Author: admin

  • No cakewalk in the park?

    Two Washington-based representatives of a global Fortune 100 company told their visiting senior executive this week a bombing campaign of Iran ‘s nuclear facilities "is inevitable while Mr. Bush is in the White House." The incredulous CEO thought his Washington eyes and ears were overstating the case. They assured him they were deadly serious.
    Leading neocon Richard Perle, who led the intellectual charge for the ill-fated invasion of Iraq , believes two B-2 bombers, each with 16 independently targeted weapons systems, could punch out Iran ‘s nuclear lights. No Air Force expert we could find agreed. But the Pentagon’s Air Force generals believe it can be done — and successfully — with a much larger operation, including five nights of bombing, some 400 aim points, 75 requiring deep penetration ordnance. Time magazine estimates 1,500 such aim points, or "viable targets," related to Iran ‘s widely scattered nuclear development complex. The Navy, with its carrier task forces and ship-launched cruise missiles, does not share the same degree of certainty.
    No one has worked more assiduously for military action than Michael Ledeen, a neocon field marshal, who writes frequently about the "horrors" of Iran ‘s mullahocracy. His National Review Online commentary Nov. 1 was headlined "Delay." Mr. Ledeen has grown impatient over Mr. Bush’s dangerous postponement of what he considers inevitable. "If the president knows Iran is waging war on us," wrote Mr. Ledeen, "he is obliged to respond; the only appropriate question is about the method, not the substance. If he does not know, then he should remove those officials who were obliged to tell him, and get some people who will tell the truth."
    The truth has become an increasingly rare commodity in Washington . Mr. Ledeen concludes the president knows the truth, but thinks he may lack the political capital to directly challenge the mullahs. More likely, Mr. Bush’s thinking has changed when confronted by the intelligence community’s assessment of Iran ‘s retaliatory capabilities. They are described as "formidable." These include mining the Strait of Hormuz , the channel for two-fifths of the world’s oil traffic, which would send oil prices skyrocketing to $200 per barrel almost overnight.
    Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia ‘s ambassador to the U.S. , headed his country’s intelligence service for 25 years. He warns that an attack against Iran would turn "the whole Persian Gulf into an inferno of exploding fuel tanks and shot-up facilities." Earlier this month, Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired dozens of missiles, including the long-range Shahab-3 (1,242 miles), Shahab-2 (cluster warhead of 1,400 bomblets), solid-fuel Zalzals, Zolfaghar73, Z-3, and SCUD-Bs, all timed to follow by two days the completion of U.S.-led allied naval maneuvers in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist." Warships from Australia , Britain , France , Italy , Bahrain and the U.S. participated.
    Dubbed "Great Prophet," Iran ‘s 10-day war games were designed "to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message," said Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi.
    Iran also has control over Hezbollah whose terrorist arm has already reached all the way to Argentina (in the mid-1990s) and whose sleeper cells, from Saudi Arabia’s eastern oil fields where Shi’ites are the majority, to North America, are still feigning sleep.
    Russia and China have made clear they will not be part of any tough sanction regime against Iran . They both have strong commercial ties to Iran . Tehran is paying Russia $700 million for 29 air defense missile systems. China signed a 10-year, $100 billion oil deal with Iran .
    What the neocons dismiss as the "nervous nellies" of the intelligence community may have slipped in to President Bush’s morning brief a subversive quote or two from conservative historian Paul Johnson, e.g., "Statesmen should never plunge into the future … without first examining what guidance the past could supply?"
    Mr. Ledeen, who acts as spokesman for Iran ‘s suppressed democratic forces, says, "The first step is to embrace the unpleasant fact that we are at war with Iran , and it is long past time to respond." The Iraqi debacle, along with the fading image of the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower, as well as of Israel as the regional superpower, evidently persuaded President Bush to further disappoint the neocons. The Iraq Study Group’s (ISG) James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton wanted neocon idol Donald Rumsfeld replaced as defense secretary before going public with their findings.
    The new defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert M. Gates, a close friend of Mr. Baker, and also a member of ISG, has long favored direct talks with "Axis of Evil" charter member Iran . Mr. Baker, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gates are now on the same wavelength. They believe bombing Iran would be an unmitigated disaster for U.S. interests the world over. The alternative is to explore a geopolitical deal with a country that has legitimate security interests.
    The neocons’ ideas for a walk in the Iranian park are still very much alive in Israel , whose very existence has been threatened by the mullahocracy. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will make clear to Mr. Bush today during a White House visit that Israel is not prepared to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon.

    Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

  • Israel Lobby Says Pentagon ‘Infiltrated’

    The witch-hunt was proposed in the fall 2006 issue of the small-circulation­but highly influential­Journal of International Security Affairs published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). JINSA has been one of the frontline forces in the fanatically pro-Israel “neo-conservative” circles directing foreign policy under George W. Bush.

    Not only Vice President Dick Cheney, but also UN Ambassador John Bolton, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defense Policy Board­to name just a few big Bush administration names­have all been associates of JINSA.

    University of Pennsylvania Prof. Edward Herman has described JINSA as “organized and [run] by individuals closely tied to the Israeli lobby and can be regarded as a virtual agency of the Israeli government.”

    What first appears as commentary in JINSA’s Journal often leads to very real policies carried out by the Bush administration alone and sometimes in concert with Capitol Hill which some critics have been known to cynically call “Israeli occupied territory.”

    The JINSA call for a witch-hunt came in the context of a series of commentaries on “21st Century Allies . . . and Adversaries” for the United States and Israel, which two nations, of course, are seen in the JINSA world view as virtual extensions of one another.

    Zionist publications regularly assert that “anti-Israel” sentiments must automatically be seen as “anti-American” and even as “anti-Christian” in nature, a theme first loudly propagated by the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary magazine.

    The commentaries, not surprisingly, named such countries as Iran, Syria, Russia and Venezuela, as possible “adversaries” for the U.S.-Israel Axis. However, it was an article by Walid Phares­who is associated with a Zionist lobby front known as the Foundation for the Defense of the Democracies­which made the suggestion that there are very real “adversaries” on American soil, at high levels in the American military and intelligence establishment. In his article “Future Terrorism­Mutant Jihads,” Phares asked:

    “How deeply have jihadist elements infiltrated the U.S. government and federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and various military commands, either through sympathizers or via actual operatives?”

    Although posed as a loaded question, Phares’s implication was clear: he believes such a “threat” exists. The JINSA writer then proclaimed the need for a “national consensus” that requires “confronting these forces” based on “knowledge of their ideologies, objectives and determination.”

    Since there are few Muslim Americans or even Arab Americans in any substantial numbers in the FBI, Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, etc, the suggestion that “jihadist” elements have “infiltrated” our government might seem silly to the average American.

    But in the fevered minds of JINSA and hard-line Zionist elements, the real concern is that there are growing numbers of people high up in the FBI and the CIA and in the military who are getting “fed up” with Zionist power in America. Top military leaders openly dismissed the need for war against Iraq and Iran, both wars of which have been long-time policy plans of the Zionist lobby. And all of this, in the view of the JINSA sphere, constitutes effective collaboration with and sympathy for the dreaded “jihadists.”

    For example, on May 11, 2005, the New York-based Forward, a leading Jewish community newspaper, reported that Barry Jacobs of the Washington office of the American Jewish Committee said he believed there are high-ranking officials inside the U.S. intelligence community who are hostile to Israel and are waging war against pro-Israel lobbyists and their neo-conservative allies in the inner circles of the Bush administration.

    Citing the ongoing FBI investigation of espionage by officials of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the leading pro-Israel lobby group, Forward reported that Jacobs believes, in Forward’s summary, that “the notion that American Jews and Pentagon neo-conservatives conspired to push the United States into war against Iraq, and possibly also against Iran, is pervasive in Washington’s intelligence community.”

    Obviously, with such thoughts running rampant in pro-Israel circles, it is inevitable a leading pro-Israel policy group such as JINSA would raise the specter of “infiltration” by those who are seen as “sympathizers” and suggest that they be purged from their positions in government agencies.

    So the threat of a witch-hunt happening is real. Despite differences between the Bush administration and its Democratic foes, both come together in one realm: satisfying the Israeli lobby which funds both Democrats and Republicans alike through a network of political action committees and exercising its clout on Capitol Hill through pressure groups such as the APIAC, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Anti-Defamation League.

    It is ironic that JINSA should be the source of a demand for an investigation of foreign agents and sympathizers inside the American government. The founder of JINSA, Stephen Bryen, a former Senate aide on Capitol Hill, faced certain indictment on charges of espionage for Israel until pressure on the Justice Department forced Justice to back off.

    Not only Bryen, but several others in the JINSA sphere were under FBI investigation on similar charges relating to their possible misuse of American defense and intelligence information on Israel’s behalf. They include:

    • Richard Perle, investigated in the 1970s when he was a top aide to then-Sen. Henry Jackson;

    • Douglas Feith, who­although later promoted to a high post in the Bush administration in 2001­was fired from the National Security Council of President Ronald Reagan; and

    • Paul Wolfowitz, now head of the World Bank and former deputy secretary of defense in the Bush administration, investigated in the 1970s by the FBI on suspicion of passing classified information to Israel

  • The War Loses, Voters Win

    http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh11112006.html

    On these electronic pages during the electoral season we have tracked the machinations and motives of Rahm Emanuel (1,2). Long ago Rahm chose 22 key races, open or Republican seats, where Dems might win. By any reasonable criteria, all the candidates chosen by Rahm, save perhaps for one, were pro-war as is Emanuel himself. In two cases Rahm had to put in considerable dollars and effort in the primaries to drive out antiwar candidates. He drove out Cegelis in Illinois’s 6th CD, at the cost of one million dollars, in favor of Tammy ("Stay the course") Duckworth who lost in the general election. In California’s 11th CD primary, Emanuel backed the prowar Steven Filson who lost to the antiwar candidate, Jerry McNerney, who went on to win in the general election.

    Looking at all 22 candidates hand-picked by Rahm, we find that 13 were defeated, and only 8 won! (3) (One is still undecided.) And remember that this was the year of the Democratic tsunami and that Rahm’s favorites were handsomely financed by the DCCC. Tammy Duckworth, for example, was infused with $3 million ­ and was backed in the primary by HRC, Barack Obama, John Kerry, etc. The Dems have picked up 28 seats so far, maybe more. So out of that 28, Rahm’s choices accounted for 8! Since the Dems only needed 15 seats to win the House, Rahm’s efforts were completely unnecessary. Had the campaign rested on Rahm’s choices, there would have been only 8 or 9 new seats, and the Dems would have lost. In fact, Rahm’s efforts were probably counterproductive for the Dems since the great majority of voters were antiwar and they were voting primarily on the issue of the war (60% according to CNN). But Rahm’s candidates were not antiwar.

    So Rahm Emanuel nearly seized defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems fully intended to pursue the war and the neocons thought that they had found a new host in the Dem party ­ but the voters now perceive the Dems as antiwar and if they do not deliver, they will be damaged. After all Ralph Nader and Chuck Hagel are waiting in the wings for 2008Either Emanuel is completely incompetent or else Emanuel is putting the interests of Israel ahead of Democratic victories. You decide. In either case why would he remain in a position of influence in the Dem party? A good question.

    A footnote to all this is the skullduggery behind the scenes in the campaign of one of Rahm’s losers, Diane Farrell, who lost to Christopher Shays in CT. Farrell successfully passed herself off as antiwar in some quarters, getting the last minute endorsement of Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation. But here is Farrell’s "plan" for Iraq according to her web site: "Have Congress step up to its proper oversight role and get the administration to articulate and implement a transition plan in which the U.S. will reduce its role and begin to bring troops home. Set achievement benchmarks, rather than dates, for implementing such a pullback." Farrell does not support the Murtha or McGovern bills; she even rejects "timetables," and puts the onus of getting out of Iraq on "the administration" as opposed to Congressional action, namely her had she won. Why would The Nation support such a candidate? Was it simply incompetence, not doing one’s homework?

    At the same time backers of Farrell, calling themselves Greens, managed to get the hard working and principled Green candidate in her district to withdraw on the basis of "private" and still secret assurances that Farrell would be antiwar in the end. Maybe we will now find out the nature of those assurances. One suspects that if Farrell had adopted a strong antiwar position and challenged her Green opponent that way, rather than conniving to force him out, she might have won the race. But then of course she would have lost Rahm’s lucre.

    John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com.

    He welcomes more information on the machinations of Schumer or of Rahm, the loser.

    (1) http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10142006.html

    (2) http://www.counterpunch.com/walsh10242006.html

    (3) Rahm’s Losers: Darcy Burner (WA), Phyllis Busansky (FL), Francine Busby (CA), John Cranley (OH), Jill Derby (NV), Tammy Duckworth (IL), Diane Farrell (CT), Steve Filson (CA), Tessa Hafen (NV), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH), Ken Lucas (KY), Patsy Madrid (NM), Lois Murphy (PA). Winners: Brad Ellsworth (IN), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Baron Hill (IN), Ron Klein (FL), Harry Mitchell (AZ), Chris Murphy (CT), Heath Shuler (NC), Peter Welch, who was apparently antiwar (VT). Undecided: Joe Courtney (CT).

  • CNN editors pull Palestinian quotes, replace with US

    Slant Index: 9.04 (vote)


    But CNN editors pulled these two paragraphs, replacing them with a description of the resolution and vote tally, followed by a quotation from the Israeli military. It ended with five paragraphs quoting US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

    CNN neglected well-known journalistic standards when it removed Palestinian statements from its original report. According to Wikipedia.org’s Journalism entry, journalists must use "multiple original sources of information, especially if the subject of the report is controversial" and must "report every side of a story possible".

    CNN took an unethical step backwards when it morphed the responsible 4:37AM wire into a biased Sunday afternoon article.

    Full text of the original wire:
    ———-
    UNITED NATIONS (CNN) — The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Saturday that would have condemned Israel for its military operations in Gaza.

    U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the resolution, which also called for Israel to immediately cease military operations in the Palestinian territory, was "biased against Israel and politically motivated."

    The U.S. veto angered Hamas government spokesman Ghazi Hamad, who called the veto "shameful" and "not the first time" the United States has used a veto "just to protect Israel."

    The veto, Hamad said, is to "give Israel covering in order to continue its massacres and killings among our people. It is giving legitimacy to Israel to continue the aggression against our people."

    The resolution, proposed by the Qatar delegation, particularly condemned Israel for Wednesday’s shelling in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun that killed 18 people, mostly women and children.

    The proposal also condemns Palestinians who fire missiles from Gaza into Israel. (Posted 4:37 a.m.)
    ———-

    Full text of the edited article:
    ———-
    POSTED: 2:21 p.m. EST, November 11, 2006
    UNITED NATIONS (CNN) — The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution Saturday that would have condemned Israel for its military operations in Gaza.

    U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton said the resolution, which also called for Israel to cease military operations immediately in the Palestinian territory, was "biased against Israel and politically motivated."

    Qatar proposed the motion, which focused on Wednesday’s shelling in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun that killed 18 people, mostly women and children. (Watch mourners carry bodies of victims through the streets — 1:49)

    The blocked resolution also condemned Palestinians who fire missiles from Gaza into Israel.

    Israel’s military said it has been targeting militants in Beit Hanoun who have been firing Qassam rockets into Israel, and blamed a "technical failure" for the misfire that killed the 18 civilians.

    The United States cast the only vote against. Four council members abstained and 10 voted for the resolution.

    Before the vote, Bolton said the United States joined the other countries in "deeply regretting" the injuries and loss of life in Wednesday’s shelling, but said Israel has promised a full investigation.

    Bolton said the resolution’s text was "unbalanced."

    "We are disturbed at the language of the resolution that is in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated," Bolton said. "Such language does not further the cause of peace and its unacceptability to the United States in previous resolutions is well known."

    Bolton said the text was wrong in equating what he called Israel’s legal defense operations in Gaza with Palestinian acts of terrorism against civilians in Israel.

    "We are disturbed that there is not a single reference to terrorism in the proposed resolution, nor any condemnation of the Hamas leadership’s statement that Palestinians should resume terror attacks on a broad scale, or calls by the military wing of Hamas to Muslims worldwide to strike American targets and interests," he said.
    ———-

    Full CNN Story

  • We need our own Iraq plan

    Sign GetUp! petition calling for the announcement of a a clearly defined exit strategy for Australia in Iraq before Parliament adjourns for the year on December 4, 2006.