Iran - Situation Update III

The Washington Post reports that "[t]he Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort."

They go on to cite a "senior intelligence officer" who said that "[t]his has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political." The Post says that he also suggested "that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there." Of course this last bit is most likely speculation, but who knows for sure.

However, it seems to me that there is a good possibility that this intelligence officer is right on the mark if this action has been put in place "to weaken Tehran's influence" and "compel it to give up its nuclear program."

To "weaken Tehran's influence..."

Just yesterday there was an article in The Post about how much support Iran is providing to the Iraqi people. They recount the story of one Fadhil Abbas, a twenty-two year old Iraqi student who "joined a four-taxi convoy of ailing Iraqis" who were going to Iran; his mother was in need of eye surgery. He had this to say upon his return: "When you look at this hospital, it is like something imaginary -- you wouldn't believe such a hospital like this exists. Iran wants to help the patients in Iraq. Other countries don't want to let Iraqis in." The Post reports that the treatment of Iraqis by Iranian hospitals is increasingly common.

"Iran exports electricity and refined oil products to Iraq, and Iraqi vendors sell Iranian-made cars, air coolers, plastics and the black flags, decorated with colorful script, that Shiites are flying this week to celebrate the religious holiday of Ashura. Each day, Iran provides 1,000 tons of cooking gas, about 20 percent of the Iraqi demand, and 2 million liters of kerosene. Iran exports electricity through Iraq's Diyala province and plans to quadruple the amount with new projects, Iraqi officials say."

To "compel it to give up its nuclear program..."

This "reason" is completely unwarranted, as both the CIA and IAEA have found no evidence of nuclear weapons paraphernalia. Furthermore it is Iran's right under the NPT to "participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy," which is precisely what they're doing. And as the Centre for Research on Globalization reports, "by imposing trade sanctions against Iran and by preventing Iran from collaborating with nuclear states, the US government has been in breach of part 2 of Article IV of the NPT" which protects the aforementioned right. They go on to state that "all five permanent member states of the UN Security Council are in breach of Article VI of the NPT which requires them to take effective measures for nuclear disarmament." Everyone else can break the rules, but Iran cannot develop its peaceful nuclear program within them?

Senator Hagel Kicking Ass And Taking Names

My tribute to Senator Chuck Hagel (R):

01.25.07 - "Oh, I’m so sorry the vice president so underestimates the people of this country. He has so little faith in this country to say something like that. That’s an astounding statement from the vice president of the United States.

You’re telling me — or maybe more directly, maybe the vice president should tell the families of those who have lost their lives, over 3,000, and over 23,000 wounded, some very seriously for life, that "they don’t have the stomach?" Come on, let’s get real here."

01.24.07 - "We are not about -- this resolution, those who I'm associated with, I don't think anybody in the Senate -- if there is one senator in the United States Senate that is all about defeating America, making America's position more dangerous, eroding our standing in the world, I don't know of that person.

If you do, please let me know.

Every one of the 100 senators -- Republican, Democrat, independent -- that I know of has said, "How do we do this in a way that we look after, first, the national interests of America?" That still is rather significant.

I don't question the president's sincerity, his motivations in this. I never have. Nor anyone in his administration.

This president is sincere about what he said last night. He believes this is the right thing to do. I happen to disagree.

So, but we don't, somehow, project to the outside world that there's disagreement in our government, in our country, about the future of Iraq, I think that if that is what our role is going to be -- and yes, Mr. Lugar, we can hold more hearings, oversight. I don't know what that's produced. We are going to have more oversight.

Part of the problem that we have, I think, is because we didn't -- we didn't involve the Congress in this when we should have.

And I'm to blame. Every senator who's been here the last four years has to take some responsibility for that.

But I will not sit here in this Congress of the United States at this important time for our country and in the world and not have something to say about this. And maybe I'll be wrong. And maybe I have no political future. I don't care about that.

But I don't ever want to look back and have the regret that I didn't have the courage and I didn't do what I could to at least project something.

This resolution, by the way, does not tie the hands of the president of the United States. It does not tie the hands of the president of the United States in any way.

So I would go back to where I began, and pick up on a point that Chairman Lugar mentioned: coherence of strategy.

I don't know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy.

In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.

I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even team B'ed this plan.

And my dear friend Dick Lugar talks about coherence of strategy. There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.

These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.

And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide anymore; none of us.

That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country. "

01.14.07 - "I am not nor any member of Congress that I'm aware of is advocating defeat, that's ridiculous and I'm offended that any responsible member of Congress or anyone else would even suggest such a thing…Sen. Lieberman talks about his children and grandchildren, we all have children and grandchildren—he doesn't have a market on that nor do any of my colleagues. We're all concerned about the future of this country…"

Also, watch Hagel & Feingold grill Condi on troop escalation.

Iran - Situation Update II

Another carrier strike group has been sent to the Persian Gulf for the purpose of "warning" Iran.

Keith Olbermann: "...the problem is this, no matter what the intentions of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Saddam Hussein before him, the Bush administration is providing scant evidence to support the claims, “The Los Angeles Times” reporting that journalists traveling with U.S. troops in Iraq have failed to see these extensive signs of Iranian involvement, a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents uncovering only a single Iranian weapon among dozens of arms caches, in addition, the newspaper reports, U.S. officials declining to provide documentation of seized Iranian ordinance, despite repeated requests to do so, the military often releasing photographs of other weapons finds."

Senator Clinton: "You know, our president will not talk to people he considers bad. Well, there are a lot of bad actors in the world, and you don‘t make peace with your friends. You‘ve got to deal with your enemies, your opponents, people whose interests diverge from yours.

Right now, we‘re flying blind when it comes to Iran. We don‘t have good intelligence about Iran, about, you know, what their real motivations are, who‘s calling the shots. The same with Syria. And I would immediately open a diplomatic track.

And I don‘t think we would lose. In fact, I think we would gain insight. I mean, if we have to take a firm stand against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, let‘s get more information before we do that. Let‘s figure out, you know, what levers of power in their society we might be able to pull and push."

One of Iraq's top Shia politicians condemned the US arrest of several Iranians during recent raids.

Another thing that I believe should be noted concerns the Iranian people. While it is true that the leaders of Iran are quite possibly insane, the Iranian people are not. Nor are the Iranian people ignorant. It is vital to note that the Iranian Parliament has begun collecting signatures in order to impeach President Ahmadinejad. It is also important to note that more than 100 Iranian activists around the world have signed a document condemning the holocaust-deniers conventions held in Iran.

Quick Thoughts

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) calls Cheney's claim that opposing the escalation plan undermines the troops "complete nonsense."

Olbermann's Special Comment on Bush's Iraq speech.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) informs Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he is "treading on [his] interdiction and violating common sense" by claiming that "there is no express grant of Habeas Corpus in the Constitution."

In 2003, VP Cheney turned down an offer by the Iranian goverment to help stabalize Iraq.

Olbermann calls out Tony Snow's attempt (lies) to cover for Bush's lack of credibility.

Iran - Situation Update

Back in February of 2005, Iran accused the US of sending unmanned spy drones into Iranian airspace for the purpose of spying on alleged nuclear missile sites (which were not found, as the misleading CBS title suggests).

Yesterday, January 16th, Iran purchased short-range, anti-aircraft missiles from Russia, who will "consider further requests."

Also, Iran has apparently shot down a US predator drone that was attempting to cross the border into Iran a few days ago. "Americans send such spy drones to the region every now and then," an Iranian lawmaker remarked. (also reported here)

How To Start Another War

By George W. Bush

Step 1 - Both the CIA and IAEA find no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Step 2 - Ignore the American public, Congress, and Iraqi leaders who disagree with troop escalation. Replace the generals who disagree.

Step 3 - Half-ass apologize for screwing up Iraq (in the passive voice), while at the same time deploying a carrier strike force to the Persian Gulf, declaring "we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region," and announce that you'd like 21,500 more troops be sent even though they are already on the way.

Step 4 - Illegally raid the Iranian Consulate in Iraq, taking computers, papers, and personell.

Step 5 - Lie to the troops who are about to be shipped back to Iraq; tell them everyone liked the escalation plan.

Step 6 - Declare that Congress does not have the power to stop the madness, and that no matter what, the "new way forward" will continue, despite actually needing Congressional permission.

Step 7 - Have your 24-hour propaganda channel run a "documentary" called "Hezbollah In America" (Hezbollah is Iran-backed) to scare and mislead the American public into thinking that they're a threat to American citizens.

(Despite the fact that the "documentary" covers one hezbollah cell group. Despite the fact that the group was tracked by the FBI from the beginning and that arrests were made in the early 90's - before the patriot act. Despite the fact that the group's leader was sentenced to 155 years in prison - before the military commissions act.)

Did we just declare war on Iran?

US Forces Storm Iranian Consulate In Iraq

"US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized six members of staff. The troops raided the building at about 0300 (0001GMT), taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials."

BBC
The Australian
Al-Jazeera
Payvand (Iranian News)

I'd like to point out Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations:

Inviolability of the Consular Premises

"2.The authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post or of his designee or of the head of the diplomatic mission of the sending State. The consent of the head of the consular post may, however, be assumed in case of fire or other disaster requiring prompt protective action."

"4. The consular premises, their furnishings, the property of the consular post and its means of transport shall be immune from any form of requisition for purposes of national defence or public utility"

and Article 33:

Inviolability of the Consular Archives and Documents

The consular archives and documents shall be inviolable at all times and wherever they may be.
* * * * * * * *

Unless there is any solid evidence (not "we think") that Iran has violated the treaty also, via the following...

"1.Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State.
2.The consular premises shall not be used in any manner incompatible with the exercise of consular functions."

...we may have just broken international law again.

"A Pentagon spokesman denied that the building raided was an Iranian consulate."

Bush Iraq-War Handling Approval-Rating Hits New Low

"A poll in USA Today showed that approval for Mr Bush's handling of the war has dropped to 26%, a record low. About 61% opposed Mr Bush's proposed 20,000 increase in the number of troops."

The Guardian

Feingold Questions Bush On Recent Signing Statement

On December 20th, 2006 Bush attached a signing statement onto the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act that gives the executive branch the power to open mail without a warrant. (See my note from January 3rd.)

Two days ago (January 8th) Senator Russell Feingold wrote a letter to Bush detailing his concern:

I am deeply concerned about the signing statement that you issued on December 20, 2006, regarding H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It raises serious questions about whether the government is reading Americans’ first class mail without obtaining a search warrant or other court order as required by statute.

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act recodified in a different location an existing provision of federal law, without change, that states as follows:

No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.[1]

In your signing statement, you stated that the executive branch would construe this provision “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006 on the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program, Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether the executive branch was relying in other contexts on the theory that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force gave it the authority to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other statutes. Specifically, Senator Leahy asked: “Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens?” The Attorney General attempted to avoid answering the question, but ultimately stated: “Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here. We are only focused on communications, international communications, where one party to the communication is al Qaeda. That is what this program is all about.”

You have already confirmed that you have authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of communications without obtaining the court orders required by FISA. Your December 20, 2006, signing statement now suggests that you believe you have the authority to violate the law with regard to opening regular mail. The American people and Congress are entitled to know whether you have acted on that theory. Please answer the following question: has your administration authorized any government agency to read Americans’ first-class mail without obtaining a search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service regulations?

I look forward to your expeditious reply.

Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold

United States Senator

1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11

I'm glad someone had the courage to pursue this endeavor.

Iraq War Media Bias

A few days ago Tony Snow was asked if the President, based on his determined pursuit of continuous failure, is out of touch with reality with regard to Iraq. Of course we know that Bush can never be wrong about anything, so in true mouth-piece fashion Snow asserted that it is the American people who are out of touch with reality in this regard.

While it may be true that the average American citizen is not completely informed of the situation in Iraq, it is not at all an answer or even a counter-argument to the question.

According to the ISG Report, "there is a significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq. The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases. A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn’t hurt U.S. personnel doesn’t count. For example, on one day in July 2006 there were 93 attacks or significant acts of violence reported. Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence. Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

Additionally, the Bush Administration has spent $20 million on "extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq."

Furthermore, misinformation propagated by the media is actually considered a threat to peace by many Arab leaders. Tariq al-Hashimi, Iraq's Sunni Arab vice-president, said "the false allegations promoted by Western media have resulted in an [inappropriate] political process, and everyone is paying the price for its wrong foundations. Western media always put question marks around this community and speak of it in the same breath as terrorism. They portray it as a community that is still incapable of comprehending the new Iraq; hence, it is not qualified to play a role in a democratic process. Such allegations are backed by lobbies whose aim is to undermine Iraqi nationalism."

So here we have Tony Snow implying that if the American public were better-informed they would not think that Bush is out of touch with the reality of Iraq -

while the administration puts $20 million into filtering the news.
while the level of violence is underreported.
while misinformation threatens peace.

Nice defense Tony.

Reid and Pelosi - Letter to Bush on "Troop Surge"

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they don’t believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:

“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement . . In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Bush Says He Can Read Your Mail

On December 20th, 2006 Bush signed into law the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. The act itself is fairly standard, however, the six-paragraph Signing Statement he attached to it is not.

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

That's right. Despite the fact that examples of "exigent circumstances" are given, which others are considered "exigent circumstances" is solely up to the president. And "to the maximum extent permissible?" You can guess who decides what the "maximum extent" is too... All of this without a warrant of course.

Bush doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to definitions; one purpose of the atrocity that is the Military Commissions Act is, after all, to give him the power to define "torture" and "human dignity," since these words are just too unclear for him as present in the Geneva Conventions.

For the record, Bush has issued more signing statements and has challenged the interpretation of more laws than any president in US history, with over 750 "opinions" within over 230 statements. It is not the job of the executive branch to interpret the law.

For those keeping score, Bush (through laws, statements, or pure illegality) can now read your mail, search your financial records, listen to your phone calls, and/or hold you indefinitely as an enemy combatant.

Have we given up enough privacy? Are we safe yet?

CNN Osama/Obama Graphics Goof

"s" and "b" aren't exactly close together on a keyboard either...
Come on folks. Let's get past attacking the senator's name already.

::Update::

CNN has apologized for the mistake on the air and personally to Senator Obama.

PBS Video on Bush/Press Lies