| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: Stop The "Iran War Resolution" |
| Israel Believes Obama Will 'Deprive' It of Political Support for
Iran Attack
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/07/israel-believes-obama-will-deprive-it-of-support-to-attack-iran.html
Here is a tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/5bpvvb
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Subject: DE BORCHGRAVE: Attack plans spiked (see the comments posted at the bottom of the URL for this article as well)
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008, 5:40 AM
DE BORCHGRAVE: Attack plans spiked
Wednesday, July 9th, 2008
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/09/attack-plans-spiked/
Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/06/23/iran-war-resolution-may-be-passed-next-week/
AIPAC’s Hirelings Rush to Resolution
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20250.htm
Israel prods Americans into war with Iran
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/07/05/stop-the-iran-war-resolution-page-2.php
Stop The "Iran War Resolution"
http://stopaipac.org/index.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/21/144412/857/181/539848
This resolution is the current central legislative priority of the pro-war lobby AIPAC.
Over the last three weeks 77 House Democrats and 92 Republicans have agreed to cosponsor a new resolution against Iran that demands that President Bush "initiate an international effort" to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to inspect all cargo entering or leaving Iran.
Such a blockade imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be widely construed as an act of war. Some congressional sources say the House could vote on the resolution, H.Con.Res. 362, as early as next week.
In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have "exhausted themselves" and called a blockade a "good possibility."
Now, thanks to aipac and a compliant congress, and a grassroots distracted by an election, Olmert may get his wish.
Congress is taking the path to war and is rejecting a rational approach to nuclear weapons proliferation on this fragile planet. Off the agenda is ending once and for all nuclear weapons possession by all nations, as was the supposed intent of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Off the agenda is making the Middle East a nuclear-weapons free zone. Off the agenda is the fact that Israel itself is in possession of a massive nuclear arsenal, and that the US looks the other way. Indeed, if the US were to officially acknowledge Israel's stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, it would be required to end military aid to Israel or violate its own laws banning funding of states that proliferate nuclear weapons.
In short, what is being rejected is a realistic plan for humanity to survive and finally end the scourge of nuclear weapons. The use of military action to deter the possession of nuclear weapons (or using that as a pretext for military action, even if that is not the actual reason) is the greatest incentive to possess nuclear weapons. It leads only to a deadly spiral of violence.
How long will the US Congress continue down this insane path of promoting war? How long will Congress listen to the war lobby, and instead listen to voices of reason?
More on this at the StopAIPAC website. Includes current status, list of cosponsors, and latest news.
UPDATE:
Regarding the "set to approve" description. That, for now, is the only realistic assessment, though nothing in life is certain. Last Thursday, the House resolution added nearly 2 dozen cosponsors, including Jesse Jackson Jr. By the end of Monday or whenever the list of cosponsors updated again i expect to see that many more. In any case, it is already cosponsored by nearly 40% of the House -- 170 out of 435. We have not heard any active opposition to this resolution from any House members. In fact, up to a few days ago, there was not much opposition anywhere on the web. (though i expect that something good will come from the usual suspects, Barbara Lee, Kucinich, et. al)
Our only hope is that each of you will take action. I have yet to see any active support for the resolution itself here at Daily Kos, despite our different perspectives. If we raise hell, congresspeople may rethink this. The power of aipac is not anything supernatural or conspiratorial. A few weeks ago, they had 7,000 people walking the halls of congress in support of this, so no wonder it has so popular. Now they need to listen to rest of us.
Lastly, if any of you hear from your congressperson, do send a copy to the Stop AIPAC website. Email: people (put the AT thingee here) stopAIPAC.org. Perhaps we can share this in a later diary, the good and the not so good.
Make a difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOTHER URGENT ACTION ITEM
Subject: Stop Congress from fomenting another war
We rarely send you action items on Saturday. We're doing so today because the House appears likely to vote on a bad resolution early next week. If you oppose starting a war with Iran then we must act now to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 362.
This resolution has 169 co-sponsors, including 77 Democrats and 92 Republicans. The resolution calls on President Bush to . . .
Create an international blockade of Iran to prevent it from importing the refined gasoline it needs to run its economy
Subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspections
Tighten economic sanctions against Iran
Violate international treaties by prohibiting Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program from travelling abroad.
If another country took such actions against us, we would consider it an act of war. In addition, passage of this resolution would end negotiations with Iran in Baghdad that the administration has recently signaled it was prepared to resume.
House Concurrent Resolution 362 is a major step toward war. It would reduce the opportunity for a negotiated settlement with Iran, and even worse, President Bush could take this resolution as a sign that he has Congressional support to attack Iran before he leaves office.
Look, we don't like Iran's government any better than anyone else does, but we do like the Iranian people, and they like us (America). An attack on Iran could turn the Iranian people against us, and further cement the Iranian government in power. It would also further radicalize the Muslim world and increase the threat of terrorism.
Our government overreacted to the supposed threat of WMD in Iraq, and now it's doing the same thing with Iran. Our so-called leaders seem never to learn. They just careen from one disaster to the next. So the real leadership must come from us.
Please send a message to Congress today promoting expanded negotiations with Iran. Use your personal comments to ask your representatives to oppose House Concurrent Resolution 362. You can send your message here.
Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army.
Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.
D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation
CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project
http://www.DownsizeDC.org is sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.
You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRES 580 IS 110th CONGRESS 2d Session
S. RES. 580 Expressing the sense of the Senate on preventing Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-580
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES June 2, 2008
Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. SMITH) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations ----
RESOLUTION Expressing the sense of the Senate on preventing Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.
Whereas Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons ... {And Israel is not}
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) declares that preventing the Government of Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political,
and diplomatic means, is a matter of the highest importance to the
national security of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;
(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use
the President's existing authority to impose sanctions on--
(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in
proliferation activities or support of terrorist groups;
(B) international banks that continue to conduct financial transactions
with sanctioned Iranian banks;
(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the
petroleum or national gas sector of the economy of Iran in any given
year since the date of the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-172; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note); and
(D) companies that continue to do business with the Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran;
(3) demands that the President lead an international effort to
immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of
Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among
other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to
Iran; and
(4) asserts that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to
authorize the use of force against Iran. ==
HCON 362 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. CON. RES. 362
... Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That Congress--
(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons
capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic
means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States
and must be dealt with urgently;
(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use
his existing authority to impose sanctions on--
(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in
proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;
(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions
with proscribed Iranian banks;
(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the
Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the
enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and
(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guard Corps;
(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to
immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and
diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment
activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined
petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all
persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or
departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all
Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's
nuclear program; and
(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful
effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in
the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our
friends and allies that the United States supports them in their
resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the
Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital
national security interests in the Middle East.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIPAC pushing US to war with Iran for Israel:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Jul 13, 2008 9:19 pm; edited 8 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/congress-to-bush-and-chen_b_109868.html
Congress to Bush and Cheney: Do What You Want in Iran
Posted June 29, 2008 | 08:56 PM (EST)
Seymour Hersh's "Preparing the Battlefield," in the July 7 New Yorker, will be discussed in the coming weeks by everyone interested in our foreign policy and the future of the American constitution. The complete failure of congressional oversight, to which the article points, is a larger subject that will be with us until the election and beyond. For if the vice president and his neoconservative advisers have their way -- and they remain, in spite of setbacks, the most active, energetic, and ambitious faction within the Bush administration -- the U.S. will be at war with Iran or on the way to war by January 2009. And if that is so, it will matter less than we think who is elected in November. The momentum will be there; the country will be committed.
In late 2007, after winning an election whose central issue was a more prudent and rational policy in the Middle East, congressional Democrats, obedient to the wishes of a Presidential Finding, signed away $400 million for secret operations against Iran. A more craven act of submission would be hard to imagine; and they did this in the glow of victory, in direct contradiction of their mandate. What were they signing for? Sabotage, assassination, covert support for political clients and "destabilization" generally are predictable parts of such a design; but the Democrats, in the months between their capitulation and Hersh's article, made no mention of dissatisfactions at having been cut off from oversight. The truth seems to be that in this area, as in so many others, only the Office of the Vice President oversees the Office of the President.
"The process is broken," one of Seymour Hersh's informants told him, "and this is dangerous stuff we're authorizing." Yet the Democrats in the "Gang of Eight" whom the president consults on classified programs -- Reid, Pelosi, Rockefeller, Reyes -- may prefer to have things broken. What they don't know, can't hurt them at the polls, or so they seem to believe. It is the same passive obedience that led the Democrats to close the debate early for the authorization of the Iraq war in 2002, so they could clear the decks for the election; to banish all use of the words Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, in late 2004, so they could clear the decks for the election; and to confine themselves to flawless platitudes about Iraq in 2008, so they can clear the decks for the election. The desertion of principle is exceeded only by the evasion of responsibility.
Still, what were they risking when they let the administration go ahead in Iran without accountability? The answer was given by Secretary of Defense Gates when he met with a group of Democrats late last year. Gates told the Democrats that if the U.S. made a preemptive strike against Iran, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." Now, what Democrat, in 2007 or 2008, has spoken as if he heard that warning from the Secretary of Defense?
To the extent that we have sidestepped a war with Iran, the notable resistance has been mounted so far by persons within the armed forces like Admiral Mullen and Admiral Fallon -- the latter of whom (according Hersh's informant) got along fine with President Bush but crossed Vice President Cheney by wanting to know about the secret operations officially under his command. Had Fallon consulted the Democrats, they might have shown him how to hold onto his job by following their pattern of uninformed consent.
The stifling of free discussion within Congress about the American provocations in Iran, is both a cause and a symptom of the one-sidedness of the treatment of the issue in the mainstream media. It is handled as if Iran's nuclear research were the sole danger in the case; and as if it were a foregone conclusion that in this matter, the fears of some Israelis are bound to be closer to the truth than the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007.
Why has House Concurrent Resolution 362 -- a device promoted by AIPAC that commits its supporters to press for a naval blockade of Iran, which would be an act of war -- received so little public attention and debate? AIPAC has denied that a blockade is intended, but the language of its resolution leaves no doubt; it goes for "imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program." Nothing except a blockade could possibly accomplish the enumerated tasks of interdiction and inspection.
The whole purpose of such a resolution is to herd the Democratic Congress into the Office of the Vice President until the two spaces are indistinguishable. A vote for the resolution amounts to a vow of silence regarding anything the U.S. chooses to do against Iran. The vice president believed that he had war within his grasp when an incident almost erupted in January 2007 between Iranian patrol boats and American ships in the Strait of Hormuz. There were no cheers of relief in the OVP when the navy stayed calm and the fever went down. A few weeks later, Hersh reports, the vice president held a meeting. "The subject," said a former official of the administration, "was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington."
Vice President Cheney learned long ago that he can outplay the Democrats in the game of power, because he is willing to use power. The Democrats, by contrast, don't even want to be responsible for the power that they have. In early 2007, when most voters believed the result of the 2006 election signified a policy of withdrawal from Iraq, nobody was surer than Dick Cheney that a plan to withdraw would never be brought forward. If the Democrats were serious, Cheney said, they would vote against appropriations. He was right. They didn't have the nerve, and they did not mean to withdraw. Instead, they rewarded the administration, whose venality and recklessness were a matter of international embarrassment, with an exorbitant donation of public money to subsidize new acts of violence.
Thanks to Seymour Hersh's reporting, today they are under the glare of public exposure; and, unlike the vice president, they can hardly invoke a new-model interpretation of "inherent powers" or a "theory of the unitary executive" to screen them from public questioning. Nancy Pelosi, Jay Rockefeller, Harry Reid, Sylvestre Reyes, John Murtha, David Obey and all the bewildered and negligent Democrats (to say nothing of the Republicans, who claim nothing for themselves but a perfect dependency on the president) -- all may fairly be asked if they are happy with the Cheney-Bush secret operations in Iran. Are they even interested in knowing what the operations are? They did not care much about oversight, but now we are watching them.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Bromwich had an excellent article about the Mearsheimer/Walt book (www.israellobbybook.com) which also appeared at Huffingtonpost.com and is linked at the following URL as well:
http://tinyurl.com/2khced
Last edited by Alpha on Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:52 pm; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: |
| If Israel Attacks Iran…
by Andy Thayer
…all organizations that consider themselves part of the peace
movement in the United States must call for the immediate end of
U.S. aid to Israel. Those organizations which fail to do so should
be made pariahs, and considered to be no longer part of the peace
movement.
If Israel pre-emptively attacks Iran, we can be assured that it will
have done so with the permission, if not encouragement, of that
master of pre-emptive war, George Bush. Israel would not jeopardize
its billions in annual U.S. military and economic aid without first
getting permission from the White House. A counter-attack of the
peace movement demanding an immediate end to this aid should be our
first order of business.
A new war on Iran would regionalize the existing Iraq and
Afghanistan wars, with devastating results for both attacked and
attacker. With three times the population of Iraq, Iran would be no
push-over to U.S. and/or Israeli aggression.
With their own nuclear arsenals, Israel and the U.S. can claim no
moral high ground over Iran, whether or not that country possesses a
nuclear weapons program. Indeed, surrounded by nuclear-armed
Pakistan and India on the east, nuclear-armed Russia to the north,
nuclear-armed Israel to the west, U.S. nuclear-armed carrier groups
cruising the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to the south, and a
history of U.S. aggression against their nation, Iran's rulers
understandably might be considering a nuclear arms program. Even so,
Bushite "evidence" for such a program is even thinner gruel than
that used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
With no one in the mainstream media noticing, alleged peace
candidate Barack Obama has been worse than AWOL about the threat of
war on Iran. As early as September 2004 the freshman Senator was
advocating bombing Iran, and last fall, invading Pakistan. Most
recently he gave a red meat address to the far-right American
Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) shortly after Clinton
ended her White House bid, a speech that far-right politicos in
Israel could only interpret as an Obama green light for just about
any policy they might choose to pursue.
For anyone paying attention, Obama's anti-war credentials were
incredibly weak to begin with. His vaunted anti-war speech at a
peace rally at Chicago's Federal Plaza in the fall of 2002 was
followed by absolute silence as the Bush administration beat the war
drums in the run up to the March 19, 2003 invasion – indeed he
subsequently voted for almost every Bush war appropriation bill that
he was present in the Senate for.
During the New Hampshire primary campaign, the "peace candidate"
committed to a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq, regardless
of what the Iraqi people themselves might have to say about that
(they're overwhelmingly opposed to it, but their Quisling government
will no doubt cut such a deal before the end of this year).
In 1968, Richard Nixon promised that he had "a secret plan to end
the war in Vietnam" – a position that was actually to the left of
his Democratic opponent. Four years earlier, as a writer for the
Left Business Observer put it, "LBJ campaigned as the peace
candidate in 1964, and ended up killing a million Indochinese."
As a great statesman once said, "fool me once, shame on — shame on
you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
"Hope" that a President Obama will bring "change" to the U.S.
mission of promoting war and oppression in the Middle East is
absurdly naive. Both political parties are congenitally incapable of
actively fighting against a wider Middle East war.
The only time that a U.S. war has been "pre-emptively" ended has
been a generation ago when millions of people around the world
protested and then took direct action against it. THAT should be our
model for how we can end the present wars, and stop a new war on
Iran.
Click on image for a larger version | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
| Here are the traitors in AIPAC's backpocket and Israel's service so far as of 21 June 2008
H.CON.RES.362
Title: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] (introduced 5/22/2008) Cosponsors (169)
Related Bills: S.RES.580
Latest Major Action: 5/22/2008 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. COSPONSORS(169), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Alexander, Rodney [LA-5] - 6/11/2008
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1] - 6/11/2008
Rep Arcuri, Michael A. [NY-24] - 6/17/2008
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] - 6/3/2008
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 6/4/2008
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 6/4/2008
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] - 6/4/2008
Rep Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] - 6/10/2008
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 6/17/2008
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 6/4/2008
Rep Bonner, Jo [AL-1] - 6/10/2008
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] - 6/10/2008
Rep Boyd, Allen [FL-2] - 6/17/2008
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 6/3/2008
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 6/4/2008
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 6/4/2008
Rep Brown-Waite, Ginny [FL-5] - 6/10/2008
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 6/4/2008
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 6/3/2008
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] - 6/4/2008
Rep Campbell, John [CA-48] - 6/4/2008
Rep Cannon, Chris [UT-3] - 6/10/2008
Rep Cantor, Eric [VA-7] - 6/3/2008
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] - 6/10/2008
Rep Cazayoux, Donald J., Jr. [LA-6] - 6/12/2008
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] - 6/4/2008
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 6/17/2008
Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5] - 6/5/2008
Rep Coble, Howard [NC-6] - 6/12/2008
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9] - 6/10/2008
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] - 6/10/2008
Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] - 6/3/2008
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12] - 6/17/2008
Rep Courtney, Joe [CT-2] - 6/17/2008
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 6/3/2008
Rep Cuellar, Henry [TX-28] - 6/5/2008
Rep Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] - 6/12/2008
Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] - 6/3/2008
Rep Davis, David [TN-1] - 6/10/2008
Rep Davis, Lincoln [TN-4] - 6/17/2008
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] - 6/10/2008
Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14] - 6/17/2008
Rep Drake, Thelma D. [VA-2] - 6/17/2008
Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] - 6/10/2008
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 6/17/2008
Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 6/3/2008
Rep Fallin, Mary [OK-5] - 6/17/2008
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 6/17/2008
Rep Ferguson, Mike [NJ-7] - 6/4/2008
Rep Fortenberry, Jeff [NE-1] - 6/11/2008
Rep Fortuno, Luis G. [PR] - 6/3/2008
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 6/5/2008
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 6/3/2008
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] - 6/4/2008
Rep Gerlach, Jim [PA-6] - 6/5/2008
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/4/2008
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20] - 6/10/2008
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 6/4/2008
Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] - 6/12/2008
Rep Granger, Kay [TX-12] - 6/12/2008
Rep Graves, Sam [MO-6] - 6/4/2008
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] - 6/10/2008
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 6/4/2008
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17] - 6/5/2008
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 6/11/2008
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 6/4/2008
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 6/4/2008
Rep Heller, Dean [NV-2] - 6/17/2008
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 6/4/2008
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 6/11/2008
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] - 6/4/2008
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] - 6/4/2008
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 6/17/2008
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 6/17/2008
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 6/10/2008
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 6/4/2008
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/17/2008
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8] - 6/12/2008
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 6/12/2008
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] - 6/17/2008
Rep Kirk, Mark Steven [IL-10] - 6/3/2008
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22] - 6/3/2008
Rep Knollenberg, Joe [MI-9] - 6/3/2008
Rep Kuhl, John R. "Randy", Jr. [NY-29] - 6/12/2008
Rep Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] - 6/10/2008
Rep Lampson, Nick [TX-22] - 6/10/2008
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 6/10/2008
Rep LaTourette, Steven C. [OH-14] - 6/4/2008
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 6/17/2008
