I have taken an unplanned sabbatical from posting on VIEW FROM THE MOON as a few days of procrastination grew into weeks. The longer I was away the less I felt like focusing my mind on the horrific results of U.S. policies. I had already begun to feel that if readers of this blog had not been persuaded to see the influence of the Israel Lobby on U.S. foreign policy, then more months of the same message would not open their eyes. If they could not see by now that American “news” omitted information essential to understanding the truth of what was going on, they would never see it. All it takes to penetrate the propaganda smokescreen are a few basic truths – which have been repeated again and again in VIEW FROM THE MOON – and some easy observation and analysis.
I was further discouraged because I realized I was generally preaching to the choir rather than the unenlightened. How many people began reading my blog as hypnotized parroters of propaganda and became independent thinkers willing to search for truth in the world of forbidden ideas? How many people are actually capable and willing to think outside the walls of their societal training? I suspected that the people who feared the truth to begin with were continuing to fear it, while those who accepted it were not learning anything from me which they did not already know.
If a writer like me feels that his words are not bringing about changes in the world, not altering people’s thinking, a sense of futility sets in, followed by, “Well, let them stew in the pot they’ve chosen.”
As I return to this blog I look over the period since I left and see that things are about the same as they were when I found more fulfilling creative activities in “Second Life”. I don’t think the situation would be any different had I continued posting. Cosmetic reshuffling in the Bush administration has had no significant effect. The Democrats have become even more spineless and ineffectual than I would have believed possible. I thought that because the Zionists had accomplished their war purpose of turning Iraq into a chaotic wasteland they would permit the newly empowered Democrats to wind down the U.S. presence there to some extent – instead of giving Bush everything he wanted without so much as a convincing growl. The timorous toadies of Congress remain interested in nothing except retaining their jobs in future elections.
In Palestine the legally elected Hamas government remains sealed into a small area and left to starve except when Israel tanks and troops invade to hasten their demise – while the U.S. applauds and pretends that the Palestinian usurpers who overthrew the Hamas legitimate government are able to “negotiate” for the Palestinians in the never-ending “peace process.”
The only area where there is even an appearance of improvement is Iran – because Iran is still at peace and not blown to pieces by U.S./Zionist bombs and missiles. I’m sure that the Israeli designs on Iran have not changed, but even a lessening of the bombastic threats is welcome.
If there should be any doubt about the ultimate Israeli aim to neuter and dominate Iran, it is shown in what must be the most ludicrous American performance of 2007, after the highest U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously declared that Iran had ceased any effort to develop nuclear weapons several years ago – contrary to the steady stream of lies emanating from the U.S. during those years. Instead of praising Iran, the American government (with the meek collaboration of Democrats, after Bush had personally consulted with the leader of Israel) declared that the cessation of a weapons development program was cause for renewed alarm!
I may continue to post here when something inspires me, but with the conviction that I’m merely amusing myself rather than helping improve the world.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, June 14, 2007
How Inconvenient!
On June 12, in ”How Convenient?, I published a followup to Senator Joe Lieberman’s call for the US to bomb Iran. Indirectly seconding Lieberman’s motion within hours was a US Undersecretary of State.
“IRAN IS ARMING TALIBAN, U.S. ENVOY CLAIMS.” ‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”'
Today comes an assertion which is as inconvenient for the Washington warmongers as Burns’ statement was convenient:
‘Afghan official says Iran is not arming Taliban.
Defense minister dismisses claim by top U.S. State Department official’
‘BRUSSELS, Belgium - Afghanistan’s defense minister on Thursday dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was “irrefutable evidence” that the Iranian government was providing arms to Taliban rebels.
‘“Actually, throughout we have had good relations with Iran and we believe that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of Iran,” Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press. “There has been evidence of weapons, but it is difficult to link it to Iran. (They) might be from al-Qaida, from the drug mafia or from other sources,” Wardak said.’
Putting Burns’ words alongside the flagrant lies based on equally “irrefutable evidence” which were used to push America into the Iraq war, the word “irrefutable” now has a new meaning in Washington: “Nonexistent”.
We apparently have truly arrived at the totalitarian world of George Orwell’s “1984”, albeit a few years late, where the Party’s slogan is, “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
We can now add, “Lies are Truth. Truth is Treason.”
“IRAN IS ARMING TALIBAN, U.S. ENVOY CLAIMS.” ‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”'
Today comes an assertion which is as inconvenient for the Washington warmongers as Burns’ statement was convenient:
‘Afghan official says Iran is not arming Taliban.
Defense minister dismisses claim by top U.S. State Department official’
‘BRUSSELS, Belgium - Afghanistan’s defense minister on Thursday dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was “irrefutable evidence” that the Iranian government was providing arms to Taliban rebels.
‘“Actually, throughout we have had good relations with Iran and we believe that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of Iran,” Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press. “There has been evidence of weapons, but it is difficult to link it to Iran. (They) might be from al-Qaida, from the drug mafia or from other sources,” Wardak said.’
Putting Burns’ words alongside the flagrant lies based on equally “irrefutable evidence” which were used to push America into the Iraq war, the word “irrefutable” now has a new meaning in Washington: “Nonexistent”.
We apparently have truly arrived at the totalitarian world of George Orwell’s “1984”, albeit a few years late, where the Party’s slogan is, “War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
We can now add, “Lies are Truth. Truth is Treason.”
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
How Convenient!
In my last post I included some comments on Senator Joe Lieberman’s recent public statements advocating that the U.S. bomb Iran. One of his angles was that the U.S. should bomb Iran “to stop them from killing Americans” – referring to the American military in the Middle East.
Isn’t it wonderful timing that we now read, so conveniently soon, an MSNBC headline:
“IRAN IS ARMING TALIBAN, U.S. ENVOY CLAIMS.”
‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”’
I wonder how Burns defines “insurrections” and which ones he has in mind. In any case, Lieberman has put the bullet in the gun, an American envoy has cocked the trigger, and . . . Israel stands expectantly by, calling the plays and quietly applauding the work of its loyalists in cooking up yet another phony excuse for an American war.
I originally read about Lieberman’s statements in an excellent article by Tim King in Salem-News.com. I see that Mr. King has published a most interesting followup article, “Lieberman’s Suggestion to Bomb Iran Draws Fire and Support”. Judging from that article, those who write in support of Lieberman’s new war seem out of touch with reality, as well as ignorant of basic facts. One reader refers to Iran as “our deadly enemy”, while another says that the president of Iran has “openly stated” that Iran will attack America. What nonsense.
Congratulations to Mr. King for his good work.
Isn’t it wonderful timing that we now read, so conveniently soon, an MSNBC headline:
“IRAN IS ARMING TALIBAN, U.S. ENVOY CLAIMS.”
‘Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, speaking to reporters in Paris, said Iran was funding insurrections across the Middle East — and “Iran is now even transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan.”’
I wonder how Burns defines “insurrections” and which ones he has in mind. In any case, Lieberman has put the bullet in the gun, an American envoy has cocked the trigger, and . . . Israel stands expectantly by, calling the plays and quietly applauding the work of its loyalists in cooking up yet another phony excuse for an American war.
I originally read about Lieberman’s statements in an excellent article by Tim King in Salem-News.com. I see that Mr. King has published a most interesting followup article, “Lieberman’s Suggestion to Bomb Iran Draws Fire and Support”. Judging from that article, those who write in support of Lieberman’s new war seem out of touch with reality, as well as ignorant of basic facts. One reader refers to Iran as “our deadly enemy”, while another says that the president of Iran has “openly stated” that Iran will attack America. What nonsense.
Congratulations to Mr. King for his good work.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Back Again to More of the Same
After an unplanned and unintended leave of absence from VIEW FROM THE MOON, I find that nothing has really changed in the Wonderland of U.S. news except that, since my last report, Paul Wolfowitz has attained a few headlines on wire services and has even been mentioned on at least one evening television report. Of course he is still a great guy as far as the United States government is concerned, in spite of his having engineered a disastrous U.S. war, for which he was rewarded with promotion to the presidency of the World Bank. I get the impression that although his popularity with the Zionists and the mass of Israel supporters (and therefore most of the American press) is undiluted, the great reservoir of enmity toward him has reached the overflow point. Along with case histories of Jewish malefactors who have been supported by influential Jews, it would be interesting to analyze the rare cases in which someone like Wolfowitz begins to be abandoned by his tribe and the communications media. Has something made Paul Wolfowitz less immune to public criticism than other Jewish men in comparable cases? Whatever the answer, I predict that if Wolfowitz is forced to leave the World Bank he will be provided with a well-feathered nest in another place.
The question of Paul Finkelstein’s tenure is still up in the air as far as I can tell. As I reported, the fanatically Zionist showboater Alan Dershowitz has made every effort to interfere in the affairs of a university with which he has no connection by opposing Professor Finkelstein’s tenure in the most outrageous and inappropriate ways. The reason, of course, is that Finkelstein, even though Jewish, has written books criticizing Israel. If he is refused tenure, he faces – because of his defiance of Jewish causes – the possibility of being fired . . . an avenue down which Dershowitz is sure to lead a loud parade. Meanwhile, Alan Dershowitz himself, far from suffering job insecurity, will in addition to his Harvard law professorship be rewarded with a job at an Israeli educational institution. Dershowitz will be joining The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya during the 2007-2008) academic year. (Herzliya is a town in Israel near Tel Aviv.) Dershowitz will teach a special class entitled "Law & Terrorism" at IDC Herzliya's Radzyner School of Law. He will, according to an Israeli newspaper, join some of “the greatest legal minds in Israel”, while the U.S., I venture to add, will lose one of its more feeble legal minds.
I will try to attune myself again to world events and write something interesting for this blog, but meanwhile it does seem that we are in a slow period in which the U.S. news simply repeats the same predictable tales every day: Democrats too cowardly to stop Iraq war funding; Republican administration too dastardly to allow a law which might end the war next year. Court Jester and titular Attorney General Alberto Gonzales still clowning, taking his act to the Senate Judiciary Committee where laughter at his performance could be heard even in the corridors outside the hearing room. Israel continuing to murder, kidnap, and torture Palestinians every day without American publicity or protest. An Iranian diplomat released after being kidnapped by American force in Iraq bearing clear marks of torture, including holes drilled into his feet, but dropping from the U.S. news in about twenty minutes. Iran for some reason being allowed a quiet period, but the Wolfowitz/Bush war in Iraq unfailingly killing large numbers of people every day – including more and more of those American troops we are supposed to “support” by keeping them there to be killed.
Speaking of stopping funding of the Iraq war, which the American voters have said they want ended immediately, how much money can it take to carry out the order, “Turn around the tanks and trucks and head for the nearest border”?
The question of Paul Finkelstein’s tenure is still up in the air as far as I can tell. As I reported, the fanatically Zionist showboater Alan Dershowitz has made every effort to interfere in the affairs of a university with which he has no connection by opposing Professor Finkelstein’s tenure in the most outrageous and inappropriate ways. The reason, of course, is that Finkelstein, even though Jewish, has written books criticizing Israel. If he is refused tenure, he faces – because of his defiance of Jewish causes – the possibility of being fired . . . an avenue down which Dershowitz is sure to lead a loud parade. Meanwhile, Alan Dershowitz himself, far from suffering job insecurity, will in addition to his Harvard law professorship be rewarded with a job at an Israeli educational institution. Dershowitz will be joining The Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya during the 2007-2008) academic year. (Herzliya is a town in Israel near Tel Aviv.) Dershowitz will teach a special class entitled "Law & Terrorism" at IDC Herzliya's Radzyner School of Law. He will, according to an Israeli newspaper, join some of “the greatest legal minds in Israel”, while the U.S., I venture to add, will lose one of its more feeble legal minds.
I will try to attune myself again to world events and write something interesting for this blog, but meanwhile it does seem that we are in a slow period in which the U.S. news simply repeats the same predictable tales every day: Democrats too cowardly to stop Iraq war funding; Republican administration too dastardly to allow a law which might end the war next year. Court Jester and titular Attorney General Alberto Gonzales still clowning, taking his act to the Senate Judiciary Committee where laughter at his performance could be heard even in the corridors outside the hearing room. Israel continuing to murder, kidnap, and torture Palestinians every day without American publicity or protest. An Iranian diplomat released after being kidnapped by American force in Iraq bearing clear marks of torture, including holes drilled into his feet, but dropping from the U.S. news in about twenty minutes. Iran for some reason being allowed a quiet period, but the Wolfowitz/Bush war in Iraq unfailingly killing large numbers of people every day – including more and more of those American troops we are supposed to “support” by keeping them there to be killed.
Speaking of stopping funding of the Iraq war, which the American voters have said they want ended immediately, how much money can it take to carry out the order, “Turn around the tanks and trucks and head for the nearest border”?
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Apologia
I’ve burrowed deep into my den preparing that report I promised on the Russian “oligarchs”, who have something in common with I. Lewis Libby in addition to the fact that all but one oligarch is running around free in spite of being a criminal.
I thought it would take me a morning to research and write the oligarch post, but it became so intriguing – like a mystery story in which new clues and connections keep turning up – that I’ve been holed up with it for three days. The sad side is that although I’m thoroughly entertained, most other people may find the twisted tale thoroughly boring.
Meanwhile, as I try to make the story shorter, it keeps getting longer.
----------
News
Today’s News:
My Comment on Today’s News:
There isn’t any. At least there’s nothing of importance new since yesterday, although the News Behemoth is belching forth the same amount of smoke as usual.
Interesting . . . fewer significant events don’t result in fewer words, but significant events may not be put into words at all.
-----------
Poll Results
I’ve taken a highly scientific poll of 1000 people, and here are the answers:
‘How many believe that G.W. Bush is a great leader and military strategist?’
2
‘How many believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the Twin Towers?’
3 (the same two, plus one Fox News commentator)
‘How many believe that Iran has atomic bombs which it can launch to Israel or the United States at any time?’
2 (the original two)
‘How many believe that Israel is an asset to the United States?’
2 (guess which 2)
‘What are your three main reasons for thinking that Israel is a great asset to the United States?’
1 (Reasons: a. All the U.S. bases that Israel has let us build in Israel. b. All the Israeli troops that are fighting alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. c. “Duh, dunno. Doesn't Israel give us lots of money?”)
Oh, all right. It was a fantasy poll, but it was highly scientific.
I’ve burrowed deep into my den preparing that report I promised on the Russian “oligarchs”, who have something in common with I. Lewis Libby in addition to the fact that all but one oligarch is running around free in spite of being a criminal.
I thought it would take me a morning to research and write the oligarch post, but it became so intriguing – like a mystery story in which new clues and connections keep turning up – that I’ve been holed up with it for three days. The sad side is that although I’m thoroughly entertained, most other people may find the twisted tale thoroughly boring.
Meanwhile, as I try to make the story shorter, it keeps getting longer.
----------
News
Today’s News:
My Comment on Today’s News:
There isn’t any. At least there’s nothing of importance new since yesterday, although the News Behemoth is belching forth the same amount of smoke as usual.
Interesting . . . fewer significant events don’t result in fewer words, but significant events may not be put into words at all.
-----------
Poll Results
I’ve taken a highly scientific poll of 1000 people, and here are the answers:
‘How many believe that G.W. Bush is a great leader and military strategist?’
2
‘How many believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the Twin Towers?’
3 (the same two, plus one Fox News commentator)
‘How many believe that Iran has atomic bombs which it can launch to Israel or the United States at any time?’
2 (the original two)
‘How many believe that Israel is an asset to the United States?’
2 (guess which 2)
‘What are your three main reasons for thinking that Israel is a great asset to the United States?’
1 (Reasons: a. All the U.S. bases that Israel has let us build in Israel. b. All the Israeli troops that are fighting alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. c. “Duh, dunno. Doesn't Israel give us lots of money?”)
Oh, all right. It was a fantasy poll, but it was highly scientific.
Monday, March 26, 2007
The Perfect Solution
“UN Imposes Iran Sanctions”
“Iran Retaliates by Reducing Cooperation”
“Defiant Iran Roils Oil Markets”
“Israel Equips Planes to Bomb Iran”
“Iran Vows to Proceed with Civilian Nuclear Power Program”
“Congress Removes Iran War Restriction from Legislation”
“Bush Warns. . . “ “Bush Threatens. . .” “Bush sends. . .”
“Iran Military Warns U.S. Against Any Attack”
I have the perfect solution. It’s easy. It’s legal. It’s foolproof.
Leave Iran alone!
Isn’t it nice when the perfect solution to a problem is to do nothing?
Leave Iran alone!
“Iran Retaliates by Reducing Cooperation”
“Defiant Iran Roils Oil Markets”
“Israel Equips Planes to Bomb Iran”
“Iran Vows to Proceed with Civilian Nuclear Power Program”
“Congress Removes Iran War Restriction from Legislation”
“Bush Warns. . . “ “Bush Threatens. . .” “Bush sends. . .”
“Iran Military Warns U.S. Against Any Attack”
I have the perfect solution. It’s easy. It’s legal. It’s foolproof.
Leave Iran alone!
Isn’t it nice when the perfect solution to a problem is to do nothing?
Leave Iran alone!
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Olbermann and MSNBC Flunk Backbone Test
BULLETIN: MSNBC TV NEWS MANAGERS AND KEITH OLBERMANN CLASSIFIED INVERTEBRATES.
I watched all of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” last night, and quite a bit of “Scarborough Country”. Not one word was said about the big story of the day, which I quoted and discussed in my previous post.
Yesterday MSNBC online reported that the Democrats had eliminated from proposed legislation the requirement that Congress approve an attack on Iran before Bush could launch such a war. Politicians said that the reason for the elimination of any restraint on Bush was Israel’s fear of Iran. What could be a bigger story than that? “Democrats Clear Way for Bush Attack on Iran Due to Israeli Concerns”.
Please read the full story I posted yesterday if you haven’t. The big point now is that last night Olbermann/MSNBC TV avoided the most important story altogether and found the US Attorney General scandal so fascinating (even though no laws were broken) that virtually the entire hour-long program was filled with Attorney General Gonzales and the usual “celebrity” sewage.
It seems that every time I stray from my original announced aim in VIEW FROM THE MOON – to provide important facts that are missing from mainstream news coverage in the United States – events bring me back on track. It also seems that those events are almost always related to Israel and its supporters – whether it’s a Zionist Harvard law professor attacking Jimmy Carter for supporting Palestinian rights or the present case, in which the United States Congress, incredibly, has abdicated all responsibility for preventing Bush & Co. from starting a war with Iran.
If you think about it, this is one of the worst things that has happened in a long time. If our politicians are going to throw us to the war dogs for Israel’s sake, isn’t it time to analyze and ask questions?
First, why should “Israel’s fears of Iran” have any impact on the U.S. Congress at all? In case you haven’t looked lately, Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine, Iowa, and Arizona are on the North American continent, not in Palestine.
Second, Israeli concerns about Iran are childish anyway. Even if Iran does try to develop atomic weapons it would take at least ten and probably fifteen years to do so. Besides, Israel already has its own nuclear arsenal, as well as a much more powerful military than Iran, courtesy of the U.S.A. It's as if the United States were quaking and wringing its hands today because Gautemala began a nuclear power program.
Third, why would the Israeli Lobby strive so hard to eliminate the requirement of a congressional green light for a Bush attack on Iran if it weren’t to guarantee that widespread American public opposition to such an attack could find no expression in Washington? Bush can be trusted to start any war that Israel wants, but if congressional approval were required, there would be just a tiny chance that Congress would flash a red light. A tiny chance indeed, considering the Israel Lobby’s power over Congress, but perhaps a chance.
Democrats are still trying to lie their way out of the quicksand of their advance approval of the Iraq war. What possible excuse will they invent for having let Bush know that he has a free hand to attack Iran?
I watched all of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” last night, and quite a bit of “Scarborough Country”. Not one word was said about the big story of the day, which I quoted and discussed in my previous post.
Yesterday MSNBC online reported that the Democrats had eliminated from proposed legislation the requirement that Congress approve an attack on Iran before Bush could launch such a war. Politicians said that the reason for the elimination of any restraint on Bush was Israel’s fear of Iran. What could be a bigger story than that? “Democrats Clear Way for Bush Attack on Iran Due to Israeli Concerns”.
Please read the full story I posted yesterday if you haven’t. The big point now is that last night Olbermann/MSNBC TV avoided the most important story altogether and found the US Attorney General scandal so fascinating (even though no laws were broken) that virtually the entire hour-long program was filled with Attorney General Gonzales and the usual “celebrity” sewage.
It seems that every time I stray from my original announced aim in VIEW FROM THE MOON – to provide important facts that are missing from mainstream news coverage in the United States – events bring me back on track. It also seems that those events are almost always related to Israel and its supporters – whether it’s a Zionist Harvard law professor attacking Jimmy Carter for supporting Palestinian rights or the present case, in which the United States Congress, incredibly, has abdicated all responsibility for preventing Bush & Co. from starting a war with Iran.
If you think about it, this is one of the worst things that has happened in a long time. If our politicians are going to throw us to the war dogs for Israel’s sake, isn’t it time to analyze and ask questions?
First, why should “Israel’s fears of Iran” have any impact on the U.S. Congress at all? In case you haven’t looked lately, Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine, Iowa, and Arizona are on the North American continent, not in Palestine.
Second, Israeli concerns about Iran are childish anyway. Even if Iran does try to develop atomic weapons it would take at least ten and probably fifteen years to do so. Besides, Israel already has its own nuclear arsenal, as well as a much more powerful military than Iran, courtesy of the U.S.A. It's as if the United States were quaking and wringing its hands today because Gautemala began a nuclear power program.
Third, why would the Israeli Lobby strive so hard to eliminate the requirement of a congressional green light for a Bush attack on Iran if it weren’t to guarantee that widespread American public opposition to such an attack could find no expression in Washington? Bush can be trusted to start any war that Israel wants, but if congressional approval were required, there would be just a tiny chance that Congress would flash a red light. A tiny chance indeed, considering the Israel Lobby’s power over Congress, but perhaps a chance.
Democrats are still trying to lie their way out of the quicksand of their advance approval of the Iraq war. What possible excuse will they invent for having let Bush know that he has a free hand to attack Iran?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
If There Was Ever Any Doubt. . .
BULLETIN: UNITED STATES NO LONGER MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH
If there was ever any doubt about whether a tiny Jewish colony in Palestine can control the foreign policy of “the most powerful nation on earth”, this story should put the doubt to rest.
Next to getting the U.S. troops out of Iraq, the most important demand on most voters' minds last November was that the Democrats do something to prevent Bush from starting a new war – specifically, against Iran. We now hear that the ever-heroic Democrats are dropping legislation which would require that Bush get approval from Congress before moving against Iran!
What could be worse for the Dems than once more, as they did before the invasion of Iraq, to give an irresponsible megalomaniac carte blanche to invade a Middle Eastern country? This time they can’t hide behind the “we didn’t know any better” lie over which they’re still rending their garments. They don’t even have that feeble an excuse for ignoring their people’s and their country’s interests.
Their reason for abdicating the right of Congress to veto a Bush attack on Iran: “There is widespread fear in Israel about Iran.”
Is that any reason to give a green light to a new war for the United States? Is there “widespread fear in California about Iran”? Is there “widespread fear about Iran in Minnesota or Michigan”? Not likely. What could there be to fear?
We see in this AP article a blood-chilling example of the power of the Israel Lobby over the Congress. Ironically, while the Democrats suffered dissolving spines, Cheney was giving a speech to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, probably the most powerful component of the Israel Lobby.
How much hard-biting analysis of the Israel influence on the junking of the Iran legislation will we hear on MSNBC tonight? I’ll wait to judge the status of Keith Olbermann’s spine until I see what he does with the story on his show.
Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007
‘WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.
‘The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.
‘Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.’
Even from here I can hear the squeak of the twisting of congressional arms by AIPAC.
--------------
And Now,
Good News:
Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.
According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.
If there was ever any doubt about whether a tiny Jewish colony in Palestine can control the foreign policy of “the most powerful nation on earth”, this story should put the doubt to rest.
Next to getting the U.S. troops out of Iraq, the most important demand on most voters' minds last November was that the Democrats do something to prevent Bush from starting a new war – specifically, against Iran. We now hear that the ever-heroic Democrats are dropping legislation which would require that Bush get approval from Congress before moving against Iran!
What could be worse for the Dems than once more, as they did before the invasion of Iraq, to give an irresponsible megalomaniac carte blanche to invade a Middle Eastern country? This time they can’t hide behind the “we didn’t know any better” lie over which they’re still rending their garments. They don’t even have that feeble an excuse for ignoring their people’s and their country’s interests.
Their reason for abdicating the right of Congress to veto a Bush attack on Iran: “There is widespread fear in Israel about Iran.”
Is that any reason to give a green light to a new war for the United States? Is there “widespread fear in California about Iran”? Is there “widespread fear about Iran in Minnesota or Michigan”? Not likely. What could there be to fear?
We see in this AP article a blood-chilling example of the power of the Israel Lobby over the Congress. Ironically, while the Democrats suffered dissolving spines, Cheney was giving a speech to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, probably the most powerful component of the Israel Lobby.
How much hard-biting analysis of the Israel influence on the junking of the Iran legislation will we hear on MSNBC tonight? I’ll wait to judge the status of Keith Olbermann’s spine until I see what he does with the story on his show.
Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007
‘WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.
‘The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.
‘Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.’
Even from here I can hear the squeak of the twisting of congressional arms by AIPAC.
--------------
And Now,
Good News:
Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.
According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Two Questions With No Answers
1. The U.S. in Iraq: What does “win” mean?
Recently a number of American officials and self-styled savants have used the word “win” with reference to the future course of the U.S. war in Iraq. “We either win within six months or we’re facing a Viet Nam collapse.” “If we win in Iraq. . .” “If we don’t win in Iraq. . .” “We must win in Iraq or else. . .”
None of those people bothered to explain what “win” means. To win a war usually means to accept the surrender of the enemy, or it may mean erasing the enemy from existence. Sometimes it might mean simply occupying and holding certain territory.
The Bush gang began the war with the single declared intention of eliminating “weapons of mass destruction”. Well, that was either very easy or impossible, depending on how you look at it, because there were no weapons of mass destruction. So, by one way of reckoning, the U.S. had won the war before it started it.
Then came “regime change”. This idea was related to Paul Wolfowitz’ declaration that the U.S. would “end states” that supported terrorism. Sadaam was such a bad man that he must have supported “terrorism”, and it was a good thing to invade his country even if it did not have weapons of mass destruction. As it predictably turned out, there was no Iraqi support for “terrorism” and never had been. Nevertheless, the U.S. government said that the president of Iraq was really, really bad, and so must be caught and killed . . . which he was.
War won? Apparently not. Now the kaleidoscopic rationales for the war had shifted to the bringing of “freedom” and “democracy” to Iraq. An election was held. A puppet government was sheltered in the fortified Green Zone. War won? Not yet. For some reason a lot of Iraqi people are still killing Americans as well as one another. Does this mean that to “win”, the U.S. must stay until no gunshot is heard anywhere in Iraq, and a democratically elected government is in routine operation without special protection, and the people of Iraq are once more peacefully engaged in the daily pursuit of prosperity and happiness?
I can imagine no possible sequence of events in Iraq which would enable the U.S. to honestly declare a “win”. Anyway, how do you know you’ve won if you don’t know what winning means? If “win” isn’t defined, then you can simply say you’ve won no matter what happens. Another advantage of the confusion is that if you can’t win, you also can’t lose. All of which is of course insane . . . like the whole war from its inception.
2. The Usraeli-manufactured Iran “crisis”: What is the point?
The following excerpts from USAToday, "Iran's Military Poses Little Threat", make a good case that Iran is in actuality a weak military power rather than a strong military power which could be “a threat to the region”. In addition, Iran has shown no expansionist tendencies, and any possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon is more than a decade away.
If the report below is true, then the U.S. and Israel must know it is true, and that Iran is weak militarily (very weak compared to Israel and the U.S.). My question is: That being the case, what is the motivation of Washington and Israel to portray Iran as a strong power and a threat to Israel (which is what “threat to its neighbors” means in Zionese and Washingtonspeak)? If you know that Iran is nothing to fear, then why depict it as something to fear?
I don’t know the answer.
Here’s the gist of the report:
‘ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran's outdated military presents little current threat to its neighbors, despite the fierce rhetoric from its hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, military analysts said Monday at a security conference here in the Persian Gulf.
‘Iran has exaggerated its military capabilities, while U.S. and Israeli leaders have engaged in "provocative rhetoric" that overstates the Iranian threat, said Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. In reality, Iran is more focused on national defense than using military power to boost its influence in the region, he said.
‘Iran represents "a force that has to be taken seriously in the defense of its country, but it has very little capacity to project outside the country,"
‘For Iran to obtain an effective [nuclear] arsenal, a nuclear weapon development program “ would have to be pushed by multiple Iranian regimes for as long as 15 years, he said.”’
Recently a number of American officials and self-styled savants have used the word “win” with reference to the future course of the U.S. war in Iraq. “We either win within six months or we’re facing a Viet Nam collapse.” “If we win in Iraq. . .” “If we don’t win in Iraq. . .” “We must win in Iraq or else. . .”
None of those people bothered to explain what “win” means. To win a war usually means to accept the surrender of the enemy, or it may mean erasing the enemy from existence. Sometimes it might mean simply occupying and holding certain territory.
The Bush gang began the war with the single declared intention of eliminating “weapons of mass destruction”. Well, that was either very easy or impossible, depending on how you look at it, because there were no weapons of mass destruction. So, by one way of reckoning, the U.S. had won the war before it started it.
Then came “regime change”. This idea was related to Paul Wolfowitz’ declaration that the U.S. would “end states” that supported terrorism. Sadaam was such a bad man that he must have supported “terrorism”, and it was a good thing to invade his country even if it did not have weapons of mass destruction. As it predictably turned out, there was no Iraqi support for “terrorism” and never had been. Nevertheless, the U.S. government said that the president of Iraq was really, really bad, and so must be caught and killed . . . which he was.
War won? Apparently not. Now the kaleidoscopic rationales for the war had shifted to the bringing of “freedom” and “democracy” to Iraq. An election was held. A puppet government was sheltered in the fortified Green Zone. War won? Not yet. For some reason a lot of Iraqi people are still killing Americans as well as one another. Does this mean that to “win”, the U.S. must stay until no gunshot is heard anywhere in Iraq, and a democratically elected government is in routine operation without special protection, and the people of Iraq are once more peacefully engaged in the daily pursuit of prosperity and happiness?
I can imagine no possible sequence of events in Iraq which would enable the U.S. to honestly declare a “win”. Anyway, how do you know you’ve won if you don’t know what winning means? If “win” isn’t defined, then you can simply say you’ve won no matter what happens. Another advantage of the confusion is that if you can’t win, you also can’t lose. All of which is of course insane . . . like the whole war from its inception.
2. The Usraeli-manufactured Iran “crisis”: What is the point?
The following excerpts from USAToday, "Iran's Military Poses Little Threat", make a good case that Iran is in actuality a weak military power rather than a strong military power which could be “a threat to the region”. In addition, Iran has shown no expansionist tendencies, and any possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon is more than a decade away.
If the report below is true, then the U.S. and Israel must know it is true, and that Iran is weak militarily (very weak compared to Israel and the U.S.). My question is: That being the case, what is the motivation of Washington and Israel to portray Iran as a strong power and a threat to Israel (which is what “threat to its neighbors” means in Zionese and Washingtonspeak)? If you know that Iran is nothing to fear, then why depict it as something to fear?
I don’t know the answer.
Here’s the gist of the report:
‘ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran's outdated military presents little current threat to its neighbors, despite the fierce rhetoric from its hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, military analysts said Monday at a security conference here in the Persian Gulf.
‘Iran has exaggerated its military capabilities, while U.S. and Israeli leaders have engaged in "provocative rhetoric" that overstates the Iranian threat, said Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. In reality, Iran is more focused on national defense than using military power to boost its influence in the region, he said.
‘Iran represents "a force that has to be taken seriously in the defense of its country, but it has very little capacity to project outside the country,"
‘For Iran to obtain an effective [nuclear] arsenal, a nuclear weapon development program “ would have to be pushed by multiple Iranian regimes for as long as 15 years, he said.”’
Friday, March 2, 2007
Sitting Down to Talk, or Musical Chairs?
Suddenly the U.S. government is willing to sit down and talk with Iran and Syria. Add to that the apparent new willingness to act reasonably toward North Korea (as long as North Korea satisfies U.S. demands, of course), and one has to ask what’s going on.
Has “The Decider” or his snarling Iago VP experienced an epiphany? Has a present-day Saul of Tarsus, traveling on the road to Damascus with the intention of doing as much damage there as possible, been struck by a blinding light and converted to the pursuit of peace?
Or, even more improbably, has Israel undergone some similar miraculous change and been cured of the notion that the Jewish state can’t survive without the destruction of all the other states in the region?
Common sense says the answers to those questions is “No.” Still, why the apparent about-face from saber rattling and almost daily threats by the U.S. and Israel to bomb Iran, to a willingness to sit down and talk?
I recently asked whether the public threats against Iran could be more psychological warfare than expressions of actual intent to attack in the immediate future. We now need to look at the other side of the coin: Does the willingness to have discussions with two neighbors of Iraq whose previous offers of talks and help have been rudely brushed aside mean that there really is a change of U.S./Israeli policy (the two have been inseparable and indistinguishable to date), or is this new conversion on the roads to Damascus and Tehran a mere feint?
One can surmise that a brief show of willingness by the Bush gang to engage in talks with Syria and Iran is empty propaganda designed to place the U.S. on higher moral ground while Israel bombs Iran with U.S. backing. Or it could be a pretense of diplomacy to enable the U.S. to say in the future, after the U.S. itself attacks Iran, “Well, you can’t say we didn’t try talking first.” The latter possibility is supported by the opinion I recently expressed that the Bush “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq may be primarily in preparation for an American attack on Iran.
A new and incredibly better world would dawn if the U.S. broke free and refused any longer to play Zionism’s game of domination and destruction, but it will take more than contradictory public statements by the Bush administration’s seasoned liars to persuade the world that anything has really changed. At the very least, it’s safe for Bush to make a phony show of willingness to talk when so many ways to sabotage the proceedings are readily at hand.
I liken Washington’s “change of heart” to the wolf donning the nightgown of Little Red Riding Hood’s grandmother, but the New York Times called the “U.S. overtures to foes”* “new respect for pragmatism.”
Time will tell whether it’s true pragmatism or a deception. I would say that an article which credits American Secretary of State Rice with personally originating and initiating important foreign policy strategies shows that the NYT is out of touch with reality in all respects. Watching the Bush administration’s performance is like watching a magician’s stage show: If it ever looks real, you need to remind yourself that it’s all illusion.
*Why is the word “foes” applied to countries which have never so much as disturbed a grain of sand on an American beach?
Some views from other countries:
Jordan Times
‘Washington has resisted a regional solution to the debacle the US created in Iraq for far too long, but better now than never.’
Saudi Arabia
‘The US meeting with Syria and Iran may be the lifeboat that gets the US out of Iraq with some success and some moral gains.’
Iran, Voice of the Islamic Republic
‘Without a doubt, the invitation by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Iran and Syria to attend an international conference on Iraqi security could be a starting point for a change of American attitude to Iran and an indication of acceptance by the Bush administration of the reality of the Islamic Republic... Although Iran is quite willing to relieve the pains of the Iraqi Muslims one way or another, and to that end may attend the conference, the real intentions of the American administration remain suspicious.’
Iran, Al-Vefagh
‘Western media highlighted Iranian agreement to attend the conference in an attempt to include it on the list of US achievements. The reality differs from what the Americans would like the world to believe. Iran's participation is not out of the desire to talk to Washington or out of the hope of correcting a disastrous military mentality. Iran, with this decision, has proved its good intentions towards Iraq's interests, freedom and independence and territorial integrity.‘
Friday, February 23, 2007
Iran Update (Expanded on February 25)
This is scary. It seems unbelievable that the United States would try the same moronic tricks that were exposed as fraud in Iraq, but it is clear that once more the Bush administration is supplying false “information” about Iran and ignoring what inspectors on the ground in Iran actually find or don’t find.
Remember how American “intelligence” sent inspectors racing around Iraq on wild goose chases for months? The U.S. said that the inspectors couldn’t find evidence of weapons of mass destruction because the bumbling inspectors weren’t thorough or aggressive enough, and because Iraq was shifting the WMDs around and hiding them in such places as private homes or palace bathrooms. Of course that was all American lies. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and yet Iraq’s fictitious “non-cooperation” with the inspectors became one of the excuses for a war to destroy the nonexistent WMDs.
The fact that we are going through the same farce with Iran is testimony not only to the mendacity of the American government but also its contempt for the brainpower of those to whom it tells its lies.
From the "Los Angeles Times", Feb 25:
'U.N. CALLS U.S. DATA ON IRAN's NUCLEAR AIMS UNRELIABLE
'Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile designs haven't panned out, diplomats say.
'The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002,
Since 2002, "pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."
'American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.'
There is no factual excuse, then, for Vice President Cheney's reiteration in Australia yesterday that "all options are on the table" (i.e., military action is contemplated) if Iran does not end its nuclear program. In any case, as Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, said recently: "The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States." Are the American people so conditioned to think irrationally of their country as the guardian of an oppressive Jewish religious state on the other side of the world that they will once more accept an American attack on an innocent country as a matter of course? Will they even recognize, when American corpses begin to come home, that those Americans died for Israel and not for their own country? Do they recognize it now, as the corpses are shipped home from Iraq?
The following are exerpts from a report in ”The Age” (Australia).
Julian Borger, Vienna
February 24, 2007
"MUCH of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.
"The [claims] are reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war. At the heart of the debate are accusations by the US that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. But most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by atomic energy agency inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
"'Most of it has turned out to be incorrect,' said a diplomat at the agency with detailed knowledge of the investigations. 'They gave us a paper with a list of sites. The inspectors did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of (banned nuclear) activities. Now the inspectors don't go in blindly, only if it passes a credibility test.'
"One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to atomic energy agency officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran. Tehran rejected the material as forged and there remain reservations about its authenticity, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.
"'First of all, if you have a clandestine program, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away,' one official said. 'The data is all in English, which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi.'"
Remember how American “intelligence” sent inspectors racing around Iraq on wild goose chases for months? The U.S. said that the inspectors couldn’t find evidence of weapons of mass destruction because the bumbling inspectors weren’t thorough or aggressive enough, and because Iraq was shifting the WMDs around and hiding them in such places as private homes or palace bathrooms. Of course that was all American lies. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and yet Iraq’s fictitious “non-cooperation” with the inspectors became one of the excuses for a war to destroy the nonexistent WMDs.
The fact that we are going through the same farce with Iran is testimony not only to the mendacity of the American government but also its contempt for the brainpower of those to whom it tells its lies.
From the "Los Angeles Times", Feb 25:
'U.N. CALLS U.S. DATA ON IRAN's NUCLEAR AIMS UNRELIABLE
'Tips about supposed secret weapons sites and documents with missile designs haven't panned out, diplomats say.
'The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002,
Since 2002, "pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong," a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency's intelligence stream as "very cold now" because "so little panned out."
'American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran's nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.'
There is no factual excuse, then, for Vice President Cheney's reiteration in Australia yesterday that "all options are on the table" (i.e., military action is contemplated) if Iran does not end its nuclear program. In any case, as Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden Unit, said recently: "The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States." Are the American people so conditioned to think irrationally of their country as the guardian of an oppressive Jewish religious state on the other side of the world that they will once more accept an American attack on an innocent country as a matter of course? Will they even recognize, when American corpses begin to come home, that those Americans died for Israel and not for their own country? Do they recognize it now, as the corpses are shipped home from Iraq?
The following are exerpts from a report in ”The Age” (Australia).
Julian Borger, Vienna
February 24, 2007
"MUCH of the intelligence on Iran's nuclear facilities provided to UN inspectors by American spy agencies has turned out to be unfounded, according to diplomatic sources in Vienna.
"The [claims] are reminiscent of the intelligence fiasco surrounding the Iraq war. At the heart of the debate are accusations by the US that Iran is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons. But most of the tip-offs about supposed secret weapons sites provided by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have led to dead ends when investigated by atomic energy agency inspectors, according to informed sources in Vienna.
"'Most of it has turned out to be incorrect,' said a diplomat at the agency with detailed knowledge of the investigations. 'They gave us a paper with a list of sites. The inspectors did some follow-up, they went to some military sites, but there was no sign of (banned nuclear) activities. Now the inspectors don't go in blindly, only if it passes a credibility test.'
"One particularly contentious issue concerned records of plans to build a nuclear warhead, which the CIA said it found on a computer supplied by an informant inside Iran. In July 2005, US intelligence officials showed printed versions of the material to atomic energy agency officials, who judged it to be sufficiently specific to confront Iran. Tehran rejected the material as forged and there remain reservations about its authenticity, according to officials with knowledge of the internal debate inside the agency.
"'First of all, if you have a clandestine program, you don't put it on laptops which can walk away,' one official said. 'The data is all in English, which may be reasonable for some of the technical matters, but at some point you'd have thought there would be at least some notes in Farsi.'"
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Iran: Are We on the Edge of the Cliff?
It has occurred to me that there may be a second reason (in addition to political grandstanding) for the Bush “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. What if the U.S. administration anticipates attacking Iran in the near term? Wouldn’t it make sense to bolster U.S. forces in Iraq, whose border with Iran was the site of fierce warfare in the past?
Perhaps the American government anticipates nothing beyond an air attack on Iran, but in war the unexpected always happens. I can picture Iranian ground forces rolling into Iraq if the U.S. attacks Iran. American troops and helicopters already mired down in their struggle against the Iraqi resistance would face all-out war on an eastern front. Let us hope that sanity prevails, and that neither the U.S. nor Israel attacks Iran, but in addition to building up its naval forces in the area, the U.S. government is also building up its troop strength in Iraq.
This post is going to be choppy, but I want to include several recent reports concerning Iran, all relevant but presented without any particular continuity.
The following report may or may not be accurate – or its release may have been psychological warfare -- but the facts have been published in several places.
GlobalResearch.ca :
“American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.
“British military sources told the New Statesman, on condition of anonymity, that "the US military switched its whole focus to Iran" as soon as Saddam Hussein was kicked out of Baghdad. It continued this strategy, even though it had American infantry bogged down in fighting the insurgency in Iraq.
“The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).”
From another report: The BBC said that Bush has ordered plans for air strikes to disable Iran’s entire military structure. Senior officials in Washington have pinpointed targets including missile bases, command and control centres and air defences. Action would also be triggered if Tehran is close to developing nuclear weapons. Four nuclear sites would also be hit. US military strategists claimed the air attacks could be carried out without affecting ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some 30 US warships are already in the Gulf.
A presidential candidate makes the mistake of implying Israel could cause a problem -- from Peter Bart's column on Senator John Edwards' comments in Hollywood:
“The aggressively photogenic Senator John Edwards was cruising along, detailing his litany of liberal causes [to a Hollywood gathering] last week until, during question time, he invoked the "I" word — Israel. Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace, Edwards remarked, was the possibility that Israel would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. As a chill descended on the gathering, the Edwards event was brought to a polite close.”
There went Hollywood, Candidate Edwards.
Meanwhile, a delegation of more savvy American senators arrived in Israel this week. The senators are members of a joint Senate-Knesset committee (can you imagine such a thing in America?) headed by Senator Jon Kyl, who is close to President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. The cozy get-together is described in the “Jerusalem Post” (Feb. 20). Note especially the reference to Iran.
“Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) said Monday as he led a bicameral delegation from the United States to discuss security issues with Knesset members. ‘In all of the years that I have been coming to Israel, one thing stands out to me above all others as crucial to the security of this country - and that is the need to deal with Iran,’ Kyl told The Jerusalem Post. The senator, who has a close relationship with Bush, serves as head of the US-Israel Joint Parliamentary Committee on National Security with MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud)."
Senator Kyl Prays
Though Iran is years away from creating a destructive nuclear device, even assuming it intends to work toward creating one, Israel constantly uses as an excuse for a threatened "preemptive" nuclear strike on Iran a statement attributed to its president that “Israel should be wiped off the map.” Here is some very instructive information from the author of the blog “Not the Country Club” (see my Links), who has published lengthy translations of the Iranian president’s statements:
“One of the weapons that Ahmadinejad's enemies have resorted to has been to mistranslate his statements. Incredible as it may seem, he never said "Israel should be wiped off the map." For one thing, the phrase "wipe off the map" does not exist in Farsi. What he in fact said was this: "The regime that occupies Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." This was a quotation from the Ayatollah Khomeini. As Ahmadinejad himself explained, what he meant was that he hopes some day there will be a new system of government in Israel/Palestine, the same way that a new system replaced the old Soviet government.”
I’m going to conclude with quotations from “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” (Feb. 19). MICHAEL SCHEUER, FORMER HEAD, CIA BIN LADEN UNIT, was speaking of the lack of justification for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and of the pointlessness of antagonizing Iran:
“Well, this administration, sir, seems to be afraid of almost anything that moves. And certainly Iraq was a containable country. The Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States.
“The threat to the United States, inside the United States, comes from al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If you want to address the threat to America, that‘s where it is.”
If every American would heed and remember these words, thousands of Americans and Iranians will be living normal lives in the years to come rather than perishing in another Bush/Israel-built meat grinder:
“Iranians are no threat to the United States unless we provoke them. They may be a threat to the Israelis. They‘re not a threat to the United States.”
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
NOW We Have the Proof!
“Bush Says Iran Is Source of Deadly Bombs”
On February 12, ”Not Paying Attention” I (and a few million other people) expressed doubts about the “evidence” exhibited by anonymous American officials that Iran is supplying the Iraq resistance with weapons.
Must we now reconsider our reaction? The Highest Source has spoken on this very day. I am emphasizing his proofs with capital letters.
NYT
“WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 -- President Bush said today HE IS CERTAIN that elements of the Iranian government are supplying deadly roadside bombs that kill American troops in Iraq, even if the innermost circle of the government is not involved.
“Mr. Bush said IT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BEYOND A DOUBT that a branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps known as the Quds Force is supplying Shiite groups inside Iraq
“WE KNOW THAT,” Mr. Bush said at a White House news conference.
“Mr. Bush rejected the idea that the intelligence about the Quds Forces might be no more reliable than that about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. “I CAN SAY WITH CERTAINTY. . . blah, blah, blah.”
Yes, the Highest Source has spoken, but without an iota of evidence. Unfortunately, he is the Highest Source of Lies, not the highest source of truth. I wish some historian would tell me if Bush is not the most prolific and persistent liar in the history of the American presidency.
His administration is a fountain of lies, and yet his lies are so easily seen through and so easily shown to be false that most eight year olds can get away with their clumsy falsehoods better than Bush can . . . and yet he’s still doing it!
He is one of the great practitioners of the Big Lie, which I discussed on my other blog, FLIGHTS OF PEGASUS, January 12. (Sources are given there.)
The “Big Lie” technique consists in telling a lie so colossal that no one would believe anybody would have the nerve to try to pass off such a monstrous fabrication as the truth. The lie is so big that it must be true. The masses of people more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed and afraid to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even when the facts which prove a Big Lie to be a lie are brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. “For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world.”
Add to the Big Lie analysis what I wrote in “Not Paying Attention”: The main reason that Bush is able to float his lies on the sea of American public opinion is that most Americans don’t pay attention. They parrot the slogans they are told are respectable, and they believe in a few simple “facts” which are usually falsehoods.
So, while those of us who pay attention marvel that a man who has been repeatedly exposed as a liar can have the effrontery to stand up and lie again, and even to expect us to take him at his word as he has done in previous lies, there are plenty of Americans who even now are nodding their heads and parroting what he says.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Not Paying Attention
The main reason that Bush & Co., including supporting operatives like Fox News, are able to float their lies on the sea of American public opinion is that most Americans don’t pay attention.
First, the majority of Americans simply aren’t very interested in what their country does internationally. They have the vaguest idea where countries like Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan are. A woman once said to me with a dismissive gesture, “Africa is down that way somewhere.” These are the people whose interests don't go beyond their own families, romances, jobs, health, homes, clothes, vehicles, television entertainment, and favorite sports teams.
The result: Most Americans are abysmally ignorant about everything which is important to their political leaders, to the powerful lobbyists such those which make up the Israel Lobby, and to the heads of international corporations such as armaments manufacturers and Big Oil.
But wait, it gets worse. Our rulers are happier with an indifferent population than with an informed one, but a population which accepts the beliefs it is told to accept makes the rulers even happier. After all there are elections to consider, and the need for acquiescence to taxation – especially the vast thefts from the workers needed to finance wars – and the hunger for people to join the military. And, ultimately, it is crucial to persuade people that they are better off with what they have than they would be if they rebelled.
In order to create opinions, people are bombarded every day with propaganda posing as “news” and “opinion". It follows, unfortunately, that even the terminally ignorant and uninterested have opinions. They parrot the slogans they are told are respectable, and they believe in a few simple “facts” which are usually falsehoods.
Here's the main point I want to make: If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, very little knowledge is even more dangerous. Because they are not interested and aren't paying enough attention, the mass of people believe that they have been presented with proof of facts when they have been presented with no such thing. Witness the lies which led much of the populace to enthusiastically support an invasion of Iraq. Even though reality has dampened that enthusiasm, I’ve heard that there are still Fox News followers who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Sadaam Hussein was friendly with Al Qaeda, and even that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and was on the fast track to making a nuclear bomb. It is amazing how a Big Lie can outlive all proof to the contrary!
The root of the trouble is that people don’t question and don’t distinguish between proof and mere assertion. Like a microorganism that can distinguish only between light and dark, they cannot sort out the gray areas where the truth lies. They listen to a burst of double-talk and obediently come away with a “fact” and an opinion.
Here is the example which triggered my diatribe. On Sunday, an anonymous group of US officials showed journalists what they said was proof that Iranian agents had smuggled weapons to Iraq, including "explosively formed penetrators". The officials refused to allow reporters to name them or to record their briefing, but instead just released pictures of weapons.
NYT
“BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — Senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war.”
Comment: Persons who pay attention are immediately on guard because they remember the completely fabricated “evidence” that has us mired in Iraq. To the dodos, however, the message is already clear: Iran is supplying America’s enemies in Iraq with lethal weapons! Iran is killing our boys!
“Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper that cut through armor. The canisters, called explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops here.”
Comment: Wow! Canisters! Never before displayed in public! Even though they could have been made in Cincinnati, here they are, on display. That must prove something.
Watch for the weasel words and innuendo, some of which I’ve put in caps:
“Officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the OFFICIALS SAID link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also ASSERTED, WITHOUT PROVIDING DIRECT EVIDENCE, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was AN INFERENCE BASED ON GENERAL intelligence assessments.”
Skepticism came naturally to the New York Times reporter, but by now the dodos have stopped reading.
“That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.”
If the dodos had read this far, they would be attacking the reporter as an unpatriotic swine.
The officials “also LEFT MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED, INCLUDING PROOF THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT WAS DIRECTING THE DELIVERY OF WEAPONS.”
“The officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of American and Iraqi troops.
“The officials also WERE DEFENSIVE ABOUT THE TIMING of disclosing such incriminating evidence, since they had known about it as early as 2004.
“The officials asserted WITHOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that the Iranian security apparatus, called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force controlled delivery of the materials to Iraq. And in A FURTHER INFERENCE, the officials asserted that the Quds Force, sometimes called the I.R.G.C. - Quds, could be involved only with Iranian government complicity.”
So, we have “proof” presented by persons who kept their identities secret who made various “assertions” which were “not based on direct evidence” but instead were based on “inferences ” which were based on “general assessments”. The anonymous “officials” “left many questions unanswered,” including questions about proof “that the Iranian government was directing the delivery of weapons.” They made other assertions “without specific evidence” -- sometimes based on inferences based upon inferences, one of the least trustworthy attempts at “evidence”.
The officials were also “defensive about the timing” of the disclosure of their so-called evidence, which has been around for three years. It appears that the “evidence” was dusted off to support the recent crescendo of anti-Iran war drums heard in Washington and Israel. The display on the tables was flimsy innuendo in the service of propaganda, not evidence that could support action.
So, the dodos now know for a fact that Iran is supplying weapons which are being used to kill our troops.
The final dangerous addition to this mix is patriotism. A former acquaintance of mine thought I was insane for not believing, before the Iraq invasion, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He has admitted I was right but he has not lost his “patriotism”, and he still feeds on the same kind of Bush/neocon lies that poisoned his brain before his country invaded Iraq.
If I asked him today, “If the US were Iran and Canada was Iraq, and the Chinese had invaded Canada, wouldn’t you think the US would be interested in 'interfering' and supplying weapons to the Canadians?”, he would say, “Sure.”
I once asked him these things:
If Israel had been created in California instead of Palestine, based on a 3000 year old book, with the backing of Chinese military force, do you believe that America should fight to take California back? He said, “Of course.”
Would you object if Russia attacked us because we have weapons of mass destruction? He answered, “Of course I'd object!”
If Cuba had nuclear weapons and the US didn't, do you think the US would be justified in creating nuclear weapons? He replied, "Absolutely!"
My punch line is that when I asked him, “How can you apply a different set of standards to what the US does than to what other countries do?” his hesitant but loud reply was,
“Because we’re Americans, dammit!"
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
First, the majority of Americans simply aren’t very interested in what their country does internationally. They have the vaguest idea where countries like Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan are. A woman once said to me with a dismissive gesture, “Africa is down that way somewhere.” These are the people whose interests don't go beyond their own families, romances, jobs, health, homes, clothes, vehicles, television entertainment, and favorite sports teams.
The result: Most Americans are abysmally ignorant about everything which is important to their political leaders, to the powerful lobbyists such those which make up the Israel Lobby, and to the heads of international corporations such as armaments manufacturers and Big Oil.
But wait, it gets worse. Our rulers are happier with an indifferent population than with an informed one, but a population which accepts the beliefs it is told to accept makes the rulers even happier. After all there are elections to consider, and the need for acquiescence to taxation – especially the vast thefts from the workers needed to finance wars – and the hunger for people to join the military. And, ultimately, it is crucial to persuade people that they are better off with what they have than they would be if they rebelled.
In order to create opinions, people are bombarded every day with propaganda posing as “news” and “opinion". It follows, unfortunately, that even the terminally ignorant and uninterested have opinions. They parrot the slogans they are told are respectable, and they believe in a few simple “facts” which are usually falsehoods.
Here's the main point I want to make: If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, very little knowledge is even more dangerous. Because they are not interested and aren't paying enough attention, the mass of people believe that they have been presented with proof of facts when they have been presented with no such thing. Witness the lies which led much of the populace to enthusiastically support an invasion of Iraq. Even though reality has dampened that enthusiasm, I’ve heard that there are still Fox News followers who believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, that Sadaam Hussein was friendly with Al Qaeda, and even that Iraq had “weapons of mass destruction” and was on the fast track to making a nuclear bomb. It is amazing how a Big Lie can outlive all proof to the contrary!
The root of the trouble is that people don’t question and don’t distinguish between proof and mere assertion. Like a microorganism that can distinguish only between light and dark, they cannot sort out the gray areas where the truth lies. They listen to a burst of double-talk and obediently come away with a “fact” and an opinion.
Here is the example which triggered my diatribe. On Sunday, an anonymous group of US officials showed journalists what they said was proof that Iranian agents had smuggled weapons to Iraq, including "explosively formed penetrators". The officials refused to allow reporters to name them or to record their briefing, but instead just released pictures of weapons.
NYT
“BAGHDAD, Feb. 11 — Senior United States military officials on Sunday literally put on the table their first public evidence of the contentious assertion that Iran supplies Shiite extremist groups in Iraq with some of the most lethal weapons in the war.”
Comment: Persons who pay attention are immediately on guard because they remember the completely fabricated “evidence” that has us mired in Iraq. To the dodos, however, the message is already clear: Iran is supplying America’s enemies in Iraq with lethal weapons! Iran is killing our boys!
“Never before displayed in public, the weapons included squat canisters designed to explode and spit out molten balls of copper that cut through armor. The canisters, called explosively formed penetrators or E.F.P.s, are perhaps the most feared weapon faced by American and Iraqi troops here.”
Comment: Wow! Canisters! Never before displayed in public! Even though they could have been made in Cincinnati, here they are, on display. That must prove something.
Watch for the weasel words and innuendo, some of which I’ve put in caps:
“Officials spread out on two small tables an E.F.P. and an array of mortar shells and rocket-propelled grenades with visible serial numbers that the OFFICIALS SAID link the weapons directly to Iranian arms factories. The officials also ASSERTED, WITHOUT PROVIDING DIRECT EVIDENCE, that Iranian leaders had authorized smuggling those weapons into Iraq for use against the Americans. The officials said such an assertion was AN INFERENCE BASED ON GENERAL intelligence assessments.”
Skepticism came naturally to the New York Times reporter, but by now the dodos have stopped reading.
“That inference, and the anonymity of the officials who made it, seemed likely to generate skepticism among those suspicious that the Bush administration is trying to find a scapegoat for its problems in Iraq, and perhaps even trying to lay the groundwork for war with Iran.”
If the dodos had read this far, they would be attacking the reporter as an unpatriotic swine.
The officials “also LEFT MANY QUESTIONS UNANSWERED, INCLUDING PROOF THAT THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT WAS DIRECTING THE DELIVERY OF WEAPONS.”
“The officials were repeatedly pressed on why they insisted on anonymity in such an important matter affecting the security of American and Iraqi troops.
“The officials also WERE DEFENSIVE ABOUT THE TIMING of disclosing such incriminating evidence, since they had known about it as early as 2004.
“The officials asserted WITHOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that the Iranian security apparatus, called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps - Quds Force controlled delivery of the materials to Iraq. And in A FURTHER INFERENCE, the officials asserted that the Quds Force, sometimes called the I.R.G.C. - Quds, could be involved only with Iranian government complicity.”
So, we have “proof” presented by persons who kept their identities secret who made various “assertions” which were “not based on direct evidence” but instead were based on “inferences ” which were based on “general assessments”. The anonymous “officials” “left many questions unanswered,” including questions about proof “that the Iranian government was directing the delivery of weapons.” They made other assertions “without specific evidence” -- sometimes based on inferences based upon inferences, one of the least trustworthy attempts at “evidence”.
The officials were also “defensive about the timing” of the disclosure of their so-called evidence, which has been around for three years. It appears that the “evidence” was dusted off to support the recent crescendo of anti-Iran war drums heard in Washington and Israel. The display on the tables was flimsy innuendo in the service of propaganda, not evidence that could support action.
So, the dodos now know for a fact that Iran is supplying weapons which are being used to kill our troops.
The final dangerous addition to this mix is patriotism. A former acquaintance of mine thought I was insane for not believing, before the Iraq invasion, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He has admitted I was right but he has not lost his “patriotism”, and he still feeds on the same kind of Bush/neocon lies that poisoned his brain before his country invaded Iraq.
If I asked him today, “If the US were Iran and Canada was Iraq, and the Chinese had invaded Canada, wouldn’t you think the US would be interested in 'interfering' and supplying weapons to the Canadians?”, he would say, “Sure.”
I once asked him these things:
If Israel had been created in California instead of Palestine, based on a 3000 year old book, with the backing of Chinese military force, do you believe that America should fight to take California back? He said, “Of course.”
Would you object if Russia attacked us because we have weapons of mass destruction? He answered, “Of course I'd object!”
If Cuba had nuclear weapons and the US didn't, do you think the US would be justified in creating nuclear weapons? He replied, "Absolutely!"
My punch line is that when I asked him, “How can you apply a different set of standards to what the US does than to what other countries do?” his hesitant but loud reply was,
“Because we’re Americans, dammit!"
You can't argue with that kind of logic.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Defending Against a Supertyrant
As I’ve written before, one of the predictable effects of U.S. foreign policy under George II is the drawing together of other nations in defensive alliances against the Americans – and the heightening of military defenses by individual countries. Russian President Vladimir V. Putin spoke on the latter point in Munich yesterday, blaming U.S. policy for inciting other countries to seek nuclear weapons to defend themselves from an "almost uncontained use of military force.”
"Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem; they have become a hotbed of further conflicts," Putin said at a security forum attracting senior officials from around the world. "One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."
“It is the almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations" that is forcing countries opposed to Washington to seek to build up nuclear arsenals. "It is a world of one master, one sovereign. ... It has nothing to do with democracy," he said. "This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons. This is very dangerous; nobody feels secure anymore, because nobody can hide behind international law."
"What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master. It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion. People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."
So true. Putin spoke bluntly, but even diplomatic words can’t disguise the natural law that nations threatened by a strong potential aggressor (“You are either with us or against us, and you’ve seen what we do to countries that are against us”) seek to increase their strength in order to defend themselves.
One way to increase defensive strength in today’s world, as Putin said, is acquire or increase nuclear arsenals. North Korea reacted to fear of a U.S. attack by taking that route, and it may have been effective. Iran is threatened overtly by nuclear-armed Israel as well as by Bush. Iran knows that Israel has never shown the slightest respect for international law and has aggressively bombed not just neighbors like Lebanon but also countries as far away as Iraq. Just as Putin knows that the Bush United States wants to be the uncontested bully of the world, Iran knows that Israel wants to be the uncontested bully of the Middle East. We see the “Putin Principle” in action as Iran builds up its military power and seeks at least civilian uses of atomic energy. Iranian officials are saying on this day that Iran has no aggressive designs against Israel, and that is no doubt true, but Israel does not respond with similar reassurances to Iran.
The Bush/Israeli way is to use deadly force unrestrainedly against any challenger or even potential challenger, without regard to how many people are killed. World politics have sunk to the lowest possible level: The strongest country openly declares that it, and its dwarfish Iago astride Palestine, will dominate all the other countries of the world, attacking them with nuclear weapons if necessary.
Faced with that situation, nations which feel threatened will increase their strength not only by adding muscle to their own military, but also by forming alliances. The main area of alliances which I see in the making is that part of the Earth which includes Russia, China, and Iran. Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the same geographical area, which includes the potential power of the “Heartland” of Geopolitical theory. Those countries don’t have to love one another to draw together for mutual defense. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Another area for natural alliances for defense against U.S. abuse of power is Latin America. The seeds are visibly sprouting now.
This is going to be a long-term process. We shall see.
"Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem; they have become a hotbed of further conflicts," Putin said at a security forum attracting senior officials from around the world. "One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."
“It is the almost uncontained hyper use of force in international relations" that is forcing countries opposed to Washington to seek to build up nuclear arsenals. "It is a world of one master, one sovereign. ... It has nothing to do with democracy," he said. "This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons. This is very dangerous; nobody feels secure anymore, because nobody can hide behind international law."
"What is a unipolar world? No matter how we beautify this term it means one single centre of power, one single centre of force and one single master. It has nothing in common with democracy because that is the opinion of the majority taking into account the minority opinion. People are always teaching us democracy but the people who teach us democracy don't want to learn it themselves."
So true. Putin spoke bluntly, but even diplomatic words can’t disguise the natural law that nations threatened by a strong potential aggressor (“You are either with us or against us, and you’ve seen what we do to countries that are against us”) seek to increase their strength in order to defend themselves.
One way to increase defensive strength in today’s world, as Putin said, is acquire or increase nuclear arsenals. North Korea reacted to fear of a U.S. attack by taking that route, and it may have been effective. Iran is threatened overtly by nuclear-armed Israel as well as by Bush. Iran knows that Israel has never shown the slightest respect for international law and has aggressively bombed not just neighbors like Lebanon but also countries as far away as Iraq. Just as Putin knows that the Bush United States wants to be the uncontested bully of the world, Iran knows that Israel wants to be the uncontested bully of the Middle East. We see the “Putin Principle” in action as Iran builds up its military power and seeks at least civilian uses of atomic energy. Iranian officials are saying on this day that Iran has no aggressive designs against Israel, and that is no doubt true, but Israel does not respond with similar reassurances to Iran.
The Bush/Israeli way is to use deadly force unrestrainedly against any challenger or even potential challenger, without regard to how many people are killed. World politics have sunk to the lowest possible level: The strongest country openly declares that it, and its dwarfish Iago astride Palestine, will dominate all the other countries of the world, attacking them with nuclear weapons if necessary.
Faced with that situation, nations which feel threatened will increase their strength not only by adding muscle to their own military, but also by forming alliances. The main area of alliances which I see in the making is that part of the Earth which includes Russia, China, and Iran. Afghanistan and Pakistan are in the same geographical area, which includes the potential power of the “Heartland” of Geopolitical theory. Those countries don’t have to love one another to draw together for mutual defense. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Another area for natural alliances for defense against U.S. abuse of power is Latin America. The seeds are visibly sprouting now.
This is going to be a long-term process. We shall see.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
What is the Benefit in Creating Yet Another Enemy?
Several news sources attracted my attention this morning because they dealt with the problems the United States is creating with Iran.
The big question I want to raise is what possible benefit can the United States hope to gain for itself by threatening and antagonizing Iran? The Americans have singlehandedly (except for Israel) done everything short of attacking Iran physically -- arbitrarily labeling Iran part of an “Axis of Evil”, pressing for harsh sanctions because of embryonic nuclear power projects, sending extra war vessels to the seas of the area, leaking threats of proposed nuclear attacks on Iran, interfering with Iranian financial transactions, and now kidnapping Iranian “operatives” (apparently diplomats and negotiators invited by the Iraq government)in the supposedly sovereign nation of Iraq.
The first excuse for making Iran into an enemy was its persistence in developing civilian nuclear power, as it has a perfect right to do under all international agreements and customs.
Why is the United States so frightened of Iranian nuclear power when the nations of Europe are not, as shown by the following news item? We don’t have to consult a world map to know that Europe is a lot closer to Iran than North America, and yet:
"NYT, WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran."
RESULT NUMBER ONE of the bellicose policies of the U.S. against Iran is alienation of Europe, to which the Bush maladministration still looks for “allies” in addition to pet poodle Britain.
"The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East," said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. "There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region."
“Vice President Cheney, in a ‘Newsweek’ interview published Sunday, said the deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier task force to the Persian Gulf was intended to signal to the region that the United States is 'working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.'"
What Iranian threat? Threat to what? Iran has never by act or deed declared itself a threat to the United States except in response to U.S. threats. Any threat comes from the United States.
Further question: How does sending warships into peaceful seas signal that the U.S. is working with friends and allies and international organizations? It doesn't take friends, allies, or a U.N. resolution to move aircraft carriers.
“Sen. Carl Levin said that the [new] head of U.S. central command would need to provide ‘straightforward independent advice’ on the most effective course of action for deterring Iran’s attempts to 'acquire nuclear weapons and to dominate its neighbors.' . . . The fact that Admiral Fallon, with his extensive naval aviation experience, was picked [as new head of Central Command] showed the increasing focus of the Bush administration on putting pressure on Iran. . . . Mr. Levin also warned that Syria poses a challenge to security in the region.”
Note: Among the nations mentioned, Israel is the only one in recent history which occupies the territory of other countries, has bombed and invaded a neighboring nation, routinely kills members of a subject population, has a history of territorial expansion, and possesses a nuclear arsenal with which it openly threatens to attack other nations, in particular Iran.
“Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default, first with the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to Iran's east, which ousted the Taliban rulers against whom it almost went to war in the 1990s, and then to its west, with the American ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, against whom it fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.”
RESULT NUMBER TWO: The U.S. itself has increased Iranian influence and continues to do so by continuing its mad policies in Iraq and forcing Iran to assert and defend itself against U.S. and Israeli threats.
Against expert domestic advice, Bush & Co. have refused even diplomatic initiatives toward Iran and Syria, much less practical cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. As I recall, both Syria and Iran have made offers of assistance to damp down the civil war and help strengthen the Iraqi government. Iran has offered financial assistance for reconstruction. Of course Iran and Syria keep their own national interests in mind, as all national leaderships are obligated to do, but so what? The question is whether those states could be helpful to creating stability in Iraq and letting the Americans get out without having to admit that they were defeated. Instead of seeking cooperation and help from countries which share borders with a land at war, the U.S. has rejected, and threatened them. . . for no explicable reason relating to North American interests.
RESULT NUMBER THREE: The U.S. has deliberately cut off its nose to spite its face by refusing diplomatic overtures from Iran and Syria, and offers or attempts to help the U.S.-created Iraqi government. By alienating Iran the U.S. has increased its own difficulties in Iraq and the Middle East generally.
The next layer of problems arise from what Iran would do in response to an actual American or Israeli attack.
From today’s news wires: “Iranian officials -- emboldened but uneasy over nuclear-armed neighbors in Israel and Pakistan and a U.S. military presence in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan -- have warned that they would respond to an American attack on Iran's facilities.”
"’Iran's supporters are widespread -- they're in Iraq, they're in Afghanistan, they're everywhere. And you know, the American soldiers in the Middle East are hostages of Iran, in the situation where a war is imposed on it. They're literally in the hands of the Iranians,’ said Najaf Ali Mirzai, a former Iranian diplomat in Beirut who heads the Civilization Center for Iranian-Arab Studies. ‘The Iranians can target them wherever, and Patriot missiles aren't going to defend them and neither is anything else. Iran would suffer [from a U.S. attack on Iran] but America would suffer more.’"
Among Iranian responses to aggression could be cutting the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes. "There is a policy the Iranians have and they've repeated it often -- the Gulf is either safe for everyone or no one."
If attacked by the U.S. or Israel, Iran would retaliate in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon, and with attacks on U.S. targets in the Gulf. I personally believe that the Iranian army might roll right across Iraq, inflicting great damage on the American forces already overextended there.
Furthermore, Hizbullah, the Lebanese party created long ago for defense against Israeli aggression against Lebanon, might also attack U.S. facilities. “Even now, U.S. intel officials stress that they don't believe Hizbullah will actually hit U.S. interests unless Washington strikes first—against either the movement or its key patron, Tehran.”
RESULT NUMBER FOUR: The U.S. would suffer great damage in many places and in many ways if it attacked Iran.
I cannot think of one reason why making Iran a foe rather than a friend serves the interests of the people of Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and San Francisco, or the American troops in Iraq.
The big question I want to raise is what possible benefit can the United States hope to gain for itself by threatening and antagonizing Iran? The Americans have singlehandedly (except for Israel) done everything short of attacking Iran physically -- arbitrarily labeling Iran part of an “Axis of Evil”, pressing for harsh sanctions because of embryonic nuclear power projects, sending extra war vessels to the seas of the area, leaking threats of proposed nuclear attacks on Iran, interfering with Iranian financial transactions, and now kidnapping Iranian “operatives” (apparently diplomats and negotiators invited by the Iraq government)in the supposedly sovereign nation of Iraq.
The first excuse for making Iran into an enemy was its persistence in developing civilian nuclear power, as it has a perfect right to do under all international agreements and customs.
Why is the United States so frightened of Iranian nuclear power when the nations of Europe are not, as shown by the following news item? We don’t have to consult a world map to know that Europe is a lot closer to Iran than North America, and yet:
"NYT, WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran."
RESULT NUMBER ONE of the bellicose policies of the U.S. against Iran is alienation of Europe, to which the Bush maladministration still looks for “allies” in addition to pet poodle Britain.
"The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East," said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. "There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region."
“Vice President Cheney, in a ‘Newsweek’ interview published Sunday, said the deployment of a second U.S. aircraft carrier task force to the Persian Gulf was intended to signal to the region that the United States is 'working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.'"
What Iranian threat? Threat to what? Iran has never by act or deed declared itself a threat to the United States except in response to U.S. threats. Any threat comes from the United States.
Further question: How does sending warships into peaceful seas signal that the U.S. is working with friends and allies and international organizations? It doesn't take friends, allies, or a U.N. resolution to move aircraft carriers.
“Sen. Carl Levin said that the [new] head of U.S. central command would need to provide ‘straightforward independent advice’ on the most effective course of action for deterring Iran’s attempts to 'acquire nuclear weapons and to dominate its neighbors.' . . . The fact that Admiral Fallon, with his extensive naval aviation experience, was picked [as new head of Central Command] showed the increasing focus of the Bush administration on putting pressure on Iran. . . . Mr. Levin also warned that Syria poses a challenge to security in the region.”
Note: Among the nations mentioned, Israel is the only one in recent history which occupies the territory of other countries, has bombed and invaded a neighboring nation, routinely kills members of a subject population, has a history of territorial expansion, and possesses a nuclear arsenal with which it openly threatens to attack other nations, in particular Iran.
“Iran has found itself strengthened almost by default, first with the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan to Iran's east, which ousted the Taliban rulers against whom it almost went to war in the 1990s, and then to its west, with the American ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, against whom it fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.”
RESULT NUMBER TWO: The U.S. itself has increased Iranian influence and continues to do so by continuing its mad policies in Iraq and forcing Iran to assert and defend itself against U.S. and Israeli threats.
Against expert domestic advice, Bush & Co. have refused even diplomatic initiatives toward Iran and Syria, much less practical cooperation in stabilizing Iraq. As I recall, both Syria and Iran have made offers of assistance to damp down the civil war and help strengthen the Iraqi government. Iran has offered financial assistance for reconstruction. Of course Iran and Syria keep their own national interests in mind, as all national leaderships are obligated to do, but so what? The question is whether those states could be helpful to creating stability in Iraq and letting the Americans get out without having to admit that they were defeated. Instead of seeking cooperation and help from countries which share borders with a land at war, the U.S. has rejected, and threatened them. . . for no explicable reason relating to North American interests.
RESULT NUMBER THREE: The U.S. has deliberately cut off its nose to spite its face by refusing diplomatic overtures from Iran and Syria, and offers or attempts to help the U.S.-created Iraqi government. By alienating Iran the U.S. has increased its own difficulties in Iraq and the Middle East generally.
The next layer of problems arise from what Iran would do in response to an actual American or Israeli attack.
From today’s news wires: “Iranian officials -- emboldened but uneasy over nuclear-armed neighbors in Israel and Pakistan and a U.S. military presence in the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan -- have warned that they would respond to an American attack on Iran's facilities.”
"’Iran's supporters are widespread -- they're in Iraq, they're in Afghanistan, they're everywhere. And you know, the American soldiers in the Middle East are hostages of Iran, in the situation where a war is imposed on it. They're literally in the hands of the Iranians,’ said Najaf Ali Mirzai, a former Iranian diplomat in Beirut who heads the Civilization Center for Iranian-Arab Studies. ‘The Iranians can target them wherever, and Patriot missiles aren't going to defend them and neither is anything else. Iran would suffer [from a U.S. attack on Iran] but America would suffer more.’"
Among Iranian responses to aggression could be cutting the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which 20 percent of the world's oil passes. "There is a policy the Iranians have and they've repeated it often -- the Gulf is either safe for everyone or no one."
If attacked by the U.S. or Israel, Iran would retaliate in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon, and with attacks on U.S. targets in the Gulf. I personally believe that the Iranian army might roll right across Iraq, inflicting great damage on the American forces already overextended there.
Furthermore, Hizbullah, the Lebanese party created long ago for defense against Israeli aggression against Lebanon, might also attack U.S. facilities. “Even now, U.S. intel officials stress that they don't believe Hizbullah will actually hit U.S. interests unless Washington strikes first—against either the movement or its key patron, Tehran.”
RESULT NUMBER FOUR: The U.S. would suffer great damage in many places and in many ways if it attacked Iran.
I cannot think of one reason why making Iran a foe rather than a friend serves the interests of the people of Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, and San Francisco, or the American troops in Iraq.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Short Items
As I prepare a continuation of my explanation of VIEW FROM THE MOON’s emphasis on the role of Israel in American affairs, I’m posting these short items.
----
Missing Again
Although Israel is at the heart of the bloodshed and chaos in the Arab world, the Bush State of the Union speech mentioned Israel only once in an eight page text: “With the other members of the Quartet — the U.N., the European Union, and Russia — we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.”
Right. He’s been insincerely mouthing words like that ever since he got elected.
Bush also mentioned nuclear-armed Israel’s next target of aggression, Iran, but he expressed no concern for Iran’s peace and security, saying only that “the U.N.” would not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Senator Jim Webb’s rebuttal never mentioned Israel at all, although he spoke of matters which made it very difficult to avoid references to the Jewish state.
----
From an MSNBC article about sale of Pentagon surplus items:
“Federal investigators are increasingly anxious that Iran is within easy reach of a top priority on its shopping list: parts for the precious fleet of F-14 'Tomcat' fighter jets the United States let Iran buy in the 1970s when it was an ally.”
Who are these anxious Federal investigators, and why are they particularly anxious about Iran getting parts for thirty-seven-year-old airplanes? Can Tomcats fly from Tehran to Manhattan?
Why is Iran not an American ally as it was under the Shah’s cruel dictatorship -- especially since Islamic Iran was the arch-enemy of our arch-enemy, Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Certainly not because Iran had any role in 9/11. Most of the actors in the attack on the towers were Saudis, from a “moderate” and definitely not democratic monarchy which we still call our friend because of its tolerant policy toward Israel.
These kinds of questions, never raised by the “mainstream media”, must be asked again and again and again until at least a few Americans get the idea and begin to speak out.
----
Missing Again
Although Israel is at the heart of the bloodshed and chaos in the Arab world, the Bush State of the Union speech mentioned Israel only once in an eight page text: “With the other members of the Quartet — the U.N., the European Union, and Russia — we are pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security.”
Right. He’s been insincerely mouthing words like that ever since he got elected.
Bush also mentioned nuclear-armed Israel’s next target of aggression, Iran, but he expressed no concern for Iran’s peace and security, saying only that “the U.N.” would not permit Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.
Senator Jim Webb’s rebuttal never mentioned Israel at all, although he spoke of matters which made it very difficult to avoid references to the Jewish state.
----
From an MSNBC article about sale of Pentagon surplus items:
“Federal investigators are increasingly anxious that Iran is within easy reach of a top priority on its shopping list: parts for the precious fleet of F-14 'Tomcat' fighter jets the United States let Iran buy in the 1970s when it was an ally.”
Who are these anxious Federal investigators, and why are they particularly anxious about Iran getting parts for thirty-seven-year-old airplanes? Can Tomcats fly from Tehran to Manhattan?
Why is Iran not an American ally as it was under the Shah’s cruel dictatorship -- especially since Islamic Iran was the arch-enemy of our arch-enemy, Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Certainly not because Iran had any role in 9/11. Most of the actors in the attack on the towers were Saudis, from a “moderate” and definitely not democratic monarchy which we still call our friend because of its tolerant policy toward Israel.
These kinds of questions, never raised by the “mainstream media”, must be asked again and again and again until at least a few Americans get the idea and begin to speak out.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Short Items
While I prepare my first post in response to the reasonable recent question, “Am I putting too much emphasis on Zionist influence and not enough on other causes of American policies toward other nations?”, I’m going to post these bits and pieces.
----
Hard to Find News
I found it difficult to find conspicuous coverage of what was probably the most important (to Americans) news of yesterday – the deaths of some 20 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. It was even more difficult to dig up news about the cause of the helicopter crash in which 15 died – a cause which U.S. authorities said was “under investigation”. But “The Boston Globe”
(which I’ve noticed is surfacing with some of the best coverage of news) stated:
“An Iraqi witness who spoke on condition of anonymity said the helicopter was felled by ground fire.
"’I'm not sure if it was a rocket or other projectile,’ said the man, a farmer. ‘After the helicopter was fired upon, it was obvious that it was losing control. Then it crashed with an explosion and the smoke started.’ The farmer said he and others dared not approach the wreckage to look for survivors, fearing that US forces arriving on the scene might fire at them.”
----
Slanted Words
AP Jan. 18
“SEOUL (AP) — A high-level Iranian delegation arrived in North Korea on Thursday, the North's media reported, as the two hard-line regimes face international pressure to give up their nuclear weapons programs.”
How does a government qualify as a “hard-line” regime”?
I would think that the G.W. Bush government would win top honors in the category, “Hard-Line Regime”.
----
From ”USAToday”, January 18:
“Opening of Vast Holocaust Archive Could Take Years”
Falsification in the headline: It is not a “holocaust” archive. It is the archive of the International Tracing Service (ITS) an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in the German town of Bad Arolsen. Its frequent false publicity as a “Holocaust archive” will backfire when its contents are revealed – presuming (dream on) that the whole truth will be told.
----
Hypocrisy Writ Large
From the New York Times:
“Rice Speaks Softly in Egypt, Avoiding Democracy Push"
“CAIRO, Jan. 15 — In the days before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with officials in Egypt, the news media here were filled with stories detailing charges of corruption, cronyism, torture and political repression.
“Ms. Rice, who once lectured Egyptians on the need to respect the rule of law, did not address those domestic concerns. Instead, with Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit by her side, she talked about her appreciation for Egypt’s support in the region.
“It was clear that the United States — facing chaos in Iraq, rising Iranian influence and the destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian conflict — had decided that stability, not democracy, was its priority, Egyptian political commentators, political aides and human rights advocates said.”
”Egypt’s government has piled up a long list of repressive actions, including ordering the police to block people from voting in parliamentary elections; delaying local elections by two years; imprisoning an opposition leader, Ayman Nour, on charges widely seen as politically motivated; battling with judges who have demanded oversight of elections; and imprisoning Talaat el-Sadat, a member of Parliament and the nephew of President Anwar el-Sadat, for a year in a military jail after he criticized the armed forces on television.”
All right, students. Can anyone tell the class why the Bush maladministration, in spite of its loudly trumpeted quest for “democracy” in the Middle East, cozies up to Egypt as “our friend” and a “moderate” Arab nation?
----
Hard to Find News
I found it difficult to find conspicuous coverage of what was probably the most important (to Americans) news of yesterday – the deaths of some 20 U.S. military personnel in Iraq. It was even more difficult to dig up news about the cause of the helicopter crash in which 15 died – a cause which U.S. authorities said was “under investigation”. But “The Boston Globe”
(which I’ve noticed is surfacing with some of the best coverage of news) stated:
“An Iraqi witness who spoke on condition of anonymity said the helicopter was felled by ground fire.
"’I'm not sure if it was a rocket or other projectile,’ said the man, a farmer. ‘After the helicopter was fired upon, it was obvious that it was losing control. Then it crashed with an explosion and the smoke started.’ The farmer said he and others dared not approach the wreckage to look for survivors, fearing that US forces arriving on the scene might fire at them.”
----
Slanted Words
AP Jan. 18
“SEOUL (AP) — A high-level Iranian delegation arrived in North Korea on Thursday, the North's media reported, as the two hard-line regimes face international pressure to give up their nuclear weapons programs.”
How does a government qualify as a “hard-line” regime”?
I would think that the G.W. Bush government would win top honors in the category, “Hard-Line Regime”.
----
From ”USAToday”, January 18:
“Opening of Vast Holocaust Archive Could Take Years”
Falsification in the headline: It is not a “holocaust” archive. It is the archive of the International Tracing Service (ITS) an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in the German town of Bad Arolsen. Its frequent false publicity as a “Holocaust archive” will backfire when its contents are revealed – presuming (dream on) that the whole truth will be told.
----
Hypocrisy Writ Large
From the New York Times:
“Rice Speaks Softly in Egypt, Avoiding Democracy Push"
“CAIRO, Jan. 15 — In the days before Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with officials in Egypt, the news media here were filled with stories detailing charges of corruption, cronyism, torture and political repression.
“Ms. Rice, who once lectured Egyptians on the need to respect the rule of law, did not address those domestic concerns. Instead, with Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit by her side, she talked about her appreciation for Egypt’s support in the region.
“It was clear that the United States — facing chaos in Iraq, rising Iranian influence and the destabilizing Israeli-Palestinian conflict — had decided that stability, not democracy, was its priority, Egyptian political commentators, political aides and human rights advocates said.”
”Egypt’s government has piled up a long list of repressive actions, including ordering the police to block people from voting in parliamentary elections; delaying local elections by two years; imprisoning an opposition leader, Ayman Nour, on charges widely seen as politically motivated; battling with judges who have demanded oversight of elections; and imprisoning Talaat el-Sadat, a member of Parliament and the nephew of President Anwar el-Sadat, for a year in a military jail after he criticized the armed forces on television.”
All right, students. Can anyone tell the class why the Bush maladministration, in spite of its loudly trumpeted quest for “democracy” in the Middle East, cozies up to Egypt as “our friend” and a “moderate” Arab nation?
Friday, January 12, 2007
The "Surge" Speech
I have a couple of comments which I have not heard among the thousands of public comments on the G.W. Bush Iraq “surge” speech.
The primary purpose of the speech, it seemed to me, was to shift blame to the Iraqis for the forthcoming retreat of the Americans. The idea is that the Iraqi “government” (placed in quotation marks both for being a U.S. puppet government and for its inability to function as a government) is being given a generous last chance by the U.S. president to bring order to Iraq, after which the Iraqis will be blamed for all future failures. The game plan is that (1) Bush will make a show of inserting more American bodies into Iraq, (2) the Iraqi government will be unable to supply the support which Bush demands of it, (3) the disaster which has resulted from the Bush invasion will continue to be a disaster and probably get worse, and (4) Bush will throw up his hands and say: “I give up. We’re leaving. We’ve gone overboard to help you and YOU have failed.”
The Bush adventure in Iraq is akin to a burglar breaking into a family’s home, smashing dishes and furniture while holding the family in the building, and then saying, “Look at this mess! I’m giving you a broom to clean it up with, and if you don’t have it done by morning, you’re on your own!”
President Bush, as has often been said to you, “You break it, you own it.”
MISSING FROM THE “SURGE” SPEECH AND COVERAGE OF IT
Once more I was astonished that it was possible for Bush to talk about the Middle East for 20 minutes or so, including his threats against Iran and Syria, and for 500 journalists to babble about it for hours, without anyone mentioning Israel a single time as far as I heard. The talking heads managed the incredible feat of ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room. . . the elephant which was responsible for, and was the reason for, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place.
One would have thought it was impossible for the TV talkers to exclaim and shake heads over Bush’s mention of Iran without once mentioning Israel, the one entity which wants Iran rendered powerless – just as Israel wanted Iraq rendered powerless and got the U.S. to do the job.
It is Israel and Israel alone which put it into Bush’s brain to consider Iran an enemy of the United States. The Bush ideas that Iran is “interfering” in Iraq, and that the Iranian nuclear power program is a danger to the U.S., are as related to real U.S. national interests as petunias in Peking. So indifferent, in fact, is Iran to the United States that Bush is finding it necessary to unlawfully kidnap of Iranian diplomats in order to stir up trouble.
I’m happy that I recently published the Israeli-leaked news of a planned attack on Iran on January 7. While Israel postures and floats anti-Iran propaganda, its real aim is that we – the Americans, not the Israelis – cause and suffer the damage in Iran, as in Iraq.
Of course the Israel Lobby, the neocons, the Zionists, and Israel managed to pull a disappearing act (“What? Us?”) once the damage was done in Iraq. Bush can only wish that his planned disappearing act from Iraq, while blaming the Iraqis, will be half as effective.
The primary purpose of the speech, it seemed to me, was to shift blame to the Iraqis for the forthcoming retreat of the Americans. The idea is that the Iraqi “government” (placed in quotation marks both for being a U.S. puppet government and for its inability to function as a government) is being given a generous last chance by the U.S. president to bring order to Iraq, after which the Iraqis will be blamed for all future failures. The game plan is that (1) Bush will make a show of inserting more American bodies into Iraq, (2) the Iraqi government will be unable to supply the support which Bush demands of it, (3) the disaster which has resulted from the Bush invasion will continue to be a disaster and probably get worse, and (4) Bush will throw up his hands and say: “I give up. We’re leaving. We’ve gone overboard to help you and YOU have failed.”
The Bush adventure in Iraq is akin to a burglar breaking into a family’s home, smashing dishes and furniture while holding the family in the building, and then saying, “Look at this mess! I’m giving you a broom to clean it up with, and if you don’t have it done by morning, you’re on your own!”
President Bush, as has often been said to you, “You break it, you own it.”
MISSING FROM THE “SURGE” SPEECH AND COVERAGE OF IT
Once more I was astonished that it was possible for Bush to talk about the Middle East for 20 minutes or so, including his threats against Iran and Syria, and for 500 journalists to babble about it for hours, without anyone mentioning Israel a single time as far as I heard. The talking heads managed the incredible feat of ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room. . . the elephant which was responsible for, and was the reason for, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the first place.
One would have thought it was impossible for the TV talkers to exclaim and shake heads over Bush’s mention of Iran without once mentioning Israel, the one entity which wants Iran rendered powerless – just as Israel wanted Iraq rendered powerless and got the U.S. to do the job.
It is Israel and Israel alone which put it into Bush’s brain to consider Iran an enemy of the United States. The Bush ideas that Iran is “interfering” in Iraq, and that the Iranian nuclear power program is a danger to the U.S., are as related to real U.S. national interests as petunias in Peking. So indifferent, in fact, is Iran to the United States that Bush is finding it necessary to unlawfully kidnap of Iranian diplomats in order to stir up trouble.
I’m happy that I recently published the Israeli-leaked news of a planned attack on Iran on January 7. While Israel postures and floats anti-Iran propaganda, its real aim is that we – the Americans, not the Israelis – cause and suffer the damage in Iran, as in Iraq.
Of course the Israel Lobby, the neocons, the Zionists, and Israel managed to pull a disappearing act (“What? Us?”) once the damage was done in Iraq. Bush can only wish that his planned disappearing act from Iraq, while blaming the Iraqis, will be half as effective.
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Infamy in the Making, and Advice from Another President
Nothing I could write today would have the impact which this story should have on all who have any interest in the survival the United States. Unfortunately it is not a new story, but just a more detailed confirmation of earlier predictions.
I will repeat once more that we must cut ourselves free of Israel and its war aims.
"Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
"ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
"The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
"Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“'As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,' said one of the sources.
"The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
"Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
"Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world."
(Who is going to bomb Israel's nuclear facilities? All Iran has is an embryonic nuclear power generation program. Israel could destroy the entire Middle East.)
Now, listen to this timely advice, from George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796, which appears to have been completely forgotten. (As you read the following, which I beg you to do even though it looks like a school assignment, try substituting “Israel” for “favorite”.)
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. . . . It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and . . . great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury . . . and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity. . .
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
I will repeat once more that we must cut ourselves free of Israel and its war aims.
"Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
"ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
"The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
"Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“'As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,' said one of the sources.
"The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
"Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
"Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
"Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world."
(Who is going to bomb Israel's nuclear facilities? All Iran has is an embryonic nuclear power generation program. Israel could destroy the entire Middle East.)
Now, listen to this timely advice, from George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796, which appears to have been completely forgotten. (As you read the following, which I beg you to do even though it looks like a school assignment, try substituting “Israel” for “favorite”.)
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. . . . It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and . . . great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury . . . and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity. . .
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence . . . the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)