Juxtaposing General Patreaus comment and Bush Administration's Propaganda

In his April, 9 2008 testimony at House Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq General Petraeus said:

Sons of Iraq have also have contributed to the discovery of improvised explosive devices and weapons and explosive caches. As this next chart shows, in fact we have already found more caches in 2008 than we found in all of 2006.

In the 2003 as the US forces were rushing toward Baghdad there were so few soldiers that they had to ignore the Saddam's weapons caches. As the Iraqi army fled, locals helped themselves to the inventory of weapons that Saddam had amassed for 30 years. General Peataeus seems to imply that now with help of the "Sons of Iraq" they are finding them.

This is interesting when you juxtapose this comment with the almost daily claim of Bush administration that Iran is supplying Iranian made weapons to Iraq. Or may be General didn't realize his claim of success would negate the other key porpaganda theme of Bush administration.

In 2007 Bush administration told the world that Iran is supplying weapons to Iraq. Now, 2008 General is telling us he has been finding large caches of weapons. Therefore in 2007 there were lot of Iraqi weapons available to the Iraqi insurgency. If there were such huge caches of weapons in Iraq, would it make sense for Iranian to actually ship any weapons to Iraq?

It just doesn't make sense.

What is common between China-Tibet, Israel-Palestine, and India-Pakistan conflicts?

Israeli-Palestinian,
China-Tibet, India-Pakistan.

Answer: All three are legacies of the British Colonialism.

Show of Force!

Government forces cover their face, fire in the air to as "show of force" (desperation?)



Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari shouts instructions to Iraqi Army soldiers to secure a street in a show of force in a militia stronghold that has seen some of the fiercest fighting in the southern city of Basra some 550 kilometers (about 340 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, April 2, 2008. An Iraqi commander led a convoy of troops firing into the air Wednesday in a show of force in a militia stronghold that has seen some of the fiercest fighting in the southern city of Basra.
(AP Photo/Nabil al-Jurani




Iraqi soldier secures a street in a show of force in a militia stronghold that has seen some of the fiercest fighting in the southern city of Basra some 550 kilometers (about 340 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, April 2, 2008. An Iraqi commander led a convoy of troops firing into the air Wednesday in a show of force in a militia stronghold that has seen some of the fiercest fighting in the southern city of Basra.
(AP Photo/Nabil al-Jurani)


Meanwhile the citizens are showing their view:


Iraqi children stand on top of a destroyed Iraqi Army's vehicle in Basra some 550 kilometers (about 340 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, April 2, 2008. The Basra joint operations center announced that a gun battle broke out during the raid and an Iraqi army vehicle was set on fire. An Iraqi commander led a convoy of troops firing into the air Wednesday in a show of force in a militia stronghold that has seen some of the fiercest fighting in the southern city of Basra.
(AP Photo/Nabil al-Jurani)

The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities

The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities

McCain vs McCain

\

Light the sky!

How media tries to soften and spin the Iranian Intelligence report....

In article "Rice disputes openness of Iran democracy" There is an interesting double standard. Notice:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, working to defend U.S. strategy on Iran, questioned the openness of the Iranian government on Wednesday after its president said a new U.S. intelligence review concluding his country has stopped developing nuclear weapons amounts to "a final shot" against Tehran's critics.

and

Earlier Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said the conclusions of the report, which said that Iran's nuclear weapons development program has been halted because of international pressure, amounted to "a declaration of victory for the Iranian nation against the world powers over the nuclear issue."

In both paragraph the author adds his own interpretation of the report (i.e. "intelligence review concluding his country has stopped developing nuclear weapons") to Ahmadinejad's comment.

Ahamdinejad comment most likely is referring to the fact the intelligence agencies are saying Iran is NOT working on nuclear weapons. As such all US propaganda to the contrary is null and void. Hence "final shot", "victory" comment.

At the same time the author may like to juxtapose his reading of the document with that of the Iranian president. But then he doesn't do similar juxtaposing in US administration official. Check this paragraph:

"I am not going to comment on that comment except to say that what the National Intelligence Estimate shows, and the transparency with which the administration released it, is what it means to live in a democracy and I hope one day that the people of Iran will live in a democracy too," she [Dr Rice] said.

Even though, Dr Rice doesn't want to "comment on the comment" the author puts her comment in with no editorial! There is no juxtaposition of the facts of the report with her statement. It could say something like:

Dr Rice said that the conclusion of the report, which said Bush administration has been knowingly misleading the world in its propaganda against Iran, as sign of "transparency". She went on further to say that she wishes Iranian would live under same deception!

Ever wonder....

Who voted For Sarkzoy?

In The Shock Doctrine and Baghdad Year Zero Naomi Klein argues that the economic policies behind US foreign policy is the root cause of its problems in Iraq and elsewhere. She further argues that these policies are based on Milton Friedman and Chicago School economic models. Interestingly, Milton Friedman is said to be the "Economist who gave voice to the monetary theories which propelled the governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher".

There is an interesting interview with Milton Friedman billed as "his last interview the November before he died at his apartment in San Francisco overlooking the bay and the Golden Gate Bridge". In it he says:

NPQ | Even in the free market US, President Bush, at the height of his power, couldn't convince the American public to move toward privatizing Social Security.

Friedman | There is no doubt this aging issue will test the argument over the efficiency of the market versus political demands for government to step in.

On the question of whether inequality of the market might lead the less-well-off democratic majority to push for state control, I'm not so sure. The important issue is not how much inequality there is but how much opportunity there is for individuals to get out of the bottom classes and into the top. If there is enough movement upward, people will accept the efficiency of the markets. If you have [an illusion of] opportunity, there is a great tolerance for inequality. That has been the saving grace of the American system.

The Friedman's policy fails because it is hard to paint illusion of opportunity in societies where community is more important than the individual. When individuals talks to one another in coffee shops, tea houses, or chat rooms they quickly realize in world, dominated by multinationals and Wall Marts (aka Free Market) there is no opportunity.

Redacted Movie by Brian De Palma

Charlie Rose Interview with Ahmadinejad

Dilbert got it right....

Dilbert is feeling smelling rats in current Propaganda:
A Feeling I'm Being Had

General Petraeus exposes Bush administration hypocrocy! Iraqi insurgents "were already well enough armed "

Check out this exchange on General Petraeus hearings on 9/11/07:

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: ....You’ve touted success in Anbar province. Just a few months ago, the tribes in Anbar province were shooting and killing Americans. Recently they decided they dislike the terrorists there more than they dislike Americans, so they are cooperating with us for the time being, while we give them money and arms. This recalls to my mind our policy in the 1980s in Afghanistan of arming the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. We all know how that short-term policy hurt our long-term interest. What guarantee can you give us that the tribes in Anbar are not going to turn around and use the guns that we gave them against our troops once they feel we no longer serve their interest? Isn't that a short-sited policy?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them. What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have -- they were already well enough armed -- at al-Qaeda, because they had come to reject the Taliban-like ideology and barbarity of al-Qaeda in the Euphrates River Valley.

General is saying the Sunnis (which are the smallest minority in Iraq -- about 20%) "were already well enough armed" and didn't need US to arm them. The same general then wants to tell us that other Iraqi groups (representing majority of Shiites) get their arms from outside (Iran and Syria are the current propaganda targets).

It is interesting that at the begining of the war the US policy was to go against Syria to stop the flow of arms to Sunni groups, but now the general admits that these groups were well armed all along!

It is also interesting to note that general recognizes that al-Queda's strategy of surge in violence policy in Iraq was the reason why the Iraqi tribes -- that were originally allied with Al Queda against US -- decided to "pointed the weapons" toward Al Queda. Yet he fails to see that his proposed surge against the Shiites have also caused the Shiite groups -- that were allied with US against Saddam Hussein -- to also turn their gun against US forces.

Powered by ScribeFire.

easy credit became the American substitute for decent wages

An interesting statement:
The sad truth is that people earning Wal-Mart-level wages tend to favor the fashions available at the Salvation Army. Nor do they have much use for Wal-Mart's other departments, such as Electronics, Lawn and Garden, and Pharmacy.

It gets worse though. While with one hand the high-rollers, H. Lee Scott among them, squeezed the American worker's wages, the other hand was reaching out with the tempting offer of credit. In fact, easy credit became the American substitute for decent wages. Once you worked for your money, but now you were supposed to pay for it. Once you could count on earning enough to save for a home. Now you'll never earn that much, but, as the lenders were saying -- heh, heh -- do we have a mortgage for you!

Source

Bush will and won't say

According to Bush to invoke Vietnam in arguing against Iraq pullout

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush will say.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.

But he wont say:

...Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Iraq is that the price of America's occupation paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like: Shock-and-awe, Abu Gharib, Mission Accomplished, Torture, Neocons, Fallujah, Samarra, ...

Deja vu

Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking intelligence officer and psychologist conversation with Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Hermann Goering proclaimed that although "the people don't want war," they "can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders."

What is the secret? A must listen speech.

One of my favorite stories about the Cold War concerns a group of Russian journalists who were touring the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by the host for their impressions. "I have to tell you," said the spokesman, "that we were astonished to find after reading all the newspapers and watching TV day after day that all the opinions on all the vital issues are the same. To get that result in our country we send journalists to the gulag. We even tear out their fingernails. Here you don't have to do any of that. What is the secret?"

What is the secret? It is a question seldom asked in newsrooms, in media colleges, in journalism journals, and yet the answer to that question is critical to the lives of millions of people. On August 24 last year the New York Times declared this in an editorial: "If we had known then what we know now the invasion if Iraq would have been stopped by a popular outcry." This amazing admission was saying, in effect, that journalists had betrayed the public by not doing their job and by accepting and amplifying and echoing the lies of Bush and his gang, instead of challenging them and exposing them. What the Times didn't say was that had that paper and the rest of the media exposed the lies, up to a million people might be alive today

Listen to the speech:

Freedom Next Time: Filmmaker & Journalist John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire

Inside the Surge, and Just in time Bin Ladin Videos

Video: Inside the surge



Bin Laden Uncovers Secret Formula to Halt Ageing Process

Trying to make sense of it....

In the article Warplanes keep watch on Iraqi insurgents you have:

Controlling the air is what F-16 pilot Maj. Paul Miller does for a living. He's now learning how to fight a ground war.


Four years into the war in Iraq, the challenges of fighting insurgents are changing the way U.S. fighter pilots approach their missions. The training has shifted from traditional tactics of air dominance to emphasize more specialized roles as eyes in the sky — such as locating buried bombs or honing in on small, highly mobile targets.

"This is a lot more on the go," Miller said from this base on Japan's northern frontier. "It's a pickup game."

.....

"We may not be able to read a license plate, but we can tell you if the guy behind the bush is smoking, and whether he's smoking with his right or left hand," Miller said. "It's that exact."
.....

I am then wondering how come there has never been irrefutable evidence that Iran or Syria, or indeed any foreign country has been supplying weapons to Iraq or Afghanistan?

An interesting read

More on the current round of propaganda:

Consider the Source: 'NYT' Reporter Targets Iran