Author: idredit

This out of London, UK in The Sunday Times

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran

Is this a psy-ops? Or Israeli leaders gone mad?

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.[.]

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.

2007 is shaping up to be a very dangerous year.

Caught in the heavy news cycle of the 110th Congress and Bush’s moving around his deck chairs on that sinking ship is publication of the peace plan.

A Real blueprint for Peace in Iraq. – by Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defence Minister.

The plan, published overnight online at The Independent, UK, has received scant notice in the U.S. media. Today, the proposal has gained wide support in Europe.

“For the first time, a real blueprint for peace in Iraq.”

In a nutshell Mr. Ali Allawi calls for the decentralization of Iraq. A very long preamble setting out the historical background and the mistakes.

The proposal:  

“Iraq government calls for regional security conference, including Iraq’s neighbours, to produce an agreement/treaty on non-intervention and combating terrorism. Signatory states will be responsible to a set of markers for commitments.

Purpose: To reduce/ eliminate neighbouring countries’ support for insurgents, terrorists and militias.

* Iraq government calls for preparatory conference on a Middle-Eastern Confederation of States that will examine proposals on economic, trade and investment union. Proposals will be presented for a convention on civil, human and minority rights in the Near East, with a supreme court/tribunal with enforcement powers.

Purpose: To increase regional economic integration and provide minorities in signatory countries with supra-national protection.

* Iraq government calls for an international conference on Iraq that would include Iraq, its regional neighbours, Egypt, the UAE, the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China that would aim to produce a treaty guaranteeing: a. Iraq’s frontiers b. The broad principles of Iraq’s constitutional arrangements

c. Establishing an international force to replace the multinational force over 12 to 18 months. Appointing an international co-ordinator to oversee treaty implementation.

Purpose: To arrange for the gradual and orderly withdrawal of American troops, ensure that Iraq develops along constitutional lines and to confirm Iraq and its neighbours’ common frontiers.

* Iraq government will introduce changes to government by creating two statutory bodies with autonomous financing and independent boards: a. A reconstruction and development council run by Iraqi professionals and technocrats with World Bank/UN support b. A security council which will oversee professional ministries of defence, interior, intelligence and national security.

Purpose: To remove the reconstruction and development programme from incompetent hands and transfer them to an apolitical, professional and independent body. Also to remove the oversight, and command and control of security ministries from politicised party control to independent, professional and accountable body.

* The entire peace plan, its preamble and its details must be put before Iraqi parliament for its approval.”

The reaction:

“From all corners, support grows for Iraq peace plan.”

[S]enior Labour figures joined opposition MPs in welcoming the plan, set out by Iraq’s former defence minister Ali Allawi, for Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to be given a role in helping to end the increasingly bitter sectarian divisions in Iraq that have helped push the country towards civil war.

Senior military figures and foreign affairs analysts also backed the intervention of Mr Allawi, a senior adviser to the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, whose blueprint was revealed in yesterday’s Independent.[.]

Among those backing the proposals were Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader; Liam Fox, the Conservative defence spokesman; Denis MacShane, the former Europe minister; Tony Lloyd, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Conservative foreign secretary.

Support for Mr Allawi’s plan came as it emerged that Mr Bush is replacing his top two commanders for Iraq. Lt-Gen David Petraeus – an expert in counter-insurgency – will take over from Gen George Casey as coalition commander on the ground in Iraq. US Navy Admiral William Fallon will replace General John Abizaid as chief of US Central Command, in charge of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The choice of Admiral Fallon was unexpected, given that these are both ground conflicts. But it may also reflect the importance of sea-based air power in containing Iran.

Both appointees are understood to be supporters of the “surge” in US forces apparently favoured by Mr Bush, which would send as many as 20,000 troops to Iraq.

Politically, opposition to an increase in US troops in Iraq is widespread.[.]

(emphasis added)

Mr. Bush promised us his decision at mid week. But before we raise applause that adults are talking of a peace plan, Bush may, true to form and from all reports, ignore the reality that Iraq is lost.

Several alarm bells have been sounded over the appointment of Admiral William J. Fallon. In this community our esteemed BooMan and Jeff Huber.

And now the Brits also made note. Troubled times ahead.

Laura Rozen caught this bit of NYT censoring: (via War and Piece)

What to think of a NAVAL officer being appointed to run Central Command, theater of two current ground wars? [..]

money graf:

“A general reorientation of our regional policy toward a confrontation with Iran,” suggests one correspondent. So too another reader noted this excerpt in a version of that NYT article that ran last night but is now apparently no longer there:

Military officers and Pentagon officials said that Admiral Fallon would represent a shift in focus for the Central Command, as he would bring expertise in maritime security operations more than land operations. As the Iraq security operation matures, the focus for Central Command is expected to shift toward countering the threat from Iran.

In that capacity, the military’s role focuses on maintaining regional presence through naval forces and combat aircraft and conducting maritime security operations like interdiction of vessels believed to be carrying banned weapons materials or suspected terrorists, in addition to preparing for combat contingencies.”

(emphasis added)

Laura notes “it’s hard to know why it was taken out.”

Now our esteemed BooMan has been riding the Impeachment horse. Time to open the stables doors. Bush has ousted all those opponents of his Iraq escalation trip, opponents who could stage a coup d’etat or close, an embarrassment as they all resign.
Recall Seymour Hersh?

So much for “I listen to my Generals.”  It appears only when they tell him what he wants to hear.

Bush is desperate to pull a ‘win’ from the flames of failure. This man cannot admit to mistakes so he’s going for “one last push for victory before defeat.”

He does not see it that way. Unfortunate he pays no price.

What’s ahead. A two-fer-one:

More fuel on Iraq’s spreading flames  

[P]rior to the 2003 invasion, there existed a rough balance of power between Shi’ite and Sunni factions across the region – neither was able to achieve inordinate regionwide power or dominance. The US and Britain took directly on themselves the enormous task and responsibility of maintaining that rough regional balance of power when they crashed into the Hussein regime. They were entirely unprepared to assume that strategic responsibility, however.

