Horowitz's Strange Summons

Conscripting Feminism into the War on Terror
By YIFAT SUSSKIND

American feminists found themselves in strange company this week. In days of campus activity labeled "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" (IFAW), conservative writer David Horowitz and his fellow travelers issued a call for an end to the oppression of women in Muslim nations.

It may be ludicrous to hear about women's oppression from IFAW spokesperson Ann Coulter--who has called for an end to women's suffrage here in the US. But beyond pointing out the obvious hypocrisy, progressives need to respond to Horowitz's message about the oppression of women living under political Islam. Otherwise, we leave him with a powerful rhetorical weapon because Islamists do call for the subjugation of women. All religious fundamentalists do. Just ask IFAW spokesman Rick Santorum, the born-again ex-Senator and anti-abortion fanatic who thinks that women in the US should be kept out of the workforce.

"Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" could be laughed off, except that it echoes the rhetoric of official US policy. Since the US bombing of Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush Administration has resurrected the hackneyed colonial notion that its military intervention is intended to save Muslim women from their oppressive societies. As Laura Bush said shortly after 9-11, "The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women."

Few Middle Eastern women believe this. In Iraq, for instance, women know that their work for equal rights has been undermined by US intervention. In general, the US has preferred to support authoritarian leaders who systematically violate women's rights. It's easier to get a tiny elite or a single strongman to implement US policy than it is to ensure that real democracy swings in favor of US interests.

After all, if it were up to the majority of Iraqis, how many would have endorsed the country's new US­brokered oil law, which puts Iraq's most valuable resource at the disposal of Exxon-Mobil? How many would have opted for sprawling, permanent US military bases in their country (whose sole purpose is to enable more US military intervention in the region)? As in Iraq, the US usually ends up undermining women's rights in the Middle East, because women's rights are an integral part of democratic rights, and democratic rights threaten US control of the region.

Right-wing "intellectuals" like Horowitz have honed the idea of a "clash of civilizations" dividing the United States from the Middle East. But the real clash is not between "Western" democracies and "Eastern" theocracies; it is between those who uphold the full range of human rights-including women's rights-and those who pursue economic and political power for a privileged few at the expense of the world's majority.

In fact, there is nothing inherently "Western" about women's rights. Women in the Middle East have a century-long history of political struggle, popular organizing, jurisprudence, and scholarship aimed at securing rights within their societies. As for the "clash of civilizations," no one is predestined to be on one side or the other by virtue of her culture, religion, or nationality. We choose our position based on our principles and our actions. Those of us who choose to stand in defense of women's rights should listen to and support women in Muslim societies who are struggling both for women's rights within their country and for their country's right to freedom from US domination.

Yifat Susskind is communications director of MADRE, an international women's human rights organization. She is the author of a book on US foreign policy and women's human rights and a report on US culpability for violence against women in Iraq, both forthcoming.
http://www.counterpunch.org/susskind10262007.html

NYT nails US hypocrisy on PKK/PJAK; LAT editorializes against terror designation and in favor of Webb bill

A roundup of some interesting developments in the US press concerning
Iran and "terror," cleverly disguised as an appeal for people to join
demonstrations against the war(s) on Saturday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naima...ta_b_70019.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/10/26/1318/9058

--
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org

Critical Clarity from Humanitarians by Rami G. Khouri
Karen Abuzayd, commissioner-general of the United Nations' agency that provides aid and services to Palestinian refugees, and Alvaro de Soto, the recently retired UN diplomat from Peru, offer their insights on the current situation of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
more...

Iran Says It's Safe From US Attack
Oct 26 03:19 PM US/Eastern
By NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's leadership boasts it is safe from U.S. military action, saying Washington knows an attack would find no world support and send oil prices skyrocketing. That confidence is buoying the government in its standoff with the West, despite new sanctions.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, on Friday dismissed the U.S. announcement a day earlier of new sanctions, saying "Washington will isolate itself" with the measures.

"They have imposed sanctions on us for 28 years. The new sanctions are just in the same direction," Jalili said as he returned from talks with European officials in Germany and Italy, according to the state news agency IRNA.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is taking a hard line in the confrontation with the West over its nuclear program, apparently confident Washington's main pressure tools—sanctions and the threat of military action—are ineffective.

It could be a risky bet. Ahmadinejad's main vulnerability is domestic: rising criticism from a public angry over the country's poor economy and from politicians disillusioned by what they call his mismanagement. Even some conservatives have expressed fears Ahmadinejad is pushing Iran into future trouble over the nuclear issue.

Further sanctions, even unilateral ones from the U.S., could hurt the economy more by further isolating it from international finance—and Iranians were already expressing worries over the new measures.

Ahmadinejad, who faces elections in 2009, knows "jobless and poor people will not vote for him if his policies bring them more difficulties," said Ahmad Bakhshayesh, a political science professor at Tehran's Azad University.

But he believes "unilateral economic sanctions by Washington are not strong enough (to hurt Iran) due to Iran's widespread economic relations with the world."

Suzanne Maloney, an expert on Iran at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said that while sanctions have put pressure on the regime, oil prices have dampened their effect.

"Yes, life becomes more expensive, but right now they have a fairly considerable cushion," she said, adding that sanctions might force the government to become more fiscally responsible.

"A flush Iran has been an irresponsible Iran. Most of their economic problems have been caused by having too much cash on their hands," she said. In the face of new sanctions, "it's not unthinkable that they'll take more responsible measures at home that will cut some of the internal pressure."

Recent U.S. statements have deepened Iranians' fears of attack. Last week, President Bush warned that a nuclear Iran could lead to "World War III," and Vice President Dick Cheney vowed Sunday that the U.S. and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, saying its program aims only to produce electricity.

After the U.S. sanctions announcement, a string of Iranian military officials came forward to insist America will not attack Iran, citing the strain on the U.S. military from the Iraq war and worries over high oil prices. But they vowed harsh reaction if the U.S. does attack. In the past, Iranian officials have spoken of retaliating with attacks on Israel and U.S. bases in the region and with a shutoff of oil from the Gulf.

A top adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei—former Revolutionary Guards chief Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi—said the U.S. knows military action would send oil prices soaring.

"Without any war, the price of oil has nearly reached $100 a barrel, so if a firecracker goes off in the Persian Gulf, the price will reach more than $200," he told students Thursday, according to IRNA.

Iran overlooks the Hormuz Strait at the narrow mouth of the Gulf, through which a fifth of the world's oil supplies pass.

The current Guards commander, Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, said threats of U.S. attack are "just exaggerations," warning, "We will reply to any strike with an even more decisive strike."

And Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi said the probability of American attack is "very small."

"America knows well that while it can start such an attack, how it ends will not be in Washington's hands, and such an attack will lead to America's collapse," he told journalists during in Kuwait on Thursday, IRNA said.

The new U.S. sanctions ban dealings with a host of companies connected to Iran's Revolutionary Guards, an elite force that has extensive business holdings in oil, construction and other sectors. The ban bars American companies from working with them, but also puts pressure on international firms and banks not to deal with them as well.

Iran is counting on international support from Russia and China to prevent harsher U.N. sanctions. The U.N. has imposed two rounds of limited sanctions for Iran's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment. But Moscow and Beijing are resisting U.S. calls for a third round and have come out against military action—though both have urged Iran to comply with U.N. demands for a halt in uranium enrichment.

China warned Friday the new unilateral sanctions by the United States could increase tensions over Iran's nuclear program. "Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue," the Foreign Ministry said.

U.S. military action would also likely silence the domestic opposition to Ahmadinejad as people rally around the government. The head of the largest pro-reform party, Mohsen Mirdamadi, has warned a U.S. attack would set back chances for reform and democracy in Iran by decades.

On Friday, Mirdamadi said his party would stand against any American threat. "We cannot neglect defending the country's independence and integrity even for a while," he told a gathering of his Islamic Iran Participation Front.

Still, many Iranians—facing increasing prices for housing and basic foodstuffs—are expressing fear over where the government is taking the country.

"I am sure the Iranian government does not seek war. And I am sure they will abide by international demands at the last minute," said Mirza Kazemi, a 70-year-old retired oil worker.

Reza Hosseini, owner of a metal shop, criticized the government's focus on hotspots in the Middle East, where Iran is accused of backing militant groups.

"I cannot understand why our government insists on irrelevant issues such as Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon," he said. "We have too many problems in our country."

___

Associated Press Writer Sarah DiLorenzo contributed to this report from New York.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

A sign of declining US strategic power
Aijaz Ahmad: Turkey threatens to invade Iraqi Kurdistan (more) view

New powder keg of the Middle East?
Eric Margolis on the Turkish Kurdish conflict and its danger for the region (more) view

Real News Debate: Why is the US threatening Iran?
What is behind President Bush's warning about WW III? (more) view

From inside Israel's Ketziot prison
Via a smuggled cellphone, Palestinian prisoner speaks of the Ketziot prison clash of October 22 (more) view

Why Senator Clinton?
We ask Clinton why she voted for an amendment that could be used as support for attacking Iran (more) view

Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update October 26, 2007

RICE TESTIFIES BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON MIDEAST POLICY - CQ TRANSCRIPTS WIRE (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 24): SECRETARY OF STATE RICE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2401683_pf.html

IRAN SANCTIONS AND THE "STRANGLING OF PERSIA" IRAN AFFAIRS: IRANIAN FOREIGN POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS (OCTOBER 26): Iran -- but let's face it, the US's 'public diplomacy' efforts in the Mideast have been an absolute, total, miserable failure all along because they can't get over the fundamental problem of Israel."
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/20...sanction-1.html
BUSH TOUTING CUBAN LIFE AFTER CASTRO - ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 24): President Bush, ever pushing for a Cuba without Fidel Castro, wants allies around the world to offer money and political support so the island can be ready to transform itself. http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush...agewanted=print

HOW NOT TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY IN CUBA - VICKI HUDDLESTON (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 25): It's unrealistic to expect Cubans to magically transform their authoritarian government into a democracy on their own. We won't see a viable political opposition or vibrant free press until we help build up Cuban civil society. We also won't see meaningful movement toward democracy without changes to the U.S.'s rigid travel restrictions. These prevent the person-to-person contact and exchange of ideas that could build support for democracy and competition within Cuba.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7102402061.html

BUSH TACTICS ARE PLAYING INTO CASTRO'S HANDS ANDRES MOPPENHEIMER (MIAMI HERALD, OCTOBER 26): Bush -- and whoever succeeds him -- should de-couple U.S. rhetoric on Cuba: step up the defense of human rights, while setting aside U.S. ''programs'' and ''commissions'' for Cuba's transition that smack of U.S. interventionism.
http://www.miamiherald.com/418/story/283562.html

WHY IRAN'S DEMOCRATS SHUN AID - AKBAR GANJI (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 26): Iranians are viewed as discredited when they receive money from foreign governments. The Bush administration may be striving to help Iranian democrats, but any Iranian who seeks American dollars will not be recognized as a democrat by his or her fellow citizens. Iranian pro-democracy forces want the Iranian people to have access to the Internet and free television to be able to hear criticism of the regime's policies and learn about alternative models of government. The support we need at this point has nothing to do with funding the regime's opposition but with aiding Iranians in the quest for independent media and accurate information.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502216_pf.html
IRAQ'S POLICE TRAINING PROGRAM RECORDS IN DISARRAY - DAVID PHINNEY (ROUGH CUT, OCTOBER 23): The State Department so terribly managed a $1.2 billion contract for Iraqi police training that it can't figure out what it got for the money spent, a new report says.
http://www.davidphinney.com/pages/2007/10/...s_police_tr.php
US BOOSTS OVERSIGHT FOR IRAQ CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATED PRESS (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 24): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday ordered new measures to improve government oversight of private guards who protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq, including tighter rules of engagement and a board to investigate any future killings.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-I...agewanted=print
USE OF CONTRACTORS BY STATE DEPT. HAS SOARED - JOHN M. BRODER AND DAVID ROHDE (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 24): Over the past four years, the amount of money the State Department pays to private security and law enforcement contractors has soared to nearly $4 billion a year from $1 billion, administration officials said Tuesday, but they said that the department had added few new officials to oversee the contracts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/washingt...agewanted=print
ANOTHER $200 BILLION EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 25): Despite a pretense of fiscal prudence, Mr. Bush keeps throwing money at his war in Iraq, regardless of the cost in blood, treasure or children's health care.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/opinion/...agewanted=print
THE IDEOLOGICAL JOB-PROTECTION PLAN GEORGE PACKER (NEW YORKER, OCTOBER 22): Every Shiite party and militia in Iraq has ties to and gets money and other support from some Iranian faction. Together, these parties and militias have imposed on Iraq's streets and mosques a rule of fundamentalist gangsterism.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/geor...cheney-spo.html
REMEMBER IRAQ - THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 23): "General Petraeus's strategy is to keep trying to knit the different militias and tribal fragments in Iraq together into a national army and government so we can shrink our presence. I truly wish him well. But I don't see it happening without two things: some shock therapy -- like a firm U.S. withdrawal signal -- to spur Iraqi leaders, and a regional settlement."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/...agewanted=print
WHAT A MESS TONY BLANKLEY (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 24): We have lost the Turks almost as badly as we have lost the most angry religious, fundamentalist Arab, Muslims. If we can't keep a fair share of their friendly attitude, how do we expect to win the much-vaunted and -awaited hearts and mind campaign?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
A BOOST FOR DIPLOMACY: TOUGH SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN ARE THE ALTERNATIVE TO MILITARY ACTION EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 26): The broad package of sanctions against Iran announced yesterday by the Bush administration offers a badly needed boost to the campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by nonmilitary means.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2502269_pf.html
SQUEEZING IRAN REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCTOBER 26): Yesterday's announcement by the Bush Administration that it is sanctioning Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a step forward, even if it is belated.
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB1193...3148172595.html
MADNESS AS METHOD - MAUREEN DOWD (NEW YORK TIMES, OCTOBER 24): The hawks are pounding the drums on Iran as they once did on Iraq, acting as if the hourglass is running out and we have to act immediately or, as the president apocalyptically suggested last week, we could be facing World War III.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/...agewanted=print
PRESIDENT BUSH NEEDS A TIME OUT - VIVIAN SALAMA (WASHINGTON POST, OCTOBER 25): To use an old Vietnam War slogan, Ahmedinejad is winning the "hearts and minds" of those across the Muslim world with his anti-West, anti-Israel speech -- something that many of the Sunni regimes have failed to do given their pro-West stances and, in the cases of Egypt and Jordan, treaties with Israel. Sticks and stones from the West WILL break bones, but they will not solve a thing. How about some diplomacy for a change?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo..._a_time_ou.html
STRAITJACKET BUSH: THE PRESIDENT'S WARMONGERING REMARKS ON THE IRANIAN THREAT SUGGEST HE IS PSYCHOTIC. REALLY - ROSA BROOKS (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 25): We're in the middle of a disastrous war in Iraq, the military and political situation in Afghanistan is steadily worsening, and the administration's interrogation and detention tactics have inflamed anti-Americanism and fueled extremist movements around the globe. Sane people, confronting such a situation, do their best to tamp down tensions, rebuild shattered alliances, find common ground with hostile parties and give our military a little breathing space. But crazy people? They look around and decide it's a great time to start another war.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
U.S. MOVE ON IRAN ALIENATING FOR EUROPE: FRUSTRATION OVER ITS FAILURE TO IMPOSE A THIRD ROUND OF INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS ON TEHRAN PUSHES THE ADMINISTRATION TO STRIKE OUT ON ITS OWN - PAUL RICHTER (LOS ANGELES TIMES, OCTOBER 26)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...1,6911474.story
TRICKY MIDEAST SUMMIT - CLAUDE SALHANI (WASHINGTON TIMES, OCTOBER 24): In seeking to differentiate himself from Mr. Clinton's policies, Mr. Bush tended to ignore the Middle East and its problems. It wasn't until the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on U.S. soil that the Bush administration woke up to the fact the Middle East cannot be ignored: In addition to the regional turmoil itself, continued unrest in the Middle East can have direct repercussions in the U.S. homeland.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
AFGHAN HOMECOMING - KHALED HOSSEINI (WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCTOBER 24): Now more than ever, the global community must make a genuine, long-term and comprehensive commitment to the Afghans and ensure the future of the coming generation. In other words, the world must not forget the Afghans again.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1193181139...in_commentaries
AFGHAN APPREHENSIONS REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCTOBER 26): It's been six years since the Taliban regime fell, and Afghans are still optimistic about their future, according to a new national poll. But unlike last year's survey, worries about security are mounting.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1193347726...ain_europe_asia
TERROR VS. DEMOCRACY IN PAKISTAN - HUSAIN HAQQANI (WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCTOBER 25): From America's point of view, the good news is that the people who were cheering in the streets of Pakistan for Ms. Bhutto will likely cheer against terrorism under a government run by her. Pakistan's war against terrorism will likely make better progress with the support of the people than it has in recent years under an embattled military dictator.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1193275300...days_us_opinion

SEIZE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH RUSSIA ON KOSOVO - JANUSZ BUGAJSKI AND EDWARD P. JOSEPH (WASHINGTONPOST.COM, OCTOBER 24): After the recent humiliation by Russian President Vladimir Putin of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates during their recent meeting in Moscow, it is crucial for Washington to take the lead on Kosovo, galvanized by the understanding that what happens in the Balkans matters not only for the people of that region, but also for the West's relationship with Russia.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2301986_pf.html
ADMINISTRATION OF TORTURE [NEW BOOK PUBLISHED BY ACLU): When the American media published photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, the Bush administration assured the world that the abuse was isolated and aberrational. Government officials insisted that abuse took place in spite of policy, not because of it. But the government's own documents tell a starkly different story.
http://www.aclu.org/about/staff/administrationoftorture.html

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/akhavi.php?articleid=11824

Welcome to 'Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week'
by Khody Akhavi with Ali Gharib

Right-wing pundit David Horowitz was in rare form during a tightly controlled "public speech" at the George Washington University on Thursday night, decrying the US academic Left as a hateful "lynch mob" who act as apologists for the impending threat of the "Islamo-fascist" jihad.

As bodyguards and police loomed on stage and in the aisles, Horowitz launched into an unscripted two-hour tirade that meandered between selective (and dubious) readings of Middle East history and pointed attacks against those who criticized his efforts.

It was the latest permutation of Horowitz's long march as the harbinger of revolutionary knowledge in the face of public opprobrium. And as usual, he offered up a sensational and bizarre spectacle that appeared better suited for the US tabloid talk show circuit than a forum of legitimate public debate.

During his speech, sponsored by the conservative student group Young America Foundation, Horowitz condemned the "oppression of women in Islam," and what he perceived as the endemic "genocidal Jew hatred" throughout the Middle East. He took aim at the "juvenile delinquents" – GW university students – who had satirized his efforts, said that Palestinians, through their actions, showed that they did not want a state of their own. Horowitz also alleged that the Muslim Students Association, which has chapters at universities across the nation, is a creation of the "Islamo-fascist jihad."

He called Lebanese Hezbollah a "Nazi party," and warned that Turkey was teetering on the edge of becoming an Islamo-fascist state. And he described Iran as the archetype of this phenomenon.

"There is an intellectual terror in this country, which you have all seen. The president [George W. Bush] is intimidated from using the term Islamo-fascism because it is supposed to be racist," he told an audience of students, a majority of whom applauded his words.

"Why the term fascism? The analytical reason is simple," he said. "Probably Islamo-Nazism is a more appropriate term."

Horowitz's conservative Freedom Center (DHFC) designated last week as the first annual "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" – a time to refute "the two big lies of the political Left: that George Bush created the war on terror and that global warming is a greater danger to Americans than the terrorist threat."

The program consisted of more than 30 events at 26 universities across the nation. Conservative pundits, politicians, and academic and think-tank experts, including former Senator Rick Santorum, conservative icon Ann Coulter, and historian Daniel Pipes, delivered speeches and spoke on panels.

Pipes is among a small group of neoconservatives who advise Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani on Middle East affairs.

College students were urged to stage sit-ins outside women's studies departments, and to distribute pamphlets, including titles such as "Jimmy Carter's War Against the Jews." Films screened included "Islam: What the West Needs to Know." According to its description, the film "reveals the violent, expansionary ideology of the so called 'religion of peace' that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government."

But Horowitz's speech Thursday did not reflect a coherent policy towards the perceived threat. Instead, it overflowed with insults, sweeping generalizations and hyperbole that were aimed at smearing his political enemies – mostly liberals, whom he described as "leftists" – giving him ammunition for his fundraising drives.

Horowitz focused much of his speech on the personal attacks he had received, repeatedly alluding to violent threats, and describing the fiasco as a "national hate campaign" against him, as if a "target had been placed on" his back.

The day earlier, he said, he was shouted down and was unable to finish a planned speech at Emory University in Georgia. Horowitz's website, Frontpagemag.com, called the students "brownshirts," an allusion to a Nazi paramilitary group in fascist Germany.

Horowitz sent a solicitation email to DHFC supporters in anticipation of the week asking for additional contributions "toward the expenses of providing security" for speakers. Donors of 50 dollars or more receive two booklets – "What Americans Need to Know About Jihad," by Robert Spencer, and "The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam," by Robert Spencer and Phyllis Chesler.

On Thursday, he appeared on stage with a large bodyguard constantly scanning the crowd. Journalists were barred from asking any questions.

One protester who had snuck a banner into the theater was removed quickly by security as soon as he stood up and unfurled it. Several heated discussions occurred in the lobby and outside the building shortly after the event ended.

The publicity provided by the extreme rhetoric and protest incidents gets the attention of a cabal of wealthy and powerful conservatives who in turn fund Horowitz's activities through foundations.

The Freedom Center has received more than 15 million dollars in grants from conservative donors, according to a report from Media Transparency, an organization that monitors contributions to conservative media. Major contributors include the John M. Olin Foundation, a New York based think-tank that closed its doors in 2005, and which funded major right-wing think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation and the Hoover Institute.

Prominent conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife has poured 4.2 million dollars into Horowitz's activities, through the Sarah Scaife Foundation, the Carthage Foundation, and the Allegheny Foundation.

Horowitz also received 6.1 million dollars from the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, considered the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundation.

By the end of the week, "Islamo-fascism Awareness" had descended into a publicity circus.

According to independent journalist Max Blumenthal, who was in attendance at the IFAW Horowitz talk on Friday at Columbia University, Horowitz was surrounded by a group of bodyguards that almost outnumbered the amount of people there to protest his speech. Columbia security subsequently removed the protesters from the campus.

Horowitz went on a bizarre rant – claiming that there "will never be social justice" – and launched into a tirade about the threats from the guests on the Jerry Springer Show, a US television tabloid talk show. He also compared his own father, a communist Queens schoolteacher, to Mohammad Atta, the operational leader of the 9/11 attacks.

"It was like listening to the ravings of a lunatic on a subway car," said Blumenthal. "The only difference was that on the subway the police are there to remove the lunatic and here they were there to protect the lunatic."

(Inter Press Service)

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p...5-10-2007_pg3_5


VIEW: America’s self-defeating hegemony —Francis Fukuyama

Pre-emption is fully justified vis-à-vis stateless terrorists wielding such weapons. But it cannot be the core of a general non-proliferation policy, whereby the United States intervenes militarily everywhere to prevent the development of nuclear weapons

When I wrote about the “end of history” almost twenty years ago, one thing that I did not anticipate was the degree to which American behaviour and misjudgements would make anti-Americanism one of the chief fault-lines of global politics. And yet, particularly since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that is precisely what has happened, owing to four key mistakes made by the Bush administration.

First, the doctrine of “pre-emption,” which was devised in response to the 2001 attacks, was inappropriately broadened to include Iraq and other so-called “rogue states” that threatened to develop weapons of mass destruction. To be sure, pre-emption is fully justified vis-à-vis stateless terrorists wielding such weapons. But it cannot be the core of a general non-proliferation policy, whereby the United States intervenes militarily everywhere to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.

The cost of executing such a policy simply would be too high (several hundred billion dollars and tens of thousands of casualties in Iraq and still counting). This is why the Bush administration has shied away from military confrontations with North Korea and Iran, despite its veneration of Israel’s air strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, which set back Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program by several years. After all, the very success of that attack meant that such limited intervention could never be repeated, because would-be proliferators learned to bury, hide, or duplicate their nascent weapons programs.

The second important miscalculation concerned the likely global reaction to America’s exercise of its hegemonic power. Many people within the Bush administration believed that even without approval by the UN Security Council or NATO, American power would be legitimised by its successful use. This had been the pattern for many US initiatives during the Cold War, and in the Balkans during the 1990’s; back then, it was known as “leadership” rather than “unilateralism.”

But, by the time of the Iraq war, conditions had changed: the US had grown so powerful relative to the rest of the world that the lack of reciprocity became an intense source of irritation even to America’s closest allies. The structural anti-Americanism arising from the global distribution of power was evident well before the Iraq war, in the opposition to American-led globalisation during the Clinton years. But it was exacerbated by the Bush administration’s “in-your-face” disregard for a variety of international institutions as soon it came into office — a pattern that continued through the onset of the Iraq war.

America’s third mistake was to overestimate how effective conventional military power would be in dealing with the weak states and networked transnational organisations that characterise international politics, at least in the broader Middle East. It is worth pondering why a country with more military power than any other in human history, and that spends as much on its military as virtually the rest of the world combined, cannot bring security to a small country of 24 million people after more than three years of occupation. At least part of the problem is that it is dealing with complex social forces that are not organised into centralised hierarchies that can enforce rules, and thus be deterred, coerced, or otherwise manipulated through conventional power.

Israel made a similar mistake in thinking that it could use its enormous margin of conventional military power to destroy Hezbollah in last summer’s Lebanon War. Both Israel and the US are nostalgic for a twentieth-century world of nation-states, which is understandable, since that is the world to which the kind of conventional power they possess is best suited.

But nostalgia has led both states to misinterpret the challenges they now face, whether by linking al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or Hezbollah to Iran and Syria. This linkage does exist in the case of Hezbollah, but the networked actors have their own social roots and are not simply pawns used by regional powers. This is why the exercise of conventional power has become frustrating.

Finally, the Bush administration’s use of power has lacked not only a compelling strategy or doctrine, but also simple competence. In Iraq alone, the administration misestimated the threat of WMD, failed to plan adequately for the occupation, and then proved unable to adjust quickly when things went wrong. To this day, it has dropped the ball on very straightforward operational issues in Iraq, such as funding democracy promotion efforts.

Incompetence in implementation has strategic consequences. Many of the voices that called for, and then bungled, military intervention in Iraq are now calling for war with Iran. Why should the rest of the world think that conflict with a larger and more resolute enemy would be handled any more capably?

But the fundamental problem remains the lopsided distribution of power in the international system. Any country in the same position as the US, even a democracy, would be tempted to exercise its hegemonic power with less and less restraint. America’s founding fathers were motivated by a similar belief that unchecked power, even when democratically legitimated, could be dangerous, which is why they created a constitutional system of internally separated powers to limit the executive.

Such a system does not exist on a global scale today, which may explain how America got into such trouble. A smoother international distribution of power, even in a global system that is less than fully democratic, would pose fewer temptations to abandon the prudent exercise of power.

Francis Fukuyama is Dean of the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and Chairman of The American Interest, www.the-american-interest.com

Guantánamo Military Lawyer Breaks Ranks to Condemn 'Unconscionable' Detention

White House Leak: Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike

Gregor Peter Schmitz, Cordula Meyer, Der Spiegel

War on Iraq: High-ranking military experts say an attack would lead to world economic chaos, or even what Bush calls 'World War III.'

Naomi Wolf's Guide to Restoring Liberty in America

Naomi Wolf, Firedoglake

Rights and Liberties: It's open season on all of us, and it's time to take to the streets.

How Bad Will the Next Recession Be?

Scott Thill, AlterNet

If our government really is a corporation and Bush is its CEO, we're all likely to be self-employed contractors out of a job.

27 October SWJ Op-Ed Roundup
by Dave Dilegge
Irregular Warfare: After Smart Weapons, Smart Soldiers – The Economist editorial
Winning One Battle, Fighting the Next – Frederick Kagan, Weekly Standard
Anthropologists and a True Culture War? – Richard Shweder, New York Times
Islamist Terrorists Learning From Iraq, So Must We – The Australian editorial
Turkey and Iraq, A Missed Moment – Henry Barkey, Washington Post
Bringing the Iraq War Home – Kevin Ferris, Philadelphia Inquirer
Slipping in Afghanistan – Washington Post editorial
NATO's Cringe Reflex in Afghanistan – Toronto Star editorial
Recipe for Disaster in Afghanistan - James Travers, Toronto Star
Lt. Michael Murphy: Lone Survivor – Mark Lasswell, Wall Street Journal
Blackwater: Shoot First, Forget the Questions – Vicki Woods, London Daily Telegraph
Curb State Department's Hired Guns – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
Tightening on Teheran – National Review editorial
Iran on Notice – London Times editorial
Preventing World War III – Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post
Something to Consider Before Attacking Iran – Rami Khouri, Daily Star
It's All About Iran – Jerusalem Post editorial
Talking Through a Nuclear Showdown – Graham Allison, Boston Globe
Iran Attack Would Help Ahmadinejad at Home - Mehdi Khalaji, Daily Star
U.S.- Israel Relations Crisis – Daniel Pipes, Jerusalem Post
The Palestinians Don't Want a State – Evelyn Gordon, Jerusalem Post
Fatah and Hamas Human Rights Abuses – Jordan Times editorial
Israel-Palestinians: Truth, Lies and Peacemaking - Gershon Baskin, Daily Star
Abbas's Opportunity – David Horovitz, Jerusalem Post
Bhutto Sweeps All Aside in Pakistan - Ramesh Thakur, Canberra Times
FISA: Progress on Surveillance – Washington Post editorial
But Who Will Surveil the Judges? – Gary Schmitt, Weekly Standard
Patriot Act and the Bill of Rights – Mitch McConnell, National Review
Waterboarding and Torture – Andrew McCarthy, National Review
Human Rights: The Left's Mixed Up Priorities – Mona Charen, National Review
As a Country, UK Lacks Power – Matthew Parris, London Times
Cold War Cuba – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
A Deal to Keep with N. Korea – Boston Globe editorial
China's Crucial Role in Burma – Michael Richardson, Canberra Times
Poland, Untwinned – New York Times editorial
Today's Hidden Slave Trade – Bob Herbert, New York Times
Liberal Revisionists Vilify America – Michael Knox Beran, National Review
Profile Foreign Donors – Michelle Malkin, Washington Times

Wall Street Democrats vs. Main Street Democrats
Harold Meyerson
October 25, 2007 | web only
The Democrats have become the party of class conflict.

An Anglo-American Conspiracy Theory
The Wahhabis are Coming, the Wahhabis are Coming!

By M. REZA PIRBHAI

From January 1857 to September 2007, the New York Times published eighty-six items that mention 'Wahhabism'--a 'puritanical' (salafi) Islamic creed named after its 18th century Arabian founder, Abd al-Wahhab. Six appeared before the attacks of September 2001, while eighty have appeared since. Although the frequency of references has tapered of late, giving way to more generic terms like 'Islamo-fascism,' Wahhabism continues to be stridently linked to Al-Qaeda; the Taliban Movement; the madrasas of Pakistan; the Sunni resistance in Iraq; the war in Chechnya; unrest in Dagestan; anti-government activism in Uzbekistan; multifarious attempted and successful bombings in Europe and elsewhere; the need for change in US foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia; the security threat posed by mosques in the US; and, review of the US armed forces' chaplaincy policy.

The same links are often echoed in other dailies as well as such current affairs magazines as Newsweek, and are by no means restricted to the US media, as attested by contributors to Canada's Globe and Mail, Britain's London Times, France's Le Monde diplomatique and Russia's Pravda. Many works of non-fiction also follow suit, including Charles Allen's God's Terrorists: The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad, Thomas Hammes' The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century, and Stephen Schwartz's, The Two Faces of Islam: The House of Saud from Tradition to Terror. Nor are late works of fiction exempted, as illustrated by Richard A. Clark's novel of international political intrigue, The Scorpion's Gate (2005). Given that Clark was associated with the US State Department, Pentagon and White House for three decades, not to mention the 'lapdog' stance assumed by mainstream media outlets since '9/11,' the US government is clearly on, if not behind the reins of this bandwagon--a point amply illustrated by the alarmed tone of a recently published hearing by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security, titled 'Terrorism: Growing Wahhabi Influence in the US' (2004), as well as the '9/11 Commission Report' (2004), by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the US, which concludes that Al-Qaeda belongs to the 'stream' of Islam commonly termed Wahhabism.

Although I will not suggest that this rhetoric is hegemonic, there can be no doubt that the idea of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' against the 'West' has, since 9/11, become lodged in the colloquial psyche of many in the US and beyond. The collective argument, however, can be reduced to three pieces of 'evidence':

1) Usama bin Laden and fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 highjackers were Saudi Arabians;

2) Saudi Arabia funds Wahhabi madrasas (schools), masjids (mosques) and imams (preachers) from South East Asia to Europe and North America, creating an ideologically and operationally coherent 'network' in which Al-Qaeda plays a leadership role; and,

3) Wahhabism is not only 'puritanical,' it is 'militantly anti-Western.' In short, Wahhabism is identified as the theology behind 'Islamo-fascism.'

Yet, there are a number of glaring omissions in this perspective, beginning with the fact that the Wahhabi clerics of Saudi Arabia--the sole state sponsor of Wahhabism--routinely issue decrees condemning jihad against the European and North American states, while Usama bin Laden has vociferously castigated renowned clerics (including Wahhabis) as 'slaves of apostate regimes' like Saudi Arabia.

As well, although Saudi Arabian funds have been used to establish various religious institutions across the globe, not only are they in the minority from state to state, but the most militant madrasas, etc., are not Saudi funded or Wahhabi in intellectual orientation. For example, in Pakistan (noted by the above governmental, media and pseudo-academic sources as a breeding ground for militant Wahhabism), an International Crisis Group study conducted in 2002, found that ninety percent of the madrasas catering to one and half million students, were proponents of South Asian 'Deobandi' or 'Barelvi' thought, while the remaining ten percent could be shared between 'Jama'at-i Islami' (Maududian), 'Shi'a' and Wahhabi organizations. The handful of madrasas promoting militancy (including the Taliban Movement) are not Wahhabi, but Deobandi, and their initial funding came from the US during the Afghan-Soviet war (1979-1989), extending to textbooks produced by USAID and Ronald Reagan's reference to their students as 'the moral equivalent of the founding fathers [of America].' Even a recent USAID report (2003) acknowledges that the link between madrasas and violence is 'rare,' and the same perspective has been forwarded to the US Congress in at least two Congress Research Services reports updated in 2004 and 2005, respectively.

The most damning indictment of the non-scholarly perspective, however, is the fact that Al-Qaeda's leadership is well known in scholarly circles to have been largely inspired by the ideology of Sayyid Qutb (d.1966), a late leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, while within the 'Salafi' fold, the Brotherhood, Wahhabism, Qutbism, Deobandism and Maududism, differ on issues as fundamental as the defensive or offensive nature of jihad, the legitimacy of 'suicide bombings' and civilian targets, the status of women, the legitimacy of electoral politics, nationalism, Pan-Islamism, Shi'ism and Sufism in Muslim society.

Demarcating the gaping chasm between scholarly and governmental/media/pseudo-academic perspectives should not be read as apologia for Wahhabism, let alone the Saudi Arabian regime that promotes it. As outlined by the eminent historian, Wilfred Cantwell Smith, many decades ago, Wahhabism rejects the "introvert warmth and other-worldly piety" of Islam's "mystical way," the rationalism of "philosophy" and "theology" and the sectarianism of the "Shi'a." In fact, Wahhabism rejects the very "interpretation of Islamwhich had become dominant" by the 18th century. As for the Saudi Arabian regime, there is little need for scholarly citations to contend that it is despotic, employing the Wahhabi creed to legitimate kingship and allow no forms of dissent within its borders.

The import of the distinction between representations of Wahhabism lies in the number of questions non-scholarly rhetoric raises about its origins and purpose in Europe and North America. To be sure, incompetence in government and elsewhere can not be discounted in explaining the distance between what is known and what is believed. However, the history of the idea of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' against 'Western' interests makes it plain that more directed concerns are also involved. Consider the following quote. "[D]uring many years past the Wahhabis have pursued a system in raising supplies for the support of the fanatics living beyond the North-West Frontier, who are waging war against the Government." No, these are not the words of a Whitehouse spokesperson commenting on the current debacle in 'North-West Frontier Province' of Pakistan that borders Afghanistan. These are the words of a colonial officer, uttered in 1868 and referencing the forces ranged against British rule in that same area. They were spoken in the context of a series of prosecutions called the 'Wahhabi Trials,' in which Muslims suspected of involvement in 30 years of anti-colonial activity, culminating in the 'Great Indian Mutiny' of 1857, were heard, convicted and executed or transported.

As the London Times had already published letters making the case that among these 'fanatics' were a number of Muslim 'philosophers and historians' (that is, clerics), the trials that followed the 1857 Uprising were quite explicitly directed against clerical groups, with particular emphasis placed on the prosecution of Muslim 'chaplains' in the British Indian Army. Furthermore, as it had been reported from the field that in 'every station, in every citythe movers of the present rising have agents sowing discontent and circulating intelligence,' vast swaths of the general Muslim population were identified with Wahhabism and placed under suspicion.

Indeed, even before the 1857 Uprising began, reporters of the colonial Allen's India Mail, had tied earlier, more local insurrections to an 'extraordinary system of network[that] unites together every town, village and hamlet' in South Asia. Never mind that the fragmented nature of the 1857 Uprising and those that preceded it was well known to colonial officials and other segments of the press even commented on the local, socio-economic determinants of discontent. Never mind that it was also widely known and reported that Muslims and Hindus of various sects and classes had participated in these anti-colonial actions, while even more, including Wahhabis, had not. Never mind that even those deposed and convicted in the 'Wahhabi Trials' testified that they were not Wahhabis, a significant section of the colonial establishment and the press remained adamant that the activities of 'seditious Wahhabis,' driven solely by their 'militantly anti-Western' creed, were the root cause of all the British government's failures in spreading Western 'liberalism' and 'democracy' as part of its colonial 'Civilizing Mission.' As the Bishop of London put it in 1857, the 'heathen' must be 'smote,' before the 'destinies of our race' and the 'progress of Christ and civilization' can be extended from Britain.

If the longevity of the rhetoric of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' against the 'West' is to be chalked up to the incompetence of its propagators, then it is ineptitude on a monumentally historic scale. Furthermore, it would also be necessary for the historian to attribute a century of cordial Anglo-American relations with actual Wahhabis to colossal oversight. After all, the Wahhabi Trials were no more than a few decades in the past when the British government, represented by 'Lawrence of Arabia,' instigated the Wahhabi House of Saud's revolt against the Ottoman Empire in World War I, then followed up by supporting the same supposedly 'anti-Western' force against local rivals to form the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932.

As well, the historian would have to explain US involvement in the extraction of Saudi Arabian oil reserves from 1938 to the present as a further act of ignorance, given that the first mention of Wahhabism in the New York Times appears in a 1931 editorial that describes it as 'traditional' (itself a misnomer given the anti-traditionalist stance of 'Abd al-Wahhab), but by no means 'militantly anti-Western.' Indeed, it was not until the 1990's that Wahhabism made a limited comeback as a militant, though even then not necessarily anti-Western creed in US media and official circles. For example, in the New York Times, the US' Afghan allies against the Soviets were identified as Wahhabis by August 1989, Chechen separatists as the same by August 1999, the Taliban and Pakistani madrasas as such by June 2000 and anti-government Uzbek forces in a letter dated August 2001. Still, there was no need for alarm.

The 'problem' of Wahhabism (outside of intra-Muslim sectarian strife) was only identified in October 2001, after the '9/11' attacks on New York and Washington. Only after this event did a full-blown 'Wahhabi Conspiracy' became standard fare, with Wahhabism reprising its 19th century role as the 'fanatical' and 'despotic' antithesis of a 'Civilized World' defined by Western 'liberalism' and 'democracy.'

If not incompetence, then what explains the fact that historians of Islam and the Muslim World have long provided an alternative perspective to the theory of a 'Wahhabi Conspiracy,' while the same governmental and media outlets that tout this theory have had close relations with actual Wahhabis? I submit there is a conspiracy of sorts at play--one of willful over-simplification - but it is not a 'Wahhabi,' or even more broadly 'Islamist,' conspiracy direct against the 'West.' Rather, it is an official Anglo-American and, perhaps, more thoroughly 'Western' ruling-class propensity to obfuscate the political and socio-economic disenfranchisement that drives militancy in the Muslim World.

The prime victims of this 'conspiracy' are these governments' constituents themselves. Considering that the rhetoric of a Wahhabi Conspiracy was contrived and employed by Britain against anti-colonial movements in the 19th century, while evidence to the contrary was present and the actual Wahhabis of Arabia came to enjoy close relations with Britain, confirms that it served to cynically conceal the political and socio-economic underpinnings of those very movements from their own citizens. The sudden resurrection of this discourse now, despite a greater body of scholarly evidence to the contrary, closer ties between Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi regime and the US, as well as historical 'alliances' with the very groups today being prosecuted, makes the strongest suggestion that the contemporary rhetoric of a Wahhabi Conspiracy also serves as a mask for imperialist agendas and a carpet under which to sweep the protests and concerns of the Muslim classes disenfranchised as a result.

Now as then, Wahhabism's use as a catch-all term erases the motives of broad and disparate groups seeking redress for local discontentment caused by the colonial/imperialist activities of the powers-that-be, in favour of an official perspective, eagerly lapped up by invested media and pseudo-academic supporters, that conveniently presents a coherent, coordinated and globally conspiratorial network of ideologically driven violence and hate. 'The Wahhabis are coming,' just as the 'Commies' once were.

M. Reza Pirbhai is an assistant professor of history at Louisiana State University.
http://www.counterpunch.org/pirbhai10272007.html

A Political Psychodrama

In Search of Logic About Iran
By ALI MOAYEDIAN

In Bushies' march to war with Iran. Many are concerned and see the dangers of war as imminent. Others are openly advocating for U.S. aggression against Iran and they scream for bombardment of another nation, just because we can!

Forces of Good and Evil are lining up. And this is no movie. There is no middle ground either. If Evil takes over, all that there is will have to succumb to Evil. Which side are you standing with? And which side do you think has the upper hand? I like to think it's the Good. Unfortunately I've been proven wrong before!


Brook's PsychoBush Theorem

Rosa Brook, a columnist for Los Angeles Times, puts is very bluntly, and she has got it right. The Bushies are all insane. Thus one cannot confront them in the domain of logic. One has to wonder how a psychotic Bush sold us one War for Peace, and how he continues his road shows selling more of Elixir Of Death as Elixir Of Life?

We are past the 9/11 patriotism. But it still takes guts for Brook to say it as she sees it. May the force protect her from blacklists!

Forget impeachment. Liberals, put it behind you. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney shouldn't be treated like criminals who deserve punishment. They should be treated like psychotics who need treatment.

Writing in Newsweek on Oct. 20, Fareed Zakaria, a solid centrist and former editor of Foreign Affairs, put it best. Citing Bush's invocation of "the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon," Zakaria concluded that "the American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. . . . Iran has an economy the size of Finland's. . . . It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are . . . allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?"


The Jihadi Cowboy

Dr. Ali Ettefagh, writing from Tehran in Washington Post, argues that since Iran hasn't attacked anyone U.S. should leave her alone. This argument will make perfect sense to sane and/or logical people. But based on Brook's PsychoBush Theorem discussed above, we need to come up with new arguments to deal with psychotic Bushies. All evidence indicates that the Bushies only believe in language of force. To come and say "Iran hasn't invaded any countries" only aggravates the situation and causes the Bushies to show more teeth. You should instead write about all the times Iran has invaded and conquered others. Feel free to go back a few thousand years!

We have to accept that we live in an era of intellectual rip-offs, tactics sold as policy and instant strategies broadcast live on TV. The show on the plastic box and talking-head spin-meisters will do the thinking and planning for us all. Accordingly, we lower expectations and shall not be surprised when we see childish games are sold as a mimic of statesmanship. His Excellency, the president of a superpower, is now demanding that the world forget what it knows and listen to his version of stories.

Finally, it's useful to review history. Iran has not started a war, or grabbed a neighbor's territory, since the United States became an independent country. Iran helped the Allies during World War II, providing a supply route to Russia and a safe escape route for Polish Jews, some of whom settled in Iran. Iran has never trampled on the dignity of any one.

But a small Middle Eastern country fabricated after World War II might well start the world's next Iranian conflict--a country that that aspires to be the real spin-meister of cheap tactics in Washington.


The Real Threat

Lamis Andoni, a Middle East consultant for Al Jazeera, writing in Washington Post talks about worries of the people in the Arab world. What people like Lamis fail to understand is Bushies doesn't give a hoot (to be polite) for the anxiety and uncertainty of the Arabs. But no hard feelings. Katrina victims were treated the same, if not worse!

Talk of an American war against Iran has provoked anxiety and uncertainty here in the Arab world, especially in the Gulf Region, Jordan, Palestine, Syria and Lebanon. People are still reeling from the effects of the continuing war in Iraq and the lack of resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Many believe Iran's military power is the region's only deterrent against Israel--and many here support Iran's legal right to develop nuclear power. The view from the region is largely defined by the world's silence towards Israeli nuclear power.


Oil Gets Nervous

Considering Iran produces 4 million bpd and sits strategically between Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf, there is no question nervousness will turn into mass hysteria if sanity forbid the first GWB missile lands in Iran. Guess who will pay the price then? Now if some people have to pay more, others will naturally collect more. It's left an exercise to the readers to find who the select others are.
Then again you may ask that when the whole planet is going down with global warming, does it make sense to continue maximizing profits by engaging in Massive Murder and Destruction (WMD)? To that I have to answer you are thinking logically again. Please go back and study the PsychoBush Theorem again!

Crude oil rose above $90 a barrel to a record in New York the day after a government report showed an unexpected drop in U.S. stockpiles.

New U.S. sanctions against Iran, warnings of a Turkish assault on Kurdish militants in Iraq and a falling dollar also pushed prices higher today.


Hillary Clinton Advocates More Insanity

Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner Democratic Presidential Candidate, supports the new Bush Sanctions against Iran. We could perhaps forgive Hillary for voting for the war on Iraq. We can blame that on temporary insanity; or maybe she followed Bush blindly and natively. What now? Now that all the cards are on the table, what's her excuse? Maybe the insanity wasn't temporary after all? Is this the best that we can get for a first woman president? I Pass!

Here's the official statement from Hillary Clinton on Bush's Iran Sanctions Announcement:

"We must use all the tools at our disposal to address the serious challenge posed by Iran, including diplomacy, economic pressure, and sanctions.

"I believe that a policy of diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war. That's why I took to the Senate floor last February and warned the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and why I've co-sponsored Senator Webb's legislation to make that the law of the land. I've been concerned for a long time over George Bush's saber rattling and belligerence toward Iran.

"We must work to check Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism, and the sanctions announced today strengthen America's diplomatic hand in that regard. The Bush Administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy to achieve our objective of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program, while also averting military action. That is the policy I support."

Loony Romney Wants The Blood Flowing In Persian Gulf

Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney best exemplifies the mentality of the Republican hopefuls, except for Ron Paul of course. They are all eager to replace the flow of oil through Persian Gulf with blood. The Republicans, have turned the presidential campaign into an I'll Attack Iran First race instead. Mitt and company are screaming at the top of their lungs everywhere they go on the campaign trail trying to create a monster out of Iran, and they all try to top each other in how they plan to obliterate Iran. Will the voters see the real monsters close at home?

According to CNN, Romney told voters in New Hampshire that he would take military action, including a blockade or "bombardment of some kind," to stop Iran's move to gain nuclear weapons.

"If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us," Romney said. "That's an option that's on the table. And it's not something which we'll spell out specifically."

Romney also spoke out in favor of the Bush administration's sanctions against Tehran.


May Sanity Prevail

There is still hope. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska wants engagement not confrontation. Rays of wisdom are forcing their way through the clouds of hatred and warmongering in Washington. But will the sun come out?

"Unilateral sanctions rarely, ever work," Hagel said by phone during his weekly news conference. "I just don't think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together."

Hagel, a Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said there's no question that Iran's behavior presents a problem, citing the country's activities in Iraq and elsewhere. But, he said, the answer is not "to throw unilateral sanctions on them." "It escalates the danger of a military confrontation," Hagel said. "I certainly think engagement is critical ... direct engagement," said Hagel. "That's what great powers do.

Senator Chris Dodd, a Democratic Presidential Candidate, also spoke against the new sanctions:

"I recognize the obvious threat a nuclear Iran poses to the region and beyond, and that we must stop Iran's continued support for international terrorism.

"Unfortunately, the action taken by the Administration today comes in the context of escalating rhetoric and drumbeat to military action against Iran.

"I am deeply concerned that once again the President is opting for military action as a first resort.

"The glaring omission of any new diplomatic measures by the President today is the reason I voted, and urged my colleagues to vote, against the Kyl -Lieberman resolution on September 26.

"The aggressive actions taken today by the Administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran."

But it was John Edwards, another Democratic Presidential Candidate, who had the harshest words for Bush, Cheney and above all Hillary Clinton:

"Today, George Bush and Dick Cheney again rattled the sabers in their march toward military action against Iran. The Bush Administration has been making plans to attack Iran for many months. At this critical moment, we need strong leadership to stand against George Bush's dangerous 'preventive war' policy, which makes force the first option, not the last.

"I learned a clear lesson from the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002: if you give this president an inch, he will take a mile - and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson. Instead of blocking George Bush's new march to war, Senator Clinton and others are enabling him once again.

"I have called for strong, capable diplomacy to deal with the challenge of Iran, and a carrots and sticks strategy aimed at results--not the Bush/Cheney path, which would escalate tensions, enable attacks, and lead to unintended consequences.

"The New Yorker recently reported that one reason the administration has not yet attacked Iran is because public opinion has turned against such a course. Senator Clinton's actions undermine the American people's opposition to war with Iran. Today's advancement of the Bush strategy on Iran shows how much we need strong opposition on this issue. I learned my lesson the hard way in 2002, but it appears that others still have some learning to do."

The High Costs

Unfortunately, the cryptic statement from Senator Barak Obama, another Democratic Presidential Candidate, didn't cut it. He's taken the middle ground (as if there is one). Obama wants us to believe he isn't for war. But he is afraid to be forceful and daring. He's obviously too concerned about the political costs: " It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard."


A Small Man Standing Tall

Congressman Dennis Kucinich is by far the strongest anti-war Democratic Presidential candidate. One can expect to hear straight words from Kucinich. No beating around the Bushies. He is a man of wisdom and logic. They've tried to put him down because of his height. But he's standing taller than all other candidates:

"The Administration has been dramatically increasing its efforts in the last several weeks to go to war with Iran," Kucinich said. "This latest stunt is nothing more than an attempt to deceive Americans into yet another war-this time with Iran."

Last week, President Bush stated in a news conference: "So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

In a speech Sunday to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies, Vice President Dick Cheney said that if Iran continues on its current course, the United States and other nations are "prepared to impose serious consequences. Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions."

In announcing the sanctions today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said:

"Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map."

"After the lies and deception used to lead us to war in Iraq, the belligerent Bush Administration cannot be given leeway with statements that suggest a preemptive attack on Iran is necessary," Kucinich said. "We are systematically destroying every available route to restoring peace and security in the Middle East."Congress must take back its exclusive authority to declare war from the Bush Administration."


In Search of Logic

In the following video, Chris Matthews is probing Joshua Muravchik of American Enterprise Institute, a Neo Cons' den, for an iota of logic. But as hard as he tries, nothing comes out. This could be funny. However, considering psychotics like Muravchik are at the control of the nuclear buttons, this is as scary as it can get.

Ali Moayedian the editor of Payvand Iran News.http://www.counterpunch.org/moayedian10272007.html

On Track for U.S. Collapse

Bush and Cheney are steering the U.S. into a collapse. Only strong public voices by influential people can prevent the coming disaster. We desperately need for men and women who are known to the public and have credibility to speak up in the critical period ahead to avoid catastrophe.

• A few weeks ago, Israel bombed a alleged nuclear facility in Syria. This is a warm-up for an attack on Iran.
• In the last few days, the U.S. unilaterally tightened sanctions on Iran. Russia and China do not support this move.
• A week ago Bush warned Iran that its attainment of nuclear arms would lead to World War III.
• Russia, which has been assisting Iran in its nuclear construction program for decades, regards Western military action against Iran as unacceptable.
• China has been arming Iran with missiles. Its relations with Iran have been improving for years.

We know that Bush and Cheney are capable of pre-emptive attack. We know that Bush will act if he believes he is right no matter what the costs are. In his distorted worldview, Iran with nuclear weapons is a scenario worth any cost to avoid.

We know that Bush, Cheney, and Rice have repeatedly warned Iran of meaningful consequences if Iran arms itself with nuclear weapons. We know that their terms in office end in 15 months. These are the critical months.

But it is by no means clear that the front-running candidates for office who may replace them hold substantially different views. Hillary Clinton has publicly called for sanctions against Iran and has called Iran a threat to Israel.

Why may an unprovoked attack on Iran lead to WWIII and why may it lead to the collapse of the U.S.?

Imagine this scenario. The U.S. encourages Israel to bomb the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran. Russia attempts to restrain an Iranian response but fails. Iran responds in any of many ways, such as launching missiles on Israel, firing on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, mining the Straits of Hormuz, sending troops into Iraq, or allying its military with Hezbollah and attacking Israel from Lebanon.

The U.S., citing Iran's aggressions (that will be the story), launches a full-scale attack on Iran designed to devastate the country. This attack has actually been planned by the U.S. for years. Syria is unable to maintain neutrality and quickly becomes a battleground between Iran and Israel.

The price of oil by this point has already soared to $200 a barrel. The U.S. begins to use its strategic reserve and to divert Iraqi production. Russia responds by taking steps to prevent its oil production from reaching the U.S. China responds by cutting off its support of the U.S. Treasury market. Venezuela halts oil shipments to the U.S. The first stages of WWIII are economic warfare designed to cripple the U.S. and halt its war-making capacity.

The U.S., unable to finance its deficits and fund its sovereign debt, is forced into raising interest rates drastically in order to borrow. The Fed is forced to print money. An inflationary spiral occurs. Meanwhile the high interest rates and high oil prices, not to mention the shock of a spreading conflict, drive the U.S. economy into severe decline. The U.S. attempts to raise taxes in order to fund itself, further crippling the economy. Gold soars to $1,500–$2,000 an ounce.

The U.S. attempts to bolster its military forces. The draft is reinstated. The severity of the emergency allows Bush and Cheney to assume emergency powers and begin a dictatorship. Elections are postponed.

The U.S. collapses.

Unfortunately, even if this scenario does not occur, the position of the U.S. is so precarious that any number of other scenarios equally disastrous lie in wait. This house needs urgently to be put in order or it will fall, and especially if it does not terminate its imperial adventures. The very fact that Bush and Cheney (or any major U.S. political officials) gain by starting WWIII is a terrible indictment of our entire political system.

[b][b][/b][/b]Who can stop this? Who can prevent this? It will only take a few well-placed people to prevent this catastrophe. My guess is 5–20 people could sway public opinion against war or provide enough cover for Congressional dissenters to screw up their courage. Maybe even as few as 3 or 4 influential people could derail the Bush-Cheney train to disaster. They need to speak out at the right times and they must be heard. Previously mute or muted voices simply must speak out. They know who they are. They know that their silence will mean silent approval of a U.S. collapse.




http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff183.html

Hillaryconism
Posted by James Ostrowski at 01:57 AM The rumors are true. The Neocons, having destroyed the Republican Party, are jumping ship to Hillary. That's based on some comments from Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer on Faux News. In its final death throes, neoconservatism then becomes Hillaryconism: she can win and she's belligerent against Iran. Nothing else matters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/mi...and&emc=rss



Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions
GeoEye/SIME A satellite photo from Sept. 16, 2003, shows a large structure being built near a site in Syria that was bombed last month by Israel.

function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=1351137600&en=c19518a3950702de&ei=5124';} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/middleeast/27syria.html'); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent('Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions'); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent('The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened Friday, when a company released a satellite photo from September