My OperaAnother war again.
Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:07:59 PM
And now, magically up pops these new reports from Israel warning that the deadline to stop Iran's nuclear bomb is the end of the year -- right before George Bush leaves office. Bush has less than eight months left to fulfill his history-mandated mission "to prevent another holocaust" by attacking Iran, or else "be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb." They're as transparent as they are dishonest and bloodthirsty."I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought there was no alternative," said Podhoretz, 77, in an interview with The Sunday Times. . . .
He also told Bush: "You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You're the only one with the guts to do it." . . . .
"The president has said several times that he will be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb. He believes that if we wait for threats to fully materialise, we'll have waited too long -- something I agree with 100%,' Podhoretz said.
In case people don't understand how unlikely this sort of statements are in american political discourse. And don't appreciate how impossible it is that Glennzilla also has a large, critical following - let me remind you: some years ago, Glenn Greenwald started writing a blog called "Unclaimed territory". It was well- written, and offered the legalese insight into the incredible explanations that turned up for the war, torture, departing from the geneva conventions, etc. And it was not remarkable because it denounced the Bush- administration, but for how it did it. Consistent arguments worthy of a constitutional lawyer with actual integrity, which he is, coupled with insight into how the media allows itself to be used for promoting policy- narratives, all turned the blog into a more reliable source for analysis than anything else out there. And, it was obviously filled with the rage befitting of someone who finds that (his) real expertise is superfluous in any legislative matter, after the Bush- administration came to power.
Eventually, in February 2007, he declared that the blog had become too small, that the subjects were too large, and that keeping this up while also keeping a job would be too difficult. Which was because he was presumably invited to blog at salon.com, a fairly all- round respectable internet based and internet financed paper. Something which has allowed him to reach many more readers, also those who might otherwise see some of his writing as much too radical (even if we're talking about mostly democratic and liberal people).
Lately, he's been writing two books, which is in a sense a product of the many "critical monologues" he's written over the past few years. Something which again has made this type of no- nonsense analysis and ethical bludgeoning available to such an extent that he's now being linked and cited occasionally (but undoubtedly also widely read) in the establishment media.
Not that mr. Greenwald has not had certain funny prejudices along the way. I remember very well how he would declare that the problem with an invasion flatly in violation of the UN charter, was not simply that it was done - but that it wasn't done in a more diplomatic fashion. For example citing the first Bush as an example, when he politely gathered up allies, before bringing all time- honored allies with him into the fray. The Kurdish intervention as a violation of the UN charter might perhaps have played a role in that, but this was forgotten. And so was the problem of incompetent administrations using foreign interventions to silence critics at home - a time- honored tradition in the US.
So what does Greenwald do? Does he keep his mouth shut, and declines to speak on the intricacies of warfare and international law, as long as it might tend to be a type of plunge that may get him into a "rhetorical bind" later on? Oh, no.
Glenn Greenwald /analysed and actively discussed the issues/, and then /changed his mind based on the information available/. Now that's fricking unique. No snark. That's bloody amazing.
Also see:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/iranreport0208.html
"Our task in Iran is to make sure that the Iranian nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. We are at it for the last five years. In the last four months, in particular, we have made quite good progress in clarifying the outstanding issues that had to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, with the exception of one issue, and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past. We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran´s enrichment programme. We have made good progress, with still one issue on our agenda and I call on Iran to act as actively as possible, as fast as possible, for me to be able (to ensure) that all issues, that have to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, have been clarified.
And:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3868063.ece
"United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp"
And don't forget - a Sunni terrorist who hates Shias and Iran, and wants to wipe out his "political" opposition in Bagdad, is a reliable witness regarding anything that could possibly be used to justify more US troops, weapons and money into the region. And evidently, there's been so many allegations now that we cannot possibly stand idly by and let Iran continue to threaten the stability in the entire region - there must be a war to fix things, just like in Iraq.
