Are Congress Democrats demanding a war with Iran?

On May 20th I reported that Ehud Olmert told Nacy Pelosi that the USA should impose a naval blockade on Iran. Back in Washington, the rabidly pro-Israeli Pelosi immediately got to work and less than a month later H.CON.RES 362 was introduced by a New York Democrat (what else?) and with no less than 146 co-sponsors. Predictably, AIPAC was a key supporter of the resolution. Take a look at the excellent analysis by Andrew W. Cheetam for GlobalResearch.ca for more details.

Guess what? A blockade is an act of war under international law and a country committing it is guilty of the ultimate crime, the crime of aggression (Gordon Prather wrote a good commentary on this issue).

Thus, congressional Democrats (and Republicans, of course) are already war criminal under international law. No big news really. I wrote a year ago that, in my opinion, with the exception of only eight of them, ALL congressmen were war criminals.

All this really begs the question of whether there is any illegal, immoral, self-defeating, evil, irresponsible and simply stupid act which the US Congressmen and Congresswomen would not be willing to commit on behalf of Israel?

It appears that the answer to this is a clear "no".

Imperial Congress blackmails Iraq to recognize Israel

The Jewish Daily Forward reports that Congress has passed a resolution demanding that Iraq recognize Israel or loose billions of dollars in US aid:

To the many challenges facing the fledgling Iraqi government, Congress may soon add this: Recognize the State of Israel and establish diplomatic ties with Jerusalem, or else risk losing some of the billions in aid that Baghdad receives from the United States.

A nonbinding resolution demanding Iraqi recognition of Israel was introduced June 5 in the House of Representatives and has already gained the support of more than 60 congressmen, including several leaders of the Foreign Relations Committee.

The resolution puts Congress far out in front of the Israeli government and the White House

No doubt, this will greatly increase the popularity of both the USA and Israel in Iraq...

A majority of Iraqi parliamentarians reject US SOFA and write to Congress

Press TV reports:

Iraqi MPs adamant against US pact: The Iraqi Parliament wants US forces out of Iraq.

The majority of Iraqi parliamentarians have written to the US Congress rejecting a long-term security deal, if US forces don't leave Iraq.

New York Times reported that Rep. William Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, released excerpts from a letter he was handed by Iraqi parliamentarians laying down conditions for the security pact that the Bush administration seeks with Iraq.

The proposed pact has become increasingly controversial in Iraq, where there have been protests against it. It has also drawn criticism from inside the US suggesting that President George W. Bush is trying to dictate war policy after he leaves office.

"The majority of Iraqi representatives strongly reject any military-security, economic, commercial, and agricultural, investment or political agreement with the United States that is not linked to clear mechanisms that obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq," the letter of Iraqi MPs said.

The signatures represented more than half the members of Iraq's parliament.

Two Sunni and Shia Iraqi lawmakers whose parties were listed as signatories testified to Delahunt's panel that US troops should leave Iraq, and that talks on the long-term security pact should be postponed until after they are gone.

"What are the threats that require US forces to be there?" asked Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a Shia MP.

"I would like to inform you, there are no threats on Iraq. We are capable of solving our own problems," he declared. He favored a quick pullout of US forces, which invaded the country in 2003 and currently number around 155,000.

Another Iraqi lawmaker, Khalaf Al-Ulayyan -a Sunni- , also said that bilateral talks on a long-term security deal should be shelved until American troops leave and until there is a new government in Washington.

"We prefer to delay until there is a new administration in the United States," he said.

Barack Obama, who secured the Democratic Party's nomination this week, is among senators sponsoring a bill requiring any long-term pact with Iraq be submitted to Congress for approval.

Tom Lantos: Old, Dead, Criminal

by Mizgin (author of the excellent Rasti blog)

"It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."
~ Mark Twain.

Yeah, okay . . . I wasn't going to say anything, but after hearing an overblown, completely undeserved eulogy for the dead Tom Lantos on the local public radio station, I'm not letting it pass.

You'll remember Tom Lantos from Sibel Edmonds' Rogues' Gallery. He spent most of his time in Congress, in the service of the Deep State, helping to hand Turkey the American weapons it needed to carry out a genocide of the Kurdish people. That's quite an accomplishment for the only Holocaust survivor in the US Congress.

And since he was a Holocaust survivor, he knew exactly what genocide was. He knew that what Turkey does to its own Kurdish population is genocide. He knew what the Ottomans did to their Armenian population was genocide. Yet, cynically, he introduced the Armenian Genocide resolution into Congress last year because he was still sore over Turkey's refusal to allow a US deployment from Turkey into Iraq in 2003, not because this self-styled Congressional human rights "expert" gave so much as a fig for a bunch of dead Armenians or the feelings of Armenian survivors. But, Lantos was always like that.

His only concern about "terrorism" in Turkey extended to attacks against synagogues and American allies, giving Lantos the chance to preach Global War on Terror, Inc., from his pulpit in the Congress.

Lantos never recognized the terrorism of the Turkish state against the Kurdish people which resulted in tens of thousands of dead in some twenty years, the forcible removal of Kurds from their lands and villages, the torture, rape, and extrajudicial murders that were so commonplace in the 1990s. Lantos never recognized Turkish terrorism that, in legal terminology, is properly called genocide.

The best obit comes from 2003, from the keyboard of Wayne Madsen, writing for Counterpunch:

He is a fake, a phony and a complete fraud. He constantly stresses his victimhood: first as a Holocaust survivor in Nazi-run Hungary and then as a refugee when the Communists took power. He fancies himself as the leading human rights specialist on Capitol Hill. In fact, this odious so-called Democrat is a master of deception and propaganda and a wallower in corrupt campaign money.

A variation of "corrupt campaign money" may be exactly why Sibel Edmonds included Lantos' photo in her gallery, only instead of campaign money, Lantos may well have been on the take for Turkish bribes, bribes that helped secure his loyalty to that great American and Israeli ally.

But Madsen's article mentions a minor item, something seemingly innocuous: "The relationship between Lantos and Hill and Knowlton, the agents of past brutal dictatorships in Indonesia and Turkey, makes Lantos's congressional monopoly on human rights advocacy an outrageous fraud."

Hill and Knowlton (H&K) was Turkey's PR firm of choice, at least in the 1990s. Lantos worked with H&K to sell the Gulf War. Interestingly enough, H&K also spins PR for the nuclear industry.

In addition to taking Turkish bribes, Lantos also may have been involved with the nuclear side of Turkish espionage, too, along with the State Department's former number 3, Marc Grossman.

All of it would be so ironic if it weren't so disgusting, and that's why we need public hearings on everything Sibel Edmonds knows.

Organized Money Vs. Organized People

By Cindy Sheehan

“At a time like this, scorching iron, not convincing argument, is needed.”
Frederick Douglass

“Cindy’s campaign will prove that organized people can beat organized money”
Reverend Lennox Yearwood; founder of the Hip Hop Caucus

We are a nation that was created by “the rich, white, male property owners” and specifically for “the rich, white, male property owners.” Women and blacks, (who were counted as 3/5ths a person for representation purposes), were excluded from this self-proclaimed elitist establishment.

All throughout our history, however, our experience is imbued with the examples of courageous people who refused to be excluded and sacrificed everything for the human right to be heard.

From anti-slavery activism to the anti-Vietnam War movement, we have been blessed with individuals and groups who were willing to put their bodies on the line to support their rhetoric and oftentimes were murdered by the established order, which only seemed to always inflame the movements, not suppress them. The government always resisted the good that these movements tried to do and ultimately did do with dedicated sacrifices.

The establishment has forever tried to protect its status quo and personal wealth to the detriment of “we the people” who are the ones who suffer and sacrifice so the pigs of war can oink their way to the bank. With a fascist corporate media that supports the fascist corporate government, the voices of “we the people” are being silenced at an astonishing and frightening clip. In one very glaring and horribly tragic example, many people voted for George Bush in 2000, because they thought he was a “regular guy” and someone whom they would like to have a beer with. What a very unfunny irony as we have been constantly learning. The Bush family have been pro-fascist and anti-democratic all the way back to Grand-pappy Prescott. The media portrayed George as an “everyman” who “cutely” mangled our language with a “gee-whiz” smile that quickly became an “f’ y’all” smirk. This man who was foisted on us by the Corporatocracy has turned out to be worst disaster of our collective history.

Now, the Corporatocracy has anointed the presumptive nominees for the 2008 Presidential race—and it all comes down to a matter of money. Who has how much? Hillary has an obscene and immoral amount of mammon in her campaign chest and a staff of 500 who are running a very careful and well-modulated (except for her cackle) race that is designed to support the “by and for” privileged entitlement syndrome while claiming to be “groundbreaking.”

One of the hurdles that people believe that I have to overcome to beat Nancy Pelosi in California’s race is the fact that she has a bottomless well of cash and I do not. I challenge these people to look beyond the “green-colored” glasses of greed and help me dream of an innovative campaign that is fought with the truth and waged with old-fashioned shoe leather and hard work.

I would love my fellow Americans to dream, with me, of a country where basic human rights are valued over even a Constitution that has a compromised beginning but has been thoroughly trampled and desecrated by BushCo with the consent and help of Congress, Inc, led by Speaker Pelosi.

I have received support and encouragement from every corner of this country and, indeed, from all over the world. Our human family is watching the race in California’s 8th District very carefully. With the “fix” already being in presidential politics, our hope for peace, democracy and accountability rests in this important race. But I do not consider that it is only I running against Nancy Pelosi, it is “we the people” running against the established, murderous status quo. It is true grass-roots democracy running against the corporate fascists. It is peace and justice loving people running against the Bushes and Pelosis of the world who work fist in glove to suppress and enslave us.

It is essential that “we the people” prove that “organized people” can be victorious over “organized money.” It may be our last chance to do so.

The world is watching and cheering us on.

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan who was KIA in Iraq on 04/04/04. She is a co-founder and President of Gold Star Families for Peace and the author of two books: "Not One More Mother’s Child" and "Dear President Bush". http://www.cindyforcongress.org/

War Supplemental Makes Room for Iran

By Maya Schenwar

The Bush administration's $196.4 billion war supplemental spending request, released Monday, has Democrats reeling. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd called the supplemental "short-sighted at best," while House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey remarked in a statement, "It's amazing to me that the president expects to be taken seriously." Yet beyond the request's mind-boggling size, its open-ended aims point to the potentially vast scope of the "war on terror" for years to come - including an undiminished presence in Iraq and the possibility of action against Iran.

In the newly revised supplemental, more money than ever has been appropriated for procurement - the production of new materials, which may take three years to actually reach the battlefield, according to Department of Defense estimates in 2006. Moreover, that battlefield may change. The 2008 supplemental's title, the Global War on Terror Request, is appropriately broad, as the majority of the request's appropriations do not refer exclusively to Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, according to a report this morning in Congressional Quarterly Today, the Bush administration's request for a "Massive Ordnance Penetrator for the B-2 aircraft in response to an Urgent Operational Need from theater commanders" could be geared toward bombing underground targets in Iran.

Policy experts say that, as it stands, the supplemental contains no provisions that would prevent its funds from being used to strike Iran.

"With money allocated generally for the global war on terror and the defense department, if the military is ordered to bomb Iran, the administration could use those funds to pay for it," said Anita Dancs, research director of the National Priorities Project, in an interview. If the supplemental passes in its current form, even funds originally allotted to Iraq- or Afghanistan-specific activities might be funneled elsewhere. Dancs noted the Department of Defense has been granted such leeway in the past; earlier in the Iraq War, monies originally designated for reconstruction were transferred to military operations.

The supplemental request comes at a time when the Bush administration and its allies have Iran on high alert. Two months ago, a McClatchy Newspapers report indicated Vice President Dick Cheney was urging airstrikes on Iran; and in late August, President George W. Bush said in an address, "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

The Bush administration continues to send a message of urgency on Iran. "With continued foreign assistance, Iran could develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States and all of Europe before 2015," Bush said in a speech at the National Defense University. "If it chooses to do so, and the international community does not take steps to prevent it, it is possible Iran could have this capability. And we need to take it seriously - now."

If taking it seriously means launching airstrikes, the current version of the 2008 supplemental would provide the means to fund them, according to Steven Kosiak, vice president of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "If the administration gets the money and decides in the next couple of months that they want to strike Iran, it could presumably use that money as well as base budget money to fund an attack," he said in an interview.

Though an occupation of Iran isn't likely - American troops are stretched thin as it is - major airstrikes would be monetarily feasible, drawing from both the base military budget and the supplemental, according to Kosiak. In this scenario, as in the case of the Iraq War, funds intended to be spent closer to the end of the fiscal year would be spent at the beginning. Then, yet another supplemental might eventually be necessary to maintain operations.

Airstrikes are not typically expensive in comparison to larger full-scale military operations: The war in Kosovo consisted largely of airstrikes and cost only about $3 billion, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

Under the supplemental's current form, the administration would have to stick to the amounts it has designated in the budget for operations and maintenance, procurement and personnel (though leeway to shift funds has been granted in the past). However, the funds could be used flexibly for operations outside Iraq, according to Jeff Leys, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence.

The supplemental's potential to go beyond Iraq and Afghanistan isn't limited to a possible strike on Iran. The 2008 request includes an unprecedented amount of "reconstitution" funding, money that theoretically goes toward replacing equipment. In reality, Kosiak says, it's often put toward military transformation and modernization - long-term goals that belie the supplemental's "emergency" status.

If reconstitution money is overflowing into projects to prepare the military for future actions, why is it packaged in a supplemental intended to supply "urgent military necessities," as President Bush stated upon the release of the request on Monday? It's easier to pass funding in a supplemental than a regular appropriations bill, according to Kosiak: because its passage is seen as an emergency, the supplemental is generally not subject to as much oversight.

Moreover, the request does not specify which of its projects will be implemented by mercenaries like Blackwater, Raytheon and DynCorp, or how much those corporations will be paid. "Beyond the fact that certain contractors make certain vehicles, there's no straightforward way to tell what funds go to contractors," Dancs said. And according to Kosiak, even with knowledge of which services companies like Blackwater provide, "there's no way to figure out how much is going to private contractors and how much to public employees."

In light of both the atrocities of the war and the loopholes hidden in the supplemental, many Congress members are wary of the prospect of voting on it. "I plan to proceed very carefully," Chairman Byrd said in a statement upon the release of the supplemental. "Every line-item will be scrutinized."

However, although Democrats in Congress almost universally oppose throwing more unconditional funding toward a failing war, they differ on how to place conditions on it.

In a statement three weeks ago, Chairman Obey said that he would not bring a supplemental to the floor for a vote if it perpetuated the status quo. It's unlikely the administration's request could be seen otherwise: The Army's justification for its original version of the 2008 supplemental states, "The FY 2008 estimate assumes a level of effort consistent with the tempo of FY 2007 operations." Though the justification for the amended supplemental has not yet been released, the major change between requests was the addition of $46 billion, and no significant language for redeployment was included.

A growing group of Congress members advocate including one overarching stipulation in any supplemental spending bill: All funds must be used to safely withdraw troops. This plan would mean voting yes on the supplemental, as long as it specifies that the troops come home, according to Nathan Britton, spokesman for Rep. Barbara Lee, a member of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the proposal's crafters. "The administration wants to make it seem like those who are opposed to the war want to withhold funding from troops," Britton said. "This is a way to say no, we are using the funding to change the mission."

Although now is much better than never, prescribing an all-out change of mission would have been easier a couple of months ago, if Congress would have inserted Bush's original supplemental request into the general defense appropriations bill, according to Leys. "If they had included the supplemental in the baseline milit budget, they could have attached provisions to the appropriations bill for withdrawal deadlines" and against attacks on Iran, Leys said. "That would've created a situation where Bush would have had to sign it into law with those provisions, or veto the entire military budget."

For Rep. Dennis Kucinich, placing conditions on the supplemental is secondary; he holds that there's no need for a supplemental budget at all. Kucinich introduced a bill earlier this year to use existing funds for a whole-scale withdrawal within three months. "The Democratic leadership must tell the President NO to any additional funding," Kucinich said in a statement. "No legislation is required. No vote is required. We have the money to bring the troops home."

Maya Schenwar is a reporter for Truthout.org

Follow the Leader: The Open Secret About the Israel Lobby

By Paul Findley

There is an open secret in Washington. I learned it well during my 22-year tenure as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. All members swear to serve the interests of the United States, but there is an unwritten and overwhelming exception: The interests of one small foreign country almost always trump U.S. interests. That nation of course is Israel.

Both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue give priority to Israel over America. Those on Capitol Hill are pre-primed to roar approval for Israeli actions whether right or wrong, instead of at least fussing first and then caving. The White House sometimes puts up a modest and ineffective show of resistance before it follows Israel's lead.

In 2002, President Bush publicly ordered Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to end a bloody, destructive rampage through the Palestinian West Bank. He wilted just as publicly when he received curt word from Sharon that Israeli troops would not withdraw and would continue their military operations. A few days later President Bush invited Sharon to the White House where he saluted him as a "man of peace."

I had similar experiences in the House of Representatives. On several occasions, colleagues told me privately that they admired what I was trying to do in Middle East policy reform but could not risk pro-Israel protest back home by supporting my positions.

The pro-Israel lobby is not one organization orchestrating U.S. Middle East policy from a backroom in Washington. Nor is it entirely Jewish. It consists of scores of groups -- large and small -- that work at various levels. The largest, most professional, and most effective is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Many pro-Israel lobby groups belong to the Christian Right.

The recently released book, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," co-authored by distinguished professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, offers hope for constructive change. It details the damage to U.S. national interests caused by the lobby for Israel. These brave professors render a great service to America, but their theme, expressed in a published study paper a year ago, is already under heavy, vitriolic attack.

They are unjustly accused of anti-Semitism, the ultimate instrument of intimidation employed by the lobby. A common problem: Under pressure, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs withdrew an invitation for the authors to speak about their book. Council president Marshall Bouton explained ruefully that the invitation posed "a political problem" and a need "to protect the institution" from those who would be angry if the authors appeared.

I know what it is like to be targeted in this way. In the last years of my long service in Congress, I spoke out, making many of the points now presented in the Mearsheimer-Walt book. In 1980, my opponent charged me with anti-Semitism, and money poured into his campaign fund from every state in the Union. I prevailed that year but two years later lost by a narrow margin. In 1984, Sen. Charles Percy, then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and an occasional critic of Israel, was defeated. Leaders of the Israel lobby claimed credit for defeating both Percy and me, claims that strengthened lobby influence in the years that followed.

The result is that Members of Congress today loudly reward Israel as it violates international law and peace agreements, lures America into costly wars, and subjects millions of Palestinians under its rule to apartheid-like conditions because they are not Jewish.

It is time to call politicians to account for their undying allegiance to a foreign state. Let the Mearsheimer-Walt book be a clarion that bestirs the American people to political action and finally brings fundamental change to both Capitol Hill and the White House.

Citizen participation in public policy development is a hallmark of our proud democracy. But the pro-Israel groups subvert democracy when they engage in smear campaigns that intimidate and silence critics. America badly needs a civilized discussion of the damaging role of Israel in U.S. policy formulation.

Paul Findley represented Illinois in the U.S. House of Representatives for 22 years. He is the author of They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront the Israel Lobby.

Five Years Later, We Can’t Forgive or Forget

by Stephen Zunes

This week marks the fifth anniversary of the congressional vote granting President George W. Bush unprecedented war-making authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. Had a majority of either the Republican-controlled House or the Democratic-controlled Senate voted against the resolution or had they passed an alternative resolution conditioning such authority on an authorization from the United Nations Security Council, all the tragic events that have unfolded as a consequence of the March 2003 invasion would have never occurred.

The responsibility for the deaths of nearly 4,000 American soldiers, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, the waste of over a half trillion dollars of our national treasury, and the rise of terrorism and Islamist extremism that has come as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq rests as much in the hands of the members in Congress who authorized the invasion as it does with the administration that requested the lawmakers' approval.

Those who express surprise at the refusal of today's Democratic majority in Congress to stop funding the war should remember this: the October 2002 resolution authorizing the invasion had the support of the majority of Democratic senators as well as the support of the Democratic Party leadership in both the House and the Senate.

Seven Senators

Seven of the 77 senators who voted to authorize the invasion – Fred Thompson (R-TN), John McCain (R-AZ), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Joseph Biden (D-DE), and John Edwards (D-NC) are now running for president. While the Republican candidates remain unapologetic, the Democratic candidates have sought to distance themselves from their vote, arguing that what is important in choosing a president is not how they voted in the past, but what she or he would do now.

Such efforts to avoid responsibility should be rejected out of hand. While I personally support a full withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as logistically feasible, there is considerable debate among knowledgeable, ethical, and intelligent people – including those who also opposed the invasion – as to what to do now. No reasonable person, however, could have supported the resolution authorizing the invasion five years ago.

On this and other web sites – as well as in many scores of policy reports, newspaper articles, academic journals and other sources – the tragic consequences of a U.S. invasion of Iraq and a refutation of falsehoods being put forward by the Bush administration to justify it were made available to every member of the House and Senate (see, for example, The Case Against a War with Iraq). The 2003 vote authorizing the invasion was not like the vote on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution on the use of force against North Vietnam, for which Congress had no time for hearings or debate and for which most of those supporting it (mistakenly) thought they were simply authorizing limited short-term retaliatory strikes in response to a specific series of alleged incidents. By contrast, in regard to the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Congress had many months to investigate and debate the administration's claims that Iraq was a threat as well as the likely implications of a U.S. invasion; members of Congress also fully recognized that the resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation of an indefinite period.

Violating International Legal Conventions

Those who voted in favor of the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq did so despite the fact that it violated international legal conventions to which the U.S. government is legally bound to uphold. The resolution constituted a clear violation of the United Nations Charter that, like other ratified international treaties, should be treated as supreme law according to Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. According to articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter, no member state has the right to enforce any resolution militarily unless the UN Security Council determines that there has been a material breach of its resolution, decides that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted, and then specifically authorizes the use of military force.

This is what the Security Council did in November 1990 with Resolution 678 in response to Iraq's ongoing violations of UN Security Council resolutions demanding its withdrawal from Kuwait, but the Security Council did not do so for any subsequent lesser Iraqi violations. The only other exception for the use of force authorized by the charter is in self-defense against armed attack, which even the Bush administration admitted had not taken place.

This effective renunciation of the UN Charter's prohibition against such wars of aggression constituted an effective repudiation of the post-WWII international legal order. Alternative resolutions, such as one authorizing force against Iraq if authorized by the UN Security Council, were voted down by a bipartisan majority.

Some of those who voted for the war resolution and their supporters have since tried to rewrite history by claiming the resolution had a stronger legal basis. For example, in a recent interview with The Progressive magazine, Elizabeth Edwards claimed that the resolution supported by her husband, then-Senator John Edwards, involved "forcing Bush to go to the U.N. first." In reality, not only was no such provision included in the resolution that passed, Edwards voted against the resolution amendment that would have required such a precondition, arguing that "our national security requires" that "we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action."

Concerned Scholars

Members of Congress were also alerted by large numbers of scholars of the Middle East, Middle Eastern political leaders, former State Department and intelligence officials and others who recognized that a U.S. invasion would likely result in a bloody insurgency, a rise in Islamist extremism and terrorism, increased sectarian and ethnic conflict, and related problems. Few people I know who are familiar with Iraq have been at all surprised that the U.S. invasion has become such a tragedy. Indeed, most of us were in communication with congressional offices and often with individual members of Congress themselves in the months leading up to the vote warning of the likely consequences of an invasion and occupation. Therefore, claims by Senator Clinton and other leading Democratic supporters of the war that they were unaware of the likely consequences of the invasion are completely false.

The resolution also contained accusations that were known or widely assumed to be false at that time, such as claims of Iraqi support for al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States. A definitive report by the Department of Defense noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based on the evidence available at that time.

The resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq was "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability." In reality, Iraq had long eliminated its nuclear program, a fact that was confirmed in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1998, four years prior to the resolution.

The resolution also falsely claimed that Iraq at that time continued "to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability." In reality, as the U.S. government now admits, Iraq had rid itself of its chemical and biological weapons nearly a decade earlier and no longer had any active chemical and biological weapons programs. This likelihood that Iraq no longer had operational chemical or biological weapons was brought to the attention of members of Congress by a number of top arms control specialists, as well as Scott Ritter, the American who headed UNSCOM's efforts to locate Iraq's possible hidden caches of chemical and biological weapons, hidden supplies or secret production facilities.

No Evidence

Virtually all of Iraq's known stockpiles of chemical and biological agents had been accounted for and the shelf life of the small amount of materiel that had not been accounted for – which, as it ends up, had also been destroyed – had long since expired and was therefore no longer of weapons grade. There was no evidence that Iraq had any delivery systems for such weapons, either. In addition, the strict embargo, in effect since 1990, against imports of any additional materials needed for the manufacture of WMDs, combined with Iraq's inability to manufacture such weapons or delivery systems themselves without detection, made any claims that Iraq constituted any "significant chemical and biological weapons capability" transparently false to anyone who cared to investigate the matter at that time. Indeed, even the classified full version of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, while grossly overestimating Iraq's military capability, was filled with extensive disagreements, doubts, and caveats regarding President Bush's assertions regarding Iraq's WMDs, WMD programs, and delivery systems.

The House and Senate members who now claim they were "misled" about Iraq's alleged military threat fail to explain why they found the administration's claims so much more convincing than the many other reports made available to them from more objective sources that presumably made a much stronger case that Iraq no longer had offensive WMD capability. Curiously, except for one excerpt from a 2002 National Security Estimate released in July 2003 – widely ridiculed at the time for its transparently manipulated content – not a single member of Congress has agreed to allow me any access to any documents they claim convinced them of the alleged Iraqi threat. In effect, they are using the infamous Nixon defense from the Watergate scandal that claims that, while they have evidence to vindicate themselves, making it public would somehow damage national security. In reality, if such reports actually exist, they are clearly inaccurate and outdated and would therefore be of no threat to national security if made public.

Democrats' Responsibility

The Democrats who voted to support the war and rationalized for it by making false claims about Iraq's WMD programs are responsible for allowing the Bush administration to get away with lying about Iraq's alleged threat. For example, Bush has noted how "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate – who had access to the same intelligence – voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." In a speech attacking antiwar activists, Bush noted how "Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.'"

Indeed, the fact that 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry voted in favor of the resolution likely cost the Democrats the White House and, should Senator Clinton – who claimed, in justification of her vote to authorize the invasion, that Iraq's possession of such weapons was "not in doubt" and was "undisputed" – get the nomination, it could also threaten the Democrats' hopes for victory in 2008. Similarly, should Senator Dodd, Senator Biden, or former Senator Edwards – who also made false claims about Iraqi WMDs – get the nomination, it could have a similarly deleterious impact to the Democrats' chances.

It's also important to recognize that not everyone in Congress voted to authorize the invasion. There were the 21 Senate Democrats – along with one Republican and one Independent – who voted against the war resolution. And 126 of 207 House Democrats – including presidential contender Dennis Kucinich – voted against the resolution as well. In total, then, a majority of Democrats in Congress defied their leadership by saying no to war. This means that the Democrats who did support the war, despite being over-represented in leadership positions and among presidential contenders, were part of a pro-war minority and did not represent the mainstream of their party.

The resolution also claimed that "the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States ... or provide them to international terrorists who would do so... combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself." In other words, those members of the House and Senate who supported this resolution believed, or claimed to believe, that an impoverished country, which had eliminated its stockpiles of banned weapons, destroyed its medium and long-range missiles, and eliminated its WMD programs more than a decade earlier, and had been suffering under the strictest international sanctions in world history for more than a dozen years, somehow threatened the national security of a superpower located more than 6,000 miles away. Furthermore, these members of Congress believed, or claimed to believe, that this supposed threat was so great that the United States had no choice but to launch an invasion of that country, overthrow its government, and place its people under military occupation in the name of "self-defense," regardless of whether Iraq allowed inspectors back into the county to engage in unfettered inspections to prove that the WMDs, WMD programs and weapons systems no longer existed.

International Opposition

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was opposed by virtually the entire international community, including Iraq's closest neighbors, who presumably had the most to be concerned about in terms of any possible Iraqi military threat. However, the members of Congress who voted to authorize the invasion were determined to make the case that the United States – with the strongest military the world has ever known and thousands of miles beyond the range of Iraq's alleged weapons and delivery systems – was so threatened by Iraq that the United States had to launch an invasion, overthrow its government and occupy that country for an indefinite period.

This shows a frighteningly low threshold for effectively declaring war, especially given that in most cases these members of Congress had been informed by knowledgeable sources of the widespread human and material costs which would result from a U.S. invasion. It also indicates that they would likely be just as willing to send American forces off to another disastrous war again, also under false pretenses. Indeed, those who voted for the war demonstrated their belief that:

• the United States need not abide by its international legal obligations, including those prohibiting wars of aggression;
• claims by right-wing U.S. government officials and unreliable foreign exiles regarding a foreign government's military capabilities are more trustworthy than independent arms control analysts and United Nations inspectors;
• concerns expressed by scholars and others knowledgeable of the likely reaction by the subjected population to a foreign conquest and the likely complications that would result should be ignored; and, faith should instead be placed on the occupation policies forcibly imposed on the population by a corrupt right-wing Republican administration.

As a result, support for the 2002 Iraq War resolution is not something that can simply be forgiven and forgotten.

Unmasking AIPAC

"It Doesn't Get Any Worse Than That, Ray"

By William Cook

Ray Suarez (PBS News Hour Reporter, October 2, 2007): "You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American-Israeli Political Action Committee?"

Mike Gravel (Democratic Presidential Candidate): "Wait a second. They'll (sic) be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer. ... This is what's at stake with this resolution. And it's the height of immorality, irresponsibility, and the United States Senate, with the Democrats in charge, voted for the passage of this resolution. It doesn't get any worse than that, Ray.".

In asking his question, Ray Suarez implies that our Senators capitulated to the desires of AIPAC, knowing their vote negated the expressed will of the American people. Gravel, once a Senator from Alaska during the Vietnam War period, answers unhesitatingly, "yes," the short answer is yes. The obvious follow-up question would appear to be: "Why do you think that our Senators would vote against the expressed wishes of their constituents in favor of a special interest lobby?" It was never asked. Fortunately, Sy Hersh, in an interview with Amy Goodman that same day, responded to a question posed by Goodman, a question drawn from a Gravel criticism of Hillary Clinton for having voted for this resolution. Goodman pointed to the 76 votes in favor, both Republican and Democrat, asking Hersh to respond to Gravel's critique: "This is fantasy land," Gravel commented, "We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You're not going to get another shot at this, because what's happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they're looking for an excuse to do it." Goodman's question is simple enough, why would 76 senators vote for such a resolution. Hersh's response: "Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it is as simple as that. ... That's American politics circa 2007."

Gravel understands the consequences of giving Cheney and Bush the freedom to attack Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization rather than as the legally constituted military of the state existing to protect the citizens of that state. They need no act of Congress to attack a terrorist organization and, citing the Encarta encyclopedia description of terrorism, "These violent acts are committed by non-governmental groups or individuals ­ that is by those who are neither part of or officially serving in the military forces ­ ...," they have defanged the definition of terrorism as it cannot be applied to a nation state. Cheney and Bush are now free to invade Iran to wipe out the terrorist organization harbored by that country. Why pretend that an established arm of the government of Iran is a terrorist organization when the opposite is so evident? Because Cheney and Bush and their Neo-con/AIPAC alliance have not been able to convince the American people of the threat to the US should Iran eventually acquire nuclear capability. The Kyl-Lieberman resolution gives this administration license to attack Iran using the original resolution passed by the Congress for the invasion of Afghanistan since Iran now harbors terrorists that threaten America.

How serious is this possibility we might ask. Newsweek carried an article in the October 1 issue about Israel's "secret" raid on Syria. In it, Sam Gardiner, a former Air Force Colonel, seen as an expert in simulation of military exercises, makes this observation: "Even if Israel goes it alone (attacks Iran's nuclear facilities), we will be blamed (the United States). Hence we would see retaliation against U.S. interests." In short, the United States is tied to Israel and its interests by an umbilical cord that determines how and when we go to war and with whom. Iran is Israel's primary nemesis as well as its primary target. The "mysterious raid deep in Syria" magnifies this point; only the media control created by "a nearly impenetrable wall of silence around the operation" has kept the American public from understanding the potential consequences of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution that passed October 2, only a month after Israel's "raid." Should Syria have responded to this unwarranted aggression by a missile or bomb attack on Israel, the U.S. Congress would have been forced to determine how to respond. With the Kyl-Lieberman resolution in place, only Bush has to respond by citing the Iranian terrorist organization's ties to Syria and especially to Hezbollah. A threat to Israel is a threat to the U.S.

It is this reality that makes the recent study by Mearsheimer and Walt so dangerous to the Israeli lobbies, especially AIPAC. Indeed, they define AIPAC by encompassing the multitude of Jewish lobbies under that umbrella while adding in non-Jewish Neo-cons, Christian evangelicals of the far right and other sympathizers.

Gravel's awareness of this threat as expressed to PBS represents the rare occurrence when the reality of our total support for Israel's interests is aired in public. An objective consideration of the "raid" of September 6, 2007 by the Israeli Air Force against Syria as it would have been reported in the American press had it been Syria attacking Israel would not have been headlined "The Whispers of War." Indeed that report did not focus on Israel's disregard for international law or its consequences, but rather on how Israel can deliver nuclear or standard bombs as far as Iran. It went further to turn this unprovoked operation to Israel's cause by noting how that state's very existence is threatened by one atomic bomb, thus presenting Israel as the potential victim not the perpetrator of an action contrary to the United Nations' charter. Had Syria attacked Israel, the explosiveness of such an unprovoked and uncalled for attack against an innocent country would have made front page headlines and the cover of all our news magazines. Yet Israel's unprovoked and uncalled for attack on Syria is presented in U.S. News as "Israel takes a swipe at Syria," hardly an item that would make the American people aware that they were at risk for their ally's illegal action against a neighbor. And as if that were not enough, the significance of one nation bombing another without provocation becomes only the 10% hike in Ehud Olmert's ratings as opposed to the death and destruction caused by this illegal action with an accompanying photo, not of the death and destruction, but of Olmert giving blood for his countrymen. No outcry follows this despicable behavior by the Teflon state ­ not from the United States, not from the United Nations, not from the EU, not from NATO. Only silence.

Consider for example the consequences of Israel using its United States' gifts of nuclear bunker buster bombs on Syria or Iran, both possible scenarios as this "raid" ( the name of an insect repellent) makes clear: "... huge amounts of radioactive material will be lofted into the air to contaminate the people of Iran and surrounding countries ... This fallout will induce cancers, leukemia, and genetic disease in these populations for years to come, both a medical catastrophe and a war crime of immense proportions,"(Dr. Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.) No outcry, only silence. Why?

What does AIPAC's control of our Congress mean for the American people? Arguably, that influence propelled the U.S. into war against Iraq with its inevitable consequences in death, destruction and debt leaving the nation bereft of a resolution; it has solidified perception around the world that Israel's defiance of the UN resolutions demanding that it obey international law regarding right of return for Palestinians and return of occupied territory is not just condoned by the U.S. but is the policy of the U.S., making the United States a co-partner in international crime; it has made Israel's illegal treatment of the Palestinians in its indiscriminate killing of children and women, in its use of extrajudicial assassination, in its imprisonment of a whole people resulting in extreme poverty, malnutrition, and disease, in its total control of the lives of these people who have no recourse to overcome the occupation since they have no means to do so, practices condoned by the United States, and turned the U.S. from a compassionate and morally responsible nation to one that is amoral and hypocritical; and, in absolute despair, it has placed America on the thresh hold of one more devastating war against a people that has done nothing against the United States, has not occupied another nations's territory, has not invaded another nation, and has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, all actions that are diametrically opposed to those of our client state, Israel. Such is the sell out by our representatives of their constituents as they grovel, unlike Mike Gravel, before the insidious lobby that controls our fate. No outcry, only silence. Why?

Ultimately the question comes back to why those 76 senators voted for a resolution that "wipes the desires of the American people off the map," to borrow an intentionally falsified and reiterated translation of the Iranian President's message to his people. But those 76 are not alone. Virtually everyone of our representatives are subservient to the same lobbies, passing on average 100 resolutions per year favorable to Israel and written by the lobbyists, obsequiously fawning before AIPAC's annual meeting where its very existence is touted as of "significant benefit for both the United States and Israel," and where no one dares to question or criticize the state of Israel lest they suffer the fate of those who have, and lose their seats in Congress. This one might argue is coercion. Can it be documented? One need only research the congressional and senate races that put Paul Findley, Cynthia McKenny, Charles Percy and the few other renegades that dared to be critical of Israel out of their positions. "The handful of members of Congress who have been critical of Israel over the last 40 years have been publicly chastised with a figurative dunce cap or, worse, lost their seats to AIPAC-backed opponents" (NewsMax.com, May 1, 2006. "Israel the Third Rail of American Foreign Policy," Arnaud de Borchgrava, Editor at large of the Washington Times).

Interestingly, the United States defines terrorism (18 USC 2331) as "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that ... appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnaping." Could one not make a case that our Congress in its total support for Israeli policies regardless of their negative impact on the country and its disregard for the expressed desires of its citizens as the Kyl-Lieberman resolution demonstrates is "influenced" by "intimidation and coercion" by these lobbies? Add to this reality the influence they wield in our media where they limit the perception of the public to the lies and mythologies they present that justifies the actions of the Israeli state, and the pervasiveness of the lobbies prevents the American people from controlling their own destinies. Does that not make them terrorists residing on K street in our nation's capitol?

Isn't it obvious today that the direction of America's policies regarding Iran, and our almost certain to be pre-emptive invasion of this nation on behalf of Israel, is directed by the same coterie of men who pushed us into the disastrous war against Iraq -- Podhoretz, Wurmser, Perle, Feith, Crystal, Kagan, Krouthammer, Abrams and others too numerous to mention, the hounds of war that find no guilt in sending the sons and daughters of others to fight the wars they wage so eloquently in their heads as they sit in front of their computers guiding to their deaths those they never met.

The Hounds of War are gathered round
To forge the battle plan,
They pat each other on the back,
And grasp their fellow's hand.

To battle stations they disperse
To carry on the fray,
These warriors of the word sublime
That makes us weep or pray.

They swing behind the keyboard now
That spits out their deceit;
Their goal, the end they desire,
That makes their life complete.

These victors suffer no regrets
As they pen brilliant epithets,
And so they ply their lonely craft,
And carve another's epitaph.

William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California and author of Tracking Depception: Bush's Mideast Policy. He can be reached at: cookb@ULV.EDU

The Saker interviews Joel S. Hirschhorn

After reading the very interesting article by Joel S. Hirschhorn "Time to Boycott Voting" I decided to contact him to ask him some further questions about his controversial point of view. He kindly agreed to answer my questions for which I am most grateful to him
-------

Q: Please introduce yourself, tell us about you, about what you do in life

A: Though I started my professional life in engineering and was a successful professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison,, I moved into public policy, spending 12 years at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment working mostly on environmental issues and after that about 5 years at the National Governors Association where I was Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources. I have testified at over 50 Senate and House hearings and a number of state government hearings. Writing was always my love and when I stopped working a regular job I focused on writing several books, including Sprawl Kills and Delusional Democracy. Now my time is devoted to writing articles that appear on over 100 websites, covering political and government issues. I also co-founded Friends of the Article V Convention at www.foavc.org and that is a very special interest for me. More recently I have become active in the 9/11 truth movement.

Q: Are you not implicitly responsible for whatever outcome an election has if you abstain? Does your *failure to oppose* not make you an accomplice of the policies which are enacted after your abstention?

A: My view is that our current political system is so completely rigged and corrupt that it really does not matter which Democrat or Republican wins a particular election. There comes a time when good citizens must face the ugly truth: that participating in a corrupt and criminal system that no longer obeys the rule of law nor honors our Constitution merely legitimizes this awful system. We have a delusional democracy that is nearly worthless; it serves the interests of a rich, powerful elitist class much more than it serves ordinary citizens. That our voter turnout is so low simply reflects the fact that most Americans see voting as next to useless. Those who think that they can vote our nation out of the current condition are delusional and/or brainwashed. I strongly agree with the Jeffersonian view that we need periodic rebellions to preserve a quality democracy. But now we must use a non-violent approach, which is extremely difficult because the mainstream media are part of the problem because of corporate ownership. Moreover, the power elites have engineered a culture and society that makes most citizens distracted, tired and sick consumers -- too busy and too exhausted to be truly engaged with their democracy. Intentional civil disobedience with a political reform goal is very different than merely being too distracted, busy or tired to vote.

Q: You mention Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. If they decided to join forces and run in the name of, say, a "Jeffersonian Party" whose platform would only be to 1) stop all wars of aggression 2) restore all civil rights mentioned in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - would you consider voting in for such a ticket?

A: Yes, I must admit I would; I have always been a very strong advocate for third parties. The problem is that the two major parties have succeeded in rigging our political system to make it nearly impossible for third party candidates to win federal elections. And the media don't help at all, because they want simple horse races to keep the public watching and listening, and to make tons of money from the two big parties.

Q: You say that Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich will not be nominated by their respective political parties. But does voting for them not send a strong message to the party leaders about what people want? Imagine Ron Paul coming in third or even second at the Republican Convention. Would that not be an earthquake for the GOP?

A: Again, these kind of populist, minor candidates keep people that are rightfully fed up with our political system engaged. Their supporters are no threat whatsoever to the big parties and their candidates. Most people are terribly ignorant about our political system and how the major parties operate. Their conventions are tightly controlled. I am sickened by the delusional state of the supporters of Paul most of all; they really do not seem to understand how rigged and corrupt the two-party system is. They are wasting their time, energy and money - BUT I fully understand and support their zeal. In the end, they will accomplish nothing, and then what?

Q: If not the big parties, how about voting for, say, Nader? If he got enough votes, would that not rock the boat enough to make the US politicians pay attention?

A: In every election where he was on my ballot I voted for him. Intellectually and in terms of policy he has been about the best presidential candidate we have had in many decades, but he is no politician, so he never stood a chance. And he was falsely and illogically blamed for Bush's victory.

Q: Say that people follow your advice and massively abstain. What do you imagine the reaction of the political elites would be to such an event? Do you really expect them self-dissolve themselves and leave the political scene with contrite hearts? Why could they not simple ignore it and vote some money to increase "civic education in schools"?

A: They would never easily give up their power, but neither could they ignore a very low voter turnout. They have managed to hoodwink the populace in so many ways. But if the turnout dropped to 25 percent or lower the situation would be profoundly different. Our political system, president and government would have absolutely no credibility on the world scene; it could not be ignored. In a marvelous and strange way I think reaching that extremely low voter turnout would trigger a massive, populist rebellion among Americans. The delusional democracy would no longer have any credibility and could not survive; key parts of society would become activist and engaged - civil disobedience CAN WORK! People should think in terms of a tipping point - when the vast majority of Americans clearly reject their political system, politicians and major parties.

Q: Assuming that a huge amount of people abstaining did rock the boat enough and the system would be in a crisis, how would then a reform come from people who are nowhere represented in the political system or, if you prefer, how could abstainers make sure that they voice is heard and, even more relevantly, that their voice would matter?

A: I envision many possible events, including popular support for constitutional amendments achieved through the nation's first Article V convention; the main goal would be major reforms that loosen the grip of the two major parties and open the system up to third party candidates. A number of electoral reforms would be used to greatly increase voter turnout; for example, making Election Day a national holiday and making voting mandatory, as it is in many democracies. One or both major parties would undergo massive self-reforms to regain public trust. We have to think in terms of a successful Second American Revolution, from which new honest, high quality leaders emerge.

Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government that presents many electoral and other reforms; he can be contacted through www.delusionaldemocracy.com . Formerly, he was a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association.

Senate passes mammoth "defense" (sic) bill

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The US Senate Monday passed a mammoth 648 billion dollar defense policy bill, shorn of attempts by disappointed anti-war Democrats to dictate President George W. Bush's Iraq strategy.

The bill included around 128 billion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate.

The legislation passed by 92 votes to three after Democrats lost several attempts to dictate US troop levels in Iraq.

While the Department of Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2008 sets the size of programs, funds can only be disbursed after the passage of a Senate defense spending bill due to be taken up by the chamber this week.

The most significant Iraq related portion of the bill was an amendment backed by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden which passed last week, calling for a federalization of Iraq, with large amounts of power ceded to the provinces.

The amendment was however non-binding and will not force Bush to change strategy in the unpopular war.

Democrats failed by only four votes to include an amendment which would require troops who served in Iraq or Afghanistan to be granted as much time at home as they spent on combat deployments.

The bill would have effectively limited the number of troops available for deployment, and cut the size of the 160,000 strong US force in Iraq more quickly than the gradual reductions which Bush has promised.

The House of Representatives has already passed its version of the Defense authorization.
-------

Note: this bill funding the Imperial wars of aggression was passed quasi-unanimously even though a majority of Americans oppose funding these wars. This is yet another illustration of the undeniable reality that Americans do not live in a democracy but are ruled by a Soviet-style Nomenklatura which does not care in the least what the people of the US want. While Bush's approval rating stands at 33% the Congress' is at an amazing 29%, even lower than Dubya's. So we can say that roughly one third of Americans really support the Empire while a full 70% do not. These 70% have no political party to represent their interests and no media (other than on the Internet) to echo their concerns. They are as disenfranchised as any other oppressed peoples in history.

Ruling Parties Reject Iraq Division

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's major political parties denounced the US Senate proposal calling for a limited centralized government with the bulk of the power given to the country's Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish regions, saying it would seriously hamper Iraq's future stability.

At a news conference earlier Sunday, at least nine Iraqi political parties and party blocs representing both Shiites and Sunnis said the Senate resolution would diminish Iraq's sovereignty and called for parliament draft a law permanently banning any division of Iraq along sectarian or ethnic lines.

"Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united, democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself,'' the statement said. "Iraq's leaders must and will take the lead in determining how to achieve these national aspirations. ... attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed.''

A nonbinding Senate resolution adopted last week calls for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia. Sen. Joseph Biden was a prime sponsor of the measure.

"This proposal was based on the incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of Iraq's past, present and future,'' according to the statement read by Izzat al-Shahbandar, a representative of the Iraqi National List, a secular political party, during a news conference.

"(The proposal) opposes all laws of the international community and its legitimate institutions which protect all the rights of people in self-decision, building their future and defending their unity and sovereignty,'' he said, adding that the international community should denounce the proposal and "support Iraq in its crisis and its efforts to restore security and stability in all its areas.''

The Kurds in three northern Iraqi provinces support a formal division, but both Sunni and Shiite Muslims have denounced the proposal.

On Friday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told The Associated Press that "dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a Catastrophe".

Iraq's constitution lays down a federal system, allowing Shiites in the south, Kurds in the north and Sunnis in the center and west of the country to set up regions with considerable autonomous powers.

Hizbullah spiritual leader: Senate declared war on Iran

Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah slams vote to label Revolutionary Guard a terror organization

by Roee Nahmias and Dudi Cohen

"The declaration of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group is a declaration of war," Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, Hizbullah's spiritual leader, said Sunday in response to a Senate resolution on Wednesday calling on the State Department to include the dominant branch in Iran's army on its list of terrorist organization.

"The American Senate's decision to include the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which are an integral part of the Iranian army, as a terrorist organization, amounts to a declaration of war and so does the Senate's daring decision to vote in favor of a resolution to divide Iraq," Fadlallah said.

"This reflects the dangerous intentions for the region and we can see it as an American move ahead of more wars in countries in the region in order to destabilize them and shake their security and politics," he added.

"He who follows America's political moves understands clearly that the Bush administration has not given up its ambition to plunge the region into war and chaos," he said. "The American Congress is pretending to be trying to change the attitude of this administration but in fact they are working together and are towing the line of the Zionist lobby to widen the scope of American aggression in the region."

"The escalation caused by the Bush administration under the banner of 'a conflict against Iran's regional hegemony,' despite the calming role played by the Iranian government in the political and religious fields and despite its willingness to sacrifice its scientific knowledge in the nuclear field to peaceful purposes, proves that the American administration wants the Arabs to enter a new arms race that serves American coffers and turns them into a tool for the American Army when Bush decides to make another stupid move in the region," Fadlallah said.
-------

Note: the article incorrectly identifies Sheik Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah as the "spiritual leader of Hezbollah". In reality, while Fadlallah is the senior spiritual leader for many of the Shia Muslim in Lebanon, the spiritual leader of Hezbollah is Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader of Iran.

US Senate brands Iran Guard 'terrorist organization'

AFP - The US Senate has called for Iran's Revolutionary Guards to be officially designated a "foreign terrorist organization," a day after the House of Representatives passed a similar measure.

The Senate on Wednesday voted 76-22 for the non-binding amendment sponsored by Republican Jon Kyl and independent Joseph Lieberman to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or Pasdaran, on the US terrorist blacklist.

Such a designation if adopted by the US government would open the corps and affiliated companies to economic sanctions.

The measure is a "sense of the Senate" amendment, which means it cannot impact the president's foreign policy, but is an important symbolic measure expressing will of lawmakers.

It says that senators agree it is in the critical national interest of the United States to prevent Iran turning Shia extremists in Iraq into a "Hezbollah type force."

The amendment says that senators believe that "inside Iraq" US economic, military, diplomatic economic and intelligence "instruments" should be used to back US policy against the government of Iran and "its proxies."

US military officials and lawmakers have accused the Revolutionary Guard of arming Shiite militias in Iraq, and supplying sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill US soldiers in the war-torn nation.

The US administration also accuses Iran of seeking to build an atomic bomb under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, a charge Tehran denies.

During a debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls on Wednesday night, the amendment was criticized as helping lay the foundation for President George W. Bush to take possible military action against Tehran.

"I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on a road to war with Iran," said former senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards at the debate at Dartmouth College.

Long-shot candidate Mike Gravel blasted front-runner Senator Hillary Clinton for supporting the amendment. "And I am ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it."

Clinton defended her vote, saying by designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization "gives us the options to be able to impose sanctions on the primary leaders to try to begin to put some teeth into all this talk about dealing with Iran."

The Bush administration said in August it would designate all or part of the Guard as a terrorist organization.

The US blacklist, which already includes Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, bars named groups from gaining access to the US financial system.

The House of Representatives adopted a similar text on Tuesday against the backdrop of rising tensions between Iran and the United States and a scathing attack on the United States by Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, before the UN General Assembly.

The House bill also calls for penalizing foreign companies with US subsidiaries which invest in Iran, particularly in the oil and gas sector.

Iran has been on the US government state sponsors of terrorism blacklist for more than two decades.

Already this year, the US government escalated financial sanctions against Tehran.

The US Treasury and other government agencies have blacklisted and applied asset freezes against at least 15 Iranian entities.

Most, including the Atomic Energy Organization and the Mesbah Energy Company, operate in the nuclear, energy and industrial industries.

Imperial hubris at its paroxysm: US Senate calls for Iraq's partition

Washington - US lawmakers voted Wednesday to split Iraq into a loose federation of sectarian-based regions and urged President George W Bush to press Iraqi leaders to agree.

More than 20 Republicans joined Democrats to pass the non-binding measure in the Senate, 75-23, showing frustration in both parties about Bush's war policy and lagging national reconciliation in Iraq.

Supporters of Iraqi partition believe it would let Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions settle their differences and make it easier for US troops eventually to return home.

But the measure, attached to the 2008 defence budget, runs against US administration policy to keep Iraq united and would likely face a veto if it reached Bush's desk.

The proposal to breaking up Iraq into decentralized regions came from Senator Joseph Biden, who heads the chamber's foreign relations committee and is running for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

Biden has long championed the federal plan, saying it would give Iraq's main groups 'breathing room in their own regions' and speed up a US troop withdrawal.

But partition would raise concern in neighbouring Turkey, which is fighting a Kurdish separatist movement and would be wary of broader autonomy for Iraqi Kurds across the border.

Sunni-led Saudi Arabia would likely fear a further rise in Iranian influence over Iraq if Iraqi Shiites controlled their own mini-state.

A key Republican supporter and presidential candidate, Senator Sam Brownback, has urged Bush to send a high-level envoy to Iraq 'to get these people in a room to cut the deal to get different states, where you have the power mostly residing in the states.'

Biden's amendment calls for the US government to work for a 'political settlement based on the creation of federal regions within a united Iraq.'
-------

Note: truly, this an amazing display of imperial hubris and brazen arrogance. Gone is all the propaganda about Iraq's sovereignty - Washington intends to partition Iraq just as European colonial powers partitioned Africa or the Middle-East . Clearly, the Neocons are "loosing it" and are coming up with increasingly bizarre schemes to try to avoid the consequences of the failures of the Imperial policies in the Middle-East. It is amazing to see how out of touch with reality American politicians have become; evidently, ridicule does not kill, and one would be tempted to add "unfortunately".