Impeachment Article to be Introduced Thursday by Dennis Kucinich

Kucinich Contact: Joe Benny (216) 228-8850

Impeachment Article to be Introduced Thursday

Washington, Jul 8 -

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) sent the following letter today to his colleagues in Congress:

July 8, 2008

WHEN THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF LIES TO GO TO WAR, HE MUST BE IMPEACHED

A SINGLE ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE FLOOR ON THURSDAY; PLEASE CO-SPONSOR

Dear Colleague,



During the Fourth of July holiday a WWII veteran stood ram-rod straight in his crisp dress uniform and saluted our flag as it passed in a parade. His silent reverential stance was a powerful reminder of the love of country that is reflected in our veterans of all generations and all services.



It is also a powerful reminder of the responsibilities of the President of the Untied States in his capacity as Commander in Chief.



It is worse than heartbreaking that George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief, caused this country to go to war based on information which was false, and which he knew to be false. The consequences for our troops have been devastating. We have lost 4,116 of our beloved servicemen and women since the war began, with over 30,000 physically wounded and countless others emotionally wounded. The toll on the service persons and their families will be felt throughout their lives.



There can be no greater responsibility of a Commander in Chief than to command based on facts on the ground, and to command in fact and in truth. There can be no greater offense of a Commander in Chief than to misrepresent a cause of war and to send our brave men and women into harm’s way based on those misrepresentations.



There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda’s role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made.



This Thursday evening I will bring a privileged resolution to the House with a single Article of Impeachment of President Bush for taking our nation and our troops to war based on lies. We owe it to our troops who even at this hour stand as sentinels of America because they love this country and will give their lives for it. What are we willing to do to match their valor and the valor of their successors? Are we at least willing to defend the Constitution from the comfort and security of our Washington, DC offices?



Sincerely,

/s/

Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress

Historical lesson of the day: who started the War in Irak

Clinton Signs Iraq Liberation Act

Iraq News, SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1998

By Laurie Mylroie

The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

---

I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCT 31
II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION, SIGNED BY CLINTON OCT 21
III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT, PRESS STATEMENT, OCT 31

Today is the 89th day without weapons inspections in Iraq and the first day without UNSCOM monitoring.

"Iraq News" is preparing an issue on Iraq's decision to suspend UNSCOM monitoring. Meanwhile, this issue deals with the developments regarding the policy promoted by Congress to deal with the Iraqi threat, namely to overthrow Saddam.

On Oct 30, Radio Free Iraq began broadcasting. In an Oct 30 press statement, David Newton, head of RFI, explained "that in addition to local news about Iraq, programs will focus on democracy, free speech and human rights. 'Under the dictatorship of President Saddam Hussein, people in Iraq never a chance to hear about these issues,' said Newton, a former US ambassador to Iraq. He says broadcasts to Iraq will eventually expand to six hours a day, airing in the Arabic as well as Kurdish languages." Transcripts and RealAudio of the broadcasts will be available at http://www.rferl.org

Yesterday, Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House, Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers. . . . On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. . . My Administration, as required by that statue, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts."

Indeed, Sec 590 of the omnibus appropriations bill stated that "not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should be made available as a grant for the Iraq National Congress. The conferees also direct the Administration to provide not less than $3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq."

The president of the INC's Executive Council welcomed Clinton's signature of the Iraq Liberation Act, in an Oct 31 statement that began by condemning Saddam's suspension of UNSCOM monitoring, while hailing the president's signing of the legislation and thanking the US Congress.

The statement concluded, "Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so.

Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction."

I. CLINTON SIGNS IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
October 31, 1998
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
October 31, 1998

Statement by the President
Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are:
The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.
The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.
The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.
My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.
In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.
On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition.
This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participatory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support [for] efforts to eliminate Iraq's prohibited weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well.
Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 31, 1998

II. '99 APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IRAQ OPPOSITION
Sec. 590. Iraq Opposition
The conference agreement includes a provision proposed by the Senate that, notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds made available in this Act and any prior Acts making appropriations for foreign operations, not less than $8,000,000 shall be made available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. Of this amount, not less than $3,000,000 should be made available as a grant for the Iraqi National Congress. The conferees also direct the Administration to provid e not less than $3,000,000 as a grant to the Iraqi Campaign to Indict Iraqi War Criminals to be used to compile information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes. The conferees direct the Administration to provide not less than $2,000,000 for the conduct of activities by the Iraqi democratic opposition inside Iraq. The conferees also direct the Secretary of State to submit a detailed report to the Committees on Appropriations thirty days after the enactment of this Act on the implementation of these activities.

III. INC WELCOMES IRAQ LIBERATION ACT
INC Welcomes President Clinton's Signature of the Iraq Liberation Act London (October 31, 1998)
Following is a statement by Ahmad Chalabi, President of the Executive Council of the Iraqi National Congress.
Saddam has shown once again that he is irredeemable. His defiance of the United Nations Security Council and his rejection of all reasonable attempts to resolve the impasse, which he made, demonstrate that he has no concern for the well being of the Iraqi people. He puts his power megalomania above the life and happiness of the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi people are the first to suffer from the expulsion of UNSCOM and the cessation of all its activities. They have repeatedly been the victims of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. They call for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq.
Saddam has pushed further the day when sanctions on Iraq would be lifted. He has challenged the combined will of the international community and thus he has opened the door for UN action against Iraq under Chapter VII resolutions. He is responsible.
Today, October 31, 1998 is a great day for the Iraqi people. Today President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. The American people have given their support for the end of dictatorship and for democracy in Iraq. The INC welcomes this courageous and historic action by President Clinton and thanks him for it.
I will begin immediate consultations with leaders in the INC and others to work for a united response on how best to take advantage of the provisions of the Iraq Liberation Act. We will present a united front to maximize the chances of success. We look to President Clinton to support and work with a united INC to achieve our common goals.
The INC has worked long and hard to energize the conscience of world to the decades long suffering of the Iraqi people. We have worked hard to persuade the US Congress for action to help the Iraqi people to liberate themselves. We thank with gratitude the US Congress for their support of democracy in Iraq. They have created a strong bond between the people of the US and the people of Iraq in the pursuit of liberty.
Saddam is the problem and he cannot be part of any solution in Iraq. Therefore, President Clinton's action today is the most appropriate response to Saddam. Let him know that Iraqis will rise up to liberate themselves from his totalitarian dictatorship and that the US is ready to help their democratic forces with arms to do so. Only then will the trail of tragedy in Iraq end. Only then will Iraq be free of weapons of mass destruction.

WAR CRIMES DOSSIER: Doctors To Study Iraq Birth Defects

Doctors To Study Iraq Birth Defects

By Lisa Holland
Foreign Affairs correspondent
Updated:12:40, Tuesday June 10, 2008

Sky News recently reported on families in the Iraqi city of Fallujah who are calling for an independent investigation into their concerns about a rise in the number of newborn babies suffering from deformities.

Deformed children common in Fallujah

They raised concerns about the weapons used by American forces in 2004 during the war in Iraq - and are now questioning whether there could be any links with the deformities.

As a result of seeing our exclusive report, one of the world's leading authorities on foetal medicine, Professor Kypros Nicolaides, has decided to offer three scholarships to obstetricians in Fallujah.

This would involve the doctors coming to study at the Fetal Medicine Foundation in London, and on their return being supported to work in hospitals in Fallujah.

The hope is to improve the care of pregnant women in the city, and with better training and scanning equipment, ultimately doctors would be able to set up a birth registry which may throw some light on the concerns of those who believe Fallujah is suffering an abnormal rate of birth deformities.

In April and November, 2004, Fallujah saw some of the heaviest bombardments of the war in Iraq.

Hikmat Tawfeeq, deputy chairman of the Fallujah-based human rights group Alakhiyar said: "We have around 200 cases of deformities recorded by our society. Most of these birth deformities started appearing after the war in Iraq."

The evidence is anecdotal - there are no records from Saddam Hussein era to compare their stories with - but they believe their findings are disturbing.

Campaigners say officials are reluctant to speak out publicly but at Fallujah's Children's Hospital one doctor told us in the past month she's seen one or two cases of birth deformities every day.

US Marines in Fallujah in 2004

An ophthalmologist said he deals with four or five case of newborn babies every week suffering from some form of eye deformity - and that's risen in the last two years.

At one of the cemeteries in Fallujah, undertaker Mahmoud Hummadi said he usually buries four to five newborns every day and most of them are deformed.

Speaking on Sky News, Professor Nicolaides said: "I was very disturbed by the report.

"It's impossible in the absence of specific records to define the extent of the problem and it's for this reason I feel it's important to try and help the families that are having babies with problems to identify them before they are born and to document the exact size of the problem.

"I feel it's important to have properly trained doctors that can carry out pre-natal diagnosis, ultra-sound scans in pregnancy so that all of the women are examined to identify if their babies are carrying any major deformities.

"Secondly, the same people could be trained in documenting all of the cases with deformities that already exist."

Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran: Margaret

by Margaret Kimberley

It is happening. The plans for the Bush administration to begin mass murder of the Iranian people have been put in motion. The plot was stalled temporarily by the National Intelligence Estimate report released last fall, a report which said that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. Bush and Cheney were thrown off their game, but not by much and not for long. They were inconvenienced but ultimately took the small set back in stride because they both knew they had nothing to worry about.

They know that the press will report what they say without criticism or analysis. They know that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have said that all options are on the table with Iran. They know that European nations like France have publicly stated their allegiance to Bush vis a vis Iran. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown also bowed to Bushian bullying and declared that Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power. Now Germany has joined the hall of shame. German Chancellor Angela Merkel groveled before the Israeli Knesset and essentially promised not to protest when Israel assists America in creating an Iranian holocaust. Apparently German sins of genocide against the Jews can only be expiated by complicity with an Israeli genocide.

When historians write about the catastrophes that struck the world in 2008, events that have taken place in March of 2008 will surely loom large. The worldwide economic meltdown finally became impossible to deny, with the Federal Reserve using the workers’ dime to bail out a major investment banking firm, Bear Stearns. Dick Cheney traveled to Iraq, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, making sure his nefarious plans went off without a hitch. John McCain claimed that Iran was the home of al Qaeda, the bogeyman that sends already trigger happy Americans on blood thirsty rampages. Democrats who had the power to stop Bush in his tracks, once again pledged to do nothing.

In 2007 both the Senate and House passed resolutions that backed war with Iran. Impeachment, the one weapon Congress could use to stop further war making, is ignored and forgotten by John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary committee.

In recent days Conyers said he would begin impeachment hearings, but only if Bush attacks Iran. Apparently not enough human beings have been killed by Bush and the body count needs to grow exponentially before Conyers will lift a finger. On the other hand, the two-faced Congressman says he fears impeachment because it will hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November election. So it seems he will do nothing, no matter how many people die because of the crimes committed under the Bush regime.

The attack on Iran is an open secret, but Americans, like a wronged spouse, are the last to know. Dick Cheney must have told the Saudi princes of his intended evil doing because Saudi Arabia is planning for "the probabilities of leaking nuclear and radiation hazards in case of any unexpected nuclear attacks in Iran. . . " Saudis know the deal, while John and Jane Q. Public are still in the dark.

What will the Democrats do when Iranians are nuked? When Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni recently visited the United States, Obama gave her a phone call and told her she shouldn’t worry about an Obama administration. He said all the right things, that Israel has a right to defend itself (kill Palestinians whenever it wants) and agreed that Iran was an evil nation that shouldn’t have the nuclear weapons that Israel has had for decades. So much for change.

The saber rattling and furtive Dick Cheney meetings are just the tip of the iceberg. The worldwide economic crisis is pushing the war agenda more than any other factor. Black Agenda Report said as much nearly one year ago.

“Ultimately, the parasitic class can only maintain its rule by force. Manufacturing nothing, creating no value except on paper, they must finally call upon the Armed Forces to impose their unearned advantage on the planet. Such was the logic of March, 2003. The Great Offensive failed, but the contradictions that compelled the captains of finance capital to order their political servants to wage war, remain - and are in fact more acute than four years ago. They must wage war, again, to fight their way out of the box.”

Every bail out of an investment bank is an omen of an oncoming worldwide financial calamity, but it is also an omen of more American aggression. The Obama/Clinton fight for the nomination is a sorry side show spectacle. In any case, the new war will help John McCain more than it will help the Democratic nominee. Even if the Democrat should win, both Obama and Clinton have stated that they too believe in maintaining America’s empire. Bush’s wars won’t end with a Democratic administration.

In the space of just five years, our nation will be waging another war of aggression and we will all be accessories after the fact. Our country may have also entered into a depression, so we will be poor criminals too. To use an expression coined by Poppy Bush, we will be in deep doo doo. Cheer up though. We won’t be in as much trouble as Iranians. Many of them will soon be dead.
_______

About author

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BA R. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley@BlackAgandaReport.Com. Ms. Kimberley' maintains an edifying and frequently updated blog at freedomrider.blogspot.com. More of her work is also available at her Black Agenda Report archive page.

Vote Result

The aircraft carrier Abe Lincoln departed for the Middle East Mar 13th and picked up the rest of her attack group at Pearl Harbor a day or so ago, the Truman is already there and looking at her deployment she will be there for another two or three months, the Nimitz is in the western Pacific off China and the Kitty Hawk sailed from Japan about a week ago supposedly to Taiwan as a show of strength during the upcoming Presidential elections there. The Kitty Hawk is scheduled to be taken out of service later this year and a few months ago sailed to the Indian Ocean for joint exercises with Indian forces.

If either the Kitty Hawk or Nimitz head for the Middle East look out.

I think that...

there were people who truly believed that the NIE report that Ms. Kimberley references in her story would stay the Ghoulish Gang's hands. I was not one of them. I'm not claiming any special insight or anything. I just truly believe that if there is true evil in present day USA it is embodied, first and foremost, by all members of the Bush regime and the oligarchs who are pulling the strings. The complicit Congress (including current members Clinton, Obama and McCain) runs a close second.
Tangent Alert: I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons. That being said, why do we and other Western nations, plus Israel, get to run around saying that Iran can't have any? Just curious...

The answer to your tangential question is quite simply......

....the Iranians would only use nuclear weapons to advance things like evil and islamofascism.

The USA would only use nuclear weapons to advance things like goodness and soft little puppies (see hiroshima/nagasaki circa 1945. Are there lots of puppies in japan? I rest my case).

Other western nations would only use nuclear weapons as a faux deterrent against similarly armed competitor nations, who may decide one day to beat them up and steal their lunch money.

Commander bunnypants would use nookyular weapons to cut brush in crawford, explode frogs asses, punish the stupid poor folks... you know, entitled fratboy kinda shit.

S

FOOL ME TWICE

This is the same stuff the Chimp was peddling about a year ago, and it scared me to DEATH at the time. I was considering accepting all the credit card offers I was getting in the mail, and maxing them out, just enjoying the 90 days or so I had to live.
THIS AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. bush has lost has magic genie of "terra!", congress, even though unbelieveably WIMPY, is NOT neutered, and the rest of the WORLD would turn on us.
NOT EVEN THE SMIRKING CHIMP HIMSELF IS STUPID ENOUGH TO TRY THIS AT THIS STAGE IN THE GAME.

_______

"I am obviously wrong" Rush Limbaugh Oct 19, 2006

But

CHeney is not stoopid but he's evil enough!

_______

eclipsedpreboomer/RU Cognizant

Imbeciles on the War Path

Of course it is happening. It has been planned from the very beginning. Iran was always the target. Yet, what Americans don’t see, as this plot takes its course, is that America has also been set up. It has been baited and is now well on course towards taking itself out.

No one in this world will shed a tear when that happens.

In its arrogance and hubris, America has been carefully drawn towards that line, which it is about to cross when it attacks Iran with nuclear weapons, when the world will pull the plug on the last, remaining, failed superpower. America’s fate will not be far removed from what befell Bear Stearns this past week. But it will occur on a national, massive scale, as has never been seen before in the history of this world. America will go down at $0.50 a share.

And it will be well deserved. There is a price to pay for idiocy.

Perhaps this is the best way to end it all. Let the U.S. and Israel attack Iran with nuclear weapons. Watch it happen and then witness as the entire world turns its back on the perpetrators of the Iranian genocide. Stupid as the Americans are, they never even realised that they were being set up as fools.

What better way to take them down? Let them take themselves down.

As they discuss whether Hillary ducked in Bosnia or not.

Conyers

She should back off on Conyers. If he opposes impeachment it means that he has an honest tactical disagreement on the issue and cannot be two faced. He gave favorable interviews in both Fahrenheit 9-11 and Sicko.

Case in point

Oh, goody!

Let's all agree that Conyers was tactically honest and Hillary called for impeachment.

For the truth shall set you free...

Would somebody please tell

Would somebody please tell me?

At what point, if it hasn't been reached already, will the free countries of the world look at and fear the United States the way they once did Nazi Germany?

Or do I really not want to know?

The Fear

You really don’t want to know.

Let’s pretend you didn’t ask and I’ll pay for the next round.

Drowning the Sorrows

Listen to the music play, although it is a cabaret...

but

“We're catching bullets in our teeth
It's hard to do but they're so sweet
And if they take a couple out
We try to work things out

We catching bullets with our
Heads and hearts and all the darkest parts of us
It's strange to find such light
In such endless night”

“Bullets” - Tunng

Link to “Bullets”, Tunng: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI1NgFYJCN4

Kind regards,

GR

well, GR, we got about 225

well, GR,

we got about 225 or so good years out of the old gal before she turned into a clunker and died on us. at least we've got our memories. let's be grateful for that.

didn't quite last as long as

didn't quite last as long as the Egyptians, Romans, or Brits, did it? But we did leave behind the eternal contribution to the global culture with our heart rendering "always low prices. always" and "mission accomplished"

Missiles flying into Saudi Oil Centers?

Missiles flying into Saudi Oil Centers?
Japan and Asia going into instant Depression?
Venezuela stopping oil shipments to protest?
Oil hitting $200 a barrel (at least ) and staying there for months?

Nope, I'd bet it doesn't happen. I wouldn't, however, bet too much.

Cheney"$200.00 a barrel for oil? BONUS!"

"Oil hitting $200 a barrel..."

What do you think Exxon/Mobil's profit from THAT would be?
CheneyBushCo and their buddies in the awl bidness are rock hard and dripping at the thought.

_______

I've got values but I don't know how or why.

Who's next?

"Venezuela stopping oil shipments to protest?"

They're next on the agenda. After all they're a (conveniently oil rich) "state sponsor of terrism" just like Iraq and Iran.

Merkel's "groveling" before the Knesset

Yes! Germany has a difficult relationship with Israel. Since, thanks to us, an Israel state had become necessary, since, thanks to us, hundreds of thousands of Israelites didn't feel safe anymore in countries they had, til then, called their homeland, Germany is the last country on earth to look on now, when somebody threatens - again - a Jewish homeland.

This might look strange to some, but that's called accepting responsibility for your deeds. How you act on this responsibility is open to discussion (in Germany as well. That's why Merkel got asked by German politicans to take the chance and mention Palistine too), but at least we try.

So that's mostly what Merkel's "groveling" had been about. Yes, she called the Iran nuclear program a threat. And yes, she said that if Israel should get threatened by war, Germany would act. However, she did not give a green light - hidden or openly - for Israel to just bomb away at Iran. Actually, she was mentioning her belief in diplomatic actions and, if necessary, sanctions against Iran. That's a far cry from telling someone to go ahead with nuking Iran!!!

Merkel got a historical chance when she had been allowed to speak at the Knesset. She took that chance and danced on a tightrope. Her "groveling" included not just a call against Hamas' attacks, but a soft spoken plea for peace among Israel and Palastine as well, mentioning that for peace difficult compromises will be necessary - for everybody. Anybody, who expected Merkel to speak in front of the Knesset about Jewish wrongdoings or "war-mongering" has a strange idea where it comes to diplomatic relations of any kind, let alone those among Germany and Israel!!

Sorry, but if you consider such a diplomatic balance act as "groveling", you've watched too many cowboy movies!

_______

Iraq: it's not a "war", it's not a "fight", it's a WAR CRIME - and crimes cannot be won!

Mountains rather get eliminated by a single ant than by the rumor that they cannot be eliminated. (Bert Brecht)

I have a problem

With the lack of sane heads speaking out and getting heard regards attacking Iran. Fallon is gone and supposedly we are all supposed to believe that with his removal the evil forces of annihilation are back in control.
Are we to believe that Bush and company has removed the one impediment in Fallon so this administration can 'continue' a 'plan'?
Now I am just as much up on what PNAC is all about and all the signers of that document wanted. But am I supposed to think that there is a greater urgency to attack Iran? Perhaps because Democrats take power in a short number of months?
Do I have to read anguish in writers words that show the possibility that checks and balances are gone.
This is maybe justifiable panic talk. But I don't believe it completely to the point that I am with little chicken screaming the sky is falling.
We chimpsters had ho problem predicting the war on Iraq if Bush got in power. Spelled out in detail what will happen. It was all said here.
But now we are talking about having a whole lot of insane people going after Iran and there are no checks against them. Do you know what you are saying and further do you know what you are willing to admit to?
I gave the writer an 8 because I share her scare.
TJ

Books note David Dionisi,

Interview with Author David Dionisi: American Hiroshima – the next 9/11?

by Shaheen Chughtai in London
Friday 25 November 2005 10:55 PM GMT

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D99265B2-4402-46FE-A905-1F086F513A3D.htm

Author David Dionisi says the US faces a nuclear threat

When Australian police announced recently that eight men arrested on terrorism charges were planning a bomb attack against a nuclear reactor near Sydney, many security observers elsewhere were not surprised.

Officials and analysts in the United States have been warning that al-Qaida or associated groups are planning such attacks on American soil.

Dubbed American Hiroshima, the plan apparently targets New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston and Washington, DC.

Former US Defence Secretary William Perry says there is an even chance of a nuclear attack on the US this decade. Renowned investor Warren Buffet has predicted "a nuclear terrorist attack ... is inevitable".

David Dionisi, a former US army intelligence officer, is convinced that plans for a nuclear attack are under way.

Once a conservative Republican, Dionisi enjoyed success as a Fortune 500 business executive after leaving the army. But he later rejected his political beliefs and now advocates peace, social justiceand humanitarianism.

In his new book, American Hiroshima, Dionisi argues decades of unjust US foreign policies will be largely to blame for sowing the seeds of hostility and vengeance which could lead to a nuclear catastrophe.

Aljazeera's Shaheen Chughtai caught up with Dionisi in London.

Dionisi had just flown from Liberia where he helps run a Catholic orphanage.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Aljazeera.net: You were once a conservative Republican. What made you change your beliefs?

Dionisi: The transformation was a discovery process. When I joined the military, I had a very limited view of what the US was doing around the world. Through my experiences as a military intelligence officer and later as a business executive doing international volunteer work, I started to see our foreign policies were often hurting people and making the world more dangerous.

One of the more dramatic moments in this process was when I was assigned to a unit focusing on implementing US foreign policy in central America. I was part of a rapid deployment team designed to goin and suppress forces working for social justice in places such as Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.>

Aljazeera.net: You describe the US public as uninformed - why?

The major media outlets are owned by a handful of corporations interested in promoting advertising and pro-government messages.

Anything that challenges the existing power structure very often fails to receive air time. I highlight Fox as an extreme example of theRepublican propaganda machine.

But when your country is fighting a war, you have an obligation to understand what's really going on. If you don't, you can become an agent of injustice. If people can find the time to watch baseball or soccer etc, they can make an effort to read, travel, talk and not be limited to the messages of fear.

They also need to understand their history. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a plan called Operation Northwood, which is now declassified. It proposed conducting mass casualty attacks on American targets and blaming it on Cuba to rally public support forwar against Fidel Castro. President Kennedy rejected the plan. So we shouldn't just assume any future attack on our soil is the work ofal-Qaida.

Aljazeera.net: Your book condemns alliances with repressive regimes. Can't these be justified if they serve a greater cause?

History teaches us that when you form alliances that promote injustice, you can only expect injustice in the future. Kindnessbegets kindness and the inverse is also true.

The US fought the largest secret war in its history during the 1980s in Afghanistan - over $6bn was funnelled into that war. As a result, US collaboration with and responsibility for al-Qaida goeswell beyond what most even informed Americans understand.

If you consider that there are over 500 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay from over 40 countries - though not a single one is from Iraq -and that the CIA recruited thousands of people from over 40 countries to be part of that war - none from Iraq - you can better understand how the US played a direct role in creating what became the Talibanand al-Qaida.

Bush supporters argue the removal of Saddam and the Taliban was beneficial and therefore justified military action.

That starts from an artificial premise. When the Bush administration says, "Well, it's great that Saddam's gone," it fails to acknowledge that Bush's father and President Ronald Reagan were key forces that helped create Saddam Hussein.

Looking at what happened in 1979 it can put a lot of this in perspective. As Reagan came into office, the US embassy hostages in Iran were released after 444 days in captivity. Americans don't know this wasn't a coincidence. The US had agreed in writing not to attack Iran and also paid Tehran $8bn. That's why that media event (of the hostages' release during Reagan's inauguration ceremony) occurred withsuch precise timing.

Aljazeera.net: How do you know this?

These are facts that were subsequently published. The agreement with Iran was submitted for review by the current administration to see if it would be binding and prevent an attack in the near future.

Bush administration attorneys concluded it was signed under duress and therefore not binding. I know this from a former senior member of the Bush administration, a seasoned CIA officer named Ray Flynn.

The US felt humiliated; the Reagan administration wanted to hurt the Iranians but its hands were tied. So Saddam Hussein was used as the agent for that. He ended up invading Iran ... and you had this brutal war from 1980 to 1988 that killed over a million people.

Aljazeera.net: What was the US role in that war?

By 1982, Iran had recaptured lost territory and Saddam asked theUS for help. So President Reagan signed a National Security Decision Directive - NSDD 114 - to provide all means of support to SaddamHussein. Donald Rumsfeld then went on a very sensitive mission to deliver satellite intelligence, other forms of intelligence andweapons of mass destruction (WMD).

That's why the current Bush administration was so confident Saddam had chemical and biological weapons; they knew the US had supplied the ingredients in the 1980s.

Saddam broke with the US, however, when he found out we were selling weapons to Iran in the mid-1980s - the Iran-Contra affair. All this puts the invasion of Kuwait into perspective. Saddam got clear messages from the US saying he could invade; plus he felt the US owed him one after betraying him over Iran.

All these wars form a continuum of injustice. Look at the UN economic sanctions in the 1990s that the US and UK refused to lift: over a million Iraqis died, including 500,000 children. That's more than the number who died from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atomic bombings.

Aljazeera.net: You list numerous "unjust" actions that led to attacks on US targets - isn't that justifying terrorism?

I talked to the CIA's Michael Scheuer, head of the "find Bin Ladin" team, and he stresses that people in the Muslim world are not fighting us because of our freedoms or elections but our foreign policy. This is something the Bush administration constantly twists.

The basic principle is: if you hurt someone, they're going to want to hurt you. We need to ask questions like: Why did 9/11 happen? BinLadin has a very clear articulation of why he's at war with the US,Britain, Israel and others. If Americans read it, they'll see it'svery clear about things such as US forces on Arab land.

And it's not just an Arab or Muslim issue. I learnt this in South Korea where the US has had troops since 1950. When you're there that long, it sends a powerful message that you're not there to liberate,you're there to occupy

Aljazeera.net: You describe the US as the biggest WMD proliferator. Why?

The US has spent $5 trillion on 70,000 nuclear weapons since 1945- more than the rest of the world combined. A Congressional report in1999 found the designs for every deployed nuclear warhead - and for some not built yet - had been stolen and passed to China. Israel acquired its programme from the US too.

Despite this, ordinary Americans are more concerned about the Bushadministration's lies and hyped-up warnings about WMD in places suchas Iraq.

Aljazeera.net: Is Iran really a threat to the US? An alliancebetween Shia Iran and Sunni-led al-Qaida seems far fetched.

Iran will not attack the US if the US does not attack Iran.

Congressman Curt Weldon (who accuses Tehran of plotting to attack theStates) talks about attacking Iran but such talk makes the world more dangerous. If we were Iran, we'd develop nuclear weapons simply because Israel has them. So the US should facilitate a process whereby Israel eliminates its nuclear weapons.

As for the religious differences between Iran and al-Qaida, yes,that's been true - but Bush's War on Terror has been pushing the sects together. Intelligence reports indicate Bin Ladin's son Saad has been based in Iran. No, we can't be certain they're helping each other. But in any case, the Bush administration does not want peace with Iran.

Aljazeera.net: You say "kindness begets kindness". What's your evidence?

After the first world war, the Treaty of Versailles punished Germany harshly, producing hardship and hostility that the Nazis exploited. But after the second world war, when the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Germany and Japan, the US did more to promote democracy than at any time during the Cold war.

To make the world a safer place, we must aggressively attack the causes of suffering and hostility. Imagine if Bush had said after9/11: "People are capitalising on our mistakes in the Middle East. So, let's ensure there is no hunger, lack of clean water, lack of education etc in the Muslim world." We would have made more friendsand drained support for our enemies.

Aljazeera.net: If we can't expect US foreign policy to change soon, isn't it too late to stop an American Hiroshima?

It's not too late although your point is realistic. But we can still influence the US response. Far more people will die in the retaliation and the counter-retaliation.

If the US had the wisdom, we could make the world safer. The US military budget was over $420 billion in 2005. We could split that three ways: a third on economic development in the Middle East, especially Iraq; a third on tackling injustice at home, such as providing universal healthcare - and that would still leave us with the world's biggest military budget.

People have to become more involved. The anti-Vietnam war movement is an example - but it failed to hold government to account. If we had tried (former Defence Secretary) Robert McNamara or (former Secretaryof State) Henry Kissinger for crimes such as the illegal bombing of Cambodia, it would have sent a powerful message to future leaders. TheBush government today wouldn't have been so bold.

Ultimately, Americans need to understand many of them will die and parts of their country will become uninhabitable unless they hold their government to account.

Aljazeera
By Shaheen Chughtai in London

You can find this article at:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D99265B2-4402-46FE-A905-1F086F513A3D.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Read Book: American Hiroshima: By David Dionisi ~ Peace Activist & Educator

Websource: http://www.americanhiroshima.info/>

Email: ddionisi@s...

American Hiroshima is a book designed to help save lives both inthe United States and around the world. This Internet site providesadditional content to reinforce the author's message of hope.

Essential Resources For Readers & Teachers

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Article by David Barton, Bee Staff Writer on August 3, 2005
Davis man's book criticizes U.S. Policies
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/sacbeeaug3.htm

Book Review by Elisabeth Sherwin of the Davis Enterprise and
published on May 9, 2005

Author: Helping poor can prevent `American Hiroshima' http://www.americanhiroshima.info/newspaperreview.htm

The Sunday Times May 01, 2005: The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

List of Supporting Information
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/listofsupporting.htm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Free Lesson Plans For Teachers
http://www.americanhiroshima.info/lessonplan.htm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++