WHY DOES THE U.S. NEED A MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM?

Someone please explain to me why George Bush and Dick Cheney think that the United States needs a missile defense system, and why it needs to place such system in the Czech Republic and Poland?

The threat of some country shooting a missile at the United States is far fetched. Who could be the threat? North Korea, not likely, as it has hardly enough money to feed its population. Iran, no because Iran has no technology for a long-range missile system. And even if it did, what would be the possible consequences of such a rash military strike? Total destruction and annihilation of its cities and population, notwithstanding any Law of War.

The threat to the United States from missiles is imaginary and hallucinatory. There is no country that poses this threat, and there is no country that would actually attempt to fire one at the United States.

And why is the U.S. so intent on placing batteries in the Czech Republic and Poland? These countries border Russia. What must the Russians think? If I was Russian, I would be highly suspect that the U.S. under Bush would be planning some preventive strike. I realize that this is highly improbable to Americans, but we must see the Russian view through the prism of Russian history, which is replete with hundreds of invasions and attacks from foreigners.

NPR MORNING EDITION PRESENTS "JFK PLOT" AS FACT

This morning on NPR's Morning Edition, Steve Inskeep interviews another NPR reporter, Dina Temple-Raston, on the alleged terrorist plot to blow up the jet fuel storage areas of JFK Airport in New York City. The on-air report is chock full of assertions that we listeners must question. Just because there is a press conference of law enforcement people charging a "terrorist plot" does not mean that one actually exists. NPR should carefully label every charge as "alleged." This case has not been tried yet in a court of law. Nevertheless, Raston makes it seem that the four accuseds actually did engage in a "plot," and actually did contact people in other Caribbean countries for terrorist aid. Only in one or two assertions, does Raston use the word "alleged."

In contrast I see text stories on the NPR website here and here that are clear to distinguish actual plots from those alleged by the FBI, NYC Police Department and/or the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

If NPR editors have posted written reports that are more careful to acknowledge that the government's charges are at this early point "alleged" and not yet proven, then I call on NPR's Morning Edition to remove the misleading on-air report from broadcast, or to modify it in the interests of fairness as to make it less prejudicial to the accused who have not had their day in court.

UNNAMED SOURCES IN WASHINGTON POST CLAIM IRAN IS SUPPLYING WEAPONS

I wrote just below on how more Americans are seeing Iran as the "enemy," and quoted from Juan Cole's post on how the government with the collusion of major media are foisting the canard on a gullible American public.

Now we have Robin Wright in today's Washington Post giving more unsubstantiated claims that Iran is supplying arms to both Iraq and to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Never mind that Iran considers the Taliban savages and that the Taliban are Sunni, not Shia as is Iran.

But what I especially don't like about Robin Wright's story is that she quotes "unnamed government officials" as sources for her claim about Iranian interference without naming any of the names.

"Iran has increased arms shipments to both Iraq's Shiite extremists and Afghanistan's Taliban in recent weeks in an apparent attempt to pressure American and other Western troops operating in its two strategic neighbors, according to senior U.S. and European officials."

As Juan Cole points out, the U.S. has given no evidence of this. Weapons manufactured in Iran may be smuggled into Iraq by Shia insurgents or wind up in Afghanistan after being brought back from Iran by notorious Afghan smugglers. But to claim Iran itself is supplying weapons is baseless and without any evidence.

Here's Robin Wright quoting another unnamed "senior U.S. official" who is concerned "about what appears to be" an escalating flow of Iranian arms"

""We're concerned about what appears to be an escalating flow of Iranian arms shipments to extremists operating in Iraq and about Iran's stepped-up efforts to supply weapons to Taliban militants in Afghanistan," said a senior U.S. official who monitors Iranian activity in the region." "

No wonder that more and more Americans are accepting the demonization of Iran and the U.S. portrayal of Iran as the "enemy." Can a military strike against Iran be that far off?

We cannot let this happen.

HOW CAN IRAN BE THE "ENEMY"?

Juan Cole has excellent comments and analysis today on why the number of Americans who think Iran is the enemy has risen recently from 20% to 27%.

"Why have those poll numbers gone up? Because the Bush administration is trying to hang the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq on Iran (and even trying to hang the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan on Iran). The message of administration and military spokesmen is that Iran is deliberately killing US troops and is a major source of insurgency in Iraq."

"No convincing evidence has ever been presented for either allegation, nor is it reasonable to assume that Iran plays a significant role in funding hyper-Sunni, Shiite-killing death squads to deliberately destabilize its client governments in Baghdad (al-Maliki) and Kabul (Karzai). Yet the New York Times and even the Guardian put this b.s. on the front page, and of course it is all over CNN, Fox Cable News, MSNBC, etc."

"Are US journalists trapped in the the dictates of the military-industrial complex by virtue of working for these mega corporations? We know that Roger Ailes at Fox Cable News orders his employees how to spin the day's news (he is a former high Republican Party official). Has any of the journalists counted up how many of the 127 US troops killed in Iraq in May was killed in Sunni Arab areas and how many in Shiite neighborhoods? Has any of them actually read the translated communiques on World News Connection of the Sunni Arab guerrillas and what they say about Iran and Shiites? Has any demanded air tight proof and non-anonymous sources before printing this garbage?"

"No."

DEATH AND DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ ON SATURDAY

John Partlow reports in today's Washington Post that seven U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq on Saturday.

"The soldiers deaths' come on the heels of what was the third-deadliest month for American troops in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, and indicate that the intractable insurgency shows no sign of abating in June.

"The killings ran the gamut from suicide bombers, small arms attacks, and roadside bombs against foot and armored-vehicle patrols, and were scattered in and around Baghdad, and in Diyala and Nineveh provinces north of the capital."

Juan Cole also reports quoting Reuters that the U.S. was engaged in bombing Habibibya, a civilian section of Baghdad, on Saturday night.

"The US was engaged in a bombing campaign against the civilian neighborhood of Habibiya in Sadr City (Shiite East Baghdad) on Saturday evening. The strikes probably targeted Mahdi Army militiamen; however, you can't bomb civilian neighborhoods without killing civilians."

DEFEAT UNFAIR UNJUST IMMIGRATION BILL

The more I look at the provisions of the immigration bill being considered in the U.S. Senate - S.1348- the more I want Bush's immigration "reform" to be defeated. It is grossly unfair to immigrants, especially the 12 million undocumenteds already in the U.S.

One, it continues to fund the hated wall along the Arizona border. Not only is this wall a serious impediment to wildlife and an environmental disaster, it makes people throughout all Latin America hate Americans and view the U.S. as exclusionary and racist. The U.S. is not building a wall along the Canadian border. It should not build a wall along the Mexican border.

Second, it forces the 12 million undocumenteds to jump through hoops if they want to become legal permanent residents. They must pay fines/application fees of at least $5,000, the head of the family must return to his/her country of origin to make official application, and there will be a long waiting period. These provisions are excessive. Let the undocumenteds already in the U.S. remain here without having to return to their countries. Let's not stigmatize the process of becoming permanent residents. Let's give everyone already here the chance to become citizens, and let's expedited and simplify the whole process.

Third, the temporary guest worker problem will force workers to return to their countries of origin after every two-year period and remain there for at least one year. Furthermore, after a total of six years working in the United States, workers are barred from returning. This is unfair to the workers. It removes any hope of becoming permanent residents or citizens. It treats foreign workers as worthless cogs who have no rights to stay in the U.S. or to put down roots.

For all the above reasons - the hated wall, the return to country of origin, the barring of any citizenship rights from temporary workers - this immigration bill is a nasty bill that is is inimical to immigrants, especially those already in the U.S. without documents. Work to defeat Bush's immigration bill.

PBS: WHERE IS NEWSCAST ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS?

I want PBS to broadcast The NewsHour on Saturdays and Sundays. As it is, we have no news from PBS over the weekends. It is as if nothing happens in the world deserving of coverage over the weekend. We all know how ludicrous that supposition is. Yet, notwithstanding bombings in Iraq, earthquakes, tsunamis, important political developments, PBS offers us no newscasts or broadcasts.

We don't need Jim Lehrer to work seven days a week. A substitute will do. But we do need The NewsHour or similar program. If PBS refuses to consider weekend news broadcasts, let it substitute BBC World News several times a day on both Saturdays and Sundays.

US WARSHIP SHELLS REMOTE SOMALI VILLAGE

Now the United States is shelling a remote village in Somalia because it suspects jihadists are making a camp there. The BBC reports:

"A US Navy warship has carried out a missile attack on a Somali village where Islamist militants are reported to have set up a base.

"Somali officials said a remote village in the Puntland region was bombarded, days after foreign militants arrived."

I want to know who ordered this strike on a "remote village?" Was it Bush, or was it Bob Gates, Secretary of Defense, or was it Dick Cheney? I doubt it was Gates. As former president of Texas A&M University, Gates would surely know that shelling from a war ship would cause catastrophic loss of life to the whole village, women, children, babies, old people, to everyone in that village.

An attack like this shows how morally bankrupt Bush & Co. are. They solve all problems with missiles and bombs. Even if it means killing everyone in some Somali village.

This news story should be all over American newspapers and TV. Where is PBS on this story? And NPR? Has anyone, other than BBC, mentioned it? I do note that NPR wesite carries a story from AP, quoting a Pentagon spokesman:

"CNN International, quoting a Pentagon official, also reported the U.S. warship's involvement. A Pentagon spokesman told The Associated Press he had no information about the incident.

""This is a global war on terror and the U.S. remains committed to reducing terrorist capabilities when and where we find them," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "

Whitman's statement is ridiculous and morally deficient for its lack of awareness about who is on the receiving end of the high velocity shelling in the Somali village. So the U.S. "remains committed to reducing terrorist capabilities" even if it means destroying a whole village and all its occupants?

And where is the moral outrage over killing civilians in this quixotic quest to wipe out all Jihadis? Such indiscriminate shelling creates 10 jihadis intent on destroying America for ever person the U.S. mindlessly kills with its fire bombs.

U.S. CLAIMS NO ATTACK FORTHCOMING ON IRAN

Oh good! Helene Cooper writes for NYTimes.com today that Condi Rice says the United States is not pushing for an attack on Iran. If this is true, then those pushing for a diplomatic solution to U.S. -Iranian relations seem to have won over the forces of darkness led by Dick Cheney who have been looking for ways to provoke Iran and get the U.S. into another catastrophic war in the Middle East

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sought today to minimize any sense of division within the Bush administration over Iran after the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency delivered a pointed new warning against what he called the “new crazies” pushing for military action against Tehran.

"“The President of the United States has made it clear that we are on a course that is a diplomatic course,” Ms. Rice said here. “That policy is supported by all of the members of the cabinet, and by the vice president of the United States." . . .

"Ms. Rice’s assurance on U.S. strategy came as senior officials at the State Department are expressing fury over reports that members of Vice President Cheney’s staff have told others that Mr. Cheney believes the diplomatic track with Iran is pointless, and is looking for ways to persuade Mr. Bush to confront Iran militarily.

"In a news conference today, Ms. Rice maintained that Vice President Cheney supports her strategy of trying to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions through diplomacy. A senior Bush administration official separately denied that there is a deep divide between Ms. Rice and Mr. Cheney on Iran.

"But, the official said, “the vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff.“ The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about any divide within the administration."

Cheney's hawkish attitude towards Iran cannot merely be laid at the voluble mouths of his aides. After all it was Dick Cheney who last month successfully argued that the five Iranian diplomats taken into U.S. detention in Iraq last January be incarcerated for at least another six months. This was done even though everyone knew it was sure to provoke Iran and its leaders. There has been no evidence produced by the U.S. indicating that these five Iranians were anything but diplomats, even though the military and other neo-con hawks like to imply they were on more than diplomatic missions.

Today, George Bush repeated his call that Iran release the four Iranian-Americans taken into custody over the past several months, while they were visiting family and friends in Iran. Helene Cooper reports:

"President Bush said today that American citizens being held in Iran — Haleh Esfandiari, Parnaz Azima, Kian Tajbakhsh, and Ali Shakeri — “have dedicated themselves to building bridges between the American and Iranian people, a goal the Iranian regime claims to support,” Mr. Bush said. “Their presence in Iran — to visit their parents or to conduct humanitarian work — poses no threat. Indeed, their activities are typical of the abiding ties that Iranian-Americans have with their land of origin.”"

Why couldn't the same statement be made by President Ahmadinejad of Iran about the five Iranians held captive by Bush and the U.S.? The five Iranians were in Iraq because there is close ties between the Iranian people and the majority Shias in Iraq. In fact, the government of Iraq is dominated by Shias, both in the executive and legislative branches.

I have a solution. Let the U.S. trade Iran: the five Iranians for the four Iranian-Americans. Certainly there is no evidence that the four Iranian-Americans are guilty of espionage or treason or attempts to overthrow the Iranian government. Iran should release them. And the United States should give back its five Iranian prisoners. This should be done immediately.

CONDI RICE CRITICIZES SPAIN FOR DEALING WITH CUBA

Here is a story in the Salt Lake Tribune this morning from the AP by Paul Haven on Condi Rice lecturing the government of Spain for dealing with Fidel Castro and Cuba.

"At issue is Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos's decision to snub Cuban dissidents on a visit to Havana in April.

""I have made it very clear that I have real doubts about engagement with a regime that is antidemocratic. Spain has a different view on that," Rice said during a press conference alongside her Spanish counterpart, Miguel Angel Moratinos. "People who are struggling for a democracy need to know that they are supported.""

Lofty goals in support of democracy in Cuba from the Secretary of State of the United States. But how come Condi's doubts apply only to Castro and Cuba? At the very same time that she admonishes Spain, Rice maintains and defends U.S. chummy relations with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, all of whom are ruled by autocratic despots who flout the rule of law and democratic ideals.

This is but another example of the screwed-up foreign policy of George Bush and his gang. Divide the world into forces of good and evil, based upon your own inner voice. Then choose all the kiss-ups, such as Condi Rice, for important offices no matter how unqualified, and direct them to extend aid and friendship to the "good," at the same time as you order sanctions and even bombs against the "evil."