Another Chorister for Israel
January 9, 2009
Nidal El-Khairy
On February 29 last year the BBC’s website reported deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai threatening a ‘holocaust’ on Gaza. Headlined “Israel warns of Gaza ‘holocaust’”, the story would undergo nine revisions in the next twelve hours. Before the day was over, the headline would read “Gaza militants ‘risking disaster’“. (The story has since been revised again with an exculpatory note added soft-pedalling Vilnai’s comments). An Israeli threatening ‘holocaust’ may be unpalatable to those who routinely invoke its spectre to deflect criticism from the Jewish state’s criminal behaviour. With the ‘holocaust’ reference redacted, the new headline shifted culpability neatly into the hands of ‘Gaza militants’ instead.
One could argue that the BBC’s radical alteration of the story reflects its susceptibility to the kind of inordinate pressure for which the Israel Lobby’s well-oiled flak machine is notorious. But, as I will show in subsequent examples, this story is exceptional only insofar as it reported accurately in the first place something that could bear negatively on Israel’s image. The norm is reflexive self-censorship. Read the rest of this entry »
Suskind Revisited 2.0
August 10, 2008
Ron Suskind has now published the transcript of his interview with the source, Rob Richer. It confirms his original story that the White House tasked George Tenet with getting the CIA to produce a fake document suggesting a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa’ida. However, it also doesn’t negate my view that the neoconservatives were behind the initiative as the orders from the White House came not from Bush but Cheney and the neoconservative coterie around him, particularly Scooter Libby. Con Coughlin, the hack who published the fake story on the front page of Conrad Black’s Sunday Telegraph has now revealed the source as Iyad Allawi. And Joe Conason at Salon shows that Allawi’s engagements prior to the publication of the story seem to confirm that he was the conduit for the story (thanks and happy birthday Tom).
On Dec. 11, 2003 — three days before the Telegraph launched its “exclusive” on the Habbush memo — the Washington Post published an article by Dana Priest and Robin Wright headlined “Iraq Spy Service Planned by U.S. to Stem Attacks.” Buried inside on Page A41, their story outlined the CIA’s efforts to create a new Iraqi intelligence agency:
“The new service will be trained, financed and equipped largely by the CIA with help from Jordan. Initially the agency will be headed by Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Badran, a secular Shiite and activist in the Jordan-based Iraqi National Accord, a former exile group that includes former Baath Party military and intelligence officials.
Iraq’s Lepers
August 9, 2008
This is why Al Jazeera is a head and shoulder above all competitors in the mainstream. You will never see something like this on CNN or BBC. As far as they are concerned, the ’surge’ is working and all’s hunky dory.
Untreated, it leaves sufferers with skin sores and weak muscles and can leave patients unable to walk. Leprosy, is a curable disease that’s been wiped out in most countries. But in Iraq – leprosy sufferers in the south are kept in appalling conditions, and receive little treatment.
Nicole Johnston has this report.
Suskind Revisited
August 9, 2008
An extremely reliable and well placed source in the intelligence community has informed me that Ron Suskind’s revelation that the White House ordered the preparation of a forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda and also to attempts made to obtain yellowcake uranium is correct but that a number of details are wrong.
The Suskind account states that two senior CIA officers Robert Richer and John Maguire supervised the preparation of the document under direct orders coming from Director George Tenet. Not so, says my source. Tenet is for once telling the truth when he states that he would not have undermined himself by preparing such a document while at the same time insisting publicly that there was no connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Richer and Maguire have both denied that they were involved with the forgery and it should also be noted that preparation of such a document to mislead the media is illegal and they could have wound up in jail.
My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment. Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job. The Pentagon has its own false documents center, primarily used to produce fake papers for Delta Force and other special ops officers traveling under cover as businessmen. It was Feith’s office that produced the letter and then surfaced it to the media in Iraq. Unlike the Agency, the Pentagon had no restrictions on it regarding the production of false information to mislead the public. Indeed, one might argue that Doug Feith’s office specialized in such activity.
The War Party
August 7, 2008
This is from when BBC hadn’t yet been emasculated by Blair and was still producing half-decent documentaries. It is an excellent look at the neocons and also has interviews with Jim Lobe, the preeminent authority on the subject.
The Forged Iraqi Letter
August 6, 2008
I really enjoyed Ron Suskind’s last two books. Both Price of Loyalty, and The One Percent Doctrine had explosive new information. Now he has just come out with his latest, The Way of the World. And here is the first revelation.
What just happened? Evidence. A secret that has been judiciously kept for five years just spilled out. All of what follows is new, never reported in any way:
The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush — a man still carrying with $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush’s famous deck of wanted men — has been America’s secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger. The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, “resettled” Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.
In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD — as Habbush had foretold — the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a “small team from the al Qaeda organization.”
The mission was carried out, the letter was created, popped up in Baghdad, and roiled the global newcycles in December, 2003 (conning even venerable journalists with Tom Brokaw). The mission is a statutory violation of the charter of CIA, and amendments added in 1991, prohibiting CIA from conduction disinformation campaigns on U.S. soil.
So, here we go again: the administration full attack mode, calling me names, George Tenet is claiming he doesn’t remember any such thing — just like he couldn’t remember “slam dunk” — and reporters are scratching their heads. Everything in the book is on the record. Many sources. And so, we watch and wait….
Pulitzer Prize-winner Ron Suskind is the author of The Way of the World. See http://www.ronsuskind.com
McCain’s Surge
August 6, 2008
McCain campaign hides secret of Iraq surge “success” (Pt 1)
How the surge has energized McCain
A War of Self-Destruction
August 4, 2008
Chris Hedges on the consequences of an attack on Iran.
 |
| AP photo / Hasan Sarbakhshian |
| Iranian protesters burn a U.S flag in a demonstration marking the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. |
An attack on Iran, which Israeli and Bush administration officials appear set to carry out if Iranian uranium enrichment is not halted, would ignite a regional war in the Middle East and lead to economic collapse and political upheaval in the United States.
“In short and simple terms, we would be plunged into a depression that would make the Great Depression of the 1930s in which I spent my childhood look like boom times,” said William R. Polk, former professor of history at the University of Chicago and a member of the Policy Planning Council under President Kennedy. “Industries would fail, banks would collapse, government revenues would dry up, universities would have to close, health care, even as limited as it now is for roughly 75 million Americans, would virtually cease. In short, something like [what] the South suffered at the end of the Civil War would plague the country.”
The passage of vast amounts of oil and liquefied gas through the Persian Gulf would be disrupted. Iranian attacks, carried out with rocket- and bomb-equipped speedboats and submarines, would be deadly and effective. A classified Pentagon war game in 2002 simulated these swarming attacks by Iranian speedboats packed with explosives in the gulf; the Navy lost 16 major warships, according to a report in The New York Times. Iranian oil, which makes up 8 percent of the world’s energy supply, would instantly be taken off the market. And oil would jump to over $500 a barrel and perhaps, as the conflict dragged on, to over $750 a barrel. Our petroleum-based economy would come to a halt.
New actor on the same old stage
August 2, 2008
‘If Obama is elected he will be enmeshed in the Middle East tragedy and forced to take sides,’ writes Robert Fisk.
I was in the studios of al-Jazeera – the Qatar satellite channel so democratic in the eyes of Colin Powell that Bush later wanted to bomb it – while Barack Obama was performing his theatricals in the Middle East. “Theatre” is what I called it on air while the anchor desperately tried to suck some Arab hope out of the whole ridiculous fandango. No such luck, I told him. It isn’t going to make the slightest difference to the Arabs whether Obama or McCain wins.
Westerners believe that Obama appeals to the Arabs because of his middle name or because he’s black. Untrue. They like him – or liked him – because he grew up poor. Like them, he understood – or rather, they thought he understood – what oppression was about. But they quickly found out where they stood in the food chain. Forty-five minutes in Ramallah vs 24 hours in Israel was the Obama equation. Yes, I know the old saw. Every US presidential candidate has to make the pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall, to Yad Vashem, to some Israeli town or village that has taken casualties (albeit minuscule in comparison to those visited upon the Palestinians), to talk about Israel’s security, etc. That doesn’t mean, we are always told, that Israel is going to have it easy once the US president is elected. Wrong. Israel is going to have it easy. Because no sooner is he elected than he will be enmeshed in the Middle East tragedy and be forced to take sides – Israel’s, of course – and then it will be time for the next election, so the president’s hands will be tied again and he’ll be talking about Israel’s security (rather than Palestinian security) and we’ll be back on the same old itinerary.
Neocon Flap Highlights Jewish Divide
July 31, 2008
The neocon-Joe Klein flap continues. Philip Weiss has a follow up:
Joe Klein is on fire, as they say. Here he is letting it rip again on the neocons and apologizing for supporting the Iraq war. Here are Josh Marshall and Jed Lewison standing up for him. And here is former Bush aide Peter Wehner being lawyerly and sanctimonious about him at the National Review, saying Klein shouldn’t blog, he’s too wild. Oh my– Klein should keep blogging this subject, he’s starting the conversation we’ve all been waiting for. Time Magazine should sense the moment and put the issue on the cover–Zionist claims on American Jews. And Klein should level with us, Did his own “strong” support for Israel affect his bad judgment on Iraq?’.
Today the story is also covered by Daniel Luban and Jim Lobe in the excellent IPS. Also check out Jim Lobe’s post laying out the context for this feud.
WASHINGTON, Jul 30 (IPS) – A mushrooming media controversy pitting neoconservatives against a prominent Jewish-American political commentator could mark a new stage in the growing battle over who speaks for the U.S. Jewish community on foreign policy issues, particularly regarding the Middle East.
TIME columnist Joe Klein’s accusations that Jewish neoconservatives, who played a particularly visible role in the drive to war in Iraq and have since pushed for military confrontation in Iran, sacrificed “U.S. lives and money…to make the world safe for Israel” have spurred angry charges of anti-Semitism and personal attacks from critics at such neoconservative strongholds as the Weekly Standard, National Review, and Commentary.
But the fierceness of the controversy surrounding Klein, generally considered a political centrist, highlights the growing antagonism between neo-conservative hardliners and prominent U.S. Jews whose more moderate views are aligned more closely with those of the foreign policy establishment.
