Showing posts with label Cheney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cheney. Show all posts

Monday, March 24, 2008

Cheney On 4,000 Dead - Bush "Carries Biggest Burden"

By Cernig

Dick Cheney, what a wanker.
I want to start with the milestone today of 4,000 dead in Iraq. Americans. And just what effect do you think it has on the country?" asked ABC News' White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz...

"It obviously brings home I think for a lot of people the cost that's involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan," Cheney said in the interview, conducted in Turkey. "It places a special burden obviously on the families, and we recognize, I think — it's a reminder of the extent to which we are blessed with families who've sacrificed as they have."

"The president carries the biggest burden, obviously," Cheney said. "He's the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans, but we are fortunate to have a group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm's way for the rest of us."
Hat tip to Noah Shachtman at Danger Room, who who is just as outraged that Cheney thinks Dubya's burden is greater than those of the families of 4,000 dead. Noah also has a link to ABC's video and no, the above isn't taken out of context.

What a great way to show you support the troops and their families, Dick. Tell them that they volunteered so if their families should suffer..."so?"

Hey, Dubya volunteered too. He didn't have to run for Decider and he didn't have to invade Iraq - he chose to do both. Nor has he ever been anywhere near harms way as a consequence of those decisions. Excuse me while I don't join in your warmonger's group hug, Dick.

Hey, can someone in the press ask John McCain if he thinks the President carries the biggest burden on this one? Pretty please?

Saturday, March 22, 2008

"So?" - So This

By Cernig

Mickey Edwards, 16-year Republican Congressman from Oklahoma, founding trustee of the Heritage Foundation and Princeton scholar, has found his contrary voice to the Bush?Cheney GOP late in life - but, oh boy, is it a clear one.
The decision to go to war...to send young Americans off to battle, knowing that some will die -- is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation's Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress.

Cheney told Raddatz that American war policy should not be affected by the views of the people. But that is precisely whose views should matter: It is the people who should decide whether the nation shall go to war. That is not a radical, or liberal, or unpatriotic idea. It is the very heart of America's constitutional system.

In Europe, before America's founding, there were rulers and their subjects. The Founders decided that in the United States there would be not subjects but citizens. Rulers tell their subjects what to do, but citizens tell their government what to do.

If Dick Cheney believes, as he obviously does, that the war in Iraq is vital to American interests, it is his job, and that of President Bush, to make the case with sufficient proof to win the necessary public support.

That is the difference between a strong president (one who leads) and a strong presidency (one in which ultimate power resides in the hands of a single person). Bush is officially America's "head of state," but he is not the head of government; he is the head of one branch of our government, and it's not the branch that decides on war and peace.

When the vice president dismisses public opposition to war with a simple "So?" he violates the single most important element in the American system of government: Here, the people rule.
It's been obvious to many of us for a very long time that the GOP had been taken over by people who would prefer that the people not rule. I'm glad to see more and more conservatives figuring that out for themselves in the last year of the Bush presidency. It might just help prevent a McSame presidency continuing Bush and Cheney's work.

Certainly McCain should be seen as going into the elections with all of his policies, along with his candidacy, already the lamest kind of ducks.

A Special Relationship

By Cernig

Quote of the day via the UK's Channel Four News:
Mr Cheney, speaking to reporters after arriving in Jerusalem for a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said: "America's commitment to Israel's security is enduring and unshakeable.

"The United States will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security.".
What, not ever, over anything no matter how small or how remote the threat?

The tail wags the dog, and the prospect of Middle East compromise gets shaken off like an unwanted flea.

Update The BBC and Associated Press follow up. Both think Cheney's more interested in bolstering Israel's campaign to have it's proxy superpower attack Iran on its behalf. The AP has some expert thoughts on ramifications for the peace process.
Edward Abbington, a former U.S. consul general in Jerusalem and now an adviser to Abbas, said the mood among the Palestinians in Ramallah was grim. Neither the Israelis or Palestinians are convinced that Cheney is an integral player in the peace process, he said.

"They told me when I was in Ramallah they had no idea why Cheney was even coming to see them," Abbington said. "The Israelis are more interested in what Cheney has to say about Iran and blessing their continued strikes against Gaza than anything he has to say about the peace process."

There are three other diplomatic initiatives aimed at achieving a peace deal that the United States has been tightlipped about. Russia has floated the idea of a Moscow conference as a follow-up to Annapolis. The Egyptians are playing middleman in a pair of negotiations between Israel and Hamas and between Hamas and Abbas' moderate Fatah party. Yemen also is working to mediate talks between Hamas and Fatah.

"I would not expect Cheney to have a lot to say about any of these, simply because while the U.S. attitude ranges between sharp suspicion and quiet acquiescence to these initiatives, they appear to be dying on their own," said Nathan Brown, an expert on Arab politics at George Washington University in Washington.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The "Absence Of Evidence" Logic Trap

By Cernig

Did Dick Cheney ever do Logic 101 in college? He keeps banging the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" drum over Iran's nuclear program.

Vice President Dick Cheney retained his tough stance against Iran on Wednesday and said the U.S. is uncertain if Tehran has restarted the nuclear weaponization program that a U.S. intelligence report says it halted in 2003.

..."What it (the NIE) says is that they have definitely had in the past a program to develop a nuclear warhead; that it would appear that they stopped that weaponization process in 2003. We don't know whether or not they've restarted," he said.

"What we do know is that they had then, and have now, a process by which they're trying to enrich uranium, which is the key obstacle they've got to overcome in order to have a nuclear weapon," he added. "They've been working at it for years."
It's also a key obstacle to having an indeginous nuclear power industry that the great powers can't turn off or on at will by controlling fuel supplies, Dick. Sometime a cigar is just a cigar.

Cheney must surely know by now - if he was paying any attention at all in the last five years of Iraqi invasion and occupation - that one cannot prove a negative. One can show it to be highly likely, sure, but there are still wingnuts who insist that Saddam sent all his WMD by FedEx to a postal box in Damascus and it's this little logical law that lets them do so. Cheney's probably one of them. And so he continues his push to waste yet more hundreds of thousands of lives, along with another $3 trillion and more, on yet another idiotic snark hunt.

