SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: geode00 who wrote (98172)2/3/2007 2:02:22 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 362428
 
The Edge of the Abyss
by Eric Herter

In spite of strong public opposition to our course in the Middle East, there’s rapidly-mounting evidence that Bush intends to attack Iran.
Some may argue that his aggressive moves and rhetoric are a bluff to induce Ahmadinejad to back down. Not likely -- Iran’s President, like ours, is aggressive and stubborn. Also, even if Ahmadinejad unexpectedly renounces his nuclear project, new US “findings” of Iranian complicity in the Iraq insurgency will give the administration justification for the war they want. We saw it happen in the lead-up to Iraq, and it’s happening again.

A friend wrote yesterday, “Latest news indicates that Bush is setting up new bases in Bulgaria and Romania that would host Pentagon war planes that would be used in a first-strike attack on Iran. […]

“But this is crazy, I hear you saying. The U.S. can't afford another war! The troops are stretched too thin, the country can't pay for another front in this blitzkrieg.

“Well, the answer is that like Hitler, Bush must continue to roll the dice. He is so far out on a limb now that he must go for it all or he loses everything. He and the big corporations, who are driving this empire, have got to make their move now, or it all comes crashing down around them. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. If the U.S. controls all the Middle East oil then they control China, India, Europe and the rest of the world. Insanity you say? Of course it is.” [Bruce Gagnon’s complete letter is at space4peace.blogspot.com]

He’s right. With unsolvable problems in Iraq, growing Congressional opposition, a possible Cheney implication in the felony trial of Scooter Libby, and pressure growing for impeachment investigations, the time to move is now. Bush is moving. Stories about the dangers presented by Iran are pouring out of administration and Pentagon souces. A US military official in the Gulf yesterday compared the current hair-trigger US-Iran situation with Europe in 1914, on the brink of World War One.

For those who think a US strike on Iran will be a cakewalk like the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003, it’s important to know that there are grave differences. Here are some likely outcomes of attacking Iran:

Everyone in Iraq -- including the Shiite government and army we’ve been supporting -- attacks our forces there, aided by a well-armed Iranian army of 650,000;

Iran uses its Chinese and Russian missiles to hit our troops in Iraq, our ships in the Gulf, and Israel;

Syria, linked by a mutual-defense treaty to Iran, joins the war with large stocks of chemical and biological weapons;

The US and Israel use nuclear weapons to prevent our forces in Iraq from being annihilated;

Huge numbers, possibly millions, are sickened and die as radiation is blown by prevailing winds into Pakistan and/or India;

The Pakistani government is overthrown by its Islamic generals, who start using their nuclear missiles on US forces and Israel;

Oil supplies from the Middle East are sharply curtailed, pushing American gas prices up above $10 a gallon;

Worldwide outrage results in global boycotts of American products, plunging the US economy into chaos;

The US government declares martial law and uses anti-terrorist laws and military force against those who protest;

The US Congress and press effectively do nothing.

Unfortunately, this isn’t a worst-case scenario -- all of the above are entirely possible and predictable consequences of attacking Iran. And this war is not urgently necessary; there are still many untried routes to a resolution of our impasse with Iran’s nuclear program, other then the pre-emptive war that’s long been on the wish-list of the neo-cons.

In short, Iran itself is not an immanent threat. But war with Iran is

Do we accept this movement towards war when it brings the possibilities outlined above? Is this a world we want? We’re at the edge of the abyss. If ever there was a time to stop being “good Germans,” to stop passively resigning ourselves to our government’s dangerous policies, that time is now.

Here are some effective things we can do, but we must act now:

(1) Flood the press, radio talk shows, the Internet with calls, letters and articles pointing to the administration’s intentions, and the madness of the impending war. Talk with everyone we know, at home and at work, about what’s going on.

(2) Push Congress to immediately enact legislation prohibiting US funding for a American or Israeli attack on Iran until congressional hearings on the threats presented by Iran have been held. A precedent for this would be the Boland Amendment which cut US funds for the Contras in the 1980s. (See Scott Ritter’s article, “Stop the War with Iran Before it Begins,” www.commondreams.org, 1/25/07)

(3) Join peace groups wherever we can find them, and join with others in engaging in “direct action” – non-violent civil disobedience. If large enough numbers of get arrested for publicizing and opposing the impending disaster, Congress may find its courage to act effectively -- cutting off funds, publicly examining the Iran situation, and investigating the impeachment of those who are leading us into a nightmare future we just voted against.

We, the people of America, are the only ones who can stop this. The need is urgent, and the time is now.

Published on Saturday, February 3, 2007 by CommonDreams.org



To: geode00 who wrote (98172)2/5/2007 4:19:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 362428
 
McCain’s Advisers Once Made Ads That Drew His Ire
______________________________________________________________

By JIM RUTENBERG
The New York Times
February 4, 2007

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain, intent on succeeding where his freewheeling presidential campaign of 2000 failed, is assembling a team of political bruisers for 2008. And it includes advisers who once sought to skewer him and whose work he has criticized as stepping over the line in the past.

In 2000, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the advertisements run against him by George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, distorted his record. But he has hired three members of the team that made those commercials — Mark McKinnon, Russell Schriefer and Stuart Stevens — to work on his presidential campaign.

In 2004, Mr. McCain said the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisement asserting that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts had not properly earned his medals from the Vietnam War was “dishonest and dishonorable.” Nonetheless, he has hired the firm that made the spots, Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, which worked on his 2000 campaign, to work for him again this year.

In October, Mr. McCain’s top adviser expressed public displeasure with an advertisement against former Representative Harold E. Ford Jr., Democrat of Tennessee, that some saw as having racist overtones for suggesting a flirtation between Mr. Ford, who is black, and a young, bare-shouldered white woman, played by a blond actress.

The Republican committee that sponsored the spot had as its leader Terry Nelson, a former Bush campaign strategist whom Mr. McCain hired as an adviser last spring. In December, just weeks after the Ford controversy broke, Mr. McCain elevated Mr. Nelson to the position of national campaign manager.

Taken together, the moves provide the strongest indication yet that Mr. McCain intends to run a far tougher campaign than the one he ran in the 2000 primary. And they come as he transitions from being a onetime maverick to a candidate seeking to gather his party around him and create an air of inevitability about his prospects for winning nomination.

As Mr. McCain assembles his team, he is also making it that much harder for his Republican challengers by scooping up a significant circle of the party’s top talent.

In recent years, Mr. McCain has made a concerted effort to mend fences with Mr. Bush and reassure the Republican base that he is a reliable conservative. But his moves have focused new attention on the extent to which he may risk sacrificing the image he has long cultivated of being his own man, driven by principle rather than partisan politics.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said he was not changing. But they were unapologetic about putting together a group dedicated to doing what it takes to reach the White House and employing lessons from his defeat at the hands of Mr. Bush in 2000.

“This is about winning at the end of the day,” said John Weaver, Mr. McCain’s longtime senior strategist. “I don’t want to be in a knife fight ever again, but if I am, we’re going to win it.”

Mr. McCain’s representatives said he would not provide an interview.

Seven years ago, Mr. McCain charmed the news media and the public with his Straight Talk Express bus tour. He had a lean operation befitting an upstart candidacy, and he regularly spoke out against attack advertising, a quaint notion in retrospect.

In the end, he ran his share of confrontational advertisements, once even leveling the ultimate Republican-to-Republican insult: that Mr. Bush was as dishonest as Bill Clinton. But he was perceived as having been knocked back on his heels by the rougher, tougher Bush campaign.

Now Mr. McCain is building a larger organization, bringing together the heart of the bare-knuckled Bush crew once overseen by Karl Rove while keeping most of the advisers who ran his shoestring effort of 2000.

“It’s like an all-star World Wrestling Federation cage match, except that instead of fighting one another, all of the brawlers are on the same team,” said Steve McMahon, a strategist for the Democratic National Committee. “There are very few people who play this game at the highest level, and on the Republican side these guys are among the best.”

Mr. McCain has also hired Brian Jones, an adviser to Mr. Bush’s 2004 campaign; Fred Davis, a media consultant for Mr. Bush in 2004; and Steve Schmidt, who oversaw Mr. Bush’s 2004 war room, exploiting any tidbit that could help paint Mr. Kerry as a “flip-flopper.”

The hires are another signal that the 2008 primary campaign could be a combative one all around.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, has wasted no time attacking Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on Iraq. And Mrs. Clinton’s team includes strategists who invented the concept of the modern campaign war room for her husband 15 years ago. But Senator Barack Obama of Illinois drew cheers at a party gathering on Friday when he warned his fellow candidates against attacking one another.

Mitt Romney, a Republican and the former governor of Massachusetts, has hired Alex Castellanos, a onetime Bush strategist who also famously produced the 1990 commercial for Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator, in which a pair of white hands crumpled a rejection letter as a narrator said, “You needed that job and you were the best qualified, but it had to go to a minority because of a racial quota.”

Given Mr. McCain’s history with some of the people on his team, the evolution of his staff may present an early challenge: How does he stay true to the “Straight Talk” spirit of his 2000 campaign, which helped him win the stature he has now, while also engaging in the political brinkmanship it can take to win?

The Democratic National Committee is already criticizing Mr. McCain for his hires, issuing a statement this week calling them “a testament to how far he’s gone down the do-anything-to-win path.”

Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster who is not yet allied with a candidate, said Mr. McCain was running the risk of looking “politically expedient” and of blunting his brand as “Senator Straight Talk.” He said the risk was highlighted by Mr. McCain’s recent suggestions that he may not use the campaign finance system he has long championed.

In 2000, Mr. McCain received money from the system, which gives public financing to candidates who agree to strict spending limits. Mr. Weaver, the senior strategist, said Mr. McCain was keeping his options open because others, including Mrs. Clinton, were planning to work around the system.

As Mr. McCain’s aides often point out, for all its appeal, the McCain 2000 campaign was a losing one. And they said it would be unfair to suggest that because Mr. McCain was augmenting his team he was somehow preparing to change who he was.

“There are no negotiations regarding his principles,” Mr. Weaver said.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Jones, the campaign communications director, said Mr. McCain was not allowing his distaste over the Swift Boat commercials to interfere with his relationship with Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, with whom Mr. McCain has his own decade-long association. In addition, he said, Mr. McCain hired Mr. Nelson because of his breadth of experience in national campaigns. “The campaign,” Mr. Jones said, “is not going to let past contests on the battlefield limit how it’s going to go after talent.”

Presidential politics are rich in fungible allegiances. James A. Baker III ran the primary campaigns of Gerald Ford and the elder George Bush against Ronald Reagan, only to become Mr. Reagan’s chief of staff. This year, David Axelrod is serving as a senior strategist for Mr. Obama; he was a senior strategist to Mr. Edwards in his 2004 campaign.

“You could dissect any campaign this way: this guy did this ad this one time,” said Mr. Schriefer, the former Bush media strategist, who will run Mr. McCain’s advertising team. “There’s a tremendous history of foes becoming allies.”

Mr. McKinnon, who led Mr. Bush’s advertising group in 2004, said he saw no inconsistency in working for Mr. McCain. Mr. Bush was right for 2000, he said, and Mr. McCain is right for 2008. “At the end of the day, the campaign will be won or lost on the character of the candidate and his or her core message,” Mr. McKinnon said. “Of course, I believe that will be John McCain.”

Asked if the senator would avoid the attacks he criticized in 2000, Mr. Jones said that while Mr. McCain had yet to declare his candidacy, any campaign he ran would be “consistent with his beliefs and values.”