Why are the Dem's playing stink finger with the Iran situation?

[NNN0LHI]

Don't they have their own plan? Or is their plan to let themselves get taken to the cleaners and claim stupidity again?

Here is a plan from someone who doesn't know shit about this stuff.

Give Iran all the enriched uranium they need to power their goddamn nuclear reactors free of charge. Its no great skin off our nose and could save a lot of lives. We have plenty of the stuff.

Or is the fix already in and the Dem's are in on the deal again?

Don

[bryant69]

1. So you don't think there's anything to be concerned about

with Iran getting the bomb? Or you believe they aren't trying for that?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[NNN0LHI]

3. I am saying Iran has just as much right to nuclear energy as anyone else

For the recored I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons.

Can you wrap your mind around that?

Don

[bryant69]

5. Yes. I can. But I appreciate you condescending to me.

What if they are lying to us and they use the nuclear material not to craft plants but to make bombs?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ProfessorGAC]

6. And That Threatens Us How?

Everyone with the bomb is a major threat. Why would Iran be any more of a threat than the USSR was for 40+ years? You really think Tehran will launch a first strike knowing that they will be wiped from the globe if they do? We may not appreciate their politics, but i don't think they're stupid. What purpose would be served by a show of force that results in one's own annihilation?
The Professor

[bryant69]

11. Because the person who is going to launch a nuclear attack

is not going to be motivated by reason. Whether hyper-patriotism (CF Dr. Strangelove) or religious fervor, the motivations that lead one to use the bomb aren't subject to reason.

[Bridget Burke]

16. Lots of hypotheticals there....

When, exactly, might Iran have "the bomb"? Why did WE use it?

Concern about some future development is a stupid reason to bomb, invade & (attempt to) occupy yet another country.

[bryant69]

18. That's because you are playing into the same bullshit game

that President Bush is selling.

We have two options - we can either bomb invade and occupy Iran or we can let them have the bomb. Those are our two options. So you either let Iran have the bomb or you invade. This works out well for the Neo-Cons since they want to invade and since most people aren't comfortable with Iraq getting the bomb.

Except that's not entirely true - there are dozens of other potential strategies to shift the government in Iran away from devleoping the bomb without invading.

[Bridget Burke]

35. No, I know we have more than two options.

The thread is about Dems "going along" with sabre rattling. If we don't agree with impending war, it means we aren't "concerned." (According to some.)

Diplomacy is the first choice. Trying to "shift" the Iranian government by overthrowing it is a far distant second.

[eggman67]

28. "bomb, invade & (attempt to) occupy "

Is our only option now?

[Bridget Burke]

34. According to some.

Not according to me.

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Then What Stopped The Soviets?

They weren't hypernationalistic? They were ideologically driven? Of course they were, and you know it. The people at the top of a major government are not going to be in any hurry to bring about their own anhilliation or that of their country. Being the president of a stone age parking lot is not exactly going to fulfil any geopolitical amibtion, is it?
The Professor

[bryant69]

21. They were rational

Ideology and rationality can coexist. But they do not have to.

Your basic assumption is that humans don't do crazy things. You should try reading the paper sometime to see how many crazy things we are capable of.

Obviously we can't put the genie back in the bottle for the US but we can consider keeping other nations from getting it.

[wuushew]

32. Persian culture has existed for thousands of years

it seems your racist opinion of them has not caused them destroy to Iran via other deadly forces like self-invited genocide, war or environmental destruction over the course of those many thousands of years. I submit that with such a record of at least some level of national preservation YOUR house will not be destroyed unless you are directly targeted by for a limited nuclear strike by Iran.

If you worry about such things I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn so you will not be attacked by sharks that infest the Hudson.

Since Amerika will not be destroyed by any amount of theoretical Iranian attack, I would rather worry about the very real implication of Amerikan initiated genocide as we without reason attack Iranian population centers in a immoral attempt to turn the entire country into glass.

Amerika has learned nothing from its sins in 1945. :nuke:

[bryant69]

44. I'm trying to figure out a way to respond to your allegations of racism

without this post getting banned.

Not sure it can be done.

At anyrate let me assure you I am not much more comfortable with our hand on the button - but that genie is out of the bottle.

I will suggest the need to decry opinions that disagree with yours as racism is the product of . . . .no can't do it.

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

37. Then We Will Disagree

The pursuit of power and authority is universal. Leaders at every level are leaders because they are driven to lead. The assured destruction of the very thing one wishes to lead completely invalidates the ambition in the first place.
The Professor

[bryant69]

43. Who actually has their fingers on the tirgger?

Have you ever seen Dr. Strangelove?

bryant

[eggman67]

12. "What purpose would be served...

... by a show of force that results in one's own own annihilation?"

I've been asking that question about suicide bombers for years, yet they still do it.

[NNN0LHI]

13. How many suicide bombers would there be if when they triggered...

...their explosives vest it would also trigger another bomb that would blow up there own friends and family?

Hint: Not many

There were suicide pilots during WW II also. They were called Kamikazes. If Japan hadn't ran out of planes they would have sunk our entire Pacific fleet.

On 9/11 Air National Guardsmen who were in jets without any armaments were ordered to crash their planes and themselves into any plane identified as hijacked. And they would have followed orders and done so if they could have too.

Not just Arabs will suicide themselves under certain circumstances.

Don

[eggman67]

25. Just as many I suspect

The difference is that in the case of Kamikazes and Air National Guardsmen they were serving "the state" Therefore their goal was the defense of something earthly and concrete. MAD would constitute a pyhrric victory, pointless. This is not so with religious fanatics. The scenario you describe would just get them reunited in heaven that much sooner.

If you're convinced that you'll be rewarded for taking your enemy with you, there's no disincentive.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. The Individual v. The State

An individual can be a fanatic, i completely agree. The state is run by people intent on obtaining and holding on to power. Power over an ash heap hardly seems consistent with political ambition, does it?
The Professor

[eggman67]

27. "The state is run by people intent on obtaining and holding on to power."

This is where we disagree. I think the state is run by religious fanatics who would cheerfully invite MAD.

[ProfessorGAC]

38. OK. Then We Disagree

No big deal. We don't have to agree on everything. Yes?
The Professor

[eggman67]

39. Have a beer :)

:beer:

[AlGore-08.com]

40. People intent on obtaining and holding power may not be rational

Or are you saying that Hitler and Pol Pot were not intent on obtaining and holding on to power?

Or are you saying that their government policies did not turn their countries into ash heaps?

One cannot argue that there all governments are rational.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. They Took No Action. . .

. . .they KNEW would lead to the annihilation of the country. They miscalculated greatly, to be sure. But, they did not KNOW FOR SURE that attacking Russia or France would lead to the complete destruction of the state of Germany. As disturbed as they may have been, they were rational enough to not have done anything that was assured to lead to their own destruction. The self-preservation instinct was still extant.
The Professor

[AlGore-08.com]

61. In April 1945, Hitler ordered the destruction of the remaining

infrastructure in Germany. Then he committed suicide.

You can't just say that MAD ensures that nobody will ever be crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack. We've all been lucky that - - since the Soviets developed their own nukes - - nobody with nukes has been suicidal enough to risk MAD.

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. Ah, but the Generals refused to carry out Hitler's orders.

And some have speculated that the same or worse would happen to Bush (or did happen to Nixon) if he ordered his Generals to do something equally inconsistent with the interests of preserving the integrity of the American state.

[oneighty]

15. Your blog

Your format does not fit my screen and I darned near had to re-boot to get out of it.

What is your fear of Iran having nuclear weapons even if they could develop such a weapon?

Would they build a uranium bomb or a plutonium bomb?

If so how would they deliver it on target each and every time?

Do you ever visit the American Federation of Scientists for informed information on nuclear weapons?

Fear fear fear..It is not rational.

180

[bryant69]

20. sorry my blog didn't load.

It's blogspot. It works for most people.

As for the rest of your post - I guess you are right I need to become an expert on Nuclear weapons before i can express an opinion on Iran getting the bomb. And, it follows, I need to consult the experts who express opions you agree with rather than other experts who disagree with you (and i'm not talking about bush administration experts here).

I don't know what to make of your last line except to say that there's a difference between reasonable concern and irrational fear.

[oneighty]

22. Sometimes uninformed talk

promotes fear.

Fear is what the Bush administration is using to keep fearful in line.

Wild speculation as to Iran and nuclear weapons only adds to that fear.

Stick to truths they are fearful enough.

180

[bryant69]

23. Wild speculation?

Not sure I made any. I said that the Iran government is seeking the bomb and that I'm not comfortable with them getting it.

But i suppose wild speculation is in the minds eye.

[oneighty]

24. The people rattling

the nuclear weapons that Iran is going to maybe make are using that 'speculation' to generate fear in us.

In my mind anybody selling the idea as to whether or not Iran is making a nuclear bomb and is going to use it on me is scare talk. I do not buy it.

And I will not encourage an attack on Iran just because they might make a nuclear weapon or two or three or four.

180

[bryant69]

30. Again I reerence bullshit Game the Neocons are getting us to play

There are only two choices

1. Let Iran get the bomb and do nothing to stop it.

2. Bomb, Invade and Occupy Iran.

Those are our only two choices. We can either invade Iran or we can let them get the bomb. Since you don't want to invade Iran you have decided that you have to accept them getting the bomb (or you have to pretend they aren't really trying to get it). And since I am seem unwilling to let them get the bomb, I must be fine with bombing, invading and occupying Iran.

Here's the bullshit part of this game; there are lots of things the world community (particularly Europe) can do to stop Iran from getting the Bomb. There's a whole continium of responses possible - from doing nothing all the way up to the invasion. I don't support bombing and invading Iran - I think that would be a terrible mistake, both morally and practically. But that doesn't straitjacket me to saying "OK may as well give them the bomb." Rather I wish a sensible response (not likely with this administration I admit) from our Government and Europe that will make it harder or less desirable for them to get the bomb.

Bryant

[oneighty]

33. I do not care

if Iran has nuclear weapons or do not have nuclear weapons.

It does not scare me and I ask "Why should it scare me?"

Also why does it scare you? Do you lose sleep over it?

180

[bryant69]

42. In other words, why am i such a coward?

I am not all that afraid of them blowing me up with their bomb- If i lived in New York or DC i might feel differently but even that is kind of a long shot. Rather I am concerned (which, you will note, is a different word than fear) that it will destablize the region further - Iran and Israel do not have what you would call cordial relationships.

And from what i understand a certain amount of our oil comes from that part of the world.

Bryant

[oneighty]

46. Bottom line

The mideast countries and outsiders will do whatever they damn well please. Your opinion and my opinion will not stop it.

I really do not care anymore if religious fanatics of any persuasion kill each other. If there are no nuclear bombs to fight over other reasons will be invented.

Go for it I say. Let their Gods sort it out.

180

[bryant69]

47. Interesting

Well that's your call. I don't think I can go along with let them kill each other because a lot of innocent people will die - but if your concious allows that, I guess that's your call.

Also it will be interesting to see if wuushew accuses you of racism.

[oneighty]

48. I remain curious

as to what it is you really fear?

Explain your racism remark as it concerns me?

180

[bryant69]

50. I got accused of racism above - something I take personally

You made the same argument I did, perhaps even a bit more blatently. Basically that there's a chance they will use the bomb motivated by religious fervor - this is racist because they have a civilization going back centuries and they've never done this before. It's racist of us to expect there might be bad consequences to them getting the bomb.

Allow me to say this very clearly, so you understand me. I am not motiviated by fear. I understand why you like to portray me that way. It's a good rhetorical technique. Fear is Irrational. Bryant69 is motivated by fear. Bryant69 is irrational. Very clean and simple, if a little underhanded. But I am not going to play along. I am not motivated by irrational fear, but by a rational concern for the consequences of Iran getting the bomb. OK?

[oneighty]

53. Why do you have a rational

concern with Iran getting the bomb?

Rational scientists suggest an Iran manufactured bomb is years in the future even if they do not run into unexpected problems.

There is plenty of time for diplomatic discourse.

It would be far better to pay fair money for the mideast oils than to spend it on another war don't you think?

180

[bryant69]

54. You change your story with every post

But allow me to repeat for the sake of any fucking morons who may not have gottne the point you (I don't mean you of course), I do not support invading Iran. I do not support a military solution to this problem. Nor to I favor acting like there is no problem.

But everybody can make their own choices. If you wish to beleive there is no problem, go right ahead. This is America. I can't stop you.

[MadHound]

31. How do you know that Iran is seeking a bomb?

They have not stated that they are, in fact quite the opposite, they are stating that their uranium enrichment program is for electrical generation only.

But that aside, what in the hell gives us, with thousands upon thousands of nuclear weapons, having actually used two nuclear bombs, and spreading radioactivity across the Mid East, the moral right to say who and who does not get the bomb? Last I looked, it wasn't the Iranians who were conducting an illegal, immoral war for oil, that would be us, right next door to Iran.

Besides, if Iran really, really wants a bomb, I'm sure that the Pakistanis would be more than happy to provide one to them.

Additionally, one good reason that they would want the bomb is as a deterrent. They have been thrown in with Iraq and N. Korea as the Axis of Evil. Isn't it a bit more than a coiencidence that the only country that Bushco hasn't rattled its saber at is the only one who does have nuclear weapons? Yeah, if I were Iran, I'd be wanting the bomb too, just to keep the US and Bushco honest.

Besides, it is going to take at least ten years for Iran to either develop a bomb or a nuclear plant to generate electricity. Before we go blindly into a war, don't you think that it would be a good idea to wait a few years to see exactly what Iran is actually doing with their enriched uranium? You can't hide a nuke plant, and you certainly can't hide a nuclear bomb. Why not wait to see what they do, then come down on them? Seems the logical thing to do to me.

[bryant69]

45. I do not encourage going blindly into a war, as you would know if

you took even a moment to read my other posts.

But whatever.

[MadHound]

60. I'm not saying that you're in favor of going blindly into war

What I'm asking you is twofold, first, on what do you base, other than the current Bushco hysteria being echoed throughout the lapdog media, you opinion that Iran is wanting to get a bomb. And second, even if they do want a bomb, who are we, the ones who have the most bombs in the world, who have conducted illegal after immoral war for oil, who have actually used a nuclear weapon, who are we to say no to another sovereign state?

[StClone]

10. I am with you NNNOLHI

The same media screaming "NUKES IN IRAN! NUKES IN IRAN!" is the same Rove controlled POS that let us get into Iraq. Iran has a right to nuclear energy and weapons. Who was the first to use nukes and under questionable circumstance? Which country has spread nuclear waste across Afghanistan and Iraq? If Iran feels threatened and uses Nukes I would see it as part their fault as well as our fault for foster fear and loathing through out the world with our bomb 'em all and let God sort it out moron-lunacy jingoistic oil policy.

[Tigress DEM]

66. True, but they are in bed with Cheney & Haliburton on this - see post 65

If it were just about them having nuclear energy and not about this administration's attempt to blow up the Middle East, I could meet you half way on this, but they have been setting this up for awhile.

They tried to announce last summer that we would be going to war with Iran. And they didn't get what they wanted, so they are finding another way to make it happen.

[Bigmack]

8. Everybody can "get the bomb"...

.. one way or another. I shudder to think what happened to all the tactical nukes that have disappeared in the former Soviet Bloc. There's a lot of the former Soviet scientists that have brand new jobs, too.

Bomb technology isn't secret. Everybody knows it. A nuclear weapon doesn't have to be a high-tech wonder, it can be sloppy and dirty and homemade.

Seems to me that we should offer rewards to those countries who avoid nuclear programs, and pressure countries who seek nuclear programs. ALL countries who seek nuclear programs.

That doesn't mean war, it means diplomacy and smarts... something the Bushies lack.

[oneighty]

29. I would like to see

a homemade nuclear bomb.

Yes I would.

That is scare talk too.

180

[Richard Steele]

49. It depends on your definition of "homemade", you know.

Enriching and refining uranium into bomb-grade material
is a billion-dollar undertaking, of course.

But once you have enough, building a crude nuke is pretty simple.

[oneighty]

55. Would you care to describe

a "crude nuke"?

180

[Richard Steele]

56. Describe in what sense?

Are you asking about my definition of the word "crude" in this context?
Or a description of the device itself?

[oneighty]

57. Crude

Yes a crude fission bomb. Uranium or plutonium.

And how could one know if it would actually work without testing.

180

[Richard Steele]

58. Such a device would be "Crude" in the sense...

...that it would not be as technologically advanced
as a current "state of the art" nuclear device.

It would be physically larger, requiring a van or truck for transport,
rather than a suitcase.

And the atomic blast it produces would be smaller than the blast
from a MODERN, high-tech device;
Perhaps as small as the blast which destroyed Hiroshima,
which was tiny by todays nuclear bomb standards.

As far as testing it, other people have already done that.
Some 1940-s era designs are amazingly simple and reliable.
My imaginary 'crude nuke' is large mainly due to the choice of design used.

[oneighty]

59. I will sure buy

the larger part. The little boy was in no way crude. And it was heavy. It is the type of uranium weapon supposedly developed and tested by South Africa.

It is the most likely design Iran might build. And yes they would need a big truck (Or ship) to get it to target. Iran missile will not do it.

I bet

180

[eridani]

62. I'm far more concerned with what we might do to stop them

That will be vastly more dangerous than them having the bomb. I won't like it if they do, but then I don't like it that Israel, Pakistan and India have bombs. Ditto Russia, France, Britain, China and us. BTW, it doesn't really matter in the face of the threat from Russian bombs. At the moment, they don't mean us harm, but their command and control systems have deteriorated so badly that an accident gets more probable by the day.

[still_one]

2. the later

[rucky]

4. Russia's already made a similar offer.

But I think the enriched uranium comes from the waste, which Russia offered to take off their hands. This seems like a peaceful solution, but I don't think the US is even acknowledging the talks going on right now between Russia and Iran.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Fuck Russia after seeing how they use energy as a political weapon

They had Ukraine sweating it for a while. I wouldn't trust Russia either after watching that drama unfold a couple of months ago. Nope, no way.

I realize the USA hasn't appeared to very trustworthy lately either but Russia is still much worse.

Don

[rucky]

14. USA uses weapons as a political weapon.

it's the lesser of two evils if it can avert WWIII.

[bananas]

9. fix is in

almost unanimous vote the other day
404 yea, 4 nay
http://www.kucinich.us/floor_speeches/intl_condemn_iran16feb.php
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll012.xml

[lectrobyte]

26. Stink finger? A Holy Ghost Enema would cure that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x479378

[T_Matamoro]

36. Iran wants a bomb PERIOD!

While your plan sounds great i have news for you. the Iranians dont want Uranium for 'medical purposes' or energy, they want the BOMB. The lies that they tell are just so that they can buy time and build up their defences and spread out the factories in mountains. Anyone who belives them for a second is a fool. The Russians already made that offer and it was rejected, Why? cause they want the bomb. They have the worlds second largest oil reserve, do they really need Nuclear energy? Also it's all about "respect" and "greatness" even the ANti-government students want Iran to go nuclear! Why? Cause then they think the west will have to respect them and take them seriously. Also it will prevent any invasions by anyone. But since they support Hezzbollah and the destruction of Isreal, and a lot of other crazy stuff they cannot be allowed to have the bomb. Is that really fair? Why should we have it and not them? Well world politics IS UNFAIR! it is unfair but we are protecting our interests. And if you think it's Bush warmongering again you're also wrong. All of the European countries are behind us 100% on this issue. Even the ones that hate Bush. To sit back and throw up your hands and say "we'll they are going o get it someday" this is Chambelian Appeasement! if it did'nt work with Hitler it's not gonna work with Religious fanatics.

[eridani]

63. When did you start thinking that Bush was protecting "our" interests?

By "us," he means his campaign donors, not ordinary Americans. We aren't "appeasing" Iran here, we're appeasing Israel, a country that would prefer that Iran and Iraq were wiped off the map.

Hugo Chavez is actually serving American interests by providing poor Americans with cheap heating oil this winter. There are, after all, more poor Americans than bush "Pioneers."

[PBass]

68. Keep your pants on. Iran is 10 years away from having a nuke

from what I have heard. The way to deal with Iran is through diplomacy and pressure... not just via America but via the rest of the world, too. Iran's neighbors will not want a nuke there either.

I don't see why I should be especially terrified of Iran being 10 years away from a nuke, when

-Pakistan has nukes right now
-some of the old Soviet nukes are still unsecured
-North Korea has nukes right now

Bushco is absolutely incompetent when it comes to diplomacy. (And when I say diplomacy, please don't automatically assume that means "appeasement" unless you're brainwashed. Diplomacy doesn't mean giving in, giving up, caving in, or anything of that sort.) The problem here is that Team Bush mostly doesn't believe in diplomacy, so they have no respect for it and no use for it. That is a huge handicap for our nation.

Remember this- In the end, there is always a diplomatic solution to everything. If we were to actually go to war in Iran, it would still end in a diplomatic agreement (as most every war does). The only question about diplomacy is where it occurs in the process. Shouldn't it be the first line of defense, rather than a military solution? Pre-emptive war is a disgrace, it is an utter failure of leadership, and it is completely un-American. I'm not buying into the bullshit, that a pre-emptive war is necessary. If Iran has a nuke, BIG FREAKING DEAL, we will survive. Lots of countries have nukes, including plenty of countries that are not friendly to us.

As far as nuclear energy goes, I think Iran is certainly entitled to have it and use it. I hope the world can discourage Iran from getting a nuclear weapon... via DIPLOMACY, something that has generally worked pretty well for America up until Team Dumbya took over.

[populistdriven]

41. that is Bush's plan, except delivery will be by missile

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Right before Nov. '06, Pelosi goes to

the WH and sign a Gebhardt-esqu Conkordat with the regime to take "Iran" off the table for the Nov. '06 elections.

Of course, fantasy-land can only survive for so long. No matter how shrill the lies, no matter how many times repeated, the truth always prevails!

And Iran's 850,000+ army being right on the doorstep of Iran conjures visions of Korea ca. 1950, when 350,000 Chinese troops crossed the border into N. Korea and inflicted a massive defeat on our ground forces.

[Tigress DEM]

65. Because Haliburton has been "helping them" since summer '05

If IRAN gets WMD, then there is the excuse bushco needs to start another war. It isn't about them having regular nuclear energy capabilities, but of being SET UP to be the next occupation. There is an area bordering Iraq in Iran with rich oil reserves that Bushco wants. They don't care if they have to furnish weapons to the enemy and then blow up the rest of the country to get at it either.


I've held onto a copy of this article, because we know how facts and those who report them get "disappeared" so I think our best defense is to save this stuff as individuals in as many ways as possible so we can still pass it on.

************************************************************

The basic synopsis is that after the HUGE War Protests that were virtually ignored by the press, Bushco was ready to push for invading IRAN with a timetable of June or July BUT one of those PESKY FACT BASED Reports said that IRAN was 10 years AWAY from Nuclear capability.

SO..... to get the war they wanted, Cheney sent Haliburton over to Iran, with profits from their Iraq contracts to help advance Iran's Nuclear Program so that they could become a credible threat to US. (Hello! Aiding our enemy? Treason?)

***********************************************************

Halliburton Secretly Doing Business with Key Member of Iran’s Nuclear Team
by Jason Leopold

August 5, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&cod...

<snip>
Scandal-plagued Halliburton, the oil services company once headed by Vice President Dick was secretly working with one of Iran’s top nuclear scientists on natural gas related projects and, allegedly, selling the scientists’ oil company key components for a nuclear reactor, according to Halliburton sources with intimate knowledge of both companies’ business dealings.

Just last week a National Security Council report said Iran was a decade away from acquiring a nuclear bomb. That time frame could arguably have been significantly longer if Halliburton, which just reported a 284 percent increase in its fourth quarter profits due to its Iraq reconstruction contracts, was not actively providing the Iranian government with the financial means to build a nuclear weapon.

Now comes word that Halliburton, which has a long history of flouting U.S. law by conducting business with countries the Bush administration said has ties to terrorism, was working with Cyrus Nasseri, the vice chairman of Oriental Oil Kish, one of Iran’s largest private oil companies, on oil development projects in Tehran. Nasseri is also a key member of Iran’s nuclear development team.


************************************************************

There is a lot more, including mysterious Haliburton ties to Dubai.

*************************************************************


Jason Leopold has a book coming out in May called "News Junkie" and he's done many articles for Indy Media like Salon and CounterPunch etc... for more info about Jason www.jasonleopold.com

[sandnsea]

67. That's Kerry's plan

He's been talking about that since 2004 too. But again, we'd rather cut our tongues out than refer to a Kerry plan.