NETANYAHU TRIES TO PRESSURE OBAMA ON WAR WITH IRAN

Bibi Netanyahu, Israel's warmongering prime minister, now appeals to the American public after being rebuffed by Pres. Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on "setting a red line" in the case of Iran's nuclear development.

Harriet Sherwood reports for The Guardian:

"The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has renewed his demand that the US set out clear "red lines" for Iran over its nuclear programme, in remarks likely to put further strain on his relationship with Barack Obama in the runup to the presidential election.

"In interviews on American television networks to mark the Jewish New Year, Netanyahu repeated his call for the US to clarify the point at which it would take military action rather than allow the Iranian nuclear programme to advance."


Netanyahu is a bully who would like nothing better than to drag the United States into a disastrous war with Iran.

ROMNEY WOULD APPROVE AN ISRAELI MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAN, DESTROYING WORLD PEACE FOR NEXT 500 YEARS

Mitt Romney is in Israel and, in a talk that he will give today, he makes it clear that he would approve of any military strike that Israel may decide to carry out against Iran.  According to Romney, Israel has the right to bomb Iran to stop any nuclear "capability."  This means Romney would approve attacking Iran even if it never developed nuclear weapons, yet it had the "capability."

Harriet Sherwood writes in The Guardian:

"In comments echoing Netanyahu's position that a nuclear Iran is the biggest threat to the Jewish people since the Holocaust, Romney will say: "We have seen the horrors of history. We will not stand by. We will not watch them play out again."

"Preventing the Iranian regime developing a nuclear weapons capability "must be our highest national security priority," Romney will say according to excerpts of the speech released in advance. "The security of Israel is in the vital national security interests of the United States.""


And here's the irony—Israel has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and has about 100 nuclear warheads, maybe more, while Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and has said that it has no intention of producing a nuclear warhead.

This is madness. Romney cavalierly approves of a strike against Iran for the act of processing uranium, something allowed to all signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty! How many Iranians will the Israelis need to kill in order to stop Iran from developing nuclear power and even a nuclear deterrent?

Imagine Romney as President.  He would allow an illegal war against Iran that kill thousands of Iranians.  The result would cause hatred and killings for at least the next 500 years.

OBAMA: RESIST THE ISRAELI PUSH TO WAR AGAINST IRAN

The Guardian carries an editorial today that warns of the terrible outcome if Israel mounts a bombing attack on Iranian nuclear development sites.

When Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli PM, visits Washington in March to attend the national convention of AIPAC, the biggest and most bellicose Jewish organization unreservedly backing Netanyahu's Greater Israel policies, the U.S. president Barack Obama needs to tell him in no uncertain ways that the U.S. government will not participate in such illegal attack.

If Israel attacks Iran, there will be no peace in the Middle East, or in the world, for the next 500 years.  Stop the constant drumbeat telling the Iranian people that "all options are on the table."  That's only a euphemism for all-out war and destruction of the Iranian people and civilization.

STOP THE MARCH TO WAR AGAINST IRAN!

Israel again is clamoring for a strike against Iran.  Pres. Obama must resist these militaristic solutions to Iran's nuclear development.  So far there is no evidence that Iran wants or intends to make nuclear weapons.  Everything is innuendo:  Iran "might" have the capability to develop nuclear weapons, signs point to Iran's "desire" for nuclear weapons, Iranian agents are "suspected" in bombings of autos in Georgia and India, but so far not one shred of hard evidence.  Nevertheless there are some who would like nothing better than to drop bombs on Iran.

Imagine the death toll of Iranians in the case of an attack by Israel.  And imagine the lasting damage to world peace by going along with the present Israeli government in an attack against Iran.  There would be catastrophic conflict for the next 500 years.

IRANIAN PRES. AHMADINEJAD COMES TO NYC FOR NUCLEAR CONFERENCE; SOME COUNTRIES WALK OUT

Instead of France, Germany and England walking out on a speech by Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, how about listening to what he has to say, and then debate him on the issues. I know the Iranian government has illegitimately cracked down on citizens protesting the unfair recent election. I also know that Iran supports fellow Shiites in Hezbollah and that it imposes the death penalty even on juveniles. But is that any legitimate reason to walk out on the topic of nuclear weapons? What do my Iranian friends think?

AHMADINEJAD CALLS FOR TOTAL NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, CONDEMNS NUCLEAR WEAPONS HELD BY U.S. & ISRAEL

At Iran's nuclear summit today in Tehran, Pres. Ahmadinejad called for an end to all nuclear weapons including those possessed by the U.S. and Israel. He also said no nation (i.e., the U.S.) should threaten another (Iran) with nuclear weapons. He said that talks on nuclear weapons should from now on be controlled by nations that don't have nuclear weapons. Can Pres. Obama or anyone disagree with him?

Thomas Erdbrink reports today in The Washington Post on the Iranian conference.

Writes Erdbrink:

"Ahmadinejad took particular aim at President Obama's announcement this month of a new U.S. policy that does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons against Iran and North Korea.

""Threatening with nuclear weapons only dishonored the American government officials and more fully exposed their inhumane and aggressive policies," he said."

Ayatollah Khamanei also sent a message to the attendees, reports Erdbrink:

"In a statement to the Tehran conference, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the top political and religious authority in the predominantly Shiite state, reiterated a fatwa, or religious edict, he had issued earlier against the use of nuclear weapons. He called the United States' nuclear weapons "tools of terror and intimidation."

"Fatwas are binding only on followers of the religious authority that issues them and can be changed if the situation requires, religious experts here say."

Ahmadinejad also complained about the veto power wielded exclusively by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. He said that each U.N. member should also be able to block or veto proposals that are unfair.

Erdbrink writes:

"Taking direct issue with the consensus reached in Washington to take steps to reduce the world's stock of nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad called for more rigorous action.

"He demanded an end to what he called the United States' "blind support" for Israel, which he said has 200 atomic warheads yet has not signed a nonproliferation treaty. Ahmadinejad also called for veto power for all members of the United Nations, a right now accorded only to the five permanent members of the Security Council.

"Talks on nuclear disarmament should from now on be controlled by states that do not have atomic weapons, Ahmadinejad said, adding, "The involvement of the government of America will prevent any new treaty from being fair.""

CHINA, RUSSIA, BRAZIL: DON'T APPROVE OBAMA'S SCHEME FOR SANCTIONS ON IRAN

I call upon Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Brazilian President Lula to block the foolish and hypocritical drive by the west, especially by Barack Obama and the U.S., to impose sanctions on Iran. Sanctions will harm the Iranian economy and the Iranian people. The U.S. is unjustly seeking to block another nation from developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Chris McGreal and Julian Borger report in The Guardian today on Obama's push for sanctions.

Write McGreal and Borger:

"Barack Obama has urged Beijing to "ratchet up the pressure" on Iran over its nuclear programme after a breakthrough for the US administration in persuading China to agree to talks on fresh sanctions against Tehran.

"Obama told CBS news that Iran was increasingly diplomatically isolated and that international unity was essential to ensuring it did not develop nuclear weapons.

""The idea is to keep turning up the pressure," Obama said. "We're going to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond but we're going to do so with a unified international community.""

The U.S. has been unilaterally imposing sanctions on Iran for the last 30 years and look at the result. Ditto for Cuba. And how about Israel's sanctions on the Palestinians in Gaza - a total blockade of life's necessities for 1.5 million Palestinians. Sanctions harm the ordinary populace and are immoral.

STOP THREATENING IRAN WITH SANCTIONS

The purpose of proposed American sanctions on Iran is to prevent Iran from exercising independent political power in the Middle East. So sanctions try to prevent Iran from developing refined gasoline plants. The U.S. cannot stand a country that has a sphere of influence independent of American interests. The U.S. like the school bully tries to maintain its military and political hegemony.

Julian Borger and Ewan Mac Askill write in today's The Guardian:

"The US had originally sought broad sanctions against Iran's energy sector. Russia and China have said the measures are targeted against individuals and institutions directly linked with Iran's nuclear and missile programme.

"Three rounds of sanctions have already been imposed on Iran. The US claims Tehran is covertly seeking nuclear weapon capability, while Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, says the country's nuclear industry is for peaceful power generation."

I say, stop this foolish talk of sanctions on Iran and Iranians. For one thing, sanctions hurt only the ordinary people. Sanctions deny gasoline, medicine, food imports and other necessities of life. Sanctions never work. Consider the harsh sanctions on the Cuban people over the last 30 years. All sanctions do is create animosity and hatred towards the U.S. and Americans.

Second. Sanctions on Iran are hypocritical. Why can't Iran develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes? The U.S. government claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons but to date there has been no credible evidence showing that this is so. Yet the U.S. and Obama don't apply sanctions on those nations with proven nuclear bombs in their arsenals. Consider Israel, China, Pakistan, India, France, Great Britain, Russia and the U.S. itself. So why should the U.S. punish Iran for nuclear weapons it does not have, yet not punish all the rest?

Obama, stop all this talk of sanctions, instead commit the U.S. to diplomacy. You claim that Ayatollah Khamanei did not respond to your letter for negotiation. But neither did you acknowledge Pres. Ahmadinejad's congratulatory letter to you personally upon your political victory in 2008.

CLINTON WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IMPLIES IRAN IS BUILDING NUCLEAR BOMB

Hillary Clinton implies that Iran and its people are building a nuclear bomb. Where is her evidence? Words without basis have lasting consequences - consider what words about Saddam Hussein's imaginary nuclear arsenal did to the Iraqis.

Here is the BBC report on Clinton's speech in Qatar:

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the US would welcome peaceful engagement with Iran but not "while they are building their bomb".

"She spoke at the US-Islamic World forum in Qatar during a trip to rally Arab support for tougher sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

"She said the West was "encouraging Iran to reconsider its dangerous policy decisions.""

Words like Clinton's will be taken by the militarists in Israel as a sign that they can attack and bomb Iran and in their zeal kill thousands of Iranians. Clinton more than implies that Iran is building a bomb. Stop this dangerous rhetoric until someone has proof and credible evidence.

Here is Al Jazeera's report on Clinton's comments:

"Speaking at a US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar on Sunday, Clinton said there was mounting evidence that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapon.

""The evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do," she said."

Clinton's assertions remind me of the same reckless charges that led up to the disastrous War in Iraq. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran wants a nuclear weapon. If Israel does attack Iran, I will blame Clinton and the antagonistic foreign policy of the Obama administration which allows Clinton to get away with these assertions.

WHY IS OBAMA TELLING IRAN WHAT IT SHOULD DO WITH NUCLEAR POWER?

Pres. Obama ran on a campaign theme of "change you can believe in." But as to Iran, I see very little change in policy and approach as compared to the hated Bush/Cheney policy of making war threats. For Obama, there now should be "sanctions."

I have a suggestion to Obama and all his hard-line foreign policy advisors: recognize that Iran is a sovereign country just like Israel, India and China. If Iran wants to develop its nuclear industry, it has every right to do so.

Here's what the BBC writes about U.S. policy towards Iran:

"The US has said new sanctions against Iran are the "only path" after Tehran announced it was stepping up its uranium enrichment programme.

"Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, earlier said Tehran had told the UN's nuclear watchdog it would start enriching uranium to 20% from Tuesday.

"The move heightens fears that Iran is moving closer to weapons-grade uranium.

"The US called on the international community to take new action and France called Iran's latest move "blackmail"."

IRAN MAKES CONCESSIONS, OBAMA'S PEOPLE GIVE MIXED SIGNALS

Why is Pres. Obama making the same mistakes in his dealing with Iran as did hated George W. Bush?

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, announces that negotiations with Iran are proceeding in good faith, and that Iran has agreed to open its Qom nuclear processing site to U.N. inspectors on October 25th. Furthermore, Iran has agreed to send all of its processed uranium to Russia for conversion into harmless nuclear fuel.

Yet much of the reaction from Obama's Washington is how Iran must do this, must do that. Where are the important and needed Obama celebratory words congratulating Iran for being willing to sit down and negotiate? Instead we get doom and gloom, and injunctions to Iran that it better move quickly.

Here is Politico reporting on the words of Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., on Meet the Press today.

"U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on Sunday warned that Iran had to move quickly to prove its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes.

"“If it doesn't, time is short,” Rice said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"She told host David Gregory, “We're not interested in talking for talking's sake. We're not interested in interminable negotiations. They have to demonstrate conclusively that their program is for peaceful purposes.”"

Suppose you were Iranian. Suppose you were also an opponent of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. How would you feel about the threatening words of Susan Rice, Pres. Obama's friend and confidante?

However, all is not so bleak. The BBC reports on words of Obama's security adviser, retired general James Jones, praising Iran for its willingness to negotiate. Reports the BBC:

"US National Security Adviser Jim Jones said Tehran was now "willing to come to the table", following talks this week between Iran and major powers. . . .

"Speaking on CBS television on Sunday, Mr Jones said: "We now have an Iran that is willing to come to the table.""

Iran has agreed to several important steps after its sit-down negotiations with the U.S. and EU countries. Furthermore, ElBaradei believes that it is now negotiating rather than engaging in confrontation. The BBC reports:

Speaking after talks with the top Iranian nuclear official, Ali Akbar Salehi, Mr Elbaradei said the talks had been successful, and that inspectors would ensure that the Qom facility was for "peaceful purposes".

"He added: "I see that we are shifting gears from confrontation into transparency and co-operation. I continue, of course, to call on Iran to be as transparent as possible.""

Some of Pres. Barack Obama's signals will do little to foster the good faith needed on both sides to continue to engage in meaningful and productive diplomacy between Iran and the West. Stop the threats a' la Bush against Iran, and instead reward the Iranian government for taking meaningful steps, as Obama's security adviser, James Jones, has done.

SOME AMERICAN SUPPORTERS OF ISRAEL BEAT DRUMS OF WAR AGAINST IRAN

Israel's lobby in the United States never stop beating the drums for a U.S. attack against Iran. In an article on Politico, Alexander Burns describes how at the Holocaust Remembrance ceremony today in Washington, speakers urged Barack Obama to take action against Iran.

Writes Burns:

"“Honoring the dead must not be the sole purpose of remembrance. It must help us shape a better future,” said Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor. “When a regime is again ... terrorizing its neighbors, threatening to destroy the Jewish people, how will we meet this challenge before it’s too late?”

"Meridor kept his message implicit, but the subtext was clear: The world must stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

"Joel Geiderman, the vice chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, was more blunt, drawing a comparison between the Nazis in Germany and the present-day government in Tehran.

"“At least one whole nation has been targeted for destruction with the threat to wipe it off the map,” Geiderman said, alluding to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s belligerent remarks toward Israel. “History should have taught us that democracies that let such pledges stand do so at their own peril.”

"“In the names of the victims, I call on the assembled leaders and the rest of the world to ensure that no country that threatens such destruction will ever obtain the means to achieve it,” he continued. “Nuclear weapons in the hands of aggressor fanatics can’t be allowed.”"

OBAMA SENDS IRANIAN PEOPLE, LEADERS MESSAGE OF HAPPY NEW YEAR

Hurray for Barack Obama and his overture to Iranian leaders and people by videotape on the occasion of the Iranian New Year that began today.

Obama was respectful of the great and long traditions of the Iranian people and wished all a Happy New Year.

Debbi Wilgoren and Thomas Erdbrink write in today's The Washington Post web site:

"The message, issued at midnight in Washington,, coincides with the ancient festival of Nowruz, which marks the start of spring and the Persian New Year. It follows promises by Obama on the campaign trail and in his initial months in office to engage Iran more directly, as a way to end decades of confrontation and address Iran's links to terror groups and its nuclear program.

"In the holiday message, Obama showed respect for Iran by referring to the country twice by its full official name, the Islamic Republic of Iran. In contrast, President George W. Bush routinely called Iran's government a "regime" that can't be trusted by its people and referred to the country as part of the "axis of evil.""

Gone was the Bush/Cheney rhetoric that threatened Iran at every phrase with nuclear destruction and catastrophe for daring to want nuclear power and proceeding with nuclear development.

I have long insisted that the United States should not consider Iran as a threat or enemy. After all, how many countries have the Iranian people invaded in the last 50 years? The answer is none. Compare that with the sorry example of the U.S. - militaristic campaigns and occupations of Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, and many more. An impartial observer would say that between Iran and the U.S., the real threat to world peace comes from the U.S. when led by those war mongers - Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Addington, et al.

NO EVIDENCE THAT IRAN WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NO REASON TO START WAR AGAINST IRAN

On World Focus tonight, Martin Savidge interviewed Martin Indyk, former ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, and talked about Obama's engagement with Iran. Indyk said that if Obama's negotiations fail, then all the world will come to see that there remains only a military option to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons. I object to this conclusion which seems to put an imprimatur on going to war against Iran.

For one thing no one has to date provided any credible evidence that Iran does want to make a bomb. The Israelis and the Bush gang just presumed that's what the Iranians were and are doing, but we know how far off their intelligence was about Saddam Hussein and the WMD. So far these guys just say that Iran is making a bomb and expect the whole world to believe them just because they say it. We need to suspect and reject such conclusionary assertions.

Second, even if the Iranians were developing a nuclear weapon, I argue that it is far better to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons than to start a world war whose repercussions would last at least 500 years and cause a permanent state of war between Iran and the West. Consider all the other countries that have nuclear weapons. Why must the US and Israel go to war over Iran having them?

No, there is no military option about Iran and its nuclear program. And people ("experts"?) like Martin Indyk are just war mongers for even countenancing the crazy idea.

ASK FOR EVIDENCE WHEN "EXPERTS" CLAIM IRAN WANTS NUCLEAR BOMB

I think one of the most informative new news broadcasts is World Focus with Martin Savidge. It comes on weekdays and is a serious rival to BBC World News. But World Focus does a substandard job with news about Iran and its purported nuclear program. So here is a letter I sent to World Focus and Martin Savidge, asking them to be more sceptical of unsubstantiated claims that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.

Can't you guys be more suspicious of "experts" and guests on your news show who claim that Iran is close to building a nuclear bomb? You just take it as if it were the gospel truth.

Doesn't your gullibility on Iran remind you of what happened to reports about WMD in Iraq? Remember all those experts who said Iraq had chemical agents that could kill within 45 minutes? Looking back those guys cried wolf and lots of people even from the NYT believed them on faith. So how could you let this paradigm be repeated today with Iran.

A suggestion. Anyone who comes on and says Iran is a month away or that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon or that Iran poses a danger, stop and ask them for the evidence. Don't just take it.

Second. Whenever you have a guest who is going to claim Iran is a danger, have an Iranian on to give his or her countervailing opinion. Someone like Shirn Ebadi, the Nobel prize winner. Certainly you could arrange for an interview with her or someone of her stature.

My argument is that there is NO evidence that Iran is doing what it said it has no desire to do as to nuclear weapons. So be sceptical of these guys, whether from the Council of Foreign Policy or wherever. Don't contribute to the demonizing of Iran and Iranians without so much as a peep. Demand proof and evidence.

BIAS IN NEWS REPORTING ABOUT IRAN

Here is text of an email I sent to Martin Savidge and World Focus, the new internationally centered news broadcast. I take objection to the seemingly biased attitude of World Focus towards Iran.

I watch World Focus almost every night and enjoy your international news. However, I find your treatment of stories about Iran to be biased in favor of the neo-con Bush/Cheney approach of solving all international problems by shooting missiles and dropping bombs.

Why did you need to ask your NYT guest the other night whether "all options are still on the table," implying that the US would be justified in starting a war with Iran?

How about giving Ahmadinejad some credit for establishing closer relationships with Bolivia and Venezuela?

Why not talk about Israel having nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT instead of implying that Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for purposes of developing nuclear bombs?

ISRAELI OFFICIALS WARN AGAINST OBAMA CONDUCTING TALKS WITH IRAN

It is curious that in the last few days before president-elect Obama's news conference and his statements on Iran, two high-ranking officials from Israel thought it necessary to come out and warn Obama about establishing talks with Iran and its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Jerusalem Post reports that Foreign Minister Tzipy Livni offered that Obama's acceptance of talks with Iran would show "weakness."

"US President-elect Barack Obama should not talk to Iran just yet, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Thursday, warning that such dialogue could project "weakness."
"We need to fight extremism," Livni said as she stood next to visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a joint press conference in the home of the American ambassador to Israel.. "We need to continue the pressure on Iran and I believe that the idea of continuing the pressure comes with more intense and effective sanctions on the Iranians."
Although she described Obama's election as "a source of inspiration to millions around the world," and congratulated him on his "historic victory," her comments marked a first sign of disagreement with the incoming American administration. Obama has stated a willingness to talk to Iran about its nuclear program without condition, telling The Jerusalem Post in July that he would engage "in tough, direct talks" with Teheran."

And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said it would allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons behind the pretense of engaging in diplomatic talks. Tovah Lazaroff reports for The Jerusalem Post:

"Israel is not ruling out any option when it comes to dealing with Iran's nuclear program, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Friday.

"Following a meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Jerusalem, Barak said he told her that Israel is "not taking any option off the table, and we don't recommend that others take any option off the table," stressing, "We mean what we say."

"Barak insisted that Iran was continuing to "trick the world" in negotiations over the monitoring of its nuclear activities. "

The question is why we are getting all of these anti-Iranian statements from Israeli officials at this time.

I though that Barack Obama's statement on Iran at his news conference was bellicose enough with the push of the Israelis. Obama said he would never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and that furthermore, Iran should stop giving aid to "terrorists."

By "terrorists," I assume Obama meant Hezbollah in Lebanon. If so, Obama is no better than George W. Bush in a simplistic approach to Hezbollah and the Shiite Muslims spread throughout the Middle East. Israel calls Hezbollah a terrorist group, so does the United States. But it is not clear that Hezbollah is anything more than a political entity infused with Shiite Islam that fights against Israel for land and civil rights. In other words, Hezbollah is an insurgency against the Israelis.

And as far as Iran's approach to nuclear weapons, Iranian leaders claim they have no desire to make nuclear weapons, and certainly, the IAEA has found no evidence to the contrary. All statements by Israel and Bush about Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is based on supposition and conjecture.

The question then is, would Obama allow Israel to attack Iran on the basis of conjecture? Obama's statements don't seem to reassure me on this important question.

BUSH ADDS TO LEGACY OF MISTAKES - OFFERS INDIA UNLIMITED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

The agreement to sell nuclear technology to India is another of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy disasters.

India is not a signer or party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has not agreed to use nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes. Contrast India's refusal to join the NPT with Iran which is a member. Yet the U.S. Congress just last week went along with Bush's illogical and dangerous agreement to give India full access to nuclear technology.

Now Pakistan wants the same deal. India is its arch rival and potential lethal enemy. It makes nothing but sense for Pakistan to ask its "ally" in the "war on terror" to extend the same access as Bush has now extended India.

And what must Teheran be thinking? Bush and Cheney froth at the mouth over Iran's pursuit of nuclear power, yet so cavalierly give a non-signer to the NPT full access.

And what must Russia and China be thinking? I suggest both these nuclear powers interpret the move as a ratcheting up by the Americans of the nuclear arms race. The lesson for both Russia and China is clear - stop dismantling your nuclear arsenals; instead, fortify them!

Bush has done great damage in lives and resources with his foolish war in Iraq. But his legacy of disasters surely will include this dangerous and unwise nuclear agreement with India.

BARACK OBAMA MUTE AS MC CAIN SLIMES IRAN FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND IEDS

I was especially unhappy with Barack Obama's comments last night about Iran. He seemed to go along with everything McCain said, such as that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, that it is an "existential" threat to the region, and that Iran is responsible for the super lethal IEDs inside of Iraq.

First of all there is no evidence from the IAEA that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. If there was evidence, that would be another thing, but to date there is none. Yet the neo-cons and war mongers like McCain and Lieberman insist the opposite. So why would Barack Obama go along without raising a peep?

The same for the IEDs. This was the talking point of the Dept. of Defense under Rumsfeld. Yet when called upon to produce evidence, the DOD had nothing. Yeah, the Army laid out a whole bunch of IEDs that it said came from Iran, but the proof could have just as well come from some Iraqi's basement on a home made tool and dye.

During all of this bull****, Barack Obama offered no objections. His performance on Iran was truly depressing.

DIPLOMACY WITH IRAN, NOT THREATS

Remember when Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sent George W. Bush a personal letter talking about religion and religious faith as well as world problems? Bush said he would not even bother to read the letter, so much did he despise Ahmadinejad and the Iranian government.

What if Bush had read the letter and responded in kind? Perhaps the world would not today be threatened with the poison atmosphere that exists today in Washington towards Ahmadinejad and Iran. Perhaps if the U.S. government had some honest communication, it would not now be threatening Iran with that reckless and dangerous "all options are on the table" war mongering.

The BBC reports today that Ahmadinejad says he and the Iranian government are open to talks and negotiations regarding Iran's development of nuclear power. Bush/Cheney/Rice should accept Ahmadinejad at his word and begin diplomatic negotiations. Rather than claiming that Bush & Co. are the good guys and Ahmadinejad and the Iranians are the bad guys, the U.S. should drop the doomsday good-versus-evil silliness and begin face-to-face talks with the Iranians.

Iran's history shows the strength of its civilization and the ability of its people. The U.S. should try to understand the Iranians for a change instead of demonizing them as the "enemy."