Lap Dancers, the CIA, Payoffs and BP’s Deepwater Horizon
Who Are the Koch Brothers and What Do They Want?
New Study Finds the U.S. Is Not a Democracy, So What Is It?
Fox News Asks Rand Paul If Reid Is Right to 'Call Americans' 'Domestic Terrorists'
Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery
Fox News Asks Rand Paul If Reid Is Right to ‘Call Americans’ ‘Domestic Terrorists’
‘Left, Right & Center’: Cooling Off in Ukraine, Warming Up for the GOP
Thousands of Palestinians Rally for Release of 5,000 in Israeli Jails, Including 200 Children
Congratulations! A New Conspiracy Is Born
Dig led by Mike Rose
Dig led by Truthdig Staff
By Martin Amis $16.32
By Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark $19.11
By Mr. Fish
More Below the Ad
Email to a friend
Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By Roger Lafontaine, March 13, 2012 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
The answer: a couple of $trillions and no leash (aka as the press).
By Talkmaster, March 12, 2012 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment
Instead they decided to go imperial itself without shooting a single Bullet. Iran
helped NATO in Afghanistan and insisted on the implementation of democracy
in Iraq because it serves iranian Interests. Iran insisted too on the destruction of
the former Baath Party and Army in Iraq with the full knowledge of the
consequences as you can see in Iraq until today. because Iran knows that this
will help Iran in the long run while ordinary Iraqis suffer. And now it backs the
Assad regime. No democracy for syrians since it would not serve Iran as good
as the sectarian obedient Assad regime. On the other Hand Iran is for
democracy in Bahrain. Why?. Because the majority of Bahrain at least in the
minds of the iranian regime would serve iranian interest since it`s majority
share the same sect as the regime.
P.s: I´m for the lifting of all sanctions on Iran and against War. But Iran is not as
innocent and good as some Apologist try to portray it. Neither is China nor
By Blackspeare, March 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment
Well, it looks like we might be back to 2003! Unknown to most, in 2003 Iran made an overture, through the Swiss, that they were willing to negotiate on all matters important to them and the USA including stopping support for Hamas, disarming Hezbollah, enriching uranium, and even willing to accept the Beirut Accord in which all Arab states would recognize Israel and peace in return for Israel withdrawing from the occupied lands, establishing a Palestinian state and negotiating a reasonable right of return. It should be mentioned that US forces had Iran surrounded in Iraq and Afghanistan at that time and Iran was fearful of an invasion so Iran was in a compromising position so to speak. The Bush administration turn this overture down flat saying they would not negotiate with “evil” and why negotiate when the USA could get what it wants by force! They even admonished the Swiss for carrying the proposal! By the end of Bush’s presidency they realized what a terrible mistake they made! Maybe Obama can resurrect that proposal from Iran, though now they’re mighty close to having the bomb.”
And then again in 2009, Brazil and Turkey had an agreement with Iran and Obama had written a letter saying he agreed with the proposal in which Iran would ship all its LEU to Turkey in return for Nuclear reactor fuel pads. But Congress, behind Obama’s and the state department’s backs, authorized additional sanctions just two days before the proposal was to be announced and Obama withdrew his agreement.
No wonder Iran doesn’t trust us!
By Wishingforsanity, March 12, 2012 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
Mr Fish is a genius. Woof woof war woof woof more woof woof.
By EmileZ, March 12, 2012 at 1:38 am Link to this comment
Frank Zappa - “Stinkfoot”
By blogdog, March 11, 2012 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment
enough is enough
Impeachment proceedings begin in the House and the Senate over
Obama’s brazen use of aggressive military force without congressional
Eric Blair - Infowars.com - March 11, 2012 - http://tinyurl.com/76m9yjz
Since 2005, Veterans for Peace and others have been calling for the
impeachment of the sitting president for war crimes. After their demands to
lawmakers to uphold the rule of law against Bush were largely ignored, they
renewed their effort to impeach Obama once he continued to bomb sovereign
nations without congressional approval. Now, lawmakers seem to have finally
decided to take the rule of law and Separation of Powers seriously.
Obama will face impeachment over his failure to seek congressional
authorization before launching offensive military action in Libya last year.
Official impeachment proceedings have now been filed in both the House and
Last week, North Carolina Representative Walter Jones filed an Impeachment
Resolution in the House H.CON.RES.107.IH stating “Expressing the sense of
Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior
and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high
crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.”
“Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive
power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution:
Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an
actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of
offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of
an Act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under
article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an
impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the
sign up to get updates
Get Our Feed