| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:18 pm Post subject: War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative |
| War with Iran real risk according to former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN's 'This Week at War' with John Roberts last weekend
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/07/tww.01.html
ROBERTS: In the big picture Bob Baer, it does seem to ratchet up tensions. You wrote in "Time" magazine that the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf is fanning Iranian paranoia. You have agreement from retired U.S. Air Force General David Baker who said quote, more ingredients continue to be added to the recipe for some sort of armed conflict between coalition forces and Iran. I believe that both sides are moving toward that event. There's plenty of room for mistakes, miscalculations or wrong moves on all sides. Do you think that some kind of conflict is inevitable here?
BAER: I think the chances are pretty good. It may happen by accident. Something is going to kick it off. There's going to be a border crossing. The Iranians expect to be attacked and they will retaliate immediately against all the Gulf States, against the U.S. fleet. I think as long as we have that fleet, three aircraft carriers in the Gulf, the next couple weeks, we're running a real risk of going to war whether on purpose or incidentally.
THIS WEEK AT WAR
Week's War-Related Events Recounted
Aired April 7, 2007 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR, THIS WEEK AT WAR: Iran releases its hostages. Syria's president sits down with the speaker of the House. Are we looking at diplomatic breakthroughs or cynical PR moves meant to weaken international resolve? THIS WEEK AT WAR starts in one minute right after a look at what's in the news, right now.
ROB MARCIANO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: I'm Rob Marciano. Here's what's happening now in the news. Cracking down on Iraqis' insurgency. That's the goal of operation black eagle. The latest joint military offensive of U.S. and Iraqi troops in the province of Yuania (ph). The U.S. military says American warplanes pounded well-armed Shiite militias, capturing as many as 36 suspected insurgents.
And a huge blaze in a poor section of the Philippine capital has left some 1200 families homeless. Fire crews had difficulty reaching the flames as they tore through the shanty town. And residents with buckets were just no match for the fire. Its cause has yet to be determined.
And after a harrowing ordeal aboard a Greek cruise ship, passengers are now speaking out. The ship hit a reef near the island of Santorini (ph) Thursday and sank. The captain and five of his crew are facing negligence charges. Passengers are describing their dramatic evacuation from the ship.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANDY MURPHY, PASSENGER: Well, we thank God we're here and we appreciate life more.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We don't need all your stuff.
MURPHY: We don't need your items. We all bought jewelry and everything and it's all down there. We don't care at this point.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARCIANO: I'm Rob Marciano. We'll see you later on this evening. But now, back to John Roberts and THIS WEEK AT WAR.
ROBERTS: For most of his presidency, George W. Bush has had things his own way. Not anymore. Britain plays along with Iran run to get back its hostages. The Democratic speaker of the House sits down with Syria and Congress ties up the money to fight in Iraq with demands on how to fight and when to get out. Who's in charge here? And what are the real effects on U.S. policy? I'm John Roberts with THIS WEEK AT WAR. Let's take a look at what our correspondents reported day by day this week. Monday, a truck bomb in Kirkuk explodes near a primary school. At least 15 die including one American soldier and dozens of young children are wounded. Tuesday, President Bush blasts Congress for putting political battles ahead of funding for the troops. Wednesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi thumbs her nose at George Bush and meets with Syria's President Bashar al-Asad. Thursday in Britain, joy as 15 hostages held in Iran are welcomed home by their families. Friday, for the first time, the Pentagon ordered four National Guard brigades to ready for a second tour in Iraq.
Here are this week's key questions. What did Iran really intended with this week's hostage release? We'll ask Aneesh Raman in Cairo. Are the new security tactics working in Iraq? Kyra Phillips has been on the streets of Baghdad. And why can't al Qaeda be contained? We'll put that to Peter Bergen. He's in Kabul, Afghanistan. THIS WEEK AT WAR.
What could have been a tragedy ended as something of a comedy this week. Dressed in ill-fitting suits and a head scarf for the one female sailor, 15 British troops held for almost two weeks by Iran gave thanks to their captors. They clearly just wanted out. But what did Iran want and what did it get? CNN's Aneesh Raman, a frequent visitor to Iran today is reporting from Cairo. Here in Washington, Robert Baer, former CIA agent, now an intelligence columnist for time.com and Karim Sadjadpour. He's a leading analyst on Iran with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. What did Iran learn from this crisis? When I spoke to him on Wednesday, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton said the takeaway for Tehran was that they could safely provoke western nations.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BOLTON, FMR U.S. AMBASSADOR TO U.N.: If I were Tehran, the conclusion I would draw would be full speed ahead on the nuclear weapons program and possibly other, even bolder actions against the U.S. and the UK and Iraq.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Karim Sadjadpour. Bolton told me, he said he thought that the diplomatic route that Britain took was exactly the wrong thing to do, that the west should have gotten tough with Iran to make this thing work.
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT: I disagree with Mr. Bolton. Three decades of U.S. sanctions haven't really borne much fruit. Iran is still atop the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror. And I think from the British perspective, this was a very delicate situation. But in the end, their strategy worked. They got their sailors out without incident. They were unharmed after two weeks and they didn't admit to any wrongdoing. They didn't issue apologies to Iran. So I think from the British perspective, what they did was fairly successful.
ROBERTS: Bolton also suggested that this was a huge win for Ahmadinejad. Take a quick lessen to what he told me about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOLTON: The spotlight was on Ahmadinejad the whole time. He made the call. He gets the credit for the hostages getting out. He stage managed this to his advantage. He's the one pushing the nuclear weapons program. I think we've got real trouble ahead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Aneesh Raman, was this a win for Ahmadinejad? Will he be emboldened by this? Could there be more trouble ahead?
ANEESH RAMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think certainly he got a PR coup of sorts. This is a man the British government has vilified often. Here are British military personnel in those stark images, smiling, showing him gratitude as he smiles back. I disagree with Mr. Bolton, though, I don't think this was Ahmadinejad's call. From all the indications we got in Tehran, he wasn't calling the shots. It was the supreme leader and in practice, it was a man named Ali Larijani (ph) who is a relative pragmatist in terms of the context with Ahmadinejad. So I think in the end, to not show division, they had Ahmadinejad as a face of the release. But I don't think he was orchestrating this from behind.
ROBERTS: Well, we certainly heard some thoughts from the British sailors and Marines on Friday. They came out to talk to the public for the very first time about exactly how this thing went down. Here is what Captain Chris Air told the world about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAPT. CHRIS AIR, BRITISH ROYAL MARINES: The Iranian navy did not (INAUDIBLE) They came with intent, heavy weapons and very quickly surrounded us. We were not prepared to fight a heavily armed force who in our impression, came out deliberately into Iraqi waters to take us prisoner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: They came out deliberately. Bob Baer, what do you make of all this? What was it about on Iran's part?
ROBERT BAER, FMR. CIA ANALYST: First of all, the Islamic revolutionary guard corps, the group that took the hostages are under the control of Khomeni (ph), the spiritual leader. This is not an entirely parallel government that operates on its own. So this was intentionally -- the hostage taking was taken by Iran. It was done by the supreme leader.
ROBERTS: What was it all about? What was it for?
BAER: Retaliation for taking five members of the Islamic revolutionary guard corps in Irbil (ph) on the11th of January, taking diplomats. Iran is sending the message, don't ignore us, don't start playing with us. ROBERTS: Bolton also told me in that interview that he thought that this was about the nuclear program and about Iran testing the waters. Here's what the "National Review" online said in how they characterized what Ahmadinejad did and the west's reaction to it. In an editorial on Wednesday, they said, quote, by committing an act of war, Iran has simultaneously made itself look peaceful and made the west look impotent. Do you believe Karim that this was Iran testing the west, pushing the edge of the envelope, provoking, seeing what type of response would come back, in the event that it does decide to step up its income program?
SADJADPOUR: Well, John, I think this was much more an act of desperation rather than provocation. We're trying to ascertain the world from Tehran as they see it, as Bob mentioned, the Iranian officials being detained in Iraq. You have sanctions at the U.N. Security Council. You have financial coercion taking place. You have U.S. aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf. So I think Iran wants to show the west that, if you want to reciprocate, we have the means -- I'm sorry, if you want to escalate, we have the means to reciprocate. And don't think a hard line approach is going to moderate our behavior.
ROBERTS: It seemed to also suggest this. If you engage in diplomacy, then perhaps a window is open for dialogue. Tony Blair, the British prime minister picked up on that in a press conference that he gave on Thursday after they were released. But he also drew some red lines to say that Iran has got some responsibilities too. Take a quick listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TONY BLAIR, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: The possibility of a different relationship with the international community is there. But it has to be based on proper support for the will of that community. And the choice in the end is one that Iran will have to make.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERTS: Aneesh, is Iran likely to make those changes?
RAMAN: No, I don't think we're going to see any real change in policy from Iran. The message as we've alluded to here, in terms of this entire standoff was this, both that Iran has strength and resolve against pressure from the west and that it does reward diplomacy. That it seems was a not so subtle hint by the Iranian government in terms of how they think the nuclear dispute should end. Within Iran and Ahmadinejad sort of gained, has retained popularity among the hard-liners. The hard liners would have liked to see the standoff go on for some time more. It does seem that a pragmatist mindset in the end, when this was done in a magnanimous fashion of orchestrated images, won out within the government. And so there is a little bit of hope that these new lines of communication the prime minister has talked about, which specifically means Ali Larijani, could develop some sort of diplomatic resolution to the nuclear front. Iran, by all indications is not going to change anything. ROBERTS: In the big picture Bob Baer, it does seem to ratchet up tensions. You wrote in "Time" magazine that the U.S. military buildup in the Gulf is fanning Iranian paranoia. You have agreement from retired U.S. Air Force General David Baker who said quote, more ingredients continue to be added to the recipe for some sort of armed conflict between coalition forces and Iran. I believe that both sides are moving toward that event. There's plenty of room for mistakes, miscalculations or wrong moves on all sides. Do you think that some kind of conflict is inevitable here?
BAER: I think the chances are pretty good. It may happen by accident. Something is going to kick it off. There's going to be a border crossing. The Iranians expect to be attacked and they will retaliate immediately against all the Gulf States, against the U.S. fleet. I think as long as we have that fleet, three aircraft carriers in the Gulf, the next couple weeks, we're running a real risk of going to war whether on purpose or incidentally.
ROBERTS: Not a good thought to end this on. Thank you for that. Bob Baer, Karim Sanjadpour and of course, Aneesh Raman in Cairo. Thanks very much.
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:29 pm; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:24 am Post subject: U.S. hell-bent for Iran war |
| Forwarded:
February 4, 2007
U.S. hell-bent for Iran war
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2007/02/04/pf-3522960.html
By ERIC MARGOLIS, TORONTO SUN
TORONTO -- The Bush-Cheney administration seems hell-bent on provoking war with Iran , and the U.S.-Iran confrontation is getting very dangerous. The heaviest concentration of U.S. naval strike forces since the 2003 war against Iraq is concentrating off Iran .
In a disturbing replay of that conflict, CIA drones and U.S. Air Force recon aircraft - along with U.S. and British Special Forces - are overflying Iran and probing its nuclear and military installations. The CIA and Britain 's MI6 are stirring unrest among Iran 's Kurds and Azerbaijanis, and arming Iranian Marxist and royalist exiles.
A belligerent U.S. President George Bush ordered U.S. forces in Iraq to "kill" Iranian agents or diplomats who appear threatening.
U.S. troops in northern Iraq broke into an Iranian liaison office and arrested its military staff. Bush unblushingly warns Iran , not to "meddle" in neighbouring Iraq
Pentagon sources accused Iran of smuggling weapons and explosives to "Iraqi insurgents" - though the "insurgents" are, in fact, Shia militiamen allied to the U.S.-installed Baghdad regime. Half of the 21,000 additional U.S. troops headed to Iraq are being positioned to cover the Iranian border and block an Iranian threat to the main U.S. Kuwait-Baghdad supply line.
New contingents of U.S. Air Force personnel and warplanes are arriving at key forward air bases in Bulgaria and Romania that link the U.S. to the Mideast and Central Asia . U.S. bases in Britain , Germany , Diego Garcia, the Persian Gulf, Central Asia, and Pakistan are reported on heightened alert. Turkey is being pressed to allow U.S. and Israeli strike aircraft to use its air space to attack northern Iran
The Pentagon's latest strike plan against Iran includes over 2,300 "high value" targets such as its dispersed nuclear infrastructure and, worryingly, operating reactors, air and naval bases, ports, telecommunications, air defences, military factories, energy networks, and government buildings.