Rep Lipinski, Daniel [IL-3] - 6/12/2008
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] - 6/4/2008
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 6/4/2008
Rep Lucas, Frank D. [OK-3] - 6/10/2008
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 6/3/2008
Rep Manzullo, Donald A. [IL-16] - 6/4/2008
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 6/5/2008
Rep Marshall, Jim [GA-8] - 6/4/2008
Rep Matheson, Jim [UT-2] - 6/10/2008
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 6/4/2008
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 6/4/2008
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 6/10/2008
Rep McHugh, John M. [NY-23] - 6/4/2008
Rep McNulty, Michael R. [NY-21] - 6/4/2008
Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17] - 6/10/2008
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 6/10/2008
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 6/10/2008
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 6/10/2008
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] - 6/10/2008
Rep Mitchell, Harry E. [AZ-5] - 6/5/2008
Rep Moran, Jerry [KS-1] - 6/3/2008
Rep Murphy, Tim [PA-18] - 6/17/2008
Rep Musgrave, Marilyn N. [CO-4] - 6/4/2008
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 6/4/2008
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 5/22/2008
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 6/4/2008
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] - 6/4/2008
Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 6/4/2008
Rep Price, Tom [GA-6] - 6/10/2008
Rep Radanovich, George [CA-19] - 6/10/2008
Rep Ramstad, Jim [MN-3] - 6/10/2008
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] - 6/10/2008
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 6/4/2008
Rep Reynolds, Thomas M. [NY-26] - 6/10/2008
Rep Rodriguez, Ciro D. [TX-23] - 6/4/2008
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 6/3/2008
Rep Rogers, Mike J. [MI-8] - 6/12/2008
Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] - 6/4/2008
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] - 6/4/2008
Rep Roskam, Peter J. [IL-6] - 6/5/2008
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 6/4/2008
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 6/3/2008
Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17] - 6/10/2008
Rep Saxton, Jim [NJ-3] - 6/5/2008
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 6/17/2008
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 6/4/2008
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13] - 6/5/2008
Rep Scott, David [GA-13] - 6/3/2008
Rep Sessions, Pete [TX-32] - 6/4/2008
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7] - 6/10/2008
Rep Shadegg, John B. [AZ-3] - 6/4/2008
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 6/3/2008
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 6/5/2008
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] - 6/5/2008
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 6/4/2008
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] - 6/12/2008
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9] - 6/11/2008
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] - 6/10/2008
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/10/2008
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 6/17/2008
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] - 6/4/2008
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 6/4/2008
Rep Sutton, Betty [OH-13] - 6/5/2008
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 6/4/2008
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 6/4/2008
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 6/17/2008
Rep Tiberi, Patrick J. [OH-12] - 6/4/2008
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 6/3/2008
Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] - 6/4/2008
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. [IN-1] - 6/4/2008
Rep Walberg, Timothy [MI-7] - 6/11/2008
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 6/4/2008
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 6/3/2008
Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 6/3/2008
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 6/17/2008
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 6/10/2008
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 6/3/2008
Rep Wilson, Charles A. [OH-6] - 6/12/2008
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] - 6/4/2008
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] - 6/10/2008 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
| Ron Paul Speaks Out Against War With Iran:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=87
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7354M1QmGYQ&fmt=18
Ron Paul Floor Speech on Iran & Foreign Policy
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=83
House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran
America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress
by Andrew W Cheetham
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9377
Re: AIPAC is pushing us to war with Iran for Israel
See Video:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Here is a tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/22br9u
Israeli Threat Spikes Our Oil Prices, We Pay More For This (click on the pic at the following URL to access the youtube video):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/israeli-threat-spikes-our-oil-prices-we.html
Here is a tiny URL of the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/5drqxl
Scott McClellan Questioned about Neocon Push for Iraq War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LktFfHciyqg&feature=PlayList&p=9B042828F94D1917&index=0&playnext=1
Here is a tiny URL for the above:
http://tinyurl.com/6qpcnx
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/scott-mcclellan-questioned-about-neocon.html
Here is the tiny URL for the above one:
http://tinyurl.com/6gzo4o
Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/06/22/stop-the-iran-war-resolution.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asian stocks fall on fears over oil, US (Ron Paul's message validated yet again):
By JEREMIAH MARQUEZ, AP Business Writer1 hour, 10 minutes ago
Asian stock markets tumbled Friday after Wall Street plunged overnight and crude oil spiked above $140 a barrel for the first time, reigniting fears of a global economic slowdown.
Key stock indices in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea all shed more than 2 percent. Shanghai's benchmark plunged nearly 4.5 percent and India's was down 4.3 percent in early trade.
The losses came after U.S. stocks sank Thursday, with the Dow Jones industrial average declining more than 3 percent to its lowest level in almost two years.
Investors reacted nervously to a wave of dismal news about several sectors of the American economy, a vital export market for Asia. Analysts downgraded General Motors Corp., Citigroup and Merrill Lynch & Co., while disappointing forecast from Oracle Corp. and BlackBerry maker Research In Motion Ltd. forecasts rattled investors about the tech industry.
Worries about inflation grew after crude oil futures jumped above $140 Thursday after OPEC's president said prices could go past $150 a barrel this year and Libya said it may cut oil production.
"We've still got bad news on the credit crunch, we've got bad news about consumers," said Garry Evans, pan-Asian equity strategist with HSBC in Hong Kong. "The macro environment is not a good one and people are very risk averse."
In Japan, the benchmark Nikkei 225 index was down 2.2 percent to 13,515.12 midday Friday, on its way to what would be a seventh straight session of falls. The damage was wide spread across all sectors, with financials hit especially hard. Megabank Mitsubishi UFJ was down 3.1 percent.
The decline in Tokyo also came after a bevy of indicators showed that soaring oil and commodity prices were fanning inflation and causing consumers to hold back from spending.
India's Sensex was down 4.3 percent at 13,807 as investors worried about inflation that has risen to 13-year highs and that recent interest rate hikes would temper consumer spending.
"Sentiment is bearish. There are fears that crude will touch $180, this is a worry that cannot be stamped out easily," said Gul Tekchandani, a Mumbai-based investment adviser. "Few can stomach this volatility, plus there are weak global cues with the U.S. economy also down."
In Hong Kong, crude's new record took a toll even though oil eased somewhat to below $139 in Friday trade in Asia. The blue-chip Hang Seng Index was down 1.8 percent to 22,054.84.
Refiner China Petroleum & Chemical Corp, or Sinopec, lost 4.2 percent, and airline Cathay Pacific was down 3.3 percent.
____
Associated Press writer Ramola Badam Talwar in Mumbai contributed to this report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil climbs to record above $141 in Asia
By GILLIAN WONG, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 9 minutes ago
Oil prices climbed to a record above $141 a barrel in Asian trading Friday as the dollar's protracted slump prompted investors to flock to oil as a hedge against inflation.
Prices were also lifted Thursday after OPEC's president said crude prices could rise well above $150 a barrel this year and Libya said it may cut oil production.
Light, sweet crude for August delivery rose as high as $141.71 a barrel before pulling back to $141.10, up $1.46 in Asian electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, midafternoon in Singapore. The contract Thursday rose $5.09 to settle at a record $139.64.
The previous trading record for a front-month contract was $139.89, set on June 16.
On Thursday, the dollar slipped against key currencies as U.S. data showed sluggish economic growth and pointed to a struggling labor market. Oil is priced in dollars, and some investors buy oil contracts to protect the value of their assets against accelerating inflation when the dollar falls.
"The dollar movements caused the surge in oil pricing and the bullish trend remains intact," said Victor Shum, an energy analyst with Purvin & Gertz in Singapore. "The oil market is subject to further spikes in the coming weeks."
On Friday, the dollar slipped to 106.42 yen from 106.91 yen Thursday; the euro was trading at $1.5738, down from $1.5751.
Crude futures were also driven higher after Chakib Khelil, president of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, said he believes oil prices could rise to between $150 and $170 a barrel this summer. Khelil also said prices will decline later in the year, and aren't likely to reach $200 a barrel.
Khelil joined a long list of forecasters who have made bold oil price predictions this year. Each new forecast — such as Goldman Sachs' recent prediction that prices could rise as high as $200 — causes a jump in prices as speculative buyers are drawn into the market.
Meanwhile, the head of Libya's national oil company said the country may cut crude production because the oil market is well supplied, according to news reports.
Addison Armstrong, director of market research at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut, said in a research note that Shokri Ghanem, the nation's top oil official, has declined to say when a decision would be made on whether to lower production, or give any indication of the size of the cut under consideration.
But analysts expressed skepticism over the comments out of Libya, saying the current level of oil prices provides an incentive for producers not to cut output.
"I doubt that any real effort in cutting output would be forthcoming, considering that pricing continues to hit new records," Shum said. "There's no economic reason to cut output at this time so it's just talk."
Oil prices have more than doubled over the past year on concerns about rising demand in fast-growing economies such as China and India, and supply disruptions in the Middle East and Nigeria.
Analysts have also attributed oil's rapid climb to speculative buying, with traders jumping into the market purely on the expectation that futures will continue to rise.
"Even though we have continued to see weakening demand in the U.S., other markets in the developing world still show growth," Shum said. "The tight market has empowered speculators to invest in oil and the oil market is subject to further spikes in the coming weeks."
In other Nymex trading, heating oil futures rose 0.71 cent to $3.8905 a gallon while gasoline prices lost 0.68 cent to $3.5045 a gallon. Natural gas futures declined 1.7 cents to $13.231 per 1,000 cubic feet.
Brent crude futures rose 17 cents to $140 a barrel on the ICE Futures exchange in London. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:25 pm Post subject: |
| Just saw the following comment post by David Robertson (of Inverness, Scotland) at the following URL about Ron Paul's speech in the House of Representatives yesterday:
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog/?p=83#comments
NOMOREWAR_FORISRAEL Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Dear David,
Just saw the following post by you as such has been my same exact concern as well. See the following URLs when you can:
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
David Robertson, Inverness, Scotland Says:
June 27th, 2008 at 5:45 am
The United States has about 10,000 nuclear warheads while Israel has an estimated 300. I have also read that Israel has the targeting codes for America’s nuclear arsenal which they acquired through espionage. In other words these allies, or any one of them acting alone, could “obliterate” Iran as Hillary Clinton promised she would do if Iran attacked Israel. She didn’t say what she would consider to be an “attack”. To me the much more profound threat to peace is Israel who continues to beat the war drums, to plan to bomb Iran and is promoting this current resolution to blockade Iran. Americans are being manipulated to act against their own best interests. Their blood and treasure has been used and is being used to build a world empire for an alien power. I have tried to post warnings in different ways on many blogs but have the definite impression that my words are falling on deaf ears. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:01 pm Post subject: |
| Iran says Gulf oil route at risk if attacked (Reuters)
By Zahra Hosseinian 2 hours, 35 minutes ago
The Revolutionary Guards said Iran would impose controls on shipping in the vital Gulf oil route if Iran was attacked and warned regional states of reprisals if they took part, a newspaper reported on Saturday.
Fear of an escalation in the standoff between the West and Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, have been one factor propping up sky-high oil prices. Crude hit a record level on international markets near $143 a barrel on Friday.
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its disputed nuclear ambitions has risen since a report this month said Israel had practiced such a strike, prompting increasingly tough talk of retaliation, if pushed, from Tehran.
"Naturally every country under attack by an enemy uses all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy," Guards commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari told Jam-e Jam newspaper in some of the toughest language Iran has used so far.
Analysts say Iran may not match the firepower of U.S. forces but could still cause havoc in the region using unconventional tactics, such as deploying small craft to attack ships, or using allies in the area to strike at U.S. or Israeli interests.
"Regarding the main route for exiting energy, Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz," Jafari said of the Gulf waterway through which about two-fifths of all globally traded oil passes.
Iranian officials have in the past sent mixed signals about whether Iran would use oil as a weapon. But such threats, when made, have sent jitters through the crude market for fear of disrupting supplies from big OPEC producers in the Gulf.
The Islamic Republic insists its nuclear program is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity. But the West and Israel fear Iran is seeking to build atomic bombs. Israel is believed to be the only Middle East state with nuclear arms.
Washington has said it wants diplomacy to end the nuclear row but has not ruled out military action should that fail.
'RIGHT TO RESPOND'
"If there is a confrontation between us and the enemy from outside the region, definitely the scope (of the confrontation) will reach the oil issue," Jafari said.
The Revolutionary Guards are the ideologically driven wing of Iran's military with air, sea and land capabilities, and a separate command structure to regular units.
"After this action (of Iran imposing controls on the Gulf waterway), the oil price will rise very considerably and this is among the factors deterring the enemies," Jafari said.
He said any military action might "be able to delay Iran's nuclear activities but this delay will certainly be very short."
Jafari warned neighbors not to let their territory be used.
"If the attack takes place from the soil of another country ... the country attacked has the right to respond to the enemy's military action from where the operation started," he said.
Kuwait, the launchpad for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and Iraq itself, where U.S. troops are now stationed, have both said they would not let their land be used for a strike on Iran. The U.S. military has bases in other Gulf states and Afghanistan.
Jafari said U.S. forces were "more vulnerable than Israelis" because of their troops in the area. Iran's top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has in the past said Iran would target U.S. interests if attacked.
"Iran can in different ways harm American interests even far away," the Guards commander said.
Jafari suggested Iran's allies in the region, who include Lebanon's Shi'ite militia Hezbollah, could also retaliate. He referred to Iran's ties with those living in Lebanon's Shi'ite heartland of south Lebanon but did not refer to any group.
"Israelis know if they take military action against Iran ... the abilities of the Islamic and Shi'ite world, especially in the region, will deliver fatal blows," Jafari said, adding that Israel was in range of Iranian missiles.
He also hinted that Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that receives Iranian funding and which has sent suicide bombers into Israel, might act. But, again, he did not name the group.
(Additional reporting by Hashem Kalantari, Writing by Edmund Blair; Editing by Charles Dick) | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Jun 30, 2008 9:53 am Post subject: |
| http://countercurrents.org/glunts290608.htm
Iran In The Crosshairs: As Fears Of An Air Strike Increase, Little Opposition Is Heard
By Ira Glunts
29 June, 2008
Countercurrents.org
When the United States invaded Iraq in order to destroy a nonexistent nuclear threat there were national and world protests. Opposition to that war was loudly voiced by American politicians and world leaders, as well as in mass demonstrations across the globe. Despite the protests, the war proceeded as planned. Today it seems that it is generally agreed that the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation were catastrophic mistakes.
Now the same people that gave us Iraq and remain just about the only supporters of their own failed policy there, are signaling that it is necessary to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat. And again, one problem is that this threat may not exist. This time, however, the opponents of the threatened attack are surprisingly few, even as the signs of a coming air assault on Iran continue to increase. This lack of articulated opposition to military action against Iran, especially by members of the Democratic party and their supporters, increase the chances that the Bush/Cheney administration will widen the war in the Middle East either directly or by using Israel as a proxy.
"Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex," according to David Martin of CBS News. Martin quotes Michael Oren, a CBS analyst, who is an American-born Israeli and well-connected to his government's reliable sources, as stating, "[t]he Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize [sic]." While Israel pressures the Americans via diplomatic and military channels, the U.S. Congress will shortly give its overwhelming support to two identical non-binding resolutions which will demand that President Bush impose a military blockade on Iran.
H.Con Res. 362, the House version, and S.Res. 580, the Senate version, demand
…that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program…
These resolutions are a direct result of the efforts of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who shortly after their annual convention in early June, deployed 5000 activists to 500 separate meetings on Capitol Hill, using their vast influence to promote this anti-Iranian legislation among U.S. lawmakers.Both resolutions will have the wide bi-partisan support in both branches of Congress that AIPAC-sponsored bills invariably receive. Even if the idea of the blockade goes nowhere, the resolutions signal that the vast majority in Congress will either support or will not object to military action against Iran.
Rumors and threats of either an imminent U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran have been increasing during the past month. According to the Jerusalem Post, Israeli Army Radio quoted an unnamed senior member of President Bush's entourage as saying, during the President's visit to Israel, that Bush and Cheney were "of the opinion that military action against Iran was called for." The White House immediately denied the report. President Bush had just given a particularly bellicose speech to the Israeli Knesset where he bluntly pledged that the U.S. would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Reminiscent of his "Axis of Evil" speech, the President listed Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda as enemies and spoke about a "battle of good and evil."
The Asia Times claimed that Bush plans an air attack in Iran before August. The source is an unnamed former assistant U.S. Secretary of State who is active in the foreign affairs community. The article goes on to say that Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Lugar have been briefed about the planned attack. Both Senators denied receiving any briefing, but since the information is classified it would be impossible for them to verify the existence of such a plan without violating the law. According to the Asia Times, the target of attack would not be the Iranian nuclear installations but rather the Quds force, which are the elite forces of the Iranian army.
Time magazine in an article titled, "A Clamor for War," treats the possibility of an attack against Iran as worrisome and real. The piece says that many in the Congress think that the administration will "bomb Iran between November and January."Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had a 90-minute meeting with President Bush in Washington at the beginning of June. It had been widely reported that Olmert would make the case for an American air attack against Iran. After their talk Prime Minister Olmert proclaimed, "we reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less [sic] question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem.
George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House."When Michael Gordon reported in the New York Times on June 20, that Israel had a dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran which involved 100 fighter planes using NATO airspace off the coast of Greece, neither the U.S. nor Israel denied the report. Prior to that report Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Transportation Minister, who is in the inner defense cabinet, told the Israeli daily, Yedioth Ahronoth, that Israel would attack Iran since the sanctions are not working.
One thing is certain. There is a clear possibility of a strike against Iran in the near future. The CBS story claims that Israel is now telling the United States, either you do it or we will. Unfortunately, whoever does it is courting a major disaster. An attack on Iran could provoke a retaliation which could quickly widen into a third American war in the region. Vulnerable targets include Israel, shipping in the Gulf, and American troops in Iraq. The reasons for attacking Iran are clearly less about that country's nuclear threat and more about the neo-con project for American hegemony in the region, as well as what the current Israeli government perceives as its security interests.
It is all too reminiscent of the false reasons given for invading Iraq. Unfortunately, just as before the Iraq war, many American political opposition voices are reluctant to criticize an aggressive Iran initiative for fear of being labeled weak or unpatriotic.It is disappointing that the Democrats who came to power in 2006 by purporting to be antiwar, are proving yet again that just as they have been incapable of stopping the Bush/Cheney debacle in Iraq, they are equally ineffectual in opposing the looming next war, the one with Iran.
Ira Glunts first visited the Middle East in 1972, where he taught English and physical education in a small rural community in Israel. He was a volunteer in the Israeli Defense Forces in 1992. He lives in Madison, New York where he writes, works as a college librarian and operates a used and rare book business with his wife.
(Emphasis added - B.M.) | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
