One of the greatest fears people have about the last year of a Bush presidency is that military action will be taken against Iran. We know that the neo-conservatives want it and we know that Bush is even talking about how he signs vetoes to "stay relevant".

The prospect is a frightening one but it has been on the back burner now for some time. The 2008 election has diverted our attention to white grandmothers, pastors and poll results. But when the issue re-surfaces as it has over the past few days I can't help but get a chill up my spine that the propaganda campaign may once again be in full swing.

Calls have gotten louder amongst hawks calling for the U.S. to do something about the Quds forces in Iran. Just today Joe Lieberman was on TV talking about the "real possibility" of a bombing campaign against the Iranians and John Bolton has been calling for a bombing campaign consistently these days.

With a President who has nothing to lose (in his mind) and a GOP nominee who signs about bombing Iran to the tune of the beach boys... is it time to start freaking out about the Kyle-Lieberman amendment and the possibility of war? Remember, the Republican Guard are all "terrorists" now thanks to Senators like Hillary Clinton.

OneForce gets you established in the proper lineup, tells you to hold the spot while he rustles up some beers and then cuts an eye-watering silent fart, entirely unbeknownst to you. As soon as it hits your nostrils you know precisely what he’s done to you. You look around. Only an old woman behind you and you're blessed to be witnessing the very second OneForce’s SilentButDeadly strikes her awareness. A widening of the eyes and a shocked covering of the mouth. Everything in an ever widening circumference smells like dirty diapers and rotting vegetables. Damn you, OneForce, you’ll pay for this. You’ll rue. You shake your head disparagingly at the old maid beside you. As far as you’re concerned, she’s the offender, and the whole scene disgusts you. It’s all you can do.

Ok -- so, the ABC Debate last night sucked.  Hillary, Charlie and George (Channeling Sean Hannity) were mean to Barack Obama.  Enough -- I get it!  And, to paraphrase Barack Obama, he expects these kinds of attacks and is prepared to take them on -- It is nothing new and 'fair' within the frame of the 'politics is a contact sport'

How many more Diaries on ABC Sucks? Who knows, but I sincerely hope that they stop soon so that we can look at some of the substance of the Debate.  Slight as the substance was, means that the tiny bits of information that did come out of the Debate should get at least some airing.

But, before I get there; I want for all of You Obama supporters to watch the following video during which Obama deals with the "Obama Bin Laden" gaffe.

Breakfast where the news is read
Television children fed
Unborn living, living, dead
Bullet strikes the helmet's head
  Jim Morrison, The Unknown Soldier

PROPAGANDA- ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.

The propaganda war is on and there are two sides to this coin.

Point in fact for the purpose of this discussion: The Chinese media is controlled by the communist government. No question. Do they use their media to further their cause? Certainly.

Who is on the other side of the coin?
You may be surprised...

Remember Project for a New American Century (PNAC)?  You know, the out of work gang of neocons plotting a military takeover of certain oil rich countries in the Gulf Region? We all know the names - Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Steve Forbes, Donald Kagan, I. Lewis Libby, Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz.

Remember the letter PNAC sent to President Clinton in 1998 that called for...

"...removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

more...

For the first time in my life, I am terrified by the prospect of our next Presidential election.  I have never looked forward to an election with as much hope and longing as I do this one, but I am also filled with foreboding and fear.

There's a new think tank on the loose, guys, and it's called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.  They're on a veritable rampage, penning articles and missives to the editor on a set of issues we are all too familiar with.

It doesn't take long to see these clowns for what they are, another front for the neoconservative agenda: anti-U.N., pro-Iraq war, shills for Israel via proxy (in this case, Lebanon), and pro-Iran invasion.

But let's take a closer look at who is behind this.

I thought Hillary was pretty good tonight on David Letterman.

Dear Friends and fellow Kossacks.  I wish to call attention to Meteor Blades front paged posting about the PNAC, and the fine job he did.  Also I would like to answer Kossack JLFinch for his reply about the PNAC neos and fellow travelers being "traitors," and "insidious" ones at that.

But, any discussion of the neo-conservatives and PNAC or any updated version of the same goes nowhere without a basic understanding of one, Leo Strauss.

Strauss was a philosopher and is clearly very deep down in the second string of 20th century philosophical names.  But his impact has been profound, especially in the United States.  Let's make the jump.

Obama's Pledge to the Military Complex:

Obama has made the boldest pledge (shocking to many) to increase standing ground troops by 92,000. This feeds against the Eisenhower 'standing army' argument. This is a core-issue of true progressives. Core issues are generally non-negotiable. In the absence of large enemies with large standing armies, this is a very disconcerting military pledge. First, 92,000 additional ground troops is an enormous increase and expense (to what end). This is a clear pander and triangulation directed to the military complex (donors), and the foreign policy right, think neoconservative. This is an enormous anti-progressive position at the heart and soul of progressive policy. How could this happen?

Question Presented and Answered:

1. Progressive voters become more neoconservative on their core-beliefs within the last two years or,

2. Progressive are trading their core-beliefs for the Obama-hype and the Obama-bargain with the right.

There have been several reports today that Iranian boats supposedly harrassed US warships in the Straits of Hormuz.

"WASHINGTON (AP) - In what U.S. officials called a serious provocation, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to explode the American vessels.

Back in the glory days of the so-called Global War on Terror, Bush administration officials and their neo-con supporters in right-wing think tanks and in the US establishment media, spoke of the region extending from North Africa through the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the "stan" countries of Central Asia and on through south and southeast Asia as an "arc of instability."

More recently, as now defined by SourceWatch, the arc has been extended westward to the Carribean Basin. One might fairly assume, to include Venezuela which, under Hugo Chavez, has denied the US unfettered access to its oil reserves, thereby transforming itself into a target for regime change.

It was argued that existing US military forces would need to be brought into the arc to "project power and conduct expeditionary operations", to muster a massive military footprint, as this was to be where "future turmoil and conflicts would most likely occur".

This story has been around for a year or so. I've never seen a diary on it here at DKos and my search brought up zero results. I happened onto this while doing research for a separate, future diary.

Readers might recall the Condoleezza Rice remarks made during a press conference in July of last year while the Israeli Air Force was bombing Lebanon. She stated that:

"what we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one."

"Policy is the guiding intelligence and war only the instrument, not vice versa."

-- Carl von Clausewitz

There ought to be a law of American journalism that says pundits who write and talk about war should have at least a passing familiarity with the work of 19th century Prussian general and philosopher Carl von Clausewitz.  

Granted, Clausewitz is not easy to absorb. Reading Clausewitz is a bit like reading Proust backwards.  Even the best translation of On War is taken from manuscripts written in ponderous 19th century German, much of which even Clausewitz admitted was "a rather formless mass that must be thoroughly reworked once more."  Nonetheless, as the folks at
Clausewitz.com so aptly put it, "Carl von Clausewitz is widely acknowledged as the most important of the major strategic theorists. Even though he's been dead for over a century and a half, he remains the most frequently cited, the most controversial, and in many respects the most modern."

Most here are familiar with Maj.General Smedley Butler, USMC (1881-1940), who was awarded two Congressional Medals of Honor. In his essay, War is a Racket, he wrote:

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

General Butler also related how he had helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests, Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank, a number of Central American countries more pleasant for Wall Street interests, the Dominican Republic more conducive to the sugar industry, and China more compatible with the interests of Standard Oil.

President Bush is quickly moving to change the way soldiers and veterans get their exit physicals and disability ratings, this may be part of his new To Implement Policy, Bush to Turn to Administrative Orders that was announced last week.

There are two recent reports on the problems with disability ratings and healthcare from the military and the veterans Administration, and the two problems are quickly being lumped together as one problem, and they are NOT, they are two different agencies, the military's goal is to reduce costs on their budget due to medical retirees, while the VA's only function is to "care" for this nations disabled veterans, and manage other veterans programs like home loans, school benefits, vocational Rehabilitation, life insurance, grants for homes and automobiles for qualified veterans. One fix does not correct the problems these two different agencies have, they are opposite in their functions.

These are difficulties the man from the country has not expected; the Law, he thinks, should surely be accessible at all times and to everyone, but as he now takes a closer look at the doorkeeper in his fur coat, with his big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard, he decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. The doorkeeper gives him a stool and lets him sit down at one side of the door. There he sits for days and years.
Franz Kafka, The Trial.

I do not know what Franklin Foer did to piss off the White House or the Army, or both, but the Drudge Report posted this "scoop" today, and the Rightie Blogosmear™ went b*g-f**k b*t-sh*t beerjolais karazee. (Really? Is THIS the most important story in America? Really?)

The United States will never leave Iraq ... with or without Hillary.  It is that simple.  The wealthy and the corporations have already made the decision, and it is none of your business.