Talk is starting for war with Iran

As reported by Simon Tisdall,Tuesday January 30, 2007,Guardian Unlimited it appears the Bush Administration is back on the hunt to take down another regime that won't bend to their wishes. The British press liken it to their own Downing Street debacle before the invasion of Iraq. In an account in Adnkronos International, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei believes that the UN sanctions on Tehran should be frozen and the U.S. and Iran should come to the table to discuss the issues. It worked in North Korea. Why not here? There is nothing in North Korea that we want, unlike Iran and Iraq where most of the oil of the world exists. And it has been intimated that Iran refused to allow the UN inspectors in but ElBaradei disspelled this rumor.
The Jerusalem Post calls Iran "America's top rival in the Mideast" in their story of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Iran to stem the strife between the Sunnis and the Shias in Iraq. Whose side are they on?
It appears Russia is cozying up to Iran now that the international community is taking sides. The Fars news agency reported that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said, "The U.S. has not achieved its goal in the region despite all its efforts. Active cooperation between Iran and Russia on regional issues within a defined framework can hinder the U.S.' ambitious and unilateral plans". Iran needs a strong ally that can make the U.S. think twice before marching to Tehran.
Pyotr Goncharov is a political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti. His article Iran and U.S.: Between the logic of sanctions and the logic of war, he clearly lays out the strategy that is being put in place to allow the U.S. the right to pursue Iran. "The global media are writing that the plan of a potential U.S. strike at Iran has been worked out in detail, with the strike to be delivered by the end of April".
It appears from the article in the Irsh Examiner that Iran is not going to back down. It is pursuing its nuclear capabilities and will not be deterred, even by the "powerful" U.S.
Ahmadinejad, whose hard-line nuclear diplomacy tactics has faced strong criticism from both reformists and conservatives at home, also hinted today that key decisions in Iran are made by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not him. IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad saying.“The general policies of the system are made by the Exalted Supreme Leader, and the government is required to carry them out; the president, as the head of the country’s executive body, pursues and announces the nuclear position.”

Nicolas Burns said "We're trying to convince the Iranians that it's in their best interest to sit down and talk with the United States. That is the basis of American policy." This was reported by Mohammad Zargham for Reuters. The article clearly was an administration propaganda tool. The list of articles goes on and on but the facts are clear. The international community believes Iran is a target of the U.S. and the American people are once again being deceived.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6320363.stm

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn02012007.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/30/iran_ashura/

http://www.progressive.org/node/4486

http://business.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=171202007

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0131-28.htm

Presidential Candidates

Presidential Candidate slaughter is on. In an article by Michael Fletcher in the Washington Post concerning Barack Obama, race is the issue that is going to get all the press. It's hard to imagine that the black constiuents are the ones that are taking a harder look than the rest of us. Why? The President of the United States cannot effectively govern only one race ( the black race). He must govern all races. So let's all look at his credentials and his ideas and plans and see if he can be a good shepherd for America. Let's quit throwing the race card around. I know that prejudice exists and it's not fair but it has no place in a presidential race.

State of the Union - Ratings lower than Fox's Excellent

In an article in Gulfnews.com, staff writer Joseph Marques summed up what some of our top newspapers and some international papers including Britain, Saudi Arabia and Australia had to say about the State of the Union address. http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10099418.html ">Saudi Arabia felt President Bush should get back to reality, Australia felt he should have admitted his mistakes and changed course long ago. None felt his domestic agenda was anything more than a rehash of his previous agenda already set. Even our newspapers cast a rather bleak look at this presidency and where it might end. The only shining star in the group was the Detroit Free Press that stated President Bush gave a confident speech considering the number of Democrats he was facing.
In continuing less than stellar comments on the State of the union the Real Truth, a magazine restoring real truth, leads us further to the right then I thought possible. They state it's all up to God because he hasn't given us the knowledge to have peace. Bush can't win on either side of the aisle.
This same theme of not making anybody happy with his State of the Union Address was echoed in the ">Chicago Tribune by Jennifer Loven, Associated Press. It was much ado about nothing except Bush's agenda - who cares what Americans want?

Fairness Doctrine

Accuracy In Media's Cliff Kincaid strongly disagrees with Sanders, Hinchey and Kucinich. In a CNS interview, he said: "Make no bones about it, they want to force the conservative media to hand over air time to liberals. When federal bureaucrats dictate the content of radio and TV shows, it's muzzling to tell them what to say and how to say it. Liberals used to dominate the media, and they are irritated there are competing voices, so now they want to reign in the conservative media using the federal government. There is no prohibition against liberal talk radio. Liberals tried talk radio and it was not successful in the market place." Is this acccuracy in media according to the right?
CNS quotes Rep. Hinchey's spokesman, Jeff Lieberson, as saying: "The political interests of media owners can have a direct and indirect effect on the way news is presented to the public, so it's important that all sides are heard. This is not an attempt to muzzle them at all," Lieberson said of conservative talk-show hosts who are opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. "They will still be heard. This will ensure that different views that are not theirs will also be heard." I agree that the media needs to give both sides of an issue the opportunity to speak so that we have enought information to make an informed decision.

Iran - Our next quest?

The UnderSecretary of State Nicholas Burns told Times "All of our actions, which are part of a concerted, cohesive policy are meant to show the Iranians there is a limit to their own power in the Middle East," Burns told TIME. "They need to respect American power and they need to deal with us on a much more cooperative basis. Right now, they're supplying the Shia insurgents with military assistance and sophisticated IED technology. Certainly they're supplying Hizballah and Hamas with arms. They helped to instigate that war [between Israel and Hizballah] last summer. We're trying to send an unmistakable signal that the Iranians need to limit their actions. They need to stop targeting American forces."
Iran's president stated he's not worried. "US rhetoric against Iran has not increased," Ahmadinejad said. "In 2003, they openly threatened to attack Iran. Now they have indirectly made such threats." Are we a threat? Or are we blowing smoke and he knows it? Propaganda amuck!!

Iran

A very interesting article in the Tehran Times. It makes sense but is it propaganda saying what the international community wants to hear? We are the obstacle. Is that good or bad?
">

Troop Surge

In the confirmation hearings for General Petraeus to take over in the Iraqi War he stated "Petraeus made no guarantees of success, promising only to provide "the best leadership and direction I can muster" and forthright military advice even if he believes the mission is lost". as reported by the Washington Post
. The question that was not asked was rather is the Iraqi war already lost.

Afghanistan

In Marty Jezer's article at Common Dreams. org,"Remember Afghanistan?" he states "In Afghanistan (and again in Iraq), Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wanted to use high-tech weaponry rather than troops on the ground, and so in both countries we emphasized strategic bombing. Our bombs may have been “smart” but our targeting was based on lousy intelligence, understandable since we didn’t (and still don’t) speak the language or understand the culture, religion, history, and aspirations of the people we were (and are) fighting. In Afghanistan, we bombed schools, hospitals, villages, wedding parties, UN storage depots and our Canadian allies, but didn’t find bin Ladin. According to Professor Marc W. Herold, an expert on Third World development, our bombs killed between 2562 and 2947 Afghan civilians during the first three months of the war. How many neighbors and kinfolk of the dead came to hate us as a result?" Now reports of the Taliban gaining strength are starting to be heard and with the government suspending elections, it appears only a matter of time before this country will be under the control of the Taliban. Where do we focus? Iraq, Afghanistan or the United States

Corporoate Media

According to an article Media Matters.org, Washington Post's John Solomon continues to targget Democrats in his articles. Washington Post gave him front page to cast inuendos about the sale of John Edwards Georgetown house being questionable since they seemed to make 1.4 million on the sale. Media Matters found nothing to inicate any wrong doing. He also did a similar article on Harry Reid's sale of some land. The inuendo being the enormous gain on the sale. The Washington Post is supposed to a fairly open newspaper but with printing articles like the above, it seems that they are taking a side.
In going to the source, here is the transcript of the talk radio show with John Solomon. People asked questions about the two stories above. Read it for yourself and determine what he's leaning.

G.A.O. Watch Dog?

At MSNBC, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648850/) it has been reported that the G.A.O. has hard evidence that the Pentagon and the office of surplus has been selling military parts that have ended up in Iran and China not to mention their ability to purchase any type of weapon they wanted in this last year. In order to hide the waste of the Pentagon they are willing to sell it to anyone. Nothing like funding our next conflict. Also noted was a G.A. O. report that indicates that it wil take much more then the 1.2 billion Bush says is needed to continue the reconstruction. Much More. (Unable to recover that story) The bill for Bush's conflict continues to grow out of sight causing our budget deficit to balloon.

Scooter Libby - Are they your friends?

AT the internet site Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/items/200701180001), they questioned the New York Times article giving testimonials to Libby's character by high profile political operatives but did not mention that they were also members of the committee for Libby's defense fund. Noteworthy in the article are characteristics of Libby that may seem honorable but could also be his shortcomings. Mary Matlin said he was Cheney's Cheney; that he does for the vice president what the vice president does for the president. And when he throws himself into a project, says Matalin, "he does it to the nth degree." All these seemingly wonderful accolades could mean just the opposite. That his loyalty to this administration have sent him to the dark side. In Fitzgerald's attempt to hold this administration accountable for the leak, Libby will take the fall as an overworked individual who did this one his own.

Iran - Our next conquest???

In an article stating the conversation between Senator Biden and Condaleeza Rice at a Senate Hearing Tuesday, Rice was asked point blank by Biden if the administration had plans to invade Iran. (A Washington Post Article - unable to recapture) Rice sidestepped the question by stating that we would defend ourselves as needed - whatever that would take. It is interesting to note that the troop "surge" will center on Baghdad and the province next to Iran. Good cover to infiltrate Iran. Also read an article concerning a compromise offer submitted by Iran in 2003 to this administration. (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0118-06.htm ) It was flatly turned down by VP Cheney. This compromise is very similar to the one this administration has stated it would consider now. If they didn't consider it then why would they seriously consider it now. It appears to me to be a smoke screen to cover up overt attacks on Iran.

The troop increase in Iraq

I was reading a number of blogs from people responding to video clips of what the soldiers and Iraqis felt about the troop increase on MSNBC. I was surprised to read so many people still willing to give President Bush another shot at winning the war. ARe we all so crazed about winning that we cannot admit defeat? I don't believe you can win a war unless you understand your enemy and what motivates them to fight. We didn't do that in Vietnam and after troop escalation and the death of many more soldiers we left Vietnam in defeat. It is time to say enough is enough. I cannot believe the Democrats are even concerned about the thought that if they don't support the war they don't support the troops. Has anyone ever thought that supporting the troops might be by not putting them in harms way in the guise of creating a Democracy (did we ask the Iraqis if that is what they want?) in order to safeguard the oil for the oil companies. We all need to honor the sanctity of life and quit thinking of this war as a TV show that doesn't impact us personally. Over 34,000 Iraqis have died in the last year. Are we really helping these people. When people do not have the strength to rise up and create a better life for themselves, it is impossible for outsiders to do it. We are in an impossible war and expending more lives is not the answer. Bush needs to be impeached. His entire presidency has been a self serving philosophy.

I made it

I'm blogging.