On the 19th NPR Market Place wrote that Iran announced today it will no longer use the lowly dollar to price its oil. Should Americans be worried about a global abandonment of their currency?

The short answer seems to be no; lucky for us in the USA. Too many nations are invested too heavily in the dollar.

But, I think Iran's announcement is a big part of the current "war on Iran" movement in our Government.
I still think the nuke issue is a diversion, albiet an effective one. Iran has been planning on abandoning the US dollar for many years, now it appears they have made the leap.

There is such a lack of confidence in the U.S. dollar that the world's richest supermodel, Brazilian Gisele Bundchen, says she will no longer accept payment in the currency. She says the euro is now her currency of choice.

Now that is pretty funny. Iran and Gisele thinking alike.

Now that the US government has privatized almost every aspect of "Homeland Defense", including much of what employees in the Pentagon have traditionally done and almost everything to do with the military, including warefare, there is only one outcome.
A continuing search for places to engage in conflict.

Why? Because you sez so? So what are they waiting for?

Besides, you seem thrilled with gov't meddling, this isn't any different.

The "War on Terror" is a corporate wetdream. Untold billions are going to be funnelled from your government into the coffers of the corporations selling security services to the US.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a defined enemy. This will go on forever if not put in check.
1984 may have come a little late, but Orwell was a visionary.

Maybe, he should have had Winston start writing that book a few years earlier, he could have demonstrated how people had utterly begged the gov't to meddle in their lives.

They begged Big Brother to save them. And "save them" he did.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

U.S. to seek new sanctions on Iran for nuclear plans

By Robin Wright
THE WASHINGTON POST

November 16, 2007

WASHINGTON � The Bush administration plans to push for new sanctions against Iran after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported yesterday that Tehran is providing �diminishing� information about its nuclear program, U.S. officials said.

[snip]

A Blow to Bush's Tehran Policy

By Peter Baker and Robin Wright
THE WASHINGTON POST


December 4, 2007

President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.

The new intelligence report released yesterday not only undercut the administration's alarming rhetoric over Iran's nuclear ambitions but could also throttle Bush's effort to ratchet up international sanctions and take off the table the possibility of preemptive military action before the end of his presidency.

Iran had been shaping up as perhaps the dominant foreign policy issue of Bush's remaining year in office and of the presidential campaign to succeed him. Now leaders at home and abroad will have to rethink what they thought they knew about Tehran's intentions and capabilities.

"It's a little head-spinning," said Daniel Benjamin, an official on President Bill Clinton's National Security Council. "Everybody's going to be trying to scratch their heads and figure out what comes next."

Critics seized on the new National Intelligence Estimate to lambaste what Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards called "George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), echoing other Democrats, called for "a diplomatic surge" to resolve the dispute with Tehran. Jon Wolfsthal, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, termed the revelation "a blockbuster development" that "requires a wholesale reevaluation of U.S. policy."

But the White House said the report vindicated its concerns because it concluded that Iran did have a nuclear weapons program until halting it in 2003 and it showed that U.S.-led diplomatic pressure had succeeded in forcing Tehran's hand. "On balance, the estimate is good news," said national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley. "On the one hand, it confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it tells us that we have made some progress in trying to ensure that that does not happen."

Hadley disagreed that the report showed that past administration statements have been wrong, noting that collecting intelligence on a "hard target" such as Iran is notoriously difficult. "Welcome to the real world," he said.

And he defended Bush's World War III reference in October and repeated it himself during a briefing, saying if the world wants to avoid an Iranian bomb and "having to use force to stop it with all the connotations of World War III, then we need to step up the diplomacy."

Critics should be careful not to dismiss the threat, Hadley added, pointing to Iran's continued enrichment of uranium, which could eventually be used to assist a weapons program. "I'm sure some people will use this as an excuse or a pretext for, you know, flagging on the effort," he said. "Our argument is actually it should be just the reverse, because we need to keep the halting of the nuclear weapons program in place."

Other countries may not see it that way, though, and diplomats said the report may cripple U.S. attempts to win a third round of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Just two days earlier, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns met in Paris with British, French, Russian, Chinese and German counterparts to seek support for a new Security Council resolution.

"You'd think that the effort to get a third resolution is dead," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior official at the CIA, Pentagon and NSC now at the Brookings Institution. "This has got to be a very serious argument to be used by opponents of a third resolution. It will say America's own intelligence community says Iran has halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago."

Michael Rubin, an American Enterprise Institute scholar and a leading Iran hawk, agreed. "Certainly it makes diplomacy a lot more difficult," he said. "It almost gives Berlin, Beijing and Moscow an excuse not to come together for a third round of sanctions."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which was briefed on the U.S. intelligence report two hours before its release, saw the judgments as validation of its own long-standing conclusion that there is "no evidence" of an undeclared nuclear program in Iran. "It also validates the assessments of [IAEA Director General] Mohamed ElBaradei, who continuously said in his public statements that he saw no clear and public danger, and that therefore there was plenty of time for negotiations," said a senior IAEA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

But the report included language that the administration can cite to claim success, according to some analysts. Paul R. Pillar, a former CIA official who has been critical of the Bush administration's run-up to war with Iraq, said the revelation about the halted weapons program is a "shocker" but noted that "the administration can say that Iran halted its program during our administration and this is a success for us. And with some good reason."

Others favoring a more confrontational approach to Iran were not convinced by the report. "While I was in the administration, I saw intelligence march up the hill and down the hill in short periods of time with no reason for them to change their mind," said John R. Bolton, Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations. "I've never based my view on this week's intelligence."

Still, the administration understood how explosive the new conclusions would be and kept them tightly held. Hadley said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate. Vice President Cheney, Hadley and other top officials were briefed the week before last. Intelligence officials formalized their conclusions on Tuesday and briefed Bush the next day.

After its release, the administration abruptly canceled daily news briefings at the White House and State Department and dispatched Hadley to speak for the government. The White House also announced that Bush will hold a news conference this morning; aides said it was long planned but it will allow him to address the subject.

Presidential candidates responded as well, with Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) using the news to tweak Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for being too willing to support the administration on Iran, an assertion she has rejected. Obama said the report is a reminder that "members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the president any justification to use military force" -- an apparent jab at Clinton, who was briefed on intelligence before the Iraq war but did not read the full report.

Republican candidates, who have expressed their readiness to attack Iran if needed to stop it from obtaining nuclear weapons, remained largely silent. "Sanctions and other pressures must be continued and stepped up until Iran complies by halting enrichment activities in a verifiable way," said former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Some moderates in Washington expressed concern that this intelligence report's conclusions will be overinterpreted in one direction, just as past findings have been distorted. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), chairman of a nonproliferation subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said Iran's uranium enrichment remains worrisome and is not dependent on U.S. intelligence because Tehran has openly acknowledged it.

The real lesson of the report, he said, is to recalibrate U.S. policy and try more diplomatic and economic levers. "It's a validation of the middle road," he said, "between going to sleep . . . and the let's-bomb-them-now approach."

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

They begged Big Brother to save them. And "save them" he did.

Not from where I sit... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

It was reported that the National Intelligence Director told him a couple of months ago that a new estimate was in process of being compiled but until it was ready to continue using the 2005 estimate.

but but but....I thought we weren't supposed to trust our intelligence reports anyway? Or is this where some people play politics and only believe the reports that makes big bad George look worse?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

It was reported that the National Intelligence Director told him a couple of months ago that a new estimate was in process of being compiled but until it was ready to continue using the 2005 estimate.

but but but....I thought we weren't supposed to trust our intelligence reports anyway? Or is this where some people play politics and only believe the reports that makes big bad George look worse?

Some might, I don't think it's on record that I said we should not trust intelligence reports, though I have said I trusted the UN inspector's reports from pre-War Iraq more than the intelligence used to justify the current war. In the situation with Iran I believe it's imperative to get inspector's back in to assess the current state of their nuclear program by direct observation.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It was reported that the National Intelligence Director told him a couple of months ago that a new estimate was in process of being compiled but until it was ready to continue using the 2005 estimate.

but but but....I thought we weren't supposed to trust our intelligence reports anyway? Or is this where some people play politics and only believe the reports that makes big bad George look worse?

Some might, I don't think it's on record that I said we should not trust intelligence reports, though I have said I trusted the UN inspector's reports from pre-War Iraq more than the intelligence used to justify the current war. In the situation with Iran I believe it's imperative to get inspector's back in to assess the current state of their nuclear program by direct observation.

Bobby, I wasn't speaking to you in particular. I was just making a general observation about media types and politicians.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Now that the US government has privatized almost every aspect of "Homeland Defense", including much of what employees in the Pentagon have traditionally done and almost everything to do with the military, including warefare, there is only one outcome.
A continuing search for places to engage in conflict.

Why? Because you sez so? So what are they waiting for?

Besides, you seem thrilled with gov't meddling, this isn't any different.

The "War on Terror" is a corporate wetdream. Untold billions are going to be funnelled from your government into the coffers of the corporations selling security services to the US.
Terrorism is a tactic, not a defined enemy. This will go on forever if not put in check.
1984 may have come a little late, but Orwell was a visionary.

Maybe, he should have had Winston start writing that book a few years earlier, he could have demonstrated how people had utterly begged the gov't to meddle in their lives.

They begged Big Brother to save them. And "save them" he did.

I think you'd best reread what I posted Rush.
This isn't government meddling. This is government abdicating.

There is a huge ideological difference between warfare conducted by a democratically elected and responsible goverment and this state of simply becoming the bankroller of corporate armies.

There's a situation developing here where a single corporate entity is involved in every aspect of a conflict from small arms to jet fighters on one hand, while providing relief and medical aid on the other.

What incentive is there to end a war with profits like this?

People watch entirely too many movies, (or listen to some folks that have an agenda).

- people at the pentagon dont sit around foaming at mouth to go to war with anyone. they are people too and don't want themselves, family members or friends to die.


- never heard of a defence contractor screaming we should go to war with anyone, they are never prepared to produced the massive amount of stuff that the military wants the second the war starts, this causes them to lose their exclusive rights because the goverment wants production up immediatly - they cant scale up production that fast on anything complicated. (look up whats going on with the ied proof vehicle production). when they finally get it set up, people hired and trained, machine tools ready, factories built, it's over then that have to shut it all down.

some examples of what happens to defence contrators, martin aircraft - bankrupt bought out for pennies on the dollar by lockheed. Jeep -they couldnt get their production up so their patents got sent around to the other auto makers, eventually sold to chrysler. general dynamics - almost backrupted after vietnam. had to shut down most of their stuff and come up with a new business plan with the emphasis on civilian products.

northrup aviation, gone, corsair aviation, gone. chase bag (military textiles) gone. creighton (military uniforms) - gone. bath iron works (navy ships) gone. short term money is made, long term it can ruin you.

I don't know why anyone wants to jump up and down and say the Iran mess is over with because if you didn't notice the program was shut down 3 years ago and they didn't know it.

so with that said why are they enriching uranium? did they restart it 2 years ago and the spy agencies don't know it yet? won't know it for another year I guess if they are three years behind on whats going on over their. if they come back next year and say "oops - they restarted it 2005" what then? i bet then the same folks that are screaming bush lied will say "we don't believe it"

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

if you don't believe me about how long it takes to do stuff ask robert waite how long it takes them to tool up to do a new model car that they plan years in advance to do.

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

Latest reports on this new National Intelligence Estimate that I'm hearing discussed indicate that only one of their programs is believed to have been stopped. They're still building those centrifuges that they need to make material for nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration, as usual, is completely inept at properly explaining to the public things in their own defense.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

People watch entirely too many movies, (or listen to some folks that have an agenda).

One in the same... Which would certainly explain the overwhelming amount of 'counter terrorism' entertainment... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

if you don't believe me about how long it takes to do stuff ask robert waite how long it takes them to tool up to do a new model car that they plan years in advance to do.

???

I'm not a car guy.

???

Bad intel??? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Latest reports on this new National Intelligence Estimate that I'm hearing discussed indicate that only one of their programs is believed to have been stopped. They're still building those centrifuges that they need to make material for nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration, as usual, is completely inept at properly explaining to the public things in their own defense.

The centrifuges that have been discussed are actually not necessary for the manufacture of an atomic bomb.
That was from a nuclear expert interviewed on the radio a while ago. I don't remember his name.

Explaining things is not the only thing the Bush administration is completely inept at.

The only thing they've been successful at is gutting government and allowing corporations the opportunity to take control of many vital functions, including intelligence.
I'm not promoting the CIA but at least they have been accountable to the government and people of the U.S. rather than to an unaccountable corporate board.

"Iran maintains its enrichment facilities are only meant to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors.

But the uranium they are enriching could not be used in the Russian nuclear power reactor they are currently building." ABC News quote April 02, 2007 6:15 PM Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

As ABC news has not struck me as a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration my question for anyone is IF THEY GOT IT WRONG ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ - WHY DOES ANYONE THINK THEY HAVE IT RIGHT ABOUT IRAN NOT TRYING FOR A NUCLEAR BOMB?

---

Man - a creature made at the end of the week's work when God was tired. - Mark Twain

"Iran maintains its enrichment facilities are only meant to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors.

But the uranium they are enriching could not be used in the Russian nuclear power reactor they are currently building." ABC News quote April 02, 2007 6:15 PM Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

As ABC news has not struck me as a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration my question for anyone is IF THEY GOT IT WRONG ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ - WHY DOES ANYONE THINK THEY HAVE IT RIGHT ABOUT IRAN NOT TRYING FOR A NUCLEAR BOMB?

Please stop making sense, Tom.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

"Iran maintains its enrichment facilities are only meant to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors.

But the uranium they are enriching could not be used in the Russian nuclear power reactor they are currently building." ABC News quote April 02, 2007 6:15 PM Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

As ABC news has not struck me as a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration my question for anyone is IF THEY GOT IT WRONG ABOUT WMD IN IRAQ - WHY DOES ANYONE THINK THEY HAVE IT RIGHT ABOUT IRAN NOT TRYING FOR A NUCLEAR BOMB?

Well it is a bit of a turnaround, so why did anybody think they were right a few months ago when they said Iran had an active nuclear bomb development program? As I said earlier I believe it's imperative to get inspector's back in to assess the current state of their nuclear program by direct observation, this should remove the greater part of doubt either way.

On the question of ABC not being the mouthpiece for the Bush administration, I would have thought the same of the NY Times, but they showed themselves to be just that in the lead up to the current war in Iraq. The ABC reporters you mentioned source their data from somewhere, and it's the source that's key not the reporters.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...