UPDATE:On re-rereading this I realized that I came off like a churlish jerky girl with regards to the people of Burma and the heroic monks who are marching (and dying) for them and for a more democratic form of government. That wasn’t my intent. I’ve been moved by the photos people have posted on Flickr, in support of peace and justice in Burma, that have been showing up on my Google Flickr thingy. So I thought I’d better make things better.
I happened to scan the recent White House press briefing, following up on something completely different noted by OneUtah:
MS. PERINO: Well, unfortunately, intimidation and force can chill peaceful demonstrations. And reports about very innocent people being thrown into detention, where theycould be held for years without any representation or charges, is distressing; and we understand that some of the monasteries have been sealed. Now, obviously, this has, again, a chilling effect on protestors, but we would ask that everyone show restraint and allow those who want to express themselves to be able to do soin Burma.
At first, I was all set to whoop it up – the White House had finally seen the error of its ways as to the treatment of “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo, and peace activists would start to get treated with a little more respect.
But then I saw that this seeming New Enlightenment was only about Burma. I wonder if Unocal is still involved with that pipeline project? Otherwise, I can’t see why the Adumistration gives a half-hearted damn about a bunch of Burmese monks, when they’re holding a bunch of people in offshore detention centers, unconvicted and without normal access to lawyers or the courts.
I started out to comment on Helen Thomas’ pointed questions about Sy Hersh’s latest “Iran’s next” piece:
Q Yes, follow on that. This weekend the New Yorker magazine came out with an article claiming that this summer the President, or at least the White House in general, asked the Joint Chiefs to redraw plans to attack Iran. Is that true?
MS. PERINO: Look, you know, I’m glad you brought it up. Every two months or so, Sy Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker magazine, and CNN provides him a forum in which to talk about his article and all the anonymous sources that are quoted in it.
Q So the President —
MS. PERINO: The President has said that he believes that there is a diplomatic solution that we can use to solve the Iranian problem. And that’s why we’re working with our allies to get there.
Q That’s what he said before we went to Iraq, too.
Q But what’s the — can you answer actually on the substance of whether or not the White House asked — I mean, if it’s not true, then you can say Sy Hersh is wrong and CNN was wrong to air it. You could say that, but —
MS. PERINO: We don’t discuss such things, Ed.
Q — what about the substance of whether we —
MS. PERINO: We don’t discuss such things. What we have said and what we are working towards is a diplomatic solution in Iran. What the President has also said is that as a President, as a Commander-in-Chief — and any Commander-in-Chief — would not take any option off the table. But the option that we are pursuing right now is diplomacy.
Q But the article very specifically said that this summer in a video conference — secure video conference with Ambassador Crocker, the President said that he was thinking about “hitting Iran” and also —
MS. PERINO: I’m not going to comment on — one, I don’t know. I wouldn’t have been at any — at that type of a meeting. I don’t know. I’m not going to comment on any possible — any possible scenario that an anonymous source, you know, continues to feed into Sy Hersh. I’m just not going the do it.
Q Why should anybody believe that the President wants diplomatic solutions? He said that before going into Iraq.
MS. PERINO: The President sought a diplomatic solution in Iraq and Saddam Hussein defied the U.N. Security Council 17 times.
Q Some of the history we’ve learned since suggests otherwise.
MS. PERINO: That the President didn’t — that Saddam Hussein defied 17 U.N. Security Council resolutions?
Q No, that the President was intent on going to war in Iraq in any case.
MS. PERINO: No, the President pursued a diplomatic option. He went to the U.N. Security Council, and then we proceeded.
Q Did he consult — would he tell Congress before attacking Iran — before he attacks Iran?
MS. PERINO: Helen, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran.
Q I’m asking you does he feel committed to ask Congress for permission?
MS. PERINO: We are pursuing a diplomatic solution in Iran.
Jesus, what a frickin’ automaton. It appears that Helen Thomas is asking part of this, but someone named Ed was also in there slugging away with the pointed questions, too. Good for them.
We don’t discuss such things, indeed. They’ll just go to war with Iran when they damn well feel like it, after rattling the big sabre and conducting Naval exercises in the Gulf and loudly declaming that diplomacy was tried, but diplomacy failed. And even this time, the British are “on board.”
Look for Downing Street Memo, 2.0 to appear a year or two after the Iran theatre starts selling tickets. Or it will all turn out to be mistranslation of , as in “The British are terribly bored with this.”
