Countdown: Democratic Debate Fulfilling Neo-Con Dreams For Iran
By Nicole Belle Thursday Apr 17, 2008 3:30pm
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
There was a substantive point during Wednesday's debate that got missed by many in the deserved outrage over the hackery of the first hour. As I watched the debate, it was the single point at which I was tempted to throw my shoe at the screen, not only at the framing of the question by moderator George Stephanopoulos, but by the answers by Barack Obama and especially, Hillary Clinton. That question was over the issue of Iran. Stephanopoulos prefaced his question with the long-debunked but still oft-repeated neo-con talking point that Iran has threatened Israel and then continued with the assumption that Iran is still pursuing a nuclear program, a factoid directly contradicted by the NIE report the White House famously sought to suppress.
Apparently, the White House was so successful in obfuscating the findings of that NIE report that neither the News Division of a major network, nor the Senators sitting on the Armed Services (Hillary Clinton) or Foreign Relations/Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (Barack Obama), were aware of the findings. Sadly, both were completely comfortable, as Rachel Maddow put it, to further a talking point created by Charles Krauthammer. Krauthammer is one of the many Neo-con war cheerleaders who has far too influential a reach for someone who has been so completely and utterly wrong on their Middle East plan. Obama, while a little more measured in his speech, did not reject the framing posed to him and said that "all options are on the table." Clinton all but declared her intention to attack Iran, repeating that we could not allow Iran the right to develop a nuclear program.
A little history lesson for those determined to ignore it: Iran has NEVER attacked another country. Has never threatened to attack another country. The ruling mullahs have found nuclear weapons to be against the teachings of peace in the Koran and in fact, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah put together a foreign policy council to curtail Ahmadinejad's powers as he has recognized Ahmadinejad's tendency to be confrontational. I profess no special knowledge of Iran other than what I've studied using credible sources. If I can figure this stuff out and sort through the White House spin, what is Obama's and Clinton's excuse? I realize that expecting ABC to sort through the spin is more than we can hope from a news organization nowadays.
There is a conventional wisdom that a Democrat must appear to be as hawkish -- or more so -- than a Republican to appear credible on national security issues. However, given that these pre-emptive aggressions in the Middle East already advocated by Neo-con policy makers has resulted in making us less safe, is it too much to ask that our Democratic candidates show that they aren't as mindless and uninformed as the current President and not threaten another country that does not pose a direct threat to us and stop accepting and running with right-wing talking points?
Maybe they could have said something like Rep. Lynn Woolsey did yesterday on the House floor: (h/t BillW for tip)
Login or Register to post comments.
That little thing like the Constitution and the Congress having the responsibility to declare war just sort of skipped out of their brain pattern.
Is it too much to ask that our Democratic candidates show that they aren’t as mindless and uninformed as the current President and not threaten another country that does not pose a direct threat to us and stop accepting and running with right-wing talking points?
I simply wish we didn't already know the answer to that question.
Iran has never attacked another country ? What about the attacks on India from 13-17th centuries and the merciless slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus, a holocaust unparalled in history. These Iranian killers were called Mughals and it is indisputed that over ten million Hindus were killed, simply for being "hindu (infidel)" and therefore worthy of killing. Nothing has really changed today in how Islam views infidels
Sarcasm right 'foo'?..you left out other Persian conquests in BC.
Given all of that regarding the neocon talking points, I do like Obama's response “all options are on the table.” I don't see that as a hawkish statement in any regard because, protracted out into the next presidency all options will be on the table because the world changes.
Somehow, Rachael Maddow seemed very "serious" when she finished by saying ..."thank you Keith"
...she seemed extraordinarily concerned.
I am too...Hillary and Obama are both ready to (forego) the constitution in the name of terrorism/crime...
...and of course those willing to give up liberty in lieu of security...deserve neither...
To foo, I say "fooey": Rep. Woolsey should run for President! She's got it right!
One quarter of a million troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan have traumatic stress disorder, and a half of those don't get any mental care (some afraid because stigma of mental disease would affect chances of getting work in future); One quarter of a million have some form of brain injury itself.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080417/hl_nm/iraq_usa_health_dc
But the neo-cons don't care--as long as Israel is safer, and Iran would only add to those statistics, but again the neocons don't care. And Iran is not even a speculation anymore; It's a given. We recognise all the same signals.
Is it too much to ask that our Democratic candidates show that they aren’t as mindless and uninformed as the current President and not threaten another country that does not pose a direct threat to us and stop accepting and running with right-wing talking points?
Correction. You're right, it isn't too much to ask. But after 7 years of Worst.Administration.Ever., and a longer period of Worst.Media.Ever., doing the right thing is going to take a lot of courage.
the numbers are3 even more tha
Deadeye Dick is saying the same shit about Iran as he did about Iraq. We all know how accurate he was then. SSDY. Same Shit Different Year!
6 milquetoast Says:
"Somehow, Rachael Maddow seemed very “serious” when she finished by saying …”thank you Keith”
…she seemed extraordinarily concerned."
I noticed that to. But, I think her reaction was to Keith's reference to having a beer with Pat Buchanan afterwards. Keith's remark is exactly what Maddow stated during her confrontation with Joe Scarborough. I think Scarborough had pissed her off by his walking off of the set and his constant interuptions.
Do you know who was the first person to highlight this fact?
PAT BUCHANAN
He said that night in the post-debate spin that if they hadn't spent 50 minutes attacking Barack, Hillary being so gung-ho about launching military campaigns in the Middle East would be the story of the night. I understand why Obama can't be totally against attacking Iran because he already has problems with the Jewish vote.
But for Hillary to go 10 steps farther by saying she would launch a military campaign against anyone who attacked one of our Mideast Allies is not only hawkish, but it may be in violation of the Constitution for her to give such directives out of the Oval office without the approval of Congress. In terms of Iran, she may be to the right of John McCain who wrote a song about bombing them.
And unfortunately, if Obama was to point out the fact that Hillary is so hawkish about Iran and using our military to police the Middle East, all of his opponents (including the media) will only discuss how him being weak on using the military in the Middle East will harm him with Jewish voters.
So it's up to the blogosphere and the voters to hold Hillary accountable for her hawkish ideas.
your site hasnt been streaming well again for the last 36 hours.
Youtube, google video etc are all good (just a network routing comment).
@foo 3
You're going to use what happened centuries ago(when there was no "Iran") as an excuse for considering Iran a threat today? You're out of your mind. Your last sentence shows me where your hatred for Iranians lies.
Would he throw his shoe at the TV?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwyNGbrtd4c
Shoaib Qadri @ 16:
But you have to remember, WE ARE SPARTAAAAANS! Come on, they attacked a Western civilization so they must be ebil ;)
I didn't hear the debate, but based on what Keith Olbermann reported, Clinton said she wants to bomb Iran if they attack Israel. In other words, she wants to start a war with Iran!? Then she also reportedly said that if any country in the Middle East were to start a conflict, that we would get involved!?
WTF?
Meanwhile, China, Russia, and many others sit back and laugh as they watch this country sink under its own stupidity. Where is the money or manpower going to come from to attack Iran??? This country can't afford the bullshit it's already stirred up....now they want to add Iran to the mix. It's simpy unreal.
US roads and bridges are a crumbling mess....schools are a disaster...the environment is constantly getting pissed on....state and local governments are bankrupt.
By all means, add another trillion dollar invasion to the mix.
What a place.
I found both answers very dissapointing and the fact they didnt call Stephanopoulos on his falsehoods. But I sense in Obamas hesitant response a glimmer of hope in regards to Israel-Palestine conflict. Compared to Clinton who seemed very sure of herself promising "massive retaliation" against Iran if they attacked Israel.
I dont think (or at least I hope) Obamas Israel first position really is that deep or genuine. Hes only been in Washington 3+ years and I think its a position he had to take to get elected to the senate and even more importantly to get elected president. But deep down I think he knows better. To Clinton I think "Israel first" is much more second nature
foo:
go read a history book
Mister Anderson @ 14:
Most Jewish voters, such as myself, don't support AIPAC or war with Iran. It would be nuts!!!
Foo should read an AMERICAN History book. Foo-what'syour take on Native Americans being slaughtered for just existing OR Africans being taken as salves for being Africans hmmmm?
Ooops! That's 'slaves'.
P.S. It drives me nuts when the media starts talking about the Jewish vote, as if it were a block. It's not a block. We don't consult with each other before voting. And, given polls I've seen, nearly 80% of the so-called Jewish vote was against the war in Iraq--far higher than the general population and far higher than any other religious group.
Good to keep it "fair and balanced" Nicole because there are many of us who become sheep, by doing what the Repubs do---follow their "guy" no matter what, and certainly never challenge them about anything. This is a good example of saying something so many times it becomes accepted (Iran's assumed future actions) and then we all just move on. As an aside, we need to remember too, that all these candidates are millionaires or soon to be, and their goals may not always be the same as the majority of Americans. Thanks to Bush et al where are we going to get more Millionaires any way?
get real obama and clinton would throw us under the bus for israel just like mccflute!
The ridiculous notion to me is that the question that keeps being brought up is "What would we do if Iran attacked Israel!!??" Is this a joke? Israel has one of the most powerful militaries in the world, launches constant incursions and strikes against Palestinians- INVADED Lebanon in 2006, and is the one that continues to threaten Iran! They also have nuclear weapons and WMD- why is Iran the threat?
From what I see its obvious which nation is the aggressor. A more proper question would be "What would we do if Israel attacked Iran?" .
The best answer to both is that we don't give any damn american taxpayer money to either.
I agree with another statement here, where are the resources supposed to come from to attack Iran (with anything other than air power)? Attacking Iran is rubbish, but if somehow it comes to fruition it would mean the end of the United States and with any luck, large scale anarchy.
Shoaib Qadri @ 28:
So far, luckily, neither has directly attacked the other. There's absolutely no reason for the US to start a war with Iran. Clinton's remarks were really out there! But if we had any doubt that she gave Bush permission to go to war with Iran as a means of bringing diplomatic pressure, now we know she agrees completely with Bush and McCain. She might even go farther than either of them.
Oh, and regarding diplomatic pressure: It's the Iranians who've been willing to negotiate. The Bushies refuse to! So who should bring diplomatic pressure.
David Hawes @ 24:
LOL
Unintentionally awful. I didn't even catch it until you corrected it.
Israel is the cause of most of the stress in the middle east. Israel was offered a peace deal in the early 90's contingent on having a viable Palestinian state. Israel turned it down outright. Israel does not want peace. Peace is bad for business. Besides, if it were peaceful there, how could the government play the terror card. How do they keep the people in line without the boogie man of the Palestinian terrorist out to kill them all. Time after time, Israel overreacts wildly to any act of violence by the opressed Palestinians. If one Israeli is killed then Israel goes in with tanks, helicopter gunships and planes, killing dozens of Palestinian men, women and children. The only thing that allows these willful acts of barbarism to continue is the fact that the United States supports Israel in whatever atrocities it does. Israel is a cancer on the middle east.
Notice that I refer to Israel and not the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not the problem. It's the government that is the problem. Much like in the United States, the Israeli government is made up of hawks who'd rather kill than talk. Both countries have long histories of attacking their neighbours.
The Israeli talking point that they are surrounded by millions of enemies who want to kill them all and wipe Israel off the map is laughable. There is only one country in the area with nuclear weapons. There is only one country in the area that is protected by the biggest bully country in the world. Israel could no more be wiped off the map than could the United States. If push comes to shove, you can bet that Israel or the United States would use a first strike nuclear weapon. Once that happens then all hope is gone for the world.
Bonkers-Yeah was a real Fruedian slip ,eh?
And I know, I am SURE, that many posters must have posted this many times, but this is my first time, so gimme a break!
:)
Anyway, the Man The Myth, Mr Carlin:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9KReZyAZLI0
The reality is that Obama and Clinton want to have a snowball's chance in hell (at least) of getting elected. There is NO WAY they could appear "soft" in light of that awful question. Trying to debunk it would be seen as evasive, and anything but a willingness to appear tough would be used against them. I for one wish we had honest political discussion, but we don't. I am willing to accept some compromise on the issue of perfect integrity to accomdate for the reality of current American presidential politics. My wrath lies strictly with ABC on this one, for their B.S. question.
It should also be remembered that: 1) The president of Iran has no control whatsoever over the Iranian military -- the position is essentially and internal one; 2) To the best of my knowledge there is only one country in the entire Middle East which posses nuclear weapons, and that is Israel.
The candidates need to address and expand on the issue. The sHit-and-run question came out of right field. Hill's answer sounded prepared and followed the bush line. I like Barack's drive to reestablish diplomacy but then he headed off towards the abyss with we will always keep Israel secure, as if the premise of the question was credible. We need more feedback to this all too important issue.
ps... I am writing msNBC expressing support for the exemplary analysis that Rachel provides as a guest. There is something about that beady eyed bastid I don't trust...
The questions and answers on this topic were both meaningless. There were so many caveats involved that both the candidates and the moderators were just blathering.
If Iran has not threatened Israel and Iran does not have a nuclear program then the entire rest of the question and response was just time wasting by ABC and the candidates. So calm down. Neither of the Dems has any intention of attacking Iran. Any talking points to the contrary are all bullshit.
bush, mccain, hillary, obama...no difference really. they do what they are told. ask huey long what happens to leaders who actually try to lead...
I said it before and I'll say it again. I wish we could clone Rachel Maddow and put her in place of all of the spineless "liberal" commentators on television who are so quick to join the Repugs in attacking Dems. Of course I would like to add Keith Olbermann to that esteemed clone list.
David Hawes @ 23:
Not so fast David. Foo knows the Iranians are bad. Not only did he see "300" but he read the comic book too.
Johnny @ 39:
Wish I could calm down. But Clinton has given Bush carte blanche twice: once on Iraq and then on Iran. Her comments during the debate, which I missed and only heard about from Keith Olbermann, are really troubling. It also raises the question of how honest she's been with her supporters? I mean, when she says she gave Bush carte blanche twice in order to bring diplomatic pressure to bear on Iraq and Iran...does she really mean that? Because the other night, she all but declared war on Iran and is threatening to police the entire Middle East.
Your right a big problem is the AIPAC is hijacking the voice of the American Jews, most of who I know have been and are against this stupid war. Hopefully the new lobbying group can help balance out the influence of AIPAC.
Otay @ 41:
In America, in this point in time, Rachael is the most coherent voice, not of liberals, but of sanity. She talks about bumping into Pat Buchannon and I think that is an important thing for her to say. Many of you have "bumped into Ron Paul from this side of the street and I think that if we talk about "a more perfect union" as a constitutional responsibility, we have to start bumping into those of us with differing viewpoints but an allegiance to sanity. I don't care about about liberal vrs Conservative, the distortion of the definitions makes me dizzy. I just don't want other people to die anymore because we Americans think we "know what's right". We are a bunch of idiots. My gratitude goes out to Rachael. She's an amazing person and I'm grateful to have her in my life- even if it's only on a television screen.
Charles Krauthammer is a cripple. There, he wants to be 'treated' like everyone else, those who can walk at least, that I'll use a slur on him too. No, and I don't care. He and his wrong-thinking, war-mongering neo-cons don't care about anything except what they 'think' is right. they are wrong, not right. i have no use for him.
Joe O. @ 5:
The only reason we're going over there is for an oil empire. "All options on the table" means he supports that neo-con ideology in some way. You don't have to believe it, but it's the truth and you can fact-check it for yourself if you're so inclined.
When will you people understand that it really doesn't matter which of these 3 running for President wins? The only way one can win is if they are selected and annointed by the Powers that Be (PtB)! American voters don't actually have a say in what happens anymore - the whole system has been corrupted for decades.
The last two elections were so blatantly stolen it was pathetic - yet we continue to send delegations around to world to monitor elections in third world countries. What a joke.
Anybody here, seen my old friend John? Anybody here, seen my old friend Barack? Anybody here, seen my old friend Hillary? That's what happens to folks who don't do what they're told - who don't kowtow to the Powers that Be - wake up!!!
Iran is a boogie man for the suckers. The place
has a per annum military budget of 'round about
six billion dollars a year. That's not what we even
spend in a week on the occupation. If the US starts
dropping bombs in Iran, every Iraqi Shia with a
rifle is going to think about hunting American.
Wingnuts like to say "we" have to stay in Iraq until
there is victory- but if "we" stay there and the Shia
rise up, we could lose the whole Army. Is it gonna
be worth it then, or will we then need to walk nukes
up the Tigris river valley to salve neo-con feelings?
Aw, I know Rep. Woolsey is one of the good guys, and she says a lot of stuff that needs to be said in that clip, but please please please it's NEW-KLEER, not NEW-KEW-LAR.
Great speech! We need more like this! I wish she hadn't said "nuc-u-lar" so much, though. In fairness she did say it correctly about half of the time.
Why don't you guys understand there is no difference between DEM and REP it is for your infotainment only they should put large letters over senate congress and white house W W E world wide entainment and have large pictures of mcmann in all buildings
I call bullshit. In fact I call double bullshit.
Sorry dude, there is no way that is not a threat. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that Iran would like to see Israel vanish and is funding a terrorist group whose major goal is the elimination of Israel. And words aside, there would obviously be a lot of dead Jews while that happens.
I strongly oppose war with Iran, and current Israel policy in the territories and in failing to pursue peace. But I think Israel can handle its own defense, with some help from us, just fine. Bush and company are evil war mongers, etc. etc. But anyone who reads the above statement and doesn't see a threat has never lived in a tough neighborhood.
Mike @ 53:
It is NOT a threat. One, Ahmadinejad has no way to make a threat like that. He has ZERO control over the nation's military. Zero. It is also a reiteration of something that Khomeini said, not an active statement.
My dad's best friend is an Iranian and a historian and I've spoken at length with him to get the Iranian perspective. Understand that the Iranian culture is thousands of years old. They do not think in terms of history being in 20 years or even 100 years. They take great pride that the Persian culture has survived and thrived when others have not. What Khomeini was saying was that he hoped the state of Israel forcing out the Palestinians is a phase...a short chapter in history, a circumstance that will be forgotten but for the history books.
Let us also be clear that the country that is actively threatening other countries and has actively been aggressive about invading other borders and has nuclear weapons program that we turn a blind eye to is Israel.
Think about this from an Iranian perspective. If you're constantly being told that you're evil, that you are the root of all problems in the middle east and that your existence threatens others, how would you defend yourself?
israel is the major threat in the middle east. they routinely attack their neighbors...yet morons believe the hype and think everyday is opposite day...
Israel, United States, England: the evil empires. George Bush was right that there are evil countries out to destroy the world and make us all suffer indignities, unfortunately he mis-named them.
I have heard Wes Clark (Hillary's SecDef), Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson, all Hillary supporters, talk about the need for aggressive attitudes towards Iran for some time now. I haven't heard from Clark on this, though, since the NIE a few months ago. This may be a hidden agenda among the DLC that she let slip out and Obama doesn't want to be behind in the game.
I know that you were being sarcastic about the info not reaching them, but this is freightening to see them so far behind the curve on using the information already available. Maybe they think that acting as if you have mild alzheimer's will appeal to the McCain crowd.
Nicole Belle @ 54:
If it sounds like a threat, it's a threat. The question of Ahmadinejad 's ability to carry out a threat that he makes is a different question. By analogy, if the powerless President of Israel makes a threat, does that mean that it's not really a threat because he is just a figurehead? Of course not.
"Not an active statement." What, did you see it resting in an armchair? It will become inactive when it is deactivated by Ahmadinejad and not a moment before.
"What Khomeini was saying was that he hoped the state of Israel forcing out the Palestinians is a phase...a short chapter in history, a circumstance that will be forgotten but for the history books. " How reassuring that that great friend of Israel, Khomeini, thinks that Israel is just a phase. Then we get to the parsing... is he talking about THIS Israel with these policies toward the Palestinians as you would like us to believe, or is he talking of any Israel at all? My contacts with Arabs suggest that there is no version of Israel that many will live with, and no version of Zionism that can be accepted, because the existence of Israel is equated with the disenfranchisement of the Palestinians... the end of Israel and the solution of the Palestinian problem are seen as one and the same.
Alright. But that's still a threat.
As for Israeli versus Iranian sponsored Hamas aggression... well, as far as I'm concerned Israel is giving as good as it gets against those SOBs who are launching katushas into Sderot. I may support an equitable resolution of the Palestinian Israeli dispute, but the problem is that while Fatah did, Hamas (financed by Iran) most definitely does not support a peaceful resolution.
So, no, Iran is exporting terror, and fomenting instability. You seem to perceive Israel's legitimate self defense as some kind of ongoing provocation. Many people perceive its very existence as a provocation. Why even pretend that Ahminajad isn't one of them?
Oh, and can we leave the nonsense about how old and noble the Iranian people are? The Jews are way way old too, and it doesn't make us better, or smarter or dumber than anyone else.
I suspect he was first sedated from the first hour of mind-numbingly stupid topics, then disoriented by the technique of "asking" a question by first framing it with false circumstances. It wasn't the circumstances they were questioning, so it was implied that those points were not up for discussion.
Had he not been so sedated, he would have caught it, though.
Hillary has spent so much time looking at poll charts and climbing routes, she's forgotten what the truth is.
How about assessing your actions, such as supporting Hamas and (maybe) developing nuclear weapons, and as a citizen considering whether your government is an out of control madman.
No small number of Israelis have reached that conclusion about their government's settlement policies. It's hardly too much to expect people to look at their own government and reach a critical conclusion in relation to it.
Understandably Iranians, Israelis and people the world over get defensive when their government is criticized. The test of a nation is whether their rises an internal resistance that can acknowledge what validity there may be in those criticisms and call for a new course. There are of course Iranians who do understand Iran's role in supporting terrorism and probably there are some who understand the danger of pursuing a nuclear weapons path. Resistance is possible.
goodpoint @ 44:
The problem is that most Americans, including Jewish Americans don't know much about the reality of Israel, Palestine and the Middle East, in general. All they know is what the media or their Sunday (Christian or Jewish) school has taught them.
I can understand the special connection American Jews feel towards Israel, but to defend it's racist policies at all costs is foolish. To dismiss any criticism of Israel as "anti-Semitic" without taking into account the differences between Jewish, Zionist and Israeli shows the speaker doesn't know what he/she are talking about.
This is akin to a knuckle dragger defending the Iraq invasion based on the premise that "we are there to bring freedom to the Iraqi people". The same talking points are prevalent when Israel comes up in a discussion. "Israel should be able to defend itself", the hawks proclaim. Well, yeah, OK. But, don't the Palestinians have a right to protect themselves from the daily aggression and occupation? Would there be any violence in Israel had it withdrawn from the Occupied Territories in the first place? It's like staying in Iraq for another 10 years and claiming, "look how much the Iraqis hate America. They're killing our troops and civilian contractors".
Mike @ 58:
You don't know what you're talking about Mike. Israel doesn't have to exist by name, it can exist as a state for Jews, Christians and Muslims, including current Israel proper, the West Bank and Gaza. One state, inclusive, repressentative, and fair to all. Right now, Israel defines itself as a Jewish only state. A democracy for Jews. It treats everyone else as an outsider, an enemy combatant in limbo if you will.
The other thing you might want to get a grip on is the fact that you think all Muslims hate Jews like Hitler. Not only did Jews (75000 in the early 20th) and Muslims (about 800,000) live side by side in Palestine before 1948, but Iran, yes Iran was the second country to recognize the establishment of the State of Israel back in 1948.
That's a shut up for you!
Don't forget that in this discussion, Hillary agreed to bomb Iran and to defend all Middle Eastern countries under a defense umbrella. It scared me and I realized she has joined the neocon side and believes in the Imperial presidency.
cando @ 63:
Yes, exactly! What she said scares me too!!!! She's talking about US policy, not Israel. So can we get back to US policy?
I really hate Krauthammer. He's always so smug. He and Kristol should be banished to an island where they have to listen to each other all day long. An island of guano.
Keith Obamanman needs to shut his mouth. Everything is guy says just pisses me off these days. I can't leave his show used to be a must see for me. Oh well, lesson learned.
Well I'll be Goddamned, not only is there absolutely no gay sex in Iran, they are totally peaceful and loving.
Thank God they're on the Human Rights Commission. They are the voice of progressive thought!
To foo:
Mughals were not iranians, you moron. They were Mongolians (the Chingizkhan kids.) They took over Persia and ruled for one hundred years.
Bush/Cheney's failed U.S. Policy's, failed execution in the occupation of IRAQ, and the failure to capture Bin ladin in TORA BORA Afghanistan has enbolden those who are at the race and has the INTEREST to concur the largest oil reserves in the world.
If IRAN's president thinks that the OIL PRICES are too LOW and the PRICE at the PUMP is too high....this kind of conflicting ideas that can not sustain the power and greed is ripe for a WORLD WAR III.
This conflict of natural resources are taking a hit at literrally everything at the FREEWORLD....from food to productions to manufacturing to economy to the valuation of currencies. If the WORLD leaders cannot find some common grounds and resolve their differences, they may decide to revert to aggressions. World's consumers may suffer. For there may not be enough resources. In order to survive, predatory actions may have to occur and a WWIII might become emminent; perhaps nuclear bomb and war of mass destruction may logically be the secret solutions that New WORLD Order seems to suggest.
World leaders are toying with some serious issues and millions of unsuspecting people may fall victims.
Perhaps World Leaders are capitulating and drawing up plans to mitigate the effects of shortages of resources; the overpopulation and unsustainable consumptions. For the western culture, it is then the primitives, the less educated, the unsuspecting, the criminals; the violents; the ills; the old; the useless the "have nots" the least important of a society are perhaps becoming the most logical victims to be eliminated. What a tough decision for any world leaders to make. But at a time when resources are scarce, what options do they have?
Are WE at a tipping point where WE need a Miracle or some other human ingenuity. Are WE the PEOPLE going to be our own problem or Our own solutions?
Are we going to continue wasting our abundance until our water, food, and natural resources are exhausted and our infrastructures are beyond repairs and resort to the inevitable? Which is it? What is going to bring out the beast that we fear the most? Who will survive? Who are the chosen ones? Who are the wasteful, the wasted, the undeserving? Who deserves to live through the promised land? Who decides all these Godly decisions? The World is at the brinks of CALAMITY and there are no one to blame but the humans that brought the "axis of evil".
I just read the following article and somehow found it logical. Perhap the untainted Barak Obama may be the level headed leader that we need to bring back the rule of laws back on-the-table. Perhaps he may be the ONE to bring back stability, sensibilities, and peace in the WORLD before the BUSH/CHENEY mission was launched. If bringing the rule of law back mean prosecution for ligitimate crimes and abuses later when he is in power. I am all for it 100%. This would mean finally a cleaning the "cultures of corruptions" that Pelosi promised and failed to realize. It would mean a wide spread of hearings to bring back justice; since White House and House of Congress is filled with corrupt criminals that would do literally anything to keep their criminal and abusive activities going. Barak Obama must be heavily guarded and kept away from these dubios people who are capable of anything.....even assasination. Look what they have done to President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.
Why We Should Go Slow On Prosecuting George Bush & His Torture Helpmates
April 17th, 2008 by SHAUN MULLEN, TMV Columnist
Will we go for regime change? No.
Will we bomb bomb Teran? NO.
Will we bomb Iran? Yes.
Will we invite blowback? Yes.
Will this help McCain? Yes, it's the only thing that will help McCain.
Will we kill Bin Laden? Yes, that's the only other thing that will help McCain.
Will Cheney allow it to look like we are under attack? Of coarse.
Will the American people believe this? They will be made to believe it.
I dunno, peoplez. Rep. Woolsey said newkewlur. Can we trust her?
The Dems are in on the corruption, I am telling you. The WHOLE government is dangerous.
Login or Register to post comments.