Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Chuck, NY — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:40:01 GMT

This is very calculated and demoralizing at the same time. I see Rove's fingerprints all over this. They think they can once again instill fear into the electorate, and help boost the candidacy of GOP hopefuls. Not this time. And, don't try to ram this fabrication down our throats to finish out W's term.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:41:24 GMT

I found some old video tape about Nostradamus this weekend and watched it and one of the future predictions he made was a large city in the new world would be attacked and he predicted it would be someone in the middle east that would do it. I'm beginning to wonder if Iran is that someone. Right now, they can't do squat, but at some time in the future, we will have to deal with them. I doubt we are going to attack Iran during the remainder of President Bush's term, but at some point, a new president will have to make the choice.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

PJ — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:49:50 GMT

"... a roster of wealthy benefactors"...imagine that, big industry money advocating for more military action....

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Caroline, MI — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 13:50:42 GMT

Jerry, lot's of Nostradamus" writings can be interpreted in lots of ways...it is incredibly amusing to me to watch your arguments and comments slide from where the used to be: cogent, to where they are now: ridiculous.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Pat, Huntington, NY — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:11:23 GMT

Jerry, that prediction already happened...it's called 9-11!!! City in the new world = NYC/Wash. DC. Attacked from the middle east = Al Queda/Osama/the Arab Pilots.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

wayneTx — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:19:58 GMT

We have to stop Iran now before they get there.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Lisa, Fort Worth TX — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:21:52 GMT

I'm sure the "wealthy benefactors" only want to be good patriots. They would NEVER beat the drum of war to try to make a buck. As I have heard the teens say..."whatever"!

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:26:33 GMT

Pat: In case you just woke up, New York City wasn't destroyed. But that guy sure called some interesting predictions almost right on the money, where was he when I needed his help on the football games this past weekend LOL?

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

NotALemming — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:29:48 GMT

NYT should be investigating themselves and their link to shady organizations like MoveOn and Media Matters.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:38:45 GMT

Obviously the rich aren't going to give up the government they bought and paid for without a fight.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

IntheMIddle, Tx — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:01:56 GMT

NYT is a joke. They are in the pockets of Media Matters and MoveOn.org...All Soros funded....

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

HMT-MI — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:08:24 GMT

american enterprise---all those chickenhawks getting ready to start another war?I wonder who will be invited to do their fighting for them?Isn't our military pretty much being used up by them already?Hmmm lets see we can start a draft and exempt those that are on our payroll.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:13:03 GMT

I'm just wondering how much money these "wealthy benefactors" need. They've made billions of the war in Iraq and now they want to loot the US Treasury again by engaging in a "militray option" gainst Iran. Yep, keep the money flowing into the hands of America's super rich while Average Joe pays in more taxes, fewer services and the with the blood of our young men and women. Wake up, America, these guys don't care about you or your country; all they care about is earning more dollars and leaving you fewer crumbs.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Scott in South Texas — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:14:29 GMT

Keep your fingers crossed, wayneTx, things are looking better and better for those of you hoping for another big, never-ending war.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

pat, huntington, ny — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:30:15 GMT

JERRY - read your own comment...you didn't say anything about a city being destroyed...just attacked. Thus, 9-11 fits the paradigm. In any event, it would be disasterous if we engaged Iran militarily without meaningful help from our allies. Further, if we ever did attack Iran, this time, it'll mean serious financial sacrifice from americans in terms of money - higher taxes to fund the war effort, and skyrocketing gas prices as well as gas rationing. Not a pretty picture...so that means we need a real diplomat in the White House in 2008 [i.e. any of the democratic contenders], and the quicker we get rid of Bush and his diplomatically impotent admin. the better.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

HMT-MI — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:43:49 GMT

Robert-OR-----they are already scooping up the crumbs---do you think they want to share with the dirty masses?Not one crumb will be left when Bush leaves office and our country is being pretty much cleansed also.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Gary, Franklin, WI — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:05:56 GMT

What is it about Presidents from Texas and war fighting? Johnson lost Vietnam; Bush is lossing Iraq, ignors Afghanistan (where he should have stayed focused until bin Laden was captured or killed), and has his growing obsession with Iran.

This isn't baseball Dubya, it's not three strikes and your out!

Also, where are "pro-life" Christian conservatives on the loss of life in these theaters? I guess before you are born you need their potection, after you are born you are on your own.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Paw Paw, NC — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:07:39 GMT

The first real stink came when Carl Rove endorsed Hillary as the dominate choice and when I heard Bill Krystal and Britt Hume on Fox basically endorse Hillary Clinton this past weekend as the most prominate candidate the odor really kicked up. Basically Hillary Clinton has already been selected by big business (The Republican Party) and the wellfare state (The Democratic Party)and like it or not she is going to be the next President. Some say the Republicans are pushing her because they can beat her in the general election, Bull sH--! She has been chosen by both parties to carry on "The Iraqi Conflict" with a trade off on social programs and massive tax increases. The Dogs of War have also already decided on attacking Iran, it's just a matter of when, before or after Christmas. Once this is done and they don't need Congress's approval since they will be attacking terrorist to continue Bush's "War on Terror", the United States will be so deeply rooted in Middle Eastern conflicts it will take us 20 to 30 years to even begin to see the light of day, if they don't destroy us and our nation first.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Democratic Hawk — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:53:27 GMT

Take out Iran's government and Ayatollahs, Syria's government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the West Bank, Taliban in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda worldwide, and any other Islamic zealot wishing to die for Muhammad. Let's end this once and for all. Tough but necessary fight. No more JIHAD. No more CALIPHATE. Remember the commercial? You can pay me now or you can pay me later. One way or another, now or later, we will be fighting the Islamic zealots. In other words. “No bastard ever won a war dying for his country. You win a war by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
General George Patton

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

ANUTKRAKER, TX — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:26:17 GMT

Pat, Huntington, NY

Save your breath, Jerry is too much of a moron to understand logic.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

wayneTx — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:44:26 GMT

Democratic Hawk is the only intelligent democrate I have ever read on here.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

jjg, ms — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:45:38 GMT

If only we had continued focusing on Afganistan, and stayed out of this lie-strewn mess of Iraq, we would actually be in a position of being able to more forcefully confront Iran.

Bush and the rubber-stampers have screwed it all up.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Democratic Hawk — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:18:54 GMT

"We have learned that we cannot live alone. We cannot live alone at peace. We have learned that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned to be citizens
of the world, members of the human community." FDR

"Force is the only language they understand, like bullies." FDR

"We are going to win the war, and we are going to win the peace that follows." FDR

This is what I wish my party would return to.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:43:03 GMT

Oh my god Pat!

The big bad Iranians are just so omnipotent and so strong we should shaking in our boots!!!!!!!

If we had your logic back in WW2, we would be feasting today on saurkraut and white rice.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Lee Holmes — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:54:14 GMT

Robert: Why dont you ask Democrat Rep. Sylvestre Reyes[NM] this question? According to todays POLITICO ,Reyes,working with his son,organizes a PAC with a dozen well-heeled benefactors at the top of the list which you can find at The Center For Responsive Politics[ www.opensecrets.org ],who ,for some strange reason,are now the beneficiaries of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars that this one single man has steered to their companies. What in blazes make you people think that things will be better,or even differant,under Democrats? You have had nearly a year in control of both houses and have blown it spectacularly in the ''accountability'',''open'',''ethical'' departments. Billions in pork that has nothing to do with Iraq are flowing to fat cat corporations favoured by Democrats. Not Republicans. More here:

www.taxpayers.net

www.politco.com

www.slate.com

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Gary, Franklin, WI — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:58:40 GMT

To: Democratic Hawk

Comparing this folly to World War II is nonsense.

If Dubya had wanted to "win the war" and "win the peace that follows" he would not have left Afghanistan prematurely or taken his eye off the ball in pursuit of bin Laden. Under Dubya's definition this war never ends.

The Democratic candidates largely do share FDR's views. What Dubya forgets is that the "citizens of the world, members of the human community" part is as important as the "force is the only language [bullies] understand" part.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

J.D. in California — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:09:00 GMT

Oh these poor hawks. They dream for a simple war. Their simple minds don't understand that war is never simple. So they keep starting wars that they never finish. They never finished their first war in Iraq. Bush the First lost after one term because they didn't roll into Bagdad as the rightwingnuts wanted. So, then they invaded Afghanistan, got bored, and left it unfinished. Then Iraq War II looked like a fun and profitable little oportunity. But it didn't go the way they wanted, so, bored again, they now they see a bright shiny new war in Iran. This time they'll get it right. This time they'll show 'em. "Nucular Boms"! Yah!. Massive bombing! Yah. A million soldiers decending on the Irani! Take no prisoners. Yah. Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out! Yah. We must go to war so Georgie Jr. won't go down in history as the worst president ever. Then only way to prevent that is to end history all together. Yah!

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Proud of you — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:12:21 GMT

"Democratic Hawk is the only intelligent democrate I have ever read on here."

That's because you read at a 3rd grade level. (Which is higher than most of the neocon nitwits here - congratulations.)

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Break like the wind, Jerry — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:15:02 GMT

"If we had your logic back in WW2, we would be feasting today on saurkraut and white rice. "

And Jerry - if we'd have had to rely on you, they would have just started serving it before Pearl Harbor.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Justtiredincalif — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:22:45 GMT

The U.S. will create a war with Iran and this will probably happen within a year. The Democrats will make no move to stop this war, primarily because they are afraid of Bush. The draft will be reinstituted and we well lose a majority of our young sons in this war. We will always have to maintain a military force in the Middle East and there will be no end. Bush and company will most certainly destroy America as we know it. We will have to look forward to Bush declaring war on Iran and imposing a military state in the US and suspending the 2008 elections and thereby continuing as "President" until he dies. Go America.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

John B, Des Moines, IA — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:26:10 GMT

Democratic Hawk, the WWII comparison is both stale and invalid.
-WE were attacked at the start of WWII.
-Germany was one of the world's largest economies, not some backwater economy with little industrial might.
-The German and Japanese militaries were among the strongest in the world, not marginalized armies with little power on the ground and zero in the air or on the sea.
-Hitler was a known practitioner of genocide, unlike Saddam, who moved only against his political enemies.
-Thanks to all of the above the Axis powers were a legitimate threat to world freedom. Saddam was contained and war has only increased the power of Iran.
-The United States never supported Hitler, but plenty of Reagan, Bush I & II officials including George HW Bush had their pictures taken with Saddam.
-All the world outside the Axis powers was on our side in WWII. We stand virtually alone in Iraq.
-All Americans suffered to support the war effort, it wasn't put on a credit card.
-FDR didn't fire the officers who knew what the job required in favor of yes-men who would go along with whatever the chickenhawks said.
-In WWII it was the other side that had torture, a propaganda ministry, puppet governments, concentration of all power in the hands of the executive, and dreams of world conquest.
-We don't have enough troops to continue the military debacle already in progress at its current level, let alone start another war with a country 3 times the size of Iraq.
-Contrary to neocon dreams freedom has not "bloomed like wildflowers" after we destroyed the stability of the Middle East.
-Why would we think it's smart to continue following the hawkish advice of the proven idiots who got us into the current mess?

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

GAB, Austin, TX — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 19:32:14 GMT

Iran is a bigger country than Iraq, and their population is almost 3 times as large, 70 million versus Iraq's 25 million. Also, their military hasn't been decimated by 10 years of no-fly zones and sanctions. If we can't win in Iraq, we sure as hell can't win in Iran.
Wait...theres another prognostication coming from Nostradamus.... he says Jerry in Corpus Christi is the MSNBC anti-Christ. LOL

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Lee Holmes — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:03:41 GMT

John B. Your take on WWII,is correct. To a point. We most certainly did utilize torture during this war and shot prisoners without trial. We also utilized a most extensive propaganda machine that if in use today,would have never allowed Hollywood to create even a minute of film showing our troops to be murdering rapists,let alone whole movies. Secrecy was at its most organized. Ordinary Americans never knew about MANHATTAN. Never knew about MAGIC or PURPLE.Never knew about RAINBOW or PAPERCLIP.They were told to keep their mouths shut. Which they did with a patriotic fervour. All who had other ideas were jailed or shadowed by G-men. Puppet governments were most certainly used as in North Africa. Crummy commanders were largely kept,due to their political influences in Washington and their useless ideas[such as the Vosge and Hurtegen Forest,Peleliu,Buna,and Monte Cassino campaigns which killed one hundred thousand Americans between all of them],were quickly and inefficiently adopted by Washington. Of course,rampant racism,here and in the services,also played a detrimental role.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

President Bush and the Republican Party — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:30:54 GMT

Freedom Watch slogan-"we practice to deceive."Brought to you by,

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

ANUTKRAKER, TX — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:21:06 GMT

Jerry,

Been trying to goad you into a fight for weeks. I guess your all mouth and no brains. You can dish out the BS, but I guess when something of substance comes your way you avoid it because you don't want to show how really stupid you are. I have noticed that it is just not with me alone. Whenever anyone challenges you, you run like a little George Bush Baby. Maybe your Shawn Hannity in disguise. I don't know but I do know you're full of #^$% and will be so glad when your support group (republicans) get their butts kicked next year.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

John San Antonio — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:59:56 GMT

Gary, the pro lifers are only interested in the new born so they can be raised to kill "Gods" bad children.

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

IntheMIddle, Tx — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:39:50 GMT

ANUTKRAKER: WTF makes you think your so damn smart. Everytime you open your mouth it smells like a pasture of manure. Is that why they call you YUKK MOUTH "cause I dont brush, cause I like my teeth like this" All you do is disrespect others opinion because they dont agree with your silly liberal views. Your probably some little twerp sitting at home in your tight drawers......

Iraq-Iran: Freedom's Watch, new ACT?

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:33:34 GMT

Lee, i am not a Democrat, I am an Independent. Secondly, I was talking about wealthy benefactors of one group in particular and not addressing others, although I am sure there are many, both Republican and Democrat. I would appreciate that if you answer my psots, you answer the whole post from the context in which it was written, rather than from a purely adversarial fram of mind. Maybe, then, you could hear what I am saying before you think you need to answer what has been said.