BUSH FLIP FLOPS, SENDS DIPLOMAT TO TALK WITH IRAN, PRICE OF OIL DROPS $20 PER BBL.

Has anyone noticed the price of oil over the last few days? It has dropped about $20 per barrel. And it is not the market's vagaries that explain oil's decline. Rather, it corresponds with news on the diplomatic front that the Bush administration is sending a high-ranking diplomat to participate in talks between the EU and Iran's foreign minister on Iran's nuclear development project.

Elaine Sciolino and Steven Lee Myers write in today's The New York Times that Washington is doing an about-face on its willingness to participate in the talks with Iran.

"The Bush administration’s decision to send a senior American official to participate in international talks with Iran this weekend reflects a double policy shift in the struggle to resolve the impasse over the country’s nuclear program.

"First, the Bush administration has decided to abandon its longstanding position that it would meet face to face with Iran only after the country suspended its uranium enrichment, as demanded by the United Nations Security Council.

"Second, an American partner at the table injects new importance to the negotiating track of the six global powers confronting Iran — France, Britain, Germany, Russia, China and the United States — even though their official stance is that no substantive talks can begin until uranium enrichment stops.

As I wrote on more than one occasion, the price of oil has risen day-by-day as tensions between Washington and Teheran increase. Every time that Bush or Cheney or Rice threatened Iran with "all options on the table," the price of oil went up.

Now oil is under $130, down from its high a few days ago of over $145. The signal from Rice that the U.S. is now willing to talk with Iran as opposed to bombing Iranian cities surely is the key to this drop. Imagine what would happen to the price of oil and gasoline if Bush seriously made an effort to sit down with the Iranians and discuss their concerns!

AFGHAN HISTORY: FOREIGN INVADERS ALWAYS DEFEATED

Today in The New York Times Carlotta Gall and Eric Schmitt describe the recent attack by Taliban insurgents on a U.S. outpost in Afghanistan.

"The Taliban insurgents who attacked a remote American-run outpost near the Pakistan border on Sunday numbered nearly 200 fighters, almost three times the size of the allied force, and some breached the NATO compound in a coordinated assault that took the defenders by surprise, Western officials said Monday.
"The attackers were driven back in a pitched four-hour battle, and they appeared to suffer scores of dead and wounded of their own, but the toll they inflicted was sobering. The base and a nearby observation post were held by just 45 American troops and 25 Afghan soldiers, two senior allied officials said, asking for anonymity while an investigation was under way.
"With nine Americans dead and at least 15 injured, that means that one in five of the American defenders was killed and nearly half the remainder were wounded. Four Afghan soldiers were also wounded."

In the multi-thousand year history of Afghanistan and its tribes, has there been any successful invasion and occupation? The answer is a resounding NO! The Afghanis have defeated one occupier after another. No one survives as a foreign invading force in Afghanistan.

Look what happened to the Russians when they invaded Afghanistan initially in 1978. Ten years later the Russians were pulling out as fast as they could. The Mujahadeen killed Russians by the hundreds, shot down Russian choppers, inflicted cruel punishment for any Soviet soldier unfortunate enough to be captured alive.

So how does the United States think that Americans will win in Afghanistan? And what is wrong with Barack Obama for saying that the U.S. should send two more brigades? Surely Obama cannot believe that the military force of an invading nation, even the powerful U.S. military machine, can possibly succeed where so many other invaders have failed.

Leave Afghanistan to its people and tribes. Withdraw all U.S. and other NATO forces. Stop the indiscriminate bombing of Afghan civilians.

Afghanistan is a black hole where foreigners are destined to lose.

END OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN

The BBC reports that nine U.S. soldiers have been killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. This follows a week in which U.S. war planes killed 42 Afghan civilians mistaking them for insurgent fighters.

All this loss of life means that the United States should not be in Afghanistan. Americans should stop the killing of Afghanis and stop, at the same time, the loss of life of American soldiers.

The way to solve seemingly intractable problems and conflicts is not through tanks and bombs but through talk and negotiation. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war has been shown ineffective and life destructive.

Pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Let Afghanis determine their own government and their own society.

STOCK MARKET FALLS, GOLD & OIL RISE ON FEARS OF U.S./ISRAELI ATTACK AGAINST IRAN

The stock market as reflected in the DJIA was down over 100 points today. Oil was up some $5 per barrel at one point. Gold rose $19 per ounce. Some commentators claim it was more financial trouble with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Others explain weakness in stocks by saying it was the fault of a declining U.S. dollar. But hardly anyone mentions the elephant in the room - the Bush/Cheney/Olmert cabal against Iran.

Imagine what would happen if these war mongers get their way and launch an attack and bomb Teheran. Here are my predictions:

• the DJIA would drop 3,000 points
• oil would rise to $300 per barrel
• gold would increase to $2,000 per ounce
• the United States would sink into deep recession
• grain commodities would double in price
• endless war for the next 500 years

As it happened today, the stock market, gold and oil all responded to saber rattling by the U.S. and Israel against Iran. Bush criticizes Iran for testing defensive missiles but says not a peep when Israel under Olmert stages a huge exercise several weeks ago involving hundreds of war planes. Even Condoleeza Rice issues bellicose threats.

Some people justify an attack by saying that the Arab states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia would cheer when the attack comes. Of course, the Arabs have a known bias and it is racial and sectarian. Most of the Arab states are Sunnis whereas Iran is mostly Shia. Secondly and equally as important, the people of Iran are not Arabs but Persians. The two have never got along, not to mention the built in animosity between Shia and Sunni. No wonder Bush and Cheney find allies in their militaristic bullying of Iran.

ISRAEL PREPARES FOR ATTACK AGAINST IRAN

Instead of telling Israel of its unqualified support, the United States should do everything within its power to prevent Israel from attacking Iran.

The BBC reports that Israel's defense minister has once again said that Israel is thinking of hitting Iran:

"Israel's defence minister has warned of his country's readiness to act against Iran if it feels threatened.
Ehud Barak, speaking in Tel Aviv, said Israel had "proved in the past that it won't hesitate to act when its vital security interests are at stake". "

First of all, there is no hard evidence that Iran is building, or plans to build, facilities to develop nuclear weapons.

Secondly, even if Iran wanted nuclear weapons, why must it be deprived while Israel has in storage some 200 nuclear bombs? Israel never joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so why should the U.S. and other countries approve of its nuclear arsenal while at the same time saying that Iran would never be permitted to have nuclear weapons?

Thirdly, the only country in the history of the world that has ever dropped nuclear bombs on populations is the United States. The U.S. incinerated over 100 thousand in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Then it turns around and tries to appear virtuous and pure in describing Iran as a world threat. What hypocrisy!

U.S. CRITICIZES IRAN FOR MISSILE TESTS, SAYS NOTHING ABOUT ISRAEL'S AIR WAR GAMES

Why does the United States reproach Iran for test-firing its missiles but refrains from criticizing Israel for engaging in those massive war games involving hundreds of its war planes several weeks ago?

If you were head of Iran, what would you do? You see Israel staging a mock attack on your country. Don't say that you would do nothing. That does not pass the laff test. Of course you would stand up and tell those guys to back off.

Bush and Cheney have this animosity for Iran. Some say the chances are less than 20% that they will have the U.S. attack Iran before the end of their term. I think that ignores the signals coming from Washington. By emphasizing that "all options are on the table," Bush is signaling that he is likely to attack.

The results would be catastrophic for the United States as well as for the world. there would be war unending for the next 500 years. The U.S. would be forever branded as anti-Islamic. No one would be safe. If Iraq was a huge mistake, Iran would be exponentially worse.

MCCAIN ENDORSES ATTACK ON IRAN

So Iran has tested long range (2,000 KM) missiles in a show of defiance. Condoleeza Rice, spokesperson for George Bush, decries the threat. So does John McCain who knows nothing apart from military force.

What do these Bushites think Iran would do after Israel deployed almost its entire air force in military games to simulate an attack against Teheran? Iran's reaction is entirely reasonable, given how many times Olmert and Bush declare that "all options are on the table," code for "we're going to attack Iran."

Barack Obama calls it a mistake not to open a dialogue with Ahmadinejad, and bellicose John McCain calls that approach "naive." This tells all of us that if McCain wins, we are condemned to another four years of Bush's "endless war."

Anyone who objects to another 500 years of conflict and war should vote for McCain. In the meantime, the rest of us must stop the crazies such as Bush, Cheney, Rice and Olmert from attacking Iran.

GET U.S. TROOPS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

Some are against the War in Iraq although in favor of the War in Afghanistan. I oppose both.

Look at what happened several days ago when U.S. warplanes bombed Afghani "insurgents," who, it turned out, were really innocent civilians travelling to a wedding. The death toll exceeded 20.

How many times has this mistake been made by the U.S. military? The trouble with choppers and war planes is that their pilots really cannot know whom they are shooting and killing. It's merely their best guess that the "targets" are "insurgents." In other words, the U.S.A.F. fires at people knowingly aware of the risk that they could be innocent civilians and many could be children.

What is the solution? It isn't to passively accept these atrocities, with some bromide that things like this happen in every war. The answer is to ground all U.S. war planes and helicopters. The U.S. should not even have an air force. Airplanes should be instruments of civilization, not mechanisms of death.

Stop the killing in Afghanistan. Pull all troops out of Afghanistan. Ground all U.S. war aircraft.

MILITARY SERVICE - NOT SUFFICIENT TO BECOME PRESIDENT

The Washington Post weighs in today with an editorial on Gen. Wesley Clark and his comments about McCain's readiness to be president.

All these secret pro-McCain forces seem to want to put down Clark because he said being a fighter pilot is not sufficient reason to be elected president. This seems self-evident. Surely even John McCain would not dispute that serving in the military does not prepare to lead the country.

For once, let's get someone elected president who is capable and intelligent and smart. Not someone who jokes around a lot and makes wise cracks like the president occupant of the office.

STOP BUSH & CHENEY - NO ATTACK AGAINST IRAN

We need to stop this mad rush to war with Iran. ABC reported yesterday that U.S. military officials are predicting that Israel will bomb Iran within the year. This is craziness. There is no proof that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Every country has a right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The CIA and the National Intelligence Estimate reported that there is no evidence that Iran is doing otherwise.

So then, why attack Iran? That's why it is so important to elect leaders who don't try to engage in foreign diplomacy with tanks and missiles. All Bush, Cheney and Olmert know is how to kill "enemies" instead of treating other people with respect and negotiation.

Iran is a great country with a great civilization. To attack Iran would be an even more catastrophic mistake than the foolish and unjustified invasion of Iraq.