Iran strike 'would be disastrous'

Related
Grassroots worries growing over Iran
---
Last Updated: Monday, 5 February 2007, 09:15 GMT

The report's authors want Tony Blair to put pressure on the US Blair on Middle East A coalition of charities, faith groups and unions has warned Tony Blair that any military action against Iran would have "unthinkable" consequences. The organisations are urging the prime minister to put pressure on the US to enter talks with Tehran. The US has refused to rule out military action if Iran does not halt its nuclear activities. Former Labour MP Lorna Fitzsimons warned that time was "running out" to stop Iran becoming nuclear-armed. Criticism The US and its Western allies suspect Iran of using its nuclear energy programme as a cover to produce atomic weapons. Tehran denies this claim. Recent criticism by President George Bush of alleged Iranian support for insurgency in Iraq has increased concerns that his administration is contemplating an attack. The consequences of military action against Iran are not only unpalatable, they are unthinkable Former Labour minister Stephen Twigg Analysis: Worries over Iran In the report, Time to Talk: The Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran, the coalition accuses Mr Blair of using the prospect of military action as a negotiating tool. Launching the report, former Labour minister Stephen Twigg, director of the Foreign Policy Centre, said: "The consequences of military action against Iran are not only unpalatable; they are unthinkable. "Even according to the worst estimates, Iran is still years away from having a nuclear weapon. "There is still time to talk and the prime minister must make sure our allies use it." Coalition The charity Oxfam, unions Unison, GMB and Amicus, have been joined by the Muslim Parliament and Christian Solidarity Worldwide in signing the report. HAVE YOUR SAY Iranians like America, However, that can change overnight if the US attacks Iran David, Minneapolis/Tehran Send us your comments They warn that a strike against Iran would continue to destabilise the region and provoke further attacks against British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Military action is not likely to be a short, sharp engagement but could have a profound effect on the region, with shock waves felt far beyond," the report says. It goes on to say the British government is "well positioned to articulate objections to military action" and that it should "not lose this opportunity to advocate for direct US engagement". But Ms Fitzsimons, chief executive of the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are talking about here is Iran reaching the ability on an industrial scale to manufacture highly enriched uranium." 'Watershed' International Institute for Strategic Studies and others were predicting this would happen within 11 months, she added. Ms Fitzsimons said: "That is the watershed. There is no return from that point. "You can't get the genie back in the bottle technologically once they have sorted out the problem they currently have with their centrifuges. "I don't think you can stop it. You might be able to disrupt it. It's a question of looking at how far you can go down the line where you lose the ability to disrupt it." Sir Richard Dalton, the British ambassador to Iran until last year, backed the calls for increased diplomacy. "Recourse to military action - other than in legitimate self-defence - is not only unlikely to work but would be a disaster for Iran, the region and quite possibly the world," he said. Military warnings Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is a timely and significant report. "It highlights the need for the international community to be more aware of the potentially disastrous consequences of military action against Iran." But the Conservatives said it was important to "keep all options on the table". Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: "We cannot give them the comfort of believing that there is any weakness in the western alliance or that there is a chance that they might be able to divide and rule."

Breaking News Alert: One injured after 'package blast'

Police are investigating after a suspicious package reportedly exploded in Victoria Street, central London - one woman has been injured.

Ex-Republican Leader: I Should Have "Openly Opposed" War Resolution

Posted on Sun, Feb. 04, 2007

Dick Armey takes aim at GOP, war in Iraq By Dave Montgomery McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON - When he was the GOP leader in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives, Dick Armey was never known to be a shrinking violet. But now that he's out of politics, Armey is indisputably even more plainspoken as the leader of a conservative grassroots network known informally as "Armey's army." Since leaving Congress in 2003, the former House majority leader has served as chairman of FreedomWorks, which boasts more than 800,000 volunteer activists committed to fighting for less government and lower taxes, the same causes that often defined Armey's tenure as a congressman from Texas. Armey, who is also a senior lobbyist for the law firm of DLA Piper, has been openly critical in blaming Republicans for self-inflicted mistakes that he said led to the Democrats' takeover of Congress in the 2006 elections. In an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, he offered a gloves-off view on an array of topics, from President Bush to former colleague Tom DeLay. Q: Why did Republicans lose Congress? A: They forgot their priorities, they became insecure. At the very time the Democrats were trying to win elections by pretending to be us, our guys were pretending to be them. Q: Did Tom DeLay become a liability to the party? A: Oh yeah. I'm amazed at the number of people who tell me this. I have my own understandings and feelings about Tom DeLay. ... I don't believe he's a good person and I don't believe he is a person who should have been in public office. Q: Why don't you like him? A: I don't like sneaky, conniving people. I don't like people who get behind closed doors and contrive against other people. (He) has had - what's the word I want? - an aggressive tendency to create the opportunity to do back-door, behind-the-door, closed-door, dark-room contrivances against people. I just consider that unacceptable. Q: Did he do that in redistricting? (DeLay pressured the Texas legislature to redraw congressional boundaries to favor Republican members of Congress.) A: What Tom Delay did in redistricting was more correct than it was improper. ... Poor old Tom. He could even make doing the right thing look ugly in how he did it. Q: How do Republicans get Congress back? A: Boy, that's a tough one. ... They have to prove to the American people that they really are the small government conservatives the Democrats are pretending to be. Q: Do you like anybody out there in the presidential field? A: I'm not so sure that I've found anybody who actually rings my bell. I have a sort of a sense that the person that wins the nomination hasn't stepped on the field yet. Q: Who's going to be president? Who's going to win? A: If you said right now, Dick Armey, put your money on a horse that's in the race, I'd put my money on Hillary. She will be whoever you want her to be. She's a skillful, able politician. Her husband could go in and screw it up in a day. She's walking around with a ton of dynamite in her hip pocket. Q: I assume you wouldn't vote for her though. A: Of course I wouldn't vote for her. Betting on a horse to win doesn't mean you want to buy the horse. Q: Is there anybody in the Republican field who has a chance? McCain? Others? A: I have a sense recently that McCain may be turning up as old news, so I'm not so sure I'd put a lot of money on McCain. For a while, up until recently, I thought he was the front-runner (for the GOP nomination), but I don't think it's going to be hard to catch him. All of a sudden guys like (Sen. Chuck) Hagel might look a lot better. Q: Is George W. Bush a failed president? A: I've said over the years that every president either ends up a pleasant surprise or a bitter disappointment. And we haven't had a pleasant surprise since Ronald Reagan. I don't see how anybody can look at the Bush presidency and say this was a success in public policy terms. Q: Your views on the Iraq war? A: I'm not sure that it was the right thing to do. You might say removing Saddam from power was a right thing to do. Maybe it was, but was that necessarily then our responsibility to do that? And was it our responsibility to do that by invading a country that had in no way declared any war on us? Q: You voted for the resolution to go to war. A: I did, and I'm not happy about it. The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so. Q: Have you considered running for president? A: I could never get elected president. First of all, I've got the good sense not to want the job. It's never been my dream to die in Iowa. Can you imagine me getting through Iowa alive with my record on farm programs and some of the things I took on? --- DICK ARMEY Political affiliation: Republican. Age: 66. Current positions: Chairman of FreedomWorks, a conservative grassroots organization. Senior policy adviser and lobbyist for DLA Piper, a global law firm. Born: July 7, 1940, in Cando, N.D. Economics professor at the University of North Texas in Denton, 1972-1985. U.S. representative for Texas' 26th District, 1985-2003. House Majority Leader, 1995-2003. Residence: Denton County, Texas. Religion affiliation: Lewisville Bible Church. Wife: Susan Armey. Five children, 11 grandchildren. Personal touches: Avid bass fisherman. Partial to cowboy boots and Stetson hat.

U.S. Set to Begin a Vast Expansion of DNA Sampling

New rules will allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested or detained by federal authorities.
---
February 5, 2007

The Justice Department is completing rules to allow the collection of DNA from most people arrested or detained by federal authorities, a vast expansion of DNA gathering that will include hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, by far the largest group affected.

The new forensic DNA sampling was authorized by Congress in a little-noticed amendment to a January 2006 renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, which provides protections and assistance for victims of sexual crimes. The amendment permits DNA collecting from anyone under criminal arrest by federal authorities, and also from illegal immigrants detained by federal agents.

Over the last year, the Justice Department has been conducting an internal review and consulting with other agencies to prepare regulations to carry out the law.

By JULIA PRESTON

--MORE--

The Green-Zoning of America: PAUL KRUGMAN - Spoils System

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST

The Green-Zoning of America

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: February 5, 2007

Under the guise of promoting a conservative agenda, the Bush administration has created a supersized version of the 19th-century spoils system.

One of the best of the many recent books about the Iraq debacle is Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” The book tells a tale of hopes squandered in the name of politicization and privatization: key jobs in Baghdad’s Green Zone were assigned on the basis of loyalty rather than know-how, while key functions were outsourced to private contractors.

Two recent reports in The New York Times serve as a reminder that the Bush administration has brought the same corruption of governance to the home front. Call it the Green-Zoning of America.

---

Meanwhile, never mind the idea that outsourcing of government functions should be used to promote competition and save money. The Times reports that “fewer than half of all ‘contract actions’ — new contracts and payments against existing contracts — are now subject to full and open competition,” down from 79 percent in 2001. And many contractors are paid far more than it would cost to do the job with government employees: those CACI workers processing claims against other contractors cost the government $104 an hour.

--MORE--

No Way Out: MAUREEN DOWD - Iraq: " We’re Cooked"

REPOSTED

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE

The New York Times

OP-ED COLUMNIST

No Way Out

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: February 3, 2007

We’re in a cycle of violence in Iraq that is so complex and awful that withdrawing American troops will make it worse and keeping American troops there may also make it worse.

Everything you've heard and read is true. And I am deeply sorry about that." Who said it?

(a) George Bush, about the chilling new intelligence report on Iraq.

(b) Joe Biden, about his self-imploding prolixity.

(c) Condi Rice, on her ability to understand Peyton Manning's vulnerabilities better than Nuri Kamal al-Malaki's.

(d) Silvio Berlusconi, on his wife's Junoesque lightning bolt after his public flirting.

(e) Jacques Chirac, after giving a Gallic shrug at the prospect of Iran getting un or deux nuclear weapons.

(f) Hillary Clinton, on enabling the president to invade Iraq.

(g) Barack Obama, for the ultimate sin of not being black enough or white enough.

(h) Mary Cheney, on her decision to work on her terrifying dad's homophobic campaign because the thought of John Kerry was "terrifying."

(i) Gavin Newsom, the mayor of San Francisco, about his affair with his campaign manager's wife.

The answer is Gavin Newsom.

It's rare to get a simple apology when a complex obfuscation will do.

Even after releasing parts of an intelligence report so pessimistic that it may as well have been titled "Iraq: We're Cooked," Bush officials clung to their alternate reality, using nonsensical logic and cherry-picking whatever phrases they could find in the report that they could use to sell the Surge.

In the 2004 National Intelligence Estimate, civil war was a worst-case scenario. In the 2007 one, Iraq has zoomed past civil war to hell: "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgent attacks on coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence."

As John McLaughlin, the former acting director of central intelligence, told The Times's Mark Mazzetti: "Civil war is checkers. This is chess." ....

--MORE--

Why Dick Cheney Cracked Up: FRANK RICH - Cover-Up Crumbles

REPOSTED
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS

The New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST

Why Dick Cheney Cracked Up

By FRANK RICH

Published: February 4, 2007

Thanks to the commotion caused by the White House leak case, damning evidence has slowly dribbled out.

IN the days since Dick Cheney lost it on CNN, our nation’s armchair shrinks have had a blast. The vice president who boasted of “enormous successes” in Iraq and barked “hogwash” at the congenitally mild Wolf Blitzer has been roundly judged delusional, pathologically dishonest or just plain nuts. But what else is new? We identified those diagnoses long ago. The more intriguing question is what ignited this particularly violent public flare-up.

The answer can be found in the timing of the CNN interview, which was conducted the day after the start of the perjury trial of Mr. Cheney’s former top aide, Scooter Libby. The vice president’s on-camera crackup reflected his understandable fear that a White House cover-up was crumbling. He knew that sworn testimony in a Washington courtroom would reveal still more sordid details about how the administration lied to take the country into war in Iraq. He knew that those revelations could cripple the White House’s current campaign to escalate that war and foment apocalyptic scenarios about Iran. Scariest of all, he knew that he might yet have to testify under oath himself.

Mr. Cheney, in other words, understands the danger this trial poses to the White House even as some of Washington remains oblivious. From the start, the capital has belittled the Joseph and Valerie Wilson affair as “a tempest in a teapot,” as David Broder of The Washington Post reiterated just five months ago. When “all of the facts come out in this case, it’s going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great,” Bob Woodward said in 2005. Or, as Robert Novak suggested in 2003 before he revealed Ms. Wilson’s identity as a C.I.A. officer in his column, “weapons of mass destruction or uranium from Niger” are “little elitist issues that don’t bother most of the people.” Those issues may not trouble Mr. Novak, but they do loom large to other people, especially those who sent their kids off to war over nonexistent weapons of mass destruction and nonexistent uranium.

In terms of the big issues, the question of who first leaked Ms. Wilson’s identity (whether Mr. Libby, Richard Armitage, Ari Fleischer or Karl Rove) to which journalist (whether Mr. Woodward, Mr. Novak, Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) has always been a red herring.
---

The explanation for the hysteria has long been obvious. The White House was terrified about being found guilty of a far greater crime than outing a C.I.A. officer: lying to the nation to hype its case for war.

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE WITH ALL HYPERLINKS