Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Plus ça change: Iraq Done; On to Iran!
One not-so-funny fact about Washington is that nearly all the news media stars who fell for neoconservative falsehoods about Iraq are still around to fall for new ones on Iran, even some like Richard Cohen who briefly regretted his earlier gullibility
Paul R. Pillar, my former colleague in the CIA’s analytical division, has raised a warning flag, cautioning that the same imaginative neocon composers who came up with the various refrains on why we needed to attack Iraq are now providing similar background music for a strike on Iran.
He is right. And as one of my Russian professors used to say, “This is nothing to laugh!”
Pillar’s piece – dissecting an op-ed by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen about the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to Washington – first appeared on The National Interest Web site. On Oct. 21, it was posted at Consortiumnews.com under the title “Sloppy Iran Think by WPost’s Cohen.”
The Cohen column that Pillar critiques is entitled “The alarm bells behind Iran’s alleged assassination plot.” Yet Cohen’s “alarm bells” ringing now about Iran brought a painful reminder of all the alarms he and his colleagues sounded in cheerleading for the attack on Iraq in 2002 and 2003.
NEO-CONNED -- Richard Cohen of the Washington PostCohen was one of the many big-name opinion leaders to put on the pompoms after Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his deceptive Iraq War speech to the United Nations on Feb. 5, 2003. Joining a cheerleading pyramid of pro-war consensus, Cohen mocked anyone who still doubted that Saddam Hussein possessed hidden WMD stockpiles.
“The evidence he [Powell] presented to the United Nations – some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail – had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn’t accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them,” Cohen wrote. “Only a fool – or possibly a Frenchman – could conclude otherwise.”
However, six weeks after the Iraq invasion, with not one WMD stockpile discovered, Cohen’s conscience may have begun to trouble him a bit. To his credit, I suppose, Cohen seems to have been embarrassed enough to fess up, sort of, using the device of an apocryphal conversation with his long-dead grandfather.
In an April 29, 2003, column entitled “Baghdad Bait and Switch,” Cohen recounted a middle-of-the-night visit by Grandpa, who is not at all pleased with his grandson’s credulity about President George W. Bush’s case for war.
“You think maybe you got snookered?” Grandpa asks. “For this your mother sent you to college? … For this you fight a war?
“I read the column where you said that [‘Saddam Hussein was like another Hitler’]. All my friends said, ‘This is your grandson, the hotshot columnist? This is the guy people read so they should know what to think?’
“Hitler? Hitler was a threat to the world. Saddam threatened only his own people. He fought for only 26 days. I had longer fights with your grandmother. …
“First you wanted a war because of terrorism, then because Iraq had a nuclear program. Then you wanted a war because he has poison gas and little crawling things you can’t see. Now you want to bring democracy to the Middle East.
“You know what we used to call this when I was in retail? Bait and switch. … I hope everything turns out hunky-dory, like you’ve been writing. … Otherwise, you should have been an accountant.”
Cohen’s column about the imaginary upbraiding he got from his grandfather ran two days before President Bush jetted onto a U.S. aircraft carrier off the coast of California and gave his memorable “Mission Accomplished” address.
Accountability, Anyone?
One might think that a columnist who got something as wrong as Cohen did would have the decency to admit that Grandpa was right and switch professions.
After all, endorsing the falsehoods that led to an aggressive war in violation of international law – an invasion that led to hundreds of thousands of dead and the squandering of $1 trillion or so – isn’t exactly a minor mistake.
But Cohen apparently found safety in numbers. The fact that he was surrounded by scores of other big-name media stars who had fallen for the same “bait-and-switch” scam meant that he kept his place as a major national columnist – and soon returned to his comfortable role defending the war policies of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
For instance, in a June 19, 2007, op-ed, Cohen rallied to the defense of Cheney’s former chief of staff I. Lewis Libby who had been sentenced to 30 months in jail for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about his role in unmasking covert CIA officer Valerie Plame.
The destruction of Plame’s career was collateral damage resulting from the Bush administration trying to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing Bush’s use of a misleading claim about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa.
But Cohen showed no sympathy for Wilson or Plame, two patriotic citizens who had been personally targeted by Cheney and the White House. Cohen worried only about Libby.
In the column, Cohen denounced the trial as “a mountain out of a molehill.” Following the neocon propaganda themes on the Plame case, Cohen concluded there was no “underlying crime” and poked fun at Americans who thought the invasion of Iraq might have been a bad idea.
“They thought – if ‘thought’ can be used in this context – that if the thread was pulled on who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert D. Novak, the effort to snooker an entire nation into war would unravel and this would show . . . who knows? Something,” Cohen wrote.
Smirking at Torture
Cohen also sympathized with Cheney over his enthusiasm for torturing Muslim detainees. In a May 11, 2009, column – entitled “What If Cheney’s Right?” – Cohen justified “enhanced interrogation techniques,” including the near-drowning tactic of waterboarding, as worthwhile in eliciting important intelligence information and thus saving American lives.
Starting the column, Cohen made light of the whole issue of torture with the quip, “Blogger Alert: I have written a column in defense of Dick Cheney.”
While conceding that torture is morally wrong, Cohen wrote, “where I reserve a soupçon of doubt is over the question of whether ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ actually work. That they do not is a matter of absolute conviction among those on the political left, who seem to think that the CIA tortured suspected terrorists just for the hell of it.”
Cohen noted that Cheney – through his declaration that critical intelligence was extracted by these means – “poses a hard, hard question: Is it more immoral to torture than it is to fail to prevent the deaths of thousands?”
With unintended irony, the columnist regretted that Cheney’s credibility on torture had been dinged by the fact that his pre-Iraq War claims had proved false, like his insisting “that ‘the evidence is overwhelming’ that al-Qaeda had been in high-level contact with Saddam Hussein’s regime when the ‘evidence’ was virtually non-existent.”
What Cohen left out was the very relevant point that precisely those claims of a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection resulted from a coerced confession from one of the CIA’s “high-value detainees,” Ibu al-Sheikh al-Libi.
A June 2002 CIA report cited claims by al-Libi that Iraq had “provided” unspecified chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda operatives. Al-Libi’s information was then inserted into a November 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.
Al-Libi’s false claim – which he later said he offered to escape torture – also found its way into Cheney’s public presentations and into Powell’s UN speech. But Cohen did not deign to mention this inconvenient fact in his column defending these harsh tactics.
On Oct. 6, 2009, Cohen was back serving the neocon cause, baiting President Barack Obama into a major military escalation in Afghanistan, through an opinion piece entitled “Does Obama Have the Backbone?” – questioning Obama’s mettle as a war president.
“The war in Afghanistan is eminently more winnable than was Vietnam,” Cohen wrote. “Still, the war will require more than a significant commitment of troops and, of course, money. It will take presidential leadership, a consistent staying of the course – an implacable confidence that the right choice has been made despite what can be steep costs.”
So, perhaps it should come as no surprise that Richard Cohen is now helping to set the stage for another war – with Iran.
Quick! Someone conjure up Cohen’s grandfather again. We need him to pin back Richard’s ears once more before the gullible grandson falls for a new round of neocon propaganda and enables another catastrophic war.
Originally posted at Consortiumnews.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
47 Comments so far
Show AllSounds like willful ignorance to me.
The Washington deal? "Give me the Iraq campaign issue and lots of campaign funding and I'll give you Iran."
Cohen does not sound like a free man. He briefly escaped his neocon captors in his confessional article. But then the pressures were re-applied.
Cohen, as with most of the other "big name opinion makers", gets paid to play the role courtier. His job is to flatter the powerful, and he does this reasonably well. But it's a sad role to play.
"One not-so-funny fact about Washington is that nearly all the news media stars who fell for neoconservative falsehoods about Iraq are still around to fall for new ones on Iran, even some like Richard Cohen who briefly regretted his earlier gullibility"
Here's my question, is it so much the above-mentioned usual suspects falling for the con or aiding and abetting in its perpetration? One and the other are not necessarily the same.
Cohen? What sort of a name is Cohen? Oh, it's Zionist - that explains all.
Are you being serious Ocean? I am surprised. That was not very funny. What kind of name is Finklestein?
thank you, not funny.
nope
Ocean wrote:
Cohen? What sort of a name is Cohen? Oh, it's Zionist - that explains all.
* * * * *
My Reply:
Ocean,
Simply state that Richard Cohen has a Jewish name and Richard Cohen is a neo-con and a Zionist, if that is your point.
But do not suggest that all people with the name Cohen, or all Jewish people whatever their names might be, are neo-cons or Zionists.
That's not funny. It's bigotry.
Better yet, tell us something that offers a more interesting and valuable insight than simply that large numbers of Jewish people are neo-cons and Zionists; and give us some hint that you understand that not all Jewish people are neo-cons and Zionists.
Remember, those who were right about the Iraq disaster will be treated the same as those who were right about Vietnam, they'll be ignored if not villified.
How much longer will it be before Barack Obama wears his macho leather jacket and proclaims Mission Accomplished in Afghanistan?
No matter how compellingly idiotic one's beliefs may come to be seen, no matter how much one would like to lose them, one simply can't: Being ostracized, or just looked at askance, by ones family and peers is unbearable to most of us. An honorable compromise whould be just to shut up--very hard this, too. And we would do well to remember: not education, not health-care, not social justice, not environmental responsibility, but WAR is What-We-Do.
As writer Randolph Bourne noted about a hundred years ago:
War is the health of the State
The Israelis were very pleased with the American aggression in Iraq. Saddam gave some money to families whose kids took a bomb for a ride on an Bus, or a visit to an occasional cafe inside the green zone. The only terrorist act that Bush could prove.
Given Cohen's absolute loyalty to the Zionist objectives, why think he is anyone but a Israeli dupe. Stupid is as stupid does.
Funny isn't it? If a person from another country tries to do damage, or get set up by the FBI to do damage in the US, he is a terrorist. but, if the CIA or JSOC is in another country, murdering, kidnapping, or torturing that countrie's people, that is ok! The arrogance of the US.
How many other countries have over thrown the US government by way of coups and installed brutal, puppet dictators? For the corporations. United Fruits, aided by Holder. The Shaw of Iran for the British oil companies.
Saddam, Pinochet the Duviers and so many others were allowed to torture and kill their people AFTER the US went in and removed the elected leaders.
Proud to be an American? Not me. This country is a blight on the Earth and the military is the Elite's whore. As are all the Presidents. It is so obvious that Obama is just another whore for the rich. At the cost of his soul I hope
Torture doesn't "work" if you don't tell anyone. It can be a useful tool for keeping the subject population fearful and pacified.
Torture is not necessary because you can now be arrested and charged for standing legally on a sidewalk. Or fail to obtain a permit to demonstrate peacefully for a redress of grievances. I seem to have noticed that our constitution does not give any government the power to tell re-dressers where they are allowed to gather nor does the noun "permit" appear in any constitutional article. The Boston Tea Party must have been the example that inspired the writers of the Bill of Rights which is actually a Bill of No-Nos. Command #1: "thou shalt not ask for permits". Command#2: thou shalt not designate the places for peaceful gatherings for redress of grievances". Please feel free to add your own Commands. The list shall not be restricted to ten.
Torture may not always be "necessary" for spreading fear, despair, and rage among a population, but it sure helps. And besides, it's so much fun for the torturers.
" Nearly all the news media stars that fell for neoconservative falsehoods about Iraq are still around to fall for new ones about Iran".
Ray: They are not falling for anything! The news media stars get paid big bucks and want job security and are willing to be presstitutes and whores to secure it.
They are no different than anyone else that wants to stay employed!
Israel is country that most wants Iran gone. What are Cohen's connections to AIPAC, the Zionist sponsored organization that drives US foreign policy and demands loyalty oaths from members of Congress?
If the USA was to attack Iran, it would be an absolute godsend for the corrupt mullahs who run the place. As the stolen Presidential election of 2009 showed, the majority of the country (especially the young) have little use for Khamenei & Co. An American invasion would be the best thing for the mullah's long term political survival, as it would unite Iran behind them; whereas if left unmolested, the mullahs crony-laden misrule will continue and eventually come home to roost.
Although I have deduced that you are not among these posters, it is ironic that so many of them state that US elections are a fraud. Then why would one complain about elections in Iran or anywhere else in the world to have been fraudulent? Does it really matter whether a politician is appointed by a Shah or is bought by the rich or is given fraudulent votes by mullahs? I also seem to notice that "the young" are protesting in the USA but not in Iran.
if "the young" are not protesting in Iran its because they know the price: they will be arrested, tortured and sentenced to 10-15 years of prison for a peaceful and simple protest. protesting governments like the islamic republic of iran is out of question. instead, progressive activists of Iran are fighting to overthrow the islamic republic. if Iranians hesitate in starting their revolution, they might face the fate of Afganestan or Iraq. only a government which represents broad masses of workers and toilers can stand firm against imperialist threats, not a theocracy which is made of corrupt mullahs and fears its own people more than foreign armies.
I agree with your analysis. I was merely pointing out that a "Libya in Iran" cannot happen without a viable insurgency in Iran. I fervently hope that we are witnessing the completions of the anti-colonial revolutions which began after WW1, intensified after WW2 but brought to power corrupt and often dictatorial "native" elites in most of these former colonies. Several of the new African nations are textbook examples. Our government and those of NATO are not interested in the completions of the colonial revolutions, they are in fact anti-revolutionary, a new form of imperialism. They know that "democracy and freedom" are the safest ingredients to avert the completion of the colonial revolutions by implanting a new elite bred in the USA and Europe. I do, however, maintain that the Iranian mullahs with their almost bloodless overthrow of the Shah of Iran have laid the groundwork for a completion of the anti-colonialist revolution in Iran and elsewhere and the House of Saud knows and fears it. It is for that reason that I cannot overlook or diminish the historic significance of what the ayatollahs did. Finally, to what extent do the "broad masses and toilers" actually accept if not support the "theocracy"? I do not know. Do you?
mullahs did not "laid the groundwork for a completion of the anti-colonialist revolution". they did exactly the opposite. they killed progressive revolutionaries and destroyed soviets, syndicates and popular organizations which people had made during the 1979 revolution. mullahs opposition toward USA is of reactionary essence. if you listen to their propaganda, you will notice that they only oppose democratic rights which people of USA have gained during various struggles since 19th century. they oppose women rights, worker rights, freedom of speech and likewise but you will never hear anything against capitalism from them. after failure of 1979 revolution, progressive movements in middle east suffered of great decline. that is the "historic significance of what the ayatollahs did". some Iranian (like the Tudeh party of Iran) once had your opinion about mullahs but today they are resting in mass graves.
today, after 32 years, iran has a neo liberal economical system and a fascist government which guards that system. if you belive mullahs have "laid the groundwork for ... the anti-colonialist revolution" show us a single organization which defends Iranian workers interests against foregin or national capitalist companies and its not oppressed by the government in iran. but thats impossible because progressive organizations are banned and their members have been killed. broad masses of Iranians are against the islamic regime. progressive activists should support and lead peoples struggle against Irans government. if they dont someone else will do it, perhaps with different purposes and with support of imperialist powers.
a foreign attack can not always unite population behind the government. sometimes the opposite happens. remember France in 1871? or Russia in 1917?
Those two examples are not exactly on. In both of those cases, the populace was initially galvanized by those wars, but soon lost morale due to the sheer incompetence of the leadership (Napoleon III & Czar Nicholas II) that led to catastrophic military defeat. Also, both of those regimes predate the emergence of modern asymmetrical warfare, which if the mullahs have any sense at all, would unleash upon any invader post haste.
I am guessing you think they want another Shah.
You guess incorrectly. The Pahlavi dynasty was the last gasp of an anachronistic governance model that should be seen for sheer crud that it is was. I surmise that Iranians want a government that has a modicum of competence (the current crony laden is anything but, as it has spectacularly mismanaged the economy in a country with vast oil reserves) & a clergy that knows the current century is the 21st.
The announcement by President Obama has triggered a tsunami of mostly nonsensical but in part very dangerous comments. The dangerous comments about Iran come from the Pentagon and the GOP and from a few Democrats. Most MSM, as always, echo these sources without any critical analysis. If you believe these comments then Iraq is so inured of being governed by foreigners that it will soon be run by the government of Iran. Of course that "must not be allowed" but how is never clearly explained. The major suggestion seems to be to "keep a presence in Iraq" whatever that means. It probably means CIA, Xe, and lots of so-called diplomatic staff at the embassy. That hardly matters because the domination of the Middle East by the US and UK is permanently lost. Lost forever no matter what. As Keith Olbermann succinctly stated: "we are kicked out of Iraq" and all other Middle Eastern countries (Libya is a Mediterranean country) have taken notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq is now friendly with Iran for many reasons. The majority religions are the same in both countries. Iraq and Iran share a long border and their people share a disgust if not hatred of the USA. Saddam Hussein with US backing invaded Iran but got his popo hammered. Iraq needs to make amends. Blockaded Iran offers a tempting trade partner for Iraq goods and services and vice versa and that trade will involve weapons sold by Iran to Iraq. That of course is horrible because the thankful Iraqis should buy US weaponry. Should our nation have remained antagonistic with Canada forever just because it once was a stronghold of British armed forces? Compared to this dangerous propaganda the other nonsense seems to be Kindergarten stuff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will president Obama invade or bomb Iran a la Libya absent a viable uprising in Iraq? That I doubt. An invasion by an army will have to come either from Afghanistan or by amphibious landings on the coast of Iran because SOFA-Iraq forbids the use of Iraqi territory for an invasion of Iran. If that is done while US troops are still in Iraq President Obama will jeopardize the lives of US soldiers still in Iraq. The Iranian government has learned its lesson from Libya and will not make Gadaffi's blunders. Furthermore, I think that Mr. Obama who started out as an unreconstructed imperialist has become much more timid after his miserable failure to end the Taliban in Afghanistan for good and he knows that a war with Iran means that he can say goodbye to his jobs plan and anything else he has in mind for our nation that will cost dollars. The only thing to be feared is a "Straight of Hormuz Incident" concocted by the Pentagon without Obama's approval or even knowledge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the rational commanders among the top brass of our armed forces have long been opposed to attacking Iran in any form. They are much less vulnerable from attacks by "media stars" than the Obama administration. When they say no to attacking Iran, which I hope they will continue to do, it does not matter what Richard Cohen believes or thinks. Mr. Cohen will not have to fight in Iran but the soldiers who are the wards of the brass will have to. Given their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan one can hardly expect that these soldiers will be gung-ho to sacrifice their lives in Iran.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comments from all of these "media stars" prove once again that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with creating "democracy" there. We are losing influence in the Middle East they yammer with Wolf Blitzer one of the loudest yammerers. Well should that not have been a consequence of creating a democratic and sovereign Iraq making its own decisions about foreign influence?
I think our government, considering the events of the last 11 years or so, can now be called a CONSPIRATOCRACY!
The only legitimate government the people of the USA have to represent them on a national level is the rag tag rebel alliance (OWS) against the Wall Street empire.
May all of us become Luke or Leia Skywalkers. In our universe, Darth Vader killed Obi Wan BEFORE Luke could get any training and Yoda is being targeted with a drone strike.
But it's not over yet. Remember that over extended empires always increase their brutality even as they collapse as they are imploding.
May the FORCE be with all people of good will.
agelbert wrote:
I think our government, considering the events of the last 11 years or so, can now be called a CONSPIRATOCRACY!
The only legitimate government the people of the USA have to represent them on a national level is the rag tag rebel alliance (OWS) against the Wall Street empire.
* * * * *
My Reply:
agelbert,
Well, various parts of the federal government do regularly engage in conspiracies.
While I wholeheartedly support Occupy Wall Street; the "rag tag rebel alliance (OWS)", as you have described OWS, is not in any sense a national government.
Given the current economic water boarding that the majority of us are experiencing, I don't think it advisable to encourage Mr. Cohen to move into accounting. He could probably do as much or more damage in that realm.
The ongoing mystery is how all these alleged professionals with access to many more primary sources than we mere citizens continue to get away with the lie that they didn't, and couldn't, know they were being enrolled in a coordinated lie attack on the US populace from Sept '02 onward.
A couple of hundred of us ordinary folks here in Madison, WI knew full well the big lies that were being engineered for delivery after Labor Day when we gathered for a preemptive rally and peace march on Hiroshima Day of that year.
Anyone who was paying attention knew the chance that Iraq had any exotic weapons hidden anywhere was vanishingly small.
All of which begs the question. Even if true, there was no legal or moral justification for initiating an invasion and occupation of another country. Why do we continue to allow our government to be an aggressive, lawless serial violator of all we are supposed to stand for?
As a retired professor who helped graduate students I assure you that having "access to many more primary sources than we mere citizens" can be dangerously meaningless if the primary sources are filtered through a defective mind.
Ray, you really need to look into this.
http://www.atlanticagroup.com/index.php?sec=3
.
aesops dog wrote:
Ray, you really need to look into this.
http://www.atlanticagroup.com/index.php?sec=3
* * * * *
My Reply:
aesops dog,
Please do Ray McGovern and all the rest of us the courtesy of offering at least a brief explanation why we should bother to spend any time looking into "this."
Thank you.
The problem with americans is that they cannot keep their dick in their pants! they have to Screw everybody with bombs and death! In the end it all comes to naught.
But they never learn! Obama is one of the worst murders in american history. Oh, well. It is the American way!
The next phase of wars will be in Africa; courtesy of AFRICOM!
Hang onto your tax dollars folks!
Regarding “the political left, who seem[ed] to think that the CIA tortured suspected terrorists just for the hell of it”: Absolute propaganda, with no basis on truth – and, a purposeful misinformation effort to obscure the masses from seeing the following.
“What Cohen left out was the very relevant point that precisely those claims of a Saddam-al-Qaeda connection resulted from a coerced confession from one of the CIA’s ‘high-value detainees,’ Ibu al-Sheikh al-Libi.” Many on the left (center and right) knew that (tortured) “coerced confession[s]” were open to the highest manipulations, including covert political goals.
“A June 2002 CIA report cited claims by al-Libi that Iraq had ‘provided’ unspecified chemical and biological weapons training for two al-Qaeda operatives. Al-Libi’s information was then inserted into a November 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.” By this point, many on the left (center and right) realized that (tortured) “coerced confession[s]” were showing up in national and world stage narratives (the highest manipulations, including covert political goals?).
“Al-Libi’s false claim – which he later said he offered to escape torture – also found its way into Cheney’s public presentations and into Powell’s UN speech. But Cohen did not deign to mention this inconvenient fact in his column defending these harsh tactics.” Many on the left (center and right) know why.
From Reliable Intelligence: “Prisoners Boiled Alive”
http://seaclearly.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/reliable-intelligence-prisoners-boiled-alive/
(Why would anyone imagine such extremes? How could there have been such possibilities?)
Cheney’s Shadow Office (CSO): “We need intelligence reports which state that Prisoner ‘A’ confirmed Plot ‘B,’ and confessed to being a member of the conspiracy, for reference in our national and worldwide media campaign.”
CIA: “But, none of our intelligence corroborates your request.”
CSO: “Please update and resubmit.”
CIA: “We have already researched this.”
CSO: “Update and resubmit!”
CIA: “Understood.”
CSO (9 Days Later): “Did prisoner ‘A’ confirm and confess to. . . .?”
CIA: “Not yet.”
CSO: “We need intelligence reports which state that Prisoner ‘A‘. . . .”
CIA (1 Day Later): “Prisoner ‘A’ has confirmed and confessed to. . . .”
CSO: “Good work. Now, the president can go on television and make a (prepared) prime-time speech.”
I don't think there will be war with Iran because I think the Russians will say nyet and the Chinese will say bu shi.
If Russia and China aren't willing to nuke us in retaliation, we won't be dissuaded.
"Hitler was a threat to the world". What in the world has blinded you Ray? Most people in colonial and semi-colonial countries did not consider Hitler "a threat to them" although their naivete might have cost them dearly in the long run. At the other end of the globe Sukarno et al. used the Japanese occupation which was far from "friendly" to rid Indonesia from the Dutch. Do you seriously believe that Hitler would have been able to control all people from Morocco to what is now Pakistan and Southward to Cape Town for any length of time with a country of only 80 million people? And North- and South-America? He would have died of old age before he had even accomplished a fraction of that feat. Hitler was above all a threat to the Western capitalist world and its colonial empires.
Crownest wrote:
"Hitler was a threat to the world". What in the world has blinded you Ray? Most people in colonial and semi-colonial countries did not consider Hitler "a threat to them" although their naivete might have cost them dearly in the long run. At the other end of the globe Sukarno et al. used the Japanese occupation which was far from "friendly" to rid Indonesia from the Dutch. Do you seriously believe that Hitler would have been able to control all people from Morocco to what is now Pakistan and Southward to Cape Town for any length of time with a country of only 80 million people? And North- and South-America? He would have died of old age before he had even accomplished a fraction of that feat. Hitler was above all a threat to the Western capitalist world and its colonial empires.
* * * * *
My Reply:
Crowsnest,
Facism involves a merging of the power of capitalist corporations with the legal, military and police powers of government.
Hitler and other committed Nazis were virulently active fascists and anti-semites, who attacked other less virulently active fascists and capitalists aligned with other governments in an effort to establish a Reich which they declared, for propaganda purposes, would last a thousand years.
Yes, Hitler was a threat to Western capitalists aligned with other governments and to their colonial empires, but Hitler was also a threat to millions of people who lived in Europe and Africa as well.
Al-Libi’s coerced confession is an example of what Cheney really meant when he talked about “actionable intelligence.” Actionable intelligence is not necessarily true, and in fact, for Cheney’s purposes, lies were the best kind of actionable intelligence. Torture is uniquely well suited for the creation of Cheney’s brand of actionable intelligence.
.
Don_Alejandro wrote:
Al-Libi’s coerced confession is an example of what Cheney really meant when he talked about “actionable intelligence.” Actionable intelligence is not necessarily true, and in fact, for Cheney’s purposes, lies were the best kind of actionable intelligence. Torture is uniquely well suited for the creation of Cheney’s brand of actionable intelligence.
- - - - -
Excerpt from the text of the Downing Street Memo - a document containing meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002, as originally reported in the The Sunday Times [UK], May 1, 2005:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Memo Text URL: http://downingstreetmemo.com/memotext.html
* * * * *
My Reply:
Don_Alejandro,
Of course. Good point.
"Yes, Al-Libi’s coerced confession is an example of what Dick Cheney really meant when he talked about 'actionable intelligence'."
And you have stated it so succinctly.
"Actionable intelligence is not necessarily true, and in fact, for Cheney’s purposes, lies were the best kind of actionable intelligence. Torture is uniquely well suited for the creation of Cheney’s brand of actionable intelligence."
How could anyone have ever thought Dick Cheney thought actionable intelligence had to be true?
Just watching Hillary with her new "flip" hair do on "Meet the Press", talking about the withdrawl from Iraq. I am feeling this is just a step towards a new war with Iran.
Ray McGovern is one of my heroes and here does himself proudly. Still, I lament his not reporting that every waking moment for Cohen and his ilk is driven by their Jewish tribal affiliation and their (with their bizarre Christian Zionist brethren) refusal to point to political/militant Zionism: the scourge of mankind. Our country has been hi-jacked by this criminally psychotic ideology, and analysts/commentators like Mr. McGovern must not shy away from exposing it and attempting to break the fraught "entangling alliance" set in place with such focus and cleverness, strangling all of us...with the hapless Palestinians tormented endlessly. I can only await with horror the "trigger" that engages war on Iran. The entanglement has led to the shattering of Iraq while deposing the Palestine-supportive Saddam; blasted Lebanon time and again; is surely involved in the Syrian turmoil; is as surely involved in the Iraqi Kurds' current violence with Turkey (that ingrate -- insufferably damning the 2010 Zionist high-seas-piracy murder of 8 of its citizens and 1 American); is a factor in Libya's trials; was/is a factor in Afghanistan-Pakistan; sadistically applies genocide on the Palestinians; and on and on. It's all about making the entire Middle East and beyond safe for Zionism and its U.S. tail.... Bottom line: neocons are bad actors, but too many neocons are Jewish Zionists, and that is worse.