Remember the World? The War? Poverty? Foreclosures?

Governor Sarah Palin's daughter got pregnant. She is only 17 and my heart goes out to the young lady and to her boyfriend for the massive exposure the pregnancy has received from the international media. The debate point - if there is one - is not the unwanted teenage pregnancy -- the point is that her mother, the Governor, pushed for "abstinence only" programs to be taught in Alaska public schools. Bristol Palin's situation - at the very least - might generate some discussion on how that policy is not very effective.

That being said, Governor Palin has won zero points from me in how she has handled this situation. Nevertheless, I expect that the Governor will be in the race until the end. I expected her to deliver a powerful speech last night at the Convention and she will be very effective in the debates. Please, Democrats, do not underestimate this governor from the Pacific Northwest . It would be a serious mistake. One of the reasons I think George Bush even gave Al Gore a race was that he did better in the debates than expected because we all thought he was stupid. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

More importantly, does anyone remember the rest of world out there?

After three days of headlines, front page stories and commentary on Bristol Palin, we seem to have forgotten Iraq, Pakistan, Iran, the poor, tens of thousands of people losing their jobs and homes. This nation is in crisis because of eight years of Republican rule. Our ability to create jobs, pay down our deficit, have a unified nation, help people and bring about justice and peace will dissipate if John McCain and his extreme right-wing running mate are elected.

There is an almost cavalier assumption in the nation's media that the surge has worked and everything is fine in Iraq. The only question is how quickly we can pull out our troops. On the contrary, there is no doubt in my mind that the entire nation is being held together by Scotch Tape. That every day one American soldier is killed, they die needlessly for a war that should have not been fought and that the traditional terms of victory are just not possible. Bombs continue to explode in market places and the hatred between the different sects in Iraq is still very real. We must remind people that it was leadership like John McCain's that got us into a war created by lies and deceit , and that because of that, there is likely no honorable end. He must be held accountable.

The overseas press are reporting that we are preparing for unmanned aircraft to bomb key nuclear installations in Iran. No one is asking any questions or debating the wisdom of this possibility. Is a real plan? What are the consequences? What if Iran opens a second front and we are engaged in a war that rages from Syria to the border of India? Does this mean a draft? Where do we get the troops?

The reconstituted Taliban in Afghanistan is continuing their effective march to Kabul. There seems to be no stopping them. We are sending in 30,000 more troops without a serious debate. We could very quickly find ourselves like the Russians and putting people on helicopters to get them out alive should Kabul fall. The Taliban has major strongholds throughout the southern and eastern mountainous parts of the country. The situation is viewed as critical by many observers. The Republicans love to mindlessly tout that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War. Wrong. The Russians lost the Cold War because Afghanistan effectively bankrupted the nation. The same thing could happen to us.

One of the key problems with the situation in Afghanistan is the that the northwest provinces of Pakistan are strong staging areas for the Taliban. Pakistan has refused to give us the right to bomb or stage operations on its territory. Two years ago I wrote that Pakistan scared the hell out of me and I feel that even more strongly now. With existing nuclear weapons, if the Islamic militants should take control, the world will -overnight - become a much more fragile place. Complicating the situation, the coalition government has become undone. Everyone expects that in the upcoming presidential election the widower of Benazir Bhutto will become President. There is, however, a nagging problem, reported this week by "Newsweek", that Asif Ali Zardari is suffering from serious dementia, depression and PTSD. This is the man that will control the weapons???

Finally, we need to look to our own neighborhoods, Our schools are crumbling. Our education system is becoming a joke. People are being driven out of their homes and many are living in their cars. Hunger is again common place among the American poor. Our elderly are dying in heat waves or cold snaps because of energy prices. The nation has become divided and angry. People are holding one job to pay for gas to get to their other job. The price of food has gone up and forcing parents to serve cheap, unhealthy meals to their children. Our jobs are disappearing and there is a total lack of ideas, vision or plans to come to terms with a declining America.

So, my dear friends, forget poor Bristol and Levi. Show them love and compassion. There are more important things to consider.

Let's get on with this election and win it on the kind of issues that will enable us to create a better America and a more peaceful and just world.

Iran: Bush Wouldn't Dare - would he?

In the back of many minds has been an unsettling scenario where, in his final five months in office, lame-duck President Bush will take us to war with Iran. When mentioned openly, people casually brush it off and point out that between Iraq and Afghanistan our military resources are already stretched to the fraying point. Although when brought up in public debate many elected officials, just as they did before the invasion of Iraq, match his bellicose rhetoric on Iran. What is even more disturbing is how little debate is taking place in the halls of Congress about this brewing crisis. Now would be the time for a full debate before we wake up to a full scale assault on Iran. There is certainly not a doubt in my mind that the craven combo of Bush/Cheney is capable of taking us to war in Iran before leaving office.

In a thoughtful and provoking New York Review of Books article, "Iran, The Threat," Thomas Powers delves into the complexities of a possible invasion of Iran and its consequences. While I found areas of disagreement in the article, nevertheless it is a must-read for those who want to be fully informed on this critical issue. Powers opens with:

At a moment of serious challenge, battered by two wars, ballooning debt, and a faltering economy, the United States appears to have lost its capacity to think clearly. Consider what passes for national discussion on the matter of Iran. The open question is whether the United States should or will attack Iran if it continues to reject American demands to give up uranium enrichment. Ignore for the moment whether the United States has any legal or moral justification for attacking Iran. Set aside the question whether Iran, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently claimed in a speech at West Point, "is hellbent on acquiring nuclear weapons." Focus instead on purely practical questions. By any standards Iran is a tough nut to crack: it is nearly three times the size of Texas, with a population of 70 million and a big income from oil which the world cannot afford to lose. Iran is believed to have the ability to block the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf through which much of the world's oil must pass on its way to market. Keep in mind that the rising price of oil already threatens the world's economy. Iran also has a large army and deep ties to the population of Shiite coreligionists next door in Iraq. The American military already has its hands full with a hard-to-manage war in Iraq, and is proposing to send additional combat brigades to deal with a growing insurgency in Afghanistan. And yet with all these sound reasons for avoiding war with Iran, the United States for five years has repeatedly threatened it with military attack. These threats have lately acquired a new edge.

The article continues by articulating how even a moderate provocation could unravel the Middle East:

Yet even conventional bombing attacks are acts of war; unprovoked they are acts of aggression. Iran has said it would respond to an attack but without specifying how. Possible counterattacks might target shipping in the Persian Gulf, or US forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, or something else the US has not anticipated. Such an exchange could not long be confined to tit for tat. An all-out American bombing program might force Iran to capitulate, or it might not. The next step would be invasion, destruction of Iran's conventional army, occupation of Iran's capital, and change of Iran's regime, which has long been an openly declared policy objective of the United States. Is there anyone outside the US government who thinks it makes sense to invite trouble on this scale? Even some insiders are of two minds. "Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need," Gates said in his speech at West Point, "and, in fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels. But the military option must be kept on the table."

The New York Review of Books article confronts the issue of Ir an's nuclear capacity and if it exists what the history of nuclear club members has proven over the years - even in the hands of unstable leaders:

What US officials say, when they say anything at all, is that Tehran wants a bomb in order to dominate the Persian Gulf region and to threaten its neighbors, especially Israel. This is a misreading of how other nuclear powers have made use of their weapons. As tools of coercive diplomacy nuclear weapons are almost entirely useless, but they are extremely effective in blocking large-scale or regime-threatening attack. There is no evidence that Iran has a different motive, and plenty of reason for Iran to fear that attack is a real possibility. Indeed, the Bush administration, far from trying to quiet Iran's fears, makes a point of confirming them every few months. These threats are not limited to words, but are supported with practical steps—the presence of large American armies just across Iran's borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dispatch of the world's largest fleet of warships to cruise along Iran's Persian Gulf coastline. The Bush administration further accuses Iran of "meddling" in the affairs of its neighbors, of supplying weapons and training to Iraqis who kill Americans, and of being the world's principal state sponsor of terrorism. Fear that Saddam Hussein might provide nuclear weapons to terrorist groups was the leading American justification for the invasion of Iraq, a nd the same concern is often cited about Iran.

Powers' article is of some length and requires a thorough and slow read. You are not required to accept all of its premises but you are required to be stimulated into examing your own viewpoints and eventually having an opinion before it is too late to have one. Powers concludes at the end of the article:

From one point of view the answer seems obvious. It is too late. With the exception only of the neoconservative faithful, every close observer of the American–Iranian standoff says that the administration's threats are empty, that the United States does not have the military resources, or the political support at home, or the agreement of allies abroad, to carry out a full-scale air attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, much less to invade and occupy the country. Two of the skeptics, Gates and Mullen, are running the Pentagon, and their cautioning remarks, only a step this side of insubordination, would seem to make attack impossible. But if attack is impossible, why does Bush talk himself into an ever-tighter corner by continuing to issue threats? Does he believe Iran will cave? Are these the only words he thinks people will still listen to? Is he hoping to tie the hands of the next president? Or is he preparing to summon the power of his office to carry out the last option on the table? One hardly knows whether to take the question seriously. It seems alarmist and overexcited even to pose it when the realities are so clear. But it is impossible to be sure—Bush has a history.

In an article I wrote in these pages in March 2003, I took up a concern that has preoccupied me ever since—the danger that the war would spread to engulf the region. That article concludes:

But a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein won't by itself provide a "decision outcome" in the present case because there are two rogue states with programs to build nuclear weapons in the Middle East. The theory says that both have to go, and if President Bush can be taken at his word, he thinks the same thing. To me, the implication seems clear: Iraq first, Iran next.

We're not free of this danger yet.

Save This Teenager's Life From The Gallows

At the tender age of just nineteen, young Mehdi Kazemi is fighting for his life. And he needs your help.

This week, the Netherlands Council of State upheld the Dutch government's decision denying the young gay Iranian asylum. The Council ruled that the teenager's fate rests in the hands of Britain because that is where he first applied for political and personal sanctuary.

Kazemi fled to England after his male lover in Iran was executed for being gay. He begged for asylum in the English Isles knowing that he faced certain death if returned to Iran. The British government turned him down. Then like a neo-Nathan Hale, this 'man without a country' fled to the Netherlands in a frantic attempt to save his own life. The Council's ruling now sends this young man back to England where his life is literally in the hands of Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Despite the fact that the death penalty is mandated for homosexual conduct in over a dozen countries, sexual orientation is not a valid reason for asylum in most nations. Usually gays are summarily shipped back to those nations and increasingly, horrifically and inexplicably executed. Over the last several years we have seen young teenagers hanged and stoned to death in several Islamic nations -- especially Iran. Which is ironic since we all recall Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying in his now legendary Columbia University speech that Iran has no gays. Perhaps he is right. Perhaps there are no homosexuals in Iran because they have all been executed.

Medhi Kazemi, Age 19, needs your help to save his life. Please take a few minutes of your time and email Prime Minister Brown at Number 10 Downing Street and urge him to grant asylum to Mr. Kazemi. Just click here to send an email. Please pass this on to your other friends. We must flood the Prime Minister's office to save this young gay man's life. His fate in your hands now.

New Iran Report Unveils A National Disgrace

Much is being written about the shocking National Intelligence Estimate, an global assessment compiled by all of our intelligence agencies. It declared that Iran halted its nuclear arms efforts in 2003. Quite honestly, just when I think I can't be shocked anymore by the Bush Administration, they prove me wrong.

Let's be clear about the ramifications of this report.

For years, Bush and Cheney have been beating the drums of war against Iran. Many of us believed that it was just a matter of time before the United States alone or in conjunction with Israel would at minimum launch strategic air strikes against Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program. Those of us concerned about repeating Iraq in Iran dreaded such a strike, understanding the forces that would be unleashed on American troops in Iraq. There was a good chance that any military action would send the entire region from Iraq to Pakistan spinning into turmoil.

This was all based on repeated assertions that Iran was actively developing nuclear weapons. They even had the Congress declare that Iran's Army was a terrorist organization to give them a basis for their military operation. Long debates have taken place all over the country and the world about how to handle this emerging nuclear crisis.

It was all a big lie. A huge disgusting unbelievable lie.

This President and his Vice President have disgraced this nation with their lies.

They have placed us all at risk for a global war, with their insistence that the weapons were being built. Now, we find out they have known since 2003 that the nuclear program was halted in Iran. How does one even come to terms with the fact that our President has consistently and knowing lied to us in order to promote this twisted war-mongering ideology.

Finally, congressional Democrats who blindly voted for the Bush/Cheney resolution on Iran must be held accountable for their vote. That includes Senator Clinton, who was wrong on Iraq and now wrong on Iran. Today, she is spinning her vote, but a few simple paragraphs in yesterday's New York Times tells the truth:

"In fact, in September Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, voted in favor of a Senate measure declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guards “proliferators of mass destruction,” a vote that was condemned by her rivals in the Democratic field. After the vote, her aides issued a statement saying, “The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program.”

The sad part of this entire journey with Iran is that if there is ever a serious and real crisis that we must confront in foreign policy, our government will have no credibility with the American people or the world. They just won't believe it.

This false march to war against Iran has undermined our ability to maintain a credible foreign policy. It is national disgrace and all involved should be held accountable.

Iran: More Complex Each Day

When the Bush administration first began to beat the war drum, I remember how hard it was for me, a life-long human rights activist, to withhold my support for removing Saddam. His abuse of power, including despicable acts torture and even genocide, made him a desirable target. After all, who could possibly be against removing such an evil person? Even though I didn't buy all the incredibly deceptive arguments made by the Bush Administration about weapons of mass destruction, I thought that I might be able to support the war because of the brutal nature of Saddam's dictatorship.

Of course, after I took a deep breath, stepped back and looked at the bigger pictured, I realized that if we were to justify the invasion by championing the removal of a brutal dictator, then there were worse regimes around the globe that should go first. We only have to look at the bloodbaths in the Congo, Zimbabwe, or even to the southern nations of the former Soviet Union, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. There is no shortage of dictators who rule nations where their people cry out for international help.

With Iraq, the results have been far worse than any of us who originally opposed the war expected. We knew it would kill thousands, destabilize the region, increase terrorism and bog us down in a never ending war. However, we never imagined that it would become the horror it has become in the region, killing scores of Americans and Iraqi civilians and creating dramatic long-term damage to our strategic national interest.

Now, the Bush administration is starting to beat war drum for Iran. We must pause and have a serious national debate on the consequences of any military action against Iran. Once again, we have the specter of nuclear weapons in the hands of an incredibly repressive theocracy led by a mad man, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His rule has become increasingly oppressive, having jailed and tortured dissenters, sentenced homosexuals to death, imprisoned secular women and restricted the activities of students. Ahmadinejad and his government do not generate much sympathy.

There may be a case to be made for intervention by noting the development of nuclear weapons, the repression of Iran's populace and the nation’s destabilizing actions in Iraq. Meanwhile, Bush is escalating the rhetoric almost daily, building the case for war by creating a sense of inevitability. I wouldn't be shocked if I woke up one morning to hear that we had launched a surprise attack.

Nevertheless, I still strongly believe that the greatest nuclear threat lies in Pakistan, which has already demonstrated its nuclear capability and is increasingly unstable. There are still worse dictators than Ahmadinejad, whose shaky regime may eventually fail without much external pressure. It is questionable how much Iranian arms and support is being supplied to the insurgents in Iraq and it appears that just as much of our own weapons were stolen or illegally sold on the black market for use against our troops.

In this week's London Times, reporter Sarah Baxter writes that we are moving towards military confrontation with Iran:

"The Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus.”

Before we find ourselves in another impossible situation in Iran like, let’s have a serous national debate about the consequences of such an action.

This debate should not take place behind closed doors, as Congress was duped quicker than we were when contemplating war with Iraq. There are some very serious issues that lead me to be very skeptical, if not outright opposed, to intervention in Iran.

How would military action against Iran affect or expose our 160,000 troops in Iraq? Would intervention further destabilize the region or embolden radical Islamists, particularly in Pakistan? Would our action motivate more peaceful yet disaffected Muslims to join the ranks of radical terrorists, thereby increasing the global terrorist threat?

Right now, it is hard to get our government to do the right thing in Iraq, let alone discuss Iran without the strident nationalistic rhetoric that can only take us to war instead of reasoned thought.