Propaganda Alert !!! - Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

More Orwellian newspeak from the government Zogby polling puppet and controlled media! Are we being psychologically prepared to accept a near future attack on Iran? Is this another psy-op being conducted on the American people? Let's examine Zogby's findings from their own article.

It is no secret that the Neo-Cons are salivating at the prospect of a lucrative (for the military-industrial complex, and big oil) pre-emptive attack on Iran. It is just a little too convenient that Zogby comes along with this poll that flies in the face of previous surveys that show Americans are against the war by 73 percent.

Anti-war sentiment is high. (70 + percent against war depending upon the pollster) Are we to believe that Americans suddenly changed their minds and now favor more war? This is an incredible revelation; not to mention convenient! I know of no one who favors a strike on Iran. Where do they get these people who say they favor a pre-emptive strike on Iran? Are they oil company and arms manufacturer CEO's?

Released: October 29, 2007

Read the full story here:
Zogby Poll: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

{The first paragraph of the article begins with this:}

Most see Clinton (the anti-war candidate?) as the presidential candidate best equipped to deal with Iran, followed by Giuliani and McCain—but many express uncertainty

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.

The survey results come at a time of increasing U.S. scrutiny of Iran. According to reports from the Associated Press, earlier this month Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program and Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if the U.S. were to discover Iran was attempting to develop a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration also announced new sanctions against Iran.

{Please note the paragraph above which further serves to puff (MSM term for promote) the pre-emptive attack scenario in the public psyche. Isn't this the same pretext we heard just before the Iraq war? Will they fool us again?}

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.

{Note the last line in the paragraph above, the key words being - support, U.S. strike, Iran. Why did they focus on the support for the proposed attack instead of opposition which is much greater in some of the groups mentioned above? This is classical propaganda!}

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran. The telephone poll of 1,028 likely voters nationwide was conducted Oct. 24-27, 2007 and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

{Pretty handy that the supposed "anti-war" candidate who consistently voted for the war in Iraq has been identified as the one Americans would like most to prosecute the pre-emptive strike on Iran! This is meant to soften our view on an attack since Hillary is supposedly anti-war. }

----- snip -----

There is considerable division about when a strike on Iran should take place – if at all. Twenty-eight percent believe the U.S. should wait to strike until after the next president is in office while 23% would favor a strike before the end of President Bush’s term. Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran, and 20% were unsure...

{"Another 29% said the U.S. should not attack Iran," This makes it look like only a small minority are against the attack on Iran.}

As the possibility the U.S. may strike Iran captures headlines around the world, many have given thought to the possibility of an attack at home. Two in three (68%) believe it is likely that the U.S. will suffer another significant terrorist attack on U.S. soil comparable to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001...

{The paragraph above is the signature line of the indoctrination. (the final thought the reader is left with) In short it translates into "let's attack them before they attack us" propaganda.}

The dead give-away that this is a propaganda piece is that it is slanted (to say the least) in the direction of the pro-war cabal who control the White House. The only question that now remains is will we be duped again into another unsustainable, bungling, and deadly war by these dangerous Neo-Cons and their useful idiots in the media?

Now ad to this the fact that the Selective Service System has been ramping up its ability to begin a draft since the Spring of 2005, This is especially a possibility should Congressional Bills S. 89 and H.R. 163, known as the "Universal National Service Act of 2003" pass in the House and Senate.

This time around, a draft would include men and women, and the age limit has been increased to expand the available pool of conscripts. We will need far more troops if we attack Iran.

We can thank Mr. RANGEL Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE for introducing S. 89 and H.R. 163; the pro-war "Universal National Service Act."

Do you remember this recent story? Bush asks Congress for $46 billion more for wars Does Bush know something we don't?

Let us not forget about the missing nuke from this story 6 Nukes Fly Over The US - Big Problems With This Story! And then there was this: Bush Threatens World War Three - With Nukes Can this all just be coincidence?

A corroborating and disturbing article from the Herald:

Secret move to upgrade air base for Iran attack plans
IAN BRUCE, Defence Correspondent
October 29 2007

"
The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military sources.

The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft.

That would allow them to carry experimental 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete."

They are quietly getting all of their i's dotted and t's crossed before the next war. All of the political players (both Democrat and Republican) are ready willing and able (according to the propaganda piece above) to pre-emptively attack Iran.

The plan is in place, the propaganda is here, the war is eminent.

We can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace - Michael Franti

RON PAUL WE NEED YOU !!!