G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
Saving A President
By Stephen Lendman
Created Jul 23 2007 - 8:29am
In his first year in office, the widely-followed Cook Political Report had
this assessment of George Bush's early months as president: "Looking back
over his first five months in office, President George W. Bush and his
administration started off to a strong, fast start but now, his future seems
far less certain. Not only are Bush's overall job approval ratings slumping,
but his disapproval ratings are climbing (and) after a strong start, the
last three months have been less than auspicious for this new President. The
good news....is that they have plenty of time before the next presidential
(or) mid-term elections. The bad news is that they have a lot of repair work
to do and had better get started." They wasted little time doing it, but no
one (at least the pubic) knew in June what lay ahead in September.
George Bush entered office with an approval rating around 50%. It rose a
little at first, then slumped moderately as the Cook Report suggested.
Everything changed dramatically September 11. Bush's rating skyrocketed
instantly hitting a temporary high around 90% and remained above 80% through
year end. That momentous day transformed a mediocre president overnight with
some observers incredibly comparing him to Lincoln, FDR and Churchill
combined.
It was laughable then and ludicrous now for a pathetic caricature of a
president and man so hated he's barely able to hang on to avoid what growing
vocal numbers in the country demand - his head and removal from office by
impeachment along with Vice-President Cheney.
Today again, George Bush finds himself in a precarious position at the
least. He insists on maintaining a failed policy a growing majority in the
country wants ended. As a result, his approval rating is scraping rock
bottom in polls likely "engineered" to keep it from winning all-time bottom
honors as the lowest ever for a sitting president. Dick Cheney is less
fortunate, however, at a bottom-scraping 12% that's the lowest ever for a
president or vice-president by far and then some.
With that in mind, here's how the Cook Political Report assesses things as
of June 29, 2007: "....after six and a half years of George W. Bush's
presidency, the Republican 'brand' has been badly tarnished. As a result, it
would take an enormous amount of luck for Republicans to hold the White
House or win back control of the Senate or House, let alone (do all
three)....the GOP (will need) a long and painful rebuilding process (and)
recapturing the White House or congressional majorities (is) unlikely in the
near future." The report suggests a possible Republican apocalypse even
though it notes Democrats have failed to end the Iraq war, have only
delivered on one of their six major platform planks (increasing the federal
minimum wage), and are scorned as well.
With 18 months to go, what's a president to do to hang on, run out the
clock, and leave office through the normal front door process of his term
expiring, not the result of the Senate voting him out earlier by "the
(required) Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" - hard as that
is to do as history shows.
Politicians know, and especially presidents, when in trouble - change the
subject. It's being changed by ignoring reality, aided by healthy offerings
of the usual kinds of industrial strength corporate media hyperventilating.
It features George Bush and his supportive generalissimo and other top brass
in Iraq in the lead. They continue asking for more time, insist the
disastrous "surge" is working, say it just needs a chance, and that
withdrawing too soon would trigger a bloodbath on the order of the Cambodian
killing fields according to an earlier preposterous April claim. Unmentioned
is the continued bloodbath caused by the US presence that won't end until
all American and other hostile foreign forces are withdrawn.
That won't happen according to recent reports with the National Review
Online and other sources recently saying the administration intends to
escalate its strength on the ground, not curtail it. More troops may be
brought in, and the Air Force is increasing its hardware. The powerful B 1
bomber is back (capable of carrying 24 ton bombs) and making multiple daily
and/or nightly strikes. A squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes were sent
as well along with additional F-16C Fighting Falcons. Bombing runs have
intensified dramatically, and the level of violence, deaths and destruction
overall is increasing. The Navy is contributing as well with the USS
Enterprise sent to the Gulf that may or may not replace one of the two Fifth
Fleet carriers already there.
In recent months, the Air Force also doubled its intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts using Predator drones (capable of striking
targets as well as spying), high altitude U2s, and sophisticated AWACS
planes. It all points to one thing on the ground and back home. Congress can
debate all it wants. No Iraq withdrawal is planned, the conflict is being
escalated, and the only issue on the table is selling the present course to
the public with Congress already signed on showing debate is for show, not
for real. The hard sell is beginning by the timeworn, yet tried and true,
sure-fire method of scaring people to death to go along and in this case
threatening them as well.
George Bush's Continuing War on the First Amendment
On July 17, George Bush issued another of his many presidential "one-man"
decrees titled "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who
Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." More than any other chief executive
in the nation's history, this President abuses this practice egregiously as
another example of his contempt for the law.
Economist and journalist Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 - 1995) wrote in his
extremely important and revealing book "Cracks in the Constitution:" The US
Constitution "nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power
(to make) new law" by issuing "one-man, often far-reaching" executive order
decrees. However, Lundberg explains "the President in the American
constitutional system is very much a de facto king....(he is) by far the
most powerful formally constituted political officer on earth." He has "vast
power (and) stands in a position midway between a collective executive (like
the British system) and an absolute dictator." Lundberg wrote those words
over 27 years ago when George Bush was busy making millions (the result of
friendly bailouts) from successive oil business ventures that flopped.
George Bush's family connections delivered for him in business, in spite of
his ineptitude, and finally gave him the grand prize of the presidency he
exploited fully ever since. For him and those around him, the law is just an
artifact to be used, abused or ignored at his pleasure. He earlier usurped
"Unitary Executive" power to claim the law is what he says it is and in six
and half years in office issued more signing statements (over 800) than all
past presidents combined. The result is he expanded presidential power
(already immense as Lundberg explained) at the expense of the other two
branches by shifting it dangerously toward unlimited executive authority,
otherwise known as tyranny.
The Constitution has no provisions for "Unitary Executive" power or the
right of the chief executive to issue signing statements that hasn't
deterred this President from doing as he pleases. There's also no
authorization for issuing Executive Orders, as just noted, beyond the
following vague language Lundberg explained constitutes the "essence of
presidential power....in a single sentence."
Specifically, Article II, section 1 reads: "The executive power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America." That simple
statement, easily passed over and misunderstood, means the near-limitless
power of this office "is concentrated in the hands of one man." Article II,
section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: "The President shall take care that
the laws be faithfully executed" without saying Presidents are virtually
empowered to make laws as well as execute them even though nothing in the
Constitution specifically permits this practice.
George Bush takes full advantage within and outside the law. His July 17
Executive Order is another case in point, but a particularly egregious and
dangerous one. It starts off: The President's power stems from "the
authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States of America" as well as the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act he invokes as well. The order then continues:
-- "....due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to
promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide
humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people," George Bush usurped authority
to criminalize the anti-war movement, make the First Amendment right to
protest it illegal, and give himself the right to seize the assets of
persons violating this order.
In a message to Congress on the same date, George Bush then stated:
-- "....I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking
property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant
risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or
effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of
Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political
reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
In effect, George Bush, on his say alone and in violation of the
Constitution, criminalized dissent July 17, 2007. By so doing, he shifted
the nation one step closer to full-blown tyranny with other tightening
measures sure to follow this one. The dominant media reported virtually
nothing about this nor will they explain or voice concern when law-abiding
Americans are arrested and punished for protesting a criminal
administration's illegal foreign wars. Instead, a full-court press
publicly-aired effort is underway to justify them that provides clues for
what may lie ahead.
Scare-Mongering Heats Up
On July 7, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum appeared on the Hugh
Hewitt radio program. He was introduced by the host as "one of our favorite
Americans," leaving no doubt where Hewitt stands. Santorum came to skewer
his former colleagues' lack of resolve to stay the course in Iraq, no matter
how hopeless things are on the ground. But he took the opportunity to go
further by suggesting that "confronting Iran (is) an absolute lynchpin for
our success in that region," that 9/11 taught us "Islamists" must be
confronted, that they want to "conquer that region of the world (and) will
soon end up on our doorstep (if not stopped, and that) between now and
November, a lot of things are going to happen (to shape) "a very different"
(public view) of this war....because....of some very unfortunate events
(coming) like we're seeing unfold in the UK."
Does Rick Santorum know something the public doesn't, and was he given
permission to leak it on-air? Another clue came July 10 from DHS Secretary
Michael Chertoff. He practically told a Chicago Tribune editorial board
meeting another major terrorist attack is coming later this summer because
he has a "gut feeling" about a period ahead of increased risk. Basing his
assessment on undisclosed intelligence (as always) and earlier "terrorist
patterns in Europe," he added "Summertime seems to be appealing to them
(and) We worry that they are rebuilding their activities. I believe we are
entering a period this summer of increased risk."
Chertoff then appeared on a number of TV programs to itemize his "gut
feeling" factors, including taking full advantage of the likely staged June
29 London car bomb discoveries and June 30 follow-up Glasgow airport
incident that may have only been an unfortunate accident. With no credible
evidence backing his claims, Chertoff, nonetheless, said "Europe could
become a platform for an attack against this country." The UK incidents may,
in fact, have been staged to stoke fear in Britain and here in advance of a
major homeland terror event to come.
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd tried making light of Chertoff's comments
saying he sounds "more like a meteorologist than the man charged with
keeping us safe." Chertoff's job isn't to "keep us safe," Dowd should know
better, and her attempt at humor isn't funny. These comments are to be taken
seriously. They were made to signal a changed political climate ahead
brought on by a one or more likely upcoming terror events, possibly major
ones. It would be to resuscitate a failing president the way 9/11 did
earlier, even though no one this time would dare suggest George Bush
combines Lincoln, FDR and Churchill resurrected or anything resembling it.
More Scare-Mongering
Quick to play their lead hyperventilating role, the corporate media is all
over the notion of a summer terror surprise to prepare the public in advance
for what may be coming and to accept the consequences of a police state
America in response. ABC News may have been first to hype the story citing a
new FBI analysis of Al-Queda messages warning of "their strategic intent to
strike the US homeland and US interests worldwide (that) should not be
discounted as merely deceptive noise."
Then on July 15, "Enemy Number One" bin Laden coincidentally appeared in an
undated online videotape. It was titled "Winds of Martyrdom" and presented
to look new with bin Laden saying "The happy (person) is the one chosen by
Allah to be a martyr." In fact, it looked like old footage or pieced
together segments of earlier ones repackaged to look fresh and released to
the public two days after the Senate doubled the bounty on bin Laden to $50
million. It was also three days after AP reported July 12 that US
intelligence analysts concluded Al-Queda has rebuilt its operating
capability to levels unseen since right before 9/11 and is "renewing efforts
to sneak terror plotters into (the) US" adding to numbers of them already
here.
AP also mentioned a draft National Intelligence Estimate "expected (and now
released to confirm) an increasingly worrisome portrait of al-Queda's
ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and
inspire attacks, even though (other) Bush administration officials say the
US is safer (now) nearly six years into the war on terror." Hyping the
threat further, AP mentioned key "classified" assessments in the report
claiming Al-Queda "probably (is) still pursuing chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient
capability." Further, the US faces "a persistent and evolving (Islamic)
terrorist threat" for the next three years.
In a clearly timed and motivated political statement, The (unclassified)
National Intelligence Estimate "key judgments" were released July 17,
combining assessments from 16 Bush administration spy agencies. It's titled
"The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland," It presented the findings below,
including reworked earlier ones, in addition to those mentioned above:
-- Al-Queda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack
capability;"
-- Iraq strengthened Al-Queda that will "leverage the contacts and
capabilities" to attack the US homeland;
-- Al-Queda and its operatives in Iraq will "energize the broader Sunni
extremist community (and help to) recruit and indoctrinate (new) operatives;
-- In spite of Al-Queda's regrouping, US worldwide counterterrorism efforts
since 2001 have constrained Islamic extremists from attacking US soil;
nonetheless, Al-Queda remains a serious future threat and is likely to focus
on high-profile political, economic and infrastructure targets for maximum
casualties, visually dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and public
fear;
-- Al-Queda restored its ability to attack US soil and operates freely in
the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA);
-- Other Muslim and non-Muslim terrorist groups also pose a danger abroad
and may consider attacking here. Lebanon's Hezbollah topped the list of
Muslim groups mentioned. Earth Liberation Front, called a violent
environmental group, also made the list.
At his July 12 news conference, George Bush raised the specter of Al-Queda's
threat to the US citing the above-mentioned intelligence report as supposed
evidence. He then resurrected a timeworn long ago discredited golden oldie
saying "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the
ones who attacked us in America on September 11. That's why what happens in
Iraq matters to security here at home." Unmentioned anywhere in the
mainstream, of course, is the long-standing relationship between "Enemy
Number One" bin Laden, Al-Queda and US and allied intelligence and how
they're used in the fraudulent "war on terrorism" to manipulate and scare
the public enough to go along with anything.
These comments, published assessments from The National Intelligence
Estimate, inflammatory remarks from officials like Michael Chertoff, and
accompanying dominant media hyperventilating effectively stoke public fear
and may point to a major terror attack ahead on US soil. It will trigger a
Code Red Alert if it happens signaling the highest terrorist threat level
followed by the likely suspension of the Constitution, imposition of martial
law, and end of the republic. The rule of law will be suspended, dissent no
longer will be tolerated (it's already illegal), the military and other
security forces will be involved on US soil in strength if needed, and an
unmasked full-blown fascist police state will, in fact, henceforth exist.
It's arrival may be closer than most imagine in an effort to save the Bush
presidency that continues to weaken and begs for a way out of its dilemma.
It worked earlier on 9/11 and may soon be unveiled again, even more
convincingly, for a president desperate enough to try anything as a Hail
Mary scheme to finish out his term, leave office on his own accord, and
refurbish what's left of his tarnished image.
This is what our military adventurism and single-minded pursuit of empire
has gotten us. It's not to be taken lightly, for if it arrives it'll be too
late. The time to unmask and stop it is now and quickly as Michael
Chertoff's pointing to late summer is fast approaching.
A "Catastrophic Homeland Emergency" to Justify Attacking Iran
The Bush administration's pointing to Iran as a threat to US security is as
baseless as the phony WMD and dangerous dictator claims were for war with
Iraq. It's because Washington has wanted regime change in the Islamic
Republic since the 1979 revolution toppled the US-reinstalled Shah Reza
Pahlavi to power following the CIA-instigated coup in 1953 against
democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh.
The Bush administration stepped up the current effort earlier citing Iran's
legal commercial nuclear program as a thinly veiled pretext without ever
mentioning that Washington encouraged Iranians to develop their commercial
nuclear industry during the reign of the Shah. That can't be revealed
because doing it would unmask the hypocrisy of the current belligerency and
scare-mongering.
Through its usual practice of bribes and bullying, the administration got
the Security Council to act in its behalf. It passed UN Resolution 1696 in
July, 2006 demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it
refused, Resolution 1737 was passed in December imposing limited sanctions.
Resolution 1747 then tightened them further in March, 2007. It imposed a ban
on arms sales and expanded a freeze on the country's assets, in spite of
Iranian officials' insistence (with no evidence to disprove them) their
nuclear program is entirely peaceful and fully in accord with the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Nonetheless, harsh rhetoric out of Washington continues with George Bush
pushing for additional sanctions (against another Iranian bank and a large
military-owned engineering firm) while hyping the concocted threat of Iran's
commercial program that's no different from those of other NPT signatory
states. Iran has been patient but earlier refused to allow IAEA inspectors
to visit the Arak heavy water reactor until now. In a spirit of cooperation
and facing a possible preemptive US and/or Israeli attack, it's scheduled to
take place before the end of July. Iran also scaled back its enrichment
program in a show of good faith and agreed to answer questions regarding
past experiments at its facilities to defuse the threat of tougher sanctions
and avoid a possible attack that's real and may be immiment.
