Republican Congressman Turns into Arms Dealer

That headline isn’t a crime in itself, plenty of politicians go to work for large defense contractors, who are basically arms dealers. The problem here is that a former Republican congressman, Curt Weldon (PA) is brokering arms deals with blacklisted countries like Iran and Russia:

Former congressman Curt Weldon is helping broker deals between Russian and Ukranian weapons suppliers and the Iraqi and Libyan governments as part of his new job with a private American defense consulting firm, Wired.com has learned.

Weldon, who is currently being investigated by the FBI over alleged corruption during his time in office, visited Libya in March to discuss a possible military deal, according to a letter describing the trip from Weldon to Defense Solutions CEO Timothy Ringgold. In May, Weldon, together with Ringgold and another company representative, traveled to Moscow to discuss working with Russia’s weapons-export agency on arms sales to the Middle East.

Both trips were part of the company’s effort to tap into the growing — and often legally murky — market for selling weapons from former Eastern Bloc countries to the Middle East and Afghanistan.

The reason this is described as legaly murky, is because he is operating as a middle man to supply countries with Soviet weapons they already have, and that were never manufactured in the US. While it may legally okay, it certainly is morally and politically dubious.

But doesn’t it seem like the party (Republicans) that likes to falsely flaunt a strong security record would have ties to selling weapons to former enemies, and other countries that regularly export anti-Americanism and terrorism? This reminds me of the situation last year when another Republican senator was charged with laundering money Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran

Veteran Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh has published an article in the New Yorker Magazine that asserts that congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to greatly increase funding, to 400 million dollars, for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran. This escalation of these covert and secret activities is meant to destabilize the religious leadership of Iran. Hersh wrote his article based upon information from “current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources.” The article notes that covert activities by the United States are not new in Iran–we have been conducting cross-border operations from Southern Iraq since last year.

The request for the $400 million was described in something called a “Presidential Finding”, signed by President Bush, and, under Federal Law, these Presidential Findings “must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees”. The article by Hersh noted later that, “In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.” This is a glaring contradiction and hypocrisy that is certainly not unfamiliar to the politics of the United States.

I hope that we all can now clearly see that the Republican Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists. And I hope that we can now also clearly see that the Democratic Party is a war-like party of imperialists and interventionists, through their aiding and abetting of policies that are as such. I hope that we can now clearly see that both political parties are about policing the world, and spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to do so. We are spending 400 million dollars alone on trying to destabilize one single country. That money could have gone to education. That money could have gone to healthcare. That money could have gone to infrastructure. But, out of all of the needy areas of our country, our political leaders, of both parties, decided to direct the money instead towards destabilizing another country. 400 million dollars! That could not be described as “spare change”. Obviously, though, there is no “change” that our leaders can spare. And the small, superficial change that they do provide is worthless.

But Iran is not the only country targeted by the United States. According to Dennis Kucinich’s 35 Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, “On September 30, 2001, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld established an official military objective of overturning the regime in Iran, as well as those in Iraq, Syria, and four other countries in the Middle East, according to a document quoted in then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith’s book, ‘War and Decision’.” The four other countries in the Middle East were, according to Wesley Clark, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Lebanon.

It is my opinion that the United States has been the interventionist policeman of the world for too long. And especially covert interventions, because that promotes “blowback”, defined as a term used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Hatred in the Middle East towards the United States as a result of our covert operations targeting Middle-Easterners, and then Middle-Easterners demonstrating their hatred in a terrorist attack, is an example of blowback.

Is it honestly in our best interest to undertake operations such as this, especially when domestic issues are in such dire need of attention? And, ask yourself, do we even have the right to interfere in and destabilize another country, someone else’s country, as such? My personal opinion is that we have neither the right nor the obligation to try to destablize the governments of other countries and throw them into political chaos. Aside from the concerns of blowback and the misplacement of tax money, it is very important to do unto others as you would want done unto yourself.

Kucinich reads Bush Articles of Impeachment on the House floor

I flipped on my television at approximately ten-thirty Eastern time on Monday night, and I was pleasantly surprised to find Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) speaking on C-Span. Kucinich was talking about President Bush and his various crimes against the United States, and I soon became aware that the Representative was introducing Articles of Impeachment against President Bush (also known as House Resolution 1258).

Dennis Kucinich had begun his long trudge through the Articles two hours earlier, and he would continue his reading, to an almost empty House chamber, for nearly another three hours. There were 35 Articles in total, each one detailing a crime that Bush had committed that warranted impeachment. I congratulate Kucinich for having the courage and conviction to undertake this task.

A summary of each offense for each Article, as provided by the index of the Articles of Impeachment, reads as follows: Read more

WHAT is so different about Iran?

It was recently reported on October 29th that the White House has no objection to the Egyptian nuclear program. Here is one instance of this article.

The White House “said it had little information about Egypt’s plans to relaunch its nuclear power program but declared itself ‘generally supportive’ of civilian atomic power.” White House Spokewoman Dana Perino, speaking shortly after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced Egypt’s plans to build several nuclear power stations, “I don’t know a lot about it. In general, we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy. It’s clean burning. It provides electricity in a clean-burning and affordable way for citizens.”

After decades of Egypt’s nuclear program being frozen, the current Egyptian president is thawing it out, and he SAYS that it will be used for peaceful purposes (which is what the leader of Iran has said). Egypt is an unstable Middle Eastern country. Now, how is this Egyptian nuclear program different from Pakistan’s, also an unstable Middle Eastern country? Evidently, it is not: we are perfectly fine and well with Pakistan having a nuclear program, and, additionally, a nuclear WEAPON. The Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that Pakistan has built as many as 48 nuclear warheads, while its chief rival, India, is estimated to have built only 30-35. The United States also seems to have few problems with India’s nuclear program. So, we are okay with Egypt, Pakistan, and India, three unstable Middle Eastern or Near East Countries, having nuclear programs and either having or potentially having a nuclear weapon. The same is the case with Israel and countless other countries. No problem with them having nukes, or in starting up a nuclear program. No difference between those countries.

So, what is so different about Iran? It is also an unstable Middle Eastern Country, and it has been accused of developing a nuclear program. George W. Bush, and many 2008 presidential candidates (Democrats too!), have said that they would do everything to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. “We must stop Iran!”, they resoundingly say. But what is so different about Iran when it is compared to other countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and India? What is different? And don’t say anything like “Oh, Iran, they are sponsors of terrorism!” because you know just as well as I that the hands of Egypt, Pakistan, India, and others are not clean when it comes to terrorism. Pakistan is where Osama bin Laden is currently supposed to be hiding, and, judging by the fact that he has access to a dialysis machine and abundant black hair dye, he is being well taken care of (and not hiding out in some cave somewhere).

I would like to note that, with Iran, we are just talking about the threat of a nuclear weapon; they are years away from acquiring one, if that is what they truly intend to do (they say, like Egypt, that they are using their nuclear program for peaceful purposes only). And if Iran does indeed develop nuclear weapons eventually, would their nukes even be a threat to us? The United States of America spends the most money on defense out of all of the countries in the world, and we have a HUGE nuclear arsenal. If Iran even hinted that it would hit the United States with a nuke, they could easily be wiped off the face of the map by our extraordinary amount of weapons. Or if a nuke given to a terrorist organization was traced back to Iran, the aforesaid result could also occur. It is just not in Iran’s interest to take any kind of action against the United States, nuclear or otherwise.

And if they do truly intend to get a nuclear weapon, it will probably be used simply as a deterrant, because currently, no doubt, Iran feels threatened by the many countries currently around it that have nuclear weapons and by the various threats from the United States against Iran. For use as a deterrant was the very reason that Pakistan developed nukes: it was afraid of its nuclear neighbor, India.

My conclusion is that these situations with Iran and its fellow unstable Middle Eastern Countries are not different, from the perspective of an unbiased observer. However, from the perspective of a deluded politician who has already lied us into one war and hopes to start another…it may be convieniently different (just like Iraq).

It is my opinion that Iran’s nuclear program is the least of our worries and that this whole pile of rubbish about Iran and its imminent threat to the United States is just a political ploy, by George W. Bush and others, in order to get us into another war with Iran. Or, of course, it could just be another distraction from all of the serious problems (which the politicians just hate HATE to talk about) that are afflicting our country today. Did you notice at the last democratic presidential debate (on Oct. 30, on MSNBC) that there was much less talk about ending the Iraq War and a great deal more talk about Iran?

Please, if you have an explanation for why Iran is different, then absolutely post it here. I am so curious about why on earth Iran is any different from Egypt, Pakistan, or any of the Middle Eastern Countries that have nuclear weapons already or who are threatening to get nuclear weapons in the future. Why is Iran singled out?

And why is it assumed that Egypt’s nuclear program is being used for peaceful purposes, while it is assumed that Iran’s nuclear program is being used for malevolent purposes?

Will Bush Be Like Hitler and Start another World War?

I’m sure you’ve all heard about Bush’s World War Three comments.  In case you haven’t Bush has said “If Iran gets nuclear weapons it will be World War III”

I personally don’t see what would create World War III if Iran gets nuclear weapons. India, Israel, Russia, France, and several other countries acquired nuclear weapons and no war, much less a world war followed.  It seems the only conflict we’d have with Iran was if Bush decided he needed to do a “search and destroy” of nuclear weapons in Iran. Much like his failed operation in Iraq.

Israel and the USA are probably the most dangerous nuclear powers, and have been the only nuclear powers to initiate war since 2001. The US invaded two countries, and Israel bombed civilians in the 2006 Lebanon War. Meanwhile Iran has engaged in zero armed conflict in the same time period.

Besides who is Bush as the mediator of Nuclear/WMDs/Bio Weapons? As commander in chief his military flew nuclear weapons over the United Sates. Even though the nuclear weapons where deactivated, an aircraft crash or other midair disaster could have caused an aerial dirty bomb to be dispersed. If the US can make such mistakes endangering it’s own citizens, how can Bush complain of the possibility of terrorists abilities to steel nuclear material from the Iranian military?

It’s time for a reality check. Any global conflict originating in the Mideast would be a result of Bush’s destabilization of the Mideast.

Wed. August 15th Live Podcast

From Wed. August 15th, co-hosted by Johnny Camacho, Dan Solis, Jeff Pritchard, big NEO-CON KoKo Chassid, and Thomas Senecal.

Topics discussed were Bush Declares War on Iran, Sort Of, Karl Rove to Resign, Will Hillary ever run out of steam?, and the Fairness Doctrine.

[DOWNLOAD MP3]

Bush Declares War on Iran, Sort Of

Knowing the congress would not approve of an invasion of Iran, Bush has labeled a segment of the Iranian army as terrorists. This means that anyone who aids the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is aiding a terrorist which is a crime. It also makes it easier for Bush to go after them military.

Of course the DoD (which is becoming more like a campaign machine everyday) has claimed the Revolutionary Guard is supplying weapons and men to the Shia’s Mahida army in Iraq. I suppose we’re all supposed believe that just like we did about those WMDs. And when I say the DoD is like a campaign machine, it seems half of what it does is to improve the Bush administrations image. For example one of my family members works for the NGA, which is part of the DoD. According to that person, they have televisions in every room that plays a steady stream of Bush’s speeches. But I’ll get off that rabbit trail into 1984.
Read more