Act Now! No Time to Lose!

By Capt. Fogg

Henry Kissinger -- the name could be a metonym for dishonest defense of imperialism and reckless disregard for the consequences of military action, and so it's no surprise to hear him tell us to ignore the consensus of all 16 US intelligence agencies that there is no evidence Iran is building or is about to build nuclear weapons.

Yes, of course they could all be wrong and there is always the argument from cliche that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even in a nation of emotionally disturbed amnesiacs like the US, some might want to remember our useless attack and occupation of Iraq for which we continue to suffer and will continue to suffer for a very long time. In case you don't remember, that country had no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or the materials or technology needed to produce huge, heavy nuclear prototypes much less the probably fictional "suitcase" bombs we were told could be smuggled into the US at any moment. Act now!

On CNN's GPS with Fareed Zakaria yesterday, Kissinger told us he was "uneasy" with the intelligence and that we should ignore it as we ignored the lies about Iraq and make the presumption that a bomb was forthcoming.

“I am very uneasy with the so-called intelligence report that say we don’t know whether they are actually working on nuclear weapons. I think we should start from the premise that they are undergoing all this in order to achieve a military capability. I don’t think that is a disputable point.”

I think it is disputable in the extreme, considering that we're listening to a war criminal involved in and culpable for massacres, invasions and genocides in Indochina, East Timor, Chile, Cyprus and Bangladesh talking about fomenting yet another dubious and probably disastrous war.

Kissinger and warmongering toadies like Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu tell us we have no time to lose; that the time to attack is now as Former Secretary of State Rice once told us. Shoot first and pretend there is no question to ask, lest the "smoking gun" of evidence turn out to be a mushroom cloud. Frankly I think we have everything to lose, including our future and any basis upon which to base the proposition and pose of being a force for good in this world.

Don't want to go to war no more

A meaningless resolution voted up in the House today for all the wrong reasons, but I approve of it.

The House of Representatives voted Friday to rebuke President Obama for continuing to maintain an American role in NATO operations in Libya without the express consent of Congress, and directed the administration to provide detailed information about the cost and objectives of the American role in the conflict.

The resolution, which passed 268 to 145, was offered by Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, to siphon off swelling Republican support for a measure sponsored by Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, which calls for a withdrawal of the United States military from the air and naval operations in and around Libya.

The resolution criticizing the president passed with the support of 45 Democrats and all but 10 of the Republicans who were present. The measure from Mr. Kucinich, one of the most liberal members of the House, later failed by 148 to 265, with 87 Republicans voting in favor.

Can't help but think, with some bitterness, that it would have been really great if these guys had found their anti-war mojo about ten years sooner.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

War is good for GOPers (and their military contractors)

Ink not even dry on the official election returns and already emboldened GOP neo-cons are rattling their sabres:

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said his fellow conservative, fresh from their historic elections romp this week, support "bold" action to deal with Iran.

If President Barack Obama "decides to be tough with Iran beyond sanctions, I think he is going to feel a lot of Republican support for the idea that we cannot let Iran develop a nuclear weapon," he told the Halifax International Security Forum.

"The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran... Containment is off the table."

The South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic "not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime."

And he wants to bully China, just for good measure.

"The last thing America wants is another military conflict" but Lindsey wants to give it to us anyway. Actually, he could get me on board if every single politician and pundit who calls for an invasion leads the first brigades into the country. They want more cursed war, let them take up their guns and fight in it. And maybe they could practice up for this impending and necessary combat by joining the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, since those invasions were such successes that the wars are just about won over there.

Small progress on war funding votes

It's true the supplemental war funding bill passed yesterday with a majority of Democratic support, but it's the best vote on war funding we've had since these stupid occupations started.

In the House vote, 148 Democrats and 160 Republicans backed the war spending, but 102 Democrats joined 12 Republicans in opposing the measure. Last year, 32 Democrats opposed a similar midyear spending bill. Among those voting against the bill on Tuesday was Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the panel responsible for the measure.

Some of the Democratic opposition stemmed from the decision by party leaders to strip from the bill money that had been included in the original House version to help address the weak economy at home, including funds to help preserve teachers’ jobs. But some of those voting against it said they were influenced by the leaked documents, which highlight the American military’s struggles in Afghanistan and support claims that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service were helping the Taliban.

Don't know why the Democrats didn't force the GOP's hand and instead stripped out the domestic funding for the states. I imagine there was some White House pressure involved since Obama is cleary set on maintaining this loser policy for another Friedman Unit or two. But I find it somewhat curious that some claim they voted against it based on the Wikileak revelations.

Since I still haven't seen much of anything in those documents that wasn't already in the public record, it suggests to me that our Congresspeople really are as clueless as the most low-info voters out there. If it doesn't help solidify their seat, they don't really pay attention. Describes what's wrong with our political class in a nutshell.

[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]

Mom - he's threatening me!

By Capt. Fogg

Perhaps if we had not, like Dr. Pavlov's dogs, been trained to growl at the mention of Iran, we could perceive just a bit of cant in the news reports of Iranian pugnaciousness today.

Iran tests missiles, vows to hit back if attacked, shouts the Reuters report and similar headlines blare in the papers today. What would we do if we were threatened with attack? What would Canada do? Indeed what have we been doing but testing our weapons and threatening apocalyptic destruction on any who attack us?

Iran has some missiles with a 1200 mile range, but by all accounts they have only rudimentary guidance systems. The warheads of course are conventional explosives and without pinpoint accuracy, their overall effects would be far less than a Tomahawk cruise missile or two. Anyone they might be aimed at in anger has nuclear retaliatory capability and advanced multiple delivery systems. Iran would stand no chance in any conventional confrontation. Iran knows this very well.

I'm no fan of heavy-handed theocracies, but even a milquetoast with his back against the wall can be forgiven for saying "if you hit me I'll hit you back" as pathetic as it might sound. The only thing more pathetic is using that as an excuse to bully him further. Considering the anti Iran rhetoric, The West's history of meddling with their elected governments and our covert operations within their borders; considering our constant threats of annihilation, what would any country do? Indeed what can any country at odds with US desires do these days but cringingly comply with our increasingly bellicose demands to disarm and assume the position?

Whether or not Iran's current government is a substantial threat to us or to our allies, such as they are, by continuing to demonize and disrespect any country refusing to pledge fealty, we continue to cultivate our image as a brutal bully, concerned only with feeding our addictions and ego and completely confused as to why everyone hates us.

Cross posted from Human Voices

The Hormuz Hoax, part II

By Capt. Fogg

George W. Bush wants a war with Iran so badly that I have to be suspicious of any news item that relates to Iranian matters, particularly when the information comes from the US government. When I first heard the mysterious voice saying

"I am coming to you ... You will explode in a few minutes."

something sounded wrong about it. It's not only that the voice seemed to be putting on a deliberately thick accent, it certainly wasn't coming from a speed boat pounding through the swells at 30 knots or more as the video seemed to indicate; no effect on the voice of the impact of the hull against the water, no background noise of roaring engines or wind. I spend a lot of time on the radio, both from my boat and from my amateur station. I can tell the difference. It's unusual, but not unknown for such behavior to be found on the Amateur Radio bands and less often on the police and public service bands. On CB radio, it's almost standard procedure. When such people are identified, the punishment can be rather severe and the perpetrators are very often teens who are using dad's radio equipment when he's not around. Of course the VHF marine channels used by everything from pleasure boats to battleships are not immune to abuse.

Now the Navy Times is blaming the incident on a mysterious pirate radio operator or operators who have been doing just this sort of thing on the Marine VHF channel 16 for decades at all hours of the day and night. It seems in fact, to be happening all over the world and is often attributed to the mythical "Filipino Monkey." Someone with a radio on shore or on another ship gets his kicks from listening to conversations, interrupting with obscenities and making threats. According to many radiomen, female voices on the radio often elicit vulgar comments from these people. All ships and most boats are required to monitor channel 16 and so it is difficult to claim that the transmission was intended for one vessel or another and impossible to know where it originated, particularly in crowded shipping lanes like the straights of Hormuz. Such radios can be bought at any marine supply store without having to show any identification or license.

We were shown the audio and video of the boats simultaneously said Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, because “ it gives you a better idea of what is happening” not because there is really any evidence that the voice came from the boats. Can it be that we have just narrowly escaped fulfilling Bush's dream of a massive air attack on Iran using this random and meaningless incident as an excuse? We've been fooled in just this way before at the cost of millions of lives and we have a president with a record of fooling us again and again.

Cross posted from Human Voices