[Peace-discuss] Announcement of Main Event/Iran focus

[C. G. Estabrook]

Good idea, Stuart, but I went out at 3:30 to get these xeroxed and 
didn't see your note until now.  Perhaps we could incorporate this for 
the Saturday flyer. --Carl

Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:52:09PM -0500, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Here's a draft of the publicity for tonight's meeting that we discussed 
>> Sunday. A minimally formatted copy is attached. Comments welcome. --CGE
> 
> What would you think of mentioning (even with a link) the Robert Baer
> article in Time, the one that you and JFP have each mentioned recently?
>       http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1654188,00.html
> You point out below that both political parties are explicitly
> "leaving all options on the table", and that's very good --
> just pushing to get more D-labeled people in power isn't sufficient.
> But "options", even immoral and illegal ones, could be raised as just
> a way to intimidate an opponent.  It worries me much more to hear 
> from Baer, who as an ex-CIA officer is in a position to know,
> that people now in government who'd be carrying them out
> think that those options are liable to be taken.
> His article closes with:
> 
>     Strengthening the Administration's case for a strike on Iran,
>     there's a belief among neo-cons that the IRGC is the one obstacle
>     to a democratic and friendly Iran. They believe that if we were
>     to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years
>     war with Iran over. It's another neo-con delusion, but still it
>     informs White House thinking.
> 
>     And what do we do if just the opposite happens — a strike on Iran
>     unifies Iranians behind the regime?  An Administration official told me
>     it's not even a consideration. "IRGC IED's are a casus belli for this
>     Administration. There will be an attack on Iran." 
> 
> *That* worries me.  Maybe it will worry other readers too.
> Is there room to work some of this in?
> 
>    Stuart
> 
>> ===========================================
>>
>> DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN -- NO ATTACK ON IRAN
>> JOIN AWARE (THE ANTI-WAR ANTI-RACISM EFFORT) ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1:
>> DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S THREATENED ATTACK ON IRAN
>>
>> "Many people think that an offensive by Washington would be foolish because 
>> the Americans can hardly cope with Iraq. How are they going to attack a 
>> country that is twice as big and has double the number of inhabitants? But 
>> ... Washington's objective is not to invade and occupy Iran. The central 
>> purpose is to eliminate it as an obstacle to controlling the resources of 
>> Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. And, to achieve that, it is not 
>> necessary to invade the country. It is enough to destroy its military 
>> capacity, aerial and naval, something that the armed forces of the United 
>> States and its few allies can achieve in some week of selective bombardment 
>> ... In reply, Iran can unleash a nightmare for the Americans in Iraq. But 
>> the sacrifice of additional ... soldiers in Baghdad is not something that 
>> is going to stop the ... the Bush-Cheney duo ... [and] the American people 
>> ... will be faced with a fait accompli." --Alenjandro Nadal, “Blitzkrieg 
>> Against Iran: Bush and Cheney’s Twisted Logic,” La Jornada, Mexico, 
>> April 4, 2007
>>
>> 	--In mid-July the Senate voted 97-0 for an amendment written by Senator 
>> Joseph Lieberman that states that "the murder [by Iran] of members of the 
>> United States Armed Forces by a foreign government or its agents is an 
>> intolerable act against the United States."
>> 	--Vice President Cheney's national security advisor John Hanna considers 
>> 2007 "the year of Iran" -- a U.S. assault on Iran is "a real possibility" 
>> this year; asked about the opposition of the Congress and the American 
>> people to escalation in and beyond Iraq, Cheney replied, “It won’t stop 
>> us.”
>> 	--Iran "is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear 
>> weapon," said President Bush; in fact, Iran has repeatedly said that its 
>> nuclear program is for civilian purposes.
>> 	--"All options are on the table," said Bush, when asked about the use of 
>> force against Iran on Israeli TV.
>> 	--"No option can be taken off the table" in regard to attacking Iran, said 
>> Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
>> 	--"We need to keep all options on the table," said Democratic presidential 
>> candidate John Edwards.
>> 	--"No option, including military action, is off the table ... having a 
>> radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse [than] 
>> launching some missile strikes into Iran," said Democratic presidential 
>> candidate Barack Obama, who has introduced a bill on divestment from Iran 
>> that even the Bush administration has tried to stop.
>> 	--“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and 
>> over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the 
>> propaganda,” said Bush.
>>
>> THE DEMONSTRATION WILL TAKE PLACE ON SATURDAY FROM 2:00 TO 4:00PM
>> AT THE INTERSECTION OF MAIN AND NEIL STREETS IN CHAMPAIGN.
>>
>> SIGNS WILL BE PROVIDED -- OR BRING YOUR OWN -- ABOUT
>> PREVENTING A U.S. ATTACK ON IRAN, AS WELL AS
>> 	--Ending the war in Afghanistan
>> 	--Complete withdrawal from Iraq
>> 	--Impeachment of Bush and Cheney
>> 	--Ending repression of the Palestinians, etc.
>>
>> <http://anti-war.net/>
>