Speaker Nancy Pelosi can forget about leaving a legacy of TRUST FUNDS and the historical honor of being the first woman Speaker of the House for her grandchildren...
If she doesn't reign in Bush and Cheney's disastrous war-mongering (with long overdue impeachment hearings, budgetary restraints, subpoenas, or any other means) HER LEGACY TO HER GRANDCHILDREN will be TEN-DOLLAR PER GALLON gas, the blood of thousands of dead civilians in more Mideast cities, more fear and loathing for the unrestrained American empire on the march... and an American economy spiraling down the Bush2 black holes of red ink, deficits, job losses, massive corruption, stolen elections, a grotesquely antiquated energy policy, and bankruptcies.
Congratulations, SPEAKER PELOSI: you are now SOLIDLY ON THE SIDE of the people who REJOICED when PRIME MINISTER RABIN was ASSASSINATED.
Even the Neo-Con war propagandists at the New York Times report accurately on the Bush administration's serial lies and deceptions - - if you wait patiently enough, and read carefully between the lines.
According to HuffPost contributor Robert Naiman, Mr. Bush's latest foray into international doublespeak is no more, and no less, than a fig leaf over the Bush administration's PLANS TO EXPAND THE US WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, with a NAVAL BLOCKADE of Iran, all of which is reported by the Times.
<< Who is the audience for this "show" [President Bush's fake "generous offer", Naiman writes]? People who don't read the New York Times, apparently. These people will be told that "all efforts at dialogue" have been exhausted and there is no alternative to "other punitive moves against Iran that could be taken by a 'coalition of the willing' outside the United Nations":
[direct quote from the Times:]
"Officials would not provide details, but analysts suggest those could include a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply Western-made technology required for Iran's oil industry, creating bottlenecks in Iran's oil production."
Naiman: << For those scoring at home, A NAVAL EMBARGO WOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR. If undertaken "outside the United Nations" -- i.e. without the authorization of the UN Security Council -- it would be a war crime. If you don't think Iran would retaliate for this act of war, or that it doesn't have effective means of doing so, then you are, as John McCain might say, "naïve and inexperienced."
Once again a FALSE CHOICE is placed before the world -- the FAKE DIPLOMACY of the Bush administration, or war. Are there no other alternatives? >>
Robert Naiman's commentary outlining Bush's FIG LEAF WARMONGERING...
Pro-war New York Times read-between-the-lines documentation of same: