Bush- US Should Have Bombed Auschwitz

Please let this madness end.

President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said.

Bush emerged from a tour of the Yad Vashem memorial calling it a "sobering reminder" that evil must be resisted, and praising victims for not losing their faith.

Wearing a yarmulke, Bush placed a red-white-and-blue wreath on a stone slab that covers ashes of Holocaust victims taken from six extermination camps. He also lit a torch memorializing the victims.

Bush was visibly moved as he toured the site, said Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev.

"Twice, I saw tears well up in his eyes," Shalev said.

At one point, Bush viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz camp taken during the war by U.S. forces and called Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site, Shalev said.

US Warns Iran Over Strait of Hormuz Incident

Here we go again...

A confrontation between three U.S. Navy warships and five Iranian boats in the Strait of Hormuz almost triggered an exchange of gunfire, and if it happens again there may be a battle, the president's top security aide says.

The Pentagon released dramatic video of Sunday's encounter, which occurred in the narrow channel critical to the shipment of oil from the Persian Gulf. Iran's navy said the video was faked, according to state-run media.

U.S. national security adviser Stephen Hadley was blunt Wednesday.

"It's the kind of incident that can provoke exchange of fire," Hadley said. "And we think the Iranians need to be on notice that they are fishing in troubled waters here."

Hadley, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as President Bush headed to Israel, said, "It almost involved an exchange of fire between our forces and Iranian forces," but he stopped short of saying whether the U.S. Navy would have fired the first shots.

"This is not -- this is a provocative act, not a smart thing to do, and they're going to have to take responsibility for the consequences if they do it again," Hadley said.

Bush on Tuesday also called the confrontation "a provocative act" on Iran's part.

"It's a dangerous situation, and they should not have done it, pure and simple," Bush said during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't know what their thinking was."

White House Responds to Sinking Economy

How to ward off a recession? Tax cuts for millionaires of course!

The Bush administration, faced with a deteriorating economy and a big jump in unemployment, said Friday it was considering an economic stimulus package that might include tax cuts to ward off a recession.

Officials stressed that President Bush has not decided yet to offer a proposal but was looking at a variety of options with a plan possibly being unveiled around the time of his Jan. 28 State of the Union address.

"The president is always looking at options ... always talking to people and looking at data," Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Bush met Friday with top economic officials including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who are part of the president's working group on financial markets, a group formed after the 1987 stock market crash to monitor markets.

The president was given an assessment of how the economy is behaving and how financial markets are performing after the severe credit squeeze that hit in August. A number of big financial institutions have declared multibillon-dollar losses because of rising defaults in the subprime mortgage market.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said tax cuts were an option being considered.

Bush in his first term included a tax refund of up to $300 per person to combat the impact of the 2001 recession. Private economists said another round of tax cuts would be the best approach to get money to people who would spend it.

Some suggested a one-year tax rebate of $500 might provide a sufficient shot-in-the-arm for the economy. But they stressed that the proposal would have to be passed quickly.

So how did you lift the economy with that $300 you got way back when? And now we may get $500. Gee, thanks! The crumbs that they throw at us peons are laughable when you see what the really rich receive in these scams.

The Obama Girls to Bush- You're So Lame

A special holiday messsage from Barely Political. Enjoy...

Black Site Survivor Relates Horrific Tale

A sad look at our new centers of 'freedom and liberty'.

"Black Site" Survivor Relates Horrific Tale
Enforced disappearance and torture at several CIA "black sites"

NEW YORK, Dec 19 (IPS) - As human right lawyers sought to block U.S government efforts to stop a lawsuit against a Boeing subsidiary accused of flying detainees to "black sites" where they were tortured, a legal advocacy group published the first testimony of a victim of the Central Intelligence Agency's "enhanced interrogation" programme.

In the first-ever report of its kind, the Centre for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University School of Law released a firsthand account of a survivor of enforced disappearance and torture at several CIA "black sites". The 63-page report, "Surviving the Darkness: Testimony from the U.S. 'Black Sites'", is an in-depth account of a former CIA detainee's experience in his own words.

The bone-chilling narrative tells the story of Mohamed Farag Ahmad Bashmilah, a Yemeni national who spent more than a year and a half in the CIA's secret detention programme. He was never charged with a terrorism-related crime.

The CHRGJ charges that Bashmilah was "illegally detained by the Jordanian intelligence service in October 2003, tortured into signing a false confession, and then handed over to an American rendition team."

The group says he spent the next 18 months in the U.S. secret detention network -- in sites believed to be in Afghanistan and possibly Eastern Europe. In May 2005, he was transferred to the custody of the Yemen government, which held him in proxy detention at the behest of the U.S. until he was put on trial and finally released in March 2006.

Bashmilah's story was made public as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed legal papers opposing the CIA's attempt to throw out a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. for its participation in the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme.

The ACLU charged that the U.S. government is improperly invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid judicial scrutiny of this unlawful policy.

Steven Watt, an attorney with the ACLU's Human Rights Programme, told IPS, "Five men have been brutally abused with the help of a U.S. corporation, and they are entitled to their day in court."

"Jeppesen must not be given a free pass for its profitable participation in a torture programme," he said. "And the government should not be allowed to use the national security defence as a way to cover up its mistakes or, worse, its egregious abuses of human rights."

The ACLU filing comes in a lawsuit brought on behalf of five victims of the rendition programme who were kidnapped and secretly transferred by the CIA to U.S.-run overseas prisons or foreign intelligence agencies where they were interrogated and tortured.

According to the lawsuit, Jeppesen knowingly provided flight planning and essential logistical support to aircraft and crew used by the CIA for the clandestine rendition flights.

After the lawsuit was filed, the U.S. government intervened to seek its dismissal, contending that further litigation of the case would be harmful to national security. But the ACLU contends that the information needed to pursue this lawsuit, including details about the rendition programme, is already in the public domain.

It adds, "Jeppesen's involvement in the programme is also a matter of public record. It has been confirmed by extensive documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony, including the sworn declaration of a former senior Jeppesen employee, which was submitted in support of the ACLU filing."

In recent years, the government has asserted the once-rare "state secrets" claim with increasing regularity in an attempt to throw out lawsuits and justify withholding information from the public not only about the rendition programme, but also about illegal wiretapping, torture, and other breaches of U.S. and international law.

It has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court last reviewed the use of the "state secrets" privilege. The Supreme Court recently refused to review the "state secrets" privilege in a lawsuit brought by Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen also represented by the ACLU, who was kidnapped and rendered to detention, interrogation, and torture in a CIA "black site" prison in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, more than 250 people once held in Iraqi prisons, including Abu Ghraib, have filed suit against a U.S. military contractor for alleged torture of detainees. The Centre for Constitutional Rights filed the lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages against CACI International Inc. of Arlington, Virginia.

The complaint alleges that CACI interrogators who were sent to Iraqi prisons directed and engaged in torture between 2003 and 2004. The lawsuit charges that the detainees were repeatedly beaten, sodomised, threatened with rape, kept naked in their cells, subjected to electric shock and attacked by unmuzzled dogs, among other humiliations.

The court action also names two CACI employees -- Stephen Stefanowski, known as "Big Steve", and Daniel Johnson, known as "DJ" -- accusing them of participating in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The suit alleges that the two CACI contractors directed Corporal Charles Graner and Sergeant Ivan Frederick. Graner was sentenced to 10 years in prison for this role in the Abu Ghraib scandal; Frederick is serving an eight-year jail term.

"These corporate guys worked in a conspiracy with those military guys to torture people," said Susan Burke, the lead attorney in the case.

"And now the military have been held accountable, but the company guys and the company have not been," she said.

The legal status of U.S. private contractors in Iraq and elsewhere abroad remains cloudy. The Iraqi government says they should be subject to Iraqi law, a position rejected by the U.S. It remains unclear whether they are subject to U.S. law. No U.S. court has yet decided a relevant case, though lawsuits have been brought against a number of contractors, including Blackwater, whose employees are accused of killing 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians in a shooting incident in September.

In the CACI case, to the surprise of some legal observers, the government did not intervene on behalf of the contractors and the court ruled that the litigation could go forward.

In a related development, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Pakistan's military and intelligence agencies, "apparently trying to avoid acknowledging an elaborate secret detention system, have quietly set free nearly 100 men suspected of links to terrorism, few of whom were charged."

Human rights groups in Pakistan say those released are some of the nearly 500 Pakistanis presumed to have disappeared into the hands of the Pakistani intelligence agencies cooperating with Washington's fight against terrorism since 2001.

The Times reported that no official reason has been given for the releases. But it quoted Pakistani sources as saying that as pressure has mounted to bring the cases into the courts, "the government has decided to jettison some suspects and spare itself the embarrassment of having to reveal that people have been held on flimsy evidence in the secret system."

Among those pressing to bring the cases into court was the chief justice of Pakistan's Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. He was dismissed by President Pervez Musharraf and remains in detention, although Musharraf last Saturday lifted the state of emergency he imposed in November.

The Times reported that the prisoner releases were "particularly galling to lawyers" because Musharraf had accused the courts of being soft on terrorists, and had used that claim as one justification for imposing emergency rule.

Listen to this Democracy Now clip that aired this week. It's chilling tale by a man who had the misfortune of being picked up and detained by the CIA.

Bush Demands Freedom to Torture

After declaring a million times that "We don't torture", why would Bush veto a House bill that requires that intelligence services follow the Army Field Manual when dealing with detainees?

President Bush's repeated insistence that "we don't torture" appeared even more transparently bogus yesterday as the White House threatened to veto a House bill that would explicitly ban a variety of abhorrent practices.

The bill would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow interrogation rules adopted by the armed forces last year.

What does that mean? As Pamela Hess writes for the Associated Press, those rules explicitly prohibit "forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; placing hoods or sacks over detainees' heads or duct tape over their eyes; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; threatening them with military dogs; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding."

Administration officials have consistently refused to confirm or deny whether any of those methods have been sanctioned by the White House and are in use. But really all you need to know is this: According to yesterday's formal statement of administration policy, limiting intelligence agencies to the army rules "would prevent the United States from conducting lawful interrogations of senior al Qaeda terrorists to obtain intelligence needed to protect Americans from attack."

I have heard people trying to defend this abhorrent practice, but the fact is torture is wrong and torture is illegal. I remember wondering how things in 1930's Germany were allowed to happen, but sadly I think I understand all too well now.

Veto of Spending Bill Is Threatened

Here we go again.

The White House budget director warned on Saturday that President Bush was prepared to veto a $500 billion spending package being assembled in Congress if Democrats pushed for too much additional money for domestic programs.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, accused Democrats of trying to tie money for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to what the president considers excessive spending for federal agencies and home-state projects.

“Instead of trying to leverage troop-funding for more pork-barrel spending, Congress ought to pass responsible appropriations bills and the funding for the troops our commanders say they need to build on their battlefield success,” Mr. Nussle said.

Democratic leaders accused the White House of responding hastily to news accounts of the proposal, which is being developed behind closed doors. They said Democrats were determined to devote more resources to national needs like homeland security and law enforcement.

This is absolutely absurd. The Republicans are all over themselves screaming about fiscal responsibility and taking care of the 'people's money' while in the same breath screaming for more unaccountable funds to be sent to the money pit in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is truly amazing that more people haven't caught on to their con by now.

It wasn't that long ago that the Republicans in Congress were spending money like there was no tomorrow. The bloated Highway Bill, passed in 2005, is a perfect example. Let's take a look back.

Even by the standards of Alaska, the land where schemes and dreams come for new life, two bridges approved under the national highway bill passed by the House last week are monuments to the imagination.

One, here in Ketchikan, would be among the biggest in the United States: a mile long, with a top clearance of 200 feet from the water -- 80 feet higher than the Brooklyn Bridge and just 20 feet short of the Golden Gate Bridge. It would connect this economically depressed, rain-soaked town of 7,845 people to an island that has about 50 residents and the area's airport, which offers six flights a day (a few more in summer). It could cost about $200 million.

The other bridge would span an inlet for nearly two miles to tie Anchorage to a port that has a single regular tenant and almost no homes or businesses. It would cost up to $2 billion.

Republicans screaming about the 'people's money'? Hardly! As Rep. Don Young (R) Alaska said at the time,

''I'd like to be a little oinker, myself,'' Mr. Young told a Republican lunch crowd here, taking mock offense at the suggestion that Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, directs more pork to their state than he does. ''If he's the chief porker, I'm upset.''

And did Bush go to the fainting couch protesting about the pork laden bill? Hardly! As he said at the time of the signing at a Caterpillar plant

"If we want people working in America, we got to make sure our highways and roads are modern," Mr. Bush said. "We've got to bring up this transportation system into the 21st century."

"I mean, you can't expect your farmers to be able to get goods to market if we don't have a good road system," he said. "You can't expect to get these Caterpillar products all around the United States if we don't have a good road system."

And the con job continues...

Keith Olbermann on the Iran NIE Report

What to say? Keith Olbermann sums it up quite well...

The Bleak Outlook- A Recession Looms

Even as Bush touts the 'strong' economy today, others have quite a different view.

U.S. corporate profits are in a recession, and the entire economy might not be far behind.

Slower sales and higher costs for energy and labor are forcing companies like Bear Stearns and Pitney Bowes to reduce spending and hiring. Their efforts to keep earnings from eroding even further raise the risk that the U.S. economy, already weakened by the steepest housing slide since 1991, could shrink sometime next year.

"The earnings recession has already arrived," said David Rosenberg, North America economist in New York for Merrill Lynch. "We are going to see an economic recession in '08."

Corporate profits, as measured by the Commerce Department, fell at an annual rate of $19.3 billion in the third quarter from the second, as domestic earnings dropped by $41.2 billion.

The fourth quarter may be an even bigger bust.

"In the third quarter, the tide shifted, and for the worse," said Joseph Quinlan, chief market strategist for Bank of America. "The domestic profits squeeze is in its early stages and will be severe enough to overwhelm strong foreign earnings."

Shock Doctrine- US in Iraq for Years?

I read with interest bit no surprise yesterday that Bush and Iraqi PM al-Maliki had signed a long term 'agreement' committing American forces in Iraq for years. The stated purpose was to protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup plots and foreign enemies. The corrupt Iraqi government, no matter how unpopular, will be protected by its puppet masters in Washington for years to come.

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations."

What really caught my attention in the whole story was this little detail:

U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last.

The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.

That is the real story here. We are going to prop up a puppet government in Iraq, commit our armed forces for years and continue to pay taxpayer subsidized private armies all to make Iraq safe for U.S. companies in Iraq. Was this the intention all along? Grab a foothold in the Middle East to project U.S. power through the region and have access to the many resources that are there?

As a side, I am reminded once again of Naomi Klein, author of Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Take a look at this video and how it relates to what we see today.

Manufacturing Consent for World War 3

The role of the media in conjuring up support for war was on clear display in the run up to the Iraq War. Now, four years later, we see the same game being played in an ever building hostile environment with regards to Iran. The following piece, written by Michael Barker, is an excellent analysis of the role that the media plays in shaping public opinion on some of the most important issues of our day.

“When President Bush used an October 17 [2007] White House press conference to threaten that the escalating US confrontation with Iran posed a danger of ‘World War III’ his remark was passed over in silence by most of the media. Those that did report it seemed, for the most part, to accept the White House claim that the president was engaging in hyperbole and merely making a ‘rhetorical point.’” Bill Van Auken (2007).

The key role the mainstream media plays in manufacturing public consent for elite decision makers has a long and inglorious history that has wreaked havoc on progressive aspirations for the development a truly democratic globa l p olity. While the antidemocratic implications of Manufacturing Consent were first popularized in the late 1980s by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s (1988) classic book of the same title, the methods of manufacturing public consent were honed much earlier by communications researchers participating in the seminal (Rockefeller Foundation funded) Communications Group, and many of the founding fathers of mass communication research.[1] Given the high level of involvement of mass communications researchers in refining the means by which to manufacture consent, it is little wonder that recent studies provide ample evidence illustrating the US government’s ability to exploit the system-supportive tendencies of the mainstream media to justify overt wars and cover-up covert wars,[2] distract attention from their support (throughout the Cold War) of right-wing terrorist armies in every European country,[3] legitimize controversial ‘humanitarian’ interventions,[4] play down genocides in which their government is implicated, and manufacture public consent for economic sanctions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.[5] More recent events (post 9/11) also demonstrate how a relentless propaganda campaign waged through the American media was able to persuade a significant proportion of the domestic population that the destruction of Afghanistan and Iraq was both necessary and justified.[6]

Thus considering the historical willingness of the US media to propound antidemocratic elite propaganda, it is entirely predicable that the media would play an integral role in manufacturing the next perceived threat to international stability, that is, the Iranian ‘threat’. As Marjorie Cohn (2007) notes: “It’s déja vu. This time the Bush gang wants war with Iran. Following a carefully orchestrated strategy, they have ratcheted up the ‘threat’ from Iran, designed to mislead us into a new war four years after they misled us into Iraq.” John Pilger (2007) adds that this ‘threat’ is “entirely manufactured, aided and abetted by familiar, compliant media language that refers to Iran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’, just as the vocabulary of Saddam’s non-existent WMD arsenal became common usage.”

It is then unfortunate to note that international attention is now firmly fixated on the Iranian ‘threat.’ Furthermore, given the success of the Bush administration’s most recent propaganda offensives, which have led to the destruction and ongoing occupation of both Afghanistan and Iraq, there is little reason to doubt that the American government does not have similar plans for Iran. In an earlier study I documented how the ostensibly democratic US-based National Endowment of Democracy has funnelled money to Iranian groups and media projects in an attempt to overthrow the Iranian government from within. However, in an attempt to counter the US government’s ongoing propaganda initiatives, this article will review how the mass media is manufacturing public consent for yet another illegal war by examining the work of radical mass media critics.

Mediating the Path to World War III

“…we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” President Bush, October 17, 2007.

(For a useful commentary on this statement, see Cuban Missile Crisis Redux)

Judging by the ongoing discussions in both the mainstream and alternative (progressive) media, it is apparent that, one way or the other, the US (and its coalition of willing cronies) has its sights firmly set on bringing regime change to Iran. So far, for the most part, the alternative media has focused on the nuclear threat posed by the Middle East’s most dangerous lawbreaker, Israel. The mainstream media, however, has persistently and erroneously portrayed Iran as the ‘real’ nuclear threat. Even Britain’s so-called liberal media is demonstrating its ability to manufacture consent for elite interests, with the BBC recently devoting an entire (Israeli-made) documentary to the issue of the Iranian problem, ironically titled Will Israel bomb Iran? This is not really surprising, as the governments guilty of involvement are heavily reliant on the mainstream media’s willingness to legitimize their ‘war on terror’, which in turn, could turn out to be the catalyst for an illegal and catastrophic foreign intervention in Iran (and thereby a catalyst for a global war).

In a manner which is eerily reminiscent of the mainstream media’s focus on Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, Dmitriy Sedov (2007) notes that in Iran’s case the media similarly “never stop[s] debating the issue of the ‘Iranian atomic bomb’”. Indeed John Pilger (2007) points out that “[w]e are being led towards perhaps the most serious crisis in modern history as the Bush-Cheney-Blair ‘long war’ edges closer to Iran for no reason other than that nation’s independence from rapacious America.” However, as Pilger notes, despite the proximity of this crisis:

“…there is a surreal silence, save for the noise of ‘news’ in which our powerful broadcasters gesture cryptically at the obvious but dare not make sense of it, lest the one-way moral screen erected between us and the consequences of an imperial foreign policy collapse and the truth be revealed.”

This phenomenon was well documented by Edward S. Herman (2006), who as early as March last year wrote:

“Today’s big news is the possibility that Iran, the Little Satan, might some day acquire a nuclear weapon: the administration says so, the media say so, and now three times as many people regard Iran as the U.S.’s greatest menace than four months ago and 47 percent of the public agrees that Iran should be bombed if needed to prevent its acquiring any nuclear weapon capability.”

In August 2007, Noam Chomsky pointed out that “[w]ithout irony, the Bush administration and the media charge that Iran is ‘meddling’ in Iraq”. Unfortunately:

“…Washington’s propaganda framework is reflexively accepted, apparently without notice, in US and other Western commentary and reporting, apart from the marginal fringe of what is called ‘the loony left.’ What is considered ‘criticism’ is skepticism as to whether all of Washington’s charges about Iranian aggression in Iraq are true. It might be an interesting research project to see how closely the propaganda of Russia, Nazi Germany, and other aggressors and occupiers matched the standards of today’s liberal press and commentators.

…

“The rhetoric about Iran has escalated to the point where both political parties and practically the whole US press accept it as legitimate and, in fact, honorable, that ‘all options are on the table,’ to quote Hillary Clinton and everybody else, possibly even nuclear weapons. ‘All options on the table’ means that Washington threatens war.”

War, Propaganda, the Corporate Media, and the BBC?

Herman (2006) outlines Twelve Principles of Propaganda Used in Setting the Stage for War in Iran, which in summary (without his accompanying evidence) are (1) that the US “has the legal and moral right” to lead the international community in stopping Iran’s nuclear program, (2) that countries targeted by US foreign policy elites should not be allowed the right to defend themselves, (3) to exaggerate the dangers posed by Iran’s eventual development of nuclear weapons, (4) to engage in “unrelenting demonization” of the said target, (5) to exclude any discussion of US relations with countries more deserving of the “demon status” that has been ascribed to Iran (also see here), (6) to underplay/ignore historical actions/relationships with Iran “that might show both hypocrisy and the fraudulence of the claimed threat”, (7) to underplay/ignore recent US actions that “might appear incompatible with its harsh stand opposing Iran’s pursuing any nuclear program” (8) that the US does not need to apply the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to its own actions, but can still “alter the terms of the NPT as it applies to its target”, (9) that “if the target cannot prove a negative, the severity of the threat to U.S. ‘national security’ requires that Iran be bombed and that there be a change in regime to one that can be trusted (like that of the Shah of Iran, or Sharon, or Musharraf)”, (10) to manipulate the “mechanisms of international regulation linked to the UN to serve the war and goal of regime change” – for a detailed treatment of this subject, see Herman and David Peterson (2007) (11) to maintain that the need to deal with the “Iran threat is based on a universal worry, and does not reflect U.S. power and the attempts to appease that power”, and (12) to dismiss any other hidden geostrategic interests that the U.S. may be pursuing in the Middle East. (Of course, as part and parcel of these propaganda principles the media also routinely engage in distributing outright disinformation.) Just a few months after Herman’s prescient analysis, Herman and Peterson (2006) concluded that:

“…the mainstream media have followed the party line on the Iran ‘crisis’ and failed almost without exception to note the problems and deal with matters raised in the alternative frames. Remarkably, despite their acknowledged massive failures as news organizations and de facto propaganda service for the Bush administration in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, with the administration refocusing on the new dire threat from Iran it took the mainstream media no time whatsoever to fall into party-line formation-from which they have not deviated.”

Like many media scholars who study the US media system, the noticeable contrast between the US media environment and other slightly more democratic media outlets overseas leads Herman (2006) to highlight the existence of dissenting voices in the British media: thus he notes that “[t]he ‘Drumbeat sounds familiar’ to Simon Tisdall in the London Guardian (March 7, 2006), but not to the servants of power in the U.S. media.”[7] However, even though some parts of the British media – like the Guardian and BBC – are often rated highly by American media analysts for their progressive credentials, some British-based researchers actually surmise that these so-called Left-orientated media outlets still serve to manufacture public consent for elite interests by setting distinct boundaries on the limits of acceptable dissent (see http://www.medialens.org).[8] On this point, Medialens writers David Edwards and David Cromwell (2007) suggest that: “There are glimmers of conscience in the [British] libera l p ress where journalists just cannot help but notice the echoes of 2002-2003 ahead of the Iraq catastrophe”, but Edwards and Cromwell still conclude that “the key point is that the liberal media are fully participating in the demonisation of Iran”.

As early as January 2005, Medialens drew attention to the BBC’s role in the propaganda offensive against Iran, while by February 2006, Medialens led off a follow-up article by noting that Timothy Garton Ash writing in the ‘liberal’ broadsheet the Guardian wrote: “Now we face the next big test of the west: after Iraq, Iran.” Furthermore, just a few months later Medialens demonstrated how the BBC had distorted an Amnesty International press release in their ongoing efforts to demonise Iran, and concluded their article by asking the following poignant questions:


“Why did the BBC decide to focus so prominently and heavily on Iran – a country under serious threat of attack by the United States and perhaps Britain? Why would the BBC choose to isolate and highlight the sins of an official enemy, thereby boosting the government’s propaganda campaign? Is this innocent, or are more cynical forces at work here?”

(Click here to read more about this case and to read the BBC’s response to Medialens.)


Of course a group like Medialens which has limited resources can only ever hope to document a smaller proportion of the British (‘liberal’) media’s servility to power, but nonetheless they have produced another two media-alerts this year concerning British media coverage of Iranian affairs, these being Iran in Iraq: The Art of Instant Forgetting (see related FAIR article), and Pentagon Propaganda Occupies the Guardian’s Frontpage (also see their follow-up article). For another recent discussion of the warmongering role of the British ‘liberal’ media, see Britain’s Channel Four Propaganda Machine Now Churning for Iran War, which describes the grilling that Channel Four presenter, Jon Snow, gave to President Ahmadinejad in September 2007.

Similarly, British-based Media Workers Against the War (MWAW) have highlighted the BBC’s role in building the case for a war on Iran, and have even held protests outside of their broadcasting studios. In June 2006, MWAW noted that BBC Radio Four’s flagship current affairs programme, Today, “paid lip service of [sic] ‘balance’ while presenting the debate over Iran in such a way as to legitimise a US military response”. Again, this news should not be overly surprising, as earlier academic studies have already concluded that the BBC had “displayed the most pro-war agenda of any [British] broadcaster” in the lead-up to Iraq’s destruction.[9]

In another MWAW (2007) report, this time pertaining to the media coverage of the recent so-called ‘hostage’ crisis, a journalist from the Financial Times described how his newspaper purposely chose to use the word detainees not hostages to describe the 15 British navy personnel recently held in Iran for 13 days. Crucially this thoughtful journalist was most concerned about how the broadsheets switched from using the word “detainees/captives” to “hostages” “after George W. Bush demanded on March 31 that ‘The Iranians must give back the hostages’”. Again this revelation should not be surprising to any scholars familiar with the vital role the so-called liberal media plays in supporting illegal foreign interventions.[10] So it should be expected that Anthony DiMaggio’s (2007) examination of the media coverage of the detainment crisis (in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post) led him to conclude that as Herman and Chomsky’s “propaganda model suggests, American reporters have faithfully taken to the role of an unofficia l p ropaganda arm for the state”.

More News on the March Towards War

More recently DiMaggio (2007), in another excellent article, has demonstrated how the Washington Post exhibited “a pattern of deception, one-sidedness, and manipulation” in its (mis)reporting on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons. In his review of “over 230 Post news stories, 31 editorials, and 58 op-eds from 2003 through 2007” he demonstrated:

“…that assertions suggesting Iran may or is developing nuclear weapons appeared twice as often as claims or assertions that Iran is not or may not be developing such weapons. The paper’s op-eds and editorials are even more slanted, as 90% of editorials and 93% of op-eds suggest Iran is developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to 0% of editorials and 16% of op-eds suggesting Iran may not be developing such weapons. Belligerent rhetoric is also used far more often in regards to the Iranian ‘threat’ (of which there is no evidence of to date) than to the far larger U.S. and Israeli military threat to Iran (which has been announced vocally and shamelessly over and over throughout the American and Israeli press). Belligerent terms are applied twice as often in regards to Iranian development of nuclear weapons. Such terms, portray Iran as a ‘threat,’ and discuss the ‘fear’ invoked by a potentially nuclear armed Iran, as well as the ‘danger’ of such a development – as contrasted with similar references to a U.S. ‘threat,’ to the ‘fear’ of a U.S. or Israeli attack, or the ‘danger’ both countries pose to Iran.”

DiMaggio’s research also determined that while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was mentioned in the majority of the Washington Post’s editorials (and 29% of the time in its op-eds), “the IAEA’s actual conclusion that there is ‘no evidence’ Iran is developing nuclear weapons” is reported in just one editorial and one op-ed. He goes on to note that:

“References to the fact that it was the U.S. itself that originally supported Iranian uranium enrichment show up in just 1% of the Post’s news stories, and in just 3% of all op-eds, and none of the paper’s editorials. The same goes for admissions that the United States is undertaking a similar project of enriching its own uranium for use in a new generation of American nuclear weapons (the major distinction, however, is that the U.S. openly admits to its project, while Iran has admitted to no such program). The very activity that U.S. leaders are condemning Iran for secretly pursuing is arrogantly advocated and pursued by the United States (the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons on civilians), although one wouldn't know any of this from looking at the coverage.”

With the release of the IAEA’s most recent (nine page report) released in mid-November, Farideh Farhi (2007) discussed the “interestingly partial way various news organizations and governments end up interpreting or representing the report to audiences they are sure will not read the reports themselves.” Farhi critiques the misreporting of the New York Times, Associated Press, and the Washington Post, and concludes his piece by noting that a BBC piece titled Mixed UN Nuclear Report for Iran although with some shortcomings was at least able to give “a relatively accurate description of the issues involved.” In fact, as the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII) illustrated in May 2007, there are at least “twenty reasons to oppose sanctions and military intervention in Iran”, and:

“Contrary to the myth created by the western media, it is not Iran, but the US and its European allies which are defying the overwhelming majority of the international community, in that, they have resisted the call to enter into direct, immediate and comprehensive negotiations with Iran without any pre-conditions.”

A couple of months later, in July 2007, CASMII went on to criticise the Financial Times over the publication of an article that made “unfounded allegations about Iranian government’s complicity with Al-Qaeda launching terrorist operations in Iraq, using Iranian territory.” (The article in question was titled Al-Qaeda linked to operations from Iran.)

Finally, in September 2007, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the US to address the United Nations General Assembly, the corporate media was on form again, ready to leap at any opportunity to vigorously thump the drum for war: indeed media analyst Deepa Kumar (2007) described the treatment of Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York as “xenophobic and hysterical”.[11] Ironically, in sharp contrast to the harsh treat Ahmadinejad’s visit provoked from the US media, Edward S. Herman (2007) reminds us that:

“In February 1955, the Shah of Iran was a guest at Columbia [University] receiving an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and he, like Musharraf, was greeted deferentially by Grayson Kirk and gave a well-received speech featuring an accolade to the U.S. ‘policy of peace backed by strength.’ The New York Times also noted that the Shah was ‘impressed by the desire of Americans for a secure and enduring peace’ (‘Shah Praises U.S. For Peace Policy,’ NYT, February 5, 1955). This was, of course, just a few months after the United States had overthrown the elected government of Guatemala via a proxy army and had installed a regime of permanent terror.”

Concluding Thoughts

In the case of the mainstream media’s recent coverage of Iranian issues it is perhaps uncontroversial to suggest that the media are conforming to Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s (1988) Propaganda Model by demonstrating their willingness to manufacture of mass consent for elite interests. Of course, this democratic deficit of the mainstream media is particularly noticeable to any regular readers/viewers of the alternative press, as the latter’s stories are almost unrecognizable when contrasted with their mainstream counterparts. That said, like the mainstream media’s coverage of Iranian issues, the alternative media has concentrated almost all of its energy into analysing the ongoing (and potential nuclear) military operations in the Middle East.[12] This is problematic because military threats and interventions (both overt and covert) are only one among many instruments available to the imperial architects of US foreign policy to promote regime change in Iran. As discussed earlier, a relative newcomer to the armoury of foreign policy elites is the use of democracy itself as a tool of foreign policy, a tool which is arguably one of the most potent weapons in the war of ideas waged by policy elites against progressive activists. Nevertheless despite the minimal coverage of such ‘democratic’ tactics, World War III still lurks on the horizon, and as Jean Bricmont (2007) summarised this September:

“All the ideological signposts for attacking Iran are in place. The country has been thoroughly demonized because it is not nice to women, to gays, or to Jews. That in itself is enough to neutralize a large part of the American ‘left’. The issue of course is not whether Iran is nice or not – according to our views – but whether there is any legal reason to attack it, and there is none; but the dominant ideology of human rights has legitimized, specifically in the left, the right of intervention on humanitarian grounds anywhere, at any time, and that ideology has succeeded in totally sidetracking the minor issue of international law.”

To work to defeat the propaganda war (not to mention the military war) on Iran, it is essential that citizens around the world develop the know-how to see through the propaganda veil that has been cast over Iranian affairs. For example. to counter the influence of best-selling authors like neoconservative-linked Azar Nafisi – (in)famous for writing Reading Lolita in Tehran – concerned citizens would do well to help publicise more honest books dealing with Iranian affairs like Fatemeh Keshavarz’s (2007) recent book Jasmine and Stars: Reading More than Lolita in Tehran. (See interview with the author here, and also read Hamid Dabashi’s (2006) important critique of Nafisi’s work). However, at the end of the day it is vital that al l p eople, with even a passing interest in the foreign affairs of their elected governments, work to create a media that can support democratic principles, not undermine them. This can be done in a number of ways but of course providing financial support for independent media outlets is a must. This is because as Robert McChesney (1997) points out: “regardless of what a progressive group’s first issue of importance is, its second issue should be media and communication, because so long as the media are in corporate hands, the task of social change will be vastly more difficult, if not impossible, across the board.”[13]

Michael Barker is a doctoral candidate at Griffith University, Australia. He can be reached at Michael.J.Barker [at] griffith.edu.au and some of his other articles can be found here.

Endnotes

[1] Barker, M.J. (Submitted) ‘The Liberal Foundations of Media Reform? Creating Sustainable Funding Opportunities for Radical Media Reform’, Global Media Journal.

[2] Herman, E. S. and N. Chomsky (1988) Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. New York: Pantheon Books; Keeble, R. (1997) Secret State, Silent Press: New Militarism, the Gulf and the Modern Image of Warfare. Bedfordshire, U.K.: John Libbey Media Faculty of Media University of Luton; Molwana, H., G. Gerbner and H. I. Schiller (1992) Triumph of the Image: The Media’s War in the Persian Gulf : A Global Perspective. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

[3] Also see Danielle Ganser’s online articles Secret Warfare: Operation Gladio and NATO's Stay-Behind Army, and Terrorism in Western Europe: An Approach to NATO’s Secret Stay-Behind Armies.

[4] Hammond, P. and E. S. Herman (2000) Degraded Capability: The Media and the Kosovo Crisis. London: Pluto Press; Robinson, P. (2000) ‘The Policy-Media Interaction Model: Measuring Media Power During Humanitarian Crisis’, Journal of Peace Research, 37(5): 613-633.

[5] Herring, E. (2004) ‘Power, Propaganda and Indifference: An Explanation of the Maintenance of Economic Sanctions on Iraq Despite Their Human Cost’, pp. 34-56 in T. Y. Ismael & W. W. Haddad (eds) Iraq: The Human Cost of History. London: Pluto Press.

[6] Friel, H. and R. A. Falk (2004) The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy. London: Verso; Kumar, D. (2006) ‘Media, War, and Propaganda: Strategies of Information Management During the 2003 Iraq War’, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 3(1): 48-69; Miller, D. (2004) Tell Me Lies: Propaganda and Media Distortion in the Attack on Iraq. London: Pluto.

[7] Writing for the US-based mediawatchdog FAIR, Norman Solomon has been busily documenting the US media propaganda war against Iran, see Nuclear Fundamentalism and the Iran Story (5/5/05), The Iran Crisis: “Diplomacy” as a Launch Pad for Missiles (2/6/06), Media Tall Tales for the Next War (9/26/06). Also see FAIR’s Buying the Bush Line on Iran Nukes: Despite uncertainty, U.S. journalists take sides (September/October 2005), Won't Get Fooled Again? NYT, networks offer scant skepticism on Iran claims (2/2/07), and NYT Breaks Own Anonymity Rules: Paper pushes Iran threat with one-sided array of unnamed officials (2/16/07).

[8] McKiggan, M. 2005. Climate Change and the Mass Media: A Critical Analysis. Unpublished MSc thesis, Southampton University.

[9] Cited in Pilger, J. (2003) ‘The BBC and Iraq: Myth and Reality’, New Statesman, December 4, 2003; Wells, M. (2003) ‘Study Deals a Blow to Claims of Anti-War Bias in BBC News’, The Guardian, July 4, 2003.

[10] Edwards, D. and D. Cromwell (2006) Guardians of Power: The Myth of the Liberal Media. London: Pluto Press; Friel, H. and R. A. Falk (2004) The Record of the Paper: How the New York Times Misreports US Foreign Policy. London: Verso; Klaehn, J. (2005) Filtering the News: Essays on Herman and Chomsky's Propaganda Model. Montreal: Black Rose Books.

[11] It is also not so surprising that amongst the protestors (which the media called a “large anti-Iran protest movement”) based outside of Columbia University during Ahmadinejad’s visit “were in fact anti-war protestors demanding an end to US threats directed against Iran.”

[12] Some progressive commentators like Gabriel Kolko (2007) argue that a war with Iran is unlikely.

[13] McChesney, R. W. (1997) Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy. New York: Seven Stories Press, p.71.

Court Dismisses Legal Challenge Against Musharraf

Wow- what a surprise!

Moscow Warns NATO Against Military Build-Up

And to think that I was naive enough to believe at one time that the Cold War was really over. It should come as no surprise that nothing substantial has really changed over the years. NATO, a cold war relic which should have been dismantled along with the Warsaw Pact, is ever growing. Missile defense shield? Oh, let's stick that in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow won't mind!

On the Russian side, the rhetoric has heated up as well. This past Tuesday, Putin held a meeting with his country's top military brass. Here is what he had to say:

Moscow warns NATO against military build-up targeting Russia

by Simon Saradzhyan

President Vladimir Putin told an annual gathering of the nation's military top brass Tuesday that an appropriate response to "muscle-flexing" by NATO is crucial when setting guidelines for development of the armed forces.

Addressing the annual gathering as commander in chief for the last time before his term ends in May, Putin accused NATO of encroaching on Russia's borders "in violation of previous agreements."

"Military resources of NATO members are being built up next to our borders," Putin told top commanders at the Defense Ministry's headquarters in central Moscow. "Of course, we cannot allow ourselves to remain indifferent to this obvious muscle-flexing."

Putin did not specify which countries' militaries are in violation of previous agreements, but said the Kremlin's plan to suspend participation in the adapted Conventional Forces in Europe treaty was part of an "adequate response."

The treaty, which a number of NATO members including East European countries have not joined, regulates the deployment of non-nuclear weapons such as aircraft and tanks around Europe. NATO insists that Russia first make good on a pledge to withdraw troops from Georgia and Moldova before joining the treaty. The Kremlin has rejected the demands, and Putin announced earlier this year that Russia would suspend its participation in this key treaty -- a suspension set to come into effect on Dec. 13.

"Some of our partners have not only failed to ratify but didn't even sign the treaty. ... Russia will consider the question of resuming its obligations as soon as they have joined the adapted treaty and, most importantly, begun complying with it," Putin said, according to a transcript of the speech posted on the Kremlin's web site.

Notably, Putin did not voice another of Russia's top security grievances vis-a-vis the West: U.S. plans to deploy elements of a global missile defense system in Eastern Europe. He did lament, however, that Russia's calls to NATO to build a joint missile defense system "with equal access for all participants" remain unheeded.

Putin touted progress made in strengthening Russia's response to NATO's expansion in the form of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a Moscow-led defense alliance comprising several former Soviet republics. He also praised the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which unites China, Russia and several Central Asian republics and which Moscow sees as an instrument to deter expansion of Western influence in Central Asia.

Putin, who served as an officer in the KGB's foreign intelligence arm during the Cold War, also outlined his vision for the development of the armed forces, saying the development of strategic nuclear forces should be a priority.

"They should be ready to give a quick and adequate response to any aggressor," he said. Conventional forces, he added, "should seek new forms of neutralizing threats at early stages."

Putin, who is heading up United Russia's federal ticket in the Dec. 2 State Duma elections, also used his speech to plug populist perks for the military. He said monthly salaries for servicemen will increase by 15 percent next month and reiterated his recent vow to pay all arrears to military pensioners, which will cost the federal budget billions of rubles.

In another populist gesture Putin gave a public -- if misguided -- scolding to a senior general responsible for health issues in the military, demanding an improvement in the quality of housing for soldiers.

"Our officers should no longer live in stinking slums," he said, adding that officers without housing -- who number 150,000 -- should be provided with adequate housing by 2012.

The Defense Ministry's health service is not responsible for military housing.

Putin's speech was followed by a report from Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, who assured Putin that the commissioning of strategic nuclear weapons is being carried out "strictly" on schedule, Interfax reported.

Serdyukov boasted of an intensification of combat training, with around 300 war games conducted this year, and said the military would conduct a strategic exercise called Stability 2008 next year, focusing on stamping out armed conflicts "along the perimeter" of Russian borders, Interfax reported.

The exercise is clearly designed to send a signal to neighboring countries - like Georgia with separatist provinces within their borders.

The share of professional soldiers in the rank and file will reach some 44 percent next year, and all sailors serving on ships will be professional servicemen beginning in January, Serdyukov said.

Serdyukov, head of the Federal Tax Service until Putin appointed him to run the armed forces in February, said hazing had decreased dramatically in the ranks and that the overall number of hazing-related offenses decreased by 20 percent this year. Mortality in the armed forces dropped by 16.5 percent, Serdyukov said, giving credit not only to commanders but also to nongovernmental organizations.

As the old saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same...

Musharraf Plays Bush for a Fool

Following up on my last post, I thought the following analysis was very good in relation to what is happening in Pakistan now.

Musharraf Plays Bush for a Fool

by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

Pakistan 's President General Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency on November 3rd after the Pakistani Supreme Court indicated it would overturn the results of an illegitimate election that would have extended Musharraf's term as president. Musharraf quickly fired the Supreme Court justices who planned to rule against him. And his declaration of emergency attacked the entire population of Pakistan by suspending fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty, freedom of speech, assembly and association, and equal protection of the law.

As a result of Musharraf's action, Pakistani Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry is being held under house arrest, and over 2500 lawyers in different parts of Pakistan have been detained. The detainees include the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and officials of the Democratic Lawyers Association of Pakistan. The government also ordered that journalists who brought "ridicule or disrepute" to Musharraf could face three years in prison.

The real motivation for Musharraf's declared emergency is not to defend the country against "Islamic extremists," as he claims, but to maintain Musharraf in power. He acted to prevent public protests that lawyers and political parties were organizing. And his scheme is working. Musharraf's new brand-new, hand-picked Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Musharraf can remain in power for five more years.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is scurrying around in damage control mode. Musharraf's actions would be very embarrassing for Bush -- if Bush were the type of guy to get embarrassed. After all, Bush has been claiming for the past several years that he wants to spread democracy throughout the Islamic world. Somehow, Musharraf's declared state of emergency, followed by mass arrests of his political opponents, doesn't seem very democratic.

Bush dispatched Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte to Pakistan to talk sense to Musharraf. Negroponte urged Musharraf to end the state of emergency. But Bush's man didn't complain about Musharraf shutting down the Supreme Court and replacing it with his loyalists. Negroponte also failed to tell Musharraf to release the judges and lawyers from prison. So much for democracy and an independent judiciary.

The recipient of nearly $11 billion of U.S. aid since 9/11, Musharraf will cover for his benefactor Bush to keep him from losing face in light of the Pakistani strongman's blatant and tyrannical power grab. Musharraf has agreed that parliamentary elections scheduled for January will proceed and that he will take off his military uniform after the sham elections are held. Of course, Musharraf's jailed political opponents will likely find it difficult to campaign effectively for seats in parliament while incarcerated under a state of martial law.

American citizens whose tax dollars are being used to prop up this ruthless and corrupt regime should demand an accounting of how their money is being spent.

Bush claims that Musharraf is an indispensable ally in his "war against terror," and that money sent to Pakistan supports that goal. It appears from my vantage point, though, that Musharraf is playing Bush for a fool. Musharraf tells Bush he will help destroy the Taliban. However, Pakistani Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy wrote in the November 18 Los Angeles Times that some people in Pakistan believe Musharraf is "secretly supporting the Taliban as a means for countering Indian influence." Moreover, if Musharraf wants to regain and maintain support of the Pakistani people, he will continue to support the Taliban. Hoodbhoy also wrote, "Most Pakistanis see the [Taliban] as America 's enemy, not their own. The Taliban is perceived as the only group standing up against the unwelcome American presence in the region." According to Hoodbhoy, "For more than 25 years, the army has nurtured Islamist radicals as proxy warriors for covert operations on Pakistan 's borders in Kashmir and Afghanistan ."

Hoodbhoy's remarks are corroborated by Adrien Levy, co-author of "Deception: Pakistan , the United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy." Levy told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, "The [Musharraf] agenda is to destabilize Afghanistan , to create a government there which is favorable to Islamabad . These are goals which are actually contrary to the goals - very largely contrary to the goals of the West. Yet," Levy, said, "this slowly moving car crash of the U.S. pumping billions of untraceable cash into the Pakistan military has continued since 2001 and we're left with the position where Pakistan is devoid of democracy, democracy is weakened and feeble, and we have just increased instability, quite honestly."

If Congress stands by and does nothing to cut off the funds to Musharraf while he maintains martial law in Pakistan , it will confirm our worst fears that Democrats and Republicans alike are making a sham of our democracy.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law. Her columns are archived at www.marjoriecohn.com.

Bush More Emphatic In Backing Musharraf

Is it any wonder that no one in the world outside of a few Republicans here in the U.S. believe anything that this man says anymore? Bush had this to say about his dictator buddy in Pakistan:

President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general "hasn't crossed the line" and "truly is somebody who believes in democracy."

Bush spoke nearly three weeks after Musharraf declared emergency rule, sacked members of the Supreme Court and began a roundup of journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Musharraf's government yesterday released about 3,000 political prisoners, although 2,000 remain in custody, according to the Interior Ministry.

Let's see- Musharraf sacked the Supreme Court, rounded up journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. Declared emergency rule martial law. Hmmm...sounds like Bush democracy to me! WooHooo!

Oh, and Musharraf is going to shed his military uniform. The change of clothes makes a good leader everytime!

Noam Chomsky on Iran

Iraq, Iran.....Groundhog Day

Sunday Matinee- Iraq For Sale

This for all of you 'fiscal conservatives' who care about the 'people's money'...

Bush Repeats Third World War Warning

This madness can't end soon enough...

German TV interview:
US president repeats “Third World War” warning
by Ulrich Rippert

Shortly before the arrival on Saturday of German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, George W. Bush declared, “We definitely need Germany’s help on issues like Iran.”

He thus made it clear that the visit of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) chancellor, which came immediately after the Washington talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, should be seen in direct connection with US threats of war against Iran.

In an interview with the German news channel n-tv, Bush reaffirmed that Iran must put an immediate halt to its uranium enrichment program and repeated his warning of a Third World War. “You know,” he said, “if you want to have a Third World War, you need only drop a nuclear bomb on Israel.” He added that this was “neither a prediction nor a wish.”

Prior to her departure from Berlin, the German chancellor said she would deliver “a clear message” in Texas. She would make “every effort to convince the American president of the need for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute with Iran.” The Financial Times Germany quoted Merkel saying that a military strike “simply cannot be allowed to take place.”

These words were addressed less to Washington than to the German population. The chancellor’s advisers had already stressed to Merkel the need to maintain a certain outward distance from the American president and not make too obvious an adaptation during her visit to the Bush ranch. Her trip should be perceived “as a counterweight” to the visit of Sarkozy, who had just completed “an emotionally-charged ‘reconciliation and hug’ tour through the US capital,” wrote Spiegel Online.

Should she act otherwise, Merkel could expect an adverse reaction from the German public. Her predecessor as chancellor, Social Democratic Party (SPD) leader Gerhard Schröder, had assured his re-election in 2002 with rhetoric directed against the Bush administration and the Iraq war, against a background of strong anti-war sentiment among the German people.

But the real attitude of the head of the German government was made clear in her support for tougher sanctions against Teheran. Commenting to the Berliner Zeitung, Merkel said she was banking on “the determination of the international community, including Russia and China.” She added, “If the current talks are not successful, then Germany will also be willing to implement further, tougher sanctions.”

In her remarks to the newspaper, Merkel once again sought to portray sanctions as instruments of a negotiated solution. But this is pure eyewash.

In the Berlin chancellery, everyone is well aware that the strengthening of economic and political pressure against the Iranian government is part of an escalation strategy for a military attack against Iran that has been set in motion by the most aggressive sections of the US administration. Five years ago this was precisely the strategy advanced against Iraq.

In fact, the die in the chancellery had been cast long before. The Berlin government would like to avoid a further military escalation in the Middle East and fears an uncontrollable conflagration with unforeseeable consequences. But if the American war preparations against Tehran are put into effect, the chancellor and her Social Democratic foreign minister will line up with Washington. This is the real message Merkel took to Crawford.

Behind the warm images of friendly hugs and congenial walks in the woods by Merkel and Bush lies the complicity of imperialist regimes on the eve of a new military adventure which will have devastating consequences.

There are several reasons for the shift in foreign policy in Paris and Berlin. It is not predominantly a result of a change of government in both countries. Rather, the Iraq war and the military and economic disaster it has produced have permanently changed relations between the major powers.

For months, Berlin government circles have been discussing how best, in the words of former foreign minister and Green Party leader Joschka Fischer, to respond “to the self-imposed decline of the United States.” Bush’s repeated declaration, “We need the Germans,” was registered with satisfaction in Berlin. The German government is once again ambitiously seeking to increase its sphere of influence as a world power and believes that, at least at this stage, it is preferable to pursue its own imperialist interests as a junior partner of Washington.

The chancellor’s own position with regard to relations with Washington is in line with her past policy. She uncritically endorsed Bush’s war policy from the very outset.

Like many leading figures in Eastern European politics, Merkel was politicized during the collapse of the Stalinist regime. Her anti-communism and her enthusiasm for capitalism are closely linked to a fascination with the unrestrained enrichment of the corporate elite that has taken place in the United States, as well as its claim to global political supremacy.

By giving support to Bush, the German as well as the French governments are complicit in the preparation of a wider war in the Middle East, which, given the growing tensions with Russia and China, will have far graver consequences than the Iraq war and could easily escalate into a global confrontation. In this context, Bush’s warnings of a Third World War must be taken very seriously.

The friendly hugs and mutual praise between Bush and Merkel should not be mistaken for a resolution of growing transatlantic tensions. The United States on its side had been closely observing the growing aggressiveness of German foreign policy.

According to the latest edition of the monthly Iran Report, published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, fierce confrontations have taken place between government representatives from the United States, France and Germany over their respective economic activities in Iran.

According to the report, German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier (SPD) accused the American government of being hypocritical. He charged the US government with imposing sanctions to curb the expansion of the German economy in its major market of Iran while facilitating the operations of American firms through front companies operating from Dubai.

Under the headline “Germany No Longer Iran’s Leading Trading Partner,” the report declares that “after nearly three decades” the German economy will have to cede to China its role as leading trade partner with Iran.

Working people must be on guard and draw their own conclusions. Support for Washington’s war policy means a return to imperialist politics in its most aggressive and brutal form.

This trend is not limited just to German foreign policy. In the past, “stability” in terms of foreign and domestic policy was closely bound up with so-called “social partnership” and the maintenance of a degree of social harmony in Germany and other European countries. A return to imperialist militarism means a new stage in the assault on social and democratic rights.

Keith Olbermann- Bush and the Cost of War

This excellent commentary by Keith Olbermann on the outright hypocrisy of George Bush on the issue of 'fiscal responsibility' highlights one of the reasons that Olbermann's show has skyrocketed in the ratings.

As a side, how in the hell can 'conservatives' that care so much about taxpayer money and government waste lie silent while the country is being bankrupted by this crew?

Bush Vetoes Health and Education Bill

Once again, Bush shows his true compassion:

President Bush, escalating his budget battle with Congress, on Tuesday vetoed a spending measure for health and education programs prized by congressional Democrats.

He also signed a big increase in the Pentagon's non-war budget although the White House complained it contained "some unnecessary spending."

The president's action was announced on Air Force One as Bush flew to New Albany, Ind., on the Ohio River across from Louisville, Ky., for a speech criticizing the Democratic-led Congress on its budget priorities.

Bush hammered Democrats for what he called a tax-and-spend philosophy:

"The Congress now sitting in Washington holds this philosophy," Bush told an audience of business and community leaders. "The majority was elected on a pledge of fiscal responsibility, but so far it's acting like a teenager with a new credit card.

"This year alone, the leadership in Congress has proposed to spend $22 billion more than my budget provides," the president said. "Now, some of them claim that's not really much of a difference. The scary part is, they seem to mean it."

More than any other spending bill, the education and health measure defines the differences between Bush and majority Democrats. The House fell three votes short of winning a veto-proof margin as it sent the measure to Bush.

This coming from the man who has presided over some of the the worst economic policies of all time. He did, however seem to think that these spending items were good use of your tax money:

$6.3 billion for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, $2.8 billion for the Navy's DD(X) destroyer and $3.1 billion for the new Virginia-class attack submarine.

Fiscal responsibility my ass...