Funny, I could have sworn Dick Cheney was still in his bunker.
WARNING, APPLY DOUBLE-LAYER OF TINFOIL BEFORE READING!
When then-Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche put out the word, on Sept. 20, 2002, that "Vice President Dick Cheney's recurring wet dreams of a U.S. worldwide Roman Empire are, in and of themselves, the world's greatest single threat to the continuation of civilization in any part of the planet today," and that "these facts demand that Cheney's prompt resignation be sought, and accepted," the majority of Democrats and Republicans were shocked. True, many of them knew that Cheney was the "brains" behind President Bush's war drive, including the National Security Strategy of pre-emptive war, which had just been promulgated. They may have hated himâbut they didn't think anything could be done about it.
See how events have proven them wrong! Over the past three years, LaRouche's relentless initiatives and flanks, mass circulation of literature, and deployment of the LaRouche Youth Movement on the Cheney question, have emboldened members of both parties, and, most important, those embedded in the institution of the Presidency, to take action to expose, and oust the evil Vice President. At present, conditions for his removal are rotten-ripe. How this happened is an object lesson in political strategy.
We have necessarily had to condense our story, which involves many more articles, initiatives from Capitol Hill and representatives of the institution of the Presidency, and intense organizing, particularly in Washington. Much of this material is available on www.larouchepub.com.
2002
Sept. 20: LaRouche makes his first demand that Cheney must resign, in a statement entitled "Iraq Is a Fuse, But Cheney Built the Bomb," printed for mass distribution in the millions. LaRouche demonstrates, 1) that the policies going under cover as the "war on terror," had first been concocted by the same Chickenhawks in 1990, under then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and had been rejected by President George H.W. Bush, then; 2) that Cheney had attempted to bring those policies back, in September 2000, with the Bush-Cheney election campaign foreign-policy staff, known as the "Vulcans," who had been handpicked by George Shultz; and, as LaRouche stresses, 3) "This doctrine, pushed repeatedly, by Cheney and his Chickenhawk accomplices since 1990, had no notable success in securing adoption until Sept. 11, 2001."
Sept. 20: Bush Administration releases National Security Strategy of the United States, which embraces pre-emptive war.
Sept. 27: LaRouche issues "A Boldly Modest U.S. Global Mission," which calls for abandoning the Cheney-Bush policy, and embracing one for global reconstruction.
Oct. 10: Congress passes Bush's resolution, empowering him to launch war against Iraq when he decides.
2003
Feb. 7: LaRouche issues a statement entitled "Powell the Victim of an Apparent Hoax," quoting former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere's remarks to EIR, that "They've determined that they're going to invade Iraq, and they need a cover from the UN, but they're not going out of their way to make a good case."
March 18: LaRouche puts out a statement, "Can We Salvage This Presidency?" in which he identifies the Hitlerian rationale for the war, and for the first time tags the nexus of Administration warmongers known as followers of fascist philosopher Leo Strauss as the "Children of Satan."
March 20: The war against Iraq begins.
April 9: The LaRouche in 2004 campaign issues the first of three "Children of Satan" mass distribution pamphlets, bearing the title "The 'Ignoble Liars' Behind Bush's No Exit War." As the research grew that went into exposing the Straussian composition of Cheney's private cabinet, the pamphlet had to be updated three times, ending with 1 million copies in print, and an untold number downloaded from LaRouche's campaign website. LaRouche's article in the pamphlet, "Insanity As Geometry," proved that the Cheney-Rumsfeld-Ashcroft war-party were direct students of Leo Strauss, mostly at the University of Chicago, where he had been installed thanks to Nazi Party jurist Carl Schmitt.
LaRouche also identified a second element of the Straussian philosophy, which became known as "the Beast-Man," expressed by British imperialists Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells: to rule the world by threatening such unthinkable terrorâexemplified by Truman's nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasakiâthat nations would surrender their sovereignty, rather than risk seeing their countries reduced to radioactive rubble. Russell insisted in the late 1940s that this terror should include pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
June 2: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, issues a letter demanding a full explanation, as to why senior Bush Administration officials, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the President himself, "cited forged evidence about Iraq's attempts to obtain nuclear materials," as part of their argument to gain Congressional authority to go to war.
June 7: LaRouche puts out a detailed, million-run press release, "LaRouche Says Charges against Cheney Constitute Grounds for Impeachment," and demands a full investigation: "Let there be no mistake about it. The nature of these charges constitutes hard grounds for impeachment. The question has to be taken head on. It is time for Dick Cheney to come clean. I want to know exactly what Dick Cheney knew and when he knew it.... Determining who knew what and when is, at this time, an urgent matter of national security."
July 2: LaRouche holds a webcast "We're at a Turning Point in History." He excoriates Democrats who were prone to a knee-jerk reaction to attack Bush, explaining: "The reason we went to a war in Iraq, was because the Democratic Party was neutralized, by the belief that Cheney had the evidence that Iraq was getting nuclear weapons. Cheney knew there were no such nuclear weapons. Cheney knew the story about Niger 'yellowcake' going to Iraq was a fraud. And yet, with that knowledge, he pushed that argument, in order to convince the Congress to subside, and to allow the war to go ahead."
July 6: Former U.S. Ambassador Joe Wilson, the last U.S. diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1991, authors an op-ed published in the New York Times, "What I Didn't Find in Africa." There Wilson reveals that he went to Niger in February 2002, at the request of the CIA, which told him that the Vice President's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.
July 21: LaRouche issues a mass leaflet entitled " 'W' As in Watergate," urging the President to get rid of Cheney, now, and urging honest Democrats to help save the Presidency: "Is 'W' impeachable? Should he be impeached? To impeach 'W' while Cheney is still Vice President, would be tantamount to treason against the entire human race! My preferred policy continues to be: Purge the Administration of Cheney and his neo-conservatives, leaving in place an Administration which could control the sitting President for the remaining months of his term...."
Aug. 1: EIR magazine releases a cover feature entitled "Case for Impeachament of Vice President Dick Cheney."
Aug. 9: In the wake of Dick Cheney beginning to talk about a "new 9/11," LaRouche issues a new statement, which asks, "When Cheney Spoke of Terrorists, Which Terrorists, Dick?" The statement declares, "LaRouche says 'the entirety' of Cheney's power over U.S. policy-shaping 'was gained solely through those of his presently undiscovered political benefactors who staged the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001.' Now, says LaRouche, 'Cheney has promised an early terrorist attack on the U.S.A., comparable in political effect to that of Sept. 11, 2001. He does so at a time when his own failing political position requires some lucky such event to put him firmly back in the position he had prior to the recent developments in the Iraq war.' "
Oct. 22: LaRouche's webcast, "Preparing for the Post-Cheney Era," is another major salvo, taken during his campaign's major intervention on the Cheney flank in the California recall election, which ultimately elected Shultz's puppet Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Nov. 7: LaRouche takes the point, with radio actualities in Washington, D.C., and with a mass leaflet, entitled "LaRouche: Dump Cheney Now!"
Some in Congress fight back in their own way, as Rep. Henry Waxman opens a new investigation of Cheney's former company, Halliburton, and its war-profiteering.
2004
Jan. 3: LaRouche's campaign releases the second mass pamphlet, "Children of Satan II: The Beast-Men." This occurs as Congressional investigation of the intelligence fraud on Iraq, and Halliburton's corruption goes into high gear.
Although many Democrats and others are initially shocked by LaRouche's "Beast-Man" analysis, their skepticism turns to astonished admiration when the Abu Ghraib revelations hit, showing LaRouche's analysis to be precise.
June 18: LaRouche in 2004 releases the third of the "Children of Satan" mass pamphlets, "The Sexual Congress for Cultural Freedom," which, LaRouche promises, "will hit Cheney hard," exposing "with hard fact, the political origins of the current connection of Cheney and his accomplices to an operation launched back during the 1940s, by Franklin Roosevelt-hating circles ... by rogue elements of our establishment who were working in concert with selected remnants of the Nazi apparatus." This is why you tolerate Cheney, LaRouche argues. One million copies were distributed before the Democratic Party Convention began on July 26.
June 22: Cheney shows the effects of the pressure building, when he flips into a "Go fâk yourself" reaction to a greeting by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy (Vt.), during a visit to the Senate.
July 8: LaRouche's campaign issues a press release revealing that Cheney's General Council David Addington had been one of the authors of the memos saying that the United States could violate or ignore the Geneva Conventions in the "war on terror."
Aug. 14: LaRouche Political Action Committee (LaRouche PAC) issues a book compiled of the three "Children of Satan" pamphlets, with an introduction by LaRouche which lays out the stakes in the 2004 election. He writes: "The following pages ... point the way to understanding what must be understood if we as a nation are to pull back from the brink toward which we are lurching, in time to save not only ourselves, but generations to come."
Sept. 20: LaRouche issues a mass leaflet, "A Vote for Bush & Cheney Is a Vote for Perpetual War and Economic Hell."
Oct. 6: LaRouche holds a webcast on Bush's insanity, focussing on the implications of the fact that Bush is a psychopath, and Cheney a sociopath.
Nov. 5: "The Coming Indictment of Vice President Cheney" is the cover feature of the post-election edition of EIR, which reviews the momentum toward a case for impeachment.
Nov. 9: LaRouche holds a webcast under the theme "It's the Economy, Stupid!" where he develops the need to fight against the results of the election.
2005
Jan. 5: LaRouche holds a webcast under the theme "Confronting the Deadly Crisis of International Relations." In response to a question about Cheney, he is clear: "Cheney is a fascist. Get rid of him! Impeach him." The webcast is the culmination of a LaRouche Youth Movement mobilization in Washington, D.C., focussed around giving spine to the Congress.
Jan. 6: Cheney is forced to preside over a challenge to the validity of the November elections, during the Joint Session of Congress called to certify the Presidential elections.
April 7: A LaRouche webcast, under the title "Time to Reverse Shultz's Destruction of Exchange Controls," targets George Shultz as the controller of Cheney, and the need to prevent their plans to destroy the economy.
May 27: EIR publishes a feature story entitled "U.S. Nuclear First Strike Doctrine is Operational," which shows Cheney's head in a mushroom cloud. The story focusses on the global contingency plans which the Cheney-Bush Administration have put in place for a nuclear first strike by local commanders.
June 16: In a webcast under the title "Urgent Changes Needed in the World Financial System," LaRouche deals at length with Cheney's recently defeated attempt to carry out a coup against the U.S. Constitution with the "nuclear option." Cheney's been defeated, but he'll try for dictatorship again, LaRouche warns.
July 22: LaRouche issues a major article entitled "The Case of a Vice-President's Mass Insanity," which appears in EIR magazine, and is reprinted as a mass pamphlet by LaRouche PAC, which circulates in more than 500,000 copies.
July 27: LaRouche issues an international alert for the period of August 2005, warning that this is the likely timeframe in which Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, might activate the recently exposed plans for a pre-emptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran. This is circulated broadly in mass leaflets, pamphlets, and magazines of the LaRouche movement internationally, but also is translated in most major languages and spread over the internet globally.
August: LaRouche PAC issues 250,000 copies of a pamphlet entitled "Soldiers of Satan," which includes EIR's study of Cheney's "Spoon-benders" pushing Armageddon.
Sept. 3: LaRouche holds a webcast entitled "Pulling the Nation Together" in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In questions and answers, LaRouche emphasizes that the danger of Cheney's pre-emptive war plan is not gone, and he has to be removed.
Sept. 16: "The Great Change of 2005" is the name of the webcast LaRouche gives this day, which again elaborates on the fact that the removal of Cheney is the sine qua non for implementing the necessary economic recovery program for the nation and the world.
Sept. 23: EIR features Dick Cheney in its cover story, "Cheney Revives Parvus 'Permanent War' Madness."
Oct. 2: LaRouche issues a statement, "Let Cheney-Bush Go Quietly Now."
Oct. 12: LaRouche's Columbus Day webcast, while mainly focussing on the economic tasks ahead, is unequivocal on the issue of Cheney: "Everyone knows, that as long as the current Bush-Cheney policy remains, the United States doesn't have a prayer! Everybody knows the time has come to get Cheney out if you want to have a U.S. economy.
"All the conditions, the preconditions for inducing Cheney to leave, all but one, remain. Because we want to get Cheney out, we don't want to have to wait to impeach him. We want him to resign."
Posted by: Steve ||
11/01/2005 15:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Woah! The Larouche Machine on the March!
Is he still working the credit card scams or is this all being bankrolled by those change buckets on the folding tables his followers man when they're giving away his comic books?
#7
You see them in San Francisco's financial district upon occasion. An odd bunch: dressed like RNC activists, acting like DNC activists on crack. Their propaganda is chick tract hilarious.
No? Damn!
About that "all-out political war" â as an MSNBC anchor dubbed it â that has supposedly broken out over the nomination of Samuel Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court: There isn't going to be one.
No war, but a lot of ugliness. For example, it took only two hours for the anti-Alito rhetoric to overheat, courtesy of New York's own Sen. Chuck Schumer. He decided, in a pretty amazing display of bad taste, to use the late Rosa Parks' corpse as a weapon.
"The real question today is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa Parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place," Schumer said.
Now, it's one thing for a senator to say that Alito should not be confirmed because he is too conservative. That's been Schumer's stance on GOP judicial nominations, pure and simple, and while it may be wrong-headed, it's not disreputable. It's quite another for Schumer to oppose a conservative jurist by suggesting his views are implicitly segregationist. That's just a lousy and rotten thing to do.
Even more embarrassing for Schumer: His slander is just a cheap carbon copy of the real thing. That was Ted Kennedy's stunning 1987 evisceration of Robert Bork â you remember, when Kennedy took to the floor of the Senate mere minutes after Bork's nomination to say he would return America to a time when "blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters."
Kennedy's words ushered in a new era in American politics. It would be difficult to capture just how shocking that attack was. Nothing like it had ever been said by an elected official about someone who was not an elected official â unless he was speaking about the leader of an enemy country.
Bork's supporters were determined not to give the attack the time of day, presuming that it would boomerang â that people of good will would be disgusted by Kennedy's words and sympathetic to Bork. They didn't understand that the rules of the game had changed.
Fortunately for Alito, and unfortunately for Schumer & Co., in 2005 everybody knows the score. All and sundry understand that any judicial candidate with a record of any kind is going to be the object of a smear campaign.
As a result, the smears are almost instantly discounted. They aren't going to convince anyone; they're just an automatic and instantly forgettable aspect of our national political life, like balloons on election night or David Gergen's opinion on anything.
Yes, the liberal groups are busy preparing their talking points about some Alito decisions on abortion and public religious displays, while conservative bloggers are already providing illuminating chapter and verse on the sophistication of Alito's decision-making. Sounds like a battle royal in the making.
However, the great likelihood is that this is going to be a phony war, waged up until the moment of real combat. Unless something really shocking happens, Alito will be confirmed.
Here are the facts of the case. No Supreme Court nominee has been rejected by the Senate since Bork, during Ronald Reagan's second term. Bork's defeat came in a Senate controlled by Democrats. Today's Senate is dominated by Republicans, 55 to 45.
And though a few liberal Republicans may consider voting against Alito, on the key question of abortion his record is complicated. He voted in 2000 to void a New Jersey law limiting the noxious practice of partial-birth abortion, because he believed a prior Supreme Court decision required him to do so. And when he voted to uphold a Pennsylvania law requiring a wife seeking an abortion to notify her husband of her intent to abort their child, Alito did so on the basis of opinions by . . . Sandra Day O'Connor.
And that's just what he'll tell Chuck Schumer during his hearing when Schumer brings it up â the same Chuck Schumer who yesterday morning said he wanted Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement to follow in her footsteps.
I suspect there's enough ambiguity in Alito's record to allow a liberal Republican to vote for him â and three Democratic senators fighting for their lives in red-state elections next year (the two Nelsons, Florida's Bill and Nebraska's Ben, plus Louisiana's Mary Landrieu) will want to support the nomination.
So, will Democrats try to block Alito with a filibuster? Almost certainly no. Why? Because in that circumstance Republicans led by Sen. John McCain will be forced to support the president by voting for the so-called "nuclear option" to change the filibustering rules. That takes only 50 Republican votes and one from Vice President Dick Cheney, who can break a tie vote in the Senate.
Triggering the "nuclear option" would be a huge defeat for Democrats â a defeat far greater than letting a distinguished jurist like Alito get through, no matter how much grumbling they do.
They won't risk it. Barring some shocking revelation, Alito is in by Christmas.
Chuck Schumer, however, will have to wait until next Yom Kippur to seek atonement for the sin he committed yesterday. Double damn. We not only expect the judiciary to stick to the constitution, the same goes for the Senate. No more unconstitutional filibusters. When the constitution stipulates a simple majority vote, then so be it, up or down, end of story. Oh - and work like hell to defeat the RINOs and replace them with non-idiotarians, but then that part's up to us.
#1
They aren't going to convince anyone; they're just an automatic and instantly forgettable aspect of our national political life, like balloons on election night or David Gergen's opinion on anything.
David Gergen's reply: "Ouch!"
Posted by: Mike ||
11/01/2005 8:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So, will Democrats try to block Alito with a filibuster? Almost certainly no. Why? Because in that circumstance Republicans led by Sen. John McCain will be forced to support the president by voting for the so-called "nuclear option" to change the filibustering rules.
Then the nuclear option has been adopted by inaction.
#5
Don't forget the good 'ol tax cuts for the rich scam. Some people forget the dems in office are also very rich. In fact, who do you think puts most of the loopholes in tax laws? The dems definately do not want to be taxed since most are rich.
#7
I am continually amazed on how stupid Schumer and Co. remain. He takes his lines from the same large type playbook that failed over and over again. The first thing that he does with Alito is to do the BIG SMEAR. We were taught that smearing someone's character was not acceptable behavior in grade school. If Shumer had serious misgivings about Alito, then he could make a statement to that effect and add that he will be asking serious questions in the Senate, where he will make his decision. The fact is that the President (like him or hate him is irrelevant) has nominated this candidate for SCOTUS in accordance with the Constitution of the US. The Senate has the obligation to give advice and consent on the candidate. Regardless of the candidate, there needs to be a basic respect of the process.
We need some decorum here to keep the holding power of the glue of our civilization intact. There are certain standards of behavior that must be maintained for the good of the institution of the Senate and the country. Schumer goes way beyond the Pale when he does this smear stuff.
It reflects badly on his Senate district. If they think that he is fine, then they can keep him. If his constituents think that he is a bad example for children and young adults on how to act, they should boot him out on his ass.
But, hey. If the Dems want to keep losing, then keep reading from the same loser playbook. It would be nice to get out of the gutter. Moroons.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/01/2005 22:35 Comments ||
Top||
Liberal Democrat peers: you never know whether youâre going to find them bravely castigating Western governments for human rights failures, or seeking to have us understand why much worse abuses committed by exotic foreigners are somehow less awful than they seem.
Under a fortnight ago the lawyer Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Andrew Phillips) was doing the second thing â attempting to explain the ways of President Ahmadinejad of Iran to fellow Britons. And though it must be said at once that this was not at all the kind of Assad-licking one gets from George Galloway, it was still a wonderful example of relativism.
Ahmadinejad was a âself-made man with a good doctorate in engineering, who lives in modest circumstances and has a reputation for incorruptibilityâ. Though a bit on the reactionary side he had fought a mainly secular campaign concentrating on the Iranian equivalents of schools-ân-hospitals.
Iran was a diverse country, Phillips emphasised, far more democratic than in the Eighties, and Iranians were well-educated, highly cultured âdevourersâ of a diverse press. As for all that stoning of adulteresses, hanging of homosexuals and imprisoning of editors, well, it should be kept in perspective. Then came this: âAlthough a country of, by our traditions, cruel Sharia law, (Iran) is nonetheless a place full of humour, spirituality and aesthetic depth. Where in the West does one find the main thoroughfares and squares named after poets?â
I dunno, Andrew. No, itâs coming back. Berlin. Paris. Rome. Just about everywhere, in fact, except Britain where we never change street names if we can help it, and America, where they never named them in the first place. In fact the West is festooned with Heinrich Heinestrasses, Rues Balzacs and Avenidas Cervantes. How can educated people such as his lordship know so little about their own hemisphere?
In any case the latter-day Tehran St Francis spoiled the picture last week by not once, but twice, committing himself and all good Muslims to wiping Israel off the map and consigning those Middle Eastern leaders who so much as recognised the Jewish state to the âfires of the Ummahâ. Diverse the Iranian press may be (though you take a considerable risk), but reports from the Iranian capital during the anti-Israel demos there suggested that the state-controlled radio and TV did sterling service by showing non-stop pictures of Israeli atrocities, then covering a state-sponsored event at Tehran University, while suppressing all mention of the international response to Ahmadinejadâs remarks.
But what did it signify? Nothing, apparently. Some Western observers pronounced it to be not much more than an uncharacteristic rhetorical flourish from the otherwise ascetic president. âThe fact,â said one, âthat the Iranian regime is hostile to Israel is hardly news.â It was a silly miscalculation from someone who didnât, in any case, have the power greatly to influence anything.
This view suggests that Ahmadinejad is â in political terms â a moron. Maybe we should now expect some zoomorphic cartoons from the same brilliant satirical minds that have always cast George Bush as a chimp. And maybe not. But the hopeful notion that â protests made â we can assume that he doesnât really mean it, wonât appeal much to even the most sunny Israeli nor to that countryâs most critical supporters. When it comes to men offering to wipe Jewish things off the map, it seems prudent to take them at their word.
So sentiments such as those of the Iranian President are alarming enough at any time. And this is not just any time, because â as the United Nations reports â Iran is probably developing a nuclear weapon capacity. There are, of course, some British political figures who are rather more tolerant of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons than Britain keeping hers. But for the rest of us itâs pretty frightening, and strato-talk about regional power structures and Iranian insecurity seem to exist in a psychological world separate from wipings-outs of entire nations.
Go and read the main Ahmadinejad speech on the internet and see whether it makes you feel less queasy to read the whole mad rant of it.
So, of course, the tisch-talk turns once more to how Bush and Blair might take pre-emptive military action against Iran, or how Israel might do to Iranâs nascent nukes what it did to Saddamâs French-engineered capacity at Osirak in 1981. Except this time with unimaginable consequences.
It is interesting how almost all the predictions of such actions come either from opponents of Western intervention in the area, or from the most exotic fringes of American neo-conservatism. I can tell readers that in my contacts with US and British officials and politicians, off the record, hush-hush and all that, I have found zero appetite for an Iranian adventure and zero expectation that the position will change. The formula is that ânothing can be ruled outâ, but in this case it means that â outside the circumstance of an Iranian attack on Pearl Harbor â there wonât be a war. Nor will the Israelis launch an air strike, not least because the Iranians are not stupid enough to have repeated Saddamâs errors.
What, then, do we do about Iran? I may be infuriated with Phillipsâs relativisms, but the adult truth is that I agree with half of his argument and almost all of his conclusions. Iran is indeed a far more complex, porous and open country than Saddamite Iraq was or Kimâs North Korea still is. An enlightening article in this monthâs New York Review of Books, by the intellectual and writer Timothy Garton Ash, based on a recent visit to Iran, paints the picture of a young and increasingly outward-looking society, in long-term conflict with the conservative theocrats who seek to rule it. Young Iranians live undercover lives, admire American freedoms and desire more democracy. But their progressive inclinations could easily be overturned by Western bellicosity. Somehow we have to woo them, strengthen them, while not appearing to manipulate them.
The problem for Ahmadinejad is that his Iran will fail. What he wants, my analyst friend said to me, is a country like a psychiatric hospital, in which the patients are soothed by being told when to take their meals, what to eat, what to watch, when bedtime is, how to relate to the opposite sex and when to take their medication. It is unbelievably boring and undynamic.
No wonder that one of the Presidentâs first acts, completed last week, was to ban all foreign films from being shown in Iran. They were said to contain seeds of a dangerous and corrupting culture, which could influence Iranians in the directions of drug-taking (as if!), feminism, liberalism and secularism. Given half a chance, the hardliners seemed to be saying, those contaminated would chuck in the safety of the closed ward and lithium tablets, for a cavort in the wild world outside.
This offers us our clue. If thatâs what the theocrats are scared of, then thatâs what we should give them. We should offer young Iranians every chance to experience the outside world: places in our colleges, work permits in our industries, cultural contacts of every kind. We should encourage visits to Iran. We should love-bomb the mullahs out of the Stone Age.
#2
Please read the article above on page 2. Seems that not all Iranians agree about the "out of touchness" of the Islamofascists vis a vis the population.
Article by Bruno Schirra: "How Dangerous Is Iran?"]
I have suggested that the Iranians are planning just such an attack against a US fleet in the region, most likely not by nuclear missile but by other nuclear means.
This would be critical to almost any scenario they have for war against the US. They also are probably developing extensive plans to use unconventional attacks in the US and possibly western Europe.
Finally, they would want to mount an invasion into the southern part of Iraq, to bog down any US ground forces there, rather than letting them into Iran. From that point, they can use extensive missile attacks and blackmail against everyone else in the region. They may even choose to ignore Tel Aviv entirely in favor of expelling the US from the region.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
