Yes. I've posted repeatedly. Frankly the board erasing itself every few months is getting tiresome since I have posted here some painstaking research to back up the ways that the empty Iran fear mongering profits the republican party in senate votes, in the general election, and in framing all debate of national security.

I will provide a single powerful example from a year ago:
Ug...CNN pulled it or moved it.
Used to be here.

Meh...It's hard finding year -old articles with little other than "iraq and Iran" as your seaerch strings. However take my word for it, we tabled a motion to withdraw form Iraq to vote something to the effect that the president needs authorization from congress to invade Iran. News to congress: that's already the law, and he's going to ignore your vote too if he wants to. It was a STUPID waste of political capital and momentum from which we are still reeling. So this Iran bluf got dems to stop a plan for withdrawal. Indeed, notice how every time we start talking about Liberal America and a democratic agenda, the topic of conversation inexorably is steered by Madsen and friends to one of attacking the mid east (a subject that only benefits the republican agenda, and legitimizes it through the ongoing presence of the subject)

I'll get back to trying to find that article. (cool...did you guys know google has a news archive search!? http://news.google.com/archivesearch/advan...F-8&ned=us)

Here's some material on how it went down:
Bush, and right-wing rags started suggesting that Iraq wasn't the problem, but Iran was in direct repsonse to our moves to pull out of IRaq.

Democrats SCRAMBLED to remove war with Iran from the table:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7022301595.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/27/...tics.php?page=2





http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258552,00.html

And how did blindly chasing after this it of cheese serve the democrats?



Snap goes the trap. An in Iraq we remain.

Iran was the tool they used to trick us into staying in Iraq - they used it as a lever and a panic switch to get democrats to dance to their toon. I saw democrats should have called their bluff.

The best response from democrats regarding Iran would have been:

If the president's ambitions lead him to believe he is capable of aking an exhausted millitary and deploying them from one war we are losing into another front - then he must be far wiser or more foolish than I.

That's it.

As long as a fictional war with Iran remains the center piece in our debate quotes like this will only fuel the right wing's frame of the state of affairs:

I did point out that the anti-Israeli headline that he chose was completely contradicted by the facts in the case. That is not opinion. That was facts, as reported by Madsen.

Madsen has his own set of "facts". Not supported by anyone else. Sometimes, not even supported by himself. That should tell you something. The fact that you insist that someone with his own version of reality is reputable, even though you have repeatedly refused to offer any proof, tells us something too.

Tammy, AGAIN...... Since Randi Rhodes and Mike Malloy think Madsen is a reputable source, and this is the RRMB and she and Mike are the stars of NovaM, then it is up to YOU to prove that your OPINION about Madsen is based on facts. It seems strange to me that a person would come on this site and impugn the integrity of one of Randi's guests, without any evidence.

BTW, Seeker, I am still waiting for your proof that Armitage is feeding false informaiton to Madsen. Did you get Bob Woodward's relationship with Armitage confused with Madsen's alleged relationship with him?

My source is a high level operative within the intelligence establishment.

Hey, that's all Madsen ever gives you -- why are you asking more from me?

(P.S. I didn't say I personally knew them.)

BTW, kidding aside, a google search would answer your question.

http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/...ce-sources.html

BTW, Constantine is yet another dweller in the conspiracy subculture, but I find his allegations interesting.

The PBS News Hour obviously thinks Madsen is credible too.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/jan-ju...china_4-3.html#

The time is ripe for a little community action:

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...amp;#entry62047

Thanks, Seeker, for the link. I too find Alex Constantine's allegations interesting. However, his claim that Armitage was Madsen's source is not backed up with any evidence. Neither does he assert that it is a well-known fact that Armitage was Madsen's source. Neither does Constantine explain how he thinks he knows this. Maybe he was a stooge for the Bush administration to mistakenly repeat this claim.

Was Armitage a source Madsen used in the Plame story? Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't, but it appears that Constantine is speculating. I have no knowledge as to what particular axe Constantine may be grinding, but it could merely be a professional rivalry at play here. It could be an honest mistake. (At least, when I speculate, I admit it and do not claim to know the answer. )Also, Constantine misstates the content of Madsen's stories. Here's one example: Constantine falsely asserts his story about the "Israeli art students" accused them of being murderous terrorists. Madsen never stated that at all, nor did he imply it. So when Constantine belittles what he thinks Madsen wrote, he merely attacks a straw man of his own making.

They thought he WAS credible on matters of security.

He was.

Now he's not even considered a valid source at DU.

Neither are most of Madsen's claims.

Far as I can tell, Constantine says his source is the same one Madsen even occasionally admits to using: "the grapevine" or the "rumor mill" or what is called in office buildings "the water cooler".

So let's be honest - you are like most human beings, and when people like Madsen tell you things you want to believe, you are willing to accept them with very little or no evidence, and when people like Alex Constantine tell you things you don't want to believe, you never consider evidence sufficient enough.

It's a human flaw. It's how our brains are wired. I have it.

I just have some training in methods how to overcome it.

Madsen is disliked at DU now because of his reporting on Israel. It's the same as here. Once he told the truth about Israeli bad actors, the assault on Madsen began by the bloggers who are either pro-Israeli or are hyper-senstive about any reports critical of Israel, began.

Readers at the WMR are aware of this concerted effort against Madsen because he explained it long ago. Take a look at the record here as well and you will see that once Israel became a focus the criticism reached an hysterical pitch and has not let up since. Madsen is also disliked by the DLC branch of the Democratic party because he has exposed their GOP-lite agenda and actions. Truth tellers are often scorned by those who wish to hide their secrets and do not wish to have their treachery and hypocrisy pointed out.

Seeker, your "training in methods" has failed you. You condescendingly imply that I am naive and biased in my belief in Madsen's writings, yet skeptical of Constantine's, which should have equivalent weight. I can't agree. I never said that I don't believe anything Constantine writes, rather I said I was interested to read what he wrote. I am open to Constantine's reports. But what you neglect to realize is that I am quite familiar with Madsen's reporting and am able to judge his work over a long period of time and many, many stories. I know his work and I find him credible. I also know about hs ideals and his dedication to truth, liberty and human rights. He is one of the only ones who has the courage to confront the Bush Crime Family and other Neocon would-be fascists head on. I don't know Constantine very well at all and yet I am open to him, just not yet convinced that he is credible.

With regard to your assertion that it's a well-known fact that Madsen uses Armitage as a source and your contention that Armitage has duped Madsen, even Constantine did not say that, although you give him as your only source. You are overreaching for a source to back up your opinion and exaggerating your source's claim.


Returning to the subject of Iran, which was the original purpose of this thread, please consider this report:

Iran discovers billion-barrel oil fieldFrom correspondents in Tehran
July 14, 2008 08:04am

IRAN says it has discovered a new oil field containing more than one billion barrels of crude.

Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari said the oil field held 1.1 billion barrels of sweet crude oil, of which 233 million coudl be recovered, the Shana news agency reported.

The field was in the area of Andimeshk town in Khuzestan province of southwest Iran that borders Iraq, Mr Nozari said.

Iran is the No.2 producer in OPEC and No.4 worldwide, although its ability to reach oil production targets has been hampered by a lack of international investment.

Production started in February from Iran's biggest onshore oil field, Azadegan, which is estimated to have 42 billion barrels of crude oil.

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23...4-31037,00.html

I can prove otherwise. I'm the most anti-madsen guy here and I don't know anything about his views of Isreal (or care).




This is so emotionally laden...once he told "The Truth" aboud "Bad Actors" the "assault" began by "Hyper-sensitive" bloggers. If I weed out the drama, what I get is that some people challenged some of his stuff and in the end it wasn't backed up -- that's just a guess at what you are saying happened.



You might wanna rethink that...for a person driven (as I am) by a conspiratorial mindset, you sure seem to engage it selectively.



....I can't think of a polite way to say what I'm thinking.

I'll begin by saying that I think Isreal is a creepy evil place that I'm terrified to visit. I don't like inequality, religious states, or ethnocentric beligerence - especially when it's armed with nukes and imprisons and reporter who wants to expose that.

That said...the defense of madsen here reads like "It's tha jeeeewwwws."

I'm not labeling you or anything...but I might be labeling Madsen. That would explain his assoications and disinfo campaigns.



So are "reporters" who post circle jerk articles loaded with self reference, secret evidence, unnamed sources, and a clear fear-driven agenda. I think Madsen is to journalism as GITMO Hearings are to justice.

Tons of accusations.
Secret Evidence
Unnamed sources
"Because it's justified"
"Because of a conspiracy"
"To make us safe from 'them'"

etc...

None of that makes it credible.

Or they hide behind their lack of journalistic integrity by claiming persecution, totally ignoring critics whose main complaints are not their views but their methods.

Oldest trick in the book for the confidence artist.

You shouldn't be so terrified.

It's not that terrifying. I have been there four times.

Granted, of course, you would say I'm Jewish, therefore I didn't have to fear.

Suffice to say, I'll leave it at this; in 2007, two million people visited. A large number were not Jewish. Most left without a creepy feeling.

It's not a theocratic state - although unfortunately due to some minority parties it is stuck with some theocratic laws. Good news is they will not affect you. No one in Israel will attack you on the street for eating fried shrimp. No one will bang on your door and try to save you from being an unbeliever. You'll find a healthy Christian community in Jerusalem and elsewhere, left unmolested to manage their own holy sites and take care of their own affairs. As long as you in turn are not aggressively behaving in a missionary manner, no one will bother you.

Sure, it's a country with uber-religious zealots; but guess what, they are hated by their countrymen, too. They even founded a political party in Israel, Shinui, to diminish their power and influence.

I think you left out justice, the American way, and apple pie.

I've heard he also loves puppies, chocolate, and long walks on the beach.

Let us for a moment put ourselves in the Iranian position. We have a war mongering head of state who took a republic and turned it into an Empire in a matter of 6 years. He shows no common sense other than what makes money for his friends. He craves power and destruction, you have an armada sitting off of your shores. You helped fight a war in Afghanistan with them and now they are preparing to strike your country. What do you and your people do knowing that at any moment, your country can disappear off of the planet? You have a mad man that at anytime can kill off your entire civilization? How would we react to this, these are questions that need to be asked.

Meh baleted.

Jsut suffice to say: Isreal = you can keep it!

Hamoth, I'm sorry you misunderstood my message. I did not "blame the Jews". Neither does Madsen.

When are people going to learn to distinguish between "the Jews" and the actions of right-wing extremist bad actors who happen to be Israelis or support Neoconning warmongers?

Do you think that when I or Madsen accuse Bush or Cheney of foul deeds, it's blaming the Christians? It isn't, obviously. Neither is it blaming the United States of America.

It's a right-wing, extremist element which pervades the Neocon power base that's the problem. It matters not where those bad actors live, or what their religions is or place of national origin. I strongly protest the mistaken or deliberate charge that this is somehow anti-semitic. I have said repeatedly that most Israelis and most Jews, like most Americans, are peace-loving people. It's the extremist elements which have seized power in the Bush/Cheney cabal that threatens our world with their hatred, greed and warmongering.

However, I do stand by my observation that organized elements with a Neocon agenda do not want people to know the truth about their agenda to rewrite the map of the Middle East, kill innocent people abroad, steal their natural resources and "dominate in all realms". Madsen represents a threat to their agenda, because the Neocons can only advance their agenda through deception and fearmongering. Anyone who exposes their true intentions are considered "enemies" to them. That's why you see such vicious and hateful attacks on Madsen.

I specifically said I was not accusing you of that.



I'm not so sure of that.



Tell ya what made me suspicious: When somebody claims Isreal is persecuting them within the ranks of democrats...unless the MoussedBloggers.com has a delegation going to Denver, then I think this is code for the "the jews" in our party.



If Madsen said that "Rome" was persecuting you and preventing your word from getting out, I would think so...yes.



Last night I read something fascinating where the word 'ZOG' came up. Had a similar definition.



And DU is this Neocon Agenda's website?

I'm no fan of the Isreal...but I don't truck with this nebulous and unfocussed defense of fear mongering either. You seem willing to go to any length to understand Madsen's convulted pieces - but to overlook explicit claims in my own personal responses to you.

I think you are filtered Eyes. I really think you don't read me carefully at all or with an open mind.

Hamoth wrote: Tell ya what made me suspicious: When somebody claims Isreal is persecuting them within the ranks of democrats...unless the MoussedBloggers.com has a delegation going to Denver, then I think this is code for the "the jews" in our party.

How many times do I have to repeat it's not about "Jews"? It's about neocons. The people who fear Madsen's reporting are mostly NEOCONS or neocon-lites. Whether it's the Hillary supporters, some of whom are hawkish, the Bush supporters, the right-wing extremists from the PNAC crowd, the Christian fundamentalist preachers, the blue dog Democrats, the Dominionists, whomever---it's about idealogy. Some of those who dislike Madsen are the PNAC guys---like Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby, Cheney and Jeb Bush. Cheney and Jeb Bush are not Jews. It's about truth telling on the one hand and those who wish to keep their crimes and abuses and hidden agenda secret on the other.

Please reread your comment above and try to see who indeed is the one who is "filtered". No one said Israel is persecuting anyone. I said that when Israel is mentioned or the Neocon agenda, the naysayers swarm. That is my own observation. Please don't misrepresent my words. You see something that is not there.

,With regard to the Democratic party, it is the DLC wing of the party and those under the influence, if not control, of AIPAC. It's not about religion or ethnic background. It's about money and power. You may remember that I am a big fan of Robert Wexler and even have advocated for him as a great vice-presidential candidate. That's because I don't think he would be overly influenced by those influences such as the defense industry or special interests such as AIPAC. Of course, Wexler is Jewish. So this is not a Jewish issue, even though you imagine it to be.

Even though we disagree, thank you for maintaining a respectful tone and a civilized discussion.

Yeah...well, if you read my post, you would see that I outlined why I don't believe Madsen...I'm not accusing you of anything, so explaining your views isn't necessary. I think Madsen might not be a fan of the Jew so much if he thinks democrats at DU are neocons. It seems convvenient to say that everyone who disagrees with him is an agent of zionism and neoconservatism.



Actually, you said that "Readers at the WMR are aware of this concerted effort against Madsen because he explained it long ago." I'm giving you credit by assuming you believe this Madsen guy's way of putting it and are jsut repeating what he "explained".

The explanation is like his articles, self referential, and requiring a commitment of absolute trust form the reader before it makes any sense. Sorry. No trust. His record stinks. He fear-bombs this inflated "bush will invade Iran" business for years on end - I'm not buying it. He has "all the details" about the election fraud, but not a single shred of actionable material or hard proof? I'm not buying it.

And I need to be clear here: It's not because I can't imagine all the things he's saying or make them fit neatly...it's because I CAN imagine exactly what he's saying and it's extremely unlikely. Anyone who stretches tall tales, long yarns, and shocking claims over and over again is suspicious. Then when a lot of these don't cmoe true, you have to be willfully lying to yourself to still believe him. Just because you can rationalize a framework, doesn't mean is as good as truth. There is real truth...and it's not exciting, sexy, or glammed up like WMR's.



Lol.

There's an intrinsic irony in that statement...