Brzezinski Warns of Pretext for War With Iran (UPDATE)

UPDATE: A reporter from the World Socialist Web Site questioned Brzezinski immediately after the hearing;

Following the hearing, this reporter asked Brzezinski directly if he was suggesting that the source of a possible provocation might be the US government itself. The former national security adviser was evasive.

The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.



Congressman Ron Paul has some big-name company joining his warning of a pretext for war with Iran. (Of course, Paul was more direct.)

Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) rock-star Zbigniew Brzezinski met with a different CFR yesterday, the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations. He had some blood-chilling things to say;

"A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq, or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II." - PDF

Now, someone just walking into the room, having no priors with Brzezinski, might take this at face value. This is not recommended. Brzezinski's relationship with the CFR goes back years, his relationship with other big name power brokers as an adviser goes back further.

However, if there is one Machiavellian insider who knows, what it is, that he is talking about when it comes to a pretext for war, it's Brzezinksi.

Let's look at some other things Brzezinski has said;

First, about the CIA intervention in Afghanistan;

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? - 1998

Here, he drops hints about a catalyzing event to solidify American hegemony in the 21st century;

The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America’s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 24–25)

America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America’s power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public’s sense of domestic well-being. (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, pp. 35–36)

Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat. (Emphasis added) (Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997, p. 211)

Brzezinski, in my opinion, is letting us know what the sickest minds in Washington think-tanks are cooking up. I get the feeling that Brzezinski himself is feeling a "sudden threat or challenge to [his] sense of domestic well-being."

And that ain't good.

This post inspired by "autorank" at DemocraticUnderground.

The Grand Chessboard quotes are from Diana Ralph's brilliant essay in "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001", ISLAMOPHOBIA AND THE ‘‘WAR ON TERROR’’: THE CONTINUING PRETEXT FOR U.S. IMPERIAL CONQUEST


Zbig spilled the beans

The Eleventh Day of Every Month


Iran will do the opposite of King George the W thinks they will.
If they could bring in diplomats & reporters from all over the planet and assure all of them that they are going to do nothing whatsoever to provoke any response from the US.
Tell them if anything happens it will be yet another false flag attack by King George the W in an effort to start WWIII.

Inform all surrounding countries to keep an eye & video camera out for whatever this Treasonous war criminal is going to try and pull.

Will also be up to us to stop the false flag attack being planned for here, which is the most likely scenario since it would have the greatest impact and also the best chance to be successful since sadly the American population in general are ignorant beyond belief and will fall for anything.

I don't think Iranian

I don't think Iranian diplomacy will make a difference. Remember Saddam Hussein and the Taleban? They tried to make peace with Bush, realizing they were about to be obliterated, and he brushed them off.

Unfortunately, only the North American press can save us from WWIII, and we've seen how reliable they are.


W: "We don't negotiate with terrorists!"

US: "Who are the terrorists again?"

W: "Whomever I say they are. Go ahead and ask me another question and see where you find yourself."

Ignorance is NOT Bliss


but ironically the ongoing march to WW3 may offer us the best opportunity to expose 9/11. the media is beginning to break ranks (albeit in a limited way). they are starting to question the wisdom of this war.

sure - the corporate media is run by a bunch of fascists - but - i assume they do not want to end up dead fascists. even republicans are turning tail and running.

9/11 Truth COULD offer us the ONE smoking gun powerful enough to stop this freight train towards disaster.

Private militia the real threat

As the 911 truth becomes more widespread and as the reality of an Iran invasion comes to fruition, Americans are going to recognize that the 2000 election was a real live coup and American representative government died.

How will we get our government back?

I don't think Bush would have left the White House even if Kerry had been declared the winner of the election (which he was). There would have been another false flag event that would have triggered martial law.

Millions of Americans would have taken to the streets and the military would have been ordered to start taking protesters into custody at all of the Halliburton detention centers around the country. As people resisted this, the question is whether the military would start shooting American citizens. There is at least a question whether they would. But with the Blackwater private militia - paid for by your tax dollars, there is NO QUESTION but that they would shoot. That is what they are paid to do. Their loyalty is to their paymaster (Bush-Cheney) and not to the US common good.

How will this all end? Bush is reappointing loyalists as U.S. Attorneys offices around the country. Why would he do that? He EXPECTS indictments and trials of his friends, in and out of government. He wants the guy who decides whether to prosecute to be his friend. That is a red flag of consciousness of guilt if I've ever seen one.

by Francis Fukuyama, former PNAC member....

The neocons have learned nothing from five years of catastrophe

Their zealous advocacy of the invasion of Iraq may have been a disaster, but now they want to do it all over again - in Iran

by Francis Fukuyama, former PNAC member,,2002290,00.html

Neocon catfight

Typically, Fukuyama frets about the 'incompetent execution' of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, while continuing to shovel the same BS about US 'good intentions' and the wish to exercise 'benevolent global hegemony' (as if anyone's 'hegemony' could ever truly be 'benevolent'!). No matter how anxious such critics get over the administrations plans and impending actions, a still greater disaster for them would be for the truth of 9/11 to come out--for that would neutralize the ability of the self-anointed Straussian elect to deceive and manipulate us poor benighted common folk into the indefinite future, and the status of think-tank talking heads like Fukuyama would decline accordingly. They're trying all other means to increase pressure on the administration EXCEPT disclose the truth about 9/11--or more broadly, the truth about the links between Muslim extremists and western intelligence.

When the time will be right...

I'm writing this at the moment and I'm terrified because I feel that when the moment while be right for Cheney and Bush to make that big diversion - I mean taking the attention away from the 9-11 terrorist attack and the war in Irak - well I'm afraid they will launch some kind of nuclear bomb (the one they were affirming Iran was preparing) over USA just to prove they were right about Iran having it and to justify another war...

I know this is insane, but I'm affraid that Cheney is insane enought to go that way.

So we're trusting the word

So we're trusting the word of Zbigniew Brzezinski now? I thought many here believed it was the CFR and people like Zbig who had a hand in 9/11. Oh I see, he's dropping a hint about the diabolical plans because he has a touch of humanity and regrets plotting 9/11....

It doesn't have to mean

It doesn't have to mean trusting ZB. It's possible there is a difference of opinion on Iran within the CFR. It's possible he is feeding us disinfo (maybe Fukyama too?). Many things are possible. I would say we should pay attention to what he says simply because he is talking, whether it is a deflection or a warning.

My guess is he's spreading disinfo in the form of apparent disagreement with Bush. It makes it look like the globalists aren't in agreement on this Iran thing, when they probably are.

Why do the globalists want

Why do the globalists want to take out Iran?

many possible reasons

Some people believe the globalists want to take out Iran to control their oil, part of a wider program that began with invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Some say this is part of an endgame scenario in which America and Europe are squaring off against Russia and China over the Eurasian energy resources (specifically, oil and natural gas).

Some say Iran's desire to open an oil bourse that would trade oil in euros is the real reason America wants to invade. This "petrodollar warfare" is obviously related to the above conquest of energy.

Others emphasize the neocon "remodeling of the Middle East," announced over a decade ago by American and Israeli neocon hardliners.

I don't believe invading Iran has anything to do with containing nuclear proliferation or spreading democracy.


Just look at all the money that was and is still being made off of Vietnam by companies like Brown and Root....errrr...... Halliburton. How much has Halliburton stock gone up since the beginning of this war? 2,000%?

The fluxuation in markets due to instability of war.

not just getting or having the oil but also the threat of scarcity and terrorism driving the price....
We pay probably 25 cents + per gallon just because of the threat of terrorism.

Airlines are making more money off of security than the actual plane ride.

This onion has so many layers.... it ain't funny.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Petrodollars & the US economy

Consider these:

Iraq opened an oil bourse trading in Euros just before we attacked them

Now Iran has begun selling oil for Euros instead of dollars. A few countries have begun to liquefy their US currency/debt holdings.

China has 1 Trillion US. It stated its concern when the Fed stopped reporting how much $ was being printed. China then declared an intention to unload some of its US currency.

If other Oil trading nations were to also adopt the Euro the United States would lose its current monopoly status "petrodollar".

What does attacking Iraq, Iran (and possibly Venezuela) do? If successful the US would no longer have to worry about oil being sold for Euros instead of dollars. Simultaneously undermining OPEC's oil production & regulation. The US would control most of the world's oil supply... and in doing so would have China by the short & curlies... turn off the tap if they don't play nice.

Why aren't other countries up in arms over the US threats to Iran?

Because most other nations rely on the success of our economy for their own to survive. If we go tits up, or begin to list other economies will falter... A world-wide recession. And NO politician or banker wants that.

Meanwhile the US currency is worthless. The only thing that secures our debt is your and my labour, and the continued guarrantee of such. With birth's lower & higher mortality rate (aging population) we need all those cheap illegal workers to keep us afloat. Our wars, and tjhe ability to make more war fends off any would be creditors - they'd be next.

Added incentive is for oil guys like Cheney, Halliburton and the Bushes/Saudi's to make out like bandits... whether it be oil or defense contracts... its win win while we're at war.

Globalist influences? That's a good question. In relation to this, can anyone explain to me why Bill Gates, one of the richest men in the World would need Warren Buffet's additional wealth? Seems to me that there's a power struggle going on in the most stratospheric atmosphere of international bankers, money masters & power brokers. Information & control looks to have become king.


Great post!

When people argue with me about the benefits of a global economy I always tell them to prepare.

I ask them if it's easier to bring the world up to our level.... or take us down to their level?

Because the goal of the global economy is to have all parts of the global system on an equal plane.

Then I ask them what they think this will do to the human spirit.

When we are all on the same plane will people be able to return to a single family income?

Will we be able to return to a structured family unit?

Will they give us back our freedoms?

Then I always ask.... "If their plan for us is so good then they should be able to easily explain it to us. If this plan is for our benefit then we should accept it without question. Why don't they just tell us their plan?"

Why are the CFR and Bilderberg Meetings secret? They are making decisions about our lives and our futures. Shouldn't this be transparent?
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

The CFR isn't as private and

The CFR isn't as private and secret as you allege.

I sort of like Fareed

I sort of like Fareed Zakaria who is a member of CFR. Can he be trusted? I mean, has he been indoctrinated or something?

hes terrible, dont trust

hes terrible, dont trust him. i watch him on ABC and some other networks sometimes and he'll drop a few bread crumbs now and then but he is SO not to be trusted. you dont get a semi-weekly spot on "This Week" without being comprimised in some way. the only "liberal" they have on is Katrina vanden Heuvel who is the editor of The Nation magazine(the CIA's favorite liberal rag), known around these parts for its hit pieces on 9/11 and also David Ray Griffin a couple of years back. nuff said.

I watched him give an

I watched him give an excellent hour-long speech at northwestern university on the political troubles and origins of radicalism in the Middle East. He's an intelligent, articulate, witty, and friendly guy. Please don't tell me he's terrible or "compromised" unless you've seen him in person. ....Or maybe he brainwashed me and the rest of the audience with his charm and then retreated to the evil Council on Foreign Relations.

Read "The Grand Chessboard"

His version of history is tendentious to say the least. It was like reading a book on depth perception by a person with one eye.

I was talking about Fareed

I was talking about Fareed Zakaria. I haven't read the Grand Chessboard yet though. But regarding Brzezinski, he's gotta be under some pressure and certainly denial, seeing as he's essentially the father of al Qaeda.

MSM talking heads

are not in my regular schedule, but checked out a couple of his interviews on Google video archives:

Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria --Rajiv Chandrasekaran, former Baghdad bureau chief for the Washington Post about his book "Inside the Green Zone."

Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria -- Niall Ferguson discusses his new book "War of the World: History's Age of Hatred" and the future of conflict in the 21st century.

Of course he's intelligent, educated and well-spoken, but, leaving out of these discussions anything about false flag terror, black-ops/psy-ops, death squads, the myth of Islamofascism or the cultivated War of Terror, tells me simply that he is a sanctioned MSM voice. As with Amy Goodman, who will interview victims of torture and terror, then suggestively attribute whatever motivation there might be for wholesale terrorism entirely to "blow back."

I have not taken the time to look into Fareed Zakaria's writing or lectures on the origins of radical Islam, so I cannot say for sure, but I think I'd enjoy very much to hear him discuss it with Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed — or Webster Tarpley & for an 11 min. capsule which includes both

rollo, see Jacks thread

rollo, see Jacks thread. hes a joke, im sorry you fell for his "charm". dont patronize me ok? i dont think he brainwashed you, i just think your naive if you trust the opinion of someone who not only believes in the "war on terror" but does a LOT to keep the various myths involved with it alive. shame on him. the CFR may not be evil to you but they are not a positive organization to say the least and ignore significant portions of history to fit their agenda. wow, Fareed is witty and articulate and friendly you say? who would have thought they would trot out a guy like that to do public speaking events? come on.

rollo-"I watched him give an

rollo-"I watched him give an excellent hour-long speech at northwestern university on the political troubles and origins of radicalism in the Middle East."

oh wow, a speech on the radicalism in the middle east? because we dont have enough of that right? we dont have enough false framing of this farce that is the "war on terror" right? because we need MORE fear mongering and muddying of the waters when it comes to international terorism and not less right? come on man, how can you not see my point? a speech on islamic radicalism? how does that help? does the guy EVER mention the true manipulation and funding of terrorist groups like Nafeez Ahmed or does he attribute it all to blowback? way to keep the "clash of civilizations" going Fareed.........

I can assure you the speech

I can assure you the speech wasn't fear mongering. He was trying to place terrorism into context and explain it. True, he stayed away from more sensitive causalities (such as American imperial policies and unconditional support for Israel); but he explained accurately the political conditions for frustration and disillusionment, namely unresponsive governments and religion as the main source for political expression. I do not believe every terrorist attack in the past twenty years has been false flag.

And many people still believe the official version of 9/11. This makes them anything but idiots or dupes. Two planes fly into the twin towers and they collapse. Forgive me if people don't automatically question whether their government killed three thousands citizens. Regardless of perception, Zakaria is intelligent and well-intentioned. I do agree with Jack in that he is MSM sanctioned. But I appreciate his commentary and insight.

I do apologize for patronizing.

oh no no, not just the

oh no no, not just the official story of 9/11, i can forgive that based on the propaganda machine that is the U.S. media(which Fareed is a part of). Fareed believes in the whole "war on terror" and ALL the lies that go with it. i dont believe every terrorist attack in the past 20 years hase been a false flag either. nto even close. but your boy Fareed has yet to point out even one false flag. that is a red flag. i appreciate the fact that he goes toe to toe with that dolt George WIll on ABC every now and then. its nice to see someone denounce the torture that this government engages in as well, but Fareed feeds the myth and he is anything but a positive in my opinion. blowback is real but if Fareed thinks thats the only cause of terrorism he is extremely naive. somehow i think hes smarter than that and hes just being dishonest about terrorism. and finally, being a member of the CFR doesnt automatically mean you have an agenda and you cant be honest but history shows that this organization and its members are not to be trusted. i cant say im surprised he either has never heard of false flag terrorism or finds it to be unimportant.

I would trust Cheney

If he confessed to involvement in 9/11. Wouldn't you?

Oh, I forgot, he already did.

Demonic they may be, these are still people, and that includes Zbig. Some of them do the strangest things. You don't think it means something for him to raise the possibility of a false-flag terror attack, and speak of 9/11 in the next breath? It's as far as any of the establishment figures has ever gone. Yeah, he may well have his regrets.

That's exactly the point!

Zbig is a big CFR guy and talked about needing a Pearl Harbor even before PNAC. The fact that he and former neocon Fukuyama are freaking out about the neocons and that Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts are freaking out about a new 9/11 or Gulf of Tonkin should have everyone on edge.


I think he's genuinely nervous.

Just remember to take a big grain of salt with your Zbig, and everything is cool.

Indeed, some of the insiders

Indeed, some of the insiders and elitists have started to bleat. But they are mostly too arrogant to realize what is going on: they have been duped like sheeple. Look closely, and you can see the signs everywhere, for example

It is hilarious and poetic justice: imagine being an evil bastard like Cheney and finding out that you were merely a sheep as well. Yes, Cheney is one of the few that recently got wise to it. Hence his scowls and foul mood.

For bonus points, guess who have been executing the doublecross. You'll be surprised...

What the hell are you

What the hell are you talking about? Is everyone but you a sheep in your fantasy world? Yes, the "globalists" have duped everyone, even Dick Cheney, one of the most knowledgeable and experienced Washington insiders that exists. Do you honestly believe you are wiser and more circumspect than a man who served as deputy chief of staff, chief of staff, five-term congressman, secretary of defense, CEO of one of the largest defense companies, and vice president of the united states? Don't get me wrong, Cheney is a manipulative and dangerous ideologue, but you're an idiot. Grow up, read a book.

I am merely pointing out an

I am merely pointing out an alternative interpretation that fits more of the facts, Rollo. That has nothing to do with being wise. If you think you have a better model of reality, see if it can explain some of the oddities of the mid-term elections (, or the sudden change in policies by the white house after the mid-term elections. Or just stick with your own preconceptions and miss out on all the fun.

My comment had nothing to do

My comment had nothing to do with alternative explanations for the midterm elections or post-election policy changes. It had to do with you calling Dick Cheney a sheep, which he is most certainly not. No one is playing Cheney for a fool. He is in a foul mood because his dictatorial power is now waning as more Americans wake up to the manipulation and as he and his chief of staff are being investigated by a federal prosecutor. Dick Cheney had this country on a leash from 2001 to 2006. I wasn't calling you wise per se, but your comment seemed to imply that you understood more about what was going on than Cheney did by calling him a sheep. "imagine being an evil bastard like Cheney and finding out that you were merely a sheep as well. Yes, Cheney is one of the few that recently got wise to it." No one has been playing Cheney; he knows precisely what he is doing.

And I am most certainly not the one with inflexible preconceptions. I am willing to work within various explanatory paradigms, one of which does not see elites and Washington insiders as "sheep".

Sheep are mislead. Those

Sheep are mislead. Those doing the misleading can in turn be mislead. My interpretation is that Cheney was mislead by those in ultimate power, and that makes him a sheep. By giving Cheney and Rumsfeld ostensible and partial effective power, the whole evil hierarchy was duped into thinking it was business as usual while also being given all the rope to hang themselves, e.g. through 9/11. That makes 9/11 both MIHOP and LIHOP.

Once the goal of misdirection is achieved, the veil can be dropped. Apparently, that time is now: hence the throwing of the midterm elections and the radical changes in policy. But there are many more signs. Take for example the upheaval in the Israeli power structure, or the many new faces at the FED.

Who is in ultimate power?

Who is in ultimate power? What role did Israel play? And which new faces are there at the Fed?

Who is in ultimate power?

Who is in ultimate power? Behind multiple layers of misdirection, the puppeteers are hard to identify. But in this material world, those that control the monetary system are closest to ultimate power. A lot of what went on in the past five years was about unwinding the petrodollar under compensation of an artifically inflated oil price. With the petrodollar unwound, new energy technologies can come to the fore. You'll be surprised.

The role of Israel? Israel is the facilitator in the US/UK/Israeli empire. They are the henchmen and media controllers, and could be relied on to stoke war and terror as needed, e.g. to drive up the oil price. In a globalized world without empire, their zeal is a liability. They'll be forced into a peace deal with the palestinians.

Which new faces at the Fed? Aside from Bernanke (though I think Greenspan is one of the good guys, him being an Ayn Rand groupie) we have Frederic Mishkin and a few others at the FOMC, Charles Plosser at the Philadelphia Fed, Jack Guynn retired from the Atlanta Fed, but there is no successor yet. And the presidents of the Boston and Chicago Feds will step down this year.

Members of the US Senate Committee Foreign Relations

It is very interesting to note that three members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committe are running for President:
Biden, Dodd, and Obama

This would be grist for the mill for anyone questioning presidential candidates!

Also in the group are Kerry, Fiengold, and Boxer.


All aspects of the truth are consistent

How is that 'interesting'?

How is that 'interesting'? Presidential candidates are expected to have foreign policy experience and one of the best ways to do that is to land a spot on the Senate Foreign Relations committee. There's nothing curious or conspiratorial about it. Chuck Hagel might run for the Republican nomination too. If Obama had not gotten a spot, he would have a tough time against critics who point out he doesn't have enough experience to become president. George W. has demonstrated the pitfalls of that.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kocinich

is a ticket I'd agitate for...anyone else?

the Target

You know that we... those who are questioning 9/11..... are the biggest threat to this administration and the power structure in the United States.

This may not be about Iran at all..... It may be about pushing us to our breaking point..... an attempt to get us to act so they can do what they want to do and attempt to rid the country of people like us..... Iran is just that which may bring us to a boil.

If they do stage another attack..... they will bring this to a head.... and we will have no choice but to take to the streets.... We will have to without hesitation.... because if something happens.... they will be dropping bombs on Iran with-in hours.

They already said that they would years ago... without even determining if Iran was involved or not.

Would these people set off a nuke in this country? You better believe it.

Our movement is gaining momentum and are very near a break through.

We need to start a mass info campaign..... and it should tell people about the threat.

We need to inform people that if something happens where to point the finger. Attach a few movie links like Terrorstorm.

No predictions... no warnings... just awareness.

kind of a you heard it here message.

Iran has been on their agenda like Iraq since before 9/11.
Ignorance is NOT Bliss

Diana Ralph's Chapter On-Line?

I've tried to find Diana ralph's chapter of "The Hidden History of 9-11-2001" on-line without success. The book is very pricey - does anyone know where Ralph's chapter is posted on-line? I keep hearing it called "brilliant".

Brezinski text of remarks

Comparison of AP article and original text

I've posted the relevant texts for comparison here: .

Brzezinski background

For background on Brzezinkski see here.

The media are

just itching for war with Iran, aren't they?

Ed Schultz

I was listening to Ed Schultz on the local Air America affiliate just now, in the car, and he cannot shut up about Iran -- they want a bomb, and Ahmedinejad wants to wipe Israel off the map PLUS it is a given that Iran is responsible for American deaths in Iraq. Never more than today has he seemed to me like a blatant mouthpiece funneling propaganda to the left-ish side of the room -- even when he's been an asshole about 9/11.

I just can't believe

how easy it is for the Busheviks to push the same buttons that delivered Iraq.

The other day I rode a taxi in which the driver was from Iran. So I asked him if he thought Bush was going to bomb Iran. He said the tragedy about Iraq, Palestine, and probably Iran is that it is the poor who pay the price in these wars. The rich on both sides get away rich, but the poor get killed.

When I asked what he thought of the current posturing of Bush & Co., he said it was like someone threatening you with a knife in a dark alley. He said it was ridiculous that so many other countries were allowed to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran. He also said he despised the current regime in Iran.

My taxi driver understood the situation better than the average Fox News viewer, and his explanation condensed complexities the Left will brood over for months into the humanist essentials.

As I left the taxi, I told him I hoped someone would put a stop to what looks like another massacre in the making.