Here is an alternet story about why the NY Times sucks, with the exception of the editorial page.

And here is a n article about how Iran doesn't even make the kind of bomb the evidence is based on. Yet again, would Iran use English markings? Would they mark them at all if going to Iraq?

links still not working

links

I'm not sure I like the way links don't work on this blog set up

evidence?

Many people are pointing out that the markings on the supposed proof of Iranian supplies of bombs to Iraq is not in Farsi, but in English. Don't know if it is true, but would the Iranians mark their bombs with serial numbers in English? (Would they mark them at all?)

Iran Scam continues

Yet again, you would have to go across the ocean to Europe to get a true account of what the administration is up to with Iran. (Hint: It looks a lot like what they were up to with Iraq in 2003) If one goes to the New York Times, which I will not link to here, it is almost as if Judy Miller still works there. They claim to have learned from the past, yet they keep insisting on repeating history over again.

Why? Well, we could go back to Noam Chomsky's book, MANUFACTURE OF CONSENT, which shows mainly how the media serves the interests of power - but that book, written in a complex and terse prose, certainly isn't the most digestible way of getting to the point. And, it was written a few decades ago.

An easier way of understanding why the American media is so useless, especially as of late, can be found in an interview with the jounalist Robert Parry over at Buzzflash.com. He goes back to the Iran-Contra scandal, and how the major media wrecked Gary Webb's life for trying to report the truth about it.

And, yet again, where is Congress? Are the Democrats trying to prove those of us that think they share too much incommon with Republicans right? Paul Craig Roberts and others have suggested that the House and Senate should make it clear that if Bush drops one bomb inside Ira, they will be impeached. One wonders what the hold up is. Complicity? Weakness? Stupidity?

Today, as I listened to the Diane Rheim show, and found myself astounded at the weak positions about Iran coming from people who exposed the lies around Iraq (I mean Michael Isikoff, it dawned on me once again how far gone we are. One caller pointed out how Iran "meddling" in Iraq is a stupid accusation, given the fact that the US is an illegal occupying power. This was met with the idea that all of us should check our "worldview" at he door, and look at facts, and, you know, not jump to judgement or something inane like that. Well, it is interesting that the "worldview" that has been proven right over and over has to be regarded with the same skepticism as the neo-con freak show - which has not only been wrong, but as the Dowining Street Memo tells us, "the facts were made to fit the policy." Thanks, oh great experts!

Here is a qoute from a Buzzflash comment box: "Americans are stupid.
Russians never believed soviet propaganda. Americans still believe MSM and swallow all this idiocy whole." Well...is it true? Are we stupid enough to allow Bush to attack Iran? Where are the giant protests about Ira"N?" Often they are tacked onto Ira"Q" demonstrations, but that isn't good enough now.

And from the wire, a third ship of war group is on the way to the Gulf....

Continue Counting down...who's listening?

If anybody thinks Iran, who hasn't attacked anyone in modern times (Iraq attacked them), is so very dangerous and a threat to everything including Israel - then take a look at the picture posted on Jamal's propaganda blog of a town in southern Lebanon. Who did that? Was it Iran?

As the Bush people continue to spin their lies intended to start yet another war in the Middle East, it seems the American people are barely aware of what's happening. We know from various articles that the ships of war are on the way to the Gulf. There may be as many as 50 ships preparing to send misery to Iran by way of fire from the sky.

Hello, Congess! Do you exist? Hello, media! Are you going to sleep through this, too? Thank you. Good night and Good Luck.

Somalia, Iraq, Iran

And now we are bombing people in Somalia in the name of "The war on Terror." If even one Democrat (or Republican) has spoken against this attack, I haven't seen it. Because there are seemingly no consequences (to the US, at least) to bombing Somalia, the US does this without a moment of consideration. Iran, however, is another case - where it seems thought must at least be given to the fact that there will be consequences affecting much of the world.

In Iraq, we are told there is fighting only yards from the "Green Zone" involving an American/Shiite Iraqi attack on Sunni "insurgents." Noam Chomsky has often spoken of how foreign policy resembles the mafia, and that becomes clear each time the US makes a move.

And now we are to "surge." This means escalate. Paul Craig Roberts thinks the "surge" may be a distractration from the next Bush lunacy - which will be an attack on Iran by the US, and possibly Israel. In fact, the Times of London has reported that Israel might be planning to use low yeild nuclear weapons to attack Iran.

And why have the Russians and the Chinese gone along with a watered down version of UN sanctions against Iran? What did Bush tell them? Not only that, but a recent LATimes article reports on the ways the US is going after financing for Iran's oil industry - as well as putting pressure on Russia and China not to sell weapons to Iran.

It is obvious that the US wants to make Iran as helpless as possible before it attacks. The whole thing reminds me how the US antagonized Japan before Japan bombed Peal Harbor, thus entering the US into the WWII conflict. It looks as though the Democrats, the Rublicans, the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese have set themselves on a path towards the third inter-imperialist slaughter - in other words, WWIII.

Lebanon,US,Iran-and the multi-sided world

It looks like most independent observers see the latest war in Lebanon as a failure for Israel, and thus a defeat for the Bush agenda. But, the problem is that Bush and company might be smart enought o grasp what happened. They still believe they accomplished something in Iraq. The would like to try it in Iran. In fact, even in the mainstream media some are calling this a proxy war between Iran and the US.

Will the madness ever end? The most one can hope is that it ends with Bush leaving the White House. Or, perhaps the Democrats win in the mid-term elections. (However, there is no indication the Democrats are any better at this point.)

One thing seems pretty certain: the middle-east will not be "re-drawn" to look anything like whatever plan the Bush people had. Any attack on Iran is bound have the opposite effect of removing the regime in Iran. (Ok, that's two certain things.)

gaza

One other thing, the only way to a real lasting peace is just settlement of the west bank and gaza. This isn't happening. In fact, last I checked, gaza was under seige. Also, Israel is going to have to pay to rebuild Lebanon. Reparations should be demanded. You can't go flying around and wrecking a country that is even an ally of the US. Someone has to pay to rebuild and compensate families. And what about depleted uranium?

Holy what?

From the Washington Post: "The United States, Israel, the United Nations and the European Union have reluctantly concluded that despite punishing military attacks, Hezbollah is likely to survive as a political player in Lebanon, and Israel now says it is willing to accept the organization if it sheds its military wing and abandons extremism, according to several key officials.

'To the extent that it remains a political group, it will be acceptable to Israel,'Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon said yesterday in the strongest sign to date that the Israelis are rethinking the scope and ultimate goals of the campaign. "A political group means a party that is engaged in the political system in Lebanon, but without terrorism capabilities and fighting capabilities. That will be acceptable to Israel."

Wow! Are they saying that Israel isn't winning this war. Of course, they would never give up their weapons unless Lebanon was armed on a par with Israel.

I can't believe what I'm reading.

Britain leaves the fold?

It was bound to happen. The British have aslightly lower tolerance for stupidity. And Olmert is the stupidest leader on the planet, even more stupid than Bush, it seems. His air-war is apparently a failure from the point of view of stagety. "Come Strategorize with me Olemrty boy...have some steak at might ranch.." Dumb and dumber. And now Israel is going to try a ground war. Bound to lose troops that way. So, after all this time, Blair shows that he has (not matter how small)...a heart Thump And now Annan wants Iran and Syria to have diplomatic involvement. Who are the dummies? I'll tell you who- the US/Israel (formerly Britain) axia of evil.

poll

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

more on lebanon

This is not the first time Israel has used military force in Lebanon. In fact, they occupied Lebanon in 1982. It is such a shame. The place had been rebuilt and people thought things would be pretty stable. If you ever see pictures of Lebanon (before the bombing, especially), you might get the idea that it is worth visiting. There is the contrast between the sea and coast, and the mountains. The mountains can be much colder, with lots of snow I'm told. The buildings and landscape are interesting. So is the cultyre and history, what little I know of it.

Perhaps I will be thought ridiculous or just silly for my analogy, but Israel seems like a "mini-me" of the US - especially when looking at foreign policy. We have used white phosphorous in Iraq. Reports are they have done the same in Lebanon. We invade countries and use force to solve problems that can't be solved through force. So do they. Their military was largely funded and built with US taxpayer money. So was ours. We have religious fanatics. So do they. I could go on, but that should suffice.

The left in the US (and most everywhere) has been powerless to stop this. The left in the US is pretty powerless anyway. Whereas in Mexico the people demand representation, we remain unrepresented. There probably is something to the left here (and other places) having a problem with taking power, a psychological thing. Many claim not to like following leaders on principle.

Then there is the all the talk about Iran and Syria. Surprise. The current cabal just can't let that go. It is always somehow about Iran and Syria. Keep in mind that it has been reported that Bush at least has contigent plans to bomb Iran. Don't fall for that one.

Oddly enough, even though the entire media is bent towards supporting this attack, not to mention the entire American Government, I saw a poll that said most Americans are against it. Try to reproduce the link later.

By the way, do blogs remotely dealing with Lebanon become a place where freakish right-wing trolls come to spew? You guys must not be too comfortable with your position. Are you afraid the people will wise up and end your game of conquest? I think you are.

and now lebanon

What is going on in Lebanon is a tragedy. And if you listen to the propagand coming out of the White House, the discredited neocons, and their stupid parrots in the media and at the dumber blogs - you might get the idea that this really a pretext for a larger war with Syria and Iran. How can the press repeat this garbage without pointing out that it has been reported that Bush wants to attack Iran? In the meantime, innocent people who have nothing to with it are being punished and killed. Israel apparently is willing to punish the whole civilian population of Lebanon, with little regard for how many war crimes they commit. (And please don't lecture me about the evils of Hezbollah or terrorism. That isn't the reason Israel is doing this anyway.)

I submit this article from a former Reagan official none-the-less to clarify.

No direct talks (Which means prelude to attack. We've seen this before.)

The Administration has decided not to pursue "direct talks"with Iran. Is this because, as was the case with Iraq, they have already made up their mind - and there is nothing to talk about? Part of the overture from Iran which the Administration doesn't want to talk about likely included promises of peace with Israel, which was discussed as early as 2003 in an Iranian document.

Keep in mind, we are the ones threatening use of nuclear weapons against them, not the other way around. In fact, a congressman has written a letter, which will hopefully be signed by other congressmen and women, asking that the Administration take the nuclear option "off the table."

And just to be clear about who is threatening whom,the Prime Minister of Israel is calling for the US to do something about Iran. Get a load of this: "The international community will be judged by its ability to convince nations and peoples to turn their backs on hatred and zealotry." Irony is almost completely lost on our leaders these days.

EU, USA, The World, and Iran.

Recently, there have been reports (which have apparently been proven false, but that's not the point) of Christians and Jews in Iran having to wear identity badges. My cocntention is that the reason we are hearing this has to do with ongoing operation to soften the public opinion into accepting an attack on Iran. You can read about these reports here.

I still constantly ask, "What is going on with the EU?" They refuse to outright oppose another tragic American adventure. Now, they are trying to entice Iran to accept incentives (bribes?) to go along with dismantling their supposed nuclear program. Yet, the EU can't promise that the US won't attack. This is the real problem. Maybe, the EU is really just trying to show how unreasinable Iran is being. Funny how they're interested in showing how unreasonable the US is. See here

This is all part of the set up. Now, RawStory is reporting that American ships are on their way to the region, possibly for a June bombing raid on Iran. Why? Is it because Iran defies the US? Is it because we still don't control enough of the World's oil? Is it because Iran might switch to the Euro for oil sales?

The best (but long) article recently written on the subject was by Edward Herman. Read it here. This is getting ever more frightening. Where are the mass demonstrations? Where is the ant-war movement at this time of great danger? Maybe, I'm asking for more than can be provided. What is wrong with the human race? Nuclear options are still "on the table" the Administration says. Where are we as a species?

"How crazy are they?" asks William Rivers Pitt. Really good analysis.

"Phil Giraldi, formerly of the CIA, revealed that his sources say that the administration plans to use a new terror event as the trigger for a nuclear war against Iran," says Cannonfire blog.

"We are not paying attention to their words, and we are doing so at our peril." says this article from Counterpuncch. Yes, that is one of the problems - a news media that refuses to take the Cheney/Bush threat to nuke Iran seriously. And as the article points out, the Administration keeps saying nothing is "off the table." (Which, of course means something is very much on the table.) The article is very good at pointing out how the Democrats (most of them) are useless to stop this attack. "And where is Congress as yet another war is announced? Greg Mitchell, writing in Editor and Publisher, is on target. 'You don't expect the Democrats to keep us out of war, do you? Just as they would not stand up to the president on Iraq for fear of appearing 'weak on terror,' they would likely be wary of appearing 'weak on the Tehran Bomb.' Let's face it: All the Democrats want to do right now is stagger through to November with an unpopular president in office, and hope that, maybe, they can re-take at least one house of Congress-without having to stick their necks out.'" Well? Has anybody heard two words from the Democratic Party stating a position of "absolutely not?"

And as others have contended before, there is much talk of how the war in Iran has already begun. For instance, there was this from the Rawstory website. They quote a retired colonel who claims special forces troops are already on the ground in Iran. Remember those similar claims from prior to the Iraq invasion? "Gardiner, who designed a war game in November of 2004 for Atlantic Magazine ('Will Iran be next?') which simulated 'preparations for a U.S. assault on Iran,' also claimed that Aliasghar Soltaniyeh, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told him a few weeks ago that units who had attacked the Revolutionary Guard had been captured and confessed to working with Americans." Are we already at war with Iran? Will the media ever report this if we are? Will there be a bombing before the elections? Do they really believe that would help the Republicans at this point? Are they now more than just evil, but really crazy? What does it say about us if we let them? And who is "us" in this context? - 50,70,90% of the people? Will the media turn the bombing into another patriotic propaganda show?

Lastly, Buzzflash posted a link to this article from the London Times on the Iran's claim it will strike back with mass suicide bombings if attacked by the US. Not a pretty picture.

Cannonfire blog has really had good posts about this issue. Reall, really hard-hitting, straight to the point, truthful posts. "America, fueled by religious hatred, will soon commit the greatest atrocity the world has seen since the Third Reich. Every decent human being in this country must spend at least some part of every day trying to prevent the coming catastrophe," says he. I couldn't agree more.