From The Nation:
Myth 1. It’s a dangerous world. We face an array of serious national security threats that require an experienced Commander in Chief.
Myth 2. The surge has worked. To withdraw from Iraq now would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and embolden Islamic extremists.
Myth 3. We cannot allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for terrorists. We therefore must redouble our military efforts there or face another terrorist attack.
Myth 4. Iran is responsible for much of the violence against US forces in Iraq; by using its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, it threatens to dominate the Middle East.
Myth 5. To talk to the leaders of “rogue” states like Iran and Cuba without conditions legitimizes their position and weakens American leverage.
Myth 6. Vladimir Putin’s Russia is an authoritarian state pursuing an anti-American agenda aimed at reconstituting the Soviet Union in the form of a new Russian empire.
Myth 7. Because the American military is stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must increase the size of our conventional armed forces.
Myth 8. A League of Democracies would create a global coalition for peace and freedom and would enable the United States and its democratic allies to intervene to solve humanitarian and other crises when the UN Security Council is paralyzed.
Myth 9. Globalization has strengthened the economy, and we cannot avoid it by hiding behind protectionist walls.
Myth 10. The world needs American leadership.
Interesting myths, no? To find out more about why they are myths, click and read The Nation:
Madness I tell you:
Quoting senior diplomatic sources, Britain’s The Guardian said Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert raised the issue with Mr Bush during his visit to Israel for the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state’s founding.
In a one-to-one meeting on May 14, Mr Bush told the Israeli leader he would not support such a strike because of fears of retaliation, possibly on US targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, and concerns that the Israelis would fail to disable Iran’s nuclear facilities anyway, it said.
Mr Bush’s refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington could be preparing an “October surprise” before the US presidential election.
Some analysts have argued Mr Bush would back an Israeli attack in an effort to help Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis.
The Guardian reported that Mr Bush’s refusal to support such a strike appeared to be based on two factors.
One was US concern over Iran’s likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan and on shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The other was US anxiety that Israel would not succeed in disabling Iran’s nuclear facilities in a single assault, even with the use of dozens of aircraft. It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs.
Iran has repeatedly warned it would retaliate with force against any attack. Some Western government analysts believe this could include asking Lebanon’s Shia movement Hezbollah to strike at the US.
Wow. Destroying America for Iraq was clearly not enough. Read more.
Russia’s naval fleet is lining up alongside Syrian waters, to both defend Syria and block off any Israeli jets flying towards Iran. More here and here, via WRH:
The Russians are making clear their intentions of using the large Russian naval presence in Tartus as a deterrent to Israeli air strikes against Syria using the powerful anti-air missiles on-board the Russian naval warships. These missile systems can sweep the sky over most of Syria and knock down Israeli F-15 and F-16 fighters. This changes the balance of power in the air over Syria.
(…)
Ten Russian warships have been deployed at the Syrian port of Tartus based on an accord reached by the two sides after the August south Caucases conflict.
Rear Admiral Andrei Baranov, head of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s operations directorate, said Friday the Russian engineering crew was at Tartus to expand the capacity of the harbor to host additional fleet vessels.
The teams will also be working on expanding Latakia, another Syrian port, possibly for aircraft carriers or guided missile cruisers, said Baranov.
When Israel egged on the USA to attack Iraq, it was hoping that the new American-installed puppet regime in Iraq would open up the Haifa-Mosul oil pipeline. It was also doing it to use Iraqi airspace to strike Iran. But now that the clueless and myopic neoconservatives managed to remove Sunni leader Saddam Hussein and replace him with a Shiite leadership loyal to Iran, using Iraqi airspace won’t be a “slam dunk”.
This is why Russia’s decision to shore up Syrian waters and create a buffer against Israeli missiles and places is a big deal. You might want to look at a map to understand why this is a big deal:
You know the warmongers in Washington DC are throwing around chairs. The only way now would be to fly north, via Turkey… which is not an obvious bet either. This might explain why in addition to having forces in Afghanistan, the US is now making forays into Pakistan.
From Iran’s Press TV, quoting Arab-language Israeli daily al-Arab:
The Arab-language Israeli daily al-Arab reported that the three agents were killed on Wednesday in a blast at a building which was guarded by the US security firm Blackwater. According to report, the three agents carried fake Iraqi passports.
Meanwhile, the Iraqi media reported that hundreds of Mossad agents had been deployed to northern Iraq. According to reports, the agents were tasked with the killing of the Iraqi scientists who were involved in the country’s nuclear program under Saddam.
US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh had earlier reported that Israeli agents were based in Iraq’s Kurdistan to gather intelligence on Iran’s nuclear activities. According to Hersh, the agents who were disguised as businessmen had managed to infiltrate into Iran and Syria and install smart espionage gadgets inside the countries.
Israel hoped that the US would resume the activities of the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline which was constructed during the British rule. Under pressure by Arab countries, the US, however, had to drop the plan.
Read more.
What’s interesting is that the Democrats and Republicans are running over very different stances about GWB’s legacy. Democrats say it was a disaster (it was); Republicans pretend to see it as America’s golden era, or do they believe it?
Who cares. Outsiders see it as a disaster:
Historians will argue over whether George W. Bush is the worst president the United States has ever endured. But that is not the point. Five years after Bush’s ill-starred invasion of Iraq, three years after Hurricane Katrina and seven months into the unravelling of the U.S. financial system, the point is that the 43rd president of the United States – regardless of his ranking in the pantheon – is a unique and unmitigated disaster.
Interesting denouement:
Israel has told Syria it is willing to trade land for peace and is waiting to hear whether President Bashar al-Assad would cut ties with Iran and hostile guerrilla groups in return, Israeli officials said on Friday.
But my question is: isn’t Golan Syria’s to begin with?
Isn’t that like saying “we’ll give you what’s yours, if you give us what we want…”
Read more.
It’s always interesting to read things in the Israeli media that the mainstream media dare not write in the US. Latest example, courtesy of Haaretz:
The moment of truth has arrived, and it has to be said: Israel does not want peace. The arsenal of excuses has run out, and the chorus of Israeli rejection already rings hollow. Until recently, it was still possible to accept the Israeli refrain that “there is no partner” for peace and that “the time isn’t right” to deal with our enemies. Today, the new reality before our eyes leaves no room for doubt and the tired refrain that “Israel supports peace” has been left shattered.
It’s hard to determine when the breaking point occurred. Was it the absolute dismissal of the Saudi initiative? The refusal to acknowledge the Syrian initiative? Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s annual Passover interviews? The revulsion at the statements made by Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, in Damascus, alleging that Israel was ready to renew peace talks with Syria?
Read it all.
This was really a matter of time, really. The Kurds have been sitting silently on the sidelines while Shiites and Sunnis kill one another, biding their time to claim independence. While America might be blinded to this, Saudi Arabia saw it coming, enough to offer the Kurds $2 billion for a 10 year freeze on claiming Kirkuk - oil rich Kirkuk - as the capital of Kurdistan.
If you thought Iraq was unstable now, just wait and see what is about to happen between Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq over the volatile Kurdish issue.
Read more.
PLAY
