The Osterley Times

Friday, December 14, 2007

Climate talks stalled amidst rows

Talks between the EU and the US on the subject of climate change have broken down in Bali with the US and Canada opposed to any idea of firm cuts in emissions being written into the final text. Europe wants the final text to include a specific commitment that industrialised nations should cut their emissions by 25-40% by 2020.

The Indonesian hosts of the climate summit have been trying to bridge the gulf between the two sides with a text that reportedly excluded firm numerical targets for 2020, but did contain acceptances that greenhouse gas emissions need to be stabilised by the end of the next decade and that rich nations should play the major part in the effort.
Neither the EU nor the US has formally accepted the compromise wording.

This news comes on the same day that Al Gore writes on the front page of The Independent in an article entitled "The World Can't Wait For George Bush":

Just this week new evidence has been presented. I remember years ago listening to the scientists who specialise in the study of ice and snow express concern that some time towards the end of the 21st century we might even face the possibility of losing the entire north polar ice cap. I remember only three years ago when they revised their estimates to say it could happen halfway through the 21st century, by 2050.

I remember at the beginning of this year when I was shocked to hear them say it could happen in as little as 34 years and now, this week, they tell us it could completely disappear in as little as five to seven years.

He goes on:

Despite a growing number of honourable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill used in 1938 when he described those who were ignoring the threat posed by Adolf Hitler. He said, and I quote: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only be undecided, resolved only to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

I am not an official of the United States and I am not bound by the diplomatic niceties. So I am going to speak an inconvenient truth. My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that. But my country is not the only one that can take steps to ensure that we move forward from Bali with progress and with hope.

Over the next two years the United States is going to be somewhere it is not now. You must anticipate that. Just in the last few days, on the eve of this meeting, I have received more than 350,000 emails from Americans asking me to say to you: "We're going to change in the United States of America."

During this upcoming two-year period there will be a national election in the United States. One year and 40 days from today there will be a new inauguration in the United States.

If you decide to continue the progress that has already been made here on all of the items other than the targets and timetables for mandatory reductions; on the hope (and with the expectation) that, before this process is concluded in Copenhagen, you will be able to fill in that blank (with the help of a different position from the United States) then you can make great progress here.

Gore then proposes that the Bali Conference proceed as if Bush is not the American President and start making plans based on the hope that whoever comes next in that job will have more foresight than the current inhabitant of the White House.

When even Howard eventually left office in Australia admitting that climate change was real, then Bush is left looking like a Luddite, admitting that there is a problem but hoping that new technology will provide the answers rather than any practical steps we need to take ourselves. That is, in reality, a proposal to do nothing and hope for the best.

Gore's main point is right. We might never get this Luddite President to see what is so obvious to the scientific community, but the Bali conference should continue to do all it can with deforestation plans and other practical ways to confront this problem.

The current President won't always be there, and the world can't afford to wait until he has gone to develop plans.

Click title for full article.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Waterboarding is Useful

Waterboarding is torture but it WORKS! That makes everything okay then!

What the Hell has happened to America?

I take some small consolation from the fact that even guys like this are starting to say that what they did was torture, even as they continue to defend it on the grounds that - miracle of miracles - when you torture people they talk!

Perino and the "Cuban Missile Crisis"

Think on this next time Dana Perino assures you about some world event. This is her revealing what she did and didn't know about the Cuban Missile Crisis:

During a White House briefing, a reporter referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis -- and she didn't know what it was.

"I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about . . . the Cuban Missile Crisis," said Perino, who at 35 was born about a decade after the 1962 U.S.-Soviet nuclear showdown. "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure."

She's pretty sure the Cuban Missile Crisis had something to do with "Cuba and missiles". Like World War Two had something to do with the world going to war for the second time.

The next time she confidently assures you that "America does not do torture", bear that in mind. Chances are she doesn't know what it is. Or rather, she's not reassuring you that the US is following the international definition of torture when it declares that it doesn't practice it...

Click title for full article.

The News Dissector: How does U.S. TV cover Venezuela?

Hat tip to The Largest Minority.

Noam Chomsky on "Concision" in the US Media

Waterboarding approved at highest levels of US government, says ex-CIA man

Waterboarding of prisoners was approved at the highest levels of the US government according to a former CIA agent.

John Kiriakou, the leader of the team who captured Abu Zubaydah, did not explain how he knew who approved the interrogation technique but a "well-laid out, well-thought out reason" had to be set out to officials in each case.
"This isn't something done willy nilly. This isn't something where an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he's going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner," he told NBC.
"This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the national security council and justice department."
His comments came as the CIA director, Michael Hayden, prepared for questioning before closed congressional panels on the wiping of video tapes showing the interrogation of al-Qaida suspects.

Now, the CIA are claiming that they had to destroy these tapes in case it placed the agents involved in danger from al-Quada, which really is the most dreadful baloney. The tapes have been destroyed to save the agents from facing possible prosecution.

Now we find that approval came from much higher up the food chain.

Dana Perino continues to insist that the US does not torture, meaning the US does not torture according to their own unique reading of what constitutes torture.

"It's no secret that the president approved a lawful programme in order to interrogate hardened terrorists. We do not torture. We also know that this programme has saved lives by disrupting terrorist attacks," she said.

And Kiriakou went on to describe the benefits of waterboarding and the internal battle he personally went through over it's use.

According to Kiriakou, waterboarding Zubaydah got him to talk in less than 35 seconds.
"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate," he yesterday told ABC News.
"From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."
Kiriakou said he did not know the interrogation of Zubaydah had been recorded by the CIA or that the tapes were subsequently destroyed. "Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique. And I struggle with it," he said.
"What happens if we don't waterboard a person and we don't get that nugget of information and there's an attack. I would have trouble forgiving myself. ... At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do."

Here we have torture presented as the brave choice of the nevertheless troubled and principled interrogator.

The "what happens if we don't waterboard and there is an attack" logic really allows the interrogator to do anything at all. It's the "ticking bomb and the baby" scenario that defenders of torture love to use, despite the fact that such a notion is based more on Hollywood movies than on anything that has ever happened in reality.

Clive Coleman recently pointed out the failings of such a policy:

It presupposes that the authorities have the key suspect in custody, that they know he’s guilty of a bomb plot and that the threat is imminent. Is it really believable that with all of that, and the need of terrorists to plan and communicate, no information indicating the location of the bomb has come to light? Or that it could not be gleaned through legitimate questioning and investigation? As a hypothesis, the ticking bomb relies heavily on the “ticking” part. Torture can only be justified if time is critical. If it isn’t you must question normally. However, the use of torture in time-critical situations would play into the terrorist’s hands. If his goal is to maximise loss of life, he will say anything to direct his interrogators away from the bomb. They, on the other hand, must assume that his statement is correct as they will not have the time to investigate its veracity.

Not only that, but the Israelis have tried this in the past and found that it did not work:

The only democracy that has experimented with the ticking-bomb scenario is Israel. It sanctioned the use of “moderate psychological and physical force” in such cases. The experiment proved unsuccessful and illustrates an insidious danger. Torture can grow. Israel found it impossible to limit torture to the terrorist alone and ended up applying force to those it believed knew or could lead security forces to the terrorist. Eventually the Israeli Supreme Court found that the exceptional use of torture in ticking-bomb cases wasn’t working, It was an exception that was becoming commonplace and the court put an end to it.

I also wonder if Kiriakou is getting this out now in order to make sure that no individual officer is prosecuted for waterboarding without the men further up the food chain realising that their necks are on the line as well, as they authorised this barbarism.

The lessons of Abu Ghraib have been well learned. Don't let them blame what's happened on a few "bad apples" when they knew what those apples were doing all along...

Click title for full article.

Conrad Black gets six years

Is it me or is there one law for the rich and another for the poor?

Bank robbers regularly go down for about twenty years, but Conrad Black steals $6.1 million and he gets six and a half years in jail and a fine of $125,000? Furthermore, he doesn't go to jail straight away, he gets until March to get his shit together so he can enjoy his last Christmas at home with the family!

This strikes me as simply perverse. Most people jailed are carted off there and then; they certainly don't get a couple of months to prepare themselves before incarceration begins. Maybe this is a curious habit employed on the other side of the Atlantic, as I've only heard of it before in the case of "Scooter" Libby.

And Black, like "Scooter" Libby, is a man who has never expressed any remorse for his crimes. Indeed, even when given the chance to speak in court, his arrogance once again got the better of him:

After remaining silent throughout his four-month trial, the disgraced press baron delivered a final display of defiance as he accepted an opportunity to address the court. "I do wish to express very profound regret and sadness at the severe hardship inflicted on many shareholders at the evaporation of $1.85bn of value under the management of my successors," said the 63-year-old peer, speaking in a husky yet confident voice.

Prosecutors had asked for a sentence as long as 20 years, citing his lack of remorse and his disdain of the US judicial system - which included describing prosecutors as "Nazis" and "pygmies".

He'll end up in some bloody open prison where he can wander to the local shops to buy wine, like Jonathan Aitken did.

The judge made a point of saying:

"No one is immune from the proper application of law in the United States and that, Mr Black, includes you."

However, the very fact that his act of theft was done by paperwork as opposed to conventional robbery seems to have resulted in a very lenient sentence.

It's hard to imagine some thief from council estate being given six years for stealing $6.1 million, it's bloody impossible to imagine that he'd be allowed to enjoy Christmas at home before his sentence even began.

It reminds me of that old saying about banks: If you owe them £500 they'll take you to court, if you owe them £5 million, they'll take you to lunch.

Click title for full article.

War Is Over!

Monday, December 10, 2007

The Trials of Henry Kissinger

Bob Schieffer: CIA Torture Tapes & The Message Of Ed Murrow

Happy Xmas, your war is over!

Gordon Brown has signaled the end of British involvement in the Iraq war during a visit to the region.

The PM was cheered as he praised UK troops and revealed combat operations in Basra will end “within two weeks”.

Iraqi forces will take over as the 4,500-strong British force switches from front-line duties to a training role.

By early next year, our contingent in Southern Iraq will be cut to 2,500 – and may be withdrawn completely in March.

The PM broke the good news in a flying visit to Iraq.

He landed at the Army’ s base at Basra airport in darkness in an RAF Hercules transporter plane.

Minutes later he spoke to Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki.

He then gave a rousing speech to 300 squaddies after shaking hands with them all.

This has been on the cards ever since Brown was elected to office. The Iraq war was the most unpopular part of Blair's legacy and the thing that Brown has been most anxious to distance himself from.

The British will now remain in Iraq merely in a training capacity.

And, without overtly saying it, Brown has left Bush all on his own.

Click title for full article.

Sunday, December 09, 2007

O'Reilly on torture...

Billy'O talks with Jonathan Turley about the destroyed CIA tapes, since Bill knows it is obstruction of justice he turns off that topic an goes to torture.

Bill then defends the use of torture. "I don't think waterboarding destroys the United States in any way shape or form."

Jon: You can not become the man you are interrogating.

Bill: See This is where you and I Part company.

O'Reilly then asks you to decide which team you are on... Basically, are you for or against torture... Unbelievable. And he regards this as a virtue...

Saturday, December 08, 2007

What Right Wing Blogs are for....

Dan Bartlett sums up the function of right wing blogs...

Texas Monthy:

The fundamental change in the way people consume the news had to change the way we executed a communications strategy at the White House.

Q. How much attention did you pay to the programs on cable?

I never worried about a certain cable show. What I was looking for were trends that were shaping the narrative and the conventional wisdom and whether we had to be in front of or behind those things.

Q. What about the blogs?

We had to set up a whole new apparatus to deal with the challenges they pose. Are they real journalists? The Washington Post, for example, has journalists who are now bloggers. Do you treat them as bloggers? Do they get credentials?

Q. Let’s think of it as a practical matter. If one of those journalists-turned-bloggers, Chris Cillizza, e-mails you to say he needs an interview, and at the same time one of the Post’s print reporters-say, Dan Balz-e-mails you and says he needs an interview, and you can do only one . . .

Balz.

Q. Because the print edition of the Post has more of an impact?

Because Balz is on multiple platforms. He’s booked more easily on television. He’s read by more people. He influences people a bit more. Now, the question might not be as much Chris versus Dan as maybe, “Is it Dan Balz or one of the guys at [the conservative blog] Power Line?”

Q. Yeah, or what if [conservative blogger] Hugh Hewitt called?

That’s when you start going, “Hmm . . .” Because they do reach people who are influential.

Q. Well, they reach the president’s base.

That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.

I think he's summed up their function perfectly!

Hat Tip to Crooks and Liars.

Friday, December 07, 2007

O'Reilly: "If you read far left web sites you are a devil worshiper."

His aging, bitter, audience must love this shit. People who express contrary opinions to one's own in a democracy can be portrayed as the equivalent of devil worshipers. This constitutes political discourse for this moron.

Olbermann - Countdown "You, Mr. Bush, are a bald-faced liar."

A Pattern of Deception

I don't have much time to post this morning, but there is an excellent article in today's Washington Post by Dan Froomkin outlining the ever changing rhetoric of the neo-cons towards Iran and the fact that the latest NIE report seeks to prevent Bush claiming plausible deniability from some of his more outrageous claims surrounding Iranian Nuclear weapons.

Consider what Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker over a year ago: "The Administration's planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Here's Hersh with Wolf Blitzer on CNN yesterday:

Hersh: "At the time, I wrote that there was a tremendous fight about it, because Cheney in the White House -- the vice president did not want to hear this. So that there was a fight about that intelligence. And, actually, for the last year, I think the vice president's office pretty much has kept -- you know, the vice president has kept his foot on the neck of that report. That report was bottled up for a year.
"The intelligence we learned about yesterday has been circulating inside this government at the highest levels for the last year -- and probably longer."

And Hersh scoffed at Bush's suggestion that he didn't know about the changing intelligence until last week: "Either he didn't know what was going on at the highest levels -- the fight I'm talking about began last year. . . . Now, maybe he didn't know what was going on at the vice presidential level about something that serious. If so, I mean we pay him to know these things and not to make statements based on information that turned out not to be accurate. Or else he's misrepresenting what he knows.

"I don't think there's any question, this is going to pose a serious credibility problem. I assume people are going to be asking more and more questions about what did he know when. And his statement that McConnell comes to him -- the head of the intelligence services of the United States -- and says I have something serious to say to you and he says great, let me know when I want to hear it, is, you know -- it's his words and we can only say that if that's true, you know, that's -- that's not what we pay the guy to do."

The conclusion is that the NIE report has been in the same state for the best part of a year and certainly for the past six months. There was no breakthrough piece of evidence that suddenly changed things.

"The White House, and particularly Vice President Cheney, used every trick in the book to stop it from being finalized and issued. There was no last minute breakthrough that caused the issuance of the assessment."

It is inconceivable that Bush was not aware of that NIE report and what it stated long before he claims to have known it's conclusions. Which means, when he was talking of WWIII and other dangers of Iranian nuclear proliferation, he was war mongering for reasons that only be speculated upon. He was certainly issuing die warnings concerning something which he knew not to be happening.

Froomkin then quotes others to show how Bush is moving the goalposts:

Trita Parsi writes on behalf of the National Iranian American Council: "Rather than adjusting policy on Iran in accordance to the reality-check provided by the NIE, the President moved the goal post on Iran. As the NIE declared that Iran likely doesn't have a weapons program, the President shifted the red line from weaponization to the mere knowledge of enriching uranium -- an activity that in and of itself is not of a military nature and is permitted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

"By setting a new and arbitrary standard with no root or support in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, President Bush is insisting on adjusting reality to policy rather than policy to reality. There are numerous problems with this stance.

"First, it further undermines US credibility and leaves allies and foes alike with the impression that Washington seeks a military conflict with Iran regardless of the realities of Iran's nuclear program.

"Second, Iran already possesses the knowledge to enrich uranium. Given the President's logic, this reality would permit the US to continue to pursue a military option against Iran -- in spite of the absence of an Iranian weapons program."

Similar to the logic he displayed prior to the Iraq war, as far as Bush is concerned, every new fact simply further enhances his desire to attack. Even the fact that the Iranians have stopped their nuclear programme - if they ever had one - is now given as a reason for why we "have to be tough with Iran".

Maureen Dowd writes in her New York Times opinion column: "If W. can shape the intelligence to match his faith-based beliefs, as with Iraq, then he will believe the intelligence -- no matter how incredible it is.

"If he can't shape it to match his beliefs, as with Iran, then he will disregard the intelligence -- no matter how credible it is."

And this pattern of behaviour is repeated in right wing blogs and by right wing commentators throughout the blogosphere. If the intelligence supports attacking Iran, then it is believable. If it does not, then it is suspect.

But the big story here, and the one that deserves to be further explored, is whether or not Bush knew - and it's hard to believe that he didn't - that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons programme when he was telling all of us about WWIII.

The NIE report is an attempt by the intelligence communities to take the wind out of the neo-con sails as they race to war with Iran. The scandal is that Bush has been war mongering whilst fully aware that the threat he was warning us of did not exist.

That's the same pattern of behaviour he indulged in before the Iraq war; and those who argue that he genuinely believed that Saddam possessed WMD, should look at how he has sold a possible war with Iran, whilst fully aware that the threat he was warning against was bogus.

It's well worth reading Froomkin's entire article. Click the title to do so.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Bush urges Tehran to come clean

I said I thought he would be shameless when confronted by the lies he has been spouting about a possible WWIII because of Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons, but even I never foresaw this:

US President George W Bush has said that Iran should reveal the full extent of its nuclear programme, or risk further international isolation.
A US intelligence assessment released on Monday said that Iran had halted a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the US report a "great victory" for Iran.

But Mr Bush said Iran still had "more to explain" about its past actions, and that it must cease uranium enrichment.

He said Iran had yet to acknowledge that it had a covert nuclear weapons programme which ran until 2003 - as stated by Monday's National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).

Talk about turning a negative into a positive! What proof have the US provided to anyone that Iran were EVER pursuing nuclear weapons?

"The Iranians have a strategic choice to make," said the US president.
"They can come clean with the international community about the scope of their nuclear activities, and fully accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment programme and come to the table and negotiate.
"Or they can continue on a path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people."

He thinks he's still going to get sanctions imposed by the international community! It's beyond shameless. It's bloody lunacy...

However, Russia and China - whose acquiescence would be required for any new UN sanctions - have said the NIE report raises questions about the need for new measures.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran had been "somewhat vindicated".
Mr ElBaradei said the assessment was consistent with the IAEA's own, and that he hoped it would allow some space to pursue a diplomatic solution.

There are times when you can front it out. When you can hope that sheer brass neck will see you through. This is not one of those times. Even Pat Buchanan wants hearings over this.

But, finding himself in a very deep hole, Bush keeps on digging. This is beyond shameless. This is sociopathic...

Click title for full article.

Bill O’Reilly vs. The USO & Drowning Pool

Drowning Pool respond to Bill O'Reilly's claims that no-one - other than himself and Toby Keith - ever bothers to visit the troops.

The truth has such a Liberal bias...

Hat tip to Crooks and Liars.

Bolton Not Swayed in the Slightest by the NIE on Iran

What a surprise.... He says the report was written mainly by "former state department employees" now calling themselves "members of the intelligence community" and that they are overreacting to the failure to find WMD in Iraq.

In other words the fact that people like Bolton lied before the Iraq war has made the intelligence community less likely to accept their claims at face value now. He is also given a chance to revisit his recent claims that ElBaradei was "an apologist for Iran". He declines to do so...

Defiant Bush says Iran still poses a threat

In the light of the latest US NIE report into Iran I expected Bush's response to be shameless. He did not disappoint.

Bush, at a hastily-organised White House press conference, said: "Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Once again Bush is concentrating on Iranian knowledge rather than Iranian intent. Quite how one is supposed to unlearn something once learned Bush did not elaborate upon.

Bush, questioned by a reporter who said he looked dispirited, said: "I feel ... pretty good about life," and claimed "nothing's changed" in relation to the danger posed by Iran. "What's to say they [the Iranians] couldn't start another covert nuclear weapons programme," the president said.
But his rhetoric was markedly less bellicose than in October, when he issued an apocalyptic warning about the crisis potentially leading to world war three.
He said his administration's intention was to continue to seek UN sanctions against Iran to force it to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, seen by the US as a step towards a nuclear weapons capability. In his one reference to military action, he refused to take that option off the table.

Now, of course, one of the reasons Bush has managed to obtain sanctions in the past has been his insistence that Iran enriching uranium - which it is their right to do under the NNPT - is proof that the Iranians are attempting to build a nuclear bomb, an insistence which was not accompanied by any proof.

However, now that Bush's own NIE report has ruled this out, Bush will find it much harder to convince other nations to impose further sanctions on Tehran, as China quickly made obvious.

The Chinese ambassador to the United Nations, Guangya Wang, saw the report as altering the international approach to Iran: "I think we all start from the presumption that now things have changed."

The Israelis were quick to condemn the report:

The Israeli Prime Minster, Ehud Olmert, who said the conclusions in the National Intelligence Estimate had already been discussed with Washington, echoed US officials by declaring: "It is vital to pursue efforts to prevent Iran from developing a capability like this." He added: "We will continue doing so along with our friends the United States."

The Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, went further, saying that Iran had probably restarted its nuclear programme. He told Army Radio: "It seems Iran in 2003 halted for a certain period of time its military nuclear programme but as far as we know it has probably since revived it."

Barak's claim flies in the face of what the NIE actually concluded, and was indicative of just how desperate the pro-war crowd are becoming. They have just lost their ace card; their insistence that Iran were pursuing a nuclear bomb, whilst providing no proof other than Iran's perfectly legal attempt to enrich uranium, has been fatally undermined.

It's no wonder the neo-cons tried to keep this report shelved for the best part of a year, as it undermines their case to the point where most people must assume that war with Iran has been indefinitely postponed.

Certainly, Ahmadinejad appears to think so:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that a US report on Tehran's nuclear programme is a "great victory".
He said in a televised speech that Iran would not retreat from its path towards a peaceful atomic programme.

Bush will now push for further sanctions at the UN but the chances of him getting them are almost nil, with China almost certain to employ her veto.

Indeed, Iran will now push to have existing sanctions against her lifted as they were all made under the presumption that the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.

A jubilant Iranian leadership called yesterday for plans for new United Nations sanctions against the country to be dropped in the face of the US intelligence report confirming it had abandoned its nuclear weapons programme.
Existing sanctions had been rendered "illegal" and the report showed the Bush administration's warnings about Iran's intentions to be "baseless and unreliable", said Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini.

Oh, to have been in Dick Cheney's office the day that NIE report was released...

Click title for full article.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Paul: Republicans Face Certain Defeat With Pro-War Candidate

Ron Paul argues what I have been saying for a while now. People like Giuliani might please the Republican base, but they can't possibly be elected president as the vast majority of Americans are now deeply opposed to the Iraq war.

U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work

A mere six weeks ago Bush was talking of World War Three should Iran be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon or even the "knowledge" to produce a nuclear weapon.

Now we have a report from all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies - a report which the Bush administration has been keeping on hold for more than a year - which states that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen.

The conclusions of the new assessment are likely to reshape the final year of the Bush administration, which has made halting Iran’s nuclear program a cornerstone of its foreign policy.
The assessment, a National Intelligence Estimate that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies, states that Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”
Iran is continuing to produce enriched uranium, a program that the Tehran government has said is designed for civilian purposes. The new estimate says that enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates.
But the new estimate declares with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt “was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure.”

The Bush administration, which has been publicly making the case that Iran are developing a nuclear weapon, sent forth Stephen Hadley to argue that - laughably - the report justified some of their more overblown claims concerning Iran and the bomb.

But the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quickly issued a statement describing the N.I.E. as containing positive news rather than reflecting intelligence mistakes.
“It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,” Mr. Hadley said. “It tells us that we have made progress in trying to ensure that this does not happen. But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem.”
“The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically — without the use of force — as the administration has been trying to do,” Mr. Hadley said.

It really does say something about the sheer shamelessness of the Bush administration that they can send someone out, after the publication of a report which basically undermines everything that they have been saying, and attempt to spin it as proof that their tactics have been the right ones and that the "assessment does not suggest a failure on the part of the U.S. intelligence community, but a success in finding the true status of the program."

Up until now almost every statement from the neo-cons has implied that the very fact that Iran are enriching uranium is somehow proof that Iran are intent on developing a nuclear weapon. We now know that, for at least the last year, the intelligence was saying the opposite.

And, of course, the argument that Iran might in future seek to develop nuclear weapons ignores Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa - issued in 2005, two years after the programme was shut down - which explicitly forbids the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.

John Edwards issued a statement which, I think, more accurately explains what the report signifies:

"The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war. The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps like the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which needlessly took us closer to war. And it's why I have proposed that we pursue a comprehensive diplomatic approach instead."

Hillary tried to spin it to best serve her presidential campaign, but the opening remarks of a statement made on her behalf nevertheless told a bald truth:

"The new declassified key judgments of the Iran NIE expose the latest effort by the Bush administration to distort intelligence to pursue its ideological ends."

I find it impossible to believe that sixteen intelligence agencies suddenly changed their minds regarding Iran in the past few weeks, which leads me to think that one of the reasons that the Bush administration has tried to halt publication of this NIE report is because it did not fit it with their ideological desire to bomb Iran.

I also think perhaps this is what has produced the subtle change in Bush's rhetoric over the past year, where he has started to talk about preventing Iran developing the "knowledge" to develop a nuclear weapon rather than a nuclear weapon itself. Bush knew when he made those statements that his own intelligence communities were saying that Iran had halted all attempts to build a nuclear weapon and that he was never going to be able to produce proof of any Iranian nuclear weapons programme. So he switched his aim to preventing Iran developing the "knowledge" to develop a nuclear weapon, which simply gives him more scope to pursue his aim of cutting Iran down to size without burdening himself with having to produce proof which he must have known didn't exist.

And only a few weeks ago we had people like John Bolton stating that "Mohamed ElBaradei is an apologist for Iran" because ElBaredei was insisting on what the US's own NIE report now states, which is that Iran are 3-8 years away from developing a nuclear weapon, although there is no proof that they actually want one.

The Bush regime spin will start today. I expect it to be shameless.

Click title for full article.

Monday, December 03, 2007

Kucinich challenges Kucinich

Very funny....

But he makes a very good and very serious point. Health care is a basic right in a democratic society, not a privilege based on ability to pay.

Olmert holds little hope for peace deal

Ehud Olmert has reported back to the Israeli cabinet that he does not have great hopes of anything coming out of the Annapolis summit and, indeed, that he is going to continue to insist that Israeli security be achieved before Israel is required to make any other move under George Bush's redundant road map.

Reporting to his cabinet, Mr Olmert insisted that there was "no commitment to a specific timetable". While every effort would be made to hold accelerated negotiations, beginning on 12 December, Israel would implement any agreement only after the Palestinians fulfilled all their obligations under the 2003 international roadmap for peace. "I think this is very important," Mr Olmert said, "and assures the security component, which is the most important issue that we are dealing with".

The roadmap, drafted by the US, European Union, United Nations and Russia, requires the Palestinian Authority to end violence and "begin sustained, targeted and effective operations aimed at confronting all those who engage in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure".

So, the occupied people will first be required to ensure the safety of their occupiers before the occupying force need take any action which might end the occupation.

It's almost a classic example of putting the cart before the horse.

Now obviously there is a certain amount of playing to the gallery here from Olmert as he is desperate to avoid the Russian immigrant Yisrael Beiteinu party and the Sephardi Shas from walking from his government and bringing about it's collapse, something they have promised to do if the rhetoric from Annapolis is turned into fact. So he's almost winking at them not to worry, reassuring them that nothing will come from Annapolis.

Of course, even the pro-Israeli Tony Blair has pointed out that the "Israeli security first" route is doomed to failure:

Tony Blair, whose quiet but effective involvement as Middle East envoy has so far been largely positive, argues that progress on Israeli security, a better economy for the Palestinians, and a political solution for both peoples all go hand in hand. This is an improvement on the "security first" doctrine, which holds that no progress is possible until Palestinian militancy has been crushed. Western and Arab countries will have a chance at the summit to endorse Mr Blair's approach.

There's got to be something in it for the Palestinians as well. Perhaps, as I say, Olmert is simply playing to keep the more right wing elements of his government on board, but, nevertheless, the hopes of anything positive coming out of Annapolis do not look good.

Click title for full article.

Chávez on to a winner with referendum gamble

Hugo Chavez's gamble in Venezuela appears to have paid off with it looking like he has won a narrow victory to abolish presidential term limits and allow him to serve as President as long as he continues to win elections.

Two government exit polls suggested most voters approved sweeping revisions to abolish presidential term limits and enshrine socialism. The opposition was sombre but did not immediately concede defeat.

Turnout appeared to be low despite claims from both sides that a yes vote would mark a radical acceleration towards what Chávez terms "21st century socialism". The 53-year-old president said last week he would rule until 2050, as long as he continued winning elections.

Of course the CIA are reported to have plans to undo all of this in the near future.

On a scarier note, an internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister - almost fantastical, were it not true - plan to destabilize Venezuela during the coming days. The plan, titled "OPERATION PLIERS" was authored by CIA Officer Michael Middleton Steere and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington.

The Largest Minority cover just what exactly the CIA plan consists of:

How is this to be done?

In the memo, the CIA proposes the following tactics and actions:

Take the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation
Generate a climate of ungovernability
Provoke a general uprising in a substantial part of the population
Engage in a “plan to implode” the voting centers on election day by encouraging opposition voters to “VOTE and REMAIN” in their centers to agitate others
Start to release data during the early hours of the afternoon on Sunday that favor the NO vote (in clear violation of election regulations)
Coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies
Coordinate with ex-militar officers and coupsters Pena Esclusa and Guyon Cellis - this will be done by the Military Attache for Defense and Army at the US Embassy in Caracas, Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO)

The Largest Minority also have a video page regarding Venezuela which gives great details of the CIA plan to undermine any victory that Chavez may have by claiming voter fraud.

Bang on cue, the opposition have begun to make claims that there has, indeed, been fraud at the ballot box:

"In my opinion, these are not the (real) numbers. The government is wrong," claimed Delsa Solorzano, a member of the New Time party at the opposition's referendum headquarters in Caracas. Earlier, Mr Chavez said voting was going well. "We're going to accept the results, whatever they are."

Chavez continues to be portrayed as a dictator within the US media, no doubt to make his overthrow seem like the height of democratic reform, when - in fact - nothing could be further from the truth.

The word “Chavez” and “dictator” are usually not spaced too far apart from corporate media coverage of the events in Venezuela. Little mention is given to the fact that the people of Venezuela have voted in favor of Chavez and his reforms on no less than 11 occasions, which in many books makes him the most heavily elected official on the planet, or at least creates a very strange definition of the word “dictator”.

So, is George Bush, the man who wants to export democracy around the world, about to overturn another democratic election result because - once again - the electorate have foolishly chosen the wrong party? If he is, it really does make a mockery of his supposed love of democracy.

UPDATE:

The BBC are now reporting that Chavez has actually lost the referendum and has swiftly conceded defeat.

Mr Chavez swiftly conceded and urged the opposition to show restraint.
"To those who voted against my proposal, I thank them and congratulate them," he said. "I ask all of you to go home, know how to handle your victory."
He insisted that he would "continue in the battle to build socialism".
"Don't feel sad," he told his supporters, saying there were "microscopic differences" between the "yes" and "no" options.
He said the reforms had failed "for now" but they were "still alive".

Click title for full article.

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Helen Thomas challenges Perino

There's so much to say about this. Firstly, the notion that the US elected Bush is simply not true. Then there's this exchange:

Dana Perino: Because he is the commander on the ground, Helen. He’s the one who is making sure that the situation is moving —

Helen Thomas: You mean how many more people we kill?

Dana Perino: Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position bestowed upon you by your colleagues to make such statements. This is. "It is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive.

There is simply no question that the US are killing innocent people in Iraq, so I don't know why Perino finds that observation "absurd and very offensive". After all Thomas did not imply that the killing was deliberate, she simply noted that it happens. But I found it really interesting to note that Perino chose to remind Thomas that "it is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room".

That's how Perino sees the press attempting to hold them to account. As an "honor and a privilege". Not as a right. Because, of course, honours and privileges can be withdrawn.

I've said it before, but if Helen Thomas was British she'd be a Dame by now. The US should regard her as a national treasure.

Huckabee's Phone Call From God

This simply made me cringe. Underlying message: If God took sides in an election he would "hang in there" with the Republicans who take care of "the family and marriage".

What courage it must take to shamelessly pander to your base in this way.

Study: U.S., Israel should begin planning Iran strike

The title of the think tank's report, "Speaking About the Unspeakable," says it all. It's as if right wing think tank's are themselves commenting on how insane their own plans are. However, as usual, the more insane the plan, the more "courageous" right wing loons feel they are being when they call for actions that any sensible person can see - at first glance - as an act of madness.

Israel and the United States should begin an intense dialogue on ways to deal with Iran's nuclear plans and should examine ways to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a new study published by an influential Washington think tank.

The report, by a former deputy head of the National Security Council, Chuck Freilich, says Israel and the U.S. should discuss nuclear-crisis scenarios between Israel and Iran.

In the report Freilich assumes that detailed talks between the US and Israel do not extend beyond "exchanges of intelligence, coordination of diplomatic moves and the supply of sophisticated weapons to Israel". This implies that Israel and the US do not have plans for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities already, which I find simply fantastical.

The recent dry run over Syria was surely proof that plans exist for an attack on Iran. This report also ignores the fact that Seymour Hersh has already reported that the Bush administration has "intensified planning for a possible major air attack."

He then moves into fantasy land:

Freilich says Israel would prefer that the U.S. attack Iran. He notes that if Israel believes it can successfully attack Iran, Israel fears that the U.S. would veto the plan, so Israel would not unveil the scheme ahead of time. The U.S. would also keep secret from Israel any intention of attacking Iran.

The notion that the Cheney/Bush White House would move to prevent Israel from attacking Iran, or that the US would keep plans to attack the nuclear facilities of one of Israel's neighbours secret from Israel herself, implies that the most pro-Israeli White House ever doesn't consult with one of it's major allies; something which I can't be alone in finding simply unbelievable.

For instance, Dick Cheney is already quoted as saying that Iran was:

"right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it."

Indeed Bush, before a recent meeting with Olmert, blatantly stated that Iran was what they would be discussing:

President Bush hinted that actions against Iran will form the core of their discussion.

"I'm sure that we will find some time, also, to discuss other measures, such as the danger of Iran and the threats that come from the President of Iran, who talks time and again about the liquidation of the state of Israel, something that is totally intolerable and unacceptable," he said. "And we have to continue the measures taken in order to stop the Iranian efforts to establish unconventional weapons."

Talking to reporters at a joint press conference Bush once again re-iterated his position on military strikes against Iran by saying "I will tell you this, that my position hasn't changed, and that is all options are on the table."

"And I fully understand the concerns of any Israeli when they hear the voice of the man in Iran saying, on the one hand, we want to acquire the technologies and know-how to build a -- enrich uranium, which could then be converted into a nuclear weapon, and on the other hand, we want to destroy Israel," he added. "Look, if I were an Israeli citizen I would view that as a serious threat to my security. And as a strong ally of Israel, I view that as a serious threat to its security -- not only the security of Israel, but the security of the Middle East."

So the whole notion behind this report, that Israel and the US have no joint plans to deal with Iran, is simply nonsensical.

What the report does do, apart from portraying the US and Israel as reluctant to discuss the notion of attacking Iran, is once again float the notion that Iran must be attacked.

It's a familiar right wing refrain from yet another "influential Washington think tank" ignoring the fact that there is simply no popular support amongst Americans for any attack on Iran:

This desire for diplomacy is particularly apparent in public attitudes on the spread of nuclear weapons. As far as the vast majority of Americans are concerned, military force is "off the table" in dealing with Iran's nuclear program and its possible meddling in Iraq. There's also been a sharp drop in public confidence in military force as a tool for dealing with other countries developing weapons of mass destruction—even though controlling the spread of nuclear weapons is the public's top policy priority and one of its major fears.

But, as always, the wishes of most Americans are swept aside as irrelevant by the people who brought us the Glorious War in Iraq and the steady drumbeat for action against Iran continues.

It's simply tiresome.

Click title for full article.

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Officer Tased Pregnant Woman; Caught on Tape

More taser controversy.

Biden's warning to Bush: Bomb Iran and face impeachment

Biden says what many people think, Bush should be impeached if he bombs Iran. Listen to Scarborough attack Biden for daring to say what he has said.

Personally, I doubt this group of Democrats would impeach Bush no matter what he did, but the lies Scarborough repeats here - Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" etc, - are simply stupefying.

Karl "Turd Blossom" Rove says Congress started the Iraq War

This guy takes spin to new levels. Further inspections and a broader coalition would have been possible were it not for those bloody Democrats in Congress. Unbelievable crap...

US War Vets to Speak Publicly About War Crimes

A group of war veterans are to descend on Washington this week to testify about war crimes they either committed or witnessed in Iraq.

"The war in Iraq is not covered to its potential because of how dangerous it is for reporters to cover it," said Liam Madden, a former Marine and member of the group Iraq Veterans Against the War. "That's left a lot of misconceptions in the minds of the American public about what the true nature of military occupation looks like."

Iraq Veterans Against the War argues that well-publicized incidents of American brutality like the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of an entire family of Iraqis in the town of Haditha are not the isolated incidents perpetrated by "a few bad apples," as many politicians and military leaders have claimed. They are part of a pattern, the group says, of "an increasingly bloody occupation."

"This is our generation getting to tell history," Madden told OneWorld, "to ensure that the actual history gets told – that it's not a sugar-coated, diluted version of what actually happened."

This is a deliberate attempt to recreate the Vietnam Veterans Against the War campaign which gathered in Detroit in 1971 protesting against the atrocities being committed in Vietnam.

Atrocities like the My Lai massacre had ignited popular opposition to the war, but political and military leaders insisted that such crimes were isolated exceptions.

"Initially even the My Lai massacre was denied," notes Gerald Nicosia, whose book Home to War provides the most exhaustive history of the Vietnam veterans' movement.

"The US military has traditionally denied these accusations based on the fact that 'this is a crazy soldier' or 'this is a malcontent' – that you can't trust this person. And that is the reason that Vietnam Veterans Against the War did this unified presentation in Detroit in 1971.

"They brought together their bonafides and wore their medals and showed it was more than one or two or three malcontents. It was medal-winning, honored soldiers – veterans in a group verifying what each other said to try to convince people that these charges cannot be denied. That people are doing these things as a matter of policy."

The most famous speech to come out of Detroit remains as pertinent today as it was back then. In 1971 John Kerry said:

"Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be – and these are his words – 'the first President to lose a war'. We are asking Americans to think about that, because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

As Bush appears to have no plan for Iraq other than to hand it over to his successor, the same dynamic exists today. How many people must die in order to ensure that Bush can hand his defeat in Iraq to another US president?

The war vets aim to make people more aware of what is actually being done in their name as opposed to the sanitised version being served to them by the media. If more people realised what was being done in places like Iraq, I think Bush would have a much harder time passing his mistake on to someone else.

After all, the people making these charges are actual vets, people who have seen what the press - who are largely absent from Iraq - have not.

Click title for full article.