Blix Says Iraqi Blood on Bush, and Blair’s Hands

Source: PressTV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112928§ionid=351020201

Former IAEA chief Hans Blix condemns former US president George W. Bush and former British Premier Tony Blair for waging war in Iraq.

In an interview with the British newspaper, the Daily Mail, Blix censured former US and UK governments for having misled their nations by magnifying former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's alleged accumulation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

The alleged existence of such weapons was then used by the UK and the US governments as a pretext to launch the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Blix, who directed the then UN weapons inspection team, told the paper that Bush and Blair's obsession with Saddam's planned ouster led them to embark on a 'witch hunt' to bring down the former Iraqi leader.

"They were convinced they had their witch in front of them, and they searched for the evidence and believed it without critical examination," said Blix on Saturday.

"When you start a war which cost(s) thousands of lives you should be more certain than they were," added the former director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

He also said that his counsel on the absence of WMDs in Iraq fell on deaf ears in the presence of Tony Blair.

"It would prove paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 troops were to invade Iraq and find very little," Blix had cautioned Blair ahead of the Iraq invasion.

"If the UK had really insisted then on the UN path being exhausted, they could have slowed the military build-up ... but that wasn't the case. They eventually had so much military in the [Persian] Gulf that they felt they had to invade," The 81-year-old former UN official went on to say.

Blix called the war "illegal" but expressed doubt that the retired leaders would be held accountable in a court of law.

El Baradei Warns Against Israel Attacking Iran

Source: PressTV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=113001§ionid=351020104

Mohammed ElBaradei, the recently retired former head of the UN nuclear watchdog, warns against an alleged plan by the Israeli government to attack Iran's nuclear sites.

In a recent interview with The Washington Post, ElBaradei said an Israeli military strike against Iran would "absolutely be the worst thing that could happen."

"There is no military solution. . . . If a country is bombed, you give them every reason -- with the support of everybody in the country and outside the country -- to go for nuclear weapons, and nobody can even blame them," said ElBaradei, who bade farewell to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week.

He said the world needs to take account the fact that Iran does not represent an imminent threat as it is not accelerating its production of enriched uranium.

Israel has set the end of the year as a deadline for Iran to give in to Western demands, while dropping heavy hints of a possible military strike against the country.

On a different note, ElBaradei said the imposition of a recent IAEA resolution, which demands that Iran stop construction of its Fordo nuclear facility outside Tehran, should not be seen as a sign that diplomacy with Iran finally reached a dead end

"The resolution was an act of frustration, but there was no mention by anyone that this was the end of the fight for a diplomatic solution. The same people who sponsored the resolution continue to talk about the importance of reaching out to Iran," the 67-year-old Egyptian said.

ElBaradei also rejected the notion that Iran's nuclear activity could trigger an arms race in the Middle East as previously suggested by the Bush administration, saying that suchlike have made matters only worse with regards to Iran's nuclear issue.

"For at least three years, the US was against any dialogue with Iran. This was the ideology of the time -- "we don't talk to countries that are 'axis of evil.' " The animosity was described in biblical terms, and rhetoric makes a lot of difference," he noted

"You cannot describe a country as part of an "axis of evil" and then turn around and expect them to have trust or behave in certain ways," he asserted.

ElBaradei said if the Bush administration had not missed its chance for rapprochement with Iran and had adopted a more pragmatic and realistic approach, Tehran's nuclear issue "could have been resolved four to five years ago".

Iran: Larijani Sees Ulterior Motives Behind West Nuclear Hype

Source: PressTV
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112902§ionid=351020104


Iran's Parliament (Majlis) Speaker explains why the UN nuclear watchdog is making a scene over Tehran's nuclear work despite knowing that there is nothing to worry about.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is well aware that the Tehran power plant is simply a research facility with a nominal capacity of 5 megawatts," Ali Larijani told a group of reporters on Friday night.

"It also knows that the research facility is meant to produce radioactive isotopes for medical purposes and does not need a large amount of fuel to stay on-stream," added Larijani, who previously served as Iran's chief nuclear negotiator.

"This begs the question: Why does the IAEA continue to make such a fuss over Iran's enrichment activities despite knowing its peaceful purposes?" the Majlis Speaker asked.

"The answer is quite simple really; all they want and seek to do is to deceive Iran and force it to readily accept whatever offer they put forward."

Larijani added that examples of Western chicanery are not few in the history of Iran's nuclear relations with the West, one of which, was Washington's backtracking on a contract to provide the Tehran reactor with fuel plates.

"Prior to the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the United States was paid a handsome amount to provide fuel plates for the research reactor in Tehran. But not only did it revoke the contract later on, but it has also refused to give us back our money," he said.

"After US broke its promises and showed its ill intentions towards the Islamic Republic, Iran asked the IAEA to introduce countries from which it could buy the 20 percent enriched fuel needed for the reactor," he recounted.

Larijani said that although the agency could have easily introduced tens of countries to Iran, it only introduced two; hence Iranian officials were forced to buy the required material from Argentina as the country was running short on fuel.

"When the countries demanded Iran to swap its LEU with the fuel it needs, we understood that they have every intention of deceiving us," he said.

Larijani said the sheer dishonesty of these countries towards Iran was like a "big kick" to the rules and regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which oblige member states to provide fellow associates with the fuel they require.

"What use is there to be a part of the NPT when it cannot even defend the rights of its members? Those who seek peaceful nuclear technology should continue to do so without any attention to the treaty because it does nothing but complicate matters even more," he said.

With regards to the recently-passed IAEA resolution against Iran, Larijani said the Western media has hyped and publicized the importance of the resolution while in fact it is "insignificant and of no consequence."

"We believe the resolution was passed out of spite and in line with the West's longstanding carrot and stick policy," said the influential politician.

"What they demand of Iran has no legal or logical explanation. We have always adhered to international regulations and are still open for further negotiations on fuel supply," he said.

In order to keep the heat on Iran and force the country to accept a Western-backed offer on nuclear fuel supply, world powers drafted a German-sponsored resolution at the UN nuclear watchdog, demanding that Iran stop construction of its Fordo nuclear facility outside Tehran.

Floated by the Obama administration, the aforesaid fuel draft deal requires Iran to send abroad most of its LEU to be further processed and then returned to the country for use in the Tehran research reactor.

Iranian officials rejected the UN proposal, saying there are no guarantees that the country would in fact receive the fuel it requires, but later agreed to consider the offer if the nuclear swap takes place within the country's borders.

In an exclusive interview with Press TV on Friday, Head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization Ali Akbar Salehi said there was "no logic" behind the IAEA resolution as Iran has neither introduced "any nuclear material" nor "any centrifuge equipment" to the Fordo enrichment plant.

"It is only the basic infrastructure that has been constructed there," he said. "The IAEA resolution and prospect of further sanctions will not really disturb us to the extent that they think would make us relent to their wishes." he said.

Bipartisan Group of Legislators Opposes Increasing Troops in Afghanistan

By: Susan Littlepage – Truthout Report
http://www.truthout.org/1203099


A bipartisan group of legislators wrote a letter to President Barack Obama to oppose his call to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan. The group consists of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

Feingold, McGovern and Jones said they think that Congress should debate and vote on an increase in troops for the eight-year war in Afghanistan. The bipartisan group also opposes the increase because the three men said they think it could undermine the United States' ability to address the global threat posed by al Qaeda, and they expressed concern for the loss in lives and resources from the war, as well as concern that the war creates many mental health troubles such as post-traumatic stress disorder and suicide among many soldiers.

In the letter, the members wrote,"Congress should vote on whether to continue an armed nation-building campaign in Afghanistan that has already cost the lives of over eight hundred brave American men and women and hundreds of billions of dollars."

When President Obama gave his presidential address on Tuesday night, he said that we owe our people and troops a complete review of the war in Afghanistan and that it is a vital necessity to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, starting in early 2010, to target the insurgency and secure key population centers. "I do not make this decision lightly," Obama said.

Obama estimated that $30 billion would be spent this year on the war in Afghanistan, and he said the security of not only Americans but also people in Afghanistan and Pakistan is at stake. He said he aims for the troops to disrupt and dismantle al Qaeda and to deny al Qaeda a safe haven for violent extremism in Afghanistan. Obama also said he aims to start sending troops home after 18 months and hopes for a "responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan."

Feingold, McGovern and Jones wrote the president, "We appreciate your thoughtful deliberation on this topic and commend you for saying when you will begin to reduce our large-scale military presence in Afghanistan.†But we cannot support your decision to prolong and expand a risky and unsustainable strategy in the region.

"While we support ongoing civilian engagement in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts in the region, we do not believe more American lives should be risked to support an illegitimate, corrupt government fighting what is largely a civil war."

Obama said that extra troops in Afghanistan would increase the United States' ability to train competent Afghan security forces and to partner with them so that more Afghanis can get into the fight and so that the troops will help create the conditions for the US to transfer responsibility to the people in Afghanistan.
The three congressmen said that sending more troops to Afghanistan is "unlikely to help, and could hurt, our efforts to address al Qaeda's safe haven in Pakistan."Also, they said al Qaeda and its affiliates are also located in Yemen, Somalia, North Africa and other places around the world."Rather than investing so many of our resources in Afghanistan, we should pursue a comprehensive, global counterterrorism strategy," they said.

Feingold, McGovern and Jones expressed doubt that the US military objectives that the Obama administration has identified may not be achievable and that a troop buildup could be counterproductive. "There is a serious danger that the ongoing, large-scale US military presence will continue to provoke greater militancy in the region and further destabilize both Afghanistan and nuclear-armed Pakistan," they said. "The pursuit of unrealistic nation-building goals is making it harder to isolate members of al Qaeda from those who do not have an international terrorist agenda."

The group of congressmen also expressed concern for the strain that sending extra troops to Afghanistan would put on people in the military and their communities.

"In spite of the military's best efforts, suicide and post-traumatic stress rates continue to soar," they said. "The ability of individual service members and their units to rest, recuperate, retrain and re-equip themselves for redeployment is stretched beyond its limits. Finally, our ability to care for the wounded is severely over-burdened."

Also, Feingold, McGovern and Jones said they are really concerned about the cost of sending more troops. "At a time when our country faces record deficits, and many Americans are struggling to make ends meet, it simply does not make sense to spend tens of billions of dollars to escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan," they said.

They asked Obama to reconsider his decision and urged him not to send any extra troops to Afghanistan "until Congress has enacted appropriations to pay for the cost of such an increase, and that you propose reductions in spending to pay for the cost of any military operations in Afghanistan."

Such an important decision shouldn't be made without the support of the American people and their representatives in Congress, they said."History has shown that our national security is often best served when the political branches work together to form a consensus on major strategic decisions," they said. "Congress should vote on whether to continue an armed nation-building campaign in Afghanistan that has already cost the lives of over eight hundred brave American men and women and hundreds of billions of dollars."

Kucinich: Afghan War, Threat to US National Security

Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich has severely reprimanded US President Barack Obama for sending additional troops to Afghanistan.

Kucinich said in a statement on Thursday that extending the Afghan war would destabilize the United States at home.

"We are deeply in debt. Our GDP is down. Our manufacturing is down. Our savings are down. The value of the dollar is down. Our trade deficit is up. Business failures are up. Bankruptcies are up," his statement read.

The US president earlier on Tuesday announced plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan in his new war strategy.

"The war is a threat to our national security. We'll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our soldiers' lives on the line," the Ohio congressman said.

"Meanwhile, back here in the USA, 15 million people are out of work. People are losing their jobs, their health care, their savings, their investments, and their retirement security. $13 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war; when are we going to start taking care of things here at home?"

The new US troop surge would put more than 100,000 American forces in Afghanistan at an annual cost of about $75 billion.

The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost 768.8 billion dollars and by the end of this fiscal year (October 2010) the price tag will approach one trillion.

Aside from the huge cost, the controversial wars have inflicted a high human death toll mostly on the civilian population of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The people of Afghanistan don't want to be saved by us," Kucinich said on the House floor Wednesday.

"They want to be saved from us. Our presence and our Predator drones kill countless innocents, creating more US enemies and destabilizing Pakistan," he added.

Congressman Kucinich has long been a critic of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, repeatedly calling for withdrawal of troops.