Iran IAEA Nuke Report Today

U.N. nuclear chief Mohamed ElBaradei is set to issue his report to the U.N. Security Council today, and is fully expected to find that "Iran has failed" to meet today's deadline to comply with requests to suspend its uranium enrichment program, setting the stage for a battle in the U.N. Security Council over how to respond to Tehran's failure to comply.

The Security Council will need to consider punitive measures against Iran, with Russia and China so far being "reluctant" to begin sanctions against the Islamic Republic, while other council members such as the U.S. are urging a "strong response" to the expected results of the report.

The diversion that the Bush Administration has been looking for seems to be arriving. Will the U.S. actually allow the U.N. Security Council showdown to go forward, arguing its case for sanctions, or will Bolton and co. "bolt" and let the White House take us down the road of unilateral military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities? Bush has stated he wants all diplomatic options to be exhausted first, but we all know with what truth is being revealed around the invasion of Iraq, that we really cannot take him at his word.

Are we "days away" from bombing as some claim? I don't think so. I think we're weeks away, but probably not much more than a month or two from now. Of course, it may all hinge on "justification", such as Iran's response to the report being released today. Their threats of 'reataliation' if sanctions are imposed are probably not to be taken lightly, but all the saber rattling on both sides is quickly poising the world on the bring of a full conflict, potentially including the use of nuclear weapons by the United States, according to the Bush administrations own admissions that "all options are on the table".

Dangerous times are heading our way.

Also, it could be Fitzmas '06. 6 months after Scooter Libby was indicted, the Grand Jury is set to meet today, after Rove's 3+ hours of testimony on Wednesday. Could an indictment be impending? Or, is Rove actually coopearting as some have suggested? Only time will tell. Personally I do not think we'll hear of Rove indictments today. If we do, I'll be surprised (pleasantly).

Iran Nuclear Fitzgerald Sanctions UN Security_Council IAEA Tehran China Russia Scooter Plame Politics

Calling ALL Blogs That I Link To!!!

IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!

I am currently rebuilding the template. In order for me to "clean up" my link index, I need to know if you still want a link from me to you. Requirements: Unless through special arrangement, there MUST be a reciprocal link on your blog! (Some "special arrangements" are just me choosing to link to someone).

The Categories are:

Blog$hares Blogs (reserved for Missions and Corporation Members of Progressive Holdings, Inc.)

Political Blogs (I'm sure you can figure that one out)

"Other" Blogs (you'll be listed under a "worthy blogs" section or a "blogs that link here" or a "Blogs that I Like" category.

This is very important! so I am keeping it at the top for now. If you want a part of the new and improved Truth, the comment.

Also--if you're site is non-blog and you believe it deserves inclusion under my "Links" section (which will be the first link section anyone sees on the newly rebuilt TRUTH), then "plead your case". ;-)

Look forward to hearing from you all... (PS: Political is NOT mutually exlusive to Liberal or Progressive, I plan on including links to conservative blogs as well--which might get there own special category, however the same linking rules will definitely apply!!)

Report says Rove has received Target Letter in Plame Leak Case

It appears that Karl Rove's appearance before the Plame leak investigation grand jury today wasn't "just because". According to a Truthout article, Rove's attorney recently was a recipient of a "target letter" from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, which means that Rove "may face imminent indictment" by the Grand Jury. From the article:

Should Wednesday's court appearance by Rove provide the grand jury with answers to lingering questions, Rove may not be charged with obstruction of justice, but will likely be indicted for perjury and lying to investigators, sources close to the case said.

For one, according to the sources close to the investigation, the likelihood that Rove will be charged with perjury centers on the fact that Rove has testified at least three times that he first discovered that Plame worked for the CIA after her name was printed in a July 2003 newspaper report by conservative columnist Robert Novak. Evidence has since surfaced that shows Rove spoke to Novak about Plame prior to Novak's published report in which Novak outed the undercover CIA officer.

Looks to me like things may be unraveling a bit more for Rove. The biggest question I have is simple...how does this all relate to Bush and Cheney's actions surrounding this case? Will Rove now be fired if indicted? I'm sure it would be a "resignation," but I believe we'll see what kind of fortitude, or lack thereof, this administration posesses.

US Already Operating in Iran?

The story first appeared on Raw Story, a (very) liberal blog/news outlet. Now it appears that The Asian Times has been able to "confirm" that US Combat troops are already operating inside of Iran, and the US has "outsourced" certain aspects of its overall operation to terrorist groups to incite tensions among ethnic minorities against the mullahs of Iran. You can read the whole story here.

Now Newsweek has a short article posted regarding what the neocons want vs. the actual intelligence reports on attempting to create an overthrow of the mullahs in Iran and the current hard-liners in control of the country. I would have to agree with the sentiment that an overthrow of the government simply would not work. Iranians, overall somewhat "sympathetic" to the West, have become far less so with the saber-rattling of the Bush administration, and it truly appears that the US actions are increasing the likelihood of Iran weaponizing its nuclear program instead of simply using it for peaceful purposes. Many in Iran now feel that having nukes would be a sense of "national pride," although I'm betting that many would also feel that the current leaders of their nation should not be the ones with the nukes.

If Bush truly wants a diplomatic solution as he states, why would every action that they've been engaging in tend to bring the Iranians towards confrontation with the West through provocation rather than dropping the threat of a nuclear attack on Iran and ratcheting down the rhetoric to foment peace rather than war? I have to believe that the administration is either unbelievably stupid and thinks the American people are, too, or they have a better idea: they want the war.

I do not believe that the military option should not be dropped from the table, however, under no circumstances should the United States or any other nuclear nation for that matter, should be wielding the actual use of nuclear weapons as an option to end a nuclear program in another nation. And anyone who supports the use should actually do a little background check of what a nuclear attack on Iran would entail, what the "fallout" (literally and figuratively) would be of such an attack, and the response of the world community to our unilateral use (again) of a nuclear weapon (or in this case many weapons).

One point: Fallout from a nuclear strike would effect the following nations (at minimum): Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and possibly parts of China. Now, if we nuke Iran and cause fallout over our troops in Afghanistan and 2 nuclear nations (Pakistan and India), does anyone really think that there would be no retaliation? Afghanistan would turn into Iraq part II, Pakistan's support for the war on terror would disintegrate, and the political reaction in Pakistan would invariably increase tensions with India, which could lead the two nations on a collision course, notwithstanding the potential of Pakistan turning completely against the west and deciding to use its own nuclear weapons. Literally, the strike could trigger the Third World War. It isn't that far of a stretch. And one huge "what if": Since we've not really ever tested modern nuclear weapons in a battle field, and we'd be talking about the use of several nuclear weapons in a strike against Iran, "what if" one of them did not detonate? We will have handed Iran exactly what they would need for a "massive" retaliation against the West. Now, I admit the latter is a bit of a stretch, even for me, but all results should be calculated when talking about the use of force in Iran.

I think the Bush administration is completely nuts for leaving the "nucular" option on the table. It is a dangerous precedent, and Bush should realize that it will NOT increase his approval rating, it would probably sink it to the teens. Just resign now and let us recover. Please...

Tags:
Nuclear nukes Iran Iraq MiddleEast War Politics Pakistan India Afghanistan blackops Newsweek

A Time To Torture

The Culture of Torture seems to be continuing in Iraq, according to a new article by the Washington Post online.

