Thursday, August 18, 2005
This is a link that you have to check out. Definitely an eye-opener.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php
There seems to be no limit to how far our government, and those controlling forces behind our government, are willing to go to achieve their agenda. And what is their agenda? You don't have to look far to figure it out.
Who have we invaded? Afghanistan, Iraq. Who are we wanting to invade in the future? Iran. What do they all have in common? Oil. All those innocent lives so that a few wealthy men in American can become even wealthier, and dominant the oil reserves. But at what cost?
Peaceful Invasion...
I was talking to a guy who is very much a deep drinker of the neoconservative brand of Kool Aid. And he was very clear to harp on what is seen as the pinnacle of all of the United States' enemies in the form of the government of Iran. As you know the EU countries and the United States have both been leaning on Iran to stop trying to make nuclear energy for themselves due to the joint opinion and current US government belief that Iran would be so quick to turn around and in the name of the mullahs start nuking every country they did not like or who annoyed them. Never mind the fact that it is our 'friends' China and Russia who gave them the fuel for the reactor in the first place.
But what really ticked this guy off was when I mentioned and started talking about the changes that were made recently to the United States National Security Policy...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
You see. The old policy that has been in place ever since we discovered nuclear weapons was that the United States would use nuclear weapons only as a measure to retaliate upon other countries who harmed us. But the Bush administration made a very important change. They have drafted two plans. One for Korea and one for Iran which are Nuclear First Strike plans...
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html
Meaning this. We have plans filed with the military that if the President chooses we will use nuclear weapons not to defend ourselves but to go on the offensive. This is why Robert Macnamara...
Who was in the Fog of War hands down one of the most relevant documentaries of our current times...
http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/
Has been writing in every publication he can about how dangerous the shift in our nuclear weapons strategy has been...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829&page=0
Because in his view and I happen to agree with this is that if other countries know that we are willing to use a weapon of mass destruction as an offensive strike weapon then the only defense to that is to have nuclear weapons of their own.
Now what has frustrated many who did want to go into Iran has not just been the slow progress in Iraq but also the details from a leaked report known as the NIE (The National Intelligence estimate) that Iran is still at the minimum 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon....
http://www.cfr.org/background/intel_nie.php
I mean it is very difficult to persuade the American people that Iran could be an imminent threat if your own intelligence community tells you that they will be nowhere near nuclear weapons until after 10 years. To invade under those conditions just gives you no credibility.
(Reposted here from Leonida's Xanga site)
I was talking to a guy who is very much a deep drinker of the neoconservative brand of Kool Aid. And he was very clear to harp on what is seen as the pinnacle of all of the United States' enemies in the form of the government of Iran. As you know the EU countries and the United States have both been leaning on Iran to stop trying to make nuclear energy for themselves due to the joint opinion and current US government belief that Iran would be so quick to turn around and in the name of the mullahs start nuking every country they did not like or who annoyed them. Never mind the fact that it is our 'friends' China and Russia who gave them the fuel for the reactor in the first place.
But what really ticked this guy off was when I mentioned and started talking about the changes that were made recently to the United States National Security Policy...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
You see. The old policy that has been in place ever since we discovered nuclear weapons was that the United States would use nuclear weapons only as a measure to retaliate upon other countries who harmed us. But the Bush administration made a very important change. They have drafted two plans. One for Korea and one for Iran which are Nuclear First Strike plans...
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html
Meaning this. We have plans filed with the military that if the President chooses we will use nuclear weapons not to defend ourselves but to go on the offensive. This is why Robert Macnamara...
Who was in the Fog of War hands down one of the most relevant documentaries of our current times...
http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/
Has been writing in every publication he can about how dangerous the shift in our nuclear weapons strategy has been...
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2829&page=0
Because in his view and I happen to agree with this is that if other countries know that we are willing to use a weapon of mass destruction as an offensive strike weapon then the only defense to that is to have nuclear weapons of their own.
Now what has frustrated many who did want to go into Iran has not just been the slow progress in Iraq but also the details from a leaked report known as the NIE (The National Intelligence estimate) that Iran is still at the minimum 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon....
http://www.cfr.org/background/intel_nie.php
I mean it is very difficult to persuade the American people that Iran could be an imminent threat if your own intelligence community tells you that they will be nowhere near nuclear weapons until after 10 years. To invade under those conditions just gives you no credibility.
(Reposted here from Leonida's Xanga site)
This was something that a friend brought my attention to and I wanted to pass it on here:
This week much ado was made about how Bush's vacation plans have been ruined. It is damned hard to look Reaganesque out chopping wood, communing with armadillos and cycling Lance Armstrong style when the parents of dead soldiers are lined up all the way up and down the road to your private ranch. What started with one mother named Cindy Sheehan who truly went from humble to pissed off about her son in the form of a marine who fell dead in Sadr City.
It has been a fascinating coup of the cable media and forced a discussion of how the war is being handled back to the forefront where before it was being calmly buried. Cindy Sheehan herself is the co founder of an organization for peace called the Gold Star Families for Peace...
http://www.gsfp.org/
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/2005/31-40/32news01.htm
And what is interesting is that although once Bush's vacation ends the Roberts nomination will go back to being the news cycle, a lot can happen in a month. In the constant focus that Sheehan has forced through the White House Press Corps and the other organizations that have joined her just does go to show how powerful the media can be in persuading and challenging the opinions of all of us. This month alone we have seen a 13 point slide over how Bush has been handling the Iraq war (that has held steady) since Sheehan first went down there to the ranch in Texas. Why?
http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=7E422FBE-7429-4878-908A-5236CEE7EE82
Because just like the widows of 9/11 and even those who founded this country in the Revolutionary War, this country was built upon sacrifice and it is the one vehicle and avenue that gives you the sanctimony and the gravitas to challenge the establishment and what they want.
George Washington was elected as a President even though he had never been a politician. Every military commander that has decisively won a war has been a President. Grant, Eisenhower, Taylor..Why? Because unlike those who were behind the scenes the leadership was visible in and through them.
Now Bush has reacted the only way that he can in this and to save political face by avoiding her and the other protestors that are gathering. He has utilized Republican supporters to engage in a shouting match with those anti war protestors who have gathered. But as he has done that what has he done? He is starting to solidify the disconnect between his agenda and those who are dying for its implementation.
Example: A single unit in Ohio lost what 24 people in a week dead. The same damn unit! Now if Roberts was the debate would that have been more high profile? No. It would have been buried. But because Cindy Sheehan got in his and the face of the White House Press Corps and they can not give her a definitive answer to why her son got dead then those units that are losing so many to this war are seeing more coverage. This is a ripple effect that many people gripe about when news outlets continually feed off each other for a story. And they end up sourcing each other to the point where they look hollow.
But now that the story is out and in our faces how has the nation reacted? Support for the war drops. The President looks evasive because it is the only direction he can be moving in. He drove right past them and because he did not stop it was a story. Why? Because for being on a ranch and looking like Reagan he does not have his PR savvy. And that is where the disconnect grows...
And now what you see in this is clearly how people (meaning individuals) can force the media to look at their issues center stage. I mean remember the Million Man March?...
http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/march.html
Why did that get national attention? Because it was so in the face of Washington it could not be ignored. Most business in the Capitol ground to a halt while the march took center stage. And with so did the media.
We often think that we do not have the power to promote change but as Socrates realized as well the gadflies do get attention and they can shift the flow of the river. A change can be made for the positive or at least awareness for the better.
(Reposted from Leonida's Xanga site)
This week much ado was made about how Bush's vacation plans have been ruined. It is damned hard to look Reaganesque out chopping wood, communing with armadillos and cycling Lance Armstrong style when the parents of dead soldiers are lined up all the way up and down the road to your private ranch. What started with one mother named Cindy Sheehan who truly went from humble to pissed off about her son in the form of a marine who fell dead in Sadr City.
It has been a fascinating coup of the cable media and forced a discussion of how the war is being handled back to the forefront where before it was being calmly buried. Cindy Sheehan herself is the co founder of an organization for peace called the Gold Star Families for Peace...
http://www.gsfp.org/
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/2005/31-40/32news01.htm
And what is interesting is that although once Bush's vacation ends the Roberts nomination will go back to being the news cycle, a lot can happen in a month. In the constant focus that Sheehan has forced through the White House Press Corps and the other organizations that have joined her just does go to show how powerful the media can be in persuading and challenging the opinions of all of us. This month alone we have seen a 13 point slide over how Bush has been handling the Iraq war (that has held steady) since Sheehan first went down there to the ranch in Texas. Why?
http://www.woai.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=7E422FBE-7429-4878-908A-5236CEE7EE82
Because just like the widows of 9/11 and even those who founded this country in the Revolutionary War, this country was built upon sacrifice and it is the one vehicle and avenue that gives you the sanctimony and the gravitas to challenge the establishment and what they want.
George Washington was elected as a President even though he had never been a politician. Every military commander that has decisively won a war has been a President. Grant, Eisenhower, Taylor..Why? Because unlike those who were behind the scenes the leadership was visible in and through them.
Now Bush has reacted the only way that he can in this and to save political face by avoiding her and the other protestors that are gathering. He has utilized Republican supporters to engage in a shouting match with those anti war protestors who have gathered. But as he has done that what has he done? He is starting to solidify the disconnect between his agenda and those who are dying for its implementation.
Example: A single unit in Ohio lost what 24 people in a week dead. The same damn unit! Now if Roberts was the debate would that have been more high profile? No. It would have been buried. But because Cindy Sheehan got in his and the face of the White House Press Corps and they can not give her a definitive answer to why her son got dead then those units that are losing so many to this war are seeing more coverage. This is a ripple effect that many people gripe about when news outlets continually feed off each other for a story. And they end up sourcing each other to the point where they look hollow.
But now that the story is out and in our faces how has the nation reacted? Support for the war drops. The President looks evasive because it is the only direction he can be moving in. He drove right past them and because he did not stop it was a story. Why? Because for being on a ranch and looking like Reagan he does not have his PR savvy. And that is where the disconnect grows...
And now what you see in this is clearly how people (meaning individuals) can force the media to look at their issues center stage. I mean remember the Million Man March?...
http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/march.html
Why did that get national attention? Because it was so in the face of Washington it could not be ignored. Most business in the Capitol ground to a halt while the march took center stage. And with so did the media.
We often think that we do not have the power to promote change but as Socrates realized as well the gadflies do get attention and they can shift the flow of the river. A change can be made for the positive or at least awareness for the better.
(Reposted from Leonida's Xanga site)
