Check out History Shots

This morning when I checked what Juan Cole had to say (I call him “my Middle Eastern expert”), I noticed a pop up ad for HistoryShots.com and saved it.

This evening I ordered "History of the Political Parties II." Click here and you can zoom in on the chart.

This is a growing enterprise, with 16 prints currently available, including Race to the Moon, Genealogy of Pop/Rock Music, and History of Life on Earth.

I think I’ve found the perfect place to find gifts for my family and friends.

(photo of History of Political Parties II chart)

Iran is back in Bush's gunsight - William R. Polk sees Iran through lenses of danger and opportunity

As I started to gather up the articles I planned to link to in my post about the likelihood of an attack on Iran before Bush is out of office, I came across a Washington Post March 21st article, "Iran a Nuclear Threat, Bush Insists - Experts Say President is Wrong and Is Escalating Tensions." From the article: “Experts on Iran and nuclear proliferation said the president's statement was wrong. 'That's as uninformed as Senator John McCain’s statement that Iran is training al-Qaeda. Iran has never said it wanted a nuclear weapon for any reason. It's just not true. It's a little troubling that the president and the leading Republican candidate are both so wrong about Iran,' said Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation."

I’ve posted numerous times about the likelihood of an attack on Iran. When the National Intelligence Estimate came out last December stating with high confidence that Iran had stopped its nuclear weaponization process in 2003, I thought, “That’s it. Bush can’t possibly attack Iran now.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Even Juan Cole, who blogs at Informed Comment, appears to be getting concerned. On March 12th, he posted: “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied Tuesday that the abrupt resignation of Admiral William Fallon as CENTCOM commander indicates an imminent war against Iran. I think Gates's denial is credible. There is no sign of an American war on Iran, which would involve key positioning of warships, materiel and troops…. My guess is that the real reason for moving Fallon out is not Iran but Iraq, and that he is being made to step down for the same reason that Donald Rumsfeld was. He does not agree with the long-term troop escalation or 'surge' in Iraq….”

Today, Cole handed over his blog to William R. Polk,* whose guest op ed, "Iran: Danger and Opportunity." Polk starts with the March 12th US News & World Report article, 6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran." He elaborates on the six signs, including Cheney’s most recent visit to the Middle East, and asks if it’s “…deja vu all over again? U.S. News and World Report notes, ‘Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war…’ It was, as we now know, one of the concerted moves in the build-up to the already-decided-upon plan to attack Iraq.”

Is Juan Cole a little more concerned about an attack on Iran than he was a week ago? I don’t know, but I describe him as “my Middle East expert” and continue to rely on his blog to keep me informed. Regardless of Cole’s opinion, Polk’s guest op-ed is well worth reading.

* William R. Polk was the member of the Policy Planning Council responsible for North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia from 1961 to 1965 and then professor of history at the University of Chicago where he founded the Middle Eastern Studies Center. He was also president of the Adlai Stevenson Institute of International Affairs. His most recent book is Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism & Guerrilla Warfare from the American Revolution to Iraq (New York: HarperCollins, 2007).

(photo of William R. Polk: http://www.williampolk.com/)

"5 Years, 5 Lies"

This morning, Juan Cole, who blogs at Informed Comment, had the best summary of the five lies of President Bush and his advisors, one for each year of our war in Iraq.

“Year 1: ‘There is no guerrilla war.’

Year 2: ‘Iraq is a model democracy.’

Year 3: ‘Zarqawi is causing all the trouble.’

Year 4: ‘There is no Civil War.’

Year 5: ‘Everything is calm now.’

”I also suggest that John McCain is pushing for:

Year 6: ‘Total victory is around the corner.’"

Cole links to his Salon.com article describing how "How President Bush and his advisors have spent each year of the war peddling mendacious tales about a mission accomplished."

In the run up to the war, I spent an incredible amount of time reading and watching the debates in Congress about whether or not Iraq represented a threat to this country. I concluded it didn’t. I’m just an ordinary citizen. If I could figure this out, I wonder why our elected representatives couldn’t.

Whether or not an individual opposed the war before it began, there is so much accurate information now available, particularly from people like Juan Cole, who comprehends Arabic, Persian and Urdu, that there’s really no excuse for believed Bush’s lies.

This evening I’m joining others* who oppose the war in Iraq on the plaza in my town, Healdsburg, to publicly protest our continuing occupation of that country.

* The Healdsburg Peace Project has been meeting every Thursday to oppose the Iraq war since October of 2002. They even show up on Thanksgiving!

(photo of the core members of the Healdsburg Peace Project)

Today's must read: Scott Horton's inside report on CBS's coverage of the conviction of Don Siegelman

CBS: More Prosecutorial Misconduct in Siegelman Case Alleged

Excerpt: "The CBS piece, for which I was repeatedly interviewed, came through on its promise to deliver several additional bombshells. The most significant of these was the disclosure that prosecutors pushed the case forward and secured a conviction relying on evidence that they knew or should have know was false, and that they failed to turnover potentially exculpatory evidence to defense counsel. The accusation was dramatically reinforced by the Justice Department’s failure to offer a denial. It delivered a fairly elaborate version of a “no comment,” and even that came a full twenty-four hours after it had conferred with the prosecutors in question. The gravity of the accusations made and the prosecutors’ failure to deny them further escalates concerns about the treatment of the former Alabama governor."

Today's must read: Juan Cole on 935 false statements that led a nation to war

Please take time to read "935 False Statements that Led a Nation to War," posted this morning by Juan Cole at his blog, Informed Comment.

Then ask yourself why Congress and even the public don’t think lies that take this nation to war are impeachable offenses. If you do, go to The Democratic Activist and scroll halfway down the page to the action items.

So far, according to AlterNet, we're one step closer to impeaching Cheney because nine out of 23 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee favor starting impeachment hearings against Vice President Dick Cheney.

That doesn’t feel close enough to me.

Juan Cole's recommended reading for Thursday

Three recommendations at Juan Cole’s Informed Comment.

Engelhardt’s post is a must-read, and Rubin’s is fascinating for those of us who have been involved in election integrity in this country. I’m also baffled by Pelosi’s position on impeachment.

1. The Justice Department is going to investigate the destruction of videotapes of the interrogation of prisoners in US custody that showed torture. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi keeps asking what Bush has done that is impeachable. Shredding the constitution should count, and if that doesn't then this should.

2. Tom Engelhardt on how Bush took us to the dark side, i.e. how he tempted us into torture.

3. Barnett Rubin on vote rigging in Pakistan. A fascinating dialogue is emerging on some of these issues between him and his colleagues that is a testimony to the interactive character of writing on the Web.

(photo of Cole from his blog)

Juan Cole: Ten Top Myths about Iraq 2007

Juan Cole never misses a beat, posting right through the holidays. Today’s post: "Ten Top Myths about Iraq 2007."

The myths are listed below. Cole dispels each one.

10. The US public no longer sees Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

9. There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007.

8. The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

7. Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq.

6. The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women.

5. Some progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the "benchmarks" worked out with the Bush administration.

4. The Sunni Arab "Awakening Councils," who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants.

3. The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth.

2. Iraq has been "calm" in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart.

1. The reduction in violence in Iraq is mostly because of the escalation in the number of US troops, or "surge."

(photo of Juan Cole: University of Detroit Mercy)

A nose for the news - The Iran war roll-out: one cartoon and four articles

The October 23rd Tom Toles cartoon says it all, but the following articles fill in the details.

1. On October 23rd Amy Goodman interviews Middle East Analyst & Historian Juan Cole on U.S. War Plans Against Iran.

2. On October 22nd, Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin posts "Cheney Beats the Drums of War."

3. On October 22nd, Scott Horton posts "The Roll-Out Presses On."

4. On October 22nd, Barnett Rubin at the group blog, Informed Comment Global Affairs posts "The War Rollout Keeps Rolling Along."

(Photo from my friend, Pat Denino, who blogs at Wandering Wonderings)

Keeping up on what is happening in the Middle East: Two "must check" blogs

I’m off for two days to help care for my youngest grandchildren, Rody and Sophia, seven months old today.

In my efforts to stay on top of what is happening in Iraq and what the Bush Administration appears to be planning regarding Iran, these two blogs have become essential daily reading:

1. Juan Cole’s Informed Comment. For instance, today he links to Nermeen Mufti explains why Iraqis are pessimistic on both the security and political front.

2. Informed Comment Global Affairs, a group blog launched by Juan Cole a few months ago. Here’s an excerpt from the September 2nd post by contributor Barnett Rubin, Administration's Iran... which opens with, “The Sunday Times of London reports from Washington a story I have not seen in any U.S. media: that "the Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days.’ The source of this report was Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center.

”Speaking at a meeting sponsored by the journal National Interest, edited by Irving Kristol, father of Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol Debate stated:

"US military planners were not preparing for ‘pinprick strikes’ against Iran’s nuclear facilities. ‘They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,’ he said.

“As in the run-up to the war in Iraq, President Bush is maintaining the fiction that he is ‘committed for now to the diplomatic route,’ but many signs indicate that the decision to attack has been taken as irrevocably as the decision to attack Iraq in the fall of 2002.”

(photo of grandson Rody at about 5 months and me)