← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 7065 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-06-01
2003-06-01 22:50 | User Profile
"Lieberman: Iran Needs 'Regime Change' "
**Lieberman: Iran Needs 'Regime Change,' Bush 'Stonewalling' 9/11 Probe
Presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said Sunday that the U.S. should back a policy of "regime change" in Iran by working to support dissident elements in that country.
And he also accused the Bush administration of "stonewalling" a probe by the Independent Commission on 9/11 into intelligence failures before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
Asked if he thought Iran was "ripe for regime change," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday," "Yes."
"I think it would be in the interest of the world and, most particularly, of the Iranian people to have a regime change in Iran," the top Democrat urged.
Lieberman quickly cautioned, however, "I'm not suggesting military action by us." Instead, he said that the U.S. should take a proactive role in toppling the government of Iran by backing pro-American elements in Tehran.
"There's no nation in the world where the government is more anti-American and the people are more pro-American than Iran," he told FNS host Tony Snow. "And that's the equation we have to flip."
Asked whether the Bush administration was cooperating with the probe by the Independent Commission on the 9/11 attacks, Lieberman invoked the rhetoric of Watergate, saying the White House was "stonewalling."
"The administration right now looks like it's stonewalling, begrudging cooperation. That ought to end," he told FNS. "Everybody gains from letting the truth come out."
But the presidential hopeful complained the White House had been uncooperative from the start.
"The administration fought us on that commission all along the way. I couldn't understand why. Finally it got adopted. They tried to underfund it. We fought for more funding. Now that funding is there. Now they're resisting turning over information to the commission that the joint congressional inquiry came up with. I think that's a mistake."
Lieberman also indicated that he thought someone in the Bush administration should be held responsible for pre-9/11 intelligence failures.
"We haven't really held anyone accountable. And there were tremendous failures in intelligence and perhaps other parts of our government that we have to correct. So the only way to do that - this is - the truth will make you free. And until we get all the information we won't know the truth."
url: [url=http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/5/25/121839]http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=...003/5/25/121839[/url] **
2003-06-03 03:17 | User Profile
Naturally a Zionist Orthodox Jew would support a "regime change" to make things nice and friendly for Israel. These people don't give two hoots about America. Socialists, Zionists, and otherwise.
2003-06-03 23:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Jun 1 2003, 19:10 ** Lieberman is interesting in that he represents a neocon inroad into the Democratic Party. As a general rule, although the Democrats have for decades been the party of cultural deconstruction, they have been rather more skeptical and circumspect of Zionism and the neoconservative Middle East crusade than their GOP counterparts. Lieberman's growing prominence and visibility is slowly but surely changing all of that.
After all, "we're all neocons now," as the new mantra goes. William Safire praised Clinton for getting over the "Vietnam Syndrome," and now Lieberman has moved neoconservative ideology up yet another notch among the democrats. The result, of course, is that there soon won't be a single politician in either party with the desire or will to challenge the neocon agenda on any issue. **
That's why we need an explicitly white nationalist political party. Nothing less will be effective. It amazes me that there are some people who still believe the republicans are the answer.
2003-06-04 02:06 | User Profile
That's why we need an explicitly white nationalist political party. Nothing less will be effective. It amazes me that there are some people who still believe the republicans are the answer.
What's even more amazing is that not one single SOB in DC has offered any kind of leadership. Not one single billionaire internet pig. Not one man of prominence in a f*cking country of 280million.
In '92, with a national debt of 4 trillion, Ross Perot stepped forward with little more than criticism of the national debt and free trade and won 19% of the vote.
Conditions in this rotten society are a thousand times worse today and no one is stepping forward, no one. I see no future at all until we have a leader. Nothing can be done without a leader.
2003-06-05 07:13 | User Profile
[SIZE=3][color=green]White Nationalists Are Their Own Worst Enemy[/color][/SIZE]
W.R.I.T.O.S said: "That's why we need an explicitly white nationalist political party."
Unfortunately, the American white nationalist scene is infested with Neo-Nazi and Ku Klux Klan types, which most middle class white voters find abhorrent. One need only examine the so-called "leaders" of white nationalism to see how misguided and pathetic they and their organizations really are: Kevin Strom of The National Alliance, Don Black of Stormfront, Thomas Robb of the Ku Klux Klan, Richard Butler of Aryan Nations, and the now-incarcerated Matt Hale of the World Church of the Creator and David Duke of EURO are all tainted by either the swastika or the white hood.
And you can bet your last gasp of Zyklon-B that the moment one tried to launch a white nationalist candidate all the seig heilers and cross-burners would crawl out of the woodwork, cheered on by legions of tattooed skinheads. Their combined public "endorsement" of such a candidate would sink him deeper than the HMS Titanic.
[img]http://www.whiterevolution.com/images/alamopic5.jpg[/img]