[before] the next 9/11

For starters, let's acknowledge the fact that currently there are laws that were signed by Bush that will give him dictatorial powers in the event of the next terrorist attack or essentially any emergency in which he decides to claim this power. That is undebatable. It is a fact. Here is an analysis, as well as here (excerpt below) and you can read here for the official script.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

Pacific views has a very troubling article to say the least... here is a snippet.

Here in Oregon, some people were sufficiently worried about the executive order that they asked US representative Peter DeFazio to look into whether anything sinister was lurking in order's classified portions, which describe in detail how the executive branch would run the government after a major disaster. DeFazio asked the White House to have those classified portions delivered for viewing in a special secured room at the Capitol building — a request that he's definitely entitled to make as a member of the House's Homeland Security Committee. After initially giving the nod to DeFazio's request, something — no one knows what — changed at the White House, and permission to see the classified documents was withdrawn.

A good case could be made that the White House's refusal of DeFazio's request is just another example of the Dubya/Cheney regime's penchant for secrecy. Or maybe it's just another case of the prez giving Congress the finger. But maybe the reason that the White House doesn't want these documents to be seen by anyone outside the prez's immediate circle is that there is something sinister hidden in Dubya's executive order.

For an excellent concise version of this post read Deborah's post here, who writes, read this

We must impeach the President and Vice President of the United States, and we must begin proceedings to do so immediately, not just for the purpose of exacting a punitive remedy, but also toward enacting a vitally important preventive measure--one that may be the only available means by which to protect the country from the impending imposition of martial law at home as well as the declaration of war against Iran and possibly other countries in the Middle East.

Now stay with me here...

Former Reagan official Paul Craig Roberts makes a pretty compelling case on why he thinks Impeachment is urgently needed before the next 9/11. It goes as follows:
From Raw Story article

Republicans are on the verge of being decimated in 2008 for the 'stay the course' policy and for backing Bush.

Democrats don't want to rock the boat because they know this and are just waiting until the next elections when they will clean up.

As Roberts says, "the problem with this reasoning is that it assumes that Cheney and Rove and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts, or it assumes that they are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his fling.'

He believes that 'something is in the works' that will rally the country around the flag again and reinforce the whole "war on terror" nationalistic fervor, once again pushing people to the Republicans.

Not convinced that Our Country is capable of such a heinous act? Think again, all great nations have a history of 'false-flag' events to satisfy an agenda. As ABC reported in 2001,

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Just look at what Chertoff said about 'gut feelings,'

And Dennis Milligan, chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party sounding thrilled about the next 9/11

“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.

And especially Santorum in a radio interview,

RS: "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events,"

HH: I hope you’re right.

I mean what the fuck is that? Who the hell says that kind of thing, "between now and November."

It all makes sense when you listen to his interview, which I pasted below. You really owe it to yourself to listen to it if you click nothing else on this page!

Paul Craig Roberts interview on Air America

Then there's the Halliburton/KBR Detention centers described here by the NYT, and here by truthout.

More here on the logic of impeachment by the same lawyer who wrote the articles against Clinton.

Heres the latest at Huff Post.

This is my prior post on Martial Law and what could be coming,

These people are going to detonate a nuclear device inside the United States ... and we're going to have no one to blame but ourselves." -- Michael Scheuer, former head of the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit, to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, February 19, 2007

Once you have digested that little bundle of joy, try to tackle this, seemingly pulled out of 1984 , describing a prelude for a police state.

Bush is now free to declare martial law in response to a natural disaster, a pandemic or a terrorist attack. The congress is powerless to stop him.

Also, Bush recently signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which allows the president to arbitrarily declare citizens and non citizens “enemy combatants” and imprison them indefinitely without charge. The new law gives Bush the authority to disregard the Geneva Conventions and the 8th amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment and apply “harsh interrogation” which may include torture. The act effectively repeals habeas corpus, the cornerstone of American jurisprudence and the Bill of Rights.

The Military Commissions Act cannot coexist with the US Constitution; the two are mutually exclusive.

Don't think it could happend here? Maybe, maybe not, but this fellow seems to think it could.

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

The NYT documents how he has already implented the legal justification for such changes, as I noted in my previous post.

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration’s behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law

Paul Slansky shows why the alarm bells are ringing like the summer of 2001 and asks where the hell everyone's outrage is.

Remember how you watched Richard Clarke testifying before Congress in 2004 and wished his warnings had been taken seriously in 2001? Well, it's déjà vu all over again. The people who know what's going on - the experts who have no hidden agendas beyond sounding alarms and getting the truth out - are frightened. And if they're frightened, so should we be.

We have been warned. Al Qaeda is still "determined to strike in U.S." Michael Scheuer is the new Richard Clarke, and he says they're going to set off a nuke here. And if we know it, Bush and Cheney know it, every congressman and senator knows it, and everyone in the media knows it. And yet it's not a big story. Hello? Government people? Media people? I live in L.A. and I'm terrified. You live in New York and Washington, the two likeliest targets. Why aren't you shrieking in the streets?

It's time for citizen action the likes of which this country has never seen. Don't just contact your congressman, contact every congressman, and every senator. Barrage the radio talk show hosts and the reporters and pundits who are failing to bring this subject to the center of the national debate. Demand that hearings be held at which Michael Scheuer and others like him are given a public forum to tell us what they know, what they fear, and what our "leaders" should be and aren't doing to protect us.

Furthermore, former CIA analyst Bruce Reidel warns,

The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception.

And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have.

Call Nancy Pelosi and tell her to IMPEACH NOW at (202) 225-0100.

Rumblings about Pakistan

Bush's Next War of Aggression by Gordon Prather

Suppose Bush's next war of aggression is against Pakistan.

A few days ago, some dirty guys ambushed a Pakistani military convoy somewhere "near the Afghan border," killing 17 Pakistani troops.

The Bush-Cheney White House immediately demanded that our "ally," Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf, establish control of those "tribal" areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan over which he obviously now has little, if any, control.

Spokesman Tony Snow even threatened attacks against – and invasion of – Pakistan because "it is clearly of the utmost importance to go in there and deal with the problem in the tribal areas."

A pretty compelling case is made here by Spook in the Machine.

There's more evidence here at the Next Hurrah, with more speculation about Pakistan here, and the Guardian report discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Here is the latest on why it would be catastrophic.

Fears are growing the U.S. may be planning to attack Pakistan's "autonomous" tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

Any U.S. attack on Pakistan would be a catastrophic mistake.

First, air and ground assaults will succeed only in widening the anti-U.S. war and merging it with Afghanistan's resistance to western occupation.

Second, Pakistan's army officers who refuse to be bought may resist a U.S. attack on their homeland, and overthrow the man who allowed it, Gen. Musharraf. A U.S. attack would sharply raise the threat of anti-U.S. extremists seizing control of strategic Pakistan and marginalize those seeking return to democratic government.

Third, a U.S. attack on the tribal areas could re-ignite the old movement to reunite Pashtun parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan into independent "Pashtunistan." That could begin unravelling fragile Pakistan, leaving its nuclear arsenal up for grabs.

.
Breaking- US Not Ruling Out Pakistan Strike.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. would consider military force if necessary to stem al-Qaida's growing ability to use its hideout in Pakistan to launch terrorist attacks, a White House aide said Sunday.

The president's homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, said the U.S. was committed first and foremost to working with Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, in his efforts to control militants in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. But she indicated the U.S. was ready to take additional measures.

"Just because we don't speak about things publicly doesn't mean we're not doing things you talk about," Townsend said, when asked in a broadcast interview why the U.S. does not conduct special operations and other measures to cripple al-Qaida.

"Job No. 1 is to protect the American people. There are no options off the table," she said.

More Iraq

Idaho Senator admits it's all about oil after all.

From How Lost the War Is by former Ambassador Peter Galbraith,

Indeed, Vietnam is the image many Americans have of defeat in Iraq. Al-Qaeda would overrun the Green Zone and the last Americans would evacuate from the rooftop of the still unfinished largest embassy in the world. President Bush feeds on this imagery. In his May 5, 2007, radio address to the nation, he explained:

If radicals and terrorists emerge from this battle with control of Iraq, they would have control of a nation with massive oil reserves, which they could use to fund their dangerous ambitions and spread their influence. The al Qaeda terrorists who behead captives or order suicide bombings would not be satisfied to see America defeated and gone from Iraq. They would be emboldened by their victory, protected by their new sanctuary, eager to impose their hateful vision on surrounding countries, and eager to harm Americans.

But there will be no Saigon moment in Iraq. Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran. The Arab states that might support the Sunnis are small, far away (vast deserts separate the inhabited parts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia from the main Iraqi population centers), and can only provide money, something the insurgency has in great amounts already.

Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today -- a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region.

Developments

Raw Story reports that 70 congressmen in the house tell Bush that they will not fund the war unless it includes a plan for complete withdrawal.

In a rare show of defiance, a large group of mostly House Democrats sent a letter to the White House saying that they will not support any military funding for Iraq unless it includes a complete withdrawal of combat troops, reports Politico's "The Crypt" blog.

...

"This is a big development," writes Josephine Hearn. "Earlier this year, liberals grudgingly voted for Iraq funding bills because they didn't want to give Nancy Pelosi a defeat. Now it seems that their patience has run out."

Crooks and Liars has video of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment. As usual, it is a must-see.

Digby has a great piece on College Republicans, including Max Blumenthal's video.

Deeper into fascism we go with the passage of this new executive order.

ABC news goes inside the 'surge'

Think Progress has video of what a few soldiers think of the 'search'

Spc. Gabriel Vassell told Smith, "…We have people up there in Congress with the brain of a 2-year-old who don't know what they are doing, they don't experience it. I challenge the president or anyone who has us for 15 months to ride alongside me. I'll do another 15 months if he comes out here and rides alomg with me every day. I'll do 15 more months. They don't even have to pay me extra."

Iraq, Iran, Al Qaeda, and why withdrawal is prudent

Firstly here is a panel of 9 experts discussing why the war is lost (I suggest you read the whole thing here),

The war in Iraq isn't over yet, but -- surge or no surge -- the United States has already lost. That's the grim consensus of a panel of experts assembled by Rolling Stone to assess the future of Iraq. "Even if we had a million men to go in, it's too late now," says retired four-star Gen. Tony McPeak, who served on the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the Gulf War. "Humpty Dumpty can't be put back together again."

Those on the panel -- including diplomats, counterterror analysts and a former top military commander -- agree that President Bush's attempt to secure Baghdad will only succeed in dragging out the conflict, creating something far beyond any Vietnam-style "quagmire." The surge won't bring an end to the sectarian cleansing that has ravaged Iraq, as the newly empowered Shiite majority seeks to settle scores built up during centuries of oppressive rule by the Sunni minority. It will do nothing to defuse the powder keg that an independence-minded Kurdistan, in Iraq's northern provinces, poses to the governments of Turkey, Syria and Iran, which have long brutalized their own Kurdish separatists. And it will only worsen the global war on terror.

"Our invasion and occupation has created a cauldron that will continue to draw in the players in the Middle East for the foreseeable future," says Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden. "By taking out Saddam, we have allowed the jihad to move 1,000 kilometers west, where it can project its power, its organizers, its theology into Turkey -- and from Turkey into Europe."

How bad will things get in Iraq -- and what price will the world ultimately pay for the president's decision to prolong the war? To answer those questions, we asked our panel to sketch out three distinct scenarios for Iraq: the best we can hope for, the most likely outcome and the worst that could happen.

Continue reading...

The Foreign Affairs artiicle re: al Qaeda, Iran, and Iraq. here is a snippet:

The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception.
...
Al Qaeda would especially like a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, which would presumably oust the Shiite regime in Tehran, further antagonize Muslims worldwide, and expand al Qaeda's battlefield against the United States so that it extends from Anbar Province in the west to the Khyber Pass in the east. It understands that the U.S. military is already too overstretched to invade Iran, but it expects Washington to use nuclear weapons. Baghdadi has told Sunnis in Iran to evacuate towns close to nuclear installations.
...

Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends... (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)

With that in mind we shoulkd ask, Is Israel about to attack Iran?

Then, the latest case for withdrawal here,

Next, a British General , commander of the SAS saying Americians are the British enpire and the iraqi's are fighting their own revolutionary war and,

And feel free to browse more of my archived articles here on Iran and Iraq, and the "war on terra."

UPDATE: The Post has a good article on the predicted effects of withdrawal here.

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

...

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), also a White House hopeful, finds a different message in the Vietnam retreat. Saying that Baghdad would become "Saigon revisited," he warned that "we will be lifting American personnel off the roofs of buildings in the Green Zone if we do not change policy, and pretty drastically."
...

White is among many Middle East experts who think that the United States should leave Iraq sooner rather than later, but differ on when, how and what would happen next. Most agree that either an al-Qaeda or Iranian takeover would be unlikely, and say that Washington should step up its regional diplomacy, putting more pressure on regional actors such as Saudi Arabia to take responsibility for what is happening in their back yards.

Many regional experts within and outside the administration note that while there is a range of truly awful possibilities, it is impossible to predict what will happen in Iraq -- with or without U.S. troops.

UPDATE II: Senator Levin asked why he thinks withdrawal is the right answer, via NO QUARTER

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what about the fate, Senator, of those Iraqis who have been supportive -- of Iraqi civilians in general, and particularly those who have been supportive of the U.S. mission?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: The current course is endangering the people of Iraq continually. It's the current course which isn't working; it's the current course which has led to huge slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It's that course which has to change.

...

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just to broaden that out, Senator, the notion that there is maybe some moral responsibility on the part of the United States, because it was the United States who came in over four years ago, who has led this war in Iraq, participated in this war, and now to pull out, what responsibility does the U.S. have to the people of that country?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I think we've got a huge responsibility. The way this government went in, the way the Bush administration went in unilaterally, arrogantly, the way in which we didn't wait for the U.N. to give its support to what we were doing, the way we did in the first Gulf War, there's a huge moral responsibility.

And we have a huge responsibility to the Iraqi refugees. There are now four million Iraqi refugees, half in the country who've been moved out of their homes, the other half outside of the Iraq. And you bet we have a moral responsibility.

And the bigger responsibility here rests with the Iraqi political leaders. And since, by their own words, by everybody's agreement there is no military solution, there's only a political solution, we shouldn't wait any longer to force the Iraqi leaders to undertake that political solution.

...

JUDY WOODRUFF: And just finally, Senator, when you are as convinced as you sound you are, what makes you know you have the right answer on Iraq?

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I don't know I have the right answer. There's been too much arrogance, as far as I'm concerned, floating around this town for anybody to say they "know" the right answer in Iraq. All we can do is use our best judgment as to what will change the direction in Iraq.

But do I know that what I'm saying is true? No, I believe it after a huge amount of thought, and concern, and discussion, and debate. I'm absolutely convinced what our military leaders are convinced, that there is no military solution. If you accept that, and there's a consensus there's no military solution in Iraq, once you accept that, if there's only a political solution, then the question is: Why wait? Why wait until someone makes another report in September to us about a military situation, which is what we're expecting in September? Why wait for more American lives to be lost?

UPDATE III: Senator Joe Biden offers what seems to be the most knowledgeable assessment and "solution" for the civil war in Iraq.

...well, look, here's my problem, Judy. When you listen to a lot of Democrats, they say, "Let's leave and hope for the best, because maybe that will get the Iraqis to come to their senses." And you hear the president say, "Just do more of the same and hand it off to the next guy." None of them offer a political solution.

What is the political solution? As General Hayden said -- and I want to quote him, the head of the CIA -- he said, "The inability of the central government to govern is irreversible." I've been saying that for three years. The fatal fundamental strategic flaw everybody is making is to think that there's any combination of actions we could take to generate a strong central government, representing all of the factions in Baghdad that was trusted by the Iraqi people. It will not happen in your lifetime or mine.

...

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what responsibility do you think the United States has to the people of Iraq after it leaves, whether there's a U.S. troop force left or not?

