Hey Jim the Obamunists are going to dock your pay You aren't allowed to use the word "Islam"
Simon sez On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:12 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > *Itching to Fight Another Muslim Enemy* > > By Robert Parry > May 17, 2010 > > If you read the major American newspapers or watch the propaganda on cable > TV, it’s pretty clear that the U.S. foreign policy Establishment is again > spoiling for a fight, this time in Iran. > > Just as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was the designated target of American hate in > 2002 and 2003, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is playing that role > now. Back then, any event in Iraq was cast in the harshest possible light; > today, the same is done with Iran. > > Anyone who dares suggest that the situation on the ground might not be as > black and white as the Washington Post's editors claim it is must be an > “apologist” for the enemy regime. It’s also not very smart for one’s > reputation to question the certainty of the reporting in the New York Times, > whether about Iraq’s “aluminum tubes” for nuclear centrifuges in 2002 or > regarding Iran’s “rigged” election in 2009. > > It’s much better for one’s career to clamber onto the confrontation > bandwagon. Nobody in the major U.S. media or in politics will ever be hurt > by talking tough and flexing muscles regarding some Muslim “enemy.” And, if > the posturing leads to war, it will fall mostly to working-class kids to do > the fighting and dying while the bills can be passed along to future > generations. > > Even groups that should know better – like Votevets.org representing > veterans of the Iraq and Afghan wars – have been piggybacking on the > organized hate campaign against Ahmadinejad and Iran to advance other > political agendas. In cable TV ads, Votevets.org uses Ahmadinejad’s face and > Iran’s alleged manufacture of some IEDs to press the case for alternative > energy. > > Indeed, looking at this American propaganda campaign objectively, you would > assume that the only acceptable outcome of U.S. differences with Iran is > another Iraq-like ratcheting up of tensions, using Washington’s influence > within the UN Security Council to impose escalating sanctions, leading > ultimately to another war, as if the lessons of Iraq have already been > forgotten. > > *Fearing Negotiations * > > This warmongering attitude was on display again Monday, when a possible > breakthrough regarding Iran’s refining of nuclear material – its agreement > to ship a substantial amount to Turkey in exchange for nuclear rods for > medical research – was treated more as a negative than a positive. > > The New York Times promptly framed the agreement reached by Iran, Turkey > and Brazil as “complicating sanctions > talk<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?hp>,” > while the Washington Post rushed out an analysis with the headline, “Iran > creates illusion of progress in nuclear > negotiations.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/17/AR2010051701574.html?hpid=topnews> > ” > > The Post’s analysis followed a Saturday > editorial<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/14/AR2010051405305.html>denouncing > Brazil’s President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva for even trying > “yet another effort to ‘engage’ the extremist clique of Ayatollah Ali > Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “ > > The Post’s neocon editorial writers reprised the usual anti-Iran propaganda > themes with all the arrogance that they once showed in declaring as flat > fact that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMD. After the U.S. invaded > Iraq and found no WMD caches, the Post’s editorial page editor Fred Hiatt > acknowledged to CJR that if there indeed were no WMD, “it would have been > better not to say it.” > > (More than 4,300 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are > dead, in part, because of Hiatt's mistake.) > > On Saturday, an unchastened Hiatt and his crew were back again spouting > more fictions, this time about Iran, like the oft-repeated claim that the > Iranian election last June was “fraudulent,” apparently because the Post’s > preferred candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, lost. > > An analysis by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy > Attitudes earlier this year found that there was little evidence to support > allegations of fraud or to conclude that most Iranians viewed Ahmadinejad’s > reelection as illegitimate. > > Not a single Iranian poll analyzed by PIPA – whether before or after the > June 12 election, whether conducted inside or outside Iran – showed > Ahmadinejad with less than majority support. None showed the much-touted > Green Movement’s candidate Mousavi ahead or even close. > > "These findings do not prove that there were no irregularities in the > election process,” said Steven Kull, director of PIPA. “But they do not > support the belief that a majority rejected Ahmadinejad." [For details, see > Consortiumnews.com’s “Ahmadinejad Won, Get Over > It<http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/022710.html> > !”] > > So, while many in the West may agree that Ahmadinejad is an unpleasant > politician who foolishly questions the historical accuracy of the Holocaust > and makes other bombastic statements, it is nevertheless a propaganda > fiction to continue asserting that he was not the choice of most Iranian > voters. > > The point is not insignificant, because the claim about Iran’s “fraudulent” > election has been cited repeatedly as fact by the Post, the Times and other > major U.S. news outlets, feeding the rationale of Israel and U.S. neocons in > demanding “regime change.” > > If Ahmadinejad was actually elected – even if the process had flaws – then > the goal of “regime change” would involve ousting a popularly chosen leader, > much like the CIA helped do in 1953 when another anti-Western Iranian > leader, Mohammed Mossadegh, was removed from office and replaced by > Washington’s preferred choice, the Shah of Iran. > > But the American hostility toward Ahmadinejad – and the U.S. media’s > annoyance at any rapprochement between Washington and Tehran – present other > dangers, particularly now that Iran has agreed to a previous Western demand > that it transfer 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enriched uranium out > of the country, in this case to Turkey, where it would be stored. > > The Iran-Turkey-Brazil agreement would then give Iran the right to receive > about 265 pounds of more highly enriched uranium from Russia and France in a > form that could not be used for a nuclear weapon, but could be put to use > for peaceful purposes, such as medical research. > > Even though this new deal parallels a plan that the Obama administration > favored last October, U.S. officials have indicated that they might balk at > the agreement now because the 2,640 pounds of low-enriched uranium > represents a lower percentage of Iran’s total supply than it did last fall, > possibly more like half than two-thirds. > > “The situation has changed,” one diplomat told the New York Times. > > White House press secretary Robert Gibbs also indicated that the new > agreement would not stop the United States from seeking harsher sanctions > against Iran. > > "The United States will continue to work with our international partners, > and through the United Nations Security Council, to make it clear to the > Iranian government that it must demonstrate through deeds — and not simply > words — its willingness to live up to international obligations or face > consequences, including sanctions," Gibbs said. > > *Victory/Defeat* > > The Washington Post’s analysis by Glenn Kessler portrayed the new agreement > as “a victory” for Iran that has allowed it to create “the illusion of > progress in nuclear negotiations with the West, without offering any real > compromise to the United States and its allies.” > > However, perhaps the bigger concern among American neocons is that the > Iran-Turkey-Brazil accord might weaken the rationale for pressing ahead > either with a military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities or with a > “regime change” strategy that would use sanctions and covert political > operations to turn the Iranian people against their government. > > By reducing the prospects of Iran building a nuclear weapon – something > that Iran has vowed that it has no intention of doing and that U.S. > intelligence agencies concluded in 2007 that it wasn’t doing – the new > agreement could remove the scariest claim that Israel and its supporters > have used in justifying a confrontation with Iran. > > So, what might otherwise appear as good news – i.e. an agreement that at > minimum delays the possibility of an Iranian bomb and could be a first step > toward a fuller agreement – is presented as bad news. > > “The Obama administration now faces the uncomfortable prospect of rejecting > a proposal it offered in the first place -- or seeing months of effort to > enact new sanctions derailed,” Kessler explained. > > As usual, too, the articles by the Washington Post and the New York Times > left out the relevant fact that Israel, which has been aggressively pushing > for greater transparency from Iran over its suspected interest in nukes, > itself has one of the world’s most sophisticated – and undeclared – nuclear > arsenals. > > Even as President Barack Obama has demanded more nuclear transparency from > all countries, he himself continues the longstanding charade of U.S. > presidents, dating back to Richard Nixon, pretending that they don’t know > that Israel has nuclear weapons. > > In line with that history of double standards, Washington’s neocon opinion > leaders now are framing what could be a positive step toward peace – the > Iran-Turkey-Brazil accord – as another failure. > > But the larger truth may be that the neocons are simply chafing under the > possibility that their hunger for a new conflict in the Middle East might be > delayed indefinitely and that – heaven forbid – cooler heads might prevail. > > > http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2010/051710.html > > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
