The Amazingly Talented Jenna Bush Merits A Spot On NBC News!!

Glenn Greenwald, Salon: Via Sam Smith, The Progressive Review

NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent - former first daughter Jenna Hager, the daughter of former President George W. Bush. . . . She "just sort of popped to us as a natural presence, comfortable" on the air, [Executive Producer Jim] Bell said. Hager will work out of NBC's Washington bureau.

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment.

They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from.

There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.

BushCo torture rules...continued?

This past Monday, attorneys representing Obama's Department of Justice took a page out of the Bush administration's playbook and adopted it as their own. DOJ lawyers stood up in a federal court and declared that, under the government's "state secrets" privilege, they intended to prevent victims of extraordinary rendition from seeking justice in U.S. courts. For the ACLU, which represents the five plaintiffs in the case, Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, this was the darkest and most disturbing of development in Obama's first term.

"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government," Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU said. "This is not change. This is definitely more of the same."

Human rights groups fought hard against the abuse of the state secrets doctrine during the Bush years when it came to covering up the government's unlawful activities, from warrantless wiretapping to torture. If Obama's Department of Justice truly intends to continue this shameful practice, it is up to us to raise our voices in protest.

AlterNet: George W. Bush Gets His Statue in Iraq

By dday, Hullabaloo
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com//124126/

George Bush got his statue in Iraq after all.

A sofa-sized statue of the shoe was unveiled Thursday in Tikrit, the hometown of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Baghdad-based artist Laith al-Amari described the fiberglass-and-copper work as a tribute to the pride of the Iraqi people.

The statue is inscribed with a poem honoring Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi journalist who stunned the world when he whipped off his loafers and hurled them at Bush during a press conference on Dec. 14.

In the Arab world, even showing someone the sole of a shoe is considered a sign of disrespect.

Heckuva job, George.

Update: (Via ThinkProgress) CNN reports that local authorities took down the monument "at the request of the central government" "We will not allow anyone to use the government facilities and buildings for political motives," said Abdullah Jabara, Salaheddin province's deputy governor.

© 2009 Hullabaloo All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com//124126/

Will Obama give Bush and Cheney an illegal pass on their war crimes?

Raw Story - Vice President Dick Cheney confessed to approving torture, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. During an interview with ABC News on Monday evening, Cheney had said "I supported it," referring to the practice known as "water boarding," a form of simulated drowning.

"I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do," Cheney said. "And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it."

"Did he just admit to condoning torture?" Maddow queries.

"As far as I'm concerned, that's exactly what he admitted," Levin said after a pause to shut his eyes, and shake his head as if still in disbelief. . .

Senator Levin oversaw an 18-month long investigation into the Bush administration's torture policy that established that the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo Bay resulted from policies introduced by George W. Bush. . . .

"Do there need to be prosecutions?" Maddow asked, steering the discussion towards the possibility of prosecution and indictments by noting that the Armed Services Committee report on the treatment of U.S. detainees seemed as if its purpose had been the gathering facts for an indictment.

Levin spoke hopefully that the Obama administration would take some "major steps" as "clearly this Justice Department is not willing," and the need for an independent commission that could be appointed by the Obama administration to examine the role of the CIA in the treatment of U.S. detainees as their role has not yet been made clear. Then with all the facts they "may or may not lead to indictments, or civil action."

Glenn Greenwald, Salon - Demands that Bush officials be held accountable for their war crimes are becoming more common in mainstream political discourse. . . The mountain of conclusive evidence that has recently emerged directly linking top Bush officials to the worst abuses -- combined with Dick Cheney's brazen, defiant acknowledgment of his role in these crimes (which perfectly tracked Bush's equally defiant 2005 acknowledgment of his illegal eavesdropping programs and his brazen vow to continue them) -- is forcing even the reluctant among us to embrace the necessity of such accountability.

It's almost as though everyone's nose is now being rubbed in all of this: now that the culpability of our highest government officials is no longer hidden, but is increasingly all out in the open, who can still defend the notion that they should remain immune from consequences for their patent lawbreaking? As Law Professor Jonathan Turley said several weeks ago on The Rachel Maddow Show: "It's the indictment of all of us if we walk away from a clear war crime." And this week, Turley pointed out to Keith Olbermann that "ultimately it will depend on citizens, and whether they will remain silent in the face of a crime that has been committed in plain view. . . . It is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing."

That recognition, finally, seems to be spreading -- beyond the handful of blogs, civil liberties organizations and activists who have long been trumpeting the need for this accountability. The New York Times editorial page today has a lengthy, scathing decree demanding prosecutions: "It would be irresponsible for the nation and a new administration to ignore what has happened . . . . A prosecutor should be appointed to consider criminal charges against top officials at the Pentagon and others involved in planning the abuse." Today, Politico -- of all places -- is hosting a forum which asks: "Should the DOJ consider prosecuting Bush administration officials for detainee abuse as the NYT and others have urged?" Even Chris Matthews and Chris Hitchens yesterday entertained (albeit incoherently and apologetically) the proposition that top Bush officials committed war crimes. . .

Those who demand accountability will be derided as past-obsessed partisans who want to impede all the Glorious, Transcendent Gifts about to be bestowed on us by our new leaders. The manipulative claim will be endlessly advanced that our problems are too grand and pressing to permit the luxury of living under the rule of law. When all else fails in the stonewalling arsenal, impotent "fact-finding" commissions will be proposed to placate the demand for accountability but which will, in fact, be designed and empowered to achieve only one goal: to render actual prosecutions impossible.

But with these new, unprecedentedly stark revelations, this facade will be increasingly difficult to maintain. It is already the case, as the Times Editorial today notes, that "all but President Bush's most unquestioning supporters [i.e., this] recognized the chain of unprincipled decisions that led to the abuse, torture and death in prisons run by the American military and intelligence services." That leaves only two choices: (1) treat these crimes as the serious war crimes they are by having a prosecutor investigate and, if warranted, prosecute them, or (2) openly acknowledge -- to ourselves and the world -- that we believe that our leaders are literally entitled to commit war crimes at will, and that we -- but not the rest of the world -- should be exempt from the consequences. The clearer it becomes that those are the only two choices, the more difficult it will be to choose option (2), and either way, there is great benefit just from having that level of clarity and candor about what we are really doing.

Marjorie Cohn, Global Research - U.S. courts have long held that waterboarding, where water is poured into someone's nose and mouth until he nearly drowns, constitutes torture. Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

Under the doctrine of command responsibility, enshrined in U.S. law, commanders all the way up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief can be held liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.

Why is Cheney so sanguine about admitting he is a war criminal? Because he's confident that either President Bush will preemptively pardon him or President-elect Obama won't prosecute him. Both of those courses of action would be illegal.

First, a president cannot immunize himself or his subordinates for committing crimes that he himself authorized. On February 7, 2002, Bush signed a memo erroneously stating that the Geneva Conventions, which require humane treatment, did not apply to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But the Supreme Court made clear that Geneva protects all prisoners. Bush also admitted that he approved of high level meetings where waterboarding was authorized by Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey says there's no need for Bush to issue blanket pardons since there is no evidence that anyone developed the policies "for any reason other than to protect the security in the country and in the belief that he or she was doing something lawful." But noble motives are not defenses to the commission of crimes.

Lt. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, said, "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Second, the Constitution requires President Obama to faithfully execute the laws. That means prosecuting lawbreakers. When the United States ratified the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, thereby making them part of U.S. law, we agreed to prosecute those who violate their prohibitions.

The bipartisan December 11 report of the Senate Armed Services Committee concluded that "senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees."

Lawyers who wrote the memos that purported to immunize government officials from war crimes liability include John Yoo, Jay Bybee, William Haynes, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales. There is precedent in our law for holding lawyers criminally liable for participating in a common plan to violate the law. . .

During the campaign, Obama promised to promptly review actions by Bush officials to determine whether "genuine crimes" were committed. He said, "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," but "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."

Two Obama advisors told the Associated Press that "there's little-if any – chance that the incoming president's Justice Department will go after anyone involved in authorizing or carrying out interrogations that provoked worldwide outrage.". . .

Obama has promised to bring real change. This must be legal and moral change, where those at the highest levels of government are held accountable for their heinous crimes. The new president should move swiftly to set an important precedent that you can't authorize war crimes and get away with it.

Resurgent Russia

By Brian Cloughly, Counterpunch

As has been shown in Georgia recently, the Russians are in no mood to take any nonsense from anyone, and are intent on once again being a power to be reckoned with. The declaration by the psychotic Dick Cheney that the recent Russian operation in the territory of South Ossetia “must not go unanswered” was silly bluster, and the remarks by Bush and Condoleezza Rice about Russian “aggression” and so forth are equally absurd.

In early August Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, an erratic US-educated, US-backed demagogue, ordered his US-trained, US-equipped troops to rocket villages and then invade the enclave of would-be independent South Ossetia, whose largely Russian-origin inhabitants were being protected by Russian soldiers. His soldiers fired thousands of rockets from multi-barrelled launchers into villages and towns, killing hundreds of civilians. The Russian army went in and thumped the Georgians. So who does much of the West blame for the conflict? Why, Russia, of course.

The hypocrisy of Western reaction to Russia’s justifiable involvement in Georgia is ridiculous. Washington’s condemnation of Moscow is bizarre, and for Bush to state, as he did on 15 August, that “Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century” is preposterous to the point of fantasy. Bush pronounced that “We insist that Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected” which is rich, coming from a man whose drones continue to violate Pakistan’s airspace to fire missiles that have killed scores of Pakistani civilians.

Because of George W Bush there is an ongoing US military occupation of Iraq, a country which posed no threat whatever to the United States and which on his orders was invaded illegally and mercilessly subjugated. His soldiers, outside the NATO command system (such as that is), have killed hundreds of Afghan civilians, resulting in futile protests by Afghanistan’s President Karzai. Sovereignty, anyone?

For the West to try to assume a lofty moral position about Russian troops moving into South Ossetia to protect civilians from the rockets and other barbarity of the Georgian leader is not just laughably hypocritical, it demonstrates a weird consistency in an essentially US-centric view of international affairs. “You are with us or against us” is the battle refrain of Bush Washington’s Crusade, and with some honourable exceptions the European Union governments (if not the peoples) are toeing the line of the lame-duck US president, pathetic in his desperation to show he is a force in international affairs.

The West ignores the fact that the US has been training and equipping Georgia’s armed forces for six years and had a considerable military presence in the country, close to the Russian border. Last week US aircraft flew Georgian troops back home from Iraq, where they had been part of the US occupation “coalition,” which needlessly provocative action will not be forgotten by Moscow.

Washington has been trying to persuade NATO members (it is inappropriate to use the word ‘partners’) that Georgia should join that obsolete military grouping, which is merely a military vehicle for US foreign strategy. Moscow sees this as deliberate provocation, mainly because the stationing of American and other foreign troops so close to its border, for whatever purpose, was and is considered by Moscow to be an open threat. (If there were Russian troops in South America or the Caribbean there would be an almighty howl of indignation from Washington, so let’s have no nonsense about “legitimate presence.”)

The machinations of the White House are regarded rightly in Moscow as meddling in affairs that have nothing whatever to do with US security. Russia was already uneasy about the increase in NATO’s presence along its borders (ten more countries enlisted in a obviously anti-Russian alliance, so far) and by creation of bases for US anti-missile missiles in Poland and supporting radar installations in the Czech republic, with both to be surrounded by US Patriot missile batteries. Moscow could not be expected to ignore this massing of hostile forces in a threatening semi-circle of US-inspired intimidation. Those Western nations which follow the American line, however reluctantly, forget or ignore the fact that there is justifiable national pride in Russia, which suffered mightily from the explosion of corrupt capitalism in the 1990s. Most Russians have no reason to be grateful to the West, and understandably resent the gloating over them after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Millions were thrust into poverty by the machinations of western-inspired mega-criminals who made billions from the suffering of ordinary people, and whose grim and clever antics were energetically supported by wily multinational companies whose contribution to world-wide suffering has been so effective. Their pursuit of profit, most of it extracted from Russia to tax-free havens abroad, involved years of economic plunder from which the country is only just recovering.

In spite of attempts by Bush to manipulate him, Prime Minister Putin has shown that he is a true Russian patriot, and the country’s President, Mr Medvedev, is equally forthright in his insistence that his nation should be accorded the courtesy and consideration that is its due. If the West resents this, then too bad. It so happens that Russia’s economic position is improving and therefore the Cheney threat concerning “serious consequences” is empty, because Europe is not going to join in lunatic schemes for sanctions or other economic measures aimed at bringing down Moscow’s government. Reports last week indicated that foreign investment in Russia had taken a downturn, but the Russian response to that is: So What? ; because it is no bad thing that greedy western corporations should cease to suck out profits from the country.

Russia is sick and tired with being regarded with condescension and disdain by the West and especially by America which it regards, justifiably, as an arrogant imperial power that obeys no laws and brooks no dissent on the international stage. But there was one hilarious comment by Bush, when he said that Russia “must” repair its relations with the United States, Europe and other nations . . .” How fascinating that he thinks “Europe,” of which Russia is part, is a nation. And as to the word “must,” which is used by Rice and Bush with arrogant condescension to other nations at every opportunity, one is reminded of Catherine the Great of Russia who to a foreigner said words to the effect that “Little man, one does not use the word “must” to Princes.” So Medvedev and Putin to Bush.

The trouble in South Ossetia had been brewing for months and there is no doubt that Moscow was waiting for the US-backed Saakashvili to take a gamble that there would be no reaction when he ordered his vicious attack. What a fool. Equally, there is no doubt that the team of Medvedev and Putin want to see Saakashvili thrown out of power. In fact this was said to Condoleezza Rice by Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, on the understanding that his statement would be subject to the normal diplomatic convention of confidentiality. Fat chance. Diplomatic decency means nothing in Bush Washington, and Mr Lavrov’s private comment was publicised at the Security Council. If Washington imagines that there will ever again be trust on the part of Moscow, then it is entirely mistaken.

Russia is going places. It is no pussy cat: it is an increasingly powerful bear, and a welcome counter to the self-righteous Imperial Eagle that so enjoys demonstrating its ferocious doctrine of Shock and Awe. Confrontation is the thrust of Washington’s foreign policy, but it has now been met with determination on the part of a proud nation that refuses to be intimidated. There is a lesson here; and it would be wise for other countries, and especially for Europe, to decide where to place their own interests.

Brian Cloughley lives in France. His website is www.briancloughley.com

Bush: Why don’t you shut up?

Taking the words of the illustrious King of Spain, in his imbecillic retort to President Hugo Chavez, we use them not as a response to a diatribe but rather, a just retort to an imbecile. President George W. Bush, why don’t you shut up? President Bush, Why don’t you shut up? In your statement on Monday regarding the legitimate actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia, you failed to mention once the war crimes perpetrated by Georgian military forces, which American advisors support, against Russian and Ossetian civilians. Kinda embarrassing, eh? President Bush, Why don’t you shut up? Your faithful ally, Mikhail Saakashvili, was announcing a ceasefire deal while his troops, with your advisors, were massing on Ossetia’s border, which they crossed under cover of night and destroyed Tskhinvali, targeting civilian structures just like your forces did in Iraq. Kinda humanitarian, eh? President Bush, Why don’t you shut up? The military forces of your faithful ally, Georgia, supported by American advisors, while on a mission as peacekeepers in Ossetia, were ordered to open fire on Russian peacekeeping forces in the same team. Kinda noble, eh? President Bush, Why don’t you shut up? Your American transport aircraft gave a ride home to thousands of Georgian soldiers from Iraq directly into the combat zone. Did your boys wish them good luck as they stepped off the aircraft? I can almost hear it, “Give ‘em Hell!” Kinda friendly, eh? President Bush, Why don’t you shut up? How do you account for the fact that among the Georgian soldiers fleeing the fighting yesterday you could clearly hear officers using American English giving orders to “Get back inside” and how do you account for the fact that there are reports of American soldiers among the Georgian casualties? Kinda odd, eh? President Bush, Why don’t you shut up? Do you really think anyone gives any importance whatsoever to your words after 8 years of your criminal and murderous regime and policies? Do you really believe you have any moral ground whatsoever and do you really imagine there is a single human being anywhere on this planet who does not stick up his middle finger every time you appear on a TV screen? Kinda makes ya’ll think, eh? Do you really believe you have the right to give any opinion or advice after Abu Ghraib? After Guantanamo? After the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? After the torture by CIA operatives? Kinda difficult, eh? Do you really believe you have any right to make a statement on any point of international law after your trumped-up charges against Iraq and the subsequent criminal invasion? Like spittin’ into the wind, right? President Bush, Why don’t you shut up? Suppose Russia for instance declares that Georgia has weapons of mass destruction? And that Russia knows where these WMD are, namely in Tblisi and Poti and north, south, east and west of there? And that it must be true because there is “magnificent foreign intelligence” such as satellite photos of milk powder factories and baby cereals producing chemical weapons and which are currently being “driven around the country in vehicles”? Suppose Russia declares for instance that “Saakashvili stiffed the world” and it is “time for regime change”? Nice and simple, isn’t it, President Bush? So, why don’t you shut up? Oh and by the way, send some more of your military advisors to Georgia, they are doing a sterling job. And they look all funny down the night sight, all green. Hahaha! Thank you, That would be all. Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY PRAVDA.Ru

Three reasons for Bush's shift on Iran

http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=13167

As far as I'm concerned, the third option is the only realistic one. It immediately came to mind when I heard that we were sending a high-ranking state department official to Geneva for talks with Iran's nuclear envoy. The other options don't add up with this administration, which has demonstrated complete indifference to diplomacy and an utter lack of forethought where it's agenda is concerned.--Pete

Alan Bock, Antiwar There seem to be two possibilities, according to several experts and sources I talked to last week, to explain the fact that the United States decided to have Undersecretary of State William Burns, the third-ranking person in the State Department, sit in the same room with Iranian nuclear envoy Saeed Jalili and high-ranking diplomats from five other countries in Geneva on Saturday. Well, maybe there's a third possibility.

The first, of course, is that the Bush administration is in the beginning stages of a relatively dramatic turnaround in its approach to Iran. As Ted Carpenter, vice president for foreign policy and defense studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, told me, "Perhaps they understand that a military option is simply not realistic, or too unpredictable, and as with North Korea, have been dragged into diplomacy.". . .

Marina Ottaway, who heads Middle East studies at the generally realist/liberal Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me the Bush administration has to be aware that it is increasingly isolated in foreign policy, especially in the Gulf region. At the UN, Russia and China effectively prevent the most severe of sanctions being imposed multilaterally. And the Gulf countries, which fear they would be among the first victims of Iranian retaliation in the event of military action, are not following where the U.S. in its more hard-line mood wants to lead, so the U.S. is not leading anything or anyone. . .

There's another way to interpret the administration's move, however. It could be that a decision has been made to take some kind of military action against Iran – or to facilitate an Israeli action to ensure that it does enough damage to matter – before the administration leaves office. Under this possibility, even the Cheney-neocon cabal understands that it would be better, before a military strike is undertaken, to be able to say that we tried the diplomatic option, we talked, we met, we discussed, but the other side was just too intransigent, too unyielding, too unreasonable, and ultimately too potentially dangerous to leave us any choice but to strike them militarily.

As Ted Carpenter put it to me, "the hawks might want to be able to say they gave Iran one last chance, and made it clear to Iran during the talks that it was their last chance to stop doing provocative nuclear stuff," (however much the Iranians claim it's for electricity, not bombs). He suggested to me that one signal that option two was the real plan might be if Defense Secretary Robert Gates or Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen resigns, as their public statements have suggested that they are both quite opposed to military action against Iran, at least in the near future.

The wild card in all this, of course, is Israel. . . It would be difficult for Israel to carry out a minimally effective strike (one that does enough damage to Iran's bomb-making capacity to at least delay its ability to build deliverable nuclear weapons) without close cooperation from the United State – refueling over Iraqi airspace, needing rescue helicopters based in Iraq, etc. There's a possibility that this slight diplomatic opening to Iran has been accompanied by a stern word to the Israelis to keep their warplanes sheathed. But there's also the possibility that Israel could find ways to deliver damaging-to-devastating strikes without open U.S. cooperation.

The third possibility is that the administration hasn't decided yet what to do, but has decided that this gambit gives it the most options. If negotiations suggest that the Iranians are not eager to see military action and are willing to make some concessions on nuclear enrichment (maybe getting some supplies suitable for civilian use from a third party under strictly monitored conditions?), then the diplomatic option would go forward. If the Iranians in private negotiations – the kind that don't have to be followed up by a press conference where both sides mouth milky platitudes – sound more like the provocative Ahmadinejad than the more practical mullahs, the military option could still be exercised, perhaps after the November U.S. elections. Early reports from the Saturday meetings suggest that the Iranians were not inclined to yield much at this stage. An apparent two-week deadline for the Iranians to show some flexibility leaves this option quite open; things could go either way.

That third option might well turn out to be the most likely, which would be reason to keep the champagne on ice for a while and not pop the corks just yet.

Today's reason to smile

Click pic for larger image

Bush vs. Carter: Let History Judge

By Robert Fantina, Counterpunch

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this week admonished former president Jimmy Carter for meeting with representatives of Hamas, the Palestinian organization that currently maintains a strong presence in the Gaza Strip. Regarding advancing the cause of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Ms. Rice said: “We had certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help.” She further stated that “the United States is not going to deal with Hamas.”

The irony of all this is almost more than one can bear. Mr. Rice serves President George Bush, the self-proclaimed ‘war president,’ the man who has started two wars under false pretenses, and now awaits forced retirement in nine months so that his successor can deal with the double quagmires he has created. She is criticizing a man who, in 2002, won the Nobel Peace Prize. One wonders why she feels that Mr. Carter’s meeting with Hamas will not be helpful, but that refusing to talk to a principle player in ongoing tensions will be. Better to invade Afghanistan, whose government was alleged to be harboring Osama bin Laden (unconfirmed), the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2002 attacks on the U.S. (unconfirmed), and then invade Iraq, alleged to be hiding weapons of mass destruction (false), and alleged to have some tie to the September 11 attacks (false). This would be too many ‘allegeds’ for most people, but not for Mr. Bush.

However, in giving this some thought, one cannot be surprised that Ms. Rice sees merit in Mr. Bush’s methods over Mr. Carter’s. It should be noted that Union Oil sought to lay a pipeline through Afghanistan, but the Taliban would not allow it. Union Oil was purchased in 2005 by Chevron, the company on whose public policy board Ms. Rice served. Her contribution was so significant that the company named an oil tanker the Condoleezza Rice (it was later renamed). With the Taliban out of the way, there was no longer any official impediment to the pipeline.

And while the Bush Administration is busy disdaining Mr. Carter’s peaceful overtures, it might as well continue to make menacing sounds about Iran. In March Mr. Bush made the bizarre statement that Iran “declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people,” suggesting at the same time that Iran could be involved secretly in a program to develop nuclear weapons.

How Mr. Bush arrived at this conclusion remains a mystery; certainly Iran has never stated it wants to obtain nuclear weapons. Leaders of that nation have consistently stated that its nuclear program is for power plants, not weapons. It is Mr. Bush, of course, who has access to the largest nuclear weapons stockpile on the planet: one can think of few more frightening thoughts.

While Iran more or less minds its own business, perhaps assisting its neighbor Iraq in attempting to repel foreign occupiers, Mr. Bush carries on his wars, bringing untold suffering to millions of people. Yet he can say with a straight face that Iran is “the world’s leading supporter of terrorism.” The man who ordered the bombing of population centers in Iraq; who is commander-in-chief of the military that has cruelly abused prisoners and that terrorizes Iraqi citizens; who denies prisoners in foreign-based, U.S. prisons basic dignity and rights, points his accusing finger at Iran as a terrorist state.

For Mr. Bush & Co., this is business as usual. The bi-partisan Iraq Study Group released its findings in December of 2006. Stating clearly that the president’s Iraq policy “is not working,” and that the situation is “grave and deteriorating,” they also made suggestions for improvement. One of them was to involve both Syria and Iran in negotiations regarding Iraq’s future. Yet Mr. Bush dismissed any such negotiations, stating through Ms. Rice that the ‘compensation’ required by either Syria or Iran might be too high. Notice that there was no thought of checking with those nations to determine if that ‘compensation’ (whatever that refers to) would in fact be too high. Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice made that assumption, so there is no need for any clarification. One could note here Mr. Bush’s total disregard for facts, but one hesitates to point out the obvious.

In further discussing the suggestion, absurd to Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice, of negotiations with Iraq’s nearest neighbors, she said the following: “If they have an interest in a stable Iraq, they will do it anyway,” ‘it’ obviously referring to ignoring the blood-fueled inferno so close to them and allowing the U.S. free reign to continue terrorizing Iraqi citizens.

But one might ask: “Does not the U.S. have an interest in a stable Iraq?” In the war’s sixth year, mightn’t it appear that continued aggression simply isn’t working, and that an increasing death toll of both Iraqi and U.S. citizens is doing nothing to endear the U.S. to the hearts of anyone anywhere in the world? Might it not be reasonable to suggest that wars based on oil lust that decimate the U.S. economy while doing nothing to satisfy that lust require a close, second look? And shouldn’t wars be based on something loftier, perhaps national defense, than oil lust anyway? And if one answers affirmatively to those questions, might there then be some merit in conferring with Syria and Iran to seek a peaceful solution?

But wait! We have looked at facts, asked intelligent questions, logically pieced together a series of actions and arrived at a conclusion in a rational, thoughtful manner. How foolish of us! Let us go back and ask those same questions, but this time with different answers perhaps more typical of Mr. Bush:

Q. Does the U.S. have an interest in a stable Iraq?

A. It doesn’t matter as long as we can get the oil to flow to the U.S.

Q. Doesn’t continued aggression against Iraq damage the U.S.’s international reputation?

A. Who cares?

Q. As the war goes badly for everyone involved, and money needed within the U.S. is spent on the war, shouldn’t a new strategy be explored?

A. We have already initiated a ‘new way forward.’ We did more of the same, only more so.

Q. Is oil lust a valid reason to invade, overthrow and occupy a sovereign nation, and kill its citizens?

A. Yes.

Q. Isn’t it long past time to negotiate with Syria and Iran?

A. Jimmy Carter is no longer president.

So there; the world according to Bush. And if Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has his way, such a philosophy will continue for at least another four years.

Mr. Carter said he tried his best in his meeting with Hamas’s Khaled Mashaal, but to no avail. Perhaps that justifies Ms. Rice’s statement that a meeting with Hamas wouldn’t help. However, by meeting with Mr. Mashaal, Mr. Carter increased his own stature as a man of peace, a man who will make any effort, and go to any length, to try to achieve a peaceful solution to some of the world’s most perplexing problems. Compare that image to the Crawford Cowboy, whose ‘shoot-em-up’ mentality has brought untold suffering to the world. Which image is more favorable? One need not ask Mr. Bush his opinion.

How much more of this mentality the world can tolerate remains to be seen. Should the U.S. voters (or possibly the Supreme Court justices) insist on another four years of it by installing Mr. McCain as president, this mentality will manifest itself in more neglect of the U.S. and widespread international war. With an election already bitterly contested before the key players are even determined, one cannot predict the outcome with any degree of confidence. That in itself is a sad commentary on the state of the U.S. voter.

Robert Fantina is author of 'Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776--2006.

Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052307J.shtml

By Brian Ross and Richard Esposito
ABC News

Tuesday 22 May 2007

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert "black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions.

"I can't confirm or deny whether such a program exists or whether the president signed it, but it would be consistent with an overall American approach trying to find ways to put pressure on the regime," said Bruce Riedel, a recently retired CIA senior official who dealt with Iran and other countries in the region.

A National Security Council spokesperson, Gordon Johndroe, said, "The White House does not comment on intelligence matters." A CIA spokesperson said, "As a matter of course, we do not comment on allegations of covert activity."

The sources say the CIA developed the covert plan over the last year and received approval from White House officials and other officials in the intelligence community.

Officials say the covert plan is designed to pressure Iran to stop its nuclear enrichment program and end aid to insurgents in Iraq.

"There are some channels where the United States government may want to do things without its hand showing, and legally, therefore, the administration would, if it's doing that, need an intelligence finding and would need to tell the Congress," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism official.

Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran.

"Vice President Cheney helped to lead the side favoring a military strike," said former CIA official Riedel, "but I think they have come to the conclusion that a military strike has more downsides than upsides."

The covert action plan comes as U.S. officials have confirmed Iran had dramatically increased its ability to produce nuclear weapons material, at a pace that experts said would give them the ability to build a nuclear bomb in two years.

Riedel says economic pressure on Iran may be the most effective tool available to the CIA, particularly in going after secret accounts used to fund the nuclear program.

"The kind of dealings that the Iranian Revolution Guards are going to do, in terms of purchasing nuclear and missile components, are likely to be extremely secret, and you're going to have to work very, very hard to find them, and that's exactly the kind of thing the CIA's nonproliferation center and others would be expert at trying to look into," Riedel said.

Under the law, the CIA needs an official presidential finding to carry out such covert actions. The CIA is permitted to mount covert "collection" operations without a presidential finding.

"Presidential findings" are kept secret but reported to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other key congressional leaders.

The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran.

Still, some fear that even a nonlethal covert CIA program carries great risks.

"I think everybody in the region knows that there is a proxy war already afoot with the United States supporting anti-Iranian elements in the region as well as opposition groups within Iran," said Vali Nasr, adjunct senior fellow for Mideast studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"And this covert action is now being escalated by the new U.S. directive, and that can very quickly lead to Iranian retaliation and a cycle of escalation can follow," Nasr said.

Other "lethal" findings have authorized CIA covert actions against al Qaeda, terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Also briefed on the CIA proposal, according to intelligence sources, were National Security Advisor Steve Hadley and Deputy National Security Advisor Elliott Abrams.

"The entire plan has been blessed by Abrams, in particular," said one intelligence source familiar with the plan. "And Hadley had to put his chop on it."

Abrams' last involvement with attempting to destabilize a foreign government led to criminal charges.

He pleaded guilty in October 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress about the Reagan administration's ill-fated efforts to destabilize the Nicaraguan Sandinista government in Central America, known as the Iran-Contra affair. Abrams was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.

In June 2001, Abrams was named by then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to head the National Security Council's office for democracy, human rights and international operations. On Feb. 2, 2005, National Security Advisor Hadley appointed Abrams deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for global democracy strategy, one of the nation's most senior national security positions.

As earlier reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, the United States has supported and encouraged an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, that has conducted deadly raids inside Iran from bases on the rugged Iran-Pakistan-Afghanistan "tri-border region."

U.S. officials deny any "direct funding" of Jundullah groups but say the leader of Jundullah was in regular contact with U.S. officials.

American intelligence sources say Jundullah has received money and weapons through the Afghanistan and Pakistan military and Pakistan's intelligence service. Pakistan has officially denied any connection.

A report broadcast on Iranian TV last Sunday said Iranian authorities had captured 10 men crossing the border with $500,000 in cash along with "maps of sensitive areas" and "modern spy equipment."

A senior Pakistani official told ABCNews.com the 10 men were members of Jundullah.

The leader of the Jundullah group, according to the Pakistani official, has been recruiting and training "hundreds of men" for "unspecified missions" across the border in Iran.

Click Here to See Photos of the Players in Another Iran Operation - the Iran-Contra Affair: Where Are They Now?