Peace and Justice Post

AFP, Jan 8, 2008

TEHRAN (AFP) – – Iran on Tuesday rejected US charges that its naval forces threatened to blow up American ships in the Strait of Hormuz, amid renewed tensions ahead of US President George W. Bush’s visit to the region.

US defence officials said five speedboats from the naval forces of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards menaced three US warships in the strategic waterway on Sunday, radioing a threat to blow them up.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the incident as “provocative” and “dangerous”, amid fears such an insolated encounter could spark a major confrontation between the two foes.

But Iranian officials expressed bewilderment over the US version of events, saying the encounter was a routine question of identification that ended with nothing special to report.

“What happened between the Guards and foreign vessels was an ordinary identification,” Ali Reza Tangsiri, commander of the Guards naval forces in the region, told the Mehr news agency.

“No special engagement took place between the Guards and the foreign side,” he said, adding that the Guards naval forces had a right to control and identify “any vessel entering Persian Gulf waters” to the northwest.

State television quoted an unnamed Guards source in the region as saying: “No threatening message was transmitted.”

Continued . . .

Alternet, Jan 8, 2008

By Ali Al-Fadhily, IPS News. Posted January 8, 2008.

The story of an Iraqi soldier defending a pregnant woman against U.S. troops is front page news in Iraq.

The recent killing of two U.S. soldiers by their Iraqi colleague has raised disturbing questions about U.S. military relations with the Iraqis they work with.

On Dec. 26, an Iraqi soldier opened fire on U.S. soldiers accompanying him during a joint military patrol in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul. He killed the U.S. captain and another sergeant, and wounded three others, including an Iraqi interpreter.

Conflicting versions of the killing have arisen. Col. Hazim al-Juboory, uncle of the attacker Kaissar Saady al-Juboory, told IPS that his nephew at first watched the U.S. soldiers beat up an Iraqi woman. When he asked them to stop, they refused, so he opened fire.

Keep reading . . .

Why I Believe Bush Must Go

Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

By George McGovern | Washington Post, January 6, 2008

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly “high crimes and misdemeanors,” to use the constitutional standard.

Keep reading . . .

The Independent, January 7, 2008

He is the forgotten leader, scorned by his people, disowned by his party. This week George Bush has a last chance to undo the damage done by his presidency as he begins a Middle East tour

By Leonard Doyle in New Hampshire and Andrew Buncombe in Islamabad

Voters in the United States may have switched their attention to the contest to find his successor, but George Bush will embark on an ambitious nine-day tour of the Middle East tomorrow in a last desperate effort to salvage a legacy from two terms in office overshadowed by a catastrophic foreign policy that has earned him the distinction of being one of the worst presidents in the country’s history.

The Bush legacy will not be peace in the Middle East nor an end to conflict in Iraq, but it could be a political earthquake among voters so dismayed by the mess he has made of America’s foreign policy and fearful of economic recession that they are deserting his party in droves.

As he prepares to board a plane for Israel and wrap himself in the tattered flag of victory in Iraq, Mr Bush’s real legacy to the American people is evident in the disillusionment on display in New Hampshire. Enraged Republicans are switching sides to support the Democrat Barack Obama. Others are backing Mike Huckabee, the maverick Christian conservative hopeful. Both triumphed in the Iowa caucuses on a platform of “change”.

Keep reading . . .

Gulf states no longer want to isolate Iran.

The Gulf has moved away from American arguments for isolating Iran. American policymakers need to do the same.

The states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are accommodating themselves to Iran’s growing weight in the region’s politics. They remain key parts of America’s security architecture in the region, hosting massive US military bases and underwriting the American economy in exchange for protection. But as Saudi analyst Khalid al-Dakheel argues, they are no longer content sitting passively beneath the US security umbrella and want to avoid being a pawn in the US-Iranian struggle for power. Flush with cash, they are not interested in a war that would mess up business.

That’s why America’s attempt to shore up containment against Iran increasingly seems to be yesterday’s battle. On Dec. 3, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the GCC in Doha, Qatar. It was the first time an Iranian leader had addressed the alliance, which was formed in 1981 against the Iranian challenge.

Continued . . .

The Sunday Times, January 6, 2008

Uzi Mahanimi, Tel Aviv

ISRAELI security officials are to brief President George W Bush on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear programme – and how it could be destroyed – when he begins a tour of the Middle East in Jerusalem this week.

Ehud Barak, the defence minister, is said to want to convince him that an Israeli military strike against uranium enrichment facilities in Iran would be feasible if diplomatic efforts failed to halt nuclear operations. A range of military options has been prepared.

Last month it was revealed that the US National Intelligence Estimate report, drawing together information from 16 agencies, had concluded that Iran stopped a secret nuclear weapon programme in 2003.

Israeli intelligence is understood to agree that the project was halted around the time of America’s invasion of Iraq, but has “rock solid” information that it has since started up again.

Continued . . .

Counterpunch, Weekend Edition, January 5 / 6, 2008

What Would a Withdrawal Mean?

By KEVIN YOUNG

No nation that claims to value democracy for the world’s people can maintain a military occupation against the will of the occupied population. Yet despite what seems like a fundamental moral truism-the notion that a military occupation of one country by another can only be justified if the occupied population supports it-mainstream commentators in this country rarely broach the subject of Iraqi attitudes toward the US-led occupation. Iraqi public opinion polls, when they even make it into the newspapers, are accorded astoundingly little weight. Instead, most US politicians and analysts repeat vague slogans about how “Iraqis need us” and how “we’ll leave when they ask us to.”

A brief look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation reveals why mainstream commentators in this country opt for such ambiguity rather than dealing with the polls themselves: Iraqis have consistently stated that the occupation is a destabilizing force in their country, that the situation would improve after a US withdrawal, and that the US has ulterior motives for staying in Iraq.

Keep reading  .  . .

PORTLAND – Two Democratic congressional candidates from southern Maine are applauding Rep. Mike Michaud for calling for impeachment hearings on Vice President Dick Cheney.

In a letter sent last month, Michaud, D-Maine, urged House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers to schedule impeachment hearings before the end of current congressional session. The letter cited “serious allegations” that the vice president played a role in mischaracterizing prewar intelligence, outing CIA agent Valerie Plame, and abusing detainees, among other issues.

Michaud’s call is being echoed by state Sen. Ethan Strimling and York County District Attorney Mark Lawrence, both of whom are Democratic candidates for Congress.

“We need an investigation into the abuses of this administration, and there are many of them,” Strimling said in a statement, “and impeachment hearings will provide an opportunity to get facts on the table.”

Lawrence said in a press release: “If Congress does not act to hold our leaders accountable, their unprecedented expansion of executive power will become a dangerous precedent.”

Both Strimling and Lawrence have previously stated their support for impeachment proceedings against the vice president.

They are among six Democratic candidates running to succeed Democratic Rep. Tom Allen, who is challenging [Republican] Sen. Susan Collins.

The other four Democratic candidates are Michael Brennan of Portland, Adam Cote of Portland, Steve Meister of Winthrop and Chellie Pingree of North Haven. The Republican candidates are Dean Scontras of Eliot and Charles Summers of Scarborough.

© 2008 Portland Press Herald

Capitol Hill Blue, January 4, 2008

President George W. Bush Thursday ordered White House lawyers to use claims of executive privilege to prevent senior White House aides from cooperating with the Justice Department’s criminal investigation into destruction of videotapes that showed CIA interrogators torturing terrorism suspects.

White House sources tell Capitol Hill Blue that the claims of executive privilege are just “the first step” in a coordinated campaign to stonewall the investigation and prevent administration aides from giving depositions or submitting to interviews with Justice Department investigators.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey announced the investigation this week, appointing veteran prosecutor John Durham of Connecticut to handle the probe. Democratic leaders and Constitutional law experts, however, say the Justice Department, which ultimately answers to the White House, cannot be expected to fully investigate Bush’s involvement and say the probe needs a special prosecutor.

Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University professor, says Bush can block any effective legislation.

Keep reading . . .

The Nation, January 4, 2008
By Amy Wlinetz

Editor’s note: Read Amy Wilentz’s September 2007 interview with Benazir Bhutto here.

In history, documents come and documents go. But sometimes one would dearly love to know the exact provenance of a document and see its pages. It was odd to watch Benazir Bhutto’s will suddenly emerge this week and, as if her hands were shooting out from her elaborate grave, lay the mantle of the Pakistan People’s Party across the unready shoulders of her 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari.

Strange, too, to see Bilawal’s supposedly ailing father, the corrupt and despised Asif Ali Zardari, leap with alacrity to declare the boy too young for the job and to assume the chairmanship of the PPP himself until Bilawal is no longer of “tender” age.

Keep reading . . .