Kristol: Iran Halting Nuclear Weapons Program Is ‘Another Feather In The Cap For Iraq Invasion’

Kristol: Iran Halting Nuclear Weapons Program Is ‘Another Feather In The Cap For Iraq Invasion’

Think Progress
Monday December 10, 2007

Today in the Fox News Sunday roundtable, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol claimed that the reason Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in mid-2003 was because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq:

I believe we invaded a neighboring country in 2003 and removed their dictator and that sent shock waves through the region and at the time people were quite worried. Qaddafi gave up his program, he dismantled his. We took it out. Iran didn’t dismantle anything. That’s why they remain a threat. They halted it, maybe they’ve restarted it, maybe not. This is yet another feather in the cap for the invasion of Iraq.

NPR’s Juan Williams responded by calling Kristol the “iron glove,” asking, “So you want us to start invading everybody everywhere? That’ll stop all nuclear proliferation?” Kristol replied that if it works, it’s “a pretty good thing.” Watch it:

Libya did not give up its nuclear weapons program in 2003 because of the Iraq war. As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Joseph Cirincione noted, negotiations with Libya stretched “over three administrations,” resulting in a deal that “cost little, caused no deaths, and was 100 percent effective.” At the time, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair called the news a “victory for diplomacy.”

Kristol has no proof for his claims. The unclassified key judgments of the NIE never once mention the Iraq invasion. If anything, Iran has been empowered by the Iraq war. As the LA Times noted in 2006:

In the 1980s, Iran spent eight years and thousands of lives waging a war to overthrow Hussein, whose regime buffered the Sunni Muslim-dominated Arab world from Iran. … Now Iraq’s fledgling democracy has placed power in the hands of the nation’s Shiite majority and its Kurdish allies, many of whom lived as exiles in Iran and maintain strong religious, cultural and linguistic ties to it.

Kristol’s remarks mirror those of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also said on Thursday that Iraq was the reason Iran gave up its program. “What big thing happened in 2003?” he asked. “We deposed Saddam Hussein. America showed massive military force in the country right next to Iran called Iraq.”

Transcript:

KRISTOL: Well, if Iran halted the weapons part of its nuclear weapons program in 2003, one has to ask what happened in 2003? Why might they have thought it was a prudent idea to put it on hold for awhile?

I believe we invaded a neighboring country in 2003 and removed their dictator and that sent shock waves through the region and at the time people were quite worried. Qaddafi gave up his program, he dismantled his. We took it out. Iran didn’t dismantle anything. That’s why they remain a threat. They halted it, maybe they’ve restarted it, maybe not. This is yet another feather in the cap for the invasion of Iraq.

WILLIAMS: So you want us to start invading everybody everywhere? That’ll stop all nuclear proliferation?

KRISTOL: If the invasion of Iraq got Qaddafi to give up Libya’s program and got Iran to halt their program, that’s a pretty good thing.

WILLIAMS: You are the iron glove here. You want to beat everybody up. But I think what we are on the verge of here is an opportunity to once again really — I think this is what Robert Kagan said in the column that Chris Wallace mentioned earlier — have direct talks, really help to get this thing started, because from what we know, if they had halted development of any weaponry in 2003, as the report says, well they can’t have anything going before 2010. So that means it’s the next administration that will have to deal with it and this administration — really like Nixon to China — this consideration could be the one to go to Iran and say let’s talk and let’s see what we can work out here between the U.S. and Iran.

Bush Authorizes Full Access to U.S. Roads for Even More Mexico-Based NAFTA Trucks

Public Citizen
Monday December 10, 2007

Statement of Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen

In a stealthy maneuver, the Bush administration has boosted the threat to the public by increasing the number of Mexico-based trucking firms allowed access to all U.S. roads as part of the reckless North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trucking “pilot program.” The Department of Transportation recently revealed an increase in the number of NAFTA trucks permitted to all U.S. highways – now 10 carriers, sending as many as 55 trucks throughout the country.

The last time the Bush administration made a public announcement about the number of Mexico-based carriers allowed to participate in the NAFTA trucks pilot program, there were only three carriers.

It has long been the tradition by this administration to bury bad news like this by sending out press releases on Friday afternoon, but in this case, the Department of Transportation (DOT) reached a new low: not sending any press release at all, but simply updating a Web page.

Both houses of Congress have passed versions of the DOT spending bill that includes provisions to shut down this dangerous folly. Unfortunately for all members of the public who must travel every day on the nation’s roads, the White House has threatened to veto the final bill. It is high time for President Bush to get out of the way and let the Senate vote on the final bill before any more lives are put at risk.

In 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ordered the U.S. to permit access to all U.S. roads for Mexico-domiciled trucking companies. The Clinton administration refused to comply with the NAFTA tribunal, citing serious safety and environmental concerns with Mexico’s trucking fleet. The Bush administration has tried since 2002 to enforce the NAFTA order to open U.S. highways to unsafe trucks. Congress has intervened repeatedly to stop the Bush administration. In September, the Bush administration tried to meet NAFTA’s dictates by launching a pilot program to allow up to 100 motor carriers from Mexico full access to U.S. highways. However, the project violates a 2001 congressional mandate that Mexico-domiciled trucking companies meet U.S. safety standards regarding hours of service, driver training and licensing, and vehicle safety before being allowed access to the nation’s roadways.

A lawsuit filed by several groups, including Public Citizen, alleging that the pilot program doesn’t meet congressional requirements is still pending in the Ninth Circuit.

Child Prisoners in Iraq Suffering Same Abuse as Adults

uruknet.info
Monday December 10, 2007

The existence of minors imprisoned in some Iraqi jails was recently confirmed through IRIN, a project of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

It was known a priori that brutal executions and a thousand forms of horrifying violence would accompany the «democratic» crusade of George W. Bush in Iraq.

I’m not only referring to the startling images that appeared a couple years ago, showing prisoners tortured and humiliated in Abu Ghraib by members of the US armed forces; nor am I alluding to the no less atrocious bombings and cutting down of civilian populations by the occupation armies.

I’m speaking of a form of abuse worse than those on the long list of violations committed during America’s intervention: the imprisoment of children. The UN’s Integrated Regional Information Networks, commonly known as the IRIN news agency, recently confirmed the existence of minors imprisoned in some Iraqi jails.

«They are treated as adults» and subjected to «abuse and torture» during interrogations, reported the news agency.

The investigations began after several families went to a humanitarian organization, Association for Justice for Prisoners (AJP), seeking psychological assistance for their children who had just been released from jail.

This case involved five minors, between the ages of 13 and 17, who were detained during operations of the Iraqi army in the Baghdad neighborhoods of Adhamiya, Latifiya, Alawi, Dura and Hay al Adel. They were held under the charges of supporting the insurgency.

«The five children showed signs of torture on their bodies. Three of them had cigarette burns on their legs and one could not speak because the shock sessions had affected his capacity for conversation,» parents bemoaned.

Torture and Abuse

As specified by international law, children that have been arrested should remain in that situation for the shortest possible time, held in a special place separate from adults, and receive special treatment. However, these pacts —we know— only serve to file files in the White House – not to be put into practice or complied with.

Despite the fact that the Interior Ministry of the Mesopotamian country and the occupation army deny these accusations —saying that minors who are held for interrogation are released within 48 hours, without suffering abuse or torture— IRIN affirms that children have remained in prison more than two years, and are mixed in with the adult population.

High-ranking officials of the Iraqi Interior Ministry communicated anonymously to IRIN saying that in each Iraqi jail there are at least 220 children and that they all have been abused.
AJP reported that it has informants in the prisons, but since the organization refuses to release their names, it is impossible to prove the alleged abuses. IRIN has requested permission to visit the prisons where minors are said to be held, but its request has —of course— been rejected.

AJP spokesperson Jalid Rabiaa said that weekly, at least two children and their parents come to his office in search of help. «This is not a political game; they’re young and it’s necessary to respect their rights.» «They are trying to hide the truth, but the reality is that they are there and they need special help before and after their release,» he added.

Source: Yailé Balloqui Bonzón

Video of Cops Tasering Pregnant Woman

Video of Cops Tasering Pregant Woman

YouTube
December 8, 2007

Video from the November 18, 2007, incident in Ohio when a woman was tasered for refusing to answers questions and threatened to leave a police station with her child. Read the Associated Press story here.

Chretien Loses Patience With Questions On 9/11 Truth, NAU

Former Canadian PM given Endgame DVD, pushes away man who asked about North American Union

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, December 10, 2007

9/11 truthers in Ottawa and Toronto continued to speak truth to power this weekend when they asked former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien if he had watched a Loose Change Final Cut DVD that was handed to him earlier in the week in Vancouver, and also if he supported the North American Union. Chretien ran out of polite nondescript answers and eventually resorted to physically pushing away a truther in Toronto.

After Chretien was handed a Loose Change DVD in Vancouver he traveled to Ottawa for the next leg of his book tour and during an event at Chapters bookstore on Friday, he was asked if he had watched the DVD. The response was negative but just as a reminder, he was presented with an "investigate 9/11" t-shirt.

Two other Ottawa 9/11 Truth members attended the event and got a chance to speak with Chretien for a little longer, again asking him if he had watched Loose Change, but also quizzing him on why Canada was pursuing a North American Union, to which Chretien responded "we're not".

Chretien then looked somewhat surprised when he was reminded of his attendance at the 1996 Bilderberg conference, after which he was handed a copy of Alex Jones' Endgame, which features a protest of the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.

The former Prime Minister was told that there is a worldwide movement that questions the legitimacy of the official 9/11 story, but his failure to watch Loose Change suggests he won't be joining that movement any time soon.

Chretien's final appearance of the weekend was at Indigo bookstore in Toronto, where he was met by more 9/11 truth activists, including Dan Dicks, and again responded that he had not watched Loose Change.

After stating that he wasn't in favor of a North American Union, Chretien appeared to become agitated and motioned to push away Dicks before indicating that his security aide should ensure Dicks left abruptly.

Though many will be frustrated with Chretien's nondescript responses, this was a simple and successful exercise in loosely networking via the power of the Internet and bringing together citizens of like-mind from three different cities in the interests of speaking truth to power.

We applaud those that took part in this project and invite everyone else out there to become engaged and motivated to follow their example.

De-Facto One Child Policy Urged in Australia

Tamara McLean
AAP
Monday December 10, 2007

COUPLES who have more than two children should be charged a lifelong tax to offset their extra offspring's carbon dioxide emissions, a medical expert says.

The report in an Australian medical journal called for parents to be charged $5000 a head for every child after their second, and an annual tax of up to $800.

And couples who were sterilised would be eligible for carbon credits under the controversial proposal.

Perth specialist Professor Barry Walters was heavily critical of the $4000 baby bonus, saying that paying new parents extra for every baby fuelled more children, more emissions and "greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour".

Instead, it should be replaced with a "baby levy" in the form of a carbon tax in line with the "polluter pays" principle, he wrote in the latest Medical Journal of Australia.

"Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being," said Prof Walters, an obstetrician at King Edward Memorial Hospital.

Sustainable Population Australia suggested a maximum of two, he said.

By the same reasoning, contraceptives like diaphragms and condoms, as well as sterilisation procedures, should attract carbon credits, the specialist said.

Full article here.