Media cheerleaders miss story

by Linda McQuaig

To listen to the media tell it, Canada scored a victory last week at the NATO summit. We got the extra 1,000 troops that the Harper government said were needed to continue our involvement in the Afghan war.

So the fact that we're going to continue to fight in Afghanistan — which most Canadians oppose, according to the polls — has been transformed into a victory. We did it! We got the extra troops for a war Canadians don't want! Bravo!

Actually, the media have confused the Harper government achieving its own objectives with the national interest being advanced.

Yes, the staunchly pro-Washington Harper government cleverly manipulated the weak Liberal opposition into supporting the Afghan military venture, largely by presenting it as an international duty mandated by NATO.

In fact, the countries that make up NATO have no more interest in fighting in Afghanistan than the Canadian public does, which is why the 1,000 extra troops are coming from the United States — the one country that is keen to fight over there. But our media turned the situation into a mini-drama: Would Harper succeed at NATO or wouldn't he? It was easy to lose sight of the real story: The U.S. has succeeded in getting Canada to be its lead partner fighting an unpopular counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan.

In fact, the Harper government has recently made two agreements that have quietly moved us into deeper co-operation with the U.S. military and U.S. foreign policy.

Full Article...

Linda McQuaig is a journalist and author. Her most recent book is Holding the Bully's Coat: Canada and the U.S. Empire. Linda McQuaig's column is originally published by The Toronto Star.

punditman says...In the Full Article link above, Linda McQuaig notes how the media missed out on three very important stories, all directly affecting Canadian policy and sovereignty.

Operation Cassandra

by William S. Lind www.antiwar.com Adm. Fallon's (forced?) resignation was the last warning we are likely to get of an attack on Iran. It does not mean an attack is certain, but the U.S. could not attack Iran so long as he was the Centcom commander. That obstacle is now gone. Vice President Cheney's Middle East tour is another indicator. According to a report in The American Conservative, on his previous trip Cheney told our allies, including the Saudis, that Bush would attack Iran before the end of his term. If that report was correct, then his current tour might have the purpose of telling them when it is coming. Why not just do that through the State Department? State may not be in the loop, nor all of DOD for that matter. The State Department, OSD, the intelligence agencies, the Army, and the Marine Corps are all opposed to war with Iran. Of the armed services, only the Air Force reportedly is in favor, seeking an opportunity to show what air power can do. As always, it neglects to inform the decision-makers what it cannot do. The purpose of this column is not to warn of an imminent assault on Iran, though personally I think it is coming, and soon. Rather, it is to warn of a possible consequence of such an attack. Let me state it here, again, as plainly as I can: an American attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we now have in Iraq. Full Article...

Ex-CIA officer Slams US Allegations against Iran as Sham

US Creating False pretexts for Another War

In an alarming exposure of the acceleration and urgency of the American war party's push towards catastrophic war with Iran, Philip Giraldi, former CIA counter terrorism officer, in an interview [1] on 24th July with Anti War Radio debunked the NeoCons' repeated myth of Iran's support for AlQaeda as a pretext for war. Whilst acknowledging Iran's helpfulness in trying to establish security in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Giraldi spoke of the United States' hypocritical and illegal support for terrorist separatists groups inside Iran, and various plans and scenarios which have been drawn up to destroy Iran's military and economic infrastructure by massive bombardment, with the use of nuclear bombs a real and stated possibility.

Giraldi refuted the assumption that sharing hostilities towards the US, placed Iran and AlQaeda in the same camp and sharing similar agenda, arguing that Iran followed a very different agenda in its dealings with the US. He emphasised both the fact of Iranians' helpfulness in Iraq, in terms of pushing for greater stability, and also their help and cooperation in Afghanistan, as well as the reality of the deep hostilities between Shiia Iran and Sunni extremism of AlQaeda. Giraldi recalled the major attack against the Iranian consulate general in Afghanistan by the Taliban, a close ally of AlQaeda, in which 11 Iranian diplomats were killed, and the regular AlQaeda violent attacks against Shiia population in Iraq, and concluded that a Shiia Iranian-AlQaeda alliance was not a plausible possibility.

Full article...

Americans Moving to Canada at 30-Year High

The number of Americans admitted to Canada last year reached a 30-year high, with a 20 per cent increase over the previous year and nearly double the number that arrived in 2000.

The results of a survey, conducted by the Association for Canadian Studies, also revealed that the so-called “brain drain” of Canada appears to be narrowing.

The survey found that 10,942 Americans came to Canada in 2006, compared to just over 9,262 in 2005. In 2000, 5,828 came to the country.

While twice as many Canadians went to the States than Americans came to Canada, that ratio diminished between 2005 and 2006.

More...

punditman says: It is impossible to tell from the article above, how many of this new wave of Americans moving to Canada are political refugees. However, it stands to reason that this is certainly a factor in the increased numbers–post 2004 election, when there was much talk in the media of this phenomenon picking up steam if Bush “won” again.

Looks like it is happening…

On the other hand, the reason Canadians still go to the United States is quite simple: economic. This is the so-called brain drain amongst professionals that has been going on for decades. They perceive they can make more money and pay less taxes, although the evidence is inconclusive. The fact is the US economy is simply bigger and people go where the opportunity is, or where head office tells them to go. What is not clear is how many of these folks on either side of equation eventually return home.

Here is an interesting factoid: Microsoft recently announced that it would be opening offices in Vancouver, largely due to the fact that Canadian visa laws are far less stringent than American ones. It is easier to employ foreign workers in Canada than it is in the United States.

This clear trend of more Americans emigrating to Canada echoes what happened in the 1960s. The total number of American citizens who moved to Canada during the Vietnam War era was about 125,000. If you divide that number by 10 years (of war), then you get about 12,500, so the 2006 number of almost 11,000 looks like it is approaching these old averages. Surprise, surprise!

Bombing and Spraying Afghanistan

The New Air War in the Hindu Kush

By CONN HALLINAN

The rising tide of Afghan civilian deaths has opened a rift between the U.S. and NATO's 37,000-member International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). According to NATO officials, the U.S.'s increasing use of air power has badly damaged support for the war in both Afghanistan and Europe.

Daan Everts, the senior NATO civilian in Afghanistan, says the U.S. has created "a fallout that is negative because the collateral damage and particularly the civilian casualties are seen as unduly high, certainly by the Afghan people. This is of concern to us."

More...

punditman says: This helps explain why support for the war is falling amongst Canadians as well. In addition to the US air war, there is the disastrous opium-spraying program thanks to DynCorp, a private US mercenary company that has done extensive spraying of coca plants in Columbia. Perhaps citizens in NATO countries are waking up to the reality of who is in charge of this war, who is making a mess of it and who the cannon fodder are?

Seymour Hersh on U.S. funding Lebanon and Gaza violence

punditman says...

Award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh explains the US "redirection" policy in the middle east, the explosive repercussions and how the press just gobbles it up.

Korea 'may have lessons for US'

File this one under "Dreaming in Technicolor"


punditman says:
Good luck with that, George. To look to the Korean War's aftermath as a model for what to do in Iraq shows just how delusional the neo-cons have become. Off the top of Punditman's head, here are some obvious differences between the two situations:

1. The Korean War was part of the Cold War - Iraq is not.
2. In Korea, there were two huge conventional armies that fought to a standstill. In Iraq, there are many factions fighting each other in an unconventional war, and many fighting against their occupiers. There is no sign of anyone standing still.
3. Though technically still at war, South Korea has endured the permanence of US bases -- but after the fighting stopped. There is no indication that the majority of Iraqis will put up with permanent US bases in their country. So as I say, good luck with that!

I am sure I have just scratched the surface here.
***
Post Script: To further emphasize the absurdity of this and other ludicrous comparisons emanating from the Bushies, there's this from Slate:

Iraq Is Korea? Bush's latest appalling historical analogy
by Fred Kaplan

More Shenanigans at the Canada-US Border

They Hassle Who At the Border Crossings?! Vegetarians, yes that's right!

punditman says:

Border guard:
"You are being denied entry to the United States and have been put on the tofu-terrorist watch list. You may use this form to re-apply when you start eating meat again. Please attach receipts from several fast food outlets."

Afghanistan: The U.S. Is Losing The Wider War

While the Harper government prefers that Canadians not think about Iraq and Afghanistan in the same breath, the reality is that even though the Afghan mission operates under NATO command and UN auspices, the American invasion was its starting point. Should the Americans decide to leave, the rest of the West will not stay long.

punditman says:
Could it be that we are wasting our lives and treasure on a fool's errand?

How Syria Helped US in "War on Terror"

punditman says:
Syria, so goes the incessant yammering, is yet another terrorist-supporting-Muslim-dictatorship, that the West can't possible trust. Actually, the following piece, And How Bush Said "Thanks": How Syria Helped US in "War on Terror" has a rather different take on recent history and how this "pariah" state helped save American lives. The author, Jim Abourezk served as US Senator for South Dakota, 1974-1980 and visited Syria about five years ago.

More Rumours of an Impending US Strike on Iran

The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
US to attack Iran by end of April: Report

punditman says:
What are we to make of this? We've heard such reports and speculation before. In fact the blog world has been abuzz recently with a prediction by well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly Argumenty Nedeli that Operation Bite will begin April 6th...hey that's tomorrow! That would be the first time in my memory that the US goes to war without a huge propaganda build-up first. But hey, I have come to believe that anything's possible with the Busheviks in charge.

So yes, it is certainly true that the US is planning for an eventual aerial bombardment of Iran, but the real question is: Has the decision been made and a date picked? Or, are such reports just someone's disinformation--the purpose of which is open to speculation?