Those Iranians are bad people and any more BS we can dig up about them to justify our war against them we will be sure to let everyone know about right up to the last second we start dropping our nukes and bunker busters on them and ruin their country so we can occupy it and then ruin it some more. Or maybe I have it all wrong and soon America and Iran will be exchanging flowers and gifts and working on that big free trade deal that won't benefit anybody.
What "evidence" does the US Government have to justify a war with Iran? Iran's got nukes (or they're making them), they might use them or hand them over to terrorists who might use them, they're aiding our enemy (or enemies) in Afghanistan and Iraq, they're threatening our friends and allies (OK, maybe one friend and ally but who's counting), they're repressing their own people, they're state sponsors of terrorism, their President is nutty and has said bad things about our friends and allies (OK, maybe one friend and ally), they're sequestering Saddamn's mighty WMD arsenal to use against us, they threatening the whole world, and they never apologized to us for holding our people hostage back in '79-80.
"US Army Lt. Col. Edward Sholtis today accused Iran of providing both “materiel” and training for “Taliban elements” in Afghanistan." Just one more piece of evidence that the US Government desperately wants their war with Iran.
I was for war until the new guy got in and then I was against it.
I was against war until the new guy got in and then I was for it. Many conservatives and liberals seem to have no principles at all. They believe in nothing---unless it's policially convenient to do so of course. I'll say this for neoconservatives. They're consistent. They love war no matter who's running the show.
Let's shove my offensive remark down the ole' memory hole. Nobody will notice. Uh, hey, Marty when you post on the internet it stays there forever to be found and reposted another day. Revising your remarks in the hope that nobody will notice your revision only invites further criticism and even accusations of cowardice.
The story here is that nobody can get honest answers about 9/11 beyond the "official" ones that have been provided to date. While the Establishment may feel smug that they'll never have to give an honest answer to questions about 9/11, questions will persist, and the majority of the public will someday stop believing the official narrative and come to believe something else entirely. At that moment the Establishment's credibility will be worth less than dust, not that it's worth all that much today.
In Google News Canada they appear to index original stories from antiwar.com as "satire" after September 1. Stories from antiwar.com prior to September 1 are still indexed without the "satire" reference. Makes me wonder if this is a simple error. Regardless, Google needs to resolve this problem immediately as the "satire" reference creates a stigma or bias toward antiwar.com.
The bottom line is that as much as I hoped Obama would bring sanity to the oval office, I'm not shocked that he hasn't. Somehow I think the imperial beast has to be fed to sustain it, and what better way to do that then to wage pointless wars, spy on your own citizens at home and chip away at the freedoms we believe are our right. Until one day we all wake up in an authoritarian police state and only have a thin veneer of "freedom" and "democracy" left.
I think the national security surveillance state transcends politics. It is meaningless who is in power or to which political party they serve. Once in power they'll wage wars overseas and reign in any potential miscreants at home, at the behest of the national security surveillance state. At the same time the national security surveillance state controls them at the behest of the MIC, corporate interests, lobbyists, whatever. I think this was one of the points Andrew Bacevich tried to make in Limits of Power, a great read that everyone should pick up.
Put it another way. Power corrupts. The new guy may have believe in set of principles, but once he's in power kind of likes those executive powers the last guy amassed and isn't so against those signing statements the last guy put his pen to.
Mr. Giraldi's analysis is one you won't find in the MSM. The MSM likes to fashion a narrative that sucks you in. Whose heartstrings wouldn't be pulled by riveting stories and images of protesters fighting for their rights. But this narrative might as well be propaganda. As Giraldi says, we really don't know what's going down in Iran; the story is far more complicated and complex than how the MSM portrays it. The only way to face this narrative head-on is to "read between the lines", meaning we should treat the narrative with healthy skepticism; accept parts of it that are logical and question those parts of it that are tripe. Seeking out differing viewpoints, like Giraldi's, is one way to question that tripe. Sadly, the majority of people out there neither have the time or inclination to seek out differing viewpoints and so they will be swayed by information skewed by heart-wrenching narratives and little else that counts as news.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Contraption