Watching National Security

The invasion of Iraq in early 2003 was sold to us as a matter of national security. It is now 2008 and the government of Irag is demanding that the U.S. set a timetable for withdrawal of our forces.

What a switch this “national security” development is for the candidates running for the presidency. There is a good analysis of this question from the (8/22/08) Democratic Strategist: Titled, “Tide Turning In, and On, Iraq, it is by Ed Kilgore. To quote a couple of Kilgore’s ideas:

The political figure most threatened by it is John McCain, who has violently and consistently opposed any sort of withdrawal timetable on grounds that it would fatally endanger an impending U.S. military “victory” in Iraq.

Barack Obama’s reaction to the new deal in Iraq is obviously a big deal in terms of framing his position vis-a-vis McCain’s. Here’s part of what he said about it:

I am glad that the Administration has finally shifted to accepting a timetable for the removal of our combat troops from Iraq. Success in Iraq depends on an Iraqi government that is reconciling its differences and taking responsibility for its future, and a timetable is the best way to press the Iraqis to do just that. I welcome the growing convergence around this pragmatic and responsible position….

Senator McCain has stubbornly focused on maintaining an indefinite U.S presence in Iraq, but events have made his bluster and record increasingly out of touch with reality. While Senator McCain continues to offer unconditional military and economic support for Iraq, I strongly believe that we need to use our leverage with the Iraqi government to ensure a political settlement. In addition to a timetable, we should only train Iraqi Security Forces if Iraq’s leaders reconcile their differences, and we must insist that Iraq invests its $79 billion surplus on rebuilding its own country. It’s time to succeed in Iraq and to honor the sacrifice of our servicemen and women by leaving Iraq to a sovereign Iraqi government.

The Iraqis do not need our money; we do. Watching it be spent at the current rate is very demoralizing. Eric Umansky is a great investigator for ProPublica. Here is his (8/21/08) story on why withdrawal from Iraq is so incredibly complicated: “Iraq Fibs on Reconstruction Spending.” To quote:

It seems the U.S. and Iraq are nearing a deal for American forces in Iraq. Whether the GIs are staying or going home ($) in the next few years isn’t clear (and anyway, these are “aspirational timetables,” as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice put it). But security agreements aside, one thing that’s increasingly clear is that Iraq isn’t exactly mustering its full financial resources to reconstruct the country.

A GAO report released earlier this month concluded that Iraq was basically rolling in the dough. Benefitting from record oil prices, Iraq’s budget surplus is estimated to reach near $80 billion by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Iraq’s spending on reconstruction projects, the report concluded, has been miserly by comparison. In 2007, the report said, Iraq only actually spent 28 percent of its $12 billion reconstruction budget.

Who is to watch Blackwater? Investigative journalist Matthew Schwarzfeld also writes for ProPublica. He tells us that, as of(8/15/08), “Security Contractors in Iraq Remain Outside the Law.” To quote:

Nearing the one-year anniversary of the shooting incident involving Blackwater guards at Baghdad’s Nisour Square, State Department security contractors in Iraq continue to operate in a legal vacuum.

Iraqi leaders have continually pushed to revoke the controversial Order 17, passed in the final days of the Coalition Provisional Authority to immunize contractors from Iraqi law. Recent news reports about Iraqi-U.S. negotiations indicate that the Iraqis may prevail. But because of inaction by Congress, the loophole for State Department contractors remains in U.S. law.

Closing the legal loophole that makes prosecuting the Blackwater guards so unlikely — as illustrated by the Justice Department’s public difficulties in finding the legal authority to prosecute guards for last September’s Nisour Square shooting — has proven extremely difficult. Blackwater has said its guards acted only after coming under fire.

Follow the money – these little tidbits come from my daily newsletter, CQ Behind the Lines. The date is 8/13/08. Quoting a couple of items:

Security-related concerns about Sharia-compliant banking may stem from a lack of understanding, stereotyping and/or a “conflation” of Islamic finance with hawala money transfers, CRS suggests -

. . . An accused North African terror cell rolled up in Italy last weekend allegedly financed ops with collections from phony car accident insurance claims, BBC News relates.

Watching in the name of national security – For many Americans the best metaphor for what is wrong with the Bush administration’s misguided efforts to “keep us safe” is the Terror Watch list. If you remember that is the list from which Teddy Kennedy could not extract himself. An e-mail from Anthony Romero at ACLU weighs on the mess: “Who’s next on the watch list?” It includes this interesting opportunity: Take our national security quiz to learn about other frightening national security tools. To quote Romero’s letter:

Why is 7-year-old John Anderson from Minneapolis on the national Terrorist Watch List?

1. He pushed Tommy too hard on the playground.
2. His July 4th birthday means he distracts other Americans from celebrating their country.
3. John didn’t pick up the blocks during playtime.

The truth is that we don’t know how he got on the Terrorist Watch List. Or if he can get off it. It took an Act of Congress to get Nelson Mandela, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, off the list.

The watch list is the perfect metaphor because, according to Eric Umansky of ProPublica (8/22/08), the “Terror Watch List [is] Technologically Troubled” To quote:

According to the Wall Street Journal, which details the investigators’ findings ($), the current watch list database was built in a rush after 9/11 and uses seriously limited software. For instance, the list can’t be searched for keywords. Investigators also concluded that the database doesn’t include “potentially vital” messages from the Central Intelligence Agency.

The government is building a new database. But apparently it’s not shaping up to be a crackerjack system either. . . . The new database, called “Railhead,” was supposed to be completed by the end of the year, but it’s hitting delays. Citing a “congressional aide,” the Journal says the “government has fired most of the 862 private contractors from dozens of companies working on the Railhead project, and only a skeleton crew remains.”

References on national security from my regular contributors:

• from Jon — and NYTimes.com (8/30/08):”Bush Seeks to Affirm a Continuing War on Terror.”
• from Jon; it is at NewsWithViews: “Government By Traitors and Cowards” (8/29/08) by Andrew C. Wallace
• from Jon 8/26/08: Looking Back at Five Years of Bush’s Wreckage in Iraq — Bush’s supporters see the global war on terrorism as a “clash of civilizations” — yet the civilization we are destroying in Iraq is part of our own.
• From “betmo,” another reference: “CIA Likely Let Contractors Perform Waterboarding” (2/8/08) Wall Street Journal.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

My “creativity and dreaming” post today is at Making Good Mondays.

Technorati tags: news news and politics national security iraq watch lists homeland security status of forces agreement

Sphere: Related Content

um…

“Rice was hired by Stanford University as an Assistant Professor of Political Science (1981–1987). She was promoted to Associate Professor in 1987, a post she held until 1993. She was a specialist on the Soviet Union and gave lectures on the subject for the Berkeley-Stanford joint program led by UC Berkeley Professor George Breslauer in the mid-1980s.”

from wikipedia
“US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also been noticeably absent on the diplomatic scene, having failed to interrupt her holidays to fly to Tbilisi in support of the Georgian government.

Instead senior State Department official, Matthew Bryza, who oversees the Caucasus region was sent, two days later than planned, to join a joint EU-US mediation effort to win a ceasefire.”

afp reporting

so, what we are left with is this:

Sphere: Related Content

A whole lotta cabbage…

Scooter B. has announced that he’ll be leaving behind a huge pile of deficit-based drama when he leaves office in 2009.

$482 billion dollars worth of drama.

Pause…consider…continue.

Well, actually $482 billion dollars plus the $80 billion in war costs the White House left out in violation of a Congressional mandate.

Oh, and apparently we should also add unemployment costs, Medicare fees, the cost of that new housing bill parked in the garage.

You know what, this is like a bitch trying to determine my personal deficit without factoring in monthly soul food expenditures or the cost of fueling up Miss Sister Girl Cabrio.

Blink.

Anyhoo, we’re actually talking about a deficit closer to $600 billion dollars when you add in all the shit Scooter B. and his ‘we’ll just hide it under the mash potatoes!’ minions decided not to…and that’s a whole lotta motherfucking cabbage.

Here’s where it get’s ugly.

See, there are those who like to say that the 2009 projected deficit isn’t that big of a deal because as a percentage of the gross domestic product it implies a ratio of around 3.3 percent which is below previous years and blah, blah motherfucking blah.

White House budget director Jim Nussle gave forth the following statement. “These projected deficits are both manageable and temporary if spending is kept in check, the tax burden remains low and the economy continues to grow.”

A bitch reads that statement and sees code for those vicious assaults on the masses these people like to call deficit reduction plans.

I can almost write this script my own damn self.
Oh, someone could stand up and shout “Last Call, motherfuckers!” on the federal pork binge…or suggest that mayhap we’ve written a war spending check our asses can’t cover…or take a step towards those sanctified holy relic tax cuts that no one I know qualifies for.

But no, these rancid motherfuckers intend to tap a funding vein in the social programs that are already writhing on the floor in wretched agony begging to be put out of their misery. They’ll stand above those pitiful used-to-be-programs….mmmhmmm, like Jack the Ripper….and slash away whilst mumbling maniacally about killing off entitlement programs and how small governments really turn them on.

Ugh.

Someone please tell me that the people who voted for this rancidity…who opened the door and invited the fiend inside our house…Lawd, tell me that they have learned something from this fuck up that just keeps on fucking!

***cue crickets***

Shit.

Crossposted from the Angry Black Bitch.

Sphere: Related Content

Former Bush supporter bites the hand that fed him.

He was known as “Bush’s Puppet”, but now former Iraq Prime Minister Dr. Ayad Allawi is marching to a different drummer: From Truth Out:

Dr. Ayad Allawi, the former interim Iraqi prime minister previously referred to even by US Congress members as a “Bush puppet,” voiced his strong support for a US withdrawal timeline during a Wednesday Congressional hearing.

During his term in office, from June 2004 to April 2005, Allawi endorsed the US’s controversial bombings of Fallujah and echoed Bush’s speeches almost word for word in many of his own statements; The Washington Post reported that Bush administration officials coached Allawi on the content of his public comments. Prior to his involvement in the US-backed, post-invasion Iraqi government, Allawi worked with the CIA.

Bush doesn’t support his puppets once he no longer needs them. When they tossed Allawi aside it showed there really isn’t any honor among thieves..Again from TO:

Yet, on Wednesday, Allawi blatantly called for “a time frame for reduction of US forces,” a statement that stands in stark contrast to the hazy, deadline-less “time horizon” recently advocated by President Bush. Allawi stressed that the Iraqi people’s wishes should take precedence in any agreement on the future of the American presence in Iraq.

“Most importantly, [the security agreement] should be transparent and get the approval of the Iraqi Parliament and people,” he testified.

Damn skippy the Iraqi people should ratify it! No more secrecy..more sunlight please!! Allawi speaks out about how the current Iraqi government and BushCo have built the Iraqi economy so that it favors American interests. Its a good read..please check it out. Of course some folks will call Allawi a disgruntled former employee of BushCo, but to me, his thoughts are spot-on, and he speaks truth to power through the entire TO article.

Crossposted at Its My Right to be Left of the Center.

Sphere: Related Content

The U.S. and Israel on Iran

The U.S. and Israel on Iran By Jerome Grossman and my sober reply: Obama putting a crimp in Bush’s Iran plans but it will not change the end result, more War! Please click on his Blog and let him know how “we the people” feel!

The United States of America and the State of Israel are the closest of allies, sharing intelligence, weapons, military research, among many other joint ventures. They support each other’s policies at the United Nations and other international venues with only rare exceptions. Policy on Iran may be one of those rare exceptions. Responsible Israeli officials have made their positions clear: Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and Iranian protestations that their development of nuclear power is only for civilian electricity is not to be believed. Furthermore, that Iranian President Ahmedinejad’s threat “to wipe Israel off the map” represents Iranian policy.

Some Israeli leaders want to launch a preemptive attack. Israeli official Shaul Mofaz said recently, “If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it.” In a New York Times op-ed, July 18, 2008, Benny Morris, an influential moderate and former Israeli official warned, “Israel will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months.” Recently, the Israeli Air Force conducted a massive war game over the Mediterranean that was interpreted as a demonstration of Israeli ability to mount a serious and effective attack on Iranian installations.

However, US policy now seems to be headed in another direction. In the past, American policy placed Iran in the Axis of Evil, condemned it as a terrorist regime, passed a resolution in the U.S. Senate demanding regime change, appropriated money for Iranian dissidents, and refused to establish any diplomatic contact with the Iranian government. Now, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates says, “We are not planning for a war with Iran,” Admiral Mike Mullin Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports him. Accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq have diminished. Most importantly, the Bush administration is planning to establish an American diplomatic presence in Iran for the first time since Iranian extremists seized American hostages and occupied the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

Is the US sending a message to Israel not to attack Iran? Is the US sending a message to Middle East nations disassociating itself from an Israeli attack? Has US intelligence decided that the Israelis are serious in their threats?

The effects of an Israeli - Iran war would be world wide. The Muslim world would explode and attack western interests everywhere they could. Rulers of Muslim nations friendly to the west and clients of the US might be overthrown. The price of oil would probably reach $400 per barrel assuming that any oil at all would be shipped to the west. Worldwide energy shortages and commercial disruption would likely cause a financial collapse. The stakes could not be higher, considering that Barack Obama told the US Israeli lobby AIPAC on June 4, “My goal will be to eliminate the threat (to Israel) posed by Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Pause) Everything. The pause is scary.

My True but Sober Response: Obama putting a crimp in Bush’s Iran plans as well as Iraq and Afghanistan but it will not change the end result, more War!

With time running out for Bush his only concern is his legacy! The chief war mongering oil man wants to appear like he wants peace while it is war he has instigated! You know the plan to go after Iran is old. You know 9/11 and the Patriot Act were only to of the set ups to get oil control and war going.

Like everything else today this gets very confusing and convoluted on purpose to hide a hidden agenda. now that Obama is in the mix and the world is behind him getting elected as well they should be if we are to have a future Bush has been changing his tune on Afghanistan and Iraq as well as Iran where a Diplomatic interest was expressed.

That is merely a facade! Nothing is going to be won by us as we conventionally think of as winning and nothing is going to stop the total middle east breakdown before it erupts into total war again under a facade of peace voraciously instigated by the Bush mis-Administration!

I do not know who fears who anymore and it no longer matters! You know I have said many times there will be war with Iran. There has to be to get this going full swing watch! I no longer believe the thought of President Obama is the time constraint of the attack.

If it does not look like the Right can steal this election cleanly too Israel may go after Iran first just so the chief war monger will be at the helm. That will be determined soon.

Food, gas and oil, will be rationed but as you know I have said before, knowing a nuclear Iran would to common sensed eyes mean a power balance in the middle east you have to come to the conclusion that is not wanted.

Israel will never accept a nuclear Iran and will attack. Whoever is President will come to their rescue! Once again war will occur to prevent war. That makes sense yeah!

Again as I keep saying, at one time the threat of mutual destruction use to be a deterrence. Today it seems to be the goal.

Originally a buffer for Israel was their goal and it played well with Bush’s hidden agenda and if any message is being sent to Israel it is not going to matter or change our response.

* Despite heroic efforts of the likes of you Jerry what is still just unfolding will be prevented by no one. We are in serious trouble here and I better shut up now. Take care! please let me and Jerome know what you think!

original post july 22, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

Gee, that’s eight!

Lawd, a bitch has been so busy that I almost missed the G8 Summit completely!

And that would not have been right…particularly since the G8 marks Scooter B.’s (President Bush to the uninitiated) first sit-down with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

Note - with so many news anchors fucking up the pronunciation of Medvedev, a bitch sees a decrease in the coverage of all things Russian on the horizon.

A bitch has been waiting for this meeting ever since Scooter B. bid farewell to Vladimir Putin…and you know that must have been hard ’cause they were linked at the soul ever since Scooter B. gazed deeply into Vladimir’s eyes.

Blink.

Anyhoo, Scooter B. gave his thoughts on President Medvedev after the meeting, calling his a “smart guy.” He went on to add “I’m not going to sit here and psychoanalyze the guy.”

Well, shit…that would have been a show worth buying tickets for!

And then he followed that up with a dash of “He’s comfortable and confident, and I believe when he tells me something, he means it.”

Awww, now that’s the way to make nice before pushing for a missile defense system to be built on your new comrade’s border.

***cue Lara’s theme from Dr. Zhivago***

Crossposted from The Angry Black Bitch.

Sphere: Related Content

Trying to force a regime change in Iran the old fashion way-through covert ops.

The old fashioned way is using clandestine and/or covert ops by various US governmental agencies. The usual agencies are the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Seymour Hersh addresses these operations in his latest article for the New Yorker.

Mr. Hersh received the information on new covert ops against Iran from various military, intelligence, and congressional sources, per his article. The President received funding for these ops late last year from the Democratic-controlled Congress. The dollar amount Bush was seeking is in the ballpark of $400 million.

Christ, that is some ballpark isn’t it? If you think this is something new in Bush’s War on Terror, think again. From Hersh’s article in July’s New Yorker:

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Serious questions? No…really? Who the hell wouldn’t  have serious questions about such actions by our government? Well, the Gang of Eight has been briefed as well as the upper echelons of the Republican and Democratic Congressional leadership. When such covert ops are to begin, the President must issue what is known as a “Presidential Finding“. This is a highly classified executive directive from Bush and its similar to an Executive Order. for a peek into this PF, Hersh has this:

“The Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.

Evidently the congress critter’s with questions about these tactics/operations were appeased since the funding for these operations did get approved by both the Senate and the House. This is all done in secret of course. Interestingly enough, this all came to pass right around the time the NIE came out which stated Iran had stopped work on their nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Can you smell the irony? I can..but I digress.

So BushCo is pushing all the buttons that need to be pushed for his attack on Iran. There are, however, substantial opinions, Robert Gates among them, that bombing Iran would be a huge clusterfuck that would see our children’s children fighting Jihadists, and not only abroad but here on US soil. Again, from Hersh’s article:

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.”

Whoa, isn’t that some shit? The Joint Chiefs of Staff aren’t crazy about BushCo’s plan to bomb Iran. Neither are plenty of “the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world”. Before he was shit-canned, Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, was a very vocal advocate for NOT bombing the bejesus out of Iran. Admiral Fallon has quite a bit to say to Mr. Hersh on the subject of Iran and the covert ops:

“Did I bitch about some of the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very stupid.”

The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. “The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”

I too wonder wtf the Democratic leadership was thinking to approve of these smarmy under-handed tactics while in public they all proclaim that Bush and his minions should be talking to Iran, not bombing them and most certainly not trying to bring down their government. The Democratic presumptive Presidential nominee, Barack Obama has said numerous times that talking not bombing is the only way to affect change in Iran.

BushCo has pushed the envelope when it comes to instigating bullshit with Iran. He attempts to egg them on with rhetoric that inflames and incites the Iran government and their religious leaders is a monthly, if not weekly tirade by the Asshat-in-Chief. There is no Congressional Oversight on these operations because everything is secret and Bush has given himself the power to conduct any and all operations he sees fit under the guise of the “War on Terror”.

Yet Congress gave Bush the money to conduct these types of covert operations inside of Iran, knowing full well that once they signed the check..they would no longer be kept in the loop as to what was being done, how it was being conducted and where. With this Presidential Finding being a top secret affair, no one can speak publicly against Bush about these clandestine operations being carried out in Iran.

The fact that these operations also include paying money to the dissent organizations inside Iran to carry out various bombings and killings of the Revolutionary Guard top brass is raising the ire of the mullahs and the Iranian government. These folks might be wingnuts, but they aren’t stupid–they know America is behind most if not all the strife currently taking place in Iran by either supplying the dissidents with money or weapons or both.

Which means if the Iranian government starts jailing and killing people that they deem as dissidents..their blood is on our hands.

Read the rest of the Hersh writeup at the link..and watch the short CNN interview of Hersh regarding his article in the New Yorker below. Crooks and Liars has the CNN transcript here.

If Bush can get away with it, and everything so far says he can..he will bomb Iran before he leaves office..bet on it.

Crossposted at Bring It On!

Sphere: Related Content

war.criminals.

In the preface to the Physicians for Human Rights report on torture by the United States, Retired Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba writes the following:

This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. . .

The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. . . .

In order for these individuals to suffer the wanton cruelty to which they were subjected, a government policy was promulgated to the field whereby the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice were disregarded. The UN Convention Against Torture was indiscriminately ignored. And the healing professions, including physicians and psychologists, became complicit in the willful infliction of harm against those the Hippocratic Oath demands they protect.

After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.

The former detainees in this report, each of whom is fighting a lonely and difficult battle to rebuild his life, require reparations for what they endured, comprehensive psycho-social and medical assistance, and even an official apology from our government.

But most of all, these men deserve justice as required under the tenets of international law and the United States Constitution.

And so do the American people.” (Maj. General Antonio M. Taguba (USA-Ret.)

You can download the entire report on the medical evidence of torture by the U.S. here. Read it and weep, then get on the phone to Nancy Pelosi and demand that impeachment be put ON the fucking table and that these sociopaths in the Bush administration be arrested and imprisoned. There is no other way we can redeem ourselves as a nation.

Crossposted at Big Ass Belle’s Place

Sphere: Related Content

“Between a rock and a hard place”

– an old Texas saying describes a current political reality. One might also say that U.S. President George W. Bush is truly “up against it;” “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t;” or looking at “an irresistible force meeting an immovable object.” Today’s post looks at the situation in the Middle East in which our current president (OCP) finds himself. Iraq is not being entirely cooperative, Iran is “in his face,” Germany disagrees about what to do about it, and more and more mental health medications are required to keep all the troops functional as they fight the wars in the region.

Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t – The poor guy is lame duck. His approval ratings are at record lows, fellow Texan Scotty McClellan has turned on him, he has diminished status as a world leader, and all he could think of to do was travel outside the country for a while. Looking for sympathy abroad he gave an interview (6/11/08) to UK’s The Times saying that he has regrets about his legacy as a man who wanted war. To quote,

President Bush has admitted to The Times that his gun-slinging rhetoric made the world believe that he was a “guy really anxious for war” in Iraq. He said that his aim now was to leave his successor a legacy of international diplomacy for tackling Iran.

In an exclusive interview, he expressed regret at the bitter divisions over the war and said that he was troubled about how his country had been misunderstood. “I think that in retrospect I could have used a different tone, a different rhetoric.”

Phrases such as “bring them on” or “dead or alive”, he said, “indicated to people that I was, you know, not a man of peace”. He said that he found it very painful “to put youngsters in harm’s way”. He added: “I try to meet with as many of the families as I can. And I have an obligation to comfort and console as best as I possibly can. I also have an obligation to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain.”

Up against it with Iran? The risk is that OCP, pressured by Israel, Cheney and the neocons would feel like another war was necessary. During his European trip, our current president called for, along with Germany, increased sanctions to put pressure on Iran. However, the Iranian president “remains defiant over the country’s nuclear plans,” according to the Financial Times. McClatchy headlines that a “Strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is under discussion again,” presumably with Israel.
Iraq is between a rock and a hard place in triangulating between the U.S. and Iran about the future in the Middle East. Meanwhile, what does Iraq really want? The BBC News has an excellent summary of the current situation between Iran and Iraq.

Up against it with the occupation of Iraq – Despite administration claims that an agreement will be signed with Iraq by the July 31st deadline, it seems that “U.S. security talks with Iraq [are] in trouble in Baghdad and D.C.” To quote:

A proposed U.S.-Iraqi security agreement that would set the conditions for a defense alliance and long-term U.S. troop presence appears increasingly in trouble, facing growing resistance from the Iraqi government, bipartisan opposition in Congress and strong questioning from Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

President Bush is trying to finish the agreement before he leaves office, and senior U.S. officials insist publicly that the negotiations can be completed by a July 31 target date. The U.S. is apparently scaling back some of its demands, including backing off one that particularly incenses Iraqis, blanket immunity for private security contractors.

But meeting the July 31 deadline seems increasing doubtful, and in Baghdad and Washington there is growing speculation that a United Nations mandate for U.S.-led military operations in Iraq may have to be renewed after it expires at the end of 2008.

There is no need for OCP to feel the press of time. He needs to just serve out his term. OCP is used to America’s disapproval. His risk of impeachment is nil. The United Nations can extend its authority regarding Iraq, so that the new president can make a rational transition. And Iran and Iraq will develop whatever relationship is in both their best interests. Attaturk at Firedoglake (6/10/08) discussed the concern that the Bush administration might not be able to get a status of forces agreement with Iraq before leaving office. That means that the current U.N. mandate would have to be extended past December. It would also mean, the blogger reminds us, that Iran is the only real winner here. The writer titles his piece, “Everything is proceeding awesomely — please go shopping.” To quote:

…or dumpster diving as the case may be thanks to the also awesome domestic economy we in the Bush Administration have given you.

. . . Not many leaders or enablers can spill so much blood and so much treasure to win a war for another country they dislike even more than the place they invaded.

An irresistible force is meeting an immovable object. The Iraqi government would have to go against Iran to make such an agreement, according to (6/9/08) an article from Aljazeera. Titled, “Khamenei criticises US role in Iraq,” the story begins,

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has advised Iraq’s visiting prime minister against signing an agreement with the US keeping foreign troops in the country beyond 2008.

The continued presence of US troops was Iraq’s “fundamental problem”, Khamenei told Nuri al-Maliki during a meeting on Monday.”We are certain that the Iraqi people will pass the difficult circumstances and reach the status they deserve. For sure, the American dreams will not materialise,” Khamenei said.

The U.S. military is between a rock and a hard place when it comes to stretching its forces far enough to cover all of our involvement in the Middle East. We see now one of the ways they are managing from Think Progress (6/5/06) - “U.S. Troops are increasingly medicated,” written by Amanda. To quote the quote: Time reports on the rising use of prescription drugs amongst U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The current political reality is really sad. George W. Bush should be held accountable for all of his misdeeds, but he will suffer few consequences. I am unable to muster any compassion that he feels misunderstood. OCP not truly “up against it” with Iran. He always has a choice of action. That his reputation means that he is “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t” –too bad. The situation in the Middle East in which our current president (OCP) finds himself, was of the current administration’s making. Iraq, occupied, is not being entirely cooperative. Iran is “in his face,” but probably only rhetorically at this point in time. As a retired mental practitioner, however, it will be hard for me to let go of my heartbreak about all of the loss of life in the wars, and all of the loss of internal peace for those who so bravely fought this man’s war. They did everything he asked of them and more. All of his regrets ring hollow with me now.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction.)

Sphere: Related Content

ABB’s McClellan Book Fall-Out Minion Watch…

Y’all know that scene from The Matrix when Neo wakes up in the real world and realizes that he’s been living a simulation all of his life?

Yeah, that’s what I thought of when I watched news breaks that Scott McClellan’s book breaks ranks…BIG TIME…with Bushology.

But then I remembered that I like Neo, I was rooting for Neo in The Matrix and Scott McClellan is no Neo (wink).

He’s more like Raymond Shaw in the original Manchurian Candidate….unlikable, arrogant without justification and a general asshole who just happens to be under the spell of Angela Lansbury…umm, I mean post WWII Communists planning to take over the United States government.

So, Scott has written a book that apparently goes off on Bush and his minions.

Oh my!

Since there is no way in hell this bitch can buy Scott’s book (it goes against my religious convictions to support trifling minions trying to make a buck after fucking over the country by remaining silent since Texas out in the name of loyalty), this bitch is going to have to enjoy the fall out from a distance.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

McCain-Bush fundraiser in Phoenix isn’t raising any interest.

Except if your a anti-Bush/McCain protester. Those folks are highly interested in this affair! A h/t and a hug to SuzieQ for posting this delicious piece of reality for Weathervane McCain. From the writeup:

A Tuesday fundraiser headlined by President Bush for U.S. Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign is being moved out of the Phoenix Convention Center.

Sources familiar with the situation said the Bush-McCain event was not selling enough tickets to fill the Convention Center space, and that there were concerns about more anti-war protesters showing up outside the venue than attending the fundraiser inside.(emphasis mine)

W00T!!!! Makes me smile don’t cha know? Also a h/t to Betmo for cluing me in to this so early on a Saturday morn.

Sphere: Related Content

Good Lord, this is rich.

And Soooooooooooooooo childish…but I love it! First, that BushCo would take down historic pictures to put up their publicity photos sickens me. Second…serves BushCo right that they were defaced. From the ThinkProgress link and a h/t to Betmo:

In 2003, Bush administration officials took down historic photos depicting significant moments in American diplomatic history. They replaced them “with huge color glossies extolling the diplomatic feats” of the Bush administration. Recently, however, things have taken “a turn for the worse” as unhappy State Department employees took matters into their own hands:

Outside the State Department ’s press briefing room on the department’s 2nd floor hang large official photos of Bush, Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney. The pictures were, er…modified by persons unknown. (We did not personally witness this, we must admit — or we’d have a photo to post). We’re talking fake mustaches and the like. The defacements were promptly cleaned up. They reappeared.

McClatchy’s “Nukes & Spooks” blog asks, “Further evidence that the Bushies are losing control as they enter their final months?”

Just warms the cockles of my little black heart….

Sphere: Related Content

Keith Olbermann’s Special Comment

It was so damn good, I gave him a Standing-O in my own fucking living room Bush lies about giving up Golf..to pander to those who have lost their children in Iraq. A big cyber hug to John Amato, Silent Patriot and all the good people at Crooks and Liars that bust their ass to get us the good stuff.

Sphere: Related Content

Cospeak is nothing less than Doublespeak

COSPEAK IS NOTHING LESS THAN DOUBLESPEAK
The Convoluted Language of Crocker and Petreus
By PraetorOne and ReasonOne

I don’t know about you, but I am constantly amazed by our corporate, right wing media as they continue to misrepresent the relationship between Army General David Petreus and George W. Bush. It seems as if you can’t turn on our TV, read a paper, or open a website but what you’re told that General Petreus is offering an opinion as to what President Bush should do in Iraq. This of course is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. General Petreus is hardly offering an objective opinion based on a critical observation of the facts. Instead, he is doing what he has been hired to do. He is serving as an obedient mouth piece for the administration which selected him to offer a biased opinion in the first place.

Equally obnoxious is Ambassador Crocker, a semi-literate lout who can barely express himself without tripping over and “uh”, an “and-ah,” or an “ahhhmmm.” Both Petreus and Crocker are dangerous, but if Crocker is an embarrassment who can hardly put together a simple sentence, Petreus is the more dangerous of the two because he not only understands the English language, he also knows how to use the English language to mislead and prevaricate.

In a recent article by Dick Cavett (Memo to Petreus and Crocker: More Laughs Please) Cavett points out that Petreus doesn’t use English as much as he does Cospeak, a bastardization of the English Language which substitutes complicated language with big words in an attempt to make the unacceptable sound acceptable. You just have to give Petreus credit. Not only is he a spokesperson for the Administration, a propaganda tool for the Bush Administration, he also knows how to tell the truth in language so that the average Joe won’t know what he’s talking about. According to Cavett:

Petraeus uses “challenge” for a rich variety of things. It covers ominous developments, threats, defeats on the battlefield and unfound solutions to ghastly happenings. And of course there’s that biggest of challenges, that slapstick band of silent-movie comics called, flatteringly, the Iraqi “fighting forces.” (A perilous one letter away from “fighting farces.”) The ones who are supposed to allow us to bring troops home but never do.
Petraeus’s verbal road is full of all kinds of bumps and lurches and awkward oddities. How about “ongoing processes of substantial increases in personnel”?
Try talking English, General. You mean more soldiers

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Chimpletons, Your Monkey ADMITS That He LIES

Now you Chimpletons have parroted your monkey’s insistences that we were just doing wonderfully in Iraq all along. You ignored the mountains of evidence to the contrary, preferring to take the word of a man who has never done a thing in his life that could be considered on the up-and-up.Guess what? Your monkey is a LIAR. He admits it (albeit in a sideways manner) himself right here. Let’s see what he says.

Bush conceded earlier that before the surge began last year, he was pessimistic about the way the war in Iraq was going.

“How worried were you?” Raddatz asked.

“I was worried. Look, I’m worried any time it looks like we’re going to fail in Iraq,” Bush said.

During that time in 2006, when many were saying Iraq was in a full-blown civil war, Bush kept his rhetoric upbeat, saying in speeches that We’re winning” and “We have a plan for victory.”

Raddatz asked the president about that, and the president insisted he did it to keep up troop morale.

“That’s as much to try and bolster the spirits of the people in the field as well - you can’t have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing that either it’s not worth it or you’re losing. What does that do for morale?” Bush said.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »