October 31, 2007 | Attacking Iran for Israel? | by Ray McGovern
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ... claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch.
...
... Sadly, Rice's credibility suffers in comparison with that of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, who insists there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran.
If this sounds familiar, ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, "I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong."
Cat Out of the Bag
The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. ...
...
Truth be told, every other year since 1995 U.S. intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years.
It has become downright embarrassing – like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called "neoconservatives" like James Woolsey, who last summer publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.
Woolsey, self-described "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs," put it this way: "I'm afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months – at best, a few years – they [the Iranians] could have the bomb."
The day before Meridor's unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."
That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush's apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.
The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud before they leave office.
...
During a Jan. 20, 2005, interview ... Cheney then added with remarkable nonchalance:
"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards."
...
Ten years after the Osirak attack, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli air force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981."
...
It is no secret that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began to press for an early preemptive strike on Iran in 2003, claiming that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than what U.S. intelligence estimated.
...
Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001.
After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit.
At that point he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians.
...
CentCom commander Adm. William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, "We are not going to do Iran on my watch." And in an online Q&A, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently spoke of a possible "revolt" if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:
"This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. [George] Casey, the Army chief, has said … that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the 'war' or 'bombing' part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?"
...
If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.
...
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
US Resisting Ban on Cluster Bombs: “These weapons are monstrous," ... lie undetected for years then explode ... Israel dropped 4M in Lebanon
Tuesday, October 30, 2007 by Inter Press Service | US Resisting Ban on Cluster Bombs | by David Cronin
BRUSSELS - The U.S. is leading efforts to resist a complete ban on cluster bombs, human rights activists have complained.
...
Representatives of the U.S., the world’s number one user of cluster munitions, have been holding bilateral discussions with some European governments recently in a bid to water down any potential accord. The Bush administration has observer status at the Brussels conference, though it is a Europe-led initiative.
...
“These weapons are monstrous, and they cannot be controlled,” he said. “A total ban is the only way to go. No exceptions, no excuses.”
Cluster bombs were the focus of international attention again during the war in Lebanon last year. In the last 72 hours of that conflict, the Israeli defence forces used about four million cluster sub-munitions.
The weapon has a long history.
Cluster bombs were first used by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In the intervening six decades, they have been found in at least 25 countries.
Over these years, some 5,500 people are officially known to have been killed, and 7,300 maimed by these bombs. But the real death toll is believed to be considerably higher. Virtually all of the confirmed victims were civilians.
Because cluster bombs can lie undetected long after they have been discharged, they are known to continue killing even when a war is over.
In Iraq, a minimum of 50 million sub-munitions have been used in U.S.-led operations between 1991 and 2006. About 3,000 casualties have been identified because of these weapons. ...
The bombs which Israel dropped on Lebanon last year were made in the 1970s, and their failure rate was “predictably high”, Hiznay said.
In the month after the Aug. 14 2006 ceasefire in Lebanon, cluster bombs caused an average of three casualties each day. Two casualties were caused each day on average for the remainder of the year. Many of the victims were simply walking through their village.
BRUSSELS - The U.S. is leading efforts to resist a complete ban on cluster bombs, human rights activists have complained.
...
Representatives of the U.S., the world’s number one user of cluster munitions, have been holding bilateral discussions with some European governments recently in a bid to water down any potential accord. The Bush administration has observer status at the Brussels conference, though it is a Europe-led initiative.
...
“These weapons are monstrous, and they cannot be controlled,” he said. “A total ban is the only way to go. No exceptions, no excuses.”
Cluster bombs were the focus of international attention again during the war in Lebanon last year. In the last 72 hours of that conflict, the Israeli defence forces used about four million cluster sub-munitions.
The weapon has a long history.
Cluster bombs were first used by the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany during the Second World War. In the intervening six decades, they have been found in at least 25 countries.
Over these years, some 5,500 people are officially known to have been killed, and 7,300 maimed by these bombs. But the real death toll is believed to be considerably higher. Virtually all of the confirmed victims were civilians.
Because cluster bombs can lie undetected long after they have been discharged, they are known to continue killing even when a war is over.
In Iraq, a minimum of 50 million sub-munitions have been used in U.S.-led operations between 1991 and 2006. About 3,000 casualties have been identified because of these weapons. ...
The bombs which Israel dropped on Lebanon last year were made in the 1970s, and their failure rate was “predictably high”, Hiznay said.
In the month after the Aug. 14 2006 ceasefire in Lebanon, cluster bombs caused an average of three casualties each day. Two casualties were caused each day on average for the remainder of the year. Many of the victims were simply walking through their village.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Fearing Fear Itself | By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: October 29, 2007
...
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
...
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.
...
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
...
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.
Monday, October 29, 2007
The [New Establishment] list of the Vanity Fair 100 includes, get ready, 51, yes 51 Jews. ... [ given population] there should be two or three Jews .
Feel the power | By Joseph Aaron | http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
...
It's not that often that you find the entire state of Jewish life today encapsulated in one place. So when you do, it's worth taking note of and learning from.
The place of which I speak is the October issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Vanity Fair is one of the most fascinating magazines around, one that every issue features an amazingly eclectic collection of articles, from the very serious to the completely frivolous.
...
And yet, in this one issue, it tells us more about the Jewish world as it is today than any lecture or book or class out there.
It does that in two ways.
The first is its annual list of what it calls The New Establishment, the 100 most powerful, most influential people in American society.
What is absolutely amazing, stunning about the list is how many Jews there are on it. Jews make up about 2.5 percent of the U.S. population so there should be two or three Jews on the list.
Guess again, bubeleh.
The list of the Vanity Fair 100 includes, get ready, 51, yes 51 Jews.
Minimum.
I say 51 because that's how many I'm sure are Jewish. There may be others on the list who are Jewish but who I don't know are Jewish and whose names are not obviously Jewish.
...
We are powerful, very powerful. We play a major, pivotal role in the life of this country. And yet we are always acting like scared little mice on the verge of annihilation.
...
...
It's not that often that you find the entire state of Jewish life today encapsulated in one place. So when you do, it's worth taking note of and learning from.
The place of which I speak is the October issue of Vanity Fair magazine. Vanity Fair is one of the most fascinating magazines around, one that every issue features an amazingly eclectic collection of articles, from the very serious to the completely frivolous.
...
And yet, in this one issue, it tells us more about the Jewish world as it is today than any lecture or book or class out there.
It does that in two ways.
The first is its annual list of what it calls The New Establishment, the 100 most powerful, most influential people in American society.
What is absolutely amazing, stunning about the list is how many Jews there are on it. Jews make up about 2.5 percent of the U.S. population so there should be two or three Jews on the list.
Guess again, bubeleh.
The list of the Vanity Fair 100 includes, get ready, 51, yes 51 Jews.
Minimum.
I say 51 because that's how many I'm sure are Jewish. There may be others on the list who are Jewish but who I don't know are Jewish and whose names are not obviously Jewish.
...
We are powerful, very powerful. We play a major, pivotal role in the life of this country. And yet we are always acting like scared little mice on the verge of annihilation.
...
Forty percent of American voters believe the Israel Lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran
Poll: Forty percent of American voters believe the Israel Lobby has been a key factor in going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran
Method: Conducted by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from 10/10/06 through 10/12/06.
Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?
...
A new poll commissioned by the Council for the National Interest Foundation shows that a significant number of Americans are wary of the power of the Israel lobby, and believe it is behind the invasion of Iraq and the current belligerent tone of the White House and Congress toward Iran.
The poll, which was carried out by Zogby International, reveals that 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." However, a similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public, or more than one in five, were not sure. ...
...
The poll's details show that 46% of Democrats tended to believe that the lobby was influential in the decision to go to war in Iraq while 45% of Republicans tended to believe it was not.
Along religious lines, while Protestants tended to be evenly divided on the role of the Israel Lobby in the Iraq invasion, 49% of Catholics tended to see the lobby's hand in the invasion, while 77% of Jewish Americans overwhelming disagreed with the premise. Among ethnic groups, Hispanics (53%) believed that the lobby's role was influential. ...
Method: Conducted by Zogby International of 1,036 likely voters from 10/10/06 through 10/12/06.
Question: Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran?
...
A new poll commissioned by the Council for the National Interest Foundation shows that a significant number of Americans are wary of the power of the Israel lobby, and believe it is behind the invasion of Iraq and the current belligerent tone of the White House and Congress toward Iran.
The poll, which was carried out by Zogby International, reveals that 39% of the American public "agree" or "somewhat agree" that "the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran." However, a similar number, 40%, "strongly disagreed" or "somewhat disagreed" with this position. Some 20% of the public, or more than one in five, were not sure. ...
...
The poll's details show that 46% of Democrats tended to believe that the lobby was influential in the decision to go to war in Iraq while 45% of Republicans tended to believe it was not.
Along religious lines, while Protestants tended to be evenly divided on the role of the Israel Lobby in the Iraq invasion, 49% of Catholics tended to see the lobby's hand in the invasion, while 77% of Jewish Americans overwhelming disagreed with the premise. Among ethnic groups, Hispanics (53%) believed that the lobby's role was influential. ...
When US accused the Iranian Quds Force or producing EFPs,... it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years
Oct 27, 2007 | Explosive charge blows up in US's face | By Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON - When the United States military command accused the Iranian Quds Force in January of providing the armor-piercing EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) that were killing US troops, it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years, a review of the historical record of evidence on EFPs in Iraq shows.
The record also shows that the US command had considerable evidence that the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had received the technology and the training on how to use it from Hezbollah, rather than Iran.
The command, operating under close White House supervision, chose to deny these facts in making the dramatic accusation that became the main rationale for the present aggressive US stance toward Iran. Although the George W Bush administration initially limited the accusation to the Quds Force, it has recently begun to assert that top officials of the Iranian regime are responsible for arms that are killing US troops. ...
WASHINGTON - When the United States military command accused the Iranian Quds Force in January of providing the armor-piercing EFPs (explosively formed penetrators) that were killing US troops, it knew that Iraqi machine shops had been producing their own EFPs for years, a review of the historical record of evidence on EFPs in Iraq shows.
The record also shows that the US command had considerable evidence that the Mahdi Army of Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had received the technology and the training on how to use it from Hezbollah, rather than Iran.
The command, operating under close White House supervision, chose to deny these facts in making the dramatic accusation that became the main rationale for the present aggressive US stance toward Iran. Although the George W Bush administration initially limited the accusation to the Quds Force, it has recently begun to assert that top officials of the Iranian regime are responsible for arms that are killing US troops. ...
Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel
Livni behind closed doors: Iranian nuclear arms pose little threat to Israel | By Gidi Weitz and Na'ama Lanski | 10/25/07 "h a a r e t z" -- --
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published tomorrow.
Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran. ...
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published tomorrow.
Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran. ...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Cheney strategists: Washington convinces Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. ... Tehran retaliates .. US attacks
October 25, 2007 | US WAR ON IRAN | 'Closer to Reality' | By Gregor Peter Schmitz and Cordula Meyer in Washington
Washington society has been chattering about the risk of war with Tehran. It's an open secret that Vice President Dick Cheney has made bombing plans, but even high-ranking military experts think an attack would lead to world economic chaos, or even what George W. Bush calls 'World War III.'
...
US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.
In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.
This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.
Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really? ...
Washington society has been chattering about the risk of war with Tehran. It's an open secret that Vice President Dick Cheney has made bombing plans, but even high-ranking military experts think an attack would lead to world economic chaos, or even what George W. Bush calls 'World War III.'
...
US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.
In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.
This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.
Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really? ...
UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei: no evidence of Iran nuclear weapons: US adding "fuel to the fire"
UN nuclear chief attacks hostile US claims on Iran | Sunday October 28, 2007
UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.
"We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program," the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.
"Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons ... they are at least (a) few years away from having such weapon," he said, citing Washington's own intelligence assessments.
"My fear (is) that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. The Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire." ...
UN atomic watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday he had no evidence that Iran is building nuclear weapons and accused US leaders of adding "fuel to the fire" with recent bellicose rhetoric.
"We haven't received any information there is a parallel, ongoing, active nuclear weapon program," the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency told CNN.
"Second, even if Iran were to be working on nuclear weapons ... they are at least (a) few years away from having such weapon," he said, citing Washington's own intelligence assessments.
"My fear (is) that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. The Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire." ...
Thursday, October 25, 2007
If you control the language, you control the debate. ,,, What's wrong with "Islamo-fascism"? For starters, it's a terrible historical analogy.
The Trouble with Bush's 'Islamofascism' | By Katha Pollitt | Oct 23, 2007, 08:02
If you control the language, you control the debate. As the Bush Administration's Middle Eastern policy sinks ever deeper into bloody incoherence, the "war on terror" has been getting a quiet linguistic makeover. It's becoming the "war on Islamic fascism." The term has been around for a while -- Nexis takes it back to 1990, when the writer and historian Malise Ruthven used "Islamo-fascism" in the London Independent to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world; after 9/11 it was picked up by neocons and prowar pundits, including Stephen Schwartz in the Spectator and Christopher Hitchens in this magazine, to describe a broad swath of Muslim bad guys from Osama to the mullahs of Iran.
...
What's wrong with "Islamo-fascism"? For starters, it's a terrible historical analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movements of the 1920s and '30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, all-encompassing states. ...
...
"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them, with war to the end the only answer, as with Hitler. If you doubt that every other British Muslim under the age of 30 is ready to blow himself up for Allah, or that shredding the Constitution is the way to protect ourselves from suicide bombers, if you think that Hamas might be less popular if Palestinians were less miserable, you get cast as Neville Chamberlain, while Bush plays FDR. "Islamo-fascism" rescues the neocons from harsh verdicts on the invasion of Iraq ("cakewalk... roses... sweetmeats... Chalabi") by reframing that ongoing debacle as a minor chapter in a much larger story of evil madmen who want to fly the green flag of Islam over the capitals of the West. Suddenly it's just a detail that Saddam wasn't connected with 9/11, had no WMDs, was not poised to attack the United States or Israel -- he hated freedom, and that was enough. ...
...
"Islamo-fascism" enrages to no purpose the dwindling number of Muslims who don't already hate us. At the same time, it clouds with ideology a range of situations -- Lebanon, Palestine, airplane and subway bombings, Afghanistan, Iraq -- we need to see clearly and distinctly and deal with in a focused way. No wonder the people who brought us the disaster in Iraq are so fond of it. ...
If you control the language, you control the debate. As the Bush Administration's Middle Eastern policy sinks ever deeper into bloody incoherence, the "war on terror" has been getting a quiet linguistic makeover. It's becoming the "war on Islamic fascism." The term has been around for a while -- Nexis takes it back to 1990, when the writer and historian Malise Ruthven used "Islamo-fascism" in the London Independent to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world; after 9/11 it was picked up by neocons and prowar pundits, including Stephen Schwartz in the Spectator and Christopher Hitchens in this magazine, to describe a broad swath of Muslim bad guys from Osama to the mullahs of Iran.
...
What's wrong with "Islamo-fascism"? For starters, it's a terrible historical analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movements of the 1920s and '30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, all-encompassing states. ...
...
"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get us to think less and fear more. It presents the bewildering politics of the Muslim world as a simple matter of Us versus Them, with war to the end the only answer, as with Hitler. If you doubt that every other British Muslim under the age of 30 is ready to blow himself up for Allah, or that shredding the Constitution is the way to protect ourselves from suicide bombers, if you think that Hamas might be less popular if Palestinians were less miserable, you get cast as Neville Chamberlain, while Bush plays FDR. "Islamo-fascism" rescues the neocons from harsh verdicts on the invasion of Iraq ("cakewalk... roses... sweetmeats... Chalabi") by reframing that ongoing debacle as a minor chapter in a much larger story of evil madmen who want to fly the green flag of Islam over the capitals of the West. Suddenly it's just a detail that Saddam wasn't connected with 9/11, had no WMDs, was not poised to attack the United States or Israel -- he hated freedom, and that was enough. ...
...
"Islamo-fascism" enrages to no purpose the dwindling number of Muslims who don't already hate us. At the same time, it clouds with ideology a range of situations -- Lebanon, Palestine, airplane and subway bombings, Afghanistan, Iraq -- we need to see clearly and distinctly and deal with in a focused way. No wonder the people who brought us the disaster in Iraq are so fond of it. ...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations’ ... "Of course it's about oil ... Iraq"
Abizaid: ‘We’ve Treated The Arab World As A Collection Of Big Gas Stations’
During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“:
“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.
“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”
Abizaid has previously argued that the U.S. would need “to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq” in order to protect “the free flow of goods and resources” such as oil, but his Stanford comments go much further in pinning oil as a prime motivator for the war.
...
Though Abizaid says that Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil “prices low,” the per-barrel cost of oil has risen dramatically since the U.S. first invaded. In March 2003, the price of oil was roughly US$35 a barrel. Today, prices reached “above $85 a barrel for the first time.”
During a round table discussion on “the Fight for Oil, Water and a Healthy Planet” at Stanford University on Saturday, Gen. John Abizaid (Ret.), the former CENTCOM Commander, said that “of course” the Iraq war is “about oil“:
“Of course it’s about oil, we can’t really deny that,” Abizaid said of the Iraq campaign early on in the talk.
“We’ve treated the Arab world as a collection of big gas stations,” the retired general said. “Our message to them is: Guys, keep your pumps open, prices low, be nice to the Israelis and you can do whatever you want out back. Osama and 9/11 is the distilled essence that represents everything going on out back.”
Abizaid has previously argued that the U.S. would need “to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq” in order to protect “the free flow of goods and resources” such as oil, but his Stanford comments go much further in pinning oil as a prime motivator for the war.
...
Though Abizaid says that Bush’s Iraq policy seeks to keep oil “prices low,” the per-barrel cost of oil has risen dramatically since the U.S. first invaded. In March 2003, the price of oil was roughly US$35 a barrel. Today, prices reached “above $85 a barrel for the first time.”
Sunday, October 14, 2007
"This is not an effort to save the Palestinians, it's an attempt to prop up the administration's very low standing in the Arab world,"
Arabs skeptical of U.S. peace effort | The summit to push Israeli-Palestinian talks forward is seen as hasty, ill-conceived and not likely to achieve much. | By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer | October 14, 2007
CAIRO — The upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference resembles a dinner party with a less-than-inspiring menu and a bunch of well-tailored yet exasperated guests who, if they show up at all, doubt that anyone will go home happy.
Posturing and recrimination often characterize such negotiations, but Arab nations, including Washington's closest allies, are criticizing the November conference as a miscalculated photo op by a Bush administration desperate to repair its image in the Middle East.
"This is not an effort to save the Palestinians, it's an attempt to prop up the administration's very low standing in the Arab world," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst with the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "Saudi Arabia and other Washington allies will lose a lot of credibility if this is just to take part in an American show."
...
"Any gathering held in the name of peace so far has been to the disadvantage of the Palestinian people," Khamenei said. Khamenei is Iran's highest political and spiritual authority. ...
CAIRO — The upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference resembles a dinner party with a less-than-inspiring menu and a bunch of well-tailored yet exasperated guests who, if they show up at all, doubt that anyone will go home happy.
Posturing and recrimination often characterize such negotiations, but Arab nations, including Washington's closest allies, are criticizing the November conference as a miscalculated photo op by a Bush administration desperate to repair its image in the Middle East.
"This is not an effort to save the Palestinians, it's an attempt to prop up the administration's very low standing in the Arab world," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst with the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "Saudi Arabia and other Washington allies will lose a lot of credibility if this is just to take part in an American show."
...
"Any gathering held in the name of peace so far has been to the disadvantage of the Palestinian people," Khamenei said. Khamenei is Iran's highest political and spiritual authority. ...
"This is not an effort to save the Palestinians, it's an attempt to prop up the administration's very low standing in the Arab world,"
Arabs skeptical of U.S. peace effort | The summit to push Israeli-Palestinian talks forward is seen as hasty, ill-conceived and not likely to achieve much. | By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer | October 14, 2007
CAIRO — The upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference resembles a dinner party with a less-than-inspiring menu and a bunch of well-tailored yet exasperated guests who, if they show up at all, doubt that anyone will go home happy.
Posturing and recrimination often characterize such negotiations, but Arab nations, including Washington's closest allies, are criticizing the November conference as a miscalculated photo op by a Bush administration desperate to repair its image in the Middle East.
"This is not an effort to save the Palestinians, it's an attempt to prop up the administration's very low standing in the Arab world," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst with the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "Saudi Arabia and other Washington allies will lose a lot of credibility if this is just to take part in an American show."
...
"Any gathering held in the name of peace so far has been to the disadvantage of the Palestinian people," Khamenei said. Khamenei is Iran's highest political and spiritual authority. ...
CAIRO — The upcoming Israeli-Palestinian peace conference resembles a dinner party with a less-than-inspiring menu and a bunch of well-tailored yet exasperated guests who, if they show up at all, doubt that anyone will go home happy.
Posturing and recrimination often characterize such negotiations, but Arab nations, including Washington's closest allies, are criticizing the November conference as a miscalculated photo op by a Bush administration desperate to repair its image in the Middle East.
"This is not an effort to save the Palestinians, it's an attempt to prop up the administration's very low standing in the Arab world," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst with the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. "Saudi Arabia and other Washington allies will lose a lot of credibility if this is just to take part in an American show."
...
"Any gathering held in the name of peace so far has been to the disadvantage of the Palestinian people," Khamenei said. Khamenei is Iran's highest political and spiritual authority. ...
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
[Bush] approach to 4.2 million Iraqi refugees ... could breed Islamic militancy ... Jordan and Syria overwhelmed, need $$Bs
U.S., West seen skirting Iraqi refugee crisis | Mon Oct 8, 2007 11:31am EDT | By David Morgan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration's cautious approach to Iraqi refugees offers little hope for those trapped in a growing humanitarian crisis that could begin to breed Islamist militancy if left unchecked, experts say.
The United States is the biggest aid donor to an estimated 4.2 million Iraqis driven from their homes. But experts say assistance from the United States and other Western nations is only a tiny fraction of what may be needed to stabilize the biggest Middle East refugee crisis since 1948.
Host countries in the region, particularly Jordan and Syria, have been overwhelmed by more than 2 million refugees and could need billions of dollars in aid to cope with the social and economic strains.
...
"The humanitarian need inside Iraq and in neighboring countries has been ignored to such an extent that both Jordan and Syria, out of desperation, have introduced visa requirements that effectively close all exit doors for Iraqis," said Andrew Harper, who heads the Iraq Support Unit of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration's cautious approach to Iraqi refugees offers little hope for those trapped in a growing humanitarian crisis that could begin to breed Islamist militancy if left unchecked, experts say.
The United States is the biggest aid donor to an estimated 4.2 million Iraqis driven from their homes. But experts say assistance from the United States and other Western nations is only a tiny fraction of what may be needed to stabilize the biggest Middle East refugee crisis since 1948.
Host countries in the region, particularly Jordan and Syria, have been overwhelmed by more than 2 million refugees and could need billions of dollars in aid to cope with the social and economic strains.
...
"The humanitarian need inside Iraq and in neighboring countries has been ignored to such an extent that both Jordan and Syria, out of desperation, have introduced visa requirements that effectively close all exit doors for Iraqis," said Andrew Harper, who heads the Iraq Support Unit of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. ...
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Seymour Hersh: 'Jewish Money Controls Presidental Candidates'
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 | Seymour Hersh: 'Jewish Money Controls Presidental Candidates' | When stuff like this is said openly you know that Zionist control over America is waning.
An excerpt from an October 2nd interview with Hersh:
...
MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it.
...
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it's as simple as that. When you're from New York and from New York City, you take the view of -- right now, when you're running a campaign, you follow that line. And there's no other explanation for it, because she's smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I -- you know, it's shocking. It's really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That's American politics circa 2007. ...
An excerpt from an October 2nd interview with Hersh:
...
MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We're talking about ending the war. My god, we're just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it.
...
AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?
SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let's not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it's as simple as that. When you're from New York and from New York City, you take the view of -- right now, when you're running a campaign, you follow that line. And there's no other explanation for it, because she's smart enough to know the downside.
AMY GOODMAN: And Obama and Edwards?
SEYMOUR HERSH: I -- you know, it's shocking. It's really surprising and shocking, but there we are. That's American politics circa 2007. ...
three major factors that explain why the U.S. has blocked peace in the Middle East: pro-Israel lobby, weapons sales to Israel,Christian conservatives
Deafening Silence on Israel | Posted October 2, 2007 | 05:14 PM (EST)
...what continues to be considered an irrelevant subject to discuss is American policy toward Israel, which terrorists have used as one of their most important reasons for attacking us. Our government, academic and media institutions indoctrinate us into accepting America's unconditional support for Israel out of the fear of getting dismissed as irrelevant or even getting branded as anti-Semite. An example is many people's knee-jerk reaction to President Carter's latest book on the Middle East, or the reaction by Bill Maher - the host of Real Time with Bill Maher, who is someone that I like -- to Michael Scheuer, the former head of CIA's Bin Laden Unit in a recent exchange. ...
...
This blogger recognizes Israel's right to exist, but not its right-wing unilateralism and policies. While the American government has repeatedly portrayed the image that it is in support of peace in the Middle East, it has been the biggest single force in blocking peace and the creation of a democratic Palestine side-by-side with Israel for over thirty years. ...
... settlements ... no withdrawal ... driving Bedouins out, demolishing their homes and building all-Jewish cities and villages ... United States, once again alone, rejected the offer ...
...
...what continues to be considered an irrelevant subject to discuss is American policy toward Israel, which terrorists have used as one of their most important reasons for attacking us. Our government, academic and media institutions indoctrinate us into accepting America's unconditional support for Israel out of the fear of getting dismissed as irrelevant or even getting branded as anti-Semite. An example is many people's knee-jerk reaction to President Carter's latest book on the Middle East, or the reaction by Bill Maher - the host of Real Time with Bill Maher, who is someone that I like -- to Michael Scheuer, the former head of CIA's Bin Laden Unit in a recent exchange. ...
...
This blogger recognizes Israel's right to exist, but not its right-wing unilateralism and policies. While the American government has repeatedly portrayed the image that it is in support of peace in the Middle East, it has been the biggest single force in blocking peace and the creation of a democratic Palestine side-by-side with Israel for over thirty years. ...
... settlements ... no withdrawal ... driving Bedouins out, demolishing their homes and building all-Jewish cities and villages ... United States, once again alone, rejected the offer ...
...
In the meantime, Israel continues to consume disproportionately large segments of Palestinians' natural resources, including 80% of water extracted from the West Bank, which has left Palestinians some of the most water-deprived people in the world. In addition, Moshe Negbi, a leading Israeli legal analyst informs us that while Israel claims to be a democracy, its courts have been contributing to the deterioration of democracy by complying to the "thugs of the racist fundamentalist right" by committing acts like imposing a six-month sentence on an interrogator for torturing a Palestinian to death or another for murdering an Arab child, just to name a few. He is not the only Israeli who vocally criticizes his country's outright and brutal violations of human rights. Others include, diplomatic correspondent Akiva Eldar, reporter Amira Hass, historian Idit Zartel and Journalist Gideon Levy, all of whom are prominent and mainstream figures in their own fields.
There are three major factors that explain why the U.S. has blocked peace in the Middle East: 1) The power of the absolutist pro-Israeli lobby in America, backed by Jews from the right and also the left, and their influence in Washington; 2) The strength of the American defense lobby, which earns billions of dollars in sales of weapons to Israel because of the conflict and Israeli aggression; and 3) Christian conservatives who have somehow convinced themselves that existence of a peaceful Israel justifies its unilateral, undemocratic and right-wing policies.
It is impossible here to reveal more than the tip of the iceberg of the role that the right-wing U.S. and Israeli politicians have played in continuing the occupation in the face of international opposition. America's silence about Israelis nuclear weapons with the latter's lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric with regard to Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is an example of the kind of outright double standard that the United States has been following in its foreign policy. Israel has also maintained a close relationship with the military government in Burma and repeatedly given authorizations to Israeli military contractors to sell weapons to Burma, which the latter is now using to crack down on pro-democracy protests, shooting and killing peaceful protesters and monks and cutting off people's contact with the outside world.
Regardless of how you feel about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is now little doubt among intelligence experts that while there is certainly a radical and irrational element to terrorism, terrorists do not attack us out of hatred for our freedoms, but they do so because we continue to place the self-interests of this country before the defense of our principles and suppress any debate that is sought to address this self-defeating strategy.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign policy.
September 29, 2007 | US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands | by Charley Reese
...
Whether you agree with Iran's president or not, he's the wrong guy to try to demonize. First of all, he is not a dictator. He is an elected president with very little power. He has to get past the legislature, and the real power rests with the senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei controls foreign policy and is commander in chief of all of Iran's armed forces. The legislature rejected nearly all of Ahmadinejad's recommendations for ministers. When he tried to allow women to attend soccer games, the clerics overruled him.
The claims that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and has called for the destruction of Israel are false. He has called for regime change, which is something American politicians do every time they find a country whose policies they disagree with. Regime change is a change of government, not genocide. As for the Holocaust, he said it raised two questions: Why put people in prison who question details of the official version, which is what several European countries do. Why should the Palestinians be made to pay for it? Both are good questions.
...
Think for yourself. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its military is designed for defense. It has no offensive capability – no air force, no navy to speak of. Israel, on the other hand, is usually ranked as the fifth most powerful military state on the planet. It has more than 200 nuclear weapons and a superb air force.
Iran has said it has no desire to attack Israel or any other country. It has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and that it has no desire for a nuclear weapon. The head cleric has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. And there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Just remember the lies told to you before Iraq: ....
... As for blood, American politicians have far more Iranian blood on their hands. We overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and his secret police. We sided with and assisted Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran. Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign policy.
...
Whether you agree with Iran's president or not, he's the wrong guy to try to demonize. First of all, he is not a dictator. He is an elected president with very little power. He has to get past the legislature, and the real power rests with the senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei controls foreign policy and is commander in chief of all of Iran's armed forces. The legislature rejected nearly all of Ahmadinejad's recommendations for ministers. When he tried to allow women to attend soccer games, the clerics overruled him.
The claims that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and has called for the destruction of Israel are false. He has called for regime change, which is something American politicians do every time they find a country whose policies they disagree with. Regime change is a change of government, not genocide. As for the Holocaust, he said it raised two questions: Why put people in prison who question details of the official version, which is what several European countries do. Why should the Palestinians be made to pay for it? Both are good questions.
...
Think for yourself. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its military is designed for defense. It has no offensive capability – no air force, no navy to speak of. Israel, on the other hand, is usually ranked as the fifth most powerful military state on the planet. It has more than 200 nuclear weapons and a superb air force.
Iran has said it has no desire to attack Israel or any other country. It has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and that it has no desire for a nuclear weapon. The head cleric has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. And there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Just remember the lies told to you before Iraq: ....
... As for blood, American politicians have far more Iranian blood on their hands. We overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and his secret police. We sided with and assisted Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran. Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign policy.