U.S. was aware of ?new? Iranian nuke site for years:
Summary: WASHINGTON (CNN) The United States was aware of Iran's unfinished uranium enrichment site for several years, senior U.S. officials told CNN on Friday.So why are we revving up the machine now? Read more...source: CNN
Israel: Iranian nuclear facility for weapons
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman says the newly exposed Iranian nuclear facility proves the Islamic Republic is pursuing nuclear weapons. Lieberman told Israel radio on Saturday that "without a doubt" the reactor was for military purposes. Iran kept the facility, located 100 miles southwest of Tehran, hidden from the U.N. nuclear watchdog until revealing it in a letter to the IAEA on Monday. Iran insists its enrichment facilities are only for producing fuel for power plants rather than for weapons. Israel considers Iran a strategic threat due to its nuclear program, missile development and repeated references by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Israel's destruction.He speaks and we are listening?
The drums are beating and the sabres are rattling - AGAIN!
Read more...FBI may have destroyed files on Walter Cronkite
Officials with the Federal Bureau of Investigation said they may have destroyed files on legendary newsman Walter Cronkite in an October 2007 document purge. One of Cronkite's closest friends, Mike Ashford, said he wouldn't be surprised if Cronkite's name showed up in FBI files, but that it was probably for innocuous reasons. "He was routinely in the company of presidents and received clearance to enter secret places like a nuclear submarine," Ashford, who spoke at Cronkite's funeral, told Raw Story. "If there was anything on him, it probably said: 'He's a good guy and okay to have dinner with the president.' Walter was never fretting about the FBI following him around."Or was it for his Vietnam war comments? Let us hope that Sir Walter was on file because of those clearances he received. But my gut tells me otherwise. Read more...
New Pew Poll on Afghanistan Shows Dwindling Support for the War:
Read more...Even though more than three-quarters of Americans consider the Taliban a threat, an increasing number want Obama to start withdrawing troops.
Limbaugh Wants Jim Crow Back: "We Need Segregated Buses"
Last week, a video of a school bus beating showing two African American children assaulting a white student began circulating the internet. Despite claims by authorities that the attack was not necessarily racially motivated, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh jumped on the story and claimed that in "Obama's America the white kids now get beat up." Yesterday, Limbaugh proposed a solution to this problem -- a return to segregated busing: LIMBAUGH: I think the guy's wrong. I think not only it was racism, it was justifiable racism. I mean, that's the lesson we're being taught here today. Kid shouldn't have been on the bus anyway. We need segregated buses -- it was invading space and stuff. This is Obama's America.Glenn Beck rides the train. Sean Hannity rides it...Are these guys trying to outdo the other with insane ideas? Read more...
Murtha To Obama: No More Troops: H
ouse defense spending cardinal John Murtha, an early bellwether of congressional opposition to the Iraq war, has made his strongest comments yet opposing more U.S. troops for the war in Afghanistan.Read more...The Pennsylvania lawmaker and Vietnam veteran, who plays a crucial role in forming the budgets that would fund an increased troop presence, is skeptical of the basic logic of adding personnel.
Tea Party Protester: "We Think The Muslims Are Moving In And Taking Over" (:
A protester at Saturday's Tea Party on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. made clear that she was afraid, saying 'We are losing our country, we think the Muslim's are moving in and taking over.'Hope she doesn't look under her bed, the little green men have set up camp.NBC Nightly News interviewed the woman, who was surrounded by fellow protesters as she made the remarks. Her name was not used.
Participants at the event, billed 'March on Washington' by its organizers, rallied against President Obama's health care plan and what they say is out-of-control spending.
Sorry I missed chief loony Coulter in Bridgeport the other day. I could have used a good laugh.
Read more...Obama's Quagmire Looks a Lot like Vietnam:
Time to say - ENOUGH! Read more...The way he's headed on Afghanistan, Barack Obama is threatened with a quagmire that could bog down his presidency.
Team Obama Divided on Afghanistan:
Top officials of the Obama administration are divided on the expected request of the Pentagon for more troops in Afghanistan reported Friday.Leading the opposition - Biden.'The military's anticipated request for more troops to combat the insurgency in Afghanistan has divided senior advisers to President Obama as they try to determine the proper size and mission of the American effort there, officials said Thursday.'
"
Listen to us - bring the troops home.
Read more...Obama Is Leading the U.S. Into a Hellish Quagmire:
Obama is doubling down in Afghanistan with more troops deployed now than the Soviets ever had, at a time when public support for it is sinking like a rock.Time to bring attention to this issue. Time to end both wars. Read more...Why hasn't anyone pointed out that America's troop commitment now exceeds the Red Army's? For some inexplicable reason the corporate media has decided to shuffle the figures and exclude the US military contractors from the total figure of US military personnel. It makes no logical sense -- we still count the Hessians among the British forces in the War of Independence. It's as if the only thing left that Americans are capable of is accounting fraud -- the only talent we perfected over the past decade was how to move all the bad numbers off the official books, as if it's become an instinctive reflex.
The Afghanistan War has somehow escaped most of America's attention.
David Swanson: Bush's Third Term? You're Living It:
And the list goes on and on... But we elected a change agent - didn't we?Cross-posted with Tomdispatch.com
It sounds like the plot for the latest summer horror movie. Imagine, for a moment, that George W. Bush had been allowed a third term as president, had run and had won or stolen it, and that we were all now living (and dying) through it. With the Democrats in control of Congress but Bush still in the Oval Office, the media would certainly be talking endlessly about a mandate for bipartisanship and the importance of taking into account the concerns of Republicans. Can't you just picture it?
There's Dubya now, still rewriting laws via signing statements. Still creating and destroying laws with executive orders. And still violating laws at his whim.
Now, here's the funny part. This dark fantasy of a third Bush term is also an accurate portrait of Obama's first term to date. In following Bush, Obama was given the opportunity either to restore the rule of law and the balance of powers or to firmly establish in place what were otherwise aberrant abuses of power. Thus far, President Obama has, in all the areas mentioned above, chosen the latter course. Everything described, from the continuation of crimes to the efforts to hide them away, from the corruption of corporate power to the assertion of the executive power to legislate, is Obama's presidency in its first seven months.Read more...
Which doesn't mean there aren't differences in the two moments. For one thing, Democrats have now joined Republicans in approving expanded presidential powers and even -- in the case of wars, military strikes, lawless detention and rendition, warrantless spying, and the obstruction of justice -- presidential crimes. In addition, in the new Democratic era of goodwill, peace and justice movements have been strikingly defunded and, in some cases, even shut down. Many progressive groups now, in fact, take their signals from the president and his team, rather than bringing the public's demands to his doorstep.
If we really were in Bush's third term, people would be far more active and outraged. There would already be a major push to really end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Undoubtedly, the Democrats still wouldn't impeach Bush, especially since they'd be able to vote him out before his fourth term, and surely four more years of him wouldn't make all that much difference.
Copyright 2009 David Swanson
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
