Devvy Kidd -- Iran: Maybe a good idea to hold off bombing them

IRAN: MAYBE A GOOD IDEA TO HOLD OFF BOMBING THEM

By: Devvy
December 6, 2007

� 2007 - NewsWithViews.com

"In defense of the world order...U.S. soldiers would have to kill and die," Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Foreign Affairs, July-August 1995

"What is at stake is more than one small country [Kuwait], it is a big idea - a new world order..." -- George H.W. Bush

"You know, in a sane world, every country would unite against Iran and blow it off the face of the earth. That would be the sane thing to do." Bill O'Reilly, March 8, 2006

July 19, 2007: "[Bill] Kristol Suggests People of Iran Would Embrace U.S. Attack, Triggering Regime Change. "We can try diplomacy. I'm not very hopeful about that. We have to be ready to use force." Kristol claimed the people of Iran would embrace "the right use of targeted military force." He added that military force could "trigger changes in Iran," causing them to embrace regime change." They would? Did anyone ask them?

Sept. 25, 2007: HANNITY: "Mission: Iran Showdown. The objective: destroy and disable Iran's top nuclear facilities, impact its ability to process and enrich uranium, delay its ability to manufacture and deploy nuclear weapons, all while crippling the ruling regime." Have the people of Iran no say over the U.S. bombing them to "cripple" their own government?

September 30, 2007: Neocon 'godfather' Norman Podhoretz tells Bush: bomb Iran: "I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought there was no alternative," said Podhoretz, 77, in an interview with The Sunday Times. "I laid out the worst-case scenario - bombing Iran - versus the worst-case consequences of allowing the Iranians to get the bomb." Podhoretz is Rudy Julie Annie's foreign policy advisor and beats the drums for war more enthusiastically than the other war profiteers.

Dec. 2, 2007: John Bolton, the hawkish former US ambassador to the UN, says Tehran's nuclear threat is growing and it will have to be halted by force: "Although its title, Surrender is not an Option, refers to his unwillingness to compromise on political principles, it also echoes how he believes the US should approach the Iranians. If Iran won't voluntarily yield on its nuclear ambitions it will have to be stopped by force."

May 17, 2007. "We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb. Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites.....Iran has "clearly mastered the enrichment technology now...they're not stopping, they're making progress and our time is limited", he said. Economic sanctions "with pain" had to be the next step, followed by attempting to overthrow the theocratic regime and, ultimately, military action to destroy nuclear sites."

How many more nations will America bomb into oblivion, killing thousands of innocents in its quest to overthrow their governments and install puppet regimes under the control of the White House? What right do we have to take these actions? What right do we have to bully any country into accepting the evil of democracy?

October 30, 2007: "The Zogby International survey shows 52 percent of Americans would support a strike on Iran..Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is voters' No. 1 choice to deal with Iran, with 21 percent saying they would like to see her take on Tehran from the White House..." Who did Zogby question? The National Organization of Witches? Only a mentally unbalanced person would "like to see her (Mrs. Clinton) take on Tehran from the White House."

October 17, 2007: "...Moderator Chris Matthews had asked, "If you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?" Romney had replied that the president "has to do what's in the best interest" of the country "to protect us against a potential threat." He said nothing about needing a congressional declaration of war; indeed, he was clearly suggesting that for him to strike Iran it would suffice to get a legal opinion that such an act did not require a formal declaration of war." Another dictator in the making.

"CFR point dog in the House, Rep. Henry Hyde, [R-Il] stated that declaring war is 'anachronistic, it isn't done anymore...' A darling of the deaf, dumb and blind socialists [liberals], Ranking Minority Member Tom Lantos, [D-Ca] called the declaration of war 'frivolous and mischievous.' On January 7, 1999, former Clinton Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich said, "...when the president decides to go to war, he no longer needs a declaration of war from Congress."

Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives ONLY Congress the power to declare war: "To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;" Yet, members of Congress, past presidents and presidential candidates act as if this document doesn't exist, when in fact, it is the very thing that is supposed to keep government in check.