The issue goes to the heart of U.S. relations with the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite religious parties. The Interior Ministry, whose forces are overwhelmingly Shiite, has been accused by Sunni Arabs and U.S. officials of operating death squads that target Sunni men. Increasingly, Interior Ministry forces are being accused of other crimes as well, including kidnapping for ransom. The Interior Ministry forces have also been accused of deferring to militias belonging to the Shiite religious parties, from whose ranks many of Iraq's police commandos and other ministry forces are drawn.
[...]
Curry added in a statement, "At one of the sites, thirteen detainees showed signs of abuse that required immediate medical care. The signs of abuse included broken bones, indications that they had been beaten with hoses and wires, signs that they had been hung from the ceiling, and cigarette burns. These individuals were transferred to a nearby Iraqi detention facility and provided medical care. Most of the abuse appeared to have occurred prior to arriving at that site.

The article also mentions how at many facilities, the U.S. has only removed detainees that required immediate medical attention, while the rest were left in the facility. Some were moved at another facility were removed to "alleviate overcrowding", not torture. This seems to be going against the instructions of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Pace's instructions during a press conference in which he said "If a soldier sees signs of abuse...take actions to stop it..."

My question is this: After we did what we did in Abu Graib and other sites, how can we "expect" to hold the Iraqi security forces to a higher standard then we held ourselves? The "do as we say, not as we do" mentality of Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and others in this administration simply is not going to work in today's world. It's sort of like saying to Iran: "You can't build nukes, and to make sure of it, we're willing to nuke you." Oh yeah, we have said that to Iran.

You can read the whole article online here.

Tag:
Iraq Torture Iran Rumsfeld Pace JointCheifs War Nuke WashingtonPost

A Time To Torture

The Culture of Torture seems to be continuing in Iraq, according to a new article by the Washington Post online.

The issue goes to the heart of U.S. relations with the Iraqi government, which is led by Shiite religious parties. The Interior Ministry, whose forces are overwhelmingly Shiite, has been accused by Sunni Arabs and U.S. officials of operating death squads that target Sunni men. Increasingly, Interior Ministry forces are being accused of other crimes as well, including kidnapping for ransom. The Interior Ministry forces have also been accused of deferring to militias belonging to the Shiite religious parties, from whose ranks many of Iraq's police commandos and other ministry forces are drawn.
[...]
Curry added in a statement, "At one of the sites, thirteen detainees showed signs of abuse that required immediate medical care. The signs of abuse included broken bones, indications that they had been beaten with hoses and wires, signs that they had been hung from the ceiling, and cigarette burns. These individuals were transferred to a nearby Iraqi detention facility and provided medical care. Most of the abuse appeared to have occurred prior to arriving at that site.

The article also mentions how at many facilities, the U.S. has only removed detainees that required immediate medical attention, while the rest were left in the facility. Some were moved at another facility were removed to "alleviate overcrowding", not torture. This seems to be going against the instructions of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Pace's instructions during a press conference in which he said "If a soldier sees signs of abuse...take actions to stop it..."

My question is this: After we did what we did in Abu Graib and other sites, how can we "expect" to hold the Iraqi security forces to a higher standard then we held ourselves? The "do as we say, not as we do" mentality of Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld and others in this administration simply is not going to work in today's world. It's sort of like saying to Iran: "You can't build nukes, and to make sure of it, we're willing to nuke you." Oh yeah, we have said that to Iran.

You can read the whole article online here.

Tag:
Iraq Torture Iran Rumsfeld Pace JointCheifs War Nuke WashingtonPost

Dear Mr. President

Pink sings the song, "Madanna" does this video. I think the Bush/Hitler comparison may be a little harsh (poor Hitler isn't around to defend himself), but hey, his grandfather was a huge funder of Hitler's rise to power...
This is a fantastic song, and a pretty good video.

Omaha Schools Set Back 40 Years, The Return of Segregation

In a move that many see as not only segregation, but downright unconstitutional, Omaha, NE has divided up its school districts along "racial lines" of white, black, and Hispanic. The breakup would apparently not occur until July of 2008, nearly 40 years since state-sponsored segregation was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Nebraska's state legislature approved the measure on Thursday. You can read more here.

I must strongly oppose such a move anywhere in the nation. I simply do not understand what is wrong with the people of the United States. First blindsided, then fooled repeatedly into believing that those setting policy have the best interests of all people in mind, and clearly voting consistently against what is in their own best interests. With the rising chance of the melting pot boiling over on the immigration debate, here we have a state (Nebraska) setting race relations backwards 20+ years with a resounding "Yea" vote.

People need to put down the crack pipes of apathy and stand up, say "enough is enough" and vote the racist bastards out of office, or force them out by recall. People--stop voting against your best interests! Stop voting for $3.00+ gallons of gas, stop voting for hate under the guise of "family values," and stop voting for corruption and ignorance under the guise of religious principles.

This vote infuriates me...and it should infuriate the voters of Nebraska. I hope Nebraskans will realize the stupidity of their leadership and take the appropriate democracy-based actions to take back their rights. Because this will just be the beginning of the return of segregation in the United States.

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high
Where knowledge is free
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments
By narrow domestic walls
Where words come out from the depth of truth
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by Thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake
-Rabindranath Tagore

That is my Easter and Passover prayer...for the Highest Good of myself and all those involved... let Freedom reign.

Tag: segregation Racism Nebraska Freedom Omaha School Racist Hispanic White Black

Weekly Round Up

What Bill of Rights? Iran, and my weekly rant...

This has been a week of several "events" that are shaping the way Americans view their new place in the world, especially right here at home. I have a feeling there may be a growing number of people who are beginning to regret that fateful vote they cast in November of 2004 that re-elected George W. Bush...

On Thursday, new AP-Ipsos polls came out that caused one Republican strategist to say "These numbers are scary." Also on Thursday, Attorney General (Torturer in Chief) Alberto Gonzales let us know that Bush has the right to wiretap phone calls that take place exclusively in the United States, putting the preverbial "last nail in the coffin" for the Bill of Rights. Friday, WIRED News posted this story about a whistleblower who has outed a NSA secret wiretapping room at AT&T. Internet communications are apparently involved, and by tapping into AT&T's broadband networks, they are picking up communications taking place on other major carrier's lines. Fantastic! We are officially in Orwell's 1984.

"Plamegate" is starting to get interesting once again...
I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, implicated none other than George Bush himself in authorizing the leaking "favorable" portions of the highly sensitive National Intelligence Estimate to beat back critics of the Iraq war. While this in itself does not truly indicate a crime, it does show that the show to discredit critics was run by Bush himself, and not some petty game being played by White House staffers. Declassifying material for the sole purpose of politics seems to me to erode the trustworthiness and honesty of the office of the president. It calls into question a lot of things...did he clear brush on queue and decide not to read his Presidential Daily Briefing back in August of '01 for political reasons?

Of course we have the fact that the president effectively lied to the American people about the leak issue on no less than 8 occassions. He had to have thought that he could get away with this one, that the investigation would never get that far. Either that, or he really is just that drunk with his own power. I'm going to guess the latter.

Iran

And now to the subject of military planning against Iran's nuclear sites...

Seymour Hersch wrote an article for the New Yorker stating that the military and Bush Administration has plans designed for an attack including the use of bunker busting nuclear weapons in a strike against "hundreds, maybe thousands" of targets in Iran. In fairness, the New York Times reports that four unnamed officials deny that the U. S. considered nukes. Of course, this sort of takes us in a flashback...Valerie Plame was reportedly working on Iran for the CIA when she was outed by the Bush Administration. Funny how this president seems to have nothing but complete didain for the agency his father once ran...

My Weekly Opinionated Rant

This week just continued to prove to me that the Bush Administration is drunk with their own power, and needs to have the oversight of our "worse than 'do nothing'" congress. Congress has now met less than the "do nothing" congress of 1947. This week they couldn't do anything about the immigration issue, and are now on their 2 week spring recess. They've shown no willingness to perform their oversight duties on the Executive, as usual. This congress has ignored their constitutional duties, and the public is starting to move towards that "throw them all out" mood. Republican control of congress is dangerous at this point in our history. This has allowed the administration to gain more power than any other administration that I can even begin to think of, power that they should not have, power that places each and every one of us in jeapordy. They have shown nothing but disdain for the Legislative and Judiciary. Left unchecked, America could fall into a "quasi-dictatorship" or a monarchy.

Gas prices continue to soar, and so do the profits of the oil industry. The price of oil and gas will only continue to soar, and the Amercian public's apathy seems to remain in place. When (no longer a matter of "if" apparently) the U.S. decides to invade or attack Iran's nuclear facilities, I predict that gas prices will nearly double over their current rate. If the Bush Administration decides to go ahead with their plans to use nuclear "bunker buster" weapons in an assault on Iran, I truly believe (no doubt in my mind) that the U.S. will trigger a much broader conflict in the region, and will render the United Nations impotent...something I actually believe this administration wants. Hezbollah will retaliate with the blessing of Iran, allowing this administration to instill more fear into the hearts of citizens, and gain more power with Patriot Act III.

When will Americans wake up? When will the cries for resignation be heard in the street as loudly as the immigration protest of the last few weeks? Have Americans awoken already from apathetic sleep? Time will tell. I'm awake. And I'm ready for a change. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is not just for Oil Executives anymore.

Tags: Politics Plamegate Iran War Iraq Gas Prices Nuclear

Wisconsin War Referenda Results

32 Wisconsin communities had referenda on the ballots Tuesday asking if the troops in Iraq should be brought home. The questions varied from "...immediately" to "...slow and planned draw-down", with one community, Evansville, asking two questions: Bring them home now? and "We support the president of the United States...troops should stay as long as necessary...". 24 of the 32 communities voted "Yes" to bringing the troops in Iraq home. 8 voted "No" with Watertown delivering the largest no vote percentage: 74%. Madison had the highest "Yes" percentage with 68% supporting bringing them home "immediately." Madison was also the largest community with a referenda on the war.

Although, obviously, none of the referenda affect policy, it is sending a message to our elected leaders. A majority of people are clearly opposed to continuing the war in Iraq. In the interest of "fair disclosure", the referenda represented about 325,000 Wisconsin residents, which is only about 6% of the state's entire population. Similar referenda will be on November ballots in Milwaukee (Wisconsin's largest city) and other communities, with anti-war groups promising more referenda on ballots in November.

Opponents are spinning that "turnout was low" because Spring elections have a historically low voter turnout. However, it appears that at least in Madison, there were more people who took the time out to exercise their constitutional right to vote then in previous years. Evansville, which had the most interesting set of questions (support Bush and war; or Withdraw), voted by narrow margins to say "No" to supporting Bush and war and "Yes" to bringing troops home now. Given the relatively right leaning opinions in Evansville, this is a resounding victory for the peace movement. It is truly showing and representative that a majority of americans grow weary of Bush's lack of planning and execution, and these feelings will only continue to multiply over the next several months.

I was pleased to be able to make my voice heard in Madison's referenda. And I remind everyone: VOTE. It is your right, and your constitutional duty. I usually skipped the spring elections, but this issue got me to research all the choices on yesterday's ballot and take the time to decide and go cast my vote. And I feel great about it, and great about seeing friends and neighbors do the same. This just might be the beginning of the citizens taking back their nation from apathy. For it is obvious that apathy has not served this nation well.

tag: War Iraq Troops Peace Politics Wisconsin Madison Referenda Referendum

Sarcasm Saturday

Needed: 1 Good Intern for the White House. No experience in government required, but must have a "good friend" who tapes phone calls, a slutty dark colored dress, and likes to "perform oral skills". Female requested, but not entirely needed.

Have a great April 1st! It is George Bush day!

"There's an old saying...fool me once...uh...shame on you. Fool me twice...uh...uhmmm...can't get fooled again!" -President George W. Bush