STOP WHOLESALE DEPORTATION OF LATINOS WITHOUT DOCUMENTS

Julie Myers as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) needs to back off on her quest to deport Mexican and Latino undocumented immigrants. Myers is the niece of Gen. Myers, former head of the Joint Chiefs. Julia Preston reports in today's The New York Times that Myers is aiming to deport some 200,000 undocumenteds for year 2008.

In contrast to mean Ms. Myers, I believe everyone has a right to go anywhere and cross any border in his/her desire to put bread on the table. Therefore, I want open borders, the end of ICE, the removal of the hated fences and walls along the U.S.-Mexican frontier and, above all, respect for our Latin American neighbors who immigrate to the United States.

BUSH'S MISSION TRIES TO BUILD CASE AGAINST IRAN

The more George W. Bush tries to exacerbate the relations between the U.S. and Iran, the more the price of oil goes up. The more Bush accuses Iran of "provocations" and harboring desires to create nuclear weapons, the more the price of gold goes up. Gold is today about $910 per ounce. Oil is about $95 per bbl. If Bush has his way and initiates an attack against Iran, oil will reach $200 per bbl. and gold $2,000 per oz. Imagine what this will do to both the economy of the U.S. and the overall world economy. There would be a recession that would be the mother of all recessions.

Thanks to the gods so far that the Arabs, especially Saudi Arabia, seem to have more sense than Bush. King Abdullah invited Iranian president Ahmadinejad to attend the Haj, the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. The long-time animosity between the Arabs and the Persians seems to have lost a lot of its heat and intensity by having Ahmadinejad come to Saudi Arabia as a Muslim pilgrim.

Bush's attempt to roil the waters between Middle Eastern countries against Iran seems to have gained no support save in Israel where the neo-cons like Olmert are engaged in an overt campaign to get Bush and Cheney to attack Iran. This must not be allowed to happen.

BUSH THREATENS IRAN YET PREACHES FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY

George Bush constantly threatens the government of Iran with military force and says it should be confronted "before it's too late." He did it again today in a speech in Abu Dhabi. The BBC reports:

"US President George W Bush has warned of the dangers he says are posed by Iran, in a speech in its Gulf neighbour, the United Arab Emirates.

"Mr Bush said Iran threatened the security of all nations and should be confronted "before it's too late".

"In a speech in Abu Dhabi on the latest leg of a Middle Eastern tour, he also urged the region to embrace democracy. "

We all know Bush is a war monger. The chances are good that Bush will attack Iran before he leaves office. Bush engages in reckless threats and charges against Iran. For example, Bush long claimed that Iran was building nuclear weapons until the National Intelligence Estimate disabused him of that baseless claim. WMD as we all remember was the faulty casus belli for the U.S. attack and invasion of Iraq.

The BBC reports on other facets of Bush's speech:

"Mr Bush said spreading freedom and democracy was the best way to defeat radicalism.
America and its democratic allies would prevail over extremists like al-Qaeda, he said, because they have "freedom and justice written into our hearts by Almighty God . . . no terrorists can take that away". "

Bush always wants to "spread freedom and democracy" except when free elections turn out in a way different from how he wants it. Take the Palestinians voting for Hamas in January 2007. That was a free and fair election, but after the results came in, Bush said he would not recognize Hamas as the governing body because it is a "terrorist" organization that fails to recognize Israel. The result is Bush accepts democracy only when it suits his purposes and aims. The same goes for Venezuela where Hugo Chavez was elected president by an overwhelming majority. Bush claims Chavez is as dictator who abuses human rights. But that is because Chavez called Bush "Satan." Furthermore, Chavez has no affinity with Bush's proclivity to solve all problems in foreign diplomacy with bombs and missiles, and has been outspoken in his criticism of Bush and Bush's foreign policy.

We still have more than a full year till Bush leaves office. With all his rhetoric about freedom and democracy, the world has still much to fear from Bush's military push to re-make the world in his small image.

NYT ARTICLE TODAY ON U.S. WAR GAMES "SPINS" TO JUSTIFY BUSH'S RECKLESS THREATS AGAINST IRAN

In an effort to justify almost starting a war with Iran over those pesky little Iranian motor boats approaching the mighty ships of the U.S. Navy in the Straits of Hormuz, a mere shooting distance of Iran, Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer, explains in a story today by Thom Shanker in The New York Times how he personally warned the Pentagon in 2002 that small boats coming in numbers could inflict horrendous casualties on the U.S. Navy war ships.

