Could not happen to a nicer group of people....
"VTR" <vexjorge@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:a6ednTXk8Jg-_IDVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bush-Cheney Israel Disinformation Campaign to Justify an Attack on Iran
>
> By William H. White
>
> Global Research, May 2, 2008
>
> Campaign's Overall Design and Objectives
>
> The Bush administration and Israeli government appear to be operating a
> joint disinformation campaign, whose objective is to establish a media
> based alternative reality from which to accuse Syria/Iran of developing
> nuclear weapons with help from North Korea, by using a real event
combined
> with planted stories establi****ng a defining narrative. This accusation
in
> turn is augmented with stories about Iranian sponsored "Special Groups
> killing US troops in Iraq" and pur****ted naval incidents the Persian
Gulf,
> creating self-reinforcing, media based crisis.
>
> The immediate purpose of this disinformation campaign is apparently to
> help justify the planned US attack on a wide range of Iranian industrial
> and military targets. And, as in the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, the
> objective is to swiftly inflict substantial damage to the national
> infrastructure of Iran, followed by an abrupt cessation of attacks and a
> call for a cease-fire to prevent substantial Iranian retaliation.
Again,
> as in the Israeli attacks on Lebanon, the US likely will resist calls
for
> a cessation of the attacks until a significant ****tion of the Iranian
> target set has been addressed, then it will accept calls for a
cease-fire
> and demand Iran do the same.
>
> Any subsequent attacks by Iran would probably be characterized by the US
> as Iranian aggression, further justifying US follow-up attacks on
> remaining Iranian assets as defensive measures. The transparent
duplicity
> of such US actions and claims is not a problem because US cor****ate
media
> is prepared to re****t repeatedly the administration's claims with little
> or no criticism or mention of alternative *****sments. In other words,
> subjecting its audience to blatant propaganda masquerading as
journalism,
> which is effective as it is because of US cor****ate media's quantitative
> monopoly on information provided the public.
>
> As far as can be determined, no credible or even plausible evidence for
> any of these claims has been presented by the Bush administration, let
> alone by any independent verification of such claims. Instead, in the
> pattern similar to the disinformation campaign before the invasion of
> Iraq, questions about these claims, when raised at all, are ignored or
> "answered" with repeated or additional claims. Essentially this
> disinformation campaign, as all such campaigns, is an elaborate set of
> lies to deceive an enemy, in this case the Unites States Congress and
the
> American people, in pursuit of Bush administration secret policy
> objectives for the benefit of a foreign government.
>
> Campaign's Origin
>
> The origins of this disinformation campaign was the the Bush
> administration's appreciation in the late summer of 2007 that the
National
> Intelligence Estimate (NIE) subsequently released in November 2007 would
> undermine its attempts to claim Iran was developing nuclear weapons, the
> then primary justification for an attack on Iran. When it became clear
to
> the Bush administration that the intelligence community would issue the
> 11/7/07 NIE, completely undermining the administration's claims of
Iranian
> nuclear weapons development, they apparently decided, instead of
accepting
> this judgment or objecting to it within official channels, that an
> alternative foundation needed to be established for its planned attack
on
> Iran. This alternative would bypass not only the US intelligence
> community's collective *****sments, but also the judgments of the United
> States' Joint Chiefs of Staff military command.
>
> Essentially, the Bush administration, in cooperation with a foreign
> government, Israel, decided to bypass the intelligence community as well
> as the military commands of the United States, in order undertake
attacks
> by US military forces on a foreign nation, Iran, by deliberately
ignoring
> and undermining the judgments of authorities charged by law with
informing
> the US Congress about such data so it can make sound judgments in
exercise
> of its US Constitutional authority over matters of war and peace.
> Apparently the Bush administration hopes for a fait accompli after
attacks
> on Iran, leaving the next administration with a region-wide tar baby,
with
> Israel the only remaining "friend" in the region, otherwise populated
with
> outright enemies or alienated former allies.
>
> In addition, a likely last minute Israel-Palestinian peace deal
negotiated
> with the unelected Fatah based faction, in which Israel would be granted
> costly long term aid and security assurances, in exchange for Israeli
> commitments of limited value and voracity. With Israel positioned to
> attempt an alliance with the Kurds upon the expected partition of Iraq,
> following an inevitable US withdrawal. Again, as with the invasion of
> Iraq, the Bush administration's planning is front loaded, focused on the
> mechanics of military operations or manipulating public and official
> opinion, with little or no thought given to what happens next, let alone
> second or third order consequences, except the general intention to take
> maximum political advantage of any resulting crisis.
>
> On the face of it, some elements of the Bush administration's
undertaking
> appear to be acts of treason, by giving aid and comfort to an enemy of
the
> United States, in as much as it aided Israel to act in its own interests
> and without regard for, or to the detriment of, the manifest interests
of
> the United States; however, we defer such judgments to another, more
> appropriate venue, and only pursue our limited *****sment of the
> administration's actions with regard to their immediate objectives.
>
> First Overt Act
>
> The first known overt act in pursuit of this effort, besides Israel's
> attack on Syria, was a letter Bush wrote to the North Korean leader Kim
> Jong-il, as re****ted by the BBC on December 6, 2007, wherein Bush asked
> the Korean leader to reveal any assistance to others in the development
of
> nuclear weapons. While a matter of speculation, this letter combined
with
> other demands by the US government, were meant to pressure the North
> Korean government into making accusations against Syrian and Iran, in
> exchange for concessions in the form of released impounded funds and oil
> ****pments promised as by part of the US-North Korean agreement on its
> weapons development program. According to the NYTimes Dec 15, 2007
re****t,
> Bush wrote a letter to the North Korean leader demanding, among other
> things, he reveal who he have helped with his nuclear technology, as
> specified in the nuclear declaration or so-called "come clean" section
of
> the US-North Korean agreement.
>
> Because the usual glacial movements of North Korea's foreign policy were
> incompatible with Bush administration's Iranian timetable, attempts were
> made to pressure North Korea to give in sooner to US demands by the end
of
> the year, but as U.S. Will Hold North Korea to Nuclear Commitments by
> Reuters 01/03/08 re****ts, these efforts failed thus far. Instead, North
> Korea made a forthright statement, North Korea Says Earlier Disclosure
Was
> Enough by The New York Times 01/05/08, which repudiated such claims.
Since
> this was contrary to Bush administration objectives, it was apparently
> largely ignore by US cor****ate media. Pressure continues on North Korea
to
> make such admissions.
>
> Change of Policy
>
> Overall, it appears the sudden US agreement with North Korea, after
years
> of the usual "Bush diplomacy" whereby he refuses to speak to the other
> side until they concede every major point of contention, was an attempt
to
> clear the decks for attacks against Iran. Among the most informed and
> insightful observers of national security affairs, Seymour M. Hersh, in
a
> video interview at The New Yorker, suggested that a US agreement with
> North Korea would be among the clearest signs of US preparation for an
> attack on Iran. He further discusses, in an interview with Al Jazeera on
> Feb 7, 2008, US intentions and the likelihood Cheney may have overrode
US
> Joint Chiefs of Staff objections to the attack.
>
> As part of the administration's disinformation campaign, Israel attacked
a
> Syrian site, which was later linked to North Korea through a set of
> stories released over time to give the impression of information being
> slowly revealed over time, hoping to establish "facts" more firmly than
> making accusations at the time of the attack on Syria.
>
> US Cor****ate Media's Role in the Nuclear Weapons Development Story
>
> It appears that certain media outlets were a party to the disinformation
> campaign, in that they misled their readers and others with stories
> clearly designed to establish the impression that North Korea was
helping
> Syria, and likely Iran, to develop a nuclear program, to be conveniently
> confused in the public's mind with the far more costly and complex
> development of nuclear weapons. Among those noted, Harretz, the
Wa****ngton
> Post and New York Times appear to have been willing conduits of this
> disinformation campaign, since it would strain all credulity to believe
> they themselves were deceived, especially since no effort was made to
> re****t on other observers who question the validity of these claims:
>
> Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache’, Sunday Times, Sept 16, 2007
>
> Israel, U.S. Shared Data On Suspected Nuclear Site, Wa****ngton Post,
Sept
> 21, 2007
>
> Israel Admits To Sept. Air Attack In Syria, CBS News Oct 2, 2007
>
> Israel Struck Syrian Nuclear Project, Analysts Say, NYTimes Oct 14, 2007
>
> Photographs Said to Show Israeli Target Inside Syria, Wa****ngton Post
Oct
> 24, 2007
>
> North Koreans said killed in IAF strike on alleged Syria nuclear reactor
> site, Harretz Staff and Reuters, Apr 28, 2008
>
> It should be noted: All of these ginned-up, hand ringing stories about
> programs "to develop the capability; to learn technologies; to establish
> potentials for securing; etc.," not once mention that Israel is armed
with
> several hundred nuclear warheads, some of which are aboard submarines
> capable of attacking Europe, Russia and the US.
>
> A New Casus Belli: "Iran Is Killing US Troops"
>
> The Bush administration has augmented and subordinated the nuclear issue
> and naval incidents as casus belli to the "Iran is killing US troops"
> propaganda offensive, which immerged with the invention of the so-called
> "Special Groups" by the US military command, first mentioned by the US
> Military Command in Iraq on July 2, 2007. They took on new life at the
end
> of March 2008, as re****ted by Agence France-Presse (AFP) on March 26,
> 2008, when military spokesman Major General Kevin Bergner, as part of
the
> US Military's effort to "do***ent" Iranian sponsored operations in Iraq,
> revealed these "Iranian-sup****ted Special Group criminals" were
apparently
> and suddenly everywhere.
>
> Within a month, hundreds of stories in the US cor****ate media re****ted
all
> about these "Special Groups", almost without exception identifying them
as
> Iranian trained and fielded. The NYTimes re****ted by April 24, 2008
that,
> "73 percent of fatal and other harmful attacks on American troops in the
> past year were caused by roadside bombs planted by so-called 'special
> groups.'” according to "Senior officers in the American division that
> secures the capital." As far as can be determined no credible or even
> plausible evidence for such groups has been presented by the US Military
> command in Iraq. Clearly, weapons stamped with Iranian manufacturing
> labels, while subject to counterfeiting, would mean little, even if
> genuine, in as much as such small arms are trafficked throughout the
> Middle East and indicate nothing about the actions of the government of
> Iran. Instead, in a pattern similar to the run up to the invasion of
Iraq,
> questions about these claims, are ignored or met with additional claims.
>
> By the time General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before the
> US Congress in early April, the "special groups" were an established
> element in the alternative reality maintained by official Wa****ngton and
> US cor****ate media. In addition, the ever compliant Congress allowed the
> two to testify for just a single day before the Senate and another day
> before the House committees in a mockery of oversight, during which not
> much was made of the question as to whether these claims about "special
> groups", even if true, legally justified attacking Iran under
> international law.
>
> It is highly likely arrests of "Iranian agents" and weapons store
seizures
> of "Iranian weapons" will continue, along with "counter infiltration"
> operations along the Syrian and Iranian borders.
>
> The New York Times Particularly Duplicitous
>
> The New York Times in particular, after its public vows to do better
> following exposure of its re****ter Judith Miller, who made a significant
> contribution the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" disinformation campaign
> run out of Cheney's office prior to the invasion of Iraq that ultimately
> proved to be totally false, now seems to have slipped back into its old
> habit of blatant pro-Israel coverage and disinformation, while objecting
> in its editorial page to the very policies it advances in its re****ting,
> making its practices especially duplicitous and irresponsible, given its
> undisputed influence both on official Wa****ngton and the rest of US
> cor****ate media.
>
> In another example, a NYTimes Apr 26, 2008 article "Questions Linger on
> Scope of Iran’s Threat in Iraq" that nominally pur****ts to question the
US
> claims about Iranian/Iraqi "Special Groups" and Iranian involvement in
> training and arming fighters in Iraq; in fact, reinforces such claims
> using "directly or indirectly quoted unnamed officials an astounding 30
> times," according to an insightful analysis of the article by Jeff Huber
> "When Did Iran Start Beating Its Wife Again?". The im****tance of the
> "Special Groups" claims is clear in that the Bush administration has
> ****fted part of justification for a war with Iran to the charge that
"Iran
> is kill US troops in Iraq", adding to this to its "warnings" about naval
> incidents in Persian Gulf and nuclear weapons development as Casus Belli
> options.
>
> Recent encounters involving US and Iranian naval vessels show a
evolution
> toward a much more aggressive and manipulative posture in the Bush
> administration's characterization of these events. The widely re****ted
> incident between US and Iranian vessels on January 6, 2008 in the Strait
> of Hormuz was actually the third such recent encounter. The first two
> encounters occurred in December 2007, during one of which on December
19,
> 2007 the USS Whidbey Island fired warning shots toward an approaching
> Iranian vessel, causing the Iranian vessel to alter course. The first
two
> encounters passed unre****ted at the time and were largely routine for
the
> area of operations.
>
> However, the third encounter on January 6, 2008 was not only
characterized
> as a far more grave "incident" by official Wa****ngton, accompanied by
> re****ts by official US sources of threats made against the US vessels,
> based on video and voice transmission "evidence" released by the
Pentagon
> to vast coverage by US cor****ate media. Examination of the voice
> transmission recordings indicated the actual segment containing the only
> threat was of doubtful authenticity; and, a later release of an Iranian
> video of the same incident indicated the Pentagon had mischaracterized
its
> own video, revealing another blatant disinformation effort, but received
> little coverage in US cor****ate media.
>
> Another two naval incidents have been hyped by US cor****ate media, one
in
> the Persian Gulf where a US military chartered cargo vessel, Western
> Venture, fired warning shots at approaching unidentified small boats
> without known injuries or damage. While the media attention added to
> regional tensions and increased oil prices, the incident was much like
the
> other incident at the entrance to Suez Canal, except in that case a boat
> borne local vendor was shot to death by personnel aboard a US military
> chartered vessel Global Patriot. Needless to say the dead vendor was of
> little note in US cor****ate media.
>
> Finally, the Accusations and Warnings
>
> Perhaps the most transparent effort to link the alleged Syrian and North
> Korean reactors is the Apr 25, 2008 re****t in the BBC, which included
> pictures provided the CIA that "said to have been obtained by Israel -
> showed striking similarities between the Syrian facility and the North
> Korean reactor at Yongbyon, the US said." The re****t goes on to note:
"The
> CIA briefing and statement coincides with the end of a two-day meeting
> between US and North Korean officials on Pyongyang's nuclear programme,
> which both sides say have gone well - fuelling speculation that a deal
may
> be imminent." What this "deal" is remains to be seen, but bribes paid to
a
> foreign government (North Korea) in exchange for accusations against
> another foreign government (Syria), in order to justify claims against a
> third foreign government (Iran) are hardly the stuff upon which grave
> policy decisions (going to war with Iran) should be made. Unless your
> objective is to lead the US into yet another war no matter what the
facts
> actually are, as the Bush administration and Israel appear to be trying
to
> do.
>
> Finally, we have Bush himself taking the money shot in the Israeli
press,
> with a truly bizarre parlaying of the accusations against Syria into a
> warning to Iran: Bush: Revealing details of attack on Syrian site was
> message to Iran, in a Haaretz Staff and Reuters, Apr 29, 2008, stating
> that "U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday he released U.S.
> intelligence about the nuclear facility that Israel bombed in Syria in
> September so as to put pressure on North Korea and send a message to
Iran
> that it could not hide its own nuclear program." Apart from the fact
that
> a nuclear reactor is not proof of a weapons program in Syria, Iran is
not
> Syria, any more than Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the 9/11
> attacks on the US.
>
> These Bush "warnings" have become a mainstay of US cor****ate media, in
> which often baseless threats against others are ****trayed as "last, best
> efforts" to change alleged behavior before action is reluctantly taken,
> after giving the ever-preferable "diplomacy" a chance. The most blatant
> example of this is the number of times Saddam Hussein was "warned" about
> "weapons of mass destruction" and we were all warned about not letting
the
> "smoking gun being the mushroom cloud" as well as warning about his
final
> chances to "come clean." The added virtue of "warnings" is they contain
an
> embedded assertion that the warned party knows full well the truth of
the
> accusation as does the one issuing the warning, as well implying a
> reasonableness in that the target need only comply to avoid getting what
> they would otherwise deserve.
>
> Should North Korea finally agree, at likely unknown cost, to "come
clean"
> and mention help to Syria or Iran, such bribery is likely to be no more
> credible than confessions of tortured prisoners in the Bush
> administration's special prisons, whether they be "Iranian Agents" or
> "Terrorists" turned over to US authorities as part of the US's far flung
> bounty programs. After
> all, we have all become prisoners to the attendant lunacies of the Bush
> administration and US cor****ate media's alternative reality, in which
new
> "warnings" based on disinformation lurk: hair-trigger "facts" poised to
> "provoke" the US into "defending" itself by attacking Iran, including
> nuclear program/weapons development; "Special Groups" killing US troops
in
> Iraq; and, hostile naval incidents. By the time time the attack on Iran
> comes, the US cor****ate media will be asking why it took the US so long
to
> "react."
>
> author's website: www.concordbridge.net
|
