New contact information for the Saker

Dear friends,

It appears that Antiwar.com will try to have my blog shutdown. I don't think that they have much a case, but since I am not sure any more what their real motives are I have to assume that they will try hard.

As I have explained this morning, I don't really care any more what will happen to my blog, but I do want to stay touch with those who have supported me in the past, and even more so with those who are supporting me now.

I have therefore opened a new email account in a place safe from such actions. From now on you can, if my google account in shot or if you cannot get in touch with me through it, also contact also me at vineyardsaker@mail.ru

I want to sincerely thank all of you who have written to support me, both those who posted comments here and those who emailed me privately. I will keep you posted.

Cheers!

The Saker

Antiwar.com files a 2nd DMCA complaint against my blog

This just fresh in:
-------
Hello,

Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that content in your blog:

vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others. The content in question
is located in the following posts:

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/10/lobby-unmasked-we-have-unwritten.html

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying
information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling
Effects, and we will send you the link of this notice. We do this in
accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for
online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement.
Please see http://www.educause.edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=254 for more
information about the DMCA, and see
http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html for the process that Blogger
requires in order to make a DMCA complaint.

We are asking that you please remove the allegedly infringing content in
your blog. If you do not do this within the next 3 days (by 11/4/07), we
will be forced to remove the posts in question. If we did not do so, we
would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its
merits.

We can reinstate this content into your blog upon receipt of a counter
notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of
the DMCA. For more information about the requirements of a counter
notification and a link to a sample counter notification, see
http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html#counter.

Please note that repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in
further remedial action taken against your Blogger account.

If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain
your own legal counsel. If you have any other questions about this
notification, please let us know.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
-------
ok. looks like they want to shut me down.

will keep everybody posted.

The Saker

Antiwar.com files a DMCA complaint against my blog

Received in my mailbox today:
-------

Hello,

Blogger has been notified, according to the terms of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), that content in your blog:

vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others. The content in question
is located in the following posts:

http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/10/whos-behind-pkk-in-word-washington.html

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying
information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling
Effects, and we will send you the link of this notice. We do this in
accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The DMCA is a United States copyright law that provides guidelines for
online service provider liability in case of copyright infringement.
Please see http://www.educause.edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=254 for more
information about the DMCA, and see
http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html for the process that Blogger
requires in order to make a DMCA complaint.

We are asking that you please remove the allegedly infringing content in
your blog. If you do not do this within the next 3 days (by 11/4/07), we
will be forced to remove the posts in question. If we did not do so, we
would be subject to a claim of copyright infringement, regardless of its
merits.

We can reinstate this content into your blog upon receipt of a counter
notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3) of
the DMCA. For more information about the requirements of a counter
notification and a link to a sample counter notification, see
http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html#counter.

Please note that repeated violations to our Terms of Service may result in
further remedial action taken against your Blogger account.

If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain
your own legal counsel. If you have any other questions about this
notification, please let us know.

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
-------

FYI - This is the result of a DMCA complaint filed against me by Eric Garris, the webmaster of antiwar.com for posting the full text of Justin Raimondo's article on the PKK rather than an excerpt.

Needless to say, I won't bother contesting anything and let the Blogger Team remove whatever it is they want to remove.

Also, since a removal of the "offending" article will probably result in the removal of the responses to it, I have made the very interesting responses to the article available here.

I will keep you posted of any possible developments.

The Saker

An open letter to my friends and visitors

But first, our global anthem:
Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollars and cents,
Pounds, shillings and pence
Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense

Roger Waters, Amused to Death

Dear friends,

The time has come for me to share with you some thoughts which I had been having for a while already but which I had been trying to suppress. In the past couple of days I had some email exchanges with an individual which convinced me that ignoring these thoughts any longer made no sense and, frankly, has become impossible. I have therefore decided to candidly share these thoughts with you.

Peace - a cause or a business?

The main issue with is bothering me is that I am immensely disappointed in the peace movement in general and in the Internet-based anti-war websites in particular. Simply put, most of them are in the "peace business" just as in any other business. Though they proudly display anti-war, pro-peace, pro-freedom banners, their over-riding concern is making money. In a way, considering the logic of the capitalist mindset, this makes perfect sense.

After almost eight years of Neocon rule the American empire is in a deep crisis, it has already lost at least three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon in 2006) and is about to embark on a fourth one (Iran), the greenback is in steady decline, the government more bloated than ever before, and voters are looking at the almost inevitable election of a war-mongering Fascist as President in 2008. Even more importantly, the Neocons have a iron grip on the corporate media who has become little more than an obedient propaganda outlet. So there is, if you want, a "market" out there for "alternative" political news websites, and as any good capitalist will tell you, when there is a demand for something suppliers will provide it and compete for the opportunity to sell the desired good or service. The same is, sadly, true of the anti-war blogosphere.

Ever since I began my blog I tried to reach out to what I thought would be my allies in a common cause, only to find out that, at best, my efforts would be greeted with indifference and, at worst, with outright animosity and, often, vitriolic hostility. The sole exception to this sad reality was the radio talk show host Scott Horton, who has always been very kind to me and encouraging. Everybody else either didn't give a damn or saw me as a competitor.

Is there anybody out there?

Like the character Pink in the movie The Wall, I have often wondered "is there anybody out there?" while looking at all the "bricks in the Wall". The answer is yes, there is. I have had kind and encouraging feedback from good people: curt, peter_saker, fatima, mizgin, anticapitalista, interpreter, mud_shark, leila, lysander, datta, irish_eyes, alex, bedouina - you have all been wonderfully kind to me and you have my deepest gratitude!

At this time my blog gets about 1800 visitors each week, of which only about 5-10 leave a comment. I like the first number and I am a little disappointed by the second one. But all in all, I consider myself "on target" for a personal blog which began only 6 months ago, on May 1, 2007.

Yet another case of "mission drift"?

What was my goal when I began this blog? The title of the very first piece I posted here really sums it up: "Where the Empire meets to plan the next war". Empire and war. The same thing, really.

As a former General Staff major and military analyst (strategic intelligence and operational force training) who had studied under many influential Neocons (including Ed Luttwak, Eliot Cohen, Ken Adelman, Richard Holbrooke, etc) I had no doubt whatsoever that the Israel Lobby was pushing for a war with Iran and that it would be successful in its efforts. Every single "indicator and warning", in intelligence jargon, was pointing to an inevitable, if not imminent, war.

I also knew that a war with Iran would make the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq look like a boy-scout jamboree.

The second factor which motivated me to maintain a blog was the certitude that, short of a miracle, a true "card carrying" Fascist would succeed Bush the Lesser in the White House in 2008. You think Dubya is bad? Just wait until Hillary, Obama or Giuliani take control!

Six months after starting my blog, I see absolutely no reason to hope for a different outcome. The aggression on Iran will happen and the USA will have a Fascist President in 2008. Taking this into account, I decided to change the purpose of my blog from raising the alarm about what was about to happen to leaving a "paper trail", if you wish, a chronicle which would document two things: a) how it happened and b) that it was absolutely predicable.

Here, however, I did suffer from what peacekeeping/counterinsurgency forces in the field call "mission drift": a situation in which you go in to do one thing, and end up doing something totally different. In my case, this meant that from writing my own analyses of what was happening I ended up mostly compiling and posting articles taken off other sources on the Internet with the aim to form a "composite picture" of the inevitable "surge to a war" with Iran. In doing this, however, I appeared as a competitor to others who were already doing so and whose incomes depended on being the "top dogs" in the antiwar business. I was clearly not making friends among those who, I naively thought, would welcome me as an ally in a common cause.

Has my blog done anything useful so far?

Honestly, I don't know. My overwhelming feeling is that nobody gives a damn and those who do only care about money. That is not what I expected going into all this. I think I did a good job with some interviews (the one with Mizgin immediately comes to my mind) and I think I provided a valuable resource on developments in Iran and inside Hezbollah (which I consider the two most important things to understand if one wants to see the rationale behind the Neocon crusade for war). That is in particular true in light of the fact that the "top dogs" in the antiwar business do a very poor job covering Iran and Hezbollah (makes sense: since they are in the business primarily, if not only, for the money, they simply cannot afford to take too "out of the antiwar mainstream" position without risking their contributions).

But does the fact that I did a decent job here and there prove that anyone cares? Did I make any difference, however small?

I honestly don't think so.

My own "redirection"?

I am not sure what I should do now. I frankly do no have any desire to continue fighting windmills like Don Quichotte. I have lost all my illusions about the "peace movement businessmen" for whom peace and freedom are little more than marketing tools for their income generating websites.

Schiller (and Goethe) wrote Gegen Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens - "even the gods struggle in vain against stupidity", and though I am certainly no god, stupidity is what I am currently most struggling against. The stupidity of a lemming-like nation cheering on the puppets which Neocon puppet masters dangle in front of their eyes, and against the stupidity of a self-centered antiwar movement which is far more concerned with personal gain than with preventing the American Republic from turning into a Neocon Fascist empire.

There are still, I hope, some true idealists in the antiwar movement out there. I think of Ron Paul and Cindy Sheehan, for example. But neither of them needs my blog. What I therefore need now is a "redirection" of my own.

Where do I go from here?

I don't know. I think that I will give myself some time to think about all this. I will also listen to any comments any of you, my friends, might want to make and advice you might want to give me (please feel free to post anything here in the comments section, or email me).

I might just pull the plug on this blog completely. I might change its orientation and focus. I might start a new blog, possibly under my real name, possibly in a different language.

Maybe I should look at the option of a weekly commentary on current developments as one friend suggested?

Part of me also wants to simply throw in the towel and let the world go to hell. I have my wonderful and loving family (an angelic saint of a wife, three great kids, one fantastic German Shepherd) to take care of. I have some wonderful friends. I am also currently studying for a (second) Master's degree (in Patristic theology). To put it crudely - I don't need this shit (and this shit sure does not need me).

In the meantime: a countdown to something yet to be defined

Starting today, I am completely stopping all the "usual business" on this blog. I will keep the blog up and the RSS feeds will be running. I might post here from time to time my thoughts on where this blog should be going, if anywhere, and I will keep an eye on any comments you, my friends, might make either here, or by emailing me.

I need to give myself some time to overcome the disgust and discouragement I am currently feeling and to decide what, if anything, I might do in the future. As Roger Waters, wrote "each small candle lights a corner of the dark" and I have not yet fully lost the desire to light an even tiny corner of the dark. But right now, the darkness which I want to light up is the one in my own heart.

Very sincerely,

The Saker

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/

The Lobby, Unmasked: "We have an 'unwritten contract' with the American media"

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN REMOVED UNDER THE THREAT OF A DMCA COMPLAINT MADE BY ANTIWAR.COM AGAINST THIS BLOG FOR ALLEGED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION

THE SAKER

Attacking Iran for Israel?

by Ray McGovern

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that “the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world” is simply too much of a stretch.

To gauge someone’s reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice’s credibility suffers in comparison with Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Basing his judgment on the findings of IAEA inspectors in Iran, ElBaradei reports that there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program there.

If this sounds familiar it is, in fact, déjà vu. ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC’s Tim Russert, “I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong.”

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, US intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain. Burned by the bogus “proof” adduced for Iraq-the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes-the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related “evidence.” Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?” There is a simpler answer.

Cat Out of the Bag

The Israeli ambassador to the US, Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. Heavy on the chutzpah, he then served gratuitous notice on Washington that countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions will take a “united United States in this matter,” lest the Iranians conclude, “come January ‘09, they have it their own way.”

Meridor stressed that “very little time” remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so? Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.

Truth be told, every other year since 1995 US intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years. It has become downright embarrassing-like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called “neo-conservatives” like James Woolsey, who in August publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt Tehran’s nuclear weapons program.

Woolsey, self-described “anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs,” put it this way: “I’m afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [the Iranians] could have the bomb.”

The day before Ambassador Meridor’s unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.” That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush’s apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran’s nuclear program in the bud before they leave office. That is why the Israeli ambassador says there is “very little time”-less than 15 months.

Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976. Westinghouse and General Electric successfully lobbied for approval to sell the Shah for $6.4 billion the kind of nuclear facilities that Iran is now building, but the deal fell through when the Shah was ousted in 1979.

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and Israel’s current leaders are pressing for the US to obliterate Iran’s fledgling nuclear program.

Anyone aware of Iran’s ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush in the past. And the real rationale is reminiscent of the one revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10 2002, Zelikow said this to a crowd at the University of Virginia:

“Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is-it’s the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name…the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.”

Harbinger?

The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its nuclear-related facilities. During a Jan. 20, 2005 interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush’s second inauguration, Cheney put Iran “right at the top of the list of trouble spots,” and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Cheney then added, with remarkable nonchalance:

“Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards.”

Does this not sound like the so-called “Cheney plan” being widely discussed in the media today? An Israeli attack; Iranian retaliation; the United States springing to the defense of its “ally” Israel?

A big fan of preemption, the vice president was the first U.S. official to speak approvingly of Israel’s air attack on Iraq’s reactor at Osirak in 1981. He included that endorsement in his important speech of Aug. 26, 2002, in which he set the terms of reference for the subsequent campaign to persuade Congress to approve war with Iraq.

Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel’s penchant to preempt. Ten years after the attack on Osirak, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli Air Force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, “Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981.”

Nothing is known of Ivri’s response, but it is a safe bet it was along the lines of “we could not have done it without your country’s help.” Indeed, although the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein’s Iraq at the time), intelligence and operational support that the Pentagon shared with the Israelis made a major contribution to the success of the Israeli raid. With Vice President Cheney now calling the shots, similar support is a virtual certainty in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran.

It is no secret that former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon was already pressing in 2003 for an early preemptive strike, insisting that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than the time forecast by U.S. intelligence. Sharon even brought his own military adviser to brief Bush with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations.

More troubling still, in the fall of 2004 Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as Chair of the younger Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times.

A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush “mesmerized;” that he had our president “wrapped around his little finger.” Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately ousted from the advisory board and is now persona non grata at the White House in which he worked for so many years.

An Unstable Infatuation

George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister at the time and took Bush on a helicopter tour of the Israeli occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006 McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:

“If there’s a starting point for George W. Bush’s attachment to Israel, it’s the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, ‘Amazing Grace.’ He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved.”

Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of “honest broker” between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he had decided to take Sharon “at face value” and unleash him.

At that point the president brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians. In Ron Suskind’s Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who took part at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: “Looked real bad down there,” the president said with a frown. He then said it was time to end America’s efforts in the region: “I don’t see much we can do over there at this point.”

O’Neill reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of more nuanced and balanced longstanding policy. Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and “the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians.” According to O’Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things.” O’Neill says that Powell seemed “startled.”

It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.

What Now?

The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is unusual-but-sensible foot-dragging by the U.S. military. It seems likely that the senior military leadership has told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6-and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.

CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, “We are not going to do Iran on my watch.” And in an online Q-and-A on Sept. 27, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest spoke of a possible “revolt” if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:

“This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. Casey, the Army chief, has said…that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Besides, it’s not the ‘war’ or ‘bombing’ part that’s difficult; it’s the morning after and all the days after that. Haven’t we learned that (again) from Iraq?”

How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it. If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.

And for every Admiral Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey, “cakewalk” Ken Adelman and other “neo-cons.” The air campaign “will be easy,” says McInerney, a FOX pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. “Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can’t penetrate,” he adds, and several hundred aircraft, including stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:

“Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back.”

And the likely White House rationale for war? Since, particularly with the fiasco of Iraq as backdrop, it will be a hard sell to promote the idea of an imminent threat from a nuclear-armed Iran, the White House PR machine has already begun focusing on other “evidence”- amorphous so far-indicating that Iran is supporting those who are “killing our troops in Iraq.”

The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how “easily” it can all be done-Cakewalk II.

Madness.

It is not as though our country has lacked statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other countries:

“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”
(George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)

* * *

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Poll: Majority of Voters Support Iran Strike

Rick Moran

A new Zogby poll out today shows that 52% of likely voters would support a strike against Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. Another 53% believe it "likely" that such an attack will take place before the next election:

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%). Younger likely voters are more likely than those who are older to say a strike is likely to happen before the election and women (58%) are more likely than men (48%) to say the same – but there is little difference in support for a U.S. strike against Iran among these groups.Surprisingly, Hillary Clinton is seen as the candidate best able to deal with the Iranians followed by Giuliani and John McCain:

When asked which presidential candidate would be best equipped to deal with Iran – regardless of whether or not they expected the U.S. to attack Iran – 21% would most like to see New York U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the country, while 15% would prefer former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and 14% would want Arizona U.S. Sen. John McCain in charge. Another 10% said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would be best equipped to deal with Iran, while Republican Fred Thompson (5%), Democrat John Edwards (4%) and Republican Mitt Romney (3%) were less likely to be viewed as the best leaders to help the U.S. deal with Iran.

It appears that Hillary Clinton's transition from soft on defense liberal to hawk is complete - at least as far as the perception of her candidacy is concerned. Her initial support for the war and perhaps more importantly, her refusal to apologize to the hard left for voting for it in the first place may have helped change that perception.

Zogby's automated telephone polling has its detractors so it might be best to take this news with a grain of salt. But clearly a significant portion of the electorate appears ready to bite the bulllet on Iran and don't mind the idea of Hillary leading that effort.

Finally, Action! Ron Paul Introduces Bill to Defend Constitution!

by Naomi Wolf

It's not every day that there is something concrete you can do to save democracy in one powerful stroke and make sure your kids don't come of age in an American in which we are no longer protected by the rule of law. I have been writing about the terrifying and precipitous assault on our liberties and our very system of checks and balances; I have crossed the country with this message -- today I am in Boston -- and I have heard across the nation that (as usual) the people are ahead of the leaders and the pundits. Americans of all backgrounds are alarmed and outraged and ready to take action against these vicious assaults on the rule of law. But what I hear again and again is: "What can we do?"

Here is what you can do, and it is big, big news. If we do this together in our millions we are safer; and if we fail to act we miss an historic opening and risk far worse to come.

There are two new organizations that are driving a grassroots push to restore the rule of law: the American Freedom Agenda was started by leaders who are conservative: Bruce Fein, who was a Reagan administration official in the Department of Justice, and others. The American Freedom Campaign was started by progressives. Both groups advance comparable 10 point legislative agendas that would stabilize democracy long enough for us to forestall the worst and regroup for more long-term reparation of the Constitution and the rule of law. Both would, if passed, protect Americans from the scary stories of abuse and recrimination I am hearing every single day -- journalists intimidated, prisoners tortured, innocent citizens spied on by the State in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both would make it illegal for any administration to commit the kinds of crimes against America and its constitution that we have seen under this one: the innocent lawyer Brandon Mayfield's home broken into, the innocent software engineer Maher Arar kept prisoner by U.S. agents in an interrogation cell in a U.S. airport and prevented from calling his lawyer, and journalists reporting on abuses by the government threatened by the state with prosecution that could keep them in jail for a decade. Urgently it would close the horrific legal possibility for the president to call you or me an "enemy combatant" tomorrow -- JUST BECAUSE HE SAYS SO -- and lock us up in solitary confinement for years.

Passing the legislative agenda of either group would make it clear that American citizens -- in spite of a heretofore craven and compliant Congress -- refuse to stand by silently while a group of criminals systematically violates the core structure of the democracy our Founders put in place for us.

The big news is that this idea can now become a law and a law creates a reality.

On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul, the outsider Republican presidential candidate who has long upheld these values and who was an early voice warning of the grave danger to all of us of these abuses, introduced the AFA's legislative package into Congress. (The mainstream press has an irrational habit of disparaging outsider candidates -- as if corrupt money and machine endorsements equal seriousness of purpose -- even though the Founders hoped that the system they established would lead citizens, ideally those unembedded in the establishment, to offer their service to the nation.) It is the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 [PDF], and you should read it in its entirety: just as accounts of the recent abuses send chills down your spine, this beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.

What does it do? According to an alert put out by the American Freedom campaign, it would accomplish the following:

"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."

Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way -- and all credit is due to him for getting there first. May the others of both parties race to follow his lead. These days, as we have seen from how reluctant some candidates have been -- even on the Democratic sign -- even to sign a mere pledge to uphold the Constitution, it takes some courage to stand fast against the assaults of this administration -- and their manipulations of the terms "patriotism" and "terror threat" -- and insist with legislation on the Founders' vision and on restoring democracy.

A groundswell of millions of Americans of all parties rising up to insist on passage of the AFA legislation means that we are awake -- we get it -- and that we assert that an alert citizenry, not a whipped-dog Congress or a violently abusive executive, decides what happens in this nation still. I am not a voter on his side of the ballot -- but I will move heaven and earth to support the passage of this lifesaving agenda. (Interestingly when I run into Paul's supporters -- who are deeply alert to the abuses of democracy -- and I demur by saying I am a Democrat, it is they who rightly assure me that these issues transcend party).

There is no way to overstate how crucial this piece of legislation is. We are at a turning point, and without the restoration of the rule of law the "blueprint" for what I have called a "fascist shift" -- the closing down of democracy -- calls for scarier recriminations against citizens, greater tightening of social controls -- the ever-growing, disturbingly political TSA watch list is, alarmingly, due to go from the airlines' administration to that of the TSA itself -- and more corruptions of the electoral process. Blackwater is a truly terrifying wild card. Without the rule of law we will be powerless as each of these assaults on liberty continue to escalate. With it we can fight back.

This is the answer both to those who say "What we can do?" and to those who claim (actually, sometimes whine) "there is nothing we can do." And if we don't act on this now we will get the democracy we deserve -- which is no democracy at all.

Put aside your partisan ideal world -- sometimes issues simply transcend partisanship -- and if ever there is an issue that is above and separate from party politics, it is the restoration of the democratic system we inherited. There are good people and passionate patriots across the political spectrum.

We at the AFC are putting out a call to pass this set of laws. Pick up the phone -- every day. Email your representative -- every day. Let them hear from millions of Americans a day. Let them hear from twenty. Please play hardball -- the times demand it and nice girls and boys have managed to get this Congress to do literally nothing at all to protect liberty.

Congressmen and women say off the record that they can't support liberty, much as they'd like to, because they are scared of "looking soft on terror" and they want to run out the clock -- a naive and self-serving posture in a time of crisis. Make them more scared of you if they don't. Tell them you will bombard their donors with the message that they have sold out liberty. Tell them you will denounce them as traitors to the Constitution in your local and regional letters to the editor and op-eds. Tell them they are unpatriotic to stand by while liberty is disemboweled. Tell them you will stop at nothing to ensure their future defeat unless they support this and make it the law of the land.

Let's do it. There is no excuse now. The restoration of democracy is up to you -- as the Founders intended it should be.

Ron Paul on US policies towards Cuba

Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Still No Cigars

by Rep. Ron Paul

Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been.

The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on U.S. capitalism instead of Cuban communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the U.S., and they are "awash" in development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regard to Cuba, meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity.

In the name of helping Cubans, the U.S. administration is calling for multibillions of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for Internet access, education, and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backward. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the U.S. Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans!

The irony of supposed free-marketeers inducing communists to freedom with government handouts should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the U.S.-government-run Radio/TV Marti have wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars.

It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China. Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being: it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose whom to buy from or where to travel – not our government.

Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba, it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.

Hariri unveils bid on his life, meets Aoun in Paris

Mohamad Shmaysani

The head of the Change and Reform parliamentary bloc MP General Michel Aoun will meet in Paris with the head of the Future Movement bloc MP Saad Hariri, the elnashra news site said Tuesday. The site quoted a senior French diplomatic source as saying that preparations for this meeting had been ongoing in secret. The source added that when the security threat to both leaders reached a high level, it was decided to hold the meeting in Paris.

Hariri – Saniora Assassination Plot

Hariri is in Egypt for talks with President Hosni Mubarak over the Lebanese political crisis. He said he had evidence of assassination plots against himself and head of the unconstitutional government Fouad Saniora. Hariri made the claim in response to a question about alleged assassination plots by Syrian head of intelligence Assef Shawqat.

"We have intelligence about this and we are following it up," he told reporters. "The intelligence is correct and our security services are working on it. There is cooperation between Lebanese security services and Arab security services to avoid such assassinations," he said, without specifying which countries were helping in the investigations. Asked about Hariri's comments, an official at the Beirut office of the unconstitutional government said: "It is true and we have been informed about it." Hariri said his talks with Mubarak in Cairo focused on the vote and "the interference of certain states to prevent the holding of these elections." He added that Mubarak had promised to help prevent "any interference in the Lebanese presidential election or anything that might prejudice the stability of Lebanon."

Sfeir Criticizes Washington

The February 14 political bloc however continues to campaign for a presidential vote with the half-plus-one MPs formula; the core of the political crisis with the opposition, which wants elections to take place with the two-third quorum in harmony with the constitution.

Maronite Patriarch Nasrallah Sfeir had said he adhered to the two-third quorum formula. He criticized Washington's indefinite position over the presidential vote. "Sometimes they tell us they are with the two-third formula and at other times they tell us they support the half-plus-one formula and that they back Saniora's government to rule in case of political void," Sfeir was quoted by Assafir daily.

Khoja Meets Saniora, Berri

Meanwhile, Saudi Ambassador to Lebanon Abdul Aziz Khoja held a surprise meeting with House Speaker Nabih Berri after meeting with Saniora at the Grand Serail. In a joint press conference with Saniora, Khoja stressed Lebanon will have a new president and expressed confidence in the political players in Lebanon.

The Central News Agency quoted a source in the Saudi embassy as saying that the Saudi role did not retract. The source added that the instructions of King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz on how to deal with the Lebanese file are fixed. He also said that Saudi Arabia maintains its position that a Lebanese president should be made in Lebanon in harmony with the constitution without foreign pressure.

Israel can hit Iran’s nuclear sites, general says

by Sheldon Kirsher

Israel can deal a crushing blow to Iran’s budding nuclear program, an Israeli general says.

At an Oct. 22 press briefing in Toronto for a small group of Jewish journalists, the high-ranking Israel Defence Forces officer warned that Israel has the military capabilities to destroy or damage it.

“We have to be prepared for any eventuality,” the brigadier general said.

He said Israel would even be content with damaging Iranian nuclear sites.

“Delay can also be helpful,” he noted, delivering these threatening comments against the backdrop of mounting tensions with Iran.

Last week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni called for additional United Nations economic sanctions to be imposed on Iran, while Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, said Israel should always be ready “to pre-empt, to deter, to defeat” threats to its existence.

For more than a year now, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has openly called for Israel’s destruction. Repeating his mantra most recently, he described Israel as a “fake state.”

The general acknowledged that UN sanctions have had “some positive effects,” but they have not deterred Iran from moving closer to acquiring a nuclear arsenal.

Claiming that Iran is very close to crossing the technical threshold that will enable it to build an atomic device, he cited Western estimates that Iran will be a nuclear power anywhere between 2010 and 2015.

“We don’t see anyone trying to stop Iran,” he declared, adding that diplomatic measures have neither been sufficient nor effective.

“There is another option,” he said in an allusion to military means.

The officer admitted that, compared to Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981, hitting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be a far more formidable challenge, since it is widely dispersed and buried deep underground in bunkers.

But Israel could overcome these disadvantages by detecting “weak points” in Iran’s defences, he said without elaborating.

Israel’s policy until now has been to support international efforts to contain Iran, he said. “We preferred to play a background role.”

But Israel’s patience is wearing thin, he observed, saying that Iran should not only be its problem.

If Iran goes nuclear, allies like Hezbollah and Hamas would feel emboldened, while Arab states would try to match Iran’s achievement, he predicted.

Accusing Iran of meddling in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli officer said, “Iranian fingerprints are all over the Middle East.”

He charged that Iran is attempting to dominate the region. “Iran is leading the radical resistance movement,” he said in a reference to Hezbollah and Hamas.

Iran is also trying to undermine western influence in the Middle East and sabotage a possible Israeli rapprochement with the moderate wing of the Palestinian movement, he added.

Turning his attention to the Palestinians, the general expressed doubt whether Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, is strong enough to implement a peace agreement with Israel.

Hamas, which already controls the Gaza Strip, would seize the West Bank from Fatah should Israel withdraw from the West Bank, he said.

The general allowed that Israel might well be able to deal with Hamas politically if it abides by international conditions and recognizes Israel’s existence, disavows terrorism and accepts agreements that Israel and the Palestinian Authority have signed since the mid-1990s.

Charging that Egypt is not doing nearly enough to staunch the flow of smuggled arms into Gaza, he said, “Gaza is not only Israel’s problem, but a problem for the Palestinians and Egyptians.”

He said the Israeli army may yet be forced to launch a massive incursion into Gaza in an attempt to eradicate the Palestinian network responsible for firing short-range Qassam missiles into Israel.

Asked whether such a raid would be on the scale of Operation Defensive Shield, carried out five years ago in the West Bank, the general agreed that the possibility remains high.

“But not now,” he said, explaining that Israel has no intention of undertaking a big military operation on the eve of the regional Mideast peace conference, set to take place later this month in Annapolis, Md., under the sponsorship of the United States.

The Israeli general said that Hezbollah, 15 months after the end of the Second Lebanon War, is rebuilding its military infrastructure in southern Lebanese villages, which are off limits to United Nations peacekeeping troops.

“Hezbollah is building capabilities for the future.”

But due to the presence of the Lebanese army and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, Hezbollah doesn’t have the same freedom of movement it enjoyed before the summer of 2006, he noted.

Nonetheless, Iran and Syria have both transferred advanced anti-tank and surface-to-surface missiles to Hezbollah since the ceasefire in Lebanon.

Asked if Israel and Hezbollah will fight a second round, the general replied, “It’s very difficult to say.”

He would not be drawn into a discussion regarding reports that the Israeli Air Force bombed a partially built, North Korean-manufactured nuclear reactor in Syria on Sept. 6.

“To keep a secret in Israel is a great challenge, and I’m not going to break it now.”