Stop the Iran attack. Impeach Cheney, then Bush. Who becomes President then? I'll take Pelosi over the Demonic Duo any day.

Well, let's get cracking:

Write your Congresscritters, and DEMAND action on BOTH Walter Jones' H.J. Res. 14 and Barbara Lee's H.R. 770, the Iran Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 2007.

Neither, so far, have gone anywhere except to multiple committees. The leadership MUST be prodded to act, and to act NOW.

This is far more important than Warner - Levin.

Bush will likely attack Iran in some manner, and it will certainly be catastrophic on numerous levels. I say Bush, not the United States, because this is his baby and he is entirely responsible for the outcome. Which, unfortunately, is not to say he and the criminals under him will ever be held accountable for their lies, treason and war crimes. This coming war with Iran, however, is largely a result of the greed for money, oil and influence in the middle east. Accordingly, those of you who are bleating about Israeli/Jewish conspiracy theories can't be serious. Not when an American attack on Israel would bring a rain of missiles on Tel Aviv and other major Israeli cities the likes of which Saddam Hussein could have only dreamed of delivering. This would come from Hizbullah in the north and from Iran itself. An American attack could even provoke other Arab countries to launch another war against the Israelis, something which is even more likely to happen if Israel is involved in the initial attack on Iran or attacks in retaliation for the all-but-certain missile attacks. Think about it. Anyone arguing that an American attack on Iran would be done soley to protect Israel is not offering a rational argument. The Israelis would be acting to protect their own country and interests, but American involvement in such an action would be primarily done for reasons of oil, oil, and further enrichment of America's wealthiest barons, oligarchs, traitors and corporate owners. Any benefits that such an attack could have for Israel would be considered collateral, at best. Israel's involvment, for the Neocons, is strictly a matter of using their assets for the Neocons' own ends.

Also, addressing the issue of the most recent Cheney/Bush administration lies, deceptions and propaganda concering Iran, all I can say is that if people are swayed by this garbage, then MJ is right. We indeed deserve the coming economic contraction caused by $125 per barrel oil. We deserve the world's oppobrium for rampaging throughout the Middle East. And we would deserve the descent into third world status that such consequences could well entail. That aside, the short-term result for American armed forces in Iraq would also be dire, with the entire Shiite population likely to rise against the occupation. That on top of a continued and intensified civil war. Ah, hell. I'm likely being too optimistic here. My imagination isn't sufficient to describe how bad things could possibly get. We just have to scream, yell and holler at our congressmen and women and senators until they respond in some form. After that, don't hold your breath, as Bush and Cheney are completely out of control and will not listen to reason in any shape or form. Luckily for the rest of us, they have been kind enough to announce their intentions beforehand. We already know they intend to order attacks to proceed on Iran, and we already know the outcome. Those of us who opposed the illegal invasion of Iraq to start with and have since been proven right, will be even more correct about Iran when we state that it will be utterly disastrous for all involved.

No, this is not only Bush's war, Congress is also to blame! The whole world knows that Bush is ready to attack Iran, and our Congress are acting like nothing is going on == shuffling their feet and looking away from their oversight responsibiities. Playing games about a freakin' non-binding resolution.

Also, something hit me today, look at all those 'leaked' and MSM 'covered' scandals in the year coming up to the election, things seemed to have gone strangely quiet (cept for the Libby trial - although note that's NOT being covered in the MSM.) How many other congress members have the FBI obtained incriminating evidence, and are just holding back when the time is right. The Libby trial just shows how seedy Congress is.

Question: Does anyone know if the AIPAC spy investigation is over? Is there still interest in Jane Harman, and maybe others?

We Americans are to blame. For the most part, we didn't challenge our Democratic legislators who voted for the authorization in the fall of 2002, we were uncomfortable with Howard Dean when, in or about March or April of 2003, he expressed doubts about whether the war made us more secure, and we reelected Bush in 2004. It doesn't matter who we voted for. We are one nation and we are jointly and severally liable for the actions of our leadership. That's a burden that comes with citizenship.

Does anyone know if you can see his reflection in a mirror?



"Shopping suggestion for the vampire who has everything: a portrait so he can shave."

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

And from what I understand SAIC is untouchable from administration to administration because their board members come from CIA, FBI, Army, Pentagon, and political heavy hitters from both sides.

Jan Knaus

The Iran attack is coming, but it's not about Iran. It's about America. It's about the neocons challenging the foundation of this country and the consitutition. If Congress doesn't stop this attack, or if Congress doesn't throw Bush out for attacking Iran after it happens, then Bush will have proved his power as the unitary executive and Congress will be stripped of its power to control him.

And if Congress fails us and we, the people, don't rise up and force the issue, then Bush will have proved his power as a dictator and you can say goodbye to democracy because the War in Iran will make things too difficult here to waste time and energy on elections.

That's what Cheney wants. He doesn't care about Iraq or Iran. He cares about securing power, and the Middle East is where he plays the game, because that is where they are strongest. In the Middle East, they have terrorism, they have oil, and they have Israel, and they use these three wedges to split apart the opposition. Bush and Cheney are pushing against the Constitution itelf. Democracy is their enemy. The ability to attack Iran will either solidify their power or destroy it - and they're playing to win, they're playing for keeps.

How the NeoCons are actually Israeli agents:

A previous investigation by RAW STORY revealed an apparent "revolving door policy" at the Pentagon which allowed officials whose clearances had been revoked to return to powerful positions in US government.

Feith's access to classified information and any possible wrongdoing can likely be laid at the feet of more senior officials in the Bush Administration – namely former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld – who would have been forced to overrule Pentagon background checks to reissue Feith's clearances after he was booted from the National Security Council for espionage allegations in the mid-1980s.

According to the Washington Post, Feith faced questioning in 2004 on allegations that he or other officials may have passed classified information to an Iraqi politician or a pro-Israeli lobby group.

Asked if he was still under investigation by the FBI or if he was cleared, Feith responded, "Still? There never was such an investigation."

Iran specialist Larry Franklin – who worked directly under Feith – pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiracy to pass classified information to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israeli lobby group, and illegal possession of national defense information. Feith has not been charged or accused of wrongdoing in the case.

In 1978, former Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz was investigated for allegedly passing a classified document on proposed US weapons sales to Israel through the same pro-Israeli lobby. The inquiry was later dropped. Wolfowitz now serves as president of the World Bank.

Wolfowitz, who at the time was working for the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, was brought into that position by conservative political adviser Richard Perle, who was also questioned in connection with the Franklin case. A Bush appointee, Perle most recently served as chairman of the Pentagon Defense Policy Board but resigned his chairmanship after the Franklin case broke.

According to an FBI wiretap, Perle discussed classified information with the Israeli embassy when he was a foreign policy aide for Senator Henry M. Jackson in 1970; in 1978, the New York Times reported that he inappropriately accepted classified data from a CIA official, again as Jackson's aide.

I posted this on another thread and removed it, moving it here instead:
Noted Arab Citizens Call on Israel to Shed Jewish Identity

JERUSALEM, Feb. 7 — A group of prominent Israeli Arabs has called on Israel to stop defining itself as a Jewish state and become a “consensual democracy for both Arabs and Jews,” prompting consternation and debate across the country.
Their contention is part of “The Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel,” a report published in December under the auspices of the Committee of Arab Mayors in Israel, which represents the country’s 1.3 million Arab citizens, about a fifth of the population. Some 40 well-known academics and activists took part.
They call on the state to recognize Israeli Arab citizens as an indigenous group with collective rights, saying Israel inherently discriminates against non-Jewish citizens in its symbols of state, some core laws, and budget and land allocations.
The authors propose a form of government, “consensual democracy,” akin to the Belgian model for Flemish- and French-speakers, involving proportional representation and power-sharing in a central government and autonomy for the Arab community in areas like education, culture and religious affairs.
The document does not deal with the question of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where an additional three million Palestinians live under Israeli occupation without Israeli citizenship. The aim of the declaration is to reshape the future of Israel itself.
The reaction of Jewish Israelis has ranged from some understanding to a more widespread response, indignation. Even among the center-left, where concern for civil rights is common, some have condemned the document as disturbing and harmful. On the right, Israeli Arabs have been accused of constituting a “fifth column,” a demographic and strategic threat to the survival of the state.
more

So the question is as it always has been: Are you a supporter of the logic of Haider and Le Pen and the European right or are you a supporter of modernity and democracy? Are you a defender of racial definitions of the state or not? In the context of the current debate over Iran are liberal zionists strong enough to counter the neocons? I would say no: that it is not possible to reform the zionist enterprise within the limits set out by those such as M.J. Rosenberg. It is not possible morally or practically to defend against racism by arguing for racism "light." Rosenberg's expressions of concern will do nothing to weaken the neocons, and in fact have and will give them cover as the democrats in their hesitant response to the administration did nothing to stop the invasion of Iraq.

Seth: I only became aware of the paper a few days ago; although it seems to be quite a significant development, there's been little mention of it at all in the US press. There's an interesting point-counterpoint discussion of the Vision paper at bitterlemons, by both Israeli and Palestinian writers. 

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

J. McCutchen

Either today or yesterday, the Jerusalem Post headline triumphantly proclaimed "Shiites Driving Sunnis to West" (ie BushIsrael)

Well not so fast Lucy! In their Tralfamadorian dreams perhaps but not in the real world.

Sunni Arab view of US-Iran tensions: There's irtually unanimous opposition to a US attack on Iran. {Helena Cobban)

MJ: I'm passing along a link to a fascinating question and answer article in the Rosner's Domain section of Haaretz, that I happened across this evening. It discusses some Iran issues, among others, and is written by Stephen Schwartz, Executive Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism and author of Is It Good For the Jews? The Crisis of America's Israel Lobby. He clearly knows a lot about both Iraq and Iran. I thought this was a particularly interesting comment:

I am also repeatedly amazed by the unanswered argument in Western media that clericalist Iran will take over a Shia-majority regime in Iraq. Iraqi Shias never accepted Khomeini's scheme for clerical rule. Nobody in the West seems interested in the probability that the consolidation of a non-clerical, Shia-majority regime in Iraq, based on parliamentary elections supported by Ayatollah Sistani, would have a positive effect in encouraging the reform movement in Iran.

I had never heard of Schwartz before, but he offers some interesting ideas. If true, this seems to be yet another of the many reasons why an attack on Iran is unwise/unneccessary.

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

J. McCutchen

Juan Cole has made this point several times over the years of Wars. So too has, another Middle Eastern history professor that I know, an Iranian who is of the firm (unshakeable in fact) view that Sunni-Shia rivalries in the Gulf region or beyond are in any way inevitable or even significant. He sees the problem as one between rival govenments contrived by political leaders.

Me I just read what others say

Bush will likely attack Iran in some manner, and it will certainly be catastrophic on numerous levels. I say Bush, not the United States,

This statement is extremely naive. Bush is the AMERICAN president. He represents all AMERICANS what he does IMPACTS ALL Americans. So unless you are renouncing your citizenship, this is your issue as well as mine. That American citizens are going to allow an AMERICAN president to run amuck and create global catastrophes is a travesty. American citizens are abdicating their duties and responsibilities as citizens to allow Bush to wage war. Congress must be brought to their knees in order to force action that ceases ALL pro-war actions on OUR presidents parts.

Now is the time for all good citizens to rise up and demonstrate the true meaning of democracy and the will of the people in this nation. It is NOT the time to sit back and point a finger of blame when the PRESIDENT of OUR United States of America is risking our national security, interests and children's lives with no hope of ensuring our freedoms and liberties.

You know, I am getting a little sick and tired of all the resigned whining about Iran. The pathetic "battered wife" syndrome of "they're going to do it anyway, the bastards, and there's nothing we can do," is a pathetic abdication of our responsibility as citizens, not to mention the Democratic party as the loyal opposition (not really, since they actually *run* a branch now, though you wouldn't know it).

Aside from Jim Webb's pushing to clarify the administrations view of executive power in promulgating an Iran war, I see little indication that Congress will do anything but roll over when the administration deliberately foments a crisis to justify an attack (as they already are by putting a second aircraft carrier in the gulf).

If we are serious about stopping an attack, there is an *EASY WAY*. And *HERE IT IS*.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/physicistslettercongress.html

This is a proposal by 12 nobel prize winning physicists, among other signatories. It suggests the obvious - Congress simply *ban* the use of nuclear weapons against *nonnuclear states* without congressional authorization.

The restriction on presidential warmaking power is incredibly weak, but it would stop the Iran war march dead in its tracks. Under no faulty intelligence could Congress certify Iran as a "nuclear power" at this stage. Moreover, the idea that the administration would *still* rush enthusiastically to war without nuclear bunker busters on the table is preposterous. A land war is infeasible with 150,000 troops tied down in Iraq, and conventional bunker busters cannot take out the distributed, well protected Iranian facilities with any degree of confidence.

Think about it. Also, think about the consequences down the line of the administration crossing the nuclear barrier unilaterally with bunker busters.

If you agree with it, post it elsewhere and tell your friends. I've been trying to disseminate this proposal far and wide and have been completely ignored. I've sent it to many of the prominent bloggers whose writing and insights I respect, with no response (a comment as to why the idea is stupid and/or preposterous, by the way, would still be much appreciated as opposed to a deafening silence). The authors (again, with 12 physics nobel prizes among them, hardly ignorant anonymous slouches) have been *unable* to penetrate traditional media with the proposal.

So, give it some thought.

I agree Iran is nowhere close to being nuclear weapons capable, certainly significant. In my mind, there is no urgency in stopping their program.

There is a narrowly defined case where I could rationalize the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. Perhaps there might be a mechanism of getting Congressional consent in executive session, or from a select group, or with a very specifically defined contingency authorization.

I have a reasonable technical background in WMD, strongest in biological weapons. Let me take a worst-case example: we learn that some group, with a genetic engineering capability, intends to, or actually has, managed to splice the coding for synthesizing Type A Clostridium botulinum exotoxin into ordinary intestinal Escherichia ("E.") coli. For the non-biologists, this is essentially a doomsday machine; I'd have to check how low into the evolutionary ladder intestinal E. coli is present, but, IIRC, certainly reptiles, and, by reputation, lawyers. This toxin, Botox in infinitesimal amounts, is the most poisonous substance known. Even if one could immunize against it, it would be such an ecological disaster as to leave the immunized terrorists and vegetables.

Not quite as devastating would be modifying a current influenza strain to have the specific, published molecular virulence sequence that produced the 1918-1920 pandemic. While there actually is some debate as to what caused the "Black Death", the major candidates could be contained by modern sanitation. With fast enough quarantine, we might contain the influenza I've described; with enough ostelmavir or ritonavir, and no engineered resistance, we might prevent or treat much of the hot zone; with enough ICU beds or at least advanced respiratory support, we could save some of the more severe cases if the treatment came very fast. There aren't many ICU beds.

There are reports the Soviets were working on a near-doomsday-machine cross between Ebola and smallpox, and might actually have put it in ICBM warheads.

If a laboratory could be identified, which were producing biological agents of this danger, nuclear strikes might be the only sure way to sterilize them. I'm not talking here about WMD that could destroy Israel, but a very large part, or even all, of humanity.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

When Bush, Gates and Rice say ‘we have no plans to attack Iran’, what they are really saying is that they do not intend to attack Iran without reason that would automatically allow Bush the excuse to ‘defend our soldiers’ in the current hostilities in Iraq, as well as US interests in the Persian Gulf region. Let there be no doubt that certain elements within the Israeli government will attack Iran, as they see their window of opportunity beginning to close, as Bush’s term closes and with the wind beginning to turn from his sails due to recent domestic events.

The majority of Americans who believe in a political solution – as opposed to a military intensification (that will have unpredictable fallout for decades, possibly causing the demise of the USA as a world leader) – must act. We must approach Congress to take the preemptive actions necessary at this critical juncture in our history:

1. Congress must approach the Israeli’s either openly or through back-channels, to formally put them on notice that we will NOT support them if they launch any attack on Iran unilaterally.
2. Congress must go on record publicly stating they will oppose any attack on Iran that is not the clear result of Iran attacking Israeli or US interests in a major way.
3. Congress must contact the Supreme Leader of Iran, stating these positions, but clearly indicating we will fully retaliate for any attack initiated by Iran anywhere in the world against US interests or Israel.

Now, let’s get on the keyboard and write our Congressional reps, newspapers, and other media and orgs. This is not the time to be non-committal.