A Built-in Bias Against the Interests of Ordinary People
""Constructing Public Opinion" demonstrates the way in which political elites help to promote the military industrial complex."
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map. "
Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
Here is Ahmadinejad's actual quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Pundits and politicians are telling falsehoods which manipulate the public into accepting a confrontation with Iran. Either out of ignorance or by intention, pundits and politicians are actively helping to create a confrontation with Iran. (most are probably regurgitating what they heard from news sources which falsely reported what Ahmadinejad said.) They are manipulating public opinion by misrepresenting what he said. As you can see, Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
"The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about." - Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be "wiped off the map".
President Ahmadinejad was talking about the occupying regime which is a form of government. On Feb 20, 2006 Iran's foreign minister confirmed what Ahmadinejad was actually referring to, "He is talking about the regime."
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made clear he is talking about a democratic political process being the way the regime will vanish:
"I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met."
[The words highlighted in red were omitted from the 60 Minutes interview. This omission is another example of how mainstream media is manipulating the public.]
Ahmadinejad has been explicate about how he thinks the regime will vanish and it is clear he is talking about a political process and not an attack as many in the mainstream media would like you to believe: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated."
"Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements." - a dangerous rumor has spread
Someone at the Associated Press altered this quote, what the AP did is "irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP altered the quote to sound more threatening."
Here is Ahmadinejad's actual quote translated directly to English: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."
Pundits and politicians are telling falsehoods which manipulate the public into accepting a confrontation with Iran. Either out of ignorance or by intention, pundits and politicians are actively helping to create a confrontation with Iran. (most are probably regurgitating what they heard from news sources which falsely reported what Ahmadinejad said.) They are manipulating public opinion by misrepresenting what he said. As you can see, Iranian President Ahmadinejad DID NOT threaten to "wipe Israel off the map."
"The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.
He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about." - Ahmadinejad never said Israel should be "wiped off the map".
President Ahmadinejad was talking about the occupying regime which is a form of government. On Feb 20, 2006 Iran's foreign minister confirmed what Ahmadinejad was actually referring to, "He is talking about the regime."
Ahmadinejad has repeatedly made clear he is talking about a democratic political process being the way the regime will vanish:
"I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government and I have talked about the solution. The solution is democracy. We have said allow Palestinian people to participate in a free and fair referendum to express their views. What we are saying only serves the cause of durable peace. We want durable peace in that part of the world. A durable peace will only come about with once the views of the people are met."
[The words highlighted in red were omitted from the 60 Minutes interview. This omission is another example of how mainstream media is manipulating the public.]
Ahmadinejad has been explicate about how he thinks the regime will vanish and it is clear he is talking about a political process and not an attack as many in the mainstream media would like you to believe: "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated."
"Rather than imply a military threat or escalation in rhetoric, this reference to Russia actually validates the intended meaning of Ahmadinejad's previous misinterpreted anti-Zionist statements." - a dangerous rumor has spread
Someone at the Associated Press altered this quote, what the AP did is "irrefutable proof of media manipulation and propaganda in action. The AP altered the quote to sound more threatening."
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
A Chill Descended on the Gathering
A Chill Descended on the Gathering
I have wondered about this before, how much has the so called pro-Israel or Zionist agenda undermined the anti-war movement?
Peter Bart writes about "emerging fissures" within Hollywood's anti-war political movement:
"The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."
Peter Bart continues, "Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals."
Bart also points out that, "The Economist observed ... only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as "pro-Zionist," ... and only 57% say that "caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.""
By the way, Edwards is exactly right, this is the greatest short-term threat to world peace. Shame on those in his audience who don't pause for a second to review the issue. They arrogantly assume that the Jewish State of Israel can do no wrong and in doing so they put Americans at risk.
I have wondered about this before, how much has the so called pro-Israel or Zionist agenda undermined the anti-war movement?
Peter Bart writes about "emerging fissures" within Hollywood's anti-war political movement:
"The aggressively photogenic John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word -- Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close."
Peter Bart continues, "Support for Israel in the U.S. has lately become bafflingly multi-cultural, representing an alliance between diaspora Jews, traditional Zionists and evangelicals."
Bart also points out that, "The Economist observed ... only 17% of American Jews today regard themselves as "pro-Zionist," ... and only 57% say that "caring about Israel is a very important part of being Jewish.""
By the way, Edwards is exactly right, this is the greatest short-term threat to world peace. Shame on those in his audience who don't pause for a second to review the issue. They arrogantly assume that the Jewish State of Israel can do no wrong and in doing so they put Americans at risk.
Bart warns, "Given that the Christian Right and neo-conservatives in this country seem more obsessed with Israel than the Jewish community, the "I" word is becoming a potentially lethal component of today's political dialogue. The Middle East crisis represents just one of the issues that could splinter the formidable anti-Bush sentiment in the entertainment community."
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Avert a Potential Crisis of Horrific Proportions
Kevin,
I see you, like me, are worried about what Bush may do next. At this point, the possibility of President Bush starting a war with Iran is so tangible that I don't see many, if any, people dismissing it out of hand.
In mainstream media, we hear from pundits talking about the likelihood of Bush attacking Iran yet only those pundits who omit mentioning it would violate international law and our Constitution get chosen to be on TV.
I agree with you that we must take the sane approach. Leaving Bush in power with the idea in his head that he has a right to attack Iran is DANGEROUS and could cost the lives of God knows how many Americans, let alone other people in the world.
We are in such a DANGEROUS situation right now that we must do more that advocate what Bush shouldn't do. We must prevent him from doing with with all our might, our very lives are at risk because of this insanity.
Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from damaging our security and needlessly getting who knows how many more Americans killed. It is past time to put a stop to this self declared "War President." The man has proven that he is not fit to be Commander in Chief. As unimaginable as it sounds, three times now he has made it clear that he doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq. Contrary to the perception of many, the press doesn't hold him accountable. Bush has lied several times to the American people, a recent time he actually admitted to it and still the mainstream media was unwilling to call him a lair! In fact the Washington Post went as far as censoring one of their own articles: "Shortly after accurately reporting remarks that President Bush made during a press conference, the Washington Post changed its article. The newer version mischaracterized the president’s words and dropped a crucial quote. Why? Maybe because the old version of the article showed that the president is a liar."
Our lives are at risk, it is time to employ the basic powers of government to rescue ourselves from an impeding doom. We must demand that Congress impeach President Bush for launching the war on Iraq. The reason Bush said he attacked Iraq is a lie. He said he attacked because Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, THAT IS A LIE! What a insult to the American people that this man doesn't even know the basic fact about why he attacked Iraq! What an insult all those that served and all those that have died or have been maimed in Bush's war that Bush is lying about why he started the war. What an insult it is for the mainstream media to sweep these things under the rug, fooling millions of Americans about issues that effect their lives.
How did the American people get to this point? The media is manipulating the public and violating basic principles.
I think you have been influenced by mainstream media. How is it you scoff at the idea of a being as good as your word, at the idea of upholding international law? When the U.S. signs an international treaty, it is supposed to uphold it, that basic principle is enshrined in our Constitution. Over the past decades, the MSM has driven the idea out of many people's heads of behaving morally and legally in international affairs. The main way they do it is by neglecting to allow pundits on the air that support the rule of law. "A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT" -Thomas Paine
We may have little time left. What do you say to doing a serious examination of the issues. We must insist that our representatives uphold the U.S. Constitution, it is the only way we are going to avert a potential crisis of horrific proportions. Bush must be stopped. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that nothing short of impeachment will stop him from starting another war. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that he is dangerous and nothing short of impeachment can protect the American people.
I see you, like me, are worried about what Bush may do next. At this point, the possibility of President Bush starting a war with Iran is so tangible that I don't see many, if any, people dismissing it out of hand.
In mainstream media, we hear from pundits talking about the likelihood of Bush attacking Iran yet only those pundits who omit mentioning it would violate international law and our Constitution get chosen to be on TV.
I agree with you that we must take the sane approach. Leaving Bush in power with the idea in his head that he has a right to attack Iran is DANGEROUS and could cost the lives of God knows how many Americans, let alone other people in the world.
We are in such a DANGEROUS situation right now that we must do more that advocate what Bush shouldn't do. We must prevent him from doing with with all our might, our very lives are at risk because of this insanity.
Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from damaging our security and needlessly getting who knows how many more Americans killed. It is past time to put a stop to this self declared "War President." The man has proven that he is not fit to be Commander in Chief. As unimaginable as it sounds, three times now he has made it clear that he doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq. Contrary to the perception of many, the press doesn't hold him accountable. Bush has lied several times to the American people, a recent time he actually admitted to it and still the mainstream media was unwilling to call him a lair! In fact the Washington Post went as far as censoring one of their own articles: "Shortly after accurately reporting remarks that President Bush made during a press conference, the Washington Post changed its article. The newer version mischaracterized the president’s words and dropped a crucial quote. Why? Maybe because the old version of the article showed that the president is a liar."
Our lives are at risk, it is time to employ the basic powers of government to rescue ourselves from an impeding doom. We must demand that Congress impeach President Bush for launching the war on Iraq. The reason Bush said he attacked Iraq is a lie. He said he attacked because Saddam didn't let the inspectors in, THAT IS A LIE! What a insult to the American people that this man doesn't even know the basic fact about why he attacked Iraq! What an insult all those that served and all those that have died or have been maimed in Bush's war that Bush is lying about why he started the war. What an insult it is for the mainstream media to sweep these things under the rug, fooling millions of Americans about issues that effect their lives.
How did the American people get to this point? The media is manipulating the public and violating basic principles.
I think you have been influenced by mainstream media. How is it you scoff at the idea of a being as good as your word, at the idea of upholding international law? When the U.S. signs an international treaty, it is supposed to uphold it, that basic principle is enshrined in our Constitution. Over the past decades, the MSM has driven the idea out of many people's heads of behaving morally and legally in international affairs. The main way they do it is by neglecting to allow pundits on the air that support the rule of law. "A long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT" -Thomas Paine
We may have little time left. What do you say to doing a serious examination of the issues. We must insist that our representatives uphold the U.S. Constitution, it is the only way we are going to avert a potential crisis of horrific proportions. Bush must be stopped. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that nothing short of impeachment will stop him from starting another war. With his words and actions, Bush has made it clear that he is dangerous and nothing short of impeachment can protect the American people.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Recommended Microphone for Mac or PC
Recommended Microphone for Mac or PC
This is a noise-canceling microphone, it cancels background noise and interference. This is the mic to get if you want to cancel out the fan noise of your computer. This is my recommendation for a good microphone at a good price. Get it here: Logitech USB Desktop Microphone
This is a noise-canceling microphone, it cancels background noise and interference. This is the mic to get if you want to cancel out the fan noise of your computer. This is my recommendation for a good microphone at a good price. Get it here: Logitech USB Desktop Microphone
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Working towards war
Rice lied about Iran to U.S. Congress
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States ... Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
"Leverett said "this was a serious proposal, a serious effort" by Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."
"The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal," he said."
"I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about," says Rice.
"Leverett and others have represented the proposal as a missed opportunity that could have defused tensions with Iran which have grown to the point that the U.S. administration has been forced to deny it plans military action against Tehran." - Ex-aide says Rice misled U.S. Congress on Iran
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice misled the U.S. Congress when she said last week that she had not seen a 2003 Iranian proposal for talks with the United States ... Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice. He said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but "the administration rejected the overture."
"Leverett said "this was a serious proposal, a serious effort" by Iran to lay out a comprehensive agenda for U.S.-Iranian rapprochement."
"The Bush administration up to and including Secretary Rice is misleading Congress and the American public about the Iran proposal," he said."
"I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about," says Rice.
"Leverett and others have represented the proposal as a missed opportunity that could have defused tensions with Iran which have grown to the point that the U.S. administration has been forced to deny it plans military action against Tehran." - Ex-aide says Rice misled U.S. Congress on Iran
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
All Options are NOT on the Table
All Options are NOT on the Table
We have an extremely serious problem with the mainstream media and the political elites. Their agenda violates the fundamentals of basic decency and morality. It should be pointed out that a "War of Choice" is by definition A WAR CRIME, you should call a spade a spade. Those that pushed the Iraq War and MANY of the same people that declare that "all options are on the table" are still engaged in the promotion of war crimes. All options are NOT on the table with regard to Iran because we are not a Nazi country, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and our politicians are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution. You can't just "choose" to attack a country for any reason you concoct. We are supposed to abide by basic rules of international laws against war crimes as treaties signed by the U.S. plainly state. The mainstream media and politicians such as Hillary Clinton and others have violated their oaths of office by violating the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause makes clear that the founders of this country did not envision a country of pirates and thieves.
It should also be pointed out that these violations of the U.S. Constitution are violations of the rights of the American people and the specific acts, the wars that these politicians are getting the U.S. into are violations of the American people as well. The so called "progressives" must stop playing along with or soft peddling the criticism of the ugly and deadly neo-con games and start saying clearly that their agenda is ILLEGAL And IMMORAL and not just "unnecessary".
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
We have an extremely serious problem with the mainstream media and the political elites. Their agenda violates the fundamentals of basic decency and morality. It should be pointed out that a "War of Choice" is by definition A WAR CRIME, you should call a spade a spade. Those that pushed the Iraq War and MANY of the same people that declare that "all options are on the table" are still engaged in the promotion of war crimes. All options are NOT on the table with regard to Iran because we are not a Nazi country, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and our politicians are supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution. You can't just "choose" to attack a country for any reason you concoct. We are supposed to abide by basic rules of international laws against war crimes as treaties signed by the U.S. plainly state. The mainstream media and politicians such as Hillary Clinton and others have violated their oaths of office by violating the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause makes clear that the founders of this country did not envision a country of pirates and thieves.
It should also be pointed out that these violations of the U.S. Constitution are violations of the rights of the American people and the specific acts, the wars that these politicians are getting the U.S. into are violations of the American people as well. The so called "progressives" must stop playing along with or soft peddling the criticism of the ugly and deadly neo-con games and start saying clearly that their agenda is ILLEGAL And IMMORAL and not just "unnecessary".
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
Exposing the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
In response to my video, What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't, BurtLanden complains erroneously, "If you really think that al qaeda hates America because of our support for Israel, then youre a sucker. al Qaeda NEVER ONCE mentioned Israel until the last few years. do your homework. go back and read why bin Laden declared war on America in 1998. because of our support for Saudia Arabia and because we have troops on Saudi Arabian (Muslim ) soil. bin Laden HATED Arafat, Hussein and all Muslims who dont practice strict fundamentalist Islam. al qaeda couldnt give a crap about the Palestinians!"
That isn't true Burt. (Burt has swallowed Thomas Friedman's lie)
I put these links together to expose the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
NEW POST: Motives for the September 11, 2001 Attacks
Why did Osama bin Laden declare a jihad against the US government?
Thomas Friedman has the audacity to lie to the American people about the worst attack against America in history in order to serve Israel's agenda.
Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives
Osama bin Laden Has Been Angry About U.S. Support of Israel for Decades
A chutzpah award goes to CNN's Anderson Cooper for pushing Thomas Friedman's canard even after reading Bergen's book.
Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
CNN continues to downplay and omit motives for attacks
SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks.
It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us about why we were attacked on 9/11.
The reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."
No Other Motivation, No Other Issue
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.
The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel
We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices
ABC NEWS OMITS Mention of AMERICA and ISRAEL
Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, "contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. "[The 19 hijackers of 9/11]
In response to my video, What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't, BurtLanden complains erroneously, "If you really think that al qaeda hates America because of our support for Israel, then youre a sucker. al Qaeda NEVER ONCE mentioned Israel until the last few years. do your homework. go back and read why bin Laden declared war on America in 1998. because of our support for Saudia Arabia and because we have troops on Saudi Arabian (Muslim ) soil. bin Laden HATED Arafat, Hussein and all Muslims who dont practice strict fundamentalist Islam. al qaeda couldnt give a crap about the Palestinians!"
That isn't true Burt. (Burt has swallowed Thomas Friedman's lie)
I put these links together to expose the fact that politicians and pundits are lying about "why they hate us."
NEW POST: Motives for the September 11, 2001 Attacks
Why did Osama bin Laden declare a jihad against the US government?
Thomas Friedman has the audacity to lie to the American people about the worst attack against America in history in order to serve Israel's agenda.
Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives
Osama bin Laden Has Been Angry About U.S. Support of Israel for Decades
A chutzpah award goes to CNN's Anderson Cooper for pushing Thomas Friedman's canard even after reading Bergen's book.
Mainstream media certainly has not made it easy to understand what motivated the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
CNN continues to downplay and omit motives for attacks
SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks.
It is beyond the pale for Zionists to lie to us about why we were attacked on 9/11.
The reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries.
1993 World Trade Center Bombing Motive: Attack was "to revenge for my Palestinian brothers and my brothers in Saudi Arabia."
No Other Motivation, No Other Issue
Ramzi Yousef, the 1993 WTC bomber, was motivated to attack the US because of US support of Israel: He had no other motivation, no other issue.
The man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel
We were attacked by Al-Qaeda because of specific US Foreign Polices
ABC NEWS OMITS Mention of AMERICA and ISRAEL
Dishonesty about 9/11 motives robs Americans of the freedom to decide for ourselves if we want to put our lives at risk over specific foreign policies.
In an Oct. 2004 speech, Osama bin Laden said that Bush is still misleading the American people by not telling us the real reason why al-Qeada attacks us. Bin Laden said that, "contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. "[The 19 hijackers of 9/11]
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!
Prevent Bush from Attacking Iran!
"Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke - or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf - an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.
A U.S. Attack Is Illegal
Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses." - Bush Targets Iran by Marjorie Cohn
Below is what I wrote about the illegality of President Bush's attack on Iraq:
I don't see any mention of the fact that it was illegal to attack Iraq. The NYT is notorious for serving the interests of the powerful and the powerful don't like to be bound by laws. All this sick minded talk from the Times as if it is simply a choice that may or may not be made. Attacking Iraq wasn't "a choice" that either "should" be made or not. It wasn't a choice that would be a "mistake" or not. It was a case of either violating the law of our land or not. The Times is a very sick newspaper for suppressing the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal.
It would be very interesting to see if any mainstream news outlet reported the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal. I never saw one report that basic fact.
see The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy
NOW we see the same game being played with regard to talk about Bush attacking Iran.
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
"Congress has the responsibility to prevent Bush from attacking Iran. In view of congressional opposition to his war in Iraq, Bush will not likely ask permission to make war on Iran. We can expect Bush to provoke - or even fabricate a la Tonkin Gulf - an incident with Iran and then claim he's responding to Iranian aggression. Senior Pentagon officials reported in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times that Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border may be used more aggressively. Bush will then try to bootstrap the September 2001 and October 2002 congressional authorizations for force in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively into consent to attack Iran.A U.S. Attack Is Illegal
Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses." - Bush Targets Iran by Marjorie Cohn
Below is what I wrote about the illegality of President Bush's attack on Iraq:
I don't see any mention of the fact that it was illegal to attack Iraq. The NYT is notorious for serving the interests of the powerful and the powerful don't like to be bound by laws. All this sick minded talk from the Times as if it is simply a choice that may or may not be made. Attacking Iraq wasn't "a choice" that either "should" be made or not. It wasn't a choice that would be a "mistake" or not. It was a case of either violating the law of our land or not. The Times is a very sick newspaper for suppressing the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal.
It would be very interesting to see if any mainstream news outlet reported the fact that what Bush was contemplating was illegal. I never saw one report that basic fact.see The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy
NOW we see the same game being played with regard to talk about Bush attacking Iran.
Bombing Iran is not only illegal and unjust, it is an unacceptable risk. The risks of "stopping Iran" are greater than not "stopping Iran." It isn't just my opinion that the risks that come with military actions against Iran are unacceptable. Look at the conclusion drawn from war-game simulations of attacking Iran.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
