5/28/09 U.S.Progress Report, part 2

state terrorist partners in crimes against humanity for imperialist-zionist world domination: destroying the world for independence from justice and peace

U.S. President Obama salutes Israel's 61st independence day.
Since coming into power last month, Netanyahu and his right-leaning coalition have avoided recognizing the Palestinians' right to an independent state as his predecessor Ehud Olmert did...
Netanyahu is set to visit Washington early next month. Clinton said she was not going to prejudge the Israeli position until there had been face-to-face talks with him....Clinton said the State Department would carefully track assistance and additional steps being taken to ensure that no U.S. taxpayer money goes to Hamas. "No aid will flow to Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas," she added... Clinton reiterated that the Obama administration expected any new government that included Hamas to meet three international conditions - to recognize Israel, renounce violence and sign on to previous Palestinian peace accords. But Clinton hinted that some flexibility might be needed, pointing to U.S. funding for Lebanon, whose government includes the militant group Hezbollah. "We are doing that because we think, on balance, it is in the interest of the United States," she said.

"Our Race is the Master Race. We are divine Gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves."
Menachem Begin -- Israeli Prime Minister 1977-1983

"... Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … these are the true sources of resentment…all the things that make us a force for good in the world – for liberty, for human rights, for the rational, peaceful resolution of differences ...They have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … these are the true sources of resentment…." Cheney, speech on "terrorism" and "why they hate us" 5/21/9 at the American Enterprise Institute

"Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf States. Thus, when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy." Pentagon-appointed U.S. Defense Science Board final report 9/23/04, two months after the 9/11 Commission Report.

Who Will Stand Up to America and Israel?
Doublespeak on North Korea
By Paul Craig Roberts
"Obama Calls on World to ‘Stand Up To’ North Korea” read the headline. The United States, Obama said, was determined to protect “the peace and security of the world.” Shades of doublespeak, doublethink, 1984.... We are witnessing the Washington gangsters construct yet another threat like Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, John Walker Lindh, Hamdi, Padilla, Sami Al-Arian, Hamas, Mahkmoud Ahmadinejad, and the hapless detainees demonized by the US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as “the 700 most dangerous terrorists on the face of the earth,” tortured for six years at Gitmo only to be quietly released....
Obama’s notion that it takes the entire world to stand up to N. Korea is mind-boggling, but this mind-boggling idea pales in comparison to Obama’s guarantee that America will protect “the peace and security of the world.”
Is this the same America that bombed Serbia, including Chinese diplomatic offices and civilian passenger trains, and pried Kosovo loose from Serbia and gave it to a gang of drug lords, lending them NATO troops to protect their operation?
Is this the same America responsible for approximately one million dead Iraqis, leaving orphans and widows everywhere and making refugees out of one-firth of the Iraqi population?
Is this the same America that blocked the rest of the world from condemning Israel for its murderous attack on Lebanese civilians in 2006 and on Gazans most recently, the same America that has covered up [SIC] for Israel’s theft of Palestine over the past 60 years, a theft that has produced four million Palestinian refugees driven by Israeli violence and terror from their homes and villages?
Is this the same America that is conducting military exercises in former constituent parts of Russia and ringing Russia with missile bases?
Is this the same America that has bombed Afghanistan into rubble with massive civilian casualties?
Is this the same America that has started a horrific new war in Pakistan, a war that in its first few days has produced one million refugees?
“The peace and security of the world”? Whose world?
On his return from his consultation with Obama in Washington, the brownshirted Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that it was Israel’s responsibility to “eliminate” the “nuclear threat” from Iran. What nuclear threat? US intelligence agencies are unanimous in their conclusion that Iran has had no nuclear weapons program since 2003. The inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency report that there is no sign of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
Who is Iran bombing? How many refugees is Iran sending fleeing for their lives?
Who is North Korea bombing?
The two great murderous, refugee-producing countries are the US and Israel. Between them, they have murdered and dislocated millions of people who were a threat to no one. No countries on earth rival the US and Israel for barbaric murderous violence.

Israeli lawmakers approve jail terms for 'Jewish state' denial
Ma'an News
Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, gave preliminary approval to a bill that would mandate year jail term for anyone who speaks against Israel’s status as a Jewish state on Wednesday morning. The bill, which still needs final approval before coming law, passed after a heated debate with a vote of 47 to 34 and one abstention. The measure was originally introduced by Zevulun Orlev, a member of a right-wing religious nationalist party, Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home). The bill’s passage comes three days after lawmakers advanced a bill that would ban all commemorations of Nakba Day, on which Palestinians, including those who are Israeli citizens, remember their expulsion of 1948... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=54604

u.s. major media silent on this for obvious reasons....
Lieberman named to U.S.-Israeli gov't post
JERUSALEM, May 10 (UPI) -- Right-wing Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman will be in charge of the country's strategic dialogue with the United States, the Cabinet said Sunday.The appointment means Lieberman will become Israel's point person on the 10-year-old strategic dialogue effort, which serves as a multi-agency, high-level framework for discussions of U.S.-Israeli strategic concerns, The Jerusalem Post reported....

About 1.2 million Palestinians living inside Israel are descendants of 160,000 Palestinians who remained on their land after the creation of Israel in 1948.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman Israeli bills targeting Arab minority prompt debate
By Richard Boudreaux, LATimes
JERUSALEM — The ultranationalist party led by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has unveiled two bills targeting Israel's Arab minority, one that would outlaw the Arabs' traditional day of mourning over the birth of the Jewish state and another that would require an oath of allegiance to Israel. The bill... stems from Lieberman's campaign message that they pose an internal security threat. It would allow the government to revoke the citizenship of anyone who refuses to perform some kind of military or national service. A bill approved by a Cabinet committee Sunday would end Israel's tolerance for these demonstrations, making participation in them punishable by up to three years in prison.... Lieberman's party, Israel Is Our Home, said Monday that it had prepared a separate bill requiring an oath of allegiance from anyone applying for a national identity card, a document essential for almost any transaction with the state, the school system or financial institutions. The oath would profess loyalty to Israel as "a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state. ...Netanyahu has taken no position on either bill...

Israel, not DPRK the biggest danger
Israel is attempting to muster global support against nuclear North Korea amid worldwide criticism of Tel Aviv's widely-reported possession of nuclear weapons.
On Monday, in yet another move to seemingly deflect criticism from its own atomic arsenal, Tel Aviv called for a crushing international response to the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea's (DPRK) latest nuclear test. "Israel expects the international community to respond decisively to the nuclear detonation by North Korea," The Jerusalem Post reported on Monday quoting a foreign ministry statement. The response was supposed "to transmit an unambiguous message to other countries," the statement added.
Earlier in the day, Pyongyang said it had conducted another test of a potent nuclear device "as part of measures to bolster its nuclear deterrent for self-defense." News of three short-range missile test launches after the underground nuclear exercise sparked the outrage of the international community which has repeatedly censured North Korea's contempt for the United Nations' sanctions on its nuclear activities. Amid the condemnations, however, analysts take the Israeli barrage against Pyongyang with a grain of salt given Tel Aviv's reputation as the sole possessor of scores of nuclear warheads in the Middle East according to former US president Jimmy Carter, aerial footage and decades of recurrent reporting. The arsenal has made Tel Aviv a target of high-profile media attacks. Most recently, the Arab League Chief, Amr Mousa, warned that Israeli nukes posed "the real danger" in the Middle East.

Obama: North Korea "Recklessly Challenging" World With Nuclear Test ... "blatant violation" of international law
President George W. Bush labeled North Korea... part of an international "axis of evil," but the United States subsequently removed Pyongyang from its list of official state sponsors of terrorism when it shut down a nuclear installation.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/25/obama-north-korea-reckles_n_207...

US wants more backing for tough response to NKorea
The U.S. on Wednesday accused North Korea of "provocative and belligerent" behavior as Defense Secretary Robert Gates... flew to Singapore for meetings with foreign ministers aimed at a cohesive response to the North Korean atomic test.... Gates is scheduled to visit the Philippine capital in Manila and will possibly discuss U.S. troop levels stationed there. He also planned to stop by two U.S. bases in Alaska on his way back to Washington next week. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton issued stern statements underscoring the firmness of U.S. treaty commitments to defend South Korea and Japan... that contrasted with statements from White House spokesman Robert Gibbs that dismissed North Korean "saber-rattling." .... Clinton said she was pleased by a unified international condemnation of North Korea that included Russia and China, North Korea's only major ally and the host of stalled disarmament talks. The success of any new sanctions would depend on how aggressively China implements them.

'soft power diplomacy' to draw major U.S. rivals into U.S. dominted web, wreck anti-U.S. blocs and global expansion
South Korea announced on Tuesday it was joining U.S. naval exercise, called the Proliferation Security Initiative....
A North Korean army spokesman reiterated that the country was no longer bound by the armistice signed at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War because Washington had ignored its responsibility as a signatory by drawing Seoul into the anti-proliferation effort."Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels including search and seizure will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty and we will immediately respond with a powerful military strike," the spokesman for the North's army was quoted as saying by the official KCNA news agency... it considered such a move an act of war. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088606.html

S. Korea and U.S. Raise Alert Level
South Korean and U.S. militaries ordered their forces here to their highest alert for three years, increasing surveillance flights and satellite reconnaissance to counter what officials termed a “grave threat.” The South Korean Defense Ministry said allied troops, including, 28,000 U.S. soldiers based in South Korea, raised their Watch Condition, or Watchcon, to the second-highest level from Watchcon 3 to Watchcon 2... North Korea intensified its threats [SIC] against South Korea and the United States on Wednesday with warnings of a “powerful military strike” if any North Korean ships were stopped or searched as part of an American-led operation to intercept vessels suspected of carrying unconventional weapons. South Korea agreed to join the operation after North Korea’s nuclear test on Monday. The North had earlier warned the South not to participate in the operation, known as the Proliferation Security Initiative.... U.S. sanctions proposals banning imports and exports of all arms — only heavy weapons are restricted now ..."to dry out their resources for the military,” said a senior Western diplomat, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the negotiations...
In Seoul, with a population of 10.4 million and just 35 miles from the border, preparations continued for the funeral Friday of former President Roh Moo-hyun who [digest: had broad support for reunification with the north] committed suicide last Saturday...South Korea’s president, Lee Myung-bak, lauded his people for their “mature response” to the North’s behavior. He noted that the North’s nuclear test and its subsequent missile launchings did not affect stock indexes and foreign exchange markets beyond initial jitters.

US, SKorea militaries gird for NKorean provocation
Seoul moved a 3,500-ton destroyer into waters near the Koreas' disputed western maritime border... South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said more anti-air missiles and artillery were dispatched to military bases on islands near the disputed western sea border with North Korea..... Pyongyang, meanwhile, positioned artillery guns along the west coast on its side of the border, the Yonhap news agency said.... The two Koreas technically remain at war because they signed a truce, not a peace treaty, in 1953...[the] North disputes the U.N.-drawn maritime border off their west coast... North Korea called South Korea's participation in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative a prelude to a naval blockade and a violation of the truce signed to end the three-year war that broke out in Korea in 1950....renounced the 1953 armistice and warned U.S. forces against advancing into its territory. "The northward invasion scheme by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet regime has exceeded the alarming level," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "A minor accidental skirmish can lead to a nuclear war. The U.S., which has 28,500 troops in South Korea and another 50,000 in Japan, has denied it is planning military action....The South Korean military dispatched "personnel and equipment deployment" along its land and sea borders, a Joint Chiefs of Staff officer said on condition of anonymity citing department policy. He said there has been no particular movement of North Korean troops in border areas. Seoul said its military would "respond sternly" to any North Korean provocation, and that it would be able to contain the North with the help of U.S. troops...

US war plan to topple Kim Jong-il
July 15 2003
By Shane Green, Tokyo
The United States has begun drawing up a military plan designed to topple the North Korean Government that could provoke war with the communist state, according to new reports. The plan, known as Operations Plan 5030, would reportedly allow provocative actions by US forces before a war started, with the apparent aim of destabilising and topp-ling the regime of Kim Jong-il.
The war plan ... ordered by US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld according to the weekly magazine, US News and World Report ...would give US commanders the power to take specific actions in a pre-war phase.... These include sending RC-135 spy flights closer to North Korean airspace, forcing Pyongyang to scramble its jets and use up valuable fuel.
Another scenario outlined by the magazine was the launching of surprise military exercises designed to force North Koreans to head into bunkers and use up food, water and other resources. The magazine quotes Administration insiders who are critical of the plan, which they say is being pushed by hardliners.
The concern is that the acts of provocation could provoke a sharp response from North Korea, such as shooting down a spy plane or launching an artillery attack on South Korea. Earlier this year, the potential for conflict was reinforced when North Korean fighters tried to force down a US spy plane.
The report comes as the international community attempts to establish how far North Korea has progressed in its development of nuclear weapons.
The US, South Korea and Japan all cast doubt on a claim by the North that it had reprocessed all 8000 spent fuel rods at its nuclear facility at Yongbyon.

Pyongyang puts US in the dock
July 26, 2003
North Korea has marked the 50th anniversary of the Korean War truce by indicting President George Bush and 10 predecessors going back to Harry Truman for crimes ranging from genocide to drug smuggling. Prosecutors at the Pyongyang International Tribunal on US Crimes in Korea said the United States must take "political, moral, penal and material" responsibility for 50 years of hostility, the KCNA news agency said. ...

NB: USRAEL talks of “occupied areas” to include only israel occupied post 'six day war' areas, e.g. the West Bank and Gaza Strip. israel has no legitimate basis of existence. Palestine is the entire imperialist-zionist created zionist racist settler "state".

obama, USRAEL'S last hope
Israel Hopes for U.S. Settlement Shift
JERUSALEM — The Israeli government wants to reach understandings with the Obama administration that would allow some new construction in West Bank settlements, an Israeli official said Wednesday... Dan Meridor, the Israeli minister of intelligence, and other senior Netanyahu aides returned on Wednesday from meetings in Europe with President Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, and other American officials to continue discussing issues raised in last week’s Netanyahu-Obama meeting, including Mr. Obama’s objections to settlement expansion.
Almost 300,000 Israelis now live in settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, among a Palestinian population of some 2.5 million. Much of the world considers the 120 or so settlements a violation of international law.... Israel says it reached understandings with the Bush administration — some formal, some informal and some tacit — on building within settlements. Construction was limited, for example, in small, outlying settlements, but allowed in large ones in areas that Israel intends to keep under any deal with the Palestinians.“We want to work to reach understandings with the new administration” that are “fair” and “workable,” said the Israeli official. He was speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue was still under discussion.The Obama administration is seeking a settlement freeze in the hope of improving the environment for peace-making, encouraging gestures toward normalizing ties with Israel from Arab governments, and buttressing a coalition of countries opposed to Iran developing nuclear weapons.But there is a consensus within the Israeli government that the ever-growing settler population must be accommodated.Mark Regev, a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu, said the final status of the existing settlements would be determined in negotiations with the Palestinians. “In the interim, normal life should be allowed to continue in those communities,”...

Obama/USRAELI plan is intended as the 'final solution' to Palestine's national liberation struggle
real hope and change depends on building genuine anti-imperialist - zionist support for the just and heroic Palestinian armed struggle
Seamless Continuity From Bush Time: Obama and "Two States"
By Ellen Cantarow
A false claim is wafting through the press: Obama is hanging tough with Benjamin Netanyahu, he’s going to “twist Israel’s arm” and at long last force the Jewish state into a two-state agreement, settling the Israel-Palestine question for good. There’s even talk that Obama backs the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative, complete with its main demand: Israel’s withdrawal to its 1967 borders.
There’s no proof for any of this. Obama has said nothing about when, where, and with what boundaries a Palestinian state might be established. Neither did George Bush. The slide from one regime to the next has been seamless on the score of Israel and Palestine as on much else.
In regard to a critical document invoked by Obama in his first policy speech about the region last January -- the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative -- Obama has not changed an iota, at least publicly. He gave the speech before State Department employees last January, announcing George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy. Most important, the speech delineated the clear outlines of Obama’s Middle East doctrine, as I described in my “The Problem Isn’t Avigdor Lieberman ”
Obama’s reference to the Arab Peace Initiative was crucial for what it omitted -- the proposal’s first part, the precondition for everything that follows: “Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.” Only after these preconditions have been laid out does the document continue: “Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following….” In “Consequently,” the intent is unmistakable: Once Israel fulfills the crucial condition requiring Israel’s withdrawal to the 1967 lines, the Arab countries will do x, y, and z. One of the corollaries following the “Consequently” clause reads: “Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace [emphasis mine]”. Nothing could be clearer. Moreover, the Arab League’s request of Israel, “the context,” expresses the international consensus for the past 30 years, routinely blocked by the US and Israel. ... Obama’s choice was a deliberate policy declaration: Israel will continue to do what it is doing, with US protection. The US has found a proxy (and armed it -- more on this below). Hamas must “bow its head” to the master’s will. Between the lines that refer to Arab states “normalizing” their relations with Israel, read: the US’s most powerful Arab clients, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, hopefully (though not surely) with Syria in tow.... three-plus decades of US-Israel rejectionism have fostered only Israel’s expansion and the US’s regional hegemony, through brutal occupation and wars, with the consequences in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon (and, if one includes Iraq in the Gulf War, sanctions and Bush periods, Iraq)...
Obama is a President skilled in oratory, with an admirable public relations machine, who can be counted on to exert all the savageries of imperial management. John F. Kennedy was just such a President, with charisma, intelligence, and a slick propaganda mill that still leaves liberals revering “Camelot.” In reality, however, his administration was among the US’s most brutal.... left publications have focused little on Obama’s clear statement of intent in the Arab League proposal reference.... the left press has seldom commented (if at all) on a March 4 address to the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center by Senator John Kerry. As Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry made very clear the Administration’s “peace” plans:
"To start with, we need to fundamentally re-conceptualize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a regional problem that demands a regional solution. The challenges we face there – Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Middle East peace process – form an interconnected web that requires an integrated approach . . . . That’s why it is vital that we move quickly, with the Arab world and the Quartet, to build Palestinian Authority capacity...."
The US, with “the Arab world” (meaning the US’s most powerful Arab clients, Egypt and Saudi Arabia) is to become a united front with Israel against, of course, Iran. The “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” will thus be integrated – or sidelined – within the wider spectrum of the US’s imperial dominance throughout the region. As for the Palestinians, Kerry reiterates that the Administration has found “a legitimate partner for peace” in Abbas ... Abbas is now shored up with an army. Here’s Kerry at Brookings again:
"For years, everyone has talked of the need to give the Israelis a legitimate partner for peace . . . . We must help the Palestinian Authority deliver for the Palestinian people, and we must do it now. . . . Most importantly, this means strengthening General Dayton’s efforts to train Palestinian security forces that can keep order and fight terror. Recent developments have been extremely encouraging: during the invasion of Gaza, Palestinian Security Forces largely succeeded in maintaining calm in the West Bank amidst widespread expectations of civil unrest."

Given the US’s “help” to similar client regimes throughout the world, the “help the Palestinian Authority deliver” phrase is chilling. While one part of the “experiment” with a final solution to the Palestinian problem was underway – Israel’s bombing and shelling of Gaza, possibly a test for future US strikes in the Middle East in densely populated areas – another part, equally critical, was underway in the West Bank. To protect the population’s “human rights” the “truly professional” Palestinian National Security Force (N.S.F.) crushed West Bank demonstrations, averting the worrisome possibility that in the face of Israel’s slaughter of their sisters and brothers in Gaza, there might be unwelcome disturbances. According to reliable reports, Abbas also has CIA-run forces, Preventive Security and General Intelligence, which promise to be far more brutal than Dayton’s paramilitaries (these fall under State Department aegis).

Thomas Friedman, the US-Israel’s press proxy, reported in the New York Times this past February that after Hamas “took over Gaza in 2007,” the US gave funds to Keith Dayton to do proxy-army training of Palestinians in Jordan: “Schooled in everything from riot control to human rights [sic], the N.S.F. [Palestinian National Security Force] is the only truly professional force controlled by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.”

Only a few of Abbas’s “truly professional” proxy-ancestors are Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Suharto in Indonesia, and the proxy forces, professionals in massacre, looting, rape, and assassination, which operated under them. There is...no unified Palestinian resistance movement to parallel the FMLN in El Salvador let alone Nicaragua’s Sandinistas. In a Palestine weakened by decades of savage occupation, the US succeeded in fomenting maximal strife between Hamas and Fatah.

As for the “two states” that get Obama’s lip-service, there are only two possibilities. One is the Lieberman-Kadima proposal (Tzipi Livni, among others to Lieberman’s “left,” endorsed it). It would annex to the West Bank parts of the Galilee containing large Arab populations and call the result a “Palestinian state.” This racist solution, which has sometimes been termed “soft transfer”, as I described it on this site .

The other is the land-swap option proposed at Taba, Egypt in 2001 at the end of Clinton’s administration. (There is also the land-swap option of the Geneva Accord crafted by Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, after PM Ehud Barak pulled out of the Taba talks.) Israeli security and foreign policy expert Zeev Maoz quotes the joint Israeli-Palestinian January, 2001 statement after Taba:
"The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections."

The Brzezinski-Scowcroft proposal savaged by Bill and Kathy Christison in these pages contains a sentence referring to Taba: “Indeed, the outline of an Israeli-Palestinian accord was crafted during the dying days of the Clinton administration... In the ruins of Gaza people hover on the edges of bare survival (among other ravages of the siege alone, which continues unremittingly, is stunted growth in young children, noted in a recent Lancet report) in the West Bank, California-like suburban settlements ravage the former beauty of Palestine’s hills, slicing and dicing what remains of Palestine’s villages and cities; two armies and brutal vigilantes attack any form of resistance, however peaceful, and the usual suffering (evictions, home demolitions and more) goes on under US-Israel rule....
Ellen Cantarow has written since 1979 on Israel and Palestine. She can be reached at ecantarow@comcast.net

Setting Up Venezuela, Bolivia
According to a secret Israeli government report Venezuela and Bolivia are supplying Iran with uranium for its nuclear program,

Bolivia denies supplying Iran with uranium:
Mining Minister Luis Alberto Echazu dismissed allegations in a secret Israeli government report, saying "there isn't even a geological study (of uranium deposits), much less export" of uranium to another country. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_latam_israel_ir...

Abdullah II: The 5-State Solution
In February 2002, I traveled to Saudi Arabia and interviewed the then crown prince, now king, Abdullah, at his Riyadh horse farm. I asked him why the next Arab summit wouldn’t just propose to Israel full peace and normalization of relations, by all 22 Arab states, for full withdrawal from all occupied lands and creation of a Palestinian state. Abdullah said that I had read his mind ... and that he was about to propose just that, which he later did, giving birth to the “Abdullah peace plan.” ...
So, I’ve wondered lately what King Abdullah would propose if asked to update his plan. I’ve even probed whether he’d like to do another interview, but he is apparently reticent. Not one to be deterred, I’ve decided to do the next best thing: read his mind again. Here is my guess at the memo King Abdullah has in his drawer for President Obama. I’d call it: “Abdullah II: The Five-State Solution for Arab-Israeli peace.” ......

The virtues of this five-state solution — Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia — are numerous: Egypt and Jordan, the Arab states that have peace treaties with Israel, would act as transition guarantors that any Israeli withdrawal would not leave a security vacuum in the West Bank, Gaza or Arab Jerusalem that could threaten Israel. Israel would have time for a phased withdrawal of its settlements, and Palestinians would have the chance to do nation-building in an orderly manner. This would be an Arab solution that would put a stop to Iran’s attempts to Persianize the Palestinian issue.

On Palestinian Question, Tough Choices for Obama
by Steven Erlanger
JERUSALEM — With the rule of Hamas in Gaza apparently unchallenged and its popularity growing in the West Bank, the new Obama administration faces an immediate policy choice: support a Palestinian unity government, as Egypt and the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, want, or continue to isolate Hamas and concentrate on building up the West Bank as a political alternative to radical Islam.
The issue is urgent because of the international effort to rebuild a bombed-out Gaza while trying to avoid letting Hamas take credit for the reconstruction, as Hezbollah did in southern Lebanon after the 2006 war. But the choice is more fundamental. It goes to the heart of what President Obama can accomplish in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process when the Palestinian side remains violently divided against itself.

In a series of calls to Middle Eastern leaders on Wednesday, President Obama did not tip his hand [SIC], simply calling for a role for the Palestinian Authority in Gaza’s reconstruction. But many Middle East experts are eager to hear whether the Obama administration will try to create a credible, unified Palestinian government that could negotiate and enforce a state-to-state relationship with Israel, the essence of the so-called two-state solution that has dominated peace negotiations.“This is a moment of very tough choices, with no dominant approach with obvious advantages,” said Gidi Grinstein, president of the Reut Institute, a policy research group in Tel Aviv. “Obama is being pushed to go for a Palestinian national unity government, negotiations and a comprehensive settlement. But it would be a mistake to push the two-state solution toward a moment of truth when it is in a moment of weakness, and when there is both a civil war and a deep constitutional crisis on the Palestinian side.”

Egypt, Saudi Arabia and some in Israel favor a national unity government that would enable the Palestinian Authority to be seen as at least notionally in charge of the rebuilding in Gaza. But even if the antipathies between Hamas and Fatah, which controls the West Bank, could be overcome, a deal would almost certainly entail early elections that Fatah might very well lose.The Gaza war has been bad for Fatah, and its popularity is plunging. Hamas is feeling victorious after surviving the Israeli pounding and is unlikely to allow Fatah to restore its presence, even for an election, in an angry Gaza. The essential issue, and not for the first time, is whether Israel and the West should engage Hamas as an indisputable fact, in the hope that Israeli military power and political reality will trump Hamas’s religious conviction that Israel must be destroyed [SIC] , or instead continue to confront and isolate Hamas, in the hope that Fatah can somehow be resurrected or some third force be created around Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is seen as a more capable leader.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France is trying to get ahead of the argument, suggesting that France would deal with Hamas as part of a national unity government that rejects the use of violence. But putting such a government together will not be easy, and Hamas has said its demands will be tougher than before the war. These will include the release of all Hamas political prisoners held in the West Bank and the opening of the crossings into Gaza.“Hamas feels it has come out unbroken and popular among Palestinians and Arabs,” said Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian analyst and pollster. “French statements also embolden it. Hamas won’t accept a government led by Fayyad and would want to lead it,” a prospect, he added, that Mr. Abbas “would find hard to accept.” Part of the deal would be early elections in the next six months, he said.
Hamas no longer recognizes the authority of Mr. Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, whose four-year term as president should have run out on Jan. 9, but which he insists has been extended under emergency procedures. Hamas has never recognized the legitimacy of the unelected Mr. Fayyad.

Mr. Abbas has proposed early elections for his office and the legislature, which Hamas won in free elections in 2006. But he also wants to change the electoral rules to benefit Fatah, making the election a straight vote for parties and removing the constituency voting for individual candidates that so benefited Hamas last time. Hamas rejects the changes and elections for legislators before their four-year terms expire a year from now. Yet if Hamas did accept early elections as part of a negotiated national government or accord, it could win the presidency, said Zakariya al-Qaq, a political scientist at Al Quds University in Jerusalem, for Mr. Abbas is considered a spent force.

His months of negotiation with Israel and the United States have been fruitless, while he has failed to reform Fatah, which many Palestinians consider to be collaborationist and corrupt... too passive and too late in protesting the Israeli war in Gaza and the civilian deaths because he secretly wanted Hamas eradicated, Mr. Qaq said. “Abu Mazen looked weak and had nothing to say, and Hamas comes out looking like the leader,” he added. “People think the man is over. It’s not a question now of the legality of Abu Mazen, but his legitimacy as a leader.”...
Mark Regev, the Israeli government spokesman, said Israel believed that Hamas had been damaged politically in the war. “We think it’s a very low probability that Hamas will do well in a future Palestinian election,” he said. Many analysts disagree. Yossi Alpher, the Israeli co-director of www.bitterlemons.org ...said that if there were a unity government, there would probably be new elections. “Given Hamas’s political gains and Abu Mazen’s losses, Hamas could win them, and then they’d end up running not just Gaza but the West Bank, too, at least politically,” he said...
Mr. Obama is not the only new leader on the horizon. Israeli elections are scheduled for Feb. 10, and the conservative candidate, Benjamin Netanyahu of Likud, is expected to win. Mr. Netanyahu supported the war and believes that Hamas is an eternal enemy, an ally of Iran, and must be defeated. Mr. Grinstein, of the policy research group in Tel Aviv, said in the current confusion, it might be better for Mr. Obama not to reach for “unobtainable objectives,” but instead to explore an older idea: recognition of Palestinian sovereignty while the borders are still being negotiated and Israel unilaterally pulls out of more West Bank settlements....

the propaganda primarily for u.s. home audience and 'allies' ... most of the world knows better
Morning Skim: Barack and Bibi
By Eric Etheridge
* TPMCafe: M. J. Rosenberg says yesterday’s press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama “seemed kind of frosty.”
Netanyahu seemed eager to ingratiate himself with Obama while Obama was no more than proper. Anyone who recalls the Sharon/Bush or Olmert/Bush lovefests has to be struck by the difference. In this relationship, Netanyahu can take nothing for granted. And he ought not try. Over the next week, as the President gets ready for his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, it will become increasingly clear that Israel and the United States are farther apart on the key issues than they have been in decades.

* Foreign Policy: Marc Lynch surveys the coverage of the Obama-Netanyhu meeting in the Arab press:
The headlines across virtually all the Arab papers have the same basic message: Obama backs two-state solution and calls for stopping settlements. That has to be the message which the administration hoped would reach Arab public opinion, and judging by the first round of coverage it did.

* Commentary: Noah Pollak on Obama’s remarks yesterday that progress in the Israel-Palestinian peace process would make it easier to deal with “the potential Iranian threat”: I’d be surprised if Obama himself believes that the kind of cosmetic progress that might be accomplished in the peace process over the next year will actually create leverage on Iran. Rather, I suspect that his invocation of linkage serves a different purpose: to incorporate the peace process into the U.S.’s dealings with Iran, enabling Obama to extract the maximum possible concessions from Israel in the course of his fruitless attempt to talk the Iranians out of nuclear weapons. It won’t work, but it is shrewd.

* Mondoweiss: Phil Weiss notes that in his public comments yesterday, Netanyahu listed three conditions for a Palestinian state — Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, fight terror and educate their children for peace — and quotes a friend’s analysis of the three:
The first condition, about calling it “the Jewish state,” is merely picturesque and denominational; a piece of sentiment meant for no other purpose than to show what monstrous deniers the people are who would not oblige. The second and third conditions are absurdly insubstantial, vague, almost metaphorical. They are what the philosophers call indefeasible–impossible to see what actions would confirm and what would disappoint such a request. To arrive in the U.S. as unprepared as this is a calculated insult. Like a mobster asking a reform police commissioner, “What do you mean by drugs, and what do you mean by bootleg?”

* Jerusalem Post: “Iran poses a direct threat to US national security through its alliances and military, intelligence and terrorist presence in South and Central America.”
Through [Hugo] Chavez’s good offices, Iran has developed a strategic presence in Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia and warm ties with Cuba. It is exerting growing influence in El Salvador, Brazil, Argentina, Peru and among FARC terrorists in Colombia. And it has highly developed and already proven human smuggling routes to the US in Mexico. It is through this alliance structure with anti-American regimes in Latin America and with sub-national Islamic and narco-terrorist networks in failing states that Iran already constitutes a grave threat to US national security. And it is through this rapidly expanding alliance system that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an acute danger to US national security.

McCain, Obama and a Hamas Link
...Mr. McCain... went on to accuse Mr. Obama of agreeing to negotiate with the president of Iran, who on Wednesday referred to Israel as “a stinking corpse facing annihilation.” He described that as “a distinct difference between myself and Senator Obama.” Mr. Obama has not let attacks go unanswered....“My policy toward Hamas has been no different than his,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on CNN...
Hamas describes itself as both a political party and a movement with an armed wing, the State Department, as well as Israel and several other countries, classifies it as a terrorist organization...The United States has pursued a policy of isolating Hamas while trying to strengthen moderate Palestinian leaders...
“Hamas is not a state,” Mr. Obama told a Jewish group last month. “Hamas is a terrorist organization.”
Responding to Mr. McCain’s accusations in an interview with CNN on Thursday, Mr. Obama elaborated on that position. He again called Hamas a terrorist group and said that “we should not talk to them unless they recognize Israel, renounce violence and are willing to abide by previous accords” that Israel has negotiated with its neighbors and with the Palestine Liberation Organization. That is not a new position for Mr. Obama. In 2006, he, like Mr. McCain, was a co-sponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which called on “members of the international community to avoid contact with and refrain from financially supporting the terrorist organization Hamas” until it met all of the same requirements that Mr. Obama enumerated again on Thursday.

telling title...
Have We Already Lost Iran?
PRESIDENT OBAMA’S Iran policy has, in all likelihood, already failed. On its present course, the White House’s approach will not stop Tehran’s development of a nuclear fuel program — or, as Iran’s successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts. It will also not provide an alternative to continued antagonism between the United States and Iran — a posture that for 30 years has proved increasingly damaging to the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

This judgment may seem both premature and overly severe. We do not make it happily. We voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and we still want him to succeed in reversing the deterioration in America’s strategic position. But we also believe that successful diplomacy with Iran is essential to that end. Unless President Obama and his national security team take a fundamentally different approach to Tehran, they will not achieve a breakthrough.

This is a genuine shame, for President Obama had the potential to do so much better for America’s position in the Middle East. In his greeting to “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” on the Persian New Year in March, Mr. Obama included language meant to assuage Iranian skepticism about America’s willingness to end efforts to topple the regime and pursue comprehensive diplomacy.

Iranian diplomats have told us that the president’s professed willingness to deal with Iran on the “basis of mutual interest” in an atmosphere of “mutual respect” was particularly well received in Tehran. They say that the quick response of the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — which included the unprecedented statement that “should you change, our behavior will change, too” — was a sincere signal of Iran’s openness to substantive diplomatic proposals from the new American administration.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama is backing away from the bold steps required to achieve strategic, Nixon-to-China-type rapprochement with Tehran. Administration officials have professed disappointment that Iranian leaders have not responded more warmly to Mr. Obama’s rhetoric. Many say that the detention of the Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi (who was released this month) and Ayatollah Khamenei’s claim last week that America is “fomenting terrorism” inside Iran show that trying to engage Tehran is a fool’s errand.

But this ignores the real reason Iranian leaders have not responded to the new president more enthusiastically: the Obama administration has done nothing to cancel or repudiate an ostensibly covert but well-publicized program, begun in President George W. Bush’s second term, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the Islamic Republic. Under these circumstances, the Iranian government — regardless of who wins the presidential elections on June 12 — will continue to suspect that American intentions toward the Islamic Republic remain, ultimately, hostile.

In this context, the Saberi case should be interpreted not as the work of unspecified “hard-liners” in Tehran out to destroy prospects for improved relations with Washington, but rather as part of the Iranian leadership’s misguided but fundamentally defensive reaction to an American government campaign to bring about regime change. Similarly, Ayatollah Khamenei’s charge that “money, arms and organizations are being used by the Americans directly across our western border to fight the Islamic Republic’s system” reflects legitimate concern about American intentions. Mr. Obama has reinforced this concern by refusing to pursue an American-Iranian “grand bargain” — a comprehensive framework for resolving major bilateral differences and fundamentally realigning relations.

More broadly, President Obama has made several policy and personnel decisions that have undermined the promise of his encouraging rhetoric about Iran. On the personnel front, the problem begins at the top, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As a presidential candidate, then-Senator Clinton ran well to the right of Mr. Obama on Iran, even saying she would “totally obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel. Since becoming secretary of state, Clinton has told a number of allies in Europe and the Persian Gulf that she is skeptical that diplomacy with Iran will prove fruitful and testified to Congress that negotiations are primarily useful to garner support for “crippling” multilateral sanctions against Iran.

First of all, this posture is feckless, as Secretary Clinton does not have broad international support for sanctions that would come anywhere close to being crippling. More significantly, this posture is cynically counterproductive, for it eviscerates the credibility of any American diplomatic overtures in the eyes of Iranian leaders across the Islamic Republic’s political spectrum.

Even more disturbing is President Obama’s willingness to have Dennis Ross become the point person for Iran policy at the State Department. Mr. Ross has long been an advocate of what he describes as an “engagement with pressure” strategy toward Tehran, meaning that the United States should project a willingness to negotiate with Iran largely to elicit broader regional and international support for intensifying economic pressure on the Islamic Republic.

In conversations with Mr. Ross before Mr. Obama’s election, we asked him if he really believed that engage-with-pressure would bring concessions from Iran. He forthrightly acknowledged that this was unlikely. Why, then, was he advocating a diplomatic course that, in his judgment, would probably fail? Because, he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past “diplomacy” would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.

Iranian officials are fully aware of Mr. Ross’s views — and are increasingly suspicious that he is determined that the Obama administration make, as one senior Iranian diplomat said to us, “an offer we can’t accept,” simply to gain international support for coercive action.

Understandably, given that much of Mr. Obama’s national security team doesn’t share his vision of rapprochement with Iran, America’s overall policy is incoherent. For example, while the administration recently completed a much-ballyhooed review of Iran policy, it has made no changes in its approach to the nuclear issue. Administration officials argue, with what seem to be straight faces, that the Iranian leadership should be impressed simply because American representatives will now show up for any nuclear negotiations with Iran that might take place.

Similarly, some officials suggest that the administration might be prepared to accept limited uranium enrichment on Iranian soil as part of a settlement — effectively asking to be given “credit” merely for acknowledging a well-established reality. Based on our own experience negotiating with Iranians, and our frequent discussions with Iranian diplomats and political figures since leaving the government, we think that it will take a lot more to persuade Tehran of America’s new seriousness.

Tehran will certainly not be persuaded of American seriousness if Washington acquiesces to Israeli insistence on a deadline for successful American engagement with Iran. Although the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, had told reporters that no such deadline would be imposed, President Obama himself said, after his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, that he wants to see “progress” in nuclear negotiations before the end of the year. He also endorsed the creation of a high-level Israeli-American working group to identify more coercive options if Iran does not meet American conditions for limiting its nuclear activities. More specifically, Secretary Clinton and Mr. Ross have been pushing the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany to intensify multilateral sanctions against Iran if Tehran has not agreed to limit the expansion of its nuclear-fuel cycle program by the time the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York at the end of September. This diplomatic approach is guaranteed to fail. Having a deadline for successful negotiations will undercut the perceived credibility of American diplomacy in Tehran and serve only to prepare the way for more coercive measures. Mr. Obama’s justification for a deadline — that previous American-Iranian negotiations produced “a lot of talk but not always action and follow-through” — is incorrect as far as Iranian behavior was concerned. For example, during talks over Afghanistan after 9/11 in which one of us (Hillary) took part, Tehran deported hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban operatives who had sought sanctuary in Iran, and also helped establish the new Afghan government. It was Washington, not Tehran, that arbitrarily ended these productive talks.

Beyond the nuclear issue, the administration’s approach to Iran degenerates into an only slightly prettified version of George W. Bush’s approach — that is, an effort to contain a perceived Iranian threat without actually trying to resolve underlying political conflicts. Obama administration officials are buying into a Bush-era delusion: that concern about a rising Iranian threat could unite Israel and moderate Arab states in a grand alliance under Washington’s leadership.
(all emphases added by digest)

President Obama and his team should not be excused for their failure to learn the lessons of recent history in the Middle East — that the prospect of strategic cooperation with Israel is profoundly unpopular with Arab publics and that even moderate Arab regimes cannot sustain such cooperation. The notion of an Israeli-moderate Arab coalition united to contain Iran is not only delusional, it would leave the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict unresolved and prospects for their resolution in free fall. These tracks cannot be resolved without meaningful American interaction with Iran and its regional allies, Hamas and Hezbollah....
It was not easy for President Richard Nixon to discard a quarter-century of failed policy toward the People’s Republic of China and to reorient America’s posture toward Beijing in ways that have served America’s interests extremely well for more than 30 years. That took strategic vision, political ruthlessness and personal determination. We hope that President Obama — contrary to his record so far — will soon begin to demonstrate those same qualities in forging a new approach toward Iran.
Flynt Leverett directs the New America Foundation’s geopolitics of energy initiative and teaches at Penn State’s School of International Affairs. Hillary Mann Leverett is the president of a political risk consultancy. Both are former National Security Council staff members.

psywar redux
Obama orders Gates to update plan for Iran strike
Technical or offensive move? US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Friday that President Barack Obama had asked him to update the plans for the use of military force against Iran which were prepared during former President George W. Bush's term. In an interview to NBC television's Today show, the American defense secretary explained that "presidents always ask their military to have a range of contingency plans available to them. And all I would say is that, as a result of our dialogue with the president, we have refreshed our plans and all options are on the table." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3720065,00.html

US Colonel Advocates US 'Military Attacks' on 'Partisan Media' in JINSA
By Jeremy Scahill
“The point of all this is simple: Win,” writes Col. Ralph Peters. “In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win.”
In the era of embedded media, independent journalists have become the eyes and ears of the world. Without those un-embedded journalists willing to risk their lives to place themselves on the other side of the barrel of the tank or the gun or under the airstrikes, history would be written almost entirely from the vantage point of powerful militaries, or—at the very least—it would be told from the perspective of the troops doing the shooting, rather than the civilians who always pay the highest price.

In the case of the Iraq invasion and occupation, the journalists who have placed themselves in danger most often are local Iraqi journalists. Some 116 Iraqi journalists and media workers have been killed in the line of duty since March 2003. In all, 189 journalists have been killed in Iraq. At least 16 of these journalists were killed by the US military, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. The network that has most often found itself under US attack is Al Jazeera. As I wrote a few years ago in The Nation:

The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.

A new report for a leading neoconservative group which pushes a belligerent “Israel first” agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the US should make censorship of media official policy and advocates “military attacks on the partisan media.” ... The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired US Army Colonel Ralph Peters in JINSA’s “flagship publication,” The Journal of International Security Affairs. “Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight,” Peters writes, calling the media, “The killers without guns:”

"Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza. (…)
Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters."...

Colonel Peters’s sick and twisted essay reminded me of the report that emerged in late 2005 about an alleged Bush administration plot to bomb Al Jazeera’s international headquarters in Qatar, which I covered for The Nation:

Britain’s Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera’s international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked “Top Secret” minutes of the Bush-Blair summit. British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don’t yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush’s meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first US siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.

The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the US occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted US attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving US denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger.

Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, “Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice…but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay.” On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day “American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire.”

On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, “The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies.” On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera’s reporting “vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable…. It’s disgraceful what that station is doing.” It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. “He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere,” a source told the Mirror. “There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do—and no doubt Blair didn’t want him to do it.”

Lest people think that the views of people like Col. Ralph Peters and the JINSA/PNAC neocons are relics of the past, remember that the Obama administration includes heavy hitters from this world among its ranks...

Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars
Ralph Peters
Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.... The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters... We may wish reality to be otherwise, but we must deal with it as we find it. And the reality of warfare is that it is the organized endeavor at which human beings excel. Only our ability to develop and maintain cities approaches warfare in its complexity. There is simply nothing that human collectives do better (or with more enthusiasm) than fight each other.... At present, the American view of warfare has degenerated from science to a superstition in which we try to propitiate the gods with chants and dances. We need to regain a sense of the world’s reality. Of all the enemies we face today and may face tomorrow, the most dangerous is our own wishful thinking.

WHO ARE SecurityAffairs.org & JINSA?
SecurityAffairs.org is the online home of The Journal of International Security Affairs. The Journal of International Security Affairs is the flagship publication of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). JINSA is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization based in Washington, D.C. It is dedicated to explaining the need for a prudent national security policy for the United States, addressing the security requirements of both the United States and the State of Israel, and strengthening the strategic cooperation relationship between these two great democracies.

Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs [JINSA]
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit non-partisan conservative think-tank focusing on issues of United States and Israeli national security. JINSA's stated aim is threefold: to ensure a strong and effective U.S. national security policy; to educate American leaders on what it views as the vital strategic relationship between the United States and Israel; and to strengthen U.S. cooperation with democratic allies, including Taiwan, Hungary, Turkey, India, and NATO member nations, amongst others.
JINSA's advisory board includes such notable figures as Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, and R. James Woolsey, while Vice President Dick Cheney, former U.S. Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, and former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith