The Salient

We Are Married to Oil and the Breakup Will Be Ugly.

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:35:00 +0000

The end of the Petroleum Age will lead to hardships, civil unrest at home and abroad and war.

Limiting consumption of petroleum is the only way forward.

More and more scientists and analysts are concluding that Peak Oil has occurred or will do so in the near future.

So what does this actually have to do with you? Won't this help climate change?

The average American consumes nearly 3 gallons of oil a day, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy. Petroleum is the foundation of modern civilization

Ninety percent of all transportation relies on oil. Everything it affects—all of the world economy—will be hit hard.

Led by two former CIA directors, a high-level “war game” called “Oil Shockwave” concluded the world economy would quickly spiral into recession.

The price of food will skyrocket. Modern agriculture relies on oil for everything from farming to fertilizer to pesticides to delivery.

Ten percent of all oil is used to make everything from aspirin to plastics to microchips to computers, all of which take many times their weight in oil to produce.

Worst of all, future oil shortages will lead to an age of resource conflicts and wars.

The immediate cause of riots in Burma recently, as well as civil unrest in Iran, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, and other states all directly trace back to oil supply.

“Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature,” said Dick Cheney in 1999. Energy is truly fundamental to the world's economy. The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality.”

As for climate change, as soon as oil becomes uneconomic, governments will predictably turn to coal.

The IPCC estimates enough coal left to produce a whopping 3500 bil tons of CO2, well past the 400 bil tons ‘allowable’ to prevent catastrophic climate change, according to Dr. Leggett.

This makes recent reports all the more salient.

The Energy Watch Group, based in Germany, just released a report that says global oil production peaked in 2006.

Energy analysts like former Bush administration official Matthew Simmons say we have already peaked globally in’05.

There are evens signs from within the industry itself.

“The era of easy oil is over,” exclaims Chevron in a telling new ad campaign.

Worldwide oil discovery peaked in 1965. The last year we discovered more oil than we consumed was 1981. In 1998, we used three times the oil discovered, according to IHS Energy Group.

The U.S. (Pennsylvania specifically) was once the largest oil producer in the world. Against the wishes of his industry, oil geologist M. King Hubbert calculated that oil supply was finite and soon production in the US would peak.

Within a year of Hubbert's prediction, production in the U.S. peaked in 1970 and has been steadily declining ever since.

Oil exploration experts like Dr. Colin Campbell and Dr. Jeremy Leggett say this is happening (or has already happened) now globally.

Even so, to focus solely on the numbers is missing the point entirely. Hubbert came out with his theory more than 30 years ago and people are still arguing over it.

“[The debate over when exactly ‘the peak’ will hit] is being used as a tool for inaction,” says UW Professor of Forest Resources Kristiina Vogt. The problem needs our attention now.

The solution? First, urgent and decisive attention is required from our leaders.

“We don’t have the luxury of continuing how we have been,” Professor Vogt warns, “or we’re going to have some major conflicts.”

There is no silver bullet solution, Vogt adds. Solutions have to be localized and consumption will have to be cut back by those who use excess amounts.

Petroleum substitutes like tar sands, shale, and heavy oil cannot replace crude oil. Alternative technologies like hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind, and others offer the potential to help but will not replace oil. In fact, they all need oil for development and implementation.

Environmentally sustainable solutions are urgently needed. For example, Vogt has calculated if we use forest waste biomass for biofuels, we could substitute for 48% of the gasoline used in Washington State.

The government, however, is still dragging its feet, offering gimmicky ‘band-aid’ solutions that appease and subsidize powerful lobbies at the expense of renewable technologies.

Most Americans have never even heard of Peak Oil – and this article barely scratches the surface—but soon they will have to act on it.

“It is only a matter of time before this scenario comes to pass, says Michael T Klare, Professor of Peace and Security at Hampshire College.

“If we act now to limit our consumption of oil and develop non-petroleum energy alternatives, we can face the "twilight" of the Petroleum Age with some degree of hope.”

Leg.

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:26:00 +0000

A Resolution in Support of the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007

Whereas the United States of America was founded on the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; and

Whereas[AG1] the Founding Fathers enshrined checks and balances in the Constitution to protect against government abuses and to derail ill-conceived domestic or foreign endeavors¹; and

Whereas[AG2] checks and balances have withered since 9/11 and an alarming concentration of power has been accumulated in the presidency based on a[AG3] desire to permanently alter the equilibrium of power between the three branches of government^1,2; and

Whereas[AG4] the post-9/11 challenges to checks and balances are unique in the Nation’s history because the “war on global terrorism” has no discernable end¹; and

Whereas the unprecedented constitutional powers claimed by the President since 9/11 cited national security issues but have been asserted for non-national security purposes^{1, 3, 4}; and

Whereas experts like Jack Cloonan, former FBI agent assigned to the Usama bin Laden unit in New York, state that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of “extraordinary rendition,” military commissions, or military law^1,5; and

Whereas United States citizen Jose Padilla was subject to 43 months of isolation and tortured to the point of brain damage before ever being charged with a crime, thereby being denied “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Article I, Section 9, Clause 2) and other constitutionally protected rights^6,7; and

Whereas torture of “enemy combatants,” a designation given by the order of the President without oversight, is sanctioned at United States prisons like Guantanamo Bay as well as United States prisons operated abroad^8,9; and

Whereas “secret evidence” is routinely administered in the military tribunals that take place at United States prisons like Guantanamo Bay¹⁰; and

Whereas the current administration has secretly conducted wiretaps of communication devices belonging to United States citizens without traditional warrants or court orders even well before 9/11^11,12; and

Whereas the current administration has sent numerous individuals, such as Bisher al-Rawi and Maher Arar to third-party countries with the full knowledge they would be tortured, and has claimed evidence against Maher Arar et al., to be guarded as a state secret and not to be released publicly;^{13, 14, 15, 16, 17}; and

Whereas the President has used more than 750 signing statements, declaring his intent to disregard provisions of a bill he has signed into law because he alone believes they are unconstitutional^{1, 18}; and

Whereas the Justice Department has faced pressure to charge the New York Times under the Espionage Act of 1917 in an attempt to prevent publication of information critical of the administration¹⁹; and

Whereas Dr. Ron Paul introduced H. R. 3835, A Bill to Restore the Constitution’s Checks and Balances and Protections Against Government Abuses as Envisioned by the Founding Fathers, in the 1^st Session of the 110^th Congress; therefore

Be it resolved by the ASUW

That the ASUW supports H. R. 3835, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007, which does the following¹:

1. Repeals the Military Commissions Act of 2006

2. Authorizes the establishment of military commissions for the trials of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy

3. Prohibits the detention of any individual as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States, and further provides that no United States citizen shall be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant

4. Provides any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States with the right of habeas corpus

5. Prohibits all civilian and military courts of the United States from admitting as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion

6. Prohibits all Federal agencies from gathering foreign intelligence in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

7. Initiates a challenge to the constitutionality of a presidential signing statement

8. Prohibits any officer or agent of the United States from kidnapping, imprisoning, or torturing any person abroad without judicial oversight, but allows kidnapping if it is undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process

9. Exempts journalists from the provisions of the Espionage Act of 1917 and lifts the prohibition on publishing information received from the executive branch or Congress, unless the publication would cause direct, immediate, and irreparable harm to the national security of the United States

10. Prevents the President or any other member of the executive branch from using secret evidence to designate an individual or organization with a United States presence as a foreign terrorist or foreign terrorist organization for purposes of the criminal law or otherwise imposing criminal or civil sanctions; and

That the ASUW urges all members of the Washington State Congressional Delegation to support and cosponsor H. R. 3825; and

That this resolution be forwarded to all members of the Washington State Congressional Delegation.

[AG1]Whereas unchecked power by any branch of government leads to oppressive transgressions on individual freedoms and ill-considered government policies¹; and

[AG2]Whereas checks and balances make the Nation safer by preventing abuses [AG2] that would be exploited by Al Qaeda to boost terrorist recruitment, would deter foreign governments from cooperating in defeating international terrorism, and would make the American people reluctant to support aggressive counter-terrorism measures¹; and

[AG3]hyper-inflated fears of international terrorism and

[AG4]Whereas Congressional oversight of the executive branch is necessary to prevent secret government, which undermines self-government and invites lawlessness and maladministration¹; and

Iraq occupation at home

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:08:00 +0000

Bizarro World

Early Wednesday, a massive truck bomb wounded 137 and killed 64 students near the Hub at the UW.[AG1]

“I just remember my buddy Matt screaming then waking up in the hospital with my f***ing leg missing!,” freshman Louie Aragon recalls.[AG2]

Most of the victims were students gathering in-between classes.

Egyptian troops from the 516^th Armored Calvary regiment rolled up shortly after, dispensing medical aid in a vain attempt to bring security to the area.

Despite the offers of help, the crowd turned angry and violent.

In the confusing melee that followed, a soldier shot two young men suspected of carrying detonating cell phones.

The 516^th is still noticeably grieving the loss of two of the unit’s soldiers, corporal Nermeen Dabashi and sergeant Gamal Abdel-Latif. They died on Monday by a roadside bomb on the nearby University Bridge.

Most of the wounded were rushed to the nearby UW Medical Center. Once a prestigious medical institution, the UWMC lay in shambles after heavy Egyptian bombing. It runs with under 4 hours of power a day.

Only two doctors and three nurses were on staff for assisting the wounded in the putrid and bloody emergency room.

Since the Egyptian-led invasion of 2003, most of the professional class -- doctors, lawyers, judges – along with those wealthy enough, have fled to neighboring Mexico and Canada.

The remaining are not so fortunate.

A prestigious Jordanian medical journal has estimated that 11.5 million Americans have died as result of the Egyptian lead invasion. Over 20 million are now refugees.*

Long before the invasion, 12 years of Egyptian and Jordanian led UN sanctions have decimated US society and infrastructure, causing another 8-11 million American deaths. Half of the fatalities were children under the age of 5, according to World Health Organization and UNICEF studies.

“I think it [was] a very hard choice,” former Egyptian Foreign Minister Mu'azzaz Abdul-Shafi told an interviewer when asked about the use of sanctions. "But the price, we think the price is worth it.”

"You wonder why there are terrorists?” Canadian Health Minister Martin Hadley asks. “Where do you think the children that survive will be in a decade, the Peace Corps?”

Dismissing the Jordanian study’s numbers, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak also had to fend off statements from his former Financial Minister Abdul Gha'four who recently said in his memoirs, the war "was largely about oil."

Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Retired General Jamil Abdallah adds.

The Egyptian Energy Association estimates that the US sits atop 112 billion barrels of oil, the second-largest proven reserves in the world.

Those statements received little play in Egypt where media self-censorship and consolidation have taken their toll; elsewhere, the world seemed fully aware of this dirty little secret.

Since the fall of Washington four years ago promises of liberation and freedom have rang hollow. The Egyptian-catalyzed civil war rages on.

"There is no question that [Egypt] is living a nightmare with no end in sight," says former Egyptian commander of forces in America, Lieutenant General Ra'id Shehab.

“In my profession, these types of leaders (top Egyptian officials) would immediately be relieved or [court-marshaled],” Shehab adds.

Despite overwhelming majorities of Egyptians that agree, most citizens are largely unaffected by the war overseas.

While only 1% of the Egyptian population is are serving in the military, the rest have only been asked, "to go shopping," by Mubarak.

12 former Army Captains see only one option left for Egypt: a Draft. “Short of that, our best option is to leave America immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition,” they say.

Many Egyptians agree. But the leadership in the Parliamentary opposition seem to share the same goals with the widely unpopular ~~president~~ Mubarak.

“[America] is right in the heart of the oil region,” leading presidential front-runner Hanaa Amayreh recently remarked. "This is an American problem, we cannot save the Americans from themselves,” she adds, commenting on the daily bloodshed in the US.

Americans painfully conclude that as long as ~~oil~~ energy-hungry Egypt seeks hegemony of the North American region and its resources, there will be a lasting presence on their soil.

ENDNOTE: This is reality for millions of Iraqis and tens of thousands of US troops in harm's way every day. The names were fictional. The quotes are real. Can you guess who said them?

*This number is from the following statistics: 1,000,000+ (est. numbers are higher) Iraqi deaths = 1/26 of total population, 1/26 of 301,000,000, current US pop. = 11.5 million.

Rendition

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:14:00 +0000

Blackwater and Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:06:00 +0000

Blackwater and Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 18:06:00 +0000

Esquire:The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:03:00 +0000

Two former high-ranking policy experts from the Bush Administration say the U.S. has been gearing up for a war with Iran for years, despite claiming otherwise. It'll be Iraq all over again.

By John H. Richardson
Excerpts:

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.
"The U.S. has designated any number of states over the years as state sponsors of terrorism," says Leverett. "But here for the first time the U.S. is saying that part of a government is itself a terrorist organization."

This is what Leverett and Mann fear will happen: The diplomatic effort in the United Nations will fail when it becomes clear that Russia's and China's geopolitical ambitions will not accommodate the inconvenience of energy sanctions against Iran. Without any meaningful incentive from the U.S. to be friendly, Iran will keep meddling in Iraq and installing nuclear centrifuges. This will trigger a response from the hard-liners in the White House, who feel that it is their moral duty to deal with Iran before the Democrats take over American foreign policy. "If you get all those elements coming together, say in the first half of '08," says Leverett, "what is this president going to do? I think there is a serious risk he would decide to order an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider target zone."

This would result in a dramatic increase in attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah, and an unknown reaction from the wobbly states of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions admire Iran's resistance to the Great Satan. "As disastrous as Iraq has been," says Mann, "an attack on Iran could engulf America in a war with the entire Muslim world."
In the spring, Crown Prince Abdullah flew to Texas to meet Bush at his ranch. The way Leverett remembers the story, Abdullah sat down and told Bush he was going to ask a direct question and wanted a direct answer. Are you going to do anything about the Palestinian issue? If you tell me no, if it's too difficult, if you're not going to give it that kind of priority, just tell me. I will understand and I will never say anything critical of you or your leadership in public, but I'm going to need to make my own judgments and my own decisions about Saudi interests.

Bush tried to stall, saying he understood his concerns and would see what he could do.

Abdullah stood up. "That's it. This meeting is over."

No Arab leader had ever spoken to Bush like that before, Leverett says. But Saudi Arabia was a key ally in the war on terror, vital to the continued U.S. oil supply, so Bush and Rice and Powell excused themselves into another room for a quick huddle.
Bush rolled his eyes. "We sure don't want to go through anything like that again."

Then the king of Jordan came to Washington to see Bush. There had to be a road map for peace in Palestine, the king said. Despite the previous experience with Abdullah in Crawford, Bush seemed taken by surprise, Leverett remembers, but he listened and said that the idea of a road map seemed pretty reasonable.
Then came the moment that would lead to an extraordinary battle with the Bush administration. It was an average morning in April, about four weeks into the war. Mann picked up her daily folder and sat down at her desk, glancing at a fax cover page. The fax was from the Swiss ambassador to Iran, which wasn't unusual -- since the U.S. had no formal relationship with Iran, the Swiss ambassador represented American interests there and often faxed over updates on what he was doing. This time he'd met with Sa-deq Kharrazi, a well-connected Iranian who was the nephew of the foreign minister and son-in-law to the supreme leader. Amazingly, Kharrazi had presented the ambassador with a detailed proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran.

A two-page summary was attached. Scanning it, Mann was startled by one dramatic concession after another -- "decisive action" against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel.

This was huge. Mann sat down and drafted a quick memo to her boss, Richard Haass. It was important to send a swift and positive response.

Then she heard that the White House had already made up its mind -- it was going to ignore the offer. Its only response was to lodge a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador's meddling.

A few days after that, a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia killed thirty-four people, including eight Americans, and an intelligence report said the bombers had been in phone contact with Al Qaeda members in Iran. Although it was unknown whether Tehran had anything to do with the bombing or if the terrorists were hiding out in the lawless areas near the border, Rumsfeld set the tone for the administration's response at his next press conference. "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior Al Qaeda leaders in Iran, and they are busy."

Colin Powell saw Mann's memo. A couple weeks later he approached her at a State Department reception and said, "It was a very good memo. I couldn't sell it at the White House."

In response to questions from Esquire, Colin Powell called Leverett "very able" and confirms much of what he says. Leverett's account of the clash between Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah was accurate, he said. "It was a very serious moment and no one wanted to see if the Saudis were bluffing." The same goes for the story about his speech in Israel in 2002. "I had major problems with the White House on what I wanted to say."

MUST WATCH

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:52:00 +0000

Rudy '08

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:48:00 +0000

Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:48:00 +0000

Iran drumbeat

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:40:00 +0000

It Can Happen Here

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 21:45:00 +0000

In a grotesque display of irony, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino recently condemned actions by the Junta against citizens in Myanmar.

The administration is "distressed…about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where they could be held for years without representation or charges.”[AG1]

Yes, quite "distressing" indeed.

Surely, that type of thing could never happened here, right? Wrong. It already has, to a US citizen no less.

With the passage of the Military Commissions Act in October of 2006, this administration claimed it could deny the right to trial to whomever the president declares ‘an enemy combatant.’

That means President Bush, or Clinton, or Giuliani can decide the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to you whenever he or she says so.

In existence from the days of the Magna Carta 800 years ago, the writ of habeas corpus was guaranteed even under the King of England.

Then came the case of José Padilla, an US citizen branded by the administration as the ‘dirty bomber.’

Apprehended in 2002 with no charges filed against him, Padilla was dragged away to a Navy brig where he would be stripped of all human dignity and methodically tortured to the point of "irreversible psychological damage."

For three and a half years, Padilla’s completely isolated detention consisted of a 7 x 9 foot windowless cell, bright lights on for days, no mattress on his steel bed, no pillows, sheets, clocks, calendars, radio, television, telephone calls, and no visitors -- including a lawyer -- or human contact other than his interrogators for almost 2 years, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

He was regularly assaulted, hooded while held in extreme stress positions, threatened with imminent executions, subjected to extreme temperatures, and even given LSD and PCP during some of his interrogations.

Experts agree the prolonged periods of isolation and sensory deprivation will drive a prisoner insane.

"What the government [was] attempting to do,” says Dr. Stuart Grassian, nationally recognized expert on solitary confinement, “[was] create an atmosphere of dependency and terror."

Ironically, techniques like these are banned under the US Army Field Manual primarily because their efficacy is questionable, to say nothing of their morality.

These methods are adapted from the same ones the Soviets used on political dissidents and the North Koreans on US POWs, methods that the US once condemned, according to the Monitor.

Some officials say however, these methods are vital and do not go far enough.

“Anything that threatens the perceived dependency and trust between the subject and interrogator directly threatens the value of interrogation as an intelligence-gathering tool,” said Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Jacoby goes on to claim that the introduction of legal counsel "may substantially harm our national security interests.” [AG2]

Legal counsel a threat to national security[AG3] ? “Anything that threatens” the trust and dependency? Like the Bill of Rights and Due Process?

Those chilling remarks are literally straight from George Orwell's 1984. In fact José Padilla is eerily similar to Winston Smith in that in the end they both deeply sympathize with and are terrified of the government that destroyed them.

While it may be true that Padilla was no Boy Scout, even psychopath's like Ted Bundy and Green River killer weren't treated so inhumanely.

The moment that the he declared Padilla an ‘enemy combatant,’ Bush had essentially repealed the foundation of constitution and the Bill of Rights as he saw fit, assuming powers that surpassed the King of England.

“[The administration argued that] the President always knows best...,” says Yale law professor Jack Balkan, continuing that these powers are that "of a dictator in an authoritarian regime. They are the powers of the old Soviet Union.”

Padilla was finally convicted in what can only be described as a show trial based on dubious evidence and vague charges of conspiracy. They had nothing to do with the original sensational accusations.

It is shocking that there is little outcry from our leaders that a US citizen was held for 3 1/2 years without Due Process, denied habeas corpus and his constitutional rights, and tortured to the point of brain damage, all before being charged with the crime.

The Padilla conviction was a pyrrhic victory for this administration but ultimately is a shameful and ominous day for our constitution, our republic, and the sacred principles of our nation.

It must never happen again.

Photos of war

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:23:00 +0000

Watch this short photo slideshow on the Israeli attack into Lebanon.

Developments on Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:27:00 +0000

Top Advisers to Bush convinced that he will attack Iran

I believe President Bush is going to order airstrikes [on Iran] before he leaves office. Because he has several times said — at least twice to my knowledge — that if we allow Iranians to acquire nuclear capabilities, 50 years from now, people will look back at us the way we look back at Munich and say ‘how could they have let this happen?’

Richard Perle: “Would this president do it? I think that until the day he leaves office, this is a president that, if he is told, ‘Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,’ I have very little doubt that this president would order the necessary military action.” [Link]

A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.” [Link]

Bill Kristol: “We could be in a military confrontation with Iran much sooner than people expect.” [Link]

Israeli Uri Avnery warns,

Whoever pushes for war against Iran will come to regret it.
Some adventures are easy to get into but hard to get out of.

The last one to find this out was Saddam Hussein. He thought that it would be a cakewalk – after all, Khomeini had killed off most of the officers, and especially the pilots, of the shah's military. He believed that one quick Iraqi blow would be enough to bring about the collapse of Iran. He had eight long years of war to regret it.

Both Americans and Israelis may soon be feeling that the Iraqi mud is like whipped cream compared to the Iranian quagmire.

Raw Storyt reports the Air Force creates an Iranian strike wing.

Kevin Drum opines about to supposed military opposition,

A couple of things. First, my semi-understanding of the state of play here is that opposition to bombing Iran comes at the Joint Chiefs and theater command levels, not at the individual service level. Second, a lot of this surely depends on what kind of bombing mission we're talking about. A massive two-week effort deep into the heart of Iran to destroy their nuclear infrastructure is one thing, and that seems to be the mission the Chiefs have a problem with. (Assuming scuttlebutt is right and they have a problem in the first place.) But if Sy Hersh is right and Dick Cheney's latest gambit is to turn Iran into a 21st century Cambodia complete with "limited" bombing raids along the border, that's another thing entirely. I'd be surprised if anyone in the E Ring had a serious problem with that.

The Nation also reports on the matter,

And there are reports from the UK that the US is training Gulf states for war with Iran,

The American air force is working with military leaders from the Gulf to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Chris Weigant speculates on what happens after the bombs drop,

The very first thing the Iranians would do is bomb the MEK camps in Iraq. This would be on a "tit-for-tat" level and they could make a good case before the world for doing so. The MEK ("Mujahedeen-e-Khalq") is an Iranian dissident group who have been trying to overthrow the government of Iran for quite some time now. They used to operate out of Saddam's Iraq, in cross-border raids into Iran. When we invaded, we kind of institutionalized a stalemate with them -- we accepted their surrender, told them we would protect the safety of their camps, but we allowed them to stay. The only problem is, they're a terrorist group. Which we're protecting with the American military.
If America kept attacking Iran, the options get much grimmer much quicker. Iranian missiles may start targeting the Green Zone in Baghdad with a passion. They may start targeting those sprawling US bases out in the desert in Iraq. Remember the Kuwaiti war with Saddam? America kept saying "oh, we've taken care of all of Saddam's missiles" while the SCUDs kept raining down, proving us wrong. Imagine that scenario coming from Iran.

Iran may also unleash the terrorists it sponsors. Hezbollah, in particular, may begin spectacular terrorist attacks within Europe. They could even conceivably (unlike Bush's bugaboo "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia") successfully attack the United States mainland. So not only are missiles raining down on the Green Zone, but shopping malls and train stations and power plants are getting blown up all over Europe and the United States, or (failing to reach America) U.S. Embassies worldwide.

But these nightmare scenarios aren't the worst weapon. Iran's real leverage comes from sitting on top of the Straits of Hormuz (some use the singular Strait of Hormuz). Check out a map of it on Wikipedia, and notice that Iran surrounds this tight bottleneck on three sides. Twenty percent of the world's oil moves through these straits every day, on supertankers. Imagine Iranian mines, torpedoes and missiles taking out oil tankers here. They'd really just have to successfully take out one, or maybe two to prove they could do it whenever they felt like.

What would happen after the first of these successful attacks would be oil trading at astronomical highs: $150 to $200 a barrel. Or roughly two to three times what is has been trading at during the Iraq war. Six to nine dollars a gallon at your local pump.

If this went on for a short period of time, it could cause a devastating recession on the American economy. If it went on for a long period of time, it could cause a worldwide economic depression.

If the American economy crumbles, it's going to be harder and harder to find the money to continue three wars at once. Remember, we essentially outspent the Soviet Union in the arms race. It'd be awfully ironic if it happened to us, since it would be almost impossible to pour the amount of money we have been into the Middle East if our economy was on its knees.

This would quickly lead to World War III speculates former CIA officer Philip Giraldi,

It might start with a minor incident, possibly involving an American Marine patrol operating out of the new base at Badrah near the Iranian border. The Marines are surrounded by superior Iranian forces claiming that the Americans have strayed inside Iranian territory. The Marines refuse to surrender their weapons and instead open fire. The Iranians respond. Helicopter gunships are called in to support the Marines, and artillery fire is directed against Iranian military targets close to the border. President Bush calls the incident an act of war and, in an emotional speech to the nation, orders U.S. forces to attack. A hastily called meeting of the UN Security Council results in a 17-1 vote urging the United States to exercise restraint, with only Washington voting "no." In the UN General Assembly, only the U.S., Israel, Micronesia, and Costa Rica support the military action. The U.S. is effectively alone.

In the first few days, overwhelming American air and naval superiority destroy Iran's principal air, naval, and army bases. Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities are particularly targeted and are obliterated, as are the known Iranian nuclear research and development sites. Population centers are avoided, though smart weapons destroy communications centers and command and control facilities. There are nevertheless large numbers of civilian casualties and widespread radioactive contamination as many of the targeted sites are in or near cities. Infrastructure is also hit, particularly bridges, roads, and power generation stations close to known nuclear research centers and military sites. The U.S. media, which had supported the administration's plans to engage Iran, rallies around the flag, praising the surgical attacks designed to cripple Tehran's nuclear weapons program. Congress supports the bombing, with leaders from both parties praising the president and commenting that Iran had it coming.

The Pentagon and White House call the attacks a complete success, but Iran strikes back. With five years to prepare, Iran has successfully hidden and hardened many of its military and nuclear facilities, a large percentage of which are undamaged. The aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower operating in the Persian Gulf is hit by a Chinese Silkworm cruise missile and grounds itself in shallow water to avoid sinking. Three other support vessels are also hit and severely damaged when they are attacked by small craft manned by suicide bombers. Pro-Iranian riots break out in Beirut, where the government is forced to call in soldiers to shoot at the crowds. In the south of Lebanon, Hezbollah fires salvoes of rockets into Israel. Israel responds by bombing Lebanon and Syria, which it blames for the attacks. Iranian Shahab-3 missiles also strike Israel, killing a number of civilians. The Israeli Defense Forces are mobilized, and troops are sent to the northern border. Syria and Lebanon also mobilize their forces. Rioters in Baghdad attack US. .troops and the American embassy and are driven back only after the soldiers open fire and call in helicopter gunships. Snipers attack American soldiers all over Iraq. Shi'ites sympathetic to Iran sabotage Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields. The Saudi fields suffer some damage, and hundreds of alleged saboteurs are shot dead by Saudi security forces. An oil tanker out of Kuwait is hit by a Silkworm close to the Straits of Hormuz and runs aground. Another hits a mine planted by Iran. Insurers in London refuse to cover any tankers transiting the Persian Gulf. Oil shipments from the region, one quarter of the world supply, stop completely, and oil goes up to $200 a barrel. Wall Street suffers its biggest loss in 20 years, with the Dow Jones index plummeting by more than 800 points.
continue reading...

A piece on pre-empting the next war,

Convincing them to switch course and reassert their right to make such a fundamental decision as whether to go to war with Iran will require a major popular outcry: petitions--from groups like MoveOn, TrueMajority, Working Assets, and Democracy for America--that aren't just mailed in, but publicly delivered by the basket. It means marches, rallies and endless phone calls and visits to Congressional offices. It probably means people sitting in some of these same offices (and I bet similar efforts around Iraq convinced my own Senator, Washington State's Maria Cantwell, to vote the right way in this case). We can say these kinds of efforts have so far failed to halt the Iraq war, but they've certainly fed the Congressional resistance, and it's always easier to stop wars before they start. We're also demanding a far more modest initial goal of Congress and the Senate simply reaffirming their constitutional right to make fundamental war-and-peace decisions in the first place. So it should be an easier sell.

UPDATE
senators Clinton and Webb introduce legislation prohibiting funding for war with Iran

BarbinMD writes,

And would the President consult Congress before attacking Iran?

Q Did he consult -- would he tell Congress before attacking Iran -- before he attacks Iran?

MS. PERINO: Helen, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran.

Q I'm asking you does he feel committed to ask Congress for permission?

MS. PERINO: We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in Iran.

Draw your own conclusions.

Seymour Hersh on Countdown (video).

Shifting Targets

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:46:00 +0000

Seymor Hersh of the New Yorker reports,

During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

They’re moving everybody to the Iran desk,” one recently retired C.I.A. official said. “They’re dragging in a lot of analysts and ramping up everything. It’s just like the fall of 2002”—the months before the invasion of Iraq, when the Iraqi Operations Group became the most important in the agency. He added, “The guys now running the Iranian program have limited direct experience with Iran. In the event of an attack, how will the Iranians react? They will react, and the Administration has not thought it all the way through.”

The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

“Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out—for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need—even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said.

A Pentagon consultant on counterterrorism told me that, if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called “short, sharp incursions” by American Special Forces units into suspected Iranian training sites. He said, “Cheney is devoted to this, no question.

The adviser said that he had heard from a source in Iran that the Revolutionary Guards have been telling religious leaders that they can stand up to an American attack. “The Guards are claiming that they can infiltrate American security,” the adviser said. “They are bragging that they have spray-painted an American warship—to signal the Americans that they can get close to them.” (I was told by the former senior intelligence official that there was an unexplained incident, this spring, in which an American warship was spray-painted with a bull’s-eye while docked in Qatar, which may have been the source of the boasts.)

“Do you think those crazies in Tehran are going to say, ‘Uncle Sam is here! We’d better stand down’? ” the former senior intelligence official said. “The reality is an attack will make things ten times warmer."

“Anyone Can Go to Baghdad, Real Men Go to Tehran”

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:31:00 +0000

The wonderful folks who brought us the debacle in Iraq aren't done yet.

No, they have plans for President Bush to leave office with a bang.

In a recent encounter with Senator Patty Murray on campus, I told her that many of us were growing concerned about what seems to be preparations for a US attack on Iran.

Then I urged the Senator to put out the statement like the one that Senator Barak Obama recently made in Clinton, Ohio.

Observing a familiar pre-Iraq drumbeat to war, Senator Obama stated, “George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear… you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.”

Senator Murray assured me that the president would have to come back to Congress for another resolution for Iran, adding that the Congress has grown increasingly “cynical towards this administration” and their assertions of power.

In an action that took courage, we should remember that Senator Murray initially voted against the Iraq war resolution in 2002.

Pressing further, I said that according to Professor Barnett Rubin and other respected Middle East specialists, under the Cheney-Addington interpretation of the Constitution, the administration would not need to come back to Congress.

If the State Dept were to designate the Revolutionary Guard of Iran a “terrorist organization,” then a military attack would fall under the original Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, which gave the president authority to attack not only terrorist organizations themselves, but “those who harbor terrorists.”

Senator Murray quickly responded to me, “[we] won't let that happen.”

Unfortunately, her words didn't put me at ease.

Some of Senator Murray's colleagues have tried to put actions behind their words. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia tried to insert language in a recent war supplemental that would've prohibited funding for a strike on the Iran without congressional approval.

But due to intense pressure from AIPAC and other lobbying groups, the Democratic leadership removed the language, leaving the president a carte blanche.

Recent developments however, are more alarming.

Indeed, two senators itching for a war, Sen. Lieberman and Kyl have introduced an amendment on Friday that would “support the…use of all instruments of the United States national power” including “military instruments” against the Republic of Iran.[AG1]

In an article titled “US Officials Began Crafting Iran Bombing Plan,” Fox reporter James Rosen says, “‘everyone in town’ is now [talking] about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran,” sometime in the next eight to 10 months.

The Sunday Telegraph joins the drumbeat to war asserting that, once expressly opposed to the military option, Condoleezza Rice is now prepared to join Cheney and sanction military action.[AG2]

Concerned CIA officials Vincent Cannistraro, and Robert Baer assert, “The decision to attack was made some time ago,” and “there will be an attack on Iran,” respectively.

And adding to the fervor, former Ambassador John Bolton says the US will support an Israeli preemptive strike.

This is important because of the threat of an accidental war or worse, the reported "end run" strategy by the vice president's office.

The strategy consists of ‘nudging’ Israel to launch a small-scale attack on Iran's facilities with the assumption that Iran would retaliate against the massive US buildup in the gulf. The rest, as they say, would follow naturally.

That scenario is much more worrisome and probable.

So who is going to stop this war?

Democrats have already squandered numerous chances to prevent this president from starting a war unilaterally.

It's still possible for Congress to pass legislation to head off this catastrophe... but I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe the military will step in as Rep. Jim McDermott suggested to me recently. After all, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are unanimously opposed, as well as the head of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral William Fallon.

And in a stunning rebuke of one of the administration's main rationales for war, former CENTCOM head General John Abizaid said, “[there] are ways to live with a nuclear Iran.”

Nevertheless, George W. Bush is still Commander-In-Chief (of the Armed Forces) and unsympathetic, outspoken generals tend to be replaced under this administration.

As conservative commentator Pat Buchanan observed, “If Americans sickened by the carnage of Iraq wish to stop an even more disastrous war on Iran, they had best get cracking.”

