Café Philos: an internet café

Yesterday, former President Jimmy Carter went on record stating the United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law.

But first some background: The New York Times disclosed on October 4th the existence of secret Justice Department memorandums supporting the use of "harsh interrogation techniques", including "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

In response to The Times article, President Bush defended the techniques last Friday and said, "This government does not torture people."

Yesterday, Carter went on CNN and all but called the President a liar.

The CNN interview was conducted by Wolf Blitzer, no friend of Carter's:

BLITZER: President Bush said as recently as this week the United States does not torture detainees.

CARTER: That's not an accurate statement. If you use the international norms of torture as has always been honored, certainly in the last 60 years, since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. But you can make your own definition of human rights and say, we don't violate them. And we can — you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate it.

BLITZER: But by your definition, you believe the United States, under this administration, has used torture.

CARTER: I don't think it, I know it, certainly.

BLITZER: So is the president lying?

CARTER: The president is self-defining what we have done and authorized in the torture of prisoners, yes.

I suppose this means presidents no longer lie -- they merely "self-define". Yet, whatever one might think of his euphemisms, Carter pretty much stated what the world knows -- the US is torturing prisoners and the Administration is bullshitting. Carter, it seems, is one politician who is being honest with us -- and he's likely to get crucified for it.

After the CNN interview, Carter went on BBC World News America. This time his target was Dick Cheney:

He's a militant who avoided any service of his own in the military and he has been most forceful in the last 10 years or more in fulfilling some of his more ancient commitments that the United States has a right to inject its power through military means in other parts of the world.

You know he's been a disaster for our country. I think he's been overly persuasive on President George Bush and quite often he's prevailed.

At the rate he's going, I'm definitely going to miss Carter when he passes on. The man was a failed president, but I think he has since redeemed himself through his moral activism as an ex-president. Basically, he's turned himself into a statesman. And whether one agrees with him or not, one most likely does not get the impression that Jimmy Carter is hiding what he genuinely thinks or feels.

A couple more quotes from Carter -- this time on the GOP candidates for president:

They all seem to be outdoing each other in who wants to go to war first with Iran, who wants to keep Guantanamo open longer and expand its capacity -- things of that kind.

They're competing with each other to appeal to the ultra-right-wing, war-mongering element in our country, which I think is the minority of our total population.

Yesterday, Jimmy Carter spoke more truth to the world in two interviews than the Bush Administration speaks in twenty.


References:

Carter Says US Tortures Prisoners

Jimmy Carter Unplugged: Former President Takes Aim at Bush and Cheney

Jimmy Carter Calls Cheney a "Disaster" for US

Jimmy Carter: US Tortures Prisoners

The commander of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, Admiral William Fallon, was recently interviewed by Al-Jazeera television, which released a partial transcript of the interview Sunday.

According to Al-Jazeera's transcript, the Admiral made several statements about Iran, including the following:

This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me, which is not helpful and not useful.

I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for.

We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all.

It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.

His remarks put him at odds with Vice President Cheney's camp, which is reportedly pushing hard for bombing Iran.

On the very same day that Al-Jazeera released its partial transcript of Admiral Fallon's remarks, Newsweek Magazine published a report that Vice President Cheney is considering an underhanded and devious method to plunge the US into war with Iran:

Newsweek Magazine reported Sunday that Vice President Richard Cheney may have considered a plan for Israeli missile strikes against an Iranian nuclear site in an effort to draw a military response from Iran, which could in turn spark a U.S. offensive against targets in the Islamic Republic.

Citing two unnamed sources the magazine called knowledgeable, the magazine quoted David Wurmser, until last month Cheney's Middle East advisor, as having told a small group of people that "Cheney had been mulling the idea of pushing for limited Israeli missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz - and perhaps other sites - in order to provoke Tehran into lashing out."

According to the report, "The Iranian reaction would then give Washington a pretext to launch strikes against military and nuclear targets in Iran."

Steve Clemons, the Washington blogger who first broke the story of Cheney's deviousness, has argued for some time that, "[A war with Iran] would most likely be triggered by one or both of the two people who would see their political fortunes rise through a new conflict -- Cheney and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Meanwhile, the UK Sunday Times revealed that a secret US Air Force team, called "Project Checkmate", has been set up to perfect the plans to attack Iran:

The United States Air Force has set up a highly confidential strategic planning group tasked with “fighting the next war” as tensions rise with Iran.

Project Checkmate, a successor to the group that planned the 1991 Gulf War’s air campaign, was quietly reestablished at the Pentagon in June.

It reports directly to General Michael Moseley, the US Air Force chief, and consists of 20-30 top air force officers and defence and cyberspace experts with ready access to the White House, the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

What makes Project Checkmate especially interesting is that it bypasses Admiral Fallon's command:

Detailed contingency planning for a possible attack on Iran has been carried out for more than two years by Centcom (US central command), according to defence sources.

Yet, by by-passing his command (which is Centcom), Project Checkmate can hope to do an end run around the military opposition to war with Iran. Not surprisingly, according to some sources, Dick Cheney is the man in the Administration most responsible for setting up Project Checkmate.


UPDATE: Perhaps a little background on Admiral Fallon. There is an unconfirmed report that around the time of his confirmation as Centcom chief, Admiral Fallon privately expressed his intentions regarding war with Iran:

A source who met privately with Fallon around the time of his confirmation hearing and who insists on anonymity quoted Fallon as saying that an attack on Iran "will not happen on my watch".

Asked how he could be sure, the source says, Fallon replied, "You know what choices I have. I'm a professional." Fallon said that he was not alone, according to the source, adding, "There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box."

I don't know how likely the story is to be true, but it is at least consistent with Admiral Fallon's recent remarks on Al-Jazeera television.


UPDATE II: Juan Cole is arguing in Salon that, "Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial is all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war."


UPDATE III: Think Progress is reporting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's influence in the Administration is on the wane while Vice President Cheney's influence is again on the rise.



References:

Military Chief: "No War" with Iran

No Iran War Says US Admiral

Report: Cheney may have mulled pushing Israel to hit Iran

Will Bush Bomb Iran?

Secret US Air Force Team to Perfect Plan to Attack Iran

Commander's Veto Sank Threatening Gulf Build Up

Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1



Related Articles:

Will Bush Bomb Iran

US Administration Gives Fox News Its Marching Orders

Prediction: Administration Will Attack Iran

Steven Clemons at Salon does not believe President Bush will bomb Iran despite that Vice President Cheney is lobbying for war.

According to Clemons, Bush is siding with his military advisers, who oppose bombing Iran, and against the neocons led by Cheney, who are in favor of it. Clemons apparently has some impressive channels into the Administration, for he seems to know what's going on. The trouble is, he leaves me unconvinced the US will avoid war:

Despite holding out a military option, ratcheting up tensions with Iran about meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan, and deploying carrier strike-force groups in the Persian Gulf, the president is not planning to bomb Iran. But there are several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen, if the neocon wing of the party, led by Vice President Cheney, succeeds in reasserting itself, or if there is some kind of "accidental," perhaps contrived, confrontation.

I'm inclined to believe one of those "several not-unrelated scenarios under which it might happen" is likely to happen. Among other scenarios, Clemons raises the possibility that Israel might strike Iran with cruise missiles, which he believes would lead to the US and Iran going to war. It's sad -- but realistic -- to think the actions of Israel could control whether the US bombs Iran. But in a way that's no worse than if Cheney and the neocons "reassert themselves", for neither Israel nor the neocons have the interests of the American people at heart.

At any rate, Clemons opens his article with this possibly illuminating anecdote:

During a recent high-powered Washington dinner party attended by 18 people, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft squared off across the table over whether President Bush will bomb Iran.

Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Carter, said he believed Bush's team had laid a track leading to a single course of action: a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Scowcroft, who was NSA to Presidents Ford and the first Bush, held out hope that the current President Bush would hold fire and not make an already disastrous situation for the U.S. in the Middle East even worse.

The 18 people at the party, including former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, then voted with a show of hands for either Brzezinski's or Scowcroft's position. Scowcroft got only two votes, including his own. Everyone else at the table shared Brzezinski's fear that a U.S. strike against Iran is around the corner.

Folks inside the Beltway are notorious for their ignorance of American public opinion, but they are certainly tuned into what each other thinks. And it seems that most people inside the Beltway think war is coming.

Let's hope they're wrong.


Reference:

Why Bush Won't Attack Iran

Related Articles:

US Administration Gives Fox News Its Marching Orders

Prediction: Administration Will Attack Iran

The Administration today revealed to Fox News how it wishes to frame the debate over going to war with Iran. Instead of debating whether to go to war or not, the Administration wants to frame the debate as a question of whether to blockade Iran or bomb it into the stone age:

[A]ccording to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

My guess is Fox News can be relied on to go along with the Administration by increasingly presenting the issue of war with Iran as not a matter of "whether" but of "how". If history is any guide, the rest of the mega-media will fall in line sooner or later -- including such purported bastions of liberal thinking as The New York Times and the major networks.

It's a very clever move on the part of the Administration that obviously hopes to eliminate or marginalize the most sane option -- no war -- at the very start of the debate.


Reference:

US Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan

Related Reference:

Only Impeachment Can Stop Him

For weeks and months, some of the most level headed and astute bloggers on the net, such as Glenn Greenwald, have warned us of a movement among neocons to attack Iran. This evening, Democracy Now stated in its Wednesday broadcast:

There are reports that Vice President Dick Cheney's office has issued instructions to conservative think tanks to start a drumbeat for attacking Iran. On Monday the American Enterprise Institute is hosting two events related to Iran. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is giving a speech on how the war on terrorism should be viewed as a "a world war that pits civilization against terrorists and their state sponsors who wish to impose a new dark age." Later in the day former CIA director Jim Woolsey and others will meet to discuss a new book by longtime Iran hawk Michael Leeden titled "The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots" Quest for Destruction." The Heritage Foundation recently hosted an interagency Bush administration war game attempting to anticipate Iranian responses to a U.S. bombing campaign.

In conjunction with conservative institutions, the Administration seems to be putting out the story that an attack on Iran would only involve intense bombing. But the Administration's goal in attacking Iran is regime change: How they plan to bring about a regime more favorable to the West with air attacks alone seems "problematic". Of course, this Administration is unknown for strategic brilliance. Moreover, Iraq has shown that it is fully capable of creating and then acting on fantasy. So, maybe it is prepared to attack Iran, like it did Iraq, on some vague hope that all will work out well in the end.

If recent history is any guide, Congress will offer the Administration no resistance.

Again, if recent history is any guide, the mainstream media will swallow whatever excuses the Administration has for attacking Iran. They will serve as nothing much more than a mouthpiece for the Administration. So, while there will be a pretense of debate in this country over whether it's a good idea or not to attack Iran, the media will be so solidly in support of the Administration that the national debate will only be a pretense.

All in all, things don't look so good for anyone who doubts an attack on Iran at this point in time is the wisest thing we could do.


UPDATE: The Mahablog has posted an interview this evening with an officer on a carrier attack group that is deploying into the Gulf of Hormuz. The officer, a woman with years of experience in both the Marines and the Navy, tells Mahablog:

"Yes. We're going to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussions that are going on is window dressing... I see what is going on below deck here in the hangers and weapons bays."

"[A]ll the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished."

"We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens."

If the officer is right, the Administration might not even be planning to get Congressional approval before attacking Iran.


UPDATE II: Barnett R. Rubin writes at the "Informed Comment Global Affairs" blog that the first goal of the PR campaign is, "to get support in polls up to about 35-40%", while the second and more important goal is, "to intimidate the Democrats in Congress, in particular through AIPAC and allied groups, so that they will not use either the power of the purse or Congress’ war powers to impede the attack."

Given the Democrat's recent history of bending over and handing the KY jelly to Bush and Cheney whenever they are asked to, I don't think the Administration will have much problem accomplishing that second goal.