The point, of course, is that there is no crisis in need to 'diplomacy', sanctions, or war. This entire phony episode has been fabricated in order to feign another justification for a war that was planned years before Bush was installed to the White House.
The point, of course, is that the illusion of a crisis where none exists was created with the sole purpose of feigning justification for another illegal war planned by the 'neo-Cons' before Bush was installed to the White House.
Bush's Deadly "Diplomacy"
By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted June 12, 2008.
Bush's rhetoric on Iran is frighteningly similar to his pantomime of diplomacy in the build-up to the Iraq war. And the media is eating it up.
With 223 days left in his presidency, George W. Bush laid more flagstones along a path to war on Iran. There was the usual declaration that "all options are on the table" -- and, just as ominously, much talk of diplomacy.
Three times on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports, Bush "called a diplomatic solution 'my first choice,' implying there are others. He said 'we'll give diplomacy a chance to work,' meaning it might not."
That's how Bush talks when he's grooving along in his Orwellian comfort zone, eager to order a military attack.
"We seek peace," Bush said in the State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. "We strive for peace."
In that speech, less than two months before the invasion of Iraq began, Bush foreshadowed the climax of his administration's diplomatic pantomime. "The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world," the president said. "Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."
A week after that drum roll, Colin Powell made his now-infamous presentation to the U.N. Security Council. At the time, it served as ideal "diplomacy" for war -- filled with authoritative charges and riddled with deceptions.
We should never forget the raptures of media praise for Powell's crucial mendacity. A key bellwether was the New York Times.
The front page of the Times had been plying administration lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for a long time. Now the newspaper's editorial stance, ostensibly antiwar, swooned into line -- rejoicing that "Mr. Powell's presentation was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein's regime."
The Times editorialized that Powell "presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have." By sending Powell to address the Security Council, the Times claimed, President Bush "showed a wise concern for international opinion."
Bush had implemented the kind of "diplomacy" advocated by a wide range of war enthusiasts. For instance, Fareed Zakaria, a former managing editor of the elite-flavored journal Foreign Affairs, had recommended PR prudence in the quest for a confrontation that could facilitate an invasion of Iraq.
"Even if the inspections do not produce the perfect crisis," Zakaria wrote the previous summer, "Washington will still be better off for having tried because it would be seen to have made every effort to avoid war."
A few months later, on November 13, 2002, Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that "in the world of a single, dominant superpower, the U.N. Security Council becomes even more important, not less." And he was pleased with the progress of groundwork for war, writing enthusiastically: "The Bush team discovered that the best way to legitimize its overwhelming might -- in a war of choice -- was not by simply imposing it, but by channeling it through the U.N."
Its highly influential reporting, combined with an editorial position that wavered under pressure, made the New York Times extremely useful to the Bush administration's propaganda strategy for launching war on Iraq. The paper played along with the diplomatic ruse in much the same way that it promoted lies about weapons of mass destruction.
But to read the present-day revisionist history from the New York Times, the problem with the run-up to the Iraq invasion was simply misconduct by the Bush administration (ignobly assisted by pliable cable news networks).
Recently, when the Times came out with an editorial headlined "The Truth About the War" on June 6, the newspaper assessed the implications of a new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. "The report shows clearly that President Bush should have known that important claims he made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports," the Times editorialized. "In other cases, he could have learned the truth if he had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers."
Unfortunately, changing just a few words -- substituting "the New York Times" for "President Bush" -- renders an equally accurate assessment of what a factual report would clearly show: "The New York Times should have known that important claims it made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports. In other cases, the Times could have learned the truth if it had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers."
Now, as agenda-setting for an air attack on Iran moves into higher gear, the mainline U.S. news media -- with the New York Times playing its influential part -- are engaged in coverage that does little more than provide stenographic services for the Bush administration.
Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/87962/?ses=cd5a53c2a8665b68941e5960ffbc4562
Bush Resurrects a Whopper
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400896.html
Israeli hawks pushing for strikes on Iran
http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9561128?source=rss
US Senate Report Exposes Key Role of the Israel Lobby in Fomenting War with Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400895.html
Olmert: Next U.S. Administration May Not Be as 'Accommodating'
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400897.html
Bush's Deadly "Diplomacy"
By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. Posted June 12, 2008.
Bush's rhetoric on Iran is frighteningly similar to his pantomime of diplomacy in the build-up to the Iraq war. And the media is eating it up.
With 223 days left in his presidency, George W. Bush laid more flagstones along a path to war on Iran. There was the usual declaration that "all options are on the table" -- and, just as ominously, much talk of diplomacy.
Three times on Wednesday, the Associated Press reports, Bush "called a diplomatic solution 'my first choice,' implying there are others. He said 'we'll give diplomacy a chance to work,' meaning it might not."
That's how Bush talks when he's grooving along in his Orwellian comfort zone, eager to order a military attack.
"We seek peace," Bush said in the State of the Union address on January 28, 2003. "We strive for peace."
In that speech, less than two months before the invasion of Iraq began, Bush foreshadowed the climax of his administration's diplomatic pantomime. "The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world," the president said. "Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups."
