Bellicosity and Hypocrisy in Tel Aviv Lies of Aggression

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

On May 15, the White House Moron, in a war-planning visit to Israel, justified the naked aggression he and Olmert are planning against Iran as the only alternative to “the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

But the White House Moron has the roles reversed. It is not Iran that is threatening war. It is Bush. It is not Bush who is appeasing. It is Iran.

Iran has not responded in kind to any of Bush’s warlike moves and provocations. Iran has not sunk a single one of our sitting duck ships and has not given the Iraqi insurgents any weapons that would easily turn the tide of war against the US.

It is Bush, not Iran, who sounds like Adolf Hitler blustering and threatening. It is Bush’s American Brownshirts, the neocons, who express the view: “what’s the good of nuclear weapons if you can’t use them.”

It is the US that is funding assassination teams inside Iran and using taxpayer dollars to fund dissident and violent organizations opposed to the Iranian government. Iran is doing no such thing here.

It is members of the Bush Regime and US generals who continue to lie through their teeth about Iranian support for insurgents, for which they can supply no evidence, and about Iranian nuclear weapons programs, for which the IAEA inspectors can find no sign.

It is the US print and TV media that serves the Bush Regime as propaganda ministry for its lies of aggression.

All the war crimes that are being planned are being planned by Bush and Olmert.

What would George Orwell make of the Bush Regime’s position that anything less than a direct act of naked aggression is appeasement?

The Chicago City Council has passed a resolution “opposing any US attack on Iran and urging the Bush Administration to pursue diplomatic engagement with that nation.” But the White House Moron says diplomacy is appeasement. He learned this false equivalence from the neocon Brownshirts whose control over his administration has made America despised throughout the world, with the exception of Israel.

After broadcasting false claims for weeks from US generals and Bush Regime spokespersons that the US has “definite proof” in the form of captured Iranian weapons that Iranians were “responsible for killing American troops,” the great free American media went silent when LA Times correspondent Tina Susman reported from Baghdad: “A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was cancelled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran.”

A people devoid of a media are sitting ducks for tyrannical government, which is what the US has.

What is the difference between Hitler’s concocted excuses for his acts of naked aggression and the Bush Regime’s plan to use a briefing by General Petraeus, with “captured Iranian weapons” as props, as proof of Iranian complicity in US deaths in Iraq as a means to break down public and congressional resistance to an attack on Iran?

Why has the Bush Regime suffered no consequences for this blatant attempt to orchestrate an excuse for another war?

Why have there been no consequences to the Regime for the blatant lies it told in order to attack Iraq?

Why has the Bush Regime suffered no consequences for its violation of US statutory laws against spying without warrants and against torture?

In the US criminal justice system, three strikes and you are out.

For the Bush Regime is there any limit on its lawless behavior?

How many strikes? A dozen? Thirty? Three hundred?

Is there a limit?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

I believe a full scale declared, no holds barred, real waged war, Democrat style, should have been the response to 9-11, an horrific act of war against innocent civilians. I believe in a total nuclear response. Time the world was reminded of the lesson that Harry Truman tried to get across.

We invaded Afghanistan, overthrew the Al-Qaeda supporting Taliban government and occupied the country. Aside from, you know, actually capturing Osama Bin Laden, what more did you want?

[Nuking civilian population centers is sooo 20th century.]

Obama 08!

I don't believe that Bush was promoting a new war with Iran as much as he was warning the forces of appeasement that their path is an inherently dangerous one that chooses to ignore history for the sake of it's desire to find peace at any cost. The only treaties I can remember that lasted were a result of a position of strength, not from weakness. Weakness in the middle east is never respected and often results with someone's head ending up in a basket. Sadat listened to Carter and made peace with Isreal only to be "removed" from the scene by the Muslim Brotherhood as a traitor. Sadat probably knew his fate by signing but believed the alternative was far more frightening. The only thing holding back the wave of Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah is the firmly held belief that their move will be fatal. Amadinijad doesn't even sound like he cares if everyone goes up in smoke if it hastens the final days. Kadafi came to the table because he feared he might be next after Iraq. For you to think "all" the war plans are being planned by Bush and Olmert belies the aggression already exhibited by Syria, Iran, and the terrorist groups vying for control of Gaza and the West Bank, and Lebanon. I think you give Olmert more credit than he deserves and your comment assumes that Iran has no plans at all more being the king pin in the middle east. That's naive, and you are far too experienced to propose that seriously. Iran has it's hands in everything thats going on throughout the area. This is their greatest opportunity to impose their will in the last forty years at the least. Your comment that it is" the U.S. print and TV media that serves the Bush regime as Propaganda Ministry for its lies of aggression". What? I really don't believe Bush enjoys that advantage or has. FOX more closely chooses the position of supporting the troops who are already in danger and don't need the press making their life more dangerous by suggesting "pull out" dates. The rest are clearly not in Bush's camp. I think its far more important that the world to respect the U.S. and that it's word means something. Iraq's warring factions are once again worried that a precipitous withdrawal will leave them in the lurch as each day the U.S. elections draw near. That's not Bush's fault. The Democratic leadership will do or say anything to regain power regardless who gets hurt in the Middle East. I am more amazed your comments come from someone who worked so closely with Reagan, whose success, was clearly derived from his clarity of purpose against "the evil empire".

Unconditional surrender and punishment.

Meeinstein2,

Paragraphs are your friends. Don't fear them.

was editor at WSJ? would the Wall St, Journal print his incisive piece here?

@ Liberal Patriot:

"Unconditional surrender and punishment."

No way is Bin Laden going to surrender. We should have caught him when we had the chance. Who blew that one?

Obama 08!

Meeinstein2:

"Amadinijad doesn't even sound like he cares if everyone goes up in smoke if it hastens the final days."

Hey, Einstein, Amadinijad isn't a Christian millenialist.

Obama 08!

What more would I want? How about the same force level response in Afghanistan that we used in Iraq. What was the President waiting for? No actionable intelligence on Osama since Torra Borra. Now Afghanistan is falling backwards, while Pakistan grows unstable and Iraq has no end in site. Look at a map of the Middle East and connect the dots. Our failure in Afghanistan and the irrational invasion of Iraq has made the world AND ISRAEL very safe indeed.

"Unconditional surrender and punishment."

No way is Bin Laden going to surrender. We should have caught him when we had the chance. Who blew that one?

Obama 08!

????????????? Hell with Obama as our next POTUS Bin Laden can come out of hiding and will probably be invited to the White House for dinner. The only thing I agree with you on is that we should have taken him out when we had the chance.

While we are still free and able to do so I am going to vote for the person with the most political experience. The most military experience. Someone who's loyalty to this country has been proved and there is no doubt about. Someone who has the life experiences to draw upon when all else fails. I'll give you a hint it isn't your "Junior Senator." and they never were a "First Lady."

Obama 08 = disaster=09

John McCain, of all people, should have learned some elementary lessons from the Vietnam War:

1) Know what you're getting into.

2) Recognize the signs of a quagmire.

3) Don't keep sacrificing for a lost cause.

McCain may be experienced but if that experience didn't instill wisdom, it means nothing. So where is his wisdom on Iraq? What troubles me about McCain is that he seems to have learned nothing from Vietnam. Or Iraq.

Obama 08!

Pwoxby wrote "

John McCain, of all people, should have learned some elementary lessons from the Vietnam War:

1) Know what you're getting into.

2) Recognize the signs of a quagmire.

3) Don't keep sacrificing for a lost cause.

McCain may be experienced but if that experience didn't instill wisdom, it means nothing. So where is his wisdom on Iraq? What troubles me about McCain is that he seems to have learned nothing from Vietnam. Or Iraq."

If I recall properly McCain was not POTUS when we invaded Iraq. Therefore you can not with any validity say that he will not or has not observed #1 and #2 of your post and will not as our next POTUS take the steps to correct them so that your #3 becomes irrelevant. Wait until he is POTUS and you will see that he has learned from Bush's mistakes and that combined with the military experiences that Obama never had and never will have will take care of the problems there once and for all. No matter how you doctor your posts you can not give Obama what he does not have and never will have "MILITARY EXPERIENCE," AND DEMONSTRATED LOYALTY TO THIS COUNTRY BY SAID "MILITARY EXPERIENCE" Like it of not people fear your beloved Obama because all they hear is change at the tax payer's expense. I have not heard one word from Obama about stopping wasteful spending, Yet McCain has listed that as a priority. All Obama wants to do is tax us until we bleed and all that will do is give your democratically controlled congress more money to waste. History has shown that given more money congress will spend more money not cut the deficit. Regardless of who our next POTUS is he will not be able to get us our of the financial hole we are in, but he can start us in the right direction. I for one will not mind having my taxes raised if I see our congress stopping the wasteful spending first. Change as Obama says? For the good or the bad, and good for who? I want no part of Obama's "Change" if it doesn't include the stopping of wasteful government spending. Last but not least what good will it do us to live in a country with little foreign debt when we are all taxed so heavily that all we can do is just survive from pay check to pay check. Make no mistake about it in Obama's America there will only be two financial classes of people. Poor and Wealthy, no middle class will exist because they will be driven to poverty by his tax increases. Make no mistake about this either. Obama is a very smart politician. He knows that the American voters are tired of 8 years of "Busheconomics". He knows that all most people have to hear is that as our next POTUS he will "change' things. I have no doubt he would. I fear that his fix will be worse than the disease itself. Like all politicians he is playing the people to get their vote. I believe that he will fail to pull the wool over our eyes as he is trying to.

"If I recall properly McCain was not POTUS when we invaded Iraq."

John McCain can't run and hide from his record in the Senate. Only Congress can authorize war. It is up to each member of Congress to take that responsibility seriously. McCain enthusiastically supported going to war with Iraq.

Incidentally, Barack Obama didn't just say that he opposed going to war with Iraq. He gave nine substantial points in support of his decision. History has vindicated him on eight of these points. <link>

"Wait until he is POTUS and you will see that he has learned from Bush's mistakes..."

Lucky for us, we don't have to wait. McCain is now assuring us that by 2013 Iraq will be pacified. So clearly he doesn't recognize the signs of a quagmire.

"... our next POTUS take the steps to correct them so that your #3 becomes irrelevant."

If McCain doesn't know we are in a quagmire, then he will keep sacrificing for a lost cause.

"No matter how you doctor your posts you can not give Obama what he does not have "MILITARY EXPERIENCE""

I have never "doctored" my posts to suggest that Obama does have military experience. FDR never served in the military and he managed to (almost) guide us to victory in the Second World War. Ronald Reagan never served in the military and he is credited by conservatives as having won the Cold War.

George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld both had military experience and they managed to screw up the invasion and occupation of a third-rate power. Indeed, Rumsfeld fancied himself to be a strategic genius and he ignored his generals. How well did that work out?

"I have not heard one word from Obama about stopping wasteful spending, Yet McCain has listed that as a priority."

Economists looking at his actual proposals have calculated they will reduce government spending by 0.78%. The decimal point is in the correct place. Not 78%. Not 7.8%. But 0.78%.

"... no middle class will exist because they will be driven to poverty by [Obama's] tax increases."

When Congress enacted Bush's tax cuts they made them temporary with an automatic expiry date. So Obama isn't going to ask Congress to increase taxes. Not only that, but Obama has promised tax relief for the middle class to be paid for by the automatic shifting of the burden to those who can afford it.

"Obama is a very smart politician."

Yes, he is. ;)

Obama 08!

pwoxby: What can I say except chalk up one more hapless victim to Obama's "Perception Management" (PM) firm. As I explained to you in the past post PM operates on the principal of "why worry about telling the truth when you can manufacture it." To borrow a line from Star Wars, I hope this doesn't happen, "you will pay for your lack of vision." This is something that I honestly doesn't happen, as we will all stand to loose. Additionally I sincerely hope that you are of the wealthy income status not poor or middle income or if your dream candidate becomes POTUS "you will pay for your lack of vision." Last but not least I'll take a .78% decrease in wasteful spending over no decrease at all, or worse yet an increase, any day. As I said before all the next POTUS will really be able to do is start us in the right direction. Not even in 4 years will he be able to totally mend our financial problems and a .78% decrease is at least a start. Good luck in November to you and your candidate. I hold no personal animosity against you or Obama, just apparently difference in political beliefs. Thank God we live in America where we are free to do that!