The Obfuscation Report

by Glenn Greenwald

It is, I believe, a positive development that The New York Times today has a front-page article documenting how active the debate is inside the Bush administration over whether to attack Iran. Perhaps the article will elevate the attention level paid to this very real and very dangerous possibility.

The essence of the article is this:

The debate has pitted Ms. Rice and her deputies, who appear to be winning so far, against the few remaining hawks inside the administration, especially those in Vice President Dick Cheney's office who, according to some people familiar with the discussions, are pressing for greater consideration of military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

The narrative is identical, of course, to the pre-Iraq-war "debate" which the media so vocally dramatized, with Secretary Rice in the role of reluctant warrior formerly played by Colin Powell, and Dick Cheney reprising his role of unabashed warmonger. It is true that there have been some personnel changes since then (most notably, Robert Gates in the place of Donald Rumsfeld), but George W. Bush is still the Decider, and he has not exactly been ambiguous about his views on the proper resolution of such "debates." As he told a group of right-wing pundits in October 2006: "I've never been more convinced that the decisions I made are the right decisions."

The NYT article tells the Iran story almost entirely from the administration's perspective. Although the article begins by referencing Iran's nuclear program, it includes this paragraph early on:

Even beyond its nuclear program, Iran is emerging as an increasing source of trouble for the Bush administration by inflaming the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in Gaza, where it has provided military and financial support to the militant Islamic group Hamas, which now controls the Gaza Strip.

Note that the numerous claims here are presented not as assertions, not as arguments, but as facts. And they are not even accompanied by the qualification that these were asserted by the article's anonymous "administration officials." Rather, they are simply stated, by the Times itself, as unquestionable facts. And they are obviously inflammatory "facts," as they depict Iran as, more or less, at war with the U.S. in multiple countries, arming and funding groups directly at war with our military.

But so many of the "facts" here are, at the very least, questionable. While some U.S. officials have accused Iran of arming Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, Iran has categorically denied that accusation, and, as that same article reported, even Robert Gates refused to confirm the allegation with anywhere near the level of certainty that the Times bestowed this morning on this claim.

Read the rest here.

Labels: Bush Administration, Iran, media criticism, New York Times, plans to attack Iran

by David Mizner

We all know that by passing a funding bill for Iraq without a timetable, Democrats gave Bush what he wanted. Lost in the hubbub of that debate was another unwise, timid act.

This one was arguably worse.

The Webb Amendment requiring Congressional approval for an attack on Iran was supposed to be attached to the Iraq supplemental. But Dems killed the amendment, making war with Iran more likely.

To be sure, the Webb Amendment was controversial. AIPAC-allied Congresspeople killed a similar measure in the House, and of the Democratic contenders for president, only John Edwards and Joe Biden have declared their support for the Webb's bill, which would make an unauthorized attack on Iran illegal.

If Google is a reliable guide, reporting on the demise of the Webb Amendment was shamefully thin, but I found this blog post.

...Webb's amendment, which according to the Senate's web site, has a status of "read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations" is essentially a dead letter. It was determined to be "not germane" to the bill to which it was intended to be attached, namely the Iraq supplemental.

Not germane, huh? An amendment regarding war with Iran isn't germane to a bill regarding war with Iraq? Oh-kay. Well, I suggest they find a bill to which the Webb Amenment is germane, and attach it.

With Joe Lieberman calling for an attack on Iran, and Bush increasingly unhinged and unpopular, war is a real possibility. Harry Reid says he disagrees with Lieberman. Great, but without the Webb Amendment, Bush will be able to start another war, an even more disastrous one, with impunity.

The Congressional effort to prevent a war with Iran can be and should be revived. Senators and presidential hopefuls need to defy AIPAC and declare their support for Webb's bill.

UPDATE: Several commenters have made an excellent point that I wanted to highlight: the Bomb-Iran faction has switched tactics. Just a few weeks ago, they were saying that we need to bomb Iran to stop it from building a nuclear weapon, but since that prospect is years away, they need a more immediate "threat" with which to scare people. Now Joe Lieberman and friends are saying that we need to bomb Iran to prevent it from killing American inside Iraq. Shifting rationales: sound familiar. As commenter Alias Mister Smith put it:

And did anybody else notice the ever-shifting rationale for bombing Iran?

The U.S. needs to attack Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons....I mean, er, to prevent Iran from aiding Iraqi attacks on American soldiers...I mean, uh, because the Iranians are planning on beating sweet little old ladies to death with bags full of cute puppies while making Girl Scouts watch.

view comments

Labels: 110th congress, Iran war, Iraq supplemental, Jim Webb, plans to attack Iran, Tom Andrews, Webb Amendment