bucky1 writes:

"Well, now we know it's deliberate! Monday's Special Report (June 11, 2007) falsely identified Independent Senator Joseph Leiberman as a Democrat. FOX News correspondent James Rosen's actual words to describe Lieberman were 'a prominent Senate Democrat.'"

Yes, and as that sly fox Glenn Reynolds so cunningly (he thinks) blows yet some smoke more up the collective derrierre of his putative readers:

"Funny, but not long after Rep. Murtha's outburst on the war, we're seeing a bipartisan consensus that a cut-and-run approach would be disastrous."

Reynolds then proceeds to quote Lieberman and McCain, who constitute Reynolds' "bi-partisan consensus", on the US troop withdrawal question.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10096918/)

Reynolds and the fine folks at FOX and their ilk must hold their readers and viewers in a deep and abiding contempt to continuously feed it such redolent drivel for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

They also have to recognize, being neither as ignorant nor as stupid as they evidently take their audience to be, that their need to lie is inversely proportional to the strength of the positions they're advocating---the weaker the position, the greater their readiness

to lie in the process of promoting it.

They are, as my colleagues hereabouts like to say, some real pieces of work.

Ken Rogers

Take the example of the Iraq war. All you need to do is read about the objectives of the leading neocons (Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser) in their own words.

The neocons- many of whom having close ideological links with Israel's fascist Likud party- succeeded in what they had set out to do from the start: Implement the Israeli right-wing plans of giving Israel a strategic edge in reshaping its "realm" (i.e. the Middle East) by destabalizing its enemies as they outlined in "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies

http://www.iasps.org/strat1.htm

There is one minor detail: American soldiers had to do the fighting and dying!

This 72 year old has always felt the influence of Israel in the policy of Joe Lieberman toward the Iraq war and his support of President Bush in this war. I believe the Iraq war was waged by the Bush adminisration for two reasons only. One was for oil and the other for the benefit of Israel. If Lieberman was to lose his Senate seat it would have been a devasting loss of an important voice for Israel in the decisions affecting that country.

Our foreign policy should be implemented for the U.S. not Israel. If Israel feels threatened by Iran or any other country in the Middle East let it spend it's young people and it's resources to do what it feels it must. What has been Israel's conribution to the Iraq war in troops and materials? What would it contribute if the U.S. attacked Iran?

I've yet to read a response, Glenn, to my post adducing evidence that the Bushevics have just launched a propaganda blitz to manufacture consent for an attack on Iran, so as to minimize or even obviate political damage to Republican candidates in the 2008 election.

In that post, I opined that if a media blitz is not sufficiently successful as far as Rove & Company are concerned, as determined by public opinion polls, that an attack on Iran by the Bushevics will be postponed temporarily or even indefinitely.

If I'm right that Iran is a key, but not determinative, item on the imperial agenda, and that the Bush cabal is even more interested in not losing the presidency and 60 Congressional seats in play, it follows that for those who view the certain effects on the Iranian people and the likely consequences for the rest of the world as catastrophic, their highest political priority should be to do everything in their power to mobilize public opinion against such an attack.

Combine your reticence regarding my suggested plan of action with the sentiment expressed by your response to my earlier post in which you wrote, "I agree with you that they do everything possible to manipulate public opinion to support their warmongering agenda. But I just mean that if they are unable to do so, they won't let that stop them", and I think you can understand the concern that informs my question whether you think an attack on Iran is an unavoidable outcome.

So please let me know if you disagree in whole or in part with my analysis, based on the evidence of the Bushevics' electoral concerns as the primary motivation for their incipient propaganda campaign, and that we can collectively thwart their campaign, or if we should content ourselves with eloquent hand-wringing, rather than with a belief in the potential effectiveness of an organized and energetic response to their propaganda effort.

I ask this question of you with what I hope you recognize as my often-expressed respect for your own very admirable and capable efforts in exposing the collusion between the corporate government and the corporate media in their joint mind-controlling programme to "manage" the American people.

The question remains, however, whether you think it doesn't matter what anyone outside the Bush Administration does, individually or collectively, to try to stop an attack on Iran, and that it is going to happen no matter what we do.

Ken Rogers

Preventing war with Iran is the #1 issue of the 2008 Presidential election.

Unfortunately, it's no less likely to start if Clinton is elected. Beyond Clinton, what candidate, Democrat or otherwise, hasn't already professed allegiance to AIPAC and its preemptive, elective war with Iran? I'll tell you: the ones that the press will unfairly demonize and not allow to be elected come hell or high water.

Obama's been less belligerent than Clinton, but he has yet to clearly state his intentions regarding Iran, Israel, Palestine, and the whole ball of wax. Maybe he thinks he can't and still survive. Maybe he's right. Maybe it's too damn late for America to stop it.

Thanks Glenn for a vitally necessary post. I hope your clear-headed presentation of the facts echoes far and wide.