Reminder: Clark on FAUX tonight 10pm ET--starting off the new year

[Gloria]

9pm Central, 8pm Mountain, 7pm Pacific

Sometime in the first half hour of whatever show this is....

[Mz Pip]

1. Kick

to cover the next half hour!

Mz Pip
:dem:

Happy New Year from the edge of the western world.

[BlueStateGirl]

2. I've been watching Fox for 10 minutes, no Clark. Can't take much more.

[Gloria]

3. After the break, they're going to talk about Iran....He'll probably

be on during that bit, if they haven't "stood him up."

God forbid they actually announce his name.....

[Gloria]

4. He's on....with another guy, Ed Turzanski

Clark says there could be an action

4-6 days of airstrikes....his estimates, not based on any classified reports.

Bases in Turkey could be used.

Over last month, there have been repeated rumors...Porter Goss, Cheney, traveling in the region, talking up action....

Distinct possiblity, prudent military planning is going on right now.

Other guy--Ed Turzanski, "terrorism expert"

As Gen. Clark said, it would be a concentrated attack, not as easy , dispersed, underground facilities.
Politically more difficult if longer. Youth under 25 don't like mullahs, but attack runs the risk of rallying support, the last thing we want to happen.

Clark--A couple of points; First, there's gonna be a lot of skepticism about our intellience, (re Iraq). Second, he will strengthen his hand at home. It will be hard to talk against any action (sic-against what's perceived as a threat). He's going to pick up support at home. There will be a program of consultation, the buildup of support here, then the strike.

Turzanski--on the Shia in Iraq...not the same brand as in Iran. No certainty that Iraqi Shia will (sic) side with Iran.

[Gloria]

5. OMG--Clark looked pretty grim...he just laid out what the admin.

will probably do vis a vis Iran---

He also said that going against Bush will be hard to do politically.

OH, I feel sick to my stomach!!!! 2006 elections---you know what it's going to be about!!!

[dogman]

6. Right up Bush's alley.

In your face and you're with us or against us for the election. This will follow the end of last year's WH spin. You're right, damn scary!

[NCarolinawoman]

8. This is why it is important that we have all those war veterans

running for Congress. Bush will play this to the hilt. The airforce is still in good shape. so he will use it. If there is a squeak of protest from the dems they will be betrayed as weak, and it will probably work.

[FreedomAngel82]

9. I wonder if the public will buy it though?

We all know the truth about Iraq now and 50-60% of the population is now against Iraq. Any poll numbers out about the situation? Scary indeed. Any video of this?

[NCarolinawoman]

7. I saw this and it was chilling.

General Clark looked grim. Sounds like the bombing of Iran is inevitable.

He seemed to be wanting to tell the faux sheeple that Bush will be doing this and expecting all to rally around and that most likely THE COUNTRY WILL, out of fear. (just like before). He implied that Bush was aware that this could raise his popularity again. Also, he seemed to want to get across that Bush's crowd has layed out a trap for his critics.....once again they will be betrayed as being weak on National security. At this point it really looked like General Clark wanted to say more, but the news anchor said they had run out of time.

(I have paraphrased this because I don't have a transcript)

One more thing: I remember General Clark saying a long time ago that when Bush called Iran and Korea part of the "axis of evil" these words only served to have these countries excelerate their nuclear weapons programs.

[FreedomAngel82]

10. Yes

Hopefully Clark got through to people watching. Does he go on any other shows or just fox? I hope he goes on other networks and hammers this around. How did he find out?

[radio4progressives]

11. I've read reports that we already started a few weeks ago..

but i haven't seen anything lately...

until today. i missed this tv program - but Clark would know just cuz it hasn't been a well kept secret, also there's been a great deal of saber rattling and....

this is really, really really really fucked up.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Well he stressed that he doesn't have any classified information

but he was making informed guesses based on all that he does hear and the evolving dynamics in that region and in Washington. He assumes that the Pentagon is in a "prudent planning" stage now, meaning there is a real possibility that the Commander in Chief may ask them to act so they have to have all the plans ready to go if he does.

This really is the big reason why Clark kept saying we had to stay engaged to work the regional issues with Iraq's neighbors NOW. Though we never should have been there in the first place, the United States by invading Iraq became a major regional player and at the very least should be using our presence there to leverage regional discussions leading to some type of arrangement that could deescalate tensions between the various governments in the Middle East. Clark warned last Spring in testimony before Congress that the course this administration was on was leading to war with either Syria or Iran. And he warned during the 2004 Presidential debates that Bush was pushing Iran and North Korea to develop their own nukes before they were attacked by the U.S., given Bush's actions in Iraq. This is all pretty scary. Israel and Iran with nukes is a much more likely pair to trigger off a mutual nuclear conflict than the Soviet Union and the United States ever were, and we came damn close to it over Cuba.

[radio4progressives]

24. There were a few more close calls in the 80's and 95 ...

between us and USSR and Russia.. Helen Caldecutt has all the skinny on it.

anyway, your points taken thanks very much...


this is really so fucked up..

[lostnfound]

36. Not to be dense but Iran doesn't have nukes, right?

I thought they were a few years away? Did I miss something?

I'm horrified by the idea of striking anyway, of course, but why would this go nuclear?

[dogman]

38. This administration has discussed plans for preemptive nuclear strikes.

To prevent Iran from finalizing their program would Bushco go this far? The Iranian program is said to be spread out and some underground facilities are involved. The idea of a nuclear bunker buster has supposedly been dropped but nuclear preemptive strikes have not. The Bushies have proved they have no morals and are not to be trusted to do the right thing.

[stray cat]

45. The goal is limited strikes to destroy their nuclear facilities

before they become operational. A nuclear Iran with its real ties to terrorism is a lot scary than anything with Iraq. Our attention should have been on Iran instead of Iraq. Like Jon Stewart said, anyone leader could make a spelling error and attach Iraq when they meant Iran.

[chicagiana]

74. Not really ...

By possessing nukes, Iran comes into the same "mutually assured assured destruction" situation as everyone else. Except in this case, it's just "assured destruction".

Don't think that Iran would be able to sneak one in and no one would no where it came from. They would know damn well that if a nuke went off in the US, Iran's cities would be vaporized with little consequence to oil extracation.

Nuclear India and nuclear Pakistan pose no threat to the US. No one is standing up shaking their fists about Musharraf having nukes. But people do respect him enough to ask permission to invade Afghanistan. And he is respected enough that we won't invade northern Pakistan for the sake of capturing Osama Bin Laden.

Basically nukes are a stinger that a country can use to keep people from fucking with them. Bush accelerated everything when he started saber-rattling.

Missle defense will never work. So I suggest in the future that we deal with people in a more respectful manner. AND, I would suggest moving the capital to the upper plain states where they would be the FURTHEST away from a nuclear missle launched from either a submarine or a cargo ship. This would allow the elected government adequete time to take shelter. Right now Washington D.C. is a pot shot for a short range missle launched from a freighter.

[LunaC]

50. Why would this go nuclear?

Because Russia and China are willing to jump into the action...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x33521

and everbody is damn sick and tired of the U.S. being the bully on the block. Young'un needs an ass whoopin'!

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Clark's one year contract with FOX ends in the Spring

He can't go on other cable news channels directly though they are free to cover his FOX appearances. Clark can go on broadcast stations but they rarely ask him. They always call on Biden, don't you know.

Clark is pretty damn good at reading national security tea leaves, he knows the drill, he knows the region, he knows the players. He warned about PNAC's military plans in early 2002. He testified before Congress in the Spring that the course this Administration was on would lead to expanded war in the Middle East, most likely with Iran or Syria. He has always been ahead of the curve and people rarely listen.

[Gloria]

16. The networks don't ask because the Democrats have set up

"teams" of people to go on, Biden being one of them, supposedly in a rotation.

I suspect that since Clark isn't in office, he's not part of their "teams" but that doesn't mean they couldn't designate him as a spokesperson. But I'm sure the don't want to do that, it interferes with their covering their asses.

[radio4progressives]

26. I hate how the system is rigged that way..

:banghead:

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Clark doesn't get to go on because he's smarter than all of them

The bottom line is that he would upstage any one of them on the subject of foreign policy and they don't want that.

[Dinger]

35. You Hot The Nail On The Head Hippo_Tron (nt)

[venatrix]

62. Clark doesn't go on

because his Fox contract prohibits it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Only prohibits going on other cable news networks

at least that is my understanding. Broadcasts networks can use him if they wanted to. He was on Meet the press once on a panel with other Generals during his FOX stint.

[verdalaven]

46. I don't understand how bombing Iran could raise his popularity

Everyone I know hates him already for Iraq. Are they just talking about the small percentage who will support him, come hell or high water?

[KoKo]

13. Well the rumors have been around for a long while and Media is locked down

once again. I think it was the media lock down the last few weeks that made me worry something was "afoot."

Let's hope that they are underestimating that folks out here and in high places are "onto him" this time. I just don't see how Congress can allow it. The Iraq Resolution didn't authorize this. And, it would test his "Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Strike" to the Max.

It would seem to depend on whether France and Germany are cowed by him now after taking so much abuse and whether China or Russia approve. I don't think we have much to offer either China or Russia as bribes to just stand by and watch an airstrike as poor as we are with our huge debt.

Could it be possible that Clark is just playing along with a Bluff hoping Iran will tone down it's rhetoric? It would be an awfully dangerous move for the Chimp and it could backfire on him. :shrug:

[still_one]

14. that is my question, can they do this without congress?

In addition, what would the Shiites in Iraq do if we attack the Shiites in Iran?

[DemInDistress]

18. Good point ... glad you mentioned that

the foolish bush crime family thinking a "slam dunk" in Iran with a few days of bombing is another serious
delusion and I surely hopes he doesn't attack. The Shiite number millions and millions more in Iran,together
they could inflict heavy casualties on our ground soldiers should they're anger spills over.. From what I remember from reading PNAC a friendly pro-western governments from Lebanon thru Syria (Jordan has good relations)Iraq (we own) Iran (next target) Afghanistan(we own that too) Pakistan (good relations) India also has good relations with the US to the doorstep of China where the American government can monitor a growing China.. This agenda was already on the drawing board before chimpy was sworn it..oh but how to implement it..

[flyarm]

55. a friend of my family is a navy seal...he said he is being redeployed to

afganistan..to get out of afgan. any weapons that could be used against us..he feels he is going very soon..of course he couldn't say too much..but he sure as hell does not want to go..he has desparately been trying to get "out"..but they won't let him..

he is seriously considering getting "very sick"..to keep from going..but he said he would be used to get out weapons we have just sitting around..and any weapons that would be a threat to the us government employees and troops...

this was a very gung ho bush guy..who now says he will do anything to keep from going again...

fly

[CarolNYC]

59. Geez, flyarm,

That's awful. I just hope your friend stays safe....What a mess this President has created!

[DemInDistress]

67. he's not alone flyarm

many many more soldiers don't want any more of this "staged war on terror". Before that MURDERER BUSH is given
any more money or new powers the BUSH CRIME FAMILY has some 911 explaining to do. Many unanswered questions
need answers.. Its no longer National Security that is of concern but the BUSH CRIME FAMILY who's worried.
If real hard evidence surfaces they will be in prison. Is there hard evidence? I believe so and hopefully
someone with a conscience comes forward..
Thanks for the feedback..

[charlie and algernon]

17. can you say war with china AND russia

no way russia stands by while US troops engage in military action on its border, but in no way will they sit by while the US gets more offensive militarily speaking. From their perspective, they will be scared shitless that either of them could be next, so why not enter the war on the side of the iranians....

:scared:

[alfredo]

19. The ultimate goal of the Neo Cons is war with China.

Reading "Rebuilding America's Defenses" it looks like first they take Iraq as a fuel station, then sweep across south Asia to North Korea, then the endgame is China.

[Richard D]

22. China would destroy the US.

Imagine all the empty walmarts.

[alfredo]

25. Remember, these people of the PNAC lived in think tanks

not the real world.

[rman]

39. The power elites don't shop at Walmart.

And they don't care how we're doing as long as they've got us under control.

[chicagiana]

75. I don't believe that crap ...

These people are making a LOT of money exploiting Chinese labor. Why screw the deal.

Look the Busheviks aren't very different in philosiphy from the Chinese. They are for unlimited corporate activity combined with an authoritarian government. In essence, they are both fascists. They are natural allies.

In the end, it would be the Americans with the Navy. And that makes all the difference in the world.

[PATRICK]

44. Not necessary

Global warming and thirst can contribute to an embroiled over populated region self destructing as a world rival. India and China both and make it Japan's problem. yet the madness of the neocons may lead them inevitably to what they might not intend. Either way it may turn out you are right because of the monsters leading us.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. I don't see Russia or China getting involved directly.

I think it's far more likely that they will provide various types of assistance covertly. They will want to ensure that we get tied down militarily even more than we already are. This will also encourage both of them to focus more on their own military buildup, and maintaining greater control in what they consider to be their spheres of influence.

Their both sufficiently well armed that not even a lunatic like Bush would attack them directly.

None of this would likely be happening if the asshole hadn't invaded Iraq. Iran had been becoming more moderate. The Iraq war pushed them into electing a hard liner, and we've given them every possible incentive to try to develop nuclear weapons.

