President Bush's many media sycophants tell us over and over that he is not the dribbling idiot of popular imagination. As Hugh Hewitt and other genuflectors who are ushered routinely into the great man's presence insist, George W. Bush is an intelligent, focused, purposeful leader, with a firm grasp on the complexities of modern statecraft.
Let us grant the truth of this assertion. (Indeed, I have already granted it, in two previous pieces: here and here.) What this means, of course, is that when Bush makes a statement in public, he is very much aware of what he is saying, and fully cognizant of the implications of his words. Therefore, when the intelligent, focused and purposeful Mr. Bush declared Monday — at a highly publicized meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai — that the Iranian government "has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon," we must assume that he knew full well that he was telling a barefaced lie, and that he told this lie for some specific purpose. That purpose is obvious: to further prepare the PR ground for inducing the public to go along with a future military strike against Iran.
This is precisely the same kind of focused and purposeful lie that Bush told when he declared, on national television, that there was "no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," and that Saddam Hussein had "aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operative of al Qaeda." In fact, the new lie is even more brazen, for it involves only the public statements of Iranian leaders, not cherry-picked and falsified nuggets of murky intelligence data buried from all public view. Anyone with a computer — or a memory — can readily determine that Iran's government leaders have insistently proclaimed their adamant opposition to building a nuclear weapon; the nation's theocratic leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, has even declared such a weapons program to be against the will of God.
The veracity of such statements might be controversial, of course. After all, there is no particular reason to believe that the government leaders in Iran are any more honest than, say, American presidents (or American clerics) have proven to be down through the years. But it is simply, literally, indisputably an outright lie to declare that the Iranian government has "proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon." The very opposite is true.
Bush knew he was lying — and he was lying with a purpose. He was trying to inject this poisonous falsehood into the public debate, and he succeeded. The remark went largely unnoticed by the corporate media, which focused on other themes in the joint press conference. The US media's flagship, the New York Times, did not even mention Bush's falsehood, much less point out the inaccuracy of the remark. As it does so often, the Times smoothed over Bush's actual words with a bland paraphrase, saying only that Bush "is deeply suspicious of [Iran's] nuclear ambitions, a view he reiterated Monday." (That is a further lie in aid of the original lie. Bush did not say he was "deeply suspicious" of Iran's nuclear ambitions; he said outright that Iran has declared its desire for nuclear weapons. There was no "suspicion" about the statement at all; Bush retailed it as an established fact.)
Some outlets, such as the Washington Post, did report Bush's remark — and even went on to note, at the very bottom of the story, that "Iran actually has not proclaimed a desire to build a nuclear weapon." But instead of asking why Bush would tell such a glaring, provocative lie, the Post merely, and meekly, allowed an Administration spokesman to explain away the remark with a non sequitor: Iran had once kept its nuclear energy program a secret and was now resisting some of the extra inspections demanded of them outside the the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that they have signed and followed for years. The spokesman did not explain how any of this constituted a "proclamation" of the desire to build nuclear weapons. And the Post obviously did not press him on it. Still, in this degraded age of journalism, I suppose we must give a gold star to the Post for even mentioning the discrepancy between Bush's statement and the truth.
(However, full marks must go to AFP for writing a whole story on the lie: Bush levels dubious Iran nuclear arms charge.
But they're just a bunch of foreigners anyway, so they don't count.
Only the echo chamber of the Homeland media is important in the new
warmongering campaign.)
Bush's deliberate lie ratchets that campaign up to another level. We
have already had months of stories asserting Iranian involvement in the
killing of American soldiers in Iran and Afghanistan — stories rooted,
like the WMD canards, in the murk of unsourced, unverifiable
"intelligence data" passed along by Bush's military minions to
credulous reporters. Now the Bush Regime is moving on to fantastical
falsehoods, based on nothing but a bold perversion of facts available
to anyone. And again, as with Iraq, the main war drum remains centered
on that ole debbil "mushroom cloud" rising over an American city. (And
why not? The Money Power militarists have made mountains of hay (and
silos of cash) with that threat for nigh on 60 years now.)
But before the "debate" about striking Iran slips away entirely into
the realm of fantasy, it might be useful to look at Iran's nuclear
program in context — provided here by Abbas Edalat and Mehrnaz Shahabi
in their Guardian article, Prospects of Armageddon:
...the calamity of Iraq has failed to dampen the
belligerent clique within the White House. The arrival of an IAEA team
in Tehran yesterday to discuss inspections is equally unlikely to
dissuade advocates of a strike, nuclear or conventional. Such an
assault would be in flagrant breach of the nuclear non-proliferation
treaty, but it would hardly be the first time the US has disregarded
the 1968 accord.
The treaty obliges nuclear states to pursue negotiations in good faith
towards cessation of the nuclear arms race and on to disarmament. It
also guarantees non-nuclear states help with and access to peaceful
nuclear know-how and technology. All five original nuclear states are
in violation of the treaty for failing to take effective action towards
disarmament. The US systematically contravened the treaty in the 1980s
and 1990s by successfully bringing pressure to bear on western
governments and companies, as well as China and Russia, not to enter
nuclear collaborations with Iran - which, as a signatory of the treaty,
has been entitled since 1970 to receive material, technology and
information for the peaceful use of nuclear power. This eventually
drove Iran, after the bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant by Israel
in 1981, on to the black market in order to pursue its nuclear
programme. The subsequent partial concealment of Iran's nuclear
activities gave rise to western suspicion of its nuclear ambitions, but
rarely does the media characterisation make reference to the context in
which the recourse to the black market took place. It is rare, too, to
see mention made of the fact that the IAEA has found no evidence of a
weapons programme after over 2,200 hours of snap inspections of Iranian
nuclear plants.
In marked contrast to western suspicion of Iran, the real nuclear
programme in Israel has been eagerly sponsored by the governments of
France, Britain and the US. They have actively supported Israel's
development of an arsenal estimated to include more than 200 warheads.
It is a weapons programme Tel Aviv is determined to shroud in secrecy.
Mordechai Vanunu served an 18-year prison sentence, including 12 years
in solitary confinement, after speaking publicly of Israel's possession
of nuclear weapons in 1986. Last month he was sentenced to a further
six months in prison for speaking to foreigners.
Even as Iran discusses renewed inspections with the IAEA, the risk of a
military attack on its nuclear facilities remains high. Israel's threat
to deploy nuclear bunker busters to destroy Iran's weapons potential is
in line with the US's national security strategy of 2006 and the
Pentagon's doctrine for joint nuclear operations which justifies use of
tactical nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states as a
"deterrent". The ultimate irony is that the leading violator of the
treaty, the US, and the region's sole nuclear power and non-signatory,
Israel, are contemplating nuclear strikes on the pretext of nuclear
limitation.
But this is nothing new. The National Security State that essentially
replaced the American republic in 1947 has always relied on "scaring
the hell out of the American people," as we noted here earlier this year, when writing of Bush's brutal regime change by proxy in Somalia:
It's clear that no nation on earth will be allowed to
organize its own society as it wishes, or work out its own internal
conflicts, if the American elite decides they have some financial or
strategic interest in the matter. The only nations immune to this
power-mad interventionist philosophy are those who can strike back hard
enough to upset the elite's apple cart. And thus we have Bush's "war on
terror" — which is, as we've often noted, simply an escalation of the
long-running, bipartisan foreign policy of the "National Security
State" that has ruled America for 60 years.
This year marks the anniversary of this coup d'etat: the 1947 "National
Security Act." Writing on the 50th anniversary of this supplanting of
the Republic, Gore Vidal wrote:
Fifty years ago, Harry Truman replaced the old republic
with a national-security state whose sole purpose is to wage perpetual
wars, hot, cold, and tepid. Exact date of replacement? February 27,
1947. Place: The White House Cabinet Room. Cast: Truman, Undersecretary
of State Dean Acheson, a handful of congressional leaders. Republican
senator Arthur Vandenberg told Truman that he could have his
militarized economy only IF he first "scared the hell out of the
American people" that the Russians were coming. Truman obliged. The
perpetual war began. Representative government of, by, and for the
people is now a faded memory. Only corporate America enjoys
representation by the Congress and presidents that it pays for in an
arrangement where no one is entirely accountable because those who have
bought the government also own the media. Now, with the revolt of the
Praetorian Guard at the Pentagon, we are entering a new and dangerous
phase. Although we regularly stigmatize other societies as rogue
states, we ourselves have become the largest rogue state of all. We
honor no treaties. We spurn international courts. We strike
unilaterally wherever we choose. We give orders to the United Nations
but do not pay our dues...we bomb, invade, subvert other states.
Although We the People of the United States are the sole source of
legitimate authority in this land, we are no longer represented in
Congress Assembled. Our Congress has been hijacked by corporate America
and its enforcer, the imperial military machine..."
Obviously, the situation that Vidal describes didn't begin with the
illegal implantation of the Bush Regime by the rightwing faction of the
Supreme Court (two of whom had family members profiting from the Bush
campaign) in December 2000. It has gone on for decades, under "liberal"
Democrats and "conservative" Republicans. But it has reached a new
pitch of intensity, audacity and recklessness today.
That audacity was on vivid display in the latest war-stoking lie to
issue from the presidential mouth: a lie rank with the smell of
corpse-flesh — past, present and future — that mingles with Bush's
every breath.
it is hard for most people,to even wrap their brains around the intensity of the evil that is the bush's and a brotherhood of wickedness...most people feel that is exagerated...'obscurantism'(the people are unworthy of the truth)is their standard policy.
1
August 09, 2007
a guest: ...
"Beautiful. Thank you. We've got to go eat a hamburger." And, "I can barely speak English." Quotes from a Bush family gathering to welcome President Sarkosy.
Since haute cuisine is a concept too foreign for Mr President, what confidence do we have that he understands what Iran is cooking up?
2
August 14, 2007
Write comment
Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: