When Will Bush Come Clean?

It's control of the oil and the destruction of independence by eliminating the seed bank at Abu Ghaireb. Most people shrug off the impact of controlling the food supply, the effects of transforming America to a fee based, monoculture crop system and the same in Iraq under CPA-81. Because the topic is corn or soy it's easy to think of it as a peripheral issue, not like oil but people are wrong. Control of every element is on the table.

There are alternatives to energy, however undesirable you can live without oil but you can not live without food.

From the 1994 GAO report ~

"When people are trying to kill you
and when they attack because they hate freedom,
other disputes from Frankenfood to bananas
and even important issues like the environment
suddenly look a bit different."

~ Condoleezza Rice, George H. W. Bush's National Security Adviser.

Anyone really tracking what's on Condi's list of accomplishments under Dubbya? Want to guess?

The CPA or Coalition Provisional Authority is the US- Bremmer's CPA list of laws imposed on Iraq when the occupation began. They are numbered, I believe to 100, new laws that the US set forth for the Iraqis to live by. Among them are "reforms" for banking, revenue and investment sharing for the oil and number 81 dealt with the crops. It reads like a Monsanto contract where the farmers must plant the gmo seeds and sign technology agreements to pay the fees and agree not to save seed from year to year. CPA-81 articles at Newsvine

Yes, it's the cadre of Harvard MBAs, executing a business plan, with armed soldiers to open the market.

I wonder if Bill was saying this same uninformed, ignorant rhetoric before we went into Iraq.

I didn't think the Neo-Cons would have any parrots left, but I guess there are still some servants in the Plantation.

I hope you are used to being wrong Bill.

Does anyone but other right wing goofs take anything Bill say seriously?

Well, John:

Apparently Bill Harrison doesn't want a war against Iran anymore than the rest of us do. So, Bill, tell us why you think our fears are unfounded.

Thanking you in advance, I remain

One of the few left-wingers who actually likes you (despite your insults)-- although I'm still not sure why. Oh, I know. You have terrific taste in literature.

:-)

Well Bill does like The Who so he isn't a complete loser

Bill is an enigma, John. But that's okay. He's smart. He's articulate. He also, unfortunately, suffers from an involuntary response dysfunction that causes him to level insulting epithets before he gets to his point.

That being said, he occupies a place on the political spectrum that, even with binoculars, we might not be able to discern from where we sit.

On the other hand, I'm mystified by his taste in literature and, as you pointed out, music. The messages that he so appreciates in art are actually quite revolutionary.

I'm baffled but I refuse to write the guy off. And anyway, he may bail us out of those detention centers that KBR is building in the U.S. if we're nice to him.

:-)

do you think hitler listened to polka versions of country songs??(sorry had to think of someone we all agree is bad and hopefully music noone would like)
Bush likes the beatles, condi led zepplin.
Bush is an avid reader.
Eh you can judge peoples charecter by taste and no brad I'm not comparing you to hitler, just saying just cause we agree with music doesnt mean it is starnge to disagree with politics.
Heck Hilter painted very nice paintings.. that before i had seen them i would have thought they would be dark and scarey, perhaps of dead people, blood, monsters.. but they are actually quite light, cheerful and colorful. It is in stark contrast of who the man really was.

Look. As I've been saying now for months, the administration has not and will not attack Iran. If war gaming, contigency plans and sallying a carrier group were proof positive of an imminent attack we would have been at war with the PRC a half dozen times in the last decade or so. None of this is say we should or shouldn't but in my cold calculation of likely cost/benefit, cost outweighs benefit. Any benefits would be fleeting as all a sustained bombing attack would accomplish is setting back but not eliminating Iran's enrichment of uranium necessary to produce a weapon. But there's a huge cost downside in the form, inter alia, of a huge spike in crude oil prices, possible temporary closure of the Straits of Hormuz and Hizbullah attacks worldwide including right here at home and alienating the most pro-American population in the region in the form of Iran's youth.

You guys need to stop reading too much into every Sy Hershian fantasy (Sy's been saying war with Iran is imminent now for going on a year and a half) and thinking you hear a flight of B-2s warming up everytime Dick Cheney breaks wind.

BTW, Killfile has accepted my wager of $100 that we will not attack Iran. If I lose I have to donate to the political candidate of his choice. If he loses, he has to buy $100 in shares of either "big oil" or Halliburton.

Hamid, I'm counting on you to be the middleman on this ;>0.

It would appear that the gremlins of Newsvine swalled my post so I shall repeat it. The administration has not and will not attack Iran. If evidence of an imminent attack took the form of sallying a carrier group, war gaming/planning or making ambiguous allusions to "serious consequences" we would have been at war with the PRC a half dozen times in the last twenty-five years.

No, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis and the potential costs far outweigh the benefits. The only benefit to a sustained bombing campaign would be temporarily setting back but not eliminating Iran's uranium enrichment program. The potential costs are: 1) a sure spike in crude oil prices, 2) possible temporary closure of the Straits of Hormuz making cost no. 1 infinitely more costly and 3) alienating the most pro-American population in the region.

You guys need to stop getting a case of the vapors every time Sy Hersh twitches. Hell, he's been saying war with Iran is imminent now for going on eighteen months. I guess his definition of imminent differs from mine. And quit thinking you hear a flight of B-2s taxiing for takeoff with full bomb loads everytime Dick Cheney breaks wind.

BTW, Killfile has accepted my $100 wager that Bush will not attack Iran. If he wins I have to donate that amount to the presidential candidate of his choosing. If I win he has to buy $100 in shares of "big oil".

Hamid, I'm counting on you to be the middleman in this transaction. ;>0

LOL. I hope Santa brings you guys some double-ply rubber sheets for Christmas.

Improving the quality of your comments I see Bill. As always the references you have to draw on are so keen.

Isn't it also that the Iranian ruler is a nut? I mean, people with power who are a little scary can end up causing a huge fight

The President of Iran is not given the same priviledge to start a war as our President. {Check Iran Gov.} As the President of Israel is not the Prime Minister an has little power as well. So don't fret.

How many kinds of bombs an bullets do you figure will do the trick?
If you could give us a number .....it sure would make defusing hatred an bitterness an easier task.

Remember this Rebecca?

These are very true points, and it's a difficult position to poke at. I'm sorry to sound old fashioned, but I kind of adopt the principle of 'fruit don't fall far from the tree'. I look at my liberty, and my ability to change so much, and I compare it with the rights and abilities of an Iranian (obligatory wikipedia reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Iran ). The economy also has issues there. But we'd be skirting the issue by evaluating politicians. The real issue is... should we be fighting Iran? I think on the grounds that the Iranian president is a rather scary guy that the least we can do is put pressure on them. After all, if their government works, then the mullahs of the "Assembly of Experts" should start to put some balances and checks on him. If we do outright attack Iran, I'll definitely take a more stern view on this... but politics is full of bluffs and lies, like you said. I can't say I'm very pleased with our government on several issues... and several ones that are close to home come to mind. But it stands by me, at least, that currently I'm only mildly upset with the findings about the nukes. I think they still have ample reason to attack this guy and Iranian government. If the US shows prejudice against the people of Iran, that's also a different story... and much more gruesome. I hope I NEVER see that.

Why Iran then, there are scarier people about. What about the Saudis? How are their human rights? Oh of course these human rights abusers are America's friends - hush my mouth.

Funny video, David! I'd forgotten about it. It's well worth a return visit. And good point about the Saudis. But they're OUR friends. Besides, they have a whole lot of dough invested in the U.S.

Oh, and by the way, why was the bin Laden family allowed to fly out of America immediately following 9/11?

Since I know how some of you guys feel about Michael Moore and his film, I thought I'd cite what you consider a credible source. From the National Review, no less:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp

If the US shows prejudice against the people of Iran, that's also a different story... and much more gruesome. I hope I NEVER see that.

jj?

I admire your honesty while I don't share your all of opinions. However, the terrible thing about war--any war-- is that innocents are the ones who suffer most. The greed and machinations of their leaders create the conflict but once the fury is unleashed, civilians are those who are ultimately devastated by the wages of war. It's inevitable. Bush and Cheney--the masterminds (okay, just Cheney) remain forever safe. While they cheer young people into war, they personally have nothing to lose. You'll notice that they aren't sending their own children into the fray. Even the Congress is failing to hold the administration responsible.

