http://www.timesonline.co.uk/…

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.

“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.

Sad they need permission.

Sad I can’t even come close to believing that this administration won’t attack Iran. Given the help we give Israel and the fact they ask permission… anything they do is just them acting as a proxy for the US government.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/…

Green Party candidates like Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Johnson, Kent Mesplay, and Katherine “Kat” Swift offer positive solutions.The British are paying $8 dollars a gallon for gas. Goldman Sachs predicts Americans will be paying $6 a gallon next year.

Green Party candidates positive solutions. “More Trains, Less Traffic”. Build modern high speed rail across America. New High Speed rail in the intersate corridors, and light rail in communities to cut dependance on foreign oil in half. Stop wanton waste of $1 Trillion tax dollars on foriegn military misadventure. Stop the deficit spending that has brought a weaking dollar, and inflated prices. Seek political solutions for political problems. Use tax savings to balance annual $3.1 trillion federal budget, pay off $9.4 Trillion federal debt, install auditable accounting system at pentagon. Build rail with tax savings.

Kent Mesplay, ” Cut out tax payer funded oil, auto, aspault subsidies”.

Columist Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post this week. “Tax the damn thing.”

“Why have the extra $2 dollars (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gas tax.” To pay off the federal debt and strengthen the U.S. economy. Force conservation.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S.auto fleet, change driving habits, and hugely reduce U.S. oil demand and bring down world oil prices .. the American consumer and American economy reap all the benefits”.

Don’t know if the spelling mistakes are in the original press release but I’d hope not. Couldn’t find this release on their website so I’m not sure of the source. I’m interested in the economic theory behind this along with the constitutional validation. I have a feeling the former would be overly simplistic and the latter based on the fallacious living document theory. I’m not entirely sure I understand the tax floor at $4/gallon of gas. Does that mean if prices drop the tax will become a greater percentage or the retail price? Does that imply that they will raise the tax as the gas price increases in order to at least keep the percentage the same? How will this light rail work in the nonmetropolitian areas where at least 1/6th of the population lives in? I know that where I grew up buses and light rail would be almost completely useless. Where is the justification for taxing those individuals who happen to live in rural areas where these services won’t ever reach? Will anyone acknowledge that the unconstitutional interstate highway system very likely was a major component of our current situation? Are the people advocating this claimed solution claiming that this government intervention will be different because it’d be done “right” by the “correct” people unlike the very consistent string of “wrong” individuals prior? What do they propose to do for those who couldn’t afford artificially inflated $6/gallon gasoline?

http://www.mercurynews.com/…

For at least 16 months after the Sept. 11 terror attacks in 2001, the Bush administration believed that the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. soil didn’t apply to its efforts to protect against terrorism.That view was expressed in a Justice Department legal memo dated Oct. 23, 2001. The administration on Wednesday stressed that it now disavows that view.

The October 2001 memo was written at the request of the White House by John Yoo, then the deputy assistant attorney general, and addressed to Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time. The administration had asked the department for an opinion on the legality of potential responses to terrorist activity.

The 37-page memo has not been released. Its existence was disclosed Tuesday in a footnote of a separate secret memo, dated March 14, 2003, released by the Pentagon in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Our office recently concluded that the Fourth Amendment had no application to domestic military operations,” the footnote states, referring to a document titled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States.”

Suzanne Spaulding, a national security law expert and former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said she found the Fourth Amendment reference in the footnote troubling, but added: “To know (the Justice Department) no longer thinks this is a legitimate statement is reassuring.”

Not as if this is really all that surprising given what they have done but can she serious? The fact they thought it for 10 seconds would be enough for me not to ever trust those people again. The 4th Amendment is pretty clear and no one in the Justice Department should have ever thought it “had no application to domestic military operations.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Government auditors issued a scathing review yesterday of dozens of the Pentagon’s biggest weapons systems, saying ships, aircraft and satellites are billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.The Government Accountability Office found that 95 major systems have exceeded their original budgets by a total of $295 billion, bringing their total cost to $1.6 trillion, and are delivered almost two years late on average. In addition, none of the systems that the GAO looked at had met all of the standards for best management practices during their development stages.

Auditors said the Defense Department showed few signs of improvement since the GAO began issuing its annual assessments of selected weapons systems six years ago. “It’s not getting any better by any means,” said Michael Sullivan, director of the GAO’s acquisition and sourcing team. “It’s taking longer and costing more.”

Chris Isleib, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a written statement, “We’d like to look at what GAO has said, and then at the appropriate time make an informed comment.”

What do you expect from a system without real competition or limit on spending? Besides not needing the weapons to kill more brown people at all, I’m sure that $295m could have been better spent by the taxpayers who are currently having a hard time paying for inflated subsidized food and war induced high gasoline prices.

http://thirdpartywatch.com/…

I just got off the phone with Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory and he confirms the following information: Former US Senator and Alaska House Speaker Mike Gravel has joined the Libertarian Party. Cory says he’ll provide more in a media release to be expected over the next few hours.

Gravel is currently one of the Democratic contenders for president. Wikipedia provides a bit of Gravel’s colorful background:

As Senator, Gravel became nationally known for his forceful but unsuccessful attempts to end the draft during the Vietnam War and for having put the Pentagon Papers into the public record in 1971 despite risk to himself. He conducted an unusual campaign for the Democratic nomination for Vice President of the United States in 1972, and then played a crucial role in getting Congressional approval for the Trans-Alaska pipeline in 1973. He was re-elected to the Senate in 1974, but gradually alienated most of his Alaskan constituencies and his bid for a third term was defeated in a Democratic primary election in 1980.

Third Party Watch covered Gravel’s endorsement of Green Party candidate Jesse Johnson here and Gravel’s libertarian streak here.

This should provide some refreshing news to those insisting that the right-left balance in the Libertarian Party is slightly out of whack. Gravel joins former Republican Rep. Bob Barr as a recent congressional addition to the Libertarian Party fold. Both Barr and current Rep. Ron Paul are “Life Members” of the LP.

He had indicated a few weeks back he’d consider a 3rd party run. Fairly recently there have been rumors he was going to run for the Libertarian Party nomination. Appears those were accurate. Some have called Gravel a left libertarian but anyone who supports national referendums and creates an organization which promotes direct democracy doesn’t seem to me to be all that interested in individual liberty. He’s better than any of those running in the main parties however by a long shot.