Message to Ehud Olmert: FUCK YOU!!!!!!!
Use your own fucking Navy -- after all, America paid for that, too!!!!!!
"Olmert to U.S.: Impose naval blockade on Iran"
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has proposed in discussions with the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran as one of several ways to pressure Iran into stopping its uranium enrichment program.
Although the White House denied a published report that U.S. President George W. Bush intends to attack Iran before the end of his term in January, the Bush administration is said not to have ruled out entirely the possibility of an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
A story in the Jerusalem Post quoted an unidentified official as claiming that a "senior member" of Bush's entourage to Israel last week made the statement about attacking Iran in a closed meeting. However, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the article is "not worth the paper it's written on." She added that the administration's preference and actions for dealing with Iran remain through peaceful diplomatic means.
That's the same shit we heard before the invasion of Iraq!!
How fucking stoo-pid do you think we are?
Israelis who spoke to Bush and his entourage while they were in Israel last week said they had the impression that the military option "is on the table," and that the president felt a sense of deep obligation to overcome the Iranian threat.
The Iranian issue was central in Olmert's meeting over lunch Monday with Pelosi, together with 12 other members of Congress in the bipartisan delegation Pelosi led. Among those present were House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, and heads of the House Appropriations Committee, Nita Lowey and Gary Ackerman.
That's YOUR CONGRESS, AmeriKa -- sucking Zionist cock!!!!
"The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves," Olmert told Pelosi, adding that the international community needed to take much more drastic steps to stop Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Olmert also said there was a great deal of space between the present sanctions and military action. Aggressive action could be taken that was not violent, Olmert told Pelosi.
You know what, Israel?! I am SICK of the FUCKING LIES!!!!!!!!
You want to go to war with Iran?
DO IT YOUR FUCKING SELVES and LEAVE America OUT!!!!!!!
Olmert's suggestions mainly involved continued efforts to isolate the Iranian regime. Olmert proposed two possible courses of action: first, a naval blockade of Iran using the U.S. fleet to limit the movement in and out of Iran of its merchant ships.
F-U-C-K, Y-O-U!!! FUCK YOU, Israel!!!!!!!!
The second option Olmert proposed was to place limitations on Iranian aircraft, business people and senior members of the regime at airports throughout the world. "Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime," Olmert said.
That SOLUTION should be applied to ISRAELIS!!!!!
Fuck these ASSHOLES!!!!!!!!!
Members of the American delegation also spoke about how to pressure Iran. Pelosi herself said at a press conference Monday that a whole series of moves were on the table to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear status."
Don't choke on that Zionist sperm, Nan!!!!
Livni: United front
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told Pelosi at a meeting that "the effectiveness of the sanctions depends on a united front by the countries of the world." Livni added that when there are those who create commercial options for Iran, the efficacy of sanctions was reduced. "When Iran sees the foreign minister of Switzerland wearing a veil when she comes to to Ahmadinejad to sign an agreement, it concludes that the world is not united against it," Livni said.
No, the world is becoming UNITED AGAINST USrael!!!!
Please see: Blessed Are the Peace-Makers
Olmert is scheduled to fly to Washington in two weeks for another working meeting with Bush that will focus on the Iranian issue.
The attack on Iran by these nutcases is happening, world.
How much fucking warning do you need?
During Bush's visit last week, he met with Olmert privately, as well as together with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, to discuss the options for dealing with Iran's nuclear program.
Senior government officials in Jerusalem said they were satisfied with the talks and Bush's speech in the Knesset on Iran. They said they believed Bush would make good on his declarations.
Oh, I have no doubt! After all, he's ISRAEL'S SERVANT!!!!
Meanwhile, diplomats in Vienna said a new attempt by Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to probe allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms has failed. ElBaradei was said to have been hopeful a month ago when he announced a new attempt to investigate allegations that Iran has tried to make atomic arms. However, the diplomats told The Associated Press yesterday that Iran denies such activities." Isn't that last piece a beautiful work of Zionist propaganda? To bad it no longer takes!!!!
Blogger commentary:
"Memo to Ehud Olmert; if you want a blockade on Iran, just please do it yourself.
Enough American life has been lost in your proxy war against Iraq.
We will just sit this one out, thank you.
"Israel proposes naval blockade of Iran"
"The Israeli prime minister has proposed that a U.S. naval blockade be imposed on Iran to stop the Islamic Republic from moving ahead with its uranium enrichment program, an Israeli newspaper said on Wednesday."
"Go ahead Israel. Help yourself! Blockade Iran!
Oh, you want someone ELSE to actually do the dirty deed FOR you!
Typical." -- Mike Rivero of What Really Happened
So WHEN is the ATTACK coming, anyway (barring a false-flag USraeli event)?
"Israeli press reports US pledge of war on Iran--is Bush preparing an October Surprise?"
by Bill Van Auken
21 May 2008
"An Israeli press report that US President George W. Bush intends to launch a military attack on Iran before he leaves office at the beginning of next year prompted a heated denial from the White House Tuesday.
The article, which appeared in Tuesday’s Jerusalem Post, cited a report on Israeli Army Radio, quoting Israeli officials who had met with Bush and his delegation during their visit to Israel last week.
“A senior member of the president’s entourage said during a closed meeting that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were of the opinion that military action was called for,” the article quoted an Israel official as saying.
The report cited the US official as stating that “the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice” had delayed a decision on military action against Iran.
The recent crisis in Lebanon and the evident ease with which the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement seized control of Beirut, according to the report, had placed a US attack on the Islamic Republic back on the front burner.
Bush expressed the opinion that “the disease must be treated, not the symptoms,” according to the Israeli officials.
The White House denial—issued within hours of the story appearing on the Jerusalem Post’s web site—was notably harsh in its tone. “An article in today’s Jerusalem Post about the president’s position on Iran that quotes unnamed sources—quoting unnamed sources—is not worth the paper it’s written on,” read the statement.
Later on Tuesday, however, Bush’s spokesperson Dana Perino was pressed by several reporters, who expressed skepticism in regard to the denial. “Do the President and the Vice President feel that an attack is called for—whether someone said that in Israel, or not?” asked one.
Dana Perino refused to answer, reiterating the official position that Washington is working to resolve its confrontation with Iran “diplomatically” but that it would not take any “options off the table.”
In reality, the Jerusalem Post story is hardly the only indication that the Bush administration is preparing for a military attack on Iran.
Ample physical evidence exists in the stepped up US military deployments in the region, with the Navy once again having two aircraft carrier battle groups—the USS Lincoln and the USS Harry S. Truman—within striking distance of Iran.
Meanwhile, the flagship of the 6th Fleet, the USS Mount Whitney, has been deployed off the coast of Lebanon, in what the Navy has described as an “unscheduled mission.” The ship is the Navy’s most advanced command, control and intelligence vessel, capable of coordinating a major attack over a wide region. It joined the USS Cole, a missile destroyer, already there.
In Washington, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared before a Senate committee Tuesday to reiterate the Pentagon’s unsubstantiated charges that Iran is responsible for violence in Iraq. The lack of a US military response thus far, he stressed, “does not signal lack of resolve or capability to defend ourselves against threats.”
In his speech before the Israeli Knesset last week, Bush placed Iran at the center of his pledge of unconditional support for Israel. “America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions,” he said. “Permitting the world’s leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
After Bush’s visit, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the press that Olmert and Bush had agreed on the need for “tangible action” to thwart Iran’s supposed drive to develop a nuclear weapon.
“We are on the same page. We both see the threat.... And we both understand that tangible action is required to prevent the Iranians from moving forward on a nuclear weapon,” Olmert spokesman Mark Regev told the Israeli daily Ha’aretz.
Referring to diplomatic efforts to exert pressure on Iran, Regev added, “It is clearly not sufficient, and it’s clear that additional steps will have to be taken.”
Even as the US and Israel stepped up the drumbeat about an alleged Iranian nuclear threat, Mohammad El-Baradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) spoke before a World Economic Forum session in Egypt Monday, declaring that the UN nuclear watchdog agency has no evidence that Iran is building a bomb.
Well before the story appeared in the Jerusalem Post, Ha’aretz reported that “Iran’s nuclear program has held center stage” in the talks between Bush and Olmert. Israeli officials, the paper reported, presented Bush with intelligence data that supposedly contradicted the National Intelligence Estimate produced by US spy agencies last year, which concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
“Will this be enough to alter the position of the administration on the possibility of a US strike of the nuclear installations in Iran? It is not clear,” the paper reported. It added, however, that the Israeli government is insisting that Iran is approaching the “point of no return,” and immediate action is required.
As for Bush, it commented, the closer he “comes to the end of his tenure, he is certainly thinking about the legacy of his presidency, beyond the contentious war in Iraq.”
The suggestion being made is that one way to change the subject from the disastrous legacy embodied in the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the launching of yet another act of military aggression, one which would undoubtedly throw the entire region into chaos.
One clue to the political thinking within the top echelons of the Bush administration came in the form of an audiotape. The tape was part of the material the Pentagon turned over recently to the New York Times in response to a Freedom of Information Act request for its article exposing the Defense Department’s relationship to a group of retired officers who regularly appeared on television news, promoting the administration’s line on Iraq.
The tape was of a December 2006 luncheon meeting between then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a group of these “military analysts”—referred to by the Pentagon itself as “message force multipliers.”
The mood at the meeting was clearly one of dismay and even anger over the results of the 2006 midterm election, in which a wave of popular antiwar sentiment delivered control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats.
Retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael Delong is heard noting to Rumsfeld that with the new political configuration on Capitol Hill, “you’re not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there until it [a terrorist attack] happens.”
Rumsfeld agreed, responding: “We haven’t had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it’s not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment ... The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it’s a shame we don’t have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats...the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you’d think we’d be able to understand it...”
The “correction” for the failure of the American people to support the war in Iraq and the global eruption of American militarism under the mantle of the “war on terrorism” is, in Rumsfeld’s view, another “attack,” along the lines of September 11, 2001. Clearly, the conception is that another round of “lethality” and “carnage” would serve to stun the public and create conditions for the administration to impose its political will by extraordinary means.
Certainly, one means of making such an attack all the more likely would be the launching of a military strike against Iran.
The reports from Israel and the military buildup in the region raise an obvious question: With the approach of the 2008 elections, are elements within the Bush administration preparing an “October Surprise” in the form of an unprovoked attack on Iran?"
ANOTHER October Surprise, huh?
".... It is an act of treason for private American citizens to negotiate political deals with foreign governments without official authorization. But that didn't stop George Herbert Walker Bush and William Casey from sitting down with the Ayatollah Khomeini's mullahs to discuss a matter of mutual interest: making sure the 52 American hostages being held by Iran stayed locked up until after the November election contest between President Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan.
The Republicans were terrified of an "October Surprise"--a move by the Carter government to free the hostages before the vote. So ex-CIA chief Bush--now Reagan's vice-presidential candidate--and Casey were dispatched to Paris to offer the Iranians a covert deal to keep the Americans in chains until Reagan was safely in office. The proposed payoff? A newly-elected Reagan-Bush administration would supply Khomeini's military with a secret supply of American weapons...."
Elections are FIXED, readers, and HAVE BEEN for a LONG TIME!!!!
By the way, the conduit the U.S. used to ship weapons to Iran was the ISRAELIS in what became known as the Iran-Contra affair!!
And the U.S. was backing Saddam Hussein against Iran at the time, too!!!
How about that, huh?
