As the Bush-Cheney dictatorship draws to and end, since our dictators serve terms in office, the situation in Iraq looks far worse for the United States than is being widely recognized. No one really wants the U. S. to stay in Iraq and the United States doesn't want to leave.
The U.N. figleaf "authorizing" the U. S. occupation of Iraq is also about to expire. Of course the United States opposes international law so I suppose this is not a real concern to Bush-Cheney.
U.S. efforts to pass off Iraqi oil to American Oil Companies seems unlikely to succeed. Even the U.S. established regime wants the United States to get completely out. I wonder if the United States will even be able to hold on to the so-called "green zone".
So will the United States overthrow the current Iraqi government or is it so weak it must simply go home.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Seeds of Inevitability II
The vurld is a very potentially varied thingey. So there is more to the "military confrontation that didn't quite happpen" than has been discussed previously.
If this is a routine military to military non-hostile encounter and the Bush administration insured that this story came out we can interpret the story as an effort to test the waters. Perhaps Bush and Cheney are wondering if this story will stimulate voices to demand war? The provocative story is something of an assessment tool. "How rabid are the American people this week?" and the different but related question of, "What will get them to howl for Iranian blood?"
Oh yes, then there is the angle that by doing these sorts of runs at U.S. convoys the Iranians help keep the price of oil way up. Isn't there some dollar amount that each barrel is costing due to the threat of a war between
Iran and the United States? I think it is from ten to twenty dollars a barrel so it makes oil more valuable and notifies the West that prices would of course be more like $200.00 or more a barrel if there were a significant Persian Gulf War. Keeping prices up now benefits all oil producers. The threat of higher oil prices sounds like bad business to a lot of people. Still, it may be that this is the world we find ourselves in, one where energy is
precious, so precious that we may not get as much of it as we would like.
If worldwide oil supply was significantly disrupted markets would become more regional. I believe regions will favor their own folks first in a situation of genuine scarcity. Others would be forced to pay even higher amounts, or find some emergency source of necessary energy supplies.
new sources of energy or pray to the earth goddess.
If this is a routine military to military non-hostile encounter and the Bush administration insured that this story came out we can interpret the story as an effort to test the waters. Perhaps Bush and Cheney are wondering if this story will stimulate voices to demand war? The provocative story is something of an assessment tool. "How rabid are the American people this week?" and the different but related question of, "What will get them to howl for Iranian blood?"
Oh yes, then there is the angle that by doing these sorts of runs at U.S. convoys the Iranians help keep the price of oil way up. Isn't there some dollar amount that each barrel is costing due to the threat of a war between
Iran and the United States? I think it is from ten to twenty dollars a barrel so it makes oil more valuable and notifies the West that prices would of course be more like $200.00 or more a barrel if there were a significant Persian Gulf War. Keeping prices up now benefits all oil producers. The threat of higher oil prices sounds like bad business to a lot of people. Still, it may be that this is the world we find ourselves in, one where energy is
precious, so precious that we may not get as much of it as we would like.
If worldwide oil supply was significantly disrupted markets would become more regional. I believe regions will favor their own folks first in a situation of genuine scarcity. Others would be forced to pay even higher amounts, or find some emergency source of necessary energy supplies.
new sources of energy or pray to the earth goddess.
The Seed of Inevitability
Why has the recent "confrontation" reported between five motor boats and a large U.S. warship had a feeling of unreality? Well, it just looks sort of funny to see heavily armed U. S. warships being purportedly threatened by these open lightboats.
One indication that this is a fabricated provocation of some sort is the inability of reporting a clear consistent story.
The distances from open boats to U.S. ships have been reported as
If this is a run of the mill confrontation as has been reported then why get excited about it? It has been reported as a typical interaction between these two military forces. Yes we learn this is really just
typical military tactics, even without hostilities.
Such approaches are used to test the enemy response. Iranian boats could have been testing the convoy response to their advance. Perhaps they do this sort of thing regularly.
The Iranian boats found out they could get within 650 feet of the American convoy.
The Iranian manuevers forced the convoy to take evasive manuevers and this is information for the Iranian military, how do they engage is these evasive manuevers and what are they and so on and so forth? It can also be thought of as a sort of harassment or means of increasing United States military costs.
I'm just wondering what would actually be left floating after the commencement of naval hostilities in the
Gulf. After an hour would naval hostilities at least, be essentially decided. The Iranians will have destroyed whatever naval targets they could reach and Iranian naval assets would be reduced to near zero.
Yet then we are told that the incident was really something more than routine. It was a provocation of sorts.
Does that mean some Iranian commander went cowboy? Of course it was all pretty symbolic. No hostilities.
So which is it, boring military manuever for the upteenth time or a big deviation from what is ordinary?
The Iranians reported that the incident was routine. Maybe they will change their story too.
While we wonder about these things we have already accepted something like the idea that conflict between
Iran and the United States is inevitable and so naturally we mistook this routine military event, which we have never heard about before, for something more aggressive.
I wonder how the United States is monitoring Iran at sea and on land. Are we making ourselves a nuisance?
Is what we do as annoying as those damn pt boats or whatever you call them? Is it all routine or prelude to
aggressive war, bombardment and who knows what?
Face it, neither the United States nor Iran are perfect. Still, they can achieve far more working together than by remaining adversaries. I hope that Mr. Bush will not pursue war with Iran. Unfortunately, this whole story sounds too much like a tale told by an idiot to not wonder if that idiot is the one vacationing in sunny
Palestine.
One indication that this is a fabricated provocation of some sort is the inability of reporting a clear consistent story.
The distances from open boats to U.S. ships have been reported as
If this is a run of the mill confrontation as has been reported then why get excited about it? It has been reported as a typical interaction between these two military forces. Yes we learn this is really just
typical military tactics, even without hostilities.
Such approaches are used to test the enemy response. Iranian boats could have been testing the convoy response to their advance. Perhaps they do this sort of thing regularly.
The Iranian boats found out they could get within 650 feet of the American convoy.
The Iranian manuevers forced the convoy to take evasive manuevers and this is information for the Iranian military, how do they engage is these evasive manuevers and what are they and so on and so forth? It can also be thought of as a sort of harassment or means of increasing United States military costs.
I'm just wondering what would actually be left floating after the commencement of naval hostilities in the
Gulf. After an hour would naval hostilities at least, be essentially decided. The Iranians will have destroyed whatever naval targets they could reach and Iranian naval assets would be reduced to near zero.
Yet then we are told that the incident was really something more than routine. It was a provocation of sorts.
Does that mean some Iranian commander went cowboy? Of course it was all pretty symbolic. No hostilities.
So which is it, boring military manuever for the upteenth time or a big deviation from what is ordinary?
The Iranians reported that the incident was routine. Maybe they will change their story too.
While we wonder about these things we have already accepted something like the idea that conflict between
Iran and the United States is inevitable and so naturally we mistook this routine military event, which we have never heard about before, for something more aggressive.
I wonder how the United States is monitoring Iran at sea and on land. Are we making ourselves a nuisance?
Is what we do as annoying as those damn pt boats or whatever you call them? Is it all routine or prelude to
aggressive war, bombardment and who knows what?
Face it, neither the United States nor Iran are perfect. Still, they can achieve far more working together than by remaining adversaries. I hope that Mr. Bush will not pursue war with Iran. Unfortunately, this whole story sounds too much like a tale told by an idiot to not wonder if that idiot is the one vacationing in sunny
Palestine.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
What Are the Bush Plans for Rationing Gas and Petroleum Products?
We now know that the Bush-Cheney administration had detailed plans for the invasion of Iraq prior to 9-11 (do we?) Certainly they seemed to see 9-11 as an opportunity to invade Iraq which was a longstanding obsession. How long I don’t know but obviously the United States had been hostile to Saddam Hussein since he invaded Kuwait and perhaps before that as well. They thought they could rationalize the invasion of Iraq as part of a war on terror but this was just a non sequitor since Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was no friend or collaborator with Al Qaeda.
I believe the administration has already let it be known that there are U. S. plans for some sort of aerial assault on Iran. The way the French President talks maybe the French have aerial assault plans as well!
Perhaps we should be asking about the President what he plans when an attack on Iran leads to interruptions in Persian Gulf oil for potentially various periods of time. It could be weeks or years I suppose. A rosier scenario sounds like a sort of Russian roulette drunken stupor. I blew my brains out, it sounded good at the time. Will we be abandoned like the people of New Orleans as gasoline disappears from the pumps? How will gasoline and petroleum products be apportioned among our citizens? Certainly there will be some sort of rationing. What kinds of rationing is the Bush-Cheney administration planning for?
What will the effects be on the national and world economies? How will petroleum be apportioned among nations? Will economic activity slow down or even largely grind to a halt?
I believe the administration has already let it be known that there are U. S. plans for some sort of aerial assault on Iran. The way the French President talks maybe the French have aerial assault plans as well!
Perhaps we should be asking about the President what he plans when an attack on Iran leads to interruptions in Persian Gulf oil for potentially various periods of time. It could be weeks or years I suppose. A rosier scenario sounds like a sort of Russian roulette drunken stupor. I blew my brains out, it sounded good at the time. Will we be abandoned like the people of New Orleans as gasoline disappears from the pumps? How will gasoline and petroleum products be apportioned among our citizens? Certainly there will be some sort of rationing. What kinds of rationing is the Bush-Cheney administration planning for?
What will the effects be on the national and world economies? How will petroleum be apportioned among nations? Will economic activity slow down or even largely grind to a halt?
Friday, October 26, 2007
Will the Markets Prevent an Attack Iran?
With the dollar falling and oil prices rising the President of the United States and his master, the Vice-President are threatening to and apparently planning to bomb Iran.
Could escalating oil prices put an end to this anti-Iranian war drive? Would 120 dollar a barrel oil or 180 dollar a barrel oil put enough stress on the world economy and the national economies of the imperialist center to cause Bush-Cheney to either back off or alternatively to be stopped?
Could escalating oil prices put an end to this anti-Iranian war drive? Would 120 dollar a barrel oil or 180 dollar a barrel oil put enough stress on the world economy and the national economies of the imperialist center to cause Bush-Cheney to either back off or alternatively to be stopped?
Letter to the United States Congress Warning Against Military Action Against Iran
I drafted the following letter,thinking at first of Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas. Then I decided that it would apply to a majority of elected officials, to the majority of Congress which has basically not acted as a separate branch of government and which has merely endorsed the crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and war crimes of the executive branch.
Dear elected official,
I hope you will skeptically scrutinize the rhetoric coming from the Bush administration about the so-called crisis with Iran. I remember how you parroted the lies propagated by the President and other government officials leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Back in 2003 you insisted that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When I and numerous others informed you that the facts were otherwise you ignored us and refused to investigate for yourself. You didn’t do your homework.
You also went along with the administration assertion that the 9-11 terrorists had something to do with Saddam Hussein. Of course, all the terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Now you recognize these previous views were erroneous, but we need a person in office who can make rational decisions about the real world in real time. Elected officials who are not competent students of current affairs and history simply facilitate the blunders of others, in this case the invasion and occupation of Iraq orchestrated by the executive branch.
After this administration made countless lies about Iraq it doesn’t make any sense to trust so-called intelligence and allegations coming from the White House, the Vice President’s Office, or the State Department. I think the Defense Department is the only sane one of the four and it’s ironic how this administration, that is constantly bantering about its respect for the military, has ignored the DOD which reportedly opposes an air war on Iran.
It isn’t much help for elected officials to inform us years after damaging decisions are made that they were simply misinformed. There is no excuse for it. Certainly the work of the legislative branch is as weighty as that of the physician. No one would tolerate a surgeon who told an amputation patient, “Gee whiz! Sorry things are such a mess but just I just didn’t know which leg to cut off!” Of course no one would go back to such an uninformed physician and they would end up with a malpractice lawsuit.
We can’t sue politicians for malpractice so we write them letters.
Many elected officials seem to relish being uninformed, out of the loop, unaware or this or that, and otherwise out to lunch. They want the opportunity of being thought of as “misinformed” so their constituents will give them a free pass for not voting in an informed manner Of course such pretenses are more in the vein of political maneuvers than the actions of competent elected officials. It sounds like the royal road to incompetence to me, and the evidence shows that is precisely what we have, incompetent elected officials and catastrophic results to show for it!
The first responsibility of an elected official is to be informed !
Give me a member of Congress who isn’t an easily misled ignoramus at the time a decision actually has to be made.
I am fed up with elected officials who ignore the facts of this very real world and substitute for facts and reason a gullible belief in provocative lies.
Provocative lies that lead to war are, of course, reprehensible.
This administration is also suspected of having religious views that motivate them to initiate wars in what they regard as an area where they believe Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled today so the administration is suspect both in terms of its motives and the stories it tells to justify their next military objective.
Tragically, Iraq has become a laboratory for war against the United States and will probably be so as long as United States troops are there to fight. As a result of the occupation an entirely new way of fighting otherwise invincible United States military forces has developed in the crucible of Iraq. A remarkably effective resistance strategy includes the use of Improvised Explosive Devices, car bombs, suicide bombers and methods that destroy the heaviest United States armor. Of course there are also forms of bombardment and small unit actions. Now it is too late to prevent the dissemination of these methods and I suppose we mayl be cursed to see them elsewhere in the future. Without invading Iraq I doubt that such a situation would have come about. We would be considerably safer and could have diverted the military to real world security concerns.
While the White House likes to talk about the relatively tiny Al Qaeda in Iraq the fundamental struggle south of the Kurdish region involves a host of indigenous actors who are united by one common objective, the goal of driving out the American invaders. Somehow we are not getting that over here. Rarely do I hear politicians or televised commentators discuss the war as a national liberation struggle which is what it is. Maybe we can’t see that because the era of national liberation struggles is supposedly over but history refuses to comply with that notion. Just as in Vietnam the United States has overlooked that it has invaded a nation and engaged an enemy which is basically nationalistic in character. Nationalism is certainly the fundamental interest that binds otherwise diverse and divergent parties in a common struggle against a common enemy, the occupiers.
Southern Iraq is now controlled by competing armed militias. The British are simply biding time before they completely move out. It looks like the contradictions in the north of Iraq are about to boil over as well and that Turkey will may come into conflict with Iraqi Kurds when it eventually invades Iraq as it has done many times in decades past. Furthermore, the so-called central government in Baghdad may try to impose some sort of policies on the PKK. If so, a civil war between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq may ensue.
The middle of Iraq seems to have been largely ethnically cleansed by various terrorist militias. It is a catastrophe that dwarfs the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans some years ago. Our invasion, ultimately made the ethnic cleansing in Iraq possible on such a large scale. What was anyone thinking when we invaded Iraq? The Congress helped create this cacophony of catastrophes by working with Mr. President Bush, by supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Well, I guess they were gullibly gobbling up administration fairy tales and lies and thinking what they were told to think. They never did their homework to understand the region, or verify the so-called facts.
You know or should know that this administration lied about all sorts of things to try to build support for the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. If you still somehow cling to those lies then I guess I am wasting my time writing you.
I think you know that war with Iran would be more than a little likely to cause hardship and sacrifice here in the United States since world oil supplies are likely to be disrupted for an unknown period of time, possibly for years. Hardships could exceed those seen in several generations.
Would the world economy, or much of it, sputter to a halt as tankers stop arriving at thirsty ports full of Iranian, Iraqi, Persian Gulf or Saudi crude?
Recently I was over the state line in Kansas City, Missouri, and I saw a bus go by almost empty of passengers. My son was in the car with me and I told him that if the United States bombs Iraq it is likely that we will all be taking the bus. But will there be enough buses? Will we be rationing gasoline? Are you preparing for that? I really want to know.
I hate to think that your name and political career could suffer as the people you represent realize that you knew that fuel supplies would dry up and yet you embraced another set of administration concocted lies about another nation and rubber stamped another dysfunctional war.
Furthermore I believe the Bush administration is likely to use nuclear weapons against Iran. You are being told now. If the United States is at the bottom of polls throughout the world as a consequence of the invasion of and continuing effort to conquer Iraq there will be single digit support for this nation after another use of nuclear weapons.
I am hopeful that you will make every effort to look beyond the war propaganda of this administration which is once again matching its so-called intelligence to fit the war-plans. Remember the Downing Street memo and the whole Valerie Plame affair. If you don’t feel compelled to impeach this President then at least don’t become part of his plans to make war on Iran. The President’s duplicity on Iraq should have warned you to be skeptical and incredulous when you hear the him speak about foreign lands. I understand that he had no knowledge of even the differences between the Sh’ia and Sunni branches of Islam when he invaded Iraq! A President should know that! An educated person should know that! Now he is worried about Sh’ia influence!
Americans are a patient and largely apolitical people but even they may eventually rise up against fools in high places the tyrants who use them. I write you because I sincerely hope that the people will not be compelled to take such drastic action. Of course I fear the severe restriction of our civil liberties by this administration if it screws up the world energy flow by bombing Iran.
Please, I beg you to carefully study the facts and do everything in your power to prevent this insane war drive against Iran from becoming an actual war. Just for one thing, you should be fully informed about Iranian diplomatic outreach to the United States since the ‘80’s up to the present.
You could support real diplomacy with Iran. You should be fully informed that it is the Bush administration which refuses to engage in any real negotiations with Iran even though it has recently began posturing as wanting to negotiate. If you are not informed you should look into these
matters yourself because it is the only way to assess things for yourself.
The whole world is watching you and your colleagues. Will Congress once again rubber-stamp an unjust war that simply creates more war, more destruction, more hardship? Will Congress once again sit on its hands as the White House destroys another modern society in the Middle-East? If so people may not be able to drive their cars anymore but you can bet that even if they have to walk they will be walking to your door to ask, “Why did you let this happen, so much worse than Iraq? Why were you uninformed, again?”
Dear elected official,
I hope you will skeptically scrutinize the rhetoric coming from the Bush administration about the so-called crisis with Iran. I remember how you parroted the lies propagated by the President and other government officials leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Back in 2003 you insisted that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When I and numerous others informed you that the facts were otherwise you ignored us and refused to investigate for yourself. You didn’t do your homework.
You also went along with the administration assertion that the 9-11 terrorists had something to do with Saddam Hussein. Of course, all the terrorists were Saudi Arabian. Now you recognize these previous views were erroneous, but we need a person in office who can make rational decisions about the real world in real time. Elected officials who are not competent students of current affairs and history simply facilitate the blunders of others, in this case the invasion and occupation of Iraq orchestrated by the executive branch.
After this administration made countless lies about Iraq it doesn’t make any sense to trust so-called intelligence and allegations coming from the White House, the Vice President’s Office, or the State Department. I think the Defense Department is the only sane one of the four and it’s ironic how this administration, that is constantly bantering about its respect for the military, has ignored the DOD which reportedly opposes an air war on Iran.
It isn’t much help for elected officials to inform us years after damaging decisions are made that they were simply misinformed. There is no excuse for it. Certainly the work of the legislative branch is as weighty as that of the physician. No one would tolerate a surgeon who told an amputation patient, “Gee whiz! Sorry things are such a mess but just I just didn’t know which leg to cut off!” Of course no one would go back to such an uninformed physician and they would end up with a malpractice lawsuit.
We can’t sue politicians for malpractice so we write them letters.
Many elected officials seem to relish being uninformed, out of the loop, unaware or this or that, and otherwise out to lunch. They want the opportunity of being thought of as “misinformed” so their constituents will give them a free pass for not voting in an informed manner Of course such pretenses are more in the vein of political maneuvers than the actions of competent elected officials. It sounds like the royal road to incompetence to me, and the evidence shows that is precisely what we have, incompetent elected officials and catastrophic results to show for it!
The first responsibility of an elected official is to be informed !
Give me a member of Congress who isn’t an easily misled ignoramus at the time a decision actually has to be made.
I am fed up with elected officials who ignore the facts of this very real world and substitute for facts and reason a gullible belief in provocative lies.
Provocative lies that lead to war are, of course, reprehensible.
This administration is also suspected of having religious views that motivate them to initiate wars in what they regard as an area where they believe Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled today so the administration is suspect both in terms of its motives and the stories it tells to justify their next military objective.
Tragically, Iraq has become a laboratory for war against the United States and will probably be so as long as United States troops are there to fight. As a result of the occupation an entirely new way of fighting otherwise invincible United States military forces has developed in the crucible of Iraq. A remarkably effective resistance strategy includes the use of Improvised Explosive Devices, car bombs, suicide bombers and methods that destroy the heaviest United States armor. Of course there are also forms of bombardment and small unit actions. Now it is too late to prevent the dissemination of these methods and I suppose we mayl be cursed to see them elsewhere in the future. Without invading Iraq I doubt that such a situation would have come about. We would be considerably safer and could have diverted the military to real world security concerns.
While the White House likes to talk about the relatively tiny Al Qaeda in Iraq the fundamental struggle south of the Kurdish region involves a host of indigenous actors who are united by one common objective, the goal of driving out the American invaders. Somehow we are not getting that over here. Rarely do I hear politicians or televised commentators discuss the war as a national liberation struggle which is what it is. Maybe we can’t see that because the era of national liberation struggles is supposedly over but history refuses to comply with that notion. Just as in Vietnam the United States has overlooked that it has invaded a nation and engaged an enemy which is basically nationalistic in character. Nationalism is certainly the fundamental interest that binds otherwise diverse and divergent parties in a common struggle against a common enemy, the occupiers.
Southern Iraq is now controlled by competing armed militias. The British are simply biding time before they completely move out. It looks like the contradictions in the north of Iraq are about to boil over as well and that Turkey will may come into conflict with Iraqi Kurds when it eventually invades Iraq as it has done many times in decades past. Furthermore, the so-called central government in Baghdad may try to impose some sort of policies on the PKK. If so, a civil war between the Kurds and the rest of Iraq may ensue.
The middle of Iraq seems to have been largely ethnically cleansed by various terrorist militias. It is a catastrophe that dwarfs the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans some years ago. Our invasion, ultimately made the ethnic cleansing in Iraq possible on such a large scale. What was anyone thinking when we invaded Iraq? The Congress helped create this cacophony of catastrophes by working with Mr. President Bush, by supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Well, I guess they were gullibly gobbling up administration fairy tales and lies and thinking what they were told to think. They never did their homework to understand the region, or verify the so-called facts.
You know or should know that this administration lied about all sorts of things to try to build support for the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. If you still somehow cling to those lies then I guess I am wasting my time writing you.
I think you know that war with Iran would be more than a little likely to cause hardship and sacrifice here in the United States since world oil supplies are likely to be disrupted for an unknown period of time, possibly for years. Hardships could exceed those seen in several generations.
Would the world economy, or much of it, sputter to a halt as tankers stop arriving at thirsty ports full of Iranian, Iraqi, Persian Gulf or Saudi crude?
Recently I was over the state line in Kansas City, Missouri, and I saw a bus go by almost empty of passengers. My son was in the car with me and I told him that if the United States bombs Iraq it is likely that we will all be taking the bus. But will there be enough buses? Will we be rationing gasoline? Are you preparing for that? I really want to know.
I hate to think that your name and political career could suffer as the people you represent realize that you knew that fuel supplies would dry up and yet you embraced another set of administration concocted lies about another nation and rubber stamped another dysfunctional war.
Furthermore I believe the Bush administration is likely to use nuclear weapons against Iran. You are being told now. If the United States is at the bottom of polls throughout the world as a consequence of the invasion of and continuing effort to conquer Iraq there will be single digit support for this nation after another use of nuclear weapons.
I am hopeful that you will make every effort to look beyond the war propaganda of this administration which is once again matching its so-called intelligence to fit the war-plans. Remember the Downing Street memo and the whole Valerie Plame affair. If you don’t feel compelled to impeach this President then at least don’t become part of his plans to make war on Iran. The President’s duplicity on Iraq should have warned you to be skeptical and incredulous when you hear the him speak about foreign lands. I understand that he had no knowledge of even the differences between the Sh’ia and Sunni branches of Islam when he invaded Iraq! A President should know that! An educated person should know that! Now he is worried about Sh’ia influence!
Americans are a patient and largely apolitical people but even they may eventually rise up against fools in high places the tyrants who use them. I write you because I sincerely hope that the people will not be compelled to take such drastic action. Of course I fear the severe restriction of our civil liberties by this administration if it screws up the world energy flow by bombing Iran.
Please, I beg you to carefully study the facts and do everything in your power to prevent this insane war drive against Iran from becoming an actual war. Just for one thing, you should be fully informed about Iranian diplomatic outreach to the United States since the ‘80’s up to the present.
You could support real diplomacy with Iran. You should be fully informed that it is the Bush administration which refuses to engage in any real negotiations with Iran even though it has recently began posturing as wanting to negotiate. If you are not informed you should look into these
matters yourself because it is the only way to assess things for yourself.
The whole world is watching you and your colleagues. Will Congress once again rubber-stamp an unjust war that simply creates more war, more destruction, more hardship? Will Congress once again sit on its hands as the White House destroys another modern society in the Middle-East? If so people may not be able to drive their cars anymore but you can bet that even if they have to walk they will be walking to your door to ask, “Why did you let this happen, so much worse than Iraq? Why were you uninformed, again?”
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Representative Duncan Hunter (R), a candidate for the nomination of the Republican party, fanned the flames of war as he spoke with Judy Woodruff on the Lehrer News Hour this evening. His comments suggest the inevitability of a war with Iran and Woodruff asks him for a judgment as to whether or not a military confrontation with Iran is settled. It seemed to me that Hunter indicated that it was not yet time to say inevitable with the implication that such a decision is in the wings. Well, when it is decided, Judy Woodruff will be ready to talk about the inevitable, ie. go along with the war plans of the United States and become part of the imperialist war by informing all, with a straight face, that the bombardment of Iran is inevitable, coming down the pike.
What Judy Woodruff will not do is challenge the endless unsubstantiated allegations about how the Iranian nuclear program is a program to build nuclear weapons.
What Judy Woodruff will not do is dwell on the possibilities for peace which are many given the repeated diplomatic efforts of Iran to work out some sort of modus vivendi with Washington.
What Judy Woodruff will not do is detect any lie, any distortion, any act of public deception or mass manipulation. She will part of the "in-crowd", one of those favored creatures who finds
our what "has been decided" and then almost gleefully leads us to support that decision.
Above all Judy Woodruff will not question the decision to go to war with Iran and almost never question any other decision for that matter, unless of course it is the decision of a foreign leader, a polygamist leader or anyone else who does not make those decisions she so loyally transmits to the millions of her viewers, hungering for news, not political complicity with newsmakers or
powerful decision makers.
What Judy Woodruff will not do is challenge the endless unsubstantiated allegations about how the Iranian nuclear program is a program to build nuclear weapons.
What Judy Woodruff will not do is dwell on the possibilities for peace which are many given the repeated diplomatic efforts of Iran to work out some sort of modus vivendi with Washington.
What Judy Woodruff will not do is detect any lie, any distortion, any act of public deception or mass manipulation. She will part of the "in-crowd", one of those favored creatures who finds
our what "has been decided" and then almost gleefully leads us to support that decision.
Above all Judy Woodruff will not question the decision to go to war with Iran and almost never question any other decision for that matter, unless of course it is the decision of a foreign leader, a polygamist leader or anyone else who does not make those decisions she so loyally transmits to the millions of her viewers, hungering for news, not political complicity with newsmakers or
powerful decision makers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
