Finally, on Iran...

The Bush administration believes that 2007 is "the year of Iran." John Hannah, Cheney's national security adviser, was a major architect of the massive LIES that formed the rationale for the Iraq war. Now, he tells us, seemingly, that war with Iran is inevitable.

Such a shame, that the Bush administration doesn't realize that a bombing campaign will only worsen the situation in Iran, particularly in terms of U.S. interests. Buy a newspaper, you freaks.

How about a trip to IraqSlogger, where Eason Jordan challenges the "anonymous" sources who supplied the claim that Iran is giving Iraqi militias weapons to step forward and stand behind their statements. Like we'll ever see a neo-con take responsibility for anything!

More media shenanigans

Apparently, Chris Matthews flunked geography.

And Frank Luntz has no idea what the hell he is talking about, regarding the Pelosi military plane issue. Nor does David Wright of ABC on Nightline. Anything to smear a Democrat, it seems. Damn the facts!

At the end of the Luntz comment is a nice jab by an unidentified person, regarding how the people want the government to spend their money. Classic!

More anti-Obama rhetoric

Right-wing strategists are desperate to get the "Hillary started the madrassa story" idea to stick with people.

Tucker Carlson criticizes Obama's church and its brand of Christianity. Who the hell is he?

Iran situation becomes more complex by the day

Before America invaded Iraq, Judy Miller, of the NY Times, was repeatedly echoing the Bush administration's claims of Iraqi WMD. Well, over the weekend, the NY Times started echoing the Bush administration once more. The interesting factor in this story is that the source who claims Iran is giving the Shia weapons in Iraq is unnamed. Wouldn't somebody who uncovered such vital important information want the credit for it?

The L.A. Times ran an interesting article about Iran. There are many in Iran who are sick and tired of Ahmadinejad's empty promises. Ahmadinejad was elected on the platform of economic reform; he has not lived up to his promises, and the recent election in Iran was devastating for him as a result. The reformers in Iran are looking for change, and voted for change in the recent election. Is this the time to be making "unnamed" accusations and threatening rhetoric, when Iran is a country looking for reform? Our actions just may unite the Iranians behind their president. Once more, the neo-con influence on American policy is failing.

The reporting of Iran in the NY Times is eerily familiar to the pre-Iraq war leadup. Even more interesting is that we learned the intelligence community held back the administration's power-point presentation on Iran , as reported in the National Journal. Hadley claims the administration was overstating the evidence of Iranian support of Iraqi insurgency. Finally, the"experts" presented this report on Sunday in Iraq, with major revisions, and with conditions of remaining still un-named.

The Guardian reports America is ready to go with an Iranian attack and the neo-cons are egging on the administration.

With all we have learned about Iraqi pre-war intelligence, how legitimate is this report? Why did our own intelligence hold the report back, with major revisions being made? Why did the NY Times once more start echoing the administration? Why is the administration still insisting that there will be no attack on Iran?

Cheney Testimony: Could it damage the administration?

The power drunk V.P is set to testify on behalf of Libby very shortly. This could result in some interesting scenarios. Will Cheney have to admit under oath that the administration set out to discredit Wilson? If so, does this imply that the outing of Plame was definitely related to the top of the administration? Will Fitzgerald have the guts to reopen the investigation? Will Cheney lie under oath about the campaign against Wilson? If he does, being that other testimonies describe the campaign against Wilson, will Fitzgerald charge Cheney with lying under oath? The handwritten letter is proof of this campaign against Wilson, as is the testimony of Ari Fleisher, Judith Miller and others.

The biggest problem is that Fitzgerald stopped the investigation into the outing of Plame because of Libby's lies. I personally feel this Libby trial is too little, too late. Fitzgerald should have never stopped the investigation to begin with. Fitzgerald appears to be a stooge for this administration and this Libby trial is a distraction from the heart of the matter: treason by the Bush admistration.

New Podcasts!

Hey folks,

The smell has not yet dissipated from my apartment - four days later, even! I've been out of the house all weekend, which explains the lack of new ELPN podcasts. However, I have braved my apartment's stankness for a few hours to get a few projects worked on. Of course, these projects included not one, but two podcasts!

First up is our riff on the beginnings of the Barack Hussein Obama/madrassa hyperbole from the right wing, entitled, "Barack Obama, Closet Muslim?". It is joined by our second segment from this past Thursday, the plainly-yet-appropriately-titled "This Week in the Libby Trial."

Enjoy these two; another new podcast should be up either before or after tomorrow night's LIVE broadcast on Indie Airplay Radio from 10:00PM - midnight Eastern U.S. Time.

-Ralph

Latest Obama attack: Obama supports slavery!!

Only on Fox News! William Kristol, one of the top far-right think tank wingnuts, compares Obama's Iraq war stance to being pro-slavery!!! You can not make this sick crap up!! Of course, Kristol lets it be known who he supports: RUDY!!!!!

The evidence is now clear, Rudy is a PNAC hack who craves endless war. If Kristol references Rudy, you clearly know where "America's Mayor" stands - against America.