- Peace Garden: 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006

Joe - learning from the Masters

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Thanks to Shannon.


Way to go Keith

We can be sure that Keith is on the "enemy" list.


Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran

Why Bush will Choose War Against Iran is by Ray Close who worked for the CIA for 27 years. Might be considered an expert in some circles.

It makes me nervous when my president truly believes he is carrying out the will of God.
So this is why I reluctantly believe today that Bush will indeed launch an attack on Iran before the expiration of his term of office:...
It seems clear to me that Bush has laid out the following course for American policy, adding up to a Catch-22 from which I see no escape:
a. Continuing futile efforts to achieve Iranian capitulation through weak and ineffective economic sanctions, to the accompaniment of counterproductive vituperation and bombast;
b. Quickly followed by a period of rapidly escalating threats of military action, during which international and domestic opposition to American policy will increase dramatically, making Bush’s choices increasingly more painful and difficult in every respect;
c. A judgment by Bush that the immediate risks and costs of preemptive military action against Iran are, in the final analysis, less formidable than the risks and costs of tolerating Iranian nuclear possession --- and the personal and national humiliation that would result from passive acceptance of that outcome.
d. Sometime before the end of his term, a massive air military attack on a wide range of carefully selected targets in Iran, in partnership with Israel, and against the advice of many of his advisers --- justified by the conviction that a nuclear Iran would pose an intolerable threat to American national security, firm in his faith that God agrees with him on that point, and certain that history will eventually recognize and properly appreciate his courageous and visionary leadership.


Fireman: "bomb in the building start clearing out"

WTC bomb?
Interesting clip from 9/11. Very interesting. Mistake? Casual slip?

I wonder if that fireman was interviewed by the 9/11 panel?


The Yes Men II

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

A short snippet of the Yes Men HUD speech.

Some have criticized the guys for giving "false hope" to NO residents. Instead I agree with one of the folks on film - let's be angry at the powers-that-be that what the Yes Men said can't really be true.


"Yes" men

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

`HUD' Sham Acts Out Katrina Housing Anger.

Onstage at an investors' conference with Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin, an impostor claiming to be an assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development gave a 15-minute speech announcing the supposed policy shift.
"Our charter here at HUD is to ensure access to affordable housing for those who need it the most," said the man, who called himself as Rene Oswin. "This past year in New Orleans, I am ashamed to say that we have clearly failed to do this."
Brillaint. Hope it was filmed...


U.S. able to take new fight despite Iraq

Rumsfeld is either nuts, a victim of wishful thinking or telling us to get ready again...

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned potential adversaries on Monday that the United States remained capable of responding to military threats at home and abroad, despite its troop commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. ADVERTISEMENT "We are capable of dealing with other problems were they to occur," he told troops at an airfield in the Nevada desert.
"It would be unfortunate if other countries thought that because we have 136,000 troops in Iraq today, that we're not capable of defending our country or doing anything that we might need to do," he said in response to a question about military options for dealing with Iran.
Personaly I think nuts. But then again, could be showing his hand in regard to an Iranian adventure.


I've had enough.

Monday, August 28, 2006

For a race in Minn. But so appropriate all over.

First saw this at American Samizdat.


Malaysian Former PM comments the USA

MEMRI TV via Watching America gives us a transcript of an interview with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad. Doesn't have nice things to say about us or Blair. But read the words carefully. This is how we are viewed.

What enabled the Israelis to do what they are doing now is the United States, so the main culprit is the United States, in particular the present government of the United States. I wouldn't blame all the Americans. A lot of Americans do not like this war, but their leadership advocates war, as a solution - not only to major problems, even minor problems - we have to kill people. These are really war criminals. That is why we think that something has to be done against the United States...
They may perhaps be able to put Al-Qaeda out of commission, but that does not mean that there will not be other groups. They have been killing so-called terrorist all these years, but there'll simply be more and more terrorists. In Iraq there were no terrorists before - now we have terrorists in Iraq. And now because of this attack on Lebanon, many many new terrorists - so-called terrorists - are going to make that decision that, well, that if we cannot fight them with guns and bombs and airplanes and all that, we'll fight them by killing at random. That is what is going to happen...
I think he is still alive. He is the creation of the Americans, as everybody knows. You play with the devil, then of course, you get hurt. You created Osama Bin Laden to serve your purpose, and this is something that the Americans have done very many times. Noriega was one of the people whom they created, and now they have arrested him and put him in jail for life. But Osama Bin Laden has caught the imagination of a lot of people. And the present leader of Hizbullah, Nasrallah, he's not Osama Bin Laden's man, but he fights in the same way, for the same reason. So there will be very many people whom we may call Osama Bin Laden also - people who are very angry and who have no other means of fighting accept the way Osama fought. He may be killed one day, but it's not going to stop the terrorist... the so-called terrorist attacks...
All the forces which were kept under by Saddam, have now been released, and they will fight each other. There will be a civil war. I feel very sad about it, because really should join together to fight the common enemy. And the common enemy is the U.S. with its manipulation and Israel which is its proxy.
Interesting comments. Our nation has been placed in this situation and in this light because of our actions and lack of diplomacy.

Time for a major overhaul.


Turkish bomb attacks

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Turkish bomb attacks have injured some Britons.

Three blasts happened in Marmaris, on the Turkish south-west coast, as many holidaymakers were milling around the streets enjoying local bars. The bomb in Istanbul was detonated in the city's commercial district.
There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the blasts. Kurdish separatists, leftwing groups and Islamists have carried out bomb attacks in Turkey in the past - most recently in Adana, southern Turkey, where 13 people were injured, including five police officers, in a double bomb blast.
So this report lists Kurds, separatists or Islamists. How will the nuts see this? Love the way Little Green Footballs reports this:
...four simultaneous explosions, which obviously indicates an Islamist operation...
Now if it was three explosions, that would be separatists. Five equals Kurds... So OBVIOUS!

Wonder where that logic comes from?


Israel appoints coordinator of possible war with Iran

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Israel appoints coordinator of possible war with Iran. Yes you read it correctly - plans and a leader announced.

Tel Aviv - Israeli Army Chief of Staff Dan Halutz has appointed a top Israeli officer to be in charge of preparing a possible war with Iran, the Ha'aretz daily reported Friday, quoting a security official.
Air Force Commander Eliezer Shkedy is to manage Israel's armed forces if war breaks out and is responsible for preparing battle plans, the daily said.
The paper pointed out that the appointment was made before this summer's crisis with Lebanon, which has led many Israelis to accuse their political and military leadership of having failed to prepare adequately for the possibility of another war in Lebanon.
The security official told Ha'aretz that the appointment was an implementation of lessons from the 1991 Gulf War, during which the Israeli army did not have a 'campaign manager' for Iraq.
Instead, the Israel Air Force, the ground forces and the intelligence agencies each operated within their own areas of responsibility without having a single coordinator linking them.
According to Ha'aretz, Major General Shkedy is to be in charge of all conflicts with 'countries not bordering Israel,' which effectively means both Iraq and Iran.
So they are preparing for an Iranian adventure, but the last sentence is interesting. Why mention Iraq? Plans to take Iraq off our hands?



Is Iran next?

Friday, August 25, 2006

Threat of military action hangs over escalating tensions with Iran.

he escalating confrontation over Iran's nuclear program raises an unsettling question: Is Iran the next target for U.S. military action?
Some analysts think so. The focus is on diplomacy for now, but President Bush hasn't ruled out the use of force to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Tensions are likely to ratchet up a notch next Friday if, as expected, Iran ignores a U.N. Aug. 31 deadline to abandon its uranium-enrichment program.
Armed conflict isn't imminent or inevitable, and it wouldn't necessarily take the form of a full-scale invasion. Airstrikes alone might be the choice. But the possibility of military action lurks on the sidelines of the diplomatic dance that will play out over the coming months at the U.N. Security Council.
"We are creating a situation where everything we're going to try short of military force is going to fail," said Ilan Berman, an Iran expert at the American Foreign Policy Council, which favors an aggressive approach. "By the spring of next year, we're going to be looking at very serious discussions about next steps, including military options."
The steps to war could follow the same path that led to the invasion of Iraq: The U.N. passes a resolution demanding an end to Iranian nuclear-weapons development, then fails to enforce it. Bush prods the U.N. to support words with action. The U.N. dithers. Bush unleashes the U.S. military.
The article goes on to point out some "constraints" to taking this action. (Of course sanity and reality are not two of them). But it is a moot point if we get a stand-in like Israel - right?

It's like W is playing a big game of RISK. Just wish he and his buddies would realize that the game they're playing involves real folks, real weapons and real death.


Will the Democrats Be Ready for Rove's 2006 October Fright Fest?

Thursday, August 24, 2006


Rove doesn't deviate from his playbook; and it's his third time around with this one.
So what's going to be the terrorist fright just before the election? Will Osama be taken out of deep freeze? Will a videotape suddenly be "found" in which Osama declares that he wants a Democratic Congress? Will a terrorist cell be broken up the week before the election, allegedly plotting to fly planes into 12 American cities and bomb the Super Bowl with Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam gave them from his cell in Iraq?
Who knows exactly what it will be, but we know it will be some extraordinary fright fest.
The only fuel the GOP has left to run on is fear, otherwise their car will sputter to a stop on a country road with no gasoline station in sight.
Buzzflash wonders if the Dems will be ready. I wonder if the US public will be fooled once again.


Israel Versus Iran?

The Jerusalem Post is an interesting read. "Israel may 'go it alone' against Iran"

srael is carefully watching the world's reaction to Iran's continued refusal to suspend uranium enrichment, with some high-level officials arguing it is now clear that when it comes to stopping Iran, Israel "may have to go it alone," The Jerusalem Post has learned.
One senior source said on Tuesday that Iran "flipped the world the bird" by not responding positively to the Western incentive plan to stop uranium enrichment. He expressed frustration that the Russians and Chinese were already saying that Iran's offer of a "new formula" and willingness to enter "serious negotiations" was an opening to keep on talking.
"The Iranians know the world will do nothing," he said. "This is similar to the world's attempts to appease Hitler in the 1930s - they are trying to feed the beast."
He said there was a need to understand that "when push comes to shove," Israel would have to be prepared to "slow down" the Iranian nuclear threat by itself.
Having said this, he did not rule out the possibility of US military action, but said that if this were to take place, it would probably not occur until the spring or summer of 2008, a few months before President George W. Bush leaves the international stage. The US presidential elections, which Bush cannot contest because of term limits, are in November 2008.
No need to worry. You'll go it alone on the surface. But we helped plan your invasion of Lebanon. We'll help you defeat those evoil-doers in Iran!

Spring or summer 2008? They know our timetable? I wonder if Congress knows the timetable as well?


Pat Oliphant's latest

So true. The real Sith Lord upon the throne.


How China views our mess...

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

People's Daily writes about the Neocons and their method of instilling democracy.

Three years ago, American neo-conservatives were confident that democracy could be transplanted by military force to Iraq. But more and more, reality in Iraq has revealed to the American people that the entire exercise was a trap, a ploy, and is now a nightmare that simply will not go away. The attempt to transplant democracy by force of arms has had quite the opposite effect than was intended; Iraq is on the verge of civil war.
The American people are using a range of methods to express their views on the Iraq War. In Connecticut's recent Democratic Primary, well-known U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont, a millionaire with virtually no political experience. Media have suggested that Lieberman was defeated because he remains a supporter of the Iraq War. His defeat sent a signal that there is a force rising against the war in Iraq.
Academics are also reflecting on what has transpired. In his recent bestseller America at the Crossroads RealVideo, American-Japanese scholar Francis Fukuyama argued that democracy will grow within a society that it originates, but that it cannot be transplanted by military force. He argued that America's frustration with the Iraq War has forced the Bush Administration to return to realism, derailing the White House's determination to promote and implement democracy (by arms if necessary).
Some American scholars believe that there is cultural tradition ingrained in the psyche of the American people "to pursue shortcuts for anything." Since a powerful America has been built within just 200 years, is there anything that America cannot do? From the neo-conservative point of view, democracy seems to be instant anti-cold medicine. "Take it today, and the effects will be seen tomorrow." They assumed that the "seed" of democracy, so carefully nurtured in American history, culture and society, would be good in any part of the world. America has gone to great lengths to plant this "seed" in Iraq, but what has come of it? This might just be the end of neo-conservatism.
A couple of points:
My state hits the Chinese papers - WOW.
Fukuyama changing his stripes!
W and regime undertaking a "return to realism" - boy I wish!


W at war with the "left"

"The Bush administration is in a war not only with the terrorists, but also with the far left in this country". Well at least according to O'Reilly.

Damn, at war and I didn't train or get my uniform or weapons.



Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Patti Smith has a new song...

There's no one
in the village
not a human
nor a stone
there's no one
in the village
children are gone
and a mother rocks
herself to sleep
let it come down
let her weep

the dead lay in strange shapes

Some stay buried
others crawl free
baby didn't make it
screaming debris
and a mother rocks
herself to sleep
let it come down
let her weep

the dead lay in strange shapes

Limp little dolls
caked in mud
small, small hands
found in the road
their talking about
war aims
what a phrase
bombs that fall
American made
the new Middle East
the Rice woman squeaks

the dead lay in strange shapes

little bodies
little bodies
tied head and feet
wrapped in plastic
laid out in the street
the new Middle East
the Rice woman squeaks

the dead lay in strange shapes

Water to wine
wine to blood
ahh Qana
the miracle
is love
Click to download her MP3.


Mini-Civil War?

A British General states that Iraq's

...sectarian conflict is not a full-blown civil war but could be described as a "civil war in miniature." "In my judgment, we are not in a situation of civil war," British Royal Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Fry told reporters at the Pentagon in a video-teleconference from Baghdad.
It's a mini-civil-war but not a civil war? WTF? Are the people killed less dead because it is a mini-civil-war?



Another great one from Neil...

Sunday, August 20, 2006


Iraq > World War II

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Iraq > World War II

The war in Iraq has lasted three days longer than US involvement in World War II.
Germany declared war on the US on December, 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor. The US announced victory in Europe on May 8, 1945. That's one thousand, two hundred and forty-four days.
We've been in Iraq one thousand, two hundred and forty-seven days---and still the Administration has no exit strategy, no plan for victory and no clue what it is doing. In case you'd forgotten, George W. Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" aboard an aircraft carrier over three years ago.
"In the battle of Iraq," Bush said, "The United States and our allies have prevailed."
Perhaps that pronouncement was a little premature. Twelve hundred and four days later, our troops are still paying the price.
Interesting. Longer at at a war based on lies and deceit.


Israeli raid in Lebanon tests truce

Israeli raid in Lebanon tests truce

Helicopter-borne Israeli commandos raided a Hizbollah bastion on Saturday in what Lebanon called a "naked violation" of the U.N.-backed truce that halted Israel's 34-day war with the Shi'ite Muslim group.
Israel said the operation in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley aimed to disrupt weapons supplies to Hizbollah from Syria and Iran. Both countries deny arming the group.
Lebanon's defense minister urged the United Nations to give "clear answers" in response to the raid and warned that if it failed to do so, he might seek to halt the deplo
Syria and Iran the excuse - again!


Exxon's Next Ad?

Friday, August 18, 2006

Mark Fiore's latest on Global Warming. The Hottest Hoax Around could turn up in Exxon's advertising campaign. Just think, McGassy toy figures with every fill-up of your SUV.


Media Thursday

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Courtesy of Banksy.

Kris Kristofferson, 69 and still singing, with a great anti-war piece.

Visit Neil Young's site and watch his video for "After the Garden."



I guess this Judge won't be nominated for a higher seat by W.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.


Future Homeland Security Chief

Thanks to Rustle The Leaf.


Running Scared

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

After the Lamont victory and the polls showing the majority of citizens think the Iraq adventure sucks, a move to set a timeline for withdrawal may be in place. Headlines in The Norwalk Hour report that Shays is stating that Congress may be able to set a "timeframe" for withdrawal in the coming months.

Of course when I see it I'll believe. This is just to placate the voters - running scared before election day. Hold out the carrot before elections and then pull it away. But still a pretty big change from Shays.


Sanity from some new "old" corners...

21 Generals are weighing in on our attitudes towards and plans for Iran.

Seeking to counter the White House's depiction of its Middle East policies as crucial to the prevention of terrorist attacks at home, 21 former generals, diplomats and national security officials will release an open letter tomorrow arguing that the administration's "hard line" has actually undermined U.S. security.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, one of the letter's signers and a former military assistant to Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara in the 1960s, said the group was particularly concerned about administration policies toward Iran, believing them to be a possible prelude to a military attack on suspected nuclear sites in that country.
Gard said the signatories — who included retired Marine Corps Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, head of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994, and Morton H. Halperin, a senior State Department and National Security Council official during the Clinton administration — did not believe that Iran had the wherewithal to build a nuclear weapon in the immediate future and would push the administration to open negotiations with Tehran on the issue.
"It's not a crisis," Gard said in a telephone interview. "To call the Iranian situation a 'crisis' connotes you have to do something right now, like bomb them."
He noted that Iran had sought to open negotiations with the U.S. through Swiss intermediaries, efforts that the letter-signers said were worth exploring as a means of defusing tensions in the region.
But Gard said the administration appeared to be going in the opposite direction, adding that he was particularly concerned by recent warnings from former Israeli military officials that a strike against Iran may be needed to disable that country's nuclear program.
He noted that the Bush administration's unabashedly pro-Israel stance during the recent conflict with Hezbollah was an indication that the White House may accede to such assessments.
"This administration is clearly so beholden to Israel that it raises the concern we might go along" with a military strike, Gard said.
Organizers of the letter said the White House's recent efforts to belittle Democrats for seeking a timetable for withdrawing troops in Iraq may lead the signers to include criticism of the administration's Iraq policy.
The letter is expected to call for a complete overhaul of U.S. policy toward both Iran and Iraq.
W, Rummy and friends can't be too happy about this. Wonder what FAUXNews will dredge up about these generals? The smear campaign will be in full swing before this evening's news.


Project For The New American Century

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

So we all know the truth.


Finding an excuse

US military accuses Iranians of training Iraqi Shiite extremists.

The US military accused Iranian forces of training and providing weapons to "Shiite extremists" in Iraq in order to carry out violent attacks in the war-torn country.
"We do know that Shiite extremist groups have received training from some sort of third elements associated with Iran," the chief spokesman for US-led coalition forces, Major General William Caldwell, told reporters.
"We do know that weapons have been provided and IED (improvised explosive device) technology provided to these extremist elements," he said.
Caldwell said that the coalition forces had also found weapons made in Iran.
"We do in fact have evidence that weapons, ammunition have been found in Iraq that were of Iranian origin. We have found ammunition, weapons from Iran with recent manufacturing dates," he said.
"We have verified. It did come from Iran."
He said, however, that there was no evidence of Iranian personnel operating in Iraq to carry out violent attacks.
I guess W and regime are trying to keep Kristol happy...
The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.


Prepping for the big one...

Monday, August 14, 2006

Seymour Hersh was interviewed by Democracy Now. He relates some very interesting things about US involvement and interests in the invasion of Lebanon.

It seems that our military is interested in the war on Lebanon for a number of reasons all related to our future adventures into Iran.

Cheney's idea was this, that we sort of -- it's like a three-for. We get three for one with this. One, here we're having this war about the value of strategic bombing, and the Israeli Air Force, whose pilots are superb, can go in and -- if they could go in and blast Hezbollah out of their foxholes or whatever they are, their underground facilities, and roll over them, as everybody in the White House and I'm sure everybody in the Israeli Air Force thought they could do, that would be a big plus for the ambitions that I think the President and Cheney have for Iran. I don't think this president, our president, is going to leave office with Iran being, as he sees it, a nuclear threat.
The second great argument you have, of course, is if you are going to do Iran, you're going to need -- you can't attack Iran without taking care of the Hezbollah missiles or rockets. They're really rockets. They're not independently guided. Even their long-range rockets that go a few hundred kilometers, you cannot attack Iran without taking them out, because obviously that's the deterrent. You hit Iran, Hezbollah then bombs Tel Aviv and Haifa. So that's something you have to clean out first.
And thirdly, of course, is if you get rid of Hezbollah and Nasrallah, why, you get rid of a terror -- a man who’s considered to be, as somebody famously said, Richard Armitage, the “A-Team of terrorism.”
Think of this as a softening up. Think of it as a test of weapons against buried missiles, troops, command centers...Think of this as a trial run to our own upcoming adventures.

A long interview but definitely a must read. Hersh comes through again.

Interesting notes about Syria as well.


The Real Islamic War

Sunday, August 13, 2006

'The Shia Revival,' by Vali Nasr was reviewed by Irshad Manji in today's NY Times Book Review. This book sounds like one that should be read by all U.S. citizens. It will give us a better understanding of Iraq, Lebanon, Hezbollah...

Nasr argues that Operation Iraqi Freedom has tilled the soil for a “new” Middle East — one fueled less by the ideal of democracy than by an age-old animosity between Islam’s two major sects, the majority Sunnis and minority Shiites.
Their split has a violent history, initiated in A.D. 632 by a feud over who should succeed the prophet Muhammad. Some Muslims supported the prophet’s cousin Ali. More Muslims endorsed the prophet’s elder companion, Abu Bakr, and they won. Grudges died hard, however, and the disgruntled murdered three of the first four successors to the prophet. These assassinations spawned a hunger for stability, even at the price of tyranny.
Sunnis historically considered worldly success as a sign of Allah’s favor; political engagement and empire-building have been religious callings for them. Shiites tended to emphasize moral victories rather than political ones, taking as their central narrative Hussein’s valiant but failed fight against a dictator — the Saddam Hussein of yore. Through this and related stories, Shiites have found meaning in physical hardship, material loss, social exclusion and personal martyrdom. Suffering has helped them cultivate faith that their messiah (another of the prophet’s descendants) will usher in the End of Days and bring justice to people everywhere. But what Shiites treat as essential Islamic virtues, Sunnis regard as post-prophet corruptions. That’s why, Nasr observes, “Saudi textbooks, criticized for their anti-Semitism, are equally hostile to Shiism, characterizing the faith as a form of heresy.”
Aah, that old "messiah" issue that rules W's days.
Still, George W. Bush has been na├»ve in underestimating the Sunni-Shiite chasm, especially in Iraq. Despite adopting the slogans of a secular nationalist, Saddam Hussein, like most Arab leaders, was actually a Sunni chauvinist. (Nasr reports that he approached the shah of Iran for permission to kill the ultra-Shiite Khomeini, then an exile living in Paris. The shah declined Hussein’s offer.)
The problem is that liberating Iraq’s Shiites has stoked their hopes for domination — not just representation — in the new Middle East. Witness the upstart militancy of Hezbollah, in alliance with Iran. Nasr says a showdown could be coming between Iran, the Shiite heavyweight, and Saudi Arabia, the Sunni behemoth. “Ultimately,” he predicts, “the character of the region will be decided in the crucible of Shia revival and the Sunni response to it.”
So where do we fit in?
One suspects that far from being a superpower, the United States is about to become a superpawn. Whatever the final chapter of this drama, Washington won’t write it. Muslims will.


Bush learning from Orwell

It does not matter whether the war is actually happening, and, since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter whether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is that a state of war should exist.
George Orwell - "1984"


Turkish, Iranian armies build up forces along Iraq’s only quiet area

Turkish, Iranian armies build up forces along Iraq’s only quiet area

The Kurdish provinces of northern Iraq are the country’s most stable and prosperous area. But to neighbouring Iran and Turkey, they are something else: an inspiration and a support base for the large Kurdish minorities in their own countries.
So Iran and Turkey are sending troops, tanks and artillery to the frontier to seal off the borders and send a message: if the U.S.-backed Iraqi government doesn’t clamp down on Kurdish guerrillas who use Iraq as a base, they’ll do it themselves.
That has left the United States in a quandary. If U.S. forces take action, they risk alienating Iraqi Kurds, the most pro-American group in the region. And if they don’t, they risk increased tensions – and possibly worse – with two powerful rivals.
Just listen to Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul.
"We would not hesitate to take every kind of measures when our security is at stake," Gul said when asked whether Turkish troops might cross into Iraq. "The United States best understands Turkey’s position. Everybody knows what they can do when they feel their security is threatened."
The news from Iraq keeps getting better, doesn't it? Hey we can always say Iran is evil but what can we call Turkey (our "friend") - misguided?

Boy, the "diplomats" in W's regime will have a tough time with this one.


Red Alert For Staged Government Terror Attack

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Red Alert For Staged Government Terror Attack is from Prison Planet.

Today's red level terror alert in symbiosis with escalation of conflict in the Middle East is the trial balloon for a massive staged false flag terror attack, blamed on Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda, that will light the blue touch paper for World War Three.
Radio host Alex Jones, who predicted a staged attack on the World Trade Center involving the use of Osama bin Laden as a fall guy in July 2001, has now gone on record with a second prediction that a staged government terror attack will occur before the end of October unless a gargantuan effort to prevent it is launched.
Two months ago this website, in an article entitled 'Nexus Points Emerge For Potential Summer Attack,' predicted that, "Numerous nexus points have emerged that suggest major western governments are preparing for a summer terror attack that will come close to but not match 9/11 in scale and will provide the justification needed for an air strike on Iran before the midterm elections in early November."
Government mouthpieces in the US, UK and Israel are all hyping the inevitability of a Hezbollah nuke attack on a major western or Israeli city, which will provide the perfect justification for Neo-Fascist bloodsuckers to expand the war from Lebanon into Syria and Iran.
Developments today indicate that the governments of the US and the UK are engaging in a process of announcing the prevention of numerous terror plots, in order to prepare the groundwork for a real attack, under protest that they did all they could to defend the people, but that one attack slipped through.
Crazy? Conspiracy nut? Seer? In the Know? Your choice. But are these points really beyond belief?
We must be more vigilant that ever before in an more vocal in our efforts to educate the world about who benefits from terror and where the weight of evidence points towards.


Bush Seeks Political Gains from Foiled Plot

Bush Seeks Political Gains from Foiled Plot

US President George W. Bush seized on a foiled London airline bomb plot to hammer unnamed critics he accused of having all but forgotten the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Weighed down by the unpopular war in Iraq, Bush and his aides have tried to shift the national political debate from that conflict to the broader and more popular global war on terrorism ahead of November 7 congressional elections.
The London conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," the president said on a day trip to Wisconsin.
"It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America," he said. "We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't completely safe."
Bush's remarks came a day after the White House orchestrated an exceptionally aggressive campaign to tar opposition Democrats as weak on terrorism, knowing what Democrats didn't: News of the plot could soon break.
Vice President Dick Cheney and White House spokesman Tony Snow had argued that Democrats wanted to raise what Snow called "a white flag in the war on terror," citing as evidence the defeat of a three-term Democratic senator who backed the Iraq war in his effort to win renomination.
Let's not be fooled folks. The timing of this and the scope may be blown out of proportion. The timing, after the Lamont win and before the November elections may be a coincidence or...
Our attention is drawn away from Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Let's not forget those wars.

Let us also take a long hard look at the cause and effect of war, occupation, the criminalization of a religion and people. Let's look at ways besides guns, bombs and "no hair gel" to erase conditions around the world that add to a person's despair.

Ending despair - that is the best weapon against "terrorism."


British Police Thwart Aircraft Bomb Plot

Thursday, August 10, 2006

British Police Thwart Aircraft Bomb Plot

A senior U.S. counterterrorism official said authorities believe dozens of people - possibly as many as 50 - were involved in the plot, which "had a footprint to al-Qaida back to it."
Gee maybe if we were still tracking Osama or had him arrested already someone wouldn't be trying to be the new second-in-command.
Britain's Home Secretary John Reid said 21 people had been arrested in London, its suburbs and in Birmingham following a lengthy investigation, including the alleged "main players" in the plot. Searches continued in a number of locations.
The suspects were "homegrown," though it was not immediately clear if they were all British citizens, said a police official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
Does this mean we invade England next?


Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed

Retroactive War Crime Protection Proposed

The Bush administration drafted amendments to the War Crimes Act that would retroactively protect policymakers from possible criminal charges for authorizing any humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, according to lawyers who have seen the proposal.
The move by the administration is the latest effort to deal with treatment of those taken into custody in the war on terror.


"Win for the wackadoo wing"

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

New York Daily News has gone a little bonkers! That's the title of an article from this rag.

So now that the wackadoo wing of the party has a bloody scalp, what are they going to do with it? Wave it at Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon and Afghanistan and Indonesia and Great Britain and Spain and Israel and New York and declare peace? That will work for sure. They better also wear armor and duck.
Lieberman is the first casualty of the war against the war on terror. If last night's results are a window on the party's tilt, then a huge slice of the Democratic party is ready to sit out the war to protect America.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling. We are all doomed by calls for peace and sanity.

The terms used in this are despicable. "Bloody scalp", the fear generation.... The writer even goes so far as to say:

Even "good" wars have their bad moments...
What the hell is a "good" war?


Bye, Bye Joey...

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Maybe W will offer you a job for the last few months of his regime.

You deserve each other!


Appropriate pledge on primary day...

"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
Take the pledge today.

Joe, see the door? Don't let it hit you in the ass as you leave.


Democrats Who Oppose Illegal Wars and Torture Want to Reclaim the Party

Monday, August 07, 2006

Democrats Who Oppose Illegal Wars and Torture Want to Reclaim the Party reports on Joey.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril"
Need another reason to vote for Lamont?


Another attack?

Robert Fisk has a very interesting viewpoint that ends in a chilling view.

In fact, one of the most profound changes in the region these past three decades has been the growing unwillingness of Arabs to be afraid. Their leaders - our "moderate" pro-Western Arab leaders such as King Abdullah of Jordan and President Mubarak of Egypt - may be afraid. But their peoples are not. And once a people have lost their terror, they cannot be re-injected with fear. Thus Israel's consistent policy of smashing Arabs into submission no longer works. It is a policy whose bankruptcy the Americans are now discovering in Iraq.
And all across the Muslim world, "we" - the West, America, Israel - are fighting not nationalists but Islamists. And watching the martyrdom of Lebanon this week - its slaughtered children in Qana packed into plastic bags until the bags ran out and their corpses had to be wrapped in carpets - a terrible and daunting thought occurs to me, day by day. That there will be another 9/11.
Time for a shift in foreign policy? Drop the Iron Fist? Time for diplomats?

I guess we have to wait until January 20, 2009 - unless the House and Senate grow some "testicular fortitude."


Lebanon asks UN to demand Israeli withdrawal

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Lebanon asks UN to demand Israeli withdrawal. Do we really fault Lebanon for not agreeing to this "truce?" Can there be peace with occupying forces? Ask the Iraqis.

It is not as simple as NSA adviser Stephen Hadley states:

And at that point, I think the international community will have spoken, will have called on the parties to comply with the resolution, and I think if one of the parties does not, we will have a good gauge as to who really is in favor of peace.
Peace? Peace by force? Peace by occupation? Or peace by mutual agreement, mutual respect, mutual gain?



What would John be doing today?


Is heat wave a result of global warming?

Saturday, August 05, 2006

MSNBC.com reports on what, to me, is obvious.

"This heat wave and other extreme events we've seen in recent years are completely consistent with what we expect to become more common as a result of global warming, even though we can't be definitive on any single event,” says Jay Gulledge with Pew Climate Change.
We’ve had heat waves before. The worst was in the 1930s when 50 million acres turned to dust. In 1972, 891 people died in New York over a 14-day stretch. And in 1995, 733 people died in record heat in Chicago.
But experts say our current heat wave is unique.
Looks like it will be more days at the shore for me... We are doing so little as a nation to address GW, no place or person will be spared.


Lebanon - Then and Now

The New York Times has a great presentation demonstrating the devastation taking place in Lebanon. Any truce is too late for too many innocents.


The Shias are coming

The Real Challenge From the 'Shia Crescent' is a very cogent analysis of the situation in the Middle East.

There is little doubt that a new political-religious fault line is developing in the Middle East. The Sunni Arabs are worried about the emergence of an Iran-Iraq nexus over the long run. These are two important countries, and their potential cooperation would at least challenge the Sunni dominance of Persian Gulf-Levant affairs. Assuming that the regime of Bashar al-Assad stays in power, Syria will also become a part of that nexus, since the ruling elite of Syria is Alawite, which is a Shia sect.
In the post-9/11 era, when Arab self-esteem is much damaged as a result of the conquest of Iraq, when the Bush doctrine continues to hang as Damocles' sword over the head of Syria, when the Arabs see their religion under attack in the Western media, Hezbollah's gutsy and plucky decision to confront the Jewish state has, rightly or wrongly, become a source of considerable cheer.
The Sunni Arab states are wary of the long-term spill-over effect of this particular development, especially regarding Iran's ability to exploit it for its strategic purposes in its future negotiations with the United States.
The real significance of the emerging Shia crescent is that it is challenging the strategic dominance of the United States in a manner that no Sunni state ever did. The only similar challenge to both the U.S. and the Sunni states is coming from Salafi forces. However, since no state is behind those forces, the real threat stemming from their activities has not yet jelled. The Shia crescent, on the contrary, carries with it the support of Iran and Syria. In that sense, it is more threatening than the Salafists to the traditional orientations of the Sunni Arab states. The United States appears a little wary of the emerging Shia crescent for the very same reason. It has been easier for Washington to co-opt the Sunni states. The rising Shia challenge appears to be too radical and too unwilling to be tamed.
In the post-9/11 era, when Islamic radical forces are running rampant, taking on the United States, the Arab regimes, and Israel, a potential coalescing of the Shia (or Shia-dominated) states is causing a lot of consternation among the Sunnis. That is one reason why they hope the United States will buy into scary rhetoric about how the "Shias are coming."
In reality, there is not much substance to that type of hyperbole.
When did hype ever stop us?

We toppled a Sunni (Sad Man) because we labeled him in league with Al Qaeda. We have given rise, through two elections (Iraq and Lebanon), emboldened movements of Shia power. What will we mess up next?


DeLay, Coulter, Kristol Defend Lieberman

DeLay, Coulter, Kristol Defend Lieberman

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter's defending Lieberman, as well, going on at some length during an interview with Fox's Neal Cavuto to explain how much she admires the senator and suggesting that, instead of fighting for the Democratic nomination in Connecticut, Lieberman ought to switch parties. "I think he should come all the way and become a Republican," argues Coulter, who says of Lieberman and the GOP: "at least he'd fit in with the party."
Need another reason why JOE MUST GO?


Smarty Bombsalot

Friday, August 04, 2006

Mark Fiore comes through again.

Smarty hasn't learned the lessons. Has W in Iraq or Israel in Lebanon?


Same old crap...

Took a week away from the news to commune with nature.

Back and reading the papers and newswires. Not much changed has it? More people are interested in Mel Gibson's escapades rather than Iraq or Lebanon.

Wars are still unhealthy for children and other living things.

Global warming is still the prime topic and with the recent heat waves, I am sure everyone is ready to listen.

Joe "Kiss me you fool" Lieberman is losing more and more ground. Can't wait to vote on Tuesday for Lamont.


Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbollah

Iranian official admits Tehran supplied missiles to Hezbollah

Mohtashami Pur, a one-time ambassador to Lebanon who currently holds the title of secretary-general of the "Intifada conference," told an Iranian newspaper that Iran transferred the missiles to the Shi'ite militia, adding that the organization has his country's blessing to use the weapons in defense of Lebanon.
Pur's statements are thought to be unusual given that Tehran has thus far been reluctant to comment on the extent of its aid which it has extended to Hezbollah.
Should be more like us. Supply arms to Israel and other nations and declare it openly.

They supplied one side, we supplied another. Does this justify an invasion? In some minds I am sure it does.


  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP