Congressional
Shame And Duplicity
By Stephen Lendman
01 November, 2007
Countercurrents.org
The
latest October Reuters/Zogby Index shows record low approval ratings
for George Bush and Congress - 24% for the president that looks almost
giddy compared to the bottom-scraping 11% level for the nation's lawmakers.
It's more evidence that the criminal class in Washington is bipartisan
and hoping November, 2008 will change things is pure fantasy.
A voter groundswell sent
a message last November to end the Iraq war and occupation. Instead,
the Democrat-led 110th Congress continues to fund it generously. In
May, the House overwhelmingly passed HR 1585, the FY 2008 National Defense
Authorization Act. It calls for $506.8 billion for DOD plus $141.8 billion
(of the $150.5 billion White House request) for ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan
operations. The Senate followed with a similar bill on October 1 with
only three opposing votes against it. Neither bill proposed an Iraq
withdrawal timeline, and final legislation has yet to be sent to the
president.
Add on further amounts like
George Bush's latest $46 billion request putting FY 2008 supplemental
war-funding above $196 billion and rising. Congress will approve it
and more in spite of Democrats signaling a protracted budget showdown
ahead. The only showdown will be over how much pork will be added to
the final appropriation and for what purpose.
Democrats also back the administration's
push to attack Iran by echoing what the Israeli Lobby calls "The
Iranian Threat." War with Iran is AIPAC's top priority, and key
Democrats in Congress are on board hyping a non-existent threat to prepare
the public for what may be coming. Earlier in March, Speaker Pelosi
removed a provision from an appropriations bill that would have required
George Bush to get congressional approval before attacking Iran. Then
in July, the Senate unanimously (97 - 0) passed the Lieberman amendment
that practically endorses war if it's declared. It affirmed George Bush's
baseless charges that Tehran funds, trains and arms Iraqi resistance
fighters "who are contributing to the destabilization of Iraq and
are responsible for the murder of members of the United States Armed
Forces."
The House added its voice
on September 25 by voting 397 - 16 for the Iran Counter-Proliferation
Act of 2007 that imposes sanctions on non-US companies investing in
Iran's oil sector. The next day the Senate acted again by overwhelmingly
(79 - 22) passing the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that calls for US policy
to "combat, contain and (stop Iran by use of) diplomatic, economic,
intelligence and military instruments." Other bellicose language
in the resolution stated:
-- "the United States
should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp as a foreign
terrorist organization....and place (it) on the list of Specially Designated
Global Terrorists....it should be the policy of the United States to
stop inside Iraq the violent activities and destabilizing influence
of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators
such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies."
This measure helped smooth
the way for George Bush's October 25 unilateral imposition of sanctions
discussed below. It was an unprecendented move against another nation's
military Senator Jim Webb (voting no) said provides "a backdoor
method of gaining congressional validation for military action, without
one hearing (or) serious debate (and that the action) is Dick Cheney's
fondest pipe dream."
George Bush acted provocatively
twice. At his October 17 news conference, he menacingly said he believes
Iran "want(s) to have the capacity, the knowledge in order to make
a nuclear weapon....it's in the world's interests to prevent them from
doing so....If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat
to world peace....So....if you're interested in avoiding World War III"
this possibility must be prevented implying war (potentially using first-strike
nuclear weapons) is the way to do it.
On October 25 Bush acted
again to counter China and Russia's opposition to sweeping UN Security
Council measures. He unilaterally imposed harsh new sanctions against
Iran's Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), its Quds Force, three state-owned
banks and over 20 Iranian companies. The IRGC was named as "proliferators
of weapons of mass destruction," and the Quds Force was called
a "supporter of terrorism."
Democrats buy this stuff
and ignore IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei's latest October 28 statement
that repeated his earlier ones. He said he had no evidence Iran is building
or seeks to build nuclear weapons and accused the Bush administration
of adding "fuel to the fire" with its bellicose rhetoric.
The "loyal opposition" prefers instead to accept White House
press secretary Dana Perino's October 29 charge that Iran "is a
country that is enriching and reprocessing uranium and the reason one
does that is to lead towards a nuclear weapon."
This accusation and new administration
sanctions ratchet up tension further and amount to what one analyst
called "a warning shot across the bow (that stops short of) a signal
we're going to war," but it's got other observers thinking the
likelihood is greater than ever with Congress on board. The move also
caught Vladimir Putin's attention in Lisbon where he was attending an
EU leader summit. "Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead
end" with sanctions or military action," he said. He then
added a pointed reference to George Bush stating: "Running around
like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best
way to resolve the situation."
Newly imposed sanctions won't
affect US companies. They're already barred from doing business directly
in Iran, but they do target their foreign subsidiaries and other foreign-based
ones with threats of penalties and exclusion from the US market. It
remains to be seen how effective they'll be as key EU countries as well
as China, Russia, India and others have growing economic ties to Iran.
They won't be eager to sever them or join the US campaign for a wider
Middle East war. In addition, Iran is a major oil supplier. With the
price of crude touching $96 a barrel on November 1 (and December futures
up to $125), any cutoff or severe reduction of supply guarantees it'll
top $100 and make a global economic slowdown or recession much more
likely.
Nonetheless, the Bush war
machine presses on with congressional Democrats aboard. Presidential
candidates from both parties support Bush's move, and Democrat front
runner Hillary Clinton is as hawkish as Joe Lieberman and John McCain.
They both endorse attacking Iran, and McCain believes striking Iran's
nuclear sites "is a possibility that is maybe closer to reality
than we are discussing tonight."
Clinton is just as bellicose,
is close to AIPAC, and in an earlier speech said: "The security
and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any
American approach to the Middle East. (We dare not) waver from this
(firm) commitment." She was also quoted in the current issue of
Foreign Affairs saying: "Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge
to the United States, our NATO allies and Israel. It is the country
that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates
to supply explosives that kill US troops in Iraq....(Iran) must not
not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran (won't
comply with) the will of the international community, all options must
remain on the table."
The only give in her position
(that's hardly any at all) is wanting congressional approval for any
future military action. Up to now, that's been pro forma rubber stamp.
It'll be no different if George Bush orders an attack as congressional
Democrat leaders, including Hillary Clinton, have already signaled their
approval.
John Richardson wrote on
October 18 in Esquire.com that two former high-ranking Bush administration
National Security Council officials fear the worst. They're Middle East
experts Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, and they're reacting publicly.
They believe war with Iran has been in the cards for years, and we're
"getting closer and closer to the tripline." Key for them
was the unprecedented move to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force
a terrorist organization.
Richardson lays out what
they think will happen: UN diplomacy will fail because Russia and China
won't agree to harsh sanctions. Iran's policies won't change without
"any meaningful incentive from the US. That will trigger a....White
House (response with) a serious risk (George Bush) would decide to order
an attack on the Iranian nuclear installations and probably a wider
target zone." This, in turn, "would result in a dramatic increase
in attacks on US (Iraq) forces, attacks by proxy forces like Hezbollah,
and an unknown reaction from....Afghanistan and Pakistan, where millions
admire Iran's resistance." Attacking Iran "could engulf America
in a war with the entire Muslim world." The article also quotes
former CIA officer and author Robert Baer (from Time magazine) saying
an unnamed highly placed White House official believes "IEDs are
a casus belli for this administration. There will be an attack on Iran."
The London Times raised the
betting odds further for one in its October 21 report. Columnist Michael
Smith wrote: UK defense sources disclosed that "British (Special
Air Service - SAS) forces have crossed into Iran several times (along
with other special forces, the Australian SAS and American special-operation
troops) as part of a secret border war against the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard's Al-Quds special forces." They engaged in "at least
half a dozen intense firefights" along the Iran-Iraq border in
what looks like deliberate US-UK efforts to provoke Iran into providing
justification for a major American attack.
Speculation one looms has
been around for some time, and if it comes, it won't surprise observers
like Iran expert Gary Sick. He was a military advisor to three US presidents
and was recently quoted in Germany's Der Spiegel magazine saying: The
recent shift in US emphasis to "Iran's support for terrorism in
Iraq....is a complete change and is potentially dangerous." That's
because it's much easier proving (true or not) Iran supports Iraqi resistance
fighters than it poses an imminent nuclear threat to the world.
Der Spiegel also reports
on a leak "by an official close to" Dick Cheney that he's
"already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might
begin (and in) the scenario concocted by (his) strategists, Washington's
first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's (Natanz)
uranium enrichment plant." That would provoke Iran to retaliate
and give the Bush administration the excuse it needs "to attack
military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran." That's OK with
Democrats if it comes including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Black Agenda
Report writer Margaret Kimberly calls a "Quisling" and an
"absolute disaster for the Democrat Party and....the entire nation
(because of her) eagerness to cooperate with the Bush regime (and) her
incompetence in leading Congress."
Other key Democrats share
those qualities and that assures extremist Attorney General nominee
Michael Mukasey's confirmation won't be challenged. That's in spite
of reports top Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats Chairman Leahy and
Majority Whip Durbin say their votes depend on his admitting waterboarding
is torture. During his confirmation hearing, Mukasey was evasive and
noncommittal.
When asked during questioning,
he incredulously claimed not to know what waterboarding is even though
it's been around for centuries and what it entails is common knowledge.
Mukasey would only say "IF (waterboarding) is torture, it is unconstitutional."
He then repeated the White House line "We don't torture" even
though he knows DOJ legal opinions confirm the Bush administration condones
the practice by endorsing "the harshest interrogation techniques
ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."
He should also know about
the ACLU's new "Administration of Torture" book based on FOIA
requested evidence. It documents that "marching orders" for
torture came from Donald Rumsfeld so the White House had to be involved
as well. That includes George Bush and Alberto Gonzales, who in 2002
as White House Counsel, called the Geneva Conventions "quaint"
and "obsolete" and as Attorney General authorized physical
and psychological brutality as official administration policy.
Mukasey promises business
as usual as AG and confirmed it by claiming "I don't think (Guantanamo
prisoners) are mistreated." He also supports the president's right
to imprison US citizens without charge and deny "unlawful enemy
combatants" their habeas rights, but that's OK with Democrats on
the Judiciary Committee with a large party majority sure to agree.
In a follow-up letter Senator
Leahy requested, Mukasey was just as evasive and noncommittal as during
his confirmation hearing. He sidestepped commenting on presidential
surveillance powers limits beyond what FISA allows and continued to
avoid admitting waterboarding is torture. Instead he said: ...."there
is a real issue (whether) the techniques presented and discussed at
the hearing and in your letter are even part of any program of questioning
detainees."
He then added if confirmed
he'll concentrate on "solving problems cooperatively with Congress,"
advise George Bush appropriately on any "technique" he determines
to be unlawful, and the president is bound by constitutional and treaty
obligations that prohibit torture. This man and the president defile
the law and practically boast about it, but Democrats will confirm him
anyway as the next Attorney General.
House Democrats Pass New
Terrorism Prevention Law
Almost without notice, the
House overwhelmingly (404 - 6) passed the Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1955) on October 23 some
are calling "the thought crime prevention bill." It now moves
to the Senate where if passed and signed by George Bush will establish
a commission and Center of Excellence to study and act against thought
criminals.
The bill's language hides
its true intent as "violent radicalization" and "homegrown
terrorism" are whatever the administration says they are. Violent
radicalization is defined as "adopting or promoting an extremist
belief system (to facilitate) ideologically based violence to advance
political, religious or social change." Homegrown terrorism is
used to mean "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force
or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating
primarily with the United States or any (US) possession to intimidate
or coerce the (US) government, the civilian population....or any segment
thereof (to further) political or social objectives."
Along with other repressive
laws enacted post-9/11, HR 1955 may be used against any individual or
group with unpopular views - those that differ from established state
policies even when they're illegal as are many under George Bush. Prosecutors
henceforth will be able to target anti-war protesters, believers in
Islam, web editors, internet bloggers and radio and TV show hosts and
commentators with views the bill calls "terrorist-related propaganda."
If this legislation becomes
law, which is virtually certain, any dissenting anti-government action
or opinion may henceforth be called "violent radicalization and
homegrown terrorism" with stiff penalties for anyone convicted.
This bill now joins the ranks of other repressive post-9/11 laws like
Patriot I and II, Military Commissions and Protect America Acts that
combined with this one are grievous steps toward a full-blown national
security police state everyone should fear and denounce.
Blame it on Congress and
the 110th Democrat-led one that was elected to end these practices but
just made them worse....and there's still 14 months to go to the term's
end with plenty of time left to vaporize Iran and end the republic if
that's the plan.
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site
at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information
Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Mondays at noon US central time.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.