Lying Liars: To Make Iraq An American Colony

by Mentarch

Two items.

First one: the long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report is out, confirming what everyone in the reality-based progressive community has known for a long time - that the Bush administration (including President Bush and V.-P. Cheney) made public statements to promote their invasion of Iraq which they knew full well were not supported by available intelligence.

(i.e. they "lied their asses off")

Among the report's conclusions:

* Claims by President Bush that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership "were not substantiated by the intelligence."

* The president and vice president misrepresented what was known about Iraq’s chemical weapons capabilities.

* Rumsfeld misrepresented what the intelligence community knew when he said Iraq's weapons productions facilities were buried deeply underground.

* Cheney's claim that the intelligence community had confirmed that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was not true.

In addition, a companion report found that a special office set up by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld undertook "sensitive intelligence activities" that were inappropriate "without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department."

(In other words: they cooked the intel - again, nothing new revealed here, except that it is now "official")

Second item - Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

(...) Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

(...) The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.

(...) The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence."

I think there can be no more doubt now that the Iraq war was not only about securing oil resources, but owning them permanently.

Taking the two items above, it is safe to conclude that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. lied their collective asses off to procure a new colony for the U.S.A. - and its very first one in the 21st century at that.

One small step for American Imperialism, a giant leap for the neocons' wet dreams.

I wonder if they'll be doing the same with Afghanistan ... or perhaps they prefer Iran?

In any case, I will join in the sarcasm of The Station Agent and make the suggestion of simply annexing Iraq and make it a state (with the huge, new embassy there becoming the state house) - and therefore be done with this.

Or maybe going about it this way would be too obvious?

Regime change indeed ...


P.S. See also this!

Disturbing Stirrings - Ratcheting Up For War on Iran

by Stephen Lendman

Global Research, May 12, 2008

Led by Dick Cheney, Bush administration neocons want war on Iran. So does the Israeli Lobby, but it doesn't mean they'll get it. Powerful forces in Washington and the Pentagon are opposed and so far have prevailed. Nonetheless, worrisome recent events increase the possibility and must be closely watched.

Recall George Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the nation. He announced the 20,000 troop "surge" and more. "Succeeding in Iraq," he said, "also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt (those) attacks....we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

That was then; this is now. On May 3, Andrew Cockburn wrote on CounterPunch: "Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret 'finding' authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, (is) 'unprecedented in its scope.' " The directive permits a range of actions across a broad area costing hundreds of millions with an initial $300 million for starters. Elements of the scheme include:

-- targeted assassinations;

-- funding Iranian opposition groups; among them - Mujahedin-e-Khalq that the State Department designates a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO); Jundullah, the "army of god militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan; Iranian Kurdish nationalists; and Ahwazi arabs in southwest Iran;

-- destabilizing Syria and Hezbollah; the current Lebanon turbulence raises the stakes;

-- putting a hawkish commander in charge; more on that below; and

-- kicking off things at the earliest possible time.

These type efforts and others were initiated before and likely never stopped. So it remains to be seen what differences emerge this time and how much more intense they become.

More concerns were cited in a Michael Smith May 4 Times Online report headlined "United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp." It refers to a "surgical strike" against an "insurgent training camp." In spite of hostile signals, however, "the administration has put plans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities on the back burner" after Gates replaced Rumsfeld. The article makes several other key points:

-- "American defense chiefs (meaning top generals and admirals) are firmly opposed to (attacking) Iranian nuclear facilities;"

-- on the other hand, they very much support hitting one or more "training camps (to) deliver a powerful message to Tehran;"

-- in contrast, UK officials downplay Iranian involvement in Iraq even though Tehran's Revolutionary Guard has close ties to al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army; and

-- Bush and Cheney are determined not to hand over "the Iran problem" to a successor.

Full Article...

Petraeus Testimony May Signal Iran Attack

by Paul Craig Roberts

On April 5, the London Telegraph reported that "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the U.S.-backed Baghdad government. A strong statement from Gen. David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment." The neocon lackey Petraeus has had his script written for him by Cheney, and Petraeus together with neocon warmonger Ryan Crocker, the U.S. governor of the Green Zone in Baghdad, will present Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday with the lies, for which the road has been well paved by neocon propagandists such as Kimberly Kagan, that "the U.S. must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq." Don't expect Congress to do anything except to egg on the attack. On April 3, the International Herald Tribune reported that senators and representatives have made millions of dollars from their investments in defense companies totaling $196 million. Rep. Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is already on board with the attack on Iran. The Telegraph quotes Skelton: "Iran is the bull in the china shop. In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military." Keep Reading...

Quarter Of Americans Now Think Iran is The Biggest Enemy

Consistent neocon propaganda campaign paying off...

by Steve Watson

A quarter of Americans believe that Iran now poses the biggest threat to the United States, confirming that a sustained neocon propaganda campaign to demonize Iran and its leaders for their own strategic benefit is having a significant impact.

According to a new poll by Gallup, Iran is top of the enemy list, with 25 percent, followed by Iraq at 22 percent, then China with 14 percent, and North Korea with 9 percent.

Republicans are more than twice as likely as Democrats to see Iran as the top U.S. enemy, while Democrats are likelier to name Iraq. Older people and those who say they closely follow world news are less likely to cite Iraq than the younger and less informed, reported the AP.

It was September last year when the New Yorker magazine reported that Barnett Rubin, a highly respected Afghanistan expert at New York University, asserted that Dick Cheney ordered top Neo-Con media outlets, including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, to unleash a PR blitz to sell conflict with Iran.

The fruits of that propaganda campaign are now clear to see.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...

Let's see if I understand: Shi'a-dominated Iran has benefited greatly from the US invasion of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi regime of Sadam Hussein. In fact, now the Shi'a-dominated US-backed Iraqi regime and Shi'a-dominated Iran are getting along famously.

Nevertheless, 22 percent of Americans think Iraq is still their enemy. They think that the government that their soldiers are fighting to defend is their enemy! Of course, they are defending against...wait for it...other Iraqis! Hence the confusion on this minor point of who Americans think they should be killing at the moment. Voice of hubby in background:

"Damn it, Martha. We're still killing them dang ragheads, so the answer is I-RACK is our enemy! Tell the man!

Meanwhile, another 25 percent of Americans think that their Iraqi ally's new friend, Iran, should be their number one enemy. Voice of hubby in background:

"Martha, git off that friggin' phone, Fox News is coming on!"

You can always count on around half the American people being completely anaesthesized--and Dick Cheney knows it.

Too Timid, Too Little and Too Late

Frontline's War

By RAY McGOVERN
Former CIA Analyst

www.counterpunch.org

Frontline's "Bush's War" on PBS Monday and Tuesday evening was a nicely put-together rehash of the top players' trickery that led to the attack on Iraq, together with the power-grabbing, back-stabbing, and limitless incompetence of the occupation.

Except for an inside-the-beltway tidbit here and there-for example, about how the pitiable secretary of state Colin Powell had to suffer so many indignities at the hands of other type-A hard chargers, Frontline added little to the discussion. Notably missing was any allusion to the unconscionable role the Fourth Estate adopted as indiscriminate cheerleader for the home team; nor was there any mention that the invasion was a serious violation of international law. But those omissions, I suppose, should have come as no surprise.

Nor was it a surprise that any viewer hoping for insight into why Cheney and Bush were so eager to attack Iraq was left with very thin gruel. It was more infotainment, bereft of substantive discussion of the whys and wherefores of what in my view is the most disastrous foreign policy move in our nation's history.

Full Article...

punditman says... For those interested in media bias and manipulation, here's an excerpt from the above Full article link:

"...the White House, and especially Cheney's swollen office, exert enormous pressure over what we are allowed to see and hear. The fear they instill in the corporate press, and in what once was serious investigative reporting of programs like Frontline, translates into programs getting neutered or killed outright-and massive public ignorance."

Iraq: Five Years of War

...and the Media are still M.I.A.

punditman says...

Five years of combat, over 1.2 million Iraqi deaths, almost 4,000 American dead and tens of thousands of US wounded -- and still, the Iraq War's apologists and its media sycophants still don't get it. Or they refuse to. Instead, they remain so blinded by chesty notions of "American exceptionalism" and "good intentions" that they still can't see the desert for the shrubs.

Meanwhile, Iraq drowns in an ocean of suffering.

And whose fault could this be? According to the war's apologists, it lies not only with Jihadists and suicide bombers (who, it should be stressed, were conspicuously missing in pre-invasion Iraq), and other insurgents, who for some reason refuse to lay down their arms -- but also with the incompetents responsible for the "poor planning" behind the occupation and the lack of a "effective counter-insurgency strategy." In other words, blame the bureaucrats for messing up an otherwise "noble project." Missing from this analysis is the vileness of the project itself. Also missing is any hint that those who are directly responsible should be held directly accountable; namely, the Bush administration and others in the "coalition of the willing."

Typical of this mindset are the views expressed in an article by Pulitzer prize winner, John F. Burns, of the New York Times, entitled No end in sight to bleeding in Iraq.

Burns chronicles his and other journalists' boosterism as the first bombs began to fall on Baghdad five years ago:

On the evening of March 19, 2003, a few Western journalists had grandstand seats for the big event in Baghdad, the start of the full-scale American bombing of targets in the Iraqi capital.We were on the 21st-storey roof of the Palestine Hotel, with a panoramic view of Saddam Hussein's command complex across the Tigris River.

The first cruise missile struck the vast, bunker-like presidential command complex in what would become, under the U.S. occupation, the Green Zone. Then missiles and bombs struck palaces, military complexes, intelligence buildings, the heart of Saddam's tyranny. Iraqis yearning for their liberation called it "the air show.''

Among many on the roof, there was a sense that the suffering of millions of Iraqis that we had chronicled, and pitied, was ending. Those missiles and bombs seemed to be retribution for a ruthless dictator and the wretchedness he had visited on Iraq's people.

I get it. So the sentiment went something like this: "Yeah, sure, war is hell and all that, but we're embedded with the good guys...now on with the big event"!

Burns sees the whole Iraq debacle primarily in terms of a series of bureaucratic missteps, from the failure to stop mobs from looting historic sites while US marines stood by and followed their orders to protect only the Oil Ministry, to "the failure to find weapons of mass destruction; the absence of a serious plan for the period after Baghdad fell; the disbanding of the Iraqi army, and thus casting aside the help it might have given in fighting the insurgency; the lack of an effective American counterinsurgency strategy until the troop increase last year."

The failure to "find" weapons of mass destruction? Is he suggesting there was something significant to find? Are we to believe he never listened to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter?, who, in the lead up to the ill-fated Iraq invasion, argued that Iraq possessed no significant weapons of mass destruction?

The lack of an "effective" American counterinsurgency strategy until the troop increase last year? Ah, yes the "surge is working" -- that is if you consider ethnic cleansing and a bloody stalemate to be signs of "success."

Burns continues...

There were also instances when America's intentions were betrayed by its troops, with the abuse and torture of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib, with the shooting deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha and with the rape and murder of a teenage girl at Mahmudiya, along with the killing of three of her family, all leading to court-martial hearings that tore at the heart of anyone who starts from a position of admiration for the U.S. military.

Alright, now I am embarrassed for the guy. America's "intentions" (lilly white of course), were "betrayed" by a few soldiers? What did he expect would happen? I have a sneaky feeling he may have missed a few more "instances," so perhaps he should tune in to Winter Soldier.

Burns can easily be considered an early cheerleader of the Iraq invasion -- one of those journalists who urged it on, a laptop bombardier, if you will. Here is an excerpt from an October 2007 interview with him in The Independent:

In the pages of the New York Times he has argued that, even without WMD, "the stronger case [for military intervention] was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbours."

This is liberal interventionism at its worst. Find a dictator with an appalling human rights record (easy enough), and viola! Causis belli! Invade the country, foist our Western ways on them, toss an election in and install a puppet regime. Aside from myopic idiocy, this sort of media cheerleading supports the doctrine of "preventive war," which stands in direct contravention to, and respect for, international law, treaties and institutions.

What's more, Burns sees his home-side rooting as having had no impact:

Although I was writing for an American newspaper with considerable reach and influence in Washington, DC, I didn't see myself as being a player in that process. I felt that that was something that was quite independent, at least in my mind.

Not a player? Just another "guy with an opinion" who called for the invasion of a country of 27 million people? I guess we are not supposed to notice where he works or the power of that soapbox (oddly enough, he is correct, but in hindsight: why should anyone trust the NY Times anymore, after the unmasking of Judith Miller as an administration mouthpiece in the lead up to war?).

The sycophantic mindset necessitates turning a blind eye to the crime of international aggression while ignoring other possible motives that the US and Britain might have had. Why Iraq? Why not Burma?

So, if there was no legal basis to invade Iraq, what moral imperative gave Bush the right to invade? Wait...it always comes to me...9-11! Media mealy mouths never fail to remind me of this. Never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with what occurred on that fateful day. But the sycophants ignored this long established fact, and in many cases, actually parroted this Cheney fiction in the lead up to war.

In an world full of honest reporting, the American-led invasion and occupation of Iraq would by now be considered, an historic crime of great magnitude. A crime not just against the Iraqi people, who did not threaten anyone, but a crime against humanity and a crime against the truth. Not so.

You would think that after the release of a study by The Centre for Public Integrity that shows that at least 935 demonstrably false statements were made on 532 separate occasions by President George W. Bush, Vice-President Richard Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan -- that the media would care to report the truth about stove-piped intelligence. Not so.

What should be headline news is generally ignored or brushed aside and instead, we are supposed to believe that 935 false statements were the result of "faulty intelligence" -- instead of blatant lying and systematic propaganda.

If the mainstream media had viewed the Iraq War as the supreme crime that it is, then impeachment proceedings against Team Bush would have begun by now. And Team Blair and all other team members in the "coalition of the willing" would be facing similar charges. But not so.

Part of the basis for any such legal action would necessarily involve the idea of deliberate deception. Not surprisingly, neo-con apologists have never liked such talk. Back in July, 2003, Norman Specter wrote in the The Globe and Mail that, "The case for war did not rest on whether he (Saddam) had X number of biological weapons laboratories or Y amount of nerve agent. It rested on his record and ambitions."

At the time, Punditman wrote the following:

Well, no actually.

The "case for war", at least according to those who sent soldiers to wage it at their behest, actually rested upon Iraq being an imminent threat to the security of the US, indeed to "the peace of the world," (to pluck just one Orwellian passage from Bush's infinite inventory).

And that "case" was built upon a very specific set of claims, accusations, and assertions concerning Mr. Hussein's apparent possession of "vast quantities" of WMDs and his supposed links to Al Queda. These "facts" we were told, left the United States and Britain no choice but to attack ASAP. The cruelty of Saddam's regime and his previous aggressions and miscalculations notwithstanding were simply ad-on pretexts for regime change, once it became clear that the world wasn't buying the Bush-Blair "case for war."

Finally, you would think--you would hope, by now--that establishment media would at least view the Iraqi catastrophe through the lens of the victims while pointing out the underlying cause of the tragedy. Not so.

In June 2007, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees published a study that estimated that 2.2 million Iraqis had been displaced to neighbouring countries, another 2 million were displaced internally and 40% of Iraq's middle class is believed to have fled the country.

Meanwhile, in the seven months preceding the end of May, 2007, a mere 69 Iraqis were given refugee status in the United States. Good luck to the Iraqi refugee trying to flee to America! And yet his or her plight is the direct result of the violence and chaos brought about by this horrific war--a war initiated by the United States, a war that was unnecessary, unprovoked, and illegal -- and a war that has made conditions much worse in the region and, in many ways, much worse for America itself.

Then again, average Iraqis, and I dare say average Americans, were never the main concern of those who have so callously plotted their destinies, their deaths and their sufferings.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media continues to do their job of masquerading as a functioning "fourth estate" -- as they kiss the king's behind.

Hillary Clinton: Fooled Again or Neo-Conned?

Punditman welcomes guest columnist Donna Saggia, who has written for counterpunch and CommonDreams.

Hillary Clinton is fond of saying that, if she knew in 2002 what she knows now, she would not have voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. To this day Clinton does not regret her vote, she only regrets “the way the president used the authority that Congress gave him.” Her campaign mantra, “The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress,” is an attempt to draw a veil of innocence over her vote and implicate all of us in the Iraq swindle.

Well, “all of us” really can’t continue to buy this argument. George Bush may have pulled the trigger, but Republicans and too many Democrats were holding the gun. Iraq was and continues to be a bipartisan war, and Hillary Clinton, until only recently, has been a vociferous cheerleader. Had events in Iraq taken a different turn, Clinton would be first in line to congratulate Bush on a job well done.

So, was Hillary “fooled” on Iraq? And what about her recent vote to give Bush an opening to attack Iran? Was she “fooled again”? If she indeed was misled by Bush, we’d expect her speeches to be filled with alternative strategies and policies, but they’re not. In fact, if we look at Clinton’s words and votes regarding the Middle East, it becomes clear what a foreign policy under “President Hillary Clinton” would look like – indistinguishable from Bush’s and bearing a strong resemblance to the neocon agenda.

The ABC’s of the neocon agenda

At first glance, the neocon agenda for the Middle East appears to be based on three transparent convictions:

The US has a duty to promote democracy around the world, using its unrivaled power if necessary. Since the Middle East is a region of despotic Muslims, democratic transformation must begin there. And, since Israel is the only democratic outpost in the region, we must protect Israel’s right to defend itself.

But if we read between the lines, where the neocon agenda really lies, we can break the code with a few simple substitutions:

A. for “promote democracy around the world” substitute establish free markets; for “unrivaled power” substitute preemptive military force;

B. for “despotic Muslims” substitute Islamic terrorists; for “democratic transformation” substitute regime change;

C. for “Israel’s right to defend itself” substitute the right to continue the military occupation of Palestine and bomb Lebanon, Syria, and Iran if necessary.

The deciphered neocon agenda thus reads:

The United States has the duty to establish free markets around the world, and to do so by preemptive military force if necessary. The Middle East is a hotbed of Islamic terrorism and needs to undergo regime change in order for free markets to survive. Israel’s aggressive use of military force was successful at containing Muslim terrorists for almost 40 years and is a shining example of how democracy can be spread throughout the entire region.

Hillary Clinton and the neocon agenda -- how to “negotiate” like a neocon

That the neocon agenda places Israel’s security in such a prominent position, and that Hillary Clinton is on board with that agenda, have been evident for many years. The neocon perspective sees Israel as a valiant little nation defending itself against a Muslim monolith. It’s the David versus Goliath myth, with a twist: neocons also see the US as vulnerable to that same Goliath. National Review's Larry Kudlow summed it up nicely: “Israel is doing the Lord’s work. They are defending their own homeland and very existence, but they are also defending America’s homeland as our frontline democratic ally in the Middle East.”

To the neocon mind, the fate of the US is tied to the survival of Israel.

Although the right-wing talking heads have been slow to see Hillary’s inner neocon, there are signs that some of the neocon elite are becoming very comfortable with her foreign policy positions. They see her foreign policy goals as being very consistent with their own, and Clinton’s vigilant defense of Israel’s security bears this out.

The last time Clinton had anything hopeful to say to the Palestinian people was in May 1998, when she told a group of Arab and Israeli youth that the eventual emergence of a Palestinian state was “very important for the broader goal of peace in the Middle East.” When Clinton was severely criticized by Jewish groups for her early support for a Palestinian state, she began to shift her support away from Palestinians and towards Israel, even commenting on what would later be a critical final status issue for peace negotiations, the division of Jerusalem, about which she stated in 1999: “I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel.”

Since being elected as the Senator from New York in 2000, Clinton’s support for Israel has become entrenched to the point where now, as Clinton supporter Steve Rabinowitz recently stated, she “has personally proved herself to the Jewish community on Israel, on which she was once questioned.”

Hillary continued to “prove” herself by lashing out at the Palestinian leadership and adopting neocon talking points and strategies in her Middle East positions. After Bill Clinton’s July 2000 Camp David Summit failed to broker an accord to end the military occupation of Palestinian territory, the neocons had a field day blaming Arafat for “missing the opportunity” to negotiate a peace. In reality, the Summit is a neocon model for how to negotiate with your enemies when you really don’t want to negotiate.

The Summit failed, but not for the reasons the neocons thought. It failed partly due to Clinton’s one-sided diplomacy, but mainly due to the tactical sabotage that passed as “negotiations.” Apart from the details of the final status issues, which leaned heavily in favor of the Israelis, the major stumbling block – and one that continues to undermine every negotiation the US or Israel are involved in – was Israel’s tactic of imposing “unacceptable preconditions”: Israel demanded that the Palestinians dismantle the militias as a precondition to Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories. In other words, the Israelis would agree to end the occupation only after the Palestinians ended their resistance to the occupation. Arafat, of course, refused and was blamed for sinking the summit.

The neocon lesson from the Camp David summit was simple: never agree to talk to your enemies without first establishing unacceptable preconditions, and only negotiate peace based on threats and fear. This model is evident in Bush’s foreign policy approach to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, where first Powell and then Rice either ignored offers to talk or set such absurd preconditions that talks were impossible. It’s also evident in the Israeli refusal to talk to Hamas or seriously negotiate with Palestinian leaders without deal-killing preconditions.

One indication that Hillary has learned this lesson well is found in her own recently released campaign statement, in which Richard Holbrooke, former UN ambassador in Bill Clinton's administration, states:

“As she has said many times, Senator Clinton believes we need to engage in vigorous diplomacy after the cowboy approach of the Bush years. She has said she would initiate serious, responsible dialogue with nations with whom we don’t agree in order to further the national security interest of the United States. But she is right not to risk the prestige of the presidency by unconditionally committing to meet with leaders of adversarial nations.” [My emphasis.]

Clinton and neocon/AIPAC talking points

Since her earlier tactical error in supporting a Palestinian state, Clinton has been working hard to cultivate Jewish support, and it’s really paying off. The Jewish Daily Forward recently reported that she is going to get the lion’s share of donations from the Jewish community for her 2008 presidential campaign. Unfortunately, that support comes at a price – total commitment to Israeli government positions regarding Israel’s security – and Clinton seems eager to pay it. She is a regular at AIPAC functions and her speeches invariably weave together the mutuality of US and Israeli security. Her speech at the 2005 AIPAC conference shows how in synch she is with the neocon belief about a democratic Israel and the mutuality of US and Israeli security:

Now, Israel is not only, however, a friend and ally for us, it is a beacon of what democracy can and should mean…. So if people in the Middle East are not sure what democracy means, let them look to Israel, which has been and remains a true, faithful democracy.”

But we know that the goal, the important, essential goal of a democratizing Middle East is complex, and it is not without risks….So there is no doubt that America has started down a path [the Iraq war, author], with blood and treasure, to try to create the condition for democracy and freedom in the Middle East -- which has consequences for the entire region, for our security, and certainly for Israel's.

Clinton and the separation wall

One of the least reported consequences of the Israeli military occupation is the separation wall that Israel began building in 2002, ostensibly for security reasons. The major grievance Palestinians have with the wall is that much of it is built on Palestinian land, violating the 1967 borders that were supposed to become the boundary of the eventual Palestinian state. On a three-day visit to Israel in the fall of 2005, the Clintons toured the separation wall.

The wall is mainly concrete, but some sections include electrified fencing, two-meter-deep trenches, electronic ground/fence sensors, thermal imaging and video cameras, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), sniper towers, and razor wire. As of May 2004, construction of the wall had already uprooted an estimated 102,320 Palestinian olive and citrus trees, demolished 75 acres of greenhouses and 23 miles of irrigation pipes, and confiscated 3,705 acres of land from Palestinians.

In 2004, just a year before Clinton’s visit to the wall, the International Court of Justice ruled that the wall was a violation of international law. At that time, Clinton, along with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), stood in front of UN headquarters with the Israeli ambassador and denounced the International Court of Justice ruling. “It makes no sense for the United Nations to vehemently oppose a fence which is a non-violent response to terrorism rather than opposing terrorism itself,” Clinton said.

In 2004, the World Council of Churches demanded that Israel halt and reverse construction on the barrier and strongly condemned it as a violation of human rights. Amnesty International condemned the wall as a violation of international humanitarian law, and Human Rights Watch has protested Israel’s confiscation of land to build the wall. The Red Cross declared the wall to be in violation of the Geneva Convention and, in 2004, the International Committee of the Red Cross stated that the Israeli barrier “causes serious humanitarian and legal problems” and goes “far beyond what is permissible for an occupying power.”

So, it’s safe to say that, by the time Hillary and Bill Clinton visited the wall in November 2005, its devastating impact on the Palestinian people was clear, as was its illegal and immoral standing in the eyes of most of the world. Yet, Clinton’s reaction to the wall, as reported in Haaretz, was no different than her initial reaction a year before. Clinton stated that she “supports the separation fence Israel is building along the edges of the West Bank, and that the onus is on the Palestinian Authority to fight terrorism.” Haaretz also quoted Clinton saying, “This is not against the Palestinian people. This is against the terrorists. The Palestinian people have to help to prevent terrorism. They have to change the attitudes about terrorism.”

Clinton and the bombing of Lebanon

Clinton’s hammering at the security issue to constantly justify Israel’s actions has produced some ridiculous contortions in her speeches. On July 12, 2006, Israel bombed Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure and killed over 1000 civilians, including four unarmed UN peacekeepers – supposedly in response to the border crossing and kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. However, according to the business magazine Forbes (July 12, 2006), the French news service AFP (July 12, 2006), the Asia Times (July 15, 2006) and the Lebanese police, the Israeli soldiers were captured within Lebanon in the area of Ai’tu Al-Chaarb, a Lebanese village a few kilometers from the Israeli border. That would make Israel’s bombing of Lebanon a war crime. The bombing lasted almost two months because the US refused to call for a halt, while most of the world looked on, appalled at Israel’s “disproportionate” use of force.

According to sociologist James Petras, “The Jewish networks and lobbies were able to secure 98% support from Congress for a resolution supporting Israel’s invasion of Lebanon” and the Lobby “pressured and threatened the White House” to prolong the bombing.

On July 13, 2006, a day after the Israeli attack, Hillary Clinton issued a statement condemning Hezbollah and Hamas: “The unprovoked attacks on innocent Israelis and the killing and abduction of Israeli soldiers by the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah are dramatic escalations of violence against Israel. The United States must stand by Israel as she defends herself.”

Five days later, Clinton addressed an AIPAC crowd of several thousand in New York, calling for solidarity and support for Israel. Responding to worldwide criticism of Israel’s disproportionate response to the border skirmish, Clinton said she supported “whatever steps are necessary” to defend Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Deliberately distorting events and playing to the paranoia and frenzy of the crowd, Clinton screamed, “I want us here in New York to imagine, if extremist terrorists were launching rocket attacks across the Mexican or Canadian border, would we stand by or would we defend America against these attacks from extremists?”

Beyond semantic contortions, Clinton’s allegiance to Israel often forces her into blatant hypocritical positions. Just last month, when Israel bombed Syria, did Clinton demand a Senate resolution condemning this blatant act of aggression? Hardly. Instead, the neocons cheered and Clinton endorsed the attack. At the Democratic debates at Dartmouth College she stated: “We don't have as much information as we wish we did. But what we think we know is that with North Korean help, both financial and technical and material, the Syrians apparently were putting together, and perhaps over some period of years, a nuclear facility, and the Israelis took it out. I strongly support that…. I think it is fair to say what happened in Syria, so far as we know, I support.”

Clinton and Iraq

Perhaps no other issue has given Clinton more of a headache on the campaign trail than her 2002 vote to give George Bush the power to attack Iraq. Her entire defense of that vote rests on the claim that she was misled by Bush into believing that Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat – the “Hillary fooled” argument.

But Andrew Cockburn has convincingly demonstrated that, not only did Hillary Clinton know Saddam had no WMD, but her husband’s political maneuvering during his presidency had suppressed that fact and gave birth to the WMD myth that Bush and the neocons later used to sell the pre-emptive strike on Iraq.

Cockburn explains that, back in 1997, the Clinton administration deliberately sabotaged UN weapons inspections in Iraq. The inspectors had been investigating Saddam’s weapons for six years and were about to declare Iraq in compliance with Security Council Resolution 687 (which required Iraq to destroy all WMD) and recommend lifting sanctions. Feeling the neocon pressure, Clinton had Secretary of State Madeleine Albright deliver a major policy speech at Georgetown University on March 26, 1997, in which she stated: "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted." Sanctions would remain unless or until Saddam was driven from power.

Bill Clinton’s switch of focus from compliance to regime change neatly removed any incentive for Saddam to work with the UN inspectors, and in 1998, all the inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq. Clinton then launched nearly 400 cruise missile strikes and flew 650 air attacks against Iraq. His strategy proved successful, from a neocon perspective: Iraq remained under sanctions; Saddam grew progressively weaker; and the neocon dream of a US empire dominating the Middle East came closer to realization.

Now, fast forward to 2002 and Hillary Clinton’s vote to give Bush authority to bomb Iraq. In “Hillary's War,” Jeff Gerth and Don Van Vatta Jr. offer some interesting insights into Clinton’s distortion of the facts about Saddam that helped to sell the war.

On October 10, 2002 – the day before the war powers vote – Hillary Clinton argued before the Senate that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. Many politicians delivered pro-war speeches on that day, but Clinton went far beyond other pro-war Democrats, warning that, “Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program,” and arguing that Saddam gave “aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.”

Both of these statements were false, contradicted not only by the National Intelligence Estimate report, which was available to every senator (whether they read it or not) but also by the intelligence from Bill Clinton’s administration that Saddam no longer had WMD. Hillary certainly was privy to that intelligence, yet she still voted for war.

And she continues to support the war, notwithstanding her lame attempts to convince us otherwise. While her war position has wiggled over the years, it has never firmly supported a full troop withdrawal. In a revealing moment, Clinton recently joined three other Democratic candidates in refusing to state that they would guarantee to pull all US combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

The neocon influences that got us into this war are keeping us there, working side-by-side with pressure from the Israeli government. Reporting on an AIPAC meeting held in March 2007, Ray McGovern states:

Those taking part in last month's meeting of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington heard stern warnings from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni that America not show "weakness" on Iraq -- warnings that a U.S. troop withdrawal would make the neighborhood far more dangerous for Israel.

Once again, Israel’s security – the focal point of the neocon agenda – steers American foreign policy. In this light, it can be argued that Clinton’s claim that she was mislead by Bush about Iraq, though ingenuous, is more politically acceptable than the alternative – that she is and has been promoting the neocon agenda.

Clinton and Iran

While “Hillary fooled” can now be laid to rest, we still have to deal with “Hillary fooled again.” Will someone be asking Clinton why, if she has learned her lesson from the Iraq war vote, she recently voted to make it easier for Bush to bomb Iran?

This September, the US Senate passed the Kyl-Lieberman sense of the Senate amendment that designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a “foreign terrorist organization.” This is the first time a military arm of a sovereign nation has been so designated, and the repercussions could be grave.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Virginia), who opposed the amendment, cautioned that the amendment could be used to declare war on Iran, since the Revolutionary Guard is part of the Iranian government – if the Guard attacks us, it would mean that Iran is attacking us. Webb argued that the amendment would, for all practical purposes, mandate the military option against Iran: “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them….At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.” Thus, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is the Iranian twin of the Iraq War Resolution. The amendment passed 76-22, which is almost identical to the 77-23 Iraq war vote. Hillary Clinton (and 29 other slow-learning Democrats) voted for it.

Hillary has always been antagonistic towards Iran, calling it one of Israel's greatest threats, demanding that sanctions be imposed, and threatening that no option can be taken off the table when dealing with Iran. She has consistently parroted the distorted reporting that the Iranian president has denied the holocaust and calls for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. When Ahmadinejad recently spoke at Columbia University, Clinton supported the AIPAC-organized Stop Iran Now Rally, repeating again the accusations against Ahmadinejad – who actually has little power in the Iranian political system – as a basis for a bellicose and aggressive policy towards Iran.

Ironically, Hillary’s views on Iran contradict those expressed by her husband just two years ago. At a 2005 meeting at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bill Clinton stated: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”

But the neocon and Israeli pressure to bomb Iran – and their influence on Clinton and other Democrats – cannot be underestimated. In a recent interview with Seymour Hersh, Jon Wiener asked, “Who wants to bomb Iran?” Hersh replied:

Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input….a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns’ from Jewish contributors.

The question that begs to be asked is, If elected, will Clinton continue the neocon agenda under the cover of a legitimately-elected Democratic president? If so, Clinton’s foreign policy will be as much a failure as is Bush’s. Her neocon bias will preclude any “honest broker” approach to Middle East problems, and her presumption to negotiate only with unacceptable preconditions will mean many more decades of stalemate and bloodshed.

There are some who dismiss Clinton’s neocon policies as simply “pandering” to AIPAC for votes and contributions. They believe that, once elected, Clinton will shed her bias and negotiate from a more balanced position. This is hopeful, but naïve thinking. Hillary Clinton has spent the last seven years building up a constituency that now determines her foreign policy approach. If elected, she’ll need to “stay the neocon course” through her first term in order to get the votes and contributions for a second term. In her second term she’ll have to reward her supporters. Liberal pundits often refer to Hillary as “Bush-lite,” but they’re wrong. Honestly, there’s nothing “lite” about her.

Donna Saggia is a freelance writer living in St. Paul, Minnesota. She can be reached at: donnasaggia@msn.com

The Iraq War: Going, Going...

Retired Marine Gen. John Sheehan explained to the Washington Post his reasons for rejecting the “war czar” job: “The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going. … So rather than go over there [to the White House], develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No, thanks.’”

If he can delay a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq until after a new President takes office in January 2009, Bush can insist that someone else was to blame for the defeat.

Bush will have built a moat around his political legacy with the blood of American soldiers and the Iraqi people.

punditan says:
It was apparent to anyone with a brain that the so-called "surge" wouldn't work. Now it should be obvious to even the dimmest bulb in the neo-con/redneck camp, that it isn't working, won't work, and quite possibly has nothing to do with succeeding at all and more to do with Bush remaining engaged in Iraq until the end of his term--an unconscionable waste of lives.

Exclusive: Secret US plot to kill Al-Sadr

The revelation of this extraordinary plot, which would probably have provoked an uprising by outraged Shia if it had succeeded, has left a legacy of bitter distrust in the mind of Mr Sadr for which the US and its allies in Iraq may still be paying.

Dr Rubai'e and other mediators started for the house. As they did so they saw the US Marines open up an intense bombardment of the house and US Special Forces also heading for it. But the attack was a few minutes premature. Mr Sadr was not yet in the house and managed to escape.

punditman says:
According to Iraqi National Security Adviser Dr Mowaffaq Rubai'e, the US tried to kill Al-Sadr while pretending to negotiate with him. There is a lesson to be learned here: when the Bush administration does negotiate, it is most often a ruse. They do not negotiate in good faith, not with their friends, not with Congress and certainly not with their adversaries. Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraq's hugely popular Shia cleric, did not have to be an enemy of the United States.

Realpolitik--politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical, in advancement of the "national interest"--is not part of the neo-conservative lexicon. Instead, lying, deceiving and implementing an ideological agenda at all costs, based on narrow private interests is what they are all about. The world, especially the American people, need to wake up to this reality. Call a spade a spade and do the only honorable thing: Impeach!