Run Up to War With iran

Will Bush's last, treanous 'f*ck you' to the American people and constitution be an attack on Iran? Tom Lantos, Warmonger
The pious old hypocrite wants to gin up a war with Iran
by Justin Raimondo

While the American people pine for peace, our leaders are intent on war: that's the anomaly of American "democracy," one that speaks ill of the effort to export our system at gunpoint. Adopt "democracy," and you, too, can be ruled by a warmongering oligarchy.

Americans oppose an attack on Iran 2-to-1. By almost every measure, they want negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Tehran. Yet the House of Representatives recently passed legislation that, in effect, fires the first shot at the Iranians, imposing draconian sanctions similar to those enacted against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion and occupation of that country. Similarly, this new sanctions regime sets the stage for the coming war with Iran.
....read on if you have the stomach....

Americans are at an all-time level of disconent with goverment, and the 'solution' is to propose a fake 'alternative' candidate, Mike Bloomberg:
City Journal Home. City Journal
The Anti-Perot
Michael Bloomberg is no populist.
Fred Siegel
26 June 2007

When Mayor Michael Bloomberg flees New York for his weekend retreats in Bermuda, his neighbors are Silvio Berlusconi, the former Italian prime minister, and Ross Perot, the independent candidate for president who shook up the 1992 election. They are, aptly enough, the two men who have limned the political path that he hopes to follow. Berlusconi, one of the wealthiest men in Italy, used a media empire even grander than Bloomberg’s to win power as the head of a coalition whose only goal was to elect Berlusconi. But careless pundits more often compare Bloomberg to Perot, even though the differences between the two men are glaring. Perot’s 1992 campaign represented a populist reaction to the forces unleashed by globalization.

Bloomberg’s wealth and political worldview are an expression of globalization.........

All this would seem to suggest fertile ground for a Bloomberg candidacy. But there is no indication that Bloomberg’s call for post-partisan, technocratic government resonates with voters. The last candidate with this message was the hapless Michael Dukakis.

Many of the major issues roiling the public today are in one way or another tied to globalization. Iraq, immigration, inequality, the influence of big money in politics, out-of-control government spending, and outsourcing are what make middle-class swing voters anxious and angry. A Ross Perot/Lou Dobbs sort of candidate could appeal to those voters, as well as to large chunks of the Republican and Democratic electorate. By contrast, the Bush/Senate immigration reform bill garners approval from only 23 percent of the public.

But from the perspective of 2007’s angry voters, Bloomberg is on the wrong side of these issues. He hasn’t spoken much about Iraq, but what he has said has been largely supportive of President Bush. He not only supports the immigration bill, but he also doesn’t see massive illegal immigration as a problem. He is the personification of inequality, of a social hierarchy in which the super-rich seem to have seceded from the rest of the country. As for out-of-control government spending, Bloomberg’s budgets have grown at twice the rate of inflation. And when it comes to outsourcing, Bloomberg built his fortune on the growth of the global economy. Rather than representing an alternative, Bloomberg incarnates the very things people are angry about.

---

Yet the Washington Post touted him as the alternative people are looking for. Which people? for what? My guess is Bloomberg , if he runs, will soften some stances, or simply lie about them, and then proceed (in the remote chance he won) do far worse open the borders even more, attack even more middle Eastern countries.

At this point, I think, the system is broke. The democrats proved that by taking back the house on an anti-Iraq war stance and then caving into - no the wrong words- they never intended to keep their promises to anyone but the special interests they cater to.