Reply #3: Breeze54, what I'm saying is that our political establishment, which has turned

[Peace Patriot]

its back on democracy--with the installation of wholly non-transparent, corporate-controlled voting machines and central tabulators--and the global corporate predators and war profiteers who are pulling our leaders' strings, will decide if and when the U.S. attacks Iran. If it has decided to attack Iran, no amount of whistleblowing from Pentagon insiders (or other insiders) will prevent it. Any disclosures will be muffled, twisted and blackholed by the corporate news monopolies, and it will have NO electoral consequences. And if it has decided to put off an attack on Iran (the most likely scenario--given Rumsfeld's ouster, in particular)--until they get more cannon fodder (a Draft), more foreign allies (say, with a change of regimes in DC), and stabilize/strengthen national financial viability--whistleblowing disclosures will not have been the reason why.

My point is that it's not up to the American people. Did exposure of the 100% WMD lies change anything? Did exposure of Abu Ghraib and other torture change anything? Did the continuing disclosures of massive theft by private, Bush-Cheney-tied corps in Iraq change anything? Has exposure of the most corrupt regime in our history--and possibly in the history of the human race--changed anything? This information is out there. The American people are largely aware of it (--which is why a whopping SEVENTY PERCENT of the American people oppose the Iraq War/Occupation). This information--largely driven by the internet and whistleblowers--has not changed anything.

The 'Democratic' Congress just ESCALATED the war, and larded Bush-Cheney with billions MORE of our non-existent money to keep killing Iraqis until they sign over their oil rights. This was done in the teeth of 70% opposition to the war by the American people. All that Pentagon whistleblowing on Iran would do is maybe boost that number to 80% or 90% (as the internet and word-of-mouth spread the word). The American people would STILL be powerless to prevent an attack on Iran, if our political establishment and its corporate puppetmasters decide to do it.

The problem is NOT information. The problem is POWER. What is our main power over our leaders? Our vote.

Back in Feb. '03, before the invasion, FIFTY-SIX PERCENT of the American people opposed the Iraq War. That is a significant majority. 56% would be a landslide in a presidential election (and believe me, it was). Yet the invasion went forward--with a significant majority in the U.S. against it, and the whole world against it. Electronic voting, run on 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY programming code, owned and controlled by rightwing Bushite corporations, was instituted by Congress in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution (Oct '02), to control the vote counting as that big antiwar sentiment got bigger--now at 70%.

So the decision to go to war, and to occupy a foreign country, IS NOT OURS. Information about Bush-Cheney war planning against Iran would therefore make NO difference as to whether our young people and our tax dollars are appropriated for war against Iran. If war against Iran is decided upon, an incident will be invented to justify it, in the delusional corporate newsstream--a legitimizing tool that is growing very thin, to be sure, but that the war profiteers continue to employ (while they put nazi powers in place to defeat rebellion)--and we will then go to war a SECOND time, against our will.

Let me give you an example of how this works. In May '04, six months before the 2004 election, CBS was about to broadcast the Abu Ghraib torture photos, and to reveal that Bush went AWOL in his National Guard service during the Vietnam War. (Note: At that time, polls showed 63% of the American people opposed to torture "under any circumstances.") These CBS News stories were one of two serious threats against the Iraq War boondoggle (ouster of Bush-Cheney)--that is, revulsion against Bush-Cheney by the American people to such a degree that people would outvote the voting machines (or rebel, if the election was stolen). The other was that California Secretary of State, Kevin Shelly, sued Diebold, decertified their touchscreen voting machines (paperless e-voting), and demanded to see their source code. The horror and illegitimacy of the war was about to be exposed, in graphic form--along with the cowardice of the President. And the inherent fraudulence and illegitimacy of the new voting systems, that accompanied the Iraq War, was ALSO about to be exposed.

Three things then happened: 1) a probable Rovian sting within the chain of custody on the Bush AWOL story documents (having to do with the apparent re-typing of one of the documents on a later model IBM machine, although the CONTENT of that document was verified by other sources)--a sting that got the story killed and that got Dan Rather fired, after decades as CBS's linchpin news anchor; 2) CBS execs delayed broadcast of the Abu Ghraib torture photos (until they were about to be scooped by New Yorker magazine), and did everything they could to downplay the disclosure (limited it to one broadcast, with no pre-advertising, etc.); and 3) the corporate news monopolies went after Kevin Shelley, and destroyed his career with what turned out to be entirely bogus corruption charges (his office was hamstrung during the next six months--as to pursuing Diebold, and monitoring the '04 election--and he resigned in Feb. '05). (Shelley--elected in '02--was the rising star, among secretaries of state, nationwide, and was encouraging other secretaries of state to QUESTION and investigate these e-voting systems.)

They got Dan Rather. They got Kevin Shelley. And they got us. Bush-Cheney was re-installed, via rightwing corporate control of the voting system, and the ILLUSION of support for the war among the American people was MAINTAINED--tattered, contradicted by all polls, but MAINTAINED. The narrative was kept in tact, just barely.

So, if THAT was the effect of MILITARY whistleblowing in '04, what do you think the effect of military whistleblowing on Iran would be, now?

Let me add one other incident: Joe Wilson's whistleblowing on the WMDS, and David Kelly's simultaneous whistleblowing in the UK (British WMD expert and insider), June-July '03. Wilson's wife's career with the CIA was destroyed, and the lives of her family and those of her entire anti-WMD network were put at great risk; and, in the same week, David Kelly turned up dead, under highly suspicious circumstances.

When the corporate gangsters who are running things decide to hijack our military and kill hundreds of thousands of people in a corporate resource war, they will destroy careers and kill their own to achieve their goal. They will twist or blackhole any news stories that threaten to tear off the veil from their delusionary narrative. They will (and did) destroy democracy in the United States.

It's not a whistleblower that we need. What we need is a grass roots revolt against the rigged voting machines--a revolt that has already started, but that will probably take time, because the most viable venue for change is state/local jurisdictions.

The old antiwar movement does not seem to understand the nature of the coup that we have suffered. Back in the '60s, it was still possible for the American people to VOTE a president with an unjust war policy OUT OF OFFICE. That is essentially what occurred in 1968 (when LBJ decided not to run for a second term, after an antiwar candidate DID WELL in the New Hampshire primary). (Eugene McCarthy didn't even win it--he just did well.) In that context--and also with a much freer press--Ellsberg's disclosure of the Pentagon Papers could have an impact. With American democracy still alive and healthy--with transparent vote counting and a free press--the war profiteers had to take OTHER measures to prevent an antiwar candidate from winning the White House. (They followed up on the assassination of JFK with the assassination of his brother, RFK, who likely would have won the 1968 election.) (They also assassinated MLK, several months before. MLK was leading a strong black voting rights campaign.)

But now all they have to do, to prevent real representatives of the people from gaining power, is write a few lines of programming code. One hacker, a couple of minutes, leaving no trace. That's all it takes. And Bush-Cheney gets re-installed, and the war goes on. And a 'Democratic' Congress then endorses, escalates and re-funds the war, in spite of 70% opposition in the country.

It is futile to ask whistleblowers to come forward, when we, as a people, have been stripped of the power to act on that information.

It may be good for the whistleblowers' souls. And the truth, of course, is always helpful--and worth making sacrifices for--in any society, even an undemocratic one. But it will NOT change U.S. foreign policy on Iran. That is NOT up to us, no matter how much insider information is exposed. And that is the problem.

Think about how much crap we are supposed to have swallowed--as the delusionary narrative portrays things. Delusionary is the right word. It is an INSANE narrative, totally out of touch with the American people. And, often, we buy into it by dissing OTHER Americans as stupid sheeple--or uninformed. 'If they only knew the truth!' some of us cry. 70% of them have figured things out. They are not stupid sheeple. And the war goes on.

So will war with Iran--if and when our political establishment and its corporate puppetmasters decide to prosecute such an outrage. Continued brutal occupation of Iraq, and possible unjustifiable war on Iran--until we restore public control of vote counting. Even then, of course, it will be a struggle. But without transparent vote counting, we have no chance of winning it.