Clearly, both the New York Times and the Washington Post understand full well that their unquestioning regurgitation of administration talking points in late 2002 and early 2003 were low points in their journalistic enterprises. As such, it is difficult to understand how both news organizations could be retracing the same journalistic mistakes they made before the Iraq war with highly unreliable reporting from the likes of Judy Miller.

Actually, once you come to the realization that the primary purpose of the New York Times and the Washington Post, for example, is not to inform, but to propagandize and deceive, then it's not at all "difficult to understand" how they could make such "mistakes" again and again. You see, the ultimate objective of the people controlling the media is to control U.S. foreign policy. And the media is an important part of the infrastructure they need to do it...apparently not so much to try to fool thoughtful people as to provide a necessary "crutch" for the less ideologically inclined puppets in our puppet government in Washington.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:07:22 AM

  (0+)

that both WAPO and NYT have been CIA organizations for a very long time.....

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:55:24 PM

  (0+)

Entitling this article "the Coming War with Iran" continues to reinforce the thought-form that the Neocons are trying to manifest, one of the inevitability of war with Iran. This is not a done deal. This is not written in the stars. This is a projection of the fears and hostility of the American elitists, who are largely paranoid and psychotic, obsessed with Manichean fantasies and countless self-delusions. So we must avoid feeding their projections.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 114 quicklinks, 241 diaries, 1414 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:14:33 AM

  (0+)

That's why I ended the article by saying "if the American people have anything to say about it..."

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:24:49 AM

  (0+)

For the few that are paying any attention we know, but as for the rest of this brain-dead, spoiled, miss-informed, under-educated, over-worked, populace who couldn't find America on a map, let alone Iran, it is because of them that I have no hope. When in the course of 2 weeks you have a VP that can get on national TV and spit in the faces of the American people ("So?") and the next week have a president openly admit to condoning torture and the American peons do nothing simply increases disdain this administration has for them and they so rightly deserve.

I have no illusions. If the people of this country have not been outraged enough by now to take this administration out than they deserve everything that's coming - and it is coming. And not because I'm saying it or some headline says it, it's because of the obviousness of these cretins, knowing their MO, knowledge of the corruption of M$M, and complicity of near all those in government.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:09:33 AM

  (0+)

I don't know why I even continue to bother, but every so often I attempt to engage some of the sheeple in a conversation about Bush attacking Iran, 911, etc.; and the response, when not pure anger for raising an uncomfortable subject, is usually just a blank stare...sort of a deer-caught-in-the-headlights look, usually followed by a clumsy attempt to change the subject. Yes, the apathy, denial, etc., of the masses is simply overwhelming.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:21:49 AM

  (0+)

Americans are still too fat, happy, and hyper-entertained. It's going to take more widespread economic pain, and recession, and rising gas and food prices, to wipe the stupid “what me worry?” grins off of most American faces.

But by then food riots might be spreading globally as we burn all our grain in our internal combustion engines.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:28:54 AM

  (0+)

dr blix asks us all to take a powder and call him in the morning.

i only hope there will be a tomorrow.

wolfie needs a sedative

by Wolfie (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1208 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:37:13 PM

  (0+)

What you fail to grasp is that it IS a done deal--I went to D.C. to protest the impending Iraq invasion in '03, believing that the 'old rules' (circa Vietnam) still applied. What is now clear is that NOTHING anyone could say or do would have kept them from their PNAC objective. I'm quite sure that they devised other follow-up[ false flag operations since 9-11 in order to Super Size their agenda, but through either bungling or divine intercession they didn't manifest. Nonetheless, there is an over-riding, superimposed plan in operation by the shadow government that supercedes everything: the will of the people, the stability of the Middle East, and even the survival of the human race, and Cheney, Kissinger, Rice and co. have been placed in the position they are in to enact it. They have no choice, and they will move forward regardless of the consequences. 

by Randje Mitchell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 77 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:19:27 PM

  (0+)

Keep an eye on Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia. They may be the false flag to Iran

by T H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM

  (0+)

I'm not so sure that the cheney and bush remarks weren't an attempt to see just how far the American people can be pushed and if they're paying attention, and if they were what they'd do about it.

Well, apparently they got their answer - nothing.

So why should they need an excuse now? They know they can do whatever they want with not even so much as a peep coming from us or those that are suppose to watch out for us, so maybe these admissions ("So?" and "I knew and approved") are feelers? I can see no reason why they just wouldn't start the attack on Iran tomorrow and damn what anyone thinks. Who needs a "false flag" or provocation of any sort when you can blatantly show your ass and no one even bothers to slow you down?

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:09:31 PM

  (0+)

If they are insane enough to attack Iran at all, under the circumstances (and I think they are), then I think they would also not hesitate to use nuclear weapons - if Iran tries to fight back. IOW, they don't need to rally anybody with a false-flag attack, military and/or civilian population, if they think all they have to do is essentially push buttons.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM

  (0+)

well, far fetched i'd say----------

almost as far as adding china cuba N.Korea and venezuela .

More far away to fetch would be Russia .

Remember Admiral Fellon , why did he say we crunch them like ants.

Then why did he also say not under his watch ?

Therefore i conclude :

When the  day will come 

We can crunch them. but he will only watch !!!!

by hlg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 79 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:04:40 AM

  (0+)

...it will be Israel who does a False flag, and we will be forced to fight their proxy war.

by Mme Zaratamara (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 6:35:12 AM

  (0+)

we are not to fat or entertained-just geneticly weaker than the people who brought this country out of the darkness in the first place---easy living has created a race of garbage humans-here in wisconsin the snow was orange this storm we just got-what are they spraying to mask global warming--it seems mother nature is comming or they wouldnt be trying to dim the sun so it really doesnt matter what wars they start-mother nature already started hers----------

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 12:43:44 PM

  (0+)

by Munich (1 articles, 86 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 1125 comments [86 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 1:51:35 PM

  (0+)

  You are not to saavy. Stealing Iraqs oil is not as simple as the incompetent

Bushcos thought. We need to attack another unthreatening country to keep the hype going, and don't forget APACs interest

                ENCOURAGE PEACE???  Only in your dreams 

by GUY P. FRASER (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 72 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:55:55 PM

  (0+)

A fine article, thank you. 

I do not believe there will be a nuclear attack on Iran, Russia would veto any move by the US to do that, which we would likely tell them about in advance.  I believe the nuclear fall out issue the Saudi's raised after Cheney's visit was related to conventional bombs spreading radioactive material after hitting nuclear facilities. This would be bad enough without nuclear weapons use.

Also, rumors that Russia was briefed about the attacks at the NOTA meeting may be true, but what is not known is their reaction. First, they might warn the Iranian's whose air defense systems are provided by Russia; Second, they might object and leave open the possibility of Russian material support for Iran during a US attack.

Of course, this may be seen by Bush as his chance to start WWIII and reach the end-times, etc. he claims to believe in, and he certainly has been reckless enough to talk about. Or Bush might lose all support in Congress if he losses some capital ships in any exchange with Iran. He has  positioned  our  ships  close enough  to the  Iranian coast to bait such an attack.

Finally, in defense of the American people, they have no real control over their government, and they seem ready to take every opportunity to take back control when it is available, or at least they think it available. Bush was not booed by the intellectual elite at that ball game the other night. But I did notice the broadcaster could not bring himself to mention it, instead saying the president threw a good pitch. Thousands of people in those stands wipe the smile of Bush's face, so I think there is hope. And that is why we write, all of us, even those who give into despair, as we all do from time to time. But if you talk to ordinary people, almost without exception, they detest Bush and their government. They may not  know a lot  of  facts,  but they  know  they are  getting  screwed.

by William White (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 78 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:21:13 PM

  (0+)

First, I don't think you fully understand the situation. What will Bush do if the Iranians fight back ferociously? What if airpower alone doesn't impress them? Clinton tried bombing the Serbs into submission and it failed miserably; IIRC, after about 78 days of non-stop bombing, Clinton took out about 13 tanks. Why would Bush fare any better, especially since the Iranians have had lots of time to prepare and have better equipment? Ask yourself: If Bush starts losing the war he starts against Iran, what will he do, surrender, or try to nuke them?

Second, yes, the majority of the people in America are largely responsible for this mess. Even right now as I type this, somewhere between 20 and 30% of the people fully support Bush. Probably another 20 to 30% on top of that would support him but for economic problems. More still would undoubtedly support him if he had somehow contrived something he could present as "victory" in Iraq. If a majority of the American people have been somehow "manipulated", it's mostly because they've allowed themselves to be.

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:39:13 PM

  (0+)

The problem is, even if they know they are being screwed, the American people continue to vote against their own interests. It doesn't seem to matter if it is on the economic front or going to war for no good reason, the wrong people keep being elected and reelected to office. John McCain will undoubtedly support whatever Bush and Cheney do and he will then be elected and continue those terrible policies. That is, unless Bush declairs Martial Law and postpones the election.

Leon

by Leon (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 30 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 4:58:19 PM

  (0+)

Another late night here in Tehran - just finished filing the above named article with OpEdNews - and trying to keep up with the latest on the bomb attack on a mosque in the southern Iranian city of Shiraz.

Three times a week I host a discussion program, Middle East Today, on PressTV from our studio complex here in Tehran.

At least once a week, on my show or elsewhere - during live interviews on the news - some US-based "analyst" or "expert" on the Middle East will come out with: "You have to remember Ahmadinejad did threaten to wipe Israel off the map."

This "quote" has taken on the proportions of an Urban Legend, but he didn't say it. What was going on in his mind at the time, what he really meant (along the lines of wife says one thing, husband hears something different) is open to conjecture.  But he didn't say it.

He did say is that the "Zionist regime in Jerusalem will be wiped from the pages of history."

When you think about it rationally, that isn't so far removed from Bush's removal of Saddam and the Baathists in Baghdad from the pages of history, or indeed his threats to remove the current government in Tehran - for the sake of the people of course.

So it really isn't so surprising when the US mainstream media (and the British, French...) begin to beat the drums of war based on the utterances of their elected leaders.

by Chris Gelken (22 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 8 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:03:04 PM

  (0+)

The enablers like to criticize their great decider but besides Social Security, they haven't seriously even tried to stop any of Bush's policies no matter how foolhardy or decrepit.

The only ones that can or care to stop an attack on Iran are the American people, and so far there have not been enough of us willing to take responsibility and openly express, let alone demonstrate, opposition. 

by Kathlyn Stone (46 articles, 227 quicklinks, 27 diaries, 690 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:13:43 PM

  (0+)

negotiate with Iran, but all options are on the table. Iran has until the end of April to comply with U.N. demands to stop enrichment. This gives Bu$h the excuse to bomb, when Iran refuses to do so. It doesn't matter to Bu$h & Co. that Iran is a signor of the U.N. Non Proliferation Treaty.

Bu$h has his daughter Jenna getting married in May, and his hands are full enough with this, let alone tasking his brain to comment about bombs dropping in Iran. "Munch" was too kind in describing Dybua as a "Cardboard Cowboy", I'd use the words toilet tissue cowboy, as he leaves a pile of crap with all the mischief he has been involved in over the years.

The coming bombing of Iran will happen as Bu$h & Co. are using the same play-book of falsely accusing them of "Wanting to Wipe Israel off the map", when actually the translation is "Israel's history will be like that of the Shah's", supporting Sadr Militia, and the patrol boat shenanigan last month.

A previous article in oped last week thought it was imminent, but the window for bombing Iran is much wider than that. Bush has between now and Jan 20th., unless martial Law is instituted, which is a very big possibility.

9/11 was the false flag for invading Iraq by linking it with "Al-CIAda" and Ronald Reagan's "Freedom Fighter" Osma Bin Laden in Afghanistan, with all the lame fabricated evidence, swallowed by a gullible public who bought the MSM mantra for war.

Another R.R. Freedom Fighter "Saddam Hussein", was selling oil in Euros, a currency which threatens the $ and part of the reason to illegally occupy Iraq. Now Iran is doing the same with its newly opened Oil Borse, which is why you hear all the regurgitated hype from Bu$h & Co to attack.

It's not a matter of if, but when.

All this carnage caused by these fascist chicken-hawks is to prop up the $ and transfer its remaining wealth to the privileged. War is a great way for a few to make huge profits and cull the world's population at the same time.

What compassion these NWO folks have for their fellow human? Useless Eaters, is how 4/5 of humanity is described by them.

by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 5:43:18 PM

  (0+)

All this carnage caused by these fascist chicken-hawks is to prop up the $ and transfer its remaining wealth to the privileged.

Nonsense. They're destroying the dollar, and they know it...they don't give a damn about the dollar.

War is a great way for a few to make huge profits and cull the world's population at the same time.

Actually the elite don't need a war to enrich themselves. They can simply print, "borrow" or take all the money they want from the treasury. How much of a reason do they need? Who or what's going to stop them? No, this is about primarily about someone's bloodthirsty, delusional "ideology" wrt Israel, not about "money".

by Harold Smith (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 6:45:53 PM

  (0+)

I am certain that the corpstream media would love a high profit, high viewer turnout war. We know that Bush and Cheney and the neocons want this war.

We know that the gutless, sycophant generals who are left, who will do as Bush and Cheney pull their strings to say, will fail to protect the safety of America and launch a war on Bush's command.

We know that psychopaths Bush and Cheney want this war.

But I'm not sure the republicans in congress want it. I'm not sure the one star generals and colonels want it. They just may keep it from happening.

Then there's the stark reality that already, our forces are so overextended that there is no way the US has the capability to engage in another front.

That does not excuse the war enabling, war mongering media from their disgusting behavior. 

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:21:45 PM

  (0+)

Rob;

I usually agree with you, but in this case, I'm not so sure. Look through the articles that appear on Op-Ed News and start connecting the dots. The strategic oil reserve is being built-up more than it has in my recent memory, a nuclear site in Pakistan has been attacked, our naval build-up in the Middle-East now surpasses that of pre-Iraqi invasion levels, and now CNN, the NY Times, Wash. Post, and most of the major media outlets are running stories that make it appear that Iran is our # 1 threat.

I almost think that Bush is attempting to punish our nation because he knows that he is despised and hated by the majority of the country. He was booed at a recent Baseball game and even the Pope refuses to have dinner with him. In short, Bush knows he is hated, has no respect from anyone with an ounce of common sense, and to make matters worse, he believes in Armageddon - and just might be mentally unstable enough to take out his frustration on the country as well as the entire global community in general.

The bottom line is what does Bush have to lose? He can do anything he wants, Congress is scared to death of him, and there hasn't been a successful movement to impeach the SOB - so what's stopping him from playing God? If Bush was described as a disease, there's no question that it would be a plague, one that threatens humanity in general - and so far, there doesn't appear to be a cure...

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 419 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 7:45:27 PM

  (0+)

I agree with you Rob. US forces are too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan and too dependent on Iran's support in both countries for a new war front to be launched.

by Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 83 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 8:14:56 AM

  (0+)

What nobody ever talks about when they say that Iran is "illegally enriching uranium" is that it isn't illegal. Iran is a signatory to the same treaty the USA is, which states that the enrichment of nuclear fuel for energy purposes is "an inalienable right" of every country that is party to the treaty.

Iran has signalled that they would have no problem allowing full inspections of their facilities if sanctions were lifted and George W would quit threatening to blow them up.

Bush and Cheney will do all they can to attack Iran before 2009. They already tried to sneak nukes to the Middle East once, and they were stopped by Adm. Fallon and others. Fallon is gone. While I believe he will speak up if Bush actually launches an attack, it will be after the fact this time.

Fallon's Greatest Secret Accomplishment

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/index.php/article/articleview/6585/1/322

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:30:50 PM

  (0+)

Dr. Moffet, bravo, an excellent article and you seem to have an acute understanding of the Iraqi conflict. However, I would like present another viewpoint. It is noted that you live in Washington, D.C. Obviously, you are very much aware of the reporting in the Washington Post and N.Y. Times. I, on the other hand, live on the West Coast. I have no idea what the Post or Times reports, although easily accessible on the Web. This is also true of a huge percentage of Americans who do not subscribe to either paper. From this standpoint, in terms of an attack on Iran, it can be argued that whatever the Post or Times reports is largely irrelevant for the vast majority of Americans.

Yet, I agree with you, that an attack on Iran is possible before Nov. I have prophesized the very same. I take it a step further, however. Two factors are obvious. One, at this stage, an attack on Iran would be very unpopular in America, and that is putting it mildly. Two, Bush with his executive orders and a compliant Congress have laid the groundwork for martial law in the U.S. with Bush/Cheney in charge and the possibility of the Nov. elections being suspended for an indefinite period of time to be determined by, you guessed it, Bush/Cheney.

A third factor is equally obvious. The possibility that Bush/Cheney using the media to drum up support for an attack on Iran is extremely remote. It is in the area of your in-your-wildest-dreams realm. This is true of the American citizenry, even those who subscribe to the Post or the Times, and is equally true of Congressional support. Put a different way, there is virtually no reason to attack Iran just as there was no palpable reason to attack Iraq, a lesson we have all learned after five gruelling years and hundreds of thousand dead, wounded, and lives destroyed. The material cost is off the scale.

Under these circumstances, why in Heaven's name, why in military logic (with Afghanistan as a backdrop) would Bush/Cheney open a third front with the other two in a precarious situation. That makes absolutely no sense.

It is if you are Cheney, an adherent to the Unitary Executive theory and neoconservative aspirations of an American Empire. The attack will be launched because it is so unpopular. It will cause demonstrations from coast to coast, from the Canadian border to Mexico, and the Democratic Senate and House will be outraged, perhaps in a rebellious mood.

To Cheney there is only one solution. The federal government must persevere. Regretfully, martial law will be invoked and, for the time being, the Nov. elections are hereby suspended until such date determined by the President. The ending of martial law will also be determined by the President.

CONSIDER!

Doctor, you may wish to check out my bona fides on this Web site. I am a newbie ... here.

by Sandy Shanks (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Saturday, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:41:06 PM

  (0+)

Never, ever doubt the federal government's involvement in, or support of anything, until comes the silver tongued, government paid spokesman's denial.  Only then, can you count on it.

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:31:52 AM

  (0+)

With sensible assessmets of the pre-Iraq invasion claims, (versus the realities), and now, with the pre- Iran attack, does it occurr to anyone else that leading the bewildered herd of Americans with an elaborate ruse has become unnecessary?  I can be had but I like to be kissed first.

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 487 comments [26 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:44:45 AM

  (0+)

It will simply insure that Bush's clone, McCain, will be elected.

Remember: whenever a President goes to war, despite his former unpopularity, even over another war, the American people "rally" (or are rallied by the MSM) to his side, "to the flag."

Who supports the President slavishly on war? McCain.

Who will insure that Bush/Cheney/Gates/Rice/Rumsfeld/Powell et al will not be prosecuted? McCain.

Who will not only willingly pursue war with Iran but go even further: attack other "Evil" nations? McCain.

By this logic, we are being prepared for war to take place in late October, just in time for the election.

BTW I hope I'm wrong, but the sheeple, as some of you refer to them, have always "rallied round the flag" when the nation goes to war. It's only later, after the first flush, when people begin to have second thoughts.

There is also a misperception, still, that war is an economic stimulus; it creates jobs, people say, although it robs us of more jobs than it creates. So, given that we face hard economic times, many will initially welcome a new war as a solution to our recession/inflation/stagflation. McCain might even campaign for it as an economic benefit.

It will lead to the US's economic ruin, but that's not a problem, either: the people profiting from Iraq will profit from Iran, too, and buy seaside villas in the South Pacific, or some other place they think is safe.

Not that there will be any safe havens if we embark on WWIII.

by Douglas Smyth (27 articles, 5 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 90 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM

  (0+)

With all due respect, Mr. Smythe, I stand by my comments, although you raised very good, even indisputable, arguments. On the other hand, I think, so did I. Also, please note that I did issue a dire presiction. I raised a possibility based on known facts.

Here is a known fact that I failed to mention. Adm. William J. Fallon, CENTCOM's commander, was the largest obstacle to hardliners in the White House for an attack on Iran. He declared that such an attack will not happen on his watch. He abruptly resigned about a month ago.

While I stand by my suppositions, I agree with you in one respect.

I hope I am wrong. Actually, I pray that I am wrong. My suppositions are merely a warning.

This could happen in America. 

by Sandy Shanks (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:48:38 PM

  (0+)

I meant "prediction."

by Sandy Shanks (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:50:32 PM

  (0+)

Working too fast. I meant to say, "... please note that I did not issue a dire prediction ..."

Watched too much Masters Golf today. I'm brain dead. 

by Sandy Shanks (27 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments) on Sunday, Apr 13, 2008 at 7:55:36 PM

  (0+)

I hate to bring up his name here (okay, I admit it, I *want* to bring up his nane here), but Ron Paul has been saying this for a long time now. He predicted the invasion of Iraq and he's been saying for quite some time that we will attack Iran.

Why? Just read Ron Paul's speeches on the house floor. This nation *has* to invade Iran because they won't help prop up our fiat currency. Watch this excellent video for some insight:

http://www.dooglio.net/?p=162

In the vid, Williams talks about how both Iraq and Iran rebuffed Kissenger back in the 70's and refused to sign on to the US's scheme of forcing them to sell oil in dollars and thereby buying back a portion of our national debt. It's around 32min into the video.

That is what this war is about. Make no mistake. Our dollar faces serious collapse. That is why we are seeing oil going through the roof and crazy inflation. That's why we will invade Iran. It's why we are in Iraq as well.

By the way, excellent article! Kudos to the author!

by Dooglio (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Thursday, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:50:11 PM

  (0+)