Archive for the 'Iran' Category

Graham: murdering Iranians will help them to take control of their own government.

This man, who is elected by the people who think he is a wise man, able to govern our nation and represent the people of South Carolina, wants to murder thousands of people:

“My view of military force would be not to just neutralize their nuclear program, which are probably dispersed and hardened, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard.

“In other words, neuter that regime,” added Graham, who spoke at the Halifax International Security Forum.

But wait, he is doing this for the Iranian people:

Graham said he hoped that would help Iranians have a chance to take back their government.

Of course, after you kill their husbands, brothers and sons, they will be united against their own government instead of the government that just murdered their loved ones. No wonder the people of South Carolina elected you Mr. Graham. Such wisdom, unfortunately, passes for the wisdom of our day in this country.

http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=194304

Brookings poll uncovers some interesting information

This first question is hardly a surprise and should alert the Obama administration to the fact that the Arab population is not as stupid as they may have hoped. His speech in Cairo may have created hope, but that hope has dwindled and now the Arab peoples know the truth. Obama is no different. He will not deal justly with the middle-east, no more than any of his predecessors have.

These results here are very interesting. The way you hear it in the newspapers, everyone in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are opposed to Iran’s nuclear program. These numbers show a different story though. The Arabs polled were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan and the UAE. Saudi Arabia and Egypt citizens comprised approximately 20% each of the people polled.

Of those polled, 61% said they were most dissappointed with Obama’s handling of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. They also saw our middle-east policy as being driven by a need to protect Israel and control oil. Also, 59% polled said that when they see a documentary about the Jewish Holocaust, they resent it because they feel it brings sympathy towards the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians. Very interesting. Similar to Ahmadinejad’s position.

77% also believed that Iran has a right to it’s nuclear program.

In a world where there is only one superpower, 35% wanted France to be that superpower! Only 7% wanted the USA.  Also beating out the USA were China, Germany, Britain and Russia. Pakistan just lost to the USA at 6%!

Two countries that pose the biggest threat to Arab Peoples? 88% Israel and 77% USA. Iran was 10%. Interesting.

Erdogan, Chavez and Ahmadinejad were the most admired world leaders (Obama wasn’t featured in this one).

Methinks it would behoove the people of the USA to look at why the people of Arab nations have these opinions. There are good reasons.

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx

Iranian Jews call for punishment of Israel for murders of peace activists.

This is really cool and quite a poke in the eye to Israel’s leaders:

Iran’s Jewish community has slammed Israel’s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound aid Flotilla, calling for the punishment of the “criminals” responsible for the attack.

“Tehran’s Jewish community condemns the inhuman act of the Zionists in attacking a non-military Flotilla,” a statement from the Tehran Jewish Community read Tuesday.

“On behalf of Iran’s Jewish community, we firmly demand serious international action to punish the criminals and measures to prevent such catastrophes,” the statement signed by the country’s top Jewish religious and community leaders added.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=128643&sectionid=351020101

Morris is afraid of Iran… but Israel need not fear.

Benny Morris, the Israeli historian, wrote an op-ed in the LA Times today which is really dissappointing. In it he says:

Itake it personally: Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to murder me, my family and my people. Day in, day out, he announces the imminent demise of the “Zionist regime,” by which he means Israel. And day in, day out, his scientists and technicians are advancing toward the atomic weaponry that will enable him to bring this about.

This sort of irresponsible talk coming from one who has done such ground breaking work on the history of Zionism is very disenheartening. His take on the situation, or the take he is trying to sell, is flat out false. It has been shown over and over again that he imminent demise of the Zionist regime that Ahmadinejad is referring to means the system of government in Israel and it’s ideological framework.  The whole concept that one people can come in and subject another people to their whims and drive them out of their homes and kill and pillage and terrorize Palestinian arabs is what Zionism is all about to the people in power in Israel.  Morris knows this. He wrote about it extensively in his history texts. Now he is trying to say that the demise of the Zionist regime predicted by Ahmadinejad means he wants to bomb Israel with nuclear weapons.

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector said it well when explaining the nature of Iran’s threat to Israel:

The media hype concerning alleged statements made by Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has created and sustained the myth that Iran seeks the destruction of the State of Israel. Two points of fact directly contradict this myth. First and foremost, Ahmadinejad never articulated an Iranian policy objective to destroy Israel, rather noting that Israel’s policies would lead to its “vanishing from the pages of time.” Second, and perhaps most important, Ahmadinejad does not make foreign policy decisions on the part of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This is the sole purview of the “Supreme Leader,” the Ayatollah Khomeini. In 2003 Khomeini initiated a diplomatic outreach to the United States inclusive of an offer to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This initiative was rejected by the United States, but nevertheless represents the clearest indication of what the true policy objective of Iran is vis-a-vis Israel.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/08/4404

Morris goes on with the tired rhetoric which compares our time to 1938 in Europe:

The American veto may ultimately consign millions of Israelis, including me and my family, to a premature death and Israel to politicide. It would then be comparable to Britain and France’s veto in the fall of 1938 of the Czechs defending their territorial integrity against their rapacious Nazi neighbors. Within six months, Czechoslovakia was gobbled up by Germany.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-morris16-2010apr16,0,6295075.story

It is unfortunate that this kind of crap gets printed in the widely read LA Times.  Perhaps Morris would do well to go back and read the history of the current Zionist regime… which he wrote.  Then read the history of Iran’s foreign policy towards Israel. He would come away quite comforted I think.

Derschowitz spouts propaganda in the WSJ and even I can refute him.

Wow. Alan Derschowitz is so far out in lala land that even an amateur blogger like me can refute him.  Take his most recent article which was surprisingly published in the Wall Street Journal, a paper that should have a more rigorous system for letting article show up on its pages, though of course now it is owned by Rupert Murdoch so….

Dershowitz starts off with this:

There are several ways in which Iran could use nuclear weapons. The first is by dropping an atomic bomb on Israel, as its leaders have repeatedly threatened to do. Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran, boasted in 2004 that an Iranian attack would kill as many as five million Jews. Mr. Rafsanjani estimated that even if Israel retaliated with its own nuclear bombs, Iran would probably lose about 15 million people, which he said would be a small “sacrifice” of the billion Muslims in the world.

I can find no reference to this alleged 2004 statement.  The statement everyone applies to Rafsanjani to scare people with is from his speech in 2001 where he said:

The colonialists will keep this base as long as they need it. Now, whether they can do so or not is a separate issue and this is my next point. Any time they find a replacement for that particular instrument, they will take it up and this will come to an end. This will open a new chapter. Because colonialism and imperialism will not easily leave the people of the world alone. Therefore, you can see that they have arranged it in a way that the balance of power favours Israel. Well, from a numerical point of view, it cannot have as many troops as Muslims and Arabs do. So they have improved the quality of what they have. Classical weaponry has its own limitations. They have limited use. They have a limited range as well. They have supplied vast quantities of weapons of mass destruction and unconventional weapons to Israel. They have permitted it to have them and they have shut their eyes to what is going on. They have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles and suchlike.

If one day … Of course, that is very important. If one day, the Islamic world is also equipped with weapons like those that Israel possesses now, then the imperialists’ strategy will reach a standstill because the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2001/011214-text.html

It’s important to take these quotes in context.  Here, Rafsanjani is pointing out how the US is arming Israel with all sort of unconventional weapons and turning a blind eye to the possession of nuclear weapons in Israel.  He then says that IF the islamic world someday had nuclear weapons too, the US colonialist policy would come to a stand still because of what a nuclear weapons could possibly do to Israel.  He is not threatening Israel.  He is not saying we are trying to develope nuclear weapons so we can drop it on Israel.  He is trying to show how things would be if the other side developed nuclear weapons as well.  If you can find any other Rafsanjani alleged threats against Israel let me know please.

He goes on:

The second way in which Iran could use nuclear weapons would be to hand them off to its surrogates, Hezbollah or Hamas.

Do you really think that Hamas or Hezbollah would commit national suicide to drop a nuclear weapon on their neighbor?  Would Israel drop a nuclear weapon on Gaza? All moral consideration aside, it would be completely irrational as you would kill yourself too. Just not going to happen.

Next Derschowitz says:

The second way in which Iran could use nuclear weapons would be to hand them off to its surrogates, Hezbollah or Hamas. A third way would be for a terrorist group, such as al Qaeda, to get its hands on Iranian nuclear material. It could do so with the consent of Iran or by working with rogue elements within the Iranian regime.

This is his way of scaring people since so far, there has been no conclusive evidence that Iran even has a nuclear weapons program.  Iran is no friend with Al Queda. Many believe that the enemy of the Iranian state, Jundullah, is in cahoots with Al Queda.  Al Zawahiri has denounced Iran numerous times.  See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri#Relation_with_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

Der then says:

But there are other ways in which a nuclear-armed Iran would endanger the world. First, it would cause an arms race in which every nation in the Middle East would seek to obtain nuclear weapons.

I think that middle-eastern nations threatened by Israel already have a good reason to get into a nuclear arms race don’t you?  Make the middle east a nuclear weapons-free zone and see then if you have nuclear weapons on anyone’s agenda over there.  Incidentally, Iran has supported the concept of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the middle east but has been opposed by Israel and the US.

He then goes on with his scare-mongering which needs no specific rebuttal here as it is based on the idea that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons full speed ahead.  He goes on to say that Obama would be remembered like Neville Chambelain for letting Hitler get out of control.  He says:

History will not treat kindly any leader who allows so much power to be accumulated by the world’s first suicide nation—a nation whose leaders have not only expressed but, during the Iran-Iraq war, demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice millions of their own people to an apocalyptic mission of destruction.

Again, Der is twisting history to an unrecognizable pulp here.  Iran has never attacked anyone in it’s entire existence.  Iran was attacked by Iraq in the above-mentioned war and the US supplied Iraq with weapons and technology to massacre Iranians.  If anyone in the region can be thought of as a loose cannon, likely to attack another nation based on past behavioral patterns, it is the US and Israel! 

Der is easy to rebutt, but he gets to splash his trash on the pages of the Wall Street Journal and I get a few hits here on the radical mormon. Oh well, at least I do my part to bring works of darkness to light and renounce war and proclaim peace.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575110042827617582.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

New York Times lies in order to build up support for war against Iran.

Quite ridiculous the levels of dishonesty the secret combinations in the US stoop to in order to drum up support for war in the middle east.  The following article from Antiwar.com is a great example, showing where the New York Times and other US media outlets completely distorted the IAEA report on Iran to make it look as if everything had changed.  They said that the nuclear weapons program had never stopped in 2003 as the 2007 NIE on Iran had stated it had (if you think there was ever a weapons program there in the first place that is),  and that they are suspicious of a nuclear weapons program currently.  The Anti-war.com article show the actual passages from the report and tells how the NY Times appears to be rooting for escalating confrontation with Iran in a seriously irresponsible piece of misleading reporting.

Read the IAEA Reports on Iran

by Peter Casey, March 01, 2010

On Feb. 19, New York Times reporters David Sanger and William Broad filed a story about the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest report [.pdf] on its inspection and monitoring work in Iran. The lead of story, “Inspectors Say Iran Worked on Warhead,” announced the Feb. 18 report’s shocking discovery:

“The United Nations‘ nuclear inspectors declared for the first time on Thursday that they had extensive evidence of ‘past or current undisclosed activities’ by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead, an unusually strongly worded conclusion that seems certain to accelerate Iran’s confrontation with the United States and other Western countries.”

If that isn’t disturbing enough, the story then revealed that the IAEA has “concluded,” contrary to America’s intelligence agencies, that Iran has been working feverishly on a nuclear bomb without interruption:

“The report, the first under the new director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, also concluded that Iran’s weapons-related activity apparently continued ‘beyond 2004,’ contradicting an American intelligence assessment published a little over two years ago that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003.”

If this story is true, everyone should be frightened. The IAEA has had extensive evidence that Iran was building a nuclear weapon, but it inexplicably withheld that information from the world until now. More troubling, the combined intelligence resources of the United States not only failed to discover the evidence available to the IAEA, but they also reached the erroneous conclusion that Iran had stopped all work on any nuclear weapon years ago.

The prospect is terrifying: Iran is creating a nuclear arsenal, and nobody can or will warn us in time to avert annihilation.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that none of it is true.

The Times imputes to the IAEA report statements, declarations, and conclusions that just are not there. One can see this easily, just by reading the report and comparing it to the story. You do not need a degree in nuclear physics or chemical engineering to see that the New York Times story is, quite simply, false.

The Times was not alone in fabricating content for the IAEA report. The overwhelming response of American media grossly overstated its significance and rewrote it beyond recognition. The Times‘ story, however, is transparently dishonest, and it raises the legitimate question: Is America’s “paper of record” consciously misrepresenting facts to “accelerate confrontation” between Iran and the West?

The Times wasted no time with facts. It got down to the business of distorting the report right away – in the headline itself, followed by the near-hysterical lead paragraph. Contrary to the Times, the IAEA inspectors do not “say Iran worked on warhead,” nor do they for the “first time declare … that they had extensive evidence of past or current undisclosed activities by Iran’s military to develop a nuclear warhead.” Instead, the report (paragraph 41) summarizes information that the IAEA has discussed in over a dozen reports beginning four years ago, making no new “declarations,” referring to no new circumstances. See February 2006 report [.pdf], paragraph 38. It then states:

“The information available to the Agency in connection with these outstanding issues is extensive and has been collected from a variety of sources over time. It is also broadly consistent and credible in terms of the technical detail, the time frame in which the activities were conducted and the people and organizations involved. Altogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. These alleged activities consist of a number of projects and sub-projects, covering nuclear and missile related aspects, run by military related organizations.” (Emphasis added.)

The Times‘ story does not quote the language of the report in bold above until the 15th paragraph. Even then, it does not explain that this sentence is the sole basis for the sensational – and sensationally false – claim that the IAEA says, declares, and concludes that Iran had and has a nuclear weapons program.

Two relevant points are obvious from comparing the 10-page IAEA report and the Times‘ story. First, the story’s lead attributes to the report statements of fact that the IAEA does not make – and has never made. Instead of stating that “Iran Worked on Warhead,” the IAEA says that it is concerned about the possible existence of past or current activities related to the development of a nuclear payload. No matter how much spin even the masters at the New York Times can put on it, information giving rise to concerns about the possibility of a weapons program is not a “statement,” “declaration,” or “conclusion” that Iran has a weapons program. To say that one is concerned about the possibility of something is not to say that the something exists. When speaking of weapons that can destroy civilization, most people would agree that the difference is important. Not so the Times, apparently.

Sanger, Broad, and the editors of the New York Times surely know the difference between the possible and the actual. Why then did they describe the IAEA’s statements of possibility as conclusions of fact?

Second, the report does not state or claim that the IAEA has any new information about the possibility of a nuclear weapons program. The report contains no relevant new or different facts, evidence, conclusions, or “declarations.” On the contrary, the IAEA (at paragraph 40) is emphatic that it is summarizing information about potential military application previously reported in detail:

“[T]he Agency needs to have confidence in the absence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program. Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues and the actions required of Iran, including, inter alia, that Iran implement the Additional Protocol and provide the Agency with the information and access necessary to: resolve questions related to the alleged studies; clarify the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related; and clarify the production of nuclear related equipment and components by companies belonging to the defense industries.” (Emphasis added.)

This litany of issues and questions not only contains nothing new. It is a virtual cut-and-paste from prior IAEA reports going back at least two years. See the IAEA report of May 2008 [.pdf], paragraph 14:

“In addition to the implementation of Iran’s Additional Protocol, for the Agency to provide assurances regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, Iran needs to, inter alia: resolve questions related to the alleged studies…; provide more information on the circumstances of the acquisition of the uranium metal document…; clarify procurement and R&D activities of military related institutes and companies that could be nuclear related…; and clarify the production of nuclear equipment and components by companies belonging to defense industries.”

The Times‘ claim that the report “declares” “extensive evidence” of a nuclear weapons program for the “first time” is a crude misconstruction designed to hype the report as news that is “certain to accelerate Iran’s confrontation with the United States and other Western countries.” The only relevant differences between current and past reports are completely non-substantive. As noted, the current report (paragraph 41) characterizes the IAEA’s information as “extensive,” coming from multiple sources, “broadly consistent,” and “credible,” then states that, “[a]ltogether, this raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” The IAEA has said the same thing in substance over and over again, for years. For example, the August 2009 IAEA report [.pdf] states (paragraph 19):

“[A]s the Director General has repeatedly emphasized, the information contained in that documentation appears to have been derived from multiple sources over different periods of time, appears to be generally consistent, and is sufficiently comprehensive and detailed that it needs to be addressed by Iran with a view to removing the doubts which naturally arise, in light of all of the outstanding issues, about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.” (Emphasis added.)

In another context, the two statements would be close enough to give the author of the August 2009 an excellent claim for copyright infringement. More importantly, there is no substantive difference between the punch line in the August 2009 report and its rephrasing in the current report. The current report, “raising concerns” about the “possible existence” of activities to develop “a nuclear payload for a missile,” merely restates, in mirror image, the earlier report’s unresolved “doubts … about the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program.” Doubts about the “exclusively peaceful nature” of a nuclear program mean questions about possible military application. In any event, the basis for both formulations, as stated explicitly in the current report, is an identical list of issues and questions discussed at length in the reports for several years.

It is difficult to believe that veteran reporters from the New York Times would misconstrue the IAEA’s summary of long-standing questions as an earth-shattering new “conclusion” about Iran’s development of a “nuclear payload” that seems “certain to bring the U.S. and Israel closer to war with Iran. Does the Times want a war?

Whatever its motives, the Times‘ distortions and misuse of the IAEA’s report look like the product of an agenda. In the second paragraph, for example, Sanger and Broad claim that the IAEA has “also concluded that Iran’s weapons-related activity apparently continued ‘beyond 2004,’ contradicting an American intelligence assessment published a little over two years ago that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003.” This statement is blatantly misleading. The National Intelligence Estimate [.pdf] issued in late 2007 expressed the judgment that Iran discontinued a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In other words, American intelligence concluded that Iran had conducted an undisclosed nuclear weapons program up until 2003. Since commencing work in 2003, however, the IAEA has never expressed a conclusion – including in the current report – that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program. See report GOV/2003-75 [.pdf], paragraph 52 (Nov. 10, 2003): “To date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear material and activities referred to above were related to a nuclear weapons program.” Nobody – not even the IAEA – can “contradict” a proposition without a contradiction.

In any event, the report actually states (paragraph 43): “Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004.” The “activities” refer to same list of “alleged activities” (the existence of which Iran disputes and which the IAEA still questions) or those that Iran claims solely concern civilian application (but may have a “military dimension”), all of which have been discussed in detail in earlier reports. Whether some activities (e.g., theoretical “dual use” material) that raise questions or concerns about the “exclusively peaceful nature” of Iran’s nuclear program continued “beyond 2004” does not establish that they involve efforts to develop a “nuclear payload” before, during, or after 2004.

The Times‘ agenda here is to contribute to the near-relentless public (and undoubtedly private) pressure on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and other key intelligence agencies to scrap the 2007 NIE. The ink was not dry on that report before it came under blistering attack from every quarter in the anti-Iran camp. Since then, the “debate” over the 2007 NIE reflects a complete national amnesia over the politicization of intelligence responsible for the Iraq invasion and all the later chest-beating about “stove-piping” that consumed dozens of committees and commissions. Quite unlike Cheney’s subterranean Office of Special Plans, the politicization of the Iran NIE has taken place in the middle of Main Street at high noon. With a new NIE reportedly in the pipeline and opponents of the 2007 estimate striving to get it changed, the Times‘ Feb. 19 story does its bit by claiming falsely that even the IAEA’s “conclusions” “contradict” it. Protect the independent judgment of intelligence services? Forget it.

The rest of the Times‘ story continues in the same fashion, taking the equivalent of firecrackers in the IAEA report and converting them through the magic of journalism into 25-megaton nukes. Another of its frightening revelations is that the “report indicated that for the first time Iran told inspectors it was preparing to make its uranium into metallic form – a step that can be explained by some civilian applications, but is widely viewed as necessary for making the core of an atom bomb.” Near the end of the story, the authors return to this point, noting that the report “disclosed Iranian work on uranium metal at … Isfahan, where it said Iran planned to build several production lines. The Institute for Science and International Security … said in a report on Thursday that the new lines at Isfahan ‘raise suspicions that Iran could use them to make metal components for weapons’” (emphasis added).

The trouble with this claim is that Sanger and Broad should have put “this decade” after “first time.” That is because, as the IAEA reported in 2003, “the design information provided to the Agency in July 2000 described the purpose of [the Isfahan] facility as the conversion of uranium ore concentrate (UOC or U3O8) into natural UO2, UF6, and uranium metal” (emphasis added). This seven-year-old report adds that the Iranians disclosed that the facility would have “the following process lines” – and then lists the same processing lines, including those for uranium metal, that the Times now says the Iranians did not disclose until 2010. Compare the 2003 report [.pdf], Annex 1, paragraphs 3 and 4, with the Feb. 18 report [.pdf], paragraph 25 (both list the same seven processing lines, including those for producing “uranium metal enriched to 19.7% U-235” from UF6 and producing “depleted uranium metal” from UF4).

For almost seven years, the IAEA has been issuing reports roughly every quarter on the findings, issues, and open items from its inspections of Iran’s nuclear activities. Three basic facts can be found in its reports. First, all of Iran’s nuclear material has been and remains under IAEA “containment and surveillance.” Second, Iran does not have nuclear weapons or the means to make them. Third, there is no definitive evidence that Iran in fact has or ever had a nuclear weapons program. For as long as the IAEA has been issuing its reports, however, the major American media have been doing their utmost to twist, torque, and torture them into a nightmarish revelation of ghoulish mullahs feverishly building a doomsday machine as they plan to create a nuclear empire, wipe Israel from the face of the map, and conquer the world.

A couple of years ago I suggested that everyone should read the IAEA reports because an educated public might help avert another unnecessary war based on lies. That, however, probably wasn’t inspiring enough. So let me suggest this: If you read the reports and then read the newspaper accounts of them, you can experience firsthand that galvanic shot of astonishment from discovering just how bad – how shamelessly bad – the American media has become.

http://original.antiwar.com/peter-casey/2010/02/28/read-the-iaea-reports-on-iran/

We don’t fight against democracies do we Mr. President…

Ether 8
23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.
24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.
25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

Just Foreign Policy Iraqi Death Estimator
Impeach Cheney