(what's this?)
Discussion Forum
Headline Archive
Video Archive
Audio Archive
Document Archive
POAC counter- spin
Daily Email Newsletter
Postal newsletter
POAC Store
Recommended Books
POAC Myspace 
You can have POAC headlines emailed to you every day free of charge. Subscribe here
T.J. Templeton for Iowa State Representative

Paper or plastic? NO! Earth-friendly reinforced canvas grocery totes now available in the POAC store
If you are presently serving in the military or in the Delayed Enlistment Program and beginning to rethink your participation, here are resources to help you.
Your ad here: $50/week or $150/month Click for details

 Contributing Columnists

Tj Templeton
Jack Dalton
Anwaar Hussain
Doris Colmes
Crisis Papers
Vincent L Guarisco
W. David Jenkins III
Dr. Steven Jonas
Lucinda Marshall
Jason Miller
Andrew Wahl
Rowan Wolf
Reader Submissions

POAC merchandise:

T-shirts, fleece, tank-tops, prints, magnets and more...


Must-see Selections

14 points of fascism
Sept. 11: They Let it happen 
A brief history of the PNAC: a refresher 
Bush Cronyism
Catapulting the propaganda: The Rendon group
The office of special plans
The Whitehouse Iraq Group

POAC ENDORSED: The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001 to 2022 

F r o m   t h e Archives

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive makes Bush dictator in event of a terrorist attack or disaster
Former Reagan official says "something's in the works" to trigger a police state (Held over)
False flag reminders from the POAC forum
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us: Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war, Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years, threat to the world is greater than terrorism
Must see: What happens at Facebook.com does not stay at Facebook.com
Dateline 2002: "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq..."


Stop Us Before We Kill Again!

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

The essence of Bush&Co. strategy, from January 2001 to today, can be boiled
down to this: We'll continue doing whatever we want to do until someone stops

So, if you're wondering whether the U.S. will back off from attacking Iran,
or whether corporations will no longer be given the ability to dictate
Administration environmental policy, or whether domestic spying on U.S. citizens will
cease, or whether Scalia might recuse himself on cases he's already pre-judged
-- if you still harbor any or all of those illusions, forget about it.

Since Bush&Co. openly carry out the most reprehensible crimes, with nobody
being able to prevent them from moving on to even worse atrocities, it's almost
as if their unconscious is screaming out for a political intervention,
reminiscent of that old plea from a tormented serial-killer: "Stop Me Before I Kill

But consciously, as they sense their time in power may be coming to an
inglorious end and as they read their quickly-sinking poll numbers, they can't help
themselves from issuing their traditional, in-your-face dare: "Stop me if you
can, losers!"

This big-A "Attitude" started long before Inauguration Day, when Karl Rove &
Dick Cheney were devising their strategy and theory of governance. It goes
something like this: We need only one vote more than the other guys -- on the
Supreme Court, in the Senate, in the popular vote totals in key states. Once we
get our victory by whatever means necessary, we are then the "legitimate"
rulers. We can claim The People Have Spoken and that we have a "mandate" for action
and can do whatever we want. If you don't like it, tough. If you're foolhardy
enough, you can try again at the next election and see where that gets you,
suckers -- our side counts the votes!


The Bushistas look around and, though not happy with how their policies have
fallen out of favor, they can be somewhat sanguine. After all, their
fundamentalist base of about 33% is still hanging in there with them. The mainstream
media -- most newspapers, Fox News, radio talk-shows, cable pundits -- are still
more or less in their pockets. The bothersome Democrats remain in the
minority, marginalized in Congress and far away from the levers of power. The votes
are still tabulated by a few Republican companies, many from e-voting machines
that are easily manipulatable by company technicians, even from remote
distances. Another major catastrophe -- a new war, a huge natural disaster, a major
terrorist attack -- can re-focus the headlines away from Bush&Co.'s current and
ever-growing scandals.

On the other hand, a determined prosecutor Fitzgerald is still out there,
deeply knowledgeable about what really went down in the manipulation of pre-Iraq
War intelligence. The military establishment is rebelling against
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld war policies, openly in the case of those generals who resigned to
speak their minds, and covertly in the case of those actively serving who are
leaking their opposition to Jack Murtha, Sy Hersh and others. More and more cons
ervative and moderate Republicans are backing away from too-close association
with BushCheney, and there have been a number of embarrassing defeats for the
Administration in Congress. Revelations of one Bush&Co. scandal after another
keep coming (Katrina, Abramoff, domestic spying, WMD lies, torture, Plamegate,
Unitary Executive dictatorship, and on and on).

Given all that -- and one suspects that is just the tip of the criminality
iceberg -- one would expect that Bush and Cheney would be approaching the
impeachment dock shortly. But while a majority of the public is willing to consider
or support making Bush and Cheney accountable for their lies and corruption
and incompetency, the weak-kneed politicians simply refuse to even consider a
censure resolution, let alone to pass one authorizing impeachment hearings. In
short, the Democrats have chosen not to put up a real fight for either the
future well-being of the Constitution or their own political survival, preferring
instead to watch from the sidelines as the Republicans implode in corruption,
scandal and disarray.

And so, with no effective opposition in their way, Bush&Co. simply keep
moving forward. Next stop: Iran.


Though there is some speculation that all this talk about Bush attacking Iran
is so much saber-rattling to get the Iranians to back away from pursuing
their nuclear ambitions, I don't buy it.

Bush&Co. want this war for a variety of reasons: to further their deeply-held
goal (and Bush's sense of "legacy") of altering the geopolitical makeup of
the greater Middle East; to control the vast oil reserves in the region; to
provide yet another demonstration model to Muslim rulers in the area not to mess
with U.S. desires and demands; and, of course, to wrap Bush in the warrior flag
yet again as a way of deflecting attention away from his domestic and foreign
scandals by counting on the public's fascination with footage of laser-guided
"precision" bombs striking the "enemy's" buildings and radar batteries.

("Precision" is in quotation marks because by now we know to anticipate
thousands of dead and wounded civilians when the missiles and bombs go off-target.
And, let us not forget, we haven't even brought up the subject of the
radiation effects that might ensue if, as is being planned, Bush uses "tactical"
atomic bombs, the so-called mini-nuke "bunker busters," to get at Iran's
deep-underground labs. If such WMD are employed by the U.S., hundreds of thousands could
be killed or badly damaged by radiation, and the area contaminated into the
far future.)

The propaganda barrage being laid down by Administration spokesmen these days
is so utterly identical to the fog of lies that preceeded the attack on Iraq
that it seems all Rumsfeld and Rice have to do is simply re-use the original
press releases and change the last letter of the target country, "n" instead of
"q." We even get ye olde "mushroom cloud" image hauled out again, supposedly
warning us about Iran's non-existent nuclear weapons; this time, that mushroom
cloud could well be one effected by the U.S. bombers and missiles.

Even the fantastical expectations are as out of whack as what we were told
would happen in Iraq. There, we were promised, the American forces, in a
"cakewalk," would be greeted as "liberators," with kisses and flowers. In Iran, we're
told, much the same will occur, and the oppressed Iranians, chafing at the
harsh rule of the fundamentalist mullahs running the country, will rise up and
topple their repressive government. (##Seymour Hersh (
www.newyorker.com/printables /fact/060417fa_fact ) writes: "One former defense official, who still
deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military
planning was premised on a 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 when I heard it, and asked
myself, 'What are they smoking?'")


These predictions of a popular Iranian uprising, which arise out of neo-con
ignorance and desire, simply ignore the realities on the ground. Imagine, for
example, how U.S. citizens would feel -- even those opposed to the Bush
Administration -- if a bullying foreign power bombed the hell out of our country's
scientific and industrial laboratories, killing a lot of our citizens in the
process, and badly hampering our economic progress for decades to come. If the
attack included nuclear bombs, multiply those angry reactions (and the resulting
radiation deaths) by a thousand per cent. How would the citizens react? Of
course: The American people would unite behind their leaders, beloved or
despised, in resisting the attackers. Much the same reactions should be anticipated
from Iran's citizens.

In Iran's case, given that it's the major Muslim military and political power
in the region, that resistance might well lead to retaliation where it hurts.
Israel, America's one surefire ally in the region, probably would be
attacked, thus widening the already red-hot conflict; U.S. warships in the area would
be targeted by Iranian missiles; oil sales to the West would be greatly
reduced or cut off entirely, and perhaps other oil fields in the region might be
bombed; the Straits of Hormuz, which control entry into the Persian Gulf, might
be blocked to sea traffic; Iranian assault troops might enter Iraq to support
the insurgency, which would have redoubled its attacks on U.S. forces;
Iran-sponsored terrorists would hit American targets both in the region and perhaps
even inside the United States. Plus, the Law of Unintended Consequences would
lead to even more ruinous events not even contemplated here as other Islamic
nations become involved.

Surely, Iran knows how much the U.S. military is stressed these days in Iraq
and Afghanistan, how thin the troop strength is around the globe, how so many
U.S. troops are going AWOL or are not re-upping, how National Guard troops and
commanders are reacting negatively to their overuse outside America's
boundaries, how many in the Pentagon brass are opposed to Bush policy, etc. The aim
of the Iranians, in this scenario, would be to get the U.S. bogged down in yet
another land war in the region.

In short, it's not just the ineptly-managed quagmire in Iraq that is behind
much of the opposition from high-ranking officers and retired brass in
America's military command. Clearly, they are speaking out now because of the prospect
of another disaster about to unfold in Iran, which will get young American
troops slaughtered and tied-down in yet another military adventure.

(Let us be clear. The military brass currently in revolt against Rumsfeld and
his superiors -- the unnamed Cheney and Bush -- are not liberal activists
energized by the issues of whether these wars are moral or legal or even
well-advised; they are arguing, for the most part, on how best to properly manage such
conflicts, how to more effectively conduct such imperial adventures while
keeping their troops safe. But, whatever their motives, progressives should
welcome any dissent that weakens the hold of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad on the
levers of uncriticized power.)


Do I believe that Iran's rulers are nice, progressive guys who deserve our
active support? Of course not. Ahmadinejad mirrors Bush as a close-minded,
backward-looking, religiously-influenced fundamentalist leader, and Iran's senior
mullahs likewise. Do I believe Iran wants uranium-enrichment purely to build
nuclear power plants? Of course not. They desire to be the big power in the
neighborhood, plus they've seen how defenseless Iraq and Afghanistan were treated,
and how this differs from how the U.S. behaves toward North Korea, Pakistan
and India, all recent members of the nuclear-weapons club.

If for no reason other than their own protection against the two atomic
powers in the region (the U.S. and Israel), the Iranian government's goal is to
possess some nuclear-tipped missiles. Their atomic program is taking its first
babysteps these days. America's own intelligence analysts believe it would take
##anywhere from five to ten years (
www.usatoday.com/news/washingt on/2006-04-14-iran-nukes_x.htm ) to get to the point of Iran having a nuclear arsenal.
And, if both sides possess nuclear weapons, the world may return to the days of
MAD, Mutually Assurred Destruction, as a brake on rash action.

The Bush doctrine of "preventive" or "pre-emptive" war is to hit potential
enemies before they can even get on the track of building up their weaponry. Hit
'em while they're weak and vulnerable, even if they have no plan of attacking
anybody (such was the case with Iraq) -- that's the operating principle. The
Islamic states are weak and vulnerable right now; hit 'em. Iraq is weak and
vulnerable; take it. Iran doesn't yet have a fully developed nuclear program;
blast it.


Nobody is sure when the U.S. attack on Iran will come. Given the resistance
inside the American military to launching such an attack, the Bush propaganda
machine may feel it needs a few more months to soften the public's attitude to
the "inevitability" of the move on Iran. (And to obtain the international
fig-leaf of a vaguely-worded U.N. Security Council authorization vote for war.) Or
they could judge that the situation requires a "the-sooner-the-better"
approach, before too much opposition develops in the American body politic and
around the globe. Since this will not be a ground invasion, the air assault could
happen at any moment. I'm guessing we have maybe a month in which to head this
madness off at the pass.

Before the attack on Iraq in 2003, more than ten million people worldwide
marched in opposition to that imminent invasion. Three years later, there seems
very little organized resistance to the impending war on Iran. Only now is the
possibility of such a U.S. attack coming onto most folks' radar screens. The
peace movement seems puny in its ability to organize masses of demonstrators
these days, whereas the march of immigrants across the country brought out

We'll have a better sense of the strength of the peace movement on April 29,
when the big anti-war march (the war being opposed is the one in Iraq) will
happen in New York City, this one organized by United for Justice & Peace. Will
those in the anti-war movement see the larger picture and alter their approach
and rhetoric and actions accordingly? We shall see. #

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D. in government & international, has taught at various
universities, worked as a writer-editor with the San Francisco Chronicle, and
currently is co-editor of The Crisis Papers (www.crisispapers.org). For comment:
>> [email protected] << .

First published by The Crisis Papers and Democratic Underground 4/18/06.

Copyright 2006 by Bernard Weiner.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

privacy policy

2002- 2008  OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com