Antiwar.com Blog

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_09_07_porter.mp3]

Historian and investigative reporter Gareth Porter discusses Iran’s need for civilian nuclear power, why U.S. belligerence is the most important factor in determining whether they will eventually seek nuclear weapons technology, how the gaining of atomic weapons encouraged caution in Chinese foreign policy in the 1960’s, the fact that the Ayatollahs are no less rational than the Cheney Cabal, Cheney’s pressure on Clinton to lift sanctions against Iran in the 1990’s, the corrupting influence of power on man’s reasoning abilities, Cheney’s impossible demand that Iran prove a negative, IAEA Director ElBaradei’s attempt to take the issue back from the UN Security Council by convincing the Iranians to answer the few remaining questions about their program, the election of reformer Rafsanjani to be chairman of the Council of Experts, the bogus accusations that the government of Iran is supplying the new and improved EFP land mines in Iraq, Cheney’s plot to use them as a casus belli, the possibility that General Casey had refused to go along with the February debut of this round of lies, the traditional split between the Sadr and Hakim factions and their relative states of allegiance to Iran.

MP3 here. (46:30)

Gareth Porter is an independent historian and foreign policy analyst. He is also a Foreign Policy In Focus scholar. His book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, is published in May 2005 by University of California Press.

Via David Freddoso, over at National Review, this gem of an email from Moveon.org:

“Should we support primary challengers against some Democrats who side with the president on Iraq? It’s a tough question, and one we need everybody’s input on. Click below to fill out our survey and let us know what you think…”

It’s a hard question, admittedly: should we sell out completely, forget about the war, and become an adjunct of the Democratic party? The real question, of course, is: since when have they been anything else?

By all means, let Moveon.org know what you think …

 

That is the question Larry Johnson asks over at TPMCafe. Johnson is a former counter-terrorism official with the CIA and the State Department.

Johnson questions the official story about the nukes being “mistakenly” flown over the US. A retired B-52 pilot reminds him that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site. Barksdale AFB is being used as a jumping off point for Mideast operations.

Johnson is “certain that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride.” Johnson asks: “Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?” Johnson’s pilot friend believes that “someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.”

Johnson wonders: “Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran?”

I certainly hope that is the case. We need responsible officers that are unwilling to let our leaders get away with dragging us closer to war.

UPDATE: The Military Times newspapers, who originally broke the story leaked by unnamed military officers, reports that the squadron commander has been relieved of duty following investigation. The papers also reported that there were six, rather than five, nuclear weapons that were transported across the country.

Several years ago I watched a Canadian PM debate on TV. It bore no resemblance to an American Presidential “debate.” Two guys, a few feet from each other, actually debating — no moderator, no buzzers, just two guys arguing, vigorously. I remember a movie featuring the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Although I don’t know if it was historically accurate, a similar sight, two guys arguing about real issues with no real rules. I have seen similar clips in other countries, but rarely in the US.

The American version of Presidential debates resembles a game show or beauty pageant, where each contestant is called on to answer for a set two-minute response. Rarely any follow-up, and rarely any effort to actually confront real issues.

But last night’s Republican debate was different. Following Ron Paul’s response calling for complete US withdrawal from the Middle East, moderator Chris Wallace took off his journalist mask and revealed himself in full Bill O’Reilly costume:

So, Congressman Paul, and I’d like you to take 30 seconds to answer this, you’re basically saying that we should take our marching orders from al Qaeda? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?

Ron hit back:

I’m saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it’s an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We’ve committed the invasion of this war, and it’s illegal under international law. That’s where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy. (Cheers, boos.)

Huckabee explained that we couldn’t leave Iraq because “we broke it and now we own it,” and turned to Ron Paul:

And on this issue, when he [McCain] says we can’t leave until we’ve left with honor, I 100 percent agree with him because, Congressman, whether or not we should have gone to Iraq is a discussion that historians can have, but we’re there. We bought it because we broke it. We’ve got a responsibility to the honor of this country and to the honor of every man and woman who has served in Iraq and ever served in our military to not leave them with anything less than the honor that they deserve.

Wallace then offered Ron Paul (who was standing to Huckabee’s immediate right) a chance to respond. This began a brief but awesome exchange between Paul and Mike Huckabee.

REP. PAUL: The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy. They’re responsible, not the American people. They’re not responsible. We shouldn’t punish them. (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: Congressman, we are one nation. We can’t be divided. We have to be one nation under God. That means if we make a mistake, we make it as a single country, the United States of America, not the divided states of America. (Cheers.)

REP. PAUL: No. When we make a mistake — (interrupted by applause) — when we make a mistake, it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake, not to continue the mistake! (Cheers, applause.)

MR. HUCKABEE: And that’s what we do on the floor of the —

REP. PAUL: No! We’ve dug a hole for ourselves and we dug a hole for our party! We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it, and it has all to do with foreign policy, and we have to wake up to this fact.

MR. HUCKABEE: Even if we lose elections, we should not lose our honor, and that is more important to the Republican Party.

REP. PAUL: We’re losing — we’ve lost over — (cheers, applause) — we have lost — we have lost 5,000 Americans killed in — we’ve lost over 5,000 Americans over there in Afghanistan and Iraq and plus the civilians killed. How many more do you want to lose? How long are we going to be there? How long — what do we have to pay to save face? That’s all we’re doing is saving face. It’s time we came home!

The Baltimore Sun‘s Frank James has a great write-up of the exchange. You can watch all the Ron Paul clips of the debate on YouTube.

Ron Paul trumped in last night’s Republican Presidential Candidate Debate in New Hampshire.  His views on Iraq and freedom were shining beacons amidst the black smoke the other candidates emitted.

As the rest of the GOP hopefuls tighten their chains to the war wagon heading over a cliff, Paul’s views will propel him forward.

Every month that Paul remains in the race, he becomes more dangerous to the Establishment.

Ron Paul  is the Buster Douglas candidate.  Douglas was a 42 to 1 underdog when he fought undefeated Mike Tyson in 1990.  The experts thought that the only question was whether Tyson would knock him out in the first, second, or third round.

But Douglas fought tough from the first round.  In round ten, he caught Tyson with a flurry of punches that ended Iron Mike’s reign.

I posted higlights from Paul’s comments on my blog here.

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_09_05_boehlert.mp3]

Eric Boehlert, senior fellow at Media Matters for America and author of Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, discusses the American TV and print media’s abandonment of the Iraq war story despite the fact that it remains the topic Americans are most interested in.

MP3 here. (32:10)

A senior fellow at Media Matters for America, and a former senior writer for Salon, Boehlert’s first book, “Lapdogs: How The Press Rolled Over for Bush,” was published in May.