SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Whistleblower and former employee of Britain's global surveillance center GCHQ (Government Communications Head Quarters) Katharine Gun smiles as she speaks to the media during a press conference February 25, 2004 in London, England. (Photo by Scott Barbour/Getty Images)
Some called her a traitor; others insisted she was a hero. Whatever, she blew the whistle ultimately revealing the truth behind the build-up to the Iraq War--regime change, disguised as terrifying threats of weapons of mass destruction.
Exaggerating threats to provoke a war? Sound familiar?
Never mind that invading another country for the purpose of regime change is illegal according to international laws to which the United States is a signatory. The team of hawks circling George Bush had long wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, as did Bush. Some of those same birds are still flapping wings in the skies above Washington. The concern among many Americans is that claims of an unprovoked, deadly attack by Iran are exaggerated. The issue is provocation. Who, one must ask, is provoking whom?
Much to the distress of our former partners in the Iran nuclear deal, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement and announced tougher sanctions. This, despite credible evidence that Iran was in full compliance with terms of the agreement. Provocation? Now, Trump says, he wants to see Iran back at the negotiating table. Iran, of course, isn't interested in dealing with him. Perhaps they don't trust him to keep his word.
Iran has been filmed loading missiles aboard some of its vessels. Is this a matter of threatening to launch a war, or is it a matter of responding to the US positioning itself for war? The increasing presence of US Navy ships and a B-52 bomber task force in their neighborhood might provoke the Iranians to load up their missiles. However, the Pentagon says the US deployment is "in response to indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against US forces and our interests."
Iran, meanwhile, says it doesn't want war, but will defend itself. Donald Trump also is saying he doesn't want war, which is probably true. He loves a battle, when it's done with words, boasts, and threats. The other kind of fight could be frightening and politically risky.
One is reminded of the January 31, 2003 Oval Office meeting with George Bush, Tony Blair, and Condoleeza Rice, in which the topic of provoking Iraq to start a war was particularly revealing. Perhaps a plane painted in UN colors could be shot down over Iraq. Not good enough, the trio decided. To legitimize an invasion and get rid of Saddam, a new UN Security Council resolution, going beyond SC1441 and specifically sanctioning the invasion, was the answer.
Enter Katharine Gun. Her story, which reveals what a country will do when it wants war and claims it does not, is told in an updated book and a major motion picture soon to be released--Official Secrets (Keira Knightly is Katharine). British Secret Service Officer Katharine, then a young bride, risked everything to leak details of the Bush-Blair plan to coerce (possibly blackmail) members of the UN Security Council in order to win their votes to legalize invading Iraq. The spin in this country and in the UK was the threat of deadly weapons ready to be deployed by Saddam. The truth was that in April of 2002, the two world leaders secretly had agreed on a plan to take out Saddam, all the while giving speeches insisting that the only motivation for even considering war was that horrific stockpile of deadly weapons.
And then there is the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led America deeply into war against North Vietnam. Actually, there were two incidents at sea, blamed originally on the North Vietnamese. Eventually, it was widely held that at least one of the reports of the attacks, and perhaps even both, were false. A manufactured provocation. By design.
The point of all of this is painfully obvious. We must not be flummoxed by exaggerated claims of threats against America and our interests. This is not to say that Iran does not have a trick up its sleeve, or that wild-eyed Iranian hawks aren't circling its leaders. It is to say that a government, for its own reasons may, either by design or through miscalculation, lead a country into an unnecessary and brutal war. It is to say that we need to know the truth behind the decisions to act or not to act.
We need a truth-sayer. We need another Katharine Gun. An insider with courage.
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Some called her a traitor; others insisted she was a hero. Whatever, she blew the whistle ultimately revealing the truth behind the build-up to the Iraq War--regime change, disguised as terrifying threats of weapons of mass destruction.
Exaggerating threats to provoke a war? Sound familiar?
Never mind that invading another country for the purpose of regime change is illegal according to international laws to which the United States is a signatory. The team of hawks circling George Bush had long wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, as did Bush. Some of those same birds are still flapping wings in the skies above Washington. The concern among many Americans is that claims of an unprovoked, deadly attack by Iran are exaggerated. The issue is provocation. Who, one must ask, is provoking whom?
Much to the distress of our former partners in the Iran nuclear deal, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement and announced tougher sanctions. This, despite credible evidence that Iran was in full compliance with terms of the agreement. Provocation? Now, Trump says, he wants to see Iran back at the negotiating table. Iran, of course, isn't interested in dealing with him. Perhaps they don't trust him to keep his word.
Iran has been filmed loading missiles aboard some of its vessels. Is this a matter of threatening to launch a war, or is it a matter of responding to the US positioning itself for war? The increasing presence of US Navy ships and a B-52 bomber task force in their neighborhood might provoke the Iranians to load up their missiles. However, the Pentagon says the US deployment is "in response to indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against US forces and our interests."
Iran, meanwhile, says it doesn't want war, but will defend itself. Donald Trump also is saying he doesn't want war, which is probably true. He loves a battle, when it's done with words, boasts, and threats. The other kind of fight could be frightening and politically risky.
One is reminded of the January 31, 2003 Oval Office meeting with George Bush, Tony Blair, and Condoleeza Rice, in which the topic of provoking Iraq to start a war was particularly revealing. Perhaps a plane painted in UN colors could be shot down over Iraq. Not good enough, the trio decided. To legitimize an invasion and get rid of Saddam, a new UN Security Council resolution, going beyond SC1441 and specifically sanctioning the invasion, was the answer.
Enter Katharine Gun. Her story, which reveals what a country will do when it wants war and claims it does not, is told in an updated book and a major motion picture soon to be released--Official Secrets (Keira Knightly is Katharine). British Secret Service Officer Katharine, then a young bride, risked everything to leak details of the Bush-Blair plan to coerce (possibly blackmail) members of the UN Security Council in order to win their votes to legalize invading Iraq. The spin in this country and in the UK was the threat of deadly weapons ready to be deployed by Saddam. The truth was that in April of 2002, the two world leaders secretly had agreed on a plan to take out Saddam, all the while giving speeches insisting that the only motivation for even considering war was that horrific stockpile of deadly weapons.
And then there is the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led America deeply into war against North Vietnam. Actually, there were two incidents at sea, blamed originally on the North Vietnamese. Eventually, it was widely held that at least one of the reports of the attacks, and perhaps even both, were false. A manufactured provocation. By design.
The point of all of this is painfully obvious. We must not be flummoxed by exaggerated claims of threats against America and our interests. This is not to say that Iran does not have a trick up its sleeve, or that wild-eyed Iranian hawks aren't circling its leaders. It is to say that a government, for its own reasons may, either by design or through miscalculation, lead a country into an unnecessary and brutal war. It is to say that we need to know the truth behind the decisions to act or not to act.
We need a truth-sayer. We need another Katharine Gun. An insider with courage.
Some called her a traitor; others insisted she was a hero. Whatever, she blew the whistle ultimately revealing the truth behind the build-up to the Iraq War--regime change, disguised as terrifying threats of weapons of mass destruction.
Exaggerating threats to provoke a war? Sound familiar?
Never mind that invading another country for the purpose of regime change is illegal according to international laws to which the United States is a signatory. The team of hawks circling George Bush had long wanted to take out Saddam Hussein, as did Bush. Some of those same birds are still flapping wings in the skies above Washington. The concern among many Americans is that claims of an unprovoked, deadly attack by Iran are exaggerated. The issue is provocation. Who, one must ask, is provoking whom?
Much to the distress of our former partners in the Iran nuclear deal, Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement and announced tougher sanctions. This, despite credible evidence that Iran was in full compliance with terms of the agreement. Provocation? Now, Trump says, he wants to see Iran back at the negotiating table. Iran, of course, isn't interested in dealing with him. Perhaps they don't trust him to keep his word.
Iran has been filmed loading missiles aboard some of its vessels. Is this a matter of threatening to launch a war, or is it a matter of responding to the US positioning itself for war? The increasing presence of US Navy ships and a B-52 bomber task force in their neighborhood might provoke the Iranians to load up their missiles. However, the Pentagon says the US deployment is "in response to indications of heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against US forces and our interests."
Iran, meanwhile, says it doesn't want war, but will defend itself. Donald Trump also is saying he doesn't want war, which is probably true. He loves a battle, when it's done with words, boasts, and threats. The other kind of fight could be frightening and politically risky.
One is reminded of the January 31, 2003 Oval Office meeting with George Bush, Tony Blair, and Condoleeza Rice, in which the topic of provoking Iraq to start a war was particularly revealing. Perhaps a plane painted in UN colors could be shot down over Iraq. Not good enough, the trio decided. To legitimize an invasion and get rid of Saddam, a new UN Security Council resolution, going beyond SC1441 and specifically sanctioning the invasion, was the answer.
Enter Katharine Gun. Her story, which reveals what a country will do when it wants war and claims it does not, is told in an updated book and a major motion picture soon to be released--Official Secrets (Keira Knightly is Katharine). British Secret Service Officer Katharine, then a young bride, risked everything to leak details of the Bush-Blair plan to coerce (possibly blackmail) members of the UN Security Council in order to win their votes to legalize invading Iraq. The spin in this country and in the UK was the threat of deadly weapons ready to be deployed by Saddam. The truth was that in April of 2002, the two world leaders secretly had agreed on a plan to take out Saddam, all the while giving speeches insisting that the only motivation for even considering war was that horrific stockpile of deadly weapons.
And then there is the Gulf of Tonkin incident that led America deeply into war against North Vietnam. Actually, there were two incidents at sea, blamed originally on the North Vietnamese. Eventually, it was widely held that at least one of the reports of the attacks, and perhaps even both, were false. A manufactured provocation. By design.
The point of all of this is painfully obvious. We must not be flummoxed by exaggerated claims of threats against America and our interests. This is not to say that Iran does not have a trick up its sleeve, or that wild-eyed Iranian hawks aren't circling its leaders. It is to say that a government, for its own reasons may, either by design or through miscalculation, lead a country into an unnecessary and brutal war. It is to say that we need to know the truth behind the decisions to act or not to act.
We need a truth-sayer. We need another Katharine Gun. An insider with courage.
"We sounded the alarm, and they're backing off," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "But the fight's not over."
Social Security advocates celebrated a hard-fought win on Wednesday while still stressing that the Trump administration poses a dire threat to millions of Americans' earned benefits.
The Social Security Administration on Tuesday seemingly walked back plans to require beneficiaries to verify their identities using an online system and force those who couldn't do so to provide documentation at an SSA field office—some of which may soon be targeted for closure.
"Beginning on April 14, Social Security will perform an anti-fraud check on all claims filed over the telephone and flag claims that have fraud risk indicators," the agency wrote Tuesday on X, the social media platform owned by billionaire Elon Musk, head of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
"Individuals that are flagged would be required to perform in-person ID proofing for the claim to be further processed. Individuals who are not flagged will be able to complete their claim without any in-person requirements," the SSA explained. "We will continue to conduct 100% ID proofing for all in-person claims. 4.5 million telephone claims a year and 70K may be flagged. Telephone remains a viable option to the public."
The Trump administration was previously accused of trying to "sabotage" SSA by cutting phone services and forcing people who could not verify their identity online through "my Social Security" to do so in-person. That policy was initially set to take effect at the end of March, a rapid rollout reportedly pursued at the request of the White House.
Then, late last month, SSA delayed the start date until April 14, and said that people applying for Medicare, Social Security Disability Insurance, or Supplemental Security Income would be exempt from the rule and could complete their claims by phone.
Reporting on the policy's apparent full rollback on Wednesday, Axios shared an email from a White House official who said that "because the anti-fraud team implemented new technological capabilities so quickly, SSA can now perform anti-fraud check on all claims filed over the phone."
Those who are flagged "would be required to perform in-person ID proofing for the claim to be further processed," the official told the outlet, echoing the X posts. "The administration remains committed to protecting our beneficiaries from fraud. There will no disruptions to service."
Welcoming the development on X, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: "We sounded the alarm, and they're backing off. But the fight's not over. Trump and Musk still want to fire thousands of Social Security workers, close offices, and cut services. We'll keep fighting back."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly said in a statement: "Organizing and mobilizing works. From the moment DOGE announced its dangerous plan to eliminate SSA telephone services, our members sprang into action—making thousands of calls to elected officials, organizing rallies and demonstrations, and demanding the protection of the services they have earned and paid for."
"We are grateful that our voices were heard. As of today, most Americans will still be able to apply for their earned retirement, survivor, or disability benefits through the method that works best for them—whether by phone, in person, or online," Fiesta continued. "Forcing millions of seniors and people with disabilities to rely solely on an understaffed network of closing field offices or an online-only system would have placed an unreasonable burden on vulnerable people and done little to curb fraudulent claims."
Like Warren, he vowed that "we will continue to fight to ensure that SSA is fully staffed and that local field offices remain open and accessible to the public."
Social Security Works also celebrated the news, writing on X: "After a massive public outcry, Elon Musk's DOGE is backing away from cuts to Social Security phone service that would have forced millions of Americans into overcrowded field offices. Your voice matters!"
"But DOGE is still making other huge cuts to the Social Security Administration," the advocacy group added. "These cuts are already making it far harder for Americans to claim their earned benefits. We need to stay loud! Plan or join a rally on April 15th."
"Elon Musk orchestrated a plan to rip off consumers with impunity when he tweeted 'Delete CFPB' and Congress just rubber-stamped it," said one campaigner.
In a move likely to further enrich Elon Musk, the world's richest person, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday voted to revoke a rule empowering a federal agency to oversee digital payment applications including Apple Pay, CashApp, and Venmo like it monitors banks and credit card companies.
House lawmakers passed S.J. Res. 28 by a party-line vote of 219-211, a move that followed the Senate's vote last month to rescind the Consumer Financial Protect Bureau (CFPB) rule requiring payment apps to be regulated under the agency's supervisory authority.
"The vote," the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress said, "is the latest in a damning and telling chain of events benefiting Elon Musk," chairman of the social media company X.
The group laid out the timeline:
"Musk is now on a glide path to launch X Money this year without the watchdog agency to ensure that he follows federal rules mandating data security standards, disputes for fraudulent payments, consumer protections against debanking, and more," Demand Progress said.
"And through the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Musk now has access to sensitive information about competitors in the digital payments space like Cash App, PayPal, and Venmo that have been investigated by the CFPB, potentially giving X Money an unfair business advantage," the group added.
BREAKING: Congress just voted to strip the CFPB of its power to make sure payment apps like CashApp protect consumers, just as Elon Musk gears up to turn Twitter into his own payment app.
[image or embed]
— Demand Progress (@demandprogress.bsky.social) April 9, 2025 at 2:03 PM
As Consumer Reports noted Wednesday:
The CFPB's rule (also known as the larger participant rule) applies to digital wallet and payment providers handling more than 50 million transactions per year. The most widely used apps subject to the rule process an estimated 13 billion consumer payment transactions annually, according to the CFPB.
In 2023 alone, consumers reported losing $210 million to scams on peer-to-peer payment apps, a staggering 62% increase from 2021. In addition, users who accidentally send a payment to the wrong person find it nearly impossible to get their money back.
"Elon Musk orchestrated a plan to rip off consumers with impunity when he tweeted 'Delete CFPB' and Congress just rubber-stamped it. Today's shameful vote means that X, an app already swarming with bots and scammers, will be able to connect to your bank account and allow fraudsters to take your money without accountability," Emily Peterson-Cassin, corporate power director at Demand Progress, said Wednesday.
"Thanks to the CFPB's supervision, $120 million was refunded to consumers who were scammed through Cash App," Peterson-Cassin added. "That kind of policing will be significantly harder now that Congress has voted to strip the CFPB of its ability to proactively watch over payment apps. And thanks to DOGE's intrusions into the CFPB's databases, Musk now has access to sensitive financial data from companies investigated by the agency, including virtually all would-be competitors to X Money in the digital payments space."
Other consumer advocates also panned the House vote, with Consumer Reports advocacy program director Chuck Bell arguing that "by voting to repeal the CFPB's rule, Congress is turning a blind eye to the fraud that runs rampant on payment apps and the privacy risks users can face when Big Tech companies collect their sensitive financial data and share it widely with other companies."
"Today's vote weakens the CFPB's ability to stop unfair practices that put consumers who use payment apps at risk and ensure that Big Tech companies are following the law," Bell added.
"The entire city of Rafah is being swallowed up," warned one Israeli human rights group. "The massive death zone... continues to grow by the day."
The Israel Defense Forces is preparing to permanently seize the largely depopulated Palestinian city of Rafah—comprising about 20% of Gaza's land area—and incorporate what was once the embattled enclave's third-largest city into a borderland buffer that IDF troops have described as a "kill zone" rife with alleged war crimes.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Wednesday that "defense sources" said an area from the so-called Philadelphi corridor along Gaza's border with Egypt and the Morag corridor—the name of a Jewish colony that once stood between Rafah and Khan Younis—will be incorporated into the buffer zone that runs along the entire length of the Israeli border.
The affected area includes the entire city of Rafah—which is thousands of years old—and surrounding neighborhoods, which were home to more than 250,000 people before Israeli launched what United Nations experts have called a genocidal assault on Gaza in retaliation for the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023.
As Haaretz's Yaniv Kubovitch reported:
Expanding the buffer zone to this extent carries significant implications. Not only does it cover a vast area—approximately 75 square kilometers (about 29 square miles), or roughly one-fifth of the Gaza Strip—but severing it would effectively turn Gaza into an enclave within Israeli-controlled territory, cutting it off from the Egyptian border. According to defense sources, this consideration played a central role in the decision to focus on Rafah...
It has yet to be decided whether the entire area will simply be designated a buffer zone that is off-limits to civilians—as has been done in other parts of the border area—or whether the area will be fully cleared and all buildings demolished, effectively wiping out the city of Rafah.
In recent weeks and for the second time during the war, IDF troops forcibly expelled hundreds of thousands residents from Rafah and other areas of southern Gaza in an ethnic cleansing campaign reminiscent of the 1948 Nakba, or "catastrophe" in Arabic, through which the modern state of Israel was founded. Most Gaza residents today are Nakba survivors or descendants of Palestinians who fled or were expelled from other parts of Palestine in 1948.
Earlier this month, Israeli officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—a fugitive from the International Criminal Court wanted for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—and Defense Minister Israel Katz announced plans to seize "large areas" of southern Gaza to be added to what Katz called "security zones" and "settlements."
Jewish recolonization of Gaza is a major objective of many right-wing Israelis. Last month, Katz announced the creation of a new IDF directorate tasked with ethnically cleansing northern Gaza, which Israeli leaders euphemistically call "voluntary emigration." Katz said the agency would be run "in accordance with the vision of U.S. President Donald Trump," who in February said that the United States would "take over" Gaza after emptying the strip of its over 2 million Palestinians, and then transform the enclave into the "Riviera of the Middle East." Trump subsequently attempted to walk back some of his comments.
Earlier this week, the Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence published testimonies of IDF officers, soldiers, and veterans who took part in the creation of the buffer zone. Soldiers recounted orders to "deliberately, methodically, and systematically annihilate whatever was within the designated perimeter, including entire residential neighborhoods, public buildings, educational institutions, mosques, and cemeteries, with very few exceptions."
Palestinians who dared enter the perimeter, even accidentally were targeted, including civilian men, women, children, and elders. One officer featured in the report told The Guardian: "We're killing [men], we're killing their wives, their children, their cats, their dogs. We're destroying their houses and pissing on their graves."
Most of Gaza's more than 2 million residents have been forcibly displaced at least once since Israel launched the war, which has left more than 180,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Widespread starvation and disease have been fueled by a "complete siege" which, among other Israeli policies and actions, has been cited in the ongoing South Africa-led genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice.