Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Bombing Iran’ Category

>Iran Outfoxes UN – Delays Talks, Nixes Nuclear Agenda


Geopolitical Intelligence Report Share This Report

This is FREE intelligence for distribution. Forward this to your colleagues.

Misreading the Iranian Situation

The Iranians have now agreed to talks with the P-5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) plus Germany. These six countries decided in late April to enter into negotiations with Iran over the suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program by Sept. 24, the date of the next U.N. General Assembly meeting. If Iran refused to engage in negotiations by that date, the Western powers in the P-5+1 made clear that they would seriously consider imposing much tougher sanctions on Iran than those that were currently in place. The term “crippling” was mentioned several times.
Obviously, negotiations are not to begin prior to the U.N. General Assembly meeting as previously had been stipulated. The talks are now expected to begin Oct. 1, a week later. This gives the Iranians their first (symbolic) victory: They have defied the P-5+1 on the demand that talks be under way by the time the General Assembly meets. Inevitably, the Iranians would delay, and the P-5+1 would not make a big deal of it.

Talks About Talks and the Sanctions Challenge

Now, we get down to the heart of the matter: The Iranians have officially indicated that they are prepared to discuss a range of strategic and economic issues but are not prepared to discuss the nuclear program — which, of course, is the reason for the talks in the first place. On Sept. 14, they hinted that they might consider talking about the nuclear program if progress were made on other issues, but made no guarantees.

>Iran’s Dictator Kills People For Speaking Up

> if (window.gLaunchProfile) { gLaunchProfile.start(‘GX_USER_PROFILE’); } if (window.gLaunchProfile) { gLaunchProfile.stop(‘GX_USER_PROFILE’); }if (window.gLaunchProfile) { gLaunchProfile.start(‘GX_USER_MESSAGES’); }

if (window.gLaunchProfile) { gLaunchProfile.stop(‘GX_USER_MESSAGES’); }if (window.gLaunchProfile) { gLaunchProfile.start(‘GX_VITALITY’); } if (window.gLaunchProfile) { gLaunchProfile.stop(‘GX_VITALITY’); }if (window.gLaunchProfile) { gLaunchProfile.start(‘GX_NEWS’); }

Top Stories

87° 76°

Today Tomorrow Thu Fri Sat
PM T-storms
Scattered T-storms
Scattered T-storms
Scattered T-storms
Scattered T-storms
High: 87°

Low: 76°
High: 91°

Low: 76°
High: 92°

Low: 76°
High: 89°

Low: 76°
High: 88°

Low: 76°

>Speech, Elections: Are America and Iran The Same?

>Windermere, FL – In some very important ways there is no difference between Iran and America:

1) Both peoples yearn for freedom.

2) One country is free, the other would like to be like America — but not the leaders, the mullohs, the ruling clerics of the land, who have a strangle hold on freedoms in Iran. But Iran is looking at neighboring Iraq and wondering why their women can vote, take jobs outside the home, and be immune from stoning. While in Iran, since the fall of the Shaw, they have been under Sharia law – which scholars trace to Mohammad, but other scholars are not so sure he espoused any of their tyrannical and inhuman tenets.

Personally, I cannot see a man of God ordering the stoning of anyone caught for any crime short of murder. And even that is barbaric. In the Bible, we learn of the Savior who near the temple encountered a group of people about to stone a woman accused of adultery. In fact, they caught her in the act. But Jesus Christ asked if any of them were perfect. “He that is perfect, cast the first stone,” he said.

Soon the crowd of accusers dispersed, leaving just the Savior and the woman. She asked if he was going to stone her and he said no, go your way and sin no more. In other words, I believe the people of Iran would like to accept Christ’s doctrine rather than keep some of the old error-filled ways dictated by their own law which includes the superiority of men over women, polygamy (men can have up to four wives at one time), and the law called jihad, which the aggressive warring Wahabi sect of Muslims misinterpret as meaning any time they want they can declare war on someone or on a country as they have on the U.S. and Israel.

3. Both countries yearn for freedom of speech and free elections. We here in America say we have freedom of speech, and so far we do. But if Mr. Obama gets his Democratic Congress to go along with him – and they are mere sheep amongst the current master of deception , he will instill fear in the people of America by outlawing conservative talk radio, for example. He will outlaw anyone who criticizes his regime and him personally. He is personally upset with Fox Television because they are the only television network that allows facts to be facts, that criticize Obama.

He isn’t popular on Fox and he wonders why.

Believe me, he is planning to abolish conservative talk show hosts like Sean Hanity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Once he does that he believes we will all be so afraid, we wouldn’t dare to say anything that would appose him.

A quiet but relentless effort is underway in the United States to circumvent our First Amendment rights and introduce a European-style “defamation of religion” restriction on free speech. A parallel effort, known as “libel tourism”, involves libel lawsuits filed through the British courts with the aim of silencing American authors who criticize Islam and expose terrorist financing.

These are stealth projects designed and supported by the various front groups of the Muslim Brotherhood, which have spread petrodollars around in a bipartisan fashion in an attempt to corrupt the political system.

It’s interesting that news of the effort to resist the suppression of free speech in the USA comes from Europe News. Maybe the Europeans — with their greater proximity to the endgame of Islamization — feel the danger more acutely than we do.

Iran, on the other hand, does not have freedom of speech. The harsh regime of Maumoud Ahmadinejad, the Mulloh-chosen dictator, controls television and radio.

Does America have truly “free and fair” elections? I don’t think so when you think about ACORN, the Obama support arm which gets public money and supports primarily Democrat politicians. ACORN should be abolished. It does not foster free elections in America, in fact just the opposite. They cheat and stuff ballot boxes, paying people to vote fifteen times or more. In twelve or more states their ugly practices are being opposed. they are under indictment and defending those lawsuits with our money. Yes, with taxpayer money.

In the name of justice, I call for the total outlawing of ACORN and all of its many affiliates. It’s not fair, it’s not open, it’s not freely audited by independent sources.

What’s the difference between having an “illegal” arm of one candidate and one party pouring money into campaigns throughout the country – some of it from foreign persons, and all of it unaudited – and a candidate not living up to the $2300 cap on donations for primaries and another $2300 for general elections? No difference.

That donation cap law must apply to all candidates wherever and from whom they receive their money. We must stop the practice of taking tax dollars out of the treasury and giving it to Democreats or Republicans. That has got to stop.

>Why Does Obama Refuse To Be Leader of The Free World?


What If Iran Was America?

By Don White

Where Was Obama When Iran Wanted Democracy?

By Don White

Here’s a story out of Iran, one of resistance to compromise by the Mullahs and their subservient political leaders. For that is the system in Iran. You can have elections, but they are not free in the sense that free people get their wishes.

As you read this article, imagine how Americans would handle this same situation because it may come down to this. Would we in America be passive onlookers, watching pro-Obama NBC, ABC, CNN news channels for the president’s propaganda, drinking it all in like passive pussy cats? Or would we be marching in the streets as patriots, much like the Iranian people who oppose tyranny, even when it is found in their clergy?

Americans can learn much from these brave Iranian people. If only we had a patriotic president who would speak out strongly in favor of the people of the world – especially Iranians right now – who want to remove the yoke of tyranny off their shoulders. If only Obama wasn’t so much like Ahmadinejad and the ruthless Ayatollah Khameni who cloak their wickedness in cleric clothes and hide their own wicked designs in specious rhetoric and hollow words.

Fast Forward

Fast forward three or four years, after Barak Obama has substantially changed the United States, overrunning and overriding Constitutional law and the Bill of Rights – outlawing Congress and the Supreme Court. By then he will have disbanded state governments and outlawed their supreme courts, along with county and city governments. He will have removed representative government from the people and taken it to Washington, growing Washington three fold.

Picture Barak Obama Being All Powerful

Assume that by executive order Barak Obama has consolidated all power to himself, declaring that the states are now subservient to national law which is set by one man, Barak Obama.

Imagine what we Americans would do if in a few years we find Obama has set himself up as America’s Ayatollah Ali Khameni, except he will be known as Ayatollah Barak Hussein Obama, with all power invested in him. Free elections will be a thing of the past. Communist-style elections will prevail, the same elections you saw in Iran recently where there were several popular candidates for president and one of them wasn’t Mamoud Ahmadinejad, but where the Ayatollah can decide that the least popular willl be president and if anyone challenges that result they will be jailed or killed.

Study The Above Photograph

Look at the photograph above of the Iranian religious and secular leaders including the Ayatollah left front and Ahmadinejad on the back row. Place Obama’s picture where Ayatolla stands and his vice president, Joe Biden, where Ahmadinejad stands. Throughout the picture are all top Democrats including Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and if you will, Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, Charlie Rangle, and others. They are praying, but to whom? It could appear that they are praying to Obama who is chanting something, or is he orating?

The purpose of this meeting is to solidify the thoughts of all the Democrat leaders against the rest of the country regarding a disputed election in America. In a long and hard-line sermon, Obama is declaring the elections valid and is warning of violence if demonstrations continue.

Would Americans Demonstrate As Iranians Have?

Would Tehran be any different than Washington, where Americans from throughout the country would come to demonstrate their disgust for the fraudulent Obama elections where Joe Biden was elected Vice President – or maybe president, because by this time Obama is something far greater than a mere president, he is a cleric, a man of the cloth of his own making, the supreme leader?

Assume the same result for America as in Iran: Obama has declared the elections valid and warned of violence if demonstrators continued, as pledged by demonstrators, to flood the streets in defiance of the government.

It’s Almost Unthinkable: To Have A Dictator When 41 Percent Are Conservatives

Imagine that Obama is speaking to Republicans and particularly to Conservatives who a June, 2009 Gallop poll indicated comprised 41 percent of the electorate while only 21 percent were liberals.

“Opposition leaders who fail to halt the protests will be responsible for bloodshed and chaos.” Turning phrases around to make the good guys look like the bad guys is quite common in the Obama administration.

In Tehran those same words by the Ayatollah dashed hopes for a peaceful solution to what defeated candidates and protesters called a fraudulent election last week, plunging Iran into its gravest crisis since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Here’s Obama’s Ayatollah Speech

Continuing with Obama’s Ayatollah speech: “Flexing muscles on the streets after the election is not right: It means challenging the elections and democracy. (Isn’t that an interesting turn of phrase. The guy who threw the elections, the Ayatollah, is saying people are challenging elections and democracy, while it’s just the other way around. Democracy demands the will of the people be satisfied. In Iran’s case, the people are now being heard because they didn’t vote for that dictator Ahmadinejad. Now the Ayatollah is promising retribution if they continue to speak up and demonstrate and he’s saying they are challenging democracy when it is the Ayatollah who is the thief in the night challenging democracy. We’ve heard this same logic before — from Obama) If they don’t stop, the consequences of the chaos would be their responsibility.”

But opposition leaders, who stayed home Friday, called for yet another huge rally on Saturday afternoon, setting the stage for a possible showdown between protesters and security forces, perhaps a violent one.

The sermon put Ayatollah Khamenei, who prefers to govern quietly and from behind the scenes, at the forefront of a confrontation not only among factions of the government but among Iranians themselves. Like Obama, the Ayatollah is on the wrong side of history.

It also presents Mir Hussein Moussavi, (whom we will call Mitt Romney just to get an American perspective) whom the opposition says was the real winner of last Friday’s elections, with an excruciating choice. The former prime minister and long-time insider must decide whether to escalate his challenge to Iran’s supreme leader and risk a bloody showdown, or abandon his support for a popular uprising that his candidacy inspired.

Imagine, if you will, Barak Obama’s name where we find the Ayatollah’s in the following: During the tough sermon, Ayatollah Khamenei (Obama) tried to tamp down factional disputes among the elite, at one point even chastising pro-government militias and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Joe Biden) for their role in the crisis. But he hardened his stance on the election results. On Monday, a crowd that the mayor of Tehran (Washington) estimated at three million rallied for the first of four days, and Ayatollah Khamenei (Obama) ordered an investigation into the election results, which declared Mr. Ahmadinejad (Joe Biden) the winner, with 63 percent to Mr. Moussavi’s (Mitt Romney’s) 34 percent. Then on Wednesday, the government invited Mr. Moussavi (Romney) and the other two presidential candidates to meet with the Guardian Council, the powerful body that oversees the elections.

But the Ayatollah (Obama) said Friday that there was nothing to discuss, as he again endorsed the victory of Mr. Ahmadinejad (Joe Biden), seated in the audience, and called the elections “an epic moment that has become a historic moment.” He dismissed allegations of fraud.

“Perhaps 100,000 votes, or 500,000, but how can anyone tamper with 11 million votes?” he asked as the crowd burst into laughter. “If the political elite ignore the law — whether they want it or not — they would be responsible for the bloodshed and chaos,” he said.

He added that foreign agents (for America that would be Russia, China, and North Korea) were behind the street unrests and that there were efforts to stage a “velvet revolution.”

“They thought Iran is Georgia,” he said, adding, “Their problem is that they don’t know this great nation yet.”

Tens of thousands of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s (Joe Biden’s fellow Democrats) supporters gathered for the sermon. Television showed the streets filled with people near Tehran University.

There was no immediate reaction from Mehdi Karroubi, (Judd Gregg) another presidential candidate who accused the government of fraud. Many analysts and aides to Mr. Moussavi (Romney) have been arrested and were not available for comments. But the human rights group Amnesty International warned that Ayatollah Khamenei’s (Obama’s) speech indicated that the authorities were willing to conduct a violent crackdown.

“We are extremely disturbed at statements made by Ayatollah Khamenei (Obama) which seem to give the green light to security forces to violently handle protesters exercising their right to demonstrate and express their views,” the group said in a statement.

In a letter on Friday, Mr. Karroubi (Gregg) urged the Guardian Council to nullify the elections. “This is not the demand of an individual, it is the demand of the people,” he wrote in a letter posted on his Web site. “I warn you that insulting people would only intensify their rage.”

The council is expected to meet with the three presidential candidates on Saturday. Web sites associated with both Mr. Moussavi and Mr. Karroubi said that the large rally scheduled for Saturday was still on. In Paris, a friend of Mr. Moussavi’s who said he was acting as his spokesman said Friday that Ayatollah Khamenei’s statements would be met by large demonstrations.

“What happened is beyond cheating,” the friend, Mohsen Makhmalbaf, a film director, said in a hastily organized news conference in Paris. “Since Friday, a 30-year-old page was turned. We’ve fallen into dictatorship. For the first time in 30 years there have been grass-roots demonstrations with millions of people, and these demonstrations stand as a proof that people want democracy.” His daughter Samira, also a filmmaker, said, “Until Friday we had 80 percent dictatorship and 20 percent democracy, and since Friday we have 100 percent dictatorship.”

>Should America Engage Iran Now?


Obama Likes Iran

In arguing that Barack Obama is right about talking to Iran, Vali Nasr offers only one point on which the U.S. and Iran can agree, “the independence and territorial integrity of Georgia” (“Obama Is Right About Talking to Iran,” op-ed, Oct. 13).

But is that one insignificant and meaningless declaration sufficient as a basis for the U.S. president to engage Iran? Mr. Nasr neither discusses nor offers any prospect for a useful dialogue with Iran about matters of consequence, such as Iran’s drive to become a nuclear power, achieving hegemony over the Middle East and its unceasing efforts to destroy Israel, which it does by supporting Hamas on Israel’s southern border and Hezbollah on the northern border.

Nor does Mr. Nasr’s support for Sen. Obama’s declared willingness to meet with the clerical regime in Iran take into account that such acceptance of rule by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei government in Iran would demoralize the majority of the Iranian people who do not recognize the right of the religious fanatics who took over the government by force to rule over them.

Leib Orlanski
Beverly Hills, Calif.


Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan

function getSharePasskey() { return ‘ex=1378872000&en=bcb45afd964f57c7&ei=5124’;} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent(‘’); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan’); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent(‘The order allowing Special Operations forces to act without the prior approval of the Pakistani government underscores U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s ability and will to combat militants.’); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent(‘United States Armament and Defense,Afghanistan War (2001- ),United States International Relations,Intelligence Services,Pakistan,Taliban,Al Qaeda,George W Bush’); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent(‘washington’); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Washington’); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(”); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI’); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent(‘September 11, 2008’); }

September 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — A New York Times story by Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti published yesterday said President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

There is always going to be criticism of any order like this, to go after the enemy in an enemy country. But this country, Pakistan, has openly supported our desires to wipe out Al Qaeda and the Taliban–even in their country, but did not want their administrations to topple because of criticism of their own people who like the enemy. After all, they are Pakistanis and other Arabs, perhaps funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I believe this kind of action is long overdue. We have been far to cautious, far to desirous to do the politically and diplomatically correct thing. This action by Bush is right and correct. I hope we get all of them.

I thought you might want to see some of the comments posted in the Times, then you can click over and read the entire story if you have time:

Readers’ Comments

1) Good–we should chase terrorists around the world so that they do not arrive here.Hank, Warwick

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


2) It’s about time. We should not be in Iraq, but should be going after the true culprits behind 9/11.— Dave, New York City

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


3) It took 7 years for him to sign off on this?

— Kevinusma, Washington, DC Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers

Link September 11, 2008 6:45 am

4) Does anyone smell an October surprise here? Alan

— Alan, Rockville, Md Recommend Recommended by 27 Readers

5) This is completely unacceptable. It is clear that Pakistan has sold itself to the USA. A Taliban leader once said correctly, ‘It is better if Pakistan give itself to Indian than sell itself to the USA.’

6) I hope the US looses this so-called ‘War on Terror,’ in which the USA is the actual terrorist.

7) These raids will only fuel more anti-US, anti-Pakistan, pro-Taliban sentiment.

— John, India Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


8) This should have been done a long, LONG time ago.— curliquedan, Phoenix, Arizona

9) Clearly another foreign policy, strategic, lives lost failure of Bush/McCain.

10) Supporting former Pres. Musharraf and feeding him dollars while being played for fools has been official US policy in Pakistan since 9/11. We can all now clearly see the results.

11) Bush/McCain at War Recap;
Afganistan > Not Won > 7 years

Iraq > Not Won > 5 1/2 years

Pakistan > Taliban regrouped and planning attacks

Osama Bin Laden > Still free and leading Al-Qaeda

Failure for all to see! Casey Jonesed, Charlotte, NC

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


12) If they could track down these terrorists to the villages they sleep in, why couldn’t the US set up ambushes on these guys when they crossed back into Afghanistan? It certainly would have avoided embarrassing blunders like these. Instead I guess razing an entire Pakistani village to the ground, while undermining the power of the Pakistani government is the White Houses recipe for stabilization in the region

13) I guess more unilateral arm flexing is what does it for Mr. Bush. I mean it certainly hasn’t undermined any of our other international positions thus far…— CAV, VT

if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

“The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,” said a senior American official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. “We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.”

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military’s Special Operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

Pakistan’s top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.”

It is unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country. A second senior American official said that the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.

The official did not say which members of the government gave their approval.

Any new ground operations in Pakistan raise the prospect of American forces being killed or captured in the restive tribal areas — and a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda. Last week’s raid also presents a major test for Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, who supports more aggressive action by his army against the militants but cannot risk being viewed as an American lap dog, as was his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf.

The new orders were issued after months of debate inside the Bush administration about whether to authorize a ground campaign inside Pakistan. The debate, first reported by The New York Times in late June, at times pitted some officials at the State Department against parts of the Pentagon that advocated aggressive action against Qaeda and Taliban targets inside the tribal areas.

Details about last week’s commando operation have emerged that indicate the mission was more intrusive than had previously been known.

According to two American officials briefed on the raid, it involved more than two dozen members of the Navy Seals who spent several hours on the ground and killed about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters in what now appeared to have been a planned attack against militants who had been conducting attacks against an American forward operating base across the border in Afghanistan.

Supported by an AC-130 gunship, the Special Operations forces were whisked away by helicopters after completing the mission.

Although the senior American official who provided the most detailed description of the new presidential order would discuss it only on condition of anonymity, his account was corroborated by three other senior American officials from several government agencies, all of whom made clear that they supported the more aggressive approach.

Pakistan’s government has asserted that last week’s raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas.