Saturday, April 21, 2007

Russian Roulette and the War on Iran: Ulterior Motives of a Potential Iran War Profiteer—and Its Risks by Ali Fathollah Nejad for Global Research

A war on Iran would be catastrophic. That is certainly not a far-fetched estimation expressed by Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, on April 11. But Moscow’s former Defense Minister is not the only one in his country suggesting an imminent U.S. nuclear strike on Iran as the scenery for war has already been set. Announcements made by leading Russian political and military officials as well as experts and commentators during the last days on the high probability of an American assault on Iran are, besides being disturbing for Western ears, perfectly reflecting the highly critical crossroads we are currently at. But is that ‘talk of war’ made in the noble intention to prevent our world from a terrible, almost unique, disaster—or are there tangible interests behind that?

Chuck Carlson of We Hold These Truths: Mark Dankof of BATR and RBN is a Friend

Chuck Carlson's anti-Zionist, anti-Christian Zionist web site entitled, "We Hold These Truths," lists special friends and foes of his truth movement. Mark Dankof of BATR and the Republic Broadcasting Network is listed as a friend. Interesting list for reading.

For the "We Hold These Truths" list of friends and foes, click here.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Iraq: Washington's Domestic Political Booby Trap by Terrell E. Arnold for

This week, maybe next, the US Congress will wrestle once again with how to get America out of its self-initiated war in Iraq. Both houses already have passed an Iraq War funding bill that would require withdrawal of US combat forces by next year. However, the Democrats who crafted this bill do not have enough votes to make it presidential veto-proof. Both the bill and its probable future are tragic examples of America's political mismanagement and self-indulgent leadership.

This war has now gone on longer than World War II. And that is an incredible statement, since the opposing army collapsed in only a few days. The people the neo-cons promised would greet our forces with flowers now have insurgent fighters who number at least two thirds of our forces on the ground and whose goal is to convince us to leave as soon as possible.

The perverse logic of this situation is that without exaggerating we could have declared victory at the end of the first couple of weeks and brought at least the bulk of our combat forces home. Bush made the announcement with great flourish, but then he failed to get the point: If we have won, let's quit while we are ahead.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Jewish Daily Forward: "Apartheid" Book Exposes Clinton-Carter Rift

For months, the controversy over former president Jimmy Carter’s book has generally been fueled by bitter criticism from the Jewish community. In recent weeks, however, the debate has shown signs of evolving into a personal clash between the country’s last two Democratic presidents.

(Mark Dankof editorial byte: Does Bill Clinton's position on Carter's book have something to do with Hillary's need for the Zionist lobby in the Presidential sweepstakes and the role of the Jews in helping her raise $26 million in the first quarter money reports?????)

Global Incident Map: Displaying Terrorist Acts and Crises Worldwide As They Happen

Follow Global Incident Map ongoingly for reports on terroristic acts and crises worldwide as they happen. The site reloads every 460 seconds. Enjoy the zoom and satellite capabilities, along with the listings of events and locations around the globe.

Democrats Earn Their Stripes in The War Party: Philip Giraldi

If the decision is made to stage an attack on Iran, responsibility will ultimately rest with the Great Decider in the White House. But the enablers for that decision will be in the Democratic Party, which ironically swept to victory in both houses of Congress in November 2006 due to popular disapproval of the conflict in Iraq. That war with Iran would have catastrophic consequences for the United States should be evident to everyone, particularly after the errors in judgment and execution that have produced today's Iraq and Afghanistan nightmares. That the buildup of forces in the Persian Gulf in and of itself could easily trigger a conflict, either by accident or by design, has also become clear, particularly in light of the seizure of 15 British marines and sailors on March 23. A slightly more trigger-happy response, which would have been likely if American rather than British troops had been involved, could easily have resulted in a shooting war.

Historically, the Democratic Party has been the party of war in the United States, having actively maneuvered to involve the U.S. in the First World War, Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam in spite of considerable popular support for isolationism or nonintervention, particularly among Republicans. That continues to be the case in spite of the White House's unfortunate adoption of the neoconservative formula for world domination, which is derived from the neocons' Trotskyite and Straussian roots rather than from any genuine, conservative Republican tradition. While the ever mutable Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential candidates are striking the obligatory hard-line poses in front of Israeli audiences and groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), most Republican congressmen do not see Iran as a front-burner issue and would be extremely reluctant to consider a military option. That is not necessarily true of the Democrats.

Link to full article: click here.

First They Came for the Spies: Justin Raimondo

The title of Dorothy Rabinowitz's Wall Street Journal screed defending two accused spies, "First They Came for the Jews," telegraphs the strategy apologists for Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman will be using when the two AIPAC officials' trial on charges of espionage, scheduled for June 4, finally begins. It is also a smear so outrageous it almost defies belief. What that headline communicates is the warped conception that the U.S. government, in prosecuting two prominent lobbyists on behalf of Israel for handing over sensitive classified information to Israeli officials, is the equivalent of the Nazi regime. What's next – the WSJ editorially attacking "Bushitler"?

Democratic Blood Money and Senator Dianne Feinstein's War Profiteering by Joshua Frank

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein of California silently resigned from her post on the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) late last week as her ethical limbo with war contracts began to surface in the media, including an excellent investigative report written by Peter Byrne for Metro in January. MILCON has supervised the appropriations of billions of dollars in reconstruction contracts since the Bush wars began.

Feinstein, who served as chairperson for the committee from 2001–2005, came under fire early last year in these pages for profiting by way of her husband Richard Blum who holds large stakes in two defense contracting companies. Both businesses, URS and Perini, have scored lucrative contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last four years, and Blum has personally pocketed tens of millions of dollars off the deals his wife, along with her colleagues, so graciously approved.

Is it Time for War or Peace in the Middle East?: Dr. Abbas Bakhtiar for The Iranian

I believe that in every war, truth is the first casualty; and as such is usually reported long after the war is finished, and even then only as a foot note. Churchill once said that “men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.” Although others and I have repeatedly written about the reasons behind the Iraq invasion, people tend to forget. And people who forget tend to repeat the same mistake over and over again. The invasion of Iraq was not because of WMDs. It was about oil and Israel. Today the US is on the verge of starting another war again, this time with Iran, for exactly the same reasons.

But is it necessary? Can US have access to oil without dominating the region? Can Israel accept the fact that others also feel insecure and need guarantees for their security? US by trying to exert total control over the region has lost control and paradoxically made Israel less secure. Should US engage in a new war to reverse its setbacks and address Israel’s insecurity or should it try to accept the facts on the ground and work towards a new arrangement, where other countries interests are also taken into account. This is not easy, especially for the US who sees the Middle East through the Israeli eyes. Let us not forget how we ended-up in Iraq in the first place. It is a sin to say this, but at times, it appears that indeed the tail wags the dog. For example look at the Israel’s stated strategy for the 2000 and beyond with the events that have taken place.