and that without much of a challenge.
You'll see.
USA and the Nazis believe in The Big Lie....make it a big lie, and say it often enough, and the gullible people will be convinced. USA is the Fourth Reich.
Last winter I was told by a kid stationed in Baghdad that they were finding crates of arms, stamped and dated form Iran.
Why would Iran put their name and date on arms they ship to Iraq? It doesn't make sense; what does make sense is that they were planted there for the purpose of making war on Iran.
So if missiles from Iraq are attacking Iran, aren't they justified in defending themselves? Isn't that what the 14 bases are for; so the U.S. can attack Iraq's neighbors from Iraq?
Maybe that's why Iran is worried! They don't want 20 U.S. bases coming to their country.
Teheran, Tabriz - the next Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This incredible idiot Bush, has stated our Constitution is just a piece of G.D. paper, and it is now, thanks to Pelosi and Conyers.
Bush/Cheney are going to do as they damn please. An attack on Iran using ANY type of weapons, WILL insure two things, China will cash in their bonds and we WILL have a depression.
If you read the article on today's Common Dreams list, titled 'Very Scary Things', you may realize a depression is certain no matter what China does with the bonds. In either event, a war with Iran or a depression will insure, our nation will collapse and do so in days. That is reality__ as real and sure as the sun will rise tomorow. If I am wrong,__ please tell me why.
"... direct American-Iranian talks in Baghdad to try to persuade Tehran to halt its alleged meddling"
Tehran: alleged meddling
U.S.: actual meddling
Who should be persuading who to do what?
Or is it Who should be persuading whom?
It ought to be interesting to see Blackwater guards in front of highrise condominiums and gated upscale communities when the depression hits.
the iran saber rattling might be a distraction from the melting markets....ditto the new FISA law dim dems gave bush (newsflash- you've alwyas been spied upon by your government)....
quick everyone! it's august...let's go on vacation.......
Why is Iran a problem? What exactly is the big problem? Iran is presently very weak. Where is the problem. It's neighbours say the opposite. Iran is very constructive. Helpful in Afghanistan according to Karzi and Maliki says the same. Bush says he'll have to have a chat with Maliki about that. First, the lies about Al-Quiada being the bogey man in Iraq and not it's own home grown insurgency. Before that it was the Sunni's now its the Shiites and now Iran and of course Syria too. They are going to attack Iran on a pretext and it will inflame the middle east for decades. Russia and China will not stand by for this. Bet your bippy on it.
Let Israel take out Iran?? Are you out of your mind??
Even if it is true that Iran is backing militias in Iraq, so is the United States. In fact, the United States is backing both Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias; which makes no sense to me whatsoever. Who are your enemies in Iraq Americans? Does it just change from day to day? Or...
How can the United States even BEGIN to invade Iran, let alone create a strategy for whatever goals the want to have accomplished in this endeavor? You think Iraq is a pain, wait until you experience Iran. Let's compare Iraq with Iran:
Population: Iraq has about 25 million people. Iran has about 80 million people.
Terrain: Most of Iraq is flat with very few mountains and mostly desert and very hot. Most of Iran is mountainous, considerably larger than Iraq is, and has more variety of climate.
The societies of Iraq and Iran are quite different as well. Iran is more united, as it were, and are more willing to defend their culture and way of life than Iraq is. One may say that Iranian pride runs just as deep, if not more so, than American pride in their respective nations. It is through their unity that they will definitely be a considerable foe with the United States if the United States chooses to invade them. The United States is unable to defeat Iraq, what makes them think they can handle an invasion of Iran? That is what I do not understand...
Aside from the economic consequences of such an invasion (No more oil for you Americans!), how is the United States going to finance this? I seriously doubt China will be your banker on this one. Actually, China may help the Iranians out if they experience an unprovoked invasion of their nation. I do not know that for certain, but China and Iran definitely trade with each other. Invading Iran may also anger the Russians if for the same reason. Saudi Arabia MIGHT finance an invasion of Iran for the Americans but...that does not seem likely. After all, Saudi Arabia is already upset with the United States as it is for invading Iraq. Yet the United States wants to sell them weapons? What is the USA Modus Operandi here?
I thought that the USA wanted a Shiite led Iraq anyhow. Why is the United States against Iran helping their own out in Iraq, assuming if true? The United States wanted Democracy in Iraq, they have it! The catch is that it will be a Shiite nation now, by majority consensus. I am sure that is not what the United States had in mind. I am confused as to why the United States is against Iran helping out the majority in Iraq - the Shiites. The United States was on the Shiite side at the beginning of the invasion were they not? Help the Shiites overthrow the evil vicious and brutal Saddam Hussein.
JZJ has it right. So, class, here's today's quiz:
If Iran is supplying "aid and comfort" to those who kill Americans in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia is supplying "aid and comfort" to those who kill Americans in Iraq, who do you bomb first?"
Little Georgie said: Canada.
Cute Dickey said: hrmphh, hrmmphh
Baby Condie said: I don't think.....
No it is not funny, it is sad. the whole f&*#~ng thing: evil, dirty, lying executives, do nothing political hack legislators, puppet stacked Federal Courts, and a nation where 66% of the people don't like what is happening, and do/can do nothing about it.
In the end, we will all get what some deserve, and some will get nothing they deserve. Oh, and as for that economic collapse? Don't you worry, the 1% who Gerogie have taken care of will not even feel it, so maybe we can go to Palm Beach, Vail, Kennebunkport or wherever if we need a roof over our heads. I'm sure the 1%-ers would give us a handout.
Back into the cave, I've got food in the freezer, money under the matress, a plow and a good companion. Peace out!
Thre is no valid connectuion between Iran as a nation and the insurgent attacks on our troops with the Iranian IED's. But there is a connection between Cheney et al and the Israeli lobby who want us to bomb Iran for fear of the Iranian presidemt's fiery words agaisnt Israel oru key ally in the middle east.
Fortunately most posters seem to realize the Democrats won't be much better. But just to reinforce the point.
Hillary, Obama, and Edwards have all made statements indicating they'd be willing to consider military attacks on Iran. At one point, all three had used the 'all options on the table' language which was exactly the same language Bush and his cohorts were using to threaten a nuclear attack. Obama may have backed off from this with more recents statements indicating he would not launch a nuclear first strike.
The Democrats in Congress have clearly signaled to Bush that they are on-board and support an attack on Iran. Last spring they were considering language stating such an attack was not authorized. Then they very publicly pulled that language from the bill and Pelosi went before AIPAC's convention to make sure it was understood that they did not oppose an attack on Iran. This was a clear green light to attack Iran given to Bush by the Democrats, and the Democrats have done nothing to change this stance since.
If you want a political party to oppose a new war with Iran, it ain't the Democrats.
NMBill- I'll reference you to my earlier post from above (not my first post, but the second one.
Ferency,
Your links don't work.
Here's where I know the American media is a joke. Even McClatchy which is closer to being decent than most.
The Bush administration are proven liars. We know for a fact that they have lied, and lied often. We know they have already lied us into one disasterous war.
So, why would any respectable news organization take seriously what they say? Why would they even report it? If you are dealing with known and proven liars, there should be a demand for irrefutable proof before the story even runs in a newspaper.
Lets say I'm the spokesperson for some organization. Lets say I tell as series of massive lies to the news media, and the news media falls for them and reports them. Of course, later it becomes obvious and proven that I was lying. After that, what do you think the reaction of the same news media would be the next time I started having press conferences and passing out press releases with some whole new set of allegations?
I'd think the news media would very rightfully ignore me. I think they would tell me that this time I must provide proof before they'd even listen to me. I don't think they'd print or air a single word I said unless and until I did provide proof that was so independent and verifiable that they would then be forced to admit my allegations this time were serious and had serious evidence backing it up.
So, why does something like what Bush is saying about Iran even get printed? Why isn't the story one that says something like .... "the President made a speech today and made some statements and allegations in that speech. However, the President failed to provide any evidence supporting those statements and allegations. Given the track record of this President, and his proven record of misleading the American people, we do not feel as responsible journalists that we can report the statements and allegations made by the President unless and until independent and verifiable evidence is produced to support these statements and allegations."
That's the nice version. They could just say. "That big liar, the President, was at it again yesterday."
Just the very fact that this story even reports what the President says shows what a complete and useless joke the American news media is. They have no interest in reporting the truth, or in finding out what the truth is. They are just mouthpieces for repeating the official statements of the government regardless of whether there is any truth of validity to the statement.
I used parental blocking to block all US news channels from my TV. I don't watch local TV news. I don't buy any American newspapers. The above is why.
Bush, Cheney & Co very well know that the senate and the American public can not stop them from doing what they want to do, except for some rumblings. So the US government will continue to execute its murderous plans on innocent people, and sovereign countries and the American public will keep talking/writing about it. So both these actions will continue and the innocent people continue to pay the price for this attitude of indifference among the public both in the US and the West.
The irony is: christian zealots consider this an opportunity to convert into christianity the "victims" of genocidal acts of the US and the West. That is what Korean missionaries are doing in Afghanistan. SHAME ON THEM.
Given the track record of CNN and other awful bits of the American media, when they run a story that says "here are poll results that show the American people support an attack on Iran.", why would you think that this accurately reflects what the American people really said to the pollsters?
Wars are $$ to CNN and the other 24-hour news channels. Probably to other news media as well. CNN's ratings will spike if they get to go to "Breaking News" and show us bombing Iran. That's big, big $$ to CNN (and the other channels).
So, why is it hard to think that they just might be making up poll numbers that support the politicians they like and that support a policy that's implementation would lead to big profits at CNN?
Entelechy, sorry. Try these:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/072707a.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071107B.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071207B.shtml
I love to joke, perhaps I do so too often. It is difficlt to joke about the depression we are going to have,___ unless an outright miracle occurs. Maybe a space ship will arrive and take Bush and Cheney far far away. Preferably to another galaxy or a black hole.
A depression will insure this:
There are no small farmers in America like there were durng the last depression. Few if any actually starved to death then, there was an ample ammount of food available. We could go to one of many farmers markets at closing time and purchase a full bushel of vegetables for ten cents, a live chicken for eight cents and a turkey for a quarter. We seldom could afford a turkey, but we could always scrape up ten pennies.
My point is, there weren't many jobs, millions were out of work, the banks were closed and it was truly tough times. Butttt, we had food. A depression now will insure rioting, racial and otherwise. Desperate people will kill for food, milk for their babies etc. It will be Katrina magnified ten thousand times, house pets will be char broiled. Will FEMA, or anyone else, be there to assist? Our credit cards will be frozen, American money will be as useless as our Constitution had become. (thank you for that Pelosi and Conyers.)
There will be nation wide anarchy, and our mighty hi-tech military will be useless to stop the killing in our country. That is reality.__ Sorry, the United States will be history and Bush will have his desired legacy. The Chinese will survive to write it.
This article seems to say that the United States knows absolutely nothing about how to end this war. In fact, it seems like they want to escalate it. Don't the neocons know that this is going to end real badly for the United States? Explosives not guarded early in the war..nobody in jail. Billions of dollars unaccounted for..nobody in jail. 190,000 rifles & handguns missing..nobody in jail...Bush & Cheney still in office.... WHY?
Sir Melvin Cleophus,
I am guessing the reason why the U.S. supports the Sunnis is by having a minority, it will better enable the U.S. to privatize the oil so that U.S. oil companies can enjoy larger profits. Just a guess.
Kem Patrick- We're already at the "Bah, let them eat cake" point- 1% of the population has somehow duped (say) 85% of us into believing whats good for them is good for everyone.
The heads of the corperations buy out everyone of the politicians in the government, deliberatly with the purpose of fucking over the average American, for the benefit of the 1%.
Even better in recent decades, just have board members or longtime rich members of corperations, such as oil, health insurance etc work in the executive and other branches of government. That way they don't even have to bribe the government, they can just enact corperate serving policy directly.
If US attacks Iran - US will learn more completely why the "mideast civilizations" have been in place for so long. The US of A is a mere few centuries along. Iran, Iraq, many more have been around so much longer, and for good reason.
The US of A just seems unable to learn that Dick Cheney is a mere man (a seemingly hearless one also). There are what 300,000,000 million people living in this country. Wow. Who is giving all this power to Dick Cheney. I want to know.
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Let's assume for a minute that Iran is actually supplying weapons to the Shiite insurgents in Iraq.
Anyone not suffering from denial knows that there is a civil war in the country between Shiite and Sunni tribes.
If this is true then how are the Sunni's getting their weapons? Magic? It couldn't be the 'lost weapons' from the US or weapons from Saudi could it? Oh heavens no! It must then be magic.
So Iran is arming the the Shiites and the fairy godmother is arming the Sunnis. Makes sense to me.
So the psychopaths in charge of the U.S. government want airstrikes on SUSPECTED training camps in Iran? As usual, no proof of any guilt is provided. HOW does the U.S. get away with all of these war crimes??
Lets say that only 0.28% of the folks in US of A are aware of the risk, that is still, what, 1,000,000 folks. Come on, this is ridiculous.....
Peace,
Ken Hausle
Charlotte, NC
hoping for remedy,
lets start by impeaching the VP
lets impeach the office altogether
as well as the executive for that matter....
I am tired of this admisistration pretending that that they are Roman Emporers, on one hand they are not man enough and on the other they are far too stupid to be leaders. THis country is not about invasion and despolation, it is about the freedom and rights of mankind. The only way we will survive as a country is to get back to the days of a strong kind america
Whether or not Iran is involved in any way is irrelevant. The U. S. is in the region ILLEGALLY. Invasion was an act of unjustified and immoral AGGRESSION against a SOVEREIGN nation that was absolutely NO threat to the U.S., all built on a pack of lies, long since established.
That's all one needs to know.
To focus on whether Iran is involved is to shift the focus where it does not belong. I repeat, Iran's alleged involvement is irrelevant.
"As usual, no proof of any guilt is provided. HOW does the U.S. get away with all of these war crimes??"
Why provide proof when they can just repeat lies over and over again, to a crowd of 50-60% of braindead Americans who still believe everything they're told to believe, and will swallow up the lies, lock stock and barrell? www.pollingreport.com. Somewhere on there, a survey shows that something like 58% of this country thinks Iran is supplying weapons, suicide bombers, funds, etc to Iraq. It's unreal how easily brainwashed and manipulated we Americans are especially coming from the same government which, as far as i'm concerned, has zero credibility
It's not hard to manipulate and brainwash the masses. Heck 40% of this country still thinks Saddam was "personally involved in 9-11." So what does that tell you.
Neocons, now making up about 25-30% of this country, are deliberatly dellusional, and enjoy being dellusional. I'm not simply calling them names, or bashing them... look at the quote from their own beloved administration:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore. WE'RE AN EMPIRE NOW, AND WHEN WE ACT WE CREATE OUR OWN REALITY…We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do."
Karl Rove, Chief Advisor to George W. Bush
This is the same 30% that continue to approve of the administration's performance. The same 25-30% that will say over and over again, if we don't fight them over there, we'll have to fight them over here...Ironic that these same cowards are "too busy" to actually go fight them over there, and are much more effective in supporting the war by sitting around here spewing out tired soundbytes and talking points.
Karma runs deep, swift, complete - Agenbite of inwit upon all those who fail to stop this atrocity.....
Ken Hausle
KEM is right in most respects. But I've never heard him be THIS pessimistic before.
And it's true about the issue of food and farmers. When the collapse of our economy happens, we are ill prepared as citizens to deal with the fallout.
I've been a small time farmer for over 10 years. And I have failed (financially) because there has been little support for small community farms. Why? Because people want cheap food. They are not willing to pay a price that will actually cover the costs of food produced on small farms. Consumers would rather pay the lower price for food that is produced with slave/cheap labor, environmental damage, no sustainable farming practices, on HUGE farms where the profits go to HUGE multinationals that suck local economies dry.
This is all about re-establishing The Commons. This all about Community Sovereignty. You had better get to know your neighbors NOW! Especially your local farmers, if you have any.
It's getting to be time to plant your winter crops. How many back yards and idle land do you have in your neighborhood? Time's are a wastin'. Don't be burnin' daylight.......
If you're an insurgent, who needs Iran? Under the administration of General Petraeus, 190,000 automatic rifles and handguns went missing. I wonder where they are now.
Is Petraeus a "general". I thought it was an admiral who was over the operation. Hm. I think it would be better if it was someone from the navy except not anyone from a sub. In fact, the subs should be eliminated from service voluntarily.
Once the subs are gone, then the navy is an incredible defensive force. Defensive not offensive like DC.
Peace,
Ken Hausle