Iran Test-Fires Missile With 1,200-Mile Range

WASHINGTON — Iran test-fired a sophisticated missile on Wednesday that was capable of striking Israel and parts of Western Europe, adding to concerns that Iran’s weapons-development program is fast outpacing the American-led diplomacy that President Obama has said he will let play out through the end of the year.

The solid-fuel Sejil-2 missile used a technology that Iran appeared to have tested at least once before, but the Obama administration nonetheless described the event as “significant,” largely because missiles of its kind can be relatively easily moved or hidden.

The Pentagon confirmed that the test of the missile had been a success, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, said that the missile “landed exactly on target,” according to Iran’s official news agency.

Peace Activists Arrested After Protesting US Drones in Nevada

US drone bombings have reportedly killed 687 Pakistani civilians since 2006. During that time, US Predator drones carried out sixty strikes inside Pakistan, but hit just ten of their actual targets. Last week, a group of peace activists last week staged the first major act of civil disobedience against the drone attacks in the United States. Fourteen people were arrested outside the Creech Air Force Base in Nevada, where Air Force personnel pilot the unmanned drones used in Pakistan. We speak with longtime California peace activist Father Louis Vitale, who was among those arrested, and with Jeff Paterson of Courage to Resist.

CLOSER LOOK AT THE KILLER DRONES

CLOSER LOOK AT THE KILLER DRONES By Kathy Kelly and Brian Terrall It’s one thing to study online articles describing the MQ-9 Reapers and MQ-1 Predators. It’s quite another to identify these drones as they take off from runways at Nevada’s Creech Air Force base, where our “Ground the Drones…Lest We Reap the Whirlwind” campaign [...]

Can Obama End Veteran Homelessness?

If you think homelessness among veterans is unacceptable, you’re not alone. Obama has pledged to establish a national “zero tolerance policy” for homelessness among veterans. In his proposed budget, he took a bold step towards that goal by proposing a 10 percent increase for Veterans Affairs. But will increasing government spending to match our “support our troops” rhetoric ultimately end veteran homelessness?

It’s no mystery that veterans are disproportionately represented among the homeless population. During good economic times, one in four people without a roof wore the uniform (thanks to the recession, that number is probably a bit lower today). While many of these homeless vets served in Vietnam, a growing number of vets from Iraq and Afghanistan are winding up in shelters and on the streets.

Why, you ask? The answer, of course, is where our government chooses to direct funding (or not direct funding, as is the case here). During the Bush years, Veterans Affairs (VA) was wholly undersupported by the Bush administration. Suffering through astronomical budget shortfalls and lowball estimates that failed to take into account the costs of treating vets returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Bush-Cheney Deserve Censure for Declaring War Against The Constitution

Before Inauguration Day, the 111th Congress should pass a forward-looking resolution censuring President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for executive aggrandizements or abuses that have reduced Congress to vassalage and shredded the rule of law. The resolution should express a congressional intent to prevent repetitions by the President-elect Barack Obama or his successors. The objective is not Bush-Cheney bashing, but to restore a republican form of government in which “We the People” are sovereign, and the president is checked and publicly scrutinized by Congress and the courts. The Bush-Cheney duumvirate won an undeclared war against the Constitution. Most troublesome, they captured the power to initiate war from a spineless Congress. The Founding Fathers were unanimous in denying the president that constitutional authority. They knew that presidents would chronically deceive Congress and concoct excuses for war to control public information, benefit political friends through government contracts, quell dissent, assert emergency powers and enjoy the intoxicating thrill of, “I came, I saw, I conquered.”

By wielding the threat of international terrorism, the Bush-Cheney team put the nation on a permanent war footing – the first time in history that war has been undertaken against a tactic. They maintained that the entire post-9/11 world is an active battlefield where United States military force may be used to kill suspected members of al Qaeda irrespective of international boundaries.

They claimed executive privilege and state secrets to conduct secret government – thereby circumventing political and legal accountability. This included directives to former White House officials Karl Rove and Harriet Miers to flout congressional subpoenas for testimony. They detained hundreds of people (including American citizens) as enemy combatants without accusation or trial. They authorized torture (waterboarding and extraordinary rendition), abductions, secret prisons and illegal surveillance of American citizens.

US Military Defiant on Key Terms of Iraqi Pact

WASHINGTON – U.S. military leaders and Pentagon officials have made it clear through public statements and deliberately leaked stories in recent weeks that they plan to violate a central provision of the U.S.-Iraq withdrawal agreement requiring the complete withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by mid-2009 by reclassifying combat troops as support troops.

The scheme to engage in chicanery in labeling U.S. troops represents both open defiance of an agreement which the U.S. military has never accepted and a way of blocking President-elect Barack Obama’s proposed plan for withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his taking office.

By redesignating tens of thousands of combat troops as support troops, those officials apparently hope to make it difficult, if not impossible, for Obama to insist on getting all combat troops of the country by mid-2010.

Cheney Throws Down Gauntlet, Defies Prosecution for War Crimes

Dick Cheney has publicly confessed to ordering war crimes. Asked about waterboarding in an ABC News interview, Cheney replied, “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared.” He also said he still believes waterboarding was an appropriate method to use on terrorism suspects. CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed that the agency waterboarded three Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 and 2003.

U.S. courts have long held that waterboarding, where water is poured into someone’s nose and mouth until he nearly drowns, constitutes torture. Our federal War Crimes Act defines torture as a war crime punishable by life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

Under the doctrine of command responsibility, enshrined in U.S. law, commanders all the way up the chain of command to the commander-in-chief can be held liable for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates would commit them and they did nothing to stop or prevent it.

New Evidence Contradicts White House Assertions on Uranium Claim

Dec. 18, 2008 – New evidence obtained by the Oversight Committee indicates that the CIA rejected White House efforts to insert the claim that Iraq sought uranium from Africa into two speeches by President Bush prior to the 2003 State of the Union address, contradicting assertions made to Congress by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales on behalf of then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

MEMORANDUM

December 18, 2008

To: Members of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Fr: Chairman Henry A. Waxman

Re: The President’s Claim that Iraq Sought Uranium from Niger

Next month, I will be leaving the Oversight Committee to chair the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Before I depart, I want to report to you on the most significant information I have learned from the Committee’s investigation into the basis for President Bush’s claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

On January 6, 2004, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales sent a letter on behalf of Condoleezza Rice, who was then the National Security Advisor, to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, writing that “Dr. Rice has asked me to respond” to questions raised by the Committee about the uranium claim. Mr. Gonzales informed the Committee that the CIA “orally cleared” the uranium claim “for use by the President” in both a September 12, 2002, speech to the United Nations and a September 26, 2002, speech in the White House Rose Garden.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence relied on these representations and adopted the White House’s statements almost verbatim in its 2004 Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. As a result, the Senate report created the impression that the President’s use of the uranium claim in the State of the Union address could be blamed in large part on the CIA and its clearance of the claim in the earlier speeches.

The information the Oversight Committee has received casts serious doubt on the veracity of the representations that Mr. Gonzales made on behalf of Dr. Rice. Contrary to Mr. Gonzales’s assertions, the Committee has received evidence that the CIA objected to the uranium claim in both speeches, resulting in its deletion from the President’s remarks. In the case of the September 26, 2002, speech, the former Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA told the Committee that she personally warned Dr. Rice not to use the uranium claim.

The President’s September 12, 2002, speech to the United Nations contended that Iraq was in breach of United Nations sanctions. During an interview with the Committee, John Gibson, who served as Director of Speechwriting for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council (NSC), stated that he tried to insert the uranium claim into this speech at the request of Michael Gerson, chief White House speechwriter, and Robert Joseph, the Senior Director for Proliferation Strategy, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense at the NSC. According to Mr. Gibson, the CIA rejected the uranium claim because it was “not sufficiently reliable to include it in the speech.” Mr. Gibson stated that the CIA “didn’t give that blessing,” the “CIA was not willing to clear that language,” and “[a]t the end of the day, they did not clear it.”

On September 26, 2002, President Bush delivered remarks in the White House Rose Garden urging Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq. During an interview with the Committee, Jami Miscik, the Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA, stated that NSC officials “wouldn’t take [the uranium claim] out of the speech.” As a result, she was asked to explain directly to Dr. Rice “the reasons why we didn’t think this was credible.” Ms. Miscik stated that “[i]t was clear that we had problems or we at the most fundamental level wouldn’t have been having the phone call at all.” According to Ms. Miscik, the CIA’s reasons for rejecting the uranium claim “had been conveyed to the NSC counterparts” before the call, and Dr. Rice was “getting on the phone call with that information.” Ms. Miscik told Dr. Rice personally that the CIA was “recommending that it be taken out.” She also said “[i]t turned out to be a relatively short phone call” because “we both knew what the issues were and therefore were able to get to a very easy resolution of it.”

During his interview with the Committee, Mr. Gibson was asked about the White House assertions that the CIA had cleared the inclusion of the uranium claim. He stated that the White House assertions were “incorrect.” He told the Committee that “the CIA had never cleared” the use of the uranium claim. During her interview with the Committee, Ms. Miscik made the same point, stating that the White House assertions were “not accurate” and “misleading.” She explained further: “We had not cleared on this speech until the discussion that Dr. Rice and I had.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Rice resisted efforts by the Committee to obtain her testimony about these matters. Thus, I am not able to report to you how she would explain the seeming contradictions between her statements and those of Mr. Gonzales on her behalf and the statements made to the Committee by senior CIA and NSC officials.

‘Shoe-icide Attack’ at the White House, 12.17.08

Code Pink and others honor the courage of Iraqi journalist and shoe-tosser Muntader Al-Zaidi at the White House.

Roberto Rodriguez: Why Bush Will Walk

COLUMN OF THE AMERICAS
DEC 16, 2008
AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM: JUSTICE WE CAN BELIEVE IN OR WHY BUSH WILL WALK
BY ROBERTO DR CINTLI RODRIGUEZ

The President ducked two shoes in Iraq recently, just as he will
inexplicably also be able to walk away from his office, without the
worry of ever having to duck Nancy Pelosi’s heels – without ever
having to face impeachment by a complicit Congress.

The mind-boggling reason she continues to give regarding why
“impeachment is off the table” is that she claims that Democrats are
not out for revenge. Somehow, she seems to be oblivious to her
Constitutional duties to defend the Constitution, rather than engage
in political calculus (regarding who will control Washington).

Given a different set of circumstances, president George W. Bush and
his War Cabinet would not only be impeached, but they would also
undoubtedly face war crime tribunals for promoting and authorizing an
illegal war and occupation against Iraq – a war that is responsible
for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis and the displacement of
4-5 million others.

Chances are likely that Bush will also not have to duck the Obama
administration as all indications are that Obama will not show Bush
his soles. Instead, he will seek to “move forward” (Washington-speak
for ignoring the crimes of fellow politicians) and attempt to govern
from the middle. Governing from the middle is more Washington-speak
for ignoring the pursuit of justice.

Perhaps it will be up to history to deliver a verdict against a
president that has not simply run circles around the Constitution –
while ignoring international treaties and agreements – but that is
actually responsible for both, Iraqi and U.S. casualties, which number
in the tens of thousands.

Despite the glaring evidence that the president consistently lied to
Congress and the American public to be able to invade and occupy Iraq,
and despite the clear evidence of his approval of torture (claiming
that the Geneva Conventions of War were irrelevant) and illegal
spying, the question then is, what has been preventing his impeachment
and/or imprisonment?

It’s called American exceptionalism.

It’s the ability to look at the world, not the way it is or ought to
be, but rather, through U.S.-rose colored eyes.

Despite the obvious, U.S. politicos and government officials believe
that the United States has created the highest form of democracy – a
shining example to the rest of the world. Here, no one is above the
law. In fact, it is loudly proclaimed that “we are a nation of laws.”
We heard this most loudly when former president Bill Clinton lied to
Congress about his trysts with Monica Lewinsky.

But there’s also a backside to this idea of American exceptionalism:
the United States can do no wrong, or in this case, the president and
his underlings can do no wrong. In this case, president Bush
authorizing a war that never should have been fought is pedaled not as
a crime against humanity, but rather, simply as a policy difference –
no matter the hundreds of thousands of casualties – no matter that
thousands of Americans have died and that tens of thousands have been
permanently disabled. In the eyes of the U.S. body-politic, that’s
less a crime – or no crime at all – because it led to the ouster of a
tyrant.

Yet, there’s even an exception to this idea; if a president or
politico does something immoral –something that offends
Western/Christian sensibilities – such as lying to Congress about
having sex, having an abortion or trying to extort money or political
favors in exchange for a Senate seat – that is considered unforgivable
and unpardonable. This is true, more so than starting a destructive
and catastrophic war under false pretenses.

Where does this logic and morality come from? Perhaps from the same
logic that says it is permissible to kill a thousand innocents to save
one sinner or the medieval idea that found it permissible to kill
thousands of non-Christians in the Americas, while seeing it as “a
great service to God.”

Reaching back to the Dark Ages may seem like stretch, yet, where else
can we find an answer that permits a president to war on a weak
nation, claiming that God told him to do it – and then Congress
inexplicably absconding from its Constitutional and moral duties and
obligations, not simply to protect the U.S. Constitution and the rule
of law, but to protect the world from a dangerous and delusional
president.

Yet, neither does Pelosi or Obama have the last word on this matter.
Thirty years after the fact, Chile’s dictator, Agusto Pinochet, and
the Argentine generals that waged a “dirty War” in their country,
found this out.

(c) Column of the Americas 2008

Rodriguez, a research associate at the University of Arizona, can be
reached at: XColumn@gmail.com

Column of the Americas – PO BOX 85476 – Tucson, AZ 85754