2001-2008 --- A Return To A Time Of Darkness

We were taught in school that there was a time in our history's past when learning seemed to stop.  It was called "The Dark Ages."  Who ever thought history would repeat itself in the 21st century?  The past seven and half years has been a repeat for our leaders who have failed to learn and then stopped learning from their mistakes altogether.

 

The present Dark Age covers a broad spectrum and I will discuss two of them in this post that came to light just in the last few days.  Nothing needs to be said about Iraq because the problem is so obvious.  Now it is Afghanistan and Iran.

 

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited Afghanistan and said more foreign fighters including al Qaeda militants are operating in Pakistan's tribal areas then in the past and they are flowing into Afghanistan more freely this year compared to last.  Attacks in Eastern Afghanistan where American forces operate along the border with Pakistan are up 40% this year.  June was the deadliest month for U.S. and NATO soldiers since 2001.

 

This Dark Age of leadership goes back to our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 when we failed to seal the borders.  It was known before our invasion that the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan was a haven for training al Qaeda and the Taliban.  After the tragic events of 9-11, Mr. Bush said his administration would make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them.  Not only did our leadership fail to carry out that policy with Pakistan, but seven years into the war in Afghanistan, our Chairman says the problem is still there and worse.

 

Now we have Secretary of State Condi Rice who just warned Iran that its latest launching of rockets was a provocative act and that the U.S. has the ability to counter them --- another example of this Dark Age of leadership failure where our leaders have learned nothing.  Our leadership has a policy of provocations and going along with the threats of Israel's leaders to other countries.  When leaders fail to learn, innocent people pay the price for their mistakes. 

 

Mr. Bush failed to learn that two can play the same game he tries to play.  That failure is darker than dark.  He played the game in Iraq over WMD that did not exist and went on to destabilize Iraq and the middle east.  Iran does not have a history of  invading other countries nor of launching a war against other countries.  Our own intelligence people said they stopped working to produce a nuclear weapon several years ago.  If they are in fact working to acquire such weapons, the U.S. can contain them like we did the Soviet Union for over 40 years.  We don't need a failure in leadership that will push the U.S. into yet another unnecessary war. 

 

This Dark Age of leadership and learning has put our country and its people in peril.  We see the economic repercussions for this failed leadership that touches the people's lives in almost every situation.  Russia was bogged down in Afghanistan for 10 years and then withdrew.  Our leadership furnished the Taliban weapons to fight Russia and they are now using those weapons we supplied them against our own troops.  We also supported Saddam during his invasion of Iran and ten year war.  We even gave Saddam U.S. intelligence gathered on Iran's military movements.  What has our country learned from those Dark Ages? ---Apparently, nothing.  

 

Can our nation escape this present Dark Age where our leaders have stopped learning.  Have we run out of leaders who understand what America is all about and how to use our military power wisely?  Hopefully the next President will answer those questions, in the way that they need to be answered.  

Bush, Israel, Iraq and Iran: A Deadly Combination

The Bush administration wants a security pact with Iraq on keeping U.S. Troops based there for the foreseeable future.  Bush wants this concluded before he leaves office and will tie the hands of the next President if put in effect.  Keeping American troops in Iraq will insure the U.S. of a continued war in the middle east for years to come with no end in sight.

 

An American presence in Iraq is not needed to protect the middle east or the security of the U.S., just as the war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist was not needed.  Bush has put America and our men and women in uniform in danger with his reckless policies.  Iran is opposed to the U.S. military pact with Iraq and says the U.S. wants to use such American presence as a base to attack Iran.  They are probably right.  Bush says he does not need Congress to approve such a pact.  If that is true, Congress should not fund any such agreement.

 

Now we have Shaul Mofiz a cabinet minister in Israel's government of Prime Minister Olmert saying that Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program.  The Prime Minister distanced himself from that quote.  Israel, a country that former President Carter said had up to 150 nuclear weapons is secret about their own nuclear program but wants Iran to fess up concerning their program.  Since Shaul Mofiz made a threat of attacking Iran, I guess that means Iran can launch a preempted strike against Israel to protect its people.  Two can play Israel sorry game.

 

The present leaders of Israel and the U.S. are reckless with their policies and talk concerning the middle east and seem bent on having a nuclear war in that area.  The new U.S. President needs to change our policy and relationship in the middle east and Israel and promote real peace and stability in the area.  If the new U.S. President promotes the status quo with Israel and the middle east does anyone think that will make America safer? 

 

Our Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain need to stand up and be counted on what their policies would be in the middle east and with Israel.  So far they have taken no position on Bush's plan to have a treaty with Iraq on keeping a U.S. presence there with U.S. troops.  What a shame.  The status quo with Israel and the Middle East is unacceptable. 

Bush, Israel, Iraq and Iran: A Deadly Combination

The Bush administration wants a security pact with Iraq on keeping U.S. Troops based there for the foreseeable future.  Bush wants this concluded before he leaves office and will tie the hands of the next President if put in effect.  Keeping American troops in Iraq will insure the U.S. of a continued war in the middle east for years to come with no end in sight.

 

An American presence in Iraq is not needed to protect the middle east or the security of the U.S., just as the war and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist was not needed.  Bush has put America and our men and women in uniform in danger with his reckless policies.  Iran is opposed to the U.S. military pact with Iraq and says the U.S. wants to use such American presence as a base to attack Iran.  They are probably right.  Bush says he does not need Congress to approve such a pact.  If that is true, Congress should not fund any such agreement.

 

Now we have Shaul Mofiz a cabinet minister in Israel's government of Prime Minister Olmert saying that Israel will have no choice but to attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program.  The Prime Minister distanced himself from that quote.  Israel, a country that former President Carter said had up to 150 nuclear weapons is secret about their own nuclear program but wants Iran to fess up concerning their program.  Since Shaul Mofiz made a threat of attacking Iran, I guess that means Iran can launch a preempted strike against Israel to protect its people.  Two can play Israel sorry game.

 

The present leaders of Israel and the U.S. are reckless with their policies and talk concerning the middle east and seem bent on having a nuclear war in that area.  The new U.S. President needs to change our policy and relationship in the middle east and Israel and promote real peace and stability in the area.  If the new U.S. President promotes the status quo with Israel and the middle east does anyone think that will make America safer? 

 

Our Presidential candidates, Obama and McCain need to stand up and be counted on what their policies would be in the middle east and with Israel.  So far they have taken no position on Bush's plan to have a treaty with Iraq on keeping a U.S. presence there with U.S. troops.  What a shame.  The status quo with Israel and the Middle East is unacceptable. 

The Iraq-Iran Alliance

I have mentioned in several past commentaries that when it is all said and done ,and no matter how the war in Iraq ends, Iran and Iraq will be united allies.  They will enjoy the fruits of the billions of American dollars used to rebuild Iraq. Iraq and Iran as well as other countries in the Middle East, will also have even a greater advantage in the control and price of oil for years to come.---All of this because of Bush's reckless policy in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.

 

Just this past week, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's troops were locked in combat in Shiite controlled-Basra against Iraqi forces.  At the same time, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was making trouble all over Baghdad.  Iraqi officials have now reported that over 500 Iraqi solders, police, and civilians were killed in the Basra and Baghdad fighting, with hundreds more wounded.

 

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, who vowed to see the Basra campaign through to a military victory, instead came to an agreement with al-Sadr to end the fighting and agreed to al-Sadr's nine demands.  Once again, al-Sadr told his army to stand down.  That can be deemed success---for now...

 

But the fighting in Basra and Baghdad this week has exposed the weakness of the American troop surge.  Al-Sadr and his army can and do turn the heat and violence up any time they want to.  The surge did not have an affect on this operation.  It should be noted, however, that the Iraqi representatives who handled the cease fire with the Shiite in Basra and Baghdad also had to send representatives to Iran to deal with al-Sadr to help negotiate the cease fire.  In other words, al-Sadr is operating from Iran.  The American people should and need to understand just what is taking place here.

 

All the while, our troops are still dying in a country made unstable by the President's invasion.  It should also be noted to the American people that the fight in Basra and Baghdad was between al-Sadr's army and the government and not al-qaeda.  Al-Sadr does not like the way the government is handling the Shiite-Sunni problem, and he has no problem raising hell to get what he wants.

 

In other words, the civil war is still going on in Iraq and Americans are dying because of forces that our military can not control.  If Bush or McCain or any other  neoconservative Republican thinks that America is waving the white flag of surrender by bringing out troops home, then they are the ones who care nothing about our men and women in uniform.  If all our troops came home tomorrow, they will all come home just like they served, with the highest honor. 

 

If any one thinks that America, the greatest military power in the world, has to occupy a foreign country in order to keep our country safe, then our children's future is really in jeopardy.  Indeed, this country's future is in jeopardy if that is the case. Think about that.

John McCain: An Uninformed United States Senator

Senator John McCain, in his recent visits to Iraq and the Middle East in order to show that he is Presidential, continues to show how uninformed he really is.  Like Bush, he is in denial about why we went to war in Iraq and what is really taking place there.  He speaks of victory, but still can not define it for our men and women in uniform or the American people who have sacrificed so much.  He says the surge is working, but it has yet to accomplish the mission of the surge over a year later. 

 

Now McCain has said several times that Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending them back across the border into Iraq.  He, with the help of Joe Lieberman, had to correct his statement as being factually wrong.  Is it beyond any Republican to tell the truth concerning this war in Iraq?  And McCain wants to be the next Commander in Chief? The so called straight talker can not be trusted any more that George Bush.  He has the same problem when he talks about Iran, Syria, and other countries sending troops into Iraq.  Those countries, and even our allies, laugh at that statement because the United States sent 180,000 troops into Iraq and have been occupying Iraq for 5 years now.  Bush has put our country in the position of not being able to speak from the position of moral authority when he talks about the actions of others.  And of course McCain follows that line.

 

George Bush, the Republicans in Congress who have rubber stamped his reckless action, and Sen. McCain believe in a democracy that is foreign to our founding fathers' actions and commitments.  Democracy to Bush is a one way street of his neoconservative ideology.  He is right and every one else is wrong.  Sadly, Senator McCain's neocon ideology follows that same path.  That does not bode well for the country's future should he become President.  America can't handle four more years of Bush.  

A Reckless Foreign Policy

George Bush's attempt to play God in Iraq and the Middle East is a prime example of a leader trying to use its military power with impunity to enforce its own warped ideology on other countries.

 

We now learn, (what people with common sense found out long ago) through a report by the Associated Press, that the Arab nations worry about Iran's increasing influence around the Region particularly in Iraq and Lebanon.  Sunni countries like Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states fear Iran will dominate Iraq in coming years because of its influence on Iraq's Shiite politicians. 

 

The war and occupation in Iraq, over WMD that did not exist, will be entering its fifth year in March.  Prior to this war, the Arab nations knew that Saddam and Iraq held Iran in check.  This war did not only destabilized Iraq, but also the entire Middle East region.  And as I mentioned before, when this war is done, because of Bush's reckless behavior, Iran and Iraq will be close allies.

 

None of this speaks well for America, our security or the security of the Middle East.  With the balance of power shifting, Israel with its WMD, Bush's incompetence and the problems in Pakistan, another country with WMD, the whole Muslim world could blow up any minute now.  Bush's bully-mentality towards other countries has caused a great backlash against the United States and has and continues to endanger our security.  

 

Democracy was not forced on the United States; our founding fathers were responsible for that.  Democracy can not be forced on other countries like Bush thinks he has a right to do.  The terrorists who were responsible for attacking the U.S. on 9-11 still flourish and their influence is growing.  The action of Mr. Bush to start a war and occupation in Iraq, instead of action against those who attacked us on 9-11, has set the Middle East on fire.  Democracy forced on others is simply not true Democracy.  

 

The shame of all this is that our men and women in uniform are still paying the ultimate price.  And we are still being told the surge is working, despite the fact that the reason given for the surge has never taken place.  2007 was the most deadly year in Iraq for our troops and for the Iraqi's.  In case any one has not noticed, 13 americans have already been killed in Iraq this month and from the same causes.  Our troops and our country were safer on the previous administration's watch.  That says it all. 

About Face In The Iraq War

I have mentioned in past commentaries that regardless of how the war in Iraq ends, or when it ends, Iran will be the main benefactor and Iraq and Iran will be allied together.

 

Now, despite the spin about the success of the surge, the State Department's top official on Iraq says Iran's sharp decrease of arms and munitions to Iraq has decreased the attacks sharply.  We know that the Shiite make up the majority in Iraq and Iran and that al-Sadr told his militia several months ago to stand down for 6 months.  We also know that the present administration in Iraq and Iran meet often and are in close contact with each other.  The game is on for them because they know that with the lack of violence, the U.S. will eventually have to leave.  

 

Another tell tale of what is happening in Iraq is in Basra, where British troops have turned over security to Iraq. Our military commanders are worried because Iran is entrenched in Basra and wields influence there to the point that is alarming.

 

And to top it off, Iraqi defense minister al-Obaidi declared his intent to dismantle the Sunni awakening councils which are financed and backed by the United States.  The Sunnis, who are the minority in Iraq but ruled the Shiite when Saddam was in power by force, will not be allowed to have any infrastructure to challenge the Shiite.  

 

In just 3 more months, the war will be in progress for 5 years.  Almost 4000 Americans have been killed, over 20,000 wounded; we don't have any idea how many innocent Iraq men, women and children have been killed and Mr. Bush still can not articulate when the war will end or how.  What we do know is that it was a war over WMD that did not exist.  Bush's reckless behavior to remake the Middle East in his vision has destabilized the entire region and when all  the killing stops, Iran and Iraq will be two sister states.  Iraq will look nothing like Bush saw in his dream.  But lucky for Bush, he won't have to deal with the mess he created much longer.  Unfortunately, the next President will bear the burden of his reckless behavior.

Israel's Sad Excuse For Leadership

The Associated Press has reported that one of Prime Ministers Olmert's ministers warned that the U.S. NIE report on Iran could trigger a war.  It also reported that an Israeli intelligent delegation is in the U.S. to press Israel's case that Iran is still working on a nuclear bomb.

 

The leaders of Israel and those ministers who have clout will not be satisfied until the U.S. supports an attack on Iran.  They supported the war against Iraq even though Israel's own intelligence knew Iraq had no WMD.  Israel wants to be the only power in the Middle East who has nuclear weapons and other WMD.  

Israel's leaders want to be the only ones to have these weapons because they want to be able to continue the use of their military power with impunity.  If anyone is not sure what impunity really means check the dictionary and you will understand how unstable and reckless Israel's leaders are.

 

The American people can not trust Olmert and leaders of Israel.  They agreed long ago to a U.N. resolution not to occupy land belonging to Palestine and instead continue to build settlements on those lands and Bush has let it slip by.  Now they are in Washington trying to convince Bush that our NIE was wrong. 

 

Mr. Olmert also complained that Iran is building long range missiles that could reach Israel.  Of course it is okay that Israel has had missiles for many years that can reach Iran.  There is much talk about the bible and armageddon in the Middle East.  If there is a war of armageddon in the middle east, it will be the leaders of Israel who will start it.  Our President and future presidents should realize what Israel's leaders really are and how they try to use the U.S. as their patsy.

Obama's Character Problem

Over the course of this campaign, Senators Barack Obama and John Edwards have been going off on Sen. Clinton's character and convictions.  They call her "corrupt" and claim that she does not have the interest of the American people in her heart.  As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly okay for one candidate to go after another on policy issues, but it is not acceptable to incorrectly insult one's character and integrity and wrongly defame that person.

  

Hypocrisy, in my mind, is one of the worst kinds of character problems. Like Hillary Clinton or not, there is not one instance where it could be said that Hillary is a hypocrite. However, as the rigors of this Presidential campaign roll full steam ahead, it seems that there is one candidate who is starting to exhibit a slight bit of hypocrisy, and that candidate is Illinois Senator, Barack Obama.

1) Barack Obama has been highly critical of Hillary Clinton on the Iraq War.  Obama likes to use the fact that he did not vote for the war, while Sen Clinton did, against her.  But there is a huge inconsistency on Obama's part.  The fact is that he was not even in the U.S. Senate at that time.  And in fact, in numerous interviews in 2004 and 2005, Obama said that he was not sure how he would have voted if indeed he was in the Senate.  He said that he couldn't rule out possibly have voting for the war because he was not privy to the information that members of the Senate were.  Obama continued that stance until he began running for President.  Now he is trying to retract that statement, recently telling Tim Russert that he only said that because, at that time, the top Democrats in the country (John Kerry and John Edwards) did vote for the war and he didn't think it would be a good idea to go against them.  That brings me to my next point.

2) Leadership.  Obama likes to claim that he is the best leader for the Democratic Party.  I ask you though, does someone exhibit leadership when he just "goes with the flow".  In 2004-2005, Obama could have very well said that he was against the war; that would have been leadership.  But instead, he said that he didn't know how he would have voted.  A second thing also calls into question his leadership.  Although he is highly critical of Sen. Clinton's handling of the Iraq War, he voted the exact same way as she did in every single measure.  There is not one bit of difference in their voting records on that issue.  But, there is a difference somewhere in there.  It was Sen. Clinton, not Obama, who asked the Pentagon for plans to end the war earlier this year.  Obama had years to show leadership and vote against the war if he so chose, but apparently he didn't want to upset the status quo.  That my friends, is no leader.  If any candidate has shown leadership on trying to bring this war to a safe end, it was Sen. Clinton when she asked for withdrawal plans.

3) Obama has been highly critical of Sen. Clinton's vote for diplomacy in Iran. Obama's voting record is clear though.  Earlier this year, back in April, Obama voted for a resolution that was almost identical to the one Sen. Clinton recently voted for.  And again this comes back to the leadership issue: Sen. Obama completely missed the Iran vote because he was "too busy" campaigning.  There was even a debate that night where, although given the opportunity,  Obama did not express any negative feelings toward the Iran resolution nor did he criticize Sen. Clinton. Obama instead waited a few days until he realized it was the popular thing to criticize Sen. Clinton.  

4) Obama also enjoys talking about universal healthcare. The problem is that he does not advocate universal healthcare as does Clinton, Edwards, and the other Democrats.  Rather, Obama's plan leaves 15 million Americans uninsured.  Some claim that this is not true, but one only has to read Sen. Obama's plan to realize that indeed Obama does not guarantee every woman, man, and child health insurance. Some, inevitably, would be left uninsured. 

5) Obama likes to center his campaign around the theme of "change".  He would like Americans to believe he is the only candidate who can successfully bring about change in America.  But, as you examine his record, you realize that Obama has done very little if anything to bring about the "change" he so often refers to.  All you have to do is look at a person's record to see how they will govern in the future, and when you do that, you realize that Obama has yet to stand up for change.  As the old saying goes, "talk is cheap".  It's one thing to talk a good talk, but America needs a President who will walk the walk, and quite frankly, Obama has failed to do that.

So, I ask Senator Obama, before you go after someone else's character and record, why don't you examine your own.  Because from what is clear to the naked eye, Hillary Clinton and the other Democratic contenders have a far better record than you.  

Iran: What Bush Really Knew

George Bush's rhetoric concerning Iran for the past six months is a mirror image of his rhetoric concerning Iraq during the run up to that war.  In the second instance, Bush claimed that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program; but they had not.  With Iran he said they were building nuclear weapons.  However, we found out in the NIE report released just last week that they stopped that in 2003 when they froze the program.  That was over four years ago.

 

What the news media failed to pick up on is that from 2001 to 2003, Iran was working to produce nuclear weapons and Bush was silent.  Instead, he was attacking Iraq.  The Los Angeles Times reported that when Bush came to office he was totally disinterested in Iran, this according to a CIA official.  In fact, the CIA had made up a large Iran task force of nearly 100 officers and analysts by the end of the Clinton administration.  When Bush took office, it shrank to fewer than a dozen officers.  Those resources were shifted to other targets by Bush.  It went from being focused on Iran to being switched to Iraq.

 

The NIE report released last week now catches Mr. Bush in another lie.  He said he did not know till a few days ago that Iran froze its nuclear weapons program in 2003.  This guy has lost all respect for the office of the President.  He now wants to change the subject on Iran so he is trying to demand that they reveal all their covert activity.  Mr. Bush should demand Israel, India, and Pakistan reveal all their covert activity of their nuclear weapons program as well.  Their leaders are also unstable. 

Hillary Talks About Her Differences With Obama

For many months now, the media and the public have been urging Sen. Barack Obama to draw contrasts between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton and he finally did so a few weeks ago. Now, its Sen. Clinton's time to do the same and she's letting the contrasts be known:

-On healthcare:

"When it comes to health care, one of my opponents believes it’s acceptable to leave out 15 million Americans. That would be 100,000 in Iowa. Leave them out from his health care plan because universal coverage might be too hard to achieve. I disagree. I don’t think we should start by giving up on 15 million Americans. That’s why my health care plan covers everyone."

-On Social Security:

"When it comes to Social Security, one of my opponents uses the Republican talking points and has been open to raising the retirement age and cutting benefits. Now he says he is for lifting the payroll tax, which would be a trillion dollar tax increase. Again, I disagree. I don’t think we should fix Social Security on the backs of our seniors and the middle class. I have always fought for Social Security, I have always stood up against privatization, and as President, I will restore fiscal responsibility so we can keep Social Security as a sacred promise to our seniors."

-On Iran resolution:

"When it comes to Iran, I took a stand for aggressive diplomacy. One of my opponents made a different choice: He didn’t show up for the vote. He didn’t speak out during a presidential debate that night. And finally, he decided to play politics and claim that the vote he missed - a vote for diplomacy - was really a vote for war. Well if he really thought it was a rush to war, why did he rush to campaign and miss the vote?"

-On Obama's Legislative record:

"In the Illinois State Senate, on issue after issue, my opponent voted “present,” instead of yes or no. Seven of those votes were on a woman’s right to choose. Two of those votes were on measures to protect families from gun violence - one of which was a measure about firing guns on or near school grounds. A President can’t vote "present". A President can’t pick and choose which challenges he or she will face. My opponent’s campaign said that voting “present” was a strategy to provide political cover. Instead of looking for political cover or taking a pass, we need a President who will take a stand and stand there and do whatever is necessary for their country."

For all those who hate Sen. Clinton just because her name happens to be Clinton, I ask you to pretend, just for a moment, that you didn't know who said these statements and who that person was referring to. Would you agree with those statements or not? Thats the question that has to be answered. Quite frankly, you don't have to personally like a candidate, but if you agree with them on the key issues, then why not support them?

Demand The Truth: Ask Sen. Biden To Hold Hearings

One of the first things I thought of when the NIE Iran report was released a few days ago, was that I hoped Congress would get to the bottom of this. Well this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe, both Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan, two Republican conservatives, called for Sen. Joseph Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to hold hearings to get to the bottom of what the administration knew and when they knew it. While I normally disagree with much of what Scarborough and Buchanan say, they were right on the mark with these statements.

So I call on you to follow me and others in sending Sen. Biden a message via his email: we want the truth to be known and we would greatly appreciate it if you hold hearings in your committee to get to the bottom of this.

Please email Sen. Biden at Joe@JoeBiden.com and ask that he becomes a leader on this issue and takes action.

The President's Lack Of Reality And Truthfulness

Contrary to the fear and war rhetoric of President Bush that Iran is working on a nuclear program to produce nuclear weapons, American intelligence just completed and released their assessment.  It concluded Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen.

Like the President did concerning Iraq, he told the American people he knew for sure that Iran was developing the bomb.  He sent V.P. Cheney out, as usual, to tell America how Iran's nuclear weapons program was a threat to the world.  Mr. Bush continued to govern by fear.

 

At a news conference yesterday morning, the President reminded the reporters that intelligence gathering is not an exact science.  He said that as a self serving statement to justify his rhetoric.  The reporters should have asked the President why he said he knew for sure that Iraq and Iran were working to produce nuclear weapons if he knew intelligence is not an exact science.

 

The intelligence report also said the halt was imposed by Iran primarily in response to international pressure and scrutiny.  The available intelligence also suggested the Iranian leadership is guided "by a cost-benefit approach" and not a headlong rush to develop a bomb.  This is a startling statement.  In the past, countries who wanted to go to war were not motivated by cost.  All one has to do is look how Bush took our country to war and occupation in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The cost of the war is not in the Bush budget and America is paying for the war by his deficit spending.  The cost is already at $500 billion.

 

It should also be noted that France, the British, and Germany, who were the original negotiators with Iran concerning its nuclear facilities, never engaged in the type of rhetoric Bush does.  In fact, the U.S. did not join in their negotiations for a period of time.  It was only much later when the U.S. agreed to be a silent partner to the negotiation.

 

History has repeated itself in this report.  Mohamed ElBaradei, director General of the IAEA, the arm of the U.N. responsible for checking Iran's nuclear programs, said a few months ago, "there is no evidence Iran had a nuclear weapons program in operation".  And ironically, five years ago before the U.N. and before the Iraq war started, he reported, after his inspections in Iraq, that there was no evidence that Iraq or Saddam reconstituted its nuclear program.  A short time later Bush told the U.N. inspectors to leave and started the war.  Mr. ElBaradei was right in both instances; Mr. Bush was wrong.  Even our own inspectors who combed Iraq after the war started came to the same conclusion as Mr. ElBaradei.

 

Next month Mr. Bush will be in office seven years and will give his usual "State of the Union" address.  It is time he acknowledges the mistakes he has made that has cost America dearly.  For the time being this new intelligence report has derailed the President's rush to another war, this time Iran, the country he recently associated with WWIII.  Lets also see how this intelligence report will affect the oil market.  Will the speculators be curtailed?  Time will tell.  

It Seems O So Long Ago....

that America had a leader its people can trust; that America had a leader that its people can respect; that America had a leader who is for peace; that America had a leader who cares for the people; that America had a leader who could admit when he was wrong; that America had a leader who actually led.

But contrary to what it may seem, it wasn't that long ago. It was only 7 years ago that America had a President that stood for dignity and stood for what is right. But thats what 7 years of Bush/Cheney will do to a person.

American unity and bipartisanship was at its peak following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The country rallied behind its President. George Bush had all the support a President could ever want. He had all the trust a President could want. And he had all the respect a President could want. And what did he do with it? He took advantage of that support, that trust, and that respect and turned around and blatantly lied to the American people and to Congress to justify a war with Iraq. The President and highly respected members of his administration went out on a nation-wide tour rallying support for a war. The reason they gave: Iraq has WMDs and is a direct and immediate threat to the U.S.

The American people, at that time, had no reason not to trust in and believe their President. There was no precedent for a President misleading his people into war. Even the thought of that was unimaginable. But in just a few years, the truth came out. Not only did Bush and his administration mislead the American people and Congress, they did it purposely. There is now overwhelming evidence that Bush knew damn well that Iraq and Saddam did not have WMDs and were in no way a threat to the the U.S. Yet, even while knowing this, he told the American people the exact opposite.

Now, his credibility is shattered. I'll tell you what was the "final straw" for me. I remember watching the news in 2003, a few days before the war began, and I remember hearing Saddam Hussein say that he did not have nuclear weapons. I specifically remember what I said in response, "that lying bastard". Those were my exact words. I can't even begin to explain how it felt when the truth came out. In that instance, Saddam Hussein wasn't lying, our own President was. Never in my life time did I even dream that a country as great as America would have a liar as a President. But I then came to the sad realization that we do.

When I read the latest intelligence report, that old feeling was again conjured up . For the last year, President Bush and VP Cheney have been warning the American people and Congress of the threat of Iran. According to Bush and Cheney, Iran was on the brink of having nuclear weapons and posed an immediate and direct threat to the U.S. Ahmadinejad, the
President of Iran, has been for months saying that he is not developing or seeking nuclear weapons.

But, once again, the truth has come out. And the truth is that Iran has not been working on developing nuclear weapons since 2003. Thats almost 5 years ago. And once again, there is growing evidence that the Bush administration knew of this fact much earlier that did the public. So why then, just a few weeks ago, did President Bush come on national television and tell the country that Iran and its nuclear weapons were going to bring about World War III? The sad thing is, that if this information didn't come to light sooner, the President would had probably decided to attack Iran anyway, despite knowing the facts. Then it wouldn't be Iran's fault for starting WWIII, it would be America's.....and thats the saddest thought of all.

To think that a U.S. President would lie and manipulate the emotions of his people to start a war used to be an inconceivable notion. Sadly, it is no longer inconceivable; it happened. I'm just thankful it didn't happen yet again. So while it may seem o so long ago that America had a President who actually benefitted the country, I remind you with hope that there is only a year to go. I just hope and pray that America doesn't make the same mistake next November as it did in 2000 (or should I say the Supreme Court made in 2000)? It's time to elect a leader that America can trust; that America can respect, who is for peace; who puts the people first; who can admit when he/she is wrong. Its time for America to elect a leader who will actually lead.

New Reports Paint Bad Picture

There are two new reports out concerning the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The war in Afghanistan is in its 6th year and the war in Iraq has been going on for almost 5 years and neither report paints a favorable picture.

 

The Washington Post reported that strategic goals that the Bush administration set out for 2007 in Afghanistan have not been met according to a White House assessment.  Individual battles with the Taliban have been successful, but the Taliban has had unchallenged expansion into new territory.  The U.S. military and intelligence have sharp differences as to where the war is going.

 

2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.  The U.S. and NATO forces clear an area out and hold on to it  for a while only for it to be taken back by the Taliban.  The war is being fought in no man's land.  The Reagan-Bush administration armed the Taliban to fight the Soviet occupation and now the Taliban is fighting the U.S. and NATO occupation.  After 6 years there is still no one who can tell the American people how the war will turn out and how many more Americans will lose their lives in an unstable country in an unstable part of the world.

 

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports Al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council, said that the U.S. has not backed up claims that Iran is fueling violence in Iraq.  Al-Hakim spent years in exile in Iran and is considered close to Iran's leaders.  Al-Hakim is also thought to be Iraq's most influential Shiite politician.

 

I wrote in several past commentaries that however and whenever this war ends, Iraq and Iran will be allies.  The Shiite majority in both countries will stand together.  It is past time to bring our troops home.  One more American death will be too many.  Saddam is long gone, there were no WMD, and we are not fighting the people who are responsible for the tragic events of 9-11.  The new leaders of Australia and Poland have it right.  Both parties in Congress have to get their act together and end the Iraq war as well as work on a solution for the growing violence in Afghanistan.

Trouble Ahead: Pakistan, India, and Israel

All three countries have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and other WMD according to the experts.  None of them participate in the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.  The United States, Britain, France, Russia, China are all involved in the treaty, and yes, so is Iran.  The administration talks almost daily about the dangers of the proliferation of these WMD to other countries and parties, yet we have no foreign policy to put pressure on these 3 countries to join the treaty and open up their nuclear plants to inspection.  Has any one heard Mr. Bush, or for that matter any Republican, talk about this issue?

 

Now we have Pakistan  being declared in a state of emergency by President Pervez Musharraf.  He is still chief of staff of the Army and the Army is in charge of maintaining the order.  Finally after 6 years and $10 billion for Pakistan the administration is asking Mr. Musharraf to give up his Army role.  The country is in turmoil and the  Pakistani Army and Pakistani intelligence are in charge of protecting and preserving their nuclear stockpile.  Members of this administration and others say they believe the weapons are safe.  But suppose the Army splits and tries to overthrow their President, then how safe would those stockpiles be?  Remember, Mr. Musharraf himself came into power with a coup.

 

Adding to the mixture is former prime minister Benazir Bhutto back in Pakistan from exile.  The administration seems to favor her sharing power with Musharraf.  He does not seem to take to kind to that approach and just recently had her under house arrest.  The Shah of Iran was put in power by the United States and everyone knows what happened to that country down the road.   

 

It is past time for the U.S. and other governments to put pressure on Israel, Pakistan, and India to join the non-proliferation treaty and open up their facilities for inspection.  Is that too much to ask for in this dangerous world? I think not.  All three countries are in a part of the world that is unstable and is prone to radical ideas.  That's reason enough in my estimation.  

The Truth about Sen. Clinton and Her Iran Vote

Barack Obama and John Edwards have jumped on Hillary Clinton for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution. That resolution declares the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. What is important to understand is the fact that no where in this resolution was there talk of military action. This was a purely diplomatic bill that put economic sanctions on Iran in an attempt to slow their development of nuclear weapons and the development of weapons that are used against our troops in Iraq. As Sen. Durbin, a prominent Democrat, said:

"Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the president the authority to use military force against Iran...(The resolution was) To say we need to pressure the Iranians to change their course in the Middle East and I want to do it by nonmilitary means, that's what my vote was all about.''

And now all of sudden we have Barack Obama attacking Hillary for "giving the President the authority for war". I have no problem with Sen. Obama pointing out differences between him and Clinton, but there is no need to present the public with misleading information. If Obama felt so passionately that the resolution was wrong, he should have voted against it. Insead of being in the Senate to vote, however, Obama was "too busy" campaigning. Senators were informed well before that day when the vote on the resolution would take place. Obama has no excuse for not being there. It is a fact that Obama, although he has been in the Senate just a little over 3 years (far less than any other candidate), has missed far more time from the Senate than any other Presidential candidate. The candidate who has missed the least is indeed Sen. Clinton. While I completely understand the importance of campaigning, it is not a valid argument to say that campaigning is more important than voting on issues that are deeply important for the American people. If anyone has shown leadership by standing up for the American people, it has been Sen. Clinton; certainly not Obama.

Another thing that is important to note is that although Obama has been outspoken on not giving Bush the authority to go to war, he did not bother to sign a letter to the President that 30 other Democrats signed. This letter clearly states that the President does not have authority to go to war. So, if Obama is against going to war, why didn't he sign the letter? Also, why didn't he co-sponsor Jim Webb's bill that would require Congressional approval for war with another country? In case you're wondering who did co-sponsor it----it was Hillary Clinton.

It also might help if Obama and Edwards went and looked at Clinton's past speeches on the Senate floor. Back in February, Sen. Clinton was the 1st Senator to say that the Bush administration had no authority to go to war with Iran. You read right guys, she was the first Senator. So all this talk is baseless about it being Sen. Clinton who is "saber-rattling" war. Sen. Clinton, perhaps more than anyone, has been an outspoken advocate for not going to war with Iran. Sen. Clinton does, however, realize that it is important to put sanctions on Iran as part of diplomacy. It was sanctions that gave diplomacy the backbone to work with North Korea; Sen. Clinton is right in wanting to try to get sanctions to work with Iran as well.

My point is this: enough is enough. Obama and Edwards are trying to distort that facts and, may I suggest, trying to make up for their own lack of leadership on this very important issue. Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls; she will likely be the nominee. And because of that, Obama and Edwards feel a need to go on the attack. I know and respect the fact that Obama and Edwards want to be President and need to take Clinton down to do so, but what I do not respect is lying to the American public on such a critical matter as Iran.

Bush Warns about "World War III"

Our great President, "Dubya", has said many outrageous and ignorant things during his presidency, but this one has to be near the top of the list:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

You just don't talk about a World War, especially one that would be nuclear, that lightly. It's irresponsible and foolish. There is no reason why Iran could or would start a World War. Iran is no threat to the U.S. or Israel currently. If the U.S. or Israel wanted, Iran could be wiped off the map in an instant. And, if Bush's argument is that Iran can not be in control of nuclear weapons, then I agree. I don't think any politician, Democrat or Republican, wants Iran to have nukes.

But the thing is, and this is where Republicans and Democrats differ, we don't need to start a war to keep Iran from getting WMDs. We need to first try tough sanctions and rigorous diplomacy. It looks like it is working with North Korea, so why can't it work with Iran? And, if Iran still doesn't comply, then all we have to do is an air strike on the nuclear facility. We don't need to invade Iran, or attack its civilians. By just taking out the nuclear reactor, we essentially solve the problem---quickly, safely, and without conflict. And it's not exactly like Iran would be capable of attacking the U.S. back. But, before we even think about a military strike, we must try strong diplomacy, but at the same time, letting other countries know that Iran know that they mustn't be allowed to get WMDs. Why?----simple, they themselves would not launch an attack, but they would give WMDs to terrorists who would use it in Israel, Western Europe, and eventually the U.S.

Another problem that needs to be addressed is restoring our standing in the world with countries such as Russia. Russia is becoming an ally with Iran and is supporting their nuclear development program. The U.S. can argue with Russia and Putin all we want, but the fact is that the foreign policies of the Bush administration have alienated Russia(and many others). With the next president, we have got to work hard and quickly to restore our standing in the eyes of the world. We have got to regain our allies. The time of "cowboy diplomacy" must end.

Again I repeat: We can not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, but there are so many things we can and must try before resulting to a military strike. And even then, there is no need for a war, just an air strike. Talking about WWIII is not even relevant, and if, God forbid, there is a World War in the near future, it will be the fault of President Bush and his policies. Perhaps that is the saddest though yet----that the U.S. could be responsible for a World War---but then again, those are not my words, there the President's.

Fox News: The Tragic Network (a special editorial by John Lucia)

It seems that every day the Fox News Network is promoting going to war with Iran. Their ticker that moves cross the television screen carries statements from neocons and others who propose striking Iran. They interview the neocons who clamored for war in Iraq and now want their adventure to extend over to Iran and other middle east countries.

They try to inflame the issue by injecting Israel as being threatened by Iran. However, Israel is a country that has WMD and can surely take care of themselves.

People who promote war, especially news networks, care nothing about our men and women in uniform who bear the hardships of war. They promote war from their ivory towers far from the battlefield. I wonder how many journalists with the Fox News Network wore the uniform of their country generations war?

Those who promote war would sell their soul to the highest bidder. They are a tragic people who put their ideology first and their country last. That says it all. Fox News programs are tilted toward divisive issues. They do that to mislead the American people. President Clinton once said Republican's use divisive issues to try to win elections. The Fox News Network is the spin capital of cable television. Fox purposely tries to mislead the country and its people have no shame. They represent the worst in television journalism.

Lighting the Match to War in the Middle East (a special editorial by John Lucia)

President Bust speaks often about the proliferation of weapons in the world and condemns other nations who engage in such acts. We now know his talk does not match his actions. On September 11, before the Senate Armed Service Committee, General Petraeus announced the United States could sell up to over $3 billion of arms to Iraq, the country once described as an ammo dump. This sale announcement comes only after a few weeks when the President said the U.S. will be selling billions of dollars in arms to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Middle East is already a powder keg, now Mr. Bush wants to light the match. Is it any wonder the U.S. has lost its creditability under this President?

Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist. Now he wants to make up for that and arm them. Lets not forget, it was the U.S. under previous republican administration who sold arms to Iraq and gave them intelligence during their war with Iran. A war that was started by Iraq. It was a time when Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran and our government knew about it. So is it really surprising Iran and other countries look to the Soviet Union and others to build up their own arsenals?

The reckless actions of Mr. Bush to arm the Middle East has to be reversed by congress. We have a president gone mad. Congress can't let him destroy what America stands for. Mr. Bush has already tried to play God in Iraq and failed. Unfortunately innocent Iraqis and our men and women in uniform have paid the ultimate price for his mistake. Now he is trying to play God again. Every member of congress has to step up and say no loud and clear.