Let's be clear - the "Cheney 1% Doctrine" is not logical or good foreign policy - it is paranoid sociopathy at its worse. In personal terms it's as if I decided to wade into my neighbour's house with gun blazing because he can't prove he has no anthrax and I've seen him using white powder (to make bread). My insanity plea in defense of murder charges would probably be accepted by the court.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Cheney - Running Over The Same Old Ground

By Cernig

Dick Cheney is in Iraq and has announced that he has a gut feeling that the Iraqi invasion and occupation has been a "successful endevour" which was "well worth the effort".
"I was last in Baghdad 10 months ago and I sense that, as a result of the progress that has been made since then, phenomenal changes in terms of the overall situation," Cheney said after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

Cheney said there had been a "remarkable turnaround" in security after 30,000 extra troops were sent to Iraq last year to help reduce sectarian violence that threatened civil war.

Despite the improved security, however, some 4 million Iraqis are still displaced, and the International Committee of the Red Cross said in a report on Monday that millions were still deprived of clean water and medical care.
(In fact, that Red Cross report said that some families spend a third of their average monthly wage of $150 just buying clean water and that healthcare in Iraq was "now in worse shape than ever.")

So there you have it - more faith-based victory metrics from the Bush administration.

And while we're on the subject, does anyone seriously believe that the sitting Republican VP arriving in Iraq at the same time as the Republican heir-presumptive, John McCain is just a coincidence, even if the two have no plans to meet up there? me neither. The Republican party is calculating that most American voters are small-c conservatives in that they will prefer the Devil they know to some amorphous "change" and so intend painting McCain's candidacy as a continuation of the last eight years in policy terms even while saying loudly they're doing no such thing. It's all about the framing.

So to help them along in that endevour I've a campaign song for John McSame, seeing as I'm such a kind and helpful soul.

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Anybody seen Cheney?

By Libby

I've had this uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach for a few days now. It struck me that we haven't heard a word about our Dark Lord for a very long time. I was wondering what's going on in the secret reaches of our Fourth Branch of Government and I'm afraid this is the answer.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon “one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today.” Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and has consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ war-mongering “not helpful.” Privately, he has vowed that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”

Unfortunately, this level-headed thinking and willingness to stand up to President Bush may cost him his job. According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Fallon may be prematurely “relieved of his command” as soon as this summer:
I don't find it beyond the realm of possibility that a strike on Iran could be the October surprise. If they really remove Fallon before then, I'd say the odds get better. I hope I'm wrong.

Update: This does nothing to convince that I am.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Mitt To Lead War Party Faction Of GOP

By Cernig

Mitt Romney is the new Rudy - and the new Fred too. While the rightwing religious nuts continue to support Huckabee, Mitt is swiftly consolidating the previously fractured War Party faction of the Republican Party under one belligerent tent.

From CNN's Political Ticker:
Liz Cheney, Vice President Cheney's daughter, plans to endorse Mitt Romney for president, three Republican sources familiar with the discussions tell CNN.

One of the sources says she will also serve as a senior adviser on foreign policy.

Cheney was formerly an adviser to Fred Thompson, who ended his presidential bid last week.
This is significant mainly because Liz Cheney has always been "doing Daddy's business", as Lawrence Wilkerson once put it. If she joins Mitt's FP team then she'll be putting what the Financial Times once called the neoconservatives' trademark "combination of overstatement and ancestor-worship" into play to join Dick and Mitt's worldview's at the hip. ( Oh, and the route to Tehran lies through Damascus.)

National Review has already endorsed Romney as have War Party mouthpieces such as Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett. Captain Ed did so today. With Cheney pulling Mitt's strings, via his daughter, it seems the neoconservatives have found their ideal pattsy...sorry, classic neoconservative right wing ideologue.

Friday, December 14, 2007

Three Judiciary Committee Members Demand Cheney Impeachment

By Cernig

Imagine if three senior members of the House Judiciary Committee, stymied by Pelosi and Conyers' assertions that impeachment is "off the table", wrote an op-ed arguing for Dick Cheney's impeachment...and every major newspaper refused to print it? What happens next?

Well, now that we bloggers have upset the applecart so much, we publish it instead. What follows is the op-ed by Representatives Robert Wexler, Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI).

A Case for Hearings

On November 7, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As Members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that if proven may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under our constitution. The charges against Vice President Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

Now that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has indicated that the Vice President and his staff purposefully gave him false information about the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert agent to report to the American people, it is even more important for Congress to investigate what may have been an intentional obstruction of justice. Congress should call Mr. McClellan to testify about what he described as being asked to "unknowingly [pass] along false information." In addition, recent revelations have shown that the Administration including Vice President Cheney may have again manipulated and exaggerated evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- this time about Iran's nuclear capabilities.

Some of us were in Congress during the impeachment hearings of President Clinton. We spent a year and a half listening to testimony about President Clinton's personal relations. This must not be the model for impeachment inquires. A Democratic Congress can show that it takes its constitutional authority seriously and hold a sober investigation, which will stand in stark contrast to the kangaroo court convened by Republicans for President Clinton. In fact, the worst legacy of the Clinton impeachment - where the GOP pursued trumped up and insignificant allegations - would be that it discourages future Congresses from examining credible and significant allegations of a constitutional nature when they arise.

The charges against Vice President Cheney are not personal. They go to the core of the actions of this Administration, and deserve consideration in a way the Clinton scandal never did. The American people understand this, and a majority support hearings according to a November 13 poll by the American Research Group. In fact, 70% of voters say that Vice President Cheney has abused his powers and 43% say that he should be removed from office right now. The American people understand the magnitude of what has been done and what is at stake if we fail to act. It is time for Congress to catch up.

Some people argue that the Judiciary Committee can not proceed with impeachment hearings because it would distract Congress from passing important legislative initiatives. We disagree. First, hearings need not tie up Congress for a year and shut down the nation. Second, hearings will not prevent Congress from completing its other business. These hearings involve the possible impeachment of the Vice President - not our commander in chief - and the resulting impact on the nation's business and attention would be significantly less than the Clinton Presidential impeachment hearings. Also, despite the fact that President Bush has thwarted moderate Democratic policies that are supported by a vast majority of Americans -- including children's health care, stem cell research, and bringing our troops home from Iraq -- the Democratic Congress has already managed to deliver a minimum wage hike, an energy bill to address the climate crisis and bring us closer to energy independence, assistance for college tuition, and other legislative successes. We can continue to deliver on more of our agenda in the coming year while simultaneously fulfilling our constitutional duty by investigating and publicly revealing whether or not Vice President Cheney has committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Holding hearings would put the evidence on the table, and the evidence - not politics - should determine the outcome. Even if the hearings do not lead to removal from office, putting these grievous abuses on the record is important for the sake of history. For an Administration that has consistently skirted the constitution and asserted that it is above the law, it is imperative for Congress to make clear that we do not accept this dangerous precedent. Our Founding Fathers provided Congress the power of impeachment for just this reason, and we must now at least consider using it.

Congressman Wexler is Chairman of the Europe Subcommittee and a senior member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Judiciary Committee; and he also sits on the Financial Services Committee.

More here. Pass it on.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. The Newshoggers has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is The Newshoggers endorsed or sponsored by the originator.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Sickening spin on Iran NIE report

By Libby

Good Lord, can someone hand me the dramamine. I don't know how the fringe right can stand the spin. It's making me seasick. I'm of course talking about the 'analysis' of the NIE report that was finally released. The fringe wing seems to be settling down into a three narratives.

First, it's allegedly a vindication of Bush's bullying of Iran. Invading Iraq scared the piddle out of Iran and thus their Dear Leader was justified in destroying a country that had nothing to do with terrorism prior to our invasion. We'll just conveniently ignore the part of the report that says the program ceased on international diplomatic pressure.

The second story line seems to be, this proves nothing. Iran is still a very dangerous foe and why should we trust the same intelligence community that so badly screwed up the WMD intel on Iraq? And now a third narrative arises, pushing back against the notion that Bush and Cheney have irresponsibly been pounding the war drums for a pre-emptive strike against Iran nuclear facilities, knowing full well that that none existed.

Capt Ed leaps into the fray on this front by quoting Rick Moran.

The assessment, under preparation for more than 18 months, was completed on Tuesday and President Bush and Vice President Cheney were briefed on Wednesday, intelligence officials said. Hadley said Bush first learned in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program and was advised it would take time to evaluate.

Of course, Ed doesn't bother to link to the original WaPo story, so let's just take a peek at what it really said.

Still, the administration understood how explosive the new conclusions would be and kept them tightly held. Hadley said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate. Vice President Cheney, Hadley and other top officials were briefed the week before last. Intelligence officials formalized their conclusions on Tuesday and briefed Bush the next day.

A fine line between completed and formalized, but it's easily differentiated. As Gareth Porter pointed out a month ago, the report was completed over a year ago, but Cheney refused to accept the results and sent it back repeatedly for revisions. The last thing Cheney wanted was for the NIE to reinforce the IAEA's "long-standing conclusion that there is 'no evidence' of an undeclared nuclear program in Iran." To their credit, this time the intel agencies refused to cook the books.

Not that this will deter Cheney and the warmongers at all. As the BBC reported yesterday:

One source, who has close links to US intelligence, said that members of Vice President Dick Cheney's staff continued to call for military strikes against Iran "on a daily basis".

Cheney has had Iran in his sights for years and anyone who contradicted the proscribed 'reality,' like for instance Negroponte, was fired. And the idea that Iraq was a failure of the intelligence agencies would be laughable, if it wasn't so dangerous a lie.

It's useful to remember, as Ray McGovern explained, how the 2002 intelligence was fixed.

Consider, for example, the daring recruitment in mid-2002 of Saddam Hussein's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, who was successfully "turned" into working for the CIA and quickly established his credibility. Sabri told us there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

My former colleagues, perhaps a bit naively, were quite sure this would come as a welcome relief to President George W. Bush and his advisers. Instead, they were told that the White House had no further interest in reporting from Sabri; rather, that the issue was not really WMD, it was "regime change." (Don't feel embarrassed if you did not know this; although it is publicly available, our corporate- owned, war profiteering media has largely suppressed this key story.)

As I said on my other blog last night, we should be careful not to allow this report to lull us into a false sense of security.

They still have over a year left to advance their plots. They would be crazy to bomb before closer to the end of Bush's term anyway. The PR blitz in September was just the first wave of shock and awe propaganda designed to build the false narrative into an accepted wisdom.

Never underestimate the long range thinking of the neocons. It's useful to remember that even today, over 40% of Americans still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11. I wouldn't be too quick to think this a blunder or even a setback to their plans. They built their "OMG we're all going to die - it's WWIII" narrative over the whole year they knew it wasn't true.

I'm not convinced that this report will dissuade Cheney from pursuing his heart's desire. In fact, I feel certain he'll continue to agitate behind closed doors to acheive it.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Did The Neocons Help Pakistan Get Nukes?

By Cernig

Worth a listen/read is Democracy Now's interview yesterday with Guardian special correspondent Adrian Levy, about his latest book - "Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons." The book discusses how five consecutive US administrations from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush have been complicit in building and protecting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Some familiar names crop up as being involved - Louis Scooter Libby, Stephen Hadley, Paul Wolfowitz, Eric Adelman and the ever-present Dick Cheney.

Of course, the Pakistani government have called Levy's book a "pack of lies". In early September, Speaking to reporters in Islamabad, Pakistan foreign office spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam charged that Levy's book is aimed at discrediting Pakistan's nuclear program.
"Some people cannot digest our nuclear capability and are involved in negative propaganda but Pakistan is an anchor of peace and stability in the region," Aslam was quoted as saying.
Less than a month later, Musharraf proved just how much of an anchor Pakistan is. In the sense that an anchor sinks to the very bottom and becomes imbedded in the mire.

(Hat Tip - Kat)

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Dems Ensure Motion To Impeach Cheney Goes Nowhere (Updated)

By Cernig
Updated Below

According to The Swamp, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer will move to table Dennis Kucinich's to impeach Cheney on the basis that it would split the Democratic Party.
"[House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] and I have both said impeachment is not on our agenda," Hoyer told reporters. "That does not make a judgment on that issue."

Kucinich, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, has gathered 21 co-sponsors for the articles of impeachment that he first introduced in April. Seeing war with Iran on the horizon, the Ohio congressman now plans to reintroduce the measure this afternoon as a privileged resolution.

Kucinich alleges that Cheney misled Congress and the American public into the war in Iraq, and is trying now to mislead lawmakers and voters into a war with Iran.

"The Vice President is cherry-picking intelligence and selectively using facts in a manner that does not portray the complete picture," Kucinich said today in a statement. "The best option to prevent an unnecessary war with Iran is to impeach the Vice President, the lead cheerleader of the war."

Hoyer did not address the substance of the measure.
Hoyer has backing from House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers who said ""If the speaker were to let this thing out of the box, considering the number of legislative issues we have pending, it could create a split that could effect our productivity for the rest of the Congress."

Like Republicans' recalcitrant, peevish obstructionism and a White House with a newly discovered fondness for the veto weren't already ending productivity already. Honestly, do any of these spineless clowns think they're going to be allowed to produce anything except rubberstamps for Republican wars while Bush and Cheney are still incumbents? Do none of them care that they're enabling criminals - not just to escape justice but to continue running their country?

Update For once, I agree with Captain Ed's conclusion on the Mukasky nomination (if not how he gets there). It fits perfectly to this issue too:
this exercise just confirms for the Democratic Party base that their Congress has assumed a mostly-supine position vis-a-vis George Bush. What an absurd piece of political theater. As Casey Stengel once said of the Mets, can't anyone in the Senate Democratic caucus play this game?
Indeed.

Update this one's an all-round victory for the Republicans. not only did the spineless wimp Hoyer indeed moved to table the resolution - and then got a shock as, half-way through the vote, Republicans started voting to force a debate and show up the spineless Dem reps for what they are - wimps without the courage to stand up for their convictions.
Midway through the vote, with instructions from the GOP leadership, Republicans one by one changed their votes from yes — to kill the resolution — to no, trying to force the chamber into a debate and an up-or-down vote on the proposal.

At one point there were 290 votes to table. After the turnaround, the final vote was 251-162 against tabling, with 165 Republicans voting against it.

"We're going to help them out, to explain themselves," said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. "We're going to give them their day in court."

Democrats countered by offering a motion to refer the proposal to the House Judiciary Committee for further study, effectively preventing a debate on the House floor. That motion passed by a largely party-line vote of 218-194.
where it will be quietly sunk without trace.

Cue massive hilarity and much back-slapping from Republican circles for making the Dem leadership jump through hoops so easily. As Captain Ed said earlier, "can't anyone in the Senate Democratic caucus play this game?"

Only 84 Dems voted against tabling then. I would like to thank them for some gumption on this issue. I'd also like to endorse Kevin Hayden's idea that the netroots "muster a chunk of change for Kucinich to send a message of approval to our Congressional leaders".

(Here's Kuchinich' speech today on his congressional website.)

Update 2 I just have to share this graphic, via Matt at Comments and originally from Democracy In Action. Says it all.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Nuke Watchdog Head Slams Anti-Iran Rhetoric

By Cernig

The head of the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, has again slammed anti-Iran rhetoric from the Bush administration and repeated that the Agency has no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran this month of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program. She said there is no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the IAEA about its intentions.

Vice President Dick Cheney has raised the prospect of "serious consequences" if Iran were found to be working toward developing a nuclear weapon. Last week, the Bush administration announced harsh penalties against the Iranian military and state-owned banking systems in hopes of raising pressure on the world financial system to cut ties with Tehran.

ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.

"I'm very much concerned about confrontation, building confrontation, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and inspection," he said.
I fully expect the extreme right to attack el-Baradei again for what they will call "meddling" in diplomacy instead of just quietly doing inspections. But surely, if his Agency's inspections and his experts are saying something at such variance with the bush administration line, he has a duty to speak up. Especially when, as never gets reported in the US media, the US has passed the IAEA dozens of leads about the alleged iranian nuclear weapons program and on every single occasion US intelligence assessments and suspicions have proven to be based on false claims by regime-change outfits like the MeK and Ken Timmerman's group.

Of course, backing both the US and Iran into belligerent corners is seen by the Fourth Branch and it's wormtongues as a feature, not a bug.

The same is true of the evolving story of EFP penetrators, supposedly supplied by Iran to Shiite militias in Iraq. This narrative has been aggressively pushed despite many gaping holes in the official line. Veteran journalist Gareth Porter has done an excellent job of following the evolving hype and his latest article sets out the contrary evidence neatly. Iraqi machine shops have been producing their own EFPs for years and the Iraqis almost certainly managed to get the know-how from Hezboullah - the world experts on EFP's - without any involvement from Iran being needed.

El Baradei is the man appointed by the international community to head up the agency responsible for inspections and investigations of alleged illegal nuclear programs. He has done an excellent job - and was correct about Iraq's suppoed program the last time the Bush administration's warmongers tried to pressure him out of his job for speaking up about their fixing the facts around the policy. When he is criticized now, the world should understand that attacks on him and his agency are aimed at silencing a contrary voice against the narrative and do not stem from real concerns about his interfering with the diplomatic process.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

US Designates, Sanctions, Iran Guards Force & Banks

By Cernig

Well, we knew this one was coming:
The Bush administration imposed sweeping new sanctions against Iran Thursday - the harshest in nearly three decades - cutting off key Iranian military and banking institutions from the American financial system for Tehran's alleged support for terrorism and nuclear weapons ambitions.

In the broadest U.S. unilateral penalties on Iran since the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in 1979, the administration slapped sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, a main unit of its defense ministry, three of its largest banks and eight people that it said are engaged in missile trade and back extremist groups throughout the Middle East.
The Counterterrorism blog fills in the exact details:
Today, the State Department designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) for their proliferation activities. The Treasury Department also designated numerous Iranian parties for proliferation concerns: nine IRGC-affiliated entities and five IRGC-affiliated individuals; two state-owned banks, Bank Melli (its biggest) and Bank Mellat; and three individuals affiliated with Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO). The Treasury Department also designated the IRGC-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) under for providing material support to the Taliban in Afghanistan and other terrorist organizations, and also designated Iran's state-owned Bank Saderat as a terrorist financier. Moreover, elements of the IRGC and MODAFL were listed in the Annexes to U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747, which leads to a freeze on their assets by all member nations.
Now, back to the AP for some ridiculous Bushie spin:
At the same time, they stressed that offers for negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program remain on the table and that the sanctions are not a sign of imminent military action. The U.S. officials insist - over Iranian denials - that the nuclear program is a cover for atomic weapons development.

"Unfortunately, the Iranian government continues to spurn our offer of open negotiations, instead threatening peace and security," through its nuclear program, production and export of ballistic missiles and backing for Shia insurgents in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, Rice said.
That's one seriously brass neck you have there, Condi. The US position is that it won't enter face-to-face open negotiations unless Iran suspends enrichment - which is demanding the end-point of negotiations as a start point, hardly good faith, as well as denying Iran its right under the NPT.

The IAEA continues to say it has no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. Iran is a supporter of groups designated as terrorists by much of the Western world - which is a legitimate grievance against Iran - but then again so does Pakistan, and more so, and Pakistan already is a nuclear state. But we don't see sanctions against Pakistan - we see military aide. For much of the rest of the world, this only serves to illustrate American exceptionalism - the rules don't apply when the US doesn't want them to.

We don't see Mitt Romney proposing "bombardment" of Pakistan:
``If for some reasons they continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us,'' Romney told a crowd of doctors and nurses during a question period that followed a health care speech.

He added: ``That's an option that's on the table. And it's is not something which we'll spell out specifically. I really can't lay out exactly how that would be done, but we have a number of options from blockade to bombardment of some kind. And that's something we very much have to keep on the table, and we will ready ourselves to be able to take, because, frankly, I think it's unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.''
But other than the sociopathic right, most have reacted negatively to this new example of Bush administration willingness to abandon rhetoric about international co-operation as soon as things don't go the White House's way.
Said former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards: ``I learned a clear lesson from the lead-up to the Iraq War in 2002: If you give this president an inch, he will take a mile and launch a war. Senator Clinton apparently learned a different lesson.''

...In a statement Thursday, presidential rival Chris Dodd echoed Edwards' argument.

``The aggressive actions taken today by the administration absent any corresponding diplomatic action is exactly what we all should have known was coming when we considered our vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment, and smacks, frankly, of a dangerous step toward armed confrontation with Iran,'' Dodd said.
Even some Republicans are unhappy:
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel says the new, unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran will not work and will only drive the Iranians closer together.

The Republican says unilateral sanctions rarely succeed and that direct engagement is the way to deal with Iran.
Putin sees a maniac push for violence:
"Why worsen the situation and bring it to a dead end by threatening sanctions or military action," Putin said in a veiled reference to the U.S. push for harsher international sanctions against Tehran.

"Running around like a madman with a razor blade, waving it around, is not the best way to resolve the situation," the Russian leader said.
Which statement comes ominously close to rumors that Putin told Iran that Russia will involve itself should the US unilaterally attack.

Maybe Putin is just suffering from BDS, but somehow I peg him as a more calculating type than that. It's just possible that he is worried about America's belligerent attitude, realising along with Kevin Hayden that "sanctions are not diplomacy and assertions aren't evidence." Like Kevin, he may just see today's action as state-sponsored unilateral hijacking of assets that sets a dangerous precedent for future US action against other states - including his own. It isn't as if the Cheneyites have been circumspect about their intentions to shift the blame from one target to another - and Moscow has certainly been on their radar as one of their targets.

That's all speculation, of course, if a reasonable reading of pasts statements. Those of us outwith the innermost administration circle would all do well to harbour some sceptical uncertainty about the Bush administrations long-term aims for Iran. At the very least because the experience of the lead up to invading Iraq demands it.

But as usual, there are some folks, not too far distant from a big white building in Washington D.C., who will make out like bandits from all the uncertainty.
Crude oil for December delivery rose $1.88, or 2.2 percent, to $88.98 a barrel at 12:11 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures climbed to $89.10, the highest since reaching a record $90.07 on Oct. 19. Oil is up 45 percent from a year ago.

Brent crude oil for December settlement rose $1.75, or 2.1 percent, to $86.12 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange. Brent reached $86.32, the highest since trading began in 1988.

``The U.S. has had sanctions against Iran since 1979 and it's not like we are just hearing for the first time about Turkey's intention to rout the Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq,'' said Tim Evans, an analyst with Citigroup Global Markets Inc. in New York. ``What the headlines do is keep these issues front and center for anyone trading in this market.''

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

"Being Judith Miller'd" (Updated)

By Cernig

Updated below and bumped

The question of exactly what Israeli warplanes bombed in Syria back in September is still not clear. However, Steve Clemons throws some interesting information into the mix today. He reports that several journalist friends have said they were being pressured by Cheneyites in the administration to push the nuke story - some described the pressure as "being Judith Miller'd".

Clemons, though, has a different theory based on conversations with intel types he knows.
Jane's Defense apparently had a leak that the Syrians were experimenting with chemical warheads for the scud missiles -- and that these warheads had airburst capacity. Some folks I spoke to in the Pentagon -- who were not in the deep core of knowledge -- but close enough that they helped indicate the right and wrong direction of inquiry led me to believe that the Syrians had worked with North Koreans to assemble some kind of new machine tooling operation that would transform the thousands upon thousands of rockets that Syria was producing to aim at Israel -- and also to supply Hezbollah with -- into more sophisticated "air burst" warhead compatible scuds.

Then someone I can't mention but very close to the action on the Arab side of the equation essentially confirmed the story above.
I'm inclined to believe this - not least because it's pretty much what I had come to believe after reading all the reporting on the attack. The Syrians can't admit to CW and so the OVP and Israel can milk it with impunity.

Why not just say CW then? Three reasons spring to mind -
1) Nukes are "sexier" - they're just more newsworthy and that helps push along the demonization narrative just a little further than chemical weapons on missiles does.
2) Connecting Iran to the narrative as well as North Korea. N-Pod, Bolton, Wurmser and others (probably including Cheney) believe the route to Iran regime change lies through toppling Damascus; that by thus showing that Teheran can't protect its allies the people of Iran will finally lose their patience with the Mullahs.
3) Defusing the Arab push to have Israel either permit IAEA inspections or face Iran-standard sanctions by adding an element of Syrian nuke "gotcha" at a crucial time.

Update Today the WaPo has a report that say independent experts might have found the bombed site. Emphasis on the might because no-one official is confirming anything as yet.
Photographs of the site taken before the secret Sept. 6 airstrike depict an isolated compound that includes a tall, boxy structure similar to the type of building used to house a gas-graphite reactor. They also show what could have been a pumping station used to supply cooling water for a reactor, say experts David Albright and Paul Brannan of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS).

..."I'm pretty convinced that Syria was trying to build a nuclear reactor," Albright said in an interview. He said the project would represent a significant departure from past policies. ISIS, a nonprofit research group, tracks nuclear weapons and stockpiles around the world.
Albright is a serious expert, and has to be taken seriously. If he's right, it's a serious contravention of the NPT by Syria and will raise further questions about North Korea's honesty. But then again, Albright's been pretty hawkish of late, making pronouncements about Iran's program, for instance, that have been later falsified by IAEA inspections.

Albright and other interviewed experts also cite a couple of reasons why it might not be a nuclear plant.
Albright acknowledged the difficulties of proving what the site is, in part because the roof was put on at an early stage, blocking views of the foundation and obscuring any potential reactor components. In construction of other types of nuclear reactors, the roof is left off until the end so cranes can move heavy equipment inside.

Some nuclear experts urged caution in interpreting the photos, noting that the type of reactor favored by North Korea has few distinguishing characteristics visible from the air. Unlike commercial nuclear power reactors, for example, a North Korea-style reactor lacks the distinctive, dome-shaped containment vessel that prevents the release of radiation in the event of a nuclear accident.

"You can look at North Korea's [reactor] buildings, and they look like nothing," said John E. Pike, a nuclear expert and director of GlobalSecurity.org. "They're just metal-skinned industrial buildings." The proximity of the building to a water source also is not significant by itself, Pike said.
That's because North Korean reactors aren't water cooled - they use a gas cooling system.

Kevin notes: "We also don't have imagery of this site from September, which would tell us if this is really the location that was bombed by the Israelis."

The rightwingers are going nutzo over a pic someone got from GoogleEarth that doesn't show a thing and might not be of the same place in any case.

Larisa points out the key paragraph - the one that says no-one knows anything more than they did before.
The new report leaves many questions unanswered, such as what Syria intended to use the unfinished structures for and the exact role, if any, of North Korea in their construction. Also unclear is why Israel chose to use military force rather than diplomatic pressure against a facility that could not have produced significant nuclear material for years. The new details could fuel debate over whether Israel's attack was warranted.
I'd also like to point out that, even experts can usually convince themselves that they've found what they set out to find.
Brannan, of ISIS, combed through a huge amount of satellite imagery to find a site along the Euphrates that matches a reactor's specifications as well as descriptions of the attack site.
It only sort-off matches a reactors specifications, though - it isn't a mirror image of any NK reactor at the same stage of construction - not even in dimensions. The building could just as easily be, for instance, a rocket and missile fabrication site. Unfortunately, Abright and Co. were focussed entirely on their nuke-hunt and give no insight into other possibilities.

But it's worth remembering that the original agitprop about photos of the alleged site clearly mentioned "a big cylindrical structure, with very thick walls all well-reinforced." Albright's structure is a single-story square affair.

I'm still with Steve Clemon's sources on this one.

Fair Game

Part I

Libby kindly said she looked forward to my review of Fair Game. Book reviews are normally summations. This book is not a “normal” book and thus shouldn’t be given a normal review—and I don’t think Libby or anyone here would expect anything else, given the subject matter and the author.

As a spy turned memoirist (Fair Game), Valerie Plame’s case is unique.
She didn’t lose her job from having been “turned” by a foreign agency, she didn’t accidentally or purposely reveal any secrets, and she wasn’t forcibly retired for incompetence. She is the only covert CIA operative (to my knowledge) to have ever had her cover blown by her own government for an article that she didn’t write, that contested a single false claim made by the President (which was just one amongst many) that was published a year after it had served its purpose.

Not only was she forced to retire, she and her husband were smeared and vilified by the White House, by the entire GOP and their loyal political cheerleaders on television and in the press. Even when Scooter Libby was convicted of lying under oath and obstructing justice regarding the investigation into Plame’s “outing”, the White House and right-wing pundits simply used the case as a springboard to maintain their virulent character assassination of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

Incredibly—or rather credibly—whilst the administration was perfectly happy to assassinate Plame’s character they were also perfectly happy to have her physically assassinated by Al Qaeda.

Valerie Plame has many reasons to be bitter and to lash out, and with this in mind the requisite pre-publication vetting of her memoir by the CIA must have been colored. On the other hand there must have been many of her colleagues in that organization with a desire to see her story told as fully as possible. The trouble is we never know who actually vets such memoirs, and not surprisingly we rarely learn of the reasons behind omissions and redactions in spy memoirs until decades after the fact.

Given the Bush administration’s unprecedented strategy (“penchant” is too-mild a descriptor) of secrecy, misinformation and falsehood, it is a wonder Plame’s memoir isn’t comprised of the first word “Our”, followed by 300 pages of black lines to finish with the last, “time”. As it is there are redactions throughout, some of which run continuously for a few pages. The publisher notes that a good deal of information deemed “classified” and thus worthy of redaction has been in the public domain for some time, and they very helpfully prove an “Afterword” at the end of the book that fills-in some of the gaps.

I’ve read the first six chapters so far and the redactions aren’t necessarily as annoying as one might think; in fact some of the redactions entice one to employ one’s own analytical skills which is a quite engaging and apropos. Where entire paragraphs are obscured there is nothing to work with, but when only a couple of words here and there are redacted its not that hard to make an educated guess—indeed such instances make the censorship somewhat self-defeating.

For instance, Chapter Two is titled [------] Tour and describes Plame’s first overseas assignment.
Note: I’m approximating the length of the CIA’s redactions here.

Plame mentions that she’d been to Europe several times with her parents, listing England, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, France, and Italy, though she doesn’t mention her age at the time of these visits. The chapter begins with her describing sitting at a sidewalk cafĂ© having a type of espresso with cream—the ‘trade’ name of which is redacted. It’s evening, it’s still hot, and the locals all smoke like chimneys. She also mentions the presence of an easily accessible US air base which would have to be relatively close to the coast.

Page 31--"I was relieved when the European Division picked me up and promptly assigned [-------------- ]. All that stood between me and my new career was [-----------------] language training."

Reading this I figured the location had to be Mediterranean: France, Italy, Greece, Turkey seemed immediate candidates. Plame says she has no talent for languages and found learning hard. IMHO French is not that difficult but Italian is trickier, so maybe it was Italy (which was also where the forged Niger docs came from), or Greece or Turkey. She also mentions that being blond made her stand out a bit so that would still make Italy, Greece or Turkey likely.

Page 31--"Our teacher [-------------] had been a resistance fighter [-------] during WWII and was rightfully very proud of his service and [-------] ancestry."

That narrowed it down for me to Italy or Greece. Both resistances have been described in English as “partisan” which is a bit too long for the first redaction space, so I assume it must be a an indigenous word. I thought the second redacted word might then be “Greek” or “Roman”.

Page 31--"He would rattle off a saying [-------]. Glaring at me and my two classmates for our stupidity he would finally deign to give us the translation. “It means the goat’s hair needs a fine tooth comb.”

Goats. Goat cheese. Feta. Greece. She was probably in Athens (Italy was now my second choice) .

At that point I turned to the “Afterword”. Plame was indeed in Athens. Without doing any research (or peeking) I’d pretty-much figured it out, based on the information provided and general knowledge. So what was the damn point of those redactions?

More to the point of course, is why the administration didn’t apply even such weak and misguidedly pedantic standards of secrecy to the public identification of a vital NOC, Valerie Plame, in the first place? For her book to be censored in this way clearly has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with political need. The “rules” being applied to Plame’s memoir are obviously arbitrary and foolish and present another insult to Plame’s demonstrable professionalism and yet another example of this administration’s megalomaniacal need and desire to control information and crush dissent—no matter how reasoned or even harmless it may appear to be.

The next chapter is about The Trip to Niger. Of its approximately ten pages, two are essentially wholly redacted and the remaining redactions make up more than one further page.

I’m not going to peek at the relevant “Afterword” sections until I’ve read through several more chapters—to do otherwise would be to spoil the entire process. My first attempt at sleuthing turned out quite well I think (I know you only have my word for it). It will be interesting to see, again with just acquired knowledge and the information given rather than targeted research or looking at the ‘cheat-sheet’, whether I can determine any other “secrets”.

Two proverbs come to mind “Knowledge is power” and “a little learning is a dangerous thing”. This administration’s treatment of Valerie Plame (and the public) demonstrates how true these well worn-phrases are.

Trying to figure out what is being withheld from us is "fair game".

8 years is not an imminent threat

Creature at State of the Day read through Bush's speech on his intention to deploy a missile defense base in Poland with the tracking radar in the Czech Republic and pulled out a very interesting statement:
In his speech here, Bush said intelligence estimates show that Iran could have the capability to strike the United States and many European allies by 2015.
Even if one assumes that the Iranian strategic leadership either is not rational and thus not deterable today, or that there is a significant probability that its future leadership will not be deterrable in the future, and thus poses a significant strategic threat to the United States or its allies despite the highly credible threat of either a conventional or nuclear retaliation, even the 'best' Bush picked intel does not think that the Iranian government will have the capacity to do anything for a while.

Besides the fact that press reports since at least the late 90s have estimated that Iran is continually seven to ten years away from building an ICBM/MRBM capacity, the statement that the best guesstimate is eight years in the future means that at least half of the public relations roll-out for at least brinksmanship, if not escalation into overt military conflict is called into severe doubt.

Good catch Creature

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Friday, October 19, 2007

Syrian Nuke Misinformation From Cheney's Office - Report

By Cernig

The meme that Israel recently struck a clandestine Syrian nuclear site is looking more and more like a pure creation of Israel and extremists within the White House. There's been absolutely no evidence presented for such a claim - just rumormongering from anonymous officials in both the US and Israel - and now those same WormTongues are saying, again without presented evidence, that the reason there's no evidence forthcoming is because the Syrians are covering it up with bulldozers.

Robin Wright, frequent channeler, in the WaPo:
Syria has begun dismantling the remains of a site Israel bombed Sept. 6 in what may be an attempt to prevent the location from coming under international scrutiny, said U.S. and foreign officials [this is the accepted code for "Israeli officials" nowadays - C] familiar with the aftermath of the attack.

Based on overhead photography, the officials say the site in Syria's eastern desert near the Euphrates River had a "signature" or characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea's facilities.

The dismantling of the damaged site, which appears to be still underway, could make it difficult for weapons inspectors to determine the precise nature of the facility and how Syria planned to use it. Syria, which possesses a small reactor used for scientific research, has denied seeking to expand its nuclear program. But U.S. officials knowledgeable about the Israeli raid have described the target as a nuclear facility being constructed with North Korean assistance.

The bombed facility is different from the one Syria displayed to journalists last week to back its allegations that Israel had bombed an essentially an empty building, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity because details of the Israeli attack are classified.
Yeah, and I know my elephant-repellent wind-chimes work because there are no elephants in my neighbourhood.

The only person willing to put their actual name to this nonsense for the WaPo is old Walrus Bolton, still sputtering his conspiracy theories. Other people with actual names mentioned in this bit of ouja-board Cheneyism were highly sceptical:
"This isn't like a Road Runner cartoon where you call up Acme Reactors and they deliver a functioning reactor to your back yard. It takes years to build," said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress. "This is an extremely demanding technology, and I don't think Syria has the technical, engineering or financial base to really support such a reactor."

..."The reason we have an IAEA and a safeguard system is that, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it can be presented by a neutral body to the international community so that a collective response can be pursued," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "It seems to me highly risky and premature for another country to bomb such a facility."
It would appear they may have good reason for that scepticism. Also on the WaPo's website today, you can find this AP wire report:
U.N. experts have received satellite imagery of the site struck last month by Israeli warplanes and are analyzing it for signs that it might have been a secret nuclear facility, diplomats said Friday.

One of the diplomats indicated that the photos came from U.S intelligence. Two others said the images, which have been studied by experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency since being received on Thursday, do not at first examination appear to substantiate reports that the target was a nuclear installation, but emphasized that the images were still under examination.

The diplomats, who were briefed on the agency's receipt of the images, spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because their information was confidential. Officials of the Vienna-based nuclear watchdog had no comment.
More anonymous leakers, and no official statements here either, but this is exactly in contradiction to Robin Wright's piece.

What's going on? Well, Larisa Alexandrovna at Raw Story has been speaking to unhappy - but still anonymous - members of the U.S. intelligence community, who say it's all coming from Fourth Branch's offices.
Allegations that a Syrian envoy admitted during a United Nations meeting Oct. 17 that an Israeli air strike hit a nuclear facility in September are inaccurate and have raised the ire of some in the US intelligence community, who see the Vice President’s hand as allegedly being behind the disinformation.

...According to current and former intelligence sources, the US intelligence community has seen no evidence of a nuclear facility being hit.

US intelligence “found no radiation signatures after the bombing, so there was no uranium or plutonium present,” said one official, wishing to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject.

“We don't have any independent intelligence that it was a nuclear facility -- only the assertions by the Israelis and some ambiguous satellite photography from them that shows a building, which the Syrians admitted was a military facility.”
Raw Story has also spoken to other experts, like Dr. Ivan Oelrich, a nuclear weapons expert at the Strategic Security Project at the Federation of American Scientists - who said that any actual nuclear activity would give off a radiation signature and that signature could be used to tell exactly what kind of activity was going on - and to Vincent Cannistraro, Director of Intelligence Programs for the National Security Council under President Ronald Reagan and Chief of Operations at the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorism Center under President George H. W. Bush, who told Raw Story that what the Israelis hit was "absolutely not a nuclear weapons facility."

Those unhappy intelligence sources were, at least, happy to name names:
“The allegations that North Korea was helping to build a nuclear reactor have not been substantiated by US intelligence,” said this intelligence official, adding, “ but that hasn't stopped Dick Cheney and his minions at the NSC, Elliot Abrams and Steve Hadley, from leaking the information [to the press], which appears to be misleading in the extreme.”
Abrams was convicted of lying to Congress over Iran/Contra but pardoned by Bush Snr. Hadley was intrumental in fixing the intelligence around the policy prior to the invasion of Iraq.

Larisa writes:
What concerns intelligence officials is what appears to be manipulation of the press and strategic leaks to the public of false information, undercutting professional intelligence analysis, similar to what occurred before the Iraq war in an apparent effort to bolster support for engaging Iran.
Given that several prominent neocons, including Norman Podhoretz, have said time and again that they believe the route to Iranian regime change begins with toppling the Damascus regime, I think it should "concern" the hell out of everyone.

Update And the details of the anonymous Cheneyites' story change again.

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Drum Bangs The Iran Drum

By Cernig

I'm depressed. Even Kevin Drum is banging the Iran war drum - the one that says the route to Teheran lies through Damascus.

Kevin notes the ABC's report today - sourced from anonymous US officials - that says Israel presented evidence that a Syrian target was a nuclear site as long ago as July, but that Rice and other diplomacy-pushers stopped them actually attacking it until September. He then cites a blog post by Aviation Week's senior editor which again cites anonymous U.S. sources to suggest Israel blinded Syria's state-of-the-art Russian radar during its attack using a US provided radar-spoofing system.

Now David A. Fulghum is an acknowledged expert in his field - and he doesn't mention nukes in his post at all. That's possibly because the involvement of such a system would actually bolster a contrary explanation that has been doing the rounds - that Israel's attack in Syria was on some lower-level target but was seen as both a practise run for Iran strikes and a method of upping the diplomatic pressure by sending a clear message to Teheran and Damascus about the consequences of intransigence.

Kevin, however, is all set to believe the anonymous US officials talking to ABC.
Obviously I'm just playing amateur sleuth here, but it doesn't seem like you'd tip your hand about the capabilities of technology like this in order to destroy a bunch of rocket launchers and North Korean Scuds. The mission had to be important enough to make it worth letting the Syrians (and the Iranians and the Russians) know that their air defenses had been compromised. They might figure out how to fix it next time, after all. So maybe there was some North Korean nuclear technology there after all.

And is it a coincidence that within weeks North Korea suddenly decided to cut a deal with the U.S. to abandon its nuclear program? It might well be. But it is something of a coincidence, isn't it?
Well, the North Korean deal had been signalled and expected by everyone including the U.S. for months so that may be a stretch. It seems just as likely that, in the current climate, Israel was very well served by such a distraction from its own nuclear arsenal just as a Governing Council vote on demanding IAEA inspections was put forward by Egypt with Syrian backing.

But what's got me depressed is that Kevin is actually giving those anonymous US officials who spoke to ABC the benefit of the doubt - forgetting entirely the run up to the Iraq war and also missing yesterday's Daily Telegraph's interview with recently resigned Cheney aide David Wurmser. Wurmser told the Telegraph that it is the Cheney office's belief that "We need to do everything possible to destabilise the Syrian regime and exploit every single moment they strategically overstep," and that "That would include the willingness to escalate as far as we need to go to topple the regime if necessary." The desired result, he said, was to topple the Iranian regime by showing its inability to protect Syria from attack and thus provoke an Iranian response that could serve as a causus belli.

Is there any doubt that these anonymous officials were speaking directly from that infamous undisclosed location and with the full backing of Fourth Branch? After all this time and all the lies, it seems many who should know better are still willing to suspend their disbelief in the war-mongers' machinations.

Friday, October 05, 2007

The Medieval-Cons In The White House

By Cernig

It's fitting that the UK's Daily telegraph, which has become as much a foreign mouthpiece for the War party as ever the Weekly Standard is here in the U.S., should have the first interview with ex-Cheney aide David Wurmser since he left office.

The interview has turned into three different Telegraph articles today. In the first, Wurmser accepts the "neoconsevative" label while also saying that "There's nothing 'neo' about me,"..."I'm a very medieval sort of guy." Medieval seems a sufficient characterization of all the neocons - in their world view, their xenophobia, their opposition to education or healthcare for the masses, their quasi-religious justifications for their crusades. Yes "Medi-cons" suits them very well indeed.

In another, he says he isn't "a big fan of democracy per se" and that he favors engendering either regime change or outright war with Iran by engineering American intervention to topple the Syrian government.

But he really gets warmed up to that last in the third article, which is one of the Torygraph's headline pieces today.
"We need to do everything possible to destabilise the Syrian regime and exploit every single moment they strategically overstep," said David Wurmser, who recently resigned after four years as Vice President Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser.

"That would include the willingness to escalate as far as we need to go to topple the regime if necessary." He said that an end to Baathist rule in Damascus could trigger a domino effect that would then bring down the Teheran regime.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the first since he left government, he argued that the United States had to be prepared to attack both Syria and Iran to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East that could result in a much wider war.

...Although Mr Wurmser's recommendations have not yet become US policy, his hard-line stances on regime change in Iran and Syria are understood to have formed the basis of policy documents approved by Mr Cheney, an uncompromising hawk who is deeply sceptical about the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure on Teheran.

..."If we start shooting, we must be prepared to fire the last shot. Don't shoot a bear if you're not going to kill it."
Wurmser then goes on to say something that the Telegraph has decided to take as a categorical denial of reports that he was doing the D.C. rounds on behalf of Cheney to agitate fro war with Iran.
It was "fantastical" to suggest that he or Mr Cheney would "try to cause a war that the president expressly doesn't want", he said. "Everything that was done was to execute the policies of the president and not to subvert them."
Funny, but I don't read Wurmser's words as being at all placatory of the suggestion that attacking Iran, or at least preparing the political ground for such an attack should he decide to launch it, is Bush's policy already.

Maybe I'm just cynical, maybe it's that I've seen too many times how the current administration, its current and former members, can lie simply by being careful about their word choice. Witness Bush's own weasel words today on torture - they amount to saying America doesn't torture because the Bush administration have unilaterally decided to revise the definition of torture to exclude what America does. The rest of the world isn't fooled, however, and is unlikely to be fooled by Wurmser's careful parsing so as to give Bush plausible deniability in Cheney's war hyping.