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.

Low Congress Ratings due to Republican Control

Two inter sting things happened relating to congress today. First an immigration bill granting children citizenship in the US after meeting certain criteria was struck down. Second a controversial judge, who overwhelming sides with corporations, was elected to the 5th Circuit Federal Court.

But last November Americans voted out the current leadership in congress. But some politicians haven’t realized Americans want change from twelve years of Republican mismanagement. But they’re still voting for (the Iraq war, uncontrolled spending) and blocking (children’s health care, immigration reform), the same policies that Americans are disgusted with. Unless the Republicans can let the Americans have a voice, more can look to loose their seats in 2008.

And it’s time for Democrats to be Democrats. I want to see Lyndon Baines Johnson type strategies. Not Democrats defecting, and siding with the Republicans. Many of the issues that have failed to be solved are just as important, if not more than the Civil Rights Movement.

Racism is making a resurgence in America (not that it was ever gone), for instance the State Department wants to shut down a Muslim school, because curriculum doesn’t “Meet their standards.” The head of the voting rights protection agency feels “The white vote is the most important to protect.” And there is a tremendous government/Republican started backlash against legal and “illegal” immigrants.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid need to become true leaders, willing at any cost to pass important legislation. But blame cannot be entirely placed on the leadership, Democrats need to stop being bullied by Republican tactics. And Americans need to stop being intimated by Republican fear mongering (ever noticed how a new Osama tape appears when Bush needs more money?). Lets live by the motto “Give me freedom or give me death.”

No Word Yet on Who Will Pay for Iraq

The Democrats tried to find a way to fund the Iraq war, by creating a tax surcharge. Top Democrats, and Republicans as a whole blasted the idea. The idea reported by MarketWatch actually seemed simple and responsible:

The proposed legislation, offered by House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., and Democratic Reps. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2% to their federal taxes, according to news reports, while higher-income taxpayers would see a surcharge of 12% to 15%.

Obey said the measure would help draw a contrast between President Bush’s threat to veto several Democratic spending measures because they exceed his fiscal 2008 budget request by around $22 billion.

“Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am … opposed to a war surtax,” said Pelosi, D-Calif., according to the Associated Press.

Someone needs to pay for this war. Obviously the oil money we where promised would finance a war that would go no higher than $50 billion, has gone somewhere else. Probably in Bushes pocket. But my idea for war financing is even better, how about congressional districts that support the Iraq war - as determined by their representatives votes - would have to the tax burden.

This puts the Republicans where their mouth is. First it funds this “All so important war,” which everyday is looking more like a Bush/Vigilante setup (Bush gets to put oil money in his pocket, hateful conservatives gets to watch Blackwater shooting brown people). And besides money, Al-Qaida has warned that anyone who pays taxes, is as guilty as Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan. So why not have the people who support this war be the sole bearers of the blood and money?

Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan to run against Pelosi

Anti-Iraq War activist Cindy Sheehan has announced that, because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not introduce Articles of Impeachment against President Bush by midnight last night, Sheehan will run against Pelosi for her San Francisco seat. Says Sheehan, “Not only am I going to run against her, but I will beat her.”

Honestly I’m not sure what effect this will have. Thus far Pelosi has made no comment. I have looked around some of the other blogs, and it appears that as a result of this run Sheehan has lost the support of more central Democrats who supported her efforts previously. While I am certainly not a centrist, I am certainly opposed to this run. Read more