In a time of accelerating US regime-change criminality - first Iraq, then Libya, then Syria, and now Iran and Venezuela - it's timely that we be reminded of just what the Anglo-American invasion and occupation (dressed up by president George W. Bush and his neocon operatives as Operation Iraqi Freedom) was really all about.
Nico Walker, a former US army medic in Iraq, now doing time for armed robbery, has just produced his first book, Cherry, a novel, of which he says in interview: "The military parts are the ones that most closely mirror my experience." (Nico Walker: 'I needed to show how bad Iraq was', Killian Fox, theguardian.com, 17/2/19). Here's an excerpt from that interview:
"It was something I didn't want to lie about. I needed to show it for how it really was and dispel any myths. It was a pretty bad experience. We had been told there was this existential threat [to the Iraqis] we were supposed to prevent and it turned out not to be the case. Going there, you find out you're the problem. It seemed like we were trying to provoke as much fighting as we could... I don't want to give this wrong idea that I was some kind of pacifist or observer - I was an active participant. Maybe not to extremes, but I certainly didn't try to ever stop anything and I endorsed whatever was going on just by being there. I look back on it and think, wow, I was an occupier and all that entails."
Walker goes on to say: "Compared with what I'd been doing in Iraq, robbing banks seemed like kids' stuff. Obviously it was wrong; I realise this now."
There you have it - an army of jackboots, sent to Iraq on a pack of lies, which turned the place upside down and inside out. Remember this when you read your next installment of recycled regime-change propaganda from the Washington Post and New York Times in the Sydney Morning Herald, or from the Times and Wall Street Journal in the Australian.
[See also my 18/7/08 post Enlist Now! for an extract from that wonderful Iraq War expose (The Deserter's Tale) by another US soldier, Joshua Key.]
Showing posts with label GW Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GW Bush. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Letters? What Letters?
Netanyahu to a group of Israeli settlers in 2001: "I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction."
***
Yet another Israeli-monkey-on-America's-back story:
How four US presidents, including Obama and Trump, helped protect Israel's nuclear arsenal, Adam Entous, The New Yorker, 18/6/18)
"When a delegation of senior Israeli officials visited the Trump White House on February 13, 2017, they wanted to discuss several issues with their new American counterparts. Topping the list was a secret letter concerning a subject the Israelis had promised the Americans never to discuss publicly - Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal. In a recent piece for The New Yorker, I described a tense scene in the West Wing as the Israeli delegation - which included Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer - tried to get the letter signed by President Donald Trump. By all accounts, the American Administration was eager to please the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Trump had promised to lavish with unprecedented support. But, at that chaotic moment, Trump's aides felt blindsided by the Israeli request. They knew nothing about the existence of any letters and were confused by the sense of urgency coming from the Israelis. The Americans had other pressing concerns - later that day, Michael Flynn, the national security adviser, would hand in his resignation letter - and they didn't appreciate feeling as though the Israelis were telling them what to do. 'This is our fuckin' house,' one of the Americans snapped.
"The White House's reaction was understandable. There had been a similar moment of surprise eight years earlier, when Barack Obama became President and received a similar request. The very existence of the letters had been a closely held secret. Only a select group of senior American officials, in three previous Administrations, knew of the letters and how Israeli leaders interpreted them as effectively an American pledge not to press the Jewish state to give up its nuclear weapons so long as it continued to face existential threats in the region. (American officials say the letters weren't that explicit and fell short of constituting a binding commitment.) When Trump's aides moved into the White House, they didn't find any copies of the previous letters left behind by their predecessors. The documents had been sent to the archives. The Israelis, however, had copies.
"Israel crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six-Day War, in 1967. At that time, it had three nuclear devices, according to Avner Cohen, a nuclear historian... Israeli efforts to build a bomb at the nuclear complex in Dimona had been a source of tension with Washington for nearly a decade, But, by the fall of 1969, when Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister, met with Richard Nixon at the White House, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons was a fait accompli and the two sides reached an unwritten understanding: the Israelis would not declare, test, or threaten to use their nuclear weapons, and the Americans would not pressure the Israelis to sign a landmark international nuclear-nonproliferation treaty known as the NPT. (Israel never became a signatory, and US efforts to inspect Dimona stopped.)
"Successive Israeli governments abided by the arrangement... often referred to as Israel's 'policy of ambiguity.' A joint document describing the agreement was never prepared. Instead, each side relied on its own notes, a former official said. President Gerald Ford abided by Nixon's deal... The Israelis first started to feel as though the unwritten Meir-Nixon arrangement was no longer sufficient during the Presisidency of George H.W. Bush, when, after the first Gulf War, in 1991, world powers talked about the possibility of creating a zone in the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms.
"The first iteration of the secret letter was drafted during the Clinton Administration, as part of an agreement for Israel's participation in the 1998 Wye River negotiations with the Palestinians. In the letter, according to former officials, President Bill Clinton assured the Jewish state that no future American arms-control initiative would 'detract' from Israel's 'deterrent' capabilities, an oblique but clear reference to its nuclear arsenal. Later, Israeli officials inserted language to make clear to Washington that Israel would 'defend itself, by itself,' and that it would, therefore, not consider the American nuclear arsenal to be a substitute for Israeli nuclear arms. George W. Bush, when he became president, followed Clinton's lead, signing a similar letter, former officials told me.
"Then, in 2009, a new President, Barack Obama, took office. Almost from the start, Netanyahu was distrustful of Obama, and vice versa. 'With Obama, we were all crazy,' an Israeli official told me. That April, Obama delivered an aspirational speech in Prague, setting out 'America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.' Obama's advisers subsequently learned 'how paranoid Bibi was that Obama was going to try to take away Israel's nuclear weapons,' a former US official told me, adding, 'Of course, that was never our intent.' Obama signed an updated version of the letter in May, 2009.
"While Israeli officials interpreted the letters as an effective commitment by successive American Presidents not to pressure Israel regarding its nuclear arsenal, US officials told me that they viewed the letters as less categorical. 'It was not a blanket 'We'll never ask Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.' It was more 'We accepted the Israeli argument that they're not going to disarm under current conditions in the Middle East,' a former US official told me...
"Ahead of a nonproliferation conference in 2010, Netanyahu became concerned, once again, that Israel would come under international pressure to disarm. In response, Obama made a public statement that echoed the contents of the secret letters, without revealing their existence. 'We discussed issues that arose out of the nuclear nonproliferation conference,' Obama said, after meeting with Netanyahu on July 6, 2010. 'And I reiterated to the Prime Minister that there is no change in US policy when it comes to these issues. We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it's in, and the threats that are levelled against... it, that Israel has unique security requirements. It's got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that's why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel's security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests'."
***
Yet another Israeli-monkey-on-America's-back story:
How four US presidents, including Obama and Trump, helped protect Israel's nuclear arsenal, Adam Entous, The New Yorker, 18/6/18)
"When a delegation of senior Israeli officials visited the Trump White House on February 13, 2017, they wanted to discuss several issues with their new American counterparts. Topping the list was a secret letter concerning a subject the Israelis had promised the Americans never to discuss publicly - Israel's undeclared nuclear arsenal. In a recent piece for The New Yorker, I described a tense scene in the West Wing as the Israeli delegation - which included Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer - tried to get the letter signed by President Donald Trump. By all accounts, the American Administration was eager to please the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Trump had promised to lavish with unprecedented support. But, at that chaotic moment, Trump's aides felt blindsided by the Israeli request. They knew nothing about the existence of any letters and were confused by the sense of urgency coming from the Israelis. The Americans had other pressing concerns - later that day, Michael Flynn, the national security adviser, would hand in his resignation letter - and they didn't appreciate feeling as though the Israelis were telling them what to do. 'This is our fuckin' house,' one of the Americans snapped.
"The White House's reaction was understandable. There had been a similar moment of surprise eight years earlier, when Barack Obama became President and received a similar request. The very existence of the letters had been a closely held secret. Only a select group of senior American officials, in three previous Administrations, knew of the letters and how Israeli leaders interpreted them as effectively an American pledge not to press the Jewish state to give up its nuclear weapons so long as it continued to face existential threats in the region. (American officials say the letters weren't that explicit and fell short of constituting a binding commitment.) When Trump's aides moved into the White House, they didn't find any copies of the previous letters left behind by their predecessors. The documents had been sent to the archives. The Israelis, however, had copies.
"Israel crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six-Day War, in 1967. At that time, it had three nuclear devices, according to Avner Cohen, a nuclear historian... Israeli efforts to build a bomb at the nuclear complex in Dimona had been a source of tension with Washington for nearly a decade, But, by the fall of 1969, when Golda Meir, Israel's Prime Minister, met with Richard Nixon at the White House, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons was a fait accompli and the two sides reached an unwritten understanding: the Israelis would not declare, test, or threaten to use their nuclear weapons, and the Americans would not pressure the Israelis to sign a landmark international nuclear-nonproliferation treaty known as the NPT. (Israel never became a signatory, and US efforts to inspect Dimona stopped.)
"Successive Israeli governments abided by the arrangement... often referred to as Israel's 'policy of ambiguity.' A joint document describing the agreement was never prepared. Instead, each side relied on its own notes, a former official said. President Gerald Ford abided by Nixon's deal... The Israelis first started to feel as though the unwritten Meir-Nixon arrangement was no longer sufficient during the Presisidency of George H.W. Bush, when, after the first Gulf War, in 1991, world powers talked about the possibility of creating a zone in the Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear arms.
"The first iteration of the secret letter was drafted during the Clinton Administration, as part of an agreement for Israel's participation in the 1998 Wye River negotiations with the Palestinians. In the letter, according to former officials, President Bill Clinton assured the Jewish state that no future American arms-control initiative would 'detract' from Israel's 'deterrent' capabilities, an oblique but clear reference to its nuclear arsenal. Later, Israeli officials inserted language to make clear to Washington that Israel would 'defend itself, by itself,' and that it would, therefore, not consider the American nuclear arsenal to be a substitute for Israeli nuclear arms. George W. Bush, when he became president, followed Clinton's lead, signing a similar letter, former officials told me.
"Then, in 2009, a new President, Barack Obama, took office. Almost from the start, Netanyahu was distrustful of Obama, and vice versa. 'With Obama, we were all crazy,' an Israeli official told me. That April, Obama delivered an aspirational speech in Prague, setting out 'America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.' Obama's advisers subsequently learned 'how paranoid Bibi was that Obama was going to try to take away Israel's nuclear weapons,' a former US official told me, adding, 'Of course, that was never our intent.' Obama signed an updated version of the letter in May, 2009.
"While Israeli officials interpreted the letters as an effective commitment by successive American Presidents not to pressure Israel regarding its nuclear arsenal, US officials told me that they viewed the letters as less categorical. 'It was not a blanket 'We'll never ask Israel to give up its nuclear weapons.' It was more 'We accepted the Israeli argument that they're not going to disarm under current conditions in the Middle East,' a former US official told me...
"Ahead of a nonproliferation conference in 2010, Netanyahu became concerned, once again, that Israel would come under international pressure to disarm. In response, Obama made a public statement that echoed the contents of the secret letters, without revealing their existence. 'We discussed issues that arose out of the nuclear nonproliferation conference,' Obama said, after meeting with Netanyahu on July 6, 2010. 'And I reiterated to the Prime Minister that there is no change in US policy when it comes to these issues. We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it's in, and the threats that are levelled against... it, that Israel has unique security requirements. It's got to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that's why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel's security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests'."
Sunday, April 22, 2018
The Next War
Ominous drumbeats in Friday's Australian, from its full-page interview with Israel's new ambassador to these shores, Mark Sofer:
"... the insidious beachhead of Iranian military power pushing into Syria, which shares a border with Israel." (A NOTE TO IRAN: GO HOME, Adam Creighton)
"... Iran is 'crossing a red line'."
"'The Iranians are sitting there, threatening our existence... '"
"... an Iranian government so belligerent that even Arab nations - former enemies of Israel - are looking to Israel to help contain it."
If Israel isn't gearing up for a war this year...
Some other highlights:
"Sofer is at pains to draw a distinction between the Iranian people - 'very erudite' - and the 'half-crazed lunatics' running the theocracy in Tehran."
Says the representative of the half-crazed lunatics running the theocracy in Tel Aviv...
(Remember what happened after another half-crazed lunatic, George W. Bush, drew the same distinction between the Iraqi people and their leader? "Iraq's talented people, rich culture, and tremendous potential have been hijacked by Saddam Hussein." (A vision for Iraq & the Iraqi people, 16/3/03))
"The country is more than pulling its weight in humanitarian terms. 'We're accepting into Israel a huge amount [sic] of Syrian wounded into our hospitals. We don't make a song and dance about it,' he says, referring to the tens of thousands of Syrians being treated for wounds in the north of the country."
And the Oscar goes to...
"The ambassador displays his nation's famously coy attitude to its own military capabilities. 'We're not a nuclear power. We have always said so, and will always say so,' he says when asked about his country's nuclear development. Try finding a source that argues Israel doesn't have a sizeable battery of nuclear weapons. Can anyone blame Israel, though?"
Certainly, you can't, Adam - not if you want to keep your job at the Australian.
"... the insidious beachhead of Iranian military power pushing into Syria, which shares a border with Israel." (A NOTE TO IRAN: GO HOME, Adam Creighton)
"... Iran is 'crossing a red line'."
"'The Iranians are sitting there, threatening our existence... '"
"... an Iranian government so belligerent that even Arab nations - former enemies of Israel - are looking to Israel to help contain it."
If Israel isn't gearing up for a war this year...
Some other highlights:
"Sofer is at pains to draw a distinction between the Iranian people - 'very erudite' - and the 'half-crazed lunatics' running the theocracy in Tehran."
Says the representative of the half-crazed lunatics running the theocracy in Tel Aviv...
(Remember what happened after another half-crazed lunatic, George W. Bush, drew the same distinction between the Iraqi people and their leader? "Iraq's talented people, rich culture, and tremendous potential have been hijacked by Saddam Hussein." (A vision for Iraq & the Iraqi people, 16/3/03))
"The country is more than pulling its weight in humanitarian terms. 'We're accepting into Israel a huge amount [sic] of Syrian wounded into our hospitals. We don't make a song and dance about it,' he says, referring to the tens of thousands of Syrians being treated for wounds in the north of the country."
And the Oscar goes to...
"The ambassador displays his nation's famously coy attitude to its own military capabilities. 'We're not a nuclear power. We have always said so, and will always say so,' he says when asked about his country's nuclear development. Try finding a source that argues Israel doesn't have a sizeable battery of nuclear weapons. Can anyone blame Israel, though?"
Certainly, you can't, Adam - not if you want to keep your job at the Australian.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Neocons for Trump
Here's Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen giving Trump the thumbs-up for his first 100 days in office:
"Trump did something in his first 100 days that his predecessor could not bring himself to do in his entire second term: He enforced Obama's red line against Syria's use of chemical weapons. When the Assad regime apparently used a toxic nerve agent on innocent men, women and children, Trump didn't wring his hands. He acted quickly and decisively, and in so doing restored our credibility on the world stage that Obama had squandered." (Forget the critics, Mr President. Your first 100 days have been just fine, Marc Thiessen, 24/4/17)
Note the word "apparently." This is Thiessen paying lip-service to 'allegedly'. Clearly, he doesn't want you to dwell on the implications of Trump acting on Asad's apparent use of chemical weapons. He just wants you to move right along and applaud the president for acting "quickly and decisively."
All you really need to know about Marc Thiessen is revealed in his appended bio, where he's described as "a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for president George W Bush."
"Trump did something in his first 100 days that his predecessor could not bring himself to do in his entire second term: He enforced Obama's red line against Syria's use of chemical weapons. When the Assad regime apparently used a toxic nerve agent on innocent men, women and children, Trump didn't wring his hands. He acted quickly and decisively, and in so doing restored our credibility on the world stage that Obama had squandered." (Forget the critics, Mr President. Your first 100 days have been just fine, Marc Thiessen, 24/4/17)
Note the word "apparently." This is Thiessen paying lip-service to 'allegedly'. Clearly, he doesn't want you to dwell on the implications of Trump acting on Asad's apparent use of chemical weapons. He just wants you to move right along and applaud the president for acting "quickly and decisively."
All you really need to know about Marc Thiessen is revealed in his appended bio, where he's described as "a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the former chief speechwriter for president George W Bush."
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Trump on Iraq
"Some of Trump's off-the-top-of-the-head suggestions for challenging terrorism... include... confiscating Iraq's energy resources to pay for Washington's defence spending in the region." (How much power will President Trump have? Paul McGeough, Sydney Morning Herald, 11/11/16)
So the US, under a former village idiot who managed to find his way into the White House, invaded Iraq in 2003, slamming it against the wall and unleashing the progenitors of the sectarian crazies now calling themselves Islamic State, and Iraq, not Bush and his neocon crazies who were responsible for creating the mess in the first place, will be forced by Trump to pay the bill for Washington's - wait for it - DEFENCE spending in the region...
So the US, under a former village idiot who managed to find his way into the White House, invaded Iraq in 2003, slamming it against the wall and unleashing the progenitors of the sectarian crazies now calling themselves Islamic State, and Iraq, not Bush and his neocon crazies who were responsible for creating the mess in the first place, will be forced by Trump to pay the bill for Washington's - wait for it - DEFENCE spending in the region...
Friday, August 5, 2016
The Bush/Blair Gift That Keeps on Giving
"A Polaroid picture of a dead man, captioned on the back in ink by an Islamic State judiciary clerk, is the only memento that Hassan Mohammed Ali has of his missing younger brother Sultan. It was handed to Mr Ali at his home in the village of Haji Ali, south of Mosul, by an ISIS patrol that knocked at his door. In the photograph Sultan is lying on his back in a blue tracksuit top, shot at close range, the top right corner of his head blown off. He had been caught several weeks earlier trying to flee. 'Executed for attempting to escape to join the unbelievers,' the dated and signed explanation says on the photograph. 'I keep the photo because it is all I have left to remember my brother,' Mr Ali, 39, said. He was lucky, he managed to escape 3 weeks ago with most of his family. 'I also keep it to remind myself what we fled from.' Mr Ali has found shelter with thousands of other Sunnis fleeing the area around Mosul in the Debaga camp in Iraqi Kurdistan, where he and his family live under the steps of an abandoned football stadium. 'It is freedom of a sort, though not quite as I expected,' he said. [...] Seated in the shade, Mr Ali tapped the photo of his dead brother as he reflected on his fate. 'Once I wanted a lot in life,' he mused. 'Then all I wanted was to escape the Daesh. But now, all I want is a tent'." (Mosul exodus puts camps at breaking point, Anthony Loyd, The Times/The Australian, 2/8/16)
"Many of the refugees are deeply traumatised, having been ostracised by the Baghdad government, bombed by the coalition, persecuted by Islamic State, hunted as they fled the caliphate and enraged at the camp's conditions. Zahir Ibrahim said he had to leave the dismembered bodies of his wife, his cousin and his three children, less than 10 years old, in the desert as they escaped from a village south of Mosul last month. One of the children had detonated an IED. Survivors triggered a second device as they tried to collect the bodies from the first explosion. 'Then the Daesh started shooting at us,' he said. 'So we began running across the desert, 65 of us, leaving the dead in pieces behind us. It is better in this camp than life under the Daesh but it still feels like jail here'." (ibid)
Never forgive. Never forget.
"Many of the refugees are deeply traumatised, having been ostracised by the Baghdad government, bombed by the coalition, persecuted by Islamic State, hunted as they fled the caliphate and enraged at the camp's conditions. Zahir Ibrahim said he had to leave the dismembered bodies of his wife, his cousin and his three children, less than 10 years old, in the desert as they escaped from a village south of Mosul last month. One of the children had detonated an IED. Survivors triggered a second device as they tried to collect the bodies from the first explosion. 'Then the Daesh started shooting at us,' he said. 'So we began running across the desert, 65 of us, leaving the dead in pieces behind us. It is better in this camp than life under the Daesh but it still feels like jail here'." (ibid)
Never forgive. Never forget.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Tony Blair Just Couldn't Wait for Iraq War
Sensational revelations on Tony Blair and Iraq appeared in yesterday's MailOnline.
Typically, there was NOTHING about them on this morning's (6.30) ABC news*, so here are the MailOnline headlines and opening paragraph:
Smoking gun emails reveals Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started - despite claiming he wanted peace
*Leaked White House memo shows former PM's support for war at summit with US President in 2002
*Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told 'the UK will follow our lead'
*Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution - in direct contrast to email revelations
*New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hilary Clinton at the order of US courts
"A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the 'deal in blood' forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War. The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister's public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He told voters: 'We're not proposing military action - in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals." (Glen Owen & William Lowther, 18/10/15)
You can read it all at dailymail.co.uk. For now, here's the data from their useful graphic:
Secret: Memorandum to the President
From: Colin L. Powell, 28/3/02
Subject: Your meeting with UK PM Tony Blair, April 5-7, 2002 at Crawford
1. Powell starts his memo by outlining the intimate nature of the upcoming meeting between Blair and Bush at the President's Crawford ranch in Texas.
*"Tony Blair is looking forward to the time he and his family will spend with you at Crawford to deepen their personal relationship with you and Laura [Bush's wife]. Buckingham Palace's approval of the trip despite The Queen Mother's death attests to the importance the British government ascribes to Blair's meeting with you. Blair will want to discuss: Afghanistan; Iraq; the Middle East; Russia and Nato enlargement; and trade and development.'
2. He says Blair will back him on Iraq and present 'public affairs lines' as Bush's global spin doctor.
* "Blair continues to stand by you and the US as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause."
3. Powell then says that Blair eagerly proved his loyalty to Bush by sending British troops to Afghanistan even though UK military chiefs warned it was a risk.
* "Blair and the UK are in Afghanistan with us for the long haul. He readily committed to deploy 1,700 commandos, even though his experts warn that British forces are overstretched."
4. Again, he stresses Blair was already committed to Iraq War - even though he had not told MPs, the Cabinet or British voters.
* "On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."
5. Powell says only TWO of Blair's cabinet ministers backed the war, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw - at the time Blair claimed they all did. And he denied most Labour MPs and voters opposed him.
* "Aside from his foreign and defence secretaries, however, Blair's Cabinet shows signs of division, and the Labour Party and the British public are unconvinced that military action is warranted now."
6. Smooth-talking Blair would persuade sceptics that flimsy claims that Saddam had WMDs were 'credible' and brush off claims that UN backing was needed. The UN is dismissed with contempt.
* "Blair may suggest ideas on how to make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace... [and] handle calls for a UNSC [Security Council] blessing."
7. Blair would say the Allies would prevent bloody chaos in Iraq 'the day after' Saddam fell. They did no such thing, there was bloody chaos.
* "[Blair will] demonstrate that we have thought through 'the day after'."
8. Loyal Blair would spare Bush's blushes by not making a public fuss about a US decision on import tariffs which had devastated Britain's steel industry.
* "We do not expect Blair to dwell on the steel decision."
9. 'Arrogant' Blair desperately needed Bush's endorsement because his domestic policies were failing in Britain.
* "Blair hit some domestic turbulence. Blamed at home for failing to fix inadequate public services, his (unpublished) poll numbers have fallen to below 50%. He is sharply criticised by the media for being too pro-US, too arrogant and 'presidential' (not a compliment in the British context) and too insensitive on issues of concern to voters."
10. Bush had to pretend Blair was his equal to enable him to convince sceptical British voters he was not America's poodle.
* "Blair knows he may have to pay a political price for supporting us on Iraq, and wants to minimise it. Nonetheless, he will stick with us on the big issues. His voters will look for signs that Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship."
[* However, an item on the recreation of the 1915 'Coo-ee March' from Gilgandra to Sydney to suck Australians into joining the army to fight for Britain in World War I was broadcast.]
Typically, there was NOTHING about them on this morning's (6.30) ABC news*, so here are the MailOnline headlines and opening paragraph:
Smoking gun emails reveals Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war was forged a YEAR before the invasion had even started - despite claiming he wanted peace
*Leaked White House memo shows former PM's support for war at summit with US President in 2002
*Bombshell document shows Blair preparing to act as spin doctor for Bush, who was told 'the UK will follow our lead'
*Publicly, Blair still claimed to be looking for diplomatic solution - in direct contrast to email revelations
*New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hilary Clinton at the order of US courts
"A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the 'deal in blood' forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War. The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started. It flies in the face of the Prime Minister's public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis. He told voters: 'We're not proposing military action - in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals." (Glen Owen & William Lowther, 18/10/15)
You can read it all at dailymail.co.uk. For now, here's the data from their useful graphic:
Secret: Memorandum to the President
From: Colin L. Powell, 28/3/02
Subject: Your meeting with UK PM Tony Blair, April 5-7, 2002 at Crawford
1. Powell starts his memo by outlining the intimate nature of the upcoming meeting between Blair and Bush at the President's Crawford ranch in Texas.
*"Tony Blair is looking forward to the time he and his family will spend with you at Crawford to deepen their personal relationship with you and Laura [Bush's wife]. Buckingham Palace's approval of the trip despite The Queen Mother's death attests to the importance the British government ascribes to Blair's meeting with you. Blair will want to discuss: Afghanistan; Iraq; the Middle East; Russia and Nato enlargement; and trade and development.'
2. He says Blair will back him on Iraq and present 'public affairs lines' as Bush's global spin doctor.
* "Blair continues to stand by you and the US as we move forward on the war on terrorism and on Iraq. He will present to you the strategic, tactical and public affairs lines that he believes will strengthen global support for our common cause."
3. Powell then says that Blair eagerly proved his loyalty to Bush by sending British troops to Afghanistan even though UK military chiefs warned it was a risk.
* "Blair and the UK are in Afghanistan with us for the long haul. He readily committed to deploy 1,700 commandos, even though his experts warn that British forces are overstretched."
4. Again, he stresses Blair was already committed to Iraq War - even though he had not told MPs, the Cabinet or British voters.
* "On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."
5. Powell says only TWO of Blair's cabinet ministers backed the war, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw - at the time Blair claimed they all did. And he denied most Labour MPs and voters opposed him.
* "Aside from his foreign and defence secretaries, however, Blair's Cabinet shows signs of division, and the Labour Party and the British public are unconvinced that military action is warranted now."
6. Smooth-talking Blair would persuade sceptics that flimsy claims that Saddam had WMDs were 'credible' and brush off claims that UN backing was needed. The UN is dismissed with contempt.
* "Blair may suggest ideas on how to make a credible public case on current Iraqi threats to international peace... [and] handle calls for a UNSC [Security Council] blessing."
7. Blair would say the Allies would prevent bloody chaos in Iraq 'the day after' Saddam fell. They did no such thing, there was bloody chaos.
* "[Blair will] demonstrate that we have thought through 'the day after'."
8. Loyal Blair would spare Bush's blushes by not making a public fuss about a US decision on import tariffs which had devastated Britain's steel industry.
* "We do not expect Blair to dwell on the steel decision."
9. 'Arrogant' Blair desperately needed Bush's endorsement because his domestic policies were failing in Britain.
* "Blair hit some domestic turbulence. Blamed at home for failing to fix inadequate public services, his (unpublished) poll numbers have fallen to below 50%. He is sharply criticised by the media for being too pro-US, too arrogant and 'presidential' (not a compliment in the British context) and too insensitive on issues of concern to voters."
10. Bush had to pretend Blair was his equal to enable him to convince sceptical British voters he was not America's poodle.
* "Blair knows he may have to pay a political price for supporting us on Iraq, and wants to minimise it. Nonetheless, he will stick with us on the big issues. His voters will look for signs that Britain and America are truly equity partners in the special relationship."
[* However, an item on the recreation of the 1915 'Coo-ee March' from Gilgandra to Sydney to suck Australians into joining the army to fight for Britain in World War I was broadcast.]
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
When Malcolm First Met Tony
Thus spake Tony Abbott's Suppository of Wisdom, Greg Sheridan, in today's Australian:
"History will be much kinder to the Abbott prime ministership than today's analysis would suggest. Some of his achievements - especially stopping the boats - could probably not have been done by any other prime minister. And they will continue to benefit Australia for many years to come. The crisis engulfing Europe would have engulfed Australia had Abbott not been prime minister. That is a massive, historic achievement." (Tony Abbott loyal to a fault: why Philip was knighted)
Sound familiar?
Here's Abbott's SOW on the bloke who blew Iraq away:
"George W. Bush may well be judged, ultimately, a great president, especially in the war on terror." (A good president for these terrible times, 14/9/06)
The meaner and uglier, the better Greg likes 'em, especially if they love bombing Arab countries.
If Greg hadn't been so busy talking up his old mate, he might've remembered writing this in his recently published memoir:
"Malcolm [Turnbull] first met Tony Abbott at the AUS conference in Melbourne in 1978, which Malcolm covered for The Bulletin. The two had a jovial conversation that was very much a two-way affair rather than an interview. In the conversation Malcolm described Tony's political style as 'exuberant' but in The Bulletin described it as 'boisterous'. Malcolm wrote about Tony that: 'While he can win support from students because of the shocking state of affairs in AUS, he cannot take the next step because of his conservative moral views.'" (When We Were Young & Foolish, 2015, p 306)
And doesn't that sound familiar?
Here's an extract from M'Lord Turnbull's 'Abbott's Gotta Go' speech of the 14th:
"We need a style of leadership that explains those challenges and opportunities... and how we seize the opportunities. A style of leadership that respects the people's intelligence, that explains these complex issues and then sets out the course of action we believe we should take and makes a case for it. We need advocacy not slogans. We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people. Now if we continue with Mr Abbott as prime minister, it is clear enough what will happen. He will cease to be prime minister and he'll be succeeded by Mr Shorten."
But what does a style of leadership that respects the people's intelligence mean?
OK, OK, I think M'Lord Turnbull means something like this:
Bogan Slogan a la Abbott: Nope, nope, nope.
Advocacy a la M'Lord Turnbull: No, no, no.
See the difference?
"History will be much kinder to the Abbott prime ministership than today's analysis would suggest. Some of his achievements - especially stopping the boats - could probably not have been done by any other prime minister. And they will continue to benefit Australia for many years to come. The crisis engulfing Europe would have engulfed Australia had Abbott not been prime minister. That is a massive, historic achievement." (Tony Abbott loyal to a fault: why Philip was knighted)
Sound familiar?
Here's Abbott's SOW on the bloke who blew Iraq away:
"George W. Bush may well be judged, ultimately, a great president, especially in the war on terror." (A good president for these terrible times, 14/9/06)
The meaner and uglier, the better Greg likes 'em, especially if they love bombing Arab countries.
If Greg hadn't been so busy talking up his old mate, he might've remembered writing this in his recently published memoir:
"Malcolm [Turnbull] first met Tony Abbott at the AUS conference in Melbourne in 1978, which Malcolm covered for The Bulletin. The two had a jovial conversation that was very much a two-way affair rather than an interview. In the conversation Malcolm described Tony's political style as 'exuberant' but in The Bulletin described it as 'boisterous'. Malcolm wrote about Tony that: 'While he can win support from students because of the shocking state of affairs in AUS, he cannot take the next step because of his conservative moral views.'" (When We Were Young & Foolish, 2015, p 306)
And doesn't that sound familiar?
Here's an extract from M'Lord Turnbull's 'Abbott's Gotta Go' speech of the 14th:
"We need a style of leadership that explains those challenges and opportunities... and how we seize the opportunities. A style of leadership that respects the people's intelligence, that explains these complex issues and then sets out the course of action we believe we should take and makes a case for it. We need advocacy not slogans. We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people. Now if we continue with Mr Abbott as prime minister, it is clear enough what will happen. He will cease to be prime minister and he'll be succeeded by Mr Shorten."
But what does a style of leadership that respects the people's intelligence mean?
OK, OK, I think M'Lord Turnbull means something like this:
Bogan Slogan a la Abbott: Nope, nope, nope.
Advocacy a la M'Lord Turnbull: No, no, no.
See the difference?
Saturday, May 9, 2015
G.W. Bush: Next US Secretary of State?
OK, sod the UK election results.
But it could've been worse. What if Cameron had decided to appoint Tony Blair as his special adviser on UK-Israeli policy?
Too far-fetched?
Not these days:
"After spending months distancing himself from his family's political legacy, [Republican presidential wannabe] Jeb Bush surprised a group of Manhattan financiers this week by naming his brother, former president G.W. Bush, as his most influential counselor on US-Israeli policy." (One of Jeb Bush's top advisers on Israel: George W. Bush, Robert Costa, washingtonpost.com, 7/5/15)
(And just so's you know who's pulling the strings over there:
"Tuesday's session was organized by GOP mega-donor Paul Singer and his advisers so their associates could hear from Bush. Similar meetings have been held with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, three of Bush's potential Republican rivals in the 2016 race." (ibid)
Singer is described on Wikipedia as "an active participant in Republican Party politics... [who] has given millions of dollars to politicians who favour strong military aid to Israel.")
So does Dubya have a track record in managing the Israelis? You betcha:
"President Bush, showing his exasperation as Israeli tanks continued to roll through the West Bank, demanded Saturday that Israel withdraw 'without delay' from the Palestinian cities it has occupied in several days of outright war. 'I don't expect them to ignore [me],' he said. 'I expect them to heed the call.' After aiming those sharp words at the Israelis during a news conference here, Bush followed up with a 20-minute phone call to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 'He told the prime minister that he meant what he said: that Israel needs to withdraw without delay,' an administration official said. Sharon promised that he would wrap up his military incursion into Palestinian cities 'as expeditiosly as possible,' the official said, but there was no immediate sign of a rollback'." (Bush demands Israel pull out; Sharon to 'expedite' offensive, Edwin Chen & Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 7/4/02)
But it could've been worse. What if Cameron had decided to appoint Tony Blair as his special adviser on UK-Israeli policy?
Too far-fetched?
Not these days:
"After spending months distancing himself from his family's political legacy, [Republican presidential wannabe] Jeb Bush surprised a group of Manhattan financiers this week by naming his brother, former president G.W. Bush, as his most influential counselor on US-Israeli policy." (One of Jeb Bush's top advisers on Israel: George W. Bush, Robert Costa, washingtonpost.com, 7/5/15)
(And just so's you know who's pulling the strings over there:
"Tuesday's session was organized by GOP mega-donor Paul Singer and his advisers so their associates could hear from Bush. Similar meetings have been held with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, three of Bush's potential Republican rivals in the 2016 race." (ibid)
Singer is described on Wikipedia as "an active participant in Republican Party politics... [who] has given millions of dollars to politicians who favour strong military aid to Israel.")
So does Dubya have a track record in managing the Israelis? You betcha:
"President Bush, showing his exasperation as Israeli tanks continued to roll through the West Bank, demanded Saturday that Israel withdraw 'without delay' from the Palestinian cities it has occupied in several days of outright war. 'I don't expect them to ignore [me],' he said. 'I expect them to heed the call.' After aiming those sharp words at the Israelis during a news conference here, Bush followed up with a 20-minute phone call to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. 'He told the prime minister that he meant what he said: that Israel needs to withdraw without delay,' an administration official said. Sharon promised that he would wrap up his military incursion into Palestinian cities 'as expeditiosly as possible,' the official said, but there was no immediate sign of a rollback'." (Bush demands Israel pull out; Sharon to 'expedite' offensive, Edwin Chen & Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, 7/4/02)
Monday, May 19, 2014
They Walk Among Us...
The following 3 texts - in no particular order - illustrate the terrifying fact that there exists a scary subset of humanity (I use the term loosely here) for whom reality simply does not exist:
"Phase one of Tony Abbott's strategy to sell the budget is to deny, point blank, that it is based on the deceit of broken promises made before last year's election. More than that, it is to assert - again point blank - that there were no broken promises and, in effect, that black is white." (Abbott denies breaching faith, Michael Gordon, Sydney Morning Herald, 15/5/14)
"The aide said that guys like me [i.e., reporters and commentators] were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'." (A 'senior advisor' to President Bush, quoted in The Secret Way to War: The Downing Street Memo & the Iraq War's Buried History, Mark Danner, 2006)
"Even a cursory look at the history of this conflict would tell an observer that the plight of the Palestinians is so much more a product of the decisions that their leaders made over the years, of squandered opportunities and of deceit engaged in, than of anything that Israel did to them." (Paragraph from a letter to The Australian by Felix Elberg, Caulfield, Vic., 17/5/14)
"Phase one of Tony Abbott's strategy to sell the budget is to deny, point blank, that it is based on the deceit of broken promises made before last year's election. More than that, it is to assert - again point blank - that there were no broken promises and, in effect, that black is white." (Abbott denies breaching faith, Michael Gordon, Sydney Morning Herald, 15/5/14)
"The aide said that guys like me [i.e., reporters and commentators] were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'." (A 'senior advisor' to President Bush, quoted in The Secret Way to War: The Downing Street Memo & the Iraq War's Buried History, Mark Danner, 2006)
"Even a cursory look at the history of this conflict would tell an observer that the plight of the Palestinians is so much more a product of the decisions that their leaders made over the years, of squandered opportunities and of deceit engaged in, than of anything that Israel did to them." (Paragraph from a letter to The Australian by Felix Elberg, Caulfield, Vic., 17/5/14)
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Lest We Forget... Iraq
An excellent letter from yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"David Cameron has demanded an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka's civil war. Sure, straight after there's an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed when the British government, with others, invaded Iraq despite not having any justification under international law or the authorisation of the UN Security Council.
"It is sheer arrogance and hypocrisy for Cameron to demand another country be open about war crimes it might have committed when the result of the Chilcot inquiry into the circumstances in which Tony Blair dragged Britain into the US-led invasion of Iraq is sitting on his desk, held up from being released because he doesn't want to upset Washington by revealing what Blair and George Bush said to each other." Gordon Drennan Burton (SA)
"David Cameron has demanded an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed in Sri Lanka's civil war. Sure, straight after there's an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed when the British government, with others, invaded Iraq despite not having any justification under international law or the authorisation of the UN Security Council.
"It is sheer arrogance and hypocrisy for Cameron to demand another country be open about war crimes it might have committed when the result of the Chilcot inquiry into the circumstances in which Tony Blair dragged Britain into the US-led invasion of Iraq is sitting on his desk, held up from being released because he doesn't want to upset Washington by revealing what Blair and George Bush said to each other." Gordon Drennan Burton (SA)
Friday, July 5, 2013
Besotted Bob
The received wisdom is that Bob Carr has the hots for the US, but having just read an opinion piece of his in The Australian, I reckon it's really Israel that gets his juices going.
Now he's not talking here about just any old nation, right? He's talking about a right little minx whose criminal record is as long as your bloody arm - an occupying, genocidal, Jewish supremacist, apartheid state for God's sake! And yet, have you ever before read such an expression of tender concern for someone's welfare as this?
"As a friend of Israel, I can say there is another fundamental issue at stake [other than Hamas rockets vs Israeli settlement expansion]: the survival of Israel as a democracy. The durability of Israeli democracy requires the existence of a viable Palestinian state. Without it Israel will be trapped, governing a burgeoning Arab population to which it cannot grant full and equal civil rights and remain a Jewish state." (No Plan B for the Middle East, 3/7/13)
'What with all those Arabs breeding like rabbits, my dear, you might one day wake up and find you've lost your precious Jewish majority and then where will you be? No, trust me, it'd be better for you if the Palestinians had their own bantustan, or as we like to call it so as not to frighten the horses, viable Palestinian state.'
The man just doesn't get it. He just doesn't get what the rest of the world gets. All he sees is a sexy, if somewhat brazen and bumptious, young democracy.The little vixen's addled his brain.
You could point out to Carr till you're blue in the face that any democracy worth its salt is sect-neutral, and that 5 million Palestinians (consisting of 750,000 refugees and their descendents) were gerrymandered out of a vote at the point of a bayonet in 1948, but he's in so damn deep that he just doesn't want to know.
And please, don't be fooled by all that talk about the need for a Palestinian state. Carr is no more interested in Palestinian rights than he is in football. No, his only concern is that Israel will end up with the kind of terrible reputation that other little brazen hussy, white South Africa, had, and that'll reflect badly on him, considering he's been singing her praises ever since he set up that fan club back in the 70s - what was it called? Oh yeah, Labor Friends of Israel. For God's sake, he can't even bring himself to use the word 'apartheid' in the above paragraph. Probably because she'd scratch his eyes out if he did.
And how's this for special treatment?
"[T]he path to Palestinian statehood does not lie through UN resolutions." (ibid)
No, none of that nasty international law stuff for Israel! None of those scary UN resolutions like 242 and 194. Oh no, "Israel and the Palestinians should be nudged towards a return to direct talks." (ibid)
Nudged? Nudged? Israel? Is the man serious?
Still, you never know. After all, nudging seems to have worked a treat for George Bush:
"If you're asking me, 'am I nudging them forward', well, my trip was a pretty significant nudge because yesterday they had a meeting." (Bush:'I'm nudging' Israelis, Palestinians toward peace, cnn.com, 9/1/08)
Now he's not talking here about just any old nation, right? He's talking about a right little minx whose criminal record is as long as your bloody arm - an occupying, genocidal, Jewish supremacist, apartheid state for God's sake! And yet, have you ever before read such an expression of tender concern for someone's welfare as this?
"As a friend of Israel, I can say there is another fundamental issue at stake [other than Hamas rockets vs Israeli settlement expansion]: the survival of Israel as a democracy. The durability of Israeli democracy requires the existence of a viable Palestinian state. Without it Israel will be trapped, governing a burgeoning Arab population to which it cannot grant full and equal civil rights and remain a Jewish state." (No Plan B for the Middle East, 3/7/13)
'What with all those Arabs breeding like rabbits, my dear, you might one day wake up and find you've lost your precious Jewish majority and then where will you be? No, trust me, it'd be better for you if the Palestinians had their own bantustan, or as we like to call it so as not to frighten the horses, viable Palestinian state.'
The man just doesn't get it. He just doesn't get what the rest of the world gets. All he sees is a sexy, if somewhat brazen and bumptious, young democracy.The little vixen's addled his brain.
You could point out to Carr till you're blue in the face that any democracy worth its salt is sect-neutral, and that 5 million Palestinians (consisting of 750,000 refugees and their descendents) were gerrymandered out of a vote at the point of a bayonet in 1948, but he's in so damn deep that he just doesn't want to know.
And please, don't be fooled by all that talk about the need for a Palestinian state. Carr is no more interested in Palestinian rights than he is in football. No, his only concern is that Israel will end up with the kind of terrible reputation that other little brazen hussy, white South Africa, had, and that'll reflect badly on him, considering he's been singing her praises ever since he set up that fan club back in the 70s - what was it called? Oh yeah, Labor Friends of Israel. For God's sake, he can't even bring himself to use the word 'apartheid' in the above paragraph. Probably because she'd scratch his eyes out if he did.
And how's this for special treatment?
"[T]he path to Palestinian statehood does not lie through UN resolutions." (ibid)
No, none of that nasty international law stuff for Israel! None of those scary UN resolutions like 242 and 194. Oh no, "Israel and the Palestinians should be nudged towards a return to direct talks." (ibid)
Nudged? Nudged? Israel? Is the man serious?
Still, you never know. After all, nudging seems to have worked a treat for George Bush:
"If you're asking me, 'am I nudging them forward', well, my trip was a pretty significant nudge because yesterday they had a meeting." (Bush:'I'm nudging' Israelis, Palestinians toward peace, cnn.com, 9/1/08)
Sunday, April 14, 2013
'Honest' John
John Howard in his April 9, 2013 speech to the Lowy Institute:
"I never believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks nor did president Bush..."
George Bush in his May 1, 2003 announcement that major combat operations in Iraq have ended:
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 - and still goes on. That terrible morning, nineteen evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology - gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America'. By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed... The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain. No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." (The Iraq Papers, edited by Ehrenberg, McSherry, Sanchez & Sayej, 2010, p 176)
"I never believed that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks nor did president Bush..."
George Bush in his May 1, 2003 announcement that major combat operations in Iraq have ended:
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 - and still goes on. That terrible morning, nineteen evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology - gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America'. By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed... The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain. No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more." (The Iraq Papers, edited by Ehrenberg, McSherry, Sanchez & Sayej, 2010, p 176)
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
American Mengeles
"America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights, to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shia, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin." George W. Bush, October 7, 2002
"At Fallujah Hospital they cannot offer any statistics on children born with birth defects - there are just too many. Parents don't want to talk. 'Families bury their newborn babies after they die without telling anyone', says hospital spokesman Nadim al-Hadidi. 'It's all too shameful for them'.
"He projects pictures on to a wall at his office: children born with no brain, no eyes, or with the intestines out of their body.
"Facing a frozen image of a child born without limbs, Hadidi says parents' feelings usually range between shame nd guilt. 'They think it's their fault, that there's something wrong with them. And it doesn't help at all when some elder tells them it's been 'God's punishment'.'
"The pictures are difficult to look at. And, those responsible for all this have closed their eyes.
"In 2004 the Americans tested all kinds of chemicals and explosive devices on us: thermobaric weapons, white phosphorus, depleted uranium... we have all been laboratory mice for them', says Hadidi, turning off the projector.
"The months that followed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw persistent demonstrations against the occupation forces. But it wasn't until 2004 when this city by the Euphrates River to the west of Baghdad saw its worst.
"On March 31 of that year, images of the dismembered bodies of 4 mercenaries from the US group Blackwater hanging from a bridge circulated around the world. Al-Qaeda claimed the brutal action - and the local population paid the price for Operation Phantom Fury that followed. According to the Pentagon, this was the biggest urban battle since Hue (Vietnam, 1968).
"The first crackdown came in April 2004 but the worst was in November of that year. Random house-to-house checks gave way to intense night bombings. The Americans said they used white phosphorus to illuminate targets at night'. But a group of Italian journalists soon gave documentary evidence that white phosphorus had been just another of the banned weapons used against civilians by the US troops.
"The total number of victims is still unknown. In fact, many of them are not born yet. Abdulkadir Alrawi, a doctor at Fallujah Hospital, is just back from examining an intriguing new case. 'This girl was born with the Dandy Walker syndrome. Her brain is split in two and I doubt she'll survive'. As he speaks, the lights go off again in the whole hospital. 'We lack the most basic infrastructure. How do they expect us to cope with an emergency like this?'
"According to a study released by the Switzerland-based International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health in July 2010, 'the increases in cancer, leukemia and infant mortality and peturbations of the normal human birth sex ratio in Fallujah are significantly greater than those reported for the survivors of the A-Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945'. Researchers found there had been a 38-fold increase in leukemia (17-fold in the Japanese locations). Reputed analysts such as Noam Chomsky have labeled such conclusions as 'immensely more embarrassing than the Wikileaks leaks on Afghanistan'.
"Samira Alaani, chief doctor at Fallujah Hospital, took part in a study in close collaboration with the World Health Organization. Several tests conducted in London point to unusually large amounts of uranium and mercury in the hair root of those affected. That could be the evidence linking the use of prohibited weapons to the extent of congenital problems in Fallujah.
"Other than the white phosphorus, many point to depleted uranium (DU), a radioactive element, which, according to military engineers, significantly increases the penetration capacity of shells. DU is believed to have a life of 4.5 billion years, and it has been labeled the 'silent murderer that never stops killing'. Several international organizations have called on NATO to investigate whether DU was also used during the Libyan war.
"This month the Iraqi Health Ministry, in close collaboration with the WHO, will launch its first study ever on congenital malformations in the governorates of Baghdad, Anbar, Diala and Basra.
"Sandwiched between the borders of Iran and Kuwait, Basra sits above massive oil reserves. The population in this southernmost province has suffered fighting much more than any other region: from the war with Iran in the 1980s to the Gulf War in 1991 and the US-led invasion in 2003.
"A study by the University of Baghdad pointed out that cases of birth defects had increased tenfold in Basra two years before the invasion in 2003. The trend is still on the rise.
"Basra Children's Hospital, specializing in pediatric oncology, opened in 2010. Funded with US capital, this facility was initiated by former US first lady Laura Bush. But like the hospital in Fallujah, this supposedly state-of-the-art facility lacks basic equipment.
"The X-ray machine spent over a year-and-a-half stored at Basra port due to an administrative dispute over who should pay port fees. Our children would die as they waited for radiotherapy treatment that did not come', says Laith Shakr Al-Sailhi, father of a sick boy and director of the Children's Cancer Association of Iraq. 'The waiting list for treatment in Baghdad is endless and time is never on the side of the patients', says Al-Sailhi from the barracks that host his NGO headquarters next to the hospital. 'Besides, these children's diseases also lead to economic ruin of their families. Those who can afford it pay up to $7,000 in Syria or up to $12,000 in Jordan for treatment. The cheapest option is Iran, with rates at an average of $5,000. Today, families are flocking to Tehran for their children to be treated. Many of them are sleeping in the streets because they can't afford to pay for a hotel room'." (Iraq: Those laboratory mice were children, Karlos Zurutuza, The Madison Times, 18/4/12)
"At Fallujah Hospital they cannot offer any statistics on children born with birth defects - there are just too many. Parents don't want to talk. 'Families bury their newborn babies after they die without telling anyone', says hospital spokesman Nadim al-Hadidi. 'It's all too shameful for them'.
"He projects pictures on to a wall at his office: children born with no brain, no eyes, or with the intestines out of their body.
"Facing a frozen image of a child born without limbs, Hadidi says parents' feelings usually range between shame nd guilt. 'They think it's their fault, that there's something wrong with them. And it doesn't help at all when some elder tells them it's been 'God's punishment'.'
"The pictures are difficult to look at. And, those responsible for all this have closed their eyes.
"In 2004 the Americans tested all kinds of chemicals and explosive devices on us: thermobaric weapons, white phosphorus, depleted uranium... we have all been laboratory mice for them', says Hadidi, turning off the projector.
"The months that followed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw persistent demonstrations against the occupation forces. But it wasn't until 2004 when this city by the Euphrates River to the west of Baghdad saw its worst.
"On March 31 of that year, images of the dismembered bodies of 4 mercenaries from the US group Blackwater hanging from a bridge circulated around the world. Al-Qaeda claimed the brutal action - and the local population paid the price for Operation Phantom Fury that followed. According to the Pentagon, this was the biggest urban battle since Hue (Vietnam, 1968).
"The first crackdown came in April 2004 but the worst was in November of that year. Random house-to-house checks gave way to intense night bombings. The Americans said they used white phosphorus to illuminate targets at night'. But a group of Italian journalists soon gave documentary evidence that white phosphorus had been just another of the banned weapons used against civilians by the US troops.
"The total number of victims is still unknown. In fact, many of them are not born yet. Abdulkadir Alrawi, a doctor at Fallujah Hospital, is just back from examining an intriguing new case. 'This girl was born with the Dandy Walker syndrome. Her brain is split in two and I doubt she'll survive'. As he speaks, the lights go off again in the whole hospital. 'We lack the most basic infrastructure. How do they expect us to cope with an emergency like this?'
"According to a study released by the Switzerland-based International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health in July 2010, 'the increases in cancer, leukemia and infant mortality and peturbations of the normal human birth sex ratio in Fallujah are significantly greater than those reported for the survivors of the A-Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945'. Researchers found there had been a 38-fold increase in leukemia (17-fold in the Japanese locations). Reputed analysts such as Noam Chomsky have labeled such conclusions as 'immensely more embarrassing than the Wikileaks leaks on Afghanistan'.
"Samira Alaani, chief doctor at Fallujah Hospital, took part in a study in close collaboration with the World Health Organization. Several tests conducted in London point to unusually large amounts of uranium and mercury in the hair root of those affected. That could be the evidence linking the use of prohibited weapons to the extent of congenital problems in Fallujah.
"Other than the white phosphorus, many point to depleted uranium (DU), a radioactive element, which, according to military engineers, significantly increases the penetration capacity of shells. DU is believed to have a life of 4.5 billion years, and it has been labeled the 'silent murderer that never stops killing'. Several international organizations have called on NATO to investigate whether DU was also used during the Libyan war.
"This month the Iraqi Health Ministry, in close collaboration with the WHO, will launch its first study ever on congenital malformations in the governorates of Baghdad, Anbar, Diala and Basra.
"Sandwiched between the borders of Iran and Kuwait, Basra sits above massive oil reserves. The population in this southernmost province has suffered fighting much more than any other region: from the war with Iran in the 1980s to the Gulf War in 1991 and the US-led invasion in 2003.
"A study by the University of Baghdad pointed out that cases of birth defects had increased tenfold in Basra two years before the invasion in 2003. The trend is still on the rise.
"Basra Children's Hospital, specializing in pediatric oncology, opened in 2010. Funded with US capital, this facility was initiated by former US first lady Laura Bush. But like the hospital in Fallujah, this supposedly state-of-the-art facility lacks basic equipment.
"The X-ray machine spent over a year-and-a-half stored at Basra port due to an administrative dispute over who should pay port fees. Our children would die as they waited for radiotherapy treatment that did not come', says Laith Shakr Al-Sailhi, father of a sick boy and director of the Children's Cancer Association of Iraq. 'The waiting list for treatment in Baghdad is endless and time is never on the side of the patients', says Al-Sailhi from the barracks that host his NGO headquarters next to the hospital. 'Besides, these children's diseases also lead to economic ruin of their families. Those who can afford it pay up to $7,000 in Syria or up to $12,000 in Jordan for treatment. The cheapest option is Iran, with rates at an average of $5,000. Today, families are flocking to Tehran for their children to be treated. Many of them are sleeping in the streets because they can't afford to pay for a hotel room'." (Iraq: Those laboratory mice were children, Karlos Zurutuza, The Madison Times, 18/4/12)
Monday, May 23, 2011
Obamanation
In America, where brown is now the new black, and Arab/Muslim the new Jew, Iranian-born American academic and author Hamid Dabashi guides us through the brave new world of Obamanation:
"For 8 long and murderous years (2000-08), the world was at the mercy of George W Bush. He ruled the United States - and, with it, the world - with utter disregard for the most basic principles of human decency. He ended his term leaving a desperate and desolate world covered with human corpses and spotted with the bodies of tortured men, murdered mothers, raped women, orphaned children, ruined buildings, burned farms and burning factories, firms, and oilfields, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Palestine to Lebanon to the streets of New Orleans. There has been much talk in the United States about prosecuting Bush and his subordinates for war crimes. But no tribunal could ever issue a verdict harsh enough to equal the pain and suffering that this man caused among the poor and disenfranchised. Aided by his European and Israeli allies, and actively or passively endorsed by corrupt and incompetent Arab and Muslim heads of state, George W Bush looks like a nightmare from which the world has finally woken up; after a clean, cold shower it may once again remember humanity, decency and morality. Bush's last act before getting lost in historical ignominy was endorsing the Israelis' massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.
"After 8 catastrophic years, Americans from all walks of life, disgusted with what this man had done to the world in their name, came together on November 4, 2008, in a momentous occasion of collective redemption and catharsis, and chose Barack Hussein Obama as the first African-American to hold the highest office in the land. More profoundly, this was the expression of their highest aspirations and their hope to return to the fold of humanity and to stop embodying the principle source of menace and mayhem around the globe. But it did not take more than a mere couple of days for the euphoria of Obama's victory to begin giving way to an icy cold fear and wonder. From the windy winter cold of Chicago he announced his selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Israel Emanuel as his chief of staff - effectively the gatekeeper of his White House. Congressman Emanuel comes from a strongly pro-Israeli family. He served in the Israeli army for a short time; his father Benjamin Emanuel, served for a much longer period with the notorious Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization chiefly responsible for scores of murderous acts, among them the ethnic cleansing of Palestine when Israel was being superimposed on the world map in the 1940s. Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama had remained a suspicious figure to pro-Israeli voters, and no matter how hard he tried to convince them that he held the American relationship with Israel 'sacrosanct', as he put it on a number of occasions, he was not completely successful. In his infamously obsequious speech in front of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) soon after he declared victory in June 2008 in his pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination, he spent a great deal of time refuting the allegations with which he had been charged - chief among them that he was a Muslim. The appointment of a pro-Israeli chief of staff went a long way toward reassuring pro-Israeli lobbies and voters, and the ground opened up like an abyss under the feet of those who had hoped for something different.
"The disappointment that a wide spectrum of Obama supporters now faced was neither limited to this single appointment nor confined to what their candidate would do toward reconciling the idealism of his youthful community activism (over which the memory of Malcolm X shone brightly) with the pragmatism of his adult presidency vis-a-vis the predicament of Palestinians and the warmongering of the Jewish apartheid state. Every appointment that he made in public in November and December 2008 called for a reassessment of his campaign promises. When he finally announced New York's junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton (who stands to the right of the Likud Party when it comes to Israel), as his choice for Secretary of State, and the news spread that Dennis Ross (a key AIPAC operative) would be his choice to head Middle East Affairs, the disappointment deepened. When Israel commenced the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza late in December 2008, President-elect Obama seemed thoroughly preoccupied with the mounting economic problems that his administration was inheriting; he remained silent on the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, calling on the mantra 'We have only one president at a time'. While many were dismayed, I for one was relieved that at least he did not repeat the nauseating Bush administration line that Hamas was responsible for the carnage the Israeli army was visiting upon Gaza. As we say in Persian: Ma ra beh kheyr-e to ommid nist, shar marasan. We have no hope in your doing any good; prithee do us no evil.
"It did not help matters when Rahm Emanuel's father, Benjamin Emanuel, gave an interview to the Israeli newspaper Ma'riv in which he predicted that 'obviously' his son 'will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House'. The crudely racist remark delighted Zionists from Tel Aviv to New York and created havoc among the Arab and Muslim communities in the US, forcing the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) - hardly known for its daring imagination or principled postion on anything - to write a letter to Rahm Emanuel demanding that he repudiate his father's comment and send a copy to the president-elect. According to reports, the younger Emanuel called Mary Rose Oakar, the ADC president, to dissociate himself from his father's remark and apologize.
"Under ordinary circumstances this apology would have been the end of the matter. But these are not ordinary times. The unabated and in fact growing racism toward Muslims in general and Arabs in particular in North America (and Western Europe) requires far more serious attention - for it is the newest gestation of classical Christian anti-Semitism and white supremacist racism, now coming together in their fullest unfolding. For what seems to have happened since the events of 9/11, but particularly during the presidential election of 2008, is the semiotic transmutation of 'blacks' and 'Jews' into 'Arabs' and 'Muslims', respectively, in the evolving lexicon of American racism - and for this reason Benjamin Emanuel's remark deserves closer attention, as does the entire presidential election in 2008, during which, on countless occasions, this recodification of American racism was fully on display, particularly when it came to the figure and phenomenon of Barack Hussein Obama himself.
"What does it mean, exactly, to say: 'He's not going to clean the floors of the White House' - of all things? What does it signify? Who has stereotypically, and in a racist cliche, cleaned the floors of the White House? Certainly not Arabs - though perhaps in Israel, where cheap Palestinian labor is systematically abused, Israelis are used to seeing Arabs clean their floors. In Washington DC and the rest of the United States, and certainly in the White House, a whole history of African slavery has determined who, as a matter of racist cliche, cleans the floors. In the racist mind of the aging Benjamin Emanuel - who does not know the language of concealing one's bigotry and speaks like the Irgun terrorist that he was - he simply switches the African for the Arab and lets go of 'the values upon which he has raised his family'. What the senior Emanuel uttered is not all that odd for an Israeli racist. The domain of anti-Arab bigotry in Israel, from which Benjamin Emanuel draws freely, is not limited to Irgun terrorists. 'Mohammed's a pig', and 'Death to Arabs' are the staples of Israeli racism regularly sprayed on mosques and spewed at the residents of occupied Palestine, as is the hurling of severed pigs' heads into Muslim houses of worship. What is embedded in the senior Emanuel's remark is the regenerative transfusion of two differently coded modes of racism: Ashkenazi Israeli racism toward Arabs (and, for that matter, Sephardic Jews) and white American racism toward blacks. In a simple act of cross-codification, the two modes of racism come together and announce not just a mere Israelification of American political culture but also the transformation of racist registers of Blacks into Arabs (or 'sand niggers' as they have been popularly dubbed)." (Brown Skin, White Masks, 2011, pp 112-115)
"For 8 long and murderous years (2000-08), the world was at the mercy of George W Bush. He ruled the United States - and, with it, the world - with utter disregard for the most basic principles of human decency. He ended his term leaving a desperate and desolate world covered with human corpses and spotted with the bodies of tortured men, murdered mothers, raped women, orphaned children, ruined buildings, burned farms and burning factories, firms, and oilfields, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Palestine to Lebanon to the streets of New Orleans. There has been much talk in the United States about prosecuting Bush and his subordinates for war crimes. But no tribunal could ever issue a verdict harsh enough to equal the pain and suffering that this man caused among the poor and disenfranchised. Aided by his European and Israeli allies, and actively or passively endorsed by corrupt and incompetent Arab and Muslim heads of state, George W Bush looks like a nightmare from which the world has finally woken up; after a clean, cold shower it may once again remember humanity, decency and morality. Bush's last act before getting lost in historical ignominy was endorsing the Israelis' massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.
"After 8 catastrophic years, Americans from all walks of life, disgusted with what this man had done to the world in their name, came together on November 4, 2008, in a momentous occasion of collective redemption and catharsis, and chose Barack Hussein Obama as the first African-American to hold the highest office in the land. More profoundly, this was the expression of their highest aspirations and their hope to return to the fold of humanity and to stop embodying the principle source of menace and mayhem around the globe. But it did not take more than a mere couple of days for the euphoria of Obama's victory to begin giving way to an icy cold fear and wonder. From the windy winter cold of Chicago he announced his selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Israel Emanuel as his chief of staff - effectively the gatekeeper of his White House. Congressman Emanuel comes from a strongly pro-Israeli family. He served in the Israeli army for a short time; his father Benjamin Emanuel, served for a much longer period with the notorious Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organization chiefly responsible for scores of murderous acts, among them the ethnic cleansing of Palestine when Israel was being superimposed on the world map in the 1940s. Throughout his presidential campaign, Obama had remained a suspicious figure to pro-Israeli voters, and no matter how hard he tried to convince them that he held the American relationship with Israel 'sacrosanct', as he put it on a number of occasions, he was not completely successful. In his infamously obsequious speech in front of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) soon after he declared victory in June 2008 in his pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination, he spent a great deal of time refuting the allegations with which he had been charged - chief among them that he was a Muslim. The appointment of a pro-Israeli chief of staff went a long way toward reassuring pro-Israeli lobbies and voters, and the ground opened up like an abyss under the feet of those who had hoped for something different.
"The disappointment that a wide spectrum of Obama supporters now faced was neither limited to this single appointment nor confined to what their candidate would do toward reconciling the idealism of his youthful community activism (over which the memory of Malcolm X shone brightly) with the pragmatism of his adult presidency vis-a-vis the predicament of Palestinians and the warmongering of the Jewish apartheid state. Every appointment that he made in public in November and December 2008 called for a reassessment of his campaign promises. When he finally announced New York's junior senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton (who stands to the right of the Likud Party when it comes to Israel), as his choice for Secretary of State, and the news spread that Dennis Ross (a key AIPAC operative) would be his choice to head Middle East Affairs, the disappointment deepened. When Israel commenced the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza late in December 2008, President-elect Obama seemed thoroughly preoccupied with the mounting economic problems that his administration was inheriting; he remained silent on the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, calling on the mantra 'We have only one president at a time'. While many were dismayed, I for one was relieved that at least he did not repeat the nauseating Bush administration line that Hamas was responsible for the carnage the Israeli army was visiting upon Gaza. As we say in Persian: Ma ra beh kheyr-e to ommid nist, shar marasan. We have no hope in your doing any good; prithee do us no evil.
"It did not help matters when Rahm Emanuel's father, Benjamin Emanuel, gave an interview to the Israeli newspaper Ma'riv in which he predicted that 'obviously' his son 'will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he be? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House'. The crudely racist remark delighted Zionists from Tel Aviv to New York and created havoc among the Arab and Muslim communities in the US, forcing the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) - hardly known for its daring imagination or principled postion on anything - to write a letter to Rahm Emanuel demanding that he repudiate his father's comment and send a copy to the president-elect. According to reports, the younger Emanuel called Mary Rose Oakar, the ADC president, to dissociate himself from his father's remark and apologize.
"Under ordinary circumstances this apology would have been the end of the matter. But these are not ordinary times. The unabated and in fact growing racism toward Muslims in general and Arabs in particular in North America (and Western Europe) requires far more serious attention - for it is the newest gestation of classical Christian anti-Semitism and white supremacist racism, now coming together in their fullest unfolding. For what seems to have happened since the events of 9/11, but particularly during the presidential election of 2008, is the semiotic transmutation of 'blacks' and 'Jews' into 'Arabs' and 'Muslims', respectively, in the evolving lexicon of American racism - and for this reason Benjamin Emanuel's remark deserves closer attention, as does the entire presidential election in 2008, during which, on countless occasions, this recodification of American racism was fully on display, particularly when it came to the figure and phenomenon of Barack Hussein Obama himself.
"What does it mean, exactly, to say: 'He's not going to clean the floors of the White House' - of all things? What does it signify? Who has stereotypically, and in a racist cliche, cleaned the floors of the White House? Certainly not Arabs - though perhaps in Israel, where cheap Palestinian labor is systematically abused, Israelis are used to seeing Arabs clean their floors. In Washington DC and the rest of the United States, and certainly in the White House, a whole history of African slavery has determined who, as a matter of racist cliche, cleans the floors. In the racist mind of the aging Benjamin Emanuel - who does not know the language of concealing one's bigotry and speaks like the Irgun terrorist that he was - he simply switches the African for the Arab and lets go of 'the values upon which he has raised his family'. What the senior Emanuel uttered is not all that odd for an Israeli racist. The domain of anti-Arab bigotry in Israel, from which Benjamin Emanuel draws freely, is not limited to Irgun terrorists. 'Mohammed's a pig', and 'Death to Arabs' are the staples of Israeli racism regularly sprayed on mosques and spewed at the residents of occupied Palestine, as is the hurling of severed pigs' heads into Muslim houses of worship. What is embedded in the senior Emanuel's remark is the regenerative transfusion of two differently coded modes of racism: Ashkenazi Israeli racism toward Arabs (and, for that matter, Sephardic Jews) and white American racism toward blacks. In a simple act of cross-codification, the two modes of racism come together and announce not just a mere Israelification of American political culture but also the transformation of racist registers of Blacks into Arabs (or 'sand niggers' as they have been popularly dubbed)." (Brown Skin, White Masks, 2011, pp 112-115)
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Pixilated Presidents
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing." Mark Twain, Autobiography, 1959
What a goose!
[*The truth about God & George, Simon Freeman, timesonline, 7/10/05]
George W Bush - who gave us "God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan', and I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq', and I did"* - is but the most recent example of your pixilated American president. He destroyed Iraq.
Harry S Truman (1945-1953) is another. He helped destroy Palestine:
"In May 1949, one year after [de facto] recognition [by the United States], Israel gained full membership in the United Nations. The Truman administration gave Israel a $100 million loan. De jure recognition would finally be announced on January 31, 1949, after the Israeli elections... After Israel was created, the historical and religious meaning of what he had done became more important to Truman, especially his role in the return of the Jews to Palestine. Truman shared his thoughts with [his special counsel Clark] Clifford about biblical prophecies concerning the Jews' return to Zion in the Old Testament. Clifford, who considered himself an amateur Bible student, recalled exchanging passages with the president that dealt with the subject. One of the most striking quotes Clifford found was from Deuteronomy: 'Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the Mount of Nebo, the top of Isgah that is before Jericho, and the Lord showed him all the land from Gilead unto Dan... all the land of Judah unto the western sea and the south and the plain'. As Clifford remarked in 1988, 'You can take an old biblical map and you could do quite a lot with that with the present boundaries of Israel'. That, he added, was what the Old Testament had promised to the Jewish leaders of the day. One of the president's favorites, which he often quoted, was also from Deuteronomy: 'Behold, I have given up the land before you. Go in and take possession of the land to which the Lord has sworn unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob'. Others were from Genesis, which referred to 'an everlasting possession'...
What a goose!
[*The truth about God & George, Simon Freeman, timesonline, 7/10/05]
Friday, January 8, 2010
Ponytails vs The Company
"Avatar is not only a stunning work of movie technology, it is a stunning attack on America and the West, reports Greg Sheridan." (Fact & friction on a big screen, The Sunday Telegraph, 3/1/10)
Apparently, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, whose presentation of the Palestine/Israel conflict can best be summed up as The Hamas Terrorist Death-Cult vs The Plucky Country, finds the plot of Avatar way too melodramatic: blue people "with long necks and ponytails who swing through the trees like Tarzan" and "live in perfect harmony with nature" vs the "big, evil company, which is naturally American" and "wants to mine the blue people's home for a precious mineral called - you won't believe this - unobtainium."
"This is," he rails, "a version of the left-wing interpretation of Iraq, and even of Afghanistan and Vietnam," and "doesn't make any sense and it's utterly unhistorical. If the Americans had just wanted Iraq's oil they could have simply bought it from Saddam Hussein and saved the billions the military operation has chewed up."
Regarding Iraqi oil, I'm actually inclined to agree with him. Where we part company, however, is over his typically neoconservative misrepresentation of Iraq's death throes as birth pangs.
Well, if Iraq wasn't/isn't primarily about oil, what was/is it about? US sociologist James Petras is a reliable guide here:
"The imperial policies adopted by Washington are a direct response to the power and centrality of the biggest multi national corporations (MNCs) in the US economy. Free trade agreements, IMF and World Bank policies, privatizations, the lowering of tariff barriers and the establishment of over 180 military bases in more than 130 countries are responses to the structural imperatives of the US economy and more particularly to the biggest US MNCs, which operate throughout the world. Imperialism is not a policy, a conspiracy or a product of any single administration, but a structural reality with political determinants and an economic basis. However, policies based on the economic imperatives of this structure are formulated by decision makers in Washington and implemented via the state apparatus.
"Most of the key policies that support US imperial economic interests are not made in the context of broad public debate. Nor are imperial interests stated as such. A small circle of mostly non-elected officials make decisions 'behind closed doors' and plan imperial policies, aided by the 'advice' constructed by a host of Washington-based policy forums such as the US Centre for Foreign Relations (the choice of east coast 'liberal' trilateralists), the Heritage Foundation (preferred by George Bush the elder) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (run by Dick Cheney's wife, and one of several forums used by the latest generation of neo-conservative neo-imperialists). The public is then fed the ritual rhetoric of 'freedom', 'democracy' and so on, presenting the imperialist project in its various forms (the Iraq War, for example) as an advance of the 'forces of freedom, democracy and free enterprise' (to quote from George W Bush's 2002 National Security Report).
"The structural determination of strategic interests is compatible with, if not necessitated by, these 'closed doors'. Thus the argument that proposes 'conspiracies' to be more significant than structural determinations is misplaced and based on false distinctions. Structural and 'conspiratorial' determinants operate on different if not incompatible levels. Structural economic factors, such as MNCs, establish the general framework of US policy, while policymakers elaborate policies to advance these companies' interests. This process takes place out of public sight, and hence is conceivable as a 'conspiracy', but not without the active participation of the CEOs of the major multi-nationals. Moreover, there are moments when particular policy makers can carve out a degree of independence from particular MNCs in specific regions and pursue their own ideological agendas even at the cost of the MNCs. The most striking example of this exceptional circumstance is the behaviour of sectors of the US state apparatus with relation to the Middle East during the George W. Bush presidency. An influential group of US Zionists, closely allied with and having strong loyalty to the Israeli state, formulated a strategy of permanent war in the Middle East based on the unilateral use of US military power to enhance the survival of Israel.
"Zionist policymakers targeted several oil-producing countries that have provided exorbitant profits for American MNCs, purchased US treasury notes to balance the current US account deficit and had major ties with US financial institutions. Moreover, these Zionist policymakers exacerbated the political and diplomatic isolation of the US in the world and created oil price volatility and huge budget deficits. In theory, and in their own eyes, these Zionists are not opposed to American MNCs, nor are they against forcefully building US imperial power. However, by harnessing US imperial power to Israeli interests, they effectively overrode the structural imperatives of some American MNCs.
"This was clearly the case in the launching of the Iraq war. To destroy Iraq's economy, the infrastructure was destroyed and pillaged; to destroy Iraq's national unity, religious and ethnic groups were politicized and polarized. The result: Israeli power in the Middle East was enhanced and the US move towards new targets. Syria was boycotted by the US; Iran became a target for attack; and Saudi Arabia has been the focus of fierce ideological critiques to the advantage of Israeli interests. As an unintended result, the US empire has become bogged down in a prolonged, losing colonial war, its budget and trade deficits have grown geometrically, the entire Middle East has been destabilized and the pro-Israel animus towards Muslims has awakened and transformed hundreds of millions into enemies of the US economic and military presence. Strategically, it has been argued, the US military has been stretched to and beyond its capacity to defend or expand the empire. Conscription would polarize the country and weaken support for imperial politics. By any objective measure, the Zionist attempt to fuse US empire-building and enhanced Israeli power by inventing a joint US-Israeli power bloc in the Middle East has been a dramatic failure. In fact, it has eroded imperial power.
"This is a clear example of how policymakers have acted not only behind the backs of the public, but behind the backs of the MNCs and against the structural imperatives of empire. Clearly there is not always a direct relationship between the structural imperatives of empire and the effective realization of corporate global interests. Ideological factors can lead policymakers to deviate from prioritizing MNC interests in favour of other loyalties, as we have seen today in the case of US Middle East policy. No doubt at some point in the not too distant future, Zionist policies may provoke a 'correction' in US imperial policymaking. Already the state is divided between pro- and anti-Zionists, between Israel-firsters and empire-builders. To the degree that Israeli Middle Eastern ambitions jeopardize the greater interests of the biggest US MNCs, there is likely to be a major political showdown, with the Israeli power bloc in the US mobilizing all its resources to pressure Congress, the political parties and the President to back Israeli ambitions against the MNCs, and with the MNCs' spokespeople calling on the same to focus on the 'bigger picture' of inter-imperialist competiton, an overextended military and a hostile Middle East investment climate.
"Ultimately the test is whether powerful economic structural imperatives based on the massive presence of US MNCs in the world economy will be a match for a politically powerful faction of Jewish capital located in leading economic sectors such as the mass media and finance. Ultimately the structural imperatives of empire-building will predominate over the parochial interests of the Israel-first crowd. But there may be profound domestic and international crises before the issue is resolved.
"In conclusion, delineating the economic strengths and relative weaknesses of the US MNCs helps us to partially understand imperial politics. But it is also necessary to analyse the political and institutional sphere in which imperial politics are elaborated and pursued. While the imperial state represents the MNCs, it does so in its own manner, and occassionally policies pursed may sacrifice one set of imperial interests for another." (Empire with Imperialism: The Globalizing Dynamics of Neo-Liberal Capitalism, James Petras & Henry Veltmeyer, Zed Books, 2005, pp 32-34)
[See also my 22/12/08 post Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze]
Apparently, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, whose presentation of the Palestine/Israel conflict can best be summed up as The Hamas Terrorist Death-Cult vs The Plucky Country, finds the plot of Avatar way too melodramatic: blue people "with long necks and ponytails who swing through the trees like Tarzan" and "live in perfect harmony with nature" vs the "big, evil company, which is naturally American" and "wants to mine the blue people's home for a precious mineral called - you won't believe this - unobtainium."
"This is," he rails, "a version of the left-wing interpretation of Iraq, and even of Afghanistan and Vietnam," and "doesn't make any sense and it's utterly unhistorical. If the Americans had just wanted Iraq's oil they could have simply bought it from Saddam Hussein and saved the billions the military operation has chewed up."
Regarding Iraqi oil, I'm actually inclined to agree with him. Where we part company, however, is over his typically neoconservative misrepresentation of Iraq's death throes as birth pangs.
Well, if Iraq wasn't/isn't primarily about oil, what was/is it about? US sociologist James Petras is a reliable guide here:
"The imperial policies adopted by Washington are a direct response to the power and centrality of the biggest multi national corporations (MNCs) in the US economy. Free trade agreements, IMF and World Bank policies, privatizations, the lowering of tariff barriers and the establishment of over 180 military bases in more than 130 countries are responses to the structural imperatives of the US economy and more particularly to the biggest US MNCs, which operate throughout the world. Imperialism is not a policy, a conspiracy or a product of any single administration, but a structural reality with political determinants and an economic basis. However, policies based on the economic imperatives of this structure are formulated by decision makers in Washington and implemented via the state apparatus.
"Most of the key policies that support US imperial economic interests are not made in the context of broad public debate. Nor are imperial interests stated as such. A small circle of mostly non-elected officials make decisions 'behind closed doors' and plan imperial policies, aided by the 'advice' constructed by a host of Washington-based policy forums such as the US Centre for Foreign Relations (the choice of east coast 'liberal' trilateralists), the Heritage Foundation (preferred by George Bush the elder) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) (run by Dick Cheney's wife, and one of several forums used by the latest generation of neo-conservative neo-imperialists). The public is then fed the ritual rhetoric of 'freedom', 'democracy' and so on, presenting the imperialist project in its various forms (the Iraq War, for example) as an advance of the 'forces of freedom, democracy and free enterprise' (to quote from George W Bush's 2002 National Security Report).
"The structural determination of strategic interests is compatible with, if not necessitated by, these 'closed doors'. Thus the argument that proposes 'conspiracies' to be more significant than structural determinations is misplaced and based on false distinctions. Structural and 'conspiratorial' determinants operate on different if not incompatible levels. Structural economic factors, such as MNCs, establish the general framework of US policy, while policymakers elaborate policies to advance these companies' interests. This process takes place out of public sight, and hence is conceivable as a 'conspiracy', but not without the active participation of the CEOs of the major multi-nationals. Moreover, there are moments when particular policy makers can carve out a degree of independence from particular MNCs in specific regions and pursue their own ideological agendas even at the cost of the MNCs. The most striking example of this exceptional circumstance is the behaviour of sectors of the US state apparatus with relation to the Middle East during the George W. Bush presidency. An influential group of US Zionists, closely allied with and having strong loyalty to the Israeli state, formulated a strategy of permanent war in the Middle East based on the unilateral use of US military power to enhance the survival of Israel.
"Zionist policymakers targeted several oil-producing countries that have provided exorbitant profits for American MNCs, purchased US treasury notes to balance the current US account deficit and had major ties with US financial institutions. Moreover, these Zionist policymakers exacerbated the political and diplomatic isolation of the US in the world and created oil price volatility and huge budget deficits. In theory, and in their own eyes, these Zionists are not opposed to American MNCs, nor are they against forcefully building US imperial power. However, by harnessing US imperial power to Israeli interests, they effectively overrode the structural imperatives of some American MNCs.
"This was clearly the case in the launching of the Iraq war. To destroy Iraq's economy, the infrastructure was destroyed and pillaged; to destroy Iraq's national unity, religious and ethnic groups were politicized and polarized. The result: Israeli power in the Middle East was enhanced and the US move towards new targets. Syria was boycotted by the US; Iran became a target for attack; and Saudi Arabia has been the focus of fierce ideological critiques to the advantage of Israeli interests. As an unintended result, the US empire has become bogged down in a prolonged, losing colonial war, its budget and trade deficits have grown geometrically, the entire Middle East has been destabilized and the pro-Israel animus towards Muslims has awakened and transformed hundreds of millions into enemies of the US economic and military presence. Strategically, it has been argued, the US military has been stretched to and beyond its capacity to defend or expand the empire. Conscription would polarize the country and weaken support for imperial politics. By any objective measure, the Zionist attempt to fuse US empire-building and enhanced Israeli power by inventing a joint US-Israeli power bloc in the Middle East has been a dramatic failure. In fact, it has eroded imperial power.
"This is a clear example of how policymakers have acted not only behind the backs of the public, but behind the backs of the MNCs and against the structural imperatives of empire. Clearly there is not always a direct relationship between the structural imperatives of empire and the effective realization of corporate global interests. Ideological factors can lead policymakers to deviate from prioritizing MNC interests in favour of other loyalties, as we have seen today in the case of US Middle East policy. No doubt at some point in the not too distant future, Zionist policies may provoke a 'correction' in US imperial policymaking. Already the state is divided between pro- and anti-Zionists, between Israel-firsters and empire-builders. To the degree that Israeli Middle Eastern ambitions jeopardize the greater interests of the biggest US MNCs, there is likely to be a major political showdown, with the Israeli power bloc in the US mobilizing all its resources to pressure Congress, the political parties and the President to back Israeli ambitions against the MNCs, and with the MNCs' spokespeople calling on the same to focus on the 'bigger picture' of inter-imperialist competiton, an overextended military and a hostile Middle East investment climate.
"Ultimately the test is whether powerful economic structural imperatives based on the massive presence of US MNCs in the world economy will be a match for a politically powerful faction of Jewish capital located in leading economic sectors such as the mass media and finance. Ultimately the structural imperatives of empire-building will predominate over the parochial interests of the Israel-first crowd. But there may be profound domestic and international crises before the issue is resolved.
"In conclusion, delineating the economic strengths and relative weaknesses of the US MNCs helps us to partially understand imperial politics. But it is also necessary to analyse the political and institutional sphere in which imperial politics are elaborated and pursued. While the imperial state represents the MNCs, it does so in its own manner, and occassionally policies pursed may sacrifice one set of imperial interests for another." (Empire with Imperialism: The Globalizing Dynamics of Neo-Liberal Capitalism, James Petras & Henry Veltmeyer, Zed Books, 2005, pp 32-34)
[See also my 22/12/08 post Absent-Minded Professors Inadvertently Set Iraq Ablaze]
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Neocononsense
"If we cannot muster the resolve to defeat this evil [terrorism] in Iraq, America will have lost its moral purpose in the world, and we will endanger our citizens, because if we leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here.../The missions I described are only the opening salvos in what is going to be a sustained effort. Yet, the Iraqi people are going to see positive changes. I want to share with you how two Iraqi bloggers - they have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here... (laughter)... 'Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer moving about in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed. We hope the governments in Baghdad and America do not lose their resolve'." GW Bush, 28/3/07)
The two Iraqi bloggers quoted approvingly by Bush in his speech are Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi and his brother Mohammed. Omar is a dentist and his brother a doctor. Their blog is called Iraq the Model. If you sample some of their neocononsensical tripe, you can see why they turn the Bushies on.
Here's Omar, for example, on the greatness of Bush-n-Blair and why they just had to have their way with Iraq. I'm quoting verbatim: "[S]pare me the nonsense of (occupation) and (resistance) and the (chaos) that the USA had thrown the world into, only for some individual economic and political gains. As for saying that bush and Blair went to the war to increase their popularity, I must say that it's the most absurd assumption. In fact these great and brave men actually risked not only their chance of being re-elected, but also their entire political career [especially in the case of Mr Blair (one of the most brilliant and brave politicians the UK have ever had)].../ [A]ny Muslim and some non-Muslim, know that these fundamentalists have declared war on the whole infidel world (people like me included). Bin-laden and his likes may make some kind of deals with (infidel) governments to help them in attacking their greatest enemies; Israel and USA.* But their convictions had, and will never change. Their ultimate dream is to conquer the whole world, and in case that proves to be impossible then at least destroy their enemies, meaning destroying the whole-civilized world. They believe; that their obligation to Allah/God is to fight and kill any non-Muslim who lays a foot in Muslim land (that extends in their beliefs from china to Spain). And the only way that could save those non Muslims, is to change their religion into Muslims or pay a certain tax (jizea) and if (theoretically) their dream comes true, then its not the end as their ultimate goal is to spread Islam through the whole world, even (or maybe favorably) if by force, or at least make the rest of the world pay the jizea... Now their domination of the world seems to be a very ridiculous idea and doesn't have the slightest chance, but destroying the world seems not as impossible as we all hope it is. After all it takes a few hundred (martyrs) and a mad dictator-armed with a few tiny nuclear bombs or a single virus to-unite. Such unity seems to be very possible if not now then in the future and that hard technology is getting cheaper and easier every day. Please just tell me what kind of a barrier those (peaceful) governments are working on, and then the whole strategy of the peaceful governments that I was hallucinating about would prove more solid than I think it is. I think this should be enough to state that war on terrorism, eliminating the danger of WMDs and establishing democracies in the M.E. were important reasons for the war." (Just a concerned man, 17/12/03)
[*See Cheney admits no link between Saddam, 9/11, news.antiwar.com, 1/6/09]
Unsurprisingly, Omar and Iraq the Model get star billing over at neocon think tank The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) which counts R James Woolsey (Fmr CIA Director), Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol (Ed Weekly Standard), and Senator Joseph Lieberman among its Leadership Council, and Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle among its Board of Advisers: "Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi, a summer associate at the FDD, is a Baghdad-trained dentist and a graduate student of international affairs at Columbia University in New York City. He is the co-author of the blog Iraq the Model, a two time winner of the Weblog Awards. Until late 2007 Omar was writing on the war in Iraq from Baghdad, Basrah, and other locations in Iraq. Now based in the US, he continues to write about Iraq, the war on terror, and issues in the Middle East. Omar's work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, and he is a member of the Opinion Journal Federation. In March 2007, PC World magazine chose Omar and his brother and co-blogger Mohammed among 'the 50 most important people on the web'." Jeezus!
At long last Omar's found his way onto The Australian's opinion/propaganda page for June 2 under the heading Iraq was a just war. He tells us that the war in Iraq is coming to an end and asks, "Was it worth it?"* "If we examine the question from an American, British or Australian perspective, then it would be difficult to present an answer that could convince all critics. For the coalition members this was a war of opportunity, not a war of necessity. Going to war or not was never an issue that could affect the existence of a coalition member, nor was winning or losing." Now hang on: didn't this top-50 blogger say back in 2003 that Bin-Laden was maybe dealing with a certain "infidel government" and didn't he conclude that the Iraq war was fought to stop The West being overrun with suitcase-carrying dirty bombers armed by a certain "mad dictator"? If so, might that not have been a war of necessity?
[* See Gates: 'I don't know' if Iraq war worth it, Jonathan Karl, abcnews.go.com, 19/9/07]
Moving right along then: "For Iraq and its people however, this war was the beginning of a struggle for rebirth... Life is better today than it was before 2003.* That is even though we were on the receiving end of this war in all its phases, from initial invasion through the bloody sectarian violence and terror that paralysed the country for years. Despite the high price in blood, today is brighter than yesterday." "We" - you, Omar?! - "were on the receiving end of this war"? Really? Not quite as much as the estimated 1,320,110 Iraqi deaths so far (JustForeignPolicy.org) or the estimated 303, 454 Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey (UNHCR, 9/08). Not to mention the thousands of American dead (4,309) and wounded (31,327). "In all its phases"? According to the FDD, you've been in the US since late 2007.
[See my 18/12/08 post Life Under Saddam...]
"We have hope," says Omar. There are signs of "progress toward liberty, prosperity and the rule of law." And here are his signs: 1) The trade minister was arrested for corruption*; 2) The prime minister sued an Iraqi online journal accusing him of nepotism and abuse of authority but dropped the case after "severe criticism from free press advocates;" 3) The Iraqi stockmarket is booming.
[*Iraqi blogger Layla Anwar has a different explanation. See Meanwhile in the 'new' Iraq, arabwomanblues.blogspot.com 4/6/09]
And Iraqi women? How are they faring in the reborn Iraq? "'Iraqi women have seen their rights eroded in all areas of life while the world observes from afar', warns the special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Causes & Consequences, Ms Yakin Ertuerk... 'The ongoing conflict, high levels of insecurity, widespread impunity, collapsing economic conditions and rising social conservatism are impacting directly on the daily lives of Iraqi women and placing them under increased vulnerability to all forms of violence within and outside their homes', says Ms Ertuerk." (Violence against Iraqi women continues unabated, IRIN, electroniciraq.net, 1/12/08)
But, hey, you've got to feel sorry for Omar, the "security policy specialist" - yes, that is how he's described in the bio at the foot of his article for The Australian. After all, in the Benighted States of America, he gets to mix with such swell guys as the American blogger who interviewed him on May 3, 2005 and asked him this - no joke! - question: "Is dentistry a lucrative profession in Iraq? When you're introduced as a dentist to friends and strangers, do women, particularly Moms with unmarried daughters, see dinar signs in their eyes when they learn of your profession and want you to meet their 35-year old unmarried daughter Fatima? Unfortunately, Fatima usually has a unibrow and a bushier mustache than you do." (Iraqi Bloggers Central: The In T View: Iraq the Model's Omar - Blogging's Modest Superstar )
He might even get to swap views on his reborn homeland with other Americans who share his interest in Iraq. Americans like Johnathan Regis, for example, who thought so highly of Layla Anwar and her blog that he emailed her directly to share his 'thoughts'.
Johnathan's quoted in Layla Anwar's post, A sample of the 'brave & free': "This is the West, this is America, this is Great Britain, this is Democracy... this is really what it's all about, in microcosm... A small sample of the kind of animals the Iraqis and Afghans are experiencing on a daily basis. To: Layla Anwar Fm: Johnathan Regis - upgitit@live.com Date: 3rd June 09/ 7.46 am. Subject: something to say to you Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I am an American soldier who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want you to know that I have killed many muslims and even raped a few of the pathetic women I came across. It's ok, I shot them straight in the head when I was done with them. You know, we might not ultimately be successful in Afghanistan, but we sure will kill a lot of you bastards. Oh, by the way, if I ever see you I'll skull-fuck you until your eyes bleed then choke you out and go to town on your smelly pussy. You will not wake up. See you soon." (3/6/09)
Can't see Layla Anwar popping up in The Australian any time soon.
The two Iraqi bloggers quoted approvingly by Bush in his speech are Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi and his brother Mohammed. Omar is a dentist and his brother a doctor. Their blog is called Iraq the Model. If you sample some of their neocononsensical tripe, you can see why they turn the Bushies on.
Here's Omar, for example, on the greatness of Bush-n-Blair and why they just had to have their way with Iraq. I'm quoting verbatim: "[S]pare me the nonsense of (occupation) and (resistance) and the (chaos) that the USA had thrown the world into, only for some individual economic and political gains. As for saying that bush and Blair went to the war to increase their popularity, I must say that it's the most absurd assumption. In fact these great and brave men actually risked not only their chance of being re-elected, but also their entire political career [especially in the case of Mr Blair (one of the most brilliant and brave politicians the UK have ever had)].../ [A]ny Muslim and some non-Muslim, know that these fundamentalists have declared war on the whole infidel world (people like me included). Bin-laden and his likes may make some kind of deals with (infidel) governments to help them in attacking their greatest enemies; Israel and USA.* But their convictions had, and will never change. Their ultimate dream is to conquer the whole world, and in case that proves to be impossible then at least destroy their enemies, meaning destroying the whole-civilized world. They believe; that their obligation to Allah/God is to fight and kill any non-Muslim who lays a foot in Muslim land (that extends in their beliefs from china to Spain). And the only way that could save those non Muslims, is to change their religion into Muslims or pay a certain tax (jizea) and if (theoretically) their dream comes true, then its not the end as their ultimate goal is to spread Islam through the whole world, even (or maybe favorably) if by force, or at least make the rest of the world pay the jizea... Now their domination of the world seems to be a very ridiculous idea and doesn't have the slightest chance, but destroying the world seems not as impossible as we all hope it is. After all it takes a few hundred (martyrs) and a mad dictator-armed with a few tiny nuclear bombs or a single virus to-unite. Such unity seems to be very possible if not now then in the future and that hard technology is getting cheaper and easier every day. Please just tell me what kind of a barrier those (peaceful) governments are working on, and then the whole strategy of the peaceful governments that I was hallucinating about would prove more solid than I think it is. I think this should be enough to state that war on terrorism, eliminating the danger of WMDs and establishing democracies in the M.E. were important reasons for the war." (Just a concerned man, 17/12/03)
[*See Cheney admits no link between Saddam, 9/11, news.antiwar.com, 1/6/09]
Unsurprisingly, Omar and Iraq the Model get star billing over at neocon think tank The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) which counts R James Woolsey (Fmr CIA Director), Newt Gingrich, Bill Kristol (Ed Weekly Standard), and Senator Joseph Lieberman among its Leadership Council, and Charles Krauthammer and Richard Perle among its Board of Advisers: "Omar Fadhil Al-Nidawi, a summer associate at the FDD, is a Baghdad-trained dentist and a graduate student of international affairs at Columbia University in New York City. He is the co-author of the blog Iraq the Model, a two time winner of the Weblog Awards. Until late 2007 Omar was writing on the war in Iraq from Baghdad, Basrah, and other locations in Iraq. Now based in the US, he continues to write about Iraq, the war on terror, and issues in the Middle East. Omar's work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, and he is a member of the Opinion Journal Federation. In March 2007, PC World magazine chose Omar and his brother and co-blogger Mohammed among 'the 50 most important people on the web'." Jeezus!
At long last Omar's found his way onto The Australian's opinion/propaganda page for June 2 under the heading Iraq was a just war. He tells us that the war in Iraq is coming to an end and asks, "Was it worth it?"* "If we examine the question from an American, British or Australian perspective, then it would be difficult to present an answer that could convince all critics. For the coalition members this was a war of opportunity, not a war of necessity. Going to war or not was never an issue that could affect the existence of a coalition member, nor was winning or losing." Now hang on: didn't this top-50 blogger say back in 2003 that Bin-Laden was maybe dealing with a certain "infidel government" and didn't he conclude that the Iraq war was fought to stop The West being overrun with suitcase-carrying dirty bombers armed by a certain "mad dictator"? If so, might that not have been a war of necessity?
[* See Gates: 'I don't know' if Iraq war worth it, Jonathan Karl, abcnews.go.com, 19/9/07]
Moving right along then: "For Iraq and its people however, this war was the beginning of a struggle for rebirth... Life is better today than it was before 2003.* That is even though we were on the receiving end of this war in all its phases, from initial invasion through the bloody sectarian violence and terror that paralysed the country for years. Despite the high price in blood, today is brighter than yesterday." "We" - you, Omar?! - "were on the receiving end of this war"? Really? Not quite as much as the estimated 1,320,110 Iraqi deaths so far (JustForeignPolicy.org) or the estimated 303, 454 Iraqi refugees in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey (UNHCR, 9/08). Not to mention the thousands of American dead (4,309) and wounded (31,327). "In all its phases"? According to the FDD, you've been in the US since late 2007.
[See my 18/12/08 post Life Under Saddam...]
"We have hope," says Omar. There are signs of "progress toward liberty, prosperity and the rule of law." And here are his signs: 1) The trade minister was arrested for corruption*; 2) The prime minister sued an Iraqi online journal accusing him of nepotism and abuse of authority but dropped the case after "severe criticism from free press advocates;" 3) The Iraqi stockmarket is booming.
[*Iraqi blogger Layla Anwar has a different explanation. See Meanwhile in the 'new' Iraq, arabwomanblues.blogspot.com 4/6/09]
And Iraqi women? How are they faring in the reborn Iraq? "'Iraqi women have seen their rights eroded in all areas of life while the world observes from afar', warns the special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Causes & Consequences, Ms Yakin Ertuerk... 'The ongoing conflict, high levels of insecurity, widespread impunity, collapsing economic conditions and rising social conservatism are impacting directly on the daily lives of Iraqi women and placing them under increased vulnerability to all forms of violence within and outside their homes', says Ms Ertuerk." (Violence against Iraqi women continues unabated, IRIN, electroniciraq.net, 1/12/08)
But, hey, you've got to feel sorry for Omar, the "security policy specialist" - yes, that is how he's described in the bio at the foot of his article for The Australian. After all, in the Benighted States of America, he gets to mix with such swell guys as the American blogger who interviewed him on May 3, 2005 and asked him this - no joke! - question: "Is dentistry a lucrative profession in Iraq? When you're introduced as a dentist to friends and strangers, do women, particularly Moms with unmarried daughters, see dinar signs in their eyes when they learn of your profession and want you to meet their 35-year old unmarried daughter Fatima? Unfortunately, Fatima usually has a unibrow and a bushier mustache than you do." (Iraqi Bloggers Central: The In T View: Iraq the Model's Omar - Blogging's Modest Superstar )
He might even get to swap views on his reborn homeland with other Americans who share his interest in Iraq. Americans like Johnathan Regis, for example, who thought so highly of Layla Anwar and her blog that he emailed her directly to share his 'thoughts'.
Johnathan's quoted in Layla Anwar's post, A sample of the 'brave & free': "This is the West, this is America, this is Great Britain, this is Democracy... this is really what it's all about, in microcosm... A small sample of the kind of animals the Iraqis and Afghans are experiencing on a daily basis. To: Layla Anwar Fm: Johnathan Regis - upgitit@live.com Date: 3rd June 09/ 7.46 am. Subject: something to say to you Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I am an American soldier who has fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. I want you to know that I have killed many muslims and even raped a few of the pathetic women I came across. It's ok, I shot them straight in the head when I was done with them. You know, we might not ultimately be successful in Afghanistan, but we sure will kill a lot of you bastards. Oh, by the way, if I ever see you I'll skull-fuck you until your eyes bleed then choke you out and go to town on your smelly pussy. You will not wake up. See you soon." (3/6/09)
Can't see Layla Anwar popping up in The Australian any time soon.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Bushama It Is
Lebanese leftist academic & blogger The Angry Arab on Obama:
"Well, it took just 2 days for Obama to dispel any notions of a change in US Middle East policy. For some reason, many Arabs and many American leftists I know have wanted to believe so bad that Obama would deviate from the Zionist path of US foreign policy. I thought it would be a matter of weeks before he'd prove me right, not a matter of hours. His speech on the Middle East today could easily have been written by Benjamin Netanyahu. The fact that he is - unlike Bush - intelligent, competent, and articulate is irrelevant. The set of Zionist (or rather Revisionist Zionist because American establishment Zionism has been largely Revisionist Zionism since the days of the Reagan administration) dogmas that guide US foreign policy will remain in place even if a potato or Sarah Palin is president of the US... Obama's speech was quite something. It was like sprinkling sulfuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza - those who survived the Israeli terrorist festival of butchery and massacre that is. His remarks left you with the impression that there are 2 sets of problems in the holy land: terrorism against civilians in 'southern Israel', and then some vague, undefined civilian suffering in Gaza caused by some vague, undefined natural disaster - an earthquake or hurricane maybe. He specifically mentioned the violence against 'southern Israel', but left what happened in Gaza unclear. He saluted Mubarak not only for oppressing his own people, but for oppressing the Palestinians and imposing the siege on them. He then followed the Zionist line that all aid should pass through the transparent gangs in Ramallah, Fatah having a long record of transparency, integrity, and high ethical standards - not to mention collaboration with Israel. He also defined the requirements for implementing 'the Arab peace plan': Arab governments have to normalise relations with Israel. All Arabs must now hug the nearest Israeli; and no, shoes are not accepted as tokens of affection, not in Western culture. But you might say, optimistically, that he didn't mention Dahlan. I say, Oh, no - he did mention Dahlan! He made reference to the Jordanian oppressive state's training of 'Palestinian security forces', which is just a fancy name for the Dahlan gangs. But I also noticed that when he left the podium, he began to shake hands, and the first head I saw was none other than Martin Indyk... PS Now I'm pissed off. Al-Jazeera is playing (and I mean distorting) Obama's remarks as if they were a message of love and compassion for the Palestinian people. How much longer will some supporters of the Palestinian people go on deluding themselves about Obama?" (Obama &... Indyk: I told you so, damn it, The Angry Arab news Service, 22/1/09) The Angry Arab has since taken to calling Obama Bushama.
His polar opposite, Zio-conservative propagandist & foreign editor of The Australian Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, though long beaten to the punch by The Angry Arab, concurs:
"[O]n all the big foreign policy questions, Obama has continued Bush's policies. The predator drones still fly over Pakistan, destroying any al-Qa'ida operative dumb enough to talk on the phone. The terrorists are still in Guantanamo as Obama's administration develops the Bush administration's decision to shut Guantanamo, as a necessity of global PR, while trying to stop the terrorists from going back to killing civilians. Like Bush, Obama is pursuing an attempt to engage the Iranian regime and even using the same official Bush did. He is withdrawing from Iraq very slowly, on a timetable improved by Republican senator John McCain. He acknowledges the success of the US troop surge in Iraq and wants to emulate it in Afghanistan. He stands four square behind Israel's security. And so on... As someone who broadly supported neo-conservative foreign policy, long live the cult of Obama, say I." (Obama is Dubya's acceptable face, 11/4/09)
We have consensus. But then, in the same piece, Sheridan typically stuffs up with a characteristic broad-brush smear: "Most Arab political cultures are awash in the most bizarre paranoia and conspiracy theories." Bizarre paranoia & conspiracy theories, Greg? You mean, like this:
"Iran is the center of terrorism, fundamentalism and subversion, and is, in my view, more dangerous than Nazism, because Hitler did not possess a nuclear bomb, whereas the Iranians are trying to perfect a nuclear option." Then Israeli prime minister (now president), Shimon Peres, 1996 (Israel cries wolf, Roger Cohen, The New York Times, 9/4/09)
Or this:
"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran." Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, 2009, (ibid)
Or this:
"Hamas is really a problem for the Palestinians and for Egypt more than Israel. It must be clear that the problem of our region and of Israel is Iran by proxy, because Hamas and [Islamic] Jihad are really Iran by proxy, as is Hezbollah. Without Iranian support, they cannot exist. It's Iranian money, Iranian ideology, it's political support, Iranian technology." (Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli foreign minister, 2009 (A conversation with Avigdor Lieberman, Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post, 1/3/09)
"Well, it took just 2 days for Obama to dispel any notions of a change in US Middle East policy. For some reason, many Arabs and many American leftists I know have wanted to believe so bad that Obama would deviate from the Zionist path of US foreign policy. I thought it would be a matter of weeks before he'd prove me right, not a matter of hours. His speech on the Middle East today could easily have been written by Benjamin Netanyahu. The fact that he is - unlike Bush - intelligent, competent, and articulate is irrelevant. The set of Zionist (or rather Revisionist Zionist because American establishment Zionism has been largely Revisionist Zionism since the days of the Reagan administration) dogmas that guide US foreign policy will remain in place even if a potato or Sarah Palin is president of the US... Obama's speech was quite something. It was like sprinkling sulfuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza - those who survived the Israeli terrorist festival of butchery and massacre that is. His remarks left you with the impression that there are 2 sets of problems in the holy land: terrorism against civilians in 'southern Israel', and then some vague, undefined civilian suffering in Gaza caused by some vague, undefined natural disaster - an earthquake or hurricane maybe. He specifically mentioned the violence against 'southern Israel', but left what happened in Gaza unclear. He saluted Mubarak not only for oppressing his own people, but for oppressing the Palestinians and imposing the siege on them. He then followed the Zionist line that all aid should pass through the transparent gangs in Ramallah, Fatah having a long record of transparency, integrity, and high ethical standards - not to mention collaboration with Israel. He also defined the requirements for implementing 'the Arab peace plan': Arab governments have to normalise relations with Israel. All Arabs must now hug the nearest Israeli; and no, shoes are not accepted as tokens of affection, not in Western culture. But you might say, optimistically, that he didn't mention Dahlan. I say, Oh, no - he did mention Dahlan! He made reference to the Jordanian oppressive state's training of 'Palestinian security forces', which is just a fancy name for the Dahlan gangs. But I also noticed that when he left the podium, he began to shake hands, and the first head I saw was none other than Martin Indyk... PS Now I'm pissed off. Al-Jazeera is playing (and I mean distorting) Obama's remarks as if they were a message of love and compassion for the Palestinian people. How much longer will some supporters of the Palestinian people go on deluding themselves about Obama?" (Obama &... Indyk: I told you so, damn it, The Angry Arab news Service, 22/1/09) The Angry Arab has since taken to calling Obama Bushama.
His polar opposite, Zio-conservative propagandist & foreign editor of The Australian Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, though long beaten to the punch by The Angry Arab, concurs:
"[O]n all the big foreign policy questions, Obama has continued Bush's policies. The predator drones still fly over Pakistan, destroying any al-Qa'ida operative dumb enough to talk on the phone. The terrorists are still in Guantanamo as Obama's administration develops the Bush administration's decision to shut Guantanamo, as a necessity of global PR, while trying to stop the terrorists from going back to killing civilians. Like Bush, Obama is pursuing an attempt to engage the Iranian regime and even using the same official Bush did. He is withdrawing from Iraq very slowly, on a timetable improved by Republican senator John McCain. He acknowledges the success of the US troop surge in Iraq and wants to emulate it in Afghanistan. He stands four square behind Israel's security. And so on... As someone who broadly supported neo-conservative foreign policy, long live the cult of Obama, say I." (Obama is Dubya's acceptable face, 11/4/09)
We have consensus. But then, in the same piece, Sheridan typically stuffs up with a characteristic broad-brush smear: "Most Arab political cultures are awash in the most bizarre paranoia and conspiracy theories." Bizarre paranoia & conspiracy theories, Greg? You mean, like this:
"Iran is the center of terrorism, fundamentalism and subversion, and is, in my view, more dangerous than Nazism, because Hitler did not possess a nuclear bomb, whereas the Iranians are trying to perfect a nuclear option." Then Israeli prime minister (now president), Shimon Peres, 1996 (Israel cries wolf, Roger Cohen, The New York Times, 9/4/09)
Or this:
"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran." Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli prime minister, 2009, (ibid)
Or this:
"Hamas is really a problem for the Palestinians and for Egypt more than Israel. It must be clear that the problem of our region and of Israel is Iran by proxy, because Hamas and [Islamic] Jihad are really Iran by proxy, as is Hezbollah. Without Iranian support, they cannot exist. It's Iranian money, Iranian ideology, it's political support, Iranian technology." (Avigdor Lieberman, Israeli foreign minister, 2009 (A conversation with Avigdor Lieberman, Lally Weymouth, The Washington Post, 1/3/09)
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Wag the Dog
'I'm just wagging the dog/If you don't know how to do it/ I'll show you how to wag the dog' (Words by Ehud Olmert. Music by The Rolling Stones)
"The findings of the 2 professors (Mearsheimer & Walt*) are right to the last detail. Every senator and congressman knows that criticising the Israeli government is political suicide... If the Israeli Government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the 10 Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith. President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically the positions of our government... Almost all the American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace activists. As to professors - almost all know which side of the bread is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years - they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite, holocaust denier, neo-Nazi." (Who's the Dog? Who's the Tail? Uri Avnery 22/4/06)
[*The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007]
"Earlier this afternoon, the United States House of Representatives voted 390-5 in favor of H. RES. 34, voicing their support for the Israeli military effort in the Gaza Strip. The bill... demanded that Hamas end its rocket fire against Israel and renounce violence, while expressing 'vigorous support and unwavering committment' to Israel and declaring that its 2 weeks of attacks on the Gaza Strip were rightful acts of self-defense. The bill also demanded that all nations condemn Hamas for breaking the 'calm'... and that all nations recognize that the thousands of civilian casualties caused by the Israeli attacks were entirely the fault of Hamas. The bill also called upon Egypt to tighten its borders to prevent 'smuggling' into the Gaza Strip and promised US support to that end." (House overwhelmingly passes bill cheering Israeli war on Gaza, antiwar.com, 9/1/09)
"US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday. 'She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour', Olmert said in a speech in... Ashkelon. The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the 3-week old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza... Fourteen of the Council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas. The US, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to vote in line with the other 14 but Rice... became the sole abstention. 'In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour', Olmert said. 'I said get me President Bush on the phone. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. I need to talk to him now. He got off the podium and spoke to me. I told him the US could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour'." (Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert, antiwar.com, 13/1/09)
"Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's Monday comments... have sparked a war of words between the prime minister's office and the US State Department [which] immediately contradicted Olmert's claims, insisting that Israel might want to 'clarify or correct the record' with respect to the comments. Rice has dismissed Olmert's claim as 'fiction'... Yet spokesmen for Olmert say that the prime minister stands behind his version of events." (Olmert stands behind Rice-shaming claim, antiwar.com, 14/1/09)
Maybe "... public gloating by an Israeli PM that he can order a US president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud's poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master." (Is Ehud's poodle acting up? Patrick Buchanan, antiwar.com, 17/1/09) But don't hold your breath.
And by the way, it's not that Olmert hasn't done this sort of thing before: "Candid TV footage of the Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his Italian counterpart, Romano Prodi, showed Olmert coaching Prodi on what to say at their joint press conference in Rome." (Candid TV footage shows Olmert coaching Prodi, The Independent, 14/12/06)
Wagging the dog? Wagging the dogs.
"The findings of the 2 professors (Mearsheimer & Walt*) are right to the last detail. Every senator and congressman knows that criticising the Israeli government is political suicide... If the Israeli Government wanted a law tomorrow annulling the 10 Commandments, 95 Senators (at least) would sign the bill forthwith. President Bush, for example, has withdrawn from all the established American positions regarding our conflict. He accepts automatically the positions of our government... Almost all the American media are closed to Palestinians and Israeli peace activists. As to professors - almost all know which side of the bread is peanut-buttered. If, in spite of that, somebody dares to open their mouth against the Israeli policy - as happens once every few years - they are smothered under a volley of denunciations: anti-Semite, holocaust denier, neo-Nazi." (Who's the Dog? Who's the Tail? Uri Avnery 22/4/06)
[*The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007]
"Earlier this afternoon, the United States House of Representatives voted 390-5 in favor of H. RES. 34, voicing their support for the Israeli military effort in the Gaza Strip. The bill... demanded that Hamas end its rocket fire against Israel and renounce violence, while expressing 'vigorous support and unwavering committment' to Israel and declaring that its 2 weeks of attacks on the Gaza Strip were rightful acts of self-defense. The bill also demanded that all nations condemn Hamas for breaking the 'calm'... and that all nations recognize that the thousands of civilian casualties caused by the Israeli attacks were entirely the fault of Hamas. The bill also called upon Egypt to tighten its borders to prevent 'smuggling' into the Gaza Strip and promised US support to that end." (House overwhelmingly passes bill cheering Israeli war on Gaza, antiwar.com, 9/1/09)
"US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday. 'She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour', Olmert said in a speech in... Ashkelon. The UN Security Council passed a resolution last Thursday calling for an immediate ceasefire in the 3-week old conflict in the Gaza Strip and an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza... Fourteen of the Council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, which was later rejected by both Israel and Hamas. The US, Israel's main ally, had initially been expected to vote in line with the other 14 but Rice... became the sole abstention. 'In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to vote in favour', Olmert said. 'I said get me President Bush on the phone. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. I need to talk to him now. He got off the podium and spoke to me. I told him the US could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour'." (Rice shame-faced by Bush over UN Gaza vote: Olmert, antiwar.com, 13/1/09)
"Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's Monday comments... have sparked a war of words between the prime minister's office and the US State Department [which] immediately contradicted Olmert's claims, insisting that Israel might want to 'clarify or correct the record' with respect to the comments. Rice has dismissed Olmert's claim as 'fiction'... Yet spokesmen for Olmert say that the prime minister stands behind his version of events." (Olmert stands behind Rice-shaming claim, antiwar.com, 14/1/09)
Maybe "... public gloating by an Israeli PM that he can order a US president off a podium and instruct him to reverse and humiliate his secretary of state may cause even Ehud's poodle to rise up on its hind legs one day and bite its master." (Is Ehud's poodle acting up? Patrick Buchanan, antiwar.com, 17/1/09) But don't hold your breath.
And by the way, it's not that Olmert hasn't done this sort of thing before: "Candid TV footage of the Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his Italian counterpart, Romano Prodi, showed Olmert coaching Prodi on what to say at their joint press conference in Rome." (Candid TV footage shows Olmert coaching Prodi, The Independent, 14/12/06)
Wagging the dog? Wagging the dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)