Following his decision to cancel his ‘Leadership’ talk at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit in Johannesburg last week with Tony Blair, Desmond Tutu has penned an article for the Observer outlining his rationale behind the well publicized snub:

On what grounds do we decide that Robert Mugabe should go the International Criminal Court, Tony Blair should join the international speakers’ circuit, bin Laden should be assassinated, but Iraq should be invaded, not because it possesses weapons of mass destruction, as Mr Bush’s chief supporter, Mr Blair, confessed last week, but in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein?

The cost of the decision to rid Iraq of its by-all-accounts despotic and murderous leader has been staggering, beginning in Iraq itself. Last year, an average of 6.5 people died there each day in suicide attacks and vehicle bombs, according to the Iraqi Body Count project. More than 110,000 Iraqis have died in the conflict since 2003 and millions have been displaced. By the end of last year, nearly 4,500 American soldiers had been killed and more than 32,000 wounded.

On these grounds alone, in a consistent world, those responsible for this suffering and loss of life should be treading the same path as some of their African and Asian peers who have been made to answer for their actions in the Hague.

The chances of this happening are close to zero, but it’s good that prominent global figures like Tutu continue to ostracize Blair for his outrageous behavior over the Iraq war. The former British PM is not a popular character in Britain, or most of the world outside of America, and rightly so. While the cost isn’t particularly high for him (he has retired to a rather nice life of bank consulting and charity work), having to live with armed security in his own country for the rest of his life is some consolation to the millions of lives he helped destroy.

To understand just how much Blair is hated, check out this clip from a new BBC comedy show called ‘The Revolution Will be Televised’ where the host Heydon Prowse tries to petition people to make Tony Blair a Saint, then goes to Blair’s house to deliver a stained glassed window with Blair’s face on it:

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Desmond Tutu: No time for Tony Blair. Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Good for Desmond Tutu. From the BBC:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has pulled out of an event because he refuses to share a platform with Tony Blair.

The veteran peace campaigner said Mr Blair’s support for the Iraq war was “morally indefensible” and it would be “inappropriate” for him to appear alongside him.

The pair were due to take part in a one-day leadership summit in Johannesburg, South Africa on Thursday.

Mr Blair’s office said he was “sorry” the archbishop had decided to pull out.

Dr Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 in recognition of his campaign against apartheid, and Mr Blair were due to appear at the Discovery Invest Leadership Summit….

In a statement, Dr Tutu’s Office said: “Ultimately, the archbishop is of the view that Mr Blair’s decision to support the United States’ military invasion of Iraq, on the basis of unproven allegations of the existence in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, was morally indefensible.

“The Discovery Invest Leadership Summit has leadership as its theme. Morality and leadership are indivisible.

“In this context, it would be inappropriate and untenable for the archbishop to share a platform with Mr Blair.”

I’ve long believed that Tony Blair bears more responsibility for the Iraq war than the Bush Administration because unlike the ideologically driven American government, he knew exactly what he was doing and understood the consequences of attacking the defenseless nation. Despite the obvious evidence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction or that Iraq posed a threat to anyone, Blair lied and lied and lied in order to engage Britain in a war that the majority of the public did not want. Blair was instrumental in building the basis for an attack on Iraq and helped Bush create the fragile international consensus that gave the assault a veneer of legitimacy.

As the evidence became harder and harder to hide from, Blair refused to acknowledge the truth and made a fool of himself by continuing to parrot George Bush and deceive the public. It was excruciating to watch him, a highly intelligent man, making nonsensical arguments that deep down he knew were ridiculous. And everyone knew why. Blair was enamored with Bush and his power post 9/11, and he was too cowardly to stand up to him when it became clear America was determined to attack Iraq no matter what. Blair has consistently tried to portray his decision to join in the assault as a moral decision – a bold move against a tyrannical dictator that he was doing out of bravery and Christian duty. In response to Desmond Tutu’s refusal to stand on stage with Blair, the former British prime minister’s office released the following statement:

As for the morality of that decision we have recently had both the memorial of the Halabja massacre where thousands of people were murdered in one day by Saddam’s use of chemical weapons; and that of the Iran-Iraq war where casualties numbered up to a million including many killed by chemical weapons.

Of course Blair’s office omitted the fact that the US and Britain stood by Saddam while he committed those atrocities, sold him weapons and bankrolled his war against Iran. But Blair was never one to let the truth get in the way of his ambitions.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

By Mark Ames and Yasha Levine: Adam Davidson graduated from the University of Chicago with a BA in religion, and began his public radio career selling airtime and doing sponsor outreach. He then became an on-air radio personality, filing pro-Iraq War dispatches as Marketplace’s Middle East correspondent, and recently transformed himself into an effective propagandist for the banking industry. Over the years, Davidson has whitewashed the occupation of Iraq, praised sweatshop labor, attacked the idea of regulating Wall Street and argued for “squeezing the middle class”–all while taking undisclosed money from banking interests. No wonder Davidson shamelessly credited Wall Street for providing “just about anything that makes you happy.”

The Recovered History of Adam Davidson

• Davidson began working in public radio in 1992, doing “underwriting sales” for Chicago Public Radio, a position described by one public radio station as “equivalent to that of a sales manager at private stations. This person must go out into the community and establish rapport with local businesses in order to sell airtime to them. The underwriting representative is then responsible for developing a direct . . . and informational message to put on the air for the client.”
• Adam Davidson spent the early 2000s as Middle East correspondent for Public Radio International’s Marketplace. In the lead up to the Iraq War, Davidson filed a number of pieces promoting the invasion of Iraq; after the invasion, Davidson moved to Baghdad and filed numerous radio items whitewashing the occupation catastrophe.
• In December 2002, Davidson positively profiled an Israeli right-wing conspiracy theory site Debka.com in order to promote the invasion of Iraq. Despite the fact that Debka.com was long ago discredited in Israel, where “not a single Israeli official…sees the site as a reliable source”–and despite Debka.com’s ties to rightwing conspiracy theory site WorldNet Daily, nevertheless Davidson presented Debka’s claims that Saddam had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction–including chemical, biological and nuclear–as credible. Davidson staked his own credibility defending Debka, telling NPR listeners: “There’s really no way to confirm what they’re reporting right now, but I’ve been reading the site for years, and it’s common to think they’re nuts, then to wait a few weeks and see the same information in The New York Times.” As it turned out, Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destructions of any kind. In 2007, Davidson’s beloved Debka.com created a panic in New York City after publishing false rumors of an impending Al Qaeda dirty bomb attack.
• In February 2003, just a few weeks before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Davidson found a couple of Iraqi merchants living in Jordan who were in favor of the coming invasion, telling Davidson’s listeners that the invasion would do wonders for Iraq’s economy. “Mohammed,” one of the merchants, told Davidson: “I’m very optimistic about the economy of Iraq.” The war decimated Iraq’s economy, destroyed its infrastructure and was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.
• Davidson then moved to Baghdad and went to work whitewashing the brutality and violence of the war and occupation. In a 2004 Los Angeles Times op-ed, Adam Davison claimed that American military violence played no part in Iraqi anger at the occupation, and suggested that Americans hadn’t committed serious violence of any sort. Instead, Davidson argued that the reason the U.S. wasn’t winning the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi people was because America had not successfully rooted out Saddam-era corruption. “It’s common to hear Iraqis say the U.S. regime is just like Hussein’s. At first, I found this bizarre. The U.S. is not hacking the ears off of innocent people. The U.S. isn’t massacring entire villages. But I learned that when Iraqis make the Hussein comparison, they’re talking, in large part, about corruption.” By focusing on Saddam-era corruption, Davidson made it seem as though the problem in Iraq was that Iraq wasn’t Americanized enough, rather than the violence of the American invasion and occupation.
• After living in Baghdad for a year, Davidson had to suddenly flee the country in 2004, fearing for his life after being accused of working for the CIA. Later, Davidson admitted that he had a tight and undisclosed relationship with occupation officials, who regularly visited his Baghdad home and revealed to Davidson that the situation was much worse than was being reported. Rather than telling his listeners as a journalist should, Davidson protected the occupation authorities: “The ones I liked I’d invite over to the house. I mean, I genuinely liked them, but also we’d get them a little drunk on wine. We’d tell them, hey, tonight everything’s off the record. And we’d get real information...we’d get these people over to our house, they’d have some wine, and they’d be like, ‘oh, it’s so much worse than you know.’”
• In 2006, now working at NPR as a business reporter, Davidson criticized the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, legislation passed in the wake of Enron to tighten corporate financial accountability and make top executives criminally liable for fraud happening under their watch. “The U.S. has a bunch of crazy rules that came out of a time of hysteria in the U.S. They don’t make any sense,” Davidson told listeners. This was part of a larger push by Wall Street and corporate interests to gut Sarbanes-Oxley. Among those pushing the same PR line against Sarbanes-Oxley as Davidson were Americans for Prosperity, Heritage Foundation and even Charles Koch himself. [ 1 ]
• In 2007, Davidson boosted for the Honduran sweatshop industry, and promoted sweatshop labor in general, which he said was a great opportunity offering women upward mobility. Making socks in a sweatshop is “the only way she can improve her life,” Davidson said of one Honduran young woman he profiled for NPR’s “All Things Considered.” He did not mention that Honduran sweatshop workers routinely develop incapacitating back and spinal injuries working 12-hour shifts with little or no breaks, face workplace abuse and intimidation, and earn about 65 cents per hour. Meanwhile the CEO of Gildan, a Canadian garment company doing business in Honduras that Davidson praised in his program, took home $11 million in compensation in 2009.
• In 2012, Davidson promoted an even more extreme version of the Honduran sweatshop: special extra-judicial sweatshop zones legally beyond Honduran constitutional and labor laws, where multinationals could tap cheap labor, and use their own police force and judicial systems. The extra-judicial business zones, the brainchild of University of Chicago-trained economist Paul Romer, have been denounced as “neo-colonial” and have attracted the interest of Milton Friedman’s libertarian grandson, Patri Friedman, along with other libertarians hostile to labor rights. Davidson dismissed critics of the Honduras extra-judicial sweatshop zones: “It’s easy to criticize experimenting with the livelihoods of the poor,” Davidson wrote. “We have to try some new things, probably many new things. And we have to accept that some of them won’t work.”
• In 2008, Davidson helped produce an episode of This American Life about the implosion of subprime lending that let Wall Street off the hook for its role in rampant mortgage fraud and predatory lending. “This was a crisis that was caused by willing participation of every single person. Nobody was coerced,” said Davidson’s co-producer Alex Blumberg. “And there was fraud. But that was not what caused the crisis. What caused the crisis was something bigger and more systemic that required the involvement of everybody at every step.” This evasion-by-exaggerating-the-complexity strategy is one that Davidson and Planet Money have deployed often to whitewash and deflect the role of criminality in the housing crisis. Among the show’s fans was Treasury Secretary and former New York Federal Reserve Bank chief Timothy Geithner: “Yeah, they did a good job.”
• In September 2008, Davidson falsely claimed that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act played no role whatsoever in the financial collapse: “Every economist I’ve spoken with says, simply, that it was a bad law but that it and its repeal are not really to blame for what is happening now.” Many key figures involved in Glass-Steagall’s repeal, including former Citigroup chief Sandy Weill, have contradicted Davidson’s false claim.
• In early 2009, NPR announced that Planet Money secured Ally Bank as the show’s exclusive sponsor. It was an unusual set up for NPR, as it meant that a financial institution was the sole funder of a news program about finance. At the time, Planet Money was the only NPR program underwritten by a single exclusive sponsor. Even Ad Age, the advertising industry’s trade publication, was surprised by the sponsorship arrangement and the “close alignment of message and news program.” (At the time of this writing, Ally is still Planet Money’s exclusive sponsor.)
• Ally Bank is a subsidiary of Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC. The bank is one of the biggest mortgage servicers in the country, and has been one of the very worst offenders in foreclosure fraud and subprime fraud. It received more than $17 billion taxpayer bailout funds and has been investigated across the country for foreclosure fraud, robo-signing and student loan fraud. As of August 1, 2012, 74% of Ally Financial was still owned by the U.S. Government. [ 2 ]
• Planet Money’s relationship with Ally is a textbook example of “conflict of interest.” The bank had a clear and demonstrable interest in Planet Money’s coverage of the financial industry, especially issues that affected the bank’s bottom line. As Planet Money’s sole sponsor at a time when NPR funds were falling, Ally obviously wielded considerable power. Following months of complaints from readers pointing to the conflict-of-interest and the way Planet Money’s segments dovetailed with the banking lobby’s own propaganda, NPR’s Ombudsman was forced to look into the Ally-Planet Money relationship. The NPR Ombudsman ultimately dismissed listeners’ concerns as “cynical” and implied they did not know what they were talking about. Despite Davidson’s experience in public radio underwriting, he claimed ignorance about the nature of Planet Money’s arrangement with its sole sponsor, Ally Bank: “I have nothing to do with the underwriting stuff. We don’t pay any attention to the fact that they are a sponsor. We wouldn’t for a second give them any special treatment — positive or negative.”
• In 2009, while Ally Financial (then still known as GMAC) was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying against the Financial Consumer Protection Agency Act of 2009, Davidson aired a number of segments critical of the legislation. He questioned the need to regulate consumer financial products like mortgages and credit cards in order to protect people against bank fraud. “Will it work at all?” he wondered on air, and asked: “is this just one more layer of regulation in a regulatory system that fundamentally broke down?” [ 3 ]

• In May 2009, Davidson launched a bizarre personal attack while interviewing Elizabeth Warren, the chief architect of the financial consumer protection bill. Davidson surprised Warren and his own listeners with uncharacteristic personal smears, trying to portray her as a clueless, power-hungry ideologue: “The view that the American family, that you hold very powerfully, is fully under assault . . . that is not accepted broad wisdom. . . . I literally don’t know who else I can talk to support that view. I literally don’t know anyone other than you who has that view, and you are the person [snicker] who went to Congress to oversee it and you are presenting a very, very narrow view to the American people.” The Columbia Journalism Review described the interview as a “disaster” and “really cringeworthy stuff from Davidson,” who was so rude and unprofessional that NPR’s Ombudsman had to step in and apologize for his behavior. Davidson’s excuse: he had been traveling for a NPR fundraiser and was “very, very tired.” [ 4 ] [ 5 ]
• Listen to Davidson’s full interview with Warren here:
• Adam Davidson does not disclose that he does paid speaking gigs at events funded by banks and financial companies, including J.P. Morgan, Well Fargo, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs–the same companies he covers as a journalist. Davidson is frequently the only journalist/reporter booked to speak at these events; other speakers are usually work in finance. (See top of left sidebar for detailed info on Davidson’s recent speaking engagements.)
• In 2011, Davidson expanded his media presence with a weekly financial column in the New York Times Magazine. His first column argued that government can’t create jobs, and so politicians shouldn’t try to come up with “job plans”–a demonstrably false position that also happens to be shared by Koch-funded libertarian Cato Institute. In his second column, Davidson pushed for harsh austerity measures against the majority of Americans in order to benefit the financial sector: “It really stinks, but the only way to fix the economy is to squeeze the middle class.“
• In 2012, Davidson argued that everyone should grovel before Wall Street, without which, he argued, America would be much poorer. Davidson’s pro-Wall Street propaganda was so crude that even fellow neoliberal Matthew Yglesias stepped in to criticize Davidson: “I’m generally an Adam Davidson fan, but his recent New York Times Magazine article in defense of Wall Street is pretty unconvincing. The big problem is right up there in the lede where he says ‘Perhaps the best way to really appreciate what Wall Street does is to imagine life without it.’”
• On May 1 2012, Davidson published a flattering profile of Edward Conard, Mitt Romney’s former business partner at Bain Capital, as a way of promoting more worship of the rich: “Conard . . . has laid out tightly argued case for just how much consumers actually benefit from the wealthy,” Davidson wrote, as he uncritically reported Conard’s claim that inequality “is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off.” Yves Smith, of Naked Capitalism, described the article as “chock full of blatant falsehoods” among which were Davidson’s claim that penicillin was made possible by investment capital from hedge fund managers like Conard. In fact penicillin research was funded by the British and U.S. governments.
• Two weeks later, on May 16, Davidson spoke at the 27th Annual Conference for the Treasury & Finance Professional. Bank of America, BlackRock, BNY Mellon, Bloomberg, Citibank, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Well Fargo and about a dozen of the most powerful financial companies in the world sponsored the event.

Undisclosed Income

Adam Davidson’s career is currently being funded by bailed out banks. On top of Ally Bank’s exclusive sponsorship of Planet Money, Davidson receives lucrative speaking fees for appearing at events funded by the same banks and financial companies he covers as a journalist. Davidson has yet to disclose his corporate clients and how much they pay him, but here is a partial list of Davidson’s gigs from the last two years compiled from various publicly available sources:

• In April 2011, Davidson was the headlining speaker at the 9th Annual “Women’s World Banking” Microfinance and the Capital Markets Conference. The conference was hosted by J.P. Morgan, but the organization itself is funded by the world’s biggest banks and corporations, including BP, Morgan Stanley, Pfizer, Barclays Capital, VISA, ExxonMobil–just to name a few.
• In 2011, Davidson spoke at another microfinance conference, this once was also funded by Morgan Stanley, Citi, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank and CapitalOne.
• In 2012, Davidson spoke at the 27th Annual Conference for the Treasury & Finance Professional. Sponsors of the event included Bank of America, BlackRock, BNY Mellon, Bloomberg, Citibank, Findelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Well Fargo and about a dozen of the most powerful financial the largest financial companies in the world.

Chicago Public Media, which co-owns “Planet Money” through its ownership of “This American Life”, explicitly bars conflicts-of-interest: “WBEZ journalists must uphold the trust of the public by not overlapping individual interests with professional responsibilities. WBEZ journalists may not accept any form of compensation from the individuals, institutions or organizations they cover.”

Note: Neither NPR nor This American Life have responded to S.H.A.M.E.’s requests for comment about Davidson’s conflicts of interest.

Planet Money’s Ally Problem

Ally Bank has been Planet Money’s exclusive sponsor since 2009, a relationship that provides a textbook example of conflict of interest. Below are two screenshots of Ally Bank advertisements running on Planet Money’s website:

Davidson’s Shame Quotes

I feel like the voice of business journalism is sort of, it’s an authoritative voice of God.

–Davidson in a 2009 interview with Nieman Journalism Lab

The last time I interacted with University of Chicago faculty in an extended way, they were my professors. Sitting on a stage as their ‘peer,’ I felt like a kid who had borrowed his dad’s suit.

–Davidson describes his reaction to being invited to talk about the “unintended consequences” of financial regulation at Chicago University’s 58th Annual Management Conference in April 2010

Raising [corporate taxes], or even maintaining them, might satisfy the anti-corporate angst of protesters and populists, but it won’t come anywhere near paying off our debt. Most people who study the issue agree that the top federal corporate tax rate (35 percent of profits) is simply too high. The cardinal rule of taxation is that whatever you put a levy on, you’ll inevitably get less of.

–Davidson’s “It’s Not Just About the Millionaires”; New York Times Magazine; November 2011

Davidson’s PR Strategies

Every economist I’ve spoken with says, simply, that it was a bad law but that it and its repeal are not really to blame for what is happening now.

–Davidson’s NPR segment “Can We Blame Or Praise Glass-Steagall?”

Most people who study the issue agree that the top federal corporate tax rate (35 percent of profits) is simply too high.

–Davidson on why U.S. should lower corporate taxes

I talk to a lot a lot a lot of left, right, center, neutral economists [and] you are the only person I’ve talked to in a year of covering this crisis who has a view that we have two equally acute crises: a financial crisis and a household debt crisis that is equally acute in the same kind of way.

–Davidson during his attack on Elizabeth Warren

Notes:

1. Malcolm Gladwell made a similar claim in a 2007 New Yorker article that defended Enron. Read Gladwell’s S.H.A.M.E. Report for more info. [↩]
2. See Naked Capitalism’s coverage of GMAC/Ally’s mortgage fraud. [↩]
3. GMAC’s total lobbying on finance-related bills in 2009 added up to $1.2 mil. See GMAC’s page on OpenSecrets.org for more information. [↩]
4. NPR did not respond to S.H.A.M.E.’s requests for comment about Davidson’s conflicts of interest. [↩]
5. Read Corrente’s transcript of Davidson’s Elizabeth Warren interview. [↩]

This article was originally published on The Exiled

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Netanyahu: Beating the Drum For War

By Ben Cohen: International conflicts are difficult to understand without an intricate knowledge of history. While the media would have everyone believe that the emergence of volatile conflicts appear due to bad guys vying for power, the reality is often far more complicated.

The Bush administration managed to convince the American public that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, had Weapons of Mass Destruction, and was an immediate threat to global security. Anyone with any understanding of Iraq and its history knew that every major argument leveled against the country was deeply flawed at best, and and outright lie at worst. Saddam Hussein was a monstrous dictator and guilty of multiple crimes against his own people and others – but he posed no threat to the US or his immediate neighbors, did not have Weapons of Mass Destruction and had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion of Iraq turned out to be not only an international crime, but one of the greatest strategic military disasters in modern history.

We now face an equally disastrous prospect – a war with Iran over its proposed nuclear energy capabilities.

The extreme Right Wing government in Israel is beating the drum for war with its neighbor, citing its desire to have the ability to produce nuclear energy as a direct threat to its existence. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring the Obama Administration to unequivocally support an Israeli assault, knowing full well Israel cannot go it alone. The Israeli government and key US politicians have been building a case for war, demonizing the Iranian government and leveling accusations that it simply cannot substantiate. As far as anyone knows (including the UN, US and other major military intelligence units), Iran has no intentions of building nuclear weapons. Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are two different things, and the US and Israel is hoping everyone ignores the difference. The truth is that Iran is the major political power in the Middle East, and Israel is attempting to smash it before its influence gets any stronger. Despite it’s political influence in the region, Iran poses no serious military threat to the highly militarized (and nuclear) Israel, and most certainly not the United States. It has not attacked anyone in over 100 years, and wouldn’t dream of attacking two of the most lethal nations in history. Iran’s political leaders are a nasty bunch, but they are not insane.

The pattern of threatening behavior is familiar and depressing. Israel is deeply unpopular in the region (as it always has been) and follows the ‘mad dog‘ diplomacy strategy of threatening any Arab country that rears its head and refusing to negotiate in good faith. There are of course some benefits to this particular method – no country in the Middle East would dare attack Israel directly because it knows Israel will follow through on its actions. Israel’s awesome military has crushed every threat since its inception in 1948, and its brutal treatment of Palestinians leaves no doubt about its ability to fight.

On the flip side, it has built up a staggering amount of resentment in the region, with every neighboring country looking for ways to undermine its power. The US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provided Iran with that opportunity. With Israel’s only serious ally overstretched and on the verge of bankruptcy, Iran is making its play for power.

Iran’s quest for nuclear energy capability, is, in the world of power politics, a challenge to Israel’s supremacy. It is not a direct threat, but it lets the region and the world know that they are a serious player and have the ability to build nuclear weapons. Iran knows that in the long term, it is extremely vulnerable without that capability. Iraq and Afghanistan were largely defenseless nations and were smashed to pieces in a matter of weeks. On the other hand, North Korea, labeled an ‘Enemy State’ and part of the ‘Axis of Evil’ by the Bush Administration, was left completely alone. The difference? North Korea had nuclear weapons.

If Iran does attain nuclear energy capabilities, the balance of power will certainly shift in the region. It is a reality that the US and Israel do not want to accept. The US has already led the efforts to strangle Iran economically, with Israel literally begging to be allowed to go to war with them.

But what would a war with Iran mean?

In short, it would spell complete and utter disaster for all parties involved. The long term consequences of another assault on a Middle Eastern country cannot be quantified, but resentment on the Arab street would reach boiling point and that could result in far more nationalistic governments sweeping into power to fill the void left by the Arab spring.  If Israel believes it is surrounded by enemies now, after a war with Iran, today’s political climate would look relatively friendly.

‘Blowback’ is the espionage term used to describe the unintended consequences of a covert operation. Ultra right wing politicians like Netanyahu and George W. Bush are largely unaware of the consequences of their actions because of an inability to understand their motivations and psychology of their adversaries. Much as the Apartheid government in South Africa believed blacks were incapable of civilized behavior,  Netanyahu believes Arabs are inherently backwards and cannot be not negotiated with. And just as the Apartheid government used violence to quell civil unrest in the Bantustans to ultimately self defeating ends, the Israeli government is following the same course of action with potentially far more serious consequences for its own survival. The blowback from war with Iran would come in all shapes and sizes – increased terrorist attacks from Palestinians, the collapse of trade with allies like Egypt should its fragile government fall, further isolation from the international community, not to mention a very serious counter assault from Iran. While Iran cannot challenge Israel’s military directly, should Israel enter its territory, a guerrilla war would ensue with incalculable costs.

The US involvement in any war started by Israel would spell the end of America’s influence in the region. Already incredibly unpopular, further aggression would ensure the collapse of Arab-American relations and a gigantic economic crisis sparked by spiraling fuel prices. We could expect more terrorism, more money poured into another military quagmire and an almost impossible exit strategy.

In short, a war with Iran would be about the most stupid thing the US and Israel could do.

I have argued that Obama has no intention of attacking Iran and is stalling for time to prevent Netanyahu from gaining momentum. But the Israeli prime minister is a tricky customer with a rolodex of allies within the US political system. His aggression and anti-Arab virulence is appealing to the Right in America, and they will attempt to box Obama in in order to make him look weak and get what they want.

One diplomatic crisis could escalate and set off a chain of events with disastrous consequences. With players like Benjamin Netanyahu pushing the agenda, the risk is multiplied.
Let us hope then that cooler heads prevail and diplomacy is given a chance, because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

The autopsy report from Libya:

Muammar Gaddafi's body has a bullet in the head and a bullet in the abdomen, a medical source told Reuters on Sunday.

Earlier, a doctor involved in an overnight autopsy on the former Libyan leader's body told Reuters he had died from a gunshot wound.

"There are multiple injuries. There is a bullet in the abdomen and in the brain," the medical source said.

The postmortem was carried out at a morgue in Misrata. Local officials said Gaddafi's body would be brought back to the cold storage facility at a market in Misrata where it has been on public display.

I'm finding it difficult to weigh in with an opinion on Gaddafi's death. The former Libyan leader certainly was no angel, but his legacy is a mixed one and it is not necessarily fair to condem his rule in its entirety (for a brief overview it's worth checking out this article, and this longer one to get a basic understanding of his complex leadership over Libya). Gaddafi was still wildly popular with vast sectors of the Libyan population and his militant stance against Western imperialism was widely respected around the world. He could be brutal and repressive, yet generous and inspiring at the same time. Gaddafi brought economic prosperity to Libya, largely by refusing Western oil companies the right to exploit Libya's resources, and was always on hand trying to prevent the same in other African nations.  Gaddafi was feared as a leader but respected as a revolutionary. He was a bizarre conundrum of contradictory traits that manifested itself in a confused premiership that spanned 42 years. He killed many people, yet spent millions promoting peace initiatives, anti poverty programs and safeguarding human rights. 

With the onset of the Arab Spring, it was clear that his time was up and Gaddafi could have gone gracefully into exile without sending his country into civil war. He chose not to, and he paid the price with his life. As they say, you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

The problem with assigning Gaddafi a definitive label is that we are too used to viewing foreign leaders as 'good guys' or 'bad guys' according to how useful they are to us. Saddam Hussein was an ally and a good guy until he threatened our oil supply, and so was Gaddafi until it became apparent he no longer could control his country.

The media dutifully regurgitates the official government line without question, making debate close to impossible. Anyone arguing Gaddafi's merits has been labelled a terrorist loving communist, despite the fact that only a year ago he was viewed a critical ally in the war on terror.

Any dictator is by definition a bad one, but some are more complex than others and it is worth examining their legacies honestly rather than repeating government propaganda.

Gaddafi's history isn't black and white, and neither should our analysis of it be.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

In an interview with NBC's Matt Lauer on Tuesday, former Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that the war in Iraq had not negatively impacted the world's view of the United States. He said:

"I don't think that it damaged our reputation around the world….I just don't believe that. I think critics here at home would argue that."

Even if you agreed with the premise and execution of the war in Iraq, you would have to be insane or lying to state that it didn't massively damage the world's opinion of the US, and in turn, its reputation.

Outside of Dick Cheney's brain, the Iraq war is regarded as a colossal waste of human life, resources and time – a horrific strategic mistake and an egregious crime against the Iraqi people that has damaged the region almost beyond repair. Anyone with even a vague understanding of history (or reality for that matter) is aware that Iraq was a complete disaster, and even more aware that America became the most disliked country on the planet because of it. There were huge demonstrations around the world before the invasion, and polling showed huge discontent with America after it toppled Saddam. Perhaps Cheney didn't bother looking at the opinion polls, and perhaps he genuinely thinks Iraq was a great success.

But given his general disregard for the law and human life, it is most likely that he simply doesn't care.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

New evidence has emerged that supports the notion that George Bush and Tony Blair planned on attacking Iraq regardless of a second UN resolution. From the Guardian:

Britain and the US were planning to take action against Saddam Hussein without a second UN resolution five months before the invasion of Iraq, a newly released letter from Tony Blair's office shows.

A letter from Blair's private secretary reveals that "we and the US would take action" without a new resolution by the UN security council if UN weapons inspectors showed Saddam had clearly breached an earlier resolution. In that case, he "would not have a second chance".

That was the only way Britain could persuade the Bush administration to agree to a role for the UN and continuing work by UN weapons inspectors, the letter says.

Dated 17 October 2002, it was written by Matthew Rycroft to Mark Sedwill, private secretary to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. "This letter is sensitive," Rycroft underlined. "It must be seen only by those with a real need to know its contents, and must not be copied further."

Anyone who paid attention during the lead up to the Iraq war should have been highly aware that the Bush administration and the Blair government were determined to attack Iraq regardless of evidence and regardless of legality. You could tell simply by the fact that there were no good reasons to pick on Iraq. There was no proven connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, no connection between Iraq and 9/11, and nothing other than extremely dubious photographic evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction and dodgy third hand information about yellowcake uranium in Niger. In reality, Iraq was a random Arab country that had lots of oil and no way of defending itself – the key ingredients for a quick land grab by two imperial powers.

I remember thinking everyone had gone mad – that no sane person could possibly buy into the nonsense put forward by the US and UK governments. As it turned out, the skeptics were correct and the entire premise for the war was exposed as a giant fraud. Amazingly, Bush and Blair got off scott free despite incinerating Iraq, losing billions of dollars and killing hundreds of thousands of people.

And even as the evidence continues to mount, there seems to be no talk of repercussion for the ex leaders now bringing in millions of dollars from after dinner speeches and bank consulting gigs.

While George Bush isn't bright enough to understand what he did, there is a part of Tony Blair who must know that what he did was wrong. Blair is an intelligent man, and revelations like the above will not be brushed aside easily. Unfortunately, the consequences of admitting even a portion of his hubris and deceit have the potential to unravel a bottomless well of wrong doing – and Blair just isn't brave enough to confront the demons he has gotten so used to living with.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Glenn Greenwald tears into progressives heralding the victory in Libya as a symbol of Obama's foreign policy wisdom:

I'm genuinely astounded at the pervasive willingness to view what has happened in Libya as some sort of grand triumph even though virtually none of the information needed to make that assessment is known yet, including: how many civilians have died, how much more bloodshed will there be, what will be needed to stabilize that country and, most of all, what type of regime will replace Gadaffi?  Does anyone know how many civilians have died in the NATO bombing of Tripoli and the ensuing battle?  Does anyone know who will dominate the subsequent regime?  Does it matter?  To understand how irrational and premature these celebrations are in the absence of that information, I urge everyone to read this brief though amazing compilation of U.S. media commentary from 2003 after U.S. forces entered Baghdad: in which The Liberal Media lavished Bush with intense praise for vanquishing Saddam, complained that Democrats were not giving the President the credit he deserved, and demanded that all those loser-war-opponents shamefully confess their error.  Sound familiar?

I think Greenwald is right here – while Libyans should rightfully be overjoyed at the toppling of Gaddafi, it is far too quick for everyone else to claim it as a victory of their own. We know the the US considered Gaddafi an ally two years ago and even wanted to sell him weapons. That was until he became unpopular with his people and his control over the country a major stability risk. Then, Gaddafi over night became public enemy no. 1 and the definition of absolute evil. The exact same thing happened with Saddam, who bought weapons from the US for years before it was decided he was no longer useful to American strategic interests.

Careful analysis should be done about our involvement in Libya. The public needs to know why we supported him two years ago, what changed so that we attacked him and exactly how much damage we did in the NATO led air campaign. Obama has been able to pass this off as a victory for his administration, but that is only because right now, things seem to have worked out for the best. If the post war situation is mishandled at even a fraction of the level seen in Iraq, then Libya is in for a very long period of instability and unrest. One might hope the Obama administration will exercise more intelligence when figuring out their role in reconstruction, but given the recent track record, it doesn't look promising. 

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below: