Bush says Iran is a "grave threat" and Democrats rush to agree...

[kentuck]

I just heard Diane Feinstein agree with him on CBS this morning. Didn't he use the same words before he invaded Iraq? Didn't the Democrats say they were lied to about that? They were not shown the intelligence? And now, they fall for the same bullshit again, without any evidence? Fool me once, do it again, cause I'm a fool..

[mzmolly]

1. Democrats ALWAYS maintained that Iran was a greater threat than

Iraq. They did not advocate war, but they have said so for quite some time. This was one of the arguments against the Iraq war as well.

[NewJeffCT]

5. North Korea is a greater threat, too

and what does it say that we are struggling against the weak sister of the "Axis of Evil"... and a 10th rate power that Colin Powell & Condi Rice both said was not a threat in 2001.

[thefool_wa]

14. Hmmmm

Makes one think that maybe they were looking for a military foothold in preparation to do something about the other threats in the region.

I hate it when a glimmer of reason shines through all the lies. While I'm in no way suggesting this justifies any of the Iraq war (and we all know there are other reasons, i.e. steal oil, lack of paternal gratification during childhood, impotency?), it just makes me wonder what is so bad about laying some real reasons on the table for the people and letting us base out opinion on the truth. Hell, maybe we would have said "Hell yeah steal their oil!" or even agreed that with a plan of suppressive presence.

I am waxing hypothetical here not expressing personal viewpoints. Most likely we would have said, "Hell no! Stop you bastard" Just like we did, but at least we would all know why for sure.

[NewJeffCT]

2. grave, immediate, urgent, unique...

if there was an adjective, they used it somehow.

[Skink]

3. Fienstein left us awhile ago.

[Harry S Truman]

4. Nuke Iran now

Might as well - no one will stop these imperialist clowns any more, certainly not the paid-for media.

[ClassWarrior]

6. I know Diane is kind of a big-boned gal, but does she really qualify...

...as DemocratS (plural)?

B-)

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

15. Ahhh, I see... Rupert Murdoch style posting.

It wouldn't have NEARLY the impact to say, "and a Democrat rushes to agree..."

So you report the facts in the body of the piece, but twist the headline (which most people will see) to fit your agenda.

NGU.

[leesa]

7. Yup...there go the DLCers..lining up for Israel as always!

War! War! War! Wonder how much cash Dianne will carry out this time?

[applegrove]

8. I don't want to see the bomb in the hands of any one god.

[vi5]

9. Here's the problem with this...

In the run up to the Iraq war, and with all the sabre rattling there, there were plenty of people with sensible and informed foreign policy and mideast knowledge who publically stated and asked why Bush and company were gunning for Iraq when Iran was a much graver and more immediate threat due to their theocratic government (versus Iraq's secular)and their more realistic chance of aquiring nuclear weapons.

So my guess is that there are plenty of folks on our side whose words will come back up on this to justify the sabre rattling. God, if we thought the "I'm going to put this quote up on the screen and you tell me who said it" bit that the Sunday talk shows loved was bad in the run up and after Iraq, this will be a thousand times worse. And the thing is that a nuclear Iran is legitimately a bad thing and ulike in Iraq, the Iranian government is not hiding either their anti-western/US stance or their nuclear program.

None of this justifies an invasion or dems capitulation to Bush on the subject, but it does make it a slightly different and sticky situation because of it.

My worry is more how the ignorant american public will lap it up as it's fed to them.

[thefool_wa]

10. Unfortunately

This time I think it may be a matter of the dumbf*ck that cried wolf. Iran is ramping up their nuclear program and this time it is us jumping on the UN bandwagon.

I have no idea whether they are a direct threat or if they are in fact preparing to revitalize a nuclear weapons program. I do know, though, that the basis of my opinion this time will lie with all sources other than the Bush administration's adaptation of our intelligence. BushCo has proven the old axiom about military intelligence and this time we as a military body need to take the back up role and let the UN (and UN forces if necessary) figure out what is going on then deal with Iran. In hindsight, the UN apparently had a handle on Saddam Hussein, so maybe they are an effective body after all.

The stakes are too high if they are ramping up to build nuclear weapons.

[slaveplanet]

21. hmm...

Iran is ramping up their nuclear program and this time it is us jumping on the UN bandwagon.

and where pray-tell did Iran get the nuclear technology?

This latest round of posturing and sudden urgency has nothing to do with Iran's nuclear program.

It has everything to do with the upcoming Iranian oil bourse.

http://tinyurl.com/any2m

The Real Reasons Why Iran is the Next Target:
The Emerging Euro-denominated International Oil Market
by William Clark

27 October 2004


The Iranians are about to commit an "offense" far greater than Saddam Hussein's conversion to the euro of Iraq’s oil exports in the fall of 2000. Numerous articles have revealed Pentagon planning for operations against Iran as early as 2005. While the publicly stated reasons will be over Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are unspoken macroeconomic drivers explaining the Real Reasons regarding the 2nd stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming euro-based oil Bourse.



In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes...known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

Madison’s words of wisdom should be carefully considered by the American people and world community. The rapidly deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq portends an even direr situation for American soldiers and the People of the world community - should the Bush administration pursue their strategy regarding Iran. Current geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran extend beyond the publicly stated concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions, and likely include a proposed Iranian "petroeuro system" for oil trade. Similar to the Iraq war, upcoming operations against Iran relate to the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar recycling’ and the unpublicized but real challenge to U.S. dollar supremacy from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency.....more

[thefool_wa]

22. Trying to learn

OK, so this is new information to me. If I understand correctly Iran plans to trade its oil to the world in a "euro only" market wherein anyone desiring to purchase their oil would have to do so utilizing only the euro for currency at prices set against the euro.

I don't think I know enough about global currency and macro-economics to understand this fully, but let me try this. Does it not seem that, had we not already destroyed our relationships with most of the other countries on this side of the world, we could have fought the euro-ization (my word) of the current oil market by:

1) Negotiating with other countries in the western hemisphere in an attempt to convert all of the Americas to the dollar.
2) Utilizing the supply of oil here (meaning from the southern tip of South America to the Arctic circle) to create the same type of single-currency based oil market in direct competition with this euro-market described above.

It seems (as always) that there had to be (and has to still be) solutions to this problem that don't involve the occupation of another nation, let alone two other nations. I still think that Iran has ulterior motives in restarting their nuclear program, but I also think they pose no direct threat to us (maybe our allies or deployed troops, but not us here in America). At least not until we storm their borders and give them a reason to threaten us.

Help me out here if I am way off base.

[sandnsea]

11. What else did she say?

Perhaps focusing on the alternative solution presented by Democrats would be beneficial this time around. They can't hardly say Iran is no threat after bashing Bush for not being engaged in EU/Iranian diplomatic talks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

12. I'm Sorry, But Is Iran Not A Threat?

I think Iran is one of the biggest threats in the world today. I fear we are going to come out looking like massive fools if we take too hard a stance defending Iran, as there is not much there to defend.

I don't want another war, don't want it to be based on lies, want full congressional oversight, full UN involvment, and in the event of a war an actual plan. But I can't stand up with good conscience and claim that Iran is not a threat to anybody.

[acmavm]

13. Do I personally think Iran is a 'grave' threat. Nope, not now. Do I think

that we should bomb them ala Shock and Awe? Nope I don't.

And I will say one thing here that I mean with all my heart. Just like we tell all the freepers who are so rah! rah! for the 'war' in Iraq, I'll say it to all you here who are rah! rah! for attacking Iran.

Join up. Enlist. Put your butts where your mouths are.

[kentuck]

16. Neither do I....

and I think those folks that are agreeing with Bush on this are buying into the same ol' bullshit again. Yes...let bomb them also. We know where the WMDs are. They are an imminent threat. Give me a fucking break!

[acmavm]

17. Amazing, ain't it? Whatever happened to the REAL 'fool me once'

adage? Did bush** soooooo dilute it's real message with his insane and asinine mumblings?

[seabeyond]

18. part of irans threat is five years of bush fuck up

but iran and n korea are threats. now..... are our dems to say, you know, we wont say iran is a threat, even though we know they are. and have been saying they are for a while and bush needed to get on it. and even though bush has fucked up so causing more of a threat, we are going to say they are not a threat. to pacify our base. fuck it if it gives the nation to just have more ammo on creating the dems as weak, as we be strong for our base opposing bush at every turn even when we know better, cause if we dont, then our dems will say how weak we are

my gosh......

is it a friggin day of painting dems in the corner at everyturn, blaming them for all of bush mess over and over, letting pig bush off the hook and condemning the dems to hell

f******

[spanone]

19. but, but, but our 'intelligence'. This is the EXACT BULLSHIT.

Friday on NPR some fucking EXPERT , I swear to GOD, was saying that Iran could have nukes in six months. I SWEAR TO GOD. THIS IS THE SAME SHIT. HERE WE GO AGAIN.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. So many bogeymen to "protect" us from. Eeek! Eeek!

Now that Iraq has proven not to be a "threat" but a graveyard, Bush and his apologists need to find another one to frighten the people and keep them obedient.

As usual, the VichyDems are eager to line up and wave the flag while being "concerned" about the supposed "threat".