Urging Obama to Stop Rush to Iran War

Exclusive: A torrent of war propaganda against Iran is flooding the American political scene as U.S. neocons and Israeli hardliners see an opening for another war in the Middle East, a momentum that ex-CIA analysts Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray urge President Obama to stop.

By Ray McGovern and Elizabeth Murray

President Obama needs to put an abrupt halt to the game of Persian Roulette about to spin out of control in the Persian Gulf. If we were still on active duty at the CIA, this is what we would tell him:

This informal memorandum addresses the escalating game of chicken playing out in the waters off Iran and the more general issue of what can be done to put the exaggerated threat from Iran in some kind of perspective.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meeting with President Barack Obama at the White House in 2009

In keeping with the informality of this memo and our ethos of speaking truth to power, we may at times be rather blunt. If we bring you up short, consider it a measure of the seriousness with which we view the unfolding of yet another tragic mistake.

The stakes are quite high, and as former intelligence analysts with no axes to grind, we want to make sure you understand how fragile and volatile the situation in the Gulf has become.

We know you are briefed regularly on the play by play, and we will not attempt to replicate that. Your repeated use of the bromide that “everything is on the table,” however, gives us pause and makes us wonder whether you and your advisers fully recognize the implications, if hostilities with Iran spin out of control.

You have the power to stop the madness, and we give you some recommendations on how to lessen the likelihood of a war that would be to the advantage of no one but the arms merchants.

If your advisers have persuaded you that hostilities with Iran would bring benefit to Israel, they are badly mistaken. In our view, war with Iran is just as likely in the longer term to bring the destruction of Israel, as well as vast areas of Iran, not even to mention the disastrous consequences for the world economy, of which you must be aware.

Incendiary (but false) claims about how near Iran is to having a nuclear weapon are coming “fast and furious,” (and are as irresponsible as that ill-fated project of giving weapons to Mexican drug dealers).

In our view, the endless string of such claims now threaten to migrate from rhetoric to armed clashes to attempted “regime change,” as was the case nine years ago on Iraq. You know, we hope, that influential, but myopic, forces abound who are willing to take great risk because they believe such events would redound to the benefit of Israel.  We make reference, of course, to the reckless Likud government in Israel and its equally reckless single-issue supporters here at home.

Inept Advisers

Judging by recent performance, your foreign policy and military advisers, including the top generals now in place, appear unable to act as sensible counterweights to those who think that, by beginning hostilities with Iran, they will help Israel do away with a key regional rival.

You are not stuck with such advisers. You’re the President; you deserve better. You need some people close to you who know a lot more about the outside world.

You may wish to think also about how the recent remarks of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey, during an interview with the Washington Post’s Greg Jaffe, reflect on the chairman’s acumen in the strategic matters in which he has been immersed for decades.

In the interview with Jaffe, Dempsey referred to his 20-year involvement with Iraq (where he made his mark) and, according to Jaffe, Dempsey acknowledged that “he and his Army did not fully understand the nature of the conflict they were fighting.”

Jaffe quotes a particularly telling lament by Dempsey: “People say, ‘For God’s sakes, you were a two-star general. How could you say you didn’t understand?’ I don’t know how I can say it, but I lived it.  And I mean it.”

Suffice it to say that there are serious questions as to how much Gen. Dempsey understands about Iran and whether his meteoric rise to Chairman of the JCS is due more to the crisp salute with which he greets any idea voiced by those above him.

Discussing last week the possibility of military action against Iran, Dempsey said, “The options we are developing are evolving to a point that they would be executable, if necessary.” He added that his “biggest worry is that (Iranians) will miscalculate our resolve.”

That’s not our biggest worry. Rather it is that Dempsey and you will miscalculate Iran’s resolve. We haven’t a clue as to what, if anything, the Chairman is telling you on that key issue. Our distinct impression, however, is that you cannot look to him for the kind of stand-up advice you got from his predecessor, Adm. Mike Mullen.

The consummate military professional, Mullen pointed to the military and strategic realities, and the immense costs, associated with a war with Iran, which in turn buttressed those who successfully withstood pressure from President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for war with Iran.

Dempsey = No Mullen

During the Bush administration, Mullen argued strongly that there would be no way a “preventive war” against Iran would be worth the horrendous cost. He did all he could to scuttle the idea.

Mullen was among those senior officials who forced Bush and Cheney to publish the unclassified Key Judgments of the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program, the NIE that judged “with high confidence that in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

As Bush and Vice President Cheney have since acknowledged, that drove an iron rod through the wheels of the juggernaut then rolling off to war with Iran. And, as you know, that judgment still stands despite Herculean efforts to fudge it.

In his memoir, Decision Points, Bush, complains bitterly that, rather than being relieved by the surprising news that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program in late 2003, he was angry that the news “tied my hands on the military side.”

In January 2008, Bush flew to Israel to commiserate with senior Israeli officials who were similarly bitter at the abrupt removal of a casus belli. Tellingly, in his book Bush added this lament:

“But after the NIE, how could I possible explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?”

Israel’s Last Chance, Until Now

The new estimate on Iran did not stop the Israelis from trying. And in mid-2008, they seemed to be contemplating one more try at provoking hostilities with Iran before Bush and Cheney left office.

This time, with Bush’s (but not Cheney’s) support, Mullen flew to Israel to tell Israeli leaders to disabuse themselves of the notion that U.S. military support would be knee-jerk automatic if they somehow provoked open hostilities with Iran.

According to the Israeli press, Mullen went so far as to warn the Israelis not to even think about another incident at sea like the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967, which left 34 American crew killed and more than 170 wounded.

Never before had a senior U.S. official braced Israel so blatantly about the Liberty incident, which was covered up by the Johnson administration, the Congress, and Mullen’s Navy itself. The lesson the Israelis had taken away from the Liberty incident was that they could get away with murder, literally, and walk free because of political realities in the United States. Not this time, said Mullen. He could not have raised a more neuralgic issue.

Unintended Consequences

As long as he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mike Mullen kept worrying, often publicly, over what he termed “the unintended consequences of any sort of military action against Iran.”

We assume that before he retired last fall he shared that concern with you, just as we tried to warn your predecessor of “the unintended consequences” that could flow from an attack on Iraq.

The Israelis, for their part, would not relent. In February of this year, Mullen returned with sweaty palms from a visit to Israel. On arrival there, he had warned publicly that an attack on Iran would be “a big, big, big problem for all of us.”

When Mullen got back to Washington, he lacked the confident tone he had after reading the Israelis the riot act in mid-2008. It became quickly clear that Mullen feared that, this time, Israel’s leaders did not seem to take his warnings seriously.

Lest he leave a trace of ambiguity regarding his professional view, upon his return Mullen drove it home at a Pentagon press conference on Feb. 22, 2011: “For now, the diplomatic and the economic levers of international power are and ought to be the levers first pulled. Indeed, I would hope they are always and consistently pulled. No strike, however effective, will be, in and of itself, decisive.”

In 2008, right after Mullen was able, in late June, to get the Israelis to put aside, for the nonce, their pre-emptive plans vis-à-vis Iran, he moved to put a structure in place that could short-circuit military escalation. Specifically, he thought through ways to prevent unintended (or, for that matter, deliberately provoked) incidents in the crowded Persian Gulf that could lead to wider hostilities.

In a widely unnoticed remark, Adm. Mullen conceded to the press that Iran could shut down the Strait of Hormuz, but quickly added de rigueur assurance that the U.S. could open it up again (whereas the Admiral knows better than virtually anyone that this would be no easy task).

Mullen sent up an interesting trial balloon at a July 2, 2008, press conference, when he suggested that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran. But nothing more was heard of this overture, probably because Cheney ordered him to drop it. We think it is high time to give this excellent idea new life.  (See below under Recommendations.)

The dangers in and around the Strait of Hormuz were still on Mullen’s mind as he prepared to retire on Sept. 30, 2011. Ten days before, he told the Armed Force Press Service of his deep concern over the fact that the United States and Iran have had no formal communications since 1979:

“Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union. We are not talking to Iran. So we don’t understand each other. If something happens, it’s virtually assured that we won’t get it right, that there will be miscalculations.”

Playing with fire: With the macho game of chicken currently under way between Iranian and U.S. naval forces in the area of the Strait of Hormuz, the potential for an incident has increased markedly.

An accident, or provocation, could spiral out of control quickly, with all sides, Iran, the U.S. and Israel making hurried decisions with, you guessed it, “unintended consequences.”

or Intended Consequences?

With your campaign for the presidency in full swing during the summer of 2008, you may have missed a troubling disclosure in July by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.

He reported that Bush administration officials had held a meeting in the Vice President’s office in the wake of the January 2008 incident between Iranian patrol boats and U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz. The reported purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to provoke war with Iran.

HERSH: There were a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build in our shipyard four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of, that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation.

Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the [January] incident was the American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.

Look, is it high school? Yeah. Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran.

and Now Iran’s Responsibility for 9/11!

On the chance you missed it, this time your government is getting “incriminating” information from Iranian, not Iraqi, “defectors.” Iranian “defectors” have persuaded Manhattan Federal Judge George Daniels to sign an order accusing Iran and Hezbollah along with al-Qaeda of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks.

On Dec. 15, in response to a lawsuit brought by family members of 9/11 victims, Daniels claimed that Iran provided material support to al-Qaeda and has assessed Iran $100 billion in damages

Watching the blackening of Iranians on virtually all parts of the U.S. body politic, it is no surprise that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, enjoying the strong support of our Congress, our largely pro-Israel media, and our courts as well. He sees himself in the catbird seat, particularly during the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election.

We know that you have said you have to deal with Netanyahu every day. But for those of us who have not had the pleasure, never did his attitude toward Washington come through so clearly as in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV.

In it Netanyahu brags about how he deceived President Bill Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them. The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward, and wonderment at, a malleable America so easily influenced by Israel.

Netanyahu says it right out: “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. They won’t get in our way Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.”

Israeli columnist Gideon Levy has written that the video shows Netanyahu to be “a con artist who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes,” adding that such behavior “does not change over the years.”

On Dec. 29, the strongly pro-Israel Washington Times ran an unsigned editorial, “Tehran’s moment of truth: The mullahs are playing with fire in Strait of Hormuz.” After a fulsome paragraph of bragging about how the U.S. Navy capabilities dwarf those of Iran’s, the Washington Times editors inadvertently give the game away:

“A theater-wide response to the strait closure would involve air strikes on military and leadership targets throughout the country, and the crisis could be a useful pretext for international action against Iran’s nuclear program.”

Hopefully, pointing out Israel’s overarching objective will strike you as gratuitous. No doubt your advisers have told you that “regime change” (what we used to call overthrowing a government) is Israel’s ultimate goal. Just so you know.


We hope that, when we assume you wish to thwart Israel and any other party who might want to get the U.S. involved in hostilities with Iran, we are not assuming too much. With that as our premise, we recommend that you:

1- Make public, as soon as possible, a declassified version of the key judgments of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear development program, with whatever updating is necessary. You know that the Herculean efforts of U.S. intelligence to find evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran have found nothing.

Do not insult Americans with Rumsfeldian nostrums like: “The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.” Rather, be up-front with the American people. Tell them the truth about the conclusions of our intelligence community.

Bush was helped to launch the aggressive war on Iraq by a deliberately dishonest National Intelligence Estimate on weapons of mass destruction there. Let yourself be fortified by an honest NIE on Iran, and stand up to the inevitable criticism from Israelis and their influential surrogates.

2- Pick up on Adm. Mike Mullen’s suggestion at his press conference on July 2, 2008, that military-to-military dialogue could “add to a better understanding” between the U.S. and Iran. If there were ever a time when our navies need to be able to communicate with each other, it is now.

It was a good idea in 2008; it is an even better idea now. Indeed, it seems likely that a kind of vestigial Cheneyism, as well as pressure from the Likud Lobby, account for the fact that the danger of a U.S.-Iranian confrontation in the crowded Persian Gulf has still not been addressed in direct talks.

Cheney and those of his mini-National Security Staff who actually looked forward to such confrontations are gone from the scene. If the ones who remain persist in thwarting time-tested structural ways of preventing accidents, miscalculation and covert false-flag attacks, please consider suggesting that they retire early.

Order the negotiation of the kind of bilateral “incidents-at-sea” agreement concluded with the Russians in May 1972, which, together with direct communications, played an essential role in heading off escalation neither side wanted, when surface or submarine ships go bump in the night.

3- Get yourself some advisers who know more about the real world than the ones you have now, and make sure they owe allegiance solely to the United States.

4- Issue a formal statement that your administration will not support an Israeli military attack on Iran. Make it clear that even though, after Dec. 31, the U.S. may not be technically responsible for defending Iraqi airspace, you have ordered U.S. Air Force units in the area to down any intruders.

5- Sit back and look toward a New Year with a reasonable prospect of less, not more, tension in the Persian Gulf.

Happy New Year.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  He served a total of 30 years as an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA intelligence analyst.

Elizabeth Murray served as Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East in the National Intelligence Council before retiring after a 27-year career in the U.S. government, where she specialized in Middle Eastern political and media analysis. She is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

40 comments for “Urging Obama to Stop Rush to Iran War

  1. Timothy Ray
    January 6, 2012 at 13:45

    The real truth is that Israel currently enjoys a monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Shimon Peres’ recitation of Israel’s policy of neither affirming or denying fools no one. Former Israeli nuclear weapons technician Mordechai Vanunu provided this information to the British media in 1986. Western nuclear weapons experts confirmed this as consistent with existing knowledge. Vanunu was lured by a female Mossad agent into a situation where he was able to be kidnapped, drugged, and taken to Israel, where he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. He has unsuccessfully requested asylum elsewhere. The United States, NATO, and the UN should be pressing for a nuclear free Middle East. Instead, Israel has been able to commit the act of war of bombing both Iraq and Syria for building nuclear facilities and has not been held accountable for this illegal aggression. Now it threatens to do the same to Iran, generating a torrent of propaganda painting Iran as a threat to the free world. The facts are that Iran has made war on no nation for at least 50 years while Israel has made war on Lebanon, as well as Gaza, a tiny region which Israel continues to hold after the 1967 war. If the USA allows itself to be drawn by Israel into war against Iran, it will encounter a nation with twice the land area of Iraq, four times the population, a situation far more difficult than our occupation of Iraq, and an even bigger and more permanent stain on our character and reputation, which will last centuries, in addition to the inconvenience of a crisis in our access to oil at affordable prices.

  2. January 4, 2012 at 01:11

    Good luck with “urging” Obama to do anything, Ray.

    He’s fully on board with a war with Iran and nothing you or anyone else who isn’t a member of the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, or the Israel Lobby says will change his mind.

  3. Justme
    January 4, 2012 at 00:25

    One of the best articles I have read lately.
    Thanks to you both.

  4. MajWilliamMartin
    January 3, 2012 at 16:56

    Ray, I love your Articles, I would someday like to chat in person.

    Why don’t the Media remind people how Israel Lied many years ago to Inspectors and hid their Nuclear Program. That it was the ONLY TIME they were allowed into Israel and never again.

    The Plane that Crashed and Israel said it had Flowers and Perfume yet was carrying stuff to make Sarin Gas. That later the Palestinian’s found what Nerve gas was.

    Why is it that Lieberman and other Zionist’s write Bills to Kill our Internet Freedoms, When they control all other forms of Media? Is it they want to control all that too?

    Why After Obama signed the NDAA did he NOT TURN HIMSELF IN for Supporting the Al Qaeda from Iraq that killed our 4,801 Troops that then went to Libya and killed 50,000 Citizens whom the NTC says that number will go to 150,000. But now they bused those same Al Qaeda to Syria to meet with US Special Forces? WHY? Why hasn’t Obama turned himself in?

    Why did Joe Biden just say that the TALIBAN is NOT an Enemy of the USA and they just shot down the Seal Team 6 Helicopter. Then the CIA said there was only 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and if it take 93,000 US troops to kill 50-100 Al Qaeda, What are we doing in Afghanistan if ONLY to Grow Opium and Heroin for the Afghan’s who are HOOKED on their own Product. Why? Did Biden say that because of Colin Powell’s White Paper never linked Bin Laden to 9/11 and that Fox News said Bin Laden DIED on December 26th 2001? Why did Cheney say Bin Laden was Innocent of ties to 9/11? Why does our own FBI’s Web Site not link Bin Laden to 9/11? Why all the Constant Lies?

    Happy New Year. It is going to get worse.

  5. January 3, 2012 at 13:23

    With all DUE respect to mr. mcGovern and his female co-author, (sorry can’t recall her name), I find the use of “game” to describe the hellish events of late leading to another war for the rich against the poorer nations of the world. Obama’s PR person uses the term “battleground” to describe his campaign and if one is paying attention to the use of warlike words, how far is going to go without the actual slaughter happening.

    The ONLY reason for it all is MONEY & POWER! We don’t have any and Israel has it all. The hellish game being played between obomba and nitanyahu is to achieve the absolute domination of globe by racist/zionists. As anyone can see and to quote on of the erstwhile leaders, Geo. Barnard Shaw has astutely proclaimed, “The want of money is evil.” OR words to that effect. The real venality of it all will be the loss of life and our Earth as we know it simply to satisfy the Talmudic desire to control and rule. Everyone MUST know we ARE NOT ANIMALS to be ruled from stolen Jerusalem. Talmudists are quite willing to step over our dead bodies and what their “holy” book tells them: Animals cannot be buried. This begs the question: when the rotting stench gets to be too much for their chosen nostrils how can they enjoy their dominance???

    • flat5
      January 3, 2012 at 14:43

      Who the hell are you kidding? Under arab rule, Jewish holy sites were used as lavoratories. When Israel was attacked in 1967 by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, they won the war and liberated Jerusalem. Antisemites like you would never allow Jews to defend themselves, win wars, and survive. FY!

      • Ma
        January 4, 2012 at 19:18

        If by Arab rulers you mean Muslim rulers then you must know that Muslims believe in Jews’ prophets, Jews’ holy books (original, not present) and Jews’ holy sites are sacred to Muslims too. Therefore it is unthinkable for Muslims to use these holy sites as lavoratories as you claim. Your bias against Muslims is so intense that you invent myths to discredit their contributions in world heritage. You invent your own history and present it as fact. Please mind your language. Using abusive language does not improve power of your argument.

  6. Absuridty
    January 3, 2012 at 11:14

    Why wouldn’t Iran want to protect itself from the likes of Israel and the US both of which have been disrupting the peace in Iran since the 70’s.

    When Iran decided to nationalize it’s oil the UK needed a henchmen to go in and help them steal the Iranian people’s oil and so they called up the US because they didn’t want to appear to be involved in any tactics. The US setup a coop to take down the government. In retaliation the Iranian government took hostages which were technically freed under Carter but Reagan was given the credit for having the hostages released on his first day. That was to help empower Reagan with the people of the US. All one big fraud on the American and the Iranian people.

  7. Morton Kurzweil
    January 2, 2012 at 15:14

    War is just what we need. War will guarantee the reelection of Obama, eliminate the debt ceiling, promote unity among all political factions at the cost of merely millions of lives, debt beyond counting, and millennia of enemies. No lessons will be learned by the few survivors living as hunter-gatherers before the cycle starts again.

  8. No Mercyonyou
    January 2, 2012 at 12:19

    NDAA = Submit peacefully sheeple! Adhere to our NWO & accept willingly our RFID micro-chip implants or else indefinate detention up your anus!!!!

  9. January 2, 2012 at 09:53

    Ron Paul vs the Neocons: http://tinyurl.com/RonPaulvsNeocons

    Neocon Warmongers: http://tinyurl.com/NeoconWarmongers

  10. Tony Stoklosa
    January 2, 2012 at 02:12

    I applaud the retired intelligence analysts for the courage and bravado in communicating their expert analysis to the Obama presidency.I only hope that the message gets delivered and I pray these folks don’t get incarcerated under the resent NDAA initiative..!!

  11. Bob From District 9
    January 2, 2012 at 01:21

    It is so nice to see someone telling it like it is.

    Now, if only I could believe it will do some real good.

  12. December 31, 2011 at 18:58


    • flat5
      January 3, 2012 at 14:40

      F.Y you antisemitic asshole

  13. bobzz
    December 31, 2011 at 13:45

    If I were running for president, my theme would be simply “restoring sanity.” I am surprised Mullen brought up the USS Liberty incident; that got buried as soon as it was over. I thought everyone had forgotten it.

  14. Regina Schulte
    December 31, 2011 at 12:25

    “Here we go again!” Feed the propaganda machine against Iran the way it was done to prepare for the disastrous war with Iraq. Distort the truth so that it fits into the Procrustean bed we share with Israel–at the latter’s invitation. Ignore the fact that we are the “sugar daddy” in this exploitative relationship. And promote the myth that “it’s our way or the
    highway” for world leaders. Insanity at its most poweful!!!

  15. Larry Piltz
    December 31, 2011 at 06:39

    WWHD? What would Hitchens do? Do the opposite.

  16. Larry Piltz
    December 31, 2011 at 06:36

    I hope your and all of the efforts to forestall and prevent war against Iran are successful, now and always. There are other, benign ways to proceed. War could possibly eventually succeed in destabilizing and even (less likely) ending the regime there (though I doubt it), but the immediate and long-term negative effects would be even greater and worse for the United States and the entire world; this is the guaranteed part.

    The only thing I still wonder about U.S. foreign policy in the region is whether our empire has been slouching in this direction unrelentingly, though slowly and calculatingly, since 1953/1979 (or 1948), or has it been fumbling and tumbling in this direction with only the small possibility of a quasi-inevitability only now to yield ultimately to the imperial bent: An ounce of prevention, Barack.

    One naturally ruminates about the stuttering timelines of the expansions and contractions of ancient empires as they ebbed and flowed over the region in centuries and millenia past. I wonder if it’s our turn to proceed one way or another, though not with inevitability but with hubris and miscalculation. I hope Obama justifies his election and presidency by refusing the opportunity for further chaos.

  17. JDavis
    December 30, 2011 at 21:40

    “The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.” And if we took this seriously, we would have to consider the possibility that Iran already has nuclear weapons. After all, the Israeli Defense Minister said back in ’03 that Iran would have nukes in one year. So what proof do we have that they don’t, eight years later? That no test has been detected? Well, they don’t actually need to test them. Nukes don’t require testing if you don’t care about perfection. So if Iran has a dozen half-assed nukes and long range missiles, Israel could be committing suicide by starting a war…with our mad generals waving them along into the abyss.

    • Alex
      January 1, 2012 at 15:10

      The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence? So if I accuse you of terrorism. This means that you are a terrorist, despite I have no single evidence for it. Good news for is that soon would be so. Now that Obama just inked the national defense authorization act, one of these days the take you out of bed and then nobody hears from you anything anymore. However about Iran absence of evidence is despite the fact CIA against have done their best all these years and they could not find anything. This means Iran is clean.

    • January 2, 2012 at 12:14

      The real threat is that Russia and China will back Iran … they have nukes. We are asking for WWIII by this what we are doing.

      • No Mercyonyou
        January 2, 2012 at 12:36

        They, not “we”, are cuminating their concerted efforts to reduce the global population to a controllable number(i.e. The Georgia Guidestones). No matter where & how wars are, the elite & politicians never have to sacrifice. Only the sheeple do. All the leaders & politicians from “central bank owned countries & states,” are all owned by the same people. So do not be fooled by distances & borders

  18. F. G. Sanford
    December 30, 2011 at 20:26

    I especially like suggestion #3:

    Get yourself some advisers who know more about the real world than the ones you have now, and make sure they owe allegiance solely to the United States.

    So many in our government, media, finance and corporate sectors privately harbor allegiance to Israel. And they live in a narcissistic dreamland which has no concept of asymmetrical warfare. They think that a few high-tech toys and GPS pinpoint accuracy will lead to victory.

    In Iraq and Afghanistan, we were defeated by the most rudimentary, primitive and cost-effective weapons of the twenty first century: roadside bombs. I can’t wait to see the look on their faces when they find out the Straits of Hormuz have been closed by a couple of sunken cargo ships filled with sand.

    When the rest of the world realizes we’re over the (oil) barrel, they’ll stop trading in petrodollars, the economy will tank, and hopefully, some of the real terrorists which threaten our country will head to Israel to escape extradition. Sadly, our energy future will resemble that of the 3rd Reich in its death throes: liquefaction of coal.

Comments are closed.