Study Indicates the US is Prepared to Attack Iran

This is so scary.

A study was done in the UK that lays out the United States' plan for bombing Iran. Here is the report. Scroll down to page 70 and at least read the conclusions (there are also some amazing revelations in the notes).

Also, if you haven't already read it, here is a link to Seymour Hersh's article from April of this year. This is a long, but captivating article, and is regarded as one of the most important pieces of research in the past 7 years.

Read these articles, pay attention to the increased saber rattling in the media, and keep in mind that former White House chief of staff Andrew Card told The New York Times in September of 2002, ``From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

Many journalists are assuming the new product for this September will be a new or extended "surge" in Iraq. It would be wise to also consider the very real possibility that the new product is Bush's next war with Iran.

Earthquake Did Not Cause Mine Collapse

In an August 28th USA Today article, it has been confirmed that "all of the evidence" indicates that the mine collapse was not caused by an earthquake.

That means that when the mine owner, Robert Murray, goes on TV and blames an earthquake, he is flat out lying.

Scary Scenario for Attorney General Replacement

So there is a rumor going around that one possible replacement for Alberto Gonzales could be none other than Joe "let's bomb Iran" Lieberman. Why? Lieberman is likely to be loyal to Bush and they are both motivated to attack Iran. The thought is that if the attack on Iran is a major goal of the Bush administration, Lieberman would be a great pick to help them with their mission. The nomination of Lieberman would also kill the Congressional investigations into the Bush administration (keep reading).

Here's how this would play out, as I understand it:

• Lieberman gets nominated by Bush to be the new Attorney General.

• The Senate would confirm Joe Lieberman, despite his flaws, because the Senators would not deny one of their own.

• Lieberman's new position would leave a vacancy in the Senate. The most likely scenario for filling his seat would be that the Governor of Connecticut would get to choose his replacement. The Governor of Connecticut is a Republican, and would most likely elevate a Republican to Lieberman's spot in the Senate.

• A Republican being appointed to replace Lieberman, an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats, would essentially flip the Senate back to the Republicans.

• Republican control of the Senate would kill the Senate side of the investigations into Bush administration misconduct.
  

In effect, not only would the new Attorney General be on board with opening the new front in the Hidden Purpose War, this also makes Lieberman a great candidate if Bush's main concern is covering his ass.

Moral of this story: if we start to hear how the "distinguished, bipartisan Senator from Connecticut" would be a great nominee for Attorney General, it would be in the country's best interest if we, the American people, loudly disagree.

Senator Sex and Fighting Terrorism

Thank you Larry Craig for a hilarious story. Larry Craig, one of the card carrying members of the anti-gay caucus of the Senate, plead guilty to soliciting gay sex from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom stall.

The story itself is juicy, and due to the hypocrisy of the story's subject, it's hysterical. Keith Olbermann's reading of the police report and Dragnet reenactment of the crime is priceless.

The only thing that I've noticed about this story that is going largely ignored is why the undercover cop was working to catch gay guys in an airport bathroom. Aren't the billable hours for our undercover airport cops better spent trying to catch would-be terrorists than horny Senators looking to get some?

I do raise an eyebrow to the coincidence of this arrest.

Luckily, I don't care. Peace out hypocrite. I hope your wife kicks your ass.

Paul Clement: Better than Alberto Gonzales?

Solicitor General Paul Clement is going to, at least temporarily, take over for Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General when his resignation takes effect September 17th. But is this good news or bad news?

Let's get the bad news out of the way. As described by law.com, Paul Clement "has a perfectly appointed conservative resume." This resume includes clerking for Justice Scalia, being a former member of the Federalist Society, working with Kenneth Starr, and of course, being appointed to his current position by President George W. Bush. During his tenure as Solicitor General, he has publicly argued that President Bush has the power to imprison those he deems enemies indefinitely and deny them access to legal council. Possibly most concerning, however, is the revelation by TPMuckraker that it has been Paul Clement who has been determining which documents are given to Congress and which ones are not, and let's just say that the Justice Department and the White House have been airing on the side of secrecy in this matter.

Now here's the good news. First of all, Clement graduated from Harvard Law School, not Regent University. At the very least, we know that he has been taught the law according to the Constitution of the United States, as opposed to the law according to Pat Robertson. There is also the fact that his public positions, as a lawyer, are the positions that are in the best interest of his clients and do not necessarily represent his personal views. Unfortunately, we don't really know what his personal views are, but we can hope that he has a deep love of the Constitution, instead of the deep love for George W. Bush that has been displayed by the current Attorney General.

And then there is the wild card factor. A little over a month ago, four Senators from the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement requesting that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether or not Attorney General Gonzales perjured himself during his testimony in front of Congress. No special prosecutor has been appointed, but Gonzales has stepped down. What happened in between the sending of that letter and Gonzales' resignation? And what role did Paul Clement play behind the scenes?

So Paul Clement as Attorney General: good news or bad news? Truth is, we don't really know yet. However, there is now a chance the United States Attorney General will be loyal to the Constitution instead of George W. Bush. There is also a chance that our new Attorney General played a part in showing Alberto Gonzales the door. So far, things are looking up.

And even if Paul Clement does end up being the lesser of two evils, at least we're headed in the right direction. At this point, we just need to take what we can get.

Lou Dobbs Airs Propaganda While Congress is on Vacation

Congress is out of session and the investigations have stopped. Apparently, the only thing left to cover during August is going to be war propaganda.

The newest thing being rolled out for the cameras this summer is going to be the term "genocide" applied to Iraq. It began today on CNN.

The top story on Lou Dobbs Tonight was the series of truck bombs detonated in Kurdish villages located in Northern Iraq, which are mainly populated by the Yazidi religious minority. The attackers are assumed to be Sunni, who had threatened the Yazidi's for being infidels. According to the latest estimates, the death toll has risen to at least 500 people.

During the irresponsible piece by Barbara Starr, Major General Benjamin Mixon, a member of our armed services and a total country bumpkin, gets on the screen and says, "this was an act of ethnic cleansing, if you will, almost genocide."

This was a terrible tragedy for the Iraqi people and it never should have happened. But it was not genocide. This language is deceptive at best and evil propaganda at worst.

If you don't already understand the point I'm making, let me walk you through it. Genocide is a process, and is not the same as an act of terror. An act of terror is something that happens, and then it's over. A process, however, has predictable stages that it often follows and it takes a long time.

Some people have actually have studied this process and have determined that genocide has eight fairly reliable stages. Let's examine the stages of genocide and see if they fit the situation in Iraq:

1) Classification: People are divided into "us and them"

Well, we know the "them" are the Yazidi's, and they occupy the Kurdish territories. But who is the "us"? We are told it was the Sunni's or the cleverly named "Al Qaeda in Iraq". Ok. Fine.

2) Symbolization: When combined with hatred, symbols may be forced upon unwilling members of pariah groups...

According to CNN, the Yazidi's were considered infidels by their Sunni attackers.

Um... yeah. Who isn't?

Not giving you this one.

3) Dehumanization: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group.

The Yazidis "have received threatening letters, called "night letters," telling them "to leave because they are infidels." Scary and wrong, but I don't think this compares to the dehumanization of the slave labor and extermination camps of the holocaust.

As for the propaganda thing, we don't know what is said about the Yazidis in their press, so we can't be certain that they never hear derogatory comments. However, what we do know is that the government of Iraq is almost completely Shite. The Sunnis (the attackers) are by far the minority in the government (considering most of them quit) and wouldn't have the access to affect the culture in this way.

Since the Sunnis don't have the power to complete this step successfully, let's mark this one off as another No.

4) Organization: Genocide is always organized... Special army units or militias are often trained and armed...

Tough one. Technically, it was organized. The guys who did this, at the very least, had to plan to use trucks and to detonate them on the same day. Other than that though, its not too similar to the SS. But since I don't want to hear any whining, we'll say yes to this one.

5) Polarization: Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda.

Well, we here in the good 'ole USA know plenty about propaganda and we can tell you that it needs to be administered by the government. After all, they're the ones with the power to control the press.

This attack was not government sponsored. Not by the Iraqi government anyway (remember, they are Shites and the attackers are Sunnis.)

Anyway, once again, this one's a No.

6) Identification: Victims are identified and separated out because of their ethnic or religious identity...

This one doesn't fit either. The Kurds actually want the Yazidis to be considered "ethnic Kurds" in order to increase their power and numbers. The Yazidis are not isolated against their will.

And the absence of Sunnis in their villages might be explained by the truck bombs.

7) Extermination: It is "extermination" to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human

Well, according to CNN and Major General Benjamin "Bumpkin" Mixon, the attacks were attempts to "break the will" of the American people and show that the U.S. troop escalation -- the "surge" -- is failing.

So. No.

And finally...

8) Denial: The perpetrators... deny that they committed any crimes...

Well, just like everything that happens in Iraq, we don't really know who was behind this because they are hiding (kind of indicating that they think they did something wrong). But since we don't know exactly who they are, or what they are thinking, we'll make this one a wash.

Ok. Let's look at the verdict. Does this count as genocide?

Yes-No-No-Yes-No-No-No-Wash.

Nope. Not genocide.

Now, is it possible that Maj. Gen. Bumpkin just didn't realize what he was saying? Wouldn't surprise me. I'd say there is an excellent chance that this guy was just saying what he was told to say. But someone chose that word on purpose. You don't call something "genocide" without some calculation and the comment doesn't get splashed all over CNN on accident either.

I'm so tired of it. It's disgusting how low these war hawks will go, using the images and the emotions generated by the holocaust and Darfur to trick the dumb people in America into supporting their adventure in Iraq. Will we ever be told why we are really there? Remember all the old explanations? WMDs. We have to catch Saddam. We need to train the Iraqi's. We need to support the Iraqi government. Now we need to stop the genocide.

We need to cut the shit!

But Congress is on vacation. After promising to get us out of Iraq and to hold the administration accountable if we elect them, the democratic Congressional leaders felt they deserved a vacation after accomplishing none of it. They have deserted Washington DC and are allowing it to be run by the Pentagon and the Bush administration uninterrupted for a whole month. In the meantime, instead of airing information uncovered in that morning's hearings, the media is airing propaganda, likely because there is nothing more interesting to cover.

How's that for strategy?

We've got to ask ourselves, in the next few weeks, how many more top stories will be pure fiction? How much further could Congress have been in their investigations? Will the ignorant sector of the American public be convinced that we must stay in Iraq and attack Iran by the time the dissenting voices come back from their 4 week summer picnic?

Ugh. God bless America. We could really use some help.

"Conservative" and "Liberal" : Dangerous Terms

I found this interesting blog today written by six students in Wisconsin. At first I was a little turned off because of the line at the top reading, "Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right. Systematically Debunking Liberal Rhetoric." Looked like it would just be another partisan whine fest.

But it wasn't. Instead I found an articulate analysis of this kid Brian's view on Bush and Rove. I looked at a few of the other articles, written by other contributors, and found more of the same. Level-headed arguments written by obviously intelligent individuals. While I didn't agree with everything, I found myself often nodding my head in agreement, even though this was a website that clearly states that it is "conservative" and that they are out to debunk "liberals". In theory, because I am labeled a "liberal", I should have hated this website.

It got me to thinking. Are we really doing ourselves any favors by labeling everyone either a "conservative" or "liberal"? It seems to me that the only time we use these words is when we are trying to dismiss someone else's point.

"Oh, he's just a wackjob conservative."

"She's just a tree-huggin' liberal."

Point made. You may freely dismiss this person's point of view.

But is it really that simple?

In my experience, very few of us fall perfectly into either of these categories. But it really depends on who you are talking to. If you're talking to Rush Limbaugh, everything he doesn't agree with is "liberal". But if you are talking to my father, a 55 year old "conservative", he'll tell you we need to get the hell out of Iraq, need a flat tax because that's just fair, need to be terrified of terrorists, need to tap everyone's phones if it catches one would-be terrorist, and gays should be able to have the same rights as married couples, but since "married" is a religious term, they should respect the wishes of the church and call it "civil unions".

Some of that I agree with. We do need to get out of Iraq, the flat tax sounds logical to me, and I think as long as gay couples have the same exact rights that straight couples have, they may have to get over being called "married". But the terrorist stuff I find absolutely batty. We should not give up our rights for any reason. But at least I understand where he's coming from. He's admittedly scared shitless.

It's only through conversation though that I have discovered these common grounds with my father. And the only reason we had these conversations is because he's my father. When I speak to him, we are speaking as friends, relatives, and fellow Americans. I respect his opinion and he respects mine. We see that what affects him will affect me, which motivates us to try to understand each other's view of how things should be. And a lot of times, we make each other think.

That's our private discourse. But what about our public discourse? Isn't time we treat each other with the same respect, based on the fact that we are all fellow Americans trying to do the best for our country, that we have with our friends and relatives?

When we put up titles on our websites, articles, or anywhere else that indicate that our words are intended for only part of the population, be that the liberal or conservative part, aren't we excluding the very people we have the most interest in talking to? Aren't we missing out on opportunities to see things from a different perspective and find some common ground to work on? How does excluding those that disagree help us to come together to protect the Constitution and make the United States a better place to live?

My hope is that my generation will stop using these words to separate us into two warring factions. My hope is that instead of finding it necessary to make sure that there are two sides to watch fight over every issue, that we will be more willing to recognize that there is only one United States of America, and like it or not, we need to find a way to compromise for the good of the country. I'm hoping that we will learn from this political disaster we are living through, that has been largely created by the Baby Boomer's divisive nature, and will use this knowledge to create a government based on cooperation as opposed to battle.

I'm hopeful because of the blurring I see of the lines in the words of my peers. We lose the labels, and we're off to a damn good start.

We've Got to Keep an Eye on Karl Rove

Exciting morning, huh? I must admit, I smiled when I heard the news.

But now I'm not so sure. I’ve noticed today that some people are talking about the work of Karl Rove in the past tense, as if he's definitely finished. This is a concerning trend.

Smart people with a genuine desire to see the end of the Bush administration, and who are desperate for some kind of hope, really want to believe that today's announcement means that the days of Karl Rove are over. They really want to believe that Rove is resigning out of panic or that he is walking away to go harmlessly write his book and chill with wifey.

I understand the desire. I wish I could believe it. I could really dig having something to celebrate.

But I don’t have cause to celebrate. The truth is, we don’t know what this means. There are a lot of “whys” that need to be addressed. And they might not add up to a move made out of panic or a simple fade into irrelevance.

Let's take a quick look at this announcement. First question: Why did they announce Rove’s departure at 6am EST on Monday morning? Why did they want it splashed all over the place before most people even wake up? Is it possible that we are looking away, or being set up to look away, from something important while we yack about Rove? With their track record, there’s enough of a chance that this is a distraction method to warrant spending some time finding out.

Look over here!

Another question: Why did Karl Rove say he is resigning to spend time with his family? This is such a flimsy reason. The real question might be why does he want us to think he’s not working anymore? Is it possible he may be going to working on the 2008 elections, either to win them or rig them? The Bush administration, considering they aren’t running for anything, need this accomplished political director a lot less than the Republican Party does. And Rove works much better in the shadows.

Look over here!

The point is that there is a very real chance that Rove has something in his future plans other than penning his memoirs and having picnics with his family. We cannot afford to underestimate him or anyone else involved with the Bush administration. I mean, let’s give some credit where credit is due. Karl Rove and the Bush administration are the masters of Public Relations. No matter how much Karl Rove disgusts you, no matter how disastrous you think the execution of their policies have been, you must admit that their sales pitches worked. Just think of all the shit that they spun their way out of in the last 6 years with no real repercussions! They stopped the vote count in Florida. They sold us the Iraq War. They tortured people. They’ve had people locked up without trials for years. They used Pat Tillman’s death as propaganda. They never found Osama bin Laden.

Despite all this, they then won (or stole) an election.

Then they let New Orleans drown. They weakened, if not revoked, the 4^th Amendment. They Republicanized the Justice Department. We found out they lied about Pat Tillman. They “lost” 190,000 weapons into the hands of only God knows who in the Middle East. They “lost” billions of dollars in Iraq. They pardoned Scooter Libby.

Look over here!

They lied and spun and omitted and never looked back. And let’s face it: The American people bought it all. We’ve been chasing our tails for years, and with the exception of keeping Harriet Miers out of the Supreme Court and stopping the sale of our ports to the United Arab Emirates, we habitually failed to catch them in the act. Then, even after we found out the truth, we have not been able to do a damn thing about it.

With a successful track record like that, and the Republicans in as much trouble as they seem to be, does it make much sense to let their best political director retire?

Would Karl Rove really retire from political life?

Would they really want to shine a spotlight the way they did on the story if he were jumping ship?

There are just too many questions. Too many possibilities. We just don't understand this move.

The moral of this story is that no one should take their eye off of Karl Rove. That’s one phone that should be tapped for the safety of the country.

Also, just for safe measure, while the media focuses on the BREAKING NEWS for the next few days and airs the theories of every pundit in the world, we need to be sure that we pay close attention to the scrolling news bar on the bottom of the screen. Wouldn’t it be just Rovian if there were a document dump tomorrow? Or a huge setback in Iraq?

Look over here!

We all need to acknowledge that we have no idea what these guys are up to, but we have learned that a strategy commonly employed by Karl Rove and the rest of these guys in the Bush administration is to distract the American people. This time, just in case, let’s not turn our heads.

Ron Paul called it in 2001

I'm blown away. Here is a link to a speech made by Ron Paul, a not-covered-enough Republican candidate for President, on November 29th, 2001. He predicted everything that we now know as reality. It's a bit long, but an amazing read.

This is a great example to throw in the face of everyone that says "we had no way of knowing". Some of us knew. Apparently, this included some people in Congress.

So if the information was available and out in the open in Congress, why did our representatives vote the way they did?

Isn't that the question?

Open Letter to Senator Diane Feinstein

Senator Feinstein,

I am ashamed to call you my representative. What exactly was going through your head when you voted to allow the President to violate the Bill of Rights and eavesdrop on whomever he chooses? You do remember the Bill of Rights, don't you? I ask because the 4th Amendment guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". I just don't understand how you can take a oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, and then legislate that it may be violated by the President.

I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that an educated woman like yourself could be blind to the law breaking of this administration. You are on the judiciary committee for God's sake! You have seen Alberto Gonzales commit perjury time and time again, yet you have done nothing to remove him from office. The President's staff members have defied Congress in the most despicable manner possible by not showing up in response to their subpoenas, yet you have failed to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to throw their law breaking asses in jail. And now, in spite of these examples and countless others (torture, Pat Tillman, Abu Grahib, being lied into a disastrous war in Iraq, voter caging, etc...) you decide that it would be wise to trust this President to spy on people without a warrant.

What, may I ask, is wrong with you?

Do you think that compromising with this administration is going to win you votes? Do you think that caving in to him and allowing more of our rights to disappear in the next 18 months, thereby making Republicans look like monsters, will guarantee the Democrats victory in 2008? Do you think that your job in Congress is to get re-elected? If it's not any of these things, please tell me your motivation for sitting on your hands and not stopping this out of control occupant of the executive branch.

Senator, my fear is that you have been serving in Congress for too long and are so entrenched in politics that you have become blind to reality. People outside of Washington DC are watching our beloved Constitution being slowly burned at the stake. In 2006, we gave the Democrats both houses of Congress expecting that they would put out the fire. Instead, you have just lit another match.

If your oath of office means anything to you, please start defending the Constitution. The residents of California, and indeed the United States, are counting on you and your colleagues to protect the Congress and the Constitution from the power grabs of the executive branch. So far, you are failing us miserably. You should be ashamed of yourself.

For the love of God and country, please start doing your job.


UPDATE: Turns out Diane Feinstein appears to be a war-profiteer. This explains quite a bit...