From my article Foreign Relations Roulette  (Feb. 27, 2005):

“To begin with, we should have a real heart to heart talk with our “allies.” We need to make clear, in no uncertain terms, that our goal is to help create a world that guarantees people the rights of freedom, the rights to have a representative government of their making, and a chance at prosperity as they define it. We, along with our other allies, should offer them all the technical, practical, educational, and financial assistance to help bring them up to developed standards. We should listen to their methods and ideas regarding “social growth” and incorporate them when practical. We need to be willing to share life-changing advances with other governments and ensure that they use this knowledge for their people. In exchange, we need to make clear what we expect from them in return: a quick transition towards a stable, elected representative government that provides for its people’s needs as defined by the people and an atmosphere of personal freedom and responsibility. And then, perhaps most importantly, we must lead by example. We must show our sincerity by including these countries and their people in the changes rather than just throwing money to American companies with a mandate to “fix the place.” We must clean up our act here at home and we must embrace actions that show the world that we are committed to world peace above capitalist profit.”

____________________________________________________________________________________

From the Interview

(On directions to Mid-East envoy George Mitchell)

“And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating — in the past on some of these issues –and we don’t always know all the factors that are involved. So let’s listen. He’s going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.”

(On the Israel-Palestine situation)

“I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what’s happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I’ve said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there’s a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.”

(On the Muslim world in general)

“In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you’ve built, not what you’ve destroyed. And what they’ve been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.”

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that.

And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I’m not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what’s on a television station in the Arab world — but I think that what you’ll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A New Trend?

If you can notice the trend in all of these statements, it is that America will do better with friends and foes alike if we listen to the positions of all sides before rushing to judgment. But further, he understands that people (or nations) cannot move forward unless they are willing to let go of the past, especially the past wrongs that have created generations of enmity.

Secondly, for too long, our foreign policy forays have been based on the “Lesser of Two Evils” policy.

Again, from my article The Lesser of Two Evils (Jan.3, 2006):

“For over 60 years, U.S. Foreign policy has been predicated upon a doctrine known as “the lesser of two evils.” In essence, this policy was used as rationale for engaging in alliances with foreign dictators whose disdain for democracy held their own countrymen in virtual bondage to their whims. These dictatorships were free to act as they pleased within their own countries without pressure from the U.S. government with regards to human rights and freedoms so long as they sided with the U.S. in international matters or engaged in capitalistic endeavors with our government and corporations. Despite a stated goal of promoting democracy and freedom across the world, successive U.S. administrations and Congresses have made pacts with tyrants who abhor individual freedoms and seek power and wealth at the expense of their countrymen.

The simple truth is that the lesser of two evils policy is a fallacy. By choosing this method of foreign relations, the U.S. has not endeared itself to the people of the world. Despite the charity of our individual citizens to poor or ravaged countries around the world, the reputation of America is based on the actions of our government. We tout our freedoms and democratic principals everywhere we go, so the people of the world can only assume that we not only approve of what our government does abroad, we dictate that policy ourselves. They may want to come here and share in that power, but that doesn’t mean they like us. By choosing the lesser of two evils, we’ve shown the world that our means justify any ends, especially if the ends means more money and leisure for us. This approach to foreign policy has made us many false allies and real enemies, and the fruition of this approach is coming home to roost in the form of terror attacks and nuclear proliferation. And while the worst tyrants operate abroad, it is we who let them. Who is worse: the man who kicks the puppy or the one who pays to watch?”

We can only hope now, as we watch the beginnings of a new approach to foreign relations by America, that the Obama administration not only understands these concepts but puts them to constructive practice around the world. Listen before you act. Act consistently to all. Do not support tyrants while espousing democracy. Follow these three ideals, Mr. President, and you’ll make great progress towards restoring our national reputation and perhaps even leave the world a better, safer place than when it was handed to you.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

A recent AP-Yahoo poll shows that consumers don’t have a rosy outlook for their financial futures any time soon. Because of high gas prices.

From cancelled vacations to finding new jobs, people are struggling to cope with the high price of fuel. And they don’t think that current high prices are going to reverse course anytime soon.

“Do you think there’s an end in sight? I don’t,” 33-year-old Angela Crawford, a Dallas homemaker, said in an interview. “It’s depressing and it makes you nervous.”

“We just don’t do as much,” said William Fisk, 39, a former dishwasher in Freeport, Maine. “We used to go out to have dinner, but we’re cutting way back on that.”

“My parents said, ‘Come down, spend a week with us,’” said Julie Jacobs, 35. “But when you add on the expense of gas, it’s just not worth it.”

In fact, things are getting so tight, that some Nevada businesses are offering customers gas cards as incentives to keep coming in.

Oil price hikes are a direct result of the Bush policies in the Middle East. They are also a result of higher demand for oil in developing nations. They are also high as a result of financial speculators. The beating of war drums around Iran now has gas prices soaring higher.

The era of cheap transportation based on oil is coming to an end, and may be here already. The transition will cause us all to rethink many things about the way we live our lives. We are woefully unprepared as a nation.

Happy Monday.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz has told Israeli newspaper reporters that sanctions against Iran were not working and that an Israeli attack against Iran’s nuclear development sites was becoming “unavoidable.”

“If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective,” Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

“Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable,” said the former army chief who has also been defense minister.

One question…does this mean that the US and the Bush Administration can stop banging their own war drums about Iran? Not likely…and here’s why.

Iran has already said that any attack on Iran will result in retaliations against Israel AND any US targets available.

Iran still claims to be developing nuclear capabilities for non-military, civilian use only. But the rhetoric from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regarding the right of Israel to exist has only sought to increase skepticism about Iranian nuclear ambitions.

But why is this a US problem anyhow? We now have confirmation that Israel has their own ready nuclear strike force. Why can’t we let them take care of this themselves like the did with the Iraqi nuclear program in the 1980’s and like the claim to have done when bombing a Syrian facility not long ago? Are Iranian nukes really a US problem- a problem that requires another costly war and further raping of the US treasury by unsavory “contractors?”

Unfortunately, US foreign policy is so entangled in the Middle East, and so heavily in favor of Israel, that any Israeli strike would likely suck US forces into the abyss, especially if it occurs while Bush is still steering the ship of state. Experts believe that Iranian nuclear facilities are more numerous and better defensible than Iraq had in the 80’s or than Syria was building. As such, unless Israel unleashed the power of her own nuclear arsenal, a protracted ground and air war could likely ensue, requiring assistance to Israel.

One has to wonder whether this entire Iranian nuclear problem is largely the making of the Bush Administration. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, Bush included Iran in his official “Axis of Evil” club, putting the Iranians on notice that they were in the sights of the warmonger in chief. Add a couple hundred thousand US troops at their doorstep in Iraq, an increasing presence in the Straight of Hormuz, and it’s no wonder that Iranian government officials would worry about their own country’s security.

Still, it’s hard to have empathy for the Iranian government. After all, they have been clear sponsors of terrorism for decades and have been a vocal foe of the US since the deposition of the CIA-installed Shah in the late 1970’s. (Actually, Iranian resentment of US interference in their government runs deep and back to the 1950’s when the CIA backed a coup to reinstall the Shah to power. His harsh rule created theenvironment for revolution that swept the Islamicists into power. And our government’s backing of the Shah turned their enmity towards the U.S.)

If Israel does attack Iranian nuclear facilities they could respond in kind. If that occurs, we’ll be pulled in. Which in turn could inflate other Arab nations to join Iran against the US and Israel. This is how regional conflicts grow and suck in other nations. This is how world wars begin.

Bush knows his stance on Iran is unpopular in the states. He doesn’t much care. Perhaps this is his way of getting to attack Iran anyhow- by getting Israel to start thingsoff. Or maybe he’s still trying to help bring on his fundamentalist base’s idea of Glory on Earth- the beginning of the end.

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

Even Republicans, who for at least the last 8 years have operated under a “shoot first, negotiate never” policy, are starting to come around to the old adage we’re taught on the schoolyard- try to solve your problems first with words and not fists.

And it’s not as if a president who talks with America’s stated foes is a new concept here. Kennedy and Khrushchev. Nixon and Mao. Reagan and Gorbachev. Hell, two of those guys were Republicans! Yet once the GOP got a frat boy into the Oval Office, we don’t talk to enemies? Better to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran than to have a sit down? Again, most Americans don’t think so…

If anything, this poll indicates that Americans are tiring of the “cowboy diplomacy” employed by the Bush Administration and being co-opted by the McCain campaign as the best way to move America forward in the world. Even Hillary Clinton has towed the Bush-McCain doctrine in this arena. Americans are ready to move on to a more cooperative, more adult-oriented, more reality based foreign policy, and clearly McCain isn’t on the same page.

But Barack Obama has already said that talking to our enemies is the best first step towards solving our problems. And Americans agree with him.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

When the Bush administration thinks it IS one.

Despite a current intelligence report that indicates that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was halted in 2003, current and former members of Team Bush continue to assert that Iran is a looming threat to American security and the security of the world because of their continued nuclear ambitions, which Iran insists are being developed for civilian purposes.

Is it just me, or are these the same kinds of warnings trotted out by this administration before the Iraq invasion? The same kinds of warnings that were discredited both before and after that invasion, and have since been proven to be not only wrong, but really wrong? For opponents of the administrations hawkish mentality, this Iran intel reversal comes as no real surprise. That Team Bush would overhype, misstate, or even intentionally lie about something of great importance, like whether or not to bomb the hell out of a foreign country, is simply par for the course for this group of malignant politicos. What is shocking is the fact that the information is seeing the light of day before the bombs start flying. Bush, Cheney, and their “never been to war but happy to send others” cadre of criminals have been building the case for war with Iran for well over a year now, perhaps much longer if you interpret the “Axis of Evil” designation in ’01 to be the start of the ramp up to war. At each turn and opportunity they have been eager to paint a picture of mounting crisis while twisting themselves into pretzels to pretend to be trying all possible means to avoid war. But it’s war they want, make no mistake. And it’s war they’ve been pushing for. And now it looks like they won’t get to play GI Joe in Persia after all.

Sadly for the president (but much less sadly for the rest of the rational world) the debacle that is Iraq, his lies and mishandling of the intelligence for that action, his administrations total lack of post-war planning, the fraud and graft from war profiteeerer’s, the mounting death toll, and the financial house of cards about to collapse had already turned the public into a wary mistress regarding war towards Iran. The new intel that says that Iran quit trying for nuclear weapons over 4 years ago is like the sound of that mistress slamming the window shut on her wayward lovers’ fingertips.

For Bush to continue to push war rhetoric against Iran now, in the face of intelligence that says they are not making weapons and thus present no imminent danger to the United States, shows us more than ever how deluded and myopic this man can be and in fact is.

Reality check: Iran is no friend of the United States. But that’s no reason to start a war. Especially when the intel bears evidence that they pose no real threat to the homeland, nor are they in any position to do so any time soon.

If Bush had any brains at all he’d be making political hay out of this intelligence report. He could be using this newly released information, along with recent “successes” in North Korea (apparently they US does deal with “terrorists” as the Bush administration has been able to secure some concessions from Kim Jung-Il, similar to those extracted by the Cinton administration but derided by Team Bush perviously) to make limited claims of success stemming from Iraq. Bush could be trying to assert that it was his brilliant Iraq War plan that drove these other “Axis of Evil” member states into submission. He could at least stand up and say something to the effect of “Hey, these guys see what happened to Iraq and decided to shape up a bit.” Hell, the public might even buy it. I’m sure our elected Democrats would latch on to that to deflect their own shabby war record. But Bush isn’t saying anything of the sort. Nope…instead he’s saying we need to keep the pressure on Iran to ‘fess up to their deeds.’

Looks to me like there’s not much to fess up to, unless you want their president to apologize for his rhetoric. But asking for that would be too hypocritical for even Bush, now wouldn’t it?

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In return for North Korea’s agreement to take further steps to eliminate that country’s nuclear program, the United States has indicated that it may remove North Korea from it’s official list of countries that sponsor terrorism, a sign that would surely also remove North Korea from the vaunted Axis of Evil club that President Bush created in 2001. If, as it appears likely, Kim Jong-Il follows the example set by Libya’s Moammar Qhaddafi and relinquishes his push for WMD programs, this would mark the second time a country has dropped out of the Axis Program. (The first would be Iraq, which did not leave the club voluntarily, but was bludgened out of it. Insiders in Iraq claim that many local populations say that there should have been a vote after the removal of Saddam on whether the remaining country wanted to discard their membership in the Axis Program or continue on with a new titular head. Unfortunately, at the time, the U.S. wasn’t accepting application into the program.)

Insiders at the White House and State Department say that in light of recent events in the North Korean negotiations, there is considerable concern that the Axis Program will fade away unless new members can be recruited. Of critical concern to the president is the possibility that a shrinking Axis of Evil Program may weaken his ability to lash out at his political detracators and that his pet project, The Global War On Terror (TM) would lose considerable backing among his own supporters without a full contingent of Axis partners.

Iran, the last active member of the original Axis of Evil, has reportedly responded to the Help Wanted Ad (seen above and printed in most of the world’s main newspapers) in a manner befitting their status as ranking Evil Nation. Iranian president Mahmoud Amedinejad was overheard saying that if he’s not consulted about potential new members that he would discontinue his hard-line rhetoric and consider withdrawing his country from the program altogether. Apparently, Amedinejad is concerned that future Axis Program members may be mere “shadows of great tyrants. There are too many despot-wannabe’s out there trying to claim a piece of the action. I want veto power over any new applicants or I will bring fire and death to the world. And then I’ll quit the club too. Praise Allah.”

President Bush is expected to announce that filling the vacant positions in the Axis Program is his new top priority. He has created a committee to provide him with a list of names of those tyrants best suited to the task. Vice-President Dick Cheney will lead that committee, in part because he has the experience in such matters. After all, he did a fantastic job in a similar situation when he compiled the short list of running mates for then-governor Bush, ultimately deciding upon himself as the best of the best. Insiders speculate that Cheney may decide on a repeat performance. An unidentified source in the VP’s office claims to have heard Cheney muttering something about needing a new job in a year or so.

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action
against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman
told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the
border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which
they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they’ll take that as a sign of
weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region
and ultimately right here at home,” Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying
insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there’s any hope of
the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for
instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,”
Lieberman said. “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force,
and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what
they’re doing.”

And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand. We want it to end. This whole business of attacking nations to stop gangs of terrorists really isn’t the best way to go. More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

And to think that if Al Gore had won (I mean been declared the winner) in the 2000 election, America’s Vice-President would still be Dick Cheney, albeit with a different name. If that little realization isn’t a wake-up call to what a complete farce this whole two-party system pretends to be, I don’t know what is. In American politics, there is only one party that rules the roost-the fund-raising party. And whomever gives the most money to help keep the politicians in office (i.e. – power) gets to mold the rules of the game. And make no mistake- the loss of over 3500 US service people is just a part of the game to them. Pieces on the board so to speak. An expected and acceptable cost of imperialism, I mean corporatocracy, I mean exporting democracy, I mean fighting terror.

Hawkish Joe. The People’s Man. The Independent.

It may well be that Iran (or elements within Iran) is training or supplying insurgents who then come across the border into Iraq to fight against American troops there. To pretend though that this is something that the US, nor any ‘civilized’ nation, would undertake to do is ludicrous. In fact, the US is doing just that right now. According to this New York Times article, America is now arming more and more Sunni Arab groups (who also are know to us as insurgents, sectarian rebels, or former Saddam Baathist bastards) to fight against suspected al-Qaeda terror cells in Iraq. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violence in Iraq, aside from the targeting of US troops from both sides of the sectarian clash, is Iraq Sunni fighting Iraq Shia. In that light, the odds of US arms being used against US troops is pretty good. That chance that they will be used by the Sunnis against the Shia (and remember-most of Iran is Shia) may serve to inflame Iranian concerns about this war at their back fence. Hell, by arming the Sunni groups, Iran may well have credible claim that the US ” has a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iran to kill our soldiers.”

Joe has determined that talking just isn’t going to work with the Iranians. After all, “if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” said Joe on CBS. Again, it’s conceivable that others around the world feel the same way about the American government under George W. Bush. Hell, it’s not only conceivable, it’s the fact Jack! Er, Joe. For all this talk about “living according to internation rule of law” give me about a minute and I can pull up hundreds of reminders of America’s own high standards of the past half decade. Do these words ring a bell? Torture. International kidnappings (arrests/detentions/disappearances) by covert US operatives on foreign sovereign land. Here’s a tip Senator. Don’t preach the talk if you can’t (and demonstrably haven’t) walked the walk. Especially you, Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman. Especially from you.

But what’s scarier than hearing former Demcorat-turned faux-Independent Joe Lieberman call for the bombing of Iran? The certainty that Joe’s appearance this Sunday morning was not so much the rantings of a man who longs for face time and relevance but rather a carefully pre-planned event from the bowels of the Bush Administration to start spreading the lubricant for sliding into Iran. After at least a year of denial that the US would seek to engage Iran militarily, despite leaks about prepared war plans and increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, Team Bush may finally be letting the cat out of the bag, via good old Joe Lieberman, a man who (if you are a neo-con or party loyalist republican) you can almost trust since he left the Democrats (who are a bunch of wimps), or (if you are a democrat or anti-war American) a man you most certainly despise for his glad-handing with Bush. In either case, the Bushite’s can simply remain silent on Joe’s performance, leaving the general public to mull over what may come next. And seeing how the American people aren’t too supportive of a military showdown with Iran, even over it’s nuclear activities, perhaps the only way Cheney’s former corporate boardroom buddies can get into Iran is by relying on less spectacular half truths and building inuendo to push war to the next level.

I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East. But those conditions do not include conflating situations already out of hand with those that need not become so.

We may not trust Iran enough to hold face to face talks at high levels. They surely don’t trust us. Neither party has given the other any reason to do so. But trust, and therefore a more amicable (or at least non-confrontational) relationship, isn’t likely to sprout out of a bombing campaign either. />
(cross posted at Bring It On!)

The first pieces of the puzzle came from the president’s speech last week when the president announced that he was sending (more) Patriot missle batteries to the Middle East. In itself, this is a curious thing to do, since the only militaries over there with missle capabilities to worry about are in Israel and Iran. I doubted that Bush was planning to defend Arab countries from Israeli missle attacks, so the conclusion would be that we needed protection from Iranian missles. Why though when we are not militarily engaged with Iran and neither are any other countries directly engaged in war with Iran? What reason would we need to build up missle defenses other than to bolster up areas that Iran could attack if a war occurred? The president also said in that speech that

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

and

“Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”

In my response to the presidents speech, I noted that “these words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake—Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least seven years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by U.S. troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.”

These were the first real pieces to the emerging puzzle. The next came yesterday in a post here which quoted a Raw Story report that a major investment bank was warning against an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report claims that Israel, backed by the US, may well be planning an attack while Bush is still in office, since they could rely on US support (at least US administation support) for such an attack. It further notes that Bush’s reshuffling of generals in the Middle East from those who advised against such an escalation with Iran with those more pliable to the Decider’s terrible decisions. With this news, it became more plausible that an attack on Iran, either by the US directly or through the Israeli proxy, may well be forthcoming.

Today, two new reports come forth to reveal even more US military affairs in the region.

In the first, according to a former Russian Fleet Admiral, US submarines currently located in the Persian Gulf are positioning themselves to block the Gulf of Oman, the persian Gulf and parts of the Arabian Sea. Such moves would have the effect of blockading the Iranian coast as well as moving these subs into position for missle strikes against Iranian nuclear and oil targets within Iran. Since the US submarines are not vital in any of the efforts in Iraq, except perhaps for some kinds of intelligence monitoring, their existence in the region brings cause for alarm.

And the second report, filtered through a Kuwaiti news source, says that the US may be preparing an attack against Iran as soon as April. This report is perhaps the least reliable, to me anyhow, because it claims to get its information from an unnamed source who are privy to details of a secret White House meeting between Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gates.

Taken together, even unsubstiantiated, these reports, coming in from all over the place, lead to conclusions one doesn’t particularly like to make. Add to this the recent extensions of US forces in Iraq (perhaps a pre-staging for an Iran attack instead of an effort to quell violence in Baghdad?) and a call to increase military strength permanently, and the emerging puzzle looks even more bleak.

There may well be nothing that can be done to stop this escalation if it does in fact materialize. Even with an opposition Congress to content with, Bush has already proven that he values no other judgement than his own, presumably because that is what God has instructed of him. And history is filled with many monsters who believed they had a red phone to God and look at the damage they have wrought on humanity.

The issue is bigger than just attacking Iran or increasing the level of Middle East disaster. An attack against Iran will be much more polarizing than Iraq has been. Nations that heretofore have only condemned our actions may well take steps to marginalize us. The US may be the worlds biggest economy; we may have the most technologically advanced military; we may be vital to nations increasing wealth creation. None of that will matter. Most of the emerging nations that rely on US buyers to increase their own wealth and standing have a history of repression against their people. The can clamp down on economic reforms and advancements to stymie the US if they think we are out of control. After all, their people are used to harsh conditions and repressive economies. The US is not.

China and Russia both have many dealings with Iran, and they have pretty big militaries too. And the Muslim world would likely not take kindly to an invasion of Iran.

But in fact, I would be surprised if US forces weren’t already operating in Iran, ala Cambodia years ago.

Not content with being merely the worst president in US history, Bush seems determined to be the last as well.
Can anyone say WWIII?

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

While it becomes increasingly clear that Bush’s war of choice in Iraq only produces more terrorists and does nothing to address the real problems associated with international terrorism, in Italy, we are once again shown that diligent, competant law enforcement can and does dismantle terror cells without any kind of ‘collateral damage.’

Hard to believe, eh? After all, aren’t those just the kind of tactics laid out by John Kerry during the 2004 election? Didn’t he note that fighting terrorists was as much, if not more, a law enforcement measure than one for the military? Do we need the military to stop terrorists? Sure, they were doing a great job in Afghanistan before Team Bush pulled a “Cut and Run” strategy that now has that country falling back into the hands of the Taliban. But do we need to blow up entire countries to isolate, track, and arrest the terrorists in the world?

Of course we don’t. But it will take better leadership than we have now to actually figure that out. Sadly, we’re still working with the government we have, not the government we want.

Spying On Americans-Good. Reading Convicted Terrorist Mail- Bad?

Ask yourself a simple question.

Which is more likely to uncover future terror plots and reveal terror operatives?

(A) Intercepting, recording, monitoring, storing, or listening to communications in America between Americans

or

(B) Monitoring and reading mail sent and received by convicted terrorists sitting in U.S. Federal Prisons

If you answered A, congratulations. You are the president of the United States or an elected legislator. But if you answered B then you have a brain.

Unfortunately, while the first option is being carried out with great vigor, and being touted as one of the best, most important tools to keep America safe, the second option, the one that could actually provide clues to terror operations, is barely being done at all.

According to a review of the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, undertaken by the DOJ, letters are being written by convicted terrorists to other terrorists, including a letter sent to one of the Madrid bombing terrorists. That letter was being used to recruit more terrorists to the cause of jihad.

“The threat remains that terrorist and other high-risk inmates can use mail and verbal communications to conduct terrorist or criminal activities while incarcerated,” concluded the report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

So what exactly is being done to close this gaping hole in terror monitoring? Apparently not much. After all, we’ve got a bogus war and the surveillance of American citizens to conduct, and there’s only so much money to go around.

U.S. Won’t Attack North Korea? Why The Hell Not?

Remember the Axis of Evil? That nefarious threesome that our president targeted as the biggest threats to civilization as we know it? Remember the tough talking rhetoric that told us that no nation would be allowed to harbor terrorists or pursue WMD’s so long as George W. Bush was on the job?

Guess what? It turns out that George W. Bush is full of shit. In a recent speech, Bush told reporters that although North Korea (one of the fearsome triumverate of evil) was a “threat to international peace” and that “serious repercussions” would ensue following North Korea’s purported nuclear test, he asserted that no military response is planned to thwart this looming menace.

No military response? Why the hell not? After all, when it came to dealing with a non-nuclear member of the axis of evil (Iraq), Bush went in guns a-blazing, creating a whole world of hurt in that part of the world. In fact, military action against Iraq was always plan one for Bush, regardless of whether they had WMD’s, including a nuclear capability. But he used the false notion of an “imminent mushroom cloud” as an excuse to invade a country ruled by a horrific tyrant, not to go after al-Qaeda, not to bring democracy to the Middle East, but rather to settle family sleights and gain control of the Iraqi oil fields for his corporate minders. (Go ahead and argue these points, my conservative friends. I’m not here to offer proof beyond what we’ve rehashed time and again. The proof, if you ask me, is in the pudding so nastily laid out before us.) In fact, I’ll even submit that the Bush Administration was fairly certain, based on the evidence that existed but they excluded, that Iraq was nowhere near ‘going nuclear’ and that was a prime factor in targeting them when they did. It is easy to tear down a paper tiger you have built yourself.

But Bush is just engaging in classic Bully Behavior, so there’s nothing remotely surprising about his stance on North Korea. The bully always targets the weakest foes (or faux-foes as the case sometimes is) to dominate while slewing threats at those who might be able to offer a real challenge. We see the same thign happening right now regarding Iran.

Iran is also on the nuclear path, but experts warn they are at least 5-8 years away from any meaningful weapons program. Yet the Bush administration has overstated the Iranian nuclear capabilities and hyped up the threat as imminent. Again, what we have in Iran is an oil rich country and a competing religious ideology. Clearly, in the Bush declared War on Terror, where all bad guys are Islamic Terrorists, the countries you invade are the ones who can do your country the least physical harm. Iran not only doesn’t have nukes, they don’t have a system to get nukes to the US mainland. But they pray towards Mecca, so let’s target those bastards. By all accounts, US war plans are already far past the planning stages regarding Iran.

Yet curiously, North Korea, the only non-Muslim member of Club Evil, not only has nuclear capability, they have a missle system that could (potentially reach the US west coast. Yet where Iraq and Iran are to be dealt with militarily (after all diplomacy has failed) North Korea is not on the path to war with America. Again, why the hell not?

No oil in North Korea?

I’m not advocating for an invasion of North Korea, not by any stretch of the imagination. But I have to wonder why Mr. Bring ‘Em On isn’t being consistent. If ever there was a case against one of the three harbingers of world evil, North Korea is it. If ever there was a fulfillment of the reasons for pre-emptive war against a rogue nation that had no democracy, tortured it’s people, and sought WMD’s, North Korea is the proverbial “slam dunk.” If ever there was a case of “with us or against us” this is it, isn’t it?

Before the ‘Axis of Evil’ speech, there was no real race for countries to get nuclear weapons for themselves. In that sense, the world was a safer place. Thanks to George W. Bush, rogue nations are scrambling to join the nuclear club as fast as they can. And clearly, if you want to remain unscarred by American military destruction, going nuclear may be the best way to go. In that sense, the world is immeasurably less safe. Thanks Bush.

Time to change the direction.