Writes Shanker:

"There is a reason American military officers express grim concern over the tactics used by Iranian sailors last weekend: a classified, $250 million war game in which small, agile speedboats swarmed a naval convoy to inflict devastating damage on more powerful warships.

"In the days since the encounter with five Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz, American officers have acknowledged that they have been studying anew the lessons from a startling simulation conducted in August 2002. In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats."

Why do I feel that a spin is involved? The evidence coming out now about the video and audio showing Iranian speedboats "threatening" the U.S. Navy seems upon closer examination to indicate that there was no real threat and there was no Iranian provocation. The audio seems to have been patched onto the video and then released by the Pentagon to further demonize Iran at the inception of the Bush visit to Arab Sunni states in the Middle East. As if to say, "We told you so, Iran is a serious threat to the region, and this inchoate attack shows that Iran is a menace, even without nuclear weapons, and so we must take action."

And who is this Gen. Van Riper? And why is he coming out now to disclose his experience with war games back in 2002. Van Riper sounds like somebody's mouthpiece, and that someone I suspect could be Dick Cheney or Cheney's assistant, David Addington. Could Van Riper be in fact Cheney's spokesman in a case where Cheney or Addington do not want to be identified themselves in the laying of the bogus foundation that the U.S. was not the instigator of the confrontation but the injured party. All in an attempt to justify George W. Bush's recklessly calling the encounter a "serious provocation" and warning that the next one would result in serious military retaliation. Otherwise Bush could not conceal that he appears to the world to be the war monger once again, this time in his and Cheney's attempt to bomb Iran.

DAN FROOMKIN ASKS HOW COME CLINTON, OBAMA & EDWARDS SAY LITTLE CRITICAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLICIES?

I see where Dan Froomkin in Nieman Watchdog suggests that the Democratic candidates do something more than fill their speeches with "hope" and "change." Specifically, Froomkin wonders why Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not confronting the disastrous polices of George W. Bush.

Where do we see their arguments against the War in Iraq? Where is Obama on the violations of the Fourth Amendment in Bush's illegal wiretapping? How come we don't hear from Hillary on the disgrace of Guantanamo and the removal of the the protection of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus? And how come we have heard little to nothing from Edwards on Bush's policy of torturing suspects to obtain " valuable information"?

Instead of just mouthing platitudes, the Democratic candidates must confront the pressing problems created by Bush. They must go on record as against them. They must also explain why the polices constitute an American disaster, and how Democratic policies would remedy these problems.

CHAVEZ OBTAINS FREEDOM FOR TWO FARC HOSTAGES IN SPITE OF BUSH AND URIBE

Hooray for Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez for his role in obtaining the release of the two hostages from the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias Colombianas) today. The two ladies released have been more than five years in captivity.

This is a huge setback for George W. Bush who has made disparaging remarks about Chavez in the past. Chavez is becoming more and more an influence in Latin and South America, while Bush's influence is little to nil.

I suspect Bush counselled Colombian president Alvaro Uribe to reject the help of Chavez several weeks ago in securing the hostages' release. Now both Bush and Uribe appear mean-spirited and enemies of humanitarianism while at the same time Chavez comes out looking like the real force for good in seeking an accommodation with the FARC to secure the hostages' freedom.

REAL PURPOSE OF BUSH'S TRIP TO PURSUE ATTACK WITH ISRAEL AGAINST IRAN

Bush's arrival in Israel seems to be all about threatening statements against Iran. Olmert and Perez appear to be inciting Bush to move one step closer toward U.S. military action against Iran.

Bush's ostensible purpose of encouraging Israel and the Palestinians to reach a peace accord appears then to be mere window dressing to the real purpose of forming a coalition against Iran. I thought that Bush's march towards war with Iran was defused upon the publication of the report from the National Intelligence group that Iran was NOT developing nuclear weapons. However, once again, after reading about Bush's trip, I cannot help but think that the neocons in both the U.S. and Israel think of nothing else than mounting a military assault against Iran and Iranians.

THREE IRANIAN SPEED BOATS AGAINST US WARSHIPS?

