We're Still #1, in Arms Sales

I guess "we're #1 in arms sales" could go without saying, I mean we do have the world's biggest military by a wide margin (The Pentagon's budget is larger than the next 18 defense budgets in the world), so of course we have lots of arms to sell. Well, thanks goodness, we have buyers for our military weapons. And luckily for us, they are Muslims from the same country as the hijackers who attacked us on 9/11, our friends, Saudi Arabia. It's OK, these are the Muslims who are our friends. Hey, congrats on your big profit, America!

"In its biggest arms deal ever, the United States announced it will sell up to 60 billion dollars worth of warplanes, helicopters and other weapons to Saudi Arabia, partly to help it counter Iran."

Undersea Cables Cut

Five undersea cables carrying internet and phone traffic have been cut over the past 10 days or so. When I heard about the first two, I figured it was an accident, they were relatively close together.
But 3 more? All around the waters of the Middle East?

Once again, the mainstream media has hardly reported on this story. Makes me think something is going on behind the scenes.

What Makes US Great

At the risk of overdoing Pat Buchanan, I submit his latest pitch about Ahmadinejad and his request to visit Ground Zero:

"That the Iranian president has PR in mind is undoubtedly true. Much of what national leaders do is symbolic. But that wreath-laying would have said something else, as well.

It would have said that, to Iran, these Americans were victims who deserve to be honored and mourned and, by extension, the men who killed them were murderers. Bin Laden celebrates 9-11. So do all America-haters. By laying a wreath at Ground Zero, the president of Iran would be saying that in the war between al-Qaida and the United States, he and his country side with the United States.

How would we have been hurt by letting him send this message?"

Food for thought.

Also, how do we win by not letting him speak?

If we cannot easily win a debate with this "madman", then we should listen to him.

It can't hurt to have him expose himself for what he is, unless we are afraid of exposing something in ourselves. Open communication and debate is essential to democracy and truth. I credit George W. for being on the right side on this one, unlike Fred Thompson who sounds ready to kick the UN out of the US. Read the Buchanan article for more history of our relations with our enemies, and how we used to handle it, with diplomacy even in the face of war, it's part of what used to make the US Great.

Ritter Was Right, So Now Listen

Scott Ritter, famed WMD inspector, Marine and Republican, was thrown to the dogs when he tried to stop the war in Iraq. He held a news conference in Bagdad before the war calling on US restraint until the inspections could be finished. Our government's response was indignation and Ritter eventually was charged in a trumped up internet sex scheme. You'd think I was making this up, or that we lived on Animal Farm, but this is the state of our government today. Here's part of what Ritter had to say to Republican leaders during the run-up to war with Iraq:

"The conference room was packed with more than seventy Representatives and their staffs. I provided an opening in which I stressed that the case being made against Saddam Hussein and Iraq, centered as it was on the issue of WMD, did not hold water. I chastised the Republican lawmakers with a warning: If they continued to support the policy of confronting Saddam's Iraq over a trumped-up charge, they would not only get America involved in a war it could not win but would end up destroying the credibility of the Republican Party, and turn control of the Congress, and eventually the Presidency, to the Democrats. There were questions asked, and answers given, and in the end most thanked me for what they called an "illuminating" meeting.

Then they proceeded to do nothing."

And here's what he has to say to Democrats today:

"If I were to address a Democrat Theme Team equivalent, I would focus my effort on trying to impress them with the issue that will cost them political power down the road. This issue is Iran. While President Bush, a Republican, remains Commander in Chief, a Democrat-controlled Congress shares responsibility on war and peace from this point on. The conflict in Iraq, although ongoing, is a product of the Republican-controlled past. The looming conflict with Iran, however, will be assessed as a product of a Democrat-controlled present and future. If Iraq destroyed the Republican Party, Iran will destroy the Democrats.
I would strongly urge Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to hold real hearings on Iran. Not the mealy-mouthed Joe Biden-led hearings we witnessed on Iraq in July-August 2002, where he and his colleagues rubber-stamped the President's case for war, but genuine hearings that draw on all the lessons of Congressional failures when it came to Iraq. Summon all the President's men (and women), and grill them on every phrase and word uttered about the Iranian "threat," especially as it has been linked to nuclear weapons. Demand facts to back up the rhetoric."

After Bush's State of the Union speech, I think it's clear that Bush & Cheney think they can do whatever they want, Congress and the American people be damned. It's time to make them change their minds. I hope we can do it without "waterboarding".

Walter Jones' Joint Resolution

Pat Buchanan talks more truth than most people can bear, and the article linked here is another brilliant piece:

"Asked if he had sole authority "to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," Bush replied, "In this situation I do, yeah."

Is Congress then impotent, if it does not want war on Iran?

Enter Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina.

The day after Bush's threat to Iran, Jones introduced a Joint Resolution, "Concerning the Use of Military Force by the United States Against Iran." Under HJR 14, "Absent a national emergency created by attack by Iran, or a demonstrably imminent attack by Iran, upon the United States, its territories, possessions or its armed forces, the president shall consult with Congress, and receive specific authorization pursuant to law from Congress, prior to initiating any use of force on Iran."

Jones' resolution further declares, "No provision of law enacted before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution shall be construed to authorize the use of military force by the United States against Iran."

If we are going to war on Iran, Jones is saying, we must follow the Constitution and Congress must authorize it.

If Biden, Kerry, Clinton and Obama refuse to sign on to the Jones resolution, they will be silently conceding that Bush indeed does have the power to start a war on Iran. And America should pay no further attention to the Democrats' wailing about being misled on the Iraq war."

Yes, this is the same Walter Jones who popularized the "Freedom Fries", folks. It's time to save the country with the Constitution. It's clear that we are way off the path....thanks Mr. Jones and Mr. Biden for stepping up here, we need more representatives like this!

Condi: Let's Talk

Wow....maybe Condi's been reading my blog:

"But the story of how a president who rarely changes his mind did so in this case — after refusing similar proposals on Iran four years ago — illustrates the changed dynamic between the State Department and the White House in Mr. Bush's second term. When Colin L. Powell was secretary of state, the two buildings often seemed at war. But 18 months after Ms. Rice took over, her relationship with Mr. Bush has led to policies that one former adviser to Ms. Rice and Mr. Bush said "he never would have allowed Colin to pursue."

It is unclear how much dissent, if any, surrounded the decision, which appears to have been driven largely by the president, Ms. Rice and Mr. Hadley, with other senior national security officials playing a more remote role. Both White House and State Department officials say Vice President Dick Cheney, long an opponent of proposals to engage Iran, agreed to this experiment. But it is unclear whether he is an enthusiast, or simply expects Iran to reject suspending enrichment — clearing the way to sanctions that could test the Iranian government's ability to survive."

Like I said, there was no reason not to respond, even Cheney could see that (even if he just wants to "frame" Iran the way we tried to do Iraq). Nice to see W showing some flexibility lately... ah, the power of women.

Buchanan Sees Both Sides

"In the 27 years since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has launched air strikes on Libya, invaded Grenada, put Marines in Lebanon and run air strikes in the Bekaa Valley and Chouf Mountains in retaliation for the Beirut bombing.

We invaded Panama, launched Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait and put troops into Somalia. Under Clinton, we occupied Haiti, fired cruise missiles into Sudan, intervened in Bosnia, conducted bombing strikes on Iraq and launched a 78-day bombing campaign against Serbia, a nation that never attacked us. Then, we put troops into Kosovo.

After the Soviet Union stood down in Eastern Europe, we moved NATO into Poland and the Baltic states and established U.S. bases in former provinces of Russia's in Central Asia.

Under Bush II, we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, though it appears Saddam
neither had weapons of mass destruction nor played a role in 9-11.

Yet, in this same quarter century when the U.S. military has been so busy it
is said to be overstretched and exhausted, Iran has invaded not one
neighbor and fought but one war: an 8-year war with Iraq where she was
the victim of aggression. And in that war of aggression against Iran,
we supported the aggressor.

Hence, when Iran says that even as we have grievances against her, she has
grievances against us, does Iran not have at least a small point?"

I don't always agree with Pat Buchanan, but I do have a great respect for him and I think he would have been a much better president than Bush II... Buchanan could have carried Reagan's mantle. And don't think our borders would only be dealt with now, almost 5 years after 9/11. Kudos to Buchanan for seeing both sides of the Iran issue, something Bush II has been unable to do.