Instead of waiting for Bush to attack Iran, perhaps Conyer’s should resign and allow Congress to appoint a chairperson to the House Judiciary Committee who actual takes their oath to protect and support the Constitution in earnest – someone who will impeach Bush and Cheney for the plethora of transgressions they have already committed against the will of the people, our republic and Iraq.

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:50:36 PM

  (0+)

...Conyers is nothing but "a placeholder with a mouth."

The consequences of his inaction with regard to the promised impeachment hearings on the Bush/Cheney administration reverberate throughout the world, but most particularly, in Iraq: more than 4,000 deaths and nearly 25,000 injuries among Americans, and thousands more innocent Iraqis, in an illegal war led by our Executive Branch who condone torture and plan to keep on warring in the region. And this is only the most obvious:

I refer you to my aritcle on this site "THE BUSH/CHENEY GENOCIDE: DEATH OF A NATION" where you will find a long list of the high crimes AND misdemeanors of this wholly impeachable administration.

Attacking Iran would merely be the frosting on the cake, and if Conyers can't get his act together to slice and dice this devil's food, put someone in his place who's got a sweet tooth and will.

Professor Fandel

by Professor Fandel (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments [22 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:19:30 PM

  (0+)

misdomeaners to start impeachment hearing...Yoo's torture memos, spying on citizens inside the United States with out probable cause.....he writes letters and makes empty promises...just like Leahy and all the rest...the fact is they won't..the time for accountability to the people has passed..started with the Nixon pardon..the Iran-Contra scandal, Cointelpro and continues on...each administration refusing to protect the Constitution, the laws, avoiding accountablity (at our expense) knowing that sooner or later "their" party will inhabit the White House..and that they will do as they please with complete impunity...this is what has happened to our beloved country...these blowhearts such as Conyers, Pelosi, Boehner, Specter, (the whole Congress, the Executive Branch, and the DOJ, the DOD, even the Pentagon, and now the military, (via Patreus) etc.) the likes of these do not care one iota about you, or this country, they care about power and money, and the freedom to pursue those things at any cost, with out the laws or the Constitution getting in their way

by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:58:10 PM

  (0+)

There is no way to calculate what will happen if a planned attack on Iran occurs other than to say that there won't be a person on this planet that won't be adversely affected. Life as we have known it will change so dramatically that I doubt many will be able to cope and maybe this was their plan all along.

I just finished talking to Conyer's office and again was received by a representative with all the dismissive enthusiasm of a department store complaint department. This is bad folks, it’s as though it’s inevitable, they’re sleep-walking us into Armageddon. There doesn’t seem to be any urgency from those that have ability to stop this insanity to do so – including us!

It might very well be time to sell everything and head for deep hills with as much survival gear as one can carry. It isn't the way I was hoping to live out my life but I'd rather get eaten by a bear living free than fall from a fascist bullet while in chains.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:41:23 PM

  (0+)

Most of us cannot run to the hills, though. I guess I'll have to do the alternative.....

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:48:59 PM

  (0+)

...and it won't work with Bush.

Once the bombs are dropped, martial law will be declared and Congresses' role in government will be effectively sidelined.

China will simply unload all of its debt, as will Japan.  China will take Taiwan and Tibet.  North Korea will attempt an assault on the South.

Turkey will launch an assault on all US bases and begin an incursion into Iraq.

Chavez will turn off the taps.  OPEC will revoke our magic checkbook and switch to Euros.  The US economy will become dust.

Russian will launch an assault on Alaska and Canada.

Hoard water, batteries, communication devices, and gas up.  Get your ammo in one place.  Sight in your rifles.

We have less than 10 days of freedom left.

by Richard Volaar (39 articles, 0 quicklinks, 151 diaries, 478 comments [63 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 3:48:37 PM

  (0+)

radiation poisoning will make my nose and ear hair fall out, I always try to look on the bright side.

How to stop worrying and love the bomb ! Nuklar combat, Major Kong goes to the Middle East, or, I'd walk a mile for a camel, on glass !

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 8:47:04 PM

  (0+)

Bush has murdered about a million people so far, why in the world should we impeach him now?  Man's on a roll......

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:12:46 PM

  (0+)

The writer has done his research and spells out just how tenuous our situation is. The Senate and House Democrats have failed to reign in this dictatorship, and now we will all suffer the results. I just don't know what to do or say any longer. Our democracy has failed us.

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments [45 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:44:42 PM

  (0+)

it is the Americans who have failed their democracy..... 

of course, that's not entirely fair... we haven't had a democracy for a long long while...... 

but it is we (all of 'we') who have ignored the elites and their efforts through the CIA Wurlitzer and FBI cointelpro to control the very way we think, believe and feel....

We have been well and thoroughly 'had' .... but we also let them do it to us. And now it is probably too late to do much about it. But we have to try. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:01:23 PM

  (0+)

however i think russia will not stop with alaska and canada -they will be flying in a sky near you--and china no longer need us,they know if they all get togather they will kick some ass--its a shame humans acting animal--ps my guns are always sighted in-but who do i shoot?

by TRADESMAN (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 335 comments [40 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 6:58:48 PM

  (0+)

wedding in May with a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran? I think the it would be postponed till after it, unless the MSM plan to use its coverage to obscure bombs dropping in the M.E..

Tibet has been a part of China for over five hundred years. A Tibetan Princess was married to an Emperor during the Ming Dynasty. How would the U.S. feel if there were demands for California-Arizona-New Mexico- Colorado-Utah and Nevada to be returned to Mexico, which was taken by force, Or re-install Hawaii with its former kingdom?

As far as heading into the hills, as many have planned, keep in mind that night vision and thermal imaging systems will be difficult to thwart. They have all kinds of exotic weapons subsidized with your tax $ at their disposal.

I don't own a home, gun, or car. I have extremely limited amount of cash and not much in possessions for barter. I'm at the mercy of "The NWO" for my food, electricity, and water. When they choose to turn our lives into Martial Law, I don't have much recourse.

Interesting times we live in, and I'm not sure if I'm going to grow old and grey to see what transpires.

by Stanimal (2 articles, 226 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 1254 comments [234 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 7:12:26 PM

  (0+)

I think the first poster here in this discussion pretty much nailed it.

Conyers, Pelosi and the entire gaggle of Feckless Dems are criminally complicit in everything that has happened over the last 7 years.

I mean this not only as hyperbolic rhetoric but as a point of detail that merits legal examination and historical documentation here in the late stages of The Empire's decay.

You see Conyer's and his staff have already prepared a lengthy document detailing the impeachable offenses of the Bush-Cheney cabal, and this was 2-3 years ago meaning much more could be added, and he has chosen to not act on what is essentially the duty that he was sworn to uphold.

The American people better wake up fast and get out on the streets with resilience and direct demands.

It's later than we think.

by coyote (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments [25 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 8:35:04 PM

  (0+)

After hearing/seeing Iran's leaders on Cspan on more than one occasion a few yrs back and even last year, Iran had no intentions of battling with us. He was very convincing, actually the main honcho and Mus..blah whoever, were both on as visiting speakers. They really didn't want to tangle with us at that time. However, Bush finally gave them reason too.

 When congress (including Hillary Clinton) voted to label the Quds as "terrorists", the battle was on and the tensions were accelerated. The sanctions started   underpinnings for war. Wouldn't it piss us off if a super powerful UN sanctioned us? I'm so sure.

Lastly, we have blowback coming. Ppl in the world are sick and tired of our lies and bullying. Threatening Russia's economy was about the dumbest move we could have done. Russia's economy has finally stabilized and they have surpluses. We broke 2 treaties with Russia since Bush has been in office. Russia got ticked about it and broke one as well! Putin did a good job building up his economy and nation. For USA to threaten to flatten it, well, don't worry about Iran. Maybe you should be fearing the Ruskies. As far as ppl coming over the border, our Canadian border (my state borders it),  is all biometrics. No matter where you go, a camera, an iris scanner and other devices are watching you. Remember, those borders ALSO LOCK US IN!

Btw, I didn't get my opednews in my email box today. AOL must be filtering me again. Hmmmm, sure they didn't want me to read this. haha.

We have blowback coming from all over the world. Thanks dick cheney, mr satan man. A rothchild at heart, I am sure.

In my opinion, we are at war and you and I both know that Israel won't be happy till Iran, Iraq and Syria are leveled and they get to control the Middle East at the American's expense for their capacity to do such.

I didn't know Bush's daughter was getting married in May. maybe she is going to have her wedding in Argentina on their new lush ranch. 

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:38:43 PM

  (0+)

The fascinating piece of this puzzle is that the article when Russia states we will attack Iran within two (2) weeks was released on the 2nd and then the 5th of this month, and no one really ran with the story.

Not a solitary word from the MSM... 

There have been several times we postured ourselves as if though we were gong to attack Iran and it didn't happen. We may have been "feinting" to see what Iran's defensive maneuvers were, or in the alternative, we might have been poised for an attack, and someone let it slip out of the bag and the hurried diplomatic frenzy that followed stopped an attack from occurring.

If enough people know and we all raise hell about it, I believe it's possible to thwart - either via our own Congress or the diplomatic maneuvers of other countries, such an attack. Iran is not helping matters and seems intent on prodding the rabid dog in the cage, which is worrisome in itself. It's obvious that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't playing with a full deck, nor is Bush and Cheney. From my perspective, we have to hope that others in the world care more about the US than our own Presidency - or at least are worried enough about the global community and their own safety to effectively quash the Neo-con agenda.

Why won't Congress impeach Bush and Cheney? That's the burning question; if this was the 1800's, we would tar and feather the whole batch of them, even the wicked witch from the West, but in today’s world where a couple psychopaths could cause harm to everyone, no one raises a finger...

I honestly don't get understand nor comprehend the rank cowardice which is demonstrated by Congress as a whole, and frankly, I believe they should all be replaced and publicly humiliated because of their failure to fulfill their oaths of office. If we do attack Iran, the Congress will be criminally culpable and will be accessories after the fact.

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 9:41:35 PM

  (0+)

Unlike Iraq which was a 24/7/365 Mega-Blast sales job this attack is being under reported.

I think these cretins realize people aren't going to be fooled using the same tactics they used to sell Iraq, (personally I think they're given the American public too much credit - but that's beside the point) so they're covering their asses by putting stories out there but not hammering them 24/7 through our Propaganda News Broadcasting Networks (PNBN) like they did with Iraq. Right now PNBN is dangling shinny-keys of the election and collapsing economy in front of us as preparations for an attack on Iran moves stealth-fully forward. Instead of "selling" the war this time, they're  "covering" for it. When the attack occurs they can point at the once mentioned news stories and said that they told us so.

What I believe is soon something bigger than 9/11 will happen with Iran's alleged fingerprints all over it and that will give bush&co their excuse. They might not even need a "false flag" attack to kick start their wet-dream of achieving Armageddon. I mean why should they care now if they put on a show? No ones stopped them from doing anything to date - so?

But my guess is because they simply like to kill things they'll perform some magnificent stunt of theatrics, that we'll be able to see right through and that won't matter, just to satisfy their blood-lust.

God, I hope I'm wrong. I would trade all things I would be right about in the future just to be wrong about this one time. 

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:54:12 PM

  (0+)

WILLIAM THIS WHERE WE THE PEOPLE SHOULD START, THEY ALL COME HOME AT SOME POINT IN TIME, AND WHEN THEY DO THIS IS WHEN WE CAN BE HEARD, AND IF WE LET THEM KNOW THEY ARE NOT WELCOME ENOUGH TIMES, AND MAYBE NOT ABLE TO SLEEP WELL IN THERE HOMES, THEY MIGHT HAVE TO MOVE TO DC AND SLEEP IN THE BED THEY MADE FOR THEM SELFS. PUT OUT THE NO WELCOME HERE SIGNS. BLACK BALL THEM, DON'T INVITE THEM TO TOWN HALL MEETING, MAKE THEM FEEL LIKE NOBODY, AS THEY DO TO US. WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:22:20 AM

  (0+)

I've been writing, e-mailing, calling my Congressman and Senators for 2 years now. I've even taken to writing city officials, union leaders, anyone who will listen.  I've beensupporting Ron Paul financialy, and through a meetup group. This has gotten so far out of control since the false-flag attack of 911. We need a new 911 investigation, impeachment and criminal trials. We live with wide open southern borders, and the constant fear of internment in a FEMA prison camp, and martial law.  The vast majority in Washington are bought and paid for shills for the power-elite. The two party system is an illusion; heads they win, tails you lose.  The coming economic collapse may be the fuse that lights a spark that wakes up enough people to turn this country around.  It's so sad it had to come to this.

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments [45 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Apr 8, 2008 at 10:03:27 PM

  (0+)

 I saw this coming along time ago. i realy thank the army for my combat training and jungle waefare training. i can go back to vietnam and plan what i will do when the going get's tough. i can use my AK-47 AND M-1 RIFLE AGAIN. i can set up my concrete bunkers and barb wire and booby-traps. let them all come they will get there just fate. born for war,just like america.

by vincent passiatore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 185 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:12:09 AM

  (0+)

Thanks for the laugh.  I almost spilled my coffee on my notebook. 

 The writer lumps QUDS, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Muslim Community, Iranian immigrants, some disguised as Hispanics,  who  threaten our country in the event of an Iranian attack, and suggests some may already have smuggled in WMD's.

Northcoms psyops division couldnt have done better.  Couple of small points.

If AQ, whom are Sunni-Arabs, are already here, WTF are they doing, drinking Budweiser?  Remember, we already invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, and things are even worse for the Palestinians than ever before.  What are they waiting for, for us to give them a good reason, like attacking a Shia-Persian country?  LOL.

The Muslim community, Shia nor Sunni, despite being here in "unkown" numbers, (most voted for GWB in 2000 according to some report, so we know how many voted) has not attacked us, even though we have done great damage to both sects in Iraq, and to Sunnis in Afghanistan, not to mention Palestine, and Hezzbollah who got attacked by Israel with American weapons in 2006, not to mention the non-Shias in Beiruit. 

QUDS and AQ sneaking in together and assuming Hispanic names, while learning to speak Spanish  is simply too funny.  But lets assume QUDS is coming here on there own, we know AQ is just interested in our beer so will disregard them.  Why?  There are plenty of targets in Iraq.  We got 160,000 men over there, thats why we are there,  to fight the terrorist over there, so we don;t have to fight them here, and save them some money travelling all the way to Amerika.   Right?   In fact, if they were expecting the US to attack them in Iran, they might be better off positioning themselves in Iraq to do some real damage to US troops.  Our helicopters and airforce fly freely over Iraq without fear of being attacked.  If Iran wanted to do some real damage, the guys they support in Iraq would have missiles that could do some real damage.  They are no threat, unless we attack them, and they have given us no reason to do so.

 As for the Iranian Americans being a threat.  Dude, they are here today, starting from the 1980's, because the Ayatollahs took over, with our help BTW, and they supported the Shah (which made them unpopular).  And they are going to rise up and revolt over us attacking the regime they escaped from?

As for Iran attacking us, I can say only that Iran has not invaded another country in over 2000 years.  Hezzbollah was created to fight against the Israeli occupation, and to act as a social network for the Shias were were poorly treated by the Lebanese non-Shias.  Our support for Israel, and later Iraq in the war started by Saddam whom we supported with weapons, which is technically an act of war against Iran,  this got us caught up in the crossfire in the 80's.  They have not done anything since.

Their President was in Baghdad last month meeting with Maliki, under our protection.  We did nothing.  Could easily have staged a suicide bombing, or arranged an IED, if we though he was a threat.  He is not a threat, but an asset, because we have built him up to a Hitler, that would allow us to get support to attack Iran, should we choose to do so.

Iran, does not have a suicide wish.  Using WMD's against Americans that they would be blamed for,  if they did it or not, would be begging for a nuclear strike on Tehran.  If a WMD ever goes off in America, we did it to ourselves to justify an attack on Iran or whomever we want to attack.

This article serves one purpose only, to fuel the fear of terrorism within our borders and to allow those in power to take away more liberties, under the guise of protecting us against terrorism from those within our borders, homegrown or not .  Thats getting real old. 

by pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 601 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 2:02:37 AM

  (0+)

I doubt if Iran or any so-called 'representatives' of it will 'attack' Amerika. If there is an attack, you can bet your money that it will be a false flag. With 'patsies' perhaps. That is the modus operandi of this government. They have no reason to change it now. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [400 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:30:52 AM

  (0+)

Unlike John McBush, I am aware of the difference between Sunni and Shiite and understand the difference between Al Qaeda and the QUDS Force. But, keeping in synch with the Bush administration, why should I complicate the story with actual facts rather than spin and propaganda?

The rivalry between these different Muslim sects is legendary and spans centuries - and Persians are not Arabs, etc., etc. But, there are times when all of the above speak with a united voice, and that's when they perceive that "Islam" is being attacked rather than individual "sects" within the Muslim world. A good example is when there were drawings depicting their "Prophet" as a terrorist, and then again with the release of "Fitna" - a short documentary that again depicted Islam in a negative fashion. In those instances, the Muslim world spoke almost as one in their outrage and condemnation. The bottom line is how such an attack is perceived within the Muslim world; if it's considered to be against Iran only and not against "Muslims" - the other sects may not get involved. However, if it's thought to be more American Imperialism that is designed to curb Muslim influence, the reaction would be completely different. None of us can safely say "how" such an attack would be perceived.

Second, I came across the information where Russia, not me, predicted there would be an attack mounted against Iran within two weeks. I didn't write the intelligence, I merely repeated it. It's always easier to shoot the messenger rather than delving into the facts and substantiating evidence and forming an opinion based on what the rest of the world is saying rather than what our own MSM is ignoring.

Will we attack Iran? I don't know, my crystal ball isn't working today, but since it isn't, the only thing I can do is add-up recent events and attempt to analyze what we do know as opposed to what we are being told, and there is a huge discrepancy between the two stories!

Admiral Fallon is no longer an obstacle to an attack on Iran, and it's noteworthy to add that he was dead-set against using force to change Iran's policy. He's gone now, wasn't "allowed" to testify before Congress, and instead, we hear everything from Bush's yes man, General Betrayus. It's also evident by the recent cease-fire that was brokered by the Iraqis with Iran that Iran has more influence in Iraq than the US - which is a slap in the face to the Bush administration.

When our own Congress indicates it is also worried about an attack on Iran, as several of our recently "retired" generals are - to me, that sends out an enormous warning sign that something may be brewing that we aren't completely aware of, and they (Congress) have many more facts and evidence than any of us do - including you or I.

Finally, in regard our Iranian and Muslim population(s). If such an attack resulted in huge civilian casualties, I believe there would be a mass outcry from both communities, especially those who lost family members in the battle. That's human nature, and blood is thicker than water. Similarly, if we bombed the crap out of Cuba, I'm betting that we would witness a huge outcry from our normally peaceful Cuban population - most of whom hate Castro with a passion, but again, when their own family members are being killed, the sentiment can change extremely fast and has the potential of blowing-up in our face. I see no difference in the two groups, or the potential for problems that would arise if such an attack takes place.

I hope all of the information I posted is incorrect and that our preparations to attack Iran are being made to "scare" the Iranians into compliance, but when our own MSM refuses to report upon provocative intelligence reports from other countries, I believe that it's detrimental to our democratic process and the people's right to know facts and/or allegations that could affect all of our lives. Transparency would end all of this speculation; is it too much to ask that "we the people" receive all of the facts, not just what our government wants us to hear?

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:11:42 AM

  (0+)

There is too much exaggeration of a US threat against Iran. Both the US and Iranian governments need external enemies more than most other states do. That is clear. It is also clear that both can hold on to power for as long as an external threat is played up to muzzle domestic opposition and limit freedoms.

There is little credible evidence of an imminent attack against Iran especially when the US is so militarily inept in both Afghanistan and Iraq. For the US to gain its intended foothold in Iraq with minimum levels of security required for exploiting the oil reserves, it needs the help of Iran. Iran too has gained much power with the US invasion, and Ahmadinejad could so comfortably visit Iraq looking a lot more at home there than any US visitor could. 

In effect, the status quo is beneficial to both governments, and neither of these semi-democratic systems would benefit from actual military conflict especially as both economies are in trouble. 

by Niloufar Parsi (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 83 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 3:25:39 AM

  (0+)

Checking through the articles linked, I see plenty of occasions where Conyers says Bush should be impeached if he attacks Iran, but NOTHING that alludes to "An Attack on Iran is Not a Conspiracy Theory."

Looks like a rabble-rousing headline from here.

Where's your proofs, Bill? 

by Jim Freeman (108 articles, 53 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 386 comments) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:54:35 AM

  (0+)

Where's the "proof"? A valid, if not hard question to answer...

In most events except those which are being pushed by the Bush administration, the "proof" is often very hard to find. After Admiral Fallon's abrupt "resignation" and John Conyers threatened to impeach Bush if Iran was attacked, why did he issue such a statement? Did he ascertain, out of thin air, that the US might be planning to attack Iran? Or was his impeachment threat based on evidence the MSM refuses to cover? Like it or not, when several publications in the US (and other countries), not just me, believe that the US is preparing to attack Iran, and then Conyers releases a statement that Bush will face impeachment if it occurs, wouldn’t that be considered tacit admission that even Congress fears that Bush will actually follow through on their threats of using military force to stop the Iranians from expanding their nuclear program?

You said it "Looks like a rabble-rousing headline from here." In some regards, that is true - but not in the context that it’s being placed in; when Russia releases intelligence that states very clearly the US is planning on attacking Iran within the next two weeks, I have a belief that it is the responsibility of our government and the Mainstream News Media to offer-up an explanation thereof, not only to us, but to the global community as well. Is it true or false, a simple question, but one that none of the MSM or governmental officials will answer, or even investigate! I’m tenacious enough where I want and am demanding some answers, something others could do instead of burying their heads in the sand and accepting the propaganda we receive as the gospel – something that used to be a characteristic of the GOP, but now appears to be spreading to the Democrats as evidenced by many Dems supporting John McCain. Tell a lie often enough and even so-called intellectuals begin to believe it.

Do I personally believe that an attack is imminent within the next two weeks? No. Before this and other articles were published, that answer would have been yes. The Russians appear to be alerting the rest of us to the danger while those that report it are ridiculed, which is why I imagine no one else ran with the story. Personally, I believe we have until the 2008 elections, and anytime in-between, for such an attack to occur – but I do maintain that it will happen, just as I predicted in 2005, and rather than backing off the prediction, it appears to be spot-on based on several reports that do not originate in the United States; I’ll weather the ridicule if it helps to spur calls to Congress and demands for an explanation – something we all deserve but have to beg to receive. Prior to this article, few of us in the US were aware of the Russian Intelligence reports – and now it’s almost common knowledge within the liberal/Progressive community, and people ARE demanding answers!

 
Mission accomplished.

William Cormier

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:50:01 PM

  (0+)

Things are bad enough without inventing more or worse problems. Without being a conspiracist there are failsafe mechanisms as in Dr. No available for third world countries to try to protect themselves from egregious actions by nuclear powers. One of these could be the infiltration of such nuclear powers with deadly weapons and the leaking of the information so that the nuclear power is aware that any attack will result in an enormous and hideous blowback. In such cases it would prevent the planned attack from taking place as normal heads of state wouldn't want to expose their own countries to such revege. However in this case you do not have a normal human head of state so GOOD LUCK!

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1750 comments [111 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Apr 9, 2008 at 10:22:08 PM

  (0+)