The Iraqi death toll, according to a British polling service, is projected to have reached the 1 million mark:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/uk-poll-consistent-with-1_b_64475.html

The death toll for Americans, including suicides after these soldiers return home, is much higher than the official reports delivered by the White House and the U.S. military. The military cites numbers based only on individuals killed on Iraqi soil. Those who die in German hospitals, after being transported out of the country, as well as those who, suffering trauma, despair and depression, commit suicide once they're back in the States, don't figure into these statistics.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney11172007.html

So, while your hope that somehow, some way, a strike against Iran will target only sites (if there are any and we've been told there aren't) but not people is an unrealistic one.

Universal disarmament is the way to go. But believe me, the United States is not going to voluntarily relinquish its massive stash.

These are frightening times.

Wrong once again Rob

Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1788542,00.html

Wrong once again Rob
Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

Well beyond your entertainment with Eric's rhetoric rob, is the point that your position is still untenable!

"the regime occupying Jerusalem must be wiped away from the page of time"

This IMO is not about destroying Israel at all.
Because according to most nations, Jerusalem is not part of Israel Proper . The "regime" is the present Likud /Kedima party running what they {Iran, an the rest of the world} consider to be an illegal occupation of that city.

Amedinutjob said he wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth , and Israel won't likely sit back until he has the means to do it!

The country of Israel is not mentioned,an this seems to be a rather "fast an loose" translation to alter the meaning.

[ Like the Bush/Repub/Neocon "regime" occupation of Iraq ]

Wiping away/ Getting rid of "Bush /Cheney n Co." will not require a destruction of the USA either........

{ Lol - I hope ! }

hamid.nyc

gpnavonod,
That's an excellent point, he never did say he wanted to wipe Israel off the map or world, but once the rumor got out it spread like wildfire, and it also feeds into the xenophobic mentality as a justification

Even though I feel Jerusalem really should belong to Israel. It means more to them [Jews] than any others [Muslims,Christians], an without their [Jews] "previous ownership" it would mean nothing to the others.
That being said, the "message" here is being tailored to the" prearranged policy of attacking Iran."

Thanks hamid, that feels good, but usually when I say something like that people usually look at me funny, or if they want to listen and I go further and afterwards they are like oh well what can little ole me do about it. But I must say people are responding to the message a little more. I hate PNAC and Neocons. It is not just liberals that see this stuff and are upset by it conservatives such as I are too.

I think a lot in the media are also beholden to this agenda or are manipulated by it as well, thus making it easier for the public to be blinded. I don't think what is happening is a vast conspiracy by a large amount of people, few are carrying it out and just enough are in key positions to make it happen, from media, military, business, education, and of course government.

Yes I have been a follower of alt. media sources for a while now (in my young life, lol) and Newsvine, since I have been apart of it has shown me a little more or a different side as well.

hamid...That's exactly what's going on, it's the Neocon agenda set forth in 1997.

You can go much farther back into the Iran Contra scandal or Watergate or Kennedy killings, even the McCarthy side show of the HUAC and find the same names. Cheney and Nixon and the Bush family are all the same players now as then. This corruption, as an integral part of America's secret establishment, has its roots in the Dulles OSS, drawing the Bonesmen from Yale to create an officially sanctioned covert arm of government. From Operation Paperclip and MK-Ultra to the 9/11 coup with Pinochet to the 9/11 of our time, the crimes have just blossomed. It's all the same %$#@ it is rooted in. All the same families reaping the benefits

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and Scooter Libby. What a coincidence that they would all end up in the White House just 4 years later?

Let's not forget: John {Screw the U.N.} Bolton ,
Norman {The Bomber}Podhoritz
Jean KILLpatrick, Elliot Abrams. .....an more on who's who at THE PNAC REUNION,

Now Playing in the DC Beltway Theater.

It makes you wonder about all the backroom deals and underhanded tactics that were used to win the 2000 election to install this administration. I mean, what are the odds...

You're givin' me nightmares, hamid-

Two-thirds of Israelis oppose attack on Iran: poll
Dec 6 - Seeded by 0boySource: Yahoo! News
When asked "should Israel alone attack the Iranian nuclear installations," 67.2 percent said no, while 20.9 percent said yes and 11.9 percent had no opinion, said the survey aired on public radio.

So in what "World "is their [Israel's] government?
Probably.... in the same one ours is, as of late..... [Bizzaroworld].

rob...What do you think it means when the Security Council has already authorized two sets of sanctions against Iran,

What does it mean when the UN opposed the invasion of Iraq or they all sign the Kyoto Treaty or all ban land mines or all sign the Biodiversity initiatives and the US is the lone voice of dissent? What this means is we've bought off someone. The US has no respect for the United Nations that's why Bolton's there, as muscle!!

Further Rob, China (with two new coal-powered powerplants coming online each week) has not signed onto Kyoto either and John Bolton's been long-gone from the UN. Looks like someone's again a little short on facts -- again.

Resolution 1441 was most prominent during the run up to the war and formed the main backdrop for Secretary of State Colin Powell's address to the Security Council one month before the invasion.[69] At the same time, Bush Administration officials advanced a parallel legal argument using the earlier resolutions, which authorized force in response to Iraq's 1991 invasion of Kuwait. Under this reasoning, by failing to disarm and submit to weapons inspections, Iraq was in violation of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 660 and 678, and the U.S. could legally compel Iraq's compliance through military means.
Critics of the legal rationale based on the U.N. resolutions argue that the legal right to determine how to enforce its resolutions lies with the Security Council alone, not with individual nations. [70][71][72] These critics have also pointed out that the statements of U.S. officials leading up to the war indicated their belief that a new Security Council Resolution was required to make an invasion legal. For example, to secure Syria's vote in favor of U.N. Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that "there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq. "[73] [an we also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn]
The U.S. and Britain's second major legal argument justifying the invasion was that Iraq's behavior presented a growing threat to the U.S. that warranted "preemptive" or "preventive" self-defense. Many opponents of the Bush policy criticized this justification, arguing that preemptive wars are of questionable legality under international law and violate the U.N. Charter. These opponents further argued that even if a preemptive war were legal, Iraq did not pose a sufficiently immediate threat[74] to the U.S. and thus the invasion was a preventive war, which clearly violates international law.[ 75] Several prominent groups of international lawyers endorsed a statement that the U.S. invasion was "a fundamental breach of international law (that) would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War."[76] This opinion was echoed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said in September 2004, "From our point of view and the" UN Charter point of view", it (the war) was illegal."[77

Are you sure the Security Council opposed our invasion of Iraq? In fact, the Security Council didn't even hold a vote to condemn our invasion of Iraq!

Blair didn't want a vote in the Security Council ....cause if it failed..... they [Britain] would be breaking their own laws by participating in premptive hostilities against Iraq.
The only two "yahoos" in the Security Council were "USA n Britain"

or Their Hijackers "Bush n Blair"...not exactly a winning number, is it?

So they just went off to war on their own.

Rob - the only way the UN can be effective, just as the only way Democracy can be effective, is if the constituents are willing to buy into it. If our government is not willing to listen to the UN, there is no way it will be effective no matter what the security council or secretary general says, just as if Iraqis don't want to have our idea of democracy forced onto them, there is no way that will work either.

The right went nuts when the UN told Bush he was breaking the law when he lied to invade Iraq. They have never gotten over that.

That's exactly why the US won't recognize the International Court of Justice.

Rob - from the standpoint of getting anything done, I agree, the current UN set-up is not working. I think the idea behind it was right though. I'm not sure what should be done to make it work better. The idea of the UN and an overarching governing body seems to be a good idea, but it doesn't seem very practical, since economics are really what drive people and 'rule' at the end of the day. Whether or not the UN is the most effective organization, I feel like it's leaning toward good because it's at least trying to do something for good and peace and gives less powerful nations a voice.

rob
You must admitt.....the following is: "Pure Unadulterated Bullchips" or simply put ...."LIES"

These critics have also pointed out that the statements of U.S. officials leading up to the war indicated "their belief that a new Security Council Resolution was required "to make an invasion legal. For example, to secure Syria's vote in favor of U.N. Resolution 1441, Secretary of State Powell reportedly advised Syrian officials that "there is nothing in the resolution to allow it to be used as a pretext to launch a war on Iraq "[73]
[an we also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn.The Syrians left a down payment.]

The U.S. and Britain's second major legal argument justifying the invasion was that Iraq's behavior presented a growing threat to the U.S. that warranted "preemptive" or "preventive" self-defense

However, I do agree that the SC needs work.

I have no doubt Bush wanted Sadddam gone, one way or another, probably within a month or two after we threw out the taliban from Afghanistan.

Wrong again.
He wanted Saddam out before 9/11 even happened:

Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

http://www.russbaker.com/Guerrilla%20News%20Network%20-%20Bush.htm

The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

When Will Bush Come Clean?
When we give him some soap and a waterboard.

Encore! .....ENCORE!