Don't sit back quietly and let the Bush Administration violate your rights to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States! Call, write,or e-mail your congressmen and Senators today. Tell them to stop the Bush Administration's violation of the Constitution and wiretapping laws. They will listen if enough people take the time to protest this unlawfulness. Never give up and never give in! "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety."---Benjamin Franklin
This Month
May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Welcome to the Elizabethtown, Ky News, eminating from the Heartland of Kentucky. Here you will find unvarnished views on local, state,and national issues. Your comments are welcome. Thanks for visiting and come back often.
Login
User name:
Password:
Remember me 
 Photos
 Iraq
 Iran
 Fear
 9/11
 Humor
 Taxes
Main Page  »  Iran
View Article  Energy Independence: We Must Not Relax

Elizabethtown, KY---May 28, 2008

We must, as voters and as citizens, put the absolute most pressure we can on our lawmakers and leaders to do everything possible to create energy independence in the United States. And we can never stop until energy independence is a reality for our country. 

If we fail to do so, we will always be vulnerable and subject to those who manipulate the world to squeeze the most they can out of our economy and our wallets, in order to put it in their own.

 I first published this article April 22, 2006.  I am re-publishing it again today because it is as timely now as ever.

Who's To Blame For High Gasoline Prices?

Most Americans blame the Middle East for our high gasoline prices.  As many blame the big oil companies. While each may be true to a degree, we are missing the biggest culprit of all:  ourselves.

Thirty-three years ago this coming October OPEC, in response to Nixon sending arms to Israel to fight a war against Egypt and Syria, enacted an oil embargo against the United States.

Suddenly, fuel prices quadrupled.  People stood in long lines for limited amounts of fuel.  President Nixon announced "Project Independence" to make the United States self-reliant in energy.    When the Iranian revolution came along prices doubled again. 

Then what happened?  Very little. We mandated higher gas mileage automobiles, and we bought them for a while.  We talked energy conservation for awhile.   We created a Strategic Petroleum Reserve.  

Then when supplies and prices settled down we forgot it all. We now import nearly 60% of our oil needs compared to 40% in 1973. We gorged ourselves with SUVs. We have allowed mergers and acquisitions to occur that have concentrated the control of oil in 5 companies. We have ignored their collusion to control the supply of refined oil in order to produce record oil company profits.  We have allowed, maybe even promoted, just the conditions that have put us in the shape we are today.

And who is to blame?  I am afraid that the answer is in the mirror. Oh yes, we can blame the government. But we are the government. Did we insist?  Did we protest in the streets?  Did we write our congressmen and senators? Did we sustain our demands for change?  No.  We relaxed, unlike the oil lobby.  We fell into the same old comfort zone.  

Today we consume over three times the oil per day than either of the closest two nations, China and Japan. China is consuming more and more and may eventually surpass us.  India's consumption will certainly grow rapidly. The world is being increasingly more developed and will grow in its consumption. This means we now have major competitors for the oil that is available.

The worst part is that we can never be self-sufficient in oil.  We simply can not produce enough. As long as oil is our chief energy source we are under its control.

So, what is the answer?  This nation must develop United States produced replacements for oil.  We must become self-reliant, not only in pronouncement, but in reality. 

This will only happen if We the People insist upon it;  unwaveringly, loudly, consistently, even if the current prices of fuel ease.  We must remember that the oil interests do not want this.  They will do all they can to prevent it.  They will try to keep the prices just low enough to prevent alternatives from being profitable enough for business to pursue.

That is why it may be necessary for the government to do this.  If ever the country needed defending, it needs defending in the area of energy.  If we can spend billions and billions to defend the sources of oil, we can spend billions and billions to free us from the grasp of oil.

We created the atom bomb to end World War II. We went to the moon.  We can do this.  But until now, it has never truly been a priority of this country.  That means you and me. Right now many of us are probably hoping that gas prices will ease and things will return to normal.  Normal will kill us when it comes to placing any reliance on oil for our long-term energy needs.

Freedom has never been more threatened.  In order for this country to be truly free, it must find a way to give up foreign oil by replacing it with American fuel.  We must use our technology, our genius, and our determination.  We must not relent.  We must not forget.  We must insist upon a focused and financed national energy independence effort. 

We must succeed to survive.

 

View Article  Baghdad Tea: Reading the Leaves of Iraq's Future

Elizabethtown KY News
August 6, 2007

Iraqis drink tea all day.  They use loose leaves.  Those used Iraqi tea leaves are beginning to tell a story.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government is crumbling as you read this article.  Sunnis are abandoning his Shiite-dominated government in droves. 

Recently the U.S. gave billions in arms to Sunni Saudi Arabia.  Shiites are dominant in Iran, a country the U.S. accuses of supplying arms to kill Americans, if not directly killing U.S. troops themselves.

The tea leaves are pointing toward one of two scenarios.  One is a partitioned Iraq, with three distinct states: one Sunni, one Shiite, and one Kurdish.

The second scenario could be an all-out battle between Sunni and Shiite forces, with Saudi Arabia and the U.S. backing the Sunnis, and Iran backing the Shiites.  The Kurds might still survive this battle as a separate state.

News that the U.S. is training and recruiting former Sunni insurgents--forces that may very well have killed U.S. troops in the past-- is another telling sign that the U.S. may have chosen sides, in deference to the Saudis.

The irony of this is that it was predominately Sunni Arabs from Saudi Arabia that carried out 9/11, and Al-Qaida is made up of Sunni radicals.

Somehow, someway, the Bush Administration's policy continues to shift in the quicksand of wrong-headed decision after wrong-headed decision. 

It seems that Bush cares not who his allies are, as long as they give him some chance, no matter how very slight, to overcome his great mistake.

So now, the Iraqi enemies of yesterday become the allies of today; and the Shiites, long tortured by Saddam Hussein himself, may become the enemy.

So say the tea leaves in Iraq today.

 

 

 

View Article  Cheney Wants to Attack Iran Before Leaving Office

July 16, 2007

The megalomaniac Dick Cheney is arguing for the attack of Iran before he and his fellow megalomaniac George Bush leave office.

What follows is two stories brought to our attention by "Truthout", a news reporting non-profit organization.  One is a story from the "The Gaurdian UK" and the other from "Think Progress".

As if it wasn't bad enough that the Demonic Duo has gotten us bogged down in a god-forsaken unjustified war in Iraq,  now Dirty Dick and his sidekick George, assisted by Joe Lieberman (I-for Israeli stooge), want to broaden our Middle East dilemma by attacking Iran.  Dick and Georgie have already positioned our warships off the east coast of Iran; and have greatly increased our airpower off the western border of Iran, in Iraq, as part of the "surge".

Could it be that the surge was as much a tactic to put more boots and air power near Iran, as to deal with the chaos in Iraq?

Here are the two stories, provided by "Truthout":

 

  Print This Story  E-mail This Story

Also see below:     
As Senate Iran Vote Looms, Brownback Advocates Strike on Iran    •

    Go to Original

    Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran
    By Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger
    The Guardian UK

    Monday 16 July 2007

Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out. President "not prepared to leave conflict unresolved."

    The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.

    The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo."

    The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.

    Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week.

    Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.

    "Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

    The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

    "The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

    Almost half of the US's 277 warships are stationed close to Iran, including two aircraft carrier groups. The aircraft carrier USS Enterprise left Virginia last week for the Gulf. A Pentagon spokesman said it was to replace the USS Nimitz and there would be no overlap that would mean three carriers in Gulf at the same time.

    No decision on military action is expected until next year. In the meantime, the state department will continue to pursue the diplomatic route.

    Sporadic talks are under way between the EU foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, on the possibility of a freeze in Iran's uranium enrichment programme. Tehran has so far refused to contemplate a freeze, but has provisionally agreed to another round of talks at the end of the month.

    The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has said that there are signs of Iran slowing down work on the enrichment plant it is building in Natanz. Negotiations took place in Tehran last week between Iranian officials and the IAEA, which is seeking a full accounting of Iran's nuclear activities before Tehran disclosed its enrichment programme in 2003. The agency's deputy director general, Olli Heinonen, said two days of talks had produced "good results" and would continue.

    At the UN, the US, Britain and France are trying to secure agreement from other security council members for a new round of sanctions against Iran. The US is pushing for economic sanctions that would include a freeze on the international dealings of another Iranian bank and a mega-engineering firm owned by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Russia and China are resisting tougher measures.


    Go to Original

    As Senate Iran Vote Looms, Brownback Advocates Strike on Iran
    Think Progress

    Sunday 15 July 2007

    On Wednesday, the Senate voted 97-0 to pass a resolution sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to censure Iran "for what it said was complicity in the killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq." The resolution required the Bush administration to regularly report to Congress on Iran's role in Iraq.

    While the resolution explicitly rejected authorization for immediate military action, the gist of the resolution declared Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States, thereby laying the foundation for a confrontation with Iran. Newshoggers wrote that the resolution may provide the "political cover for launching a war."

    Validating the concern many felt, Sen. Sam Brownback appeared on Fox News shortly after the vote and declared he was ready to preemptively strike Iran. Host Sean Hannity asked Brownback, "There's probably going to come a point for the next president that they're going to have to determine whether to go out and have that preemptive strike. And you're ready and would be ready to do that?"

    "Yes, I am, and I think we have to be," Brownback answered. "Sean, if we're going to be serious about this fight, and we're in this fight, and probably for a generation. We're probably in this fight for a generation."

    When the Congress voted to authorize force against Iraq in 2002, it cited as justification the fact that Congress had passed a law in 1998 sponsored by Sen. Trent Lott.

  -------

  Jump to today's Truthout Features:   

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

  Print This Story  E-mail This Story

 
 

| t r u t h o u t | issues | environment | labor | women | health | voter rights | multimedia | donate | contact | subscribe | about us

Leave Comment  |  Permanent Link  |  Cosmos
Saturday, June 16
View Article  NY Times Article Verifies White House Rift over Iran Strategy

June 16, 2007

Just Wednesday, we reported that there seemed to be a White House rift over how to deal with Iran.

Now comes a New York Times piece today, verifying and deepening how right our piece was.

In the article, it is pointed out that the State Department, led by Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, is working for a diplomatic solution with Iran over the nuclear and other issues.

So now we know that both Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice are resisting the neo-con hawks and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The NYT piece says Vice-President Cheney's office claims it supports the State Department's position, but statements the Vice-President made aboard the USS Nimitz in the Persian Gulf indicate otherwise.

We may not always know all the inside details out here in the hinterland of America, but those of us who are paying attention to all of the news can certainly discern things like this rift over White House Iran policy.

Wednesday, June 13
View Article  White House Iran Debate: Truth or War?

June 13, 2007

Evidence is mounting there is a crucial struggle going on within the White House between Vice President Dick Cheney and his neoconservative buddies and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates over Iran.

With growing consistency, Cheney and his neo-con buddies like  former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, continue to push the case for attacking Iran; whether it be to protect oil shipping lanes or prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons.

Now Cheney and his cohorts are pushing the "Iran is providing weapons to the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents" theme almost daily, figuring Americans will support action against a country they claim is directly causing the deaths of American troops.

Meanwhile, Gates is trying to stop the war-selling effort by Cheney, et al, by stating that while Iranian made weapons are in Afghanistan and Iraq there is no direct evidence the Iraqi government is providing them.  Gates is to be commended for inserting reality into the hysteria Cheney and his buddies are attempting to create.

Cheney and his group are employing the same "bugaboo" sales job for an Iranian war that was used to convince America it needed to invade Iraq.  Before the Iraq War they lied about the supposed "yellow cake" nuclear material Iraq supposedly got from Nigeria.  That and the whole WMD claim were two of the major fabrications used to justify the invasion of Iraq. 

With things going so swell in Iraq, can Cheney really be serious about opening up another front on the eastern border of Iraq?

Where is presidential leadership on this issue?  Is George W. Bush going to allow Cheney to have his way again, or will he finally tell Cheney that he, Bush, is the decider like he told the rest of us?

Cooler and saner heads can only hope Gates prevails.  The last thing the U.S. needs now is a second military conflict initiated by war-hawk liars.

 

 

Thursday, May 24
View Article  Toothless National Press Failing America Again On Iraq

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown,KY
May 24, 2007

Listening to George W. Bush answering questions about Iraq from reporters in the Rose Garden today was an incredible experience.  That's because his answers are not credible.

Bush says we are there at "the invitation of the Iraqi government".  Really?  Does anyone remember Saddam Hussein asking us to invade Iraq with approximately 150,000 troops, and overthrow his government?  Didn't we overthrow the previous government of Iraq and help create the government that is now there?

Further, was Al-Qaeda based in Iraq when they attacked New York City?  No.  They were based in Afghanistan.  Is Osama bin Laden in Iraq today?  No.  He is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region by all accounts.  Now Al-Qaeda is stirring up significant trouble in Pakistan, and helping the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan.

Bush says that Hussein deserved to be overthrown because he was a brutal tyrant.  As opposed to what:  daily bombings and daily massacres of Sunnis and Shiites by each other?  Can Bush really say the Iraqi people are living in better conditions today than they were under Hussein, as terrible as he was? 

Bush says we must stay in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda and prevent them from establishing a safe haven there.  Doesn't Bush realize that by invading Iraq, he has created the greatest motivation to--and the strongest magnet for-- terrorists to enter Iraq and fight what they see as the "American infidels" occupying an Arab country?

Bush says if we leave Iraq now, it will cause a catastrophic disaster in Iraq.  Yes, there will probably be an all-out civil war, with the Shiites crushing the Sunni minority.  As opposed to what, the American Civil War , in which there were 10,000 military engagements, 203,000 killed in action, 618,000 total dead, and 412,200 wounded? Did any country intervene in our civil war to put a stop to the killing? No.

Reporters who ask Bush questions never pin him down on such statements.  If they had the guts, they would ask questions like the following:

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that you wanted to avenge threats made against your father by Saddam Hussein?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that you want to control access to oil in the Middle East?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President--as evidenced by the oil "agreements" being pushed on the Iraqis-- that you not only wish to control access to the oil there, you also want our big oil companies to suck up most of the profit from the oil being produced there?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that far from hurting the cause of anti-American terrorism in the world, the invasion of Iraq has given more motivation to terrorists, and created a great recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and other anti-American terrorists?

Isn't it your goal, Mr. President , to establish what will be basically a puppet government in Iraq, under the control of the U.S.?

Didn't you miscalculate terribly, Mr. President, by failing to recognize that the huge Shiite majority in Iraq would feel more comfortable with the Shiite majority in Iran than with us?

Isn't your policy of "pre-emptive" action and "regime change", Mr. President, really just your belief that the United States has the right to dictate the form and nature of other governments around the world?

Would you agree, Mr. President, with any other country--say China or Russia--using its power to invade another country to effect regime change when it disagrees with or dislikes the current rulers and/or governments?

Hasn't history now shown, Mr. President, that you and your administration "cooked" the so-called "evidence" you presented to the American people and the world to "justify" your invasion of Iraq?

Aren't you being disingenuous, Mr. President, by claiming that you are basing your policy on advice from "military commanders on the ground", when everybody knows they work for you, their boss?

President Bush has his answers well-rehearsed.  After all, he has been saying the same things and pursuing the same strategy for five or so years now. 

Bush's rhetoric and reality are far apart.  Unfortunately, most Republicans still reside in the ether of the president's disconnect.

That's why the president is able to continue dragging our country and our troops through the muddled sludge of his great mistake.

The national media has become a flock of sheep, with little courage.  It rarely challenges the Bush administration with any vigor.  It not only accepts Bush's pablum on Iraq, it is remaining strangely quiet on what appears to be a coming war with Iran.

It is bad enough our president is failing us.  Now--as before the Iraq War--a toothless national press is as well.

Wednesday, May 23
View Article  U.S. Covert Actions in Iran--Picking a Fight?

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 23,2007

ABC News reported last night it has confirmed the White House has authorized covert "black" actions by the CIA within Iran.

This seems to be a two-pronged Iranian strategy on the part of the U.S.  One prong is U.S. claims of Iranian connections to actions against U.S. troops in Iraq.  The other prong is covert actions by the U.S. to subvert the regime in Iran.

Reportedly, Vice-President Cheney still prefers a direct attack on Iran, but others in the White House prefer clandestine efforts to bring down the Islamic regime there.

Both prongs are raising tensions between the U.S. and Iran on a daily basis. 

One has to wonder if  U.S. strategy is to provoke the Iranian regime into doing something rash; something the U.S. can use as a pretext for attacking Iran.

History records that President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized covert actions in North Vietnam waters to provoke North Vietnam into the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The U.S. then used North Vietnam's attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin as an excuse to attack North Vietnam, thus beginning the Vietnam War.

Iran can not help but be paranoid and nervous with the world's largest superpower having two aircraft carriers within 150 miles of its eastern coast, and a U.S. military force that is increasing daily to its west. Covert actions, openly admitted to by the Bush administration, can only add to the fears of the Iranian regime.

It is fair to ask if the Bush administration is attempting to provoke Iran into doing something Bush and Cheney can use as a justification for bombing Iran's nuclear development facilities.

Will Iran be smart enough to stop its nuclear development in a verifiable manner, and then seek improved relations with the U.S.?  Or will Iran make the mistake of giving the U.S. an excuse to attack?

 

 

Month Archive
Recent Articles
Recent Visitors
Quaquigi - Sun 26 Apr 2009 10:57 AM EDT 
MinervaFan - Mon 03 Nov 2008 02:06 PM EST 
Steve - Sun 12 Oct 2008 08:47 AM EDT 
Cristian - Mon 25 Aug 2008 11:48 AM EDT 
tony - Sun 20 Jul 2008 05:26 PM EDT