Thank you Mr. Lindorff for your absorbing article. I hope that 2008 will not see the start of WWIII, and that world states improves upon age-old geopolitical problems. One earth, one race, one collective destiny toward Good/God.

*SOLH*
(peace)

The Oh Sh_t moment is inevitable. Remember what they did to save the stock market in march of 2003? Yep, that's right. UTTER DOOM IS UPON THE EARTH WHEN THE OH SH_T MOMENT OCCURS.

CitizenMedia,

thank you for sharing that insight about iranian perceptions. especially the history of political succesion of iranian leadership from a cultural perspective. i appreciated that.

david lindorff -

i agree w/ tj, thank you for following through w/ your thoughts, and remaining engaged in the discussion, i visited your website last night and read a few of the comments (including your opinions of extraneous comments). i hope i didn't offend you by posting the stranglers lyrics.

...peace....

David Lindorff;

Thanks for engaging with and responding to the responders of this piece. Few writers take the time or make the effort to do so. Political writing without dialogue is nothing but cant.

Iran's demographic is over 65% under age of 30, now 70 million doubled during last generation's baby boom (the birth rate is now down to 1.6 because people realized raising kids is expensive and the marriage age has gone up to late 20s). The only good thing I can credit the IRI for is having raised the education bar at a time when this generation was growing up, so its a very aware body of youth in numbers.

Most now despise the regime; they weren't of the Revolution era when the Shah had seemed bad. They are youth connected to the internet (farsi is the fourth language in blogging), and exposed to the same Facebook and Flickr that American youth is looking at, and fascinated by Hollywood, etc. Most importantly, they're now more educated and less religious. University students are a major body, as are young professionals, and a surge of duel-national returnees (ages 20-40) returning from abroad. Women are in the workforce full force, and the Middle Ages patriarchal tradition is slowly eroding along with approval for the continued survival of this regime. In a word, primed for change, but largely apolitical. Activism is swiftly punished by imprisonment and serve as efficient deterrant to protest.

However, the CRUCIAL QUESTION Washington needs to consider before a surprise strike or engaging Iran in warfare, is: What would the Youth do? Because "the Iranian People" means "65% Aged Under 30"

Yes, we have an army, better defense technology than Saddam, the "elite" Guards Corps, and crazy Pakistan as neighbor, BUT, when the first aftermath is over, how will the Iranian "People" react?

Think tanks in Washington and the "Iran Special Watch Group" have been analysing that question deeply I believe, as they delay whether to engage or not. It's the "Trillion-Dollar Question", so to speak.

Will the youth serves as soldiers if their country is attacked? (we are fiercely patriotic, think: Italians, Russians, Japanese -style)
or
sick of the theocracy, will they welcome US tanks with cheers as the Europeans did in WWII?

Will the history with America be forgiven by this generation? (re: Mossadeq, circa 1950s) or will they look to Iraq as current example?

There's no way to predict the response, which could be central to triggering or preventing war. But, tomorrow's Majlis election should give us an idea of how people feel about the IRI in 2008. Its been so hyped up in the media to "Go to the Polls!!" that its obvious they are curious to know where they stand too in terms of support, depending on turnout numbers.

Its a rigged election in the sense that the choices are between Dumb and Dumber, as the state-appointed "Guardian Council" dequalified thousands of candidates from reformist parties (including the very progressive non-mullah grandson of Khomeini, i.e. a direct decendant of the Grande Imam himself).

Many university students have boycotted voting, so to cast a "silent vote" by their absence to negate the legitimacy of the elections. This "silent voice" will only be heard if it is collective on a scale upward of 50% nationwide. I doubt that would happen because most people are so desparate for change they would take the lesser of two evils than risk it going the other way.

We'll see. For the political elite, its like American Idol - George, Mahmud, and their entourages slightly uneasy as to who will be voted off. The problem with democratic elections is that even if the people ARE actively involved, the choices are pretty much pre set from before, by Parties and Media and ........ people aleady in power, competing against each other for more power. They are not true representatives of the choices people want to have.

Meanwhile, here's The Economist on tomorrow's votes:
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10854894&fsrc=RSS

CitizenMedia,

Thanks for your insight about Iran. You didn't lose my attention.

MiMicCS -- If we cannot be wrong about it happening,

than at least let us hope for the type of luck that Andrew Jackson had with the two assassin guns both misfiring (at point-blank range), when the Rothschild cartel sent their man to kill him.

One possible future might play out, as follows:

Wouldn't it be great to see the whole show in slow mo,
and show the yamakas on the attacker's heads?

and even more so, killing their own Israeli civilians ?

Please, I can hope for good incontrovertible evidence, can't I.

The Outlook Now

Quick overview about the domestic situation here in Iran, based on class structure, recent history, current economy, demographics, and post-Ahmadinejad sentiment:

- Iran's class split is severe: the Elite-in-power tight circle and private oil mafia/real estate/bazaar merchant tycoons whom they support and are supported by (strikingly similar to your Republican & Corporate structure). a small Middle Class with some cash (who is caught up in consumerist technocratic nonpolitical apathy) bridges the chasm with the laboring Majority who live on low wages and until two years ago were larely sustained by subsidized essentials (bread, gas, healthcare, etc.).

- During our eight years at war with Iraq, plus under pressure of sanctions and economic isolation, Iranians learned to "do without" and bear "hard times" in the name of patriotism. The economy (state-controlled socialist) was not of much concern; not having a bomb land on your house was. The leaders of the newly-founded 'Islamic Republic' fully pressed the "save the Revolution" flag-rally opportunity to propogate the breeding of A) "children for the army of Islam" and B) "down with USA & Israel" delusions among the masses. Being Ayatollahs, they had the theological authority to do so, which made it an even more effective brainwashing regimine, since the majority of the population then [i.e., 80's generation] was religious and larely illiterate. They swallowed it whole, sent men to fight, lamented their 1,000,000 "martyr" sons lost, but did it gladly because they believed it was in the interest of their national security as well as their spiritual insurance for the afterlife.

- After ceasefire, Rafsanjani's Reign began. He's our version of Reagan, in directing his power as president to completely "re-engineer" the economic system: he strengthened the infrastructure with petrochemical plants, roads networks, hydroelectic dams, and manufacturing industries. He revised laws about foreign investment in natural resources, and inked massive contracts with France's Total for drilling /export of crude oil, natural gas, and methanol. He introduced policy on taking out foreign loans, and established the Tehran Stock Exchange. To a limited extent, he opened the door for imports and privatization. Oh, and he had a Trump-like obsession with property development, and a well-vested Technocrat, which landed him a Forbes cover issue a few years ago as to his unknown private fortune being among the world top ten. He was known as a "pragmatist" - he controlled a hardliner Majlis [Parliament] and enforced crackdown bans on satellite dishes, the press, co-ed universities, and street patrols for illegal alcohol, extramarital relations, hijab, etc. All the while with Friday prayers and anti-Great Satan rhetoric still rang from the pulpits to the masses.

- People, having paid in blood and patience for a long war, at first were ignorant of or passive to the economic changes taking place around them. They began noticing when the signs of extreme wealth materialized in the capital: expensive cars, penthouses, lavish lifestyles. It was the Shah's selfish greed all over again. Not to mention it still felt like a dictatorship not a democracy. Meanwhile, nearly 20 years had passed since the 1979 Revolution, and the many of the intended "Islam-Army" Baby Boom generation had reached voting age. They went to the polls in the 1997 elections and Khatami, the sole reformist candidate, won the presidency by a landslide against his fundementalist mullah opponent.

- Khatami's eight years was like Clinton's 'golden 90s' feel: lots of cultural institutes opened up, talks of peace negotiations and 'Dialogue Among Civilizations', the internet kicked in, media and the arts were much more liberal, and the bans were laxed on the dress codes and universities. However, the economy Rafsanjani had set into gear was still operating and thus widening the class split as well as inflation rates, most notably in housing costs. People started getting annoyed and blamed Khatami for impotency vis-a-vis mandates from the Majlis, Sepah (Revolutionary Guard), Supreme Leader, etc.

- Then came the 2005 catastropic election which brought Ahmadinejad to office. Rafsanjani ran again, and hoped to appeal to the youth as Khatami had by seeming 'liberal': his flashy tactics included sending out girls in tight manteaus wrapped all over in campaign stickers to rollerblade around in traffic. Ahmadinejad took the exact opposite stance, aiming his image at the economically underprivalleged with popularist stunts like going to poor homes in south Tehran and sitting on the floor to talk to unemployed fathers, etc. His slogan was "Oil Shares on the Table". Imagine how powerful that seemed in face of the huge state corruption (which at that point Rafsanjani symbolized, with urban legends of untold wealth that had built after his term). So Ahmadinejad literally 'cashed in' on votes 'on credit' of delivering socioeconomic justice, winning again by overwhelming popular vote.

- This is where things started going wrong. The nuclear controversy brought Ahamadinejad to the world media stage, and he is a showman who adores the limelight and purposefully pulls antics like the 18-page letter addressed to Bush, the Columbia university speech, outraging Mike Wallace, and domestic popularist stunts as well. However, his promise not only did not materlialize over the ensuing two years, but actually plunged the economy into a never-seen-before freefall. An ironic combination of UN Sanctions and $100-per-barrel oil. He began pumping cash into circulation and drove inflation up from 17% to 30%; he did away with the formerly high customs tarifs and increased imports to the point of forcing many large manufacturers to bankruptcy (because they cant compete with non-inflated products from China); he lowered bank interests on savings accounts from 21% to 14%, which meant people pulled out cash that would lose against the inflation and protect it in "safe" investments in land - which caused a 150% jump in property (no, thats not an exaggerated number, its a symptom of a sick economy); and began converting Iran's cash-based consumer power to financing. We still don't have credit cards, but if we did, consumerism would go through the roof, as it already has because of the petrodollar pump. Zero investment in infrastructure or manufacturing, which even Rafsanjani was decent enough to do. Iran went overnight (2005-2008) from not having a major deficit to close to USD26 billion now, which coincidentally, is around the same figure missing from the state budget this year, allegedly having gone to IRGC. The Guards, by the way, are businessmen now. All the imports coming in to cover up the economy on verge of depression, is by private companies now belonging to IRGC and skirting sanctions via offshore middle companies headquartered mainly in Dubai and London. They're reaping the nuclear drama benefits from the oil boom just as your guys are on their side. Basically, Ahmadinejad and Bush are very like-minded leaders who champion Hyper-Capitalism at the expense (literally, in dollars and rials) of their peoples, who have to bear the added grief of having their country known as a terrorist state. USA popularity is down worldwide, and so is Iran's image. Thank you, Mr. Presidents!

- Lastly, Ahmadinejad has messed up so badly that people now are under pressure of unemployment and political instability of the possibility of war. Same thing going on there ... there's alot more in common than meets the eye. And same thing at stake: lives of our citizens if our nations go to war.

Which brings me to the war scenario, but I think I have probably already lost your attention by this long rant so I'll post that up separately as it's more relevant to the topic under discussion.

Just want to say, as an American-Iranian "returned expat", I feel both sides and see parallels and think both peoples suffer under stubborn theocratic-minded administrations hellbent on power and territorial conquer. Our mutual war should be united against the mass media which creates these constructs in imagery and words, and then feeds it as grass to the sheep. Education is the key to peace, and in the Age of Communication, it is more possible than ever but also harder as the enemy (MSM) holds masterkey.

One thing you can do is when the conversation inevitably turns to this NY Governor-guy is to point out that you suspect that the media is all over him so that no-one will notice what's actually going on. Fallon stepping down, USdollar crashing down, oil skyrocketing - people are certainly interested when they hear about it - will ask for some links - (link to this story) - but the only way most people are going to have the vaguest idea that something is afoot is if you personally tell them. No-one knows about any of this, which is why no-one seems to care. And this stuff is real enough that with a few links to buried news items, your friends and family will have a hard time thinking you're just being your usual paranoid self...

I always used to wonder how the country that produced Goethe and Beethoven allowed a maniac like Hitler to ascend. I am now eye-witnessing the answer.

explorelife you are right. I hope each of us looks at what we can do every day to enlist others to take some kind of action to challenge this downward spiral any way we can.

It can be uncomfortable to take a petition to work or to ask neighbors to come to a protest or vote for an independent, but this is truly a survival emergency. Do what you can! Any little thing, multiplied by millions is worthwhile. People are out there who WANT to oppose the direction we are heading, but are distracted and clueless about how.

"Woke up this morning with my mind stayed on Freedom".

I want to say this to everyone who reads Common Dreams. Each and every one of us must look in the mirror and say is it time to step into our power and let those in DC know we are the ones in charge. We have been blaming for to long. Blaming is a crap magnet and as you can see there is a big bunch of crap to deal with.

You and I are the ones that must step up now and be heard. The war in Iraq is a huge disaster we let happen. Yes we must take responsibility for this mess because we did not stop it. I know I was out their marching and the crowds were noisy but small. It appears we just didn't care enough to do what we needed to do to stop the war.

The power of taking responsibility is that it empowers us to take action. If we feel powerless, then we will only do the minimum. The maximum is needed now. Are you ready? We can't count on Congress unless they are guided by us.

Today is the day to stop Iran from being the next insane move by this administration run by their egos, their greed and their need for power.

We are the positive power for change.

Joseph www.peace-together.com and www.explorelifeblog.com

well, the writing is on the wall, but let's hope that the regime isn't as foolish/kamikaze as some indications suggest.
i pray that i'm not being overly optimistic as to assume that such a belligerent and suicidal mission will be bypassed...

Someone ought to be tracking the whereabouts of members of the Senate Armed Services committee, the National Security folks and others close to the White House. If they all leave DC at the same time ...

Iran just might be able to deliver weapons here, and how much faith will people who anticipate war be willing to invest in an underground bunker in the capitol?

Just thinking out loud.

About a week ago I told my 17-year old son that it was possible that before the year was out I would be "disapeared" and he would never see me again.

Two days ago I asked him if he thought I was insane.

He looked at me for about 30 seconds, trying to fight back the tears in his eyes:

"Yes Dad, I think you may be insane."

Does anyone know why The Iranians don't simply just stop their uranium enrichment? -- bbr-001 March 12th, 2008 5:47 pm

They did stop, for three years, while the Europeans negotiated for the U.S. Iran eventually decided the Europeans were just stalling, keeping them from getting on with their development while not negotiating in good faith.
Also, the Iranians really hate the American meddling in their country (1953 overthrow of Mossadegh, the Iraq invasion of Iran in the 80's) - there is a lot of 'f**k you' in their position, now that the U.S. is a weakening empire.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful use, just as Brazil, South Africa, Japan, and 195 other countries do. The only countries that did not sign the NNPT treaty are Israel, Pakistan, India and Cuba. The U.S. hates that it lost their puppet the Shah, and with it the vast oil and natural gas reserves of Iran; *whatever* the Iranians do, the U.S. will complain about something else. And notice that the argument against Iran morphed from 'they are trying to build nuclear weapons' to 'we must not allow them the knowledge to eventually build nuclear weapons'. Yeah, ok. Bomb the Universities now.

Sure, Iran could purchase all their enriched uranium, just like the U.S. could buy *all* their autos from other countries. But, lots of countries like to actually make things, actually have economic activity in their own country and not outsource everything to China. Also, Iran knows all too well that if their domestic electricity was dependent on a component from outside their country, they would be at the mercy of sanctions that could withhold that crucial component. The U.S. imports 12 out of 20 million barrels of oil per day because it *must* - it is really a risk, being that dependent on foreign economic inputs. Iran would never willingly allow domestic electricity to be dependent on Russia or France or Canada supplying enriched uranium.

You have a good point though. Why not wait till Cheney/Bush are out of office ? Iran, since they overthrew their hated dictator, has seen Carter and Clinton in charge, and probably decided that U.S. policy will not change that much.

They might even *want* the U.S. to invade. The U.S. will win the battle, and lose the war. China, Russia, India, the EU, will all be watching the international war crime very closely, and it will affect the entire 21st century. When the dust settles, maybe the world can build a United Nations that works better.

And when they hang Bush and Cheney for Crimes against Humanity, I will make strawberry margaritas, chips and salsa. Ole. (of course, Cheney probably won't live long enough. But Bush is pretty healthy :-) )

Not knocking a good article, just got to thinking about some of the the response and the size of the response.

-matti

It's time to start bridging the Gap and make some friends of the Ron Paul-voter/libertarian/survivalist type.

People on the left seem to be too worried about Marshal Law.

I think this is simply a consequence of an urban upbringing, and therefore a discomfort with firearms, general social anxiety because of stranger-to-friend ratios in cities and suburbs, and constant reminders of well organized and well armed police forces.

And also a lack of knowledge about many of their fellow citizens on the "right", assumed to be everyone not on the "left", when in reality many millions don't fit either way, and so aren't engaged, and so aren't considered, but would still actively oppose any overt tyranny.

What I'm saying is before anyone gets too worked up about Marshal Law, think about who would have to impose it on the ground -our National Guard Iraq Veterans or Blackwater-types, either Veterans or Foreign- do you really see that happening?

What I'm saying is that some of this Fear is useful and motivating, but much of it is wasteful and distracting -and caused by a near-complete disengagement by ordinary people because of political polarization.

Next time you talk to someone "right wing" about the occupation of Iraq, talk about the waste of blood and treasure, talk about corruption and betrayal in the executive, talk about the excesses of bureaucracies and Taxation without Representation, the Bill of Rights, and "Don't Tread on Me".

We here seem to be able to understand, even when we don't excuse, the bind many citizens feel when considering voting Non-Democrat, we should also realize many who vote Republican do so because of a similar bind, just differently wrought.

We also need to realize that many good-hearted people take "right wing" stances on the "issues" with the same assurance of their correctness as many feel when going "left" on these same issues.

More unites us than divides us, people are almost all looking to do good, they just can't agree on what good and how.

Democracy might have been shot six times point-blank and dumped in a lake, but the cold water slowed the bleeding and friendly Townsfolk have nursed Democracy back to health, though now amnesia keeps Democracy lost. If we just assume Democracy is still alive we'll find it sooner or later, and once it sees our face, every memory will come flooding back.

We have nothing to Fear but Fear itself, right?

-matti

And oil, which just bumped up against $110 a barrel, an all-time record, will double in price overnight, as the whole Persian Gulf becomes a war zone.

Seems a good enough motive in itself for the Oil President...

Oh sh*t is right.

Will Bush invade Iran on the fifth anniversary of invading Iraq? His idea of an anniversary celebration?

See you at the demonstrations March 15 and 19.

If the bombing comes to pass, we need to be prepared to strike. Not just
union members, not just for better wages and benefits(though, God knows, these are not unimportant), but for a better world. Shut the capitalist economy down! Make it better, make it fairer, make it our own. We have made
the wealth the capitalists have used to build things their way, let's use that wealth for our own ends. The general welfare has been held hostage by
the general warfare for much too long.

Thank you earthian !!!

The betting pool is open for new dates of Iran strikes.

I was pretty sure it was going to happen last year and was humbled a bit when it did not, but thankful. Admiral Fallon resigning is certainly not a good sign, yet it seems it is a bit obvious. Why tip your hand?.

That said, anything is possible. If Bush wanted to destroy this country he could not have done a better job if he tried. My bet is that was his mission, and Mission Accomplished, but just one more job.

Israel is now on high alert at its Lebanese, Syrian and Gaza borders.

http://www.debka.com/

Cheney has been despatched to the Middle East to Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank and Turkey to spread his vision for peace (when Cheney says peace he means war).

Israel is floating a rumour that Tehran, Damascus and Hizballah are determined to inflict a terrorist attack on Israel whom they accuse of liquidating their key agent, Imad Mughniyeh. This could support a 9/11 event on Israel and provide the justification to defend our pal against Syria and Iran.

And there were those mysterious internet cables in the region being cut last month.

Oh Sh*t. Hope we are wrong, but the elements seem to be in place.

Why don`t we ask the United Nations to have an inspection team check and see if the US has any weapons of mass destruction? I suppose it would be a waste of time to see if we had any nukes around, being a Christian nation and all, but they could have a look anyway.

If any were found, an embargo would surely be put on the US and that would solve the problems of Nafta and the exporting of our labor as everything would have to be made here again. After all we should be glad to be held to the same standards the rest of the world is as we are very fair-minded.

When this happens, I will no longer be able to live in this country. I will also probably not be able to leave. God have mercy on my Republican neighbors, for I won't.

fresh1 March 12th, 2008 9:16 pm

clearly the tension in iran is being ratcheted up. the president has only 10 more months of rule. if he attacks it undoubtedly will be before the general election (probably w/in 30 days of the election actually - if we listen to naomi wolf or naomi klein). will it happen? i don't know (i bet rove knows), i do know that the conditions are perfect for the unfolding of the scenarios noted above. (martial law/civil insurrection/extended US military aggression to offset perceptions of domestic economic crisis).

will fallen be an asset to the peace movement??

i think he just helped us by stepping down and telling the world he's concerned about the bush administrations plans for iran. i don't believe he could have forced a showdown. i do know that his opinion will be listened to by officers that are still serving in the military, he was our best strategic go player that's why he originally received the post.

------------------------------------------
i just read the original esquire article

http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon-4

how does fallon's approach differ from bush/cheney? one believes in negotiation the other doesn't.

(esquire 3/11/08)

{"You start down low, says one of Fallon's senior intelligence officials. For example, there's the shared interest in stemming the flow of narcotics from Afghanistan to Iran. "Iran has a huge drug problem," so that's "a potential cooperative area." More recently, the Iranians promised to stop the flow of munitions into Iraq, arguably contributing to the dramatic decrease in U. S. casualties from roadside bombs. After three sets of talks with the Iranians last summer that went nowhere, another round is being teed up. To Fallon, this sort of engagement is crucial, given America's overall lack of experience in dealing with Iran.

"I don't know as much as I'd like about Iran," he says. "You've got to go elsewhere, to people in other countries. There aren't many Americans who've had extensive experience with these guys. So that puts us both at a disadvantage. Plus they're secretive--intentionally so--about us. It makes it more of a challenge."}

i just learned 2 things. 1.) the cia is probably flooding the streets of teheran w/ heroin (as in baghdad and europe) and 2.) clearly the US leaders are not ready for a ground war (logistically they're less prepared to deal w/ iran then they were w/ iraq). fallen knows this and has disassociated himself.

he was probably going to be fired anyway.
last sentence from the esquire article yesterday...

(esquire 3/11/08)

{"Admiral William Fallon shakes his head slowly, and his eyes say, These guys have no idea how much worse it could get for them. I am the reasonable one.And time will tell whether being reasonable will cost Admiral William Fallon his command."}

ahmanidijad is working w/ the iraqi government, obama has pledged to talk w/ iranian leadership. talking is the first step. obama needs to be held to his pledge to negotiate.

.....peace......

I don't disagree. Putting one's faith in one part of the corporatocracy to protect us against the other part is a slender reed. On the other hand, we'd be nuts at this dire point not to try it.
But the way to do it is to develop mass pressure.

I wrote a piece earlier making the point that while Obama is no radical, he has called forth a mass of people who could propel him in directions he'd never go on his own. In this, he could end up, if elected, being like Roosevelt in 1932, who ran as no great progressive, but who created a movement for change and progressive reform that both propelled him and enabled him to move the country far more in a progressive direction than it had ever moved before.

If we on the left and in the anti-war movement try to work with that movement, as the left did under Roosevelt, we may achieve much the same thing.

But it has to be done with eyes open...

"#
claudius March 12th, 2008 4:24 pm

The concept to understand is that no one can effectively take on and defeat the Establishment (MIC). Nor can they overthrow corporate influence. These two entities are too powerful and control politics. You can put anyone you want in the Oval Office and they will not be able to successfully take on these two powerhouses. The only way to stop them is through mass protest including giving up shopping (except for the bare essentials). I understand what Dave Lindorff is saying about the Obama movement, but it needs a leader who, come hell or high water, will LEAD the movement ALL the way. Given the recent history of those who tried to take on the Establishment, we all know what happened to them. This one is entirely up to the people, not the politicians. We need to take back our country."

I agree wholeheartedly, and have been saying the same about the People's responsibility in all of this. If we do nothing, then put us all in the "complicit" column with the Democratic Party.

I will give Lindorff this: We need allies. While Obama is a party player, he's talked a tough game and may actually follow through with the proper amount of popular pressure (by every means possible).

As for aligning with corporate interests: I'm awfully dubious. While corporate heads of state may revolt against the current neo-con madness, they will only do so to save their hides, then it's back to "screw the little people." Corporate control of damn near everything is what got us into this mess!

Not even the ICC can save the asses of these madmen.

Daniel David, iowablackbird, and AndyUK, I have to disagree with your optimistic projection that Fallon will be of greater service to the anti-war cause now that he has quit. We have lots of retired generals against the Iraq war. What good has it done? Fallon is now officially a has-been with no power, none whatsoever. He is free, as each one of us is free, to speak his conscience. But he was free before, too, and if he was such a patriot and opponent of the war, he could have spoken his conscience before quitting *and suffered the consequences*. He could have forced a show-down.

Saying that an Iran attack won't "happen on his watch", then quitting when insider knowledge indicates that an attack is imminent (if indeed it is so), without even claiming that he is resigning in protest (many diplomats, but no generals, resigned in protest at the time of the Iraq invasion), sends a clear message: "I don't want the dirt on me" . Fallon will retire to a nice pension and a few minutes of fame as a pundit if he desires it, until the MSM decide that he is now "out of the loop" and thus irrelevant. I would say that he has become irrelevant already.

>> curmudgeon99 March 12th, 2008 4:32 pm

I just heard about an interview made yesterday with a Slovenian citizen. If anyone else knows more - please clarify.>>

It was Democracy Now on 3-11-08:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/11/everybody_in_the_world_except_us

iowablackbird--

You are right. Sy Hersch is one of the very few writing the "alternative history" of this past 7 years and is to be commended for doing so. Also to be commended are those "not quite Ellsbergs" who leak some important information to corroborate some of what is actually going on in this crazy world of farcical illusion.

Thank you, COMarc, for your excellent post.

You are absolutely correct. The problem is not simply the Republicans but also the fact that the Democrats are clealry *enabling* the Republicans.

Your post should be required reading for any liberal, including David Lindorff, who mistakenly thinks that an Obama presidency will be any different from what's gone on before.

The Bush administration does what it does because it knows full well that the Democratic Party WILL LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT!

I've heard so many times that "the Democrats are cowards not to stand up to the Republicans." This is nonsense. The Democrats don't stand up to the Republicans because they, as you point out in your post, are PROTECTING and otherwise enabling the Republicans to do what they do.

Think about what the Clinton Administration has "accomplished" --

-- The Terrorist Act, the precursor of the Patriot Act.

-- The Telecommunications Act. The 1996 Telecommunications Act put more and more power into fewer and fewer hands; giving away to a handful of media giants 50 billion dollars worth of digital spectrum rights; digital rights being a *public* asset.

-- The dramatic "upward shift" of wealth during the Clinton administration from the poor and the middle classes to the wealthy. ... so that today 45% of all US wealth is in the hands of 1% of the adult American population; the next 40% being in the hands of the next 19% of the population.

-- Clinton's sellout of labor, and subsequent catering to the whims and demands of Wall Street. "The best president the Republicans ever had!"

-- Clinton's so-called "Welfare Reform Bill" (enthusiastically shepherded through Congress by Al Gore). The so-called "Welfare Reform Bill" was so ruthless that no Republican Administration could have possibly passed it. This was a bill that threw overboard, into poverty, hundreds of thousands of needy individuals, many of them children -- the US rate of childhood poverty now being 22%, the highest, by far, of any advanced industrial country.

-- The fact that the Clinton-Gore record on the environment is worse -- WORSE! -- than the Bush record on the environment!!!

-- The 8 years of economic sanctions during the Clinton-Gore administration -- resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children, the infirm and the elderly.

-- The indiscriminate bombing of Kosovo.

... The "accidental" (collateral damage) bombing of a Sudan pharmaceutical plant, all to try to kill one man: Obama Bin Laden. This "Wag the Dog" move by Clinton destroyed the only pharmaceutcial plant in the Sudan and due to the resulting lack of medicine was the direct cause of tens of thousands of deaths. ... NOTE: We don't know exactly how many deaths this bombing caused because the US blocked the United Nations' efforts to find out just what the death count, in fact, was.

I could go on and on. But what's clear is that these are not the actions of party that should it regain presidential power in November will fundamentally change ANYTHING in terms of American militarism abroad or corporate dominance at home. ... The Democratic Party is an "indispensable partner" as far as the Bush Administration is concerned.

The Democratic Party will always be slightly better than the Republican Party, but "slightly better" is still fatal to democracy. ... If one doctor is slightly better than another doctor but both doctors are quacks, what do you imagine the prognosis is for the patient?

If the Democratic Party was anything other than a Bush administration enabler, they would have impeached Bush and Cheney by now. WHAT MORE EVIDENCE CAN THERE BE OF CLEARLY IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES? ... HOW MUCH MORE OF A PUBLIC OUTCRTY CAN THERE BE FOR IMPEACHMENT?

An Obama presidency, if that happens, will remedy nothing; will quickly revert to form. Why? Because Obama is as beholden to his corporate paymasters as McCain, the Clintons and the rest of the bought and paid for political apparatchik.

Don't kid yourself, David Lindorff, et al, your guy Obama, if elected, will be more of the same. ... Same soup, warmed over. ... See the following article by Ralph Nader's running mate, Matt Gonzalez: "The Obama Craze: Count Me Out" -- http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html

Keitel(Spelling) the willing yes man General, aka Hitler's Lap Dog.

Obviously recent events in Colombia/Ecuador/Venezuela were just to "test the waters" and that got solved real quick. Latin American leaders not so willing to play sacrificil pawns in the NEO CON Chess game. So back to Iran and Fallon out. This is not good, time to contact a congressman/woman, of course my rep is a GOP Kool Aid yes man, but still gotta send notice. I guess GWB really does "follows the advice of the commanders" but only if he agrees with them (a la Betrayus or whatever that Keitel bootlicker's name is).

magikpowerwoman March 12th, 2008 8:18 pm,

Matthew Rothschild writes for the progressive magazine...

Poet March 12th, 2008 7:42 pm,

a few journalist have pointed out the ongoing escalation... including seymour hersh

unfortunately their voices aren't disseminated amongst the masses (hum.. wonder why). one of these journalist, seymour hersh, was interviewed last february on democracy now.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/28/investigative_reporter_seymour_hersh_us_indirectly

{"AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, can you talk about the planning group within the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

SEYMOUR HERSH: That is nothing new, really. It's just the same old story. That's all contingency planning. There's been no execute order. In other words, there's no order to bomb Iran. The President has now—a lot of the planning was done at a place in Virginia, a very secret joint staff facility, where the services would get together and discuss what to hit. And they moved it within the last three months. They've set up a special cell inside the Joint Chiefs, very secret. That's sort of normal. Everything is secret in there.

And they've been giving a number of—at least two new developments have taken place. One is the President or the White House has asked for a bombing raid that can be put on within twenty-four hours. What can we hit if the President wakes up one morning and scratches something and says, "I want to go"? What can you do in the next twenty-four hours? They've done that, or they are doing that.

The other significant change is, the debate all along about bombing internally, with the Air Force being very much for it, and a lot of the other services being very much against it—there's been tremendous dissension about this in the Joint Chiefs—the initial targeting was what they call counter-proliferation—that is, against the Iranian nuclear targets. As you know, Iran is a member of the nonproliferation regime and has released or made public all of its facilities, at least all of—it's declared many facilities, perhaps not all, but they say it's all, to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So, using what we know from the IAEA, we've targeted a lot of things that we would destroy in case of a major assault.

There's also been something called regime change targeting. The wonderful word they use inside in the system is "decapitation." You go after leadership nodules. You hit the leaders where they live, where they work. And you get rid of the top player, the mullahs running the government, and presumably in the fantasyland that exists among the neocons, the people then rush and take over, and they set up a democratic Iran that's secular and pro-American."}

it was an excellent interview, i'd encourage you to listen to the entire segment.

another article from hersh called 'the iran plans' from 2006

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

and an interview w/ spiegel from 9/2007

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,508394,00.html

.......peace......

Civil dissent, peaceful protest will be immediately broken up by the newest toy on the block - the RAY GUN, which was rolled out infomercial style on 60 Minutes two weeks ago. My blood literally turned cold when I saw it. It can create a "taser" type microwave blast from a mile away that can affect hundreds of people at once. I'm being told that I'm becoming paranoid. Uh-huh. How many people know about Presidential Directive 51? Not many.

Anybody here know about InfraGard? Feb Progressive issue, Matthew Rothschild (I don't know anything about the magazine or the author) says that the FBI has organized a group of business people, currently 23,000 in 42 states to be "watchdogs" and report suspicious behavior in their local areas. There are reps from 350 of the Fortune 500. You have to be screened by FBI to join. Rothschild says a whistleblower claims that at one meeting they were told by FBI that they could use lethal force when martial law was declared. When it is declared. Not if. The FBI has refuted this. But this, along with Fallon leaving and the friggin Spitzer distraction and Cheney in Mideast, along with Ray Gun, along with Directive 51, along with Halliburton detainment centers, along with repeal of Posse Comitus.... AHHHHHHHH!!!!!....I had to have my vital signs read today and my heart was beating at a rate of 101. It's all making me sick. My friends tell me to just stop, stop reading, stop being 'aware' and it will be alright, that it's just CNN drama/trauma and if I'd just turn it off it'll all be ok. I grew up in an abusive household and my hyper-vigilant antennae are whirling around without stop. Something is in the making and I must find the courage and ability to leave before getting out is not possible. And my 21 year old daughter. I feel so sorry for the young people, just starting out. Seven years of Bush and it's getting worse, not better. In 5th grade I wrote an essay about why the people in Germany didn't just leave. Or just say no to Hitler. I feel like I'm living it right now. Leave or not. Where to go. How do I live. Just live without this nightmare.

If anyone does know any more about InfraGard, please educate me.

"This is what you get when you have oil men running the country who will stop at nothing to further enrich themselves and their cronies as a parting shot before leaving office."

I couldn't agree more with this statement except one little detail. These are NOT men, in fact they are far from it. Didn't Bu$h get some strings pullled by Poppy in order to avoid going to Nam, and didn't the Dick Cheney get four deferrments to avoid Nam? What we have here is a pair of first degree cowards who happen to double as parasites. If this attack occurs...well, I know of a hardware store that runs specials on rope frequently.

Poet - "Of course if we had a press corps with anything approaching curiosity they would either confront adminstration officials about the matter or run stories anouncing an imminent attack on Iran and by so doing force the administration to either confirm or deny the allegation." Excellent point. Another option for a "handful of people" with power to shred the veil - funny, I'd forgotten about them....

I hope Fallon writes a really good tell-all book soon....But that might come too late.

All through 2007, I was keeping my eye on Fallon's resistance. I felt he was our prime protector from invading Iran.

I would like to note that the BBC Front Page News website has had the Fallon resignation news as the #1 story last night and most of today. On CNN tonight, it's more horse race for Clinton/Obama and Spitzer call girl stuff.

Thank goodness for the net to get some perspective and keep my sanity. Plus keep me from getting a bit too scared/pissed about what might happen with Iran this year.

What I wonder is:

Did Fallon cooperate with the Esquire article and resign to gtive us all a hint of what has already being set in motion (in which case he is doing advance work for Bushco) or is he trying to warn us of something yet to come that is not yet a "done deal".

Of course if we had a press corps with anything approaching curiosity they would either confront adminstration officials about the matter or run stories anouncing an imminent attack on Iran and by so doing force the administration to either confirm or deny the allegation.

In the absence of a responsible press it is good once again to see Dave Lindorff boldly going where others fear to tread.

Dakotalin--Excellent concluding comment--A "veil of illusion" is as apt a description of Bushco as I could ever imagine.

2 prophetic songs i just listened to from the 1979 album the raven by the stranglers.
seems our fates we're sealed long ago.

-----------------------
Stranglers - Nuclear Device

First And Last Men Walk This Earth
But Only A Few Survive
I'm The Wizard Of Aus
And I've Got It All Planned
For My First Nuclear Device

I Don't Really Care About Which Way You Vote
Cos My Gerrymander Works Out Fine
I Sell Desert Stretches Like A Big Rubber Glove
To Japan For A Nuclear Device

Nuclear Device
Nuclear Device
Nuclear Device

If I Could Get Lucky I'd Secede From The States
I'd Buy The Country At An Incredible Rate

Brisbane Men Stay At Home At Night
Cos I Outlawed All Of The Vice
I'm The Wizard Of Aus
And I've Rolled Up The Streets
Dreaming Of A Nuclear Device
If I Could Get Lucky I'd Go Out On My Own
And Sell Australia The Rice (Rest Of Aus There Rice)

Nuclear Device
Nuclear Device
Nuclear Device

If I Could Get Lucky I'd Secede From The States
I'd Buy The Country At An Incredible Rate
If I Could Get Lucky I'd Secede From The States
I'd Buy The Country At An Incredible Rate
If I Could Get Lucky I'd Secede From The States
I'd Buy The Country At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate
At An Incredible Rate

Way Down Under Australia
Very Different From Over Here
Getting Rid The Strangles One By One
Buy Cheap Land For Uranium
It Reminds Me Of Sweden
Got The Same Sort Of Freeze On
All The Animals Look So Strange
All Victims Of A Testing Range
Of A Testing Range
Of A Testing Range
Of A Testing Range
Of A Testing Range

--------------------------------------------
Stranglers - Shah Shah A Go Go

Did You Hear About The Man
Used To Live Out In Iran
He Was Luxury's Greatest Fan
People Ate Out Of His Hand
People Ate Out Of His Hand
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go

Sold The English All Their Oil
Made The People Work The Soil
Thought His Kind Had Got It Made
But His Kind Just Had To Pay To Fade
But His Kind Just Had To Fade
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go

Then A Priest In Paris France
Made The People Get Up And Da Da Dance
Sold Cassettes For 60p
Said He'd set The People Free
We Shall See We Shall See
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go
Shah Shah A Go Go

To the Spanish speaking countries AYUDA ME POR FAVOR YO VOY A IR ARGENTINA!
To the Chinese: Wo shi ni de pengyou wo yao chu Zhonguo wo hen xihuan Zhonguorenmin!

Its time to brush up on my spanish or my chinese....lets hope they are taking in Americano refugees when the shit really hits the fan.

I miss those good old, innocent, bright sunny days when abortion, gay marriage, and gays in the military were the top "News" on World "News" Tonight. Where have you gone Joe Dimagio indeed.

I was struck by captn72's comment that initially he thought perhaps the commenters here were over-reacting, and that Fallon was just gone for "speaking out of turn." That's the view I've seen all over the MSM today--"nothing to see here, just to be expected -- and oh, wrap your imagination around this, Spitzer with a $5,000 whore!" Had to come to CD, as usual, to get the wake-up call.

I'm with Lindorff that Obama supporters should be beseiging his website and office, but I'd add to that that Hillary supporters should do the same. Here in our presidential race we have Obama looking smaller every day by portraying innocuous statements as racist so as to play the insider in the disadvantaged among the black community. And Hillary, who's always hampered herself by voting fearfully to protect her political status, being crunched into the ground by a misogynist or Clinton-hating media and Obama bloggers who lost all perspective months ago. BUT they're all we've got, for now. And while I'm starting to doubt whether Obama has the breadth of vision to take his focus off himself and his ambition for even a moment, and while I wonder if Hillary, who beyond all doubt loves children and I think has the capacity to imagine children devastated by war, nevertheless is still blinded by corporatism and AIPAC -- I don't think EITHER of them is outright nuts, like the ones running the country right now. They're what we've got.

Once again, after seven years of having this image and thinking it had been dealt with, I realize it's still there: this veil of illusion protecting Bush and Cheney, and all it would take to shred it is a handful of highly visible, very powerful figures being willing to say without compromise, "this would be an impeachable act." Lindorff's essay presents a very possible, terrifying scenario, and all it might take to prevent it is finding a handful of people to break the spell that, apparently, still holds. Just a handful, or maybe even just two presidential candidates.

... it is already happening !!

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2008/3/11/6-signs-the-us-may-be-headed-for-war-in-iran.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/30856

It would't sell if it were fiction ~AIITHUMZ~. It's not beleiveable. Of course reality is reality, ___it is real.

Somebody please tell me that this is the story line of a new movie and not the new reality.

Anybody?

If we attack Iran, the price of oil will rise to $300+ a barrel, that will cause a depression for certain, we're close to having one already. If a depression hits and we're in a war with Iran, (and you can bet it will be a war if we bomb them,) then Bush will declare Martial law.

Another thing that will very possibly occur, is Russia and China will threaten to assist Iran. So put those things on one page. A war with Iran and a possible world war, with tensiions of the super powers at the max. Gasoline at $11+ a gallon, the price of food suddenly almost doubling, a depression here and rioting in all of the cities and major metro areas. Any president would HAVE to declare Martial Law.

Under Martial Law, the following things commense: All bank accounts are frozen, all credit cards are frozen, all government checks stop. ___ The government takes control of all transportation, including movement of personal vehicles.___ The government takes full control of ALL food supplies, includng small farms.___ The government controls all hospitals, clinics and medical personnel. ___ The government has the authority to place anyone in work gangs.____ The government Controls the sale of all fuel, including home heating, bottled gas, etc.___ Personal weapons may be siezed.___ People will not be allowed to congregate in large numbers or be out after hours of darkness.

Essentially, Martial law is total dictatorship and the president has the authority to do that and now has a civilian army to enforce any commands he or she may order.

Would it be anarchy, with civil wars breakng out all over the country? Think about it, what will transpire if we have a depression, even if we aren't at war with Iran. If we do have a war with them, a depression is almost a certanty. It's gonna be interesting, to say the least. Be well prepared, ___ or go hungry.

Daniel david: you are quite correct to point out, that Admiral Fallon is far more use out of the armed forces, where he can be free to comment and criticize. I believe that he along with many, is sick of the mad surge towards armed conflict, which this present administration has been guilty of.
We cannot compare these people to ourselves, because they do not think like us, so we are unable to tell how mad they really are, and what they are capable of, though the Iraq debacle should give us a pretty good idea.
I would ask what the reaction of a million or so Iranian ex pats in the US would be to an attack? Would they simply accept it, and carry on with their daily lives?
The reaction on Iranian soil would be far removed from the Iraq war, because there is not the ethnic/religious divide which we see in Iraq. I am guessing that the whole of Iran would come together, much the same as they did in the Iran Iraq war. We are talking about a huge land mass of 70 million people, with a very distinct and varied terrain. The Iranians also have a lot of high-tech weaponry, supplied by Russia and China.
I think it would be absolute madness to attack Iran - but what do I know.

i'm not a big fan of people who dedicate their lives to war, but i'm grateful to ofallen for refusing to participate in a self serving war that could bring new meaning to the word 'armageddon'.

to suggest the iranians would use asymmetrical warfare really under represents the chaos that could ensue. china is a client of iran, russia is willing to trade nuclear technology w/ the iranians, azerbaijan (former ussr satelite) borders iran as does pakistan which is incredibly unstable (as is russia) and armed w/ nuclear weapons. any reasonable military strategist would have to calculate the other 'military' powers response to an invasion of iran. look circumspectly at how bush/cheny understood the geopolitical implications of their iraq strategy ?

yeah, exxon will make more money in one quarter then they've made since they became an oil company when the price of oil hits 500 dollars a barrel and gold's hovering around $2500 an once.

a strike against iran effectively creates a scorching hot war (which could errupt in s america as well) w/ real ramifications. somebody would go nuke. period. in fact, tactically it would be impossible for the hawks to achieve their objectives w/out patently threating offensive use of nukes (as bush already has done - remember the bunker busters).

we're at 5 minutes to midnight (according to the BAT), what event in the past pushed us to 4 minutes to midnight?

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/timeline.html

"IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
2007 — The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb. Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property."

(same source)

"IT IS 4 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT
1981 — The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan hardens the U.S. nuclear posture. Before he leaves office, President Jimmy Carter pulls the United States from the Olympics Games in Moscow and considers ways in which the United States could win a nuclear war. The rhetoric only intensifies with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Reagan scraps any talk of arms control and proposes that the best way to end the Cold War is for the United States to win it."

notice the parallels/ olympics-presidential elections-bellicose repub commander-international crises in central asia?

something else the bulletin had posted at their site, the recent US success of shooting down the satellite from space, the chinese are a little concerned about this - a us first strike capability that would knock out opponents guidance/communications satellites. the war in iran will also be a war in space. (btw remember when we targeted the chinese embassy in yugoslavia using old maps.)

http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/eric-hagt/20080306.html

"China does suspect the system is useful against missiles, and more importantly, its satellites; softer targets with predictable orbits and no countermeasures (See "China's Military Experts Analyze U.S. Plan to Down the Uncontrolled Satellite" [in Chinese].)"

america has always been planning for these events, the project for a new american century crew is just cashing in the chips while they still can. yet they fail to recognize you can't trade money with dead people...

one more point, as troubling as it seems, one city disappearing in 5 minutes on CNN, could be the catalyst for a global revolution and demand for universal disarmament. yes there would be marshal law, yes we 'those who read articles here' would be shot.

....peace.....

Does anyone know why The Iranians don't simply just stop their uranium enrichment? They can purchase the stuff from the Russians for less than they can make it themselves. I don't know the particulars of the sanctions, but the Canadians, French... would line up at the door to peddle the stuff. Wouldn't it be easy for them to quit, invite el Baradei in to confirm it, and leave Dubya no excuse to bomb, bomb, bomb?

They can always start again after the neocons are done and things have settled down a bit.

Why does Iran stand there with that chip on its shoulder? One of the reasons Saddam allowed the WMD myth to persist was he didn't want the neighbors to know how weak he really was. Iran doesn't have that problem. They can mess up anyone in the region without serious retaliation, other than nuclear Israel, and the US force in Iraq.

Why does the UN Security Council keep voting "yes" to every egregiously punitive US resolution to add more sanctions to those Iran already faces? Did they not learn anything from our 2003 "performance?" We don't always pay our dues and our current administration has been trying to undermine the UN for seven years now. I've been waiting for them to take the IAEA seriously (NO nuclear weapons in development) instead of Bush/Cheney, but they still seem cowed by our Military Might.

If Hillary "had known then what she knows now" and would not have voted for the authorization to use military action in Iraq, why ever did she vote for the Lieberman amendment designating Iran's armed forces as a terroristic group? She has no excuse this time.

"A massive attack on Iran close to the elections, worldwide disruption of oil, martial law at home, a canceled election, and the quarry is finally bagged. No more democracy." --- mairs March 12th, 2008 11:48 am

Hey ... I've never been much of a conspiracy nut, but I've been having this same thought for the past few months, and can't understand why Bush and cheney are so sanguine about their terms coming to an end. Could it be that they don't really intend to leave office next January?

The very predictable consequences of an attack on Iran, as discussed by Mr Lindorff, Steven Kinzer and others, would be more than enough to trigger this scenario. And it should be remembered that the administration floated the possibility of suspending the 2004 election in the event of a domestic terror attack or national security emergency. It's not as if our government has never done anything extraordinary on the basis of trumped-up events or intelligence.

I'm surprised to see that no one here has mentioned yesterday's Washington Post atricle, based on unnamed sources and filled with rank speculation, that, according to the UN, there are and have been "secret Iranian nuclear projects." (If you posted on this and I missed it, please accept my apology). Check the Just Foreign Policy website for a link and call to action:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/

I recently read a great quip, but can't credit it at the moment ... it went something like this:

"When it's time to man the ramparts, will anyone know where they are?"

It's time we make clear where to go when it's time to hit the streets. I'll take Mr Lindorff up on his suggestion and call on anyone within 500 miles of Chicago to assemble at Barach Obama's national campaign headquarters, 233 North Michigan Avenue in Chicago. There are actual ramparts there.

But Mr.Lindorf, the attack on Iraq was also a crime against peace. Do you see any consequences? So why would attacking Iran be any different? The US ,like Israel, does not care what people think, it only believes in power.

Claudius --- I think you're right on the mark.
Our only hope is us...unified....

Claudius: Mike Gravel had the same message. He got almost no votes.

No more war please...can we try and avoid WWIII..just TRY IT?!?!? Maybe I should dig a bunker after all!

Cheney changed when he had a heart attack. Facing his mortality, he has decided he has nothing to lose by going all out. He wants to leave this world as a hero to his family by leaving them extremely wealthy. He will be the family hero long after his death. This is what he is looking for, immortality in the thoughts of his descendants. Tribalism.

Hillary or Obama in the White House is the same thing. They've all gone and pledged their support to Israel and this policy. Every dang one of them went to the last AIPAC convention and pledged fealty to the cause.

This is pretty standard Dem BS. They always try to personalize and demonize their opponents. Its the 'its all Bush's fault' theme you see constantly. Which leads to the faulty conclusion that all we need to do is to replace Bush. Now its morphing into the 'its all going to be McCain's fault' theme.

When are people going to realize that these people are all just figureheads?

The reason why we don't have political options right now is because people keep voting Democrat in the faulty belief that they are an opposition. Then they always seem shocked to find that the Democrats don't oppose any of this stuff.

And of course, politicians don't take us seriously precisely because we keep voting Democrat. Why should they? They know that for all our protest marches and phone calls to their offices that on election day most of us are going to march into voting booths and vote for candidates that are going to do exactly the opposite of what we say we want. Knowing that, of course they don't take us seriously.

So, voting Green does two things. First, if all the people who really opposed these wars started voting Green (or independent or libertarian, etc), then you'd actually see them winning some elections. The Dems put forth this myth that the war in popular, when polling data says 70% or so of the people oppose it and want us out.

Secondly, even a sizeable losing vote for the Greens would mean that our views would start to be taken seriously. It would be a firm statement that you can't take our votes for granted. And it would come with the threat that the Green vote would grow even larger in the following elections.

I just heard about an interview made yesterday with a Slovenian citizen. If anyone else knows more - please clarify.

As I understand, he was asked 'If you could be the president of the US for one day and could do anything you wanted, what would that be?'

He thought a moment and then said something to the effect "I would disenfranchise the residents of the US from voting for their president. They don't do such a good job. Since the US has essentially established an empire around the world, all the other citizens of the world should be the ones to select the next president - not people from the US."

The concept to understand is that no one can effectively take on and defeat the Establishment (MIC). Nor can they overthrow corporate influence. These two entities are too powerful and control politics. You can put anyone you want in the Oval Office and they will not be able to successfully take on these two powerhouses. The only way to stop them is through mass protest including giving up shopping (except for the bare essentials). I understand what Dave Lindorff is saying about the Obama movement, but it needs a leader who, come hell or high water, will LEAD the movement ALL the way. Given the recent history of those who tried to take on the Establishment, we all know what happened to them. This one is entirely up to the people, not the politicians. We need to take back our country.

And incidentally, the "ants" quote was taken out of context. Fallon is on record as having said war on Iran would not happen "on his watch." The "ants" quote was addressing the question of whether Iraq's military posed a threat to the US, and I would agree with him that it does not. That is, even if Iran got an atomic bomb, it would be no threat to the U.S.--or Israel--both of which countries have overwhelming nuclear capability.

As for voting Green in November, trust me, if the country is at war with Iran at that point, the last thing you're going to want to see is John McCain winning the White House, and no Green candidate will prevent that.

I'm afraid that voting Green in America is about as revolutionary as recycling your newspapers, and about as potent, and if we want to challenge the American war machine, we may, in the end, have to do it by abandoning this country and joining the resistance to it.

In the meantime, our best hope may be to try strengthen the hand of the capitalists who oppose the neo-con goal of endless war. In this flawed political system we don't have much in the way of options.

Sure, you can call Obama if you want.

But, the first thing to realize is that whatever he says now has absolutely nothing to do with what he'll do after he's elected. Its all BS. And after he's got your vote and is elected, he won't listen to you nor give a damn what you think.

Also, I'd fall off my chair if Obama took a strong position on anything. What he'll almost certainly do is to make a statement with such mealy-mouthed and convoluted language that the people who want him to be against attacking Iran will believe that he is. But the language would also be so muddy and unclear that he'll also be able to say that's not what he meant at all when he changes his policy after the election.

To understand where the Dems really stand, think back to last year.

For awhile, there was language in the Defense auth bill that would require Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. Since it was tied to the funding, it actually had some teeth to it.

Pelosi and the Dem leadership struck that language from the bill. Then Pelosi went to the AIPAC convention to get standing ovations for what a great supporter of Israel she is.

So, now you expect the Dems to stop this? Quit dreaming. You should have voted Green last time. And I wish you'd vote Green this time around. Then we might have a chance of stopping the next one. Our chances of stopping this one went out the window when everyone wasted their vote on the Democrats in 2006.

Look, if the US attacks Iran, we may not have a democracy afterwards. You can knock Obama all you want, but at the moment, and we're probably talking about the next few months at most, the country is being set on a course for war, and Obama, who's trying to win a nomination in a nation that doesn't want a war, is the best chance we have to fight to prevent if. If he can win the nomination by calling for peace, and by adamantly speaking out against war with Iran, it would strengthen the hand of those in the military leadership like Fallon, who oppose it, and of those of lower rank who can resist it.

It's not that Obama is the great black hope. He's not. But if "his" movement demands that he take a stand, he very well might.

Besides, there's the fact that much of the corporate world outside the oil and defense establishment, probably recognizes that an attack on Iran is going to smash the global economy.

What the peace movement can do in the short term is try to exacerbate the split within the capitalist/ruling class, to try and prevent this next war.

DL should surely know better.

"That's why Adm. Fallon was so opposed to the whole idea."

He WAS NOT and IS NOT opposed to "the idea." From the Esquire interview, on an illegal, aggressive war with Iran:

"Get serious. They're ants. WHEN the time comes, we'll crush them."

Not IF the time comes.

WHEN the time comes.

Non-serious people consider 75+ million Iranians living in a country over 4000 years old, well, people. But, according to Fallon, "serious" people consider them ANTS to be CRUSHED at the right TIME.

So, wake the f**k up already - Fallon WAS NOT OPPOSED to crushing the Iranian ANTS, he just didn't agree on what time to do it!!!!

Everyone misses the fact that Obama is pro-war.

Yeah, back when he was a state senator he made a comment against the Iraq War. He represented an urban district that was anti-war, so it would have been politicaly bad for him to do otherwise.

Since he's been in the Senate, he's consistently supported all our wars. As I mentioned above, he threatened war against Iran when talking to AIPAC. Up until this year, he voted to fully fund the Iraq war. He's made speeches threatening to expand the war into Pakistan. At the time of his 2004 convention speech he was giving interviews saying his views on the Iraq war and Bush's were very much in alignment.

This is what I don't get about the Obama cult. They consistently project upon Obama beliefs that Obama never claims. Obama just goes around seeing how many times he can say 'hope' or 'change' in his speeches (just like Bush and 'freedom' by the way), and then never says what that means. So everyone seems to believe that Obama believes what they believe. But you have to be not paying any attention at all to belief that.

There will be elections. Count on it. I keep hearing this same nonsense over and over. And its pure nonsense.

Why not have elections when all the potential candidates represent the same class of Americans? The only thing the elections would do is to replace the cowboy puppet with an Obama puppet.

Not having elections would be very risky for them as that would risk waking up the American people that they don't live in a free and democratic country anymore. They don't today, but the phony elections we have hides that fact from most Americans. The last thing on earth that they would do would be to risk waking people up to that fact.

So, is this the same Sen. Obama that went to AIPAC and gave a speech saying 'all options are on the table', when at the time the Bush\Cheney crowd was using exactly the same language to hint at a nuclear strike upon Iran?

Sure, you can call. In fact, if you live in one of the few states that hasn't had its primary yet, he might even lie to you and say that he opposes the attack on Iran. But, it won't mean a damn thing to what he'll do if elected. After he's elected, he'll do exactly what the big money that supports the Democratic Party tells him to do. And you'll be out in the streets alongside me protesting. Only I won't be the one who's confused while you will be because you were naive enough to believe what a Democrat said during an election.

And, the peace pageant in Ithaca, NY at 2pm on Sat. 3/15, w/ music, theater, etc.; on the Ithaca Commons.

Have we all forgotten, that when the strike on Iran starts....the elections will not happen?
YUP, marshall law.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=117&a=1431

http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=17432

You still talk as if the Dems are a different and opposing force to the Republicans. But, when the DLC (Democratic Leadership Council ... founded and led originally by people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Joe Lieberman) took over the Democratic Party in the late 80's\early 90's they committed the Democrats to be dependent on big contributors just like the Republicans. They cut loose from the traditional Democratic bases of support such as labor unions, environmentalists and the peace movement and instead committed today's Democratic Party to being dependent on rich contributors and media-based campaigns of negative attack ads. In other words, today's Democratic Party bases its success and survival on exactly the same classes of American society that have always supported the Republicans.

This is why the Democrats are now "Republican-lite", or "corporate America's B-team".

And this is why its a fallacy to even suggest that the Democrats would want to impeach Bush or Cheney. They won't do it because they represent the same people who support Bush and Cheney.

If you look closely, you can see this. For instance, in the spring of 2006, long before the elections, Reid and Pelosi announced that if the Democrats took control of Congress, then there would be no impeachment of Bush or Cheney. They made this announcement very clearly, such that there should be no mistaking their intentions.

Amongst the rich Americans and the corporations that now control both parties, this message was received and acknowledged. Its timing of months before the election means that it was a clear signal from the Democrats to these big money sources that it was 'safe' to let the Democrats take control of Congress. After this announcement, you started to see much more money flowing into the Dem party and the corporate media did not massively object to the Dems congressional campaigns.

This is the reality of today's Democratic party. Its not that they are scared of impeaching Bush or Cheney. Its that they have absolutely no intention of doing so.

If you listen closely to the Democrats, it is clear that their 'enemy' is the left. They always reserve their strongest and most vicious attacks for the left. Look at how they react to the Greens and the idea of Nader running for President. Find all the quotes where they get caught saying what they really feel and they call us "idiot liberals" (Rep Obey) or wish they could have us arrested for loitering (Rep. Pelosi).

Meanwhile, Democratic party supporters always seem surprised and shocked, shocked I say, when the Democrats now consistently support and vote for the Republican bills and nominees.

It is clear that this leadership of the Democratic Party takes as its goal and mission as to PROTECT Bush and Cheney from criminal charges and impeachment. The evidence is there to easily justify starting an investigation. And the support for that is there in public opinion polls. The only thing that is blocking an impeachment of Bush and Cheney is the leadership of the Democratic Party. They are the ones saying that this will not proceed and that it must not be pushed. IE, the leadership of the Democratic Party is protecting Bush and Cheney and making sure they finish out their term.

Its important to understand this. If it was merely a failure of personal courage on the part of some Dems, then they could be replaced. Instead, it is very important to understand the fundamental change in the nature of the Democratic Party that's taken place in the last 20 years. People must start to understand exactly what today's Democratic Party represents and who they represent in the government.

That leads to this. If you wanted impeachment, voting Democrat was a waste in 2006. If you wanted to stop the Iraq war or to stop the launching of additional wars, voting Democrat was a waste in 2006. When people voted Democrat, they voted to continue the same policies with just a different face as before. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

If you want something different, you have to vote differently. Vote Green. Vote independent. Just stop voting Democrat.

OR, maybe they'll all sit down together and have a nice cup of tea..........

Dave - you left out peace vigil, march and fast in San Jose.

Now would be a good time to call the Obama campaign, or his office in the Senate (202-225-3121) and let them know that he won't get your primary vote unless he proves his bonafides by speaking out forcefully against any attack on Iran. Such an attack would be a Crime Against Peace, under the UN Charter and, since the US is a signatory, under US Law. It would be an impeachable act, and Obama, a constitutional law professor, knows that and should say so.

You might also use that same number to contact your members of Congress and demand that they speak out.

May I remind one and all that there is a day of action planned in DC, and around the country (check out http://answer.pephost.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ANS_homepage

It would be a good time to strike for a day (or call in sick) for peace and attend the rally nearest you!

Dave Lindorff
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net

Conspiracy Theory Disclaimer Advised:
Knowns:
1) Hillary's hanging in even though logic says it's a no win
2) Been suggested she's hoping for a Denver miracle
3) Wants to frame contest on National Security/Commander in Chief argument
4) (Historical frame: husband Bill been cozy with the Bush's).
5) Commander Fallon (there'll be no war with Iran on my watch) resigns (actually, most say forced out)

Predictions:
6) Bush/Cheney start war with Iran.
7) Hillary captures nomination on fear/War Commander campaign. Hillary or McCain becomes President.

Why?
Bush has two nominees, McCain and Clinton, who are both pro-war.
(Remember, he recently said something to the effect that the U.S. policy on Iraq will stay the same AFTER the next President is in charge?)

My personal favorite conspiracy theory:

Both Clinton and Bush have used thought reading technology covertly on Americans. Both have a vested interested in not prosecuting/or even embarrassing their legacy's with this info. Re: McCain, anyone what to venture that the smart $ is on McCain also agreeing to legislating this dirty technology?

OH! SHIT!< NO SHIT!
SPITZER! SHITZER! (Man, you let us down)

Siouxrose, you're thinking correctly. I think it would be called a military coup, something we have been supporting overseas for a long time for our convenience. I have no doubt that there is much thought and at least some vieled conversations within the upper eschalons of our military about your suggestion. They swore to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and what bigger enemy has our country faced than this Administration?

Although I am protected by the First Amendment, my paranoia......OH! SHIT!!!!!!!!!

If the Dems ever did decide to impeach, I think the Administration would simply laugh in their faces. I think the Dems won't consider it because they are afraid to test if they have any power left to them, as they are an isolated island amidst lock-step Republicans and surrounded by Bush appointed loyalists. If you don't use the flashlight, you won't have to face the fact that the batteries are already dead.

rsterling1:

Thank you for adding this critical piece to the Lindorff scenario. Right-wingers in Israel and their paid agents in AIPAC and on White House staffs have been agitating to attack Iran for decades. They have the fourth or fifth largest military on Earth and about 200 nuclear warheads.

If they should get involved in any way, there will be such an uprising in the already chaotic Middle East (long fueled by Israel and the West) that it is highly unlikely that Israel could survive the reaction. And if they, or we, start tossing nukes around, the bets on survival for our species won't really be all that good either.

I guess Oh Shit says it as well as it can be said.

Who in our Senate supports Joe Lieberman 100%?

Congress left the door open to an attack on Iran by labeling Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Bush claims he can unilaterally attack terrorists anywhere, so, ergo, he can attack Iran. And he's already stated that he will not leave office before destroying Iran's nuclear program. He might relent if he thinks McCain is a shoe-in, because if he doesn't attack Iran then McCain will. Either way, an attack on Iran would destroy what's left of the U.S. economy, leading to greater resistance and possibly a civil war. At that point we can only hope that, as in the first Civil War, the forces of equality and freedom prevail.

Check out www.aipac.org and see how they are still fear mongering and stoking the embers of conflict with Iran.

Zionist Israel and their supporters seemingly will not be content until the MidEast is further engulfed in conflict and ruin allowing reactionary Israel to continue its theft of the entire "Greater Israel".

These right wing forces may believe this is strategically their best time. Bush is still in office and the contesting Dems have been cowed into either obeisance or silence.

It's time for progressives to speak out loud and clear. We have two AIPAC leaders under indictment for espionage in the US (about US policy re Iran).

BTW I hope readers are aware that reactionary forces have their agents and some of them write in here as well. The alarms should go off whenever you see someone posting racist or genuinely anti-semitic comments. The goal is to undermine or taint legitimate criticism.

Make that 110.09...

Cranky right-wingers believe there will be a jump in the oil price just before an ill-conceived attack. Yes, most cranky right-wingers think it would be most ill-conceived. They heard the "shark music" when they read the news, too. So, the price of oil is nice and steady at, uh, 109.95 right now, does that help soothe your fears?

Obama/Fallon? ___ Hillary/Fallon? ___Fallon/Edwards or Kucinich? I fear it will happen before the election and it will be King George for a long, long time. Then those Fema prisons will have a purpose. After all, if you buy somethng ___ you should use it.

"This is the man's parting shot as he leaves office– to put the country into the throes of a war so vicious that no one will think of pursuing him for his long list of crimes against the nation and the Constitution."

Or it could be the attempt to prompt the event they really need---9/11 2.0---so they can "permanentize" their regime.

"I don't think a red flag event will be necessary. We'll just wake up one morning soon, and the bombs will have already been launched."

Agreed. We still naively think that the "mainstream" media---which has held us down while the Corpublicrats fucked us---will actually report on something substantial. If only we could get Brad, Angelina, and Brittney to get involved in Iran, THEN we'd hear about it.

Can you say "military coup"? I never thought I'd live to see the day when that seemed to be the preferred alternative.

New Zealand is a nice place. I think I'll check out their immigration policies.

Cheney said a while back that we would invade Iran after the next 9/11 style terror attack, whether or not Iran was involved.

Democrats in congress see no pressing reason to impeach. Nuclear war doesn't rise to the occasion.

Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman war cheerleading bill, on behalf of her Israeli bosses.

God help us.