« BCS or Playoffs for College Football? | Main | Durbin Asks Kos Kids For Help Setting Senate Agenda »

Iranian Parliament Wants Regime Change...In Iran

Reformist members of parliament are collecting signatures to impeach Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad:

Iranian reformist lawmakers have started collecting signatures in Parliament to demand the impeachment of the country's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So far, 38 signatures have been collected out of the 72 required to formally summon Ahmadinejad and request his impeachment. Noureddin Pirmouzen, a deputy with the reformist minority, says it is nonetheless "positive to question" the head of the executive branch.

"Many actions of the current government and of president Ahmadinejad have led the country to an extremely worrying political and economic situation," Pirmouzen told the Iranian news website Aftab.


Referring to a resolution of the UN Security Council unanimously approved on 23 December which imposes sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear programme, the MP said "it is the last straw which has made Iranians loose their patience." The international community fears Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and has repeatedly asked the government to halt sensitive nuclear work - a demand ignored by Tehran which claims its programme is solely for civilian use.

"Parliament cannot sit still in front of the current situation and watch as the economy worsens because of the government's inability," he added.

These members of parliament are not thrilled with Ahmadinejad's obsession with a nuclear program:

Iranian reformist parliamentarians on Saturday blamed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government for failing to prevent United Nations sanctions.


The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously on December 23 to impose sanctions on Iran's trade in sensitive nuclear materials and technology in an attempt to stop uranium enrichment work that could produce material that could be used in bombs.

Iran says it wants nuclear power to generate electricity.

Reformist former President Mohammad Khatami suspended Iran's nuclear work for more than two years in an effort to build confidence and avoid confrontation with the West, but Ahmadinejad's government resumed uranium enrichment in February last year.

"The only way to pass the crisis is to build confidence...but a holding Holocaust conference and financing the Hamas government creates mistrust and tension," Noureddin Pirmoazzen, the spokesman of parliament's reformist faction, told Reuters.

We may not have to deal with Ahmadinejad because his parliament just may do that for us, if these reformers are serious that is. Hopefully there are enough Iranian reformers to get the 72 signatures. Even if there isn't, however, having this news splashed all over the world, and hopefully Iran, is not good for Ahmadinejad.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Iranian Parliament Wants Regime Change...In Iran:

» Bill's Bites linked with Impeach who?

Comments (96)

Hopefully there are enou... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Hopefully there are enough Iranian reformers to get the 72 signatures. Even if there isn't, however, having this news splashed all over the world, and hopefully Iran, is not good for Ahmadinejad.

I agree with you completely Kim. The reformist thinkers in Iran need to take the reigns away from extremists like Ahmadinejad.

I'm not surprised that the ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I'm not surprised that the sanctions imposed on Iran by the UN were effective.

Referring to a resolution of the UN Security Council unanimously approved on 23 December which imposes sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear programme, the MP said "it is the last straw which has made Iranians loose their patience."

Let the conservative stammering begin....

From Kim's 8/26/06 post, located here:

The UN has placed a deadline of August 31 for Iran to stop enriching uranium. If Iran fails to do so, the UNSC will be forced to do a lot of public blustering while not forcing Iran to pay serious consequences.

We shoudda nuked them when we had the chance! - DAMN - now it looks like we won't get an opportunity to send our sons and daughters into Iran to die!

Don't you guys just hate that?

Um, Lee, no one has suggest... (Below threshold)

Um, Lee, no one has suggested that, and certainly no one has suggested that military force is a pleasant option. So much for that.

All we have here (and it's a good thing) is some rebellious lawmakers in Iran's parliament. The president has an internal fight, which he may win or lose. That's all. If Ahmadinejad wins internally, we still have a big problem, one the UN will most likely deal with in their traditional matter: "strong letter to follow."

If he's impeached it would ... (Below threshold)

If he's impeached it would save everybody a whole lot of trouble!

Lee,Yes, the threa... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

Yes, the threat of sanctions likely played an integral role in this turn about.

Perhaps the U.S. Carrier Strike Group sent to the region in Novemeber in addition to Israel's talks about bombing Iran had something to do with it as well.

As we all know people don't fear cruise missles nearly as much as they fear the prospect of having to eat Raman Noodles for a few years.

It would be fair to consider all the forces that may be at play to spur this development rather than just one.

What are the chances that t... (Below threshold)
BigFire:

What are the chances that those who've sign the petition are literally signing their own arrest warrant? Rules are funny when the other guys don't play by them.

Watch for stories on the 't... (Below threshold)
Hermie:

Watch for stories on the 'trials' of 38 'former' members of the Iranian parliament, and their subsequent 'punishments'.

"What are the chances th... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"What are the chances that those who've sign the petition are literally signing their own arrest warrant?"

If that is the case, and the signers are indeed risking a lot to speak up, then it sounds like the Iranians are not the enemy some conservatives would like us to believe.

If that is the case, and... (Below threshold)

If that is the case, and the signers are indeed risking a lot to speak up, then it sounds like the Iranians are not the enemy some conservatives would like us to believe.

So if Ahmadinejad puts the signers to death, you think that's proof positive of Iran (as represented by the lunatic government which would do such a thing) is not a big threat.

OK.

If only people like Lee car... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

If only people like Lee cared enough about the million + babies the libs help murder every year.

You almost make it sound like you really do care, but we know this is one of the few places libs actually get some attention.

Right, John. It would prove... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Right, John. It would prove that Ahmadinejad is the threat, not the Iranians.

What I said: "If that is the case, and the signers are indeed risking a lot to speak up, then it sounds like the Iranians are not the enemy some conservatives would like us to believe."

I'm confident thinking adults can tell the difference between the actions of one nutcase like Ahmadinejad, and the actions of the Iranian people, as represented by the signedrs of the petition - especially now that we see a large number of Iranians are willing to publicly stick their necks out to speak up against Ahmadinejad.

We shoudda nuked ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
We shoudda nuked them when we had the chance

Lee,

We know full well that when anyone mentions the road we are headed with Iran you intentionally twist it to the assumption that is what the writer wants, i.e... "War with Nukes".

In fact you are the only commenter here I have ever read that advocated the use of preemptive nukes.

Just so that everyone knows, Lee here advocated nuking Afghanistan to kill OBL.

Don't you just hate that we didn't do that?

BTW, conservative Americans have said all along that many Iranian people are pro-west and want reform. In fact when your allies the Palestinians were dancing in the streets on 9-11, Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in solidarity with the U.S.

It would prove that Ahma... (Below threshold)

It would prove that Ahmadinejad is the threat, not the Iranians.

Well, duh. But unfortunately, it's generally the government that matters most in international relations and military affairs.

No one goes around saying the Iranian PEOPLE are the enemy. They say "mad mullahs" or some such. The leadership is the problem; they've got the bombs.

Iranians were holding ca... (Below threshold)

Iranians were holding candlelight vigils in solidarity with the U.S.

I remember that. Very, very cool. The Iranian government was NOT happy, as you might guess!

"Just so that everyone k... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Just so that everyone knows, Lee here advocated nuking Afghanistan to kill OBL."

Actually I said we should have nuked Osama bin Laden in his Afghanistan cave, not the nation of Afghanistan -- but this is another fine point that seems to be easily lost on the broad-brush conservatives. Israel is currently reportedly considering the use of specific targeted bunker-busing nukes to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. I believe we should have used that same targeted capability to take out bin Laden back when we had the chance, back when the world was on our side in the war on terror, and we hadn't screwed over our allies by dragging them into an unjust war.

...but we all know that the Republicans have never been interested in taking out OBL - OBL is the great boogey man that the Republicans used to scare middle-americans like JumpinJoe into re-electing their sorry, corrupt asses.

Heralder wrote:... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Heralder wrote:

It would be fair to consider all the forces that may be at play to spur this development rather than just one.

Good point there Heralder; I agree. We can't just selectively endorse certain forces just because we hope or believe that they are better. We gotta try to see what's really influencing events.

Lee wrote:

I'm confident thinking adults can tell the difference between the actions of one nutcase like Ahmadinejad, and the actions of the Iranian people, as represented by the signedrs of the petition - especially now that we see a large number of Iranians are willing to publicly stick their necks out to speak up against Ahmadinejad.

Lee is making a good point as well, namely that we cannot assume that all Iranians support the likes of their current president. And we can't pretend to know the intentions of the entire populace of Iran based upon what some of their leaders go around saying. Does George Bush voice the opinion of all Americans? No. Does Nancy Pelosi voice the opinions of all Americans. Again, no. Kerry? Nope. Cheney? No deals. You get the point.

John wrote:

So if Ahmadinejad puts the signers to death, you think that's proof positive of Iran (as represented by the lunatic government which would do such a thing) is not a big threat.

I think what Lee is trying to point out is the fact that there are elements that disagree with the current leadership in Iraq, and that this is a good sign. That means that the monolithic idea of an all encompassing "Evil Iran" might not be the best way to think about the whole place.

yes, the current leadership of Iran is a threat, but there are also more moderate forces in the country...and they had more control in Iran after the Iran/Iraq war. Things were relatively moderate in Iran during parts of the 90s. More recently, they have once again taken a more radical turn for the worse. But that doesn't mean they everyone inside Iran is some radical American hating terrorist.

I believe we should have... (Below threshold)

I believe we should have used that same targeted capability to take out bin Laden back when we had the chance, back when the world was on our side in the war on terror,

If you think the world would be nice to us about using nukes in that situation, you live in a dream world. Even if we hit the right target--never a 100% guarantee--somebody uninvolved will probably end up dead, which many people. On top of that, we'd have endless anti-nuclear demonstrations worldwide and endless talk about increased cancer rates and such (the charges don't have to be true: see Vieques and depleted uranium "controversies").

And there'd be people on your side saying "we could have done it another way, we alienated the world..." ad nauseum.

Amazing isn't it? Iranians... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Amazing isn't it? Iranians are holding their leader accountable under Sharia law but we in a democracy won't.


Unfriggin believable........


Foolish Americans.......

I think what Lee is tryi... (Below threshold)

I think what Lee is trying to point out is the fact that there are elements that disagree with the current leadership in Iraq, and that this is a good sign. That means that the monolithic idea of an all encompassing "Evil Iran" might not be the best way to think about the whole place.

Except no one says that! It's a strawman. When you're talking about international relations saying the Iranians or the Israelis or the Americans usually does not imply the whole population; it's talking governments. Context is key here, and most people don't have a problem figuring out which is which.

Well, isn't this just speci... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Well, isn't this just special, Kim!

Here we have a potentially positive development in Iran w/ the possible impeachment of Ahmadinejad and we have silly Reuters go off and say sometjing like, "Reformist former President Mohammad Khatami suspended Iran's nuclear work for more than two years in an effort to build confidence and avoid confrontation with the West"

Let me see, when was President Khatami president of Iran? Up until August of 2005, as a matter of fact.

But we all know that it was in the January 2002 SOTU message that the great and almighty untutored-in-foreign-affairs Bush declared Iran to be an equal branch in the "Axis of Evil."

You see, W's speechwriter that year, David Frumm from the PNAC/neo-con cabal, among others, tossed the Chimp that banana of a line, "Axis of Evil," and the untutored and unvarnished Prez dutifully "ate" the banana in front of the entire nation, and the world as well, in January 2002.

My, my, my...and all the time Iran had a "reformist" president. Too bad Khatami hadn't sent the Prez a basket of bananas on the eve of his SOTU address. History might have had a different outcome.

On a final note, the rest of the World would undoubtedly be relieved if we here in the US made it a double-impeachment date.

Lee,Actua... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

Actually I said we should have nuked Osama bin Laden in his Afghanistan cave, not the nation of Afghanistan

Not that this thread is about how to best take out Bin Laden...but to use a targeted low-yield nuke, you need a target.

If we had known what cave he was in, a daisycutter would have done the job.

Regardless, Israel hasn't been overly clandestine about their contingency plans versus Iranian reactors.

They've taken action against Iraq's facilities in the past, and I highly doubt Iranian parliment wants to see their country bombed in the same fashion.

But what will Lee do withou... (Below threshold)

But what will Lee do without his ally Ahmadinejad ?

Actually I said w... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Actually I said we should have nuked Osama bin Laden in his Afghanistan cave, not the nation of Afghanistan

What the eff is the difference?

Detonating a nuke within the border of Afghanistan is still nuking Afghanistan.

And not to mention the fact those caves OBL is hiding in are next to Pakistan, which BTW has nukes themselves.


OBL is the great ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
OBL is the great boogey man that the Republicans used to scare middle-americans like JumpinJoe into re-electing their sorry, corrupt asses

Wow Lee, how did you figure out the Republicans true intentions of keeping OBL alive to scare little ole me.

Man oh Man, you are way to sharp.

And maybe, just maybe, we can keep the reformers held down in Iran so we can eventually get a new war to line the pockets of the military industrial complex. And the oil companies too.

Your posts today are nothing but a bunch of frigg'in moonbat crap.

The reformers were well on ... (Below threshold)
blackcat77:

The reformers were well on their way to success before Bush started making threats. That gave impetus to the radicals. Thankfully now it seems that the people of Iran are rejecting those nutballs, but we lost three years in the process.

"What the eff is the dif... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"What the eff is the difference?"

I realize the distinction is lost on you, JumpinJoe, but that isn't my fault, or my problem to fix. It would have been done with the knowledge and consent of the Afghanistan government, JJ, or it wouldn't have happened at all. That's how it works-- we would not have "nuked Afghanistan".

Heralder: "Not that this thread is about how to best take out Bin Laden...but to use a targeted low-yield nuke, you need a target.

If we had known what cave he was in, a daisycutter would have done the job."

In the period following 9/11 we had the support of the world in hunting down bin Laden - I believe up to and including the use of tactical, targeted nukes. I'm not suggesting that was the best or only way, just that it was an opportunity that has since been lost.

I've said it before - we should have done anything and everything to hunt down and eradicate OBL from the face of the earth. I'm not saying the nukes were necessary, but if called for we would have been justified in using that degree of force.

aRepukelican,Nice ... (Below threshold)
Robert:

aRepukelican,

Nice update. I guess that shows you what happens when the US elects an f'n moron as President.

Who knew?

..So reformists are calling... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

..So reformists are calling for the impeachment of an elected leader? They should be derided as MOONBATS!!!

That's how it wor... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
That's how it works-- we would not have "nuked Afghanistan

By far one of the dumbest things I've ever read on this blog.

No matter where your nuke was detonated the fall out would have rained down somewhere there so no matter what, no one was going to give permission for the go ahead especially from a government that didn't exist yet.

Trust me Lee, when someone makes a brilliant point, usually someone will come along to give accolades (not sock puppets either) and in this case you should be feeling pretty lonely with the nuk'em strategy.


Nice buncha monday morning ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Nice buncha monday morning q b'ing by the resident lefties here. Is there ANY thing they don't know or problem they can't solve?

There will be no impeachmen... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

There will be no impeachment, but one day there may very well be an assasination (several attempts have been reported).

However it happens, we don't dare rely on it, and avoid preparing for other eventualities.

By the way, whoever posted that somehow Bush forced the Iranians to be more extreme is a blithering idiot, but you all already figured that out, I know. Shock--it wasn't just Lee!

By the way, whoev... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
By the way, whoever posted that somehow Bush forced the Iranians to be more extreme is a blithering idiot, but you all already figured that out, I know. Shock--it wasn't just Lee

A lot of these lefties just jumped on a knee jerk bandwagon. Iran is run by the hard line Guardian Council that is allowed to decide who can or cannot run for election.

Many reformers were barred by the council from running in the last election.

President Bush was absolutely correct in identifying Iran as part of the Axis of Evil.

It would be fair to con... (Below threshold)
marc:

It would be fair to consider all the forces that may be at play to spur this development rather than just one.
:: by Heralder on January 9, 2007 1:05 PM ::

Certainly true Heralder, however that wouldn't give the best opportunity for Lee to pull an old quote of 5 months ago. Makes you wonder if Lee has these quotes saved in a directory for use.

As far as Ahmadinejihadist goes, why are so many panties in a bunch over a figure head?

It's well known the population of Iran are generally pro-West and have been looking to improve relations.

What's better understood is Ahmadinejihadist and all that preceded him and after 1979 are nothing more than figureheads, puppets and bobbleheads speaking the party line of the mullahs.

Until the mullahs disappear or change their ways nothing will be solved in Iran.

Look at it this way, if sim... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Look at it this way, if simply calling a nation part of an Axis of Evil causes the leader of that nation to fly off the handle and threaten to wipe other countries off the map...then it shows a great deal of instability in the first place.

The whole "Bush caused radicalism by calling someone evil" mantra is pretty ridiculous.

Khatami, reformist?<p... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Khatami, reformist?

Iran did a decent job advancing its nuke program through the '90s and right through Khatami's employment as executive. Some reformist.

I agree marc,The m... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I agree marc,

The mullahs are the key to a better Iran.

Well, Mitchell, Bush certa... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Well, Mitchell, Bush certainly aggravated the Iranian situation w/ his war of choice in Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11. You may have been to swooned w/ the jingoism, but the Iranians were watching and they knew that Iraq

But, of course, the untutored-in-foreign-affairs Bush had already aggravated the situation when he spit out the PNAC neo-con maniac Frumm's line, "Axis of Evil" in his 2002 SOTU address.

That, coupled w/ his Iraqi invasion according to PNAC strategy would certainly have alarmed Iranians as to Bush's intentions and likely did play a part in the Iranian determination to refine nuclear fuel with an idea to weapons development.

With all the Bush neo-con PNAC blather coming out of the Bush regime, Iran had every reason to assume that the US had hostile intentions towards their nation.

That alone, could have been sufficient to promote the election of Ahmadinejad.

That, coupled w/ ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
That, coupled w/ his Iraqi invasion according to PNAC strategy would certainly have alarmed Iranians as to Bush's intentions and likely did play a part in the Iranian determination to refine nuclear fuel with an idea to weapons development

Well, Iran sitting on huge oil deposits did say their nuclear program was for peaceful energy purposes.

Spending billions on this peaceful energy while many Iranians stay very poor seems very logical I assume even though they already have plenty of fuel.

But it is a chance to blame Bush so I guess to the common moonbat lefty Iran's kum-by-ya swinging peace-nik nuke program evolved to a weapons program because they got called a name.

I wonder what prompted them to claim Israel needed to be removed from the face of the earth. They must have made a face at Iran.

The lefties here really have degenerated to a DU level.

"Iranians are holding th... (Below threshold)
cmd:

"Iranians are holding their leader accountable. . .but we in a democracy won't."

Except we do, Puke. They're called elections. You know, the things that are stolen from you when you lose, but are mandates of the popular will when you win?

Christ on a crutch, you make Lee and his "we had the sympathy of the world" bullshit sound like a grad school dissertation.

Just so I'm clear here. If ... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Just so I'm clear here. If you are called an axis of evil by GWB then you are right in protecting yourself? Soooo why doesn't this logic apply when it was Iraqi and Iranian leaders saying Death to America throughout history? Do we not have the same self preservation rights as the "Axis of Evil"?

aRepukelican:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

aRepukelican:

That, coupled w/ his Iraqi invasion according to PNAC strategy...

Since you've been avoiding me in the other thread, perhaps you could answer here just what the PNAC has to do with government policy.

Try do do so without the use of the following words:

Conspiracy
Untutored
Hegemony
Neocon
Cabal

Good luck, as that removes a full third of your vocabulary.

Herlader: Look at it thi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Herlader: Look at it this way, if simply calling a nation part of an Axis of Evil causes the leader of that nation to fly off the handle and threaten to wipe other countries off the map...then it shows a great deal of instability in the first place."

Ahmadinejad wasn't the leader of Iran when Bush made the statement -- he was the Mayor of Tehran. He was elected President after Bush put Iran on the "we're gonna get you next" list, and if you think Bush threatening Iran didn't play a part in Ahmadinejad's election as President, you're mistaken.

Ahmadinejad was the only presidential candidate who spoke out against future relations with the United States. Also, in an interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting a few days before the elections, Ahmadinejad accused the United Nations of being "one-sided, stacked against the world of Islam."[18] He has openly opposed the veto power given to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. In the same interview, he stated, "It is not just for a few states to sit and veto global approvals. Should such a privilege continue to exist, the Muslim world with a population of nearly 1.5 billion should be extended the same privilege." In addition, he has defended Iran's nuclear program and has accused "a few arrogant powers" of attempting to limit Iran's industrial and technological development in this and other fields.

After Bush began terrorizing Iran they elected this nutcake as their president, the only nutcake in the field of nutcakes who proposed a strong stance against the U.S.

Mitchell: "By the way, whoever posted that somehow Bush forced the Iranians to be more extreme is a blithering idiot..."

Damn, that whole "reality" thing again... maybe Herlader and Mitchell can start a club?

jumpinjoe aka kneejerk... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

jumpinjoe aka kneejerk

jumpinjoe's recipe:

yep...you got it all figured out. That's the same problrm w/ the rest of the Bushies. Just reduce something to the simplistic level and apply inapt analogies from homespun mythologies about how to handle a "bully." Add to the mix a total inability to see anything other than thru your own myopic eyes, add a very high-handed extra large helping of blind self-righteousness w/ no more than a simpleton's one-sided knowledge of historical events sprinkled w/ yelping jingoism and you produce a guaranteed result for Armageddon.

Chip,Don't forget ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Chip,

Don't forget how we threatened to wipe Venezuala off the map after Chavez' endless litany against the U.S. and it's president.

oh

Wait, nevermind.

Not that it will break thro... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Not that it will break through the stupidity of this thread, but I'd like to call attention to what Iran did, pre-Ahmadinejad, during the Afghanistan invasion:

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration used the cover of the "6+2" process to stand up what was effectively a freestanding bilateral channel with Iran, with regular (for the most part, monthly) meetings between U.S. and Iranian diplomats.

U.S. engagement with Tehran over Afghanistan provided significant and tangible benefits for the American position during the early stages of the war on terror. At a minimum, U.S. engagement with Tehran helped to neutralize the threat of Iranian actions on the ground, either by Afghan proxies or by Iranian intelligence and paramilitary assets, which could have made prosecution of Operation Enduring Freedom and subsequent post-conflict stabilization more difficult. More positively, engagement elicited crucial diplomatic cooperation from Iran, both during the war and afterwards. Over years, Iran had cultivated extensive relationships with key players on the Afghan political scene, including important warlords in northern and western Afghanistan. Iranian influence was critical for arming and managing these players during the U.S.-led coalition's military operations. After the war, Iranian influence induced these players to support the political settlement enshrined at the Bonn Conference in December 2001, when the Afghan Interim Authority under Hamid Karzai was established.

Tehran appeared to have a variety of motives for cooperating with Bush administration on Afghanistan. At a minimum, Iranian policymakers--well aware of the State Department's longstanding description of the Islamic Republic as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism--wanted to avoid getting caught on the downside of the administration's self-declared "global war on terror." But Iran also seemed to sense a potential strategic opportunity. Iranian diplomats involved in the bilateral channel on Afghanistan indicated to their U.S. counterparts that the discussions were being closely followed at the highest levels of the Iranian power structure and that there was considerable interest in Tehran in the possibility of a wider diplomatic opening. Certainly, from an Iranian perspective, the platform had been created for exploring such an opening.

However, in his January 2002 State of the Union address (just six weeks after the Bonn Conference), President Bush placed the Islamic Republic in the "axis of evil," along with North Korea and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iranian representatives missed the next monthly meeting with U.S. diplomats in protest, but--in a telling indication of Tehran's seriousness about exploring a diplomatic opening to the United States--resumed participation in the discussions the following month. The bilateral channel on Afghanistan continued for another year, until the eve of the Iraq war, but it became clear the Bush administration was not interested in a broader, strategic dialogue with Iran. Indeed, the administration terminated the channel in May 2003, on the basis of unproven and never pursued allegations of the involvement of Iran-based al Qaeda figures in the May 12, 2003, bomb attacks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia."

From Flynt Leverett's white paper. He was senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council during that time.

The "Axis of Evil" speech was more than just name-calling. It signified a policy of animosity towards a country that had been instrumental in our successes in Afghanistan and was likely looking to widen diplomatic relations. Now I know diplomacy is anathema to the "bomb everything" crowd, but for those of us who like to avoid war, it's very important.

Food for thought, not that there's much in evidence here.

cmdmust be some sh... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

cmd

must be some short-hand for "dumber than owl droppings"

If you're going to rant-get your quotes and your attributions straight.

Lee,You're right, ... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

You're right, my statement doesn't make perfect sense given the timing of events.

After Bush began terrorizing Iran..

Terrorizing. Wow. Reread that Lee, and try to see the utter absurdity in it.

Retard wrote: <br /... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Retard wrote:

"his war of choice in Iraq when Iraq had nothing to do w/ 9/11."

These bellycrawlers will continue to post lie after lie hoping we get tired of their childish behavior. Do you ever tire of stupidity?

Rob:

Please eliminate the name calling. This is a new rule I'm instituting in the comment threads on my posts. I like that there's a lot of debate, but I'd like to see it dialed up a notch in respect.

Thanks.

mantis,Food for th... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

mantis,

Food for thought indeed. Interesting post.

After Bush began ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
After Bush began terrorizing Iran they elected this nutcake as their president, the only nutcake in the field of nutcakes who proposed a strong stance against the U.S

I wonder why leading up to that election this happened.

The refusal by Iran's Guardian Council to approve hundreds of reformist candidates in the parliamentary elections on 20 February has provoked a political crisis

Iran is about to mark the 25th anniversary of the Islamic revolution which threw out the Shah. It may be that the conservatives felt that this was a good moment to try to prevent further domination of the parliament by reformers after the elections

Link

Heralder: "Terrorizing. ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Heralder: "Terrorizing. Wow. Reread that Lee, and try to see the utter absurdity in it."

The fact that you and you conservative pals don't understand what "terrorism" is and how to fight it is a well-established fact - confirmed by the voters in this country as recently as November 7th.

The facts is that terrorism has increased under Bush's war on terror. You are no doubt oblivious to that reality as well.

yep...you got it ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
yep...you got it all figured out. That's the same problrm w/ the rest of the Bushies. Just reduce something to the simplistic level and apply inapt analogies from homespun mythologies about how to handle a "bully."

Actually I decided to stoop to your level with your ding-bat-ish simplistic reasoning that Iran had peaceful intentions all along with their nuke program until President Bush and PNAC came along.

Get it? Got it? Good!!!!!!!

The fact that you ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
The fact that you and you conservative pals don't understand what "terrorism" is and how to fight it is a well-established fact

Yes, please forgive us for not seeing the brilliance behind the Lee plan of fighting terrorism by nuking OBL.

And please forgive us for wanting to fight terrorism after 9-11. Who would ever have thought some would actually fight back.

We should have initiated the "cower in the corner" strategy. Well, after the nuking of OBL of course. Hopefully that wouldn't piss them off either.

Lee,The f... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

The fact that you and you conservative pals don't understand what "terrorism" is and how to fight it is a well-established fact..

Now you've completely diverged and we're no longer on the same point.

What you've just said to me above equates name-calling with terrorism.

If that were the case we'd all be guilty of it. You may be willing to stretch that definition all out of shape to fit into what you're trying to say, but I'm not.

Another <a href="http://www... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Another reason for Iranians to be unhappy:

An Iranian official has said that air pollution has directly or indirectly killed 3,600 people in just a month in the Iranian capital, Tehran.

Mohammad Hadi Heydarzadeh, director of Tehran's clean-air committee, said the deaths in the Iranian month of Aban (October 23 to November 21) were caused by heart attacks caused by smog-related health problems.


An Iranian officia... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
An Iranian official has said that air pollution has directly or indirectly killed 3,600 people in just a month in the Iranian capital, Tehran

I should have known. Iran needed nuclear power to reduce CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

(Slapping my forehead) Iran simply was concerned about future generations and global warming.

Curse you G.W. Bush for making them turn this peaceful progressive earth-loving program into a bomb making exercise.

"What you've just said t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"What you've just said to me above equates name-calling with terrorism."

No, what I said in my comments above is that putting Iran on the "we're going to kick ass on the axis of terror and that includes Iran" list is a form of terrorizing the Iranian people.

They in turn elected Ahmadinejad...

Who in turn has threatened Israel.

The Republican administration's lack of diplomacy is making matters worse, not better.

Lee,No, w... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Lee,

No, what I said in my comments above is that putting Iran on the "we're going to kick ass on the axis of terror and that includes Iran" list is a form of terrorizing the Iranian people.

That's saying what I said in more words. He called them part of the Axis of Evil, and that to you is terrorizing the Iranian people.

Words, even words that can be construed as a threat, don't really eek their way into the definition of terrorism in my opinion. Think we'll just disgree on this one Lee.

Heraldernot avoidi... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Heralder

not avoiding you at all...just trying to not too much hog the posting process. Not possible w/ all the slime tossed by the Wizbangers at non-believers.

You asked, "What does PNAC" have to do w/ government policy?"

In this regime, one helluva a lot. Quite possibly you have no familiarity w/ The Project for the New American Century, which composed an extended review as to how the US, as the sole-surviving superpower, could project its power into the 21st century. A primary focus of the position paper was the Middle East, and the specific focus was Iraq w/ the idea that that deposing Saddam would give the US a permanent foothold in that region, w/ an eye to the eventual necessity of taming Iran as well.

This group realized that it would be impossible as they said, to ever sell the American people on a war w/ Iraq w/ one exception: unless there were some sort of event on the magnitutde of, in their own words, "Peral Harbor." That was the roadblock to the unfolding of the projection of American power forward tyhrough the 21st century.

Now, Heralder, out of deference to your snide list of banned words or terms, this group was comprised of Richard Perle, Kenneth Adelman, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, Bill Christol, David Feith, and a host of others with their sympathizers and abettors like Rumsfeld and more. Bush was completely under their sway.

This group had a stranglehold on the wet-behind-the-ears Bush whose prior foreign experience was limited mainly to eating tacos, crossing the Rio Grande a couple of times as TX governor and visiting Pappy when and eating Chinese takeout Pappy was on duty in Beijing . Apart from these foreign adventures, the Bush baby had no foreign experience until he was running for Prez w/ Condi providing intense wet-nurse tutoring lessons during the campaign.

So, after 9/11 when ole Rumsfeld set his staffers to look high and low for any Saddam fingerprints on 9/11, Bush fell to the sirens of the PNAC group. And he and Cheney bent every piece of intelligence that they could conjure to provide the "new Pearl Harbor" courtesy of Iraq and the jingoists were made full.

Add to that, some dog and pony shows w/ a bullhorn atop WTC rubble and swagger in a jumpsuit on an aircraft carrier and you have a genuine made-up hero.

Lee,Oh Lee! Not to... (Below threshold)
mikey:

Lee,

Oh Lee! Not to sound out of place, but I believe Iran was threatening Israel long before Bush came to power and made his SOTU address. I don't believe funding for Hezbollah through Syria happened after Bush became President. Your dog don't hunt on that chain.

Quite possibly you... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Quite possibly you have no familiarity w/ The Project for the New American Century, which composed an extended review as to how the US, as the sole-surviving superpower, could project its power into the 21st century.

Here are the primary tenets of PNAC directly from their web site....

we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

Check, nothing wrong with this one, next.....

we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

Who is arguing against this?

we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

Bingo.....

we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles

Wow, where do I sign up?

I like this PNAC organization. Too bad you liberals didn't come up with this idea. Well, thats probably because you guys were too busy complaining that the US shouldn't be the lone superpower.

The resident moron (Lee) bl... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

The resident moron (Lee) blathered:

Right, John. It would prove that Ahmadinejad is the threat, not the Iranians.

ROFL! Yeah, and Hitler was the problem, not the Germans.

I wouldn't read anything in... (Below threshold)
thecomputerguy:

I wouldn't read anything into this that's not there... Okay here goes. Because of the UN Sanctions, 38 out of the required 72 people in Iran want I'monajihad to be impeached... but according to my conservative math, 38 isn't nearly 72... so what does that tell you? The sanctions we're enough... There needs to be more...

UN Sanctions: 52 percent effective...

Wow, where do I sign up?... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Wow, where do I sign up?
Jumpinjoe You are too late.. because in a word... Iraq ..The neo-conservative dream faded in 2006.."The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up."
But I think tomorrow the president will be annoucing an increase in troop size in Iraq. ...so maybe you if you are still in a signing mood.?...

Lee & Mantis,Excel... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Lee & Mantis,

Excellent posts, guys -- thanks.

Lee,

I have always suspected that Bush's highly irresponsible, hateful, belligerent rhetoric ("Axis of Evil" crap) played a not-insignificant role in the election of Ahmadinejad. When events induce a group of people to become afraid, they're going to back a hardliner. Conservatives know this quite well, from their own personal experience. Your post provides some degree of confirmation of my suspicions.

An Iranian officia... (Below threshold)
An Iranian official has said that air pollution has directly or indirectly killed 3,600 people in just a month in the Iranian capital, Tehran.

This is obviously Bush's fault. I'm surprised Lee or any of the other lefty moonbats on here didn't point this out already, along with some story about Karl Rove setting up secret smog machines in the Iranian desert to blow the stuff into Tehran.

C'mon guys, you're slipping.

The white paper excerpt man... (Below threshold)

The white paper excerpt mantis posted appears to be heavy on speculation but a bit short on actual facts. I for one question his scenario's heavy reliance on so-called "back channel" diplomatic communication between Iran and the U.S. My understanding is that official contact has been pretty much non-existent between the two countries ever since the 1979 hostage crisis.

Oh and by the way, has anyo... (Below threshold)

Oh and by the way, has anyone heard anything about what's happening with the Iraq Study Group's report lately? Hello? Boy, what a big flop that was, eh?

But I think tomorr... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
But I think tomorrow the president will be annoucing an increase in troop size in Iraq. ...so maybe you if you are still in a signing mood

I already signed up. I did my 20 years and waiting for the call back. Turns out the reenlistment rates are so high they don't need me right now.

But of course I'll go if they need me.

My son is currently representing the Jumpinjoe household right now also and he will be reporting to Fort Bragg following his AIT and Airborne School.

Someone's nose grew as they... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Someone's nose grew as they wrote this: "The Project for the New American Century" has been reduced to a voice-mail box and a ghostly website. A single employee has been left to wrap things up."

heh.

A NATO for Asia
Helping South Korea despite itself.
Ellen Bork & Gary Schmitt
Weekly Standard
December 11, 2006

A bit of history comes to mind in the wake of South Korean president Roh's refusal delivered at the recent APEC summit in Hanoi to sign up as a full participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative, the U.S.-led effort to prevent North Korea from trafficking in weapons of mass destruction.

[snip]

Ellen Bork is deputy executive director of the Project for the New American Century and Gary Schmitt is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

heh.

January 4, 2007
Wizbang Blog - Kim Priestap

Breaking: President Bush to name Zalmay Khalilzad as US Ambassador to UN

This comes from ABC News, which has the initial report.

[snip]

Update: Ambassador Khalilzad is an advocate for American Global Leadership as outlined in the Project for the New American Century's Statement of Principles:

snork. I'd go on, but it would appear from recent comments that many of you can't read anyway...

"Oh and by the way, has ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Oh and by the way, has anyone heard anything about what's happening with the Iraq Study Group's report lately? Hello? Boy, what a big flop that was, eh?"

Rumor has it that George Bush will announce adoption of many of the proposals outlined therein, and call them his own ideas, any minute now....

Lee, Your words...... (Below threshold)
Chip:

Lee, Your words...

"I'm confident thinking adults can tell the difference between the actions of one nutcase like Ahmadinejad, and the actions of the Iranian people, as represented by the signedrs of the petition - especially now that we see a large number of Iranians are willing to publicly stick their necks out to speak up against Ahmadinejad."

"No, what I said in my comments above is that putting Iran on the "we're going to kick ass on the axis of terror and that includes Iran" list is a form of terrorizing the Iranian people."


I swear, I see some flip flopping hypocrisy here. Sooooo when DinnerJacket says he wants to attack the US he's really talking about the current administration...;buuuut, when GWB says Iran is part of the Axis of Evil he really means alllll of Iranian People? Do you see what I mean? Do ya huh?

jumpinjoeYou did a g... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

jumpinjoe
You did a great job w/ a few piddly snips from a document scores of pages long. Your silly generic excerpts demonstrate nothing apart from your mindless willingness to jump aboard anything that has a few trite lead-off statements...just like you "jump" at the chance to follow an untutored Chimp down a foreign policy path of folly. It's a shame that you are willing to chance wasting your son's life on your own knee-jerk response to jingoism. Too bad he didn't have a more discerning father.

It's a shame that... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
It's a shame that you are willing to chance wasting your son's life on your own knee-jerk response to jingoism

FUCK-YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!

You just denigrated every person serving in our armed forces and their families you scum bag piece of shit.

JohnAnnArbor:Ex... (Below threshold)
ryan:

JohnAnnArbor:

Except no one says that! It's a strawman. When you're talking about international relations saying the Iranians or the Israelis or the Americans usually does not imply the whole population; it's talking governments. Context is key here, and most people don't have a problem figuring out which is which.

Well, John, I hope that you're right. It seems to me that many people do speak in this way, and do tend to convolute who is being talked about.

I'm glad that you don't have a problem with confusing the actions of a government with the character of a populace...that's good to hear.

There's something vaguely f... (Below threshold)
groucho:

There's something vaguely familiar about this story..
An election in which the voters reject the current leadership direction by electing many new members of the opposition party, talk of impeaching a leader whose every step takes him further away from the mainstream, a leader so full of himself he has become completely blind to the best interests of his nation..

I like it!!

jumpinjoe, First o... (Below threshold)
Chip:

jumpinjoe,

First of all thank you and your son for your service and sacrifice. My son wants to sign up and I support him 100% and before I get the "chickenhawk" cwap that trolls like to slap around, I tried to enlist serveral times but seems the military can't use deaf people. I don't hold that against them in fact I envy those that get the honor.
Second don't let puke get under your skin that's what the left lives for since they don't have valid arguments.
Again for ALL men and women in the service or your families, from the bottom of my heart, thank you and God bless you.

Mantis, nice post up there ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Mantis, nice post up there (the that quotes Leverett). I wish more people would read through it and think about it.

At least Heralder did, which is cool.

aRepuke:It's a ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

aRepuke:

It's a shame that you are willing to chance wasting your son's life on your own knee-jerk response to jingoism. Too bad he didn't have a more discerning father.

Look, I can certainly understand the fact that you disagree with the policies and decisions of the current administration, since I do in many cases myself.

But you have to understand something, pal. There is no reason to go around acting like an asshole and saying shit like this to other people. You're talking about the guy's son.

Don't forget that the people in the military are there to follow orders, and to carry out orders...they do not ultimately decide where they are sent. They don't draft policies. And don't forget that if anything happens here in the States, we're ALL going to expect this very same military to stand up and protect our asses.

I can understand the fact that you strongly disagree with the war in Iraq. If you're going around preaching for peace, or conflict resolution or whatever, do you think that what you said makes your case any stronger? Do you think that gets anything done? If you have a point of view, express it. And try to keep doing it with a certain amount of respect and class.

Thanks Chip and ryan.... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

Thanks Chip and ryan.

It really is "Pukes" time to move on to some other forum because even though he/she may have an opinion, that was stepping over the line.

Joe:It's a matter ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

Joe:

It's a matter of respect and principle, period. We might get in huge disagreements, but there is really no reason to go over the line and say things like that.

It really is "Pukes" time to move on to some other forum because even though he/she may have an opinion, that was stepping over the line.

I understand why you think that, but I disagree. I would prefer to see people who disagree strongly keep voicing their opinions, here and elsewhere. I think that is something that is sorely lacking these days, with all of the crazy partisan bickering and fighting Personally, I'm pretty sick of it all.

Ya, he/she (Repuke) went over the line. I'm hoping that the point gets through, and that he/she learns that there are ways to disagree, even very strongly, while maintaining a certain civility. People screw up; shit happens. What really matters is how they choose to deal with it afterwards.

damn typos! Note:... (Below threshold)
ryan:

damn typos!

Note: There should be a period after the word "fighting" and before the word "Personally" in the third paragraph above.

On the off chance anyone ma... (Below threshold)

On the off chance anyone makes it this far in the comments over the shouting above, isn't this the same thing that America's enemies are saying about the Democrats assuming leadership in the Congress? Iraq is doing the same thing: Using internal politics for international purposes. It will just work out better for them.

For us, tactically, yes, it's a big deal that the Democrats are, more-or-less, in charge; strategically, it's nothing. It will cost the US a nuked city. It sucks if you live there, but if that's the cost of Democratic support in the war, so be it - that's their choice.

Very different thing from Iran's side: Get America all excited about reform and openness. What does it cost them? Tactically, nothing. Strategically, it's brilliant - we continue to dither while they get nukes.

Think I have figured out th... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Think I have figured out the cause of the "36,000 deaths in Iran" It has got to be old "pucker puss (lee lee)'s (resident turd polisher) breath! I checked with the gobal weather service and they said the wind was blowing off p'p's hosuse during that time period. Shame on you "pucker". Whoops another keyboard. (keep them coming wee wee).

Hate to do this but I think... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Hate to do this but I think it is time to make "repukeface" a member of the "club"--a club for those that have shit for brains. Welcome. Now when anyone reads any of your posts they will know why you sound like a complete idiot each time. Na,don't thank me,glad to do it for those that deserve it.

jhow66:Hate to ... (Below threshold)
ryan:

jhow66:

Hate to do this but I think it is time to make "repukeface" a member of the "club"--a club for those that have shit for brains.

Your posts are about as repugnant and foolish as ANYTHING that I see on here, pal.

Now, before you go around bashing anyone else, why don't you make an attempt at providing something besides juvenile name-calling and one-sided bullshit?

But then, I know that's a pretty tall order for you, isn't it?

I don't have internet acces... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I don't have internet access at home for the moment, so there will be a noticable gap in my postings during the evening.

aRepuklican:

I appreciate the response. I only have one request:

Bush was completely under their sway.

Which is that you prove that statement. Just saying it doesn't make it true. There's no "Do the math" or "It's obvious"...it's simply a case of offering information that directly ties Bush to the PNAC.

it's simply a case of of... (Below threshold)
mantis:

it's simply a case of offering information that directly ties Bush to the PNAC

To start let me say that I don't think the PNAC is some giant conspiracy that planned 9/11 or anything silly like that; it is simply a group who have formulated a foreign policy strategy. It's one I disagree with on several levels, but that is all it is. It's never been a secret, they sent a letter to President Clinton in '98, set up a website, etc.

Anyhow, direct ties of the PNAC to Pres. Bush? Please. Here are the PNAC members appointed to the Bush administration:

Elliott Abrams - National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs
Richard Armitage - Deputy Secretary of State
John R. Bolton - U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Richard Cheney - Vice President
Seth Cropsey - Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau
Paula Dobriansky - Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs
Francis Fukuyama - President's Council on Bioethics
Bruce Jackson President, U.S. Committee on NATO
Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - Chief of Staff for the Vice President
Peter W. Rodman - Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Donald Rumsfeld - Secretary of Defense
Randy Scheunemann - U.S. Committee on NATO
Paul Wolfowitz - Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005
Dov S. Zakheim - Comptroller, Department of Defense
Robert B. Zoellick - Deputy Secretary of State

Keep in mind that the PNAC was never a very large organization, so the length of this list and the prominence of the positions on it are impressive.

ok..there are(were) some ti... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

ok..there are(were) some ties...but it appears their positions were low level with little opportunity for impact on policy.

I know it was a ways back..... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I know it was a ways back..but to jumpin' joe..The military needs you..after all(as you are aware) in December they sent out letters to officers who had left the service (Army)including 25 who had been killed in Iraq(think about the mother, wife, husband that got that one)...if your idea of getting volunteers who did not graduate from H.S. or have criminal records is a sign of success..then...ah..I can see your point...of course the reason we can't have a bigger "surge" is we don't have the troops....
I can tell you that if you went to your branch of service and said you wanted to go to Iraq...they would not turn you down.....

I apologise for posting the... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I apologise for posting the wrong information about the letters...here is a part of the release

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night"

Thank you mantis, for putti... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

Thank you mantis, for putting that list together.

Unfortunately, it proves me wrong in my line of questioning, damnit!

Where does that leave my argument regarding the PNAC? Kind of holey.

Thanks ryan for your kind w... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Thanks ryan for your kind words. As for you other "thought", have you ever reread one of your posts? Guess not. By the way do you belong to the "club"? Cannot remember if you do. Let me know if you want to join.

Any idea if the information... (Below threshold)

Any idea if the information provided in the article by adnki is legit / kosher? (excuse fun)
I've googled a plethora of searches for supporting info from other newssources and come up empty.

Kim, chances of contacting Noureddin Pirmouzen?

Interesting post though. Thanks!
Richard Buchanan
opinionist.com

iran is telling the truth a... (Below threshold)

iran is telling the truth about using the nuclear facilities for electricitiy.
look at how modern they are and also look at how their government is run. it's foundation is their religion. i was never really in favor of islam because of it's whole idea of 'honor killings' etc. killing intentionally is wrong in any case, sorry to say. universally, it is wrong.
but aren't their women also members of the police force and even parts of the government?
but when it comes down to family issues there's some sort of law making it alright for men to frak whoever they want, but women remain unhappy, lonely, and bored with their sex life.
i definately know that some things need to change in iran and one of those things is that it needs to learn compassion of all living things regardless of their wrongdoings. there is always a root cause of a problem.
iran right now is test firing it's artillery because we're trying to intimidate them with our mechanical junk. there is so much propaganda being thrown back and forth in the media and by our government, and the only stern, sincere words i hear are those from the iranian president.
technically they have the right to do everything we have done and are currently doing. which is developing nuclear weapons, testing them in the atmosphere along with other untold technologies. and when i say untold, you have no fucking idea what's being created with our government's money. so what i mean by that is that the truth will make the x-files come back for a tenth season or whatever the hell it's on....
it's purely messed up how ignorant we all are to what's really going on.

i forgot to mention, the ch... (Below threshold)

i forgot to mention, the chinese also used propaganda to gain support in attacking tibet by saying the dalai lama is an evil, tyranical leader...
which he is not.
so 'death to america' isn't iran's motto. more like 'death to deception and manipulation'.
humans are a sick race




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy