Archive for August, 2007

Is the United States Killing 10,000 Iraqis Every Month? Or Is It More?

August 15, 2007

Global Research, August 13, 2007

By Prof. Michael Schwartz

While the atlantist media is reporting more than 3 000 GI’s killed in Iraq and many civilian victims of inter-confessional violences, it looks away from the daily slaughter of civilians by US patrols conducting their search operations for suspects. Professor Michael Schwartz estimates that their number reached 10 000 a month in the first 3 years of occupation. And much more since Bush ordered his surge of operations.

A state-of-the-art research study published in October 12, 2006 issue of The Lancet (the most prestigious British medical journal) [1] concluded that — as of a year ago — 600,000 Iraqis had died violently due to the war in Iraq. That is, the Iraqi death rate for the first 39 months of the war was just about 15,000 per month.

That wasn’t the worst of it, because the death rate was increasing precipitously, and during the first half of 2006 the monthly rate was approximately 30,000 per month, a rate that no doubt has increased further during the ferocious fighting associated with the current American surge.

Read the full article

Bush Warns Puppets Not to Praise Iran

August 14, 2007

Counterpunch, August 14, 2007

By GARY LEUPP

Hamid Karzai, hand-picked by Washington to pose as president of the broken country of Afghanistan, says his government has “very, very good, very, very close relations [and] will continue to have good relations with Iran.” He declares on CNN, “So far, Iran has been a helper” in fighting terrorism.

Nuri al-Maliki, favored by Washington as the most viable prime minister to pretend to lead the bleeding country of Iraq, says Iran is doing “positive and constructive” work in “providing security and fighting terrorism” in his country.

Both of these puppet regimes in nations bordering Iran seek to maintain close relations with the Islamic Republic. But puppets aren’t supposed to compose their own lines, and the puppeteer George Bush seems somewhat irked at these words.

“I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force,” he tells visiting Karzai at Camp David. Bush’s remarks are often unclear and confused, allowing for various interpretations. But here he’s not expressing any openness to the possibility that what the Afghan said might be true. As the Nation reported, he’s telling “the visitor from abroad that he is wrong” and that Iran is most certainly not a positive force.

Of Maliki’s comments, Bush states with undiplomatic condescension, “I will have to have a heart to heart with my friend, the prime minister, because I don’t believe [the Iranians] are constructive. . . . My message to him is, when we catch you playing a non-constructive role, there will be a price to pay.” Here it’s not clear whether he’s warning Iran it will pay a price (which would not be news because it has been longstanding Bush policy to threaten Iran) or threatening his “friend” the embattled Iraqi prime minister.

Responding to images of Maliki appearing cordial with Iran’s president Ahmadinejad, Bush mockingly assumed a pugilistic stance at his White House press conference, fists raised, and said, “You don’t want the picture to show you duking it out,” implying that while making nice for the cameras, Maliki ought (in his heart) to be in an Iran-attack mode.

I can just imagine the sort of “heart to heart” talks Bush has with his puppets. Consider their positions. On the one hand they live comfortably, eat and dress well, enjoy some symbols of authority thanks to their Quisling status. They may retain some sense of self-respect to the extent that they can depart from the occupier’s script on occasion on the grounds of “national interest” and differ on a subject such as bilateral relations with neighboring friendly countries.

On the other hand, neither Karzai nor Maliki has any popular respect or following, because their countrymen see their collaboration as a pact with the devil. Karzai is merely the mayor of Kabul, in a chic karakul hat and green ribboned cloak, looking like a leader for the cameras while the Taliban recapture much of his country and the rest remains under the boot of warlords whose power increases with each bountiful opium harvest. Maliki is not even mayor of Baghdad, but a prisoner of the Green Zone, abandoned by the Sunni politicians, the Muqtada al-Sadr bloc, and the secularists.

So Bush assumes they’ll be inclined to kiss his cowboy boots as they have so far, perhaps trying to conceal some revulsion to what all adheres. But I wonder if they are starting to feel real doubts about the wisdom of their humiliating collaboration to date. Maliki in particular seems a dour, unhappy man. Perhaps they think the invasions of their countries have personally benefited them, but have been far more disastrous for their peoples than they expected when they agreed to take their jobs. Even morally compromised people can get smitten with moral qualms. How can these men regain some modicum of dignity?

I think it likely that they fear the consequences of a U.S. attack on Iran. I’ll bet the drumbeat of anti-Iran propaganda and plethora of anti-Iran disinformation in the U.S. fills them with anxiety. They have now become intimately aware of the Bush-Cheney mindset, the U.S. administration’s contempt for their peoples, the vast ignorance in Washington about Muslim cultures. They do not want missile attacks on Iran, or regime change there; rather, they want to sit their American sponsors down with their Iranian friends for talks, or at minimum resist recruitment into America’s anti-Iran campaign.

Their recalcitrance must be frustrating for Bush. Nothing is going well in his war on evil. His generals paint a Hello Kitty face on the interesting, temporary new alignments in Iraq’s Anbar province. But everywhere hatred for U.S. imperialism mounts. Democratic elections in the Muslim world, most recently in Lebanon, bring his foes into power. It is impossible—particularly for him, given his obvious handicaps—to logically explain or justify through any “heart to heart” conversation the Cheney-neocon plan for a New American Century of empire in Southwest Asia. Instead he needs to take off the gloves and bully.

So there’s a mean glint in his eye and hint of worry as he tells the boys he’s gonna take them out to the woodshed for that talk about Iran—before they pay the price. I’d hope both Karzai and Maliki would realize they have little to lose at this point by saying, “No sir. You gave me this job and thanks for that. But—and only your friends will tell you this—your dukes are up but the Iranians might engage you in a very different contest than you expect. They are wrestlers, not boxers—have been for many centuries—and may wind up pinning a lot of your people down to the mat if you proceed with your apparent plans. My own people, I’m afraid, will cheer the Iranians on, while world opinion might disqualify you for brutality. So please leave me out of your match. If I have to pay a price for my stance, sir, so be it; the price of working with you has become too heavy.”

I’m not suggesting either has the integrity to say something like that. The likelihood is slim, but if the puppets indeed started to talk back (like the pathological liar marionette Pinocchio in Carlo Collodi’s story who ultimately becomes a real person) they might acquire the status of actual human beings—and even help thwart the designs of monsters.

* * *I read last week that “Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iran run by the Quds force. . . .” The “suspected” camps are of course suspected by Cheney’s neocons who claimed to be SURE about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Saddam’s al-Qaeda ties. Cheney remains intent on inflicting damage to Iran, that “unconstructive” nation “interfering” in the Iraq (following the American mother of interferences in the next-door country)—and then watching from his undisclosed location all the exciting consequences.

Even puppets are becoming animate in response to the machinations of this sick man, determined to inflict another surge of pain expanding the empire before he checks out. That may be slight cause for optimism. But we the people of the U.S. need to push harder for impeachment. My preference is first Cheney, then Bush, but in rapid succession.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch’s merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

Saying NO to the Hunters of Goliath

August 14, 2007

Dissident Voice

A few reasons help to create the Nasrallah obsession (‘dibuk’), that influenced decision makers along the (Second Lebanon) war. Primarily, Israel always perceived the Arab (leaders) as (private) people rather than representatives of political systems. Even amongst media analysts and politicians the references were pointing at “Assad”, “Arafat” or “Nasrallah” rather than the states and organisations they represent. In the eyes of the (Israeli) decision-makers, as well as the media and public, the Arab world was led by individuals rather than by governmental systems and the best way to influence it was in most cases to drop a bomb in the right place. (“Captives in Lebanon”, Ofer Shelah and Yaov Limor)1

The Israelis tend to personalize conflicts. Yet, by doing this, they are neither original nor innovative. They in fact follow a Biblical lesson. Within the Judaic worldview, history and ethics are often reduced into a banal single binary opposition principle. For instance, the deadly battle between the ‘righteous’ David and the ‘evil’ Goliath personalises the struggle between the ‘good’ Israelites and the ‘bad’ Philistines. Though the Biblical specific tale could be understood in a mere literary terms, the similarities to the Israelite of our time are rather concerning. In Israel, there is a direct express path that leads from the ‘role of the assassin’ to the Government seat. Time after time our contemporary Israelite supplicate their highly decorated assassins to become their kings, to lead their army and then to integrate into the cabinet. This obviously happened to Sharon, Barak, Mofaz, Halutz, Dichter and many more.

Continue . . .

Oslo Revisited

August 14, 2007

Information Clearing House

By Uri Avnery

08/13/07 “ICH ” — — ON THESE hot, sticky days of the Israeli summer, it is pleasant to feel the coolness of Oslo, even if the visit is only virtual.

Fourteen years after the signing of the Oslo agreement, it is again the subject of debate: was it a historical mistake?

In the past, only the Right said so. They talked about “Oslo criminals”, as the Nazis used to rail against “November criminals” (those who signed the November 1918 armistice between the defeated Germany and the victorious Allies.)

Now, the debate is also agitating the Left. With the wisdom of hindsight, some leftists argue that the Oslo agreement is to blame for the dismal political situation of the Palestinians, the near collapse of the Palestinian Authority and the split between Gaza and the West Bank. The slogan “Oslo is dead” can be heard on all sides.

What truth is there in this?

ON THE morrow of the agreement, Gush Shalom held a public debate in a large Tel-Aviv hall. Opinions were divided. Some said that it was a bad agreement and should not be supported in any way. Others saw it as a historic breakthrough.

Continue . . .

Bush’s brain goes missing as Karl Rove retires

August 14, 2007

The Independent, August 14, 2007

To Republicans, he is a brilliant strategist who kept their man in power. To Democrats, he is a ruthless manipulator whose machinations banished them to the sidelines. Now Karl Rove is retiring.

By Leonard Doyle

Published: 14 August 2007

 

 

“Karl Rove RESIGNS!!! Karl Rove Resigns – Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead [breaking news – no irony] Short and Sweet: Rove resigns!”

The bloggers were at it early yesterday morning, as the online bush telegraph breathlessly passed on the news that the man the Democrats love to hate, the tousle-haired and bespectacled Andy Warhol lookalike, Karl Rove, had announced his departure from the Bush White House.

For the past seven years, Karl Christian Rove, who holds the titles of deputy chief of staff and senior adviser, has been the unseen hand of American politics, the invisible mender of the Republican Party and the Rasputin of the White House all rolled into one. He steered George Bush to victory after victory. Using every weapon that came to hand, he helped engineer Mr Bush’s re-election, before coming to grief in last year’s midterm elections when the increasingly unpopular Republicans lost their grip on Congress.

The man known as “Bush’s Brain” has been talking about leaving for the past year, and the spin yesterday morning was that he was quitting to spend more time with his family, especially his wife Darby and his 17-year-old son. Soon he will be packing up his beloved books from his elegant three-storey brick home and heading back to Texas.

Read the full article

The Middle East Peace Process Scam

August 14, 2007

Information Clearing House

By Henry Siegman

08/13/07 “LRB” — – When Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush met at the White House in June, they concluded that Hamas’s violent ousting of Fatah from Gaza – which brought down the Palestinian national unity government brokered by the Saudis in Mecca in March – had presented the world with a new ‘window of opportunity’.[*] (Never has a failed peace process enjoyed so many windows of opportunity.) Hamas’s isolation in Gaza, Olmert and Bush agreed, would allow them to grant generous concessions to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, giving him the credibility he needed with the Palestinian people in order to prevail over Hamas. Both Bush and Olmert have spoken endlessly of their commitment to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it is their determination to bring down Hamas rather than to build up a Palestinian state that animates their new-found enthusiasm for making Abbas look good. That is why their expectation that Hamas will be defeated is illusory. Palestinian moderates will never prevail over those considered extremists, since what defines moderation for Olmert is Palestinian acquiescence in Israel’s dismemberment of Palestinian territory.

Full article

Deconstructing the Jordan option

August 14, 2007

Osamah Khalil, The Electronic Intifada, Aug 13, 2007

Buttons with Jordanian King Abdullah’s picture are for sale along with Jordanian, Palestinian and other flags in a shop in Amman, Jordan, July 2007. (Matthew Cassel)

Last month the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the US and Israel were considering a revival of the “Jordan option.” In spite of the fervent denials emanating from Amman, the report caused a rash of speculation and concern among Palestinians. Many fear that if implemented it would mark the end of hopes for an independent Palestinian state. Resurrecting the Jordan option, in which the West Bank and possibly Gaza would be united in a political and economic confederation with Jordan, demonstrates not just the poverty of ideas in Washington and Israel, but their desperation as well. Perhaps the allies believe that by trapping the Palestinians between the “rock” of Israel’s apartheid wall and the “hard place” of Jordan’s vaunted Arab Legion and dreaded Mukhabarat intelligence service, they will extinguish Palestinian nationalism. However, they and whichever Arab leaders agree to such a policy are sadly mistaken. If history is any guide, the Hashemite regime has more to fear from such a confederation than the Palestinians.

Full article

Bush’s political strategist Karl Rove quits

August 13, 2007

AFP, August 13, 2007

Karl Rove
©AFP – Saul Loeb

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Karl Rove, the master political tactician behind President George W. Bush’s two election triumphs, quit Monday in a bombshell announcement after more than six tempestuous White House years.

“I’m grateful to have been witness to history,” said an emotional Rove, dubbed “Bush’s brain” by critics, as he stood side-by-side with the president to make his resignation as deputy White House chief of staff official.

“I’ve seen a man of farsighted courage put America on a war footing and protect us against a brutal enemy in a dangerous conflict that will shape this new century,” Rove said.

Rove, a scourge of Democrats, rocked Washington’s political establishment when he first divulged his plans in an interview in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Karl Rove (R), George W. Bush (L) and Laura Bush
©AFP – Karen Bleier

Bush praised Rove, who will leave at the end of the month, for making “enormous sacrifices” to serve, and in a nod to his own waning days in power said: “I will be on the road behind you here in a little bit.”

But Democrats, who have repeatedly been the victims of Rove’s hard knuckle brand of politics, said he had left a stain on Washington.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, who has subpoenaed Rove in a row over federal prosecutors Democrats say were fired for political gain, accused him of manipulating elections and putting himself above the law.

“There is a cloud over this White House, and a gathering storm. A similar cloud envelopes Mr. Rove, even as he leaves the White House.”

Rove, who enjoys near mythical status in Republican circles, had been expected by most observers to stay until Bush leaves office in January 2009.

There will now be speculation as to whether he will take a role in any of the 2008 campaigns of Republicans vying to succeed Bush in the White House.

Karl Rove (R) and George W. Bush
©AFP – Saul Loeb

“I’ve asked a lot of my family, and they’ve given all I’ve asked and more,” Rove said.

“Now it seems the right time to start thinking about the next chapter in our family’s life.”

The timing of Rove’s departure means he will absent from the White House’s political battle with Congress expected in September when the top US general and diplomat in Iraq deliver a progress report on Bush’s war strategy.

Rove’s county-by-county knowledge of the US political map helped Bush win two close-fought elections, by appealing to conservatives and disdaining the conventional wisdom that US elections are won from the center.

But he leaves office having failed in his ultimate political ambition, of piecing together an enduring conservative ruling majority, after Democrats seized control of Congress last November.

George W. Bush (L) and Karl Rove
©AFP – Saul Loeb

Bush, who once dominated the US political scene, is mired in a prolonged slump: the president’s job disapproval ratings stood at a dismal 63 percent at the end of last month, the worst showing since president Jimmy Carter, sending alarm bells through the Republican establishment.

An astute operator from Texas who has been with Bush since his gubernatorial campaigns of the 1990s, Rove has been under fire since 2003, when retired US diplomat Joseph Wilson claimed he had illegally leaked to the media the identity of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, a covert CIA employee.

Wilson asserted the leak had been orchestrated in retaliation for his questioning the Bush administration’s rationale for war in Iraq. Rove was never charged but the probe led to the conviction of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, a former chief of staff for Vice President Richard Cheney.

George W. Bush (L) and Karl Rove
©AFP – Saul Loeb

Rove has been widely reported to have played a key behind-the-scenes role in persuading Congress to endorse the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“Iraq will be in a better place,” Rove said in the Journal interview, despite criticism that the troop “surge” strategy announced by the president at the beginning of the year was not bearing any fruit.

He also made headlines in 2005, arguing that following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, liberals wanted to “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers” instead of tough military action.

Iraq, Business and War

August 13, 2007

Granma, August 10, 2007

BY ELSA CLARO

GEORGE Bush is leaving an unpleasant and difficult legacy for whoever will replace him in 2008. With serious domestic economic and financial problems that in themselves are a daunting task, along with deteriorating social services, the newcomers also have the burden of two costly, useless wars that are making problems worse and more deeply entrenched, instead of resolving them.

Bush, who has the state’s funds at his disposition — funds created by taxpayer money — as if they were part of a personal account, has provided for an enormous increase in U.S. military contributions to Israel consisting of $30 billion over 10 years, arming the Zionist government to the tune of $3 billion annually.

We don’t need to suggest what could be done with such a sum of money – which will almost double Washington’s current military aid to Tel Aviv – if they were dedicated to needs in the United States, such as the rebuilding of New Orleans and aid for victims of Hurricane Katrina. Or if they were used in Iraq, where after so many years of boycott and direct destruction, there is a very critical situation.

The humanitarian organization Oxfam revealed that 70% of Iraq’s 27 million people do not have adequate access to water, and only 20% of the population has heath care.

The dramatic situation of Iraq’s children continues to worsen. While before the invasion, they comprised a sector hard hit by economic woes (remember the years of the insufficient oil-for-food plan), now some 30% of children are malnourished, while 15% of adults do not eat regularly.

That hardship requires urgent help, because the transitional government has been unable to meet even the most basic needs. The war itself, with its daily violence, is covering up this tragedy being suffered by at least 8 million people in Iraq.

And this is not even mentioning the 2 million who were able to escape to neighboring nations.

Despite this situation, theoretically created to “bring liberty and democracy,” its creators are planning expenditures as gigantic as those made by Washington to raise increase military aid to Israel for maintaining military superiority in the area. The top reason is to exceed Iran’s capabilities, while they continue to harass the latter with financial pressure and hostile military preparations.

And given that Bush has relatively little time left in the White House, the Pentagon organized arms sales to several Middle Eastern nations, including some that are not exactly Israel’s closest friends. The latter has no problem with that, confident in whatever commitments its big partner is orchestrating.

Large-scale military reinforcements are on their way to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman, all of which are to receive advanced armaments and warships worth some $20 billion.

While the central reason is to maintain Israel’s superiority in the Middle East, above all in face of Iran’s defensive capacity, the subject has other motives that we could call secondary.

It is not at all strange for the ruling group in the United States to give this transaction commercial significance. They believe that if those nations are planning to buy modern weapons in any case, it is preferable for it to be a U.S. sale, involving billions of dollars, of course.

The issue implies many additional complexities. There are religious differences among those Arab nations, but they do share common opposition to Israel because of the antagonistic policies the latter has held since its creation as a country, and given the expansionist intentions it has not renounced.

Hence this is not the end of the story, at this point in time.

Barack Obama Ain’t Nothin’ But a War Ho’

August 13, 2007

Dissident Voice

Senator Barack Obama believes himself to be the reincarnation of President John F. Kennedy. For those of us who are schooled in history — real history — that’s not a good thing. Kennedy tried on many occasions to assassinate Fidel Castro, and set in motion events that led to military dictatorships assuming power throughout Latin America. Kennedy, early in the month of November, 1963, gave the order to murder South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. Kennedy met his own fate a few weeks later, in Dallas, but he had already set in motion a war that would claim 58 thousand American and three million Vietnamese lives.

Read the full article