Interesting article by Marjorie Cohn posted today on Alternet
In it she writes:
"It's déja vu. This time the Bush gang wants war with Iran. Following a carefully orchestrated strategy, they have ratcheted up the "threat" from Iran, designed to mislead us into a new war four years after they misled us into Iraq."
"Like its insistence that Iraq had WMD, the Bush administration has been hyping claims that Iran seeks nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), however, has found no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says there is plenty of time for negotiation with Iran."
"Bush has sent two battle carrier groups, replete with nukes, to the Persian Gulf, and a third is reportedly preparing to follow. In support of Bush's case that Iran poses a danger to the U.S., three unnamed American officials ceremoniously trotted out metal parts found in Iraq and claimed Iran supplied them to kill our soldiers in Iraq."
She quotes the AP and Washington Post .
"This "evidence" -- or "packaging," as the Associated Press calls it -- doesn't pass the straight face test with most reputable observers. "The officials offered no evidence to substantiate allegations that the 'highest levels' of the Iranian government had sanctioned support for attacks against U.S. troops," according to Monday's Washington Post."
She also quotes the NY Times.
"Saturday's New York Times cited information gleaned from "interrogation reports" from Iranians and Iraqis captured in the recent U.S. raid on the Iranian embassy in northern Iraq. They allegedly indicated money and weapons components are brought into Iraq over the Iranian border at night. If those people indeed provided such information, query what kind of pressure, i.e. torture, might have been applied to encourage their cooperation. Recall the centerpiece of Colin Powell's 2003 lies to the Security Council about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda came from false information tortured out of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi."
"The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, released last week, concluded that Iranian or Syrian involvement is "not likely to be a major driver of violence" in Iraq."
"Paul Krugman wrote that even if Iran were providing aid to some factions in Iraq, "you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents -- and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths."
"Yet Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, all beholden to the Israel lobby, have bought into Bush's dangerous rhetoric about Iran."
http://alternet.org/story/47994/
Comments
MORE LIKE ; TURKEY , 1978
Submitted on April 23rd, 2007 by pacomActually , the present condition is much like in the year 1978 .
The U S had invested billions in military equipment which was
installed in Turkey to combat the terrorists. Also , there
were thousands of U S military people there.
The U S Congress cut off all funding for military supplies
in Turkey. Ever since then , both the terrorist threat in Turkey ,
and the move to a Turkish Islamic State have grown.
By 1980 , Turkey had gone to military law in some provinces,
especially the ones bordering Iraq. The "country handbook "
series , published by American University in 1980 said that
the trouble was caused by the "Aleve" group , and the Kurds.
(There had been a riot somewhere.) But I don't know who
caused the riot. Mike : do you know who caused the riot
in Turkey , 1978 ? And exactly who wanted to cut off the U S
military supplies ? ( Who knows ? that might have been
the thing to do ! ie , The USSR might have attacked us if
we had not cut off the supplies. )
All the current action in Iraq in the year 2007 is just the
continuation of the events of 1978.
At least one of the big-time players has the same name :
Richard Cheney !
tannhauser PACOM , tanaiste
so many hypocrites...
Submitted on February 28th, 2007 by HoneyBeeATXPlenty of people will jump to defend the decision, but the fact remains that of all the nations who have ever had nuclear weapons, the US is the only country who has lacked the restraint to NOT use them. Why is this so often ignored or justified? Why can't Iran have WMDs while the US can? Because they might use them in a way we see unfit? Americans killed probably 200,000 civilians when they decided to use them. What could possibly be a worse use of these weapons? If we are going to make any restrictions about nuclear weapons, it must be across the board, the same for everyone. So, the question is, should everyone have the right to own WMDs, or should nobody?
Deja vu is right
Submitted on February 16th, 2007 by Suzy 2sAnd the Saudis support a nuclear Iran
Submitted on February 16th, 2007 by Juan Flores