The Grand Ayatollah of Nuclear Menace

As we all know only too well, the United States and Israel would hate to see Iran possessing nuclear weapons. Being “the only nuclear power in the Middle East” is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. But — in the real, non-propaganda world — is USrael actually fearful of an attack from a nuclear-armed Iran? In case you’ve forgotten…

In 2007, in a closed discussion, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that in her opinion “Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel.” She “also criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.” ¹

2009: “A senior Israeli official in Washington” asserted that “Iran would be unlikely to use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the certainty of retaliation.” ²

In 2010 the Sunday Times of London (January 10) reported that Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, war hero, pillar of the Israeli defense establishment, and former director-general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission, “believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons.”

Early last month, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told a television audience: “Are they [Iran] trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No, but we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability.” ³

A week later we could read in the New York Times (January 15) that “three leading Israeli security experts — the Mossad chief, Tamir Pardo, a former Mossad chief, Efraim Halevy, and a former military chief of staff, Dan Halutz — all recently declared that a nuclear Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel.”

Then, a few days afterward, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, in an interview with Israeli Army Radio (January 18), had this exchange:

Question: Is it Israel’s judgment that Iran has not yet decided to turn its nuclear potential into weapons of mass destruction?

Barak: People ask whether Iran is determined to break out from the control [inspection] regime right now … in an attempt to obtain nuclear weapons or an operable installation as quickly as possible. Apparently that is not the case.

Lastly, we have the US Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, in a report to Congress: “We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. … There are “certain things [the Iranians] have not done” that would be necessary to build a warhead. ⁴

Admissions like the above — and there are others — are never put into headlines by the American mass media; indeed, only very lightly reported at all; and sometimes distorted — On the Public Broadcasting System (PBS News Hour, January 9), the non-commercial network much beloved by American liberals, the Panetta quote above was reported as: “But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us.” Flagrantly omitted were the preceding words: “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No …” ⁵

One of Israel’s leading military historians, Martin van Creveld, was interviewed by Playboy magazine in June 2007: Read more È

It is More Like ‘Them’ vs. ‘You’

The Decision-Makers-of-Wars have decided to end one in 2013. That is, after twelve years, after they made the decision to make that war in the first place. No talk of terrorists, wins, or liberation – no more. At least on that one. Same as the other one. The one that they ended with no WMD, no terrorists, and no democracy; only with added massive civilian casualties, fallen and injured soldiers, and loss of billions of dollars- leaving behind a civil-war-torn nation in rubbles. And it looks like the Decision-Makers-of- Wars will be announcing another war to make. Just like the other ones, and the ones before that. And then there is you, my friends- my loyal patriotic American veterans and all those-that-are-yours.

I want you to take a few minutes and take a look at those involved in making decisions to make wars and continue those wars. Please do it. You don’t have to place them under a microscope or analyze them for hours. Just engage in a cursory evaluation. They are alive and well. They still have their legs. Yes. They all possess two legs. They still have their arms; and, their eyes, ears, and all ten fingers. They still get to see and be with their sons and daughters- that is, fully alive offspring. And their children too have their arms, legs, eyes, ears, and all ten fingers. Their wallets are thick, very thick, and have been getting thicker; nonstop. They are all much richer than they were before each one of these wars. Read more È

Sibel Edmonds on Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock

This morning I was interviewed by Ernest Hancock. There are a few things I like about Ernest’s show: long enough to really cover the subjects, daring and bold, flexible enough to get into unexpected topics spontaneously, and its ability to always get me fired up. As you know I have far less inhibitions when I write than when I talk. Well, all that goes out the window when I’m interviewed by Mr. Hancock. And today was no exception. We started with our nonstop war machine, got into the US media, and bam, from there we landed on the topic of systemic government indoctrination and the creation of our culture of outsourcing. Sounds intriguing, right? Well, you be the judge-here is the interview (I’m the 3^rd guest – the last 45 minutes of the audio clip): Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

 

Applying a “Fairness Doctrine� to Santorum’s ‘Dead Scientists are a Wonderful Thing’

This post is a major exception for Boiling Frogs Post. I almost never bother commenting or giving coverage to ‘easy-come, easy-go’ dime-a-dozen flake personalities in politics. As you know we have never even named that ‘one’ from Alaska, or the other one from ‘The Pizza Chain,’ … However, I just watched the video below, and couldn’t help myself. You must watch it, you must let that critical thinking kick in, and then afterwards, apply this particular half-psychopath, half-sociopath, and a quarter-flake’s rational across the board using a fairness doctrine to see and understand the real implications of what he is saying:

Based on what this US presidential candidate is saying all our past and present scientists who’ve been involved in developing many thousands of weapons of mass destruction for many decades should go on Code Red Alert, and maybe even go under the Federal Protection Program. Because all those family members, direct and indirect victims of our WMD in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Agent Orange, Kuwait, Iraq, Cambodia … may be on their way. Sanctioned and justified by Mr. Santorum and those who agree with him (in practice as well) in our government, they are now justified to come and take out hundreds, if not thousands of scientists in our universities, all Pentagon branches , RAND… who have been developing thousands of deadly WMDs for a government who has been using them for many decades.

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

Let’s Make This Principled & Consistent; Let’s Go to War with All!

Our nation is famous for many things. Things that it is known for. Things that in one way or another represent it. Things that become synonymous with America or being Americans. Our foreign policy and our presidents are no exception. If you were to ask the recipients of our foreign policy there would be one adjective they’d all agree upon. Unanimously. There is one common and unanimously agreed upon ‘thing’ when it comes to US foreign policy and practices: It is called Hypocrisy. Granted there are slight variations here and there, but the never changing and ever present hypocrisy always remains.

Read the newspapers and watch the coverage of international news broadcast on our networks and cables. There it is. Glaring hypocrisy. Every single day. Hundreds of times a day. Listen to presidential and state department briefings and statements. There it is. Filled with it. Shameless hypocrisy. Check out our congressional records. Day in and Day out. Ever present. Consistent hypocrisy.

I could set up a whole new website to track US foreign policy hypocrisy examples, and it would be filled with them, tens of pages a day, and hundreds of instances. You don’t even need to have a well-developed hypocrisy-detector. It is so bold and obvious even way below-average processing minds can detect it! I am very serious.

This morning I found at least 32 bold examples of our hypocrisy-ridden foreign policy, practices and rhetoric. And I was not even looking for them. They were everywhere: mainstream, pseudo-alternative streams, semi-alternative streams … You name it! I wanted to pick one and showcase it. I could have picked any of them: Bahrain, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Israel, Turkey … Basically any of our ‘intimate allies’ in ‘this and that’ part of the world. You name it. However, I exercised a bit of self-restrain and settled for one. And, here it is [All Emphasis Mine]: Read more È

Hand-wringing over Iran’s nuclear program has been a mainstay of western political discourse. Indeed, fear mongering over the possibility of an independent Iranian nuclear program has become so commonplace that it seldom raises an eyebrow, even among the most cynical observers of the bought-and-paid-for corporate media.

To defuse the glaring hypocrisy of the world’s greatest nuclear superpower chastising a nation halfway around the world for pursuing a nuclear program that is admittedly still incapable of even producing a single nuclear weapon, it is often stressed that the IAEA ruled Iran to be in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. However, what is never mentioned in this context is that there is in fact only one nation in the Middle East that is not a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty itself, and only one country with a nuclear arsenal, an arsenal that has never been inspected by the IAEA or anybody else: Israel.

This is our EyeOpener Report by James Corbett, presenting history, facts and hypocrisies on the world’s sixth nuclear superpower, Israel, and the United States that still refuses to even admit the openly-acknowledged status of Israel as a nuclear power.

Watch the Preview Here

Watch the Full Video Report here

*The Transcript for this video is available at Corbett Report: Click Here

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by subscribing .

A recent book by former FBI agent Ali Soufan shows that the same CIA officer was involved in generating intelligence that falsely linked al-Qaeda to first Iran and then Iraq. The officer was also involved in a notorious torture episode and was reprimanded by the Agency’s inspector general.

The officer, who Soufan refers to as “Fred,� but whose real first name is “Albert� according to a February 2011 Associated Press article, served at the CIA station in Jordan in 1999. During that time, al-Qaeda, aided by a collection of freelance terrorists headed by Abu Zubaidah, attempted to commit a series of attacks in the country, known as the Millennium Plot. However, the attacks were foiled by the local Jordanian intelligence service, working with the CIA and FBI.

During the investigations of the plotters, Albert drafted a series of official cables that were later withdrawn. Although the withdrawing of the cables was first mentioned in a July 2006 article by Lawrence Wright for the New Yorker, Wright did not mention what was in the cables or by whom they were drafted. The content of one of them and the drafter were first revealed upon the publication of Soufan’s book in mid-September 2011.

According to Soufan, one of the twelve withdrawn cables falsely stated that the group of terrorists later arrested for the Millennium Plot in Jordan was linked to Iran. Albert’s reasoning for this was that the group had trained in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, an area of high activity by the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah. Therefore, the group in Jordan had to be working with Hezbollah and be backed by Iran.

Soufan was also sending reports to Washington, and someone in DC noticed that Albert claimed a link to Iran while Soufan did not. An investigation followed and Soufan was proved right—the Millennium Plot had nothing to do with Iran—leading to the withdrawal of Albert’s cables. In his book, Soufan attributes Albert’s error to “a tendency to jump to conclusions without facts.�

Albert had previously worked with the FBI as a translator, but had failed to make agent status, and Soufan says he was reputed to bear a grudge against the Bureau for this slight.

The contents of the other eleven cables that had to be withdrawn are unknown.

The second episode, where Albert played a part in the generation of false information that helped justify the invasion of Iraq, is notorious. Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a senior militant training camp commander in Afghanistan, was captured by US forces and turned over to the FBI towards the end of 2001. Al-Libi was being interrogated by George Crouch and Russell Fincher, an FBI agent a group of CIA officers had withheld information from in the run-up to 9/11. Al-Libi was co-operating with Crouch and Fincher, and had even provided information about an ongoing plot in Yemen.

Albert burst into the interrogation room, told al-Libi that information about plots in Yemen was meaningless, and made threats against him. As a result of this, al-Libi clammed up and refused to provide more information that day. Albert was subsequently banned from Bagram air base, where the interrogation was being conducted.

However, Albert’s superior, CIA Chief of Station in Afghanistan Richard Blee, complained to Washington about the alleged lack of information from the interrogation of al-Libi and initiated a turf war between the Bureau and the Agency. The CIA won and Albert returned to Bagram, taking control of al-Libi.

At one point, Albert threatened to rape al-Libi’s mother. According to Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side, Albert screamed, “You’re going to Egypt! And while you’re there I’m going to find your mother, and fuck her.â€� Soufan’s book contains a slightly different quote: “If you don’t tell me about what you are planning [redacted, evidently “in Egyptâ€�], I’m going to bring your mother here and fuck her in front of you.â€� Read more È