Monday, December 03, 2007

Another neo-con lie exposed



My, oh my, it's been a bad 24 hours for those loveable, truthful, peace-loving creatures, the neo-cons (the intellectual founder of the neo-conservative movement is pictured above). First, the 'evil dictator' Hugo Chavez reacts to his referendum loss by er....accepting defeat and congratulating his opponents, then the party of fellow 'evil dictator' Vladimir Putin wins a landslide victory in Russia, and now this breaking news from The Guardian:

"Iran halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003, intelligence agencies said today, in an unexpected finding. A new national intelligence estimate on Iran concluded, in contrast to two years ago, that Tehran had halted its nuclear weapons programme in 2003."


So, would you believe it? All the time during the past couple of years that those loveable, truthful, peace-loving neo-cons were telling us that Iran was developing nuclear weapons and it really wasn't.

I wonder if this news will stop neocon propagandists like the historian Niall Ferguson from writing about Iran's 'nuclear weapons' as if they are a fact- in the same way they wrote of 'Iraqi WMDs' as if they were a fact, in the lead up to the 2003 invasion?

The author of this blog has maintained all along that the talk of a Iranian nuclear weapons programme was baloney- in the same way he consistently rubbished the claims about Iraq possessing WMD in 2002/3 and disputed the claim that Yugoslav forces were committing genocide in Kosovo in 1999. How was I so sure that the neocons were lying on each occasion? It's very, very easy. Their lips moved.

UPDATE: Talking of serial liars and Iran, the Guardian has, somehow seen fit to publish this execrable piece of neocon propaganda by someone readers of this blog will be quite familiar with.

UPDATE: So incensed was I on Tuesday morning when I saw that the Guardian had published such a vile piece of pro-war propaganda from such a malicious and deceitful individual as Oliver Kamm, who has tried all he could to get me out of The Guardian (and other papers too) for the 'crime' of critically reviewing his book, that I posted here the details of the Guardian's Readers' Editor and Editor for people who wished to complain. But I've taken them down now, because encouraging people to write into complain about articles/particular writers is something the neocons do. When you're dealing with those who live in the sewer as Kamm does, it's important not to let them bring you down to their level. In the end, the Guardian's decision to publish the piece was extremely fortunate. The author was made to look even more ridiculous than usual as the central premise of his piece- that Iran posed a grave threat- was destroyed by the US Security services report published the same day. The writer then made a very misguided attempt, on the Guardian website later on in the day, to argue that the report, which stressed that Iran did not pose a threat, backed his case that it did. The comments underneath the piece show that what little credibility he had with Guardian readers on the morning of December 4th, had evaporated by the evening.

God really does move in mysterious ways.

17 comments:

skeptic said...

Posted by your good self on 13 September:

Forget the claptrap about Iran attempting to develop nuclear weapons- which is a neo-con fiction as false as the non-existent 'genocide' in Kosovo and the mythical WMD in Iraq:

But just over two months later you now seem to be admitting that Iran DID have a nuclear weapons programme, albeit one (allegedly) halted in 2003.

So where's the claptrap? And, more to the point, why was this programme halted in 2003, given that they'd presumably spent a fair bit of money on it for little return? Was it out of the kindness of their hearts?

Neil Clark said...

Er, I think you've missed the point skeptic. The neo-con propaganda offensive about Iran developing nuclear weapons started when President Ahmanijedad was elected two years ago. The neocons want regime change in Iran, and the replacement of Ahmanijedad with a leader who will open up the Iranian economy to western capital and who will do as they're told. That's why they started spreading the lies about Iran having a nuclear weapons programme; as a pretext for military intervention and regime change.
Of course the propaganda was claptrap, as I said in September.
What Iran may or may not have been up to prior to 2003 is totally irrelevant: think back to 2003, and the neocons were trying to brainwash us about Iraq, not Iran.
Any leader who does not toe the line and who refuses to pay Danegeld to the Empire faces the neocon lie machine. Haven't you worked that one out yet?

skeptic said...

That's why they started spreading the lies about Iran having a nuclear weapons programme

Yes, but they're not lies, are they? Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme, despite constant denials that they ever had any such intention. You've just admitted it yourself.

And since this is the case, why are you so quick to denounce everything the US says as lies, while simultaneously defending everything Iran-sourced as the gospel truth?

Not even you can believe Ahmadinejad's claim that Iran has no homosexuals, so why are you not treating every other announcement with similar skepticism given that he's so clearly prepared to tell such brazen lies in public?

The neocons want regime change in Iran, and the replacement of Ahmanijedad with a leader who will open up the Iranian economy to western capital

I love the way you make this sound as though it's the most evil thing imaginable.

Any leader who does not toe the line and who refuses to pay Danegeld to the Empire faces the neocon lie machine. Haven't you worked that one out yet?

And now who's going on the propaganda offensive?

Publicansdecoy said...

Dear Neil,

You wouldn't, by any chance, be advocating a campaign of harrassment against Mr Kamm there, would you? Why do you damn such (alleged) behaviour when he (allegedly) harrasses you, but have no problem seeing him suffer as you claim you have? Any moral high ground you might possibly have held has now completely evaporated.

Neil Clark said...

skeptic; no one was talking about Iran having nuclear weapons programme prior ro 2003, the propaganda started to come with the election of Ahm. in 2006.

publican: I most certainly am not advocating the harassment of Kamm. I'm merely expressing my disgust that the Guardian should run an article by him, given the way he has smeared, defamed and harassed a regular and long-standing contributor to the paper for the past two years. If readers share my disgust, then they know how they can make their opinions felt. And, of course, in their own names, and not under pseudonyms like 'George Courtenay'.

Neil Clark said...

skeptic; no one was talking about Iran having nuclear weapons programme prior ro 2003, the propaganda started to come with the election of Ahm. in 2006.

publican: I most certainly am not advocating the harassment of Kamm. I'm merely expressing my disgust that the Guardian should run an article by him, given the way he has smeared, defamed and harassed a regular and long-standing contributor to the paper for the past two years. If readers share my disgust, then they know how they can make their opinions felt. And, of course, in their own names, and not under pseudonyms like 'George Courtenay'.

spiderman7 said...

Neil: I think you're wrong, and the Guardian has set Kamm up. He looks even more ridiciluous than usual coming out with this bilge on the day when the US Security forces report said Iran does not have a nuclear weapons programme. Don't get into a huff about the Guardian running his piece, what little credibility he had this time yesterday has now been cut to pieces. You should be delighted!

Luke said...

Why is Kamm's article 'propoganda', whereas yours is, presumably, fair comment?

Also, Kamm's article can be immeadiately distinguished from your's by the presence of facts, logic and detailed argument. I honestly don't know what else to take from your article except that you don't like neo-cons.

Ad hominem and tu quoque appear to be your only argumentative weapons and it does a serious disservice to your side of the debate.

Neil Clark said...

luke: whatever you're smoking, it's affecting your brain cells. Kamm's piece was a tissue of lies, unsubstantiated allegations and blatant propaganda: that's all he can do, because neoconnery is built on lies and deception.
Here's my Australian piece on Iran, written in Jan 2006.
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/press-coverage-2006/january-2006/deterrence-best-policy-for-nuclear-states

I think you'll find the position it takes is somewhat closer to the truth than the propaganda you read in the Guardian today.

Anonymous said...

Neil: why do you publish articles by such obvious trolls as Luke? Kamm doesn't allow any comments on his blog so why do you allow his supporters to post here?

Szindbad said...

I think you'll find the position it takes is somewhat closer to the truth than the propaganda you read in the Guardian today.

Does Rusbridger know that you're dissing his organ like this?

Neil Clark said...

OOOH! is that another Kammite threat coming in there Szinbad? Roughly translated for those who don't know the charming modus operandi: a nice little anonymous/pseudonymous email will be winging its way to Alan Rusbridger linking to my post, to try to get me in to trouble.

Don't bother. The Guardian knows full well my disgust at what went on today, so you can't frighten me with your veiled threats. Send this post to Alan Rusbridger by all means. The piece WAS propaganda of the vilest sort. And I'd say the same regardless of what paper it appeared in.
I am a reader of the Guardian as well as a contributor and I think today the paper hit rock bottom.

alejandro said...

Luke,
I read Kamms article today and it struck me as the illiterate rantings of an obsessive madman. There were no facts, no argued reason and it was just an offensive rant. As I read it I could feel the adrenaline pumping through him as he came out with one hyper rant after another.
I agree with spiderman7 that maybe he has been set up to look ridiculous, which he is.
The fact is, we were on the road to war and chaos again when the US spooks decided that they couldn't have another war laid at the door of their disinformation. They found a way to come clean. Good for them!

Luke said...

What I'm smoking is affecting my brain-cells, eh? Yet another attack on the person rather than the arguments. If Kamm's piece is so full of lies, then why not dissect it, and refute each of his points? I disagree with the man, but at least he presents his case fairly and openly. Your artciles are the ones that appear ranting. Full of 'neocon' this 'claptrap' that and accusations of articles being 'propoganda'.

If it were propoganda, what difference does it make? Why not dissect it any other way? Why is HIS article 'propogada' and why is yours fair and balanced? What lies, eactly, does he tell?

Charlie Marks said...

Anonymous, the reason why Neil, unlike Kamm, allows comments by people who disagree with him is because he is, again unlike Kamm, an honourable man capable of rational discourse.

Now that the lies about Iran's intentions have been blown out of the water, what else is there but for Bush and Brown to cough up to their own intentions - to loot Iran of its wealth and resources.

And Luke, this is an evil thing. The neo-cons "regime change" would involve theft on a grand scale, precludes by the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of our service men and women, and it would cost us billions -
in all probability, it would destablise our economy, excacerbating the effects of the credit crisis.

Pete said...

So, everyone bar that quimbecile Sarkozy say that the Russian election was a fix, but you think it marks a triumph of democracy Neil?

0/10

Spot on about the stonking Venezuelan election, though I do have to ask why the US intellegence services were so unrealiable in the run up to the Iraq war (in 2003) but can now be relied upon absolutely.

ta

Pete

Charlie Marks said...

"why the US intellegence services were so unrealiable in the run up to the Iraq war (in 2003) but can now be relied upon absolutely."

It was the neocon cherrypickers who played up the supposed threat posed by Iraq.