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)

Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. You can hold Congress accountable. Call or fax your representative today!

Today Rep. Dennis Kucinich (photo) will introduce a resolution to impeach Vice President Richard Cheney as a privileged motion. It’s highly likely there will be a counter-motion to table voting on the resolution. Tabling usually means the resolution is never voted on. If the resolution doesn’t go to the House floor, we won’t know our representative’s position on impeachment. Please contact your Congressional representative and urge him/her not to table H.R. 333.

Why I feel so strongly about impeachment: This weekend I read Phillip Cunningham’s America Cannot Be Said to Be Good at the group blog, Informed Comment Global Affairs: “George W. Bush may indeed be the worst president ever, and Dick Cheney the worst vice-president imaginable but that does not exonerate the American people because Americans have the constitutional right and responsibility to remove miscreants from office.” [emphasis mine]

Cunningham compares Bush-Cheney’s America with Japan leading up to and during World War II, finding similarities in the…[W]illful disregard of international law, the pursuit of diplomacy by force and failure to account for war criminality.”

Cunningham concludes: “Just as it should be acknowledged that the people of Japan share a certain culpability in Tokyo’s terrible war, a war that ravaged Asia and eventually Japan itself, Americans have to own up to Iraq. But it can also be said in defense of the average Japanese in the days after Pearl Harbor that there was much they didn’t know and couldn’t talk about; --the media was completely censored and the Kempeitai dealt brutally with domestic opposition.

"When the day of reckoning comes for ordinary Americans to assess their culpability in the debacle of Iraq, a hideous and heinous war fought in view of a free media and in the context of relatively unfettered freedom to protest, what will the excuse be? [emphasis mine]

"If Bush is unjust, if he is, as they say, the worst ever, then the free people who support, tolerate and enable him cannot be said to be good.”

Cheney is worse than Bush. On the day of reckoning, I, an ordinary American, do not want to feel responsible for the Iraq war, torture, and all the other “high crimes and misdemeanors” of Vice President Cheney.

Getting into action: My letter to my representative is here. If you know your representative’s name , go here. If you don’t, enter your zip code here. If you don’t know your ZIP + 4, go here, then back to here.

(photo of Rep. Dennis Kucinich CommonDreams.org)

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)

Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single front and more dangerous than Iraq: Is anyone listening?

Today at Informed Comment Global Affairs, Barnett Rubin, a highly regarded expert on Afghanistan and Director of Studies and Senior Fellow at the Center on International Cooperation, posted Karachi Bombing: Afghanistan and Pakistan Are a Single Front:

“The bombing of Benazir Bhutto's motorcade in Karachi signals a new level of integration of the political arena of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If, as now seems likely, the attack is traced back to the 'Pakistani' Taliban of South Waziristan and al-Qaida, it will constitute a strike at the center of the Pakistani political process by groups based on the frontier who are part of both the transnational Afghan-Pakistani Taliban movement and the transnational global al-Qaida movement.”

Rubin quotes Lord Paddy Ashdown, former United Nations high representative and European Union special representative for Bosnia and Herzegovin, who warned in a recent Reuters interview that failure by the NATO-led force in Aghanistan would have far wider repercussions than any losses in Iraq:

"I think we are losing in Afghanistan now, we have lost I think and success is now unlikely.

"I believe losing in Afghanistan is worse than losing in Iraq. It will mean that Pakistan will fall and it will have serious implications internally for the security of our own countries and will instigate a wider Shiite, Sunni regional war on a grand scale.

"Some people refer to the First and Second World Wars as European civil wars and I think a similar regional civil war could be initiated by this (failure) to match this magnitude."

Rubin concludes, “Those who tried to kill Benazir Bhutto clearly perceive that a democratic Pakistan is the greatest threat their movement has faced in the region….Paddy Ashdown correctly warns that this situation is more dangerous than Iraq. Is anyone listening?"

(map of Pakistan: Desi Chat)

U.S. demands tougher sanctions against Iran while the IAEA is asking the U.N. to take a sanctions "timeout."

Yesterday morning, the Washington Post published an article on page A14, U.S. Starts a Push for Tighter Sanctions on Iran - Promotion of New U.N. Resolution Comes as Tehran's Influence in Iraq is Called Surprisingly Deep: "The Bush administration has begun mobilizing support for a third U.N. resolution that would impose tougher sanctions against Iran, as the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad said yesterday that one of the biggest and still unfolding surprises in Iraq has been the depth of Iran's intervention….

“In a briefing at the National Press Club, Petraeus said arms supplies from Iran, including 240mm rockets and explosively formed projectiles, "contributed to a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support. . . . The evidence is very, very clear…."

Is Iran meddling in Iraq? I don’t know. Can we trust what we are being told? I don’t know. However, I do know that International Atomic Energy Association [IAEA] is making progress on increasing verification of Iran's nuclear program.

Posted at Informed Comment Global Affairs on September 11, The IAEA Board of Governors Meet to Talk about Iran Again: At the meeting this week, “… Mohammad ElBaradei, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Director General, is asking the Board, despite American objections, to give the IAEA time to implement the work plan the Agency has negotiated with Iran. ElBaradei’s hope is for the Security Council to take a "timeout'' from sanctions and for Iran to pause its uranium enrichment to avert a crisis over the country's nuclear program…..

“But Iran has already stated that it will not accept a suspension under any conditions and will halt its newly agreed upon cooperative work plan with the Agency if new sanctions are pursued at the Security Council.”

The article on the IAEA Board of Governors' meeting describes what the IAEA has already been able to accomplish:

“First, the Agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. Iran has continued to provide the access and reporting needed to enable Agency verification in this regard.

"Second, Iran has provided the Agency with additional information and access needed to resolve a number of long outstanding issues. In particular, Agency questions regarding past plutonium experiments in Iran have been satisfactorily answered, and this issue has been resolved. Questions about the presence and origin of high enriched uranium particles at the Karaj Waste Storage Facility have also been resolved….

“Third, contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, calling on Iran to take certain confidence building measures, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities, and is continuing with the construction and operation of the Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz. Iran is also continuing with its construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak. This is regrettable.

"Fourth, despite repeated requests by the Board and the Security Council to Iran, the Agency has so far been unable to verify certain important aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran´s nuclear programme…. However…it was agreed that Iran would work with the Agency to develop a work plan for resolving all outstanding verification issues.

“

This is the first time that Iran has agreed on a plan to address all outstanding issues, with a defined timeline, and is therefore an important step in the right direction.”

Iran’s decision not to suspend its enrichment related activities is described as “regrettable,” but it doesn’t appear to be a deal killer to the IAEA. Iranian Ambassador Javad Zarif has stated that Iran is committed to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and, "Iran insists on its right to have access to nuclear technology for explicitly peaceful purposes. We will not abandon that claim to our legitimate right."

If Iran is enriching uranium within its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, I wonder why the US wants the U.N. Security Council to impose sanctions that would doom the IAEA’s efforts to implement the work plan that would provide the transparency regarding Iran's nuclear program that the whole world wants.

(Photo: At left, IAEA Director General ElBaradei, before the opening of the Board meeting 6 January. At right, Ambassador Nabeela Al-Mulla, Chair of the IAEA Board, consults with Mr. Kwaku Aning, Secretary of IAEA Policymaking Organs. IAEA, Credit: Calma/IAEA)

Rubin: How to Stop War with Iran

Last night I read Barnett Rubin’s Theses on Policy Toward Iran at Informed Comment Global Affairs and think it’s one of the best articles I’ve read about the likelihood of an attack on Iran and what we can do about it.

This morning Juan Cole provides a summary: “Barnett Rubin gives us a thoughtful call to arms on how to prevent war with Iran at the Global Affairs blog. After analyzing the way the Bushies would probably go to war if they can, Rubin writes:

' The immediate goal for Democratic presidential candidates and the Democrats (and sensible Republicans) in Congress should be to use the power of the legislative branch to prevent the administration from launching a war. I can think of two possible ways to do this: [bolding mine]

* Pass an Act of Congress stating that the 2001 AUMF does not authorize a preemptive strike against Iran (or a strike in response to an alleged provocation – recall Tonkin Gulf). In this case, Congress would claim that war with Iran requires new authorization.

* Cut off funding for any war with Iran not specifically authorized by Congress in accordance with the law after September 30, when spending starts out of next year’s budget. Presumably they won’t be able to start the war by then and rely on the “support the troops” argument. In coordination with this immediate response, responsible leaders in both parties should articulate an alternative policy toward Iran starting with the same principle as the Helsinki Accords of 1975 – no regime change. '

"Read the whole thing"

Then go to Congress.org to find contact information for your Congressional representatives and urge them to take action per Rubin’s suggestions.

(photo of Barnett Rubin – voanews.com)

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)

Who will be responsible if the Bush Administration attacks Iran?

On Wednesday I posted What could stop the Bush administration from attacking Iran?, linking to Glenn Greenwald’s post, The president's escalating war rhetoric on Iran. Greenwald’s concludes that there is nothing to stop the administration from starting a war with Iran.

Yesterday, Juan Cole posted Cheney & Iran: Here We Go Again? According to Cole, it appears that Cheney “…plans to roll out a military confrontation with Iran in September.” Cole encourages his readers to check out Post Labor Day Product Rollout - War with Iran, posted at the new group blog, Informed Comment Global Affairs.

Barnett Rubin, author of Post Labor Day Product Rollout, compares Bush’s August 28, 2007 speech making the case for an attack on Iran to Cheney’s August 26, 2002 speech making the case for attacking Iraq: Rubin continues, “Today I received a message from a friend who has excellent connections in Washington and whose information has often been prescient. According to this report, as in 2002, the rollout will start after Labor Day, with a big kickoff on September 11. My friend had spoken to someone in one of the leading neo-conservative institutions. He summarized what he was told this way:

"'They [the source's institution] have ‘instructions’ (yes, that was the word used) from the Office of the Vice-President to roll out a campaign for war with Iran in the week after Labor Day; it will be coordinated with the American Enterprise Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Fox, and the usual suspects. It will be heavy sustained assault on the airwaves, designed to knock public sentiment into a position from which a war can be maintained. Evidently they don't think they'll ever get majority support for this--they want something like 35-40 percent support, which in their book is ‘plenty.’'"

In his post, Cole provides several links to recent similar reporting.

So do I wait until after Labor Day to see if Rubin is right? No. I act now.

I still harbor a hope that the American people will wake up. They did in the 1970’s when they collectively declared “Enough is enough” and put pressure on a Democratically controlled Congress to impeach Nixon when it wasn’t on the table.

On January 11, 2006, former Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, who was on the House Judiciary Committee when Nixon was President, wrote The Impeachment of George W. Bush. Comparing Bush’s actions the Nixon’s, she states, “In 1973 impeachment was 'not on the table’ for many months while President Nixon's cover-up unraveled, even though Democrats controlled the House and Senate. But when Nixon fired the special prosecutor to avoid making his White House tapes public, the American people were outraged and put impeachment on the table, demanding that Congress act. That can happen again.” [bolding mine]

I think “That can happen again” should happen now. The runup to an attack on Iran should create as much outrage as Nixon's firing of the special prosecutor.

House Resolution 333, sponsored by Representative Dennis Kucinich and co-sponsored by numerous Congressional representatives, calls for impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.

I’ve called my Congressional representative, Mike Thompson, to find out his position on attacking Iran and impeaching Cheney. His aide told me that Thompson’s position on these issues is “complicated” and that he will get back to me. Thompson will be hearing from me again.

The bottom line for me is that if we citizens are not outraged by the possibility of an attack on Iran and are unwilling to press Congress to put impeachment of Cheney and/or Bush and Cheney on the table, we are responsible for an attack on Iran.

(Drawing: Xiandos.info)

What's going on in Pakistan?

My longtime favorite Middle Eastern expert, Juan Cole, who blogs daily at Informed Comment, started a group blog, Informed Comment Global Affairs a little over a month ago. Now both of these blogs are on my desktop for easy access.

For those of you who are wondering about the newest developments in Pakistan, this IC Global Affairs July 7 post, The Mosque and the Ballot, is a must-read.

(photo – Lal Masjid dome – IC Global Affairs)