Blogcritics Author: Uncle Sammy Says

The Will Of The People

Uncle Sammy Says — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:27:03 EDT

Undermining the voice of the American voter.
I was writing something on the topic of "The Will of the People", when I paused to listen to the President’s Thursday September 13th speech, in which he mentioned: 1. an “enduring relationship” with Iraq’s government, 2. that he was grateful for the contribution of troops from “36 nations,” 3....

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Cheney's Scooter Takes The Fall, And It's Still About Oil, Folks.

Uncle Sammy Says — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:54:04 EDT

While I was writing this piece, V.P. Cheney's second in command, Scooter Libby, a man who left a golden life in law to reach the much higher altitude of the most powerful government in the world, was convicted on four counts of lying and obstruction of justice. Turns out the jurors reacted like many of us, believing Scooter was the fall guy for the rest of the gang, especially Cheney, the man who orchestrated the vendetta against Joe Wilson with a vengeance to prevent the unraveling of all his deceptions in the run up to Iraq, the man who stood by without a word and watched his friend plunge like Icarus from the heights of power. So much for Bush's promise in 2000 to bring honor and dignity to his office. Okay, the last time I saw Vice President Cheney on television, his remarks stirred me from a prolonged period of quiet to write the following rant. The most generous view of Cheney is to believe that he has had one foot in a make-believe universe, considering he recently told CNN's Wolf Blitzer, "We've had enormous successes." No doubt Wolf was near to choking from trying to restrain himself from crying "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" When asked by Wolf about a possible anti-surge resolution, snarly Cheney replied: "It won't stop us," a response so typical of a man whose arrogance has known no boundaries. He also told Wolf he was worried that Americans might "not have the stomach to fight," conveniently forgetting WWII, when Americans had the stomach and the will for that legitimate cause. And may I mention post 9/11 when we and much of the world were one? So, with remarkable timing, our sterling Cheney, who likes to tell us we are not supporting our troops, escaped some of the unpleasantness of the trial of his second-in-command, by traveling round the world; but then to his misfortune found himself a mere mile from the carnage of a suicide bomb at the gate of the main American base in Afghanistan; all of which highlighted with some embarrassment the resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, the ugly, vicious, and persistent gangs, in case you don't recall, that our military had beaten to a pulp after 9/11. Remember that moral victory? Of course, that success was just after Bush was elected based on his good-'ol-boy compassion and family values bull, and V. P. Darth Vader accompanied him to the White House. That was when we still had a unified America with the will to fight, to take revenge with the support of our allies, when the snooty French, of all people, told the world: "We are all Americans." Remember that? Before we were scammed about Saddam and WMDs, and backed away from capturing our primary target, Osama bin Laden, at Tora Bora, by giving up on Afghanistan through the withholding of the thousands of troops needed to cement our victory, and plunging these same thousands of young men and women into the debacle of Iraq. Remember? I do. Do you recall this baiting and switching achieved by morphing with arrogance and ignorance into the phony democratization of Iraq, which in reality was an invasion for oil and bucks, because Saddam made a major mistake when he let the U.S. know, in September 2000, that his country would no longer accept dollars for oil, but would move to the Euro as Iraq's oil export currency, which threatened the U.S. dollar's supremacy? And this invasion would then be the U.S.'s stepping stone into Iran to establish a regime change in that oil rich country? Should we now expect the same for Iran? William Clark wrote in the Energy Bulletin: The invasion of Iraq may well be remembered as the first oil currency war. Far from being a response to 9-11 terrorism or Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Petrodollar Warfare argues that the invasion was precipitated by two converging phenomena: the imminent peak in global oil production, and the ascendance of the euro currency.Do you remember how this administration succeeded in intimidating the wimpish House, Senate and media into silence by flat out suggesting that the right to dissent was traitorous? Do you remember how they ignored Sen. Carl Levin's idea of diplomacy and multilateralism, and not the black and white go-it-alone Bush strategy? Remember that? Then Bush/Cheney, having achieved the muffling of the opposition, proceeded to whack away at the amendments to our Constitution while trashing our nation's reputation and alienating everyone beyond our borders; remember? Do you ever wonder: if so many administration failures and scandals hadn't ensued like a thousand cuts, and the voiceless media and left-of-center hadn't smelled the blood and woke to the notion that it might now be safe to issue an objection to what bordered on the criminal; that if this hadn't happened, how many more of our inalienable rights would be challenged and even removed? Remember when leadership required courage to do the right thing? Remember what silence achieves, in the extreme, in response to dictators? Recall how the founding fathers risked hanging by their necks 'til death when they challenged imperial Britain, an aggressive country in possession of the world's most powerful army and navy? And isn't it sickening and shameful when one compares their courage, and the courage and dedication of today's American troops, to Cheney and Bush who never hesitate to risk everybody's blood but their own? Today, as in the past, there is often extraordinary heroism, making you wonder: where do we get such fine young men and women? Yet there is never glory in carnage, never "a good war;" but wouldn't it seem so much less senseless and tragic if this invasion of Iraq, which has produced so many limbless and brain-damaged young people, hadn't been so cynical and greed driven; but instead had been a war that was solely in defense of our cherished freedoms? And how is it that these administration thugs who are the most obstinate and the least patriotic -- not to mention the heads-in-the-clouds Democrats-- have allowed the unforgivable indifference toward our terribly wounded vets at Walter Reed's building 18, then followed this neglect by trying to pass the buck to lower ranked caregivers? And finally, adding to this insulting disrespect of our troops, they punished the wounded patients by waking them at 6 a.m., for speaking to the media. These are the same thugs who have frequently and without conscience accused those who wanted our military out of harm's way, of "not supporting our troops." These are the same people who will now send under-equipped and under-trained young soldiers to fill the ranks of those who have been returned again and again to Iraq -- much to the agony of their loved ones. What have the Bush/Cheney crowd ever supported beyond their own unconscionable interests? Certainly not our troops! Cheney still refuses to admit that he and Bush have permanently uncorked Sunni/Shiite divisions which hark back more than a thousand years to the death of the Prophet Muhammed, divisions which today are efficiently exploited by die-hard Baathists, Al Qaeda, Shiite militias, and outside political opportunists; while Bush in aw-shucks mode suggests that maybe after all, and after much consideration, that yeah, maybe Saddam was not linked to Al Qaeda; while still insisting that the war in Iraq was, and is, the central battle against the war on global terrorism, AKA Jihad. Jihad, according to who is doing the interpreting, can be viewed as violent and non-violent; these days most cruelly and aggressively violent; and Cheney will never acknowledge that his and Bush's foreign policy disaster has been responsible for providing the extremists an additional rationale to kill Americans, strengthening Jihad's much harsher version with its merciless treatment of those it deems to be in opposition, Islamic or infidel, innocent or otherwise, and it may be that the worst is yet to come with the spawning of a plague of suicidal teenagers.Have you ever considered that if our military had had sufficient support and been allowed to capture or kill bin Laden, that this symbolic completion of a job well done, would have made Bush/Cheney's pretext for their invasion of Iraq--so much less compelling to Americans? No? Well I have. And if Afghanistan had had the major oil fields, would we be in Iraq today? Huh?

Martin J. Ryan. A stoneage artist/writer/cartoonist retired, yet still very busy in the 21rst century. A husband, father, grandfather, who in his head sometimes feels much younger than his years.

The Way Forward - And Don't Look Back?

Uncle Sammy Says — Mon, 25 Dec 2006 17:51:15 EST

Last summer it was Bush’s "Operation Forward Together." Today it’s "We’re not winning, we’re not losing." Huh? Additionally, whatever name you give it, no matter how it is accomplished, the Iraq Study Group‘s “The Way Forward” is merely the way out. The group took nine months to tell us what we already knew: "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." One of the ISG members, Vernon Jordan, said, “We didn’t talk about how we got here," which must have been exceedingly difficult, considering the majority of Americans can hardly think about anything else. Which means, from the ISG point of view, we must not look back. We must only look ahead, away from the negative. Away from American dissenters accused of being traitors. Away from Cheney lying again and again about Saddam’s connection with Al-Qaeda. Away from Cheney’s secret energy meetings and his no-bid contracts to cronies. Away from torture and the loss of habeas corpus, and away from America’s loss of its moral high ground in the eyes of the world.No, don’t look at all that. Forget how imperfectly better we were before the toxic Bush administration came into power. Forget that Bush, with his usual total disrespect for the rest of us, said, “We’re absolutely winning," and in his mean-spirited way told us just before the mid-term elections that a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorists which was the same as giving us the finger. No, don’t look back, Baker tells us. Only look forward to the least damaging resolution to our entrapment in a foreign civil war, and away from the worst foreign policy disaster in this country’s history.The President is currently thinking of reversing and expanding the military for the “long struggle,” a new term along with “surge” in his lexicon of words and phases meant to blow another smokescreen to hide the latest bait and switch, while the new Secretary of Defense Gates is seen on television in Iraq, in a staged setting, being told by a non-commissioned soldier that we need more troops. Well if I were a soldier there, I too would want as much help as I could get and would respond in kind. The generals until now have been steady in their opposition to more soldiers without a “well-defined mission,” whatever that means; but is it possible that Bush, in another reversal, is bribing them into compliance with a big military budget boost? Huh? Wish I knew.The problem with any military solution in Iraq is that during all of the drawn-out political considerations determining the how and the when, our troops will continue to suffer horrific casualties. A suggestion to withdraw 70 percent of our combat troops to places like Kuwait, while embedding the rest as advisors with untrustworthy Iraqi forces, to perfect their training, is based on delusional thinking. The remaining troops will be vulnerable targets, not only to insurgents and al-Qaeda, but to any American-hating militia infiltrating “official” Iraqi forces, especially the so-called “police.” And Kuwait is much too distant for immediate crisis support.To insert up to 30,000 more troops into Iraq, as Senator McCain (exhibiting presidential machismo) and the hawkish Senator Lieberman suggest, is also a bad idea. Is this insertion creating a new kind of mission? No. The enemy our troops will continue to face is still the same fanatical hit-and-run Al Qaeda, the Sunni insurgency, and possibly an angry Shiite militia, with those who are not killed slipping away, as usual, returning to hector and slaughter wherever our troops have thinned.McCain told the Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to break with the militias of the radical cleric Mugtada Sadr -- a wishful idea considering Sadr controls 30 of the 275 seats in the Iraqi parliament, and al-Maliki needs his support. Sadr has 60,000 militia members who are more dedicated, and often better armed, than the Iraqi police, a fact I’m certain is often in al-Miliki’s thoughts. To truly overwhelm, take down, and actually control insurgent and militia enemies in a city of millions, entailing house-to-house and door-to-door engagements in labyrinthian streets and alleys, one needs an army of a few hundred thousand; and then what? Stay the course for years? We cannot remain as long-term occupiers without increasing American casualties and the enmity of the entire Middle East, and encouraging an exponential growth of insurgencies and terror groups and sleeper cells the world over.On the other hand, to highlight Bush’s (and our) dilemma, we know of V.P. Cheney being warned by Saudi King Abdullah that if our troops are withdrawn from Iraq, in effect jeopardizing the survival of the Sunni minority, Saudi Arabia would have to rescue them from the angry and vengeful Shiite majority, with money, arms, and perhaps men to boot; not to mention in what manner Sunni Syria, Sunni Jordan, and Sunni Egypt might feel compelled to act as well. And of course we can’t leave out how the center of the Shiite Muslim world, Iran, might respond in that situation. And yet, with all of that, we must soon reach the point where we consider the limits of our military, their sacrifices, their families, our finite resources, and withdraw.Add to this mess the notion of a whacky Cheney considering the option of taking sides, of going all the way with the majority Shia, and to hell with the Sunnis, letting the chips fall. Great idea? Apparently it slipped Mr. Cheney’s mind that Sunnis make up 85% of the world’s billion-plus Muslims, and although they can’t organize into a single vengeful unit, why make them angry? We need more friends, not more enemies. Some might say that abandoning the Sunnis in Iraq is a surefire way of turning the existing chaos into an unwinnable clash of civilizations; the idea of such a clash, I should mention here, is not mine, though our cynical President Bush has thoroughly engaged in his deceptive scenarios of good and evil civilizations to scare us into his shock and awe. In regard to the Sunnis, let us set aside Baker’s counsel to only look forward, while I take you back to portions of an article I published on September 28, 2005: The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, a son of the late King Faisal, came to Washington recently to meet with administration officials including Bush and Condoleezza Rice. The Prince offered some very unpleasant predictions on Iraq, which were in direct opposition to the administration's usual positive spin.Enormously disappointed by the president's tepid response, Prince Faisal invited a bunch of reporters to the Saudi embassy and told them in no uncertain terms: "There is no dynamic move pulling the nation (Iraq) together." And: "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart," which was an important part of the message he gave to Bush who apparently was not impressed, or who was at least irritated by such disagreeable news. A specific complaint made by the prince was that the U.S. had described "...every Sunni as a Baathist criminal," a problem for the Prince of a country that has a Sunni majority. "Unless something is done to bring Iraqi's together," he went on, "elections alone won't do it. A constitution alone won't do it." The Prince emphasized, "This is a very dangerous situation, a very threatening situation."What Prince Faisal is telling us via a media which did not make this the major story it actually is, is that if the constitution is not ratified, things could get worse. If it is ratified, things could get worse anyway, with the Sunnis intensifying their efforts to regain the loss of power they enjoyed under Saddam. Unless the Sunnis are included, he said, "Iraq will be finished forever!" The Sunni prince was a Saudi foreign minister for 30 years and knew what he was talking about; but Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and all the W.H. neo-cons crazies, chose not to hear it.Yes, the ISG tells us we must look forward, to not look back at the deviousness of Bush and his administration’s condescending arrogance, it’s whopping incompetence, and it’s apparent desire to unmake our Constitution. But heck, let’s look back again, anyway, to a mind boggling Bush observed hatching his plans, and the revelation of “The Brit Memos,” both of which I wrote of on March 27 of this year, referring to a New York Times article of the same date: An "extremely sensitive," confidential memo, reviewed by the Times, which was written by David Manning, a top British foreign policy advisor, revealed that before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush had a closed door discussion in the oval office with the P.M. of Britain, Tony Blair. It was during this Jan. 31 2003 meeting that Bush said he was determined to invade Iraq without a 2nd resolution at the U.N., even if the inspectors did not find WMDs. The memo states the invasion bombing was to begin on Mar. 10/03. The meeting occurred 5 days before Sec. State Colin Powell was to make his (Bush’s) phony pitch at the U.N., that Iraq posed a major threat to the world. Bush/Blair envisioned a quick victory with no internecine warfare between the various ethnic groups. Bush, the memo stated, explored ways to provoke a confrontation with Iraq, including painting a U.S. aircraft, using U.N. colors, to invite hostile fire. (I'm not kidding) And hey, how about assassinating Saddam? (still not kidding).You may recall the 2002 Downing Street Memo which expressed concern the U.S. "was determined to invade Iraq and that the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy by the Bush administration to fit it's desire to go to war." Sorry, Mr. Baker, old news, I know. But to keep looking back: Most recently reported: On December 15, 2006 a Mr. Carne Ross, Britain’s key negotiator at the UN, gave testimony referring to a previously suppressed document which made clear that PM Tony Blair knew Saddam Hussein did not possess dangerous WMDs; that while he, Ross, was posted to the UN, “At no time did Her Majesty’s government assess that Iraq’s WMDs posed a threat to the UK or its interests.” Ross further stated “…we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that regime change was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.” And yes, still looking back: In regard to Bush’s alluding to his evil empires and a clash of civilizations, let us refer to one of the more interesting administration scare tactics that was fostering a caliphate myth, an idea that had been bandied about from time to time. (Read the relevant in-depth view by Tom Porteous) In early February 2006, Secretary Rumsfeld speaking at a conference in Munich, said that Islamic radicals “…seek to take over governments from North Africa to Southeast Asia and to re-establish a caliphate they hope, one day, will include every continent. They have designed and distributed a map where national borders are erased and replaced by a global extremist Islamic empire.”Scary, isn’t it? Much stronger than orange alerts, no? Bush offered this notion of a resurgent caliphate with a straight face in his 2006 State of the Union speech, and his pal Tony Blair had spoken of it in 2005. The truth of it is that this kind of terrorist caliphate is an al-Qaeda dreamscape, impossible to bring into existence; unabashed nonsense put forth by Bush and Blair, who apparently would resort to any snow job to reinforce their endless list of distortions and lies. To quote Mr. Porteuos: “…the early Muslim caliphate is highly venerated by most Muslims as a golden age of Islam.” And from another source, the Caliphate Blog: The caliphate is “…built upon the concept of citizenship regardless of ethnicity, gender or creed and is totally opposed to the oppression of any religious or ethnic grouping. Non-Muslims…are referred to as dhimmi. The Prophet Muhammad said: ‘Whoever harms a dhimmi has harmed me.’” The Al-Aqaeda terrorist interpretation is a suicidal perversion which requires the killing of infidels, us, an agenda that will never take root with the saner life-affirming Muslim majority, especially if we learn to converse with those who have had a bad history with us, to try to mend fences, and ultimately reduce our presence in their territories. I am not for a second suggesting diplomatic explorations in the Muslim/non-Muslim world will result in all of us coming together in a Kumbaya songfest; but talk while carrying the big stick never killed anyone. Bullets and bombs is another matter in the hands of itchy trigger-fingered people like Bush and Cheney and their Islamic-fanatic counterparts. Anyway, the fact remains, caliphate terrorism has been referred to as an endless and all encompassing menace by the Bush gang for their own miserable purposes. But family friend Baker tells us we must take the Way Forward and not look back; a family friend sent to rescue the son, his reputation, and hopefully the country; a friend who doesn’t want people thinking about ugly things like investigative commissions calling certain people to account, or any thought of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. Though he shouldn’t worry since Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has already taken impeachment off the table. But still, just thinking of it is a negative. Get past it, please. Look forward! President Bush has presented us with a wobbly central government in what now amounts to a non-country that is totally unfamiliar with democratic principals; and with no firm united will of the people at his disposal, one should not be surprised by Prime Minister al-Maliki’s inability to exact control over an ethnically fractured society unraveling daily in civil war. Bush would like us to recall that Iraq was a patched-together country under the heel of Saddam Hussein, a dictator who directed a ruthless minority to dominate and subjugate a majority through intimidation and torture. So very true. But he would like us to forget that under Saddam’s Baath Party, there was structure and infrastructure, that secular nationalism strongly advocated women’s rights. Women dressed as they pleased, drove their cars, and were encouraged to secure an education and to enter the workforce. Today they hardly leave their homes, and when they do they fear being raped or killed, and are harassed if they are not thoroughly covered with a confining clothing. Ironic and sad, this echo of the Taliban, after so many spent lives. From a purely emotional standpoint, I would derive satisfaction from seeing Bush and Cheney being called to account and impeached for the way they have dishonored us. But from a more practical point of view, having investigative hearings is correct and necessary, but impeachment is a bad idea. Pelosi is right. Impeachment is long, quite public, and agonizingly damaging to a country trying to emerge from the chaos of a war and the loss of the world’s respect. Observing the trial of an American president is, in the end, a great tragedy that would drag us depressingly down and impede our recovery. No, not now. Believe me. Read impeachment to understand its full impact. The Democrats have a lot of mending to accomplish in the coming years.Our history of the day before yesterday can teach us as much or more as does history that is distant, which itself may be somewhat prettied up for those few who still read it. The successful way forward must always require looking back to avoid the same deadly mistakes. What we have learned from all this is that an invasion is expensive in money and lives, that for a favored few there is cold cash to be made in war, that there are limits to our military power, and that a solid foreign policy requires energetic diplomacy.t’s easy for someone like me to comment, not in harm’s way, not burdened with the decisions those in charge will have to make. But logic tells me we have to start talking to the countries surrounding Iraq, including Iran, irregardless of Iran’s nuclear energy ambitions. Logic tells me that in the end, there is no good way out of Iraq; tells me there must be a timetable for 2008, whether or not it informs Al-Qaeda and allows them to make their own plans. Naming the date for full withdrawal should compel the Iraqis to develop the will they needs to take control of their own destiny. If the will isn’t there -- well, our young men and women have already paid too high a price for the malfeasance of Bush and Cheney.Meanwhile, President Bush has told us to go shopping.

Martin J. Ryan. A stoneage artist/writer/cartoonist retired, yet still very busy in the 21rst century. A husband, father, grandfather, who in his head sometimes feels much younger than his years.

The Buck Doesn't Stop Like It Used To

Uncle Sammy Says — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:10:58 EDT

In regard to Rep. Mark Foley’s improper e-mails to teenage congressional pages, the House ethics committee has approved subpoenas and promised to go “wherever the evidence takes us.” Which could mean that the buck might actually stop somewhere, as it did on that rare occasion when it slammed into Tom Delay. Okay, maybe, maybe not. Seeing is believing. Meanwhile, Tom Delay’s man, Speaker Dennis Hastert, after exposure and pressure and much hesitation, finally said he accepted responsibility for failing to investigate the complaints against Foley. He told us, “Ultimately…the buck stops here,” a rather famous phrase he had the nerve to borrow from our flinty past president, Harry S. Truman; though Hastert displays none of Truman’s flint, a president who had the fortitude to fire General Douglas MacArthur, the hero of the Pacific war and father of post-war Japan, who recklessly wanted to widen the war in Korea by invading China. Compare Truman to President Bush, a man who up to now has evaded the buck, who edged aside the experienced general, Eric K. Shinseki, who (like Powell) sanely wanted to commit several hundred thousand troops to Rumsfeld’s Iraqi shock-and-awe, to handle the post invasion phase of that unnecessary war, for which we mostly abandoned the still important one in Afghanistan. The then deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, attacked Shinseki’s estimate as “wildly off the mark.” This same sage also said, in 2003: there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq. Really? Well the buck never got near him. Mr. Wolfowitz is now safely out of the way in his job as the president of the World Bank.In contrast to allowing bucks to stop, this administration and its Republican congress have shown exceptional expertise in the knee-jerk passing of bucks.Example: Republicans are saying the Dems knew all along what was going on with Foley and the young pages, and waited ‘til just before the midterm elections to reveal the scandal for political gain. (And the GOP wouldn’t?) True, but the Dems were shopping the Foley e-mails to the media for months, not days, whether for gain or not, while the usually sanctimonious and ultimately hypocritical Republicans were scrambling to cover up their asses as well as the story, to protect Foley’s congressional seat. ABC News finally did the right thing by going public with the story.Foley’ ex-chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who wanted the buck to stop, said he brought Foley’s e-mails to Hastert’s attention as early as three years ago, but Hastert doesn’t recall this. Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean, said anyone guilty of improper communications with pages should “be fired or subjected to a vote of expulsion.” Okay, but then we have congressional officials who cover up for the transgressors. Will the buck land on their desks? Our cynical President Bush recently stood side-by-side with Speaker Hastert and said he was proud to be there, and that the country was “better off” with Hastert as Speaker; while at the same time about half the country was thinking that teenagers are brought to Congress to attend school, to perform errands as pages in what should be the sanctuary of the congressional chamber. They are not there to be seduced or groped by weird adult officials, and ignored by those politically motivated pass-the-buck creeps who wish to turn away from these monumental ethical failures.Writing for the New Republic’s online “The Plank,” Ryan Lizza wrote that the GOP congressional leadership continued to look the other way in regard to Foley’s indiscretions, and that in early 2006 Foley had wanted to retire to become a lobbyist on K Street; but fearing the loss of the House, Karl Rove insisted Foley run for re-election. If he didn’t, Rove warned Foley, it might negatively impact his lobbying career. On the other hand, if he dutifully served for two more years it would “enhance his success” as a lobbyist.No doubt the soon to be exposed Foley mourned the loss of the greatly expanded income he had to sacrifice from the Republican’s lucrative quid pro quo lobby-the-legislative system we so lovingly call “democracy at work;” part of that D.C. Beltway scam with its endless loop through which retiring well-connected administration staffers, legislators, military generals, CIA and FBI intels, for whom, whatever their crimes and misdemeanors, the buck will rarely stop. Those who choose to will move seamlessly into corporate boards, corporate lobbies and/or consultancies; the total of which is an inbred multi-billion dollar world, which exists solely to feed itself, and has little to do with enhancing the lives of American taxpayers who are daily forced to swim upstream against the one-way tide of GOP economic policies. But poor Foley: duty called. Or rather, Rove threatened.Revising history by passing another buck: Republican senator John McCain, a man whose moderation, manifest honesty, and personal dignity I had long admired, has, due apparently to his own presidential ambitions, courted those who are very far to the right of what he used to be, and drawn himself closer to President Bush by physically hugging him (the man who previously trashed him) and by helping the president to pass another big very big buck: the blaming of Bush’s disastrous North Korea policy on President Clinton. McCain said that President Clinton’s 1994 “Agreed Framework” between the U.S. and N. Korea had been a total failure. The senator further claimed that the warnings the Clinton White House issued to N. Korea, such as not to eject the International Atomic Agency and not to remove fuel rods from their reactor, merely allowed N. Korea to ignore such admonitions and were subsequently rewarded with more talks.And you know how dangerous it is to just talk.The truth of it, though, is that Clinton didn’t pass the buck. The “Agreed Framework” actually worked for the eight years Clinton was in office; an agreement that prevented the N. Koreans from producing plutonium and developing nuclear weapons, an agreement President Bush foolishly abandoned in 2002, a Clinton policy which Secretary Of State Powell endorsed as correct.McCain was having a convivial chat with adoring Chris Mathews on the telly before a university audience, when he was questioned about the Military Commissions Act Of 2006, just signed by the president, the president who passed the buck to senior officers regarding his having given permission to torture, the officers who then passed the buck to sergeants, corporals, and privates, who had no one to pass it to. The senator said it was a good compromise that precluded torture. Did he really believe that? Truly? And noticeably, nothing was said about the loss of habius corpus, the debasement of our constitutional rights. Does the senator’s ambitions prevent him from seeing that American citizens can be scooped up and detained without legal representation? Who will he pass the buck to if he is challenged about signing on to this loss of an individual’s right to face his or her accuser?Maybe he should listen to George Washington U. Professor Of Constitutional Law, Jonathan Turley, who appeared on MSNBC’s Countdown, who said: “…people have no idea how significant this is. What really a time of shame this is for the American system. What the Congress did and what the president signed today essentially revokes over 200 years of American principals and values.” Today we have a disconnected Bush awash in insoluble problems, now avoiding his “staying the course” while trying to appear to be open to talk, to listen to military advisors and older sages (think James Baker), to be engaging allies, some of whom are the “old Europe” that he and Rumsfeld and Cheney had so arrogantly dismissed during their unilateral blunder. One can imagine the president now wildly thrashing about looking for others to which he can pass the host of bucks that threaten to slam into him like a barrage of artillery. If not now, later, in the written history of America, if we’re still free to write it.In closing, I was reading a N.Y. Times book review of the Cold War secretary of state, Dean Acheson, by Robert L. Beisner. The review was penned by Henry A. Kissinger who at its end wrote of the theme of an Acheson speech at the War College in August 1951: “There was not ‘one more river to cross’ but ‘countless problems stretching into the future.’ … Americans must reconcile themselves to ‘limited objectives’ and work in congress with others, for an essential part of American power was the ‘ability to evoke support from others--an ability quite as important as the capacity to compel.’” (Italics mine).You didn’t have to pass the buck when you had that kind of thinking.

Martin J. Ryan. A stoneage artist/writer/cartoonist retired, yet still very busy in the 21rst century. A husband, father, grandfather, who in his head sometimes feels much younger than his years.

Terrorist Roundups, Endless New Euphemisms, and Iraq Rages On

Uncle Sammy Says — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:15:06 EDT

Speaking to the press, President Bush said his invasion of Iraq did not "stir up a hornet's nest." The terrorists, he said, killed 3000 of our citizens "before we started the freedom agenda" in the Middle East. Is that what's going on? A freedom agenda? No, this is just another in a long list of euphemisms, trying to bog down logical thinking in reasonable minds.He also said that "nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack" (9/11). The rest of us have known this for several years. When did he discover it? Additionally he reassured those who wanted to hear him say it: we're not leaving Iraq as long as he's our president, which means, I suppose, 'til January 2009 or until he's impeached for misleading his country.While the Brits did splendid work in closing down the awful bomb plot, Bush having been kept informed by Blair, was able to exploit this event early on, while Karl Rove worked overtime on how to spin the terror angle to Bush's advantage. i.e. Dems want to cut and run. Elect them in November and be overrun by Al Quaeda terrorists. Right.The administration shifted the message from Iraq to global terror, in high gear. Bush in Wisconsin said, the latest threat is a "stark reminder that the nation is at war with Islamic fascists." Tony Snow said that the Dems want to raise "a white flag in the war on terror," getting the jump in advance of the release of the Brit bomb plot news which he was well aware of, while the Press at the time knew nothing. Meanwhile Michael Churnoff tried to vaguely and ineffectively claim some of the credit for the "plot' shutdown by implying our NSA spying made a contribution to the Brits' boots-on-the-ground police work.Anyway, keep it in perspective. The Democrats are not responsible for the terror and the Mid East mess. But of course VP Cheney is already wallowing in scare tactics by suggesting that Lieberman's loss to Lamont will signify to terrorists that Americans are losing their will to fight. Fight where? Iraq, naturally, while ignoring the fact that Iraq is his war and it has attracted and become a haven for terrorists.Continued here.... But what history will tell us is already before us:Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, during a recent television interview, referred to the incipient civil war in Iraq as "sectarian differences," disagreements which are now responsible for an average of one-hundred dead per day. I realize you know your math but that's 3000 per month, and at that rate 36,000 per year. Condi's interpretation is only a part of the new spin which in essence is telling us that no one is perfect, that they too (the administration) can make mistakes, and have, but that they'll keep moving forward no matter how long it takes and it will take long. Democratization is not easy to accomplish, for pete's sake. And "it's hard," Condi said. All of which is pretty much what Rumsfeld is now spinning as well, both he and Rice staying on the new message: it is human to err, bear with us. One can almost hear the grating at the back teeth behind the smiles. But if nothing else, the Republicans have been superb in spinning and staying on message, putting the Dems to shame, though this recent verbal pirouetting, if wound any tighter, threatens to snap and deliver a fatal blow in November. As it is, President Bush appears to constantly ping and pong between the deer-in-the-headlights and the Churchill-on-testosterone demeanor, all of which amazes one in view of the stress, considering (as I've read) his heart rate has been shown to be 46 at rest. One might assume a total lack of conscience allowed such a rate, which in itself might infer a lack of empathy, or merely a staying-awake disorder. Sorry, forgive I will have to use myself as an example: When my conscience is at its most clear (well, occasionally, anyway), the best I can do is 60 beats in that miracle muscle my heart, whilst feet are up with the mind soporifically zoned by the telly. Pretty good, I think. After all, I may have deceived one or two people (not my wife, mind you) but I have never deceived a nation and thrown an army into a war with a country which had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. Nor have I done everything within my power to enrich the rich while taking from the working poor, giving monumental contracts with cost overruns and fraud to cronies to build super planes and ships to non-fight cold wars with an ex-Soviet empire, and producing non-reconstruction projects in Iraq. Etcetera lists ad nauseam come to mind, which I will not indulge in .Remember terms such as "terrorism" and " insurgency?" Well, the new mantras are "asymmetric warfare" and "nontraditional enemies." One can imagine the ultra creative geniuses in defense, in state, in the W.H., with blackboards and erasers, chalking long lists of synonyms for future use, which might soften and deflect the daily impact of the hell in Iraq, while moving from plan to plan.It was not long ago when VP Cheney said "we will be treated as liberators " and "the insurgency is in its last throes." Then more recently the 50,000 man joint American-Iraqi force to wipe out the bad guys in Baghdad, entitled: "Operation Forward Together" which failed merely because the bad guys disappear only to reappear elsewhere. And then we have Bush's glorious "Plan For Victory" which would be achieved by handing more responsibility to the Iraqi troops while our troops stand down, with Bush issuing his pronouncements in front of a banner in the same way he had issued his "Mission Accomplished" victory speech. But the plan for victory proved an empty promise with Iraqis failing to measure up, causing the dramatic increase in the horrific violence of "sectarian differences," and requiring the sudden need to shift our dedicated but overworked troops back into Baghdad to take control. The administration is long past plan B, past C and D and E, slowly consuming the alphabet along with the lives of Americans and Iraqis alike.Back in 2000, President Bush's oh-so-humble expressions of anti-nation building, saying in effect: we're not in that business, was soon revealed to be an election snow-job when 9/11 allowed his administration's misdirected think-tank ideologues to act on their long held, and intellectually arrogant, view that one could play with the fate of real people in actual Mid East countries, as if they were bloodless pieces on a checkered game board.Bush then, infamously, used the scare tactics of WMDs, orange alerts and "mushroom clouds," which, having become the stuff of cartoons, finally morphed into world democratization and the nearly impossible "global war on terrorism." It has become the nation's most common knowledge, readily absorbed by our least interested and most uninformed citizenry, that Iraq was and is innocent in regard to 9/11. Yet even now, Bush and Cheney when pressed will immediately revert like robotic dolls to the original sin of shock and awe and "So we don't have to fight them here," (no less an automatic utterance than a doll's: "Mama") a mantra now so ludicrous that someday it might be put to music like "Springtime For Hitler" in the musical, The Producers.Bush will tell you his global war is well illustrated in the violence of Hizbollah and Hamas, which is his fantasy. Hamas' problem is with Israel, not with us. It is local in Israel, and we do not occupy Palestine. Hizbollah's terror acts against the U.S. occurred when we, however well-intended, intruded on their turf in Lebanon. The bombing of the U.S embassy occurred April 1983, killing 63; the bombing of the Marine barracks in October that year killed 241 servicemen peacekeepers, which encouraged us to leave, and we did. History leading to these events from the end of WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is too complicated to go into here. I am not in any way justifying Hizbollah or it's desire to exterminate Israel, nor am I suggesting we withdraw material support for Israel; I am merely observing the facts, not Bush's never ending fantasy desire to connect unrelated dots to rationalize his war and his mishandled foreign policy. Actual facts: Hizbollah is supported ideologically and materially by Iran via Syria; and Bush, had he been less of a cowboy and more of an adult, might have mitigated the nasty effects of this alliance during the past 6 years, had he engaged in diplomatic negotiations with these troublesome countries. But he didn't; instead he began the insanity of the Iraqi invasion, overestimating our military's strategies, underestimating guerrilla tactics, in the process destabilizing the Middle Eastern balance of power and allowing Shiite Iran to reengage with Shiite Iraq and flex it's formidable political muscle. The result: Iran has seen our overwhelming preoccupation with Iraq, our spent lives and resources, our polarized country, and cleverly seizing the moment it sent the well-trained Hizbollah across the Israeli border, in effect challenging the U.S. to a proxy fight while detracting for the moment from its Nuclear ambitions, and causing far right neo-con crazies like the Weekly Standard's William Kristol, who advised attacking Iraq, to now attack Iran: "The Iranians would embrace us," says he. Anyway, Israel, surprising Hizbollah and everyone else, attacked Hizbollah in Lebanon with a vengeance; not to mention Hizbollah surprising everyone, including Israel and our military, Israel having been infected by the same false notions as our joint chiefs -- that super technology in the air and on the ground will supplant thousands of aggressive troops.Actual fact: Al Quaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan remain our constant and legitimate targets, and remain the shame of our disastrous government which has mostly abandoned that justifiable war to even the score for the 9/11 attacks, so as to recklessly plunge into the fantasy treasures of Iraq: oil and redoing the Middle East from the ground up to satisfy the arrogant players: Messrs. Wolfowitz, Pearle, Cheney, Rumsfeld; and President Bush -- aka "Captain Democracy" (from my web site's cartoon).Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, told Congress "...today Iraq is a democracy," in a speech that must have been written by Karl Rove, considering no mention was made of the various militia death squads, of the fact that the shaky Iraqi government resides with the Americans inside the heavily armed Green Zone fortress to avoid assassinations, or of that fractured and despairing nation's grueling slide into a civil war, aka "sectarian differences." Senator Lieberman's defeat in the primary is testimony to at least a good portion of this country's disgust with the Iraqi war, and hopefully this same portion will feel the same disgust for this deceitful and incompetent administration. Lieberman may still win as an independent, but a very strong message of discontent went out from Connecticut to the rest of America. And I say amen to that. Finally, it does not take a genius I.Q. to understand that had we engaged more fully in long term diplomatic negotiations in the Middle East, invested more time and money in developing alternative fuels so as to eventually reduce our presence in the Middle East (a prime irritant), had we not invaded Iraq, had we remained in full force in Afghanistan and completed the mission of taking out Bin laden, the Taliban and Al Quaeda, thereby gaining more intelligence, we would be in a much better position to go forward in increasing and maintaining our home security, weeding out cells, increasing security at our air terminals and shipping ports, and any other existing vulnerabilities. Period

Martin J. Ryan. A stoneage artist/writer/cartoonist retired, yet still very busy in the 21rst century. A husband, father, grandfather, who in his head sometimes feels much younger than his years.

Gen. Hayden - NSA To The CIA - And Gonzales, The Attorney General - Big Brotherism?

Uncle Sammy Says — Sat, 3 Jun 2006 18:08:26 EDT

I wrote this opinion the day before General Hayden was approved. Subsequent to said approval, President Bush said, "I look forward to working with...Negraponte, General Hayden...as we continue to address the challenges and threats we face in the 21st century." Challenges and threats which the President increased by invading Iraq.The only no votes to Hayden's approval were Democrats Ron Wyden, Russ Feingold, and Even Bayh, and Republican Arlen Specter. My hat's off to these four who had the guts to protest and not just go along.After 9/11, Vice President Cheney wanted to intercept domestic telephone calls and e-mails without warrants but was warned away by more cautious National Security Agency lawyers, owing to the measure's illegality, and especially since they were slammed in the 1990s for eavesdropping. But the nominee for director of the CIA, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, then head of the NSA, ultimately created a collection program and sold it to the wary NSA officers and a not-so-wary President Bush.A Cheney spokeswoman said the program "is terrorism surveillance, not domestic surveillance," and the V.P. further explained it as "a wartime measure...limited in scope." Limited? The serious problem with the vice president's reasoning is, as described by Bush: this "war on terrorism" is going to go on for many years. The trouble is, terrorism will remain with us for as long as our soldiers' boots are on the ground anywhere in the Middle East. Which means a very long "wartime measure." Decades? Decades of data collection?Under a dictatorial government, police may search and seize your property without providing justifications or legal warrants. It follows that a dictatorship having unwarranted access to collected data, such as telecommunications and e-mail, will not consider this an invasion of privacy but merely a way of closely monitoring its citizens, like it or not. On the other hand, as intended by our founding fathers, we supposedly live in a free society, able to express ourselves without fear of reprisals for independent thinking, to speak openly in opposition to our government when necessary. Additionally, protected by the Fourth Amendment, we expect a right to privacy, to be able to communicate with others without intrusion. With that said, it appears that no matter the rationale -- "security" or otherwise -- because of this administration's creative and of the moment interpretations of our laws, the NSA's data collection ultimately undermines our precious Bill Of Rights, in which the meaning of Amendment Four has been explicitly stated for any reasonably intelligent human being to grasp. It's quite clear to me and others that this secret agency, under the guidance of General Hayden, is almost certainly violating our rights with the approval of his boss, President Bush, as surely as a burglar who breaks and enters our homes. Assuming the General is approved, can we now expect domestic spying from the CIA? It would not be the first time.Early on at the NSA, General Hayden said he wanted congressional oversight. True, he said that. One would then assume that he meant to make complete presentations to a full intelligence committee, but he never did. Therefore, with this in mind, Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Dem, accused the Bush gang of violating the national Security Act of 1947 because a full oversight committee was never briefed, which, of course, would be a way of keeping illegal activities as secret as possible, certainly pleasing President Bush.Yes, our president, who has publicly complained numerous times about traitorous leaks of classified intelligence, while he himself has declassified "secrets" on a moment's notice whenever he has wanted to destroy an opponent and/or protect an ally.So the wily Bush/Rove team, mindful of the legitimate criticism regarding the lack of full oversight, beat the Hayden confirmation hearing to the punch by giving the House and Senate intelligence committees a briefing on classified activities. Whew! Just in time.Those of us who believe we have nothing to fear from this kind of government intrusion because we have nothing criminal or treasonous to hide, should understand fully that the passive acceptance of a Big Brother system will create a chink in our personal liberty, into which an oppressive wedge will most assuredly be inserted.Any arrogant government facing little opposition might, over time, widen the chink to a gap, seriously eroding self-expression while instilling fear, however real or imagined. Intimidation is the technique. Opposition to the Iraq war was immediately squelched by this administration, and not at all subliminally, but by overtly suggesting dissent was traitorous anti-Americanism and we, the dangerous dissenters, were "not supporting our troops."Unfortunately, and much to its discredit, the media fearfully and totally caved in to the administration hawks and only found its collective voice much later when the administration began to falter under the weight of an Iraqi civil war and Republican scandals. The media then morphed into the current feeding frenzy after it caught the smell of blood in the roiling political waters. Add to that the early cowardice displayed by most politicians, some of whom moved right of center in support of the war and remain there purely for political reasons, not for moral ones, which for me (who does confess to a profound cynicism) is an outrage and I hope they lose their political base. Of course, regarding bravery, how many of us are truly courageous enough to swim against the tide?Anyone old enough to recall "McCarthyism" will understand the fear and reluctance to speak up. Early on, President Bush said the NSA data collection was a "limited program." Later he said, his administration was "obliged to connect the dots." (Hundreds of million dots?) He also stated that domestic calls are "not intentionally monitored." One wonders how much unintentional listening has been going on. USA Today broke the story of AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth opening the door for intrusion; then Reuters reported that Verizon and BellSouth "have issued carefully worded denials of a report that they turned over millions of customers' calling records to a U.S. spy agency." Verizon wouldn't "confirm or deny." BellSouth: "...we have confirmed...we have not provided bulk customer calling records to the NSA." What did they provide? AT&T said it was obligated to assist law enforcement and government agencies, with no further comment. A great deal of parsing here, folks. No surprise since a $200 billion lawsuit has been filed in 18 states seeking damages for 200 million customers of all 3 companies. No doubt we'll hear complaints about greedy lawyers in our "litigious society," which would not be entirely untrue since lawyers -- big surprise -- have been known to smell the money as well as the blood. It will be interesting when reps from the three companies appear before Arnold Specter's committee, since they, unlike Bush/Cheney, can not claim executive privilege.With all of the ongoing discussions it's very easy to forget the most important truth: The actual and ongoing NSA mission is to gather foreign intelligence and not to engage in domestic eavesdropping.During the committee hearing, General Hayden was a very sharp evader of questions asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Calif. Dem., telling her over and over (politely) his responses, if given at that moment, would be too classified for those not cleared for secure intelligence, but he would be happy to provide the info in detail, in private -- all of which annoyed me personally as I realized that at least two or three of her questions would not actually require going too deeply into classified secrets, could be at least partly replied to, and annoyed me because he was (politely) arrogant, condescending, and therefore insulting, to the American viewing public -- totally in tune with the rest of this administration.Hayden said, in a twisty sentence, that no one at the NSA has told him "...there's targeting that's not based on probable cause." He trusts his guys. And we shouldn't worry. Ain't that sweet?The fact is, the Foreign Intelligence Act of 1978 has been violated by an administration that is, and has been, out of control, led by a devious and incompetent president who for his own -- I suppose, imperial -- reasons, believes he has had a blank check to do as he pleases. No one in his or her right mind during these terror-ridden times would doubt the need for listening in with warrants signed by judges. The problem, in the absence of oversight, rests with the deceptive and untrustworthy administration that has, ostensibly, been in charge of the people in charge of data collection. It is not paranoid conspiracy theorists creating suspicion of what has been going on (though theorists always exist to muddy the waters), but rather the recent history of lying about so much of what has led us out of Afghanistan and into Iraq.And now, added to this, we have Bush's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, saying he won't hesitate to tap into telephone conversations of reporters, related to any criminal leak investigations, while promising not to do it randomly. The latter barely comforting to those journalists who have the guts and feel it's their duty to inform American citizens about any criminal behavior in our government. Of course, Gonzales hasn't said anything about his boss' leaks, while he enthusiastically digs deep into his investigation of USA Today's expose of the NSA, trying to nail the journalist who did the worthy deed. ("Worthy" my opinion, I know).The head of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Lucy Dalglish, said she thinks Gonzales has in mind the 1917 Espionage Act, which, having been created during the first World War to prevent giving secrets to the Germans (updated 2002), seemed to me to be a wild and desperate stretch when I read it. Everything this man and this administration will do appears purely designed to place a major and lasting chill on our Bill Of Rights' First Amendment.Gonzales was quick to add that the First Amendment right of a free press isn't absolute when it comes to national security, and if the NSA leak turns out to be a criminal offense, he's "obligated" to prosecute.Really?He also said, the American people would like to see the Feds go after criminal activities. No kidding? Well, you bet they would, Mr. Attorney General. For instance, this country has been in the total grip of corporate interests in regard to the use of Mexican immigrants. There are, and have been, strict, clearly defined laws related to the employment of these illegals, with stiff penalties. Which means these corporations have been engaged in serious criminal activities, activities which you and this administration have chosen to ignore because of the vast contributions made to the seemingly bottomless Republican pockets, giving these agra-business guys a free ride and placing the burden on American taxpayers; the kinds of Americans with immigrant forbears who, though they recognize the industriousness of these mostly family-oriented workers, they correctly believe it has been unfair to allow these illegals to jump to the head of the line in order to satisfy those CEOs who are eternally pursuing a source of cheap labor. It would appear, therefore, that Mr. Gonzales' position is that there are crimes to prosecute and crimes to wink at. There is a lot of corruption -- lying, cheating, stealing, which I will avoid once again describing here (for the moment, at least), that Gonzales could investigate that he won't, attempting instead to stifle those occasional whistle blowers to whom we owe a huge debt of gratitude.Gonzales and Hayden make a great pair, fitting so well into the Bush/Cheney administration's devious goals, much to the detriment of our otherwise wonderful country.I'm not an insider. I'm not able to prove or disprove anything taking place within the government, but the irony in all this, for me, is that in spite of the fact that General Hayden intruded much too far into our privacy, this will ultimately be overlooked. It's almost certain that General Hayden, guilty or not, will be approved by our sterling lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Bravery in lawmakers is no longer a requirement for election to office. Only poll-and-market-directed one-liners, and well-arranged photo ops is all, and let's get on to safer ground.

Martin J. Ryan. A stoneage artist/writer/cartoonist retired, yet still very busy in the 21rst century. A husband, father, grandfather, who in his head sometimes feels much younger than his years.

The Bush Administration and Iranian Anger

Uncle Sammy Says — Thu, 18 May 2006 22:03:36 EDT

Did you ever wonder why, in countries like Iran, so much hatred is directed at the West? No doubt you're thinking, "What the hell did we do to deserve this, huh?" Well think about it. There is a history there to ponder. Anger like this doesn't simply materialize in a vacuum. Right? Well, put that on the back burner for the moment while we deal with the here and now, i.e. the U.S. and Europe being in a collective dither about the radical president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who insists on having the right to create a nuclear energy system for his country, and who, in the West's opinion, really wants to develop nuclear WMDs. Which should be no great surprise considering that North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel already have them, so why shouldn't Iran join the nuclear crowd, if they choose to arm themselves in the same manner? I suppose there might be a mite less resistance to this idea from the West if Ahmadinejad would stop treating us like the Great Satan, stop messing around in Iraq with Shiite friends, or if he would stop loudly insisting that the holocaust is "a myth," and that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I think for the time being we should consider the possibility that he doesn't believe for a minute the holocaust is a myth, that he sees it as a good way to antagonize the Jews, and for the rest -- be a nuclear tough guy, face down the U.S., and firm up his political base in Iran. I'm not suggesting Ahmadinejad and his pals aren't dangerous, but remember the Soviets had enough WMDs to destroy the planet ten times over -- albeit coming close to it (with us) over the Cuba missile insanity, but didn't. (Of course we had some prudent American leadership at the time - the Kennedys - men who wanted to avert a war). I am suggesting that since the Iranians do not yet have the nuclear wherewithal, then unlike the Bush neo-cons who want to hit them hard whether they have nukes or not, we should listen to the saner heads in Europe who are opting first for negotiations, inspections and/or sanctions. If these moves don't work then war would be a more reasonable last resort when the intel of all the Western partners agreed a nuclear threat was imminent. It's true, ours and European intelligence agencies believe Iran is determined to have nuclear warheads, and believe certain types of religious Middle Easterners embrace martyrdom, meaning Allah will receive them into heaven as heroes if they sacrifice themselves, and that President Ahmadinejad may be one of them, not caring if his country is vaporized as long as it's in the name of Allah; which is all very worrisome, but it's hard to believe the latter. I don't have an inside track, but it is possible that he is more shrewd political extremist than religious zealot. Of course, he can be political and religious without being mad and out of control, which is probably closest to the truth. Nevertheless, whatever his proclivities, I know he can be dangerous if a mistake is made. Nikita Khrushchev came very close in Cuba, and he was not crazy. Naturally Mr. Bush is talking diplomacy, as usual, as he was before shock and awe, telling us that war was not on the table when he was ready to roll across Iraq, while we now know - thanks to The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh - there are clandestine ops in Iran and our senior military people are seriously engaged in exploring major and extensive attack plans, including nuking certain underground facilities in Iran. The problem, unfortunately for all sides, is that Ahmadinejad is playing into the hands of the neo-cons by making outrageous public statements. I quote: Israel is a "permanent threat" to the Middle east that will "soon be liberated." And "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation." And finally: "Our answer to those who are angry with Iran -- be angry and die of this anger." Unquote. Not a guy you want to cozy up to. Equally dangerous, though. According to Mr. Hersh, one of his sources has said that President Bush would do "...what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do...." and "...that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." Yeah? Like he's been saving Afghanistan and Iraq?A former defense official told Mr. Hersh, some military planners believed an Iraq-type bombing campaign in Iran would cause the Iranian people to overthrow their government. Really? Like the Iraqis did? This same official then asked (about the military): "What are they smoking?" The truth is, war is on Bush's agenda, and on his and Cheney's oil cronies' agenda. And regime change, as it was in Iraq, is the name of the game. And it's all about oil, and who is going to control it. They can talk about WMDs, nuclear threats, terrorism, spreading democracy -- in the end it's always oil. Iran has a lot of it, and the administration wants it. Afghanistan, where the Taliban hosted Al Quaeda (the guys who did 9/11, remember) was abandoned in order to invade Iraq under the banner of WMDs and mushroom clouds, to get control of their oil; after which we would use Iraq as the launching pad for invading Iran. To get control of their oil. Didn't work, though, did it. Don't you wonder what our foreign policy would become if North Korea discovered a huge deposit of crude and Iran's oil wells disappeared? And suppose in addition to Al Quaeda, the Taliban, Bin Laden and opium poppies, Afghanistan had oil. Wow! We'd still be there with all our troops, and Iraq would still have Saddam.But about Iran, folks, this country is not divided in the way Iraq is, and it is a much larger, more powerful, more nationalistic country, and retains a great deal of anger for us. Shock and awe takes you only so far. Would you want our troops on the ground in Iran? When you get past the death and destruction, the administration's rhetoric, and even the successful choice of a prime minister, what you see is a seriously destabilized Iraq which has earned us a lot of worldwide enmity. Imagine if you will the reaction of the Islamic world if we bombed the hell out Iran. There are more than a billion Muslims in the world; a fraction of that number suddenly inclined to fill the ranks of Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah, in reaction, would mean an exponential growth in terrorism resulting in the deaths of a lot of Americans, here and abroad. This is not a fantasy. What we have to worry about in this country is that the far right hawks seem to be as wacky as Bush. One more quote from Mr. Hersh, quoting a member of Congress referring to our president: "The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision." Messianic is not a word I like to hear being applied to our commander in chief. It bespeaks of crusades in the name of a messiah. Does our president talk to God and believe in the "end of days" and want to hurry it along? Now about Iran's recent history with the U.S. You might want to read Jacob G. Hornberger's article, some of which I've loosely echoed here, some of which I've tapped from my own recollections.There once was a man named Mohammad Mossadegh, who was world famous. In 1951 Time Magazine chose him over Churchill, Ike and Truman, to be "Man of the Year."Mr. Mossadegh was the democratically elected prime minister of Iran. The problem was that he was very independent and wanted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, through which the British held the monopoly on production and sales, beginning in the early part of the 20th century. Iran taking control of its own oil was very upsetting to the British and U.S. governments, both of whom worried he might align his country with the Soviets. Of course when you go up against oil companies, you're a communist. Prior to Mossadegh, the Iranian prime ministers were easily manipulated, and this new fellow's independence took the Brits and Americans by surprise.So, in 1953 our CIA devised an operation and dubbed it "Operation Ajax," which was engineered by agent Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of Theodore Roosevelt, who used bribery and phony street protests to pull off a coup. The U.S. then installed the Shah of Iran, creating a 25-year dictatorship, and the CIA helped set up Savak, the terrifying secret police of Iran which imprisoned and tortured with impunity, to repress political dissent. In addition, the Shah's westernizing of the country was an insult to the Iranian religious and cultural fundamentalists. Mossadegh, having been under house arrest since 1953, died in 1962 at the age of 82. The Shah remained in power until the Iranian revolution of 1979, when he escaped, in poor health, into exile. You probably recall the taking of American hostages from our embassy in Iran that year, which was truly very hard on those guys, but all American embassies had one or two CIA agents, which was what the Iranian students had in mind when they invaded the place and made prisoners of the building's occupants. So no doubt you're now beginning to understand Iran's anger at U.S. interference over the years.But it doesn't end there. There were ancient Persian-Arab conflicts which in 1980 were fueled by border disputes, Sunni versus Shia religious and ethnic differences, and at this juncture probably fueled more by Saddam's fear of Iran's growing strength following the '79 revolution, and by his desire to nip their new energy and passion in the bud and become the Big Man in the Middle East. So, on September 22, 1980, he invaded Iran. Well, this greatly pleased the United States and its comrades in oil, but to keep it brief (and not necessarily in sequence) I will list just part of our Republican presidents' contributions to Saddam's folly (after much death and destruction he had to agree to a truce in 1988). How we helped:Bush Senior sent 62 combat helicopters to Saddam. The U.S. Department of Commerce exported deadly anthrax to Saddam. Italy, with the approval of the U.S., supplied Saddam with material for chemical, biological and nuclear WMDs. The U.S. secretly funneled a variety of weapons through Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt, to Saddam. Donald Rumsfeld, at the time a civilian, met with Saddam to assure our friendship. The U.S. stated it would do whatever is necessary and legal to prevent Iraq from losing the war with Iran, which pleased Saddam. The U.S. and Britain blocked the U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, pleasing Saddam. There's more but that's enough. Is it any wonder the Iranians are still so angry? In 1992, ABC Nightline's Ted Koppel said it was clear Bush Senior initiated and supported the growth of Saddam's military strength. President Clinton said the U.S. must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems in Iranian/U.S. relations. Madeleine Albright, Secretary Of State in 2000, apologized in a speech for our role in overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh during the Eisenhower administration. Of course, these remarks fell on Iranian deaf ears, considering our country's anti-democratic intervention. Why did we do these things? For oil. We have an oil economy and foreign policy which, through lobbying and buying our legislators and nullifying our votes, has squelched every attempt at developing a sane alternate fuel/energy supply. Brazil, having learned a lesson during the chaotic oil shortage and long pump lines during the '70s, reformed their energy policy and will be totally free of the need for a oil in several years. Some will say, Brazil has a dictatorship and we can't do what they do. Total B.S.Meanwhile our arrogant, hoggish oil barons, with the support of the Bush-Cheney administration for the rich, reap huge rewards that are so far out of the box it's obscene, at the expense of you and me, and our environment; and how do you like the price of gas at the pump? The politicians on the take and their oil baron patrons will blame it solely on the futures market. More B.S.Stay awake America. Vote these greedy people out of office.

Martin J. Ryan. A stoneage artist/writer/cartoonist retired, yet still very busy in the 21rst century. A husband, father, grandfather, who in his head sometimes feels much younger than his years.