At the same time, as that US/British-instigated imbalance of power continues to tip in Iran’s favor, it has acutely disturbed and frightened the oil-rich Sunni Arab regimes who legitimately fear a regional takeover by ascendant Iran.

In 2007 the final consequences of the United States’ failed policies will arrive. Those consequences are extremely unlikely to include anything resembling the “win” still hoped for by the US, Britain and Israel, for the simple reason that all the evidence points to the conclusion that the regional tipping point toward ascendancy by the Shi’ite faction may already have been reached.[.]

If the US and Britain imagine they can play the Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian rivalry card and somehow keep the repercussions contained within the realm of orderliness or “manageable chaos” by means of their naval and other forces, they are every bit as dense now as they were when they went into Iraq in the first place, imagining that that strategy would succeed.[.]

There’s that Saudi ultimatum in Cheney’s pocket so Bush will order an attack on Iran and not because of their nuclear ambitions.

It’ll be to make right the unintended consequences of his misadventure in Iraq; having tipped the balance  of power in favor of Iran, a member of what he coined the axis of evil. That’s just too big a mistake for our Sunni friends, Bush’s legacy and how he’ll be viewed.

And what of Allawi’s Blueprint for Peace? The plan will be dismissed as too complex and talking to Iran and Syria is a taboo.

The Guardian, UK reports that this date is being touted as the day our procrastinator will let us know, as the decider-in-chief at the behest of Cheney, that he’ll be escalating for victory in Iraq. The decider need give no valid reason other than maybe we are facing having to start over because failure is not an option.

Bear with me I kid you, NOT. You see the lies continue that ‘the Iraqis are in charge’ and if they just get a grip our troops can stand down. Not so.  Several articles I read over the last 24 hours confirm that we’ve been in charge all along. All the rest was pure PR.

The coverage of Saddam’s demise and what that sets up for our path ahead is revealing.

In life Saddam  was controversial, yes a brutal dictator – an understatement some will opine –  but, equally in death, how he met his end and the role of  Al-Sadr’s loyalists – ‘the Shite Mahdi Army in the implementation of the sentence’ – appears to be having a blow-back that’s tainting America’s role in the barbarity of the hanging.

We note that Blair has remained silent from his vacation hideaway in Florida. Even our allies, the Kurds feel cheated and, especially, Israelis are worried about post Saddam Iraq.

Words of anger comes from Riverbend.
It’s “A Lynching:” was posted just yesterday.

” America the savior… After nearly four years and Bush’s biggest achievement in Iraq has been a lynching. Bravo Americans.

Maliki has made the mistake of his life. His signature and unhidden glee at the whole execution, especially on the first day of Eid Al Adha (the Eid where millions of Muslims make a pilgrimage to Mecca), will only do more to damage his already tattered reputation. He’s like a vulture in a suit (or a balding weasel).

It’s almost embarrassing. I kept expecting Muwafaq Al Rubaii to run over and wipe the drool from the corner of his mouth as he signed for the execution. Are these the people who represent the New Iraq? We’re in so much more trouble than I ever thought.”

But all along “We’ve been in charge “ We funded the court (some $138 million), trained the judges and controlled the schedule.

“Scott Horton, the chair of the International Law Committee of the New York City Bar Association, who worked on the trial, told IPS there was little doubt that the death sentence was intentionally handed down on the eve of the elections. He said Washington exercised especially tight control over the tribunal’s schedule.”

“Access to the courtroom is controlled by the Americans, security is controlled by the Americans, and the Americans have custody over the defendants who must be produced before the trial can go forward, so whether they have the trial on day x or day y depends on the Americans giving their okay,” he said.

“What is really being presented here is the narrative of people in power, the victors not the victims,” Professor Mustafa said. “The Americans, not the Iraqis. Not people like me and my relatives who lost loved ones, but people who are deciding things in Iraq now.”

Some observers believe Washington closely managed the trial in order to avoid having Hussein reveal damaging secrets about his past relations with U.S. presidents, especially Ronald Reagan.

We cannot walk away as innocent bystanders. The blow-back from the Middle East may have prompted this piece in the NYT (via TPM) explaining how, as the good guys, we intervened every step of the way: It was all Nuri Al-Maliki’s doing. Hmmm.

Rush to Hang Hussien was Questioned

 “The Americans’ concerns seem certain to have been heightened by what happened at the hanging, as evidenced in video recordings made just before Mr. Hussein fell through the gallows trapdoor at 6:10 a.m. on Saturday.

A new video that appeared on the Internet late Saturday, apparently made by a witness with a camera cellphone, underscored the unruly, mocking atmosphere in the execution chamber.”

How does this impact the coming course of events? Do we target the power of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, do a two- for-one and remove al-Maliki?

Will we Surge into the Abyss? as Mr. Vali Nasr writes over at TPMCafe.

     
[N]ew troops will be in Iraq not to police the streets and hold the line against the creeping violence, but to expand the war by taking on the Shia militias. This is an escalation strategy. Will it work; maybe, maybe not. But it runs the risk that it may very well provoke a Shia insurgency–something Iraq has not so far witnessed.

Thus far the U.S. has faced a Sunni insurgency (which by most estimates continues to account for 80% of U.S. casualties), and sectarian violence in which Shias and Sunnis are killing each other. Shia militias are violent, destructive and radical, but Shia militias are a very different problem from the Sunni insurgency.

Shia militias, unlike the insurgency, are not targeting American troops. But it looks like the administration is set to change that.

So, as we’re about to mark another milestone to nowhere, and ‘running out of time’- it’ll be “A Rush to failure” says a senior military source.

[The] debate within the administration about what to do next is still to be resolved. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, is leading those in favour of the “surge” approach: sending a further 20,000-40,000 US troops to Baghdad to reinforce the present US force of 140,000 in a final attempt to subdue the Iraqi capital.[..]

“Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter argued that only a surge in troop numbers, of 300,000-400,000 would make a difference. Speaking on CNN, Mr Brzezinski criticised the core group gathered around Mr Bush to determine Iraq policy. With the exception of the new defence secretary, Robert Gates, he noted “a narrow decision-making group embedded in its own opinions … is now making the decision about a change of course.”

The money graphs:

“A senior US military source identified the core of the problem as the US pursuit of democratic government ahead of security and economic reconstruction.

What Washington had ended up with was an Iraqi government that shared different objectives from America: establishing the dominance of the Shia rather than fostering reconciliation and unity.  

He said the view of the US military in Iraq is that the police force was so riddled with sectarianism that the only possible course was to disband it and start again; it was also rife in the Iraqi army, a trend encouraged by the Iraqi government.

“We are still in charge. The Iraqi government is a facade,” the military source said. “How can our strategy be to accelerate the handover to this government and the Iraq army. This is a rush to failure.”

(emphasis added)

Do we have a problem? Should Congress cut off the funding for this illegal war?

As Riverbend notes, over 3 years,  the only thing we’ve accomplished is the toppling and execution….erm a `lynching’ of Saddam. In the process alienating our allies; the Kurds and the Sunnis throughout the Middle East.

That money graph in the Guardian, UK believe your eyes,

 ‘a senior military source states that the only possible course is disbanding of the [Iraq] police force and maybe the army as well.’  

Wow.

On our side, $300 billion spent, 3,000 dead, 25,000 wounded and maimed for life; tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, millions displaced and we’ll need to start over!!  

And just maybe under Brzezinski’s estimate, if we follow Bush and his vice, the escalation of the war project requires at least another 300,000 troops. A potential reinstating of the draft for the long hall cannot be ruled out. The Selective Services recently tested the system.

 If you think the troops will be home soon I have a floating iceberg – the size of Manhattan – for sale. Caution: It’ll melt before the troops come home.

‘User-generated content such as blogs, video-file sharing site – from YouTube to MySpace – transforms the Internet and media.’

Yeah. We’ve been picked!!! –

“For seizing the reins of the global media, for founding and framing the new digital democracy, for working for nothing and beating the pros at their own game, Time’s Person of the Year for 2006 is you,” the magazine’s Lev Grossman wrote.

The magazine has put a mirror on the cover of its “Person of the Year” issue, released on Monday, “because it literally reflects the idea that you, not us, are transforming the information age,” Editor Richard Stengel said in a statement.”[.]

Influential also-rans

You beat out candidates including Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, China’s President Hu Jintao, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and James Baker, the former U.S. Secretary of State who led Washington’s bipartisan Iraq Study Group.[.]

The aim is to pick “the person or persons who most affected the news and our lives, for good or for ill, and embodied what was important about the year, for better or for worse.”

Not for long. Savor the moment. BushCheney administration and spokesperson Newt Gingrich are mounting an assault. The Geneva Convention is considered “quaint”. Looks like free speech could fall in the same category.

Gingrich has not recanted: Free speech should be curtailed

“Gingrich said the threat of biological or nuclear attack requires America to consider curbs to speech to fight terrorists, if it is to protect the society that makes the First Amendment possible.

“Our friends at the ‘ACLU left,’ of course, were staggered at this concept,” Gingrich told an audience of Republicans at a Christmas banquet. “How could we talk about anything less than 100 percent free speech? How could we consider in any way thinking about this issue?”

Gingrich cited last month’s ejection of six Muslim scholars from a plane in Minneapolis for suspicious behavior, which included reports they prayed before the flight and had sat in the same seats as the Sept. 11 hijackers.

“Those six people should have been arrested and prosecuted for pretending to be terrorists,” Gingrich said. “And the crew of the U.S. airplane should have been invited to the White House and congratulated for being correct in the protection of citizens.”

Meanwhile Thinkprogress reports an

“EXCLUSIVE: White House Forbids Publication Of Op-Ed On Iran By Former Bush Official.”

“Middle East analyst Flynt Leverett, who served under President Bush on the National Security Council and is now a fellow at the New America Foundation, revealed today that the White House has been blocking the publication of an op-ed he wrote for the New York Times. The column is critical of the administration’s refusal to engage Iran.

Leverett’s op-ed has already been cleared by the CIA, where he was a senior analyst. Leverett explained, “I’ve been doing this for three and a half years since leaving government, and I’ve never had to go to the White House to get clearance for something that I was publishing as long as the CIA said, `Yeah, you’re not putting classified information.'”

Mr. Leverett, how about blogging your Op-Ed over at TWN
Leverett will appear on C-Span, Moday 18 December.

What say you. Are we making a difference, giving them hell, f%^u, STFU, and generally keeping their feet to the fire?

Choices, choices. Too coward to decide or is he trapped?

The ISG report has attracted much ink. Largely dissected and rejected by our allies – Shiites and Kurds in Iraq. These prescriptions for a people deep in the quagmire are not seen as the way out and forward.

What to make of Bush’s indecision? He’s been given 79 recommendations and can’t decide! Some see Bush as just plain stubborn and others, he’s a coward?

Here’s a collection of interesting views on Bush-the-decider being disabled.

Josh Marshall citing an item from USNews writes, What a pitiful coward this man is.

“White House advisers say Bush won’t react in detail to the ISG report for several weeks, while he assesses it and awaits various internal government reports on the situation from his own advisers. Bush tells aides he doesn’t want to “outsource” his role as commander in chief.
Some Bush allies say this is a way to buy some time as the president tries to decide how to deal with rising pressure to alter his strategy in Iraq and hopes the critical media focus on the Iraq war will soften.[.]

[A] former adviser to Bush the elder. “If President Bush changes his policy in Iraq in a fundamental way, it undermines the whole premise of his presidency. I just don’t believe he will ever do that.”

Josh concludes: “He won’t ever change course. Not because there’s anyone who can’t see that the present course is a catastrophe, but because changing course would cut the legs from under the collective denial of the president and his supporters. As bad as things get they can still pretend they’re on the way to getting better. It’s a long hard slog to January 2009 when it becomes someone else’s fault.”

But Bush disagrees he’s a coward. Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly has a post: Harry S. Bush  on the president comparing himself with our ‘the buck stops here’ Harry Truman.

Kevin, (via Atrios), links to the McClatchy report that the meeting with Democratic leaders on Friday, to review the 79 recommendations, found Bush not too interested:]

“Instead, Bush began his talk by comparing himself to President Harry S Truman, who launched the Truman Doctrine to fight communism, got bogged down in the Korean War and left office unpopular.

Bush said that “in years to come they realized he was right and then his doctrine became the standard for America,” recalled Senate Majority Whip-elect Richard Durbin, D-Ill. “He’s trying to position himself in history and to justify those who continue to stand by him, saying sometimes if you’re right you’re unpopular, and be prepared for criticism.”

Durbin said he challenged Bush’s analogy, reminding him that Truman had the NATO alliance behind him and negotiated with his enemies at the United Nations. Durbin said that’s what the Iraq Study Group is recommending that Bush do now — work more with allies and negotiate with adversaries on Iraq.

Bush, Durbin said, “reacted very strongly. He got very animated in his response” and emphasized that he is “the commander in chief.”

Hmmm. He’s the commander-in-chief but can’t decide  or maybe is he keeping company with the JD juice man?

a borrowed quote from Dem. VP candidate, the late Lloyd Bentsen –

Perish that thought George W. You are no Harry Truman.

Professor Juan Cole asks, Will Bush choose his new friends over his old: Bush/Shiites vs. Baker/Saudis?

Professor Cole concludes “Bush’s Shiite clients contribute to his policy making but that he’s the same old W” [he] ‘wants compromise before negotiation as a prerequisite even for talks.’

Imho, Bush is a coward and insecure. He’s also trapped, thumb sucking his way as he flounders. More below.

Within days of his `summit meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, Bush had Al-Hakim, Al Maliki’s main Shiite rival, over at the White House.  Professor Cole on profile:

“Al-Hakim said US Troops Should Stay;
Urges harsher Measures against Sunni Guerrillas.”

“Al-Hakim is the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite fundamentalist organization founded in Tehran in 1982 when many Iraqi Shiite activists had sought Ayatollah Khomeini’s protection from Saddam Hussein. He spent over 20 years in Iran.”

We can all agree Iraq is a complex problem but imho, Bush has proven he’s a coward. He is also a trapped and trampled by ‘the Saudi elephant’ and as always Cheney will make the decision for him – this decision will come at the Saudis’ behest.

And this administration needs a cover, needs to be seen as having been invited to stay.  

Greg Palast writes the outcome foregone: “The Baker Boys” – we’ll stay half the course

“Saudi Arabia is the elephant in the room (camel in the tent?) that can’t be acknowledged — and the reason Baker is so desperately anxious to sell America on keeping half our soldiers in harm’s way.

Why is Baker, ordinarily such a tough guy, so coy with the Saudis? Baker Botts, the law firm he founded, became a wealthy powerhouse by representing Saudi Arabia.
But don’t worry, the Iraq Study Group is balanced by Democrats including Vernon Jordan of the law firm of Akin, Gump which represents … Saudi royals.

Of course, the connections between Baker, the Bush Family and the Saudis go way beyond a few legal bills.[…]

Baker is more than aware that, two weeks ago, Dick Cheney dropped his Thanksgiving turkey to fly to Riyadh, at the demand of the Saudis, for a dressing down by King Abdullah. The King wants US forces to stay to baby-sit the Shias in Iraq’s army.
The Saudis have made it clear that, if the US pulls out our troops, Saudi Arabians will crank up payments to their brothers, the Sunni warlords in Iraq, and Baghdad, or the entire region, will run with blood.

 King Abdullah’s wish is Cheney’s command — and Baker’s too. And so 70,000 of our soldiers will stay.

Mr. Palast concludes:

“And therein lies the danger. Behind the fratricidal fracas in Iraq is something even more dangerous than civil war — a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia over control of Iraq’s pivotal position in OPEC, the oil cartel.

Because what is painted by Baker’s Iraq Study Group as an ancient local clash between Shia and Sunni over the Kingdom of God, is, in fact, a remote control war between Iran and Saudi Arabia over the Kingdom of Oil.”

Half the course? Steve Clemons thinks not. The next hurdle for Bush is selling America on why he will stay the full course, an option rejected by 71% of Americans in the recent AP-Ipsos poll.

What’s up with that? Barack has been getting a lot of press here and overseas. A media watch is on his every step and conservatives are finding him attractive, likeable. Today, Andrew Sullivan had 2 entries on Obama – one is linked to a NYT story that’s walled.

“I think Barack Obama is the most interesting persona to appear on the political radar screen in decades. He’s a walking, talking hope machine, and he may reshape American politics,”– Republican operative Mark McKinnon.

Next, Sullivan links to and quotes from a long article in the New York mag News & Features  `Dreaming of Obama’ – Can the junior senator from Illinois take America?  with a post under the header

Obama v.Kos  

“A nice little swipe from the senator from Illinois”

“One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect.”

I’m not surprised that Obama made that statement. About two years ago, Obama’s posts at the orange place were not well received. He was flamed. I was appalled at the reception. Enough said.

Here are some more excerpts from Dreaming of Obama:

“If Barack disagrees with you or thinks you haven’t done something appropriate,” says Tom Coburn, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, “he’s the kind of guy who’ll talk to you about it. He’ll come up and reconcile: `I don’t think you were truthful about my bill.’ I’ve seen him do that. On the Senate floor.” [.]

“What Washington does,” Coburn says, “is cause everybody to concentrate on where they disagree as opposed to where they agree. But leadership changes that. And Barack’s got the capability, I believe–and the pizzazz and the charisma–to be a leader of America, not a leader of Democrats.”

Are we ready for a black president whose middle name is Hussein, or Is Obama “black enough”?

People often like to ask whether the country is ready for a black president. “The test is not a Barack test,” says Jesse Jackson, who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. “It’s America’s test. Phenomenal blacks are wonderful, but they ain’t new. Do you know how qualified Paul Robeson was? All-American, Phi Beta Kappa, Othello?”

Obama: “I don’t want people to pretend I’m not black or that it’s somehow not relevant. But ultimately,” he says, “I’d want to be a really great president, you know? And then I’d worry about all the other stuff. Because there are a lot of mediocre or poor presidents.”

Reporters from The Independent, UK caught up with him in California as ‘Obama sought to convert evangelicals over to Democrat cause’

“If Barack Obama ends up running for the White House, expect to see this footage run over and over on a television screen near you: the charismatic black Democratic senator from Illinois talking the language of God and receiving a standing ovation from a packed crowd at one of the country’s most prominent conservative evangelical mega-churches.

Mr Obama entered the political equivalent of the lion’s den[.]

Many evangelicals were appalled that he should be invited to address their own, given his liberal attitude to hot-button issues such as abortion and gay rights. One fundamentalist leader said he represented “the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality”. A coalition of “pro-life” groups said they could never work with someone who advocated “the murder of babies in the womb”.

Curiosity aside, many of his Republican colleagues and Republican operatives offer nice compliments. Hmmm. Obama, on a direct question if he’s running for president, replied No…but, that ‘he could change his  mind.’ I’m filing him as serious about a presidential bid.  

But I’m not for Obama throwing his hat in the ’08 race.  Why?
I.dred.it. – all the mean spirited attitudes – rampant across this land reminds me of 1968. We’ve ramped up the hate. I say to Obama watch your back.

And as Hillary eyes a ’08 bid she is said to be casting her anxious eyes on Obama. Of Hillary and Obama, the question presents; Will they last?

Both Hillary and Obama should look north. At the weekend in Canada, a ten month campaign in two races for leadership – one race for the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, (a prime minister-in-waiting) and the other, Leader of the Provincial Conservative Party of Alberta, (an instant premier)  – front-runners can and did finish last.  Front runners who peak too early are prone to their support collapsing from fatigue.

The results in Canada reveal voters are way ahead of back room politics – establishment politicians.

Delegates at both conventions voted:
Front-runners with baggage. No
Front-runners without experience. No
Front-runners who are pro-war. No

What’s the issue of our time? Stop the wars and divert the billions to funding a sustainable environment and social justice that by extension includes single payer universal access to health care.

From The Independent, UK article linked above:

“Evangelicals may care about abortion and gay marriage, but they also care about the Iraq war and the environment and issues of social justice, polling data shows.

Meteor Blades has an excellent diary up, BBC Calls Nuking of Iran ‘Improbable.’ In my view, today’s announcement by Iran’s president Ahmadinejad that they had achieved unranium enrichment to the 3.5% level,- Reuters reporting “Iran in nuclear technology step”- may just hasten the Bu$hCheney attack plans for Iran.

Three very good articles caught my attention; two following up on Sy Hersh’s explosive report in The New Yorker is not comforting. Hopefully, the third, an editorial- “The World’s  only supersuicide bomber” presents some options that can be acted upon. Title sounds too radical?

More below fold
Today, Thom Hartmann, heard on Air America, writes in Commondreams.org “Democracy Be Damned“- laying out why

“Republicans Need another War”

[..] that Bush/Cheney/Rove and the Republican cabal lied us into invading Iraq. Ginning it up just before the 2002 midterm elections was largely done so Republicans could take back the Senate in 2002 after losing it because of Jim Jeffords’ defection. The 2003 attack was timed, we now can see, so Bush would improve his chances to win the White House in the election of 2004.

So, too, it appears that Bush is now ginning up a new war just in time for the 2006 midterm elections, and Karl Rove probably has a 2007 continuing war in mind to help swing the 2008 elections (or postpone them).[.]

Oil, to the Republicans, would be a nice bonus. And let’s not forget those profits for Halliburton and other big Republican contributors.[..]

Did you notice Hartmann’s in referring to 2008 wrote “or postpone them”!?! Is this what America has become?

Confirming Hartmann is the anonymous Spengler, a contributor to The Asia Times, in his predicting:

“Bush’s October surprise – it’s coming

The Republicans will win November elections in 2006. according to Spengler, a known advocate for military action. It is his opinion that a ‘US attack on Iran is inevitable and unavoidable.’

One hears not an encouraging word about US President George W Bush these days, even from Republican loyalists. Yet I believe that Bush will stage the strongest political comeback of any US politician since Abraham Lincoln won re-election in 1864 in the midst of the American Civil War.

Two years ago I wrote that Bush would win a second term as president but live to regret it. Iraq’s internal collapse and the president’s poll numbers bear my forecast out. But Bush’s Republicans will triumph in next November’s congressional elections for the same reason that Bush beat Democratic challenger John Kerry in 2004. Americans rally around a wartime commander-in-chief, and Bush will have bombed Iranian nuclear installations by October.[..]

An Atimes Australia reader demanded to know where the editor stood on Spengler’s arguments for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. The editor responded beyond laying out policy issues – giving a personal view under the title:-

The World’s Only Supersuicide Bomber

[..] “Editor’s Note” I will spell out my stance on the bombing of Iran, but first I want to explain why that stance should not be of compelling importance to readers.

[..] Asia Times Online does not exist to push specific causes or philosophies, and we should never be confused with propaganda vehicles such as Fox News or Jihad Now! or subtler, smarter vehicles like the New York Times. For this reason, ATol has no qualms about publishing opposing points of view on any subject, as long as they are well argued, informative and original. We do this in the belief that readers wish to be fully informed about all sides of a dispute, and thus more able to make an informed judgment.

[..] However, I will not sidestep Mr Mazir’s demand. Actually, I’d be crazy to throw up this chance of having my two cents’ worth. It’s strictly personal, and does not necessarily gel with those of my colleagues or ATol’s owner. I provide it in the hope that it will contribute something to the debate.[..]

Nuclearizing its friends while using force against its foes invites disaster for the US. Who knows who will be the United States’ friends and foes 30 years hence? It was not so long ago that India was regarded as an ally of the Soviet Union, while Iran under the shah was a docile US client state. Remember how the US armed and funded the Afghan mujahideen to fight the Soviets, and how that came back to haunt it on September 11, 2001? And now it wants to allow its “friends” to have potential nuclear weapons capability?!

(Or does neo-conservative hubris feed a belief that in 30 years’ time the US will have no enemies, only a worldful of bombed-out client states? If so, God help us all, especially the Americans.)[..]

To this end, a new proposal to resolve not only the Iran crisis but proliferation in general comes from a somewhat surprising source: Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to former presidents Gerald Ford and George H W Bush. It has much to recommend it. Its originality lies in that it flattens the nuclear playing field – in other words, it avoids dividing the world into the nuclear-privileged “us” and the to-be-deprived “them”. Whether it’s workable and whether the Iranians would accept it, I won’t hazard a guess, but at least it should be one of the options that are, like the bombs, “on the table”.[..]

The editor recommends {Bush and others} should read Scowcroft’s proposal,

“How to resolve the Iran-US nuclear standoff:”

Scowcroft: “Nuclear weapons technology is no longer a closely guarded secret in the possession of a handful of countries. And an approach that relies on determining the character of regimes to assess worthiness to use nuclear energy is full of loopholes.
Only by creating a new international regime – and applying it without exception across the board – can we hope to guarantee that all countries can enjoy the
benefits of nuclear energy without risking the spread of the world’s deadliest weapons.”

Editor concludes:

[..]”Bombing Iran to deprive it of its nuclear fuel cycle would be akin to putting out a fire with gasoline while there are safer alternatives at hand. Bombing would likely result in a month of September 11s. It would likely throw previously antithetical states into each others’ arms and open the way for uncontrollable nuclear proliferation as these states join forces against the world’s bully-boy.

If it bombs Iran, the US is going to have to continue bombing, more and more, around the globe. That’s apparently not a prospect that deters some of those currently making US foreign policy, but it is something that US citizens ought to consider.

Spengler calls for Iran to be bombed before it’s “too late”. If indeed President Bush agrees with Spengler, Americans may decide it’s a better idea to impeach their president before it’s too late.

[emphasis added]

We do regret that Bush exiled Scowcroft when he warned on Iraq. Is there some adult that can sit Bush down, ground him, rescind his war powers until his term ends?  Sandra Day O’Connor can you help? Maybe put in a call to Ma Bush.

Before the atomic clock is put on fast forward does anyone think we can raise up a few courageous Senators, Congressmen and women to march into the Oval Office read Bush his articles of Impeachment OR alternatively, just put a stop payment on that blank check you gave him – don’t fund this war?

There’s a curious nerve jolting article in the Sunday Telegraph, UK The article goes into some detail that Bush is …quite determined. Could he?

“Government in secret talks about strike against Iran”

It is followed by an immediate denial carried by the BBC,

“MoD denies Iran military meeting”

more below
What could be the true purpose of this well placed article? Pressure on the Iranians to help out in Iraq?

 Or are these leaks intended to alert an already war weary world on another upcoming mis-adventure? Can’t help noticing it’s published as Rice is in a reciprocal visit with Jack Straw, a visit reportedly more personal than official.

From the Sunday Telegraph:

The Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow [Monday] to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is “inevitable” if Teheran’s leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

Tomorrow’s meeting will be attended by Gen Sir Michael Walker, the chief of the defence staff, Lt Gen Andrew Ridgway, the chief of defence intelligence and Maj Gen Bill Rollo, the assistant chief of the general staff, together with officials from the Foreign Office and Downing Street.[..]

The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants – a land assault is not being considered at the moment.

But confirmation that Britain has started contingency planning will undermine the claim last month by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that a military attack against Iran was “inconceivable”.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, insisted, during a visit to Blackburn yesterday, that all negotiating options – including the use of force – remained open in an attempt to resolve the crisis.[..]

[t]he thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.

There will be no invasion of Iran but the nuclear sites will be destroyed. This is not something that will happen imminently, maybe this year, maybe next year. Jack Straw is making exactly the same noises that the Government did in March 2003 when it spoke about the likelihood of a war in Iraq.

“Then the Government said the war was neither inevitable or imminent and then attacked.”[..]

(emphasis added)

Where is the truth as 2003 repeats?

From the BBC

“Reports that military officers will meet government officials on Monday to discuss possible military action against Iran have been denied.”

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said there was no truth whatsoever in the claims, made in the Sunday Telegraph [..]

But BBC Defence Correspondent Paul Wood said US plans for a possible strike are thought to be at an advanced stage.

Within the BBC’s article there’s this inset quote:

 “There is well sourced and persistent speculation that American covert activities aimed at Iran are already underway” – Paul Wood

(.emphasis added)

What are the options for Iran?  We have seen the same script taking us to war in Iraq being repeated. So here goes Iran.

Pepe Escobar writing in the Asia Times –“What they think in Tehran” finds that “Any foreign threat” such as the ones issued by Rice and Bolton “will backfire”  

One can only imagine the consequences of a  military  strike.

We’ve lost over 200 years of long held freedoms and well…over there, they tasted freedom for less than a week and are wondering what we’ve wrought.

Let’s pause to reflect that we’ve also lost close to 2,400 men and women. Never to return.  Over 17,000 maimed, and that’s the official count.

And over there, an estimated tens of thousands dead and the killing continues. No healing in sight.

There will be a lot written on this the 3rd year of the illegal Iraq war.  Illegal?  Oh yes. It couldn’t be justified; so we’re lied into a pre-emptive strike against Iraq in violation of domestic laws, international laws and treaties.

Saddam was boxed in, being bombarded every few days by US and British planes. He was not a threat. The few voices raised in opposition and the millions who marched worldwide, were voices in the wilderness. The War profiteers could not be stopped.

Those who advanced the arguments or voted for the war, including our very own Democratic Senators and Congressmen and women, cannot now disown their votes, or their advocacy or the results; Every death, every adult or child maimed to a lifetime of misery are on their hands.

Just imagine, the ‘Shock and Awe’ meant to liberate has become a civil war.  This morning the NPR reporter, on the scene, gave an interview with her driver, a Sunni. As I listened, ‘man’s inhumanity and revenge’ are the words that came to mind and I’m left ashamed that this was done in my name. (Transcript not yet available. It was a fairly long interview so I’ll give a very short recap, direct quotes).

Here is a guy, a Sunni, who “got down on his knees to give thanks for what he thought was a liberating day.”

more after fold
 
He had this to say about current conditions.

[..]”We have lost our freedom. The US army broke into our homes, knocked down our doors, broke our furniture, Stole from us.”  (The reporter tells the story of an Iraqi whose $8.500 was stolen by the US army personnel as they went through his car at a checkpoint.  She reports her intervention with the army in the fortified Green Zone, only to find the case closed without an investigation).

So much for winning hearts and minds

The interview picks up as her driver continues. . “We have a civil war. The US and Britain are super powers, yet we have no electricity, water, medicines or security. They don’t want us to.
We don’t trust the Iraqi police. Brothers can’t tell brothers what they are doing. You can’t give your true address.. The US can’t leave, not now.”

Oh yes we will leave, in a Saigon style exodus. Too arrogant to exit otherwise.

Iraq on the eve of the 4th year: the reliable Knight Ridder’s news team finds,

“Predictions of a better Middle East have evaporated three years after invasion”

President Bush cited Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to international terrorism – neither of which turned out to exist – when he ordered a pre-emptive war that began March 19, 2003. He predicted payoffs for the wider Middle East: spreading democracy, deterred enemies, more secure oil flows, a less hostile environment for Israel. None of that has happened, at least not yet.[..]

Without commenting, Prof. Juan Cole, in his today post has a must view map: – the ‘Istans’

” ‘Bush’s Greater Middle East’: a broken Iraq: the territories involved in major Warfare: greater Kurdistan; greater Qaedistan; greater Shiitistan; Iran; Petroleum: $500/barrel. “

NPR reports Rumsfeld took pen to paper in the NYT giving his views of progress. But, in this morning’s comments, Prof. Juan Cole had this note:

The New York Times reveals that Rumsfeld’s torture team, Task Force 6-26, was so notorious that even the CIA wanted nothing to do with it! Current Attorney General Albert Gonzales helped authorize this torture. [..]

In an interview with the BBC, Reuters reporting, ex-prime minister Ayad Allawi counters Rumsfeld, {Warning: with related graphic photos}

“Iraq  is in a civil war and the conflict could spread through the Middle East.”  

“It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is,” he told the British Broadcasting Corp.[..]

And as we sow the seeds to expand the civil war in Iraq; again found in link provided by Prof. Cole:

Al-Hayat reports [Ar.] that the (Sunni hardline) Association of Muslim Scholars said that it “deeply resents and takes offense” at the idea that the ‘forces of Occupation’ (the United States) and Iran would hold talks about Iraqi internal affairs.

Its communique said, “Iranian intervention in Iraqi affairs is not new, and has reached an apex of harmfulness. But what`s new is the attempt to legitimize this interference and to provide it with an international cover, while completely ignoring the sovereignty and the governmental administration of Iraq itself.” Sunni Arab Iraqis have long been distrustful of Shiite Iran.[..]

Is this the same Iran that we’re in a war of words with over their ambitions for nuclear technology? Words, soon to be replaced by bunker busters as the war for profits marches on?

Here is my concern and my despair. In the name of ‘spreading freedoms’ we have committed torture and war crimes, over there; while over here, we’ve lost our long held civil liberties. And those of us who attempt to fight the erosion of these freedoms are labeled traitors. Does any of this make a lick of sense?

How can democracy be imposed with the barrel of a gun or by using death squads?
We’re told, by those who sold us this war and are too timid to admit their mistakes, that we have to stay the course, we’re in for a ‘long war’. But not a word on correcting the errors so  indeed, it’ll be a very long war and not very winnable.

A few days ago, Prof Cole asked, does a Pinochet’s  fate await George Bush? Oh yes, there’s a future George Pinochet Bush.

And we may add, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Bruce Cheney, Alberto Gonzalez, I Lewis Libby, David Addington, Tony Blair, Jack Straw, hatchet men, women and cronies all.

As we enter the 4th year, who would’ve thought we’d still be there in the midst of the killing, continuing the lies, PR shock and awe, masive air strikes?

 

Bill Frist vs Harry Reid

I’ve not seen it mentioned here but our institution of government is under assault. Yes, Again. This time it’s over the NSA hearings and it’s the most  important fight for every American. It’s really about we the people, our civil liberties.

Bill Frist has threatened to change the construct of the Senate Intelligence Committee in order to block NSA hearings. This is not just outrageous. It’s a deliberate attempt to block any investigations into Bush’s illegally authorizing warrantless spying and wiretaps. March 7 is a crucial vote.

Glenn Greenwald has the background including the various correspondence here. Highly recommend it be read in full. You’ll need to scroll down to article.

[T]he Senate Intelligence Committee was created in 1976 and, from the beginning, it has been unique in its structure and operation. Due to the urgency of ensuring that our country has nonpartisan and non-politicized oversight over the Government’s intelligence activities, the Intelligence Committee is structured so that — unlike every other Senate Committee — the majority is unable to dominate the Committee’s operation and agenda, and the minority has much greater powers than it does on any other Senate Committee.[..]

Frist specifically threatened that if the Committee holds NSA hearings, he will fundamentally change the 30-year-old structure and operation of the Senate Intelligence Committee so as to make it like every other Committee, i.e., controlled and dominated by Republicans to advance and rubber-stamp the White House’s agenda rather than exercise meaningful and nonpartisan oversight.[..]

Yet again, Republicans are threatening to radically change long-standing rules for how our government operates all because they cannot manipulate the result they want. From redistricting games to changing the filibuster rules, when Republicans are incapable (even with their majorities) of manipulating the political result they want, they use their majority status to change how our government works in order to ensure the desired political outcome.

[..]

This much is clear. Someone is afraid, very afraid of the outcome. And Harry Reid is very blunt about it. We need to help Harry give Frist and Roberts a real taste of hell.

ReddHedd over at Firedoglake has ‘Cheater and Hypocrite’ Bill Frist on the floor of the Senate saying this on November 7, 2003.

“The [Intelligence] Committee’s nonpartisan tradition has been carefully cultivated over the years by its members. The tradition is part and parcel of the Committee’s rules, which extend prerogatives to the Minority that are not found in other committee rule books.

For a quarter century, there has been a consensus in the Senate that the Committee’s nonpartisan tradition must be carefully safeguarded. Nothing less is acceptable, given the dangerous and sensitive nature of the subject matter for which it has oversight responsibility.”

Glenn Greenwald provides this link to Frist’s letter to Senator Harry Reid on March 3, 2006 (PDF)

Excerpt

“I am increasingly concerned that the Senate Intelligence Committee is unable to carry out its critically important oversight and threat assessment responsibilities due to stifling partisanship that is exhibited by repeated calls by Democrats on the Committee to conduct politically-motivated investigations. This is deeply troubling given that the Select Committee was established years ago to promote bipartisanship in some of the most sensitive and vital areas of our nation’s security.

The inquiries currently underway, and the ones being proposed by the minority, would demand an overwhelming amount of staff time, attention and resources. Rather than conducting oversight of the intelligence community and its activities, or assessing current and future threats to the United States national security, the committee is focusing most of its activities on investigations that offer little (or no) value to the challenges our Nation faces now.

[..]

I would propose that we meet with Senators Roberts and Rockefeller as soon as possible. The Committee was established and structured to reflect the Senate’s desire for bipartisanship, and to the maximum extent possible, nonpartisan oversight of our nation’s intelligence activities. If attempts to use the committee’s charter for political purposes exist, we may have to simply acknowledge that nonpartisan oversight, while a worthy aspiration, is simply not possible. If we are unable to reach agreement, I believe we must consider other options to improve the Committee’s oversight capabilities, to include restructuring the Committee so that it is organized and operated like most Senate Committees.”
(emphasis mine)

So, what has changed Senator. Afraid of where the investigations may lead?

That’s an incredible letter from Senator Frist. Don’t you think? Listen up Bill, the threat is within the Oval Office. Rolling back 200 plus years, he’d be crowned King George 1V. This time, not at Westminister, on the Hill.

And here is Sen. Harry Reid’s response to Frist. Reid is to the point.

Really, Senator Frist you lack principles. But we knew all along.

Excerpt

Dear Senator Frist:

As you know, the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded in its report that improving and strengthening congressional oversight of the intelligence community would greatly contribute to America’s security. In the Commission’s view, effective congressional oversight would help our intelligence agencies deliver the accurate and unbiased intelligence that is so essential to America’s success in the global war on terror.[..]

Despite the unanimous finding of the Commission on this critical issue, I am concerned that the Republican-controlled Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is still not providing the kind of rigorous oversight urged by the 9/11 Commission and required by the Constitution and the Senate’s Standing Rules. This Committee’s failure to conduct oversight of critical and controversial national security decisions by this Administration contributes to the perception that this Republican Congress is unwilling to hold this Administration accountable for its mistakes and missteps.

For example, despite the fact that the Bush Administration’s detainee, interrogation, and rendition policies have increased the risk to our troops and contravened or ignored international law, Chairman Roberts has blocked an investigation.

The Committee has a similar record on another issue of critical significance to our troops and our security — how the Bush Administration used, and perhaps misused, intelligence to sell its case for war with Iraq. Although more than two years have passed since the Chairman grudgingly consented to launch an investigation, the Committee has yet to interview key Administration officials, let alone produce a report.[..]

I understand that Chairman Roberts committed to hold a committee vote to launch an investigation of the Administration’s NSA program on February 16th.. Despite the Chairman’s repeated assurances that he would permit such a vote, ultimately he refused to allow the committee to do so. Press reports indicate the Chairman reneged on his promise to hold a vote after heavy White House pressure.[..]

I understand that the Chairman has reversed himself again, and has promised a vote for March 7th. This vote will be a critical test of whether this Republican-controlled Congress can conduct critical oversight of the Bush Administration, the intelligence community, and a Bush Administration surveillance program that has raised many legitimate concerns. [..]

In the post-9/11 world, America cannot afford a Congress or a congressional committee, especially one as important as the Senate Intelligence Committee, to become lax in its duties. I hope you will agree that the committee is too important to our national security for us to allow it to become an extension of the White House public relations operation, and that you will do everything in your power to ensure the March 7th vote takes place.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid
Democratic Leader

So what’s to be done? Senators Roberts and Frist have been attending to other than we the people’s affairs. Maybe there’s too much fund-raising for private charities. That’s the new gig.  

Sen. Roberts, for months now, has been in shameless hiding and dodging. He needs a little special attention. But as suggested over at FDL, Dkos, and other blogs, ALL 100 Senators need to hear from us.

These NSA hearings are critical to the three branches, the system of checks and balances. Unless we prefer a slide into dictatorship, it’s paramount that the NSA hearings be held. In my view, Gonzalez and his client Bush have a case to answer- the case for impeachment.