What authority, in law--U.S. or international--gives the U.S., or any nation, the right to possess (and actually threaten to use) WMD (that could obliterate the whole planet and all nations on it even if used in a dispute between two nations) and also summarily dictate which nations may or may not have WMD?
-
What specific evidence, and how current is that evidence, do you have that the present Iranian Revolutionary Guards are actively involved in terrorism and thus are constituted as a "terrorist organization"?
-
What specific evidence to you have, and how current, that the Government of Iran is consciously "lying" when they say they have no desire or need to develop nuclear weapons? What specific evidence do you have that the Government of Iran is lying when they say that the development and use of nuclear weapons is fundamentally in contradiction with their understanding of the fundamental precepts of Islam?
-
What specific argumetns and evidence do you advance against those many Peoples in the world today who consider the U.S. a, or even the, principal source of State-sponsored terrorism(when defining terrorism by methods employed and/or calculated and/or likely targets--non-combatants--instead of sources such as it is not terrorism when WE do it)?
-
How is the present War in Iraq, founded on lies and contrived pretexts, planned before Bush stole his first election, any different, in nature or law, than those preemptive attacks against various nations by the Nazis (also justified on the basis of contrived pretexts) for which 11 Nazis were hanged at Nuremberg setting precedents that we said at Nuremberg would also bind us in the future as well?
-
If, as President Carter argued, "credibility" is a key national security asset, and if imperial hubris, hypocrisy and situational ethics undermine our credibility and thus national security, how is any of this American triumphalism, situational ignoring of the UN and its Resolutions, unilateralism, etc possibly good for or consistent with long-term U.S. national security?
-
What kind of patriotism is it that says basically I support a given nation, its socioeconomic system, its Government, its policies, its definitions, and even its Government's notions of who is or is not an enemy because, really, that is where I, ME, through no actions on my part, was born?
-
What gives any nation the right to do regime change of another? Why was President Eisenhower not correct in his April 13, 1953 speech that all nations have a right to their own systems and it is up to their own citizens to change their own regimes? Why does the U.S. asserting some kind of "right" to do regime change not give the same precedent and authority to do the same to the U.S.?
-
Given that impeachment is an investigatory process as a prelude to a judicial process, and given that it may well yield important information to prevent future wars, carnage and even fascism in America, and given solid probable cause to believe that Bush has committed and is planning more clearly impeachable offenses, what right does any politician have to summarily and precipitously rule out impeachment as an option or even as some kind of "diversion" when so much is at stake?
-
Why has no one mentioned that the first use of the play on the name of General Petraeus was Rush Limbaugh who referred to "General Petraeus versus "Senator Betray-us" in reference to Hagel? Why would highly respected Admiral Fallon, who has had more recent contact with General Petraeus, and his his superior, take the highly risky step of calling, in front of witnesses, General Petraeus "that ass-kissing little chickenshit"?
-
Why does General Petraeus, in his Introduction to the most recent U.S. Army/USMC Counterinsurgency Manual (first in some 25 years and written by a team of academics and operators at a conference in December 2005, well after U.S. Forces entered a predictable insurgency that would not be a "cakewalk") list, as "inevitable" features of any COIN situation, the basic very costly errors and forms of outright incompetence in Vietnam and in the present situations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is this not a cover-up and toadying to Bush?
-
Right now, in Iraq there are some 2 million internal refugees; in Jordan some 1.6 million; in Syria, some 1.8 million; in Lebanon, some 800,000 refugees most of whom are refugees as a result of working with Amercians and now fearing for their lives. Yet the U.S. has taken in less than 1000; why? What has Hillary or any of the Democratic candidates had to say about any of this? Why would any Iraqi want to work with Americans and risk his whole family especially when they are used up and thrown away even more than the Vietnamese who worked with Americans?
-
Why do people keep referring to the Iraq War as a "mistake" instead of what it is: a monstrous crime? How do you "fix" a crime without immediately and unconditionally stopping it? Do you "fix" a crime the same ways you "fix" a mistake?
-
Why are the Iranians, who suffered horribly under the Shaw that we illegally installed and maintained, along with a 7 1/2 year war, involving massive destruction on their soil and over 1 million casualties, that we institgated Saddam Hussein to start, and gave him weapons and intelligence we do not even give the Israelis to prosecute, being summarily labeled terrorists when they are victims of our own state-sponsored terrorism? What interests could they possibly have to fuel the flames of war and massive refugee movements right on their own borders? And why would they, hard-core Shiites, be arming and supporting Sunni insurgents or Al Qaeda, bent on war against them as well, and when they actually worked with the U.S. against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?
-
Since the Arab nations bordering Iraq as well as others have a vested interest in the war ending, Why is the UN and a coalition of all-Arab and all-Muslim forces not being put together to replace US forces? Is it because this will reveal another weak force/nation defeating the U.S. imperium as in Vietnam? Is it because it will reveal and highlight the hubris of the US in ignoring international law, the UN, multilateralism and the accurate predictions by many nations, including US allies, of a quagmire that has come to pass?
-
Given the comments of Bush family insider and biographer Mickey Moskowitz, that Bush planned to get himself a war even before being selected by the Supremes, so that he would become "a war president", and thus get the political capital to get himself a successful presidency, good image in the history books and a permanent Republican Reich, then, on what basis can any one assert that this prolonging of this war is really about anything other than Bush's ego and narcissism/psychopathy, saving face, passing on a huge debt and burden on a likely Democratic administration that will be doomed to fail and thus set the stage for an eventual Republican Reich?
-
Hillary has said that WHEN she is elected (that sure takes a whole lot for granted) Bill will be sent as an Ambassador to tell the world that the U.S. is "back in business". That would require Bill Clinton to have a very high security clearance. Since national security and keeping secrets, and avoiding blackmail potential is ultimately about rectitude and the character of the one with access to secrets, as no amount of checks-and-balances can stop an Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen, do you really think, after his looking into the camera and bald-face lying (no mater about what), as Marion Jones recently did, and even still equivocating during his deposition and to this day, that Bill Clinton should ever hold any kind of security clearance again? If so, why?
-
If this U.S. can attack Iran based on a summary and unproved assertion that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons, why can Iran not make the same case and preemptively attack Israel known to have nuclear weapons? Why does not ANY nation having nuclear weapons give precedent and license to any other nation having the same?
-
Was the overthrow of the democratically-elected regime of Mossadegh in 1953, and the installation and maintenance of the brutal Shah not terrorism per se? Was the U.S. instigation of Saddam Hussein to launch the 7 1/2 year Iraq-Iran War against Iran, which resulted in over 1 1/2 million casualties, during which the U.S. gave Iraq weapons and satellite intelligence they do not even give the Israelis when Iran was gaining the upper hand, and gave Iran weapons and intelligence when Iraq was gaining the upper hand, not terrorism per se? Was the giving of Saddam Hussein a "green light" to attack Kuwait by U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie in order to set him up for Regime Change and that destabilized the whole region not terrorism per se?
-
Do you have inteligence sources other than those who lied us into the present Wars that shows Iran as a terrorist state and The Revolutioanry Guards as a terrorist organization?
-
When you give an endorsement of any candidate, especially given the worth of your name and endorsement, before even the first primary, in a process involving many candidates some with resumes far more impressive than Hillary's, are you not helping to short-circuit, and even diminish, the scope and depth of the whole process and debate necessary not only to pick the best candidate but also to bring out and explore issues for the whole electorate to ponder? And what sir, if you are wrong? What if you do not "know"--in the sound epistemological sense--Hillary as well as you think?
-
