Bush says NO WMD in Russia was reason for weak Georgia response

At a press conference yesterday, President George W. Bush said he did not send troops to back Georgia in their brief war with Russia because Russia had no WMD.

"Look, I'm concerned when nations cross the borders of other nations and bomb and kill innocent people, but the fact is, Russia has no weapons that can reach the United States and no WMD. They just aren't a threat to us."

When pressed further, Bush said he had his staff review the public statements of his vice president Dick Cheney, his secretary of defense, Condi Rice, and former secretary of defense Don Rumsfeld over the last seven years and found that only two or three countries in the world may have nuclear weapons and other "WMD."

"Look, we know for sure Saddam Hussein was seconds from getting a nukes which he could have used to blackmail the world, and now Iran is trying to do the same, but no one else has that kinda technology. Not even us."

Asked about North Korea he said, "They might have them, but it's not they got missiles that could fly over Japan or anything. Hell, I don't even think they got the Wii yet."

Reporters asked about the Cold War arms race, Russia's history of nuclear tests, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. After consulting his teleprompter and 3x5 cards for several seconds, touching his ear and saying, "Karen? Karl? You guys fall asleep in there?" He finally replied, "Look the Cold War was decades ago. That's ancient history. We can't let history effect how we act in the present. And we don't know that that conflict had anything to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Later, a senior official at the State Department speaking off the record in her shiny new Ferragamo shoes clarified the president's statement.

"I would like to respond to the unfair and frankly conspiracy theory inspired questions posed to th president about Russia nuclear weapons. First, the Cold War was primarily about ideology, defeating godless communism not any particular 'weapons system.'"

She said the photos of Soviet missiles that were frequently published in newspapers and still survive in textbooks were actually part of a robust space programs that launched thousands of weather and communications satellites. Some had to be stored in hardened bunkers and submarines because of Russia's harsh climate.

US satellite photos of alleged Soviet nuclear missile tests, seemingly confirmed by seismographic and radiation data were actually a wave of large meteors striking the Soviet Union, according to her. "As the world's largest land mass, it is only reasonable & logical that we would see more meteors hit that country than any other."

She said that the Cuban Missile Crisis was about Castro's attempt to develop nuclear weapons, which the United States should have invaded to prevent; however, once Soviet cargo ships and military vessels arrived, it was clear to President Kennedy that it was all a misunderstanding.

"We need to focus on real threats, not hypothetical ones," the source concluded. "If we expended our military resources chasing imaginary nuclear stockpiles we would break our military, bankrupt our country, and alienate all of our historical allies in fairly order."

Was Reagan an appeaser for negotiating with Gorbachev about tactical nukes?

A lot of righties say any negotiating with countries like Iran or Venezuela or the designated boogeyman of the moment is just like appeasing Hitler.

The odd thing is, none of these countries we're supposed to be afraid of now have the capacity to invade or annihilate the United States.

By contrast, the Soviets had enough nukes to wipe the US off the map back in the 80s (the Russians and Chinese still do), and though the Soviets were behind us in technology in some ways, they more than made up for it in numbers of tanks, nukes, and other hardware.

And unlike the spread out Soviet Union, the countries we are supposed to be afraid of today are relatively compact, medium-sized ones that would take relatively few of our nukes to incinerate every square inch of. So why should we be more afraid of them than Reagan was of Gorbachev?

If the Soviets could not sustain an arms race, do you think Iran can or Iraq could have even if they had what Bush claimed?

And unlike Iran, the Soviets HAD invaded neighboring countries in the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and Afghanistan.

Why was Reagan negotiating with them NOT appeasement but negotiating with some medium-small country now is?

Democrats need to call bullshit on the Republican talking points and put things in perspective if they want to end the war and the assault on our democracy. I don't think they aren't out of cowardice or stupidity but because too many agree with what Bush is doing, seizing Persian Gulf oil to give it to his cronies on terms they choose.

GRAPHS & VIDEOS: Who exactly is a nuclear threat to us?

With the Bushies trotting out the same nuclear boogey man stories to sell the Iran War that they used in Iraq. The essence of the claim is that if some country gets a couple of dozens nukes or even one, they can blackmail us or even hold the whole world hostage.

We seem to be suffering from collective amnesia of some basic math about nuclear weapons most people, including our enemies, knew during the Cold War.

Here's a quick refresher:

These are the nuclear arsenals of most of the countries in the world.

Damn! They could do us some damage couldn't they?

But it looks a little different when you add us and Russia into the picture:

And if you throw in the extra nukes we and the Russians have in mothballs:

If some country nuked us or gave nukes to a terrorist who nuked us, we have enough nukes to burn that country off the map, and not even miss the warheads we used.

Here's a couple of 60 second videos that put it another way:

It’s worth noting that Israel has some nuclear missile submarines too, so if any of their neighbors nuke them, no matter how successfully, Israel could give them a very bad day.

Every world leader knows that not only do we have enough nukes to destroy the whole world several times over, we are the only country who has ever used them. They know that it would be suicidal to nuke us or give a nuke to terrorists to nuke us. That's why the Soviets never attacked us even when they had roughly as many or slightly more nukes than us.

Someone will say the threat of even one nuke going off here is too great. However, the leaders of countries are like chess players. They got into power by being able to accurately predict how their opponents would react to their actions. That's why there are few any examples in history of numerically, technologically, and economically inferior countries launching attacks on a superior country's home turf.

A nuclear attack on us even if successful in itself, would have zero chance of having positive political or economic results for the country that launched it.

You probably already knew this, but you can send it to your righty friends as Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, and the other snake oil salesmen get their knickers in a knot about the threat from Iran.

war profiteering iran iraq war wmd terrorism oil nuclear weapons president george w bush warheads nuclear arsenal nuclear weaponsstrategic access nuclear threat north korea republican nuclear+program mutually assured destruction professor smartass iraq propaganda corporation fascism chamber of commerce george w bush war on terror false flag northwoods smartass comments resistance censored news rebel veneuzuela big oil soviet russia israel islamofascism worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard

3 Questions before any war (or buying that another country is a threat)

Based on our experience in Iraq, an only slightly more than superficial reading of the history of our other wars and military actions, and a modest dose of common sense, we should always ask these questions before any war.

1. How many times over could we nuke that country off the map if they attacked us?

If it was Russia or China, maybe only 5-7 times. If it was a smaller country, the pilots would get bored after the first 30-40 runs.

2. What would this country gain by attacking us?

However cruel or unpleasant leaders of other countries may be, they didn't get to that position by being stupid. No leader of a country would take an action that had ZERO chance of success. Even Hitler's stupidest move, invading Russia, had some chance of success. What is the possible gain of any of our current or future boogey men in attacking us?

3. What business interests would profit from us attacking that country, and what has that interest done for us to deserve that sacrifice of tax dollars and lives?

Those first three address the kind of truly embarrassing childish lies and ommissions have been allowed to sell the American people.

But their is a second level of lies that has some credibility in academic and even military circles related to 3 about "strategic access" to resources. Therefore, some corrallaries are necessary:

3A. If someone says we need "strategic access" to a natural resource that country has, what would that country gain economically by denying us access besides ideological bragging rights? Would withholding the product do far more economic damage to them than us?

If a country has only one product, like OIL, cutting off the customer that uses 25% of the product would create a glut for other consumers, lower prices, dry their treasury and elites bank accounts of income, and possibly cause a recession or depression for their own people even more than it hurt us.

3B. If someone says that country may jack up prices if we don't invade, would the current price of that commodity plus the cost of military action in tax dollars,lives, and international resentment be less than their hypothetical exorbitant price?

These questions or some variation of them should be asked by every reporter, congressman, senator and American whenever military action is proposed.

Even Democrats have sold some variation of these lies about Iran saying Iraq was a distraction from the "real" threat of Iran. Their threat in reality is the same as Iraq's or Venezuela's: that the country might keep a decent share of their oil income and American companies won't get all they want (or any at all). And if a country like Iran gets nuclear weapons, the political cost of going in to take that oil will be too high.

The Democrats have made some steps in the right direction in their brief time back at the wheel. Declaring something like this would plant them firmly in the center of the reality-based community instead of being nearer neighbors to it than the GOP.




war profiteering iran iraq war wmd terrorism oil nuclear weapons president george w bush warheads real reasons questionsstrategic access dlc democratic leadership council republican GOP conservative corruption occupation halliburton imperialism colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq propaganda corporation fascism chamber of commerce george w bush war on terror false flag northwoods smartass comments resistance censored news rebel veneuzuela

For opposing NUKING IRAN, Bush forced out BRITISH foreign secretary

To their credit, CBS News is covering this story, though it includes hedges that reduce to rumor what were more certain statements in the original Guardian piece.

For an action that the Bush administration claims is barely a remote possibility, nuking Iran, the Bushies are treating insider critics exactly like they did those in the run up to Iran War, just as they are doing the same diplomatic dance at the UN even though in the case of IraQ, the Downing Street Minutes of meetings with Bush before the war proved that was just a charade.

It seems likely that the Bush regime is coming to an end, and the prospect of a Bush clone succeeding him in the White House is at least as dim.

And yet Bush is not acting like a neutered lame duck. He continues to retaliate against political enemies, and threatened and browbeat friends and allies around the world, including asking Turkey to launch an invasion against Iran from there, just as they did before the Iraq War. War was a winner for both Bush and GOP in 2002 & 2004, Pentagon insiders have said the Bushies has a list of countries they would like to invade, and Iran has been on the neoconservative hit list since before Bush came into power.

How will the Bushies justify invading IraN when their 9/11 & WMD scare tactics are growing thin? Someone at the Pentagon leaked an order they got from Cheney to the American Conservative magazine last summer that had these elements:

1) terrorist attack here

2) air strikes on Iran with conventional and tactical nukes

3) air strikes will be done REGARDLESS of whether Iran is involved in the terrorist act.
http://www.amconmag.com/2005a/2005_08_01/article3.html

At the time, no one paid attention to the story because it would be insane to start a war with a bigger country when we are loser with a smaller one. It would still be insane, but the Bushies are moving toward it anyway.

It is possible that the CIA or Pentagon will throw a wrench in this scam that Pentagon wargaming indicated would spin out of control and escalate to a world war, or an even more distant possibility that used to happen back in the mists of history, Congress would exercise it's power to investigate, control the purse strings, and decide whether to declare war or NOT declare war.

Right now, it's more likely that the CIA or Pentagon will rebel, or even that the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz will take their kinsman Bush back to the Organ Grinder for retraining.

KEY EXCERPTS:





Did Bush Force British Minister Out?

May 7, 2006

(CBS/AP) The Independent suggests that a phone call from the U.S. president to British Prime Minister Tony Blair led to the removal of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw Friday. [ A UK Guardian story is a little stronger than "suggests" http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1768840,00.html ]

The newspaper reports that friends of Straw believe Mr. Bush was extremely upset when Straw pronounced any use of nuclear weapons against Iran "nuts." [the parallel case of the previous foreign secretary has more evidence than a "belief," neocons complained about Robin Cook even before the election because of his criticism of US foreign policy http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1769722,00.html]

*****

The foreign secretary's reservations about invading Iraq featured prominently in the Downing Street memos, written in 2002 and leaked last year.

Straw wrote in a memo to Blair that he would have a tough time convincing the Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

"We have also to answer the big question: what will this action achieve?" he wrote. "There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything."


FULL TEXT:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/07/politics/printable1596108.shtml

nuke iran iraq war wmd terrorism oil 9/11 president george w bush tony blair jack straw foreign secretary colonialism white mans burden professor smartass peak oil propaganda dick+cheneyterrorist attack american conservative political opinion agent provocateur war on terror islamofascist public opinion opinion false flag cointelpro northwoods worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay smartass comments resistance censored news rebel

Cheney plans to nuke Iran

Some variation of an attack on Iran was in the pipe, whether the administration had gotten into this embarrassment with Karl Rove and the Downing Street Minutes or not.

The only questions have been 1) how would they justify it, and 2) how would they do it with our troops tied up in Iraq, and the draft likely to cause an uncontrollable backlash.

This seems to imply the answers to both:

1) terrorist attack on US

2) use nukes on Iran, leaving fewer people left to fight there.

The American people would balk at using nuclear weapons unless the attack on the US was itself was nuclear. Neither Iran nor any other country has a motive to use nukes on the US, knowing that it would result in overwhelming retaliation and the destruction of their government and most of their people.

The last line of the excerpt from the American Conservative magazine is the only one that gives me hope, and has come up on other issues too: the military is uncomfortable with what they are being asked to do. This is how we know about Abu Ghraib. A soldier passed along those photos to Seymour Hersh because he thought what was transpiring was wrong, and when the torture policy and detainment policies were being written, Navy JAG officers were so alarmed, they contacted human rights lawyers in DC.

Eventually, we will come to a moment like the one that occurred in the Soviet Union when the hardliners attempted a coup against Gorbachev--the military refused to fire on or act against their own people. It would be better if our elected leaders corrected this problem, but if they do not, our last line of defense is the conscience of those in our military.

You should forward this to your congressman and senators and ask them to investigate and if they approve of allowing a terrorist attack in the US as a pretext for nuking and invading Iran.

http://firstgov.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

KEY EXCERPTS:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

FULL TEXT:

http://www.amconmag.com/2005a/2005_08_01/article3.html





nuclear weapons iraq war wmd terrorism oil nuclear program president george w bush airstrike attack dick cheney republican GOP conservative corruption occupation halliburton colonialism white mans burden professor smartass iraq peak oil propaganda corporation fascism political opinion agent provocateur george w bush war on terror public opinion opinion public relations foreign policy al qaeda false flag cointelpro northwoods terrorist worst president ever failure war criminal idiot retard closet gay nazi smartass comments resistance censored news rebel