Shilling for another war while discrediting a voice of reason and a Nobel Peace Prize winner

the bush administration simply cannot abide anyone who doesn't toe the line with its perpetual war agenda, and outlets like the wapo are only too happy to be one of its running dogs... beginning with both the headline and the teaser, this editorial takes a crack at mohamed el baradei, the iaea director, who, as he has since the run-up to the iraq war, tries to speak above the noise of the incessant beating of bushco's war drums...

Rogue Regulator
Mohamed ElBaradei pursues a separate peace with Iran.

FOR SOME time Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian diplomat who heads the International Atomic Energy Agency, has made it clear he considers himself above his position as a U.N. civil servant. Rather than carry out the policy of the Security Council or the IAEA board, for which he nominally works, Mr. ElBaradei behaves as if he were independent of them, free to ignore their decisions and to use his agency to thwart their leading members -- above all the United States.

it seems to me more than a tad disingenuous to call the u.s. one of the "leading members" of the u.n., somehow implying that the u.s. really supports the u.n.'s work rather than simply manipulating it for its own ends... even more blatantly disingenuous, however, is the wapo's pathetic attempt to distance itself from those drooling over the prospect of a new war...

Mr. ElBaradei was lionized by opponents of the Iraq war for debunking Bush administration charges that Saddam Hussein had restarted his nuclear program before the 2003 invasion. Emboldened, he has now set himself a new task: stopping what he considers to be the "crazies" in Washington who "want to say, 'Let us go and bomb Iran.' " We're not part of that camp, though we consider its members saner than many of the statements of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

so, the wapo considers the "let us go and bomb iran" crowd SANE...? that statement in itself renders the "we're not part of that camp" claim meaningless...

and conveniently, as per usual, the wapo omits any mention of the fact that the u.s. would have liked nothing better than to have prevented el baradei from serving another term as iaea director when his previous term was up back in early 2005...

from an interview with the arms control association in march 2005...

ACA: Speaking of your job, so far you’re running unopposed for a third term as director-general. As you know, the United States says it opposes another term for you because it’s opposed to third terms for the heads of international organizations in general. Do you believe the United States wants you replaced for any other reason?

ElBaradei: You should address that question to the United States. I really haven’t discussed it with them, and all I know is that the overwhelming majority of members-states have come to me and asked me to continue to serve. I was not necessarily planning to, if you had asked me a year ago, but they asked me to serve, and I think the reason for it is that we are in a very delicate phase in the nonproliferation regime, both the whole vitality of the regime as well as specific cases like Iran and North Korea, and that’s why I agreed to serve. I’d be happy to serve if people want me to; if not, again, I’ll be equally happy to do other stuff.

ACA: U.S. officials as well as some officials from other governments have indicated dissatisfaction with the fact that your reports to the IAEA Board of Governors did not say that Iran was in noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement. What is your reaction to that?

ElBaradei: Well, first, the only thing I saw publicly is that during the [confirmation] hearing of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, she said, from the U.S. perspective, I served with distinction. I think that’s the language she used, so that’s all I have seen publicly, and I’d be obviously happy, if there are any who have any qualms about any of our reports, to discuss them privately and publicly. But our reports on Iran have been characterized, at least from our perspective, by being factual and objective, and that’s what we’ll continue to do. We have no ax to grind, one way or another. Our role is to bring the facts out and, as I think I mentioned in Davos,[8] when Iran cheated I reported, when Iran cooperated I reported.

also conveniently omitted is this...

Mohamed El Baradei, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he heads, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week for working to curb the spread of nuclear weapons.

but the most incredible statement of the editorial comes right at the end...

Moscow and Beijing could join Mr. ElBaradei in arguing that nothing should be done before the end of the year. By then, the options of the Bush administration and other governments that believe Iran's nuclear program must be stopped, and not accommodated, may be greatly attenuated -- thanks to a diplomat who apparently believes he need not represent anyone other than himself.

and this, my friends, is why u.s. citizens are among the most poorly informed people in the world...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet