Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Tuesday, June 24, 2008

A resolution, H. Con. Res. 362, which leaves the door open for a military blockade of Iran will likely come to the House floor this week, according to Truthout. The legislation and a similar Senate bill have gained bipartisan support rapidly. Once the bill hits the floor, it's bound to "pass like a hot knife through butter," a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office says.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

townncountry

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

"Just days after the bill was originally introduced in the House of Representatives by Representative Gary Ackerman (D-New York), AIPAC put out a memo detailing its support for the intentions of the legislation. The memo does not specifically mention the proposed legislation, but contains almost identical language."

Some coincidence, huh! What is this, Israel and Saudi Arabia are dictating US foreign policy? No wonder it is schizo!

This is dangerous and sets the US on a slippery slope to war with Iran. I cannot believe that no one has discussed H.Con.Res.362 on the retort sooner.

You may be surprised at the answer; there are already over 169 cosponsors of H.Con.Res. 362.

This resolution demands that the president initiate an international effort to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspection requirements.

For such a blockade to be imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be considered an act of war. Some congressional sources say the House could vote on the resolution as early as this week.

Adoption of this resolution would pave the way for such a war and bypass diplomacy. Sensing that the threat of war has once again increased, IAEA Head El Baradei warned yesterday that he would resign if any country attacked Iran.

The immediate effect would be a further increase in oil prices - with gas prices in the US incing closer to $5/gallon and beyond.

I already wrote my Senators and Congressman to stop the authorization to blockade Iran. NATO and the USA already have enough on their plate for the next 7 months and Shrub and Shady already have enough power to unilaterally begin WWIII if they wanted to. No sense making the slope to all-war all-the-time even slipperier.

My guess is Bush has quietly warned members of Congress that either they approve the bill or he will just start bombing. Oil prices are going to spike.

Oil prices are going to spike.

I wonder if there is any oil lobbyists pushing this? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

Further proof that Congress doesn't give a fuck about you, me, or anyone. They are worthless. Vote out all incumbents in 08 and every election year here after.

"Oil prices are going to spike."

Bbbbbbbut I thought the Dems were gonan close the Enron loophole and thos evil nasty speculators would be put of of business?

BTW, are you guessing that oil prices will go up? Are you speculating?!

Wonder if boy dunder got permission from his chinese overlords before trying to commit yet another major fucking blunder. What a tool for suggesting it, what pathetic and spineless fools are nodding their noggins in agreement.

My guess is Bush has quietly warned members of Congress that either they approve the bill or he will just start bombing. Oil prices are going to spike.

Posted by danni

Not the President you love to hate. The Israelis are the prime reason. The recent military exercise is no joke.

WTF!??! Remind me what is the purpose of these idiots in congress again? Just crown boy dunder and get it over with.
Was that three separate branches of government thing just more BS?

I already wrote my Senators and Congressman to stop the authorization to blockade Iran. NATO and the USA already have enough on their plate for the next 7 months and Shrub and Shady already have enough power to unilaterally begin WWIII if they wanted to. No sense making the slope to all-war all-the-time even slipperier.

Posted by townncountry

Israel is the target. Your apparent inability to grasp the situation is only exasperated by your hatred of the President. The U.N. is a total flop. This is an attempt to STOP the bombs from falling and the crazies in Iran from starting a war.
The local countries will put on the protest face, but are not against the nutcase regime from having nukes.

"three separate branches of [US] government"

Israel, China, and Saudi Arabia.

How is Obama going to vote?

HAPPY .....

HAPPY ......

Fredo is FULL of GLEE ......

Welcome aboard, dumbocrat congressjerks !!!

WTF!??! Remind me what is the purpose of these idiots in congress again? Just crown boy dunder and get it over with.
Was that three separate branches of government thing just more BS?

Posted by evilpolock

Do you think that maybe "Those three branches" have some information that makes this, make sense? I know lets all have the info and vote on it. Evlock- don't trust that bunch that run congress? The president is acting to protect this country? Nancy and Harry say it ain't so....... He is the enemy after all... He is ALWAYS wrong.


My guess is Bush has quietly warned members of Congress that either they approve the bill or he will just start bombing. Oil prices are going to spike.

Posted by danni

MY GUESS is danni just tries to sound stupid in order to aggravate some people.

So Danni YOU THINK that Pres Bush has the power to manipulate and kick Pelosi and Reid around????

You trying to say Bush can whisper blackmail at your democrats and they wouldn't just start shouting to the world what a blackmailer the President is????

what do you think Danni????

are your dems that much of a passive pushover????


How is Obama going to vote?

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

good question.

but there prob. wont be a vote.......
it may get passed under suspension because there is so much hype around the positive support already - BUT, i would bet he would vote AGAINST the blockade for some reason like " a blockade would be counter to establishing a dialogue"

Here we go again.

Here we go again.

Oh goddamnit.

"BTW, are you guessing that oil prices will go up? Are you speculating?!"

Posted by member2586

LOL!

Next time I fill up and it costs me an extra cent per gallon, I can just blame Danni!

This is such a bad idea right now. This country can't afford another conflict. We have other messes to clean up already.

Let me just make the suggestion we go with some of these :
Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)
Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon / Big BLU,

they are pretty sweet.....

here's a recent image of the MOP:
images.google.com(MOP)%26imgsz%3Dxxlarge%
26ndsp%3D21%26um%3D1%26hl%
3Den%26sa%3DN

although the MOP is still under development I say use a plentiful amount as a beta test.

So we are going to war again, wow.

Could this be Rope-a-Dope by the Democrats in congress?

Letting GW start another conflict, allowing the GOP to take the blame for another f**k-up?

I'm guessing it is something like this, problem is we can't afford another f**k-up.

Cheers

Westerner,
"Do you think that maybe "Those three branches" have some information that makes this, make sense? I know lets all have the info and vote on it. Evlock- don't trust that bunch that run congress? The president is acting to protect this country? Nancy and Harry say it ain't so....... He is the enemy after all... He is ALWAYS wrong."

No, I just believe we have a right to know what's going on in government, unlike yourself. You seem to subscribe to the blind, "we're too dumb but they know what's best for us..." school of thought. I don't.
By the way, this is the same president who sent us to Iraq under TOTALLY BS circumstances so why would anyone with an IQ above 80 give him the benefit of the doubt again?

It does seems a little strange that the Dems are suddenly so hot to start a military blockade......

interesting quote from the article:

Once the bill hits the floor, it's bound to "pass like a hot cock through the Congresswoman's asscheeks," a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office says.

First of all, a blockade of a nation not at war with you is, by international law, an act of war itself. To blockade Iran is to declare war on Iran.

Secondly, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the same international legal rights to develop nuclear power that the other 188 signatory countries have. Under Article IV, Iran, just like the United States, is legally empowered to develop nuclear technology and either refine or purchase enriched uranium as long as it is not violating non-proliferation articles. Although there are many who suspect Iran is now or might in the future planning to develop nuclear weapons, suspicion is not proof and the US actions and UN sanctions are a wrongful violation of Iran's rights - the same rights that protect most of the rest of the United Nations countries.

Article IV: 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Lastly, there are four nations, "rogue nuclear nations," that are not signatories to the NNPT, and therefore have no rights to develop peaceful, let alone military nuclear power. These four outlaw nuclear states are Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea.

All four have illegal nuclear programs. All four have illegal nuclear weapons and delivery systems. All four refuse any international inspections of their sites, particularly their military sites.

And all four are in noncompliance of U.N. Resolutions. In Israel's case, I believe the count now is up to 32 Resolutions - it might have climbed since I last checked.

So, if the Bush administration wanted to uphold nuclear non-proliferation and international law, they have four clear transgressors to go after.

Yet, three of them are U.S. allies. All of them get massive U.S. military aid. And, in India's case, Bush has offered to supply them with both advanced nuclear technology and highly-refined uranium.

Go figure...

Bluesun,
NEVER post facts here, especially when they contradict the rights talking points and DEFINITELY not when they question boy dunder...he is ABOVE AND BEYOND REPROACH.

"A spokesperson for AIPAC denied allegations that the legislation would necessitate a naval blockade or military actions to accomplish its goals."

Then I would think that verbage to emphasize this should be included in the resolution.

First of all, a blockade of a nation not at war with you is, by international law....

OOPS! had to stop reading right there......

""A spokesperson for AIPAC denied allegations that the legislation would necessitate a naval blockade or military actions to accomplish its goals."

Not so vaguely reminiscent of the Iraq resolution that some Congressmen tried to claim was not authorization to go to war
like the bill to name the Iranian Republican Guard terrorists

I don't want to hear that any bill grants power to do things but that those things won't need to be done....we should all know better this time.

Three strikes you're out.

Hey Danni do you think the Dems are knowingly implying that Bush can drop bombs because they don't have the balls to come right out and say he should do it?

No, I just believe we have a right to know what's going on in government, unlike yourself. You seem to subscribe to the blind, "we're too dumb but they know what's best for us..." school of thought. I don't.
By the way, this is the same president who sent us to Iraq under TOTALLY BS circumstances so why would anyone with an IQ above 80 give him the benefit of the doubt again?

Posted by evilpolock

Well, I guess all of the Congress has that 80 IQ.
The inconvenient truth is, the congress agreed with the President on Iraq. Based on the same info. I know hindsight is mostly 20/20. This situation is far different. The president of Iran is spelling out their intentions. I believe him. His intended first target is very nervous. I would think that the information in the public is enough to cause a blockade. Unless you have a more effective idea.

Someone let a fly in...

Westerner,

You don't think his intended first target can defend themselves? What the hell have we been giving them aid for, then?

"His intended first target is very nervous."

The President of Iran has no power to start an attack on Israel. It is ridiculous to claim that Iran is making Israel nervous when Israel is openly threatening a pre-emptive attack....pre-emptive to the point that it will occur long before Iran is even able to build a single nuke....which our own intelligence agencies say is not happening anyway.
I think Iran is probably quite nervous and it could cause an unfortunate incident with one of our ships or an attack on our troops in Iraq which would set off a real war. War mongers beware, you do not know what the unintended consequences of an attack on Iran will be. Hindsight is 20/20 and we should have learned our lesson in Iraq.

Danni,
El Bardei (sp?) thinks they will/can have one in less than 6 months.
I tend to think he's a douche, but you (collectively) bought what he was selling before, so why not now?

If they did do you really think they will attack Israel aggressively or try to use it to prevent an attack on Iran? It seems to me that any attack on Israel would result in total destruction for Iran.

Danni,

Now, I am interested in hearing what your opinion is on this is:
I feel that given the distance from the gulf and then over Israel, Syria, and Iraq and into Iranian airspace, plus the fact that you have a fairly well fortified air defense in Iran, we should probably go with the lighter more manueverable B2 bomber, as opposed to the B52. Not to mention the lighter fuel consumption. You can still outfit the B2 with MOPs and MOABBs although not to the extent you can with the B52.
What have you been thinking we should go with?

Damnit someone get the swatter...

If they did do you really think they will attack Israel aggressively or try to use it to prevent an attack on Iran? It seems to me that any attack on Israel would result in total destruction for Iran.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-24 03:20 PM | Reply |

Didn't some higher ups in Iran actually state they want to trigger the 5th imam or some such craziness?

Who knows what Iran will do with a nuke? They sure do have a lot of people believing they're sharing all sorts of weaponry, why would nukes (or the technology) be any different?

We know what Israel has done with their nukes. We don't know what Iran will do with theirs.

Religious fruits are capable of anything, especially the ones in the middle east.

Live or Die-

Obviously, they could and would defend themselves.
That would serve to draw many nations in the region into the conflict: Disrupting the flow of oil from the middle east; Causing a world wide economic disaster.
A blockade would have the possibility of averting this.

Damnit someone get the swatter...

Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

You must be about 17 YO maybe?

When we faced nuclear confrontations with the USSR we would conduct a Summit Meeting and have the leaders discuss the problems face to face. Before we move to more violent means wouldn't it at least be worth it to try and get the Iranians and the Israelis and the US together for such a meeting?
This all seems eerily like the beginning of another run-up to a poorly thought out war. I don't take the possibility of Iran having nukes lightly but if I also know that we have leaders who have not used diplomatic tools before deciding on attacks before.
It is a bit hard to trust the same team that brought us Iraq now, we need new leadership that has the trust of the American people to decide what to do in relation to Iran, not a president with a 28% approval rating that most Americans know is a poorly informed liar.

PELOSI AND REID HAVE US AT THE BRINK OF WAR
Thanks to this IRRESPONSIBLE legislation !!!

FUCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!

A blockade would have the possibility of averting this.

Posted by westerner

lol

as if that's their overall intentions:>)

Huge 9/11 Update: Suspected Israeli espionage front company got $665,000 in Federal funding

As you can see based on the government data that was released on August 28, 2007, Urban Moving Systems, whom the FBI suspected was an Israeli espionage front company tied to the September 11 terrorist attacks, was awarded federal funding in the amount of $498,750 and non-federal funding in the amount of $166,250 for a total of $665,000 and the payout date was June 22, 2001. So in other words, our government, whether knowingly or unknowingly funded an Israeli intelligence gathering operation tied to an FBI investigation, with American taxpayer's dollars!
Posted Jun 24, 2008 08:07 AM PST
Category: 911
, Category: ISRAELI SPYING
current.com

"See The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11
"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." -- US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11. writes" M.R.
www.whatreallyhappened.com

www.whatreallyhappened.com

I am thinking of finally getting one of those plasma HDs ....so I can watch the Iran war on it.

"His intended first target is very nervous."

The President of Iran has no power to start an attack on Israel. It is ridiculous to claim that Iran is making Israel nervous when Israel is openly threatening a pre-emptive attack....pre-emptive to the point that it will occur long before Iran is even able to build a single nuke....which our own intelligence agencies say is not happening anyway.
I think Iran is probably quite nervous and it could cause an unfortunate incident with one of our ships or an attack on our troops in Iraq which would set off a real war. War mongers beware, you do not know what the unintended consequences of an attack on Iran will be. Hindsight is 20/20 and we should have learned our lesson in Iraq.

Posted by danni

Who do think is the second target?
The lesson in Iraq is simply that many of the American people do not have the will to fight. Oh yes and Iran should have been first. Couldn't be done because of lesson one.

"pre-emptive to the point that it will occur long before Iran is even able to build a single nuke".
I sure as hell hope so!

"Didn't some higher ups in Iran actually state they want to trigger the 5th imam or some such craziness?"

Well, to go by their past actions, let's look at their war against Iraq/Saddam. They were quite willing to shed lots of blood - until bombs started dropping on Tehran. Then they signed a peace treaty with Saddam. What part of that suggests they're eager to commit suicide?

When we faced nuclear confrontations with the USSR we would conduct a Summit Meeting and have the leaders discuss the problems face to face. Before we move to more violent means wouldn't it at least be worth it to try and get the Iranians and the Israelis and the US together for such a meeting?
This all seems eerily like the beginning of another run-up to a poorly thought out war. I don't take the possibility of Iran having nukes lightly but if I also know that we have leaders who have not used diplomatic tools before deciding on attacks before.
It is a bit hard to trust the same team that brought us Iraq now, we need new leadership that has the trust of the American people to decide what to do in relation to Iran, not a president with a 28% approval rating that most Americans know is a poorly informed liar.

Posted by danni

priorities, Danni, priorities...

The Rise Of The Fourth Reich

www.whatreallyhappened.com

"A blockade would have the possibility of averting this."

OK, then pass a bill that completely limits it to a blockade with the requirement than any bombing or attack must be approved by Congress. Make the blockade be our bargaining chip to finally undo the stupidity (or far worse) of Pelosi who removed such requirements from earlier legislation.

Is Westerner GZlives reborn?

""pre-emptive to the point that it will occur long before Iran is even able to build a single nuke".
I sure as hell hope so!" - Westerner

And I sure hope not. The world keeps getting more complex by the day, and we seem to just sit there and say "don't you dare or we'll whack you". It's time we started acting like a true pre-eminent power. Controlling what we can, learning to live with what we can't control.

"pre-emptive to the point that it will occur long before Iran is even able to build a single nuke".
I sure as hell hope so!

Posted by westerner

Despite Israel's refusal to acknowledge its nuclear weapons status, its secret arsenal is an open secret that Israeli policy makers don't go out of their way to deny. From its beginnings in the mid-1960s, Israel's program has developed into one that rivals those of larger powers like France and Britain. Here, based on interviews with U.S. intelligence officials and nuclear experts, is a portrait of Israel's strategic weapons programs

www.sweetliberty.org

yeah, Iran is one scary creature alright!

FYI,
Simply google "Iran suicide bombers".
Also, as I alluded to earlier, the whole 5th imam thing.
I don't think they call us and Israel the great satan because they love us.

They're religious fanatics that are controlled by imams. When ackmiwackjob claims he wants the 5th imam to appear then it may make sense to take notice. Or do you disagree?


My guess is Bush has quietly warned members of Congress that either they approve the bill or he will just start bombing. Oil prices are going to spike.

Posted by danni

Why don't we do this the old fashion way. Call your Congressman and tell him or her to stop this!!!

When we faced nuclear confrontations with the USSR we would conduct a Summit Meeting and have the leaders discuss the problems face to face. Before we move to more violent means wouldn't it at least be worth it to try and get the Iranians and the Israelis and the US together for such a meeting?
This all seems eerily like the beginning of another run-up to a poorly thought out war. I don't take the possibility of Iran having nukes lightly but if I also know that we have leaders who have not used diplomatic tools before deciding on attacks before.
It is a bit hard to trust the same team that brought us Iraq now, we need new leadership that has the trust of the American people to decide what to do in relation to Iran, not a president with a 28% approval rating that most Americans know is a poorly informed liar.

Posted by danni

BIG DIFFERENCE: The religious extremists WANT a NUCLEAR WAR. Just put a nuke on a suicide bomber.
The deterrent with the USSR was mutual destruction.
Not with these folks. I know it is hard to get your head around this. Mr. Obama will if he is elected. Others in the region will not go for the friendly chat route.

Iran biggest crime?

Iran withdraws $75 billion from Europe: report

REUTERS
Reuters US Online Report World News

Jun 16, 2008 03:58 EST

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has withdrawn around $75 billion from Europe to prevent the assets from being blocked under threatened new sanctions over Tehran's disputed nuclear ambitions, an Iranian weekly said

www.rawstory.com

Saddam was switching to euros for 'his' petrol when gw invaded for WMD...

Calling your congressman the "Larry Mohr rule" doesn't do redacted these days.

What is called for is a good ol' European style general strike.

Too bad we're too poor to sacrifice a days worth of work.

somebody on this site used to say....

Mission Accomplishitfucked.

I mean:

Calling your congressman, the "Larry Mohr rule" ...

Grammar... its a sonofabitch.

BIG DIFFERENCE: The religious extremists WANT a NUCLEAR WAR. Just put a nuke on a suicide bomber.
The deterrent with the USSR was mutual destruction.
Not with these folks. I know it is hard to get your head around this. Mr. Obama will if he is elected. Others in the region will not go for the friendly chat route.

Posted by westerner

like our crazed fellow in the WH?

Taguba: Bush administration tortured detainees, 'committed war crimes'

blogs.usatoday.com

""pre-emptive to the point that it will occur long before Iran is even able to build a single nuke".
I sure as hell hope so!" - Westerner

And I sure hope not. The world keeps getting more complex by the day, and we seem to just sit there and say "don't you dare or we'll whack you". It's time we started acting like a true pre-eminent power. Controlling what we can, learning to live with what we can't control.

Posted by fyi

"learning to live with what we can't control".
We can and will stop this. There will be no LIVING if we don't. Don't take my word for it. Take Aquavelvajad's (what ever).

Sensing that the threat of war has once again increased, IAEA Head El Baradei warned yesterday that he would resign if any country attacked Iran.

A bill essentially allowing the US to search every vessel leaving or entering Iran in perpetuity while cutting off their refined petroleum imports?

Essentially an act of war.

All without a vote?

Passed "under suspension" ya say?

Uh-huh.

Anybody who was questioning the assertions made around here on a regular basis about AIPAC's over-influence on American Foreign Policy need look no further.

If this leads to another war then Reid and Pelosi need to bear responsibility just as much as the criminals at BushCo.

Be Well.

101, yes I do disagree. As I mentioned, the imams were quite willing to send children against Iraq machine guns. But coped out very quickly when their own lives started facing risk. You're attitude is exactly the same as quite a few people had when Khrushchev stated they the Soviet Union will destroy the US. And that we should therefore bomb them first. Neither happened. I think we should learn a huge lesson from this.

"You must be about 17 YO maybe?"

Posted by westerner

That was for Fredo_C, the one with all of the inane comments.

Are you his keeper?

Is Westerner GZlives reborn?

Posted by Hagbard_Celine

too civilized ~ but is a Neo-con to the core

"BIG DIFFERENCE: The religious extremists WANT a NUCLEAR WAR."

And just how do you know that? We have been propagandized to believe that for decades by who else.....Israel and AIPAC. I doubt that most Americans have an accurate picture of Iran and the Iranian leadership.

fyi,
I don't think we should go to war with iran over israel. I think israel should destroy iran.
I also think we (the US) should make no bones about supplying weaponry to Iranian opposition groups.
We should also shoot the revolutionary guard members in Iraw making waves for the iraqi and us soldiers.

Iran must not be allowed a nuke.

We can and will stop this. There will be no LIVING if we don't. Don't take my word for it. Take Aquavelvajad's (what ever).

Posted by westerner

the "will" part makes him a Zionist probably...

The Jewish Secure Community Network in the USA working with Dept. of Homeland Security - This is a Mossad Organization
By: Crack_Smoke_Republican on: 21.06.2008 [21:44 ] (1917 reads)

this will likely be a conduit for Mossad Activity in the USA in the event of Bush Driven Martial Law

www.iraq-war.ru

BeesSwelling

"A bill essentially allowing the US to search every vessel leaving or entering Iran in perpetuity"

Wrong. The bill recommends that the president "initiate an international effort" to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran - i.e. whichever country is sending or receiving the cargo could inspect it. Further, the bill does not "allow" the US to do any of this, it simply recommends that the president take action to initiate an international effort to do so.

Try reading the bill before you talk.

As someone posted above, I lost track and will paraphrase, does anyone thing Israel can't turn Iran into a parking lot as well as we can?
As for el Baradei, turns out he was right about Iraq having nothing nuclear. Sometimes the truth sucks, huh?

I noticed the article from "truthout" claims that "The resolution makes no mention of the National Intelligence Estimate report released in December 2007, which found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons development program in 2003."

Gee, that's funny, I just skimmed over the bill and saw the following:

Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003, but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009.
thomas.loc.gov

Can't any of these left-wing news sites write an article without lying?

By the way, don't Democrats control Congress? How could a resolution recommending any actions toward Iran be passed by them? I thought they promised to keep us from doing that?

Iran must not be allowed a nuke.

Posted by 101Chairborne

1 DAY BEFORE 911 WTC attack! DO u know what happened?WATCH! (3:09)

www.youtube.com

Finally, I saw this in the resolution:

"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran."

Once the bill hits the floor, it's bound to "pass like a hot knife through butter," a staffer in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office says....

Pussy Pelosi caves in to the Bush Neocons again.

How did AIPAC contributing to little Nancy's re-election coffers?

ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel

www.youtube.com

"Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran."

Posted by JOE at 2008-06-24 04:18 PM

Fairy tales always start out with "Once upon a time...."

Neocon wars always start out with "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against (fill in country of choice)..."

"BIG DIFFERENCE: The religious extremists WANT a NUCLEAR WAR. Just put a nuke on a suicide bomber.
The deterrent with the USSR was mutual destruction.
Not with these folks. I know it is hard to get your head" - Westerner

Nice for the religious extremists. But it sounds like you need to wrap your head around the reality of Iran, rather than just projecting based off religious extremists. Iranians are not willing to commit suicide, even if some are dead set on it. We merely need to separate the two. But thinking along those lines isn't what you're interested in, is it.

"We can and will stop this. There will be no LIVING if we don't." - Westerner

And yet so many who lived through the last century believe there will be living. Unless we start acting before thinking. And, sorry, but I'm not very interested in what Iran's president has to say. Because he doesn't control the country, the imams do.

"Neocon wars always start out with "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against (fill in country of choice)..."

Has that happened before?

1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.

Less than 6 months later on November 22nd , president Kennedy is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to print American money for the American people, as oppose to for the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite.

This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963 to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same day as President Kennedy was assassinated.

Another, and probably the primary, reason for Kennedy's assassination is however, the fact that he made it quite clear to Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, that under no circumstances would he agree to Israel becoming a nuclear state. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz on February 5, 1999, in a review of, Avner Cohen's book, "Israel and the Bomb," states the following,

"The murder of American President John F. Kennedy brought to an abrupt end the massive pressure being applied by the U.S. administration on the government of Israel to discontinue the nuclear program...The book implied that, had Kennedy remained alive, it is doubtful whether Israel would today have a nuclear option."

1965: Israel illegally obtains enriched uranium from NUMEC (Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation).

1967: The treatment of the Palestinians by the Zionist Jews, finally ignites enough anger in the Arab world for Egypt, Jordan and Syria to mobilise on Israel's borders. All of these three countries are suddenly attacked by Israel and as a result the Sinai which included Gaza was stolen from Egypt, and the West Bank and the Jordan River stolen from Jordan.

As a result of this, on June 8, the Israelis launch an attack on the USS Liberty with Israeli aircraft and motor torpedo boats, in an effort to blame it on Egypt, to bring America into the war on their side, and of course follow to the letter, their Mossad motto,

"By Way Of Deception,
Thou Shalt Do War."

As a result of their attack, 34 American servicemen were killed and 174 wounded. Israel lies as usual, claiming it mistook this warship that was flying a large United States flag, for an ancient out-of-service Egyptian horse carrier El Quseir, that was 180 feet shorter. They also claim the ship was in the war zone, when it was actually in international waters, far from any fighting. The Israeli's attack on this warship lasts for 75 minutes during which time they shoot up one of the United States flags, resulting in the sailors desperately raising another one.

www.iamthewitness.com

"Iran must not be allowed a nuke." - 101

101, see I don't think this is a killer issue. I don't at all buy that the Iranians, as a nation or even their leadership, are suicidal. I think they really do view the whole nuclear weapon thing as a status symbol. After all, the major powers in their area have nukes. The Irans view themselves as a major power. Therefore they should have a nuke. The rest is the typical Near/Middle Eastern hot air posturing.

Unlike India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan, Iran is a signature to the NonProliferation Treaty. There has never been ANY EVIDENCE that they have violated that agreement.

It wasn't very long ago the Pentagon had a News COnference scheduled to show the world all the IEDs tracable to Iran. Turned out on closer inspection that this was not true, so the event was quietly canceled.

So I guess BushCo needs another credible fool like Powell to make unsubstantiated accusations against Iran. After all they are the real winners in Shrub's wreckless life destroying illegal rampage.

"So I guess BushCo needs another credible fool like Powell to make unsubstantiated accusations against Iran."

That's weird - this resolution was created in Congress to "urge the president," and has 169 sponsors. Are they all shareholders of "BushCo?"

"101, see I don't think this is a killer issue. I don't at all buy that the Iranians, as a nation or even their leadership, are suicidal."
--FYI

If they had a nuke, I would be more concerened about them letting it fall into the hands of a terrorist group (which they have groups they support).

However, if a terrorist group uses a nuke, can't it be traced back to its source? Basically, Iran can't just say they didn't do it, and we could still turn them into glass.

It would be suicidal.

LoD, you are correct.

Are they all shareholders of "BushCo?"

And what is the cost/share? Is there a minimum investment requirement (other than selling your soul of course)?

"'Neocon wars always start out with "Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against (fill in country of choice)...'

- CalifChris"

Has that happened before?

Posted by JOE at 2008-06-24 04:32 PM

Resolution for 12 year trade embargo with Iraq

I think we all now know what happened to Iraq after their trade embargo was lifted, don't we, a trade embargo that cost almost 2 million civilian innocent lives in Iraq. We lifted the embargo only prior to the Neocons' full scale attack on Iraq in 2003.

As for the Neocons and Israel new demand now for a trade embargo on Iran -- first will be this bland "non-binding" trade embargo, next it will be ramped up to be a military embargo, next will be the ultimate goal of the Neocons and Israel -- the nuking of Iran for oil and Israel. Iran, a country which has never attacked the U.S. or Israel or any country other than their war in the 1980s with Iraq.

Neocons' war for oil and Israel, for Israel and oil.
Israel refuses to joint the nuclear non-proliferation treaty but Iran is a member. Israel lied about having nukes. Iran did not. I am tired of shedding blood for Israel. If they want to nuke Iran I can't stop them. But they better not try to drag our military guys to do their fighting for them again. Americans are fed up with Israel using us for their wars. Americans are tired of politicians like Pussy Pelosi being led by the nose by AIPAC. I used to like Israel but I don't like them much anymore.

Carter: "US Candidates MUST do as Israel says"

www.youtube.com

Israeli Snipers Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq

Published on Friday, November 10, 2006.

www.blacklistednews.com

aipac runs US!

9/11... the Truth is Anti-Semitic...

smokingmirrors.blogspot.com

joint = join

The argument for Zionist Israeli involvement in 9/11 is so apparent and prevalent that the conclusion is inescapable and without any competing, rational or fact based argument for anyone else, anywhere, anyhow. We could insert Sherlock's famous quote about the improbable here. We could insert the rules for scientific inquiry here. We could insert all sorts of helpful things but we don't need to. It's that obvious. It is where the truth leads us and that is why the truth is anti-Semitic.

This is why there was no real inquiry into 9/11. This is why Bush and Co. opposed any inquiry for so long and then turned over the keys of a sham investigation to someone like Philip Zelikow. They first tried to give it to that paragon of murder, Henry Kissinger; David Rockefeller's man on the scene. That was too outrageous even for the Nimrods among us.

Why would the president of the United States be so adamantly opposed to an inquiry? This is damning enough. We hardly need to look further. On down the road so many things came out. The BBC shot itself in the foot with its WTC7, Madame Cleo commentary about the building falling before the building fell.

smokingmirrors.blogspot.com

And who wants us to invade/nuke/embargo Iran?

"Rosthchilds(sic)"

LOL!

upload.wikimedia.org

or

words-et- infinitum.blogspot.com

(Rosthchilds~ sic agent)Greenspan Admits Fed Is Not Beholden To Any Government Agency

Abe Day
Prisonplanet.com
Friday September 21, 2007

This week, former chairman of the Fed Reserve Alan Greenspan in an interview aired on PBS' News Hour was asked by Jim Lehrer what should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and The President of the United States. In a shockingly honest tone Greenspan replies,

"Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means, basically, that there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take. So long as that is in place and there is no evidence that the administration or the Congress or anybody else is requesting that we do things other than what we think is the appropriate thing, then what the relationships are don't, frankly, matter."

This issue with the Fed being above government is one of the key things We The People need to understand in order to wake up to the awful situation that we have found ourselves in. Our wealth, our labor, and anything we gain buy being productive has been stolen from us since the Federal Reserve took over our money system in the 1913.

prisonplanet.com

A blockade would work on a country like Cuba, but with Iran sharing borders with other countries, it's going to be much tougher.

Blockade would/could work. It has to be done by the EU and Russia and China as well.

What else do we do to keep these crazy shits away from a nuke?


Blockade would/could work. It has to be done by the EU and Russia and China as well.

What else do we do to keep these crazy shits away from a nuke?

Posted by MURPHY

What? Russia and China are not going to support it. How will the EU support it?

You really believe that Iran is going to use a nuke? They may be fanatical about their religion, but they aren't stupid and they aren't suicidal.

We've had sanctions against Iran since the early 80's. (not to mention Iraq). This is an act of war! The sanctions are taking their toll on their economy. For example, when you go to the hospital for treatment or an operation, you are given a list of the meds and supplies you'll need. You must go around town and buy them very expensively or through the black market in Turkey or some other country close by. You think our health system is in trouble?

The economic sanctions are on them because they are being punished for something. They've been trying to sell their oil in an OPEN market independent of OPEC. They can't. Another country is trying to do this to and is being punished by the US. Can you guess who it is?

This is about oil, not hatred of US for our freedom or the fact we are not Muslim.

They hate US because we won't leave them alone and allow them to trade with whomever and however and with whatever currency they want.

Iran is not dangerous. But, they are smart and they are making friends with Russia and China. When Russia and China is no longer afraid of US and no longer need our dollar, WE are toast!

Thank you neocons!

"Iran, a country which has never attacked the U.S. or Israel or any country other than their war in the 1980s with Iraq"

Wrong, Chris.

US embassies are sovereign US soil.

"Iran, a country which has never attacked the U.S. or Israel or any country other than their war in the 1980s with Iraq"

Wrong, Chris.

US embassies are sovereign US soil.

Posted by babuenthal at 2008-06-25 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Really Chris How dare they take hostages during the peoples revolution to overthrow the murdrous dictater that they thought that the United States had helped put in place.Any ways the Iranians didn't deserve a democracy anymore.They were going to Nationalize their own oil industry.How could the US sit back and let them rule themselves after that.It was a matter of US national security to support the Shah in his democratic election to replace the President.
After the students revolution
I am sure that the United States would have now recognized the Iranians thirst for shorter electoral terms than 50 years and supported the movement for more frequent elections. Unfortunately some misguided revolutionaries thought that the United States might try and use force to reinstall the shahs government with the Shahs blessing and therefore took hostages.
You see Chris when the Shaw was using death squads and executing those that were protesting for the return of shorter electoral terms,the Iranians had this silly idea that the US was aware of and therefore condoned his actions.It is unfortunate they didn't unlike the rest of the world, realize that the United States only strives to make all nations into democracies and would never prop up a dictatorship.

The Rise Of The Fourth Reich

www.whatreallyhappened.com

Posted by Bani

If you can read that garbage and believe it, you are an idiot. I'd like to see you read that out loud to a WWII vet, you chickenshit. While your at it, research the Icon of Evil, and tell us about the grand mufti, and who's side was he on in WWII?

My guess is Bush has quietly warned members of Congress that either they approve the bill or he will just start bombing. Oil prices are going to spike.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-24 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yep, let's "guess" (your term) rather than deal with the FACT that this was proposed by a New York Dem in a Dem controlled House. Plus, your guess would be confirmation that your Dem controlled House is a House full of pussies.

What else do we do to keep these crazy shits away from a nuke?

Posted by MURPHY

people like you, too?:>)

I'd like to see you read that out loud to a WWII vet, you chickenshit.

Posted by DavetheWave

ps my dad grew up with Bob Dole in Russell ~ back long ago when Bob's family was poor & our family was one of rich family's there...& I still have his letter to me after Reagan was shot by Bush Sr. buddy's son:>)

This book written by one of my very favorite Professors ~ & a former Denver Post editor, too ~ at U Of Montana!

"THE AFTERNOON OF MARCH 30", is the story of a Montana newspaperman who is at first puzzled, then curious, then finally outraged by what the national news media never told the American people about the attempt of John W. Hinckley Jr. to assassinate the president of the United States.
It is a real-life mystery story, a detective story, a newspaper story, a spy story and more than one love story. It is a polemic that explores the strange "coincidences," curious "happenstances," major discrepancies, critical omissions and possible covert disinformation activities in the wake of a bullet that came within an inch of changing the course of history. It is a story of a journalist's fierce devotion to the American ideals of freedom and justice. It is a different kind of roman clef.
Even more dangerous for the future of our country than a conspiracy to assassinate a president is a conspiracy to manipulate and control what the American people are told by the national news media. This book--among much else--examines the official cover-up of vital information that left scores of unanswered questions surrounding the event of the afternoon of March 30, 1981. From the book, page 6:

When it happened it was beyond the grotesque. For seconds Jonathan Blakely was stunned. John Chancellor, eyebrows raised, informed the viewers of NBC Nightly News that the brother of the man who tried to kill the president was acquainted with the son of the man who would have become president if the attack had been successful. As a matter of fact, Chancellor said in a bewildered tone, Scott Hinckley and Neil Bush had been scheduled to have dinner together at the home of the vice president's son the very next night. And, of course, the engagement had been canceled. . .

Then a peculiar thing happened: The story vanished. To this day, it has never been reported in the New York Times, Washington Post or many other metropolitan newspapers, never again mentioned by any of the television news networks, and never noted in news magazines except for a brief mention in Newsweek, which lumped it with two ludicrous conspiracy scenarios as if the Bush-Hinckley connection didn't deserve some sort of explanation. [See Newsweek SIDEBAR below]

But many other significant facts concerning the Bush and Hinckley families have remained unexplored and unexplained, in addition to other matters related to the assassination attempt detailed in this book. For examples:

www.nathanielblumberg.com

ps 2 this book is Bush's library, too ~ they have a sense humour about these sort of things...funi isn't it:>)

The Professor served in WW 2, too:>)

A Memoir of World War II

Corporal Nathan Blumberg, a member of the forward observation team of Battery C, 666th Field Artillery Battalion, wrote and published the first history of an Army unit in World War II a few days after V-E Day, 1945, in Germany. It traced the history of the crack 155mm howitzer non-divisional battalion from its formation at Camp Bowie, Texas, to the Battle of the Bulge, the crossings of the Roer and Rhine Rivers, and the drive to the heart of Germany. More than half a century later, Nathaniel Blumberg returned to Belgium and Germany three times (including a "reunion" with German veterans of the Battle of the Bulge) to write the full story of what it was like to be a member of an outfit that went in cold--in more ways than one--to take on Hitler's elite SS troops in the snows of the Ardennes.

www.nathanielblumberg.com

:>)

"Plus, your guess would be confirmation that your Dem controlled House is a House full of pussies."

Unfortunately RIDEON I am starting to think you are right about that. They do seem to be lacking spines.

no kidding, Danni!

aipac to the core, too...

Pelosi's greatest moments yet to come?

ron paul: nancy pelosi pulled iran bill on orders of israel

www.youtube.com

They do seem to be lacking spines.

Posted by danni

I don't think its spines they lack... its the ability to demonstrate anything beyond a pathological self interest....

It's about them. Never about us, U.S.

CBS - Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran

www.cbsnews.com

finally mainstream media reports on what bloggers have been reporting for quite awhile...

I hope this works in this sinking world

**** What else do we do to keep these crazy shits away from a nuke?
Posted by MURPHY *****

.......having a nuclear weapon is like a dog that chases after cars and finally catches one........

........what do you do with it ?.........

......you hit America, we vaporize you.......
......you hit Israel, they vaporize you......
......you hit a neighbor like Iraq, and the fallout poisons your own country, then America vaporizes you......

......it is most glaring with Pakistan and India......
.......they are in a nuclear stalemate.......
......if one of them uses it, they both vaporize each other.......

......fuck Iran......let them have their nukes.....they will find out it does not do them any favor to have those things......its like being tasked with taking care of two dozen eggs that you cant put down and are not allowed to break....

FLASHBACK: Attack Iran the day Iraq war ends, demands Israel

www.timesonline.co.uk

"Plus, your guess would be confirmation that your Dem controlled House is a House full of pussies."

Unfortunately RIDEON I am starting to think you are right about that. They do seem to be lacking spines.

Posted by danni at 2008-06-25 12:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

No need to say "Unfortunately". Just say fortunately and then join those that are aware that neither of the two current power brokers will fix what needs fixing.

www.campaignforliberty.com

You've known it for a long time....you are not a dummy.

Russia's foreign minister warns
www.iht.com

So let North Korea off, the most fucked up nation on the planet, and we continue to flirt with war in Iran? Seems sort of hypocritical to me.

I guess with North Korea we should reward good behavior, as they started the process of letting the rest of the world into the country to see what the hell is going on. But the distribution of wealth in North Korea is that there are 2 or 3 people in the country with money and the rest of the people are so poor that they would willingly trade places with a Somalian prisoner. So I have to wonder if all this cooperation is to allow some aid to the common folk because Kim Jong-Il was worried that conditions were getting so bad that he would be overthrown. If this is the case, perhaps it would have been better if we had left the county alone and let the people of North Korea to handle their own problem. Regime change by natural revolution is so much smoother than forced revolution by outside influences. That's why I think our country would work better if we used our power to influence over world events by making an example rather than by forcing our will on people.

Iran said FU to US on them using petrol oil $ & shifted away from the $ ~ is why US is threatening them with nuke BS.

Saddam was switching to Euros for his oil payments...when GW invaded, too

If North Korea allows the IMF in..."everyone" will be happy:>)

The Shrinking Influence of the US Federal Reserve

Humiliation for Mr. Dollar: Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Bank, faces a general investigation by the International Monetary Fund. Just one more example of the Fed losing its power.
For seven years, US President George W. Bush refused to allow the IMF to conduct its assessment. Even now, he has only given the IMF board his consent under one important condition. The review can begin in Bush's last year in office, but it may not be completed until he has left the White House. This is bad news for the Fed chairman.

When the final report on the risks of the US financial system is released in 2010 -- and it is likely to cause a stir internationally -- only one of the people in positions of responsibility today will still be in office: Ben Bernanke.

www.spiegel.de

Bani -- Thanks for the link -- It comes as news to me, and one which will show that US federal and municipal debt obligations exceed the US $13 trillion/year GDP, which is horrific news. Add to that the potential unfunded liabilities for retiree healthcare costs and pensions, and there is a huge likelihood that the IMF will rebuke the good name of the US.

Still, imho, if you look at the cash flow, the US's federal and local governments will have to increase their income by 5% per year over inflation and over costs to be able to pre-fund the liabilities that are accumulating.

I don't know if the US public or Congress is up on this. But then, I'm becoming so much more cynical that we cannot see risk at all and prefer to put our heads in the sand and hope the lion won't bite our asses while we aren't looking.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable