Scary stuff on Colbert.

[tallahasseedem]

Baer is very informative.

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. Yes, its very, very scary. n/t

[burythehatchet]

2. I would love to see Colbert give up the schtick

when there is such an interesting guest on.

[October]

11. Couldn't agree more

I try to watch the show, but I have trouble enjoying it. Colbert's persona is just so obnoxious -- and he constantly interrupts the guests. Don't we already have to put up with this shit for real?????? The sick irony is that when there's a right-wing mouthpiece on the show, he doesn't disagree with them -- sure he gets in a few digs, but they get their say.

Tonight was particularly annoying. I wanted to hear Baer speak.

[Up2Late]

3. I don't think he's ever seen the show.

He's confused by the his shtick.

[tallahasseedem]

6. I think he toned it down a little...

quite frankly, I was left wanting more....maybe. I dont know if I could handle the complete truth.

[Maestro]

9. I just started a new thread about that.

Baer was confused!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. His new book, "Blow the House Down," is very good.

He says it's 90% fact, 10% fiction, but the CIA won't let him say which is which. If even part of his book is true, we are in deep sewage indeed. But then, I think we already figured that out.

[liam_laddie]

38. Baer's earlier books

"See No Evil" (Jan 2002) and "Sleeping With the Devil" (July 2003) are REQUIRED reading, if nothing
more than to help understand "Syriana." The first deals with his experiences in places in the world other than the Mid-East. These two were vetted by the CIA, surprising in itself; so much is revealed. Read the reader reviews on Amazon...

The new one, as he said to Colbert, is a novel..fiction...so he had leeway to say more about the madness.

I think he knew somewhat what to expect from Stephen; I can't imagine the bookers/producers sending a guest out there with no preparation. But maybe he was surprised that Colber's parody of O'Lielly
is so convincing. Baer might be a great actor, too! Lord knows, he had to act his way through lots of very risky situations!

Thruthtellers and whistleblowers may the saviors of this deeply-troubled and endangered (by the reich-wing corpo-fascists) country.

[Breeze54]

5. Spill it!

Please don't leave us all in suspense! ;) (Those of us who don't have cable!)

[tallahasseedem]

10. He was talking about how we invaded the wrong country...

it should have been Iran. He also talked about how Iran would sabotage the oil reserves if we screw with them.

[Breeze54]

15. Thanks!

Now I'll really have vivid nightmares. :scared:

[TheDebbieDee]

7. Sounds like he's helping to MIS-lead us.......

into a conflict with Iran.

I don't have a clue as to whom he's working for.......The bushies.....Isreal.....

[seabeyond]

14. he said they were the ones we should have gone after, but not now

he was saying now it is such a mess who knows. says if we go after iran, one bomb and they will blow up all the oil in iran, saudi and elsewhere. now he is saying we have given iran to iraq. was never advocating going to war with iran, just stating that was the country

[TheDebbieDee]

20. Wait a minute......

Wasn't Ahmed Chalabi, (the Iraqui that talked bush and cheney into believing that American soldiers would be welcomed with flowers and candy after an invasion) supposedly found to be working for the Iranians?

In fact, didn't the US Military or the CIA or some US agency search Chalabi's home in Iraq and confiscate thousands of documents several months ago?

[seabeyond]

24. and he was even wanted for a short time only to end up in iraqi

govt, yes.....

[Up2Late]

30. I think that search was May 2004.

Say it with me, Chalabi is a CON-Man.

It was stupid for anyone to ever trust him.

[Henny Penny]

39. Yes... but the pre-Shah anti-current Iranian Govt. Irananians. n/t

[me b zola]

18. It feels that way to me too

........okay, we made a mistake, but REALLY, Iran was involved with 911 and we should invade them. (not a real quote, but not too far off)

Warning, warning Will Robinson...CIA agent says we should attack Iran :scared:


Buyer beware

[tallahasseedem]

19. I dont think he said that we should invade them now...

I thought he said something to the effect that we invaded the wrong country and there is no way that we could invade Iran now because of what they will do.

[seabeyond]

25. yes n/t

[alfredo]

36. Bush has taught them how to beat us. Iraq was like a big

training video. The Taleban was watching too.

[Gregorian]

8. $hit.

Really scary. Everything said was frightening. I would like to know how seriously to take Baer. Is he a quack. I don't know his history.

But he talked all around some incredible issues. What Iran will do if provoked. What the conclusion of the Iraq fiasco is. And the scariest part is the job our administration has done on us.

[tallahasseedem]

13. I am not too familiar either.

I know Syrianna was based on his life and saw him on Bill Maher once. He seems like a very intelligent man.

[Gregorian]

17. I get the impression he's more experienced than intelligent.

His comment on invading Iran was a tipoff. But still, I have not been scared by this administration yet. But his interview gave me the chills.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Read his book..."See No Evil"...

...it truly was one of the most fascinating books I've ever read.

Baer's experience working at the CIA was gripping. He's a very interesting person with a colorful history.

How he got into the CIA, his professional growth, his work on the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut and his experiences in Gulf War 1---were just amazing.

I learned a great deal about the inner-workings of the CIA, and also why we are in deep doo-doo. We don't have enough agents working in foreign countries, infiltrating terrorists networks. According to Baer, we're relying too heavily on technology and gadgetry. ...Really startling stuff.

I highly rec'mend this book!

[Breeze54]

21. I haven't read the book yet but

I will now. I think I've seen this guy on interviews.
I know I've read about him before and heard his name.
I just can't picture his face right now.
Thanks again for the book recommendation.
:thumbsup: It sounds intriguing.

[Gregorian]

22. First person always commands respect

I think his statements regarding the lunatics we have in office is what really freaks me out. He painted a picture of an administration that is out of control.

And thanks for the tip. That sounds like an interesting read.

[catchnrelease]

35. Totally agree

I'm about 3/4 of the way thru See No Evil and you are right. It is fascinating, imformative and scary. I don't know anything about Baer other than what I'm getting from the book, but he seems pretty sharp. (Of course he's writing it, lol) And he doesn't have much good to say about the last couple of administrations. A good read.

[Up2Late]

27. Oh, I have no doubt he's right.

Sabotaging all the Saudi oil fields wouldn't be that difficult for Iran to do.

They probably have Iranian spies in deep cover in Saudi Arabia, and I believe they do have an Air Force, which can easily reach most of their oil fields to drop napalm.

And remember, we did just finish the Iran/Iraq war for them.

Did we ever sell them Cruse Missiles? If we didn't, I bet the French or the Russians did.

[Terran1212]

12. He's much too hawkish for my tastes, but very intelligent

[seabeyond]

23. did we watch the same interview. he was talking how iraq had nothing

to do with this. terrorist from saudi. iran had meeting with bin laden. we knew all this. that iran was the one to go after. that we cant attack iran, one bomb..... colbert cuts him off. gets back to it and says one bomb and iran blows up the oil in saudi, iran and elsewhere. says problem iran now has iraq with shiites. that all the middle east is messed up because of us. doesnt know what to do now

this is in between all of colberts interruptions and throwing the guy off, he is confused, not getting colbert

he was not advocating attacking iran. he says no

on middle east he concluded so messed up doesnt know what to do now

[tallahasseedem]

26. Was this meant for me?

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

28. no... for all the people dismissing him saying he said invade iran

and he didnt. no..... i jsut didnt want to post on every one of the peoples post..... so talking to everyne BUT you.... lol lol sorry

[tallahasseedem]

29. LOL!

For a second I was like hey what are you talking about we are on the same page!

[Up2Late]

32. O.K., let me translate. I won't try to quote him, that would just confuse

...all here, but here's what he meant.

If we had to go to war in 2003, in the Middle-East, which we didn't, then we should have hit Iran, not Iraq.

But now, since we ARE now over extended, and the Iraq War has multiplied the problems in the region x100, we can't hit Iran even if we wanted to.

We bombed the country we could bomb, not the one we should have bombed.

What we did, by bombing Iraq and deposing Saddam, we handed Iran the victory they had fought for in the Iran/Iraq War, which, if you remember, ended in a stalemate.

[tallahasseedem]

33. Excellent.

That was one of the really scary parts.

[seabeyond]

34. yes.... thank you..... n/t

[Up2Late]

37. Oh, and after re: watching the 1:00am show I should add...

...that he said IRAN was the country MOST responsible for 9/11.

Iran met with bin Laden (I think he said 1986, but it might have been 1996), and did most of the recruiting of the terrorist, and they bank rolled most of it too.

It's not there yet, but the video clip should be at this link by about mid-day Thursday: <http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml>

[Strelnikov_]

31. Iran Is The Bullfighter Waving A Red Cape At The Reich Wing Bull

And the sword behind the cape is the loss of access to Gulf energy resources, through both direct action and long term loss of influence in the region.

Iran: Consequences of a War
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefings/IranConsequences.htm

A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict.

Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran’s nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence.

The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further – alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be.

[Up2Late]

40. Here's the Comedy Central direct Video link, or catch the 8:30pm replay

<http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=71195>

More Colbert Report videos:
<http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml>