I am in Texas. I drove from Washington state. Long drive. Very long. However, it's (relatively) warm outside right now where I am here in Eastern Texas, and I can hear crickets chirping. - So I'm not complaining!
Anyway, I want to mention the U.S. presidential debates. Last night, during the third and final presidential debate, I was crossing the border from Colorado into Kansas. Reception was fuzzy, and I missed some, but I was able to listen to a good portion. I had better reception from about a third of the way until the end.
America is under stress. The people and economy of America are both under duress. There have been so many changes, major and minor, over the last few years and decades. So many changes so fast and we really haven't taken stock of how these changes are affecting people (much less the planet.) So it is with that context that I listened to the debate. Knowing how this society is harming the planet. Knowing how people are hurting. Knowing that there is so much potential and promise - such possibility for such an awesome, nurturing and stable - peaceful and prosperous world - for all.
So I am sad! And it is made all the more acute because I don't have more choices than Obama and McCain. More choices like I would have, for example, if McKinney and Nader were to appear on a preferential ballot. But what came across quite clearly to me was the distinction between these two men, Obama and McCain. What stood out to me, what I noticed in particular were what I perceived as McCain's cheap shots - the falsifications, distortions and even obfuscations.
The reason I will vote for Obama is not that I believe an Obama Administration will likely be the herald of the changes that would be necessary to heal America. The reason I will vote for Obama is more because of John McCain. That said, maybe I am being too harsh on Obama... Obama might actually be a step in the right direction. But I am not sure. And I want more. For example, I want real change on foreign policy. So - it's too bad that my choices are essentially limited by a system that has arbitrarily decided to exclude and discriminate against legitimate third party candidates. This has all the markings of corporatism.
[The media has completely hi-jacked this discussion, which should be front and center for any political discussion in America. American foreign policy is not about defense from terrorists, as the media and too many Washington D.C. public officials / politicians (and an astounding number of public officials / politicians elsewhere) would have me (and you) believe. American foreign policy is about imperialism; it is about dominance and hegemony. The public infrastructure of the U.S. military is being used to pursue this policy. The military is not being used to keep the peace in an altruistic sense. The military, all 700+ foreign military base installations (plus the various fortress flotillas) is being used to prop up a foreign policy of interventionism - a foreign policy of inserting "American friendly" people into strategic locations within governments.
So the media has all but completely hi-jacked this discussion. And what will come of it? Benefit for the American people at large (or the people of the world at large?) I don't think so. We need people in government who can, and will, stand up to this new media tyranny...(But how can we get these people into government when the media controls the government, and the debate? - Maybe it's hopeless to seek change at that level? We need a public interest coup!)]
Tax cuts. McCain's tax cuts would be an escalation of the Bush years. And look what 8 years of Bush have brought us. Financial and economic instability. The rich are richer (and their numbers multiplied), and the poor are poorer. Massive inequities are causing social tension. People are losing their jobs and in danger of losing shelter. Meanwhile, vested interests are benefitting - and influencing government to do more of the same - to promote their benefit at the sake of others' wellbeing. Obama wins on tax cuts. Tax the wealthy. It's not "class-warfare." It's called "just compensation." It's called social interest, and public interest. It's called good-government. Tax the wealthy. Especially the biggest corporations.
There was a lot from the debate. A lot to respond to. It's overwhelming at this point. I guess they succeeded if that's there goal. It just pushes me away really. Makes me want to look toward more localized solutions... It was frustrating at times to listen to the debate. And I wanted to call in to a post-debate public radio show. I probably would have if I wouldn't have forgotten my cellphone battery charger.
I wish Nader would have been allowed to debate!
It was frustrating to hear both Obama and McCain speak against Venezuela - considering all of the positive social reforms that have taken place there. The poor people of Venezuela are being lifted up by their government. They are being provided with the basics for a better life: food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare, and work. What's so bad about Venezuela; is it the socialism? If that's the case, then what's bad about socialism in Venezuela, and good about socialism on Wall Street? What's the difference? Or is the distinction just an arbitrary one - is it just a matter of "mine is okay, when yours is not."
I am frustrated because I think it will take more than Obama's chanting "Hope" and "Change" to actually affect meaningful changes within the system. The powers that influence government are deeply entrenched. Does Obama really mean what he says when he talks of advocating reform, or are his words just empty rhetoric, and only designed to boost him into a position of power? What are Obama's true motivations for seeking the presidency? Is it to serve the best and highest interests of the American people - or is it simply to attain power as a manifestation of personal desire, of selfish egoism? America would do well with having, rather than a "politician" as president, having a public service president - a servant to the highest needs and loftiest aspirations of the American people and future generations. The people need health. Healthy food, air, land, water - healthy and stable ecosytems - sustainability. The people need meaningful work. The people need to fit into a sustainable society. The people need to belong to a community. The people need education. The people need justice. (I could go on and on - but people - all people - do have the same needs, a basic set of needs that is common to all people.)
Perhaps most importantly: The people need the truth.
The people do not need to be living, and taking, at the sake of the planetary (human and ecological) community - nor is it at all desirable for the people to do so. The people do not need to be living in a way that is causing harm to other people and the planet.
This planet Earth is a tremendous "gift" - really it is not a gift. It doesn't belong to any of us, nor any group of us, nor all of us collectively. It is of its own. It is a tremendous and wonderful being all on its own. - It is its own. - All of its own, on its own (except for the sun and moon, and other planets, and stars, etc.). It was here before humans came into being. It may likely be here long after humans have faded into the past. The Earth is full - full of such wonder and beauty. There is so much potential. - So it is sad to see so much of it wasted and trashed and abused. I lay this culture of destruction squarely at the feet of politicians and vested business interests, notably in the entertainment and media and military sectors.
Back to the debate and the post debate call-in show. One of the callers to the after-debate public-radio-show mentioned the possibility of war over energy resources. She said it as if there was the future possibility of this happening. Honestly, I think she was being sarcastic or facetious or perhaps just explicitly understating the obvious.
I mean really people! - The Global War on Terror is a facade for active and ongoing wars over energy resources: resource wars - people killing people over things (minerals).
The front line of the United States government's foreign policy of global dominance, aka "hegemony," as it is promoted by big business corporate hegemons - seems to be evinced quite clearly in the obvious efforts to control foreign energy resources. We see this in both Iraq and Afghanistan (the latter being home to a major pipeline.) We see this in Georgia, where fighting recently broke out in a separatist area. Georgia is home to a major pipeline for transporting Caspian sea fossil fuels to the West.
And we also see this developing, most alarmingly, in a posture of belligerence, and in the use of bellicose rhetoric by U.S. officials, toward Iran. About Iran, I will say this: neither the state nor the people of Iran (including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard) are terrorists. If Iran wants to pursue nuclear weapons, why shouldn't it be able to? Shouldn't individual nations have the right to self-determination? What gives the U.S. the right to deliberate which nation can and which nation cannot pursue nuclear power, or nuclear weapons? Forgive my digression. But a U.S. (or Israeli) attack on Iran would have truly devastating economic consequences. Your $10 gallon of gasoline? That would likely do it. America and Americans, and indeed the world, would possibly be pushed into an emergency disaster scenario. All because of political posturing. All because of an attitude of belligerence and a drive for hegemony. It's sick.
These foreign wars over resources, certainly in at least the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan, can rightly understood to be aggression, and these wars are illegal and immoral. My government, your government, our government - of the USA - is attacking countries, bullying them. What it's doing is, essentially, to take without asking. It's not much different than what happened a couple hundred years ago with the "Manifest Destiny" when Europeans thought themselves to be superior and rightful in their conquering of the North American continent, much however to the detriment of Native people and culture.
It doesn't have to be like this. There is a better way! Violence is not the solution. People, as individuals and as collective societies, must be treated equally and fairly.
We must ask ourselves what kind of a world we want to leave to future generations: scorched and barren, or healthy and fertile?
We have the power to effect change. We need healing. The planet needs healing. It would be a benefit to have a healer - one who seeks to reconcile, who seeks to achieve mutually beneficial solutions, who seeks to find a balance in the best interests of future generations and in the holistic best interests the whole planet - elected to president. Sadly for America and the World, I do not think that either of Obama or McCain is just such a healer.
###end of rant###
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
McCain v. Obama on Iran
What's the biggest issue for me in US politics? Foreign Policy. I believe that the foreign policy of the USA has a trickle down effect over domestic society, and I also believe that the foreign policy dictate and subsequent actions of my government have tremendous and profound impacts upon the whole of human society around the world.
The most important issue for me in the coming months, and as it relates to the presidential race between John McCain and Barak Obama, is the issue of Iran and its alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Both candidates offer similar rhetoric on Iran: that it cannot be allowed to possess WMD in the form of nuclear armament. But is there credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program? Or is the rhetoric bellicose and belligerent and tending towards provocation and aggression? Already, a 'silent' act war has been declared in the desire to enact and erect a military blockade against Iran.
In the fierce desire to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon device, many in positions of power have embraced the far-flung opinion that Iran should not have the right to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear technologies - as it has expressly stated is its only intention - that of the creation of nuclear energy.
So, this position on Iran is dangerous. It says, we don't like you and we don't trust you, so we say that you can't have nuclear technology. Ours is okay, but yours is not. We are good and you are bad. This is the wrong type of thinking if we want to create a peaceful world. The position on Iran of both McCain and Obama is belligerent and tends toward aggression.
Iran has expressly and officially and repeatedly denied its interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran is party to multiple international anti-nuclear weapon agreements. There is no evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program as of now, when I am writing this. So can we attack a foreign country just because we think it has weapons that we don't want it to have?
The position of the USA is so weak on this front for a number of reasons. One of which is that the USA is not party to many of the currently circulating nuclear weapons anti-proliferation treaties in the world today.
But basically, this policy toward Iran reeks of the global dominance manifesto. This is a policy where the supposed 'national interest' (i.e. as in it relates to energy policy, remember oil is the foundation of the economy) justifies bullying and taking without asking. The "Take without Asking" foreign policy is unworkable.
When deciding between McCain and Obama, I have no choice. Both are bombers. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" - Let it rain (reign?) John McCain"
Obama is, apparently, prone to bombing in order to entertain foreign policy, as well.
This is belligerent hostile rhetoric, given the absence of clear and present evidence of a nuclear weapons program; it is just plain wrong.
The right thing to do is to talk. Enter into dialogue with Iran. With all of the connected interests. Increase understanding. Increase trust. True and lasting Peace can only be attained through nonviolent means - through the promotion of mutual respect, cooperative efforts, respect, altruism and mutual interests.
So, tell me, who should I vote for in three months?
- signed by me, feeling disenfranchised in America
[p.s. Further, even if there was credible - undeniable - evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt of an Iranian clandestine nuclear weapons program, there must be further reason to believe that Iran poses an imminent threat of offensive use of those weapons, in order to justify any adversarial military action.
It is not enough to have evidence of a nuclear weapon, to justify attack. There must also be clear and specific intent to use the weapon in an offensive and physically harmful capacity. - And even in that extreme scenario, there must be UN Security Council agreement to legally (and morally) wage what would then be a "pre-emptive" attack.
Just because a foreign nation (like Iran) might possess weapons that our government (speaking of the USA) doesn't like doesn't give our government (USA) the right to attack it.
To attack: First there must be evidence of a weapons program beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Second there must be evidence of a specific imminent threat that said weapons are to be used in an aggressive, hostile / offensive manner. Third, there must be Security Council approval prior to any initiation of "pre-emptive" action.
Otherwise, in the absence of those prerequisites, it is clear - that it is the USA that would be the aggressor.
read something supportive and similar:pull the plug on the war state by charley reese]
The most important issue for me in the coming months, and as it relates to the presidential race between John McCain and Barak Obama, is the issue of Iran and its alleged clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Both candidates offer similar rhetoric on Iran: that it cannot be allowed to possess WMD in the form of nuclear armament. But is there credible evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program? Or is the rhetoric bellicose and belligerent and tending towards provocation and aggression? Already, a 'silent' act war has been declared in the desire to enact and erect a military blockade against Iran.
In the fierce desire to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon device, many in positions of power have embraced the far-flung opinion that Iran should not have the right to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear technologies - as it has expressly stated is its only intention - that of the creation of nuclear energy.
So, this position on Iran is dangerous. It says, we don't like you and we don't trust you, so we say that you can't have nuclear technology. Ours is okay, but yours is not. We are good and you are bad. This is the wrong type of thinking if we want to create a peaceful world. The position on Iran of both McCain and Obama is belligerent and tends toward aggression.
Iran has expressly and officially and repeatedly denied its interest in obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran is party to multiple international anti-nuclear weapon agreements. There is no evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program as of now, when I am writing this. So can we attack a foreign country just because we think it has weapons that we don't want it to have?
The position of the USA is so weak on this front for a number of reasons. One of which is that the USA is not party to many of the currently circulating nuclear weapons anti-proliferation treaties in the world today.
But basically, this policy toward Iran reeks of the global dominance manifesto. This is a policy where the supposed 'national interest' (i.e. as in it relates to energy policy, remember oil is the foundation of the economy) justifies bullying and taking without asking. The "Take without Asking" foreign policy is unworkable.
When deciding between McCain and Obama, I have no choice. Both are bombers. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" - Let it rain (reign?) John McCain"
Obama is, apparently, prone to bombing in order to entertain foreign policy, as well.
This is belligerent hostile rhetoric, given the absence of clear and present evidence of a nuclear weapons program; it is just plain wrong.
The right thing to do is to talk. Enter into dialogue with Iran. With all of the connected interests. Increase understanding. Increase trust. True and lasting Peace can only be attained through nonviolent means - through the promotion of mutual respect, cooperative efforts, respect, altruism and mutual interests.
So, tell me, who should I vote for in three months?
- signed by me, feeling disenfranchised in America
[p.s. Further, even if there was credible - undeniable - evidence beyond the shadow of a doubt of an Iranian clandestine nuclear weapons program, there must be further reason to believe that Iran poses an imminent threat of offensive use of those weapons, in order to justify any adversarial military action.
It is not enough to have evidence of a nuclear weapon, to justify attack. There must also be clear and specific intent to use the weapon in an offensive and physically harmful capacity. - And even in that extreme scenario, there must be UN Security Council agreement to legally (and morally) wage what would then be a "pre-emptive" attack.
Just because a foreign nation (like Iran) might possess weapons that our government (speaking of the USA) doesn't like doesn't give our government (USA) the right to attack it.
To attack: First there must be evidence of a weapons program beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Second there must be evidence of a specific imminent threat that said weapons are to be used in an aggressive, hostile / offensive manner. Third, there must be Security Council approval prior to any initiation of "pre-emptive" action.
Otherwise, in the absence of those prerequisites, it is clear - that it is the USA that would be the aggressor.
read something supportive and similar:pull the plug on the war state by charley reese]
Abusing Our Troops (Trading Blood for Oil)
President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. "Dick" Cheney are abusing the troops.
Photo by Laura Killian
Well, further, and according to Vincent Bugliosi, sending the troops into harm's way without national security imperative, prerogative, or necessity makes those culpable decision makers complicit in the murder of U.S. Soldiers. There was not national security justification for the invasion of Iraq. The justification for invasions/occupation is the policy of global dominance. Access to, and control of, the vast Middle East petroleum resources is a necessary ingredient in the maintenance of global dominance.
So, the essential truth is that the U.S. launched a military invasion - an act of aggression - designed to conquer, extract and exploit the mineral resources of a foreign nation. That is not okay with me. How's it by you?
Photo by Laura Killian
Well, further, and according to Vincent Bugliosi, sending the troops into harm's way without national security imperative, prerogative, or necessity makes those culpable decision makers complicit in the murder of U.S. Soldiers. There was not national security justification for the invasion of Iraq. The justification for invasions/occupation is the policy of global dominance. Access to, and control of, the vast Middle East petroleum resources is a necessary ingredient in the maintenance of global dominance.
So, the essential truth is that the U.S. launched a military invasion - an act of aggression - designed to conquer, extract and exploit the mineral resources of a foreign nation. That is not okay with me. How's it by you?
Blocking a Bush Attack on Iran
I attended a Moveon.org Operation Democracy petition event yesterday at the Olympia Office of Washington State 3rd Congressional District Representative Brian Baird. Nearly 600 names of 3rd District Constituents were transferred to Congressman Baird's staffers in order to support Baird's plan to sign on to a bill that would require Congressional authorization prior to a US military attack on Iran.
I also spoke to my disappointment in a response I received from the Congressman in regard to a comment I left with him during his September Town Hall Meeting. He came to Olympia to defend his policy redirection and newfound explicit support for the Bush Administration "surge" in Iraq. I was concerned that he did not take into account the efficacy and potential for a responsible and safe, gradual and phased redeployment (aka withdrawal) of US military forces from Iraq. Today I will stop by his office and deliver documentation of the plan to responsibly withdraw the military from Iraq. Here's a link to the report, it was published by the Center for American Progress. It was co-authored by Lawrence J. Korb, Max Bergmann, Sean Duggan, and Peter Juul. 
I implored upon the staffers furthermore my need for the Congressman to do everything in his power to oppose a White House move toward attack in the absence of thoroughly credible, entirely transparent and absolutely verifiable evidence that Iran poses an immediate threat to the USA. period
Given the Bush Administration's use of false pretenses to prompt an unnecessary attack on Iraq - it's crucial that Congress, and my Congressman, do everything in their power to insure against another unjustified, unlawful aggressive attack.
Seattle Protest Against the "War" October 2007
I went to the UFPJ rally and march in Seattle this past weekend. It was a great event. The numbers weren't as great as I would have liked them to be, but the people who showed up were passionate and genuine in their desire for peace and for the creation of a better society and a better world. There was a caravan from Olympia, I am not sure about the specific numbers. The Olympian quoted 200. Here's a link to the Olympian article, which includes a couple of choice quotes from me as well as a picture of me. Diane Huber did a decent job reporting on the Olympia Caravan. But I wish she would have fleshed out more of my conversation with her in the article. I talked with her for a while. It was a good conversation. She seemed genuinely interested and possibly even sympathetic with the anti-occupation cause... What I wish that she would have included in the article were my thoughts about the necessity of impeachment. Impeachment (of certain prominent Executive Branch officials) for any malfeasance that has occurred during the Bush Administration is vital to the healthy and wholesome future of the USA - as well as to the creation of a stable social environment in Iraq.
Secondly, an unjust and belligerent military occupation of another country is unacceptable. It is time to begin a safe and responsible withdrawal of all military personnel from Iraq.
Here's a sample of some of the photos I took from Saturday. You can find more here (flickr) and here (dotmac):
Secondly, an unjust and belligerent military occupation of another country is unacceptable. It is time to begin a safe and responsible withdrawal of all military personnel from Iraq.
Here's a sample of some of the photos I took from Saturday. You can find more here (flickr) and here (dotmac):
Disaster Capitalist's Delight: War on Iran
Two articles that I want to share. One by Naomi Klein, Disaster Capitalism, details the process by which certain corporations are making massive profits off of wars and environmental catastrophes. I think this article is subscription only, but you may be able to find free copies on the Internet:
go to originalAnd Seymour Hersh writes about a prediction that the Bush Administration will launch an attack on Iran under the auspices that Iran is providing material support for Iraqis to attack US Soldiers in Iraq:
...
"There is only one cloud that looms over the thriving disaster economy—from weapons to oil to engineering to surveillance to patented drugs. It is the threatening if unlikely scenario that this latest boom could somehow be interrupted by an outbreak of climatic stability and geopolitical peace."
go to original
In a series of public statements in recent months, President Bush and members of his Administration have redefined the war in Iraq, to an increasing degree, as a strategic battle between the United States and Iran. “Shia extremists, backed by Iran, are training Iraqis to carry out attacks on our forces and the Iraqi people,” Bush told the national convention of the American Legion in August. “The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased. . . . The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And, until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.” He then concluded, to applause, “I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.”
...
Please Do Not Attack Iran
The only reasonable justification for violent conflict is in the presence of an imminent threat to life and limb. War can only be justified as a means for self-defense. Violent aggressive attacks are not legally permissible - nor are violent aggressive attacks morally acceptable.
Let us look forward to many tomorrow's without the threat of violence. Let us envision a world without political-military-economic aggression. A better world is possible. A better world awaits...
Let us look forward to many tomorrow's without the threat of violence. Let us envision a world without political-military-economic aggression. A better world is possible. A better world awaits...
How to Avoid War with Iran
The news that Bush Administration officials are considering the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (a 125,000 strong force that is also well connected inside and outside of the Iranian political and business communities) as "terrorist" is disturbing news. Will Iranians see this as a standard diplomatic move? Or will it be interpreted as an act of provocation? If it was me, I might be inclined to interpret it as an aggressive maneuver.Under this type of thinking couldn't certain branches (for example the CIA or Navy Seals) of the US government and military be designated as terrorist in terms of the historical (and current) funding and provision of material support to various criminal regimes?
So, the Bush Administration considers might to be right.
But they are wrong. And the way to fight terrorism is not through escalation or provocation or threats.
The way to fight terrorism is by adhering to the Golden Rule. The way to fight terrorism is to make justice and equity priorities. The way to peace is to protect the innocent.
The Bush Administration needs to get its concepts of appropriate means washed out in a truly public and honest forum. It is not okay to selectively and arbitrarily label political opponents as terrorists and target them militarily.
[edit: photo credit Alex Fonseca]
Iran and Iraq and 'Inconsistent' Intelligence
Two stories to keep you busy this weekend, dear reader (i.e. Mom.)
go to originaland
Senators Debate Significance of Pentagon Report On Intelligence
By Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, February 10, 2007; Page A01
Senate Democrats and Republicans disagreed yesterday over the meaning and importance of a Defense Department inspector general's conclusion that a Pentagon policy office produced and gave senior policymakers "alternative intelligence assessments on Iraq and Al Qaida relations" that were "inconsistent" with the intelligence community's consensus view in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
...
go to original[edit]and one more:
Iran will strike U.S. interests if attacked
By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Iran's supreme leader ratcheted up tensions with the United States on Thursday, warning that his country would strike American interests around the world in retaliation for any U.S. strike on Iran.
At the same time, a senior Iranian diplomat said that his country was ready to participate in diplomatic efforts to reduce instability in the Middle East, including the sectarian bloodshed unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The Iranian statements follow U.S. charges that Tehran is shipping weapons to Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq for attacks on American forces. U.S. and Iraqi forces have detained Iranian operatives in Iraq, and President Bush's dispatched a second aircraft carrier strike force and additional anti-missile batteries to the Persian Gulf.
...
go to original
Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring
Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday February 10, 2007
The Guardian
US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.
The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.
Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney...
Iran in the Crosshairs
This is a Tom Englehardt (Tomdispatch.com) article. Englehardt has some startling insights and has connected and collected a lot of information in regard to the potential for a military confrontation between the U.S.A. and Iran.
go to original
go to original
Former officials are now crawling out of the Washington woodwork to denounce Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq and Iran with the fervor (however masked by official Washington language) of an exorcism. There, for instance, is former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in front of Congress, more or less predicting the end of the Roman… sorry, the American empire:"The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as some abuses are tarnishing America's moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability… If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large… A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated…"
The Boy Who Cried Wolf
go to original
Congress and the American People have a duty to prevent a further escalation of military operations in the Middle East (as well as the rest of the world.) De-escalate, Bring the Troops Home, Restore Moral Standing to the USA by holding the Bush Administration accountable.
The Bush Administration certainly deserves no benefit of the doubt... President Bush, more than anything, deserves to be confined until he can be brought to trial for high crimes and misdemeanors, using deliberate misrepresentations to market an unjustified and aggressive military invasion of a sovereign nation. The Bush Administration's rush to war in Iraq is in violation of more than one legal statute.
News Analysis: Confronting Iran, Bush burdened with legacy of Iraq distortions
By David E. Sanger
Published: January 28, 2007
WASHINGTON:
As President George W. Bush and his aides calibrate an escalating confrontation with Iran, they are discovering that their words and strategies are haunted by echoes from four years ago — when their warnings of terrorist activity and nuclear ambitions were clearly a prelude to war.
This time, they insist, it is different...
Congress and the American People have a duty to prevent a further escalation of military operations in the Middle East (as well as the rest of the world.) De-escalate, Bring the Troops Home, Restore Moral Standing to the USA by holding the Bush Administration accountable.
Attack on Iran: Inevitable?
Several articles have been published recently in regard to the potential for military action against Iran. I received a letter from my Senator Patty Murray, which was all but gung ho about attacking Iran (Murray receives significant support from AIPAC.) Let me know if you want me to forward you a copy of this letter.
Amy Goodman published a conversation between Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter about White House plans for regime change in Iran. Ritter concludes that an attack is inevitable, and that within mere days of an attack we will all feel it in our pocketbooks.
And in today's New York Times there appears an important article By FLYNT LEVERETT and HILLARY MANN that highlights White House schizophrenia regarding the publication of information about the potential invasion of Iran. White House behavior regarding the redaction of much of this article is provocative and disturbing.
The potential for a military assault on Iran is real. I worry that the prospect of invading Iran is made more appealing by the failure in Iraq, i.e. - Iran may provide an escape route, a reason to flee Iraq.
Amy Goodman published a conversation between Seymour Hersh and Scott Ritter about White House plans for regime change in Iran. Ritter concludes that an attack is inevitable, and that within mere days of an attack we will all feel it in our pocketbooks.
And in today's New York Times there appears an important article By FLYNT LEVERETT and HILLARY MANN that highlights White House schizophrenia regarding the publication of information about the potential invasion of Iran. White House behavior regarding the redaction of much of this article is provocative and disturbing.
The potential for a military assault on Iran is real. I worry that the prospect of invading Iran is made more appealing by the failure in Iraq, i.e. - Iran may provide an escape route, a reason to flee Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)