JOHN HOWARD AND THE MISLEADING OF PARLIAMENT AND THE AUSTRALIAN PEOPLE OVER SADDAM’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

During the lead up to the war against Iraq that began on 20 March 2003, Australian Prime Minister John Howard told the Australian people and the Australian Parliament that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. On the 18 March 2003 Howard told the Australian Parliament that these weapons were “a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people” and, for this reason, Australia will be part of a coalition that will ‘disarm’ Saddam Hussein.[1]

Howard’s announcement that Australia would join the coalition to attack Iraq was the culmination of nearly 18 months of Western anti-Saddam propaganda and rhetoric that had begun soon after 9/11. During that entire period between 9/11 and prior to the announcement to the House of Representatives on the 18 March 2003, Howard had always denied that any decision had been made to join with the coalition in any attack on Iraq.

Howard’s decision to join the coalition to attack Iraq was, so Howard told the Australian people, based on the notion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. This rhetoric was completely in line with the rhetoric of the other members of the coalition that also took part in or supported the attack against Iraq.

John Howard first mentioned Iraq just 10 days after the 9/11 attacks during an interview with Neil Mitchell on Radio 3AW on 21 September 2001:

MITCHELL:

Israeli intelligence is suggesting Iraq sponsored this attack, is that likely?

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I wouldn’t rule that out but I’m not saying that I’m convinced that that was the case. We would have to have an open mind on that. There are documented and published suggestions of some of the hijackers having been in touch with people in Iraq. I read another report of that in one of the newspapers this morning.

MITCHELL:

I guess that expands the possibility of any military action from Afghanistan to include Iraq.

PRIME MINISTER:

Well, I have to be careful how I speculate in a situation like that but going back to basics once again, the American’s dilemma is that if they can’t, by diplomatic pressure and by the weight of world opinion, encourage those who are currently harbouring suspected terrorists to hand them over they then have to ask themselves what other alternative do we have. If they don’t then do anything at all then hasn’t terrorism scored a very significant victory?[2]

However, while this was the first mention of Iraq after the 9/11 event, Howard had already promised the US only the day after the attack, “that Australia will provide all support that might be requested of us by the United States in relation to any action that might be taken”.[3]

The statement was emphatic and, in typical Howard style, had been carefully considered. True to his word, Howard soon offered Australian troops to help with the US attack against Afghanistan. The Americans, together with the British, launched their attack against the Taliban and al Qaeda on 7 October 2001 and by 17 October 2001, Howard had announced Australia’s military commitment to the war against Afghanistan.[4]

The question of Iraq is next seriously discussed by Howard on 10 February 2002 in a TV interview with journalist Laurie Oakes. The discussion arose as a result of President George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address which had been delivered on 29 January 2002, just five months after 9/11, in which Bush had referred to Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an ‘Axis of Evil’.

In his discussion with Oakes, Howard attempted to discreetly back-pedal from his 12 September 2001 commitment of “Australia will provide all support that might be requested of us by the United States in relation to any action that might be taken” Oakes asked Howard:  “…does his [Bush’s] axis of evil statement commit Australia in any way?”

The conversation then ran thus:

PRIME MINISTER:

No, not ... no, it doesn't. We are only ... we will only commit our forces to any kind of action as a result of a separate, deliberative decision by the Australian government ...

OAKES:

So we're not going all the way with the USA?

PRIME MINISTER:

There is ... well, I'll, you know, let me define our relationship with the United States in a positive way. If there is an American request for Australian forces to be involved in future action, then that will be considered afresh. Our decision to be involved in Afghanistan does not automatically commit us to involvement elsewhere.

The Americans know that, the Americans don't presume on our friendship. We are close, there is no ally closer to the United States at present, and I think everything we have done has been in Australia's interests. And I think President Bush's speech was a first class one and I understood full well the language he used and why he did it.[5]

Clearly, in the heat of the moment in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Howard, on 12 September 2001, had made a unilateral decision to back Bush and the US no matter what and, despite Howard’s later comment about only committing forces to any kind of action being as a result of a deliberative decision by the Australian government, Howard remained firmly committed to his promise to Bush. Everything Howard said and did from then on was with a view to fulfilling his promise to Bush regardless of anything that might distract from that including, as it transpired, the wishes of the Australian people.[6]

For the next thirteen months right up to the eve of the invasion, Howard made every effort to deceive the Australian people and the Australian Parliament by claiming that, one, Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which, two, Howard claimed were a “a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people”; and, three, right up to the eve of war, he continued to claim that he had made no decision about committing Australia to go to war against Iraq as an ally of the US.

As shall be shown using bona-fide evidence, the first two of these claims by John Howard were patently and deliberately false. Both the circumstantial evidence and the balance of probabilities regarding the falseness of the third claim are compelling.

With regard to the first two claims, the second is contingent on the first. If Howard knew that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction prior to committing Australia to war against Iraq, then obviously Howard’s claim that they were “a direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people” could not be valid and, therefore, was a blatant lie.

With regard to the third claim, the circumstantial evidence clearly shows that Howard had made a decision to go to war long before the announcement on the 18 March 2003. However, this paper will confine itself to the verifiable evidence that relates to Howard’s deliberately false claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that they were a “direct, undeniable and lethal threat to Australia and its people”.

The accusation that John Howard deliberately lied to and misled the Australian people and Parliament revolves around whether or not Howard knew that Saddam Hussein had destroyed his weapons of mass destruction after the First Gulf War which ended in 1991. 

On 7 August 1995, Hussein Kamel al-Majid and his wife defected from Iraq. Kamel was the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein. He was also the Minister of Industries and was responsible at various stages of his career for developing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and later, after the First Gulf War, for secretly destroying Iraq’s WMD’s in accordance with the allies demands after the war.

On 22 August 1995, Hussein Kamel was debriefed by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). It was during this debriefing that Kamel disclosed what he knew about Saddam’s WMD’s and, crucially, that he had personally seen to it that all of Iraq’s WMDs had been destroyed.[7] The reason for the secrecy at the time was that Iraq did not wish it to be known to Iran that it no longer had any WMDs. Clearly, the US and their allies went along with the ruse since the debriefing was not made public at the time.

In the lead up to the attack against Iraq, it was Kamel’s disclosures about Saddam’s WMD’s that were primarily used to support the allegation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Omitted, however, was Kamel’s insistence, in the same debriefing, that these weapons had been destroyed and, more to the point, that it was Kamel that had organised their destruction.

After the allies had consolidated their hold over Iraq, it soon became apparent that there were no WMD’s despite a concerted effort by the allies to find them. When Howard on 2 February 2004 was later confronted about the fact that there were no WMD’s to be found and asked if there would be an inquiry into the intelligence failures during the lead up to the war, Howard said:

You’ve got to bear in mind of course that almost all of the intelligence that came our way in relation to the war against Iraq pertained from British and American sources. It didn’t come from our own independent sources, obviously it was independently assessed and so forth but it was primarily British and American intelligence and I’ll see what the detail of that that statement is.[8]

       

Part of that intelligence that Howard says was gained from US and British sources was Hussein Kamel’s debriefing transcript. Indeed, Howard actually referred to it and to Hussein Kamel by name in his Ministerial Statement to Parliament on 4 February 2003 when he said:

There are 6500 chemical bombs - including 550 shells filled with mustard gas, 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent - including 1.5 tonnes of the deadly nerve agent VX, 3000 tonnes of precursor chemicals - 300 tonnes of which could only be used for the production of VX, and over 30 000 special munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents - all unaccounted for.

In 1995, the international community was confronted by Iraq's massive programme for developing offensive biological weapons - one of the largest and most advanced in the world.

Despite four years of intensive inquiries and searches, the weapons inspectors did not even know of its existence until Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal defected. Faced with its duplicity Iraq finally admitted to producing aflatoxin - which causes cancers, the paralysing poison botulinum and anthrax bacteria.

It admitted to manufacturing 8 500 litres of anthrax. A single gram is enough for millions of fatal doses. Dr Blix wants proof that the anthrax has been destroyed - and so do we.

Iraq must account for the large quantity of undeclared growth media for biological weapons and for all its SCUD B ballistic missiles. It must explain why it has rebuilt equipment and facilities destroyed by previous inspection teams.[9]

Clearly, Howard had access to Kamel’s debriefing transcript and was well aware that the material he was referring to in his statement had been destroyed by Kamel long ago and, contrary to Howard’s assertion otherwise, had, therefore, all been accounted for by Kamel.

Because Howard was eager to tell the Parliament and the Australian people about the WMD’s Saddam Hussein once had by presenting them as WMD’s that Saddam Hussein still had, Howard deliberately misled the Parliament and lied to the Australian people by failing to tell them that these weapons no longer existed and that, crucially, the source of this withheld information was the same source as the source he relied on to accuse Saddam Hussein of still having WMD’s.

In trying to defend himself against being touted as a liar, Howard may well say that he had not been advised that Kamel had said that he had destroyed Saddam’s WMD’s, but then that would lead to accusations that he had been deliberately mislead by our allies the US since the disclosure about having destroyed the WMD’s was part of the original statement about what WMD’s Saddam had.

No matter what way one looks at it, Howard is unable to escape the fact that he either misled Parliament and the nation or, alternatively, he and the Australian people were deliberately misled by President George W. Bush and his administration. Given Howard’s close relationship with Bush, however, the alternative is an unlikely scenario.  

 

ENDNOTES

---

[1] John Howard, “Iraq Speech’, House of Representatives Hansard, 18 March 2003. p. 12506.

[2] John Howard, “Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP interview with Neil Mitchell, Radio 3AW”, 21 September 2001. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2001/interview1248.html  Accessed 2 June 2012.

[3] John Howard, “Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP, press conference – Ambassador’s residence, Washington, DC”, 12 September 2001. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2001/interview1239.html  Accessed 2 June 2012.

[4] Media Release, “Force Deployment”, 17 October 2001. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/Release/2001/media_release1342.html  Accessed 2 June 2012.

[5] John Howard, “Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP, Interview with Laurie Oakes, Sunday Program”, 10 February 2002. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2002/interview1507.html  Accessed 2 June 2012.

[6] 76% of Australians were against Australia taking part in the war against Iraq without UN approval. See: Brendon O'Connor and Srdjan Vucetic, ‘Another Mars-Venus divide? Why Australia said 'yes' and Canada said 'non' to involvement in the 2003 Iraq War’, Australian journal of International Affairs, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 526 — 548, November 2020.  p. 535.

[7] ‘Testimony of General Hussein Kamel’, UNSCOM/IAEA, 22 August 1995. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/unscom950822.pdf  Accessed 12 June 2012.

[8] John Howard, “Transcript of the Prime Minister the Hon. John Howard MP doorstop interview, Perth”, 2 February 2004. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/Interview/2004/Interview666.html  Accessed 12 June 2012.

[9] John Howard, “Ministerial Statement to Parliament on Iraq”, 4 February 2003. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/10052/20080118-1528/pm.gov.au/media/Speech/2003/speech69.html  Accessed 12 June 2012.

NEOCONS ARE CHANGING THEIR TUNE ABOUT SYRIA AND WHO IS COMMITTING THE MASSACRES

At the beginning of the month I asked ‘Who was killing who in Syria?’ It seemed to me that, no matter what one might think of al-Assad, there seemed to be no logic from his point of view in committing such horrendous crimes at this stage of the crisis knowing that the US, Israel and the British are keen to get into Syria to ‘intervene’ (propaganda jargon for ‘regime change’). I then asked who would have most to gain from a false flag massacre of this type. I suggested the US and/or Israel being responsible based on the fact that, one, they are Assad’s two main protagonists and, two, they both have form for these types of outrages.

It turns out I was right about who didn’t do it; al-Assad, but wrong about who did – or at least partially wrong.

It now seems that the culprits were in fact anti-al-Assad Syrian Sunni rebels and that many of the victims were Alawi and Shia who are mostly supporters of al-Assad’s regime. I suggest ‘partially wrong’ because it could well be that it was the US/Israel that put the real culprits up to do the deadly deeds in order to try and get Russia and China onside for ‘intervention’.

Last week I wrote that the neocons were now split over what to do about Syria but it now seems that the neocons are coming into line and opting for the ‘let’s not support the rebels’ side of the argument. It’ll come as no surprise then that the source for the ‘al-Assad didn’t do it’ story comes from the neocons at National Review Online via Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

It seems that the neocon rush to overthrow nasty Middle Eastern dictators in order to have lots of happy Arabs voting in a democracy is not as important as ensuring that all these newly liberated Arabs don’t go and waste their vote on the Muslim Brotherhood or other Islamic political parties.

But back to the crimes. It is essential that whoever did these crimes – and also whoever put them up to do these crimes, regardless of who they are – should face justice as war criminals in the international courts.    

NEOCONS SPLIT OVER SYRIA

Neoconservative commentary recently about Syria indicates a split developing within their ranks. There are now two distinct groups giving two very divergent views. On one side there are those that would like to see intervention preferably by the US and their allies to oust President Bashar al-Assad, while on the other side there are those that strongly object to intervention arguing that it would be aiding and abetting the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

Writing in National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy says:

Congratulations to Mitt Romney. In calling for “opposition groups” to be armed and trained for their ongoing jihad against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, the GOP’s presidential contender has managed to align himself with al-Qaeda emir Ayman al-Zawahiri and Muslim Brotherhood icon Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Meanwhile, over at Commentary, neocon warhawk Max Boot is demanding to know why the US is not helping the Syrian rebels. Boot writes:

…election-year politics probably weighs against a… forceful American response. That’s a shame, because if we do nothing, not only will many more Syrians lose their lives, but we will lose a prime opportunity to tilt the Middle East balance of power against our primary adversary, Iran.

The lessons of previous ‘Arab Spring’ revolutions, it seems, are only just beginning to sink in with the neocons.

The word ‘intervention’ when used by either side has simply become propaganda shorthand for regime change. Neither side are in the slightest bit interested in intervention for strictly humanitarian purposes – which, of course, are why the West will get no support from the Russians and Chinese who can see right through the West’s ploy.

SO WHO IS KILLING WHO IN SYRIA?

Recent atrocities in Syria which have included the murder of more than a hundred civilians, many of who were children, and, in a later incident, some thirteen civilian workers executed, has led to calls from the West for ‘intervention’ - which is shorthand for supporting the Syrian opposition in ousting President Bashar al-Assad who has been accused of committing these crimes.

Assad, of course, has denied responsibility and has blamed the killings on al Qaeda elements operating with the opposition forces while the West has blamed Assad’s thuggish militias, the Shabiha, for the crimes.

In just a few days the rhetoric has become hysterical but still no one really knows who did these terrible deeds. The West would really like to see Assad get the blame for obvious reasons – they want him gone.

But, if one steps back for a moment away from the hysteria and the calls for intervention, and ask ‘who would have most to gain from these killings’, one can see an entirely different picture.

Clearly, Assad would gain nothing from committing such cold and callous crimes against civilians in this way. He knows the eyes of the world are already upon him. Why would he want to draw attention to himself so negatively any further knowing that the West are just itching for an excuse to ‘intervene’? And, as for the Shabiha, even they would know that crimes like this, especially against children, will achieve nothing whatsoever and serve no purpose other than to enrage the people further.

The hard evidence suggesting government troops or militias were responsible is far from overwhelming. The video of a child said to have been a survivor of the massacres and made by the opposition forces is not convincing; indeed, if anything, it merely reinforces the idea that there is something seriously wrong with the allegations. The boy talks of a Syrian army tank being used and with men dressed in various clothes, both uniforms and civilian clothing yet in this war the men could have been from anywhere and using a captured tank.

The Assad regime and its supporters would have nothing at all to gain by these atrocities. On the other hand, the opposition forces and, more to the point, their international backers in the West, would.

It wouldn’t be the first time in history that killings have been committed by one side and made to look like it had been committed by the other in order to widen a conflict or attract international rage and, again as history has shown us, there have always been men around who are cold-hearted enough to do such deeds.

The men of Special Forces are the most likely perpetrators in this instance; though in this case, not Assad’s Special Forces for reasons explained, but someone else’s. US Special Forces have always been happy to kill unarmed people in the past as have Israeli forces. And, since its Israel and the US who are the international actors keen to support the Syrian opposition forces to oust Assad, it would be they that would be more likely to commit these crimes for propaganda purposes. It is also well known that both US contractors (Blackwater) and Israeli operatives (Mossad) are working with Syria’s opposition groups. Both of these groups are capable of these criminal acts.

Of course, there’s no real proof that Blackwater or Mossad committed these crimes – but then, nor is there any real evidence proving that Assad’s men did the deed. But when one examines the reasons why anyone would want to commit such a crime, then the finger is pointing in a direction that makes far more sense.

It’s all very well for the self-righteous West to stand back and say ‘we would never do such a thing’, but the reality is; ‘Yes, we would! And have done many times before for various reasons’.

My Lai, Haditha, Sabra and Shatila, Mavi Marmara…   

DANIEL PIPES AND THE FAKE ISRAELIS

Daniels Pipes, writing in National Review Online, reckons that the descendents of   Palestinian refugees who were pushed from their homes and lands in what is now Israel in 1948 are ‘fake refugees’. He comes to this conclusion thus:

The fetid, dark heart of the Arab war on Israel, I have long argued, lies not in disputes over Jerusalem, checkpoints, or “settlements.” Rather, it concerns the so-called Palestine refugees.

So called because of the nearly 5 million official refugees served by UNRWA (short for the “United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East”) only about 1 percent are real refugees who fit the agency’s definition of “people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict.” The other 99 percent are descendants of those refugees, or what I call fake refugees.

While he doesn’t say it in so many words, Pipes’ argument clearly infers that ‘fake refugees’ – as he calls them – have no claim to right of return to their homelands.

However, Pipes has left himself wide open with this argument.

Quite simply, if the descendents of those who became refugees from Palestine only 64 yeas ago have no right of return, then how can Jews, many of who are descendents of converts to Judaism and have never had any connection whatsoever with Palestine, have a claim to right to return? I’m sure they’d be insulted if I called them ‘fake Israelis’. And how can even descendents of real Jews who moved away from Palestine hundreds of years ago have more of a right of return and those descendents of Palestinian refugees from only 64 years ago who don’t seem to have any rights?

Hypocrisy and arrogance, the values that ‘they’ hate about ‘us’.

WESTERN HYPOCRISY OVER DEATHS OF CHILDREN AND CIVILIANS IN SYRIA

The Western mainstream media and US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, has been quick to condemn the deaths of children and civilians yesterday in Syria – and quite rightly so. Whoever is responsible for this war crime – regardless of who it is – should be arrested and tried for their crimes.

However, the swift reaction by the Western mainstream media and the US government is in stark contrast to the same crimes committed by Israel when they attacked civilian areas of Beirut and villages elsewhere in Lebanon in 2006, and again when the Israelis indiscriminately bombed civilian areas in the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead in 2008/2009. These attacks resulted in the deaths of many children in both Lebanon and the Gaza yet there was no immediate outrage from the Western mainstream media and nor did the then Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, call for an immediate ceasefire – indeed, Rice ignored pleas from most of the world to get the Israelis to stop their crimes. In the case of the Lebanon war, Rice resisted calls of ceasefire until it became clear that Israel were getting nowhere with their war against Hezbollah. And, similarly in the Gaza, Rice also resisted calls to an end to the onslaught until the world-wide call for an end to the killing became overwhelming.

Hypocrisy and arrogance; the values that ‘they’ hate about ‘us’.    

DELUSIONAL NEOCON QUOTES LYING SPANISH EX-LEADER AND DISCREDITED ‘SECURITY ANALYST’ AS REASON TO ATTACK IRAN

One of neoconservatisms most rabid and delusional warmongering commentators, Clifford May, has written an article in National Review Online today arguing that Iran needs to be dealt with because of what Spanish ex-prime minister José Maria Aznar says he heard from Iranian leader Ali Khamenei back in 2000.

Apparently, Khamenei told Aznar in a ‘private discussion’ that “Israel must be burned to the ground and made to disappear from the face of the Earth”. The rest of what Aznar reckons Khamenei told him can be read in Clifford May’s article and associated links.

Bear in mind, however, that we are talking about the same Aznar who told the Spanish people that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, was in cohorts with Bush, Blair and Australia’s John Howard in pushing for war against Iraq despite the protests of their own peoples, and this the same Aznar who insisted that ETA, the Basque separatist group, was responsible for the March 2004 Madrid bombing. This is the same Aznar that then ordered the destruction of evidence prior to an upcoming election proving that ETA actually had nothing to do with the bombing ETA.

Clifford May also refers to fellow neocon Anthony Cordesman, who May says is a “respected security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies”. According to Cordesman’s latest rambling report:

Iran has pursued every major area of nuclear weapons development, has carried out programs that have already given it every component of a weapon except fissile material, and there is strong evidence that it has carried out programs to integrate a nuclear warhead onto its missiles.

Naturally, Cordesman is unable to provide any hard evidence to support any of his claims and, one should also remember, that this is the same Anthony Cordesman who in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2002 during the run up to the war against Iraq, said that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. This was at a time when it was well known by the intelligence community that Saddam Hussein had already destroyed his WMDs after having been told by Iraqi defector Hussein Kamel (Saddam’s son-in-law who was later executed by Saddam). Hussein Kamel had told the West in secret debriefings what weapons Saddam had and that he had been in charge of destroying them all. The intelligence about what weapons Saddam had was later used in the propaganda leading up to the attack on Iraq, but the fact that they had been destroyed, of course, was never mentioned.     

AS NEXT MEETING WITH IRAN DRAWS CLOSE, NEOCONS GET WORRIED

On this coming Wednesday, 23 May 2012, the P5+1 group will meet in Baghdad with Iranian negotiators for the next round of talks regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Neocons are not putting any faith in the outcome of the talks. Michael Rubin writing in Commentary says:

No deal will change the overall trajectory of Iranian nuclear aims, however. The regime has already made those too clear, not only in terms of rhetoric but also in terms of action.

And Jonathan Tobin, also writing in Commentary, reckons:

In theory, a deal that would remove the stockpile of weapons grade uranium and halt any more production would hamper Iran’s plans for a bomb. But any agreement that leaves those facilities intact, rather than having them dismantled and which would allow the production of more refined uranium, even if it is supposed to be not useful for a bomb, is the sort of framework the Iranians could use to bypass the restrictions. Moreover, any diplomatic process that can be dragged out for many months before it is put into effect will simply allow Iran more time to get closer to a bomb, and at the end of the process, it could, as it has done with previous Western-brokered deals for uranium shipment, simply opt out of the agreement.

The neocons clearly do not want the talks to succeed. Failure will mean that the use of force will be much more likely – which is exactly what the neoconservatives and the hard-right Zionists of Israel really want.

But now another factor has the possibility of spoiling the neocon/Zionist game plan. Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, who had insisted that Iran halt all enrichment has now apparently said that Israel may able to negotiate on the basis of allowing Iran to enrich uranium up the approximately 3.5% mark suitable for electrical power generation.

However, the associated conditions that are likely to accompany such a concession are not likely to be acceptable to Iran and this latest revelation is more than likely just a furphy to float the idea that Israel can be flexible in talks. In reality they will not be. The Israelis want regime change in Iran – as do the US – and an opportunity to attack Hamas and Hezbollah, and war with Iran is the only way that can be achieved.

Tune in next Wednesday for the next exciting episode.

U.S. RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVES AND NEOCONS: THEY ARE ONE AND THE SAME

There was an interesting piece in Salon last Thursday by Jordan Michael Smith in which he argued that there was a bit of battle going on between right-wing US conservatives and neoconservatives over how the ‘problem’ of the Muslim Brotherhood in the various Arab countries that have undergone or are currently undergoing revolutionary change, should be handled.

According to Smith, right-wing American conservatives would, at the risk of compromising the ideology of ‘democracy’ in the newly ‘liberated’ Arab nations, prefer not to allow the Muslim Brotherhood any opportunity at gaining power in these countries.

The neoconservatives, however, according to Smith, are willing to give the Muslim Brotherhood a chance and see how they scrub if and when they come to form or be a part of the governments of these newly ‘liberated’ nations.

In his argument, Smith lists those who he sees as right-wing conservatives who hold the view that the Muslim Brotherhood should be prevented from gaining power at any cost, and he similarly lists those who are neoconservative who advocate giving the Muslim Brotherhood a go as part of the democratic process.

Where Smith gets it wrong is in who he lists as right-wing conservatives and who he lists as neoconservatives.

As right-wing conservatives Smith lists Andrew McCarthy, a national security columnist with National Review; John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the UN under George W. Bush; Frank Gaffney, and Michelle Bachmann.

As neoconservatives Smith listed; Jamie Fly of the neocon think tank Foreign Policy Initiative; Robert Kagan, a strategist with the neocon think tank American Enterprise Institute; Dan Senor, a former official in the George W. Bush administration, and Paula Dobriansky, a well-known neocon advisor that also worked in the George W. bush administration.

The problem with Smith’s lists is that, with the possible exception of Michelle Bachmann, all of those listed as right-wing conservatives are actually neoconservatives as well – and even Bachmann has all the ideological characteristics required of being a neocon.

A difference of opinion within neoconservative ranks – especially over matters relating to who to support and not support in Islamic countries – does not create such a wide a rift as to alienate one group from the main neocon core group to the extent that they are no longer ‘neocons’. The fact is neoconservatives long before there was any hint of Arab revolution in the air, have as part of their rhetoric and propaganda supported the notion of ‘democracy’. Paula Dobriansky, for example, was Bush’s strongest advocate of the so-called ‘freedom agenda’. Indeed all those in the ‘democracy’ camp have been noisily advocating ‘democracy’ as part of the rhetoric calling for regime change in Iraq before the invasion, Iran, Syria, and even Saudi Arabia for years. Their motivation hasn’t been so much because they love democracy so much as all these countries were hostile to Israel – which, of course, is where the interests of all those listed really lay.

This difference of opinion within the neoconservative ranks is nothing new. During the Balkans conflict in the 1990’s there was a split in the neoconservative ranks as to how best to deal with the deadly situation there. Some advocated intervention in order to stop the killings of innocent civilians – most of who happened to be Muslims – while others advocated an isolationist arguing that intervention was not ‘in America’s interest’ inasmuch that there could evolve a Muslim-dominated state in Eastern Europe if the anti- Muslim Serbia were bombed into capitulation and intervention would only be supported by some neoconservatives if it were in the cause of ‘democratisation’ – which it wasn’t, it was for humanitarian reasons.

Those that shouted loudest in their rhetoric and propaganda about ‘democracy’ had no choice but to support the notion of the Muslim Brotherhood taking part in the process of ‘democracy’.

Chances are, however, that both the ‘neocons’ and the ‘right-wing conservatives’ will find a unified voice once again if and when the Muslim Brotherhood do come to power and begin to show that their idea of ‘democracy’ is far different from the neocons of the US view of democracy – especially when it comes to the Muslim Brotherhood’s policies relating to Israel.

In January 2006 the Palestinians had an election which the neoconservatives supported – until, that is, the wrong side, Hamas, won.

The rest is history… It, no doubt, will repeat itself.

NEOCONS WORK THEMSELVES INTO A PARANOID FRENZY OVER IRAN

Just a quick observation today.

Having decided that working themselves up into a lather over the supposed Iranian threat to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ has not had the desired effect inasmuch that it has failed to get Obama to attack Iran so that Israel can take over the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and, so they hope, south Lebanon up to the Litani River, the neocons have now decided that a bit of direct fear-mongering might do the trick.

Now the neocons are trying to tell Americans that the US East Coast needs a missile defence system in order to protect the US from Iranian nuclear-armed ICBMs.

Do they really expect Americans to fall for this utter nonsense? Are the neocons thick or do they just think the American people are? Do they expect the American people to flow out into the streets of America’s East Coast demanding that Obama attack Iran immediately? Are they nuts?

The American people and the rest of the world would be better off pouring out onto the streets demanding that there be no more wars – not for Israel or anyone else!

NEOCON DESPERATION FOR WAR AGAINST IRAN EXPOSES THEIR REAL INTENT

Henry Sokolski, the executive director of the neoconservative propaganda organisation The Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center, yesterday wrote a piece in the National Review Online titled ‘Preventing a Nuclear Iran’. In it, Sokolski fumbles around with the usual nonsense about how Iran is playing for time to build a bomb, etc., and how Obama should be getting on with doing something positive about preventing Iran from having any nuclear material.

Toward the end of his nonsensical twaddle Sokolski gets down to the nitty-gritty of what this is really all about. He writes:

Finally, the U.S. and its key allies need to get serious about putting the mullahs out to pasture. This means more than merely imposing economic sanctions or making a bombing run (the merits of which are open to debate).

When he says, ‘this means more than… making a bombing run’ Sokolski is referring to the need not just to destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities, but to launch a massive all-out bombing offensive against Iran’s entire military and governmental institutions such that will bring about regime change in Iran.     

Sokolski goes on to say that “the U.S. should consider how to work with its friends in the region to limit Iranian influence in Iraq, Gaza, the Gulf, the West Bank, and Lebanon”. Since America only has one friend in the region, Israel, one wouldn’t need to be a brain surgeon to work out that what Sokolski is suggesting is that, while the US is busy with Iran, Israel could take care of Hamas in the Gaza and the West Bank, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. The rather fuzzy reference to ‘Iraq’ and ‘the Gulf’ is just a furphy designed not to make the connotations too obvious.

With an extreme right-wing government in Israel now consolidated under Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party together with their neoconservative backers champing at the bit to attack Iran and poised to contest the US Presidency, only President Obama stands in the way of a catastrophic disaster – and nothing is assured even as far as he is concerned.

CONVICTED AUSTRALIAN RACIST ANDREW BOLT WANTS TO STOP BLACK AFRICAN IMMIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA

In his online blog today at Murdoch’s Herald-Sun newspaper, Andrew Bolt, a well known convicted Australian racist, has suggested that Australia stop allowing black African migrants into Australia.

The article is probably the most blatant piece of racism yet from Bolt who usually attempts to avoid being so obvious about his racism.

Bolt uses an article in the Age newspaper as an opportunity to peddle his hatred. The article tells of a group of Australian students who happen to be black who are complaining of police harassment when they visit the inner city in Melbourne. They have said that many of them are getting fed up with this harassment and, if it continues, there could possibly be a backlash such as there was last August in the UK when Londoners rioted over the death of a black Londoner who was shot to death by the police.

Racism, sponsored deliberately by the likes of Andrew Bolt and his fellow Murdoch so-called ‘journalists’ like the Islamophobic Tim Blair, Piers Akerman et al, is marginalising black youth in Melbourne who, in turn, look to each other for socialising and studying whilst readying themselves for work – if they can get it.

It’s time to end racism in Australia. Bolt’s blatant racism should never be allowed to take hold in Australia.

WAR AGAINST IRAN: LEADING NEOCON INVOKES ISRAEL’S PAST ‘GLORIES’ OF A UNITED ISRAEL TO SPUR ON ATTACK AGAINST IRAN

Leading influential neoconservative writer and warmonger, Charles Krauthammer, has invoked Israel’s success in the 1967 six day war against numerous Arab countries including Egypt, Jordan and Syria, as encouragement enough for Israel to attack Iran over its so-called ‘nuclear weapons program’.

Krauthammer seems to think that a united Israel – at least politically and militarily if not quite universally – puts it in a position to take on Iran by attacking its nuclear facilities. Krauthammer’s argument is that the entire nation is now united due to Netanyahu commanding some 94 seats in the 120 seat Knesset due to the Kadima Party crossing the floor from the opposition to the government all because of a changeover of leadership when Tzipi Livni lost the leadership ballot to Shaul Mofaz.

There was no general election that gave Netanyahu so much power, but then who needs elections when you have politicians and political parties willing and able to change their political stance without getting a mandate from the electorate yet still keep their seat in parliament?

So much for democracy in Israel.

Israel’s modus operandi ever since Zionists first dreamed up the idea of grabbing Palestine as their homeland has always been to provoke their enemies into providing a casus belli so that any attack against their enemies will always seem as though the Israelis are defending themselves. In reality, however, all that is happening is that, while seemingly acting in defence, albeit pre-emptively, they are actually carefully fulfilling a plan designed specifically to expand their territorial holdings meter by meter. The Six-Day War of 1967 was a classic example of just that. It was a war that had its origins in Israel’s desire to have the Golan Heights. Literally, meter by meter, Israeli bulldozers pushed up the slopes of the Golan Heights with settlers close behind cultivating the land as the bulldozers moved forward. When the Syrians fired at the bulldozers to push them back the Israelis claimed they were under attack.

Similarly, the Israelis provoked the Palestinians by arresting and assassinating Palestinian activists in what is now the West Bank. The Palestinians responded with some small scale attacks against the Israelis. The Israelis counter-responded by launching a massive disproportionate attack against the Jordanian village of as-Samu in the West Bank. In doing so, the Israelis managed to get an entire regional war going. Viola! Six-Day War, occupation of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and the Sinai, and the destruction of the Egyptian forces and the rest is history.

Now Krazy Krauthammer thinks the time is right to repeat the performance – only this time against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

The world should take these people seriously. The Zionists of Israel are prepared to risk all for their dream of a Greater Israel and the destruction of all their enemies