ISTANBUL (Reuters) - U.S. ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker said on Saturday he expected to meet his Iranian counterparts most likely in the next few weeks to discuss Iraq.
"The (Iran-U.S.) channel is not dead," Crocker told reporters on the sidelines of a conference on Iraq in Istanbul.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Iran welcomes atomic cooperation idea, will not yield
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran welcomes proposals to work with other countries to enrich uranium but will not accept an offer that requires Tehran to halt its sensitive atomic work, its deputy chief nuclear negotiator said on Saturday.
Congress presses Iran but wants to avoid war
By Susan Cornwell - Analysis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Americans weary of the Iraq war and U.S. elections on the horizon, Congress is struggling over how to get tough on Iran without giving President George W. Bush a blank check for a military strike.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With Americans weary of the Iraq war and U.S. elections on the horizon, Congress is struggling over how to get tough on Iran without giving President George W. Bush a blank check for a military strike.
New threat stirs Iraqi nationalism
Oct 30, 2007 04:30 AM
Richard Gwyn
The Turkish man on the street, stopped by a roving BBC-TV camera crew, answered the reporter's question with a much more challenging question of his own.
Why, he asked, did the United States "support the Israelis in Lebanon when just a couple of soldiers were kidnapped?"
Ouch.
Richard Gwyn
The Turkish man on the street, stopped by a roving BBC-TV camera crew, answered the reporter's question with a much more challenging question of his own.
Why, he asked, did the United States "support the Israelis in Lebanon when just a couple of soldiers were kidnapped?"
Ouch.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Multi-unilateralism and World War
An outbreak of unilateralism. Sounds like the making of something revolutionary.
Exactly. Exactly why the United Nations was formed after World War II.
Is London, for instance, part of the broader European Union, or does it exist in a special category ? How many special categories are there, for states, actors, regimes, agendas?
When Prince Charles or Bush/Cheney meet with Saudi royalty, and arab states enter into a campaign of support for providing Iran with uranium to meet energy demands, an Iran currently in economic turmoil, does it signal, as it did with Iraq, and by most accounts, wrongly, the tendency to isolate a single state when there are any number of arab states, including Egypt, with nuclear programs ?
And what happens when one of those Arab states, not capable of governance by a union of arab states, decides to, as a western regime or agenda, or actor, even, might, act unilaterally ?
I don't known that Osama bin Laden will serve as culpable pretext with respect to an invasion of Iran, or even weapons of mass destruction, which may or not at some point in time exist in Iran, but certainly, in this round of diplomatic negotations with two of the world's largest oil suppliers, who appear to now be under a systematic demonization and raid strategy, cannot render the kind of subjective basis, to those who consider themselves rational, for an invasion of Iran, at least not without the Security Council moving to take swift action, as it did against Saddam in 1990, against states which presume to invade a state such Iran, which hasn't deemed to invade or materially threaten any of its neighbors.
Oh, I know. Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to wipe Israel off of the map. And Bush believes that North and South Korea are technically still at war. Should we simply tarverse the entire list of stupid things leaders have ever said that have never led to WW III, before this does ? Do we have to go there ? Are the Bush Rogues that simple-minded and ignorant ?
What would Americans likely support, World War III, or the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, as a measure in pursuit of world peace ? Is Bush really a greater threat to world peace than Osama ?
In fact, Iran actually supports the current Iraqi neighborly regime, a fact that Bush and the Pentagon-In-Iraq may not like, but a fact nonetheless, that Bush and his allies, of which there may be one remaining, who is known to travel under the name, Luci, will be forced to reckon, as it pertains to international law. At what point does the U.N. decide to send peacekeepers into Iraq to prevent an outbreak of war between the PIQ and Iran, with Iraq as a launching pad ? Is the PIQ not not functioning as a " state within a state ? " Hopefully, as his predecessor did, amply, Secretary Moon is well, and amply aware, of the predisposition of Americans toward the illegal war, rape, torture, brutality and atrocity occurring in Iraq as we speak.
Americans do not eat and drink while tommorrow others starve and die so that states and corporations, the fascist elite, can extort wealth from the powerless. If Oil-For-Food was not that, what was it ? How many states supported the first Iraqi invasion, led by the first President Bush ? And why ? Because there may be profit attached. And money is not a good reason to support the killing and slaughter, not to mention disgusting and perverted acts of forcible homosexual sodomy that to which Iraqis have been exposed at the hands of the second, far worse, Bush. Homsexuality and fundmametalism do not make for pleasant bedfellows and Bush knew that going in, as a fundamentalist himself, a Christian fundamentalist, but a fundamentalist nonethless, a dangerous predisposition, about which the Constitition does not distinguish or dicriminate on the basis of religion. In other words, to say that Bush was not a fundamentalist, equally as dangerous as Osama bin Laden, would be an act of discrimination, and one in which liberals would hesitate to engage.
What makes Iran so different ? That seems to be the question to which Barack Obama has been seeking an answer that extends beyond the mere rhetorical diatribe of Bush and Gingrich, the former of which appearing to not only be incapable of distinguishing between Lebanon and Iran, as it might apply to World War, which with such rhetoric, each also seems to support as a measure that neoconservatives attempt to categorically brand as that which will solve the more abstract problem of Osama bin Laden, the condition known as " nuclear proliferation," and the sum of which may result in nuclear terror of a kind that Washington is not prepared to counter or stop.
In neologic, quite simply, war is the answer to terror. Occupying Iraq to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars will somehow either solve the problem or render it soluble. We need to do battle with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, you see. Because that's where they are, right along with those weapons of mass destruction that we'd been telling you about, me and Don, right before the Iraqi invasion that has only served to not only claim the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, but arguably, an innocent Saddam Hussein, who once supported the United States.
Is it possible to commit genocide in the context of a war, as Congress has been in the process of debating with respect to Turkey ? The Iran-Iraq war of the early 1980s was a war between states that also involved elements within states resisting their own governments. If Bush were repressive in response to war opposition in the U.S. on the basis of war opposition, would it amount to genocide if causalties resulted ?
Under the Bush regime's current interpretation of international law, it appears that might be exactly the case. The response to repression in the context of intervention, or external aggression, branded " unpatriotic " by the BR, seems to be pivotal, particularly where it's more than clear that the Patriot Act was drafted some time prior to 9/11 and as thus, could not possibly represent a response to 9/11, which the BR has portrayed as the Iraqi No Weapons Invasion. What the Patriot Act represents in the broader context of civil liberties, human rights and freedom, is some not irrelevant expectation of 9/11.
Is the Patriot Act, in that sense, damning ? Perhaps. Because NPT stipulates that attacks be a matter of shared intelligence with the Security Council, G-8, NATO, and other relevant institutional actors. Did the Bush Adminstration, by not either stopping or mitigating 9/11, not only render itself complicit in the attack, which is not to say that as former-President Bill Clinton pointed out earlier this week, that it was an " inside job," but also, given the Patriot Act and its obviously expectant and pre-emptive posture - did the Bush Regime violate NPT, at a time when NPT could not be more relevant, with Osama still lurking and Bush unable to deliver ?
Might not being able to capture Osama inspire " inside job " theories ? Absolutely. People worldwide are frustrated with Bush and have been since the Supreme Court stopped the recount. They don't want to hear about democracy in the Middle East when democracy in America ceased to exist with Bush v. Gore.
There is also, has also been, a decidedly anti-liberal tendency in the media dating back to 1993, when, with the election of Bill Clinton president, Rush Limbaugh declared America to be " Held Hostage," cleverly referencing the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 in which President Jimmy Carter was depicted as having handled with ineptitude, and which may have cost President Carter a very close, though not as close as Bush v. Gore, election, to future President Ronald Reagan.
Exactly. Exactly why the United Nations was formed after World War II.
Is London, for instance, part of the broader European Union, or does it exist in a special category ? How many special categories are there, for states, actors, regimes, agendas?
When Prince Charles or Bush/Cheney meet with Saudi royalty, and arab states enter into a campaign of support for providing Iran with uranium to meet energy demands, an Iran currently in economic turmoil, does it signal, as it did with Iraq, and by most accounts, wrongly, the tendency to isolate a single state when there are any number of arab states, including Egypt, with nuclear programs ?
And what happens when one of those Arab states, not capable of governance by a union of arab states, decides to, as a western regime or agenda, or actor, even, might, act unilaterally ?
I don't known that Osama bin Laden will serve as culpable pretext with respect to an invasion of Iran, or even weapons of mass destruction, which may or not at some point in time exist in Iran, but certainly, in this round of diplomatic negotations with two of the world's largest oil suppliers, who appear to now be under a systematic demonization and raid strategy, cannot render the kind of subjective basis, to those who consider themselves rational, for an invasion of Iran, at least not without the Security Council moving to take swift action, as it did against Saddam in 1990, against states which presume to invade a state such Iran, which hasn't deemed to invade or materially threaten any of its neighbors.
Oh, I know. Ahmadinejad said that he wanted to wipe Israel off of the map. And Bush believes that North and South Korea are technically still at war. Should we simply tarverse the entire list of stupid things leaders have ever said that have never led to WW III, before this does ? Do we have to go there ? Are the Bush Rogues that simple-minded and ignorant ?
What would Americans likely support, World War III, or the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, as a measure in pursuit of world peace ? Is Bush really a greater threat to world peace than Osama ?
In fact, Iran actually supports the current Iraqi neighborly regime, a fact that Bush and the Pentagon-In-Iraq may not like, but a fact nonetheless, that Bush and his allies, of which there may be one remaining, who is known to travel under the name, Luci, will be forced to reckon, as it pertains to international law. At what point does the U.N. decide to send peacekeepers into Iraq to prevent an outbreak of war between the PIQ and Iran, with Iraq as a launching pad ? Is the PIQ not not functioning as a " state within a state ? " Hopefully, as his predecessor did, amply, Secretary Moon is well, and amply aware, of the predisposition of Americans toward the illegal war, rape, torture, brutality and atrocity occurring in Iraq as we speak.
Americans do not eat and drink while tommorrow others starve and die so that states and corporations, the fascist elite, can extort wealth from the powerless. If Oil-For-Food was not that, what was it ? How many states supported the first Iraqi invasion, led by the first President Bush ? And why ? Because there may be profit attached. And money is not a good reason to support the killing and slaughter, not to mention disgusting and perverted acts of forcible homosexual sodomy that to which Iraqis have been exposed at the hands of the second, far worse, Bush. Homsexuality and fundmametalism do not make for pleasant bedfellows and Bush knew that going in, as a fundamentalist himself, a Christian fundamentalist, but a fundamentalist nonethless, a dangerous predisposition, about which the Constitition does not distinguish or dicriminate on the basis of religion. In other words, to say that Bush was not a fundamentalist, equally as dangerous as Osama bin Laden, would be an act of discrimination, and one in which liberals would hesitate to engage.
What makes Iran so different ? That seems to be the question to which Barack Obama has been seeking an answer that extends beyond the mere rhetorical diatribe of Bush and Gingrich, the former of which appearing to not only be incapable of distinguishing between Lebanon and Iran, as it might apply to World War, which with such rhetoric, each also seems to support as a measure that neoconservatives attempt to categorically brand as that which will solve the more abstract problem of Osama bin Laden, the condition known as " nuclear proliferation," and the sum of which may result in nuclear terror of a kind that Washington is not prepared to counter or stop.
In neologic, quite simply, war is the answer to terror. Occupying Iraq to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars will somehow either solve the problem or render it soluble. We need to do battle with Al-Qaeda in Iraq, you see. Because that's where they are, right along with those weapons of mass destruction that we'd been telling you about, me and Don, right before the Iraqi invasion that has only served to not only claim the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, but arguably, an innocent Saddam Hussein, who once supported the United States.
Is it possible to commit genocide in the context of a war, as Congress has been in the process of debating with respect to Turkey ? The Iran-Iraq war of the early 1980s was a war between states that also involved elements within states resisting their own governments. If Bush were repressive in response to war opposition in the U.S. on the basis of war opposition, would it amount to genocide if causalties resulted ?
Under the Bush regime's current interpretation of international law, it appears that might be exactly the case. The response to repression in the context of intervention, or external aggression, branded " unpatriotic " by the BR, seems to be pivotal, particularly where it's more than clear that the Patriot Act was drafted some time prior to 9/11 and as thus, could not possibly represent a response to 9/11, which the BR has portrayed as the Iraqi No Weapons Invasion. What the Patriot Act represents in the broader context of civil liberties, human rights and freedom, is some not irrelevant expectation of 9/11.
Is the Patriot Act, in that sense, damning ? Perhaps. Because NPT stipulates that attacks be a matter of shared intelligence with the Security Council, G-8, NATO, and other relevant institutional actors. Did the Bush Adminstration, by not either stopping or mitigating 9/11, not only render itself complicit in the attack, which is not to say that as former-President Bill Clinton pointed out earlier this week, that it was an " inside job," but also, given the Patriot Act and its obviously expectant and pre-emptive posture - did the Bush Regime violate NPT, at a time when NPT could not be more relevant, with Osama still lurking and Bush unable to deliver ?
Might not being able to capture Osama inspire " inside job " theories ? Absolutely. People worldwide are frustrated with Bush and have been since the Supreme Court stopped the recount. They don't want to hear about democracy in the Middle East when democracy in America ceased to exist with Bush v. Gore.
There is also, has also been, a decidedly anti-liberal tendency in the media dating back to 1993, when, with the election of Bill Clinton president, Rush Limbaugh declared America to be " Held Hostage," cleverly referencing the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 in which President Jimmy Carter was depicted as having handled with ineptitude, and which may have cost President Carter a very close, though not as close as Bush v. Gore, election, to future President Ronald Reagan.
Bush strategy: Bash Democratic Congress
The latest scolding came Thursday. Bush accused Democrats of forgetting the lingering terrorist threat and putting the nation at risk.
Bush Attacks Bloggers, CodePink Organizers
"When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground," Bush said, "and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters."
Bush rhetoric is sinister. He clearly used 9/11 as pretext to invade Iraq, claiming that Saddam was supporting Osama, which a post earlier today, referencing Curveball, dispels, and which raises serious speculation regarding the adminsitration's own own involvement: was the administration merely negligent and incompetent prior to 9/11, or is this a case of depraved indifference, particularly for those of us who watch Law and Order, or did, prior to Fred Thompson's entry into the presidential race?
Hillary seems to be on the right side:
"George Bush's faulty and offensive historical analogies aren't going to end the war in Iraq, make America safer or bring our troops home," she said in a statement. "Americans are tired of the president's efforts to play politics with national security and practice the politics of division."
In other words, the Bush cabal ( shrubs ) has managed to use 9/11 to implicate Saddam Hussein, largely predicated on the testimony of one Curveball, over and above that of George Tenet, Director of the CIA in conjunction with French intelligence ( see At The Center of the Storm and The 9/11 Report ), the DIA, which said that Saddam, a secular leader would not support someone like Osama, a revolutionary; implicate Saddam in 9/11 and then claim that he possessed WOMDs, which was proven false, and then continue to make the claim, which is to say, implicate the integrity of the weapons inspectors who said it was false, people like Hans Blix.
What's even more horrendous is that, for a time, 60% of the public, long after it was known to be false, still believed that Saddam had indeed possessed WOMDs, and may have also believed Saddam to have been involved with 9/11.
Now, in their defense, Americans who believed such a lie may have been manifesting a symptom of war trauma, or PTSD: denial induced rationalization. But not the denial to which Bush is referrring - war denial. And not the rationalization both Bush and Gingrich seem to be, persistently, undertaking: that of WW III.
While with Gingrich it was Lebanon and a " prisoner of war " having been taken in 2006, for Bush, it's Iran's nuclear program.
The only denial here is that this regime is one largely predicated upon dictatorship, given that the 1983 Supreme Court censured the 1973 Congress that ended Vietnam, a separation of powers issue, while allocating to itself the power to immediately terminate another such " National Emergency," which had been predicated largely upon a 1948 National Emergency with respect to Korea, that Harry Truman failed to terminate prior to leaving office, a Gulf of Tonkin " incident," that served, much as 9/11, as plausible interventative pretext, and expansionst greed.
What did Vladimir Putin say about Madelaine Albright ? Her lust for Siberia is almost erotic ?
What that 1983 decision led to was the 1985 Congress passing legislation that would require Congress to possess two-thirds majorities in both Houses to terminate a National Emergency, which is the current War in Iraq, a majority that Congress does not have and probably cannot get prior to a Bush-Gingrich rhetorically inspired rampage en route to WW III.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Bush rhetoric is sinister. He clearly used 9/11 as pretext to invade Iraq, claiming that Saddam was supporting Osama, which a post earlier today, referencing Curveball, dispels, and which raises serious speculation regarding the adminsitration's own own involvement: was the administration merely negligent and incompetent prior to 9/11, or is this a case of depraved indifference, particularly for those of us who watch Law and Order, or did, prior to Fred Thompson's entry into the presidential race?
Hillary seems to be on the right side:
"George Bush's faulty and offensive historical analogies aren't going to end the war in Iraq, make America safer or bring our troops home," she said in a statement. "Americans are tired of the president's efforts to play politics with national security and practice the politics of division."
In other words, the Bush cabal ( shrubs ) has managed to use 9/11 to implicate Saddam Hussein, largely predicated on the testimony of one Curveball, over and above that of George Tenet, Director of the CIA in conjunction with French intelligence ( see At The Center of the Storm and The 9/11 Report ), the DIA, which said that Saddam, a secular leader would not support someone like Osama, a revolutionary; implicate Saddam in 9/11 and then claim that he possessed WOMDs, which was proven false, and then continue to make the claim, which is to say, implicate the integrity of the weapons inspectors who said it was false, people like Hans Blix.
What's even more horrendous is that, for a time, 60% of the public, long after it was known to be false, still believed that Saddam had indeed possessed WOMDs, and may have also believed Saddam to have been involved with 9/11.
Now, in their defense, Americans who believed such a lie may have been manifesting a symptom of war trauma, or PTSD: denial induced rationalization. But not the denial to which Bush is referrring - war denial. And not the rationalization both Bush and Gingrich seem to be, persistently, undertaking: that of WW III.
While with Gingrich it was Lebanon and a " prisoner of war " having been taken in 2006, for Bush, it's Iran's nuclear program.
The only denial here is that this regime is one largely predicated upon dictatorship, given that the 1983 Supreme Court censured the 1973 Congress that ended Vietnam, a separation of powers issue, while allocating to itself the power to immediately terminate another such " National Emergency," which had been predicated largely upon a 1948 National Emergency with respect to Korea, that Harry Truman failed to terminate prior to leaving office, a Gulf of Tonkin " incident," that served, much as 9/11, as plausible interventative pretext, and expansionst greed.
What did Vladimir Putin say about Madelaine Albright ? Her lust for Siberia is almost erotic ?
What that 1983 decision led to was the 1985 Congress passing legislation that would require Congress to possess two-thirds majorities in both Houses to terminate a National Emergency, which is the current War in Iraq, a majority that Congress does not have and probably cannot get prior to a Bush-Gingrich rhetorically inspired rampage en route to WW III.
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Bluebloggin
If Bush doesn’t arrange for a terrorist attack to make his point, he will pull the trigger on Iran. Either way, Bush has paved the way to finish off the US Constitution. We are already getting used to living in a ‘police state’, George Orwell was off by a few years … Bush’s definition of Democracy is fed to him by those imaginary voices he describes as ‘God’. I picture Cheney on a microphone at the other end of a speaker hidden under Bush’s pillow. “This is God … this is what I want next …”
http://www.bluebloggin.com/2007/10/31/bhutto-wont-accept-musharraf-state-of-emergency-stunt/
http://www.bluebloggin.com/2007/10/31/bhutto-wont-accept-musharraf-state-of-emergency-stunt/
Iraqi Troop Presence May Mobilize Young Voters
Thomas Patterson, of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, says the Iraq war played a big part in stirring up the youth vote in 2004 - and could do so again if the Bush administration decides to "stay the course" in Iraq.
Young US voters may get scoop in 2008
The creators of Scoop08.com, which launches on 4 November, say it will be the first to harness the power of students across the US to follow the campaign.
Bush tells Dems war denial is dangerous
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
Thu Nov 1, 7:52 PM ET
WASHINGTON - President Bush compared Congress' Democratic leaders Thursday to people who ignored the rise of Lenin and Hitler early in the last century, saying "the world paid a terrible price" then and risks similar consequences for inaction today.
Faulty Intel Source "Curve Ball" Revealed
Nov 1
CBS - 60 Minutes has identified the man whose fabricated story of Iraqi biological weapons drove the U.S. argument for invading Iraq.
CBS - 60 Minutes has identified the man whose fabricated story of Iraqi biological weapons drove the U.S. argument for invading Iraq.
Nuclear disarmament ( and NPT )
However, critics argue that the major nuclear powers are not doing enough themselves to disarm, or to put pressure on allies such as India, Pakistan and Israel who are known - or widely thought - to have nuclear weapons.
Are the nuclear states supposed to be disarming?
US pushes for tougher sanctions on Iran
By DAVID STRINGER, Associated Press Writer
LONDON - A top American diplomat pressed for harsher U.N. sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program on Friday, while Iran's former president said talks with the U.N. atomic watchdog were progressing and warned against threatening his country.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was meeting diplomats from the four other permanent Security Council members and Germany to rally support for a tougher track with Iran, which has a deadline next month to fully disclose details of its nuclear program.
LONDON - A top American diplomat pressed for harsher U.N. sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program on Friday, while Iran's former president said talks with the U.N. atomic watchdog were progressing and warned against threatening his country.
U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns was meeting diplomats from the four other permanent Security Council members and Germany to rally support for a tougher track with Iran, which has a deadline next month to fully disclose details of its nuclear program.
Rafsanjani warns Iran of ‘unprecedented’ US threats
TEHRAN (AFP) — Influential former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Thursday warned Iran to be alert in the face of “unprecedented” actions by its arch-foe the United States.
Washington has never ruled out taking military action against Iran over its nuclear programme although the White House insists it wants to calm the crisis through diplomacy.
“Since the (1979 Islamic) revolution, the enemies have plotted a lot but the current situation is unprecedented. Therefore everybody must be alert,” the powerful cleric said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.
Washington has never ruled out taking military action against Iran over its nuclear programme although the White House insists it wants to calm the crisis through diplomacy.
“Since the (1979 Islamic) revolution, the enemies have plotted a lot but the current situation is unprecedented. Therefore everybody must be alert,” the powerful cleric said, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.
Obama, Edwards accuse Clinton of flip-flop on Iran
"A couple of months ago, Sen. Clinton called me 'naive and irresponsible' for taking this position, and said that we could lose propaganda battles if we met with leaders we didn't like," Obama said in Des Moines.
"Just yesterday, though, she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions," he said. "So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this."
"Just yesterday, though, she called for diplomacy with Iran without preconditions," he said. "So I'm not sure if any of us knows exactly where she stands on this."
Iran letter sparks new fight between Clinton, Obama
By Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a letter to President George W. Bush on Thursday warning he has no authority from Congress for an attack on Iran, setting off a new round of fighting with Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama.
Iran's complex political system
Iran's complex and unusual political system combines elements of a modern Islamic theocracy with democracy. A network of unelected institutions controlled by the highly powerful conservative Supreme Leader is countered by a president and parliament elected by the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
