Staying in Iraq, Heading into Iran: MoveOn, Bush Juggernaut

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Staying in Iraq, Heading into Iran: MoveOn, Bush Juggernaut

Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit

[This is quite long, comprising 4 important articles from various
sources but all posted on the AfterDowningSteet website, including info
on the latest atrocious actions in Congress while the media were having
fun with the circus antics surrounding the UN General Assembly's 62nd
session. There is also information on various petitions and letters,
for whatever good they do, to contact your elected representatives.
More important is the info on the Sep 29th March in Washington.
The web-posted .html copies noted all have more links as well.

The Senator from Tel Aviv, Joe Lieberman, got his "Let's Attack
Iran Amendment" passed by the Senate, and the House caved in with
yet more yanqui dollars to kill Iraqis and plunder their country.

It is difficult not to give in to despair. This is a terrible,
disgusting and -- excuse the word -- EVIL country and we should all be
dead with shame (though we really can't give up passively, even now) or
calling for the heads of the people who were elected to get the USA off
"the wrong track." as the Zogby polls say.

As in Vietnam, the Amerikan "anti-war movement" cannot and won't have
nearly as much impact as the Resistance to the Bush Juggernaut -- in
Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Pakistan, Africa and Latin America. It is these
people who can and will act with effectively, and it is these people we
should be supporting. Working "peacefully and democratically" in
Amerika is a futile waste of time. There is no democracy here.
As Ellsberg says, the coup has already happened here.--NY Transfer]

sent by David Swanson - Sep 26, 2007


STAYING IN IRAQ, HEADING INTO IRAN

Today the House voted more money for occupying Iraq, and the Senate
voted to attack Iran.

I. Will Progressives Cave on Iraq Again?
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/27181

By David Swanson

All but 14 members of the House today voted billions more for occupying
Iraq. The vote was on a Continuing Resolution that will extend fiscal
year 2007 spending at the same levels for 7 weeks into fiscal year
2008. The bill also condemned MoveOn.org for accusing General Petraeus
of betraying us. The No votes were: Blumenauer, Clay, Ellison, Filner,
Frank (MA), Hinchey, Kucinich, Lee, McDermott, Paul, Payne, Waters,
Watson, Woolsey.

Also today, the Congressional Progressive Caucus released a press
release and a statement that differs from the letter that so many
citizens are working so hard to help the Progressive Caucus add
congress members' signatures to (it's now at 83). The letter, addressed
to Bush, says this:

"We are writing to inform you that we will only support appropriating
additional funds for U.S. military operations in Iraq during Fiscal
Year 2008 and beyond for the protection and safe redeployment of all
our troops out of Iraq before you leave office..."

Apparently this letter carries no force, and most of the congress
members who signed it were lying. But taking it at face value, the
letter has (had?) certain weaknesses but also has a major strength: The
deadline of January 2009 will mean a lot of dead bodies first;
"protection" of troops means nothing if not ongoing fighting and
killing; while some congress members say "redeploy" means withdrawal,
for many it actually means redeploy; we have more mercenaries and other
contractors in Iraq than troops and this does not mention them; and
there's no clear statement here that the only way this will work will
be for Congress to ultimately not send Bush any Iraq funding bills at
all. Nonetheless, this is aimed in the right direction, and it takes a
decisive stand NOT to vote for any funding of the occupation that does
not get all troops out of Iraq by January 2009 or sooner.

The new statement says this:

"We will oppose any bills or amendments brought to the House floor
henceforth that pertain specifically to bringing our troops and
military contractors home, but do not include in their text a clear
timeline and date certain for the redeployment of U.S. troops and
military contractors from Iraq."

This new version adds contractors but deletes "all." No longer must it
be all troops, but it must include (some) contractors. No longer is the
deadline January 2009; it could be any deadline as long as there is
one. It still says "redeploy" although it also says "bringing...home".
But the major change is this one: the new statement SAYS NOTHING ABOUT
OPPOSING BILLS TO FUND THE OCCUPATION. As long as such bills do not
"pertain specifically to bringing our troops and military contractors
home" (and what are the chances of that?) members of the Congressional
Progressive Caucus who have not signed the letter above are free, under
this new policy position, to vote money for genocide.

Let's be clear with the 83 Congress Members who have signed the letter:
a new position does not release you from existing commitments. If you
have signed this letter, you cannot vote for a bill that funds the
occupation without ending it, whether or not that bill pertains
specifically to anything at all or doesn't. Most of the signers have
already gone back on their word and need to hear from us right away.

The CPC staff tells me that the CPC is still fully behind the letter
and making it the top priority to add more names, and views the new
statement as completely in agreement with it. The new statement
indicates, they say, that the CPC will oppose bills like the
Tanner-Abercrombie-English bill, for example, unless it includes a
definite timeline for "redeployment". I hope that's right. Remember, it
was as recently as May 7, 2007, that the Progressive Caucus and the Out
of Iraq Caucus SOLD IRAQI FAMILIES AND US TROOPS DOWN THE RIVER. The
pressure on them from Speaker Nancy Pelosi looks to be just as intense
this time as in May.

Pelosi was on CNN yesterday claiming that she has no power to end the
occupation and blaming her lack of 60 votes in the Senate (or 67 to
override a veto). CNN played along with her claim that she needs 60
Senate votes. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could if
they wanted announce today that the House and Senate will no longer
bring to a vote any bills to fund anything other than withdrawal. They
have 83 colleagues already on board with that position, not to mention
two thirds of the country. It would take 218 signatures on a discharge
petition to force a bill to the floor of the House without Pelosi's
approval. It is unlikely enough Democrats would oppose their party to
fund Bush's war in that way. In the Senate, Reid alone could refuse to
bring a bill to the floor, or another senator could put a secret hold
on a bill. And, while not all bills can be filibustered (appropriations
bills can be, budget reconciliation bills cannot), you can hardly claim
you need 60 votes to get past a filibuster without admitting that with
only 41 you could launch your own filibuster and that with 51 you could
defeat any bill. Once you understand the goal as blocking bills rather
than passing them, the number of allies you need shrinks dramatically.

Please sign the Peace Pledge and urge your Congress Member and both of
your Senators to do so.

Here is the CPC's new press release:

PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS MEMBERS ADOPT TOUGHER POLICY STANCE ON IRAQ

Washington, D.C. - The Co-Chairs of the Progressive Caucus - U.S.
Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) - today
announced that Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) Members have
approved an even stronger policy position with regard to U.S. policy in
Iraq than when they were the first bloc within this Congress last
February to call for all U.S. troops and military contractors to come
home. (See attached formal position statement and view on-line at
http://cpc.lee.house.gov/.)

"By more than a two-to-one margin, the American people want to bring
our troops and military contractors home and we members of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus are listening and more determined than
ever to accomplish this goal. In adopting this policy statement,
Progressive Caucus Members are making clear that we will oppose any
bills or amendments brought to the House floor henceforth that pertain
specifically to bringing our troops and military contractors home, but
do not include in their text a clear timeline and date certain for the
redeployment of U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq," Rep.
Woolsey underscored.

"As progressives, we are keeping faith with our constituents and a
clear majority of the American people who want to end President Bush's
failed policy in Iraq and bring our troops home," said Congresswoman
Barbara Lee (D-CA). "Republicans are going to have to decide if they
will continue to stand with the President, supporting an open-ended
commitment to his failed policy, or with the majority of Americans, who
want to bring our brave men and women home."

Here is the full statement:

U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-California) and Barbara Lee
(D-California), Co-Chairs of the Congressional Progressive Caucus
(CPC), issued the following strongly-worded position on Iraq today on
behalf of CPC Members:

CPC POSITION ON U.S. POLICY IN IRAQ

Over the last four years, the insurgency in Iraq has strengthened and
sectarian violence has increased. Furthermore, the current situation on
the ground in Iraq is grave and rapidly deteriorating. The
Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has determined accordingly that
a predominantly military approach is no longer a viable solution to
stabilizing Iraq.

We will oppose any bills or amendments brought to the House floor
henceforth that pertain specifically to bringing our troops and
military contractors home, but do not include in their text a clear
timeline and date certain for the redeployment of U.S. troops and
military contractors from Iraq.

We are committed to bringing all of the U.S. troops and military
contractors in Iraq home in a six-month time frame as part of a
fully-funded redeployment plan.

More specifically, we oppose sending additional U.S. troops and
military contractors to Iraq and favor binding votes to block President
Bush's escalation of U.S. military involvement in Iraq.

We believe all appropriations for U.S. involvement in Iraq must be
for the protection of our troops and military contractors until and
during their withdrawal within six months of the date of enactment of
this limitation and for diplomatic initiatives, economic
reconstruction, and reconciliation. The President has left the Congress
few alternatives other than to use the power of the purse spelled out
in Article I of the U.S. Constitution to curtail U.S. military
operations in Iraq.

Finally, we are opposed to establishing any permanent U.S. military
bases in Iraq, support rescinding the President's Iraq war authority,
and support greater diplomatic and political engagement in the region,
while ensuring that the Iraqi people have control over their own
petroleum resources.



II. Senate opens door to war with Iran: 76-22 and so it begins?
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/27183

By Mike Hersh

Unfortunately, despite calls like the letter below and common sense,
the US Senate today voted overwhelmingly to take a first clear step
toward war with Iran. The Kyl-Lieberman Amendment is exactly as
described in the letter from 25 organizations. 76 to 22. It wasn't even
close!

What are we going to do about it?

Will the US attack Iran? Why not a sense of Congress vote against it?
Why not a public outcry against the next horrendous, illegal, immoral,
self-defeating war?

How can anyone vote for a Senate resolution seeking international doom?
This story isn't covered at all. That's why the neocons feel (know?)
they can act with impunity. I'm tired of playing defense and I'm tired
of arguing about how best to protest / end a war that should never have
started. I don't want to spend the next five or ten years protesting
against another war we should work together to prevent. What are we
doing about it now?

Code Pink, the encampment against war in DC, and others are already
working on projects, but we have to come together and break through
into the general public. It's up to us to galvanize opposition to war
with Iran NOW before the drum beat drowns out all opposition. We're
already hearing the demonization of Iran. The media are ready to pick
up their pompoms and start cheerleading us into yet another war. It's
impossible to play "catch up" after the "shock and awe" begins. By then
it's way too late. What are you and I doing today to prevent war
tomorrow?

We need to call our Senators, write letters to the editors, and get
active. It's time for all sane Americans to join the call: NO WAR WITH
IRAN! Let's get on with it.

- ------------------------------------

Dear Senator,

We are writing to urge you to vote "No" on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment
No. 3017 to the Fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization bill. The
Kyl-Lieberman amendment is a provocative measure that will only
undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy.

Provocative measures such as the Kyl-Lieberman amendment can lead to a
tit-for-tat escalation resulting in military confrontation between the
U.S. and Iran. There are no good military options for solving our
disagreements with Iran. By further destabilizing the Middle East, a
military confrontation with Iran would result in disastrous and
unintended consequences damaging to the interests of U.S., Israel, and
indeed the entire world. If we have learned nothing else from Iraq, it
is that there are limitations to the use of military force.

We strongly caution against any legislation that increases the chances
of military force being used against Iran. The current crises must be
resolved through diplomacy, not military action. A military
confrontation with Iran would have disastrous consequences for security
throughout the region and put U.S. forces in Iraq in far greater danger.

We urge all Senators to vote "No" on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment No.
3017 to the Fiscal Year 2008 Defense Authorization bill.

Signed,

Former Congressman Tom Andrews
National Director
Win Without War

Medea Benjamin
Founding Director
Global Exchange

John Burroughs
Executive Director
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy

Jacqueline Cabasso
Executive Director
Western States Legal Foundation

Will Callaway
Legislative Director
Physicians for Social Responsibility

Simone Campbell
Executive Director
NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby

Tim Carpenter
Director
Progressive Democrats of America

Michael Eisenscher
National Coordinator
U.S. Labor Against the War

Adam G. Gerhardstein
Legislative Assistant for International Issues
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

Morton H. Halperin
Executive Director
Open Society Policy Center

Amy Isaacs
Executive Director
Americans for Democratic Action

John Isaacs
Executive Director
Council for a Livable World

(Rev.) James Kofski, M.M.
Associate, Asia/Pacific and Middle East Issues
Maryknoll Global Concerns
Washington, D.C.

Lynn Kunkle
Policy Director
3D Security Initiative

Rabbi Michael Lerner,
Editor, Tikkun Magazine
Chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

Tom Mattzie
Washington Director
Moveon.org

Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee

Gael Murphy
Co-founder
CODEPINK:Women for Peace

Robert Naiman
National Coordinator
Just Foreign Policy

Trita Parsi
President
National Iranian American Council

Marie Rietmann
Public Policy Director
Women's Action for New Directions

Sue Udry
Legislative Coordinator
United for Peace and Justice

Joe Volk
Executive Secretary
Friends Committee on National Legislation

James E. Winkler, General Secretary
General Board of Church and Society
United Methodist Church

_____________

Here are two ideas:

SIGN THIS: http://www.dontattackiran.org

COME TO THIS: Saturday September 29 noon at US Capitol
http://www.troopsoutnow.org

______________

Senate vote:

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Not Voting
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Not Voting
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay


III. The Evidence against the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/27143

By Gareth Porter


1. The administration has not come forward with a single piece of
concrete evidence to support the claim that the Iranian government has
been involved in the training, arming or advising of Iraqi Shiite
militias.

At the same briefing, officials displayed one EFP and some
fragments but did not claim that there was any forensic evidence
linking that or any other AFP to Iran. (New York Times, February 12,
2007; Washington Post, February 12, 2007)

One of the briefers at the February briefing admitted that it
was only Iraqi smugglers who brought weapons into Iraq, explaining why
no direct Iranian involvement could be documented (Washington Post,
February 12, 2007).

The official briefer who was a specialist on explosives, Maj.
Marty Weber, claimed in a later interview that the use of "passive
infrared sensors" in the deployment of EFPs in Iraq was "one of the
strongest markers of Iranian involvement" in the traffic. But he
admitted in the same interview that the electronic components needed to
make the sensors found in Iraq were "easily available off the shelf at
places like RadioShack." (New York Times, February 25, 2007)

Another official who participated in the briefing, Maj. Gen.
William B. Caldwell IV, denied that the military was claiming that Iran
was behind the traffic in arms to Iraq. He said in a follow-up press
briefing on February 14, "What we are saying is that within Iran, that
these EFP component parts are being manufactured. Within Iran weapons
and munitions are being manufactured that are ending up in Iraq. And
we are asking the Iranian government to assist in stopping that from
happening. There's no intent to do anything other than that."

Although an officials at the briefing said shipment of EFPs
had been intercepted at the border in 2005 (Washington Post, February
12, 2007), the only press report about such a border interceptions and
there was no indication that such interceptions had produced any
evidence of Iranian involvement. On the contrary, it quoted "coalition
officials" as saying there was "no evidence to suggest that the
government in Tehran is facilitating the smuggling of shape charges
into Iraq." Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita and Brig Gen. Carter
Ham, deputy director for regional operations for the Joint Staff,
continued to deny any knowledge of official Iranian complicity in EFP
or any other arm supplies (Trevor Royle, The Sunday Herald, October 9,
2005).

Despite interrogations since last spring of a top official of
an alleged Iraqi EFP network and the Hezbollah operative who was a
liaison with the organization, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the U.S. Commander
for southern Iraq, where most of the Shiite militias operate, admitted
in a July 6 briefing that his troops had not captured "anybody that we
can tie to Iran"

On September 8, the commander of the northern region of Iraq,
Maj. Gen. Thomas Turner II, admitted in a press briefing, "I don't
think we have any specific proof of Iranians in our area other than
reports. We have discovered caches..It has not been a lot. We have
seen some evidence of some weapons that were employed against coalition
forces that were made in..Iran, where they are coming from across the
border, we're not sure."

Despite the assertion by Gen. David Petraeus on September 12,
quoted in the proposed Lieberman-Kyle amendment, that the U.S. military
obtained evidence of the complicity of Iranian officials in arming and
training Shiite militias from interrogations of the above detainees, it
has not produced wither detainee or any transcript of the
interrogations. Nor has it released a direct quote from either
detainee. No apparent intelligence reason exists for withholding such
evidence from Congress and the public.

Despite Petraeus's assertion in September that the United
States obtained "hard evidence" incriminating Iran from computer hard
drives seized when the above detainees were captured March 22 of
Iranian (Al Pessin, Petraeus Says Iran Wants Iraqi 'Hezbollah Force',
VOA September 12, 2007.), none of the documentation has been made
public, nor have any specifics have been provided on what the files
show. Earlier both Petraeus and Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner had discussed
the contents of the 22-page memorandum as detailing the planning
preparation, approval and conduct of military operations by the Shiite
militia organization but without claiming that it showed any Iranian
role in any of those activities. (Petraeus April 26 press briefing;
Bergner July 2 press briefing).

2. The U.S. intelligence community has not endorsed the argument
being made by some in the Bush administration that the Iranian
government was responsible for the rise in Shiite military activity in
Iraq.

The National Intelligence Estimate, a brief summary of which
was released to the public February 2 contradicted the official
argument, stating, "Iraq's neighbors influence, and are influenced by,
events within Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not
likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability
because of the self-sustaining character of Iraq's internal sectarian
dynamics."

Instead of stating clear that Iran had provided weapons or
training to Shiite militias, the NIE offered a more ambiguous formula
that "Iranian lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants
clearly intensifies the conflict in Iraq." That formula, according to
veterans of the NIE process, probably represents a negotiated
compromise, indicating some agencies refused to endorse the claim that
the Iran was supply weapons to Iraqi Shiites.

3. The main argument made in the February 11, 2007 briefing for an
Iranian official role in providing EFPs to Shiite militias - the
allegation that only Iran had the capability to manufacture EFPs or
components for EFPs that can penetrate U.S. army -- has been proven to
be untrue.

As early as mid-2005, U.S. military intelligence officials had
already concluding that they believe the technology for making such
armor-penetrataing bombs was "spreading among a variety of insurgent
groups," obviously including Sunni insurgents with no ties to Iran or
Hezbollah. At least one insurgent cell in Baghdad was already
"attempting to make the charges locally" (Alisha Ryu, "Iranian Shape
Charges Discovered in Iraq", VOA, August 6, 2005).

Israeli intelligence reported that Hamas guerrillas
manufactured high grade EFPs during 2006 which were used in attacks on
Israeli Defense Forces in four separate incidents in September and
November 2006. The shaped charges penetrated 8 inches of steel armor
(Anti-Israeli Terrorism, 2006: Data, Analysis and Trends (Tel Aviv:
Intelligence and Terrorism Center, 2007, p. 102).

Senior military officials in Baghdad told a reporter days
after the February 11 briefing that U.S. forces had been finding an
"increasing number of advanced roadside bombs being not just assembled
but manufactured in machine shops." One official was quoted as saying,
the impact of those Iraqi-machined EFPs on armored vehicles "isn't as
clean but they are almost as effective" as the EFPs being imported.
(IJane Arraf, NBC News Corrspondent, "Bomb Technology Migrating from
Iran to Iraq", February 23, 2007)

Journalist Andrew Cockburn reported in February that in
November 2006 U.S. troops raiding a Baghdad machine shop had discovered
a pile of copper discs "stamped out as part of what was clearly an
ongoing order" ("In Iraq, anyone can make a bomb," Los Angeles Times,
February 16, 2007).

Maj. Marty Weber, the explosives expert who was one of the
three briefers in the February 11 briefing, admitted in an interview
with the New York Times less than two weeks later that "You can never
be certain" that the cooper discs for the EFPs could not be
manufactured with the required precision in Iraq. (New York Times,
February 25, 2007).

U.S. troops found a cache of components, including concave
copper discs, for making EFPs in February 2007, in which the PVC tubes
of varying widths appeared to have come from the open market, raising
the likelihood that the liners were being manufactured locally so that
they would be the right size to fit the discs. (New York Times,
February 27, 2007)

Another bomb-making factory discovered by U.S. troops in late
February was reported to have forced U.S. officials to "reassess their
belief that such bombs were being built in Iran and smuggled fully
assembled into Iraq." (Wall Street Journal, February 27, 2007)

4. U.S. and British Military intelligence officers, commanders and
civilian officials have expressed doubt that EFPs and other armaments
in the hands of Shiites have actually come from Iran or that Iranian
Quds force personnel have been involved in the supply.

British Defence Secretary Des Browne said in an interview in
August 2006, "I have not seen any evidence - and I don't think any
evidence exists - of government-supported or instigated" armed support
on Iran's part in Iraq." (Washington Post, October 4, 2006)

Lt. Col. David Labouchere, commander of a few hundred British
troops which began in late August searching the Iran-Iraq border for
evidence of Iranian supply of weapons to Iraqi Shiites, said in
October, "I suspect there's nothing out there. And I intend to prove
it." (Washington Post, October 4, 2006)

"[S]ome military analysts have concluded there is no concrete
evidence of.a link" between the Revolutionary Guard Corps and the
Shiite militias fighting U.S. troops, according to a Washington Post
report published August 20, 2007.

5. The Iranian Quds Force which the administration has claimed is
the instrument of the alleged Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq is now
admitted to have been withdrawn from Iraq.

In testimony to the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs
Committees on September 11, Gen. David Petraeus said, "[T]he Qods Force
itself -- we believe, by [and] large, those individuals have been
pulled out of the country, as have the Lebanese Hezbollah trainers that
were being used to augment that activity.

6. There is a substantial body of evidence that the Hezbollah in
Lebanon has been the main source, if not the only source, of EFPs and
other weapon used by Shiite militias in 2006 and 2007.

Hezbollah was using EFPs to attack Israel Defense Forces
armored vehicles as early as 1997 and provided EFP expertise to
Palestinian militant groups after the start of the Intifada in 2000
(Michael Knights, Jane's Intelligence Review).

Iraqi and Lebanese officials told a reporter in mid-2005 that
Iraqi Shiite fighters had begun in early 2005 "copying Hezbollah's
techniques in building roadside bombs and carrying out sophisticated
ambushes." Those Hezbollah techniques included "shaped
charges" (later renamed explosively formed penetrators by U.S.
officials), according to those same officials (Mohammed Bazzi,
"Borrowing Hezbollah's Tactics, Newsday, August 12, 2005).

It was Hezbollah's CD-Rom instructional videos that were
captured in Iraq rather than Iranian instructional materials (Knights,
Jane's Intelligence Review)

All of the weapons systems captured in Iraq that are alleged
to have been provided by Iran, including EFPs and 240 mm rockets, have
been in the Hezbollah arsenal, as indicated by many sources on the
weapons used by Hezbollah against Israel.

One of those weapons systems, the RPG-29, which was used by
Shiite militias against an American M-1 tank, is not manufactured by
Iran and is known to have been acquired by Hezbollah from Syria rather
than from Iran. (Haaretz, August 7, 2006)

There was reportedly intelligence in 2006 that Iran shipped
machine tools to Lebanon that could be used to make EFPs (New York
Times, November 28, 2006).

[Gareth Porter is a news analyst for Inter Press Service, investigative
journalist and historian, author of Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of
Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.]



IV. What Has Congress Scared of Its Own Shadow?
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/27187

Countdown: Rep. Harman Gives More Details On Bogus Terror Threat On
Capitol

By Logan Murphy, Crooks and Liars

Following up on Monday night's Nexus of Terror & Politics report, Keith
Olbermann talks with Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) to get more details on the
revelation that the Bush Administration used bogus intelligence in
order to frighten lawmakers into voting for last August's expanded FISA
bill. Harman says that after much digging she found the classified
intelligence document in question and the document clearly stated that
the intelligence community did not deem the source to be reliable.

video here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/09/26/countdown-rep-harman-gives-more-details-on-bogus-terror-threat-on-capitol/

Olbermann: "Nobody doubts the existence of terrorism or terrorists or
the need to act on their existence, but at this point, is our freedom
beginning to be or even now already at greater risk from terrorism, or
from people who are exploiting the fact of terrorism to gain
unprecedented and perhaps irreversible rights to spy and detain and
rendition and everything else?"

Harman: "Well, I think this is a-a quite a scary period in our history
and there are right answers. We can get surveillance right. I think
most of us, maybe all of us in the House and in the Senate support
surveilling people who are trying to harm us, but we can do that within
the careful framework of FISA. FISA is not broken. What's broken is the
view of executive power that some hold in the administration. They
claim it trumps all laws and our constitution."

*
=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
Our main website: http://www.blythe.org
List Archives: http://blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
Subscribe: http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
=================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFG+vm2iz2i76ou9wQRAlhoAJ48kEPsZdRn3rMgyKou3wSG4I4zmwCgwLxy
E5MWkh/+CymbNgqbDof3ILk=
=W+M7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

.