black…MYstory

Question: What do these two statements have in common?

On Iraq:
“Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” (George W. Bush, Oct 7, 2002)

On Iran:
“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” (George W. Bush, Oct 17, 2007)

Answer: After yesterday, we know that these are, at best, trumped-up charges and, at worst, flat-out lies meant to get us into military conflict with countries that pose(d) no immediate threat to us.

As you are likely aware, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) came out yesterday and had some very telling things to say that stand in stark contrast to Bush Administration’s allegations on Iran.

The NIE is the compilation of the combined views of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies regarding the security issues affecting the U.S. and, like I stated, its findings on Iran were very telling.

According to the NIE, Iran actually halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and, furthermore, states that due to significant technical issues, Iran probably is another 3-8 years away from having enough enriched uranium for a bomb.

However, the most interesting part of the report coming out is its back story. It is believed that the administration, particularly the office of Vice-president Dick Cheney, held up the release of this report for over a year, try to twist arms of intelligence analysts to get them to change the report to match the administration’s rhetoric.

So, in other words, as in Iraq, they went around the world citing Iran as an immediate threat when they clearly knew otherwise.

Of course, the chickenhawk spin-doctors are at work and trying to wipe egg off their faces on this and Republican candidates, no doubt, are going to have to get new material for their stump speeches, as this country has no desire to repeat the Iraq debacle.

We’ll have to see how this all shakes out but, one this is clear. We are certainly being lied to by this administration on Iran.

Popularity: 28% [?]

A few days back, I was watching the Democratic Presidential debates, which happened to fall on the same day that the Senate voted on the Kyl-Liebermann amendment. In a non-binding resolution, the Senate voted in favor of the amendment, which labeled Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of this amendment (Obama, somehow, couldn’t make it in to vote that day) and tried to justify her vote by saying that she was not voting in favor of war with Iran but, in favor of pursuing diplomatic measures with Iran. Senate leader Harry Reid also voted in favor of this measure.

Well, guess what, now the White House is dropping concerns about the nuclear ambitions of Iran as a rationale to go after them. You want to guess its rationale, now? Yes, you figured it out — Bush seems intent on marching us into yet another war using the notion that it will need to fight terrorism in Iran so, it will need to target Iran’s Republican Guard. How much would you bet that the Kyl-Liebermann amendment will be used to tell the public that the Congress agrees with this action? Joe Liebermann, as Bush’s Democratic lapdog (he call’s himself an independent, now), has been drooling over the notion of attacking Iran. It appears he will get his wish soon.

Journalist Seymour Hersh has exposed some chilling details on what appears to be in the works. It looks like the march to the war in Iraq all over again.

“They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002″—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”

That theme was echoed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national-security adviser, who said that he had heard discussions of the White House’s more limited bombing plans for Iran. Brzezinski said that Iran would likely react to an American attack “by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years.”

Here we go again. So, Nancy Pelosi, is impeachment still off the table?

Popularity: 19% [?]