The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know

[Tinksrival]

Source: Esquire

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.
By John H. Richardson


In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

---

This is a long and chilling article. It's a must read for everyone. Mostly of all our elected representatives.
I'm sending it to Durbin, Obama, and my repub rep. Biggert.(not that she cares)

Bushco are all frickin' crazy and I am so sick of this shit. We can't let it happen again!

[jeff30997]

1. Yes,and "frickin' crazy " is an understatement !

Scary stuff.

[0007]

27. Very austere!

[leveymg]

2. DUPE.

In more ways than one. Same story was just posted a couple minutes ago in GD. Magazine article - not LBN.

What's the secret? the White House and the Israelis have been shouting this for years. Hasn't happened because it's not in the US national interest. Still isn't, won't happen.

[Tinksrival]

4. Crap, your right!

MSM sucks so bad. Good reporting only shows up in mags. :mad:

[Divine Discontent]

49. you know it...

that is the explanation so many people in the US do not understand... they control the airwaves and are going to push for candidates and issues that protect their owners... it's that or you lose your job... I'd rather lose my job, but many people will do anything for a salary, even if it means being complicit in thousands of troops having their heads blown off for the pleasure of our pResident (I like what that CA representative did in saying that, because it throws the "they dont' care about the troops" line on the GOP, big time!)

[tucsonlib]

5. "National Interest"?

You mean, like the invasion of Iraq? What actions has this administration ever undertaken for the "national interest"? Seems to me that their policy decisions are governed by a psychotic desire to implement a neo-con/dominionist agenda...

[leveymg]

6. Welcome to DU. Posted this in response to a similar question

over at the twin posting. Anyway, here goes:

Here's the major difference: in 2003 they thought the Iraq invasion was going to be quick and easy, like
the 1991 Gulf War. The Washington establishment learned a valuable lesson, and no one seriously believes that a war with Iran would be anything but long and costly. Many of the policymakers most central to the WMD deception that justified the 2003 invasion have been fired. Scooter Libby, a proxy for Cheney, was convicted.

After going through all that trouble to do necessary housecleaning, the Pentagon Generals and CIA aren't going to allow Bush and the remaining neocons to carry through on something as utterly insane as getting into a 50 year war with all the Shi'a Muslims in the world.

What we're seeing is a propaganda campaign intended to keep Iran off-balance as the US withdraws from Iraq. There is the hope, still held by some, that Iran will overreact to provocations, handing Washington the cause for war. They hope the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is semi-autonomous, will do something stupid, like take American counterhostages or shoot first at U.S. Navy ships. I think everyone is well aware of that strategy, and I pray it doesn't happen.

But, no, the US will not preemptively bomb Iran. The Persians are quite capable of inflicting very heavy damage on US forces in the region, Israel, and the Gulf States. The resulting regional war would escalate and the aftermath would slide into a slow, painful suicide for the US. We would cease to be a global superpower. Everyone knows it. So, I don't believe it will happen.

[Usrename]

9. Ding-dong the witch is dead..

Thanks for letting us all know. We were almost under martial law. Phew, close call. Glad that dark phase is over with.

I sure am glad those criminal conspirators have all been rounded up and dealt with. And I'm glad Israel has finally come to its senses and wishes no harm on Iraq. That is clearly some progress.

Maybe world peace is what Bush means when he talks about WW III. Who would have guessed it, but it sort of fits with the way he discusses all the big issues, just think the opposite of the words that come out of his mouth..

[tecelote]

11. You're right. Nothing to see here.

'Trust the government and go back to your daily lives and leave politics to the politicians.

Trust in your country to do what is right, to make the moral and ethical choices we know they will make.

Everything will be fine. Just like it has always been.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

14. "They thought the Iraq invasion was going to be quick and easy"????

Sure that’s what they told us, but what about that Youtube tape of Cheney from the mid-nineties saying that going into Baghdad during the first Gulf War would result in a "quagmire"?

These thugs knew what they were getting us into, that‘s why they should be behind bars. It’s all about the money. Oil, defense, and investment firms are profiting like crazy.

The White House Mafia spreads fear worldwide while selling weapons on the side.

[leveymg]

17. You're right. That was the reason Iraq wasn't occupied during the Gulf War.

There were those around Bush, Sr who were urging that the tank columns continue north into Baghdad, which they figured would take about three days. Schwartzkopf and Powell were against it, as were the Saudis who were footing most of the bill, and Bush41 was intelligent enough to listen to these more realistic voices.

That brings us up to 2003. Bush43 came into office as a coalition of the neocon Chickenhawks who had for years planned to take Iraq, and the military realists, such as Powell, who were the junior partners. Bush went with the dominant clique, and in his own inimitable way believed the neocon propaganda that the mission was to "bring Democracy to the Middle East". He still believes it. Cheney is more cynical, and understands the raw economics behind oil wars. So do the Saudis, who have reeped a windfall from the managed market instability that was the predicted outcome of the overthrow and division of Iraq.

The military realists may have lost the debate going into the Iraq war, but within the Pentagon and intelligence community, the consensus view is that a war with Iran, in the political terms that really count, would be at best a lose-lose proposition. Such a war would quickly escalate in ways that can't be controlled, with unmanagable economic consequences, and the loss of what remains of American hegemony. The real beneficiaries would be Russia, China and the Saudis.

Most Americans do not realize that the Pentagon and IC are powerful political institutions with agendas that are independent of any particular Administration. In 2003, they were still on board with Bush-Cheney and willing to follow, despite their misgivings. But, they aren't fools. The Generals and career intelligence chiefs are essentially nationalists, and if they firmly believe a war with Iran can't be won and will harm the long-term interests of the United States, they won't let it happen.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

19. I hope you're right. ....n/t

[raccoon]

22. "IC ?" Elucidate, my dear Watson. nt

[leveymg]

24. Euphemism: "Intelligence Community"

Or is that an oxymoron? B-)

[tetedur]

26. This article tells us the what the Iranians would concede,

what the Arabs want and that the Bush administration is ignoring it all. A rational administration would have jumped at these opportunities and would have declared victory. Instead we have Bush talking WWIII and more ill-will around the world.

Is the Pentagon truly nationalist? Are they not the tool of the Empire?

[leveymg]

41. This was just one of several openings since 1979

Iran played both sides during the Hostage Crisis, and ended up making a deal with the Reagan campaign (Bush and Casey) over the more modest arms offer made in secret by the Carter White House. We all recall the release of the hostages on the day that Reagan-Bush was Inaugurated.

Iran-Contra was really a continuation of that deal. The Reagan White House fed conventional arms and poison gas technology to both sides in the Iran-Iraq War, meanwhile assisting A.Q. Khan in Pakistan's Saudi-funded pursuit of the "Islamic Atomic Bomb", a program that was developed with the help of China and shared with Iran, Libya, and Malaysia.

During the Clinton years, Iran reached an agreement to suspend its nuclear program, but by 1997 A.Q. Khan appeared on the scene again and started peddling his second-hand centrifuges to Iran, which later provided a pretext for the incoming Bush43 regime to brand Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" along with other former Khan network clients, Iraq and North Korea. Khan was being protected all along by the CIA, part of which was using Khan as a means to monitor and slow down the nuclear programs of his clients.

So, it's no surprise that Tehran would again extend and revise its deal with the incoming Bush-Cheney regime. The resulting overtures and conflicting lines of diplomacy and strategy of tension with Iran since 2001 is well known. Nothing in this Esquire article is new or surprising. What bothers me about it is that it repeats the psychological warfare meme that U.S. policy is now hostage to madmen. I agree that Bush is a near-psychopath, and that Cheney is a cynical war profiteer and criminal. But, I don't agree that they alone are really making the most important decisions. Further, while the hidden relationship between Iran and the GOP and Democratic wings of the CIA is ruthless, cynical, and conflicted, I don't think its necessarily irrational. Much like that with Russia and China, it has avoided a direct military confrontation for more than a quarter-century.

[KoKo]

47. "What are they afraid of..."

quote from Powell in the article. What indeed...:shrug:

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Ho-leee cow, ya gotta be kiddin'.

You actually think that flaming psychopathic narcissist in the White House has ever entertained thoughts about bringing peace, flowers & enlightenment to the world?

First, he's a figurehead for the Neocons, who do the real intellectual heavy lifting around the White House. (And they're still there, BTW). Second, he's a totally willing accomplice, a cunning, twisted little lowlife who spent several previous incarnations as a sewer rat before graduating into the fraternity of human lizards known as the Bush Family.

[leveymg]

42. I don't disagree with with your characterizations.

The evidence, however, shows most of the principal neocons -- particularly at DoD -- were booted out uncerimoniously after the Iraq WMD deception became public. Some of them are still around, but were shoved over to State where they have no real power over the U.S. military.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. They didn't want to take out Saddam back then

not just because it get us into a mess, but because Saddam was useful as a means of keeping the country from coming unglued into its constitent ethnic groups. Like Tito in Jugoslawia, Saddam kept a multi-ethnic cauldron below the boiling point via brutal means. He was a despot, but a useful one. The game was to keep him in pace and control him like a bishop trapped behind your pawns. That was the formula for the middle-game in the Middle East. The Neocons (read: Cheney) thought it was time to move on to the end game, so they took out Saddam, with predictable (and predicted) results. The current chaos is very much to their liking. We just go on building our giant embassy and seeing to it that Hillary gets elected to oversee the next phase of the game, which will not involve anything remotely resembling an end to the bloodshed.

[leveymg]

53. The oil-producing states and US defense contractors seem to be the prime beneficiaries

of the Iraq take-down. These are Bush and Cheney's main constituents.

A breakup of Iran, however, would be far more destabilizing and virtually impossible to contain. I can't see how the Saudis, and particularly the neighboring Gulf States, would welcome that.

Iran, today, is too large and the politics of its ruling elites too complex and well-established to carry out "regime change" of the kind that brought down Mossadeq in 1953.

Similarly, Iranian defenses are too dense and sophisticated -- particularly its anti-shipping capability -- to just knock out with a few days of air strikes and roll over in the same way we did Saddam's air defense systems and armor. Recall, as well, that Iraqi air defenses had been degraded over the course of a decade. A ground offensive to seize and control Tehran is out of the question. Even an attack limited to the Khuzistan oil patch and offshore facilities would be difficult, as Saddam found when he tried it with hundreds of thousands of troops.

So, even from a strictly military perspective, an attack on Iran just doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm sure that's what the Joint Chiefs and CIA continue to tell the White House.

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. And how many top brass, and how many top intelligence careerists

have been replaced by Bushco in the last five years?

They've been systematically purging those who would oppose this, who would stand against their agenda.

And you do realize we have no need to invade and occupy Iran. Just get a few exchanges, some of their Chinese anti-ship missiles take out a carrier with 1500 or so casualties, and that all she wrote - we nuke them to make the point that we are the big dog on the block. We shut down their oil production, crippling the growing power of EU and China, and keeping what little production remains trading in dollars.

Bush WANTS to nuke somebody. He's not too particular about who, just so long as it's somebody who can't shoot back.

They don't really care if it is not in our national interests - their interests are in international oil corporations and the armaments industry. Except those among them who are Armageddonists, who are looking for a short cut to the rapture.

They are clinically insane, and in charge.

[Jackpine Radical]

34. You are exactly right.

They knew. They wanted it this way. A chaotic perpetual war is a good environment for building a tyranny (not to mention looting the treasury).

[JTFrog]

23. Um...

"Here's the major difference: in 2003 they thought the Iraq invasion was going to be quick and easy, like the 1991 Gulf War."

Wow.

Here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnV4tMvI0ME

I'm sorry, I'd love to hitch my wagon to that star, but I can't buy it.

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

50. Well, Perhaps some members of the Washington establishment have learned their lesson,

but many have not, and a person who doesn't learn from his/her mistakes is sure to repeat them.

"But, no, the US will not preemptively bomb Iran. The Persians are quite capable of inflicting very heavy damage on US forces in the region, Israel, and the Gulf States. The resulting regional war would escalate and the aftermath would slide into a slow, painful suicide for the US. We would cease to be a global superpower. Everyone knows it. So, I don't believe it will happen."

True, any rational person would agree with your statement, but the people of this nation and the fore mentioned Washington Establishment have demonstrated over the last six years just how irrational they can be, given the right set of circumstances. I hope it won't come to that, but I have grown to distrust my government so much that I wouldn't put anything past them, not even this.

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. The US doesn't need to preemptively bomb Iran.

Unleash the dogs of war, and Iranian (Chinese) anti-ship missles will take out one of our carriers, with a minimum of 1500 casualties. Our subsequent nuking of the Revolutionary Guard, to prevent them crossing the border to attack our forces in Iraq, will be eminently justified retaliation.

Nobody has ever used a nuke on troops in the field - there are people who have been waiting for this opportunity to test their theories for decades - making nukes a tactical, rather than strategic, weapon.

[AntiFascist]

52. No one? The joint chiefs chairman may be beating the war drums...

This article just got featured by a right-wing news source:

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/Mullen_Iran/2007/10/19/42308.html


Joint Chiefs Chairman: U.S. Can Strike Iran

Friday, October 19, 2007 11:01 AM

By: Newsmax staff Article Font Size


The new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that despite the commitment of U.S. forces elsewhere, the military is capable of conducting operations against Iran if called on to bomb nuclear facilities and other targets.


...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[Trillo]

3. Wonder why the woman is barefooted.

Guess she doesn't care for shoes.

[bullimiami]

10. Is she a professional barefoot skier? Look at the tugboats on her.

[B3Nut]

21. That's actually a bit of perspective distortion

caused by shooting in close quarters with an ultra-wide-angle lens. It's not the most flattering way to shoot a close portrait, but sometimes it's all you can do to get the shot. Her feet are close to the edge of the frame (which ultrawides tend to distort at close distances) and are closer to the camera, so you get a double dose of distortion.

You can have fun with this effect, though, you can take a picture of a dog and have the dog's head look larger than the rest of the dog, for example.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Trillo]

43. I haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I don't see any tugboats in the picture, nor anything that would suggest a skiing theme.

tug·boat (tugÆb$tÅ), n.
a small, powerful boat for towing or pushing ships, barges, etc.
Also called towboat, tug.
<1820–30, Amer.; TUG + BOAT>
from Random House Webster's unabridged

Are you okay? Getting enough rest?

[lovuian]

7. this is the NWO showdown

Bush wants a legacy

[Frustratedlady]

8. He's going to have one...

Armaggedon

[lovuian]

38. I think his purpose was to destroy America

They think Bombs win wars and they are wrong Vietnam showed them that

[liberal N proud]

12. Of course most of us already knew or suspected this

[Dent-Arthur_Dent]

13. Unless there is a congressional stop put to this Cheney/Bush will have what they want regardless

The Cheney/Bush LLC will go its merry ways regardless of institutional "safeguards" on the basis of presidential authority to wage war against "terrah" in any form and location. They only operate to pursue their own goals and consider "prior constitutional restraints" non-binding. The so-called house cleaning and departure of key aides from official positions will not hinder them. If anything their activities will be less visible since many of those no longer in official positions have returned to the programs they formerly ran through the same backdoor as Quale and Gingrich - the policy committee.

[katty]

44. congress is whipped-a military arrest at the WH

[Roland99]

15. Iran has always been the neocon Grand Prize

Afghanistan and Iraq were pre-cursors allowing the US to have military strength on both sides of Iran to perform a 'squeeze play' of "democracy".

[JohnnyLib2]

16. Recommended, with a deep sigh.

Maybe we can measure the accuracy of this piece by the intensity of denial?

[acmavm]

18. I wonder if Putin put a kink in their plans with his warning that

attacking Iran would be a mistake or if they're (the bush** admin) is so full of crazed warmongering fuckwits that they'll do it anyway.

Probably the latter rather than the former, don't ya think?

[leftchick]

20. depressing

:(

<snip>

Then came the moment that would lead to an extraordinary battle with the Bush administration. It was an average morning in April, about four weeks into the war. Mann picked up her daily folder and sat down at her desk, glancing at a fax cover page. The fax was from the Swiss ambassador to Iran, which wasn't unusual -- since the U.S. had no formal relationship with Iran, the Swiss ambassador represented American interests there and often faxed over updates on what he was doing. This time he'd met with Sa-deq Kharrazi, a well-connected Iranian who was the nephew of the foreign minister and son-in-law to the supreme leader. Amazingly, Kharrazi had presented the ambassador with a detailed proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran.

A two-page summary was attached. Scanning it, Mann was startled by one dramatic concession after another -- "decisive action" against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel.

This was huge. Mann sat down and drafted a quick memo to her boss, Richard Haass. It was important to send a swift and positive response.

Then she heard that the White House had already made up its mind -- it was going to ignore the offer. Its only response was to lodge a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador's meddling.

A few days after that, a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia killed thirty-four people, including eight Americans, and an intelligence report said the bombers had been in phone contact with Al Qaeda members in Iran. Although it was unknown whether Tehran had anything to do with the bombing or if the terrorists were hiding out in the lawless areas near the border, Rumsfeld set the tone for the administration's response at his next press conference. "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior Al Qaeda leaders in Iran, and they are busy."

[lyonn]

62. That one got my attention too....

We have never heard anything contrary from this admin. that this letter didn't exist. Syria and Saddam tried to make deals with bush. All deals were off of Bush's table/desk. That is why we should be very wary of agreeing with any bill in the Senate that calls the Iranian (?) Guard an enemy and should be dealt with. That "non binding aspect" won't stop bush from using it as a reason to attack.

[Broadslidin]

25. Nothing like a quick Large Scale Murder instead of a rather Tedious building of Trust

Tis the primary primitive nature of all
self consumed imperial empires.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

28. "Large Scale Murder"? That's perfectly fine...

... just don't call it "genocide".

That seems to be a diplomatic four-letter word.

I wonder where Bush&Co have been hiding the "spare" army? I didn't know we had all those extra divisions.

I don't suppose the Democratic-majority congress could do anything about this?

Regards.

[MilesColtrane]

39. Bush is planning a bombing campaign...

...not an invasion and occupation.

[RaleighNCDUer]

59. With a 3 million man military, less than a quarter-million is tied

up between Iraq and Afghanistan at any given time.

He can find them when he needs them.

[truedelphi]

63. I'm going to assume from your tone that you feel as I feel

That the Demcoratic majority could do pretty much anything they want to do,
except that, they really do not wanna do anything that will keep the funds from the military indistrial complex away from their billfolds

[SteppingRazor]

29. This issue of Esquire also has a 10-page feature on Dennis Kucinich.

Oh, and also a scantily clad Charlize Theron. So there is that.

Anyway, the issue's definitely worth picking up.

[redqueen]

35. Hah... I love it... this article combined with a feature on the candidate

most likely to fight the hardest against a new war.

:7

[snappyturtle]

30. Great find! Thanks. K&R

I didn't see this in GD so I appreciate it here.

I can't believe all the good will that was dumped in *'s lap and the idiot said, "No"! Unreal.Lot of good the Israeli elections were for ol' ariel Sharon. If this isn't an example of not protecting the interests of the U.S., I don't know what is.

[IndyOp]

31. It will *not* be Iraq all over again, it will be much, much worse --

Iran has the capacity to fight back.

Damn It!

Thanks very much to Leverett and Mann for speaking out -- this is exactly what we need right now.

[bronxiteforever]

32. K & R'd

[katty]

46. K&R!! This should be on EVERY FRONT PAGE

[MilesColtrane]

33. Just because it can't be posted enough...

Iran was offering..."one dramatic concession after another -- "decisive action" against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel."

And, Bush blew them off.


Instead, if Bush attacks, we're going to get unbelievable carnage and blowback for decades at the least, World War III at the most.

[Yael]

36. This was an enticing read

Thanks for posting this.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Please support the Webb Amendment NOW

Four of our current Presidential Candidates are in a direct position to influence whether the Webb Amendment - which would forbid a U.S. attack on Iran without prior Congressional approval, comes up for a vote in the Senate. Here is a DU thread with specifics including how we can lobby for it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3620916&mesg_id=3620916

[MsMagnificent]

54. A good thing, but

I have to ask... WHY is it even necessary? War declaration is a function of Congress. Period.

Unnecessary that is, if one pays attention to that 'quaint' 'goddamned piece of paper', our Constitution.
You iknow... that thing that every elected politician takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend?

And don't get me started on our self-proclaimed "Leader" (I guess being our Elected Representative is for losers. Or poor people. Or peasants. Same thing) Nancy Pelosi, who removed the language from a bill that would restore declarations of war to its proper authority and gave it right back to Bush and Cheney.

And her Speaker of the fucking House, fer chrissakes.


Yeah yeah, I know, old news -- but still fucking absolutely unbelievable.
And unforgivable.


Edit: Just to be clear -- I'm not trying to argue with you, it's just a rant.
I never thought I could be so continually angry, day in day out, in my life. And lots of the anger over Democrats and their inaction, no less.
Never thought they could push me so far; but I'm angry at ALL of these politicians, damn their pointy little heads.

I've been a Dem & liberal all my life. Thought I'd die a Democrat.
But if our MAJORITY does not stop those psychopaths in the White House from attacking Iran, that's it for me. Finito.

[lyonn]

64. Great Rant

And why can we read these articles and books telling the world what is happening in our Intelligence agencies and the BS from the White House and then assume our Congresspeople haven't read it or know it? Mind boggling. If we have to e-mail them this info we are in trouble anyway.

Edit: I can't do anything but vote Dem., it's our only hope. We have a bunch of good ones, just maybe not in high enough places.

[MsMagnificent]

69. Excellent point

& I agree, we must vote Dem

...this next election at least.

but if enough people leave the party for Independent or even Green, maybe, just perhaps the powers that be will finally get a clue that they're hemorrhaging their base!

That said, AFTER we get a strong majority elected, it is time to get rid of all those DINO's, those 'social conservative Democrats' (an oxymoron if I ever heard one!) and all those who view corporations as their masters instead of We the People who elected them

--and especially dispose of those elected representatives who feel they are our "leaders", that they are our 'superiors'. Sadly, Nancy Pelosi is far from alone in that category.

We got rid of royalty witn the Revolution. The rich and powerful and egotistical seem to have forgotten that.

We the People, We the Peasants, We the Peons
we are the ones who voted them into power in the first place! How quick they forget. And how quick they are to assume once elected, 'a la Joe LIEberman, that they should forever remain in that seat ne'er to be replaced or challenged no matter how poorly they represent us! They're entitled, permanently, ya know :eyes:
To these people, our voices should not be paid attention to, much less heard at all.
Better yet, arrest or use a taser on us (if not worse)
--or both at once!

At least Marie Antionette (actually it wasn't she who gave that famous quote but another in the court, that was the King's sister quote I believe but memory is hazy) was born into royalty. The one who voiced 'Let them eat cake' didn't know any better what with all their needs always being more than met and ignorant of the misery of their people. Our new political 'royalty' cannot claim that ignorance.


If we can't get them out, and out in time... well, WWIII is NOT a laughing matter, and this time we --all of the American people-- are the Germans.
Almost as arrogant as the 'pukes, the Democratic Party knows the it has a vampiric, parasitic stranglehold on its own people. The party which they have morphed into in the past decades has to be stopped or at least turned from their current destructive course.
It must end.

I don't know, yet, how we can achieve this and retain the majority. There has to be a way, or our fate is bound to be virtual, permanent, voiceless slaves to our very own Party.
Perhaps leaving en masse right after an election chock full of newly elected Blue Dogs, DINO's, etc, with the (secret!) understanding that we'd rejoin the Party before the next election would work.
Or with the personal qualification that at least that we'd still vote Dem (again, they need not know that).
As it stands now the two-party system is broken. It never was a great thing in the first place, I don't understand how we only evolved 2 parties while other democracies have many different parties, who, while making alliances with others, still are separate and distinct.

I wish I knew the answers, but things as they are now are simply untenable and we must act to change it.
Somehow.

[blayne]

45. Long and chilling indeed!

Long and chilling indeed!

Recommended.

[defendandprotect]

51. Attack Iran -- ??? With what troops -- - ??? With what Money -- ????

I think we have to at least stop printing money to run wars--

And I think we have to ask Democratic candidates NOT to take $$ from the MIIC ---

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3075691.ece

[thunder35]

58. they'll just bankrupt us

[Tab]

55. The writing could have been better, but I don't doubt a word of it

These guys have their own agenda. I don't know exactly what it is, but it doesn't include me.

We are definitely engaged in some major sabre-rattling. Like all countries, Iran has its share of religious loonies, but in general, as a people, they just want to go to school, have dinner with their family, put their kids to bed, and so forth. Iran is also many times larger than Iraq.

I don't know what BushCheney are jonesing for, but they're going to take this whole fucking country down with them. I don't understand why we have impeachment ability if not for situations like what they've done over the last six years. You want to talk about pre-emptive war? I think we need a pre-emptive impeachment, to keep this from going further.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

66. Here, here!

Even IF there were reason to attack Iran, which there isn't, our military's stretched too thin, I'd say "what the hell are they thinking?!", but if there was any kind of rational thought process going on in the executive branch we wouldn't be in this situation. Impeachment is right, we need to send a message this isn't what America's all about.

[Richard Steele]

60. K&R

[clarence swinney]

61. SMILE IT MAY BE YOUR LAST ONE

WWIII. Tell the Loon to shut his mouth.

First Saddam.

This is the man who said in 1999 to his biographer-- "I will need a War to be a successful President".

Three Wars = Three successes?

Putin is xxxxxx off at our foreign policy Imperialists.

ACTION--listen for your last SWOOSH. This is not humor.

One SILO
Seven Stories underground.
Secretary of Defense William Perry visited it and was AGHAST.
200 ICBM which we cannot stop once launched per our own Pentagon.
Each can carry 10 nuclear warheads each many times more powerful than the one at Hiroshima.
Currently, each has only one warhead and the ICBM is programmed to go into the ocean in case of error.
GHW Bush got that agreement with Yeltsin.
We have Air Force Inspectors at their Silos as they do at ours. Easy to mute them for few hours.

Nonetheless, in a few hours all 2000 Nukes can be headed for America.

One target Ft. Bragg, NC I am dust.I live 90 miles away.

A radius of 200 miles will be like the pic of Hiroshima.

America will look the same.

This is what you call FEAR.

clarence swinney [e-mail]
political research historian
burlington nc

more details then- google-- clarence swinney + swoosh

[undergroundpanther]

67. This paragraph

Made me wanna cry.....
One day, up on the second floor where the windows overlooked the East River, the diplomat told her that Iran was ready to cooperate unconditionally, a phrase that had seismic diplomatic implications. Unconditional talks are what the U.S. had been demanding as a precondition to any official diplomatic contact between the U.S. and Iran. And it would be the first chance since the Islamic revolution for any kind of rapprochement. "It was revolutionary," Mann says. "It could have changed the world.

I HATE Neocons,Bush and his evil psychopath richie freinds.

[bjobotts]

68. I hold Pelosi personally responsible for the deathsof thousands Iranians

Bush will attack before we get a change in Policy from the next democratic president. Before the Conservatives are out of office. She could stop this by putting impeachment back on the table and getting behind it. Impeachment of Bush and Cheney would halt progress on attacking Iran. Not letting a war funding bill come to the floor for a vote would halt progress on attacking Iran.
Pelosi refuses to do either one and just stands there in her stubborn smugness while Bush prepares to attack taking us to the brink of WWIII.
Pelosi is part of this soon to be mass murder of thousands of Innocent Iranians.
She will not listen or even consider changing her tactics. And outside of armed revolution we are powerless to stop this