INCONSISTENT RABID NEO-CONS NOW DEMAND GOVERNMENT BAILOUT

The say that truth is stranger than fiction. Here's the latest example. All those Republicans who for years have been saying that government can't be trusted, that America is the home of free and unfettered capitalism, that the markets are best left free and unrestricted, . . . these very same people now are crying for government intervention in the credit and equity markets.

Take Larry Kudlow, the host of CNBC's Kudlow and Company. This guy has been a Republican and neo-con shill for the last 30 years. He calls himself a true believer in American capitalism and free markets. He says he is a "great American patriot." He decries government intervention in, say, rescuing those people who face imminent foreclosures on the basis that the marketplace punishes those who overreach or misuse credit. He believes in deregulation and cutting of taxes.

Yet this same Larry Kudlow has been in the forefront of those who say that the Fed and the Treasury need to help out the big banks and brokerages. What then do we see here? Kudlow is all for government regulation and intervention when his livelihood is at stake, but against it when the little guy but not himself is at risk.

You couldn't make his stuff up. One of the most vociferous mouths against government intervention in the "free markets" suddenly has a conversion and becomes a most vocal proponent of using taxpayer funds to take a stake in the biggest banks and brokers. Kudlow, the great American patriot in favor of unrestricted capitalism, now supports Bush's socialistic move to have the U.S. government own a piece of private businesses.

And Kudlow is not the only one. How about Joe Kernen, one of the hosts of Squawk on the Street on CNBC? Kernen was always against government regulation of any kind. I assume he meant he was against stuff like SEC regulation of the markets. Well Kernen got his wish. The SEC decided not to regulate collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and other made-up securities. Because of this deregulation, we are now in the mess we find ourselves. Yet Kernen, like Kudlow, now calls for government intervention.

You think these guys would recognize the illogical and contradictory positions they now take, vis-a-vis their former government-keep-away meme. Sorry to say, they don't and they refuse to concede the ridiculousness of their positions.

KISSINGER CONTRADICTS N.I.E REPORT ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS

Now comes Henry Kissinger and says the NIE report on Iran means just the opposite of what it says. It says Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 but Kissinger, writing in today's The Washington Post, says it really means Iran has not ceased its nuclear weapons development.

Kissinger's op-ed is rife with innuendo and double speak, all leading to his dubious conclusion:

"In short, if my analysis is correct, we could be witnessing not a halt of the Iranian weapons program -- as the NIE asserts -- but a subtle, ultimately more dangerous, version of it that will phase in the warhead when fissile material production has matured."

Kissinger asks where the supporting evidence is for the NIE's conclusions. Yet he presents very little himself. All we get from Kissinger is his "theory," his doubts, his questions, his feelings, such as "we could be witnessing . . . ." (emphasis added.)

I for one am left with the feeling that Kissinger knows very little about what he speaks. Rather I suspect that he comes to this op-ed with his already-set antagonistic feelings and suspicions towards Iran. I also suspect that he would be much happier with a more confrontational stance, like that of Cheney, Olmert and the other war-mongering neo-cons who continually beat the drums for war against Iran.

U.S. NEEDS RE-THINKING OF POLICY TOWARDS IRAN, IMPORTANT OP-ED IN NY TIMES

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett write an important op-ed today in The New York Times. In effect, they present a detailed intelligent policy for the next president in dealings with Iran. The Leveretts dismiss the current Bush/Cheney policy as being unrealistic towards Iran's requirements for respect and acknowledgement of Iran's desire for national security.

The Leveretts write:

"The idea of “engaging” Iran diplomatically is becoming less politically radioactive than it was early in the Bush years, when any officials who broached it were putting their careers in jeopardy. Given official American-Iranian cooperation over Afghanistan and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks (one of us, Hillary, was involved in those negotiations) and the current sets of talks between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s claim that she is willing to change “28 years of policy” and negotiate with Iran is disingenuous."

What the Leveretts want is a policy that takes into account concerns on both sides. The U.S. is concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support for Shiite communities throughout the Middle East, many of which are active opponents of Israel. Iran wants to be treated as a sovereign nation and not as some rogue regime that needs to be toppled.

Write the Leveretts:

"From an Iranian perspective, serious engagement would start with American willingness to recognize Tehran’s legitimate security and regional interests as part of an overall settlement of our differences. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have been willing to consider such an approach, because of the pursuit of a nuclear weapons option and support for terrorist organizations that Iran employs to defend what it sees as its fundamental security interests. Successful United States-Iran engagement requires cutting through this Gordian knot by undertaking comprehensive diplomacy encompassing the core concerns of both sides.

"From the American side, any new approach must address Iran’s security by clarifying that Washington is not seeking regime change in Tehran, but rather changes in the Iranian government’s behavior. (While Secretary Rice has said recently that overthrowing the mullahs is not United States policy, President Bush has pointedly refused to affirm her statements.) To that end, the United States should be prepared to put a few assurances on the table."

The Americans would have to announce publicly that the U.S. foreign policy did not seek the overthrow of the Iranian government. Also the U.S. would need to end sanctions against Iran and stop demonizing Iran as an official state sponsor of terrorism. On its part, Iran would need to recognize a two-state solution in Palestine and urge its fellow Shiites such as Hezbollah to accept Israel as a legitimate nation and people in the Holy Land.

Furthermore, the Leveretts urge a community or organization of nations be formed that deal with the political instability in Iraq, nations that have an interest in Iraq, such as Iran, Syria, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

"The goal of such cooperation would be a multilateral body analogous to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Each member nation would commit to abide by international norms regarding respect for other states’ sovereignty, the inviolability of borders and the observance of international conventions and United Nations resolutions on conflict resolution, economic relations, human rights, nonproliferation and terrorism.

"Since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei’s death in 1989, United States policy toward Iran has not served American interests. Neither continuing to disregard legitimate Iranian interests nor timid incrementalism will improve the situation. In the long run, the real lesson of the new National Intelligence Estimate is that we need a comprehensive overhaul of American policy toward Iran."

This is an important article by two foreign policy experts that needs to be carefully considered by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the other Democratic candidates. The U.S. can ill afford another foreign policy fiasco as that brought by the present rogue administration of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, John Bolton and the other war-mongering neo-cons. The last thing world peace needs is a military attack by the U.S. on Iran. The Leveretts are right - the U.S. needs a complete rethinking of American policy towards Iran.

OP-ED IN NY TIMES INCITES FEAR OF IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

Who is this Michael B. Oren" who writes today in The New York Times that Iran is and will be a threat of Islamic extremism for many years to come? His op-ed ID identifies him as:

"Michael B. Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and a visiting senior lecturer in Middle East history at Yale, is the author of “Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.”"

Oh no. Not another Israeli here in the U.S. looking to stir up American military confrontation with Iran. Oren writes:

"Yet, in spite of its glaring handicaps, Annapolis must be deemed a triumph — not of peacemaking, paradoxically, but of girding the region for conflict. Though no doubt sincere in their desire to neutralize the Arab-Israeli irritant in Middle Eastern affairs, participants in the conference were above all motivated by their fear of a radical and relentlessly aggressive Iran.

"This fear has deepened with the success of the Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza, as well as the expansion of Iranian influence westward into the Iraqi vacuum.

"The inability of the international community either to entice or deter the Iranians from producing nuclear weapons adds urgency to the need to unite those countries threatened by those bombs. That, and not American fiat, brought 49 states and organizations to Annapolis; that, and not the yearning for an Israeli-Arab accord, impelled a Saudi prince to sit alongside an Israeli prime minister."

Oren engages in pure scare tactics, reminiscent of what George Bush and Dick Cheney like to do. Scare the living daylights out of your readers or listeners by foretelling doomsday. In this case, Oren implies Iran is making or will make nuclear weapons, something for which so far no one has produced even the slightest shred of credible evidence.

Second, Oren implies that Iran, if it did have nuclear weapons, would use them against Israel and other countries in the Middle East such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. This is utter nonsense. Russia has had the bomb for the last 50 years, yet did not use it because of what would happen if it did. Utter annihilation and destruction. The same for Pakistan, China, India, France and all the other nuclear powers.

Oren's thesis fails on rational levels. But it will still tend to provoke fear in some readers by stoking the sparks of anti-Iranian prejudice.

Instead of seeing Iran as the "enemy," we need to treat Iran as a proud member of the community of nations. We need leaders who will not be afraid to sit down with Iranian leaders and work out perceived difficulties with respect and diplomacy, rather than with Oren's bluster and fear.

PUTIN FINDS NO EVIDENCE IRAN PLANS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Russian president Vladimir Putin says Russia sees no evidence that Iran is planning to build nuclear weapons. Putin may be an autocrat but here he is speaking the truth. There is no creditable evidence that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. Reports the BBC:

"Moscow has no information that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said. But he said the Kremlin shared the West's concern that Tehran's nuclear programme should be "transparent". "

The rush of the neo-cons into war with Iran must be stopped. Bush and Cheney will make up any evidence they can however specious and flimsy to justify an Iranian attack. Consider this story on words of Glenn Beck, the personality on CNN Headline News, as reported by Think Progress.org and Digg.com. Beck uses Law & Order to fabricate some specious reason to bolster a strike.

"Iran has long been the puppet master in the Middle East. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just watch any episode of Law & Order. Use the thinking, you know, that helps them solve all the tough cases. Iran has the means, the motive, and the opportunity to try and destroy our American way of life by controlling the Middle East."

So thanks to Putin for speaking the truth. There is no evidence to claim Iran is making a nuclear bomb.

PETRAEUS CLAIMS IRAN IS SUPPLYING WEAPONS TO SHIA INSURGENTS IN IRAQ

Gen. David Petraeus appeared at the National Press Club today together with Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Petraeus had some bad things to say about Iran. William Branigin reports on Petraeus' comments on the web page of The Washington Post:

"Asked whether his testimony about Iran could be viewed as part of a campaign to build toward an attack, Petraeus said: "I'm not blaming Iran for all that's gone wrong in Iraq." But he said Iran has contributed to sophisticated attacks in Iraq that otherwise would not be possible, including strikes with armor-piercing "explosively formed projectiles" and 240mm rockets."

Yet we know the military has offered no verifiable proof or evidence that the government of Iran is involved. Petraeus claims there is clear evidence.

Writes Branigin:

""The evidence is very, very clear," Petraeus said. He cited documents discovered during the capture in March of Qais Khazali, a Shiite Muslim militant with ties to the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, and the arrest of a deputy commander of Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese Shiite group supported by Iran. Petraeus said the evidence links Iran to an attack in Karbala in January that resulted in the deaths of five U.S. soldiers.

"Under interrogation, Khazali was asked if he could have carried out that attack without Iranian support, Petraeus said in the news conference. "He literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, 'Of course not,' " the general said.

"Khazali and other captives have told U.S. investigators about funding, training, weapons and ammunition they had received from Iran, he said."

But the evidence is not "very, very clear." On the basis of one captured Shiite Muslim throwing up his hands who laughs and says of course not? Is this the extent of it?

Gen. Petraeus, sir, how about answering the following questions? Has this guy Khazali been deputized by the Iranian mullahs? Has he received anything from the government of Iran? Has he actually himself been a trainee in an Iranian training camp? Khazali is an officer in Hezbollah, but so what? What does that prove about any alleged Iranian involvement? Is the involvement an ad hoc arrangement where members of the same Shiite tribe help one another financially or militarily, no matter that some members live across the border in Iran and some live in Iraq?

To think that Bush and Cheney, and even Petraeus, base their claim of Iranian involvement in the civil and anti_U.S. bloody strife in Iraq on one guy, Khazali who really says very little about Iranian involvement! And this is going to be a casus belli for the American neo-cons to bomb and attack Iran and kill hundreds and thousands of Iranians!

So far the United States government and military have offered no creditable evidence that Iran is sending in powerful explosive-shaped charges or IEDs, notwithstanding the bellicose comments of Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney and the other Republican war mongers. When we analyze their statements, all we get are accusations lacking reasonable basis and innuendos demonizing Iran and Iranians.

Is it too much to ask of our leaders that they sit down with those countries perceived to be "enemies" and work things out through peaceful negotiation and diplomacy? The United States should engage in peaceful relationships, not in bloody and murderous acts of war.

WHO LOST IRAQ? CERTAINLY NOT THE PEACE MOVEMENT

I want to comment on an article entitled "Who Lost Iraq?" in Foreign Affairs by James Dobbins, former assistant secretary of state to both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Dobbins claims that the entire nation failed in Iraq. Not only George Bush and Dick Cheney, but also the Democrats for not insisting on a full debate about the merits of invading Iraq, and also the generals for not objecting to what many considered a foolish invasion until they were safely retired and receiving their pensions.

I disagree most adamantly with Dobbins when he claims Iraq is the fault of the entire nation. It was most certainly not the entire nation. Has Dobbins ever heard of the anti-war movement? How about all those marches for peace and against George Bush's reckless war even before the invasion in March 2003? How about the thousands and hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters, myself included, who participated in demonstrations against the war? And how about figures like Cindy Sheehan and the Dixie Chicks?

Don't try to let George Bush & Co. off the hook by saying that the War in Iraq was the fault of the "entire nation." We all know who is chiefly responsible - the war mongers led by Bush, Cheney and the other neo-cons, such as John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz.

JOHN BOLTON HOPES U.S. WILL ATTACK IRAN IN NEXT SIX MONTHS

Think Progress has video and verbatim words of John Bolton, neo-con and former despised U.N. Ambassador (by Bush recess appointment), hoping that the United States will strike Iran within the next six months.



This guy Bolton is always scheming for the U.S. to attack and bomb another country, like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. As reported by Think Progress from a video clip of Bolton appearing on Fox News, we get the following war-mongering:


HEMMER: One final step here, too, that I want to take with you. You told one of our producers earlier today that you don’t know if it’s true — and you’ve made that clear in our interview here, that you don’t know what the odds are or are not against that — but you hope it’s true. Why do you hope it’s true?
BOLTON: Absolutely. I hope Iran understands that we are very serious, that we are determined they are not going to get a nuclear weapon capability, and unless they change the strategic decision they’ve been pursuing for close to 20 years, that that’s something they better factor into their calculations.



Lest we forget: There has been zero evidence presented by Bush, Cheney or Bolton, or any of the other hangers-on that Iran has been supplying, arming or training any insurgent forces in Iraq. Secondly, there has been no evidence showing that Iran's nuclear ambitions have anything to do with obtaining a a nuclear weapon.