- On May 15, the White House Moron, in a war-planning visit
to Israel, justified the naked aggression he and Olmert are planning against
Iran as the only alternative to "the false comfort of appeasement,
which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
-
- But the White House Moron has the roles reversed. It
is not Iran that is threatening war. It is Bush. It is not Bush who is
appeasing. It is Iran.
-
- Iran has not responded in kind to any of Bush's warlike
moves and provocations. Iran has not sunk a single one of our sitting duck
ships and has not given the Iraqi insurgents any weapons that would easily
turn the tide of war against the US.
-
- It is Bush, not Iran, who sounds like Adolf Hitler blustering
and threatening. It is Bush's American Brownshirts, the neocons, who express
the view: "what's the good of nuclear weapons if you can't use them."
-
- It is the US that is funding assassination teams inside
Iran and using taxpayer dollars to fund dissident and violent organizations
opposed to the Iranian government. Iran is doing no such thing here.
-
- It is members of the Bush Regime and US generals who
continue to lie through their teeth about Iranian support for insurgents,
for which they can supply no evidence, and about Iranian nuclear weapons
programs, for which the IAEA inspectors can find no sign.
-
- It is the US print and TV media that serves the Bush
Regime as propaganda ministry for its lies of aggression.
-
- All the war crimes that are being planned are being planned
by Bush and Olmert.
-
- What would George Orwell make of the Bush Regime's position
that anything less than a direct act of naked aggression is appeasement?
-
- The Chicago City Council has passed a resolution "opposing
any US attack on Iran and urging the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic
engagement with that nation." But the White House Moron says diplomacy
is appeasement. He learned this false equivalence from the neocon Brownshirts
whose control over his administration has made America despised throughout
the world, with the exception of Israel.
-
- After broadcasting false claims for weeks from US generals
and Bush Regime spokespersons that the US has "definite proof"
in the form of captured Iranian weapons that Iranians were "responsible
for killing American troops," the great free American media went silent
when LA Times correspondent Tina Susman reported from Baghdad: "A
plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last
week in Karbala and then destroy them was cancelled after the United States
realized none of them was from Iran."
-
- A people devoid of a media are sitting ducks for tyrannical
government, which is what the US has.
-
- What is the difference between Hitler's concocted excuses
for his acts of naked aggression and the Bush Regime's plan to use a briefing
by General Petraeus, with "captured Iranian weapons" as props,
as proof of Iranian complicity in US deaths in Iraq as a means to break
down public and congressional resistance to an attack on Iran?
-
- Why has the Bush Regime suffered no consequences for
this blatant attempt to orchestrate an excuse for another war?
-
- Why have there been no consequences to the Regime for
the blatant lies it told in order to attack Iraq?
-
- Why has the Bush Regime suffered no consequences for
its violation of US statutory laws against spying without warrants and
against torture?
-
- In the US criminal justice system, three strikes and
you are out.
-
- For the Bush Regime is there any limit on its lawless
behavior?
-
- How many strikes? A dozen? Thirty? Three hundred?
-
- Is there a limit?
-
- Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is
coauthor of <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0307396061/counterpunchmaga>The
Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: <mailto:PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com>PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
|
