[Global Crier]

Israel has once again lowered the bar for preemptive war by bombing Syria with little to no government response after their mission. It was only last year (2006) Israel bombed the hell out of Lebanon with the United States airlifting more cluster-bombs to Israel. What other nation could carry out the same military actions against her neighbors as the State of Israel has for the last sixty years and not be called a terrorist state. The State of Israel has a military arsenal that could destroy the Middle East and most of Europe. For too many years the State of Israel has gotten away being an un-official military nuclear power.

By Israel holding the status as an un-official military nuclear power she does not have to be accountable to the international community standards and laws. Israel has created a state of denial to get away with her nuclear weapons program and her uncivil and inhuman treatment of her neighbors. Israel could only get away with what she has gotten away with the blessing of both major political parties in the United States. Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton gave the Israelis her blessing on the Israeli air strike on Syria in the Democratic Debates at Dartmouth Collage.

Only with the support of both major American political Parties can the State of Israel get away with the murder and mayhem that she has for so many years. This is why so many people hate us as we stand united in terrorizing the lives of so many people in the Middle East. As long as anyone from the United States or Israel sets a different standard than they are willing to live by, they will be seen as being wrong and as a hypocrite by the majority of the people of the world. If the United States really wants to help the people of Israel and Middle East there will have to be great reform from our current ways. This model of reform must happen on an international level in many different places around the world with a higher level of thinking being given to the indigence people of the world.

[MAGI]

Israel has once again lowered the bar for preemptive war by bombing Syria with little to no government response after their mission. It was only last year (2006) Israel bombed the hell out of Lebanon with the United States airlifting more cluster-bombs to Israel.

skip

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton gave the Israelis her blessing on the Israeli air strike on Syria in the Democratic Debates at Dartmouth College.

Only with the support of both major American political Parties can the State of Israel get away with the murder and mayhem

skip


The bushco BS propaganda is deafening!


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh


Annals of National Security
Shifting Targets
The Administration’s plan for Iran.

October 8, 2007 Text Size:
Iran; Iraq War; Bush, George W. (Pres.) (43rd); Foreign Policy; Pentagon; Iranian Operations Group; Plans, Planning In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

skip

“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.”



.........and, Hillary votes for the Lieberman/Kyl bill....
knowing full well what her vote of confidence for bushco has and IS doing!

:puke:

[MAGI]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/?pid=238617


BLOG | Posted 09/30/2007 @ 8:53pm
Shifting Targets

Last week, the Senate -- via the Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution -- handed the Bush Administration a close-to-blank check for military strikes against Iran. The resolution accuses Iran of fighting "a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq." (Hillary Clinton, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, voted for it.) Sy Hersh's chilling article in this week's New Yorker ("The Administration's Plan for Iran") shows how the Administration may attempt to use that resolution as it redefines its military and political justifications for attacking Iran.

Hersh reports that the White House has requested that the Joint Chiefs redraw its plans for a possible attack on Iran. Confronted with a lack of public support for a major bombing campaign, with the intelligence community's assessment that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb, and the growing realization in Washington that Iran is "the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq," the Administration has been marketing a new and dangerous line.

[FDRfollower]

Yeah. :(

She had an outdoor rally next to City Hall here in Oakland and the local rag said 10s of thousands showed up (confirmed by my friends who were there). The news said she was very critical of the administration, but, then she votes to let them turn all of South West Asia into a hell hole! :banghead:

Geez, what a horrible example of the Baby Boomer generation.