SEN. JOE BIDEN: It has a serious responsibility it will not be able to meet. It will not be able to meet. Let's be honest with one another, Judy. When the American forces leave, absent a political accommodation among the parties, with the international community signing onto it, which is the reason why it could be enforced, just like it was in Bosnia, without that, what's going to happen?

You're going to see the fraction -- you're going to see four or five major Sunni militias killing each other. You're going to see -- I mean, Shia. You're going to see a couple in Anbar province. God only knows what happens between Barzani and Talabani in the north with the Kurds. So you're going to see chaos, and there's going to be a lot of people that will die.

But the flip of it is, there's not enough American forces, absent a political settlement, to prevent that from happening. And one thing the American people won't tolerate, Judy, they will not tolerate losing their sons and daughters just to keep things from getting worse. They'll tolerate losing their sons and daughters if you're making things considerably better and safer for America and the region in the long run.

hate in America (updated)

It is astounding to believe that this kind of worldview is tolerated in America but I guess when you have a white supremacist like Ann Coulter selling tons of books, it's not so surprising. here is a snippet,

Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." She squints at the sun and smiles. " Then things'll change.

Larisa has more here,

Of coarse, because the Army is essentially broken due to this administration's hubris, white supremacists of all shapes and sizes and infiltrated our military (including a high prevalence and special operations according to Stan Goff)in alarming numbers.

Read this report by the Southern poverty Law Center for more.

The New York Times also had a follow-up article on the matter here.

The report quotes Scott Barfield, a Defense Department investigator, saying, "Recruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members."
...

The defense secretary at the time, William Perry, said the rules were meant to leave no room for racist and extremist activities within the military. But the report said Mr. Barfield, who is based at Fort Lewis, Wash., had said that he had provided evidence on 320 extremists there in the past year, but that only two had been discharged. He also said there was an online network of neo-Nazis.

"They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said. "Several of these individuals have since been deployed to combat missions in Iraq."

...

The Southern Poverty Law Center identified the author as Steven Barry, who it said was a former Special Forces officer who was the alliance's "military unit coordinator."

"Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war," he wrote. "It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and 'cleansed.' "

He concluded: "As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood."

For more comprehensive write up on fascism and our foray into its depths, stay tuned...

UPDATED: CBS on gang activity in the Army.

A thought

A commentor over at Hullabaloo wonders,

Where are the general strikes? Where are the masses of people on the streets demanding impeachment? Where are the people conducting passive resistance? Where are the people marching on the corporate media headquarters? We sit on our collective asses blogging because we are either to frightened, too disorganized or too lazy. The blogs serve the elites as a usful relief valve.
Expat | 07.14.07 - 4:52 pm | #

---

By becoming a consumer culture we have become nothing more than subjects rather than citizens with responsibilities to society.
Expat | 07.14.07 - 4:53 pm | #

A thought on apathy

"Where are the general strikes? Where are the masses of people on the streets demanding impeachment? Where are the people conducting passive resistance? Where are the people marching on the corporate media headquarters? We sit on our collective asses blogging because we are either to frightened, too disorganized or too lazy. The blogs serve the elites as a usful relief valve."-- Expat

Asked blogger on Hullabaloo asks this on the coming war with Iran,
Please read this post by Arthur Silber, outlining the current problem with the liberal/progressive movement vis-à-vis Iran, Iraq, military commissions act, et al.

I also listen to a number of liberal talk shows. Over the last few years, I have never heard anything similar on the liberal shows. Never. Not about the Military Commissions Act (see both "'Thus the World Was Lost'" and "America, Now Without the Revolution"), not about the Roberts, Alito or Gonzales nominations, not about ending the immoral and criminal occupation of Iraq -- and not about preventing an attack on Iran.

Not on any of these issues. Never. Nor have I ever seen a similar kind of effort on the liberal and progressive blogs. Never. Every once in a while, the liberal blogs will urge action on perhaps on a single day, maybe two -- and then the issue vanishes until some new development (not brought about by the bloggers themselves) might catapult it into public consciousness again. Such tactics are sporadic, severely limited in time and scope, very infrequent, and completely ineffective.

But much more significantly: do the liberals and progressives seriously object to an attack on Iran? The Congressional Democrats obviously don't. Do the liberal writers and bloggers? To judge from their actions, it doesn't appear they do either -- and certainly not when compared to the recent sustained assault mounted by conservatives.

I can only conclude that most liberals and progressives care only about maintaining and expanding their control and power, and that they are determined not to "rock the boat" too much before 2008. Never mind that the world may be entirely changed by that time, never mind that war may be spreading out of control and that our economy may be in free fall -- or that martial law may have been imposed. If we should survive until the fall of 2008 without the worst happening, it will not be because of anything the liberals have done, for they will have done nothing if they continue their current pattern of behavior. And if they win in 2008, that will only be a repeat of 2006: they will win because of the profound nausea and revulsion directed at the Republicans, and not because of a positive alternative offered by the Democrats. Certainly with regard to Iran, the Washington Democrats offer no alternative: they repeat the Republican propaganda in its entirety.

On this matter, I would be pleased and even thrilled, far beyond my capacity to express it, to be proven wrong. So go ahead, liberals and progressives: prove me wrong. Please.

Prove me wrong today. And tomorrow, and the next day. Prove me wrong for the coming 18 months, and even beyond that.

Prove me wrong. I beg you.

Darfur spirals into anarchy

McClatchy reports,

Now there's a new set of problems: Few people know who's attacking or why. Armed groups are breaking off and recombining according to the tactical advantage that day. Aid agencies and peacekeepers are at greater risk than ever.

"One of the problems with the security situation at this point - it is not two sides fighting against each other," Andrew Natsios, President Bush's special envoy to Sudan, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April. "It's anarchy."

Inspiration

Listen to this and ask yourself what you will as or say the next time our country is attacked, "What should I be doing" or "tell me what to do."

On Hubris and Iraq

So I just finished this interview of Ray McGovern, former CIA intelligence agent of more than 20 years, and I'm amazed (not really though) just how absolutely hubristic the current administration is. It is a very illuminating interview. Recalling his organization, Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity, sent a memorandum to the president before the Iraq invasion in 2003 stating clearly that such an act would ensure "overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists for the indefinite future, far from eliminating the threat, it would enhance it exponentially."

This however, is not news to those inside the intelligence community. Retired chief of the bin Laden unit at the CIA Michael Scheuer asserts that the invasion of Iraq "broke the back of our counterterrorism efforts" and validated everything bin Laden professed to his followers.

Moreover, fellow CIA analyst Bruce Riedel writes in Foreign Affairs that Al Qaeda is welcomed and celebrated the opportunity to kill Americans and pursue its 'bleed-to-bankruptcy' strategy, a strategy that has been openly professed by Al Qaeda.

NBC reporter Richard Engel spoke recently from Lebanon where he met with Al Qaeda members inspired. You can watch the interview here. What was their main motivating factor for trying to attack the West? "IT'S ALL ABOUT IRAQ" in Engel's own words.

Even as early as 2006, we learned, the director of the CIA briefed the president that the instability in Iraq seems "irreversible."

Again, these are Realpolitik arguments with only the United States' national interests in mind.

What about the fact that we as the aggressor nation have no right imposing our will on our victim? Oh yeah, we are the US of A and when we do it it's for democracy and liberty.

Nevertheless, the Iraqis want us out, in fact al Maliki essentially told us that we can leave at anytime. TPM notes,

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told reporters earlier this week that a U.S. withdrawal would make Iraq's chaos worse, but Maliki dismissed his concerns, saying, "We say in full confidence that we are able, God willing, to take the responsibility completely in running the security file if the international forces withdraw at any time they want." In other words, "We can take it from here."

Kevin Drum noted the other day, "Both the American public and the Iraqi public want us to leave Iraq. However, both the American government and the Iraqi government want us to stay. So we're staying. This is called 'democracy promotion.'"

Hmmmmm.

As Reidel writes,

But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

No doubt al Qaeda will claim a victory when the United States leaves Iraq. (It already does so at the sheer mention of withdrawal.) But it is unlikely that the Islamic State of Iraq will fare well after the occupation ends. Anbar and adjacent Sunni provinces have little water, few other natural resources, and no access to the outside world except through hostile territory. The Shiites and the Kurdish militias will have no compunction about attacking the Islamic State of Iraq. (Al Qaeda's own propaganda indicates that it fears the Shiites' wrath after the United States' departure more than it fears what would happen if the Americans stayed.)

I dont know what else I can do...

read this please.

So hunker down, get ready for the coming storm – prepare yourself for gas prices that will make it impossible to drive without taking out a bank loan – and, most importantly, stay online. Because the first news of the Big War will be headlined right here on Antiwar.com – along with a thorough debunking of the alleged "incident" that sparks it.

how much is enough?

TRex writes,

Increasingly the attitude I get from friends in other countries and readers outside the US is, “If you guys hate George Bush so much, why aren’t you doing anything about him? He flouts your laws, he has ordered the invasion of a nation who never attacked you, he has subverted human rights and dignity around the globe. Why aren’t you rioting in the streets? Where is your famous American bravery now?”

I don’t have a good answer for that. I thought we were accomplishing something when we helped to elect a Democratic majority in 2006, but that pipe dream has evaporated in the last six months. The fact remains that while our military has gone to war, America has gone to the mall. We don’t express our dismay by way of civil disobedience because we don’t want to go to jail or lose our jobs. Does that make us cowards or just lazy? At this point, how much are we like the German citizens during World War Two who pretended that those “factories” at the edge of town were just making soap?

former director of the NSA advocates withdrawal, impeachment

Americablog has the details.

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

Wow...

To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
-- Theodore Roosevelt

In America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other...
-- Thomas Paine

Keith Olbermann delivers a powerful speech tonight that holds nothing back.

Propaganda

the New York Times is once again transcribing propaganda from the administration that lied us into war. Commander Jeff Huber analyzes the Michael Gordon article here.

Michael R. Gordon of the New York Times is once again at the center of a mainstream media story that appears designed to get the Bush administration's message out. On Tuesday, Gordon and co-author John F. Burns gave us the low down on the latest accusations about Iran's involvement in Iraq in "U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.’s."

Michael Gordon is perhaps best known these days as Judith Miller's partner in crime in spreading pro-invasion propaganda through the New York Times. He wrote articles in which "officials" argued the need for the surge in Iraq, and has also written numerous articles that echo the administration's case against Iran.

And Glenn Greenwald chimes in as well.

and then we have crazy Joe Lieberman adding to the onslaught.

for a background on what's really going on behind the scenes in Washington and the administration, click here for an interview with Steve Clemons, a Washington insider who blogs at the Washington note.

great analysis of the recent Washington Post hit piece on Cheney

Spook in the Machine writes about the recent four-part series on Dick Cheney in the Washington Post,

Putting all the above facts together, the message from these four ruthless hatchet pieces to the Co-President and his Shadow Administration is very, very clear.

Start a war with Iran without our permission, and we will put you either in jail or in economic and political purgatory. All of you. No exceptions. No mercy. This is proof we can do it. Don't fuck with us again. You have been warned.

(And before anyone accuses me of "Tin Foil Hat" tendencies here, remember the incontrovertible evidence that Co-President Cheney has a direct pipeline to the Israeli government and military through his Best Friend Forever Bibi Netanyahu. One disposable cell phone call to Bibi's drop number and a full blown war with both Syria and Iran will be underway within a week, possibly much faster. Those Israeli jets are fast and very effective. And American military officers won't shoot down Israeli aircraft even if they aren't flying authorized missions through Iraqi air space. And Iraq doesn't have an air force. And if Iran is attacked by Israel, do we really think they would say to the U.S., "Oh, we know you didn't do it, so we'll just take out our frustrations somewhere else." No, they would promptly retaliate. And nothing says "screw you" like sinking an aircraft carrier or two. Definitely gets people's attention. The rest, as they say, would come naturally. So don't doubt for one minute that Co-President Cheney doesn't have his finger on the nuclear trigger. It's just not our nuclear weapons; it's Israel's.)

interview with historian and journalist Gareth Porter regarding Cheney, Iran lies, and the crazies

Listen to this interview with Gareth Porter.

Stan Goff, USA Special Forces, Vietnam Vet, speaks out about Iraq and the complexity of geo-politics

I do recommend you watch at least the part at 19:30, when he speaks about the cognitive dissonance that takes hold soldiers and Marines during wartime in an environment where you can't distinguish friend from foe.

"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges,"

Said Republican presidential candidate and current US Congressman Duncan Hunter. Of course he wasn't alone in his sentiment, as the Washington Post describes,

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table." Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore also left "all options are on the table" with regard to Iranian nuclear weapons. Said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "I wouldn't take any options off the table."

And as I stated before, the top-tier Democratic candidates have also vowed to keep "all options on the table."

The language of the major Democratic presidential candidates, unfortunately, is equally clear: just as with Iraq, the law will not restrict our “options” with Iran.

John Edwards: “To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep all options on the table. Let me reiterate -- all options must remain on the table....” (Jan. 22 2007, speaking via satellite to the Herzliya Conference in Israel)

Hillary Clinton: “We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons....In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table." (International Herald Tribune, Feb. 1, 2007, speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee)

Barack Obama: “I think we should keep all options on the table...” (Feb. 11, 2007, answering "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft’s question: “Would you advocate the use of military force to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?”)

It's tempting and reflexive to look away in discussed at the effects that nuclear war has had. But do not. This is what "all options on the table" means. What is this option? William Heaton describes it starkly,

The reason the catastrophe will be so immense is because our nuclear missiles will be vaporizing nuclear sites. When these sites are vaporized, all the enriched uranium and plutonium stockpiled there will be shot into the atmosphere as "weaponized" particles, along with the radioactive particles from the warheads themselves.

These radioactive particles will then be carried eastward by the jet stream and the trade winds across Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the other "stans," to India, China, and Japan – producing what Truman long ago described as "a rain of ruin from the air" the like of which the world has never seen.

For these deadly, life-deforming particles can be absorbed through the skin and inhaled through the lungs. They can also poison all forms of food and water, mother’s milk, and men’s semen. They can even poison people’s tears. Imagine such a thing.

Experts debate what the "blowback" of our nuking Iran will be. I say we shall reap the whirlwind.

As the death clouds created by our missiles move remorselessly across the face of Asia, cities will riot. Whole nations will erupt. Puppet governments from Morocco to Malaysia will fall in a hail of bricks and bullets. American businesses will be burnt to the ground. American tourists will be lynched in the streets. And with Pakistan’s nuclear missiles now in the hands of radiation-poisoned men with dead and dying parents, wives, and children, who knows where the next mushroom clouds will be?

Oh Yeah, did I mention that Bush just signed a presidential directive that gives him dictatorial powers in the event of a 'catastrophic emergency.' What exactly is a catastrophic emergency?

"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

Wonderful. Click here for my previous post or here for another or here for the New York Times article and here for more.

John Whitehead elaborates on the troubling developments and our slumbering country. I recommend reading his essay.

On May 9, 2007, with little attention from the snoozing media, George W. Bush issued a "presidential directive" that allows him to assume control of the federal government following a "catastrophic emergency."

In other words, the groundwork has been laid for the president of the United States to do away with our democracy, such as it is, and establish a dictatorship. The president, in effect, has become a power unto himself.

Having said that, I'm aware that I have opened myself up to accusations of paranoia and alarmist sentiment. However, if it is paranoid or alarmist to recognize the potential for abuse and urge Americans to guard against it, then so be it. It's time to sound the alarm.

James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said that Americans should take alarm at the first experiment upon their liberties. But this latest "presidential directive" is not the first attack on our liberties, and I dare say it will not be the last. We'd better open our eyes soon, lest we wake up one morning and find that we live under a new regime. Only, this time, it will be one of our own making.

"Anyone can go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran."

Or so the senior Bush official said. Of course he was just echoing the popular sentiment in neoconservative circles. Unfortunately for us all, the crazies are back. And this time the insanity has finally percolated its way up to the front page of the New York Times. Glenn Greenwald remarks on the Times finally reporting the serious push for an attack on Iran by the neocons.

It is quite clear that, at some point over the next 12 months, we are going to confront the issue of whether we should commence a war against Iran. The views of Americans on this question -- and about the "Iranian threat" -- are being formed now.

Articles such as the one today from the NYT clearly have the effect -- whether intentionally or otherwise -- of fundamentally skewing the issues by depicting Iran as an unprovoked enemy waging war on the U.S. and by excluding the many steps we have taken to heighten the likelihood of such a war. If this is how the media is going to report on the potential U.S.-Iran war, I'd say the odds of that conflict occurring are quite high.

Greenwald has more to say here on the matter;

But we are so clearly on that path. As Kaletsky points out, even "some even inside the Bush Administration" are plotting "how to prevent 'the crazies' from starting another war." But in each of these internal struggles, the easy victors have always been the assorted neoconservatives and warmongers, led by Dick Cheney, surrounding the President. They are clearly pining for a war with Iran.

But don't take the word of liberal bloggers, listen to conservatives like Pat Buchanan;

With Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan convulsed by ever-widening civil wars, a new danger is that the United States, tied down in two of those wars, may be about to lash out and launch a third – on Iran.

By bombarding the US with a massive PR campaign already underway by this administration,

President Bush will then have his casus belli to take out Natanz and all the other Iranian nuclear facilities, as the Israelis and the neocons have been demanding that he do. This would mean a third Middle Eastern war for America, with a nation three times as large and populous as Iraq. Perhaps it is time to begin constructing a new wing on Walter Reed.

And as he reminds us in an earlier post;

... though Iranians sound bellicose, Iran has not started a single war since the revolution of 1979. [which we undoubtedly instigated by toppling their democratically elected president Mossadegh and implementing a puppet regime all for what... that's right, OIL, as Representative Jim McDermott eloquently educates our history-challenged electorate] Indeed, Iran was the victim of a war launched by Saddam Hussein, whom we secretly supported. Not within living memory has Iran invaded or attacked another country.

But in the last 110 years, peace-loving Americans have fought Spain, Germany twice, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Italy, North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq twice, and Serbia. We have intervened militarily in the Philippines, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, and Grenada. We bombed Libya. Now, a case can be made for most of these wars, whose fallen we honor on Memorial Day.

But the point is this. Why would Iran, with no air force or navy that can stand up 24 hours against us, no missile that can reach us, no atom bomb, and no ability to withstand U.S. air and sea attack, want a war with us that could mean the end of Iran as a modern nation and the possible breakup of the country, as Iraq is breaking up?

Whether one is pro-war or antiwar, ought we not – if we are going into another war – do it the right way, the constitutional way, with Congress declaring war? Or does the Democratic Congress think that what is best for America is to let "the decider" decide?

Because that is what George Bush is doing right now.

So what happens if we do it?

Gary Leupp looks into what hap pends after we strike Iran;

Let us suppose that the Bush-Cheney administration answers the neocons' prayer and does indeed bomb Iran sometime soon. The plan apparently involves more than the destruction of nuclear facilities, replicating Israel's attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. (That attack, by the way was condemned by the whole world, including a furious President Ronald Reagan). It includes an all-out assault on the Iranian political and religious leadership. Government buildings and officials' residences will be targeted, guaranteeing collateral damage.
...

I doubt that administration plans for the construction of a post-attack Iranian polity are any more sophisticated than their plans for post-Taliban Afghanistan or occupied Iraq. Some have suggested that the neocons' goal is actually to plunge the Muslim Middle East into prolonged pandemonium, insuring that all foes of Israel are off-balance and terrorized by the might of Israel's protector for generations to come. "Neocons," writes Paul Craig Roberts, "have convinced themselves that nuking Iran will show the Muslim world that Muslims have no alternative to submitting to the will of the US government."

They are "total Islamophobes" who believe that "Islam must be deracinated and the religion destroyed. . ." Others note that Cheney is obsessed with the imagined threat of a rising China and the need to establish permanent U.S. bases in Central and Southwest Asia to "contain" the world's most populous nation. The desire to control the flow of oil, the urge to check China, the passionate drive to destroy Israel's enemies (alongside this neocon Islamophobia) are all reflected in U.S. foreign policy since 9-11.

...

But what will happen here in the U.S. after the Iran attack? How will we react? If it happens, it won't be announced the way the invasion of Iraq was. There will be more and more unattributed reports of Iranian arms deliveries to unlikely recipients like the Taliban or Sunni "insurgents" in Iraq. More alarmist reports on Iran's nuclear progress. More propaganda about Iran's intention to nuke Israel and produce a second Holocaust...

As the attack gets underway some Democratic leaders in Congress will indicate support for the move, based on the doctored intelligence reports they've read, or have had on their desk and possibly perused. Some will withhold comment or maybe even object to the action. I have the feeling both timidity and stupidity will initially prevail. There is little precedent for U.S. politicians condemning a U.S. attack on a country just after it's occurred.

So is this what we are devolving into, a nation in which presidential candidates openly support USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS 'PREEMPTIVELY' AGAINST ANOTHER COUNTRY.

Rep. Duncan Hunter of California was the starkest: "I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges," he said. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said he believed that the job "could be done with conventional weapons," but he added that "you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table." Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore also left "all options are on the table" with regard to Iranian nuclear weapons. Said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: "I wouldn't take any options off the table."

The top-tier Democrats echoed that familiar phrase, "all options are on the table,"as if a little nuclear war 'over there' was something that needed seriously to be discussed. Since when did nuclear weapons go from "mutually assured destruction" and deterrence to and "option." Imagine these psychopath's would have been in power during the Cold War, during the Cuban missile crisis!

One of their more visible cheerleaders for Armageddon, Lieberman, recently claimed on a Sunday morning talkshow, "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," he told CBS on Sunday, "and to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran."

What I sat their wondering was why the hell the 'newscaster' interviewing him couldn't ask him something like, "hey, that's great, but what about the fact that it would be profoundly illegal and monstrous to wage and aggressive war such as the one you described"?

Or, "you speak of nuclear weapons like they are a legitimate alternative to consider, as if choosing between a pistol or a rifle, are you comfortable with thought of covering and nation with radioactive debris, condemning countless innocents to Chernobyl like effects for generations"?

Or perhaps he could have asked Lieberman, "what would prevent World War III, or IV if you would like, from breaking out with an attack solidifying nationalistic support for the increasingly unpopular Iranian president, and likely facilitating a full-scale regional war with all those countries who were seen as sympathetic to the US cause, i.e. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey,etc. being attacked by those who were hostile,and what would stop Saudi's from invading Southwest Iraq to secure the Shia oil there, or the Turkish from launching a full-scale invasion of Kurdistan for similar purposes, and Iran retaliating against US assets in Iraq and worldwide etc."?

Of Course, those are the consequentialist arguments and questions posed by a preventative attack. How easily we forget the immoral crimes we condemned past generations and regimes of committing. Crimes which the US prosecuted the Axis powers for. Here's a little refresher on why it would be profoundly hypocritical;

[ Nuremberg principles]

ARTICLE 6

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

Of course anyone who would study ones adversary would realize that Cheney and the rest of the warmongers share the goal of a hot war with Iran with an old friend -- al Qaeda. As Gareth Porter notes;

The danger of an al Qaeda effort to disguise an attack on the U.S. as coming from Iran was raised in an article in Foreign Affairs published in late April by former NSC adviser and counterterrorism expert Bruce Reidel, who wrote that Osama bin Laden may have plans for "triggering an all-out war between the United States and Iran," referring to evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq now considers Iranian influence in Iraq "an even greater problem than the U.S. occupation".

"The biggest danger," Reidel wrote, "is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a 'false-flag' operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing."

In a briefing for reporters about the article, Reidel said al Qaeda officals have "openly talked about the advisability of getting their two great enemies to go to war with each other", hoping that they would "take each other out".

You can listen to Porter being interviewed here. He and Steve Clemens write that Cheney and his minions are currently in the process of trying to

... collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

I recommend you listen to his full compelling interview here.

So is the only thing preventing the crazies from launching a war a mutiny by the generals and admirals? I posed that very question to a Democratic congressman in a town hall recently and shockingly I was essentially answered in the affirmative. He lamented the 'lack of votes' that Congress had when trying to insert language prohibiting funding for a war with our own during the last supplemental vote. Certainly the Joint Chiefs are unanimously opposed, as Joe Klein reports. And Admiral William Fallon, commander of central command, has reportedly claimed an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch," adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

So what to do now? Spread the word I guess. Raise awareness through Democratic forums. The ostrich approach will surely not achieve anything.

We Have moved from George Washington warning against the dangers of keeping a standing Army,to Thomas Jefferson cautioning against getting involved in foreign entanglements, to John Adams remarking that America does not go abroad in search of monsters to slay, to Dwight D. Eisenhower, warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex, finally to George W. Bush, with "you're either with us or against us," and "bring em' on."

I feel the coming months will be an interesting time in the history of the American Republic.

Oil: the 800 lb gorilla

An excellant article by Michael Klare.

Many energy analysts now say that a price range of $70-$80 per barrel (or possibly even significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the foreseeable future. A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, home-heating oil, and petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local governments. Sooner or later, it will force people to make profound changes in their daily lives -- as benign as purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply to make an unavoidable drive to work.

...

Along the way, the American military has been transformed into a "global oil-protection service" for the benefit of U.S. corporations and consumers, fighting overseas battles and establishing its bases to ensure that we get our daily fuel fix. It would be both sad and ironic, if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships, and tanks -- consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives.

the only thing we have to fear is fear itself

great article by Joe Galloway.

This administration has injected fear into the American people; into much of the media, whose duty it is to speak truth to power, not cower before the powerful; into a mighty nation's foreign policy; and now even into the Democratic majority in Congress.

Fear saps the will and decision-making power of humans. Fear blurs all that is good and decent, and blinds us to evil being done in our name.

Enough is enough. We have lived for more than six years in fear of our neighbors, fear of a world turned hostile by the words and actions of our own leaders, fear of a future that once was a bright and shining dream.

What we must do is give up fear for the 600-odd days that remain in this president's lease on the White House. As those old bumper stickers declared: NO FEAR! We can be, we must be, alert, on guard and observant because there are evildoers in this world. We need not be foolhardy - but we must be clear-eyed and clear-headed and determined that never again will we be manipulated by a crew of cynical politicians who know only how to hate, not how to love.

No fear!

that un-American bastard!

Retired Gen. George Washington Criticizes Bush's Handling Of Iraq War

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Revolutionary War veteran noted that while Hussein was a tyrant, that alone did not justify a "conflict that seems without design or end."