Anti-Russia Campaign Still Going Strong
It has been a few days since we last discussed the anti-Iran info-op and--with action in the Security Council due this week--now is a good time to mention the latest developments in the propaganda campaign.
As we have illustrated previously here, here, here, and here, a not-insignificant component of the anti-Iran campaign is an anti-Russia psy-op.
Today brings the news that President Bush yesterday telephoned the recalcitrant President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to get him on board the "punish Iran" bandwagon.
President Bush called Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday to discuss the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, days before the issue goes before the U.N. Security Council.
"The two leaders stressed the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, especially in the United Nations Security Council," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "And they committed to remaining in close contact on this important priority."
A Kremlin statement said the two sides "discussed interaction on urgent international problems, including the Iranian nuclear issue, on which numerous consultations at various levels are to be held in the coming days."
Deciphering the diplomatic language from the two sides makes it clear that Putin told Bush "nyet."
As befitting the flagship newspaper of the Iran info-op, the Washington Post contributes today a belligerent lead editorial on the upcoming action in the Security Council, with special attention devoted to--none other than--Russia:
A debate on a legally binding resolution should set the United States and its European allies more firmly on a course toward adopting specific sanctions against Iran. It should also force China and Russia to decide whether they wish to be partners of the West in addressing such threats to global security. Russian President Vladimir Putin has skillfully exploited the growing crisis with Iran, cooperating with the West just enough to forestall a response to his increasingly belligerent policies in other parts of the world, while also reaping the benefit of rising oil prices -- and retaining the option of selling advanced weapons to Tehran. By the time of this summer's Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Mr. Putin should be obliged either to stand with the democratic governments he will host in supporting Security Council action or to demonstrate that he does not belong in their company.
The post has published several op-ed pieces in recent months advocating threatening a U.S. boycott of July's G-8 meeting as a way to pressure Russia into bending to our wishes vis-a-vis Iran.
I have a feeling that the G-8 meeting may have been brought up by President Bush in yesterday's phone call with Putin.
Putin doubtlessly called Bush's bluff. We will now see how the game will be played at the U.N.
As we have illustrated previously here, here, here, and here, a not-insignificant component of the anti-Iran campaign is an anti-Russia psy-op.
Today brings the news that President Bush yesterday telephoned the recalcitrant President Vladimir Putin in an attempt to get him on board the "punish Iran" bandwagon.
President Bush called Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday to discuss the standoff over Iran's nuclear program, days before the issue goes before the U.N. Security Council.
"The two leaders stressed the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, especially in the United Nations Security Council," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "And they committed to remaining in close contact on this important priority."
A Kremlin statement said the two sides "discussed interaction on urgent international problems, including the Iranian nuclear issue, on which numerous consultations at various levels are to be held in the coming days."
Deciphering the diplomatic language from the two sides makes it clear that Putin told Bush "nyet."
As befitting the flagship newspaper of the Iran info-op, the Washington Post contributes today a belligerent lead editorial on the upcoming action in the Security Council, with special attention devoted to--none other than--Russia:
A debate on a legally binding resolution should set the United States and its European allies more firmly on a course toward adopting specific sanctions against Iran. It should also force China and Russia to decide whether they wish to be partners of the West in addressing such threats to global security. Russian President Vladimir Putin has skillfully exploited the growing crisis with Iran, cooperating with the West just enough to forestall a response to his increasingly belligerent policies in other parts of the world, while also reaping the benefit of rising oil prices -- and retaining the option of selling advanced weapons to Tehran. By the time of this summer's Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Mr. Putin should be obliged either to stand with the democratic governments he will host in supporting Security Council action or to demonstrate that he does not belong in their company.
The post has published several op-ed pieces in recent months advocating threatening a U.S. boycott of July's G-8 meeting as a way to pressure Russia into bending to our wishes vis-a-vis Iran.
I have a feeling that the G-8 meeting may have been brought up by President Bush in yesterday's phone call with Putin.
Putin doubtlessly called Bush's bluff. We will now see how the game will be played at the U.N.
posted by Effwit at 10:18 AM
6 Comments:
Deciphering the diplomatic language from the two sides makes it clear that Putin told Bush "nyet."
Hmmm... and over on Digby's blog I read that the Turks are behaving rather recalciterantly too...
Jeez. Life being a Chimperor must be getting tougher by the minute...
And BTW, I like how the Washington Post conflates "the U.S." with "the West." Why don't they just call themselves Pravada - Western edition? They are pathetic.
Dena
Dena:
The roster of nations willing to put up with this administration's nonsense is dwindling.
Appropriately so.
However, I see that Canada--under the new conservative leader--is joining the hostile U.S. position against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment. Aargh!
The Washington Post has been for years an essential element for disseminating propaganda from the national security interests. I use them as a barometer indicating when the political weather is likely to soon change--and in which direction.
That bit about "The West" is pretty obnoxious. They also have continued calling the U.S. prescence in Iraq "The Coalition", when only the dimmest of bulbs would consider this to be true.
However, I see that Canada--under the new conservative leader--is joining the hostile U.S. position against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment. Aargh!
Really? I didn't know that -- but thanks for telling me... I can't believe that we would kowtow to the U.S. so blatantly -- but again, I'm not surprised. The- very-accommodating-to-the-U.S. Stephen Harper wasn't my choice. I voted for the Green Party. -- On the bright side, he did lower our goods and services tax by 1%
yesterday. -- But that's not going to do a lot of good when the whole planet goes up in smoke huh?
They also have continued calling the U.S. prescence in Iraq "The Coalition", when only the dimmest of bulbs would consider this to be true.
These aren't the dimmest of blubs. These are the willfully blind.
Dena
Dena:
Like the "bad kids" that parents don't want their children to hang out with--for fear that their bad habits will brush off on the "good kids"--the U.S. conservatives have dragged the Canadians into Kyoto Treaty delinquency.
Canada Alters Course on Kyoto
Canada's Conservative government on Tuesday slashed funds for environmental programs designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a move that critics said gutted support for the Kyoto accord on global warming.
Environmental groups said Canada, one of the early signatories and a high-profile proponent of the 1997 pact, is now in line with the Bush administration, which has dismissed the international agreement and expressed doubts about humans' contributions to climate change.
About the fools who believe in the war-mongering rationales, they include both the dumbasses and the willfully blind.
I could not venture a guess about which percentage predominates, but there are a lot of stupid people in the U.S.--and worse, they all vote their convictions.
That's very sad that Canada reversed its earlier position and is now in line with the Bush administration...For what its worth -- I should phone my MP and complain...
... Maybe you're being too kind to refer to Canada as the good kid -- we're (currently) just the kid that goes along with whatever the kid's powerful friend wants to do...
-- and it's true, of course, that there's no shortage of both the delusional and the dumbasses everywhere!!
Dena
Dena:
I'm sure that the conservatives in Washington are overjoyed at the more accomodating attitude in Ottawa.
I have noticed more Canadian military action recently in Afghanistan. You lost a bunch of soldiers a week or so ago, and are getting credit for killing 20 or so "terrorists" yesterday.
Something tells me that the more active role of Canada has to do with your new government's relationship with their ideological brethren in Washington.
Makes one long for the Trudeau era.
Post a Comment
<< Home