This whole flare-up between U.S. warships and three or four Iranian speedboats in the Gulf of Hormuz seems more and more bizarre. Look closely at a photo of one of the Iranian boats in today's The New York Times. There aoppears to be three occupants. As far as can be seen, no one has on any body or head protection. There seems to be no small-arms weapons in the speed boat, not even a machine gun or a rifle. How does the Bush government expect people to believe the Iranians were threatening or attacking huge war ships with three puny unarmed speed boats?

Reports Nazila Fathi:

"Iran’s Revolutionary Guard accused the United States on Wednesday of fabricating a video showing Iranian speedboats confronting United States Navy warships in the Persian Gulf over the weekend, according to a report carried by the semiofficial Fars news agency and state-run television.
“Images released by the U.S. Department of Defense about the Navy vessels were made from file pictures, and the audio was fabricated,” an unnamed Revolutionary Guard official said, according to Fars, which has close links to the Revolutionary Guard. It was the first time Iran had commented on the video that the Pentagon released Tuesday."

The suspicion of the Iranians that this whole incident was faked and fabricated has believability. Take the audio that was released that has the Iranians predicting that the U.S. warships "will blow up." Where is the ambient noise that should be heard if these radio transmissions are being made from one of the approaching speedboats? On the audio, there is no noise of the engines or of the rushing wake.

Writes Fathi:

"The audio includes a heavily accented voice warning in English that the Navy warships would explode. However, the recording carries no ambient noise — the sounds of a motor, the sea or wind — that would be expected if the broadcast had been made from one of the five small boats that sped around the three-ship American convoy."

The U.S. Pentagon cannot explain the lack of surround noise in the audio:

"Pentagon officials said they could not rule out that the broadcast might have come from shore, or from another ship nearby, although it might have come from one of the five fast boats with a high-quality radio system."

UGH. OLMERT: BUSH IS "VERY WISE MAN . . . LOYAL TO . . . PRINCIPLES"

The Washington Post blog On the Plane asks if Ehud Olmert is becoming Bush's new poodle.

"In an interview last week with the Jerusalem Post, Olmert said that in all his years in public life, he did not recall "that America was led by someone as friendly since the days of President Ford."

""He's also a great guy," Olmert added of Bush. "I know that people say all kinds of things about him. Gentlemen, he's a graduate of Yale and Harvard. People don't graduate from Harvard and Yale without wisdom and understanding of processes and domestic and international relationships. He's a very wise man.""

This is too much to take. Olmert says Bush is "a very wise man"? Olmert must want something very bad from Bush. This effusive sycophantic praise is beyond belief. Has Tony Blair every sunk so low in his Bush encomia? Has Olmert no sense of decency?

"Olmert may have topped himself in his joint press conference Wednesday afternoon, which opened with the prime minister thanking Bush for "the power that you used for good causes for this region and for the world."

"The two then went on to answer questions about Iran and the Middle East, but when the questions were over, Olmert could not resist thanking Bush for "the courage that you inspire in all of us to carry on with our obligations."

""Sometimes it's not easy, but when I look at you, and I know what you have to take upon your shoulders and how you do it, the manner in which you do it, the courage that you have, the determination that you have, and your loyalty to the principles that you believe in -- it makes all of us feel that we can also . . . move forward."

"Even Bush seemed a bit embarrassed."

HILLARY WINS IN SPITE OF POLLS SHOWING LARGE LEAD FOR OBAMA

I don't understand how the polls showing Barack Obama ahead by up to ten points were all so wrong. Once Hillary took the leading in early results last night in the NH primaries, she maintained the same lead until the end. It was depressing, at least for me, a fan of Obama.

What made Hillary so appealing to voters? Her argument against Obama's idealism and in favor of her "experience" could not, in my opinion, have caused her win.

I think it had to do more with sympathy elicited from older women voters who were put off and offended by those two crazy hecklers bearing signs, "IRON MY SHIRT." Who would possibly plan and stage such a ludicrous sexist event? Are there really people out there who would heckle Hillary on the basis of their own downright gender discrimination? There are probably some males who dislike Hillary because of her gender, but those guys normally harbor those base feelings within their secret thoughts. But these hecklers had no such inhibitions. One could predict ahead of time the effect: to come out publicly and disrupt a Hillary event with those ridiculous signs certainly would create sympathy and backlash on the part of undecided voters.

I would like to know who those two guys were. And what their intentions were. And who put them up to it. At this point, forgive my paranoia. Their stunt seems staged for Hillary's benefit.