So does Brent Scowcroft. Why these neo cons want to get us in another war should scare us to make sure McCain is never elected.

The foreign affairs views of Brent Scowcroft have often been in diametric opposition to that of this administration. Interestingly, Brent Scowcroft is regarded by many Washington insiders as a surrogate for George H. W. Bush whose criticisms of of his son's forign policy blunders are transmitted through Scowcroft. You are absolutely correct that this country cannot afford a John McCain presidency.

 

i would love to see these warlords wannabe's go to san Diego and go thru boot camp. I'd pay to see that show.

Sue:

This article isn't necessarily about the neocon's desires. The article is about the Servile Press' lack of coverage of the administration's blatant inconsistencies.

Agreed

I was just making a statement that is very dear to me, the election of McCain will destroy our nation. Sorry if it is off topic.

GREENFIELD: Because the president, in the Israeli parliament, made a statement that everyone knew, including the White House, had to be seen as a frontal attack on Barack Obama,

To Greenfield's credit, he is at least acknowledging the cowardly passive-aggressive attack by Bush, which discounts the defense of this that's being used-- the playing dumb/ "he wasn't talking about Obama, but Obama must be an appeaser if he thought it applied to him" BS. 

the number one fear in Israel and among some American Jews is Iran

Yes, that's probably true.Bush's remarks are aimed at the 28%ers who think the way to deal with your fears is to close your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and hope they go away.He must believe there are some just outside the 28% boundary who are gullible and cowardly enough to be won over by this sort of weasel talk. Good luck,

Too bad that 100% of the media falls into your 28%, Harlan.  They are covering this ONLY from the neocon perspective. 

My Kingdom for a second news outlet to report that Gates wants to talk to Iran too!!  

I had to change cable providers so I don't get MSNBC anymore.  I want to know what Olbermann is saying about all this.   

I want to know what Olbermann is saying about all this.

Rachael Maddow is filling in. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24673883#24673883

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24673610#24673610

Thanx for the link.

Isn't it sad that someone like that has a talk-show. And his mindless followers will console him today about how poorly he was treated, never realizing their mentor is a dolt. But what the hell, free speech is a right for everyone. For that dolt, his inability to speak freely should cost him his job. He is just another bum making money by talking. He stepped-up to the big leagues and made an arse of himself.  No, he doesn't have to speak the truth or tell the ENTIRE story...GATES.....but some knowledge would be nice.

Anyone have the call letters of his radio station?..I'd like to call them and try to get Philib a job...he is way ahead of this guy and would do a much better job. Just in..DOLT are the call letters.

Thanks Pearline!

Sit down and talk with...five little words that mmfa keeps repeating...while leaving out the rest:

This from the Pentagon Press Briefing:

 -- ..we will continue to keep the pressure on Iran, amplify, as I said, the pressure on Iran so that they do ultimately feel so much pressure that they are willing to change their ways. That is the focus of the administration's policy. It has not changed. It did not change when the secretary made his remarks yesterday...

He's been dealing with Iran for nearly 40 years, and over those four decades, he is still looking for the elusive Iranian moderate with whom we can deal rationally and constructively. You know, you heard him talk yesterday about the notion that he wrote a paper with Brzezinski in 2004 about the prospect of reaching out to the Iranians back then, but that was under the leadership of President Khatami,

Under the leadership of President Ahmadinejad, their role in Iraq and elsewhere is completely unambiguous. It is entirely unhelpful. And under that -- the leadership of Ahmadinejad, the secretary sees no prospect for government-to-government talks, negotiations, until such time that the Iranians feel such pressure from the diplomatic, economic and military pressure we are putting them under that they want to change their ways.

And what he was speaking of in terms of more contact with the Iranians is on a peoples-to-peoples basis; that there should be more of a flow of private citizens from the U.S. to Iran... He is in no way at this point advocating offering incentives to talk with the Iranians.   

 

 

May 15 artice is quotes above..he did use the words sit down and talk...Isn't this a prequel to negotiations? He just reached out to Iran in the Washington Post. If I got this right...if the Iranians offer something, we WILL sit down and talk to them. All negotiations start with the first word/action. Gates did both.

Thank God we didn't negotiate with the evil country North Korea. They stopped everything on their own. 

"he is still looking for the elusive Iranian moderate with whom we can deal rationally and constructively."

Iran had previously provided assistance to the Northern Alliance and the U.S. in its fight against the Taliban.  Iran's leadership had also condemned the attacks of 9/11. 

Then what happened?

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom

[...]

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

Iran's hands were far from clean, but Bush's policies have pretty much dashed any hopes of conjuring an elusive Iranian moderate that still possess any significant influence.  

 

The President of Iran is NOT the leader of Iran.  He has virtually no political power.

Any particular name for that pretezl you just turned into Wesley?

Who been doing a 40 year gig on Iran, Gates?

Been plenty of opportunities to contact with moderate Iranians. The stumbling block has been our failure to do so.

The lack of real power on the part of Ahmadinnejad has been noted repeatedly. Yet you still trot him out as a reliable bogyman. For what purpose?

Yer last, a demonstration of your mind reading skills. What am I thinking right now? Gates wants us to be tourists in Iran for democracy? The populations of Iran and America do share many similarities. If our repective leaders would allow it, great things could come from a mutual friendly relationship. Ahmadinejad is one loud mouth of little actual power. His opponets in our government are right at the centers of power.

Gate's coments, if your interpretation gets picked up and amphlified in the media, might get to keep his job. Given the lack of coverage, I believe rather that in a short time he will be quietly retiring "To spend more time with his family." Or some variation thereof. The the usual fate of the military who disagree with shrub is to be replaced so that shrub can say he's listening to his military leaders. As long as he can find one who agrees with him. So far that has worked well enough that few seem to noticed this in our dear media.

there are moderates in iran, but they have no power.  how do you engage someone that has no power.  what does it get you, other than them jailed or executed.

we have the illustrious jimmy carter, who seems to love dictators and autocrats.  iranians were much better off under the shah, but jimmy put an end to that.

Sandss wrote:

>>we have the illustrious jimmy carter, who seems to love dictators and autocrats.  iranians were much better off under the shah, but jimmy put an end to that.

You might want to read a little history. The democratically elected government in Iran was overthrown by the US in 1953. Carter was not president then.

The Shah of Iran was a brutal dictator

Link

" Amnesty International summed up the situation in 1976 by noting that Iran had the 'highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief. No country in the world has a worse record in human rights than Iran.'"

lnk

 

 

You would think that someone who used to go by the name of HSTYBUF6553 would know and understand a little bit of History.

But then again, our illustrious leader has degree in History from Yale so nothing surprises me anymore.

While you have thrown Jimmy Carter into the mix and are an honest history buff, can you answer this?

The Iranian hostages were released the moment Reagan was sworn in. According to Limbaugh and the gang, they did this to embarass Carter. My question is...how did the Iranians to get this done..backdoor deals...quite diplomacy, silent negotiations? With WHO? Think any of Reagans people were involved?

Princeofwheels wrote:

>>My question is...how did the Iranians to get this done..backdoor deals...quite diplomacy, silent negotiations? With WHO? Think any of Reagans people were involved?

I assume you are asking a rhetorical question? In fact, Reagan swapped arms with Iran illegally and used the money obtained to fund the contras in Nicaragua, also an illegal action since the congress had outlawed it. The contras were trying to overthrow the democratically elected government, and were responsible for about 10,000 deaths. The whole scandal was quite big at the end of Reagan's presidency.

It was "found out" (that is, the press couldn't pretend they didn't know any longer and stoop covering it up) when a pilot by the name of Hasenfuss's plane was shot down. I was in Germany at the time, and the Germans would laugh whenever Hassenfuss's name was mentioned. I asked why. They  told me that Hassenfuss means "chicken" (as in coward) in German.

Now that I read my post, I realize the it doesn't answer your question, since Reagan was not in office when the hostages were returned. But I think there was some back door dealing going on with people who were later in the Reagan government. It certainly is a good question whether this contention is speculation nor fact. 

There is a lot of evidence that Bush senior, representing the Reagan campaign, helped cut a deal with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages until Reagan was sworn in. The Iran Contra affair which came later is evidence that back room deals with Iran were standard operating procedure. Of course, ReaganCo was also arming Iraq at the same time.

Ooohh, Mary, you're going to get the followers  of St. Ronnie mad at you with all of that reality.If they have to deal with the fact that the media was already in the GOPocket almost 30 years ago, they may blow their collective gaskets.

Just remember what the nice man on the TeeVee said; Jimmy Carter was horrible, and Raygun got the hostages released and tore down the Berlin wall.

Ah, the Raygun years. Hollywood actor becomes prez and reporters shout questions as he boards his airplane; he always acts as if he doesn't hear the question.

Now the prez doesn't even have to act because the reporters stopped asking questions at all.

Sands is too stupid to follow your discourse. He's just a tool. Skinheads are trained to follow only the most vicious, ignorant "conservative" propaganda.