The Bush Administration is Scheming to Create a Pretext for an Iran War!
Bush Administration could create decades of horrors for the American people if they are allowed to get away with what they want to do next after they have already created such enormous misery for us. We must act now to impeach these politicians for their outrageous, illegal and dangerous acts.
"Cheney has always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he’d find a way to do it." - David Obey
A note to a Youtuber about "Socialism," here are the links I mentioned:
Here is info I added to explain a bit about how the economy actually works:
Chomsky makes this point about the US economy, "the major part is that there is a dynamic state sector in the economy which is the core of economic innovation and development. Research and development takes place mainly in the state sector." See: Costs are socialized, profits are privatized
This post gives good examples from Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson and a link to this revealing quote: "People who are not in the Midwest do not understand that this is a socialist country." - Dwayne Andreas of Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) See: The Fraud of Neoliberal Economic Theory
President Bush continues his threats, continuing to openly violate international law and putting us all at greater risk of suffering the horrors of a what could be a world war.
Colin Brown , Deputy Political Editor of the Independent, seems unaware or purposely downplaying the fact that Bush is in violation of international law. Note Colin Brown's choice of words (they don't convey that Bush is engaged in a wrong and that he is threatening a serious war crime): Bush threatens Iran with military action
Colin Brown writes, "Mr Bush left no doubt that the US is holding military action in reserve. Thanking Mr Brown for keeping together the European alliance "so that we can solve this problem diplomatically", Mr Bush said: "That is my first choice. The Iranians must understand that all options are on the table, however." VIDEO:Project CHECKMATE Could Create Ten Times More Horrors
Attacking Iran would be a war crime. Threatening to attack Iran is a crime in itself.
And look how the authors at Spiegel also write as if this madness is perfecly natural and on the level. Contact Ralf Beste, Cordula Meyer and Christoph Schult and tell them there is still such thing as war crimes. The angle and tone of the article is disgusting. Israeli Ministers Mull Plans for Military Strike against Iran
"An Israeli attack will be seen as a US attack. Iran will retaliate against both Israel and the US."
John Perry writes, "Still waiting for the House Judiciary Chairman to honor his oath and do his job by launching impeachment hearings. This video features a reading of the message I faxed to Mr. Conyers on Monday afternoon (6/9/08), with cc's to my rep and senators." Text of fax here. See link to poll in video description of his video. Perry writes:
Contact John Conyers. Tell him to honor his oath to the Constitution and do the job the people expect of him.
Jonathan Schwarz of TinyRevolution.com gives this update and advice, "Congress has sent Dennis Kucinich's 35 articles of impeachment for Bush to the Judiciary Committee. The vote was 255-161, with the majority made up of every Democrat plus 24 Republicans. One thing anyone who cares (Polls show a large number of us do, and that is with what people know so far.) about this can do is contact John Conyers [(202) 225-5126], or your representative if they're on Judiciary. You might also want to sign this new Democrats.com petition calling on Tim Russert to put Kucinich on Meet the Press to discuss impeachment."
We shouldn't even have to beg Russert to do what he is supposed to. Russert was totally out of line with his UFO question at one of the debates. (one of the debates that Kucinich was allowed into but not allowed equal time.) The mainstream media wants to send a message to the public that they should not seriously consider some of the candidates. That is the game being played right now with the exclusions of Nader.
United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion." As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes, "the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."
And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."
"PROOF! BUSH & CHENEY LIED! *Someone MUST PAY!" is the title of a video posted by VOTERSTHINKdotORG
I don't know why Keith Olbermann says the Bush Administration lies were used for the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. First? The Iraq War isn't the first unprovoked war in U.S. history. Just take a recent example, Clinton's 1999 War on Kosovo.
"There are some striking similarities between Clinton's Kosovo campaign and George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq four years later. Both were wars of choice," writes Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior adviser to President Clinton. "Wars of choice," as Blumenthal euphemistically puts it, are by definition war crimes.
Editor of The Progressive magazine, Rothschild said: "What gives the United States and NATO the right to conduct this warfare? If the United States is going to engage in so-called humanitarian interventions, it is incumbent upon it to abide both by U.S. law and international law. It is doing neither here.
Chomksy points out, "let's look at the situation from the US point of view: There's a crisis, what do we do about it? One possibility is to work through the United Nations, which is the agency responsible under treaty obligations and international law for dealing with such matters. But the US made it clear a long time ago that it has total contempt for the institutions of world order, the UN, the World Court, and so on. In fact the US has been very explicit about that. This was not always the case. In the early days of the UN, the majority of countries backed the US because of its overwhelming political power. But that began to change when decolonisation was extended and the organisation and distribution of world power shifted. Now the US can no longer count on the majority of countries to go along with its demands. The UN is no longer a pliant, and therefore no longer a relevant, institution. This proposition became very explicit during the Reagan years and even more brazen during the Clinton years. So brazen that even right-wing analysts are worried about it. There is an interesting article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, an establishment journal in the US, warning Washington that much of the world regards the US as a "rogue super-power" and the single greatest threat to their existence. In fact, the US has placed itself totally above the rule of international law and international institutions."
United Press International journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave explains that he first heard people talking about "the inevitability" of the Iraq war when he was at a Dick Cheney book party held for Scooter Libby. Borchgrave says "the capital's top neocons" at the party "corrected" him for saying "if there is a war" because they were saying there was no "if" about it, "the decision had been made." They informed him that all the Bush Administration talk about the UN was nothing more than "the obligatory charade we had to go through for world public opinion." As for a motive why top neocons would want to deceive the American people into a war with Iraq, you can read about "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" which reveals that attacking Iraq was an agenda long before the 9/11 attacks which they dishonestly try to use as an excuse for the Iraq war. Three of Bush's top national security advisors had worked for "conservative pro-Israel think tanks" creating a plan in violation of international law which the necons do not respect. James Bamford, in his book A Pretext for War, writes, "the blueprint for the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. Ironically the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. At the time, the three officials were out of government and working for conservative pro-Israel think tanks. Perle and Feith had previously served in high level Pentagon positions during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In a very unusual move, the former--and future--senior American officials were acting as a sort of American privy council to the new Israeli Prime Minister."
And as if this all wasn't bad enough, Arnaud de Borchgrave points out that these guys are "all superhawks on Iran as well."
Posts
