The current issue of Commentary magazine — “widely regarded as the leading outlet for neoconservative writing” — features a controversial cover story by Norman Podhoretz titled “The Case For Bombing Iran.”
“Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz says, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”
(East Hartford-WTNH) _ Senator Joseph Lieberman is refusing to back down from his tough talk on Iran. Earlier in the week, he called for military action against Iran and that opinion is not sitting well with some traditional Lieberman supporters.
Added the Fox61 report by Shelly "Samantha Bee" Sindland as well. YouTube picture seems quite apropos.
A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.
It's really true!
"The Ohio Air Force lab proposed that a bomb be developed that contained a chemical that would cause enemy soliders to become gay, and to have their units break down because all their soldiers became irresistably attractive to one another," Hammond said after reviwing the documents.
"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Hammond.
Hammond said the government records he obtained suggest the military gave the plan much stronger consideration than it has acknowledged.
And what does this have to do with Lieberman?
I am POSITIVE that Lieberman must have toured the Ohio plant for a photo op and was exposed to the chemical. How else could you explain his absolute love affair and devotion to neocons? How else could you explain a Democrat falling madly in love with "Little Boots" and abandoning his party principles?
This piece represents a joint effort by ANN GALLOWAY and ROBIN WINICK and is the second of two posts about AIPAC; Part II deals primarily with global issues; if you haven’t yet read Part I – which focuses on domestic aspects – you might want to read that as well by clicking here.
Note:
It has become dangerous to suggest that AIPAC may be exerting undue influence on both US and Israeli policies. Critics have been accused of anti-Semitism; and politicians who hope to remain in office (as well as those who seek political office) have been silenced by the enormous influence that AIPAC wields –including its ability to direct the use of mega dollars, either to support or defeat those it targets.
For the record, both authors of this piece are Jewish women, and both have been to Israel; one’s daughter studied at Tel Aviv University; the other has worked for a major American Jewish organization and has taught in two Jewish day schools. Both strongly believe in the importance of the existence of the State of Israel. However, we also believe that just as our country’s founders would turn over in their graves to see what the right wing has done to compromise our democracy, so Israel’s founders would be appalled at the damage its extremists have done to compromise the very existence and safety of Israel’s citizens.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Spc. David Williams, 22, of Boston, Mass., had two note cards in his pocket Wednesday afternoon as he waited for Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Williams serves in the 82nd Airborne Division from Fort Bragg, N.C., the first of the five "surge" brigades to arrive in Iraq, and he was chosen to join the Independent from Connecticut for lunch at a U.S. field base in Baghdad.
The night before, 30 other soldiers crowded around him with questions for the senator.
He wrote them all down. At the top of his note card was the question he got from nearly every one of his fellow soldiers:
"When are we going to get out of here?"
And from Spc. Will Hedin, 21, of Chester, Conn:
We're not making any progress," Hedin said, as he recalled a comrade who was shot by a sniper last week. "It just seems like we drive around and wait to get shot at."
But as he waited two chairs down from where Lieberman would sit, Hedin said he'd never voice his true feelings to the senator.
"I think I'd be a private if I did," he joked. "It's just more troops, more targets."
This represents a joint effort by ANN GALLOWAY and ROBIN WINICK. The first of two posts about AIPAC, this piece will deal primarily with domestic issues; a subsequent discussion on global impact will follow in a few days.
It has become dangerous to suggest that AIPAC may be exerting undue influence on both US and Israeli policies. Critics have been accused of anti-Semitism; and politicians who hope to remain in office (as well as those who seek political office) have been silenced by the enormous influence that AIPAC wields - including its ability to direct the use of mega dollars, either to support or defeat those it targets.
For the record, both authors of this piece are Jewish women, and both have been to Israel; one's daughter studied at Tel Aviv University; the other has worked for a major American Jewish organization and has taught in two Jewish day schools. Both strongly believe in the importance of the existence of the State of Israel. However, they also believe that just as our country's founders would turn over in their graves to see what the right wing has done to compromise our democracy, so Israel's founders would be appalled at the damage its extremists have done to compromise the very existence and safety of Israel's citizens.
This represents a joint effort by ANN GALLOWAY and ROBIN WINICK. The first of two posts about AIPAC, this piece will deal primarily with domestic issues; a subsequent discussion on global impact will follow in a few days.
It has become dangerous to suggest that AIPAC may be exerting undue influence on both US and Israeli policies. Critics have been accused of anti-Semitism; and politicians who hope to remain in office (as well as those who seek political office) have been silenced by the enormous influence that AIPAC wields - including its ability to direct the use of mega dollars, either to support or defeat those it targets.
For the record, both authors of this piece are Jewish women, and both have been to Israel; one's daughter studied at Tel Aviv University; the other has worked for a major American Jewish organization and has taught in two Jewish day schools. Both strongly believe in the importance of the existence of the State of Israel. However, they also believe that just as our country's founders would turn over in their graves to see what the right wing has done to compromise our democracy, so Israel's founders would be appalled at the damage its extremists have done to compromise the very existence and safety of Israel's citizens.
Here is how these Bush criminals should be received in public. That he was awarded an honorary doctorate from UMass at the same moment typifies everything that is wrong and perverse.
On May 25, 2007 Andrew Card faced hundreds of boos and catcalls as he was given an honorary degree during the graduate school commencement at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Before the commencement, over a hundred protesters staged a rally and press conference outside the Mullin Center on the UMass campus. Hundreds more students and faculty who opposed the honorary degree would later protest inside the hall.
Card, former Bush Administration Chief of Staff and chief salesman for the invasion of Iraq as head of the White House Iraq Group, faced signs calling him a war criminal. People are now calling on UMass to rescind the honorary degree.
From yesterday on CNN's The Situation Room. Not quite as good as the smackdown by Ware of John McCain's witless comments earlier this week as Lieberman tempers his comments far more than he usually does, merely referring to Ware's "gloomy assessment" of the situation in Iraq. Ware has only been in Iraq for four years while Joe Lieberman has eyed the situation far more closely, with a critical eye, from the frontlines of the Green Zone, sipping his mint julips while being briefed--and then later ignoring those briefings.
Lieberman: So, I - I don't - I can't directly dispute Michael Ware's overall picture, but I'll tell you most significantly, the American soldier is more confident walking the streets of Baghdad today. And that's a very important change.
Think Progress tries valiantly to make heads nor tails of this gobbledygook Lieberman spews today. Basically, their title is a correct, literal interpretation of what he said (There Is No Civil War In Iraq (But Even If There Is, We Should Stay). It just doesn't help much.
Lieberman voted with the republican warlords once again, of course. The senate democrats managed a narrow win, 50-48
Craig Unger in Vanity Fair details the past, present, and future of the neocon infatuation with Iran. Highlights include parallels to the Iraq lead-up to war, with questionable political proxies, distaste for negotiations, cherry-picked intelligence playing out once again with Iran. We've known about the continued episodes of neocon belligerence towards Iran policy, but Unger not only catalogs them but makes a cohesive story - one that is very scary. It's a long read, but there's no fat. Highly recommended.
But waging war against Iran could be the most catastrophic choice of all. It is widely believed that Iran would respond to an attack by blockading the Strait of Hormuz, a 20-mile-wide narrows in the eastern part of the Persian Gulf through which about 40 percent of the world's oil exports are transported. Oil analysts say a blockade could propel the price of oil to $125 a barrel, sending the world economy into a tailspin. There could be vast international oil wars. Iran could act on its fierce rhetoric against Israel.
America's 130,000 soldiers in Iraq would also become highly vulnerable in the event of an attack on Iran. "Our troops in Iraq are supplied with food, fuel, and ammunition by truck convoys from a supply base in Kuwait," says [retired colonel W. Patrick] Lang. "Most of that goes over roads that pass through the Shiite-dominated South of Iraq. The Iranians could cut those supply lines just like that-the trucks are easy to shoot at with R.P.G.'s," or rocket-propelled grenades.
The only hope is that Congress will stand up forcefully against Bush (and Lieberman) to prevent disaster. IMHO, this may be more important than an anti-escalation measure. But they have to act soon, the chess pieces are already moving into place.
According to Sam Gardiner, the most telling sign that a decision to bomb has already been made was the October deployment order of minesweepers to the Persian Gulf, presumably to counter any attempt by Iran to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. "These have to be towed to the Gulf," Gardiner explains. "They are really small ships, the size of cabin cruisers, made of fiberglass and wood. And towing them to the Gulf can take three to four weeks."
Another serious development is the growing role of the U.S. Strategic Command (StratCom), which oversees nuclear weapons, missile defense, and protection against weapons of mass destruction. Bush has directed StratCom to draw up plans for a massive strike against Iran, at a time when CentCom has had its hands full overseeing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Shifting to StratCom indicates that they are talking about a really punishing air-force and naval air attack [on Iran]," says Lang.
Moreover, he continues, Bush can count on the military to carry out such a mission even without congressional authorization. "If they write a plan like that and the president issues an execute order, the forces will execute it. He's got the power to do that as commander-in-chief. We set that up during the Cold War. It may, after the fact, be considered illegal, or an impeachable offense, but if he orders them to do it, they will do it."
Lang also notes that the recent appointment of a naval officer, Admiral William Fallon, to the top post at CentCom may be another indication that Bush intends to bomb Iran. "It makes very little sense that a person with this background should be appointed to be theater commander in a theater in which two essentially 'ground' wars are being fought, unless it is intended to conduct yet another war which will be different in character," he wrote in his blog. "The employment of Admiral Fallon suggests that they are thinking about something that is not a ground campaign."
In a widely expected move, Tehran said it would use the euro for all future commercial transactions overseas."
The last country that tried to switch to selling their oil in Euros? Iraq... Not long before they were illegally invaded under the bogus threat of impending mushroom clouds.
(via Media Matters) On the December 16 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report, after Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley claimed that it would be "very difficult," politically, for President Bush to increase troop levels in Iraq, fellow Journal board member Robert Pollock countered: "[A]ll that means is decreasing the length of some breaks from tours of duty and increasing the lengths of some tours of duty." Pollock added: "That's not a hard thing to do."
From the December 16 edition of Fox News' Journal Editorial Report:
PAUL GIGOT (host and Journal editorial page editor): The president is never going to win over the people who didn't want to go to war in the first place or want to get out.
But there are people, Jason, that -- [Sens.] John McCain [R-AZ], Joe Lieberman [I-CT], and some others -- who have that criticism that [American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Frederick] Kagan has, which is we haven't been prosecuting this war in the right way. We haven't been doing enough to win. Those, it seems to me, are the people, politically, the president can't afford to lose. And they've been saying, "More troops." So why not move in that direction?
MLN is powered by