General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGlenn Greenwald Tears Apart the Propaganda Driving the Insane Push for War With Iran
Glenn Greenwald Tears Apart the Propaganda Driving the Insane Push for War With IranThere are similarities in the run up to the Iraq war, but there is also a key difference -- this time, the driving force for the push for war with Iran isn't Washington.
By Joshua Holland
March 6, 2012
Iran is diplomatically isolated, has a weak and antiquated military relative to Israel and the United States, and its economy is being squeezed hard by international sanctions. The consensus among both American and Israeli intelligence agencies is that an attack on the country would be disastrous, and might lead to a regional nuclear arms race.
But that view seems to have a limited impact on the mainstream discourse surrounding Iran. Last week, Glenn Greenwald, writing on Salon, noted that for months, Americans have been subjected to this continuous, coordinated, repetitive messaging from israeli officials, amplified through the US media.
This is generally how the establishment American media conducts the debate over whether to attack Iran: here are Israeli officials explaining why an attack is urgent and why the US must conduct it. Now here are American officials explaining why an attack can wait a little while longer but that it will happen if necessary to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon.
http://www.alternet.org/world/154415/glenn_greenwald_tears_apart_the_propaganda_driving_the_insane_push_for_war_with_iran/?page=entire
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Those weak losers who care about law
February 24, 2012
And then we heard the same thing on Wednesday night from Stephanie Cutter, President Obamas Deputy Campaign Manager. She appeared on MSNBC to discuss that nights GOP debate with Lawrence ODonnell, who subjected her to the very hard-hitting adversarial journalism for which that cable channel has become so justifiably admired when it comes to reporting on the Obama administration. After boldly challenging Cutter to explain what President Obamas large polling lead tells us about the GOP challengers (it shows the Nation adores the leader and hates the GOP), he then invited her to act as truth squad and identify the biggest lie told about the President during the GOP debate. This is how she responded:
The most egregious falsehood would be the Presidents position on Iran, whether its Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, attacking the President for not being tough enough on Iran. Ask any foreign policy expert out there, we have the toughest sanctions in place today than weve had in decades thanks to this President. . . . Now look at Mitt Romney. What he didnt say on the stage tonight is that just four years ago, when asked the same question on Iran, he said hed have to check with his lawyers. That does not make a Commander-in-Chief, somebody who has to check with his lawyers.
Of course, Candidate Obama, in 2007, when asked as part of an executive power questionnaire if a President could attack Iran without Congress, consulted with a long list of lawyers to prepare his response and, concerning that specific issue, said: the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. During the campaign, candidate Obama vowed: No more ignoring the law when its inconvenient. That is not who we are. . . . We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers. Hillary Clinton co-sponsored legislation to ban President Bush from attacking Iran without the approval of Congress. Joe Biden actually threatened to impeach Bush if he attacked Iran without Congressional approval.
But that was then, before they were in charge of the war-making machine. Now, Mitt Romneys tepid suggestion that a President should probably first ascertain his Constitutional powers before attacking another country is, according to the Obama campaign, proof of his losers-ish weakness: That does not make a Commander-in-Chief, somebody who has to check with his lawyers, decreed Cutter, following in the illustrious footsteps of George W. Bush, Karl Rove and Sarah Palin. Thus: maybe a President has to take that old, antiquated, pre-9/11 oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, but that doesnt mean you actually have to believe it. What kind of loser checks with his lawyers and cares about law?
Read the full article at:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/24/e/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AlterNet Radio: Glenn Greenwald on the Push for Iran War
By Staff | Sourced from AlterNet
March 4, 2012
(Excerpt)
Joshua Holland: Are we seeing the same kind of run-up to war with Iran as we saw in 2003 during the lead-up to our attack on Iraq?
Glenn Greenwald: There are obvious similarities. The claims basically are the same. The principal claim in the lead-up to the war in Iraq was that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear weapons. This was the claim that probably made the most number of people willing to support it. That is the same claim being made about Iran -- that they are too developing nuclear weapons, even though American intelligence agencies and virtually everybody else, including Israeli intelligence, says there is no evidence that Iran has actually decided to build a nuclear weapon.
Its their nuclear program that is causing the concern. I think the core similarity is that we are talking about a nation that hasnt attacked any other nation and that isnt threatening to attack any other nation. So its not a preemptive war; its actually a preventative war. That's what the Iraq war was, and the Iran war would be.
The reality is a lot of times in the American media discussion we like to depict the Iranian opposition as this pro-Western, liberalized political faction, and to some extent they are. But the reality is that all political factions are staunchly in favor of continuing with the nuclear program on the grounds that Iran has the absolute right to develop a nuclear energy program, and governments around the world agree with Iran on that.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/825134/alternet_radio%3A_glenn_greenwald_on_the_push_for_iran_war%3B_occupy_and_union_busting%3B_the_murdoch_hacking_scandal/
aquart
(69,014 posts)Political posturing for election results.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their campaign promises.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
xchrom
(108,903 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)bvar22
(39,909 posts)I can.
I have lived long enough to hear this same beat too many times.
Herman Goering said it best, and you can currently observe this process at work with the target being Iran.
"...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."--- Herman Goering, Spandau Prison, 1946
Same Shit
Different Bag
[font size=4 color=firebrick]
If you're not FOR the new WAR in
you're WITH
sendero
(28,552 posts).... with four, count 'em four "experts" all singing pretty much the same tune that if Iran got a nuke it would be the end of the world as we know it.
As is par for the course with lap-dog boot-licker NPR there was no counterpoint, no rebuttal no nothing.
Is Iran having a nuke a threat to us? I don't know. But if I thought that they had one I'd tell them the same thing I'd tell Pakistan or North Korea or anyone else with a nuke.
If you detonate a nuke against us, your country, every square mile of it, will be glass within 24 hours.
boppers
(16,588 posts)"If you detonate a nuke against us, your country, every square mile of it, will be glass within 24 hours."
Only if your "country" is Vatican City. Maybe Luxembourg.
The US only has 5,113 warheads. That's far, far too little to turn a country the size of Iran into glass.
Not that I'm saying that more weapons are a desirable solution, but your math is wrong.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)countryjake
(8,554 posts)BlueIris
(29,135 posts)Never going to happen! Damn hippies!
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)via MSM.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but the guy who has been head of the mossad for the past decade also said it would be foolish. and this is the guy who has been assasinating scientists and messing up their centrifuges with viruses and worms.
i don't care for greenwald, and i disagree with quite a few of his conclusions here. but in general he has it right.
excuse not to write
(147 posts)Same as the Old War.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)ty.