Distorting Iranian Nuclear Behavior

Media distortion of Iranian behavior and subsequent Republican hysteria risk provocation of U.S. or Israeli attack on false pretenses.
In a critically important analysis of Iran’s nuclear status in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 3/19/10, Ivan Oelrich and Ivanka Barzashka expose a U.S. media bias that could provoke yet another U.S. war of aggression on false pretenses, stating flatly in regards to the IAEA’s February report:
the media has seriously misrepresented the actual contents of the report. In fact, no new information has been revealed.
The authors go on to illustrate the seriousness of the misinformation, which has led to hysterical [my word] public reactions by various Republican Congressmen:
Pete Hoekstra of Michigan has insisted that the IAEA report is an “indictment” of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which claimed Iran had ceased its weapons work back in 2003. Indiana Republican Cong. Dan Coats told the conservative magazine Human Events that “the only option now is . . . military action.”
Oelrich and Barzashka continue:
  1. First, there is no independent assessment that Iran is engaged in weapons work….
  2. More importantly, the report doesn’t contain any evidence that the public hasn’t already seen.
They present no pro-Iran case, instead noting severely:
The regime seems to positively savor making it as difficult as possible to give it the benefit of the doubt. Alleged weapon research has no innocent justification and, if real, would make a damning case against the regime. That said, an already dangerous standoff is being made worse by the distortion of this recent IAEA report.
As the American public attempts to judge the Obama Administration’s failure to invite Iran to its recent nonproliferation conference, its threatening language shifts in the new Nuclear Posture Review, and its refusal so far to settle the issue of delivering medical-grade uranium to Iran, the background provided in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is essential reading.

"Change"…and Deception

Americans may never know the degree to which Democratic Party leaders actually intended to promote “change.” Perhaps we the voters should have demanded that they “prove” their intent, just as they are currently demanding that Tehran “prove” that it has no intent to construct nuclear bombs. Whatever the intent of the elite, the people voted for change, and one key component of that was changing medical care from a business designed for the enrichment of insurance companies to a right of all citizens.

The right wing elite, concerned about its potential investment losses, is now claiming that legislating any requirement that everyone pay for health insurance would be unconstitutional. One wonders what they imagine we, as a society, are going to do when some irresponsible person who chooses not to buy health insurance gets sick – just watch them die? This is a classic example of the commons, a term everyone needs to know in this debate. The right wing elitists are classic free-loaders. Don’t be tricked by their protests about “freedom.”

You are not free to drive on the left. You are not free to refuse to pay for garbage pick-up. You are not free to take illegal narcotics. You are not free to refuse to “buy” health insurance for your sick car (i.e., annual check-ups). You are not free to refuse to pay taxes. Societies need rules to function. It is time the U.S. joined the modern world and recognized that a good society provides health care for everyone. One way or the other, we will all pay for that benefit: either we will pay to take care of the desperately ill (e.g., the beggar who sits on the street coughing and infecting everyone with TB) or we will gain the maturity as a society to decide to pay for health care to make the society healthier.

US Congresswoman: Mercenary Threat

“Use of mercenaries masks scope of US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq”

04 February, 2010, 10:26

There has been a massive increase in the funding of US war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and private military contractors are flourishing in its wake, even though their reputations are at an all-time low.

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky told RT that there are at least as many contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan as there are military.

“So when the President asks for a 30,000 troop increase in Afghanistan, we are talking about at least that number of contractors too, which makes the mission much bigger. We don’t even count them when they get killed,” she said.

Jan Schakowsky also added that private contractors in Iraq are getting away with murder.

“We have seen these private hired guns – mercenaries if you will – actually in situations that have jeopardized the mission of the US, have put her own troops at risk, have killed private civilians,” she said. “So far those cases have been dismissed. Fortunately, the Justice Department has decided to appeal the ruling and go forward, but they’re in a kind of grey legal limbo.”

Jan Schakowsky believes it is worrying that private firms like Blackwater have an even greater capability to wage wars than America itself.

“Blackwater use certain helicopters that, believe it or not, the US government doesn’t even have. These [private] companies have the capacity that the US government does not have. I think this is a very dangerous trend,” she concluded.

One of the most serious long-term innovations of the neo-con perversion of U.S. policy is the contracting out of military power to mercenary armies outside of oversight by either Congress or the U.S. judicial system. The result is the creation of a massive military force that already undermines U.S. foreign policy, violates U.S. law, and has the ability to wage private war.

Why U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky is making these crucial remarks about the danger of U.S. mercenaries to American control over its foreign policy to a Russian, rather than American, media outlet one can only wonder. Her efforts of several years’ standing to bring this issue to the attention of the deeply in denial U.S. government get little attention in the MSM. Is the conspiracy of silence now so extreme that a member of Congress can only get attention on serious issues through interviews overseas?

Western Media Bias Against Opponent of Western Regimes

According to a puzzling, if not downright racist, Reuters report:

A group of hardline Iranians gathered in front of the German embassy in Tehran on Saturday to protest against the murder of an Egyptian woman inside a German courtroom, a Reuters witness said.

Outraged Iranians protesting an unbelievably irresponsible crime by a German who stabbed an Iranian witness in court eighteen times are labeled “hardline.” No attempt was made in the report to justify why people outraged at the fact that a German court cannot protect its witnesses or the fact that the murderer had time to stab the witness 18 times before being subdued might be considered “hardline.”

Does this mean that in the opinion of Reuters, all Westerners who oppose violence by, say, Iranian authorities against pro-democracy demonstrators are “hardline?” Was the beautiful Neda, who allegedly put herself in the way of a Basij bullet, “hardline?” Did Hitler slaughter six million “hardline” Jews? Are Human Rights Watch analysts documenting Israeli killings of civilians in Gaza “hardline?” I suppose the victims of the military suppressing resistance to the recent coup in Honduras were also “hardline.”

No, no, no. I’m getting carried away. The truth is very simple: Western media have rules. One of the rules is that when Western regimes oppose a certain country, then the organizations and people of that country are no longer “Iranian” but “hardline Iranian;” they are no longer “Hamas” but “terrorist Hamas.” The first word, you see, is no longer an adjective but simply part of the name. If you are demonstrating against a Western crime, you are a “hardline Iranian.” Who else but a “hardliner” would go out of their way to call attention to the murder in court of a witness? Who else but a “terrorist” would go out of their way to defend their people from Israeli collective punishment than a “terrorist?”

I’m feeling very depressed. Would a reader kindly write in and encourage me…by accusing me of being “hardline?” I would take that as a great compliment.