He can bomb Iran.
“Total destabilization of the region!” “Catastrophic consequences!” These have been the terms used for some time
regarding the Bush regime’s plans to attack Iran. No U.S. leader, including the leading presidential
candidates, has taken the nuclear option off the table. Some plans have already materialized.
In January of last year award winning investigative reporter
Seymour Hersh wrote that the U.S. has
been conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to help identify targets. Hersh quotes one government consultant with
close ties to the Pentagon as saying, “The civilians in the Pentagon want
to go into Iran
and destroy as much of the military infrastructure as possible.” (Reuters 1/16/05)
In April last year a former defense official said that when
he heard Bush was planning an attack on Iran
under the belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious
leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added. “I was shocked and when I heard it,
I asked myself, “what are they smoking?”” (See http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact.) A month ago the U.S.
carried out military maneuvers just off the coast of Iran with nine warships, 2,100 marines,
17,000 sailors and seventy attack planes.
(See Revolution #93 at http://www.rwor.org/
for an excellent article on the dangers of war on Iran by Larry Everest.)
In January Gulfnews quoted Wayne White, a former top Middle
East analyst for the State Department until March of “05, “”I”ve seen some of
the planning…We”re not talking about just surgical targets inside Iran. We”re talking about clearing a path to the
targets” by taking out much of the Iranian Air Force, Kilo submarines, anti-ship
missiles and maybe even Iran’s ballistic missile capability, White said.” See http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iran/10098195.html
Neo-conservatives in the U.S.
such as William Kristol of the Daily Standard and Israeli lobbyists have long been
urging the U.S. to attack Iran. And Israel
itself has rattled its missiles aimed at Iran because Iran’s
oppressive President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that Israel should be
blown off the face of the earth. Britain’s Sunday Times has reported that Israel had been
training Israeli air force squadrons had been training to destroy Iranian
uranium enrichment plants using low-yield nuclear “bunker busters.” Israel
receives $12.5 billion in “aid” from the U.S. each year.
There seems to be no doubt that Bush & Co. plan to, and
perhaps from their imperialist perspective need to, invade Iran. Their goal is to develop political, military,
and economic domination over the entire region and remain the only superpower on
the planet. And Iran is the
next step toward that goal.
The question is, what are we going to do to stop it?
He can appoint another Supreme Court Justice.
By Leah Fishbein, 6/19/07
One of the things that makes this country different than
many others is that women have the right to control their pregnancies through
contraception and abortion. The very self-determination of women hinges on
these rights, which are an integral part of the move to a more equitable
society. Women make up the majority of this country. Putting them at risk puts
all of us at risk.
Although the vast majority of the American public
understands the inherent value of said reproductive rights-62% wouldn’t dream
of overturning Roe V. Wade-the rights to abortion and birth control are
currently hanging by a thread. The extremist Bush appointees to Health and
Human Services and the Federal District and
Supreme Courts, as well as Bush’s many evangelical advisors, are tugging this
country in a direction it does not,
by any means, want to go. But throughout Bush’s two terms, we have seen
anti-choice, anti-contraception extremists appointed to direct national family
planning services, dramatically increased state funding for anti-choice
“pre-pregnancy” programs, the reinstatement of the global gag rule, or Reagan’s
Mexico City policy (essentially a 100% de-funding of international NGOs and
family planning providers that also provide abortion services), abstinence-only
education, state bans on abortion, stacking of the Federal Courts, and on. And
on. And on.
Do you want these people to be the last judge of the right to abortion? |
 Chief Justice John Roberts:
“We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” |
|
“The constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” |
 Justice Antonin Scalia:
“On contro- |
Justice Samuel Alito:Upon examining these patterns, it is clear that regardless
of what the rational, thinking majority wants, the 5% of people in this country
that would like to see abortion completely outlawed will have their way, with
or without Bush in office. Particularly frightening is the fact that no matter who becomes President in 2008,
the Supreme Court is not going anywhere. And neither is the fundamentalist, religious
right, not anytime soon. As we are well aware, the tentatively pro-choice
balance of the Supreme Court was dramatically upset by the confirmation of
George W. Bush’s anti-choice appointees Chief Justice John G. Roberts and
Associate Justice Samuel L. Alito, both anti-choice judges that deny the
constitutionality of a women’s right to privacy or abortion and possibly even
birth control. If that wasn’t apparent during their confirmation hearings, it
certainly was quite clear as the Bush stacked-court upheld the Federal “Partial
Birth” Abortion Ban passed by Congress in 2003, a ruling unprecedented since
Roe v. Wade was passed. This ruling is so important because it demonstrates
what is likely to come next in terms of women’s rights. Alito replaced Sandra
Day O”Connor, a key pro-choice swing vote in the Court, becoming the 5th
anti-choice judge on the bench.
As Justice John Paul Stevens nears the end of Bush’s second
term, but also his 89th birthday, the very real possibility of a
Supreme Court sure to overturn Roe V. Wade increases daily. Stevens’s
retirement, far from a long shot, is widely debated in the political community.
And with Bush’s outrageous NSA spying, illegal invasions, abortion bans,
immigrant roundups and more, along with his extremist Christian fundamentalist
base, it seems unwise to put one more anti-choice Supreme Court Judge past him.
And as we all know, Supreme Court Justices hold life appointments. With one
vote left needed to turn the Court again women, is it really worth it to wait
this all out and see what Bush could do before 2008? You be the judge.
Resources and Articles:
Fact Sheet: Your government is moving to deny women here,
and all over the world, the right to birth control and abortion. http://worldcantwait.net/flier/factsheet/abortion.pdfListen to NPR’s Segment on Justice John Roberts and the
Abortion DebateThe Supreme Court Upholds the “Partial Birth” Abortion Ban
“No Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985”, Washington Post, 11/14/05
The Beginning of the End of Roe? Only With Inaction
Continue with impunity the crime of torture.
By Anastasia Gomes, 6/20/07
President Bush
and Donald Rumsfeld lied about Abu Ghraib, says the General who headed the
military’s inquiry into what went on at the Iraqi prison. Army Major General
Antonio M. Taguba, in an exclusive interview with Pulitzer prize winning
journalist Seymour Hersh breaks his silence for the first time on the subject
of Abu Ghraib, and his account of the events is a damning indictment of the
Bush administration’s involvement and knowledge of the crimes at Abu
Ghraib.
In January
2006, the now infamous pictures taken at Abu Ghraib were turned over to the
military by a soldier who found them haphazardly one day while looking through
a fellow soldier’s collection of photos from their tour of Iraq.
|
Must Read Articles On Torture:
|
A couple of days
after the pictures were turned in, Taguba was chosen to conduct an inquiry into
what exactly was going on at the prison. A recent retiree after 35 years of
service, Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba, levels a serious blow against
the administration with his blunt rejection of the assertion that Abu Ghraib
was the result of a few depraved bad apples.
When the Abu
Ghraib story broke in May, President Bush claimed he had been kept in the dark
about the situation, and that he had only learned about the abuses after they
were exposed by the media. Rumsfeld had made similar claims of only having
recently been briefed about Abu Ghraib. Tabuga says the idea that the pentagon
and Rumsfeld had not been briefed or aware of the situation is an outright lie.
According to
Taguba, senior officials in Rumsfeld’s office had been made aware of the
horrific pictures as early as JANUARY, Taguba even has archived emails to prove
it.
What acts were
described to these senior officials in January? Sexual acts forced between
Father and Son, acts of sodomy being carried out upon detainees– everything
depicted in those pictures we’ve seen countless times, and
more. Taguba also described pictures that captured the sexual abuse
of women, though they and other pictures, have not been made public.
Taguba says he
had briefed members of the military dozens of times over a span of weeks, and
that in March he submitted his report outlining”systemic and illegal
abuse” to the Pentagon. Soon after, Taguba says, he began to feel as
though he was being stonewalled and intimidated by officials at the highest
ranks of the military and CIA.
Those who claim
that impeachment is off the table, both within the general public and the
congress, do so with the excuse and rationality that Bush has very little time
left. But the world can no longer claim ignorance to the wide spread
pervasiveness of these acts and policies, and we must be confronted with our
OWN consciences, the way Taguba was.
At the time of
his inquiry, Taguba was working under the command of then head of Central
Command in Iraq- General John Abizaid. After Taguba filed his report
documenting what went on at Abu Ghraib, Abizaid delivered to him the following
warning: “You and your report will be investigated.”
This kind of
“Mafia” style intimidation is undoubtedly still being carried out today.
Abizaid, Bush, and Rumsfeld have all operated with complete impugnity. Rumsfeld
was not held responsible for the traumatic and sexual acts of violations. We
now know that the torture that was carried out in Abu Ghraib was carried out
upon a prison population that was made up of “90% innocent” people – a figure
quoted by Janet Karpinsky, who was Abu Ghraib’s Brigadeer General at the time
of the abuses.
Imagine you are
an innocent person, snatched from your family and thrown in one of the many U.S. jails
presently holding tens of thousands of nameless detainees today. Imagine hours
and weeks of torture, rape. Imagine how long 18 months can feel to someone
who’s being forced to act out sexual acts with their own father. Then ask
yourself if there is any moral necessity in holding the Bush administration
responsible for their role in all of this. Ask yourself if there is any room
for moral ambiguity.
The time has come
to face the truth; the disgusting acts depicted in those pictures from Abu
Ghraib were not the actions of a few bad apples, they were merely a physical
documentation of what is happening behind closed doors in Iraq, Guantanamo
Bay, and in secret
prisons around the world.
Those who
question the point of a Bush impeachment are essentially saying that an inquiry
into these crimes, not just to get the truth about crimes committed in
retrospect, but in order to stop the torture and brutal crimes TERRORIZING the
population in Iraq
NOW, is not a worth while endeavor.
Now that we have
seen the pictures at Abu Ghraib and we have hard evidence and documented
accounts that this is going on from manifold reputable sources: former
Generals, Human rights organizations, U.N. Committees, the Red Cross, among
many, many others, the only people who do not seem not to lend the issue much
gravity are the Republicans AND the Democrats, who know this is going on, and
who are asking us to say it is okay for the torture to continue for just a
measly 18 more months. And even then, the fact remains that the bi-partisan
enacted Military Commissions Act is rarely discussed in debates seriously.
If Bush and the
architects of these policies are not held responsible, what makes us think that
there will be a better chance of reversing this bill in the future, after it has
already gone on for so long, ignored willfully and some would argue criminally,
by congress people of both parties?
Military
psychologists who’ve served in Abu Ghraib have documented cases of torture in
which the victims – including those as young as 16, become so traumatized they
are unable to re-enter society as functioning individuals. Is 18 months more of
this acceptable?
Abu Ghraib has
been closed, but Guantanamo
Bay is still open.
Hillary Clinton said in the recent Democrat debate that we are safer since 9-11
and our waging of a “war on terror”. But safer for who? Does the safety of
Iraqis count? Does it matter that since the “new security plan” was implemented
in Baghdad, the prison count in Iraq
has sky rocketed? One aspect of this “security” plan was described by the New
York Times, which detailed the mass block by block sweeps of ordinary Iraqi
civilians currently being carried out in an attempt to “secure Baghdad”.
The Washington
Post reported last month that in the past three months since the new Bush
“security plan” was implemented, there has been a dramatic increase in
prisoners being held in U.S. jails. The plan was put into effect in February
and by March, 3,500 new prisoners had been added to Baghdad’s already suffocatingly cramped
jails.
In the same Post
article, one U.N. Official in Baghdad
reported that prisoners complain of “routine beatings, suspension by limbs for
long periods, electric shock treatment to sensitive parts of the body, threats
of ill treatment of close relatives.”
Let’s also not
forget that Abu Ghraib, when it was open, held 100 children under the age of
10. Why is there any reason to believe that this will stop until the Bush
administration is repudiated for its part in committing these heinous human
rights abuses?
A recent New York
Times article reported by Michael Gordon, the very same reporter who, along
with Judith Miller, helped build the case for the war on Iraq recently reported a story titled “Deadliest
bomb in Iraq made in Iran, U.S. Says”.
In this article
he explains that the “evidence” that the U.S.
is using to corroborate their claim that Iran is an imminent threat comes
from “interrogation reports”. Now that we know the true nature of this
administration’s interrogation tactics, and that those tactics have never been
limited to Abu Ghraib, we must ask ourselves; what kind of atrocities will we
allow to occur in the next 18 months, and what other atrocities and crimes
against humanity will they be used to excuse?
As long as you
support the troops, and their Commander in Chief is in favor of torture, either
expressly or tacitly and passively, you are also supporting the creation of
monsters, the kind of monster we saw personified in Lindy England. Will
they forgive us, knowing we knew what we knew? The cries of tortured women,
brothers, fathers, children, being made into the prey for sick depraved war
games and intimidation, do not wake Bush and many of those in Washington. Do they wake you? The cries of Abu
Ghraib are real, and knowing what we know, we must act. Disagreeing with Bush’s
policy but rallying for the next 2008 president while in 2007 means nothing to
those prisoners who’ve been robbed of their freedom and their dignity. For
those cringing in pain, every breath is labored, and every moment is a
lifetime, and to these tortured souls, 2008 might as well be an eternity away.