Iran's water and sewage systems, bridges, food storage, and bomb shelters could also be targeted, as Iraq 's were in 2001.
The U.S. Treasury has mounted a highly effective campaign to strangle Iran financially, seriously hurting its foreign banking connections, retarding industrial growth and energy production, and impeding foreign investment.
The Bush administration and close ally Israel have sharply intensified their war of words against Iran , claiming, implausibly, Iran poses a nuclear threat to the entire world.
Politicians in Israel are in dangerous emotional overdrive and are making open threats to attack Iran They claim Iran is a new Nazi Germany and Israel faces a second Holocaust - in spite of its powerful triad of nuclear forces that can survive any surprise attack.
Though UN inspectors find no evidence Iran is producing nuclear weapons, Tehran , like Saddam's Iraq , is being told to prove an impossible negative - that it has no nuclear weapons.
With disturbing deja vu, the U.S. Congress and media are swallowing the administration's torrent of unproven allegations against Iran precisely the way they lapped up its grotesque lies about Iraq
Intelligence analysts would conclude either: Washington is trying to bluff Tehran to abandon its entirely legal but worrisome civilian nuclear power program and thus claim a major victory after so many defeats; or the cornered Bush-Cheney administration is trying to provoke an air and naval war against Iran as a last desperate, ideologically driven assault against the Muslim world, and divert attention from its Iraq debacle.
Amid growing war fever, last week France 's President Jacques Chirac privately observed that even if Iran had a few nuclear weapons for self-defence, "it is not very dangerous."
Iran would be obliterated by U.S. and Israeli nuclear counterstrikes if it ever used its nukes against Israel , noted Chirac, and is unlikely to commit national suicide.
After his comments became public, Chirac retracted them when Washington 's French-haters went apoplectic. But, as he did before Bush's 2003 war against Iraq , Chirac spoke with logic and good sense.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margolis is a friend of the USS Liberty cause for justice as well:
© 2007 Eric Margolis
Archives > April 29, 2001
'THE USS LIBERTY:' AMERICA 'S MOST SHAMEFUL SECRET
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2001/04/the_uss_liberty.php
NEW YORK - On the fourth day of the 1967 Arab Israeli War, the intelligence ship ‘USS Liberty’ was steaming slowly in international waters, 14 miles off the Sinai Peninsula . Israeli armored forces were racing deep into Sinai in hot pursuit of the retreating Egyptian army.
‘ Liberty ,’ a World War II freighter, had been converted into an intelligence vessel by the top-secret US National Security Agency, and packed with the latest signals and electronic interception equipment. The ship bristled with antennas and electronic ‘ears’ including TRSSCOMM, a system that delivered real-time intercepts to Washington by bouncing a stream of microwaves off the moon.
‘ Liberty ’ had been rushed to Sinai to monitor communications of the belligerents in the Third Arab Israeli War: Israel and her foes, Egypt , Syria , and Jordan .
At 0800 hrs, 8 June, 1967, eight Israeli recon flights flew over ‘ Liberty ,’ which was flying a large American flag. At 1400 hrs, waves of low-flying Israeli Mystere and Mirage-III fighter-bombers repeatedly attacked the American vessel with rockets, napalm, and cannon. The air attacks lasted 20 minutes, concentrating on the ship’s electronic antennas and dishes. The ‘ Liberty ’ was left afire, listing sharply. Eight of her crew lay dead, a hundred seriously wounded, including the captain, Commander William McGonagle.
At 1424 hrs, three Israeli torpedo boats attacked, raking the burning ‘ Liberty ’ with 20mm and 40mm shells. At 1431hrs an Israeli torpedo hit the ‘ Liberty ’ midship, precisely where the signals intelligence systems were located. Twenty-five more Americans died.
Israeli gunboats circled the wounded ‘ Liberty ,’ firing at crewmen trying to fight the fires. At 1515, the crew were ordered to abandon ship. The Israeli warships closed and poured machine gun fire into the crowded life rafts, sinking two. As American sailors were being massacred in cold blood, a rescue mission by US Sixth Fleet carrier aircraft was mysteriously aborted on orders from the White House.
An hour after the attack, Israeli warships and planes returned. Commander McGonagle gave the order. ‘prepare to repel borders.’ But the Israelis, probably fearful of intervention by the US Sixth Fleet, departed. ‘ Liberty ’ was left shattered but still defiant, her flag flying.
The Israeli attacks killed 34 US seamen and wounded 171 out of a crew of 297, the worst loss of American naval personnel from hostile action since World War II.
Less than an hour after the attack, Israel told Washington its forces had committed a ‘tragic error.’ Later, Israel claimed it had mistaken ‘ Liberty ’ for an ancient Egyptian horse transport. US Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, and Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Admiral Thomas Moorer, insisted the Israeli attack was deliberate and designed to sink ‘ Liberty .’ So did three CIA reports; one asserted Israel ’s Defense Minister, Gen. Moshe Dayan, had personally ordered the attack.
In contrast to American outrage over North Korea’s assault on the intelligence ship ‘Pueblo,’ Iraq’s mistaken missile strike on the USS ‘Stark,’ last fall’s bombing of the USS ‘Cole’ in Aden, and the recent US-China air incident, the savaging of ‘Liberty’ was quickly hushed up by President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.
The White House and Congress immediately accepted Israel ’s explanation and let the matter drop. Israel later paid a token reparation of US $6 million. There were reports two Israeli pilots who had refused to attack ‘ Liberty ’ were jailed for 18 years.
Surviving ‘ Liberty ’ crew members would not be silenced. They kept demanding an open inquiry and tried to tell their story of deliberate attack to the media. Israel’s government worked behind the scenes to thwart these efforts, going so far as having American pro-Israel groups accuse ‘Liberty’s’ survivors of being ‘anti-Semites’ and ‘Israel-haters.’ Major TV networks cancelled interviews with the crew. A book about the ‘ Liberty ’ by crewman James Ennes’ was dropped from distribution. The Israel lobby branded him ‘an Arab propagandist.’
The attack on ‘ Liberty ’ was fading into obscurity until last week, when intelligence expert James Bamford came out with ‘Body of Secrets,’ his latest book about the National Security Agency. In a stunning revelation, Bamford writes that unknown to Israel, a US Navy EC-121 intelligence aircraft was flying high overhead the ‘Liberty,’ electronically recorded the attack. The US aircraft crew provides evidence that the Israeli pilots knew full well that they were attacking a US Navy ship flying the American flag.
Why did Israel try to sink a naval vessel of its benefactor and ally? Most likely because ‘Liberty’s’ intercepts flatly contradicted Israel’s claim, made at the war’s beginning on 5 June, that Egypt had attacked Israel, and that Israel’s massive air assault on three Arab nations was in retaliation. In fact, Israel began the war by a devastating, Pearl-Harbor style surprise attack that caught the Arabs in bed and destroyed their entire air forces.
Israel was also preparing to attack Syria to seize its strategic Golan Heights . Washington warned Israel not to invade Syria , which had remained inactive while Israel fought Egypt . Bamford says Israel ’s offensive against Syria was abruptly postponed when ‘ Liberty ’ appeared off Sinai, then launched once it was knocked out of action. Israel ’s claim that Syria had attacked it could have been disproved by ‘ Liberty .’
Most significant, ‘Liberty’s’ intercepts may have shown that Israel seized upon sharply rising Arab-Israeli tensions in May-June 1967 to launch a long-planned war to invade and annex the West Bank, Jerusalem, Golan and Sinai.
Far more shocking was Washington ’s response. Writes Bamford: ‘Despite the overwhelming evidence that Israel attacked the ship and killed American servicemen deliberately, the Johnson Administration and Congress covered up the entire incident.’ Why?
Domestic politics. Johnson, a man never noted for high moral values, preferred to cover up the attack rather than anger a key constituency and major financial backer of the Democratic Party. Congress was even less eager to touch this ‘third rail’ issue.
Commander McGonagle was quietly awarded the Medal of Honor for his and his men’s heroism - not in the White House, as is usual, but in an obscure ceremony at the Washington Navy Yard. Crew member’s graves were inscribed, ‘died in the Eastern Mediterranean ..’ as if they had be killed by disease, rather than hostile action.
A member of President Johnson’s staff believed there was a more complex reason for the cover-up: Johnson offered Jewish liberals unconditional backing of Israel , and a cover-up of the ‘ Liberty ’ attack, in exchange for the liberal toning down their strident criticism of his policies in the then raging Vietnam War.
Israel, which claims it fought a war of self defense in 1967 and had no prior territorial ambitions, will be much displeased by Bamford’s revelations. Those who believe Israel illegally occupies the West Bank and Golan will be emboldened.
Much more important, the US government’s long, disgraceful cover-up of the premeditated attack on ‘ Liberty ’ has now burst into the open and demands full-scale investigation. After 34 years, the voices of ‘ Liberty ’s’ dead and wounded seamen must finally be heard.
Posted by Eric Margolis on April 29, 2001 08:51 PM | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 5:30 pm Post subject: |
| Donald Jones (a former consultant for the CIA and Janes) wrote:
What would Bush do if 250,000 Iranian troops joined with 60,000 Iraqi Shiite troops to attack the US forces in Iraq ? There is no way the USAF could deal with such an attack. Perhaps Bush should consult with Col. Custer about that. More and more army officers are coming out against any attack on Iran . They say it would be catastrophic. Because he is a psychopath I bet Bush doesn’t care. I can’t wait to see the outcome. It might cause the American sheeple to wake up.
Shiites call for U.S. to leave Iraq
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago
Tens of thousands of Shiites — a sea of women in black abayas and men waving Iraqi flags — rallied Monday to demand that U.S. forces leave their country. Some ripped apart American flags and tromped across a Stars and Stripes rug.
The protesters marched about three miles between the holy cities of Kufa and Najaf to mark the fourth anniversary of the fall of Baghdad. In the capital, streets were silent and empty under a hastily imposed 24-hour driving ban.
Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered up the march as a show of strength not only to Washington but to Iraq's establishment Shiite ayatollahs as well.
Al-Sadr, who disappointed followers hoping he might appear after months in seclusion, has pounded his anti-American theme in a series of written statements. The most recent came on Sunday, when he called on his Mahdi Army militia to redouble efforts to expel American forces and for the police and army to join the struggle against "your archenemy."
The fiery cleric owes much of his large following to the high esteem in which Shiites hold his father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, who was assassinated in 1999 by suspected agents of Saddam Hussein. Al-Sadr dropped from view before the start of the latest Baghdad security operation on Feb. 14. U.S. officials say he is holed up in Iran. His followers insist he's returned to Najaf.
Fearing suicide attacks, car bombings or other mayhem in the capital, Iraq's generals ordered all vehicles off the streets for 24 hours starting at 5 a.m. Monday, normally a work day. The capital was eerily quiet, shops were shuttered and locked and reports of sectarian violence fell to near zero.
Police and morgue officials reported finding just seven bodies dumped in the capital, only the second time the number of sectarian assassination and torture victims had dipped that low in the course of the Baghdad security operation. A total of 25 people were killed or found dead in the country Monday, according to police and morgue reports.
A double line of police cordoned the marchers' route from Kufa to Najaf, sister cities on the west bank of the Euphrates River. The holy places, 100 miles south of Baghdad, are a prime destination for Shiite pilgrims.
Among the snapping flags and giant banners, leaflets fluttered to earth, exhorting the marchers in chants of "Yes, Yes to Iraq" and "Yes, Yes to Muqtada. Occupiers should leave Iraq."
Salah al-Obaydi, a senior official in al-Sadr's Najaf organization, called the rally a "call for liberation. We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty."
And the head of al-Sadr's parliamentary bloc, Nassar al-Rubaie, blasted the U.S. presence as an affront to "the dignity of the Iraqi people. After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded."
A key Washington official saw it differently.
"Iraq, four years on, is now a place where people can freely gather and express their opinions," Gordon Johndroe, the National Security Council spokesman, said aboard Air Force One. "And while we have much more progress ahead of us — the United States, the coalition and Iraqis have much more to do — this is a country that has come a long way from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."
Col. Steven Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman and aide to Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, praised the peaceful demonstration and said Iraqis "could not have done this four years ago."
Iraqi soldiers in uniform joined the crowd of marchers which stretch for at least three miles and was led by a dozen turbaned clerics, a Sunni Muslim among them. Many marchers, especially youngsters, danced as they moved through the streets, littered with balloons.
Brig. Abdul Kerim al-Mayahi, the Najaf police chief, said there were as many as 600,000 in the march, although other estimates were significantly lower. He said 30 lawmakers made the hike and there was no American troop presence except surveillance from helicopters hovering above.
Monday's demonstration marks four years since U.S. Marines and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division swept into the Iraqi capital 20 days into the American invasion.
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari noted that "mistakes were made" after Saddam was ousted, pointing to decisions made by the first U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer.
"The main mistake was a vacuum left in the fields of security and politics, and the second mistake was how liberating forces became occupation forces," Zebari told Al-Arabiyah television.
Cars were banned from Najaf for 24 hours starting from 8 p.m. Sunday, and buses idled at all city entry points to transport arriving demonstrators or other visitors.
While al-Sadr had ordered his militia to disarm and stay off the streets during the Baghdad crackdown, he has notched up his anti-American rhetoric in three brief but hostile statements demanding the departure of U.S. troops.
"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," he wrote, apparently referring to three days of clashes between his Mahdi Army militiamen and U.S.-backed Iraqi troops in Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad.
A U.S. soldier was killed there Sunday, according to Col. Michael Garrett, with the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division. He spoke to reporters in Diwaniyah as American troops continued operations.
On Monday night, police officials in Diwaniyah said the toll since the start of the operation Friday was 14 dead and 47 wounded, both figures including civilians and members of the Mahdi Army. The numbers could not be independently confirmed. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
| Iran May Be The Greatest Crisis Of Modern Times
By John Pilger
We are being led towards perhaps the most serious crisis in modern history as the Bush-Cheney-Blair "long war" edges closer to Iran for no reason other than that nation's independence from rapacious America.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17522.htm
===
Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack, John and Whitewash
By Norman Solomon
This year, with their virtually identical statements about "options" and "the table," the leading Democratic presidential candidates - Clinton, Obama and Edwards - have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran. If you're not shocked or outraged yet, consider this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17520.htm
===
The Iraqi Resistance Only Exists To End The Occupation
By Haifa Zangana
The escalating attacks are not usually aimed at civilians, but are a direct response to the brutal actions of US-led troops.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17523.htm
===
Creating a Market for Security
By Paul Craig Roberts
The War on Terror is a marketing campaign for security industries and terrorism experts. The latter are pulling in the consulting fees, and the former are rapidly inventing new products that enable "our" government to watch our every move and to know our location at every moment.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17521.htm
===
Kurdistan's Covert Back-Channels
By Laura Rozen
How an ex-Mossad chief, a German uberspy, and a gaggle of top-dollar GOP lobbyists helped Kurdistan snag 15 tons of $100 bills.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17524.htm
===
In case you missed it
Custodians of Chaos
By Kurt Vonnegut
In this extract from his memoirs, Kurt Vonnegut is horrified by the hypocrisy in contemporary US politics
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13659.htm
Iran: the Threat of a Nuclear War
By General Leonid Ivashov
Global Research, April 9, 2007
Strategic Culture Foundation - 2007-03-30
Analysis of the current state of the conflict with Iran shows that the world faces the possibility of a new war...
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=5309 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FAT20070409&articleId=5308
Teetering on the Brink of Disaster: The NeoCons' Decision to Bomb Iran
by Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Global Research, April 9, 2007
Can Neoconservative Belligerent Dogmatism be Halted by the Empire’s Realists?
In mid-September 2006, CNN invited retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, previously a strategic scholar at various U.S. Army War Colleges, to discuss the probability of a U.S. military strike against Iran. Responding on how close, in his opinion, the Bush Administration was away from giving the go-ahead order regarding Iran, Gardiner unmistakably said: "It’s been given. In fact, we’ve probably been executing military operations inside Iran for at least 18 months. The evidence is overwhelming." (emphasis added) He is now promptly interrupted by his interviewer’s anticipatory obedience, who recalls that the President had underlined that he wanted diplomacy to work in order to convince the Iranian government to stop enriching uranium. Quoting Bush, in an interview by David Ignatius of the Washington Post from the day before, with the words "I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict," CNN’s familiar face Wolf Blitzer turns back to Gardiner and repeats his initial question. Almost desperately the colonel replies with great emphasis: "We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming, from both the Iranians [and] Americans, and Congressional sources." (emphasis added)
This blunt affirmation came from someone who was closely affiliated with the issue of how to handle the Iran case. It was in 2004 that Gardiner conducted a war game organized by the Atlantic Monthly magazine to gauge how an American president might respond, militarily or otherwise, to Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons, concluding that military strikes would at the end represent a quite inadequate instrument to confront the issue. However, the go-for-war crew at the White House further underscored their firmness of ‘all options being on the table.’ In that same CNN appearance, Gardiner laid out that despite serious concerns of military leaders about whether U.S. attacks on Iran would be effective, the Neoconservative officials remained fervent to their regime change goal: "The House Committee on Emerging Threats tried to have a hearing some weeks ago in which they asked the Department of State and Defense to come and answer this question [of military operations in Iran underway—the author] because it’s serious enough to be answered without congressional approval, and they didn’t come to the hearing." He stressed the gravity of the situation as the Pentagon war plans have gone to the White House, which is "not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state."
The United War Front Gathers
It is that different state that we are in for a half a year now. With covert military operations inside Iran still underway, war preparations with huge military troops lurking in the Persian Gulf being completed, the outbreak of an all-out war only needs the President’s nodding through. In this light, the recent capture and due-time release by Iran of the British Royal Navy mission ‘gathering intelligence’ in and around its waters has finally avoided the escalation emanating from an act of provocation by Anglo-American troops in the region.
A highly significant indicator as to the probability of this Neoconservative covetousness to be realized or not was this year’s annual Policy Conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Estimated to be the United States’ most influential political lobby and renowned for its harsh anti-Iran stance, AIPAC welcomed a number of highest ranking U.S. and Israeli officials to its ever-largest conference held, which was primarily devoted to the issue of the ‘Iranian nuclear threat.’ Vice President Cheney, welcomed by standing ovations, made a hawkish speech par excellence: "We [the American and Israeli people—the author] are the prime targets of the terror movement that is global in nature, and yes global in its ambitions. The leader of this movement speak openly and specifically of building a totalitarian empire covering the Middle East, extending into Europe and reaching across to the islands of Indonesia." Unmistakably displaying his commitment to take action against Iran, Cheney called for "moral clarity, the courage of our convictions, a willingness to act when action is necessary and a refusal to submit to any form of intimidation ever." His speech was concluded with the words: "we’re in a war that was begun on the enemy’s terms. We’re fighting that war on our own terms and we will prevail." His statements which were marked by a peculiar version of the historical reality the world is witnessing today in the Near and Middle East, were not all too surprising as he is known as the Administration’s key figure pushing for ‘regime change’ in Iran, but still remain highly perturbing.
That is why it was, however, more interesting to hear the speech by the new Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi—a long-standing friend of AIPAC, as she was introduced by a former AIPAC president. Her first statement with a political dimension was dedicated to "recall[ing] the history of a Persian leader threatening the Jewish people and the heroine Esther who had the courage to speak out and save them. Today the Israeli people have that same courage to meet that same challenge." Pelosi went on saying: "Let us be very clear; Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. It threatens the security of Israel, the stability of the region and the safety of the world," underlining that "confronting that challenge […] when Israel has a choice to make it makes courageous choices for peace." At the apogée of fundamentalist rhetoric which was absorbed by an often electrified crowd, the evangelical pastor John Hagee proclaimed that "[t]he sleeping giant of Christian Zionism has awoken!"
Although an explicit claim for waging a war on Iran was not made, implicit hints for the necessity for doing so were not missing at all. But AIPAC’s momentary plan seems to be further escalating the nuclear stand-off with Iran. According to its ‘Iran memo,’ the pro-Israel lobby group called for much harsher sanctions to be pursued on economic and financial grounds with the hope of letting the Iranian regime to collapse. This flows into a new bill entitled the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, introduced by the ranking members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Democrat Tom Lantos and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. In a single day thousands of AIPAC lobbyists descended to Capitol Hill where "they were greeted by nearly every U.S. senator and more than half the members of the House of Representatives – approximately 500 meetings were held between AIPAC representatives and members of Congress."
But what do such avowals tell us about an imminent threat of a war on Iran? First of all, they show a pro bellum camp horrifyingly certain about their mission. They also signal that the spearhead of the Democratic opposition backs the Administration’s fervent commitment to confront Iran with all means necessary. There are however some obstacle to be overcome.
The Empire’s Realists’ Fight Against the White House’s "Gut Instincts"
While the current U.S. president received the largest applause among all his predecessors during an AIPAC slide show, at the same time the same president was graded with an ‘F’ for its foreign policy performance one of the country’s leading pundits on foreign policy. In his new book Second Chance – Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, the Realist guru Zbigniew Brzezinski designates presidency of Bush jr. as having "strong gut instincts but no knowledge of global complexities and a temperament prone to dogmatic formulations." Brzezinski bluntly expressed of what is at stake for the American Empire:
"We are facing a very serious crisis regarding the future. Our next twenty months are going to be absolutely decisive. If we surmount the next twenty months without the war in Iraq getting worse and expanding to a war with Iran, I think there is a good chance we’ll recoup. […] But if we do get into that larger conflict, then I’m afraid the era of American global preeminence will prove to be historically very, very short."
With Bush’s presidency being in a deep crisis, the decision to expand the ‘war on terror’ onto Iran can be momentous for the fate of both his administration and his party—but first of all decisive for the future of American global preponderance. It seems that the fragmented camp of war opponents in Congress can hardly prevent the President to unilaterally set the stage for a disastrous war. It is up to influential strategic thinkers affiliated to Realist beliefs to convince Bush not to follow the path predetermined by Cheney. Recently also Henry Kissinger pointed to the very opposite direction of what the Bush Administration is heading to. He proposed an extensive deal with Iran through clever diplomacy. One thing is clear: the outcome of this decisive struggle between the Realist and Neoconservative camps will determine whether we will face a terrible war theater in the Middle East with tremendous global repercussions.
The situation remains strained as those pushing for war are in the corridors of power—in the American, but also Israeli capital. With Tehran announcing its non-compliance vis-à-vis the recent UN Security Council Resolution 1747’s indeed misleading demands, Iranian affinity for negotiations remains. But Tehran’s sole precondition for talks must be met if a peaceful settlement should be achieved: And that is, that the preconditions set by its primarily Western counterparts should be put aside.
In the United States, the pro bellum camp is sensing that through their president’s miserable performance the rug—which is believed to serve them to fully implement the Neoconservative agenda for the Middle East—could be pulled out from under its feet by the final yards. As the godfather of U.S. Neoconservatism Bill Kristol demands in the current issue of their influential organ The Weekly Standard, Bush and other Republicans ought to fight back in order to ensure the Administration’s survival. As the British Guardian just reported, during the recently evoked Anglo-Iranian ‘hostage crisis’ Washington had offered aggressive air patrols in Iranian airspace. But such action, which could have easily triggered a war, was rejected by London. But what else, if not a new war, for saving the Bush/Cheney crew?
Ali Fathollah-Nejad is the author of a study on the Iran crisis entitled Iran in the Eye of Storm – Why a Global War Has Begun (pdf). ali_fna@yahoo.de | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:59 pm Post subject: |
| NM Commentary: No war with Iran
The United States is mired in two endless conflicts already; people must act to prevent another
BY Armen Chakerian
Thursday, April 12, 2007
http://www.abqtrib. com/news/ 2007/apr/ 12/commentary- no-war-iran/ ?printer= 1/
Today's byline: Chakerian is chairman of the New Mexico Coalition Against War with Iran, organized last fall.
STORY TOOLS
E-mail story
Comments
Printer friendly
More Commentary
SHARE THIS STORY [?]
In 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War, Pete Seeger sang these lyrics on the Smothers Brothers Show: "We were waist deep in the Big Muddy, and the big fool said to push on." The song, which was deemed too incendiary by CBS censors the year before, instantly became a popular allegory for an unpopular war.
Now, almost 40 years later, Pete is white-haired, yet America once again finds itself in the same predicament. In the 1960s, it was because of our policies in Indochina. Now it's because our policies in the Middle East.
Wars without end in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eyeball-to-eyeball with Iran. Perpetual deadlock between Israel and the Palestinians. Strains with Lebanon and Syria. Deteriorating relations with the Islamic world at large. Islamophobia at home.
In Iraq, whatever benefits came from removing a tyrant and trying to install a democracy have been overwhelmed by horrendous intrareligious violence. To have even a chance of a military solution would require 200,000 more American troops and a return to the draft - impossible both politically and in regards to time. Whether we stay, pull out or leave gradually to forestall a bloodbath, all the scenarios are grim.
From the start, there were dissenters who opposed the war as a bad idea. They argued Saddam did not pose an imminent threat to America. They cautioned that a war with Iraq would sap energy from the war on terrorism, would become a recruiting bonanza for terrorists and would alienate our allies and the rest of the world. They warned a U.S. invasion might unleash internal conflict leading to a civil war, might be longer and more costly than predicted and, like any war, might not even succeed.
As with Vietnam a generation before, those who counseled caution were ignored by a gung-ho, flag-waving public. And as with Vietnam, their warnings came painfully true.
Now we're being set up again, this time for a war with Iran. We'll find out soon enough whether the public has learned not to reflexively swallow the line the government peddles when trying to sell a new war.
Sure, Iran's president is flaky and provocative, but he's also powerless on military matters. Ayatollah Khamenei is the real decider. He - and Iran's voters - are already sidelining the president. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the perfect bogeyman, made to order for the neocon hawks and Israeli generals who are beating the war drums.
As for Iran developing a nuclear bomb, of course that's not good. But Iran would use it no differently than the other eight nuclear powers - to augment its influence in the region, not to commit national suicide.
Israel's 100 or so nuclear bombs can easily deter a potential aggressor, no matter how hostile its rhetoric. In fact, if anyone is likely to be the first to use nuclear weapons in the 62 years since Nagasaki, it is Israel, employing them to destroy the underground enrichment facilities at Natanz.
Our heavy-handed policy with Iran dates back to 1953, when the CIA helped overthrow its democratically elected leader and install the despotic Shah, which led to the Khomeini revolution and in turn to our supporting Saddam. And look what that yielded.
It's time for a new approach, not another war. We already have two wars on our hands - in Iraq and Afghanistan - and neither is going very well.
To stop a third war, people must speak up now. The time to make a real difference is before a war starts, not after.
Democratic leaders have already rolled over and played dead on Iran. So once again it is up to the people to lead, so their leaders will follow.
We need to turn around, before we get any deeper in the Big Muddy. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:57 am Post subject: |
| http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/13/494/
The Final Act of Submission
by Scott Ritter
In the months leading up to President Bush's ill-fated invasion of
Iraq, I traveled around the world speaking to various international
groups, including many parliamentary assemblies. I spoke about
democracy and the need of any nation or group of nations espousing
democracy as a standard to embrace the ideals and values of justice
and due process in accordance with the rule of law. I spoke of
international law, especially as it was manifested in the charter of
the United Nations (a document signed and adopted by all of the
countries I visited).Invariably, my presentation focused on the
nation in question, whether it was Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands,
Japan or Great Britain, and the status of its relationship with the
United States. As an American, I said, I appreciated each nation's
embrace of the United States as a friend and ally. However, as a
strong believer in the rule of law, I deplored the trend among
America's so-called friends to facilitate a needless confrontation
which would severely harm the U.S. in the long run. These nations
were hesitant to stand up to the United States even though they knew
the course of action planned for Iraq was wrong.
Such permissive submission was deplorable, and invariably led to a
comment from me about the status of genuine sovereignty in the face
of American imperial power. If a nation was incapable of defending
its sovereign values and interests, then it should simply
acknowledge its status as a colony of the United States, pull down
its disgraced national flag and raise the Stars and Stripes.
Now the tables have turned. Americans, through the will of the
people as expressed in the November 2006 election, voiced their
dissatisfaction with the conduct of the American war in Iraq, and
empowered a new Democratic-controlled Congress to reassert itself as
a separate but equal branch of government-especially when it came to
matters pertaining to war and the threat of war.
This new Democratic leadership has failed egregiously. Not only has
the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, been unable to orchestrate
any meaningful legislation to bring the war in Iraq to an end, but
in mid-March she carelessly greased the tracks for a whole new
conflict. By excising language from a defense appropriations bill
which would have required President Bush to seek the approval of
Congress prior to initiating any military attack on Iran, Pelosi
terminated any hope of slowing down the Bush administration's mad
rush to war.
Despite the fact that Congress was only stating through this
language a simple reflection of constitutional mandate, Speaker
Pelosi and others felt that the inclusion of such verbiage put the
security of the state of Israel at risk by eliminating
important "policy options" for the president of the United States.
In short, Israeli national security interests trumped the
Constitution of the United States.
I consider myself to be a friend of Israel, a status which has been
demonstrated repeatedly through words and deeds from January-
February 1991, when I was involved in the effort to stop Iraq Scud
missiles from striking Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, to the period
between October 1994 and June 1998 when I served as the lead liaison
between the United Nations weapons inspectors and Israeli
intelligence, working to find a final accounting of Iraq's
proscribed weapons of mass destruction. I know only too well the
precarious reality of Israel's security situation, and am
sympathetic to its need to proactively deal with threats before they
manifest themselves in a manner which threatens Israel's ability to
survive as a nation-state.
However, as an American who served on active duty in time of war as
an officer of Marines, I also remember the oath I took to "uphold
and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic." As such, I am troubled by the
recent actions of Speaker Pelosi and other members of Congress who
have not only abrogated their collective responsibility to uphold
and defend the Constitution but have taken actions which, under
normal circumstances and involving any other nation, would border on
treasonous. Our collective duty as Americans must center on
defending the very document, the Constitution, which defines who we
are and what we are as a people and a nation. To have our elected
representatives flagrantly push aside their constitutional
responsibilities in the name of the security interests of another
nation is unthinkable. And yet it has just happened, apparently
without consequence.
Sadly, the new Democratic Congress has cemented its status as yet
another iteration of a system which long ago sold its soul to
special interests. Democrats can cackle about Republican scandals,
including the Jack Abramoff affair, which brought down Rep. Tom
DeLay among others. But history will show that the Pelosi-led
sellout to Israeli special interests endangered the viability and
security of America as a sovereign state governed by the rule of law
more than Jack Abramoff ever could.
In this time of constitutional crisis, the American people need to
wake up and demand that the basic tenets of the Constitution be
adhered to. Congress is solely empowered by the Constitution to
declare war. Demanding that the president of the United States
adhere to this prerequisite is a logical and patriotic stance.
Allowing any non-American interest, even one possessing such highly
charged political and emotional sensitivities as Israel, to dictate
otherwise represents nothing more than a capitulation of
sovereignty. We the people need to rally around this defense of
sovereignty. We must demand not only that Congress reassert its
constitutional responsibilities and authority by demanding the
president obey the letter of the law when it comes to war, whether
against Iran or any other nation, but also to place in check the
anti-American activities of one of the most powerful lobbies in
Washington, D.C., the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee.
For decades AIPAC has operated in the shadows of American foreign
policy decision-making, exerting its influence on elected officials
away from the public scrutiny of the very constituents who elected
those officials to begin with. It is impossible to hold someone
accountable for actions that are kept secret, and as such AIPAC's
ability to secretly influence American foreign and national security
policies represents a flagrant insult and threat to the very essence
of American democracy. I am not advocating the dissolution of AIPAC.
However, I am demanding that AIPAC be treated as any other
representative of a foreign nation is treated. It should have to
register as an agent of a foreign power so that the totality of its
interactions with American officials can become a part of the public
record. We require this of all other nations, including our good
friends the British.
To state that AIPAC, and by extension Israel, is above the law in
this regard is to acknowledge the reality that American national
sovereignty no longer matters when it comes to the state of Israel.
So be it. But then we are, collectively, no better than those
nations I mocked prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as "colonies"
of the United States. So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to
operate as an undeclared agent of a foreign nation, and to influence
American foreign and national security policymaking at the expense
of our Constitution, then we should acknowledge our true status as
nothing more than a colony of Israel, pull down the Stars and
Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation's capitol. While
representing the final act of submission, it would also be the first
truly honest act that occurred in Washington, D.C., in many years.
Scott Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998,
and author of `Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's
Intelligence Conspiracy'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2007/04/14/the-final-act-of-submission/
The Final Act of Submission
Published by Andre April 14th, 2007 in Israel
Scott Ritter has never minced words. He mocked the international community prior to the Iraq 2003 invasion, for failing to stand up to the US, and who could argue with him?
As an American, I said, I appreciated each nation’s embrace of the United States as a friend and ally. However, as a strong believer in the rule of law, I deplored the trend among America’s so-called friends to facilitate a needless confrontation which would severely harm the U.S. in the long run. These nations were hesitant to stand up to the United States even though they knew the course of action planned for Iraq was wrong.
Such permissive submission was deplorable, and invariably led to a comment from me about the status of genuine sovereignty in the face of American imperial power. If a nation was incapable of defending its sovereign values and interests, then it should simply acknowledge its status as a colony of the United States, pull down its disgraced national flag and raise the Stars and Stripes.
While this may sound harsh, he holds the United States to the same standards with regards to the capitulation of Washington to AIPAC, by putting the interests of Israel ahead of it’s own and the Constitution of the United States. In March, House Speaker Nanci Pelosi withdrew language at the 11th hour from a defense appropriations bill that required President Bush seek approval of Congress prior to initiating any military attack on Iran. There are no prizes for guessing who was behind this move.
Despite the fact that Congress was only stating through this language a simple reflection of constitutional mandate, Speaker Pelosi and others felt that the inclusion of such verbiage put the security of the state of Israel at risk by eliminating important “policy options” for the president of the United States. In short, Israeli national security interests trumped the Constitution of the United States.
It is clear why, as someone who has served his country and loves it, Ritter is ashamed of a political leadership that has sold out.
So if we are to continue to permit AIPAC to operate as an undeclared agent of a foreign nation, and to influence American foreign and national security policymaking at the expense of our Constitution, then we should acknowledge our true status as nothing more than a colony of Israel, pull down the Stars and Stripes and raise the Star of David over our nation’s capitol. While representing the final act of submission, it would also be the first truly honest act that occurred in Washington, D.C., in many years.
Hardly a week goes by where an example of John Mearsheimer’s and Stephen Walt’s thesis is not played out.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:59 am Post subject: |
| Awful Truth About Hillary, Barack, John... and Whitewash
Media Beat (4/12/07)
By Norman Solomon
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3084
The Pentagon’s most likely next target is Iran.
Hillary Clinton says “no option can be taken off the table.”
Barack Obama says that the Iranian government is “a threat to all of us” and “we should take no option, including military action, off the table.”
John Edwards says, “Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.” And: “We need to keep all options on the table.”
A year ago, writing in the New Yorker, journalist Seymour Hersh reported: “One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.”
For a presidential candidate to proclaim that all “options” should be on the table while dealing with Iran is a horrific statement. It signals willingness to threaten -- and possibly follow through with -- first use of nuclear weapons. This raises no eyebrows among Washington’s policymakers and media elites because it is in keeping with longstanding U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.
This year, with their virtually identical statements about “options” and “the table,” the leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Clinton, Obama and Edwards -- have refused to rule out any kind of attack on Iran.
If you’re not shocked or outraged yet, consider this:
On Feb. 22, the national leaders of MoveOn sent an e-mail letter to more than 3 million people with the subject line “War with Iran?” After citing a need to give UN sanctions “a chance to work before provoking a regional conflict,” the letter said flatly: “Senator Hillary Clinton has provided some much needed leadership on this.”
The MoveOn letter quoted a passage from a speech that Clinton had given on the Senate floor eight days earlier: “It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization. Nor should the president think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority.”
But, while quoting Hillary Clinton’s speech as an example of “some much needed leadership,” MoveOn made no mention of the fact that the same speech stated: “As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table.”
Earlier this year, David Rieff noted in the New York Times Magazine on March 25, “Vice President Cheney insisted that the administration had not ‘taken any options off the table’ as Iran continued to defy United Nations calls for it to abandon its nuclear ambitions. The response from Democrats was not long in coming. Senator Clinton helped lead the charge, reminding the president that he did not have the authority to go to war with Iran on the basis of the Senate’s authorization of the use of force in Iraq in 2002.
“But what Senator Clinton did not say was at least as interesting as what she did say. And what she did not say was that she opposed the use of force in Iran. To the contrary, Senator Clinton used virtually the same formulation as Vice President Cheney. When dealing with Iran, she insisted, ‘no option can be taken off the table.’”
To praise Hillary Clinton for providing “much needed leadership” on Iran -- and to mislead millions of e-mail recipients counted as MoveOn members in the process -- is a notable choice to make. It speaks volumes. It winks at Clinton’s stance that “no option can be taken off the table.” It serves an enabling function. It is very dangerous.
The stakes are much too high to make excuses or look the other way. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
