Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Angela, hi! You might find this interesting

Moqtada al-Sadr has formally admitted that the Iranian-backed Hezbollah is training Mehdi Army militia terrorists in Iraq.

"Lebanon's Hizbollah has trained Shia fighters from Iraq in advanced guerrilla warfare tactics, according to Mehdi army militants who have been fighting British forces in the south of the country. Members of Muqtada al-Sadr's powerful militia said they had received instruction from fellow Shias from Hizbollah, the movement that fought Israel's vaunted military machine to a bloody standstill in last year's July War."

Craig Rowley says:

Notice George's hesitant pause in ending that statement. It was like a little version of his The Pet Goat moment.

What was George thinking for those seconds between starting to bang on about the current Iranian leadership and ending his statement on a whimper?

Regarding this whole topic, something Richard just said over at the "What if...?" thread reminded me of this:

Ms Rice yesterday said representatives from Iran and Syria would be invited to a "neighbours meeting" to discuss efforts to stabilise Iraq. "I am pleased to announce that we are also supporting the Iraqis in a new diplomatic offensive: to build greater support, both within the region and beyond, for peace and prosperity in Iraq," she said. "We hope these governments seize this opportunity to improve their relations with Iraq and to work for peace and stability in the region"?

So, that may be what George was thinking about .

Also, I did some further checking for Angela.

According to his account of the morning's events on September 11, 2001, author Michael Burleigh in 'Sacred Causes' puts the time President Bush was first told about the second plane hitting the World Trade Centre North Tower at a couple of minutes before 9.00am. Now, I'd say that that was the earliest he could reasonably have had any inkling that the first plane hitting the South Tower was anything other than a terrible accident.

The President boarded Air Force One at 9.30. So, notwithstanding the enormity of the events being relayed to him, I'd say George W Bush was able to extract himself from the school class-room and get airborne not only with noteworth promptness but with considerable aplomb.

Well, what do you call this sort of statement?

"It took our countries about 800 years to develop the Westminster system, and I think the bottom line is you don't establish democracy by invasion, it just doesn't happen." .

- Robert McClelland

From US News

Bush's comments on Iran are coming under fire from some media commentators. Eugene Robinson writes in today's Washington Post, "If you listened to Bush at his news conference yesterday, you heard a man who's not about to let something as petty as objective reality change his mind -- and who's not going to pay attention to what the Iraqi government or even his own government might say or do." David Gardner, in the Financial Times, says the "largely evidence-free blaming of serial setbacks on Iranian forces is a bad case of denial." First, "the insurgency is overwhelmingly Iraqi and Sunni." Second, "to the extent foreign fighters are involved these have come mostly from US-allied and Sunni Saudi Arabia, not Shia Iran." Third, "the lethal roadside bombs with shaped charges that US officials have coated with a spurious veneer of sophistication to prove Iranian provenance are mostly made by Iraqi army-trained engineers."

Cheney Pushing For Military Strike McClatchy reports that in internal Administration deliberations, Vice President Cheney, "who's long been skeptical of diplomacy with Iran, argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq; for example, catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran, one official said." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "opposes this idea, the officials said. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated publicly that 'we think we can handle this inside the borders of Iraq.'"

Analysts at Stratfor appear to be hinting at something:

Of all of the various outside players who have a stake in Iraq, the Saudis now are the most afraid of the tentative shapes that are emerging from recent moves to open the U.S.-Iranian negotiations to other players. A world in which Iran, the United States, Turkey and Syria are more or less in agreement -- with Iraq settled among them -- is a world in which the importance of Saudi Arabia becomes vastly diminished. If Saudi Arabia is to avoid dropping from regional power to regional pigmy, Riyadh will need to change someone's logic -- and that will require something much more eye-catching than simply skipping a meeting.

What kind of eye-catching something are they hinting at here?

Something like this?

A group of British and American Muslims on pilgrimage to Mecca say they were illegally detained and brutally beaten by Saudi religious police.

The men, who suffered physical mistreatment as well as verbal abuse during their incarceration, claim they were arrested because they are Shia and Westerners. The Foreign Office is expected to raise the matter with the Saudi government although the authorities in the country say they have already started an investigation.

Something more striking?

Angela Ryan:

How can a nation like the US have GW as Supreme Commander – with power granted now to "push the A-trigger' button?

I believe this is actually a bit of a myth (I might be wrong). I have always assumed that to launch a nuclear strike there must be "three" people pushing the "button". Each of which has an individual code not known to the other parties. The protection against insanity.

Okay, so nobody seems able or willing to show a time since President Karzai came to office when he didn't have good relations with Iran.

Now, this item:

"The growing intimacy of Iraq and Iran was on display late this week, when Mr Maliki met the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other leaders. In a joint appearance, Mr Maliki told Mr Ahmadinejad that Iran had a "positive and constructive" role in improving security in Iraq, the official IRNA news agency reported.."

Shouldn't this sort of thing be impossible?

Angela Ryan asks:

Hey, Eliot, just for the record, for how many minutes did the Supreme Commander keep reading about goats after he was told? And what do you think about Georgie telling a meeting that he actually saw the first attack in his car?

My guess is the car had a television in it, and as the events of September 11 were being broadcast around the world, he's probably referring to that since, presumably, the meeting was held after he left the school.

As for his conduct in the school, I suppose he could have jumped to his feet and run screaming around in circles. Would that have been better? As it was, his secret service security detail drove him to Air Force One, didn't it?

I'm sorry, Angela. I'm not sure what you are driving at. What should George have done at the school? Apart from leave it?

Angela Ryan:

As if Iran would attack anyone! Let alone a nuclear armed state with three ex German Dolphin classed subs all primed with nukes

I would not say it is impossible, just highly improbable. Equally, the arguments you make for Iran not attacking America could apply to America not attacking Iran.

I think he is mad, and have little doubt about it, though I see him more as a convenient stooge to higher powers. He was put there to halt unrest within the nation more than anything else. One good way of doing this is an appeal to nationalism. Unfortunately for him, like everything else, this has a limited life.

The problem from an authoritarian perspective with youth is that they think, and they are unpredictable. There is no guarantee that they will follow in their parents' footsteps. I believe the Iranian government fears this above any other fear. Many outside forces also fear things such as a rise in socialist thought etc, and are quite content with present Iranian crackdowns.

If Iran and America bluster at each other for many years to come, and things stay much the same without anyone throwing the first stone, many, I feel, would see this as a victory. My view is that the present Iranian regime will eventually collapse the way all authoritarian governments collapse through their own contradictions. I do not discount them one day again being a good friend to the USA.

I reckon everyone following these international relations topics on Webdiary realise that "Preemption, rather than reaction" summarises the Bush Doctrine.

The American Enterprise Institute is clear on the underpinnings of the Bush Doctrine.

Craig Rowley says:

Notice George's hesitant pause in ending that statement. It was like a little version of his The Pet Goat moment.

What was George thinking for those seconds between starting to bang on about the current Iranian leadership and ending his statement on a whimper?

Well, let's think for a moment about The Pet Goat moment.

In the space of a few minutes, while surrounded by a classroom of five-year-olds reading from a story book, George W was told that:

(a) an airliner filled with passengers had just smashed into the south tower of the World Trade Centre, then minutes later

(b) another airliner had smashed into the north tower, and

(c) yet another had smashed into the Pentagon, and

(d) yet another had crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, and

(e) that perhaps thousands of innocent people, his fellow countrymen, had died.

Maybe he paused for a moment to reflect on who had done such a thing, and what sort political support they might have in places like, I dunno, Afghanistan?

Or Iran?

And not long after that, as I recall, Saddam Hussein gave him a pompous lecture on "getting wisdom".

Eliot Ramsey:

Now, what "element of risk" might be involved in Iran's present political doctrines for its neighbours, and even those countries like Israel not even close to Iran?  Can you think of any?

I think there is a risk Iran may attack Israel. I personally see that risk as low. I certainly would agree that in the event of any such attack, the USA would be obliged to help a friend (Israel).

My own opinion is that Iran (government) is happy with the way things are. I think it unlikely they will gain nuclear weapons in the near future. I find it hard to believe any third party would think it wise to supply the technology: there does not seem any real advantage for any nation to do so. In the event of this technology being supplied by rouge elements, whoever does supply it will be a very popular person[s]. There will be very interested parties in knowing just where and how such technology was made available. This would make me a little nervous about starting the car of a morning if I were such a person.

The present Iranian government seems quite content to go along doing as they have been for the past thirty years (blustering and causing problems). That is, making a mess of their nation whilst attempting to distract the attention of their people. Constant rallies of nationalism mixed with religious fervor seem to be their chosen formula for success. Given also that Iranian people are under the boot of quite a controlling authoritarian government is something large international business finds helpful (most of which are not American). The Iranian regime is quite efficient at cracking down on any left-wing type elements that may one day cause unwanted problems.

My own personal view is that the greatest (unspoken) fear the American State Department holds is a Saudi Arabia gone bad. A fundi out of control takeover of the gulf region means a world of hurt for everybody!

Iran (be it a slightly different version) may yet come in handy down the track.

Likewise, the Nimitz being deployed in the Persian Gulf implies an element of risk to American enemies in the region, given the Bush Doctrine (whatever that is).

I also have little idea of what the "Bush Doctrine" is.

Craig Rowley says:

Paul, I'm generally in agreement with almost all you said in your most recent comment, except that concluding 'throwaway' line.  I describe it as 'throwaway' because there is always a risk as long as "all options are on the table." 

I have to say, Paul, that I am in full agreement with Craig on this point. The element of risk is what underlies all military options held out by any protagonist in international affairs.

Craig Rowley:

I don't take issue with that description and would use it as well ... but unlike George W, I wouldn't ever think to use a religious concept such as 'Evil' to describe it.

I would not use the word "evil" either. I think the word "disappointing" is a fair description.

Now Paul, a question for you: Why do you think George W again had the word 'Evil' on the tip of his tongue this time? 

I have not in the previous seven years bothered to think about the mind of GWB. I am not intending to start now.

I ask this because the point I was making (perhaps too subtly for you to pick up on) was that President George W Bush sees "one true cause of everything" and he makes decisions deformed by that and other biases. 

Yes, religion does seem to play a big part in his life. Unfortunately, I believe he is the first American President to allow it to [un]control his job. Quite similar, in fact, to the current Iranian leadership. That is why I once stated; both he and Ahmadinejad would make good golf buddies. They are the same person.

He believes it is the responsibility of the United States of America to ''rid the world of evil.''  

He might, I do not. If we are to live within borders, the people of the United States of America should be making it the best place on the planet. I would support the USA leaving the UN, and returning to a non-intervention policy. The United States should support only itself, and its dearest friends. The world for all its good and "evil" is not the problem of the "New World". Unfortunately ever since the New Deal this has been largely forgotten.

You see; he is that stupid.

Well yes, and so are all the previous post WWII Presidents. Tell me something I don't know.

Thankfully, not everyone around him is so stupid.

I would hope not. Perhaps one day one might become President. That non-stupid person will not be found amongst the current crop of contenders.

Unfortunately, so many of those around him are inadequate in other ways. They're warhawks; wannabe warriors pushing their Strict Father model of the Nation.  They're probably disappointed that they can't execute the plan to "bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran."

They still might get their chance with the next President. Iran needs America more than America needs Iran. The Iranian leadership, like all statist models, is authoritarian. Authoritarian governments need enemies to compensate for other failures. It will not take the current Iranian government long to find an enemy in the next US President. They will work over-time to achieve this objective.

Of course the next US President will not be all that concerned about it. US Presidents also need enemies. The US also follows the statist model of government (be it a bit more democratic). The remaining voices out there will follow the political line they are expected to follow.

And so we watch and discuss the rise and fall in the risk of American led (or 'allowed') attacks on sovereign nations he and his fellows see as 'evil'.

There is no risk of America attacking Iran in the near future. The reality is: there never was.

Angela Ryan:

What do they each want? Who are they? Are we dealing with nation states or powerful interest groups? They did deals with Iran in 2001 and they may again. Some others want to remove Iran as it is considered a threat (Why really?) to Israel and Saudi dominance, regardless of the fact that it is not in the US’s interest to have Iran as an enemy when as an ally they would be so very very valuable in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Iran was once a good friend of the "west", not only the USA. Quite a nice place for "westerners" to visit, from all accounts. Maybe it will be again one day. One can never be sure of anything when it comes to the Middle East.

Craig Rowley:

G'day Richard, I agree the abuse level went much further than that instance.  I was pointing out that it was this personal attack on Ian McPherson by Paul Morrella that appears to have triggered escalation.  Read through the exchanges and you'll find Paul did more to make waves than to calm things down. In fact, Ian asked Paul to get back on topic a couple of times. 

I have been in contact with Margo, and from at least my perspective the issue is now finished. If Ian has been offended by any term used: I apoligize.

Note: I have not, and do not intend to defame any person on this site or any other site. The attack of an idea is not defamation!

In a widely reported interview with CNN just before his departure for the United States at the weekend, Karzai said Iran had been helpful to security efforts in his country -- directly contradicting the repeated, public assessments of senior U.S. officials.

President Karzai has, as I understand it, conducted active and positive diplomatic relations with Iran since he came to office. Thus making a mockery of the oft-repeated lie that he is a tool of US foreign policy in the region.

Can anyone show a time since President Karzai came to office when he didn't have good relations with Iran?

Here's an excerpt from an article in The Australian showing their treatment of the news that Afghan President Hamid Karzai and US President George W. Bush differ in their views on Iran's influence in Afghanistan:

One day after Mr Karzai called Iran "a helper" against extremists, Mr Bush blasted Tehran as "not a force for good" and vowed to pursue efforts to isolate it over its suspect nuclear program.

"We will continue to work to isolate it because they're not a force for good as far as we can see, they're a destabilising influence wherever they are," Mr Bush said at a news conference with Mr Karzai, who did not mention Iran.

And here's a couple of excerpts from United Press International's coverage of the same news:

In a widely reported interview with CNN just before his departure for the United States at the weekend, Karzai said Iran had been helpful to security efforts in his country -- directly contradicting the repeated, public assessments of senior U.S. officials.

"Iran has been a supporter of Afghanistan, in the peace process that we have and the fight against terror, and the fight against narcotics in Afghanistan. … They … have contributed steadily to Afghanistan. We have had very, very good, very, very close relations" with Iran, Karzai said.

*

When President Bush was asked whether Karzai was able to convince him about Iran's helpful role, he said it was "up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force, as opposed to a destabilizing force."

"The president knows best about what's taking place in his country," he said of Karzai, adding, "and of course I'm willing to listen.

"But from my perspective, the burden of proof is on the Iranian government to show us that they're a positive force. And I must tell you that this current leadership there is -- is a big disappointment."

Bush said the United States would continue to work to isolate Tehran, which he said "seems to be willing to thumb its nose at the international community."

But he did not address the issue of the Iranian role in Afghanistan directly, and Karzai's comments echo the skepticism of many regional experts about the U.S. claims, which have come with increasing volume since they first emerged last year sourced to unnamed U.S. military officials.

So it is not surprising that back room dealing and front room talking is going on, everywhere right now. Some is reported as you have linked; thanks Eliot.

No, it's not surprising, is it Angela. It's called 'diplomacy' and it goes on all the time.

People who put overwhelming emphasis on this or that political or cultural influence within the United States' political and cultural complex and then try to predict from it alone are bound always to look a bit silly in the aftermath.

Apropos what is 'really' happening is Iraq, it's indicative that someone like Seymour Hersh would insist its 'really' about cutting deals with the Saudis, while at the other end of town someone else is actually talking to their Iranian counterparts with a view to restraining their support for the Shiite militias.

It seems to me the State Department might be adressing what everyone else also already knows. The Saudis are backing the Sunnis because they don't want the Iranian Shiite militia proxies getting control of Iraq and annexing the southern bits, and the Saudis preferred the Ba'athists anyhow who owed them bucket-loads of loot.

And they're both trying to overturn the elected government of Iraq by fostering as much internal conflict as possible.

Also, we don't have a Wal-Mart in Leichhardt.

Craig Rowley says:

I thought he looked like he was trying really hard to recall the rhetoric his minders told him to use.

It must be harder when your minders don't even speak English, hey Craig?

Richard:  Eliot, a quick note here on your inferences that some of your comments aren't being published because of a perceived bias from me.  This is an accusation that I'm beginning to find very offensive. Any posts not published are checked by more than one moderator. 

"...the Bush administration, with Saudi Arabia, is secretly funding radical Sunni groups - some with ties to al-Qaeda - to counter Shiite groups backed by Iran."

Really?

"The United States and Iran have held a frank first meeting of a new committee set up by the arch foes to seek an end to Iraq's sectarian violence, which Washington accuses Tehran of fuelling.."

- Reuters, today.

Oh, well.

Fiona: Daniel, we are trying our best to restore order and get back to debating issues rather than hurling abuse...

Well, I raised an issue specifically with you, Fiona.

Does saying someone supports Hamas become an "egregious accusation" merely depending on who is asking? 

And can a declared "pacifist" support Hamas without obvious contradiction?

Fiona: Eliot, I will be posting a response to you later today.

Fiona, hello.

How is asking Mary J if she still supports Hamas an "accusation"? As David R points out quite correctly below:

If you think that describing someone as a Hamas supporter is an egregious accusation or a personal attack, you don't understand the Palestinian situation (nor does Eliot, in my view, but there you are).

So, is saying someone supports Hamas an "egregious accusation" depending on who is asking? As I recall, I was merely asking Mary J how she reconciles her declared "pacifism" with her support for Hamas? I mean, if someone said they supported our troops in Afghanistan, and then said they were a "pacifist", wouldn't you find that a bit odd? But I wouldn't say that saying someone else supports the Australian Army in Afghanistan is an "egregious accusation".

Craig Rowley asks:

Why then have you not acted on the accusations made by, for example, Eliot Ramsey that another 'diarist is a "Hamas supporter"?

When have I ever done that, Craig? Whom have I "accused" of being a Hamas supporter?

And what in your view is wrong with supporting Hamas, anyway?

Margo has this to add: "I am satisfied that Paul Morella is Paul Morella. There will be no further discussion of this matter on Webdiary. Any attempts to do so will be deleted." She has also ruled that any further comments casting doubt on the identity of other Webdiarists will not be published.

Webdiarists should note that there are a number of people who write on this forum under pseudonyms whose good and sufficient reasons have been accepted by Margo, and whose livelihood may in some cases be threatened by attempts to expose them. Others use their real name here and habitually use pseudonyms elsewhere - on some major comment sites, such as the Guardian, SMH and BBC sites, almost all commenters use nicknames or handles. This is also fine. Even when checks on identity are carried out by the editors, we will not normally discuss the question or the outcome on the site.

Did some one say RED HERRING? come on, where are they? aw come on fellas - Geoff,  tell me: Kath, where are they sweetie? ah thanks hon -  here's one - gobble gulp - Ooooo and here's another - mmmmm - yummy yummy - thanks......

I'm going to let y'all in on a secret - wait a bit - another Red - gulp gulp - ah that's better - now where was I? Oh the secret, yep I know who Paul Morrella is: you see many people who use a nun di plum use their real initials in said nun di plum. In Paul's case this is a dead give away - P.M.

I have it on good authority that Paul Morrella is really, you know who - his real name, of course being, none other than Pixel Maniac. Pixel Maniac is of course not a real person, and lives in the deep dark depths of a hard drive somewhere in Transylvania. Pixel Maniacs spends most of their time counting to one, but dream about counting to twenty-seven.

The young Pixel of the Maniac cluster is well known for idealism and attempting to think outside the box. We should never ever discourage this, wise a terrorised Pixel Maniac from Transylvania is apt to all sorts or shenanigans; in which case I'm going into the garlic business.

Now where can one find another lovely Ruby Head around here?

Cheers J. Liverstoned Obodie

I was tempted to comment on this thread but thought better of it.

I wonder what overseas visitors who might happen to read through the latest batch of comments here would make of Webdiary? Surely they wouldn't be impressed!