Lies - The Pattern Recognition

Never 'misunderestimate' the agendas pushed consistently by Bush and Cheney - a constant state of war and fear. And here's more proof: the nicely catalogued homework done by Dan Froomkin for the Washington Post.











A Pattern of Deception

By Dan Froomkin

President Bush changed the way he talked about Iran in August: He stopped making explicit assertions about the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

On Monday, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released a new national intelligence estimate in which the nation's 16 intelligence agencies concluded that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program four years ago -- a dramatic rejection of an earlier set of findings.

Bush yesterday said he was only briefed about the new estimate last week.

But a close examination of his word choice over the past year suggests that he learned something around August that got him to stop making claims that were apparently no longer supported by American intelligence.

Instead of directly condemning Iranian leaders for pursuing nuclear weapons, he started more vaguely accusing them of seeking the knowledge necessary to make such a weapon.

As he did that, he and the vice president accelerated their rhetorical efforts to persuade the public that the nuclear threat posed by Iran was grave and urgent. Bush even went so far in late August and October as to warn of the potential for a nuclear holocaust.

Indeed, a careful parsing of Bush's words indicates that, while not saying anything that could later prove to be demonstrably false, Bush left his listeners with what he likely knew was a fundamentally false impression. And he did so in the pursuit of a more muscular and possibly even military approach to a Middle Eastern country.

It's an oddly familiar pattern of deception.

Bush's Changing Words

A survey of Bush's remarks about Iran's nuclear ambitions in 2007 suggests that a shift took place somewhere between August 6 and August 9. There wasn't a change in his overall message, just his carefully chosen words.

Here's Bush on Jan. 26: "As you know, the Iranians, for example, think they want to have a nuclear weapon. And we've convinced other nations to join us to send a clear message, through the United Nations, that that's unacceptable behavior."

On March 31: "Our position is that we would hope that nations would be very careful in dealing with Iran, particularly since Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, and a major threat to world peace is if the Iranians had a nuclear weapon. . . .

"We respect the history of Iran, we respect the rich traditions of Iran. We, however, are deeply concerned about an Iranian government that is in violation of international accords in their attempt to develop a nuclear weapon."

On June 5: "The Iranians are a great people who deserve to chart their own future, but they are denied their liberty by a handful of extremists whose pursuit of nuclear weapons prevents their country from taking its rightful place amongst the thriving."

On June 19, Bush spoke of "consequences to the Iranian government if they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, such as financial sanctions, or economic sanctions. . . .

"Now, whether or not they abandon their nuclear weapons program, we'll see."

On July 12: "[T]he same regime in Iran that is pursuing nuclear weapons and threatening to wipe Israel off the map is also providing sophisticated IEDs to extremists in Iraq who are using them to kill American soldiers."

On Aug. 6 he said "it's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon."

From that point on, he started choosing his words more carefully.

Here he is on Aug. 9: "They have expressed their desire to be able to enrich uranium, which we believe is a step toward having a nuclear weapons program. That, in itself, coupled with their stated foreign policy, is very dangerous for world stability. . . . It's a very troubling nation right now."

But it certainly didn't tame the overall message.

Here he is on Aug. 28: "Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.

"We seek an Iran whose government is accountable to its people -- instead of to leaders who promote terror and pursue the technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons."

Oct. 4: "I have made the commitment that I would continue to work with the world to speak with one voice to the Iranians, to the Iranian government, that we will work in ways that we can to make it clear to you that you should not have the know-how on how to make a weapon, because one of the great threats to peace and the world would be if Iranians showed up with a nuclear weapon."

And, of course, here Bush is at his Oct. 17 press conference:

Q: "But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?"

Bush: "I think so long -- until they suspend and/or make it clear that they -- that their statements aren't real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it's in the world's interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian -- if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

"But this -- we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Sharp-Eyed Bloggers

Blogger Josh Marshall examines Bush's wording at that press conference and notes: "It's no longer the need to prevent the Iranians from getting the bomb. Now it's the necessity of 'preventing them from hav[ing] the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.'

That's the tell.

"That change is no accident. He wants claims that will survive the eventual revelation of this new intelligence -- while also continuing to hype the imminence of the Iranian nuclear threat that his spy chiefs are telling him likely does not exist."

And here is Cheney a few days later, on Oct. 21, in what is widely considered the height of his saber-rattling, speaking of "the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. . . .

"The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

As Matthew Yglesias blogs for The Atlantic, "the striking thing about this is the extent to which looking back at Cheney's statement he's tried very carefully to avoid directly contradicting the NIE while crafting phrases that are clearly designed to cause the listener to draw the precise wrong conclusion.

"It's not as if Cheney read the NIE and decided he had some reason to believe it was incorrect. Rather, he read it, decided he'd better not contradict it, but also decided that bottom line conclusions about how Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program were inconvenient, and thus decided to talk around that minor point and try to get the American people confused about what's happening. Stunningly cynical and yes I'm resolving once again to never be stunned."

What Happened in August?

At Bush's press conference yesterday, he said: "I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was [national intelligence director] Mike McConnell came in and said, we have some new information. He didn't tell me what the information was; he did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze."

Not only is it hard to believe that Bush received no indication of what the information said, but his shift in language suggests that he recognized around August that his prior statements about Iran were no longer defensible.

Not Believable?

Bush's assertion that he didn't know about the intelligence reversal until last week struck some observers as flatly absurd.

Steven Lee Myers and Helene Cooper write in the New York Times: "Mr. Bush opened himself to new criticism over his credibility when he said that the director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, alerted him about new intelligence about Iran's weapons program in August but did not explain what it was in detail.

"As recently as October, Mr. Bush continued to warn darkly of Iran's nuclear weapons threat, invoking World War III, despite the new information. He responded to a question about that on Tuesday by saying he had received the final assessment, with its drastically altered findings, only last week."

CNN reports: "Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden on Tuesday said he can't believe President Bush hasn't known for months about a recent intelligence estimate that downplays the nuclear threat from Iran. . . .

"'Are you telling me a president that's briefed every single morning, who's fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in '03?' Biden asked in a conference call with reporters.

""I refuse to believe that,' he added. 'If that's true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he's one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.'"

Roxana Tiron write in The Hill that several Democrats "said that Congress should investigate the discrepancy between the Bush administration's recent doomsday rhetoric on Iran and the NIE's judgments."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "charged that the president knew Iran halted its nuclear weapons program months ago even while he warned that the international community must prevent Iran from having the know-how to make a nuclear weapon and avoid 'World War III.'"

And David Morgan writes for Reuters: "On Tuesday, some former intelligence officers said Bush and other top White House officials were probably briefed about the intelligence findings long before the NIE was published.

"'I can't imagine that McConnell . . . would tell the president about this and not tell him what the information actually said,' remarked Flynt Leverett, a former member of Bush's National Security Council."

Alternate Timeline

There are also questions about the administration's narrative that the intelligence reversal came recently.

Greg Miller writes in the Los Angeles Times: "Last spring, as U.S. intelligence agencies worked to complete an assessment of Iran's nuclear weapons program, they were firmly on track to reach the same conclusion as previous reports: Tehran was bent on building the bomb.

"But within weeks, there was an abrupt change of course. The earlier drafts were scrapped. Analysts began to assemble a new report built around the single, startling conclusion that Iran's nuclear weapons program had actually been shut down for four years.

What happened?

"As U.S. intelligence officials sought Tuesday to explain the remarkable reversal, they pointed to two factors: the emergence of crucial information over the summer, and a determination to avoid repeating the mistakes that preceded the Iraq war."

But there's an alternate timeline that seems at least as plausible -- and that would make Bush's deniability even more difficult to support.

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."

Similarly, Scott Horton blogs for Harpers that a "highly reliable intelligence community source" told him: "The NIE has been in substantially the form in which it was finally submitted for more than six months. 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."

Iraq Redux

In the run-up to war in Iraq, administration policy was to create the perception that Saddam Hussein was an imminent and potentially nuclear-armed threat and was even involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks -- without exactly saying so. None of that was true, of course. But the message delivery was hugely successful, and the war was launched.

How intentionally misleading Bush and his advisers were before the invasion of Iraq has never been definitively established. Asked last year in a Newsweek poll, 45 percent of Americans said they believed the president was truthful and honest in laying out the case for war, while 48 percent said they believed he was deliberately misleading. Congress and the press seem to have lost interest in the issue.

But here's a fresh case study. And the evidence seems to indicate that even after Bush likely became aware that the intelligence did not support his claim that Iran was an imminent threat -- or even that it was evn pursuing nuclear weapons at all -- he embarked on a strategy of carefully calibrated misinformation.

The public deserves to know precisely what Bush was told when. And that's really only the tip of the iceberg. What was happening behind the scenes? What changed, such that the intelligence agencies finally went public with their findings? And why would Bush and Cheney warn so direly about something that they knew wasn't happening? What was their motivation?

Yesterday's Spin

I wrote in yesterday's column about what I called Bush's neck-snapping spin.

Peter Baker and Robin Wright write in The Washington Post: "President Bush scrambled yesterday to hold together a fragile international coalition against Iran, declaring that the Islamic republic remains 'dangerous' and that 'nothing has changed' despite a new intelligence report that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program four years ago.

"While his top diplomats reached out to key counterparts, Bush began calling world leaders and held a White House news conference to argue that the new National Intelligence Estimate only reinforces the need for diplomatic pressure against Iran. Although the report determined that Iran stopped seeking a nuclear bomb in 2003, Bush said Tehran's secrecy shows it cannot be trusted."

Ken Fireman and Jeff Bliss write for Bloomberg: "President George W. Bush, his credibility under fire because of intelligence that Iran halted its nuclear weapons drive in 2003, adopted a new argument yesterday to justify tougher sanctions: Just knowing how to produce a bomb is dangerous. . . .

"By shifting from seeking to block an actual weapons program to the 'more amorphous' knowledge standard, Bush is changing a decade-old U.S. policy and making a diplomatic resolution less likely, said [Hillary Mann] Leverett, former director of Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs at the White House National Security Council."

Mark Silva writes in the Chicago Tribune: "The president's stance on Iran -- including his continuing assertion that 'all options are on the table,' meaning potential U.S. military action to prevent Iran from building a nuclear bomb -- raised new questions about his credibility on such security issues, questions that both Democratic leaders and independent analysts were highlighting Tuesday. . . .

"It is a pattern of targeting the 'devil du jour,' suggested John Mueller, a professor of national security at Ohio State University. The last devil was Hussein, he said, and the new one Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"'Just the historical exaggeration of this threat fits into a long syndrome,' said Mueller."

Opinion Watch

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."

Neocon icon Robert Kagan writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "Regardless of what one thinks about the National Intelligence Estimate's conclusion that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 -- and there is much to question in the report -- its practical effects are indisputable. The Bush administration cannot take military action against Iran during its remaining time in office, or credibly threaten to do so, unless it is in response to an extremely provocative Iranian action. . . .

"Neither, however, will the administration make further progress in winning international support for tighter sanctions on Iran. Fear of American military action was always the primary reason Europeans pressured Tehran. . . .

"With its policy tools broken, the Bush administration can sit around isolated for the next year. Or it can seize the initiative, and do the next administration a favor, by opening direct talks with Tehran."

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "Bush is correct to say that the revised intelligence estimate does not warrant a fundamental change in policy. A nuclear-armed Iran should be deterred. The tragedy for U.S. security and global peace is that Bush has twice squandered his chances to lead that vital effort."

The Washington Post editorial board encourages Bush to stick to his plan, and not agree to talks with Iran unless the regime first suspends uranium enrichment.

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."

The Putin System

How TV Works

Simple: Programs are created to make you watch TV. Advertisements pay for the programming. The cynicism creeps in when the programming IS the advertisement - and you still watch it.
Suggestion: Get a hobby. Play a sport. Fall in love. Bake a cake. Read a book. Enjoy your life.











So That’s Why They Drink Coke on TV

By LOUISE STORY

ADVERTISING is often like a game of cat and mouse. Consumers try as hard as they can to run away from sales pitches and commercial jingles, so marketers continually seek new ways to hunt them down.

One of the more popular tricks — oops, I meant to say tactics — advertisers are using today is branded entertainment, which ranges from plopping a Pepsi can into a scene to writing entire television scripts based around Oreo cookies. They like this approach so much that they’re increasing the money they spend on so-called product integrations at double-digit rates, making it one of the faster growth areas for an otherwise stalled television industry.

But does product integration dupe consumers? The Federal Communications Commission is considering investigating this question, and the commissioners may add it to their public agenda as early as Tuesday.

“Networks may be turning to more subtle and sophisticated means of incorporating commercial messages into traditional programming,” said Kevin J. Martin, the commission’s chairman, at a September public hearing. “I believe it is important for consumers to know when someone is trying to sell them something.”

But don’t they know already? I, for one, always assume when I see a brand in a television show or a movie that someone paid to have it there. And if product placement allows me to see fewer commercials, isn’t that a fair trade-off? One program on CW this year, called “CW Now,” runs its full 26 minutes without commercials. The show is about hot products and lifestyle news, so it is easy for the program to interweave ad messages.

But that’s an exception. Nearly all programs rife with product placement still blast us with commercials.

Even so, television executives are not eager to address Mr. Martin’s concerns. After all, some advertisers think the value of product integration is the ability to sneak up on viewers. They want viewers to think that the lead characters of “Gilmore Girls” really liked eating Pop-Tarts for breakfast and that the women in “Desperate Housewives” really do think Nissans are cool.

Some of the proposed solutions to the problem sound more annoying than the product placements themselves. For example, every time Paula Abdul takes a sip from a giant red cup splashed with the Coca-Cola logo on “American Idol,” a disclaimer box could be superimposed over the cup. When young guys flirt with beautiful babes on “The Game Killers” on MTV, a banner on the bottom of the screen could say, “This program was co-created by Unilever’s Axe deodorant.”

Other proposals include a partial ban on branded entertainment during the day and early evening to keep children from viewing it, or even a total ban.

But it’s hard to imagine advertisers agreeing to any of that, and, remember, they hold the purse strings.

Advertisers elbowed their way into the top 20 shows on cable and broadcast networks a whopping 110,296 times in the first half of this year, according to Nielsen Media Research. Coca-Cola alone appeared 3,054 times on broadcast network programs over that period. That’s big money. In 2005, advertisers spent just under $1 billion on television product integrations in the United States, and that amount should more than quadruple by 2010, according to forecasts by PQ Media, a media research firm in Stamford, Conn. Product integrations are usually mentioned only at the end in the credits — if at all.

It could become even worse online, where consumers have even less patience for commercials.

Surprisingly, some advertising executives say they would support disclosure requirements from the government.

"I agree with the F.C.C. Transparency, the truth are the most powerful tools,” said David Lubars, the chairman and chief creative officer of BBDO North America, which helped Gillette to create a seven-episode program that was shown on ABC last spring. It was called “Gillette Young Guns,” making it clear in the title that Gillette was behind the program.

Television writers, for the most part, hate that they are effectively becoming ad writers. Those who protest requests to write in a product are usually overruled, said Jody Frisch, director of public policy and government affairs of the Writers Guild of America, West, which is on strike.

Consumer advocacy groups have been complaining about advertisers trampling into content for years. But does the average Joe at home really care? Or does the tactic work so well that he doesn’t notice the pitch?

Iraq Doesn't Exist Anymore

A RARE and INFORMED perspective on the Iraq War/Crime.
A must read.









An Interview with Nir Rosen

By MIKE WHITNEY

Nir Rosen, author of In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq, has spent more than two years in Iraq reporting on the American occupation, the relationship between Americans and Iraqis, the development of postwar Iraqi religious and political movements, interethnic and sectarian relations, and the Iraqi civil war. His reporting and research also focused on the origins and development of Islamist resistance, insurgency, and terrorist organizations. He has also reported from Somalia, where he investigated Islamist movements; Jordan, where he investigated the origins and future of the Zarqawi movement; and Pakistan, where he investigated the madrassas and pro-Taliban movements.

Is the "surge" working as Bush claims or is the sudden lull in the violence due to other factors like demographic changes in Baghdad?

Nir Rosen: I think that even calling it a surge is misleading. A surge is fast; this took months. It was more like an ooze. The US barely increased the troop numbers. It mostly just forced beleaguered American soldiers to stay longer. At the same time, the US doubled their enemies because, now, they're not just fighting the Sunni militias but the Shiite Mahdi army also. No, I don't think the surge worked.

Objectively speaking, the violence is down in Baghdad, but that's mainly due to the failure of the US to establish security. That's not success. Sure, less people are being killed but that's because there are less people to kill.

The violence in Iraq was not senseless or crazy, it was logical and teleological. Shiite militias were trying to remove Sunnis from Baghdad and other parts of the country, while Sunni militias were trying to remove Shiites, Kurds and Christians from their areas. This has been a great success. So you have millions of refugees and millions more internally displaced, not to mention hundreds of thousands dead. There are just less people to kill.

Moreover, the militias have consolidated their control over some areas. The US never thought that Muqtada al Sadr would order his Mahdi Army to halt operations (against Sunnis, rival Shiites and Americans) so that he could put his house in order and remove unruly militiamen.

And, the US never expected that Sunnis would see that they were losing the civil war so they might as well work with the Americans to prepare for the next battle. More importantly, violence fluctuates during a civil war, so people try to maintain as much normalcy in their lives as possible. It's the same in Sarajevo, Beirut or Baghdad-people marry, party, go to school when they Can-and hide at home or fight when they must.

The euphoria we see in the American media reminds me of the other so-called milestones that came and went while the overall trend in Iraq stayed the same. Now Iraq doesn't exist anymore. That's the most important thing to remember. There is no Iraq. There is no Iraqi government and none of the underlying causes for the violence have been addressed, such as the mutually exclusive aspirations of the rival factions and communities in Iraq.

Are we likely to see a "Phase 2" in the Iraq war? In other words, will we see the Shia eventually turn their guns on US occupation forces once they're confident that the Ba'athist-led resistance has been defeated and has no chance of regaining power?

Shiite militias have been fighting the Americans on and off since 2004 but there's been a steady increase in the past couple of years.

That's not just because the Americans saw the Mahdi army as one of the main obstacles to fulfilling their objectives in Iraq, but also because Iraq's Shiites-especially the Mahdi army-are very skeptical of US motives. They view the Americans as the main obstacle to achieving their goals in Iraq. Ever since Zalmay Khalilzad took over as ambassador; Iraq's Shiites have worried that the Americans would turn on them and throw their support behind the Sunnis. That's easy to understand given that Khalilzad's mandate was to get the Sunnis on board for the constitutional referendum. Khalilzad is also a Sunni himself.

But, yes, to answer your question; we could see a "Phase 2" if the Americans try to stay in Iraq longer or, of course, if the US attacks Iran. Then you'll see more Shiite attacks on the Americans.

Hundreds of Iraqi scientists, professors, intellectuals and other professionals have been killed during the war. Also, there seems to have been a plan to target Iraq's cultural icons---museums, monuments, mosques, palaces etc. Do you think that there was a deliberate effort to destroy the symbols of Iraqi identity-to wipe the slate clean-so that the society could be rebuilt according to a neoliberal, "free market" model?

The main reason that things have gone so horribly wrong in Iraq is there was no plan for anything; good or bad. The looting was not "deliberate" American policy. It was simply incompetence. The destruction of Iraq's cultural icons was incompetence, also - as well as stupidity, ignorance and criminal neglect. I don't believe that there was really any deliberate malice in the American policy; regardless of the malice with which it may have been implemented by the troops on the ground. The destruction of much of Iraq was the result of Islamic and sectarian militias-both Sunni and Shiite-seeking to wipe out hated symbols. The Americans didn't know enough about Iraq to intentionally execute such a plan even if it did exist. And, I don't think it did.

The media rarely mention the 4 million refugees created by the Iraq war. What do you think the long-term effects of this humanitarian crisis will be?

The smartest Iraqis-the best educated, the professionals, the middle and upper classes-have all left or been killed. So the society is destroyed. So there is no hope for a non-sectarian Iraq now. The refugees are getting poorer and more embittered. Their children cannot get an education and their resources are limited. Look at the Palestinian refugee crisis. In 1948 you had about 800,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes and driven into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East. Over time, they were politicized, mobilized and militarized. The militias they formed to liberate their homeland were manipulated by the governments in the region and they became embroiled in regional conflicts, internal conflicts and, tragically, conflicts with each other. They were massacred in Lebanon and Jordan. And, contributed to instability in those countries.

Now you have camps in Lebanon producing jihadists who go to fight in Iraq or who fight the Lebanese Army. And this is all from a population of just 800,000 mostly rural, religiously-homogeneous (Sunni) refugees. Now, you have 2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria, a million in Jordan and many more in other parts of the Middle East. The Sunnis and Shiites already have ties to the militias. They are often better educated, urban, and have accumulated some material wealth. These refugees are increasingly sectarian and are presently living in countries with a delicate sectarian balance and very fragile regimes. Many of the refugees will probably link up with Islamic groups and threaten the regimes of Syria and Jordan. They're also likely to exacerbate sectarian tensions in Lebanon. They're also bound to face greater persecution as they "wear out their welcome" and put a strain on the country's resources. They'll probably form into militias and either try go home or attempt to overthrow the regimes in the region. Borders will change and governments will fall. A new generation of fighters will emerge and there'll be more attacks on Americans.

You have compared Iraq to Mogadishu. Could you elaborate?

Somalia hasn't had a government since 1991. I've been to Mogadishu twice. It's ruled by warlords who control their own fiefdoms. Those who have money can live reasonably well. That's what it's like in Iraq now, a bunch of independent city-states ruled by various militias including the American militia and British militias. Of course, Somalia is not very important beyond the Horn of Africa. It's bordered by the sea, Kenya and Ethiopia. There's no chance of the fighting in Somalia spreading into a regional war. Iraq is much more dangerous in that respect.

Is the immediate withdrawal of all US troops really the best option for Iraq?

It really doesn't matter whether the Americans stay or leave. There are no good options for Iraq; no solutions. The best we can hope for is that the conflict won't spread. The best thing we can say about the American occupation is that it may soften the transition for the ultimate break up of Iraq into smaller fragments. A couple of years ago, I said that the Americans should leave to prevent a civil war and to allow the (Sunni) rejectionists to join the government once the occupation ended. Turns out, I was right; but, obviously, it's too late now. The civil war has already been fought and won in many places, mainly by the Shiite militias. The Americans are still the occupying force, which means that they must continue to repress people that didn't want them there in the first place. But, then, if you were to ask a Sunni in Baghdad today what would happen if the Americans picked up and left, he'd probably tell you that the remaining Sunnis would be massacred. So, there's no "right answer" to your question about immediate withdrawal.

November is the 3rd anniversary of the US siege of Falluja. Could you explain what happened in Falluja and what it means to Iraqis and the people in the Middle East?

Falluja was a poor industrial town known only for its kabob which Iraqis stopped to get on the way to picnic at lake Habbaniya. There were no attacks on the Americans from Falluja during the combat-phase of the US invasion. When Saddam's regime fell, the Fallujans began administering their own affairs until the Americans arrived. The US military leaders saw the Sunnis as the "bad guys", so they treated them harshly. At first, the Fallujans ignored the rough treatment because the tribal leaders leaders wanted to give the Americans a chance.

Then there was a incident, in April 2003, where US troops fired on a peaceful demonstration and killed over a dozen unarmed civilians.

This, more than anything else, radicalized the people and turned them against the Americans.
In the spring of 2004, four (Blackwater) American security contractors were killed in Falluja. Their bodies were burned and dismembered by an angry crowd. It was an insult to America's pride. In retaliation, the military launched a massive attack which destroyed much of the city and killed hundreds of civilians. The US justified the siege by saying that it was an attack on foreign fighters that (they claimed) were hiding out in terrorist strongholds. In truth, the townspeople were just fighting to defend their homes, their city, their country and their religion against a foreign occupier. Some Shiite militiamen actually fought with the Sunnis as a sign of solidarity.

In late 2004, the Americans completely destroyed Falluja forcing tens of thousands of Sunnis to seek refuge in western Baghdad. This is when the sectarian clashes between the Sunnis and Shiites actually began. The hostilities between the two groups escalated into civil war. Falluja has now become a symbol throughout the Muslim world of the growing resistance to American oppression.

The political turmoil in Lebanon continues even though the war with Israel has been over for more than a year. Tensions are escalating because of the upcoming presidential elections which are being closely monitored by France, Israel and the United States. Do you see Hizballah's role in the political process as basically constructive or destructive? Is Hizballah really a "terrorist organization" as the Bush administration claims or a legitimate resistance militia that is necessary for deterring future Israeli attacks?

Hizballah is not a terrorist organization. It is a widely popular and legitimate political and resistance movement. It has protected Lebanon's sovereignty and resisted American and Israeli plans for a New Middle East. It's also among the most democratic of Lebanon's political movements and one of the few groups with a message of social justice and anti imperialism. The Bush Administration is telling its proxies in the Lebanese government not to compromise on the selection of the next president. This is pushing Lebanon towards another civil war, which appears to be the plan. The US also started civil wars in Iraq, Gaza and Somalia.

The humanitarian situation in Somalia is steadily worsening. The UN reports that nearly 500,000 Somalis have fled Mogadishu and are living in makeshift tent cities with little food or water. The resistance-backed by the former government-the Islamic Courts Union-is gaining strength and fighting has broken out in 70 per cent of the neighborhoods in Mogadishu. Why is the US backing the invading Ethiopian army? Is Somalia now facing another bloody decades-long war or is there hope that the warring parties can resolve their differences?

After a decade and a half without a government and the endless fighting of clan-based militias; clan leaders decided to establish the Islamic Courts (Somalis are moderate Shaafi Muslims) to police their own people and to prevent their men provoking new conflicts. Islam was the only force powerful enough to unite the Somalis; and it worked. There have only been a half-dozen or so Al Qaida suspects who have-at one time or another---entered or exited through Somalia. But the Islamic Courts is not an al Qaida organization. Still, US policy in the Muslim world is predicated on the "War on Terror", so there's an effort to undermine any successful Islamic model, whether it's Hamas in Gaza, or Hizballah in Lebanon.

The US backed the brutal Somali warlords and created a counter-terrorism coalition which the Somalis saw as anti-Islamic. The Islamic Court militias organized a popular uprising that overthrew the warlords and restored peace and stability to much of Somalia for the first time in more than a decade. The streets were safe again, and exiled Somali businessmen returned home to help rebuild. I was there during this time.

The Americans and Ethiopians would not tolerate the new arrangement. The Bush administration sees al Qaeda everywhere. So, they joined forces with the Ethiopians because Ethiopia's proxies were overthrown in Mogadishu and because they feel threatened by Somali nationalism.

With the help of the US, the Ethiopian army deposed the Islamic Courts and radicalized the population in the process. Now Somalia is more violent than ever and jihadi-type groups are beginning to emerge where none had previously existed.

The US-led war in Afghanistan is not going well. The countryside is controlled by the warlords, the drug trade is flourishing, and America's man in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, has little power beyond the capital. The Taliban has regrouped and is methodically capturing city after city in the south. Their base of support, among disenchanted Pashtuns, continues to grow. How important is it for the US to succeed in Afghanistan? Would failure threaten the future of NATO or the Transatlantic Alliance?

Although the US has lost in Afghanistan; what really matters is Pakistan. That's where the Taliban and al Qaeda are actually located. No, I'm NOT saying that the US should take the war into Pakistan. The US has already done enough damage. But as long as America oppresses and alienates Muslims, they will continue to fight back.

The Gaza Strip has been under Israeli sanctions for more than a year. Despite the harsh treatment---the lack of food, water and medical supplies (as well as the soaring unemployment and the random attacks in civilian areas)---there have been no retaliatory suicide attacks on Israeli civilians or IDF soldiers. Isn't this proof that Hamas is serious about abandoning the armed struggle and joining the political process? Should Israel negotiate directly with the "democratically elected" Hamas or continue its present strategy of shoring up Mahmoud Abbas and the PA?

Hamas won democratic elections that were widely recognized as free and fair; that is, as free and as fair as you can expect when Israel and America are backing one side while trying to shackle the other. Israel and the US never accepted the election results. That's because Hamas refuses to capitulate. Also, Hamas is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood which is active in Egypt and Jordan and both those countries fear an example of a Muslim brothers in government, and they fear an example of a movement successfully defying the Americans and Israelis, so they backed Fatah. Everyone fears that these Islamic groups will become a successful model of resistance to American imperialism and hegemony. The regional dictators are especially afraid of these groups, so they work with the Americans to keep the pressure on their political rivals. Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah collaborates with the US and Israel to undermine Hamas and force the government to collapse.

Although they have failed so far; the US and Israel continue to support the same Fatah gangs that attempted the coup to oust Hamas. The plan backfired, and Hamas gunmen managed to drive Fatah out of Gaza after a number of violent skirmishes.

Israel should stop secretly supporting Fatah and adopt the "One State" solution. It should grant Palestinians and other non-Jews equal rights, abandon Zionism, allow Palestinian refugees to return, compensate them, and dismantle the settlements. If Israel doesn't voluntarily adopt the One State solution and work for a peaceful transition, (like South Africa) then eventually it will be face expulsion by the non Jewish majority in Greater Palestine, just like the French colonists in Algeria.This is not a question of being "pro" or "anti" Israel; that's irrelevant when predicting the future, and for any rational observer of the region it's clear that Israel is not a viable state in the Middle East as long as it is Zionist.

The US military is seriously over-stretched. Still, many political analysts believe that Bush will order an aerial assault on Iran. Do you think the US will carry out a "Lebanon-type" attack on Iran; bombing roads, bridges, factories, government buildings, oil depots, Army bases, munitions dumps, airports and nuclear sites? Will Iran retaliate or simply lend their support to resistance fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I think it's quite likely that Bush will attack Iran; not because he has a good reason to, but because Jesus or God told him to and because Iran is part of the front-line resistance (along with Hizballah, Syria and Hamas) to American hegemony in the region. Bush believes nobody will have the guts to go after the Iranians after him. He believes that history will vindicate him and he'll be looked up to as a hero, like Reagan. There is also a racist element in this. Bush thinks that Iran is a culture based on honor and shame. He believes that if you humiliate the Iranian regime, then the people will rise up and overthrow it. Of course, in reality, when you bomb a country the people end up hating you and rally around the regime. Just look at the reaction of the Serbs after the bombing by NATO, or the Americans after September 11.

Iran is more stable than Iraq and has a stronger military. Also, the US is very vulnerable in the region, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

America's allies are even more vulnerable. An attack on Iran could ignite a regional war that would spiral out of control. Nothing good would come of it. The Bush administration needs to negotiate with Iran and pressure Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons.

Bush's war on terror now extends from the southern border of Somalia to the northern tip of Afghanistan---from Africa, through the Middle East into Central Asia. The US has not yet proven---in any of these conflicts - that it can enforce its will through military means alone.

In fact, in every case, the military appears to be losing ground.

And it's not just the military that's bogged down either. Back in the United States, the economy is rapidly deteriorating. The dollar is falling, the housing market is collapsing, consumer spending is shrinking, and the country's largest investment banks are bogged down with over $200 billion in mortgage-backed debt.

Given the current state of the military and the economy, do you see any way that the Bush administration can prevail in the war on terror or is US power in a state of irreversible decline?

Terror is a tactic; so you can't go to war with it in the first place. You can only go to war with people or nations. To many people it seems like the US is at war with Muslims. This is just radicalizing more people and eroding America's power and influence in the world.

But, then, maybe that's not such a bad thing.


Nir Rosen's book on postwar Iraq, In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq, was published by Free Press in 2006.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Friends = Enemies

Who better to fight in a war than your friends?!

You can both decide on how nasty you want it to be for each other, and split the spin-off business in the fear years to come. Sweet!











Iraq's Foreign Militants 'Come from US Allies'

Peter Walker

Guardian Unlimited

Around 60% of all foreign militants who entered Iraq to fight over the past year came from Saudi Arabia and Libya, according to files seized by American forces at a desert camp.

The files listed the nationalities and biographical details of more than 700 fighters who crossed into Iraq from August last year, around half of whom came to the country to be suicide bombers, the New York Times reported today.

In all, 305, or 41%, of the fighters listed were from Saudi Arabia. Another 137, or 18%, came from Libya. Both countries are officially US allies in anti-terrorism efforts.

In contrast, 56 Syrians were listed and no Lebanese. Previously, US officials estimated that around a fifth of all foreign fighters in Iraq came from these two countries.

US officials have also long complained about Iranian interference in the affairs of its neighbour, accusing Tehran of shipping weapons for militants over the border. However, any assistance does not appear to extend to people, the paper said, reporting that, of around 25,000 suspected militants in US custody in Iraq, 11 were Iranian. No Iranians were listed among the fighters whose details were found.

The information came from files and computers seized in September when US forces raided a camp in the desert near Sinjar, a small town in north-west Iraq, close to the Syrian border. It was believed the camp was the base for an insurgent cell responsible for smuggling the vast majority of foreign fighters into Iraq.

The files also gave details of 68 Yemeni nationals, the third-biggest source. There were 64 fighters from Algeria, 50 from Morocco, 38 from Tunisia, 14 from Jordan, six from Turkey and two each from Egypt and France.

According to the newspaper, US officials believe the raid stemmed the flow of foreign militants into Iraq, which dropped to around 40 in October, down from a peak of more than 100 a month in the first half of this year.

Last month there were 16 suicide bombings in Iraq, sharply down from a peak of 59 in March. According to the report, the US military believes 90% of such attacks are carried out by foreigners.

However, US officers fear this effect may be temporary. "We cut the head off, but the tail is still left," a senior military official told the newspaper. "Regeneration is completely within the realm of possibility."

The US has previously estimated the nationalities of fighters crossing over the Syrian border into Iraq, but the seized files give a more complete picture.

While Saudi Arabia is a long-term US ally, its nationals form the nucleus of al-Qaida; 15 of the 19 September 11 attackers were from the country.

And while Libya was listed by the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, it was removed last year after the countries restored full diplomatic relations.

Who's Distracting Who

Trent Reznor points to the handful of shit and what to do about it.

More please.

How To Start A War

Anyone can start a war - it's easy. Just do any or all of the following:

1. Accuse the other guy of being a terrorist, while terrorizing him
2. Accuse the other guy of threatening total destruction, while threatening total destruction
3. Accuse the other guy of building Weapons of Mass Destruction, while building Weapons of Mass Destruction
   
4. Accuse the other guy of starting World War 3, while starting World War 3
5. Accuse the other guy of striking first, while striking first

White House Leak: Cheney's Plan for Iran Attack Starts With Israeli Missile Strike

By Gregor Peter Schmitz and Cordula Meyer, Der Spiegel

US Vice President Dick Cheney -- the power behind the throne, the eminence grise, the man with the (very) occasional grandfatherly smile -- is notorious for his propensity for secretiveness and behind-the-scenes manipulation. He's capable of anything, say friends as well as enemies. Given this reputation, it's no big surprise that Cheney has already asked for a backroom analysis of how a war with Iran might begin.

In the scenario concocted by Cheney's strategists, Washington's first step would be to convince Israel to fire missiles at Iran's uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. Tehran would retaliate with its own strike, providing the US with an excuse to attack military targets and nuclear facilities in Iran.

This information was leaked by an official close to the vice president. Cheney himself hasn't denied engaging in such war games. For years, in fact, he's been open about his opinion that an attack on Iran, a member of US President George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil," is inevitable.

Given these not-too-secret designs, Democrats and Republicans alike have wondered what to make of the still mysterious Israeli bombing run in Syria on Sept. 6. Was it part of an existing war plan? A test run, perhaps? For days after the attack, one question dominated conversation at Washington receptions: How great is the risk of war, really?

Grandiose Plans, East and West

In the September strike, Israeli bombers were likely targeting a nuclear reactor under construction, parts of which are alleged to have come from North Korea. It is possible that key secretaries in the Bush cabinet even tried to stop Israel. To this day, the administration has neither confirmed nor commented on the attack.

Nevertheless, in Washington, Israel's strike against Syria has revived the specter of war with Iran. For the neoconservatives it could represent a glimmer of hope that the grandiose dream of a democratic Middle East has not yet been buried in the ashes of Iraq. But for realists in the corridors of the State Department and the Pentagon, military action against Iran is a nightmare they have sought to avert by asking a simple question: "What then?"

The Israeli strike, or something like it, could easily mark the beginning of the "World War III," which President Bush warned against last week. With his usual apocalyptic rhetoric, he said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could lead the region to a new world war if his nation builds a nuclear bomb.

Conditions do look ripe for disaster. Iran continues to acquire and develop the fundamental prerequisites for a nuclear weapon. The mullah regime receives support -- at least moral support, if not technology -- from a newly strengthened Russia, which these days reaches for every chance to provoke the United States. President Vladimir Putin's own (self-described) "grandiose plan" to restore Russia's armed forces includes a nuclear buildup. The war in Iraq continues to drag on without an end in sight or even an opportunity for US troops to withdraw in a way that doesn't smack of retreat. In Afghanistan, NATO troops are struggling to prevent a return of the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists. The Palestinian conflict could still reignite on any front.

In Washington, Bush has 15 months left in office. He may have few successes to show for himself, but he's already thinking of his legacy. Bush says he wants diplomacy to settle the nuclear dispute with Tehran, and hopes international pressure will finally convince Ahmadinejad to come to his senses. Nevertheless, the way pressure has been building in Washington, preparations for war could be underway.

In late September, the US Senate voted to declare the 125,000-man Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. High-ranking US generals have accused Iran of waging a "proxy war" against the United States through its support of Shiite militias in Iraq. And strategists at the Pentagon, apparently at Cheney's request, have developed detailed plans for an attack against Tehran.

Instead of the previous scenario of a large-scale bombardment of the country's many nuclear facilities, the current emphasis is, once again, on so-called surgical strikes, primarily against the quarters of the Revolutionary Guards. This sort of attack would be less massive than a major strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Conservative think tanks and pundits who sense this could be their last chance to implement their agenda in the Middle East have supported and disseminated such plans in the press. Despite America's many failures in Iraq, these hawks have urged the weakened president to act now, accusing him of having lost sight of his principal agenda and no longer daring to apply his own doctrine of pre-emptive strikes.

Sheer Lunacy?

The notion of war with Iran has spilled over into other circles, too. Last Monday Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives, made it clear that the president would first need Congressional approval to launch an attack. Meanwhile, Republican candidates for the White House have debated whether they would even allow such details to get in their way. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said he would consult his attorneys to determine whether the US Constitution does, in fact, require a president to ask for Congressional approval before going to war. Vietnam veteran John McCain said war with Iran was "maybe closer to reality than we are discussing tonight."

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton has also adopted a hawkish stance, voting in favor of the Senate measure to classify the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Her rivals criticized Clinton for giving the administration a blank check to go to war.

The US military is building a base in Iraq less than 10 kilometers (about six miles) from Iran's border. The facility, known as Combat Outpost Shocker, is meant for American soldiers preventing Iranian weapons from being smuggled into Iraq. But it's also rumored that Bush authorized US intelligence agencies in April to run sabotage missions against the mullah regime on Iranian soil.

Gary Sick is an expert on Iran who served as a military adviser under three presidents. He believes that such preparations mark a significant shift in the government's strategy. "Since August," says Sick, "the emphasis is no longer on the Iranian nuclear threat," but on Iran's support for terrorism in Iraq. "This is a complete change and is potentially dangerous."

It would be relatively easy for Bush to prove that Tehran, by supporting insurgents in Iraq, is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers. It might be harder to prove that Iran's nuclear plans pose an immediate threat to the world. Besides, the nuclear argument is reminiscent of an embarrassing precedent, when the Bush administration used the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- which he didn't -- as a reason to invade Iraq. Even if the evidence against Tehran proves to be more damning, the American public will find it difficult to swallow this argument again.

The forces urging a diplomatic resolution also look stronger than they were before Iraq. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants the next step to be a third round of even tighter sanctions against Iran in the UN Security Council. Rice has powerful allies at the Pentagon: Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral William Fallon, head of US Central Command, which is responsible for American forces throughout the region.

Rice and her cohorts all favor diplomacy, partly because they know the military is under strain. After four years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US lacks manpower for another major war, especially one against a relatively well-prepared adversary. "For many senior people at the Pentagon, the CIA and the State Department, a war would be sheer lunacy," says security expert Sick.

Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer and now a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution, agrees. A war against Tehran would be "a disaster for the entire world," says Riedel, who worries about a "battlefield extending from the Mediterranean to the Indian subcontinent." Nevertheless, he believes there is a "realistic risk of a military conflict," because both sides look willing to carry things to the brink.

On the one hand, says Riedel, Iran is playing with fire, challenging the West by sending weapons to Shiite insurgents in Iraq. On the other hand, hotheads in Washington are by no means powerless. Although many neoconservative hawks have left the Bush administration, Cheney remains their reliable partner. "The vice president is the closest adviser to the president, and a dominant figure," says Riedel. "One shouldn't underestimate how much power he still wields."

'Is it 1938 Again?'

Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to Tehran last week also played into the hands of hardliners in Washington, who read it as proof that Putin isn't serious about joining the West's effort to convince Tehran to abandon its drive for a nuclear weapon. Moreover, the countries bordering the Caspian Sea, including Central Asian nations Washington has courted energetically in recent years, have said they would not allow a war against Tehran to be launched from their territory.

Cheney derives much of his support from hawks outside the administration who fear their days are as numbered as the President's. "The neocons see Iran as their last chance to prove something," says analyst Riedel. This aim is reflected in their tone. Conservative columnist Norman Podhoretz, for example -- a father figure to all neocons -- wrote in the Wall Street Journal that he "hopes and prays" that Bush will finally bomb Iran. Podhoretz sees the United States engaged in a global war against "Islamofascism," a conflict he defines as World War IV, and he likens Iran to Nazi Germany. "Is it 1938 again?" he asks in a speech he repeats regularly at conferences.

Podhoretz is by no means an eccentric outsider. He now serves as a senior foreign-policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani. President Bush has also met with Podhoretz at the White House to hear his opinions.

Nevertheless, most experts in Washington warn against attacking Tehran. They assume the Iranians would retaliate. "It would be foolish to believe surgical strikes will be enough," says Riedel, who believes that precision attacks would quickly escalate to war.

Former presidential adviser Sick thinks Iran would strike back with terrorist attacks. "The generals of the Revolutionary Guard have had several years to think about asymmetrical warfare," says Sick. "They probably have a few rather interesting ideas."

According to Sick, detonating well-placed bombs at oil terminals in the Persian Gulf would be enough to wreak havoc. "Insurance costs would skyrocket, causing oil prices to triple and triggering a global recession," Sick warns. "The economic consequences would be enormous, far greater than anything we have experienced with Iraq so far."

Because the catastrophic consequences of an attack on Iran are obvious, many in Washington have a fairly benign take on the current round of saber rattling. They believe the sheer dread of war is being used to bolster diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis and encourage hesitant members of the United Nations Security Council to take more decisive action. The Security Council, this argument goes, will be more likely to approve tighter sanctions if it believes that war is the only alternative.

Disney-fy the Lie

Propaganda Lesson #29: Disney-fy Everything.

Why do the real work of creating a real country with real freedoms, when you can just hire Disney to make the delusion of freedom.

Because if anyone can paint America brighter, it's Disney.










US Deploys Disney to Soothe Visitors Stuck in Passport Queues

By David Usborne in New York

The sometimes gruff welcome that the United States extends to its overseas visitors nowadays, made much worse by the newly rigorous visa and security restrictions imposed since the terrorist attacks of 2001, got a make-over yesterday courtesy of it best-known ambassador of jollity and joy, Mickey Mouse.

From now on, the nerves of international passengers queuing up at passport control at airports in Washington DC and Houston will be soothed – or otherwise – by a sappy seven-minute film made by the folks at Walt Disney showcasing all that is wonderful, scenic and nice about the land of the free.

It will be shown in the international arrivals halls of all major US airports as well as in visa-processing offices around the world. Major airlines will also be encouraged to show it on aircraft shortly before landing in the US.

While the no-dialogue video is packed with clichés of Uncle Sam – such as the inevitable shots of the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon and Golden Gate Bridge – travellers who consider themselves allergic to all things Disney should not necessarily despair. Mickey and his gurgling-grating laugh are not featured in the film and Disney even resisted the temptation to use it as a vehicle to promote itself and its theme parks.

The idea for it was Disney's, however, stemming from the widely held perception that the US has become less hospitable to foreign tourists since 9/11 and statistics showing the US winning a declining share of overseas tourism. It deployed Frederico Tio, a veteran of Disney films such as Finding Nemo, to make the short film and then donated it to the US government free of charge.

The reviews are not yet in but Karen Hughes, a former adviser to President George Bush whose current job is to sell the US to a world that in recent years has become a lot less fond of it, seems delighted, asserting that the film will help in "creating a warm first impression, and first impressions are important".

It is not the first time that Mickey's pixie dust has been sprinkled on the flying public in America. Last month, Miami international airport revealed that in an attempt to improve customer service, it was sending all of its employees to the Disney Institute in Orlando for training in the art of the big smile and open hug.

"We thought it would be nice for people to be greeted by beautiful images that inspire them to explore America," Mr Tio said of his film. A Cuban immigrant himself who arrived in the US aged three, he focused not just on landmarks and landscapes but also on the country's ethnic diversity.

It was a project, he said, that took him and his assistants on an almost 15,000-mile trek through the US over 42 days. Characters featured in the final cut include an immigrant from Mexico tending to grapes in the Napa Valley, a former "lost boy" from Sudan brought to the US as a child and a Midwestern farmer.

The Ten Steps of Fascism

Believe It or Not: The United States of America is in the turd swirl of the toilet. Alot of it is gone already and if the current forces continue uninterrupted, it will surely disappear. Guaranteed. Take it to the bank.




Naomi Wolf lays out clearly the Ten Steps to Fascism, proven throughout history and now in effect in the good ol' U.S. of A. This is truly "must-see TV" for everyone, including those without the skills of critical thought.

Here are the 10 steps:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

3. Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

9. Dissent equals treason

10. Suspend the rule of law


Her most important revelation is at the end where she says flat-out that the only way to turn the tide [proven in history] is to IMPEACH and JAIL.

Officially, the majority of citizens in the US are incapable of doing this. So it's 'bye-bye now' to the America you grew up with, and 'hello my baby' to the new fascist flavor. Enjoy!

Don't believe it? Think Americans can take their country and freedoms back? Still drinking the koolaid that the 'greatest superpower in history' can't come to an end? Then prove me wrong by prosecuting the REAL criminals to the fullest, restoring and enforcing your constitution, and becoming once again the true beacon of freedom in the world.

You won't do it - but good luck anyway.

P.S. For those who make their living creating muddy delusion and arguing with history, your jobs are secure. Sleep well.

Power Politics Lesson # 4 - Always Control the Message

Controlling the message entails: hosting a conference, on your turf, where you set the agenda, and only you can speak to the media. Make sure everyone repeats how wonderfully pro-active you are by doing this.

Follow up by doing nothing, or moving on to the next war.









Manipulating the Climate Message

By Roger Harrabin

Environment analyst, BBC News

What's in a name? A lot, according to the Chinese government.

It forced President Bush to change the title of his recent international climate gathering from the "big emitters" conference to the "major economies" conference.

The apparently minor change reveals the exquisite sensitivity of global climate politics.

The US is keen to paint the Chinese as the world's future biggest polluter, but the Chinese reject the epithet because their emissions per person are about one-sixth of the average American.

President Bush first mooted a conference of large emitters just before the G8+5 meeting in the summer. I understand that China was approached but refused to attend the meeting in Washington unless the name change was made.

The victory was notional because the world media continued to refer to the meeting at the end of September as the large emitters conference anyway.

Indeed, the American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice took the opportunity to consolidate the message by welcoming India, China and Brazil as "equals" in the battle against climate change - an accolade they do not want.

The original wording of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change signed in 1992 by President Bush senior refers to "common but differentiated responsibility" on emissions cuts, but this phrase has been shunned by his son.

Media Control

The whole Washington climate conference was a triumph of US media management. The opening public statements were made by President Bush, Dr Rice and Jim Connaughton, the head of White House climate strategy.

The only foreigner to speak publicly was Yvo de Boer who, as a representative of the UN, remained neutrally uncritical of his hosts. The two-day meeting then went into closed session.

Other delegates were furious at what they said were false leadership claims on climate by Mr. Bush, but they were not given a platform to address the media.

When they emerged at the end of the conference on the Friday, they found that the co-ordinator, Mr Connaughton, had slipped out to brief the media half-an-hour before the end of the meeting, and the US TV networks had gone home.

The conference did not receive widespread publicity in the US despite growing public concern about climate change.

But those papers that did report it ran headlines like "Bush promises leadership on climate" although the Washington Post and New York Times did carry more critical messages down in the body of their articles.

"The White House slaughtered us," said one European delegate in search of the vanished American TV crews, "they absolutely slaughtered us".

Climate Roadshow

The decision to convene the Washington meeting was in itself a masterstroke of PR.

Many of the delegates had low expectations but felt compelled to attend. They noted that the meeting had the same cast-list as the G8+5 meeting of the Gleneagles dialogue (initiated by Tony Blair and hosted by the head of G8 on rotation basis) with just two more guests, South Korea and Australia - both traditional supporters of the US in international relations, particularly climate change.

Next summer, Japan will host the Gleneagles dialogue during its G8 presidency, but Mr. Bush has now asked the heads of government of the 16 biggest economies to travel to Washington to discuss climate, too.

Some delegates felt trapped by Mr. Bush's offer - and fearful of its consequences.

Visiting heads of governments will be obliged by the rules of diplomatic nicety to avoid publicly confronting their host (with whom they may well need to do other business).

It is not clear what extra deal on climate Mr. Bush hopes to gain from a second meeting in terms of content; but the very fact of hosting the meeting will give Mr. Connaughton control once again of the agenda, timetable and media access.

And Mr. Bush may attempt to argue that as the heads are meeting in Washington on climate, G8+5 should focus on other matters.

Chinese Presentation

Some of Europe's delegations had actually planned to speak to the media in Washington, which is more than can be said for the large Chinese delegation.

At international climate meetings they are virtually invisible to the media. One Chinese diplomat ruefully told me: "We believe that we have a plan to reduce the growth in emissions and we are going to carry out that plan so that should be enough.

"We are very naive about dealing with the way the rest of the world sees us."

The BBC requested an interview for radio and TV with the Chinese head of delegation but he only agreed to an off-record background briefing.

Perhaps there is an opening for a large PR firm to advise the Chinese on how to conduct themselves in a world where diplomacy is often influenced by headlines and sound-bites.

By far the best operator of climate spin is the White House's own Jim Connaughton - a brilliant lawyer. Perhaps China could offer to quadruple his salary - it would be money well spent.

License to Kill Revoked?

The Iraqi Government finally decides to look out for its people - and today revoked the license of Blackwater because the private mercenaries blew away a bunch of civilians while 'protecting' an American convoy.

Funny - even Al Jazeera calls Blackwater a "security firm" instead of a mercenary army. That's the power of the press release.

Here's who else has or doesn't have a license to kill in Iraq.











Iraq Ends US Security Firm License

Al Jazeera

The Iraqi interior ministry has cancelled the operating licence of a US security firm after it was involved in a shootout that killed eight people, a senior official said.

Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a ministry spokesman, said 13 people were wounded when Blackwater USA staff opened fire in a Baghdad incident involving an attack on a US motorcade.

"The interior minister has issued an order to cancel Blackwater's licence and the company is prohibited from operating anywhere in Iraq," Khalaf said on Monday.

"We have opened a criminal investigation against the group who committed the crime."

The spokesman said witness reports pointed to Blackwater involvement but said the incident, in a predominantly Sunni area of western Baghdad on Sunday, was still under investigation.

US troops are immune from prosecution in Iraq under the UN resolution that authorises their presence, but Khalaf said the exemption did not apply to private security companies.


Crime Committed

Blackwater, based in North Carolina, provides security for many US civilian operations in the country.

The company was not immediately available for comment.

The US embassy in Baghdad said a state department motorcade came under small-arms fire that disabled one of the vehicles, which had to be towed from the scene near Nisoor Square in the Mansour district.

A state department official said the shooting was being investigated by the department's diplomatic security service and officials working with the Iraqi government and the US military.

Late on Sunday, Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, condemned the shooting by a "foreign security company" and called it a "crime".


Secretive Force

Tens of thousands of private security contractors operate in Iraq - some using automatic weapons and body armour, helicopters and bulletproof vehicles.

They also protect journalists, visiting foreign officials and thousands of construction projects.

Blackwater has an estimated 1,000 employees in Iraq, and at least $800m in government contracts.

It is one of the most high-profile security firms in Iraq.

The secretive company is based at a massive complex in North Carolina.

Until the September 11 attacks, it had few security contracts, but since then, Blackwater profits have soared.

It has become the focus of numerous contractor controversies in Iraq, including the May 30 shooting of an Iraqi believed to be driving too close to a Blackwater security detail.


Witness Testimony

Iraqi police said the contractors were in a convoy of six four-wheel-drive vehicles and left the scene after the shooting.

Hassan Jabar Salman was hit by five bullets while trying to flee the scene of the incident in his car, he told the AFP news agency while recovering in Baghdad's Al-Yarmouk hospital.

Salman said he heard an explosion near Al-Nisoor Square and saw the convoy two cars ahead of him.

"The foreigners in the convoy started shouting and signaling us to go back.

"I turned around and must have driven 100 feet [30 metres] when they started shooting.

"There were eight of them in four utility vehicles and all shooting with heavy machine guns," he said as he lay wrapped in bloodied bandages on the hospital bed.

"My car was hit with 12 bullets, of which four hit me in the back and one in the arm."

Propaganda on Propaganda

A brilliant bit of post-WWII duty drill, apparently directed by Frank Capra and written by Dr. Suess himself, Theodor Geisel - back when they used to call the war department, "The War Department".

Best Paranoid Warning: Watch out for the... clockmakers?

Payola Automotivation

Yes - "influencers" are worth courting.

However, The Office of Strategic Influence has not, nor ever will seek the favors of General Motors. We find this type of collusion dishonest, reprehensible and un-American.

That said - our lines of communication are always open to business, especially Ferrari.










Nader Wants FCC To Look Into GM's Gifts To Radio Hosts

Bloomberg News

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader has asked U.S. regulators to look into whether Rush Limbaugh and other radio hosts are receiving payment or gifts from General Motors in exchange for praising the company on air.

Nader's letter to the Federal Communications Commission cited a report in the Aug. 6 edition of Automotive News that said GM was buying ads, loaning cars and offering other incentives to national and local radio hosts in exchange for the promotions.

FCC rules require broadcasters to say if content has been aired in exchange for money or other considerations.

GM since the first quarter has provided free use of vehicles and bought advertising time hoping for on-air endorsements from program hosts, said Ryndee Carney, a spokeswoman for the Detroit- based auto maker.

"We've been very transparent about this," Carney said. "We think this is a good way to build relationships with some of the talent and to get the word out about our great vehicles."

She declined to comment on Nader's appeal, disclosed in a letter released over PR Newswire on Friday.

Nader and Janice Wise, a spokeswoman for the FCC, weren't immediately available for comment.

Limbaugh is the most listened-to radio host in the country, and his show is distributed by Clear Channel Communications. Michele Clarke, a spokeswoman for the company, wasn't available to comment.

Automotive News, a Detroit-based trade publication, also said GM was soliciting endorsements from Bill O'Reilly, Laura Schlessinger, Whoopi Goldberg, Sean Hannity, Ed Schultz, Bill Press and Ryan Seacrest.

How Do Images Influence What You Buy?

"When you buy Cialis, this is what you get - Guaranteed!"

Blatant associations work - in sex, politics, business... everywhere. It's why people buy cars they want but don't need. It's why families go to Disneyland. It's how politicians get elected.

This goes down as another study in Obvious Science.


FDA to Study Images' Impact in Drug Ads

By MATTHEW PERRONE

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -

Federal regulators plan to study whether relaxing, upbeat images featured in TV drug ads distract consumers from warnings about the drugs' risks.

The announcement, posted Tuesday to the Food and Drug Administration's Web site, comes a week after a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine suggested the agency's drug-ad enforcement has steadily declined.

The FDA says it plans to study how 2,000 people react to television drug ads to determine whether they have an overwhelmingly positive impression of products despite audio warnings about potential side effects.

In a statement released Tuesday, the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America said TV ads are an important way for patients to learn about diseases and treatments.

Drug companies are legally required to present a balanced picture of a drug's benefits and risks in promotions. But critics charge that the images of smiling and relaxed couples and families featured in ads overshadow audio warnings about possible complications.

One ad for Eli Lilly & Co.'s impotence drug Cialis features a middle-aged couple walking hand-in-hand past a restaurant while smooth jazz plays in the background. Toward the ad's end, a male voice lists common side effects, including headache, back pain and muscle aches.

"If advertisers were really interested in getting information about drug risks out, they'd show pictures of those problems, but you almost never see that," said Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the advocacy group Public Citizen, which frequently criticizes drug industry marketing.

According to the authors of the NEJM article, the FDA sent 21 citations to drug companies last year for problems with consumer-directed ads, compared with 142 in 1997.

During the same period, drug industry spending on such advertising soared 330 percent, to $29.9 billion in 2005 from $11.4 billion in 1996.

The U.S. is one of two industrialized countries that permit TV drug ads - the other is New Zealand.

The FDA's Tuesday announcement says a study is needed on whether some ads "simply distract consumers from carefully considering and encoding risk information."

Besides looking at how images used in ads affect consumers, the FDA will also study how text on the screen can focus or divert attention from audio warnings. FDA says text directing viewers to company Web sites or magazine advertisements can distract viewers from more important audio about side effects. On the other hand, FDA said the repetition of language about risks in text format could help reinforce warnings.

In response to increased scrutiny, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America recently issued voluntary guidelines for members on promoting drugs to patients. Members include Pfizer Inc., Merck & Co. Inc., Wyeth and most other major pharmaceutical companies.

The guidelines recommend companies submit TV ads to the FDA for review before broadcast. Drug companies agreed to start paying the agency $80,000 per ad to offset the cost of hiring more drug ad reviewers.

Last month, however, House lawmakers rejected the proposal, recommending that federal money finance the regulatory reviews. The legislators said having drug companies pay salaries of FDA ad reviewers could create potential conflicts of interest.

House lawmakers are slated to meet with their Senate counterparts in September to work out differences between companion bills aimed at increasing the FDA's enforcement powers.