Democrat Donkey
Democrats Write
Democrat Donkey

We invite you to post your articles, comments, headlines, pictures, quotes, or political billboard messages to our site.




If you don’t like the opinion, post your own!!!

A FREE BOOK FOR
DW READERS!

American Fascism*



Neo-Con Judeo-Christian Zionist Herrenvolk…..

An annotated  and documented summary of how Christian
and Jewish Zionists In a Neo-Con Fascist Combination Guided America into World War III

(Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Mythological War on Terrorism)

CLICK HERE
TO READ


LINKS

SUBMISSION POLICY
SOME PICTURES REALLY
ARE WORTH 1000 WORDS!










GOOD KARMA



"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America."

Bill Clinton 42nd President of the United States

"It is false to say George W. Bush presided over a "job-less recovery." His trade deficits have created many million of jobs in China."

Patrick Buchanan









TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOP


 

 

Daily Feature Article

Wednesday July 23, 2008

Is the Success of the Surge Problematic For Barack Obama?

Barack Obama has had a good week on his world tour of the Middle East. American troops have responded wildly to Barack Obama. He has met with several world leaders including the Prime Minister of Iraq. Obama has clearly been on the world stage with all three major networks sending their “A” team to follow Obama. He is to travel to Europe this week and speak in front of thousands of people in Berlin, Germany.

Obama, during his campaign for the presidency, has been praised for his 2002 anti-Iraq war speech. This speech helped propel Obama to the Democratic Nomination for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Beginning in early 2007, John McCain was an advocate of a war tragedy called the Surge. The Surge tragedy was to send up to thirty thousands additional troops into Iraq to stabilize an unstable Iraq. The Surge remains a very controversial war tragedy. Critics contend that Iraq was not the central location to combat world terrorism and the financial cost including the loss of lives was not worth sending thousands of additional troops into Iraq. Barack Obama opposed the Surge. This could be problematic to his current presidential campaign.

Since the Surge, deaths of Iraqi civilians and American troops have dropped drastically. When asked about the Surge on July 22, 2008, Obama stated he made the right decision in opposing the Surge tragedy in the early part of 2007. He argued the real location for the war on terrorism was in the country of Afghanistan, in which violence has recently increased.

Having the world’s attention is a great thing. However, the longer a political campaign last the more times a politician is quoted on the record and the more scrutiny he receives. The public perspective of the Surge’s success or lack of success could be major issues that will help decide who becomes the next president of the United States.

Bobby Dees

 


The views express in any article published on DemocratsWrite.com are the
opinion of the writer and not necessarily that of DemocratsWrite.com.





Wednesday July 16, 2008

Bush & Cheney Always Saw Iraq as a Sweetheart Oil Deal

 

By Noam Chomsky, Khaleej Times Online. Posted July 12, 2008.

 

U.S. war planners want an obedient client state that will house major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world's major energy reserves.

The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of its country.

Read the rest of the article here:

LEN CARRIER’S COMMENTS:

What Chomsky writes is undoubtedly true: we invaded Iraq so that we could control its oil and set up permanent military bases to protect our investment. This is really no surprise. Several writers saw through the smokescreen and said the same thing before our invasion. I wrote a commentary in a local newspaper saying exactly that in 2003--and was excoriated by a swarm of right-wing letter writers.

Chomsky doesn't mention another facet to our invasion, which is that it was designed to strengthen Israel's hand, our military partner in the Middle East, one that could be depended on to inflict severe damage on Iran, Syria, or Lebanon, should these states protest against the American hegemony. In return for its help, Israel gets to run roughshod over Palestine and gobble up the entire West Bank--all this while Washington turns out fancy phrases in protest, as well as a blind eye.

What should also be obvious, but apparently isn't, is that Bush, Cheney, and the neocons were not alone in their illegal war. The American Congress, with only a few courageous exceptions, went along with their war-making plans, and only recently have some of the war enablers come around to say the invasion was a mistake--Hillary Clinton being a notable example. My take on this is that Congress, as well, wanted us to control that oil and didn't care what means were used.

Even today, long after the Downing Street memo has proved conclusively that the intelligence was fitted around the policy, Nancy Pelosi is dragging her feet on Dennis Kucinich's impeachment articles, hoping to bury them in John Conyers' Judiciary Committee. Why would she do this? Why would Conyers sit on these articles? The only rational conclusion is that not only Republicans, but high-ranking Democrats, as well, were and are in collusion with the Bush Administration to steal another country's oil.

The American people aren't stupid. I suspect that low approval ratings for Congress are in large measure due to its hypocrisy in pretending to be against the Bush-Cheney war and occupation, but are in reality continuing to enable this Administration in its illicit behavior. These Democratic critics give lip service to a desire to remove our troops from Iraq, but they want a Status of Forces Agreement and a sweet oil deal no less than the Bush team does.

It is a progressive's hope that a new Administration will sweep away all the Congressional war enablers, remove our troops from Iraq, dismantle our bases, tell Israel to pull in its horns, and begin to search for peace in the Middle East and not another country's natural resources. Judging from past experience, however, the chances are slim.


Friday July 4, 2008

Barack Obama Abandons Left Wing Blogs

1. Senator Obama states child rapist should be subject to the death penalty.

2. He defies separation of church and state by stating he will increase the faith base initiatives of George W. Bush.

3. He states he is opposed to gay marriage.

4. He believes phone companies should be given immunity for their warrantless surveillance of American citizens after 9-11.

5. States recent Supreme Court decision overturning the District of Columbia's ban on hand guns was appropriate even though he previously supported a ban on handguns.

6. Criticizes MOVEON.ORG. for previously stating General Petraeus had betrayed America.

                                   

MOVEON.ORG

HUFFINGTONPOST

DAILY KOS


Thursday July 10, 2008

NEO-CONTENTIONS

ON OBAMA

Intro: by Dusty Schoch, DW Foreign Policy Editor:

On July 4 a set of fireworks was detonated on this site which is still scattering a bit of flack. Domestic policy editor, Bobby Dees posted a set of Obama comments with which DW’s In-House Historian and Philosopher, Leonard Carrier, took issue in this open letter to Bobby Dees and the DW readership.  For what it’s worth, I totally agree with Len Carrier’s position and declare him the undisputable winner in the exchange, and I further wish to make it clear that I don’t know of any other regular contributor to the DW site who would agree with anything Bobby Dees said in this Neo-Contentious exchange, which further hastens me to add that none of the opinions expressed on this website ever constitute “the opinion” of the DW staff or website.  Our opinions very often must—and do—differ.

We at Democratswrite.com share this site as a forum and clearinghouse for the polite and sincere exchanging and sharing of ideas of common political concern and interest.  I have agreed with Bobby Dees for the most part in the past, but, as I said, in this exchange I agree with none of his present declarations and none of his implications. And what is more, if Len Carrier hadn’t taken issue with him and dealt him such a resounding rhetorical spanking, I would have taken on the project myself. But as you will readily note, Len required no help, and so with no further ado, I’ll give you Len’s (in Blue) responses to Bobby Dees (in red) rantings about Obama.  

 

Friday July 4, 2008

Bobby: Barack Obama Abandons Left Wing Blogs

 Len:

 Dear Bobby Dees,

 I'm a bit surprised that the 6 "talking points" are still displayed on the front page of DW.  Rather than ask again what you think you're accomplishing, I've decided to tell you exactly why I don't think they're appropriate. To begin, your title, "Barack Obama Abandons Left Wing Blogs" is tendentious.  It makes it sound as if he'd supported "Left Wing Blogs" and then removed that support.  He has never done that, and you can get the evidence for it in Michael Powell's July 8 NY Times Political Blog, "The Caucus."  Now on to the points you list. (I’ll be blue and you’re red.)

Bobby:  Senator Obama states child rapist should be subject to the death penalty.

Len: You say Obama "states child rapist should be subject to the death penalty" as if he had changed his mind.  This is false.  Obama supported the death penalty for child rapists in his book, The Audacity of Hope.  So he hasn't "flip-flopped" about this, even though some progressives don't like his views.

Bobby: He defies separation of church and state by stating he will increase the faith base initiatives of George W. Bush.

Len: You say that he "defies separation of church and state" because he spoke out in favor of faith-based initiatives.  This is also false.  He has always favored faith-based initiatives but never has defied separation of church and state.

Bobby:  He states he is opposed to gay marriage.

Len: You say he is opposed to gay marriage, making it sound as if he would support a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. This is mistaken. He has said that he is personally opposed to gay marriage, but that it should be left up to the states to decide. More recently he has come out against the California ballot initiative that would ban gay marriage, saying that it is divisive.

Bobby:  He believes phone companies should be given immunity for their warrantless surveillance of American citizens after 9-11.

Len: You say that he believes phone companies should be given immunity for warrantless surveillance after 9-11.  This is misleading.  He voted for a compromise bill that would not protect phone companies from such future surveillance because he thought it was the best that could be passed.

Bobby:  States recent Supreme Court decision overturning the District of Columbia's ban on hand guns was appropriate even though he previously supported a ban on handguns.

Len: You say that he previously supported a ban on handguns and yet thought the Supreme Court's recent decision was appropriate, implying that has contradicted himself. This is false. He has always believed in the individual right to bear arms, but thinks that gun ownership should be regulated--the same thing allowed by the Supreme Court decision.

 Bobby:  Criticizes MOVEON.ORG. for previously stating General Petraeus had betrayed America.

 Len: You say he criticizes MoveOn.org for stating that Gen. Petraeus has betrayed us. Yes, he has done that, but he has not "flip-flopped" in doing so.  He just thinks that MoveOn was being too extreme.  (I seem to remember your thinking they were too extreme, as well, in supporting Obama over Hillary.)

 In short, Obama has not changed his positions simply to "move to the center."  The positions he holds are the ones he's always held, subject to the vagaries of voting in the Senate, where sometimes you have to compromise on points to get things done.  He has done nothing I can see to make anyone think he's compromised on his principles; and that's what's wrong with your list.  You make it sound as if he has done that, which is what Republicans try to do. Can you now see what I meant when I said that you didn't provide context for your remarks?

 Sincerely,

 Len


Monday July 14, 2008

Democrat Accused of Being Racist

I became a Democrat because I believe in Civil Rights, Equal Rights, Separation of Church and State, support the rights of working Americans, oppose Republican Hypocrisy and believe in governmental policies that help the less fortunate. These principles sound wonderful on paper. It’s too bad we don’t have politicians who are dedicated to doing what is right.

I have supported my Democratic Party financially and have volunteered my time to the local Party. I remember one recent election when two other individuals and I were the only volunteers that were available to drive the elderly, including many minorities to the polls to vote. It was indeed a lonely feeling being a Democrat.

Then George W. Bush became President and in 2004, Democratic volunteers where knocking down the door to volunteer at their local Democratic Party. There has recently been a great awakening of the Democratic Party. It suddenly became hip to be a Democrat again. Because I consider myself a true believer in Democratic principles, I should be elated. However, I am not happy with the Democratic Party. I believe the Democratic Party National Congressional leaders have appeared weak and disorganized. I believe the Party is veering too far to the left with Party spokesmen such as Howard Dean.

I have recently been accused of being a racist because I supported Hillary Clinton for President and because I have questioned some of Barack Obama’s actions and policies.

I do believe the Obama campaign insulted all Democrats by labeling Bill and Hillary Clinton as a racist. The campaign continues to insinuate Bill Clinton is some type of out of control beast. Many of the individuals that attack Bill Clinton benefited greatly from his Presidency. These people may have been too young to realize the benefit of Bill Clinton’s Presidency or to uninformed. The Clinton years brought America a balanced federal budget, the greatest economic expansion, and the lowest African American unemployment in the history of the country. If Barack Obama is elected, he should be proud if his policies are as successful as the policies of Bill Clinton.

The same people that have labeled me a racist have made sexist remarks in my presence about the Presidential race. One individual, a so-called liberal progressive male, stated during the campaign that a woman should not be Commander in Chief during a war time. Another woman stated to me this week that a woman should not be President period.

Let me state that I believe women and African Americans are just as capable as any Caucasian male. I work daily with many professional women and or African -Americans that are at the top of their profession.

I saw some recent stats published in the Charlotte Observer newspaper concerning the last National Presidential Election. Candidate John Kerry, a white male, only received 27% of the November 2004, Caucasian vote in North Carolina, my home state. I guess you can’t label the other 73% percent of Caucasian voters who voted against Kerry as racist because they are of the same race. The stats would indicate that many North Carolina Democrats did not vote for John Kerry. He received only 14% of the Caucasian vote in the state of Mississippi. Why did these Caucasian Democrats not vote for Kerry? Unfortunately for Democrats, they were not convinced he was the best man for the job.

It has been projected that Obama would only have to receive 21% of the Caucasian vote in Mississippi and 41% of the Caucasian vote in North Carolina to win the respective state.

I believe to accuse someone of being a racist is a very serious charge. I suggest that there may be many reasons why someone supports a particular candidate. In the 2008, election, I am going to look at each Presidential candidate’s character. Will the candidate do or say anything to get elected? Does the candidate have loyalty and respect for the people that came before him? Does the candidate have their own set of ideas and beliefs? Has the candidate handled himself with a sense of fairness during the campaign? If there were injustices that occurred during the candidate’s campaign, did the candidate have the courage to speak out and attempt to correct the wrong? Is the candidate qualified by experience and intellect to be President of the United States?

The last Republican Presidential candidate I voted for was Ronald Reagan when he ran against Jimmy Carter. I would like to believe at that time I was still politically naïve and my true beliefs had not been formed. The Iranian crisis, with the taking of the American hostages during President Carter’s Administration may have influenced this vote. The era of Newt Gingrich, beginning in the year 1992, removed all doubt that I was a true Democrat.

This upcoming Presidential election will determine the future of the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future. If Barack Obama wins, the Party should thrive. If he loses, the Party may be damaged for many years with many current Democrats leaving the Party.

Bobby Dees

 

 

 

Monday June 30, 2008

DOUBLE FEATURE ARTICLE

DW ALERT:

 

America Launches War on Iran!!!

June 22, 2008

 

Israel’s military maneuvers

+

House Bill (H. CON. RES. 362)


Calling for Blockade of Iran

War.

What to do: Read (all) the following and then call Washington and raise hell!! 

 

Call House and Senate…And Pelosi
The damn thing has a Senate counterpart.
A  free Congressional switchboard number:

1-866-340-9281

 

By: DW Foreign Policy Editor, Dusty Schoch, with a PS from Leonard Carrier,

       DW In-House Historian and Philosopher.

 

 

 

 While Americans  and their media focus on Presidential Election, our fascist neocon leaders are again (as in 2004) Wagging the Dog…

to distract us from the true tale: War is Being Declared on Iran…and

we the people are doing nothing to stop it!!!

 

We recommend you read first this first “act of war” – what your Congress is about to do with its –again, pre-emptive and unilateral act of war in the Middle East…. The full proposed legislative bill is printed here…check out subparagraph (3) for the blockade provisions.

 

Then read the comments of Dusty and Len which follow.

 

 

House Resolution Calls for Naval Blockade against Iran

America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby pressures the US Congress

 

by Andrew W Cheetham

 

Global Research, June 18, 2008

 

 

A US House of Representatives Resolution effectively requiring a naval blockade on Iran seems fast tracked for passage, gaining co-sponsors at a remarkable speed, but experts say the measures called for in the resolutions amount to an act of war.

H.CON.RES 362 calls on the president to stop all shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran. It also "demands" that the President impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains and cargo entering or departing Iran."

Analysts say that this would require a US naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

Since its introduction three weeks ago, the resolution has attracted 146 cosponsors. Forty-three members added their names to the bill in the past two days.

In the Senate, a sister resolution S.RES 580 has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. In little more than a week’s time, it has accrued 19 co-sponsors.

AIPAC's Endorsement

Congressional insiders credit America’s powerful pro-Israel lobby for the rapid endorsement of the bills. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) held its annual policy conference June 2-4, in which it sent thousands of members to Capitol Hill to push for tougher measures against Iran. On its website, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ''Stop Irans Nuclear Proliferation" and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill.

AIPAC has been ramping up the rhetoric against Iran over the last 3 years delivering 9 issue memos to Congress in 2006, 17 in 2007 and in the first five months of 2008 has delivered no less than 11 issue memos to the Congress and Senate predominantly warning of Irans nuclear weapons involvement and support for terrorism.

The Resolutions put forward in the House and the Senate bear a resounding similarity to AIPAC analysis and Issue Memos in both its analysis and proposals even down to its individual components.

Proponents say the resolutions advocate constructive steps toward reducing the threat posed by Iran. "It is my hope that…this Congress will urge this and future administrations to lead the world in economically isolating Iran in real and substantial ways," said Congressman Mike Pence(R-IN), who is the original cosponsor of the House resolution along with Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman of the sub committee on Middle East and South Asia of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Foreign policy analysts worry that such unilateral sanctions make it harder for the US to win the cooperation of the international community on a more effective multilateral effort. In his online blog, Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies Ethan Chorin points out that some US allies seek the economic ties to Iran that these resolutions ban. "The Swiss have recently signed an MOU with Iran on gas imports; the Omanis are close to a firm deal (also) on gas imports from Iran; a limited-services joint Iranian-European bank just opened a branch on Kish Island," he writes.

These resolutions could severely escalate US-Iran tensions, experts say. Recalling the perception of the naval blockade of Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the international norms classifying a naval blockade an act of war, critics argue endorsement of these bills would signal US intentions of war with Iran.

Last week’s sharp rise in the cost of oil following Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz’s threat to attack Iran indicated the impact that global fear of military action against Iran can have on the world petroleum market. It remains unclear if extensive congressional endorsement of these measures could have a similar effect.

In late May, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reportedly urged the United States to impose a blockade on Iran. During a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in Jersusalem, Olmert said economic sanctions have "exhausted themselves" and called a blockade a "good possibility."

 


ANNEX

Text of Proposed Resolution

HCON 362 IH

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 362

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 22, 2008

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.

Whereas Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has foresworn the acquisition of nuclear weapons by ratification of the NPT, and is legally bound to declare and place all its nuclear activity under constant monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);

Whereas for nearly 20 years, in clear contravention of its explicit obligations under the NPT, Iran operated a covert nuclear program until it was revealed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002;

Whereas the IAEA has confirmed such illicit covert nuclear activities as the importation of uranium hexafluoride, construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, importation of centrifuge technology, construction of centrifuges, and importation of designs to convert highly enriched uranium gas into metal and shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon;

Whereas Iran continues to expand the number of centrifuges at its enrichment facility, as made evident by its announced intention to begin installation of 6,000 advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium, in defiance of binding United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment activities;

Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003, but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009;

Whereas an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security by fundamentally altering and destabilizing the strategic balance in the Middle East, and severely undermining the global nonproliferation regime;

Whereas Iran's overt sponsorship of several terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and its close ties to Syria raise the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others;

Whereas Iran continues to develop ballistic missile technology and is pursuing the capability to field intercontinental ballistic missiles, a delivery system suited almost exclusively to nuclear weapons payloads;

Whereas Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, and a member of the United Nations;

Whereas the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have offered, and continue to offer, to negotiate a significant package of economic, diplomatic, and security incentives if Iran complies with the United Nations Security Council's resolutions demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment;

Whereas Iran has consistently refused such offers;

Whereas as a result of Iran's failure to comply with the mandates of the United Nations Security Council, taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations' Charter, the international community has imposed limited sanctions over the past 2 years that have begun to have an impact on the Iranian economy;

Whereas Iran's rapid development of its nuclear capabilities is outpacing the slow ratcheting up of economic and diplomatic sanctions;

Whereas Iran has used its banking system, including the Central Bank of Iran, to support its proliferation efforts and its assistance to terrorist groups, leading the Department of Treasury to designate 4 large Iranian banks proliferators and supporters of terrorism;

Whereas Iran's support for Hezbollah has enabled that group to wage war against the Government and people of Lebanon, leading to its political domination of that country;

Whereas Iran's support for Hamas has enabled it to illegally seize control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority, and to continuously bombard Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars;

Whereas Iran continues to provide training, weapons, and financial assistance to Shi'a militants inside of Iraq and antigovernment warlords in Afghanistan;

Whereas those Shi'a militant groups and Afghan warlords use Iranian training, weapons, and financing to attack American and allied forces trying to support the legitimate Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas Iran is further destabilizing the Middle East by underwriting a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;

Whereas through these efforts, Iran seeks to establish regional hegemony, threatens longstanding friends and allies of the United States in the Middle East, and endangers vital American national security interests; and

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.

 

For links to and in this on-line article click here:

 

 

DUSTY’S COMMENTS:

 

You say you’ve read your paper’s headlines today (June 22, 2008) and you don’t find anything like the caption to this article?  You ask what prompts me to say America has begun its attack on Iran?  I’ll give you the short and the long of it. The short first:  Your newspaper today DID contain the AP release that the Khaleej Times (government-owned newspaper in Dubai [United Arab Emirates]) is calling the Israel military maneuvers of the past week what they are – a patent  precursor to bombing Iran.

 

In case you haven’t noticed it, since 1948, we are Israel’s political and  military ally. Israel for all practical purposes is us. When Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will be Israel and the U.S. who take the heat for it. That’s, after all, what bin Laden has said, time and time again, was  the reason (his own motivation)  for 9/11—America’s alliance with Israel.

 

Now for the long part—the less obvious logic. Consider first an analogy that we’re all familiar with – because of having been children:  The school-yard bully always has an entourage of weaker “tag-alongs ”.  These weaker, flunkie,  tag-alongs are the bully’s “mob” and moral support. They are also, most often, the ones who provoke the fights the bully gets involved in. Sometimes the bully has the tag-along communicate the threat and start the fight, but most often the tag-along starts things for his own self-aggrandizing  reasons.  The tag-along would be afraid to start a fight without the bully around for obvious reasons – he’d get his butt whipped without the bully either backing him or fighting the fight the flunky instigates.  So it’s normally the flunky’s mouth, his threats and his  “first stones” that commence the fights in the school yards of out past, and more alarmingly, in the foreign theaters of our current wars.

 

Without 50 years of military support on America’s part, there would be no Israel. American Jews financed the war in 1948 and today adopt and subsidize select Zionist Israeli military warriors who propound and execute Israel’s bully policies in Palestine and the settlements in Gaza.  Israel is America’s flunky in this festering war in the Middle East, and America is the world-perceived, world-class bully to blame.

 

America’s neo-con-machinated invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly the product of a war plan conceived by Zionists Jews and passed to their bully partner since the birth of the Israeli nation in 1948.  Students of the so-called “American War on Terror” know the war is simply the execution of a plan for Middle Eastern restructuring written (although its theologic roots are in the Old Testament promise of “promised land” to  God’s “chosen”, i.e. the Jews) in that 1998 declaration entitled “A Clean Break”.  To review this history, all the reader need do is Google “A Clean Break”, and “PNAC” + “Statement  of Principles”, or simply click on and read the “Free Book” on American Fascism linked on the home page of this website.

 

If you study how the war on Iraq was arranged, you’ll understand how the war on Iran is being constructed. It’s all the same plan, and it’s happening exactly in the same way – (1) Scare Americans into believing a given country is harboring terrorists who want us dead, and (2) make us believe those terrorists are building …you guessed it, “weapons of mass destruction” to kill us with.  How many times can you fool the same people with the same lie?  Was Lincoln right? Can you fool some of the people all of the time?  Have we become that kind of people?

 

For a November, 2007 prediction of this moment in time, simply click on the article we posted back then when it became apparent that Bush was planning a war with Iran with the same stealth he pulled of his invasion of Iraq while we thought we were assembling troops in the Middle East to fight terrorists in Afghanistan…in at least the vicinity of those calling themselves “al Qaeda”.  Check out what we pointed out to  you on this before.

 

It’s been a ruse all the time and it remains a ruse. By “ruse” I mean – “misdirection”—the same thing a magician uses on stage when he does something with a flurry with his left hand to prevent you from noticing his reaching for the rabbit with his right. 

 

Right about now, Bush and the Zionist-Jew-Christian-Crazy armageddonites are asking you to look at Israel as if Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is acting autonomously when his air force is carrying out menacing maneuvers clearly intended to be taken by Iran as a promise of being bombed if they continue with their Nuclear power plans.  The U.S. has its military back turned claiming we (the U.S.) is seeking “diplomatic” resolution. Sure, Condi, we believe you this time. Fool me once shame on …..  (now how was it Bush finished that aphorism?!)

 

In Dubai, our former allies in the oil business are quite accurately saying that an attack on Iran will have “disastrous consequences for the region”.  America, through Bush, Condi and the other lying neo-cons is denying any complicity with their flunkie , tag-along wannabee big bully in the Middle East. But in truth, America and Israel are, behind the closed doors of the Pentagon, one. And the whole world knows it. If America is going to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, I wouldn’t be half so disturbed if (1) they would tell the truth about it and (2) get our Congress to agree to it.  Aren’t you with me on this? Aren’t you a little tired of being lied to by our leadership…especially on our way to war…where they give the word and our sons and daughters give the blood?

 

DW readers….unite. Send this message to every thinker you know. Hit the following link and demand that your congressmen preempt this cowardly  preemptive declaration of war by the American bully by and through the actions of its military flunkie puppet  state in the Middle East.  It is they who will launch the battle, but it is we who will die because of it.  Just ask the 10,000 + parents of dead American soldiers.  Hit and fill the following linked message to let your agents in Washington know that you know what Bush is doing with both hands.  Don’t let the big bully blame the war on the little bully. Without both, working together, there would be no war in Iraq.  With both working together, there will be war in Iran. How many times do we want to be fooled?

 

Click here to read.

 

Len Carrier’s Post Script

Dusty,

 

If we want to see oil go to $200 a barrel, all the Bush Administration has to do is give Israel the green light to bomb Iran.  Then the Iranians will block the straits of Hormuz, and nobody here will be able to buy gasoline under $6.00 per gallon.  Then Bush, in the last throes of his presidency, will demand that we give oil companies permits to drill in the last few vestiges of our national heritage.  Of course, this won't help bring gasoline prices down at all, but it might scare our chicken-hearted representatives in Congress to go along with Bush-Cheney's final attempt to steal another country's oil.  Bush, Cheney,  and their oily friends will profit in any case.

 

Then we'll have a push for all-out war with Iran, because our "national interest "demands it. Our Air Force, itching to bomb another country into oblivion, will be willing to send our bombers over Teheran, and the neocons will rejoice in yet another bite of the apple, another chance to "democratize" a foreign country against its will.  What  follows will be a replay of Iraq, where "mistakes will have been made," all in the name of trying to turn Iran into a vassal of our capitalistic society.

 

If all this happens, John McCain, that war-mongering, damaged piece of detritus left over from Vietnam, will claim his patriotic right to be President in the time of war.  The American public, gullible as ever, will fall for this line of jingoistic ravings and elect him so that we can have at least four more years of killing, borrowing, and the ruination of our American Republic.

 

I wish all this were only a nightmare. Recent exercises of the Israeli Air Force tell me that it might actually happen.

 

Len

 

 

 

 

DW CALL
TO ACTION:


STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND HELP US

ABORT ANOTHER OF  BUSH’S ILLIGITIMATE  PREEMPTIVE WARS

OPPOSE Senate Resolution  580 and

House: H Con. Res.  363

This just in from Dan Stone, DW affiliate and correspondent from California, founder and editor of the on-line news letter “Justice Freedom”:    June 26, 2008:

Dear All,

I called the offices of Representatives Jesse Jackson, Jr., Robert Wexler, and Henry Waxman, and the latter two said the Representagives had co-sponsored H CON RES 362 because it was non-binding, and required diplomacy, not force. These people are sleep-walking into another attack!!

If passed, this Resolution (with the Senate concurring as per SEN RES 580) would constitute approval of the American people (via congress) of a naval blockade against Iran. What are the chances Cheney and Bush will take this approval and run with it !?!?! This naval blockade--an act of war--would be the first actual step toward an attack on Iran. It would bring the united states into the "fog of war" in which Cheney / Bush would be able to ramp up their actions against Iran and duplicate the scenario as with Iraq, with the U.S. as the aggressor, Iran the victim, and the Congress and the American people the enablers. Remember how we just invaded Iraq, no shots fired by them, no provocation, no nothing. We just went in. Now is the time to stop this aggressive process.

See the wording of H CON RES 362 below to read the part which could be used to mount a naval blockade, the first step toward an attack. In Item #3 (toward the end), it states:  “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program;"  This is the language of naval blockade, which is the language of war.

Please contact your Reps and Senators to urge them to oppose these 2 War Resolutions.

- Dan

***************************

Click here for reference.

ANNEX

Text of Proposed Resolution

HCON 362 IH

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 362

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 22, 2008

Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself and Mr. PENCE) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes.

Whereas Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has foresworn the acquisition of nuclear weapons by ratification of the NPT, and is legally bound to declare and place all its nuclear activity under constant monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);

Whereas for nearly 20 years, in clear contravention of its explicit obligations under the NPT, Iran operated a covert nuclear program until it was revealed by an Iranian opposition group in 2002;

Whereas the IAEA has confirmed such illicit covert nuclear activities as the importation of uranium hexafluoride, construction of a uranium enrichment facility, experimentation with plutonium, importation of centrifuge technology, construction of centrifuges, and importation of designs to convert highly enriched uranium gas into metal and shape it into the core of a nuclear weapon;

Whereas Iran continues to expand the number of centrifuges at its enrichment facility, as made evident by its announced intention to begin installation of 6,000 advanced centrifuges to enrich uranium, in defiance of binding United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding Iran suspend enrichment activities;

Whereas the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported that Iran was secretly working on the design and manufacture of a nuclear warhead until at least 2003, but that Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon as soon as late 2009;

Whereas an Iranian nuclear weapons capability would pose a grave threat to international peace and security by fundamentally altering and destabilizing the strategic balance in the Middle East, and severely undermining the global nonproliferation regime;

Whereas Iran's overt sponsorship of several terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and its close ties to Syria raise the possibility that Iran would share its nuclear materials and technology with others;

Whereas Iran continues to develop ballistic missile technology and is pursuing the capability to field intercontinental ballistic missiles, a delivery system suited almost exclusively to nuclear weapons payloads;

Whereas Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel, a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally, and a member of the United Nations;

Whereas the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany have offered, and continue to offer, to negotiate a significant package of economic, diplomatic, and security incentives if Iran complies with the United Nations Security Council's resolutions demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment;

Whereas Iran has consistently refused such offers;

Whereas as a result of Iran's failure to comply with the mandates of the United Nations Security Council, taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations' Charter, the international community has imposed limited sanctions over the past 2 years that have begun to have an impact on the Iranian economy;

Whereas Iran's rapid development of its nuclear capabilities is outpacing the slow ratcheting up of economic and diplomatic sanctions;

Whereas Iran has used its banking system, including the Central Bank of Iran, to support its proliferation efforts and its assistance to terrorist groups, leading the Department of Treasury to designate 4 large Iranian banks proliferators and supporters of terrorism;

Whereas Iran's support for Hezbollah has enabled that group to wage war against the Government and people of Lebanon, leading to its political domination of that country;

Whereas Iran's support for Hamas has enabled it to illegally seize control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority, and to continuously bombard Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars;

Whereas Iran continues to provide training, weapons, and financial assistance to Shi'a militants inside of Iraq and antigovernment warlords in Afghanistan;

Whereas those Shi'a militant groups and Afghan warlords use Iranian training, weapons, and financing to attack American and allied forces trying to support the legitimate Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas Iran is further destabilizing the Middle East by underwriting a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;

Whereas through these efforts, Iran seeks to establish regional hegemony, threatens longstanding friends and allies of the United States in the Middle East, and endangers vital American national security interests; and

Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--

(1) declares that preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, through all appropriate economic, political, and diplomatic means, is vital to the national security interests of the United States and must be dealt with urgently;

(2) urges the President, in the strongest of terms, to immediately use his existing authority to impose sanctions on--

(A) the Central Bank of Iran and any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities or the support of terrorist groups;

(B) international banks which continue to conduct financial transactions with proscribed Iranian banks;

(C) energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996; and

(D) all companies which continue to do business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;

(3) demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program; and

(4) urges the President to lead a sustained, serious, and forceful effort at regional diplomacy to support the legitimate governments in the region against Iranian efforts to destabilize them, to reassure our friends and allies that the United States supports them in their resistance to Iranian efforts at hegemony, and to make clear to the Government of Iran that the United States will protect America's vital national security interests in the Middle East.


Monday June 23, 2008

Two Wrongs Do Not Make a RIGHT

McCain and Obama Are Both Wrong

John McCain recently stated his strong disproval for the recent Supreme Court decision that gave the Guantanamo Cuban prison detainees the right to challenge their detention in Federal Court. The Supreme Court decision only requires the Government to produce some legal justification to continue retaining the detainees. McCain called the recent Supreme Court decision the worst Court decision ever.

It should be noted that after 9-11 the United States of America scooped up foreign nationals calling them enemy combatants and transporting them to Guantanamo in Cuba for prison incarceration. Many prisoners have been incarcerated for more than six years without formal charges. During their incarceration it has been documented that many of the prisoners have been tortured by the United States of America.

John McCain is wrong in his opposition to the recent Supreme Court decision. If McCain truly loves his Country, he should put his faith in the American system and the three branches of our government which are the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

The Judicial Branch of our government is fully equipped to hear the detainee’s challenges to their current incarceration without having an affect on America’s national security. There are over two hundred men currently incarcerated in Guantanamo. I’m willing to bet that based on the arbitrary nature of America’s handling of our war efforts after 9-11 there is at least one innocent man incarcerated in that prison with no formal charges having ever been presented and that is one too many.

Bobby Dees

MORE

Court: GUANTANAMO Bay Prisoner Improperly Designated as Enemy Combatant

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim being held at Guantanamo Bay, was improperly designated an "enemy combatant.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a one-page notice that was issued today, says it ordered the Pentagon "to release or to transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new Tribunal consistent with the court's opinion."

 

PART TWO

Obama Changes Position on Public Financing

Barack Obama throughout his Presidential campaign has pledged that he would accept public financing in the general Presidential election. He stated he believed that a publicly financed campaign would reduce the influence of special interest.

Obama has now announced that he will reject the 84 million dollars in public financing and will use private financing in his campaign. Barack Obama always does what is in Obama’s best interest. It appears Obama believes he can buy the Presidency with his fundraising abilities. It should be noted that the Democratic Party trails the Republican Party in fundraising by several million dollars. While Obama has been raking in millions, the parties Democratic fundraising has suffered. Recently, it has been announced that the upcoming Democratic Presidential Convention has a 15 million dollar shortfall in funding. Maybe, Obama can give the Democratic Party a loan.

Bobby Dees


Monday June 16, 2008

Traditional Democrat Leaving the Democratic Party

The Shocking “You Tube” Documentation of the Media Attacks on Hillary Clinton


Dear Obama supporters:

This isn't about Hillary. It is about something much larger. It is about the Democratic Party. And it is about principle. I have been a member of the Democratic Party since I was eighteen years old and first registered to vote. That would be 1974, right at the end of the Vietnam War. We fought to get 18-year-olds the vote, because, gee, if one was old enough to die in a war, shouldn't they be old enough to vote?

I joined the Democratic Party because it was as close to my hippy/social justice/progressive ideals as I could find: Civil rights, women's rights, environmental care, workers rights, equal opportunity, education, fair play, etc.

Yes, My Party is supposed to stand for certain key issues, chief amongst them: women's rights and voting rights. This primary has shown me that the Democratic Party, while full of real people down here on the ground who genuinely care about these issues, has leaders that will stand silently by while one of their own is slandered in the media and by surrogates of the Obama campaign. The sexism and outright misogyny of the MSM, and the willingness of the Obama campaign to paint two of the most devoted civil rights activists in the Democratic Party, Bill and Hillary Clinton, as racists was beyond the pale. The inference also that anyone who supported her was either racist, uneducated or a dried up old feminist, didn't win any brownie points either. I've been through a lot of contentious primaries, but I've never been on the receiving end of such vitriol from members of my own party.

FULL STORY


Wednesday June 11, 2008

THE TRUTH A