9/17/07
Sally Fields UNCENSORED Speech
punditman says: Sally says: “And, let’s face it, if the mothers ruled the world, there would be no goddam wars in the first place.”
The FOX network, which broadcast the awards show, censored Field, near the end, supposedly to delete an expletive. Canada's CTV did not.
Is the "Terrorist Threat" Another Bush-Cheney Fabrication?
by Sherwood Ross
Global Research, September 16, 2007
In the most massive racial profiling since Japanese-Americans were herded into detention camps in World War II, the Bush administration after 9/11 required 80,000 Arab and Muslim foreign nationals living here to be photographed, fingerprinted and subjected to “special registration,” The Nation magazine said. The publication reports an additional 8,000 foreign nationals were sought out by the FBI for interviews and more than 5,000 foreign nationals were put in “preventive detention” --- a total of 93,000 people made to register, subjected to interview, or jailed.
“Yet as of September, 2007, not one of these people stands convicted of a terrorist crime,” says an article titled, “Why We’re Losing The War on Terror.” Reading the data it presents, though, and examining other reliable sources, raises the question of whether the “terrorist threat” to USA isn’t wildly exaggerated or an outright fabrication. Here’s why:
The above-cited pattern of dragnet arrests without trials or convictions is being repeated across the Middle East with like results. The Bush regime is literally framing thousands of innocent men and boys to make it appear they constitute a “terrorist” threat to America. Yes, boys, some as young as eight.
Keep Reading...
Global Research, September 16, 2007
In the most massive racial profiling since Japanese-Americans were herded into detention camps in World War II, the Bush administration after 9/11 required 80,000 Arab and Muslim foreign nationals living here to be photographed, fingerprinted and subjected to “special registration,” The Nation magazine said. The publication reports an additional 8,000 foreign nationals were sought out by the FBI for interviews and more than 5,000 foreign nationals were put in “preventive detention” --- a total of 93,000 people made to register, subjected to interview, or jailed.
“Yet as of September, 2007, not one of these people stands convicted of a terrorist crime,” says an article titled, “Why We’re Losing The War on Terror.” Reading the data it presents, though, and examining other reliable sources, raises the question of whether the “terrorist threat” to USA isn’t wildly exaggerated or an outright fabrication. Here’s why:
The above-cited pattern of dragnet arrests without trials or convictions is being repeated across the Middle East with like results. The Bush regime is literally framing thousands of innocent men and boys to make it appear they constitute a “terrorist” threat to America. Yes, boys, some as young as eight.
Keep Reading...
9/13/07
The George W. Bush Presidential Library Archive
punditman says:
The Presidential Library network is overseen by the Office of Presidential Libraries, a branch of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). These repositories preserve and make publicly available, papers, records, and other historical materials of U.S. Presidents dating back to Herbert Hoover.
In 1939, President Roosevelt donated his personal and Presidential papers to the federal government and the Presidential library system formally began. Previously, many Presidential papers and records had been lost, destroyed, sold, or ruined. Thus Roosevelt sought to establish a public repository to preserve the evidence of each Presidency for posterity. Congress legislated this policy and passed the Presidential Libraries Act in 1955, which was amended in 1986.
Currently there are twelve Presidential Libraries. Assets include personal papers and historical materials donated by people associated with the President. These include cabinet officials, envoys, political party associates, family and friends. The most important texts are those created by the President and his staff during the course of his tenure.
One day, George Dubya will have his very own library that pays homage to his legacy. Indeed plans are already afoot!
Punditman thought it would be interesting to speculate on the titles and authors of some of these texts. This is where you come in, dear reader. Feel free to submit new, creative titles and/or ideas for consideration in the comments section below or by sending an email to: planetway [at] netscape.net
Now, here is the Punditman starter list:
THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY ARCHIVE
1. How To Win Friends and Steal Elections
by Chad Hanging
2. The Nine Hundred And Eleven Years War
by Osama bin Laden (forward by Richard Pearle)
3. The Dry Drunk’s Guide To World Domination: A 12-Step Program
by The Project For A New American Catastrophe (PNAC)
4. Some Of My Best Friends Were Ragheads
by Donald “Guns” Dumsfeld
5. Dispatches From Hell: My Nine Hundred And Eleven Tours in Iraq
by G.I. Joe
6. The Seven Secrets Of A Highly Susceptible Public
by Karl Rove
7. Ain’t Ready To Make Nice
by Dick Zee Cheney
8. How We All Made a Killing off Creative Destruction and Destructive Creationism
by The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
9. Vietnam Revisited: Why The War That I Avoided Should Never Have Ended
by George W. Bush
10. The Pet Goat
(Revised Edition For Slow Readers)
The Presidential Library network is overseen by the Office of Presidential Libraries, a branch of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). These repositories preserve and make publicly available, papers, records, and other historical materials of U.S. Presidents dating back to Herbert Hoover.
In 1939, President Roosevelt donated his personal and Presidential papers to the federal government and the Presidential library system formally began. Previously, many Presidential papers and records had been lost, destroyed, sold, or ruined. Thus Roosevelt sought to establish a public repository to preserve the evidence of each Presidency for posterity. Congress legislated this policy and passed the Presidential Libraries Act in 1955, which was amended in 1986.
Currently there are twelve Presidential Libraries. Assets include personal papers and historical materials donated by people associated with the President. These include cabinet officials, envoys, political party associates, family and friends. The most important texts are those created by the President and his staff during the course of his tenure.
One day, George Dubya will have his very own library that pays homage to his legacy. Indeed plans are already afoot!
Punditman thought it would be interesting to speculate on the titles and authors of some of these texts. This is where you come in, dear reader. Feel free to submit new, creative titles and/or ideas for consideration in the comments section below or by sending an email to: planetway [at] netscape.net
Now, here is the Punditman starter list:
THE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY ARCHIVE
1. How To Win Friends and Steal Elections
by Chad Hanging
2. The Nine Hundred And Eleven Years War
by Osama bin Laden (forward by Richard Pearle)
3. The Dry Drunk’s Guide To World Domination: A 12-Step Program
by The Project For A New American Catastrophe (PNAC)
4. Some Of My Best Friends Were Ragheads
by Donald “Guns” Dumsfeld
5. Dispatches From Hell: My Nine Hundred And Eleven Tours in Iraq
by G.I. Joe
6. The Seven Secrets Of A Highly Susceptible Public
by Karl Rove
7. Ain’t Ready To Make Nice
by Dick Zee Cheney
8. How We All Made a Killing off Creative Destruction and Destructive Creationism
by The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
9. Vietnam Revisited: Why The War That I Avoided Should Never Have Ended
by George W. Bush
10. The Pet Goat
(Revised Edition For Slow Readers)
9/12/07
Hit and Myth: Poll Shows 1 in 3 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved in 9/11
By E&P Staff
NEW YORK Six years after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S., it seems the media still have some educational work to do. A new CBS/New York Times poll reveals that even today, 1 in 3 Americans believe that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."
This notion was thoroughly debunked by official sources, including those in the White House, years ago, but the myth endures. Polls have shown that belief in this untruth was a prime component in support for the attack on Iraq.
Four in 10 Republicans still hold this view, compared with 32% of Independents and 27% of Democrats.
The poll of 1,035 adults was taken Sept. 4 to 8.
Link...
punditman says: Help me with this, my American friends. This never ceases to amaze me: how can people be so stupid? I hope they don't vote!
NEW YORK Six years after the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S., it seems the media still have some educational work to do. A new CBS/New York Times poll reveals that even today, 1 in 3 Americans believe that "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon."
This notion was thoroughly debunked by official sources, including those in the White House, years ago, but the myth endures. Polls have shown that belief in this untruth was a prime component in support for the attack on Iraq.
Four in 10 Republicans still hold this view, compared with 32% of Independents and 27% of Democrats.
The poll of 1,035 adults was taken Sept. 4 to 8.
Link...
punditman says: Help me with this, my American friends. This never ceases to amaze me: how can people be so stupid? I hope they don't vote!
9/11/07
The Mystery of al-Qaeda
September 10, 2007
www.antiwar.com
Bin Laden's latest video throws new light on a murky subject
Justin Raimondo
Six years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the entity known as al-Qaeda remains largely a mystery: its intent, its ideology, its leadership, and its inner workings are all largely unknown to the American people. Experts study them and interpret the arcane meanings of their utterances in light of Koranic verses. The president of the United States and his allies aver that they hate us because we're so free, so prosperous, so utterly fabulous – yet still al-Qaeda is, at least in the popular mind, an army of shadows, in the sense that they don't seem quite real. The one major military operation undertaken by them, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, is practically the only evidence we have of their existence as an organized network, and, in recent years, it has become fashionable to describe Osama bin Laden as a purely symbolic figure, one who inspires actions by others but is in no position to direct the action.
