Maybe someone who's smarter than me can answer this convincingly, but this graf from today's Wall Street Journal confused me:

The U.S. military says it has found caches of newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq, leading senior officials to conclude Tehran is continuing to funnel armaments into Iraq despite its pledges to the contrary.

How does the premise (there are newly made Iranian weapons in Iraq) lead to the conclusion (the Iranian government is responsible)? Given that a newly-manufactured weapon has to go somewhere, and given the huge amount of instability in Iraq, all of which goes back to the Sunni-Shia divide and numerous other ethnic and political conflicts, what would prevent someone with access to Iranian arms from shipping them to his favored side in the civil war? Isn't this a supremely likely occurrence?

Politically and strategically, there is a miles-wide difference between some random Iranian lieutenant funneling arms to Iraq and the Iranian government doing the same. Where's the hard evidence that the latter is the case? Certainly the fact that the weapons are new points us slightly in that direction, but on its own that's a pretty flimsy case.

As the fallout from yesterday's blockbuster National Intelligence Estimate story continues, it's been interesting to watch the right-wing response, given how wedded prominent conservatives are to the military option in Iran, and how shamelessly they've repeated the fear mongering that led us to invade Iraq.

I've been keeping an eye on the National Review Online, which has provided much entertainment so far. The tone of the subheds on two of the lead stories pretty much sums up everything; a visibly hurt Victor Davis Hanson wonders, "Are they now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes?" Michael Ledeen, displaying the thoughtful skepticism that has long been the hallmark of right-wing hawks, says, "If this NIE is true, the evidence would have to be awfully good. And evidence of that quality has been in famously short supply."

So it turns out that we have no motivation to go to war with Iran (except that they're, you know, Muslim and anti-American), since they stopped their weapons program since 2003. What the report more or less shows is that Iran has been deescalating a war situation instead of baiting one.

Brian wonders why it took so long for the report to be released and why the intelligence community would defect from the administration. To me, the second point of wondering doesn't seem surprising. After all, the administration has more or less blamed the entire Iraq war on faulty intelligence, something I'm sure gets under the skin of many intelligence professional at the DoD and the CIA. The decision to go to war didn't rest with them, it rested with the president.

Furthermore, I think this really shows how hawkish our entire foreign policy community is on Iran. Even so-called liberal publications like the New Republic in the last year have published essays suggesting a hawkish policy on Iran.* What's more, a lot of people aren't considered serious thinkers in the foreign policy community unless they show evidence of at least minor hawkishness. This seems like a problem to me.

I began a series of articles back in 2005 that delved into the situation in Iraq, and specifically stated that our intent on invading Iraq was a precursor to an eventual attack on Iran. I’m not a well-known Political Commentator, and while I did note an occasional visitor from Iran, they were few and far in between; ever since I wrote Attack On Iran Slated For October 15th, Prepare For Disaster those numbers have changed drastically, and just this month we’ve received a 1,000 % increase of hits originating from Iran, a marked increase in the readership of this site from your country. Those are only the visits that we could verify, however know that many more than that have been logged by other programs. It seems that this small article has been read through-out the Middle-east and Europe, and now, Iran and other countries I never knew frequented this Blog are regular visitors.

As you have noted from previous articles, I am against a preemptive strike against your country by this administration, and sincerely believe that diplomacy, sanctions, and the internal politics of Iran, given enough time, will positively impact the current controversy in regard Iran’s nuclear issues with most of the free world. Too many people in the United States are unaware that the youth of Iran is very supportive of the United States, and their admiration and support was easy to see by their western-style haircuts, clothes, music, and even the concept of being free enough to indulge themselves in free expression, a right that is inherent in the United States, although under fire at the moment, just as it is in Iran.

I write these articles because I believe increasing the awareness of the general public is tantamount in the fight to stave-off war with Iran - and while I’m dead-set against an attack on Iran by the Bush administration, this cannot be construed as me supporting you - which I don’t, but can be viewed as me supporting the people of Iran, just as I do those here in America. There isn’t any question that when the world at large views you and President Bush, not necessarily here in the US or Iran, but even more so beyond our borders, they see two tyrants attempting to justify their actions - when both sides have made grave errors, and there is no justification for the behavior of either nation. This is a case of the “pot calling the kettle black”, as both of you have many of the same characteristics.

You ran on a platform targeting the economically challenged and campaigned with promises of a brighter economic future for those who were experiencing hard times, an audience that desperately needed help, and they placed their trust and votes in you, only to become disillusioned and witness their situations becoming worse, not better.

Ahmadinejad, a hardline conservative and Revolutionary Guard veteran, mounted a surprisingly strong challenge with a populist message aimed at the economically disadvantaged. He promised to strengthen social safety nets, offer subsidized food and housing for the poor, and institute monthly stipends for citizens. Much of Ahmadinejad’s support in the first round of voting came from poorer areas such as South Tehran. MUCH MORE

From what I’ve been able to ascertain, the Iranian economy worsens by the day, gas prices are rising, and the poor and disadvantaged are suffering worse now then before you took office:

Despite its continued bluster on nuclear issues, Iran is discovering that there are costs to be paid for maintaining its confrontational stance. Pressure from Washington to isolate Tehran financially has already succeeded in removing or significantly reducing such major European banks as Credit Suisse and UBS from the Iranian scene. Now several large German institutions are preparing to leave as well. Over the last few months Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank have withdrawn investments. Dresdner Bank has announced it will cancel operations within Iran altogether. It is believed that these banks fear losing U.S. business if they continue to operate in Iran. MORE

Excerpts from The BBC News Online:

America’s financial war on Iran

But there is also a second, potentially more powerful, element. Since September 2006, US officials have been traveling the world talking to banks and company bosses. They aim to persuade business to voluntarily abandon or scale back all dealings with Iran.

Mr Levey, who is spearheading the Treasury’s campaign, insists he is already getting results.

“There is significant evidence that it’s working in the sense that Iranian business is being subjected to greater scrutiny and it’s more difficult for them to operate,” he says.

“A number of major financial institutions have cut off doing business with certain Iranian banks or with Iran entirely.” MORE

The above information reflects pressure exerted by the US designed to force Iran into accepting the policies of the IEAA. The financial troubles began in Iran prior to those sanctions, and President Ahmadinejad needs to explain to his own people, as well as the world, why he has driven Iran back into the stone-age of social enlightenment, and instead of helping those he vowed to help,
President Ahmadinejad has made their conditions worse by spending Iran’s wealth on nuclear facilities, advanced weapons systems, and financial and logistical aid to known terrorist groups.

We in the European and Western nations who drink from the fountain of freedom, albeit diminished, find it hard to understand a society that murders those who exhibit a different different sexual preference than that of what is called for in radical Islam; we fail to understand why you have worked relentlessly to stamp-out any showing of western values in your own nation, and have actually arrested and persecuted those who didn’t follow your draconian dress and hair policies. The “morality police” are real in Iran, and many fear Americans will soon feel the heel of religious oppression via a Supreme Court that has been stacked with conservative Justices.

Iran is a nation rich in natural resources, mainly oil, yet you have built few, if any new refineries to ease the gas crunch in your nation, and the people of Iran do not benefit from Iran’s considerable wealth; armies and weapons are expensive, as are nuclear facilities and the constant financial support you offer to terrorist groups in Lebanon, Iraq, and the Palestinians… Why is it so important to ferment unrest and attempt to project Iran’s considerable local power upon others while allowing the Iranian people to suffer? The same question must be answered by President Bush, as Americans are also beginning to suffer from these endless wars. The people of the United States and Iran have similar goals, and that is to return their nations to what they were before you or Bush’s election (sic). (Again, similarities exist in your election and that of the Bush administration; Bush was “placed” in office in 2000 by the US Supreme Court, and your election was alleged to have been aided by illegal acts ordered by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and carried-out by the Revolutionary Guard:

IRAN: RUNNING TOWARD THE GASOLINE DUMP WITH A LIT MATCH

(Excerpts)

Ever since fanatical Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was installed by the Guardian Council last June via a questionable election, nearly every step taken by the former Commander of the Revolutionary Guard’s foreign assassination outfit has been designed to either solidify his hold on power by purging those in the Iranian government deemed not “revolutionary” enough or making it clear that he seeks confrontation with the west and Israel over the Iranian nuclear program.

Many analysts questioned Ahmadinejad’s victory in the runoff election against long time Iranian politico Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani whose loss to the little known former mayor of Tehran occurred under suspicious circumstances. Prior to the run-off, there were several charges of corruption, including the unleashing of 300,000 Revolutionary Guards to mobilize support for Ahmadinejad. Two newspapers who dared to print a letter outlining the charges from a reformist politician were summarily shut down. Then, in the subsequent run-off between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad, ballot box irregularities were reported as a sizable segment of the population boycotted the election. Polling places that were deserted on the day of the election ended up showing thousands of ballots cast for the former hard-line mayor.

It is important to understand that the President of Iran is on a very short leash. His decisions must be ratified by Iran’s Supreme Leader who also controls the ruling Guardian Council which has absolute veto power over laws passed by the Iranian parliament as well as access to the big stick in Iranian society; the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). The Council is made up of 6 clerical members and 6 lawyers, all of whom are appointed by the Supreme Leader. The Council also has absolute authority in matters involving elections, determining who can run and, as we have seen, who wins and who loses. MORE

As we move on to the crux of the issue that has the European community, several Arab states, Israel, and the United States demanding an explanation of and a halt to Iran enriching uranium, Iran has cast its own shadow of doubt on her nuclear ambitions, and the aforementioned countries have every right to question a program you insist is peaceful; for eighteen years, Iran’s nuclear program was hidden from the rest of the world, and by running a covert nuclear program, Iran effectively demonstrated they were attempting to skirt International treaties and hide their nuclear ambitions - and that action in itself does nothing to bolster an air of trust, which is what Iran is requesting that all of the nations do, without any viable rationale or evidence that your programs are actually peaceful:

History

Iran’s interest in nuclear technology predates the Islamic revolution of 1979. Iran’s revolutionaries forced most western trained scientists, engineers and managers out of Iran, greatly slowing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. In the late 1980s, Iran turned to the Soviet Union to restart its civil nuclear program, which at the time centered on the West German designed, but never completed Bushehr nuclear power reactor. Unknown at the time was that in 1985, Iran secretly tapped into the nuclear black market run by the father of Pakistan’s nuclear program – A.Q. Khan. Khan had established a robust network of front companies and clandestine shipments to fuel Pakistan’s own nuclear weapon program. For 18 years, Iran successfully hid – in violation of international law and its voluntary treaty commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency – its clandestine nuclear procurement and development program. This technology was used to design and begin construction on the Natanz uranium enrichment facility where work resumed on January 9th.

International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards are used in most countries to provide confidence that peaceful facilities are not used for military purposes. This is the case in Europe and Japan, and US and Russian peaceful enrichment facilities are open to IAEA inspection. International confidence – albeit a subjective measure – is high that these countries will not use their peaceful enrichment facilities for the production of weapons.

Iran’s now documented 18-year track record of hiding nuclear facilities, and the behavior of its leaders and security forces provide the international community with much lower confidence in its peaceful intentions. Moreover, Iran currently lacks both the nuclear plants needed to make use of enriched uranium or the domestic stocks of uranium ore to justify the expense of a domestic uranium enrichment program. The existence of a robust and economically competitive international set of enrichment providers casts even further doubt on Iran’s motives for pursuing enrichment on such an accelerated and (previously) secretive basis. MORE

If your nuclear plans are peaceful as you claim, why was your nuclear program hidden from the world for eighteen years? Why did Iran also procure plans to build a nuclear weapon from Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan? The history of Iran’s so-called “peaceful” nuclear enrichment program is suspect at best based on Iran’s questionable activities prior to the discovery of their nuclear program - and it’s unreasonable for the world to accept a song and dance from President Ahmadinejad that the program is entirely peaceful until the IEAA is allowed to continue inspections throughout Iran; visiting sites that have been preprepared for international view is nothing more than an open-house into those programs that do comply with IEAA guidelines, however, until Iran allows the IEAA unfettered access to Iran in general, and is able to follow-up on any leads into suspected sites that could be used to produce weapons, the West, Israel, and the European community will remain skeptical of Iran’s intentions, and in this writer’s opinion the skepticism is well deserved.

President Ahmadinejad, the majority of the people in the United States do not favor a preemptive strike against your country, but there are several issues that Iran constantly skirts, and answers have been slow or downright impossible to receive that pertain to sites that we suspect are still operating in secrecy. I have no hard evidence that Iran is actively attempting to produce a nuclear warhead, and while the suspicions we hear may be political rhetoric with no basis in fact, Iran has made it exceedingly difficult to prove those allegations are false. Transparency in the nuclear cycle, from all of Iran’s nuclear facilities would go a long way to dispel those fears, and now we are faced with a situation where Iran can effectively diffuse the situation by cooperating with the International community - but you and those that control your policies are stubborn, refuse to halt uranium enrichment for a period long enough to successfully negotiate and build the trust we need to end this stalemate and enter a period of progress and understanding.

I’m not a diplomat and lack the ability to speak in guarded political terms, so from here forward I’ll just be blunt, speak my mind as an American citizen, which I am entitled to do - and I’ll do my best to communicate how you can help to end this stalemate, gain the trust of the International community, and how you can affect politics in the United States in a positive manner by acting responsibly and working with us to regain stability in the Middle-East as a whole and again bring Iran into the modern world, at least as much as your restrictive society will allow.

We know you follow American politics very carefully, and I have suspicions that many of your actions are based on a perceived belief that our President, George W. Bush, will not instigate an attack on Iran. Those “suspicions” could be true, however, if millions of Americans themselves also don’t trust Bush and Cheney - that should be a wake-up call to your country that a real danger exists - and as the President of Iran, in my humble opinion, rather than risk the lives of people who voted you into office because of a sense of national pride, wouldn’t it be wise to consider negotiating with a true spirit of diffusing the crisis?

As you know, there is now an impeachment measure in Committee to impeach Vice-President Dick Cheney, and if that measure succeeds, you can believe that Bush will be next. If you are a true leader, value the lives of your countrymen as well as the stability of the Middle-East - then what have you to lose to stop the nuclear enrichment program as we in America work to expel the warmongers from the White House and return our country to sanity, the Rule of Law, and halt the aggression of the Bush administration? Is your pride worth starting a war when it could be stopped by prudent action designed to allow negotiations to proceed in good faith? Are you a leader of the people, or a President that resembles our own, intent on furthering his own twisted agenda rather than one that would lead to peace and stability?

When two bullies square off to fight in a battle that everyone loses in the long run, who is the better man - one that decides to make the other look small by complying with United Nation mandates - or allowing the other bully to let your pride possibly cause the destruction of your entire society? Consider this; if Iran’s nuclear program is indeed peaceful as you state, then make a statement to the world, cease nuclear enrichment temporarily until the IAEE has definite proof that your plans are peaceful - and in the final analysis, if you’re telling the truth, who will emerge as the better leader, you who swallowed his pride and complied with the United Nations, or Mr. Bush and Cheney - who are looking for any excuse they can to start a war with your country? If the IAEE eventually does state unequivocally that Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, the blow you will deal to a President that has the lowest poll rating in US history will also have to bear the brunt of explaining why he lied again, and only you can make that happen by deescalating the crisis.

It takes two to tango, and while my father is no longer with us, he always stated the better man was the one that walked away from a fight. Which will you be, the better man, or will you continue to defy UN mandates and give Israel or Bush and Cheney an excuse to start World War III - and if you believe that any of us would survive that event, then you too have failed your people, just as Bush and Cheney have failed America and the world in general.

William Cormier

On first glance, if you believe what Bush, Condeleesa Rice, and the America Mainstream News Media are stating regard the situation in Pakistan - you are receiving far less than the picture as a whole. As I stated in a previous article - The United States bears some, if not much of the responsibility of Pakistan’s woes that are currently handled via a state of emergency and martial law as declared by President Pervez Musharraf. (IMHO) Whether or not the call to suspend Pakistan’s Constitution and declare Martial law was to circumvent a probable ruling by Pakistan’s Supreme Court in reference to President Pervez Musharraf’s eligibility to retain the Presidency remains to be seen, as there are many variables not being reported by America’s MSM. In a prior aricle, I made note of this, which is also somewhat substantiated in the link that accompanies the post:

We as a nation are watching the country of Pakistan, a primary ally of the United States, in a state of emergency and now under martial law. This, in my opinion, is a condition that the United States, through thoughtful deployment of our armed forces could have helped to avoid - yet when we had the chance to completely decimate the Taliban and Al Qaeda, your Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, answering to you and Vice-President Dick Cheney - allowed both of the above terrorist entities to escape from Tora Bora by allowing the Afghanistan Military, as ill-trained as they were, to conduct the final mop-up of the remaining insurgents in Afghanistan and the Central Commands refusal to commit the necessary troops to finalize the destruction of Taliban and Al Qaeda elements, which allowed many of them to escape into the northern tribal areas of Pakistan and again become a threat to US interests, Pakistan itself, and now the fight in Afghanistan is almost as fierce as it was when we first began. LINK (Make sure and follow the link in regard Tora Bora to see Wikopedia’s definition/assessment of the Battle of Tora Bora.)

To understand the situation as a whole, we must first understand the dynamics that are involved in Pakistan’s internal politics, their past, and apparently - President Musharraf’s belief that he could play both ends against the middle and come out unscathed. The Bush’s administration allowing Taliban and Al Qaeda elements to escape into Pakistan and to create a stronghold in the northern tribal areas complicated the situation - but even before that, the relationship between Islamic extremists, Pakistan’s view on Afghanistan and the ongoing lawlessness in the northern tribal areas is a story itself, and the complexities of Pakistan’s internal politics are extremely complicated and not necessarily common-knowledge as we attempt to evaluate the situation. I found an article written in April of 2007 that is extremely insightful into the dynamics of Pakistan, and while it’s a fairly comprehensive situation, and the story is lengthy, and because of copyright restrictions I am unable to republish more than three paragraphs - however, if you truly want to understand how complex this situation is, a full read of the original piece is a must; it was written by Ziauddin Sardar, and his credentials are impressive:

Ziauddin Sardar, writer and broadcaster, describes himself as a ‘critical polymath’. He is the author of over 40 books, including the highly acclaimed ‘Desperately Seeking Paradise’. He is Visiting Professor, School of Arts, the City University, London and editor of ‘Futures’, the monthly journal of planning, policy and futures studies. LINK

FYI, this is only one opinion of many that exist, but this one is substantiated with links, extremely comprehensive, and paints a picture we as Americans have never fully understood and been apprised of in anything that was widely disseminated:

Pakistan: The Taliban takeover

Ziauddin Sardar

Published 30 April 2007 (Excerpts.)

Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. For more than two months, the capital, Islamabad, has been held hostage by a group of burqa-clad women, armed with sticks and shouting: “Al-jihad, al-jihad.” These female students belong to two madrasas attached to the Lal Masjid, a large mosque near one of the city’s main supermarkets. I found the atmosphere around the masjid tense, with heavily armed police surrounding the building. Though the students were allowed to go in and out freely, no one else could enter the mosque. The women are demanding the imposition of sharia law and the instant abolition of all “dens of vice”. Away from the masjid, Islamabad looked like a city under siege.

A new generation of militants is emerging in Pakistan. Although they are generally referred to as “Taliban”, they are a recent phenomenon. The original Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan briefly during the 1990s, were Afghan fighters, a product of the Soviet invasion of their country. They were created and moulded by the Pakistani army, with the active support of the United States and Saudi money, and the deliberate use of madrasas to prop up religious leaders. Many Taliban leaders were educated at Haqqania by Maulana Sami ul-Haq. The new generation of militants are all Pakistani; they emerged after the US invasion of Afghanistan and represent a revolt against the government’s support for the US. Mostly unemployed, not all of them are madrasa-educated. They are led by young mullahs who, unlike the original Taliban, are technology- and media-savvy, and are also influenced by various indigenous tribal nationalisms, honouring the tribal codes that govern social life in Pakistan’s rural areas. “They are Taliban in the sense that they share the same ideology as the Taliban in Afghanistan,” says Rahimullah Yusufzai, Peshawar-based columnist on the News. “But they are totally Pakistani, with a better understanding of how the world works.” Their jihad is aimed not just at “infidels occupying Afghanistan”, but also the “infidels” who are ruling and running Pakistan and maintaining the secular values of Pakistani society. “They aim at nothing less than to cleanse Pakistan and turn it into a pure Islamic state,” says Rashed Rahman, executive editor of the Lahore-based Post newspaper.

The Pakistani Taliban now dominate the northern province of Waziristan, adjacent to Afghan istan. “They are de facto rulers of the province,” says Yusufzai. Waziristan is a tribal area that has historically been ruled by the tribes themselves. Pakistan has followed the policy of British Raj in the region. The British allowed tribal leaders, known as maliks, semi-autonomous powers in exchange for loyalty to the crown. Pakistan gives them the same power but demands loyalty to the federal government. They have been sidelined by the Taliban, however. Pro-government maliks who resisted the onslaught of the Taliban have been brutally killed and had their bodies hung from poles as a lesson to others. The Taliban have declared Waziristan an “Islamic emirate” and are trying to establish a parallel administration, complete with sharia courts and tax system. MUCH MORE

The above article is extremely enlightening in regard the real situation as it is now - but keep in mind this reference material was published in April 2007 and the situation is even more fluid, and much more of the population has become radicalized. CNN appears to be attempting to over-simplify the matter, as indicated in this recent story:

Pakistan crisis: ‘It ain’t easy’ for U.S.

* U.S. official: “We are looking at our options, and none of them are good”
* Washington weighs how to respond to Gen. Pervez Musharraf
* U.S. officials say any response will boil down to one thing: al Qaeda

By Elise Labott
CNN

Editor’s note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents and producers share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events. Here, producer Elise Labott, who covers the State Department, offers insights into U.S. options in dealing with Pakistan.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (CNN) — Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of martial law was a wake-up call for Washington, leaving the future alliance with the Pakistani president in question.

Even before Saturday’s crackdown, U.S. State Department officials said they had struggled with what to do if Musharraf went through with his threat. They didn’t know then, and they don’t know now.

“Frankly, it ain’t easy,” one official said. “We are looking at our options, and none of them are good.” MUCH MORE

CNN’s article indicates we will do little if not anything in regard sanctions against Pakistan, and they are simply too important as an ally right now, and their involvement and proximity in regard Afghanistan is of the utmost concern in this crisis. However, I am hearing more and more that the US is demanding that Pakistan return to civilian rule almost immediately - but on close examination of the facts this recommendation will be debated and talked abort in the back rooms of many governments for a long while. There’s no doubt it is politically correct to condemn Musharraf’s draconian measures to quell the violence and/or his attempt to thwart an upcoming ruling my Pakistan’s Supreme Court, but in this matter it may be possible they are being politically correct rather than delving into the reality of the situation. We always seem to believe that the American style of democracy is applicable in almost every situation, although at this time it could be counter-productive in actually solving Pakistan’s unique security crisis.

Worldthreats.com offers a further analysis of Al Qaeda, their influence in Pakistan and some of the obstacles in cutting-of their financing as well as offering even more insight into the Pakistani situation (excerpts):

Al-Qaeda’s Revenge:
Its Methods and Nation-State Allies

By David N. Bossie & Christopher M. Gray

Al-Qaeda’s finances are almost impossible to identify by Western governments for two cultural reasons: 1) bin Laden uses Islamic banks that are not allowed to charge interest; and 2) the havala system of doing business in the Middle East. The Koran prohibits usury, or the charging of interest for lending money. Bin Laden thus refuses to deposit any of Al-Qaeda’s money in 99.9 percent of the world’s banks. President Bush’s September 2001 decision to freeze bin Laden’s financial assets thus will probably have limited success just as former President Bill Clinton’s effort to do likewise in August 1998 did. Bin Laden employs couriers carrying large sums by hand to further complicate any attempt to destroy Al-Qaeda’s finances. But havala, the traditional system of doing business in the Middle East, especially by Afghans engaged in the narcotics trade, most frustrates the financial war. As Al-Qaeda expert Peter Bergen puts it, ?[monies] arrive [to bin Laden] through the venerable havala system of interlocking money changers, which has operated through decades all over the Middle East and Asia, handling sums large and small, on a handshake and trust. Hundreds of millions of dollars are transferred through this system every year and the funds are essentially untraceable.” 2

Al-Qaeda’s untraceable finances make it extremely powerful in poverty-stricken Afghanistan, and its neighbor, Pakistan. Plenty of young manpower from all over the Muslim world is willing and available to work for and learn from this terror network. After the U.S. and Saudi Arabia pumped $6 billion in military aid to the mujahedeen during the 1980’s, weapons and explosives became plentiful and cheap. The ruling Taliban regime in Afghanistan venerated bin Laden for his heroism in the Soviet-Afghan war and his unyielding Wahhabist Muslim stance. They welcome his continued residence in Afghanistan. So Al-Qaeda took advantage of Afghan circumstances to finance and administer the world’s largest collection of terrorist training camps at bargain prices.

Abdullah Azzam, bin Laden’s mentor, inspired many Al-Qaeda volunteers with his fiery preaching. Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda aides emulate him by persuading Muslim preachers around the world to help with recruiting. The many thousands of ?Afghan Arabs” who he trained and fought with against the Soviets in Afghanistan still take their lead from Al-Qaeda. The network recruits terrorists in over sixty different countries; from immigrant communities in the United States and Western Europe across the world to Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The recent capture of three Taliban warriors who claim American citizenship underline how effective Al-Qaeda’s recruiting is. Its agents seek new human talent in all six inhabited continents. Even far-off South America and Australia now host Al-Qaeda members and enablers. MUCH MORE

From what I’ve been able to gather, some of it posted above, the country of Pakistan is well on its way to fall into the hands of Islamic militants. They are well-organized, and I’m also curious why the Untied States would back an attempt to reaching a power-sharing deal with past President Bhutto. If memory serves me correctly, Musharraf’s coup was made popular by the public’s general disapproval of many of Bhutto’s policies and rampant corruption within her government. I seem to remember that the coup was extremely well-received by the people, who had grown weary of the continual controversy and corruption springing from Bhutto’s administration. Butto is still highly popular again in some areas, and that may spring from Musharraf’s growing unpopularity, however much of that unpopularity is fomented by the radical elements of Islam currently attempting to take-over the country.

Think about restoring democracy when the government is in danger of falling into the hands of radical Islam? I’ve presented myself with this question, and in consideration of Pakistan’s formidable nuclear arsenal, have opted to error on the side of caution. My opinion is based on many factors. US strategic failure and planning allowed thousands of Taliban and Al Qaeda to escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan, and true to form, they began pushing their religious agenda - murdering those who disagreed, and began to embed themselves in the poorer segments of Pakistani society. No matter how we sugarcoat the issue, elements of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are firmly embedded within Pakistan at several levels and are physically attempting to take-over the government.

What will restoring democracy too soon and allowing this fall into radial Islam to accomplish itself the long-run? If radical elements of Islam were that firmly embedded in our own country, would we find it necessary to root-all of them out - perhaps negotiate a truce with the peaceful elements of Islam who probably wouldn’t become involved anyway - and at all costs, would have to rid ourselves of any radicalization that was threatening the very fabric of the country. It becomes far more complicated if you attempt to place yourself in Musharraf’s shoes and his many backers. Pakistani society as a whole does not want to live under Sharia Law, and in fact are fighting for the very survival of their nation. Another matter we must understand that Bhutto is a woman, and radical Islam will never support her in a state of rule in any way because she is a woman. We are now dealing with huge factions of radical Islam, and if successful will alter Pakistani society and quickly move them backward into the age of Morality Police and the total collapse of progressive Pakistanis. At least partly because of Bush’s ill thought-out actions we face the possibility of losing a vital ally as well as a society that was moving progressively forward, notwithstanding the influence of Taliban and Al Qaeda elements.

I have noted that several Liberals and Progressives have also stated their support of an immediate return to democracy. Many of those beliefs are understandable because they are inherent in the American psyche and our belief of a free society. I’m sure many will disagree with me, and in fact, on the matter of Pakistan’s unlawful tribal territories, especially those that contain the terrorist training camps and we know are Taliban and Al Qaeda controlled/infested, I do support our own military answering a request from President Musharraf if we need to assist in the northern tribal areas - but would wholeheartedly not support any other military action unless it involved guarding and helping to secure Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal if necessary.

Granted, Musharraf himself shoulders a large percentage of the blame himself by attempting to appease and negotiate with the Taliban/Al Qaeda. I have always believed those actions were counterproductive to American interests, and now it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt, but one fact we’ll have to remember and keep in constant consideration; No matter what the situation is in Pakistan, and whether we agree with Musharraf’s methodology in attempting to address the situation is that nuclear arsenal - and that makes Pakistan a much greater threat to the Middle-East peace and stability than Iran and caution, rather than rhetoric should be behind our policy in Pakistan at this particular moment.

I personally abhor detaining people that were merely demonstrating, but as far as allowing Musharraf the chance at fighting and possibly wining against the more militant elements of Radical Islam, I believe we should support him to the best of our ability - and then when the smoke settles, it will be time to work on getting those protesters released and at that time, a return to Pakistan’s road to democracy should be restored.

William Cormier

Note: I do expect this to be a controversial Op-Ed, however, discussing it could possibly demonstrate the errors in my thoughts, or in the alternative – maybe out of the census of opinion something will arise that better serves the interests of Pakistan as well as our own, but please – keep one thing in mind; Iraq is a blaring indicator that our style of democracy, especially in a crisis – is not necessarily the way to proceed in countries that have cultures and dynamics that hardly resemble our own; and in this case, the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan has to be a tantamount concern to all of us, and a situation that may be effective here could prove to be disastrous there.

This, from a Telegraph (UK) interview with top Giuliani foreign policy adviser and Iran-bombing advocate Norman Podhoretz (who "briefs [Rudy] daily"), strikes me as an ill-advised f'ing insane way to run campaign discussions on the biggest question facing American foreign policy--whether to bomb Iran:

"Does Rudy agree with me?" Mr Podhoretz asked rhetorically. "I don’t know and I don’t wish to know." But he added that "Rudy’s view of the war is very similar to mine."

There have been some on the far-left who have stated the War on Terror isn’t “real.” I beg to disagree; we cannot allow our genuine dislike of this President to influence our thought process to the extent that we believe everything that comes out his mouth is a lie! Most of his public appearances are political in nature, and we all know that the truth is heard less often from Bush than any public official I’m currently aware of - but it’s possible Cheney is in a dead-heat in the believability scales;  so as we search through Bush’s rhetoric, it’s important to understand that some statements, albeit over-exemplified and blown out of proportion - are somewhat truthful, and those rare occurrences deserve our attention.

I believe the threat of Radial Islam is real, and if it isn’t addressed on a worldwide scale, and treated as the police and intelligence operation it should be, the growth of Radical Islam will increase and threaten the world at large. No country is invulnerable to this threat, including the United States itself. President Pervez Musharraf made the mistake of attempting to appease the lawless tribal regions and Al Qaeda, thinking that radicalism is somehow synonymous to logic and reason; they are not, and that flawed logic has turned once-peaceful Pakistan into a hot-bed of Islamic discontent:

Al Qaeda to declare war on Musharraf

* Declaration against Pakistan’s president imminent, group says
* Bin Laden to denounce Musharraf for cooperating with U.S.
* Al-Zawahiri tape says U.S. being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq
* Bin Laden deputy also calls for jihad against France, Spain

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) – Osama bin Laden will release a new message soon declaring war on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, al Qaeda announced Thursday.

The announcement of the upcoming message came as al Qaeda released a new video in which bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, boasted that the United States was being defeated in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places.

Officials in Pakistan confirmed Thursday that Musharraf, who also is Pakistan’s military chief, would seek a second five-year term as president.

Speakers in the video promised more fighting in Afghanistan, North Africa and Sudan’s Darfur region. MUCH MORE

In every nation that has allowed Radical Islam to gain even a small foot-hold, they (the radicals) have tried to create their own areas of governance which is almost always in direct contradiction to the current rule of law for that nation. Their tactics are always one of murder, intimidation, and the regression of any semblance of dignity and respect for the associated female population(s). Radical Islam has been a blight on the world, and to curb it’s affect on our societies, a worldwide consortium of nations will be required to fight Radical Islam - and creating a training-ground and inspiration for millions more to join Radical Islam is our Iraq War in a nut-shell, which has done more to aid the cause of Radicals throughout the world and has also harmed our own national security.

Pakistan is a prime example of a failed U.S foreign policy. We refused to strike-out against the Taliban in the northern tribal area of Pakistan out of respect to President Musharraf and his failed efforts to quell radicalism in his own country; now, a recent poll has indicated that Osama Bin Laden is more popular than President Musharraf - and that is sobering news!

Bin Laden more popular than Musharraf in Pakistan: poll

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden is more popular in Pakistan than President Pervez Musharraf, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Nearly three-quarters of Pakistanis also oppose unilateral US military action against Islamic insurgents in Pakistan’s tribal areas, said the poll for Terror Free Tomorrow, a US-based organization.

The survey “may help explain why Osama bin Laden remains at large in Pakistan and why both al-Qaeda and the Taleban have regrouped there”, the group said in a statement. MORE

It doesn’t seem to be getting better, and now the U.S., one of Pakistan’s chief allies, has sided in some measure against President
Musharraf:

Pakistan crackdown: ’scores’ held

* ‘Hundreds’ of activists arrested after police take leaders into preventive custody
* Supreme Court dismisses 2 out of 7 petitions against Musharraf’s re-election bid
* Musharraf will seek new five-year term in presidential election set for October 6
* Pakistan’s legal fraternity named first candidate to challenge Musharraf

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — Police intensified a crackdown Monday that opposition parties say has left hundreds of activists in custody while the Supreme Court dismissed three challenges to the re-election bid of Pakistan’s military leader.

The U.S. Embassy called the crackdown “extremely disturbing” and urged the immediate release of several opposition leaders arrested since Saturday night. The government said they were detained to derail possible unrest.

The criticism was unusually sharp, considering Washington has been one of the biggest supporters of President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key ally in the U.S. war on terrorism.

“The reports of arrests of the leadership of several major Pakistani political parties are extremely disturbing and confusing for the friends of Pakistan,” an embassy statement said. “We wish to express our serious concern about these developments. These detainees should be released as soon as possible.” MORE

On June 5th, 2003, in a speech to the Troops in Qatar, the President stated:

We have made it clear that we’ll hunt the terrorists down. There’s no place they can hide from the justice of the United States of America and our friends. And right now we’ve got — we’re on the hunt in the Horn of Africa. And of course, in the battle of Iraq, you set an example of skill and daring that will stand for all time. (Applause.) The very first strike in the liberation of Iraq started from right here, and many others followed. Missions of mercy are directed from here. LINK

Fast-forward to September 25, 2007 - and let this U.S. Intelligence Report sink-in to fully understand the folly and incompetence Bush and Cheney have demonstrated in prosecuting “the War on Terror.”

U.S. Intelligence Report to Say Al-Qaida Regroups

by Linda Wertheimer and Mary Louise Kelly

Morning Edition, July 17, 2007 • The National Intelligence Estimate, a survey of threats to the U.S. compiled from intelligence gathered by CIA, FBI, State Department and military intelligence agencies, is expected to report a persistent and evolving terrorist threat to the U.S. in the next three years from al-Qaeda. LINK

That’s right, in the final analysis, IF the United States would have stuck with President Bush’s policy of not allowing terrorists safe-haven no matter where they were, we would have followed and finished-off the leadership of Al Qaeda, The Taliban, and the lawless tribes of northern Pakistan would have been unable to destabilize the government of President Musharraf.

Look at this issue in perspective; The US is reported to have attack plans in place to bomb Iran at a moments notice; LINK Bombing Iran is a guarantee that President Musharraf’s government will dissolve almost as fast as President Bush’s ratings have, and then we are faced with a country controlled by Radical Islam that would possess NUCLEAR WEAPONS!

Did I miss something here? I thought attacking Iran would be to guarantee that they couldn’t destabilize the Middle-East by possessing Nuclear Weapons, yet the mere action of attacking Iran guarantees that the Middle-East will fall into a crisis of unimaginable depth as radicals in Pakistan decide the best use for their nuclear arsenal. Am I speaking nonsense? I think not, especially as you have read above that Pakistan is in dire circumstances, and stands as a model of a government that attempted to co-exist with Radical Islam, and is now paying the price for their naïveté…

Can Pakistan be saved? I don’t know, but as far as the stability of the Middle-East is concerned, and decapitating Al Qaeda and the Taliban as we should have years ago - I believe it’s worth a try. President Bush failed the American people when he allowed Al Qaeda to regroup, and the situation in Iraq is stark evidence of that allegation. Iraq is a war based on greed, power, and oil. If we have to be in a war, it should at least benefit mankind - and if we would get off our high-horses and treat our allies as equals, developing an international terrorist strike force with teeth would be easy - especially when the world once again gains respect for the United States. It may be wishful thinking, but Mr. Bush, your options are running out fast, and those left can only hurt our nation. Be “Presidential” for once and make a decision that will help to save a vital ally and deescalate the tension in the Middle-East.

Pakistan has been our friend and ally for decades - and to allow President Musharraf’s government fall to Radical Islam would be a blow to the Middle-East and the free world in general; anyone can make a mistake Mr. President, but it takes a great man to admit and rectify those errors, and right now, those who are in the know are watching you very carefully. You’ve loaded and primed the powder keg - now it’s up to you to make decisions that actually mitigate the threat of Al Qaeda, not give them even more reason to take-out their hatred on the United States and its allies.

William Cormier

The Columbia Spectator has gone all out covering the Iranian president’s talk in Morningside Heights today. Here is their great liveblogging coverage; witty title, too. The amount of national media attention this campus event is getting has gone way overboard. It’s newsworthy to be sure, but, as Juan Cole says (via a must-read Greenwald post), “The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.”

Columbia Dean John Coatsworth ran a discursive Q&A period. During which Ahmadinejad repeats his reprehensible call for “more research” on the Holocaust. He says,

Over the past few days, controversy surrounding Columbia University’s invitation for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak has developed around campus, across the national media, and among the presidential candidates.

According to the Islamic Republic News Agency, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had the following to say about his visit to Columbia University, "The United States is a big and important country with a population of 300 million. Due to certain issues, the American people in the past years have been denied correct and clear information about global developments and are eager to hear different opinions.”  While Americans are not fooled by Ahmadinejad’s attempts to appear moderate and reasoned, it is important for us to listen to what Ahmadinejad has to say and challenge him on both his deceptive rhetoric and his unacceptable actions within Iran.

Relations between the United States and Iran have been rocky to say the least since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran.  Now, Iran’s possible nuclear capabilities have led to talk of war.  The Bush administration has demonstrated a foreign policy based on a lack of diplomacy and preemptive military action.  Rather than engage Iran in negotiations, the current administration insists on threatening military action of Iran doesn’t comply with American demands.  War with Iran amidst military action in Iraq and Afghanistan would exhaust American troops beyond repair, making the United States vulnerable to attack.

During the Cold War, Americans viewed Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev in a similar way as we view Ahmadinejad now.  The same talk of nuclear war went on between the end of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Throughout the conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union were bitterly opposed to each other, but that never stopped the leaders of the two countries from talking.  Diplomacy successfully evaded armed conflict between the world’s two superpowers.

To avoid a catastrophic war with Iran, the American government must act diplomatically with Iran, as it did during the Cold War.  The first step to diplomacy is understanding; our government must understand Ahmadinejad’s point of view to be able to negotiate with his regime.  University President Lee Bollinger has recognized this necessity and has invited Ahmadinejad to campus to share his views with students and faculty and ask the tough questions our government refuses to ask.  Columbia University is engaging Ahmadinejad in a way the Bush administration and other countries should.

Amid the recent comments by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner that the world should prepare for war with Iran if they produce nuclear weapons pervades an uneasy and growing tension between Islamic and non-Islamic governments. Not before the current US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have ceased, now France has begun demonizing Iran and drawing sides in preparation for a war with the nuclear ambitious Islamic state. How can the Western world set about a peaceful, diplomatic engagement with Iran if they constantly pigeon-hole them as the ultimate enemy set on an unalterable course to nuclear war? The answer is they can’t. The second that our rhetoric posits Iran as the newest nuclear enemy bent on their own path to war, any attempt at diplomacy is severely weakened leaving the West with few options short of war.

Without a question, this is another news item that will never be published in the Mainstream News Media, and as usual, RAW Story has published what is by far, the most explicit and damning assessment of President Bush ever published - and I agree completely with his take on the worst President the United States has ever had in office:

Former Reagan aide: ‘Brownshirt’ Bush among top ‘mass murderers of all time’

08/31/2007 @ 9:55 am
Filed by Nick Juliano

President Bush’s apparent plans for a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran will only add to the civilian death toll as a result of US intervention that has placed the president “high on the list of mass murders of all time,” a former aide in President Ronald Reagan’s administration known for strident anti-Bush rhetoric said Friday.

“Bush is too self-righteous to see the dark humor in his denunciations of Iran for threatening ‘the security of nations everywhere’ and of the Iraqi resistance for ‘a vision that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women, and children in the pursuit of political power,’” writes Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary of the Treasury. “Those are precisely the words that most of the world applies to Bush and his Brownshirt administration.”

Roberts, who has emerged as a fierce critic of Bush’s war policies, accused the president of ignoring habeas corpus and the Geneva Conventions, justifying torture and demonizing critics as anti-American.

“Bush … is responsible, according to Information Clearing House, for over one million deaths of Iraqi civilians, which puts Bush high on the list of mass murderers of all time,” Roberts writes in a column published Friday on antiwar.com. “The vast majority of ‘kills’ by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians.” MUCH MORE

Coming from a former Republican aide to Ronald Reagan, I’d say the above assessment of President Bush is damning enough to justify an immediate impeachment of this entire administration - not as a political weapon or for partisan gain, but to fulfill our responsibility as American citizens to at least attempt to save the many lives that now hang in the balance of Bush’s insane quest to attack Iran, as spelled-out further down in the article. One quote caught my attention, and in a nutshell, clearly spell-out the danger that Bush and Cheney pose to the United States and the world as a whole:

“Encouraged by the indifference of both the American media and Christian churches to the massive casualties inflicted on Iraqi civilians, the Bush administration will not be deterred by the prospect of its air attacks inflicting massive casualties on Iranian civilians. … Clearly, turning the Muslim Middle East into a wasteland is the Bush policy,” Roberts writes. “For Bush, civilian casualties are a non-issue. Hegemony uber alles.” (Emphasis added)

If you don’t believe this President is dangerous and poses the greatest national security risk the United States has ever faced, then you haven’t been listening and reading all of the evidence that our complicit Mainstream News Media refuses to publish - and as patriotic Americans, we should all DEMAND that the MSM quit publishing propaganda and “fluff” stories, and for a change, try telling the truth so we can awaken the rest of America and rid ourselves of who the Russians’ call “The Master of Disaster”!

William Cormier

We have all been watching the rhetoric build, beginning in earnest again this May when President Bush authorized new covert actions against Iran “to destabilize the Iranian government.” LINK On July 16th, Dick Cheney warned Iran publicly from the deck of a United States Aircraft Carrier stationed close to Iran that:

“With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike,” he said, according to remarks given to reporters. “We’ll keep the sea lanes open. We’ll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. We’ll disrupt attacks on our own forces. We’ll continue bringing relief to those who suffer, and delivering justice to the enemies of freedom. And we’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.” MORE

So far this year, President Bush has leveled several charges against Iran, most of them centered around allegations that Iran is providing Iraqis training in special QUDS Force training camps in Iranian territory, and stating they would “face the consequences” for “providing EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs, that kill Americans in Iraq.” So far, none of us are aware of what those “consequences” are - but with the MSM now actively ratcheting-up the visibility and rhetoric of a potential attack on Iran, the situation seems eerily similar to those days right before we attacked Iraq.

Fears of US attacks on Iran grow as media campaign heats up

Muriel Kane
Published: Friday August 10, 2007

Cheney continues to urge Iran strike

At a press conference on Thursday, President Bush delivered an apparent threat against Iran, stating, “One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs, that kill Americans in Iraq.”

Neither Bush nor the State Department would elaborate on the meaning of “consequences.” However, McClatchy Newspapers reports that “the president’s top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran’s support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy.”

The Guardian reported in July that Cheney has been continuing to press for military action against Iran. When Larry King asked Cheney in an interview on July 31, “”Would you make an overt move on Iran?” Cheney said with a grin, “For what reason?” He then added, “I’m not going to speculate about prospective operations.”

Media campaign against Iran accelerates

For example, in Wednesday’s New York Times, Michael Gordon reported that “attacks on American-led forces using a lethal type of roadside bomb said to be supplied by Iran reached a new high in July, according to the American military. … Such bombs, which fire a semi-molten copper slug that can penetrate the armor on a Humvee and are among the deadliest weapons used against American forces, are used almost exclusively by Shiite militants. American intelligence officials have presented evidence that the weapons come from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran, although Tehran has repeatedly denied providing lethal assistance to Iraqi groups.” MORE

Most of the Progressive and Liberal pundits have joined-in these last few weeks condemning Bush’s Iranian War Plans - and the belief that he will use the subsequent terror attacks against the continental United States in retaliation to an attack on Iran to declare Marital Law and “temporarily” disband Congress and the 2008 Presidential elections. All of his recent “Executive Orders,” some so secret that a Democratic member of the House Homeland Security Committee was denied access to Bush’s “Disaster Plan” LINK which supposedly was formed as a plan of action in case of a serious terrorist attack or a natural disaster of a magnitude that equals or is greater than that of New Orleans and Katrina. When a “Disaster Plan” is so secretive that Bush won’t even allow Democratic Member(s) of Congress and The Homeland Security Committee to view its contents - I’m quite comfortable speculating that it’s something that will have to be forced upon the people - and my gut tells me those FEMA ordered/Halliburton built “Internment Camps” won’t remain empty for too much longer…

What the White House is planning still evades most of us as far as the intricate details and when it will happen, but there are “signs” that must be addressed and melded into the larger view - as all of the smaller and seemingly insignificant details add-up to the whole, and it’s important to understand the possible significance of other seemingly unrelated incidents and why they contribute to - and may even hasten an attack against Iran.

The significance of the state of crisis in Pakistan has been woefully underplayed in the MSM; President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is desperately attempting to retain his hold on power and was close to declaring a “State of Emergency” - and missed an important meeting with President Karzai to attempt to iron-out a chilly alliance and discuss ways to stop the cross-border attacks of the Taliban and Al Queda against NATO and Afghanistan forces. LINK To miss a meeting this important speaks of intense pressures and an extremely fluid situation within Pakistan - and somehow Condi Rice was able to help in convincing President Musharraf hold-off on declaring a “State of Emergency.” Who knows exactly what was said, but it had to be significant - especially when you consider this latest breaking tidbit that add even more mystery as to why Musharraf held-off on declaring a State of Emergency - which would have given him some much needed time to attempt a reorganization or other means to re-solidify his power:

Sources: U.S. assessing Pakistan nukes if Musharraf falls

From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) — U.S. military intelligence officials are urgently assessing how secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons would be in the event President Gen. Pervez Musharraf were replaced as the nation’s leader, CNN has learned.

Key questions in the assessment include who would control Pakistan’s nuclear weapons after a shift in power. The United States is pressuring Musharraf, who took control in a 1999 coup, not to declare a state of emergency as he faces growing political opposition.

Three U.S. sources have independently confirmed details of the intelligence review to CNN but would not allow their names to be used because of the sensitivity of the matter. MORE

The above story from CNN indicates the United States is gravely worried about the stability of the Pakistan government - even though the President himself and other are still making reckless remarks in regard Pakistan - and are fanning the flames rather than attempting to deescalate the situation. For more on how President Bush, presidential hopefuls, and a GOP Senator(s) have added to Mr. Musharraf’s troubles, read Pakistan is in Crisis – And the Dems Aren’t Helping! - and don’t forget to wonder why our diplomatic skills seem to have disappeared along with our civil rights, national wealth, and an economy and populace that falls deeper in despair every day! Wall Street’s getting a little nervous, as now it isn’t just the Middle-class that’s losing, but some of our most prized funds and portfolios are taking a dive as well - and that impacts even the wealthy of America!

I am one of the few Progressive/Liberal Bloggers that believes Iran is truly a danger to national security, which I’ll write about later - however, even though I’m more hawkish on Iran than most of those I choose to associate myself with - I’d rather see Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse plan and execute an attack on Iran and the subsequent can-of-worms that will immediately open once the first bomb drops… This administration hasn’t accomplished one damn thing of a positive nature, and when it comes to escalating tensions and fumbling through foreign policy as if though it were a Frat House joke, Bush and Cheney have brought the world closer to nuclear confrontation than ever before - and it gets progressively worse!

The White House is voicing alarm that China has been aggressively building-up their armed forces, land, air, nuclear, and sea - and now are beginning to challenge America’s role in the Far-east. Bush’s folly was to allow America’s corporations to outsource most of our manufacturing capability to China and other third-world countries - including but not limited to some of our essential military weapons and hardware. Greed has caused the Bush White House to brush away signs of an aggressive China emerging, too servile to corporate America, who are making a fortune while the Average American falls deeper into a financial pit with no end in sight, much the same as our mounting national debt. As always, profit and power have been the guiding force of this administration rather than the security and well-being of the people.

Wasn’t it just two days ago that Russia buzzed Guam with two Tupolev-95 warplanes? These are the nuclear workhorses of the Russian military - comparable to our Strategic Air Command. Russian bombers buzz US base in Guam Russia has also restarted and increased flying training sorties, obviously enhancing their military training and sending a message that once again - Russia is a force we dare not ignore!

As Bush and Cheney are greedily eying Iran and hoping for an excuse to begin their war, how much thought has been placed on Russia and China’s reaction - especially in consideration of the long-term energy contracts they’ve signed with Iran, and in Russia’s case - the added significance and construction of a Nuclear Power Plant in Iran by Russian workers?

Think about it, because as usual, the Bush/Cheney team of incompetent’s obviously haven’t, and their ineptitude and penchant for screwing-up everything they touch couldn’t be more visible or important as it pertains to the future of our country than it is today! Don’t forget wild card Israel - sitting in the background and preparing for a war with Syria, which would be almost a sure thing if the US attacks Iran. Olmert: Prepare for war with Syria Who knows, it may be Israel that makes the first strike against Iran, but more likely is that America knows that Israel is preparing for a strike - and might be readying their own, figuring a unilateral strike by Israel would pull the entire Middle-East into the conflict.

These are the factors that Bush and Cheney are attempting to deal with. We have all seen what they’ve done with a situation that was far less apt to escalate into a major international confrontation, and we’re still burying our dead from that war. If you let them start another war based on their current level of success - I’d suggest stocking-up on all of the essentials and preparing your family for the worst. Iran isn’t Iraq - and the world is angry with America, compliments of the Bush administration. Don’t you think it’s time to get these idiots out of office while we still can?

Call your Congressmen, and do anything else you can to raise heck. The life you save could be your own, or that of your family.

William Cormier

When it comes to ascertaining who’s on top in the power-struggle between the Republicans and the Democrats in Washington, or to put it more broadly, conservatives and liberals in government, the U.S. has a relatively transparent system.  From seeing whether or XYZ legislation has passed and who is (and isn’t) being hauled into questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the public and the media can get a realistic grasp of which party is having a better time pushing its agenda. 

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

Lieberman’s claim is that Iran is a national security threat to the United States and to Israel. But the Orthodox Jewish Senator does not seem to speak for all people of faith when it comes to advocacy regarding this potential new war.

CodePINK, an anti war group of feminists, attempted to bring a delegation of Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, and Jewish activists who oppose the war in Iran to a meeting with Senator Lieberman. The Senator originally agreed to the meeting but backed out at the last minute. CodePINK did not, they showed up at the Hart Senate Office Building with at least 100 people ready to meet with the Senator – the antiwar group was met with a particularly hostile staff member who asked the police to ensure that all the activists leave the office. In compromise, the Senator’s staffer agreed to meet with three of the activists if everyone else would leave the office.

Here is what some of the activists had to say:

Kit Kimberly, a spiritual progressive, told me that “Without peace, spiritual people cannot be spiritual.” Similarly, Unitarian Universalist lay leader, Carol Waser, recently returned from Iran on an interfaith delegation sponsored by the Fellowship of Reconciliation. She went to Iran after feeling like Iraq was becoming more and more of a lost cause – but that stopping war in Iran before it starts is a feasible plan. She told me that it was her faith that drives her to strongly oppose Senator Lieberman’s call to bomb Iran.

Many people of faith oppose Senator Lieberman’s plan. The American Friends Service Committee, The Episcopal Church USA, National Council of Churches, Pax Christi USA, the Methodist Church, The Friends Committee on National Legislation, and the Mennonite Central Committee have been actively involved in pushing for dialogue on Iran.  Additionally, the Reconstructionist Rabbincal Association (the rabbinic arm of the Reconstructionist Jewish Movement) stated in a resolution in March of 2007 that “a military strike against Iran would only result in another military, political and humanitarian crisis and would further strengthen Ahmadinejad’s regime and radical elements within Iranian society.” The RRA is the largest Jewish group to officially oppose US military action in Iran.

There are other practical reasons to avoid a war in Iran. Martha Perez, a political science student at American University explained that already with a War in Iraq, many students are struggling financially as they have seen federal financial aid dwindle. Undoubtedly, the military costs should the US invade Iran would economically hurt America’s students even more.

The general call to action at Senator Lieberman’s office was to stop the next war now. Iranian activist Dorna Mohaghegh, "the real question is not if Iran with a bomb is a threat – Iranians don’t want Ahmadinejad with a bomb, as it would be Iranians, not Americans who would be hurt most. The real question to ask is what the result of the US going to War with Iran will be. Will it simply get rid of their President, or will it provide an impetus for Iranians to rally around their unpopular President in self defense?"

Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?

We've known for some time that John Derbyshire is among the stupidest of the stupid over at National Review Online.  Until now, I thought that his sadistic desire to witness suffering in his fellow humans was restricted to brown people.

Turns out, he thinks the hostage crisis in Iran would have been a little more worthwhile with some flagrant brutality inflicted against his fellow Brits:

Once again, it's me and Ralph Peters on the same wavelength, deploring the cowardice of the British sailors and marines kidnapped by Iran. When it happened, I said I hoped the ones who'd shamed their country would be court-martialed on return to Blighty, and given dishonorable discharges after a couple years breaking rocks in the Outer Hebrides (which, believe me—I've been there—have a LOT of rocks). Now, I confess, I wouldn't shed a tear if some worse fate befell them.

The only coherent response I get to these sentiments is: "How do you know what they've been through? How would YOU stand up?" To which the obvious reply is the one Dr. Johnson gave in some similar case: "I may criticize a carpenter who makes me a bad table, though I cannot make a table myself. It is not my job to make tables."

...I nurse a quiet hope that if put to the test, I would stand up as well as any Marine. Whether or not I would, however, is irrelevant. Whether or not I could stand up well to torture, I expect Marines to.

And in any case, there was no evidence of torture or mistreatment in any of the filmed cases I have seen. They look just fine. You can't fake that. The girl sailor had that headscarf on within hours. From what I've heard of torture, even weaker cases can hold out for a few days.

As for the argument that these people might have buckled under threats to hurt their comrades, I should think a soldier's answer would be: "They are soldiers, same as me. They know the risks of service, and they'll answer for themselves."

...

It should be assumed that everything the Iranians say is a lie. If they say: "Do this, and we won't harm your mates," and you do it, they will harm your mates anyway. Of course, this kind of truth is much harder to get across to young people who have been brainwashed from elementary school to believe that their own culture is corrupt, evil, and false, while the cultures of Third World barbarians are morally superior...

Ignoring Derbyshire's completely moronic beliefs on withstanding torture (didn't Khalid Sheikh Mohammed earn respect from interrogators for lasting a little over two minutes during waterboarding?), how should this petulant rant from a career chickenhawk be described by a reasonable observer? He's clearly wishing harm would befall his former countrymen (Derbyshire loved England so much he emigrated to the US and took American citizenship) who have only today been released from captivity. He seems to think that they didn't earn their release, sort of like you don't earn being a year older until someone gives you your birthday spankings (with one to grow on!).

And we've known for some time that Derbyshire doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground where torture is concerned.

But maybe Derbyshire has a point. He never served his country in uniform, he doesn't put his life on the line to protect the homeland, he knows nothing of combat or captivity, and he's so completely full of shit his high school nickname was "The Walking Lower Intestine," but I'm sure that if he were to be captured and imprisoned by a less-than-friendly power, brave and noble as he is, he'd make them shove red-hot pokers up his arse, wedge spikes under his fingernails, and kill all of his companions before he'd dishonor Mother England by wearing a headscarf.

Is it wrong for me to hope he someday gets the chance to prove himself?

(UPDATE 4/4: The hostages have been released and will be leaving Iran tomorrow.  I'm sure this somehow represents a monumental victory for the right-wingers who were advocating a military solution, and another black eye for dirty peace-lovin' hippies who think diplomacy is still useful.) 

Via Digby, here are Mort's thoughts about the Iranian hostage situation:

Kondracke: I've got to say , Tony Blair is not exactly acting like Margaret Thatcher would act under these circumstances. He's acting like Jimmy Carter would act.