Is John Bolton an Iranian Mole?

There can be no argument that the destruction of Iraq was the single most significant event in Iranian history, even surpassing the Islamic revolution in importance. The destruction of Iraq converted its most deadly ally into a probable future client state.

The concurrent inclusion of Iran in the axis of evil slated for regime change and the torture and execution following sham trails of leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan removed any deterrent to seeking weapons of mass destruction. If attack and regime change was a true threat in any event pursuance of weapons of mass destruction to deter such an eventuality became the only logical response by the Iranian government. By demonstrating that people associated with the regime would be tortured and summarily executed after sham trails, everyone associated with the government had a personal vested interest in its continuance.

The emergence of an empowered, more repressive Iran bent on acquiring a weapon of mass destruction deterrent was an easily foreseeable result of the destruction of Iraq.

An attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities would almost certainly increase Iran's power, make it more resistant to regime power and more certain to develop a weapons of mass destruction .

The nuclear program in Iran is one of the few popular polices of the current regime. Far from causing a crisis for the Iranian government it would almost certainly strengthen the regime and the national resolve to obtain a credible weapons of mass destruction deterrent.

The attack on US interest will be immediate and won't come from Iran. Israeli forces will have to fly over Iraq airspace to attack Iran. As the United States is air force is the de facto air force of Iraq the Iraqi people will see this as a betrayal and termination of their agreement with the United States.

There would almost surely be immediate attacks on US forces in Iraq. The government would be under extreme pressure to demand and immediate departure of US forces.

The majority Shiite population would want closer contact with Iran and perhaps invite the Iranian air force to replace the departing Americans.

This would understandably not be well received by the Sunni population. Unrestrained by the presence of US troops the Shiites will most likely continue the sectarian cleansing that made the surge so successful.
This would result in heavily armed militant refuges entering Saudi Arabia.

Israel would definitely face repercussions for its attack on Iran. There would be a strong temptation for Israel to go ahead and do all the things it perceives as offensive to the international community at once and be done with it.

Its attacks on its neighbors and its threats have been increasingly violent. The Israeli population has almost completely lost faith in a peace with the Palestinians. There is more and more talk of a permanent solution.

It is highly probable that Israel would use any attacks from the occupied territories as an excuse for large scale ethnic cleansing. This would result in heavily armed militants flooding into Jordan and Egypt, destabilizing both of these countries. Israel would almost certainly launch massive attacks on Lebanon as well.

These actions will also make it clear that Israel never intends to reach a peace with Syria.

The result of these actions will be a destabilized Egypt or a an Egypt run by the Muslim Brotherhood. Lebanon would fall under greater control of Syria or Hezbollah or both. Syria would be drawn into a closer alliance with Iran and would itself be desperate to obtain a weapons of mass destruction deterrent against Israeli attack.


It is almost impossible to believe that Bolton's proposal could be motivated by concern for American interest in the region which would almost certainly be drastically damaged.

in reference to: Articles & Commentary (view on Google Sidewiki)

Kathleen Parker's Dishonesty about Rape

Often one is assured that conservative commentators are very likable, even generous in person. Parker surely tries to project herself as a good girl alternative to Malkin and Coulter. She often takes the line that while our political views may seem heartless and cruel you can trust that she truly believes these policies will be more helpful because she herself is a good person.

However, In this article Parker just big fat lies. She makes the incredible assertion that the Republican Senators oppose the particular proposed implementation of a policy of giving rape victims access to civil litigation against companies accused of complicity.

However nothing could be further from the truth. The thirty Republican Senators could have proposed a solution she suggest which would exclude all acts of violence from requirements in employment contracts which require binding arbitration.

Of course, these Senators did nothing of the sort. And several of the Senators made it clear on the floor of the Senate that they would oppose any such effort.

The majority of the Senators who voted against the amendment support not only requirements in contracts that require binding arbitration on the terms of the more powerful party, but also the effect that this has of denying the less powerful party often an employee or consumer from any meaningful redress to violations by the more powerful party often an employer or manufacturer.

Parker could, as she often does, make the argument that though a conservative policy has unfortunate consequences for some, it is better for the greater good. That is to say that it is unfortunate that there is no recourse for a woman whose company has suppressed and or destroyed evidence of her rape, but it is better for the majority because companies pay less for liability insurance and pass the savings on to the consumer, in this case the tax payer. Yet Parker can't bring herself to make this argument as some of the Senators did. She instead lies about the Senators true position regarding contracts that require binding arbitration on the terms of the more powerful party.

While Parker's cynical lies about the Senators' position regarding rape victims are despicable. The true policy of position of the Senators is even worse.

Not only is this system unfair. But it is injurious to our economy. The common law tort system is what has allowed common law countries such as the United States far outperform countries that have less robust tort systems.

While companies complain of litigation, litigation is far better than regulation With the tort system a company is free to take the risks it desires. It can decide rather to risk litigation by a certain action or refrain from that action on the basis of its best guess as to which course would be more profitable.

When a company is instead regulated by the government they are prevented from making their own choice. They can only act in the manner described by the regulation.

Those who try to restrict access to the tort system may imagine that raped women and victims of defective products will just passively suffer in silence. Nothing in further from the truth. These victims will take their stories to their congressmen and their state legislator and regulations will be passed. These regulations will be much more burdensome than fear of lawsuits and America will lose one of its most important advantages against other countries.

in reference to: Kathleen Parker - Kathleen Parker on GOP pillorying on rape amendment - washingtonpost.com
(view on Google Sidewiki)

The intellectual dishonesty of Marty Peretz regarding Obama's statement about wearing viels

In this comment Peretz shows both intellectual dishonest and a persistent refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Obama presidency.

Obama's remarks were made in a formal presidential speech. In such occasions are used to elaborate national policy, not personal preference. Peretz treats Obama as though he his a Fox "news" commentator.

Obama was saying that in the United States you can express your religion in any way you like as long as it does not impede upon the rights of others.

The argument for or against the veil is indeed an interesting one both in and outside Islam. Peretz's argument may have been better if he did on television wearing only a penis cap.

Many Muslim women I know are so relieved for an excuse not to be pressured to wear miniskirts that make the world their gynecologist. If Peretz seriously believes there isn't gender specific clothing pressures which demean women in western culture he must be either blind or insane.

Just because something is a problem in another culture doesn't mean that it advisable to try to influence the change.

Oboma by making it clear that wearing the veil or not is a personal choice in the United States and by stating that a woman's intrinsic rights will not be diminished by the state shows by example that the United States empowers women to express their religion as they chose.

Will this free women from pressure from family members or their religious community. No, but where else has Peretz suggested that the government dictate the outcome of individual choice?

in reference to: Barack Obama And The Veil: The President Vs. The Supreme Council Of Al-Azhar, A Pinnacle Of Muslim Orthodoxy | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

The man who turned down the crown

Obama earned the Nobel Peace prize in the first few moments of his presidency. Though one could certainly fault Obama for not more fully repudiating the policies of his predecessor one can not minimize the scope of of change from the broad powers claimed by his predecessor and his rival.

Bush campaigned on a foreign policy of modesty but from the very beginning of his presidency showed audacious contempt for the world community. He set the worlds climate response back by a decate. By unilaterally breaking the anti- ballistic missile treaty with extreme prejudice to Russia's national pride he helped put the final nail into Russia's floundering democracy.

After 9-11 he essentially declared himself dictator of the world. He claimed the right to kidnap, detain indefinitely, and torture any citizen of any country anywhere in the world without any due process what so ever. He claimed the right to destroy any nation on the basis of potential future threats years if not decades away.

He expressed utter contempt for the rule of law. Instead of allowing Hussein to be tried in an international tribunal he allowed him to be tried in a mockery of legal proceedings. Further he allowed hundreds of others not nearly so famous and some probably not guilty at all to be subjected to sham trails with even less pretense to due process and hanged in mass dozens at a time

He showed utter contempt for democracy actively working against it in Venezuela, Haiti, Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority. He also discouraged democracy in Taiwan and stridently supported the China's growing influence over Taiwan.

He showed an unending contempt for the United Nations. Both by appointing a unrepentant opponent of the United Nations as America's ambassador to the United Nations and by having his Secretary of State lie to the Security Council about the Iraqi threat and by contemptuously ignoring efforts to find a peaceful solution.

Obama's opponent in the presidential race wanted to extend Bush's assault on the United Nations by a sol called League of Democracies whose legitimacy would depend on the favor with the United States and certainly not level of democracy.

Obama had the opportunity to claim the power claimed by his predecessor, power that would have made Cesar weep with envy. But he largely turned this power aside.

And while a vocal minority hate him for it. The vast majority of Americans are happy to be liked again in the world. They are happy to be in a community of nations, not to pretend to a dictatorship over the world.

While Neda's actions where heroic, they can not compare to the global import of Obama's step back from world tyranny and global assault on democracy.

The Post calls itself brave for supporting Neda. But notice they did not mention the Tibetans fighting for their freedom, the Palestinians fighting for their vote, or the Hondurans fighting for their freedom of speech and assembly.

For neocons like the editors of the Washington Post, democracy only has value as weapon to use against our enemies.

in reference to:

- President Obama wins the Nobel Prize for Peace — but that's not his fault. - washingtonpost.com (view on Google Sidewiki)

Marty Peretz puts democracy last again

Some people describe the rise of neoconservative thought as a journey from Trotsky to Reagan. But seldom mentioned is that this journey never approached any genuine appreciation of small "d" democracy. Neocons, like the Khmer Rouge they supported, were never bothered by the hypocrisy of decrying intellectual elitism in others while demanding for themselves overreaching deference for their own status as intellectual elites. In fact if there is one common thread that runs through neoconservative arguments it is that the neoconservatives have a unique special almost religious knowledge that trumps everything else including democracy.

This article is a perfect example of this attitude. The United States military is not like the military of a nation such as Israel. The military is not an institution that reflects the nation. The military in the United States is very unrepresentative of its citizenry. It is much more conservative, much more Republican, and of course much younger and healthier.

Further the United States army is a hugely powerful institution. Leaving aside its awesome power to destroy all life on earth, the military is a huge economic engine spending trillions of dollars. The American military could literally take over the country by mistake. It could like the military in China simply control the control the country by its economic decisions.

Luckily the military has been scrupulous in its avoidance of this danger. But the fact can not be denied is that the power of the United States military makes it the most potent threat to democracy in the United States.

The problem is that if political desire of the military is perceived all of its contractors suddenly have a vested interest in bringing that reality to pass. This is truly a case were one can't be too vigilant.

More important than any outcome of the Afghan project is the political neutrality of the military. The information McChrystal has to give is available from many other sources. Nothing is gained by McChrystal giving a policy desire the colour of the uniform. Peretz of course doesn't fear this consequence because he imagines that he will be whispering into th ears of the generals. This is what is to be a neocon and not a democrat

in reference to: "Old Soldiers Never Die." The Douglas MacArthur Analogy Fits Neither Petraeus Nor McChrystal. But That Is Probably No Comfort To The President | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)

Further hypocrisy on Freedom of Opinion and Expression by Marty Peretz

While a freedom of expression declaration that can have the support of China and Egypt is disturbing, one could argue that such a baby step could provide a stepping stone to further reform in the same manner the American Constitution, written by slave owners provided a stepping stone for the civil rights movement. This article was not however an genuine critique of the statement, but rather an attack on the signers

This attack was intensely hypocritical. Marty Peretz wrote in Cool, But, yes a Communist. in which Peretz essentially accused Van Jones of Telling the Truth While Black . It is clear that Peretz has no particular preference for freedom expression himself, but finds the concept useful when promoting the ideas of people who likes and easy to ignore when confronting ideas of people he doesn't like.

While Israel does has a free press it can not be considered a bastion of freedom expression. Entities which receive government funding in Israel, which includes schools are forbidden from advocating a secular state or referring to the displacement of the Palestinians as a disaster.

The foreign minister, Lieberman, whom Peretz has repeatedly condemned, has advocated wholesale deportation of Israeli citizens who might refuse to support the Jewish nature of the state. Peretz's in effect condemns the United States for cooperating with countries that do not support a concept of freedom of expression, that Peretz himself does not support.

in reference to:

- U.S., Egypt Co-Sponsor A Resolution On Freedom Of Opinion And Expression. What The Hell Is Going On? Only The A.P. Reported This: I Wonder Why. | The New Republic (view on Google Sidewiki)