Jonathan Freedland shows his own deep prejudices when he states: "artfully keeping each option - carrots, sticks and sharper sticks - in play."
Is Iran a donkey? Of course not, it is a civilised nation, in fact their civilisation is older than ours...the constant treatment of sovereign nations as donkeys that have to be prodded with a stick or rewarded with a carrot is deeply insulting, prejudiced and possibly even racist.
Freedland also plays dumb when he wants to: "why, if civil nuclear power is all the Iranians want, they don't simply import enriched uranium from abroad."
Well as Freedland, well knows, Iran sits on top of not only natural gas and oil but also natural uranium and mines it, why should they not enrich their own - it is after all described as an an "inalienable right" in the NPT? Why should they have to buy from privatised western corporations?
How does Freedland know what people in power are thinking? Or does he just take their statements at face value without comparing them to actual deeds instead...otherwise what are we to make of this: "These signals, and several others, have persuaded governments - and not only those in Washington and Jerusalem - that, even if there is not definitive, fizzing-fuse proof of an Iranian bomb, this is the direction in which the Iranians are heading".
These rhetorical acrobatics are becoming more and more transparent for their falseness; "It is this record of evasion, "of lying and cheating to the International Atomic Energy Agency", according to Charles Grant of the Centre for European Reform, that has persuaded many otherwise doveish European governments that Tehran is up to something."
This twisting of meanings has now been rebutted by CASMII in their letter published in todays Guardian:
"Rather than being a theory dreamt up by bloggers, the absence of evidence of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran is a fact (Jonathan Freedland, November 14). The IAEA, the only international body qualified to monitor Iran's nuclear plans, has repeatedly said there's no proof whatsoever that Iran's uranium enrichment is for anything other than its civilian nuclear programme. While Iran's earlier concealment of its nuclear programme might give cause for suspicion, this took place against a backdrop of a US trade embargo aimed at preventing civilian nuclear technology from reaching Iran.Stefan SimanowitzCampaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention Against Iran"
Other rubbish from Freedland - the existential threat to Isreal. This is of course complete rubbish and has been discredited by the Guardians own Jonathan Steele. Doesn't Freedland read his own colleagues? Or did he just 'forget' it?
Iran would never launch an unprovoked attack on Israel, it would defeat any object - they would be immediatey wiped off the map themselves by both Israel and the US, they would also wipe Palestine off the map, and kill millions of fellow Muslims in the surrounding countries. What has happened to common sense with media commentarists these days? Do they willfully play the 3 monkeys (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil) when it suits them? No, the wiped off the map accusation has been well and truly discredited by Farsi scholars, ah so we better find another reason - oh sure - why not 'proliferation', that's always a good one.
Well a better start would be for the 5 'official' nuclear powers (also - what a coincidence! - the veto wielding members of the Security Council) to comply with their own oblgations under the NPT. Yet, what about the the Pakistani and Indian nuclear programmes? These have been virtually sanctioned by the international community and they're not even signatories to the NPT. What amazing double standards.
Curious isn't it that in all his analysis of the sticks, Freedland forgets the elephant in the room.: Israel. No mention of any possible attack by Israel. I wonder why considering all the threats coming from that militarised occupier of others, who recently launched a war of aggression on Lebanon, and left over a million 'presents' in Lebanon in the last days of the war (cluster bombs)...and who have consistently used collective punishment against civilians.
Pathetic effort Freedland. And the biggest joke is that you get paid for this crap...
15 November 2007
21 October 2007
Blair accuses Iran of fuelling 'deadly ideology' of militant Islam
What is this criminal doing as a Middle East 'peace envoy'? Along with George Bush, José María Aznar, former Spanish President, and Durão Barroso, former PM of Portugal now President of the EU, Tony Blair is co-author of the supreme crime, the war of aggression on Iraq, and as such is responsible for the deaths of over a million Iraqis, a genocide if ever there was one.
Now he's not pig ignorant (is he?), and considering his past modus operandi (MO) we must therefore assume that these utterances are pure spin in attributing this to Iran:
"Analogies especially with the rise of fascism can be misleading but, in pure chronology, I sometimes wonder if we're not in the 1920s, if not the 1930s, I fear ... This ideology now has a state - Iran that is prepared to back and finance terror in the pursuit of destabilising countries whose people wish to live in peace ... There is a tendency even now, even in some of our own circles, to believe that they are as they are because we have provoked them and if we left them alone they would leave us alone. I fear this is mistaken. They have no intention of leaving us alone...When terror opposes that which is right, we must commit to defeating it not with half a heart but whole-heartedly.".
As David Cox points out in the Guardian "Blair could have pointed out that a complex country like Iran with not much to gain from war has little in common with a heavily militarised fascist state intent on annexing the territory of its neighbours. He might have suggested that one of the few things capable of uniting Iran's disparate peoples behind militarism would be an attack by western forces...Western politicians who claim to understand Islamic theology better than the faith's own scholars seem likely only to encourage jihadist recruitment. Iran may well acquire nuclear weapons, as Pakistan, arguably a rather more dangerous place, has already done. The task of our politicians now is to work out how to live with these realities, not to whip up futile bellicosity."
Inayat Bunglawala, also in the Guardian, weighs in with a few facts, which unsurprisingly point away from Blair's hysterical rant:
"If any country can be said to be an ideological influence on al-Qaida, it would surely be the Saudi kingdom, not Iran. Bin Laden is a Saudi and Saudi Arabia was home, you will recall, to 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11. And by all accounts, al-Qaida still receives some support from individuals inside the Saudi kingdom, whereas Iran with its Shia government is despised vehemently by the avowedly anti-Shia al-Qaida. So why are Blair and his neo-con chums not gunning for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy?"
"Saudi Arabia is, of course, a loyal client state of the United States, whereas Iran's main sin is that since its 1979 Islamic revolution, for all its many failures and inadequacies, it has been a far more independent nation than most in the Middle East and dares to follow a foreign policy agenda which does not exactly conform to the US vision of how the Middle East should be."
"If Blair really believes it is wrong to destabilise other countries, why did he not utter a word about the millions of dollars the United States unashamedly spends in trying to destabilise the Iranian government? If Blair is so exercised by terrorism why did he - standing alone with Bush among world leaders - turn a blind eye to Israel's indiscriminate bombing and invasion of Lebanon last summer? Were the families of the hundreds of Lebanese killed by Israeli bombs not deserving of our sympathy and help every bit as much as those of the victims of 9/11? "
We also need to remember that Blair is personally implicated in the corruption case of British Aerospace and Saudi bribes...and that since May Swiss prosecutors have been investgating.
And lets not forget the export by the Saudis of their particular fundamentalist version of Islam, Wahhabism, to all corners of the world, especially Africa (including Morocco, Somalia,
Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Senegal, Gambia, Niger, Mauritania and Chad) and even into the heart of Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo). Some even consider that Wahhabism contributed to the development of the religious ideology of Al-Qaeda.
Talking of Kosovo, according to Dusan Prorokovic, spokesman of the DSS party of Premier Vojislav Kostunica in Serbia "NATO is pushing for an independent Kosovo chiefly so as to set up a "logistics base" for military operations."
Now he's not pig ignorant (is he?), and considering his past modus operandi (MO) we must therefore assume that these utterances are pure spin in attributing this to Iran:
"Analogies especially with the rise of fascism can be misleading but, in pure chronology, I sometimes wonder if we're not in the 1920s, if not the 1930s, I fear ... This ideology now has a state - Iran that is prepared to back and finance terror in the pursuit of destabilising countries whose people wish to live in peace ... There is a tendency even now, even in some of our own circles, to believe that they are as they are because we have provoked them and if we left them alone they would leave us alone. I fear this is mistaken. They have no intention of leaving us alone...When terror opposes that which is right, we must commit to defeating it not with half a heart but whole-heartedly.".
As David Cox points out in the Guardian "Blair could have pointed out that a complex country like Iran with not much to gain from war has little in common with a heavily militarised fascist state intent on annexing the territory of its neighbours. He might have suggested that one of the few things capable of uniting Iran's disparate peoples behind militarism would be an attack by western forces...Western politicians who claim to understand Islamic theology better than the faith's own scholars seem likely only to encourage jihadist recruitment. Iran may well acquire nuclear weapons, as Pakistan, arguably a rather more dangerous place, has already done. The task of our politicians now is to work out how to live with these realities, not to whip up futile bellicosity."
Inayat Bunglawala, also in the Guardian, weighs in with a few facts, which unsurprisingly point away from Blair's hysterical rant:
"If any country can be said to be an ideological influence on al-Qaida, it would surely be the Saudi kingdom, not Iran. Bin Laden is a Saudi and Saudi Arabia was home, you will recall, to 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11. And by all accounts, al-Qaida still receives some support from individuals inside the Saudi kingdom, whereas Iran with its Shia government is despised vehemently by the avowedly anti-Shia al-Qaida. So why are Blair and his neo-con chums not gunning for the overthrow of the Saudi monarchy?"
"Saudi Arabia is, of course, a loyal client state of the United States, whereas Iran's main sin is that since its 1979 Islamic revolution, for all its many failures and inadequacies, it has been a far more independent nation than most in the Middle East and dares to follow a foreign policy agenda which does not exactly conform to the US vision of how the Middle East should be."
"If Blair really believes it is wrong to destabilise other countries, why did he not utter a word about the millions of dollars the United States unashamedly spends in trying to destabilise the Iranian government? If Blair is so exercised by terrorism why did he - standing alone with Bush among world leaders - turn a blind eye to Israel's indiscriminate bombing and invasion of Lebanon last summer? Were the families of the hundreds of Lebanese killed by Israeli bombs not deserving of our sympathy and help every bit as much as those of the victims of 9/11? "
We also need to remember that Blair is personally implicated in the corruption case of British Aerospace and Saudi bribes...and that since May Swiss prosecutors have been investgating.
And lets not forget the export by the Saudis of their particular fundamentalist version of Islam, Wahhabism, to all corners of the world, especially Africa (including Morocco, Somalia,
Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Senegal, Gambia, Niger, Mauritania and Chad) and even into the heart of Europe (Bosnia, Kosovo). Some even consider that Wahhabism contributed to the development of the religious ideology of Al-Qaeda.
Talking of Kosovo, according to Dusan Prorokovic, spokesman of the DSS party of Premier Vojislav Kostunica in Serbia "NATO is pushing for an independent Kosovo chiefly so as to set up a "logistics base" for military operations."
On other fronts, Justin Raimondo's blog offers a word of advice: Follow the money, regarding the fact that "The military-industrial complex is clearly betting on the Democrats, who, for the first time, are beating out the GOP in raising money from the war profiteers. What’s more, they’ve clearly settled on Hillary as their horse in this race"
The NYT has a decent article on Guantanamo whistle-blower Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Diaz, now languishing in prison in Charleston having been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and dismissal from the military for posting a list of Guantanamo inmates to Barbara Olshansky at the "New York offices of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a left-wing legal-advocacy group that counted itself among the most zealous opponents of the administration’s Guantanamo policy"
More tales in today's Observer about the nazi-style behaviour of the Israeli occupation forces in Palestine, includes testimony like this: "'The most important thing is that it removes the burden of the law from you. You feel that you are the law. You are the law. You are the one who decides... As though from the moment you leave the place that is called Eretz Yisrael [the Land of Israel] and go through the Erez checkpoint into the Gaza Strip, you are the law. You are God.'"
"The soldiers described how the violence was encouraged by some commanders. One soldier recalled: 'After two months in Rafah, a [new] commanding officer arrived... So we do a first patrol with him. It's 6am, Rafah is under curfew, there isn't so much as a dog in the streets. Only a little boy of four playing in the sand. He is building a castle in his yard. He [the officer] suddenly starts running and we all run with him. He was from the combat engineers.
'He grabbed the boy. I am a degenerate if I am not telling you the truth. He broke his hand here at the wrist, broke his leg here. And started to stomp on his stomach, three times, and left. We are all there, jaws dropping, looking at him in shock...
'The next day I go out with him on another patrol, and the soldiers are already starting to do the same thing."
And then we have more on the Valerie Plame leak, which has turned out to be an important own goal as her job "was to keep nukes from Iran"! Or was it that people like Cheney want an ignorant CIA to blame for lack of intelligence once the US has attacked Iran?
More Murdoch propaganda on Iran that "SAS raiders enter Iran to kill gunrunners" with no mention whatsoever that these activities are not legal and could be interpreted as terrorism...but then who in the Murdock empire give a fuck?
20 October 2007
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff: use of military force option "of the last resort,"
Yet more bare-faced lies and propaganda from Gates and Mullen, who appear eager to become war criminals like the rest of the administration.
"From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve to respond if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do, and so I don't think we're too stretched in that regard," Adm. Michael Mullen told reporters when asked if current operations had worn out U.S. forces.
Adm. Mullen said he has been concerned over the past year and a half with Iranian leaders' statements of intentions, Tehran's support for bombers in Iraq and Iran's covert drive for nuclear weapons."
...
"Defense and military officials have been preparing U.S. forces within striking distance of Iran. The forces would be dominated by Navy and Air Force weapons and forces since Army and Marine Corps forces are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are two main targets of any Iranian military action, according to the officials. First, U.S. forces are set to attack Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps facilities because of the paramilitary's support and provision of armor-piercing roadside bombs.
A U.S. official said the location of a factory where Iranian bomb materials are being produced has been identified. A second target would be Iranian nuclear facilities, which are in numerous underground facilities across the country. "
...
"The use of military force would be an option "of the last resort," Adm. Mullen said"
Ah that old canard once again?
Remember this? "War is a last resort." - Scott McClellan, Nov. 12, 2002, White House press briefing
Or this? "The military option is my last choice, not my first. It's my last choice. But Saddam has got to understand, the United Nations must know, that the will of this country is strong."
George W. Bush, President, October 3, 2002 Remarks by the President to Hispanic Leaders
And this? "The use of our military is my last choice, not my first. I take my responsibilities very seriously as the Commander in Chief. The use of force is not my first choice, it's my last. But my first choice, as well, is not to allow the world's worst leader to blackmail, to harm America with the world's worst weapons."
George W. Bush, President, October 5, 2002 Remarks by the President at John Sununu for Senate Reception
And there's more: "as the president said the other night, we are trying to see war as a last resort." Colin Powell, Secretary of State October 9, 2002CNN/ Larry King
"The use of the military is my last choice, is my last desire." George W. Bush, President, October 14, 2002 Remarks by the President Upon Departure for Michigan
"Military option is my last choice. It's not my -- it's the last thing I want to do, is commit our military." George W. Bush, President, October 14, 2002 Remarks by the President at Thaddeus McCotter for Congress Dinner
Yet as the Downing Street Memo informed us on July 23, 2002:
“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”
“No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”
“But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”
“Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”
"From a military standpoint, there is more than enough reserve to respond if that, in fact, is what the national leadership wanted to do, and so I don't think we're too stretched in that regard," Adm. Michael Mullen told reporters when asked if current operations had worn out U.S. forces.
Adm. Mullen said he has been concerned over the past year and a half with Iranian leaders' statements of intentions, Tehran's support for bombers in Iraq and Iran's covert drive for nuclear weapons."
...
"Defense and military officials have been preparing U.S. forces within striking distance of Iran. The forces would be dominated by Navy and Air Force weapons and forces since Army and Marine Corps forces are focused on Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are two main targets of any Iranian military action, according to the officials. First, U.S. forces are set to attack Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps facilities because of the paramilitary's support and provision of armor-piercing roadside bombs.
A U.S. official said the location of a factory where Iranian bomb materials are being produced has been identified. A second target would be Iranian nuclear facilities, which are in numerous underground facilities across the country. "
...
"The use of military force would be an option "of the last resort," Adm. Mullen said"
Ah that old canard once again?
Remember this? "War is a last resort." - Scott McClellan, Nov. 12, 2002, White House press briefing
Or this? "The military option is my last choice, not my first. It's my last choice. But Saddam has got to understand, the United Nations must know, that the will of this country is strong."
George W. Bush, President, October 3, 2002 Remarks by the President to Hispanic Leaders
And this? "The use of our military is my last choice, not my first. I take my responsibilities very seriously as the Commander in Chief. The use of force is not my first choice, it's my last. But my first choice, as well, is not to allow the world's worst leader to blackmail, to harm America with the world's worst weapons."
George W. Bush, President, October 5, 2002 Remarks by the President at John Sununu for Senate Reception
And there's more: "as the president said the other night, we are trying to see war as a last resort." Colin Powell, Secretary of State October 9, 2002CNN/ Larry King
"The use of the military is my last choice, is my last desire." George W. Bush, President, October 14, 2002 Remarks by the President Upon Departure for Michigan
"Military option is my last choice. It's not my -- it's the last thing I want to do, is commit our military." George W. Bush, President, October 14, 2002 Remarks by the President at Thaddeus McCotter for Congress Dinner
Yet as the Downing Street Memo informed us on July 23, 2002:
“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.”
“No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.”
“But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”
“Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.”
14 October 2007
Misleading BBC Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue
This is the text of an official complaint made to the BBC Complaints dept.
There are several instances of misleading information in this piece:
Misleading statement 1. "Iran says that it is entitled to enrich uranium".
As you actually point out further down in the article "Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection."
Consequently this should read 'Iran IS entitled to enrich uranium according to the NPT''. The word 'says' could imply a claim without substance.
Misleading statement 2. "However, Iran has not implemented a more intrusive Additional Protocol it signed in 2003, so the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material."
You do not point out that
a) this Additional Protocol (AP) is a voluntary measure
b) although Iran signed the AP, it was never ratified by the Iranian Parliament
c) your statement "the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material" is not accurate. The latest IAEA report states categorically that it is "able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran" while "unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclearprogramme" which is not the same as your statement. With regard to "the absence of undeclared nuclear material" this is referred to but in terms:of confidence-building meaures such as the AP:
"24. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to buildconfidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol." IAEA Board Report, 30 August 2007
d) the AP was implemented without being ratified (as noted in the Tehran Agreed Statement of 21 October 2003) but later suspended as a result of what Iran called ""illegal and unlawful" US attempts to use the IAEA and the UN Security Council to effectively circumvent the NPT. Indeed the Iranian Parliament bill bound the government "to suspend its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) until Tehran succeeds in obtaining recognition of its right to complete the nuclear fuel cycle."
How can people be expected to understand the complexities if you leave out valuable information?
UPDATE 19 OTCOBER 2007 19.45 hrs:
I have not yet received a reply to the above complaint, but have just made another on the same subject:
Official complaint sent 15 mins ago:
I would like to complain about a statement in your online article "Iran's nuclear negotiator resigns".
In the unattributed article, the BBC states: "Iran says it has the right under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power."
As you actually point out in the online analysis: "Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue"
"Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection."
The word 'says' could imply a claim without substance, whereas according to the terms of the NPT what Iran "says" coincides exactly with what the NPT states:
"Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."
Consequently this should read 'Iran IS entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes according to the NPT''.
Yours Sincerely,
There are several instances of misleading information in this piece:
Misleading statement 1. "Iran says that it is entitled to enrich uranium".
As you actually point out further down in the article "Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection."
Consequently this should read 'Iran IS entitled to enrich uranium according to the NPT''. The word 'says' could imply a claim without substance.
Misleading statement 2. "However, Iran has not implemented a more intrusive Additional Protocol it signed in 2003, so the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material."
You do not point out that
a) this Additional Protocol (AP) is a voluntary measure
b) although Iran signed the AP, it was never ratified by the Iranian Parliament
c) your statement "the IAEA says it cannot verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material" is not accurate. The latest IAEA report states categorically that it is "able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran" while "unable to verify certain aspects relevant to the scope and nature of Iran’s nuclearprogramme" which is not the same as your statement. With regard to "the absence of undeclared nuclear material" this is referred to but in terms:of confidence-building meaures such as the AP:
"24. Once Iran’s past nuclear programme has been clarified, Iran would need to continue to buildconfidence about the scope and nature of its present and future nuclear programme. Confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme requires that the Agency be able to provide assurances not only regarding declared nuclear material, but, equally important, regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, through the implementation of the Additional Protocol." IAEA Board Report, 30 August 2007
d) the AP was implemented without being ratified (as noted in the Tehran Agreed Statement of 21 October 2003) but later suspended as a result of what Iran called ""illegal and unlawful" US attempts to use the IAEA and the UN Security Council to effectively circumvent the NPT. Indeed the Iranian Parliament bill bound the government "to suspend its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) until Tehran succeeds in obtaining recognition of its right to complete the nuclear fuel cycle."
How can people be expected to understand the complexities if you leave out valuable information?
UPDATE 19 OTCOBER 2007 19.45 hrs:
I have not yet received a reply to the above complaint, but have just made another on the same subject:
Official complaint sent 15 mins ago:
I would like to complain about a statement in your online article "Iran's nuclear negotiator resigns".
In the unattributed article, the BBC states: "Iran says it has the right under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear power."
As you actually point out in the online analysis: "Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue"
"Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a country has the right to enrich its own fuel for civil nuclear power, under IAEA inspection."
The word 'says' could imply a claim without substance, whereas according to the terms of the NPT what Iran "says" coincides exactly with what the NPT states:
"Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."
Consequently this should read 'Iran IS entitled to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes according to the NPT''.
Yours Sincerely,
09 October 2007
Scott Ritter: The Big Lie: ‘Iran Is a Threat’
Its important to remember just who Scott Ritter is:
"Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998."
He knows what he's talking about unlike others. Anyway, well worth the read.
Anf if you have the time its worth remembering Four Myths Government and Media Use to Scare Us About 'Dictators'.
Other scary stories include the loss of billions of dollars by the big investment firms and banks. Merrill Lynch Warns of Loss on $5 Billion Writedown while "Citigroup said its quarterly earnings would fall 60 percent, as it planned to write down more than $3 billion in securities backed by underperforming mortgages and loans tied to corporate bonds. "
At the same time another "Two Banks Face $3 Billion In Mortgage Losses". JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America are expected to disclose losses of about $3 billion in mortgage securities and leveraged loans when they report earnings this month, the Financial Times reported, citing an analyst. Interesting to note isn't it that just 5 years ago, as we can read in this FT report the figures were even worse: "Citigroup, a top lender and long-time adviser to WorldCom, lost more than $11bn in market value. Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, leaders of loan syndicates for WorldCom, lost $3.9bn and $2.8bn in their market values, respectively." That time fraud was behind the losses: "The attorney general's office said on Wednesday it had taken notice that Mr Grubman downgraded WorldCom just a day before the company revealed a $3.8bn accounting fraud."
Anyway its still bad enough, $11 billion gone. Poof! Just lke that! Where did it go to? Things just don't disappear...
Also worth reading is Neil Mackay's account of "what Britain will look like 10 years from now: a world in which Fortress Britain uses fleets of tiny spy-planes to watch its citizens, of Minority Report-style pre-emptive justice, of an underclass trapped in sink-estate ghettos under constant state surveillance, of worker drones forced to take on the lifestyle and values of the mega-corporation they work for, and of the super-rich hiding out in gated communities constantly monitored by cameras and private security guards."
Also check out "Inside France's secret war": "For 40 years, the French government has been fighting a secret war in Africa, hidden not only from its people, but from the world. It has led the French to slaughter democrats, install dictator after dictator – and to fund and fuel the most vicious genocide since the Nazis. Today, this war is so violent that thousands are fleeing across the border from the Central African Republic into Darfur – seeking sanctuary in the world's most notorious killing fields "
"Scott Ritter was a Marine Corps intelligence officer from 1984 to 1991 and a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998."
He knows what he's talking about unlike others. Anyway, well worth the read.
Anf if you have the time its worth remembering Four Myths Government and Media Use to Scare Us About 'Dictators'.
Other scary stories include the loss of billions of dollars by the big investment firms and banks. Merrill Lynch Warns of Loss on $5 Billion Writedown while "Citigroup said its quarterly earnings would fall 60 percent, as it planned to write down more than $3 billion in securities backed by underperforming mortgages and loans tied to corporate bonds. "
At the same time another "Two Banks Face $3 Billion In Mortgage Losses". JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America are expected to disclose losses of about $3 billion in mortgage securities and leveraged loans when they report earnings this month, the Financial Times reported, citing an analyst. Interesting to note isn't it that just 5 years ago, as we can read in this FT report the figures were even worse: "Citigroup, a top lender and long-time adviser to WorldCom, lost more than $11bn in market value. Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase, leaders of loan syndicates for WorldCom, lost $3.9bn and $2.8bn in their market values, respectively." That time fraud was behind the losses: "The attorney general's office said on Wednesday it had taken notice that Mr Grubman downgraded WorldCom just a day before the company revealed a $3.8bn accounting fraud."
Anyway its still bad enough, $11 billion gone. Poof! Just lke that! Where did it go to? Things just don't disappear...
Also worth reading is Neil Mackay's account of "what Britain will look like 10 years from now: a world in which Fortress Britain uses fleets of tiny spy-planes to watch its citizens, of Minority Report-style pre-emptive justice, of an underclass trapped in sink-estate ghettos under constant state surveillance, of worker drones forced to take on the lifestyle and values of the mega-corporation they work for, and of the super-rich hiding out in gated communities constantly monitored by cameras and private security guards."
Also check out "Inside France's secret war": "For 40 years, the French government has been fighting a secret war in Africa, hidden not only from its people, but from the world. It has led the French to slaughter democrats, install dictator after dictator – and to fund and fuel the most vicious genocide since the Nazis. Today, this war is so violent that thousands are fleeing across the border from the Central African Republic into Darfur – seeking sanctuary in the world's most notorious killing fields "
06 October 2007
E-mail to NYT' Simon Romero
This is an e-mail sent today to Simon Romero, NYT regarding his article "Colombian Leader Disputes Claim of Tie to Cocaine Kingpin".
Dear Simon,
I read with great interest your excellent but incomplete misive "Colombian Leader Disputes Claim of Tie to Cocaine Kingpin" in the NYT.
I say incomplete because you state "Mr. Uribe, the Bush administration’s closest ally in South America, has been dogged by claims of his links to Mr. Escobar since his political star began to rise in the 1990s, claims that became pronounced during his presidential campaign in 2002" and you then go on to mention only a DIA report from 1991. You stop there.
I'm interested to know why you didn't mention the rest of the evidence against Uribe?
1. His father, Alberto Uribe Vélez, was himself subject to an extradition warrant to face charges of drug trafficking in the US.
2. Uribe Jr grew up with the children of Fabio Ochoa, a key player at the time in the Medellín cocaine cartel.
3. After being elected Mayor of Medellín, the second city of Colombia, at the age of 26, he was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug Mafia.
4. He was made Director of Civil Aviation, where he issued pilots’ licences to Pablo Escobar’s fleet of light aircraft flying cocaine to Florida.
5. In April 2002, Noticias Uno, a current affairs programme on the TV station Canal Uno, examined alleged links between Uribe and the Medellín cocaine cartel. After the reports were aired, unidentified men threatened to kill the show’s producer, Ignacio Gómez.
6. Noticias Uno told the story of how in 1997 the US Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) seized 50,000 kilos of potassium permanganate from a ship docked in San Francisco. Permanganate is a chemical used in the production of cocaine. The cargo was bound for a company headed by Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, President Uribe’s campaign manager, and was sufficient to produce cocaine with a street value of $15 billion. Morena Villa’s company was Colombia’s biggest importer of potassium permanganate between 1994 and 1998. When Uribe was Governor of Antioquia, Moreno Villa was his chief of staff and Medellín was the world’s cocaine capital. (I presume you are also aware of the mysterious death since of Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, who was killed last year, Feb 2006)
Now, if you cry ignorance of these facts, then why not investigate them yourself? If your country is granting enormous sums of money to a Colombian administration that is in cahoots not only with narco-terrorists AUC but also the cocaine drug cartels, don't you think your readers deserve to know the whole truth? However, I find it difficult to believe that you know nothing of what I have commented in this e-mail.
I would be interested to receive your comments if you can spare the time.
Best wishes
...
Links:
Tom Feiling of Justice for Colombia: Álvaro Uribe Vélez Links to cocaine cartels?
Al Giordano of Narco News: Uribe's Rise from Medellín: Precursor to a Narco-State
His Campaign Manager, the DEA, and the Case of the 50,000 Kilos
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration: January 17, 1998 Shipment of 10,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate, December 16, 1997 Shipment of 20,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate and November 17, 1997 Shipment of 20,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate; Suspension of Shipments
Dear Simon,
I read with great interest your excellent but incomplete misive "Colombian Leader Disputes Claim of Tie to Cocaine Kingpin" in the NYT.
I say incomplete because you state "Mr. Uribe, the Bush administration’s closest ally in South America, has been dogged by claims of his links to Mr. Escobar since his political star began to rise in the 1990s, claims that became pronounced during his presidential campaign in 2002" and you then go on to mention only a DIA report from 1991. You stop there.
I'm interested to know why you didn't mention the rest of the evidence against Uribe?
1. His father, Alberto Uribe Vélez, was himself subject to an extradition warrant to face charges of drug trafficking in the US.
2. Uribe Jr grew up with the children of Fabio Ochoa, a key player at the time in the Medellín cocaine cartel.
3. After being elected Mayor of Medellín, the second city of Colombia, at the age of 26, he was removed from office after only three months by a central government embarrassed by his public ties to the drug Mafia.
4. He was made Director of Civil Aviation, where he issued pilots’ licences to Pablo Escobar’s fleet of light aircraft flying cocaine to Florida.
5. In April 2002, Noticias Uno, a current affairs programme on the TV station Canal Uno, examined alleged links between Uribe and the Medellín cocaine cartel. After the reports were aired, unidentified men threatened to kill the show’s producer, Ignacio Gómez.
6. Noticias Uno told the story of how in 1997 the US Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA) seized 50,000 kilos of potassium permanganate from a ship docked in San Francisco. Permanganate is a chemical used in the production of cocaine. The cargo was bound for a company headed by Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, President Uribe’s campaign manager, and was sufficient to produce cocaine with a street value of $15 billion. Morena Villa’s company was Colombia’s biggest importer of potassium permanganate between 1994 and 1998. When Uribe was Governor of Antioquia, Moreno Villa was his chief of staff and Medellín was the world’s cocaine capital. (I presume you are also aware of the mysterious death since of Pedro Juan Moreno Villa, who was killed last year, Feb 2006)
Now, if you cry ignorance of these facts, then why not investigate them yourself? If your country is granting enormous sums of money to a Colombian administration that is in cahoots not only with narco-terrorists AUC but also the cocaine drug cartels, don't you think your readers deserve to know the whole truth? However, I find it difficult to believe that you know nothing of what I have commented in this e-mail.
I would be interested to receive your comments if you can spare the time.
Best wishes
...
Links:
Tom Feiling of Justice for Colombia: Álvaro Uribe Vélez Links to cocaine cartels?
Al Giordano of Narco News: Uribe's Rise from Medellín: Precursor to a Narco-State
His Campaign Manager, the DEA, and the Case of the 50,000 Kilos
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration: January 17, 1998 Shipment of 10,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate, December 16, 1997 Shipment of 20,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate and November 17, 1997 Shipment of 20,000 Kilograms of Potassium Permanganate; Suspension of Shipments
The New Colombia News Agency (ANNCOL) 11.04.2006 Que todo parezca un accidente
03 October 2007
New revelations in attack on USS Liberty
Finally, the US MSM have decided to make an issue of the USS Liberty. The Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun both publish a special report on the unprovoked Israeli attack.
I say finally because, back in June 2007 in the UK, the BBC attempted to do a hatchet job on the allegations by giving the story to who appears to be their very own in-house 'sayanim': Raffi Berg.
Berg based a lot of his refutations on the testimony of "historian Michael B Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem academic research institute". However what Berg failed to explain to BBC readers was that Oren himself is tainted. He also failed to explain anything about the Shalem Center...
Here's what James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets, which has a chapter dedicated to the USS Liberty, has to say about Oren:
"Oren, however, is a reserve officer and war veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces as well as a former advisor to the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- who was Army chief of staff at the time the Liberty was attacked. He now works for a small right wing, pro-Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli think tank in Jerusalem, the Shalem Center. It is run by its founder, Yoram Hazony, one of former Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest aides (he also ghost wrote a book by him). During the race for prime minister, the political party of Ehud Barak even accused the center of illegally funneling money to Netanyahu -- a charge denied by the center. The Israeli Education Ministry has called the center "a research institute whose leanings are extreme right-wing and even fascistic."
The principal mission of the center, where Mr. Oren is a senior fellow, is the cause of extreme Jewish nationalism -- Israel for the Jews -- i.e. apartheid. That is hardly surprising given that the center's intellectual guru, Yoram Hazony, is an admitted admirer of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. He is the racist, fanatic founder of the violent Jewish Defense League in the U.S. and the rabid anti-Arab Kach movement in Israel, which is now outlawed there and listed as a terrorist group in the U.S. In 1984 Kahane was elected to the Israeli Knesset on a platform calling for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel.
Typical of the comments uttered by Hazony's demagogic idol: "I want the Israeli Arabs out of here because I don't want to kill them every week, as they multiply and demonstrate"; "They are germs that are poisoning us. They will not leave us be until they have raped all our women and murdered all our men"; and "I recognize the submachine gun's right to speak and the knife's right to speak."
Soon after hearing one of the rabbi's fiery, bigoted speeches, Hazony began quoting him in political debates. Eventually he wrote a fawning obituary about his slain hero in the Jerusalem Post. "We were mesmerized," he said. "We listened in astonishment, and finally in shame, when we began to realize that he was right." He then expressed "gratitude to someone who changed our lives, thrilled and entertained us, helped us grow up into strong, Jewish men and women. Many of us found other ways of doing what he asked." One of those ways was by opening his Shalem Center, where Oren, a close associate of Hazony, works, writes, and studies. So much for Oren's "independence."
Anyway, the Tribune/Sun's article is well worth the read...and if anyone has not yet seen it, well worth spending the time viewing the BBC documentary 'Dead in the Water'.
I say finally because, back in June 2007 in the UK, the BBC attempted to do a hatchet job on the allegations by giving the story to who appears to be their very own in-house 'sayanim': Raffi Berg.
Berg based a lot of his refutations on the testimony of "historian Michael B Oren, a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem academic research institute". However what Berg failed to explain to BBC readers was that Oren himself is tainted. He also failed to explain anything about the Shalem Center...
Here's what James Bamford, author of Body of Secrets, which has a chapter dedicated to the USS Liberty, has to say about Oren:
"Oren, however, is a reserve officer and war veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces as well as a former advisor to the government of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin -- who was Army chief of staff at the time the Liberty was attacked. He now works for a small right wing, pro-Benjamin Netanyahu Israeli think tank in Jerusalem, the Shalem Center. It is run by its founder, Yoram Hazony, one of former Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest aides (he also ghost wrote a book by him). During the race for prime minister, the political party of Ehud Barak even accused the center of illegally funneling money to Netanyahu -- a charge denied by the center. The Israeli Education Ministry has called the center "a research institute whose leanings are extreme right-wing and even fascistic."
The principal mission of the center, where Mr. Oren is a senior fellow, is the cause of extreme Jewish nationalism -- Israel for the Jews -- i.e. apartheid. That is hardly surprising given that the center's intellectual guru, Yoram Hazony, is an admitted admirer of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. He is the racist, fanatic founder of the violent Jewish Defense League in the U.S. and the rabid anti-Arab Kach movement in Israel, which is now outlawed there and listed as a terrorist group in the U.S. In 1984 Kahane was elected to the Israeli Knesset on a platform calling for the expulsion of Arabs from Israel.
Typical of the comments uttered by Hazony's demagogic idol: "I want the Israeli Arabs out of here because I don't want to kill them every week, as they multiply and demonstrate"; "They are germs that are poisoning us. They will not leave us be until they have raped all our women and murdered all our men"; and "I recognize the submachine gun's right to speak and the knife's right to speak."
Soon after hearing one of the rabbi's fiery, bigoted speeches, Hazony began quoting him in political debates. Eventually he wrote a fawning obituary about his slain hero in the Jerusalem Post. "We were mesmerized," he said. "We listened in astonishment, and finally in shame, when we began to realize that he was right." He then expressed "gratitude to someone who changed our lives, thrilled and entertained us, helped us grow up into strong, Jewish men and women. Many of us found other ways of doing what he asked." One of those ways was by opening his Shalem Center, where Oren, a close associate of Hazony, works, writes, and studies. So much for Oren's "independence."
Anyway, the Tribune/Sun's article is well worth the read...and if anyone has not yet seen it, well worth spending the time viewing the BBC documentary 'Dead in the Water'.
01 October 2007
"I hate all Iranians."
So says top Pentagon official Debra Cagan, according to the Daily Mail:
"Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."
And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.
The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month. "
And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.
The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month. "
As usual a Pentagon spokesman tried to cover up the fact that DOD has yet another racist on its books: "She doesn't speak that way," said an official.
However, "when The Mail on Sunday spoke to four of the six MPs, three confirmed privately that she made the remark and one declined to comment. The other two could not be contacted."
There is obviously a truth problem in this Administration, they're all compulsive liars - hardly surprising really considering they're also murderous criminals with the blood of over a million Iraqis on their hands.
More on Cagan: This woman definitely gets around. From State to Defense. Some of the positions she's held in the past:
1996 Senior Coordinator for Nuclear and Nonproliferation Policy, Bureau of European and Canadian Affairs, Department of State, United States
1998 Director of Policy and Regional Affairs for Russia and the Independent States at the State Department
2001 office director in the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (where she was known to “play above her pay grade.”)
2005 Political Advisor to Supreme Allied Commander Transformation
Talking of pay grades, she's obviously earning good money. Last year she bought a house in the Washington area at 21ST ST. S., 1110 Arlington for $1.16 million. Not bad for a civil servant...
NB. The photo shown above that appeared in the Daily Mail article was actually taken by the Daily Mail from the website of the Embassy of Hungary in Washington DC, and what some commentators have called a "martial cross", is in fact the Commander's Cross Order of Merit that was awarded to Ms. Cagan by the Hungarians. I'm no fan, but fair's fair.
10 September 2007
Karma Chameleon: The Pimpernelian Shape-Shifting of Osama bin Laden
I'm with Chris Floyd on this one.
There's no way that's bin Laden. Someone's trying to tell me not to believe my own eyes. Apart from the physical difference, which is obvious, there is another oddity:
"When analyzing the transcript, however, it was noted that the date of transcription is yesterday, 6 September 2007, one full day before the video was allegedly obtained. The date is prominently displayed in the lower left hand corner of the document in a traditional U.S. format (MM/DD/YY). Usually, an official government document will use the DD/MM/YYYY format.
Additionally, the transcript begins with the number "2" on the bottom center of the document, which was apparently scanned as a picture file and formatted into PDF. Although this is not unusual, we note that the cover page appears to be missing based on the page numeration. "
Juan Cole acknowledges the doubts but sends his readers up what I feel to be a dead end, as it doesn't even question the authenticity of the person in the video.
Surprisingly, the Daly Telegraph had a report that stated:
"What surprised analysts was his use of the language of Left-wing protesters, which showed detailed knowledge of the economic travails of middle America.
Bin Laden referred to "the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgage" and blamed "global warming and its woes" on "emissions of the factories the major corporations".
A former senior US intelligence official said: "It has Adam Gadahn written all over it."
This would tend to support the view that Al Qaeda has been infiltrated by US intelligence...or at very least is a useful tool to be manipulated when necessary (see Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism ).
Anyway here's Chris Floyd:
You've probably already heard this, but as Winter Patriot reminds us, it seems that some guy in a fake beard claiming to be Osama bin Laden appeared the other day on a videotape obtained in what the Washington Post called "unusual circumstances" by an obscure outfit of D.C.-based jihad-peepers who compile lurid clips of Muslims gone wild. (WP has more here.) This obscure Beltway outfit turned the tape over to anonymous "U.S. intelligence officials" who anonymously told the Post that the tape sure 'nuff looks authentic.
True, the guy in the video has a bulbous honker that little resembles the svelte-bridged schnozz that bin Laden sported for many decades -- right up until the day in 2002 when a suddenly portly, suddenly round-nosed figure calling himself bin Laden popped up on a video claiming credit for the the 9/11 attacks for the first time. (As WP continually points out, the FBI still holds that there is "no hard evidence connnecting bin Laden to 9/11.") And yes, the new rambling rant of the round-nosed guy in a fake beard does seem remarkably tailored to feed talking points to the right-wing media and discredit opposition to George W. Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq. And sure, it is intriguing to note that unlike the old days, when "bin Laden" tapes were kept under heavy wraps by the government, lest they contain secret messages to "sleeper cells" in the Heartland, the entirety of this tape (just like the one conveniently issued before the 2004 election) has been unceasingly flogged by "unnamed Administration officials" and their simpering Osrics in the war-porn media, especially the references to Noam Chomsky -- always a nice, juicy slab of red meat to throw to the right-wing faithful, though hardly a name to conjure with to the general American public: the ostensible target of this ostensible message.) Even the Dear Leader himself -- who used to tell us he didn't give bin Laden a second thought -- was quick to jump on the new video with all the passionate avidity of....well, just about any Republican office-holder in proximity to forbidden sexual fruit.
Yet despite all of these elements conveniently converging to serve the partisan political interests of the White House, we are are told by unnamed "U.S. intelligence officials" that the video is genuine. And to be sure, these unnamed "U.S. intelligence officials" are all honorable men: faithful, credible, to be trusted implicitly.
So I suppose we simply must accept the fact that this bulbous-nosed, black-bearded figure really is the guy who the FBI says has no proven connection to 9/11, and thus be really, really scared that he's still out there, plotting terror on the Homeland, directing the Iraqi insurgency, managing the Democratic Party (well, somebody has to!), and having a high old time chewing the fat with his nice Jewish friend Noam Chomsky.
After all, to think otherwise, you would have to believe that the President of the United States and his officials were capable of deliberate deception, manufactured intelligence and base propaganda in pursuing their factional agenda. And we are certainly too serious here for that kind of pure moonbattery.
There's no way that's bin Laden. Someone's trying to tell me not to believe my own eyes. Apart from the physical difference, which is obvious, there is another oddity:
"When analyzing the transcript, however, it was noted that the date of transcription is yesterday, 6 September 2007, one full day before the video was allegedly obtained. The date is prominently displayed in the lower left hand corner of the document in a traditional U.S. format (MM/DD/YY). Usually, an official government document will use the DD/MM/YYYY format.
Additionally, the transcript begins with the number "2" on the bottom center of the document, which was apparently scanned as a picture file and formatted into PDF. Although this is not unusual, we note that the cover page appears to be missing based on the page numeration. "
Juan Cole acknowledges the doubts but sends his readers up what I feel to be a dead end, as it doesn't even question the authenticity of the person in the video.
Surprisingly, the Daly Telegraph had a report that stated:
"What surprised analysts was his use of the language of Left-wing protesters, which showed detailed knowledge of the economic travails of middle America.
Bin Laden referred to "the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgage" and blamed "global warming and its woes" on "emissions of the factories the major corporations".
A former senior US intelligence official said: "It has Adam Gadahn written all over it."
This would tend to support the view that Al Qaeda has been infiltrated by US intelligence...or at very least is a useful tool to be manipulated when necessary (see Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism ).
Anyway here's Chris Floyd:
You've probably already heard this, but as Winter Patriot reminds us, it seems that some guy in a fake beard claiming to be Osama bin Laden appeared the other day on a videotape obtained in what the Washington Post called "unusual circumstances" by an obscure outfit of D.C.-based jihad-peepers who compile lurid clips of Muslims gone wild. (WP has more here.) This obscure Beltway outfit turned the tape over to anonymous "U.S. intelligence officials" who anonymously told the Post that the tape sure 'nuff looks authentic.
True, the guy in the video has a bulbous honker that little resembles the svelte-bridged schnozz that bin Laden sported for many decades -- right up until the day in 2002 when a suddenly portly, suddenly round-nosed figure calling himself bin Laden popped up on a video claiming credit for the the 9/11 attacks for the first time. (As WP continually points out, the FBI still holds that there is "no hard evidence connnecting bin Laden to 9/11.") And yes, the new rambling rant of the round-nosed guy in a fake beard does seem remarkably tailored to feed talking points to the right-wing media and discredit opposition to George W. Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq. And sure, it is intriguing to note that unlike the old days, when "bin Laden" tapes were kept under heavy wraps by the government, lest they contain secret messages to "sleeper cells" in the Heartland, the entirety of this tape (just like the one conveniently issued before the 2004 election) has been unceasingly flogged by "unnamed Administration officials" and their simpering Osrics in the war-porn media, especially the references to Noam Chomsky -- always a nice, juicy slab of red meat to throw to the right-wing faithful, though hardly a name to conjure with to the general American public: the ostensible target of this ostensible message.) Even the Dear Leader himself -- who used to tell us he didn't give bin Laden a second thought -- was quick to jump on the new video with all the passionate avidity of....well, just about any Republican office-holder in proximity to forbidden sexual fruit.
Yet despite all of these elements conveniently converging to serve the partisan political interests of the White House, we are are told by unnamed "U.S. intelligence officials" that the video is genuine. And to be sure, these unnamed "U.S. intelligence officials" are all honorable men: faithful, credible, to be trusted implicitly.
So I suppose we simply must accept the fact that this bulbous-nosed, black-bearded figure really is the guy who the FBI says has no proven connection to 9/11, and thus be really, really scared that he's still out there, plotting terror on the Homeland, directing the Iraqi insurgency, managing the Democratic Party (well, somebody has to!), and having a high old time chewing the fat with his nice Jewish friend Noam Chomsky.
After all, to think otherwise, you would have to believe that the President of the United States and his officials were capable of deliberate deception, manufactured intelligence and base propaganda in pursuing their factional agenda. And we are certainly too serious here for that kind of pure moonbattery.
29 August 2007
Wrong-footed at every turn -Dilip Hiro
Excellent analysis by Hiro. Just a pity he didn't get into more detail about how the demand by the UNSC for Iran "to cease its enrichment of uranium" was in fact illegal, contradicting a lawful treaty, the NPT, that allows its signatories "the inalienable right...to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination"
orwellwasright is spot on the money:
"Couldn't have that interfering with the Bush's traditionally belligerent stance now, could we? Not when the war profiteers are on a role!"
The truth of the blind robbery in Iraq by 'contractors' is vividly described in the excellent article in Rolling Stone:
The Great Iraq Swindle
How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
orwellwasright is spot on the money:
"Couldn't have that interfering with the Bush's traditionally belligerent stance now, could we? Not when the war profiteers are on a role!"
The truth of the blind robbery in Iraq by 'contractors' is vividly described in the excellent article in Rolling Stone:
The Great Iraq Swindle
How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
