The difference between an opinion & one that counts Please copy this
link and send it to everyone you know:

http://www.dontattackiran.org

Please ask Congress to instruct Bush and Cheney not to attack Iran:
Email Congress.

Please stay involved by joining these organizations: Gold Star Families for Peace CODE PINK…

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/iran

Sign Petition Opposing Attack on Iran Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2006-04-10

[This Petition and signatures and comments will be delivered to the White House by many activists, including Cindy Sheehan.]

Dear President Bush and Vice President Cheney,

We write to you from all over the United States and all over the
world to urge you to obey both international and U.S. law, which
forbid aggressive attacks on other nations. We oppose your proposal
to attack Iran. Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, just as Iraq
did not possess nuclear weapons. If Iran had such weapons, that would
not justify the use of force, any more than any other nation would be
justified in launching a war against the world’s greatest possesor of
nuclear arms, the United States.

The most effective way to prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be to closely monitor its nuclear energy program, and to improve diplomatic relations — two
tasks made much more difficult by threatening to bomb Iranian
territory. We urge you to lead the way to peace, not war, and to
begin by making clear that you will not commit the highest
international crime by aggressively attacking Iran.

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/F…..inchey.pdf

Fitz has let us down completely – Please let people know about this:

One page pdf linked at Rep. Hinchey’s site. Why did it take Fitz SIX MONTHS to offer his REFUSAL TO INVESTIGATE THE NIGER FORGERIES as requested by Rep. Hinchey and 39 other Democrats last October?

Fitz is a smart man, he tells Congressman Hinchey that the letter empowering him to investigate does not include investigating lies in the run up to war and he refers Rep. Hinchey to the DOJ site BUT WHY DID IT TAKE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR FITZGERALD SIX MONTHS TO FIGURE OUT HIS MANDATE???

Why?

Because some are brave enough and have enough Conviction to risk pension for Patriotism.

Tomorrow is Patriots Day in Ma and ME. It is an offical state holiday.

On April 19, 1775, the men of Massachusetts stood at a wooden bridge in Concord, Ma and refused to give ground to Tyranny. Period.

They put their Life, and their Love and their sacred Honor on the line to stop a King.

Our present day military man won’t even risk their fucking pensions to do the same.

They are Not in the same class as are Founding Fathers.

“We are in a literal battle for the lives of those we love. The generals are pointing out who our enemy is, that they’re insane, and that their flank is vulnerable. They’re calling for a counterattack. The time is NOW. Committees of Correspondence. Tar and feathers. Burning in effigy. Burning. Because if we screw this up, hundreds of millions of people are going to get incinerated. Alarmist? Damned right. This is the alarm. So let’s go, silent majority, let’s go, you radical middle, and take these motherfuckers who stole our country OUT! “

Bravo!

Why were the generals partly to blame? Presumably because they didn’t put their careers on the line and tell publicly what was really going on early on – before billions of dollars were spent (primarily with no-bid contracts benefiting Cheney and Rumsfeld and/or their friends in high places indirectly or directly).

We have seen what happens to whistle blowers – even non-military ones. The press mentions them briefly, and then they are just one more casualty. There don’t seem to be any laws protecting them anymore. They aren’t glamorous. And lots of times they end up penniless and friendless pariahs. And then there’s the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and its implications for those who go against their commanding officer, particularly the Commander-in-Chief. See Article 134. And we all know that W just does what Rummy and Cheney and Rove tell him to do. So even though Rumsfeld is not in the military, he is giving direct orders through the Commander-in-Chief.

So why did Tom Ricks, an experienced Pentagon reporter, tack this quote at the end of his article?

What is the agenda of the CSBA? If you look at some of the funding and projects of CSBA,

http://www.mediatransparency.o…..pientID=59

You can see how their projects contributed to the pre-emptive debacle that is now Iraq and who was funding these projects. They’ve been working since 1996 on the Revolution in Military Affairs, whatever that is. And being paid to produce reports for the Pentagon, most of which don’t ever seem to be released. http://www.christiansciencemon…..pdate.html by retired Lt. Col. Andrew Krepinevich aka Dr. Krepinevich.

Here is what CSBA has received in the past from neocon organizations and for what purpose:

2-10-2003 $75,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2003 $500,000 Military Transformation in a Transformed Security Environment: U.S. Military Strategy, Policies and Budgets
Andrew Krepinevich will lead an effort to analyze the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light of the changing security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will organize activities to provide congressional, executive branch, and opinion leaders with alternative strategies for transforming the American military. Smith Richardson Foundation

6-10-2002 $37,500 To support the “Guiding Military Transformation: From Concept to Reality” program The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

2-11-2002 $37,500 To support the “Guiding Military Transformation: From Concept to Reality” program The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2002 $223,280 America’s War on Terrorism Smith Richardson Foundation

1-1-2002 $500,000 Military Transformation in Security Environment: U.S. Military Strategy, Policies, and Budgets Smith Richardson Foundation

6-6-2001 $37,500 To support the Accelerating Military Transformation project The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

2-12-2001 $37,500 To support the Accelerating Military Transformation project The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2001 $390,000 Thinking Out of the Box: Addressing America’s Future Military Strategy
Andrew Krepinevich will lead an analytical team that seeks to advance the policy community’s thinking on the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light of the changing post-cold war security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will organize activities to inform congressional, executive branch, and opinion leaders of alternative strategies to effect a transformation of the American military. Smith Richardson Foundation

7-10-2000 $37,500 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

2-11-2000 $37,500 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-2000 $390,000 Thinking Out of the Box: Addressing America’s Future Military Strategy
Andrew Krepinevich will lead an analytical team that seeks to advance the policy community’s thinking on the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light ofging post-cold war security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will organize activities to educate congressional, executive branch, and opinion leaders on alternative strategies to effect a transformation of the American military.
Smith Richardson Foundation

1-1-1999 $50,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-1999 $372,500 Promoting Defense Priorities: The National Defense Panel and Beyond
Andrew Krepinevich will lead a collaborative effort to research and analyze issues related to the transformation of the U.S. armed forces in light of the changing post-cold war security environment and the revolution in military affairs. The project will disseminate its findings through a series of publications and briefings for members of Congress, congressional staff, executive branch officials, industry executives, military leaders, and members of the news media. Smith Richardson Foundation

1-1-1999 $87,000 U.S. Military Strategy and Budgets: Planning for the Future Security Environment
Andrew Krepinevich will research and write a report that provides a blueprint for transforming the U.S. military to meet the military and political challenges of the early 21st century. Smith Richardson Foundation

7-10-1998 $25,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.
1-1-1998 $372,500 Promoting Defense Priorities: The National Defense Panel and Beyond
This grant supports research and analysis on the revolution in military affairs (RMA). Andrew Krepinevich will direct the project that will develop a strategy for the transformation of U.S. military forces and in response to the RMA. The project’s findings will be disseminated through reports and briefings for members of the policy making community. Smith Richardson Foundation
12-18-1997 $25,000 To support general program activities The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

7-10-1997 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-10-1997 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-1997 $227,095 The U.S. Military: Transitioning to a New Era
This grant supports research on how the U.S. military should adapt its forces, doctrine, and strategy to maximize its effectiveneses in light of the new security environment and the revolution in military affairs. CSBA’s research will analyze the nature and implications of the revolution in military technology, the future allocation of responsibilities within the U.S. alliance system, and the quadrennial strategic review in 1997. Analysts willduce a series of reports, as well as provide briefings to policy makers in the executive and legislative branches. Smith Richardson Foundation

7-29-1996 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-31-1996 $25,000 To support general operations The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc.

1-1-1996 $227,095 The U.S. Military: Transitioning to a New Era
This grant supports a two-year research project that will analyze the nature and implications of the revolution in military affairs, the future allocation of responsibilities within the U.S. alliance systems, and the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review. Reports, policy papers, and congressional briefings will focus on how the U.S. military should adapt its strategy, doctrine, and forces to maximize its effectiveness in light of the new security environment and the revolution in military affairs. Smith Richardson Foundation

When you see one of its representatives quoted as a source of expert opinion, please remember that it receives the majority of its money
from:

1) The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This is the country’s largest and most influential right-wing foundation.

and 2) Smith Richardson Foundation

Financed by the Vicks Vaporub fortune, this foundation is estimated to have assets of about $250 million. The Richardsons are estimated by Forbes to have a net worth of $870 million, making them one of the country’s richest families. The Foundation gave approximately $99,686,911 to a total of 266 grantees – a virtual who’s who of conservative “think tanks.”

Maybe their agenda, since they can’t do away with the U.S. Military, would be to put it under direct corporate control. “Privatize it” to serve the mission not of the U.S. government, but that of the oil companies,
Wackenhut, and other major supporters of these organizations. To hell with honor and freedom and justice and protecting our country, just get out there and make sure the corporations’ assets are protected and that they get the oil – at any cost no matter what.

The overall objective of the Bradley Foundation is to return the U.S. – and the world – to the days before governments began to regulate Big Business, before corporations were forced to make concessions to an organized labor force. In other words, laissez-faire capitalism: capitalism with the gloves off.

To further this objective, Bradley supports the organizations and individuals that promote the deregulation of business, the rollback of
virtually all social welfare programs, and the privatization of government services – including in this case – the army?

The Bradley Foundation funded Charles Murray, one of the authors of The Bell Curve, an incendiary and racist bestseller that attributes expanding inequality and class structure to inherited differences in intelligence. In Inequality By Design, Claude Fischer and his colleagues have challenged the arguments that expanding inequality is the natural, perhaps necessary, accompaniment of economic growth. They refute the claims of the incendiary bestseller The Bell Curve (1994) through a clear, rigorous re-analysis of the very data its authors, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, used to contend that inherited differences in intelligence explain inequality.

Inequality by Design stresses that economic fortune depends more on social circumstances than on IQ, which is itself a product of society. More critical yet, patterns of inequality must be explained by looking beyond the attributes of individuals to the structure of society. Social policies set the “rules of the game” within which individual abilities and efforts matter. And recent policies have, on the whole, widened the gap between the rich and the rest of Americans since the 1970s.

Not only does the wealth of individuals’ parents shape their chances for a good life, so do national policies ranging from labor laws to investments in education to tax deductions. The authors explore the ways that America–the most economically unequal society in the industrialized world–unevenly distributes rewards through regulation of the market, taxes, and government spending – and allowing nonprofit foundations to be the feeding trough for hacksters that write ideological BS based on incorrect assumptions and bad scientific methods and get it published. To the extent that these front organizations and people are running the show, they need to be exposed for who and what they are.

By the same token, Erroll, I don’t necessarily hold them in such high regard. Certainly, to the extent that they supported the war in the first place I’m in total disagreement. This will go down in history as one of the most monumental fiascos of all time, and it’s the worse for having been largely predictable. But given that Iraq is currently in a state of civil war, a war for which our destabilizing influence is largely responsible, this country needs to bear in mind how our departure will affect the situation. I wish I could believe that immediate withdrawal would end the civil war, but I honestly have no idea what’s in the best interest of the Iraqis at this point, and that’s what matters most as far as I’m concerned. First priority should be to stop fucking up. That would be a good step in the right direction.

just asking. It seems like a lot of mistakes were made, and not just by Rumsfeld.

I sincerely hope you continue to needle me. We have absolutely the same aim: this insanity must be stopped. And you’re making me sharpen my instrument.

To be clear, I see the constitutionality argument as a tactic to prevent the insanity. I think the nub of the constitutionality argument is real and true, even if there are counterarguments.

What I want is to find a way to give the generals a fig leaf for disobeying the nuclear order, because I think they want to, but (properly) feel bound by duty not to. If the fig leaf is small, or torn, it’s still a fig leaf. Naturally, the better and more complete the fig leaf, the better.

I think if the generals feel there is a plausible (not even necessarily iron-clad) constitutionality argument, it will go a long way. You’re helping me form a plausible argument. Or so I like to think :)

This http://digital.library.unt.edu…..f81d546582 CRS overview of the war powers resolution reviews the constitutionality of each of the cases you bring up, starting on page 11. Grenada, incidentally, was Reagan.

I am acutely (and often painfully) aware of the difference between legal and smart.

The Dyson report is very relevant, though not in some of the tactical details regarding use of weapons in dense plant cover. The very vulnerabilities it points up (isolated large, static American bases) are exactly those of the American position in Iraq. And the military consequences of “open season” with nukes, as it points out, clearly militarily favor the enemy, not us.