Stark Must Read

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:34:00 +0000

Arthur Silber writes,

I. The Current Crisis in Historical Context

Because my title refers to "the final descent" of the United States, I must begin by emphasizing an issue I have discussed in many essays. The destruction of the basic political structure of this country has been a continuing project for well over a century. That destruction has been the purpose of both the Republican and Democratic parties, and it reveals itself in two major ways: through a foreign policy of aggressive, non-defensive interventionism overseas, and by means of an increasingly powerful and intrusive government domestically. It is crucial to see the interconnectedness of these two aspects of the authoritarian, corporatist war state. When states make war, they accrue ever greater powers. Those powers are initially justified by appeals to external threats, which threats are almost always exaggerated and often entirely fictitious. Once the state has acquired those powers, it is a simple matter to alter their focus, and to direct them against alleged internal threats. The purpose in both spheres is always the same: to reduce and eventually eliminate challenges to the exercise of state power, whether such challenges are presented by foreign nations or by domestic dissenters. The ultimate goal is absolute power wielded by an omnipotent state.

As I am discussing in "Dominion Over the World," the United States has been a war state since the Spanish-American War. Beginning with that episode in the non-defensive use of brute military power on the world stage, which was soon followed by the U.S. entrance into World War I (a conflict which had posed no serious direct threat to the U.S., but into which this country's leaders consciously and with careful deliberation chose to insert it), the United States has been perpetually preoccupied with war: preparing for war, fighting endless wars either openly or covertly, and then rebuilding after war. War is our major national product; war consumes an increasingly greater proportion of our national wealth and energies. By such means, the state renders its power unassailable. Perpetual war means the state can create endless opportunities to consolidate and expand its already vast powers.

The current administration is notable for its crudity, its boastful, unapologetic cruelty, and its outright stupidity -- but none of its crimes would have been possible without the policies pursued by Democrats and Republicans alike for many preceding decades. As I summarized this issue in "The Empire at Evening":
With the enactment of the Military Commissions Act, we feel only the vanishing warmth of the final traces of the sun's distant rays, and the shadows lengthen and grow darker. We will not see noon again, or even late afternoon, in our lifetimes.

And all this is not because of George W. Bush, although he has hastened events. How could it be remotely conceivable that such an utterly ridiculous figure would bring down the most powerful nation in the world, even with the aid of his corrupt cabal? He, and they, could not; he, too, is a symptom of the rot that has been eroding the country's foundations for at least a century. Do you think so little of the United States that you truly believe the country you imagine still exists could be destroyed by this?

But Bush is the perfect embodiment of what has brought us here: he captures the arrogance, the determined anti-intellectualism and embarrassing incoherence, the insatiable greed for power and the predilection for violence, and the absolute conviction that fortune and God smile upon him and us as upon no other peoples in the entire span of history, in a single, pathetic, laughable imitation of a genuine human being.

George W. Bush is our fate, and our reward. We have earned him.
I wrote that passage almost one year ago. It remains accurate in every respect. The continuing delusions with which many people seek to console themselves and allay their fears cause me to emphasize one sentence in particular, the meaning of which appears to have escaped many people: "Do you think so little of the United States that you truly believe the country you imagine still exists could be destroyed by this?" If the United States in fact had still existed as the viable political entity that many Americans fantasize about, Bush's crimes would never have been possible in the first instance. If the Democrats represented a genuine alternative in terms of fundamental political principles, they would have taken action to reverse those crimes since taking control of Congress. Most critically -- and particularly if the Democrats cared at all about forestalling an attack on Iran, and preventing widening war and the further entrenchment of the authoritarian state -- they would have begun impeachment proceedings.

But the Democrats have not done this, and they will not. As Chris Floyd wrote recently:
[T]he Bush Administration is now in a far stronger position than it was a year ago.

How can this be? The answer is simple: the United States is no longer a democratic country, or even a degraded semblance of one.
I occasionally see comments to the effect that I am something akin to a prophet of doom, and that I am always announcing that we are about to enter hell on earth. In fact, I have always been careful not to say this, precisely because I cannot know the exact schedule and form of our collapse, just as no one can know such details with any certainty. (I also note that Chris Floyd does not say this either, although he speaks for himself on this point, and many others, with great eloquence.) That the collapse of the United States is coming cannot be seriously disputed. Our economy is a house of cards, as it has been for some time. While it might implode overnight depending on events, it might also fray and shred slowly, over a period of decades. There is no way to know.

In the same way, the extent to which the now terrifying police powers of our government will be applied, and the targets against which they will be directed, cannot be known in advance with any specificity. That, too, will depend on countless factors -- whether the Middle East war widens (or more accurately, when it widens, since that will almost certainly happen under a future Democratic administration if Bush unaccountably fails to accomplish the terrible deed), whether there are further terrorist attacks in the U.S. itself and their severity, etc. Too many variables are in play, and they render particular scenarios exercises in fiction. But the general trend is clear; moreover, history tells us the trend is now irreversible, short of the kind of miracle that does not figure in my metaphysics. There will be further and much more destructive war, and the authoritarian state will make its powers known to the general populace in ways that will constantly increase. Only the timing and the details remain to be determined. Still, for the majority of Americans and as I recently observed, life may continue largely unaltered for some years to come.

Having offered these introductory observations, I note that certain kinds of incidents can reveal in stark and powerful ways the general state of a culture. The public reaction demonstrates what the majority of people are prepared to accept -- and what the government can get away with. Such incidents are barometers of future political developments: if we are attentive to their messages, they can tell us whether people will passively accept whatever actions the state may take, or if they will offer some resistance if the state acts in ways that are particularly cruel and oppressive. Public commentary and debate also reveal to what extent people are eager and willing to obey, and whether certain individuals will say, "No." As I have put it before, such reactions will tell us whether people are with the resistance -- or with the murderers.

Read the rest...

Read This Book

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:26:00 +0000

The End of America: A Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot

I normally don't recommend books to people but I can't stop talking about how great this book is. It is simple, poignant, timely, and essential reading for anyone who cares about the country they live in and where it is going.

Don't let the title scare you off, the "end" of America might not be what you have in mind. The end will simply be in America which no longer observes the rule of law, the Constitution. It will be a country that tortures people openly, sometimes with public sanction.

It will be a country that has secret prison systems set up, a country in which American citizens are held and tortured for years without the right to a fair trial.

It will be a country where habeas corpus -- the right to a trial in existence for 600 years since the Magna Carta-- will be discarded upon the sole discretion of the executive.

It will be a country where the media is afraid to speak against those in power.

It will be a country of rampant nationalism and neighbors spying on neighbors all while being spied on by the government. In essence, it will be a very different country then the one you might have grown up in.
Here are the 10 steps;

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (can be a real enemy!)
2. Create a secret prison system where torture takes place (Guantánamo, CIA black sites)
3. Develop a private army accountable only to the president (CIA, Blackwater)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system and monitor at ordinary citizens (NSA wiretapping)
5. Harass citizens' groups (antiwar groups targeted)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release (Military Commissions Act, suspend habeas corpus)
7. Target key individuals
8. Control the press (censor, then accuse Bill Keller, editor of New York Times of treason)
9. Dissent equals treason (Fox, right-wing noise machine)
10. Suspend the rule of law (more than 700 signing statements)

Then check out a MUST READ Naomi Wolf interview Read an excerpt before you buy the book:

Watch Naomi Wolf interviewed on Air America

Listen to a short interview with Sam Seder
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

Read also:
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps -- Naomi Wolf, Guardian

From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all

Naomi Wolf v Alan Wolfe in debate, round one

Is America on the road to fascism?

Editor's note: Two weeks ago, Naomi Wolf, author of the forthcoming The End of America, published an essay in the Guardian entitled "Fascist America, in ten easy steps", in which she argued that, "beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society". She went on to list the ten tactics, which included invoking a "terrifying internal and external enemy", establishing a surveillance system and suspending the rule of law. "As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol," Wolf concluded, "the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded."

The piece was one of the week's most widely read and hotly debated, so Comment is Free has invited Wolf back to do a dialogue with Boston College professor (and homophonous namesake) Alan Wolfe, author of the recent book, Does American Democracy Still Work? The dialogue is in two parts. You can read the second one here.

Check out this interview described above with Naomi Wolf, here are some excerpts;

You and I are in the same position -- and everyone on the Internet. We have to switch our model of leadership and return it to the Revolutionary American model of citizen leaders. The Congress is not going to save us. The mainstream media is not going to save us. The pundits are not going to save us. The U.N. is not going to save us. The European Union is not going to save us. There is not a force on earth that can save us, except for our own talking to each other, clearly and urgently, to explain and convey the nature of this threat, and then for us to take radical action NOW. So that's why I wrote it this way.
Our strategy has to be that thousands, and we hope soon millions, of other citizens who are persuaded by the argument will speak to each other and then mobilize in a hurry to confront these abuses. It depends on citizens acting as journalists, citizens acting as advocates, citizens acting as leaders and revolutionaries to mobilize one another. So that's A.

B is, you're absolutely right about the incremental nature of this kind of shift. That's why I spend so much time looking at the early years of earlier such shifts. Americans tend to think that the closing down of a modern parliamentary society happens in some giant, dramatic explosion. But it doesn't. In a democracy as sophisticated or resilient as ours had been, it's going to be closed down incrementally.

If you go back to Berlin in 1931, it wouldn't have looked so unrecognizable to us. There was a Parliament that was meeting there. There was a constitution. There were abortion rights organizations, human rights lawyers and activists. There were gay rights organizations. There was modern art. People were doing what we're doing. People were going to the movies. They kept living -- and that's why I draw on diaries and memoirs and personal accounts. People were doing what we're doing. They were shopping. They were leading their lives, even as the catastrophe was tightening and tightening around them.
...
The really important thing to understand, which is why I walk the reader so carefully through the way democracies really curve down, is democracies can reach a point of no return. And it's sudden when that happens. And it's disorienting. There's a point at which democracy can no longer heal democracy. People have got to understand that. People need to realize that the day we made it legal, essentially, for the state to torture people, that was one of those vertical lines on the chart. We're now in a place where it is legal, the White House has claimed, to knock on your door or my door, and say: You are an enemy combatant. Come with us. Then there is what Jose Padilla went through, in three years of solitary confinement -- making it difficult to see a lawyer, making it difficult to see his family.

You owe it to yourself to watch this all interview. (From a talk she gave at the University of Washington)

Daily Reads

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:04:00 +0000

Jordanian Prince El Hassan warns against military action in Iran.

Spineless Democrats call out their own to defend AIPAC.

Greenspan says prime reason for Iraq was oil

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 18:01:00 +0000

read the whole excellent article by Ray McGovern, here are some excerpts:

Greenspan writes:

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Then, there were Cheney’s revealing, damning remarks as Halliburton's CEO?

“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand,” Cheney said in autumn 1999. “So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. The Middle East with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Daily Reads

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:35:00 +0000

The Guardian warns that the proxy core between the US and Iran might turn "hot" soon.

The growing US focus on confronting Iran in a proxy war inside Iraq risks triggering a direct conflict in the next few months, regional analysts are warning.
"The proxy war that has been going on in Iraq may now cross the border. This is a very dangerous period," Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief who is now a security analyst, said: "The decision to attack was made some time ago. It will be in two stages. If a smoking gun is found in terms of Iranian interference in Iraq, the US will retaliate on a tactical level, and they will strike against military targets. The second part of this is: Bush has made the decision to launch a strategic attack against Iranian nuclear facilities, although not before next year. He has been lining up some Sunni countries for tacit support for his actions."

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman directs fellow soldiers to disobey orders to attack Iran with nuclear weapons.

Our oath of office is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Might I suggest that this includes a rogue president and vice-president? Certainly we are bound to carry out the legal orders of our superiors. But the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which binds all of us enshrines the Nuremberg Principles which this country established after World War II (which you are too young to remember). One of those Nuremberg Principles says that we in the military have not only the right, but also the DUTY to refuse an illegal order. It was on this basis that we executed Nazi officers who were “only carrying out their orders.”

The Constitution which we are sworn to uphold says that treaties entered into by the United States are the “highest law of the land,” equivalent to the Constitution itself. Accordingly, we in the military are sworn to uphold treaty law, including the United Nations charter and the Geneva Convention.

Based on the above, I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.

The head of the IAEA warns that the US rhetoric on the Iran sounds a lot like "prewar Iraq"

One million Iraqi dead-- Go Democracy! Hooray for Freedom!

We are no longer in nation of laws, of checks and balances, but of The Executive, The Imperial President, according to Yale law professor Jack Balkan.

We are moving, or more correctly, we have already moved, toward a system of one person rule on matters of war and peace. It is a very dangerous tendency in American constitutionalism. If you think that the Iraq episode has been a disaster, imagine an even more foolhardy and reckless President taking even greater and more dangerous risks. The Iraq war demonstrates that, in the context of modern politics and contemporary security threats, the framers' original system of checks and balances has utterly failed us.

If we put aside the din over the Petraeus testimony before Congress, it should be apparent by now (indeed it was apparent long ago) that the United States will not be ending its involvement in Iraq while George W. Bush is in office. Democrats are divided among themselves about how to proceed and they lack veto-proof majorities even if they were not divided. President Bush will pass the problem of Iraq on to his successor. He does this hoping that he will be vindicated, because, he hopes his successor (and the successor after that) will follow his policies which Bush is convinced will ultimately succeed, If the next President changes course, and withdraws, President Bush believes that he or she, and not Bush, will be blamed for the problems that result. That may seem like wishful thinking, but the American public has a short memory and there are any number of political entrepreneurs that hope to gain an advantage from blaming the next President for the consequences of the mistakes of the previous one.

Of Course, there is a remedy to this madness, but it will not happened as long as the left-wing up the War Party is in power.

Then, there are always chickenhawks who have no problem sending other people to die for their ambitions, what Hannah Arendt called a "desk murderer."

must-read of the day

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:54:00 +0000

Stan Goff over at Huffington post rights one of the best essays on the state of the world I've read in a while.

Here are some other things that are not being said:

The average consumption lifestyle of the United States, which keeps politicians in office, is based on extortion, violence, and plunder in places we don't see, and from activities the media seldom mention. To maintain that lifestyle, which is an imperial political payoff for a quiescent home base, requires ever expanding inputs of finite resources -- many from abroad -- and the continued ability to back up financial extortion with military force where necessary. The pivotal resource that makes it possible to make all the other consumer goods, be they cars, clothes, computers, or whatever, is fossil energy. The United States, with five percent of the world's population, used 26% of the word's energy supplies. Our domestic production has been falling since 1973, even as our aggregate demand has continued to rise steeply. The United States has allowed car companies and developers to establish an economic infrastructure that depends absolutely on private automobiles. This massive fleet of around 250 million automobiles runs on oil. This oil cannot be replaced by biofuels, contrary to the bullshit being propogated to support a fresh new vote-buying-and-corporate-welfare scheme for Cargill, Monsanto, and Archer-Daniels-Midland.

Follow the logic.

The US economy cannot continue to operate as it is without guaranteeing its access to fossil fuel that comes from abroad. The establishment wants this to be our dirty little secret, and that's why we twist ourselves in knots talking about it, including deluding ourselves that we can continue our energy profligacy and ignoring the wet work that gets done to maintain control over a region as strategically vital to this end as Southwest Asia. This, of course, means that when Republicrats use coded language about "vital American security interests in the Middle East," they are really talking about maintaining secondary political control over the human beings who live on top of those energy lakes. If you accept that maintaining the American way of life is the highest priority, then you have to accept that the US has to intervene with force when necessary to get the energy supplies, and even that this force be maintained through a constant threat, i.e., a permanent US military presence in the region and support of unsavory regimes to act as our surrogates.

If you believe that people in that part of the world should have the right to decide when, where, and how to use their own resources, then you have to accept that this might result in a dramatic and painful change in the "American way of life."

It's that simple, that stark.

be sure to read the whole thing...

My talk with Senator Patty Murray

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 04:36:00 +0000

Recently I was able to meet with Senator Patty Murray on-campus as she came by to do a press conference and incidentally happened to talk to a few of us there.

I introduced myself as a student senator and I said that many students were growing concerned about the increasing sabre rattling towards Iran and what seems to be preparations for an attack. I told her it that's why we in the ASUW Senate passed a resolution -- R-13-22 -- opposing such a war and I was able to hand it to her, which she seemed interested to take.

While I was trying to convey my feelings that Bush and Cheney could and would indeed attack Iran, I urged the Senator to make a public statement akin to the one that Senator Obama recently made in Clinton Ohio:

We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

This is the first speech I have heard any of the Democratic front runners unequivocally state that the president doesn't have the authorization for a strike on Iran. I would imagine does not sit well with AIPAC and the other Likud oriented lobbying groups, very powerful entities who "hope and pray" that George Bush attacks Iran, as one commentator put it.

Senator Murray quickly and confidently assured me that the president would have to come back to Congress for another resolution before an attack, adding that the Congress has grown increasingly “cynical towards this administration” and their assertions of power.

We should remember that Senator Murray initially voted against the war, an action that certainly took courage, given the atmosphere at the time.

I then pressed further and said that according to professor Barnett Rubin and other respected Middle East specialists, under the Cheney-Addington interpretation of the Constitution, the administration would not need to come back to Congress before an attack.

Such an attack, if the State Dept were to designate the Revolutionary Guard of Iran a "terrorist organization" formally, would fall under the original Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, which gave the president authority to attack to not only terrorist organizations themselves, but “those who harbor terrorists.”

Senator Murray responded to me, "we won't let that happen."

You will have to forgive me if her sentiment is not entirely convincing.

The Senator might very well be sincere in her opposition to an attack on Iran. But words alone without actions will not prevent said attack.

Some of Senator Murray's colleagues have indeed put forward such actions. Senator Jim Webb tried to insert language in a war supplemental that would've prohibited funding for an attack on Iran without congressional approval, with exceptions for emergencies.

But due to lobbying pressure from the aforementioned groups, the language was removed by leadership, leaving the president a carte blanche for an attack.

Compounding those facts, recent developments are even more worrying.

In a report titled "US Officials Began Crafting Iran Bombing Plan," James Rosen reports that, “… according to a well-placed Bush administration source, ‘everyone in town’ is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months…”

Unfortunately I was not able to finish my conversation with her. Senator Murray politely wrapped up our conversation and proceeded with the press conference. Afterwards, she took a few moments to shake all of our hands and thank us for coming and when it came to my turn, she said "thank you and I'll remember what you said."

Later I was able to give her aide Francis a copy of the Rosen article and urged her to take a look at it. As to what happens now, I guess we all just keep working at it. This brings to mind an appropriate quote by Danillo Dolci,

It’s senseless to speak of optimism or
pessimism. The only important thing is to know that if one
works well in a potato field, the potatoes will grow. If one
works well among men, they will grow—that’s reality. The rest is smoke. It’s important to know that words don’t move mountains. Work, exacting work, moves mountains.

Daily Reads

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:26:00 +0000

Fox noise reports US Officials Began Crafting Iran Bombing Plan.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections

The Jerusalem Post reports about a possible attack next summer.

US General thinks Iran bombing will be 'easy.'

Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2500 aimed points to take out their [Iranian] nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back," the general said describing the campaign, adding it would be "easy."

The McInerney statement was made following a Fox News report that U.S. "officials are making plans to attack Iran as early as next summer," since Washington believes diplomatic efforts have failed.

Senator Obama goes on the record to unequivocally oppose an attack on Iran,

We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

Fox noise the continuing the drum beating towards war.

Foreign Policy rights about the Epidemic of Denial.

Next thing you know, you'll start hearing folks at AEI saying that Iran was responsible for 9/11. Wait a minute, that's already happening, as Peter Beinart pointed out in Sunday's New York Times. "It's the 2007 equivalent of the claims made in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq," Beinart noted. "The years between 9/11 and the Iraq war gave rise to a cottage industry ... charging that Saddam Hussein was the hidden mastermind behind a decade of jihadist terror. While refuted by the 9/11 Commission and mainstream terror experts, these claims had a political effect."

Looks like it's time to stop the epidemic of denial that has the foreign-policy community convinced that an attack on Iran is out of the question. Before it's too late.

Crooks and Liars puts out and action alert on Iran (it's about time! let's hope it's the first of many!).

For some lighter reading, there is always the topic of loose nukes.

Admiral Fallon is THE MAN

noreply@blogger.com (Aditya) — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:21:00 +0000

My New Hero CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon lets his thoughts ("an ass-kissing little chickenshit") on Petraeus known.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.