Muntadhar al-Zaidi is becoming an international hero

Press TV reports:

People from around the world have rejoiced in the glory of a frogmarched Iraqi reporter and vow to make him rich and eternally famous.

World eyes were fixed on Sunday on looped video of Iraqi journalist Muntadhar al-Zaidi throwing his two shoes at President George W. Bush during a press conference. It seems, however, that world fascination over the shoe attack will live on.

In Saudi Arabia, a man has offered $10 million to buy just one of the two world famous black dress shoes in an obvious attempt to reward al-Zaidi.

A group led by the daughter of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi showed its admiration by awarding a medal of courage to the detained Iraqi.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez hailed the Iraqi reporter as a role model for courageousness. "It's a good thing it didn't hit him. I'm not encouraging throwing shoes at anybody, but really, what courage," he said.

The online auction site eBay put one of the shoes up for Auction. The symbolic auction intended to take advantage of the popularity of the attack and direct money to the American Diabetes Association.

The online video of the shoe-hurling seems to be growing at a rate of more than 100,000 views per hour. "As of Monday December 15, in a period of one day after the incident, there were over 650 copies of the video that have generated more than 5.4 million views and 48,000 comments," NewTeeVee has reported.

Social networking website gather.com published an open letter to Bush, counting the combat boots of the 4,029 American soldiers who have died in the misguided Bush war of conquest and the 30,852 pairs of combat boots for soldiers injured there.

"If we bought shoes that cost $50 a pair, we could buy 12,239,700,000 pair to throw for all the money you have wasted on Iraq. For ignoring your own Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, when he told you that we should withdraw from Iraq, one more pair," Ann Weaver Hart wrote in her open letter to Bush.

Internet surfers got a kick out of making Flash-based games. In one of the games, players assume the role of Bush to earn points by dodging the shoes flying toward him. Another game scores player on how many shoes hit the animated Bush.

In Baghdad, people called for an immediate American withdrawal by removing their shoes and sandals and waving them high in the air.

"Bush, Bush, listen well: Two shoes on your head," AP quoted the protestors as shouting.

"Although that action was not expressed in a civilized manner, it showed the Iraqi feelings, which is to object to the American occupation," says Qutaiba Rajaa, a 58-year-old physician in Samarra, a Sunni stronghold north of Baghdad.

Many others expressed undiluted pleasure. "I swear by God that all Iraqis with their different nationalities are glad about this act," says Yaareb Yousif Matti, a 45-year-old teacher from the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

Although there is no doubt that the action itself was not exactly pleasant, many people from around the world have rejoiced over the attack and have ensured that the shoe-hurling reporter will remain a memorable figure for years to come.

In the meanwhile, BBC online reports:

The brother of the Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at US President George W Bush has said that the reporter has been beaten in custody.

Muntadar al-Zaidi has suffered a broken hand, broken ribs and internal bleeding, as well as an eye injury, his older brother, Dargham, told the BBC (...)

Dargham al-Zaidi told the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Baghdad he believed his brother had now been taken to a US military hospital in the Iraqi capital.

Thousands of Troops Are Deployed on U.S. Streets Ready to Carry Out "Crowd Control"

By Naomi Wolf, AlterNet

Background: the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division, three to four thousand soldiers, has been deployed in the United States as of October 1. Their stated mission is the form of crowd control they practiced in Iraq, subduing "unruly individuals," and the management of a national emergency. I am in Seattle and heard from the brother of one of the soldiers that they are engaged in exercises now. Amy Goodman reported that an Army spokesperson confirmed that they will have access to lethal and non lethal crowd control technologies and tanks.

George Bush struck down Posse Comitatus, thus making it legal for military to patrol the U.S. He has also legally established that in the "War on Terror," the U.S. is at war around the globe and thus the whole world is a battlefield. Thus the U.S. is also a battlefield.

He also led change to the 1807 Insurrection Act to give him far broader powers in the event of a loosely defined "insurrection" or many other "conditions" he has the power to identify. The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus -- habeas corpus prevents us from being seized by the state and held without trial -- in the event of an "insurrection." With his own army force now, his power to call a group of protesters or angry voters "insurgents" staging an "insurrection" is strengthened.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman of California said to Congress, captured on C-Span and viewable on YouTube (see below), that individual members of the House were threatened with martial law within a week if they did not pass the bailout bill:

"The only way they can pass this bill is by creating and sustaining a panic atmosphere. … Many of us were told in private conversations that if we voted against this bill on Monday that the sky would fall, the market would drop two or three thousand points the first day and a couple of thousand on the second day, and a few members were even told that there would be martial law in America if we voted no."

If this is true and Rep. Sherman is not delusional, I ask you to consider that if they are willing to threaten martial law now, it is foolish to assume they will never use that threat again. It is also foolish to trust in an orderly election process to resolve this threat. And why deploy the First Brigade? One thing the deployment accomplishes is to put teeth into such a threat.

I interviewed Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and patriot David Antoon for clarification:

"If the President directed the First Brigade to arrest Congress, what could stop him?"

"Nothing. Their only recourse is to cut off funding. The Congress would be at the mercy of military leaders to go to them and ask them not to obey illegal orders."

"But these orders are now legal?'"

"Correct."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to arrest a bunch of voters, what would stop him?"

"Nothing. It would end up in courts but the action would have been taken."

"If the President directs the First Brigade to kill civilians, what would stop him?"

"Nothing."

"What would prevent him from sending the First Brigade to arrest the editor of the Washington Post?"

"Nothing. He could do what he did in Iraq -- send a tank down a street in Washington and fire a shell into the Washington Post as they did into Al Jazeera, and claim they were firing at something else."

"What happens to members of the First Brigade who refuse to take up arms against U.S. citizens?"

"They'd probably be treated as deserters as in Iraq: arrested, detained and facing five years in prison. In Iraq a study by Ann Wright shows that deserters -- reservists who refused to go back to Iraq -- got longer sentences than war criminals."

"Does Congress have any military of their own?"

"No. Congress has no direct control of any military units. The Governors have the National Guard but they report to the President in an emergency that he declares."

"Who can arrest the President?"

"The Attorney General can arrest the President after he leaves or after impeachment."

[Note: Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi has asserted it is possible for District Attorneys around the country to charge President Bush with murder if they represent districts where one or more military members who have been killed in Iraq formerly resided.]

"Given the danger do you advocate impeachment?"

"Yes. President Bush struck down Posse Comitatus -- which has prevented, with a penalty of two years in prison, U.S. leaders since after the Civil War from sending military forces into our streets -- with a 'signing statement.' He should be impeached immediately in a bipartisan process to prevent the use of military forces and mercenary forces against U.S. citizens"

"Should Americans call on senior leaders in the Military to break publicly with this action and call on their own men and women to disobey these orders?"

"Every senior military officer's loyalty should ultimately be to the Constitution. Every officer should publicly break with any illegal order, even from the President."

"But if these are now legal. If they say, 'Don't obey the Commander in Chief,' what happens to the military?"

"Perhaps they would be arrested and prosecuted as those who refuse to participate in the current illegal war. That's what would be considered a coup."

"But it's a coup already."

"Yes."

Naomi Wolf is the author of Give Me Liberty (Simon and Schuster, 2008), the sequel to the New York Times best-seller The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot (Chelsea Green, 2007).

Bush's idea of an appropriate speed for withdrawal

(click on image for a better view)

Good commentary by Ken Olbermann

Note: while we can commend Olbermann for ripping Dubya into shreds for all his idiocies, I do not think that we should expect him to equally denounce Dubya for saying, for example, that there are 307 million Isarelis (nevermind that he never got a mandate from the 300 million Americans to say so and nevermind that Israel and the USA are not even bound to each other by any kind of security arrangement or treaty). Still, at least he denounces the offensive moron for being the offensive moron that he is. That is a good first step.

Listening to Caligula - reflexions on the Empire's fate

This morning I finally gathered the courage to sit down and listen to Caligula's speech to the Imperial Senate. I was prepared for the worst, but what I actually saw was even worse than what I had expected.

What should I have expected to hear from the most incompetent President in US history speaking in front of a Congress even more despised by the American people? Should I have had any hopes for at least some references to reality? I now see that this hope would have been quite misplaced.

Listening to Caligula one would think that all was well in the Empire and watching his barking seals jumping up and down after each triumphal pronouncement of the Emperor one could be forgiven for believing that we were just one minute away from finally reaching Communism, the 1000 year Reich or the 'end of history' (pick your choice - they all mean the same anyway). To give credit where credit is due, C-SPAN did a truly magnificent job of showing the appropriate person at the right time, the right angle of enthusiastically applauding Imperial Senators, etc. They would have made Goebbels proud, if not envious, of their skills.

For the first time I noted that each Imperial Senator's seat was flanked by a star of David on each side (check the video on YouTube if you missed that) and I wondered - is that a sign of support, or power, of vetting or of allegiance?

But my overwhelming thought watching all this buffoonery was that truly the scum of the earth had gathered under the Congress' dome and that there is no possibility at all to reform this system, to hope that the USA will change from within, or to 'vote them out of office'. To hold on to any such thought is, I think, the height of delusion. No, change can only from outside.

To paraphrase George Orwell, "if there is hope it lies in the aliens" (to use the American expression for non-Americans). The control of Caligula and his minions over this country is simply without limits and if the Emperors' speech yesterday shows us anything, it is that the US political 'reality' can exist in a vacuum in which facts, the reality on the ground, simply does not matter.

You can be the worst President in US history, the most hated man on earth, the most conspicuously stupid, ignorant and arrogant political leader on the face of the planet, but you will still get the Imperial Senate to give you more standing ovations than Hitler or Kim Il-Sung could ever hope for. The deafening silence which greeted this Kafkaesque performance in the US media and in the street is a sure sign that the vast majority of Americans have been brainwashed beyond repair by their corporate media.

Sure, some like Ron Paul or Cindy Sheehan, will object to every single thing Caligula said and denounce him for the fraud that he is. But they will also work within the system, hoping to change it from within. That is, I truly believe, an absolutely misguided and futile hope.

The US Empire is probably the most arrogant empire in history. No Empire I can think off was so deeply imbued with a messianic ideology defining its every policy (although the early Soviet Union and Nazi Germany came close). The 'manifest destiny' doctrine has now reached a quasi religious apotheosis which makes the US polity look more like some bizarre doomsday cult "a la Jim Jones" than like a normal imperial administration.

The Empire, in its final stages, is very much like a sinking "Titanic" with all its passengers dancing and drinking on the elegant decks and halls, sure of the omnipotence, impunity and invulnerability. The Islamic iceberg has already ripped the ship's hull, the freezing water is already gushing in, but the crew and passengers are still celebrating their magnificence, utterly oblivious to the almost inaudible sounds and tremors from below the deck which the music of their orchestra so successfully drowns.

Yesterday's speech was truly a historic moment. We witnessed an act of collective denial and folly: Caligula's last speech to the Imperial senate. It will, no doubt, go down in history as one of those baffling events which future generations will struggle to understand and to make sense of.

The State of the Union speech Bush should deliver tonight

Alas, we can be sure that the one he will deliver tonight will be far more boring and far less realistic.

Full text of Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah speech following Bush' visit to the Middle East

Source: Islamic Resistance in Lebanon

When Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) returns to earth, he will not uphold "Israel", the Pharaohs or the despots... But he will empower the oppressed; he will not confront the temple's thieves with his staff, but will carry his sword and gun to fight these despots. Hizbullah's secretary-general appeared on the seventh night of Ashoura to speak out frankly to the people about what is happening in the region as well as the repercussions and effects of Bush's visit. He said:

"On this night I would like to touch on the political situation in view of the developments in our region and Lebanon. What happened in our region in recent days will set the scene for the events and developments of an entire year, especially the coming months.

The basic development is Bush's visit along with its ensuing results, repercussions and effects.

At this point, I must express Hizbullah's denouncement and condemnation of any explosion that occurs on Lebanese soil, regardless of the intended or unintended target of this bombing, especially if this explosion led to the fall of innocent victims and to serious implications on the country's security and stability, as well as its various and diverse circumstances.

This is condemnable...as usual when any explosion happens certain forces and parties quickly attempt to employ the incident politically before investigation and scrutiny, before knowing anything about the backgrounds or facts of this security incident. Unfortunately, this has been the case with our country for years.

Today, senior state officials claim to understand the political and security issue. They keep justifying their inability to uncover any facts or threads that can explain to us the occurring bombings here and there, but instead they seem to have mastered to a great degree the analysis of affairs and their political employment in the direction they want.

Bush's visit to the region is undoubtedly an important visit. I go as far as making the claim that it is a historic one because it intends to draw the regional map for the coming stage ... I do not exaggerate in that, and therefore, all of us in the region, the peoples, rulers, political elites, cultural and media elites should pay close attention to the words, acts, threats, promises and expectations launched by Bush during this visit to our region.

I do not agree with what some people can or sometimes say about Bush being a foolish, insane or madman, and therefore discount what he says. The issue is not so, otherwise it would be a huge simplification of the political realities in the world and the region. To help us understand this visit, its results and implications, along with its lingering effects and repercussions, we must consider the following introduction.

The following conclusion was issued in the United States by major study and research centers. It was reached based on research, facts, figures and reference books, that the present American administration from seven years ago until today, through to the end this year, is a coalition of three groups, with their interests intersecting within the United States:

Group I: The major oil companies.

Because the basic figures in this administration either own oil companies or companies that manufacture or trade in arms. The first group is the major oil companies.

Group II: The major arms manufacturers.

Group III: A religious trend known in the United States as Christian Zionism.

I do not want to use this term so as not to offend a divine religion called Christianity through the use of this term, but I will speak of a particular religious trend.

It is this group of Christian Zionists in the United States today, who form a key part of this strong alliance. The intersecting interests come from each party's need to the other, together with what this alliance achieves from objectives set by major oil companies for our region, such as controlling oil wells, oil exports hence oil prices, and consequently control of the market.

The major arms companies are interested in manufacturing the largest possible quantity of weapons, to market and sell for huge profits. As for the religious trend that is strongly present in the United States, it has tens of millions of supporters, large enterprises and mass media. It believes to have the duty to help and pave the ground for the return of Jesus Christ to Earth. It considers that among the requirements for the return of Jesus Christ to Earth is the establishment of a state for the Jews and that state is the State of "Israel".

This precondition has been accomplished, what is needed now is its maintenance and completion through gathering all the Jews of the world to live in Palestine. Therefore, we believe that the policies of this religious trend is to encourage the Jews of the world to immigrate to occupied Palestine, because what is required is not only the creation of a Jewish State, but the congregation of Jews from all over the world to be in this required state.

This trend of religious thought believes that this state must be protected, has to be strong and superior. Thus, any potential regional threat or force that may rise to threaten the existence of this entity must be destroyed, be it a state, group of states, a people or whatever else. They believe that the existence of a strong and capable Jewish State in occupied Palestine is the necessary pre-condition for the return of the Christ (PBUH). The unlimited support they lend the State of "Israel" is not out of their love for the Jews, in defense of Semitism, or to make up for the massacres, but because they exploit the Jews to promote their ideological project. Here, I draw your attention to two points:

1- No one from our Arab and Islamic states should hold the Christians as Christians responsible for what this religious trend does.

2- This exists in religious Prophecy whether in Judaic, Christian or Islamic. However, everything these people do will reap them sadness and regret because Jesus Christ (PBUH) will not endorse "Israel", the major oil companies nor the arms companies, neither will he uphold the Pharos, Nimrods and despots of the earth etc... But he will rather greatly champion the oppressed, the vulnerable and those suffering here on earth.

These are the three groups allied in the American Administration today.

Their interests intersect on the subjects of Palestine, Iraq, Iran and the perimeter of occupied Palestine. Therefore, George Bush today is the symbol which faithfully reflects the interests of these three groups.

When he says he is fulfilling God's will and claims to sometimes receive God's revelation and orders, he means to show his commitment to this religious and ideological trend I pointed out earlier. We may not ever underestimate the impact of the religious trend on the other two directions, since it has a strong decisive impact. Here, we can take the subject of Iraq as an example for it is one of the biggest events and developments that has occurred in the past five years.

Oil companies' interests lie in controlling Iraq's oil.

He considers that according to prophecies, the army to destroy the State of "Israel" at the end of time will come from the same place of the army that destroyed their first entity. That army came from the Orient. Hence, they reached the conclusion that Iraq must be destroyed. Therefore, we also witness religious incitement against Iran, to present Iran as the existential threat to "Israel" and thus it must be destroyed and torn apart; hence inventing a pretext for war on Iran just the way one was for war on Iraq. We see three main headings in Bush's visit:

1- "Israel's" security
2- Arms deals
3- Oil and oil prices.

George Bush is the trusted representative of the three interests, allied they make up his administration as well as their project in this region.

The heading is selling arms. Today, they inauspiciously speaks of selling arms to Gulf States for tens of billion of dollars, which will definitely be American-made, and certainly with reassurance to "Israel", for it is one of the conditions of the sale of arms to Arab countries.

Since the use of these weapons against "Israel" is forbidden, then against whom are they to be used?

The important thing is for him to invoke tension and intimidation in the region, to frighten Arab countries from Iran in order to have a pretext for the sale, and for Arab governments to have an excuse to present to its people for buying all these weapons, despite the existing unemployment, poverty and social tragedies in these countries.

Arab funds go to finance American arms companies.

On the oil subject, he said that the issue of oil prices is having a specific ceiling level. It is not in the Americans' interest for oil prices to drop too low or rise too high, as they are using the relatively high oil prices to strike at the economies of competing nations such as China, the European Union countries. As to the poor and suffering people, they fall second place as far as Americans are concerned.

Yet, on the most serious subject, the one linked to "Israel", he presented a clear vision.
Before going into that, I will address three subjects:

1 - The Iranian title
2 - The Palestinian title
3 - The Lebanese title

On the Iranian title, Iran is targeted for the oil subject, arms, because of the particular religious trend in the United States and because Iran refused to accede to the American administration. Bush came to make the Iranian threat bigger in the Arab region and to "Israel", since he was not able to play much on the nuclear dossier because of the intelligence report.

In one of the Gulf states, Sarkozy said that the Arabs are entitled to have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, because in 30 years time, oil will run out, energy sources will become non-existent, and the future of the world will depend on nuclear power. When I heard him, I said that I heard Imam Khamenei say these same words four years ago. Why accept this talk from Sarkozy and not from Sayyed Khamenei?

If they want to accuse Iran of nuclear weapons, Iran will state that it has been clear and transparent, and that Sayyed Khamenei very clearly prohibited the manufacture and use of nuclear weapons.

The West says: 'we will give you the materials for nuclear manufacture, but as Arabs you are forbidden to produce this material'. This is to enable them to keep control of this issue, the political decisions and everything else.

On the Iranian level, Bush tried to work this incitement but got nowhere, and here the responsibility lies on Arab states not to give cover for any war on Iran. George Bush says that Iran may yield to pressure. If he was talking about the possibility of waging war on Iran, the latter will defend itself. I tell you, if America launched war on Iran, it would be the greatest folly committed by the United States in its history.

Arab governments must be faithful to the interests of their peoples. Any war in the region is a service to America and "Israel"... it is a service to American oil and arms companies and to the vindictive Zionist religious trend in the United States of America. At the Palestinian level, in the upshot of it, the Jewish State of "Israel" is a racist state, based on race and blood. This certainly affects the Arabs in Palestine, whether they are Muslims or Christians.

Amendment of the 1967 border of the occupied territories. No right of return.

After Bush introduced this vision here, he promised to return in May to continue his efforts. Bush says between now and May we must wait for something either natural or for certain steps to be taken in the American project which he has been marketing on his visit.

Implementation of this scheme is what is required, for Bush to come back in May to reap the harvest of what he has sown.

At the Palestinian level, the most important repercussions of Bush's visit to the region are:

First of all, he torpedoed the Arab initiative. Had anyone else in the world attacked this initiative, the Arab media would have caused an uproar against any such party, but when Bush completely destroyed that initiative with the step he introduced, we did not hear any comments, so as not to cause the guest embarrassment!

What is more serious in my opinion is that between now and May a green light has been given against the Gaza Strip. Ending the situation there is lent importance between now and May. Today's events there and all the martyrs who fell in the Gaza Strip, indicate a green light given on the Strip... God knows who facilitated, and who blessed this green light ... therefore, we must place a thousand question marks and say, after the end of Bush's visit, that the Gaza Strip has entered the danger circle.

I appeal to our brothers in the Gaza Strip to take extreme caution during this phase, because none remain politically standing above anyone else. Therefore, I think that between now and January 30th, when the final Winograd Commission report is due to be released, it is presumed extreme caution will be required in the Gaza Strip, as Olmert will need a victory to protect himself from any criticism, and there is much talk about the shockwaves this report will generate."

In all cases, I say that responsibility here lies on the Arab governments and peoples, on the Palestinians in the Strip and outside and on the various Palestinian factions. Everyone must bear responsibility as to what needs to be done, but most important of all is having the will to act.

On the Lebanese level, the Lebanese usually like to hear reassurances from us, and we are a people interested in speaking honestly and openly.

Sometimes we are treated unjustly because of our honesty. Before I heard that Bush is intending to return in May, I wanted to speak on developments that have occurred in the past few weeks, and in particular those related to Welsh's first visit and second when he came to Lebanon with Elliot Abrams.

We all know with whom he met at the time. The primary objective of this visit was to regroup the forces within 'March (Feb.) 14' camp, to close ranks again after being shaken as a result of having had to accept Major General Suleiman nomination for the presidency.

Here in Lebanon, the front the Americans depend on had a problem. So, Welsh was sent to Beirut, but was unsuccessful because he had been making conflicting announcement to Abrams. So, they were sent here to present a single voice. They attempted to bring this team in power together, yet quickly after Welsh's visit we saw how they returned to escalation and so on.

According to available information we have, this team was told: 'you (US-backed government team) should stick together and stand firm between now and May', and that 'after May the situation will be to your advantage.' This is not the first time the Americans make a promise to this team, to later run into difficulties on making good. So, the other team sat back, no longer interested in dialogue or negotiations, even started wanting the others to beg to hold meetings with one of them.

What are the variables in the region that may occur, upon which they could base their stands?

Existing information: according to discussions held with that group, it was said 'that there will be a blow directed at Iran between now and May. Iran will be hit; Syria besieged, and their allies in Lebanon weakened. Hence, matters will go to your (government team) advantage one hundred percent.'

My immediate remark is: do you believe the Americans?
What if they are lying to you?
If they hit Iran, can you guarantee the results?
Who said that a war with Iran will accomplish American expectations?
Who says? ... A war with Iran could in fact bring about changes to the entire region, not only to Americans but to all those who side with the Americans as well.
Can anyone make guarantees on this subject?

I say you should not bank on the things that will possibly not occur, and should they occur, they may not go to your advantage at all.

The other thing was the insinuation of a new 'Israeli' aggression. Here in this country, you saw their shamed faces after the resistance withstood the last July war, which incidentally did not target Hizbullah alone, but attempted to cause a radical change in the country and thus the region.

Did Rice not say that Lebanon's war was the labour pangs of the new Middle East? Today, Olmert struggles to remain in power; his failure in war is the talk of the town in "Israel". Anyone banking on a new war through which they rearrange political implications to their favour would be very seriously eluding themselves.

Talking about an "Israeli" aggression is simply hollow intimidation, since "Israel" has not needed excuses to launch an aggression; the 1982 invasion is a clear example of that. Today, I assure you that the dreams and choices of some and any who wager on "Israel", after the last July war in Lebanon, are doomed to misery, illusion and failure. There is also a third thing.

It was said that between now and May, many things will change, and it is the acceleration of the formation of the International Tribunal (IT). Thus we support any court that reveals the truth, but we fear political employment of the IT, as was signaled recently by President Sarkozy a few days ago.

We could hear such talk today, a big hurry is on: an Attorney General has been appointed, the budget is being discussed, judges names mentioned, between now and May summons will start to be issued and pressure will begin to be placed on Syria...this is already happening now.

Many of the Lebanese parties, with or without due cause, backed by American wish, will use the IT, 'come May and we as fundamental opposition parties will be busy with ourselves, Syria also busy with itself, the field will be empty and abandoned for your 'March' (Feb.) 14 team to do as you please.'

Counting on such a scenario is counting wrong, in particular after the scandal that was uncovered in past days round this issue.

Imagine this, I have no personal stand towards Marjayoun barracks commander. It is the duty of the judiciary to say whether he was negligent or not. I am not the party to judge him, and after all, the responsibility may lie with the minister who gave him the orders; but we what we know now is that he was promoted!

When the concerned Minister was asked about the promotion, he exclaimed why not?
When the judiciary finalizes and issues a ruling, we will then know what we can do!
But for now, why not take a similar action with all the officers?

Today, there are four high ranking senior officers in prison where you yourselves (ruling group) placed. The International Inquiry Commission says it has no work to do with them. Additionally, more than one international side or body asking you for their release. They accuse you of arbitrariness yet you send them to prison without evidence or trial. You did not wait for the investigation or evidence. You politically tried and executed them, along with their families politically and morally.

Is this the kind of justice and fairness that leads to knowledge and truth?
Today, I join voices with his Eminence the cleric Sheikh Abdel Amir Qabalan, and all the voices that call for equity in the country. We are not demanding a cover up for anyone, we demand justice.
Where is the evidence?
Have these officers being accused?
Are there any witnesses?

Every day a bombing occurs in Lebanon. May be that this is in the interest of the four officers; you accused them of running networks so you arrested them, now these networks are still in operation.

This matter must be resolved; this manner of conduct and the way these officers have been treated comes from the existing political and scandalous behavior in Lebanon.

Going back to the IT subject; if their intention is to work in this manner in April and May, then the first victim of the IT's politicization would be the truth the Lebanese were unanimous about knowing, that truth would will be sacrificed and forgone in the politicization process.

However, a politicized court does not reveal the truth. It covers the murderers and will be used to
serve the American political suspicious projects in the area. The new Prosecutor's conduct and that of the IT will reveal whether it is a judicial or political conduct. People here will take the decision then and will act accordingly, since no one can force anyone else to surrender or give submission in the case of political application of the court.

If there is any such variable in the region, it could be the subject of Palestine which will certainly have an impact on Lebanon and Syria. Moreover, they told them about Iran; they told them about the possibility of attacks on Lebanon and they also said about the IT. I say to them let us come together as Lebanese to calmly think about the interest of this country, as banking on outside forces for the outside conduct and developments in the region is useless.

I say that changes in the region would not be in your interest, but in our favor. Your interests now lie in making an agreement with the opposition in the case you are waiting for developments at regional level in particular or at the international level in general.

Today, the opportunity is still open. It is called for the Arab initiative, which we welcomed and tomorrow His Excellency the Arab League Secretary-General will come to Lebanon. Again, I welcome him and the Arab foreign ministers for the efforts they themselves expended in making and writing the text of this initiative. They said to the Secretary-General to go and implement the initiative whose text is clear; for those who read Arabic and know logic, rhetoric and syntax; the text has one interpretation.

He also said that it is possible that some ministers had different intentions and therefore this is the text they reached. I do not want to engage in interpretation of the text.

This initiative is still in place and I am calling Arab officials to seriously assist Lebanon and not allow this initiative become a measure for passing time, nor a tool to pressure the opposition as was suggested by some proposals we heard the French utter but that not work.

The Arabs are required to assist and not to pressure one side without the other. Syria was asked to help its allies to accept the Arab initiative and I call on the rest of the Arab countries to help with its allies in Lebanon and convince them to accept the spirit of the Arab initiative of "no winner and no looser" at its basis.

Of course, we heard the French Minister threaten with internationalization. We ask him to have patience with us since he had once said that he loved Lebanon. The Arab initiative may not be a step on the road to internationalization, as that would be useless.

If Lebanon has the will, patriotic strength and independence with a majority of the Lebanese in possession of a particular vision or interest, no one in the whole world can impose its will against their interests.

Within closed doors, I said to the Arab mediator that should anyone have worked on the Arab initiative to put pressure on the opposition, it would be useless. And if anyone wants to blame its failure on the opposition or a side in Lebanon, to them I say do not waste time.

I said to the Secretary-General that if the remainder of the time given to the Arab Initiative is spent on seeking who is responsible for the Arab Initiative's failure, I ask you to put the blame on Hizbullah and say that the pro-government team accepted, the opposition team also accepted but Hizbullah did not.

I tell the Lebanese officials today that no need to blame the opposition for the initiative's failure, nor for the opposition to blame the loyalists. If you are looking for a side to hold responsible, I invite you to leave that with me.

I told the Secretary-General, we are not afraid. We endured war in July, that was based on a decision made by the international community, the international industrial nations, some Arab brothers and the whole world yet we did not budge. We stood unafraid our feet strong. We are ever present to bear the responsibility and consequences anyone wants to blame us for.

The American administration wants to keep the current Siniora government in or reproduce a similar one after the election of the President; one that works with and goes along the entire American project in the region.

I say to the Christians and Muslims that the Americans are not concerned for Muslims and Christians but for "Israel's" interest and superiority as well as the oil and arms market at the expense of conflicts in the region.

Today, we renew the call for dialogue. There is a clearly authorized representative of the opposition, to represent us in negotiations with the pro-government team. Dialogue and understanding are required and so are results.

In the end, I advise the other team. If you are banking on changes in Lebanon, changes in the will, resilience and cohesion of the opposition, if you are gambling on changes in the regional situation, you would be misleading yourself.

Let us bank on each other and apart from any changes come together to create an understanding, together cooperate and make concessions to reach an internal settlement.

We are able to withstand and confront. We are capable of making a victory and are able to prevent an imposition on our country and people what does not agree with their interests and dignity.

Bush offers to bomb Kurds

The Bush Administration is considering air strikes, including cruise missiles, against the Kurdish rebel group PKK in northern Iraq.

The move would be an attempt to stave off a Turkish invasion of that country to fight the rebels. President George Bush spoke with Turkish President Abdullah Gul by phone yesterday in an effort to ease the crisis. And Prime Minister John Howard says the tensions on the Turkey-Iraq border will not help the west's battle for democracy in Iraq. Mr Howard said there was some recent evidence that US forces were making headway in their battle against al-Qaeda in Iraq following the US troop surge. "There is some evidence in recent weeks that the surge has been more successful than many of its critics wanted it to be or believe it would be," Mr Howard told an army land warfare conference in Adelaide today.

But he hoped the temperature between Turkey and the Kurds was kept as low as possible. "It is in a strategic sense a complicating factor at a time when evidence is emerging of slow but nonetheless some progress being made in improving the security position in Iraq," he said. "The message I would give to Turkey and Iraq is, like everybody else, just keep it as cool and at a lower temperature as possible," Mr Howard said.

According to an official familiar with the conversation, Mr Bush assured the Turkish President that the US was seriously looking into options beyond diplomacy to stop the attacks coming from Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

"It's not 'Kumbaya' time any more - just talking about trilateral talks is not going to be enough," the official said. "Something has to be done."

While the use of US soldiers on the ground to root out the PKK would be the last resort, the US would be willing to launch air strikes on PKK targets, the official said, and has discussed the use of cruise missiles. But air strikes using manned aircraft may be an easier option because the US controls the air space over Iraq. Another option would be to persuade the Kurdistan Regional Government, which runs that part of Iraq, to order its Peshmerga forces to form a cordon preventing the movement of the PKK beyond its mountain camps.

"In the past, there has been reluctance to engage in direct US military action against the PKK, either through air strikes or some kind of Special Forces action," said the official familiar with the Bush-Gul conversation, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But the red line was always, if the Turks were going to come over the border, it could be so destabilising that it might be less risky for us to do something ourselves. "Now the Turks are at the end of their rope, and our risk calculus is changing."

Meanwhile, Iraq said today it would shut down the operations of Kurdish rebels based on its soil, hoping to head off the threatened invasion by Turkish troops massed on the border.

"The PKK is a terrorist organisation and we have taken a decision to shut down their offices and not allow them to operate on Iraqi soil," Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said. "We will also work on limiting their terrorist activities which are threatening Iraq and Turkey," Maliki said after crisis talks in Baghdad with Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan. He gave no details on how the rebels could be prevented from launching attacks from their remote mountain bases. Analysts say military action would have to involve US forces in Iraq.

Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said Ankara was giving diplomacy a chance, but reminded Iraq that Turkey's parliament had given the go-ahead for a military incursion at any time.

And the publication of photographs said to show eight Turkish soldiers captured by the rebels increased pressure on Turkey's government to take swift action.

"Right now we are in a waiting stance but Iraq should know we can use the mandate for a cross-border operation at any time," Erdogan told a joint news conference in London after talks with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

He later ratcheted up pressure by telling an investors' conference that Turkey might impose sanctions on exports to Iraq. Turkish exports to Iraq were worth $US2.6 billion ($A2.94 billion) in 2006.

PKK separatists, operating from northern Iraq, killed a dozen Turkish soldiers in weekend fighting. The PKK said it also captured eight soldiers, and a news agency with close links to the rebels published what it said were photographs of the captives today. Turkey had denied soldiers had been captured but acknowledged eight were missing.

"The pictures show their health condition is pretty good," said the Firat news agency, which is based in western Europe. With feelings running high in Turkey, and anti-PKK protests in several towns, the broadcasting watchdog banned news reports on the deaths of the 12 soldiers.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said PKK attacks on Turkey would not be tolerated.

"We have given the PKK the option to leave or disarm. We care for every drop of Turkish blood like we care for every drop of Iraqi blood," he said after talks with Babacan.

Washington has so far been reluctant to attack PKK rebels, fearing this could damage ties with Iraqi Kurds and destabilise the Kurdish region, the only area of Iraq to see relative stability and prosperity since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Turkey estimates 3,000 PKK rebels are based in Iraq. Ankara believes US forces in Iraq have the capability of capturing PKK leaders hiding in the Qandil mountains, shutting down their camps and cutting off supply routes and logistical support.

Turkey's government says it will use all diplomatic options before launching any strike into northern Iraq against the PKK. The easing in rhetoric has helped bring global oil prices down from record highs. Turkey has deployed as many as 100,000 troops, backed by tanks, F-16 fighter jets and helicopter gunships along its border in preparation for a possible attack on rebel bases.

"If expected developments do not take place in the next few days, we will have to take care of our own situation," Erdogan said in Oxford, England, yesterday.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Britain's visiting foreign secretary, David Miliband, said they had proposed a meeting in Istanbul next month of officials from the United States, Turkey and Iraq to discuss how to stop PKK attacks.

Iraq's Talabani said yesterday the PKK would announce a ceasefire. Later the guerrilla group said in a statement it was ready for peace if Ankara stopped its military offensive against Kurdish fighters. It made no mention of a ceasefire. Babacan said any ceasefire offer would be meaningless as the PKK was a terrorist organisation, not a sovereign army.

An ambush over the weekend by 200 PKK guerrillas left 12 Turkish soldiers dead and eight missing. The attack's sophistication and scope surprised not only the Turks but also the US and its Iraqi allies.

The US, with Iraqi help, also could squeeze the flow of supplies and funds for the PKK coming across the border, or through the airport in Irbil, the largest city in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Turkey yesterday said it would exhaust diplomatic channels before launching any military strike into northern Iraq

Cheney threatens Iran with “serious consequences”

Cheney Lays the Foundation for War

by Scott Horton

This weekend the roll-out for the Next War continues. The most remarkable item is a speech delivered by the man who, by all accounts, has aggressively pushed for war against Iran for at least two years: Vice President Dick Cheney. Here are a few take-outs from his speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, up now at the White House web site:

Operating largely in the shadows, Iran attempts to hide its hands through the use of militants who target and kill coalition and Iraqi security forces. Iran’s real agenda appears to include promoting violence against the coalition. Fearful of a strong, independent, Arab Shia community emerging in Iraq, one that seeks religious guidance not in Qom, Iran, but from traditional sources of Shia authority in Najaf and Karbala, the Iranian regime also aims to keep Iraq in a state of weakness that prevents Baghdad from presenting a threat to Tehran.

Perhaps the greatest strategic threat that Iraq’s Shiites face today in — is — in consolidating their rightful role in Iraq’s new democracy is the subversive activities of the Iranian regime. The Quds Force, a branch of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is the defender of the theocracy. The regime has used the Quds Force to provide weapons, money, and training to terrorists and Islamic militant groups abroad, including Hamas; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; militants in the Balkans; the Taliban and other anti-Afghanistan militants; and Hezbollah terrorists trying to destabilize Lebanon’s democratic government.

The Iranian regime’s efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record. And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran’s nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time.

Given the nature of Iran’s rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region — including direct involvement in the killing of Americans — our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. (Applause.)

The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

Is Cheney threatening war against Iran? Yes, that’s exactly what he is doing. As Greg Djerejian reminds us, in the lead-up to the war against Iraq, Cheney gave a number of speeches making clear the intention to resort to arms against Saddam Hussein. And he used exactly the same language, including specifically the key phrase “serious consequences.” And note the focus on the Quds unit of the Revolutionary Guard. This is an exercise in target-practicing. As several sources have noted, Cheney has advocated targeting the Quds unit in the first bombing raids. He and his chief of staff David Addington have also advocated putting the Quds unit on the scheduled list of terrorist organizations, presumably for prior Congressional authorizations for the use of military force canbe drawn upon to justify the attack without the need to go back to Congress.

And while I pulled out the passages of the speech that constitute the most undisguised saber-rattling against Iran, the entire speech is worthy of careful study. It shows a man who has disintegrated into a moral sewer. He regales his audience with the need to use torture techniques, which he tells us elsewhere he learned of from “our friends” in the Middle East (a phrase which, I am told, describes the brutal techniques used by the Egyptians.) And he then proceeds to cite a positively insane op-ed by Bernard Lewis, the subject of one of my prior columns, in which the Soviet Union is held up as a wonderful model for the United States. So there you have Dick Cheney wonderfully summed up: traditional U.S. values are for sissies. Real international strongmen torture their own citizens like the Egyptians and bully the neighborhood like the Soviets. Yep, those policies served the Soviet Union very well, as I recall. The country collapsed and its entire southern underbelly was peeled away. It’s enough to make you wonder whether Cheney is on hallucinogens. But this man is at the driver’s wheel of the nation’s national security establishment; he is the most powerful vice president in the nation’s history. And he has a president who knows nothing about the issues, doesn’t care to learn, and follows Cheney’s advice blindly.

Kristol: Iran Threatens Victory in Iraq

The first fifteen minutes of Cheney’s Iran speech started with a discussion of Iraq, and made the case that the foe Americans were facing in Iraq was already Iran. This contention is nonsense, of course, a pure fable cooked up to push the war cause. The claim that Iranian explosives are being used by insurgents in Iraq is certainly true. But it has to be considered alongside the fact that the insurgents are fueled much more heavily by weapons and money out of Saudi Arabia, a fact that Cheney would rather not mention. However, on Fox News, William Kristol was out there making the same point.

We’re winning in Iraq. That is the absolute crucial precondition to having success in the broader fight against Islamic jihadism. … And I think we are going to have to be serious about dealing with both their intervention in Iraq — which is now the only real threat, I think, incidentally, to relative success in Iraq — and their nuclear program.

Got it? We would win in Iraq, but for the Iranians. Therefore the way to insure victory in Iraq is to wage war on Iran. Who could challenge that logic? And, of course, on Fox News, no one does.

On the Eve of Destruction

By Scott Ritter

Don’t worry, the White House is telling us. The world’s most powerful leader was simply making a rhetorical point. At a White House press conference last week, just in case you haven’t heard, President Bush informed the American people that he had told world leaders “if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” World War III. That is certainly some rhetorical point, especially coming from the man singularly most capable of making such an event reality.

Pundits have raised their eyebrows and comics are busy writing jokes, but the president’s reference to Armageddon, no matter how cavalierly uttered and subsequently brushed away, suggests an alarming context. Some might note that the comment was simply an offhand response to a reporter’s question, the kind of free-thinking scenario that baffles Bush so. In a way, this makes what the president said even more disturbing, since we now have an insight into the vision, and related terminology, which hovers just below the horizon in the brain of George W. Bush.

When I was a weapons inspector with the United Nations, there was a jostling that took place at the end of each day, when decisions needed to be made and authorization documents needed to be signed. In an environment of competing agendas, each of us who championed a position sought to be the “last man in,” namely the person who got to imprint the executive chairman (our decision maker) with the final point of view for the day. Failure to do so could find an inspection or point of investigation sidetracked for days or weeks after the executive chairman became distracted by a competing vision. I understand the concept of “imprinting,” and have seen it in action. What is clear from the president’s remarks is that, far from an innocent rhetorical fumble, his words, and the context in which he employed them, are a clear indication of the imprinting which is taking place behind the scenes at the White House. If the president mentions World War III in the context of Iran’s nuclear program, one can be certain that this is the very sort of discussion that is taking place in the Oval Office.

A critical question, therefore, is who was the last person to “imprint” the president prior to his public allusion to World War III? During his press conference, Bush noted that he awaited the opportunity to confer with his defense secretary, Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice following their recent meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. So clearly the president hadn’t been imprinted recently by either of the principle players in the formulation of defense and foreign policy. The suspects, then, are quickly whittled down to three: National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Vice President Dick Cheney, and God.

Hadley is a long-established neoconservative thinker who has for the most part operated “in the shadows” when it comes to the formulation of Iran policy in the Bush administration. In 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Hadley (then the deputy national security adviser) instituted what has been referred to as the “Hadley Rules,” a corollary of which is that no move will be made which alters the ideological positioning of Iran as a mortal enemy of the United States. These “rules” shut down every effort undertaken by Iran to seek a moderation of relations between it and the United States, and prohibited American policymakers from responding favorably to Iranian offers to assist with the fight against al-Qaida; they also blocked the grand offer of May 2003 in which Iran outlined a dramatic diplomatic initiative, including a normalization of relations with Israel. The Hadley Rules are at play today, in an even more nefarious manner, with the National Security Council becoming involved in the muzzling of former Bush administration officials who are speaking out on the issue of Iran. Hadley is blocking Flynt Leverett, formerly of the National Security Council, from publishing an Op-Ed piece critical of the Bush administration on the grounds that any insight into the machinations of policymaking (or lack thereof) somehow strengthens Iran’s hand. Leverett’s article would simply underscore the fact that the Bush administration has spurned every opportunity to improve relations with Iran while deliberately exaggerating the threat to U.S. interests posed by the Iranian theocracy.

The silencing of informed critics is in keeping with Hadley’s deliberate policy obfuscation. There is still no official policy in place within the administration concerning Iran. While a more sober-minded national security bureaucracy works to marginalize the hawkish posturing of the neocons, the administration has decided that the best policy is in fact no policy, which is a policy decision in its own right. Hadley has forgone the normal procedures of governance, in which decisions impacting the nation are written down, using official channels, and made subject to review and oversight by those legally and constitutionally mandated and obligated to do so. A policy of no policy results in secret policy, which means, according to Hadley himself, the Bush administration simply does whatever it wants to, regardless. In the case of Iran, this means pushing for regime change in Tehran at any cost, even if it means World War III.

But Hadley is simply a facilitator, bureaucratic “grease” to ease policy formulated elsewhere down the gullet of a national security infrastructure increasingly kept in the dark about the true intent of the Bush administration when it comes to Iran. With the Department of State and the Pentagon now considered unfriendly ground by the remaining hard-core neoconservative thinkers still in power, policy formulation is more and more concentrated in the person of Vice President Cheney and the constitutionally nebulous “Office of the Vice President.”

Cheney and his cohorts have constructed a never-never land of oversight deniability, claiming immunity from both executive and legislative checks and balances. With an unchallenged ability to classify anything and everything as secret, and then claim that there is no authority inherent in government to oversee that which has been thus classified, the Office of the Vice President has transformed itself into a free republic’s worst nightmare, assuming Caesar-like dictatorial authority over almost every aspect of American national security policy at home and abroad. From torture to illegal wiretapping, to arms control (or lack of it) to Iran, Dick Cheney is the undisputed center of policy power in America today. While there are some who will claim that in this time of post-9/11 crisis such a process of bureaucratic streamlining is essential for the common good, the reality is far different.

It is said that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this has never been truer than in the case of Cheney. What Cheney is doing behind his shield of secrecy can be simply defined: planning and implementing a preemptive war of aggression. During the Nuremberg tribunal in the aftermath of World War II, the chief American prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, stated, “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.” Today, we have a vice president who articulates publicly about global conflict, and who speaks in not-so-veiled language about a looming Armageddon. If there is such a future for America and the world, let one thing be certain; World War III, as postulated by Dick Cheney, would be an elective war, and not a conflict of tragic necessity. This makes the crime even greater.

Sadly, Judge Jackson’s words are but an empty shell. The global community lacks a legally binding definition of what constitutes a war of aggression, or even an act of aggression. But that isn’t the point. America should never find itself in a position where it is being judged by the global community regarding the legality of its actions. Judge Jackson established a precedent of jurisprudence concerning aggression based upon American principles and values, something the international community endorsed. The fact that current American indifference to the rule of law prevents the international community from certifying a definition of criminality when it comes to aggression, whether it be parsed as “war” or simply an “act,” does not change the fact that the Bush administration, in the person of Dick Cheney, is actively engaged in the committing of the “supreme [war] crime,” which makes Cheney the supreme war criminal. If the world is not empowered to judge him as such, then let the mantle of judgment fall to the American people. Through their elected representatives in Congress, they should not only bring this reign of unrestrained abuse of power to an end, but ensure that such abuse never again is attempted by an American official by holding to account, to the full extent of the law, those who have trampled on the Constitution of the United States and the ideals and principles it enshrines.

But what use is the rule of law, even if fairly and properly implemented, if in the end he who is entrusted with executive power takes his instructions from an even higher authority? President Bush’s relationship with “God” (or that which he refers to as God) is a matter of public record. The president himself has stated that “God speaks through me” (he acknowledged this before a group of Amish in Pennsylvania in the summer of 2004). Exactly how God speaks through him, and what precisely God says, is not a matter of speculation. According to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, President Bush told him and others that “God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” As such, at least in the president’s mind, God has ordered Bush to transform himself into a modern incarnation of St. Michael, smiting all that is evil before him. “We are in a conflict between good and evil. And America will call evil by its name,” the president told West Point cadets in a speech in 2002.

The matter of how and when an individual chooses to practice his faith, or lack thereof, is a deeply personal matter, one which should be kept from public discourse. For a president to so openly impose his personal religious beliefs, as Bush has done, on American policy formulation and implementation represents a fundamental departure from not only constitutional intent concerning the separation of church and state but also constitutional mandate concerning the imposition of checks and balances required by the American system of governance. The increasing embrace by this president of the notion of a unitary executive takes on an even more sinister aspect when one realizes that not only does the Bush administration seek to nullify the will of the people through the shackling of the people’s representatives in Congress, but that the president has forgone even the appearance of constitutional constraint by evoking the word of his personal deity, as expressed through his person, as the highest form of consultation on a matter as serious as war. As such, the president has made his faith, and how he practices it, a subject not only of public curiosity but of national survival.

That George W. Bush is a born-again Christian is not a national secret. Neither is the fact that his brand of Christianity, evangelicalism, embraces the notion of the “end of days,” the coming of the Apocalypse as foretold (so they say) in the Book of Revelations and elsewhere in the Bible. President Bush’s frequent reference to “the evil one” suggests that he not only believes in the Antichrist but actively proselytizes on the Antichrist’s physical presence on Earth at this time. If one takes in the writing and speeches of those in the evangelical community today concerning the “rapture,” the numerous references to the current situation in the Middle East, especially on the events unfolding around Iran and its nuclear program, make it very clear that, at least in the minds of these evangelicals, there is a clear link between the “end of days” prophesy and U.S.-Iran policy. That James Dobson, one of the most powerful and influential evangelical voices in America today, would be invited to the White House with like-minded clergy to discuss President Bush’s Iran policy is absurd unless one makes the link between Bush’s personal faith, the extreme religious beliefs of Dobson and the potential of Armageddon-like conflict (World War III). At this point, the absurd becomes unthinkable, except it is all too real.

Thomas Jefferson, one of our nation’s greatest founders, made the separation of church and state an underlying principle upon which the United States was built. This separation was all-inclusive, meaning that not only should government stay out of religion, but likewise religion should be excluded from government. “I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself,” Jefferson wrote in a letter to Francis Hopkinson in 1789. “Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.” If only President Bush would abide by such wisdom, avoiding the addictive narcotic of religious fervor when carrying out the people’s business. Instead, he chooses as his drug one which threatens to destroy us all in a conflagration derived not from celestial intervention but individual ignorance and arrogance. Again Jefferson, in a letter written in 1825: “It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.”

Nightmares, more aptly, unless something can be done to change the direction Bush and Dobson are taking us. The problem is that far too many Americans openly espouse not only the faith of George W. Bush but also the underlying philosophy which permits this faith to be intertwined with the governance of the land. “God bless America” has become a rallying cry for this crowd, and those too ignorant and/or afraid to speak out in opposition. If this statement has merit, what does it say for the 6.8 billion others in the world today who are not Americans? That God condemns them? The American embrace of divine destiny is not unique in history (one only has to recall that the belt buckles of the German army during World War II read “God is with us"). But for a nation born of the age of reason to collectively fall victim to the most base of fear-induced theology is a clear indication that America currently fails to live up to its founding principles. Rather than turning to Dobson and his ilk for guidance in these troubled times, Americans would be well served to reflect on President Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, delivered in the middle of a horrific civil war which makes all of the conflict America finds itself in today pale in comparison:

“Both [North and South] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. ... The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. ... [T]hat He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?”

God is not on our side, or the side of any single nation or people. To believe such is the ultimate expression of national hubris. To invoke such, if one is a true believer, is to embrace sacrilege and heresy. This, of course, is an individual right, granted as an extension of religious freedom. But it is not a collective right, nor is it a right born of governance, especially in a land protected by the separation of church and state.

The issue of Iran is a national problem which requires a collective debate, discussion and dialogue inclusive of all the facts, and stripped of all ideology and theocracy which would seek to deny reasoned thought conducted within a framework of accepted laws and ideals. It is grossly irresponsible of an American president to invoke the imagery of World War III without first sharing with the American people the framework of thought that produced such a comparison. Such openness will not be forthcoming from this administration or president. Not in the form of Stephen Hadley’s policy of no policy, designed with intent to avoid and subvert both bureaucratic and legislative process and oversight, or Dick Cheney’s secret government within a government, operating above and beyond the law and in a manner which violates both legal and moral norms and values, and certainly not in the president’s own private conversations with “God,” either directly or through the medium of lunatic evangelicals who embrace the termination of all we stand for, and especially the future of our next generation, in a fiery holocaust born from the fraudulent writings of centuries past. The processes which compelled George W. Bush to speak of a World War III are intentionally not transparent to the American people. The president has much to explain, and it would be incumbent upon every venue of civic and public pressure to demand that such an explanation be forthcoming in the near future. The stakes regarding Iran have always been high, but never more so than when a nation’s leader invokes the end of days as a solution.

A former Marine Corps intelligence officer, Scott Ritter was a chief inspector for the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books; “Target Iran,” with a new afterword by the author, was recently released in paperback by Nation Books.

Iran: Bush Will Be Tried on Atrocities

TEHRAN, -- US President George W. Bush failed and defeated in his Middle East plan and would one day stand trial for "atrocities" in Iraq, Iran's Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said Friday.

Ayatollah Khamenei made the remark in his second sermon to this week's Friday prayers at Tehran University on the second day of the fasting month of Ramadhan.

"Today the Americans are condemned by the public opinion of the Islamic nation and they are hated," the leader told thousands of worshippers.

"I have a firm belief that one day this current US president and the American officials will be tried in a fair international supreme court for catastrophes and atrocities committed in Iraq," he said.

"US Administration will have to answer for why they don't end occupation of Iraq and why waves of terrorism and insurgency have overwhelmed the country he added. "

"It will not be like this forever and one day they will be stopped as happened to Hitler, Saddam and certain other European leaders."

Ayatollah Khamenei said that the US invaded Iraq in 2003 to execute the Middle East plan that would be "based around" Israel- Iran's archenemy- and aimed at weakening Islamic system in Iran.

The Leader described the recent congressional testimony of the top U.S. officials in Iraq as a sign of weakness and the failure of American policy in the war torn country.

"More than four years have passed since the occupation of Iraq and today everyone knows that America has failed and is frantically looking for a way out,'' he said.

"Today we are in a better political position compared to four to five years ago,'' he said."We have moved forward economically and the spiritual preparedness and happiness of our nation has improved.''

"The US beat down in their objective in the Middle East and were failed in their ultimate aim for the Islamic Republic of Iran," said the leader.

Ayatollah Khamenei brushed off the notion that the United States could now threaten the Islamic Republic.

"Thanks to God, we are climbing the ladder of success... This shows the complete defeat of United States in weakening Iran," he said.

"A nation like ours, without an atomic bomb and not as wealthy as these other powerful governments, has foiled a whole series of their conspiracies and forced them to give up and withdraw,'' said the leader.

APEC? OPEC? Australia? Austria? Bush gets confused

Australia -- President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House.

He'd only reached the third sentence of Friday's speech to business leaders, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit," Bush said to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Oops. That would be APEC, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim nations, not OPEC, the cartel of 12 major oil producers.

Bush quickly corrected himself. "APEC summit," he said forcefully, joking that Howard had invited him to the OPEC summit next year (for the record, an impossibility, since neither Australia nor the U.S. are OPEC members).

The president's next goof went uncorrected -- by him anyway. Talking about Howard's visit to Iraq last year to thank his country's soldiers serving there, Bush called them "Austrian troops."

That one was fixed for him. Though tapes of the speech clearly show Bush saying "Austrian," the official text released by the White House switched it to "Australian."

Then, speech done, Bush confidently headed out -- the wrong way.

He strode away from the lectern on a path that would have sent him over a steep drop. Howard and others redirected the president to center stage, where there were steps leading down to the floor of the theater.

The event had inauspicious beginnings. Bush started 10 minutes late, so that APEC workers could hustle people out of the theater's balcony seating to fill the many empty portions of the main orchestra section below -- which is most visible on camera.

Even resettled, the audience remained quiet throughout the president's remarks, applauding only when he was finished.

A logistical glitch added to the woes.

APEC security workers would not allow the members of the media who travel in Bush's motorcade to enter the Opera House along with him. This even though the journalists allowed into the president's entourage are extensively screened and guarded by the Secret Service, which has more stringent security standards than about any operation in the world. And even though they always accompany him into public events.

As a result, while Bush spoke, the traveling media cooled its heels outside the landmark Opera House, shooting pictures and watching boats in the harbor.