|« Why Economic Growth in the United States Cannot Happen||America Facing Depression and Bankruptcy »|
By Katherine Smith
Speculation by bloggers, including John Young of Cryptome.com, and an expose at The Intel Hub, of WikiLeaks being part of a disinformation operation and that the documents themselves could even be fake, should put every left leaning American on Yellow Alert.
Fox News wasted no time exploiting the WikiLeaks documents to further vilify Iran, pointing out that the documents indicate the U.S. belief that Iran is arming the Taliban insurgency. This adds another layer to Fox's steady stream of propaganda that has flowed over the years, advocating for an attack on the country and stands as a reason why some believe the leak was staged. WikiLeaks documents-- disinformation or not-- are being used for anti-Iran propaganda, OpEdNews
An investigation marginalizing the most virulent anti-war Democrat in Congress, at a time when the U.S. is openly considering a raid on Iranian’s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program, could be the most dangerous move towards nuclear war the world has seen since the 1962 Cuba Missile crisis.
Congresswoman Waters responded immediately to the baseless charges and asked the committee for an immediate adjudicatory hearing.
"The record will show that in advocating on behalf of minority banks, neither my office nor I benefited in any way, engaged in improper action or influenced anyone.''
The committee, which apparently is dragging its feet on the investigation of the alleged impropriety that took place 18 months ago, recently announced it could not determine a date for the hearing.
On August 4, 2010, Congresswoman Waters waived her right to confidentiality and directed the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to release to the public all documents related to the investigation.
The failure to release the allegations against Congresswoman Waters has resulted in a media circus of speculation based only on a report prepared by the controversial Office of Congressional Ethics.
Recall that public opinion was deeply divided on Bush's 1990 Gulf policy, and the decision to invade Iraq was made by the US Senate via a narrow five-vote margin.
An investigation of any kind (especially one that dates back to events that took place in 2008) during a congressional debate over a preemptive strike on Iran will marginalize the most outspoken voice of reason on the issue of U.S. aggression in the Middle East.
At the same time Waxman, considered an expert on Middle East policy, with his irrelevant vote against the 2010 emergency funding for the Afghanistan war (it passed 308-114), will be the new voice of reason in the debate. 
The idea that a nuclear strike on Iran to guarantee Israel’s security and survival will somehow guarantee world peace, should put everyone on Red Alert.
And if you want more proof of a concerted effort to paint Iran, a country with a non-existent nuclear weapons capability and an air force that belongs in museums, read on. 
On August 3, 2010, the U.S. State Department rebuffed a call from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for direct talks with President Barack Obama. In the same week of the anniversary of the unnecessary bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Hillary Clinton proposed the ultimate hypocrisy by suggesting that Tehran pay more attention to the international concerns over its nuclear program. 
Just two days later, the U.S. State Department released their latest report on terrorism and claimed that Iran remained the, "most active" state sponsor of terrorism, and its support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia had a "direct impact" on international efforts for peace and stability.
This report on terrorism should be questioned because in 2001 the senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council is quoted as saying:
“The State Department and NSC officials met secretly with Iranian diplomats in October, 2001 to discuss "how to effectively unseat the Taliban and once the Taliban was gone, how to stand up an Afghan government." 
Normally I don't recommend those "take action"- campaigns: the ones that tell us, “it's not too late, click-here” to importune our "elected"- representatives with emails and faxes.
However, the perils of a nuclear confrontation with Iran could mean the extinction of life on earth.
Let’s harness the energy of the grassroots activists in the U.S. and around the world into a community
Contact Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and demand she honor the commitment made by President Obama during the 2007 Democratic debate when he said that he would:
“As president, be willing to meet without preconditions with Iran's leaders, and that the notion of not talking to one's foes was ridiculous." 
“In nuclear war all men are cremated equal” Dexter Gordon
We can do this, we did it in 2006, 2008 and we can do it in 2010.
Katherine Smith, PhD firstname.lastname@example.org
 August 12, 2010 At the town hall meeting in West Hills CA, peace activists in the audience weren't sure they could believe their ears when Henry Waxman strongly affirmed his vote against funding the war in Afghanistan saying that we can not "do any good" there and it is time to leave. In answer to a question from Flo Weber from Grandmothers for Peace asking “if this was only a one time vote” he stated that we need the money here at home and that he would no longer vote for war funding - that this was his permanent position. He seemed unusually humble. He did not volunteer nor did anyone if his new found anti-war posture applied to Israel.
 Who's Telling the Truth About Iran's Nuclear Program? by Muhammad Sahimi
Since February 2003, Iran's nuclear program has undergone what the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself admits to be the most intrusive inspection in its entire history. After thousands of hours of inspections by some of the most experienced IAEA experts, the Agency has verified time and again that (1) there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and (2) all the declared nuclear materials have been accounted for; there has been no diversion of such materials to non-peaceful purposes. Iran has a clean bill of health, as far as its nuclear program is concerned.
July 7, 2008 04:24 AM H. Con. Res. 362 - through efforts, Iran seeks to establish regional hegemony, threatens longstanding friends of the United States in the Middle East, and endangers American national security interests.
Regional hegemony is not achieved with Iranian army that has been designed solely to defend Iran, and an air force that belongs in museums.
To summarize: it is clear that practically every paragraph in the Senate and House Resolutions have factual errors, lies, exaggerations, and half-truths. Iran can be criticized on many grounds, particularly in the area of respect for human rights. But, Iran is not a threat to the United States or to Israel. It is not anywhere close to having the capability for manufacturing nuclear weapons, even if it wanted to.
Therefore, the American public must recognize these Resolutions for what they really are: War Resolutions proposed and pushed by neoconservatives in both the Democrat and Republican parties, various pro-Israel lobbies, and their allies.
It is crucial that the American public act now, today, by calling their congressional representatives before these "declarations of war" against Iran are passed. If we do launch an unprovoked attack on Iran the results will most probably be horrific to all sides, if not to the entire world.
 President Ahmadinejad of Iran has denied the charges that his government supports Taliban insurgents.
Prior to Ahmadinejad's coming to power, while the U.S. planned the invasion of Afghanistan, Iran helped organize the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Though the U.S. has downplayed Iran's role in the early days of the war, U.S.soldiers and officials have conceded that Iranian forces were present with the Afghan rebels in 2001. In his 2006 article, "How Neocons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al-Qaeda" author Gareth Porter wrote:
"After the Sept. 11 attacks, U.S. officials responsible for preparing for war in Afghanistan needed Iran's help to unseat the Taliban and establish a stable government in Kabul. Iran had organized resistance by the Northern Alliance and had provided arms and funding at a time when the United States had been unwilling to do so."
The article quotes Flynt Leverett-- senior director for Middle East affairs in the National Security Council at the time-- who said that State Department and NSC officials met secretly with Iranian diplomats in October, 2001 to discuss "how to effectively unseat the Taliban and once the Taliban was gone, how to stand up an Afghan government."
The State Department's policy planning staff wrote a paper in November 2001 recommending that the U.S. pursue more formal cooperation with Iran in fighting al-Qaeda. Yet collaboration with Iran in Afghanistan would have involved equal sharing of information about al-Qaeda between the two countries, and since the Bush administration had already decided to include Iran on its "axis of evil" hit-list by then, the U.S. turned its back on the idea.
As Neocons use the WikiLeaks story of Iranian efforts to hamper the U.S. occupation of its neighbor in order to push their agenda, no doubt they will overlook the fact that in 2007 the CIA received presidential approval to mount a covert operation to destabilize Iran's government. It's even less likely that they'll mention that Iran's democratically elected government was overthrown by the CIA and replaced by the heavy-handed Shah-- a U.S. puppet-- when it wanted to nationalize its oil fields back in 1953.
Such facts aren't convenient for a U.S. government trying to seize the moral high ground while biding its time for the right moment to launch another unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. WikiLeaks documents-- disinformation or not-- are being used for anti-Iran propaganda, OpEdNews
 Mr. Obama first made waves with his views on Iran policy in 2007, when he said during a Democratic debate that he would, as president, be willing to meet without preconditions with Iran's leaders, and that the notion of not talking to one's foes was "ridiculous."
Since becoming president, Mr. Obama has pursued diplomacy, but his stance has become steadily more confrontational. Iran’s Nuclear Program, The New York Times
Your donation helps provide a place for people to speak out.
Not tax deductible. email@example.com
|Search the Site||Search the Web|
|<< <||> >>|