Temporary Disabled. :)
please Go back
MY LAI VET SAYS: HERE IT COMES AGAIN IN IRAQ Tony Swindell recalls "Butcher's Brigade" in '69; says "gooks" have now become "ragheads", every adult male is an "insurgent" ... atrocities against Iraqi civilians are soon going to explode in America's face; US Government's courtroom jihads against terror stumble. Alexander Cockburn on Lodi case where Feds paid $250,000 to man who "saw" world's three top terrorists at mosque. As neocons and Israel lobby howl for US to bomb Teheran, an Iranian outlines simple path to peace. CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now!
|
Today's Stories April 19, 2006 Christopher Reed April 18, 2006 Paul Craig Roberts Eric
Wingerter Juan Santos Greg
Weiher Sam Bahour Behzad
Yaghmaian Website of
the Day
April 17, 2006 Kevin Zeese Uri Avnery Norman Solomon John Ross Laila al-Haddad Jeffrey Blankfort Website of the Day
April 15 / 16, 2006 Jeffrey
St. Clair Ralph
Nader Thaddeus
Hoffmeister Kevin Prosen
/ Dave Zirin Thomas
P. Healy Kristoffer
Larsson Fred
Gardner Edwin Krales Brian
Cloughley John Holt Seth
Sandronsky Rafael Renteria Michael
Ortiz Hill William A.
Cook Gideon
Levy Andrew Wimmer Madis
Senner Michael Kuehl Mark
Scaramella Nate Mezmer Jesse
Walker Poets' Basement Website
of the Weekend
April 14, 2006 Col.
Dan Smith Saul Landau Stan
Cox Kevin Zeese Brian
McKinlay Howard Meyers Ishmael
Reed Website of
the Day
April 13, 2006 CounterPunch
News Service Norman
Solomon Stanley Heller Jeff
Birkenstein Evelyn J.
Pringle Michael
Donnelly Kamran Matin Website
of the Day
April 12, 2006 Vijay Prashad Alan
Maass Dave Lindorff Ron
Jacobs Ramzy Baroud Randall
Dodd Missy Comley
Beattie P. Sainath Website of
the Day
April 11, 2006 Al
Krebs Lawrence
R. Velvel Sonia Nettinin Willliam
S. Lind Robert Ovetz Pratyush
Chandra Grant F.
Smith Laray
Polk Francis Boyle José
Pertierra Website of
the Day
April 10, 2006 Ralph
Nader Heather Gray Uri
Avnery Joshua Frank Seth
Sandronsky Michael Leonardi Evelyn
Pringle Tom Kerr Lucinda
Marshall Website of
the Day April 7 -9, 2006 Alexander
Cockburn Jeffrey
St. Clair Patrick
Cockburn David Vest Dave
Lindorff Gary Leupp Elaine
Cassel Saul Landau James
Ridgeway Ron Jacobs John
Walsh Ramzy Baroud Christopher
Brauchli Todd Chretien Jonathan
Scott John Bomar Michele
Brand Ronan Sheehan Mickey
Z. Don Monkerud Michael
Dickinson Website
of the Weekend
| April 19 , 2006 Bait-and-Switch on IranWhen "Diplomacy" Means WarBy NORMAN SOLOMON One of the nation’s leading pollsters, Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center, wrote a few weeks ago that among Americans “there is little potential support for the use of force against Iran.” This month the White House has continued to emphasize that it is committed to seeking a diplomatic solution. Yet the U.S. government is very likely to launch a military attack on Iran within the next year. How can that be? In the run-up to war, appearances are often deceiving. Official events may seem to be moving in one direction while policymakers are actually headed in another. On their own timetable, White House strategists implement a siege of public opinion that relies on escalating media spin. One administration after another has gone through the motions of staying on a diplomatic track while laying down flagstones on a path to war. Several days ago President Bush said that “the doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon” -- and he quickly added that “in this case, it means diplomacy.” On April 12 the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, urged the U.N. Security Council to take “strong steps” in response to Iran’s announcement of progress toward enriching uranium. Bush and Rice were engaged in a timeworn ritual that involves playacting diplomacy before taking military action. Seven years ago, President Clinton proclaimed that a U.S.-led NATO air war on Yugoslavia was starting because all peaceful avenues for dealing with the Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, had reached dead ends. The Clinton administration and the major U.S. media outlets failed to mention that Washington had handed Milosevic a poison-pill ultimatum in the fine print of the proposed Rambouillet accords -- with Appendix B stipulating that NATO troops would have nearly unlimited run of the entire Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Recent decades of American history are filled with such faux statesmanship: greasing the media wheels and political machinery for military interventions in Southeast Asia, the Caribbean, Central America and the Middle East. But the current administration’s eagerness to use “diplomacy” as a prop for going to war has been unusually brazen. On Jan. 31, 2003 -- five days before the ballyhooed speech by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to the U.N. Security Council -- the president held a private Oval Office meeting with Tony Blair. Summing up the discussion, which occurred nearly two months before the invasion of Iraq, the British prime minister’s chief foreign policy adviser David Manning noted in a memo: “Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning.” Meanwhile, President Bush and his top aides were still telling the public that they were pursuing all diplomatic channels in hopes of preventing war. Pundits have often advised presidents to use diplomatic maneuvers as virtual shams in order to legitimize the coming warfare. Charles Krauthammer blew his stack in mid-November 1998 when U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan seemed to make progress in averting a U.S. missile strike against Iraq. “It is perfectly fine for an American president to mouth the usual pieties about international consensus and some such,” Krauthammer wrote in Time magazine. “But when he starts believing them, he turns the Oval Office over to Kofi Annan and friends.” In late summer 2002, with momentum quickening toward an Iraq invasion, Newsweek foreign affairs columnist Fareed Zakaria urged the Bush administration to recognize the public-relations value of allowing U.N. weapons inspectors to spend some time in Iraq. “Even if the inspections do not produce the perfect crisis,” he wrote optimistically, “Washington will still be better off for having tried because it would be seen to have made every effort to avoid war.” When reality can’t hold a candle to perception, then reality is apt to become imperceptible. And in matters of war and peace, when powerful policy wonks in Washington effectively strive for appearances to be deceiving, the result is a pantomime of diplomacy that’s scarcely like the real thing. When the actual goal is war, the PR task is to make a show of leaving no diplomatic stone unturned. That kind of macabre ritual was underway on April 10 when the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, told reporters: “The president has made it very clear that we’re working with the international community to find a diplomatic solution when it comes to the Iranian regime and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.” The quote appeared the next morning in a New York Times news article under a headline that must have pleased the war planners at the White House: “Bush Insists on Diplomacy in Confronting a Nuclear Iran.” Ambrose Bierce defined diplomacy as “the patriotic act of lying for one’s country.” But there is nothing less patriotic than lying to one’s country -- especially when the result is a war that could have been avoided if honesty had substituted for mendacity. Norman Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy (www.accuracy.org) and author of “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death”.
|
Now Available
Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair
|