October 23, 2007: Meridor: We must be ready to preempt threats: "Israeli Ambassador to the US Sallai Meridor declared Monday that Israel should always be prepared "to preempt, to deter and to defeat if we can" when speaking about the threats facing the country. Chief among those threats was Iran, said Meridor, who called for a unified international as well as domestic American front to counter the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions. "This will take a united United States on this matter, that they would not have the illusion today that come January '09, they [Teheran] have it their own way," he said, referring to the inauguration of President George W. Bush's successor, who could potentially change US policy on Iran." Why should Israel fear Iran? They have 200 nucs, while Iran has a lot of offensive hot air coming out of the mouth of Ahmadinejad, who has no nuclear weapons and under their laws, could not launch one all by himself.

October 29, 2007: "For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence. Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"

November 1, 2007: 'Link Iraq to Iran,' Rumsfeld argued before proof: "Ten months before the US aired formal proof of Iranian involvement in funding Iraqi insurgents, then-Secretary of Defense warned in secret Pentagon memos that Iran should be the "concern of the American people" and he issued explicit instructions to the military. "[L]ink Iraq to Iran," Rumsfeld wrote in one of thousands of "snowflakes" -- short memos distributed throughout the Pentagon during his tenure. The Washington Post obtained a handful of the memos and published excerpts from them Thursday. A newly disclosed memo, written in April 2006 as Rumsfeld faced retired generals' calls for his resignation, tied Iran and Iraq together and claimed failure in the latter "will advantage Iran."

November 5, 2007: Stop Iran!: "The hour is growing late, and the time has come for the world to stand up and be counted before it is too late.....The world today needs to unite to stop Iran.... One voice united informing Iran that a coalition of the willing, stretching from Beijing to Bakersfield, is prepared to send a military force into Iran to stop the enrichment programs if they continue..."

Iran NIE Validates 2003 European Diplomacy. Washington, Dec 4 (IPS) - "Despite the White House spin that the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) supports its policy of increasing pressure on Iran, the estimate not only directly contradicts the George W. Bush administration's line on Iranian intentions regarding nuclear weapons, but points to a link between Tehran's 2003 decision to halt research on weaponisation and its decision to negotiate with European foreign ministers on both nuclear and Iranian security concerns."..."By using unusually strong and precise language in characterising its pivotal judgment that Iran ended work relating to nuclear weapons four years earlier, the estimate deals a serious blow to the administration's claim that Iran is determined to acquire nuclear weapons. The key judgment released Monday said, "We assess with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program [and] that the halt lasted at least several years."

While I disagree with Keith Olbermann most of the time, the one area we agree on is Bush and his imperial agenda:

December 4, 2007: Keith Olbermann:

Olbermann: "Well, just last week, that depends on what the definition of "aware" is. As one highly reliable intelligence community source told "Harper's" magazine yesterday, the NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. Plus, earlier this month, the similar report revealed that the vice president, Mr. Cheney had been holding up publication of the NIE from the better part of the year...

"Nobody ever told him that. Then more astounding, we didn't ask. With that claim, the birth of yet another scandal which the question needs to be asked, what did the president know and when did he know it?....Even Mr. Bush's own National Security Adviser disputes the time line. Stephen Hadley told reporters yesterday that said the president was told in August or September about new intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program. Mr. Hadley however, the first to float the ludicrous news story that intelligence officials did not reach any conclusions about the true nature of the Iranian threats until last Tuesday, that the president and vice president weren't briefed until Wednesday....The sub-headline here - the story that the intelligence community only figured out what Iran was not up to last Tuesday and the president and the vice president didn't hear about it until last Wednesday. Is anybody buying that and why does that need to be sold so hard?

Wolfe: "Well, again, listen to what the president said. He said, I only found out about the NIE-they didn't hear about the conclusions. I mean this is a president who gets briefed all the time. It feeds into the policy and the public statements and really for a long time-I've been saying on this show and others have noted it, too. The public rhetoric of this administration did not match what they were saying privately, about the diplomacy or, for instance, about the way they were going to deal with other nations. I mean, the two tracks didn't match. And frankly that led a lot of us to believe that they didn't have the evidence, they were approaching it very differently behind the scenes and look, we can now see why. It's not about when they knew. It's really about why they were making public statement that is they knew privately didn't match up to the facts...."

Dec. 5, 2007: Bolton Calls For Congressional Witch-Hunt Into Anti-Bush 'People In The Intelligence Community: "Yesterday's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, pouring cold water on neoconservative calls for bombing Iran. Like his ideological kin Norman Podhoretz, former U.N. ambassador and Iran war hawk John Bolton has been attempting to slander the U.S. intelligence community's collective judgments."

Iran, Bush & Communist China: "Something very important is being overlooked here. The Communist Chinese don't have enough energy. Communist China has long-standing close ties with Iran. In a published report by BBC News, Nov. 1, 2004: According to China's official Xinhua news agency, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding committing Sinopec to buy 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas from Iran over 30 years. Iran will also export 150,000 barrels of crude per day to China after Sinopec has developed the Yadavaran field, Xinhua reported. It valued the deal at $70 billion. Iranian news service IRNA said the memorandum granted China the right to explore and develop the Yadavaran oil field, and provided for LNG sales of 10 million tons a year. Iran supplied roughly 13 percent of China's oil imports in 2003, according to official figures quoted by Xinhua. China has been experiencing blackouts for years and it will get worse.

"The Washington Post report gave a good overview of the problem for the communists on July 15, 2005: With so much competition for assets, China has pursued deals with international pariah states that are off-limits to Western oil companies because of sanctions, security concerns or the threat of bad publicity. China National Petroleum is the largest shareholder in a consortium running much of the oil patch in Sudan, a country accused by the United States of genocide in its western region of Darfur. Last year, China signed a $70 billion oil and gas purchase agreement with Iran, undercutting efforts by the United States and Europe to isolate Teheran and force it to give up plans for nuclear weapons. If Cnooc acquires Unocal, it would have gas fields and a pipeline in Burma, whose operation by the U.S. company has been criticized by human-rights groups. No matter if it's rogue's oil or a friend's oil, we don't care," said an energy adviser to the central government who spoke on the condition he not be identified, citing the threat of government disciplinary action. "Human rights? We don't care. We care about oil. Whether Iran would have nuclear weapons or not is not our business. America cares, but Iran is not our neighbor. Anyone who helps China with energy is a friend."

In other words, commie China doesn't care what Bush wants, they want Iran's oil. Bush has said that his course with Iran will not change regardless of what the NIE report says. Do we go to war with China if they object to Bush's agenda to bomb Iran using any excuse he can find?

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1823. ME: 15:436.

Is the Middle East any different? Are they not nations in constant turmoil and war? For more more than 50 years, we've had troops on the 38th parallel to protect the South Koreans from the North Koreans. What a noble gesture while these two countries are enjoying trade with each other! Does this make any sense to you? What are the American people to think anymore and are they willing to sacrifice more of their husbands, fathers, sons, wives, mothers, sons and daughters for an agenda that has nothing to do with America's safety? Terrorism is very real and we should concentrate on the terrorists we know are here on U.S. soil. Of course, some will disagree, but then, how much research have they ever done into past history and the machinations of mad men? Or, better yet: How much mullah is in it for them to continue these endless "wars of liberation" or "hunt down the terrorists"?

Tomorrow is December 7th, the remembrance of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Please don't forget to honor those who died that day and all our veterans.

Important links:

1 - Homeland Security --For what and for whom?
2 - Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Seeks To Escalate Possibility Of Military Action Against Iran
3 - Iraqis sold out; oil sold off
4 - CBS Reveals Real Name of False Iraqi Source
5 - Iran and Pakistan finalise gas deal; signing in a month
6 - Bush scolds Congress, talks Iran, Iraq
7 - Recommended Reading: The Praetorian Guard: The U.S. Role in the New World Order by John Stockwell, the highest ranking CIA officer ever to quit the agency and expose the truth

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

Devvy's website: www.devvy.com

Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.

E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

Home

John Bolton, the hawkish former US ambassador to the UN, says Tehran's nuclear threat is growing and it will have to be halted by force...