Saving
A President
By Stephen Lendman
24 July, 2007
Countercurrents.org
In
his first year in office, the widely-followed Cook Political Report
had this assessment of George Bush's early months as president: "Looking
back over his first five months in office, President George W. Bush
and his administration started off to a strong, fast start but now,
his future seems far less certain. Not only are Bush's overall job approval
ratings slumping, but his disapproval ratings are climbing (and) after
a strong start, the last three months have been less than auspicious
for this new President. The good news....is that they have plenty of
time before the next presidential (or) mid-term elections. The bad news
is that they have a lot of repair work to do and had better get started."
They wasted little time doing it, but no one (at least the pubic) knew
in June what lay ahead in September.
George Bush entered office
with an approval rating around 50%. It rose a little at first, then
slumped moderately as the Cook Report suggested. Everything changed
dramatically September 11. Bush's rating skyrocketed instantly hitting
a temporary high around 90% and remained above 80% through year end.
That momentous day transformed a mediocre president overnight with some
observers incredibly comparing him to Lincoln, FDR and Churchill combined.
It was laughable then and
ludicrous now for a pathetic caricature of a president and man so hated
he's barely able to hang on to avoid what growing vocal numbers in the
country demand - his head and removal from office by impeachment along
with Vice-President Cheney.
Today again, George Bush
finds himself in a precarious position at the least. He insists on maintaining
a failed policy a growing majority in the country wants ended. As a
result, his approval rating is scraping rock bottom in polls likely
"engineered" to keep it from winning all-time bottom honors
as the lowest ever for a sitting president. Dick Cheney is less fortunate,
however, at a bottom-scraping 12% that's the lowest ever for a president
or vice-president by far and then some.
With that in mind, here's
how the Cook Political Report assesses things as of June 29, 2007: "....after
six and a half years of George W. Bush's presidency, the Republican
'brand' has been badly tarnished. As a result, it would take an enormous
amount of luck for Republicans to hold the White House or win back control
of the Senate or House, let alone (do all three)....the GOP (will need)
a long and painful rebuilding process (and) recapturing the White House
or congressional majorities (is) unlikely in the near future."
The report suggests a possible Republican apocalypse even though it
notes Democrats have failed to end the Iraq war, have only delivered
on one of their six major platform planks (increasing the federal minimum
wage), and are scorned as well.
With 18 months to go, what's
a president to do to hang on, run out the clock, and leave office through
the normal front door process of his term expiring, not the result of
the Senate voting him out earlier by "the (required) Concurrence
of two-thirds of the Members present" - hard as that is to do as
history shows.
Politicians know, and especially
presidents, when in trouble - change the subject. It's being changed
by ignoring reality, aided by healthy offerings of the usual kinds of
industrial strength corporate media hyperventilating.
It features George Bush and
his supportive generalissimo and other top brass in Iraq in the lead.
They continue asking for more time, insist the disastrous "surge"
is working, say it just needs a chance, and that withdrawing too soon
would trigger a bloodbath on the order of the Cambodian killing fields
according to an earlier preposterous April claim. Unmentioned is the
continued bloodbath caused by the US presence that won't end until all
American and other hostile foreign forces are withdrawn.
That won't happen according
to recent reports with the National Review Online and other sources
recently saying the administration intends to escalate its strength
on the ground, not curtail it. More troops may be brought in, and the
Air Force is increasing its hardware. The powerful B 1 bomber is back
(capable of carrying 24 ton bombs) and making multiple daily and/or
nightly strikes. A squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes
were sent as well along with additional F-16C Fighting Falcons. Bombing
runs have intensified dramatically, and the level of violence, deaths
and destruction overall is increasing. The Navy is contributing as well
with the USS Enterprise sent to the Gulf that may or may not replace
one of the two Fifth Fleet carriers already there.
In recent months, the Air
Force also doubled its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
(ISR) efforts using Predator drones (capable of striking targets as
well as spying), high altitude U2s, and sophisticated AWACS planes.
It all points to one thing on the ground and back home. Congress can
debate all it wants. No Iraq withdrawal is planned, the conflict is
being escalated, and the only issue on the table is selling the present
course to the public with Congress already signed on showing debate
is for show, not for real. The hard sell is beginning by the timeworn,
yet tried and true, sure-fire method of scaring people to death to go
along and in this case threatening them as well.
George Bush's Continuing
War on the First Amendment
On July 17, George Bush issued
another of his many presidential "one-man" decrees titled
"Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten
Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." More than any other chief executive
in the nation's history, this President abuses this practice egregiously
as another example of his contempt for the law.
Economist and journalist
Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 - 1995) wrote in his extremely important and
revealing book "Cracks in the Constitution:" The US Constitution
"nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power
(to make) new law" by issuing "one-man, often far-reaching"
executive order decrees. However, Lundberg explains "the President
in the American constitutional system is very much a de facto king....(he
is) by far the most powerful formally constituted political officer
on earth." He has "vast power (and) stands in a position midway
between a collective executive (like the British system) and an absolute
dictator." Lundberg wrote those words over 27 years ago when George
Bush was busy making millions (the result of friendly bailouts) from
successive oil business ventures that flopped.
George Bush's family connections
delivered for him in business, in spite of his ineptitude, and finally
gave him the grand prize of the presidency he exploited fully ever since.
For him and those around him, the law is just an artifact to be used,
abused or ignored at his pleasure. He earlier usurped "Unitary
Executive" power to claim the law is what he says it is and in
six and half years in office issued more signing statements (over 800)
than all past presidents combined. The result is he expanded presidential
power (already immense as Lundberg explained) at the expense of the
other two branches by shifting it dangerously toward unlimited executive
authority, otherwise known as tyranny.
The Constitution has no provisions
for "Unitary Executive" power or the right of the chief executive
to issue signing statements that hasn't deterred this President from
doing as he pleases. There's also no authorization for issuing Executive
Orders, as just noted, beyond the following vague language Lundberg
explained constitutes the "essence of presidential power....in
a single sentence."
Specifically, Article II,
section 1 reads: "The executive power shall be vested in a President
of the United States of America." That simple statement, easily
passed over and misunderstood, means the near-limitless power of this
office "is concentrated in the hands of one man." Article
II, section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: "The President shall
take care that the laws be faithfully executed" without saying
Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as well as execute them
even though nothing in the Constitution specifically permits this practice.
George Bush takes full advantage
within and outside the law. His July 17 Executive Order is another case
in point, but a particularly egregious and dangerous one. It starts
off: The President's power stems from "the authority vested in
me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States
of America" as well as the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act he invokes as well. The order then continues:
-- "....due to the unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy
of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace
and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction
and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance
to the Iraqi people," George Bush usurped authority to criminalize
the anti-war movement, make the First Amendment right to protest it
illegal, and give himself the right to seize the assets of persons violating
this order.
In a message to Congress
on the same date, George Bush then stated:
-- "....I hereby report
that I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined
to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act
or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the
peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining
efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq
or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
In effect, George Bush, on
his say alone and in violation of the Constitution, criminalized dissent
July 17, 2007. By so doing, he shifted the nation one step closer to
full-blown tyranny with other tightening measures sure to follow this
one. The dominant media reported virtually nothing about this nor will
they explain or voice concern when law-abiding Americans are arrested
and punished for protesting a criminal administration's illegal foreign
wars. Instead, a full-court press publicly-aired effort is underway
to justify them that provides clues for what may lie ahead.
Scare-Mongering Heats
Up
On July 7, former Pennsylvania
Senator Rick Santorum appeared on the Hugh Hewitt radio program. He
was introduced by the host as "one of our favorite Americans,"
leaving no doubt where Hewitt stands. Santorum came to skewer his former
colleagues' lack of resolve to stay the course in Iraq, no matter how
hopeless things are on the ground. But he took the opportunity to go
further by suggesting that "confronting Iran (is) an absolute lynchpin
for our success in that region," that 9/11 taught us "Islamists"
must be confronted, that they want to "conquer that region of the
world (and) will soon end up on our doorstep (if not stopped, and that)
between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen (to shape)
"a very different" (public view) of this war....because....of
some very unfortunate events (coming) like we're seeing unfold in the
UK."
Does Rick Santorum know something
the public doesn't, and was he given permission to leak it on-air? Another
clue came July 10 from DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff. He practically
told a Chicago Tribune editorial board meeting another major terrorist
attack is coming later this summer because he has a "gut feeling"
about a period ahead of increased risk. Basing his assessment on undisclosed
intelligence (as always) and earlier "terrorist patterns in Europe,"
he added "Summertime seems to be appealing to them (and) We worry
that they are rebuilding their activities. I believe we are entering
a period this summer of increased risk."
Chertoff then appeared on
a number of TV programs to itemize his "gut feeling" factors,
including taking full advantage of the likely staged June 29 London
car bomb discoveries and June 30 follow-up Glasgow airport incident
that may have only been an unfortunate accident. With no credible evidence
backing his claims, Chertoff, nonetheless, said "Europe could become
a platform for an attack against this country." The UK incidents
may, in fact, have been staged to stoke fear in Britain and here in
advance of a major homeland terror event to come.
The New York Times' Maureen
Dowd tried making light of Chertoff's comments saying he sounds "more
like a meteorologist than the man charged with keeping us safe."
Chertoff's job isn't to "keep us safe," Dowd should know better,
and her attempt at humor isn't funny. These comments are to be taken
seriously. They were made to signal a changed political climate ahead
brought on by a one or more likely upcoming terror events, possibly
major ones. It would be to resuscitate a failing president the way 9/11
did earlier, even though no one this time would dare suggest George
Bush combines Lincoln, FDR and Churchill resurrected or anything resembling
it.
More Scare-Mongering
Quick to play their lead
hyperventilating role, the corporate media is all over the notion of
a summer terror surprise to prepare the public in advance for what may
be coming and to accept the consequences of a police state America in
response. ABC News may have been first to hype the story citing a new
FBI analysis of Al-Queda messages warning of "their strategic intent
to strike the US homeland and US interests worldwide (that) should not
be discounted as merely deceptive noise."
Then on July 15, "Enemy
Number One" bin Laden coincidentally appeared in an undated online
videotape. It was titled "Winds of Martyrdom" and presented
to look new with bin Laden saying "The happy (person) is the one
chosen by Allah to be a martyr." In fact, it looked like old footage
or pieced together segments of earlier ones repackaged to look fresh
and released to the public two days after the Senate doubled the bounty
on bin Laden to $50 million. It was also three days after AP reported
July 12 that US intelligence analysts concluded Al-Queda has rebuilt
its operating capability to levels unseen since right before 9/11 and
is "renewing efforts to sneak terror plotters into (the) US"
adding to numbers of them already here.
AP also mentioned a draft
National Intelligence Estimate "expected (and now released to confirm)
an increasingly worrisome portrait of al-Queda's ability to use its
base along the Pakistan-Afghan border to launch and inspire attacks,
even though (other) Bush administration officials say the US is safer
(now) nearly six years into the war on terror." Hyping the threat
further, AP mentioned key "classified" assessments in the
report claiming Al-Queda "probably (is) still pursuing chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons and would use them if its operatives developed
sufficient capability." Further, the US faces "a persistent
and evolving (Islamic) terrorist threat" for the next three years.
In a clearly timed and motivated
political statement, The (unclassified) National Intelligence Estimate
"key judgments" were released July 17, combining assessments
from 16 Bush administration spy agencies. It's titled "The Terrorist
Threat to the US Homeland," It presented the findings below, including
reworked earlier ones, in addition to those mentioned above:
-- Al-Queda has "regenerated
key elements of its Homeland attack capability;"
-- Iraq strengthened Al-Queda
that will "leverage the contacts and capabilities" to attack
the US homeland;
-- Al-Queda and its operatives
in Iraq will "energize the broader Sunni extremist community (and
help to) recruit and indoctrinate (new) operatives;
-- In spite of Al-Queda's
regrouping, US worldwide counterterrorism efforts since 2001 have constrained
Islamic extremists from attacking US soil; nonetheless, Al-Queda remains
a serious future threat and is likely to focus on high-profile political,
economic and infrastructure targets for maximum casualties, visually
dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and public fear;
-- Al-Queda restored its
ability to attack US soil and operates freely in the Pakistan Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA);
-- Other Muslim and non-Muslim
terrorist groups also pose a danger abroad and may consider attacking
here. Lebanon's Hezbollah topped the list of Muslim groups mentioned.
Earth Liberation Front, called a violent environmental group, also made
the list.
At his July 12 news conference,
George Bush raised the specter of Al-Queda's threat to the US citing
the above-mentioned intelligence report as supposed evidence. He then
resurrected a timeworn long ago discredited golden oldie saying "The
same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who
attacked us in America on September 11. That's why what happens in Iraq
matters to security here at home." Unmentioned anywhere in the
mainstream, of course, is the long-standing relationship between "Enemy
Number One" bin Laden, Al-Queda and US and allied intelligence
and how they're used in the fraudulent "war on terrorism"
to manipulate and scare the public enough to go along with anything.
These comments, published
assessments from The National Intelligence Estimate, inflammatory remarks
from officials like Michael Chertoff, and accompanying dominant media
hyperventilating effectively stoke public fear and may point to a major
terror attack ahead on US soil. It will trigger a Code Red Alert if
it happens signaling the highest terrorist threat level followed by
the likely suspension of the Constitution, imposition of martial law,
and end of the republic. The rule of law will be suspended, dissent
no longer will be tolerated (it's already illegal), the military and
other security forces will be involved on US soil in strength if needed,
and an unmasked full-blown fascist police state will, in fact, henceforth
exist.
It's arrival may be closer
than most imagine in an effort to save the Bush presidency that continues
to weaken and begs for a way out of its dilemma. It worked earlier on
9/11 and may soon be unveiled again, even more convincingly, for a president
desperate enough to try anything as a Hail Mary scheme to finish out
his term, leave office on his own accord, and refurbish what's left
of his tarnished image.
This is what our military
adventurism and single-minded pursuit of empire has gotten us. It's
not to be taken lightly, for if it arrives it'll be too late. The time
to unmask and stop it is now and quickly as Michael Chertoff's pointing
to late summer is fast approaching.
A "Catastrophic
Homeland Emergency" to Justify Attacking Iran
The Bush administration's
pointing to Iran as a threat to US security is as baseless as the phony
WMD and dangerous dictator claims were for war with Iraq. It's because
Washington has wanted regime change in the Islamic Republic since the
1979 revolution toppled the US-reinstalled Shah Reza Pahlavi to power
following the CIA-instigated coup in 1953 against democratically elected
Mohammed Mossadegh.
The Bush administration stepped
up the current effort earlier citing Iran's legal commercial nuclear
program as a thinly veiled pretext without ever mentioning that Washington
encouraged Iranians to develop their commercial nuclear industry during
the reign of the Shah. That can't be revealed because doing it would
unmask the hypocrisy of the current belligerency and scare-mongering.
Through its usual practice
of bribes and bullying, the administration got the Security Council
to act in its behalf. It passed UN Resolution 1696 in July, 2006 demanding
Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it refused, Resolution
1737 was passed in December imposing limited sanctions. Resolution 1747
then tightened them further in March, 2007. It imposed a ban on arms
sales and expanded a freeze on the country's assets, in spite of Iranian
officials' insistence (with no evidence to disprove them) their nuclear
program is entirely peaceful and fully in accord with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT).
Nonetheless, harsh rhetoric
out of Washington continues with George Bush pushing for additional
sanctions (against another Iranian bank and a large military-owned engineering
firm) while hyping the concocted threat of Iran's commercial program
that's no different from those of other NPT signatory states. Iran has
been patient but earlier refused to allow IAEA inspectors to visit the
Arak heavy water reactor until now. In a spirit of cooperation and facing
a possible preemptive US and/or Israeli attack, it's scheduled to take
place before the end of July. Iran also scaled back its enrichment program
in a show of good faith and agreed to answer questions regarding past
experiments at its facilities to defuse the threat of tougher sanctions
and avoid a possible attack that's real and may be immiment.
As Iran shows a willingness
to cooperate and prove it threatens no other country, the Bush administration
renounced NPT and its crucial Article VI pledging nuclear nations make
"good faith" efforts to eliminate their arsenals because having
them heightens the risk they'll be used, endangering the planet. While
Iran wants peace and nuclear non-proliferation, the Bush administration
pursues a reckless agenda including the following:
-- It claims the right to
develop new type nuclear weapons, not eliminate any now on hand.
-- It renounced NPT claiming
the right to develop and test new weapons.
-- It abandoned the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty (ABM).
-- It rescinded and subverted
the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention.
-- It refused to consider
a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to prevent nuclear bombs being added
to present stockpiles already dangerously too high.
-- It spends more on the
military than the rest of the world combined with large future increases
planned, starting in FY 2008 up for debate and sure to pass.
-- It claims the right to
wage preventive wars under the illegal and frightening doctrine of "anticipatory
self-defense" using first-strike nuclear weapons.
While Iran, in fact, threatens
no one, America threatens the planet, and the world community stays
silent in the face of a potential disaster if the US wages nuclear war
because it can get away with it. What other nation will dare challenge
the only remaining superpower in spite of the potential horrendous consequences
from such a reckless act.
Scaring the Public
to Death - Act II
Another earlier discredited
campaign is now heating up again as well even though British foreign
secretary, David Milliband, discounted its credibility in a July 8 Financial
Times interview. It features US claims and hostile rhetoric that the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force is providing weapons as well
as funding, training and arming Shiite and other resistance fighters
in Iraq and Afghanistan with no credible evidence to prove it because
there is none. It added "Quds Force (and) Hezbollah instructors
trained approximately 20 to 60 Iraqis at a time" at camps near
Tehran. It's also using "Lebanese Hezbollah....as a proxy (or)
surrogate in Iraq."
New York Times hawkish defense
reporter Michael Gordon (picking up where the disgraced Judith Miller
left off) concluded from this "that Iran has been engaged in a
proxy war against American and Iraqi government forces for years."
That kind of belligerent language on the New York Times front page adds
fuel to the self-defense rationale for a future military assault against
the Iranian state based on spurious accounts like Gordon's as justification.
It points toward and seems
to confirm what the London Guardian reported a "well-placed"
Washington source recently said - that George "Bush is not going
to leave office with Iran still in limbo." It's Bush's lips moving
but Dick Cheney's words coming out as he and those close to him (like
Iran-Contra criminal, rabid Israel supporter, and deputy national security
advisor Elliott Abrams) have long favored direct military action against
Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons.
According to Guardian sources,
"The balance (in Washington) has tilted" with George Bush
on board with his vice-president, who, as insiders know, calls all the
important shots in the nation's capitol. The Guardian quoted International
Institute for Strategic Studies director of studies Patrick Cronin saying
"Cheney has limited capital left (a likely dubious claim),"
and if he uses it for one aim (like attacking Iran) "he could still
have an impact." The US has a formidable strike force in the Gulf
alone to do it with two carrier groups, 50 or more warships with nuclear
weapons, hundreds of planes and contingents of Marines and Navy personnel.
Battle plans have long been
in place (and are likely updated as needed) under code or operational
name TIRANNT for Theater Iran Near Term. If an attack comes, it will
be from the Gulf Naval task force and may also include long-range bombers
and other warplanes and missiles based in Iraq and strategic locations
like Diego Garcia within easy striking distance of targeted sites. The
possibility of it happening is frightening as under a top secret "Interim
Global Strike Alert Order" and CONPLAN (contingency/concept plan)
8022, Washington claims the right to preemptively strike targets anywhere
in the world using so-called low-yield, extremely powerful, nuclear
bunker buster weapons with Iran the apparent first target of choice.
The only good news from the
Guardian (if correct) is that "No decision on military action is
expected until next year" with the state department continuing
for now to pursue a diplomatic route - that may just be a diversionary
smoke screen for what's planned ahead.
Reuters reported July 17
that US Ambassador in Kabul William Wood said "There are clearly
some munitions coming out of Iran going into the hands of the Taliban.
We believe that the quantity and quality of those munitions are such
that the Iranian government must know about it." Defense Secretary
Robert Gates made a similar claim a month earlier along with other Washington
reports of Iran aiding Shia, other "militant" fighters and
"Al-Queda" elements in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas
in Gaza.
Tehran rejects these accusations
as "baseless and illogical" saying the obvious in reply -
that the US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and Washington's
one-sided support for Israel causes instability in both regions. The
US wants a pretext to strike the Islamic Republic, but the Iranian government
isn't about to provide one. In fact, it's doing the opposite by cooperating
with the IAEA and continues saying it's willing to engage in constructive
diplomacy with the Bush administration.
On July 16, Iran indicated
another round of security-related talks over Iraq with Washington is
possible in the "near future" showing again it means what
it says. The problem is the Bush administration does not. It continues
using hard line tactics preferring belligerence and duplicity with Iran
that's typical of the way it does business overall. It's willing to
negotiate on its own terms only while posing the threat of a military
option or economic sanctions against nations unwilling to go along.
At the same time, Iran knows CIA and special forces operatives have
been engaged in covert activities in the country for many months to
destabilize the ruling government.
In addition, Washington has
attempted to build an anti-Iranian Saudi-Jordanian-Egyptian coalition
in the region to further undermine Tehran's influence. The state department
has also pressured international banks and other corporations to sever
relations with Iran to make the country "scream" the way the
Nixon administration did it to Salvador Allende's Chile and the Bush
administration and Israel are now doing it to the democratically elected
Hamas government in Gaza. Iran, of course, like Venezuela under Hugo
Chavez, is richly endowed with the world's most in-demand commodity
and can keep a good revenue stream coming no matter what.
The Israel Factor
When it comes to Iran, Israel
is always part of the equation. On July 11, the Senate again showed
it's Israeli-occupied territory (along with the House) by passing 97
- 0 the Lieberman-sponsored S.Amendment 2073 to S.Amdt 2011 to HR 1585
(National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008). It calls for censuring
Iran for its complicity in killing US soldiers in Iraq. It was a clear
warning to Tehran claiming unstated evidence its government is using
proxy forces to attack US troops on the ground. It follows months of
accusations from American commanders that Iran is supplying various
kinds of weapons to Iraqi resistance groups with no clear evidence to
prove it.
Israel is in the mix, too,
and has warned repeatedly of an attack on Iran as well with prime minister
Ehud Olmert earlier in the year saying his country couldn't risk another
"existential threat" with a clear reference to the Nazi holocaust.
By it, he and other high-level Israeli political and military officials
point to Iran's commercial nuclear program, falsely claiming Tehran
is fanatically and ideologically committed to destroying the Jewish
state. It's nonsense, but it works by stoking fears to get the Israeli
public and world opinion on its side for whatever military action is
planned in "self-defense." Other Israeli national security
officials have a contrary view, but their assessment gets no press attention.
They believe the Iranian government is rational and not about to wage
war with Israel, the US, or any other nation.
Israel and the US know it,
but neither state says so publicly. If Iran attacked Israel, it would
be committing suicide. It would guarantee a full-scale US and Israeli
response, possibly with nuclear weapons, that would devastate the country.
In addition, no one mentions that after the ancient Persian empire became
Iran in 1935, the country obeyed international laws, never occupied
another country, and never attacked or threatened to attack another
nation beyond occasional border skirmishes far short of war. It's only
full-scale conflict was defensive in response to Saddam Hussein's US-backed,
equipped and financially aided September, 1980 invasion. The evidence
today is overwhelming. Iran threatens no other nation and will only
defend itself if attacked.
It may have to and formally
complained to the Security Council criticizing Ehud Olmert and Transportation
Minister Shaul Mofaz's threatening comments. Mofaz made his remarks
on a June Washington visit and Olmert gave his in April to the German
publication Focus, which he later denied when quoted verbatim. Each
official spoke of a possible Israeli attack against Iran's commercial
nuclear facilities with the Israeli prime minister saying Iran's nuclear
program could be struck by 1000 cruise missiles launched over 10 days.
He added "It is impossible perhaps to destroy the entire nuclear
program but it would be possible to damage it in such a way that it
would be set back for years." One thousand cruise missiles, some
with nuclear warheads, would set the whole country back for years, or
most any other one.
On July 11, Israeli Minister
of Strategic Affairs Avigdor Lieberman lived up to his notorious reputation
as a reckless super-hawk with extremist fascist ideas. He told Israeli
Army Radio he got US and European backing for an Israeli military strike
against Iran's nuclear facilities following a meeting with NATO and
European Union officials. He said the message he got was that America
and Europe are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel should
proceed on its own to "prevent the (Iranian) threat herself."
Israel may have two fronts
in mind according IDF Major General Eyal Ben-Reuven, deputy commander
of Israeli forces in last summer's disastrous war in Lebanon. He spoke
at an Institute for National Security Studies conference July 16 assessing
the summer, 2006 Lebanon war saying the IDF is "preparing itself
for an all-out war (with Syria), and this is a major change in the military's
working premise" following last year's humiliating defeat at the
hands of Hezbollah. General Ben-Reuven said when war breaks out, Syria
will suffer mass military and civilian casualties as the IDF is training
for a swift and overwhelming invasion "to knock out the areas where
(Syrian) missiles are launched....as quickly as possible." He added
"By preparing for an all-out war, we can also deal with Palestinian
terror" signaling a possible attack on Hamas in Gaza that may happen
at the same time combined with one on Hezbollah as well.
Haaretz reported July 18
that the UN may be complicit in aiding Israel's scheme to show Syria's
a threat to regional security as justification for a planned attack.
Syrian UN Ambassador Bashar Ja'afari complained in a letter to Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon that Israel is fabricating evidence that his country is
supposedly smuggling weapons to Lebanon. He specifically singled out
the Secretary-General's envoy to Lebanon and Syria, Terje Roed-Larsen,
who's long served Western and Israeli interests. His earlier report
backed Israel's unsubstantiated claims that weapons are entering Lebanon
through Syria, implying the Syrian government is sending them. Ja'afari
also complained about Israel's border violations, illegal overflight
spying missions in Lebanese airspace, and its photographing commercial
truck deliveries claiming they're smuggling weapons.
This information suggests
Israel and the US are targeting all their regional enemies at once with
possible plans extending from Iraq to Iran into Syria and also Hezbollah
in South Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. A scheme may be planned much like
the way a local mafia don eliminates his enemies to consolidate power.
In this case, it's a global godfather and its regional junior (but powerful
and influential) partner doing what a local don would say is taking
care of family business. The net result may be to set the whole Middle
East aflame, destroy what little influence Washington has left there,
jeopardize homeland security, and heighten the risk for retaliation
against US and Western interests everywhere.
It can only worsen further
if Pakistan is targeted as well. It may happen, with or without President
Pervez Musharraf's permission, because of claimed Al-Queda safehaven
tribal areas in the country posing a regional and wider threat. The
Wall Street Journal reported "US policy makers (are) under pressure
to eradicate this haven (even though doing it) could spark a local backlash
strong enough to topple (the leader) President Bush has called Washington's
strongest ally in the fight against al Queda." The New York Times
sounded the same theme saying "....American officials have been
meeting in recent weeks to discuss what some said was....an aggressive
new strategy (including) public and covert elements (and) some new (secret)
measures to avoid embarrassing General Musharraf."
Looking Ahead
With 18 months left in office
and his presidency foundering, George Bush is like a cornered animal
desperate enough to try anything to survive. Surrounded by a dwindling,
but still potent, number of hard liners, this article suggests a disturbing
scenario ahead that bodes ill for the nation and world if it happens.
It appears the Bush administration's scheme involves changing the subject
by scare-mongering that may be followed by staging one or more major
home-based terror attacks on the order of 9/11, then waging war with
Iran on the phony pretext Tehran threatens US and regional security.
Further strikes may also be planned against the tribal areas of Pakistan
along with backing Israel's intentions against Syria, Hezbollah, and
Hamas. These will be ominous developments if they happen as explained
above. In an effort to survive and finish out their term in office,
George Bush and Dick Cheney may be willing to gamble everything for
what, in the end, can't be achieved.
An earlier CIA assessment
points out part of the problem. It was blunt and frightening saying
if the US attacks Iran, Southern Shia Iraq will light up like a candle
and explode uncontrollably throughout the country. It will also likely
incite Saudi Shiites who happen to be in the most oil-rich part of the
Kingdom, but it very possibly could include the entire Muslim world
in armed rebellion against anything American and Western. It's heading
toward that kind of showdown now.
The US is already a pariah
state, losing influence as its recklessness intensifies. Take away its
military strength, and it faces an unfriendly world, likely to be less
receptive to its demands if it can't back them up with the muscle it
has now or shies away from using what it has. That's a future possibility,
though, not a present one. More immediate is the threat of nuclear war,
the end of the republic, and what little is left of constitutional law.
That's along with a nation spending itself into bankruptcy and already,
by some measures and analysis, at an impossible to repay $80 trillion
or more in unfunded future entitlements and other liabilities. That's
the assessment of economist Laurence Kotlikoff in his 2006 appraisal
for the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank in an article titled "Is
the United States Bankrupt?"
It won't happen as long as
Fed Chairman Bernanke keeps printing money at the same reckless double
digit pace Alan Greenspan did before him. They and other Fed chairmen
are beholden to the same banking cartel and Wall Street establishment
that owns and runs the Federal Reserve for their benefit, not ours.
Their scheme is Ponzi-like to monetize continued prosperity as long
as the string holds out that can't forever as former Nixon chief economic
advisor Herb Stein once explained earlier. But the longer it does, the
worse the outcome when the inevitable end comes with the public set
up for the hardest fall like always.
The present domestic economic
turbulence and threatening credit crunch (with global implications)
is the result of the following that's bad enough but no disaster yet:
-- slumping housing,
-- fallout from recklessly
leveraged speculation in hedge funds and on Wall Street overall with
the Federal Reserve fueling it all,
-- troubled collateralized
debt obligations (CDOs) linked to sinking sub-prime mortgage valuations,
-- once AAA-rated residential
mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), now downgraded,
-- sinking sub-prime loans,
-- the multi-trillion dollar
financial derivatives market speculation Warren Buffet calls "time
bombs" and "financial WMDs",
-- junk bonds getting "junkier,"
-- dollar weakness,
-- inflation much higher
than reported and rising because of years of over-spending, over-borrowing
and under-taxing,
-- and other potential near
and intermediate-term financial trouble sure to surprise if it comes.
So far, it's cyclical noise
compared to a greater secular meltdown ahead from built-up financial
excesses, peak oil, global warming, intensifying ecological disasters,
permanent wars on the world, and the full-blown emergence of homeland
tyranny.
This writer takes issue with
others who think America is currently in an economic meltdown. Where
there's strong agreement, however, is that one lies ahead, no one knows
when precisely, it'll likely surprise when it arrives, and it may strike
like Armageddon when it hits making The Great Depression look tame by
comparison and last even longer.
For now, though, removing
the criminal class from Washington, restoring the rule of law, saving
the republic, avoiding further wars, and ending the current ones is
job one. Failure to do it may mean whatever's ahead won't matter. It'll
be too late long before it arrives. Those who care about these things
and see the threat better enlist others, do more than complain about
it, and act in time collectively to stop it. It can only come from the
bottom up, never the other way.
Stephen Lendman
lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].
Also visit his blog site
at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information
Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.