Update on War Between Israel and Iran
Consider this stunning observation: “ISRAEL will almost surely attack Iran’s “nuclear sites in the next four to seven months–and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war–either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb. It is in the interest of neither Iran nor the United States (nor, for that matter, the rest of the world) that Iran be savaged by a nuclear strike, or that both Israel and Iran suffer such a fate. We know what would ensue: a traumatic destabilization of the Middle East with resounding political and military consequences around the globe, serious injury to the West’s oil supply and radioactive pollution of the earth’s atmosphere and water.” To continue reading click here.
If this report is credible, and I have no reason to believe it is not, what pressure will the international community bring to bear on Israel, the United States, and Iran. The insidious apathy exhibited by the European Union, Russia, China, and Japan is reckless and dangerous. If Mr. Morris’s prediction proves correct, a holocaust in the entire region will make the catastrophe in Iraq pale by comparison. What controlling undercurrents prevent the world community from saying no? Is the international community content to allow Israel to do its dirty work while at the same time railing against Israel for engaging in a preventive strike? This certainly does not excuse Israel’s conduct, but it surely condemns the failure of the international community to prevent a devastated Middle East.
warned that it would defend its interests and its allies in the region, and Israel hinted it was ready to stage a preventive attack to destroy Iranian nuclear installations. . . . With the latest tests–and the wide front-page coverage given to them by the national media–Tehran is signalling it will not be cowed by international pressure to end a programme which the West suspects is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, and that any attack by the US or Israel will be answered in kind. . . . The tests, including launching the 1,250-mile range Shahab-3 missile that can hit Israel, should be ‘a lesson to our enemies’, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard was quoted as saying. But some of the talk may be bravado. Pentagon officials told CNN that surveillance suggested only a single missile was fired yesterday, apparently one that failed to launch on Wednesday. . . . Even so, the show of strength drew an unprecedentedly blunt response from Washington and Israel. No one should doubt US resolve, said Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, on a visit to Georgia. ‘We are sending a message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our allies.’ . . . More ominously, Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, noted pointedly that while diplomatic pressure remained the preferred way of persuading Iran to halt uranium enrichment, Israel ‘has proved in the past it is not afraid to take action when its vital security interests are at stake’.” To continue reading click 
nuclear threat? Whatever the dynamics are here, it is quite clear that Iran is stronger and far more menacing now, since the invasion of Iraq, than it was pre-2003. The blowback from the invasion will haunt the U.S. and the region for years. Unless there is some reasonable means of negotiating with Iran regarding its interest in acquiring nuclear arms, March 19, 2003 will serve as the beginning of an Iranian supremacy in the region, or the reason the region was plunged into war. One final point. Is it possible that George W. Bush is so bereft of principles that he would invade Iran to tie the hands of the next president, especially if it becomes clear that the next president will be Barack Obama?
of mass destruction. . . . In an interview with the Atlantic in late May, McCain said that ‘Iran is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, they’re hell-bent on driving us out of Iraq, they’re hell-bent on supporting terrorist organizations, and as serious as anything to American families, they’re sending explosive devices into Iraq that are killing American soldiers.’ In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee this month, McCain again mocked Obama’s willingness to enter into dialogue with the Iranians, saying, ‘The idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refused to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history.’ . . . The problem with McCain’s alarmist rhetoric throughout the presidential primaries and now in the general campaign is that he’s got the Iran problem almost entirely wrong. Notwithstanding his deep resume on national security matters, his statements seem to reflect little understanding of the realities America faces in terms of dealing with Iran. Moreover, despite how highly he rates the problem, and his own foreign policy credentials, McCain seems to have no clear plan for actually dealing with Iran.” For more click 
talk about civil war anymore, it seems that such a war has been on fire for some time. This civil war is fractionated between different parties. It’s not just a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites; it’s also between different factions of Shiites. Now we also hear about the proxy war we’re fighting against Iran. And, of course, John McCain sees nothing wrong with committing ourselves to 100 years in Iraq just so long as no American is killed or injured. For the full story and video on how reconciliation has failed in Iraq click 
United States has lost the support of the Pakistani people in the war on terror. The Inter Press Service 
candidate ought to be evaluated before the decision to vote for that candidate is even considered. George W. Bush may be an aberration in American constitutionalism and politics, but his tenure as president and the virtually irreparable damage he’s done to our nation and its place in the world community clearly demonstrates why careful scrutiny of presidential candidates must become a citizen’s urgent duty. And, oh yes, it also clearly shows why the Constitution gave the Supreme Court no role in settling contested presidential elections.
Hearings.” Here’s a sample: “Three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for the immediate opening of impeachment hearings for Vice President Richard Cheney. . . . Democrats Robert Wexler of Florida, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin on Friday distributed a statement, “A Case for Hearings,” that declares, “The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.” . . . In particular, the Judiciary Committee members cite the recent revelation by former White House press secretary Scott McClellan that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent as part of a White House campaign to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson. On the basis of McClellan’s statements, Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin say, “it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice.” The three House members argue that, “Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to “knowingly [pass] along false information.’” . . . Adding to the sense of
urgency, the members note that “recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction — this time about Iran’s nuclear capabilities.” . . . Although Wexler, Gutierrez and Baldwin are close to Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, getting the Michigan Democrat to open hearings on impeachment will not necessarily be easy. Though Conyers was a leader in suggesting during the last Congress that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney had committed impeachable offenses, he has been under immense pressure from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, to keep Constitutional remedies for executive excesses “off the table” in this Congress.” It’s about time. Here’s the 
had no such program and had stopped efforts to develop one back in 2003. Is it conceivable that Bush was telling the truth at his press conference Tuesday when he stated that he learned of the National Intelligence Estimate report, which contained that inconvenient fact, only last week? Even if Bush read the NIE report, he clearly doesn’t respect it, for at his press conference he said ‘the NIE doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world–quite the contrary.’ Not that he has anything against the NIE, whose directors he handpicked. ‘I want to compliment the intelligence community for their good work. Right after the failure of intelligence in Iraq, we reformed the intelligence community.’ But whether or not the intelligence agencies are reformed, the president still ignores them. He didn’t listen when they told him he was wrong in claiming that Iraq had purchased yellow cake uranium from Niger and he doesn’t listen now when they tell him his alarms about Iran are without factual foundation. The difference this time around is that because Bush is a discredited lame duck the intelligence chiefs were a bit more forthcoming with their findings in a report that has, in part, been made available to the public. The whole episode shows that our democratic system retains at least some essential checks and balances, but it also is depressing to see that, in this instance at least, the fanatical leader of a theocracy seems to have a higher regard for truth than does the president of the world’s greatest experiment in representative democracy.” Click 
Constitution have never fulfilled its potential, not even remotely. But Bush-Cheney have shattered whatever democratic features the United States retained and created the first (and hopefully last) soft dictatorship. By “soft” dictatorship” I mean a regime which acts lawlessly, secretly and deceitfully to bring about certain ends without inflicting terror on the entire population. Indeed, a soft dictatorship can be designed to achieve certain goals, for instance, dominating the Mideast and its rich oil supply, without ever antagonizing the majority of ordinary Americans. What would happen if these Americans awoke from their slumbers and confronted our soft dictators? With luck we would depose them. Without it soft dictatorship is quickly transformed into a hard, brutal, and nefarious dictatorship. Vigilance in these circumstances is a moral imperative.
