Obama is Not Muslim/Hitler Shock. He's Stalin. (And Mao.)

It is a pleasure to report that the "Obama is Hitler" debate has now moved on:

The Latest from Israel-Gaza-Palestine (2 March): The Donors' Conference

Update (1:50 p.m.): Hamas has set out a defiant position in the face of the donors' conference support for aid via the Palestinian Authority and for direct assistance to the PA. Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said, "To bypass the legitimate Palestinian authorities in the Gaza Strip is a move in the wrong direction and it deliberately undermines the reconstruction."

Hillary Clinton's statement to the conference offered little more than general platitudes: "We cannot afford more setbacks or delays -- or regrets about what might have been, had different decisions been made....It is time to look ahead."

Update (9:25 a.m. GMT): Well, here's a start on our questions below about the politics of this supposed assistance: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will pledge $900 million for the Palestinians at a donors' conference in Egypt, but only a third of that is earmarked for Gaza, a U.S. official said on Sunday....About $200 million of the U.S. pledge would help cover budget shortfalls of the Western-backed Palestinian Authority (PA) and the remainder was for economic reforms, security and private sector projects run by the PA."

The headline event today will be the meeting in Cairo of representatives from "Western" countries and the Arab world, pledging money to the reconstruction of Gaza.

This is a non-story in some respects. We already know the amounts that individual countries will put forward, for example, $900 million from the US, and we know the formula will be that aid goes through the UN and the Palestinian Authority, with Hamas being ostracised. Shrewder readers will also know that the impact of the aid will be symbolic unless 1) there is a workable arrangement on the ground for the PA to be involved in delivery of assistance and, more importantly, 2) Israel allows the aid through the border crossings.

No, this is primarily a political event. So watch for the extent to which the Palestinian Authority is exalted by the delegations, indicating how much support there really is for an attempt to put Fatah at the head of Gazan politics, and the extent to which Hamas is condemned. That should give an indication as to whether there is a hope, beyond this conference, of an engagement with all parties on the Israel-Palestine issue.

Without that acceptance, which has to include rather than exclude Hamas, today's event will be posture rather than a practical way forward (or even a maintenance of a decent status quo) in Gaza.

UPDATED Obama and Iran: Engagement, Muddle, and Hysteria

Update: Iran's Foreign Ministry has replied to Mullen's comment, ""All these statements regarding the production of a nuclear bomb are very baseless. It is baseless from a technical point of view and has propaganda connotations."

On Friday, after President Obama's speech on Iraq and its recommendation for talks with Iran and Syria, we wrote, "Watch the manoeuvres of those who are hostile to any engagement not only because they don’t like 'rogue states'."

And so it goes.

In a travesty of an interview on Sunday, CNN's John King led Admiral Mike Mullen (pictured), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, down the sensational road to Mullen's statement that Iran "has enough fissile material to make a nuclear bomb": "And Iran having a nuclear weapon I’ve believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world."

Unsurprisingly, those sentences have become bold-letter headlines this morning. Here, though, is the essential context for what was either 1) an Admiral being manoeuvred into a very silly mistake or 2) another example of the US military trying to bump others in the Obama Administration into a harder line.

Near the end of an interview which was devoted mainly to Iraq and Afghanistan, King and Mullen stood in front of one of those multi-coloured plasma maps that CNN uses as eye-candy as the CNN anchorman said, "If we come down to the right here, Iran, obviously, the International Atomic Energy Agency said last week they think that they were wrong in the past, that Iran might now have enough fissile material to make a bomb. Does Iran have enough to make a bomb?"

King, who has risen through the CNN ranks because of chiseled looks and broad shoulders rather than any detail of knowledge, had asked an question based on a falsehood. The IAEA did not say "they were wrong in the past". Their report explained that quantities of Iran's enriched uranium were one-third higher than previously stated because the amounts were verified by observation rather than estimates. And the IAEA, while saying that Iran might soon have a quantity of uranium sufficienct for one bomb, also said that the uranium was not of sufficient quality (it is enriched to 4% and 90% is the magic number needed).

Mullen could have said, "The Administration is currently conducting a review of policy towards Iran" (or, in a dream world, "John, you're a mannequin posing as a reporter"). He could have left it at that, as there was little time left in the interview. Instead, he nodded at King and the multi-coloured map and said:

We think they do, quite frankly. And Iran having a nuclear weapon I’ve believed for a long time is a very, very bad outcome for the region and for the world.

And that was it for Tehran. CNN spun the lights and the geography to North Korea so King could ask about their bomb, to which Mullen gave a more sensible response, one guaranteed not to make headlines:

Secretary Gates and I have made no recommendations. But it’s -- it’s an area that we watch with great concern. And I would hope that North Korea would not be provocative.

It is notable that Mullen did not say a word about Iran in his other Sunday interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News. And it's even more notable that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates slapped down Mullen's claim when he talked with David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press:

[The Iranians are] not close to a uranium stockpile. They’re not close to a weapon, at this point, and so there is some time.

Indeed, Gates' much-longer answer on Iran is the one that deserves to be dissected this morning. He effectively laid out the "engagement" strategy. Negotiate with Tehran --- if the talks aren't satisfactory, then Washington has the cause for tougher economic sanctions:

GATES: I don’t think that either the last administration or the current one have been distracted from the growing problem with Iran and its nuclear program in the least over the last number of years. We worried about it well before even the Bush administration.
So I -- I think that there has been a continuing focus on how do you get the Iranians to walk away from a nuclear weapons program?
They’re not close to a stockpile. They’re not close to a weapon, at this point, and so there is some time.
And the question is whether you can increase the level of the sanctions and the cost to the Iranians of pursuing that program at the same time you show them an open door if they want to engage with the Europeans, with us, and so on, if they walk away from that program.
Our chances of being successful, it seems to me, are a lot better at $35 or $40 oil than they were at $140 oil because there are economic costs to this program, they do have economic challenges at home.
GREGORY: You do see the need, though, for a -- some kind of strategic relationship between the U.S. and Iran?
GATES: Well, I think that -- that’s really up to the Iranians. I’ve been -- as I like to say, I’ve been in this search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years. I’m still looking.

Unfortunately, it's Mullen who has played into the more-established, if inaccurate, media line that Iran is about to get The Bomb. And with newspapers like The Times of London running hysterical campaigns on the Tehran threat --- see analyst Bronwen Maddox's Friday scenario of an Iranian invasion of Bahrain and Sunday's article claiming Tehran is funneling missiles to the Taliban --- it is that wave that could sink the Obama strategy of engagement.

UPDATED War on Terror/Torture Breaking News: David Miliband Is a Liar

Update (3 March): The Guardian reports....

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, is to be questioned by senior MPs over what he and his officials knew about the ill-treatment and secret interrogation of Binyam Mohamed, the former UK resident recently released from Guantánamo Bay. The move was announced yesterday by the Commons foreign affairs committee, which said it also intends to investigate other key issues where recent evidence has thrown up uncomfortable questions for ministers to answer. They are allegations of British complicity in torture in Pakistan, in the US practice of rendering terror suspects to countries where they risked being tortured, and in the transfer of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The foreign secretary will not be able to refuse to testify before the Commons foreign affairs committee, which was set up to monitor the activities of his department.

I thought of using the English euphemism "economical with the truth", but that doesn't capture the brazen statement of the Foreign Secretary yesterday regarding alleged British complicity with the torture of detainees.



Having refused to appear before a Parliamentary committee investigating the charges, Miliband and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith chose instead to write to The Observer of London. Here's a key extract from the letter:

In the case of Binyam Mohamed, you imply that the government has refused to disclose material related to his case because it would embarrass the government. Again, this is not true. As Mr Mohamed's legal representatives have themselves said, it is through this government's efforts that this material was provided to them for use in Mr Mohamed's defence. We have no objection to this material being disclosed publicly. But we believe that the decision to do so is for the US, because the material is from the US.

Which would merely be a case of passing the buck rather than lying shamelessly, were it not for this revelation by a former State Department official in The Observer two weeks earlier. He commented on the American letter which asked for the Mohamed evidence to be kept secret:

Far from being a threat, it was solicited [by the Foreign Office]. The Foreign Office asked for it in writing. They said: "Give us something in writing so that we can put it on the record." If you give us a letter explaining you are opposed to this, then we can provide that to the court.

Foreign Secretary, if you're going to lie while avoiding an inquiry into torture, could you at least give us enough respect not to do in the same newspaper which busted you in the first place?

Obama is Hitler (Part 23)

Latest Post: Obama is Not Muslim/Hitler Shock! He's Stalin. (And Mao.)
Related Post: Barack Obama is Hitler (This Time They’re Serious)
Related Post: Barack Obama is Not Muslim. He’s the Anti-Christ. Or Maybe Hitler.

Well, it appears that the misleading story of Barack Obama as a secret Muslim has been put to rest. Evidence continues to emerge that he is in fact the Politics 2.0 version of failed painter turned Führer Adolf Hitler.

The latest, sent to us by a concerned reader, comes out of the Rome News Tribune in the southern state of Georgia: