If it wasn’t so serious, you’d have to laugh.
Browsing through the Weekly Standard as I do on a daily basis, this piece by Elliott Abrams jumped out at me. It’s called – and I kid you not – ‘Politicizing Intelligence’. In it, Abrams criticises the Obama administration for using intelligence for political purposes. Abrams main source for his complaint is this quote from the Washington Post:
At a time of renewed debate over whether stopping Iran might require military strikes, the expanded intelligence collection has reinforced the view within the White House that it will have early warning of any move by Iran to assemble a nuclear bomb, officials said.
“There is confidence that we would see activity indicating that a decision had been made,” said a senior U.S. official involved in high-level discussions about Iran policy.
The hypocrisy, of course, is in the fact that Abrams observations are the exact inverse of what neoconservatives were saying about Saddam Hussein and his so-called ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’, the supposed ‘existence’ of which was highly politicised in order to provide the US and the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ a casus belli to invade and destroy Iraq. Obama’s motivation for ‘politicising the intelligence’ is not so much to get a war against Iran off the ground, but to delay it to a time that suits him rather than Netanyahu and his neocon supporters, including Abrams, who want the war to get going sooner rather than later.
Abrams had no problem politicising false intelligence for George W. Bush in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq but now here he is getting all precious about Obama politicising real intelligence in order not to go to war – at least not until it’s politically expedient for him to do so.
Hypocrisy and arrogance; the values that ‘they’ really hate about ‘us’. Who can blame them?
FOR AUSTRALIAN READERS…
See the latest news on Andrew Bolt, Australia’s most disgusting racist, right here.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.
2 comments:
Damian mate,
Question;
What in your estimation could derail war against Iran?.
Greater public outcry, a more rigorous media asking difficult questions perhaps?.
I contacted 'Lateline' pointing out a few shortcomings in their 'soft' treatment of these warmongers and pointing out a few harder questions for them to ask, as they can't seem to do their jobs as 'journalists' properly.
They expressed thanks but lets see if they lift their game eh!
Hope to hear your thoughts mate,
Nylon Shirt
G'dsy NS
Given that the endgame for the US is regime change, and for the Israelis, an excuse to attack Hezbollah and Hamas in order to increase their territorial gains toward a Greater Israel and, at the same time, destroy once and for all their enemies, and also given that in the run up to the Iraq war there was huge worldwide demonstrations against war that were totally ignored, I'm afraid I see nothing that will stop either's determination to attack Iran.
Having said that, however, even though I don't think it'll do any good, the world must once again get out on to the streets and display their displeasure at yet another war for the Zionists.
Post a Comment