The Phaserl


Is Mitt Being Neoconned Into War?

by Patrick J. Buchanan, Lew Rockwell:

Has Mitt Romney given Israel a blank check for war?

So it seemed from the declaration in Jerusalem by his adviser Dan Senor, who all but flashed Israel a green light for war, signaling the Israelis that, if you go, Mitt’s got your back:

“If Israel has to take action on its own in order to stop Iran from developing that capability, the governor would respect that decision.”

“No option would be excluded. Gov. Romney recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself and that it is right for America to stand with it.”

What does “stand with” Israel, if she launches a surprise attack on Iran, mean? Does it mean the United States will guide Israeli planes to their targets and provide bases on their return? Does it mean U.S. air cover while Israeli planes strike Iran?

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

1 comment to Is Mitt Being Neoconned Into War?

  • Ed_B

    “The collective decision of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007 – that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon – reportedly reaffirmed in 2011 – has never been rescinded. Nor has the White House produced any hard evidence Iran is building a bomb.”

    Would these be the very same agencies who claimed that Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons that could not be found? Their record seems spotty at best

    “Undeniably, Iran, by enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, then up to 20 percent, has a greater “capability” than five years ago of building a nuclear weapon. But Japan, South Korea and Brazil also have that capability – and none has decided to build a nuclear weapon.”

    There is no reason to enrich uranium beyond 3.5-4% IF your only goal is to make fuel for nuclear reactors. It is only weapons research that requires enrichment to 20% and beyond. As to those other countries, they have no repeatedly stated that “Israel should be wiped off the map!” or funded, trained, and armed multiple terrorist groups.

    “But under the NPT, Iran claims the right to enrich uranium and seek the benefits of nuclear technology. And in that decision, the people of Iran stand behind their government.”

    The benefits to nuclear technology are likely to be the devastation of their country. Since Iran is a dictatorship, all pretense to the contrary notwithstanding, it really does not matter whether or not they stand behind their leaders in this. Dictators will do whatever they want and if their people do not agree, so what?

    “A decade ago, this country sent an army up to Baghdad to overthrow Saddam and strip Iraq of a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons we were told it had and was preparing to use.

    We were misled; we were deceived; we were lied to.”

    Were we or were those weapons simply squirreled away in friendly Syria? They seem to have chemical weapons, if their comments to that effect are to be believed, yet they had no program to develop them. I guess they must have magicked them up from foo foo dust.

    Make no mistake. Iran IS working towards building nukes. They have no need whatever for nuclear energy. They are an island floating on a sea of petroleum. Once they have nukes, they WILL use them, either directly or via their proxy terrorist friends. Must we wait until a nuke goes off in a friendly country before getting off our butts and actually doing something about it? It would appear that this is the suggested course here.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>