John McCain Leaks Iran Attack Plans on CNBC Debate

[Dig]

Full coverage of the Iran Attack Plans by CNN/BBC/CNBC/Fance, etc.:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=4918.0

_____________________________________

What the f**k does this mean? 

On the question about asking Congress for approval before bombing Iran...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119196048730753698.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Mr. McCain: We're dealing, of course, with hypotheticals. If the situation is that it requires immediate action to ensure the security of the United States of America, that's what you take your oath to do, when you're inaugurated as president of the United States. If it's a long series of build-ups, where the threat becomes greater and greater, of course you want to go to Congress; of course you want to get approval, if this is an imminent threat to the security of the United States of America. So it obviously depends on the scenario. But I would, at minimum -- I would, at minimum, consult with the leaders of Congress because there may come a time when you need the approval of Congress. And I believe that this is a possibility that is, maybe, closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.
_____________________________________

I will repeat that last sentence:

And I believe that this is a possibility that is, maybe, closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.

[endevour]

Nice catch, thats a little odd of him to say that. You have got to remember, he is a neo con, they are always preaching about how a war is 'about' to start.  Lets hope hes wrong.

[Dig]

Republicans start the propaganda to invade IRAN

7 min - Oct 10, 2007 -    (2 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuTRmeRL9DU

Ron Paul tries to get the CFR puppets to read our constitution or agree to protect and defend it...to no avail. The plan to attack IRAN is well in motion.

[Dig]

Dr. Ron Paul has seen this BS before:

Ron Paul on Now With Bill Moyers - October 4, 2002 - Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OenXhQvgYwo

Ron Paul on Now With Bill Moyers - October 4, 2002 - Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPOo2-Ywges

[Dig]

Hillary Clinton Believes War With Iran Would Be Funny

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3gQfz8GC0o

[Dig]

Ron Paul reads the Republican candidates the Riot Act re: the Iran War.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykKKBX-oyY

[Dig]

Countdown: Tues. Oct. 9, 2007 - Part 3 of 5

11 min - Oct 10, 2007 -    (3 ratings)   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kds2weEtawc

[bigron]

Published on Monday, October 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/08/4404/

The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’
by Scott Ritter

Iran has never manifested itself as a serious threat to the national security of the United States, or by extension as a security threat to global security. At the height of Iran’s “exportation of the Islamic Revolution” phase, in the mid-1980’s, the Islamic Republic demonstrated a less-than-impressive ability to project its power beyond the immediate borders of Iran, and even then this projection was limited to war-torn Lebanon.

Iranian military capability reached its modern peak in the late 1970’s, during the reign of Reza Shah Pahlevi. The combined effects of institutional distrust on the part of the theocrats who currently govern the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the conventional military institutions, leading as it did to the decay of the military through inadequate funding and the creation of a competing paramilitary organization, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Command (IRGC), and the disastrous impact of an eight-year conflict with Iraq, meant that Iran has never been able to build up conventional military power capable of significant regional power projection, let alone global power projection.

Where Iran has demonstrated the ability for global reach is in the spread of Shi’a Islamic fundamentalism, but even in this case the results have been mixed. Other than the expansive relations between Iran (via certain elements of the IRGC) and the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon, Iranian success stories when it comes to exporting the Islamic revolution are virtually non-existent. Indeed, the efforts on the part of the IRGC to export Islamic revolution abroad, especially into Europe and other western nations, have produced the opposite effect desired. Based upon observations made by former and current IRGC officers, it appears that those operatives chosen to spread the revolution in fact more often than not returned to Iran noting that peaceful coexistence with the West was not only possible but preferable to the exportation of Islamic fundamentalism. Many of these IRGC officers began to push for moderation of the part of the ruling theocrats in Iran, both in terms of interfacing with the west and domestic policies.

The concept of an inherent incompatibility between Iran, even when governed by a theocratic ruling class, and the United States is fundamentally flawed, especially from the perspective of Iran. The Iran of today seeks to integrate itself responsibly with the nations of the world, clumsily so in some instances, but in any case a far cry from the crude attempts to export Islamic revolution in the early 1980’s. The United States claims that Iran is a real and present danger to the security of the US and the entire world, and cites Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear technology, Iran’s continued support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s “status” as a state supporter of terror, and Iranian interference into the internal affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan as the prime examples of how this threat manifests itself.

On every point, the case made against Iran collapses upon closer scrutiny. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), mandated to investigate Iran’s nuclear programs, has concluded that there is no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Furthermore, the IAEA has concluded that it is capable of monitoring the Iranian nuclear program to ensure that it does not deviate from the permitted nuclear energy program Iran states to be the exclusive objective of its endeavors. Iran’s support of the Hezbollah Party in Lebanon - Iranian protestors shown here supporting Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during an anti-Israel rally - while a source of concern for the State of Israel, does not constitute a threat to American national security primarily because the support provided is primarily defensive in nature, designed to assist Hezbollah in deterring and repelling an Israeli assault of sovereign Lebanese territory. Similarly, the bulk of the data used by the United States to substantiate the claims that Iran is a state sponsor of terror is derived from the aforementioned support provided to Hezbollah. Other arguments presented are either grossly out of date (going back to the early 1980’s when Iran was in fact exporting Islamic fundamentalism) or unsubstantiated by fact.

The US claims concerning Iranian interference in both Iraq and Afghanistan ignore the reality that both nations border Iran, both nations were invaded and occupied by the United States, not Iran, and that Iran has a history of conflict with both nations that dictates a keen interest concerning the internal domestic affairs of both nations. The United States continues to exaggerate the nature of Iranian involvement in Iraq, arresting “intelligence operatives” who later turned out to be economic and diplomatic officials invited to Iraq by the Iraqi government itself. Most if not all the claims made by the United States concerning Iranian military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been backed up with anything stronger than rhetoric, and more often than not are subsequently contradicted by other military and governmental officials, citing a lack of specific evidence.

Iran as a nation represents absolutely no threat to the national security of the United States, or of its major allies in the region, including Israel. The media hype concerning alleged statements made by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has created and sustained the myth that Iran seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly contradict this myth. First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated an Iranian policy objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel’s policies would lead to its “vanishing from the pages of time.” Second, and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole purview of the “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States inclusive of an offer to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This initiative was rejected by the United States, but nevertheless represents the clearest indication of what the true policy objective of Iran is vis-à-vis Israel.

The fact of the matter is that the “Iranian Threat” is derived solely from the rhetoric of those who appear to seek confrontation between the United States and Iran, and largely divorced from fact-based reality. A recent request on the part of Iran to allow President Ahmadinejad to lay a wreath at “ground zero” in Manhattan was rejected by New York City officials. The resulting public outcry condemned the Iranian initiative as an affront to all Americans, citing Iran’s alleged policies of supporting terrorism. This knee-jerk reaction ignores the reality that Iran was violently opposed to al-Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan throughout the 1990’s leading up to 2001, and that Iran was one of the first Muslim nations to condemn the terror attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.

A careful fact-based assessment of Iran clearly demonstrates that it poses no threat to the legitimate national security interests of the United States. However, if the United States chooses to implement its own unilateral national security objectives concerning regime change in Iran, there will most likely be a reaction from Iran which produces an exceedingly detrimental impact on the national security interests of the United States, including military, political and economic. But the notion of claiming a nation like Iran to constitute a security threat simply because it retains the intent and capability to defend its sovereign territory in the face of unprovoked military aggression is absurd. In the end, however, such absurdity is trumping fact-based reality when it comes to shaping the opinion of the American public on the issue of the Iranian “threat.”

Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998. He is the author of numerous books, including “Iraq Confidential” (Nation Books, 2005) , “Target Iran” (Nation Books, 2006) and his latest, “Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement” (Nation Books, April 2007).

[bigron]

Attack on Iran: Morality Lost in the Garden of Deceits

By Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18513.htm

10/06/07 "ICH" -- --- Cry "Havoc," and let slip the dogs of war (Julius Caesar Act III, Scene I). The call for war against Iran was issued by no other than Mr. Bernard Kouchner the foreign minister of France, a country with the motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. France the home of Voltaire and Rousseau is now calling for war against a country that has never threatened France or its neighbours. France a nuclear power with illustrious colonial past is urging others to be aware of the dangers that nuclear weapons pose.

From the other side of the Atlantic we hear the same cries for more war, death and destruction. As though the death of 650000 Iraqis was not enough, we are urged to prepare ourselves for another war. We are told that by killing more civilians, creating more refugees, destroying more bridges, power plants, schools, hospitals and factories we are going to be safer and live better lives.

Recently Mr. Greenspan told us what we already knew: namely that Iraq was invaded because of its oil. This of course was not the first time that we heard this and it certainly will not be the last either. But who cares? Here we see President Bush and his allies illegally attacking and destroying a country, making millions homeless and starting a civil war without a slightest sign of remorse. They went to steal the natural resources of Iraq and they did it and are doing it. And now they want more. Yesterday it was Iraq; tomorrow it will be Iran and the day after it will be Venezuela. When the president of the world’s only superpower acts like a thief, what protection is there for the rest of the world? The very same people that brought us the Iraq tragedy are using the same excuses to repeat their misdeeds again.

In late August, “Iran and the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency released a plan laying out a step-by-step timetable of cooperation with the goal of resolving by December issues that have been under investigation for four years. Agency officials have praised the timetable as a breakthrough and Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on Tuesday said the investigation into his country’s nuclear activities was now closed.”

This agreement was hailed as a success by the IAEA and UN. The problem with this agreement is that it takes away the excuse needed by Bush and Co to implement their strategy of strangling Iran and get their hands on Iran’s oil and gas. Naturally, just like the case in Iraq, they have dismissed the agreement saying that it was not enough. Then the talk of war intensified, with US, Israel and then France talking loudly about an eventual attack on Iran. The main aim of these shrill voices is to take the people’s attention away from the IAEA-Iran agreement and back to some illogical talk of Iran’s threat to the world.

It is said that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, people will eventually come to believe you. Having used this tactics in Iraq with some success, they believe they can do it again. They believe that people will eventually come to believe that Iran is a serious threat to the world and grudgingly accept another war. And the good thing about this is, so they believe, that this time they don’t even have to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by Iran. They just have to say that they have prevented Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons in the “future”. Very logical, isn’t it?

The fact that these same countries posses lots of nuclear weapons is irrelevant, so we are told. We are to believe that Israel, Pakistan, India, US, UK, France, China and Russia are all exception to the rules. Other countries that enrich Uranium are also exceptions. It is only Iran with its vast natural resources that is a danger to the world peace and prosperity.

Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons and last year was involved in one of the most savage attacks on Lebanon. She also recently bombed Syria. Yet we hear no protest from the so called “civilized world”. Pakistan, a dictatorship, with its tremendous security problems (Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc) has nuclear weapons and is awarded F16s. India tested nuclear weapons and was awarded trade and nuclear technology transfer agreements.

What is the moral lesson from all this? There is none; the law of the jungle rules. Those who can steal will steal. Those who can rape will do so with impunity. There is no punishment for the strong; it is the weak that has to pay. Meanwhile we pretend to believe all their lies and keep hoping for cheaper oil and higher share prices; otherwise we have to face our own complicity in their crimes. After all who elected them and who re-elected them? Our very silence makes us an accomplice.

As you read this you should think about all those Iraqis that have been killed, the 2.5 million Iraqis that had to flee the carnage in their country and a similar number of internal Iraqi refugees. You should think about all the lies that you have been told and ask yourself these questions: do I want another incident like Iraq? Can I stay silent and accept more killings and destruction? Is it OK for the powerful to commit armed robbery?

If one finds it difficult to answer these questions, then perhaps one should follow what Bertrand Russell said: “We have, in fact, two kinds of morality side by side: one which we preach but do not practice, and another which we practice but seldom preach”.

Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar lives in Norway. He is a management consultant and a contributing writer for many online journals. He can be contacted by e-mail at:Bakhtiarspace-articles@yahoo.no

[Dan]

You know, the more I read and watch about the warmongering going on in our gov.  the more I feel a slight sense of pity for Iran.  They are doing nothing to effect the national security of the US and yet we are drawing up plans to annihilate them.

Everyone who thinks that Iran is 'evil' needs to ask themselves a few questions:

1.  Who is your source of information?  The government and the government alone?  not a credible source.

2.  What is it that they say Iran is doing?  Pursuing Nuclear technology?  Why is that so bad?  N. Korea is a smaller country with actual nuke weapons and we are not drawing up plans to invade them.  This cannot be the real reason then.

3.  What is there for the government and its primary members to gain from Iran falling?  The list is too long to write here, but money, power, oil, control, fear, and other things mostly leading to more money.

Iran is just a country doing the same thing that we did 65-70 years ago.  The only thing that is different is that when we did it, germany did not have nukes.  If they did, they would have done to us, what we are doing to Iran.

Poor Iranians.

Dan

[Biggs]

You know, the more I read and watch about the warmongering going on in our gov.  the more I feel a slight sense of pity for Iran.

The sense of pity should be more than slight, Iran executes no more people than the USA, most if not all subjects in iran are open to public debate, many of the people are staunchly pro-Western.

They have never broken one single article of the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty (NPT), the IAEA inspectors have given them a clean bill of health.

Yet the IAEA governing council has referred iran to the UNSC because the council board is a political body made up of 35 nations representatives. The actual inspectors have given Iran a clean bill of health.

Now the Us and Israel want to nuke Iran and cover the land in DU and murdered babies.

[Biggs]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/07/wiran307.xml
The man who stands between US and new war
Last Updated: 1:50am BST 10/10/2007

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, has taken charge of the forces in the American government opposed to a US military attack on Iran, writes Tim Shipman. Pentagon and State Department officials say Mr Gates has set himself up as chief rival to Dick Cheney in a bid to thwart the vice president's desire to bomb the Islamic state. Those familiar with internal battles in the Bush administration say Mr Gates has eclipsed Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, as the chief opponent of air strikes and is the main reason President George W.Bush has yet to resort to military action. Pentagon sources say Mr Gates is waging a subtle campaign to undermine the Cheney camp by encouraging the army's senior officers to speak frankly about the overstretch of forces, and the difficulty of fighting another war. Bruce Reidel, a former CIA Middle East officer, said: "Cheney's people know they can beat Condi. They have been doing it for six years. Bob Gates is a different kettle of fish. He doesn't owe the President anything. He is urging his officers to be completely honest, knowing what that means." Officials say Mr Gates's strategy bore fruit when Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, charged with devising war plans for Iran, said last month that the "constant drumbeat of war" was not helpful. He was followed by General George Casey, the army's new chief of staff, who requested an audience with the House of Representatives armed services committee to warn that his branch of the military had been stretched so thin by the Iraq war that it was not prepared for yet another conflict. Gen Casey told Congress the army was "out of balance" and added: "The demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight, and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies." Mr Gates has forged an alliance with Mike McConnell, the national director of intelligence, and Michael Hayden, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, to ensure that Mr Cheney's office is not the dominant conduit of information and planning on Iran to Mr Bush. Insiders say Mr Gates has ensured that Mr Bush has seen more extensive studies of the probable negative effects of an attack on Iran than he was privy to before the war in Iraq. One CIA insider said: "Bush understands that any increase in real military hostilities in Iran right now could have a negative effect. Bob Gates is the only one opposed to it. He's the single person in the US government who has any standing with the White House fighting it."

[Dig]

KUDLOW TELLS CONDI TO INVADE IRAN:


After the debate, Kudlow interviewed various candidates.  The clip is from when he interviewed Duncan Hunter...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/15840232?video=552923555&play=1

He said that he was making suggestions to secretary of state Condi Rice.  He told her...

"...In fact, we are going to HAVE TO take military action in Iran because the divestment of assets in the financial freeze is not working."

CNBC 6:50PM EST 10/9/2007

Kudlow is now telling our Secretary of State that we have to take military action against Iran for economic reasons.


Is Condi still a target of a strategic outing campaign?  Is she still vulnerable to support an action that compromises every American because of shame?

Can we just get this out of the way so that scandal does not again dictate our foreign policy disasters...

[Dig]

10/9/07, 9:26 pm EST
McCain: Iran Attack “Closer to Reality”
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2007/10/09/mccain-iran-attack-closer-to-reality/
“I believe that this [attacking Iran’s nuclear sites] is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight.”

— John McCain in response to a hypothetical question from Chris Matthews about how he would handle an attack on Iran
-- Tim Dickinson

Blast from the past:

John McCain Raw Footage - "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

John McCain Thinks War is A Joke - "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67ANtTZpCmE

Fox attacks Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-eyuFBrWHs

[Dig]

Juan Williams: Kristol Is Pushing For ‘The Next World War’
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/14/iran-williams-kristol/

On Fox News Sunday, right-wing pundit Bill Kristol continued to beat the war drums for a strike against Iran. “I hope the administration is willing to do what it takes to back Iran off,” he said, adding that “we may need to do stuff across the border.” NPR’s Mara Liasson claimed that the Bush administration could politically “withstand” an attack against Iran, and that a bombing raid inside Iran would not count as “an all-out war.” NPR’s Juan Williams noted that Liasson and Kristol were in effect condoning “the next world war”:

WILLIAMS: I think what Bill Kristol is saying is he wants some action against Iran in a way that Israel apparently took action against Syria. And I think what you’re looking at then is the next world war. […] And if we now say the U.S. is going to take action against Iran, and it’s not as a result of some specific provocative action, then you’re talking about spreading war.

Kristol responded by citing the recent Israeli airstrike on Syria as evidence for his claim that a strike on Iran would not have deeper consequences. “Has the Israeli action against Syria spread war? Has that destabilized the region?” Kristol asked. Watch it:
Juan Williams warns attack on Iran would cause world war

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ7AoQDExoc

Last year, Williams told Kristol: “You just want war, war, war, and you want us in more war. ”

Neither Liasson nor Kristol should fool themselves about the consequences of striking Iran. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski recently said “that Iran would likely react to an American attack ‘by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.’”

[bigron]

No Legitimate Justification for War with Iran
Scott Ritter - October 10th, 2007 - (Forum: Target Iran?)
http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/10/no-legitimate-justification-for-war-on-iran/

Given the complexities of the modern world, and the uncertainties inherent in such, it is prudent for any nation possessing global reach and ambition to be prepared to defend its legitimate interests through the use of military force. The geographic reality of Iran’s physical location vis-à-vis the Straight of Hormuz, and the dire economic consequences that would accrue should Middle Eastern oil supplies become choked off through any closure or lengthy disruption of shipping through the Straight of Hormuz, dictate that the United States plan for the possible deployment and employment of its military to secure this strategic shipping lane.

But there is a far cry from preparing for the possibility of conflict, and planning for the implementation of pre-emptive military action designed to eliminate capabilities not forbidden under international law (such as Iran’s nuclear energy program) or facilitate regime change in a sovereign state.  The actions underway by the US military, operating under the aegis of its civilian leadership, are indicative of the former, not the latter, and as such can be categorized as undesirable on the part of those who embrace the rule of law set forth by the Constitution of the United States and, in related fashion (one only needs to read Article 6 of the Constitution) the Charter of the United Nations.

The United States should only consider the use of military force as representing a viable option once it has exhausted every venue short of war to resolve an identified national security problem.  This must include seeking authority for such a military strike in accordance with international law as set forth under the Charter of the United Nations, as well as carrying out the coordination between the executive and legislative branches mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  In the case of imminent danger to national security, decisive action would of course need to be taken, hence the need for updated military contingency planning.  However, there is simply nothing transpiring in Iran today that constitutes categorization as an imminent threat to the national security of the United States, and as such nothing about the Iranian situation can be interpreted as providing justification for any accelerated military action that seeks to circumvent due process.

However, the reality is that the United States continues to plan to initiate and sustain a military strike against Iran.  The Executive Branch of the U.S. government has successfully manipulated the Congress of the United States to the point that, through two War Powers resolutions (one issued in September 2001, the other in October 2002), there no longer remain any Constitutional remedies to the problem of unprovoked unilateral military action by a Unitary Executive which increasingly positions itself to operate above the law and beyond legislative oversight.

In the environment of post-September 11, 2001 America the executive branch of government has successfully extricated itself from legitimate oversight by claiming to be acting in the interests of homeland security.  The resultant “Global War on Terror” has served as a cover for actions which are more about implementing far-reaching global dominance per the National Security Strategy of the United States (initially promulgated in September 2002, and recently updated in March 2006).  Policies of regime change in Iraq were implemented under the umbrella of reaction to the terror attacks of 2001, although Iraq was not linked in any way to that horrific event, or the perpetrators of that event.  In the same way, the U.S. government today seeks to pursue similar policies of destabilization and regime-termination in Iran making similar rhetorical linkage, although the factual record clearly demonstrates Iran’s absolute lack of involvement in either the September 11, 2001 attack or the organization, al-Qaeda, which carried it out.

Any military action on the part of the United States against Iran, lacking as it would be in justification and legal authority, would ultimately fail to achieve any objectives that could be construed as improving either the regional security posture of the Middle East, or the national security environment of the United States.  In fact, the exact opposite situation would arise, with the Middle East sinking into a morass of conflict the consequences of which would detrimentally impact the global energy markets.  Since the ostensible justification for any strike against Iran by the United States is illusory, there could be no real security benefit derived from a strike, in the same way that the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not increase the security of the world by eliminating WMD stockpiles, since those stockpiles did not exist.

Iran today is a nation suffering under the combined effects of decades of sanctions, conflict and governmental mismanagement.  There is a growing recognition inside Iran, reaching to the highest levels of government that something needs to be done to effect a change in course for the Islamic Republic.  Iran has long since ceased engaging in the kind of irresponsible international adventurism which characterized its export of the Islamic Revolution.  Iran’s nuclear program, declared as being exclusively for energy use, has become an impediment towards the normalization of relations with the world, and Iran would be willing to negotiate it away if the appropriate diplomatic environment could be created, especially vis-à-vis the United States.  Iran’s relationship with Hezbollah in Lebanon could likewise be moderated through genuine diplomatic engagement which sought a resolution to the crisis in southern Lebanon in a manner which respected the sovereign will of the citizens of south Lebanon.

The bottom line is that while one may be able to articulate justification for prudent military contingency planning in the Middle East inclusive of an Iranian scenario (I myself participated in such planning in the mid-1980’s), there must be a distinction between planning and implementation.  Implementation of military action should only come in the face of an identified viable threat, authorized by proper authorities in accordance with due process set forth by legal mandate, and then only when all venues short of conflict have been exhausted in seeking a resolution to the situation.  None of these prerequisites for conflict have been met in the case of the current state of affairs between Iran and the United States.  Simply put, there is no justification whatsoever for the United States to be planning for the implementation of a pre-emptive war of aggression against Iran.  If we are to have learned anything from history, it is that such pre-emptive wars generally tend to lead to defeat (Iraq, 2003) and are recognized by international law as constituting war crimes as we saw at Nurnberg in 1945.

[Patrick Henry]

Kristol-another scumbag on the payroll.

[moses737]

I always knew and couldn't trust McCain when he said that "Clinton makes my knees knock." That is a homosexual statement and I knew that he was part of the globalist both party elite when I heard him say that 15 years ago!! Both the Republicants and the Demoncrats are very evil parties that will plunge America into the abyss and under their luciferic masters control. But these warmongering demons will be severly punished by an Almighty Power that they cannot and chose not to understand!! And eternal fire and great agonies forever and ever will be their well deserved reward!!! America is being betrayed and our politicians are greedy dogs and greedy pigs that can never have enough bribes and kickbacks and stolen loot!! But don't worry; they will all be in the frying pans of hell together!! What can we do about this!!?? Show the whole world their evil intentions and rebel against their coming MARK OF THE BEAST CHIP AND THEIR COMING WORLD GOVERNMENT!!!

[TheGoodFight1984]

I posted some of these articles and a few vids on a local music forum lastnight and all I got in return was some shoddy article 'alleging' that Scott Ritter had been busted for talking to 14 year old girls on the internet, some half-arsed smear campaign to discredit him, ie "But next time you hear Scott Ritter on one of the cable news channels fulminating about America's immoral behavior and how the leaders of this country have turned into "the bad guys," remember that this is a man whose alleged idea of morality is to engage in sex talk with underage girls - and maybe worse." it's pathetic, what the hell is wrong with these people?