Iranian President Says What TV Pundits Can't: American Empire Is Almost Over

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad offended quite a few people with his pointed remarks at the UN, as CNN reports:

Ahmadinejad: 'American empire' nearing its end

"As long as the aggressors, because of their financial, political and propaganda powers, not only escape punishment, but even claim righteousness, and as long as wars are started and nations are enslaved in order to win votes in elections, not only will the problems of the global community remain unsolved, but they will be increasingly exacerbated," the Iranian leader said.

He accused the United States of oppressing Iraqis with six years of occupation, saying Americans were "still seeking to solidify their position in the political geography of the region and to dominate oil resources."

This is particularly offensive to American media and political types not just because it's true, but because it's verboten truth.

Nobody in American TV-land can say these things, even though they are obviously correct.

CNN continues:

Meanwhile, he said, Palestinians have undergone "60 years of carnage and invasion ... at the hands of some criminal and occupying Zionists."

He said Zionists in Israel "have forged a regime through collecting people from various parts of the world and bringing them to other people's land, by displacing, detaining and killing the true owners of that land."

The Security Council, he said, "cannot do anything, and sometimes under pressure from a few bullying powers, even paves the way for supporting these Zionist murders."

Unable to refute any of this, CNN defers to a famous lie:

He stopped short of calling for Israel to be politically wiped off the map as he has in the past.

The fact that he has never said anything of the sort is clearly of no consequence to CNN -- not when there's an opportunity to fan the flames of fiction.

In the fictional media account, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is dangerous because of fearsome weapons that he doesn't have, and threatening statements that he's never made.

But in reality, he's a dangerous man because he suggests things like:

"a free referendum in Palestine for determining and establishing the type of state in the entire Palestinian lands."

Such a referendum -- direct independent democracy at its finest -- can never be allowed to happen, of course, because that would be the end of Israel.

And that's why the [Jewish]

Anti-Defamation League released a statement saying the Iranian leader showed he "is deeply infected with anti-Semitism" and displayed "the true threat the Iranian regime poses to Israel, the United States and the West."

The ADL says this so often and it gets published so everywhere and so unquestioningly...

First and foremost, Ahmadinejad is an anti-Zionist. Zionism is a political philosophy. Ahmadinejad doesn't like it much. That's his prerogative. I don't like it much, either. That's my prerogative.

Anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism. It's not even close. Only the deliberately, willfully ignorant -- and those who wish you were equally ignorant -- fail to see the distinction.

It's not the "anti-Semitism" that makes Ahmadinejad dangerous. That's only a cover story. The true threat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad poses -- to Israel, to the United States and to the West -- lies in his willingness to speak the verboten truth.

And that's a big problem for our "news" providers, because they can't just cancel his show.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Get Ready To Rumble: Petraeus Blames Iran for Green Zone Attack

Chris Floyd's site has been hacked too much; it's up again at the moment but who knows for how long?

In event of emergency, Chris will post at his original blogspot site, Empire Burlesque Now dot blogspot dot com. In the meantime I will try to mirror some of his work here, just in case.

Here's the latest from Chris, by kind permission, as always.

Still Not Worried? Petraeus Blames Iran for Green Zone Attack

Yesterday, we noted the story that the Saudi government is now preparing plans to deal with "any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards" that may arise from an attack on Iran's nuclear reactors. This was reported by a top Saudi newspaper, Okaz, and relayed by a leading German news service, dpa -- one day after Dick Cheney paid a visit to the kingdom. As we noted, no one knows exactly what was said at that confab of allied authoritarians -- but something sure lit a fire under the Saudis, and convinced them that urgent action is needed to brace for the lethal overspill from a strike on Iran.

Now today comes word that the sainted General David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq -- and recepient of perhaps the most copious bipartisan tongue bath ever given to a serving military officer by the U.S. Congress -- has blamed Iran for the multiple mortar attack on Baghdad's Green Zone on Sunday. As the BBC reports:

The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix.

That's not all. After praising himself for his brilliant "counterinsurgency" masterstroke of paying Sunni insurgents and violent religious extremists to kill other Iraqis instead of Americans for awhile -- while also arming, training and funding the Shiite extremists now in charge of the Iraqi army and security forces to kill and torture other Iraqis -- Petraeus went on to blame Iran for being the main cause of violence in Iraq. (For a true picture of what Petraeus and the vaunted "surge" has actually wrought in Iraq, see Michael Schwartz's detailed and devastating report, "The Battle of Bagdhad."). From the BBC:

In an interview with BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Gen Petraeus said violence in Iraq was being perpetuated by Iran's Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards.

"The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."

The Iranians, of course, have deep, intricate and longstanding ties to the "Iraqi leaders" whom Petraeus is now helping maintain in "power" -- if that's the word for the operations of a gang of brutal kleptocrats whose residence in office is sustained wholly by the foreign military forces who invaded their country at the order of another gang of brutal kleptocrats in Washington. But Petraeus -- and the White House kleptos -- have continually pushed the line that Iran is attacking a government led by their ideological and religious allies, in order to....what, exactly? Replace them with,er, ideological and religious allies? Well, logic has never been the strong suit of the Crawford Caligula and his courtiers, who believe they can "create their own reality" by the assertion of imperial will -- and by the expenditure of human cannon fodder. (Petraeus' remarks came on the day that the American military death toll in Iraq reached 4,000.)

Actually, of course, these charges aren't meant to make logical or geopolitical sense. They are simply being tossed out there, week after week, month after month, to "catapult the propaganda" for war with Iran "at the time, place, and in the manner of our choosing," to quote Bush's doctrine of preemptive war in the official "National Defense Strategy of the United States." Or as I noted here last year about an earlier round of charges:

[Petraeus] is asserting as unassailable fact accusations which have never been substantiated, not even by the Regime's own intelligence agencies -- whose bar for "confirming" provocative intelligence is, as we all know, preternaturally low. Petraeus doesn't intend for his words to be taken seriously -- that is, not in the real world, where military attacks by one nation on another lead to an immediate response. No, his words are intended for the media echo chamber, where they will bounce around in the midst of all the other mind-obliterating noise, with a few key scraps falling into the mix: "Iran" -- "killing Americans" -- "Qods" -- "Iran" -- "killing Americans" -- "Qods." That's all they want -- and that's all they need -- to get across. They certainly don't want anyone to pay close attention to the details of the patter they're putting out. They just want a few keywords to filter into the battered public consciousness, because these are the elements they will invoke when the time comes to launch their own unprovoked military agression against Iran: "Iran's Qods Force is killing Americans, and we must, reluctantly, retaliate. Therefore, tonight I have ordered a series of air raids on Qods Force bases in Iran...."

And hey: "Qods" sounds a lot like "al Qaeda," doesn't it? That gives you extra traction in the echo chamber -- more bang for the propaganda buck.

Let's be clear about this. This is an administration that claims the right to go to war on the merest suspicion that some evil foreign entity might attack Americans at some time in some way. This is an administration that has already acted on this deranged -- but oh-so-war-profitable -- "national defense strategy." This is an administration that specifically named Iran as a dire threat to the nation in the most recent version of this official strategy.

And now, we have Petraeus' j'accuse -- the culmination of more than a year of statements by U.S. officials accusing Iran of direct involvement in attacking and killing American personnel in Iraq. By the morally demented but consistent "principles" enunciated and acted upon by the Bush Administration (principles which of course include the use of manufactured evidence and knowing deception to launch wars in the name of "national security"), the White House has already established an iron-clad case for attacking Iran. Indeed, by their own lights, they have actually been criminally negligent and weak-kneed for not having attacked Iran long ago -- as the most vociferous wingnuts and con-jobs out there keep insisting.

As we said last week, the groundwork for the attack has already been laid. When and if a strike comes, it will almost certainly come quickly, without warning. There will be no new major PR campaign, just a "surge" in the same "mind-obliterating noise" of lies and accusations that has barraged us for so long. And no doubt we will see the redoubtable Petraeus take the lead in this surge against the American people -- with the same slickness and vigor with which he has perpetrated the murderous ethnic cleansing of Baghdad -- when he comes to Congress for another tongue-bath next month.

Note: Petraeus has been an eager dissembler for L'il Boots since the beginning, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out in this remarkable compendium of spin, waffle and flim-flam. For more on the saint's progress on the road to glory see: The Imperator Reports: Let the Blood Flow On; Killers and Extremists in the Pay of Petraeus; and Shotgun Wedding: The Saint, the Insurgents, and the Surge's "Success."

Plus: Winter Patriot tells us of another success story of the "humanitarian intervention" in Iraq: Fallujah.

Visions Of The Surge

Like everything else in life, how you see the Surge depends on where you stand.

Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of the euphemistically named "American Thinker", encapsulates the "conservative" view at the equally euphemistic "Real Clear Politics", in a piece called "The Winter of Conservative Discontent", where Lifson writes:

Iraq was a horrendous disaster, and then it just vanished from consideration as the Surge turned things around.

Lifson's analysis suffers from one weakness only. It doesn't take into account the possibility that the government may be lying.

The "good news" from Iraq certainly seems fabricated to me, and whether it's legitimate or not, it's still insultingly trivial.

Iraq vanished from the headlines because the "liberal" media failed to carry all the good news in banner type, but also because the "liberal" media failed to pursue the obvious story lines, including but not limited to: What are we doing to Iraq? and Why? and What is the depleted uranium doing to our soldiers? and What is it doing to the Iraqi people? and What will it do to life on Earth?

But all these questions are always omitted from the "conservative" "frame" of Iraq, so Thomas Lifson might almost seem to make a little bit of sense -- if you're as dumb as a stick.

The "Good News" From Iraq

What good news is there from Iraq? Sectarian violence is down?

Down from what? Horrendous levels, of course. And how far down? Not all that far, actually. Can other factors account for the downward trends? Sure, they can. Let's start with the redefinition of sectarian violence: Do we have a problem with car bombs? Just stop counting them. Do we want to decrease sectarian violence? No trouble. We can just change the way we classify different types of "injuries".

What other good news is there from Iraq? Casualty rates are down?

Let's talk about how an occupying force can reduce its casualties by changing tactics: If you keep your patrolling to a minimum and bomb the smithereens out of residential areas in the middle of the night, you can cut your losses drastically. And that's what the Americans seem to have done.

But all of this is way outside the frame at "Real Clear Politics", just as it is at "American Thinker", and at every other place where dunderheads gather to slurp Kool-Aid.

The situation elsewhere is a different.

Over at the Washington Independent, Spencer Ackerman remembers when the surge was about something more than short-term reduction in mortality rates. In "Security Gains From 'Surge' Backsliding: New Iraq Security Statistics Show Uptick in Explosions", he writes:

It was the crescendo of an otherwise flat State of the Union address. "Ladies and Gentlemen," President George W. Bush declared Monday night, "some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt." Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Hill reported, rose in applause.

Bush’s speech was one of the more restrained descriptions of the surge—last year’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq. In recent weeks, politicians and commentators have moved beyond saying the surge is working to the blunter declaration that the surge "worked," full-stop. Bill Kristol, declaring Gen. David Petraeus his Man of the Year, wrote in a Weekly Standard editorial, "We are now winning the war. " In his New York Times column, Kristol challenged the Democratic candidates to "say the surge worked." On Jan. 10, the first anniversary of the surge, the GOP presidential front-runner, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), co-wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined, flatly, "The Surge Worked."

It used to be that surge enthusiasts would at least hint at the unachieved strategic objective of the surge. As Bush himself put it, the surge was meant to provide the Iraqi government "the breathing space it needs to make progress" on sectarian reconciliation. But reconciliation hasn’t happened, and, in important respects, sectarianism has deepened over the past year. So surgeniks are now simply declaring victory by the sheer fact of reduced violence itself, unmoored to any strategic goal.

Ackerman goes on to note rising casualty rates and concludes that the surge has failed on two counts: the "reconciliation" hasn't happened, and the violence is getting worse again. Ackerman therefore concludes that the Surge has failed.

Who's right? Neither of them, in my view.

The Flaw In The Analyses

Ackerman's analysis suffers from the same flaw that clobbered Lifson's: gullibility. Lifson buys every bit of propaganda ever produced, apparently; and Ackerman doesn't fare quite so poorly. But Ackerman judges the Surge by the standards set for it by its proponents, who may possibly have been pulling wool over somebody's eyes.

By any sane and rational analysis, the "justification" Bush advanced for the Surge was -- if not a flat-out lie -- extremely disingenuous.

Whenever somebody says "I'm going to make this unpopular move in order to allow other people to do what I want them to do," red flags should go up everywhere. This is a "booby-trapped test", so to speak, akin to the old "Heads I win, Tails you lose" con-game.

If Iraq had made progress toward the so-called "reconciliation", Bush could have taken the credit. But now no progress has been made, so Bush and his bootlickers can blame the Iraqis -- and they do!

Why is this so hard to see?

Over at Kiko's House, Shaun Mullen makes the same kind of mistakes as Spencer Ackerman, but he rides the train of thought even further:

An Iraq War Roundup: The Surge ‘Window’ Begins to Close & Other Forever War News

You don’t have to be a bloody genius to know that sooner or later the window of opportunity for Iraqi national reconciliation and a lasting reduction in sectarian violence as a result of the successes of the Surge would begin to close unless there was progress on the part of the Baghdad government.

Well, boys and girls, it would appear that the window is indeed beginning to close since there has been no progress whatsoever except for a totally bogus un-de-Baathification law passed earlier this month.[...]

[Y]ou’d hardly know that nearly two thirds of Americans want the U.S. to get the hell out of Iraq, according to one recent poll.

But alas, that’s not going to happen because the Al-Maliki government has no incentive to take advantage of the opening the Surge has given it because President Bush has given something far more important to [him] and his Shiite cronies — coup insurance in the form of a long-term troop presence. This is the status quo for the foreseeable future. There is no post-Surge strategy, let alone an endgame, because in the Bush Universe politics yet again trump policy.

Is this clear or am I hallucinating? As I read it, Mullen believes the US won't be leaving Iraq "because the Al-Maliki government has no incentive" to proceed with the "reconciliation". And that Bush has no strategy for anything approximating a withdrawal because "politics trump policy".

Nonsense

It's nonsense, of course. There can be no reconciliation in the midst of a civil war, least of all in a country occupied by foreign troops. That's doubly true when the people screaming loudest for reconciliation are the occupying foreigners, and you can redouble if the same people started the civil war.

Unless I'm confusing a bundle of very clear signals, the US won't be leaving for Iraq for the same reason the US invaded Iraq in the first place: the oil. And there is no post-Surge strategy for the same reason there was never any exit strategy of any kind: we never intended to leave -- and we still don't!

None of this ever seems to dawn on Cernig, who picks up the ball from Mullen and runs even farther with it, at Larisa Alexandrovna's blog, At-Largely:

Beware Of Closing Doors

Think-tank types - and not just those on the Left - are beginning to write that the window of opportunity the Surge was intended to force open is now closing. But if the window for the Iraqi government to firmly grasp reconciliation is closing then so is the US' chance to head for the exit while on a Surge of favorable news. [...]

It doesn't matter how many military battles the US wins - it will lose in the long run if AQ [al Qaeda] can simply help keep Iraq unstable. The political dynamic in Iraq means AQ can claim victory just by surviving but the Bush administration (and [its] supporters) are deliberately myopic about Iraq's [internecine] mess simply because it holds little hope of good news, let alone victory. [...]

So the US finds itself in a no-win situation. To withdraw now would seem to invite either a civil war or the ascendancy of nationalists from both Sunni and Shiite sides who would be no use at all in forming a bastion of pro-American power in the Middle East. Yet to remain to try prevent this [occurring] will only put off the inevitable while bloodying American hands [...] Bush has punted the whole issue, leaving it for the next president -- or perhaps even the one after that -- to tell the US public the bad news. That the US should have gotten out while the getting was comparatively good.

It's almost pointless to comment on this; we lost touch with reality several spins back.

Lost: The Essential Point

The essential point, it seems to me, is lost in virtually all the war coverage, on both sides of "the debate", which increasingly seems to bear no relationship to reality whatsoever.

Scott Ritter gets close to this point in his recent essay for TruthDig, "Iraq’s Tragic Future":

The continued ambivalence of the American population as a whole toward the war in Iraq, perhaps best manifested by the superficiality of the slogan “Support the Troops,” all the while remaining ignorant of what the troops are actually doing...

But Ritter himself gives no hint of the ingredient that is always missing from the story.

What The Troops Are Actually Doing

The Pentagon has clamped down so severely on news from occupied Iraq that we're forced to rely on very unofficial sources. And the news we receive in this way may have traveled through informal channels. But it's all we've got.

Late last month, Layla Anwar, author of Arab Woman Blues, spoke at length with her Uncle Abu Nabil, who had "just arrived from Baghdad, via Erbil" and who "had much to tell".

A summary of that conversation served as the centerpiece of a post called "Bits & Pieces from the Iraqi Coffin", from which I quote extensively here. (I have added space, corrected typos, and snipped a great deal. I've also added to the headings.)

Abu Nabil is not a Baathist, but is a retired judge and has very good contacts and inside information. He is half Sunni/half Shia. He has family in Basra, Baghdad and Erbil.

We talked for hours and he had a lot to tell me. [...] I would like you to read it CAREFULLY, SLOWLY and THINK! [...]

Basra (Southern Iraq) -- "Pictures Of Turbaned Snakes Everywhere"

- Most official and non-official buildings have inscriptions in Farsi/Persian. They have been renamed in Persian.

- Farsi is spoken in Basra, alongside Arabic.

- Monetary dealings can be done in either Tooman (Iranian currency) or Iraqi dinars. That means when you buy something you can pay in both currencies.

- The pictures of Khomeini, Ahmadinejad, Al Hakeem, Muqtada Al-Sadr [photo] are everywhere. When you think that critiques of President Saddam Hussein accused him of imposing the personality cult and you see these pictures of turbaned snakes everywhere... Makes you wonder, does it not?

- The Iranian and sectarian militias have infiltrated the highest echelons of police, army, government officials. Any criticism means death.

- ALL women are forced to veil. And the number of women murdered by those militias is much higher than the official figure given (153).

- People FEAR speaking out against all the human rights abuses that are taking place in Basra, for they run the risk of disappearing in no time.

- Corruption is endemic.

- Kuwaitis are often seen in Basra and have numerous business deals with the Iranians there.

- Drugs and arms are the main bread and butter of the sectarian militias.

- Basra is now unofficially considered a state of its own.

Erbil (Northern Iraq) -- "Iraqis Have Been Imprisoned For Waving The Iraqi Flag"

- Masoud Barazani, the Kurdish, Mossad/CIA agent, crook, embezzler, thug, arm dealer, insists on changing the Iraqi flag.

- Several Iraqis have been imprisoned for waving the Iraqi flag in “Kurdistan.”

- [Masoud Barazani] and his family have monopoly over all businesses and contracts to the annoyance of the Kurdish population.[...]

- Many Kurds do not approve of what is happening but are AFRAID to voice their discontent.

- The statues of Masoud Barazani and his father are found on every street corner. So are his pictures and that of his father. And the Kurds, along with sectarian Shias, criticized President Saddam Hussein for having portraits.

- The majority of the Kurdish population is impoverished and does not have access to decent medical care.

- Honor killings against women in the Kurdish villages are very common.

- Both Masood Barazani and Jalal Talabani (the so-called current president of Iraq) are dealing in Iraqi oil through dubious contracts, exporting it and cashing in the profits - just like their corrupt Shia counterparts.

Baghdad (Central Iraq) -- "Concrete Blocks, Checkpoints, Barbed Wires, Walls EVERYWHERE"

- Baghdad in the past 6 months has changed even more. The road from the Airport to central Baghdad is unrecognizable.

- There are concrete blocks, checkpoints, barbed wires, walls EVERYWHERE. Authorizations from BOTH the militias and the American forces are demanded to move from one neighborhood to another.

- The streets have become garbage containers. The garbage has reached the sky.

- There is a terrible shortage of electricity, water, and fuel.

- Inflation is over 110%.

- The health system is in shambles. Doctors cannot be found. Some have sought refuge in Erbil and most have escaped outside the country.

- It is common knowledge in Baghdad that those who murdered the scientists, academics and doctors were the IRANIAN Quds brigades and paid AMERICAN death contractors including the MOSSAD.

"Al-Qaeda Is Financed By BOTH America And Iran"

- It is common knowledge in Baghdad, that Al-Qaeda is financed by BOTH America and Iran.

- Rape is common. Many women are raped by militias, police and armed forces but they DARE NOT report it.

- Women are forced to take up the veil, including the few left Christian Baghdadis, even young school girls are veiled out of FEAR.

- Orphaned children live in the streets. American troops throw a few candies their way, high above, from their humvees, as if feeding animals. [...]

- One finds so many drug addicts and drugs dealers in Baghdad (something unheard of during our “dictatorship”)

- Many people DARE NOT send their children to school for security reasons. Also schools are frequent targets for both the sectarian militias and the American occupation forces.

"What Were Mixed Neighborhoods Are Totally Ethnically Cleansed"

- What were mixed neighborhoods are totally ethnically cleansed [and] are now Shia only neighborhoods.

- A lot of the true Iraqi Shias are AFRAID to speak out against the sectarian militias.

- In Sunni neighborhoods, you find on a regular basis, the IRANIAN Quds Brigades harassing the people, burning down Sunnis mosques, insulting and slandering. In one Sunni neighborhood, one week ago, they caught 4 Iranians cursing and slandering the Sunnis and the Americans were there and did nothing.

- You will see in most neighborhoods, including Sunni ones, pictures and portraits of Muqtada al Sadr, Abdel Azeez Al-Hakeem and other turbaned mullahs, with black or green flags waving. The Badr Brigades posters include the following remarks: “District no. 1, 2, 3… Islamic Revolutionary Council of Iraq/Iranian Quds Brigades.” They control every district.

- Hadi Al-Amiri, military head of the armed Badr Brigades is known to be a notorious killer. Even Bremer said so in his memoirs. He [...] arrived on American tanks from Iran.

- Muqtada Al-Sadr so-called freeze on all “activities” are due to a fall out with Al-Hakeem head of SCII and Badr Brigades. This latter promised him and his Jaysh Al-Mahdi chunks of the bounty, if he agreed to ethnically cleanse Sunnis.

The SCII and Badr Brigades did not deliver, that is why Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Jaysh Al-Mahdi s decided to supposedly stop their sectarian cleansing until further notice.

- The Sawha or Awakening Councils are another American ploy to contain the Resistance. After being massacred by both the Iranian sectarian shias and Al-Qaeda, Sunnis and the Resistance have realized that both Al-Qaeda and the Shia sectarian militias were working for the Americans and the Iranians.

- People are AFRAID to speak out, they can easily be abducted, disappear, get imprisoned, or get killed by the militias, the police or the armed forces both American and Iraqi.

"Everyone Hates The Americans." ... "We Are Prisoners In Our homes."

- Everyone hates the Americans. They shoot anyone standing in their way, physically eliminate them. When they drive around, if you don’t stop and stand aside, they shoot you. As simple as that.

- The Americans are aware of what Iran and its militias are doing in Baghdad. They are also aware of the sectarian nature of the Government, but they don’t seem to mind. As long as their presence is secured, that is all they care about.

- We are prisoners in our homes. No one dares go out, no one dares do anything. It is unbearable. You never know when a bullet or a mortar will fall on your head.

- Iraq is in bits and pieces. I don’t when and who will be put together again.

The above is what Uncle Abu Nabil said word for word. I knew all of that anyway but he just confirmed it to me. But what he was trying to tell me is that the situation is getting worse. And that Iraq and Baghdad in particular have dramatically changed.
...

We ended our conversation with a question he posed and I hope you will take time to ponder and answer it yourselves.

He said “I really don’t understand why people are defending Iran against an American attack. Iran is in the heart of occupied Baghdad. The Americans we will eventually drive away, but Iran is a neighbor, It will be more difficult to get rid of that one. Why did the Americans hand Iraq to the Iranians? This I don’t understand. Must have been an agreement between both.”

Thomas Lifson was right, of course. And so was John McCain. The Surge Worked.

It drove another dagger into the heart of Iraq. It shut down media criticism of the war. It put us one step closer to all that oil. And it made sure everybody in Iraq will hate us -- forever.

So now we can never leave.

It's astonishing how ungrateful the Iraqis are after all we have done for them. We've even inspired their children to create innovative art.

US Imposes Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran; Nobody Listens

The Bush administration announced an unprecedented package of unilateral sanctions against Iran today, including the long-awaited designations of its Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and of the elite Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism.

The United States is the world's greatest exporter of weapons of mass destruction and a proud supporter of terrorism virtually everywhere. Thus the pot calls the kettle black.

But we're reading Robin Wright in the Washington Post, where none of this context is deemed fit to print. This is the liberal media we're talking about, after all.

The package, announced jointly by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., [photo, courtesy NYT] marks the first time that the United States has tried to isolate or punish another country's military. It is the broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, and included a call for other countries and firms to stop doing business with three major Iranian banks.

If the Iranians tried to persuade other countries and firms to stop doing business with American banks, it would be seen as an act of war, especially since the American economy is so tightly linked to its war machine.

The sanctions recognize that financing for groups like the Revolutionary Guard have become closely entwined with Iran's economy, making it difficult to disrupt the one without targeting the other.

The Revolutionary Guard "is so deeply entrenched in Iran's economy, that it is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business with the IRGC," Paulson said.

The hypocrisy is astonishing, or at least it would be if we hadn't seen so much of it lately.

But we still haven't seen any evidence of aggressive behavior from Iran. Such evidence may exist, but if so, where is it?

When was the last time Iran invaded a foreign country?

How many countries has the USA invaded since then? And how many times was it done on false pretexts?

As you can see, it is the Iranians who threaten world peace. Their nuclear "weapons" program could theoretically produce a bomb in another ten or twelve years, so they must be dangerous. Theoretically.

Helene Cooper and John H. Cushman Jr. wrote for the New York Times:

This is the first time that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of any sovereign government.

But this is not strictly true. As usual, the liberal media is leading us down the garden path. These sanctions are directed against the Iranian economy, that is to say they will hurt the Iranian people. The notion that they are "targeted" against the armed forces of Iraq is another pretext: How can these sanctions be bad if they are only directed against the terrorist-sponsors and the weapons-proliferators? That's how the sanctions are to be sold; what they will do is another matter entirely.

Mr. Paulson said that, in dealing with Iran, “it is nearly impossible to know one’s customer and be assured that one is not unwittingly facilitating the regime’s reckless behavior and conduct.”

“It is increasingly likely that if you are doing business with Iran you are doing business” with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps,” Mr. Paulson said.

If taken seriously, and applied fairly, these arguments would justify an economic quarantine of the United States by the rest of the world, which -- by doing business as usual with the unelected government of a former democracy -- is unwittingly (or otherwise) facilitating the regime’s reckless behavior.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice crammed as many lies as possible into a single sentence:

While Washington is open to a diplomatic solution, Ms. Rice said, “Unfortunately the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security by pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon, building dangerous ballistic missiles, supporting Shia militants in Iraq and terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and denying the existence of a fellow member of the United Nations, threatening to wipe Israel off the map.”

It was not Iran but the United States which has spurned offers of negotiations. For more on this aspect of the multi-facted lie, see Esquire for John H. Richardson's "The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know" (excerpts to follow).

As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has every right to pursue nuclear power, even though the technology could eventually lead to a nuclear weapon. So do all other signatories to the treaty, and that's why we have inspectors. Iran is currently unable to produce a nuclear weapon and nobody seriously imagines they could do so within the next ten years. So what's the problem?

And who put the United States in charge of deciding which countries are allowed to build ballistic missiles? Or is it all right for a country which uses such things to deny others the right to even possess them?

Iran has long been accused of supporting Shia militants in Iraq, but no hard proof has ever been offered; similarly we have seen no proof of Iran supporting militants or terrorists in other countries, such as Afghanistan or Lebanon or the Palestinian territories; on the other hand we have undeniable evidence that Americans and Israelis have been waging war against these countries, unprovoked or on manufactured "provocations". How quaint.

The threat to wipe Israel off the map has been shown to be bogus: it's a mistranslation -- probably a deliberate mistranslation -- of a statement by a figurehead who has no power.

Some writers have been trying to bring these truths to the people who lack them, and Chris Floyd has been among the best of them. In an excellent piece for Saloon yesterday, he wrote:

We'll let professor Juan Cole of the University of Reality handle the "stupid things" known as facts: "President Ahmadinejad, whose job is more or less ceremonial, is not the commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces. He has never advocated 'genocide,' and his expressed wish that the 'occupation regime over Jerusalem' (i.e., the Israeli government) eventually vanish has been mistranslated. As for the rest, the candidates simply assume that Iran has a nuclear weapons research program, which has not been proven. It certainly does not have a nuclear weapon at present, and the National Intelligence Estimate indicates that if it were trying to get one, it would take until at least 2016 -- and then only if the international environment were conducive to the needed high-tech imports. (Ahmadinejad, by the way, will not be in power in 2016.) Also, someone really needs to let the Republicans know that Iran is Shiite, meaning it abhors Sunni fundamentalists and rejects the caliphate."

But none of this matters, because -- just as in the case of Iraq -- there is no intelligence driving the policy. The policy is driving the intelligence. In other words. the decision to wage war on Iran has already been made, and this announcement -- in addition to the damage it will do to the Iranian people -- is yet another step in the propaganda campaign intended to "justify" such a war.

And what if the sanctions cause injury and death -- what if they destroy the lives of innocent people?

Don't worry about that. Just remember, "the price is worth it" -- as long as somebody else is paying that price!

~~~

Here, as promised, extended excerpts from "The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know"

In the years after 9/11, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann worked at the highest levels of the Bush administration as Middle East policy experts for the National Security Council. Mann conducted secret negotiations with Iran. Leverett traveled with Colin Powell and advised Condoleezza Rice. They each played crucial roles in formulating policy for the region leading up to the war in Iraq. But when they left the White House, they left with a growing sense of alarm -- not only was the Bush administration headed straight for war with Iran, it had been set on this course for years. That was what people didn't realize. It was just like Iraq, when the White House was so eager for war it couldn't wait for the UN inspectors to leave. The steps have been many and steady and all in the same direction. And now things are getting much worse. We are getting closer and closer to the tripline, they say.

"The hard-liners are upping the pressure on the State Department," says Leverett. "They're basically saying, 'You've been trying to engage Iran for more than a year now and what do you have to show for it? They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive -- what the hell do you have to show for this engagement strategy?' "

But the engagement strategy was never serious and was designed to fail, they say. Over the last year, Rice has begun saying she would talk to "anybody, anywhere, anytime," but not to the Iranians unless they stopped enriching uranium first. That's not a serious approach to diplomacy, Mann says. Diplomacy is about talking to your enemies. That's how wars are averted. You work up to the big things. And when U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had his much-publicized meeting with his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad this spring, he didn't even have permission from the White House to schedule a second meeting.

The most ominous new development is the Bush administration's push to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization.

And that was done earlier today ...

Months before September 11, Mann had been negotiating with the Iranian diplomat at the UN. After the attacks, the meetings continued, sometimes alone and sometimes with their Russian counterpart sitting in. Soon they traded the conference room for the Delegates' Lounge, an airy two-story bar with ashtrays for all the foreigners who were used to smoking indoors. One day, up on the second floor where the windows overlooked the East River, the diplomat told her that Iran was ready to cooperate unconditionally, a phrase that had seismic diplomatic implications. Unconditional talks are what the U.S. had been demanding as a precondition to any official diplomatic contact between the U.S. and Iran. And it would be the first chance since the Islamic revolution for any kind of rapprochement. "It was revolutionary," Mann says. "It could have changed the world."

A few weeks later, after signing on to Condoleezza Rice's staff as the new Iran expert in the National Security Council, Mann flew to Europe with Ryan Crocker -- then a deputy assistant secretary of state -- to hold talks with a team of Iranian diplomats. Meeting in a light-filled conference room at the old UN building in Geneva, they hammered out plans for Iranian help in the war against the Taliban. The Iranians agreed to provide assistance if any American was shot down near their territory, agreed to let the U.S. send food in through their border, and even agreed to restrain some "really bad Afghanis," like a rabidly anti-American warlord named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, quietly putting him under house arrest in Tehran. These were significant concessions.
...

Mann interrupts herself. "This is off the record," she says. "This is going to have to be on background."

She's not allowed to talk about confidential documents or intelligence matters, but the topic of her negotiations with the Iranians is especially touchy.

"As far as they're concerned, the whole idea that there were talks is something I shouldn't even be talking about," she says.

All ranks and ranking are out. "They don't want there to be anything about the level of the talks or who was involved."

"They won't even let us say something like 'senior' or 'important,' 'high-ranking,' or 'high-level,' " Leverett says.

But the important thing is that the Iranians agreed to talk unconditionally, Mann says. "They specifically told me time and again that they were doing this because they understood the impact of this attack on the U.S., and they thought that if they helped us unconditionally, that would be the way to change the dynamic for the first time in twenty-five years."
...

Three weeks later, it was time for [Bush's] 2002 State of the Union address.
...

That was the speech in which Bush linked Iran to Iraq and North Korea with a memorable phrase:

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world."

The Iranians had been engaging in high-level diplomacy with the American government for more than a year, so the phrase was shocking and profound.
...

After that, the Iranian diplomats skipped the monthly meeting in Geneva. But they came again in March. And so did Mann. "They said they had put their necks out to talk to us and they were taking big risks with their careers and their families and their lives," Mann says.

The secret negotiations with Iran continued, every month for another year.

Leverett plunged right into a dramatic new peace proposal floated by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
...

But the White House wasn't interested. Sharon already rejected it, Rice told Leverett.

At the Arab League meeting, Abdullah got every Arab state to sign his proposal in a unanimous vote.

The White House still wasn't interested.
...

In April, Leverett accompanied Colin Powell on a tour that took them from Morocco to Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon and finally Israel. Twice they crossed the Israeli-army lines to visit Arafat under siege. Powell seemed to think he had authorization from the White House to explore what everyone was calling "political horizons," the safely vague shorthand for a peaceful future
...

Then the phone rang. It was Stephen Hadley on the phone from the White House. "Tell Powell he is not authorized to talk about a political horizon," he said. "Those are formal instructions."

"This is a bad idea," Leverett remembers saying. "It's bad policy and it's also humiliating for Powell, who has been talking to heads of state about this very issue for the last ten days."

"It doesn't matter," Hadley said. "There's too much resistance from Rumsfeld and the VP. Those are the instructions."
...

Then came the moment that would lead to an extraordinary battle with the Bush administration. It was an average morning in April [2003], about four weeks into the [Iraq] war. Mann picked up her daily folder and sat down at her desk, glancing at a fax cover page. The fax was from the Swiss ambassador to Iran, which wasn't unusual -- since the U.S. had no formal relationship with Iran, the Swiss ambassador represented American interests there and often faxed over updates on what he was doing. This time he'd met with Sa-deq Kharrazi, a well-connected Iranian who was the nephew of the foreign minister and son-in-law to the supreme leader. Amazingly, Kharrazi had presented the ambassador with a detailed proposal for peace in the Middle East, approved at the highest levels in Tehran.

A two-page summary was attached. Scanning it, Mann was startled by one dramatic concession after another -- "decisive action" against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel.

This was huge. Mann sat down and drafted a quick memo to her boss, Richard Haass. It was important to send a swift and positive response.

Then she heard that the White House had already made up its mind -- it was going to ignore the offer. Its only response was to lodge a formal complaint with the Swiss government about their ambassador's meddling.
...

In response to questions from Esquire, Colin Powell called Leverett "very able" and confirms much of what he says.
...

On the general subject of negotiations with Iran, he responded with pointed politesse. "We talked to the Iranians quietly up until 2003. The president chose not to continue that channel."

This is what the administration spokesmen mean when they say "Iran has refused to negotiate."

Can we get these guys impeached already? Maybe we could, if enough of us cared enough.

But on this occasion, Hillary Mann has the final word:

"We're tired," Mann says. "Nobody listens."

NBC Makes Up Arbitrary Rules To Bar Mike Gravel From October 30 Debate In Philadelphia

The news item excerpted below was published by the Associated Press on Friday, October 19, 2007, and would have been warmly received by Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and the people running their campaigns:

Gravel fails to meet rules for Democratic debate

Mike Gravel will not be part of the next Democratic presidential debate, Oct. 30 in Philadelphia.

The former Alaska senator did not meet fundraising and polling requirements for the forum, said NBC News political director Chuck Todd.

The two-hour debate, sponsored by NBC News and the Democratic National Committee, will be telecast on MSNBC. Brian Williams will moderate.

All the other Democratic candidates are expecting to participate, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd; former Sen. John Edwards; New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

But it hasn't been warmly received by Mike Gravel. Here, via the Huffington Post, is his response:

Why NBC and the DNC Want Me Out of the Debates

In the past year, I have attended 11 national Democratic debates of which two were sponsored by corporate media giant NBC. However, last week, the network suddenly conjured up arbitrary polling and fundraising requirements specifically designed to exclude me. None of the previous debates I attended held such requirements.

When my staff called NBC directly to find out why I was now barred from attending, Chuck Todd, NBC news' political director, told us that there were three criteria we did not meet, namely that I had not campaigned in New Hampshire and/or Iowa at least 14 times in the past year, that I was not polling at 5% and that I hadn't raised $1 million.

It is abundantly clear that NBC just wants me out of the race. This was made evident by the fact that NBC did not even inform me of its arbitrary criteria before making the decision to stifle my campaign. NBC's Todd waited until 5 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 19, to inform my staff that I was not invited to the Oct. 30 debate at Drexel University in Philadelphia.

Since I announced my candidacy for the Democratic Nomination for President of the United States on April 17, 2006, I have certainly traveled to New Hampshire and Iowa at least 14 times. And, according to a recent CNN poll, I am tied with Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd.

NBC claims I haven't raised enough money to qualify. I'm proud of the fact that I don't collect millions from special interests (or fugitives like Norman Hsu). The reason why Senator Hillary Clinton seems to have a fundraising scandal every month is because money has corrupted our democracy. By stifling my voice on the basis of fundraising dollars, NBC is reinforcing the power of money over our national political discussion and our freedom.

But why has NBC suddenly come up with "requirements" designed to exclude me from the debate?

NBC's decision is proof that our corporate media do not want a genuine debate over our impending war with Iran. During the last debate I was the only one to aggressively confront Senator Clinton over her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Had I not brought up the subject, seasoned NBC commentator Tim Russert, the moderator of the Sept. 26 debate, would not have even asked about it.

Most Americans still don't appreciate the gravity of that vote and they don't understand that our government is intentionally raising roadblocks to diplomacy. Corporate media have once again failed to investigate how Bush and a compliant congress have set us on the warpath. Instead the media simply parrots the demonization of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the administration's unproven accusations against Iran. NBC and the other corporate media have jumped on the war bandwagon and they are determined to shut up anyone who tries to stop it.

The fact that NBC is owned by General Electric, one of the world's leading military contractors, is frightening and certainly smacks of censorship directed at the most outspoken critic of the influence that the military-industrial complex holds over this great nation. In the past decade, GE has benefited financially from the global war on terrorism and currently holds almost $2 billion in military contracts.

So I ask that anyone, who is as concerned as I am about the power of the mainstream media and the military-industrial complex, speak out in support of my campaign today. And, even if you support another candidate, surely you understand the implications of NBC's decision for our democracy and the future peace and security of our nation.

And since the powers that be now require that I raise $1 million in order to participate in the debates, please make a donation to my campaign. Unlike my fellow candidates, I am not focused on raising million of dollars; I am focused on fixing representative government. Help us reach that arbitrary threshold, and I will continue to fight for democracy and peace.

Senator Mike Gravel

Ain't that a kick?

Here, courtesy of Village Green, are some things you can do about it:

1. Sign the online petition to have Mike Gravel included in the debate!

2. Contact NBC and GE and tell them they are wrong for trying to stifle his campaign!

Here are the email addresses: you can copy and paste them into your "TO:" field of your email:

chuck.todd@nbcuni.com, viewerservices@msnbc.com, directors@corporate.ge.com, ombudsperson@corporate.ge.com, jeff.zucker@nbcuni.com, lynn.calpeter@nbcuni.com, steve.capus@nbcuni.com

3. Email the DNC and urge them to press NBC to allow Mike Gravel to participate in the debate.

Here's another idea:

4. Write to Dr. Constantine Papadakis, the President of Drexel University, and ask the same of him.

papadakis@drexel.edu

One final note: See what John Edwards has to say about this:

It is essential, in a Democracy, for all voices to be heard. We should continue to attempt to adhere to this Democratic ideal.

So please contact the DNC and MSNBC today about Mike Gravel's exclusion. And, please, spread the word about this.

Please note that this is the very same John Edwards who said in July:

"We should think about at some point ... maybe some time in the fall, we'll try to have a more serious debate with a smaller group of people."

What's the difference between then and now? He didn't know his mic was on then.

Who Edits Wikipedia? The CIA, The Vatican, The Democrats, Diebold ...

The BBC says:

An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries.

Wikipedia Scanner allegedly shows that workers on the agency's computers made edits to the page of Iran's president.

It also purportedly shows that the Vatican has edited entries about Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams.

The tool, developed by US researchers, trawls a list of 5.3m edits and matches them to the net address of the editor.
...

On the profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the tool indicates that a worker on the CIA network reportedly added the exclamation "Wahhhhhh!" before a section on the leader's plans for his presidency.
...

The site also indicates that a computer owned by the US Democratic Party was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

The changes brand Mr Limbaugh as "idiotic," a "racist", and a "bigot". An entry about his audience now reads: "Most of them are legally retarded."

The IP address is registered in the name of the Democratic National Headquarters.
...

In October 2005, a person using a Diebold computer removed paragraphs about Walden O'Dell, chief executive of the company, which revealed that he had been "a top fund-raiser" for George Bush.

A month later, other paragraphs and links to stories about the alleged rigging of the 2000 election were also removed.

The paragraphs and links have since been reinstated.

Diebold officials have not responded to requests by the BBC for information about the changes.
...

Staff at the US Congress have also previously been exposed for editing and removing sensitive information about politicians.

An inquiry was launched after staff for Democratic representative Marty Meehan admitted polishing his biography...

Yes, it's a good place to start your research, and Yes, I'll keep links to it on my sidebar, but NO, PLEASE! Don't believe everything you read!

For example:

WARNING: This page may have been edited by NSA, FBI, DHS, and/or CIA, the Vatican, Diebold, ...

Bush Threatens Iranian People, Tells Them To Reject Their Government

According to William Branigin in the Washington Post,

President Bush [Thursday] called on the Iranian people to reject their hard-line government, saying they "can do better" and need not be isolated by a leadership that destabilizes its neighbors and pursues a suspected nuclear weapons program.

One can barely imagine what would happen if the President of Iran were to urge the American people to reject their hard-line government, although there is no doubt that we "can do better" and there is little reason why we need to be isolated by a leadership that destabilizes huge regions of the world and pursues an obvious program of global domination.

Americans "ought to be very concerned about Iran," Bush said. "They're a destabilizing influence. They are a government that has -- its declared policy is very troubling, obviously, when they announce -- when Ahmadinejad has announced that the destruction of Israel is part of his foreign policy. That's something, obviously, we cannot live with. They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program."

As a matter of fact, President Ahmadinejad has never announced the destruction of Israel as part of his foreign policy, but the Washington Post doesn't see fit to mention this fact, which only goes to show how irresponsible the "liberal media" can be.

Bush went on to threaten the Iranian people:

Bush added, "My message to the Iranian people is, 'You can do better than this current government. You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential.' And the United States of America will continue to work with our friends and allies in the Security Council and elsewhere to put you in a position to deny you your rightful place in the world -- not because of our intention; because of your government's intention."

... thus underlining one of the most remarkable and largely unremarked indications of insanity in American foreign policy:

If you suffer under a dictatorial government, the USA will punish you for it.

But if you overthrow it and elect a representative government, the USA will punish you for that, too.

Truth-Teller Lou Dobbs Under Attack For Alleged Hate Speech

Kurt Nimmo reports:

“A Jewish group is calling for the firing of an outspoken CNN anchor, Lou Dobbs, after he accused advocates for illegal immigrants of using propaganda techniques employed by Nazi Germany,” reports the New York Sun. “Mr. Dobbs has crossed the line between responsible television commentary and hate-speech propaganda of his own. Keeping him on the air is essentially sanctioning by CNN -- which is why we’re asking CNN to remove Dobbs from his very public platform,” complained Gideon Aronoff. “Comparisons to Nazis -- especially in this day and age -- are abhorrent.”

Au contraire, Mr. Aronoff! Comparisons to Nazis -- especially in this day and age -- are particularly relevant. But apparently irony rules the day, and relevance is fast becoming "quaint".

For instance, is it not supremely ironic that a representative of a Jewish group -- who presumably would want us to remember always what the Nazis did and how they did it -- would now tell us that mere "comparisons" to Nazis are "abhorrent"? It goes to show just how far we've fallen through the looking glass, especially when, as Nimmo points out,

it is perfectly legitimate to compare Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler and the Iranian government to a gaggle of Nazis. Dobbs made the mistake of saying something hurtful—never mind the truth of his statement—against a government protected minority group.

And that's not to mention the obvious and entirely overlooked fact that the propaganda techniques employed by Nazi Germany are well-known, easily detected and more or less ubiquitous in the bizarre culture of fiction and hatred which the criminals who've taken over our country call "the post-9/11 world".

It is no mistake Mr. Aronoff used the words “hate-speech propaganda” in his denunciation. Indeed, in the weeks ahead, as the Senate passes the “Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act,” also called the “Gay Hate Bill,” we can expect additional targets to come under attack for the egregious crime of speaking their minds. Prosecuting preachers and Christians opposed to homosexuality is but the useful veneer of this draconian legislation, as the government, of course, does not give a whit about the supposed rights of homosexuals -- or, in fact, the rights anybody but a small number of bankers and transnational corporations.

Apparently nothing for our pseudo-Christian leaders is Eternal and Everlasting but their newfangled Unholy Trinity of Fiction, Hatred, and Irony.

They've got the churches -- including the church my family attends -- fighting for what they call "freedom of religion", which is supposedly under attack. But the only alleged infringements that they ever complain about seem to revolve around the church's "right" to discriminate against homosexuals. No other aspect of religious freedom seems to be an issue for these people, who would never dream of allowing their church to be "used" for "political" purposes (such as, perhaps, a protest against a whole series of unprovoked amd unjustified wars) despite the undeniable fact that the instructions "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" feature much more prominently in the Bible than anything it has to say about homosexuality.

And so the truth-twisters who now run our country have managed to turn the opponents of hatred -- as well as its practitioners -- against the Bill of Rights. How long can a former republic divided against itself remain standing?

Meanwhile, the irony continues unabated, as Nimmo points out.

“In calling for Dobbs to be kicked off the air for simply using an analogy about Nazi Germany, the Jewish group are behaving like Nazis themselves, attempting to chill free speech and create a climate where nobody is allowed to say anything in case it offends someone,” notes Prison Planet. “Since Don Imus made an ignorant off-hand comment about a black female basketball team, enemies of free speech everywhere have crawled out of the woodwork in an attempt to exploit the controversy and silence anyone who dares challenge political correctness or simply makes a statement that some would consider controversial.”

In the case of Dobbs, however, it is not simply controversy, as the anchor strikes at the heart of the concerted effort to reduce the American worker to carefully engineered pauperism and usher in a New Serfdom through open borders and ongoing currency devaluation.

Not to mention his longstanding efforts on behalf of electoral-system sanity, as chronicled in detail here.

It is really quite remarkable Lou Dobbs was allowed to righteously complain for so long on CNN’s dime about open borders and illegal immigration.

It's also remarkable that he was allowed to complain for so long about the bogus "voting" machines, in my opinion. But perhaps the powers-that-be judged the American public too apathetic to do anything, even if the truth about our so-called "electoral" system were generally known. They may have been right about that.

Nonetheless, as Nimmo remarks, we can

expect prosecutions and witch hunts to commence forthwith, especially against truth tellers.

Especially against truth tellers! There's a good one; Kurt Nimmo cracks me up!!

Isn't suppression of truth tellers the whole point of the exercise? Who else would they mount witch hunts against?

Captured British Sailors Return Home From Iran

The island nation celebrates the news contained in this account from the Guardian:

Captured British sailors arrive home

The 15 British sailors and marines freed by Iran are back on British soil today after 13 days in captivity.

The 14 men and one woman left Tehran on a British Airways flight this morning and touched down at London's Heathrow airport at 12.02pm.

They travelled in business class and were flying on in waiting helicopters to the Royal Marines Base Chivenor, near Barnstaple, north Devon.

Escorted to the airport by Iranian revolutionary guards, the Britons were installed in business class, with the few paying passengers in that section shunted into economy.

In a final PR flourish by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who announced their release yesterday at the end of a 90-minute monologue on regional history and global politics, the captives were handed gifts from the Iranian president as they left.

There's more on this "flourish" from Pakistan's news service Dawn:

Iran tv shows British sailors laden with gifts

Iran broadcast new pictures of 15 British sailors preparing to fly out of Tehran on Thursday, showing them opening an array of traditional gifts before departing.

The 14 men and one woman smiled and laughed as they sipped tea and waited to board their plane in the plush surroudings of the presidential lounge at Tehran's international airport. The pictures aired on Iran's Arabic language channel Al-Alam showed the sailors opening gifts that ranged from traditional handicrafts to Iranian pistachio nuts. Their luggage, packed into a combination of matching traditional Iranian woven bags and sports holdalls laid on by the authorities, was also shown.

This is the only event in the series that makes perfect sense, but it still leaves us with a barrel full of questions:

Did the British stray into Iranian waters? If so, did they do so intentionally? Were their commanders looking to establish a pretext? If so, the effort appears to have failed.

Or did they simply make a mistake?

Or did the Iranians "reach out and touch someone" in Iraqi waters? And if so, what was the point?

Did Craig Murray's intrepid work, promoting the truth about a disputed international boundary -- in the face of hostile opposition -- play a part in freeing the captured British sailors?

And has the Iranian president's "PR flourish" -- indeed the timely release itself -- knocked the teeth out of Operation BITE? And did they use my idea? Or did they think of it themselves? We may never know.

Things are now potentially set up for a much better Good Friday than I was expecting. But I can't shake the feeling that we are still being led on a long, slow march to a long and horrible war with Iran.

Unless...

Iran Pardons British Sailors As 'A Gift To The British People'

The spin doctors who are trying to start America's Next War are going to find this news a bit disappointing, I would think, although normal people won't find it too awful:

Ahmadinejad says Iran will free British sailors

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Wednesday that his government would release the detained 15 British sailors and marines promptly.

He said the sailors would be taken to Tehran airport at the end of the press conference that he was addressing.

He said he had pardoned the sailors as a gift to the British people and to mark the birthday of Islam's Prophet Muhammed and Easter.

He pardoned the sailors and announced their release minutes after he gave medals of honor [see photo] to the Iranian coast guards who intercepted the sailors and marines, saying Iran will never accept tresspassing of its territorial waters.

"On behalf of the great Iranian people, I want to thank the Iranian Coast Guard who courageously defended and captured those who violated their territorial waters, the president told a press conference.

He then interrupted his speech and pinned a medal on the commander of the Coast Guards involved in capturing the British sailors and marines in the northern Gulf on March 23. Two other Coast Guards came on to the podium and saluted during the ceremony.

"We are sorry that British troops remain in Iraq and their sailors are being arrested in Iran," Ahmadinejad said.

He criticized Britain for deploying Leading Seaman Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, in the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.

"How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don't they respect family values in the West?" he asked of the British government.

This report from USA TODAY contains an enhanced version of the bogus map produced by the British MoD last week and comprehensively debugged by former Ambassador Craig Murray, whose work seems to have hurt the situation none at all. But rather than admitting the boundary inserted by the British was uncertain at best and mendacious at worst, the USA today art department created a new, slicker, map, with the same bogus boundary line drawn in.

So, the British sailors will soon be free but our big media will still be lying most of the time. Oh well -- half a loaf is always better than none. And we're still working on the other half.

Bush Stokes His Long-Awaited 'Wider War' While Journalism Flows Downhill

[updated below]

It's getting harder and harder to know what to believe.

London's Sunday Times had this interesting bit of arithmetic:

Iranian students threw rocks and firecrackers at the British Embassy in central Tehran today during a rowdy protest over 16 detained sailors and Marines.
...

The protest came after President Ahmadinejad slammed "arrogant" Britain for its actions since the seizure of the seven Royal Marines and eight sailors...

So now, apparently, seven marines plus eight sailors makes sixteen! Which leads to the obvious questions: How much fact-checking is enough? And how much of the rest of the article should we take seriously?

Unfortunately it's a very serious article, and Larisa Alexandrovna quotes it in her post, "Bush ignites violence in Iran":

President Bush, blind to the delicate nature of the stand-off between Britain and Iran over the 15 Brit sailors being held prisoner, does his finest to ignite violence by using a word like "hostage" and making threats. As a result, Iranian students attacked the British embassy with rocks and, according to some accounts, petrol bombs:

"The protest came after President Ahmadinejad slammed "arrogant" Britain for its actions since the seizure of the seven Royal Marines and eight sailors, including Leading Seaman Faye Turney.

It also followed interventions by world leaders including President Bush, who last night described the sailors as "hostages" - a term that Britain has so far avoided - and accused Iran of "inexcusable behaviour".

“Iran must give back the hostages,” Mr Bush told a press conference at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland. “They’re innocent, they did nothing wrong, and they were summarily plucked out of waters. The Iranaians took this people out of Iraqi waters. It's inexcusable behaviour.”

Tony Blair would do well to stay clear of President Bush's help, especially, when the US is holding 5 Iranian diplomats.

I agree with Larisa most of the time but I don't agree with the idea that Bush is "blind to the delicate nature of the stand-off between Britain and Iran". In other words: How much incompetence theory is too much?

Larisa doesn't mention it (maybe she wasn't in the USA at the time) but the last time Americans heard the words "Iran" and "hostages" in the same sentence, many of them lost their minds immediately and started taiking about wanting to nuke Iran.

Surely the chimperor's ventriloquist hasn't forgotten.



[UPDATE]

A report in The Daily Mail sees the event quite differently, but Matthew Hickley doesn't have any qualms about using the word "hostages":

Phoney mob targets embassy

Hardline Iranian students laid siege to the British embassy in Tehran, hurling rocks and fireworks and chanting "death to Britain".

With no end to the hostage crisis in sight, world leaders including President Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced strong support for the UK, and called for the immediate release of the 15 sailors and Royal Marines seized by Iranian troops 11 days ago.
...
In Tehran the violent protest by 200 student activists at the British embassy appeared carefully stagemanaged.

Protesters, held back by police, chanted "death to Britain" and "death to America" as they threw missiles, and demanded the expulsion of ambassador Geoffrey Adams.

The demonstrators included members of the Basij, a hardline volunteer militia controlled by Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

And so it could be that the "protest" wasn't inspired by Bush's use of the term "hostages", as Larisa seems to imply, but rather summoned up by the Iranian government, most likely for a bit of "political cover". We can't give back the detainees because we're under political pressure, and yada yada yada. As if domestic political sentiment meant anything to any of the governments involved!

Thanks to ibid for the link and this photo:

IAEA: US Report on Iran's Nuclear Work 'Incorrect and Misleading', 'Outrageous and Dishonest'

Guess what? It's Deja Vu All Over Again! The Intelligence is being Fixed around the Policy!

If anyone had reason to suspect that representatives of the Bush administration would tell bald-faced lies in order to try to justify a war they had already decided to fight, we might have reason to take the following report from Reuters somewhat seriously. [my emphasis, here and below]

U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.

Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.

The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.

It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.

We've been here before, haven't we? And we know what happens next, too. Don't we?

Never content to tell a single lie, they've been lying about more than uranium enrichment!

"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.

The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.
...
"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations.

President Bush clearly doesn't care. He's taking his "incorrect and misleading", "outrageous and dishonest" case against Iran to the United Nations next week. And he's already started threatening the UN.

Of course the mainstream media can't call it that. So instead they write it up like this:

US President George W. Bush said he would reaffirm his hard line on Iran at the United Nations next week.

Bush, who will make a speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, said he liked UN chief Kofi Annan personally but warned that many Americans were wary of the United Nations and that he sometimes shares that view.

Amid optimism from Europe about a new round of talks with Iran over it's nuclear program, Bush warned US partners not to waver in diplomacy to ensure the Islamic republic does not acquire atomic weapons.

"My concern is that, you know, they'll stall; they'll try to wait us out," he said in a wide ranging press conference in the White House Rose Garden. "So part of my objective in New York is to remind people that's stalling shouldn't be allowed."

"They need to understand we're firm in our commitment and that if they try to drag their feet or, you know, get us to look the other way, that we won't do that," said Bush.

I find Gwynne Dyer's take on this issue quite a bit more realistic. And timely, too. He had all this figured out a couple of weeks ago.

The media love a crisis, but this one seriously lacks credibility. In June, John Negroponte, US Director of National Intelligence, told the BBC that Iran could have a nuclear bomb ready between 2010 and 2015. But he said “could,” not “will,” and only in five or 10 years’ time. So why are we having a crisis this autumn?

The US government’s explanation is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened in May to “wipe Israel off the map,” and that nuclear weapons are the way he plans to do it. (Any that are left over would presumably be given to terrorists.) As proof of Iran’s evil ambitions, it points to the fact, revealed in 2003, that Iran had been concealing some parts of its so-called peaceful nuclear energy program from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.

But there are a number of holes in this narrative, and the first is that Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to “wipe Israel off the map.” This is a strange and perhaps deliberate mistranslation of his actual words, a direct quote from the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the font of all wisdom in revolutionary Iran, who said some 20 years ago that “this regime occupying Jerusalem (ie Israel) must vanish from the page of time.”

It was a statement about the future (possibly the quite far future) as ordained by God. It was not a threat to destroy Israel. Attacking Israel has never been Iranian policy, and a few days later the man who really runs Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, publicly stated that Iran “will not commit aggression against any nation.” While Ahmadinejad continues to say nasty things about Israel, he too has explicitly rejected accusations that Iran plans to attack it.

Please read Dyer's entire column.

For more on this seemingly-fabricated crisis-to-be, see Chris Floyd: "History's Actors" Prepare for a Sequel or Kurt Nimmo: Neocon Iran Nuke Lies “Outrageous” and “Dishonest”.