My RSS Feeds
FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU; FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME! Craig Unger Analyzes Bush-Saudis-Media Clique & Secret Neocon Plans To Invade Iran - RI10 URGENT!
FOOL ME ONCE,
SHAME ON YOU;
FOOL ME TWICE,
SHAME ON ME!
Craig Unger Analyzes
Bush-Saudis-Media
Clique &
Secret Neocon Plans
To Invade
Iran – RI10
Originally published February 13, 2007. Today, June 11, 2008, that post has 1,200 Hits even. That's a very nice total for a political post. But I've gotten 7 times that number of Hits in a single day. I republish this Post as the 2nd of 3 Articles about Bush's Plans to bomb Iran before November Elections to continue the path of our Tax Dollar$ into his pockets and those of his cohorts like Dick Cheney while also affecting the outcome of those Elections.
We must stop these guys now
before it's too late!
Tabacco: They did it before successfully; why wouldn’t they try to do it again. The Neocons, who do George W. Bush’s thinking for him, had already planned to invade Iraq before George W. had spent 1 minute in the Oval Office.
They have not even bothered to update their strategies for Iran’s oil: marginalize Iran’s leaders, insinuate Iranian atrocities with false witnesses and without supplying any substantive proof, create fear and uncertainty among the American people, and ultimately invade under false pretenses such as national security, bringing democracy to Iran, regime change etc. etc. When they give you lies as justification, you know you cannot trust Brer Bush.
"From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq":
Craig Unger on How the Neoconservatives Are Pushing For An Attack on Iran
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154246
“Once again, Neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D.," Unger writes. "Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington—this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom." [includes rush transcript]
New allegations against Iran are heightening fears the Bush administration is planning a second war in the Persian Gulf. This weekend, administration and military officials accused the Iranian government of sending sophisticated roadside bombs to Iraq that have killed 170 coalition troops in the last three years. Military officials formally unveiled the charges at an unusual news conference in Baghdad. The officials refused to be quoted by name and barred all recording devices from the room. Reporters were shown images of weapons with serial numbers the Pentagon says originate in Iran.
The Iranian government is denying the accusations. On Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was asked by ABC's Diane Sawyer whether Iran is sending weapons into Iraq to kill Americans.
* Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talking to ABC's Diane Sawyer.
Meanwhile, the top US military commander, General Peter Pace, added to growing doubts about the accusations Monday when he admitted he could not endorse them.
* Gen. Peter Pace: "Gen. Peter Pace: "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this. It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
General Peter Pace, speaking in Australia. The Bush administration is insisting the new allegations do not signify a build-up towards war. In an interview with C-Span Monday, President Bush defended the White House pressure on Iran and mocked speculation of a possible US attack.
* President Bush: “I guess my reaction to all the noise about, you know, ‘He wants to go to war’ is, first of all, I don’t understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it’s political."
Amid these new developments, a new article in Vanity Fair magazine says the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the Iraq war is being repeated today. The article says: “Once again, Neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about W.M.D. Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington—this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom."
The article is called "From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq." Craig Unger is the author of the piece. He joins me here in the firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!
* Craig Unger, journalist and author. His latest article appears in Vanity Fair. It's called "From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq." He is the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties."
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was asked by ABC’s Diane Sawyer whether Iran is sending weapons into Iraq to kill Americans.
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] When it comes to Iraq, we have made it clear that insecurity in Iraq is also to our disadvantage and also to the disadvantage of the nations of the region, and we will be sad to see people get killed, no matter who they are.
DIANE SAWYER: The Americans have the pictures. They have rocket-propelled grenade launchers that have Iranian serial numbers on them, and that they go back to 2006.
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that Americans have made a mistake in Iraq, and unfortunately they are losing, and this is a shame for Americans, of course, and that’s why they are trying to point their fingers to other people. And pointing fingers to others will not solve the problem.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking to ABC’s Diane Sawyer. Meanwhile, the top US military commander, General Peter Pace, added to growing doubts about the accusations Monday, when he admitted he could not endorse them.
GEN. PETER PACE: We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this. It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it’s clear that terrorists from Iran are involved. But I would not say, based on what I know, that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit.
AMY GOODMAN: General Peter Pace speaking in Australia. The Bush administration is insisting the new allegations do not signify a build-up towards war. In an interview with C-SPAN Monday, President Bush defended the White House pressure on Iran and mocked speculation of a possible US attack.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: This is typical Washington, where people are out speculating, and I do think it makes sense to make it clear to the Iranians through the international community that they are isolating themselves, and we will continue to press hard to do so. I guess my reaction to all the noise about, you know, “he wants to go to war” is -- first of all, I don't understand the tactics, and I guess I would say it’s political.
AMY GOODMAN: Amid these new developments a new article in Vanity Fair magazine says the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to the Iraq war is being repeated today. The article says, "Once again, Neocon ideologues have been flogging questionable intelligence about WMD. Once again, dubious Middle East exile groups are making the rounds in Washington, this time urging regime change in Syria and Iran. Once again, heroic new exile leaders are promising freedom.” The article is called “From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq.” Craig Unger is the author of the piece, joins me here in the firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!
CRAIG UNGER: Thanks for having me.
AMY GOODMAN: So, lay out who is pushing for this, the history of this, Craig.
CRAIG UNGER: Well, you can certainly trace it back at least ten years to 1996, when Benjamin Netanyahu had just been elected prime minister of Israel, came to the United States. He met with an Israeli American think tank with Richard Perle and some of his colleagues, and then he put together a paper called “A Clean Break,” which outlined a radical new vision of democracy for the Middle East. And this called for war with Iraq, for overturning Saddam, regime change with Saddam Hussein. Two days later, Netanyahu made a speech before a joint session of the United States Congress, and he added another country to the list, which was Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: And where did it go from there? That’s 1996.
CRAIG UNGER: Well, in 1999, actually, Richard Perle started meeting with then-candidate George Bush, and this has really not been reported much at all, but he came away with that meeting saying that Bush had agreed that if he were to be president, he would help overthrow Saddam. So, that, to me, is the first time I know that Bush seemed to have signed off on that. If you talk to the Neocons today, a lot of them will say, “Well, yes, it’s a mess in Iraq, but that’s because we’ve just begun. We haven’t really started. This should be a regional war, that Iran is the real focus.”
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the meetings between neoconservatives and Iranian exile groups?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, you have two important people who have shown up. One is Farid Ghadry, who is a Syrian. He may be -- so far as I know, he’s the only Syrian exile who’s a member of AIPAC, the rightwing Israeli lobby. He actually sent out mass emails -- he’s been compared to Ahmed Chalabi so often that he actually sent out a mass email that was headlined “I Am Not the New Ahmed Chalabi.” And Reza Pahlavi, the son of the Shah of Iran, has also been put forth as a potential leader of Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the people then who were pushing for Iran, then going on to push for Iraq, now, much discredited, how they have the power today?
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, I think if you go back to November, it looked like President Bush was really on the ropes in terms of this policy. The Democrats had just won both sections of Congress. Just after the election, Rumsfeld was sort of thrown overboard. And in the meantime, you also had the Iraq Study Group with James Baker, who is a very close friend of the President's family, and he was putting forth a bipartisan solution that really acknowledged that Bush's Iraq policy was a failure and that it was time to start cutting our losses.
In the meantime, however, Vice President Cheney seemed to be keeping a very, very low profile, and it’s useful to remember that his wife Lynne is at the American Enterprise Institute, and they suddenly came up with a new policy paper called “Choosing Victory,” written by Frederick Kagan, and General Jack Keane contributed to it, as well. And this was the policy for a surge. So, it ended up becoming a rival policy to the Iraq Study Group, and that's what Bush chose.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the Institute for Advanced Strategic Political Studies?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, this is where Richard Perle and Meyrav Wurmser, who I interviewed, and her husband David, who is now head of Middle East policy for Dick Cheney, and they put together this policy, “A Clean Break.” The term, “A Clean Break,” meant a clean break from the land-for-peace formula that was being used to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and this was a real radical departure. If you go all the way back to the 1967 Six-Day War with Israel and the Middle East, Israel had won enormous amounts of territory. Their policy then was to start trading it for peace, a land-for-peace formula, and President Carter in 1978 managed to get Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel to sign the Camp David Accords, which has lasted for nearly thirty years now. The rest of that formula, though, has been much, much more difficult to implement, and the neoconservatives decided to discard that in favor of a completely new vision that was far more radical and meant a sweeping overhaul of the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: Craig Unger, can you talk about MEK and the Neocon links to this group? What is it?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, it does seem like a horrible replay of the events leading up to Iraq in many ways. The MEK is Mujahidin-e-Khalq, and it’s a terrorist group, really, that worked for Saddam Hussein. When the United States invaded Iraq, we captured many of these people and started using them to do covert operations inside Iran, and we have gotten intelligence from them. Once again, it seems a replay, in the sense that -- in the way that the neoconservatives used Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress with the Iraq war. It looks like they’re trying to do the same thing all over again. And, once again, the intelligence seems to be rather dubious.
AMY GOODMAN: You talked about how Richard Perle was the guest speaker at a fundraiser sponsored by the MEK, though he later claimed he had not been aware of the connection.
CRAIG UNGER: That's what he says, at least, yes. You know, I’m not so sure I believe him on that.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain how that happens.
CRAIG UNGER: Well, there was a front group backing it, and I guess he’s making the case -- he did not respond to my calls, but he had made the case that he was unaware that the money for this event was going to the MEK. Other members of the -- other neoconservative policymakers, such as Raymond Tanter, have come out very much in favor of using the MEK.
AMY GOODMAN: And explain who Raymond Tanter is.
CRAIG UNGER: He is a Neocon policymaker, who has suggested using actually tactical nuclear weapons in bombing Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: He’s with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy?
CRAIG UNGER: Right. So, here, again, I mean, you see potential extraordinary escalation of events, when -- the bottom line is, if you listen to the International Atomic Energy Agency, they have -- we just saw a clip of ElBaradei saying that there’s no real evidence that Iran's nuclear program is actually a nuclear weapons program. And, once again, I think you see Iran, like Iraq, trying to have it both ways, bluffing, trying to present themselves as a great regional power by putting forth the notion that they have weapons of mass destruction, but also saying, “Well, gee, there's no real evidence that we have it,” when it comes to the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: Greg Unger, explain how Zalmay Khalilzad fits into this picture -- was at the White House, becomes ambassador to Afghanistan, then ambassador to Iraq, and now ambassador to the United Nations.
CRAIG UNGER: Right. Well, he goes way back, and if you go to 1991 or ’92, I believe, he was in the Defense Department with Dick Cheney, remember, who was Secretary of Defense right during and right after the Gulf War of 1991. Even before the 1996 “A Clean Break” policy, in 1991 Cheney was charged with coming up with a new policy for American supremacy, and he had -- Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz were in the Defense Department back then. So this is really the first time you see Neocon policymakers come up with a policy, and their paper was known as the “Defense Policy Guidance” paper, even before “A Clean Break,” came up with this vision of radically overhauling the Middle East.
AMY GOODMAN: And how central is Khalilzad in all of this?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, he is very important. Now, of course, he’s up for being ambassador to the United Nations. He has been ambassador to Iraq, and he was in Afghanistan, as well. So he has been a key player all along.
AMY GOODMAN: We now know about the Iranian peace offer in May of 2003 that was rejected by the Bush administration. Can you talk about this?
CRAIG UNGER: Well, it was sort of known as the grand bargain, because it put almost all of the issues of the Middle East on the table. That included the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it included Iran's nuclear program, and it included Iran's security issues. Back then, we were in an extraordinarily strong position vis-à-vis Iran. That is, we went into first to Afghanistan and took care of Iran's number two enemy, the Taliban. Then we were just going into Iraq and taking care of their number one enemy. The Bush administration, it seems to me, could have gotten something out of this. This was a point at which the United States had extraordinary leverage over Iran, and in many ways we had shared interests vis-à-vis both Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran had enormous security issues. They’re surrounded by nuclear powers, if you think about it; Israel and Pakistan are very close to them. So they had very real security concerns, and there are -- it’s very tough to trust them, but this was an opening, and we did not even respond to it. In fact, the administration rebuked the Swiss ambassador, Timothy Guldimann, for even bringing up the subject with us?
AMY GOODMAN: Why?
CRAIG UNGER: The administration policy has been, we do not talk to our enemies. And I think that has not kept us in good stead, in the least.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Craig Unger, journalist and author. His latest piece is in Vanity Fair. It’s called “From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq.” When we come back, we’ll continue our conversation with him, and we’ll be joined by Rick MacArthur of Harper’s to talk about the latest news on weapons from Iran, or at least the allegations about them. Stay with us.
New York Times Trumpets Pentagon's Claims Over Iran Sending Bombs to Iraq
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154251
The new accusations of Iranian-supplied bombs in Iraq first appeared in Saturday's New York Times. The article was titled "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, US Says." Some media critics immediately compared the New York Times piece to its articles on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons program that were used by the Bush administration to make the case for invading Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
These critics have pointed out two similar features between Saturday's article and those before the war --- a near-complete reliance on unnamed government sources, and the by-line of New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon.
Gordon and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller co-authored the infamous September 8, 2002 piece alleging Iraq attempted to purchase aluminum tubes towards developing nuclear weapons. The New York Times later singled out the article as part of its editor's note apologizing for its inaccurate coverage of Iraq and WMDs. > Michael Gordon appeared on Democracy Now! last March. During our interview, I asked Michael Gordon about his reporting in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq.
* Michael Gordon, speaking on Democracy Now!
I'm joined now in the studio by Rick MacArthur. He is the publisher of Harpers Magazine and author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda In the Gulf War." Craig Unger is still with us.
* John "Rick" MacArthur, publisher of Harpers Magazine and author of the book "Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda In the Gulf War."
* Craig Unger, journalist and author. His latest article appears in Vanity Fair. It's called "From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq." He is the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties."
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: The new accusations of Iranian-supplied bombs in Iraq first appeared in Saturday's New York Times. The article was headlined "Deadliest Bomb in Iraq is Made by Iran, US Says." Some media critics immediately compared the New York Times piece to its articles on Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons program that were used by the Bush administration to make the case for invading Iraq.
These critics have pointed out two similar features between Saturday's article and those before the war: near complete reliance on unnamed government sources and the byline of New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon.
Gordon and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller co-authored the infamous September 8, 2002 piece, alleging Iraq attempted to purchase aluminum tubes towards developing nuclear weapons. The New York Times later singled out the article as part of its editor's note apologizing for its inaccurate coverage of Iraq and WMDs.
Well, Michael Gordon appeared on Democracy Now! last March. During our interview, I asked him about his reporting in the lead-up to the US invasion of Iraq.
MICHAEL GORDON: There was no agency in the American government that said Saddam was not involved in WMD. You know, the State Department, although it's turned out to be correct, certainly on the nuclear issue, did not turn out to be -- you know, didn't challenge the biological case, the chemical case, and I'm going to offer you this last thought, and I'm happy to respond to any questions you have, but you know, there are a number of complicated WMD issues --
AMY GOODMAN: Let me just ask something on that. Are you sorry you did the piece? Are you sorry that this piece --
MICHAEL GORDON: No, I'm not. I mean, what -- I don't know if you understand how journalism works, but the way journalism works is you write what you know, and what you know at the time you try to convey as best you can, but then you don't stop reporting.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, let me, let me --
MICHAEL GORDON: Can I answer your question, since you asked me a question?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, no, I wanted to get --
MICHAEL GORDON: No, wait a second, if you ask me a question -- I'm happy to answer all your questions, but what I'm trying to explain to you is one thing. That was what I knew at the time. It's true that it was the key judgment. It’s the same information they presented to Colin Powell, by the way, and it's what persuaded him to go to the United Nations and make the case on the nuclear tubes. I wrote the contrary case, giving the IAEA equal time. They disputed it. I don't have a dog in this fight. I didn't know what was the ultimate truth. When the IAEA came out in January and disputed it, I reported it.
AMY GOODMAN: Michael Gordon, let me just respond. We don’t -- we have limited time in the program, but I just --
MICHAEL GORDON: Well, then you should let me answer your questions.
AMY GOODMAN: I did.
MICHAEL GORDON: No, you haven’t let me answer your question.
AMY GOODMAN: Are you sorry then, that the New York Times was sorry that this piece appeared as it did on the front page of the New York Times.
MICHAEL GORDON: I don't think "sorry" is the word the New York Times used.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the New York Times reporter Michael Gordon speaking on Democracy Now! last March. I’m joined in studio now by Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper’s magazine, author of the book, Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, as well as by Craig Unger, who has this new piece in Vanity Fair called “From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq.”
Rick MacArthur, your response to the New York Times piece and then pieces, the news conference in Baghdad that people couldn't bring in their cameras, name names?
RICK MACARTHUR: I always read the New York Times the way Sovietologists used to read Izvestia, the government newspaper, and I half-kiddingly always ask the question: is the New York Times playing the role of Izvestia or the role of Pravda, which was the party newspaper? The New York Times owes its success, its long-term success, economic and otherwise, to being close to the government, to being sort of the semiofficial government newspaper and giving the administration line to the public fairly unfiltered. And Michael Gordon is just a tool. He’s just a conduit for this policy that the paper has been pursuing for decades.
So, what’s interesting about Michael Gordon is that when he did the reporting on the phony aluminum tube story with Judith Miller four years ago, he somehow escaped unharmed and is now thriving. He has a book out, as you saw, and he’s doing very well, and he's going around acting like he’s an expert on Iraq, when, in fact, he’s still playing the role of conduit for the official line, the Army line or the government line, depending on who he’s talking to on what day.
Now, what’s interesting is the play that they gave his story on Saturday, the Michael Gordon story about the exploding canisters, or whatever they’re calling them. The canisters are called EFPs. They put it on the top of the front page, and it was the lead story, actually, in the Saturday paper. And not far down in the story, you find a paragraph -- actually, this was in the Monday story -- you find a paragraph where they say -- and this is very interesting -- that they don't have any real evidence, any direct evidence, that any of this is true. All they have is the say-so of the military, of briefers, or the National Security briefers. There’s one who is unnamed, who’s clearly been brought in from the civil side of the government to help buttress the case. Well, if they don't have direct evidence, why is it on the front page? Why is it the lead story?
Just to give you a comparison, Newsday, a perfectly respectable newspaper, puts “US: Iran is Arming Shia” on page 22 on Monday. That is, yesterday. They do a story. They report what the military officials are claiming, but in the second paragraph, they say the military command in Baghdad denied, however, that any newly smuggled Iranian weapons were behind the five crashes of US military helicopters since January 20th, four confirmed as having been shot down by insurgent gunfire. So that is what journalism is, contrary to what Michael Gordon says. It’s putting the story in perspective, pointing out that the guerrilla movement, whatever you want to call it, in Iraq is broad-based; it’s dominated by Sunni, not by Shia.
And the most damning omission in the story, if you want to talk about overall perspective, is complete lack of perspective on who’s fighting whom, who’s shooting at whom in Iraq. Does the Iranian government really have an interest in destabilizing what’s now a Shiite-dominated government? Doesn't make any sense. If it does make sense to the administration that the Iranians want to destabilize a Shiite-dominated government, when they’re a Shiite-ruled nation, then they should explain it. But there's no logic to it, and there’s just this massive omission.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting. When the New York Times did that piece September 8, 2002, talking about, well, allegations of weapons of mass destruction, Judith Miller and as well as Michael Gordon, the day that that piece appeared, Vice President Cheney was on the Sunday morning talk shows. He was holding the New York Times, saying, “You don't have to believe me. It’s here in the New York Times.”
RICK MACARTHUR: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: So one confirms the other, and, of course, their article is based on unnamed sources, of course, in the Bush administration. You have this press conference on Sunday in Baghdad. Saturday is the opening salvo with the New York Times, once again, front-page piece with Michael Gordon. But it’s not just Michael Gordon who writes the piece and he tapes it to the front page of the Times. It’s the entire institution, because the editors decide to put it on the front page. Now, they’ve already done their, what some call their mea culpa, what I call their “kinda culpa,” on their Iraq coverage, so what do you think is going on here?
RICK MACARTHUR: Well, today, they ran a story on the front page, at the bottom of the front page, quoting critics, quoting skeptics saying that maybe there isn’t much to this story. And, of course, you ran the clip of the general saying that --
AMY GOODMAN: Peter Pace.
RICK MACARTHUR: Peter Pace, or the chief of staff, saying we don't have any direct evidence that the Iranian government is behind this. It might be Iranians, but we don't know that the Iranian government is behind it.
So what’s going on is the New York Times, again, the publisher of New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., trying to keep his newspaper where it’s been historically, which is close to the government as a spokesman or a semiofficial spokesman for the government. I always call it the “Government Gazette.” And the journalism that Mr. Gordon talks about is left to other lesser mortals like you and me and my colleague here, Mr. Unger, because that requires actually thinking before you just repeat the stuff that’s given to you by the high official sources.
Now, I’m sure they’re also very nervous right now that they’re going to get it wrong, which is why they ran the story on the front page today trying to cover themselves. But their record is so bad now on getting the story straight that I don't know why anybody would read the New York Times anymore for straight news.
What people are doing now is they’re reading Paul Krugman's column. Krugman had a very good column yesterday, sort of picking apart the case that the institutional paper is making for Iranian meddling in Iraq and asking all the questions that Gordon should have asked or that James Glanz, the other reporter, should have asked in his story yesterday, but including the pertinent fact that there were no cell phones or cameras or anything allowed at this big security briefing in Baghdad.
AMY GOODMAN: And the rationale for that?
RICK MACARTHUR: The rationale for that is that the Times is covering itself more broadly now. My question to Paul Krugman would be, are we at the point now where a columnist for the New York Times, and not even a journalist, is going to blow the whistle on the newspaper, on the institution that he works for? Because at this point it’s such a blatant violation of what’s correct in journalism, that a columnist needs to comment on it, that Krugman or Bob Herbert or somebody has to take his own newspaper to task on this. I don't know if they’ve got the wherewithal or the guts to do it, but somebody has got to do it.
AMY GOODMAN: Craig Unger, you have been working on this piece that you did in Vanity Fair for many months, "From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq," looking at the same Neocon ideologues behind the Iraq war, who have been using the same tactics, alliances with shady exiles, dubious intelligence on WMD, to push for the bombing of Iran, as President Bush ups the pressure on Tehran. Is he planning to double his Middle East bet? And then, this all explodes this weekend, as your piece comes out. Did this surprise you?
CRAIG UNGER: No. In fact, it was very much in line with the narrative that I’d started. And I would just add to all this, if this really was about who is killing Americans there, the vast, vast majority of American deaths in Iraq have been in the Sunni-dominated areas. So the real question should be, where are they getting their weapons from? But what you see has happened is that our policy has had extraordinary unintended consequences. We have inadvertently tilted towards the Shiites and empowered Iran. Now, we seem to be tilting back towards the Sunnis, and you see this Sunni-Shiite civil war within Iraq potentially spreading throughout the entire region. So we don't want to alienate our Sunni allies, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, who may be helping the Sunni insurgency.
RICK MACARTHUR: Well, they most definitely are help being the Sunni insurgency. I mean, I can't give you a document that shows that Saudi money is going directly to the Sunni insurgents, but it’s a very, very good bet, just as it was a very good bet before 9/11 that the Saudis were funding the Islamic fundamentalist charitable organizations that helped cover for the 9/11 hijackers. But they get special treatment, because the Bush family is friends with the Saudi oligarchy and with the Gulf oil Arabs and the Persian Gulf oil oligarchies. And so, the New York Times follows their lead. You don’t see stories in the New York Times speculating about Saudi grants of money going, or through the back door going to fund the Sunni insurgency. At least, I haven't seen any. Maybe you’ve seen some.
CRAIG UNGER: No.
RICK MACARTHUR: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: You begin your book, Second Front, talking about Saudi Arabia being the ones to decide what press gets to cover -- that was the Gulf War.
RICK MACARTHUR: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: But maybe you could repeat that, because here we are many years later, more than a decade later, and that part of the story, the key role of the media in the telling of all of this.
RICK MACARTHUR: Right. Well, this is, of course, part of what my book is about, what is what Mr. Unger’s book is about, almost entirely, is that the Bush family, when they decided it was time to move against Saddam Hussein, their former ally, for getting too greedy, for taking too much oil from Kuwait or trying to take the whole thing over, as April Glaspie -- remember April Glaspie said, “We didn’t think he was going to take the whole thing.”
AMY GOODMAN: The former US ambassador to Iraq.
RICK MACARTHUR: The former US ambassador to Iraq. So, when the Bushes make policy, they talked to -- at that point it was King Fahd, and now it’s King -- sorry.
CRAIG UNGER: Abdullah.
RICK MACARTHUR: Abdullah. And they say, “Well, we want to put -- we would like to have a presence in the Middle East. We would like to have troops in Saudi Arabia, but we need permission from our loyal allies.” And so, they come up with a case for a threatened invasion, an imminent invasion from Kuwait by Saddam into Saudi Arabia, which was a pretext completely unsupported by documentary evidence. But they make the case, and they send the troops to Saudi Arabia. And then -- it’s a wonderful irony about freedom of the press in this country -- they assign to Prince Bandar, a member of the royal family and then the very influential Saudi ambassador to Washington, the role of deciding who gets credentials in the US press to go to Saudi Arabia to cover the build-up.
And I have this scene at the beginning of the book, where the Washington bureau chiefs of the major networks -- ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN -- go to Bandar's house on Chain Bridge Road in McLean, Virginia --
AMY GOODMAN: Nicknamed “Bandar Bush.”
RICK MACARTHUR: -- and they basically kiss his pinky ring and beg him for credentials. So it’s a Saudi monarch or aristocrat deciding what the American press gets to cover, and that sort of sets the tone for the rest of the Gulf War coverage, and it brings us to this very -- it’s not funny. It brings us to this absolutely nearly disastrous end.
AMY GOODMAN: By the way, AP reported in December, private Saudis supplying money for arms to Sunnis, including anti-aircraft arms.
RICK MACARTHUR: Again, I urge people to read other newspapers and to read the Associated Press. The Associated Press, which I used to make fun of, I’ll admit, as a former UPI man, has become the alternative source of information in the United States, along with the BBC and a couple of British papers. The AP has gotten very good. And if you just read a straight Associated Press story on any of these stories -- Iraq, Iranian meddling, alleged Iranian meddling in Iraq, and so on and so forth -- you would get a straighter story, a better understanding of what’s going on than you would get from the New York Times.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Craig Unger, I’ll give you the last word, since your book was called House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World’s Two Most Powerful Dynasties.
CRAIG UNGER: Well, I mean, I think the scary thing is, will this happen again? Will we repeat history? I mean, it’s hard to forget events that just happened three years ago. If it happens again with Iran -- it’s been a catastrophe in Iraq. If it happens again with Iran, I think the consequences are much, much greater, potentially. That is, you can see Iran easily blockading the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, which would cut off about 40% of the oil in the world, and oil prices would go up to at least $125 a barrel. That could precipitate sort of a meltdown of the whole Western economy and almost a global oil war. Iran is very close to China, in terms of China is the biggest customer there. You effectively would have a war going on in three of the world's biggest oil-producing countries -- Iran, Iraq and potentially Saudi Arabia.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. I want to thank you both very much for being with us. Craig Unger, his piece is in Vanity Fair, “From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq”; and Rick MacArthur, publisher of Harper's magazine, author of Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War, thank you both.
Headlines for February 13, 2007
Tuesday, February 13th, 2007
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/13/154241
Gen. Peter Pace Questions Claim About Iran Arms in Iraq
New questions are being raised over the Bush administration's claims that the Iranian government is sending sophisticated roadside bombs into Iraq. On Monday Gen. Peter Pace – the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – said he has seen no evidence of any links between explosives killing Americans and top Iranian officials.
* Gen. Peter Pace: "We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran. What I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this. It is clear that Iranians are involved, and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved, but I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."
IAEA Chief El Baradei Warns Against Military Action Against Iran
An Israeli cabinet minister is warning that Israel might decide on its own to confront Iran in order to halt its alleged nuclear weapons program. Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said "Israel cannot remain with its arms folded, waiting patiently for Iran to develop non-conventional weapons." At the United Nations, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Chief, Mohamed El Baradei warned against any such action.
* Mohamed El Baradei: "I don't see a military solution of the Iranian issue. First of all, as far as we know what Iran has now today is the knowledge. We do not know that Iran has the industrial capacity to enrich uranium. We don't know, we haven't seen indication or concrete proof of a nuclear weapons program. So I don't see that people talk about a military solution. I don't know what they mean by that. You cannot bomb knowledge, as I said before. I think it would also be completely counter productive."
House To Debate Iraq Resolution
On Capitol Hill, the House is beginning a marathon three-day debate today on a non-binding resolution opposing the escalation of the Iraq war. The resolution says Congress will continue to support and protect the U.S. troops in Iraq, but disapproves of Bush's move to deploy more troops. Republican critics said the resolution weakens U.S. troop morale.
Vermont Legislators to Vote on U.S. Withdrawal from Iraq
In Vermont state legislators are voting on its own Iraq war resolution. Vermont could become the first state in the nation to pass a legislative resolution calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. 139 People Died in Iraq on Monday In news from Iraq, at least 139 people were reported killed across the country on Monday. Earlier today 16 people died in a suicide bomb attack in central Baghdad. The blast occurred outside a food warehouse used to distribute subsidized food rations.
Iraqi Tribunal Sentences Iraq's Former VP to Death
Also on Monday, an Iraqi tribunal sentenced the country's former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan to death by hanging.
Syria Imposes New Restrictions on Iraqi Refugees
Syria has imposed new restrictions that could prevent many Iraqi refugees from entering the country. Syria had been the last Arab country welcoming large numbers of Iraqi refugees. On Monday more than 5,000 Iraqis lined up in Damascus to register with the UN refugee agency. Iraqis fear Syria could order a mass deportation of refugees living in the country illegally. Since the war began, an estimated 1.8 million refugees have fled Iraq. The United Nations estimates up to 50,000 Iraqis continue to flee the country each month. But now the refugees have dwindling options of where to go.
Tabacco: See what I mean, folks! You Black Readers out there in blogland, pay particular attention. Obama sounds a lot like John McCain and his other good buddy, the malevolent Joe Lieberman.
U.S. Admits Intel on Bin Laden "Has Gone Cold"
The former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan says the U.S. still has no intelligence on the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. The official Lieutenant-General Karl Eikenberry told CNN "The intelligence has gone cold on Osama bin Laden." His comments came as Defense Secretary Robert Gates was visiting the region. On Monday Gates met with Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Gates vowed U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan indefinitely.
* Robert Gates: "After the Soviets left, the United States made a mistake. We neglected Afghanistan and extremism took control of that country. The United States paid a price for that on September 11, 2001. We won't make that mistake again."
The Pentagon is reportedly planning a spring offensive against the Taliban. Meanwhile in Pakistan four vehicles were damaged on Monday after a bomb exploded at the office of the International Committee of the Red Cross. No one was hurt.
Attorneys Question Competency of Jose Padilla
Attorneys for Jose Padilla have asked a federal judge to put off a hearing set for Friday to determine whether their client is competent to stand trial. Padilla's lawyers say he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated by the neuropsychiatric effects of prolonged isolation. The Bush administration jailed him without charge after initially accusing him of plotting a dirty bomb attack. The Bush administration held Padilla in extreme isolation without almost any human contact for about 1300 days in a Navy brig in South Carolina. He was denied seeing an attorney for 21 months. His lawyers say interrogators used hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of "truth serums." When Padilla left his cell, guards covered his ears with sound-canceling headphones. His eyes were covered blacked-out goggles. One staff member at the brig told attorneys that Padilla's temperament became so docile and inactive that his behavior was like that of "a piece of furniture." The U.S. Bureau of Prisons ruled last week that Padilla is fit to stand trial.
UK Attorney General Calls For Guantánamo to be Closed
Britain's attorney general Lord Peter Goldsmith has renewed his call for the Bush administration to close Guantánamo. He criticized the new rules for military trials at the base. He said "The changes made are too little and too late."
Tabacco: So you still think this is a democracy and we still have Free Speech, the Right of Assembly, and the Right to Dissent? Well, read on!
Tabacco: And last, but NOT least:
New Study Heralds Benefits of Medical Marijuana
A major new scientific study on medical marijuana has just been released. The study found that AIDS patients suffering from debilitating nerve pain got as much or more relief by smoking marijuana as they would typically get from prescription drugs -- and with fewer side effects. The study appears in the journal Neurology.
Tabacco: No, I don’t smoke, don’t have AIDS, and won’t benefit personally from decriminalizing Marijuana. But the United States will be safer, less repressive and a nicer place to live if we do. I trust “Pot” smokers a whole lot more than I trust Neocons. “Pot” smokers commit many fewer homicides! And they rarely try to tell you what you should or should not do. Neocons and Christians could learn a valuable lesson from these so-called “degenerates”.
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
In 1981's 'Body Heat', Kathleen Turner said, "Knowledge is power".
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization)