Sunday, December 31, 2006

Why US cannot win in Iraq

posted December 31, 2006 10:22 PM EST:

I have no doubt that if the U.S. was invaded Americans would spring to our common defense and wage a victorious war no matter how long it took or the cost in lives. It would be worth the sacrifice. The war in Iraq is George W. Bush's war of choice (not a last resort). Iraq never attacked or threatened the United States before Commander-in-Chief Bush ordered the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. At a subliminal level Americans know this as does the Bush-Cheney regime. The U.S. cannot wage all out war because we are the aggressors in this war. We are in the wrong. That truth has yet to be acknowledged and corrected.

U.S. toll in Iraq lower than past wars
quote:
By JEFF DONN, Associated Press Writer
8:44 pm EST Sunday 31 December 2006

A four-figure number hovers 50 feet over a busy Philadelphia street, visible in an office window. It changes maybe once or twice a day like the cost of something.

A janitor once stopped, just to stare. "I see that number, and it makes me cry," he told Celeste Zappala, who keeps the running tally.

It is a number that strongly moves American opinion: the U.S. military's death toll in Iraq. Zappala's son, Sgt. Sherwood Baker, is one of the dead.

Other makeshift memorials rise up across the country as reminders of the war's human cost: flags planted in honor of the dead on the National Mall in Washington, symbolic tombstones at the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia, signs with fallen soldiers' names plastered to telephone polls outside Boston.

Americans may question this war for many reasons, but their doubts often find voice in the count of U.S. war deaths. An overwhelming majority — 84 percent — worry that the war is causing too many casualties, according to a September poll by the nonpartisan research group Public Agenda.

The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died — 20,000 just in the monthlong Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.

Has something changed? Do Americans somehow place higher value on the lives of their soldiers now? Do they expect success at lower cost? Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one — hard to understand and harder to win — and so not worth the losses?

The Associated Press recently posed these questions to scholars, veterans, activists, and other Americans. Their comments suggest that the public does express more pain over the deaths of this war.

A death toll of 3,000 simply sounds higher to Americans in this war than it did in other prolonged conflicts of the past century, for a number of reasons, the interviews suggest.

"As fewer Americans die in war, their loss is more keenly felt, not necessarily at a personal level, but at a collective and public level," says historian Michael Allen at North Carolina State University.

Jeffrey Greenwood, 17, of Plymouth, Mass., though unsure of the exact number of Iraq war deaths, says, "I know it's enough to make people angry."

John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State University, calls this casualty sensitivity "the Iraq syndrome." He described it in an influential journal article last year: "Casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean War or the Vietnam War."

In the weeks after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, public backing was powerful. But opinion began to shift quickly once the Iraqi army was beaten, its leader was forced into hiding, and chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were not found.

• By late 2003, public support for the occupation began to seesaw around 50 percent, according to Richard Eichenberg, a political scientist at Tufts University.

• In September 2005, 55 percent of Americans favored stronger efforts to withdraw because of the losses, a Gallup poll found.

• Last October, 54 percent of registered voters believed the war wasn't worth the U.S. casualties or cost, a Hart-McInturff poll found. In November, voters reversed the congressional balance of power in an election viewed as a referendum on Iraq.

Polling analysts believe Americans are more sensitive to casualties than in the past because they neither see vital interests at stake nor feel the "halo effect" from a clear prospect of success.

~~~snip~~~

But are Americans willing to hang in a tough fight anymore?

Some wonder if U.S. society, now populated by baby boomers who recall Vietnam and never knew the hardships of the Great Depression or World War II, has simply lost its stomach for great sacrifices. Or perhaps in a materialistic culture, priorities are simply elsewhere now. "Everybody's looking to get theirs," says Tony Bouza, a veteran and former Minneapolis police chief who wrote "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire."

Many analysts argue otherwise. Some say Americans would still abide far more troop deaths, as in the world wars, if the cause were clear and dear. Others say today such an attitude would only return in the event of an invasion of the United States.



--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

What GIs & Bush wish for New Year

December 31, 2006, 05:44 PM EST:

Yes, I know there are no GI (Government Issues) serving in the military. They are all "volunteers", but "GI" works where brevity is at a premium such as in a headline.

Basically, the U.S. troops serving in Iraq want to survive the ordeal and return safely to their families. Bush see himself as a "Wartime President" and a decisive Commander-in-Chief who forges victory in Iraq. He likes being known as The Decider. George W. Bush won't admit his decision to invade and occupy Iraq was a mistake. Neither does he want to be known as Bush The Withdrawer.

Therefore Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush using the authority of his office, against widespread almost univeral expert advice, will escalate war in Iraq in 2007. He will say it is temporary but as Atrios notes a "sustained surge" is an escalation.

Bush wishes for victory in 2007. There will be a bigger war in Iraq in 2007 but there will be no U.S. victory or U.S.-puppet Iraq government victory in 2007, 2008, or beyond.

GIs hope for life after Iraq in 2007 (AP) BAGHDAD, Iraq - Get home safely. That's the top New Year's resolution for many U.S. soldiers in Iraq. But their hopes for 2007 look beyond surviving roadside bombs, ambushes, sniper fire and mortar and grenade attacks. Spc. Maurice Gibbs, 22, wants to start a family with his wife, Marlyn, after both finish their tours in Baghdad.

Bush mourns death of 3,000th U.S. soldier in Iraq Reuters - President Bush mourned the death of the 3,000th U.S. soldier in Iraq, the White House said on Sunday, but cautioned war-weary Americans that no quick end was in sight to the conflict.

Bush: US to fight in Iraq 'without wavering' in 2007 AFP - US President George W. Bush said in his New Year's message that the United States would battle terrorists and work towards a "free and unified Iraq" in 2007.



--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Saddam is now a martyr

The following is the latest entry in a thread I began on the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle bulletin board titled Hussein executed

December 31, 2006, 11:12 AM EST:

I don't know if it is hundreds or thousands, but flocks of mourners have begun to arrive on scene. No doubt many more will make the trek to visit Saddam's grave in the village of Ouja near Tikrit. Saddam could have been held as a prisoner for life in The Hague. Now he has been made into a martyr and no doubt another rallying cry for Muslims, Arabs, Sunnis, Baathists, and al Qa'ida terrorists.

You're don't a heck of a job, Bushie! No doubt, Bush apologists have a perfect excuse. They can blame the Iraqi government of Nouri al Maliki for this stregetic error. Bush can try to wash his hands of the sordid affair, but all the sands of Arabia cannot wash the blood of revenge from George W. Bush's hands. Sleep well, sweet prince!

Hundreds flock to see Saddam's gravesite
quote:
Dec 31, 10:23 AM EST

By STEVEN R. HURST
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Hundreds of Iraqis flocked to the village where Saddam Hussein was born on Sunday to see the deposed leader buried in a religious compound 24 hours after his execution.

Dozens of relatives and others, some of them crying and moaning, attended the interment shortly before dawn in Ouja. A few knelt before his flag-draped grave. A large framed photograph of Saddam was propped up on a chair nearby.

"I condemn the way he was executed and I consider it a crime," said 45-year-old Salam Hassan al-Nasseri, one of Saddam's clansmen who attended the interment in the village just outside Tikrit, 80 miles north of Baghdad. Some 2,000 Iraqis traveled to the village as well.

Mohammed Natiq, a 24-year-old college student, said "the path of Arab nationalism must inevitably be paved with blood."

"God has decided that Saddam Hussein should have such an end, but his march and the course which he followed will not end," Natiq said.

Police on Saturday blocked the entrances to Tikrit and said nobody was allowed to leave or enter the city for four days. Despite the security precaution, gunmen took to the streets, carrying pictures of Saddam, shooting into the air and calling for vengeance.

~~~snip~~~


--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Rave for Riverbend: Iraqi female blogger

December 29, 2006, 09:34 PM EST:

Tip o' me tam-o'-shanter to Swopa at Needlenose for his post which references Riverbend. I was already aware of her blog "Baghdad Burning". Just yesterday I noted and remarked that she had not posted in awhile - again. Life is precarious in Baghdad.

Iraqis are enduring hell on earth thanks to the Pandora's Box that George W. Bush opened when he ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq - a predominantly Arab and overwhelmingly Muslim nation at the heart of the Arab and Muslim world WHICH NEVER ATTACKED OR THREATENED THE UNITED STATES.

Why did the U.S. unleash this violence in Iraq? Because George W. Bush did not listen to expert advice. This very day, Bush still refuses to heed expert advice and is going to further escalate his already failed war in Iraq.

Ethnic cleansing, up close and personal by Swopa [Needlenose] Dec 29 2006 - 2:09pm

End of Another Year... by riverbend [Baghdad Burning] Friday, December 29, 2006
quote:
You know your country is in trouble when:

1.
The UN has to open a special branch just to keep track of the chaos and bloodshed, UNAMI.
2.
Abovementioned branch cannot be run from your country.
3.
The politicians who worked to put your country in this sorry state can no longer be found inside of, or anywhere near, its borders.
4.
The only thing the US and Iran can agree about is the deteriorating state of your nation.
5.
An 8-year war and 13-year blockade are looking like the country's 'Golden Years'.
6.
Your country is purportedly 'selling' 2 million barrels of oil a day, but you are standing in line for 4 hours for black market gasoline for the generator.
7.
For every 5 hours of no electricity, you get one hour of public electricity and then the government announces it's going to cut back on providing that hour.
8.
Politicians who supported the war spend tv time debating whether it is 'sectarian bloodshed' or 'civil war'.
9.
People consider themselves lucky if they can actually identify the corpse of the relative that's been missing for two weeks.

A day in the life of the average Iraqi has been reduced to identifying corpses, avoiding car bombs and attempting to keep track of which family members have been detained, which ones have been exiled and which ones have been abducted.

2006 has been, decidedly, the worst year yet. No- really. The magnitude of this war and occupation is only now hitting the country full force. It's like having a big piece of hard, dry earth you are determined to break apart. You drive in the first stake in the form of an infrastructure damaged with missiles and the newest in arms technology, the first cracks begin to form. Several smaller stakes come in the form of politicians like Chalabi, Al Hakim, Talbani, Pachachi, Allawi and Maliki. The cracks slowly begin to multiply and stretch across the once solid piece of earth, reaching out towards its edges like so many skeletal hands. And you apply pressure. You surround it from all sides and push and pull. Slowly, but surely, it begins coming apart- a chip here, a chunk there.

That is Iraq right now. The Americans have done a fine job of working to break it apart. This last year has nearly everyone convinced that that was the plan right from the start. There were too many blunders for them to actually have been, simply, blunders. The 'mistakes' were too catastrophic. The people the Bush administration chose to support and promote were openly and publicly terrible- from the conman and embezzler Chalabi, to the terrorist Jaffari, to the militia man Maliki. The decisions, like disbanding the Iraqi army, abolishing the original constitution, and allowing militias to take over Iraqi security were too damaging to be anything but intentional.

The question now is, but why? I really have been asking myself that these last few days. What does America possibly gain by damaging Iraq to this extent? I'm certain only raving idiots still believe this war and occupation were about WMD or an actual fear of Saddam.

Al Qaeda? That's laughable. Bush has effectively created more terrorists in Iraq these last 4 years than Osama could have created in 10 different terrorist camps in the distant hills of Afghanistan. Our children now play games of 'sniper' and 'jihadi', pretending that one hit an American soldier between the eyes and this one overturned a Humvee.

This last year especially has been a turning point. Nearly every Iraqi has lost so much. So much. There's no way to describe the loss we've experienced with this war and occupation. There are no words to relay the feelings that come with the knowledge that daily almost 40 corpses are found in different states of decay and mutilation. There is no compensation for the dense, black cloud of fear that hangs over the head of every Iraqi. Fear of things so out of ones hands, it borders on the ridiculous- like whether your name is 'too Sunni' or 'too Shia'. Fear of the larger things- like the Americans in the tank, the police patrolling your area in black bandanas and green banners, and the Iraqi soldiers wearing black masks at the checkpoint.

Again, I can't help but ask myself why this was all done? What was the point of breaking Iraq so that it was beyond repair? Iran seems to be the only gainer. Their presence in Iraq is so well-established, publicly criticizing a cleric or ayatollah verges on suicide. Has the situation gone so beyond America that it is now irretrievable? Or was this a part of the plan all along? My head aches just posing the questions.

What has me most puzzled right now is: why add fuel to the fire? Sunnis and moderate Shia are being chased out of the larger cities in the south and the capital. Baghdad is being torn apart with Shia leaving Sunni areas and Sunnis leaving Shia areas- some under threat and some in fear of attacks. People are being openly shot at check points or in drive by killings… Many colleges have stopped classes. Thousands of Iraqis no longer send their children to school- it's just not safe.

Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam's execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else? There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow that will shatter Iraq. Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly preparing for the worst.

This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is "Look- Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We're hanging him- he symbolizes you." And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

That is, of course, why Talbani doesn't want to sign his death penalty- not because the mob man suddenly grew a conscience, but because he doesn't want to be the one who does the hanging- he won't be able to travel far away enough if he does that.

Maliki's government couldn't contain their glee. They announced the ratification of the execution order before the actual court did. A few nights ago, some American news program interviewed Maliki's bureau chief, Basim Al-Hassani who was speaking in accented American English about the upcoming execution like it was a carnival he'd be attending. He sat, looking sleazy and not a little bit ridiculous, his dialogue interspersed with 'gonna', 'gotta' and 'wanna'... Which happens, I suppose, when the only people you mix with are American soldiers.

My only conclusion is that the Americans want to withdraw from Iraq, but would like to leave behind a full-fledged civil war because it wouldn't look good if they withdraw and things actually begin to improve, would it?

Here we come to the end of 2006 and I am sad. Not simply sad for the state of the country, but for the state of our humanity, as Iraqis. We've all lost some of the compassion and civility that I felt made us special four years ago. I take myself as an example. Nearly four years ago, I cringed every time I heard about the death of an American soldier. They were occupiers, but they were humans also and the knowledge that they were being killed in my country gave me sleepless nights. Never mind they crossed oceans to attack the country, I actually felt for them.

Had I not chronicled those feelings of agitation in this very blog, I wouldn't believe them now. Today, they simply represent numbers. 3000 Americans dead over nearly four years? Really? That's the number of dead Iraqis in less than a month. The Americans had families? Too bad. So do we. So do the corpses in the streets and the ones waiting for identification in the morgue.

Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his engagement to a woman he's wanted to marry for the last six years? I don't think so.

Just because Americans die in smaller numbers, it doesn't make them more significant, does it?

- posted by river @ 1:00 PM


posted December 31, 2006 09:28 AM EST:

Here is a poignant paragraph from Riverblend's blog linked in my post above. She wonders why the United States has continued its efforts which have only brought Iraq into irredeemable chaos. Was that the objective all along, Riverbend asks?

When the U.S. is forced to leave Iraq, and conditions continue to deteriorate, the U.S. can point to the raging civil war in Iraq and say "It's not our fault. These Arab Muslims are programmed by their culture and their religion to be violent." A Lebanonese cleric as reported in the news story below takes a similar position to that of Riverbend.

quote:
Riverbend wrote on December 29, 2006:

Again, I can't help but ask myself why this was all done? What was the point of breaking Iraq so that it was beyond repair? Iran seems to be the only gainer. Their presence in Iraq is so well-established, publicly criticizing a cleric or ayatollah verges on suicide. Has the situation gone so beyond America that it is now irretrievable? Or was this a part of the plan all along? My head aches just posing the questions.

US using Saddam death to sow Muslim discord: Lebanese cleric
quote:
AFP 7:22 am EST Sun 31 Dec 2006

The United States is using the execution of Saddam Hussein to sow discord among Muslims, a leading Lebanese Shiite cleric has said.

"Some countries are trying to exploit yesterday's execution of the dictator Saddam Hussein, who is Sunni, in order to provoke discord between Sunnis and Shiites," Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah said in a message marking Eid al-Adha or the feast of the sacrifice on Sunday.

"Beware of such discord because it's what the Americans want -- seeking revenge on the Muslim world and the destruction of Islam by launching a cultural, political, economic and security war," said Fadlallah who has followers throughout the Shiite Muslim world.

"Some say that Saddam was Sunni, but in fact he was a dictator who persecuted his own people and his adversaries without regard for their confession," Sunni or Shiite, he said.

Saddam, whose Sunni-dominated regime was replaced by an elected Shiite-led government after he was toppled in 2003, was hanged on Saturday for ordering the deaths of 148 Shiite men and boys from the village of Dujail after a 1982 attempt on his life there.

Iraq is in the grip of an increasingly bloody conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in what some have called a civil war.



--------------------
Make love not war
fait l'amour, pas la guerre

War in Iraq top story of 2006 & 2007; No closure with Saddam's execution

The #1 AP news story in 2006 was the war in Iraq. The #2 AP news story in 2006 was the U.S. election.

The same will be case in 2007. The U.S. Congress vs "Wartime President" Bush - especially a Constitutional showdown between Bush's claim of almost unlimited powers for the Commander-in-Chief during wartime based on the Unitary Executive theory - will be a big news story in 2007. Bush claims powers for a "Wartime President" that far exceed those of Congress or the Judiciary. However, Congressional investigations into the war may start small with issues such as the awarding of no bid contracts and contractor misuse of funds in Iraq.

Nevertheless, THE news story of 2007 will be continuing violence in Iraq inflicted on the Iraqi people and on American troops. The fiscal cost of the war will be part of that story, but THE story will be the violence associated with that war as Bush escalates it shortly after the New Year begins.

We can hope against hope that THE story of 2007 will be the end of the U.S. war in Iraq. I hope and pray THAT is the news story of 2007.

For many Saddam's death did not bring closure nor will it have the kind of negative psychological effect on the insurgency or the positive psychological effect of uniting Iraqis that was previously expected. The insurgency is too strong and the civil war in Iraq is too full blown for Saddam's death to have any positive effect.

Who cares, says a mom
quote:
BY IVAN PEREIRA and TINA MOORE
New York DAILY NEWS WRITERS
31 December 2006

President Bush called Saddam Hussein's execution a "milestone," but for Manhattan resident Sophy Haynes, it was merely another grim reminder of her soldier son's death.

"It's a nonevent to me," said Haynes, 78, whose son, Schuyler, 40, was killed last month in Baquba, Iraq, by a roadside bomb. "It has no meaning. We went into a place that I don't believe we had any business going into."

Another grieving mother, Fizoon Ashraf, of Brooklyn, didn't even hear about the execution until yesterday afternoon.

Her son, Rasheed Sahib, 22, died in Iraq in 2003.

"I don't even care what's going on," said Ashraf. "I lost my son, and that's all I can concentrate on."

~~~snip~~~

Saddam's defiance on the gallows will serve to make him a hero in Iraqi Sunnis' eyes and elsewhere in the Muslim world which is majority Sunni. Saddam's trial and execution will not bolster international human rights law. Saddam's trial and execution were counter-productive to the cause of peace, justice, reconciliation, and understanding in Iraq and in the Arab and Muslim world.

On the Gallows, Curses for U.S. and ‘Traitors’
quote:
December 31, 2006

By MARC SANTORA
The New York Times

BAGHDAD, Dec. 30 — Saddam Hussein never bowed his head, until his neck snapped.

His last words were equally defiant.

“Down with the traitors, the Americans, the spies and the Persians.”

~~~snip~~~

Hussein’s Case Won’t Bolster International Human Rights Law, Experts Fear
quote:
December 31, 2006

By MARLISE SIMONS
The New York Times

PARIS, Dec. 30 — Saddam Hussein is one of the few modern leaders to have been tried and executed for his crimes and other abuses of power. Most dictators of the past century have died of natural causes at home or in comfortable exile — or at the hands of assassins.

But with trials of former leaders becoming more common in the past decade, there are other distinguishing features in the Hussein case: he was the first former leader to be tried by a domestic court for crimes against humanity — a crime enshrined in international law — and put to death for it.

His dawn hanging on Saturday further stands out because the new international legal institutions, like the International Criminal Court and the temporary tribunals that are trying war crimes cases in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra Leone, do not impose the death penalty.

Despite this application of international law against Mr. Hussein, experts say, his conviction for crimes against humanity has not significantly reinforced efforts to apply concepts of international human rights law around the world. They argue that the trial has been too widely perceived, both in Iraq and abroad, as a chaotic and politicized process with many serious flaws carried out by inexperienced judges. “It's highly doubtful that courts elsewhere might cite this judgment, given its poor credibility,” said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch’s international justice program.

~~~snip~~~


Saturday, December 30, 2006

Was Saddam afraid? Who writes history?

Any cognitive human being facing execution can be expected to be apprehensive. John Brown, who led an aborted raid on Harper's Ferry, asked as his last request of the executioner at his hanging "don't make me stand on the threshold too long". The U.S. general in charge of that hanging made John Brown stand on the threshold for 8 full minutes listening to the drums' cadence before he ordered the trap door dropped.

History has some perspective now on John Brown's quite "legal" hanging. History will no doubt judge Saddam Hussein harshly. It already does. History will also judge George W. Bush harshly IMO. Nor will history wait until George W. Bush is dead to figure out whether he did the right or the wrong thing by ordering the invasion and occupation of Iraq. History starts NOW. George W. Bush is doing the wrong things, and history will record them as such. George W. Bush is about to compound his strategic error by escalating his failed war on Iraq.

The victors often write the history books. The United States will not be the victor in its war in Iraq.

Take the example of whether or not Saddam was "afraid" at his execution. It depends on who you believe. I say that Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and his videographer Ali Al Massedy will be among those that flee Iraq when the U.S. occupation of that country collapses.

Anyone who takes this route should not be afraid By fubar [Needlenose] Dec 30 2006 - 12:41pm

3 certainties of escalating the U.S. war in Iraq

Many right wingnuts have accused anti-war folk of "celebrating" U.S. military deaths in Iraq. They claimed that anti-war folk "rejoiced" when U.S. deaths hit 100, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, 2500, and now 3000. This is my answer to those wingnut dickheads.

It's time for you wingnuts to move that bar to 5,000 or 10,000 U.S. military deaths from the U.S. war in Iraq. We will reach those "milestones" (to use George W. Bush's parlance) all too soon.

According to GlobalSecurity.org (I think that is John Pike's outfit) the number of U.S. military fatalities from the war in Iraq has already passed 3000. As of 1:06 pm EST on Saturday 30 December 2006 they have the number at 3002

U.S. Military Casualties in Iraq

There is no "celebration" of any kind at my house or among my friends or acquaintances. There is only sadness that this war is about to be escalated by George W. Bush at the behest of the neocons at the American Enterprise Institute (Fred Kagan, Jack Keane, and others) and by Senators John McCain, Joseph Lieberman, Lindsey Graham, and other right wing hawks.

Three things are certain. First, it is certain that the U.S. death toll will far exceed 3000. Second, it is certain that the fiscal cost of this war will far exceed $500 billion. It will cost God knows how many lives and perhaps more than $2 trillion, and there is no end in sight. Bumping U.S. troops strength in Iraq by 17,000 to 20,000 or even 30,000 or 50,000 additional U.S. troops won't make a bit of difference in the long run. Third, it is certain that United States will eventually and inevitably be militarily and politically defeated on the battlefield of Iraq. The only thing that United States will have to show for the effort is lots of American blood spilled in vain and lots of red ink.

Saddam executed; Bush slept

I am not crying over Saddam, but it is a joke to say he "given a fair trail" as Bush claims and lies again to the American people. 3 of Saddam's lawyers were murdered. The judge resigned from the case. Sentencing Saddam to death merely on the bases of evidence r/t the killings in Dujail in 1982 was NOT a fair trial. Saddam no doubt was guilty, but be did NOT get a fair trail. That is the conclusion of columnist Bronwen Maddow who writes the World Briefing column in The Times of London; Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice Program for Human Rights Watch; and lawyer extraordinaire Noah Feldman. Those of the sources critical of this trial that I am aware of. There are many other experts who say this was NOT a fair trial. I think that the conclusion that Saddam did NOT get a fair trial is the overwhelming consensus among legal experts. Saddam did not give his victims a fair trail, but we are supposed to be better than he.

Note Saddam did not wear a hood, and only the noose was shown being placed around his neck. There has been no video released as of yet and no audio was made (according to the article below).

Finally, note the the violence in Iraq continues (see second new story below). No doubt George W. Bush will continue to deny that a raging civil war is underway in Iraq. If no civil war is happening why is Bush preparing to send 17,000 to 20,000 or more additional U.S. troops to Baghdad in an effort to stem the violence? Saddam may be dead, but we can count on continued violence in Iraq, and a continuing stream of lies from the mouth of George W. Bush.

Bush has told the truth lately about one thing. As Jonathan Zimmerman wrote in the Christian Science Monitor on Dec 27: "I must tell you, I'm sleeping a lot better than people would assume," Bush recently told People magazine. Bush slept through Hurricane Katrina. Now he is reported by his own spokesman to have slept through Saddam's execution.

Hussein executed with 'fear in his face'
quote:
POSTED: 0944 GMT (1744 HKT), December 30, 2006

STORY HIGHLIGHTS:
• NEW: Iraqi TV airs video of noose placed around Hussein's neck
• Hussein refused to wear black hood
• Bush praises Iraqis for giving fair trial
• Celebrations break out in Baghdad and Michigan

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi dictator who spent his last years in captivity after his ruthless regime was toppled by the U.S.-led coalition in 2003, was hanged before dawn Saturday for crimes committed in a brutal crackdown during his reign.

The execution took place shortly after 6 a.m. (10 p.m. Friday ET), Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, told Iraqi television.

"This dark page has been turned over," Rubaie said. "Saddam is gone. Today Iraq is an Iraq for all the Iraqis, and all the Iraqis are looking forward. ... The [Hussein] era has gone forever." (Watch noose placed around Hussein's neck Video)

Al-Iraqiya state television aired videotape of Hussein's last moments several hours after the execution.

The video showed Hussein, dressed in a black overcoat, being led into a room by three masked guards.

The broadcast only showed the execution to the point where the noose was placed over Hussein's head and tightened around his neck. No audio was heard.

Rubaie, who witnessed the execution, said the former leader was "strangely submissive" to the process.

"He was a broken man," he said. "He was afraid. You could see fear in his face."

Rubaie said that Hussein carried with him a copy of the Quran and asked that it be given to "a certain person." Rubaie did not identify that person.

On Al-Arabiya television, Rubaie said the execution took place at the 5th Division intelligence office in Qadhimiya. He said Hussein refused to wear a black hood over his head before execution and told him "don't be afraid."

White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel said President Bush was asleep when the execution took place and was not awakened. The president had been briefed by national security adviser Stephen Hadley before retiring and was aware the hanging was imminent, Stanzel said.

~~~snip~~~


Car bomb kills at least 30 in Kufa
quote:
POSTED: 1043 GMT (1843 HKT), December 30, 2006

STORY HIGHLIGHTS:
• NEW: Car bomb kills at least 30 in Kufa
• 108th U.S. soldier killed, making December deadliest month in 2006
• Nine killed, including Shiite cleric, by suicide bomber
• Two Iranian diplomats in U.S. custody for a week are free

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A parked car bomb exploded in a local market in the southern Iraqi Shiite town of Kufa on Saturday, killing at least 30 civilians and wounding 45 others, the Interior Ministry said.

The historic town of Kufa is part of the key southern province of Najaf, which U.S. troops handed over security control to Iraqi troops and police last week, and has a strong Shiite identity.

~~~snip~~~

US welcomes Saddam hanging, Europe opposes execution AFP - The United States has joined its arch-foe Iran in hailing the justice of Saddam Hussein's execution, but European powers opposed the use of capital punishment even though they condemned the former dictator's crimes in Iraq.

Saddam's death angers many Arabs, foes rejoice

quote:
By Alistair Lyon, Special Correspondent
Reuters 5:46 am EST Sat 30 Dec 2006

Saddam Hussein's execution on Saturday angered many Arabs, but even some who felt the former Iraqi leader deserved to die voiced a sense of justice denied.

Many said his hanging for crimes against humanity, on the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, would worsen violence in Iraq.

"I don't have any sorrow or compassion for the man, but the timing is very stupid and Muslims will think this was done to provoke their feelings," said Ehab Abdel-Hamid, 30, a novelist and senior editor at Cairo's independent al-Dostour newspaper.

Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper, told Al Jazeera television:

"Arab public opinion wonders who deserves to be tried and executed: Saddam Hussein who preserved the unity of Iraq, its Arab and Islamic identity and the coexistence of its different communities such as Shi'ites and Sunnis ... or those who engulfed the country in this bloody civil war?"

No immediate street protests were reported in Arab capitals, where Muslims were preoccupied with the Eid al-Adha holiday.

In Afghanistan, which preceded Iraq as the first target in the U.S.-declared "war on terror," a top commander of the resurgent Islamist Taliban movement said Saddam's death would galvanize Muslim opposition to the United States.

"His death will boost the morale of Muslims. The jihad in Iraq will be intensified and attacks on invader forces will increase," Mullah Obaidullah Akhund told Reuters by telephone.

News of Saddam's death shocked Palestinians, many of whom had seen him as an Arab hero for his missile attacks on Israel during the 1991 Gulf War that ended Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.

People in Gaza, alerted by text messages or phone calls, hurried home after Eid prayers in mosques to watch the news and to slaughter sheep for the traditional Muslim feast.

"What is he (Saddam), a sheep? I think the Americans wanted to tell all Arab leaders who are their servants that they are like Saddam, nothing but a sheep slaughtered on the day of Eid," said a worshipper called Abu Mohammad Salama.

Mushir al-Masri, a lawmaker of the governing Islamist Hamas movement, said: "The execution of President Saddam Hussein was a proof of the criminal and terrorist American policy and its war against all forces of resistance in the world."

FLAWED JUSTICE

In Kuwait, where Saddam is reviled for his 1990 invasion, Ahmed al-Shatti, a Health Ministry official, said the Iraqi leader was a criminal whose trial had been incomplete.

"He did not answer for the crime of occupying Kuwait and the atrocities he committed in Kuwait," Shatti said, arguing that Arabs should not be angry about his death but about U.S. failure to bring democracy, stability and development to Iraq.

In Shi'ite non-Arab Iran, Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said the hanging of the man who led Iraq into a costly war with the Islamic Republic in the 1980s was a victory for Iraqis.

But Yousef Molaee, an Iranian international law expert, took the view that the dawn execution was a failure for justice.

"Saddam's crimes in the eight-year war against Iran, such as chemical bombardments, remained unanswered because of the hasty and unfair trial," state news agency IRNA quoted him as saying.

In Mecca, Sunni Arab pilgrims voiced outrage that Iraqi authorities had executed Saddam on a major religious holiday.

"His execution on the day of Eid...is an insult to all Muslims," said Jordanian pilgrim Nidal Mohammad Salah.

Ahmed Al Mudaweb, a political editor at Bahrain's Al Watan newspaper, predicted that the former Iraqi president's hanging would spur the insurgency by his fellow Sunnis in Iraq.

"He will become a kind of martyr, and his status as a political figure will increase," he said.

Khalaf al-Alayan, a Sunni Iraqi lawmaker, told Al Jazeera from Jordan: "This was an act of vengeance against Iraq."

Jordanians, once fervently pro-Saddam, said his execution for the 1982 killings of about 150 Shi'ites, was incongruous.

"He surely wasn't the only tyrant in the world. The irony is he was tried and hanged for a small crime when he committed worse," said Aline Saeed, a marketing director.

Mohamed Habib, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's strongest opposition group, said Saddam had been judged by an Iraqi government that was not fully sovereign.

"His execution will have grave consequences and will deepen the ethnic and sectarian violence in Iraq," he said.

Beyond the Arab world, few Muslims seemed ready to defend Saddam, but many doubted that full justice had been done.

In Pakistan, Liaqat Baluch, a leader of a six-party opposition alliance of conservative religious parties, said Saddam was a "bad guy" but his trial had been unfair.

Remember when Bushco claimed that killing Saddam's evil offspring would stem the violence in Iraq? Now, Bush himself admits that "bringing Saddam to justice" by hanging him will not end the violence in Iraq. On one hand Bush claims that Saddam's execution is an(other) "important milestone", but on the other hand Bush admits Saddam's death won't halt Iraq violence. So What The Fuck exactly is this "important milestone"? What the hell are we fighting for in Iraq?

Joy of Capture Muted at the End
quote:
December 30, 2006
News Analysis

By JEFF ZELENY
The New York Times

CRAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 29 — The capture of Saddam Hussein three years ago was a jubilant moment for the White House, hailed by President Bush in a televised address from the Cabinet Room. The execution of Mr. Hussein, though, seemed hardly to inspire the same sentiment.

Before the hanging was carried out in Baghdad, Mr. Bush went to sleep here at his ranch and was not roused when the news came. In a statement written in advance, the president said the execution would not end the violence in Iraq.

After Mr. Hussein was arrested Dec. 13, 2003, he gradually faded from view, save for his courtroom outbursts and writings from prison. The growing chaos and violence in Iraq has steadily overshadowed the torturous rule of Mr. Hussein, who for more than two decades held a unique place in the politics and psyche of the United States, a symbol of the manifestation of evil in the Middle East.

Now, what could have been a triumphal bookend to the American invasion of Iraq has instead been dampened by the grim reality of conditions on the ground there. Mr. Hussein’s hanging means that the ousted leader has been held accountable for his misdeeds, fulfilling the American war aim most cited by the White House after Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction proved nonexistent.

But that war is now edging toward its fifth year, and the sectarian violence that has surged independent of any old Sunni or Baathist allegiances to Mr. Hussein has raised questions about what change, if any, his death might bring.

~~~snip~~~

“There’s no doubt his hatred is mainly directed at us,” the current president said, speaking to a Republican fund-raising crowd in Houston on Sept. 26, 2002. “This is the man who tried to kill my dad.”

For his part, Mr. Hussein referred to the younger Mr. Bush as “son of the viper.” He delivered a famous snub of the 41st president, constructing a mosaic of the elder Bush’s face on the floor of the Rashid Hotel, perfectly positioned to be repeatedly stepped on. After the American troops reached Baghdad, they crushed the mosaic.

When Mr. Hussein was captured, the president said: “Good riddance, the world is better off without you.” But he dismissed suggestions that a family grudge played a role in shaping his Iraq policy or influenced his decision to go to war. “My personal views,” he said, “aren’t important in this matter.”

But Mr. Buchanan, a longtime observer of the Bush political family in Texas, said that these were no ordinary archenemies and that setting aside personal views entirely seemed impossible.

“I think the president will see this as justice done and may well feel some sense of vindication, in part because of the attempt on his father’s life,” he said. “It’s definitely part of the drama.”

~~~snip~~~


Bush hails Saddam's execution but warns violence to continue
quote:
by Olivier Knox
AFP 6:52 am EST Saturday 30 December 2006

US President George W. Bush has hailed Saddam Hussein's execution as "an important milestone" on the road to building an Iraqi democracy but warned it will not end deadly violence there.

"Saddam Husseins execution comes at the end of a difficult year for the Iraqi people and for our troops," Bush said in a statement released as he prepared to usher in 2007 at his Texas ranch.

"Bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not end the violence in Iraq, but it is an important milestone on Iraq's course to becoming a democracy that can govern, sustain, and defend itself," he said late Friday.

Bush learned at 6:15 pm (0015 GMT) from US national security adviser Stephen Hadley that Saddam would go to the gallows in a few hours, but was fast asleep when the execution occurred, said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.

The ousted dictator was hanged around 9:00 pm Texas time (0300 GMT), Iraqi officials said, as the violence-wracked country braced nervously for possible reprisals by his remaining supporters.

"The president concluded his day knowing that the final phase of bringing Saddam Hussein to justice was underway," Stanzel told reporters. Asked whether that meant Bush was asleep when it happened, Stanzel replied: "That's correct."

Taking aim at critics of the special judicial process that led to Saddam's conviction, Bush emphasized that he "was executed after receiving a fair trial -- the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime."

"Fair trials were unimaginable under Saddam Hussein's tyrannical rule. It is a testament to the Iraqi people's resolve to move forward after decades of oppression that, despite his terrible crimes against his own people, Saddam Hussein received a fair trial.

Saddam's death came as the US president planned to unveil a change in strategy in Iraq within about two weeks, amid heavy pressure from the US public to bring home the roughly 140,000 US soldiers there.

"Many difficult choices and further sacrifices lie ahead. Yet the safety and security of the American people require that we not relent in ensuring that Iraq's young democracy continues to progress," said Bush.

US officials said the toppled dictator's execution would play no role in what course the embattled Bush would chart in Iraq, where nearly 3,000 US soldiers have died and many more have been wounded.

"We are reminded today of how far the Iraqi people have come since the end of Saddam Husseins rule and that the progress they have made would not have been possible without the continued service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," said Bush.

~~~snip~~~



AMERICA blog: Saturday, December 30, 2006 by Joe in DC - 12/30/2006 12:25:00 AM
quote:
Bush was asleep when Hussein was executed but he managed to put out a statement anyway. He has made America pay a very heavy price to take down Saddam. We've lost almost 3,000 soldiers. Ten of thousands have been permanently disabled. Hundreds of billions have been spent. The U.S. has lost power and prestige in the world. Our leaders lied to us and to the world. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Our own intelligence agencies maintain that the war in Iraq has inspired new terrorists and made our country less safe. We're stuck in a war that our President chose to start, but it's a war he can't end.

So, Bush got Saddam's scalp. But has it been worth it?




Insurgency set to outlive SaddamLast Updated: Saturday, 30 December 2006, 11:12 GMT - BBC News


By David Loyn
BBC world affairs correspondent

The death of Saddam Hussein is unlikely to have the beneficial effect that such a drastic step should have.

It was the end of an inevitable process that began when Saddam Hussein was found in a "spider hole" on 14 December 2003, but his capacity to upset the plans of his opponents is as strong in death as in life.

Before he fell from power, Saddam Hussein left specific instructions to his supporters.

He knew that they could not defeat the American-led invasion force on the conventional battlefield, so he ordered his men to loot and disrupt the civilian infrastructure and join forces with Islamists rebels.

Those tactics continue to prevent the effective stabilisation of Iraq, and the insurgency now has a momentum of its own that will outlive Saddam.

'Victor's justice'

If anything, his death will tend to strengthen the hand of Sunni insurgents in recruiting people to their cause.

They ask: "What do we have to lose?" as they see their Shia rivals running the armed forces and the police.

For these hardliners, the death of Saddam is "victor's justice", carried out amid the extraordinary facilities of the high-security, sanitised international Green Zone.


The imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible
Human Rights Watch

The transparency of the trial, every stage of which was broadcast, does not change their view.

The new sectarianism, unleashed in earnest after the destruction of the Samarra shrine in February 2006, is now altering the geography of the capital, Baghdad, as militias mark out their zones of influence.

The celebrations in Shia areas at the death of Saddam will only make these divisions worse.

The celebrations of those who do welcome his death are real of course.

No-one can deny the pleasure now felt by many who suffered at the hands of Saddam's tyrannical regime.

In particular, there are genuine celebrations among the Marsh Arabs in the south, who had their way of life destroyed in a genocidal frenzy after their failed uprising in 1991, and the Kurds in the north, always threatened by Saddam.

Fair trial?

But even here, there will be questions over the trial itself.

Human Rights Watch, who observed every day of the process along with another NGO, brought out a harsh verdict on the quality of justice in this case.

Their conclusion was that this was not a fair trial, and the soundness of the verdict is questionable.

In this case, they say "the imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible".

They criticised the management of the trial, protection given to witnesses, the lack of material given to the defence (making this a "trial by ambush"), and prejudicial comments made by Iraqi politicians.

They also criticised the defence for using the courtroom as a political grandstand.

There are also questions over the long and detailed examination of some of the evidence in the Dujail case [for the killing of 148 Shias in the village of that name in the early 1980s], while Saddam's trial for the deaths of far more people in Kurdish areas was rushed through ahead of the execution.

Considering that this was the first trial of this scale since the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II, the disappointment of legal observers that it did not set a higher standard is great.

But then in Iraq, nothing has quite turned out as expected.

Friday, December 29, 2006

Condi Rice is a failure!

It is my understanding that Dr. Condoleezza Rice was brought on board the Bush team to serve as Junior's tutor when it was decided he would run for President after his smarter brother Jeb lost an election in Florida. George W. Bush needed a tutor because he didn't know shit about foreign affairs or geography. Bush didn't know Kazakhstan from Kyrgyzstan or Shiite from Sunni. It is important that the most powerful man in the world know these things.

So Condi Rice is a Bush family confidant. She was rewarded for her efforts by being named Bush's National Security Adviser during his first term in office. Dr. Condoleezza Rice was at George W. Bush's side when he made the decision to invade Iraq and issued the order on March 20, 2003. The failed war in Iraq is as much on Condi Rice's hands as it is on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. She acquiesced in that disasterous decision. She was by Bush's side when he lied about WMD in Iraq. She was his national security adviser. She was as responsible for bad intelligence as former CIA director George Tenet.

Condi Rice continued to be rewarded for her faithful service to the Bush Crime Family. The Bush-Cheney regime loved to point to her and Colin Powell as examples of "diversity" on the Bush-Cheney team. The fact that she is black and a woman helped her win Senate confirmation as Secretary of State. Oh yes, she does have a Phd in political science and is supposedly a Russian expert, but her tenure as our chief diplomat has been about as "successful" as George H.W. Bush's oldest son has been as the 43rd President of the United States.

Condi can't stand up to George W. Bush. The extant question is whether Robert Gates or some senior military officers will man-up to Junior and tell him "No" to more war? Dr. Condoleezza Rice is a failure as Secretary of State.

Rice still struggling for success after two years as top US diplomat
quote:
by David Millikin
AFP Thu Dec 28, 7:41 PM ET

Condoleezza Rice wraps up her first two years as secretary of state with few diplomatic successes to show for her efforts and fewer signs she plans to change course to improve the record.

And yet, as Rice heads into 2007, the 52-year-old former academic should be at the top of her game for the last two years of President George W. Bush's administration.

She has seen off her longtime rival for Bush's ear, former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

And the Bush administration is under pressure from all sides to use more diplomacy and less bluster in its foreign policy, a shift which should place Rice at the epicenter of decision-making.

But since she took over as America's top diplomat on January 26, 2005 with an agenda to promote freedom and democracy around the globe, Rice has been shadowed by the failure of that plan on its biggest stage: Iraq.

The violence in Iraq, and the Bush administration's refusal to bring rivals Syria and Iran into efforts to stabilize the country, are widely blamed for the broader failure of US policy in the Middle East -- where Lebanon teeters on the brink of civil war and Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts languish.

Elsewhere, Rice's globe-trotting -- 37 overseas trips totalling nearly 500,000 miles (800,000 kilometers) -- has yielded little concrete success, with her few diplomatic victories clouded by poor or no follow-up.

~~~snip~~~


Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Bush is faking deliberating options

George W. Bush is a faker and a liar. He has never considered any option except escalating the war he is losing in Iraq. That has been the only option he has considered since the results of the Nov 7 election and the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group forced him to pretend he is reviewiew his Iraq war policy.

Bush has telegraphed his intentions many times. Anyone who thought George W. Bush would listen to voices of reason does not understand how deeply psychologically disturbed the 43rd President of the United States is.

Remember what Bob Woodward said, talking about George W. Bush on "60 Minutes" last October?
quote:
"Late last year he had key Republicans up to the White House to talk about the war. And said, 'I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.' Barney is his dog,"
Bush because he is the Commander-in-Chief twisted the U.S. military's arm and finally got Gen. George Custer Casey to go along with Bush's and the neocon American Enterprise Institute's plan to send more troops to Iraq. This will not be a temporary surge but a SURGE and SUSTAIN operation. Bush will lie about the nature of this so-called "surge option" just has he has lied about every aspect of this war from its conception at least as early as July 2002 (probably earlier than that) to its inception on March 20, 2003

Now Bush is convening his sycophants who will all concur "after careful deliberation" with his plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Does anybody think Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, or Stephen Hadley will tell the Commander-in-Chief, No?

This last gasp, Hail Mary, roll of the dice, double down tactic will fail just as everything else associated with Bush's illegal, unjust, unnecessary, immoral, and unwinnable war in Iraq has failed. All the pretend deliberations (just like the pretexts Bush used to start this war) have been cover for his own sweet lying *** .

Bush to gather top aides ahead of decision on Iraq
quote:
AFP 1:05 pm EST Wednesday 27 December 2006

US President George W. Bush will assemble his top aides at his Texas ranch Thursday for final consultations on his planned strategy change in Iraq, the White House said.

"He's wanting to make sure that we give all consideration to all the options," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Tuesday.

"He continues to ask questions of his advisors and he is continuing to think about thinking steps ahead and trying to make sure that all options and all ideas are given the due consideration they need, trying to think through the consequences of any actions and of those options," Stanzel said.

Bush is expected after the start of the year to deliver a speech announcing a new way forward in Iraq.

Expected to attend the meeting are the president's new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Stephen Hadley, among others.


Ever closer to the abyss

The following entry is the latest post in a thread I started on the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle bulletin board titled Fuggedabout dismantling Mahdi Army

Part of Commander-in-Chief's George W. Bush strategy associated with his (still unannounced) decision to go with the "temporary" surge option of sending more U.S. troops into Iraq is the decision to target Moqtada al Sadr's militias and supporters. The following news story is testimony to that policy decision of targeting Sadr's supporters, and this tactical error will throw southern Iraq into the same chaos that currently engulfs Baghdad and Anbar province.

An enraged Shiite population will make it even more dangerous for the American troops occupying Iraq and put the 800 mile land resupply corridor from Kuwait to Baghdad in jeopardy. If the Shiite population becomes sufficiently enraged we will see an emergency U.S. evacuation of The Green Zone. Nothing short of nuclear weapons would be able to quell the violence directed at Americans and even nuclear weapons would work only in the short term. Regional war and World War would follow.

President Bush is push Iraq and the world ever closer to the abyss.

Tension after US soldier shoots Sadr supporter
quote:
by Hassan Abdel Zahra
AFP 8:55 am EST Wednesday 27 December 2006

Tension was mounting in the Iraqi city of Najaf after an American soldier killed a senior ally of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr during a raid on his house.

Sadr supporters and local police told AFP Wednesday that US and Iraqi soldiers had stormed the family home of Sahib al-Ameri, the president of a pro-Sadr political foundation in the holy city of Najaf, and shot him dead.

The US military confirmed one of its troops had shot Ameri in an overnight raid by Iraqi forces, backed up by coalition military advisers.

A statement said Ameri was implicated in recent bomb attacks on US and Iraqi forces, and was shot by an adviser after he fled to the roof of his house and aimed an assault rifle at an Iraqi soldier.

"The coalition soldier observed the man's hostile intent against the Iraqi soldier and shot the man, neutralising the threat and resulting in his death," US headquarters said in the statement.

Hundreds of mourners marched from Sadr's office in Najaf to the revered shrine of Imam Ali chanting anti-American slogans and denouncing Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as a traitor for working with US officials.

Sadr is nominally a supporter of Maliki's US-backed coalition -- although his party's MPs and ministers are boycotting government business -- but he is bitterly opposed to the American troop presence.

His supporters have demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as the price for their continued support for the unity government.

US commanders have described Sadr's Mahdi Army militia as the most dangerous faction involved in Iraq's sectarian war, accusing his Shiite fighters of involvement in the massacre of Sunni civilians.

Wednesday's raid served only to increase the political temperature.

Sheikh Abdul-Razzaq al-Nadawi, a member of Sadr's office in Najaf held a press conference at the cleric's house in Najaf and accused the Americans of seeking to provoke a confrontation in a hitherto largely peaceful city.

"We condemn this heinous crime," he declared. "Security in the city is back to square one. Targeting Al-Ameri means targeting the whole Sadr trend.

"They always claim that the trend is undermining the political process. We tell them that Najaf is secure and stable. This escalation and provocation is meant to drag us into a comprehensive and open confrontation," he declared.

"Al-Ameri was not from the military, or political cadres or even the Mahdi Army. He was a man running a cultural institution that is in charge of issuing a newspaper," Nadawi complained.

But US spokesman General William Caldwell insisted that the Ameri's house had been raided "because of his illegal activities, not because of his political affiliation."

At an optimistic ceremony last week, the US military handed control of security in Najaf -- a pilgrimage city and home to the holiest shrine in Shiite Islam, the mausoleum of Imam Ali -- to local Iraqi police and military units.

The region is almost entirely Shiite and has been spared the worst of the violence gripping other areas of Iraq since August 2004, when Sadr's Mahdi Army fought a three-week battle with US forces for control of the city.

Najaf police chief General Abdel Karim Mustapha blamed Ameri's death on the American military, as did a senior lawmakers from Sadr's party.

The US military, however, stood by the soldiers involved.

"The suspect allegedly provided recently several IEDs (bombs) to his cell for an attack that he allegedly directed be carried out against Iraqi and coalition forces in the Najaf area," a statement said.

This cut no ice with Sadr's supporters, however, and they called a news conference at the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad to condemn the raid and accuse the US military of deliberately attempting to provoke a reaction.

"They entered the house like animals and killed him in front of his wife and children," declared Sadrist lawmaker Baha al-Araji.


Saddam Hussein's pending execution

I still think that Saddam Hussein should have been tried by the World Court. His execution will not unite Iraqis or diminish the violence. There are good reasons to believe his execution will actually further inflame the violence that is already raging in Iraq. Note that the Bush-Cheney regime hails the verdict and the rejection of Saddam's appeal. The Bush-Cheney White House sees Saddam's execution as "bringing him to justice". The European Union urges the (U.S. puppet) Iraq government not to carry out the sentence.

I am not sympathetic to Saddam. I am opposed to the death penalty in ALL cases. Violence begets violence. I think executing Saddam Hussein is counter to U.S. interests. It further taints everything that the U.S. has touched in Iraq and makes everything and everyone who cooperates with Americans in Iraq suspect and targets for the insurgency.

Lastly, executing Saddam is akin to a doctor burying his mistakes. In the rush to execute Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, vital information about others involved in the plot went to the gave when McVeigh died.

Only Saddam and those high in his regime know the full story of past cooperation between the Reagan White House and Saddam's regime during the 1980s. Executing Saddam is another bad tactical error on the part of the U.S. and it's puppet government in Iraq in my reasoned opinion.

Some Iraqis fear Saddam execution would fuel violence
quote:
By Mussab Al-Khairalla
Reuters 5:24 am EST Wed 27 Dec 2006

Many Iraqis said on Wednesday they would welcome a swift execution of Saddam Hussein but others expressed fears that carrying out the death sentence now would further fuel sectarian violence.

~~~snip~~~

Mixed reactions to Saddam verdict
quote:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 27 December 2006, 09:15 GMT - BBC News

The US has hailed a ruling by an Iraq court that Saddam Hussein be executed within 30 days, while the EU has urged Baghdad not to carry out the sentence.

~~~snip~~~


Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Bush is a serial pathological liar

George W. Bush lied us into war in Iraq. He KNOWINGLY lied about WMD. Bush lied when he said in October 2006 "we are winning in Iraq". Bush lied when he said right before the Nov 7 election that he expected Donald Rumsfeld to remain Secretary of Defense for the remainer of Bush's term in office.

George W. Bush lied in June of 2006 when he said he wanted to close Guantanamo Detention Facility in Cuba. Guantanamo has been expanded, and Bush knew that when he said he wanted it closed in June.

Today Bush has returned to Texas to "rethink" U.S. involvement in Iraq. Bush has NEVER questioned, deliberated, or doubted for one second his decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The only "rethinking" Bush is doing is how he can escalate the war in Iraq which he is losing.

As Helen Thomas accurately notes in the article below, Bush is busy writing his recipe for more war. George W. Bush is not only the worst President in U.S. history, he is also one of the worst leaders in the history of the world. Toying with WWIII is not wise, manly, courageous, or Christian. George W. Bush is a serial pathological liar.

The US 'wants to end Guantanamo'
quote:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 21 June 2006, 20:46 GMT 21:46 UK - BBC News

US President George W Bush has said he would like to close the US prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and send many detainees back to their home countries.

Bush in Texas to rethink Iraq course (AP 26 Dec 2006) President Bush went to his ranch Tuesday to rethink U.S. involvement in Iraq

Bush is writing the recipe for more war
quote:
By Helen Thomas
Hearst Newspapers

December 26, 2006

President Bush has alerted the American people that the war in Iraq will go on for a long time -- easily into the next presidency.

Bush's 2003 "cakewalk" invasion of Iraq to bring about a "regime change" has expanded into what he told a news conference Wednesday is "the beginning stages of an ideological battle."

According to the official White House line, Bush is pondering his options for a "new way forward" in Iraq, with his decision to be announced next month.

But the president indicated Wednesday that he has already made his choice, hinting to reporters at his year-end news conference that he will send more U.S. troops to Iraq.

It doesn't seem to occur to him that some of the escalating violence in Iraq stems from opposition to the U.S. military occupation there.

~~~snip~~~

US deaths surpass 9/11
quote:
The Daily Telegraph (Australia) 27 December 2006

"The war on terror is a long struggle and we will be fighting violent jihadists to secure peace for many years to come and the call of this generation is to take the fight to the terrorists to prevent an attack on our nation greater than the scale of 9/11," the spokesman said at the president's ranch where Bush is spending the end of the year.


Sunday, December 24, 2006

Update on escalation of Iraq war

I find the headline "The President is likely to bow..." to be more than passing strange because Bush WANTS to escalate this war.

Bush may boost Iraq troops by 20,000
quote:
The President is likely to bow to a request for five more brigades as attacks rise to 1,000 a week

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday December 24, 2006
The Observer

President Bush began a series of urgent consultations with his key defence and foreign policy advisers at Camp David yesterday, amid expectations that he was preparing to agree to a request from US commanders to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad.

The request for five extra brigades to secure the capital follows the decision by senior US officers that, despite deep reservations, there was sufficient movement among Iraqi political leaders towards tackling sectarian violence to justify the deployment of extra US troops. A report in yesterday's Los Angeles Times reported that commanders in Iraq, including General George Casey and Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, have decided to recommend a temporary increase in combat forces, a plan that appears to be gaining favour in the administration. Casey previously opposed the increase.

Bush was joined at his Maryland retreat yesterday by his new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, who travelled to the presidential compound from a whirlwind fact-finding mission, meeting US military and Iraqi political leaders in Iraq. Also attending the meeting was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who insisted that the sacrifice in American lives and aid to Iraq was worthwhile for regional security.

Recent comments by Bush, Gates and Rice have led to intense speculation that Bush intends to reject several of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, instead increasing troop numbers. The talks come as a Pentagon report disclosed last week that the number of terrorist attacks had risen to almost 1,000 a week with almost 100 Iraqis now dying every day.

Instead of setting a timetable for a rapid withdrawal, administration officials have made clear that they believe that there will be a long-term US commitment on the ground in support of the Iraqi government. Hints from Gates in the past few days have suggested, however, that while US troops may remain, their mission is likely to be rapidly transformed to that of military advisers, as he spoke approvingly of one unit's success at training Iraqi brigades by boosting the size of the US teams embedded in each Iraqi unit.

Gates refused to rule out an expected surge in US troop numbers in Baghdad - perhaps by as much as a further 30,000 men - which has been widely expected as a short-term solution to the spiralling security problems.

~~~snip~~~

Robert Gates is flat out lying about Iraqi's "willingness to step forward".

Bush ponders $10 billion New Deal to create jobs in Iraq
quote:
The Sunday Times December 24, 2006

by Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE White House is expected to announce a reconstruction package for Iraq as part of a plan for a “surge” of up to 30,000 troops into Baghdad when President George W Bush unveils America’s new strategy next month.

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a “New Deal” that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression.

At the Pentagon, the joint chiefs of staff are insisting on reconstruction funds as part of a package of political and economic measures to accompany the armed forces. They fear the extra troops will be wasted and more lives lost if Bush relies purely on the military to pacify Iraq, according to sources close to General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff.

Military commanders have come round to the idea that an increase of troops is likely to form the backbone of Bush’s new strategy on Iraq. “People are warming to the idea that some sort of surge is necessary,” said a military official.

Robert Gates, the defence secretary, held talks with Bush, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, at Camp David yesterday, where he reported back on his three-day tour of Iraq. He said the willingness of Iraqis to “step forward” had advanced significantly.

~~~snip~~~


Bush creates more targets for insurgents

President Bush is reported to be considering creating a $10 billion make-work jobs program to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. This will not succeed. It will only create more targets for Iraqi insurgents. Anyone tainted in any way whatsoever by the occupying American power will be targeted for torture and assissination. That is all Bush will accomplish besides deeping our $9 trillion U.S. national debt.

Bush has financed this entrire war by off-the-books, off-the-budget borrowing against the burgeoning national debt. The national debt has doubled under President Bush. He has borrowed more money than all the former Presidents of the United States combined.

Will the Chinese give us "make work" programs when we are in the poor house? Bush is throwing good money after bad in Iraq. The only thing worse than sending U.S. soldiers to die in vain is sending more U.S. soldiers to die in vain.

Bush ponders $10 billion New Deal to create jobs in Iraq
quote:
The Sunday Times (UK) December 24, 2006

by Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE White House is expected to announce a reconstruction package for Iraq as part of a plan for a “surge” of up to 30,000 troops into Baghdad when President George W Bush unveils America’s new strategy next month.

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a “New Deal” that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression.

At the Pentagon, the joint chiefs of staff are insisting on reconstruction funds as part of a package of political and economic measures to accompany the armed forces. They fear the extra troops will be wasted and more lives lost if Bush relies purely on the military to pacify Iraq, according to sources close to General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff.

Military commanders have come round to the idea that an increase of troops is likely to form the backbone of Bush’s new strategy on Iraq. “People are warming to the idea that some sort of surge is necessary,” said a military official.

~~~snip~~~


More shades of things to come in southern Iraq

Joint U.S.-Iraqi policy is increasingly designed to go after Moqtada's militias. That tactic will only inflame the Shiites in southern Iraq and turn it into the same caldron of chaos that is current in Baghdad and Anbar. This is another big tactical error in the even bigger strategic error of going to war in Iraq. To wit:

Iraqi forces battle Shiite militia in southern Iraq
Posted 12/24/2006 7:15 AM ET

BAGHDAD (AP) — A suicide bomber killed at least seven Iraqi policemen northeast of Baghdad Sunday, as Iraqi police and soldiers battled Shiite militiamen in a southern city, authorities said.

~~~snip~~~

In the south, at least five police have been killed in Samawah, where Shiite fighters attacked police headquarters and other government buildings with rocket-propelled grenades. Police have been battling the fighters since Friday.

Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, spokesman for the Interior Ministry, did not identify the gunmen in Samawah, but police said they belonged to a militia formed by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Al-Sadr has lost control of some elements of his militia, and it was unclear whether the gunmen in Samawah considered themselves loyal to the cleric or were a renegade group intent on local control.

About 40 suspected militiamen were captured, a police official said on condition of anonymity out of concern for his safety.

Khalaf said tribal leaders were trying to intervene in an effort to stop the violence in Samawah, the capital of Muthana province, about 230 miles southeast of Baghdad.

Muthana was under control of British forces until July, when it became the first province to revert to Iraqi control.

Maj. Charlie Burbridge, a spokesman for British forces in the neighboring province of Basra, said no multinational forces are left in Muthana province.

"From time to time, there have been clashes there," he said. "There are often tribal clashes, and rogue militias often exacerbate the situation. But the problem isn't big enough for provincial authorities to request help from multinational forces."

~~~snip~~~

Gen. George (Custer) Casey called out!

Josh Marshall understands how the "game" is played. The opinion expressed by Gen. Casey and others in the chain of command are their "professional opinions" (that is if they to keep their jobs and their full retirement benefits) and not necessary their honest, personal, expert opinions. Fall in line!

Josh Marshall calls out General George (Custer) Casey!

Josh Marshall [Talking Points Memo] Saturday, December 23, 2006 -- 10:53 PM EDT
quote:
Sunday's New York Times reports that the top US commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., is now, as the article's headline puts it, "Open to Troop Surge."

Says a 'senior Defense Department official': “They are open to the possibility of some increase in force. They are supportive of taking steps to support the Iraqis in their plan, including the possible modest augmentation in U.S. combat forces.”

This is a silly game we now seem ready to play. In theory at least, senior military commanders give frank advice to the commander-in-chief. But the president is their ultimate superior in the chain of command. They work for him. So they do what he says. Period. The only real alternative is principled resignation. But let's not get distracted from the main point. It seems clear that most of the Army brass oppose an expanded troop presence in Iraq. As the Times notes, until recently, Casey himself has "argued that sending more American forces into Baghdad and Anbar Province, the two most violent regions of Iraq, would increase the Iraqi dependency on Washington, and in the words of one senior official, 'make this feel more like an occupation.'"

The premise of this narrative is that the president is slowly persuading the generals of the logic of his position that we should escalate the conflict in Iraq by inserting however many tens of thousands of new troops into the country. But the premise is bogus because it is the duty of the three and four star generals to come around after the president does not accept their contrary opinions. He's in charge. They're not in charge. That is how we all want it to work -- though, admittedly, it is somewhat harder to stomach when the president is a stubborn, serial bumbler.

Perhaps Casey really is changing his mind. But having no choice about the matter has a way of greasing the cognitive skids. And the long sought increase in the size of the Army makes the pill more digestible.

I know that in theory Casey could oppose the president's plan, honestly explain his opposition before Congress when called to testify and then dutifully execute it on the president's order. But that's not the real world. He adopts the president's position, gets Shinseki'd or resigns, with the first overwhelmingly likely, the second a distinct possibility and the third close to unheard of. Why muddy up an already complicated and grave situation by pretending anything else?

-- Josh Marshall


Saturday, December 23, 2006

Gates lies as cover for Bush to escalate war

The following Associated Press obligatory news story of Robert Gates briefing President Bush on his return from Iraq is agitprop and White House spin of the news. Robert Gates is lying when he claims to have a positive impression of Iraqi leaders' plans to address the sectarian violence. THERE IS NO PLAN. GATES IS LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH AND GIVING COVER FOR BUSH TO ESCALATE THIS WAR WITH FALSE HOPES AND MORE LIES.

This falls in the same category of manipulation of the news that Gates and reporters engaged in earlier in his visit to Iraq. Several U.S. troops told Gates they needed more help (i.e. more troops in Iraq). That was NOT a scientific sampling of the U.S. troops' sentiments regarding escalating this war. They were mere testimonials but when reported over and over it amounts to building a false consensus of opinion that the U.S. troops in Iraq are in favor of Bush sending more U.S. troops which is what Bush intended to do all along.

Lackadaisical and sloppy U.S. news coverage of this war amounts to the press being in bed with Bush. We don't need the press to be cheerleaders. We need the press to accurately report on this war. According to Jessica Tucker Matthews of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the press lags six months behind in reporting the actual situation on the ground in Iraq. It is far worse than ordinary Americans comprehend.

TWO news stories below. The first gives a false impression. The second reports the story accurately.

New Pentagon chief briefs Bush on Iraq
quote:
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
6:26 pm EST Sat 23 Dec 2006

President Bush, drafting an overhaul of his faltering and unpopular war plan, heard Saturday from a Pentagon chief who had just returned from Iraq with a positive impression of Iraqi leaders' plans to address sectarian violence.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates finished his first week on the job by delivering a report to Bush on the three days he spent talking with Iraqi leaders, U.S. commanders and American soldiers. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, who traveled with Gates to Iraq, helped make the presentation.

The early-morning meeting at Camp David in Maryland's mountains lasted about an hour. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Hadley's deputy, J.D. Crouch, who is coordinating the administration's Iraq review, also participated.

~~~snip~~~

While in Baghdad, Gates did praise Iraqi leaders for having "some concrete plans in mind" to deal with the deadly militias that have brought the country to the brink of civil war between the Shiite majority and Sunni minority.


Shiite cleric won't support coalition
quote:
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
11:10 am EST Sat 23 Dec 2006

Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric withheld support Saturday for a U.S.-backed plan to build a coalition across sectarian lines, Shiite lawmakers said, jeopardizing hopes that such a show of political unity could help stem the country's deadly violence.

Members of the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition that dominates parliament, met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf after traveling to the holy city over the past few days. Al-Sistani holds no political post and rarely emerges from his home and adjacent office, but he has strong influence over Shiite politics.

Some members of the Shiite alliance have sought a coalition that would include Kurds and Sunnis, and sideline Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose militia is blamed for much of Iraq's sectarian violence. Lawmakers who attended the meeting with al-Sistani said the cleric opposed any move that would divide Shiites.

"There are obstacles in the face of forming this coalition, because al-Sistani does not support it. So we will work to strengthen the (Shiite) alliance," said Hassan al-Sunnaid, of the Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Ali al-Adib, also a Dawa Party member, said al-Sistani "does not support such blocs because they will break Shiite unity."

An official close to al-Sistani, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the cleric "will not bless nor support any new bloc or front. He only supports the unity of the Shiites."

Such a development could frustrate U.S.-backed efforts to persuade Iraq's political leaders to set aside sectarian interests and work together for the sake of national unity. Without progress in Iraqi politics, some observers say, the security situation in the country is likely to remain tenuous.

Al-Maliki, the Shiite prime minister, had relied heavily on the support of al-Sadr, whose 30 loyalists in the 275-seat parliament and six ministers in the 38-member Cabinet boycotted politics after al-Maliki met Bush in Jordan recently.

Al-Sadr's walkout revealed the depth of division within the 130-seat Shiite bloc in parliament, where some lawmakers who are viewed as moderate have grown weary of the radical cleric's confrontational tactics. Al-Sistani is also believed to be uncomfortable with the younger al-Sadr, a firebrand whose fighters waged battles against American troops that left parts of Najaf in ruins.

After meeting al-Sistani, the Shiite lawmakers visited al-Sadr. The cleric has agreed to allow his supporters to rejoin the government, officials close to him have said. Their walkout had prevented the government from passing laws, creating a political deadlock alongside a deteriorating security environment.

"Our meeting with Muqtada al-Sadr was successful and fruitful. There were common points of understanding between us, and we assured the unity of the (United Iraqi) Alliance," said Khaled al-Attiya, an independent who is parliament's deputy speaker.

"He will give his final decision to rejoin the government and parliament after Eid al-Adha," al-Attiya said, referring to the Islamic calendar's most important holiday, which Iraq's Shiites will celebrate from Dec. 31 to Jan. 4.

However, the meeting ended with one Dawa party participant saying only that it was "constructive."

~~~snip~~~

Gates briefs Bush on Iraq visit
quote:
Last Updated: Saturday, 23 December 2006, 19:07 GMT - BBC News

New US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has briefed President George W Bush about his recent trip to Iraq, as the White House considers a policy shift.

Mr Gates went to the presidential retreat at Camp David, near Washington, to report on his three days in Iraq.

Mr Bush has conceded that the US is not winning in Iraq, and sent Mr Gates to assess the situation on the ground.

The defence secretary said Iraqi leaders had "concrete plans" to end escalating sectarian violence.

In the New Year President Bush is expected to announce a short-term increase in US forces in Iraq.

White House spokesman Tony Snow told reporters on Wednesday that such a deployment was "something that's being explored".

~~~snip~~~