The evidence is overwhelming that the Bush Administration is planning a military strike on Iran very soon. The evidence is equally overwhelming that the results of this strike would be economically and diplomatically devastating to the United States for years to come. There is some disagreement about the level of response, but clearly Iran is capable of a powerful military response resulting in significant U.S. casualties. Most non partisan experts agree that the combined military and economic consequences would push the U.S. into recession, or worse.
Congress must act quickly and decisively to prevent the Bush Administration from implementing this act of foreign policy insanity. In my opinion, the best defense in this case is clearly a good offense. Congress needs to utilize their legal authority to launch a shock and awe campaign against the Bush Administration sufficient to divert their energy from anything other than saving their collective hides. Impeachment procedures should be instituted against Vice President Cheney and indictments should be handed down against Karl Rove for Hatch Act violations as soon as Congress reconvenes. Special Prosecutors should be named to investigate Vice President Cheney and his neocon staff for their involvement in the Niger Forgeries, and deliberately misleading Congress during the lead up to the Iraq invasion.The Contempt of Congress citations should be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.
My basic point in this article is that Congress must be merciless in their legal pursuit of the Bush Administration. The violations of law validate such action by their own merit, but I also believe that the only thing the neocons understand is force. They must be politically taken apart through strong and decisive legal methods immediately. Failure to act will result in calamity.
The question of whether the U.S. Military Commanders in the Pentagon would refuse an order from the President to launch a military strike against Iran is a question that we don't want to face. Congress needs to immediately pull the political rug out from under the Administration and leave them struggling to survive.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
Will Bush Give the Order?
It is quite clear, if you read the signals coming from the White House, that an attack on Iran is still receiving serious consideration by the President. In fact, some insiders are saying that it is a matter of when, not whether, the attack will take place.
It is not a coincidence that this issue has risen to the surface during Congress's summer recess. The neocons know that the political window, if there is one, for military action against Iran will be slammed shut as soon Congress reconvenes and the indictments start dropping into various Bush Administration Official's laps. To complicate matters more, the highly anticipated report from General Petraeus will likely fan the flames of the troop withdrawal movement and drastically weaken the Presidents support amongst Republican Congressmen. The neocons obviously feel that if they can't convince the President to launch a unilateral attack on Iran now, they may not have the opportunity again.
The gravity of the consequences of a military action against Iran raises an extremely sensitive question. Would the military leaders refuse the order to launch the attack? It may seem ridiculous to think that the Commander in Chief's military orders could be refused but consider this:
Admiral William J. Fallon assumed duties as the commander, U.S. Central Command on March 16, 2007.
The Inter Press news Service Reported on May 15, 2007:
Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch". Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
The fact that a number of retired Generals have publicly denounced the Administrations handling of Iraq is a clear indication that there are deep divisions between the White House and the Pentagon. The Iranians are in a position to launch devastating counter attacks resulting in high numbers of American military casualties through both conventional and asymmetrical methods. I do not believe that our military leaders are willing to sacrifice our troops lives in great numbers for an ideology that has been proven counter productive and morally bankrupt.
It is not a coincidence that this issue has risen to the surface during Congress's summer recess. The neocons know that the political window, if there is one, for military action against Iran will be slammed shut as soon Congress reconvenes and the indictments start dropping into various Bush Administration Official's laps. To complicate matters more, the highly anticipated report from General Petraeus will likely fan the flames of the troop withdrawal movement and drastically weaken the Presidents support amongst Republican Congressmen. The neocons obviously feel that if they can't convince the President to launch a unilateral attack on Iran now, they may not have the opportunity again.
The gravity of the consequences of a military action against Iran raises an extremely sensitive question. Would the military leaders refuse the order to launch the attack? It may seem ridiculous to think that the Commander in Chief's military orders could be refused but consider this:
Admiral William J. Fallon assumed duties as the commander, U.S. Central Command on March 16, 2007.
The Inter Press news Service Reported on May 15, 2007:
Fallon's refusal to support a further naval buildup in the Gulf reflected his firm opposition to an attack on Iran and an apparent readiness to put his career on the line to prevent it. A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch". Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."
The fact that a number of retired Generals have publicly denounced the Administrations handling of Iraq is a clear indication that there are deep divisions between the White House and the Pentagon. The Iranians are in a position to launch devastating counter attacks resulting in high numbers of American military casualties through both conventional and asymmetrical methods. I do not believe that our military leaders are willing to sacrifice our troops lives in great numbers for an ideology that has been proven counter productive and morally bankrupt.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
MORE MEMORY PROBLEMS IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
Vice President Cheney has joined Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Alberto Gonzales in what has become a pandemic outbreak of memory loss amongst members of the Bush Administration. A New York Times story recently fingered Cheney as the one who sent Gonzo to John Ashcroft's hospital room. The exchange between CNN talkshow host Larry King and Vice President Cheney went as follows:
Q In that regard, The New York Times -- which, as you said, is not your favorite -- reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President's intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.
Q That would be something you would recall.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.
Q So you didn't send them to get permission.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.
If we analyze the Vice President's response I believe that the answer to Mr. King's question becomes quite clear.
Cheney's first answer:
I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.
Whether he read the story has nothing to do with either his memory or whether the story is truthful. It is evident that he was stalling for time so he could get his answer straight.
The second part of his answer is extremely restrictive. Ecessively restrictive or excessively broad answers are designed to give the liar wiggle room if the truth is eventually uncovered. He can later backtrack by saying that while he sent them to the hospital room, he didn't give specific instructions as to what they were to say upon arrival. It's commonly referred to as a "liar's back door." No matter what is ultimately revealed, he leaves himself a way out.
His Second answer:
Mr. King assertively pointed out the absurdity of his claim that he didn't remember by saying "That would be something you would recall".
Cheney answered by acknowledging that it is not reasonable to believe that anyone would forget something so critical when he replied "I would think so. But certainly I was involved". This is, in effect, an admission that he is lying and an attempt to salvage whatever is left of his credibility by acknowledging that he will at least admit that he was involved. Mr. King asserted his belief that anyone would remember this incident clearly, then tellingly, Vice President Cheney concurs with King's assertion. In acknowledging his concurrence with King's assertion, he unwittingly confesses to lying.
The rest of his response is interesting in that he defends the hospital trip by saying "By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it." While refusing to openly acknowledge that he was the person who sent Gonzales to Ashcroft's room, he conspicuously defends the person who did by inferring that the program had already been approved many times over and Ashcroft's approval was irrelevant.
His last answer:
"I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital"
I suggest that Mr. Cheney's subconscious mind is confessing for him. No innocent party would word a denial in that manner. A normal denial consists of addressing innocence. This denial clearly contains the words necessary for a complete confession.
It is increasingly clear why the President can not allow any of his subordinates to testify before Congress.
Q In that regard, The New York Times -- which, as you said, is not your favorite -- reports it was you who dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital in 2004 to push Ashcroft to certify the President's intelligence-gathering program. Was it you?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.
Q That would be something you would recall.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I would think so. But certainly I was involved because I was a big advocate of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, and had been responsible and working with General Hayden and George Tenet to get it to the President for approval. By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it.
Q So you didn't send them to get permission.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital.
If we analyze the Vice President's response I believe that the answer to Mr. King's question becomes quite clear.
Cheney's first answer:
I don't recall -- first of all, I haven't seen the story. And I don't recall that I gave instructions to that effect.
Whether he read the story has nothing to do with either his memory or whether the story is truthful. It is evident that he was stalling for time so he could get his answer straight.
The second part of his answer is extremely restrictive. Ecessively restrictive or excessively broad answers are designed to give the liar wiggle room if the truth is eventually uncovered. He can later backtrack by saying that while he sent them to the hospital room, he didn't give specific instructions as to what they were to say upon arrival. It's commonly referred to as a "liar's back door." No matter what is ultimately revealed, he leaves himself a way out.
His Second answer:
Mr. King assertively pointed out the absurdity of his claim that he didn't remember by saying "That would be something you would recall".
Cheney answered by acknowledging that it is not reasonable to believe that anyone would forget something so critical when he replied "I would think so. But certainly I was involved". This is, in effect, an admission that he is lying and an attempt to salvage whatever is left of his credibility by acknowledging that he will at least admit that he was involved. Mr. King asserted his belief that anyone would remember this incident clearly, then tellingly, Vice President Cheney concurs with King's assertion. In acknowledging his concurrence with King's assertion, he unwittingly confesses to lying.
The rest of his response is interesting in that he defends the hospital trip by saying "By the time this occurred, it had already been approved about 12 times by the Department of Justice. There was nothing new about it." While refusing to openly acknowledge that he was the person who sent Gonzales to Ashcroft's room, he conspicuously defends the person who did by inferring that the program had already been approved many times over and Ashcroft's approval was irrelevant.
His last answer:
"I don't recall that I was the one who sent them to the hospital"
I suggest that Mr. Cheney's subconscious mind is confessing for him. No innocent party would word a denial in that manner. A normal denial consists of addressing innocence. This denial clearly contains the words necessary for a complete confession.
It is increasingly clear why the President can not allow any of his subordinates to testify before Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