Now, however, we have a new video featuring the terrorist leader, released just a few days ago, and, with it, a new evaluation of al-Qaeda and its leader as being much more active, and organized, than previously thought. This piece in the Washington Post portrays a revived organization that didn't take all that long to recover from the blows directed against it in Afghanistan and is today prospering under the leadership of a new layer of experienced and hardened cadre who have replaced those captured and killed. Now we are being told that al-Qaeda is more than just a symbolic entity, that the network that murdered almost 3,000 Americans on that bloody day six years ago is reestablishing itself, and that this reconstituted incarnation of pure evil is rearing its head once again to wreak destruction in new ways.
The message: be afraid, be very afraid.
The all-pervasive atmosphere of fear that spread, like a poisonous fog, from one end of the civilized world to the other in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is reasserting itself, and this new jolt of terror couldn't have come at a better time for our rulers – as they ratchet up the war propaganda and get ready to strike at Iran, Syria, and anyone else who dares defy them. This new assault on our reason – and that's what it is, make no mistake about it – comes at a plastic juncture in our political life, when Americans are getting ready to change their leadership and it looks like the other party might get a chance in power. The plasticity of this moment is further emphasized by the long-touted "report" of Gen. David Petraeus, the War Party's messiah, who is primed to tell us we're on the verge of "victory" in Iraq, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. The massive antiwar sentiment that allowed the Democrats to take Capitol Hill is stalled, and the War Party – in spite of being discredited by its lies and its crimes – is back, with a vengeance.
At this dramatic turning point, bin Laden reappears with a half-hour long tape, the transcript of which can be found here, and there is something very odd about it, in that it reads like a political polemic that might have been written by an American. It cites Noam Chomsky, as well as the Koran, and excoriates "the neoconservatives" by name, including Richard Perle. There are two mentions of the neocons, and the first is very strange.
Keep Reading...
punditman says: Many questions remain surrounding the symbiotic relationship between al-Qaeda and the neo conservative cabal in Washington, both of whom benefit from permanent war.
www.antiwar.com
Bin Laden's latest video throws new light on a murky subject
Justin Raimondo
Six years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the entity known as al-Qaeda remains largely a mystery: its intent, its ideology, its leadership, and its inner workings are all largely unknown to the American people. Experts study them and interpret the arcane meanings of their utterances in light of Koranic verses. The president of the United States and his allies aver that they hate us because we're so free, so prosperous, so utterly fabulous – yet still al-Qaeda is, at least in the popular mind, an army of shadows, in the sense that they don't seem quite real. The one major military operation undertaken by them, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, is practically the only evidence we have of their existence as an organized network, and, in recent years, it has become fashionable to describe Osama bin Laden as a purely symbolic figure, one who inspires actions by others but is in no position to direct the action.
Now, however, we have a new video featuring the terrorist leader, released just a few days ago, and, with it, a new evaluation of al-Qaeda and its leader as being much more active, and organized, than previously thought. This piece in the Washington Post portrays a revived organization that didn't take all that long to recover from the blows directed against it in Afghanistan and is today prospering under the leadership of a new layer of experienced and hardened cadre who have replaced those captured and killed. Now we are being told that al-Qaeda is more than just a symbolic entity, that the network that murdered almost 3,000 Americans on that bloody day six years ago is reestablishing itself, and that this reconstituted incarnation of pure evil is rearing its head once again to wreak destruction in new ways.
The message: be afraid, be very afraid.
The all-pervasive atmosphere of fear that spread, like a poisonous fog, from one end of the civilized world to the other in the wake of the 9/11 attacks is reasserting itself, and this new jolt of terror couldn't have come at a better time for our rulers – as they ratchet up the war propaganda and get ready to strike at Iran, Syria, and anyone else who dares defy them. This new assault on our reason – and that's what it is, make no mistake about it – comes at a plastic juncture in our political life, when Americans are getting ready to change their leadership and it looks like the other party might get a chance in power. The plasticity of this moment is further emphasized by the long-touted "report" of Gen. David Petraeus, the War Party's messiah, who is primed to tell us we're on the verge of "victory" in Iraq, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. The massive antiwar sentiment that allowed the Democrats to take Capitol Hill is stalled, and the War Party – in spite of being discredited by its lies and its crimes – is back, with a vengeance.
At this dramatic turning point, bin Laden reappears with a half-hour long tape, the transcript of which can be found here, and there is something very odd about it, in that it reads like a political polemic that might have been written by an American. It cites Noam Chomsky, as well as the Koran, and excoriates "the neoconservatives" by name, including Richard Perle. There are two mentions of the neocons, and the first is very strange.
Keep Reading...
punditman says: Many questions remain surrounding the symbiotic relationship between al-Qaeda and the neo conservative cabal in Washington, both of whom benefit from permanent war.
A one-day guide to war supporters and their enablers
Today's war-perpetuating behavior from Mike O'Hanlon, Joe Lieberman, John McCain and David Ignatius is an excellent guide for what has happened over the last six years.
Glenn Greenwald
Sep. 10, 2007 | As war cheerleaders and their enablers lay the groundwork for the glorious testimony of Gen. Petraeus, it is hard to recall a day so suffuse with war propaganda. Reviewing just a few selected samples illustrates how fact-free is the campaign to prolong this war. And the activities of today provide a very vivid guide for identifying those most responsible for launching this war and enabling its endless continuation, and for understanding how they behave.
Let us begin with left-wing, liberal war opponent Michael O'Hanlon, who today finds a home to write about the war in National Review -- long renown for publishing the works of anti-war liberals like O'Hanlon -- alongside Fred Kagan, Mark Steyn, Byron York and John Boehner. O'Hanlon, as usual, predicates his argument on the homage he pays to Gen. Petraeus, declaring in the first sentence: "General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books."
Citing his fellow surge advocate, NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon (who, in turn, featured O'Hanlon as his principal "expert" in his pro-war front page article this weekend), O'Hanlon argues:
Petraeus will argue that the overall situation has improved substantially this year. He will be right to do so, based on virtually any primary-source data I have seen.
Identically, John McCain and Joe Lieberman said in a Wall St. Journal Op-Ed today that it is "undeniable" that "facts on the ground in Iraq have improved."
Perhaps O'Hanlon, McCain and Lieberman have not "seen" this "primary-source data":
Keep Reading....
punditman says: Where would Bush be without these war enablers?
Glenn Greenwald
Sep. 10, 2007 | As war cheerleaders and their enablers lay the groundwork for the glorious testimony of Gen. Petraeus, it is hard to recall a day so suffuse with war propaganda. Reviewing just a few selected samples illustrates how fact-free is the campaign to prolong this war. And the activities of today provide a very vivid guide for identifying those most responsible for launching this war and enabling its endless continuation, and for understanding how they behave.
Let us begin with left-wing, liberal war opponent Michael O'Hanlon, who today finds a home to write about the war in National Review -- long renown for publishing the works of anti-war liberals like O'Hanlon -- alongside Fred Kagan, Mark Steyn, Byron York and John Boehner. O'Hanlon, as usual, predicates his argument on the homage he pays to Gen. Petraeus, declaring in the first sentence: "General Petraeus is a straight shooter who does not and will not cook the books."
Citing his fellow surge advocate, NYT "reporter" Michael Gordon (who, in turn, featured O'Hanlon as his principal "expert" in his pro-war front page article this weekend), O'Hanlon argues:
Petraeus will argue that the overall situation has improved substantially this year. He will be right to do so, based on virtually any primary-source data I have seen.
Identically, John McCain and Joe Lieberman said in a Wall St. Journal Op-Ed today that it is "undeniable" that "facts on the ground in Iraq have improved."
Perhaps O'Hanlon, McCain and Lieberman have not "seen" this "primary-source data":
Seven out of 10 Iraqis believe the U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad and Anbar province has made security worse in those areas, and nearly as many say their own lives are going badly, according to a new poll conducted by ABC News, the British Broadcasting Corp., and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.
The poll reveals a disconnect between U.S. commanders' view of a steadily improving situation in Iraq and a bleaker outlook among Iraqis. . . . Fewer than one-quarter of Iraqis report that things in Iraq are going well, down from 35 percent in March, while the number of people who expect conditions to improve in the next year has declined precipitously.
Keep Reading....
punditman says: Where would Bush be without these war enablers?
9/10/07
Prelude To War? World Is Worried...
by- Suzie-Q @ 9:45 PM MST
The chilling report that the Pentagon is planning a "three-day blitz" targeting Iran hasn't gotten much play here in the U.S. The British press, meanwhile, has been buzzing with what the Bush administration's plan is for Iran, and the news isn't good.
The Times of London, which reported on the Pentagon's plans, has a source who claims that the U.S. is looking to launch air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran.
The Department of Defense is always "planning" something. It's what a military does, scenario planning. But with the tough talk coming from President Bush and a series of odd bits of news (a proposed gradual troop drawdown from Bush and the jet carrying nuclear weapons over the U.S. "by mistake"), a bunch of grim theories are emerging.
We can engage in scenario planning, too. For example: Why would Bush want to start pulling out troops earlier than the date suggested by Democrats (a plan he shot down)? To send them elsewhere, perhaps? And the DailyKos.com reports that the base at which the nuke-carrying B-52 landed, in Barksdale, La., is "a jumping off point for Middle East operations." The U.K.'s Sunday Telegraph, meanwhile, reports that recently "a group of Bush administration staffers is gathered to consider the gravest threat their government has faced this century: the testing of a nuclear weapon by Iran."
Cross posted at Suzie-Q blog.
9/6/07
Staging Nukes for Iran?
By Larry Johnson
Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.
So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Then he told me something I had not heard before.
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?
His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.
Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.
punditman says...Looks like they are definitely up to something.
Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.
So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.
Then he told me something I had not heard before.
Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?
His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.
Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.
punditman says...Looks like they are definitely up to something.
9/4/07
Cheney Orders Media To Sell Attack On Iran
Fox News, Wall Street Journal instructed to launch PR blitz for upcoming military strike
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Dick Cheney has ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell a war with Iran from today, according to Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University.
The New Yorker magazine reports that Rubin had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that "instructions" had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.
Keep Reading...
punditman says: Dick Cheney is certainly capable of this...watch the airwaves soon become awash in anti-Iranian propaganda. How many of the stupefied masses will lap it up this time?
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Dick Cheney has ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell a war with Iran from today, according to Barnett Rubin, the highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University.
The New Yorker magazine reports that Rubin had a conversation with a member of a top neoconservative institution in Washington, who told him that "instructions" had been passed on from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day.
"It will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects, writes Rubin, "It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don’t think they’ll ever get majority support for this—they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is “plenty.”
Keep Reading...
punditman says: Dick Cheney is certainly capable of this...watch the airwaves soon become awash in anti-Iranian propaganda. How many of the stupefied masses will lap it up this time?
9/3/07
Bush Plans War on Iran
by Prof. Marjorie Cohn
The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Pentagon has plans for three days of massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran . Last week, Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center , told a meeting of The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, that the military did not intend to carry out "pinprick strikes" against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said, "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military."
Bush has already set the wheels in motion. With Rovian timing, Alberto Gonzales' resignation was sandwiched between two Bush screeds - one aimed at ensuring Congress scares up $50 billion more for the occupation of Iraq , the other designed to scare us into supporting war on Iran . As Gonzales rides off into the sunset, the significant questions are who will take his place and how that choice will facilitate Bush's occupation of Iraq and attack on Iran .
One name that's been floated for Bush's third attorney general is Joe Lieberman, the "independent" senator from Connecticut . Lieberman, who advocates the use of military force against Iran , was the only person Bush quoted in his August 28 speech to the American Legion. Bush called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and pledged to "confront Tehran 's murderous activities."
Full article...
punditman says:
Look for the real propaganda campaign to begin shortly.
The Sunday Times of London is reporting that the Pentagon has plans for three days of massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran . Last week, Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center , told a meeting of The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, that the military did not intend to carry out "pinprick strikes" against Iranian nuclear facilities. He said, "They're about taking out the entire Iranian military."
Bush has already set the wheels in motion. With Rovian timing, Alberto Gonzales' resignation was sandwiched between two Bush screeds - one aimed at ensuring Congress scares up $50 billion more for the occupation of Iraq , the other designed to scare us into supporting war on Iran . As Gonzales rides off into the sunset, the significant questions are who will take his place and how that choice will facilitate Bush's occupation of Iraq and attack on Iran .
One name that's been floated for Bush's third attorney general is Joe Lieberman, the "independent" senator from Connecticut . Lieberman, who advocates the use of military force against Iran , was the only person Bush quoted in his August 28 speech to the American Legion. Bush called Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism" and pledged to "confront Tehran 's murderous activities."
Full article...
punditman says:
Look for the real propaganda campaign to begin shortly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)