Following on from my entry "Part of the Grand Strategy", here's another article to confirm that the attack on Lebanon is all part of the US administration's plan in disrupting the Middle East further and building up to attacks on Iran and, in all likelihood, Syria.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=27459&mode=nested&order=0

Note, particularly, this paragraph:

"In the years prior to Israel's July 12 bombing of Lebanese cities, Hezbollah had become less and less of a threat. It had not killed any Israeli civilians for more than a decade (with the exception of one accidental fatality in 2003 caused by an anti-aircraft missile fired at an Israeli plane that violated Lebanese airspace). Investigations by the Congressional Research Service, the State Department, and independent think tanks failed to identify any major act of terrorism by Hezbollah for over a dozen years.

Prior to the attack, Hezbollah's militia had dwindled to about 1000 men under arms--this number tripled after July 12 when reserves were called up--and a national dialogue was going on between Hezbollah and the government of pro-Western prime minister Fuad Siniora regarding disarmament. The majority of Lebanese opposed Hezbollah, both its reactionary fundamentalist social agenda as well as its insistence on maintaining an armed presence independent of the country's elected government. Thanks to the U.S.-backed Israeli attacks on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure, however, support for Hezbollah, according to polls, has grown to more than 80%, even within the Sunni Muslim and Christian communities.

Even Richard Armitage, a leading hawk and deputy secretary of state under President Bush during his first term, noted that "[T]he only thing that the bombing has achieved so far is to unite the population against the Israelis."

Watch this space.....

 

Mood: pissed off

I get nothing but frustration at Blogger.com.  This site may not be the best since the change, but Blogger is trying my patience.  I tried logging in and it wouldn't accept my password.  I changed the password via email but it still wouldn't log in.  They neglected to mention that I must now enter my email address, rather the the user ID (even though it still had user ID next to the box).  I log in ok this time, but my blog is gone.  It's not listed.  It's not the first problem I've had with Blogger.

Blogger has a Beta version which is just as full of bugs as this place.  I'm getting highly pissed off at my blogs going missing.

As for this place:  Some of my older entries are 'lost' - not displayed properly, or replaced by some garbage I didn't write in German!  I cannot edit some HTML in the sidebar and there is no instruction on how to do it.  What used to be simple, is now complicated.  Can these people do nothing right?  How hard can it be? 

Between the two, I'll stay here.  Blogger can go **** itself.

Postscript:  I've decided to forget about Blogger.  Instead my mirror site will be at Wordpress.com (link in the blogroll).  Interesting thing about Wordpress.  This site appears to be a clone - similar layout and 2 template designs here are exact copies of 2 templates at Wordpress, ie this one and the one with a pen in the top right corner.

I've been reading more about the background to the war with Iraq from the time of the Gulf War.  How Bush senior hired public relations consultant John W Rendon to organise anti-Saddam propaganda campaigns within Iraq.  In 1992 Rendon helped organise (and named) the Iraqi National Congress which represented the first major attempt for Saddam opponents to join forces.  Ahmed Chalabi was appointed head of the group.  Chalabi was self-serving and ambitious and made sure to tell the US what they wanted to hear with regard to Saddam's regime.  He saw a future for himself. 

Fast-forward to 2002 and the push for a new war against Iraq.  Chalabi and his lies were still in the picture and the INC provided erroneous reports to support the war.  Their motivation had nothing to do with the welfare of the ordinary Iraqi - but over how Iraq's oil riches should be handled.  The Pentagon brought relentless pressure to bear on the CIA to support a war with Iraq.  The CIA's intelligence conflicted with the INC's.  At the CIA, Chalabi was regarded as an "ineffectual head of a self-inflated and corrupt organisation".  '"The [INC's] intelligence isn't reliable at all" said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA senior official and counterterrorism expert. "Much of it is propaganda... telling the Defense Department what they want to hear.  And much of it is used to support Chalabi's own presidential ambitions."'  In December 2002 Robert Dreyfuss reported that the Bush administration preferred INC-supplied analyses of Iraq over the analysis coming from the CIA.

Of course they did.  They wanted a reason to attack - any lies would do.  The Bush administration are, by now, experts at using lies for their own ends.

These lies, or "distortions" include the following:

September 7, 2002 - Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that he said proved that the Iraqis were on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.  No such report existed.  In 1998 the IAEA had issued a report saying "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indications of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons..".

September 12, 2002, Bush spoke of Iraq's "continued appetite" for nuclear bombs, referring to the purchase of thousands of aluminum tubes which he said were "used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons".  The IAEA said in a January 2003 assessment, the size of the tubes made them ill-suited for uranium enrichment, but were identical to tubes that Iraq had used to make conventional artillery rockets.  But Colin Powell repeated Bush's lie in February 2003.

October 7, 2002 Bush warned that Iraq had a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used for "missions targeting the United States".  The aircraft actually lacked the range to reach the United States.  He also said that "information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected" had said that Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue, implying that the information was current.  The nuclear defector, Khidhir Hamza, had retired in 1991 and defected in 1995.  UNSCOM investigators described Hamza as "a professional liar".

Spring, 2003, Bush cited alleged documents showing that Iraq had attempted to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger.  IAEA looked at the documents and concluded they were crude fakes.  Forensic experts agreed.

The lies never stop issuing from Bush's mouth.

More later, from "Weapons of Mass Deception".

Bush 'Viewed War in Lebanon as a Curtain-Raiser for Attack on Iran'

Wed, 2006-08-16 12:27. 

By Andrew Buncombe, Independent / UK

'The Bush administration was informed in advance and gave the "green light" to Israel's military strikes against Hizbollah ­ with plans drawn up months before two Israeli soldiers were seized ­it has been claimed.

The US reportedly considered Israel's actions as a necessary prerequisite for a possible strike against Iran. A report by a leading investigative reporter says that earlier this summer Israeli officials visited Washington to brief the government on its plan to respond to any Hizbollah provocation and to "find out how much the US would bear".

The officials apparently started their inquiries with Vice-President Dick Cheney, knowing that if they secured his support, obtaining the backing of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice would be easier.

The report by Seymour Hersh quotes an unidentified US government consultant with close ties to the Israelis who says: "The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits. Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."

A former intelligence officer, also quoted, says: "We told Israel,'Look, if you guys have to go, we're behind you all the way. But we think it should be sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the less time we have to evaluate and plan for Iran before Bush gets out of office'."

Both Israeli and US officials say that the Israeli military operation against Hizbollah was triggered by the seizing of two Israeli soldiers, apparently to be bargained with for a possible prisoner swap. But Hersh's report, published in today's issue of The New Yorker, adds to evidence that Israel had been anticipating a Hizbollah provocation for some time and planning its response ­ a response that was widely condemned for being disproportionate.

Last month the San Francisco Chronicle reported that "Israel's military response by air, land and sea to what it considered a provocation last week by Hizbollah militants was unfolding according to a plan finalised more than a year ago". The report said that a senior Israeli army officer had been briefing diplomats, journalists and think-tanks for more than a year about the plan and it quoted Gerald Steinberg, professor of political science at [Israel's] Bar-Ilan University, who said: "Of all of Israel's wars since 1948, this was the one for which Israel was most prepared." Last week the New Statesman magazine reported that Britain had also been informed in advance of the military preparations and that the Prime Minister had chosen not to try to stop them "because he did not want to".

This latest report is the first to tie the Israeli operation to a broader framework that includes a possible US strike against Iran.

Unidentified officials said a strike could "ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American pre-emptive attack". Shabtai Shavit, a national security adviser to the Knesset, said: "We do what we think is best for us, and if it happens to meet America's requirements, that's just part of a relationship between two friends. Hizbollah is armed to the teeth and trained in the most advanced technology of guerrilla warfare. It was just a matter of time."

An anonymous Middle East expert claimed that while the State Department supported the plan because it believed it would help the Lebanese government assert control over the south, the White House was focussed on stripping Hizbollah of its missiles.

The expert added: "If there was to be a military option against Iran's nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hizbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel. Bush was going after Iran, as part of the 'axis of evil', and its nuclear sites, and he was interested in going after Hizbollah as part of his interest in democratisation."

Last night the White House denied the allegations contained in Hersh's piece with a brief statement from the President describing it as "patently untrue". Mr Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, added: " The suggestion that the US and Israel planned and co-ordinated an attack on Hizbollah ­ and did so as a prelude to an attack on Iran ­ is just flat wrong."'

Sure, sure, like they tell the truth about anything.  I knew it all along.

Mood: slightly peeved

I'm still not entirely sure what to do about this site.  I've transferred some of my entries to Blogger but in the process found an annoying glitch at Blogger.  Some entries were too wide (or one of them was) and so the sidebar disappeared to the bottom of the blog.  This was extremely annoying and I had to go through each individual entry one by one to try and work out which was the offending entry.  I cannot be bothered re-entering the ones I deleted in the process.  However, it matters not, if I keep this blog.  I do not like Blogger which is why I chose to stay here, but this site has become a bit complicated and rather than being easier to use (it was easy enough anyway), it has adopted some clunky features and got rid of some user-friendly ones.

Time will tell - which site annoys me the most....

My 'shadow' blog is at worwatch.blogspot.com.  I can't be bothered opening up the HTML to write this as a link.  Annoyance number 1. 

There has to have been an ulterior motive for Israel to attack Lebanon. Everyone agrees that their reaction to the supposed kidnapping of 2 soldiers was over the top. They were not interested in diplomacy. It was a (feeble) excuse to go all out.

I found this article:

Kidnapped in Israel or captured in Lebanon?

I can't seem to find the useful feature Blogigo had previously of inserting a link, which is pretty annoying. Now I need to do HTML - an extra (unnecessary) step.

But the article raises questions which need answers. I'm not satisfied with Israel's official reasoning. Israel does not, after all, have a history of listening to its neighbours. It seems to be all part of the strategy of ensuring Western occupation of the Middle East.

Still unsure about this site. It will take some getting used to. It has lost some features I appreciated, such as the ability to post at a later date (so I'm not posting three entries at once).

I will still transfer to Blogger... perhaps I will just keep one or the other as a 'shadow' blog.

Due to the unreliability of this site, I may start transferring my entries to a blog at Blogger.com.  I will give the address when everything is transferred.  I am disappointed at having to do this, but the new owners of this site obviously have no thought of keeping bloggers informed about changes and it is unsatisfactory to suddenly find you cannot access your blog with no explanation given.

is important for democracy, but all too often we see journalists just churning out the official story without investigation.  I happened to see this entry in a blog called Library Juice:

 

August 5, 2006

AEJMC anti-Bush resolution

I've read how the US has tried to improve its image through branding, employing Charlotte Beers, a commercial advertiser, as if selling the US was as easy as selling Uncle Ben's rice.  What the US fails to understand is that no matter what sort of image they try to portray through the media, the facts speak for themselves, and those who are fortunate enough not to live there can see for themselves objectively just what effect US foreign policy has had on the rest of the world.

You cannot brand a government as if it's a packet of food.  Author Naomi Klein noted that aggressive branding ensures corporate monologue not social dialogue and when governments try to implement global image consistency

"they can look distinctly authoritarian.  It's no coincidence that the political leaders most preoccupied with branding themselves and their parties were also allergic to democracy and diversity.  Historically, this has been the ugly flipside of politicians striving for consistency of brand: centralised information, state-controlled media, re-education camps, purging of dissidents and much worse."

America is Not a Hamburger, 2002

Opinion of the US by anyone who is not American, is influenced more by what the US does, than by anything it can say.  Naturally there are those in the west who believe anything they see on TV, but you will not sway those in the Middle East to accept American 'democracy' when you keep on bombing them and giving those bombs to Israel.

or a reminder.

Michael Dobbs wrote in the Washington Post in 2002:

"US officials saw Baghdad as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and even Jordan - a Middle East version of the 'domino theory' in Southeast Asia.  That was enough to turn (Saddam) Hussein into a strategic partner and for US diplomats in Baghdad to routinely refer to Iraqi forces as 'the good guys' in contrast to the Iranians, who were depicted as 'the bad guys'... The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H W Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

Of course no-one listens.  Michael Dobbs was one of the very few in the mainstream media to remind people of the thoughts and actions of US policymakers.

But further...

"US support for Iraq continued even after US Secretary of State George Schultz received an intelligence briefing from State Department analyst Jonathan T Howe stating that Iraqi troops were resorting to 'almost daily use' of chemical weapons against the Iranians.  The Reagan administration was so pleased with Iraq's role in driving back the Iranian hordes that it dispatched Donald H Rumsfeld to Iraq in 1983... where he shook Saddam's hand, pledged that the United States would regard 'any major reversal of Iraq's fortunes as a strategic defeat for the west' and that Washington was ready for a full resumption of diplomatic relations."

When Saddam actually started gassing people, his government was considered 'legitimate', while the media of the time "expressed no surprise that Iraq would use gas, given the ferocity of their Iranian enemy."

"In 1988 reports emerged that Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons against his own citizens - Iraqi Kurds in the town of Halabja.  Several US senators... introduced the Prevention of Genocide Act which sought to impose sanctions against Iraq for its continuing use of chemical weapons and for other human rights violations.  The act passed in the Senate unanimously, but the Reagan White House launched a campaign to turn it back and succeeded in killing the bill...  "Secretary of State Colin Powell was then the national security advisor who orchestrated Ronald Reagan's decision to give Hussein a pass for gassing the Kurds.... In the fall of 1989, only nine months before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, then-president Bush overrode the objections of officials in three different government agencies and signed a top-secret directive ordering closer ties with Baghdad and opening the way for USD1 billion in new aid."

Taken from 'Weapons of Mass Deception', Sheldon Rampton & John Stauber.

And the US and UN have the audacity to try Hussein on the killing of those Kurds when, not only did they know about it, but allowed it to happen and even approved it.  I'm not saying Hussein shouldn't be tried, but there was no action at the time and meanwhile the US government is responsible for the 'genocide' of thousands of citizens in the Middle East.  The whole thing is a farce and is it any wonder that Saddam's defence lawyers are being assassinated so these facts are not brought out into the open?

I apologise if my previous entry seemed a little harsh.  I was just so angry and get fed up with people's apathy.  When are people going to make the connection that their greed and selfishness is rapidly destroying the environment?

Back later - have to pop out on an errand.