Will Bushs Bosses Demand Iranian Blood?
- The president's warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he
is psychotic. Really.
October 25, 2007
Los Angeles Times
Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't
be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be
treated like psychotics who need treatment.
Because they've clearly gone mad. Exhibit A: We're in the middle of a
disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in
Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration's
interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and
fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting
such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild
shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give
our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look
around and decide it's a great time to start another war.
That would be with Iran, and you'd have to be deaf not to hear the war
drums. Last week, Bush remarked that "if you're interested in avoiding
World War III . . . you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran]
from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." On
Sunday, Cheney warned of "the Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize
the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power . . . [we] cannot stand by
as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions."
On Tuesday, Bush insisted on the need "to defend Europe against the
emerging Iranian threat."
Huh? Iran is now a major threat to Europe? The Iranians are going to
launch a nuclear missile (that they don't yet possess) against Europe
(for reasons unknown because, as far as we know, they're not mad at
anyone in Europe)? This is lunacy in action.
Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and
former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's
invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the
knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that
"the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to
reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has
not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States
has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are
110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and
Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that
Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it
with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"
Zakaria may be misinterpreting the president's remark about World War
III though. He saw it as a dangerously loopy Bush prediction about the
future behavior of a nuclear Iran -- the idea being, presumably, that
possessing "the knowledge" to make a nuclear weapon would so empower
Iran's repressive leaders that they'll giddily rush out and start
World War III.
But you could read Bush's remark as a madman's threat rather than a
madman's prediction -- as a warning to recalcitrant states, from
Germany to Russia, that don't seem to share his crazed obsession with
Iran. The message: Fall into line with administration policy toward
Iran or you can count on the U.S.A. to try to start World War III on
its own. And when it comes to sparking global conflagration, a U.S.
attack on Iran might be just the thing. Yee haw!
You'd better believe these guys would do it too. Why not? They have
nothing to lose -- they're out of office in 15 months anyway. Après
Bush-Cheney, le déluge! (Have fun, Hillary.)
But all this creates a conundrum. What's a constitutional democracy to
do when the president and vice president lose their marbles?
The U.S. is full of ordinary people with serious forms of mental
illness -- delusional people with violent fantasies who think they're
the president, or who think they get instructions from the CIA through
their dental fillings.
The problem with Bush is that he is the president -- and he gives
instructions to the CIA and military, without having to go through his
Impeachment's not the solution to psychosis, no matter how flagrant.
But despite their impressive foresight in other areas, the framers
unaccountably neglected to include an involuntary civil commitment
procedure in the Constitution.
Still, don't lose hope. By enlisting the aid of mental health
professionals and the court system, Congress can act to remedy that
constitutional oversight. The goal: Get Bush and Cheney committed to
an appropriate inpatient facility, where they can get the treatment
they so desperately need. In Washington, the appropriate statutory law
is already in place: If a "court or jury finds that [a] person is
mentally ill and . . . is likely to injure himself or other persons if
allowed to remain at liberty, the court may order his hospitalization."
I'll even serve on the jury. When it comes to averting World War III,
it's really the least I can do.
Israel now leads lobby against Iran
by Leslie Susser
Jewish Telegraph Agency
jerusalem | In a major policy change, Israel has launched a
high-profile diplomatic initiative to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions
following President Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could produce
World War III.
Over the last several days, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert embarked on
whirlwind trips to Russia, France and Britain. Foreign Minister Tzipi
Livni went to China.
Together with the United States, these countries comprise the
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Israel's goal is to
persuade them of the pressing need to tighten U.N.-mandated sanctions
against Iran and convince Iranian leaders to abandon their nuclear
In Israel, Bush's remarks highlighting Iranian threats to destroy the
Jewish state sparked heated debate. Many lamented that the U.S.
president made it seem as if Israel is the only reason for Iran's
nuclear drive -- perpetuating a false perception that Israelis say is
not in their national interest.
The remarks also prompted a debate in Israel over the country's
readiness for a possible missile attack from Iran and its army's
Putin's Double Game
Olmert returned from his lightning visit to Moscow last week heartened
by President Vladimir Putin's declaration that Russia has no intention
of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But some seasoned Israeli
diplomats believe that Putin may be playing a double game.
Avi Primor, a former envoy to Germany and the European Union, argues
that Iran is less interested in using its nuclear profile to destroy
Israel than in gaining hegemony in the Persian Gulf and controlling
its considerable oil resources.
Were that to happen, explains Primor, Iran and Russia would have more
than 80 percent of the world's oil and could hold the West ransom.
Until now, Israel deliberately had kept a low profile on Iran for fear
that too active a role would make the Iranian nuclear issue seem like
a bilateral confrontation between Jerusalem and Tehran, absolving the
international community of responsibility for dealing with Iran.
But over the past few months, Israeli leaders have detected a number
of bad developments.
With Russia and China opposed to tightening the screws on the
Iranians, the emboldened regime is ignoring international sanctions.
Furthermore, rising oil prices enable Iran to better absorb economic
sanctions. Perhaps worst of all, the International Atomic Energy
Agency is allowing Iran to continue its efforts to enrich uranium.
These changes, together with Bush's remarks, justify Israel's new
high-profile approach, the Israeli daily Ha'aretz argued in a recent
"The minute President Bush placed his concern for Israel at the top of
his arguments for confronting Iran, Israel had to come out into the
open and make its position clear," said the editorial. "The trips by
Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to countries that are
permanent members of the Security Council for talks on how to stop the
Iranian threat are the first, appropriate steps in this direction."
Several Israeli pundits took issue with Bush for putting Israel at
"No thanks, Mr. President," veteran Ha'aretz columnist Uzi Benziman
wrote. "There are already those who argue Israel's existence is the
source of all the Middle East's troubles; references of the kind Bush
made last week reinforce this impression and arouse dangerous
anti-Israel sentiment in all corners of the globe."
"Bush's efforts -- diplomatic and economic pressure, as well as
increasingly explicit threats to employ military force against Iran --
are the way to tackle the problem. Israel should be left outside of
the frame," he Benziman.
'Preparing for Confrontation'
The resignation over the weekend by the relatively moderate,
Western-educated Ali Larijani as head of Iran's negotiating team with
the West on the nuclear issue also prompted anxiety in Israel. Most
saw this as a sign of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's increasing
strength and a move toward confrontation with the West.
"His dismissal, together with the appointment of the extremist Ali
Ja'aferi as commander of the Revolutionary Guard, are signals from
above that Iran is preparing for that confrontation," Iran expert
Ronen Bergman wrote in Yediot Achronot.
If confrontation degenerates into war, Israel almost certainly will
become a prime target.
Iran has gone to some lengths to put rockets within close range of
Israel, via Iranian allies and proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.
Israel's Arrow anti-missile defense system is meant to deal with the
longer-range threats from Iran and Syria, but it is unclear how
effective the system will be in practice.
Former Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh says that Israel
should push for stronger sanctions against Iran, but must prepare for
the contingency of armed conflict.
"If we don't seriously prepare an Israeli operational capacity as a
means of last resort, no government in the world will take us
seriously or do anything itself," Sneh wrote in Yediot.
Former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy suggested in a lecture in Jerusalem
last week that a nuclear Iran would be foolish to strike at Israel.
"Israel cannot be destroyed for many reasons, some of which are known
and others you can presume," Halevy asserted enigmatically.
Washington remains the key to what happens between Israel and Iran.
Likud Knesset member Yuval Steinitz, after meeting this month with
U.S. Congress members, senators and senior officials including Vice
President Dick Cheney, said the United States may soon present Iran
with a military ultimatum.
"The Bush administration is well-aware of the historic responsibility
it bears as leader of the free world with regard to the Iranian
nuclear-weapons program," said Steinitz, a former chairman of the
Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "Although no one said
as much, I believe it will likely add a concrete military threat to
the economic sanctions already on the table."
Will Bush's Bosses Demand Iranian Blood?
By Willis A. Carto
September 10th, 2007
Will the Decider order an attack on Iran? Such an attack would be
unnecessary, unconstitutional, genocidal and a war crime. But these
reasons will not stop him if the Israeli lobby orders it.
You can see the way the wind blows by watching the Israeli
cheerleaders - TV windbags and columnists in your nearby newspaper and
frauds, such as the corpulent con man, "evangelist" John Hagee telling
us how Iran, which has an 861-mile border with Iraq, is interfering in
our occupation of that, country. Hagee literally prays that our
brainless boy president will attack Iran. This will bring on the
battle of Armageddon, you see, and the world will be consumed in flame
as Hagee and his equally insane followers are wafted up into Heaven.
Equally insane are Zionist con men like Norman Posheretz who is quoted
in The New Yorker predicting that Bush will bomb Iran "before he
On March 16, 2007, Adm. William Fallon was appointed by Bush to work
out the details of an Iranian strike.
Hopefully, there's a fly in the Bush-Cheney ointment. Adm. Fallon may
not be the brainless patsy they think. But admirals and generals love
war and Fallon may charge ahead just for the fun of it.
Three U.S. carriers are known to be in the Persian Gulf, and nearby,
awaiting the order to begin bombarding targets.
We wonder if the strategic geniuses directing all this know that no
bombing attack has ever won a battle. Only ground troops can do that,
and ours are already deployed in 120 countries around the world to
bring "democracy" to the less noble than we. "Democracy" works so
well, you see, that we have to force it on other countries.
(That is, it works well for the military-industrial-banker complex.)
All an air attack can do is to kill and injure thousands of people,
destroy houses, roads, railroads - as we did in Iraq.
The Israeli lobby ordered us to destroy Iraq - an obstacle to Israeli
expansion. We're still there and will be into the unforeseeable
future. The cost to the taxpayers has been horrendous. The monetary
cost of our attack on Iran will be far greater. Much more will be the
replacement of respect by fear, hatred and contempt of America by the
European leaders shake their heads with disbelief at the takeover of
America by a small country, Israel. Maybe they don't know that
millions of Israeli agents (called "Sayan" by Victor Ostrovsky, former
Mossad agent) infest America at every level.
The leaders of Russia and China are probably saying unaccustomed
prayers that Bush will attack Iran. They will benefit immeasurably and
inherit what influence and markets America now has.
An American attack on Iran would set in concrete the end of American
worldwide influence. The downfall of the dollar would likely be one
result, bringing with it hyperinflation here.
Politically, the Republicans would suffer even worse that they are
now, bringing the sad crop of Democratic hopefuls to the fore. Could a
real leader, truly dedicated to the future of America, arise from this
political mess? That would be the only hope.
by Charley Reese
The drumbeat for war against Iran has begun again, led by Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, and the usual pro-Israel crowd. Lieberman seems to be under the impression that the U.S. can bomb Iran and not get into a full-fledged war.
Well, we know all about cakewalks and how they turn into long, bloody and dreary marches. We learned nothing from Vietnam, and apparently some of the people have learned nothing from Iraq, now a cakewalk war that has lasted longer than World War II, though not with the same intensity and mass.
If the senator, who seems to be one of those who loves war as long as he doesn't have to fight it, really believes that we can attack Iran without Iranian retaliation, then he's naïve. If he knows better, he's a liar, and to lie the American people into a second war before the other lied-into war in Iraq is even over is despicable. He should be shunned by all decent people.
I don't see how any honest man can believe that Iran is a threat to the United States or its neighbors. Iran has not invaded anyone in the past 100 years. Iran has from the beginning insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes, and there has been no evidence I repeat, no evidence to the contrary. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly authorizes countries to enrich uranium. In other words, Iran has not done anything illegal.
Iran has no intercontinental missiles, and the only country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is Israel. Please note that the United States flatly refuses to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East. Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has refused to sign it. Iran admits international inspectors. Israel flatly refuses to allow international inspectors. The only country in today's Middle East with weapons of mass destruction and a history of invading and occupying other people's countries is Israel.
As for Iran's alleged threat to "wipe Israel off the map," that is propaganda based on a mistranslation. Nobody in Iran has ever threatened to attack Israel militarily. The accurate quotes from Iranians have been simply that Israel as a Zionist state will eventually collapse, just as the Soviet Union as a communist state did. Iranian officials have even explicitly said they have no desire or intention of attacking Israel.
You should ask yourself, What is the real motive of people who deal in lies? What is the real agenda of people who wish to paint Iran as a threat to the world? (Remember what a threat they said Iraq was?) Why, if the United States is really concerned about preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, has it steadfastly refused to endorse the idea of a nuclear-free Middle East something Iran and the Arab countries have proposed time and again?
Finally, of course, there is the matter of deterrence. Deterrence worked against the Soviet Union's 30,000 nuclear weapons and the means of delivering them. Anybody who says Iran would not be deterred from using a handful of nuclear weapons assuming it even developed them is a fool or a liar.
Furthermore, Iran would gain nothing by attacking Israel, the U.S. or Europe. Americans might disagree with how Iranians choose to run their country, but that doesn't mean that Iran's leaders are insane. They are, in fact, intelligent and well-educated.
As for the United States' latest claim that Iran is supplying weapons to the Taliban, I simply don't believe it. The U.S. government has lied and lied to the American people. It has zero credibility. Iran is a Shiite country; the Taliban are a fanatical Sunni sect. Iran volunteered its assistance during the initial American attack on Afghanistan. Why would Iran suddenly change its mind?
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to: