dubyaD40.com

Today's Topics


Sunday, June 29, 2008
Finding an excuse posted by Clyde 4:00 AM U.S. escalating covert operations against Iran: report U.S. congressional leaders agreed late last year to President George W. Bush's funding request for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing its leadership, according to a report in The New Yorker magazine published online on Sunday. The article by reporter Seymour Hersh, from the magazine's July 7 and 14 issue, centers around a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which by U.S. law must be made known to Democratic and Republican House and Senate leaders and ranking members of the intelligence committees. "The Finding was focused on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change," the article cited a person familiar with its contents as saying, and involved "working with opposition groups and passing money." Hersh has written previously about possible administration plans to go to war to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, including an April 2006 article in the New Yorker that suggested regime change in Iran, whether by diplomatic or military means, was Bush's ultimate goal. (Link) Permalink :: 5 comments :: Post a Comment




	I'm not a big barak fan but with bush and co leaving soon why are they then trying so hard for Iran war.................to pass it off to McCain? Gonna be hard checking next to Barak Hussein Obama but its becoming more of a reality. posted by Anonymous at 9:03 AM


	Does that mean that Iran can do 'covert operations' in the U.S. and it's even steven? I'd really like a regime change here, NOW! I'd even cheer you like the big dick said the Iraqis would us. A flower for your gun barrel sir? And it'd be cool to knock down a shitload of the statues in Washington. posted by Anonymous at 3:12 AM


	Then vote for Nader. he is the only one who wants what the majority of Americans want. posted by Anonymous at 9:09 AM


	Does anyone even know if Nader has a real opinion on foreign policy? Sure, he wants to get out of Iraq but that's for monetary reasons. He doesn't want a war with Iran, but again - for monetary reasons. How does he plan to deal with these countries? Would he talk to them? Ignore them? Let someone else decide and keep his hands off? Who would that someone be? You can vote as hard as you want for Nader, but he'll never win. In all the years he's run, I think this is the one where he looks the least competent given the situation we're in. Now is not the time to vote for someone just because they're not what you consider a corrupt politician. Putting Nader in the White House would not make this Utopia. Why are they still banging the war drum with Iran? Simple - start a war (once it starts, it can't easily be stopped without turning our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan into sitting ducks), clear out whatever's left in the vault by giving it to your war contractor friends (for a third war) and oil cronies (via higher oil prices), then move to South America where they've already been granted immunity. Then Bush can clear brush on his Argentinian ranch all the live long day. posted by Jenna at 9:53 AM


	Jenna, If the one party hadn't convinced so many millions that the 'lesser of two evils' was the way we choose so called leadership, and Nader had one term, 9/11 never would have happened. Write that down and remember it. He did everything but stand on his head and fart the Star Spangled Banner to force airlines to spend a few lousy thousand bucks on cockpit entry security, but that got flushed because Dem and Rep employees of the airline industry, and the FAA, which actually comes out and says it's job is to work WITH the airlines (and here I thought all these years they were supposed to regulate them, stupid me!), just that one crazy idea would have changed history. We're broke in case they haven't told you, and in the something like 125 "major military actions" (no wars mind you, the legislature opted out of that nasty Constitutional duty) since WW2 we have killed MILLIONS of people, almost all noncombatants or people who just wanted to run their own country and lives (what gall!), are you saying that with that record you and your chosen "lesser of two evils" has the duty, let alone the right to 'change regimes' and those other catch phrases they use to justify close to a 1000 overseas military installations and a standing army of millions to run it? You should read up a bit on what I'm sure you call "founding fathers" "creators of the greatest document ever written" or whatever had to say about all that shit. So he didn't get into the dozens and probably hundreds of reasons we should keep our bombs to ourselves, being broke and needing a BILLION bucks a day just from China is good enough reason to bring them ALL home, from everywhere. Even if it's just to paint bridges or sweep the goddamn floor, at least we wouldn't be murderers. Oh yes, that word, murderers murderers murderers murderers murderers. If you want to be an empire you should say so, because that's not what the charter everybody claims to love so much says. Thankfully for those of you who still fall for the line that there's any real difference besides rhetoric between our "two" Parties. Just the body count from Dem administrations makes the Reps look like ametuers. Bush would need another 10 years in office to kill the number of Iraqis Clinton is responsible for (I think mostly to show Reps he had "balls"). Now that I've shown you what an idiot I am, please help me understand your position. posted by down so long looks like up to me at 3:21 AM