<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: But Was It A Five Inch Heel?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/</link>
	<description>Firedoglake weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 08:42:39 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: larry birnbaum</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982817</link>
		<dc:creator>larry birnbaum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982817</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;This might be so but the fact that we’ve drawn up a target list isn’t evidence for it.  We have target lists and plans for every possible enemy.  We might be updating these more frequently for Iran than for, say, Belarus, or for that matter Belgium, but that’s to be expected as well.  The military is paid to be prepared for these possibilities.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This might be so but the fact that we’ve drawn up a target list isn’t evidence for it.  We have target lists and plans for every possible enemy.  We might be updating these more frequently for Iran than for, say, Belarus, or for that matter Belgium, but that’s to be expected as well.  The military is paid to be prepared for these possibilities.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkH</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982777</link>
		<dc:creator>MarkH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:37:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982777</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-981713&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;landofthefree @ 44&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ah, MSNBC reporting that AlQaeda has released a new video from Osama Been Hidin, saying OBL is “declaring war” on Musharraf. Hmmm. Of course, the video has not been translated yet. Hmmm. Perhaps this is why Bush has a presser in 15 minutes?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Oh yeah, does he want to remind the public that he still hasn’t even come close to finding OBL because, um, he hasn’t had our military looking for him?)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That’s what you get from someone who doesn’t believe that ‘government is the answer’.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘Let teh Free Market find ObL!’ — Bush (F-Assville)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-981713"><em>landofthefree @ 44</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Ah, MSNBC reporting that AlQaeda has released a new video from Osama Been Hidin, saying OBL is “declaring war” on Musharraf. Hmmm. Of course, the video has not been translated yet. Hmmm. Perhaps this is why Bush has a presser in 15 minutes?</p>
<p>(Oh yeah, does he want to remind the public that he still hasn’t even come close to finding OBL because, um, he hasn’t had our military looking for him?)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s what you get from someone who doesn’t believe that ‘government is the answer’.</p>
<p>‘Let teh Free Market find ObL!’ — Bush (F-Assville)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkH</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982771</link>
		<dc:creator>MarkH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982771</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-981708&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Badwater @ 39&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Now, Gates doesn’t know if the Iraq war was worth it.  In the future, Gates will say that he doesn’t know if the Iran war was worth it.  Must be comforting to those who have lost loved ones.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;‘it was a small price to pay’ — Boehner (R-Assville)&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-981708"><em>Badwater @ 39</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>Now, Gates doesn’t know if the Iraq war was worth it.  In the future, Gates will say that he doesn’t know if the Iran war was worth it.  Must be comforting to those who have lost loved ones.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>‘it was a small price to pay’ — Boehner (R-Assville)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MarkH</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982750</link>
		<dc:creator>MarkH</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:30:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982750</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-981680&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;Elliott @ 15&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
… we need to bring Cheney to heel.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I suggest impeachment to start&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;That plus taking away his desserts. He need to take some weight off.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-981680"><em>Elliott @ 15</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>
… we need to bring Cheney to heel.</p>
<p>I suggest impeachment to start</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That plus taking away his desserts. He need to take some weight off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: behindthefall</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982415</link>
		<dc:creator>behindthefall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982415</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-981944&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;RockPaperScizzors @ 160&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;The US may be making alot of noise about attacking Iran, but it ain’t gonna happen. Two significant reasons:&lt;br /&gt;
 1. &lt;em&gt;The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia..&lt;em&gt;Beijing and Moscow warm to Tehran&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
In March 2004, China’s state-owned oil trading company, Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation, signed a 25-year deal to import 110 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran. This was followed by a much larger deal between another of China’s state-owned oil companies, Sinopec, and Iran, signed in October 2004. This deal, worth about $100 billion, allows China to import a further 250 million tons of LNG from Iran’s Yadavaran oilfield over a 25-year period. In addition to LNG, the Yadavaran deal provides China with 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil over the same period. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;This huge deal also enlists substantial Chinese investment in Iranian energy exploration, drilling and production as well as in petrochemical and natural gas infrastructure. Total Chinese investment targeted toward Iran’s energy sector could exceed a further $100 billion over 25 years. At the end of 2004, China became Iran’s top oil export market. Apart from the oil and natural gas delivery contracts, the massive investment being undertaken by China’s state-owned oil companies in Iran’s energy sector contravenes the US Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. This law penalizes foreign companies for investing more than $20 million in either Libya or Iran. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2. The Chinese threat to the US. &lt;em&gt;China to dump billions of dollars of US Treasury Bills&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/em&gt; “A shift in China’s investment strategy could change its purchases of Treasuries, affecting a market that Washington relies on to help finance multibillion-dollar budget deficits, and perhaps eventually push up U.S. interest rates..”&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&amp;code=20070310&amp;articleId=5039&quot;&gt;http://www.globalresearch.ca/i.....cleId=5039&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;China’s #2 in  MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.treasury.gov/tic/mfh.txt&quot;&gt;http://www.treasury.gov/tic/mfh.txt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If the US bombs Iran, China’s retaliation in dumping US Treasury securities will be the equivalent of  catastrophic US financial nuclear disaster. China can take us out financially.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What you have spelled out are the ‘entangling alliances’ which may well leave the continental U.S. radioactive.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-981944"><em>RockPaperScizzors @ 160</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p>The US may be making alot of noise about attacking Iran, but it ain’t gonna happen. Two significant reasons:<br />
 1. <em>The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran</em><br />
“The most significant of these changes is the formation of a new triangle comprised of China, Iran and Russia..<em>Beijing and Moscow warm to Tehran</em>.<br />
In March 2004, China’s state-owned oil trading company, Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation, signed a 25-year deal to import 110 million tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran. This was followed by a much larger deal between another of China’s state-owned oil companies, Sinopec, and Iran, signed in October 2004. This deal, worth about $100 billion, allows China to import a further 250 million tons of LNG from Iran’s Yadavaran oilfield over a 25-year period. In addition to LNG, the Yadavaran deal provides China with 150,000 barrels per day of crude oil over the same period. </p>
<p>This huge deal also enlists substantial Chinese investment in Iranian energy exploration, drilling and production as well as in petrochemical and natural gas infrastructure. Total Chinese investment targeted toward Iran’s energy sector could exceed a further $100 billion over 25 years. At the end of 2004, China became Iran’s top oil export market. Apart from the oil and natural gas delivery contracts, the massive investment being undertaken by China’s state-owned oil companies in Iran’s energy sector contravenes the US Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. This law penalizes foreign companies for investing more than $20 million in either Libya or Iran. </p>
<p>2. The Chinese threat to the US. <em>China to dump billions of dollars of US Treasury Bills<br />
</em> “A shift in China’s investment strategy could change its purchases of Treasuries, affecting a market that Washington relies on to help finance multibillion-dollar budget deficits, and perhaps eventually push up U.S. interest rates..”<br />
<a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&amp;code=20070310&amp;articleId=5039">http://www.globalresearch.ca/i&#8230;..cleId=5039</a></p>
<p>China’s #2 in  MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES<br />
<a href="http://www.treasury.gov/tic/mfh.txt">http://www.treasury.gov/tic/mfh.txt</a></p>
<p>If the US bombs Iran, China’s retaliation in dumping US Treasury securities will be the equivalent of  catastrophic US financial nuclear disaster. China can take us out financially.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What you have spelled out are the ‘entangling alliances’ which may well leave the continental U.S. radioactive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tjb</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982156</link>
		<dc:creator>tjb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 16:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982156</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;If we do Iran it will wind up a Custerf**k&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If we do Iran it will wind up a Custerf**k</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RockPaperScizzors</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982013</link>
		<dc:creator>RockPaperScizzors</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:21:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-982013</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Missed a link @160&lt;br /&gt;
The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html&quot;&gt;http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The new geostrategic alliance&lt;br /&gt;
Along with energy trade, investment and economic development, the China-Iran-Russia alliance has cultivated compatible foreign policies. China, Iran and Russia have identical foreign policy positions regarding Taiwan and Chechnya. China and Iran fully support the Putin government’s war against the Chechen separatists (Iran’s self-described status as an “Islamic republic” notwithstanding). Russia and Iran support Beijing’s one-China policy.&lt;br /&gt;
The most compelling aspect of this alliance is revealed in China’s and Russia’s support for Iran’s much-maligned nuclear energy program…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;em&gt;The endorsement of Tehran’s nuclear energy program by Moscow and Beijing reveals the primary impetus behind the China-Iran-Russia axis - to counter US unilateralism and global hegemonic intentions&lt;/em&gt;. For Beijing and Moscow, this means minimizing US influence in Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. For the regime in Tehran, keeping the US at bay is a matter of survival&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Missed a link @160<br />
The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran<br />
<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html">http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GF04Ad07.html</a></p>
<p>The new geostrategic alliance<br />
Along with energy trade, investment and economic development, the China-Iran-Russia alliance has cultivated compatible foreign policies. China, Iran and Russia have identical foreign policy positions regarding Taiwan and Chechnya. China and Iran fully support the Putin government’s war against the Chechen separatists (Iran’s self-described status as an “Islamic republic” notwithstanding). Russia and Iran support Beijing’s one-China policy.<br />
The most compelling aspect of this alliance is revealed in China’s and Russia’s support for Iran’s much-maligned nuclear energy program…<br />
<em>The endorsement of Tehran’s nuclear energy program by Moscow and Beijing reveals the primary impetus behind the China-Iran-Russia axis &#8211; to counter US unilateralism and global hegemonic intentions</em>. For Beijing and Moscow, this means minimizing US influence in Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East. For the regime in Tehran, keeping the US at bay is a matter of survival</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RockPaperScizzors</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-981991</link>
		<dc:creator>RockPaperScizzors</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:14:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-981991</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;And the reason the US is making noise about Iran has nothing to do with Nuclear. It’s about the oil and Iraq leaving the USA, aka Haliburton out.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Iraq, Iran Sign Oil-Pipeline Deal&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
August 11, 2007 — Iran’s state-controlled media report that Iran and Iraq have signed an agreement on building an oil pipeline between the two countries…&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/08/725aebbd-aaec-4909-9598-1a713bc20411.html&quot;&gt;http://www.rferl.org/featuresa.....20411.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And the reason the US is making noise about Iran has nothing to do with Nuclear. It’s about the oil and Iraq leaving the USA, aka Haliburton out.</p>
<p><em>Iraq, Iran Sign Oil-Pipeline Deal</em><br />
August 11, 2007 — Iran’s state-controlled media report that Iran and Iraq have signed an agreement on building an oil pipeline between the two countries…<br />
<a href="http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/08/725aebbd-aaec-4909-9598-1a713bc20411.html">http://www.rferl.org/featuresa&#8230;..20411.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sporkovat</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-981984</link>
		<dc:creator>sporkovat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-981984</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;CHS&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;All I know is that with Democratic “leadership” listening to Joe Lieberman rather than to their own common sense, I just need to say this out loud this morning:  N-O.  NO. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;but if and when they go Y-E-S there is unfortunately no OR ELSE from the Left Blogoshpere, is there?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Amidst the thunder of bombs falling, rending the lives of many many thousands more victims, we will hear only the feeble refrain “we need more and better Democrats…”&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CHS</p>
<blockquote><p>All I know is that with Democratic “leadership” listening to Joe Lieberman rather than to their own common sense, I just need to say this out loud this morning:  N-O.  NO. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>but if and when they go Y-E-S there is unfortunately no OR ELSE from the Left Blogoshpere, is there?</p>
<p>Amidst the thunder of bombs falling, rending the lives of many many thousands more victims, we will hear only the feeble refrain “we need more and better Democrats…”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: selise</title>
		<link>http://firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-981972</link>
		<dc:creator>selise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/09/20/but-was-it-a-five-inch-heel/#comment-981972</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-981862&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;selise @ 153&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-981847&quot;&gt;&lt;em&gt;jayt @ 149&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;  selise   says:&lt;br /&gt;
September 20th, 2007 at 7:38 am&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;did you hear which committee it was?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;No, he didn’t specify unfortunately. I’d really like to see it too.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;thanks. i’m going to go hunting for it… would like to record it as well as watch it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;the hearing is tomorrow at 10:30 am. the committee is the &lt;a href=&quot;http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/&quot;&gt;democratic policy committee&lt;/a&gt;. i confirmed with the committee (oversight) that scahill would be testifiying.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;they don’t currently have webcasting - BUT they are madly trying to get it for tomorrow’s hearing, and i was told that even if they couldn’t do it live, they would put up a video archive.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;probably wouldn’t hurt to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.c-span.org/about/contact.asp&quot;&gt;ask c-span&lt;/a&gt; to cover it&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;will add this to my hearings list for the week, even though it is not, strictly speaking, a congressional committee.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;p.s. i called dorgan’s office first, and they told me that they didn’t know what committee it was, but that they were getting lots of calls….&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="#comment-981862"><em>selise @ 153</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p><a href="#comment-981847"><em>jayt @ 149</em></a></p>
<blockquote><p><i>  selise   says:<br />
September 20th, 2007 at 7:38 am</i></p>
<p>did you hear which committee it was?</p>
<p>No, he didn’t specify unfortunately. I’d really like to see it too.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>thanks. i’m going to go hunting for it… would like to record it as well as watch it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>the hearing is tomorrow at 10:30 am. the committee is the <a href="http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/">democratic policy committee</a>. i confirmed with the committee (oversight) that scahill would be testifiying.</p>
<p>they don’t currently have webcasting &#8211; BUT they are madly trying to get it for tomorrow’s hearing, and i was told that even if they couldn’t do it live, they would put up a video archive.</p>
<p>probably wouldn’t hurt to <a href="http://www.c-span.org/about/contact.asp">ask c-span</a> to cover it</p>
<p>will add this to my hearings list for the week, even though it is not, strictly speaking, a congressional committee.</p>
<p>p.s. i called dorgan’s office first, and they told me that they didn’t know what committee it was, but that they were getting lots of calls….</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
