Antiwar.com Blog

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.

Antiwar Radio: Ray McGovern

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.

MP3 here.

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.

MP3 here.

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.

There are rumors – as yet unconfirmed – that the reason those black-masked thugs who hanged former U.S. puppet-dictator Saddam Hussein on December 30th were chanting “Moqtada! Moqtada!” was not just because they were members of his Mahdi Army, but because they were cheering one of the hangmen – Sadr himself.

Earlier there had been claims that Sadr was in possession of the noose. Now, Nir Rosen at the blog IraqSlogger, points to Al-Jazeera who has a source claiming the entire execution crew had been replaced by the Mahdi Army and this “pro-Ba’athist” site which claims one of the masked men is Sadr since his mustache “matches.”

The Turkish site Zaman.com adds:

It has been also alleged that Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was in the room during the execution, and even that a masked al-Sadr hanged the ousted leader. The Saudi daily Al- Mokhtasar claimed that one of the masked men who took Saddam to the room of execution was Moqtada al-Sadr. In the news reported by a witness in the room, he added al-Sadr’s father was killed by Saddam Hussein.