by Katherine Smith
August 27, 2010
from
ThePeoplesVoice Website
-
July 25 - WikiLeaks of tens of thousands
of Army documents related to the war in Afghanistan
-
Jul 28 - An out of character vote, by
Henry Waxman, an apologist for Bush's wars against the 2010
emergency funding for the Afghanistan
-
August 2 - the House Ethics Committee
formally brought a case against Congresswoman Maxine Waters, one of
America’s most enduring liberal and fierce Anti War politicians
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. [1]
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. [2]
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. [3]
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." [4]
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." [5]
“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.
Footnotes
[1] 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.
[2] 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.
[3] U.S. dismisses Ahmadinejad's call for direct talks with Obama
[4] 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
[5] 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