You are herecontent / New Grist for Hype on Iran

New Grist for Hype on Iran

By Ray McGovern

Here we go again. A report issued Thursday by the new Director General of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, has injected new adrenalin into those arguing that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon.

The usual suspects are hyping—and distorting—thin-gruel language in the report to “prove” that Iran is hard at work on a nuclear weapon. The New York Times’ David E. Sanger and William J. Broad, for example, highlighted a sentence about “alleged activities related to nuclear explosives,” which Amano says he wants to discuss with Iran.

Amano’s report said:

“Addressing these issues is important for clarifying the Agency’s concerns about these activities and those described above, which seem to have continued beyond 2004.”

Sanger and Broad play up the “beyond 2004” language as “contradicting the American intelligence assessment…that concluded that work on a bomb was suspended at the end of 2003.” Other media have picked that up and run with it, apparently without bothering to read the IAEA report itself.

The Times article is, at best, disingenuous in claiming:

“The report cited new evidence, much of it collected in recent weeks, that appeared to paint a picture of a concerted drive in Iran toward a weapons capability.”

As far as I can tell, the “new evidence” consists of the “same-old, same-old” allegations and inferences already reported in the open press—material that failed to convince the Director of Intelligence, Dennis Blair, to depart from previous assessments during his Congressional testimony on February 2. Rather, he adhered closely to the unanimous conclusions of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies expressed in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of Nov. 2007.

So What’s New? The Director General of the IAEA, for one thing.

Yukiya Amano found huge shoes to fill when he took over from the widely respected Mohamed ElBaradei on December 1. ElBaradei had the courage to call a spade a spade and, when necessary, a forgery a forgery—like the documents alleging that Iraq had sought yellowcake uranium in Niger.

ElBaradei took a perverse—if diplomatic—delight in giving the lie to spurious allegations and became persona non grata to the Bush/Cheney administration. So much so that, in an unsuccessful campaign to deny him a third four-year term as Director General, the administration called in many diplomatic chits in 2005—the same year he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

In addition to a strong spine, Elbaradei had credentials that would simply not quit. His extensive diplomatic experience together with a PhD in international law from New York University, gave him a gravitas that enabled him to lead the IAEA effectively.

Gravitas Needed

Lacking gravitas, one bends more easily. It is a fair assumption that Amano will prove more malleable than his predecessor—and surely more naïve. How he handles the controversy generated by Thursday’s report should show whether he means to follow ElBaradei’s example or the more customary “flexible” example so common among U.N. bureaucrats.

Press reports over the past few days—as well as past experience—strongly suggest that the “new evidence” cited by the Times may have comes from the usual suspects—agenda-laden sources, like Israeli intelligence.

On Saturday, the Jerusalem Post quoted the Israeli government as saying the IAEA report “establishes that the agency has a lot of trustworthy information about the past and present activities that testify to the military tendencies of the Iranian program.” The newspaper cited the IAEA report as suggesting that “Teheran had either resumed such work [on a nuclear weapon] or had never stopped when U.S. intelligence said it did.”

Perhaps the Jerusalem Post should have stopped there. Rather, in a highly suggestive sentence, it went on to suggest that “intelligence supplied by the US, Israel, and other IAEA member states on Iran’s attempts to use the cover of a civilian nuclear program to move toward a weapons program was compelling.”

Compelling? Not so much. It beggars belief that Israel would withhold such “intelligence” from the U.S. And judging from the Congressional testimony of National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair on Feb. 2, the U.S. intelligence community sees the evidence as neither new nor compelling.

The analysis and judgments of the Nov. 2007 NIE were a product of the original ethos of CIA’s intelligence directorate where the premium was on speaking without fear or favor—speaking truth to power. That Estimate was like a breath of fresh air for those of us aware of the importance of that kind of integrity. Some of us proudly bear the retaliatory scars from administration officials, pundits, and academics pushing agenda-shaped, alternative analyses.

The supreme indignity was former CIA Director George Tenet’s tenet that intelligence should be cooked to order—as was done in the September 2002 NIE regarding WMD in Iraq. That was, pure and simple, prostitution of our profession, and not very different from what John Yoo and his lawyer accomplices did to the legal profession in finding waterboarding and other acts of torture not torture.

An Honest Estimate

After a bottom-up investigation of all evidence on Iran’s nuclear activities and plans, the November 2007 Estimate boldly contradicted what President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Israeli counterparts had been claiming about the imminence of a nuclear threat from Iran.

Happily, courage was not limited to Tom Fingar, then chair of the National Intelligence Council, and those working under his supervision on the Estimate. The most senior U.S. military officers took the unusual step of insisting that the essence of the Estimate’s key judgments be made public.

They calculated, correctly, that this would put a spike in the wheels of the juggernaut then rolling toward a fresh disaster—war with Iran. Recall that Adm. William Fallon, who became CENTCOM commander in March 2007, leaked to the press that there would be no attack on Iran “on my watch.”

Fallon was fired in March 2008. While not as outspoken as Fallon, his senior military colleagues shared his disdain for the dangerously simplistic views of Bush and Cheney on the use of military power.

Among a handful of Key Judgments of the November 2007 NIE were these:

“-We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program;

“-We also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons….

“-We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.”

But that was more than two years ago, you say. What about now?

February 2010

In formal testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 2, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair wore out the subjunctive mood in addressing Iran’s possible plans for a nuclear weapon. His paragraphs were replete with dependent clauses, virtually all of them beginning with “if.”

Blair repeated verbatim the 2007 judgment that Iran is “keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons,” and repeated the intelligence community’s agnosticism on the $64 question: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.”

Addressing the uranium enrichment plant at Qom, Blair pointed out that its small size and location under a mountain “fit nicely with a strategy of keeping the option open to build a nuclear weapon at some future date, if Tehran ever decides to do that.”

Such “advancements lead us to affirm our judgment from the 2007 NIE that Iran is technically capable of producing enough HEU [highly enriched uranium] for a weapon in the next few years, if it chooses to do so.”

Notably absent from Blair’s testimony was the first “high confidence” judgment of the 2007 NIE that “in fall 2003 Iran halted its nuclear weapons program,” and the “moderate confidence” assessment that Iran had not restarted it.

These were the most controversial judgments in 2007. Blair did not disavow them; he just didn’t mention them—probably in an attempt to let sleeping dogs lie. Less likely, Blair may have chosen to sequester for closed session any discussion of “recent evidence” bearing on these key judgments. It is likely that Blair was aware of the doubts that would be raised by Amano’s IAEA report just two weeks later.

Spreading Confusion

As if the considered judgments of the intelligence community had no weight, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice was quick to cite the IAEA report to charge that Iran is pursuing “a nuclear weapons program with the purpose of evasion.” Presumably, she was merely repeating the talking points given to her boss a week ago on her way to the Middle East.

Speaking a week ago in Qatar, Secretary Hillary Clinton expressed her deep concern at “accumulating evidence” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon—as though deterrence is a thing of the past. On the question of what kind of threat the “accumulating evidence” poses to the U.S., Clinton inadvertently spilled the beans.

The evidence is deeply concerning, she said, not because it “directly threatens the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends”—read Israel. Recall that Clinton is on record saying the she would “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon. It is de rigueur never to mention the 200-300 nuclear weapons already in Israel’s arsenal.

Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, notes that it would be far better if the U.S. would stress that Iran's right to uranium enrichment, consistent with Non-Proliferation Treaty Article IV, is contingent on Iran's adherence to the treaty's Articles I, II, and III.

Thielmann notes that Iran has no inherent right to uranium enrichment while it is violating its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Yet this point is being lost by the West's unqualified emphasis on the demand that uranium enrichment be suspended, and inconsistent U.S. statements about Iran's intention to develop nuclear weapons. Consequently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can posture that the West is just trying to keep Iran down and deny it the rights guaranteed under the NPT.

Deja Iraq All Over Again

On June 5, 2008, then-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller made some remarkable comments that got sparse attention in the Fawning Corporate Media in the United States. Announcing the findings of a bipartisan report of a multi-year study on misstatements on prewar intelligence on Iraq, Rockefeller said:

“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

For God’s sake, spare us such “intelligence” on Iran.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During a 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared the President’s Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Great piece, Ray. Isn't it interesting that none of the people pushing for an attack on Iran seem interested in talking about Israel's nukes?

Or the fact that they refuse to sign the NPT?

Or the fact that they refuse to allow inspections of their nuke facilities?

Of course! Silly me, I forgot...Obama has agreed to keep Israel's nukes secret, just as Nixon did originally 40 years ago!

And I wonder how many of these propaganda hacks would be willing to talk about Mordechai Vanunu, the tech assistant at Israel's Dimona nuke facility who exposed their nuke program in 1986 and was subsequently kidnapped and held in prison for 18 years.

It should be quite clear to anyone taking an honest look who the REAL nuke threat is in the Middle East.

Talking Truth the Talking Heads Can't Handle:
Calling Obama's Healthcare Bluff

We already know about Pakistan and India, as well, but there're also the following five countries.

"Europe's Five "Undeclared Nuclear Weapons States"
Are Turkey, Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy Nuclear Powers?"

by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Feb 12, 2010

Mike Corbeil

Looks like Hillary "Brave New World" Clinton is in on the BIG Israeli NUKE Secret . . . ;-)

(clipped headline and article from Press TV)
"Clinton criticized for dodging question on Israel nukes - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is criticized for dodging a question on Israel's nuclear arsenal during a 'town hall' meeting at a Jeddah college.

Mariyam Alavi, a Saudi student, asked Clinton last Tuesday about Washington's stance on the existence of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. . .

. . . The 12th grader at the International Indian School in Jeddah, who attended the meeting at the elite Dar al-Hekma College, noted that the US top diplomat only detailed Iran's nuclear program, without mentioning Israel.

If the Americans 'so vehemently oppose Iran's nuclear program,' she had asked, 'then why isn't the US asking Israel to give up their nuclear weapons?'"

(full article)

I think brother Michael Rivero over at sums up this kidz' brave challenge of Power better than I can:

(begin clipped text)
"This kid demonstrated more courage and intelligence in asking this question than all the reporters who have allegedly 'questioned' Secretary of State Clinton on any geopolitical issue.

We know, through the revelations of Mordechai Vannunu, coupled with statements from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former US President Jimmy Carter, that Israel does have nukes.

Iran, as a signatory to the NNPT, has their nuclear program inspected by the IAEA to insure that the program is used only for peaceful purposes.

Israel, on the other hand, which has nukes, refuses to become a signatory to the NNPT, and therefore will allow no inspections of their nuclear facilities.

Under the provisions of the Syminton Amendment in US law, it is stipulated that the US cannot give any financial or military aid to countries which do have nuclear programs which are not under the control of the IAEA.

And what does this mean for We the Taxpayers? That every cent of the the nearly 3 billion dollars in aid we pay Israel every year, from the time of their having obtained nuclear weapons, was given to Israel illegally."
- Michael Rivero 22Feb10
(end clipped text)

I guess my big complaint beyond the obvious double standard at play here (IRAN=EVIL, ISRAEL=GOOD), is that WE THE PEOPLE are allowing the deliberate breaking of our OWN LAWS . . .

"Symington Amendment"

.I spent two years living out of my car in a tent wandering through the Third World country . . . the product of OUR Lost BushCo decade . . . the United States that you don't see on The Main Stream Media . . .

. . . seeing OUR kidz going without basic necessities such as food and shelter . . .

. . . our schools are an overcrowded, understaffed, underfunded "B.F. Skinner" nightmare . . .

. . . but those big ol' CHECKS TO ISRAEL keep going out every day . . .

. . . and no one ever dares to challenge that these BILLIONS are going to fund a RACIST and SEXIST APARTHEID STATE bent on GENOCIDE . . .

. . . and WE THE PEOPLE are PAYING FOR IT!!!

(link to video clip - approx. 5 minutes)
"Israeli Troops attack a Sunday Mass with tear gas"

And anyone that does dare point out this GENOCIDE is immediately attacked and demonized.

(link to video link from RT - approx. 26 minutes)
"CrossTalk: Norman Finkelstein vs. Israel"

Sure, other countries have illegal nuke programs, but how much money are we funneling out to them every year? How many ILLEGAL WARS are we fighting on their behalf?

"U.S. Foreign Aid Summary"

I saw this recently . . . can't remember the source, but it is definitely something to think about when folks start up with the "but Israel is OUR ALLY" . . .

"We had no real enemies in the Middle East,
. . . until we had an ALLY in the Middle East."
- author unknown

With "friends" like Israel, who needs ENEMIES, kidz??? . . ;-)

"Israeli murders using fake passports of Europeans, lets now go back to 911"

Do you want to know a secret?,
Do you promise not to tell?, whoa oh, oh.
Let me whisper in your ear,
I've known the secret for a week or two,
Nobody knows, just we two."
- "Do You Want To Know A Secret" by The Beatles




. . . The 12th grader at the International Indian School in Jeddah, who attended the meeting at the elite Dar al-Hekma College, noted that the US top diplomat only detailed Iran's nuclear program, without mentioning Israel.

If she [detailed] the program, then it should resemble the details in Scott Ritter's article linked in my post further below; but I'm sure she didn't give much for non-fictional details and wherein she told the truth about Iran's nuclear program, it surely was very superficial. Her manner of stating the details would mostly consist of omissions and fiction.

I guess my big complaint beyond the obvious double standard at play here (IRAN=EVIL, ISRAEL=GOOD), is that WE THE PEOPLE are allowing the deliberate breaking of our OWN LAWS . . .

True, but in many more ways than only this illegality on the part of Israel, or the U.S.-Israel, and when we consider the USA's role in this, we also need to consider the roles of the USA's European allies or partners in this U.S.-Israeli illegality or criminality. Nevertheless, voters in the USA let the government of their country get away with a lot more criminality than this U.S.-Israel matter.

.I spent two years living out of my car in a tent wandering through the Third World country . . . the product of OUR Lost BushCo decade . . . the United States that you don't see on The Main Stream Media . . .

The Clinton administration began putting Americans out of house, home, including for computer, IT professionals with plenty of years of experience; having caused this current of economic collapse for too many of us with the expansion of the H-1B foreign worker visa program, which was begun by Pres. GHW Bush at an already 4-fold-excessive number of visas per year, but which wasn't excessive enough for the Clinton administration. And there was NAFTA. And both programs continue today.

There was also the offshoring of jobs that either began or seriously escalated (or expanded) during the Clinton administration; offshorings unrelated to both the H-1B and NAFTA programs, the former of which wasn't about offshoring, at all, and while the latter was related to offshoring and hurt plenty of Americans and Canadians, it was only between the US, Mexico and Canada, and it isn't the offshoring I'm referring to, which was to other countries, very distant ones; like to Asia.

However, the Bush Jr administration made the economic collapse for individuals in the USA much worse than it was when he took over the hijacked presidential office in 2000. And most Americans, much due to omissions of news media, were oblivious to what was happening to us in the world of IT and other hi-tech jobs or fields starting in the early 1990's due to the H-1B importation program, which was illegally used by many employers, used in racket manner, and it eventually or gradually included universities, hospitals, ... and (if I'm not mistaken) even governments in the USA. Nevertheless, the major racket bailouts the Bush Jr administration gave to Wall Street pigs has put many more Americans out of house, home, life and/or health insurance, etcetera; while he continued supporting the offshoring of jobs and the increased loss of manufacturing jobs with the elimination of tarrifs.

And Obama and his administration continue where Bush Jr et al left off. "Life father, like son", like previous President, like new President, seems to be their paradigm for government or political leadership; where one leaves off, the next picks up the ball and continues the same game.

Sure, other countries have illegal nuke programs, but how much money are we funneling out to them every year? How many ILLEGAL WARS are we fighting on their behalf?

That's an illustration of Americans misunderstanding what's really going on. The U.S. is not fighting and never has fought any wars "on behalf" of Israel; the U.S. is not hegemonic towards Iran, and didn't launch the present war on Iraq, "on behalf" of Israel. The U.S. elite protect Israel, and make sure it profits, but this is out of strategic military interest.

Remember, many of the Jews of or in Israel, and the others, worldwide, don't descend from ancient Jews; they come or descend from Eastern Europe, and these Jews have [no] authentic religious claim to any land of the Middle East. They psychopathically refuse this sort of argument, but their refusal doesn't render the argument invalid. I believe Wikipedia pages on semitism state that the majority of Jews in the world don't descend from the ancient Jews, Abraham, and so on.

People who think and claim the contrary ignore an awful lot; they're in denial of very much, and many apparently don't want to carefully consider what they're either ignoring or in denial about. Such thinking stops with a limited perception of the [apparent] serious influence that Israel and its lobbies have on the government of the USA; without any careful consideration of by far most of U.S. history and what the U.S. is doing across the planet today.

Israel is the fourth most powerful military force on Earth and the sole nuclear-armed power in the Middle East, unless Turkey is also nuclear-armed (see Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's article linked in another post of mine in this ADS page for Ray McGovern's article). The U.S. can't take on the world alone. So the USA needs NATO allies, which have proven themselves handy when it comes to hegemonic, hypocritical, ... and greedy rule. But this isn't enough to take on the whole world here and Israel makes for a powerful strategic ally of the elite ruling the government of the USA using the government within the government the public is aware of, acting as the "hidden hand" within the public's government.

We can see that many members of Congress, f.e., are very pro-Israel and are in apparently close association with the Israeli lobby or lobbies in the U.S., but what we see of this doesn't necessarily tell us everything that's involved. The Israeli lobby is influential from the financial perspective and might be influential because some members of Congress, f.e., are psychopathic and love to associate with other psychopaths, only. They find a match with this association, with the lobby or lobbies, but then they also do this with more than only Israeli lobbies.

None of the lobbies control the government of the USA. GREED does. And, greedily, the ruling elite of the government (of the USA) want to achieve world domination; not conquest, not necessarily anyway, for they surely realise that they can't achieve this, but while they nevertheless want dominion and know they can considerably achieve this through the destablization of regions and keeping them destablized, as Prof. Peter Dale Scott wrote in an article of which a copy was posted at last year, or the year before. I'm pretty sure he was the author and will continue as if he was. He was saying this very much or specifically regarding the war on Afghanistan, saying the U.S. can't achieve conquest there, but the U.S., along with NATO, has destablised the region and can maintain this, through which dominion can be considerably achieved, even if not fully.

Anyway, there's a lot more going on than the U.S.-Israel relationship and Israel's criminality; MUCH more. Israeli leadership wants to dominate in the Middle East, and wants this to be an irreversible fact, so of course it goes along with the hegemony, etcetera, of the U.S. and its European allies in this region. Israeli, U.S. and European leaders aren't totally dumb (even if they appear to be) and surely realise that even if Iran developed or possessed nuclear arms, there's surely no chance that the Iranian leadership would use these arms against Israel or any other country in first-strike manner; knowing, as we should also know, that the Iranian leadership is not as psychopathic, insane, ... as the Israeli (and U.S. and European) leadership is. But Israel doesn't want any other Middle Eastern power that can contest or deter Israel from striking.

Israeli leadership is not afraid that Iran might nuke Israel; this leadership just wants full hegemonic dominion in the Middle East, well, of what the U.S. ruling elite will allow, anyway. After all, the latter want global domination and have been "gunning" only for this reason.

No other country on Earth would attack Israel with nuclear arms when knowing that Israel possesses 200 to 400 nuclear missiles! And this is true of any nuclear-armed countries. None will attack another country that's also nuclear-armed, or which has a serious number of nuclear arms, anyway. And the U.S. ruling elite want global domination, definitely including over Iran and its rich resources, so they don't want Iran to be able to develop nuclear defence or, more accurately, deterrence capabilities.

Hegemony, hypocrisy, ... and GREED are what all of this is about; and psychopathy. And U.S. and European elite don't need lessons or influence from Israel in order to be hegemonic, hypocritical, greedy, colonialist, genocidal, etcetera; for these characteristics among these people dates back [many] centuries. But the Israeli lobby's stage apparences, say, are strategically useful to the ruling elite, for the public acting of the lobby and of the pro-Israel supporters in the U.S. Congress, f.e., as well as in the U.S. news media, all of this helps to keep more the public's eyes and minds away from paying attention to the greater reality. The real ruling elite are more or much more quiet about their "business" with the government than the Israeli lobby is. The latter is one of the noisiest groups in the U.S.; and I guess the same considerably is true in Canada, with the Israeli lobby in this country.

Maybe those lobbies consist of many extraverts, people with an obsessive need to be the center of attention; all while they can be, if not usually are, the least significant people in a crowd or group, or mix of groups, etcetera.

I'm just taking a guess, but perhaps the 9-11 "truthers" are much more significant than the Israeli lobby is and that this may be why U.S. news media omits reporting on the findings of the careful and well-researched members among the "truthers". Like with many, enough anyway, important "whistleblowers", who can be alternatively and better called "lamplighters" (F.S.), these people are so significant in terms of what they say and demand that the corporate- and, therefore, elite-controlled news media has to avoid reporting on what all of these people have been saying through other channels, say, as well as internationally, in which case news media have been increasingly interviewing "truthers", who, besides or perhaps also on the topic of 9-11, we also find Michael Ruppert, former LAPD detective, who's been interviewed on Russia Today often enough.

These people gaining strong influence with the public is surely a terrifying possibility to the corrupt elite, so they make sure their controlled media omits covering the "truthers" and "whistleblowers". The lobbies for Israel are noise-makers. And Israel is strategically useful as a military (and psychopathic) power to the corrupt elite of the U.S.; for the latter are psychopaths. Do the latter make strategic use of Israel, or does it control them? [Far] more likely is the former association.

But, and again, the U.S. far from needs Israel to be the extreme criminal, hegemon, ... that the U.S. is and has long been. There've been some good, honourable moments in U.S. history, but only moments, and even some of the founders of the government of the USA and the Constitution, who made some good laws, were violent colonialists vis-a-vis American Indians, while also having been slavagists, that is, pro-slavery and slave "owners", as well as racist against the Indians, Blacks, Chinese, Irish, and so on. Genocide has been an American characteristic from the very beginning of the country.

The U.S. should cease its criminal support, funding, and protection of Israel, and the Israeli lobbies, as well as all other corrupt lobbies in the U.S., should be banned, by law, a new law, if a new one is needed; no doubt about it, imo. But remove the U.S.-Israel crimes and the U.S. will nevertheless remain extremely, voir supremely, criminal; nationally and globally. The USA's criminality wouldn't diminish by much. It's long been beyond capable of obtaining Salvation, figuratively speaking.

Mike Corbeil

I guess it depends on how you define "ISRAEL" . . . ;-)

Brother Mike Corbeil writes:
"That's an illustration of Americans misunderstanding what's really going on. The U.S. is not fighting and never has fought any wars 'on behalf' of Israel;"

I think many "Americans" that know their history have a very GOOD understanding of what's "really going on" . . . ;-)

How do YOU define "Israel"? Seriously, as a "POWER SYSTEM" . . . what really defines "Israel"?

Is it a word applied to "Jacob and sons" in Genesis?

“Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have struggled with God and with men, and have prevailed.”
- Genesis 32:28

Is it a country that existed between the Egyptian Empire and the Sumerian/Persian Empires that was conquered in
607 B.C.? Or the people that were scattered from this?

Is "Israel" a country that that was conquered in 70 A.D. by the Romans (gee, guess what THEY were so pissed off about, kidz? Do a little research on the monetary system changes of the Roman Empire)? Or the people that were scattered from this?

Is "Israel" a group of people that were expelled from Constantinople and went to Khazaria where they "converted" King Bulan and his royals in 740 A.D. and scattered around 1000 A.D.?

Is "Israel" a group of people that had their entire Cosmology/Theology shattered when Copernicus and Galileo established a Helio-centric solar system model and
Sir Frederick William Herschel discovered an 8th celestial "god/angel" in 1781 A.D. (Uranus) . . .

. . . leaving the "Uber-men" of the Social Darwinist/Eugencis movement to declare "God is dead!!! We shall be the God Men, Now" . . .

(Hey kid, wanna buy a slightly out of date used Menorrah, cheap? Has ALL SEVEN of the original "Free Wheeling" godz/angels: Sol, Luna, Venus (Lucifer), Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and Saturn (Satan) - Seven godz ruling seven days yours for seven bucks!!! We'll even throw in a 13 Month "Blood Moon" Lunar calendar!!! 7-7-7 = 28 days!!! Come on, ya putz, we've got GUNS to buy!!!)

"The philosophers have only explained the world, but the point is to change it."
- Karl Marx, 1846

Isn't it interesting that the FLAG of "Israel" is the old pagan symbol for the "Alpha or Perfect Man" . . . and not a
Mennorah, the ancient and traditional symbol of "The Hebrews" . . . ;-)

Is "Israel" an International Syndicate dedicated to task of destroying all "False Gods" (nations, religions, etc.) to establish the "New World Order" that Marx/Pike/Rothschild/Lenin/Trotsky envisioned?

"In a sense, our detractors have us right. We are a corrosive force. We're breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people, because they are not real."
- Douglas Rushkoff, Author "Nothing Sacred, The Truth About Judaism"

(link to above quote - video approx. 3 min. Quote at 1:55)
"Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9/11"

"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws."
- Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744 -1812)

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it."
- Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001

(clipped headline and article from Haaretz 23Feb10)
"Top 10 U.S. Jewish politicians to watch in 2010 - The Forward's list of 10 up-and-coming Jewish political hopefuls was compiled based on conversations with Republican and Democratic Jewish political activists. The list represents Jewish politicians who are either making their first steps on the national scene or are viewed as possible future leaders."

(full article)

Or, is "Israel" merely a small and insignificant Theocratic rascist/sexist country in the Middle East that came into being in 1948 A.D.; whose "anti-social" behavior is tolerated, and even supported, because it is of "strategic" value to the United States while posing no real threat to this Constitutional Republic or our economy?

So, how does one define, "Israel" and their role in WARS throughout history . . .

. . . and NOT end up in jail for violating the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, kidz??? . . . ;-)

"Global Anti-Semitism Review Act"

Hmmm, what was that line from Orwell's "Animal Farm", again?


"Woke up this morning, started to sneeze
I had a cigarette and a cup of tea
I looked in the mirror what did I see
A nine stone weakling with knobbly knees
I did my knees bend, press ups, touch my toes
I had another sneeze and I blew my nose
I looked in the mirror at my pigeon chest
I had to put on my clothes because it made me depressed
Surely there must be a way
For me to change the shape I’m in
Dissatisfied is what I am
I want to be a better man
Superman superman wish I could fly like superman
Superman superman I want to be like superman"
- "Superman" by The Kinks





I viewed the video you provided a link for and it's good (or better), and since I hadn't known of RT's Crosstalk show yet and found this debate good, I sought more. This turned up a link for a slightly earlier debate between Prof. Finkelstein and Israeli Prof. Israel W. Charny, who is the executive director of the Israeli Institute for or on Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem.

"CrossTalk on Holocaust: Murder Revenues" (25:47)

from RussiaToday, Jan 27 2010

I wholly agree with Prof. Finkelstein in both debates, but as he should've done in this one with Prof. Charny, and as he should in future debates, he should try to make sure that when he's speaking of the Israeli government and its leadership, as well as its supporters, or Holocaust industry exploiters, he should use specific wording. Quite a few times in this January debate, he used 'you', which points to Prof. Charny, when what was meant was the Israeli leadership, etcetera. Other than for this slip-up, He clearly is wholly right and Prof. Charny is very evasive and wrongly "pious".

Prof. Charny tries to treat the whole debate with "pious" responses, too whiny, imo; instead of simply and honestly addressing the substance, the questions and criticisms, that Prof. Finkelstein wrote about in his book, "Holocaust Industry: ...", which is what this debate is supposed to be about, the money-making, exploitative, racket, extortionist, ... ways the Holocaust is used; but while the debate's also about how the Holocaust is used by the government of Israel (and its supporters) as a "political weapon".

Prof. Charny says that in his role at the Institute ..., he works for all people who have suffered from genocides, including the Armenians, who he agrees that state of Israel refuses to recognize the genocide of. He also names some other people who suffered genocides, the Africans, Yugoslavs, and possibly others, which is good, but what I found odd is that he neglected the greatest holocaust in history, the one against the Indians or indigenous peoples of the Americas, including in the USA, Israel's "great" protector, facilitator, etcetera.

His part of the debate is lousy, overly "pious" (questionably so, imo, but maybe he just has this weakness), nostalgic or romantic, and "pontificatory" (pontificating too much). Prof. Finkelstein is straight, right in his criticisms, and keeps focus on how the Holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis has been and continues to be exploited in racket, extortionist, ... ways, and as a political weapon on current international affairs or relations. Prof. Finkelstein keeps the topic where it belongs, the way the Holocaust of the Jews has been and continues to be abused in evil ways, and this is what's most important to pay attention to, today and into the future.

If we want to romantically or nostalgically, whatever, consider the Holocaust only from a historical standpoint, then let's get to the greatest holocaust of history, the one or ones in the Americas, imo. Their number [far] exceeeds six million and at a time when there are many fewer humans, which makes this historical holocaust HUGE.

It's a perfect day for what Prof. Finkelstein has to say, too, and as he says, for it's Holocaust remembrance day and he says that Ynet, Haaretz and another Israeli news media reported that the Israeli government stated a day earlier that it was going to use this remembrance day to try to garner international support against Iran, which is fully within its rights according to international law and/or treaty(ies), and which no one can credibly argue is a threat to Israel; or ever would be even if Iran had nuclear weapons.

As stated in another post I made in this page for Ray McGovern's article, the warmongers against Iran aren't so dumb that they don't know that the Iranian leadership would never use nuclear weapons in first-strike manner, or launch any other kind of first-strike action against Israel; for the Iranian leadership knows Iran would be quickly hit with nuclear weapons and perhaps not only from Israel. National political and military leaders, as well as theri corporate bosses, know that Iran would not use nuclear arms for anything other than deterrence, but they don't want Iran or any other natural resource-rich, or strategically located country, to possess nuclear deterrence capabilities. After all, they want global domination and, therefore, want to dominate over Iran, among other countries, before it ever gains the capability of nuclear deterrence.

When it comes to such hegemonic, ... relations, we must keep what the strategic and ultimate goals of the warmongers are carefully in mind; first to determine what they are, and then, once determined, keep them carefully in mind. They have an ultimate goal and a strategic plan for how to achieve this goal; and this plan requires them to make sure that an energy-rich country like Iran doesn't have its legitimate rights and sovereignty respected.

It's about racket, major racket, and former USMC Major General Smedley Butler remains right, ongoingly, about U.S. wars or warring, with his book, "War is a Racket". In 2003, some analysts wrote that the war on Iraq was about geopolitics, and this is very right, but the geopolitics aren't the goal, they're a means to achieving a goal. Powerful people won't "play" geopolitics for the sake of doing this; they will always have goals to be achieved with the use of geopols, and military as well as ecoomic wars. It's all about [racket] and Israel is a strategic military asset for the elite of the USA. Israel's strategic contribution is also with its driving of [hysteria] among populations through the propaganda spread by the "helpfully" corrupt news media that carry the Israeli leadership lies and demonisations as if they're truthful.

Prof. Finkelstein specifically and clearly speaks in this above debate with Prof. Charny about the Israeli leadership driving mass hysteria, and this relates to him saying that Israeli leadership uses the Holocaust history as a "political weapon". It's easy to see that he's right, if we've paid attention to more than only corporate- or elite-controlled U.S. news media anyway. He specifically reminds of the Israeli leadership having called Saddam Hussein a Hitler and having claimed, hysterically, that he possessed WMD, etcetera, but this should not be construed with the notion that too many Americans fearful of the U.S.-Israel relationship have often expressed and which is that the U.S. warred on Iraq for the sake of Israel, for this is not why this war was launched. Instead, U.S. leadership made strategic use of the mass hysteria that the Israeli leadership was driving; not as sole driver, but nevertheless having had its "hands" on the "wheel" a considerable amount of the time.

Anyway, it's a good debate on Prof. Finkelstein's part, and Peter Lavelle for RT well sides with Prof. Finkelstein. In U.S. news media, the host would've acted in the opposite and disgusting, ... manner.

Mike Corbeil

"The End of Obama’s Vision of a Nuke-Free World"

by Scott Ritter,, originally Feb 16, 2010

I disagree with Scott Ritter wherein he writes as if Obama was sincere during his various related speeches last year, but do agree with him about Obama's "utter lack of courage and conviction"; well, in terms of what Obama pretends to want the public to perceive, anyway. He, Obama, utterly lacks courage, no question about it; but maybe he's convinced and just not in the way a national leader, or anyone for that matter, needs to be. He's possibly convinced that it's better, more profitable, to be a public liar, speaking out of both sides of his mouth, aka with a forked tongue, than it is to be honest with us about his allegiance with the criminal elite that hijacked the controls of the government of the USA and who form the "hidden hand" inside the government, the "government within the government".

Either way, one thing I do NOT believe about Obama is that he's supposedly honest.

With that said, Scott Ritter's article is very important.

"CNN Poll: Seven in 10 Americans Believe Iran has Nuclear Weapons"

by CNN, originally Feb 19, 2010

70% of Americans are extremely ignorant and irresponsibly so. And the article (implicitly) tells readers that
over 60% are blatant hypocrites. Revoke their voting rights! These are very dangerous citizens for the country, USA, itself! Their responses to this poll don't bode well for the 2010 and 2012 elections, at all!

"IAEA Letter Fuels CNN Alarmism Over Iran
Rick Sanchez Speculates About Non-Existent Iranian 'Nuclear Missile'"

by Jason Ditz,, originally Feb 18, 2010

Fueled by an unfortunately worded letter by the IAEA about a “technical violation” allegedly made by Iran last week in its civilian nuclear program, CNN’s Rick Sanchez is now speculating about the possibility of Iran “building some kind of nuclear weapon,” even though one of his guests from MIT made it clear this threat was totally illusory.

Note, "unfortunately worded letter", which I interpret as meaning something like "mis-worded". Of course also note what the MIT guest on CNN said, the "threat was totally illusory".

The IAEA statement, related to Iran’s refusal to indefinitely delay alterations to its civilian enrichment program, included claims that Iran’s attitude “raises concerns about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

The letter seems to have been an effort to chastise Iran for a technical violation, but did not make any specific allegations that Iran was actually making such missiles, or even had the capability to do so. IAEA Chief Yukiya Amano, responsible for today’s letter, has previously confirmed that the IAEA has absolutely no evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

READ Scott Ritter's article, further above! He explains well enough what Iran's nuclear capabilities are, and aren't.

Mike Corbeil

Speaking a week ago in Qatar, Secretary Hillary Clinton expressed her deep concern at “accumulating evidence” that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon—as though deterrence is a thing of the past. On the question of what kind of threat the “accumulating evidence” poses to the U.S., Clinton inadvertently spilled the beans.

The evidence is deeply concerning, she said, not because it “directly threatens the United States, but it directly threatens a lot of our friends”—read Israel. Recall that Clinton is on record saying the she would “obliterate” Iran if it attacked Israel with a nuclear weapon. It is de rigueur never to mention the 200-300 nuclear weapons already in Israel’s arsenal.

The only thing these beans should cause is farts from the intestinal gas the beans first cause. As for the potential threat Iran could pose [if], if and only if, it developed or possessed nuclear arms, Iranian leadership would never use the nuclear weapons in first-strike manner, as explained in one or two of my prior posts in this ADS page.

Re. the Feb. 2nd NIE, see the articles by Scott Ritter and Jason Ditz of linked in one of my posts further above; both, but especially Scott Ritter's article for the details he gives on what Iran really has for uranium and means for enrichening it, for he gives plenty of information about this and is a former UN weapons inspection chief or head, for Iraq anyway, as well as a former US Marine. I don't recall what the links are for, but Jason Ditz provides some and a few words that match with what Scott Ritter says, so perhaps one or more of the links are for additional resources on the details of what Iran has for means of enrichening uranium to the 20% needed for medical use(s) and which is far less than the 90+% needed for making nuclear weapons.

I haven't seen the Feb. 2nd NIE, but it'd be interesting to see what it says in comparison to the details that Scott Ritter provides, for contrary to the NIE, he makes it clear that Iran is quite far from being capable of making nuclear weapons and has very or extremely little uranium of its own. And also contrary to the U.S. "intelligence community", he doesn't pretend that Iranian leadership has any desire at all to develop or possses nuclear weapons and, therefore, deterrence capabilities. He doesn't get into such speculation, which is what it at best is with the NIE people's suppositions about Iranian leadership having a dark, secret desire to have nuclear arms.

Greg Thielmann, Senior Fellow at the Arms Control Association, notes that it would be far better if the U.S. would stress that Iran's right to uranium enrichment, consistent with Non-Proliferation Treaty Article IV, is contingent on Iran's adherence to the treaty's Articles I, II, and III.

Thielmann notes that Iran has no inherent right to uranium enrichment while it is violating its Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA. Yet this point is being lost by the West's unqualified emphasis ....

It's also lost on me, for he doesn't say what these treaty Articles say. It'd be good if people writing about such matters would briefly explain what the Articles say or require, or to provide a link for the authoritative description(s) of the Articles.

Consequently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can posture that the West is just trying to keep Iran down and deny it the rights guaranteed under the NPT.

It's probably true, anyway. The U.S. elite don't want a nuclear-armed Iran. I believe we can be certain of this, and that we can be very, if not totally, certain that if the contrary were true, then the U.S. elite would also be wholly honest, sincerely honest, and also wouldn't be aiming to achieve global domination. Well, it is clear that they are aiming for global domination, and it's also very clear that they're dishonest as hell.

Re. what Ray McGovern reports of what Jay Rockefeller said while he was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, what has he said about the fact that the U.S. hasn't indicted Osama Bin Laden for the 9-11 attacks, since the war on Afghanistan was initially based on the Bush administration claim that OBL was responsible for these attacks and that the Taliban refused to hand him over, even if they offered to hand him over apparently three times, while I'm aware of only two of these occassions, with the second one having been the morning of Oct. 7, 2001, when the U.S. and NATO attacked during the afternoon of that day and while the Bush administration certainly knew about the Taliban's offers. I don't know if the third occassion was before that Oct. 7th, or after it, but the Taliban made their either second or third offer on that date and OBL has never been charged by the U.S. for any kind of involvement in the 9-11 attacks.

The reason I ask what Jay Rockefeller would respond to this question is because if he supports the war on Afghanistan based on a false premise or accusation of serious or key importance, then perhaps he criticized doing the same in the case of Iraq out of strategic considerations, only.

Mike Corbeil

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Support This Site


Get free books and gear when you become a supporter.



Speaking Truth to Empire


Families United


Ray McGovern


Julie Varughese


Financial supporters of this site can choose to be listed here.



Ca-Dress Long Prom Dresses Canada
Ca Dress Long Prom Dresses on

Buy Books

Get Gear

The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.