Here we go again. With the economy showing faint signs of life and their positions on the social issues alienating most moderates, the leading Republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, have returned to the elixir of warmongering to once again sway the gullible masses. The race to the bottom has been set by Newt Gingrich, the most desperate of the lot, who on Tuesday charged that "The President wants to unilaterally weaken the United States," because his administration has dared question the wisdom of Israel attacking Iran and proposes a slight reduction in the bloated defense budget.
Let the good times roll with a beefed-up military budget justified by plans to invade yet another Muslim country. As Paul warned during the South Carolina primary debate as his presidential rivals threatened war with Iran: "I'm afraid what's going on right now is similar to the war propaganda that went on against Iraq." Indeed, the shouting match over which of the other GOP candidates most wants a war with Iran is in sync with the last Republican president's 2003 invasion.
It was an invasion that removed Saddam Hussein, once the U.S. ally in confronting Iran, from power and replaced him with a Shite leadership long beholden to the ayatollahs of Iran. Of course, as Bush lied, this was not about nation-building aimed at imposing a democracy in our image, but rather, as is the claim now, about preventing radical Muslims from getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. In a Where's Waldo moment, it turned out that the dreaded nukes were not in Iraq, and the leading Republican presidential candidates are convinced that Iran now has such weapons and they need to be taken out.
Not so, say CIA and Pentagon experts in these matters, who insist that Iran is some distance from developing a nuclear weapon, even if that is its intention. In a CNN interview Sunday, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that Iran had not yet decided whether to build a nuclear weapon. He also said the U.S. had told Israel that any Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would be "destabilizing."
But such facts are not troubling to the GOP contenders, who seem not to have realized that there is one Muslim country already in possession of scores of such weapons. That would be Pakistan, the country Bush didn't invade despite its avid support for the Taliban sponsors of al-Qaida. Instead, after 9/11, Bush dropped the sanctions his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had imposed on Pakistan as punishment for its developing a nuclear arsenal. Nor did Bush and his fellow Republican hawks get overly exercised by the revelation that Pakistan was giving nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Libya and, yes, Iran. It was also the hiding place for Osama bin Laden when Barack Obama made good on Bush's pledge to run the al-Qaida leader to ground.
If Bush had taken out bin Laden, the Republicans would have by now had W's head chiseled into Mount Rushmore, but since it is Obama's success, they are driven mad by this turn of events. On Tuesday, Gingrich came totally unglued, telling a student audience at Oral Roberts University that defeating Obama is "a duty of national security" because the president "is incapable of defending the United States." Why? Simple. Obama has accepted the eminently sensible proposal endorsed by the Pentagon brass to trim $32 billion from the $655 billion defense budget in 2013. That small cut from a Cold War-style budget that accounts for 45 percent of world spending on the military despite there being no sophisticated military enemy now in sight for the U.S. was judged by Gingrich to render the president "willfully dishonest."
The idea of Newt Gingrich calling anyone else dishonest is an affront to reason, but, with the exception of Rep. Paul, those vying with the former House speaker for the nomination have been quick to indicate they are in full accord with the accusation. Gingrich's rabid support for the U.S. lining up behind an Israeli attack, even a nuclear one, may be explained by his campaign being kept afloat by a Nevada gambling billionaire who contributed $10 million to a pro-Gingrich super PAC and whose prime cause is the Israeli far right. Rick Santorum offers biblical bromides for his support of Israeli militarism, and for Mitt Romney, the thirst for war just seems a natural extension of his innate say-anything opportunism. What a disreputable crew.
I tend to take a longer view, past America, and wonder the same thing about the human race. It isn't just this country where the center isn't holding, look at the rest of the world. Being a little philosophical about the whole thing helps. The human race may just be a blip on the way to something else. I'm sure the dinosaurs thought they were pretty unbeatable in their day too.
Obviously, now that the military are out of Iraq and oil companies are developping their oil fields, oil companies need to move to the next step, the oil fields of Iran, and military contractors can't run idle for very long...
We're talking here people with LOT$ of incentives for politicians who are always looking for a best friend and take care of his interests...
Iran has been a Republican whipping post for more than 4 decades . And the hint of Iran having or thinking about having Nukes has been one of the Republican's oldest tricks in their trick bag .
Pat Robertson and his cohorts have given Israel all the headaches they can handle with their imaginary rapture scenario . This Israeli desire to hit Iran is as fake as it can be .
If the Republican gang of warmongers want another unilateral invasion and occupation of some weaker nation then they should spread enough money around in Congress to conjure up a 2/3 vote . Which is what they will need , because there is a Constitutional law professor in the White House who is not about to do a unilateral on his watch .
Offering half truths in the fog of hot air politics is the best
conditions. Shape it, form it to become the ideal tool for the
biased and self serving purpose of the masters of war.
Unrestrained greed makes a malleable clay for the Masters of Finance.
Inflamed emotions malleates clay for the Masters of Politics
.........OIL BOIL ROIL AND BUBBLE
...WAR FINANCE POLITICAL MUBBLE
Anyone besides me feel concerned to death by this image.
These three masters at a cauldron stirring the pot
and chanting in unison.
1.) Shiite Iran and Sunni Iraq were enemies and had a war in the 1980s.
2.) Both Iran and Iraq were named as part of an "axis of evil" in 2002.
3.) The result of the $1T Iraq war was to put Iraq in Shiite hands, and eliminate an Iranian national security threat.
As things stand right now, the neocon foreign policy amounts to total buffoonery. It was clear to me back in 2003 that in order for the Iraq war to not benefit a hostile regime in Iran, there would need to be regime change in Iran. These armchair warriors though their cakewalk war in Iraq would be done in 6 months and then off to Iran.
So now we have all this warmongering, but the war mongering does not allege an Iranian violation of the NPT, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I think the latest intelligence is that Iran hasn't decided whether to build a nuclear weapon.
Absent an allegation of violation of the non-proliferation treaty, the case for war is built on pretexts just like the Iraq war. I think after Iraq, we're pretty much a rouge nation anyway, but the case for war for Iran will seal the deal. What is the case, oh, we can't wait for the final proof. I wonder where we've heard that one before?
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/world-war-newt/
"Gingrich is on the record favoring American military intervention from North Korea to Lebanon. He recently threatened cyberwar with China and Russia. And on Monday, he called for an all-out assault to topple the Castro regime in Cuba. With such a wide range of targets, no wonder Gingrich has consistently said that the U.S. is in the middle of “World War III.”"
I've heard nothing about how Gingrich would pay for his wars.
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Gingrich/Military.php
Here's all of them.
http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Military.php
They're listed near the bottom. Yes for Ron Paul, no for Gingrich or Romney
Privatized public services just ADD COSTS!
Note that even with all the automation Fedex has (and so does the USPS), costs just keep going up and USPS is often cheaper than Fedex.
When you have to add profit to the labor and materials neeed to provide the service, the cost to society has to go up.
YES...