The U.S. president turned over one of America’s hole cards this week, and the echoes of such a seemingly quiet move may resonate throughout the Middle East for years to come.
Obama revealed on Friday the existence of a secret nuclear facility in Iran, one the U.S. intelligence services have been tracking for years, although they may have only recently been able confirm its intended purpose. Buried deep under a mountain, near Qom, some 100 miles southwest of Tehran, the facility is currently being supplied with equipment and is expected to be operational in about 18 months.
The site is described as being large enough for only 3,000 centrifuges, producing an output that would be even too small to operate a power plant. However, according to reports, the facility does appear to be configured to produce the highly enriched uranium needed for weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. intelligence estimate is that the site could produce enough fuel to arm one nuclear warhead each year and its existence is causing concern that there may be other unknown developments within Iran.
Iran’s principle enrichment facility at Natanz, in the geographical center of the country, has been operating in plain view, even though it is situated some 60 to 70 feet underground. Natanz now has 8,000 centrifuges in place with the capacity for adding tens of thousands more. However, it is so far only capable of producing low-grade material, a fact that has given rise to the theory that its output could be transported to Qom, to be fed into the high-end centrifuges there.
Proliferation experts are characterizing this as the “smoking gun,” insofar as Iran’s nuclear intentions are concerned. The extent of the possible ramifications are unknown but are considered serious.
With the cautionary note that little is as it appears to be these days and deceptive moves and statements are certainly a distinct possibility, it does seem, nevertheless, that the option of a military strike by Israel or the U.S. against Iran’s nuclear facilities may have been lessened as a result of this new announcement.
The ability to take out the underground sites at Natanz and now Qom, even with nuclear-armed missiles, is uncertain. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Friday that all options are still on the table but he feels that a strike would only delay Iran’s program by a year or two.
Even the well known war-hawk John Bolton, who served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, said: “We may be past the point where the military option is viable anymore.”
Furthermore, Senator Dianne Feinstein said today that a successful assault would now appear to require troops on the ground as well as an aerial attack.
Fear of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East has also grown as a result of the recent developments. It is generally recognized that greater emphases must now be placed on diplomacy and sanctions. In this regard, talks are scheduled to begin between western nations and Iran this coming week, but Obama may not be willing to wait too long. Last week he met with Russian and Chinese leaders to secure their support for the imposition of another round of sanctions.
So far, Iran has been characteristically defiant, although the situation appears to have pumped more fuel into the nation’s opposition movement.
In a news conference at a New York hotel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Obama’s disclosure “simply adds to the list of issues for which the United States owes the Iranian nation an apology.”
Meanwhile, the future course of the war in Afghanistan is still unknown. Officials within the Obama administration - his “team of rivals” - have differing points of view. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, special envoy Richard C. Holbrooke, and Army General Stanley A. McChrystal, the military commander on the ground, are pushing for a surge while Vice President Biden is said to be arguing for a narrower counter-terrorism strategy.
The president, other than being somewhat annoyed, reportedly, over McChrystal’s constant use of the press to make his case, is, so far, undecided.
Last week, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of eight military personnel killed in Afghanistan, ranging in age from 20 to 30. Six of the fallen heroes were killed by improvised explosive devices.
U.S. deaths in that nation now stand at 850, according to the website icasualties.org.
At the same time, the Department of Defense also released the obituaries of three service personnel who died in the Iraq theater, ranging in age from 20 to 38. All were classified as non-combat-related deaths.
U.S. deaths in Iraq now amount to 4,346, according to icasualties.org.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 76
Now that the Chinese have nixed sanctions rather publicly by the UN anyway, what do we do? Its convenient that no military strike can do more than delay the inevitable so since we drew another line the Iranians have crossed, what are our options?
The Afghanistan problem isn't going away and the President is going to have stop waffling there too. He's not going to get militarily significant help from anyone despite all of his promises so he has to make a decision soon. McCrystal is not the only one saying dire things, Obama's own party did so for years as did he. Being in charge is no fun but its part of the job and I bet it doesn't look so nice now with the avalanche picking up speed.
All Obama had to do is read the news. No hole card here at all. No big suprise and yes Iran has invited the US experts to come and take a look if they want. Obama didn't reveal anything. Iran did. Iran has been completely open and it is not any more of a secret than any other facility.
Every time I see Henry Kissinger, I think of Peter Sellers.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Walt Kelly's Pogo.
I don't know where your info came from, but I've kept close tabs on all of Iran's nuclear facilities including Natanz, the heavy water facility, the power plant along the shores of the Gulf, etc., and there has been no reference to this facility that I have found until now.
"Along the shores of the Persian Gulf lies the Bushehr Nuclear Power facility, a joint Russian-Iranian project.
There are also the Chinese-supplied nuclear research facilities at Ishafan, the heavy water reactor at Arak, the nuclear fuel site at Ardakan and the heavily protected enrichment site located at Natanz, about 200 miles south of Tehran where it is situated 60 feet below ground and further protected by a thick concrete shield."
I suggest you subscribe to a different publication...
Nope, gang we are in there for the long haul, this campaign in Afganistan is a platform, 1. to prevent Israli from going off on Iran or any other threat they may preceive,
2. we are in strategic striking distance any where in the middle east,
3. President Obama will not disengage while in a fight until after the 2012 U.S. election and if the region has a governing body and are stable; which it will never happen, because of the poppy market.
Increase or decrease the troop level is base on the weather patterns. Dark clouds forming increase, sunny and fair weather, decrease troop level.
Now let's leave Germany, and Japan and reposition forces else where. Nope President Obama is there we'll be there to pick up the peices left by G.W. and neo-cons and keep our finger in the dike of nuclear proliferation along with undercover clandestine operations that are afoot by tribal warlords and getting on ground information by us paying off and creating weakness within the enemy strongholds, while controling Kabul and the near by region.
A tough situation for any president to be in, but our man in the White House can do the job. The question is, can we, the American people, hang on in there; G.W. told the American people a while back, our engagement would be long, but he sure didn't say much about the cost did he.
"Obama's decision to confront Iran with evidence of a secret nuclear production site Friday was the culmination of a deliberate strategy over the past nine months to gain maximum impact from the disclosure by building up to it with other steps on the world stage.
A high-ranking administration official told The Washington Times that while the White House knew about Iran's construction of a second uranium enrichment plant before Mr. Obama took office in January, it waited to drop the bombshell until U.S. officials had conducted extensive diplomatic advance work.
The preparations go back to Mr. Obama's inaugural promise to engage in meaningful dialogue with Iran to two letters he sent to Iran's supreme leader, which led to Tehran's agreeing to sit down with negotiators from the U.S. and other world powers on Oct. 1. Mr. Obama has lobbied or spoken to key leaders for months, including Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)."
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/26/obama-times-calling-out-iran-for-impact/
Beside, there is nothing illegal about this whole matter.
"Obama, backed by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, threatened tough sanctions against Iran if it did not fully comply with its obligations concerning the international monitoring of its nuclear programme, which at the present time is being defined by the US, Britain and France as requiring an immediate suspension of all nuclear-enrichment activity.
The facility in question, said to be located on a secret Iranian military installation outside of the holy city of Qom and capable of housing up to 3,000 centrifuges used to enrich uranium, had been monitored by the intelligence services of the US and other nations for some time. But it wasn't until Monday that the IAEA found out about its existence, based not on any intelligence "scoop" provided by the US, but rather Iran's own voluntary declaration. Iran's actions forced the hand of the US, leading to Obama's hurried press conference Friday morning.
Beware politically motivated hype. While on the surface, Obama's dramatic intervention seemed sound, the devil is always in the details. The "rules" Iran is accused of breaking are not vague, but rather spelled out in clear terms. In accordance with Article 42 of Iran's Safeguards Agreement, and Code 3.1 of the General Part of the Subsidiary Arrangements (also known as the "additional protocol") to that agreement, Iran is obliged to inform the IAEA of any decision to construct a facility which would house operational centrifuges, and to provide preliminary design information about that facility, even if nuclear material had not been introduced. This would initiate a process of complementary access and design verification inspections by the IAEA.
This agreement was signed by Iran in December 2004. However, since the "additional protocol" has not been ratified by the Iranian parliament, and as such is not legally binding, Iran had viewed its implementation as being voluntary, and as such agreed to comply with these new measures as a confidence building measure more so than a mandated obligation.
In March 2007, Iran suspended the implementation of the modified text of Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part concerning the early provisions of design information. As such, Iran was reverting back to its legally-binding requirements of the original safeguards agreement, which did not require early declaration of nuclear-capable facilities prior to the introduction of nuclear material.
While this action is understandably vexing for the IAEA and those member states who are desirous of full transparency on the part of Iran, one cannot speak in absolute terms about Iran violating its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. So when Obama announced that "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow", he is technically and legally wrong.
There are many ways to interpret Iran's decision of March 2007, especially in light of today's revelations. It should be underscored that what the Qom facility Obama is referring to is not a nuclear weapons plant, but simply a nuclear enrichment plant similar to that found at the declared (and inspected) facility in Natanz.
The Qom plant, if current descriptions are accurate, cannot manufacture the basic feed-stock (uranium hexaflouride, or UF6) used in the centrifuge-based enrichment process. It is simply another plant in which the UF6 can be enriched.
Why is this distinction important? Because the IAEA has underscored, again and again, that it has a full accounting of Iran's nuclear material stockpile. There has been no diversion of nuclear material to the Qom plant (since it is under construction). The existence of the alleged enrichment plant at Qom in no way changes the nuclear material balance inside Iran today.
Simply put, Iran is no closer to producing a hypothetical nuclear weapon today than it was prior to Obama's announcement concerning the Qom facility."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/25/iran-secret-nuclear-plant-inspections
Obama and his' two colonialist underlings Sarkozy and Brown are just playing to the warmongerers back home. I'm certain Iran, Putin and China are not impress by these greenhorn dramatics. Obama really needs to stop with these childish threats of violence.
"The US government’s complaints about Iran have reached a new level of shrillness. On September 25 Obama declared: “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow.” The heads of America’s British, French, and German puppet states added their two cents worth, giving the government of Iran three months to meet the “international community’s demands” to give up its rights as a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty to nuclear energy. In case you don’t know, the term “international community” is shorthand for the US, Israel, and Europe, a handful of arrogant and rich countries that oppress the rest of the world.
Who is breaking the rules? Iran or the United States?
Iran is insisting that the US government abide by the non-proliferation treaty that the US originated and pushed and that Iran signed. But the US government, which is currently engaged in three wars of aggression and has occupying troops in a number of other countries, insists that Iran, which is invading and occupying no country, cannot be trusted with nuclear energy capability, because the capability might in the future lead to nuclear weapon capability, like Israel’s, India’s, and Pakistan’s--all non-signatories to the nuclear proliferation treaty, countries that, unlike Iran, have never submitted to IAEA inspections. Indeed, at this very moment the Israeli government is screaming and yelling “anti-semite” to the suggestion that Israel submit to IAEA inspections. Iran has submitted to the IAEA inspections for years.
In keeping with its obligations under the treaty, on September 21 Iran disclosed to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it is constructing another nuclear facility. The British prime minister Gordon Brown confused Iran’s disclosure with “serial deception,” and declared, “We will not let this matter rest.”
What matter? Why does Gordon Brown think that Iran’s disclosure to the IAEA is a deception. Does the moronic UK prime minister mean that Iran is claiming to be constructing a plant but is not, and thus by claiming one is deceiving the world?
Not to be outdone in idiocy, out of Obama’s mouth jumped Orwellian doublespeak: “The Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”
The incongruity blows the mind. Here is Obama, with troops engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan demanding that a peaceful nation at war with no one demonstrate “its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23581.htm
Barack should stick to doing stints on Letterman...and try to stay away from the likes of Netanyahu, Brown and Sarkozy. Obama should effect a real 'change' in U.S. foreign policy by, for once, minding his' own business.
The U.S. is trying to hold out for negotiation by presenting the old tried and true western front and President Obama traded off missle deployment near Russia for their coperation.
Oh, we will be in this mess for sometime, and the missile launch by iran was just another card thrown down on the card table in the world gambit of high stakes geo-politic.
The next move is yours... Say what you will, run to the hills, those living in fear, but G.W. loss, times was up, he loss big time. President Obama now seats at the table in a high stakes game, it's his turn.
Don't like it, oh well, not much you can do until the next election. So, either ya with the guy or yer ani't. Otherwise, get to side lines or go home. But I asure you it will take a world wide coalition to put this geni back into the bottle.
Furthermore, President Obama is just the man to do, if not, you nay sayer damn sure better hope he can pull this repair off, instead of being so negative, but it is your right to express your skepticsm. However, the high stakes game geo-politics will go on.
Putin will take trade off, but, t won't allow an attack on Iran...neither will China. They'll Obama just enough rope to hang himself.
I was never a backer of Dubya or his foreign policy which Obama is following to a tee with the added war on Pakistan and now, Lord help us, trying to bully Iran into compliance to the Nuclear Club's elite membership.
Bammy is out of his' league on this as he has been on every other issue.
If you have any specifics to discuss, I'd be interested to read them...
And felix, you must be aware of the spins that can and are put on everything that transpires.
Yes, this site was known by our intelligence services and the services of our allies for years but its true intention was only confirmed this year when the actual equipment began arriving. And yes, the president chose this time to make it known for maximum impact. Remember, the objective is to prevent proliferation. Does anyone have a problem with that?
However, a different slant from the one you repeated, Felix, is that Ahmadinejad got wind of what the president was about to say, perhaps as a result of Obama discussing it with Medvedev two days earlier. This slant seems to make sense because what Ahmadinejad actually said was that Obama was about to announce it.
Frankly, I'm reading a lot of comments here which are difficult to interpret. Iran poses a threat. The west is attempting to deal with it. The above article outlines the details. What's the problem? The issue seems simple. Why do I detect an undercurrent here? Is it part of the general anti-Obama movement?
I don't get it and I wish someone would explain it...
Iran poses no threat to us. The biggest nuclear threat has always been the same irresponsible nation that has actually used nuclear bombs...twice. It's like preaching morality in your' underwears. The west is under a colonialist delusion that they still rule the planet.
Anti-Obama movement...seriously now...what's the difference between Dubya and Bammy in foreign policy?
Ad hominem attacks and playing the tired racial card doesn't address the subject, it eludes it. Time be adult about it.
"John Knight, I don't think there's any relationship between the facts in this article and the fiasco known as the war in Iraq and the lies that led up to it."
Oh, sure, Dave, I believe it never crossed your mind that the war creators might be at it again. . . cause I'm real gullible ; )
Interesting that some of the commenters appear to be on a different wavelength from the rest of the country and the world.
The Obama-worshippers in the punditocracy are telling us that this is an example of the Dear Leader’s genius: unlike George W. Bush and the neocons, whose crude unilateralism and unmitigated arrogance was a turnoff to our allies and a boon to our enemies, Obama wisely held back and waited until he had the Iranians just where he wanted them, and then, as one of the more unhinged Obama maniacs put it, "Ka-pow!"
"And so you see the Obama mojo again. Look at the moves of the last month. He scraps the missile defense in Eastern Europe, pleasing Russia, and moves the focus of defense to the Mediterranean, pleasing Israel.
"He pwns [sic] Ahmadinejad at the UN by being the first president of the U.S. to preside over the resolution to enforce nuclear non-proliferation.
"He corrals the rhetorical support of the developing world, isolating Tehran still further. He hangs back a little and allows Brown and Sarkozy to do the heavy hitting on NoKo and Iran this past week, again revealing that the desire to curtail Ahmadinejad’s nukes is not only an American project.
"And then, this morning… kapow!"
This tale of heroic cunning and diplomatic derring-do is largely a product of Sullivan’s hero-worshipping imagination – the same tendency to idolatry that moved him to praise George W. Bush as little short of the second coming of Winston Churchill back in the day. It is, however, based on even less substance this time around, for it turns out that the U.S. has known about this "secret" facility for years, as CNN reports:
"The United States was aware of Iran’s unfinished uranium enrichment site for several years, senior U.S. officials told CNN on Friday. U.S. officials have known about the facility since President George W. Bush’s administration, according to the officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the negotiations."
Yes, the Bushies knew about it, too, and said nothing – but why not? After all, George W. was not exactly known as an apologist for the Iranian regime, and he was no less eager than his successor to tag Tehran as a serial deceiver. The CIA knew about it when they issued that now inconvenient National Intelligence Estimate [.pdf] averring that Iran had abandoned all efforts to militarize its nuclear research in 2003. Were they trying to protect the Iranians, too? And, of course, Obama knew all about it – and decided to make use of it, in spite of the fact that (a) the Qom facility is not operational and (b) there is no evidence it is being used to create a nuclear weapon.
We are told the Iranians only recently discovered that we knew about Qom, which is why they chose to reveal its existence in a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – but, really, since the Iranians had a direct line to our most closely guarded secrets, via Ahmed Chalabi, in the days of the Bush administration, it’s hard to make that case with absolute assurance. In any case, they did admit the existence of the Qom facility and have now invited in the inspectors – and all of Obama’s stern admonitions to the Iranians to "come clean" cannot obfuscate Tehran’s transparency in this matter.
In his UN oration, Obama declared “Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," a manifestly untrue statement that nonetheless went largely unchallenged. Because "all nations" apparently doesn’t include the state of Israel, which has as many as 200 nuclear weapons and is no doubt developing more.
Obama hailed efforts to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and singled out Iran and North Korea as two examples of nations that "choose to ignore international standards" and "put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people." These two miscreants, he intoned, "must be held accountable."
There is one other miscreant, however, that is never to be held accountable, either by the president of the United States or by anyone who works in "mainstream" journalism, on pain of being charged with a hate crime. Israel’s nukes are common knowledge. Yet the Jewish state not only refuses to acknowledge its possession of weapons of mass destruction, it also disdains efforts by the international community to monitor their development and placement.
Israel has always steadfastly refused to join the NPT, and when the possibility that they could be pressured to do so was raised as the Obamaites were flocking to Washington to take power, the idea was quickly shot down. That a U.S. government official had even mentioned Israel in relation to its well-known possession of nukes was denounced by the Israelis and their American amen corner as a "violation" of a supposedly 40-year agreement between the U.S. and Israel that Washington would not only give the Israelis a pass, but would refrain from even referring to the existence of Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
Which means: quite apart from evidence – or the absence of it – that the Iranians are actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons, we aren’t allowed to even talk about why they would possibly want them.
Israel has been threatening Iran with military action for quite some time, and, armed as the former is with a formidable nuclear arsenal, the Iranians would be foolish not to take the Israelis seriously. However, the biggest weapon in the Israeli quiver isn’t nukes, it’s their "special relationship" with the U.S., and the Iranians know it.
The devastation and occupation of Iraq had barely begun when Ariel Sharon publicly stated that America’s next target must be Iran, and the U.S. has dutifully taken up this charge, in spite of Obama’s guff about engaging in "dialogue" with Tehran. That’s just window-dressing for the liberals who supported him on account of his antiwar credentials.
And so it begins: phase two of the American project for the transformation of the Middle East into an environment that guarantees "security" for Israel as she represses her Palestinian helots [.pdf], expands her borders willy-nilly, and defies the standards and benchmarks that all civilized nations are expected to adhere to.
Change? You’ve got to be kidding! What we’re getting from this administration in the foreign policy department is an uncanny repetition of the same folly engaged in by the Bush administration, complete with "weapons of mass destruction" and the hosannas of the Establishment pundits as they march in lockstep to war. The only difference is that many of these very same pundits were singing a far different tune when it was Republicans doing the warmongering."
More at: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/27/september-surprise-2/
What "those folks" want, they will have ... unless we all wake up soon enough to what is really going on.
You've included links AND made sense.
Marilyn
Appreciate the information! Lots of confusion and diverse opinions here.
Our history with Iran over the last 60 years includes:
We removed their democratically elected leader and replaced him with a ruthless dictator who tyrannized them for 25 years. We helped Saddam Hussein use WMD on them, supporting Saddam Hussein financially and logistically in his war of aggression on them. And our 43rd President names them as part of the "Axis of Evil" before incinerating one of the other named "Axis of Evil" members.
And what is the basis for our demand that they not conduct a nuclear program? They signed a treaty. But in the time since they signed that treaty, we've broken many treaties that we had signed. So exactly how are we in a position to be self-righteous and demanding of justice regarding this?
In a perfect world, it would be nice to think that Israel would offer to eliminate or reduce its nuclear capability that we bestowed on it, in return for Iran abandoning its nuclear ambitions. It would also be nice to believe that Pakistan and India would mutually agree to reduce their nuclear arsenals.
It is far from a perfect world, however. Just thinking of the prospects for reductions in those countries reveals the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of ever achieving Obama's and the U.N.'s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons.
Israel will not relinquish what is currently its military advantage in the Middle East, and the U.S. is not about to suggest it. The pro-Israel lobby in Washington has been rated by Congress as being more powerful than the NRA and until there is a major overhaul of our system, the lobbyists will continue to run our government.
Pakistan won't relinquish its arsenal, either, which it believes is the only reason its much larger nemesis, India, hasn't attacked it lately, and that's probably correct.
So, we have to deal with the reality. And, unfortunately, under that scenario, it appears that the potential obstacles preventing Iran from becoming a member of the nuclear club are diminishing as to their effectiveness. The west will do its best to restrain Iran, which is what's happening now, but in the end, it appears Iran will prevail. At least, that's my best guess at this point.
In that case, the main questions would seem to be - Will a nuclear standoff between Israel and Iran actually create a balance that results in a peaceful coexistence as it appears to have done between Pakistan and India?
Or will this set off a series of nuclear proliferations in the Middle East which could lead to a nuclear war within the next two decades, as a CIA analysis is rumored to have projected - with dire consequences for Israel?
> in the Middle East
More anti-Israel claptrap. Israel would not need nuclear weapons if countries like Iran and others were not threatening to destroy them. Having nuclear weapons is not an advantage and Israel would not be thinking of using them unless they believed the faces an existential threat.
More talk about the relative size of lobbyists when that information is only estimates by those who have an axe to grind for one side or the other.
If Iran develops nukes Saudi Arabia will have to.
There is coexistence now, it is not peaceful and never will be as long as Iran continues its hardline Islamic regime. The reason Iran wants nukes is to bust through that so that it can threaten Israel even more. Just wait to see who is next after Israel. Who wants to sit around for the next hundred years and see this game of chicken go on and on over piles of dead bodies that if all added up and brought back in time would tower over the casualties in a sensible military action to remove Iran's government today?
Robert A., the ugly aspects of our foreign policy history that you and others have cited are, without question, true. To some extent these instances are the product of a system that is run by and caters to the special interests involved...
Your activism, if you are so inclined, should perhaps be focused on the enormous task of attempting to change that system, a goal with, unfortunately, little likelihood of success, since the foxes own the chicken coop.
No chance he is in league with the corporate/military/industrial/media giants, that have no intention of allowing the wee folk to upset their stranglehold on public policy, right? Can't be, with such a bright smile and those doe eyes . . . ; )
You and I are on the same page, John, except I'm not quite ready to accept that we are stupid enough to go to war with Iran or even to give Israel the green light to do so, not that they would need it right now.
But I have an open mind on the matter....The real enemy is the money and the favors that flow into Washington and I believe we, me included, have tended to underestimate its power.
There is an enormous amount of pressure being applied right now to escalate the war in Afghanistan. The final decision on that may indicate how controlled this administration is by that complex Eisenhower warned us about.
"You and I are on the same page, John, except . . "
No, we're not on the same page. When I say "in league", I mean deceiving the living shit out the public. I mean a "plant", an actor, a phony. A puppet.
"There is an enormous amount of pressure being applied right now to escalate the war in Afghanistan."
Say what? The "war" in Afghanistan HAS BEEN escalated . . it's a done deal. The "final decision" has already been made.
I would take issue with your statement about, "... McChrystal’s constant use of the press to make his case ...". Indications are that the leak came from the Pentagon because of frustration about the chain of command's delay in forwarding McChrystal’s request to the President.
And John Knight, I may not totally be on your page, now that you laid it out so clearly, however, this administration has clearly and steadily shown that it may not be what it claimed it would be, so I am rapidly heading your way.
My greatest disappointment is Obama's so-called stimulus program for the American families and the American workforce. Last I heard only 30% was committed to projects and many of them involved a delay before people would actually be working. It appeared the greatest benefit would accrue to the companies receiving the funds. Today, NBC carried a report purporting to be a boost for the president's efforts. It involved a project in Chesapeake Bay with a multi-million dollar pricetag. Stimulus benefit - 40 jobs.
When these efforts are compared to the government's bailouts for the financial sector and the additional trillions pumped in, it gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.
My second greatest disappointment so far was Obama's deal with the chief lobbyist for the Drug industry, put together after a reported half dozen meetings in the White House. In the agreement Obama handed the industry two of its most coveted wishes, that drug prices not be negotiable under Medicare and that it would continue to be illegal for Americans to be able to buy cheaper drugs from pharmacies in Canada and Europe.
This situation stinks to high heaven in so many ways it is nearly as sickening as the non-stimulus program. It runs 180 degrees counter to some of the most important campaign promises Obama made. It results in higher drug costs for those who can least afford it. And the story of how the drug company's chief lobbyist managed to move from Congress into his $2,500,000/year job is so disgusting (and should definitely be illegal), that no self-respecting president pretending to represent the people should be willing to give him the time of day.
Disappointment #3, Obama's more than doubling of our troop strength in Afghanistan, so far, and a war strategy that has increased combat deaths from zero to two per week to over ten. This disappointment will become magnified if (or as John would say "when") he accepts the recommendation of the military half of the complex, and gives in to the pressure from the industrial side, and further increases our involvement.
And we still have not been given any idea what the objective is.
It does not end there. I'm struck dumb by the president's estimate that our national debt will increase by $9 trillion over the next 10 years and even moreso suspecting that the actual debt will be much higher. I don't believe the economists have a computer program that can tell them the profound consequences of a financial orgy of such magnitude.
I could go on, but writing this comment is making me feel unwell...
The man came "out of nowhere" . . (well, Chicago politics ; ), has no real credentials to speak of, was rather secretive and opaque about his past . . and these are very strange times indeed, in terms of the wee folk having any significant effect on what the government/establishment does . . I feel it is prudent to keep the . . unwell possibility, within the big picture. Or at least not to drift so far into the media versions of these matters, that one cannot relate back to that potential.
(Your recent comments earned back some credibility, my friend ; )
Sometimes the articles, especially the Tolls, are kept somewhat free of personal opinions so as to just lay it out there for others to debate over. That's not always the case, however, and is rarely the case with the contrarian articles.
In some cases, the facts, if presented honestly and understandably, will speak rather loudly for themselves.
" . . are kept somewhat free of personal opinions so as to just lay it out there . . "
My point is, the "it" you lay out there, is in fact personal opinion too, formed at least in part, by watching what you know damn well may be nothing more than spin and propaganda, such as we later saw, clearly occurred in the last march to "war" . . .
The "main stream media" sort of framing of these complex matters, is not even slightly worthy at times, of being called "the way it is" on this planet, I don't believe. Treating that stuff as if the solid foundation of all rational discourse, serves the purposes of any that might deceive the citizenry, and undermines any attempt to unveil the "man behind the curtain", when things get really twisted.
The things you feel are doubt worthy, may be called personal opinions, but that you doubt things, is a fact, No?
At some point in time, Israel is going to blast the ever living hell out of Iran and when that happens, the world as we know it will never be the same.
In the aftermath, U.S. Government Officials will be wondering why they had not considered alternate fuel sources as well as enforcing immigration policies.
Boom Boom! It's gonna happen. I only hope that I'm dead and gone when it goes down.
Seriously, if there is one thing the human race is good at its seeing things in the same old way. Israel will bomb Iran or Iran will bomb Israel, the thing will play itself out, Iran will be done, and it's 50-50 whether Israel will be around unless we help, and then things will go back to being as normal as possible.
There is apparently nothing that is going to happen that will get us off oil. There is too much money going to too many people with too much political power, just like with health care.
If there is one long term indicator for "communism", ( and I mean pure theoretical communism ) and I never say this, and only say it now philosophically mostly in jest, its that I do not think the world can survive with any group ever being allowed to maintain a privileged group where they eventually do not abuse their privilege and start the ball rolling on what ends up to be tyranny. It's just the flawed nature of humanity to always push and to not be vigilant and push back on those pushers until it is too late.
I certainly agree that imminence of an attack on Iran, is not particularly relevant, in any default sense. These episodes we've come to call "saber rattling", serve quite well, as a basic memory foundation, upon which to build most any policy shift, in the "violent" direction. It has become acceptable, to openly advocate another "preemptive war", like it was a board game, and it's our turn to invade somebody . ; )
Iran has become a giant menace in the mind's of the American populace, regardless of what the reality of their policies and intentions might be, or have ever been. Hell, the freakin' shoe bomber could probably light this fuse . . . ; )
And maybe there really is a danger to people from the Iranian leadership, and that it may be your brain that is the defective one for not being able to see the big picture with objectivity. What do you think you know about Iran's policies that President Obama does not?
Then throw a shoe-bomber joke in for good measure.
"What do you think you know about Iran's policies that President Obama does not?"
Ain't you getting a bit far down the road of faith in Mr. Obama? What did I know about Iraq's policies that Mr. Bush did not know? I am not conceding that all is as the leaders in the government/military/corporate/media speak, that's all. I do not assume that these matters are, as they are framed by the powers that be, now, any more than when the war drums were warming up to attack Iraq.
Of course, if one buys into the notion that all is as those lofty voices imply, then we little people ought to shut the hell up, and let them go about saving the country, and the world, without being bothered by us . . . I just don't buy it, that's all. I have noticed things did not turn out the way them folks led us to believe, in the past, and have learned to be skeptical. When they say; "Look at it this way . . . and no other", I don't obey . .
Iraq was not Viet Nam, Iran is not Iraq and I think it is simplistic to argue that because one wants to simplify the world because it makes everything more manageable.
I never said these situations are the same, it is you that is being overly simplistic, I think.
Your pet scapegoat is a fart in the windstorm of reality, I say. Militant Islam is being used as an excuse (one of several) to reshape the world into a "Big Brother" style nightmare of authoritarian rule, wherein things like our Constitution and Bill of Rights, are swept aside at the drop of a hat, and I'm a loyal American, not an authoritarian zealot. This "we" forming you speak of as the "goal", is not my goal . . . I like the old "we", that is not a world-wide police state.