Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?
Why do I feel like the proverbial skunk at a Labor Day picnic? Sorry; but I thought you might want to know that this time next year there will probably be more skunks than we can handle. I fear our country is likely to be at war with Iran-and with the thousands of real terrorists Iran can field around the globe.
It is going to happen, folks, unless we put our lawn chairs away on Tuesday, take part in some serious grass-roots organizing, and take action to prevent a wider war-while we still can.
President George W. Bush's speech Tuesday lays out the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and how the intelligence is being "fixed around the policy," as was the case before the attack on Iraq.
It's not about putative Iranian "weapons of mass destruction"-not even ostensibly. It is about the requirement for a scapegoat for U.S. reverses in Iraq, and the White House's felt need to create a casus belli by provoking Iran in such a way as to "justify" armed retaliation-eventually including air strikes on its nuclear-related facilities.
Bush's Aug. 28 speech to the American Legion comes five years after a very similar presentation by Vice President Dick Cheney. Addressing the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26, 2002, Cheney set the meretricious terms of reference for war on Iraq.
Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was being honored at the VFW convention. Zinni later said he was shocked to hear a depiction of intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us) that did not square with what he knew. Although Zinni had retired two years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to date on key intelligence findings.
"There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD...I heard a case being made to go to war," Zinni told Meet the Press three and a half years later.
(Zinni is a straight shooter with considerable courage, and so the question lingers: why did he not go public? It is all too familiar a conundrum at senior levels; top officials can seldom find their voices. My hunch is that Zinni regrets letting himself be guided by a misplaced professional courtesy and/or slavish adherence to classification restrictions, when he might have prevented our country from starting the kind of war of aggression branded at Nuremberg the "supreme international crime.")
Cheney: Dean of Preemption
Zinni was not the only one taken aback by Cheney's words. Then-CIA director George Tenet says Cheney's speech took him completely by surprise. In his memoir Tenet wrote, "I had the impression that the president wasn't any more aware than we were of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it."
Yet, it could have been anticipated. Just five weeks before, Tenet himself had told his British counterpart that the president had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
When Bush's senior advisers came back to town after Labor Day, 2002, the next five weeks (and by now, the next five years) were devoted to selling a new product-war on Iraq. The actual decision to attack Iraq, we now know, was made several months earlier but, as then-White House chief of staff Andy Card explained, no sensible salesperson would launch a major new product during the month of August-Cheney's preemptive strike notwithstanding. Yes, that's what Card called the coming war; a "new product."
After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman, Cheney and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld dispatched him and the pliant Powell at State to play supporting roles in the advertising campaign: bogus yellowcake uranium from Niger, aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment, and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological warfare agent-the whole nine yards. The objective was to scare or intimidate Congress into voting for war, and, thanks largely to a robust cheering section in the corporate-controlled media, Congress did so on October 10 and 11, 2002.
This past week saw the president himself, with that same kind of support, pushing a new product-war with Iran. And in the process, he made clear how intelligence is being fixed to "justify" war this time around. The case is too clever by half, but it will be hard for Americans to understand that. Indeed, the Bush/Cheney team expects that the product will sell easily-the more so, since the administration has been able once again to enlist the usual cheerleaders in the media to "catapult the propaganda," as Bush once put it.
Iran's Nuclear Plans
It has been like waiting for Godot...the endless wait for the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear plans. That NIE turns out to be the quintessential dog that didn't bark. The most recent published NIE on the subject was issued two and a half years ago and concluded that Iran could not have a nuclear weapon until "early- to mid-next decade." That estimate followed a string of NIEs dating back to 1995, which kept predicting, with embarrassing consistency, that Iran was "within five years" of having a nuclear weapon.
The most recent NIE, published in early 2005, extended the timeline and provided still more margin for error. Basically, the timeline was moved 10 years out to 2015 but, in a fit of caution, the drafters settled on the words "early-to-mid next decade." On Feb. 27, 2007 at his confirmation hearings to be Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell repeated that formula verbatim.
A "final" draft of the follow-up NIE mentioned above had been completed in Feb. 2007, and McConnell no doubt was briefed on its findings prior to his testimony. The fact that this draft has been sent back for revision every other month since February speaks volumes. Judging from McConnell's testimony, the conclusions of the NIE draft of February are probably not alarmist enough for Vice President Dick Cheney. (Shades of Iraq.)
According to one recent report, the target date for publication has now slipped to late fall. How these endless delays can be tolerated is testimony to the fecklessness of the "watchdog" intelligence committees in House and Senate.
As for Iran's motivation if it plans to go down the path of producing nuclear weapons, newly appointed defense secretary Robert Gates was asked about that at his confirmation hearing in December. Just called from the wings to replace Donald Rumsfeld, Gates apparently had not yet read the relevant memo from Cheney's office. It is a safe bet that the avuncular Cheney took Gates to the woodshed, after the nominee suggested that Iran's motivation could be, "in the first instance," deterrence:"
"While they [the Iranians] are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for a nuclear capability, I think they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons-Pakistan to the east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west, and us in the Persian Gulf."
Unwelcome News (to the White House)
There they go again-those bureaucrats at the International Atomic Energy Agency. On August 28, the very day Bush was playing up the dangers from Iran, the IAEA released a note of understanding between the IAEA and Iran on the key issue of inspection. The IAEA announced:
"The agency has been able to verify the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials at the enrichment facilities in Iran and has therefore concluded that it remains in peaceful use."
The IAEA deputy director said the plan just agreed to by the IAEA and Iran will enable the two to reach closure by December on the nuclear issues that the IAEA began investigating in 2003. Other IAEA officials now express confidence that they will be able to detect any military diversion or any uranium enrichment above a low grade, as long as the Iran-IAEA safeguard agreement remains intact.
Shades of the preliminary findings of the U.N. inspections-unprecedented in their intrusiveness-that were conducted in Iraq in early 2003 before the U.S. abruptly warned the U.N. in mid-March to pull out its inspectors, lest they find themselves among those to be shocked-and-awed.
Vice President Cheney can claim, as he did three days before the attack on Iraq, that the IAEA is simply "wrong." But Cheney's credibility has sunk to prehistoric levels; witness the fact that the president was told that this time he would have to take the lead in playing up various threats from Iran. And they gave him new words.
The President's New Formulation
As I watched the president speak on Aug. 28, I was struck by the care he took in reading the exact words of a new, subjunctive-mood formulation regarding Iran's nuclear intentions. He never looked up; this is what he said:
"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
The cautious wording suggests to me that the White House finally has concluded that the "nuclear threat" from Iran is "a dog that won't hunt," as Lyndon Johnson would have put it. While, initial press reporting focused on the "nuclear holocaust" rhetorical flourish, the earlier part of the sentence is more significant, in my view. It is quite different from earlier Bush rhetoric charging categorically that Iran is "pursuing nuclear weapons," including the following (erroneous) comment at a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in early August:
"This [Iran] is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon."
The latest news from the IAEA is, for the White House, an unwelcome extra hurdle. And the president's advisers presumably were aware of it well before Bush's speech was finalized; it will be hard to spin. Administration officials would also worry about the possibility that some patriotic truth teller might make the press aware of the key judgments of the languishing draft of the latest NIE on Iran's nuclear capability-or that a courageous officer or official of Gen. Anthony Zinni's stature might feel conscience bound to try to head off another unnecessary war, by providing a more accurate, less alarmist assessment of the nuclear threat from Iran.
It is just too much of a stretch to suggest that Iran could be a nuclear threat to the United States within the next 17 months, and that's all the time Bush and Cheney have got to honor their open pledge to our "ally" Israel to eliminate Iran's nuclear potential. Besides, some American Jewish groups have become increasingly concerned over the likelihood of serious backlash if young Americans are seen to be fighting and dying to eliminate perceived threats to Israel (but not to the U.S.). Some of these groups have been quietly urging the White House to back off the nuclear-threat rationale for war on Iran.
The (Very) Bad News
Bush and Cheney have clearly decided to use alleged Iranian interference in Iraq as the preferred casus belli . And the charges, whether they have merit or not, have become much more bellicose. Thus, Bush on Aug. 28:
"Iran's leaders...cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces...The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."
How convenient: two birds with one stone. Someone to blame for U.S. reverses in Iraq, and "justification" to confront the ostensible source of the problem-"deadeners" having been changed to Iran. Vice President Cheney has reportedly been pushing for military retaliation against Iran if the U.S. finds hard evidence of Iranian complicity in supporting the "insurgents" in Iraq.
President Bush obliged on Aug. 28:
"Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months..."
QED
Recent U.S. actions, like arresting Iranian officials in Iraq-eight were abruptly kidnapped and held briefly in Baghdad on Aug. 28, the day Bush addressed the American Legion-suggest an intention to provoke Iran into some kind of action that would justify U.S. "retaliation." The evolving rhetoric suggests that the most likely immediate targets at this point would be training facilities inside Iran-some twenty targets that are within range of U.S. cruise missiles already in place.
Iranian retaliation would be inevitable, and escalation very likely. It strikes me as shamelessly ironic that the likes of our current ambassador at the U.N., Zalmay Khalilizad, one of the architects of U.S. policy toward the area, are now warning publicly that the current upheaval in the Middle East could bring another world war.
The Public Buildup
Col. Pat Lang (USA, ret.), as usual, puts it succinctly:
"Careful attention to the content of the chatter on the 24/7 news channels reveals a willingness to accept the idea that it is not possible to resolve differences with Iran through diplomacy. Network anchors are increasingly accepting or voicing such views. Are we supposed to believe that this is serendipitous?"
And not only that. It is as if Scooter Libby were back writing lead editorials for the Washington Post , the Pravda of this administration. The Post's lead editorial on Aug. 21 regurgitated the allegations that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is "supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq;" that it is "waging war against the United States and trying to kill as many American soldiers as possible." Designating Iran a "specially designated global terrorist" organization, said the Post, "seems to be the least the United States should be doing, giving the soaring number of Iranian-sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq."
As for the news side of the Post, which is widely perceived as a bit freer from White House influence, its writers are hardly immune. For example, they know how many times the draft National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program has been sent back for redrafting...and they know why. Have they been told not to write the story?
For good measure, the indomitable arch-neocon James Woolsey has again entered the fray. He was trotted out on August 14 to tell Lou Dobbs that the US may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program. Woolsey, who has described himself as the "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," knows what will scare. To Dobbs: "I'm afraid within, well, at worst, a few months; at best, a few years; they [Iran] could have the bomb."
As for what Bush is telling his counterparts among our allies, reporting on his recent meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy are disquieting, to say the least. Reports circulating in European foreign ministries indicate that Sarkozy came away convinced that Bush "is serious about bombing Iran's secret nuclear facilities," according to well-connected journalist Arnauld De Borchgrave.
It Is Up To US
Air strikes on Iran seem inevitable, unless grassroots America can arrange a backbone transplant for Congress. The House needs to begin impeachment proceedings without delay. Why? Well, there's the Constitution of the United States, for one thing. For another, the initiation of impeachment proceedings might well give our senior military leaders pause. Do they really want to precipitate a wider war and risk destroying much of what is left of our armed forces for the likes of Bush and Cheney? Is another star on the shoulder worth THAT?
The deterioration of the U.S. position in Iraq; the perceived need for a scapegoat; the knee-jerk deference given to Israel's myopic and ultimately self-defeating security policy; and the fact that time is running out for the Bush/Cheney administration to end Iran's nuclear program-together make for a very volatile mix.
So, on Tuesday let's put away the lawn chairs and roll up our sleeves. Let's remember all that has already happened since Labor Day five years ago.
There is very little time to exercise our rights as citizens and stop this madness. At a similarly critical juncture, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was typically direct. I find his words a challenge to us today:
"There is such a thing as being too late.... Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with lost opportunity.... Over the bleached bones of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: 'Too late.'"
Ray McGovern, a member of the American Legion, was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the sixties. He then served for 27 years as an analyst with CIA and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He currently works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.
A shorter version of this article appeared originally on Consortiumnews.com.
49 Comments so far
Show AllI want to hear from a Democrat who can defend voting for any Democrat who would refuse to stand up to the administration on this issue. Please tell me why we should compromise on this issue. I have decided NEVER to vote for anyone, Democrat or Republican who advocates or allows a preemptive strike on another country. I want to hear from a single "pragmatic" Democrat who is willing to defend caving on this issue.
Mr. McGovern, do you have any idea where these pathetically stupid criminals in Washington propose to hide if they succeed in really pissing off the Iranians?
The title of this article is "Do WE have the courage...."
The obsession on this site with what the Democrats are going to do is getting tiresome. Yeah, the Democratic Party is a deadend, I agree, but so what?
I would like to pose the question to madlib and others, What are YOU going to do? YOU. Not the Democrats, I am talking about YOU, readers. I don't give a damn about how you are going to vote, or not vote, or what political party is going to support what. Stop making someone else responsible.
What are YOU going to do?
Enough with the constant political debate. Tell us how to organize to drop this thing in its tracks. Every single fiber of my being says that if each of us doesn't do everything in our power to mobilize to prevent this, we are looking at a global blood bath. We can't afford to wait until next November to get these two maniacs out of office. I want to see a Bill of Impeachment on the floor of the Senate by Friday. I want somebody with leverage to grab these two by the short hairs and hang on for dear life -- we know they won't listen to reason. Get to work folks. Your lives depend upon it. This could be America's coup de grace if we fail.
Last night about midnight, when I saw the Fertik blog on The Aggressive Progessives site (same subject, same conclusions) I immediately called both my Senators and my Congresswoman to ask for immediate action, beginning this week-end. I'm sitting here writing now. You could start a petition -- but they wouldn't listen. I have no hope of influencing Bush or Cheny -- as far as they are concerned I and most of my fellow Americans are losers -- disposable as Kleenex -- just more cannon fodder. What will it take to get somebody with enough power to make the White House listen to act. I'm yelling. HELP US NOW!!!
I knew something was up when I saw Bush's smirk come back. Now I know why.
We're in a pretty bad place with the corporate media's lockhold on the public's mind.
Ray McGovern, it just seems your 'educating the information' is too good by half. It appears starkly unlikely that there is time Tuesday, or after, to 'roll up our sleeves,' and "drop this thing in its tracks," (per Gail Loyd, and thanks there).
'Chatter' is, that Congresspeople DID get a spinal implant, during the August interregnum in the Districts. Leading to the effect of a narrow one-week gun-slit, Tues.Sept.4 -to- Tues.Sept.11, for pre-meditated, pre-sold, pre-emptory wilding, before Congress reconvenes and derails the Bu!!sh!!Cheney bombast train to oblivion.
The 'stark appearance' reference, means the writing writ large across the celestial sky of astrology's planet patterns, showing Herbert's Gang going grotesque and incendiary, Tues. Sept. 4.
Derived (during antecedents and up to) HERE:
www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=4280
"EXPECT THE 1/2 PUNCH IN SEPT: BIG LIES & BOMBING OF IRAN UNLESS WE ACT," Mac McKinney diary, Aug. 30.
All there seems time for is 'educating the information' for everyone's recognition, between now and IMPEACHment closure, that any triggerpoint domestic disturbance is the instigation of the American-democracy insurrectionists in The Fright House.
Everybody. If we give up before we begin we have certainly lost. I mean it. Everyone of you reading need to call your representatives, call the White House, call all your friends and ask them to do the same. We are sitting on a powder keg, with a madman about to light the fuse. Don't tell me you are going to sit here and wait to see how big the bang is.
Was just watching a segment on CNN, concerning Iran's nuclear program.Now, I had to laugh because the whole framework of the discussion was labeled at the bottom of the screen, "IS IRAN A PROBLEM".
I thought perhaps they should relabel the segment to read "IS THE US A PROBLEM", after all isn't necessary to get to the truth of matter by pursuing both sides of question,:).
But of course that question cannot and will not be raised in the U.S. media.
Orwell rolls in his grave!
Also whenever they speak of Iran's nuclear program the implication is that is a nuclear weapons program, of which the IAEA as found no prove up too now, that one exists.
In 2005 the supreme leader of Iran issued a fatwa, which declared that the development of nuclear weapons, is not allowed under Islamic law.
Now if one believes that Iran is true theocracy and that they govern according to their religious believes. How could one believe that they would go against Islamic Law.
It is the U.S. that is seen throughout much of the rest of the world as the real danger.
After all Iran as not invaded another country in 150 years.
Right now get on the phone to the White House (202-456-1111). Tell them no more unilateral strikes. No war with Iran. Then call everyone you know and ask them to do the same. Not e-mail -- it might be days before they act, it might be deleted or ignored. Phone and request immediate action.
And all you politicians out there -- to hell with your re-election campaign. If you don't devote everything you've got to stop this, you have no right to your office.
In a word, Ray, NO!!!!
Today the BBC had a call in about Iraq - but, the only calls/emails from around the world selected for air time all blamed Iran and Iranian influence(read Shia) for the destabilizing and the coalition had to get rid of it before they could leave. The spin seems to be working.
The only caller from Iran tried to explain that relations between Qum, Najaf, and Karbela go back a thousand years, it's not anything new. The call-in host continually cut in with rude remarks and belittled the comments as prpaganda.
So even the BBC is pushing the Iran strike agenda.
To the author and Gail: Right on! Words have to be backed by actions immediately. I intend to walk into each of the home offices of my Congressional delegation here in Albuquerque on Tuesday, demand to talk personally with the senior person in the office, and refuse to leave until my concerns have been heard and responded to in a direct, meaningful manner. I have been remiss in limiting my protests to letters, emails and phone calls -- all of which have essentially no effect whatsoever. Stronger action is required, and for me a personal visit to my Senators and Congressperson is the next step. After that, quien sabe?
Okay Ray, take your own advice. Most of us are average schlubs who will never get closer to the president or VP than C-Span coverage. You on the other hand used to be a presidential briefer with the CIA.
We all know you fellows and girls stay in touch with each other and that your agency has a rich history going back 60 years of arranging assassinations when necessary--with hired sub-contractors wherever feasible. It's time to find some fascist identity movement freakizoid Lee Harvy Oswald or Sirhan Sirhan type patsy and get the job done on both of these crazies.
Oh whatsa matter Ray, is that too barbaric for your refined DC Beltway tastes? You honestly think nuclear war with Iran or the global economic collapse that will result from such an enterprise is less barbaric?
Are there any elite military units like Delta Force, the Navy Seals, or Rangers/Green Berets willing to do the deeds? Any of the School of the Americas faculty or honor graduates up to the task? I didn't think so. Because that's where we are today right now and your own writings confirm this grave situation.
So enough of your grand-standing and cheerleading--take your own advice or just please shut up.
Our one party system failed us about Iraq - what makes you all think that anything has changed?
The largest anti-war demonstration in history around the world was ignored in 2003.
Last Tuesday's demos around the country attracted many people (at least in my area). No coverage.
My congressperson fails to acknowledge that the drums of war about Iran are anything but gospel truth. And she calls herself anti-war, but feels that if we need to strike first, so be it. Maybe I've missed something but I have yet to hear about member of congress going on record against such a strike. Either none have made for fear of appearing 'weak' or the MSM has ignored any protestations.
I really believe the ad slogan for the military/industrial complex and its puppets is:
"If you liked Iraq, you'll love Iran."
I could be wrong.
Note to the "Poet": calling for the assassination of the Pres and Vice is two felonies. And, despite your lack of common sense, do you really think the way to solve America's problems is via cold blooded murder? Cause that always works out well, right? Only a pussy chooses murder as a solution.
And what do you think would happen next, stupid? Even more militant Cheneybushies would seize power and go balls to the wall - martial law until further notice, elections postponed, draft started...
RG has been working his nuts off trying to affect American policy positively - the man deserves a fu*king medal. You, Poet, on the other hand - you are the one in the stands ranting like an angry banshee, but what have you done for your country lately? Form a "Veteran Intel Agents Against the War" type org yet? Got many of your opinions into any major dailies recently? Did you march against the illegal occupation this weekend? Bumper sticker? Anything?
LoyalCheneybushies monitor this, and all, progressive/ liberal sites. Don't be surprised, Poet, when the midnight knock on the door comes.
If someone, like Mr. McGovern, Scott Ritter, Bill Moyers, Arianna Huffington and everyone else who contributes to this site would give the Progressive activists in this country some SPECIFIC leadership as to HOW they propose we conduct our activities once the lawn chairs have been "put away" for the summer, I suggest they (as the obvious LEADERSHIP) get their acts together and come up with a SPECIFIC PLAN and quickly.
Obviously, Conyers needs the votes to start impeachment. Any ideas on how we can expedite getting these votes? Is there a specific target list of Representatives who are like peaches on the tree, ripe for the picking who we should be targeting with calls, visits etc.?
There are only a few leaders in this country, and the rest are followers. Where are the leaders? Who are they? Why are they not coming forward in a cohesive manner to lead us? What about Arianna Huffington? She's connected with Bill Maher. He'll put her on his show to make an announcement about a specific campaign for impeachment. She can use her website or make a new one to download a simple petition for impeachment that people can print, have signed by people in their neighborhoods and a central place to mail them back.
Feedback? Suggestions?
The average citizens need to decide for themselves. You and I cannot act for them.
Until the US populace gets the courage to take to the streets and follow the example of Gandhi's non-violent marches and demonstrations nothing will change. The people have got to WANT the Constitution restored enough to ACT accordingly. If there is no such desire, there will will be no more US Constitution (except in name only).
Things will change only when the populace is alienated and hopeless.
Then they may :
STAND UP - for what they beleive to be right.
SIT DOWN - in the nearest street to bring transportaion, retail, everything to a standstill.
FIGHT - I hope like Gandhi's Pathan friend Badshar Khan(Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan) (check him out)a Pashtun nonviolent Muslim
FIGHT - Even if it means sacrifice to themselves to totally repudiate the oligarchy
FIGHT - As if their lives depend on active resistance - which they do
When people realize that they cannot ignore the actions of the government and relaize they themselves are the governmet, only then is change possible.
What a shame to let cowardice bring down such a noble experiment of human governance!!
Here are some comments by a man who stood by Gandhi - Badshah Khan, who led a 100,000 person army of non-violent Pashtuns from the Khyber pass region. He was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Empire on the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the `King of Chiefs', and `Frontier Gandhi'.
"To me nonviolence has come to represent a panacea for all the evils that surround my people. Therefore I am devoting all my energies toward the establishment of a society that would be based on its principles of truth and peace." –
Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
"Today's world is traveling in some strange direction. You see that the world is going toward destruction and violence. And the specialty of violence is to create hatred among people and to create fear. I am a believer in nonviolence and I say that no peace or tranquility will descend upon the people of the world until nonviolence is practiced, because nonviolence is love and it stirs courage in people." – Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan to an interviewer in 1985
His story is contained in 'Nonviolent Soldier of Islam: Badshah Khan, A Man To Match His Mountains', by Eknath Easwaran (Published by Nilgiri Press).
Also see NPR highlights:
http://www.npr.org/programs/musings/2003/jan/khan.html?sc=emaf
Poet: You seem to have missed the author's two central points: (1) murder is not an acceptable means of conflict resolution; and (2) those who say they oppose mass murder need to act in accordance with their professed convictions (which by definition exclude assassination from actions they can take). You declare yourself powerless to do anything beyond watching C-SPAN and/or suggesting that somebody (other than yourself) assassinate the "two crazies" whom you apparently feel are responsible for the imminent attack on Iran. Perhaps if you were to look in the mirror, you might find the answer to your most of your questions.
I believe the answer to Mr. McGovern's question, if history is an indicator, is...NO.
Frank 1569 opines:
Note to the "Poet": calling for the assignation of the Pres and Vice is a felony. And, despite your lack of common sense, do you really think the way to solve America's problems is via cold blooded murder? Cause that always works out well, right? Only a pussy chooses murder as a solution.
***************
You sound like a "good German" to me Frank 1569--What part of nuclear war with Iran don't you underwtand? As far as advocating assassination, the purpose of my post was not to do any such thing, rather to illustrate that we are now dealing with a government that is beyond the sanity of normal citizen activism and that somethning else is called for if any progress is to be made. They steal elections, lie to everyone, and consider those who oppose them on grounds of principle at home or abroad beneath contempt.
By the way Frank 1569 how much good have all your phone calls, marching, getting of your opinions into major daily newspapers, TV appeasrences, or anything else done to make this contry any less a danger to world peace than before?
Before you sling insults at me or anyone else tell us your elegant, simple, risk-free, never been tried before solution to the insane rulers we now have? We are all listening Frank1569 --what say you other than invective?
Has the thought occurred to anyone that China might be the country to stop this plan in it's tracks?
Does anyone realize the business ties China has with Iran in relation to oil? Billions of dollars.
I have to seriously wonder how totally incompetent and stupid Cheney/Bush and the Congress can be in this regard. Because China can bring this country (Wall Street) to it's collective KNEES with the punch of the "submit" key on the keyboard.
And this would create economic damage even The Mighty Federal Reserve wouldn't be able to undo. From there the economic dominos will just begin to fall.
Time to go to the United Nations and see what China has to say about our "plans":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece
We can probably be prepared for a new false flag op to coincide with this in case people just don't get how "afraid" we should be. But now that we are all on to them and would be all over the place gathering evidence, they have come up with this:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/article/0901disasterids-ON.html
"Feds come up with ID plan to restrict volunteers at disasters"
Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?
No.
The Bush/Cheney dictatorship is far more dangerous than the author lets on. They must be stopped now, before the missiles start flying. Can we put it past these two to declare a state of emergency and to postpone the '08 elections until Iran is pacified? Bush already claims that he has the power to attack Iran as part of the wider authority given him in Iraq. Impeachment is too kind - send them to Gitmo.
This has nothing to do with courage.
America, historically, is one of the most warlike, if not the most warlike nation on earth.
(I believe the math is one war or 'police action' for every year of its existence)
The country was founded on blood and injustice and continues to this day.
Until we come to terms with our past, we have no future...
Let's see now; We, who have ten thousand nuclear warheads are worried about Iran getting "a bomb".
Whatinhell are our 10,000 for, that cost us billions every year? And why aren't we doing something about N. Korea and their bombs. Oh, yeah, they don't have any oil.
fligloot___You are dead on right. Who are the big bully terrorists in the world right now? Not Iran for sure. Maybe in the future China,Russia, N Korea,but now we have the honor.
Problem is, why do 100 million of our citizens not see it? The reason is possibly a blind nationism that says we are always right and justified no matter what the case may be. Much better is a patriotism that believes we must stand for some decent principles and be a respected nation again.
How? By starting to see and treat our soldiers as what they are" WAR CRIMINALS!
No support for our war criminal troops,who have been enabling genocides and mass murders in other countries.
I am a Sunday school teacher at a Baptist church and my main objective is to teach that killing, stealing, and lying are wrong. Bush and Cheney never learned that.
It is probably a little late to try to teach them now. It is too bad that they could not have been taught right from wrong when they were young. Where were their parents? or their parents parents?
Maybe what I am doing is not much. But I hope that one day it may make a difference.
John F. Butterfield asks:
. It is too bad that they could not have been taught right from wrong when they were young. Where were their parents? or their parents parents?
*****************
regretably John they were doing what their children are doing now--more discreetly and not on as grand a scale, but setting the wrong example nonetheless. Google George HW Bush and Prescott Bush and you will see what I mean.
By the eway John, thank you for modeling honesty and integrity for the kids in your Sunday school class. You are doing good!
Much better is a patriotism that believes we must stand for some decent principles and be a respected nation again.
To be respected in the international community is to take responsibility for one's action. Each US military personnel in Iraq should be subjected to facing war-crime trial in this illegal, imperialists' war. Let's see how well US fare against the well-established international principles. IMO, that's the way to regain respect and set forth some decent principles for our next generation to follow.
-BeingSpied24/7
"do you really think the way to solve America's problems is via cold blooded murder? Cause that always works out well, right? Only a pussy chooses murder as a solution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_20_Plot
Stauffenberg & Bonhoeffer are considered extremely courageous heroes who were hung with piano wire. Not exactly "pussies". And this is the only thing the rulers fear at the moment, because all other avenues have long since been closed off, -- they certainly don't fear phone calls & emails or peaceful sentiemnts. The neocon strategy is rooted in Leo Strauss, in contempt for all those who seek to use democratic machinery to check the rulers.
Naturally, individual acts of assassination or reprisal don't lead to revolution, which is the only real solution; it takes time for revolutionaries to develop the strategies appropriate to their particular situation. The rulers know very well we are generally afraid of the risks to our own lives, and so they put on a great show of power in order to keep us 'dissenting', and periodically they indulge in little gestures suggesting that they might accept some 'input'.
All these debates were hashed out in the 19th & early 20th century.
Again, Ward Churchill's "Pacifism As Pathology" should by all.
The United States is not my country!! Bush is not my president!! I will never vote again!! I wash my hands of this United States!! May it rot in hell!! I'll be glad when we are destroyed we deserve it!! We have become a sick blood-thirsty land full of selfish uncaring imperialistic over-reaching bloated, blind, numb,unread, militaristic humanistic, politically- correct morons that deserve annihilation!!
The last election was viewed by many, including myself, as a referendum on the war in Iraq. When faced with the first real chance that our "new" Congress had a chance to put the administration's feet to the fire, the funding bill, they folded. Evidently, the old "you don't support the troops" mantra had them all snake-charmed. (Again) When given the power of the Presidency, you owe a responsibility of accountability to the American public. This President has defiantly ignored this. And his arrogance has cost the U.S. the respect of the rest of the world.
Our involvement in Iraq has damaged that country greatly. You do not "liberate" with bombing sorties. And the weak, ineffective democracy there is doomed to fail. Instead of creating parties based on political philosophies, they immediately divided into religious sect alignment. The majority party in the new Iraqi government? "The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq". (SCIRI) THAT is who our brave men and women in Iraq are fighting to keep in power.
Now on to Iran. If you look at our (deeply-involved) history with them, you see the extent of the damage that we have already done in the past. We deposed a democratically elected president in order to put in a despotic dictator in the Shah. We gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade them and take over their oil fields. And more recently, when their energy experts were invited by the Iraqi government to come to Iraq to consult on their energy problems, U.S. forces arrested and briefly detained them. Anti-American sentiment? Without doubt. Unsubstaniated? You be the judge.
No doubt that the coming debate will have numerous references to the hostage crisis. However, half of the current population of Iran are under the age of thirty, and only know about it from history books. They are largely progressive, pro-Western, and last year voted out many hard-liners in favor of more progressive candidates.
The main message that I hear coming out of Iran is that they want us to leave them alone. In Bush's eyes, that must be an aggressive stance. In my eyes, they are correct. They are already a democracy, pose no threat to us, and a war with them can only further damage America's world standing. (If that is possible.)
Congress is virtually powerless at this point to stop the commander in chief from launching a missile at Iran.
He will merely fall back on the war powers act he got from congress and say he was doing it in the best interest of America, that Iranian weapons are killing our soldiers and we had to stop them before the infamous mushroom cloud was seen over New York, his popularity will go up not down.
The problem now is Sarkozy. First we had the obedient British Bulldog to help enable the presidents thirst for blood and now we have the French Poodle enabler who would like to be invited back to Kennebunkport next summer to find out how he can become a member of the Carlyle Group when he gets out of office.
Hopefully Putin will prevent the mad Texan from getting official approval from the UN but may not be able to stop the launching of a missile directed at Iran's nuclear site.
Remember the same theocratic morons that would rather fight than talk are still in charge of the hardware and they can more or less do whatever they want for the next 16 months.
Realistically, I am not sure that anyone or anything can stop this man from launching us into the Stone Age if his holy father told him it was the right thing to do.
Dougrambo, speak for yourself. I am none of those things and do not deserve annihilation. But this administration does. Recommending assassination may be extreme but it's obvious that contacting our Congress members has no affect. People are mobilizing and nothing is happening. Our rep is a Dem who holds town meetings. These meetings see more people each time, now overfilling larger rooms. They are all telling him what they want, reminding him that they worked hard to elect him, and will work just as hard to unelect him. Yet he does not budge on his positions of not impeaching and continuing to vote for Iraq funding.
The founders expressed that the people have the right and responsibility to remove its government if it no longer is just or serves its best interest. All three branches are now failing us, and they must be removed in whatever manner is necessary. I am not advocating assassination, but neither voting nor pestering Congress will do us any good. I will tell you this, tho. The assassination method sure worked for them in the 60s (and who knows how many lesser known killings since), stopping people who would have actually affected change for the good of the people - stopped in their tracks for the benefit of those who now seem to have the reigns.
Still, assassination is not the answer, but some action larger than voting or writing your Congressman is necessary. Taking to the streets in protest? Another revolution? I don't know. But we gotta figure it out fast, organize and get it done.
Does the Cheney/Bush regime realize that an attack on Iran will put us at war with China and Russia?
Do We Have the Courage to Stop War with Iran?
short answer? ...No Freakin' Way
you would all have to get up off your collective fat asses and do something useful, which is antithesis to the American mentality
Ray,
You sure got many strong responses, even from a Sunday school Baptist teacher. I am a neophyte Buddhist monk and chanting prayers for this government; the main dealer of weapons and with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons is our answer. The courage of this order is that we have been walking and chanting since our founder monk walked with Gandhji in India (1933). Peace and independence was accomplished by walking prayer with a strong understanding of non-violence and with Martin Luther King Jr. following through for civil rights. The difficult path of chanting prayers in this country is that we have "educated savages" wanting world domination at any cost.
I must add that efforts by peacemakers are on the back slide and still patiently wait for more to join in peace actions around the world. Politics is not the answer from any party, I deeply believe that a respect for law, each other and reflection for all the worlds children may start an awaking for more to join peace actions...Presently, I do see more women than men at many peace actions...Perhaps mothers all go to the same school and men are wimps who start wars…and only discuss 'peace' as another way to control hegemony and power of the elites.
We will get what we deserve and fellow monk and nuns and I will be at many peace actions. Please join us anywhere or anytime…(The 9/11 walk has started and the School of the America's in November.) You may even see us with Women in Black or the Raging Granny's. Peace actions are better than sitting meditation and you can take to Nirvana.
dponcy has a point. I am not for sitting around complaining. I will recommend now something that I think would be very effective. Go to:
http://worldcantwait.org/
and make a generous contribution to their campaign to place ads throughout the media designed to get people out in ongoing protest. This helps ramp up the level of protest while also increasing media coverage that is critical of aggressive, illegal warmaking.
You can also seek out similar groups and try to plug in to local action as well as contribute. Now is the time to act.
"Gandhji in India (1933). Peace and independence was accomplished by walking prayer with a strong understanding of non-violence and with Martin Luther King Jr. following through for civil rights. "
Except Gandhi was assassinated by a fanatic & the governments of India & Pakistan now both possess nuclear weapons. And the British left India only because they had been absolutely beggared by the war, with the populace still sunk in a wartime economy.
When he became a real danger by preaching against imperialism, Martin Luther King was rapidly dispatched, and the US didn't officially disengage from Vietnam for another 5 years, and you can find any number of veterans from the late '70s who can tell you about covert US missions against the Vietnamese through the end of the decade.
The past two presidential elections, African-American voters in key states have been every bit as disfranchised as their grandparents were, just with a bit more finesse, and with the collaboration of men like Kenneth Blackwell. African-American pastors comprise one of the most solid homophobic blocs in the country today, including among many who invoke MLK's legacy to support them.
The title of the article is misleading in fact, implying that courageous acts can prevent the attack.
There is no mechanism existing to prevent the regime from attacking Iraq, apart from its decapitation from those within, i.e., from military or intelligence people who have physical access & could effectively order the US forces to stand down. Only they know where the pair of criminals are at any given point in time.
Economic need will keep the workers churning out the machinery, hardware & software that are need to continue the campaigns of empire; and, to be truthful, how much of these systems of production are computerized, roboticized?
Just the other day I heard a call to a progressive talk station from someone who met a young man waiting to fly off to basic training, who had been promised $35,000 in bonuses for signing up & shipping out within a month, who'd been told by his recruited that he'd most likely be in a fight in Iran. The little stooge saw the glistening promise of $35K and told his questioner that of course he wouldn't die in combat.
Whatever actions we choose to attempt to stop the next attack will be welcome, but we should know in advance that they have significance only for what comes afterward.
CanuckChuck: THAT wasn't funny! I understand your frustration, but you are throwing labels on me and other folks that don't deserve it. I know you didn't mean it personally, but right now just being an American fills me with such shame and fear that it is hard to take even minor slaps at my integrity and humanity. I've been "off my fat ass" for quite some time now. And so have a lot of other good Americans. The problem is that there just aren't enough of us, there is no cohesive plan, there is no leader to follow who has a voice in this vast country, and no matter what we do, the powers that be aren't listening or acting for reasons we don't understand. And now we are running out of time. Got any suggestions about what we should do once we get off our fat asses?
In the '70's on the Nuke Issue some of us did civil disobediance at missle silos. We hopped over barrier fences and sat and waited for MP's to arrest us. We posted bail, made our statements to the press - which got a lot of coverage - and went on to another silo the next week.
more people started to join us. by the end of summer of '79 these CD tactics were catching on around the country; national press coverage increased, and if we weren't doing a short jail sentence for one of the actions, we brought the issue to our city/town council meetings where it got more local coverage.
regular townsfolk started to write oped letters saying how crazy the arms race was - just in their own words. this dovetailed with other actions that other people by this time were doing all around the country. By the early '80's, congresspeople were pressuring Reagan to meet with the Russians. Maybe it had some effect. i know we still have Nukes.
Not saying civil disobediance will do much now. but its a tool that gets attention and makes other people think about joining or helping you or doing something on their own. there's almost no other way to shake the big machine when things get this bad, as gandhi and MLK knew.
some of us have gotten together again. older, tireder, more disgusted than even 25 yrs ago. we are planning non-violent cd actions against our senators when they come to towns in states in our region. some actions will involve trying to make non-physical citizens arrests of senators and reps for malfeasance, violating oaths of office, threatening peace and security of the country by their following a criminal president, and so forth. we have some lawyer on board.
it takes some organizing to do cd, backup support and the like; willingness to go to jail, have your income disrupted for a while. we know this isn't the '60's/''70's. people are different now. they don't seem to care. but we'll see. maybe we'll fall flat and crap out on ourselves. but maybe something will catch on. we don't have much choice except to try.
we will be arrested i'm sure.
SEQUOIABISON @ 11:15 pm said:
"Congress is virtually powerless at this point to stop the commander in chief from launching a missile at Iran."
Wrongo. A joint resolution by Congress stating that they WILL impeach if Junior initiates military action without congressional assent and consultation would end the threat. Congress's authority to impeach is beyond question and not subject to judicial review.
So how do we get Congress to act? I think Cindy Sheehan had the right idea, staging a sit-in in John Conyer's office. If a pre-announced, organized, peaceful and simultaneous sit-in of EVERY congressman's office were to occur, we'd get our resolution. Guaranteed. Especially if the sitters-in were actual constituents from the congressional district in question, and especially if the sitters-in are establishment types--like Ray McGovern, for instance. A congressman is NOT going to have police arrest a peaceful group of teachers, doctors and lawyers who are merely excercising their first amendment right to "petition their government for redress of grievances."
Dear hrddrv: You say speak for yourself. I was speaking for myself. The United States is not my country. Like a bad wife I have put her away. I will never vote again. It does no good. Elections are rigged. Politicians are bought and sold. What new corporation are we going to put in the white house this next election? Exxon/Mobil or a new corporation like Phizer? Were an empire now. And we all know the way that Empires go. We are soon going to inflict death and destruction on an innocent people. The Iranians and there's not a damn thing "we the people" can do about it. When I say we deserve annihilation the American people have been complicit in our country you cannot separate a people from their government and I include myself in that mix. We voted. We didn't protest,we didn't rise up when Indians were being slaughtered,lands stolen,blacks were being hung and others oppressed and we deserve to go down with the ship. We are an evil empire and deserve death. Maybe a new country can rise from our ashes. We are the exact opposite of what we proclaim to be.We are the terrorists along with Israel!! We are not the "good guys". Osama Bin Laden has more character and integrity than Bush!! America is the "pit bull" of the world. Does that mean there are not good caring people who live in the United States? Of course there are. But I would rather see us destroyed as a nation then to live in such an imperialistic,fascist country we have become. I am no longer proud to be an American. And when the arms and legs are torn off innocent Iranians and we callously call it collatertal damage and deny responsibility. Then tell me we don't deserve to be annihilated!!!
"Osama Bin Laden has more character and integrity than Bush!! America is the "pit bull" of the world."
Bin Laden remains an operational asset for the US, under the protection of the ISI. He isn't an opponent of the empire, but it's most effective collaborator -- why else those pronouncements before each US election?
dougrambo,
Chickens have already come home to roost.
Not long ago, in a small third-world agriculture country, farmers (including women and children) were being sprayed with Agent Orange. This small third-world agriculture country was then bombed back into the stone age (as if being third-world was not bad enough). Any harm or fatality to the innocent was considered 'colateral damage.' Since then, little did Americans know the same evil doers would perform a cruel act, not in Vietnam this time, but in America itself on 9/11. And little do Americans know the 3000 lives lost are indeed, in the mind of the evil doers, nothing more than 'colateral damage' in a planned, pre-meditated, well-orchestrated phony 'War on Terror.' More examples of their mindset: First responders were asked to work in toxic dust on Ground Zero. Bush keeps asking the soldiers to 'sacrifice' themselves being in depleted uranium.
There has been no exception in human history: Empire is not sustainable. It's not my wish. It's the lesson of history that taught us.
I have made two posts on my blog today:
1) the text of the new resolution of understanding beterrn Iran and IAEA, in response to NYT's blowing teh horn of the war mongers!
2) a poll asking my visitors if they are willing to launch a public protest against Bush's policies.
You see, I have gotten a bit tired of Americans apologizing to me for their government, and claiming that it is not THEM but Bush that's creating the mess in the world.
If the most democratic society of the world cannot get rid of people who are not representative of America, who can?
I have made two posts on my blog (http://iranfacts.blogspot.com) today:
1) the text of the new resolution of understanding beterrn Iran and IAEA, in response to NYT's blowing teh horn of the war mongers!
2) a poll asking my visitors if they are willing to launch a public protest against Bush's policies.
You see, I have gotten a bit tired of Americans apologizing to me for their government, and claiming that it is not THEM but Bush that's creating the mess in the world.
If the most democratic society of the world cannot get rid of people who are not representative of America, who can?
Neocons speak out of both sides of their mouths. Just as in the run up to Iraq they were telling us 1. how much of a threat Iraq was due to its WMD capabilities, and 2. that it would be a "cakewalk" Now we are being told about the "soaring number of Iranian sponsored bomb attacks in Iraq," while being told that the surge is working to decrease the number of bomb attacks. These assholes can't have it both ways this time!