My guest for Tuesday January 9, 2007 is investigative reporter Robert Parry, author of Secrecy and Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and proprietor of Consortiumnews.com on the topic of the U.S. government’s long term covert relationship with Saddam Hussein and the possibility of war against Iran.
Comments welcome at Stress.
The real issue in Bush’s speech Wednesday night is not the additional troops he intends to send to Iraq. The real issue is his nearly open proclamation of dictatorial powers.
Apparently, once a president lies a nation into war, he is entitled to absolute power for as long as he chooses. Regardless of how many Americans die or how many hundreds of thousands of foreigners are killed, the president’s prerogatives are sacred, at least as long as he recites the proper phrases regarding the spread of freedom and democracy. American voters made their will on Iraq clear at the polling booth last November. But they, like the Constitution and the federal statute book, don’t matter.
We have already heard from Bush or his lackeys about how the president is entitled to violate laws regarding wiretaps, renditions, torture, mail privacy, etc. The latest “surge†is just another example of how Bush rules by decree.
Will Bush, like other aspiring dictators, be able to cow opposition long enough to consolidate the powers he has seized?
And if the term dictator is offensive – then what is a better term for a politician who claims to be bound by no law or Constitution?
Comments/condemnations on this blog are welcome at my blog here.
The second is of Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, on some of Bush’s new appointments, the planned escalation of the war in Iraq, the possibility of it spreading to Iran and the impeachment and removal of Bush and Cheney.
Antiwar Radio: Jacob Hornberger
Jacob Hornberger, founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, discusses the case of Jose Padilla and the power that the military now claims over the American people.
According to yesterday’s The Sunday Times, Israel plans a nuclear strike on Iran. The article suggests that “the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.”
Will “America” be cajoled?
It seems “we” already have been — quite awhile ago:
Former UNSCOM Chief Weapons Inspector SCOTT RITTER: Look, we’re already overflying Iran with unmanned aerial vehicles, pilotless drones. On the ground, the CIA is recruiting Mojahedin-e-Khalq, recruiting Kurds, recruiting Azeris, who are operating inside Iran on behalf of the United States of America. And there is reason to believe that we’ve actually put uniformed members of the United States Armed Forces and American citizens operating as CIA paramilitaries inside Iranian territory to gather intelligence.
Now, when you violate the borders and the airspace of a sovereign nation with paramilitary and military forces, that’s an act of war. …So, when Americans say, “Ah, there’s not going to be a war in Iran,” there’s already a war in Iran. We’re at war with Iran. We’re just not in the declared conventional stage of the war. —Democracy Now! interview, Oct. 16, 2006
SCOTT RITTER: The bottom line is, within two days of our decision to initiate an attack on Iran, every single one of you is going to be feeling the consequences of that in your pocketbook. And it’s only going to get worse. This is not something that only I recognize. Ask [Senator] Dick Lugar what information he’s getting from big business, who are saying, “We can’t afford to go to war with Iran.”
SEYMOUR HERSH: Final question: given all this, are we going to do it?
SCOTT RITTER: Yes, we’re going to do it. —“Ethical Culture Society,” Oct. 2006
So, will “WE” use nukes?
This morning on CNN Late Edition Wolf Blitzer asked American Enterprise Institute spokeswoman Danielle Pletka about the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam.
Pletka said:
“Senator McCain speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Friday said This isn’t Vietnam. In Vietnam, when we left, they didn’t follow us. These guys are gonna follow us. We remember what happened when we left Afghanistan. Let’s not forget what the consequences are of leaving Iraq prematurely.”
(It was unclear which part of her quote is actually her quoting McCain.)
Since she is implying that leaving Afghanistan led to our being attacked, one can only assume she is referring to pre-9/11.
I didn’t realize that the US was actually in Afghanistan before Sept. 11, 2001, in the sense that we are in Iraq. I do know that, in Afghanistan, we gave arms and money to the very people who are now considered to be our primary enemy. I guess Pletka (or McCain) is saying that we should have stayed in Afghanistan, or escalated and made permanent our involvement.
It amazes me when I see this sort of thing go unquestioned by news readers like Blitzer.