As Iran shows a willingness to cooperate and prove it threatens no other
country, the Bush administration renounced NPT and its crucial Article VI
pledging nuclear nations make "good faith" efforts to eliminate their
arsenals because having them heightens the risk they'll be used, endangering
the planet. While Iran wants peace and nuclear non-proliferation, the Bush
administration pursues a reckless agenda including the following:
-- It claims the right to develop new type nuclear weapons, not eliminate
any now on hand.
-- It renounced NPT claiming the right to develop and test new weapons.
-- It abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).
-- It rescinded and subverted the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.
-- It refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to prevent
nuclear bombs being added to present stockpiles already dangerously too
high.
-- It spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined with
large future increases planned, starting in FY 2008 up for debate and sure
to pass.
-- It claims the right to wage preventive wars under the illegal and
frightening doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" using first-strike
nuclear weapons.
While Iran, in fact, threatens no one, America threatens the planet, and the
world community stays silent in the face of a potential disaster if the US
wages nuclear war because it can get away with it. What other nation will
dare challenge the only remaining superpower in spite of the potential
horrendous consequences from such a reckless act.
Scaring the Public to Death - Act II
Another earlier discredited campaign is now heating up again as well even
though British foreign secretary, David Milliband, discounted its
credibility in a July 8 Financial Times interview. It features US claims and
hostile rhetoric that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force is
providing weapons as well as funding, training and arming Shiite and other
resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan with no credible evidence to
prove it because there is none. It added "Quds Force (and) Hezbollah
instructors trained approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time" at camps near
Tehran. It's also using "Lebanese Hezbollah....as a proxy (or) surrogate in
Iraq."
New York Times hawkish defense reporter Michael Gordon (picking up where the
disgraced Judith Miller left off) concluded from this "that Iran has been
engaged in a proxy war against American and Iraqi government forces for
years." That kind of belligerent language on the New York Times front page
adds fuel to the self-defense rationale for a future military assault
against the Iranian state based on spurious accounts like Gordon's as
justification.
It points toward and seems to confirm what the London Guardian reported a
"well-placed" Washington source recently said - that George "Bush is not
going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." It's Bush's lips moving but
Dick Cheney's words coming out as he and those close to him (like
Iran-Contra criminal, rabid Israel supporter, and deputy national security
advisor Elliott Abrams) have long favored direct military action against
Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons.
According to Guardian sources, "The balance (in Washington) has tilted" with
George Bush on board with his vice-president, who, as insiders know, calls
all the important shots in the nation's capitol. The Guardian quoted
International Institute for Strategic Studies director of studies Patrick
Cronin saying "Cheney has limited capital left (a likely dubious claim),"
and if he uses it for one aim (like attacking Iran) "he could still have an
impact." The US has a formidable strike force in the Gulf alone to do it
with two carrier groups, 50 or more warships with nuclear weapons, hundreds
of planes and contingents of Marines and Navy personnel.
Battle plans have long been in place (and are likely updated as needed)
under code or operational name TIRANNT for Theater Iran Near Term. If an
attack comes, it will be from the Gulf Naval task force and may also include
long-range bombers and other warplanes and missiles based in Iraq and
strategic locations like Diego Garcia within easy striking distance of
targeted sites. The possibility of it happening is frightening as under a
top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" and CONPLAN
(contingency/concept plan) 8022, Washington claims the right to preemptively
strike targets anywhere in the world using so-called low-yield, extremely
powerful, nuclear bunker buster weapons with Iran the apparent first target
of choice.
The only good news from the Guardian (if correct) is that "No decision on
military action is expected until next year" with the state department
continuing for now to pursue a diplomatic route - that may just be a
diversionary smoke screen for what's planned ahead.
Reuters reported July 17 that US Ambassador in Kabul William Wood said
"There are clearly some munitions coming out of Iran going into the hands of
the Taliban. We believe that the quantity and quality of those munitions are
such that the Iranian government must know about it." Defense Secretary
Robert Gates made a similar claim a month earlier along with other
Washington reports of Iran aiding Shia, other "militant" fighters and
"Al-Queda" elements in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Tehran rejects these accusations as "baseless and illogical" saying the
obvious in reply - that the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and
Washington's one-sided support for Israel causes instability in both
regions. The US wants a pretext to strike the Islamic Republic, but the
Iranian government isn't about to provide one. In fact, it's doing the
opposite by cooperating with the IAEA and continues saying it's willing to
engage in constructive diplomacy with the Bush administration.
On July 16, Iran indicated another round of security-related talks over Iraq
with Washington is possible in the "near future" showing again it means what
it says. The problem is the Bush administration does not. It continues using
hard line tactics preferring belligerence and duplicity with Iran that's
typical of the way it does business overall. It's willing to negotiate on
its own terms only while posing the threat of a military option or economic
sanctions against nations unwilling to go along. At the same time, Iran
knows CIA and special forces operatives have been engaged in covert
activities in the country for many months to destabilize the ruling
government.
In addition, Washington has attempted to build an anti-Iranian
Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian coalition in the region to further undermine
Tehran's influence. The state department has also pressured international
banks and other corporations to sever relations with Iran to make the
country "scream" the way the Nixon administration did it to Salvador
Allende's Chile and the Bush administration and Israel are now doing it to
the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza. Iran, of course, like
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, is richly endowed with the world's most
in-demand commodity and can keep a good revenue stream coming no matter
what.
The Israel Factor
When it comes to Iran, Israel is always part of the equation. On July 11,
the Senate again showed it's Israeli-occupied territory (along with the
House) by passing 97 - 0 the Lieberman-sponsored S.Amendment 2073 to S.Amdt
2011 to HR 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008). It calls
for censuring Iran for its complicity in killing US soldiers in Iraq. It was
a clear warning to Tehran claiming unstated evidence its government is using
proxy forces to attack US troops on the ground. It follows months of
accusations from American commanders that Iran is supplying various kinds of
weapons to Iraqi resistance groups with no clear evidence to prove it.
Israel is in the mix, too, and has warned repeatedly of an attack on Iran as
well with prime minister Ehud Olmert earlier in the year saying his country
couldn't risk another "existential threat" with a clear reference to the
Nazi holocaust. By it, he and other high-level Israeli political and
military officials point to Iran's commercial nuclear program, falsely
claiming Tehran is fanatically and ideologically committed to destroying the
Jewish state. It's nonsense, but it works by stoking fears to get the
Israeli public and world opinion on its side for whatever military action is
planned in "self-defense." Other Israeli national security officials have a
contrary view, but their assessment gets no press attention. They believe
the Iranian government is rational and not about to wage war with Israel,
the US, or any other nation.
Israel and the US know it, but neither state says so publicly. If Iran
attacked Israel, it would be committing suicide. It would guarantee a
full-scale US and Israeli response, possibly with nuclear weapons, that
would devastate the country. In addition, no one mentions that after the
ancient Persian empire became Iran in 1935, the country obeyed international
laws, never occupied another country, and never attacked or threatened to
attack another nation beyond occasional border skirmishes far short of war.
It's only full-scale conflict was defensive in response to Saddam Hussein's
US-backed, equipped and financially aided September, 1980 invasion. The
evidence today is overwhelming. Iran threatens no other nation and will only
defend itself if attacked.
It may have to and formally complained to the Security Council criticizing
Ehud Olmert and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz's threatening comments.
Mofaz made his remarks on a June Washington visit and Olmert gave his in
April to the German publication Focus, which he later denied when quoted
verbatim. Each official spoke of a possible Israeli attack against Iran's
commercial nuclear facilities with the Israeli prime minister saying Iran's
nuclear program could be struck by 1000 cruise missiles launched over 10
days. He added "It is impossible perhaps to destroy the entire nuclear
program but it would be possible to damage it in such a way that it would be
set back for years." One thousand cruise missiles, some with nuclear
warheads, would set the whole country back for years, or most any other one.
On July 11, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman lived up
to his notorious reputation as a reckless super-hawk with extremist fascist
ideas. He told Israeli Army Radio he got US and European backing for an
Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities following a
meeting with NATO and European Union officials. He said the message he got
was that America and Europe are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and that
Israel should proceed on its own to "prevent the (Iranian) threat herself."
Israel may have two fronts in mind according IDF Major General Eyal
Ben-Reuven, deputy commander of Israeli forces in last summer's disastrous
war in Lebanon. He spoke at an Institute for National Security Studies
conference July 16 assessing the summer, 2006 Lebanon war saying the IDF is
"preparing itself for an all-out war (with Syria), and this is a major
change in the military's working premise" following last year's humiliating
defeat at the hands of Hezbollah. General Ben-Reuven said when war breaks
out, Syria will suffer mass military and civilian casualties as the IDF is
training for a swift and overwhelming invasion "to knock out the areas where
(Syrian) missiles are launched....as quickly as possible." He added "By
preparing for an all-out war, we can also deal with Palestinian terror"
signaling a possible attack on Hamas in Gaza that may happen at the same
time combined with one on Hezbollah as well.
Haaretz reported July 18 that the UN may be complicit in aiding Israel's
scheme to show Syria's a threat to regional security as justification for a
planned attack. Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari complained in a letter
to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that Israel is fabricating evidence that
his country is supposedly smuggling weapons to Lebanon. He specifically
singled out the Secretary-General's envoy to Lebanon and Syria, Terje
Roed-Larsen, who's long served Western and Israeli interests. His earlier
report backed Israel's unsubstantiated claims that weapons are entering
Lebanon through Syria, implying the Syrian government is sending them.
Ja'afari also complained about Israel's border violations, illegal
overflight spying missions in Lebanese airspace, and its photographing
commercial truck deliveries claiming they're smuggling weapons.
This information suggests Israel and the US are targeting all their regional
enemies at once with possible plans extending from Iraq to Iran into Syria
and also Hezbollah in South Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. A scheme may be
planned much like the way a local mafia don eliminates his enemies to
consolidate power. In this case, it's a global godfather and its regional
junior (but powerful and influential) partner doing what a local don would
say is taking care of family business. The net result may be to set the
whole Middle East aflame, destroy what little influence Washington has left
there, jeopardize homeland security, and heighten the risk for retaliation
against US and Western interests everywhere.
It can only worsen further if Pakistan is targeted as well. It may happen,
with or without President Pervez Musharraf's permission, because of claimed
Al-Queda safehaven tribal areas in the country posing a regional and wider
threat. The Wall Street Journal reported "US policy makers (are) under
pressure to eradicate this haven (even though doing it) could spark a local
backlash strong enough to topple (the leader) President Bush has called
Washington's strongest ally in the fight against al Queda." The New York
Times sounded the same theme saying "....American officials have been
meeting in recent weeks to discuss what some said was....an aggressive new
strategy (including) public and covert elements (and) some new (secret)
measures to avoid embarrassing General Musharraf."
Looking Ahead
With 18 months left in office and his presidency foundering, George Bush is
like a cornered animal desperate enough to try anything to survive.
Surrounded by a dwindling, but still potent, number of hard liners, this
article suggests a disturbing scenario ahead that bodes ill for the nation
and world if it happens. It appears the Bush administration's scheme
involves changing the subject by scare-mongering that may be followed by
staging one or more major home-based terror attacks on the order of 9/11,
then waging war with Iran on the phony pretext Tehran threatens US and
regional security. Further strikes may also be planned against the tribal
areas of Pakistan along with backing Israel's intentions against Syria,
Hezbollah, and Hamas. These will be ominous developments if they happen as
explained above. In an effort to survive and finish out their term in
office, George Bush and Dick Cheney may be willing to gamble everything for
what, in the end, can't be achieved.
An earlier CIA assessment points out part of the problem. It was blunt and
frightening saying if the US attacks Iran, Southern Shia Iraq will light up
like a candle and explode uncontrollably throughout the country. It will
also likely incite Saudi Shiites who happen to be in the most oil-rich part
of the Kingdom, but it very possibly could include the entire Muslim world
in armed rebellion against anything American and Western. It's heading
toward that kind of showdown now.
The US is already a pariah state, losing influence as its recklessness
intensifies. Take away its military strength, and it faces an unfriendly
world, likely to be less receptive to its demands if it can't back them up
with the muscle it has now or shies away from using what it has. That's a
future possibility, though, not a present one. More immediate is the threat
of nuclear war, the end of the republic, and what little is left of
constitutional law. That's along with a nation spending itself into
bankruptcy and already, by some measures and analysis, at an impossible to
repay $80 trillion or more in unfunded future entitlements and other
liabilities. That's the assessment of economist Laurence Kotlikoff in his
2006 appraisal for the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank in an article titled
"Is the United States Bankrupt?"
It won't happen as long as Fed Chairman Bernanke keeps printing money at the
same reckless double digit pace Alan Greenspan did before him. They and
other Fed chairmen are beholden to the same banking cartel and Wall Street
establishment that owns and runs the Federal Reserve for their benefit, not
ours. Their scheme is Ponzi-like to monetize continued prosperity as long as
the string holds out that can't forever as former Nixon chief economic
advisor Herb Stein once explained earlier. But the longer it does, the worse
the outcome when the inevitable end comes with the public set up for the
hardest fall like always.
The present domestic economic turbulence and threatening credit crunch (with
global implications) is the result of the following that's bad enough but no
disaster yet:
-- slumping housing,
-- fallout from recklessly leveraged speculation in hedge funds and on Wall
Street overall with the Federal Reserve fueling it all,
-- troubled collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) linked to sinking
sub-prime mortgage valuations,
-- once AAA-rated residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), now
downgraded,
-- sinking sub-prime loans,
-- the multi-trillion dollar financial derivatives market speculation Warren
Buffet calls "time bombs" and "financial WMDs",
-- junk bonds getting "junkier,"
-- dollar weakness,
-- inflation much higher than reported and rising because of years of
over-spending, over-borrowing and under-taxing,
-- and other potential near and intermediate-term financial trouble sure to
surprise if it comes.
So far, it's cyclical noise compared to a greater secular meltdown ahead
from built-up financial excesses, peak oil, global warming, intensifying
ecological disasters, permanent wars on the world, and the full-blown
emergence of homeland tyranny.
This writer takes issue with others who think America is currently in an
economic meltdown. Where there's strong agreement, however, is that one lies
ahead, no one knows when precisely, it'll likely surprise when it arrives,
and it may strike like Armageddon when it hits making The Great Depression
look tame by comparison and last even longer.
For now, though, removing the criminal class from Washington, restoring the
rule of law, saving the republic, avoiding further wars, and ending the
current ones is job one. Failure to do it may mean whatever's ahead won't
matter. It'll be too late long before it arrives. Those who care about these
things and see the threat better enlist others, do more than complain about
it, and act in time collectively to stop it. It can only come from the
bottom up, never the other way.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Stephen Lendman
Created Jul 23 2007 - 8:29am
In his first year in office, the widely-followed Cook Political Report had
this assessment of George Bush's early months as president: "Looking back
over his first five months in office, President George W. Bush and his
administration started off to a strong, fast start but now, his future seems
far less certain. Not only are Bush's overall job approval ratings slumping,
but his disapproval ratings are climbing (and) after a strong start, the
last three months have been less than auspicious for this new President. The
good news....is that they have plenty of time before the next presidential
(or) mid-term elections. The bad news is that they have a lot of repair work
to do and had better get started." They wasted little time doing it, but no
one (at least the pubic) knew in June what lay ahead in September.
George Bush entered office with an approval rating around 50%. It rose a
little at first, then slumped moderately as the Cook Report suggested.
Everything changed dramatically September 11. Bush's rating skyrocketed
instantly hitting a temporary high around 90% and remained above 80% through
year end. That momentous day transformed a mediocre president overnight with
some observers incredibly comparing him to Lincoln, FDR and Churchill
combined.
It was laughable then and ludicrous now for a pathetic caricature of a
president and man so hated he's barely able to hang on to avoid what growing
vocal numbers in the country demand - his head and removal from office by
impeachment along with Vice-President Cheney.
Today again, George Bush finds himself in a precarious position at the
least. He insists on maintaining a failed policy a growing majority in the
country wants ended. As a result, his approval rating is scraping rock
bottom in polls likely "engineered" to keep it from winning all-time bottom
honors as the lowest ever for a sitting president. Dick Cheney is less
fortunate, however, at a bottom-scraping 12% that's the lowest ever for a
president or vice-president by far and then some.
With that in mind, here's how the Cook Political Report assesses things as
of June 29, 2007: "....after six and a half years of George W. Bush's
presidency, the Republican 'brand' has been badly tarnished. As a result, it
would take an enormous amount of luck for Republicans to hold the White
House or win back control of the Senate or House, let alone (do all
three)....the GOP (will need) a long and painful rebuilding process (and)
recapturing the White House or congressional majorities (is) unlikely in the
near future." The report suggests a possible Republican apocalypse even
though it notes Democrats have failed to end the Iraq war, have only
delivered on one of their six major platform planks (increasing the federal
minimum wage), and are scorned as well.
With 18 months to go, what's a president to do to hang on, run out the
clock, and leave office through the normal front door process of his term
expiring, not the result of the Senate voting him out earlier by "the
(required) Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present" - hard as that
is to do as history shows.
Politicians know, and especially presidents, when in trouble - change the
subject. It's being changed by ignoring reality, aided by healthy offerings
of the usual kinds of industrial strength corporate media hyperventilating.
It features George Bush and his supportive generalissimo and other top brass
in Iraq in the lead. They continue asking for more time, insist the
disastrous "surge" is working, say it just needs a chance, and that
withdrawing too soon would trigger a bloodbath on the order of the Cambodian
killing fields according to an earlier preposterous April claim. Unmentioned
is the continued bloodbath caused by the US presence that won't end until
all American and other hostile foreign forces are withdrawn.
That won't happen according to recent reports with the National Review
Online and other sources recently saying the administration intends to
escalate its strength on the ground, not curtail it. More troops may be
brought in, and the Air Force is increasing its hardware. The powerful B 1
bomber is back (capable of carrying 24 ton bombs) and making multiple daily
and/or nightly strikes. A squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes were sent
as well along with additional F-16C Fighting Falcons. Bombing runs have
intensified dramatically, and the level of violence, deaths and destruction
overall is increasing. The Navy is contributing as well with the USS
Enterprise sent to the Gulf that may or may not replace one of the two Fifth
Fleet carriers already there.
In recent months, the Air Force also doubled its intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (ISR) efforts using Predator drones (capable of striking
targets as well as spying), high altitude U2s, and sophisticated AWACS
planes. It all points to one thing on the ground and back home. Congress can
debate all it wants. No Iraq withdrawal is planned, the conflict is being
escalated, and the only issue on the table is selling the present course to
the public with Congress already signed on showing debate is for show, not
for real. The hard sell is beginning by the timeworn, yet tried and true,
sure-fire method of scaring people to death to go along and in this case
threatening them as well.
George Bush's Continuing War on the First Amendment
On July 17, George Bush issued another of his many presidential "one-man"
decrees titled "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who
Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." More than any other chief executive
in the nation's history, this President abuses this practice egregiously as
another example of his contempt for the law.
Economist and journalist Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 - 1995) wrote in his
extremely important and revealing book "Cracks in the Constitution:" The US
Constitution "nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power
(to make) new law" by issuing "one-man, often far-reaching" executive order
decrees. However, Lundberg explains "the President in the American
constitutional system is very much a de facto king....(he is) by far the
most powerful formally constituted political officer on earth." He has "vast
power (and) stands in a position midway between a collective executive (like
the British system) and an absolute dictator." Lundberg wrote those words
over 27 years ago when George Bush was busy making millions (the result of
friendly bailouts) from successive oil business ventures that flopped.
George Bush's family connections delivered for him in business, in spite of
his ineptitude, and finally gave him the grand prize of the presidency he
exploited fully ever since. For him and those around him, the law is just an
artifact to be used, abused or ignored at his pleasure. He earlier usurped
"Unitary Executive" power to claim the law is what he says it is and in six
and half years in office issued more signing statements (over 800) than all
past presidents combined. The result is he expanded presidential power
(already immense as Lundberg explained) at the expense of the other two
branches by shifting it dangerously toward unlimited executive authority,
otherwise known as tyranny.
The Constitution has no provisions for "Unitary Executive" power or the
right of the chief executive to issue signing statements that hasn't
deterred this President from doing as he pleases. There's also no
authorization for issuing Executive Orders, as just noted, beyond the
following vague language Lundberg explained constitutes the "essence of
presidential power....in a single sentence."
Specifically, Article II, section 1 reads: "The executive power shall be
vested in a President of the United States of America." That simple
statement, easily passed over and misunderstood, means the near-limitless
power of this office "is concentrated in the hands of one man." Article II,
section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: "The President shall take care that
the laws be faithfully executed" without saying Presidents are virtually
empowered to make laws as well as execute them even though nothing in the
Constitution specifically permits this practice.
George Bush takes full advantage within and outside the law. His July 17
Executive Order is another case in point, but a particularly egregious and
dangerous one. It starts off: The President's power stems from "the
authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the
United States of America" as well as the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act he invokes as well. The order then continues:
-- "....due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security
and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence
threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to
promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide
humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people," George Bush usurped authority
to criminalize the anti-war movement, make the First Amendment right to
protest it illegal, and give himself the right to seize the assets of
persons violating this order.
In a message to Congress on the same date, George Bush then stated:
-- "....I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order blocking
property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant
risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or
effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of
Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political
reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
In effect, George Bush, on his say alone and in violation of the
Constitution, criminalized dissent July 17, 2007. By so doing, he shifted
the nation one step closer to full-blown tyranny with other tightening
measures sure to follow this one. The dominant media reported virtually
nothing about this nor will they explain or voice concern when law-abiding
Americans are arrested and punished for protesting a criminal
administration's illegal foreign wars. Instead, a full-court press
publicly-aired effort is underway to justify them that provides clues for
what may lie ahead.
Scare-Mongering Heats Up
On July 7, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum appeared on the Hugh
Hewitt radio program. He was introduced by the host as "one of our favorite
Americans," leaving no doubt where Hewitt stands. Santorum came to skewer
his former colleagues' lack of resolve to stay the course in Iraq, no matter
how hopeless things are on the ground. But he took the opportunity to go
further by suggesting that "confronting Iran (is) an absolute lynchpin for
our success in that region," that 9/11 taught us "Islamists" must be
confronted, that they want to "conquer that region of the world (and) will
soon end up on our doorstep (if not stopped, and that) between now and
November, a lot of things are going to happen (to shape) "a very different"
(public view) of this war....because....of some very unfortunate events
(coming) like we're seeing unfold in the UK."
Does Rick Santorum know something the public doesn't, and was he given
permission to leak it on-air? Another clue came July 10 from DHS Secretary
Michael Chertoff. He practically told a Chicago Tribune editorial board
meeting another major terrorist attack is coming later this summer because
he has a "gut feeling" about a period ahead of increased risk. Basing his
assessment on undisclosed intelligence (as always) and earlier "terrorist
patterns in Europe," he added "Summertime seems to be appealing to them
(and) We worry that they are rebuilding their activities. I believe we are
entering a period this summer of increased risk."
Chertoff then appeared on a number of TV programs to itemize his "gut
feeling" factors, including taking full advantage of the likely staged June
29 London car bomb discoveries and June 30 follow-up Glasgow airport
incident that may have only been an unfortunate accident. With no credible
evidence backing his claims, Chertoff, nonetheless, said "Europe could
become a platform for an attack against this country." The UK incidents may,
in fact, have been staged to stoke fear in Britain and here in advance of a
major homeland terror event to come.
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd tried making light of Chertoff's comments
saying he sounds "more like a meteorologist than the man charged with
keeping us safe." Chertoff's job isn't to "keep us safe," Dowd should know
better, and her attempt at humor isn't funny. These comments are to be taken
seriously. They were made to signal a changed political climate ahead
brought on by a one or more likely upcoming terror events, possibly major
ones. It would be to resuscitate a failing president the way 9/11 did
earlier, even though no one this time would dare suggest George Bush
combines Lincoln, FDR and Churchill resurrected or anything resembling it.
More Scare-Mongering
Quick to play their lead hyperventilating role, the corporate media is all
over the notion of a summer terror surprise to prepare the public in advance
for what may be coming and to accept the consequences of a police state
America in response. ABC News may have been first to hype the story citing a
new FBI analysis of Al-Queda messages warning of "their strategic intent to
strike the US homeland and US interests worldwide (that) should not be
discounted as merely deceptive noise."
Then on July 15, "Enemy Number One" bin Laden coincidentally appeared in an
undated online videotape. It was titled "Winds of Martyrdom" and presented
to look new with bin Laden saying "The happy (person) is the one chosen by
Allah to be a martyr." In fact, it looked like old footage or pieced
together segments of earlier ones repackaged to look fresh and released to
the public two days after the Senate doubled the bounty on bin Laden to $50
million. It was also three days after AP reported July 12 that US
intelligence analysts concluded Al-Queda has rebuilt its operating
capability to levels unseen since right before 9/11 and is "renewing efforts
to sneak terror plotters into (the) US" adding to numbers of them already
here.
AP also mentioned a draft National Intelligence Estimate "expected (and now
released to confirm) an increasingly worrisome portrait of al-Queda's
ability to use its base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and
inspire attacks, even though (other) Bush administration officials say the
US is safer (now) nearly six years into the war on terror." Hyping the
threat further, AP mentioned key "classified" assessments in the report
claiming Al-Queda "probably (is) still pursuing chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed sufficient
capability." Further, the US faces "a persistent and evolving (Islamic)
terrorist threat" for the next three years.
In a clearly timed and motivated political statement, The (unclassified)
National Intelligence Estimate "key judgments" were released July 17,
combining assessments from 16 Bush administration spy agencies. It's titled
"The Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland," It presented the findings below,
including reworked earlier ones, in addition to those mentioned above:
-- Al-Queda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack
capability;"
-- Iraq strengthened Al-Queda that will "leverage the contacts and
capabilities" to attack the US homeland;
-- Al-Queda and its operatives in Iraq will "energize the broader Sunni
extremist community (and help to) recruit and indoctrinate (new) operatives;
-- In spite of Al-Queda's regrouping, US worldwide counterterrorism efforts
since 2001 have constrained Islamic extremists from attacking US soil;
nonetheless, Al-Queda remains a serious future threat and is likely to focus
on high-profile political, economic and infrastructure targets for maximum
casualties, visually dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and public
fear;
-- Al-Queda restored its ability to attack US soil and operates freely in
the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA);
-- Other Muslim and non-Muslim terrorist groups also pose a danger abroad
and may consider attacking here. Lebanon's Hezbollah topped the list of
Muslim groups mentioned. Earth Liberation Front, called a violent
environmental group, also made the list.
At his July 12 news conference, George Bush raised the specter of Al-Queda's
threat to the US citing the above-mentioned intelligence report as supposed
evidence. He then resurrected a timeworn long ago discredited golden oldie
saying "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the
ones who attacked us in America on September 11. That's why what happens in
Iraq matters to security here at home." Unmentioned anywhere in the
mainstream, of course, is the long-standing relationship between "Enemy
Number One" bin Laden, Al-Queda and US and allied intelligence and how
they're used in the fraudulent "war on terrorism" to manipulate and scare
the public enough to go along with anything.
These comments, published assessments from The National Intelligence
Estimate, inflammatory remarks from officials like Michael Chertoff, and
accompanying dominant media hyperventilating effectively stoke public fear
and may point to a major terror attack ahead on US soil. It will trigger a
Code Red Alert if it happens signaling the highest terrorist threat level
followed by the likely suspension of the Constitution, imposition of martial
law, and end of the republic. The rule of law will be suspended, dissent no
longer will be tolerated (it's already illegal), the military and other
security forces will be involved on US soil in strength if needed, and an
unmasked full-blown fascist police state will, in fact, henceforth exist.
It's arrival may be closer than most imagine in an effort to save the Bush
presidency that continues to weaken and begs for a way out of its dilemma.
It worked earlier on 9/11 and may soon be unveiled again, even more
convincingly, for a president desperate enough to try anything as a Hail
Mary scheme to finish out his term, leave office on his own accord, and
refurbish what's left of his tarnished image.
This is what our military adventurism and single-minded pursuit of empire
has gotten us. It's not to be taken lightly, for if it arrives it'll be too
late. The time to unmask and stop it is now and quickly as Michael
Chertoff's pointing to late summer is fast approaching.
A "Catastrophic Homeland Emergency" to Justify Attacking Iran
The Bush administration's pointing to Iran as a threat to US security is as
baseless as the phony WMD and dangerous dictator claims were for war with
Iraq. It's because Washington has wanted regime change in the Islamic
Republic since the 1979 revolution toppled the US-reinstalled Shah Reza
Pahlavi to power following the CIA-instigated coup in 1953 against
democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh.
The Bush administration stepped up the current effort earlier citing Iran's
legal commercial nuclear program as a thinly veiled pretext without ever
mentioning that Washington encouraged Iranians to develop their commercial
nuclear industry during the reign of the Shah. That can't be revealed
because doing it would unmask the hypocrisy of the current belligerency and
scare-mongering.
Through its usual practice of bribes and bullying, the administration got
the Security Council to act in its behalf. It passed UN Resolution 1696 in
July, 2006 demanding Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it
refused, Resolution 1737 was passed in December imposing limited sanctions.
Resolution 1747 then tightened them further in March, 2007. It imposed a ban
on arms sales and expanded a freeze on the country's assets, in spite of
Iranian officials' insistence (with no evidence to disprove them) their
nuclear program is entirely peaceful and fully in accord with the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Nonetheless, harsh rhetoric out of Washington continues with George Bush
pushing for additional sanctions (against another Iranian bank and a large
military-owned engineering firm) while hyping the concocted threat of Iran's
commercial program that's no different from those of other NPT signatory
states. Iran has been patient but earlier refused to allow IAEA inspectors
to visit the Arak heavy water reactor until now. In a spirit of cooperation
and facing a possible preemptive US and/or Israeli attack, it's scheduled to
take place before the end of July. Iran also scaled back its enrichment
program in a show of good faith and agreed to answer questions regarding
past experiments at its facilities to defuse the threat of tougher sanctions
and avoid a possible attack that's real and may be immiment.
As Iran shows a willingness to cooperate and prove it threatens no other
country, the Bush administration renounced NPT and its crucial Article VI
pledging nuclear nations make "good faith" efforts to eliminate their
arsenals because having them heightens the risk they'll be used, endangering
the planet. While Iran wants peace and nuclear non-proliferation, the Bush
administration pursues a reckless agenda including the following:
-- It claims the right to develop new type nuclear weapons, not eliminate
any now on hand.
-- It renounced NPT claiming the right to develop and test new weapons.
-- It abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).
-- It rescinded and subverted the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.
-- It refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to prevent
nuclear bombs being added to present stockpiles already dangerously too
high.
-- It spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined with
large future increases planned, starting in FY 2008 up for debate and sure
to pass.
-- It claims the right to wage preventive wars under the illegal and
frightening doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" using first-strike
nuclear weapons.
While Iran, in fact, threatens no one, America threatens the planet, and the
world community stays silent in the face of a potential disaster if the US
wages nuclear war because it can get away with it. What other nation will
dare challenge the only remaining superpower in spite of the potential
horrendous consequences from such a reckless act.
Scaring the Public to Death - Act II
Another earlier discredited campaign is now heating up again as well even
though British foreign secretary, David Milliband, discounted its
credibility in a July 8 Financial Times interview. It features US claims and
hostile rhetoric that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force is
providing weapons as well as funding, training and arming Shiite and other
resistance fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan with no credible evidence to
prove it because there is none. It added "Quds Force (and) Hezbollah
instructors trained approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time" at camps near
Tehran. It's also using "Lebanese Hezbollah....as a proxy (or) surrogate in
Iraq."
New York Times hawkish defense reporter Michael Gordon (picking up where the
disgraced Judith Miller left off) concluded from this "that Iran has been
engaged in a proxy war against American and Iraqi government forces for
years." That kind of belligerent language on the New York Times front page
adds fuel to the self-defense rationale for a future military assault
against the Iranian state based on spurious accounts like Gordon's as
justification.
It points toward and seems to confirm what the London Guardian reported a
"well-placed" Washington source recently said - that George "Bush is not
going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." It's Bush's lips moving but
Dick Cheney's words coming out as he and those close to him (like
Iran-Contra criminal, rabid Israel supporter, and deputy national security
advisor Elliott Abrams) have long favored direct military action against
Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons.
According to Guardian sources, "The balance (in Washington) has tilted" with
George Bush on board with his vice-president, who, as insiders know, calls
all the important shots in the nation's capitol. The Guardian quoted
International Institute for Strategic Studies director of studies Patrick
Cronin saying "Cheney has limited capital left (a likely dubious claim),"
and if he uses it for one aim (like attacking Iran) "he could still have an
impact." The US has a formidable strike force in the Gulf alone to do it
with two carrier groups, 50 or more warships with nuclear weapons, hundreds
of planes and contingents of Marines and Navy personnel.
Battle plans have long been in place (and are likely updated as needed)
under code or operational name TIRANNT for Theater Iran Near Term. If an
attack comes, it will be from the Gulf Naval task force and may also include
long-range bombers and other warplanes and missiles based in Iraq and
strategic locations like Diego Garcia within easy striking distance of
targeted sites. The possibility of it happening is frightening as under a
top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" and CONPLAN
(contingency/concept plan) 8022, Washington claims the right to preemptively
strike targets anywhere in the world using so-called low-yield, extremely
powerful, nuclear bunker buster weapons with Iran the apparent first target
of choice.
The only good news from the Guardian (if correct) is that "No decision on
military action is expected until next year" with the state department
continuing for now to pursue a diplomatic route - that may just be a
diversionary smoke screen for what's planned ahead.
Reuters reported July 17 that US Ambassador in Kabul William Wood said
"There are clearly some munitions coming out of Iran going into the hands of
the Taliban. We believe that the quantity and quality of those munitions are
such that the Iranian government must know about it." Defense Secretary
Robert Gates made a similar claim a month earlier along with other
Washington reports of Iran aiding Shia, other "militant" fighters and
"Al-Queda" elements in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Tehran rejects these accusations as "baseless and illogical" saying the
obvious in reply - that the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and
Washington's one-sided support for Israel causes instability in both
regions. The US wants a pretext to strike the Islamic Republic, but the
Iranian government isn't about to provide one. In fact, it's doing the
opposite by cooperating with the IAEA and continues saying it's willing to
engage in constructive diplomacy with the Bush administration.
On July 16, Iran indicated another round of security-related talks over Iraq
with Washington is possible in the "near future" showing again it means what
it says. The problem is the Bush administration does not. It continues using
hard line tactics preferring belligerence and duplicity with Iran that's
typical of the way it does business overall. It's willing to negotiate on
its own terms only while posing the threat of a military option or economic
sanctions against nations unwilling to go along. At the same time, Iran
knows CIA and special forces operatives have been engaged in covert
activities in the country for many months to destabilize the ruling
government.
In addition, Washington has attempted to build an anti-Iranian
Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian coalition in the region to further undermine
Tehran's influence. The state department has also pressured international
banks and other corporations to sever relations with Iran to make the
country "scream" the way the Nixon administration did it to Salvador
Allende's Chile and the Bush administration and Israel are now doing it to
the democratically elected Hamas government in Gaza. Iran, of course, like
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, is richly endowed with the world's most
in-demand commodity and can keep a good revenue stream coming no matter
what.
The Israel Factor
When it comes to Iran, Israel is always part of the equation. On July 11,
the Senate again showed it's Israeli-occupied territory (along with the
House) by passing 97 - 0 the Lieberman-sponsored S.Amendment 2073 to S.Amdt
2011 to HR 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008). It calls
for censuring Iran for its complicity in killing US soldiers in Iraq. It was
a clear warning to Tehran claiming unstated evidence its government is using
proxy forces to attack US troops on the ground. It follows months of
accusations from American commanders that Iran is supplying various kinds of
weapons to Iraqi resistance groups with no clear evidence to prove it.
Israel is in the mix, too, and has warned repeatedly of an attack on Iran as
well with prime minister Ehud Olmert earlier in the year saying his country
couldn't risk another "existential threat" with a clear reference to the
Nazi holocaust. By it, he and other high-level Israeli political and
military officials point to Iran's commercial nuclear program, falsely
claiming Tehran is fanatically and ideologically committed to destroying the
Jewish state. It's nonsense, but it works by stoking fears to get the
Israeli public and world opinion on its side for whatever military action is
planned in "self-defense." Other Israeli national security officials have a
contrary view, but their assessment gets no press attention. They believe
the Iranian government is rational and not about to wage war with Israel,
the US, or any other nation.
Israel and the US know it, but neither state says so publicly. If Iran
attacked Israel, it would be committing suicide. It would guarantee a
full-scale US and Israeli response, possibly with nuclear weapons, that
would devastate the country. In addition, no one mentions that after the
ancient Persian empire became Iran in 1935, the country obeyed international
laws, never occupied another country, and never attacked or threatened to
attack another nation beyond occasional border skirmishes far short of war.
It's only full-scale conflict was defensive in response to Saddam Hussein's
US-backed, equipped and financially aided September, 1980 invasion. The
evidence today is overwhelming. Iran threatens no other nation and will only
defend itself if attacked.
It may have to and formally complained to the Security Council criticizing
Ehud Olmert and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz's threatening comments.
Mofaz made his remarks on a June Washington visit and Olmert gave his in
April to the German publication Focus, which he later denied when quoted
verbatim. Each official spoke of a possible Israeli attack against Iran's
commercial nuclear facilities with the Israeli prime minister saying Iran's
nuclear program could be struck by 1000 cruise missiles launched over 10
days. He added "It is impossible perhaps to destroy the entire nuclear
program but it would be possible to damage it in such a way that it would be
set back for years." One thousand cruise missiles, some with nuclear
warheads, would set the whole country back for years, or most any other one.
On July 11, Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman lived up
to his notorious reputation as a reckless super-hawk with extremist fascist
ideas. He told Israeli Army Radio he got US and European backing for an
Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities following a
meeting with NATO and European Union officials. He said the message he got
was that America and Europe are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and that
Israel should proceed on its own to "prevent the (Iranian) threat herself."
Israel may have two fronts in mind according IDF Major General Eyal
Ben-Reuven, deputy commander of Israeli forces in last summer's disastrous
war in Lebanon. He spoke at an Institute for National Security Studies
conference July 16 assessing the summer, 2006 Lebanon war saying the IDF is
"preparing itself for an all-out war (with Syria), and this is a major
change in the military's working premise" following last year's humiliating
defeat at the hands of Hezbollah. General Ben-Reuven said when war breaks
out, Syria will suffer mass military and civilian casualties as the IDF is
training for a swift and overwhelming invasion "to knock out the areas where
(Syrian) missiles are launched....as quickly as possible." He added "By
preparing for an all-out war, we can also deal with Palestinian terror"
signaling a possible attack on Hamas in Gaza that may happen at the same
time combined with one on Hezbollah as well.
Haaretz reported July 18 that the UN may be complicit in aiding Israel's
scheme to show Syria's a threat to regional security as justification for a
planned attack. Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari complained in a letter
to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that Israel is fabricating evidence that
his country is supposedly smuggling weapons to Lebanon. He specifically
singled out the Secretary-General's envoy to Lebanon and Syria, Terje
Roed-Larsen, who's long served Western and Israeli interests. His earlier
report backed Israel's unsubstantiated claims that weapons are entering
Lebanon through Syria, implying the Syrian government is sending them.
Ja'afari also complained about Israel's border violations, illegal
overflight spying missions in Lebanese airspace, and its photographing
commercial truck deliveries claiming they're smuggling weapons.
This information suggests Israel and the US are targeting all their regional
enemies at once with possible plans extending from Iraq to Iran into Syria
and also Hezbollah in South Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. A scheme may be
planned much like the way a local mafia don eliminates his enemies to
consolidate power. In this case, it's a global godfather and its regional
junior (but powerful and influential) partner doing what a local don would
say is taking care of family business. The net result may be to set the
whole Middle East aflame, destroy what little influence Washington has left
there, jeopardize homeland security, and heighten the risk for retaliation
against US and Western interests everywhere.
It can only worsen further if Pakistan is targeted as well. It may happen,
with or without President Pervez Musharraf's permission, because of claimed
Al-Queda safehaven tribal areas in the country posing a regional and wider
threat. The Wall Street Journal reported "US policy makers (are) under
pressure to eradicate this haven (even though doing it) could spark a local
backlash strong enough to topple (the leader) President Bush has called
Washington's strongest ally in the fight against al Queda." The New York
Times sounded the same theme saying "....American officials have been
meeting in recent weeks to discuss what some said was....an aggressive new
strategy (including) public and covert elements (and) some new (secret)
measures to avoid embarrassing General Musharraf."
Looking Ahead
With 18 months left in office and his presidency foundering, George Bush is
like a cornered animal desperate enough to try anything to survive.
Surrounded by a dwindling, but still potent, number of hard liners, this
article suggests a disturbing scenario ahead that bodes ill for the nation
and world if it happens. It appears the Bush administration's scheme
involves changing the subject by scare-mongering that may be followed by
staging one or more major home-based terror attacks on the order of 9/11,
then waging war with Iran on the phony pretext Tehran threatens US and
regional security. Further strikes may also be planned against the tribal
areas of Pakistan along with backing Israel's intentions against Syria,
Hezbollah, and Hamas. These will be ominous developments if they happen as
explained above. In an effort to survive and finish out their term in
office, George Bush and Dick Cheney may be willing to gamble everything for
what, in the end, can't be achieved.
An earlier CIA assessment points out part of the problem. It was blunt and
frightening saying if the US attacks Iran, Southern Shia Iraq will light up
like a candle and explode uncontrollably throughout the country. It will
also likely incite Saudi Shiites who happen to be in the most oil-rich part
of the Kingdom, but it very possibly could include the entire Muslim world
in armed rebellion against anything American and Western. It's heading
toward that kind of showdown now.
The US is already a pariah state, losing influence as its recklessness
intensifies. Take away its military strength, and it faces an unfriendly
world, likely to be less receptive to its demands if it can't back them up
with the muscle it has now or shies away from using what it has. That's a
future possibility, though, not a present one. More immediate is the threat
of nuclear war, the end of the republic, and what little is left of
constitutional law. That's along with a nation spending itself into
bankruptcy and already, by some measures and analysis, at an impossible to
repay $80 trillion or more in unfunded future entitlements and other
liabilities. That's the assessment of economist Laurence Kotlikoff in his
2006 appraisal for the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank in an article titled
"Is the United States Bankrupt?"
It won't happen as long as Fed Chairman Bernanke keeps printing money at the
same reckless double digit pace Alan Greenspan did before him. They and
other Fed chairmen are beholden to the same banking cartel and Wall Street
establishment that owns and runs the Federal Reserve for their benefit, not
ours. Their scheme is Ponzi-like to monetize continued prosperity as long as
the string holds out that can't forever as former Nixon chief economic
advisor Herb Stein once explained earlier. But the longer it does, the worse
the outcome when the inevitable end comes with the public set up for the
hardest fall like always.
The present domestic economic turbulence and threatening credit crunch (with
global implications) is the result of the following that's bad enough but no
disaster yet:
-- slumping housing,
-- fallout from recklessly leveraged speculation in hedge funds and on Wall
Street overall with the Federal Reserve fueling it all,
-- troubled collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) linked to sinking
sub-prime mortgage valuations,
-- once AAA-rated residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), now
downgraded,
-- sinking sub-prime loans,
-- the multi-trillion dollar financial derivatives market speculation Warren
Buffet calls "time bombs" and "financial WMDs",
-- junk bonds getting "junkier,"
-- dollar weakness,
-- inflation much higher than reported and rising because of years of
over-spending, over-borrowing and under-taxing,
-- and other potential near and intermediate-term financial trouble sure to
surprise if it comes.
So far, it's cyclical noise compared to a greater secular meltdown ahead
from built-up financial excesses, peak oil, global warming, intensifying
ecological disasters, permanent wars on the world, and the full-blown
emergence of homeland tyranny.
This writer takes issue with others who think America is currently in an
economic meltdown. Where there's strong agreement, however, is that one lies
ahead, no one knows when precisely, it'll likely surprise when it arrives,
and it may strike like Armageddon when it hits making The Great Depression
look tame by comparison and last even longer.
For now, though, removing the criminal class from Washington, restoring the
rule of law, saving the republic, avoiding further wars, and ending the
current ones is job one. Failure to do it may mean whatever's ahead won't
matter. It'll be too late long before it arrives. Those who care about these
things and see the threat better enlist others, do more than complain about
it, and act in time collectively to stop it. It can only come from the
bottom up, never the other way.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson