EU Constitution author says referendums can be ignored
We the Elites Not we the people! Never mind the Masses says Giscard d'Estaing. the 33 degree Freemason EU Architect
Future referendums will be ignored whether they are held in Ireland or elsewhere, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, the architect of the European Union Constitution said.
The former President of France drafted the old Constitution that was rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago before being resurrected as the Lisbon EU Treaty, itself shunned by the Irish two weeks ago.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing told the Irish Times that Ireland's referendum rejection would not kill the Treaty, despite a legal requirement of unanimity from all the EU's 27 member states.
"We are evolving towards majority voting because if we stay with unanimity, we will do nothing," he said.
"It is impossible to function by unanimity with 27 members. This time it's Ireland; the next time it will be somebody else."
"Ireland is one per cent of the EU".
Mr Giscard d'Estaing also admitted that, unlike his original Constitutional Treaty, the Lisbon EU Treaty had been carefully crafted to confuse the public.
"What was done in the [Lisbon] Treaty, and deliberately, was to mix everything up. If you look for the passages on institutions, they're in different places, on different pages," he said.
"Someone who wanted to understand how the thing worked could with the Constitutional Treaty, but not with this one."
France and Germany are putting pressure on Ireland to hold a second referendum which would allow the Lisbon Treaty to come into force before European elections on June 4 2009.
Mr Giscard d'Estaing believes "there is no alternative" to a second Irish vote, a view shared by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French President.
Mr Sarkozy, who takes over the EU's rotating presidency next week, will use a Brussels summit on October 15 to force Ireland to find a way out of Europe's Treaty difficulties.
"Everyone agrees it has to be sorted out by the time of European elections," he said at the weekend.
Václav Klaus, the Czech President has continued to insist that the Lisbon Treaty "cannot come into force" after the Irish vote.
"The EU cannot ignore its own rules. The Lisbon Treaty has been roundly and democratically rejected by Ireland, and it therefore cannot come into force," he told El Pais newspaper.
"Any attempt to ignore this fact and make recourse to pressure and political manipulation to move the treaty forward would have disastrous consequences."
Mark François, Conservative spokesman on Europe, also insisted that it was time that European politicians started to respect the Irish No vote.
"The Irish people gave an emphatic No to the Treaty of Lisbon on a record turnout and it would be good for politicians of all countries to respect this democratic decision," he said.
"The point is particularly clear to us here in Britain as the Irish were fortunate to be given a referendum which we were denied by our Government."
An opinion poll for the newspaper Libération has shown 44 per cent of the French want Ireland to vote again and 26 per cent want the ratification process to continue without Ireland.
But a quarter of those polled want to abandon the Treaty and 52 per cent think the Irish No vote is going to dominate Mr Sarkozy's EU presidency.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2200026/EU-Constitution-author-says-referendums-can-be-ignored.html
Don't give your consent to slavery, fight fascism
Normal folks do not want to believe that the human race is dominated by dark forces. But, there is a small group of people who know that it is true, the human race is considered to be livestock, cattle for the real owners of this world, the elite.
Since the day of our creation, mankind has been dominated and shaped by inhuman entities, to behave more like cattle. The shapers themselves know this to be true. They also know that if we are not kept ignorant many of us will one day learn to ask the proper questions, until we finally locate the evidence that proves it is all true. Through diligent research, various people have discovered proof of the machinery that controls America's economy, its political system, its military, its educational system, its medical system, every facet of life. This knowledge is a direct threat to the elite.
The elite power game is designed to wear the people down, as they move the nation slowly toward a predicted outcome, where the majority becomes exhausted from fighting a losing struggle and completely submits to total elite domination of all resources. When the American masses freely surrender their free will to the dark overlords, in the name of security, the fate of the world will be sealed by this lawless tyranny. Destruction and suffering, such as has never been witnessed by the eyes of man, will be unleashed upon the helpless victims.
Very few people can see this future (no one wants to see it) outside of the elite, who gladly accept it as the price of saving whatever is left of the world for themselves. The masters of humanity count on our blindness and willful ignorance, in order to carry out their conspiratorial plans. They join in secret organizations, where they are free to openly discuss their schemes amongst their own kind.
The documentation of their plotting is kept locked away from the public in corporate vaults and private libraries. Occasionally, someone on the inside discovers their conscience and leaks word of the devilish plans to the outside world, or maybe they simply slip up and lose track or control of sequestered documents. In order to deceive us and to stall the day of our realization of the multitude of their crimes against humanity, intensive disinformation is introduced into the webstream, discrediting the truth by impersonating it. We have to be diligent in our research to ascertain the veracity of any documents that we might come across. If their revelations cannot be confirmed by multiple sources, then they must be suspect. The Pentagon Papers and Operation Northwoods come quickly to mind. Both of these major leaks were later partially corroborated by reports of past deceptive military PSYOPS and CIA covert wars.
Then there are the out of the blue revelations offered by researchers who claim to have obtained inside information, or in the case of former MI6 agent John Coleman, a training manual from the Tavistock Institute (British mind control research). Coleman's research, in his 1992 book, Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300, is automatically suspect because of his previous government involvement. But this research on social scientists and psychologists at Tavistock, founded in studies by British "Operational Research" at the end of World War II (on the psycho/social impact of bombing upon civilian populations), provided valuable insight to me on the mechanisms for studying and manipulating human cattle.
Another very insightful document of questionable origin, which seems to corroborate Coleman's work, entitled, Silent Weapons For a Quiet War (an Operations Research Technical Manual), is alleged to be a document from the highly-secretive elitist Bilderberg Group. This document may be legitimate, or it may also be a carefully constructed piece of disinformation. Whatever it is, it opens even more insights into the opinions of the elite towards the American sheeple, or anyone not living up to their lofty cruel standards and ideas for forging a global dictatorship:
"The general public refuses to improve its own mentality and its faith in its fellow man. It has become a herd of proliferating barbarians, and, so to speak, a blight upon the fate of the earth. They do not care enough about economic science to learn why they have not been able to avoid war despite religious morality, and their religious or self-gratifying refusal to deal with earthly problems renders the solution of the earthly problem unreachable by them. It is left to those few who are truly willing to think and survive as the fittest to survive, to solve the problem for themselves as the few who really care.
"This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the political, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public. They hire politicians to face reality for them."
Silent Weapons builds upon the British work begun at Operations Research and by its offshoot studies, in studying the effects of planned shocks upon the "cattle," in particular the economic effects of specific psychological shocks. From this research they constructed what they called an "economic amplifier" for stimulating the economy in various ways, by shocking the populace and using the information obtained to control the people, thereby manipulating their free will.
"The low class elements of the society must be brought under total control, i.e., must be house-broken, trained, and assigned a yoke and long term social duties from a very early age, before they have an opportunity to question the propriety of the matter . . . In order to achieve such conformity, the lower class family unit must be disintegrated by a process of increasing preoccupation of the parents and occupationally orphaned children . . . The quality of education given to the lower class must be of the poorest sort, so that the . . . ignorance isolating the inferior class from the superior class is and remains incomprehensible to the inferior class. With such an initial handicap, even bright lower class individuals have little if any hope of extricating themselves from their assigned lot in life. This form of slavery is essential to maintaining some measure of social order, peace, and tranquility for the ruling upper class."
"Economic engineers . . . study the behavior of the economy and the consumer public by carefully selecting a staple commodity such as beef, coffee, gasoline, or sugar and then causing a sudden change or shock in its price or availability, thus kicking everybody's budget and buying habits out of shape . . . They then observe the shock waves which result by monitoring the changes in advertising, prices, and sales of that and other commodities . . . The objective of such studies is to acquire know-how to set the public economy into a predictable state of motion or change, even a controlled self-destructive state of motion which will convince the public that certain "expert" people should take control of the money system and reestablish security (rather than liberty and justice) for all. When the subject citizens are rendered unable to control their financial affairs, they of course, become totally enslaved, a source of cheap labor."
"Labor strikes deliver excellent test shocks to an economy, especially in the critical service areas of trucking (transportation), communication, public utilities (energy, water, garbage collection), etc . . . By shock testing, it is found that there is a direct relationship between the availability of money flowing in an economy and the psychological outlook and response of masses of people dependent upon that availability . . . For example, there is a measurable, quantitative relationship between the price of gasoline, and the probability that a person would experience a headache, feel a need to watch a violent movie, smoke a cigarette, or go to a tavern for a mug of beer."
"It is most interesting that, by observing and measuring the economic modes by which the public tries to run from their problems and escape from reality, and by applying the mathematical theory of Operations Research, it is possible to program computers to predict the most probable combination of created events (shocks) which will bring about a complete control and subjugation of the public through a subversion of the public economy (by shaking the plum tree)."
"Keep the public undisciplined and ignorant of basic systems principles on the one hand, while keeping them confused, disorganized, and distracted with matters of no real importance on the other hand.
Disengaging their minds, sabotaging their mental activities, by providing a low quality program of public education in mathematics, logic, systems design, and economics, and by discouraging technical creativity.
Unrelenting emotional affronts and attacks (mental and emotional rape) by way of a constant barrage of sex, violence, and wars in the media -- especially TV and the newspapers.
Shift their thinking from personal needs to highly fabricated outside priorities.
Preclude their interest in and discovery of the silent weapons of social automation technology.
The best approach is to create problems and then offer the solutions.
Keep the public busy, busy, busy, with no time to think; back on the farm with the other animals.
The elitists' control over information, made possible by the creation of a global computer network, allowed them to absorb all available data from both voluntary and involuntary sources and incorporate the latest facts into their studies for manipulating the unsuspecting masses. The computer-modeling they developed allowed them to accurately predict the real world effect of certain shocks through computer simulations.
"A silent weapon system operates upon data obtained from a docile public by legal (but not always lawful) force . . . The number of such forms submitted to the I.R.S. is a useful indicator of public consent, an important factor in strategic decision making . . . When the government is able to collect tax and seize private property without just compensation, it is an indication that the public is ripe for surrender and is consenting to enslavement and legal encroachment. A good and easily quantified indicator of harvest time is the number of public citizens who pay income tax."
The move to expand their acquisition of personal information led them to take the risky step of sharing their global computer/communications network, the Internet, with the people, even with the sheeple. But, the document reveals that the controllers were well aware of the risks and accepted it as the necessary price of aggregating all that juicy input.
"It was only a matter of time, only a few decades, before the general public would be able to grasp and upset the cradle of power, for the very elements of the new silent weapon technology were as accessible for a public utopia as they were for providing a private utopia.
"As time goes on and communication and education improve, the lower class elements of the social labor structure become knowledgeable and envious of the good things that the upper class members have. They also begin to attain a knowledge of energy systems and the ability to enforce their rise through the class structure.
"This threatens the sovereignty of the elite.
"If this rise of the lower classes can be postponed long enough, the elite can achieve energy dominance. Until such energy dominance is absolutely established, the consent of people to labor and let others handle their affairs must be taken into consideration, since failure to do so could cause the people to interfere in the final transfer of energy sources to the control of the elite.
"It is essential to recognize that at this time, public consent is still an essential key to the release of energy in the process of economic amplification."
Whether this document is a fraud or not, its characterizations of elitist contempt for the sheeple resonates as truth. This means that they are vulnerable, if we are diligent in our investigations, but only for a limited time. Our window of opportunity is very limited, as we watch it slowly close before us. If the American people capitulate before we can educate them to the dangerous future awaiting us all, then all hope is lost. The people are irrelevant until we learn to organize and to fight back. Until we learn how to disrupt their plan by generating our own reverse shock waves, generated by explosive revelatory truths, we will remain irrelevant. Until we can blow away the foundations of lies that empower the cover-ups, the truths that could set us all free will remain useless data, lost in the webstream, hidden in executive vaults and private libraries.
As long as the people remain compliant to elitist molding, there remains little hope. It is time to strike a blow for hope. We must launch our own counteroffensive, in order to capture the people's minds, in time to repel the final wave of conformation. We must begin to see the elitists who dominate us as the vile scum that they truly are, alien to all decent human beings. It is our last call for making the American people relevant to those who have been elected to represent us in our fake democracy.
In my quest to understand what is needed to avert the catastrophic future that awaits us, and to formulate a workable alternative vision to it, I turned to one of the most-often quoted figures in America, Noam Chomsky. In a recent interview he did with Al-Jazeera Network, Chomsky: US public irrelevant, Chomsky described our plight and compared it to recent third world revolutions, carried-out by simple folks in similar predicaments:
"For the majority of the population real wages have stagnated or declined for the past 30 years, there's been growth but it's going to the wealthy and into very few pockets, benefits which were never really great have declined, work hours have greatly increased and there isn't really much to show for it other than staying afloat."
"The elite strategy for managing the electorate is to ignore the will of the people as . . . interpret[ed] through polling data . . . We have models right in front of us. Like pick, say, Bolivia, the poorest county in South America. They had a democratic election a couple of years ago that you can't even dream about in the US. It's kind of interesting it's not discussed [in our press] . . . A large majority of the population became organised and active for the first time in history and elected someone from their own ranks on crucial issues that everyone knew about -- control of resource, cultural rights, issues of justice, you know, really serious issues . . .
"A couple of years before this they managed to drive Bechtel and the World Bank out of the country when they were trying to privatize the war. It was a pretty harsh struggle . . . Well, they reached a point where they finally could manifest this through the electoral system -- they didn't have to change the electoral laws, they had to change the way the public acts . . . Actually if we look at the poorest country in the hemisphere -- Haiti -- the same thing happened in 1990. You know, if peasants in Bolivia and Haiti can do this, it's ridiculous to say we can't."
The only thing that will save us and the world from the great plundering that is planned for us is another revolution, a revolution of free will. Everyone must stop surrendering their will to the dishonest men and women who claim to represent us. We must reclaim our fading and lost heritage.
"To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them." --Michael Parenti author.
Americans can stop the overlords from carrying out the final step for ending human freedom, expanding their global war into Iran, escalating it beyond the nuclear threshold. Advancement of their geopolitical plan through the use of terrorism by our own government and through their proxies in foreign intelligence services remains the immoral center of their unholy schemes. We stop this hypocrisy by making this common knowledge.
Revelations of "silent weapons" being used in a secret war against them and their families will go a long way towards opening many eyes and convincing people to resist. What is needed is massive resistance, on a scale not seen in this country for a very long time. People have to be convinced to resist cooperating with government and private efforts to collect personal data and conform with illegal mandates. Organize to stop the war and the submission to intrusive government measures. In the end, we must bring down the corrupt Federal Reserve System.
Soldiers must refuse to lay down their freedom and their lives for the war machine. Everyone must stop playing along with our farcical electoral system. Don't vote on November 6; send them a static-filled signal of our own.
DON'T VOTE, DON'T WORK. General Strike.
DON'T VOTE, DON'T WORK! General Strike.
DON'T VOTE, DON'T WORK! General Strike.Peter Chamberlin
Online Journal
Bolton: Israel Strike On Iran ‘During Bush’s Term Makes A Lot Of Sense’
Yesterday morning on Fox News, former UN Ambassador John Bolton claimed Israel has to make a decision to bomb Iran soon, partly because they need to do it with a U.S. President in office who would support the unilateral strike:
I think their calculation has to be they want the support — at least after-the-fact — from the United States, and therefore, I think doing it during President Bush’s term makes a lot of sense. I don’t think they’ll do it before our election because you can’t calculate what the impact would be, and of course after the election, they’ll know who will be President — and that would factor into their decision as well.
In the interview, Bolton also made the case for preventive war against Iran. “I don’t personally believe in just-in-time non-proliferation,” he said. “Our intelligence on Iran is far from perfect,” Bolton conceded. Yet Iran’s “strategic objective” and “rhetoric from their leadership” is enough to justify war. Watch it:
Bolton was even more explicit in an interview with Israel Insider. “Bolton said that if Senator Obama is elected in November, Israel could not afford to wait until he takes office on January 20, before taking action. ‘An Obama victory would rule out military action by the Israelis because they would fear the consequences given the approach Obama has taken to foreign policy.’”
The right-wing neoconservative establishment is quickly unifying behind this argument that bombing must occur before a possible President Obama takes office. Last week, both Bolton and Bill Kristol made the argument.
I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama's going to win, does he somehow think does he worry that Obama won't follow through on that policy, Kristol said.
UPDATE: Shabtai Shavit, former chief of the Israeli Mossad:
“If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it,” Shavit told the paper. “If it’s Obama: no. My prediction is that he won’t go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House.”
UPDATE II: Dana Perino was asked in the White House press briefing today whether Bush agreed with Bill Kristol that a strike would need to occur on his watch if Obama is elected. Perino answered: There's a lot of political analysts out there, and I respect that they have their opinions. What I can tell you as the President's spokesperson, he is singularly focused on trying to solve this issue diplomatically. Watch it:
Think Progress
Iran War Sooner than we think
.
06.30.08 -- ALMS
Monday, June 30, 2008
Puzzle by Lynn Lempel, edited by Will Shortz
Lynn Lempel, the author of today’s puzzle, is the mistress of the wisp of Monday New York Times crosswords -- PRAISE (46D. Kudos) is due, and this pleasant back-to-work crossword before the coming holiday weekend may provoke many to say IAGREE (47D. “That’s my opinion, too”).
Today, we are given ALMS (69A. Donations for the poor), amounting to FOUNDMONEY (61A. Unexpected wallet fattener … and what the circled words are) in the form of RAND, LIRA, YEN and PESO, existing within the inter-related entries of DURANDURAN (17A. British pop group with a repetitive name), MOSULIRAQ (25A. Kurdistan city on the Tigris); HIGHWAYENTRANCE (35A. On-ramp); and GRAPESODA (51A. Welch’s soft drink). Loosely related, there is also TIP (42A. Gratuity); ECU (6D. Bygone French coin); and 7. “ … NOR a lender be”.
People in the puzzle -- joining Duran Duran are KEATON (4D. Buster on the silent screen); a HINDU (9D. Worshiper of Brahma); ARTURO (11D. Conductor Toscanini); CHE (40D. Fighter with Fidel); a SGTMAJ (45D. High-ranking noncom); URI (23A. Geller who claims paranormal ability); SPITZ (45A. Mark who was a swimming phenom at the 1972 Olympics); a TEATASTER (48A. Lipton employee); MIRO (59A. Spanish artist Joan); TOSCA (65A. Cavaradossi’s love in a Puccini opera); along with RCA’s mascot (43A. Nipper the dog’s company) and a RARE (66A. Few and far between) straightforward clue for GOD (24A. The Lord).
Conversation and the like -- a CALL (10A. “Out!!” or “Safe!”), AHA (44A. “Now I get it!), and AHEM (49D. “Uh, excuse me”), along with descriptives ENRAGING (3D. Maddening), JEER (67A. Mock), LEERAT (12D. Regard with lust) in the telling of the STORY (68A. Tale).
The remainder of the solver’s ITINERARY (28A. Traveler’s route) includes the eight-letter NATIONAL (39D. Not local or state), the seven-letter ORDERED (26D. Chose from the menu, say), and the six-letter entries of CLASSY (8D. Chic); DENOTE (56A. Signify); LOWIQS (13D. Reasons for special ed); SONORA (50D. Mexican state bordering Arizona); 20A. STATUS quo; TOBOOT (48D. As well).
Five-letter -- BENCH (5A. Nonplayer’s spot in the dugout); ECOLI (15A. Meat-contaminating bacteria); LOOTS (31A. Pillages); ILLER (22D. In worse health); WIZEN (37D. Shrink from age); SIFTS (52D. Looks [through], as for information.
Four- and three-letter -- ASEA, BEDS, COS, DDAY, EAR and EYES, HOI, HONE, HTTP, IOTA, ISH, MANY, NCAA, NCR, NIB, NUDE (18. Like the upper half of the Venus de Milo), OAR, OREO, PHDS, PREK, REAP, ROUT, SAN, SDI, SET, STAT, STEW, TAG, TAI, TERM, USO.-----------------
For today’s cartoon, go to The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery subscription.
Search information: Across: 1. Like students in the Head start program; 14. Sharpen, as a knife; 16. Double Stuf cookie; 21. Reagan antimissile plan, for short; 34. Filming site; 54. Dangler on an item for sale; 55. Pen point, 64. Far from land. Down: 1. Grad school achievements; 2. Defeat decisively; 5. Mattress sites; 10. Trig ratio: Abbr.; 25. Umpteen; 27. Smidgen; 28. Sort of: Suffix; 30. Harvest; 34. Rebounds or assists; 36. URL starter; 38. March Madness org.; 41. Audiologist’s concern; 56. June 6, 1944; 57. Six years, for a senator; 58. Peepers; 60. Crew implement; 62. Support grp. For the troops; 63. Big maker of checkout devices.
06.29.08 -- 9 ½ K
Sunday, June 29, 2008
TEN GRAND SURPLUS, Puzzle by Tony Orbach and Patrick Blindauer
Nine inter-related humorous entries are featured in this Sunday puzzle by inserting ten K’s into standard phrases, et cetera -- SHOWMETHEMONKEY (22. Impatient kid’s plea at a zoo?); TRIPLEKLUTZ (31. Worrisome type at a china shop?); AFTERASKORT (48. Seeking the right women’s tennis attire?); PLANKAHEAD (54. Warning sign on a pirate ship?); WINKWINKSITUATION (61. Source of some inside humor?); BARKTENDER (71. Tree doctor?); AVERAGEJOKE (82. Your basic “So this guy walks into a bar …”?); GUNKCONTROL (94. Use of steel wool, e.g.?); INFLATABLEKRAFT (110. Cheez Whiz you could blow up?).
Across: 1. City once called Eva Perón; 8. Jim Belushi’s costume in “Trading Places”; 15. Cross stock; 19. Napoleon’s relatives; 20. Romance; 21. Reform Party founder; 24. Minneapolis suburb; 25. Four: Prefix; 26. Wipe out; 27. Animal with an onomatopoeic name; 28. More kempt; 29. Big name in computer printers; 33. X-rated; 36. Sea route; 39. “That hurt!”; 40. Count with a severe overbite; 43. Villa RICA (town near Atlanta); 44. Dwellers along Lake Victoria; 50. Love overseas; 51. Maker of the old Royale; 52. “Get it?”; 53. Insinuating; 57. Gold medalist skier Hermann; 59 Miss Piggy’s pronoun; 60. “Presto!”; 67. Name on a plane; 69. The dark side; 70. Young hog; 75. City WSW of Dortmund; 77. Geom. Point; 89. 24-hr. convenience; 81. Dope; 85. Disastrous drop; 88. Rabbit’s title; 89. Certain hand-held; 90. LESE majesté; 91. Brand-new to the language; 93. Gulf; 98. Palate appendage; 101. Butch Cassidy, for one; 102. EAT crow; 103. Peaks; 105. Swingers’ stats; 109. “Be that as ITMAY …”; 113. What a rake does; 114. Thaw; 115. Traveler’s temptation; 116. Once, in the past; 117. Hellish; 118. Bears witness.
Down: 1. In case; 2. Workout aftermath; 3. Churchyard unit; 4. Jack who wrote the lyrics to “Tenderly”; 5. Intend (to); 6. Nursery items; 7. Cartoon dog; 8. Father of Deimos and Phobos; 9. Apple or pear; 10. Comedic Philips; 11. Punch with a stick; 12. Take apart; 13. Become blocked, in a way; 14. Christie contemporary; 15. Took a two-wheeler; 16. “A Masked Ball” aria; 17. Music for a baseball team?; 18. Movie lover’s cable channel; 21. Have a quick look from the hallway, say; 23. Geiger of counter fame; 28. Alternative to J.F.K. and La Guardia; 30. Rain hard; 31. “TACT teaches you when to be silent”; Disraeli; 32. Prepare to chat, maybe; 33. Some hand-helds; 34. Golden pond fish; 35. Be something special; 37. Padded; 38. Laugh, in Lille; 41. Type of eye surgery; 42. Practically pristine; 44. Thurman of “Kill Bill”; 45. “When You AREIN Love” (1912 tune); 46. Actress Patricia; 47. Concession stand purchase; 49. Opera’s KIRI Te Kanawa; 50. Settled (on); 54. Luau fare; 55. Converse competitor; 56. Holler’s partner; 57. Use shamelessly; 58. Gray area?: Abbr.; 59. Co. with a butterfly logo; 61. Nature’s aerators; 62. Nikita’s no; 63. White wine aperitif; 64. Soyuz launcher; 65. Lots; 66. South Pacific kingdom; 67. “Voice of Israel” author; 68. Org. with peace-keeping forces; 72. Stock ticker’s inventor; 73. 1958 Best Actor David; 74. “DRE Day” (1993 rap hit); 75. Flush (with); 76. Arid; 77. Perfume brand; 78. Boxing stats; 79. There are 435 in Cong.; 82. Seed cover; 83. Ben-Gurion carrier; 84. Author portrayed in the miniseries “The Lost Boys”; 86. Indiana city near the Michigan border; 87. Spoils; 88. Illegal record; 91. Sly; 92. Boneheaded; 94. Deceit; 95. Out-and-out; 96. When doubled, sings; 97. Something to believe; 99. Roxie’s dance partner in “Chicago”; 100. “USEIT or lose …”; 103. Lead-in to girl; 104. Battle of Normandy city; 106. Streisand, to friends; 107. “IFAT first you don’t succeed …”; 108. Orch. Section; 110. Wallet items, informally; 111. Darth Vader’s boyhood nickname; 112. Chess piece: Abbr.
-----------------
For today's cartoon, go to The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery subscription.
Who's Planning Our Next War?
Of the Axis-of-Evil nations named in his State of the Union in 2002, President Bush has often said, "The United States will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
He failed with North Korea. Will he accept failure in Iran, though there is no hard evidence Iran has an active nuclear weapons program?
William Kristol of The Weekly Standard said Sunday a U.S. attack on Iran after the election is more likely should Barack Obama win. Presumably, Bush would trust John McCain to keep Iran nuclear free.
Yet, to start a third war in the Middle East against a nation three times as large as Iraq, and leave it to a new president to fight, would be a daylight hijacking of the congressional war power and a criminally irresponsible act. For Congress alone has the power to authorize war.
Yet Israel is even today pushing Bush into a pre-emptive war with a naked threat to attack Iran itself should Bush refuse the cup.
In April, Israel held a five-day civil defense drill. In June, Israel sent 100 F-15s and F-16s, with refueling tankers and helicopters to pick up downed pilots, toward Greece in a simulated attack, a dress rehearsal for war. The planes flew 1,400 kilometers, the distance to Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.
Ehud Olmert came home from a June meeting with Bush to tell Israelis: "We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. ... I left with a lot less question marks regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness. ...
"George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term. ... The Iranian problem requires urgent attention, and I see no reason to delay this just because there will be a new president in the White House seven and a half months from now."
If Bush is discussing war on Iran with Ehud Olmert, why is he not discussing it with Congress or the nation?
On June 6, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz threatened, "If Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, we will attack it." The price of oil shot up 9 percent.
Is Israel bluffing – or planning to attack Iran if America balks?
Previous air strikes on the PLO command in Tunis, on the Osirak reactor in Iraq and on the presumed nuclear reactor site in Syria last September give Israel a high degree of credibility.
Still, attacking Iran would be no piece of cake.
Israel lacks the stealth and cruise-missile capacity to degrade Iran's air defenses systematically and no longer has the element of surprise. Israeli planes and pilots would likely be lost.
Israel also lacks the ability to stay over the target or conduct follow-up strikes. The U.S. Air Force bombed Iraq for five weeks with hundreds of daily runs in 1991 before Gen. Schwarzkopf moved.
Moreover, if Iran has achieved the capacity to enrich uranium, she has surely moved centrifuges to parts of the country that Israel cannot reach – and can probably replicate anything lost.
Israel would also have to over-fly Turkey, or Syria and U.S.-occupied Iraq, or Saudi Arabia to reach Natanz. Turks, Syrians and Saudis would deny Israel permission and might resist. For the U.S. military to let Israel over-fly Iraq would make us an accomplice. How would that sit with the Europeans who are supporting our sanctions on Iran and want the nuclear issue settled diplomatically?
And who can predict with certitude how Iran would respond?
Would Iran attack Israel with rockets, inviting retaliation with Jericho and cruise missiles from Israeli submarines? Would she close the Gulf with suicide-boat attacks on tankers and U.S. warships?
With oil at $135 a barrel, Israeli air strikes on Iran would seem to ensure a 2,000-point drop in the Dow and a world recession.
What would Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria do? All three are now in indirect negotiations with Israel. U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq could be made by Iran to pay a high price in blood that could force the United States to initiate its own air war in retaliation, and to finish a war Israel had begun. But a U.S. war on Iran is not a decision Bush can outsource to Ehud Olmert.
Tuesday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Michael Mullins left for Israel. CBS News cited U.S. officials as conceding the trip comes "just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex."
Vice President Cheney is said to favor U.S. strikes. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Mullins are said to be opposed.
Moving through Congress, powered by the Israeli lobby, is House Resolution 362, which demands that President Bush impose a U.S. blockade of Iran, an act of war.
Patrick J. Buchanan
Lew Rockwell.com
Ex-weapons inspector says Iran not pursuing nukes, but US will attack before ‘09
In 2002, Scott Ritter, the former chief United Nations weapons inspector In Iraq, publicly accused the Bush administration of lying to Congress and the public about assertions that Iraq was hiding a chemical and biological weapons arsenal.
By speaking out publicly, Ritter emerged as one of the most prominent whistleblowers since Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in the early 1970s.
Ritter’s criticisms about the Bush administration’s flawed prewar Iraq intelligence have been borne out by numerous investigations and reports, including one recently published by the Senate Armed Services Committee that found President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other senior administration officials knowingly lied about the threat Iraq posed to the United States.
Now Ritter, who was a Marine Corps intelligence officer for 12 years, is speaking out about what he sees as history repeating itself regarding U.S. policy toward Iran and the inevitability of a U.S.-led attack on the country, which he believes will happen prior to a new president being sworn into office in January 2009.
“We’re going to see some military activity before the new administration is sworn in.” Ritter said. But he added that “Iran is not a threat to the United States and Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That’s documented.” Ritter teamed up with the Los Angeles-based U.S. Tour of Duty’s Real Intelligence, a nonprofit organization that represents former intelligence officials who openly discuss domestic and foreign policy issues. Ritter went on the road nearly a year ago to promote his recently published book, Waging Peace: The Art of War for the Antiwar Movement. But over the past several months, issues related to Iran have dominated his discussions.
In a wide-ranging interview with The Public Record, Ritter said he has been keeping close tabs on the issue for years and continues to approach the issue as if he were still employed as an intelligence officer. He explained why he believes the U.S. is gearing up toward launching a military strike in Iran and how the media has misrepresented a recent report by the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) regarding Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium.
AIPAC
He said one of the reasons he believes Democratic lawmakers have been reluctant to address the issue is the powerful Israeli lobby, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC has been pressuring the Bush administration to be even tougher on Iran. The lobby is largely responsible for drafting a resolution calling for stricter inspections and harsher economic sanctions against the country, which is expected to be voted on by the House next week.
Resolution 362 introduced by Congressman Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, has 170 Democratic and Republican co-sponsors.
The bill "demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”
The resolution calls on President Bush to impose "stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran”
Ritter says AIPAC's involvement in Iran policy is partially the reason Democrats have not been willing to take a stand against the Bush administration's hard-line tactics toward Iran.
“Congress has linked Iran policy to Israel. In this day and age of presidential politics, no one wants to take on the Israeli lobby. That’s just the facts,” Ritter said. “You have to find a way to address this issue that sidesteps Israel. Some people may object to that. On the other hand, if you couch this thing in economic terms I think you now empower Congress to address this issue in a manner that sidesteps Israel.”
Last week, a Senate committee approved legislation to strengthen sanctions against Iran by restricting the import of Iranian carpets, caviar, and nuts to the United States.
"The strong sanctions we've approved today will work to deter the Iranian government from producing a nuclear weapon," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Ritter said the public would likely become more outspoken on the Bush administration’s policies toward Iran if they understood how an attack on Iran could lead to an economic collapse here at home.
“You have to talk about what’s going to happen to the price of oil, the price of food. People have to focus on that. Iran does not pose a threat whatsoever to the average American. We’ve got this hyped up threat. We need people to understand that they are being sold a bill of goods. There is no threat. Our welfare is going out the door right now because of this policy. We have to find a way to get this to resonate.”
Intelligence vs. smoking guns
One of the first questions Ritter says he is asked when he explains why the administration is planning an air assault against Iran is “where’s the smoking gun.”
“People will say ‘how do you know for certain,’” Ritter said. “You know I was in the in the intelligence business for a long time and we don’t make a living off of smoking guns. That’s what politicians do. We evaluate the totality of the available information and we make informed assessments and we do it in a systematic fashion. And that’s what I’ve been doing on the issue of Iran.”
Ritter said the increased rhetoric toward Tehran by various White House officials is a key indicator in understanding the Bush administration’s intent.
“I don’t like the word intent usually because the Bush administration used that with Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “Intent void of a factual basis is speculation. But here we do have documentation. We have a national security strategy. We have repeated statements by the current players themselves that they seek regional transformation in the Middle East inclusive of regime change in Iran. This is the policy objective of the Bush administration.
"So we have the intent. Now with the intent we have the escalation of rhetoric. So we not only have stated intent we now have statements that reinforce those intents and seek to activate this intent,” Ritter added. “And then you have the rhetoric that’s matched with the capabilities. Clearly you have the capabilities deployed in the region to act on this We’ve seen the nature of the strike be defined down to a limited strike to one or two strikes inside Iran affiliated with the Revolutionary Guard command. So you have all of these facilitators taking place."
IAEA report
In May, the media characterized a report by the IAEA on Iran’s uranium enrichment program as evidence that Tehran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The Bush administration held up that report as evidence that Iran is a grave threat to the United States and Israel.
But Ritter said the media misrepresented the report and likely did not thoroughly review its findings.
“We have a situation where the IAEA has published several technical reports all of which state there is no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. None. Zero,” Ritter said.
Ritter explained how the IAEA report was drafted. “Information has been provided to the IAEA by member nations, intelligence information. Now the IAEA has to be very circumspect when it says this but we all know that it’s basically intelligence provided to the agency by the United States of America, a nation openly hostile to Iran, a nation that has a track record of fabricating, exaggerating, and misrepresenting intelligence data. The data that’s been provided to the IAEA has derived from a laptop computer which even the IAEA claims is of questionable providence,” he said.
Ritter said that because the United States has such a dominant role in the United Nations Security Council and in the Board of Governors, the IAEA couldn’t ignore the information it receives from the United States about Iran.
“The IAEA can’t go to Iran with information that isn’t serious. So they say it’s serious and it needs to be investigated. So they go to Iran and the Iranians say, correctly so, ‘this is bullshit.’ You’re basically serving as a front to the CIA. The CIA is asking intelligence based questions about issues that are not relevant to the safeguards agreement, which, by the way, is the legally binding mandate that gives the IAEA the authority to do its work in Iran. You have to read the small print.
“The IAEA acknowledges that what it’s asking Iran to answer has nothing to do with its mandate of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is related to Security Council resolutions calling for the suspension of uranium and an investigation into a nuclear weapons program,but the bottom line is what the IAEA has said is that Iran has not been forthcoming and Iran is saying it’s not their job to answer the CIA’s questions. So the IAEA reports that Iran is not being forthcoming on these issues and now it’s unnamed diplomats, i.e., American and British diplomats, who say they are very concerned because Iran’s refusal to cooperate only reinforces their concern that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
"This is purely CIA instigated tripe. When we get down to the nuts and bolts of the technical question of Iran’s uranium enrichment program and whether or not there’s any infrastructure in Iran that supports a nuclear weapons program and the IAEA technical find says there is none,” Ritter said.
Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, said, in an interview last week with Al Arabiya Television that he would resign from the agency if Iran is attacked and warned that a military strike against the country would be catastrophic.
"I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time . . . it would make me unable to continue my work,” ElBaradei said. "A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said, emphasizing that any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined to obtain nuclear power."
Israel not involved
Ritter said an attack on Iran would come in the form of a “sustained aerial bombardment.” He added that a military strike would not involve Israel as asserted last weekend by John Bolton, the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who told Fox News that Israel would attack Iran after the presidential election in the fall. Moreover, Ritter said a report in The New York Times last week that alleged Israel conducted a major aerial exercise over the eastern Mediterranean as a warning to Iran is simply untrue.
“Only a few analysts have reflected on what I’ve said all along: Israel cannot initiate and sustain an air strike against Iran,” Ritter explained. “They’re incapable of it because they don’t have the military force. They don’t share a common border [with Iran]. They have to fly over sovereign states. The immediate international outcry would be tremendous. When we sought to fly U2 aircraft into Iraq, when I was a weapons inspector, if we felt that the Iraqis delayed in their acknowledgement the United States Air Force would sortie a support package to go in. That included electronic warfare aircraft, refueling aircraft, etc. Just to get one U2 to fly a mission over Iraq with a support package involved 80 aircraft.
“For Israel to strike Iran, and remember Iran isn’t Iraq, Iran has a viable air-defense system, an Air Force, radar, and Israel would have to suppress it all and it can’t do it,” Ritter added. “Israel just doesn’t have the capability. Israel does not have the ability to initiate and sustain major combat operations against Iran. Israel is not going to start this fight. It will be the United States. All this talk about Israel getting involved, I minimize that. Israel’s not going into Iran.”
Ritter said Bolton’s comments is an indicator that the “clock is running out” for ideologues in the Bush administration.
“It’s becoming increasingly clear that John McCain is not going to become the next president of the United States of America, which means the next administration has the potential of deviating in a meaningful fashion away from the policies of the current administration,” Ritter said. “Clearly, the Bush administration is populated by ideologues that are very serious about what they want to accomplish. They aren’t playing games here. They aren’t children. They are serious. They believe there is a threat to the United States and that the United States has to take action. Why I bring this up is that the clock is running out for them.”
Congress refuses to act
Ritter had some tough words for Washington lawmakers for continuously failing to put any obstacles into place to block the Bush administration from even attempting to attack Iran without first consulting Congress.
“We see not only has Congress not sought to put any obstacles in the way of this policy, but in fact Congress is actively facilitating this policy by refusing to enact legislation that would require the president to get the consent of Congress before going into Iran,” Ritter said. “The fact that Congress has opted out from tying the president’s hands reinforces, at least in the Bush administration’s mind, that Congress is legitimizing the potential of action.
“So when you put all of this together you start to see that there is not only a real risk of war, but that those who would like to do it see that there aren’t any obstacles being put in the way of their accomplishing this, which makes the likelihood of military action even greater. Every day that goes by without Congressional action is another day that reinforces that there will be a military strike against Iran.”
Ritter has been trying to pass along his intelligence analysis on Iran to Congress for some time. He said that “given the political situation that exists I don’t think you’re going to find any politician on either side of the political spectrum reaching out to me or talking with me directly.”
But he has been able, at the very least, to distribute his intelligence to middlemen who can get the information to Congress.
“What I am saying to you is being said to the powers that be in Washington, so there is no way [Democrats and Republicans] can say that they haven’t been made aware of this analysis,” Ritter said. “Ideally, there would be hearings and I would be invited to testify. So that not only these words would be given to the policymakers but it would be done in a way that the constituents would be cognizant of the fact that this is an analysis that was made available to policymakers who chose to act upon it or ignore it at their own risk.”
I contacted aides in the Democratic leadership offices of both Houses over the past week and also spoke to aides in minority offices. No one would comment on the record about the Bush administration’s policies toward Iran or discuss whether they have been made aware of Ritter’s intelligence analysis on the issue.
An aide to John Conyers, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, pointed to the congressman’s May 8 letter sent to President Bush stating that Conyers would initiate impeachment proceedings if an attack on Iran was launched without first receiving approval from Congress.
"Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that ‘the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach’ the president,” Conyers’ letter says. "We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued.”
Ritter was critical of the letter Conyers sent to Bush, saying the congressman is still avoiding the issue.
“John Conyers is so off base on this one,” Ritter said. “I appreciate his passion, but the fact is rather than Conyers say [to President Bush] if you attack Iran, I am going to impeach you, why doesn’t Conyers reflect on the fact that there is no basis for impeachment because he’s been constitutionally empowered by Congress. If Conyers is so worried about this, what Conyers needs to do is work with Congress to revoke the two existing war powers resolutions concerning Afghanistan and Iraq and then reconfigure the president’s war powers authority in a manner which constitutionally permits ongoing combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but tells the president that if you seek any expansion of your authority, you have to get the consent of Congress. Now if the president attacks Iran you can impeach him.”
Conyers' office declined to comment.
Ritter said he understood that the hotly contested presidential election makes it difficult for Democratic lawmakers to address the issue of Iran.
Jason Leopold
Online Journal
Barack Obama calls Iran a 'threat'
US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama calls the Islamic Republic of Iran a 'threat' during a word association game in a TV interview.
In an interview on Fox Business channel Thursday, Obama played a word association game, responding in rapid-fire to words thrown at him by the program anchor.
When given the word 'Iran' Obama responded by saying 'threat'. The Illinois Senator also described Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain as 'honorable'.
Earlier this month, Obama called Iran a threat when addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
"The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat," he told his audience at the gathering.
Obama also stressed that he would always keep the military option against Iran on the table to defend US security and its ally, Israel.
The presumptive Democratic nominee has said he would do everything in his power to go against Iran if it does not stop threatening Israel and continues uranium enrichment.
But political observers say Barack Obama is simply using harsh rhetoric against the Islamic Republic to secure his Presidency with the support of influential pro-Israel lobbies in the US. Press TVGreece: We did not prepare for Iran war
Athens has denied a report suggesting that its joint military maneuver with Israel was in 'preparation' for an aerial strike on Iran.
"The exercise has no connection with Israeli 'preparations' for an attack on Iran, as has been inaccurately reported," said Greek government spokesman Theodoros Roussopoulos.
Remarks by the Greek official follow the recent publication of a report by The New York Times, which quoted Pentagon officials as saying that over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged a maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece from May 28 to June 12.
According to the report, Israeli jets flew over 900 miles, roughly the distance from their airfields to a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz, giving rise to speculation that Tel Aviv is making preparations for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Israeli planes flew at high altitudes not consistent with a military strike and the exercise had no provision for dealing with anti-aircraft fire, did not include electronic warfare or surveillance aircraft and did not involve live ammunition, the Greek official added.
Roussopoulos further explained that such exercises have previously been conducted by Israeli warplanes over Greece, Cyprus and Turkey and that the scope and the terrain of the maneuver did not indicate a link with Iran.
Israeli aircraft flew at such high altitudes 'which would not have been the case had the nature of the exercise been aggressive', he said.
The Greek defense ministry had earlier issued a statement, reassuring that its military maneuver with Israel was carried out within the framework of Greece-Israel military cooperation and was by no means aimed at preparing for hostile action.
Israel, widely known as the sole possessor of 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in the Middle East, has recently stepped up its rhetoric against Iran and is believed to be preparing the public for an attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear installations.
On June 6, a day after the military exercise, Israeli deputy prime minister Shaoul Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot that Tel Aviv would attack Iran if the country did not halt its nuclear activities.
While the US and Israel accuse Tehran of making efforts to produce nuclear weapons, the most recent UN nuclear watchdog report on Tehran has conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and 'the alleged studies' of weaponization attributed to Iran by Western countries. Iran Says Gulf Oil Route At Risk if Attacked
The Revolutionary Guards said Iran would impose controls on shipping in the vital Gulf oil route if Iran was attacked and warned regional states of reprisals if they took part, a newspaper reported on Saturday.
Fear of an escalation in the standoff between the West and Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, have been one factor propping up sky-high oil prices. Crude hit a record level on international markets near $143 a barrel on Friday.
Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its disputed nuclear ambitions has risen since a report this month said Israel had practiced such a strike, prompting increasingly tough talk of retaliation, if pushed, from Tehran.
"Naturally every country under attack by an enemy uses all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy," Guards commander-in-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari told Jam-e Jam newspaper in some of the toughest language Iran has used so far.
Analysts say Iran may not match the firepower of U.S. forces but could still cause havoc in the region using unconventional tactics, such as deploying small craft to attack ships, or using allies in the area to strike at U.S. or Israeli interests.
"Regarding the main route for exiting energy, Iran will definitely act to impose control on the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz," Jafari said of the Gulf waterway through which about two-fifths of all globally traded oil passes.
Iranian officials have in the past sent mixed signals about whether Iran would use oil as a weapon. But such threats, when made, have sent jitters through the crude market for fear of disrupting supplies from big OPEC producers in the Gulf. Full article >>> AFP
Pentagon making case against Iran
A DoD report released to Congress ahead of a vote on extreme punitive measures on Iran accuses Tehran of assisting Afghan insurgents.
In its first ever Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan to the US Congress, the Pentagon claims it has 'evidence' of Iranian involvement in the war-torn country.
"There is evidence that the insurgency ... has been provided with lethal aid originating in Iran since at least 2006," says the report.
It is 'unclear what role, and at what level the Iranian government plays in providing this assistance', the 72-page document addsIran, however, says it has helped in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and has played only a constructive role in the country.
The release of the report comes ahead of a vote on the imposition of harsher US sanctions on Iranian banks, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and any energy companies that have invested $20,000,000 or more in the Iranian petroleum or natural gas sector in any given year since the enactment of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
If the bill passes, US President George W. Bush will also be urged to gain world support to prohibit the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products and to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.
Introduced by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and considered a tacit declaration of war against the Islamic Republic, the bill has seen opposition but may pass.
House Resolution 362 and the Senate version Resolution 580, known as the 'Iran War Resolution', are believed to be a prelude to the imposition of a naval blockade restricting exports to oil-rich Iran.
This bill has gained 208 co-sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate. It will likely be put to a vote after July 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)