It looks like this is going to be the year that the shit hits the fan.

[Gloria]

29. Latest Russian arms sales to Iran: TOR-M1, surface to air missiles....

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/12/02/iransurface.shtml

Iran Signs Deal With Russia on Tactical Surface-to-Air Missiles Purchase

Created: 02.12.2005 11:58 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:16 MSK

MosNews

Iran has signed a deal to buy Russian tactical surface-to-air missile systems.

Iran plans to buy 29 TOR-M1 systems designed to bring down aircraft and guided missiles at low altitudes, Reuters reported.

The deal is the biggest sale of Russian defense hardware to Iran for about five years. The sources did not disclose the price of the deal.

Tehran is under intense international pressure after failing to convince the United States and others its nuclear scientists are working on fuel for power stations rather than bombs.

Russia is helping Iran build a nuclear power station at Bushehr.

[driver8]

30. China just made a huge deal with Iran to provide them with oil...

you bet your ass they are going to get involved. If shrubby and co. attack Iran, that will be a threat to the future of China -- they are a "thirsty giant" and getting thirstier every day.

These guys are going to start WWIII with their fucking idiocy.

[dooner]

54. Yep, and if you've seen Syriana this is all too familiar... n/t

edited spelling

[NCarolinawoman]

21. KoKoO1, your mentioning a Bluff has got met to thinking,

Clark talks a lot about using "carrots and sticks" to prevent war. By putting this out now, ahead of the Shrub, it could be kind of a carrot? Or leveredge (sp?) at least. He has always said that we should be TALKING with Iran. He has even said on one of the Faux news broadcasts that HE has been talking to them. Last month he was over in the Middle East as a speaker at a NATO conference, and spoke with some of the moderate Arab leaders and also NATO representatives from Turkey. Maybe he is trying to get this all out in the open now for several purposes?

Oh well, I really don't know. But you've got me thinking.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. Clark actually does have some very limited influence

being a former N.A.T.O. commander who still travels to the region and knows some people with connections in many of the nations involved. That allows him to carry messages, informally rather than formally, since the Bush Administration is extremely unlikely to give Clark any authorization to represent the United States through back door discussion channels. But there are some sane people, even in an ideologically driven Administration like this one, often at lower levels where they are trying to get work done rather than posturing for Bush's base. And then there is Congress, not all the Republicans in it are as whacko as Bush, people like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar have the capacity to rise above Bush Cheerleading.

Clark has been constantly warning about America's drift toward war with Iran, and he also has been warning about Iran getting pushed into developing Nukes and how that would alter all of the power balances in the Mid East in a very destabilizing and dangerous way. Clark has been constantly urging the United States to conduct real regional diplomacy with Iraq's neighbors. Clark was asked to testify before Congress back in Early April 2005, (they asked Richard Perle to be there also and Clark demolished him). A lot of this stuff came up there then. Here is a DU thread about it from the time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1707989

Actually that testimony is in the process of being archived and made available at Securing America right now.

Clark does want all parties, all levels of our government, Mid East governments, European governments, as well as the American public, to acknowledge how grave the situation potentially is. One would think governments don't need reminders like that but they do. They constantly take their eyes off ball the while focusing in on one detail or another. Clark does not want us just to drift into further war while we argue about Iraq and then look back later and say, "how did that happen, I had no idea things were that serious?"

[PATRICK]

42. No bluff

I doubt they miss the option that much since it is required we show the "will" to use our absolute nuclear advantage. It is all heading there eventually. Bluffing was a pipe dream before the Iraq War. It is less than that now simply because Iran can't be bluffed and Bush does not have the popular support, but short of the world simply putting on slave collars and telling Bush to do what he wants there is no stopping him. Even then they would itch to seal the deal with a demo nuke.

Any other military or covert political option would not only be disastrous I think one plainly senses a real lack of sincerity in the motions.

[KoKo]

48. We have to hope the "slave collar" is in the works...

Because with hindsite knowledge everyone knows how this Administration works by now and that they destroy everything they touch. They have shown they can't plan, manage or budget. Iraq is a disaster. Rummy's dreams of "precise attacks" in Iran could mean they'd blow up civilian areas and leave whatever nuke capability intact.

I still hope this is a bluff, but understand that with these crazies anything is possible.

[LunaC]

51. China and Russia DON'T approve

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x33521

[LunaC]

52. dupe - self-delete

sorry

[FloridaPat]

23. And attack in Iran will disrupt world oil supplies. Iran will pretty much

be offline. I don't think the rest of the world will quietly watch us do it. Just a couple of bombs will destroy most of the US military in Iraq. Suppose the rest of the world just cuts off our supply of oil, and China cuts off our loans. The dollar tanks. Goodby economy. These people are all insane

[EndElectoral]

27. How would an attack on Iran affect Iraq

Isn't Iran bascially Shite, and the Iraq majority is now Shite? Could it be if we attacked Iran that Iraq would rally behind Iran?

Crazy stuff.

I imagine Musharraf would also face immense pressures in Pakistan with a US invasion of the country next to them. THe Pakky's have the bomb as well.

[FloridaPat]

28. Most of our military is a sitting duck in Iraq. They can wipe us out

pretty much without too much effort.

[Crunchy Frog]

31. There's a substantial and powerful Shiite faction in Iraq

that spent about 20 years of exile in Iran, and likely has extremely close ties with them.

From their official website. http://www.sciri.btinternet.co.uk/English/About_Us/about_us.html

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), is headed by Ayatollah Mohamad Baqir Al Hakim the son of the late Grand Ayatollah Muhsin Al Hakim who was the spiritual leader of the Shia in the world for the period 1955-1970. SCIRI consist of a general assembly of 70 members which represent deferent Islamic movements and scholars. The general assembly elects a central committee of 11 members. This committee is considered the supreme body of SCIRI. It is in charge of the following units:

Military.
International Relations.
Publicity.
Information and Investigation.
Social Services.
Administration and Finance.
SCIRI has secret cells all over Iraq which are involved in gathering information, media work and military activities. SCIRI has also main offices in London (headed by Dr. Hamid Al Bayati), Damascus, Geneva and Vienna.
The head office of SCIRI is based in Iran among the largest Iraqi community outside Iraq temperarely estimated at one million Iraqis. SCIRI has main offices in different parts of the liberated areas of Iraqi Kurdistan.
SCIRI commands military forces called Badr Corps. This started as a brigade and developed into a division and then into a corps. The Badr Corps consist of thousands of former Iraqi officers and soldiers who defected from the Iraqi army, Iraqi refugees, and Iraqis who fled the country and join SCIRI.

[Donna Zen]

40. The Badr Corps

A 100,000 of the Badr Corps moved back to Iraq with the fall of Saddam. They have now have a new name: The Iraqi Army. We have been training and arming these people. SCIRI also now controls the Iraqi Parliment.

I've been thinking that the threat of bombing was a push-back to Iran. Iran wants econimic relief through the lifting of sanctions more than anything. The problem has always been that bush holds the power of diplomacy, and he doesn't talk. He has a hammer and everything looks like a nail.

I want leadership; and I want it NOW.

[BillORightsMan]

33. Rob sez "Invasion Of Iran Would Cause Financial Crash In U.S."

Cudos to robwire! This pretty much is spot-on (sadly):

Invasion Of Iran Would Cause Financial Crash In U.S.

If we look carefully at the Iraq war, the main financial institutions stood squarely behind the hostilities and did their best to create a hospitable economic environment for aggression. The Federal Reserve dropped the prime rate to a paltry 1.5% just 6 months before the Iraq invasion to keep the American economy purring along while Bush dragged the nation to war. The bloody footprints for Iraq lead straight to the oak-panel doors of America's primary lenders even before they trail off to the bastions of America's energy giants.

There's a reason for this. The main impetus for the war was not petroleum, but greenbacks and the future of a currency that is underwritten by $8 trillion of debt. The only way to safeguard its dominance is to back up the listing dollar with boatloads of oil. And, that is exactly the plan.

I think we will see the rest of the world retaliate economically if this "threat" really opens up into any kind of aggression against Iran. And bushco will crumble under the weight of its own hubris. When all the STINK comes out (Plame to Abramoff to DeLay to FISA to FEMA to USAPATRIOT to Das Ministry Des Heimat) in the next few weeks/months one can only hope The Sheeple won't fall for the admin's self-proclaimed propaganda:

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
-gwb Athena Performing Arts Center
Greece Athena Middle and High School
Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY

I'll be moving my IRA to a Euro-based fund as soon as the markets open on Tuesday 1-3-2006.
:patriot:

[robertpaulsen]

56. Looks like an interesting article, but the link doesn't work for me.

Is there another link? I'd love to read it.

[CarolNYC]

60. link

try this....
http://robwire.com/?q=node/834

or this...
http://tinyurl.com/bms8u

[chicagiana]

76. We would have to mobilize COMPLETELY !!!

If we attack Iran, they would enter the conflict in Iraq directly as they are ALREADY closely associated with Iraqi Shiites.

A war against Iran would require a FULL MOBILIZATION. It would make the peak days of Vietnam look like Grenada by comparison.

[nolabels]

34. Sounds like the fucking lying bastards know they are losing it badly......

even more. Their flagging support can only be propped up with more craziness. Also the window seems to be closing, so not so surprised if they do. It's just more of putting off the enviable.

[chicagiana]

77. WAG the Dog ...

This will be more like wagging the Elephant.

[nicknameless]

41. Rumors of "Impeachment"? Must be time to bomb another country.

Where is the justification? Where is the Congressional declaration?

IMPEACHMENT NOW!!!

[katinmn]

43. Building the case against Iran continues with US media

looking the other way. International media have been analyzing the situation for at least a year.

If Junior isn't brought under control we will be at war with Iran within months.

A war is the ONLY thing that will save Junior's ass now.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Norouzi1231.htm
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=9638
The Power-Point presentation, titled "A History of Concealment and Deception," has been presented to diplomats from more than twelve countries. Several officials said the briefing ignores ambiguities in the evidence about Iran's nuclear ambitions and skips alternative explanations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4236923.stm
http://www.counterpunch.com/leupp12302005.html
Goss Builds the Case for Turkey-Based Attacks
Targeting Iran and Syria
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=89141
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI14Ak02.html
http://www.economist.com/World/africa/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4385413&tranMode=none

[robbedvoter]

47. I was hoping this was BS, but if Clark said it, it must be so....

I know that the Senate gave W a carte blanche resolution to invade Syria (yeah, Kerry wrote it, not just voted for it). Dunno if they'll use that for Iran, ir W's newly unchallenged "BECAUSE I AM YOUR GOD, THAT'S WHY" powers.
In light of this piece of news, I am starting to give credence to the theory that BFEE gave NYT the green light on the snoop story as it was just another level to confront the Moron Nation with a fait accompli - just like the stolen election. Now that you know we're listening, shut up and join the war effort!

[LibertyorDeath]

64. Got a link for this

"I know that the Senate gave W a carte blanche resolution to invade Syria (yeah, Kerry wrote it, not just voted for it)."

If true then Kerry is on my permanent Shit list.

[robbedvoter]

65. Kerry co-sponsoring Syria Accountability Act - letter to a constituent

The document is called The Syria Accountability Act

October 23, 2003
<Full name and address removed for privacy>
Dear Mr. XXXX:
Thank you for your letter regarding the Syria Accountability Act.  I
appreciate knowing your views on this important issue.
As you may know, Syria has an extensive history of human rights
violations, connections with terrorism, arms proliferation, previous
involvement in narcotics trafficking, and illegal occupation of Lebanon.


The Syrian government has historically ruled by methods such as
torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, prolonged detention without
trial, and limits on freedom of speech and the press.  Since 1979, the
State Department has regularly placed Syria on the list of countries
that
support international terrorism, and has also accused Syria of
pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
I supported talks between Secretary of State Colin Powell and Syrian
President Bashar al-Asad, which took place on May 3, 2003.  At this
time, Secretary Powell iterated that Syria must stop supporting
terrorist organizations and harboring escapees from Iraq.  Since the
meeting,
Secretary Powell has said that Syria has taken some limited
steps towards reform, but that these limited steps are not enough. 
Like Secretary Powell, I am concerned that Syria is not whole-heartedly
working towards meeting U.S. demands.  We must ensure that Syria does
not acquire and
distribute additional weapons thereby exasperating tensions in the
Middle East, raising potential threats to Israel, and undermining
arms control.
I cosponsored the Syria Accountability Act to hold Syria responsible
for its support for terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possible
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.  I am hopeful that substantial
Congressional support for the Accountability Act will influence Syria
to meet the demands raised by Colin Powell in May in a more timely and
transparent manner.  The Accountability Act includes bans on the export
of military items and of dual use items to Syria, and requires the
president to impose at least two additional bans, chosen from the six
included in the Accountability Act.  The Accountability Act does not
give the president the option of prohibiting the U.S. from exporting
food and medicine to Syria.
Thank you again for taking the time to share your views with me on this
important matter.
Sincerely,
John F. Kerry
United States Senator

[LibertyorDeath]

66. Thanks I'll search google for any info on it also

I appreciate it as Kerry promised a solemn oath that
"Every vote would be counted" and thousands upon thousand of Volunteers poured there blood sweat and tears into fighting for him to have him turn around and throw in the towel so fast when there were obvious irregularities with the voting process especially in the vital state of Ohio.

He's been on my semi-permanent shit list ever since.

He says all the right things but when push came to shove on election night he bailed.

[robbedvoter]

68. Hope you got my last version - I edited my post a few times

as I found some info.
It was posted on Clark's campaign site - those blogs have been discontinued with the main site - and it's a fluke I saved some posts I deemed important in my archives.
I'm with you on the concession.

[LibertyorDeath]

70. Thank you !

I'm no fan of any state that uses terror or military force
to achieve it's economic or geopolitical goals
that includes America & Syria & Israel & many more.

[karynnj]

71. There are 2 things wrong in your statement

1) Kerry is a co-sponsor, not a sponsor or the author

2) The bill is for sanctions on importing dual use materials and to push Syria in the right direction - this certainly doesn't say Bush can bomb Syria. Bush, by virtue of being CIC, can strike Syria (or Iraq) if he says it's national security. With 138,000 Americans in Iraq - Bush may claim that these countries threaten them.

Note that the bill even tries to avoid a problem with the Iraqi sanctions - by explicitly allowing medicine.

"The Accountability Act includes bans on the export
of military items and of dual use items to Syria, and requires the
president to impose at least two additional bans, chosen from the six
included in the Accountability Act. The Accountability Act does not
give the president the option of prohibiting the U.S. from exporting
food and medicine to Syria."


Syria is a dangerous country - is there a problem with attempting to make it harder for them to get weapons.

[Dread Pirate KR Read]

49. MEDIA ALERT: Clark on Fox News, Mon, 12:20am ET

MEDIA ALERT: Fox News Monday 01/02/06 at 11:20AM Central Time
Posted by Kat on December 29, 2005 - 1:24am.

General Clark will be on Fox News with Bill Hemmer on Monday at 11:20AM Central Time.
12:20PM EST | 11:20AM CST | 10:20AM MST | 9:20AM PST

[LunaC]

53. The coming Iran crisis

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x33521

[No Exit]

57. HEY, EVERYONE! Over here.... please, just for a sec

If we are bombing Iran or planning to bomb Iran, my opinion is, it is not about nukes! It is about economics! As in, PROFIT--and I DON'T mean profit for you and me.

The talk of "how long will it take Iran to develop nukes" is just BULLSHIT. Just a fake "reason". This doesn't have to do with Iran allegedly "developing nuclear weapons".

Don't you remember, they claimed Iraq was about that? And it has had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Iraq "developing nuclear weapons".

So IMO, don't even bother with the "question of Iran's developing nuclear weapons". It's not even relevant!

[tatertop]

61. I think you are right.

[No Exit]

72. Thank you! I think that's the trouble with so many of these issues

about Bush and his endless grabs for power. He starts out putting out some bullshit assertion, and everyone--both his opponents and his cultlike proponents--sets to work to dissect the assertion. I've certainly done that many times.

But what we need to learn is to first take a step back, and question the very first tenet of whatever argument he's making. B/C the very crux of his argument or excuse is so often just a baldfaced lie.

[robbedvoter]

69. I agree. And I was hoping it was BS as we were overly stretched

militarily and financially. But that's my perception, apparently, not theirs.
If Clark came out with this, IT"S REAL.

[No Exit]

73. It appears to be real, and it is certainly horrifying--though not

unexpected by those of us who've been reading the internet.

I also have worried that we are overly stretched militarily. Now, however, I even question that. I mean, there's no telling nowadays if ANYTHING we hear about anything is true!

That's even the same sort of thing about our country's finances. IMO, one reason the propagandists may be hyping how much in debt we are is to cajole us baby boomers--who I think are the majority of the population--into accepting some coming cut or elimination of the social security benefits they've been promising us all our lives. But... now that the media really is nothing more than a lie machine, who the heck can tell WHAT'S true and what's not??

[Jai4WKC08]

82. It's only the Army and Marine Corps that are over-stretched

A fact that Clark has stated many, many times. He's been reminding people that the Air Force and Navy are essentially uncommitted in Iraq.

Put that together with the Rumsfeld Doctrine that anything can be accomplished by the "shock and awe" of air/missile power and you can see where we're headed.

[TacticalPeek]

58. Kick.

:kick:

[Clara T]

78. Referring back to William Arkin's WAPO article

CONPLAN 8022 anticipates two different scenarios. The first is a response to a specific and imminent nuclear threat, say in North Korea. A quick-reaction, highly choreographed strike would combine pinpoint bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to disable a North Korean response, with commandos operating deep in enemy territory, perhaps even to take possession of the nuclear device.

The second scenario involves a more generic attack on an adversary's WMD infrastructure. Assume, for argument's sake, that Iran announces it is mounting a crash program to build a nuclear weapon. A multidimensional bombing (kinetic) and cyberwarfare (non-kinetic) attack might seek to destroy Iran's program, and special forces would be deployed to disable or isolate underground facilities.
By employing all of the tricks in the U.S. arsenal to immobilize an enemy country -- turning off the electricity, jamming and spoofing radars and communications, penetrating computer networks and garbling electronic commands -- global strike magnifies the impact of bombing by eliminating the need to physically destroy targets that have been disabled by other means.

The inclusion, therefore, of a nuclear weapons option in CONPLAN 8022 -- a specially configured earth-penetrating bomb to destroy deeply buried facilities, if any exist -- is particularly disconcerting. The global strike plan holds the nuclear option in reserve if intelligence suggests an "imminent" launch of an enemy nuclear strike on the United States or if there is a need to destroy hard-to-reach targets.

It is difficult to imagine a U.S. president ordering a nuclear attack on Iran or North Korea under any circumstance. Yet as global strike contingency planning has moved forward, so has the nuclear option.
Global strike finds its origins in pre-Bush administration Air Force thinking about a way to harness American precision and stealth to "kick down the door" of defended territory, making it easier for (perhaps even avoiding the need for) follow-on ground operations.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ARK20060102&articleId=1704


William M. Arkin, who writes frequently about military affairs, is the author of "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World" (Steerforth).

[PATRICK]

81. What other unthinkable plans

have we seen implemented, if not directly then in some form or other? Northwoods? Maybe not a planned conscious enactment, but the events unfolded neatly, more than the original musing itself bargained for.

When you mobilize and when you have a plan in most instances- willed or accidental or just by plain momentum- they happen. And things generally go very bad and very wrong and it is too late for everyone. The notable exception is the Cuban Missile Crisis because the people on both sides putting on the brakes just managed to succeed as the proverbial hair-trigger quivered in the breeze. The standoff in Berlin as well. But when the visible hand disappears from the helm for any reason it can just begin without that last chance negotiation.

We have deliberately been shortchanged on prevention and indeed have grown and morphed and provoked more terrorist threats. We have military plans and mobilization in effect against Iran. The people are distracted by almost anything else. We have limited options and pushed nations to the brink. Despite any changes in the polls one way or the other, despite revelations and world antagonism, the overall commitment to PNAC and Bush dynasty policy has not changed. It has NO built in flexibility or consideration of defeat. They are crazier and nuttier than than their MAD predecessors, maybe too crazy to be cautious when it counts the most. And they certainly don't care except for being personal cowards. In fact, we have the single biggest collection of non-military cowards in history in charge of the buttons and always indolent, arrogant and impatient with "hard work" and subtleties. Disarray among the faint hearted or those balking within, now drawing lines has not changed the direction. We have a world of pragmatic or halting schmoes who seem helpless as chaff before the wind to influence the course of events once Bush lights the brush.

IF Bush continues not to get slammed for all his secretive and in your face crimes the risk of nukes accelerates toward the inevitable. Reason, reaction, results, logic have already been swept aside. As long as the game is played by Bushco rules there are people alive now who already are the walking dead, the new victims of a newer, more senseless, brutally fascist Hiroshima. Just as the victims of 911 were condemned as soon as the SCOTUS delivered the nation into Bushco's inflexible hands. And after "it" happens the dish of shame will be served by the most disgusting RW spin and faux solemnity that Hell could ever concoct.

In "The Screwtape Letters" the devil bemoans the lack of old time hypocrites from Biblical times. Collaborators, religious pontificators, persecutors of God. Well, our chickenhawk cultists make up for in effort what they lack in mind and soul. From the top of the world we are assaulted daily.

Everything CAN happen here because so much has already to show us their nature and the bloody pattern of their venal ways.

[Clara T]

83. Excellet post- Too true

When we fill our souls up with creativity, artistry and intelligence ...we have a better chance at avoiding the behavior that leads to destruction.
– Rick DellaRatta

[LibertyorDeath]

79. Kick

:kick::kick::kick:

[eridani]

80. Kick for the night crew

:kick: