Ron Paul vs. the Neocon Cowards

Let’s say it straight out: Virtually every architect and supporter of today’s neo-con-game of endless war is a coward.
Why? Because anyone who advocates a policy of military invasion, yet studiously avoids joining the soldiers on the battlefield, is, by definition, a coward.
What kind of a person believes that a cause is worth (someone else) dying for, yet not only refuses to face the "enemy," but remains, at all times, in the cool shadow of security? I’ll tell you what kind – a coward.
What kind of a person can’t wait to send America’s youth to die in Iraq for a series of absurd, constantly evolving fabrications, yet finds it more prudent to receive lobbyists than to fire a rifle? I’ll tell you what kind – a raw coward.
We’ve all heard the deranged platitudes: "Sorry I can’t join ya over there...but I’ll be stayin’ here, representin’ ya, makin’ sure the homeland is secure, and that the economy stays on track. Believe me, I’m gonna be doin’ everything I can to keep you and your buddies well-supplied – with everything you need for victory. So...God’s speed. We’ll all be thinkin’ about ya. And prayin’ for ya. You’re all just fabulous!"
(Article continues below)
Another classic: "I’ve already served my country in the military. I’ve done my duty. Now, someone else can do his. I’m entitled to voice my support for this war. But, right now, I’m just too old to return to battle! And too busy with my job!"
And my all-time favorite? "Well...I haven’t really had any military training. I think it’s best to leave the actual fighting to professionals."
How much training does it take to blow a hole in an eight-year-old girl?
So...soccer mom, construction worker, US Senator, software engineer, grade school teacher, Vice-President of the United States, young, old...whatever you are. You think defeating worldwide "terrorism" is a life-or-death issue for America? Then put your courage where your mouth is.
Join-up, or shut-up.
Just look around. And listen. Listen to all of America’s neo-conned, warriors-in-theory. Their numbers are legion. They’re in Congress. They’re in the White House. They’re wearing the black robes of justice. They’re walking the streets of America, safely preaching genocide. What do they all have in common?
There’s never a doubt, and never a scratch. Cowards, each and every one.
I hereby issue a challenge: I challenge any supporter of our current Middle East blood fest to tell me exactly why he is still here – and not over there.
Do you hear a sudden eerie silence? Of course you do. It’s the silence of cowards.
Have you noticed how the rationale for war these days is becoming less and less important? At this very moment, we are committing mass-extermination in Iraq – for no discernable reason whatsoever.
Except for one – profit.
When our nation’s very existence rests in the balance (as the "War on Terror" drum-beaters repeatedly claim), precisely why is any kind of profit-taking permitted? Why isn’t the military-industrial complex offering its materials and services at cost?
This is a question the cowards would rather not answer, because answering it would reveal the truth: If you take the profit out of war...there is no war. Today’s cowardly patriotism resides only within the perimeter of profit – and safety.
And there’s also a corollary, just for cowards: If you require those calling loudest for war to fire the first shot, the guns remain silent.
Our "War on Terror" has absolutely nothing to do with "terrorists." It has absolutely nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. (The proof? The neo-cowards’ refusal to secure our wide-open borders, due to their love affair with slave labor.) It has nothing to do with a "Clash of Civilizations."
It has everything to do with making money. Lots and lots of money. (And let’s never forget: There’s oil in them-thar hills!)
And it has to do with a new type of "failure." Just as cowardice is now the new bravery, today, failure has also been rebranded. It’s now called "success."
The more American soldiers who die, the longer that innocent blood is spilled, the longer the cycle of destruction and rebuilding, in other words, the longer the horror – the bigger the profit. A normal person believes that he is witnessing chaos in Iraq. Not at all. Success is everywhere in sight.
Of course, it’s a coward’s success. And a coward’s profit.
With every gut-shot Iraqi child, limp in a grieving parent’s arms, we see a bullet that is sold. And a profit that is made. With every suffering, limbless soldier, the military-industrial complex sees a reason to persist. And finds more profits to be made. With every tank that’s ripped-apart, with every screaming, dying civilian, the White House imagines a "surge" that is working. And sees a profit for a friend.
A government that endorses mass murder for profit, and calls it war, deserves no latitude. It deserves a cage.
And so do we, if we stand by in passive assent. Every American deserves what he tolerates. The time for tolerance is over.
There’s only one candidate for President of the United States in 2008 who has the depth of understanding, and the character, necessary to place meaningful restraints upon our profit-centered system of cowardly warmongering – Ron Paul.
Positions of Dr. Paul’s that would help achieve this objective include:
Getting rid of the Federal Reserve, which functions as the financial enabler of war, as well as its head-coach.
Forcing politicians in favor of war to make a formal declaration of war, as specified in the Constitution.
To which I would add:
Patriotism requires that the profit-motive be put-aside in time of war. Therefore, financially profiting from a soldier’s courage, and, possibly, from the sacrifice of a soldier’s life, should be forbidden by law.
By law, every elected representative espousing war must either personally ship-off to battle, or, send a close family member in his stead.
The Ron Paul Revolution is, among other things, a revolution to reclaim our original American spirit, a spirit mangled, at least since the time of Lincoln, by the passive acceptance, and tacit encouragement, of state-sponsored mass-murder for profit.
With God’s help, it is a revolution that will come to pass.

Ron Paul Knows What's Good For This Country

America According to Ron Paul
Dana GabrielStop Lying.caSaturday September 29, 2007
It is exciting to chronicle the Ron Paul revolution of hope, liberty, and freedom. You can never accurately gage how far any grassroots movement will go, but his campaign shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. Although he has taken on the mantle of leader, it is our actions that have brought success. He continues to perform well in debates and in interviews, and this quarters campaign contribution numbers are expected to be good, which will even further distance him from the bottom pack candidates and give him a better chance at becoming president. We have all witnessed the chuckles, snickers, the taunting, the ridicule, the misrepresentation, and the outright disrespect that some have directed his way. He is focused, refuses to engage in sandbox politics, and continues to put his heart, soul, and body on the line because he sincerely wants to make this country better. He isn't an establishment type, and unlike other politicians, he doesn't wish to further control our lives. America according to Ron Paul would be a safer, freer, more independent, and more liked nation around the world.
Ron Paul understands the importance of the constitution and national sovereignty. He believes that they are obstacles to the global elite, and that both are threatened by continued U.S. membership in the United Nations. He views the UN as an undemocratic body that serves as a forum for anti-Americanism, and doesn't wish to see our armed forces under its control. He said, “We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money. We should demand a return to real national sovereignty, and respect other nations by rejecting our failed interventionist foreign policy.” The United Nations is the necessary mechanism in place for a world government that wishes to control all aspects of our lives. Ron Paul stated, “The choice is very clear: we either follow the constitution or submit to UN global governance.”
It is isn't only the UN that we are ceding more and more sovereignty to. Other unelected and unaccountable organizations like the WTO are also a real threat. Ron Paul said, “the WTO is the third leg of the globalists' plan for a one-world, centrally-managed economic system.” First of all, we don't need a treaty to have trade, and both NAFTA and CAFTA are not about free or fair trade but represent government-managed agreements. Ron Paul is a co-sponsor of resolutions stating that Congress should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA Superhighway or any other agreement that promotes or advances the concept of a NAU. He said, “Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.”
Ron Paul advocates a humble foreign policy and believes that we should not entangle ourselves in the affairs of other nations. He said, “We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.” That means bringing the troops back from Iraq, which he has always viewed as an unconstitutional war in the first place. He wishes to secure our own borders and coastlines and enforce visa rules and is against any sort of amnesty. Ron Paul understands that there is a fine line in becoming a protectionist and isolationist and stated, “Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.”
Many people hear that Ron Paul wants to the end income tax and eliminate the IRS, they like the idea but can't understand how this could possibly be done. He believes that income tax isn't necessary to pay for government services, and by cutting spending overtime it could be eliminated. He said, “Few people know that every penny of the income tax is used to service federal debt.” He went on to say, “If we stop incurring debt, we can quickly end the IRS.” A limited constitutional government with low taxes, one that doesn't interfere in the business of other nations, sounds good to me. Ron Paul has always been on the front lines fighting for our privacy, freedoms, and liberties. Whether it be his opposition to the Patriot Act or the National ID Act, he understands the importance of a free society and recognizes that the biggest threat to it is the government itself. One of the great things about Ron Paul is that it doesn't matter if you find a quote or statement he made yesterday, two months, or five years ago-his principles and philosophy have remained consistent and true to the constitution.
Many in the patriot movement have known for quite sometime that Ron Paul represents what is right with America. It has taken others a little longer to catchup with his message, and I pray that more will wake-up. It is impossible to ever agree with everything someone says or does, but I am convinced that the changes that he would bring about can and will save this country. America and the world would be a much safer and freer place with him as president. If another attack on a country like Iran or Syria doesn't take place before the 2008 elections, his presidency might be one of the only things that could prevent such a strike and further escalation in the Middle East. We all know that just because one man becomes president, things will not automatically change for the better overnight. Improvements will have to be done gradually, but they will not require us making sacrifices at the expense of our freedoms or the constitution. He is the right man to lead us back on the road to recovery and respectability, not only in our own eyes, but in the eyes of all those around the world. Ron Paul's campaign continues to win over the hearts and minds of the people with his simple message of freedom for America.

The NAU Doesn't Want Uncle Sam Around

Something The US Should Consider

Japan Set to Privatize Postal System
Saturday, September 29, 2007

TOKYO — Tiny Shirogane post office in a quiet Tokyo neighborhood, with just three clerks and one ATM, might seem far removed from the world of global finance.
But when Japan Post is privatized on Monday, the Shirogane office will become part of the world's biggest commercial bank _ with assets of $3.03 trillion _ in a move intended to inject competition into Japan's banking sector.
"Our customers will soon experience the merits of privatization," Yoshifumi Nishikawa, president of Japan Post, said Friday. "They will see a better quality of services, or new products _ in short, more convenience."
The massive changeover is the result of 2005 reforms instituted by then-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, a former post and telecommunications minister who championed the issue in his landslide victory in parliamentary elections that year.
Much more is at stake than just stamps and letter deliveries: Japan Post operates a bank with over 400 million accounts. Its 24,500 offices nationwide act as sales agents for insurance and investment products.
For millions of rural Japanese, the post office is their only bank, and the system's ubiquitousness has made it a symbol of a benevolent government ready to cater to every citizen's needs.
"The post office is such a basic necessity," said Kazuko Nishina, 36, an accounting clerk, who was withdrawing cash from her savings account at the Shirogane post office.
"I'm still not sure what's going to happen with privatization, but I hope there aren't any surprises for ordinary customers," she said.
Changing such an entrenched system has been tough. When Koizumi pushed through the reforms, critics warned privatization would reduce services, especially to the countryside.
Even lawmakers within his own ruling party vilified the reforms as another attack by modern times on an orderly, secure society.
But Koizumi argued that the government guarantee on postal savings had encouraged generations of Japanese to park their money in the low-interest accounts, creating a stagnant pool of savings and diverting funds away from more productive investments like stocks and mutual funds.
Experts have also said that postal funds have been used to finance pointless government-backed public works _ bridges to nowhere, redundant roads _ and to purchase government bonds, contributing to a public debt now over 160 percent of Japan's gross domestic product.
"These reforms were necessary in terms of making more efficient use of funds," formerly being diverted to useless public works projects, said Kentaro Kogi, banking analyst at Macquarie Securities.
Privatization could also help foreign banks and investment companies scoop up new clients, with the huge savings pool up for grabs at a time when more Japanese turning to stocks and mutual funds.
That means big money for both domestic and foreign banks, as well as insurance companies.
"We can expect the changes to be a plus for stock markets, against the general backdrop of a trend toward more diverse investments," Kogi said.
The entity privatized on Monday will eclipse Citigroup, with assets of $2.22 trillion, as the world's largest commercial bank. Third will be Japan's Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, with $1.67 trillion.
Under the 10-year privatization plan, Japan Post will on Monday be broken into four separate businesses, initially held under a government-controlled holding company: An insurance company, savings bank, mail courier and post office management company.
The companies are set to be made independent by 2017, and aim to list on stock markets. The new bank has said it hopes to improve returns on its savings by starting mortgage and credit card businesses, and lending to small companies.
Still, uncertainties remain.
Some say that far from encouraging open competition, Japan Post will be allowed to encroach on rivals by introducing new investment services and new insurance products before a more level playing field is created.
Another issue is whether foreign firms will have equal footing to sell investment products through the newly privatized bank. So far, they have been granted only a minor role, with Goldman Sachs Asset Management the only foreign firm chosen from a dozen that applied to sell their funds.
Meanwhile, some analysts say the mammoth organization _ largely lacking expertise in more sophisticated investments _ could struggle to stay profitable. That raises the risk the bank could start selling off its huge government bond holdings, causing a hike in yield and ultimately adding to the government's debt payments.
"The concept of postal privatization is good. It will inject competition into the banking sector and raise the overall quality of financial institutions, and would encourage more risk-taking behavior and revitalize the economy," said Junsuke Senoguchi, a banking analyst at Lehman Brothers Japan.
"But, depending on how privatization plays out, the move could ultimately damage public finances," Senoguchi said. "That's probably not what the government intended."

Giv'in It All To The U.N.

Law of Sea Treaty on Senate fast-track

Bush administration pushing for ratification in next 3 weeks

WASHINGTON – For the second time in three years, the Bush administration is putting on a major effort for Senate ratification of the United Nations' Law of the Sea Treaty, a wide-ranging measure critics say will grant the U.N. control of 70 percent of the planet under its oceans.
With Democrats in nearly unanimous agreement with the treaty and the Bush administration behind it, it will be up to a handful of determined Republican senators to derail it from getting a two-thirds vote in the upper house.
The treaty is currently under review by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and could be approved by the entire Senate in the next three weeks, before popular opposition has a chance to grow.
This is not the first time LOST has come up, of course. International negotiators drafted it in 1982 in an attempt to establish a comprehensive legal regime for international management of the seas and their resources. President Ronald Reagan, however, refused to sign LOST because he realized that the treaty doesn't serve U.S. interests.
In 1994, however, President Clinton signed a revised version of the treaty and forwarded it to the Senate. The record shows the Senate was not convinced the 1994 changes corrected the problems, and it has deferred action on the treaty ever since.
The Heritage Foundation warns the treaty would have unintended consequences for U.S. interests – including a threat to sovereignty.
The conservative think tank says "bureaucracies established by multilateral treaties often lack the transparency and accountability necessary to ensure that they are untainted by corruption, mismanagement or inappropriate claims of authority. The LOST bureaucracy is called the International Seabed Authority Secretariat, which has a strong incentive to enhance its own authority at the expense of state sovereignty."
"For example, this treaty would impose taxes on U.S. companies engaged in extracting resources from the ocean floor," write Heritage fellows Baker Spring and Brett D. Schaefer. "This would give the treaty's secretariat an independent revenue stream that would remove a key check on its authority. After all, once a bureaucracy has its own source of funding, it needs answer only to itself."
"The United States should be wary of joining sweeping multilateral treaties negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations," say Spring and Schaefer of Heritage. "Specifically, the benefit to U.S. national interests should be indisputable and clearly outweigh the predictable negative consequences of ratification."
(Story continues below)
Other critics fear the treaty will be used as a back-door to implement policies against global warming without any accountability to the American people. Parts of the treaty, they say, mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities on land. With that in mind, critics of the treaty believe so-called greenhouse gases could be viewed as ocean pollutants.
In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, Bush administration officials were repeatedly embarrassed by tough questioning from Sen. David Vitter, R-La., who is leading the opposition to ratification.
For instance, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte testified the U.N. body established by the treaty has "no jurisdiction over marine pollution disputes involving land-based sources."
"Why is there a section entitled pollution from land-based sources?" questioned Vitter.
Vitter also questioned who decides what is considered military activity under the treaty.
"We will decide that. We consider that within our sovereign prerogative," said Negroponte.
"Where does the treaty say that we decide that and an arbitral body does not decide that?" questioned Vitter.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England answered: "My understanding – and I'll ask my lawyer behind me – that that's in the treaty that we make that determination and that's not subject to review by anyone else."
"It's not in the treaty because I point to Article 298 1b where it simply says disputes concerning military activities are not subject to dispute resolution," explained Vitter. "But it doesn't say who decides what is and what is not a military activity."
England conceded the point.
"We say it is up to us, but nobody else in the world says it is up to us," Said Vitter said.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said the United States had special military and commercial interests as the globe's only superpower, interests that the treaty did not take into account. He said many of the concerns over loss of national sovereignty that surfaced in the recent debate over immigration reform were surfacing once again in the Law of the Sea debate.
"This is not a good time to be bringing something like this before the American people," he said.
The battle over the Law of the Sea Treaty first began 25 years ago, eventually being torpedoed by President Reagan. It resurfaced in 2004 under the sponsorship of Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and was successfully defeated by then Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
President Bush announced his intention to seek reintroduction of LOST for ratification to a small group of trusted Republican grass-roots organizers last week – an announcement that was met with horror and scorn.
Eagle Forum leader Phyllis Schlafly, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney, Leadership Institute President Morton Blackwell, Free Congress Foundation founder Paul Weyrich and leaders of the Heritage Foundation were quick to denounce the idea in forceful terms, calling on their members to begin lobbying the White House immediately.
LOST has long had the support of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.
It would establish rules governing the uses of the of the world's oceans – treating waters more than 200 nautical miles off coasts as the purview of a new international U.N. bureaucracy, the International Seabed Authority
The ISA would have the authority to set production controls for ocean mining, drilling and fishing, regulate ocean exploration, issue permits and settle disputes in its own new "court."
Companies seeking to mine or fish would be required to apply for a permit, paying a royalty fee
Critics also point out the new U.N. agency would have the right to compete directly with private companies in those profit-making activities.
The U.S. would have only one vote of 140 – and no veto power as it has on the U.N. Security Council.
The Bush administration claims the initiative for reintroduction of the treaty comes from the military, which likes the 12-mile territorial limits it places on national claims to waters. Yet, critics point out international law already protects non-aggressive passage, including non-wartime activities of military ships.
One of the main authors of LOST not only admired Karl Marx but was an ardent advocate of the Marxist-oriented New International Economic Order. Elisabeth Mann Borgese, a socialist who ran the World Federalists of Canada, played a critical role in crafting and promoting LOST, as WND reported in 2005.
Borgese was hailed by her U.N. supporters as the "Mother of the Oceans" or "First Lady of the Oceans." She died in 2002.
The youngest daughter of the German novelist Thomas Mann, Borgese openly favored world government, wrote for the left-wing The Nation magazine and was a member of a "Committee to Frame a World Constitution." She served as director of the International Center for Ocean Development and chairman of the International Oceans Institute at Dalhousie University in Canada.
The U.N. Environment Program, UNEP, has said Borgese recognized the oceans as "a possible test-bed for ideas she had developed concerning a common global constitution."
Borgese received UNEP's "Environment Prize" in 1987 and was credited with organizing the conferences that "served to lay the foundation" for the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, according to Dalhousie University, which houses her archives.
In a 1995 speech, pro-U.N. Democratic Sen. Claiborne Pell said Borgese's ideas were "embodied in the negotiated texts of the Law of the Sea Convention."
Her ideas included recognizing the oceans as the "common heritage of mankind" and creating an International Seabed Authority to charge U.S. and foreign companies for the right to mine the ocean floor.
In a January 1999 speech, Borgese declared, "The world ocean has been, and is, so to speak, our great laboratory for the making of a new world order."
In an article titled, "The New International Economic Order and the Law of the Sea," she argued that the pact could "reinforce" the goals of the NIEO by giving Third World countries a role in managing access to the oceans.
In a 1997 interview, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcaster Philip Coulter asked Borgese about the collapse of Soviet-style communism and the triumph of the "elites."
Borgese replied "there is a strong counter-trend. It's not called socialism, but it's called sustainable development, which calls ... for the eradication of poverty. There is that trend and that is the trend that I am working on."
The concept of "sustainable development," considered a euphemism for socialism or communism, has been embraced in various pronouncements by the U.N. and even the U.S. government.
In her book, "The Oceanic Circle: Governing the Seas as a Global Resource," she approvingly cites Karl Marx, the father of communism, as someone with "amazing foresight" about the problems faced by urban and rural societies. The book is available from the liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
In an article co-authored with an international lawyer, Borgese noted how LOST stipulates that the oceans "shall be reserved for peaceful purposes" and that "any threat or use of force, inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, is prohibited."
She argued LOST prohibits the ability of nuclear submarines from the U.S. and other nations to rove freely through the world's oceans.

Google Knows Your Underwear Size

Next Firefox will tell Google all about you
Nick FarrellThe InquirerWednesday September 26, 2007
THE FORTHCOMING version of the Firefox browser, Gran Paradiso, will ship with a function that will tell Google all about your browsing habits.
The feature is supposed to be designed to allow the browser to check the URL against a list of phishing sites which is stored at Google.
The downside is that while the punter gets some form of malware protection, Google is getting shedloads of information on the sorts of sites you are visiting.
It can sell this information or offer advertising companies lucrative product information packages.
As it has been pointed out on Slashdot, the "feature" is disabled by default so any user who is daft enough to actually think it is pretty nifty is going to have to press a few buttons to make it happen.

Our Boy Gary Hart Writing Letters To Foreign Countries

CFR's Hart Suggests False Flag Event For Iran War

Tacit warning to Iranian government suggests staged event may be used to ensure "bombs fall on your head"
Steve WatsonInfowars.netThursday, Sept 27, 2007
Council on Foreign Relations member Gary Hart, famed for stating that Americans will die en- mass on home soil this century, and for declaring 48 hours after 9/11 that it should be used "to carry out a new world order", has written a scathing letter to the leaders of Iran clearly warning that the U.S. government has a history of staging provocations in order to initiate conflict with other nations and that Iran could be next.
Hart references the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor in 1898, which led to the Spanish American war, as well as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which was ultimately the catalyst for airstrikes on Vietnam.
Why does Hart reference these two cases? Because they are both examples of staged managed events that were used to coerce the American public into supporting war.
The sinking of the Maine was immediately blamed on the Spanish, with the innovator of yellow journalism William Randolph-Hearst enflaming anti-Spanish sentiment in his papers by definitively claiming that it was a Spanish plot. No reliable evidence was ever produced linking Spain to the event and it is now widely believed that the event was at best a mechanical failure or at worst a false flag operation.
Similarly the Gulf of Tonkin incident saw President Johnson accuse North Vietnamese PT boats of attacking strike carries in the gulf, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy. Documents and tapes released via the Freedom of Information Act have since shown that Johnson knew that there were no PT boats and no attacks, but still went ahead with lying to the American public on national TV to garner support for escalating the war in Vietnam. Johnson also had the NSA fake intelligence data to make it appear as if the two US ships had been lost.
Hart, one of the instigators of the Homeland Security apparatus that has evolved since 9/11, then goes on to state that American people are reluctant to go to war unless provoked and coldly remarks "For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations."
He then mentions the Iraq war and refers to how the public were duped into accepting the invasion via the spectre of 9/11. Hart writes "even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad."
To those who do not read history Gary Hart's letter makes for a confusing read, but to those who know anything about staged provocations, the intent is clear. Hart is declaring that the elite controlled US government has attacked countries based on false pretenses in the past and will gladly do so again.
Hart's declarations carry the same sentiment as those of fellow globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski earlier this year. The Former National Security Advisor and founding member of the elite policy making group the Trilateral Commission implicitly warned a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that an attack on Iran could be launched following a staged provocation in Iraq or a false flag terror attack within the U.S.
Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran," which would revolve around "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Texas Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul has also recently warned that a "Gulf of Tonkin like event" may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran as numerous factors collide to heighten expectations that America may soon be embroiled in its third war in six years.

Here is Gary Hart's letter in full:
Unsolicited Advice to the Government of Iran
Presuming that you are not actually ignorant enough to desire war with the United States, you might be well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.
Having done so, you will surely recognize that Americans are reluctant to go to war unless attacked. Until Pearl Harbor, we were even reluctant to get involved in World War II. For historians of American wars the question is whether we provoke provocations.
Given the unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, you are obviously thinking the rules have changed. Provocation is no longer required to take America to war. But even in this instance, we were led to believe that the mass murderer of American civilians, Osama bin Laden, was lurking, literally or figuratively, in the vicinity of Baghdad.
Given all this, you would probably be well advised to keep your forces, including clandestine forces, as far away from the Iraqi border as you can. You might even consider bringing in some neighbors to verify that you are not shipping arms next door. Tone down the rhetoric on Zionism. You've established your credentials with those in your world who thrive on that.
If it makes you feel powerful to hurl accusations at the American eagle, have at it. Sticks and stones, etc. But, for the next sixteen months or so, you should not only not take provocative actions, you should not seem to be doing so.
For the vast majority of Americans who seek no wider war, in the Middle East or elsewhere, don't tempt fate. Don't give a certain vice president we know the justification he is seeking to attack your country. That is unless you happen to like having bombs fall on your head.