Four Crosses and : Impeachment Is about Bush, Cheney, War Crimes, A Nation Living In Fear, Iran Looming as a Nuclear Catastrophe, The millions killed and displaced, a nation disgraced, a Democracy Consigned To The Dust Bin of History and The City Of Denver living under the uncertain curtain of the end of the trail of frustration in riots, in steel, blood and fire in her streets! Wake Up America…Please!

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

But the real legacy of the 68 turmoil was the idea that young people and students had the obligation to challenge authority, to questions assumptions…and could succeed.

--Blake Fleetwood, a participant in the Columbia University demonstrations, 1968

TODAY marks the 38th anniversary of the fatal shootings by members of the Ohio National Guard of four Kent State University students during an anti-Vietnam war demonstration on campus.

During the melee that ensued on the Kent State campus that day, a senior journalism major snapped a now-famous scene that day had a strong Miami-Dade connection:

The photograph by John Filo showed a screaming long-haired Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over the body of student Jeffrey Miller, 20, who had been fatally wounded. Vecchio was a 14-year-old runaway from Opa-locka who had friends on the Kent State campus.

In a History Channel video interview years later, Vecchio, now 52, said she instinctively ran toward Miller, who had been shot in the mouth after lobbing a tear-gas canister back at guardsmen who had ordered the demonstrators to disband.

''There was so much blood. I knew he was dead,'' she said of Miller, whom she had met on campus. ``I wanted to help, but there was nothing to do, so I just screamed.''

Filo, who said he was on ''automatic pilot,'' clicked on the moment Vecchio reacted.

''She just let out with a scream. It was an automatic picture,'' he said in the same video interview. Largely fueled by the powerful photograph of Vecchio and Miller, the shootings at Kent State shocked the nation: American soldiers had opened fire on American students on an American college campus. Three of the four students killed had been among those challenging the guard, but one was on her way to class. Nine other students were wounded; one was left paralyzed.

College students launched more on campus demonstrations across the country denouncing the student killings and President Richard Nixon's escalation of the Vietnam War, which had sparked the fatal rally and the burning of the university's ROTC building. Ten days after Kent State, two more students were killed at Jackson State University in Mississippi while demonstrating the actions of the Ohio National Guard.

The other three students killed that Monday on the campus lawn 38 years ago Sunday were: Allison Krause, 19, Sandra Scheuer, 20, and William Schroeder, 19. The Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young song Ohio is in honor of the students.

The photograph by Filo went on to win a Pulitzer Prize. Filo works for CBS.

Vecchio, one of six children of Frank and Claire Vecchio, a maintenance worker at the Port of Miami and a housewife, was recognized by her father in the photo that ran in major newspapers across the country. She was returned home from Indianapolis, where she went after the shootings.

Then-Florida Gov. Claude Kirk, chastised her involvement in the fatal rally telling reporters she had ''been planted there by the Communists.'' Her mother told the New York Times in 1990 that ''people wrote letters telling her daughter that she was responsible'' for the deaths for having taken part in the demonstration and ignoring orders from the guards.

''Can you imagine a 14-year-old girl having to deal with that?'' Claire Vecchio said.

Vecchio, who attended Westview Junior High, eventually settled in Las Vegas.

At a ceremony at Kent State last year to mark the 37th anniversary of the shootings, Vecchio said: ``We didn't do anything wrong.

We were just voicing our opinion right here on this lawn. We had the freedom to do that. ''

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
--Robert F. Kennedy, 1968

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2008/05/recreate-68-files-lawsuit-naming-us.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2008/05/potential-for-trouble-in-denver-has.html

In response to misunderstandings, inaccuracies and deliberate distortions in the media about the meaning of the group’s name, the members of the organizing committee of Recreate 68­, an umbrella organization planning and providing support for demonstrations around the Democratic National Convention, ­have decided to present the truth about the organization and its obviously controversial name, once and for all.

Let us be clear: the name is not “Recreate Chicago 68” or “Recreate the DNC 68.” The idea that “Recreate 68” refers specifically to the events of late August 1968 in Chicago has been put out by those who wish to discredit an organization planning peaceful, nonviolent protests by associating it with what they would have us believe was a violent protest 40 years ago. Let us also be clear that those conducting this smear campaign are distorting history: what happened in Chicago in 1968 was not a violent protest, but rather a “police riot,” the term used by the Walker Commission, a body appointed by the Nixon administration to investigate the events surrounding the Chicago convention.

In the words of the commission, those events were characterized by “unrestrained and indiscriminate police violence on many occasions, particularly at night. That violence was made all the more shocking by the fact that it was often inflicted upon persons who had broken no law, disobeyed no order, made no threat. These included peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, and large numbers of residents who were simply passing through, or happened to live in the areas where confrontations were occurring. Newsmen and photographers were singled out for assault, and their equipment deliberately damaged. Fundamental police training was ignored; and officers, when on the scene, were often unable to control their men. As one police officer put it: `What happened didn't have anything to do with police work..’"

Obviously, neither Recreate 68 nor anyone else wants to see that kind of police violence repeated in Denver this August. That is why members of R68 began meeting with representatives of the mayor’s office and the Denver Police Department over a year ago to try to ensure that the rights of demonstrators to engage in peaceful, nonviolent free speech activities­, marches and demonstrations, ­would be respected; and why R68 has applied for permits to use city parks, and to engage in marches, and has worked with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild to assert our First Amendment Rights.

What then does the name Recreate 68 mean? The 1960s were a time of profound, positives social and political change in this country. The civil rights movement ended legal segregation and broke down barriers to the full participation of African Americans in American life (still yet to be fully achieved). Other movements followed that achieved the same for women and for other oppressed communities of color. That in 2008 the two leading candidates for the Democratic nomination for President are an African American man and a woman something unimaginable at the start of the 60s­is a direct result of the changes brought about in that decade.

Those changes were eventually codified in law. But they were brought about not by political “leaders,” but by mass movements of people who demanded that America live up to its own democratic rhetoric, by grassroots movements that forced the system to respond to their demands, and opened up new political space for ordinary people to participate in the decisions that affected their lives.

That spirit of participatory democracy culminated in 1968. Since then, a right-wing backlash has attempted to roll back the gains of those years, to “recreate” an America in which a ruling elite of wealthy, privileged white males and large corporations made a mockery of the promise of democracy. For the past 40 years, we have seen increasing economic inequality, a fierce attack on affirmative action and other programs aimed at aiding oppressed communities, an assault on civil liberties and, most recently, an attempt to equate political dissent with criminality or “terrorism.” Under the Bush administration, the right has come dangerously close to achieving their goal.

Some of the problems we face now are eerily reminiscent of 1968: most obviously, a costly, unpopular and illegal war. Others are unique to our time: a faltering economy, a shrinking middle class, a health care crisis, global warming. But one thing is as true now as it was then: neither of the two major parties is seriously addressing the needs and desires of the majority of the American people, because both are captive to the corporate interests that finance their campaigns. The Democrats have played their role in this global crisis. Yes, a Republican is in the Whitehouse, but the Congress is controlled by Democrats unwilling to use their power to make a true positive change on these issues. And nothing will change until, as they did in the 60s, the people take their destiny into their own hands, and force their “leaders” to change.

The organizers of Recreate 68 say, “The time is now.” It is time to recreate the spirit of mass political participation of the 60s. To recreate the spirit that will once again force this country to live up to its own professed principles of democracy, equality and human rights. To recreate the idealism that brought millions of people into the streets to challenge authority, to question assumptions, and to succeed.

The time is now to end the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan; to use the money being wasted there to meet the needs of the American people; to provide health care for everyone; to restore civil liberties; to create a humane immigration policy; to replace the tragedy of “free trade” with fair trade; to combat global warming; and to transform a corrupt, corporate-dominated political system into real democracy.

Recreate 68! Back to the Future!

In Solidarity,

Members of Recreate 68 Alliance (an alliance of over 40 national and local progressive groups)

P.S. If you are interested in participating or endorsing our efforts, information can be found at www.recreate68.org. info@recreate68.org

For Those Paying Attention To the Pre-Convention Ferment In Denver, With a Meltdown Possible. Listen to Limbaugh pouring Gasoline on The Fire and Coming Close to the Line Of Shouting “FIRE” in a darkened theater!

850 KOA "SCREW THE WORLD, RIOT IN DENVER!"

http://850koa.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=261777&article=3596738

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Yesterday, Rush took a call from a listener who thought that Rush's ego may be getting away from him a bit, and that his Operation Chaos may have ramifications beyond Rush's control.

Of course the local drive-by media (see Channel 7) is falsely reporting that Rush is calling for violence at the convention.

Click Here to listen to the call, hear it for yourself and come talk about it in our forum.

Or you can always read the transcript for yourself below:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Sinking Spring, Pennsylvania. This is Brian. Great to have you here, sir.

CALLER: Yes, thank you. I was calling to comment on -- on -- on first of all the gentleman that had called in earlier about your ego. I am a Republican, and I'm a very conservative Republican. However, I have to agree a little bit, Rush, that -- from a comment that you made a little while ago, that -- I do believe your ego is run away with you slightly.

RUSH: Well, first off, it was an e-mail. The guy didn't call actually; I read an e-mail from him that my ego was out of control.

CALLER: Understood. Well, I believe in ego. I believe it's a necessary for your occupation. I believe it's the engine that, you know, that needs to be fed to make you good at what you do. I'm in sales, and I believe that for myself. But your comment about wanting your Operation Chaos to go all the way, like back to 1968 with riots in the streets, turned over burning cars, and I believe you even said "literally."

RUSH: I did say literal riots. Al Sharpton has promised them!

CALLER: But you said, "That's what we want." That's not good for anybody, and hopefully you really don't want that, and most of us don't. I believe in your Operation Chaos. It showed great ingenuity, and it was and is a fantastic idea. However, riots and burning cars would make all Americans look bad. I believe our whole premise

RUSH: To who? To who would it make all Americans look bad?

CALLER: To the world.

RUSH: Oh, screw it! Screw the world! You know, I can't.

CALLER: I think there's that ego again. (laughing)

RUSH: It will make...? Do you really think we ought to govern ourselves on the basis of what the world thinks of us?

CALLER: I believe that we need -- that our whole premise on working hard for our side is to bring all Americans together, Democrats, Republicans, and independents even, under one common goal that our forefathers designed for us.

RUSH: That's what we're trying to do. You don't bring them together. We don't bring people together. That's not how this country works. We defeat our political adversaries so that they're in the minority.

CALLER: I believe that, with -- with passion. But then also, I mean our -- our whole premise was our Constitution for our safety, you know, for our children's safety. And what would that show by riots and burning cars no matter what side did that? I just think, Rush, that that comment was a little out of line and maybe just not properly thought through. Because I don't believe that way, and I don't believe that most of us want that. Because people get hurt in those situations -- and we believe that our side as Republicans, we can do it better than the rest.

RUSH: As we would be demonstrating because there won't be riots at our convention.

CALLER: Actually they would be demonstrating as Americans.

RUSH: We don't riot.

CALLER: -- that they're more out of control.

RUSH: We don't burn our cars. We don't burn down our houses. We don't kill our children. We don't do half the things the American left does. We need the American left -- and this is another great thing about Operation Chaos; nothing to do with my ego. We need as many ignorant Americans to wake up and find out exactly who the modern-day Democrat Party is as dominated by the far left in this country. We need that to be seen. Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming. (singing to the tune of White Christmas) "I'm dreaming of riots in Denver." Remember 1968? And which party did that? It was the radicals in that party, the anti-war radicals, the same bunch of clowns that are running around defining the Democrat Party today. What the world thinks of us? There was an analogy just this week about somebody in the world. I'm drawing a mental blank about this. But the fact is that the Democrat Party has members in it that have already said, "There will be riots," or something to that effect. Al Sharpton.

He was throwing down the gauntlet to the superdelegates: "You take this election away from Barack Obama, and there's gonna be trouble. There's going to be trouble in Denver." As for the rest of the world and what they think of us, you know, there's nothing that frustrates me more than to hear that. What part of the world do we care about? What part of the world do we want approval from? Do we want approval from the Europeans who have gone so damn wussy that they cannot -- they could not if they had to -- mount a military defense of themselves if they were attacked? Not even with NATO, because it has been allowed to lapse. Is it those people that we want the approval from? Do we want approval from people like Robert Mugabe? Do we want approval from some of the warlords and terrorists of Al-Qaeda? Who in the world do we want approval from? Do we want approval from Hamas, like Jimmy Carter does? We have the approval of our allies. We have the approval of the UK. We have the approval of the Australians. Do we want the approval of the Chinese? Do we want the approval of Kim Jong Il.

Who do we want to love us? What is this? I guarantee you: You live your life this way as an individual, and you are forever going to be confused and unhappy because you will be embarking on something that's impossible, and that is, A, to make everybody like you; and, B, respect you. This is something that has to be earned, particularly on the side of respect -- and respect is earned with strength. Nobody is going to respect you if they figure out you're doing whatever you have to do to get their approval. They're going to laugh at you! They're going to think you're a weak-kneed wuss. So the hell with that! We do, hopefully, the right thing for the sake of this country. We're the only ones in charge of our affairs. We don't farm out our defense, unless we elect Democrats. We don't farm out our protection against attack and national security, unless we elect Democrats. We don't farm out our economy and tear it up in the name of a hoax called global warming, unless we elect Democrats. Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats -- and that's the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think: Don't elect Democrats!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Let me tell you something, folks. If there are riots in Denver, the world is gonna just think that we're just like them, and we have something in common with them, and isn't that what we want to say: "We're all the same"?

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9050920

Limbaugh dreams of DNC riot

The radio host angers many with his comments on the August convention in Denver.

By Joey Bunch
The Denver Post

Rush Limbaugh says he is not calling for a riot in Denver during the Democratic National Convention — he only "dreams" of it, to the tune of "White Christmas."

The conservative talker discussed the possibility of Mile High unrest in August on his national radio show for a second day in a row Thursday.

"Now, I am not inspiring or inciting riots. I'm dreaming, I'm dreaming of riots in Denver," he said mimicking the holiday tune.

He explained on air: "Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don't elect Democrats. And that's the best damn thing (that) could happen for this country as far as anything I can think."

Glenn Spagnuolo, an organizer with the protest group Re-create 68, called Limbaugh "a fool."

"We don't need another 5,000 illiterate Limbaugh listeners coming to Colorado," he said, mocking a comment this week by state Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, who called migrant workers "illiterate peasants" as he debated a bill to accommodate up to 5,000 guest workers in the state.

Calls to a Limbaugh spokeswoman were not immediately returned.

Mayor John Hickenlooper said, "Anyone who would call for riots in an American city has clearly lost their bearings."

Jenni Engebretsen, a spokeswoman for the convention, declined to respond to Limbaugh. "I think we'll pass on this one," she said.

Limbaugh is heard by more than 14 million listeners a week.

Limbaugh's Denver affiliate, 850 KOA, issued a statement Thursday saying its marquee talker "was not advocating violence in Denver."

Program director Kris Olinger did not return calls for comment, but the station sent a second e-mail to media stating, "Did he go too far? Or is this just Rush being Rush?"

On Wednesday, Limbaugh had been discussing comments by the Rev. Al Sharpton, who had warned of "trouble" at the convention if the nomination was wrested away from Barack Obama by superdelegates.

Local conservative talk show host and GOP activist John Andrews said he thinks he knows what Limbaugh was getting at.

"Look, nobody seriously wants violence and civil disobedience at the Denver convention," he said. "Rush is just saying, 'Make our day'; if, in fact, the Re-create 68 hooligans or the Al Sharpton street toughs or anybody else wants to disrupt the convention, they're going to hurt Democrats' chances in the fall."

Responding to a caller, Limbaugh held his ground but softened his tone. "Who wishes for riots?" he said to the caller, according to a transcript. "I didn't get the ball rolling. It is Democrats like Al Sharpton who have warned that there will be."

Denver City Councilman Charlie Brown, a Democrat and occasional Limbaugh listener, was outraged. Brown was a teacher in Illinois during the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. He recalled the injuries, chaos, lingering tear gas and disgrace for Chicago as a result.

"What an insult," Brown said of Limbaugh's flippancy. "Regardless of political labels, for any radio announcer to wish a riot on a city so his party could win, that's disgraceful and it's absurd."

He said he has found Limbaugh to be a "great entertainer, but he's really gone too far. It's almost juvenile."

Brown said he did not think Limbaugh was speaking for Republicans when he made the comment.

"I don't believe there is a Republican in this state that would agree with his comment," he said.

The station's listeners had mixed reviews, according to the 850 KOA online discussion forum.

"The man is first and foremost an entertainer, selling radio spots at exorbitant rates," one listener wrote. "He does however have the best interests of the country at heart. The idea that he is somehow trying to foster riots at the DNC is the typical left-wing dodge resorted to when confronted with the consequences of their own actions."

Another said, "I am aware that it is all for show, but that fact that many Americans hang their hats on his every word is quite disturbing. They can't think for themselves. They can't see that he is all about self gain."

Joey Bunch: 303-954-1174 or jbunch@denverpost.com

http://www.politickerco.com/ Colorado Information Update Source…

Concord Bridge Coalition A nonpartisan organization dedicated to protecting our liberties. (An Issues Outline!)

NSPD-51 and the Potential for a Coup d'Etat by National Emergency

New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely

War with Iran May Have Begun with US Offensive in Iraq

US War with Iran: Basra Offensive Fails, Preparations Continue

US War with Iran: Bagdad Offensive and Accusations Against Iran Intensify; US Attack on Iran Expected

Bush/Cheney-Israeli Disinformation Campaign about Iran Directed Against the United States

Shirley Golub running against Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic Primary on June 3, 2008

Contacting Us:

The author welcomes suggested updates, links, or other comments, which can be sent to comments. Please note that this is a nonpartisan effort, so we are open to link suggestions about sites of interest across the political spectrum wishing to preserve our democracy and secure the blessings of liberty. If you want to speak to the author, kindly send your request with contact information to contact author. If you wish to send anything by mail, please address it to:

Concord Bridge Coalition
PO Box 1497
East Dennis, MA 02641-1497

Presenting William H. White (An Analyst I seldom have issue with)

US War with Iran: Basra Offensive Fails, Preparations Continue
by William H. White
April 7, 2008

Despite the failed Basra offensive, the Bush administration's actions and related events indicate they are continuing toward carrying out a long planned attack against Iran. In our March 28, 2008 report: War with Iran May Have Begun with Offensive in Iraq, we concluded the attacks against the Mahdi Army, in Baghdad and Basra, were part of a set of preliminary operations in preparation for the main offensive against Iran, and continue to agree with that assessment.

In addition, we now conclude the Basra offensive, having failed spectacularly, undermined the Iraqi government's already diminished political authority, along with the Shiite Dawa Party faction it represents, and any hope the Nouri al-Maliki government had of weakening the Sadr movement before the scheduled October elections. So rather than strengthening the US military's Shiite flank in Iraq, the failed offensive has weakened it, while concomitantly enhancing the standing of the rival Shiite Mahdi Army faction and its leader Moktada al Sadr, much as Israel's attacks on Lebanon failed to weaken the Hezbollah.

Given the Bush administration continues to be far more plan/ideology driven than event/data driven, we do not expect the failed Basra offensive to turn the Bush administration away from its planned attack against Iran; instead, the Bush administration is likely to throw more resources at the US military's now weakened Shiite flank and proceed as though it succeeded. So we expect the Bush administration:

to continue to back its now diminished Shiite partners by increasing operations against and laying siege to the Mahdi Army controlled areas of Baghdad;

to quickly rebuild/reinforce its offensive capabilities around Basra before resuming operations against the Mahdi Army there;

to maintain an overall state of conflict and anti-Iranian environment in Iraq, especially increasing the frequency and volume of apparently baseless accusations that Iran is underwriting attacks against US coalition forces, much as the Weapons of Mass Destruction theme was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, meeting requests for evidence with new accusations, which the media dutifully report without qualification.

Nothing, including a collapse of the Iraqi government, is likely to change Bush's determination to "hit" Iran, although the depth and duration of the attacks might be attenuated by a set of early failures. In fact, attacking Iran could very well lead to the collapse in one or more governments in the region, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Israel.

Presumably, if there are policy level debates within the administration about the wisdom of attacking Iran, the central question before the National Security Council is likely to be whether the attacks on Iran will result in an ongoing war between the US and Iran as well as other likely global consequences, with the Cheney/Israel lobby neo-con faction pressing for an attack and suggesting few consequences, and the Gates/Rice/Paulson realist faction opposing attacks and predicting grave consequences. Because of the ongoing economic crisis, Secretary of Treasury Paulson is expected to play a more prominent role in the deliberations than he might otherwise, lending additional weight to serious consideration of at least some near-term consequences.

We assume expected damage to the US and global economies, as well as a de facto world trade embargo against US goods, will likely become increasingly important compared to the concerns advanced by Cheney and the Israel Lobby, such as the dangers Iran presents to the US and Israel from its "support of terrorism" and "nuclear weapons 'programs and knowledge'".

Another factor is the conflict between Bush's father and his segregate, Cheney, whose competing, collective effects on Bush's behavior appear to be critical as well as contradictory and unpredictable, in other words, clearly present but admittedly incomprehensible. Proximate influence is particularly important in Bush's case because, despite significant efforts to create impressions to the contrary, Bush neither reads well nor willingly, so he is uninformed, isolated and unusually dependent on his immediate circle for information and feedback. Also possible, perhaps even likely, is the continued undermining of the Bush administration by elements of the intelligence community, both on and off the record, such as the NIE on Iraq not having a nuclear weapons program and leaks about war plans and preparations.

An alternative assessment starts and ends with George W. Bush, who will make a personal decision, based on what he thinks will be best for himself and the Bush family, with broader considerations largely irrelevant, and deliberations within the administration of no real influence.

As far as can be determined, the US Congress, which abandoned its oversight post long ago, will not be a factor of any consequence in Bush's decision to attack Iran. In fact, the current situation, even before a war with Iran, is one of the great crises in American history, due almost entirely to the actions of a reckless president, through his willful and disrespectful acts of lawlessness, whom the US Congress, weakened and corrupted by the rise of corporate power, failed to impeach, or even confront Bush.

Our own assessment: A major US attack against Iran will ignite a US-Iran war, which will almost certainly result in grave global economic and political consequences as well as the most serious political and economic destabilization of the United States since the Civil War.

Event Summary:

· The United States military offensive against Iran continues its initial conditioning phase despite the failed offensive against the Mahdi Army in Basra, which, retaining its arms, stopped fighting government forces after the release of the text of a negotiated cease-fire agreement between its leader, cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and the Iraqi government. The Mahdi Army withdrew from the field in response to orders and presumably would reappear when so ordered. The only positive outcome for the US may have been a brief confirmation of Sadr's whereabouts, perhaps with an opportunity to plant a tracking device among his entourage. US operations against the Mahdi Army in Baghdad continue.

· The Saudi government, after meeting with vice-president Cheney, undertook actions the next day to prepare for a possible release of radiation, presumably having been told about this danger arising from attacked Iranian nuclear facilities. This has also caused speculation in some quarters about the possible use of nuclear weapons by the US, which appear to be unfounded, at least in the initial phase of the war.

· British delay their Iraq withdrawal. Prime Minister Browne said: "It is prudent that we pause any further reductions while the current situation is unfolding."

· Additional US Naval assets, approaching pre-2003 invasion levels, are reportedly positioning in-theater. [As a matter of policy we neither report, nor attempt to predict, specific unit locations or the movements of any armed force.]

· Israel readies largest exercise ever to prepare for Iran-Syria missile war, which might well by a deployment masquerading as an exercise.

· An unusual set of four cable cuts caused wide-spread Internet outages in the Middle East and India; however, reports that Iran had been cut off from the internet are incorrect.

A Problem with Puppet Governments: Phantom Armies

There is a well know and ancient problem with puppet governments: they often field Phantom Armies. When an imperial power pays to raise local armies, the requisite payroll and arms create an irresistible temptation for local commanders. The more troops reportedly equipped and fielded, the greater the local commander's payroll and arms store. And the greater the local commander's force, the greater the "success" of the imperial army's advisors in the eyes of the imperial government paying the bills. If a soldier does not exist, his pay goes into the pockets of the local command structure and his weapon onto the black market or into a militia armory; or, if the fighter exists, a portion may go to the faction that fielded the soldier, whose loyalty the faction retains. The imperial military's own rank and file's doubts about the puppet government's army are suppressed in the interests of reporting success. Soon the imperial headquarters' maps begin to show whole units whose actual size and capability are a fraction of their nominal strength and tactical value, if they exist at all. And, if those forces do exist, then their lack of loyalty or reliability make them potentially worst than useless.

In Iraq, General Petraeus, a particularly political general, has been arming, willy nilly, any faction prepared to pretend to be part of US led coalition or at least appear to serve its interests. So, for example, Sunni "terrorists" have been transformed into ad hoc militia forces, such as "Awakening" movement, and have been hailed by the Bush administration as evidence of Petraeus' genius. A reduction in attacks on US forces, as they hand out weapons and funds, is pointed to as proof of the coalition's success. However, this is the military version of cooked corporation books, wherein both long term strategic interests and near term tactical coherence are sacrificed for the illusion of success in the next quarterly report. The essential difficulty here is those factions eventually begin to act as the independent agents they are, especially when asked to disarm, or to deploy any distance from home, or to join the puppet government's army, or to attack parties with whom they are allied or with whom they have no quarrel.

Further, under the press of circumstance and ever shifting alliances of Iraq's tribal society, these factions, once armed by the US military, can then turn on each other and their US benefactors. In short, all progress in paying for and arming factions actually results an illusionary calm. In the case of Iraq, the tribal militias are very real and completely unreliable US coalition partners, while the puppet government's army is largely a phantom, except for special units whose behavior is indistinguishable from other factions. Whatever Iraqi forces being fielded by General Petraeus are, they are not a national army answerable to our puppet government.

And therein lies the core weakness of US Iraq War plans. Those thousands of Iraqi police and troops, which we claim to have fielded in reports of success to the president and Congress, and via the media to the American people and our allies, are not only not a useful force, but represent a serious risk to US forces. In fact, the utility of the so-called Surge itself was in part to insulate local Iraqi forces from actual war fighting responsibility, supposedly giving them needed time to train and to prepare to "take up the burden," but in fact to delay the day of reckoning. And all is well, until such units confront an enemy who shoots back, as happened in Basra, whereupon Iraqi government forces "melted" away or turned on US and Iraqi government forces as the enemy.

And so the much heralded Basra offensive, of which Bush said, "[A]s we speak, Iraqi security forces are waging a tough battle against militia fighters and criminals in Basra—many of whom have received arms and training and funding from Iran," went belly up. Just days after issuing a surrender ultimatum to the Mahdi Army, a reported Iraqi government police and military force of 30,000 melted away in the face of determined resistance from neighborhood militias with no heavy weapons. This despite Iraqi government tanks, US air support, British artillery support, and reportedly US special forces units acting as a bracing force.

According to a report in the New York Times, "The [British] defense secretary, Desmond Browne, also used his statement in the House of Commons to acknowledge that British military involvement in last week’s fighting in Basra was more extensive than previously disclosed. At one point, he said, British tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and ground troops were deployed to help extract Iraqi government troops from a firefight with Shiite militiamen in the city. Mr. Browne said British involvement in that battle was in addition to other actions in support of Iraqi forces. He said those actions included aerial surveillance of the city; low-level missions by combat aircraft aimed at reinforcing Iraqi troops by establishing a menacing aerial presence over combat zones; the use of helicopters that carried food and ammunition to the Iraqis; and medical care for wounded Iraqi troops at British combat hospitals outside the city. Mr. Browne said the use of British ground troops in the fighting was ordered 'in extremis', suggesting that the deployment of forces from the British base at Basra was a last-ditch measure to save Iraqi troops." In other words, the Basra offensive was a complete failure, called a "setback" in the success-speak of the US command in Iraq and Republicans in Washington.

In a final theatrical absurdity, the Iraqi government announced many of these "troops," likely payroll phantoms, were to be charged with desertion, thereby hoping to assuage a reportedly stunned Bush White House, where Bush stumbled into an ambush of his own, when, in a rare appearance before an unvetted audience, Bush was roundly booed by many of the 41,000 fans as he threw out the first pitch for the opening season game at the new Nationals Park.

The US broke the six month cease-fire being observed by the Mahdi Army because the cease-fire did not serve US interests, so the respite after the failed Basra offensive is likely to be brief, used to continue to build up Iraqi forces in Basra, to renew soon efforts to place the Mahdi Army in Basra back under siege and otherwise prepare to deal with the expected response to attacks on Iran. The siege against the Mahdi Army in Baghdad is likely to intensify, using US troops, in the hopes of quickly creating a offsetting success.

All this illusionary success presents an insurmountable obstacle to even talking about withdrawal, because once the possible end to the arms and funds appears on the event horizon, various factions in and out of the US coalition will begin to maneuver, positioning themselves to deal with the pending new reality and abandoning the pretense that sustains the current situation. Just as they did when the British left Basra to the Iraqis, which the Basra offensive was designed to fix as well as to cover the US flank in the Iran attacks. Within this context, Bush must decide: Should he try to hang on until the next president takes command of this pending disaster, risking a "Tet" like offensive in the fall before US elections that would manifestly demonstrate Bush's failure; or, should Bush double-down on the Iraq gamble by attacking Iran, which would then be blamed for US "setbacks." It appears likely the US will leave Iraq the way it entered: accompanied by in a blizzard of lies.

Saudi Nuclear Concerns

Saudi Arabia's Shura council, a high level leadership advisory board, is considering the issue of nuclear radiation from the US bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. What is most concerning about this development is the timing: vice-president Cheney visited the Saudis one day, and the next day "it was revealed that the Saudi Shura Council -- the elite group that implements the decisions of the autocratic inner circle -- is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors," one of the kingdom's leading newspapers, Okaz, reports. The German-based DPA news service relayed the paper's story, according to Chris Floyd's blog Empire Burlesque. The Bush administration, as well as the rest of the world, should also note that no major story, especially one this sensitive and in a leading paper, appears without the Saudi government's approval, indicating Bush has fewer friends in the Middle-East after the Bush-Cheney visits to the region than before. Bush might find it useful if Rice reviewed with Bush the State Department's own appraisal of Cheney's visit, in case Cheney's own account needed clarification or fleshing out.

Nuclear Weapon Use

Another source of concern, besides whatever Dick Cheney whispered in Saudi ears during his visit, Bush has repeatedly and pointedly refused to rule out nuclear weapons use with regard to Iran. So presumably, at some point in the likely escalating exchanges between the US and Iran, Bush would be open to using nuclear weapons against Iran, perhaps even in the opening attack on large underground facilities. Or in retaliation for a catastrophic naval losses, such as an aircraft carrier lost to Iranian missile attacks.

US Naval Deployments

In any conflict with Iran, the risk to the US Navy is substantial, because of Bush's reckless deployment of ships close to Iranian land based missiles, in another example of Bush's seeming failure to consider anything other than his own intentions when making decisions. Or are our ships and sailors bait to create a incident serious enough to justify going to war with Iran?

Rumor of an Iran Internet Cutoff

An unusual number of undersea cable failures caused wide-spread service degradation throughout the Middle-East, except for Israel and Iraq. While some of these cuts may have been deliberate acts, until the cable break sites are inspected and repaired, the nature of the damage remains unknown. Given some confusion about dates among sources, these are the probable dates as well as known locations and cable systems involved:

1. 01/23/08: the Flag Europe-Asia, off Egyptian coast, (submarine cable cut);

2. 01/27/08: the SeaMeWe-4 (South East Asia-Middle East-Western Europe-4), off Egyptian coast, (submarine cable cut);

3. 01/30/08: Flag Falcon, between UAE and Oman, (submarine cable cut);

4. 02/01/08: Qatar Telecom, between Qatar and the UAE, (fire in a related power system).

Reports that Iran's internet service had been completely cut off were incorrect, which may have arisen from misinterpreting a few failed link paths caused to the cable losses. Iran's service losses were about 20% of capacity.

The US Navy has capabilities specifically focused on undersea cable tapping and cutting operations: Blind Man's Bluff: The Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage, by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew (New York: Public Affairs, 1998).

Changing US Dollar's Role in Oil Trading

Some of the cable failure speculation centered around the new Iran Oil Bourse (IOB), whose planned start coincided with the cable failures. The IOB is an Internet based, peer-to-peer oil trading system being established by the Iranian government with the assistance of Chris Cook, a British subject, who was once director of the International Petroleum Exchange and the originator of the idea upon which IOB is based. A report on IOB states that "Cook believes that the proposed IOB structure will remove much of the current price volatility caused by a toxic combination of speculation by hedge funds and market manipulation by intermediary traders." Another feature of the system of some strategic import: It ends the US Dollar role as the settlement currency for oil trades.

Summary:

Our overall assessment remains largely unchanged from our March 10, 2008 report New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely:

"The more significant Iran's response or the more disruptive the economic and political consequences, the more likely the attack on Iran would be combined with or be followed by a formal declaration by Bush of a national emergency, possibly affecting US national elections, resulting in a de facto coup d'état and the most serious destabilization of the United States since the civil war. While these risks would normally result in swift dismissal of such a plan of action, unfortunately such an attack on Iran would be consistent with Bush's history of striking out at those who impede or criticize him as well as his willingness to take radical actions because of an apparent failure to appreciate the institutional and systemic costs involved.

While there is some chance of stabilizing the situation early in the sequence of escalating events, this would require the concerted efforts of responsible US, Iranian, and international governing authorities, provided Bush can be persuaded to halt the attacks, the Iranians to limit their response to within their borders, and the rest of the world's governments and populace to respond with sufficient restraint. But history gives small comfort about such a turn of events involving nations with irresponsible leadership and substantial resources."

The failed Basra offensive will be followed by reinforcing Iraqi government forces, who would be expected to undertake a more slowing evolving siege of the Mahdi Army in Basra, under closer supervision and support of US forces. Arrests of Iranian agents and weapons store seizures should occur along with operations along the Syrian and Iranian borders with Iraq as well as possible naval incidents.

Taking Action:

These reports are not intended to be an academic exercise, but rather as a warning and a call to create an alternative outcome. One possible alternative to Bush's war with Iran is for every concerned American to contact the US Congress to demand, REPEATEDLY, that Congress do its duty and stop Bush from starting a war with Iran: This government has nothing to fear, except your courage to join in spirit those who stood upon Concord Bridge and fired a shot heard around the world, this time within the law to protect the law itself.

Now is our time to act.

Call your representatives in Congress regularly until Congress acts to control Bush by:

Vote a binding resolution demanding Bush obtain authorization from Congress before any attack on Iran, no matter what the circumstances;

Restore Posse Comitatus Act by enacting US Senate Bill S.513 and US House bill H.R. 869;

Repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and restore habeas corpus for all by enacting bill H.R.3835;

Hold impeachment hearings on Cheney; write to John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to urge hearings be held on House Resolution 333 introduced by Rep. Kucinich in a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives on November 6, 2007; and, to House Speaker Pelosi to demand she end her "impeachment is off the table" dictum, a de facto suspension of the impeachment clause of the US Constitution;

Include in relevant appropriation bills wording such that no funds can be spent for a declared national emergency, except upon a vote of Congress to invoke, if congress is in session, and to continue such emergency only upon a continuing resolution by Congress every 30-days;

Congress should hold in contempt the head of any department or agency of the executive branch, including the White House, for failing to respond to subpoena; and withhold some or all funds and appointments from those departments, when such subpoena is found to be enforceable by the courts;

Establish an office of special prosecutor, to be appointed by and answerable to a federal district court, with independent funding directly from Congress, to investigate high crimes committed by any member of the executive branch while exercising their official duties, including issuing or obeying illegal orders resulting in torture, murder or kidnap or violating a treaty to which the US is a signatory, where such violation prescribes capital punishment or imprisonment of up to 10 or more years;

Amend the US Constitution to limit president's pardon authority, so no pardon may be issued by a president for: himself, vice-president, or any person working for the executive branch, except members of the armed forces, for crimes committed during the president's term in office; or, for any person under indictment, at trial, or appealing conviction for the offense to be pardoned; or, for any person under subpoena, impeachment or on trial by the Congress. Presidential pardons should be acts of merciful forgiveness and belated restoration, not obstructions of justice, license for ongoing criminality, nor payment for services or favors rendered.

In addition to contacting Congress, each of us can act lawfully, as individuals and together with others, to halt this drift toward tyranny:

Inform yourself, such as learning about the Ten Steps to Shutting Down a Democratic Society.

Writing to editors, calling radio and TV stations to demand serious coverage of this issue;

Talking to your family, friends and co-workers;

Joining in public protests in support of democracy in America;

Supporting members of Congress, such as Ron Paul, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich, who have acted to control Bush/Cheney and restore the rule of law;

Making defense of democratic governance a campaign issue by demanding other candidates for public office speak up;

Lobby members of Congress indirectly through their contributors;

Joining non-partisan organizations dedicated to stopping our government's worst abuses of power, such as the American Freedom Campaign and the American Freedom Agenda;

Since the so-called two party system is a one party system pretending to be two, register as an independent and evaluate candidates without regard to party affiliation;

Write-in "None of the Above" when no listed candidate for an office is worthy of support; and,

Study the issue of corporate power, including its control over our economy and government and corporate media censorship.

Support Shirley Golub who is running against Nancy Pelosi in the Democratic Primary on June 3, 2008

In the media:

The Expanding Police State (Excellent conference, with three talks)

The Shock Doctrine by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein

Kurt Vonnegut on current politics

American: The Next Rome?

Democracy Now!

Bush's Impeachable Crimes, and the Growing Risks of Martial Law by Dave Lindorff

Jerome Corsi on c-span.

Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America

Naomi Klein "The Shock Doctrine" & "No Logo" interview

Program about using clergy during martial law

Further reading:

New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely by William H. White

Martial Law, Concentration Camps, and Fascism: Are These Real Concerns To Americans?

"Rule by fear or rule by law?" San Francisco Chronicle February 4, 2008 by Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg

The Kakistocracy Exposes Its Hand by Edwin Vieira

Police State America - A Look Back and Ahead by Stephen Lendman

Bill of Rights Under Bush: A Timeline by PhilLeggiere

Inside the Martial Law Act of 2006 by James Bovard

Gangs of America - The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy, by Ted Nace

Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thom Hartmann

Congressional Research Service Report - National Emergency Powers

"Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy" by Charlie Savage

"The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein

Review by Christopher C. Joyner of "Extraordinary Justice: Military Tribunals in Historical and International Context"

President Bush thinks of another way to end democracy by "Hume's Ghost"

Operation Falcon and the Looming Police State by Mike Whitney

Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Bush Makes Power Grab - And Response by chattanoogan.com

The Bush Push to Militarize America by Jerome Corsi

Bush Moves Toward Martial Law by Frank Morales

Turning The Police State Apparatus Against Dissenters by Steve Watson

The "Use of the Armed Forces" in America under a National Emergency by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot by Naomi Wolf

Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

McWane, Representative Davis? Who's McWane? [Effective Lobbying] by ralphlopez

This document is updated frequently, see the Most Up-To-Date Version available at its originating site.

Contact Us with comments at: Comments, especially if you have information that contradicts our data or assessments.

Copyright © 2008 William H. White All rights are reserved; except, permission is granted for anyone to copy and distribute this document on the WEB. ~ The author asks that links in the text be retained.

US War with Iran: Bagdad Offensive and Accusations Against Iran Intensify; US Attack on Iran Expected

by bhwhite

As we conclude in our April 7, 2008 report, "the Bush administration is likely to throw more resources at the US military's now weakened Shiite flank and proceed as though it succeeded. So we expect the Bush administration:

· to continue to back its now diminished Shiite partners by increasing operations against and laying siege to the Mahdi Army controlled areas of Baghdad;

· to quickly rebuild/reinforce its offensive capabilities around Basra before resuming operations against the Mahdi Army there;

· to maintain an overall state of conflict and anti-Iranian environment in Iraq, especially increasing the frequency and volume of apparently baseless accusations that Iran is underwriting attacks against US coalition forces, much as the Weapons of Mass Destruction theme was used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq, meeting requests for evidence with new accusations, which the media dutifully report without qualification."

Since then events have continued to build toward a US attack on Iran, with little movement away from war, after a brief period of cooperation between the Iraqi and Iranian governments to arrange a cease fire in Basra, the situation continues to deteriorate, including repeated US accusations against Iran and Moqtada al-Sadr's threats of a reciprocal escalation for the increasingly bloody siege by US and Iraqi government forces of the Shiite ghettoized slum, Sadr City, in Baghdad.

Event Summary:

· While we do not discuss specific military deployments, the Bush administration continues its build-up of air, naval and special operations forces in theater, with a flurry of visits by US defense officials to "allies" whose bases or air space would be needed to support the attack on Iran.

· US and Iraqi government forces have laid siege to approximately 3.5 million people of Sadr City, a mostly Shiite slum in Baghdad, the US command claiming it only wants to stop rocket attacks on the Green Zone, when in fact the US began the offensive in March, long before there were any rocket attacks from Sadr City, while the Mahdi Army had been observing a six month long cease fire. Shiite Iran, which has attempted to mediate a cease fire in Baghdad, as it had in Basra, has repeatedly objected to the US offensive. The US operation, where Shiites supporting the US occupation of Iraq are attacking Shiites opposed to the US occupation, is turning this vast slum into a ghetto, as it is increasingly cut off from the rest of Baghdad and subject to daily military assault, creating a profound provocation of Iran that is essentially invisible to the US public.

· US has issued repeated threats against the Iranian government, including radio broadcast to Iran by Bush noting, "And the Iranian people have got to understand that the United States is going to be firm in our desire to prevent the nation from developing a nuclear weapon..."

· Another two naval incidents, one in the Persian Gulf where a US military chartered cargo vessel, Western Venture, fired warning shots at approaching unidentified small boats without known injuries or damage. While adding to regional tensions and increasing oil prices, the incident is likely not a provocative act by either side, but rather much like the other incident at the entrance to Suez Canal, where a boat borne local vendor was shot to death by personnel aboard a US military chartered vessel Global Patriot.

· Iran remains confidant a US attack is unlikely, which is unfortunate because it may lead to ill advised actions or inactions on the part of the Iranians; however, it is also likely that such statements are being accompanied by Iranian defense preparations, perhaps including assistance with its air defense systems provided by Russia, easily observed by US reconnaissance, as a warning to the Bush administration.

· Promotion of General Petraeus, replacing Admiral William Fallon as head of U.S. Central Command, or Centcom, which oversees US military activity throughout the Middle East. The US Congress is expected to rubber stamp the promotion, placing this very political, can-do general where he can do the most harmful bidding of the Bush administration.

· Pictures recently released by the US of Syrian site bombed by Israel on September 6, 2007 appeared to have been doctored [additional analysis]. In addition, there has been a concerted effort to link North Korea to Syrian site, and, in likely short order, to Iran as well.

A New Casus Belli: "Iran Is Killing US Troops"

It now appears the Bush administration has augmented and subordinated the nuclear issue and naval incident as casus belli to the "Iran is killing US troops" propaganda offensive, which immerged with the invention of the so-called "Special Groups" by the US military command, first mentioned by the US Military Command in Iraq on July 2, 2007. They took on new life at the end of March 2008, as reported by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on March 26, 2008, when military spokesman Major General Kevin Bergner, as part of the US Military's effort to "document" Iranian sponsored operations in Iraq, revealed these "Iranian-supported Special Group criminals" were apparently and suddenly everywhere.

Within a month, hundreds of stories in the US corporate media reported all about these "Special Groups", almost without exception identifying them as Iranian trained and fielded. The NYTimes reported by April 24, 2008 that, "73 percent of fatal and other harmful attacks on American troops in the past year were caused by roadside bombs planted by so-called 'special groups.'” according to "Senior officers in the American division that secures the capital." As far as can be determined no credible or even plausible evidence for such groups has been presented by the US Military command in Iraq, let alone by any independent verification of such claims. Instead, in a pattern similar to the run up to the invasion of Iraq, questions about these claims, when raised, are ignored and "answered" with repeated or additional claims.

By the time General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before the US Congress in early April, the "special groups" were an established element in the alternative reality maintained by official Washington and corporate media. In addition, the ever compliant Congress allowed the two to testify for just a single day before the Senate and another day before the House committees in a mockery of oversight, during which not much was made of the question as to whether these claims about "special groups", even if true, legally justified attacking Iran under international law.

It is highly likely arrests of "Iranian agents" and weapons store seizures of "Iranian weapons" will continue, along with operations along the Syrian and Iranian borders with Iraq as well as possible naval incidents. So now the Bush administration has several hair-trigger items poised to "provoke" the US into "defending" itself by attacking Iran. By the time time the attack comes, the US corporate media will be asking why it took the US so long to "react."

Timing of Attack on Iran

From our April 7, 2006 report: "Nothing, including a collapse of the Iraqi government, is likely to change Bush's determination to "hit" Iran, although the depth and duration of the attacks might be attenuated by a set of early failures. In fact, attacking Iran could very well lead to the collapse in one or more governments in the region, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Israel."

While the attack on Iran might well depend on chance, logistics, weather, and Russian acquiescence, we believe a key element relates to the nature of the new Imperial Governance of the United States, wherein Bush will make a personal decision when to attack, and he is not likely to attack before the wedding of his daughter on May 10, 2008. Of course, he might arrange the triggering incident to take place shortly after the wedding in a further pretense at "surprise" on his part. Whatever other elements need fall into place, it is unlikely Mrs. Bush would put up with her husband ruining her daughter's wedding with a war she knows her husband alone will decide to start and can well put off.

Since we continue to believe the attack will likely come before the end of May, or, at the latest June, we think it is likely the attack will come between May 11, 2008 and June 30, 2008. If not, then with near certainty before the US elections in November. Should the attack not come before Bush leaves office, the chances of a major attack on Iran would be greatly diminished, no matter which of the three remaining major candidates takes office in his place, even if potential war provoking incidents between the US and Iran were to occur. And this is why the Israel Lobby is pressing Bush to act before it is "too late."

There is, of course, the possibility that this build-up is part to a bluff to intimidate Iran, but we consider this unlikely. Most fundamentally, what is the demand the US is making upon Iran as part of such a bluff? Iran's nuclear program, whatever its pretenses, is so far from the weapons grade enrichment US nuclear weapons experts can assure US policy makers is required: The 90% plus enrichment required for nuclear explosive devices of minimal yield efficiency, compared with Iran's claimed but unlikely 3% enrichment, indicates that "threat" is baseless and the bluff is pretense.

On the other hand, an example of this gaming of war fears recently occurred, as reported by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on April 13, 2008 when Bush joked about fears of a war between the US and Iran, while at the same time issuing the usual litany about "all options being on the table" and "first effort is to solve this issue diplomatically", exactly the same phrases used before the invasion of Iraq.

One need only recall this is the same man who, as governor of Texas, was reported to have jokingly mimicked the pleas for mercy from a death row prisoner days before for her execution.

Nature of Attack on Iran

The nature of the expected attack on Iran is unknown, as is the likely Iranian response. While such attacks have be long planned, it is likely the limitations on US resources, objections by corporate and financial interests, by the EU and especially by Russia, as well as the private intentions of Bush and Cheney will interact in ways not fully understood, even by those nominally in-charge. The US Congress is not expected to play any significant role in the decision.

Given a decision to attack, two fundamentally different starting points seem equally plausible: 1) a minor casus belli and then a sudden, massive US attack on a wide range of Iranian industrial and military targets, followed by a US call for a cease fire; 2) a series of escalating attacks, first against "special group" support areas along the Iran-Iraq border or Iranian naval assets, depending on the casa belli selected, followed by series of US actions and Iranian reactions, leading eventually to attacks on a wide range of Iranian industrial and military targets, followed by a US call for a cease fire.

These attack "options" have at their core the baseless assumption, apparently held by the administration, that events can be controlled once hostilities commence, whereby the neo-con ideologists hope to leave office with the US at war with much of the Middle East, without having to actually fight a real large scale, resource depleting, continuing global struggle, while at the same time using the rhetoric of the global war on terrorism and disruptions cause by the US-Iran conflict to justify the establishment of an increasingly repressive police state in the US, relentlessly undermining civil liberties and thereby intimidating the US population into accepting the policies demanded by the "war on terror.".

The main objective of all this appears to be a fait accompli, leaving the next administration with a region-wide tar baby, with Israel the only remaining "friend" in the region, otherwise populated with outright enemies or alienated former allies. With Israel positioned to attempt an alliance with the Kurds upon the expected partition of Iraq, following an inevitable US withdrawal. Again, as with the invasion of Iraq, the US planning is front loaded, focused on the mechanics of military operations, with little or no thought given to what happens next, let alone second or third order consequences, except the general intention to take maximum political advantage of the resulting crisis.

Coup d'état by National Emergency

While the following prediction is admittedly both extreme and disheartening, it seems the most likely consequence of the Bush administration's taking maximum political advantage of the crisis they created: A major US attack against Iran will ignite a US-Iran war, which in turn will almost certainly result in grave global economic and political consequences as well as the most serious political and economic destabilization of the United States since the Civil War. As part of which the Bush administration can be expected to undertake a coup d'état by national emergency, declaring martial law in the US and rounding up thousands of domestic political enemies into detention camps. The legal, extra-legal and other institution elements are now in place for such an action, and logistical preparations for martial law continue. We expect the declaration of a national emergency to occur with a month or so of the outbreak of war with Iran, possibly following mass protests, economic destabilization, or other convenient pretext.

Again, with now familiar recklessness, the possibility that events might well spin out of control seems to have alluded the Bush administration, where the focus this time is on the mechanics of implementing martial law rather than its consequences, even though a failed coup might well result in the arrest, trial, and execution of administration officials for treason. Given the possible detention of at least tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of US citizens to maintain control on one hand and Bush administration's mortal peril on the other, the resulting struggle will likely exasperate the predicted political and economic destabilization of the United States, and this is why we expect these events, once begun, would likely to include the largest scale acts of repression and insurrection since the US Civil War, during the next several years it will take to resolve the situation into either a fully established police state or restoration of constitutional governance.

Beyond the damage to the US society and infrastructure, the international consequences of such events are really beyond prediction, except it is likely to result in a global boycott of US goods and, in the near term, a wider war in the Middle East as well as an increased lack of US attention to and participation in international efforts to address serious global issues such as climate change along with its related short falls in food and energy production. As a possible alternative, faced with such consequences, including their own impoverishment, the US ruling elites might well turn on the Bush administration upon its declaration of a national emergency, resulting in a swift and far less damaging resolution.

Prognosis Summary:

Our overall assessment remains largely unchanged from our March 10, 2008 report New UN Sanctions Make US-Iran War More Likely:

"The more significant Iran's response or the more disruptive the economic and political consequences, the more likely the attack on Iran would be combined with or be followed by a formal declaration by Bush of a national emergency, possibly affecting US national elections, resulting in a de facto coup d'état and the most serious destabilization of the United States since the civil war. While these risks would normally result in swift dismissal of such a plan of action, unfortunately such an attack on Iran would be consistent with Bush's history of striking out at those who impede or criticize him as well as his willingness to take radical actions because of an apparent failure to appreciate the institutional and systemic costs involved.

While there is some chance of stabilizing the situation early in the sequence of escalating events, this would require the concerted efforts of responsible US, Iranian, and international governing authorities, provided Bush can be persuaded to halt the attacks, the Iranians to limit their response to within their borders, and the rest of the world's governments and populace to respond with sufficient restraint. But history gives small comfort about such a turn of events involving nations with irresponsible leadership and substantial resources."

The American Failure of Imagination
By A. Peasant(A. Peasant)
The Bush-Cheney administration has made other moves that pave the way to war this summer. General David Petraeus will replace Admiral William Fallon as head of CENTCOM, the US Central Command, which means that, if there is war this ...
Twelfth Bough - http://twelfthbough.blogspot.com/

I Have Seen This Happen Before In The 60s and 70s! : Why We're Leaving

Submitted by karendc on Sat, 2008-05-03 13:44.

What I Do

[cross-posted from the Democracy Cell Project]

When Did We Know We Had To Leave?

Certainly the first indication was right before the 2004 election, after a year-plus of working hard, 24X7, to elect a smart, good, thoughtful, honest man to the White House. Richard (Blogmaster for johnkerry.com, initiator of the first national party website and first online political community sponsored by a political party) and I were sitting in the car on the Sunday prior to election day. He hesitated before turning on the car. "I have a bad feeling," he said. "I have a sense that in churches all over America, people are being told to vote for Bush."

My mind reeled. I had been operating under the assumption that the good guys would win this time. I was much more concerned about what would happen to us WHEN John Kerry and John Edwards were elected. I was concerned because I genuinely respected and liked very few of the folks who were high up in the campaign at that point in time. It seemed to me that they were spending more energy on casting themselves in key roles inside the White House than they were in actually winning the hearts and minds of voters. Few of them seemed to even like or respect John Kerry himself. My concerns were split: that Richard would not find a place of integrity inside the new administration and/or that he WOULD and we would have to hang out with these sleazebags for years.

My concerns were unfounded, his were not.

It was on November 4, 2004, after days of managing the Kerry online community without sleep, that I found the website for homes in Canada. There was a converted church listed, and it sat on the water, serenely overlooking lapping waves. It was open; it had flow and history.

I looked at the church until it disappeared from the listings, then noted when it returned, and then when it returned again.

Meanwhile, the political insiders who made up the bulk of our social lives split up and found camps to join: the MoveOn folks, the policy organizations, various NGOs, Media Matters, the Campaign for America's Future, etc., and, of course, various campaigns. We had a difficult time with all of the organizations; having begun the Democracy Cell Project, we found ourselves competing with much larger and sexier communities. No one believed in the power of a few knowledgeable and motivated folks to change the world, despite Margaret Mead's oft-quoted belief in that possibility. But most significantly, no one believed in the community management skills we had honed over the course of the Kerry Blog. What they did believe in: scaling, page views, market share.

We had nothing to offer on those fronts. Having worked in an atmosphere of the high-touch interactions, and having spent a lot of time and energy on learning how to shift perceptions and manage difficult people, we were uninterested in either the circle jerk of insiders or the ATM machines-for-change that were set up. We proposed helping the Congressional Progressive Caucus build a community and they passed. We advised the Kerry people on how to utilize the loyal supporters they had and were more-or-less ignored.

But we noted that both the Obama and Edwards campaigns were picking up on aspects of what we had promoted, and that felt validating.

As the Clinton campaign got rolling, we watched them make mistake after mistake, online and off. Our friends who were working there were uninterested in our perspectives, and that was OK. The message back to us was that we were a little quaint, under-informed, and possibly disloyal.

We went to Nova Scotia and visited the church, for sale again. it was old and needed work, but the perspective, the water, the distance from insanity, felt marvelous. We made an offer. A few minutes later, another offer came in, without our conditions. We lost the church.

In the past four years, we have also worked with many grassroots, on-the-ground organizations as well: Code Pink, the World Can't Wait, the Backbone Campaign, AfterDowningStreet, etc. We have found a number of folks who truly believe in right action and the inspired moment. Our political insider friends are disdainful about right actions and inspired moments; they believe in data and rolodexes.

Lately, since losing the church as an escape option, watching the activists lose court battles, face, and sometimes heart, and smelling the decaying roadkill of the presidential election, we have come up with a new plan.

A friend once told us of friends of theirs who had fled Nazi Germany. "How did you know when to leave?" they were asked. "It's not that we knew when to leave, but at some point, you realize that you must leave, and then you look for the opportunity to leave."

I have thought about that quote often in the past year. Our insider friends stopped calling us long ago, and the events I have attended that were put on by those organizations, the campaigns, the gatherings, etc. have been tepid enough to convince me that they are not being effective. The Clinton campaign, which has taken a very very bad turn of late, has managed, with more cooperation and less insight than we could have imagined, to drag several of our friends into sordid situations, some of which have become public. The loyalty argument has evolved into something that appears to be even more Mafioso-like than that of the Republicans, which, if you think about it, is stunning and horrific.

Our activist friends are frustrated as well, realizing that Obama is better than Clinton, especially as her campaign's tactics and strategies emerge as ever-more-desperate, but that a President Obama cannot evolve the country back into a true democracy, or even a decent Republic, in any real time. Protests are small and ineffective; actions alienate those trying to move incrementally, incrementalism is slippery.

The blogosphere is equally fragmented, civil discourse is increasingly scarce, management of message is disingenuous and highly controlled, and the progress towards the Democratic nomination is sporadic, random, and without enough soul or heart. We search for truth in piles of manure, sift through crap to find nuggets of hope and vision. Meanwhile, gas is up, food sources are down, jobs are gone, and people are frantic.

We have a beautiful house. I have a very good job. My work is meaningful and useful. Richard's work is truth-telling and has integrity, something few around us can say, but which allows him to sleep better at night than they deserve to. So why are we leaving this house?

We cannot afford to stay. It is that simple. It's not that we are persecuted, like our friend's friends were under the Nazis. It's not that we are unpatriotic or disloyal, as some would say. It's not even that we are so discouraged that we must crawl away to a distant place to lick our wounds. We are not frightened; we are not retreating from battle.

We're just out of resources, and the struggle for resources is draining us from doing the work we know needs to be done. The most valuable resource we have is the house; it is in a great location(five blocks from the Senate) and now, with a new paint job and a yard sale this morning to eliminate excess material goods, it might sell quickly and at a price high enough that we can take the opportunity to do the right action and have more inspired moments.

For us, we are thinking that we will buy some land and build a solar house. We will write about it. We will continue to observe the struggle for democracy and to offer advice when asked, when compensated, and when we can help others be effective. But we will not be enmeshed, close observers of the debacle. There are things we already wish we did not know, and we will not have to know about the new ones. This, we hope, will free us to write about the things we do know, and which need to be shared.

The selling of our house provides us the opportunity to leave. It is the moment to take the opportunity.

The surge is a success! The death toll in Iraq in April reached its highest level since late last year. The four U.S. soldiers who were killed yesterday increased the total military deaths in April to 50, a seven-month high. In addition, the Iraqi government reported that 969 civilians died last month, the highest since August.

The Media are a success: "The Wall Street Journal leads its world-wide newsbox with a poll that shows only 27 percent of voters view the Republican Party in a positive light, which amounts to "the lowest level for either party in the survey's nearly two-decade history." The interesting part of this is that despite these negative numbers, and the fact that a majority of voters would rather see a Democrat in the White House, Sen. John McCain remains in a statistical dead heat with the two Democratic contenders." If they can only keep the news that McCain is in fact a Republican, who voted with Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007, they can continue to Support the Surge!

Networks again refuse to go on the record about NY Times' military analyst expose

Summary: ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not reported on any of their news programs The New York Times' revelations about the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon. Further, the major broadcast networks and cable news networks all reportedly declined to discuss the issue for an NPR report; the networks similarly reportedly declined to participate in an April 24 PBS NewsHour segment on the issue.

The three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- and the three major cable news networks -- CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC -- all reportedly declined to participate in a segment on the April 24 edition of PBS' NewsHour regarding "the role of military analysts on TV and in the Pentagon." Further, according to a search of programs in Nexis, several of these outlets have yet to report on the revelations in an April 20 New York Times article by investigative reporter David Barstow, who wrote that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts, many of whom have clients with an interest in obtaining Pentagon contracts, "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks."

During the NewsHour segment, senior correspondent Judy Woodruff discussed the Times report with John Stauber of the Center for Media and Democracy, and Robert Zelnick, former ABC News Pentagon correspondent. Woodruff stated: "And for the record, we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond." She added: "We've been talking to the Pentagon since Monday about participating in this segment, but when we finally scheduled it today, they were unable to supply a guest on short notice."

http://www.journalism.org/node/10849 Media Passes on Times Pentagon Piece

The three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- and the three major cable news networks -- CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC -- all reportedly declined to participate in a segment on the April 24 edition of PBS' NewsHour regarding "the role of military analysts on TV and in the Pentagon." Further, according to a search of programs in Nexis, several of these outlets have yet to report on the revelations in an April 20 New York Times article by investigative reporter David Barstow, who wrote that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts, many of whom have clients with an interest in obtaining Pentagon contracts, "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks."

In today's Think Again column, it is noted again that NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams' response, on his blog, to the Pentagon's propaganda program involving retired military officials. Williams wrote that the two military "analysts" featured on his program "never gave what I considered to be the party line," and were "tough, honest critics." Just for nostalgia's sake, let's look back to Williams' discussion with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey five years ago today -- May 1, 2003, also known as "Mission Accomplished" day:

WILLIAMS: Let's talk politics. And to be candid about it, you know of the war going on inside the Pentagon. Secretary Rumsfeld has always believed this military can do things faster, can be lighter on its feet, and I -- I'm quite convinced he will find this conflict as evidence to bolster his argument. Do you find merit in that?

McCAFFREY: Oh, yeah, sure. No, look, the -- you know, each generation we have to look ahead and sort out what the next set of conflicts will be and what the technology allows us to do. At the end of the day, you go back to winning wars on the ground with soldiers and Marines and Rangers and Special Ops. But the way we fight these wars, first of all, it's situational. You know, if there's no trees and it's Iraqis, you go about it one way. If it's a million-man North Korean army, you go about it another way. But properly, transformation of the military services is something we're going to examine very closely, and hopefully the Congress will be actively involved in it. People like Senator Chuck Hagel, Congressman Rod Portman, Denny Hastert and others, who know what they're talking about, that's their role to define the future armed forces.

Williams also mentioned that day "two immutable truths about the president that the Democrats can't change: He's a youthful guy. He looked terrific and full of energy in a flight suit. He is a former pilot, so it's not a foreign art farm -- art form to him. Not all presidents could have pulled this scene off today." What Williams didn't mention was that McCaffrey served on the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq," and is "on the board of Mitretek, Veritas Capital and two Veritas companies, Raytheon Aerospace and Integrated Defense Technologies -- all of which have multimillion-dollar government defense contracts." The more you know ...

Today’s Feature: The Center For American Progress

The project For Excellence In Journalism

http://mediamatters.org/index

END POST...