Israel Hints at Pre-Emptive Attack on Iran
http://www.truthout.org/article/israel-hints-pre-emptive-attack-iran
Rupert Cornwell, of The Independent UK: "The sabre-rattling over Iran's nuclear progamme has grown louder as a defiant Tehran claimed to have conducted missile tests for a second day running, the US warned that it would defend its interests and its allies in the region, and Israel hinted it was ready to stage a preventive attack to destroy Iranian nuclear installations."
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
7/11/2008
6/30/2008
Secret Operations Against Iran
Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran
Congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing Iran's leadership, according to a new article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.
The operations were set out in a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which, by law, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders.
The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from supporting dissident groups to spying on Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/hersh_congress_agreed_to_bush_request
Congressional leaders agreed to a request from President Bush last year to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran aimed at destabilizing Iran's leadership, according to a new article by veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker magazine.
The operations were set out in a highly classified Presidential Finding signed by Bush which, by law, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders.
The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from supporting dissident groups to spying on Iran's nuclear program.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/hersh_congress_agreed_to_bush_request
5/01/2008
Navy's Second US Carrier, Tehran
Navy Adds Carrier in Gulf as "Reminder" to Iran http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/043008J.shtml
David Morgan, of Reuters, reports: "the US Navy has temporarily added a secondaircraft carrier in the Gulf as a 'reminder' to Iran, but this was not anescalation of American forces in the region, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates saidon Tuesday. Speaking to reporters during a trip to Mexico, Gates flatly denied asuggestion that the presence of two US carriers in the Gulf could be a precursorto military action against Tehran."
David Morgan, of Reuters, reports: "the US Navy has temporarily added a secondaircraft carrier in the Gulf as a 'reminder' to Iran, but this was not anescalation of American forces in the region, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates saidon Tuesday. Speaking to reporters during a trip to Mexico, Gates flatly denied asuggestion that the presence of two US carriers in the Gulf could be a precursorto military action against Tehran."
4/03/2008
Get Out We Must
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/AR2008032702405.html
12/09/2007
11/10/2007
How Do We Reconcile?
Published on Friday, November 9, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Faith and War
by Cindy Sheehan
A friend of mine, who is Chair of the Economics Department, invited me to speak to the students and faculty at the University of Dallas (where the Veterans for Peace convention was that I spoke at the day before I went to Crawford on August 6th, 2005), which is a small, non-culturally or non-racially diverse, Catholic college.
Surprisingly, my friend Sam, received little protest over inviting me, but there was a "Support the Troops" rally in the room next to where I spoke. Some Camp Casey friends accidentally went into that room and only heard the speaker call me names like "scum" and he called the rest of the people at my event "peace fairies."
I was heartened to find the first three rows of my speech were filled with young people who were smiling and vigorously nodding their heads at everything I said. Most of the audience clapped or laughed in the right places so I was feeling pretty good. However, I was a little sad when there were some snide snickers when I had the unmitigated gall to call Iraqis "human beings."
During the "Q and A" part, the first question I received amazed me. Now, I was raised Protestant and received an excellent training in the Christian scriptures and I know after being a Catholic for 25 years and a Catholic youth minister for nine of those years, that the average Catholic does not know a great deal about the Bible as most of their religious training is in the tenets of the Catholic faith. Here's how many Catholics quote scripture: "It's somewhere in the Bible," when, in my experience, many times they are actually quoting: "Poor Richard's Almanac."
An emphasis on the biblical support for the teachings of the church was never used as long as I taught in the church using the approved teaching materials of the church, but the depth of ignorance of Jesus of Nazareth exhibited in the first question still had the ability to astonish me.
The question printed neatly on a 3 by 5 index card was: "How do you reconcile your progressive ideals with your faith?" I answered the question that Jesus cared about the poor. He admonished us to "feed the hungry," "clothe the naked," "heal the sick," and "visit those imprisoned." Jesus performed a stunning feat of civil disobedience by over-turning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple and was subsequently executed by the Empire of his time. Jesus was the ultimate progressive radical. Jesus' name is exploited by our materialistic society at Christmas time when he changes from the right-wing Christian warmonger to the "Prince of Peace."
Jesus welcomed the "least of these" to his table. He didn't exclude sinners, lepers or prostitutes who were the pariahs of his day. Today, I am convinced that if Jesus returned he would welcome gays and non-white people (even "illegal" immigrants) to commune with him. The only people I ever heard Jesus speak badly about were the "brood of vipers" (Mt 3:7) that were the Sadduccees (Democrats?) and Pharisees (Republicans?) who in the parable, with hypocritical piety, walked right by the man who had been beaten, robbed and left by the side of the road to die without helping him and they turned his "Father's" house (the Temple) into a "den of thieves." (Mt. 21:12).
My question for the questioner was: "How do you reconcile your faith with supporting war and killing?"
More at:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/08/5110/
Faith and War
by Cindy Sheehan
A friend of mine, who is Chair of the Economics Department, invited me to speak to the students and faculty at the University of Dallas (where the Veterans for Peace convention was that I spoke at the day before I went to Crawford on August 6th, 2005), which is a small, non-culturally or non-racially diverse, Catholic college.
Surprisingly, my friend Sam, received little protest over inviting me, but there was a "Support the Troops" rally in the room next to where I spoke. Some Camp Casey friends accidentally went into that room and only heard the speaker call me names like "scum" and he called the rest of the people at my event "peace fairies."
I was heartened to find the first three rows of my speech were filled with young people who were smiling and vigorously nodding their heads at everything I said. Most of the audience clapped or laughed in the right places so I was feeling pretty good. However, I was a little sad when there were some snide snickers when I had the unmitigated gall to call Iraqis "human beings."
During the "Q and A" part, the first question I received amazed me. Now, I was raised Protestant and received an excellent training in the Christian scriptures and I know after being a Catholic for 25 years and a Catholic youth minister for nine of those years, that the average Catholic does not know a great deal about the Bible as most of their religious training is in the tenets of the Catholic faith. Here's how many Catholics quote scripture: "It's somewhere in the Bible," when, in my experience, many times they are actually quoting: "Poor Richard's Almanac."
An emphasis on the biblical support for the teachings of the church was never used as long as I taught in the church using the approved teaching materials of the church, but the depth of ignorance of Jesus of Nazareth exhibited in the first question still had the ability to astonish me.
The question printed neatly on a 3 by 5 index card was: "How do you reconcile your progressive ideals with your faith?" I answered the question that Jesus cared about the poor. He admonished us to "feed the hungry," "clothe the naked," "heal the sick," and "visit those imprisoned." Jesus performed a stunning feat of civil disobedience by over-turning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple and was subsequently executed by the Empire of his time. Jesus was the ultimate progressive radical. Jesus' name is exploited by our materialistic society at Christmas time when he changes from the right-wing Christian warmonger to the "Prince of Peace."
Jesus welcomed the "least of these" to his table. He didn't exclude sinners, lepers or prostitutes who were the pariahs of his day. Today, I am convinced that if Jesus returned he would welcome gays and non-white people (even "illegal" immigrants) to commune with him. The only people I ever heard Jesus speak badly about were the "brood of vipers" (Mt 3:7) that were the Sadduccees (Democrats?) and Pharisees (Republicans?) who in the parable, with hypocritical piety, walked right by the man who had been beaten, robbed and left by the side of the road to die without helping him and they turned his "Father's" house (the Temple) into a "den of thieves." (Mt. 21:12).
My question for the questioner was: "How do you reconcile your faith with supporting war and killing?"
More at:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/08/5110/
10/29/2007
Tell It, Krugman!
October 29, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Fearing Fear Itself
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.
Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.
And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.
All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.
Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.
And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.
Op-Ed Columnist
Fearing Fear Itself
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In America’s darkest hour, Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged the nation not to succumb to “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.” But that was then.
Today, many of the men who hope to be the next president — including all of the candidates with a significant chance of receiving the Republican nomination — have made unreasoning, unjustified terror the centerpiece of their campaigns.
Consider, for a moment, the implications of the fact that Rudy Giuliani is taking foreign policy advice from Norman Podhoretz, who wants us to start bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible.”
Mr. Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary and a founding neoconservative, tells us that Iran is the “main center of the Islamofascist ideology against which we have been fighting since 9/11.” The Islamofascists, he tells us, are well on their way toward creating a world “shaped by their will and tailored to their wishes.” Indeed, “Already, some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.”
Do I have to point out that none of this makes a bit of sense?
For one thing, there isn’t actually any such thing as Islamofascism — it’s not an ideology; it’s a figment of the neocon imagination. The term came into vogue only because it was a way for Iraq hawks to gloss over the awkward transition from pursuing Osama bin Laden, who attacked America, to Saddam Hussein, who didn’t. And Iran had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 — in fact, the Iranian regime was quite helpful to the United States when it went after Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.
Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.
Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.
Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.
Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.
And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.
All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.
In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration adopted fear-mongering as a political strategy. Instead of treating the attack as what it was — an atrocity committed by a fundamentally weak, though ruthless adversary — the administration portrayed America as a nation under threat from every direction.
Most Americans have now regained their balance. But the Republican base, which lapped up the administration’s rhetoric about the axis of evil and the war on terror, remains infected by the fear the Bushies stirred up — perhaps because fear of terrorists maps so easily into the base’s older fears, including fear of dark-skinned people in general.
And the base is looking for a candidate who shares this fear.
Just to be clear, Al Qaeda is a real threat, and so is the Iranian nuclear program. But neither of these threats frightens me as much as fear itself — the unreasoning fear that has taken over one of America’s two great political parties.
10/24/2007
9/25/2007
Call NOW re Lieberman-Kyl Amendment
CALL YOUR SENATORS RIGHT NOW AND DEMAND THEY VOTE DOWN THE
LIEBERMAN-KYL AMENDMENT
In case you thought it was just an aberrant moment of lunacy last
week when Lieberman pressed General Petraeus for an attack on Iran,
just before the weekend he introduced an amendment to the defense
bill to authorize exactly that.
No, we are not kidding. He has drafted language that any impartial
observer would interpret as a DECLARATION OF WAR against Iran, and he
is pressing for a vote as fast as possible.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/no_iran_war_declaration.php
Here is the language from the amendment:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat,
contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing
influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its
indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of
United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic,
intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy
described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
The policy of the U.S should be to "combat" Iran with "all" "military
instruments"?!? You can be absolutely certain that those are the ONLY
words Dick Cheney and George Bush will see or care about.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/no_iran_war_declaration.php
We need every warm body we can muster to call and email their
senators RIGHT NOW, before they pull another fast one and sneak this
one through in the dead of the night. Call them toll free at 800
828-0498, 800 614 2803 or 866 340 9281, and the submit the action
form below to make sure your message gets through.
Just yesterday, Newsweek reported that Cheney had recently made
overtures to Israel to get them to launch an attack against Iran, to
try to provoke an all out conflagration. It seems every day there is
a new story leaked about their aggressive preparations for The
Debacle, Part 2. And just as in the lead up to the Iraq invasion,
they will keep lying, lying and lie some more about their intentions
until they've shot off every cruise missile in the military
inventory.
We need your voice, and the voices of everyone else you know, and we
them now. We need to absolutely flood the Capitol with phone calls
and email. Please believe your voice counts. Please believe that when
enough of us raise our voices together at one time they do have an
impact.
Cheney and his minions are absolutely not going to stop pushing for
an even bigger disaster unless we stop them by speaking out with a
louder voice. So we cannot let up ourselves even for an instant.
AND IF YOU LIKE KUCINICH ON THE ISSUES LET HIM KNOW
We would be remiss not to ask who other than Dennis Kucinich has
shown more courage to speak out against the Iraq disaster before it
even started? If you are asking yourself what you can do to encourage
Dennis to continue to stand strong on the ISSUES, why not make a
contribution, if you are so motivated.
DENNIS KUCINICH CONTRIBUTIONS:
http://www.usalone.com/donations_kucinich.php
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm
LIEBERMAN-KYL AMENDMENT
In case you thought it was just an aberrant moment of lunacy last
week when Lieberman pressed General Petraeus for an attack on Iran,
just before the weekend he introduced an amendment to the defense
bill to authorize exactly that.
No, we are not kidding. He has drafted language that any impartial
observer would interpret as a DECLARATION OF WAR against Iran, and he
is pressing for a vote as fast as possible.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/no_iran_war_declaration.php
Here is the language from the amendment:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat,
contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing
influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of
Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its
indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of
United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic,
intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy
described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies.
The policy of the U.S should be to "combat" Iran with "all" "military
instruments"?!? You can be absolutely certain that those are the ONLY
words Dick Cheney and George Bush will see or care about.
ACTION PAGE: http://www.usalone.com/no_iran_war_declaration.php
We need every warm body we can muster to call and email their
senators RIGHT NOW, before they pull another fast one and sneak this
one through in the dead of the night. Call them toll free at 800
828-0498, 800 614 2803 or 866 340 9281, and the submit the action
form below to make sure your message gets through.
Just yesterday, Newsweek reported that Cheney had recently made
overtures to Israel to get them to launch an attack against Iran, to
try to provoke an all out conflagration. It seems every day there is
a new story leaked about their aggressive preparations for The
Debacle, Part 2. And just as in the lead up to the Iraq invasion,
they will keep lying, lying and lie some more about their intentions
until they've shot off every cruise missile in the military
inventory.
We need your voice, and the voices of everyone else you know, and we
them now. We need to absolutely flood the Capitol with phone calls
and email. Please believe your voice counts. Please believe that when
enough of us raise our voices together at one time they do have an
impact.
Cheney and his minions are absolutely not going to stop pushing for
an even bigger disaster unless we stop them by speaking out with a
louder voice. So we cannot let up ourselves even for an instant.
AND IF YOU LIKE KUCINICH ON THE ISSUES LET HIM KNOW
We would be remiss not to ask who other than Dennis Kucinich has
shown more courage to speak out against the Iraq disaster before it
even started? If you are asking yourself what you can do to encourage
Dennis to continue to stand strong on the ISSUES, why not make a
contribution, if you are so motivated.
DENNIS KUCINICH CONTRIBUTIONS:
http://www.usalone.com/donations_kucinich.php
Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed
to be ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.
If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at
http://www.usalone.com/in.htm
6/15/2007
Bush's European Disaster
Bush's European disaster
The president's trip was a pageant of disdain, delusion and provocation masquerading as a respite from his troubles at home.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Jun. 14, 2007 | I returned from Europe a week before President Bush departed for the G8 summit in Germany. In Rome and Paris I met with Cabinet ministers who uniformly said the chief issue in transatlantic relations is somehow making it through the last 18 months of the Bush administration without further major disaster. None of the nonpartisan think tanks in Washington can organize seminars on this overriding reality, but within the European councils of state the trepidation about the last days of Bush is the No. 1 issue in foreign affairs.
One of the ministers with whom I met, who had supported the invasion of Iraq and had been an admirer of outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair's, ruefully cited Blair's remark about Iraq at his joint press conference with Bush on May 17 at the White House: "This is a fight we cannot afford to lose." "Cannot? Cannot lose?" mocked the minister. "Should not have lost."
High officials of European governments describe U.S. influence as squandered and swiftly eroding (one minister went down a list of Bush administration officials, rating them according to their stupidity), the country's moral authority nil. Lethal power vacuums are emerging from Lebanon to Pakistan, and Europeans are incapable on their own of quelling the fires that burn far closer to them than to the United States through their growing Muslim populations and proximity to the Middle East. They have no illusions that they will be treated seriously as real allies or that there will be a sudden about-face by the Bush administration. Their faint hope -- and it is only a hope -- is that they have already seen the worst and that it is not yet to come. Even worse than Bush, from their perspective, would be another Republican president who continued Bush policies and also appointed neoconservatives. That would toll, if not the end of days, then the decline and fall of the Western alliance except in name only, and an even more rapid acceleration of chaos in the world order.
Bush's procession through Europe was a pageant of contempt, disdain, delusion, provocation and vanity masquerading as a welcome respite from his troubles at home. In Albania he landed at last in a place where he was hailed as a conquering hero. His demolition derby of U.S. influence was presented as a series of bold moves, but it confirmed the fears of the other world leaders at the G8 summit (and elsewhere) that the rest of Bush's presidency will be an erratic series of crashes. His performance ranged from King Nod, issuing proclamations oblivious to and even proud of their negative effect, to King Zog (the last king of Albania). No president has had a more disastrous European trip since President Reagan placed a wreath on the graves of SS soldiers in the Bitburg cemetery. Yet Reagan's mistake was unintentional and symbolic, a temporary and superficial setback, doing no real damage to U.S. foreign relations, while Bush's blunders not only reinforced counterproductive policies but also created a new one with Russia that has the potential of profoundly undermining U.S. national security interests for years to come.
Bush's foreign policy has descended into a fugue state. Dissociated and unaware, the president and his administration are still capable of expressing themselves as if it all makes complete sense, only contributing to their bewilderment. A fugue state should not be confused with cognitive dissonance, the tension produced when irreconcilable ideas are held at the same time and their incompatibility is overcome by denial. In a fugue state, a trauma creates a kind of amnesia in which the sufferer is incapable of connecting to his past. The impairment of judgment comes in great part from a denial of distress. Bush's fugue state involves the reiteration of a failed formula as though nothing has happened. So he proudly reasserts the essence of his Bush doctrine: Our acts are independent of other countries' interests. And he adds new corollaries: Other nations must forgive our unacknowledged mistakes even if we threaten their national security. To this, Bush overlays cognitive dissonance: Our policy is working; it just needs more time. Thus the incoherent becomes coherent.
Bush's amusing gaffes should not divert attention from the gravity of his underlying decline. Though his verbal hilariousness has been present since the beginning, his miscues, misstatements and mistakes now highlight a foreign policy in utter disarray.
Upon meeting Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican last weekend, Bush presented him with a gift of a wooden cane carved with English words. When the pope asked the president what they were, Bush told His Holiness, "The Ten Commandments, sir." To sir? With love?
In Rome, on June 9, a reporter asked Bush about setting a deadline for Kosovo independence. "What? Say that again?" "Deadline for the Kosovo independence?" "A decline?" "Deadline, deadline." "Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good." Bush then declared, "In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come -- this needs to happen." The next day, asked when he would set a deadline, he replied, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Reminded of his previous statement, Bush said: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? OK, yes, then I meant what I said."
Before offering that tongue twister, Bush quite deliberately upset German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal for climate change at the G8. She put before the summit a program for carbon limits and an emissions trading system supported by, among others, Tony Blair, as his final gesture to burnish his reputation before he leaves office on June 27. Bush countered with a proposal for voluntary limits that would have to be approved by China, India and other major industrial countries that would not agree. In short, Bush's program was no program at all, except as a gambit to push aside Merkel's. With that, Bush demolished the possibility of any positive plan emerging from the summit. He also deprived Blair of a last achievement. Were it not for his relationship with Bush and support for his Iraq policy, Blair would not be leaving Downing Street. He has sacrificed his career to Bush's fiasco. His advice on the reconstruction of Iraq ignored, his advocacy grew more passionate. From whom much has been asked, nothing has been given.
While Bush was undermining traditional allies, Russian President Vladimir Putin was making child's play of him. Bush's proposal to put tracking stations for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic gave Putin his opening. In response, he offered a radar site in Azerbaijan to be jointly operated by the United States and Russia. Bush had deployed the wrong tactic on behalf of the wrong strategy. Bush's missile shield has not been proved to work, has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and has an uncertain purpose. Is the plan meant to reassure eastern European nations of the former Warsaw Pact, Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe," against Russia, or is it a short-term ploy to rally support in the one region in the world that still likes Bush because of deep residual pro-Americanism? If Bush intended to persuade Putin to temper his authoritarianism, he only succeeded in antagonizing the Russian leader. As Bush's "freedom" agenda has collapsed, he has reverted to a Plan B for a new ersatz Cold War. His ham-handed move allowed the adroit Putin to change the subject and corner him. Meanwhile, the engagement of Russia in areas of mutual interest -- containing Iran -- languishes.
In Iraq, Bush's policy is now to arm all sides in the sectarian civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. He claims to be devoted to nation building, which he previously dismissed, while he presides over a mass exodus of 2 million Iraqis, upholds law and order while holding tens of thousands of prisoners without due process, and conducts a "surge" of troops to secure the capital city of Baghdad whose main effect has been to facilitate its ethnic cleansing. The Iraqi government, for its part, has not met any of the benchmarks in reforming its laws demanded by the United States as the sine qua non of continuing support.
And where in the world is Condoleezza Rice? While Bush was in Europe, the secretary of state was at home. Instead of attending the summit, she delivered a speech at the Economic Club of New York, announcing that the new doctrine of the administration henceforth should be called "American realism." Until that moment, we were supposed to refer to it as "transformational diplomacy." Rice, the former realist turned neoconservative fellow traveler, seemed to have come full circle. But what was it exactly that she was doing with her rhetorical adjustment?
Rice's frenetic but feckless diplomacy in the Middle East has been fruitless. She is unwilling or unable to break beyond the bounds that Bush establishes, forbidding relations with Syria, for example, and thus guaranteeing her failure.
As she shuttles endlessly and meaninglessly, neoconservatives within the White House undermine her foredoomed initiatives. Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security advisor for policy, in briefing a meeting of Jewish Republicans, said that Rice's "talks are sometimes not more than 'process for the sake of process,'" the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on May 14. According to Haaretz, "Those attending the meeting of Jewish Republicans understood Abrams' comments as an assurance that the peace initiative promoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice doesn't have the full backing of President George W. Bush." As she engages in an academic exercise to rebrand empty rhetoric with new empty rhetoric, the neocons continue to create a parallel foreign policy.
Rice contradicts herself but forgets that she has. Bush continues to prattle about "freedom" but cannot remember his benchmarks. Only Dick Cheney remains consistent. The new mission statement is the old mission statement. The new scenarios are the old delusions. Time marches on.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
The president's trip was a pageant of disdain, delusion and provocation masquerading as a respite from his troubles at home.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Jun. 14, 2007 | I returned from Europe a week before President Bush departed for the G8 summit in Germany. In Rome and Paris I met with Cabinet ministers who uniformly said the chief issue in transatlantic relations is somehow making it through the last 18 months of the Bush administration without further major disaster. None of the nonpartisan think tanks in Washington can organize seminars on this overriding reality, but within the European councils of state the trepidation about the last days of Bush is the No. 1 issue in foreign affairs.
One of the ministers with whom I met, who had supported the invasion of Iraq and had been an admirer of outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair's, ruefully cited Blair's remark about Iraq at his joint press conference with Bush on May 17 at the White House: "This is a fight we cannot afford to lose." "Cannot? Cannot lose?" mocked the minister. "Should not have lost."
High officials of European governments describe U.S. influence as squandered and swiftly eroding (one minister went down a list of Bush administration officials, rating them according to their stupidity), the country's moral authority nil. Lethal power vacuums are emerging from Lebanon to Pakistan, and Europeans are incapable on their own of quelling the fires that burn far closer to them than to the United States through their growing Muslim populations and proximity to the Middle East. They have no illusions that they will be treated seriously as real allies or that there will be a sudden about-face by the Bush administration. Their faint hope -- and it is only a hope -- is that they have already seen the worst and that it is not yet to come. Even worse than Bush, from their perspective, would be another Republican president who continued Bush policies and also appointed neoconservatives. That would toll, if not the end of days, then the decline and fall of the Western alliance except in name only, and an even more rapid acceleration of chaos in the world order.
Bush's procession through Europe was a pageant of contempt, disdain, delusion, provocation and vanity masquerading as a welcome respite from his troubles at home. In Albania he landed at last in a place where he was hailed as a conquering hero. His demolition derby of U.S. influence was presented as a series of bold moves, but it confirmed the fears of the other world leaders at the G8 summit (and elsewhere) that the rest of Bush's presidency will be an erratic series of crashes. His performance ranged from King Nod, issuing proclamations oblivious to and even proud of their negative effect, to King Zog (the last king of Albania). No president has had a more disastrous European trip since President Reagan placed a wreath on the graves of SS soldiers in the Bitburg cemetery. Yet Reagan's mistake was unintentional and symbolic, a temporary and superficial setback, doing no real damage to U.S. foreign relations, while Bush's blunders not only reinforced counterproductive policies but also created a new one with Russia that has the potential of profoundly undermining U.S. national security interests for years to come.
Bush's foreign policy has descended into a fugue state. Dissociated and unaware, the president and his administration are still capable of expressing themselves as if it all makes complete sense, only contributing to their bewilderment. A fugue state should not be confused with cognitive dissonance, the tension produced when irreconcilable ideas are held at the same time and their incompatibility is overcome by denial. In a fugue state, a trauma creates a kind of amnesia in which the sufferer is incapable of connecting to his past. The impairment of judgment comes in great part from a denial of distress. Bush's fugue state involves the reiteration of a failed formula as though nothing has happened. So he proudly reasserts the essence of his Bush doctrine: Our acts are independent of other countries' interests. And he adds new corollaries: Other nations must forgive our unacknowledged mistakes even if we threaten their national security. To this, Bush overlays cognitive dissonance: Our policy is working; it just needs more time. Thus the incoherent becomes coherent.
Bush's amusing gaffes should not divert attention from the gravity of his underlying decline. Though his verbal hilariousness has been present since the beginning, his miscues, misstatements and mistakes now highlight a foreign policy in utter disarray.
Upon meeting Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican last weekend, Bush presented him with a gift of a wooden cane carved with English words. When the pope asked the president what they were, Bush told His Holiness, "The Ten Commandments, sir." To sir? With love?
In Rome, on June 9, a reporter asked Bush about setting a deadline for Kosovo independence. "What? Say that again?" "Deadline for the Kosovo independence?" "A decline?" "Deadline, deadline." "Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good." Bush then declared, "In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come -- this needs to happen." The next day, asked when he would set a deadline, he replied, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Reminded of his previous statement, Bush said: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? OK, yes, then I meant what I said."
Before offering that tongue twister, Bush quite deliberately upset German Chancellor Angela Merkel's proposal for climate change at the G8. She put before the summit a program for carbon limits and an emissions trading system supported by, among others, Tony Blair, as his final gesture to burnish his reputation before he leaves office on June 27. Bush countered with a proposal for voluntary limits that would have to be approved by China, India and other major industrial countries that would not agree. In short, Bush's program was no program at all, except as a gambit to push aside Merkel's. With that, Bush demolished the possibility of any positive plan emerging from the summit. He also deprived Blair of a last achievement. Were it not for his relationship with Bush and support for his Iraq policy, Blair would not be leaving Downing Street. He has sacrificed his career to Bush's fiasco. His advice on the reconstruction of Iraq ignored, his advocacy grew more passionate. From whom much has been asked, nothing has been given.
While Bush was undermining traditional allies, Russian President Vladimir Putin was making child's play of him. Bush's proposal to put tracking stations for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic gave Putin his opening. In response, he offered a radar site in Azerbaijan to be jointly operated by the United States and Russia. Bush had deployed the wrong tactic on behalf of the wrong strategy. Bush's missile shield has not been proved to work, has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and has an uncertain purpose. Is the plan meant to reassure eastern European nations of the former Warsaw Pact, Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe," against Russia, or is it a short-term ploy to rally support in the one region in the world that still likes Bush because of deep residual pro-Americanism? If Bush intended to persuade Putin to temper his authoritarianism, he only succeeded in antagonizing the Russian leader. As Bush's "freedom" agenda has collapsed, he has reverted to a Plan B for a new ersatz Cold War. His ham-handed move allowed the adroit Putin to change the subject and corner him. Meanwhile, the engagement of Russia in areas of mutual interest -- containing Iran -- languishes.
In Iraq, Bush's policy is now to arm all sides in the sectarian civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. He claims to be devoted to nation building, which he previously dismissed, while he presides over a mass exodus of 2 million Iraqis, upholds law and order while holding tens of thousands of prisoners without due process, and conducts a "surge" of troops to secure the capital city of Baghdad whose main effect has been to facilitate its ethnic cleansing. The Iraqi government, for its part, has not met any of the benchmarks in reforming its laws demanded by the United States as the sine qua non of continuing support.
And where in the world is Condoleezza Rice? While Bush was in Europe, the secretary of state was at home. Instead of attending the summit, she delivered a speech at the Economic Club of New York, announcing that the new doctrine of the administration henceforth should be called "American realism." Until that moment, we were supposed to refer to it as "transformational diplomacy." Rice, the former realist turned neoconservative fellow traveler, seemed to have come full circle. But what was it exactly that she was doing with her rhetorical adjustment?
Rice's frenetic but feckless diplomacy in the Middle East has been fruitless. She is unwilling or unable to break beyond the bounds that Bush establishes, forbidding relations with Syria, for example, and thus guaranteeing her failure.
As she shuttles endlessly and meaninglessly, neoconservatives within the White House undermine her foredoomed initiatives. Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security advisor for policy, in briefing a meeting of Jewish Republicans, said that Rice's "talks are sometimes not more than 'process for the sake of process,'" the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on May 14. According to Haaretz, "Those attending the meeting of Jewish Republicans understood Abrams' comments as an assurance that the peace initiative promoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice doesn't have the full backing of President George W. Bush." As she engages in an academic exercise to rebrand empty rhetoric with new empty rhetoric, the neocons continue to create a parallel foreign policy.
Rice contradicts herself but forgets that she has. Bush continues to prattle about "freedom" but cannot remember his benchmarks. Only Dick Cheney remains consistent. The new mission statement is the old mission statement. The new scenarios are the old delusions. Time marches on.
-- By Sidney Blumenthal
6/14/2007
Headlines from Democracynow
- 25 Killed, 100 Wounded as Palestinian In-Fighting Soars
- UN Mideast Envoy: US Hampering Peace Efforts
- Bombing of Iraqi Shiite Shrine Raises Escalation Fears
- Commander: Iraq Will Need Long-Term U.S. Military Ties
- Red Cross Urges NATO on Afghan Strikes
- Nuremberg Prosecutor Criticizes Gitmo Trials
- ACLU Files Suit Over Deported U.S. Citizen
- Officer Accused in New Orleans Beating Commits Suicide
- Moore, California Nurses Rally to Call for End to For-Profit Health Care
Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/13/1514227
- UN Mideast Envoy: US Hampering Peace Efforts
- Bombing of Iraqi Shiite Shrine Raises Escalation Fears
- Commander: Iraq Will Need Long-Term U.S. Military Ties
- Red Cross Urges NATO on Afghan Strikes
- Nuremberg Prosecutor Criticizes Gitmo Trials
- ACLU Files Suit Over Deported U.S. Citizen
- Officer Accused in New Orleans Beating Commits Suicide
- Moore, California Nurses Rally to Call for End to For-Profit Health Care
Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/13/1514227
6/07/2007
democracynow.org Headlines
- Cheney's Ex-Aide, Libby, Sentenced to 30 Months In Prison
- Iraqi Lawmakers Move to Block Extension of U.S. Occupation
- U.S. Air War in Iraq Intensifies
- GOP Candidates Refuse to Rule Out Nuking Iran
- Unions Criticize Hillary Clinton For Ties to Unionbuster
- German Police Arrest 57 At G8 Protest
- Scientists in Greenland Warn About Melting Glaciers
- Leahy Calls For Restoration of Habeas Corpus at Guantanamo
- Klansman on Trial For 1964 Killing of Two Black Teenagers
Listen/Watch/Readhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1415221
- Iraqi Lawmakers Move to Block Extension of U.S. Occupation
- U.S. Air War in Iraq Intensifies
- GOP Candidates Refuse to Rule Out Nuking Iran
- Unions Criticize Hillary Clinton For Ties to Unionbuster
- German Police Arrest 57 At G8 Protest
- Scientists in Greenland Warn About Melting Glaciers
- Leahy Calls For Restoration of Habeas Corpus at Guantanamo
- Klansman on Trial For 1964 Killing of Two Black Teenagers
Listen/Watch/Readhttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1415221
5/29/2007
Fear and Dominance
Jules Witcover
Repairing the Damage Done
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052907O.shtml
"President Bush's detour in Iraq off the multilateral track adhered to throughout the Cold War years has caused a deep drop in American prestige abroad, requiring extensive repair by his successor, regardless of which party wins in 2008," writes Jules Witcover.
Repairing the Damage Done
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052907O.shtml
"President Bush's detour in Iraq off the multilateral track adhered to throughout the Cold War years has caused a deep drop in American prestige abroad, requiring extensive repair by his successor, regardless of which party wins in 2008," writes Jules Witcover.
5/13/2007
Balancing Act
Iran's Ahmadinejad to visit UAE
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the United Arab Emirates, the first such visit since the 1979 revolution.
Full story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/middle_east/6650745.stm
Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits the United Arab Emirates, the first such visit since the 1979 revolution.
Full story:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/2/hi/middle_east/6650745.stm
2/26/2007
Iranian Peace Offer
Ex-Congressional Aide: Karl Rove Personally Received (And Ignored) Iranian Peace Offer in 2003
As Seymour Hersh reports the Pentagon has created a special panel to plan a bombing attack on Iran, we examine how the Bush administration ignored a secret offer to negotiate with Iran in 2003. We speak with the National Iranian American Council's Trita Parsi, a former aide to Republican congressman Bob Ney. Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/26/157241
As Seymour Hersh reports the Pentagon has created a special panel to plan a bombing attack on Iran, we examine how the Bush administration ignored a secret offer to negotiate with Iran in 2003. We speak with the National Iranian American Council's Trita Parsi, a former aide to Republican congressman Bob Ney. Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/26/157241
2/11/2007
Third Carrier to Persian Gulf
US Sending Third Carrier Strike Group to Persian Gulf
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021107B.shtml
The Iranians have reason to feel paranoid. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and a third carrier will likely follow.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021107B.shtml
The Iranians have reason to feel paranoid. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and a third carrier will likely follow.
2/01/2007
Iran Clock is Ticking
Robert Parry Iran Clock Is Ticking
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020107C.shtml
Robert Parry writes: "One well-informed US military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020107C.shtml
Robert Parry writes: "One well-informed US military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)