CNN a Casualty of Iran NIE

Quite tragic.

CNN was ready to help lead the march to attack Iran with its special “We Were Warned – Iran Goes Nuclear.” The two-hour show was to air December 12.

Rather than deal with facts, the show was set in a future where Iran has become a nuclear threat. That special was “based on a different set of rules and a different set of conditions,” said CNN veep-senior exec producer Mark Nelson, noting that the surprising NIE report “changed everything.” In its place, CNN will this weekend air two Campbell Brown-hosted specials on the Iran situation and its history. Portions of “We Were Warned” correspondent Frank Sesno’s original reporting will be incorporated into those hours, which air Saturday and Sunday.

I am sure CNN will recover and find some other way to help start a war.

  • R. Nelson

    William Hearst is alive and well at Crush Nuclear Neophytes.

    • Herman ‘Schmidt

      Let’s hope the Iran history includes events after WWI and WWII and doesn’t begin with the hostages in the late 70’s. Some history of the Shah and the Savak, and the involvement of the CIA and the Mossad—offer the public some alternative views of why Iran is anti-British/American and Israeli. Too much to hope for, but would be welcome.

  • peace

    Isn’t CNN awful, and isn’t Whitman, Gergan, and the other proposed panelists awful. Beware of these dangerous chimps and chumps!

  • wadosy

    CNN and israel will be vindicated when that little nuke goes off in one of your favorite american cities… for which CNN and the rest of the israeli american media will blame iran.

    chertoff’s gut feeling materializes in such impressive fashion that martial law, a draft, and the neocons’ attack on iran can be justified…

    …at which point hormuz is closed and a heroic pipelaying project from the persian gulf to israel is initiated, resulting in israel becoming the oil hub of the persian gulf/caspian/central asian region.

    duck soup, GI.

  • Peter Biddulph, England

    Hell, you people. Whether D or R, it’s still…

    American values 1. We just gotta lead (rule) the world in our own selfish strategic and economic interests (Read your nation’s history).

    American values 2. If anybody doesn’t like that and fights back, we kill ’em. Remember, we’re God’s own little acre.

    American values 3. Goddammit, we’ve got a quarter of our people either spying or marching or flying. They’ve got to do something with all that time and money. So it’s bomb, bomb, bomb — somebody?

    Worcestershire,
    England.

    • John Lowell

      And all of this with no introspection, Peter? Most extraordinary. You’ll excuse my observing that you’ve perhaps “Biddulph” more than you can chew with this comment. :-)

      John Lowell

      • Peter Biddulph, England

        Hello John,

        Not quite sure that “introspection” is the correct jibe. In fact, I’ve been researching in depth your nation’s foreign policy and covert actions (as far as your “freedom of information” will allow) for ten years now. All in connection with the historical background to the Lockerbie bombing. You can check me out on the Jim Swire/Peter Biddulph Lockerbie website.

        Take it from me, it’s a shocking history, flowing with the blood of innocents, from Nicaragua through to Iraq. You may not be aware, but one of the leading operatives in Iran-Contra, a man who in the mid eighties entertained and funded Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen, is the very same man put by your president in charge of the CIA Lockerbie investigation. Sure enough under his management up popped the only fragment of the bomb ever found (strange that). And who did it point to? Well, Libya. A convenient, weak, poorly run, poorly armed target. And the real culprit? Iran. A strong, well armed, and difficult target.

        Meanwhile, as a second appeal by the Libyan convict is attempted, your nation is covertly working with other nations to ensure that a secret report relating to that same bomb fragment is to be with-held from the defence team and the appeal court. Two hearings have taken place, and the British government is now talking about a Public Interest Immunity Certificate, to make sure that just about nobody ever sees the report. American values in action?

        And my funny sounding name? Well, like the hero of The Crucible, written by “communist sympathiser” Arthur Miller, I am proud of it.

  • subHuman

    That propaganda machine is after the same bunch of racists and christ-talibans who watch Murdoch’s propaganda outlets.

  • George Kurian , India

    CNN and Murdoch are not the only propagandists in the world. Before the Iraq war, the BBC ran a show in their Panorama series which concluded that the Iraqis had Nuclear bombs and were hiding them.The BBC has not had the courage to apologise for their obviously biased reporting, yet it almost claims to have a monopoly on balanced reporting!
    Arab, Russian, Chinese and African duplicity is alluded to sometimes directly but often in the biased language of the reporting.There is a great cauldron of subliminal racism in all this. I think it would be a good exercise for the BBC to go back and review all it had to say before the Iraq war began.

    • peace

      Et tu, BBC. Thanks for this info.

  • Randal

    Perhaps CNN were going to be honest, rather than warmonger. Perhaps, as well as showing some genuine historical context regarding Iran’s sufferings at the hands of the west, the program was going to show the most likely longer term consequences of Iran getting nuclear weapons – the US less able to act with murderous aggression in the ME, Israel forced to actually seek compromise, relative peace descending on the region at last. After all, strong fences make good neighbours, and it’s the excess military strength of Israel and the US that makes problems in the ME so intractable.

    On the other hand, most probably CNN will just be cheerleading for mass murder as usual.

  • phil

    I think CNN can write their scripts before the results occur because they employ retired Professional Wrestling executives. I remember attending a wrestling show with my kids where the Event Program reflected results of what did not yet happen, including staged photos!!

    One another subject, I see that Israel wants to attack Iran without the United States. Big chance for Macho Warmonger Blogger Tim R. to join the Israeli army and defend his beloved homeland from those big, bad Islamo-Fascist dudes he keeps talking about. Geez, he would actually have to do his own dirty work and fight his own battle, do you think he could handle it?

  • Pernicious Pavlovian

    War it seems, reflects the psychological health of a nation’s people. CNN would therefore be “duty bound” to report on that health. Sadly and given the hacks, jackals, propagandists, and other journalistic posers at CNN, ‘we the people’ are terminally ill and politically screwed. Leave’s an American wondering when/and/or if ‘we the people’ can take back our democratic republic and hold the war criminals to account and clean this nasty mess up.

  • Tim R.

    Even though they may have halted their nuclear program in 2003, that does not mean they might not start it up again at any time. They are still going full speed ahead with their plan to enrich uranium. So why are they doing that? Why did President Im a nut job say they want to keep enriching uranium? For peaceful puproses? Are you that gullible to believe that? You really don’t think they want nuclear weapons? Of course they want nuclear weapons.

    And another thing, stop talking about going to war. We are ALREADY at war. We have several battle fronts but the war has already started and it is a war against radical Islam. Let me tell you something, a lot of you folks on here believe in peace and want to do everything to avoid war, and I really admire you for that. However, you are in error. Sometimes in order to have peace you must be prepared for war. If the IslamoFascists get a hold of nuclear weapons, then what? Do you think the radical Muslims would hesitate for a second to set off a nuclear bomb? And if, heaven forbid, they set off a nuclear device in one of our cities and kill not three thousand, but three million americans, then what will you say? You will all have blood on your hands! You guys have the best of intentions but you are in error. Just like Neville Chamberlin, you think you can just sit down and talk and appease evil and it will go away. Chamberlin met Hitler and said “we have peace in our time.” Well, we all know how that turned out. Stop trying to appease evil.

    • doug

      This is a response to Tim R.
      With all due respect you Sir are a blooming idiot.
      When will you except the fact that the Iranians never did start a WAR. If they would not have any OIL right now nobody would even mention Iran.You need to go back and study some more history and then open your mouth.
      What you are doing is what this administration is creating fear among the population so A ABSOLUT POWER CAN BE IMPLIMENTED BY THE NEOCONS.
      That is why we need a President Like DR. RON PAUL.

    • Kenneth

      The “appeasement” metaphor is beginning to wear thin, Tim. So are the cheap rhetorical tricks you continue to employ in order to evade the stubborn absence of empirical support for your cartoonish paradigm of global politics.

      They are still going full speed ahead with their plan to enrich uranium. So why are they doing that? Why did President Im a nut job say they want to keep enriching uranium? For peaceful puproses? Are you that gullible to believe that? You really don’t think they want nuclear weapons? Of course they want nuclear weapons.

      Iran has plenty of good reasons for wanting nuclear power, Tim. The gap between Iran’s oil exports and domestic consumption in shrinking, mainly because of its rapidly growing population. In a few decades, it’ll disappear altogether. It’s natural that Iran would want to make its oil as profitable as possible by replacing it with some other energy source. The president may be bonkers, but he wields little real power within Iran- it’s the Ayatollah, after all, who has command of the military and the sole authority to declare war. He would never authorize a nuclear first strike against Israel for the simple reason that it would be suicide.

      And another thing, stop talking about going to war. We are ALREADY at war. We have several battle fronts but the war has already started and it is a war against radical Islam.

      If that were the case, the United States wouldn’t be funding Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, etc.

      If the IslamoFascists get a hold of nuclear weapons, then what? Do you think the radical Muslims would hesitate for a second to set off a nuclear bomb? And if, heaven forbid, they set off a nuclear device in one of our cities and kill not three thousand, but three million americans, then what will you say?

      Tim, your continued conjectures have merely served to deflect scrutiny from the actual situation. The real rulers of Iran haven’t started a war and have no intention of doing so. There is no basis for supposing such a thing as “Islamofascism” even exists, let alone that it exerts a significant influence on the course of world affairs or controls entire states. The Iranian regime is a theocracy, but so is Saudi Arabia (a far more brutal one than Iran, at that), which has been most amiable to America. Some time ago, I referred to Robert Pape’s detailed study of terrorism, and it correlates only weakly with Islamic fundamentalism. The presence of American or Israeli soldiers in Muslim lands is a far better predictor of suicide bombings and other forms of terror than is Islamic radicalism.

      You will all have blood on your hands!

      By this logic, Tim, you have the blood of 1.2 million Iraqis on your hands, not to mention countless other victims of both Israeli apartheid and US imperialism. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

      You guys have the best of intentions but you are in error. Just like Neville Chamberlin, you think you can just sit down and talk and appease evil and it will go away.

      This hackneyed train wreck of a historical analogy bears little resemblance to events today, so I think I shall deal with this nonsense ordinally:

      1) Chamberlain didn’t merely appease Hitler; he actively and knowingly colluded with him, in the hopes of redirecting Germany’s attentions toward the Soviet Union.

      2) Iran has neither a fraction of the relative military might that Germany had in its time nor the latter’s drive for expansion. It has never initiated a war against its neighbours, or shown any inclination to do so. The only reason it would want nukes would be to deter Israel, which already has nuclear weapons capable of turning Tehran into Chernobyl inside of ten minutes. Not so long ago, the United States actually torpedoed a UN watchdog resolution that would have forbade the possession of nukes in the Middle East, mainly because it would require that Israel dismantle its own arsenal.

      3) “Evil” is a value-laden term devoid of analytic content. The actions of various regimes might reasonably be described as “evil”, but that doesn’t mean that they are comprised of stock villains bent on blowing up on the world at all costs, or that some malign metaphysical agency intent on destroying everything is at work. Iran’s regime is motivated by self-interest as much as anything else. As North Korea showed, negotiation is possible when it is done on terms favourable to the interests of the regimes in question.

      Stop trying to appease evil.

      That would require you to stop rationalizing the atrocities of the west and Israel.

      • Tim R.

        “He would never authorize a nuclear first strike against Israel for the simple reason that it would be suicide.”

        Oh really? And the radical Muslims are rational-minded people who don’t want to kill themselves? Wait a minute, where do we get the term “suicide bomber” from? The Muslims perfected that form of terrorism because, in their depraved minds, they think they are going to paradise to meet 72 virgins. The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) only works when both sides are operating on a rational basis.

        “Chamberlain didn’t merely appease Hitler; he actively and knowingly colluded with him, in the hopes of redirecting Germany’s attentions toward the Soviet Union.”

        What’s your point? In any event, he did not stand up to Hitler, just like we are not standing up to the Muslims. He gave up the Sudetenland, allowed the Versaille Treaty to be ignored, etc etc. Call it what you want but he should have stood up to him in the first place. If you were Prime Minister of Great Britain back then I’m sure you would have tried to “talk” and make “peace” with that monster called Hitler. Why? Not because your evil. Because your intentions are actually noble. You think that just talking and reasoning will always result in a happy, fairy tale ending. Well, look at what happend in world war II? You can’t reason with evil. You have to fight it!

        “Evil” is a value-laden term devoid of analytic content.”

        Rubbish! Killing innocent, unarmed people, blowing up planes with innocent people and flying them into buildings that is evil. Period.

        Stop trying to appease evil.

        “That would require you to stop rationalizing the atrocities of the west and Israel.”

        Unlike you I never rationalize the killing of innocent people. If the US and Israel deliberatly kill innocent people, they are just as wrong as the Muslims or anyone else. The intentional killing of innocent civilians is categorically wrong, no matter who does it.

        • Kenneth

          Oh really? And the radical Muslims are rational-minded people who don’t want to kill themselves? Wait a minute, where do we get the term “suicide bomber” from? The Muslims perfected that form of terrorism because, in their depraved minds, they think they are going to paradise to meet 72 virgins. The concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD) only works when both sides are operating on a rational basis.

          There’s no reason to believe that Iran isn’t operating on a rational basis, however. Suicide bombing isn’t motivated by religion, but by strategic considerations, a point I’ve made elsewhere in this blog. All you have, in lieu of hard proof, is guilt by association (because all Muslims are naturally predisposed to suicidal military attacks, the fact that such a tactic emerged only about twenty-five years ago in places under foreign occupation nonwithstanding).

          What’s your point?

          My point is that there is no comparison between the two. Iran poses no military threat, either to Israel or the west. It gives no indication, Ahmadinejad’s mistranslated speeches nonwithstanding, of either sustained military buildup or belligerent intent. All we have is ambiguous data about an ambiguous move by an ambivalent leader of a tenth-rate military and economic power- and I’m referring to Ayatollah Khamenei, who really holds the reigns of power in Iran, not Ahmadinejad, who’ll be out of office in short order in any case.

          Rubbish! Killing innocent, unarmed people, blowing up planes with innocent people and flying them into buildings that is evil. Period.

          So’s invading other countries and bombing them to ruin without reason for doing so, but such prosaic facts hardly tell us anything about the internal structure or motives of the polities in question, save that they are willing to use brutality when they find it expedient to do so.

          Unlike you I never rationalize the killing of innocent people

          I’ve never rationalized the killings of innocent people. I’ve merely attempted to transcend the one dimensional morality tales that you use to dodge treatment of the actual subject. It’s well and good to talk about the evil of killing innocents, but to suppose it was done simply because of an all-consuming lust for destruction is a sorry excuse for an explanation, to say the least. Describing the morality (or lack thereof) of an act tells us nothing about why it was done.

          If the US and Israel deliberatly kill innocent people, they are just as wrong as the Muslims or anyone else. The intentional killing of innocent civilians is categorically wrong, no matter who does it.

          Well, you’d better start condemning then, because with an express policy of coercing the population through aerial bombardment, sanctions that killed over a million Iraqi children, the installment of a viciously sectarian government that has fueled the chaos in what is currently left of Iraq, the death of 1.2 million Iraqis as a result of an unjustified invasion, and widespread rape, torture, and prisoner abuse, and the use of mercenary contingents to instill terror in the local population, the US has certainly earned its fair share. Likewise with Israel during the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon war. If you were interested in morality right now, you’d be considering the parable of the mote and the plank.

        • R. Nelson

          And it’s Kenneth by a K.O.! Not that I’d take Tim R.’s side in most cases, but remind me not to cross you anyway. Nice job.

        • Kenneth

          Thanks. I’m 18 years old, for the record, and since Tim R. likely occupies a higher age cohort than my good self I must admit I’m not impressed by his performance. If this is the kind of lawyer the law schools are turning out these days then I think I’ll represent myself in court should I ever have a run-in with the law.

        • Tim R.

          Kenneth,

          You just go on and on. You accuse me of not responding to your points but that is exactly what you do. I mentioned dozens and dozens of verses in the Quran that are bloody and violent. Did you respond to them? No, you make excuses for them. You say they are taken out of context or you have to look to other parts of the Quran. Rather lame excuses I say. I unconditionally repudiated the violent portions of the Talmud and Old Testament. I don’t make lame excuses for what is in their. But you persist in makeing excuses for the radical Muslims and the violence in the Quran.

          As for killing innocents, I don’t believe the USA does that purposefully. Sometimes we are negligent, perhaps even reckless, with aerial bombardments and that is inexcusable. We should do everything in our power not to kill or injure civilians. But how many of his own people did Saddam kill? How many of his own people did he kill purposefully? See, what you are doing is making it morally equivalent. Well, it is not. We overthrew an evil tyrant who PURPOSEFULLY killed tens of thousands of his own people

          And the sanctions? How many palaces did Saddam build while his people starved? Were he and his henchmen starving? I don’t think so. But somehow it is only our fault.

          But anyway, you say your only 18 and I really have to commend you for being a thoughtful and articulate guy. I’m 10 years your senior and for 18 year old you are quite bright. Even your insults are creative, but I must tell you they say ” a person who represents himself has a fool for a client.” I wish more 18 year olds in the USA were interested in politics and the world around them rather than watching TV or following sports. Good for you.

        • Kenneth

          You just go on and on. You accuse me of not responding to your points but that is exactly what you do. I mentioned dozens and dozens of verses in the Quran that are bloody and violent. Did you respond to them? No, you make excuses for them.

          You’ve supplied a handful, and I’ve shown that they don’t condone what you claim they condone. You’ve yet to offer clear proof that the Qu’ranic doctrine promotes or even tolerates unprovoked violence on the part of its followers. It clearly stipulates that violence be employed under certain conditions, i.e., when there is “injustice in the land” and the perpetrators must be punished, a phrase whose exact meaning rests with the reader, to be sure, but does not clearly command violence against innocence. And, most important, it has no relation to terrorism, I believe, is most relevant to this blog.

          As for killing innocents, I don’t believe the USA does that purposefully. Sometimes we are negligent, perhaps even reckless, with aerial bombardments and that is inexcusable.

          And here, in a nutshell, is the kind of special pleading that pervades neoconservative arguments. Whenever the enemy does something bad, it is proof of his depravity; whenever the US does it, it is merely the unfortunate consequence of bureaucratic error. Of course, it isn’t “negligence” at work here: it’s calculated brutality. The US incinerated Fallujah and disbanded the old Ba’athist army while replacing it with sectarian elements, funding Shi’a death squads all the way and turning a blind eye to mercenary abuses until it became too politically inconvenient to ignore them.

          We should do everything in our power not to kill or injure civilians.

          A good start would be not invading countries for their oil.

          But how many of his own people did Saddam kill? How many of his own people did he kill purposefully?

          About 300,000 in thirty years, one quarter of the number that have died in the occupation so far.

          See, what you are doing is making it morally equivalent.

          Really? I thought the wanton destruction of civilian lives was “categorically wrong”. I guess the United States isn’t bound by the ethical standards that apply to lesser states.

          Well, it is not. We overthrew an evil tyrant who PURPOSEFULLY killed tens of thousands of his own people.

          And replaced it with a brutal client government that can’t even provide a minimum of physical security to its subjects (something even Saddam could do). See, two wrongs don’t make a right, otherwise using your logic we’d have to exonerate the Stalinist regime in Vietnam for whatever iniquities in inflicted on its population on the grounds that it was instrumental in getting Pol Pot out of power (yet another monster that the west has abetted).

          And the sanctions? How many palaces did Saddam build while his people starved? Were he and his henchmen starving? I don’t think so. But somehow it is only our fault.

          That’s the point, Tim: when you impose sanctions on another country, the first victims aren’t going to be the rulers, who will simply horde the remaining wealth, but their subjects. That’s why sanctions don’t work; they simply leave the regime intact while making its citizens pay out the nose. Saddam claimed the lion’s share of his country’s revenue and what was left went to administrative functions which, thanks to the efforts of the US, was very little during the 1990s. That’s something even a plebeian of the academic world like myself could anticipate, let alone the State Department. I suspect they were imposed to weaken Iraq. What is clear, however, is that they were not imposed with humanitarian motives.

    • Brevity

      IF!

    • salem s

      Tim,
      You really should seek profissional help before it is too late!You have such extreme obssision with isalm and muslims that you see their hidden hands behind anything and everything even if there were none.Instead of addressing the subject at hand that had no refrence to slam or Muslims,you could not help but dragg it in.In prvious incident, the subject was dealing with the actions of some christian Lebanese,you reflexfully,ignored that and blamed Islam and Muslims for somebudy else’s actions.If tommorrow,there were a huge explossion on Mars ,you would point your acustive fingers at Islam and Muslims.You no different than those who see Jwish hands behind many unpleasent happennings.Your hate is for all Muslims,the youngs, the olds,the men,the women,the well, the sick,the guilty ,and the innocents despite what you pretend to profess.

  • phil

    Speaking of Chamberlain, I wish Wilt Chamberlain would come back from the dead and stuff your big stupid mouth with a king-sized basketball.

    And I am sure if something doesn’t happen, your Israeli friends will pull off a “false flag” operation and make it look like the Arabs or Muslims did it. We know your playbook now thanks to the internet.

    • Tim R.

      Phil writes:

      “Speaking of Chamberlain, I wish Wilt Chamberlain would come back from the dead and stuff your big stupid mouth with a king-sized basketball.”

      Phil, your comments are unseemly and most uncivilized. Comments like that are a reflection on your character. Thankfully, most people on this site have just a tad more civility (and maturity!) than you do!

  • wadosy

    this NIE is a godsend for israel, since it gives israel a chance to dump, once and for all, the professional intelligence agencies that tend to tell the truth when it contradicts “new reality” fabricated by neocons —who create their own version of reality to justify their continuation of the Project for the New American Century.

    you might remember that PNAC published their plan for “rebuilding america’s defenses” in september of 2000, and said at that time that they needed “a new pearl harbor” to kick the project off.

    since the project is now bogged down in iraq, what could be more reasonable than a NEW new pearl harbor, especially when the new new pearl harbor will vindicate israel’s assertions about the threat posed by iran —and solidify israeli control of america, provide the pretext for declaring martial law, reinstituting the draft, and invading iran… all in addition to discrediting the intel agencies?

    …and best of all, war with iran would close hormuz, thus herding persian gulf oil towards israel… which is, after all, the primary objective of a war with iran.

  • Joe C

    How about “We Were Warned: Attacking Iran to End It’s Nuclear Program Led to Worldwide Chaos”.

    The talking heads could flesh out a futuristic scenario where legions of intelligent and experienced people warned Bush that attacking Iran to end a non-existent nuclear program would lead to worldwide chaos and that Iran was likely NOT pursuing a weaapons program, but he bombed anyway. Of course when the rubble was cleared, no bomb program was found, and you all know what happens next because of what those intelligent and experienced people have been saying to Bush this whole time about what would happen if he did such a thing.

    Thankfully, it looks like that one might have got canceled as well [crosses fingers].

    However I am sure you are right, they will try to find some other way to start a war. It was never about the nuclear program or the IEDs, it’s about regime change and doing something about it before 2008, and they are clever little f*ckers.

    After all, Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9-11, look what good the truth did him. I am totally confident in their ability to make something up.

  • It is remarkable that this society will continue to tolerate the depravity exhibited by the media and the politicians who use lies and simplistic propaganda to rally a nation into an unnecessary war.

    These people, and I include Tim R., are sick and are no better than child rapists or other psychotic degenerates. The fact that they must create fictions to rationalize their lust for death and destruction should alert us all to their evil intentions. They should have no place in a sane or civil society.

    I am tired of being called names and having my intentions questions by these evil lying degenerates. The games they play are too destructive to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they have rational and honorable motives – they obviously don’t or they wouldn’t intentionally lie and distort truth.

    • Kenneth

      If anything, American political discourse is notable for its coarseness. The descriptions of state-designated enemies eerily redolent of Joseph Goebbels, the tolerance, even encouragement, of gleefully sadomasochistic attitudes toward the destruction of life, liberty, and property, the seeming coolness, if not outright relish with which mainstream commentators advance nightmare scenarios to justify the most obscene acts of violence, the endless upwelling of fascist aesthetics in film, television, comics, and other popular media, the portrayal of foreigners as a great, undifferentiated horde whose actions bear no relation to cause and effect, and to cap it all, the repeated insinuations that anyone who refuses to genuflect to this febrile mode of thought and all its products is at best a whackball pacifist and at worst an apologist for tyranny- does this not inspire in one a profound sense of disgust? At least here in Canada, a veneer of civility is maintained. Methinks this is a structural requirement of an empire that can no longer sell itself on its intrinsic merits, and as such must present itself as the sole bulwark of relative sanity against the horrors of the world that it played an integral part in creating. The sun is finally setting over the once-mighty American empire, and not a tear will be shed for its passing. Good riddance.

      • Tim R.

        Kenneth writes:

        The sun is finally setting over the once-mighty American empire, and not a tear will be shed for its passing. Good riddance.

        Well, I certainly hope you are wrong about that. The sad thing is that Western Civilization, which I believe is the greatest hope for humankind, is being damaged from within, not from outsiders. I am not ashamed to be an American. I believe I live in the greatest country on the face of this Earth. And I am also very thankful and proud of the British, if it were not for the British, America would not be what it is today. For all of those who hope for the decline and fall of America, and thus, the decline and fall of Western Civilization, why do you feel that way? Where will you live? The United States of America, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and I would even include France are the great hopes for Western Civilization and for the future of humanity. These are the great countries of the world united in their respect for human freedom, liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and assembly, the rule of law, due process, the right to privacy etc. I mean would you folks really want to live in China or Saudi Arabia, Cuba, North Korea, or Iran? I don’t think so!

        • Kenneth

          Well, I certainly hope you are wrong about that. The sad thing is that Western Civilization, which I believe is the greatest hope for humankind, is being damaged from within, not from outsiders. I am not ashamed to be an American. I believe I live in the greatest country on the face of this Earth. And I am also very thankful and proud of the British, if it were not for the British, America would not be what it is today.

          Note: “Western civilization” and “America” aren’t necessarily synonymous. I’m quite sure Europe will continue to chug merrily along for a short time after America’s iron grip on global politics has dissipated. Canada’s future is rather more precarious, but we’ve endured worse.

          For all of those who hope for the decline and fall of America, and thus, the decline and fall of Western Civilization, why do you feel that way?

          The metonymous way in which you phrased this question makes answering it a little problematic; nonetheless many of the problems with America exist to a smaller degree elsewhere in the west, so I’ll enumerate. After a long list of crimes that includes imperialism, human rights violations, the abrogation of habeas corpus, the succoring of killers (even communist ones like Tito, the Khmer Rouge and the MEK) around the globe, invasions, wanton brutality, and the general restructuring of the world to Washington’s economic preferences, I really can’t conceive of a very flattering epitaph for the whole edifice. I mean, really. I realize that the collapse of America’s political structure will have devastating consequences for North America as a whole, but ultimately America deserves the fate that it has engineered for itself. The categorical imperative requires that justice be served no matter the consequences, and that’s an ethical maxim I will always abide by.

          The United States of America, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, and I would even include France are the great hopes for Western Civilization and for the future of humanity. These are the great countries of the world united in their respect for human freedom, liberty, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and assembly, the rule of law, due process, the right to privacy etc.

          Yes, but an absence of internal repression doesn’t mean that their machinations are targeted at producing better outcomes for the world as a whole. Not that it will remain this way much longer in any case; once the situation in the third world and domestic ghettoes becomes unmanageable and conventional modes of legitimacy no longer satisfy the regimes in the west will turn increasingly to authoritarian methods to hold on to power. It’s already happening now, with the rise of mass surveillance and the passage of the Military Commissions Act in the United States. That’s how government works: for the few that control it.

          I mean would you folks really want to live in China or Saudi Arabia, Cuba, North Korea, or Iran? I don’t think so!

          Of course not, but they’re not exactly poised to replace the west, are they? Of course, the collapse of the west will be coterminous with a general descent into chaos that can only end one way: in human extinction.

    • Tim R.

      Tom Blanton writes:

      “These people, and I include Tim R., are sick and are no better than child rapists or other psychotic degenerates. The fact that they must create fictions to rationalize their lust for death and destruction should alert us all to their evil intentions. They should have no place in a sane or civil society.”

      My goodness, Sir! And here I was thinking I was protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution and engaging in the free and fair exchange of ideas. No better than a child rapist? My my my! Phil, with insults like Tom’s you will have to be a lot more creative! Tom, I guess you would like to see me forcibly committed to a mental hospital. Yes, Tom, that was done in the Soviet Union. If they did not like what you were saying they called you a psychotic or schizophrenic and locked you up. I guess that is the kind of society you’d like to live in?

      • richard vajs

        Tim R,
        Of course, you are protected by the First Amendment to say as you please. But, be aware that your words are lies and distortions designed to get people killed. As such you are like a yahoo yelling “Jump” when some confused soul is standing on a windiow ledge. Or like someone in the background at a potential lynching screaming “What are we waiting for?”. Use your Constitutional right to spill your Zionist hatred all you wish, but I think the tide is turning against you.

    • peace

      I agree with every word you said, Tom. At IndependentPrimary.com up until December 18, one vote per email address, all can choose a presidential candidate from those announced, both Democrats and Republicans, and from four independent names. I am eager to see who wins. Please, all anti-nasty warriors, vote there, and everywhere.

  • Tim R.

    Almost forgot, one last point.

    Kenneth writes:

    If that were the case, the United States wouldn’t be funding Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, etc.

    You are absolutely right! It is a disgrace that we fund such regimes and call them our friends. We need to develop alternative renewable energy fast so we can stop calling these despicable governments our “allies.” If it were up to me we should have declared war on Saudi Arabia on September 12 2001

    • wadosy

      there are no alternative renewable energy sources that will replace oil… which is exactly why 9/11 had to be staged when it was, in time to acquire high ground for israel before its proxy american armies run out of gas.

      …and it’s getting to be a longer and longer shot that israeli america will gain control of the remaining oil in time to ration it out in such miserly quantities that global warming and catastrophic sea level rise can be avoided… which is the ultimate threat to israel: arabs will not drive israel into the sea; the sea is driving israel into arab lands.

      seeing as how israel has such a long history of terrorism, including false flag terrorism, including even false flag terrorism against america, seeing as how the israeli americans of PNAC/AEI noted the need for a “new pearl harbor”, we should be expecting another 9/11… but the patsy will have to be iran instead of saudi, seeing as how iran has the vital pipeline routes and chokepoint, and saudi arabia is already an israeli american puppet. …the chokepoint is especially vital, since fifteen or sixteen million barrels of oil per day are shipped through that chokepoint, and if that chokepoint is closed by war, that oil will have to be piped to israel… which is, i say again, the whole point of starting the war with iran.

      anyow, once the NEW new pearl harbor is accomplished, those pesky intelligence agencies —which have such an unfortunate tendency defy “reality” concocted by your neocon heroes— will be once and for all discredited, which will make it ever so much nicer when it comes to concocting a pretext for grabbing absolute control over saudi arabia’s oil.

      remember perle’s buddy and his powerpoint presentation: “iraq the tactical pivot, saudi the strategic pivot, egypt the prize”… and dont forget that according to the neocons’ new map of the middle east, saudi will be dismembered, along with iran, iraq, pakistan and syria.

      it will just take a periodic replay of the 9/11 fiasco to maintain support for the project, supposing rapid enough progress is made after the next new new pearl harbor, supposing china and russia play along, supposing the oil lasts long enough to fuel israeli american armies.

  • Kenneth

    My goodness, Sir! And here I was thinking I was protected by the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution and engaging in the free and fair exchange of ideas.

    That’s your right, and it’s our right to point out that you are not a bona fide moralist but a hack interested solely in demonizing your opponents and state-designated enemies.

    You are absolutely right! It is a disgrace that we fund such regimes and call them our friends. We need to develop alternative renewable energy fast so we can stop calling these despicable governments our “allies.” If it were up to me we should have declared war on Saudi Arabia on September 12 2001

    That would be an amazingly dumb thing to do, given the economic repercussions, but it illustrates my point: the US and the neocons don’t care about “Islamic terrorism”. If anything, they’re interested in increasing it, since it enables them to garner and consolidate the dictatorial powers that will increasingly be required to sustain what is left of the American empire.

  • DiceOfDeath

    The news media only tell people what they want to hear. Stop blaming the media and realize it’s the idiot couch-potatoes that are lusting after eternal war.

  • phil

    Tim R.,

    You obviously don’t understand sarcasm any better than World History. My advice to you is go join the Armed Forces (not the US Armed Forces because you are disloyal), learn to fight your own battles for once in your life rather than agitating others to fight them for you, and realize that Dr. Ron Paul is the last hope we have to save this country (not that you care). All the while keeping in mind that if this country goes, so does Israel too.

  • Mike Burns

    TimR: listen to Gordon Prather’s latest interview on AntiWarRadio. There never WAS an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The latest NIE only got it half right.

    • wadosy

      mike burns sez: “there never WAS an iranian nuclear weapons program…”

      yup.

      …and that’s exactly what makes me think that this whole NIE caper is a setup to blow away the credibility of the intelligence agencies when the next 9/11 false flag, blamed on iran, materializes.

  • Mike Burns

    Bush aims at regime change in Saudi Arabia, not war. He wants to replace the House of Saud with the House of bin Laden. The closeness of the Bush and bin Laden families is well-known.

  • Tom

    Frank Sesno will air instead, the dangers of 300 nuclear weapons threatening to the world – where are they located at? Hummm. Not in Israel of course!!! Frank Sesno will loose his job. So powerful is the lobby.

  • Tyler Phaboonheuang

    Whats CNN stand for anyway? Calculated, Narciscistic, News?

  • The NIE neglected to discuss a critical alternative program the Iranian may be working on. Once Iran acquires 20 to 30 Kg of Weapon Grade Uranium (WgU), approximately the size of an orange, a mere machine shop will be required to create a Hiroshima like Atomic bomb.

    Source: http://www.hsrc.biz/articles/iranian-nuclear-threat.php

    • Kenneth

      And…? Without the technological capability to launch it from thousands of miles away, it won’t mean anything. Of course, just because they can doesn’t mean they will, let alone that it will be used offensively.

    • wadosy

      …so daniel expects us to swallow stories of iran’s nuke weapons— stories from the same people who’ve lied us into two wars, have been scheming for decades to redraw the map of the middle east, and are threatened by global warming and peak oil…

      …people who probably staged “a new pearl harbor” to kick off the Project for the New American Century after noting —a couple months before they were installed in powerful enough positions to make the “new pearl harbor” happen— that they needed “a new pearl harbor” to kick off their project.

      okay.

      • Kenneth

        I’m afraid I have to take issue with your explanation of the WTC attacks- there is no evidence that the US government was in any way involved in them, and logic militates against such a conclusion, since the magnitude of the required cover-up would make some kind of leak inevitable. However, the “New Pearl Harbour” label is a more apt characterization than many of its users realize. It is almost certain that the State Department, if not the president himself, fully understood the blowback of American foreign policy, and decided to let it run its course in order to manufacture a terrorist “threat”. Bush’s willful ignorance of intelligence memos suggesting that al-Qaeda was plotting an attack on the United States suggest as much. Roosevelt did much the same thing when he initiated a trade embargo against Japan and paid no attention to Australian intelligence which indicated a coming attack on Pearl Harbour. I strongly suspect the leadership in America reasoned long ago that a terrorist strike on a civilian target would be an ancillary benefit of an imperialistic foreign policy.

        • wadosy

          yes, kenneth.

          here’s how it must have happened: osama was on the internet one day, and stumbled across PNAC’s call for a new pearl harbor, and osama sez to himself, “huh! i’ll fix those guys’ wagons! i will stage a new pearl harbor for them! …and everyone will think those assholes from PNAC dun it!”

          so osama rigged the 2000 election so the signers of the PNAC document, people like cheney, rumsfeld and the usual assortment of likud loons, got installed into positions that would have enabled them to make 9/11 happen, had they been inclined to make 9/11 happen, which they were most definitely NOT —despite their yearnings for a new pearl harbor as expressed in the PNAC document they signed…..

          then osama organized everything, from the training of the pilots to the security at the airports to the standdown at NORAD to oneill’s job at the trade center, including bunnypants’ month-long absence from dc while the shit was coming down.

          osama even dispatched five mossad guys to film the event….

          well, you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men… little did osama know that the PNAC guys had enough juice to reverse the frameup, and osama found hisself dragging his dialysis machine from pillar to post in an effort to escape the wrath of PNAC.

          it’s a sad sad thing.

  • The Internet Ayatollah
  • wadosy

    yes, it’s just too bad that those PNAC guys came right out and admitted they needed a new pearl harbor, isnt it? …especially seeing as how they had juice enough to get themselves installed a couple months later into position powerful enough to make their new pearl harbor happen…

    …but i spose they never figured anyone but the in crowd would pay any attention to one little sentence buried in the middle of a long, detailed description of the neocons’ plan to achieve “benevolent global hegemony”.

    anyhow, here’s how it must have happened:

    osama was on the internet one day, and stumbled across PNAC’s call for a new pearl harbor, and osama sez to himself, “huh! i’ll fix those guys’ wagons! i will stage a new pearl harbor for them! …and everyone will think those nitwits from PNAC dun it!”

    so osama rigged the 2000 election so the signers of the PNAC document, people like cheney, rumsfeld and the usual assortment of likud loons, got installed into positions that would have enabled them to make 9/11 happen, had they been inclined to make 9/11 happen, which they were most definitely NOT —despite their yearnings for a new pearl harbor as expressed in the PNAC document they signed…..

    then osama organized everything, from the training of the pilots to the security at the airports to the standdown at NORAD to oneill’s job at the trade center, including bunnypants’ month-long absence from dc while all this stuff was coming down.

    osama even dispatched five mossad guys to film the event….

    well, you know what they say about the best laid plans of mice and men… little did osama know that the PNAC guys had enough juice to reverse the frameup, and osama found hisself dragging his dialysis machine from pillar to post in an effort to escape the wrath of PNAC.

    it’s a sad sad thing.

    • Kenneth

      I’m not insinuating that Osama is behind it all. What I’m arguing is that a confluence of developments occurred which was most fortunate for both the Administration and the American Empire.

      • wadosy

        what part of “we’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality” do you not understand?

        • Kenneth

          I understand all of it. This solipsistic catchphrase is little more than a metaphor, however, for both propaganda and the power to mould the world that resides in Washington. Naturally, PNAC’s goon squad is running amok and letting their world know of their intentions but it doesn’t demonstrate anything other than a fleeting triumphalism destined to implode with the value of the American dollar.

  • wadosy

    sorry, kenneth, but there’s just way too much history behind israel’s intent, there’s just way too much evidence that israel controls american foreign policy, there’s just way too much evidence, which seems to grow every day, that global warming and peak oil are the real deals…

    if the Project for the New American Century fails to grab enough control of oil to allow the neocons to ration oil to china and india, global warming is gonna get so far out of hand that israel will eventually face an 80-meter sea level rise… which will flood the 70% of the israeli population that lives on the coastal plain…

    …but the kicker is that israel’s protector, america, is vulnerable to peak oil… because america has been built from the ground up on the idea of cheap oil forever… and peak oil is the imminent threat.

    …so the high ground for israel has to be grabbed before israel’s protector implodes from oil shortages and other problems caused by looters who see that, no matter what, america is in terminal decline because of its dependence on cheap oil.

    so israel will use america up in an effort to preserve itself… and israel must be preserved because it is the refuge of last resort for the ashkenazi war criminals who are pushing this project… if you want to see how this “refuge of last resort” business works, guess where the yukos oil and media guys fled to when putin cracked down on the oligarchs.

    • Kenneth

      This is an interesting interpretation, though I find it somewhat reductive. The point about global warming is an astute one. Peak oil, I’m aware, is definitely a problem, but when is it set to occur? Perhaps you could link to some data on this topic? It’s been a while since I investigated it.

  • wadosy

    crude oil and condensate production peaked in may of 2005. there are lots of new projects coming on line, but the megafields have all peaked and seem to be declining faster than the new stuff shows up… the new stuff comes from much smaller, more difficult fields, like under 7 or 8 thousand feet of water and another 20,000 of dirt….

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=crude+condensate+%22may+2005%22

    but never fear, because if global warming progresses as predicted, exxon will be able to drill the north pole… which i spose is cause for concern in israel, seeing as how they’ve run the palestinians into the hill country which israel now needs to escape possible flooding from global warming.

    i guess it’s no wonder that the israeli american think tank, the AEI, is allied with exxon in denying global warming, and exxon is allied with CERA and daniel yergin in denying peak oil, since the background motive for 9/11 is global warming, and the triggering motive was peak oil.

    if you can deny that your motive exists, you can eliminate yourself from the suspect pool…

    exxon is allied with the neocons for another reason: it expects to get first shot at oil grabbed in the project.

    motive, means, opportunity and character… who are the most likely suspects for 9/11?

    • Kenneth

      My previous statements already allow this, and in any case it is simply a cui bono argument that proves nothing by itself.

      • wadosy

        believe what you want. if you’re 18 years old, you’re problably got lots of time left to learn the hard way, just like i did.

        • Kenneth

          wadosy- Get off the accusatory tone, will you? Before you intimate that I am complacent about American power, examine my prior writings on the subject as well as my reasons for believing as I do. I know all too well what Washington’s elite are capable of, I merely believe that the whole “Bush did 9/11” shtick offers nothing in the way of explanation or historical context, with its followers frequently attempting intellectual blackmail against those who question it. The resource war theory merely externalizes internal imperatives and ignores the structural dynamics of an economic regime in which one power is overwhelmingly dominant and bears the burden of facilitating global as well as domestic capital accumulation. Appeals to personal experience don’t help your case, either. I find your examination of Israel’s current dilemma incisive and your points about global warming thought-provoking, but I don’t believe this adequately accounts for America’s antics in Iraq and elsewhere. The deliberate splintering of Iraqi society along sectarian lines suggests something more than merely the desire to obtain oil, for which purpose an alliance with Saddam would have been more than adequate.