Gary Leupp bravely and correctly calls out Cheney as "a crazed monster... inflicting incalculable suffering on the Middle East." Is Leupp suggesting that Cheney suffers from a pathological or sociopathic drive to inflict massive pain and suffering? If so, he's stating exactly my view. (The interesting question is to what extent do those who support the Iraq war qua war -- and not simply to support their party or their president -- suffer from the same pathology? I wonder if those who support the war to advance Israel's aims can be said to be doing so for more rational reasons, i.e., to advance their political aims, and thus are not necessarily sociopathic in quite the same way as are Bush and Cheney et al.)
I suspect Leupp is wrong to deem Bush a religious fanatic. I don't think so. Rather, Bush suffers from the same destructive pathology as Cheney. Bush is shrewd enough to understand that he needs people like Rove and Cheney in order to implement the destruction.
Leupp also bravely calls out the "horribly influential" AIPAC. The confusing part of his article comes when he suggests impeachment as a solution when it's the "horrifically influential," AIPAC that is preventing a withdrawal from Iraq, not to mention tamping down any spark of impeachment in Congress.
Speaking of withdrawal from Iraq which of course is necessary immediately, there's a problem today which we didn't face in the 1974 Vietnam withdrawal, and once again the problem is Israel on top of which sits the Bush-Cheney regime.
First, if it were possible to force Bush to oversee a withdrawal from Iraq during his constitutional term of office, he would do it with maximum pain to all sides, insuring an intensification of civil and sectarian strife, and an even more complete destruction of the infrastructure and of civil society and he would do what he could to ensure as much Israeli and quisling control as possible.
In a hint of how deeply problematical is our future, if either Hillary or Guiliani succeeds Bush in January 2009, they are both committed like Bush to an indefinite occupation of Iraq, nor is it clear which of the two would be less likely to start a war with Iran if that had not yet happened. Much the same if not exactly the same is the case with Obama or Edwards. The one thing I would give the Democrats is that they wouldn't necessarily INTEND the continued destruction of Iraq, but the result would be the same --similar to Truman's destruction of Korea, especially North Korea.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
July 16, 2007
Impeachment or War?
Cheney Urges Bush to Strike Iran
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp07162007.html
By GARY LEUPP
"Cheney Pushes Bush to Act on Iran." That's the headline of a very frightening article by Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in the London Guardian. Sub-heads:
· Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out
· President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved'
What a nightmare Dick Cheney is visiting on our planet! Isn't it time we awaken to the fact that he's a crazed monster egging on a vain, cruel, delusional religious fanatic of a president as he inflicts incalculable suffering on the Middle East, sacrificing American blood and treasure in the process? Of course many of us have awakened to that fact, one reason why 54% of us want to see Cheney impeached. Yet he's still there, operating in his highly secretive fashion, gaining rather than losing influence according to MacAskill and Borger.
"The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months," they write. They cite a "well-placed source in Washington" as stating "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." The source also states, "The balance has tilted [ towards the advocates of an attack on Iran]. There is cause for concern."
Surely that concern is felt among the highest ranks of the military as well as the average citizen whom polls indicate feels no enthusiasm for the planned assault. But Congress has cooperated fully by passing every bill or resolution against Iran backed by the horrifically influential AIPAC lobby. Recall how Nancy Pelosi omitted a requirement for Congressional authorization of any Iran attack from legislation at the Lobby's behest?
The prospect of yet another war-based-on-lies boggles the rational mind. But according to the Guardian, there was a meeting between Bush, Cheney, and Pentagon and State Department officials on Iran last month, and Bush sided with Cheney when the latter "expressed frustration at the lack of progress" on Iran. That is to say, lack of progress in moving ahead with the bombing of Iran. Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, the key State Department official responsible for Iran and an advocate of negotiation, indicated at the meeting that diplomatic talks with Iran would probably continue beyond the end of Bush's term. For Bush and Cheney that is unacceptable, especially because they don't believe the next administration will have the guts to bomb.
Patrick Cronin, director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies suggested to the Guardian that Israel is calling the shots. "If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action. The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself." According to the Washington source, the administration is "reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway."
The handwriting is on the wall here. All these reports from unnamed sources about Iranian support for Iraqi "insurgents" of this or that faction. The display with much fanfare of captured weapons in Iraq identified as of Iranian manufacture. All these confident allusions to a nuclear weapons program Iran denies exists, for which the IAEA finds no evidence. All these assertions that Iran plans to cause a second Holocaust through a nuclear attack on Israel. Norman Podhoretz's Wall Street Journal op-ed piece praying for the U.S. to bomb Iran. John McCain's crooning "Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran." The disinformation, distortion, even vilification of Iran in popular culture. The propaganda barrage is reminiscent of that which preceded the criminal invasion of Iraq.
The uniform support for keeping an attack "on the table" among nearly all presidential candidates. The incessant arm-twisting of governments to back sanctions on Iran. The abuse of the IAEA, forced by a majority vote to find Iran "in non-compliance" with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The huge naval buildup in the Persian Gulf. The provocative arrest of Iranian diplomats in Iraq, protested by the Iraqi puppet government itself. The demand that Iran renounce its legal right to enrich uranium---a demand designed to be rejected and to constitute a pretext for regime change. The handwriting is written in big conspicuous letters on the wall.
That doesn't mean the attack cannot be stopped. How to do so? By not giving Cheney/Bush the remainder of their term. If 54% want Cheney impeached, he should be impeached. NOW, before he's allowed to further terrorize the world. Cheney impeachment hearings will weaken Bush and increase the percentage of Americans (now 45%) favoring the president's own impeachment. All that is required here is political will in a Congress that has seen its approval rating plummet due largely to its failure to stop the administration's war. Those wishing to reverse that have an easy option: vote to impeach. And while you're at it, vote to insist on Congress's exclusive power according to the Constitution to declare war.
Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.
He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu
Friday, July 20, 2007
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Village Voice and JB: Iran attack very much alive
It's really hard to add anything to the important commentaries below other than to emphasize that Cheney, aptly termed the Darksider by the New Yorker and a million others, usually gets his way on these big ticket items: war, destruction and endless suffering.
I'm still skeptical about Bush-Cheney orchestrating another big or little 9/11 mostly because there are much less risky ways of managing the attack on Iran. The attack on Iran is the next 9/11.
See the Dover Bitch blog for a really good look from the inside on the recent 97-0 Senate vote effectively ok'ing any Bush attack on Iran -- Lieberman's (and Bush -Cheney et al's) wet dream. .
http://doverbitch.blogspot.com/2007/07/closer.html
Dover B's article omits the reason that the Democrats felt compelled to allow such a vote and their fear of raising their hands against it: AIPAC.
It's amazing, or simply a sign of the times that intelligent people, Lieberman included, can so cavalierly give up their own security and the welfare of their children and grandchildren to the greater purpose of starting a war with an enemy of Israel. They are so blind that they don't see that this is not only bad for Arabs, not to mention the rest of the world, but bad for Israel as well.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Jeff wrote:
Should there be an Israeli attack on Iran, which has always been more of a possibility than one launched by the US, the current situation in Iraq will appear like a garden party, albeit a grisly one, in retrospect, with the possibilities of a wide spread Middle East war likely to be the outcome with a major disruption of the regional oil supply and a crisis in the world's economy a by-product. It should be clear that the prospect for such a scenario would not even be on the table were it not for the constant drumbeat over the past two years by the Jewish Zionist lobby in the US and only that lobby, spearheaded by its neocon strike force. Given the power of the lobby over the US Congress as well as the White House, we can expect loud applause from both Houses of Congress as well as the leadership of both political parties as well as from their leading presidential candidates should Israel attack. This will, of course, understandably inflame the already existing anti-American sentiment around the globe and make US institutions as well as its citizens targets for retaliation. What better time than that for the administration, in the spirit of Operations Northwoods, the sinking of the USS Maine, and quite likely, 9-11, to launch a smaller version of 9-11 or series of such events around the country in order to justify the imposition of martial law? I have been skeptical of such a scenario up to now, but as the administrations of both Bush and Olmert have seen the bottom fall out of their popularity ratings and consequently neither have anything to lose, and while the lobby has been behaving as if it is on steroids while the Congress is on valium, this disaster may well await the world.-JB
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/
Village Voice
The Bush Beat «by Ward Harkavy |
A Different 'Gut Feeling': Israel Attacking Iran
It always pays to be suspicious when a U.S. official ramps up fear, but Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" remark about an Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. this summer sparks a different suspicion — and a similar sinking feeling: Israel is about to launch a unilateral strike on Iran.
It's not a cinch, but that queasy feeling is building. Seymour Hersh wrote long ago (in his January 2005 "The Coming Wars") about such a Pentagon-induced nightmare. But now that Iraq is a total disaster, the warhawks are stepping up the drumbeat to attack Iran — either by the U.S. or Israel, even arguing that Iran has in effect already declared war on the U.S. by aiding rebels in Iraq.
One of Israel's top officials says he's got the go-ahead from NATO's U.S. and European officials to attack Iran. Chertoff, aware of a longstanding, fierce debate in the White House over attacking Iran, admits a "gut feeling," saying it's about Al Qaeda but probably feeling queasier about what an attack on Iran would do to inflame terrorists. Condoleezza Rice, said to be an opponent of a U.S. attack on Iran, suddenly cancels a visit to Israel. For the warhawks, that keeps her out of harm's way and blunts her attempts to talk with both Muslims and Jews. Israel couldn't very well attack Iran while hosting the U.S. secretary of state.
For all you conspiracy theorists out there — and those of you who pooh-pooh this as simply conspiracy theorizing — here are some of the building blocks of that suspicion:
• July 2: Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Israel/Connecticut) tells the Hartford Courant that "the fact is that the Iranian government has by its actions declared war on us." Lieberman doesn't speak for the entire U.S. government, obviously, but he does speak for a substantial number of powerful warhawks in and out of the White House. Lieberman adds:
"The United States government has a responsibility to use all instruments at its disposal to stop these terrorist attacks against our soldiers and allies in Iraq, including keeping open the possibility of using military force against the terrorist infrastructure inside Iran."
• July 10: Israel's minister of strategic affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, says Europe and the U.S. have given tacit approval for Israel to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear plants. From Israel Today:
"If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the US will support us," Lieberman told [Israeli] Army Radio following a meeting earlier in the week with NATO and European Union officials.
Lieberman said the Western powers acknowledged the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat to the Jewish state, but said that ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are "going to prevent the leaders of countries in Europe and America from deciding on the use of force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities," even if diplomacy ultimately fails.
The message Avigdor Lieberman said the NATO and EU officials conveyed to him is that Israel should "prevent the threat herself."
That's not as far-fetched as it sounds. As conservative anti-war talking head Philip Giraldi notes on the same day as Avigdor Lieberman's comments:
It is widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser David Wurmser have deliberately limited the playing field because they have no desire to engage Iran amicably and are instead fixated on regime change in Tehran as the only acceptable solution to the "Persian problem." Cheney has been ably seconded by fellow hawk Elliot Abrams at the National Security Council, who has been working to undercut Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to avoid a war. Wurmser, meanwhile, has been advising the like-minded at the American Enterprise Institute that Cheney does not believe in negotiations and has promised that the Bush Administration will deal with Iran militarily before its term of office ends.
The Cheney-Wurmser-Abrams axis is opposed to Administration figures like Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the intelligence agency chiefs, all of whom are reluctant to do a replay of Iraq in Iran. The Iraq Studies Group (ISG) recommended engaging Iran and all other local players including Syria to help stabilize Iraq and the broader Persian Gulf region. It also recommended taking serious steps to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As "serious steps" would consist of Washington pressuring Israel, the ISG report has been coolly received by the White House and with intense hostility by certain Congressmen who are closely tied to Israel.
• July 10: Chertoff tells the Chicago Tribune's editorial writers:
I believe we're entering a period this summer of increased risk. We've seen a lot more public statements from Al Qaeda. There are a lot of reasons to speculate about that but one reason that occurs to me is that they're feeling more comfortable and raising expectations. In the last August, and in prior summers, we've had attacks against the West, which suggests that summer seems to be appealing to them. I think we do see increased activity in South Asia, so we do worry about whether they are rebuilding their capabilities. We've struck at them and degraded them, but they rebuild. All these things have given me kind of a gut feeling that we are in a period of increased vulnerability.
• July 12: Rice hastily cancels her trip to Israel and the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories, as the U.N. and many others refer to it).
Spokesman Sean McCormack downplays it at his daily briefing for reporters as merely a postponement:
I want to update you on the Secretary's travel schedule. At this point, we are going to postpone the stop — the planned stops in Jerusalem and Ramallah until the end of the month. The Secretary and — Secretary Rice is going to be traveling to the region, as the President announced, in part with Secretary Gates. So she decided that it was appropriate to postpone these two stops and combine it with that trip. So we'll have more information on that trip, the dates, and the stops as we get closer to it, but I would expect that we would leave towards the end of the month and then there would be some joint travel with Secretary Gates at the very beginning of August.
At least some reporters are skeptical. One follows up with this:
Why was it appropriate to postpone those stops if she still plans to travel next week and she's going to be in Africa not that far away? Why not just go ahead and do the important work with the Israeli and the Palestinians?
McCormack's reply doesn't pass the smell test:
Well, if you look at where she is going, there is actually quite a distance from where she still plans to go to travel in the Middle East. And also, given the time in which we find ourselves, there's a lot of discussion going on concerning Iraq, there's certainly a lot of discussion, policy-wise, about the Middle East. And she thought it was appropriate to be back in Washington during this time and plus, from a logistical standpoint, it just made sense.
• July 12: U.S. intelligence chiefs meet at the White House to discuss a report that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 9/11. >From this morning's Times (U.K.):
Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, has spent days trying to play down comments that his "gut feeling" was that the US faced a heightened risk of attack this summer. . . .
Mr Chertoff emphasised yesterday that "we don’t have any specific information about an imminent or near-term attack on the homeland". However, the Times has been told that US and British intelligence services monitoring al-Qaeda networks have picked up "an increased level of chatter" in recent weeks.
Maybe so, but Chertoff could have been ratcheting up fear so that an attack on Iran would be more palatable to the masses as yet another "front" in the War of Terror. Or perhaps he was just unconsciously channeling the more ominous "chatter" from our own warhawks about an Israeli attack on Iran's nukes. Think about the poisonous cloud of radioactivity and even more terrorists that would produce.
categories: BUSHSPEAK, CHEERLEADERS, CHRIST, JESUS, COLLATERAL DAMAGE, CRUSADERS, Cheney, EXCUSES (FOR WAR), GWOT, Israel, SATAN, GREAT
I'm still skeptical about Bush-Cheney orchestrating another big or little 9/11 mostly because there are much less risky ways of managing the attack on Iran. The attack on Iran is the next 9/11.
See the Dover Bitch blog for a really good look from the inside on the recent 97-0 Senate vote effectively ok'ing any Bush attack on Iran -- Lieberman's (and Bush -Cheney et al's) wet dream. .
http://doverbitch.blogspot.com/2007/07/closer.html
Dover B's article omits the reason that the Democrats felt compelled to allow such a vote and their fear of raising their hands against it: AIPAC.
It's amazing, or simply a sign of the times that intelligent people, Lieberman included, can so cavalierly give up their own security and the welfare of their children and grandchildren to the greater purpose of starting a war with an enemy of Israel. They are so blind that they don't see that this is not only bad for Arabs, not to mention the rest of the world, but bad for Israel as well.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Jeff wrote:
Should there be an Israeli attack on Iran, which has always been more of a possibility than one launched by the US, the current situation in Iraq will appear like a garden party, albeit a grisly one, in retrospect, with the possibilities of a wide spread Middle East war likely to be the outcome with a major disruption of the regional oil supply and a crisis in the world's economy a by-product. It should be clear that the prospect for such a scenario would not even be on the table were it not for the constant drumbeat over the past two years by the Jewish Zionist lobby in the US and only that lobby, spearheaded by its neocon strike force. Given the power of the lobby over the US Congress as well as the White House, we can expect loud applause from both Houses of Congress as well as the leadership of both political parties as well as from their leading presidential candidates should Israel attack. This will, of course, understandably inflame the already existing anti-American sentiment around the globe and make US institutions as well as its citizens targets for retaliation. What better time than that for the administration, in the spirit of Operations Northwoods, the sinking of the USS Maine, and quite likely, 9-11, to launch a smaller version of 9-11 or series of such events around the country in order to justify the imposition of martial law? I have been skeptical of such a scenario up to now, but as the administrations of both Bush and Olmert have seen the bottom fall out of their popularity ratings and consequently neither have anything to lose, and while the lobby has been behaving as if it is on steroids while the Congress is on valium, this disaster may well await the world.-JB
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/
Village Voice
The Bush Beat «by Ward Harkavy |
A Different 'Gut Feeling': Israel Attacking Iran
It always pays to be suspicious when a U.S. official ramps up fear, but Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" remark about an Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. this summer sparks a different suspicion — and a similar sinking feeling: Israel is about to launch a unilateral strike on Iran.
It's not a cinch, but that queasy feeling is building. Seymour Hersh wrote long ago (in his January 2005 "The Coming Wars") about such a Pentagon-induced nightmare. But now that Iraq is a total disaster, the warhawks are stepping up the drumbeat to attack Iran — either by the U.S. or Israel, even arguing that Iran has in effect already declared war on the U.S. by aiding rebels in Iraq.
One of Israel's top officials says he's got the go-ahead from NATO's U.S. and European officials to attack Iran. Chertoff, aware of a longstanding, fierce debate in the White House over attacking Iran, admits a "gut feeling," saying it's about Al Qaeda but probably feeling queasier about what an attack on Iran would do to inflame terrorists. Condoleezza Rice, said to be an opponent of a U.S. attack on Iran, suddenly cancels a visit to Israel. For the warhawks, that keeps her out of harm's way and blunts her attempts to talk with both Muslims and Jews. Israel couldn't very well attack Iran while hosting the U.S. secretary of state.
For all you conspiracy theorists out there — and those of you who pooh-pooh this as simply conspiracy theorizing — here are some of the building blocks of that suspicion:
• July 2: Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Israel/Connecticut) tells the Hartford Courant that "the fact is that the Iranian government has by its actions declared war on us." Lieberman doesn't speak for the entire U.S. government, obviously, but he does speak for a substantial number of powerful warhawks in and out of the White House. Lieberman adds:
"The United States government has a responsibility to use all instruments at its disposal to stop these terrorist attacks against our soldiers and allies in Iraq, including keeping open the possibility of using military force against the terrorist infrastructure inside Iran."
• July 10: Israel's minister of strategic affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, says Europe and the U.S. have given tacit approval for Israel to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear plants. From Israel Today:
"If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the US will support us," Lieberman told [Israeli] Army Radio following a meeting earlier in the week with NATO and European Union officials.
Lieberman said the Western powers acknowledged the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat to the Jewish state, but said that ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are "going to prevent the leaders of countries in Europe and America from deciding on the use of force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities," even if diplomacy ultimately fails.
The message Avigdor Lieberman said the NATO and EU officials conveyed to him is that Israel should "prevent the threat herself."
That's not as far-fetched as it sounds. As conservative anti-war talking head Philip Giraldi notes on the same day as Avigdor Lieberman's comments:
It is widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser David Wurmser have deliberately limited the playing field because they have no desire to engage Iran amicably and are instead fixated on regime change in Tehran as the only acceptable solution to the "Persian problem." Cheney has been ably seconded by fellow hawk Elliot Abrams at the National Security Council, who has been working to undercut Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to avoid a war. Wurmser, meanwhile, has been advising the like-minded at the American Enterprise Institute that Cheney does not believe in negotiations and has promised that the Bush Administration will deal with Iran militarily before its term of office ends.
The Cheney-Wurmser-Abrams axis is opposed to Administration figures like Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the intelligence agency chiefs, all of whom are reluctant to do a replay of Iraq in Iran. The Iraq Studies Group (ISG) recommended engaging Iran and all other local players including Syria to help stabilize Iraq and the broader Persian Gulf region. It also recommended taking serious steps to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As "serious steps" would consist of Washington pressuring Israel, the ISG report has been coolly received by the White House and with intense hostility by certain Congressmen who are closely tied to Israel.
• July 10: Chertoff tells the Chicago Tribune's editorial writers:
I believe we're entering a period this summer of increased risk. We've seen a lot more public statements from Al Qaeda. There are a lot of reasons to speculate about that but one reason that occurs to me is that they're feeling more comfortable and raising expectations. In the last August, and in prior summers, we've had attacks against the West, which suggests that summer seems to be appealing to them. I think we do see increased activity in South Asia, so we do worry about whether they are rebuilding their capabilities. We've struck at them and degraded them, but they rebuild. All these things have given me kind of a gut feeling that we are in a period of increased vulnerability.
• July 12: Rice hastily cancels her trip to Israel and the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories, as the U.N. and many others refer to it).
Spokesman Sean McCormack downplays it at his daily briefing for reporters as merely a postponement:
I want to update you on the Secretary's travel schedule. At this point, we are going to postpone the stop — the planned stops in Jerusalem and Ramallah until the end of the month. The Secretary and — Secretary Rice is going to be traveling to the region, as the President announced, in part with Secretary Gates. So she decided that it was appropriate to postpone these two stops and combine it with that trip. So we'll have more information on that trip, the dates, and the stops as we get closer to it, but I would expect that we would leave towards the end of the month and then there would be some joint travel with Secretary Gates at the very beginning of August.
At least some reporters are skeptical. One follows up with this:
Why was it appropriate to postpone those stops if she still plans to travel next week and she's going to be in Africa not that far away? Why not just go ahead and do the important work with the Israeli and the Palestinians?
McCormack's reply doesn't pass the smell test:
Well, if you look at where she is going, there is actually quite a distance from where she still plans to go to travel in the Middle East. And also, given the time in which we find ourselves, there's a lot of discussion going on concerning Iraq, there's certainly a lot of discussion, policy-wise, about the Middle East. And she thought it was appropriate to be back in Washington during this time and plus, from a logistical standpoint, it just made sense.
• July 12: U.S. intelligence chiefs meet at the White House to discuss a report that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 9/11. >From this morning's Times (U.K.):
Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, has spent days trying to play down comments that his "gut feeling" was that the US faced a heightened risk of attack this summer. . . .
Mr Chertoff emphasised yesterday that "we don’t have any specific information about an imminent or near-term attack on the homeland". However, the Times has been told that US and British intelligence services monitoring al-Qaeda networks have picked up "an increased level of chatter" in recent weeks.
Maybe so, but Chertoff could have been ratcheting up fear so that an attack on Iran would be more palatable to the masses as yet another "front" in the War of Terror. Or perhaps he was just unconsciously channeling the more ominous "chatter" from our own warhawks about an Israeli attack on Iran's nukes. Think about the poisonous cloud of radioactivity and even more terrorists that would produce.
categories: BUSHSPEAK, CHEERLEADERS, CHRIST, JESUS, COLLATERAL DAMAGE, CRUSADERS, Cheney, EXCUSES (FOR WAR), GWOT, Israel, SATAN, GREAT
Ghada Karmi: Academic Boycott of Israel Justified
Jeff wrote;
"Academic boycotts are not new to Britain. In 1965, a boycott campaign against apartheid South Africa was initiated by 34 universities in response to a call for solidarity by the African National Congress. After a prolonged British campaign, the boycott was adopted as policy by the AUT in 1988 and remained in place until the end of apartheid.
"The academic boycott against Israel is no different. Israel's well-documented repression of Palestinian academic life and victimization of Palestinian teachers and students is a scandal to be denounced by all those who claim to care about academic freedom. Rather than rushing to Israel's defense in a situation so perverse and immoral, all efforts should be directed toward boycotting all Israeli institutions. Only when Israel is made a pariah state, as happened with South Africa, will its people understand that they cannot trample on another people's rights without penalty."
This was published in Haaretz which is sometimes called the NY Times of Israel except, as we know, the NY Times would never publish such an article, given its role in the Zionist control of the US media.
The charge of "anti-semitism," has long been the refuge of Zionist scoundrels who have no other response to allegations and evidence of Israeli criminality than to smear the truthtellers.-JB
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881390.html
Weapon of the weak
By Ghada Karmi
Haaretz
July 14, 2007
In conflicts, boycotts are the weapons of the weak. Their chief importance lies in their ability to raise public awareness and arouse disapproval. Yet, going by the paranoid reaction to the academic boycott of Israel, it might as well have been a declaration of nuclear war. No peaceable action in recent times has provoked so much anger and hostility as this British-based boycott.
In the wake of the British University and College Union's vote at its annual general meeting on May 30 to initiate a national debate on a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, a wave of hysteria engulfed Israel and its friends. Articles appeared, before and after the vote, denouncing the UCU resolution and its initiators, and heated correspondence is still ongoing. Threats were made against members of the boycott group by pro-Israel organizations and individuals, and campaigns were mounted to defeat the boycott. Costly one-page advertisements appeared in The Times and The Guardian, carrying the names of scores of eminent signatories opposing the boycott.
Photographs of the boycott's "ringleaders," like those of wanted criminals, appeared on the front page of the major British Jewish weekly, The Jewish Chronicle, which also carried a distressed article by Britain's chief rabbi condemning the boycott as an anti-Semitic "witch hunt." The Daily Mail's Jewish columnist Melanie Phillips declared "the age of reason" over. The Jewish-American lawyer and fierce warrior for Israel Alan Dershowitz has teamed up with his British counterpart, Anthony Julius, to take legal action against British supporters of the boycott. While this would not be valid in British law, its aim is clearly to intimidate.
Advertisement
The fuss has not abated yet, and more battles lie ahead this autumn as pressure is exerted upon the UCU to ballot its members individually, in the hope that they will reject the motion passed by the conference.
Two major misconceptions lie at the base of this response, both deliberately fostered. The first misconception is that the boycott is aimed against individual Israeli academics, and the second, and more important, is that it is anti-Semitic.
With regard to the first misconception, the boycott in fact calls for a ban on dealings with Israeli academic institutions, for example, for not participating in joint research, conferences or other collaborative activity. In a malicious misrepresentation of this position, opponents claim that the boycott will end the free exchange of ideas with individual Israelis and encourage discrimination against them within British academia. By suppressing "free speech," goes the argument, this would end any hope of change in Israel's policies that academics could have brought about. This is an erroneous argument, and it has galvanized opposition to the boycott in Britain .
The charge of anti-Semitism follows closely on this. The allegation is that the real reason for the boycott is hatred of Jews, a new outbreak of an old gentile affliction. Nothing is more designed to provoke and mislead than this charge, which, its authors know, antagonizes all Jews and many non-Jews.
In fact, of course, the imputation of anti-Semitism is a red herring, as so often is the case when Israel is criticized, and its aim, as always, is to deflect criticism. In the case of the British boycott committee, it is particularly inapt, since most of the members are Jewish. The campaign started in 2004 with a letter that two British scholars, Hilary and Steven Rose, published in The Guardian, calling for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, in support of a similar call by Palestinian civil society organizations. These, representing a majority of Palestinian academics and other professionals, had united to form a campaign for boycotting Israel because of its repressive policies against them.
The letter in The Guardian spearheaded a growing demand for Israel to be called to account for its policies, which was soon joined by many academics in Europe and beyond. Support was particularly strong in South Africa, which had lived through a similar boycott during the apartheid era, and was especially sympathetic to the boycott's rationale and aims. Since that time, the boycott and divestment campaign against Israel has grown, resulting in the Association of University Teachers' Union voting for a boycott against two Israeli universities at its meeting in 2005. Thanks to a vigorous pro-Israel campaign against it, the decision was overturned within a month. But the issue did not go away, and resulted in the vote for the boycott two years later by the newly formed UCU, which had absorbed the AUT.
Academic boycotts are not new to Britain. In 1965, a boycott campaign against apartheid South Africa was initiated by 34 universities in response to a call for solidarity by the African National Congress. After a prolonged British campaign, the boycott was adopted as policy by the AUT in 1988 and remained in place until the end of apartheid.
The academic boycott against Israel is no different. Israel's well-documented repression of Palestinian academic life and victimization of Palestinian teachers and students is a scandal to be denounced by all those who claim to care about academic freedom. Rather than rushing to Israel's defense in a situation so perverse and immoral, all efforts should be directed toward boycotting all Israeli institutions. Only when Israel is made a pariah state, as happened with South Africa, will its people understand that they cannot trample on another people's rights without penalty.
Ghada Karmi is the author of "Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine."
"Academic boycotts are not new to Britain. In 1965, a boycott campaign against apartheid South Africa was initiated by 34 universities in response to a call for solidarity by the African National Congress. After a prolonged British campaign, the boycott was adopted as policy by the AUT in 1988 and remained in place until the end of apartheid.
"The academic boycott against Israel is no different. Israel's well-documented repression of Palestinian academic life and victimization of Palestinian teachers and students is a scandal to be denounced by all those who claim to care about academic freedom. Rather than rushing to Israel's defense in a situation so perverse and immoral, all efforts should be directed toward boycotting all Israeli institutions. Only when Israel is made a pariah state, as happened with South Africa, will its people understand that they cannot trample on another people's rights without penalty."
This was published in Haaretz which is sometimes called the NY Times of Israel except, as we know, the NY Times would never publish such an article, given its role in the Zionist control of the US media.
The charge of "anti-semitism," has long been the refuge of Zionist scoundrels who have no other response to allegations and evidence of Israeli criminality than to smear the truthtellers.-JB
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/881390.html
Weapon of the weak
By Ghada Karmi
Haaretz
July 14, 2007
In conflicts, boycotts are the weapons of the weak. Their chief importance lies in their ability to raise public awareness and arouse disapproval. Yet, going by the paranoid reaction to the academic boycott of Israel, it might as well have been a declaration of nuclear war. No peaceable action in recent times has provoked so much anger and hostility as this British-based boycott.
In the wake of the British University and College Union's vote at its annual general meeting on May 30 to initiate a national debate on a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, a wave of hysteria engulfed Israel and its friends. Articles appeared, before and after the vote, denouncing the UCU resolution and its initiators, and heated correspondence is still ongoing. Threats were made against members of the boycott group by pro-Israel organizations and individuals, and campaigns were mounted to defeat the boycott. Costly one-page advertisements appeared in The Times and The Guardian, carrying the names of scores of eminent signatories opposing the boycott.
Photographs of the boycott's "ringleaders," like those of wanted criminals, appeared on the front page of the major British Jewish weekly, The Jewish Chronicle, which also carried a distressed article by Britain's chief rabbi condemning the boycott as an anti-Semitic "witch hunt." The Daily Mail's Jewish columnist Melanie Phillips declared "the age of reason" over. The Jewish-American lawyer and fierce warrior for Israel Alan Dershowitz has teamed up with his British counterpart, Anthony Julius, to take legal action against British supporters of the boycott. While this would not be valid in British law, its aim is clearly to intimidate.
Advertisement
The fuss has not abated yet, and more battles lie ahead this autumn as pressure is exerted upon the UCU to ballot its members individually, in the hope that they will reject the motion passed by the conference.
Two major misconceptions lie at the base of this response, both deliberately fostered. The first misconception is that the boycott is aimed against individual Israeli academics, and the second, and more important, is that it is anti-Semitic.
With regard to the first misconception, the boycott in fact calls for a ban on dealings with Israeli academic institutions, for example, for not participating in joint research, conferences or other collaborative activity. In a malicious misrepresentation of this position, opponents claim that the boycott will end the free exchange of ideas with individual Israelis and encourage discrimination against them within British academia. By suppressing "free speech," goes the argument, this would end any hope of change in Israel's policies that academics could have brought about. This is an erroneous argument, and it has galvanized opposition to the boycott in Britain .
The charge of anti-Semitism follows closely on this. The allegation is that the real reason for the boycott is hatred of Jews, a new outbreak of an old gentile affliction. Nothing is more designed to provoke and mislead than this charge, which, its authors know, antagonizes all Jews and many non-Jews.
In fact, of course, the imputation of anti-Semitism is a red herring, as so often is the case when Israel is criticized, and its aim, as always, is to deflect criticism. In the case of the British boycott committee, it is particularly inapt, since most of the members are Jewish. The campaign started in 2004 with a letter that two British scholars, Hilary and Steven Rose, published in The Guardian, calling for a boycott of Israeli academic and cultural institutions, in support of a similar call by Palestinian civil society organizations. These, representing a majority of Palestinian academics and other professionals, had united to form a campaign for boycotting Israel because of its repressive policies against them.
The letter in The Guardian spearheaded a growing demand for Israel to be called to account for its policies, which was soon joined by many academics in Europe and beyond. Support was particularly strong in South Africa, which had lived through a similar boycott during the apartheid era, and was especially sympathetic to the boycott's rationale and aims. Since that time, the boycott and divestment campaign against Israel has grown, resulting in the Association of University Teachers' Union voting for a boycott against two Israeli universities at its meeting in 2005. Thanks to a vigorous pro-Israel campaign against it, the decision was overturned within a month. But the issue did not go away, and resulted in the vote for the boycott two years later by the newly formed UCU, which had absorbed the AUT.
Academic boycotts are not new to Britain. In 1965, a boycott campaign against apartheid South Africa was initiated by 34 universities in response to a call for solidarity by the African National Congress. After a prolonged British campaign, the boycott was adopted as policy by the AUT in 1988 and remained in place until the end of apartheid.
The academic boycott against Israel is no different. Israel's well-documented repression of Palestinian academic life and victimization of Palestinian teachers and students is a scandal to be denounced by all those who claim to care about academic freedom. Rather than rushing to Israel's defense in a situation so perverse and immoral, all efforts should be directed toward boycotting all Israeli institutions. Only when Israel is made a pariah state, as happened with South Africa, will its people understand that they cannot trample on another people's rights without penalty.
Ghada Karmi is the author of "Married to Another Man: Israel's Dilemma in Palestine."
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Kurt Nimmo: Osama: Dead, again! + Bleier on 911, Continuity of Government
If Kurt Nimmo has said it once, he's said it 100 times: Osama is dead. He died a natural death shortly after 9/11. Here Nimmo reprises some of the evidence and the links. Nimmo's blog was apparently written just before the appearance of the latest Bin Laden video tape on Sunday (7.14)
One interesting question is: Since the Bush-Cheney mob planned and executed 9/11, what prevents them from organizing another one as per the latest summer round of warnings? My guess is that it's not gonna happen. As the Brits say: it was a one off. The warnings are a clue. If it were to happen, they wouldn't be warning us. Second, I think the 9/11 Truth Movement should get some credit. There are perhaps scores of millions of people now who understand what really happened and are now alerted to the extent of some of the perfidy of this government.
On another related issue, it's far from clear to me that Cheney is not plotting some way to continue past Jan 2009. It's called continuity of government. Needless to say, they would need another Pearl Harbor/911 event in order to do so. The obvious candidate is an attack against Iran which could change everything. On the other hand such an attack would have to be handled in such a way so as not to backfire against them, especially bearing in mind their low approval ratings.
On the question of continuity of government, I've always wondered why Cheney was so adamant on 9/11 that Bush not return immediately to Washington, and kept him away for the whole day. Could it be that the original plan called for martial law and a suspension of the Constitution? In that case, until the dust settled, and Cheney could figure out what would follow, it was important to keep Bush away, in part to signal that Constitutional government had not yet resumed. On this sub-theme, it would be mighty interesting to know whether Bush's televised statements from different US bases across the country were coordinated with Cheney or were signs of a power struggle between the two camps.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Kurt Nimmo writes:
Osama: More Bounty, More Baloney
Saturday July 14th 2007, 10:50 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=925
It is politics as usual. In order to hype the “war on terror” angle over what is perceived as a floundering effort in Iraq—in fact, the effort in Iraq is a smashing (no pun intended) success, as it has destroyed the country—the “U.S. Senate on Friday voted to double the bounty on Osama bin Laden to $50 million and require President George W. Bush to refocus on capturing him after reports al Qaeda is gaining strength,” according to Reuters. “By a vote of 87-1, the Senate set the reward for the killing or capture, or information leading to the capture, of the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.”
Of course, there is no evidence Osama bin Laden had anything to do with nine eleven and the government refuses to provide any, beyond pointing to a handful of obviously faked video and audio tapes.
Moreover, as the Arab and Asian media reported years ago, Osama bin Laden died in December, 2001, in Afghanistan. “A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that bin Laden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora,” al-Wafd, an Egyptian newspaper, reported on December 26, 2001.
It should be recalled that even the neocon-infested Bush administration admitted on January 18, 2002, that bin Laden “needs dialysis every three days,” as reported by CNN, and “that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout,” according to an unnamed U.S. official. As any doctor will tell you, hemodialysis, or renal dialysis, “is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down,” as Dr. Sanjay Gupta notes. It is, to say the least, absurd to believe “al-Qaeda” would be able to keep a dying Osama on a complicated dialysis machine in a cave situated in a remote mountainous area of one of the most backward countries in the world. It is not, as the above quoted Bush factotum indicates, an “issue,” it is rather an impossibility.
In October, 2002, a London-based Arab news magazine published Osama’s last will and testament. “He did write the will as someone saying good-bye,” Hani Nakshabandi of the Arab news magazine Al Majalla told CNN. “He said one of the magazine’s reporters obtained the four-page document, said to be signed by the leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network and dated December 14, 2001, in Afghanistan…. In the document, which was translated for CNN, the writer expresses disappointment with the Taliban, who harbored him in Afghanistan, speaks of betrayal, and urges his children to shun al Qaeda.”
Naturally, this story soon found its way to the memory hole, as it does not jive with the plan to demonize Osama, a plan alive and well, unlike Bin Laden, and kicking around the U.S. Senate nearly six years after Osama departed the mortal coil to be with 72 virgins in heaven. It is interesting Osama warned his “children to shun al Qaeda,” good advice as the organization, named after a database of mujahideen mercenaries and patsies, is a CIA-ISI contrivance.
“My last advice is to the mujahedeen everywhere,” declares Osama’s will. “Take a breather and put aside for the time being, fighting the Jews and the Crusades, and instead devote your efforts to purifying your groups from the agents and the cowards and those impostors who claim to be scholars amongst you.” In short, “al-Qaeda,” according to its purported leader, was rife with fake jihadists, poseurs, spooks, and informers, as should be expected of a bogus terror organization created by the CIA.
Finally, to underscore the fact Osama is dead, last July the CIA “closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” the New York Times reported. No sense wasting precious resources hunting for a dead man, even if the hunt was a front all along.
“Top U.S. intelligence officials informed the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee this week that inhabitants of remote northwestern Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be holed up, have proved impervious to the financial rewards already on offer from the U.S. government,” Reuters continues. “The U.S. government says it has spent more than $62 million in a ‘rewards for justice’ program for various information that has helped prevent attacks or prosecute those responsible for attacks.”
Of course, the impoverished dirt farmers of northwestern Pakistan are “impervious to the financial rewards” because Osama is long dead and buried, not in Pakistan but over the border in Afghanistan.
But never mind. None of this matters. It is simply more propaganda designed to scare witless American adults and small children, as the Senate, once again, tells us “al Qaeda is gaining strength,” not unlike Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein, the stuff of two minute hate sessions on Fox News and CNN. In fact, the spooks are burning the midnight oil, cranking out “al-Sahab” propaganda tapes (the “al-Qaeda” supposed “propaganda unit” has issued 62 “messages” in just over six months this year), in order that terrorism remain front and center, never mind that the latest events attributed to “al-Qaeda,” namely the lame “attack” on the Glasgow airport, are so inept as to be entirely laughable, that is to say they would be laughable if not for the fact such cartoonish antics are used to slowly rob us of our liberty and lock us up in a high-tech police state.
One interesting question is: Since the Bush-Cheney mob planned and executed 9/11, what prevents them from organizing another one as per the latest summer round of warnings? My guess is that it's not gonna happen. As the Brits say: it was a one off. The warnings are a clue. If it were to happen, they wouldn't be warning us. Second, I think the 9/11 Truth Movement should get some credit. There are perhaps scores of millions of people now who understand what really happened and are now alerted to the extent of some of the perfidy of this government.
On another related issue, it's far from clear to me that Cheney is not plotting some way to continue past Jan 2009. It's called continuity of government. Needless to say, they would need another Pearl Harbor/911 event in order to do so. The obvious candidate is an attack against Iran which could change everything. On the other hand such an attack would have to be handled in such a way so as not to backfire against them, especially bearing in mind their low approval ratings.
On the question of continuity of government, I've always wondered why Cheney was so adamant on 9/11 that Bush not return immediately to Washington, and kept him away for the whole day. Could it be that the original plan called for martial law and a suspension of the Constitution? In that case, until the dust settled, and Cheney could figure out what would follow, it was important to keep Bush away, in part to signal that Constitutional government had not yet resumed. On this sub-theme, it would be mighty interesting to know whether Bush's televised statements from different US bases across the country were coordinated with Cheney or were signs of a power struggle between the two camps.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Kurt Nimmo writes:
Osama: More Bounty, More Baloney
Saturday July 14th 2007, 10:50 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=925
It is politics as usual. In order to hype the “war on terror” angle over what is perceived as a floundering effort in Iraq—in fact, the effort in Iraq is a smashing (no pun intended) success, as it has destroyed the country—the “U.S. Senate on Friday voted to double the bounty on Osama bin Laden to $50 million and require President George W. Bush to refocus on capturing him after reports al Qaeda is gaining strength,” according to Reuters. “By a vote of 87-1, the Senate set the reward for the killing or capture, or information leading to the capture, of the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.”
Of course, there is no evidence Osama bin Laden had anything to do with nine eleven and the government refuses to provide any, beyond pointing to a handful of obviously faked video and audio tapes.
Moreover, as the Arab and Asian media reported years ago, Osama bin Laden died in December, 2001, in Afghanistan. “A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that bin Laden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora,” al-Wafd, an Egyptian newspaper, reported on December 26, 2001.
It should be recalled that even the neocon-infested Bush administration admitted on January 18, 2002, that bin Laden “needs dialysis every three days,” as reported by CNN, and “that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout,” according to an unnamed U.S. official. As any doctor will tell you, hemodialysis, or renal dialysis, “is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down,” as Dr. Sanjay Gupta notes. It is, to say the least, absurd to believe “al-Qaeda” would be able to keep a dying Osama on a complicated dialysis machine in a cave situated in a remote mountainous area of one of the most backward countries in the world. It is not, as the above quoted Bush factotum indicates, an “issue,” it is rather an impossibility.
In October, 2002, a London-based Arab news magazine published Osama’s last will and testament. “He did write the will as someone saying good-bye,” Hani Nakshabandi of the Arab news magazine Al Majalla told CNN. “He said one of the magazine’s reporters obtained the four-page document, said to be signed by the leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network and dated December 14, 2001, in Afghanistan…. In the document, which was translated for CNN, the writer expresses disappointment with the Taliban, who harbored him in Afghanistan, speaks of betrayal, and urges his children to shun al Qaeda.”
Naturally, this story soon found its way to the memory hole, as it does not jive with the plan to demonize Osama, a plan alive and well, unlike Bin Laden, and kicking around the U.S. Senate nearly six years after Osama departed the mortal coil to be with 72 virgins in heaven. It is interesting Osama warned his “children to shun al Qaeda,” good advice as the organization, named after a database of mujahideen mercenaries and patsies, is a CIA-ISI contrivance.
“My last advice is to the mujahedeen everywhere,” declares Osama’s will. “Take a breather and put aside for the time being, fighting the Jews and the Crusades, and instead devote your efforts to purifying your groups from the agents and the cowards and those impostors who claim to be scholars amongst you.” In short, “al-Qaeda,” according to its purported leader, was rife with fake jihadists, poseurs, spooks, and informers, as should be expected of a bogus terror organization created by the CIA.
Finally, to underscore the fact Osama is dead, last July the CIA “closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” the New York Times reported. No sense wasting precious resources hunting for a dead man, even if the hunt was a front all along.
“Top U.S. intelligence officials informed the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee this week that inhabitants of remote northwestern Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be holed up, have proved impervious to the financial rewards already on offer from the U.S. government,” Reuters continues. “The U.S. government says it has spent more than $62 million in a ‘rewards for justice’ program for various information that has helped prevent attacks or prosecute those responsible for attacks.”
Of course, the impoverished dirt farmers of northwestern Pakistan are “impervious to the financial rewards” because Osama is long dead and buried, not in Pakistan but over the border in Afghanistan.
But never mind. None of this matters. It is simply more propaganda designed to scare witless American adults and small children, as the Senate, once again, tells us “al Qaeda is gaining strength,” not unlike Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein, the stuff of two minute hate sessions on Fox News and CNN. In fact, the spooks are burning the midnight oil, cranking out “al-Sahab” propaganda tapes (the “al-Qaeda” supposed “propaganda unit” has issued 62 “messages” in just over six months this year), in order that terrorism remain front and center, never mind that the latest events attributed to “al-Qaeda,” namely the lame “attack” on the Glasgow airport, are so inept as to be entirely laughable, that is to say they would be laughable if not for the fact such cartoonish antics are used to slowly rob us of our liberty and lock us up in a high-tech police state.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
John Kroth: Whatever AIPAC Wants AIPAC Gets
Why is Bush known as the worst president in US history? Because it's clear that his policies at home and abroad are destructive. The only question is whether the destruction, as in the destruction of the former country of Iraq is purposely intended or is an undesired result of an "endless series of miscalculations?" One might think the answer would be all too obvious. And here we have AIPAC, not to mention grassroots Zionists and supporters of Israel, refusing to support an immediate withdrawal. Seymour Hersh hinted at the syndrome in the title of his book (but ignored the issue in his book) The Sampson Option. AIPAC and supporters of Israel who struggle to maintain an indefinite occupation of Iraq prefer support of Israel over and above their own survival, and the survival of a livable world for their children.
--Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Jeff wrote:
Another new voice from academia speaking important truth about AIPAC and the Zionist lobby. No wonder the lobby and its Campus Watch are worried. They have been doing what is described here for decades with scarcely a peep from those purporting to support Palestinian rights (and there is still not a peep about the subject from the misleading organizations of the anti-war movement. How come?-JB
http://www.counterpunch.org/kroth07102007.html
July 10, 2007
"Whatever AIPAC Wants, AIPAC Gets"
Democratic Defectors and the Israel Lobby
By JERRY KROTH
In November, the American electorate repudiated Bush's Iraq debacle and established Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate promising to bring this "flawed policy wrapped in illusion" to a decisive end. Bush vetoed their withdrawal timetable, but voters urged their leaders to hold the line and not be bullied. In the end, though, 37 Democratic senators capitulated and gratuitously gave the President his $100 billion no-strings- attached blank check . . . enough money to pay tuition and fees for 1.3 million college students for four solid years!
Deep disappointment set in. Cindy Sheehan, the liberal icon, was so demoralized she resigned and returned to private life. In June, a CNN poll reported that "respect for Congress" plummeted to the lowest level "ever recorded."
Bloggers called them "traitor Democrats", and the descriptor is apropos. At the time of the vote, sixty-two percent of the American people favored a time-table for a withdrawal, but, more significantly, "seventy percent" of Democrats were so inclined. Voting against this burgeoning tide of anger betrayed the will of the people and party that put these Democrats in office.
Curiously, all of the traitor democrats were huge career recipients of funds from the Israeli lobby. If we took ten Democratic apostates and compared them to ten Democrats who stood by the voters, pro-Israeli PAC contributions were "ten times" greater for the turncoats than those who stayed with their constituencies ($322,000 versus $34,000 on average).
To be specific: Carl Levin, outspoken critic of the war and, we thought, a loyal supporter of the new regime to end it, defected and blithely turned his back on his Michigan support base. Despite his strident anti-war rhetoric, the Grand Rapids Independent reports Levin has supported Bush all the way "consistently funding the war and not introducing any meaningful legislation to bring it closer to an end." Practically unknown to his constituents, Levin is one of the largest beneficiaries of Pro-Israeli PAC funds collecting $600,000 in career contributions according to the Washington Report on Mideast Affairs.
Barbara Boxer, Denis Kucinich, and Earl Blaumenauer, all opponents of the war, collectively got $73,000, but turncoat-democrats, Dan Durbin, Max Baucus, and Frank Lautenberg scooped up in excess of a million plus untold benes like travel funds.
What comes out in the wash is the best PAC money can buy: Three months before we invaded Iraq, a New York Times poll showed only 30 percent of the American people favored an all-out invasion, but the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) did, and it prevailed. Hardly a sprinkling of Americans favored the "surge", a meager fourteen percent, but AIPAC did, and the surge is surging as we speak. Fewer than thirty percent of Democrats supported that no-strings-budget, but AIPAC did, and the conclusion plays out another hackneyed chorus of "Whatever AIPAC wants, AIPAC gets."
In 1992, the director of the Israeli lobby, David Steiner, was surreptitiously recorded bragging about playing a role in selecting the Secretary of State and what he got for Israel: "Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about!" When the tape was made public, Steiner resigned, but it underscored the incredible power, access, and influence this lobby has.
Two professors, Mearsheimer and Walt, recently insinuated that American democracy has been suborned by the Israeli lobby, echoing Senator Fulbright's 1989 indictment that AIPAC had usurped the electoral process and could "elect or defeat nearly any congressman or senator that they wish." Such observations do not fall on deaf ears. Over half the senate and a third of the congress obediently attended the AIPAC annual convention (versus less than a dozen visiting the NAACP's event). Non-attendance can suggest a lawmaker might be soft on terrorism, or, god forbid, anti-Semitic.
Anti-war idealists might think that soon this American war crime, the shock-and-awe carnage, the torture, and the renditions are coming to an end, but the agenda of AIPAC seems bent on keeping American armies in the Middle East as an Israeli first line of defense for the indefinite future. Their major attack dog, Joe Lieberman, recently gave a hint on Face the Nation as to might be next: " military strikes" against Iran. . . all apparently to guarantee that Israel will remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
So if you think you voted, or are planning to vote, to bring the troops home and end this national embarrassment, some fool's gold waiting for you at the end of that rainbow.
Jerry Kroth, Ph.D. is a professor of psychology in California and author of Conspiracy in Camelot: the complete history of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He may be reached at anya@sj.znet.com
--Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Jeff wrote:
Another new voice from academia speaking important truth about AIPAC and the Zionist lobby. No wonder the lobby and its Campus Watch are worried. They have been doing what is described here for decades with scarcely a peep from those purporting to support Palestinian rights (and there is still not a peep about the subject from the misleading organizations of the anti-war movement. How come?-JB
http://www.counterpunch.org/kroth07102007.html
July 10, 2007
"Whatever AIPAC Wants, AIPAC Gets"
Democratic Defectors and the Israel Lobby
By JERRY KROTH
In November, the American electorate repudiated Bush's Iraq debacle and established Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate promising to bring this "flawed policy wrapped in illusion" to a decisive end. Bush vetoed their withdrawal timetable, but voters urged their leaders to hold the line and not be bullied. In the end, though, 37 Democratic senators capitulated and gratuitously gave the President his $100 billion no-strings- attached blank check . . . enough money to pay tuition and fees for 1.3 million college students for four solid years!
Deep disappointment set in. Cindy Sheehan, the liberal icon, was so demoralized she resigned and returned to private life. In June, a CNN poll reported that "respect for Congress" plummeted to the lowest level "ever recorded."
Bloggers called them "traitor Democrats", and the descriptor is apropos. At the time of the vote, sixty-two percent of the American people favored a time-table for a withdrawal, but, more significantly, "seventy percent" of Democrats were so inclined. Voting against this burgeoning tide of anger betrayed the will of the people and party that put these Democrats in office.
Curiously, all of the traitor democrats were huge career recipients of funds from the Israeli lobby. If we took ten Democratic apostates and compared them to ten Democrats who stood by the voters, pro-Israeli PAC contributions were "ten times" greater for the turncoats than those who stayed with their constituencies ($322,000 versus $34,000 on average).
To be specific: Carl Levin, outspoken critic of the war and, we thought, a loyal supporter of the new regime to end it, defected and blithely turned his back on his Michigan support base. Despite his strident anti-war rhetoric, the Grand Rapids Independent reports Levin has supported Bush all the way "consistently funding the war and not introducing any meaningful legislation to bring it closer to an end." Practically unknown to his constituents, Levin is one of the largest beneficiaries of Pro-Israeli PAC funds collecting $600,000 in career contributions according to the Washington Report on Mideast Affairs.
Barbara Boxer, Denis Kucinich, and Earl Blaumenauer, all opponents of the war, collectively got $73,000, but turncoat-democrats, Dan Durbin, Max Baucus, and Frank Lautenberg scooped up in excess of a million plus untold benes like travel funds.
What comes out in the wash is the best PAC money can buy: Three months before we invaded Iraq, a New York Times poll showed only 30 percent of the American people favored an all-out invasion, but the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) did, and it prevailed. Hardly a sprinkling of Americans favored the "surge", a meager fourteen percent, but AIPAC did, and the surge is surging as we speak. Fewer than thirty percent of Democrats supported that no-strings-budget, but AIPAC did, and the conclusion plays out another hackneyed chorus of "Whatever AIPAC wants, AIPAC gets."
In 1992, the director of the Israeli lobby, David Steiner, was surreptitiously recorded bragging about playing a role in selecting the Secretary of State and what he got for Israel: "Besides the $10 billion in loan guarantees which was a fabulous thing, $3 billion in foreign, in military aid, and I got almost a billion dollars in other goodies that people don't even know about!" When the tape was made public, Steiner resigned, but it underscored the incredible power, access, and influence this lobby has.
Two professors, Mearsheimer and Walt, recently insinuated that American democracy has been suborned by the Israeli lobby, echoing Senator Fulbright's 1989 indictment that AIPAC had usurped the electoral process and could "elect or defeat nearly any congressman or senator that they wish." Such observations do not fall on deaf ears. Over half the senate and a third of the congress obediently attended the AIPAC annual convention (versus less than a dozen visiting the NAACP's event). Non-attendance can suggest a lawmaker might be soft on terrorism, or, god forbid, anti-Semitic.
Anti-war idealists might think that soon this American war crime, the shock-and-awe carnage, the torture, and the renditions are coming to an end, but the agenda of AIPAC seems bent on keeping American armies in the Middle East as an Israeli first line of defense for the indefinite future. Their major attack dog, Joe Lieberman, recently gave a hint on Face the Nation as to might be next: " military strikes" against Iran. . . all apparently to guarantee that Israel will remain the only nuclear power in the Middle East.
So if you think you voted, or are planning to vote, to bring the troops home and end this national embarrassment, some fool's gold waiting for you at the end of that rainbow.
Jerry Kroth, Ph.D. is a professor of psychology in California and author of Conspiracy in Camelot: the complete history of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. He may be reached at anya@sj.znet.com
Friday, July 06, 2007
Mike Whitney: Media censors Putin on Bush's terrorism
Another important brilliancy from Mike Whitney. We can't fault the Putin/Whitney diagnosis of Bush as the world's chief terrorist, yes, comparable to Hitler in his eagerness to embark on unprovoked aggression. My only demur is the last paragraph where Whitney seems to endorse Putin as a democrat. We can guess that Putin was joking, but Whitney seems to be serious.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Putin’s Censored Press Conference:
The transcript you weren’t supposed to see
By Mike Whitney
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17856.htm
06/10/07 "ICH" --- - On Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an hour and a half-long press conference which was attended by many members of the world media. The contents of that meeting---in which Putin answered all questions concerning nuclear proliferation, human rights, Kosovo, democracy and the present confrontation with the United States over missile defense in Europe---have been completely censored by the press. Apart from one brief excerpt which appeared in a Washington Post editorial, (and which was used to criticize Putin) the press conference has been scrubbed from the public record. It never happened. (Read the entire press conference archived here )
Putin’s performance was a tour de force. He fielded all of the questions however misleading or insulting. He was candid and statesmanlike and demonstrated a good understanding of all the main issues.
The meeting gave Putin a chance to give his side of the story in the growing debate over missile defense in Eastern Europe. He offered a brief account of the deteriorating state of US-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War, and particularly from 9-11 to present. Since September 11, the Bush administration has carried out an aggressive strategy to surround Russia with military bases, install missiles on its borders, topple allied regimes in Central Asia, and incite political upheaval in Moscow through US-backed “pro-democracy” groups. These openly hostile actions have convinced many Russian hard-liners that the administration is going forward with the neocon plan for “regime change” in Moscow and fragmentation of the Russian Federation. Putin’s testimony suggests that the hardliners are probably right.
The Bush administration’s belligerent foreign policy has backed the Kremlin into a corner and forced Putin to take retaliatory measures. He has no other choice.
If we want to understand why relations between Russia are quickly reaching the boiling-point; we only need to review the main developments since the end of the Cold War. Political analyst Pat Buchanan gives a good rundown of these in his article “Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?”
Buchanan says:
“Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother Russia's front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin.
Second, America backed a pipeline to deliver Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey, to bypass Russia.
Third, though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on making those bases in Central Asia permanent.
Fourth, though Bush sold missile defense as directed at rogue states like North Korea, we now learn we are going to put anti-missile systems into Eastern Europe. And against whom are they directed?
Fifth, through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and "human rights" institutes such as Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA director James Woolsey, we have been fomenting regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and Russia herself.
U.S.-backed revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Ukraine, and Georgia, but failed in Belarus. Moscow has now legislated restrictions on the foreign agencies that it sees, not without justification, as subversive of pro-Moscow regimes.
Sixth, America conducted 78 days of bombing of Serbia for the crime of fighting to hold on to her rebellious province, Kosovo, and for refusing to grant NATO marching rights through her territory to take over that province. Mother Russia has always had a maternal interest in the Orthodox states of the Balkans.
These are Putin's grievances. Does he not have a small point?”
Yes--as Buchanan opines---Putin does have a point, which is why his press conference was suppressed. The media would rather demonize Putin, than allow him to make his case to the public. (The same is true of other world leaders who choose to use their vast resources to improve the lives of their own citizens rather that hand them over to the transnational oil giants; such as, Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez) Even so, NATO has not yet endorsed the neocon missile defense plan and, according to recent surveys, public opinion in Poland and the Czech Republic is overwhelmingly against it.
Unsurprisingly, the Bush administration is going ahead regardless of the controversy.
Putin cannot allow the United States to deploy its missile defense system to Eastern Europe. The system poses a direct threat to Russia’s national security. If Putin planned to deploy a similar system in Cuba or Mexico, the Bush administration would immediately invoke the Monroe Doctrine and threaten to remove it by force. No one doubts this. And no one should doubt that Putin is equally determined to protect his own country’s interests in the same way. We can expect that Russia will now aim its missiles at European targets and rework its foreign policy in a way that compels the US to abandon its current plans.
The media has tried to minimize the dangers of the proposed system. The Washington Post even characterized it as “a small missile defense system” which has set off “waves of paranoia about domestic and foreign opponents”.
Nonsense. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As Putin said at the press conference, “Once the missile defense system is put in place IT WILL WORK AUTOMATICALLY WITH THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR CAPABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.
“For the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that.”
Putin is right. The “so-called” defense system is actually an expansion (and integration) of America’s existing nuclear weapons system which will now function as one unit. The dangers of this should be obvious.
The Bush administration is maneuvering in a way that will allow it to achieve what Nuclear weapons specialist, Francis A. Boyle, calls the “longstanding US policy of nuclear first-strike against Russia”.
In Boyle’s article “US Missiles in Europe: Beyond Deterrence to First Strike Threat” he states:
“By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence."… This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling --winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence." …The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture. (Global Research 6-6-07)
That’s right. The real goal is to force Moscow to conform to Washington’s “diktats” or face the prospect of “first-strike” annihilation. That’s why Putin has expressed growing concern over the administration’s dropping out of the ABM Treaty and the development of a new regime of low yield, bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The “hawks” who surround Bush have abandoned the “deterrence” policy of the past, and now believe that a nuclear war can be “won” by the United States. This is madness and it needs to be taken seriously.
The Bush administration sees itself as a main player in Central Asia and the Middle East---controlling vital resources and pipeline corridors throughout the region. That means Russia’s influence will have to be diminished. Boris Yeltsin was the perfect leader for the neoconservative master-plan (which is why the right-wingers Praised him when he died) Russia disintegrated under Yeltsin. He oversaw the dismantling of the state, the plundering of its resources and state-owned assets, and the restructuring of its economy according to the tenets of neoliberalism.
No wonder the neocons loved him.
Under Putin, Russia has regained its economic footing, its regional influence and its international prestige. The economy is booming, the ruble has stabilized, the standard of living has risen, and Moscow has strengthened alliances with its neighbors. This new-found Russian prosperity poses a real challenge to Bush’s plans.
Two actions in particular have changed the Russian-US relationship from tepid to openly hostile. The first was when Putin announced that Russia’s four largest oil fields would not be open to foreign development. (Russia has been consolidating its oil wealth under state-run Gazprom) And, second, when the Russian Treasury began to convert Russia’s dollar reserves into gold and rubles. Both of these are regarded as high-crimes by US corporate chieftains and western elites. Their response was swift.
John Edwards and Jack Kemp were appointed to lead a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) task force which concocted the basic pretext for an all-out assault on the Putin. This is where the idea that Putin is “rolling back democracy” began; it’s a feeble excuse for political antagonism. In their article “Russia’s Wrong Direction”, Edwards and Kemp state that a “strategic partnership” with Russia is no longer possible. They note that the government has become increasingly “authoritarian” and that the society is growing less “open and pluralistic”. Blah, blah, blah. No one in the Washington really cares about democracy. (Just look at our “good friends” in Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan) What they’re afraid of is Putin ditching the dollar and controlling his own oil. That’s what counts. Bush also wants Putin to support sanctions against Iran and rubber stamp a Security Council resolution to separate Kosovo form Serbia. (Since when does the UN have the right to redraw national borders? Was the creation of Israel such a stunning success that the Security Council wants to try its luck again?)
Putin does not accept the “unipolar” world model. As he said in Munich, the unipolar world refers to “a world in which there is one master, one sovereign---- one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”
He added:
“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”
How can anyone dispute Putin’s analysis?
“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”
These are the irrefutable facts. Putin has simply summarized the Bush Doctrine better than anyone else.
The Bush administration has increased its frontline American bases to five thousand men on Russia’s perimeter. Is this conduct of a “trustworthy ally”?
Also, NATO has deployed forces on Russia’s borders even while Putin has continued to fulfill his treaty obligations and move troops and military equipment hundreds of miles away.
As Putin said on Tuesday: “We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas -- a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”
(This is why Putin’s comments did not appear in the western media! They would have been too damaging to the Bush administration and their expansionist plans)
Who Destroyed the ABM?
Putin said:
“We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a missile defense system for one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict. The defense system WILL DESTROY THE STRATEGIC EQUILIBRIUM IN THE WORLD. In order to restore that balance without setting up a missile defense system we will have to create a system to overcome missile defense, which is what we are doing now.”
Putin: “AN ARMS RACE IS UNFOLDING. Was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two years ago, “don’t do this, you don’t need to do this. What are you doing? YOU ARE DESTROYING THE SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps.” …we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these weapons.” We told them that “it would be better to look for other ways to fight terrorism than create low-yield nuclear weapons and lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they don’t listen to us. They are not looking for compromise. Their entire point of view can be summed-up in one sentence: ‘Whoever is not with us is against us.’”
Putin asks, “So what should we do?” The present predicament has brought us “the brink of disaster”.
Putin: “Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you want, regardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardizing our relations with anyone. But we must respond.
Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and energy dialogue around Russia”.
So, what should Putin do? And how else can he meet his responsibilities to the Russian people without taking defensive “retaliatory” action to Bush’s act of war. By expanding its nuclear capability to Europe, all of Russia is in imminent danger, and so, Putin must decide “precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation”. (Note that Putin NEVER THREATENS TO AIM HIS MISSILES AT EUROPEAN CITIES AS WAS REPORTED IN THE WESTERN MEDIA)
Putin has made great strides in improving life for the Russian people. That is why his public approval rating is soaring at 75%. The Russian economy has been growing by 7% a year. He’s lowered the number of people living beneath the poverty-line by more than half and will bring it down to European levels by 2010. Real incomes are growing by an astonishing 12% per year. As Putin says, “Combating poverty is one of our top priorities and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe.”
If only that was true in America!
Russia now has the ninth largest economy in the world and has amassed enormous gold and currency reserves--the third largest in the world. It is also one of the leading players in international energy policy with a daily-oil output which now exceeds Saudi Arabia. It is also the largest producer of natural gas in the world. Russia will only get stronger as we get deeper into the century and energy resources become scarcer.
Putin strongly objects to the idea that he is not committed to human rights or is “rolling back democracy”. He points out how truncheon-wielding police in Europe routinely use tear gas, electric-shock devices and water cannons to disperse demonstrators. Is that how the West honors human rights and civil liberties?
As for the Bush administration---Putin produced a copy of Amnesty International’s yearly report condemning the United States conduct in the war on terror. “I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report here, which includes a section on the United States,” he said. “The organization has concluded that the United States IS NOW THE PRINCIPLE VIOLATOR OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WORLDWIDE.”
He added, “We have a proverb in Russian, ‘Don’t blame the mirror if your face is crooked.’”
Putin is fiercely nationalistic. He has helped to restore Russia’s self-confidence and rebuild the economy. He’s demonstrated a willingness to compromise with the Bush administration on every substantive issue, but he has been repeatedly rebuffed. The last thing he wants is a nuclear standoff with the United States. But he will do what he must to defend his people from the threat of foreign attack. The deployment of the missile defense system will require that Russia develop its own new weapons systems and change its thinking about trusting the United States. Friendship is not possible in the present climate.
As for “democracy”; Putin said it best himself:
“Am I a ‘pure democrat’? (laughs) Of course I am, absolutely. The problem is that I’m all alone---the only one of my kind in the whole wide world. Just look at what’s happening in North America, it’s simply awful---torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial and investigation. Just look at what’s happening in Europe---harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the streets….. I have no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.”
Well said, Vladimir.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Glenn Greenwald: The New York Times and Michael Gordon: Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
In a series of blogs, Glenn Greenwald has pointed to the culpability of the NYT which has relentlessly been pushing the Zionist/neocon agenda of catastrophic war against Iran, as if Iraq is not exactly that. Since war with Iran will have a much more dramatic domestic impact, not to mention the impact on millions more lives in the Middle East, Bush and Cheney are forced to whisper and hint at their plans.
To all those who think it won't happen: I'd like to believe that, but all I see is Cheney neutralizing any possible opposing force.
At the end of his detailed (shall we say) examination of Michael Gordon's latest bit of stenography, Greenwald asks the same question we were asking in the run up to the Iraq war: why is the New York Times so brazenly and stupidly (if that's a strong enough word) pushing a war that is so clearly against its best interests -- those being peace and stability. Why are they taking the side of the most reckless, irresponsible and ruthless US government in history? It's bad enough that Bush and Cheney are psychopaths, but why is the Times doing everything it can to enable them?
The answer is that the CIA and all the security agencies and the militarists they represent including in the age of Bush, the White House, control a portion of the Times. The symbolic red flag that highlighted WH control of above the fold NYT real estate, was in the run up to the Iraq war when Cheney appeared on Meet the Press quoting that day's disinformation about Iraq's non existent WMDs in a front page NYT story.
In the current let's start a war against Iran conspiracy, not only is fanatical Zionist Michael Gordon (as I imagine he must be, just like his ex partner in disinformation, Judy Miller) involved, but so also is executive editor Bill Keller and NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger who apparently have CIA ties as have many if not all post war NYT executive editors and publishers.
Once again, the Zionists combine with the militarists when they are not the same people.
Ronald
PS. At the end of his article, Greenwald notes that Gordon was apparently forced to modify his rhetoric in later editions of his story.
http://desip.igc.org
Glenn Greenwald
Monday July 2, 2007
Michael Gordon trains his stenographer weapons on Iran
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
The Bush administration's most reliable pro-surge "reporter," Michael Gordon of The New York Times, this morning filed an article -- headlined: "U.S. Ties Iranians to Iraq Attack That Killed G.I.'s" -- that might be the most war-fueling article yet with regard to Iran. Gordon's article is 23 paragraphs long, and makes some of the most inflammatory accusations against Iran imaginable (see Update II below). This is the first paragraph:
Iranian operatives helped plan a January raid in Karbala in which five American soldiers were killed, an American military spokesman in Iraq said today.
This is how the article ends:
But military officials say that there is such a long and systematic pattern of Quds Force activity in Iraq, as well as a 2005 confidential American protest to Iranian leaders regarding Iran's alleged supply of road-side bombs, that senior Iranian leaders must be aware of the Quds Force role in Iraq.
"Our intelligence reveals that the senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity," he said. When he was asked if Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be unaware of the activity, General Bergner said "that would be hard to imagine."
In between those two passages, one "learns" that Iran is also arming Shiite militias in Iraq though its proxy, Hezbollah, and that "Iranian officials have helped plan operations against American troops in Iraq and have had advance knowledge of specific attacks that have led to the death of American soldiers."
These are quite extraordinary claims the NYT is publishing, as they amount to an accusation that the Iranian Government, at its highest levels, is directing fatal attacks on American troops in Iraq, which constitutes, of course, an act of war. As Gordon himself points out: "In effect, American officials are charging that Iran has been engaged in a proxy war against American forces for years."
What is the basis for Gordon's story? What sources does he use to convey these incomparably serious charges? One source and one source only, the only one he seems to know -- military spokespeople, in this case Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner.
Every paragraph in this article -- literally -- does one of two things: (1) uncritically recites the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offers assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations (e.g., "There is also extensive intelligence that Iran has supplied Shiite militants with the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq" and "In Washington, Bush Administration officials have generally held open the possibility that the Quds Force activities might have been carried out without the knowledge of Iran's senior leaders").
I defy anyone to scour Gordon's article and point to a single difference, large or small, between its content and what a Camp Victory Press Release on this topic would say. Such a comparison requires little imagination, since it has become a clear rhetorical objective of the U.S. military to begin pinning the blame for violent attacks in Iraq not just on Iran, but on the Iranian government. Here, for instance, is one "news item"/Press Release posted yesterday by the U.S. military's Public Affairs Office:
BAGHDAD -- Coalition forces captured 27 suspected terrorists, including an alleged terrorist with ties to Iranian elements, during missions conducted across Iraq Friday as Operation Phantom Thunder continues, U.S. military officials reported.
Coalition forces detained a suspected secret cell terrorist Friday in Baghdad's Sadr City section. It is believed the suspected terrorist has close ties to Iranian terror networks and is responsible for numerous attacks on Iraqi civilians as well as on Iraqi and Coalition forces in Baghdad.
The detainee is also suspected of recruiting Iraqis to fill the ranks of Iranian terror groups operating in Iraq, officials said.
"Terrorist with ties to Iranian elements" -- "close ties to Iranian terror networks" -- "fill the rank of Iranian terror groups operating in Iraq" -- "responsible for numerous attacks on . . . Coalition forces in Baghdad." That's all in the first three paragraphs. Michael Gordon couldn't have said it better himself. Whatever else is true, and for whatever reasons, it is transparently clear that the U.S. military has made it a top priority to link the Iranian Government to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.
It is certainly news that the U.S. military is making such accusations. But the crux of Gordon's article is not to report that -- i.e., that the U.S. military has escalated its rhetoric. The purpose of the article is to pass on the substance of those accusations uncritically, as though they are facts.
Gordon, as is his wont, does not question a single statement that he conveys, does not include a single dissenting view, does not provide a single reason to hold such assertions in doubt, does not obtain or include any responses to the accusations, does not identify any evidentiary gaps in the accusations. Instead, the article does nothing but magically transform the highly provocative yet unverified statements of military leaders into "news" on the pages of The New York Times. Again, read the article carefully -- is there even a single sentence that advances beyond the role of loyal court stenographer to Gen. Bergner?
The context here matters a great deal. We're in an extremely tense and dangerous predicament with regard to Iran. Influential political factions in the U.S. -- including high officials in the White House -- have begun expressly calling for a bombing campaign against Iran. Accusations of the type Gordon passed on this morning have the potential, for painfully obvious reasons, to be highly inflammatory in shaping public opinion and enabling the warmongering elements of the administration and its base to "justify" such an attack. Indeed, if the Supreme Leader of Iran is planning and directing fatal attacks on U.S. troops --as Gordon's article alleges -- how many people would object to a military attack against Iran?
Under those circumstances, how can the NYT possibly justify an article of this magnitude, published without an iota of skepticism, doubt, or qualification? This behavior is particularly mystifying in light of the NYT's prior concession of journalistic wrongdoing, in which it castigated itself for uncritically turning over its front page to dubious pro-war claims prior to the invasion of Iraq, including in several articles by Gordon:
But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.
Claiming that the highest levels of the Iranian Government are planning fatal attacks on U.S. troops is the equivalent of pre-war claims that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons and actively working with Al Qaeda. What credibility could the NYT possibly have in claiming to regret so mindlessly passing on the latter when, now, they allow and encourage Gordon to pass along the former with equally slavish mindlessness? "Journalism" of this sort is a true menace, and though it probably shouldn't be, it is still just staggering to watch it spew forth day after day.
UPDATE: It is worth noting here -- though Gordon, of course, does not -- that the now-departed Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, created a revealing controversy several months ago when he "said [] there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials." At the time, AP noted that Pace's "remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003."
It's a good thing that Pete Pace -- like the now-replaced anti-surge Generals -- has been removed from his position and is thus no longer available to call these accusations into question. And as the not-exactly-left-wing Council of Foreign Relations pointed out back in February regarding American claims of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. troops, in which it quoted several experts disputing these claims and several reasons to view them with skepticism:
Enormous controversy swirls around this issue, and much of the evidence the United States cites as proof of Iranian involvement remains secret and in some cases is disputed by the Iraqi government, too. This has created an uncomfortable analogy to the period before the Iraq invasion, when secret intelligence ultimately discredited pushed the United States toward war.
The "analogy to the period before the Iraq invasion" certainly does not appear to be creating much "discomfort" for Michael Gordon and the NYT, as it is precisely any reference to the "enormous controversy" over these claims that is so conspicuously missing, as usual, from their recitation of military statements.
UPDATE II: Gordon's article has now been edited substantially, most notably to include several sentences near the beginning of the article that cast at least some doubt on the military's claims. None of these facts were included in the original version:
Previously, Iranian officials have said that the United States is fabricating evidence to back up its accusation that Iran is sending bombs and weapons into Iraq. Some critics have cast doubt on the American military statements about the penetrator bombs, saying the evidence linking them to Iran was circumstantial and inferential.
In remarks that were reported over the weekend, Iran's defense minister, Mohammad Najar, denied American claims of Iran's "military interference" in Iraq. "We have many times announced that we are ready to cooperate with the Iraqi government so to restore security and stability to that country," Mr. Najar was quoted as saying in a July 1 report by the Iranian student news agency, ISNA. It did not make clear which remarks he was responding to.
The article also now refers to the accusations from the U.S. military as "assertions by the American military spokesman." Though there are far more facts that ought to be reported here -- including the fact that such accusations have been denied not only by the Iranians, but also by the Iraqi government, various U.S. military officials and multiple foreign policy experts -- the editorial changes to Gordon's article are clearly improvements.
On a separate note, Bernhard of Moon of Alabama astutely notes that in light of Gen. Bergner's background, it is highly likely that any attempts by him to ratchet up the accusatory rhetoric toward Iran is the by-product of White House decision-making at the highest levels.
To all those who think it won't happen: I'd like to believe that, but all I see is Cheney neutralizing any possible opposing force.
At the end of his detailed (shall we say) examination of Michael Gordon's latest bit of stenography, Greenwald asks the same question we were asking in the run up to the Iraq war: why is the New York Times so brazenly and stupidly (if that's a strong enough word) pushing a war that is so clearly against its best interests -- those being peace and stability. Why are they taking the side of the most reckless, irresponsible and ruthless US government in history? It's bad enough that Bush and Cheney are psychopaths, but why is the Times doing everything it can to enable them?
The answer is that the CIA and all the security agencies and the militarists they represent including in the age of Bush, the White House, control a portion of the Times. The symbolic red flag that highlighted WH control of above the fold NYT real estate, was in the run up to the Iraq war when Cheney appeared on Meet the Press quoting that day's disinformation about Iraq's non existent WMDs in a front page NYT story.
In the current let's start a war against Iran conspiracy, not only is fanatical Zionist Michael Gordon (as I imagine he must be, just like his ex partner in disinformation, Judy Miller) involved, but so also is executive editor Bill Keller and NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger who apparently have CIA ties as have many if not all post war NYT executive editors and publishers.
Once again, the Zionists combine with the militarists when they are not the same people.
Ronald
PS. At the end of his article, Greenwald notes that Gordon was apparently forced to modify his rhetoric in later editions of his story.
http://desip.igc.org
Glenn Greenwald
Monday July 2, 2007
Michael Gordon trains his stenographer weapons on Iran
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
The Bush administration's most reliable pro-surge "reporter," Michael Gordon of The New York Times, this morning filed an article -- headlined: "U.S. Ties Iranians to Iraq Attack That Killed G.I.'s" -- that might be the most war-fueling article yet with regard to Iran. Gordon's article is 23 paragraphs long, and makes some of the most inflammatory accusations against Iran imaginable (see Update II below). This is the first paragraph:
Iranian operatives helped plan a January raid in Karbala in which five American soldiers were killed, an American military spokesman in Iraq said today.
This is how the article ends:
But military officials say that there is such a long and systematic pattern of Quds Force activity in Iraq, as well as a 2005 confidential American protest to Iranian leaders regarding Iran's alleged supply of road-side bombs, that senior Iranian leaders must be aware of the Quds Force role in Iraq.
"Our intelligence reveals that the senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity," he said. When he was asked if Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be unaware of the activity, General Bergner said "that would be hard to imagine."
In between those two passages, one "learns" that Iran is also arming Shiite militias in Iraq though its proxy, Hezbollah, and that "Iranian officials have helped plan operations against American troops in Iraq and have had advance knowledge of specific attacks that have led to the death of American soldiers."
These are quite extraordinary claims the NYT is publishing, as they amount to an accusation that the Iranian Government, at its highest levels, is directing fatal attacks on American troops in Iraq, which constitutes, of course, an act of war. As Gordon himself points out: "In effect, American officials are charging that Iran has been engaged in a proxy war against American forces for years."
What is the basis for Gordon's story? What sources does he use to convey these incomparably serious charges? One source and one source only, the only one he seems to know -- military spokespeople, in this case Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner.
Every paragraph in this article -- literally -- does one of two things: (1) uncritically recites the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offers assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations (e.g., "There is also extensive intelligence that Iran has supplied Shiite militants with the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq" and "In Washington, Bush Administration officials have generally held open the possibility that the Quds Force activities might have been carried out without the knowledge of Iran's senior leaders").
I defy anyone to scour Gordon's article and point to a single difference, large or small, between its content and what a Camp Victory Press Release on this topic would say. Such a comparison requires little imagination, since it has become a clear rhetorical objective of the U.S. military to begin pinning the blame for violent attacks in Iraq not just on Iran, but on the Iranian government. Here, for instance, is one "news item"/Press Release posted yesterday by the U.S. military's Public Affairs Office:
BAGHDAD -- Coalition forces captured 27 suspected terrorists, including an alleged terrorist with ties to Iranian elements, during missions conducted across Iraq Friday as Operation Phantom Thunder continues, U.S. military officials reported.
Coalition forces detained a suspected secret cell terrorist Friday in Baghdad's Sadr City section. It is believed the suspected terrorist has close ties to Iranian terror networks and is responsible for numerous attacks on Iraqi civilians as well as on Iraqi and Coalition forces in Baghdad.
The detainee is also suspected of recruiting Iraqis to fill the ranks of Iranian terror groups operating in Iraq, officials said.
"Terrorist with ties to Iranian elements" -- "close ties to Iranian terror networks" -- "fill the rank of Iranian terror groups operating in Iraq" -- "responsible for numerous attacks on . . . Coalition forces in Baghdad." That's all in the first three paragraphs. Michael Gordon couldn't have said it better himself. Whatever else is true, and for whatever reasons, it is transparently clear that the U.S. military has made it a top priority to link the Iranian Government to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.
It is certainly news that the U.S. military is making such accusations. But the crux of Gordon's article is not to report that -- i.e., that the U.S. military has escalated its rhetoric. The purpose of the article is to pass on the substance of those accusations uncritically, as though they are facts.
Gordon, as is his wont, does not question a single statement that he conveys, does not include a single dissenting view, does not provide a single reason to hold such assertions in doubt, does not obtain or include any responses to the accusations, does not identify any evidentiary gaps in the accusations. Instead, the article does nothing but magically transform the highly provocative yet unverified statements of military leaders into "news" on the pages of The New York Times. Again, read the article carefully -- is there even a single sentence that advances beyond the role of loyal court stenographer to Gen. Bergner?
The context here matters a great deal. We're in an extremely tense and dangerous predicament with regard to Iran. Influential political factions in the U.S. -- including high officials in the White House -- have begun expressly calling for a bombing campaign against Iran. Accusations of the type Gordon passed on this morning have the potential, for painfully obvious reasons, to be highly inflammatory in shaping public opinion and enabling the warmongering elements of the administration and its base to "justify" such an attack. Indeed, if the Supreme Leader of Iran is planning and directing fatal attacks on U.S. troops --as Gordon's article alleges -- how many people would object to a military attack against Iran?
Under those circumstances, how can the NYT possibly justify an article of this magnitude, published without an iota of skepticism, doubt, or qualification? This behavior is particularly mystifying in light of the NYT's prior concession of journalistic wrongdoing, in which it castigated itself for uncritically turning over its front page to dubious pro-war claims prior to the invasion of Iraq, including in several articles by Gordon:
But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged -- or failed to emerge.
Claiming that the highest levels of the Iranian Government are planning fatal attacks on U.S. troops is the equivalent of pre-war claims that Saddam was developing nuclear weapons and actively working with Al Qaeda. What credibility could the NYT possibly have in claiming to regret so mindlessly passing on the latter when, now, they allow and encourage Gordon to pass along the former with equally slavish mindlessness? "Journalism" of this sort is a true menace, and though it probably shouldn't be, it is still just staggering to watch it spew forth day after day.
UPDATE: It is worth noting here -- though Gordon, of course, does not -- that the now-departed Joint Chiefs Chairman, Gen. Peter Pace, created a revealing controversy several months ago when he "said [] there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs, apparently contradicting claims by other U.S. military and administration officials." At the time, AP noted that Pace's "remarks might raise questions on the credibility of the claims of high-level Iranian involvement, especially following the faulty U.S. intelligence that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003."
It's a good thing that Pete Pace -- like the now-replaced anti-surge Generals -- has been removed from his position and is thus no longer available to call these accusations into question. And as the not-exactly-left-wing Council of Foreign Relations pointed out back in February regarding American claims of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. troops, in which it quoted several experts disputing these claims and several reasons to view them with skepticism:
Enormous controversy swirls around this issue, and much of the evidence the United States cites as proof of Iranian involvement remains secret and in some cases is disputed by the Iraqi government, too. This has created an uncomfortable analogy to the period before the Iraq invasion, when secret intelligence ultimately discredited pushed the United States toward war.
The "analogy to the period before the Iraq invasion" certainly does not appear to be creating much "discomfort" for Michael Gordon and the NYT, as it is precisely any reference to the "enormous controversy" over these claims that is so conspicuously missing, as usual, from their recitation of military statements.
UPDATE II: Gordon's article has now been edited substantially, most notably to include several sentences near the beginning of the article that cast at least some doubt on the military's claims. None of these facts were included in the original version:
Previously, Iranian officials have said that the United States is fabricating evidence to back up its accusation that Iran is sending bombs and weapons into Iraq. Some critics have cast doubt on the American military statements about the penetrator bombs, saying the evidence linking them to Iran was circumstantial and inferential.
In remarks that were reported over the weekend, Iran's defense minister, Mohammad Najar, denied American claims of Iran's "military interference" in Iraq. "We have many times announced that we are ready to cooperate with the Iraqi government so to restore security and stability to that country," Mr. Najar was quoted as saying in a July 1 report by the Iranian student news agency, ISNA. It did not make clear which remarks he was responding to.
The article also now refers to the accusations from the U.S. military as "assertions by the American military spokesman." Though there are far more facts that ought to be reported here -- including the fact that such accusations have been denied not only by the Iranians, but also by the Iraqi government, various U.S. military officials and multiple foreign policy experts -- the editorial changes to Gordon's article are clearly improvements.
On a separate note, Bernhard of Moon of Alabama astutely notes that in light of Gen. Bergner's background, it is highly likely that any attempts by him to ratchet up the accusatory rhetoric toward Iran is the by-product of White House decision-making at the highest levels.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Xymphora: London and Jerusalem Bombs
Xymphora is at his best digging out recondite information. Who would have heard about an Orthodox Jewish suicide bomber (against gays) were it not for him?. He's also good at letting you draw your own conclusions, because the ones he draws so often run far afield. (Not that I'm biased or anything like that, but Xymphora still doesn't buy controlled demolition on 9/11 despite all the evidence.)
Here Xymphora digs out interesting information about the purported London bombs found in the Haymarket. But he prefers not to go near what Kurt Nimmo calls Al CIA-duh. (Check out the first of the comments to this blog.)
Oh well, as always, we're on our own.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Xymphora.blogspot.com
writes:
Gay Bombs
Saturday, June 30, 2007
A few days ago, an Orthodox Jewish suicide bomber was apprehended by Israeli officials before he had a chance to set off his bomb at the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade (Orthodox Jews have a problem with gays). We didn’t hear a lot about this, as Jews are always supposed to be victims, and by definition can’t be terrorists. Had he succeeded, he no doubt would have been described as the victim, and an Arab body would have been chosen to be the terrorist. Then the usual typists would have written their opinion pieces wondering what is it in the ‘Arab mind’ that makes the Palestinians so prone to suicide bombing.
It is the gay press that has noticed that one of the latest London ‘bombs’ was on the route of the Gay Pride Parade, and the other parked nearby. The parade was scheduled for the day following the parking of the two cars (although the gay press is downplaying the obvious connection, presumably not to reduce attendance). The car on the route of the parade had been seen being driven ‘erratically’. presumably so it would be noticed (it actually drove into garbage bins in front of a busy nightclub), and had gasoline inside in full view (with labeled containers in case anyone was really slow). The shrapnel was spread on the floor, where it would have had no or little effect, and the police seem to be having difficulty describing the detonator, leading me to believe there wasn’t one. These weren’t bombs, they were warnings.
Needless to say, the cars were described as bombs placed by ‘al Qaeda’, before anyone could have determined who was responsible. I’d be looking for religious fundamentalists, most likely Christian, who have orientation issues (i. e., fear of catching ‘teh gay’). ***
Ronald writes:
If you click on _teh_ you'll find:
It means homosexuality, but as perceived by someone who believes homosexuality is evil and perhaps somehow "catching." The misspelling of "the" is deliberate, designed to imply ignorance or poor communication skills.
Comments (28) [for link, go to: http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Here Xymphora digs out interesting information about the purported London bombs found in the Haymarket. But he prefers not to go near what Kurt Nimmo calls Al CIA-duh. (Check out the first of the comments to this blog.)
Oh well, as always, we're on our own.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Xymphora.blogspot.com
writes:
Gay Bombs
Saturday, June 30, 2007
A few days ago, an Orthodox Jewish suicide bomber was apprehended by Israeli officials before he had a chance to set off his bomb at the Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade (Orthodox Jews have a problem with gays). We didn’t hear a lot about this, as Jews are always supposed to be victims, and by definition can’t be terrorists. Had he succeeded, he no doubt would have been described as the victim, and an Arab body would have been chosen to be the terrorist. Then the usual typists would have written their opinion pieces wondering what is it in the ‘Arab mind’ that makes the Palestinians so prone to suicide bombing.
It is the gay press that has noticed that one of the latest London ‘bombs’ was on the route of the Gay Pride Parade, and the other parked nearby. The parade was scheduled for the day following the parking of the two cars (although the gay press is downplaying the obvious connection, presumably not to reduce attendance). The car on the route of the parade had been seen being driven ‘erratically’. presumably so it would be noticed (it actually drove into garbage bins in front of a busy nightclub), and had gasoline inside in full view (with labeled containers in case anyone was really slow). The shrapnel was spread on the floor, where it would have had no or little effect, and the police seem to be having difficulty describing the detonator, leading me to believe there wasn’t one. These weren’t bombs, they were warnings.
Needless to say, the cars were described as bombs placed by ‘al Qaeda’, before anyone could have determined who was responsible. I’d be looking for religious fundamentalists, most likely Christian, who have orientation issues (i. e., fear of catching ‘teh gay’). ***
Ronald writes:
If you click on _teh_ you'll find:
It means homosexuality, but as perceived by someone who believes homosexuality is evil and perhaps somehow "catching." The misspelling of "the" is deliberate, designed to imply ignorance or poor communication skills.
Comments (28) [for link, go to: http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Saturday, June 30, 2007
WSWS: Padilla's trial: threadbare case proceeds ineluctably
Most of us understand that the imprisonment, torture and now trial of the hapless Jose Padilla is a sham, based on nothing more than, as WSWS author Alex Lantier, writes, the USG's attempts at terror fear mongering. Yet, it's sometimes good to take a look at the shocking, scandalous details to get a renewed sense of the nightmare world we're now deep into as a result of two stolen elections by the most vicious elements of our society who have us in their merciless grip.
The high profile arrest and torture of an obviously innocent person might serve as indirect evidence of who the real terrorists were on 9/11 but much of the Left still refuses to look closely at the evidence much less connect the dots. Is it because despite all the evidence that 99% of all effective terror such as 9/11, WTC '93, London, Madrid, Oklahoma City and much more is planned and executed by the State, most of the Left like the Right is more comfortable with the notion of Muslim terror?
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/padi-j30_prn.shtml
Padilla “terrorism support trial” unravels
By Alex Lantier
30 June 2007
The US government’s “terrorism support trial” against Jose Padilla and two acquaintances, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, is rapidly unraveling as the prosecution continued with its case this week. Even though US District Judge Marcia Cooke has let the prosecution introduce irrelevant evidence and proceed despite procedural violations, it is clear the prosecution is grasping at straws to make a case against the accused.
Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested at O’Hare Airport in Chicago in May 2002, imprisoned and held without charges or access to a lawyer, in breach of fundamental democratic rights. The Bush administration declared that Padilla was an imminent terrorist threat to the US, planning to explode radioactive “dirty bombs” in US cities. Padilla has stated that he was tortured for three and a half years in a US military brig—held in total solitary confinement, often in painful stress positions, deprived of sleep, and force-fed psychoactive drugs such as LSD and PCP meant to act as “truth serums.”
The trial of Padilla, whom the prosecution had verbally downgraded from a “terrorist” to a “terrorism support” suspect while dropping any talk of a “dirty bomb” plot, began in May 2007. The proceedings have many times over justified an earlier assessment of Cooke, who euphemistically described the prosecution’s case as “light on facts.”
The prosecution is attempting to establish that Jose Padilla’s friends, Hassoun and Jayyousi, tried to recruit Padilla for terrorist actions in the Middle East. In doing so, it is relying on a massive archive of wiretaps of the three men’s phone conversations.
In the mid-1990s Hassoun and Jayyousi apparently helped Padilla, a recent convert to Islam, travel to Egypt to try to study to become an imam at the prestigious al-Azhar University in Cairo. They also sent money abroad to various parts of the Muslim world as charitable donations that prosecutors alleged were destined for terrorist groups.
The prosecution has sought to explain the absence of any discussion of terrorism in the recorded conversations by claiming that the three were speaking in code. Thus “soccer equipment” supposedly meant guns, “eating cheese” meant violent jihad, and so forth.
This aspect of the prosecution’s case against Padilla collapsed when lead FBI agent James T. Kavanaugh admitted, under cross-examination by defense lawyers, that Padilla did not in fact use any of these alleged “code words” in his phone conversations. However, by this point jurors had already listened to many days of private conversations between Padilla, Hassoun, and Jayyousi. In these conversations, Padilla mainly described the difficulties of adjusting to his life in Egypt, his struggle to master Arabic, and the widespread suspicions amongst Islamic circles that he might be a US spy sent to monitor them.
The only significant piece of physical evidence for the prosecution is a “mujahideen identification form,” allegedly discovered by US forces in Afghanistan, that bears an alleged alias of Padilla and on which the government says his fingerprints have been found.
On Friday, Rohan Gunaratna, described as a “terrorist expert” by the prosecution and the media, testified that the document was similar to others he has examined relating to Al Qaeda. Gunaratna insisted that the camp Padilla is said to have attended was where “they trained people to kill.”
Gunaratna has made a name and career for himself by testifying and giving media appearances in support of cases against alleged terrorist suspects. His credibility as an “expert” on these matters is extremely strained, however. For example, he quickly shifted his position on David Hicks, the Australian prisoner who was held for years in Guantánamo Bay, after the US announced it would try him by military commission. (See “The Australian media and terrorism ‘expert’ Dr Rohan Gunaratna”)
In fact, there is no independent evidence that Padilla ever traveled to Afghanistan. Padilla’s lawyers have argued that Padilla’s fingerprints on the form probably came from when he was handed the form while in US custody.
Given the unsubstantiated allegations against Padilla that US officials have already made and dropped, there is no reason to suppose that this “evidence” is any more genuine. The defense is due to cross-examine Gunaratna next week.
In an attempt to use widespread US hatred of Osama bin Laden to impugn the defendants, the prosecution has repeatedly referred to bin Laden and Al Qaeda in its arguments. As proof of Hasson’s and Jayyousi’s terrorist inclinations, it cited the fact that FBI phone taps of Hassoun and Jayyousi picked up a discussion of a 1997 CNN interview between Osama bin Laden and reporter Peter Arnett. In the interview, bin Laden described the US as “unjust” and “tyrannical” and praised “heroes” who attacked US military forces.
Prosecutors insisted on showing a video of the interview at the trial. Defense lawyers quickly pointed out that there was no evidence Padilla had ever seen the bin Laden interview, and that it was not relevant to the case against Padilla as bin Laden discussed attacks on US forces, for which Padilla was not recruited, even according to the prosecution’s allegations. Despite the inflammatory and irrelevant character of the evidence, the judge ruled that the prosecution could proceed with showing the video.
The bin Laden interview also fails to provide any meaningful evidence against Hassoun and Jayyousi. In their phone conversations, they agreed with the description of US foreign policy as “unjust” and described bin Laden’s performance in the interview as “powerful,” but were also heard to describe bin Laden as “scary.” The entire bin Laden interview issue therefore appears to have been a red herring—a way for the prosecution to associate bin Laden with the defendants in jurors’ minds.
In a further trial mishap, defense lawyers argued earlier this week for a mistrial after some jurors witnessed one of the defendants in chains, a violation of trial procedure since it could prejudice the jury. The judge ruled against the defense and allowed the trial to continue.
The trial of Padilla is part of a long process of abuse, shifting rationales, and sensational charges. When Padilla was arrested, the media trumpeted his alleged actions in order to bolster government fear-mongering over a supposedly imminent terrorist threat. His trial, by contrast, has been virtually ignored, now that these charges have been deflated.
When, in November 2005, after years of secret detention, a Supreme Court intervention threatened to bring up the Bush administration’s practice of extra-legal detention, Padilla was hastily transferred to a Florida criminal court. US officials started cobbling together accusations against him of conspiracy and aid to terrorists abroad. The fact that the “dirty bomb” allegations were dropped was a clear sign that they were fabricated to begin with.
Padilla’s attorneys’ repeated efforts to get the case dismissed on the basis of grievous procedural errors were turned down. In October 2006, they argued that the US government had forfeited its right to try Padilla by torturing him, based on the US legal tradition that if treatment of the accused “shocks the conscience” the case against him must be thrown out.
In February 2007, his attorneys presented detailed testimony that Padilla suffered from serious mental impairment as a result of years of torture and was unable to participate in his own defense. In both cases, the judge allowed the case to proceed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
See Also:
US: Opening statements delivered in Jose Padilla trial
[15 May 2007]
Trial of “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla begins
[17 April 2007]
US judge rejects demand to dismiss Padilla case on grounds of torture
[13 April 2007]
The high profile arrest and torture of an obviously innocent person might serve as indirect evidence of who the real terrorists were on 9/11 but much of the Left still refuses to look closely at the evidence much less connect the dots. Is it because despite all the evidence that 99% of all effective terror such as 9/11, WTC '93, London, Madrid, Oklahoma City and much more is planned and executed by the State, most of the Left like the Right is more comfortable with the notion of Muslim terror?
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jun2007/padi-j30_prn.shtml
Padilla “terrorism support trial” unravels
By Alex Lantier
30 June 2007
The US government’s “terrorism support trial” against Jose Padilla and two acquaintances, Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi, is rapidly unraveling as the prosecution continued with its case this week. Even though US District Judge Marcia Cooke has let the prosecution introduce irrelevant evidence and proceed despite procedural violations, it is clear the prosecution is grasping at straws to make a case against the accused.
Padilla, a US citizen, was arrested at O’Hare Airport in Chicago in May 2002, imprisoned and held without charges or access to a lawyer, in breach of fundamental democratic rights. The Bush administration declared that Padilla was an imminent terrorist threat to the US, planning to explode radioactive “dirty bombs” in US cities. Padilla has stated that he was tortured for three and a half years in a US military brig—held in total solitary confinement, often in painful stress positions, deprived of sleep, and force-fed psychoactive drugs such as LSD and PCP meant to act as “truth serums.”
The trial of Padilla, whom the prosecution had verbally downgraded from a “terrorist” to a “terrorism support” suspect while dropping any talk of a “dirty bomb” plot, began in May 2007. The proceedings have many times over justified an earlier assessment of Cooke, who euphemistically described the prosecution’s case as “light on facts.”
The prosecution is attempting to establish that Jose Padilla’s friends, Hassoun and Jayyousi, tried to recruit Padilla for terrorist actions in the Middle East. In doing so, it is relying on a massive archive of wiretaps of the three men’s phone conversations.
In the mid-1990s Hassoun and Jayyousi apparently helped Padilla, a recent convert to Islam, travel to Egypt to try to study to become an imam at the prestigious al-Azhar University in Cairo. They also sent money abroad to various parts of the Muslim world as charitable donations that prosecutors alleged were destined for terrorist groups.
The prosecution has sought to explain the absence of any discussion of terrorism in the recorded conversations by claiming that the three were speaking in code. Thus “soccer equipment” supposedly meant guns, “eating cheese” meant violent jihad, and so forth.
This aspect of the prosecution’s case against Padilla collapsed when lead FBI agent James T. Kavanaugh admitted, under cross-examination by defense lawyers, that Padilla did not in fact use any of these alleged “code words” in his phone conversations. However, by this point jurors had already listened to many days of private conversations between Padilla, Hassoun, and Jayyousi. In these conversations, Padilla mainly described the difficulties of adjusting to his life in Egypt, his struggle to master Arabic, and the widespread suspicions amongst Islamic circles that he might be a US spy sent to monitor them.
The only significant piece of physical evidence for the prosecution is a “mujahideen identification form,” allegedly discovered by US forces in Afghanistan, that bears an alleged alias of Padilla and on which the government says his fingerprints have been found.
On Friday, Rohan Gunaratna, described as a “terrorist expert” by the prosecution and the media, testified that the document was similar to others he has examined relating to Al Qaeda. Gunaratna insisted that the camp Padilla is said to have attended was where “they trained people to kill.”
Gunaratna has made a name and career for himself by testifying and giving media appearances in support of cases against alleged terrorist suspects. His credibility as an “expert” on these matters is extremely strained, however. For example, he quickly shifted his position on David Hicks, the Australian prisoner who was held for years in Guantánamo Bay, after the US announced it would try him by military commission. (See “The Australian media and terrorism ‘expert’ Dr Rohan Gunaratna”)
In fact, there is no independent evidence that Padilla ever traveled to Afghanistan. Padilla’s lawyers have argued that Padilla’s fingerprints on the form probably came from when he was handed the form while in US custody.
Given the unsubstantiated allegations against Padilla that US officials have already made and dropped, there is no reason to suppose that this “evidence” is any more genuine. The defense is due to cross-examine Gunaratna next week.
In an attempt to use widespread US hatred of Osama bin Laden to impugn the defendants, the prosecution has repeatedly referred to bin Laden and Al Qaeda in its arguments. As proof of Hasson’s and Jayyousi’s terrorist inclinations, it cited the fact that FBI phone taps of Hassoun and Jayyousi picked up a discussion of a 1997 CNN interview between Osama bin Laden and reporter Peter Arnett. In the interview, bin Laden described the US as “unjust” and “tyrannical” and praised “heroes” who attacked US military forces.
Prosecutors insisted on showing a video of the interview at the trial. Defense lawyers quickly pointed out that there was no evidence Padilla had ever seen the bin Laden interview, and that it was not relevant to the case against Padilla as bin Laden discussed attacks on US forces, for which Padilla was not recruited, even according to the prosecution’s allegations. Despite the inflammatory and irrelevant character of the evidence, the judge ruled that the prosecution could proceed with showing the video.
The bin Laden interview also fails to provide any meaningful evidence against Hassoun and Jayyousi. In their phone conversations, they agreed with the description of US foreign policy as “unjust” and described bin Laden’s performance in the interview as “powerful,” but were also heard to describe bin Laden as “scary.” The entire bin Laden interview issue therefore appears to have been a red herring—a way for the prosecution to associate bin Laden with the defendants in jurors’ minds.
In a further trial mishap, defense lawyers argued earlier this week for a mistrial after some jurors witnessed one of the defendants in chains, a violation of trial procedure since it could prejudice the jury. The judge ruled against the defense and allowed the trial to continue.
The trial of Padilla is part of a long process of abuse, shifting rationales, and sensational charges. When Padilla was arrested, the media trumpeted his alleged actions in order to bolster government fear-mongering over a supposedly imminent terrorist threat. His trial, by contrast, has been virtually ignored, now that these charges have been deflated.
When, in November 2005, after years of secret detention, a Supreme Court intervention threatened to bring up the Bush administration’s practice of extra-legal detention, Padilla was hastily transferred to a Florida criminal court. US officials started cobbling together accusations against him of conspiracy and aid to terrorists abroad. The fact that the “dirty bomb” allegations were dropped was a clear sign that they were fabricated to begin with.
Padilla’s attorneys’ repeated efforts to get the case dismissed on the basis of grievous procedural errors were turned down. In October 2006, they argued that the US government had forfeited its right to try Padilla by torturing him, based on the US legal tradition that if treatment of the accused “shocks the conscience” the case against him must be thrown out.
In February 2007, his attorneys presented detailed testimony that Padilla suffered from serious mental impairment as a result of years of torture and was unable to participate in his own defense. In both cases, the judge allowed the case to proceed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-2007
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
See Also:
US: Opening statements delivered in Jose Padilla trial
[15 May 2007]
Trial of “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla begins
[17 April 2007]
US judge rejects demand to dismiss Padilla case on grounds of torture
[13 April 2007]
Friday, June 29, 2007
Glenn Greenwald: Podhoretzs: Father and Son: Psychopaths both -- bomb bomb bomb Iran
Glenn Greenwald is a great treasure and you just have to thank him once again, this time for taking the time and trouble to nail the Podhoretzs -- father and son -- for who they are and what they are. At the end he suggests that their desire to kill millions of Iranians (on Israel's behalf, and on behalf of their own sickness) reflects the mainstream. But I doubt it. The mainstream pretty much understands how crazy and cruel and psychopathic such a project would be. The great problem is that the Podhoretzs speak for the decision makers, Bush and Cheney who, if we read the latest tea leaves correctly, seem intent on bombing Iran sometime next year.
Interestingly, while Greenwald has no problem labeling Podhoretz psychopathic, he doesn't do the same for Bush and Cheney who have done nothing but reveal their pathology for the last 6 years.
--Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday June 21, 2007
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
Face of a psychopath
Neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz followed up his Commentary article titled "The case for bombing Iran" -- excerpts of which were re-published in The Wall St. Journal -- with an interview elaborating on why he "hopes and prays" that we bomb Iran and how he envisions the bombings. Though he generously acknowledges that such an action would likely "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest" -- consequences to which he is transparently (and revealingly) indifferent -- he goes on to suggest that Europeans and even the Muslim world might be grateful for our attack; the bombs will be greeted as Bombs of Liberation and Protection:
It's entirely possible that many countries, particularly in the Middle East -- the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, who are very worried about Iranian influence and power --would at least secretly applaud us. And I think it's possible that other countries in Europe, for example, and elsewhere, would be relieved to see the Iranians entirely deprived of the capability to build nuclear weapons, or at least have that ability retarded for five or 10 years or more.
As Think Progress notes, not only would a bombing campaign fail to stop the Iranian nuclear program, it would be far more likely to accelerate it, just as the Israeli attack on the Iraqi program did. And a military bombing campaign, guaranteed to kill untold numbers of Iranian civilians, would obviously unite Iranians in anti-American hatred and generate unified support for the most militant political elements in that country.
But beyond those rather obvious points, just contemplate the level of bombing and slaughter that would be required merely to have a chance of fulfilling Podhoretz's goal of "entirely depriv[ing Iran] of the capability to build nuclear weapons, or at least have that ability retarded for five or 10 years or more." How would that be remotely possible without bombing them until Podhoretz's real goal -- regime change -- were achieved, a goal which, if achievable at all, would require bombing so widespread and brutal that it ought to be unthinkable. Yet Podhoretz sits there, in the most smug and casual manner, and blithely "hopes and prays" that we do it.
Any doubts about what Norman Podhoretz is -- and what the movement is which reveres him -- ought to be forever dispelled by his answer, given in the same interview, to the question of what the British should have done in response to the detention of 15 of their sailors by Iran:
They should have threatened to bomb the Iranians into smithereens if the sailors weren't returned immediately. They should have threatened it. Whether they would have had to carry out the threat, I doubt, maybe they would have.
Just think about that. England should have threatened and then "bombed the Iranians into smithereens" if their sailors were not returned immediately. Contemplate the depravity required even to suggest such a thing -- that a nation of more than 70 million human beings be reduced to rubble, perhaps vaporzied, over an incident of that magnitude, which was peacefully resolved after two weeks. It is really warped beyond belief. And it's the tone that is almost as notable as the content -- the breezy, smug wave of the hand that signifies the brutal deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, possibly many more.
And there is nothing unusual about Norm Podhoretz in the neoconservative world that he leads. Unsurprisingly, it is Norm's son, John, who -- beyond his garden-variety excitement over bombing Iran -- made one of the most reprehensible and deranged (though illustrative) statements of the entire Bush presidency:
What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?
At the time, Greg Djerejian said in response:
It's quite sad that the son of an accomplished, prestigious American intellectual would muse so innocuously about the merits of mass butchery--basically the wholesale slaughter of a broad demographic of an ethnic group writ large--a policy prescription that is quasi-genocidal in nature.
It may be "sad," but at this point it is certainly unsurprising. And the "accomplished, prestigious American intellectual" who is John Podhoretz's father shares the family enthusiasm for "mass butchery." And while all of our media stars solemnly lament how the "fringe" liberal bloggers are ruining our political culture with all of their naughty words and extremism, the genocide-craving Podhoretz Family sits at the epicenter of a political movement that is still as predominant and powerful as it is deranged, and they are treated with the utmost seriousness and respect.
In this week's Newsweek, Michael Hirsh has a worthwhile article reporting on his observations during his visit to Iran. While listing the internally repressive measures taken by the Iranian governemnt, Hirsh describes Tehran as "bustling," as "traffic crowds the streets and boulevards," filled with the "chic" Iranian women and the "meterosexual" Iranian males who seek greater economic security and prosperity. That is what Norm Podhoretz and his friends hungrily want to annihilate.
Matt Yglesias, in a recent post about the administration's "debate" over whether to bomb Iran, wisely included a random photograph of an Iranian street with civilians walking on it. These are the people Norm Podhoretz and his comrades want to slaughter:
[Photo by Flickr user Koldo used under a Creative Commons license]
Our ability to render invisible the people we kill when cheering on our wars is one of the primary mechanisms which make it so easy to embrace that option. Yesterday, a quite revealing exchange occurred during the White House Press gaggle; it is unnecessary to identify the reporter asking these questions because there is really only one White House correspondent who would (the one who is considered to be "crazy" by her "journalistic" colleagues as a result of disrespectful and annoyingly off-script outbursts like this):
Q A study shows that Iraq is the second-most unstable country in the world. Do we have anything to do with that?
MR. SNOW: Do we have anything to do with that? Yes, I saw the study --
Q -- the killing?
MR. SNOW: We don't -- I'm not sure I got the --
Q I'm talking about Petraeus, also, intensifying -- is he trying to build a kill record before September?
MR. SNOW: No. No. In point of fact, Helen, if you take a look at the record of the last two months, the people who have been trying to put together the kill record are al Qaeda. Go to the mosques --
Q Is everybody who resists our occupation a terrorist?
MR. SNOW: Do you think somebody who goes in and blows up 50 people in a mosque is resisting occupation?
Q What have we done for five years?
MR. SNOW: What we have been trying to do is to work with folks to deal with a highly volatile situation in Iraq in the wake of a murderous regime --
Q We've killed thousands of people, tens of thousands --
MR. SNOW: Many have died, and hundreds of thousands died under the previous regime. This is a place that has too long been wracked by violence. And the fact that in fighting --
Q We're not supposed to be comparing, are we?
MR. SNOW: Unfortunately, if we fought evil guys who simply would say, you caught us, we're evil, we give up, we'll be good -- that would be great, that would be wonderful.
Q Everybody isn't evil who fights for his land.
MR. SNOW: A lot of the people we're talking about, Helen, aren't fighting for their land, because it's not their land. They don't even come from Iraq.
Q Are we fighting Iraqis, inherently, in their own country?
MR. SNOW: Are we fighting Iraqis inherently? I think if you take a look at what General Petraeus is saying, is that increasingly Iraqis are joining with us to defend their country from the onslaught of outside fighters, whether they be from al Qaeda or Iran.
Q Good, but we have to admit we're killing a lot of Iraqis who are against our presence.
MR. SNOW: I'm not sure. I mean, that requires the kind of canvas of those who have died that I'm not capable of doing.
Nothing could be more boring to Tony Snow than the question of how many Iraqi civilians we have killed as a result of our invasion and occupation. His yawn is virtually audible. What could be less relevant than that? It is better if we do not know. We can just keep repeating over and over that we are "killing Al Qaeda" -- a "fact" which Michael Gordon and The New York Times will be happy repeatedly to re-inforce -- and we can ignore the rest.
What Norman Podhoretz is advocating -- blowing Iran into "smithereens" -- is criminal and morally twisted for reasons that should require no elaboration. But the far more significant fact is that such advocacy does not relegate him to the fringes. Quite the contrary, the movement of which he is an integral part, on whose behalf he speaks, is well within the political mainstream as depicted by our political press. And it is doubtful that there is anything he (and his comrades) could do or say which would change that.
-- Glenn Greenwald
***
Ellen wrote:
Yes, it's a good piece about the genocidal duo. He doesn't go far enough for me. The neocons are the new nazis. It's not good form to say this, but this is what the US is: the Fourth Reich. I agree with Ronald that Greenwald should have said something about the arch-fiends Cheney and Bush.
Interestingly, while Greenwald has no problem labeling Podhoretz psychopathic, he doesn't do the same for Bush and Cheney who have done nothing but reveal their pathology for the last 6 years.
--Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday June 21, 2007
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
Face of a psychopath
Neoconservative icon Norman Podhoretz followed up his Commentary article titled "The case for bombing Iran" -- excerpts of which were re-published in The Wall St. Journal -- with an interview elaborating on why he "hopes and prays" that we bomb Iran and how he envisions the bombings. Though he generously acknowledges that such an action would likely "unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we've experienced so far look like a lovefest" -- consequences to which he is transparently (and revealingly) indifferent -- he goes on to suggest that Europeans and even the Muslim world might be grateful for our attack; the bombs will be greeted as Bombs of Liberation and Protection:
It's entirely possible that many countries, particularly in the Middle East -- the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, who are very worried about Iranian influence and power --would at least secretly applaud us. And I think it's possible that other countries in Europe, for example, and elsewhere, would be relieved to see the Iranians entirely deprived of the capability to build nuclear weapons, or at least have that ability retarded for five or 10 years or more.
As Think Progress notes, not only would a bombing campaign fail to stop the Iranian nuclear program, it would be far more likely to accelerate it, just as the Israeli attack on the Iraqi program did. And a military bombing campaign, guaranteed to kill untold numbers of Iranian civilians, would obviously unite Iranians in anti-American hatred and generate unified support for the most militant political elements in that country.
But beyond those rather obvious points, just contemplate the level of bombing and slaughter that would be required merely to have a chance of fulfilling Podhoretz's goal of "entirely depriv[ing Iran] of the capability to build nuclear weapons, or at least have that ability retarded for five or 10 years or more." How would that be remotely possible without bombing them until Podhoretz's real goal -- regime change -- were achieved, a goal which, if achievable at all, would require bombing so widespread and brutal that it ought to be unthinkable. Yet Podhoretz sits there, in the most smug and casual manner, and blithely "hopes and prays" that we do it.
Any doubts about what Norman Podhoretz is -- and what the movement is which reveres him -- ought to be forever dispelled by his answer, given in the same interview, to the question of what the British should have done in response to the detention of 15 of their sailors by Iran:
They should have threatened to bomb the Iranians into smithereens if the sailors weren't returned immediately. They should have threatened it. Whether they would have had to carry out the threat, I doubt, maybe they would have.
Just think about that. England should have threatened and then "bombed the Iranians into smithereens" if their sailors were not returned immediately. Contemplate the depravity required even to suggest such a thing -- that a nation of more than 70 million human beings be reduced to rubble, perhaps vaporzied, over an incident of that magnitude, which was peacefully resolved after two weeks. It is really warped beyond belief. And it's the tone that is almost as notable as the content -- the breezy, smug wave of the hand that signifies the brutal deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, possibly many more.
And there is nothing unusual about Norm Podhoretz in the neoconservative world that he leads. Unsurprisingly, it is Norm's son, John, who -- beyond his garden-variety excitement over bombing Iran -- made one of the most reprehensible and deranged (though illustrative) statements of the entire Bush presidency:
What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?
At the time, Greg Djerejian said in response:
It's quite sad that the son of an accomplished, prestigious American intellectual would muse so innocuously about the merits of mass butchery--basically the wholesale slaughter of a broad demographic of an ethnic group writ large--a policy prescription that is quasi-genocidal in nature.
It may be "sad," but at this point it is certainly unsurprising. And the "accomplished, prestigious American intellectual" who is John Podhoretz's father shares the family enthusiasm for "mass butchery." And while all of our media stars solemnly lament how the "fringe" liberal bloggers are ruining our political culture with all of their naughty words and extremism, the genocide-craving Podhoretz Family sits at the epicenter of a political movement that is still as predominant and powerful as it is deranged, and they are treated with the utmost seriousness and respect.
In this week's Newsweek, Michael Hirsh has a worthwhile article reporting on his observations during his visit to Iran. While listing the internally repressive measures taken by the Iranian governemnt, Hirsh describes Tehran as "bustling," as "traffic crowds the streets and boulevards," filled with the "chic" Iranian women and the "meterosexual" Iranian males who seek greater economic security and prosperity. That is what Norm Podhoretz and his friends hungrily want to annihilate.
Matt Yglesias, in a recent post about the administration's "debate" over whether to bomb Iran, wisely included a random photograph of an Iranian street with civilians walking on it. These are the people Norm Podhoretz and his comrades want to slaughter:
[Photo by Flickr user Koldo used under a Creative Commons license]
Our ability to render invisible the people we kill when cheering on our wars is one of the primary mechanisms which make it so easy to embrace that option. Yesterday, a quite revealing exchange occurred during the White House Press gaggle; it is unnecessary to identify the reporter asking these questions because there is really only one White House correspondent who would (the one who is considered to be "crazy" by her "journalistic" colleagues as a result of disrespectful and annoyingly off-script outbursts like this):
Q A study shows that Iraq is the second-most unstable country in the world. Do we have anything to do with that?
MR. SNOW: Do we have anything to do with that? Yes, I saw the study --
Q -- the killing?
MR. SNOW: We don't -- I'm not sure I got the --
Q I'm talking about Petraeus, also, intensifying -- is he trying to build a kill record before September?
MR. SNOW: No. No. In point of fact, Helen, if you take a look at the record of the last two months, the people who have been trying to put together the kill record are al Qaeda. Go to the mosques --
Q Is everybody who resists our occupation a terrorist?
MR. SNOW: Do you think somebody who goes in and blows up 50 people in a mosque is resisting occupation?
Q What have we done for five years?
MR. SNOW: What we have been trying to do is to work with folks to deal with a highly volatile situation in Iraq in the wake of a murderous regime --
Q We've killed thousands of people, tens of thousands --
MR. SNOW: Many have died, and hundreds of thousands died under the previous regime. This is a place that has too long been wracked by violence. And the fact that in fighting --
Q We're not supposed to be comparing, are we?
MR. SNOW: Unfortunately, if we fought evil guys who simply would say, you caught us, we're evil, we give up, we'll be good -- that would be great, that would be wonderful.
Q Everybody isn't evil who fights for his land.
MR. SNOW: A lot of the people we're talking about, Helen, aren't fighting for their land, because it's not their land. They don't even come from Iraq.
Q Are we fighting Iraqis, inherently, in their own country?
MR. SNOW: Are we fighting Iraqis inherently? I think if you take a look at what General Petraeus is saying, is that increasingly Iraqis are joining with us to defend their country from the onslaught of outside fighters, whether they be from al Qaeda or Iran.
Q Good, but we have to admit we're killing a lot of Iraqis who are against our presence.
MR. SNOW: I'm not sure. I mean, that requires the kind of canvas of those who have died that I'm not capable of doing.
Nothing could be more boring to Tony Snow than the question of how many Iraqi civilians we have killed as a result of our invasion and occupation. His yawn is virtually audible. What could be less relevant than that? It is better if we do not know. We can just keep repeating over and over that we are "killing Al Qaeda" -- a "fact" which Michael Gordon and The New York Times will be happy repeatedly to re-inforce -- and we can ignore the rest.
What Norman Podhoretz is advocating -- blowing Iran into "smithereens" -- is criminal and morally twisted for reasons that should require no elaboration. But the far more significant fact is that such advocacy does not relegate him to the fringes. Quite the contrary, the movement of which he is an integral part, on whose behalf he speaks, is well within the political mainstream as depicted by our political press. And it is doubtful that there is anything he (and his comrades) could do or say which would change that.
-- Glenn Greenwald
***
Ellen wrote:
Yes, it's a good piece about the genocidal duo. He doesn't go far enough for me. The neocons are the new nazis. It's not good form to say this, but this is what the US is: the Fourth Reich. I agree with Ronald that Greenwald should have said something about the arch-fiends Cheney and Bush.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
