Saturday, June 28, 2008

Think the War in Iraq was a Bad Idea? Wait 'til You See What Bush-Cheney & Co. Have in Mind for Iran.

Perhaps you missed the headlines: America on the Brink of War Against Iran.

Or perhaps not, since this news has been conspicuously absent from the mainstream media in America. Now. Before you brush this news aside as the rantings of a tinfoil hat-wearing Chicken Little, running in circles, squawking, "The sky's falling!" consider that Congress is set to vote, any day, on the very resolutions that will finalize the Bush-Cheney preparations for war against Iran, waged on the claims that Iran has WMDs. Or that they *will* have WMDs. Any day now. Even though the intelligence and inspectors' reports say otherwise. Sound familiar?

(At this point, before you read on, please consider pausing long enough to protest ResolutionS 362 AND 580:

Consider, also, what the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector and director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- which oversees nuclear inspections in Iran -- said, just last week,

“I DON'T believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger.... A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything. It would turn the region into a fireball."

History seems to be repeating itself. Using the same blueprint they used to trick America into an illegal war in Iraq, Bush-Cheney are making a case for war in Iran, despite that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded in November 2007 that Iran had stopped nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 and had not resumed it as of last year, and despite that IAEA inspectors have found no evidence of nuclear weapons work in Iran.

History is, indeed, repeating itself: Has it been only 5 years since the Bush Administration similarly disregarded -- ridiculing as naive -- the findings of IAEA inspectors Mohamed ElBaradei and Hans Blix, who told the Bush Administration there was no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq?

October 1997: IAEA reports Iraq is free of nuclear weapons.

February 2001: Colin Powell reports that Iraq is "contained" and is "unable to project conventional power against his neighbors" and that "he threatens NOT the United States."

February 2002: CIA confirms that Iraq has not provided WMDs to terrorists.

August 2002: "We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.... Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon." -- Dick Cheney

September 2002: "Iraq is six months away from producing a (nuclear) bomb." President George W. Bush

September 2002: "Iraq’s military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so;” -- from the document: Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government

September 2002: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." -- Condi Rice

January 2003: "In the course of these inspections we have not found any smoking gun," Hans Blix

January 2003: "He has weapons of mass destruction -- the world's deadliest weapons -- which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies." -- President George W. Bush

March 6, 2003: "The IAEA finds no indication of resumed nuclear activities in Iraq." -- IAEA director general/UN inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei

March 16, 2003: "Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." -- Dick Cheney, three days before the invasion of Iraq.

May 1, 2003: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." -- President George W. Bush

June 26, 2008: “We have found the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It is oil." -- Dennis Kucinich

That was Iraq. This is Iran:

December 2005: "We haven't seen a smoking gun in Iran. We haven't seen an underground production enrichment facility. We haven't seen enough materials in put into a weapon." -- Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA

October 2007: "There is NO evidence of a concrete, active nuclear weapon program” going on inside Iran." -- Mohamed ElBaradei, IAEA report

October 2007: "The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences." -- Dick Cheney

October 2007: "If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace. So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons." -- President George W. Bush

November 2007: "Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran....Even a stopped clock is right twice a day" -- John Bolton

March 2008: "Obviously, they’re also heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels,” -- Dick Cheney

June 4, 2008: “We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat....George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter BEFORE THE END OF HIS TERM in the White House.” -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert

To that end, Israel just recently carried out a full rehearsal of an air assault on Iran, to the tune of nearly 100 warplanes aimed at Iran's nuclear sites -- nuclear sites which, according to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, are being used to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes: power, not weapons use. Yet, today, as in October 2002, Cheney is poised to, in his own words, "discredit inspections in favor of disarmament," which translates roughly to: So what if there aren't any nuclear weapons? We're going in, anyway.

So here we are, perched on the precipice of another war. Only, this war carries the potential to escalate out of control, possibly even to the scale of the sky-falling scenario that Chicken Little envisioned. The question now is: Is there any one here who knows why the U.S. and Israel should not join in war against Iran? Speak now, or forever hold your peace:

Read more here:

When Did Iran Stop Beating Its Wife?,15202,158545,00.html

When Did Iran Start Beating Its Wife Again?

This article has some important background, particularly on banking and financial sanctions, including the Bush Administration's blackmailing of other countries into supporting these sanctions, which are a lead-up to war -- The March 20, 2008 Declaration of War on Iran:

Bush-Cheney-Israel Disinformation Campaign to Justify Attack on Iran:

Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran - Democrats OK Funds for Covert Ops: >

Joint Chiefs Chairman Says U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran:

Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article:

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Ripped from the Headlines!

Capitol Hill Clueless Over the Real Reason Bush Removed North Korea from the Axis of Evil

The folks on Capitol Hill are sqawking up a storm today over Bush's decision to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. "A profound disappointment!" crowed one. "It flies in the face of history!" screeched another. Don't expect anything fancier than this, in the way of explanation, from the media:

Fact is, as some of us have known for a long time, Bush & Cheney have bigger fish to fry, and if there's one thing you need to fry big fish, it's lots and lots of oil.

In plainspeak, the reason North Korea has officially been put on the back burner is to clear the path for the war against Iran. This is old news. Perhaps, if the good folks on Capitol Hill were to delve into the tin-foil havens of the internet, they wouldn't be so clueless. But, then, that would defeat the purpose of pretending to not be a part of the neocon agenda, now wouldn't it?

Speaking of the War for Oil in Afghanistan... I Mean Iraq... I Mean Iran

With all the renewed media *cough* interest in Afghanistan and bin Laden over the past few weeks, scant scrutiny's been given to the no-bid contracts going to Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, et al, as they prepare to collect the spoils from our illegal war in Iraq. Even less scrutiny's gone to Iran, where we are perched to go war.

some background: and

While we've been busy thinking about gas prices and who's more patriotic -- Cindy or Michelle -- support has been growing on Capitol Hill to pass Resolutions 362 and 580, giving Bush license to go to war against Iran, not unlike the Iraq war resolution passed in 2002.

The broken-wing-bird ruse being used by the Administration, with the apparent complicity of the media, seems to be working because, for whatever reason, everyone's looking the other way. Few Americans seem aware that, as early as next week, the House could pass Resolution 362, with its sister resolution, Resolution 580, gaining support in the Senate, as we speak. I suppose they'll tell us about it when we need to know. Right?

Read about it here: and here:

And, when you're done, toss some dissent to your Representatives:

Dennis "David" Kucinich Takes Aim at Bush "Goliath" Cheney

We have found the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It is oil.
-- Dennis Kucinich, June 26, 2008

Who needs to shop in the big & tall suit shops, when you have a giant of a political conscience like Dennis Kucinich?

You won't find much mention of Kucinich in the mainstream media. He's too short, he doesn't have chisled features and, besides, he's telling the truth, and if there's one thing people abhor, it's hearing the truth before it's time. A few years from now, the truth will catch on and be all the buzz on Capitol Hill and the cable news. Until then, if you want the truth, you'll have to contend with the fact that it arrives, albeit unfashionably early, in a package that many Americans have been brainwashed into believing isn't credible, for its size.

And in the same "Ich bin ein Berliner" spirit of solidarity...

... what better day, than today, to sign the petition urging the presidential candidates to, for cripesakes, get off the fence and endorse the treaty against cluster bombs?

Last month, 111 countries around the world signed the ban against cluster bombs, but the U.S. (you guessed it) didn't.

Here's the thing: It's not enough to loathe Bush policies from the tips of your hair to the tips of your toes, or even to cast your vote against the Bush policies in November. There is so much to be done in the coming days, months and years. Our voices do count. Don't let the enormity of our problems intimidate you to silence, to some fatalistic, "Aw, what the hell" attitude. In the words of Margaret Mead:

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

So, sign the thing, wouldya?

Today, as we stand on the precipice of war with Iran, we would do well to remember...

... this day, forty-five years ago today, on June 26, 1963, when President John F. Kennedy stood before the Berlin Wall and delivered his famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" (I am a Berliner) speech, to the cheer of more than one-million West Berliners, chanting "Ken-ne-dy! Ken-ne-dy!"

Below is an excerpt from this 8-minute speech, but to really understand how powerfully felt was his stand of solidarity with the West Berliners, you really need to hear and see Kennedy's speech:

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we look -- can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

What better day, than today, to be mindful of the potential we now hold, as a nation, to elect a leader who is already drawing cheers, millions-strong, from citizens around the world who hope -- as we do -- that, one day soon, they may be able to stand again in solidarity with the United States?

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Ralph Nader Pulls the Race Card, Draws a Spade

The cat's out of the bag, as Ralph Nader inadvertently let slip the best-kept secret of the campaign season: Barack Obama is half white.

In an interview Monday, June 23rd, from his campaign headquarters in D.C., Nader trumped Geraldine Ferraro, as he drew the race card in discussing the difference between Obama and his democratic predecessors:

There's only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He's half African-American. Whether that will make any difference, I don't know

I haven't heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What's keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn't want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We'll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.

Speaking further on black politicians, on scary black politicians, on politically threatening scary black politicians like Jessie Jackson, and on how scary threatening black politicians connive to get the white-guilt vote by being black, but acting white, Nader continued his discussion of Obama's half-blackness.

He wants to show that he is not a threatening, a politically threatening, another politically threatening African-American politician. He wants to appeal to white guilt. You appeal to white guilt not by coming on as black is beautiful, black is powerful. Basically he's coming on as someone who is not going to threaten the white power structure, whether it's corporate or whether it's simply oligarchic. And they love it. Whites just eat it up.

Statements from the Obama campaign were brief, by comparison. "We are obviously disappointed with these very backward-looking remarks," said Obama campaign spokeswoman, Shannon Gilson, while the Obama campaign's communication director, Robert Gibbs, called Nader's statements, "reprehensible and basically delusional."

See a video of the full interview, plus a partial transcript here:

UPDDATE: Wednesday, June 25. Two days after his remarks, and in the wake of public outrage over his earlier statements, Nader's campaign issued a statement that Nader would not retract his comments or issue an apology.

Senator Obama, responding Wednesday afternoon to Nader's charges that Obama is neglecting poverty and inner city issues. "What's clear is, Ralph Nader hasn't been paying attention to my speeches," he said. "Ralph Nader's trying to get attention. He's become a perennial political candidate."

Speaking like a man whose gifts for diplomacy and grace-under-fire transcend superficial differences, such as race, Obama added, "I think it's a shame, because if you look at his legacy in terms of consumer protections, it's an extraordinary one."