Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops
Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran
By ANDREW COCKBURN- Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."
Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.
Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat.
Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.
All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.
Until recently, the administration faced a serious obstacle to action against Iran in the form of Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon, who made no secret of his contempt for official determination to take us to war. In a widely publicized incident last January, Iranian patrol boats approached a U.S. ship in what the Pentagon described as a "taunting" manner. According to Centcom staff officers, the American commander on the spot was about to open fire. At that point, the U.S. was close to war. He desisted only when Fallon personally and explicitly ordered him not to shoot. The White House, according to the staff officers, was "absolutely furious" with Fallon for defusing the incident.
Fallon has since departed. His abrupt resignation in early March followed the publication of his unvarnished views on our policy of confrontation with Iran, something that is unlikely to happen to his replacement, George Bush's favorite general, David Petraeus.
Though Petraeus is not due to take formal command at Centcom until late summer, there are abundant signs that something may happen before then. A Marine amphibious force, originally due to leave San Diego for the Persian Gulf in mid June, has had its sailing date abruptly moved up to May 4. A scheduled meeting in Europe between French diplomats acting as intermediaries for the U.S. and Iranian representatives has been abruptly cancelled in the last two weeks. Petraeus is said to be at work on a master briefing for congress to demonstrate conclusively that the Iranians are the source of our current troubles in Iraq, thanks to their support for the Shia militia currently under attack by U.S. forces in Baghdad.
Interestingly, despite the bellicose complaints, Petraeus has made little effort to seal the Iran-Iraq border, and in any case two thirds of U.S. casualties still come from Sunni insurgents. "The Shia account for less than one third," a recently returned member of the command staff in Baghdad familiar with the relevant intelligence told me, "but if you want a war you have to sell it."
Even without the covert initiatives described above, the huge and growing armada currently on station in the Gulf is an impressive symbol of American power.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Bush Secretly Authorises Assassination Of Iranian Officials
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
It may be a little literal and Roberts has perhaps the zealotry of the convert, but there is no doubting the aggressors on planet Earth are the imperial neocons.
Paul Craig Roberts- It is 1939 all over again. The world waits helplessly for the next act of naked aggression by rogue states. Only this time the rogue states are not the Third Reich and Fascist Italy. They are the United States and Israel.
The targeted victims are not Poland and France, but Iran, Syria, the remains of the Palestinian West Bank and southern Lebanon.
The American mass media is overjoyed. War coverage attracts viewers and sells advertising.
The neoconservatives are ecstatic. Hegemony uber alles is back on track.
The US Air Force can’t wait “to show what it can do.”
Defense contractors see no end of the profits.
Under cover of the mayhem and propaganda, Israel can grab the remains of the West Bank and have another go at grabbing the water resources of southern Lebanon.
Unlike the US and Israel, Iran is neither occupying any other country’s territory nor threatening to invade another country. Nevertheless, propaganda against Iran is spouting from US and Israeli mouths at an increasing rate. Lie after lie rolls off the tongues of leaders of the “two great democracies.”
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Bush is to kill 3 million Iranians with Nuclear Radiation!
Is an Attack on Iran Imminent?
by Dan Hamburg
George W. Bush is poised to order a massive aerial bombardment — possibly including tactical nuclear weapons - of up to 10,000 targets in Iran. The attack would be justified on grounds that Iran is interfering with U.S. efforts in Iraq and that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, a charge that was debunked last fall in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
According to international experts, the U.S. declared economic war against Iran on March 20. On that day, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) called on the world’s financial institutions to stop doing business with Iran, making it much more difficult for Iran to engage in global commerce.
Now the Bush administration is preparing to drop the other shoe. Below are some of the indications that a U.S. military attack on Iran is imminent:
The March 11 resignation of CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon who, according to a well-publicized Esquire magazine article, “openly opposed Bush’s Iran policy and was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.”
The recent removal of Vice Admiral John Stufflebeem, Commander of the 6th Fleet (Mediterranean Sea), also known to be a critic of the administration’s war plans.
Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon last month. According to US News & World Report, “The United States would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of a military action against Iran.”
The Israeli air strike against Syria last September was advertised as an attack on a nuclear facility. Current speculation is that the real purpose of the raid was to “force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses.” Knowing the electronic signatures of these systems would reduce the risks for U.S. and Israeli warplanes heading to Iranian targets.
Israel conducted its largest military exercises ever beginning the week of April 6. This exercise simulated missile strikes from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. (Note: Both 9/11 and the London subway bombing of 7/7/07 occurred simultaneous by with military and/or civil defense exercises.)
One day after a March visit from Vice President Cheney, the Saudi government announced “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom.” This announcement came following warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s nearby Bushehr nuclear reactors.
According to former U.N. chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the Pentagon has contracted for additional bunker-buster bombs and planes that carry them. Delivery is due this month.
The oncoming monsoon season, which would carry radioactive fallout by wind and rain to countries east of Iran (including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India), narrows the window for the optimal launch of an air attack.
Over the past six months, two major incidents have demonstrated the inadequate security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. On August 30, 2007, a B-52 Stratofortress bomber carrying 6 AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, flew an unauthorized mission from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. (Barksdale is the major disembarkation point for personnel and materiel going to the Middle East.) This “Bent Spear” incident marked the first time in more than 40 years that nuclear weapons had been flown across the continental United States. A spate of up to eight accidental deaths and suicides of personnel from these two bases adds an ominous twist to this story.
Recently, it was revealed that intercontinental ballistic missile fuses had been sent to Taiwan instead of the helicopter batteries they had ordered. Sharp protests from China forced President Bush to acknowledge the error personally to Chinese Premier Hu Jintao.
As a result of these incidents, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a series of investigations, including a recent order for a complete physical inventory of the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The Bush administration is hypocritical in its claims that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Given the Minot/Barksdale incident and the mix-up between ballistic missile fuses and helicopter batteries, the question that should to be asked is: “Can the U.S. be trusted with nuclear weapons?”
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a “limited” nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan would result in three million people killed by radiation within two weeks and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.
Yet another preemptive attack and the devastation of another civilian population would be grossly immoral and in violation of all international codes of conduct. No one can predict how such an attack would end, especially in the tinderbox that is the Middle East. Every patriotic American, and especially every member of Congress, should do whatever is in their power to stop the Bush-Cheney cabal before they drag us into World War III.
Dan Hamburg is a former Democratic US congressperson from northern California. He is currently executive director of Voice of the Environment, a San Francisco based nonprofit.
Copyright © 2008 by Santa Monica Mirror
by Dan Hamburg
George W. Bush is poised to order a massive aerial bombardment — possibly including tactical nuclear weapons - of up to 10,000 targets in Iran. The attack would be justified on grounds that Iran is interfering with U.S. efforts in Iraq and that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, a charge that was debunked last fall in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).
According to international experts, the U.S. declared economic war against Iran on March 20. On that day, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) called on the world’s financial institutions to stop doing business with Iran, making it much more difficult for Iran to engage in global commerce.
Now the Bush administration is preparing to drop the other shoe. Below are some of the indications that a U.S. military attack on Iran is imminent:
The March 11 resignation of CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon who, according to a well-publicized Esquire magazine article, “openly opposed Bush’s Iran policy and was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.”
The recent removal of Vice Admiral John Stufflebeem, Commander of the 6th Fleet (Mediterranean Sea), also known to be a critic of the administration’s war plans.
Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon last month. According to US News & World Report, “The United States would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of a military action against Iran.”
The Israeli air strike against Syria last September was advertised as an attack on a nuclear facility. Current speculation is that the real purpose of the raid was to “force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses.” Knowing the electronic signatures of these systems would reduce the risks for U.S. and Israeli warplanes heading to Iranian targets.
Israel conducted its largest military exercises ever beginning the week of April 6. This exercise simulated missile strikes from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. (Note: Both 9/11 and the London subway bombing of 7/7/07 occurred simultaneous by with military and/or civil defense exercises.)
One day after a March visit from Vice President Cheney, the Saudi government announced “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom.” This announcement came following warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s nearby Bushehr nuclear reactors.
According to former U.N. chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the Pentagon has contracted for additional bunker-buster bombs and planes that carry them. Delivery is due this month.
The oncoming monsoon season, which would carry radioactive fallout by wind and rain to countries east of Iran (including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India), narrows the window for the optimal launch of an air attack.
Over the past six months, two major incidents have demonstrated the inadequate security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. On August 30, 2007, a B-52 Stratofortress bomber carrying 6 AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, flew an unauthorized mission from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana. (Barksdale is the major disembarkation point for personnel and materiel going to the Middle East.) This “Bent Spear” incident marked the first time in more than 40 years that nuclear weapons had been flown across the continental United States. A spate of up to eight accidental deaths and suicides of personnel from these two bases adds an ominous twist to this story.
Recently, it was revealed that intercontinental ballistic missile fuses had been sent to Taiwan instead of the helicopter batteries they had ordered. Sharp protests from China forced President Bush to acknowledge the error personally to Chinese Premier Hu Jintao.
As a result of these incidents, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a series of investigations, including a recent order for a complete physical inventory of the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal.
The Bush administration is hypocritical in its claims that Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. Given the Minot/Barksdale incident and the mix-up between ballistic missile fuses and helicopter batteries, the question that should to be asked is: “Can the U.S. be trusted with nuclear weapons?”
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a “limited” nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan would result in three million people killed by radiation within two weeks and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.
Yet another preemptive attack and the devastation of another civilian population would be grossly immoral and in violation of all international codes of conduct. No one can predict how such an attack would end, especially in the tinderbox that is the Middle East. Every patriotic American, and especially every member of Congress, should do whatever is in their power to stop the Bush-Cheney cabal before they drag us into World War III.
Dan Hamburg is a former Democratic US congressperson from northern California. He is currently executive director of Voice of the Environment, a San Francisco based nonprofit.
Copyright © 2008 by Santa Monica Mirror
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Dehumanization of the Western Mind
A US Casualty of war, A threat to World Peace: Clinton Dehumanised
Source: payvand.com
By Mehrnaz Shahabi (CASMII: www.campaigniran.org)
The shameful exposition by the American presidential hopeful, Hilary Clinton, of her mass genocidal intentions towards Iranians was tragic proof of the dehumanising impact of warmongering on an elite western mind. It is said that humanity is the first casualty of war and this has been starkly clear, not only in the murderous boasting of the presidential candidate's preparedness to "totally obliterate" an entire nation, to prove her appeal as the American president, but worse still, in the meek and acquiescent response or no response at all of the western mainstream journalists, politicians and intelligentsia.
Where are those super champions of human rights and western liberal values who were so 'outraged' by the announcement of Fatwa on Salmon Rushdie? Does that loud and sanguine defense of "freedom of expression" translate into this blood-soaked acquiesce to the liberty of threatening an entire nations to "total obliteration"?
And compare this complacent silence to the flooding of the airwaves and newsrags with propaganda bombardment over the Iranian president's misquoted "wiping Israel off the map" remark, which has gone on incessantly for two and a half years despite frequent attempts at clarification and correction. Such was the "outrage". Of course, many people take their cues on how to respond to the avalanche of complex news, from the mainstream media itself and politicians. So the silence is a cue heavy with meaning and menace.
The Orwellian double talk and double standards are so part of the fabric of every day political culture that they now go down without the need for a pinch of salt and are comfortably digested. However, when the threat of mass genocide, amidst overwhelming silence or inaudible whimpers, is interpreted as a "gaff" (Timothy Garton-Ash, Guardian 24th April), and a rare objection describes it as "probably imprudent" (Lord Malloch-Brown, Guardian 24th April), this is the unmistakable indication of the deadening of sensitivity and tolerance of violence towards nations who are deemed as 'dispensable'; as in Iraq and in Palestine.
This deadening of humanity is the most serious casualty of the immoral invasion of Iraq in the aggressor countries, and if not recovered, there will be dire consequences for the entire world.
The "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", of the United Nations, defines Genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; …".
Hilary Clinton is threatening the destruction of a "whole national group" and by her violent threat is causing them "serious mental harm". In her ABC News interview, she has unequivocally threatened that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran". "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." This was in reply to the question on how she would respond if Iran attacked Israel by nuclear weapons.
Not only, according to the intensive IAEA inspections, there is no evidence of Iran working towards weaponisation or indeed any rationale for such a threat, but even if, hypothetically, such a threat existed, the threat of "total obliteration" issued to an entire nation remains an insane and criminal intent. This threat of total annihilation which would presumably imply the use of nuclear weapons is directed against a helpless population with catastrophic consequences. Such an attack would not compensate against any unlikely hypothetical attack from Iran, neither would such a threat act as a fearsome deterrent – as it is claimed to be. Just as it is intended to grab the presidency through fear mongering and to feed the monster of America's continuing wars with paranoia, similarly the impact of such fear in Iranians would be the anxiety to defend oneself against a deranged president and a population that goes along with it. According to the UN definition of genocide, Hilary Clinton is threatening mass genocide of an entire nation of 70 million. Is this violent woman fit to hold the presidency of a country with the most powerful war machine in history? Have we become so dehumanised by our incessant killing that we have lost any capacity for outrage?
With over a million Iraqis and thousands of coalition soldiers killed and maimed, the prospect of Hilary Clinton's presidency, who voted in favour of that illegal and immoral war, and has publicly declared her voracious appetite for mass genocide, is a truly terrifying specter.
A lone voice of conscience, in a readers' letter in the Guardian newspaper (24th April) asks: "What would she do if Israel attacked Iran (which is more likely)?". This is the question Clinton should have been asked and the question she should now be asked by the world community. So should statesmen, politicians and journalists internationally be questioned on their views on the US presidential hopeful's mass genocidal intents.
About the author: Mehrnaz Shahabi is an Iranian-British peace activist, translator and independent journalist.
... Payvand News - 04/26/08 ...
Source: payvand.com
By Mehrnaz Shahabi (CASMII: www.campaigniran.org)
The shameful exposition by the American presidential hopeful, Hilary Clinton, of her mass genocidal intentions towards Iranians was tragic proof of the dehumanising impact of warmongering on an elite western mind. It is said that humanity is the first casualty of war and this has been starkly clear, not only in the murderous boasting of the presidential candidate's preparedness to "totally obliterate" an entire nation, to prove her appeal as the American president, but worse still, in the meek and acquiescent response or no response at all of the western mainstream journalists, politicians and intelligentsia.
Where are those super champions of human rights and western liberal values who were so 'outraged' by the announcement of Fatwa on Salmon Rushdie? Does that loud and sanguine defense of "freedom of expression" translate into this blood-soaked acquiesce to the liberty of threatening an entire nations to "total obliteration"?
And compare this complacent silence to the flooding of the airwaves and newsrags with propaganda bombardment over the Iranian president's misquoted "wiping Israel off the map" remark, which has gone on incessantly for two and a half years despite frequent attempts at clarification and correction. Such was the "outrage". Of course, many people take their cues on how to respond to the avalanche of complex news, from the mainstream media itself and politicians. So the silence is a cue heavy with meaning and menace.
The Orwellian double talk and double standards are so part of the fabric of every day political culture that they now go down without the need for a pinch of salt and are comfortably digested. However, when the threat of mass genocide, amidst overwhelming silence or inaudible whimpers, is interpreted as a "gaff" (Timothy Garton-Ash, Guardian 24th April), and a rare objection describes it as "probably imprudent" (Lord Malloch-Brown, Guardian 24th April), this is the unmistakable indication of the deadening of sensitivity and tolerance of violence towards nations who are deemed as 'dispensable'; as in Iraq and in Palestine.
This deadening of humanity is the most serious casualty of the immoral invasion of Iraq in the aggressor countries, and if not recovered, there will be dire consequences for the entire world.
The "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", of the United Nations, defines Genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; …".
Hilary Clinton is threatening the destruction of a "whole national group" and by her violent threat is causing them "serious mental harm". In her ABC News interview, she has unequivocally threatened that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran". "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." This was in reply to the question on how she would respond if Iran attacked Israel by nuclear weapons.
Not only, according to the intensive IAEA inspections, there is no evidence of Iran working towards weaponisation or indeed any rationale for such a threat, but even if, hypothetically, such a threat existed, the threat of "total obliteration" issued to an entire nation remains an insane and criminal intent. This threat of total annihilation which would presumably imply the use of nuclear weapons is directed against a helpless population with catastrophic consequences. Such an attack would not compensate against any unlikely hypothetical attack from Iran, neither would such a threat act as a fearsome deterrent – as it is claimed to be. Just as it is intended to grab the presidency through fear mongering and to feed the monster of America's continuing wars with paranoia, similarly the impact of such fear in Iranians would be the anxiety to defend oneself against a deranged president and a population that goes along with it. According to the UN definition of genocide, Hilary Clinton is threatening mass genocide of an entire nation of 70 million. Is this violent woman fit to hold the presidency of a country with the most powerful war machine in history? Have we become so dehumanised by our incessant killing that we have lost any capacity for outrage?
With over a million Iraqis and thousands of coalition soldiers killed and maimed, the prospect of Hilary Clinton's presidency, who voted in favour of that illegal and immoral war, and has publicly declared her voracious appetite for mass genocide, is a truly terrifying specter.
A lone voice of conscience, in a readers' letter in the Guardian newspaper (24th April) asks: "What would she do if Israel attacked Iran (which is more likely)?". This is the question Clinton should have been asked and the question she should now be asked by the world community. So should statesmen, politicians and journalists internationally be questioned on their views on the US presidential hopeful's mass genocidal intents.
About the author: Mehrnaz Shahabi is an Iranian-British peace activist, translator and independent journalist.
... Payvand News - 04/26/08 ...
Thursday, April 24, 2008
She who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes".
by Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich 4/24/08
Source Payvand.com
It seems Hillary Clinton has sacrificed her conscience to ambition. Chinese proverb has it that "he who sacrifices his conscience to ambition, burns a picture to obtain the ashes". She announced her readiness to reduce 70 million innocent Iranian lives to ashes so that she could imagine her picture in the White House. Hillary's lust for ambition will never be satisfied; on the contrary, it seems to grow more inflamed with the prospect of mass murder. After all, this is nothing new to her.
Hillary knowingly supported the Iraq war to defend the "future of freedom". In her drive for the Iraq war, she was supported by the Progressive Policy Institute, a self-described think-tank of the Democratic Leadership Council[i]. Perhaps no one describes the group better than former neoconservative Jacob Heilbrunn who wrote: "Don't look now, but neoconservatism is making a comeback-and not among the Republicans who have made it famous, but in the Democratic Party,"[ii]. Indeed, many of them supported the war for the purpose of promoting democracy.
Her ideology has contributed to the nation's moral bankruptcy, the loss of over one million lives, and the depletion of America's treasury. These neoliberals who have driven us into a quagmire, elaborated it would serve America's interest to promote the Democratic peace theory. Scholars, university professors, and neoliberal jurists presented the concept that sovereignty, as it stood in international law did not provide immunity from attack to states engaging in systematic human rights abuses or amassing weapons of mass destruction. These would be considered 'pariah' states to be attacked by democratic coalitions with a warrant to liberalize them.[iii] Candidate Hillary comes from this stock. It seems that the only thing which differentiates her from McCain is the conduct of the war in Iraq, not the immoral and illegal war itself.
One can see why she would oppose the Bush conduct in this war by understanding the PPI. A book entitled "With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty" edited by Will Marshall (President of PPI) outlines the strategy difference between the 'progressives' (neoliberals) and the Bush unilateralism. The war in Iraq is part of a strategy for "building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy."[iv] She has endorsed the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on her belief that she holds a superior ideology which must be imposed on others, regardless of the cost and the consequences.
No doubt a person's character is never so well disclosed as when it is seen through the company he/she keeps. It appears that Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D -Texas), co-chair of Hillary's presidential campaign, not only shares her friendship with America's presidential hopeful, but she also promotes America's terrorists[v]. The Mojaheden-e Khalgh (MEK) were put on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list by President Clinton for they were responsible for the assassination of Americans in Iran in the 1970's, as well as for their role in the US embassy takeover[vi], yet their leader and Hillary have a common friend and promoter. Congresswoman Jackson Lee went as far as calling Rajavi "Sister Maryam,[vii]. Are Hillary and Maryam 'sisters' too? Is our presidential candidate 'sister' to a notorious cult leader?
Raymond Tanter, a former National Security Agency staffer who led the IPC, predicted that the MEK would be removed from the terrorist list and be used by the U.S. against the regime. "I foresee a situation where Laura Bush, Condi Rice, Karen Hughes, and Maryam Rajavi are posing for a picture in the White House,"[viii]. Tanter was not far off. The MEK is certainly being used, and in all likelihood they will be moved from the terrorist list. However, Maryam Rajavi may have to wait for the photo op and take it with Sister Hillary.
[i] Tony Smith, "A Pact with the Devil. Washington's bid for world supremacy and the betrayal of the American promise'. Routledge 2007
[ii] Jacob Heilbrunn, "Neocons in the Democratic Party," Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006.
[iii] Tony Smith. Ibid
[iv] Will Marshall, editor, With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, PPI (Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).
[vii] Financial Times, October 6, 2005.
[viii] Connie Bruck, "A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran's expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat". The New Yorker, March 6, 2006
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hillary Clinton threatens genocide against Iran
This woman is doing ANYTHING possible to get votes!
And at the end of the day, people who are voting for her are either senile, or battered women with serious phallic envy disorder who seek empowerment in obnoxious talk-tough attitude of this utterly stupid woman: Hillary Clinton!
This is her new cat out of the bag:
WAIT A MINUTE MRS DUMB-ASS CLINTON:
Those who have been threatening IRAN with military action in recent months have been Israelis; not the other way around!
Jerusalem Post: "Military Action Against Iran Ready"
AFP: Israel may have to take military action against Iran, Bolton says
Israel Toda: "Israel receive the blessing of EU and US to attack Iran"
London Time: "Leaked, Israel plans nuclear strike against Iran"
London Telegraph: Israel seeks all clear to attack Iran
ICH: Petraeus signals attack against Iran
And at the end of the day, people who are voting for her are either senile, or battered women with serious phallic envy disorder who seek empowerment in obnoxious talk-tough attitude of this utterly stupid woman: Hillary Clinton!
This is her new cat out of the bag:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton warned Tehran on Tuesday that if she were president, the United States could "totally obliterate" Iran in retaliation for a nuclear strike against Israel.
On the day of a crucial vote in her nomination battle against fellow Democrat Barack Obama, the New York senator said she wanted to make clear to Tehran what she was prepared to do as president in hopes that this warning would deter any Iranian nuclear attack against the Jewish state.
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
Her comments appeared harder than a week ago, when during a presidential debate she promised "massive retaliation" against any Iranian attack on Israel.
Obama rejected Clinton's rhetoric as saber rattling on a day when Pennsyhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.giflvania Democrats voted in a party primary contest that could help decide which Democrat will face Republican John McCain for the White House in the November general election.
"One of the things that we've seen over the last several years is a bunch of talk using words like 'obliterate,"' Obama, an Illinois senator, said in a separate ABC interview. "It doesn't actually produce good results. And so I'm not interested in saber rattling."
WAIT A MINUTE MRS DUMB-ASS CLINTON:
Those who have been threatening IRAN with military action in recent months have been Israelis; not the other way around!
Jerusalem Post: "Military Action Against Iran Ready"
AFP: Israel may have to take military action against Iran, Bolton says
Israel Toda: "Israel receive the blessing of EU and US to attack Iran"
London Time: "Leaked, Israel plans nuclear strike against Iran"
London Telegraph: Israel seeks all clear to attack Iran
ICH: Petraeus signals attack against Iran
NOW SHUT UP!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
