Zarathustra stood amongst his animals, his eagle on one wrist and the falcon on the other. He leaned forward on his walking stick, glanced at the sun, and then to his animals.
"Ye all are with me as I glanced at the sun, and what would the sun be without those form whom it shines? Yet I am weary of man and how he has gone under and kept sinking.
"Yea verilly, I thinketh that man has sunk to his greatest depth and shall never rise up."
With that, Zarathustra grew melancholy. He gazed about and saw his friend and said "Thou shalt go down to man and tell him how deep he has sunk. Let him know I am no longer with him, but thou, thou shalt return after this last trek and tell me what transpired. Let not man depress thee, but have fun in telling him the most recent of the truths. The tell him that Zarathustra seeks a new breed and future and bid him farewell."
His friend replied "I've quit these morons, you know that."
And Zarathustra replied with a heavy heart "Yea, I knowest that, but thou owest me this one last favor. After that, we shall stay on this mountain and roam as we wish"
And his friend replied, "Ok, ok, but I'll be damned if I'm going to use that Renaissance English you use."
And Zarathustra replied "It be a common error, verily Common, but speakest thou as thou wilt"
Also Sprach Zarathustra
________________________
So, here I am to clue you in. I wanted to take a break from all this nonsense, but once more around the rosie.
Let's start out with an old simple issue, marriage. An English poet once wrote the only two lines of his worth remembering. It consists of a preface of a prospective wife named Margaret who said "I will not marry you unless you stop smoking your cigars." At that point, Kipling wrote:
"A million Maggies are willing to bear the yoke,
And a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."
_____________________________
Ok, that's not what I'm talking about here either. First, let's get it clear that God is dead and Zarathustra said "Where you can not help, there you must walk by." So I don't expect to do either until I'm finished with this.
We can start with ISIS which is only the latest example of what a belief in a God can do if carried on to its logical conclusion. Religion is used as a cover for the lust for power and money. The last example, before ISIS was the Spanish Inquisition. Salem wasn't a thrill either.
ISIS, to give Islam its due, is not even a corruption of Islam. Indeed, instead of calling it Deash, which is a step in the right direction, the term "Hawarji" best applies to them, something that approximates what Christians think of as "Apostates". If Islam had a Pope, he would excommunicate them all, but there is no centralized authority like that in Islam, only those who claim it.
Cockburn, of the Independent points out that every time ISIS suffers a setback, it comes up with a new atrocity. So, beheading doesn't seem to have the effect that burning people alive does. Thus, the Guillotine is replaced by knives and people are burned alive in caged rather than on posts as in the cases of Joan of Arc and Savronolla.
People wonder why, if ISIS is do committed to eliminate "Zionism," it doesn't attack Israel rather than "other" Moslems. Well, Netanyahu of Israel claims that it is only his presence that prevents them from coming. If he looses the election, ISIS will come. Actually, Daesh is too busy purifying Islam. Furthermore, is there any doubt that ISIS would have been stopped had Saddam Hussein remained leader of Iraq? Would Iran be the only force capable of stopping them, and willing to? Is there any doubt that the US created it in order to cause problems for Assad in Syria? That things would be far better in Libya had Gaddafi remained in power? Bush, Bush, Obama, Clinton, the axis of medieval (with apologists to those who actually know the middle-ages).
This is what Republicans are trying to do with a recent letter to Iran, saying the treaty will not last. Exactly what the more ISIS-like Shia clerics in Iran are saying. The two groups are well-suited for one another.
The latest series of atrocities has to do with destroying ancient ruins of 3,000 year old cities and remnants of their civilization, again in the name of Islam. Daesh overlooks the fact that we did the same in Iraq with Bush I and people here were unfazed. See, for Americans, nothing is more sacred than a 1959 Edsel, real history, not some old statue.
When the Taliban destroyed a statue of an ancient Buddha, despite the outcry here, the Dali Lama said, while giggling, "They will loose some tourist trade," or something like that.
Anyway, must of the above is documented in the interviews below. There is so much material there that I don't expect anyone to get through it all, but it should be in one place, I thought.
I will be sending them all together in the next issue, just to keep things is some sort of order.
Anyway, I'm outta here. I've told you all of this crap before and it hasn't made one bit of a difference. I don't expect it to now, so farewell!
-->
--
Posted By Blogger to The Absurd Times at 3/10/2015 12:46:00 PM
Zarathustra stood amongst his animals, his eagle on one wrist and the falcon on the other.He leaned forward on his walking stick, glanced at the sun, and then to his animals.
"Ye all are with me as I glanced at the sun, and what would the sun be without those form whom it shines?Yet I am weary of man and how he has gone under and kept sinking.
"Yea verilly, I thinketh that man has sunk to his greatest depth and shall never rise up."
With that, Zarathustra grew melancholy.He gazed about and saw his friend and said "Thou shalt go down to man and tell him how deep he has sunk.Let him know I am no longer with him, but thou, thou shalt return after this last trek and tell me what transpired.Let not man depress thee, but have fun in telling him the most recent of the truths.The tell him that Zarathustra seeks a new breed and future and bid him farewell."
His friend replied "I've quit these morons, you know that."
And Zarathustra replied with a heavy heart "Yea, I knowest that, but thou owest me this one last favor.After that, we shall stay on this mountain and roam as we wish"
And his friend replied, "Ok, ok, but I'll be damned if I'm going to use that Renaissance English you use."
And Zarathustra replied "It be a common error, verily Common, but speakest thou as thou wilt"
Also Sprach Zarathustra
________________________
So, here I am to clue you in.I wanted to take a break from all this nonsense, but once more around the rosie.
Let's start out with an old simple issue, marriage.An English poet once wrote the only two lines of his worth remembering.It consists of a preface of a prospective wife named Margaret who said "I will not marry you unless you stop smoking your cigars."At that point, Kipling wrote:
"A million Maggies are willing to bear the yoke,
And a woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke."
_____________________________
Ok, that's not what I'm talking about here either.First, let's get it clear that God is dead and Zarathustra said "Where you can not help, there you must walk by."So I don't expect to do either until I'm finished with this.
We can start with ISIS which is only the latest example of what a belief in a God can do if carried on to its logical conclusion.Religion is used as a cover for the lust for power and money.The last example, before ISIS was the Spanish Inquisition.Salem wasn't a thrill either.
ISIS, to give Islam its due, is not even a corruption of Islam.Indeed, instead of calling it Deash, which is a step in the right direction, the term "Hawarji" best applies to them, something that approximates what Christians think of as "Apostates".If Islam had a Pope, he would excommunicate them all, but there is no centralized authority like that in Islam, only those who claim it.
Cockburn, of the Independentpoints out that every time ISIS suffers a setback, it comes up with a new atrocity.So, beheading doesn't seem to have the effect that burning people alive does.Thus, the Guillotine is replaced by knives and people are burned alive in caged rather than on posts as in the cases of Joan of Arc and Savronolla.
People wonder why, if ISIS is do committed to eliminate "Zionism," it doesn't attack Israel rather than "other" Moslems.Well, Netanyahu of Israel claims that it is only his presence that prevents them from coming.If he looses the election, ISIS will come.Actually, Daesh is too busy purifying Islam. Furthermore, is there any doubt that ISIS would have been stopped had Saddam Hussein remained leader of Iraq? Would Iran be the only force capable of stopping them, and willing to? Is there any doubt that the US created it in order to cause problems for Assad in Syria? That things would be far better in Libya had Gaddafi remained in power? Bush, Bush, Obama, Clinton, the axis of medieval (with apologists to those who actually know the middle-ages).
This is what Republicans are trying to do with a recent letter to Iran, saying the treaty will not last.Exactly what the more ISIS-like Shia clerics in Iran are saying.The two groups are well-suited for one another.
The latest series of atrocities has to do with destroying ancient ruins of 3,000 year old cities and remnants of their civilization, again in the name of Islam.Daesh overlooks the fact that we did the same in Iraq with Bush I and people here were unfazed.See, for Americans, nothing is more sacred than a 1959 Edsel, real history, not some old statue.
When the Taliban destroyed a statue of an ancient Buddha, despite the outcry here, the Dali Lama said, while giggling, "They will loose some tourist trade," or something like that.
Anyway, must of the above is documented in the interviews below.There is so much material there that I don't expect anyone to get through it all, but it should be in one place, I thought.
I will be sending them all together in the next issue, just to keep things is some sort of order.
Anyway, I'm outta here.I've told you all of this crap before and it hasn't made one bit of a difference.I don't expect it to now, so farewell!
Illustration: A friend of mine asked if Cruz looked like old Joe McCarthy (HUAC) to me and I sort of agreed.I mentioned it to another who had put a photo of Cruz next to Hitler, suggesting he think more of McCarthy.He put the two together, not altering either one but and the above was the result.A group of his ilk is the perfect audience of Netanyahu who today advised Congress that he, not the President, should be in charge of U.S. foreign policy.
________________
Before we begin, a note on Russia.A well-known Dissident was shot and killed a few days ago.This, of course, would not be the time Putin would feel the need to eliminate opposition considering his current popularity.While he investigates, we hear from the BBC, which ought to have a better grasp of the English language, that his "final funeral" had been held.This leads, of course, to the question of how many funerals does he get?While he was being buried, voices in the crowd chanted "Heroes never die!"This leads to the question whether it is ethical to bury him if he is not yet dead.However, hat is enough on the subject.
________________
So, we start out with a discussion of the Republican Party, mainly, and its involvement in the Mid-East as well as oppression of Americans here at home.There are a few, granted, on the very far right wing of the party who have some nearly sensible views on the topics, but mainly it is one massive reactionary elephant.
This fact is difficult to face as the Democrats are not much better.Perhaps the only sure place where they are better is in appointments to the Supreme Court, but such is not always the case.Earl Warren was appointed by Eisenhower and Goldberg, obnoxious as he was at the U.N., was an excellent Supreme Court Justice which well may be the reason Lyndon Johnson cajoled him off the court.
The question of how much of a threat Iran is in developing Nuclear Weapons is a quite different issue and raises the question of whether Israel should have nuclear weapons.One wonders if anyone in his right mind thinks that this increasingly oppressive and militant state should be so armed or trusted with such an arsenal.It is not as if another Auschwitz is in the offing for them, although they do come close when it comes to members of another ethnicity.
One reason Bibi is running around to other countries trying to recruit Jews to come to Israel may be that he imagines that soon Israel will control all of the land in the area and he sees a need to boost the Jewish vote.During his speech, he compared Iran to Isil, or Deash, which seems odd as the main military attacks on Isis are supported and co-coordinated by Iran.
The final question or issue is that if we have no agreement with Iran, they may well develop nuclear weapons while if we continue with the negotiations they may not.Bibi's comments, if implemented, would almost certainly lead to Iran developing such weapons, even though they do not wish to.
Here is some more fact on the situation from Noam Chomsky who spoke before the farce of a speech:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in the United States as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran during a controversial speech before the U.S. Congress on Tuesday. Dozens of Democrats are threatening to boycott the address, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. Netanyahu’s visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the United States, are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31 deadline. "For both Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran," says Noam Chomsky, institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "They have a common interest in ensuring there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region." Chomsky also responds to recent revelations that in 2012 the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, contradicted Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb, concluding that Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons."
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARONMATÉ:Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in Washington as part of his bid to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu will address the lobby groupAIPACtoday, followed by a controversial speech before Congress on Tuesday. The visit comes just as Iran and six world powers, including the U.S., are set to resume talks in a bid to meet a March 31st deadline. At the White House, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Netanyahu’s trip won’t threaten the outcome.
PRESSSECRETARYJOSHEARNEST:I think the short answer to that is: I don’t think so. And the reason is simply that there is a real opportunity for us here. And the president is hopeful that we are going to have an opportunity to do what is clearly in the best interests of the United States and Israel, which is to resolve the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program at the negotiating table.
AARONMATÉ:The trip has sparked the worst public rift between the U.S. and Israel in over two decades. Dozens of Democrats could boycott Netanyahu’s address to Congress, which was arranged by House Speaker John Boehner without consulting the White House. The Obama administration will send two officials, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power, to address theAIPACsummit today. This comes just days after Rice called Netanyahu’s visit, quote, "destructive."
AMYGOODMAN:Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also facing domestic criticism for his unconventional Washington visit, which comes just two weeks before an election in which he seeks a third term in Israel. On Sunday, a group representing nearly 200 of Israel’s top retired military and intelligence officials accused Netanyahu of assaulting the U.S.-Israel alliance.
But despite talk of a U.S. and Israeli dispute, the Obama administration has taken pains to display its staunch support for the Israeli government. Speaking just today in Geneva, Secretary of State John Kerry blasted the U.N. Human Rights Council for what he called an "obsession" and "bias" against Israel. The council is expected to release a report in the coming weeks on potential war crimes in Israel’s U.S.-backed Gaza assault last summer.
For more, we spend the hour today with world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author, Noam Chomsky. He has written over a hundred books, most recentlyOn Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare. His forthcoming book, co-authored with Ilan Pappé, is titledOn Palestineand will be out next month. Noam Chomsky is institute professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he’s taught for more than 50 years.
Noam Chomsky, it’s great to have you back here atDemocracy Now!, and particularly in our very snowy outside, but warm inside, New York studio.
NOAMCHOMSKY:Delighted to be here again.
AMYGOODMAN:Well, Noam, let’s start with Netanyahu’s visit. He is set to make this unprecedented joint address to Congress, unprecedented because of the kind of rift it has demonstrated between the Republicans and the Democratic president, President Obama. Can you talk about its significance?
NOAMCHOMSKY:For both president—Prime Minister Netanyahu and the hawks in Congress, mostly Republican, the primary goal is to undermine any potential negotiation that might settle whatever issue there is with Iran. They have a common interest in ensuring that there is no regional force that can serve as any kind of deterrent to Israeli and U.S. violence, the major violence in the region. And it is—if we believe U.S. intelligence—don’t see any reason not to—their analysis is that if Iran is developing nuclear weapons, which they don’t know, it would be part of their deterrent strategy. Now, their general strategic posture is one of deterrence. They have low military expenditures. According to U.S. intelligence, their strategic doctrine is to try to prevent an attack, up to the point where diplomacy can set in. I don’t think anyone with a grey cell functioning thinks that they would ever conceivably use a nuclear weapon, or even try to. The country would be obliterated in 15 seconds. But they might provide a deterrent of sorts. And the U.S. and Israel certainly don’t want to tolerate that. They are the forces that carry out regular violence and aggression in the region and don’t want any impediment to that.
And for the Republicans in Congress, there’s another interest—namely, to undermine anything that Obama, you know, the Anti-Christ, might try to do. So that’s a separate issue there. The Republicans stopped being an ordinary parliamentary party some years ago. They were described, I think accurately, by Norman Ornstein, the very respected conservative political analyst, American Enterprise Institute; he said the party has become a radical insurgency which has abandoned any commitment to parliamentary democracy. And their goal for the last years has simply been to undermine anything that Obama might do, in an effort to regain power and serve their primary constituency, which is the very wealthy and the corporate sector. They try to conceal this with all sorts of other means. In doing so, they’ve had to—you can’t get votes that way, so they’ve had to mobilize sectors of the population which have always been there but were never mobilized into an organized political force: evangelical Christians, extreme nationalists, terrified people who have to carry guns into Starbucks because somebody might be after them, and so on and so forth. That’s a big force. And inspiring fear is not very difficult in the United States. It’s a long history, back to colonial times, of—as an extremely frightened society, which is an interesting story in itself. And mobilizing people in fear of them, whoever "them" happens to be, is an effective technique used over and over again. And right now, the Republicans have—their nonpolicy has succeeded in putting them back in a position of at least congressional power. So, the attack on—this is a personal attack on Obama, and intended that way, is simply part of that general effort. But there is a common strategic concern underlying it, I think, and that is pretty much what U.S. intelligence analyzes: preventing any deterrent in the region to U.S. and Israeli actions.
AARONMATÉ:You say that nobody with a grey cell thinks that Iran would launch a strike, were it to have nuclear weapons, but yet Netanyahu repeatedly accuses Iran of planning a new genocide against the Jewish people. He said this most recently on Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, saying that the ayatollahs are planning a new holocaust against us. And that’s an argument that’s taken seriously here.
NOAMCHOMSKY:It’s taken seriously by people who don’t stop to think for a minute. But again, Iran is under extremely close surveillance. U.S. satellite surveillance knows everything that’s going on in Iran. If Iran even began to load a missile—that is, to bring a missile near a weapon—the country would probably be wiped out. And whatever you think about the clerics, the Guardian Council and so on, there’s no indication that they’re suicidal.
AARONMATÉ:The premise of these talks—Iran gets to enrich uranium in return for lifting of U.S. sanctions—do you see that as a fair parameter? Does the U.S. have the right, to begin with, to be imposing sanctions on Iran?
NOAMCHOMSKY:No, it doesn’t. What are the right to impose sanctions? Iran should be imposing sanctions on us. I mean, it’s worth remembering—when you hear the White House spokesman talk about the international community, it wants Iran to do this and that, it’s important to remember that the phrase "international community" in U.S. discourse refers to the United States and anybody who may be happening to go along with it. That’s the international community. If the international community is the world, it’s quite a different story. So, two years ago, the Non-Aligned—former Non-Aligned Movement—it’s a large majority of the population of the world—had their regular conference in Iran in Tehran. And they, once again, vigorously supported Iran’s right to develop nuclear power as a signer of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That’s the international community. The United States and its allies are outliers, as is usually the case.
And as far as sanctions are concerned, it’s worth bearing in mind that it’s now 60 years since—during the past 60 years, not a day has passed without the U.S. torturing the people of Iran. It began with overthrowing the parliamentary regime and installing a tyrant, the shah, supporting the shah through very serious human rights abuses and terror and violence. As soon as he was overthrown, almost instantly the United States turned to supporting Iraq’s attack against Iran, which was a brutal and violent attack. U.S. provided critical support for it, pretty much won the war for Iraq by entering directly at the end. After the war was over, the U.S. instantly supported the sanctions against Iran. And though this is kind of suppressed, it’s important. This is George H.W. Bush now. He was in love with Saddam Hussein. He authorized further aid to Saddam in opposition to the Treasury and others. He sent a presidential delegation—a congressional delegation to Iran. It was April 1990—1989, headed by Bob Dole, the congressional—
AMYGOODMAN:To Iraq? Sent to Iraq?
NOAMCHOMSKY:To Iraq. To Iraq, sorry, yeah—to offer his greetings to Saddam, his friend, to assure him that he should disregard critical comment that he hears in the American media: We have this free press thing here, and we can’t shut them up. But they said they would take off from Voice of America, take off critics of their friend Saddam. That was—he invited Iraqi nuclear engineers to the United States for advanced training in weapons production. This is right after the Iraq-Iran War, along with sanctions against Iran. And then it continues without a break up to the present.
There have been repeated opportunities for a settlement of whatever the issues are. And so, for example, in, I guess it was, 2010, an agreement was reached between Brazil, Turkey and Iran for Iran to ship out its low-enriched uranium for storage elsewhere—Turkey—and in return, the West would provide the isotopes that Iran needs for its medical reactors. When that agreement was reached, it was bitterly condemned in the United States by the president, by Congress, by the media. Brazil was attacked for breaking ranks and so on. The Brazilian foreign minister was sufficiently annoyed so that he released a letter from Obama to Brazil proposing exactly that agreement, presumably on the assumption that Iran wouldn’t accept it. When they did accept it, they had to be attacked for daring to accept it.
And 2012, 2012, you know, there was to be a meeting in Finland, December, to take steps towards establishing a nuclear weapons-free zone in the region. This is an old request, pushed initially by Egypt and the other Arab states back in the early '90s. There's so much support for it that the U.S. formally agrees, but not in fact, and has repeatedly tried to undermine it. This is under the U.N. auspices, and the meeting was supposed to take place in December. Israel announced that they would not attend. The question on everyone’s mind is: How will Iran react? They said that they would attend unconditionally. A couple of days later, Obama canceled the meeting, claiming the situation is not right for it and so on. But that would be—even steps in that direction would be an important move towards eliminating whatever issue there might be. Of course, the stumbling block is that there is one major nuclear state: Israel. And if there’s a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone, there would be inspections, and neither Israel nor the United States will tolerate that.
AMYGOODMAN:I want to ask you about major revelations that have been described as the biggest leak since Edward Snowden. Last week, Al Jazeera started publishing a series of spy cables from the world’s top intelligence agencies. In one cable, the Israeli spy agency Mossad contradicts Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb within a year. In a report to South African counterparts in October 2012, the Israeli Mossad concluded Iran is "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons." The assessment was sent just weeks after Netanyahu went before the U.N. General Assembly with a far different message. Netanyahu held up a cartoonish diagram of a bomb with a fuse to illustrate what he called Iran’s alleged progress on a nuclear weapon.
PRIMEMINISTERBENJAMINNETANYAHU:This is a bomb. This is a fuse. In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages. By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. A red line should be drawn right here, before—before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.
AMYGOODMAN:That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September 2012. The Mossad assessment contradicting Netanyahu was sent just weeks after, but it was likely written earlier. It said Iran, quote, "does not appear to be ready," unquote, to enrich uranium to the highest levels needed for a nuclear weapon. A bomb would require 90 percent enrichment, but Mossad found Iran had only enriched to 20 percent. That number was later reduced under an interim nuclear deal the following year. The significance of this, Noam Chomsky, as Prime Minister Netanyahu prepares for this joint address before Congress to undermine a U.S.-Iranian nuclear deal?
NOAMCHOMSKY:Well, the striking aspect of this is the chutzpah involved. I mean, Israel has had nuclear weapons for probably 50 years or 40 years. They have, estimates are, maybe 100, 200 nuclear weapons. And they are an aggressive state. Israel has invaded Lebanon five times. It’s carrying out an illegal occupation that carries out brutal attacks like Gaza last summer. And they have nuclear weapons. But the main story is that if—incidentally, the Mossad analysis corresponds to U.S. intelligence analysis. They don’t know if Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But I think the crucial fact is that even if they were, what would it mean? It would be just as U.S. intelligence analyzes it: It would be part of a deterrent strategy. They couldn’t use a nuclear weapon. They couldn’t even threaten to use it. Israel, on the other hand, can; has, in fact, threatened the use of nuclear weapons a number of times.
AMYGOODMAN:So why is Netanyahu doing this?
NOAMCHOMSKY:Because he doesn’t want to have a deterrent in the region. That’s simple enough. If you’re an aggressive, violent state, you want to be able to use force freely. You don’t want anything that might impede it.
AMYGOODMAN:Do you think this in any way has undercut the U.S. relationship with Israel, the Netanyahu-Obama conflict that, what, Susan Rice has called destructive?
NOAMCHOMSKY:There is undoubtedly a personal relationship which is hostile, but that’s happened before. Back in around 1990 under first President Bush, James Baker went as far as—the secretary of state—telling Israel, "We’re not going to talk to you anymore. If you want to contact me, here’s my phone number." And, in fact, the U.S. imposed mild sanctions on Israel, enough to compel the prime minister to resign and be replaced by someone else. But that didn’t change the relationship, which is based on deeper issues than personal antagonisms.
Thanks to the sender of these. The only artist I know for sure is the great Latuff. Others, if you own the copyright and want yours removed or credited, please reply and it will be done.
You will see plenty of BS about the visit. John of Orange invited Bibi the Buffoon to address Congress. Quite a few will not attend, but stay at home and do something more productive. Networks will be happy for the free show.
Here they are, in no particular order, but all give a worthwhile opinion of the visit or person:
Oh, forgot, you might want to see this absurdity again, so here he is addressing the United Nations General Assembly. I wonder if he is stupid enough to bring it along to the joint session:
I'm not sure who did the artwork, but Voltaire is quite right and that is an accurate translation.
The Speaker of the House, the Schweinplatz, invited Nitwityahoo to come and address the congress of the United States.Obama will not meet with him, however, citing a long and accurate tradition of never meeting the head of a government who is up for re-election less than two weeks before that election.His statement is very much like his veto of the pipeline because it has not been reviewed as of yet.Actually, it has been reviewed, but not correctly and accurately so it has to be done over until they get it right.
This is the guy who conducted the last Gaza war, or Blitzkrieg.Just in case anyone is wondering, only 5% of what governments pledged to rebuilding Gaza has not been sent and millions due to the Gazans have been appropriated by Israel.
How do we work Brian Williams into this?We don't.He had a great sense of humor, but got caught up in wayward self-aggrandizement.I am not a bit more bothered by his dismissal than the general garbage fed us daily as news on the networks.Frankly, I see nothing of substance in the whole thing.
However, back to the topic.I understand that in Judaism, killing is forbidden (unless it's your son and God tells you to do it -- don't worry, He'll say "just kidding" at the last minute).Well, there was a great deal of killing in Gaza and Israelis are killing Palestinians on the West Bank regularly.Nitwityahoo is the Killer in Chief, so he is not Jewish, I take it.In fact, one might say that anyone who calls Israel a "Jewish State" could be considered anti-Semitic.I have had confirmation of this from several Jews who live in Israel, so I guess this is true.
The only other stated concern is the FEAR that Iran is building an atomic bomb!That would be a Shia Bomb!However, Mossad, their super-spy agency says that it does not have the capacity to build one now nor does it seem to want to build one.Certainly the last President repeatedly stated that they do not and considered it a "weapon of the past and useless today, also evil".Forgetting the evil part of it, it does seem unlikely that a bomb will be built.So says Mossad.That's the outfit that hacked Iran's computers awhile ago and that is pretty well-respected as spy-agencies go.Not very nice guys, but pretty accurate, so to speak.
So now we have Nitwityahoo speaking to a joint session of the Schweinesbund.A few sane members of either the Senate or House will boycott the session.Even saner ones just will not show up.Why bother?
Anyway, here is a pretty good interview documenting the above (all except Amraham and Isaac):
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2015
As Netanyahu Tries to Stop U.S.-Iran Deal, Leaked Cables Show Israeli Spies Reject His Nuke Claims
In what has been described as the biggest intelligence leak since Edward Snowden, Al Jazeera has begun publishing a series of spy cables from the world’s top intelligence agencies. In one cable, the Israeli spy agency Mossad contradicts Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb within one year. In a report to South African counterparts in October 2012, the Mossad concluded Iran was "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons." The explosive disclosure comes just as the United States and Iran have reported progress toward reaching a nuclear deal, an outcome Netanyahu will try to undermine when he addresses the U.S. Congress next week. We go to Doha to speak with Clayton Swisher, the head of Al Jazeera’s investigative unit, which broke the Iran story and several others in a series of articles called, "The Spy Cables."
Image Credit: Reuters
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AARONMATÉ:Just days before his controversial speech to the U.S. Congress, an explosivereporthas raised new questions about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s effort to thwart a nuclear deal with Iran. According to Al Jazeera, Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad, contradicted Netanyahu’s own dire warnings about Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear bomb within one year. In a leaked cable to South African counterparts in October 2012, the Mossad concluded Iran was, quote, "not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons." The assessment was sent just weeks after Netanyahu went before the U.N. General Assembly with a far different message. Netanyahu held up a cartoonish diagram of a bomb with a fuse to illustrate what he called Iran’s alleged progress on a nuclear weapon.
PRIMEMINISTERBENJAMINNETANYAHU:This is a bomb. This is a fuse. In the case of Iran’s nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages. By next spring, at most by next summer, at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks, before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb. A red line should be drawn right here, before—before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb.
AMYGOODMAN:That was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in September of 2012. The Mossad assessment contradicting Netanyahu was sent just weeks after, but it was likely written earlier. It said Iran, quote, "does not appear to be ready" to enrich uranium to the higher levels needed for a nuclear weapon. A bomb would require 90 percent enrichment, but the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, found Iran had only enriched to 20 percent. That number was later reduced under an interim nuclear deal the following year.
That 2013 agreement laid the basis for the ongoing talks in Geneva this week between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif. The U.S. and Iran are seeking a framework agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program and impose international monitoring in return for an easing of U.S.-led sanctions before a March 31st deadline. The talks appear to be gaining momentum, with the involvement of high-ranking officials from both sides and leaked details of a plan to limit Iranian nuclear production for at least 10 years. They are set to resume next week.
AARONMATÉ:The advancing talks and the leaked cable come just as Netanyahu prepares for a controversial U.S. visit, where he’ll try to undermine the nuclear deal. On March 3rd, Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress on Iran at the invitation of Republican House Speaker John Boehner. The trip has caused a major rift with the White House, to the point where Obama has refused to host Netanyahu for a meeting. Administration officials are also reportedly withholding details of the talks from Israeli counterparts. Speaking last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Israel has spread false information about the proposed nuclear deal.
PRESSSECRETARYJOSHEARNEST:There’s no question that some of the things that the Israelis have said in characterizing our negotiating position have not been accurate. There’s no question about that.
AMYGOODMAN:With the White House accusing Israel of spreading falsehoods, the new revelations about Israel’s own intelligence assessments mark the second time in one week tying Prime Minister Netanyahu to dishonest claims about Iran.
The leaked cable appears to have come from inside South Africa’s intelligence service, revealing its exchanges with counterparts around the world, including the U.S., Israel, Russia, Britain, France and several Arab and African nations. Other revelations so far includeCIAattempts to establish contact with Hamas despite a U.S. ban and a threat by President Obama to force the Palestinian Authority to abandon its bid for U.N. recognition. More disclosures are expected in the coming days.
For more, we go directly to Doha, Qatar, to be joined by Clayton Swisher, director of investigative journalism at Al Jazeera, which broke the Iran story and several others in aseries of articlescalled "The Spy Cables." He co-wrote thepiece, "Leaked Cables Show Netanyahu’s Iran Bomb Claim Contradicted by Mossad," that appears inThe Guardiannewspaper.
Welcome toDemocracy Now!It’s good to have you with us, Clayton Swisher. Explain what has happened. What did South Africa get a hold of? Is there a South African Ed Snowden?
CLAYTONSWISHER:Well, I think, after the Edward Snowden experience, someone would have to have their head checked to publicly fess up to being the source of such a leak, given all the travails that followed Edward Snowden after he essentially outed himself. This was a digital leak made to Al Jazeera. And one of the reasons people bring information to Al Jazeera in the past, as they did with the Palestine Papers and other projects, is because that they know we’ll take every step we can to protect and shield their identity. So, the way that we got these files, this digital leak, is not up for discussion.
But it is, I will gladly describe for you, an unprecedented window into how espionage is conducted, not just in South Africa, but the broader continent. What we have obtained is perhaps best thought of as, you know, if you look at a discarded bag of rubbish, you won’t know what’s inside it until you open it up. Similarly, in this—it’s not rubbish, it’s actually very useful information, but it’s an absolute assortment of things that are seemingly unrelated but nonetheless highly newsworthy. There is a high concentration of humdrum, routine intelligence cables within the South African security services that we came into possession of, and, in addition to that, correspondences from a variety of Western and foreign intelligence services asking the South Africans to take certain actions or trying to influence the South African intelligence services on a certain course of action. So, they’re, you know, an absolute fascinating window into how things are done, but they’re a fragment in a mosaic, and we’re missing—very much so—the rest of the painting. But what we can do is reveal what—you know, what operational cables that we can put into context. And that’s why we said in our editors’ note we’re not publishing everything, purely because it either wouldn’t be in the public interest or it wouldn’t add up to a bigger story in and of itself.
AARONMATÉ:So talk about what has emerged here on the issue of Iran. Just as talks are picking up between the U.S. and Tehran, and just as Netanyahu is coming to the U.S. trying to undermine their deal, an internal cable reveals that the Mossad contradicts Netanyahu on his own claims about Iran’s capabilities.
CLAYTONSWISHER:Well, there was much discussion that came after Netanyahu’s 2012 U.N. speech that he was at loggerheads with his Mossad chief, Meir Dagan. That was discussed, and in fact Meir Dagan even publicly said that a war with Iran would be a bad idea. But what is just—I think what’s breathtaking for the journalists who work on this is to see Mossad’s classified documents—a top-secret assessment no less—that is now available for the entire world to peruse and read at its own leisure. I mean, clearly, Netanyahu came and spoke before the entire world, presenting information that was in direct contradiction to the country’s premier intelligence service. It begs a strong question: Where did he get his information from? Was he taking talking points from the Washington Institute andAEI, or was he listening to his own intelligence services, who the government of Israel pays to look after this sort of material? So, it makes it a question similar to what Americans experienced in the run-up to the Iraq War: Is this based on intelligence, or is this based on political fiction? And, you know, I’m a journalist, true. I’ve lived here in Qatar for going on eight years. I’m also a citizen of this planet, and I think everyone who’s a citizen of this planet who lived through the Iraq War and who think of an impending Iran war, we should do everything to scrutinize the politics behind people who wish to start a new war, particularly with Iran, which would not only be a disaster for the United States at home, but also for the region and the entire world. So, as Netanyahu is going to come to the United States, I think there’s every reason to have beyond a healthy skepticism of what he intends to say at his, you know, home audience, if you will, the U.S. Congress. In fact, I would say that, you know, knowing what we know now with this top-secret Mossad cable, we should demand strict evidence of anything that he says before the American public, because it may in fact inform our elected officials to make a decision on whether or not to use military action to defy President Obama’s diplomatic efforts, etc.
AMYGOODMAN:Clayton Swisher, in addition to the former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, who left office in December 2010, disagreeing with Netanyahu wanting to prepare a military attack on Iran, there are other leaders in Israel’s security establishment who, you write, were riled by Netanyahu’s rhetoric on the Iranian nuclear threat, accusing him of "messianic" political leadership pushing for military action. Can you explain?
CLAYTONSWISHER:Sure. I mean, it’s long—it’s long been the Israeli security military tradition where there’s a class of people—they refer to them as "bit hunis [phon.]," which are people that are in the security sector but are also seen as having a rational worldview, if you will, that want to establish some form of peace with their neighbors. Oftentimes—there’s an excellent film calledThe Gatekeepers, which I would recommend anyone watch, that interviews the last several directors of Shin Bet, their domestic intelligence service. And you find—actually, when the documentary interviewer sits with these Shin Bet directors, you find a much more pragmatic outlook and a much more realistic assessment of—you know, for example, on the Palestinian issue, that the Israeli government can’t continue killing Palestinians if it wants to have a permanent place in the neighborhood.
Yet the security people are often trumped by the politicians, the loudmouths, who are perpetually campaigning. If you think it’s bad in the U.S., it’s a perpetual campaign in Israel. And as a result, you don’t really get mature discussions, mature conversations in the public from their leaders. And it’s a very—it’s a very real risk. And it’s, I would hazard to guess, why Israel has not been able to make peace, because time and again they have proven to not have leaders who have been thinking in the long term, but politicians who are seeing which way the winds are blowing and how they can get through the next election.
So, unfortunately, in some instances, the only ones that have the real assessment on Israel’s security happen to be people who live in classified worlds. And I think it’s extraordinary the amount of security officials that spoke out and sniped against Netanyahu, because they realize the stakes are very high. They’ve seen the Iraq War experience, where bad intelligence got mixed into politics, and people sat on it and didn’t speak up. And lo and behold, now Israel hasISISon its borders, and they’re further than ever from ever being welcome in the neighborhood. And, you know, it’s—looking back at the two-state solution is pie in the sky. So, you know, I think, frankly, as a journalist, I’m skeptical of everyone. But in this case, it’s remarkable to see Mossad at such variance with the prime minister. If only the United States had had that kind of disclosure ahead of the Iraq War between what theCIAwas saying and what the Bush administration was saying, a war may have been averted.
AARONMATÉ:Let’s hear from more of Benjamin Netanyahu speaking last month. This was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and Netanyahu used the occasion to accuse Iran of planning another genocide against the Jewish people.
PRIMEMINISTERBENJAMINNETANYAHU:The ayatollahs in Iran, they deny the Holocaust, while planning another genocide against our people. Let me be clear: The Jewish people will defend itself, by itself, against any threat. That’s what the Jewish state is all about.
AARONMATÉ:That’s Benjamin Netanyahu speaking last month. The irony, Clayton, of course, is that it’s Netanyahu who has threatened attack on Iran for many years over its alleged nuclear activities—a violation of the U.N. Charter, in which you can’t make threats to other nations. But let’s talk about some of the other revelations here. Talk about the claims that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas opposed the U.N.'s endorsement of a report that accused Israel of war crimes, and also President Obama's attempt to pressure Abbas on seeking statehood recognition at the U.N.
CLAYTONSWISHER:Well, I’ll take it in that order then. So, in the case of the—there is a leaked cable describing an effort by Meir Dagan, the leader of Mossad, calling the South African spy boss on the eve of the U.N. Human Rights Council vote on whether or not to recommend Israel face investigation for alleged war crimes in Gaza in 2009, asked the spy boss of South Africa: "South Africa should not vote, and you know why? Mahmoud Abbas does not want South Africa to vote, because it will harm his political party and bolster that of his opposition in Hamas. And, of course, Mahmoud Abbas cannot say this publicly, so the Mossad is asking you, South Africa, not to cast your vote." And I think that, if anything—and we’ve seen a lot of evidence over the years. I was involved in the Palestine Papers in 2011. We had a whole mountain of evidence showing that President Abbas had advance knowledge that there was going to be an Israeli attack on Gaza, that he opted not to warn his people, that he was under incredible American pressure not to advance any sort of war crimes investigation, that it would be seen as prejudicing negotiations—which were moribund anyway—and he went for it. And so, you know, people were saying he bungled it. I think the evidence now is far the opposite. He directly obstructed it, and it was an abject—I’m sorry, it was, you know, an abdication of his responsibilities as a leader and shielded the occupier, that he’s supposed to be liberating his people from, against any possible war crimes.
And so, you know, this—to me, there’s too many data points. There’s too much evidence that’s now out there showing that he shielded Israel. And some will say, "Well, he just recently joined theICC." Well, you’ll note that after the recent 50-day conflict of last summer, he waited until well after the conflict ended before signing theICC. And what has Israel done in the meantime? They’ve gone in and launched their own investigations. And under theICCrules, if one of the parties is seasoned in investigation, theICCcannot do it. And the Israelis are going to say—mark my words—for many years, that they’re investigating, and it is credible, and we’ve got it all covered. And, you know, meanwhile, evidence is lost, memories fade, people die. You know, this was beyond bungling. You know, this was a craven abdication of his responsibilities. And I think that the cables make this clear now in a very oblique way, from South Africa of all places.
With respect to the cable that suggests there was aCIAoperative in East Jerusalem who asked a South African operative to help with inroads with Hamas, the South Africans then write between themselves, Pretoria and East Jerusalem, "Well, how can we then run thisCIAguy to see what kind of information they’re after?" It’s a very, again, oblique window into what the CIA’s interests are. You remember, in 2009, President Obama wanted to have a new relationship with the Muslim world. He spoke in Cairo. Autocrats were adopted by the Bush administration. Obama came in and thought, "Well, maybe there is room for political Islam." This was when they were still open to the idea, let’s say. So, it makes sense—it makes sense to me, at least. We’re reporting that this interest was expressed, but of course we don’t know whether theCIAtook it forward. Hamas has said today on Al Jazeera they deny official contact, but they won’t say whether there was unofficial. And who knows how that’s defined? So, I think it’s intriguing.
AMYGOODMAN:You also note that a South African State Security Agency report from November 2012 records a Palestinian intelligence officer handing over a memo detailing a phone call made by President Obama to Mahmoud Abbas, where President Obama threatened Abbas if he goes ahead with the U.N. bid. Now, Abbas ultimately does. But explain the significance of this, and then also the cables revealing the same former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, personally lobbying South African intelligence officials in 2009 against South Africa endorsing the findings of a U.N. inquiry led by the South African judge, Richard Goldstone, which alleged war crimes carried out by Israel’s three-week bombardment of Gaza in 2008 and 2009.
CLAYTONSWISHER:OK. Well, with respect to President Obama trying to, you know, convince Mahmoud Abbas not to go ahead with statehood, it’s important to note that the United States has always been hammering Palestinians to abandon armed resistance and embrace peaceful, nonviolent struggle. And you can understand the frustration of Arabs, Muslims and especially Palestinians, when they look at the American rhetoric, and they say, "OK, well, what’s wrong with, in embracing that nonviolent struggle, we take legal measures—pen to paper, we submit it before a court—or we petition a very legal body, like the United Nations, and we ask for things like diplomatic recognition?" It’s absolutely indefensible, and it’s just painfully hypocritical, when you see U.S. officials, like President Obama, as revealed in "The Spy Cables," or Samantha Power on the floor of the United Nations, obstructing these very blatant efforts by the Palestinians to exercise some kind of resistance through legal, peaceful means. You tell them violence is out. You tell them legal means is out. What do they have left? They have—I mean, it’s just—it’s absolutely absurd.
And we’ve seen, in recent events, they’ve gotten statehood. Did the sky fall? No. We see, in recent events, they joined theICC. Did the sky fall? No. So, every time that they threaten all of—you know, that the end is nigh and this will—you know, this will damage things beyond recognition, the peace process is already damaged beyond recognition. And it’s only a handful of Western analysts and Pollyannaish journalists who continue to believe that there is a two-state solution and that this—you know, what’s been created on the ground can somehow be reversed. Rather than looking beyond, you know, President Obama and his administration has very much made this situation, in fact because they haven’t allowed Palestinians to express themselves, you know, through these various mechanisms.
AMYGOODMAN:Clayton Swisher, we want to thank you for being with us, director of investigative journalism at Al Jazeera. He’s overseeing the network’scoverageof "The Spy Cables." And we’ll continue to report on what’s revealed. He’s speaking to us from Doha, Qatar.
Posts
