Peace and Justice Post

Counterpunch, September 27, 2007

A Prince of War Exposed

By WILLIAM HUGHES

“The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.”

– Stendhal

The propaganda machine of the Evangelical Christian Right will soon be in counter attack mode. One of its darling preachers is about to take it on the proverbial chin. The Rev. Billy Graham, who has created a multimillion dollar media empire, that a Rupert Murdock would envy, is the subject of a shocking expose’ due out on Nov. 15, 2007. It’s entitled, “The Prince of War: Billy Graham’s Crusade for a Wholly Christian Empire.” The author is Cecil Bothwell. He hails from Asheville, North Carolina and is an award winning investigative reporter. Bothwell’s unflattering portrait of Rev. Graham shows him as a wily warmonger and a lackey for the Establishment. He describes Rev. Graham as a public figure who: “Undermined the Founders’ skeptical Deism and sought to rebrand the U.S. as a Christian nation, [and] its armies [as] the rightful instruments of [a] Christian crusade and empire.”

Bothwell documents that there wasn’t a war the U.S. was involved in that Rev. Graham couldn’t bless. In fact, he reveals that during the horrific Vietnam conflict, (1959-75), he had urged the then-President, Richard M. Nixon, to bomb North Vietnam! In a 13-page letter, that Rev. Graham had forwarded to the White House in April, 1969, it was stated: “There are tens of thousands of North Vietnamese defectors to bomb and invade the North. Why should all the fighting be in the South?…Especially let them bomb the dikes which could over night destroy the economy of North Vietnam.” Mr. Bothwell underscored that such a military action against the dikes, a huge complex of earthworks, would probably “kill a million people and wipe out an already poor nation’s agricultural system” He added that the advice in Graham’s transmittal “fell on receptive ears. Not longer after, Nixon moved the air war north and west.”

Keep reading . . .

APF, September 26, 2007

US President George W. Bush threatened nations with retaliation if they did not vote for a UN resolution backing the Iraq war, according to a transcript published Wednesday of a conversation he had with former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar.

In the transcript of a meeting on February 22, 2003 — a month before the US-led invasion of Iraq — published in the El Pais daily, Bush tells Aznar that nations like Mexico, Angola, Chile and Cameroon must know that the security of the United States is at stake.

He says during the meeting on his ranch in Texas that Angola stood to lose financial aid while Chile could see a free trade agreement held up in the US Senate if they did not back the resolution, the left-wing paper said.

The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain’s ambassador to the United States at the time, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.

Prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, Washington unsuccessfully lobbied the 15 members of the UN Security Council for a second resolution paving the way for military action against Iraq if Saddam Hussein failed to comply with demands to disarm.

But during the meeting with Aznar, Bush made it clear the US would invade Iraq by the end of March 2003 whether or not there was a UN resolution to authorize it, El Pais reported.

“We have to get rid of Saddam. There are two weeks left. In two weeks we will be ready militarily. We will be in Baghdad at the end of March,” Bush said in the transcript which was translated into Spanish by the newspaper.

Victory would come “without destruction”, he added.

The meeting between Aznar and Bush came just days after a massive protest in Madrid by more than a million people against the invasion which Aznar’s conservative government backed.

Aznar tells Bush in the transcript that he needed Washington’s help to get Spanish public opinion behind the invasion. He adds that he is worried by Bush’s optimism.

“I am optimistic because I believe I am right. I am at peace with myself,” Bush responded.

 RINF.COM

By Philip  Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington

By Philip  Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in WashingtonSenior American intelligence and defence officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.

	Dick Cheney (’The Man’) with George W Bush

Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons programme are doomed to fail.

Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated programme of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq – arming and training militants – would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.

Keep reading . . .

By Paul Craig Roberts

09/17/07 “ICH” — — When I was in the Reagan administration, America had a lively press that never hesitated to take us to task. Even the “Teflon President” received more brickbats than Bush and Cheney.

The lively press disappeared along with its independence in the media concentration engineered during the Clinton administration. Shortly thereafter all the liberal news anchors disappeared as well. Today the US media serves as propaganda ministry for the government’s wars and police state. Yet, some conservatives continue to rant on about “the liberal media.”

That other conservative bugaboo, liberal academia, has also been crushed. Universities once controlled their appointments, but no more. Recently, the political science faculty at DePaul, a Catholic university, voted to give tenure to the courageous scholar and teacher Norman Finkelstein. The department was unable to make its tenure decision stick over the objections of the Israel Lobby and their conservative allies, who were able to reach in over the heads of the political science department and the College Personnel Committee and force DePaul’s president to block Finkelstein’s tenure. Finkelstein, a Jew, had angered the Israel Lobby with his criticisms of Israel’s misuse of the holocaust sufferings of Jews to oppress the Palestinians and to silence critics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein

Keep reading . . .

The Guardian
Julian Borger, diplomatic editor and Angelique Chrisafis in Paris
Tuesday September 18, 2007

Mohamed ElBaradei: ‘I would not talk about any use of force.’ Photograph: Samuel Kubani/AFP/Getty Images

The UN’s chief nuclear weapons inspector yesterday warned against the use of force against Iran, in what UN officials said was an attempt to halt an “out of control” drift to war.

His outspoken remarks, which drew a parallel between Iran and Iraq, appeared to take aim at the US and Britain. They followed comments on Sunday night by the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, who said: “We have to prepare for the worst,” adding “the worst is war”.

Continued . . .

Gen. Petraeus might have taken pressure off Bush and assured a large U.S. military presence in Iraq until 2009, but to what end?

ALAN BOCK

Sr. editorial writer
The Orange County Register
abock@ocregister.com

So far as I know, only Yale Law School professor Bruce Ackerman and a few bloggers have taken note of one of the more disturbing aspects of the administration’s decision to put our Iraq commander, Gen. David Petraeus, front-and-center in the policy debate over the next steps in Iraq.

One can understand the dynamics behind the elevation of this general. President Bush’s administration’s credibility is in tatters – remember how the toppling of Saddam’s statue, the killing of Saddam’s sons, the capture and execution of Saddam, the several elections, the handover to an Iraqi government all presaged ultimate victory and a democratic Iraqi ally? He needed an ostensibly independent figure to restore some confidence.

Over the longer haul, however, this apparent deference to a military figure on strategic objectives could be seen as an episode in the erosion of civilian control over the military. To be sure, while saying he relied on the judgment of military commanders, President Bush has made his own decisions about Iraq and has not hesitated to shuffle generals around to put those in line with his current thinking into positions of command. But this time he needed the general more than the general needed him.

Continued . . .

Swissinfo, September 17, 2007

September 16, 2007 – 9:40 PM

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged U.S. President George W. Bush to a debate on global issues at a U.N. summit in New York, state TV reported on Sunday, repeating a call rejected by Washington last year.

“I had suggested holding a debate. I am saying again that let us discuss global concerns at the (U.N.) General Assembly in front of representatives of other nations,” Ahmadinejad told state television.

The White House rejected Ahmadinejad’s last year call for a presidential debate, calling it a “diversion”.

Ahmadinejad is due to visit New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in September. It will be his third visit since he took office in August 2005.

During his interview with the state television, Ahmadinejad also condemned U.S. policies in the Middle East, including Iraq.

“I am ready to hold talks with Bush on important global issues at the assembly,” he said. “Let us hold talks about Iraq and other issues. Then public opinion will judge … We will offer our global solutions.”

The United States severed relations after Tehran’s 1979 Islamic revolution which toppled the U.S.-backed Shah.

Washington accuses Shi’ite Muslim Iran of providing funds, arms and training to Iraqi Shi’ite militants and of supporting terrorism across the Middle East. Iran denies the charge and blames the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 for the bloodshed between Iraq’s majority Shi’ite and minority Sunni Arabs.

Tehran and Washington have held talks in Baghdad to find ways to restore security there but ties are still very strained.

They are also at odds over Tehran’s disputed nuclear work. The United States accuses Iran of covertly trying to build nuclear arms under cover of a civilian programme. Iran denies this, saying it needs the technology to generate electricity.

Iran has so far refused to halt sensitive nuclear work, despite U.S. threats to ratchet up pressure with new U.N. sanctions. Two rounds of sanctions have already been imposed.

“Of course we will not abandon our right to nuclear technology,” Ahmadinejad said. “We have obtained the technology to enrich uranium. We are at industrial level. Why should we abandon our activities?”

Washington is leading a drive for a third sanctions resolution. World powers are set to meet in Washington on September 21 to discuss a new resolution.

Reuters (IDS)

CNN.com , September 15, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) — Several thousand protesters marched Saturday from the White House to the Capitol to demand an end to the Iraq war, and at least 160 people were arrested when they jumped a barricade at the foot of the Capitol steps.

Thousands of demonstrators protest the Iraq war in the streets of Washington on Saturday.

Many of the protesters were arrested without a struggle after they jumped over the waist-high barricade. But some grew angry as police attempted to push them back using large shields. At least two people were showered with chemical spray. Protesters responded by throwing signs and chanting: “Shame on you.”The arrests came after protesters initially decided to lie down on the Capitol lawn with signs on top of their bodies to represent soldiers killed in Iraq. When police took no action, some of the protesters climbed the barricade.

Before arriving at the Capitol lawn, the demonstrators marched on Pennsylvania Avenue holding banners and signs and saying, “What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now.”

Continued . . .