2008 State of the Union Preview [WARNING: SPOILER ALERT!]

I will not be tuning in to tonight's "State of the Union" address. Even though Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will and D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation are impressive examples of such a supreme and brilliant mastery of unapologetic propaganda, I find both to be morally reprehensible, historically frustrating, and nauseatingly unwatchable. Same goes for any speech given by George W. Bush, and especially the annual Congressional address. Though, I suppose it's only fitting that after the recent death of Indonesian "New Order" dictator Suharto, we are assured (by a fellow autocrat) that his legacy of authoritarianism, corruption, collusion, and nepotism is living vibrantly on in our own country.

Even though I will not be watching the televised lies of this evening's oration, I believe I am still in the position to ruin the main points in advance of speech's delivery. To sum up:

1. Apparently, the American economy is astoundingly strong, despite what we may all have heard...or be experiencing. But if anyone faces hardship, take solace in the fact that you can freely place the blame not on the fiscal misconduct of the government, unsustainable spending levels, and insurmountable amounts of debt - lay it squarely on your housekeeper, nanny, gardener, and your local diner's short-order cooks and busboys. It's really their fault, not yours. If only they had a Social Security number and spoke better English, we'd all be in the black!

2. The escalation in Iraq last year was an unmitigated success and brought staggering progress, showing once again how pursuing an agenda of ethnic cleansing is the key to subverting an active resistance movement. Oh yeah, and the Iraqis want us there.

3. 9/11.

4. In a surprise twist, Iran (the only remaining spoke on the administration's Happy Fun Wheel of Evil) is the world's leading state sponsor of terror, regardless of anything having to do with reality and/or reason. Also, the solidarity of the US-allied Gulf States is total and unshakable, especially if you don't know how to read.

5. Illegal surveillance of US citizens is integral to the security of a brainwashed public and the systematic closing down of a free and democratic society; therefore, Congress should do its best to approve whatever further legislation is suggested by the Executive branch so that the givernment can effectively spy on everyone with a funny last name or membership in some tree-hugging, bleeding-heart knitting club. Hopefully, visions of turbaned and bearded sugarplums dance menacingly in all of your heads, while Orwellian programs that silences all dissent go largely unnoticed (and without any real oversight or regard for the Constitution). Whew!

6. Uh, 9/11?

7. Support the troops, as they are the perfect ambassadors of the good will and humanitarianism that the United States provides to unwitting countries across the globe, despite being greeted as invaders and oppressors...and returning home as a shell-shocked testament to freedom and honor. As a result, they deserve our unflinching respect and tight-lipped awe, because let's not forget, they put the "war" in Iraq and the 'surge' in insurgents.

8. Tax cuts are essential to keep this country in control of the world economy and to keep John Q. Punchclock shopping at BestBuy instead of paying back his loans.

9. We are winning. Everywhere.

10. Only if the next president of the United States is a Republican will America (and the rest of the world [read: Israel]) be safe against the constant attacks, threats, and ideology of "extremists, "insurgents," "fundamentalists," and "terrorists." Interestingly, women, black guys, and John Edwards are not only soft on terror, but they actually encourage it and often incite it themselves.

11. Osama bin Laden has been found. Reading the newest issue of Maxim whilst reclining on the king-sized bed in the White House's famed Lincoln Bedroom. Just kidding...9/11!!!!!

12. In this final year of his presidency, George Walker Bush will silence all critics and skeptics by vanquishing all enemies, proving the unquestionable existence of the lord Jesus Christ, and being able to kind of point to the Middle East on a map and stating, with a resounding snicker, "Been there, done that."

13. Good night and god bless 9/11.

*****

For a glimpse of the real state of our union, watch this lecture by Naomi Wolf, author of The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot:

*****

Also, check out this article by Laurence W. Britt from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.


Fascism Anyone?

Laurence W. Britt

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.



Note

1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

References

Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980. Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963. Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001. Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999. de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976. Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995. Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970. Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973. Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999. Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996. Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971. Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001. Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999. Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001. Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

*****

See further analysis of Britt's 14 Points here and here at The Project for the Old American Century.

*****

Hey, Remember When We Bombed, Invaded, Occupied, and Destroyed That Country? No, Not That One, The Other One...

The invasion and occupation of Iraq, a conquest of unabashed imperialism, should not be a dead issue. With so many Wii games to play and the season premiere of Lost coming up, it has become perfectly clear that the American public has forgotten that we are all sitting at home at the heart of an empire. The fact that we all get up and go to work and eat Chinese take-out and watch Project Runway is laughable and appalling when it is our government and military that is responsible for the utter destruction, colonization, and pillaging of an entire country, its people, and its resources.

And all the while, the same refrain: "If we had known then what we know now."

Nonsense. We knew then. We know now. And the people most responsible still aren't in prison, let alone held accountable. Deliberate and disciplined deception on such a massive scale that led directly to the illegal invasion, violent occupation, and subsequent genocide of a foreign country should be, without question and equivocation, an intolerable high crime of Impeachable proportions. But why should we care? We've got bills to pay and Match.com profiles to update, right?

This new study from the Center for Public Integrity is all the rage these days, so it might as well get posted here. Hopefully, it won't take another six or seven years for the lies about Iran to get catalogued in a database.

*****

False Pretenses

Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.


By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?'"

In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

click here to enlarge

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.

The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

*****

Key False Statements

On September 8, 2002, Bush administration officials hit the national airwaves to advance the argument that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes designed to enrich uranium. In an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly stated that Saddam Hussein "now is trying through his illicit procurement network to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium."

Condoleezza Rice, who was then Bush's national security adviser, followed Cheney that night on CNN's Late Edition. In answer to a question from Wolf Blitzer on how close Saddam Hussein's government was to developing a nuclear capability, Rice said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

In April 2001, however, the Energy Department had concluded that, "while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production." During the preparation of the September 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research stated their belief that Iraq intended to use the tubes in a conventional rocket program, but the Central Intelligence Agency's contrary view prevailed.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence subsequently concluded that postwar findings supported the assessments of the Energy Department and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

______________________________

There was dissent within the intelligence community in the first 48 hours after 9/11 over the connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, President Bush's chief counterterrorism adviser, has written that President Bush asked him on September 12 to "see if Saddam did this. See if he is linked in any way. . ." Clarke said that he responded by saying, "Absolutely, we will look . . . again," and then adding, "But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq."

Beginning apparently in late November 2001, a team in the office of Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith, working independently of the formal intelligence community, reviewed intelligence data related to Al Qaeda. In August and September 2002, this team provided three separate briefings to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, and finally to high-level White House officials. The briefings, titled "Assessing the Relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," included the assessment that "Intelligence indicates cooperation [with Al Qaeda] in all categories: mature, symbiotic relationship."

Bush administration officials were soon publicly linking the two. For example, on September 25, 2002, in response to a reporter's question, President Bush said: "They're both risks, they're both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world."

Such statements were not supported by the intelligence community's findings. In July 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information."

In September, the CIA circulated a draft report titled Iraqi Support for Terrorism, which found "no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike." On September 17, CIA Director George Tenet reiterated this point in testimony to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "The intelligence indicates that the two sides at various points have discussed safe-haven, training, and reciprocal non-aggression," he said. "There are several reported suggestions by Al Qaeda to Iraq about joint terrorist ventures, but in no case can we establish that Iraq accepted or followed up on these suggestions."

The 9/11 Commission Report found that while there may have been meetings in 1999 between Iraqi officials and Osama Bin Ladin or his aides, it had seen no evidence that the contacts "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It added: "Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with Al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

______________________________

In a speech on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney flatly asserted that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet later wrote that Cheney's statement "went well beyond what our own analysis could support." Tenet was not alone within the CIA. As one of his top deputies later told journalist Ron Suskind: "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from? Does he have a source of information that we don't know about?'"

______________________________
In a national radio address on September 28, 2002, President Bush flatly asserted: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year."

What the American people did not know at the time was that, just three weeks before Bush's radio address, in early September, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that there was no National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Such an assessment had not been done in years because nobody within the intelligence community had deemed it necessary, and, remarkably, nobody at the White House had requested that it be done.

The CIA put the NIE together in less than three weeks. It proved to be false. As the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later concluded, "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

______________________________

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But as early as March 2002, there was uncertainty within the intelligence community regarding the sale of uranium to Iraq. That month, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research published an intelligence assessment titled, "Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely." In July 2002, the Energy Department concluded that there was "no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq" and suggested that the "amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program." In August 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency made no mention of the Iraq-Niger connection in a paper on Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Just two weeks before the president's speech, an analyst with the Bureau of Intelligence and Research had sent an e-mail to several other analysts describing why he believed "the uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax." And in 2006 the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake' from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are 'highly dubious.'"

______________________________

In his dramatic presentation to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said: "My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." In preparation for his presentation, Powell had spent a week at Central Intelligence Agency headquarters sifting through intelligence.

One of the "human sources" that Powell referenced turned out to be "Curveball," whom U.S. intelligence officials had never even spoken to. "My mouth hung open when I saw Colin Powell use information from Curveball," Tyler Drumheller, the CIA's chief of covert operations in Europe, later recalled. "It was like cognitive dissonance. Maybe, I thought, my government has something more. But it scared me deeply."

In his presentation to the U.N. Security Council, Powell described another of the human sources as "a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to Al Qaeda." Six days earlier, however, the CIA itself had come to the conclusion that this source, a detainee, "was not in a position to know if any training had taken place."

In a report completed in 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded: "Much of the information provided or cleared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for inclusion in Secretary Powell's speech was overstated, misleading, or incorrect."

______________________________

In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.

Just days earlier, the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded that the trailers "could not be used as a transportable biological production system as the system is presently configured." It was ultimately acknowledged that the trailers had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and were probably used to manufacture hydrogen employed in weather balloons.

______________________________

On July 30, 2003, in an interview with Gwen Ifill of PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, Condoleezza Rice said: "What we knew going into the war was that this man was a threat. He had weapons of mass destruction. He had used them before. He was continuing to try to improve his weapons programs. He was sitting astride one of the most volatile regions in the world, a region out of which the ideologies of hatred had come that led people to slam airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington. Something had to be done about that threat and the president to simply allow this brutal dictator, with dangerous weapons, to continue to destabilize the Middle East."

Just two days earlier, David Kay, the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, had briefed administration officials. "We have not found large stockpiles," he told them. "You can't rule them out. We haven't come to the conclusion that they're not there, but they're sure not any place obvious. We've got a lot more to search for and to look at."

*****

What will this new report change? Nothing. But at least we'll be able to tell our children that justice doesn't get served in this country until more than 1000 unique lies are told over the course of a two year period and that options to be kept pertetually "on the table" include the threat of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the innocent population of a foreign sovereign nation, but do not include holding the highest office holders in our country accountable for their orchestrated deception and subsequent illegal invasion of a foreign sovereign nation...unless they possibly get a blowjob in the process. Nighty night!

Purity Of Essence? The Truth About Pre-Emptive Nuclear War

Now that the specter of nuclear warfare has once again been raised and become a realistic possibility, due to the terrifyingly macho and ill-advised rhetoric of the Western world, it seems fitting to post an article that I found extremely compelling and prescient when it was first published almost a year ago.

It's obvious that this administration is doing everything it can to begin a war with Iran, but threatening a nuclear strike goes beyond even the most bellicose of hegemonic posturing. A world with nuclear energy is bad enough, but the dropping of nuclear bombs is an act of aggression and terrorism so severe that the mere mention of it should be met with the harshest of criticism and condemnation. Let's all remember that a nuclear holocaust isn't the same as watching The Day After or reading The Road, it's the end of the world for real. For real. These types of threats are never alright. To preempt and prevent the (possible) proliferation of nuclear weaponry by beginning a nuclear war is a startlingly counter-intuitive endeavor that defies all human, moral, and ethical rationale, but these are not rational times we're living in. Be wary of what our future holds...if we even get that far.

*****

The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War

By George Lakoff, Huffington Post, 27 February 2007

"The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran's nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete."

-Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, April 17, 2006

"The second concern is that if an underground laboratory is deeply buried, that can also confound conventional weapons. But the depth of the Natanz facility - reports place the ceiling roughly 30 feet underground - is not prohibitive. The American GBU-28 weapon - the so-called bunker buster - can pierce about 23 feet of concrete and 100 feet of soil. Unless the cover over the Natanz lab is almost entirely rock, bunker busters should be able to reach it. That said, some chance remains that a single strike would fail."

-Michael Levi, New York Times, April 18, 2006

A familiar means of denying a reality is to refuse to use the words that describe that reality. A common form of propaganda is to keep reality from being described.

In such circumstances, silence and euphemism are forms of complicity both in propaganda and in the denial of reality. And the media, as well as the major presidential candidates, are now complicit.

The stories in the major media suggest that an attack against Iran is a real possibility and that the Natanz nuclear development site is the number one target. As the above quotes from two of our best sources note, military experts say that conventional "bunker-busters" like the GBU-28 might be able to destroy the Natanz facility, especially with repeated bombings. But on the other hand, they also say such iterated use of conventional weapons might not work, e.g., if the rock and earth above the facility becomes liquefied. On that supposition, a "low yield" "tactical" nuclear weapon, say, the B61-11, might be needed.

If the Bush administration, for example, were to insist on a sure "success," then the "attack" would constitute nuclear war. The words in boldface are nuclear war, that's right, nuclear war -- a first strike nuclear war.

We don't know what exactly is being planned -- conventional GBU-28's or nuclear B61-11's. And that is the point. Discussion needs to be open. Nuclear war is not a minor matter.

The Euphemism

As early as August 13, 2005, Bush, in Jerusalem, was asked what would happen if diplomacy failed to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear program. Bush replied, "All options are on the table." On April 18, the day after the appearance of Seymour Hersh's New Yorker report on the administration's preparations for a nuclear war against Iran, President Bush held a news conference. He was asked,

"Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?"

He replied,

"All options are on the table."

The President never actually said the forbidden words "nuclear war," but he appeared to tacitly acknowledge the preparations -- without further discussion.

Vice-President Dick Cheney, speaking in Australia last week, backed up the President.

"We worked with the European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference. But I've also made the point, and the president has made the point, that all options are on the table."

Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, on FOX News August 14, 2005, said the same.

"For us to say that the Iranians can do whatever they want to do and we won't under any circumstances exercise a military option would be for them to have a license to do whatever they want to do ... So I think the president's comment that we won't take anything off the table was entirely appropriate."

But it's not just Republicans. Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, in a speech in Herzliyah, Israel, echoed Bush.

"To ensure that Iran never gets nuclear weapons, we need to keep ALL options on the table. Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table."

Although, Edwards has said, when asked about this statement, that he prefers peaceful solutions and direct negotiations with Iran, he has nonetheless repeated the "all options on the table" position -- making clear that he would consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but without using the fateful words.

Hillary Clinton, at an AIPAC dinner in NY, said,

"We cannot, we should not, we must not, permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons, and in dealing with this threat, as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table."

Translation: Nuclear weapons can be used to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

Barack Obama, asked on 60 Minutes about using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, began a discussion of his preference for diplomacy by responding, "I think we should keep all options on the table."

Bush, Cheney, McCain, Edwards, Clinton, and Obama all say indirectly that they seriously consider starting a preventive nuclear war, but will not engage in a public discussion of what that would mean. That contributes to a general denial, and the press is going along with it by a corresponding refusal to use the words.

If the consequences of nuclear war are not discussed openly, the war may happen without an appreciation of the consequences and without the public having a chance to stop it. Our job is to open that discussion.

Of course, there is a rationale for the euphemism: To scare our adversaries by making them think that we are crazy enough to do what we hint at, while not raising a public outcry. That is what happened in the lead up to the Iraq War, and the disaster of that war tells us why we must have such a discussion about Iran. Presidential candidates go along, not wanting to be thought of as interfering in on-going indirect diplomacy. That may be the conventional wisdom for candidates, but an informed, concerned public must say what candidates are advised not to say.

More Euphemisms

The euphemisms used include "tactical," "small," "mini-," and "low yield" nuclear weapons. "Tactical" contrasts with "strategic"; it refers to tactics, relatively low-level choices made in carrying out an overall strategy, but which don't affect the grand strategy. But the use of any nuclear weapons at all would be anything but "tactical." It would be a major world event - in Vladimir Putin's words, "lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons," making the use of more powerful nuclear weapons more likely and setting off a new arms race. The use of the word "tactical" operates to lessen their importance, to distract from the fact that their very use would constitute a nuclear war.

What is "low yield"? Perhaps the "smallest" tactical nuclear weapon we have is the B61-11, which has a dial-a-yield feature: it can yield "only" 0.3 kilotons, but can be set to yield up to 170 kilotons. The power of the Hiroshima bomb was 15 kilotons. That is, a "small" bomb can yield more than 10 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. The B61-11 dropped from 40,000 feet would dig a hole 20 feet deep and then explode, send shock waves downward, leave a huge crater, and spread radiation widely. The idea that it would explode underground and be harmless to those above ground is false -- and, anyway, an underground release of radiation would threaten ground water and aquifers for a long time and over wide distance.

To use words like "low yield" or "small" or "mini-" nuclear weapon is like speaking of being a little bit pregnant. Nuclear war is nuclear war! It crosses the moral line.

Any discussion of roadside canister bombs made in Iran justifying an attack on Iran should be put in perspective: Little canister bombs (EFP's -- explosively formed projectiles) that shoot a small hot metal ball at a humvee or tank versus nuclear war.

Incidentally, the administration may be focusing on the canister bombs because it seeks to claim that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 permits the use of military force against Iran based on its interference in Iraq. In that case, no further authorization by Congress would be needed for an attack on Iran.

The journalistic point is clear. Journalists and political leaders should not talk about an "attack." They should use the words that describe what is really at stake: nuclear war -- in boldface.

Then, there is the scale of the proposed attack. Military reports leaking out suggest a huge (mostly or entirely non-nuclear) airstrike on as many as 10,000 targets -- a "shock and awe" attack that would destroy Iran's infrastructure the way the US bombing destroyed Iraq's. The targets would not just be "military targets." As Dan Plesch reports in the New Statesman, February 19, 2007, such an attack would wipe out Iran's military, business, and political infrastructure. Not just nuclear installations, missile launching sites, tanks, and ammunition dumps, but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communications centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals, public buildings, and even the homes of political leaders. That is what was attacked in Iraq: the "critical infrastructure." It is not just military in the traditional sense. It leaves a nation in rubble, and leads to death, maiming, disease, joblessness, impoverishment, starvation, mass refugees, lawlessness, rape, and incalculable pain and suffering. That is what the options appear to be "on the table." Is nation destruction what the American people have in mind when they acquiesce without discussion to an "attack"? Is nuclear war what the American people have in mind? An informed public must ask and the media must ask. The words must be used.

Even if the attack were limited to nuclear installations, starting a nuclear war with Iran would have terrible consequences -- and not just for Iranians. First, it would strengthen the hand of the Islamic fundamentalists -- exactly the opposite of the effect US planners would want. It would be viewed as yet another major attack on Islam. Fundamentalist Islam is a revenge culture. If you want to recruit fundamentalist Islamists all over the world to become violent jihadists, this is the best way to do it. America would become a world pariah. Any idea of the US as a peaceful nation would be destroyed. Moreover, you don't work against the spread of nuclear weapons by using those weapons. That will just make countries all over the world want nuclear weaponry all the more. Trying to stop nuclear proliferation through nuclear war is self-defeating.

As Einstein said, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Why would the Bush administration do it? Here is what conservative strategist William Kristol wrote last summer during Israel's war with Hezbollah.

"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States. We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."

--Willam Kristol, Weekly Standard 7/24/06

"Renewed strength" is just the Bush strategy in Iraq. At a time when the Iraqi people want us to leave, when our national elections show that most Americans want our troops out, when 60% of Iraqis think it all right to kill Americans, Bush wants to escalate. Why? Because he is weak in America. Because he needs to show more "strength." Because, if he knocks out the Iranian nuclear facilities, he can claim at least one "victory." Starting a nuclear war with Iran would really put us in a world-wide war with fundamentalist Islam. It would make real the terrorist threat he has been claiming since 9/11. It would create more fear -- real fear -- in America. And he believes, with much reason, that fear tends to make Americans vote for saber-rattling conservatives.

Kristol's neoconservative view that "weakness is provocative" is echoed in Iran, but by the other side. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was quoted in the New York Times of February 24, 2007 as having "vowed anew to continue enriching uranium, saying, 'If we show weakness in front of the enemies, they will increase their expectations.'" If both sides refuse to back off for fear of showing weakness, then prospects for conflict are real, despite the repeated analyses, like that of The Economist that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would be politically and morally impossible. As one unnamed administration official has said (New York Times, February 24, 2007), "No one has defined where the red line is that we cannot let the Iranians step over."

What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the ideas of a nuclear war and nation destruction against Iran. The technique used is the "slippery slope." It is done by degrees. Like the proverbial frog in the pot of water - if the heat is turned up slowly the frog gets used to the heat and eventually boils to death - the American public is getting gradually acclimated to the idea of war with Iran.

* First, describe Iran as evil - part of the axis of evil. An inherently evil person will inevitably do evil things and can't be negotiated with. An entire evil nation is a threat to other nations.

* Second, describe Iran's leader as a "Hitler" who is inherently "evil" and cannot be reasoned with. Refuse to negotiate with him.

* Then repeat the lie that Iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons --weapons of mass destruction. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says they are at best many years away.

* Call nuclear development "an existential threat" - a threat to our very existence.

* Then suggest a single "surgical" "attack" on Natanz and make it seem acceptable.

* Then find a reason to call the attack "self-defense" -- or better protection for our troops from the EFP's, or single-shot canister bombs.

* Claim, without proof and without anyone even taking responsibility for the claim, that the Iranian government at its highest level is supplying deadly weapons to Shiite militias attacking our troops, while not mentioning the fact that Saudi Arabia is helping Sunni insurgents attacking our troops.

* Give "protecting our troops" as a reason for attacking Iran without getting new authorization from Congress. Claim that the old authorization for attacking Iraq implied doing "whatever is necessary to protect our troops" from Iranian intervention in Iraq.

* Argue that de-escalation in Iraq would "bleed" our troops, "weaken" America, and lead to defeat. This sets up escalation as a winning policy, if not in Iraq then in Iran.

* Get the press to go along with each step.

* Never mention the words "preventive nuclear war" or "national destruction." When asked, say "All options are on the table." Keep the issue of nuclear war and its consequences from being seriously discussed by the national media.

* Intimidate Democratic presidential candidates into agreeing, without using the words, that nuclear war should be "on the table." This makes nuclear war and nation destruction bipartisan and even more acceptable.

Progressives managed to blunt the "surge" idea by telling the truth about "escalation." Nuclear war against Iran and nation destruction constitute the ultimate escalation.

The time has come to stop the attempt to make a nuclear war against Iran palatable to the American public. We do not believe that most Americans want to start a nuclear war or to impose nation destruction on the people of Iran. They might, though, be willing to support a tit-for-tat "surgical" "attack" on Natanz in retaliation for small canister bombs and to end Iran's early nuclear capacity.

It is time for America's journalists and political leaders to put two and two together, and ask the fateful question: Is the Bush administration seriously preparing for nuclear war and nation destruction? If the conventional GBU-28's will do the job, then why not take nuclear war off the table in the name of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons? If GBU-28's won't do the job, then it is all the more important to have that discussion.

This should not be a distraction from Iraq. The general issue is escalation as a policy, both in Iraq and in Iran. They are linked issues, not separate issues. We have learned from Iraq what lack of public scrutiny does.

*****

George Lakoff is a scholar, author, and the co-founder and Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute. He is a Professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, and has he previously taught at Harvard University and the University of Michigan.



*****

To learn more, check this out:



Fact Sheets of Iran-US Standoff: Twenty Reasons against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

The Country He Inherited, The Country He Leaves Behind

click image to enlarge

"Blame It On Iran!"The Milli Vanilli-style Broken Recordof the War-Mongering US Government

Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Oct. 29, 1939)

Whether or not the first illegal air strike will come from the US or Israel, one thing is clear: the aggressive build-up to a "war" with Iran has been high on the agenda of this administration for quite some time and continues to roll on, bizarrely, despite the fact that everything they have said has been a lie.

Since people these days seem only to have the attention span of a frisky chihuahua and a selective memory ranking somewhere between Alzheimer's and lobotomy, I won't attempt to create a comprehensive study of the rhetoric and propaganda by the US (and Israel) to demonize and disparage the country of Iran, its government, and its people. We need only to look at a few recent issues.

In every single mainstream media piece about Iran, Iran's (perfectly legal) nuclear energy program, and the supposed "threat" that Iran poses to the rest of the world, there is one oft-repeated tidbit of information that is thrown in for good measure, lest the distracted people of Amurica forget:

The president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has previously called to "wipe Israel off the map."

The number of times we all have heard this or read this is astounding. It's a constant refrain, echoed ad nauseam. But it's a lie. He never said that, and not only because that turn of phrase doesn't even exist as a Persian idiom.

For one, he was quoting Ayatollah Khomeini with regards to Zionist control over historic Palestine. The actual quote was this:

"The Imam [Khomeini] said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

This may not seem like much of an improvement on the mistranslation, but Juan Cole explains it this way:

"Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

For a number of credible sources on this issue (and others), please read the following articles by Juan Cole, Jonathan Steele (and this detailed follow-up), Gary Leupp, Paul Joseph Watson, Stephen Zunes, and this excellent piece by Arash Norouzi.

So, Ahmadinejad never threatened to physically wipe out the state of Israel (nor would he even have the administrative authority to do so if he wanted to) and has stated repeatedly his stance that the people of Palestine should be able to decide their own fate - that is, all the people of Palestine. This can be attested to by any number of speeches he has given, including comments made during his visit to Columbia University in September 2007.

This constantly proliferated mistranslation of Ahmadinejad's words, as well as the constant phony claims of Iranian anti-Semitism, serves the purpose of consistently reminding people of the false information by which they will then form their "own" opinions...thusly shaping wider public opinion against Iran and its leaders.

Moving on, we can easily see that the drum beat to some sort of stand-off with Iran has a constant roll for sometime. For instance, a mere four months after massive, spontaneous candlelight vigils were held in major cities all over in Iran in mourning for the tragic loss of life on 9/11 and in solidarity with the grieving American people (something that, however, did not occur in such strong US 'allies' in the Middle East as Israel and Saudi Arabia), Bush made his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech on January 29, 2002. This unfounded and appalling accusation of Iran being a major threat to the world was very surprising to the people of Iran and began a more nationalistic and conservative movement (much like what happened in the US after 9/11) that eventually led to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a far less liberal candidate than others on the ballot and than his predecessor, Mohammad Khatami.

Since then, we have seen and heard all manner of propaganda and rhetoric designed to scare the public about the "evil threat" of a "dangerous nation" run by "religious zealots" who pose an "imminent danger" to the "entire" world. Now, looking back that last sentence, I can think of one country (maybe two) that best illustrates a hostile entity with that kind of imperial resume. (Hint: it's the one that bombed, destroyed, and invaded, currently occupying two countries - that conveniently flank Iran on both sides.)

The efforts to demonize Iran know no bounds, nor are they particularly concerned with the truth. After the unsuccessful attempts to create a casus belli out of a trumped up 'hostage crisis' involving British Royal Navy personnel, unsuccessful sanctions bullied through the Security Council by the US; constantly conflating Iran and 9/11, Ahmadinejad and Hitler, and Islam and fascism (read this great article by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, professor of economics at Drake University, Des Moines, IA, entitled "Distorting Fascism"); the constant pandering of the American Media to the Bush administration's obsession with promoting anti-Iranian propaganda, the bullying and embarrassing vitriol launched at Ahmadinejad by right-wing darling Lee Bollinger at Columbia (see the response from a group of Iranian Academics); false claims about Iranian non-compliance with the IAEA and a nuclear weapons program that was finally proved illegitimate by the recent NIE report; the passing of the Kyl-Leiberman bill declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (an elite part of the Iranian military, not some fringe militia) a 'terrorist organization; attempting to rally other Gulf States against Iran, and of course, the completely unsubstantiated claims by US government that Iran has been responsible for arming Iraqi and Afghani "insurgents" with Persian-made IEDs that are targeting the US military, the war-mongering seems to go on unabated.

Whenever the public seems sufficiently unsatisfied with the government's push for a preemptive strike on Iran (a nation that hasn't threatened or attacked any other nation in centuries), there is always some new "serious event" that rouses the ridiculous Iranophobic fears of ignorant and gullible (read: most) Americans.

Most recently, we were subjected to an absurd charade of Blair Witch-style film making by the US Navy, which was reportedly troubled by the 'aggressive' maneuvers by five Iranian naval speedboats (that resemble one engine toy motorboats) in the vicinity of three US warships (that resemble Darth Vader's Stardestroyer) in the Strait of Hormuz on January 7, 2008.

When I first read the sensational headlines and saw the video released by the Pentagon, I was wary of the dubious claims right from the get-go, considering nothing I've heard from the mainstream media lately has had even a shred of truth in it...plus, with such an intense focus on sparking a confrontation with Iran, I knew that there were no limits to how low the US government would stoop to spread falsehoods. In fact, my very first response to someone asking me what I thought of this incident was this: "Maybe US patrol boats shouldn't enter Iranian waters to try and stir up more bogus claims of hostility."

The conversation continued like this:

GuyIKnow: international waters
Lord Baltimore: riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. it's nice that you believe what the Navy tells you. this government has a great track record for the truth!
GuyIKnow: everything is a conspiracy with you. you really think everything is a lie?
Lord Baltimore: i think this story is nonsense. the "hostage" angle didn't work, the made up shit about threatening Israel didn't work, the nuclear program nonsense didn't work...this is the newest attempt to get public opinion behind an attack on Iran.

This conversation happened at 2:18PM on January 7, only hours after the story had broken. I had read no information on this event besides the basic CNN/NYT/BBC stuff. But I knew it was just another attempt to start shit and blame it on Iran. A 21st Century Gulf of Tonkin. And I'm no journalist, I'm just not a gullible moron. Oh right, and I have a memory of all the other lies we've all been told.

The very next day, I see this report by Robert Fantina, author of Desertion and the American Soldier: 1776--2006:

January 8, 2008


AN OMINOUS NON-EVENT
The Gulf of Tonkin and the Strait of Hormuz

By ROBERT FANTINA

As the U.S. government continues to demonstrate its inability to learn from history, an alarming report from the Strait of Hormuz was broadcast to the world on January 7. The Associated Press reported the following: "In what U.S. officials called a serious provocation, Iranian boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to explode the American vessels." These Iranian ships are believed to part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's navy, the organization that the U.S. Congress officially decreed a 'terrorist' organization.

Those either old enough to remember, or cognizant enough to understand history, will immediately be reminded of the infamous 'Gulf of Tonkin' incident, reported on August 2, 1964. On that day, the U.S. destroyer Maddox, on an espionage mission in the Gulf of Tonkin off the Vietnam coast, reported being fired on by North Vietnamese torpedo patrol boats. In response the Maddox fired back, sinking one boat. Tensions in the area were already growing, and now the world watched and waited.

On August 4 of that same year, the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy, another destroyer, were again patrolling the Gulf of Tonkin. Instruments on the Maddox indicated that it was either attacked or was under attack, and both the Maddox and the C. Turner Joy began firing back, with assistance from U.S. air power.

It was less than 24 hours later when the captain concluded that there might not have been an attack; why the instruments indicated otherwise was not clearly explained. The pilot of a Crusader jet, James B. Stockdale, undertook a reconnaissance flight over the gulf that evening. He was asked if he saw any North Vietnamese attack vessels. Mr. Stockdale did not equivocate in his response. Said he: "Not a one. No boats, no wakes, no ricochets off boats, no boat impacts, no torpedo wakes--nothing but black sea and American firepower."

Yet this non-event, either misinterpreted or fabricated altogether, was seen by an hysterical U.S. Congress, ever willing to protect America from its enemies, real or imagined, as aggression against the U.S. It also provided members of that august body with some additional 'I'm-strong- on-Communism' credentials, which were ever in demand from the end of World War II until the dawn of the world's newest bugaboo, 'terrorism.' Congress quickly passed the so-called 'Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,' which empowered President Lyndon Johnson to take all measures he deemed necessary to repel aggression. While this was not the start of the Vietnam War, it represented the first major escalation that did not end for over a decade, and cost the lives of over 50,000 U.S. soldiers, and between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 Vietnamese citizens. It caused havoc with the U.S. economy, brought near-revolution to American streets and campuses and drew hostility towards the U.S. from most of the world.

Today, an unidentified Pentagon official called this 'incident' in the Strait of Hormuz "a serious provocation." Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman referred to it as a "serious incident." Mr. Gordon Johndore, National Security Council spokesman said the United States urges the Iranians "to refrain from such provocative actions that could lead to a dangerous incident in the future."

It must be remembered that it was just a month ago that the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) determined that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program four years ago. As President Bush was busy rattling his saber, and apparently itching to start yet another war, the NIE took the wind out of his bloody sails. He huffed and puffed and said, inexplicably, that the NIE report proved that Iran was still a great threat to the U.S., but it seemed that no one took him too seriously. Now, however, we have an 'incident.' Obviously, we are told, like in the Gulf of Tonkin 44 years ago, the U.S. has been the victim of 'aggression.'

It is, of course, unimportant to consider that Iran might understandably be a little trigger-happy when it sees U.S. naval vessels approaching. Just because Iran's next-door neighbor was invaded by the U.S. without provocation, and now is in the midst of a deadly occupation, should not in any way justify Iran's wariness. The fact that it was only a year ago that Mr. Bush sent a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf for no other reason than to intimidate Iran, and to participate in 'war games' (an oxymoron if ever there was one) in clear sight of one of the members of Mr. Bush's 'axis of evil,' should simply be ignored by Iran. The fact that the U.S. has a long and violent history of invading countries that displease it in some way (perhaps they have a democratically elected government that does not bow and scrape to the occupant of the White House throne) should not alarm Iran. Mr. Bush and his spokesman have not said that they plan to invade Iran; they simply said no options are off the table.

One waits in anxious impatience to see how Congress will react. Surely the slowly-dwindling multitudes seeking the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations will race each other to the microphone to denounce Iranian aggression, thus shining their patriotic credentials. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), who last fall voted to name Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, can gloat and glow with jingoistic satisfaction that that organization has now proven her right and her critics wrong, at least in her own mind. Perhaps former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, stumbling along on the path if not towards the Republican nomination, at least in its general direction, will endorse whatever Mr. Bush proclaims; after all, Mr. Romney has stated that it is Mr. Bush who has kept America safe (save for one or two unfortunate incidents in September of 2001). Will former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who never tires of reminding the voters that he and he alone was mayor of New York on September 11 2001 (whatever that may be worth), now raise the specter of Iranian terrorism in the U.S?

One could sit back and laugh at the nonsense proclaimed by the men and women who seek to lead the United States if their actions were not so dangerous. In 1964 an incident not unlike the one that allegedly took place in the Strait of Hormuz on January 8 of this year caused Congress to officially embark on America's most deadly imperial disaster. 'Flawed intelligence,' at best, and outright lies at worst paved the way for the current imperial mess which has the potential to dwarf America's Vietnam catastrophe. And now, with a lame duck president seeking to salvage his disgraced reputation, one wonders if this reported incident from Iran will have the same effect as the non-incident in the Gulf of Tonkin 44 years ago.

Mr. Bush & Co. have never been particularly interested in facts. They have not had any desire to listen to opposing opinions. They have happily ignored the wishes of the U.S. citizens. They apparently have been very interested in enriching themselves and their cronies, and have focused their desire for riches on oil, at the expense of the blood of their own, and Iraq's, citizens. They have used fear to get Congress to support their crimes. There is nothing to cause one to think things will be different now. Congress has proved its spinelessness over and over, and we all know that there is no reason for statesmanship when interesting, pander-to-the-fear-of-the-moment sound bytes are so much easier.

Whether or not this current situation leads Congress to justify an invasion of Iran, or other actions that will lead to an invasion, remains to be seen. But the U.S. has not learned from its own history, and another repeat of an unneeded and catastrophic war is not, unfortunately, unthinkable. That the president will not stop it is not surprising; that Congress will be complicit once again is unspeakable.

After reading this article, I began to see some more in the following days that further confirmed my belief that this 'incident' was fabricated by the Pentagon for the purposes of propaganda on the eve of Bush's visit to the Middle East...better for those pre-written speeches to have the ominous background of fear, I suppose. Plus, it must have provided a lighter respite in Bush's talks with Olmert regarding how best to starve all of Gaza's 1.5 million inmates at the least possible cost to Israel.

Here are some more reports that further destroy the 'official' version of the story:

01.10.08 - Official Version of Naval Incident Starts to Unravel by historian and national security policy analyst Gareth Porter (includes video of 'incident' released by Iran)

01.11.08 - Gareth Porter interviewed on Democracy Now! by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez

01.11.08 - US Video of Iran Speedboats Doctored; Iranians Charge Fabrication by Juan Cole on his Informed Comment blog

01.15.08 - Legal Mist Stokes US-Iran Tensions in Strait by Kaveh L Afrasiabi, a fascinating expose of the actual illegalities of US Naval ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, containing these choice tidbits of information:

Tension spiked markedly last week when Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) speedboats were involved in an "incident" with three US Navy vessels, which claimed they were international waters.

Yet there is no "international water" in the Strait of Hormuz, straddled between the territorial waters of Iran and Oman. The US government claimed, through a Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan Whitman, that the three US ships "transiting through the Strait of Hormuz" were provocatively harassed by the speedboats. This was followed by the Pentagon's release of a videotape of the encounter, where in response to Iran's request for ship identification, we hear a dispatch from one of the US ships stating the ship's number and adding that "we are in international waters and we intend no harm".
Thus there is the issue of the exact whereabouts of the US ships at the time of the standoff with the Iranian boats manned by the IRGC patrolling the area. According to Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgiff, the US ships were "five kilometers outside Iranian territorial waters". Yet, this is disputed by another dispatch from the US ships that states, "I am engaged in transit passage in accordance with international law."

and this:

US warships transiting through Hormuz must, in effect, act as non-war ships, "temporarily depriving themselves of their armed might". And any "warning shots" fired by US ships at Iranian boats, inspecting the US ships under customary international laws, must be considered an infringement on Iran's rights. This technically warrants a legal backlash in the form of the Iranians temporary suspending the US warships' right of passage. Again, the US could be technically prosecuted by Iran in international forums for conducting questionable activities while in Iranian territorial waters.

And so it goes...the lies keep coming and the American public laps them up, applauds new rounds of UN Security Council sanctions, and seemingly never pauses to wonder, "Wait, why do I believe them this time around?"

*****

GAZA and DOLLS: The Facade of Impartiality Crumbles with Proof of Favoritism in the Face of "Collective Punishment"

A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

- George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)

The crisis in Gaza is not fake. It is very real and it is very serious.

The complicity of both the EU and the US is not shocking, but is indeed appalling.

It appears that the unconditional support for Israel's inhumane and collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza (1.5 million people) by the US has trumped all senses of decency and reality. Most recently, the US vetoed the official condemnation of Israel's policies in Gaza by the UN Security Council, afetr an emergency meeting had been called to address the issue. Here is an article about was has happened:

US stymies Security Council action on Gaza
Haider Rizvi, The Electronic Intifada, 24 January 2008

Representative of Israel Gilad Cohen addresses an urgent meeting of the Security Council on the latest crisis in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel, 22 January 2008. (Evan Schneider/UN Photo)

UNITED NATIONS, 23 January (IPS) - Despite intensifying calls for international pressure to address the fast deteriorating situation in the Gaza Strip, observers and some diplomats say the UN Security Council has proved as ineffective as it has been for many years concerning issues related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On Tuesday, the Council called an emergency meeting during which a vast majority of delegates strongly condemned Israel's blockade of the occupied Palestinian areas and charged that it was violating international humanitarian law.

Yet at the end of the day, the Council failed to adopt a draft presidential statement calling for Israel "to ensure unhindered access for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people and to open the border crossings to facilitate the passage of exports and imports to the Gaza Strip."

Why? Because it was not acceptable to the US delegation, a diplomat present at the meeting told IPS. The US rejected the first draft statement because it did not cover Israeli concerns about rocket fire by Palestinian militants into its territory.

The Council called another meeting Wednesday, but failed to issue a presidential statement based on the third draft, which, according to the source, was prepared by the diplomats representing the European Union.

"We were hoping ... but unfortunately we have not agreed," South African ambassador Dumisani Kumalo told reporters about the outcome of the Wednesday's meeting, adding that "everybody [in the Council] said they wanted the Security Council to speak out."

Asked why the Council is discussing a presidential draft statement instead of a resolution, the South African envoy told IPS: "We thought we would be able to speak quickly, but it's not so quick."

A presidential statement is usually non-binding and not enforceable, but it requires the consensus of all 15 members of the Council. A resolution, which requires a majority of votes and can be sunk by a veto from one of the five permanent members, is often legally binding and enforceable.

A European diplomat said the US objected to the latest draft, even though it addresses concerns about rocket fire by the Palestinians into southern Israel. According to him, without explaining the sticking points, the US delegates said they needed more time to consult with Washington.

On Tuesday, US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the Council that Washington was equally concerned about the situation in Gaza and that the US would continue to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. But at the same time, he fully supported the Israeli view that it was the Palestinian militants who are responsible for the misery of their people.

"We believe the current situation is a direct result of Hamas's policies and actions," he said, adding that the United States "condemns in the strongest terms the ongoing firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel by terror groups."

In defending the virtual siege imposed on Gaza, the Israeli diplomat Gilad Cohen said the current situation is the "consequence of many choices, repeatedly the wrong choices, made by the Palestinians, to adopt terrorism and violence over peace and negotiations with Israel."

Except for the European Union, Israel's contention that the Palestinian militancy is responsible for the blockade and power shutdown in Gaza is being forcefully rejected by all the major political blocs within the UN system, including the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the Arab League and the African Union.

"The violent military escalation by Israel constitutes a grave breach of international law, including humanitarian and human rights law," said Cuban envoy Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz in speaking before the Council on behalf of the 118-member NAM.

Like other regional groups, NAM wants the Council to take immediate action to ensure the supply of food, medicines and fuel to the Gaza Strip and to ask Israel to stop using its military might against Palestinian civilians.

While critical of the Palestinian rocket attacks, the EU has described the continued Israeli incursions into the occupied areas as "collective punishment" of 1.5 million Gaza residents. Various UN agencies responsible for delivering humanitarian aid and Western rights advocacy groups have also raised grave concerns about the suffering of the Palestinian civilian population in Gaza.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, about 80 percent of Palestinians in Gaza live in extreme poverty and depend on aid agencies for food and other essential items.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) said Tuesday it was worried about the functioning of intensive care units, operating theaters and emergency rooms in Gaza as a result of frequent power outages and border restrictions.

The WHO estimates that only 50 percent of basic commercial food imports were met during the past two months. On Wednesday, thousands of Gazans streamed through a breach in the border wall with Egypt to buy food and medicines.

The Gaza strip along the Mediterranean shoreline is only nine kilometers wide and forty kilometers long, with its borders sealed on all sides. Israel cut off fuel shipments to the main power plant in Gaza last week, but has since allowed a very limited amount of diesel and medical supplies across the border.

On Tuesday, speaking in Geneva about the situation in Gaza, the UN's top human rights official Louise Arbour urged the international community to meet its due responsibility to protect civilians "in particular where and when the authorities concerned are unable or unwilling to do so."

"The people of Gaza," she continued, "look legitimately to the international community to respond with urgency and with appropriate measures to their desperate and still worsening situation."

Some of the world's leading independent human rights defenders, such as the London-based Amnesty International, have made similar calls about the need to protect the civilian population in Gaza and southern Israel.

It remains unclear, however, whether or not the Council will respond with prompt action. On Thursday, it is due to meet again to see if Washington is willing to accept what the rest of its members are saying. In the past, the US has vetoed more than 40 Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli actions.

All rights reserved, IPS - Inter Press Service (2008). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden.

*****

Here's a Reuters piece, published today in Ha'aretz:

UN rights council slams Israel's 'grave violations'
in Gaza Strip

By Reuters
Thursday January 24, 2008

The United Nations Human Rights Council said Thursday it deplored the "grave violations" being committed by Israel in Gaza, and demanded that the week-long siege of the Strip be lifted.

The 47-member council adopted a resolution presented by Arab and Muslim states by a vote of 30 states in favor and one against with 15 abstentions. One delegation was absent.

Delegations from the United States and Israel, which both have observer status at the Council, boycotted the two-day session, diplomats said.

The U.S. and Israel termed the discussion one-sided, due to the fact that it completely ignored the ongoing Qassam rocket barrages fired indiscriminately by Gaza militants at Israeli civilian communities.

Israel's envoy Itzhak Levanon dismissed the criticism as the latest in a "long history of vitriolic attacks" on his country.

"The main challenge Israel faces is to defend itself from terrorist organisations that use populated areas for cover in order to launch rockets and mortars into Israel," he said in a statement. Israel did "everything possible" to spare civilians.

Most of those abstaining from the vote were Western states, including France, Germany and Britain. UN Security Council members China and Russia supported the resolution, and Canada was the lone vote against it.

It was the third time that the Geneva forum, set up in June 2006, rebuked Israel at a special emergency session called to address conditions in the Palestinian territories.

Mohammed Abu-Koash, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN in Geneva, told the talks at a special emergency session called to address conditions in the Palestinian territories, that Israel's siege and raids in Gaza constituted "war crimes".

"We hope the resolution will trigger international pressure and action to lift the Israeli siege and restore supplies of food, fuel and medicine, open border crossings and end repeated Israeli military attacks throughout the occupied Palestinian territory," he said.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, in a speech on Wednesday, denounced Israel's "disproportionate use of force and targeted killings" as well as Palestinian militants' firing of rockets into Israel.

Arbour, a former UN war crimes prosecutor, told the forum that international law forbids collective punishment and said Israel should lift all restrictions on aid intended for Gaza.

"All parties concerned should put an end to the vicious spiral of violence before it becomes unstoppable," she warned.

Syria's ambassador Faysal Khabbaz Hamoui, speaking on behalf of Arab states and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), accused Israel of turning Gaza into a "huge prison."

"The real aim of Israel from these aggressions and crimes is to deliberately abort all Arab and international efforts to invigorate the peace process," he charged.

Egypt's envoy Sameh Shoukry, speaking for African countries, urged Arbour's office to conduct more regular visits to the Palestinian territories and report more extensively "on all violations emanating from the Israeli occupation".

*****

Here are some more recent articles about the current situation in Gaza:

The Lessons of Violence by Chris Hedges, Truthdig

Gaza's Last Gasp by Sonja Karkar, The Electronic Intifada

Gaza Seige Intensified by Mark Turner of the Research Journalism Initiative at An Najah University

And this moving piece from Amira Hass entitled "They Neither See nor Remember."

*****

Meanwhile, outlets like the New York Times and the BBC are doing their best to place the blame squarely on the Palestinians with reports like this one entitled, "Gaza's rocket threat to Israel."

And, of course, it's becoming more and more clear (to people who might not have known this all along) that unless a presidential candidate pledges his (or her) unmitigated support of Israel and its destructive agenda, he (or she) has no chance of staying in the race for new nightmarish tyrant.

Below are some bits from a report on Barack Obama's latest Zionist pandering from Ha'aretz's Shmuel Rosner (I have so far been unable to find an article about this in the American press):

RACE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE:
Gaza overlooked by U.S. voters

By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, found a short letter in his mailbox two days ago. The sender: Barack Obama. The subject: The Security Council meeting regarding the situation in Gaza.

"I urge you to ensure that a Council resolution won't pass that does not "fully condemn" the Qassam attacks on Israel," Obama wrote.

"We all are worried about the consequences of the blockade on Palestinian families. Nonetheless, we must understand why Israel is forced to do this."

[...]

Obama's letter was not meant to respond to the urgent needs of the voters, but to continue the necessary process of recent weeks: Combating the rumors that he would be a president who does not support Israel, and even worse, rumors claiming he is Muslim, and that he doesn't tend to pledge his allegiance to his country, and so on and so forth.

It is not by chance he is being photographed at more churches lately - and explicitly stating he is a Christian. It is not by chance he decided to get involved with the Gaza issue; no other campaign commented about the issue in detail Wednesday.

*****

Here is Obama's letter in full:

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condenm the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel...

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks... If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

*****

For a more detailed account of Obama's relationship with Israel, see this article from Ali Abunimah of The Electronic Intifada, entitled "How Barack Obama Learned to Love Israel."

And for excellent information about each "Democrat"ic frontrunner's positions on foreign policy, see these reports by Stephen Zunes of Foreign Policy in Focus:

Barack Obama on the Middle East: Is it wise to hope that as president, Obama would be more progressive than he is letting on?
And on Diplomacy: With his preference for diplomacy over militarism, we must neither be naïve about Barack Obama's limitations nor cynical about his potential.

Hillary Clinton on Iraq: Hillary says she wants the troops out. But does she really?
On International Law: When it comes to human rights around the world, Hillary Clinton is little more than Bush Lite.
On her military policy: There's every indication that it closely parallels that of the Bush administration.

John Edwards: The charismatic populist has staked out progressive positions on important domestic policy issues but on foreign policy, however, his record is decidedly mixed.