- The latest October Reuters/Zogby Index shows record low
approval ratings for George Bush and Congress - 24% for the president that
looks almost giddy compared to the bottom-scraping 11% level for the nation's
lawmakers. It's more evidence that the criminal class in Washington is
bipartisan and hoping November, 2008 will change things is pure fantasy.
-
- A voter groundswell sent a message last November to end
the Iraq war and occupation. Instead, the Democrat-led 110th Congress continues
to fund it generously. In May, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1585,
the FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. It calls for $506.8 billion
for DOD plus $141.8 billion (of the $150.5 billion White House request)
for ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan operations. The Senate followed with a
similar bill on October 1 with only three opposing votes against it. Neither
bill proposed an Iraq withdrawal timeline, and final legislation has yet
to be sent to the president.
-
- Add on further amounts like George Bush's latest $46
billion request putting FY 2008 supplemental war-funding above $196 billion
and rising. Congress will approve it and more in spite of Democrats signaling
a protracted budget showdown ahead. The only showdown will be over how
much pork will be added to the final appropriation and for what purpose.
-
- Democrats also back the administration's push to attack
Iran by echoing what the Israeli Lobby calls "The Iranian Threat."
War with Iran is AIPAC's top priority, and key Democrats in Congress are
on board hyping a non-existent threat to prepare the public for what may
be coming. Earlier in March, Speaker Pelosi removed a provision from an
appropriations bill that would have required George Bush to get congressional
approval before attacking Iran. Then in July, the Senate unanimously (97
- 0) passed the Lieberman amendment that practically endorses war if it's
declared. It affirmed George Bush's baseless charges that Tehran funds,
trains and arms Iraqi resistance fighters "who are contributing to
the destabilization of Iraq and are responsible for the murder of members
of the United States Armed Forces."
-
- The House added its voice on September 25 by voting 397
- 16 for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 that imposes sanctions
on non-US companies investing in Iran's oil sector. The next day the Senate
acted again by overwhelmingly (79 - 22) passing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment
that calls for US policy to "combat, contain and (stop Iran by use
of) diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military instruments."
Other bellicose language in the resolution stated:
-
- -- "the United States should designate Iran's Islamic
Revolutionary Guards Corp as a foreign terrorist organization....and place
(it) on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists....it should
be the policy of the United States to stop inside Iraq the violent activities
and destabilizing influence of the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous
Iraqi proxies."
-
- This measure helped smooth the way for George Bush's
October 25 unilateral imposition of sanctions discussed below. It was an
unprecendented move against another nation's military Senator Jim Webb
(voting no) said provides "a backdoor method of gaining congressional
validation for military action, without one hearing (or) serious debate
(and that the action) is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream."
-
- George Bush acted provocatively twice. At his October
17 news conference, he menacingly said he believes Iran "want(s) to
have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make a nuclear weapon....it's
in the world's interests to prevent them from doing so....If Iran had a
nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace....So....if
you're interested in avoiding World War III" this possibility must
be prevented implying war (potentially using first-strike nuclear weapons)
is the way to do it.
-
- On October 25 Bush acted again to counter China and Russia's
opposition to sweeping UN Security Council measures. He unilaterally imposed
harsh new sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), its Quds
Force, three state-owned banks and over 20 Iranian companies. The IRGC
was named as "proliferators of weapons of mass destruction,"
and the Quds Force was called a "supporter of terrorism."
-
- Democrats buy this stuff and ignore IAEA chief Mohamed
ElBaradei's latest October 28 statement that repeated his earlier ones.
He said he had no evidence Iran is building or seeks to build nuclear weapons
and accused the Bush administration of adding "fuel to the fire"
with its bellicose rhetoric. The "loyal opposition" prefers instead
to accept White House press secretary Dana Perino's October 29 charge that
Iran "is a country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and
the reason one does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon."
-
- This accusation and new administration sanctions ratchet
up tension further and amount to what one analyst called "a warning
shot across the bow (that stops short of) a signal we're going to war,"
but it's got other observers thinking the likelihood is greater than ever
with Congress on board. The move also caught Vladimir Putin's attention
in Lisbon where he was attending an EU leader summit. "Why worsen
the situation and bring it to a dead end" with sanctions or military
action," he said. He then added a pointed reference to George Bush
stating: "Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving
it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation."
-
- Newly imposed sanctions won't affect US companies. They're
already barred from doing business directly in Iran, but they do target
their foreign subsidiaries and other foreign-based ones with threats of
penalties and exclusion from the US market. It remains to be seen how effective
they'll be as key EU countries as well as China, Russia, India and others
have growing economic ties to Iran. They won't be eager to sever them or
join the US campaign for a wider Middle East war. In addition, Iran is
a major oil supplier. With the price of crude touching $96 a barrel on
November 1 (and December futures up to $125), any cutoff or severe reduction
of supply guarantees it'll top $100 and make a global economic slowdown
or recession much more likely.
-
- Nonetheless, the Bush war machine presses on with congressional
Democrats aboard. Presidential candidates from both parties support Bush's
move, and Democrat front runner Hillary Clinton is as hawkish as Joe Lieberman
and John McCain. They both endorse attacking Iran, and McCain believes
striking Iran's nuclear sites "is a possibility that is maybe closer
to reality than we are discussing tonight."
-
- Clinton is just as bellicose, is close to AIPAC, and
in an earlier speech said: "The security and freedom of Israel must
be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle
East. (We dare not) waver from this (firm) commitment." She was also
quoted in the current issue of Foreign Affairs saying: "Iran poses
a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies and
Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism,
and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill US troops in
Iraq....(Iran) must not not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons.
If Iran (won't comply with) the will of the international community, all
options must remain on the table."
-
- The only give in her position (that's hardly any at all)
is wanting congressional approval for any future military action. Up to
now, that's been pro forma rubber stamp. It'll be no different if George
Bush orders an attack as congressional Democrat leaders, including Hillary
Clinton, have already signaled their approval.
-
- John Richardson wrote on October 18 in Esquire.com that
two former high-ranking Bush administration National Security Council officials
fear the worst. They're Middle East experts Flynt Leverett and Hillary
Mann, and they're reacting publicly. They believe war with Iran has been
in the cards for years, and we're "getting closer and closer to the
tripline." Key for them was the unprecedented move to name Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Quds Force a terrorist organization.
-
- Richardson lays out what they think will happen: UN diplomacy
will fail because Russia and China won't agree to harsh sanctions. Iran's
policies won't change without "any meaningful incentive from the US.
That will trigger a....White House (response with) a serious risk (George
Bush) would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations
and probably a wider target zone." This, in turn, "would result
in a dramatic increase in attacks on US (Iraq) forces, attacks by proxy
forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from....Afghanistan and
Pakistan, where millions admire Iran's resistance." Attacking Iran
"could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world."
The article also quotes former CIA officer and author Robert Baer (from
Time magazine) saying an unnamed highly placed White House official believes
"IEDs are a casus belli for this administration. There will be an
attack on Iran."
-
- The London Times raised the betting odds further for
one in its October 21 report. Columnist Michael Smith wrote: UK defense
sources disclosed that "British (Special Air Service - SAS) forces
have crossed into Iran several times (along with other special forces,
the Australian SAS and American special-operation troops) as part of a
secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Al-Quds special
forces." They engaged in "at least half a dozen intense firefights"
along the Iran-Iraq border in what looks like deliberate US-UK efforts
to provoke Iran into providing justification for a major American attack.
-
- Speculation one looms has been around for some time,
and if it comes, it won't surprise observers like Iran expert Gary Sick.
He was a military advisor to three US presidents and was recently quoted
in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine saying: The recent shift in US emphasis
to "Iran's support for terrorism in Iraq....is a complete change and
is potentially dangerous." That's because it's much easier proving
(true or not) Iran supports Iraqi resistance fighters than it poses an
imminent nuclear threat to the world.
-
- Der Spiegel also reports on a leak "by an official
close to" Dick Cheney that he's "already asked for a backroom
analysis of how a war with Iran might begin (and in) the scenario concocted
by (his) strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel
to fire missiles at Iran's (Natanz) uranium enrichment plant." That
would provoke Iran to retaliate and give the Bush administration the excuse
it needs "to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran."
That's OK with Democrats if it comes including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Black Agenda Report writer Margaret Kimberly calls a "Quisling"
and an "absolute disaster for the Democrat Party and....the entire
nation (because of her) eagerness to cooperate with the Bush regime (and)
her incompetence in leading Congress."
-
- Other key Democrats share those qualities and that assures
extremist Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey's confirmation won't
be challenged. That's in spite of reports top Senate Judiciary Committee
Democrats Chairman Leahy and Majority Whip Durbin say their votes depend
on his admitting waterboarding is torture. During his confirmation hearing,
Mukasey was evasive and noncommittal.
-
- When asked during questioning, he incredulously claimed
not to know what waterboarding is even though it's been around for centuries
and what it entails is common knowledge. Mukasey would only say "IF
(waterboarding) is torture, it is unconstitutional." He then repeated
the White House line "We don't torture" even though he knows
DOJ legal opinions confirm the Bush administration condones the practice
by endorsing "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the
Central Intelligence Agency."
-
- He should also know about the ACLU's new "Administration
of Torture" book based on FOIA requested evidence. It documents that
"marching orders" for torture came from Donald Rumsfeld so the
White House had to be involved as well. That includes George Bush and Alberto
Gonzales, who in 2002 as White House Counsel, called the Geneva Conventions
"quaint" and "obsolete" and as Attorney General authorized
physical and psychological brutality as official administration policy.
-
- Mukasey promises business as usual as AG and confirmed
it by claiming "I don't think (Guantanamo prisoners) are mistreated."
He also supports the president's right to imprison US citizens without
charge and deny "unlawful enemy combatants" their habeas rights,
but that's OK with Democrats on the Judiciary Committee with a large party
majority sure to agree.
-
- In a follow-up letter Senator Leahy requested, Mukasey
was just as evasive and noncommittal as during his confirmation hearing.
He sidestepped commenting on presidential surveillance powers limits beyond
what FISA allows and continued to avoid admitting waterboarding is torture.
Instead he said: ...."there is a real issue (whether) the techniques
presented and discussed at the hearing and in your letter are even part
of any program of questioning detainees."
-
- He then added if confirmed he'll concentrate on "solving
problems cooperatively with Congress," advise George Bush appropriately
on any "technique" he determines to be unlawful, and the president
is bound by constitutional and treaty obligations that prohibit torture.
This man and the president defile the law and practically boast about it,
but Democrats will confirm him anyway as the next Attorney General.
-
- House Democrats Pass New Terrorism Prevention Law
-
- Almost without notice, the House overwhelmingly (404
- 6) passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2007 (HR 1955) on October 23 some are calling "the thought
crime prevention bill." It now moves to the Senate where if passed
and signed by George Bush will establish a commission and Center of Excellence
to study and act against thought criminals.
-
- The bill's language hides its true intent as "violent
radicalization" and "homegrown terrorism" are whatever the
administration says they are. Violent radicalization is defined as "adopting
or promoting an extremist belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based
violence to advance political, religious or social change." Homegrown
terrorism is used to mean "the use, planned use, or threatened use,
of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and
operating primarily with the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate
or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment
thereof (to further) political or social objectives."
-
- Along with other repressive laws enacted post-9/11, HR
1955 may be used against any individual or group with unpopular views -
those that differ from established state policies even when they're illegal
as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors henceforth will be able to target
anti-war protesters, believers in Islam, web editors, internet bloggers
and radio and TV show hosts and commentators with views the bill calls
"terrorist-related propaganda."
-
- If this legislation becomes law, which is virtually certain,
any dissenting anti-government action or opinion may henceforth be called
"violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism" with stiff penalties
for anyone convicted. This bill now joins the ranks of other repressive
post-9/11 laws like Patriot I and II, Military Commissions and Protect
America Acts that combined with this one are grievous steps toward a full-blown
national security police state everyone should fear and denounce.
-
- Blame it on Congress and the 110th Democrat-led one that
was elected to end these practices but just made them worse....and there's
still 14 months to go to the term's end with plenty of time left to vaporize
Iran and end the republic if that's the plan.
-
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
-
- Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and
listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com
Mondays at noon US central time.
|