Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
New Grist for Hype on Iran
Here we go again. A report
issued Thursday by the new Director General of the U.N. International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, has injected
new adrenalin into those arguing that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.
The usual suspects are hyping—and distorting—thin-gruel language in the report to “prove” that Iran is hard at work on a nuclear weapon. The New York Times’ David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, for example, highlighted a sentence about “alleged activities related to nuclear explosives,” which Amano says he wants to discuss with Iran.
Amano’s report said:
“Addressing these issues
is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities
and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004.”
Sanger and Broad play up the
“beyond 2004” language as “contradicting the American intelligence
assessment…that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the
end of 2003.” Other media have picked that up and run with it,
apparently without bothering to read the IAEA report itself.
The Times article is, at best, disingenuous in claiming:
“The report cited new
evidence, much of it collected in recent weeks, that appeared to paint
a picture of a concerted drive in Iran toward a weapons capability.”
As far as I can tell, the “new evidence” consists of the “same-old, same-old” allegations and inferences already reported in the open press—material that failed to convince the Director of Intelligence, Dennis Blair, to depart from previous assessments during his Congressional testimony on February 2. Rather, he adhered closely to the unanimous conclusions of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Nov. 2007.
So What’s New? The Director General of the IAEA, for one thing.
Yukiya Amano found huge shoes
to fill when he took over from the widely respected Mohamed ElBaradei
on December 1. ElBaradei had the courage to call a spade a spade
and, when necessary, a forgery a forgery—like the documents alleging
that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium in Niger.
ElBaradei took a perverse—if
diplomatic—delight in giving the lie to spurious allegations and became
persona non grata to the Bush/Cheney administration. So much so
that, in an unsuccessful campaign to deny him a third four-year term
as Director General, the administration called in many diplomatic chits
in 2005—the same year he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
In addition to a strong spine, Elbaradei had credentials that would simply not quit. His extensive diplomatic experience together with a PhD in international law from New York University, gave him a gravitas that enabled him to lead the IAEA effectively.
Gravitas Needed
Lacking gravitas, one bends
more easily. It is a fair assumption that Amano will prove more
malleable than his predecessor—and surely more naïve. How he
handles the controversy generated by Thursday’s report should show
whether he means to follow ElBaradei’s example or the more customary
“flexible” example so common among U.N. bureaucrats.
Press reports over the past few days—as well as past experience—strongly suggest that the “new evidence” cited by the Times may have comes from the usual suspects—agenda-laden sources, like Israeli intelligence.
On Saturday, the Jerusalem
Post quoted the Israeli government as saying the IAEA report “establishes
that the agency has a lot of trustworthy information about the past
and present activities that testify to the military tendencies of the
Iranian program.” The newspaper cited the IAEA report as suggesting
that “Teheran had either resumed such work [on a nuclear weapon] or
had never stopped when U.S. intelligence said it did.”
Perhaps the Jerusalem Post
should have stopped there. Rather, in a highly suggestive sentence,
it went on to suggest that “intelligence supplied by the US, Israel,
and other IAEA member states on Iran’s attempts to use the cover of
a civilian nuclear program to move toward a weapons program was compelling.”
Compelling? Not so much.
It beggars belief that Israel would withhold such “intelligence”
from the U.S. And judging from the Congressional testimony of
National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair on Feb. 2, the U.S. intelligence
community sees the evidence as neither new nor compelling.
The analysis and judgments of the Nov. 2007 NIE were a product of the original ethos of CIA’s intelligence directorate where the premium was on speaking without fear or favor—speaking truth to power. That Estimate was like a breath of fresh air for those of us aware of the importance of that kind of integrity. Some of us proudly bear the retaliatory scars from administration officials, pundits, and academics pushing agenda-shaped, alternative analyses.
The supreme indignity was former
CIA Director George Tenet’s tenet that intelligence should be cooked
to order—as was done in the September 2002 NIE regarding WMD in Iraq.
That was, pure and simple, prostitution of our profession, and not very
different from what John Yoo and his lawyer accomplices did to the legal
profession in finding waterboarding and other acts of torture not torture.
An Honest Estimate
After a bottom-up investigation
of all evidence on Iran’s nuclear activities and plans, the November
2007 Estimate boldly contradicted what President George W. Bush, Vice
President Dick Cheney, and their Israeli counterparts had been claiming
about the imminence of a nuclear threat from Iran.
Happily, courage was not limited
to Tom Fingar, then chair of the National Intelligence Council, and
those working under his supervision on the Estimate. The most
senior U.S. military officers took the unusual step of insisting that
the essence of the Estimate’s key judgments be made public.
They calculated, correctly,
that this would put a spike in the wheels of the juggernaut then rolling
toward a fresh disaster—war with Iran. Recall that Adm. William Fallon,
who became CENTCOM commander in March 2007, leaked to the press that
there would be no attack on Iran “on my watch.”
Fallon was fired in March 2008. While not as outspoken as Fallon, his senior military colleagues shared his disdain for the dangerously simplistic views of Bush and Cheney on the use of military power.
Among a handful of Key Judgments of the November 2007 NIE were these:
“-We judge with high confidence
that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program;
“-We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons….
“-We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
But that was more than two years ago, you say. What about now?
February 2010
In formal testimony to the
Senate Intelligence Committee on February 2, Director of National Intelligence
Dennis Blair wore out the subjunctive mood in addressing Iran’s possible
plans for a nuclear weapon. His paragraphs were replete with dependent
clauses, virtually all of them beginning with “if.”
Blair repeated verbatim the 2007 judgment that Iran is “keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons,” and repeated the intelligence community’s agnosticism on the $64 question: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”
Addressing the uranium enrichment plant at Qom, Blair pointed out that its small size and location under a mountain “fit nicely with a strategy of keeping the option open to build a nuclear weapon at some future date, if Tehran ever decides to do that.”
Such “advancements lead us to affirm our judgment from the 2007 NIE that Iran is technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon in the next few years, if it chooses to do so.”
Notably absent from Blair’s testimony was the first “high confidence” judgment of the 2007 NIE that “in fall 2003 Iran halted its nuclear weapons program,” and the “moderate confidence” assessment that Iran had not restarted it.
These were the most controversial judgments in 2007. Blair did not disavow them; he just didn’t mention them—probably in an attempt to let sleeping dogs lie. Less likely, Blair may have chosen to sequester for closed session any discussion of “recent evidence” bearing on these key judgments. It is likely that Blair was aware of the doubts that would be raised by Amano’s IAEA report just two weeks later.
Spreading Confusion
As if the considered judgments of the intelligence community had no weight, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was quick to cite the IAEA report to charge that Iran is pursuing “a nuclear weapons program with the purpose of evasion.” Presumably, she was merely repeating the talking points given to her boss a week ago on her way to the Middle East.
Speaking a week ago in Qatar, Secretary Hillary Clinton expressed her deep concern at “accumulating evidence” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon—as though deterrence is a thing of the past. On the question of what kind of threat the “accumulating evidence” poses to the U.S., Clinton inadvertently spilled the beans.
The evidence is deeply concerning,
she said, not because it “directly threatens the United States, but
it directly threatens a lot of our friends”—read Israel. Recall
that Clinton is on record saying the she would “obliterate” Iran
if it attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon. It is de rigueur
never to mention the 200-300 nuclear weapons already in Israel’s arsenal.
Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, notes that it would be far better if the U.S. would stress that Iran's right to uranium enrichment, consistent with Non-Proliferation Treaty Article IV, is contingent on Iran's adherence to the treaty's Articles I, II, and III.
Thielmann notes that Iran has no inherent right to uranium enrichment while it is violating its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Yet this point is being lost by the West's unqualified emphasis on the demand that uranium enrichment be suspended, and inconsistent U.S. statements about Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons. Consequently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can posture that the West is just trying to keep Iran down and deny it the rights guaranteed under the NPT.
Deja Iraq All Over Again
On June 5, 2008, then-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller made some remarkable comments that got sparse attention in the Fawning Corporate Media in the United States. Announcing the findings of a bipartisan report of a multi-year study on misstatements on prewar intelligence on Iraq, Rockefeller said:
“In making the case for war,
the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in
reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.
As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat
from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
For God’s sake, spare us such “intelligence” on Iran.
- Posted in
50 Comments so far
Show AllOnce again, nothing political is as how it appears on the surface... or in the New York Times. Didn't we learn that from the official 9/11 myth and the lead-up to the Iraq War?
Ray does it again. lifts the curtain on how the administration, with full cooperation of the Fawning Corporate Media (his term) are setting us up for attacking and probably occupying Iran -- though with what troops is a big question as we are stretched pretty thin now with four and 1/2 wars going on.
Clinton I noticed had zero evidence to trot out at her trick pony show of a speech. Just empty rhetoric and accusations. But the media treated these as facts. Ah, where are the Helen Thomases when we need them, or even a Sam Donaldson baring better.
Gary
"The great object of government" said he "is the protection of property at home, and respect and renown abroad."
-- Daniel Webster
"It is a fair assumption that Amano will prove more malleable than his predecessor ..."
... which is why he's there, of course. ElBaradei wasn't "malleable" enough, and you just don't get away with exposing US lies in the UN for very long. It's amazing that ElBaradei lasted as long as he did, especially after describing the U.S. invasion of Iraq as "a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."
I'm ashamed to admit that I sometimes find myself hoping that the U.S. and/or Israel does bring the whole Middle East situation to its ultimate culmination by launching some kind of strike against Iran. In my estimation, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) member nations would not sit idly by and the boil would finally be lanced in the only way that appears likely to bring the interminable contest of imperial will to a final conclusion.
So? The entire UN is a giant TOAD, collectively bigger than Blare/Brown Britain! It wouldn't (WANT to) recognize a USrael whirlwind of war crimes RegardLESS!!
Thanks Ray McGovern.
Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come.
Who stands to gain from another war, other than getting our hands on their precious oil? The war machinery complex for one but it would be interesting to see how many members of our Congress have tucked inside their portfolios a few stocks here and there of those companies producing said war machinery. Any clues? War is the axel grease that lubricates the wheels of production of the Industrial Military Complex. Prewar hype is just another conditioning agent to have us fully prepared for when it does happen. Whether in Iran or elsewhere it is necessary to dangle the boogeyman to appease the masses.
Hmmm
I must say people in America have very, very short memories. It was less than 10 years ago that the same media outfits, pushing the same zionist baloney about Iraq, conned the people into allowing an illegal, immoral, and downright stupid war against Israel's enemies to be fought and paid for by the American people. I mean just how dumb can the American people be?
In the aftermath of the Iraq war, it become self evident that virtually every single pretext for war that the media and the government told the people was a flat out lie. Iran is no different.
You're right, except that it's not so much a problem associated with a very very short memory, but rather a product of a third world educational system combined with the most sophisticated propaganda machine ever devised.
Caleb: We do not have a third world educational system, we have the greatest university educational system in the world. However, it is just not for the best interests of humankind. They are not universities, they are trade schools for corporate America.
American universities are the source of brains for corporate America to rule the world and to perpetuate the dominance of corporate capitalism over all human activities.
American universities provide the best brains for technology, primarily the technology for war to dominate the planet. We are technically more advance than any nation in the technology of health care, but deny it to those who cannot afford it because the capitalists have to make ever more obscene profits. These capitalists ruin everything they touch.
America is an ill informed nation because our universities are on bended knee to the dirty rotten system. University business schools that teach the capitalistic mindset is just part of the problem. The other problem is that the Liberal Arts Programs in Universities do not expose the lies of corporate capitalism. They have failed to elevate the human mind with the humanities. Not many students are into the hunanities, but maybe there would be if it were more honest about the evil of corporate capitalism and the survival of the human species.
Obviously there is a lot of blame to spread around, money in politics, etc., etc., but education is the foundation for an honest democracy. In the U.S., the goal of education in the U.S. has been perverted for evil purposes, the domiance of corporate ruling elite.
Don't look back.
Something might be gaining on you.
Stephen V. Riley, a huge step forward and one that should start in schools long before university is the teaching of critical thinking.
Why is it absent and only bundled in abstruse university logic/philosophy courses?
Because it is a part of philosophy. The real question is why, in American schools, the department of philosophy is either quite absent from campus or one needs a GPS to locate it and more than that to find an enrolled student? When I did a B.A. in Europe the Department of Philosophy was the hardest one to get a place in. Anyone could get a place in Engineering.
Rainborowe: You forgot to add that,once you locate the American dept. of philosophy with your GPS, you learn nothing of human worth. The dominant trends in both Anglo-American and Continental philosophy are misological. ("Misology" signifies "hatred of reason"). In Anglo-American philosophy, the "linguistic philosophy" is dominant; epitomized by W.V.O Quine's epigraph, "Ontology recapitulates philology"--which in human language means, "Saying it's so makes it so." Continental philosophy says the same thing with its mantra, "There's nothing outside of the text." (Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty said the same thing, but Carroll was satirizing.)
Philosophy is supposed to deal with the universal truths of humanity. Alas, philosophy is also a barometer of society, as Barrows Dunham put it. And late capitalist society cannot bear to countenance the truth about itself. "Thou shalt not be aware" is the operative maxim; obeisance to bourgeois ideology is the summum bonum. Modern philosophy is mainly a pretentious exercise in Public Relations for the conventional wisdom, a.k.a. the lies that bind.
Fantasize, if you will, an honest department of philosophy; issuing a press release that reads, "New Study Finds That All Mainstream Politicians Lie, And Proves That Political Lying Is Harmful To Humanity." --Instead we behold a very occasional piece of obscurantism in "medical ethics" pondering unreal dilemmas concerning Who Gets The Kidney and When To Unplug Grandma.
Never forget that William Bennett (the fat and fallacious GOP motivational speaker) was trained as a professional philosopher. Never forget that the infamous "ticking time bomb" rationalization for torture was devised by a professional philosopher, Michael Walzer.
So much for "Know Thyself" and "Nothing in Excess" (ancient Greek philosophical ideals).
soloduff, my new favorite commenter! or is that poster? or commentator? anyway, you're on fire lately. keep it up.
The lack of teaching critical thinking goes hand in hand with not teaching civics/government and history in schools any more. You keep the citizens dumb, you can then lead them around by their government issued nose rings. And in the process get them to vote for things that are no where near the best interest of the people or the country. It has worked perfectly for the last forty years or so.
AND if Iran gets "one", it's one against 300 Israeli nukes. The Iranians are not stupid enough to launch "one" that would guarantee their obliteration. I don't believe that the Iranians are getting a "bomb", though.
Right. Even if they are secretly trying to manufacture one, it would just be for defensive purposes. But it is US policy to prevent nations from being able to defend themselves from the US war machine just in case the corporatocracy determines that nation is a good target for invasion and occupation.
This is all mumbo-jumbo.
You do not know how many "bombs" Israel has.
You have no idea if Iran has a "bomb," is a week away from having one, or is 50 years away.
You have no way of knowing any of this.
And neither do I, or anyone else.
No one disputes that israel has about 200 nukes. Even israel says basically no comment.
The consenus among all knowledgeable intelligence and journalists is
Iran --- 0
Israel ----200 maybe more
The bloody writing has been on the wall for a decade or more - probably much longer than that. It's all pretty clear, so we shouldn't be surprised as things continue to play out according to the plan.
Yes, "here we go again," Ray McGovern.
EVIL PEOPLE GOVERN US. What else can they be called?
How casually this government, and our delightful friends in Israel and our obfuscating friends in Great Britain, play craps with the lives of so many people. No matter what the truth, these EVIL PEOPLE will turn it into a lie without blinking an eye.
During and at the end of every attack on a country we have targeted ... under the guise of DEFENDING ourselves ... there are wounded, maimed and dead CHILDREN.
Fifty per cent of Iran's population are in the youngish and younger range. Give them faces, and see those faces as burnt and shredded and with various expressions of agony as they suffer and as they die. And see their parents faces, burnt and shredded and with agony in their eyes as they see their children being blown to bits. Hear their screams, their shrieks, their howlings. And then rubber stamp their burnt flesh with MADE IN THE U.S.A.
EVIL PEOPLE GOVERN US and they have NO SHAME. Do we?
I don't think so.
Of the twenty or so people I have had the closest ties with for many years, which include family members, and most of them are scattered across this country, I have to say that they are not interested, and I know they really don't like hearing about it. These people are what could be called ordinary Americans, solid, nice, good family people.
None of them have ever been touched by any kind of violent tragedy except on the Silver Screen and the Boob Tube screen. But then you leave the theatre or shut off the television or DVD player. Wow! Wasn't that a great story?
For this Powder Puff population of ours, does the lesson have to be brought home literally in order for true understanding and compassion and a sense of justice to take root? Maybe that's the way it's s'posed to be. Maybe that's the way it works.
If that is so, then chances are it is already too late.
What is happening is not an accident. It is not the Fates.
What is happening is deliberate manipulation of the truth by people in charge who are deliberately manipulating the truth. That is Shameless EVIL.
What is happening is not an accident. The plans are escalating now, in partnership with "friends," to create more suffering, more war on this planet with deliberate intention. That is Shameless EVIL.
And to the Right Wing Rabid Christians: Who needs a Devil when you have the top-echelon of the government of the United States of Amerika engaged in devilish work?
And to my Powder Puff friends and family members and liquid-liberal fellow citizens, open your eyes, hearts and minds before it is too late for a lot of nice people, just like you, who, as far as I can tell, don't deserve to die and have their children killed.
Karmic choices and Karmic outcomes. I shudder for us all.
/cm
The Hindus believe in mass karma, which may or may not be true. But according to them, this why so many innocent people were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They say this explains why so many "good" apathetic, Germans were killed and maimed in WW2. If this is true; then your shuddering for all is right on target Cee. Paul
Thanks, Paul Revere. It feels good just to be heard. /cm
Sioux Rose
CEE MIRACLES: Although you are a little kinder with respect to the ill-informed, misguided American public, I agree with all your other points. Well-stated.
cm I too am stunned by the indifference, passivity, resignation, perhaps, that I see among some of my friends and relatives in the face of our country's lies, aggression and killing of innocent people. And I am talking about the attitudes of people who are good and kind in many ways. They just do not want to be disturbed. They prefer to say "there is good and bad on both sides". They are "not sure" about Iran and various Arabic countries, and do not want to bother to find things out. They will not learn and take a stand. They do not find that entertaining enough. They want things to work out without them lifting a finger. Those who were angry at the inarticulate Bush are soothed by the bland Obama. I too shudder for us all.
Joe
I wish Mc Govern had explained the Safe Guard Agreement violations.
In previous threads posters discussed airspace viability for various nations in an israeli attack.
But we ignored what israel has already done to circumvent airspace restrictions and that is send a nuclear armed sub and cruiser to the coast of Iran.One poster claimed Obomber received the Nobel for stopping an attack by this mini-fleet.
Taking a wild guess I would guess this mini-fleet would be able to launch 20-50 nuclear warheads possibly many more.
So a minimum of 20 warheads would pretty much destroy Iran.
And that leaves out israeli missiles that might violate airspace ( I mean whats airspace when your in the Holocaust business).
Iran only has a handful of clumsy non nuclear armed missiles
that might barely make it to Israel.
Iran would need alot of surviving aircraft that could penetrate israeli air defenses in order to mount any kind of meaningful retaliation(and at that point USA would knock those planes down to help israel).
So unless Iran has alot of sophisticated aircraft it is at the mercy of the USA and israel zionist whims.
If I were strategizing for Iran I would be trying to purchase a nuclear weapon and planting it in Tel Aviv as a deterrent.I know, easier said than done.
Better yet if Iran could make a credible claim of a nuke in Tel Aviv, but then again who knows what bloodshed would result.
I do not believe in violence but I believe the threat of violence would be justified in preventing the Annilhilation of a peaceful peoples.
"War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means" wrote the Prussian General von Clausewitz. It has been interpreted as: "countries commonly go to war when they cannot get what they demand at the negotiation table". Our administrations beginning with at least that of Mr. Clinton have never sat down at the negotiation table with Iran owing to demands which they knew Iran would reject even before negotiating and by spreading false rumors a.k.a. lies. Hence von Clausewitz's statement should now be replaced by "War is the continuation of subversive regime change by other means". (It was actually first practiced by the Bush administration on Iraq.) Unilateral sanctions on Iran not approved by the UN are an act of war. The Obama administration threatens Iran with "economic warfare" which is war nevertheless.
It is interesting that another of von Clausewitz's statements is seldom mentioned. He warned the King in Prussia that "the army does not take lightly when it is used for Your Majesty's military adventures". Frame that and hang it above your bed President Obama!
Crowsnest:
Thanks for the Clausewitz. But, sadly, I suspect that the "democratic" American professional military is far less inclined to object to its elected leaders sending them to stupid wars than the mostly conscripted Prussian army was. And this is why I've always deplored the end of the draft. The draft put a stop to the Vietnam war; now our politicians can go to war with impunity because it's other people's fathers and sons getting killed and they volunteered to do it--no matter the poverty-stricken life they faced otherwise. Lindie England, poor creature, thought she'd just get a shot at some education which, of course, she badly needed. Unlike the Prussians who had perhaps the best public education system in the world of their day. It was what the USA based theirs on--when the USA had one, that is.
I would argue that >>"War is the continuation of subversive regime change by other means"<< started in America with Polk and the Texas-Mexican War whereas the government of Texas went from Mexico to the Texas Republic on the way to becoming United States territory.
So this is OLD tactics preceding von Clausewitz.
Gary
I dream of giving birth to a child who will ask, "Mother, what was war?"
-~ Eve Merriam
Hillary Clinton rejoiced that Honduras had been returned to a state of "stability," a state that depended in great part on the U.S. accepting without objection the phony election replacing Zelaya with a member of the financial elite for whom the military works.
In Iran, we are -- as I think someone suggested above -- following the Project for a New American Century's plan for American "security," which identifies Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil.
Hillary is attacking Iran with lies all around the world and no one seems to be contradicting her except truth-tellers like Dennis Kucinich. Are she and many members of Congress so in thrall to our "special relationship" with Israel that its "enemies" are now ours??? And why does Obama go along?
The NY Times along with WaPo is leading the way to the elephant graveyard for newspapers.
Of course the distortions havve nothing to do with the Zionist ownership.
Have you ever met a Jewish enterprise in the USA that you didn't call "Zionist"?
given the rising right-populist anger, war is a useful way out for oourprez and those he works for...and allows no longer inverted, but classical totalitarianism to take final form....
from j.conrad's Heart of Darkness: "the horror, the horror..."
In the run-up to the 2008 elections Obama and Clinton were trying to out grovel each other to gain favor with the Zionists in AIPAC. We now have different branches of the government putting out conflicting stories and views on the potential danger from Iran. We have to blame Obama for this! He has continued to keep quiet while Hillary runs around spouting the Israeli nonsense. We then have a Zionist controlled US media that won't allow any truth to come out. Example: Do a Google search on, "Iran Will Have Nuclear Bomb in Five Years" and "Israel Can't Make up it's Mind About Iran Nuclear Timetable". These articles were printed in Haaretz, but censored and not printed in the US. More recently, how many US papers printed any detailed story about the assassination of a Hamas member in Dubai? The Israelis are very good at manipulating public opinion for their benefit and we have too many people in the US who are happy only reading the sports pages and listening to FIXED News or Rush Limbaugh.
I agree, however aside from Zionists; history has clearly shown that the corporate media has always supported and attempted to "rationalize" imperialist wars of aggression, it is, crudely put good for business and profits. It is an easy way for them to steal public money, legally.
This goes back to the Spanish-American War, and even earlier and every single invasion and act of naked violent aggression the US has unleashed on various parts of the globe. Israel is no exception to this, of course. I see Israel as a heavily armed garrison state of the US Empire. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement for the imperialists in USA/Israel.
How many more times?
The commies in N.Korea were a great threat to US security, had to go to war with them to keep us "safe" from those dirty Reds. (domino theory) They would soon be under the bed.
Those dirty Commies in Vietnam were a grave and imminent threat to US security. Had to kill a few million of them and sacrifice tens of thousands of young US men in a bizarre cultural ritual; and yet ended up failing to keep US pupppet govts. in place.
That bad ol Osama bin Laden was hiding out with thousands of evil doin Al Kayder terrsts and bad ol Taleban. We have to kill em all "over there" so they don't kill us all "over here" This despite lack of any hard evidence or mention of pipelines or strategic interests.
That bad ol Saddam Hussein, despite no evidence, was going to launch a nuclear attack on US/British/Israeli interests in 45 minutes. We all know what happened there.
Now we are told bad ol Iran is building a "nucelar bomb". Just the possibility of that ought to scare every US citizen to the verge of mental illness. The entire nuclear arsenal of the USA and its mini-me, Israel would be ineffective against the all powerful Iran, who controls the world. We are just a vulnerable peace-loving nation, but we must launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran. After all, US/Israel would not want to have a deterrent, even if it was a decade away. Not to mention the fact that Iran has no accurate long-range delivery system.
One does not have to make a lifetime studying history to see a pattern here.
"One does not have to make a lifetime studying history to see a pattern here."
Perhaps not. But one does require just slightly more intelligence and perspicacity than a pet rock. Whether any such level of discernment is permitted under U.S. anti-intellectualism rules can only be regarded as an open question.
Apparently pattern seeing is a lost art, especially, it would seem, among our voting public. Speaking of that public we might get a more discerning vote count if those eligible to cast a ballot actually did so.
'Socialist' compiles a rather well known list yet we the people seem to fall, hook, line and sinker for the same damn bull every damn time.
I notice that the lies are running thick and fast now. My theory in the past has been that you can predict action from the propaganda buildup. The propaganda is there for a reason, and I am fearful of what the so called "response to the (imaginary) threat" will be.
Clinton's unforgivable statement that she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon has to be the worse blunder of her public life. It needs re-emphasis on every day of the Obama administration. She didn't say she'd take out the leadership of Iran-- no, it was the whole place-- and that's how people all around the world took it.
That statement was just as reactionary as anything ever coming out of the mouth of the sclerotic Dick Cheney. The moment she said it, I for one stopped taking her seriously.
And her vociferous supporters for president also lost value in my eyes. Clearly, they sought enfranchisement for women-- a noble goal in itself-- more than survival of humankind.
When anything nasty about Iran is to be said, Clinton gets the nod. Maybe the president just wants her to be consistent. Another way of looking at it is, "Don't believe her, she was discredited long ago."
The USA has been taken over by a sordid collection of Neocons, Zionists and Israeli-Firsters, like HRM Clinton, who have no problem with spending this country into oblivion, protecting and funding Israel and sending our kids off to die fighting wars for Apartheid Israel.
Look at a map of Iran. The country is surrounded by US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and US special forces in Georgia.
We've got Tomahawk nuclear tipped cruise missiles on US Navy ships in the Persian Gulf. So many Navy ships are there, they need a traffic cop.
We've got B2 bombers, armed with nukes, sitting at the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean.
All it will take is another 9/11 false-flag against America, with convenient clues left behind that point at Iran and Clinton will get see her sexual fantasy come true.
In biology, I wonder if parasites notice that they are killing their host. If they do notice, I wonder if they have the ability to stop sucking the life out of the host. Probably not. When a host has many parasites at once, probably the parasites only notice that they are competing with the other parasites, and try to suck more and faster. Think of the parasites now sucking the life out of the USA: 1) NeoCons (including those seeking to control Arab lands for settlements and for oil drilling), 2) Pentagon (including the Military Industrial Complex), 3) Wall Street (including the FED), and 4) Medical monopolies (including pharmaceutical and insurance industries). Then there is 5) Congress (including both parties), which is a parasite in symbiotic relationship with the the other parasites. We are now on our knees, about to fall over, and the parasites want to start another war. Maybe American high schools need mandatory courses on political biology so we can at least see our situation for what it is.
Interesting and thoughtful way of looking at political systems. We may find that actual parasites are less destructive of their hosts than the ones you list.
Joe
What it'll take to prevent an Iran War is our rising up en masse such that this country has never experienced before. Impossible what with MSM leading the charge to war? Except the internet is still open to peacemakers, although for how much longer is uncertain, what with net neutrality under constant attack. Which means, if we're to prevent this new war, that unless another means of mass communication comes along very very soon, that an online widely circulated Code Blue-like alert has to be gotten out whereby the message is something along the line of "Please be aware that time's running out on account of perpetual war + global warming + economic collapse = doomsday. That's the bad news, but the good news is that there's a way for us to prevent the unthinkable from happening, which is that on such and such a day we the people rise up en masse and say no to war, and we keep saying it day after day until those who are intent on putting an end to all life on earth cave to our demands and give peace a chance".
So, Israel is blackmailing us with their nuclear arms? Are we being the "nice guys" by caving in to this scum-bag of a country's demands?
I am really at a loss to understand our foreign policy with regards to Israel. Maybe the Clintons invested in their "illegal settlements". Maybe the Cheney's invested in their "illegal settlements". Maybe most of Congress invested in them, too.
It's worth speculating. I am no mind-reader, but the following seems apparent from externally available data.
1. Israel is no friend of its neighbors. Propping Israel divides the region. A divided Near East is a conquerable Near East.
2. Propping Israel gets less flak from humanistic Americans, a large percentage of whom are Jewish. Some people who identify as Jewish, though certainly not all, cannot respond reasonably to news of Israeli imperialism, oppression, atrocities, and racism. That considerably weakens the response within the United States to American-motivated terrorism carried out by and through Israel.
3. Israel has served for decades as a lightning-post for Muslim reprisals motivated primarily by American and Western European imperialism. Being relatively local, they are easier to hit.
I am fascinated that few or perhaps none of the posters in CD who accuse others of antisemitism ( correctly, sometimes) think to accuse the US of antisemitism in propping up Israel as the bully-boy for American depredations in the region. Surely one could hardly be more cynically racist than to manipulate the antagonisms that some retain from the holocaust and Euro-American and Christian antisemitism in general to promote a circumstance that subjects the Jewish state and its people to continued strife and violence, even a violence ensured by its own racism.
What is really sad is that they sold us out for profit.
Ray McCovern does another outstanding job.
AD