No Questions Asked

I signed a contract and have a month to update No Questions Asked before it goes into production. The book should be out Jan. 1, 2007. Thanks for your support — I’ll let you know when it’s available in print.

In the meantime, since my time is limited, I’m going to post short items of interest. I’ll be back with longer blogs after June 1.

Here’s something that deserves some attention. If only members of Congress (and journalists) were as clear-headed and courageous as this actress we would all be better informed and better served. I also can’t agree with her more about Hillary Clinton. I used to like her a lot, but now it seems her opinion can be sold to the highest bidder.

Sarandon tells of Iraq death threat
Speaking out against the Iraq war left the Hollywood actress Susan Sarandon and her family facing death threats and a stream of vicious attacks from the public and the media, she reveals today.
….
In an interview on the Jonathan Dimbleby Programme that will be aired on ITV1 today, she said her stance meant she was labelled a ‘Bin Laden Lover’. ‘The papers attacked my kids,’ she said. ‘I don’t think I ever thought that someone would really kill me… although some said, “I’d like to knock her off,” on the radio.’
….
But she said that every time anything happened the Republicans would ‘try to play that card’ and criticised the Democrats for failing to stand up to Bush. ‘There was no reason for Hillary Clinton, for instance, to vote (for the war), for John Kerry to vote, they were protecting their reputations. They crumbled under the pressure and it was a very lonely, very scary time to ask a question. That’s a horrible condition to exist in a democracy.’

Hillary Clinton, added Sarandon, lacked principles. ‘I think she’s a politician like everyone else.’

I don’t think this needs any comments.

US admits Iraq is terror ’cause’
By Tom Baldwin
Report says that 11,000 attacks worldwide shows the war has become driving factor for extremists
THREE years after its invasion of Iraq the US Administration acknowledged yesterday that the war has become “a cause” for Islamic extremists worldwide and there is a risk of the country becoming a safe haven for terrorists hoping to launch fresh attacks on America.

According to CIA data released yesterday, there were 11,111 terrorist incidents last year, killing more than 14,600 non-combatants, including 8,300 in Iraq. Of the 56 American civilians killed by terrorists in 2005, some 47 of them were in Iraq.

The figures in the State Department’s annual report on terror represented a fourfold rise compared with 2004, partly because it has adopted a broader definition of such incidents since having to withdraw data used two years ago on the ground that it was grossly understated. Officials conceded yesterday that the rising violence in Iraq was a factor in last year’s figures, saying that fatalities from terrorism there had “probably doubled”.

Information Clearing House had a really interesting piece the other day about how Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speeches have been translated in a manner that distorts the meaning.

Being a skeptic myself I asked a Farsi speaking friend to translate an original text of the speech given by him — the one in which he allegedly said he wants to use nuclear weapons against Israel. We used the official version of the speech printed in the original language (Farsi) to determine whether he had actually said he wanted to destroy Israel and the United States.

Sure enough, the translation in Information Clearinghouse’s story is accurate — what he said was he thought the world would be better off without Israel and the U.S., which is very different from what was reported in the media.

It makes me wonder who is providing the translations that so conveniently support the Bush administration’s point of view. How do journalists (and especially American journalists) know what they are printing is fact when so few of them understand the language of the country they are covering?

Here is the story:

Does Iran’s President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12790.htm

An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran’s President Ahmadinejad .

By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann
Translation to English: Erik Appleby

04/19/06 “Kein Krieg!” — – - “But now that I’m on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course — (applause) — the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace; it’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and — (applause.)” George W. Bush, US-President, 2006-03-20 in Cleveland (Ohio) in an off-the-cuff speech (source: www.whitehouse.gov) But why does Bush speak of Iran’s objective to destroy Israel?

Does Iran’s President wants Israel wiped off the map?

To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran’s President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.

But let’s take a closer look at what Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the ‘New York Times’ that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here’s an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:

“They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let’s take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran’s government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.”
(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of ‘Iranian Students News Agency’ (ISNA) — insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets — passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)

It’s becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran’s President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein’s dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.

It seems like it is time we start paying closer attention to the type of information the media is feeding us.

Seymour Hersh has been discussing his latest New Yorker article about US plans to attack Iran, described as “wild speculation” by George W. Bush. It is worth listening to his talk with Democracy Now, which you can access below.

Take note of Hersh´s description of how Bush has set uranium enrichment as “a red line” that he won’t allow Iran to cross. He describes US policy toward Iran as “really predicated on a belief that we’ve got to get rid of these ruling clerics and replace it with Bush’s idea, that he thinks he’s still pushing very hard, which is of a democratic Middle East.”

It reminds me of the manner in which the administration built consensus for the war in Iraq. Former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz acknowledged then that “the truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction for the core reason (for the need to go to war with Iraq).”

The red line and the country being targeted may have changed, but the reasoning has not. The US is bent on regime change, something the American public and the American media should pay attention to. Do we really want to go to war to remove another leader from power and force democracy on another country? Judging by the democracy the US created in Iraq and the resulting chaos, it may not be such a good idea.

Listen to Hersh´s Democracy Now interview here.

Read a transcript here.

This is the first message in the new “science and nature” category of my blog. Here I will post some items that I think others might find interesting or funny. Sometimes you just have to laugh.

In this category you will find things like this story about giant rabbits causing problems in the UK. It is so similar to the movie Wallace & Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit that I had to post it. Lately it seems like real life is imitating fiction more and more…

Click here for the image
Bigs bunny: monster rabbit devours English veggie plots
LONDON (AFP) - In a tale reminiscent of the last Wallace and Gromit movie, furious villagers in northeast England have hired armed guards to protect their beloved communal vegetable gardens from a suspected monster rabbit.

Leeks, Japanese onions, parsnips and spring carrots have all been ripped up and devoured by the mystery were-rabbit — prompting the 12 allotment holders in Felton, north of Newcastle, to hire two marksmen with air rifles and orders to shoot to kill.

“It is a massive thing. It is a monster. The first time I saw it, I said: ‘What the hell is that?’” the Northumberland Gazette newspaper quoted local resident Jeff Smith, 63, as saying on its website (www.northumberlandtoday.co.uk).

He claims to have seen the black and brown rabbit — with one ear bigger than the other — about two months ago, and at least three fellow allotment holders say they have seen it as well.

“I have seen it and it is bigger than a normal rabbit. It’s eating all our crops and we grow the best stuff here,” said retired miner George Brown, 76, quoted by the domestic Press Association news agency.
Click here to read the rest on Yahoo

In case you haven’t seen Seymour Hersh’s latest New Yorker article, here it is. He is one of the few great journalists who consistently uncovers facts and presents them to the public. This article describes how President Bush is ready to begin another war, this time in Iran.

THE IRAN PLANS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Issue of April 17, 2004
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

One former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”

The rationale for regime change was articulated in early March by Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and who has been a supporter of President Bush. “So long as Iran has an Islamic republic, it will have a nuclear-weapons program, at least clandestinely,” Clawson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2nd. “The key issue, therefore, is: How long will the present Iranian regime last?”

When I spoke to Clawson, he emphasized that “this Administration is putting a lot of effort into diplomacy.” However, he added, Iran had no choice other than to accede to America’s demands or face a military attack. Clawson said that he fears that Ahmadinejad “sees the West as wimps and thinks we will eventually cave in. We have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates.” Clawson said that he would prefer to rely on sabotage and other clandestine activities, such as “industrial accidents.” But, he said, it would be prudent to prepare for a wider war, “given the way the Iranians are acting. This is not like planning to invade Quebec.”

One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran. “You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.” (In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”