Extreme Politics - not for the fainthearted

[mr.apathy]

Sweet! I can definately round up some people. I'm so glad I moved to NH!

[Caleb]

Whereabouts do you live in NH, apathy?

[Dreepa]

but a rumor was going around that only press and a representative from each group could attend.  From what I've been told, I will be the only one allowed to actively participate from the Republic of NH

Just form another group saying that as soon as the Republic of NH is free that you are going to set up a Republic of X.... then you can get as many as you want there.

[mr.apathy]

My wife and I moved to Winchester last April from Massachusetts.  So far its been the best decision we ever made.  We could actually afford to buy property here, and more money in our pockets without the crazy Mass. taxes. And, I really enjoy the wide array of political views here.

Anything that I can do to help with the rally just let me know, Caleb.

[FrankChodorov]

Are you going, Frank?

haven't decided yet...

[Dreepa]

My wife and I moved to Winchester last April from Massachusetts.  So far its been the best decision we ever made.  We could actually afford to buy property here, and more money in our pockets without the crazy Mass. taxes. And, I really enjoy the wide array of political views here.

Anything that I can do to help with the rally just let me know, Caleb.

Welcome to NH MrA.

Have you and your wife signed the First1000 pledge?
www.pledgebank.com/first1000

[mr.apathy]

Yup. We signed the pledge a while back.

[Kat Kanning]

Is it time?



Rice defends raids on Iranian targets

By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer 53 minutes ago

JERUSALEM - U.S. raids that
President Bush approved against Iranian targets in
Iraq are part of broad efforts to confront Tehran's aggression, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.

"The United States is simply responding to Iranian activities that have been going on for a while now that threaten not just to destabilize the chance for Iraq to proceed to stability but also that endanger our forces," Rice said before meeting with
Israel's foreign minister.

Bush approved the strategy several months ago, U.S. officials said, in response to what Washington claims is
Iran's support for terrorists inside Iraq and the alleged funneling of bombs to anti-U.S. insurgents.

Echoing other Bush administration figures, Rice said the U.S. does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians.

Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces after a raid Thursday on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq. The move further frayed relations between the two countries.

The United States accuses Iran of helping provide roadside bombs that have killed American troops in Iraq. Also, a bitter standoff already exists over Iran's nuclear program.

Rice told reporters that the Iranian office was not a diplomatic consulate, which would be protected by international treaty.

The State Department said Friday that U.S.-led forces entered an Iranian building in Kurdish-controlled Irbil because information linked it to Revolutionary Guards and other Iranian elements engaging in violent activities in Iraq.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said there was no truth to reports that Iran was carrying out legitimate diplomatic activity at the site.

But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate. In Iran, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the U.S. raid constituted an intervention in Iranian-Iraqi affairs.

[Kat Kanning]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/150107gulfoftonkin.htm

Presidential Candidate Fears "Gulf Of Tonkin" To Provoke Iran War
Developments converge to signify inevitable conflict despite ongoing chaos in Iraq

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, January 15, 2007

Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.

Writing in his syndicated weekly column, the representative of Texas' 14th district warns of "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident (that) may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

The August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats, was cited by President Johnson as a legitimate provocation mandating U.S. escalation in Vietnam, yet Tonkin was a staged charade that never took place. Declassified LBJ presidential tapes discuss how to spin the non-event to escalate it as justification for air strikes and the NSA faked intelligence data to make it appear as if two US ships had been lost.

Should a staged provocation take place in an attempt to justify striking Iran it would not be the first time the current administration has considered such a ploy.

In February 2006, documents were leaked of a conversation between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush in which different scenarios to try to provoke Saddam into making a rod for his own back were discussed. One included painting a U.S. spy plane in UN colors and flying it low over Iraq in the hope it would be shot down and the incident exploited as a means of enlisting international support for the 2003 invasion.

Paul, who on Friday announced his intention to run for President in 2008, has resolved to introduce legislation in the coming weeks to head off the drift towards war, encouraging a commitment to policies of dialogue as outlined by the Iraq Study Group.

Commentators largely agree that the furore surrounding President Bush's speech in which he ordered the deployment of a further 20,000 troops to Iraq is a manufactured distraction to divert attention away from alarming developments that grease the skids for an inevitable conflict with Iran.

The New York Times and other establishment mouthpieces are busy regurgitating White House propaganda that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents that are killing U.S. troops. As columnist Larry Chin elaborates, "The Bush administration buildup towards Iran is strikingly similar to Hitler?s campaign against Poland, and the Third Reich?s eventual 1939 blitzkrieg. Hitler?s final act was to manufacture a "deliberate and cold-blooded provocation", to be blamed on the Poles, which would bring down the vengeance of German armed forces. He accomplished this by putting drugged prisoners from a nearby concentration camp into Polish uniforms and shooting them near a radio station inside the German border. The "Polish attack on the Gleiwitz transmitter" marked the official start of World War Two."

"In Hitler?s words, "I shall give the propagandist cause for starting the war. Never mind if it is implausible or not."

In reality, the source of the IED technology being utilized by the insurgents goes back to the British security services, from whom it was acquired by the IRA and then sold around the world in the early nineties. Claims that Iran is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices is outright propaganda.

However, the only remaining justification that Neo-Cons cling to in an attempt to sell another conflict to a war-weary American public is the falsehood that American troops are being killed on the battlefield by insurgents with the direct assistance of Iran. This is the only rationale a majority of Americans will accept as grounds for war, overriding spurious warnings about weapons of mass destruction, a yarn they have seen spun once before.

As Chris Floyd points out, "Make no mistake: this is the marker that has now been put down; this is the card that's been laid on the table. The Bush Administration has openly accused Iran of killing American soldiers in Iraq. Again, this is a charge far more resonant, far more effective as a pretext for war than anything offered during the successful stampede to invade Iraq. Even a president as weakened and isolated as Bush is at the moment would be able to get support for an attack on a state that was "killing our soldiers in the field."

It is also now confirmed that the raid on the Iranian liaison office in Iraq, after which five Iranians were arrested and detained, was directly authorized by the White House in an attempt to provoke an Iranian response.

Whether Iran takes the bait or not, American aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are multiplying in the Persian Gulf and Bush recently appointed Adm. William Fallon, a Navy veteran, to oversee the ground war in Iraq, a contradiction many fear betrays preparation for an air strike on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities which could take place as soon as next month.

Whether the White House or the feverish Israelis will even feel the need to factor in a Gulf of Tonkin event remains to be seen, as the war drums beat ever louder and the next escalation of what the Neo-Cons call "World War Four" awaits final execution.

[Kat Kanning]

Escalation in the Middle East
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst011507.htm
January 15,  2007


While the president?s announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president?s sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East.

The president stated last week that, ?Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity- and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.?  He also announced the deployment of an additional aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and the deployment of Patriot air missile defense systems to countries in the Middle East.  Meanwhile, US troops stormed the Iranian consulate in Iraq and detained several Iranian diplomats. Taken together, the message was clear: the administration intends to move the US closer to a dangerous and ill-advised conflict with Iran.

As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran-- possibly with nuclear weapons.  The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon.  Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can!

This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don?t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. House Democrats strongly criticized the Iraq troop surge after the president?s announcement, but then praised the president?s confrontational words condemning Iran.  Many of those opposing a troop surge are not calling for a withdrawal of our troops from the Middle East, but rather for ?redeployment.? Redeployment to where? Iran?

We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.

The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran.

The best approach to Iran, and Syria for that matter, is to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states:

"? the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in seeking constructive results."

In coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation that urges the administration to heed the advice of the Iraq Study Group.  Dialogue and discussion should replace inflammatory rhetoric and confrontation in our Middle East policy, if we truly seek to defeat violent extremism and terrorism.

[Kat Kanning]

  Russian Admiral Says U.S. Navy Prepares Missile Strike on Iran

Mos News
Monday, January 15, 2007

U.S. Navy nuclear submarines maintaining vigil off the coast of Iran indicate that the Pentagon?s military plans include not only control over navigation in the Persian Gulf but also strikes against Iranian targets, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin has told the Interfax news agency.

?The presence of U.S. nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf region means that the Pentagon has not abandoned plans for surprise strikes against nuclear targets in Iran. With this aim a group of multi-purpose submarines ready to accomplish the task is located in the area,? Admiral Baltin said.

He made the comments after reports that a U.S. submarine collided with a Japanese tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

?American patience is not unlimited,? he said. ?The submarine commanders go up to the periscope depth and forget about navigation rules and safety measures,? the admiral said.

Currently there is a group of up to four submarines in the Persian Gulf area, he said. So far they only control navigation in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and in the Arabian Sea, he said. They might receive different orders in future: to block off the Gulf of Oman, that is the Iranian coast, and, if need be, launch missile strikes against
ground targets in Iran, he said.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/150107Admiral.htm

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/floyd/floyd56.html

Get Your War On: Bush Plays Casus Belli Card Against Iran

by Chris Floyd
by Chris Floyd

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com  Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article  Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article  View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site 
DIGG THIS

That there will be war with Iran is now virtually guaranteed. The Bush Administration set out a clear casus belli over the weekend in two stories ? masterworks of warmongering propaganda ? appearing in two major bastions of the "liberal media." The argument for this new war ? buttressed with "facts" that as usual went unchallenged by the corporate scribes ? is actually stronger and cleaner than the collection of conflicting mendacities that led to the invasion of Iraq. It is vain to hope that the Democrats, who have themselves demonized Iran with such ferocity, will stand against the call for the new war when it comes, in the terms now being established by the Administration.

The war drum sounded on Saturday morning in the New York Times ? in the person of that ever-reliable conduit of dubious intel, reporter Michael Gordon, who played a key role in disseminating White House falsehoods in the run-up to assault on Iraq, but who, unlike his colleague in collusion, Judith Miller, has paid no professional price for uncritically conveying the lies of war-machinators to the American public. In the course of a report telling us how George W. Bush personally ordered American forces to put the squeeze on "Iranian networks" in Iraq, Gordon and co-writer David Sanger passed along the word from Condi Rice that Iran is directly involved in the "increasing lethality" of insurgent attacks on U.S. soldiers.

This report in the NYT ? the agenda-setter for the national corporate media ? provides the highest- level "confirmation" of a Friday report by CBS that relayed ? again, uncritically ? specific numbers of American dead and wounded from what "U.S. military figures" said were Iranian-supplied weapons:

    "According to U.S. military figures, 198 American and British soldiers have been killed, and more than 600 wounded by advanced explosive devices manufactured in Iran and smuggled in through the southern marshes and along the Tigris River."

You can't get any plainer than that. According to the Pentagon and the U.S. Secretary of State, Iran has already killed 198 American and British soldiers and wounded more than 600. What president would be denied approval ? either beforehand or after the fact ? for military action against a country that was actively slaughtering American troops in combat? This goes far beyond the potential "threat" from Saddam Hussein that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq. If even the possibility of an attack by an unfriendly country is regarded by the Bush Faction as legitimate grounds for a military assault, how much moreso is the actual killing of Americans by a foreign power?

Make no mistake: this is the marker that has now been put down; this is the card that's been laid on the table. The Bush Administration has openly accused Iran of killing American soldiers in Iraq. Again, this is a charge far more resonant, far more effective as a pretext for war than anything offered during the successful stampede to invade Iraq. Even a president as weakened and isolated as Bush is at the moment would be able to get support for an attack on a state that was "killing our soldiers in the field."

And once again the Bush Faction's masterful use of the corporate media ? which many thought had utterly deserted them after the November electoral debacle ? is shown in how the two most prominent members of what is laughingly known as "the liberal media" are being used to establish the casus belli against Iran: the New York Times and CBS. Despite their reputations of speaking truth to power ? reputations not always (but mostly) undeserved ? both media mavens obligingly delivered the Regime's propaganda payload in reports that offer nary a demur or a nano-second of skepticism about the claims being offered.

Yet as Kurt Nimmo reminds us, the "sophisticated improvised explosive devices" that are causing the "increasingly lethality" in Iraq mentioned by Rice are in fact based on Anglo-American technology deployed by the UK security services during its dirty war with the IRA. In the mass infiltration of terrorist cells by the UK "security organs" ? so reminiscent of Don Rumsfeld's plan, now implemented, of "fomenting terrorism" by infiltrating American agents into violent groups and goading them into action ? the IED technology fell into the IRA's hands, which then provided it to groups around the world. What's more, as Nimmo notes, all of this was reported in October 2005 by the UK's Independent on Sunday, which wrote:

    "?soldiers, who were targeted by insurgents as they traveled through [Iraq], died after being attacked with bombs triggered by infra-red beams. The bombs were developed by the IRA using technology passed on by the security services in a botched 'sting' operation more than a decade ago?. This contradicts the British government?s claims that Iran?s Revolutionary Guard is helping Shia insurgents to make the devices.

    "The Independent on Sunday can also reveal that the bombs and the firing devices used to kill the soldiers, as well as two private security guards, were initially created by the UK security services as part of a counter-terrorism strategy at the height of the troubles in the early 1990s. According to security sources, the technology for the bombs used in the attacks, which were developed using technology from photographic flash units, was employed by the IRA some 15 years ago after Irish terrorists were given advice by British agents."

Nimmo goes on to note that:

    "In fact, the devices were made in America. 'In late 1993 and early 1994, I went to America with officers from MI5, the FRU and RUC special branch. They had already sourced the transmitters and receivers in New York following liaison with their counterparts in the FBI,' Kevin Fulton, who infiltrated the IRA in the Newry area while being handled by the Force Research Unit, told [Ireland's] Sunday Tribune in June, 2002. Fulton?s trip was confirmed by the FBI, according to Matthew Teague, writing for the Atlantic. The Independent on Sunday 'has also spoken to a republican who was a senior IRA member in the early 1990s. He confirmed that Mr. Fulton had introduced the IRA to the new technology and that the IRA shared this with 'like-minded organizations abroad.'"

Now, it may well be that Iran has made a pact with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq to supply them with high-powered IEDs ? at the same time that Iranian-backed Shiite parties and militias (a.k.a. the Bush-installed Iraqi government) are carrying out mass ethnic cleansing operations against Sunni strongholds. Maybe the Sunni insurgents promised not to use any of the Iranian weapons against the Shiites who are destroying them. And hey, maybe the Iranian-connected, Shiite-led Iraqi government is fully on board with this deal by its Tehran mentors to supply deadly weapons to the Shiites' deadliest foes in order to kill the Shiites' main protectors, the Americans. This at any rate is the scenario you have to swallow in order to find the Bush Regime's assertions credible. (And in a remarkable and telling instance of projection, the usual unnamed Bush officials also told the credulous clerk Gordon that "Iran is engaged in a policy of 'managed chaos' in Iraq" ? a phrase that pretty much sums up the entire four years of the Bush rapine in Iraq.)

In any case, the sophisticated asymmetrical weaponry being used against Americans in Iraq need not have come from Iran; it has been around for a long time, and originated in the heart of the "Coalition" itself: yet another piece of deadly blowback from the dirty wars of the security organs that have done so much to shape the hell that afflicts us all today. But the media amnesia that has already sunk the Independent's revelations full fathom five ? and the unquestioning, uncritical retailing of unconfirmed assertions by an Administration of proven liars clearly bent on more war ? means we are being plunged blindly once again into monstrous, blood-soaked folly.

January 15, 2007

Chris Floyd [send him mail] is the author of Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime.

Copyright ? 2007 Chris Floyd

[Russell Kanning]

If they bomb Iranians, I might have to join Caleb and burn u.s. flags.

[ninetales1234]

You know, Kevin, THAT is precisely what I am trying to change.  We live in a culture that practically worships the government.  It's weird because 70% of people think we're on the wrong track.  And I wonder, "why aren't they revolting?" 

The answer is because there is a deeply entrenched underlying cause that is stronger than their momentary dissatisfaction:  PATRIOTISM

Understand, when I say "patriotism" I'm talking about the FALSE kind of patriotism.  The "my country, right or wrong" type. 

I'm going to say this:  Patriotism (Nationalism) is a form of worship.  If you are a Christian who is a "proud American" you are an idolator!  If you are an atheist who is a "proud American" ... well, you aren't really an atheist.  You have a God alright, he's Uncle Sam.

We live in a country where a mindless pledge ("of ALLEGIANCE" no less) is considered a virtue.  Where its practically demanded that you say "Thank you for your service to our country" to a veteran.  Where "I DON'T support the troops!" is practically blasphemous speech.  Where I can't enjoy a football game without a musical indoctrination session prior to the game.

By burning their symbol, maybe I can erode that a little.  The U.S. government, with all its atrocities, cannot hope to survive if nationalism is destroyed in the hearts of men.

The reason you guys don't like it is because it strikes a little too close to the root for your comfort, and you're afraid of the repurcussions.  Someone told me, "I hope you don't get beat up!"  That shows the problem, doesn't it:  that someone would be willing to physically attack someone else for burning a piece of cloth is indicative of a larger problem:  they worship the idea behind it!

Very insightful. Especially that second paragraph. Compassion to do the right thing, compassion derived from logical thought, is better, but too often, not more powerful than compassion from the heart.

From my experience, whenever someone defends the flag, what they say is either: silly stuff from the heart that makes you feel good, or, relativism. Five years ago, I was in high school and I decided to stop standing up for the pledge of allegiance. Like a good citizen, the teacher told my parents and that got their attention.

My parents started telling me about our heroes overseas, the people who represent the spirit of america, the american tradition, I should love to be an american, and that we're the biggest and the best is something to be proud of. Then I heard something like, "At least you're not living in one of those third world places where you see 6 year old boys lined up, being made to fight." Hmm.... because other governments are really really bad, and our is better, we should smile and tolerate it?

My father decided that I should write a paper for him, explaining what my problem with the pledge of allegiance is. At the time, I didn't know that the pledge of allegiance was written by a socialist, I should've included that, but my paper was mainly about how the government is too big. One of the biggest things in the paper was how the FDA is killing thousands of people each year.

He read the paper, and this incident ended with him saying that the government is a big organization, and that the bigger an organization the worse it's problems are. But we're still the greatest people on earth. He came to the conclusion that his beliefs in regard to the flag, that the things he was trying explain to me were just over my head, and that being proud of one's american identity is just something beyond my comprehension. I told him that "the flag represents the government, it was created by our government, it can be seen from any government building. It was mandated by our government, I can show you the law, where it says exactly what the flag is ('13 horizontal stripes, with a number of stars equal to the number of States against a blue background...' etc.)." He maintained that I just didn't get it and I should feel good that I live in the best place in the world- the fact that we have problems is just a fact of life I should accept. He told me that he didn't buy my logic and I had to say the pledge of allegiance every day.

To many people, the flag represents good things. Be careful. Let them all know it represents evil, because it was created by our government. Not being in the "love america" demographic does not automatically place you in the "hate america" demographic. Hopefully the people in your area aren't so much in love with their american identity that they beat you up for flag burning. It's sad that in a country that is supposedly the champion of tolerance (especially of unpopular ideas) that so many people would be offended, by what you believe- offended by another person's beleifs!

If you burn the flag, burn with pride. Don't turn back or cave in. Maybe if enough people do it, it'll start being tolerated.

Keep in mind, that whenever someone says "we're [United States] the best," that all the way across the world, someone else in some other country (like maybe Iran) is saying the same thing and that he loves his country/flag just as much as the american loves his. They all say "We're the best." They can't all be right, can they?

One more thing: the United States may be the best place in the world, but it's really just the soberest drunk in the bar.

As we know, fedgov likes to commit acts of terrorism and blame them on someone else.

What websites do you go to? You sound too smart to believe that the government is efficient enough to stage the September 11th attacks.

[Kat Kanning]

Gates: Iran Is Target Of Military Build Up
Huge Military deployment in Gulf is ominous, neocon propaganda is mounting

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, January 15, 2007

The Defense Secretary Robert Gates today announced that the massive increase in military power in the Persian Gulf is directly aimed at Iran. Gates' comments follow a weekend of intense and heavy loaded rhetoric on the part of many neocon figureheads, signaling that the faintest spark could ignite a huge escalation of conflict in the middle east.

Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."

Gates said that Patriot anti-missile missiles, aircraft carriers, and cruise-missile-firing ships have been deployed in order to show Iran that the US means business and will not be distracted by the turmoil in Iraq. The build up has now been going on for weeks and shows no sign of being purely a warning.

The Patriot missiles are intended to shoot down Iranian missiles. The naval forces are there to pre-empt Iranian interference with oil shipments, which would be immediate retaliations to any strike.

A former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, has today revealed that he believes a missile attack on the Iranians is imminent, while Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran.

Indeed, the Fars news agency reported yesterday that there have already been rumours of nonexistent clashes between Iranian and American battleships in the Persian Gulf waters. A senior Iranian official viewed the rumor as "a part of the enemies' psychological war on Iran".

Last week US-led forces in northern Iraq arrested five Iranians who the US military says were connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq - a claim Iran has also rejected.

This sudden assertion is comical.Why would Iranian Shi?ites want to arm Iraqi Sunnis, who want to kill Iraqi Shi?ites allied with Iran? A few appearances on the US propaganda outlets by the neocons are supposed to convince us that this is now the case however.

Dick Cheney appeared on Fox news and, between denouncing critics of the Iraq war, accused Iran of "fishing in troubled waters inside Iraq". Meanwhile the national security adviser, arch neocon Stephen Hadley, said the US was "going to need to deal with what Iran is doing inside Iraq", at the same time not ruling out a skirmish inside Iran.

In reality what the neocons have dubbed as 'evidence' of Iranian meddling, including the presence of Iranian officials, in Iraq, is not troubling to Iraq's Shia political parties, many of whose senior figures fled Saddam and lived for over twenty years in exile in Iran. Such figures see a powerful Shia neighbour in Iran, a friend and a religious and political exemplar in the midst of crisis.

And while the Iraqi government is actually talking to Iran, comfortably resolving security issues and praising Iranian cooperation, the neocons in the White House are running around foaming at the mouth, refusing to engage in talks and deploying war ships.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers
high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and most importantly, with
infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don't sell the names of our customers to marketing
firms or the government. Click here for more info.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the London Guardian has reported, Donald Rumsfeld and the AEI have developed a strategy for regime change in Iran that does not involve a ground invasion. Weapons of mass destruction will provide the rationale for military action, though it won't be limited to attacks on a few weapons factories. It will include limiting Iranian retaliatory capability, using bombers to destroy up to 10,000 targets in the first day of any war, and special forces flying in to destroy anything that's left.

The neocons would then be able to install another puppet regime and further control the region, plundering it's wealth and resources, while provoking the Muslim and Arab world to fight amongst themselves and hopefully, in the words of Henry Kissinger, kill each other off.

In other developments, Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich stated:

"if Bush attacks Iran, all bets[regarding impeachment] are off." Later he added, "We need to safeguard our Constitution." If the President takes steps towards another war, Kucinich warned, Congress could make "an active effort" toward impeachment.

"The President is clearly trying to provoke Iran," he said, adding that the Bush administration is "treading on the thinnest ice it has ever been on."

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts has asserted that the only way to stop the impending attack on Iran is to press for immediate impeachment:

"Americans don?t have much time to realize this and to act before it is too late. Bush?s ?surge? speech last Wednesday night makes it completely clear that his real purpose is to start wars with Iran and Syria before failure in Iraq brings an end to the neoconservative/Israeli plan to establish hegemony over the Middle East."