A week after that drum roll, Colin Powell made his now-infamous presentation to the U.N. Security Council. At the time, it served as ideal "diplomacy" for war -- filled with authoritative charges and riddled with deceptions.
We should never forget the raptures of media praise for Powell's crucial mendacity. A key bellwether was the New York Times.
The front page of the Times had been plying administration lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction for a long time. Now the newspaper's editorial stance, ostensibly antiwar, swooned into line -- rejoicing that "Mr. Powell's presentation was all the more convincing because he dispensed with apocalyptic invocations of a struggle of good and evil and focused on shaping a sober, factual case against Mr. Hussein's regime."
The Times editorialized that Powell "presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have." By sending Powell to address the Security Council, the Times claimed, President Bush "showed a wise concern for international opinion."
Bush had implemented the kind of "diplomacy" advocated by a wide range of war enthusiasts. For instance, Fareed Zakaria, a former managing editor of the elite-flavored journal Foreign Affairs, had recommended PR prudence in the quest for a confrontation that could facilitate an invasion of Iraq.
"Even if the inspections do not produce the perfect crisis," Zakaria wrote the previous summer, "Washington will still be better off for having tried because it would be seen to have made every effort to avoid war."
A few months later, on November 13, 2002, Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote that "in the world of a single, dominant superpower, the U.N. Security Council becomes even more important, not less." And he was pleased with the progress of groundwork for war, writing enthusiastically: "The Bush team discovered that the best way to legitimize its overwhelming might -- in a war of choice -- was not by simply imposing it, but by channeling it through the U.N."
Its highly influential reporting, combined with an editorial position that wavered under pressure, made the New York Times extremely useful to the Bush administration's propaganda strategy for launching war on Iraq. The paper played along with the diplomatic ruse in much the same way that it promoted lies about weapons of mass destruction.
But to read the present-day revisionist history from the New York Times, the problem with the run-up to the Iraq invasion was simply misconduct by the Bush administration (ignobly assisted by pliable cable news networks).
Recently, when the Times came out with an editorial headlined "The Truth About the War" on June 6, the newspaper assessed the implications of a new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee. "The report shows clearly that President Bush should have known that important claims he made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports," the Times editorialized. "In other cases, he could have learned the truth if he had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers."
Unfortunately, changing just a few words -- substituting "the New York Times" for "President Bush" -- renders an equally accurate assessment of what a factual report would clearly show: "The New York Times should have known that important claims it made about Iraq did not conform with intelligence reports. In other cases, the Times could have learned the truth if it had asked better questions or encouraged more honest answers."
Now, as agenda-setting for an air attack on Iran moves into higher gear, the mainline U.S. news media -- with the New York Times playing its influential part -- are engaged in coverage that does little more than provide stenographic services for the Bush administration.
Norman Solomon's latest book Made Love, Got War: Close Encounters with America's Warfare State (PoliPointPress) is available now. For more information go to www.madelovegotwar.com.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/87962/?ses=cd5a53c2a8665b68941e5960ffbc4562 Bush Resurrects a Whopper
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400896.html Israeli hawks pushing for strikes on Iran
http://www.montereyherald.com/ci_9561128?source=rss US Senate Report Exposes Key Role of the Israel Lobby in Fomenting War with Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400895.html Olmert: Next U.S. Administration May Not Be as 'Accommodating'
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/400897.html 
Comments
Hide the following comment
Bush Resurrects a Whopper
14.06.2008 04:48
"For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned."
Bush's Address, March 2003
War in the Ruins of Diplomacy
Published: March 18, 2003
Bush says diplomacy is 1st choice in nuclear standoff with Iran
Published: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 | 5:34 PM ET
Canadian Press: Deb Riechmann, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MESEBERG, Germany - U.S. President George W. Bush, in a fresh warning to Tehran, said Wednesday he favours a peaceful resolution to the nuclear standoff with Iran but has not ruled out the possible use of military force.
(This is exactly what he said up until he attacked Iraq. This statement is absurd, of course, because the 'nuclear standoff' is only Israel and America's way of attempting to feign a justification for a war that is about Regime Change, oil, regional power, and occupation.)
Bush spoke at a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, but his words were aimed at Iran. Bush warned Iran against dragging out the dispute to run the clock out on his presidency.
Iran, which says it is enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, had a message for Bush on Wednesday too.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Bush's presidency was over and the president has failed in his goals to attack Iran and stop its nuclear program. Addressing thousands of people in central Iran, Ahmadinejad described Bush as "wicked," and said that Bush was targeting Iran after dispatching the U.S. military into Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I tell him (Bush) ... your era has come to an end," Ahmadinejad said. "With the grace of God, you won't be able to harm even one centimetre of the sacred land of Iran."
Merkel, who appeared with Bush at the German government's main guesthouse called Schloss Meseberg, said if Iran does not agree to suspend its enrichment program, additional sanctions would be needed.
But she did not say why, since Iran is well within its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in pursuing nuclear power. The IAEA and international intelligence community has stated in no uncertain terms that Iran's program is peaceful.)
"If Iran does not meet its commitments, then further sanctions will simply have to follow," she said.
The U.S. and its European allies are waiting to decide if stiffer sanctions should be levied against Iran until after the European Union's foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, visits Tehran to present a package of incentives in exchange for stopping its enrichment program.
The offer, an updated version of one that Iran ignored a few years ago, was developed by the United States, along with Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China.
Ahmadinejad said pressures and sanctions won't succeed in forcing Iran to halt its uranium enrichment program. "If the enemy thinks they can break the Iranian nation with pressure, they are wrong," he said.
The United Nations Security Council has imposed three sets of limited sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used to produce nuclear fuel or materials for bomb. Iran continues to defy them.
(In order to fuel a weapon, Iran would need to massively expand its small enrichment capability, and this would be immediately apparent to the many eyes intently watching the country's every move. Investigations are currently underway into allegations that the US coerced countries like India into voting for these sanctions, which violate Iran's NNPT rights. It should also be noted that several of the Governments who voted for sanctions are comprised of similar Neo-Conservatives, and are co-conspirators with both Israel and the US in their programs of aggressive warfare.)
Merkel said she favours having sanctions decided through the Security Council, but that doesn't preclude any discussion within the European Union about whether there are other punitive measures, perhaps in the banking sector.
At Bush's final US-EU summit Tuesday in Kranj, Slovenia, the leaders issued a joint declaration that said the United States and Europe "are ready to supplement those (previous) sanctions with additional measures" if Iran does not halt enrichment. It also said they would "work together ... to take steps to ensure Iranian banks cannot abuse the international banking system to support proliferation and terrorism."
When a reporter asked Bush about the war in Iraq, the president defended the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and said it was the right decision.
"I don't regret it at all," Bush said, although he said he wished he hadn't used some of the tough language he used at the time. He has expressed regrets about using terms like "dead or alive" when talking about Osama bin Laden or "bring them on" when talking about insurgents in Iraq.
(But on committing 'the Supreme International Crime, the Crime Against Peace', he is unrepentant. This is why War Criminals MUST be held accountable for their actions.)
Bush predicted that his administration will be able to finish an agreement with Baghdad that would provide for a normal, permanent U.S. military and diplomatic presence in Iraq. The word "permanent" has been a flashpoint for many who oppose the war, but Bush insisted the U.S. is not seeking permanent bases in Iraq.
(Except that he is, and this was always one of the real reasons for this illegal war ...)
On global warming, Merkel said she has not given up hopes of completing global trade negotiations being conducted under the auspices of the World Trade Organization. However, the so-called Doha Round of trade negotiations is at an impasse because of battles between wealthy countries and developing nations over such issues as farm subsidies.
Earlier, after a countryside bike ride that seemed to invigorate Bush, he and Merkel had breakfast and then took a choreographed walk for the cameras through the formal gardens next to the cream-coloured castle.
(Good to see they found some time to reflect on the young men and women they've sent to their deaths ...)
Iran Will Cooperate with UN Probe into US/Israeli Allegations
Israel's Syrian Air Strike Was Aimed at Iran
The ME has had a Secretive Nuclear Power in its Midst for Years
Spooks Refuse to Toe Cheney's Line on Iran
IAEA Again Verifies Iranian Compliance
Israel Considering Strike on Iran Despite US Intelligence Report
US intelligence report heightens danger of Israeli strike on Iran
'Laptop of Death': Revising the NIE on Iran
The entire claim that Iran was building nuclear weapons rests on a laptop provided by a single, dubious source.
Israeli Extremists Prep for Nuclear Strike on Iran
Hersh: Israel Pressed me to Write Syrian Site was Nuclear
Sy Hersh confirms: Syrian Facility Bombed by Israel Not Nuclear
A Strike in the Dark - What did Israel bomb in Syria?
by Seymour M. Hersh
War Clouds Over Mideast
Israel & The 'Clash of Civilizations'
The largest threat to the region doesn't come from Iran: it comes from Israel's success in having had the US "neutralize" countries which it believes to be an existential threat to it's existence. However, there's just one little problem with this approach concerning Iran. Russia's diplomats have stated unequivocally that any attack against Iran will be perceived as an attack on Russia.
UN Nuclear Watchdog in Milestone Iran Deal
Iran Dumps US Dollar in Oil Trading, US Preps War
Israel's Extremists STILL Beating Iran War Drums
Iran Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links
Israel, US Joint Plotting Against Iran, Attack ElBaredei
ElBaradei: Iran Not After Bomb
www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/05/399278.html
Israel Calls for US Blockade of Iran
US Report on 'Iranian Weapons' Postponed Due to Lack of Evidence
Pakistan May Turn Over U.S. Terrorists To Iran
Iranian Mosque Blast Plotters Admit Israeli, US Links
Bombing Iran: Extremists' Mad Clamor Persists
Carter: Israel Has At Least 150 Nukes
IAEA Again Confirms: No Weaponization in Iran
McLellan's Warning on Iran
'Hate Iran Week' at AIPAC
Israel Launches 'Iran Command' for War
Greet Him In London - Or ARREST HIM