[Peace-discuss] Iran, Evil, and Democracy (fwd)

[patton paul]

The Moveon.org Bulletin this time is full of information and links about
Iran.
-Paul P.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 05:56:16 -0700
From: "Eli Pariser, MoveOn.org" <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: Iran, Evil, and Democracy

IRAN, EVIL, AND DEMOCRACY

MoveOn Bulletin
Friday, July 18, 2003
Noah T. Winer, Editor
noah.winer at moveon.org

Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking here:
http://moveon.org/s?i=1526-483317-5CY6xBPnD1saOGqFcqB68A

------------------------------

GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW WITH REPRESENTATIVE HENRY WAXMAN
U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman (Democrat-California) has been leading the fight to discover how the claim about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger got into President Bush's State of the Union address. We covered his efforts in detail two weeks ago in our bulletin on Iraq war intelligence (http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/bulletin21.html#3).

Two weeks ago, we gave you the chance to post questions for Representative Waxman on our forum. This week, Representative Waxman has responded to five of the top-ranked questions MoveOn members asked. Here's an excerpt:

"I think the most constructive thing we can do is follow the facts and resist premature accusations and conclusions.  My efforts since March are to that end.  I want to know how the Niger hoax became a central part of the President's case for war, and whether the White House intentionally manipulated other intelligence information.  If the facts demonstrate that this Administration misled the American public and the world, then we have a bigger problem than finding any hidden chemical weapons in Iraq."

The rest of Rep. Waxman's responses follow the bulletin.

------------------------------

CONTENTS
1. Introduction
2. One Link
3. The Revolution
4. Why 'Axis of Evil'?
5. Internal Dissent
6. Regime Change Again
7. Credits
8. Grassroots Interview: Rep. Waxman
9. About the Bulletin

------------------------------

INTRODUCTION
In his 2002 State of the Union address, U.S. President George W. Bush described an "axis of evil" -- North Korea, Iran, and Iraq -- that posed a threat to national security and global peace. He declared, "Iran aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom."

In this week's bulletin, we'll look at the history of Iran since its 1979 Islamic revolution, the current political energies in Iran, and the basis for Bush's designation of Iran as an evil nation.

------------------------------

ONE LINK
Though by now overtaken by recent developments both in Iraq and Iran, this In These Times article from January still provides an excellent account of the three political movements within Iran today -- the hard-liners, the reformers, and the pro-democracy groups and students -- and how the United States may have aided hard-liners to gain their support for the war against Iraq. This article provides background on the history of U.S. intervention in Iran's political process and the persistence of a popular movement for democracy.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=23_0_1_0_C

------------------------------

THE REVOLUTION
"U.S. policy, which targeted the left as possible Soviet sympathizers or threats to oil interests, had the unintended effect of strengthening the political power and sophistication of the ulama [clerics]."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11796

The BBC's overview of the political changes in Iran and its relations with the West since the 1979 conservative Islamic revolution.
http://www.moveon.org/r?459

>From the Christian Science Monitor, a report on Iranians' mixed emotions on the anniversary of the taking of U.S. hostages in 1979.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1105/p06s02-wome.html

------------------------------

WHY 'AXIS OF EVIL'?
Naming Iran among the "axis of evil" was based on three concerns: Iran's nuclear program, long-range missile tests, and support for al Qaeda.

1) Nuclear Program:
In June, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohammed ElBaradei completed a report on Iran's nuclear facilities accusing Iran of "failing to comply with a safeguards agreement aimed at preventing it from secretly developing nuclear weapons."
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=2933293

Last week, ElBaradei visited Iran to urge the signing of an additional protocol beyond the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would allow "wider and more intrusive inspections at short notice." On Tuesday, Iran said it would sign the protocol on the condition that energy technologies promised under the NPT are provided.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6308823.htm

While asserting it is not developing nuclear weapons, Iran also maintains the right to build them as defense against Israel's nuclear weapons.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6842-2003Mar10.html

According to a nuclear engineer and a Middle East scholar, "The physical evidence for a nuclear weapons program in Iran simply does not exist."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16294

2) Missile Tests:
Iran has recently completed testing of long-range missiles capable of striking most of the Middle East.
http://afr.com/articles/2003/07/08/1057430201973.html

3) Support for Terrorism:
U.S. officials have cut off all communication with Iran because they suspect al Qaeda members there were involved in the May 12 bombings in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/052603A.shtml

Iran counters that it has arrested hundreds of al Qaeda suspects.
http://in.news.yahoo.com/030530/137/24rvw.html

------------------------------

INTERNAL DISSENT
After over two years of frustration with the Bush administration, Richard Haass, Secretary of State Colin Powell's top strategic thinker, resigned in June to become president of the Council on Foreign Relations. Describing how he would handle the so-called "axis of evil," Haass said he "would resume direct talks with senior Iranian officials in Geneva about Iran's nuclear program, its support for militant groups and its policies toward Afghanistan and Iraq."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-haass-usat_x.htm

Powell himself has recently expressed hesitation about U.S. intervention in Iran. In a radio interview this month, he said: "The best thing we can do right now is not get in the middle of this family fight too deeply. Remember that the President of Iran is freely elected."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/03/1057179090240.html

A preference to avoid military engagement may be winning favor.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58802-2003Jul1

------------------------------

REGIME CHANGE AGAIN
Michael Ledeen is a neo-conservative working with Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute. He has been noted for his insistence on war as the proper way to solve conflicts between nations from as early as his involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. He regards the war in Iraq as the first step in taking on the terrorist network that is the Middle East and is now pushing for regime change in Iran. Ledeen recently demanded France and Germany be treated as "strategic enemies."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF26Ak03.html

On the contrary, argues this piece, democracy will come to Iran through the demands and organizing of Iranians. "Any American intervention in this process will simply hamper such process by making all Iranians unite in [the] face of a superpower..."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE29Ak03.html

------------------------------

CREDITS
Research team:
Leah Appet, Lita Epstein, Janelle Miau, Sarah Parady, Kim Plofker, and Jesse Rhodes.

Editing team:
David Taub Bancroft, Melinda Coyle, Nancy Evans, Mary Anne Henry, Eileen Marie, Alfred Karl Weber, and Rita Weinstein.

------------------------------

GRASSROOTS INTERVIEW: REPRESENTATIVE HENRY WAXMAN
The following are Rep. Waxman's responses to five of the top questions posed by members:

Question 1: What is the present status of attempts to force Vice President Cheney to reveal the attendees and subjects discussed in the secret energy meetings?
-- Lawrence Sullivan, Hendersonville, North Carolina

"Unfortunately, GAO abandoned its efforts to obtain basic records about the operations of the White House Task Force on energy policy in February.  This action received only limited attention and few people fully understand its profound consequences.  Even worse, GAO has now decided that it will only bring future court actions if the majority party (at the moment, Republicans) in Congress approves.  This is a fundamental shift in our system of checks and balances.  For all practical purposes, the Bush Administration is now immune from effective oversight by GAO as long as the Republicans remain in control of Congress.

"The good news is that private ongoing lawsuits may ultimately reveal what happened in the secret Cheney meetings.  Moreover, there is a growing awareness that the task force's policy of secrecy is the Bush Administration's standard operating procedure on making information available to the public.  The President's insistence on secrecy violates our nation's traditions and most basic principles, and that should be of concern to all Americans."


Question 2: How can government officials be punished who misled the American public by presenting false or unsupported information to justify going to war?  What can be done in the future to better inform the public?
-- James E. McMahon, Moraga, California

"I think it is important to investigate whom the White House is trying to protect and why more forceful efforts to dismiss or at least sanction the responsible White House officials have not been taken.  The President made unsubstantiated assertions about Iraq's nuclear threat in the State of the Union address, which is an extremely serious matter.  Yet the White House is taking no action to determine who put the phony evidence into the speech.  The people who have not respected the public trust should be replaced and those who have acted responsibly should have their names cleared.

"Ultimately, the only way we are going to get to the bottom of this is to have an independent commission.  That's why I have introduced legislation to establish a nonpartisan independent commission that would examine the collection, evaluation, and use by the Administration of intelligence threats posed by Iraq.  In the long run, a thorough review by a truly independent body will be the best mechanism for finding the truth."


Question 3: The pundits' spin on the question of missing weapons of mass destruction has been: "Does it matter?" Obviously it matters very much, but for many people this issue is a non-starter.   What constructive outcome can we offer to counter the GOP and media spin that this is all just negative gainsaying?
-- Stuart Ferguson, Sunnyvale, California

"On this issue, I worry a lot less about the inevitable right-wing media distortions and attacks than I do about getting to the bottom of whether the integrity of the intelligence process was breached.  At its core, the weapons of mass destruction scandal is a question of right and wrong -- a President or his advisors have no right to twist intelligence information to justify a war.  If that happened it would be a profound violation of the trust this Administration owes to our country.

"I think the most constructive thing we can do is follow the facts and resist premature accusations and conclusions.  My efforts since March are to that end.  I want to know how the Niger hoax became a central part of the President's case for war, and whether the White House intentionally manipulated other intelligence information.  If the facts demonstrate that this Administration misled the American public and the world, then we have a bigger problem than finding any hidden chemical weapons in Iraq."


Question 4:  I am at a complete loss in trying to explain why so many Democrats are rolling over and allowing the Bush administration to engage in these outrageous -- and sometimes illegal -- actions.  What can you do to bring their actions forcefully to the attention of the media and the country?
-- Elizabeth Adkins, Albuquerque, New Mexico

"The Republicans have their established media channels, such as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  Democrats don't.  We need to find new ways to reach the public.

"One of the most promising new avenues for Democrats is Moveon.org and related organizations.  They are using the web and technology to provide an outlet for Democratic voices.  This in turn affects Democratic candidates and puts pressure on the mainstream media.  In fact, in recent days other Democrats and major media outlets have begun paying attention to this issue.

"So an important part of the answer is to stay engaged through grassroots organizations that are using technology in innovative ways to communicate, like Moveon.org is doing."


Question 5:  How can we, the "grassroots," "we the people" of our nation, make a difference with such disparity in campaign fundraising?  What do you see that can be done to level the playing field in this day when money (and the media) buys elections?
-- Barbara Milton, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico

"Campaign fundraising isn't necessarily the primary determinant of an election.  We all remember that the Republican candidate for President in 2000 had a huge financial advantage and yet lost the vote.

"A big part of the problem that Democrats face is that the public is tuning out.  Outrageous policies are being adopted, but people don't notice because they aren't paying attention.  Basically, the Bush Administration is banking on widespread apathy as a major part of its reelection strategy.  Grassroots efforts can make a difference here.  Talking to your friends, family, and children about why what is happening matters can break through the indifference that the Bush team is counting on.

"Using technology in innovative ways to communicate is also really important.  The Internet and e-mail provide inexpensive ways to communicate that can help offset the huge financial advantages of the Republicans.  And nothing matters more in elections than energy and intensity."

------------------------------

ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing information,
resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues. The
full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/ ; you can subscribe to it at
that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.

MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization
that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their lives.
MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to
democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public
awareness of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy
campaigns to encourage sound public policies. You can help decide the
direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223

This is a message from MoveOn.org. To remove yourself (Paul Patton) from this list, please visit our subscription
management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=1526-483317-5CY6xBPnD1saOGqFcqB68A