Bush bungles, Iran ascendant

Iran did not invade Iraq and create the chaos there. George W. Bush and American neocons did. Even U.S. allies in the region are alarmed and point out Bush's bungling. With the multicourse meal for the U.S. military which Richard Lugar piles on our plate in the final article below, it is no wonder we a chocking: "We need a plan to move U.S. forces to defend oil assets, target terrorists, deter adventurism by Iran and provide a buffer against Mideast sectarian conflict." My God! Beyond Baghdad indeed! How about Beyond Lugar? Better yet, how about Beyond Bush!

THREE highly relevant and topical articles follow. Nobody's going along with Bush's bombast and buildup up for more bombs and bloodshed.

Europe Resists U.S. Push to Curb Iran Ties

quote:

---

By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran.

~~~snip~~~

---

With Iran Ascendant, U.S. Is Seen at Fault

quote:

---

Arab Allies in Region Feeling Pressure

By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, January 30, 2007; A01

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates -- Kuwait rarely rebuffs its ally, the United States, partly out of gratitude for the 1991 Persian Gulf War. But in October it reneged on a pledge to send three military observers to an American-led naval exercise in the Gulf, according to U.S. officials and Kuwaiti analysts.

"We understood," a State Department official said. "The Kuwaitis were being careful not to antagonize the Iranians."

Four years after the United States invaded Iraq, in part to transform the Middle East, Iran is ascendant, many in the region view the Americans in retreat, and Arab countries, their own feelings of weakness accentuated, are awash in sharpening sectarian currents that many blame the United States for exacerbating.

Iran has deepened its relationship with Palestinian Islamic groups, assuming a financial role once filled by Gulf Arab states, in moves it sees as defensive and the United States views as aggressive. In Lebanon and Iraq, Iran is fighting proxy battles against the United States with funds, arms and ideology. And in the vacuum created by the U.S. overthrow of Iranian foes in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is exerting a power and prestige that recalls the heady days of the 1979 Islamic revolution, when Iranian clerics led the toppling of a U.S.-backed government.

"The United States is the first to be blamed for the rise of Iranian influence in the Middle East," said Khaled al-Dakhil, a Saudi writer and academic. "There is one thing important about the ascendance of Iran here. It does not reflect a real change in Iranian capabilities, economic or political. It's more a reflection of the failures on the part of the U.S. and its Arab allies in the region."

Added Eyal Zisser, head of the Middle Eastern and African Studies Department at Tel Aviv University in Israel: "After the whole investment in democracy in the region, the West is losing, and Iran is winning."

The United States has signaled a more aggressive posture toward Iran. ...

~~~snip~~~

---

Beyond Baghdad Richard G. Lugar [Washington Post] 30 January 2007 We need a plan to move U.S. forces to defend oil assets, target terrorists, deter adventurism by Iran and provide a buffer against Mideast sectarian conflict. (registratration required but free)

Ban cluster bombs

Israel's use of cluster bombs is also covered here: Israeli war crimes continue [Augusta Chronicle Forum]

As usual, the U.S. ain't going to do a damn thing to punish Israel or to prevent them from doing the same thing again. This is why the U.S. is complicit in Israeli war crimes (and yes, Hezbollah was also guilty of war crimes). One war crime does not justify another war crime. If the U.S. had an unambiguous policy on human rights we would have the moral high ground to levy criticsm and sanctions on others. We do not sanction ourselves or our allies when we violate human rights. Therefore we cannot honestly criticize or condemn our adversaries for similar violations.

Also, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack's statement in the last quoted paragraph of the Reuters story below in which he asserts that Hezbollah used civilians as human shields is completely unsubstantiated AFAIK.

Israel's use of cluster bombs from U.S. examined

quote:

---

POSTED: 0245 GMT (1045 HKT), January 27, 2007

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• U.S. says Israel may have violated agreement by using clusters in Lebanon
• U.S. supplied the bombs, which have killed more than 20 people since end of war
• Israel says it "acted as any government would in ... self-defense"
• Congress expected to be notified of the situation Monday

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The Bush administration will notify Congress Monday that Israel may have violated agreements with Washington when it fired U.S.-supplied cluster munitions into Lebanon in its war with Hezbollah last summer, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.

Citing State Department officials who spoke Saturday, the Times said the preliminary findings had spawned a sharp debate -- which one official characterized as "head-butting" -- within the administration over whether Washington should penalize its ally for using cluster munitions in towns and villages where Hezbollah guerrillas placed rocket launchers.

The Times reported some midlevel Pentagon and State Department officials contended Israel violated U.S. prohibitions on using cluster munitions against populated areas.

Other officials in the two departments argue Israel used the arms in self-defense to stop Hezbollah's rocket attacks, which would amount to a technical violation at most.

Cluster bombs are small explosive devices that are released from a projectile and are dispersed and supposed to explode on hitting the ground. But many remain unexploded. More than 20 people have been killed and 70 wounded by cluster bombs since the end of the war in August. Israel has said it only deploys them in accordance with international law.

Several U.S. officials said they expected little further action on the matter, the Times said. One option being considered was barring additional sales of cluster munitions for a set period, one official told the paper.

The State Department began investigating the matter in August. Spokesman Sean McCormack said Congress would be informed Monday of preliminary findings on possible violations of the Arms Export Control Act, which governs arms sales, but a final determination was still being debated.

"It is important to remember the kind of war Hezbollah waged," the Times quoted McCormack as saying. "They used innocent civilians as a way to shield their fighters."

~~~snip~~~

---

As usual liberal catnip has the common sense solution:

It's simple: Ban Cluster Bombs by liberal catnip - Saturday, January 27, 2007

Top US surgeon killed in Iraq

The price of the war on Iraq is already far too high, and it becomes even higher by the minute. There will be no U.S. "victory" in Iraq.

Top U.S. surgeon in Iraq killed in crash

quote:

---

By JEFF LATZKE, Associated Press Writer
9:46 am EST Thursday 25 January 2007

The top U.S. surgeon in Iraq was among the 12 soldiers killed when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed near Baghdad, the Pentagon confirmed this week.

Col. Brian D. Allgood, whose father and two uncles served in Vietnam, had spent more than 20 years in the military.

"Brian was a wonderful human being," his mother, Cleo Allgood, told The Gazette of Colorado Springs, Colo. "He was a wonderful brother, son, husband and father. He just was a giving person who served his country."

Allgood, 46, had been serving in Iraq for about six months before the crash Saturday, said his uncle, Dr. Richard Allgood of Lawton.

~~~SNIP~~~

He was one of two active-duty soldiers killed in Saturday's crash. The 10 other soldiers were members of the National Guard, making it the deadliest single combat incident for the Guard since at least the Korean War of 1950-1953, Mark Allen, a National Guard Bureau spokesman, said Thursday.

---

Rush to war with Iran

Hat tip Josh Marshall

Stop the Iran War Before It Starts by jjjyoung [Daily Kos diary] Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 10:05:03 PM PST - Scott Ritter warned about the consequences of a rush to war with Iraq. Now he warns of a rush to war with Iran.

The follow articles by Andrew Sullivan and Josh Marhshall offer cogent analyses - not for intellectually challenged reptile brains that can't rub two neurons together.

Allawi on Plus Up [Andrew Sullivan] Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Here's is Sullivan's "money quote" from an interview of Ayad Allawi by The National Interest (nationalinterest.org):

quote:

---

Ayad Allawi: I’m not a military strategist, but looking at it on the surface, I think 20,000 additional troops to complement the 130,000 already there doesn’t seem to be a great boost in the troop numbers. So I don’t think it’s purely a military gesture, and I don’t think it will have a very significant effect on the military equation.

But it’s part of a multi-pronged strategy that basically will ratchet up the pressure on the Iraqi government, propose an alternative to it, and at the same time escalate the costs that Iran may have to bear if it continues to confront or challenge the United States in Iraq.

National Interest: So in your view, the troop increase is in part intended to ratchet up the pressure on Iran, could you elaborate on that?

AA: Well I think it’s clear—the role that Iran has in the Iraqi crisis. It is extremely important and significant, particularly its effect on the Shi‘a Islamist political parties.

And as much as the United States, or the Bush Administration, has objected to possibility of negotiations with Iran, the only alternative course that they have is to confront it, and to challenge it, and to raise the cost of its apparent intervention in the Iraqi crisis.

This of course creates a serious problem for the Iraqi government itself, which is to an extent anchored around the Islamist parties of the United Iraqi Alliance. On the surface it appears to be a contradiction. I mean how can the United States expect that by confronting Iran and Iraq, it is going to get the support of the UIA, which is to some extent dependent on Iranian support—ongoing support—politically and otherwise?

So it’s a way of trying to break this conundrum. Now I don’t think it’s likely to succeed because the only thing that can happen out of this strategy is basically the breakup of the United Iraqi Alliance. You are going to get possibly a new governing majority in parliament, but that would not necessarily reduce the violence or the instability inside the country.

Iraq’s State of DisUnion [The National Interest] 01.24.2007

---

Practice to Deceive Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. By Joshua Micah Marshall [Washington Monthly] April 2003

Has U.S. sided with Shiites?

We heard about "The Salvador Option" shortly before death squads emerged in Iraq. We have heard about the "surge option" which Bush was preordained to choose as the entree for his meal of bloody sacrifice. We heard about the "Darwin option" which would be mean that U.S. forces would stand back and allow Shiites and Sunnis to fight it out - survival of the fitess being the law of George of the Junge. And we heard about the "pick the winning side and back them option".

Inside Iraq, Shiites certainly can dominate the Sunnis, but in the wider Muslim world Sunnis outnumber Shiites by 9 to 1. Saudi Arabia is unlikely to standby while Shiites decimate Sunnis inside Iraq. They are unlikely to intervene directly, but they will arm and finance Sunni militias in any showdown scenario.

My working hypothesis is that Bush and Maliki are playing each other for fools. Bush pretends to "have confidence" that Maliki will crack down on Shiite militias AFTER he cracks down on Sunni militias. Of course Maliki will never get around to the latter. Will Bush let the Shiites (and Iran by proxy) win the battle for Iraq? Not No, but Hell No.

When Maliki refuses to go after Shiites (despite publicized ruses that he is) then Bush will have "no choice" but to engineer the overthrow of Maliki, help put a pro-U.S. "strongman" like Iyad Allawi in power as part of a government of "national salvation", blame Iran for interference in Iraq, and strike Iran.

The first part of that sequence is underway (attacks on Sunni strongholds) and plans are underway for the denouement (strikes on Iran). BTW, there is scant evidence that Iran is suppling advanced weaponry such as tank piercing IEDs to Iraq (see article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times). Bush never lets the evidence get in his way.

Iraqi, US forces battle insurgents in Baghdad Sunni bastion

quote:

---

AFP 4:40 am EST Wed 24 Jan 2007

A steady barrage of machine-gun fire and mortars was thundering across Baghdad as Iraqi and US forces battled insurgents in one of the capital's Sunni bastions.

Iraqi and US troops with air support from US Apache helicopter gunships fought insurgents in central Baghdad's Haifa Street district in a raging battle that began early in the day.

The US military said Iraqi and US soldiers had launched "Operation Tomahawk Strike 11 on Haifa Street, conducting targeted raids to disrupt illegal militia activity and help restore Iraq security force control in the area".

After a lull that lasted more than an hour, sporadic mortar fire resumed in the area along with occasional automatic weapons fire, as US combat helicopters patrolled overhead.

Iraqi security officials said US aircraft were also reported to have fired on insurgents.

Six "terrorists" and three other suspects were arrested and large caches of weapons seized inside Al-Karkh Middle School, which is located on Haifa Street, a defense ministry source said.

The street lies within two kilometres (just over a mile) of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, the seat of the Iraqi government and US embassy.

A few weeks ago a similar firefight broke out on Haifa Street between Iraqi soldiers and insurgents, and left 50 militants dead. Dozens of insurgents were arrested, including some alleged foreign fighters.

The US choppers also flew over over Al-Fadel, a district on the east side of the Tigris river that is another Sunni stronghold in Baghdad.

On Monday, a Blackwater private security helicopter crashed in Fadel, killing five people, a US defense official said.

US military and private security helicopters circled over the area for several hours as heavy machine-gun fire was heard.

Founded in 1977 by a former US Navy Seal, Blackwater is the most sophisticated private security company operating in Iraq, with its own aircraft and a staff comprised mostly of former American soldiers from elite units.

~~~snip~~~

---

U.S. warns Iran to back down

quote:

---

Posted on Tue, Jan. 23, 2007

JIM KRANE
Associated Press

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group now steaming toward the Middle East is Washington's way of warning Iran to back down in its attempts to dominate the region, a top U.S. diplomat said here Tuesday.

Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, ruled out direct negotiations with Iran and said a rapprochement between Washington and Tehran was "not possible" until Iran halts uranium enrichment.

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Burns said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank.

"Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us," Burns continued.

~~~snip~~~

---

Dossier on Generals Petraeus & Odierno

I have seen references to Gen. Raymond Odierno being a badass counterinsurgent commander circa the time of Abu Ghraib. More on that later. We begin with two dossiers on Gen. David Petraeus. BTW, Tall Afar did not work out to be the success story it is being portrayed as. David Petraeus is kinda like former Secretary of Education Rod Paige in this respect. His statistical data is forged!

In 2004, General Now Leading Escalation Lauded Progress of Iraqi Security Forces, Predicted Success [Think Progress] 2007/01/22

The Overrated General Petraeus By William M. Arkin | January 5, 2007 Registration may be required but it is free.

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

The Blame Game, Blind President

George W. Bush does not accept real responsibility. He plays a buck passing blame game. He doesn't listen to expert advice or seek timely intelligence estimates. George W. Bush is like Rush Limbaugh. He is working with half his brain tied behind his back while the other half is in the trash can.

Bush never seriously considered any other strategy in dealing with Iraq than what HE personally wants to do. Bush is his same old badass self, but it isn't his personal ass that is getting stomped in Iraq. Bush is The Decider. Other Americans follow his lame orders and die in ever increasing numbers.

William Arkin writes that David Petraeus is over-rated. Raymond Odierno's reputation for brutality precedes him. Counter-insurgency isn't pretty. The United States will not prevail in Iraq because our war there is unjust. Aggressors are always repulsed. Too bad we have to go through this stupid and mean as hell drill. Korea and Vietnam should have made us more mature. We have not learned our historical lessons. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are bad students of history. They just don't care.

The Commander-in-Chief is already disputing Gen. George Casey's assertion that the surge of troops into Iraq will begin a drawdown in late summer if it is successful. President Bush says no timetable will be set, but he has exactly two years left in office. That is a timetable, by God, whether Bush likes it or not. I think Casey's chances of becoming Army chief of staff are virtually nil in the face of Bush's contradicting him as well as McCain and Lindsey Graham questioning whether he should be confirmed. In other words, Casey is a scapegoat plain and simple. Now the onus is on two badass counterinsurgency generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.

Bush rejects timetable for pullout from Iraq

quote:

---

by Maxim Kniazkov
AFP 4:00 am EST Mon 22 Jan 2007

US President George W. Bush has distanced himself from predictions US troops could begin leaving Iraq by late summer, stating bluntly he would accept no timetable for such a pullout.

"We don't set timetables in this administration because an enemy will adjust their tactics based upon perceived action by the United States," Bush told the USA Today newspaper.

~~~snip~~~

---

We don't need no stinkin' National Intelligence Report!

Talking Points Memo

quote:

---

(January 21, 2007 -- 11:59 PM EDT)

Remember the long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that the Bush Administration managed to push off completing until after the election? Well, the Administration has slow-rolled completion of the NIE past the introduction of the surge and the State of the Union address, according to Ken Silverstein at Harper's:

The situation came to a head last week, during a closed-door session of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This committee expected to be briefed on the long-awaited NIE by an official from the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which coordinates NIEs by gathering input from all of the nation's various intelligence agencies. But the NIC official turned up empty-handed and told the committee that the intelligence community hadn't been able to complete the NIE because of the many demands placed upon it by the Bush Administration to help prepare the new military strategy on Iraq. He then said that not all of the relevant agencies had offered input into the NIE process, and thus it had proven impossible to put together a finished product.

Why, yes, of course. They were too busy rolling out what they're calling a new Iraq policy to prepare the NIE which should inform creation of that new policy. That tells you everything you need to know about the surge.

-- David Kurtz

---

3 alarming news stories

I find the following 3 news stories alarming - each in its own right. Bush overides the decision of the democratically elected Prime Minister of a nominally "sovereign" Iraq in the first story. The second news story below alarms because freedom of expression is curtailed when the Secret Service wastes its time tracking down the writer of a letter to the editor which indirectly implied that George W. Bush should have been hanged instead of Saddam Hussein or for writing that Americans should rise up in civil war to unseat Bush. The third news story is part of an orchestrated effort to blame U.S. military leaders for Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush's and his Secretary of War - I mean Defense - Donald Rumfeld's decision to try to pull off the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq on the cheap without sufficient forces. I think top military brass should have resigned in protest rather than follow Bush's order to launch an illegal war, but I oppose efforts to make Gen. George Custer - I mean Casey - or anybody else a scapegoat or fall guy. The disasterous decision to go to war in the manner we did rests squarely on the shoulders of the Commander-in-Chief and no one else.

Iraqi PM told Bush to withdraw US troops from Baghdad

quote:

---

AFP 3:30 pm EST Sun 21 Jan 2007

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proposed to President George W. Bush in November to withdraw US troops from Baghdad and let the Iraqi government take over security in the capital, a US newspaper reported.

Citing interviews with several unnamed administration officials, the Washington Post wrote that Maliki made the suggestion in a presentation to Bush on November 30 in Amman, Jordan.

But soon after, Bush rejected the idea, the paper said.

Instead, the president opted for a strategy announced this month to deploy an additional 21,500 US troops to Iraq, focusing on quelling sectarian violence in Baghdad and the western al-Anbar province.

~~~snip~~~

---

Pa. man's letter brings Secret Service

quote:

---

AP 2:52 pm EST Sun 21 Jan 2007

An elderly man who wrote in a letter to the editor about Saddam Hussein's execution that "they hanged the wrong man" got a visit from Secret Service agents concerned he was threatening President Bush.

The letter by Dan Tilli, 81, was published in Monday's edition of The Express-Times of Easton, Pa. It ended with the line, "I still believe they hanged the wrong man."

Tilli said the statement was not a threat. "I didn't say who — I could've meant (Osama) bin Laden," he said Friday.

Two Secret Service agents questioned Tilli at his Bethlehem apartment Thursday, briefly searching the place and taking pictures of him, he said.

The Secret Service confirmed the encounter. Bob Slama, special agent in charge of the Secret Service's Philadelphia office, said it was the agency's duty to investigate.

The agents almost immediately decided Tilli was not a threat, Slama said

"We have no further interest in Dan," he said.

Tilli said the agents appeared more relaxed when he dug out a scrapbook containing more than 200 letters that he has written over the years, almost all on political topics.

"He said, 'Keep writing, but just don't make no threats,'" Tilli said of one of the agents.

It wasn't Tilli's first run-in with the federal government over his letter writing. Two FBI agents from Allentown showed up at his home last year about a letter he wrote advocating a civil war to unseat Bush, he said.

---

McCain casts doubt on Gen. Casey as U.S. Army head

quote:

---

By Donna Smith
Reuters 3:09 pm EST Sun 21 Jan 2007

Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain on Sunday said he might vote against Gen. George W. Casey's nomination as Army chief of staff, saying he had "serious concerns" about the man who has overseen the Iraq war since 2004.

"I have very serious concerns about General Casey's nomination," McCain said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I'm concerned about failed leadership, the message that sends to the rest of the military," he added.

McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and 2008 presidential hopeful, is a major advocate of President George W. Bush's plan to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to try to quell the sectarian violence there, an idea that had been resisted by Casey.

Bush named Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to take over in Iraq and nominated Casey to become Army chief of staff.

The Armed Services Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Petraeus this week. Petraeus enjoys strong congressional support and McCain said he fully backs him.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told CNN's "Late Edition" that he thought Casey would be confirmed by the Senate, but Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Casey will face tough scrutiny.

~~~snip~~~

---

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

Generalissimo Genius George

What Wabbits has Generalissimo Genius George got Weft up his sleeve? When The Decider's Surge Option falls flat as it surely will, what then? The Man has pretty much managed to alienate about everyone.

First, there was the deBaathification campaign, and the war on the Sunni insurgency. Since then Genius George has angered the Kurds by an assault on the Iranian consulate on Kurdish territory in Irbil, Iraq where he ordered the arrest of Iranian guests of the Kurdish government.

Now Whim-shot is busy alienating Shiites including not only Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki who resents Duh-bya's decision to surge more U.S. troops in Baghdad, Bush is busy alienating other Shiite leaders as the article below attests.

Junior has two cards left up his gambler's sleeve IMO. First, Bush can still engineer the downfall and replacement of Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Second, Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush can manufacture a pretext to attack Iran.

There are efforts underway in the U.S. Congress to put conditions or sanctions on Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq and pending legislation that would demand he get Congressional approval before attacking Iran. Now, we have the distinct displease of being witness to Genius George at work as he fiddles with our future and the fundamentals of our democracy.

My question is what will Genius George do if the sovereign and democratically elected government of Iraq demands that all United States forces leave Iraq? What would Generalissimo Genius George decide to do then?

Top Iraqi condemns US over Iran

quote:

---

Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 January 2007, 13:17 GMT - BBC News

One of Iraq's most powerful Shia politicians has condemned the arrest of Iranians by US forces in Iraq as an attack on the country's sovereignty.

The comments by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, made in a BBC interview, are seen as the strongest expression yet of Iraq's concern about the US approach to Iran.

They follow two recent US raids in which Iranians were arrested.

The remarks are interesting as Mr Hakim is seen as close to President Bush, says the BBC's Andrew North in Baghdad.

Late last year, US troops descended on Mr Hakim's residential compound in Baghdad and detained two Iranian officials.

They were later released, but last week, five more were detained at the Iranian liaison office in Irbil. They are still being held.

US officials say they are linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which they allege trains and arms Iraqi insurgents.

Iran, which has demanded their immediate release, says they are diplomats engaged in legitimate work.

"Regardless of the Iranian position we consider these actions as incorrect," Mr Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told the BBC.

"They represent a kind of attack on Iraq's sovereignty and we hope such things are not repeated."

On Sunday, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that Iraq needed a constructive relationship with Iran.

"We can't change the geographical reality that Iran is our neighbour. This is a delicate balance and we are treading a very thin line."

We fully respect the views, policies and strategy of the United States, which is the strongest ally to Iraq, but the Iraqi government has national interests of its own," Mr Zebari said.

---

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

email to Rep. John Barrow

John Barrow represents the 12th congressional district in Georgia. Here is an email I sent him this morning Wednesday 17 January 2007:


Dear Congressman Barrow,

It does not take a high powered analyst to deduce that President Bush's plan to surge troops into Baghdad and Anbar does not have a chance in hell of succeeding. A truck bomb in Kirkuk today and previous indications that this disputed oil rich city and region would be another flashpoint have been clearly evident for some time. President Bush offers no reality based evidence for his belief that his plan will succeed. I guarantee it won't.

Therefore, Congressman Barrow, what is the duty of the patriotic and informed opposition in this country? I wrote you December 15, 2006 asking that you support an immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq. You replied you cannot support an immediate withdrawal or arbitrary timetable. I dispute your use of the word "arbitrary" but you did say you support a "blueprint" and a series of "benchmarks" for what we hope to accomplish in Iraq. I say your choice of those words and the concepts behind them are nebulous and arbitrary in themselves. You also say you support training more Iraqis. For what? So they can be better killers in their respective militias?

Sometimes whittling at the margins is effective. I understand your district and your
position - and I will continue to support you - but my support is not without limits. I support defunding the failed U.S. war in Iraq. This was done in Vietnam. I support Rep. Dennis Kucinich's efforts and Rep. Walter Jones' efforts and Sen. Christopher Dodds' efforts. Kucinich wants to cut funds, not to undermine the troops - there should be plenty of funding to keep them safe and to get them out of harms way - but to limit any escalation or expansion of this war. It is time to de-escalate. I support Rep. Walter Jones' legislation demanding that the Commander-in-Chief get Congressional approval before attacking Iran, and I support Sen. Chris Dodd's legislation that Congress authorize any surge of additional U.S. troops into Iraq.

Peace out, Congressman Barrow, peace out. As long as I live I will not forget how you vote on upcoming legislation related to the U.S. war in Iraq.

Respecfully yours,
John Randolph Hardison Cain

Kirkuk will be flashpoint

This is the latest entry in a thread I began on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled
Kirkuk will be flashpoint:

Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush's plan to surge 17,500 additional U.S. troops in Baghdad and 4,000 more U.S. troops into Anbar province does nothing to quell violence in many other parts of Iraq including the disputed oil rich city of Kirkuk and surrounding oil rich region. More blood evidence of this surfaced today, and as anyone who reads this thread can tell, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that security in Baghdad (were it possible with only 17,500 extra troops) is not the key to stemming growing violence in the rest of Iraq. He ain't known as Duh-bya for nothing!

Suicide truck bomb hits police in Iraq's Kirkuk

quote:

---

Reuters 5:17 am EST Wed 17 Jan 2007

A suicide bomber driving a truck packed with explosives hit a police station in central Kirkuk on Wednesday and residents reported many casualties, though police had no immediate details on the dead and wounded.

A police source said many buildings in the area suffered severe damage from the blast, but declined to confirm reports of casualties. One resident of the northern Iraqi city told Reuters he saw many casualties lying in the street and several buildings had collapsed.

Sitting atop one of the world's richest oil fields, Kirkuk is just outside the borders of the largely autonomous Kurdistan region and its population is a volatile mix of Kurds, Turkmen and Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs.

~~~snip~~~

---

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

Rush to war with Iran (cont'd)

The posted below is the latest entry in a thread I began on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled Rush to war with Iran (cont'd) :

The kindling behavior preceding outbreak of hostilities with Iran is clearly building. To wit:

I have never claimed that U.S. military casualty statistics is the sum total of how the U.S. war in Iraq is progressing. Without diminishing the death of every precious life, 3020 would be a small price to pay as a nation in a just war of self-defense. We are invoved in a war of hegemony. The price that America is paying is far too high, and it pales in comparison to the price that Iraqis are paying by having a U.S. war of aggression foisted upon them.

Here is the state of affairs as of 16 January 2007. The Sunnis are outraged over the botched executions of Saddam Hussein and two of his hinchmen. The Kurds have both an historical and an ongoing relationship with neighboring Iran. The Kurds, our closest allies in Iraq, are outraged by U.S. actions against Iranian consular officials in Arbil, Iraq. The Kurds also do not want the U.S. fighting a proxy war aginst Iran in Iraq or in Kurdish territory. They don't like that prospect on bit.

Finally, the Shiites are outraged because we won't let them control affairs in Iraq. They won in the elections. The Iraq Prime Minister is a Shiite. The Shiites have close historical and ongoing ties with Iran. News reports say that Iranian intelligence is set to take over in southern Iraq. There is no doubt that United States will engineer the removal of Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in short order because there is no evidence whatsoever that he will move against Shiite militias in Iraq including those militias alligned with Moqtada al Sadr.

The United States has moved naval forces into the Persian Gulf with the express purpose of targeting Iran's "very negative" behavior according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. So, although U.S. casualties are down at the moment - and that is good - the situation in Iraq and the region is more dire than ever - something like the calm before the storm IMHO.

Iran target of US Gulf military moves, Gates says

quote:

---

Mark Tran and agencies
Monday January 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Increased US military activity in the Gulf is aimed at Iran's "very negative" behaviour, the Bush administration said today.

The defence secretary, Robert Gates, told reporters that the decision to deploy a Patriot missile battalion and a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in conjunction with a "surge" of troops in Iraq was designed to show Iran that the US was not "overcommitted" in Iraq.

Speaking in Brussels after meeting Nato officials, Mr Gates said: "We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future."

~~~snip~~~

---

Iraq edges closer to Iran, with or without the U.S.

quote:

---

By Louise Roug and Borzou Daragahi
Los Angels Times Staff Writers

January 16, 2007

BAGHDAD — The Iraqi government is moving to solidify relations with Iran, even as the United States turns up the rhetorical heat and bolsters its military forces to confront Tehran's influence in Iraq.

Iraq's foreign minister, responding to a U.S. raid on an Iranian office in Irbil in northern Iraq last week, said Monday that the government intended to transform similar Iranian agencies into consulates. The minister, Hoshyar Zebari, also said the government planned to negotiate more border entry points with Iran.

The U.S. military is still holding five Iranians detained in Thursday's raid. Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, said records seized in the raid and statements made by the detainees showed that at least some of them worked for Iran's intelligence service.

"I don't think there is any disagreement on the fact that these folks that we have captured are foreign intelligence agents in this country, working with Iraqis to destabilize Iraq and target coalition forces that are here at Iraq's request," Casey said Monday.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, added, "We are going after their networks in Iraq."

Iraqis, who have echoed Tehran's calls for the U.S. to release the five men, say the three-way standoff that has ensued reveals more about American meddling in Iraqi affairs than about Iranian influence.

"We, as Iraqis, have our own interest," Zebari said in an interview with The Times. "We are bound by geographic destiny to live with" Iran, adding that the Iraqi government wanted "to engage them constructively."

Zebari's comments reinforced the growing differences between the Iraqi government's approach and that of the Bush administration, which has rejected calls by the nonpartisan Iraq Study Group to open talks with Iran and Syria.

Administration officials accuse Iran of sowing anarchy and violence in the region.

Zebari's remarks came two days after Iraq and Iran announced a security agreement. "Terrorism threatens not only Iraq but all the regional countries," Iranian radio reported Sherwan Waili, Iraq's national security minister, as saying.

The overtures to Tehran also followed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's appointment last week of a security commander for Baghdad over the objections of U.S. officials, who favored another candidate.

American officials oppose the presence in Iraq of Iranian officials and members of the Revolutionary Guard, which is controlled by religious hard-liners in Iran. Washington and Tehran have been at odds for decades and are in a standoff over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But to Iraq, Iran is its biggest trading partner and a source of tourist revenue, mainly from the thousands of Shiite Muslim pilgrims who travel to the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala every year.

In Iraq's semiautonomous Kurdish north, much of the economy is founded on trade with Iran and the smuggling of contraband into the Islamic Republic. Since the 1979 founding of Iran's theocracy, Kurdistan has been a transit point for banned alcohol, movies and satellite dishes.

A blow to the economy

The U.S. raid on the Iranian office, which handled visas and other paperwork for Iraqis traveling to Iran, struck at the heart of Kurdistan's economy, which depends on commercial ties with Iran facilitated through that office.

~~~snip~~~

---

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

The Decider has decided

Today is Sunday, January 14, 2007. On Monday or Tuesday of last week, January 8 or 9, 2007, White House spokesman and former FOX News talking head Tony Snow remonstrated for Americans to wait until they heard President Bush's "new" plan for Iraq before they rushed to judgement.

On Wednesday, January 10, 2007 President Bush gave a televised speech in which he announced his decision to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into Iraq.

On Saturday, June 13, 2007 President Bush said it is incumbent on Americans (including members of Congress) who are critical of his plan to escalate the war in Iraq to submit their alternative plans that will succeed.

Then on Sunday, January 14, 2007 just 4 days after his long awaited speech to the nation on his new policy decision on Iraq, President Bush states that no matter what Congress or the American people say, he has decided the course of action for this country. Case closed.

There you have it. We were told to hold our horses until The Decider decides. Then we were told it isn't appropriate to criticize The Decider's plan unless we have an alternative plan. Then the Decider decides that time is up, he has already decided our future.

Wait a minute President Bush! Wait a minute Tony Snow! I don't think you can shut off discussion and potential dissent with perfunctory dismissal of criticism and perfunctory dismissal of alternative strategies. Not without a hell of fight from fedup Americans anyway.

Bush On Iraq: 'I've Made My Decision'

quote:

---

WISN - The Milwaukee News Channel

POSTED: 6:01 pm CST January 14, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Members of the House and Senate are preparing nonbinding resolutions opposing the deployment of more U.S. troops to Iraq, but President George W. Bush said it won't stop him from going ahead with it.

In an interview Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Bush said he understands that Congress could try to stop him. But he said, "I've made my decision."

~~~snip~~~

---

Bush talks tough in case for troop boost

quote:

---

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
10:08 pm EST Sun 14 January 2007

Digging in for confrontation, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney say they will not budge from sending more U.S. troops to Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it.

"I fully understand they could try to stop me," Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. "But I've made my decision, and we're going forward."

As the president talked tough in an interview that aired Sunday night, lawmakers pledged to explore ways to stop him.

~~~snip~~~

---

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

Bush in the bunker

The man is isolated and awaits the coup de grâce. The next stop for Bush after the bunker is the abbatoir and then the dustbin of history will be his final repose.

Frank Rich: Aside from Laura and Barney, who's in the bunker with Bush? [via Raw Story] Published: Saturday January 13, 2007

The collapse of the Bush presidency poses risks by Glenn Greenwald - Sunday, January 14, 2007

Greg Palast writes on Bush's urge to surge:

Waist Deep in the Big Muddy By Greg Palast [GregPalast.com] Thursday 11 January 2007



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

Der Führer's Plan for Iraq

The self-declared "Wartime President", Commander-in-Chief, and supreme Unitary Executive George W. Bush's plan for Iraq from the gitgo has been a permanent U.S. military occupation of that country. If Iraqis were compliant and Iraq was pacified, Der Führer would be "satisfied" to run the country from within permanent U.S. bases in Iraq which would be used to project U.S. airpower and military operations throughout the entire Middle East. Der Führer would be content to have the Iraqi oil industry controlled from within The Green Zone and sold off to western oil companies. But things haven't exactly gone as Der Führer planned.

George W. Bush has repeatedly lied and changed his story at will to fit the situation.

George W. Bush plainly stated the should the U.S. mission fail in Iraq he would not leave American troops in the line of fire. That mission failed a long time ago. Bush had denied civil war in Iraq and is sending U.S. troops in to separate warring Shiites from Sunnis.

Now President Bush has a "new" strategy (which is just a reworked tactic) of sending in more U.S. troops to secure Baghdad. And if that fails, guess what? We ain't leaving Iraq.

Bush's plan from the gitgo has been to permanently occupy Iraq and to militarily dominate the Middle East. What are a few roadbumps along the way toward Der Führer's Master Plan?

Is Robert Gates another goddamned neocon? Clearly the United States twisted Maliki's arms and Gen. Peter Pace is lying his ass off (which is part of his job as Chairman of the JCS because he is under the direct command of the Commander-in-Chief, the ultimate decider, President George W. Bush) when he states "Sir, I believe the Iraqi leadership is saying they're 100 percent onboard." Neither Maliki nor any other Iraqi wants to be dominated by United States.

The U.S. plan has been to establish and maintain a permanent U.S. presence in Iraq. The U.S. will topple any "sovereign", "democratically elected" government that gets in its way.

The United States isn't leaving Iraq if Bush's plan works (which it won't) and the United States is not leaving Iraq if Bush's plan fails (which it will). Maliki had best hope he is allowed to resign or be replaced "in parliamentary fashion" because he could be terminated "with extreme prejudice". There is only room for one strongman in Iraq and that strongment is George W. Bush.

Gates: troops should stay even if Iraq plan fails

quote:

---

First Published 2007-01-13, Last Updated 2007-01-13 16:06:19

US Defense Secretary rejects Democrats call to withdraw from Iraq in four to six months time.


By Jim Mannion – WASHINGTON

The United States should not withdraw troops from Iraq even if its plan to send in 20,000 extra forces to stabilize the country fails, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday.

In a second day of grilling before a skeptical US Congress, Gates acknowledged the new plan unveiled by President George W. Bush on Wednesday sets no timetable for disarming Shiite and Sunni militias behind the mounting sectarian violence.

"If we talk about the consequences of the American failure and defeat in Iraq, then saying, 'If you don't do this, we'll leave, and we'll leave now,' does not strike me as being in the national interests of the United States," he said.

"So the question will be: What different kind of strategy might we be able to come up with that would have some prospect of avoiding a failure or a defeat in Iraq?"

Democrats, who now control Congress, have called for a withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in four to six months time -- a proposal Gates rejected as little more than an invitation to the insurgents to wait it out.

"I think it is highly likely that there would be a significant increase in sectarian violence in Iraq, that the government would probably begin to come apart, that the army might come apart, and that you would probably have outside elements," he said.

But Gates faced persistent, skeptical questioning from both sides of the Senate Armed Services Committee over whether Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki is committed to the new strategy, which is deeply unpoular in the US.

The secretary acknowledged that the Shiite prime minister's record "is not an encouraging one," but he said the United States will learn within two months whether he is serious this time.

Key commitments the Americans will be watching is whether the government stops interfering in military operations and whether it sends three more Iraqi brigades to Baghdad, including two Kurdish units from northern Iraq.

But asked whether there was a timetable to disarm the Iraqi militias, Gates said: "Not that I know of."

A senior US military official, who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity, said Thursday the Iraqis have lifted restrictions on deliberate targeting of certain protected extremists leaders.

They also dropped restrictions on military operations in certain areas of the city such as Sadr City, the stronghold of radical cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Jaish Al-Mahdi (JAM) militia.

But the official said US forces were unlikely to go head to head against militias, unless attacked. "There is not a military solution for the JAM," he said.

Both Gates and General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the success of the new plan would depend on Maliki.

"It's very difficult to see how this plan could succeed if they fail to deliver their commitments," Gates said at one point.

Asked about reports that the Maliki government had given only grudging endorsement to the plan, Gates said the prime minister had wanted the Baghdad operation to be conducted purely with Iraqi forces, without US troops.

After the Iraqis presented their plan, General George Casey worked out a plan with his Iraqi counterparts that involved committing the additional US troops.

"And so to the degree that the Iraqi government is grudging in this, I think it is perhaps -- and I'm speculating, frankly -- that they had hoped to do it themselves," he said.

The Iraqis, he added, "probably grudgingly came to the conclusion that they couldn't do it themselves based on the advice of their own security and military leaders and that developed in the course of filling in the gaps in the plan with our military planners."

Asked whether the Iraqis were now 100 percent behind the plan, Pace said: "Sir, I believe the Iraqi leadership is saying they're 100 percent onboard."

"I believe that the benchmarks in this that they should have attained by now on the military side have each been attained," he said.

"But the success of this operation is going to be based on their delivering on what they have said they will deliver."

---

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

Kiss of death for Maliki

This is the latest post in a thread I started on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled Kiss of death for Maliki

All that shit about Maliki being "an interesting cat", being "the right man for the job", being on the same page with Bush, and sharing a common vision of Iraq's future with the United States is OUT THE WINDOW. It is as old as yesterday's news. Maliki himself will be out the window soon too or more accurately, out of The Emerald City Green Zone.

Rice says will hold Iraq PM to his promises

quote:

---

13 Jan 2007 23:14:50 GMT

By Ibon Villelabeitia

BAGHDAD, Jan 13 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington would hold Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to his promises to reduce sectarian violence and that it was now time to see results.

A day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Maliki could lose his job if he failed to stop communal bloodshed, Rice stepped up pressure on the premier as she began a Middle East tour to drum up support for President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 extra troops to Iraq.

Echoing previous remarks that Maliki's government was living on "borrowed time" and that America's patience was running out, Rice said the Iraqi government understood that success in a plan to secure Baghdad was "a very high priority."

"To say that your patience isn't limited is simply to say that the Iraqi government needs to start to show results," Rice told reporters before arriving in Israel Saturday, according to a State Department transcript of her remarks.

"We're going to get an opportunity to see whether or not this is working, whether or not the Iraqis are living up to their obligations."

With Bush's critics saying his new strategy depends too heavily on Maliki keeping promises he failed to keep before, administration officials are piling pressure on Iraqi politicians to solve their differences and avert civil war.

Maliki has vowed to lead a Baghdad operation he says will hit not only insurgents from the once-dominant Sunni minority but also militias loyal to fellow Shi'ites -- a key demand of Washington and Sunnis, who say Iran is backing Shi'ite gunmen.

Maliki, who leads a fractious coalition of Shi'ites, Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds, said Saturday his government agreed with Bush's plan for Iraqis to lead the security push although some of his hard-line Shi'ite allies have opposed it.

WITHDRAWING SUPPORT

At a U.S. Senate committee hearing on Friday, Gates said Maliki might have to quit if Iraqi political blocs withdrew their support over his failure to deliver. Following recent meetings between Bush and top Iraqi politicians, there have been reports that Washington is willing to back a new coalition.

"I think the first consequence that he has to face is the possibility that he'll lose his job," Gates said.

"There's some sense that ... there are beginning to be some people around that may say ... 'I can do better than he's doing,' in terms of ... making progress," he said.

Police found 31 bodies in Baghdad in the 24 hours to Saturday night, many tortured and shot dead, in a typical case of the sectarian violence that is forcing thousands to flee.

Bush acknowledged on Saturday that some of his administration's decisions in Iraq had contributed to instability.

The president, pressed on the question during an interview, said: "Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable."

"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it," he said in the interview, taped for airing on CBS on Sunday night.

But Bush said he still believed he was right to topple Saddam Hussein.

TEHRAN'S ALLEGED INVOLVEMENT

Two days after U.S. forces raided an Iranian government office in the Iraqi city of Arbil in the second such operation in a month, Rice repeated a warning by Bush that Washington will not tolerate Tehran's alleged support for armed groups in Iraq.

"I think there is plenty of evidence that there is Iranian involvement with these networks that are making high-explosive IEDs (bombs) and that are endangering our troops, and that's going to be dealt with."

But she said Bush's order to target Iranians operating in Iraq did not mark a widening of the conflict.

~~~snip~~

---

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

Loopy Rice, no Plan B, Iran next

Ms. Rice had better think of Plan B because Plan A won't work. The Iraqi Army will never "stand up" while the United States occupies Iraq. The U.S. can kick down doors and try to secure Baghdad all they want, but the Shiite led Iraqi Army will NEVER back them up.

Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Maili resents more U.S. troops being sent to Iraq, resents having U.S. commanders at his elbows looking over his shoulder, resents having been ordered to give U.S. forces "the green light" to go wherever they want and to do whatever they want "to secure Baghdad". Maliki wants U.S. forces stationed on the periphery of Baghdad and for his Shiite led Iraqi Army, Interior Ministry troops, and police to massacre every Sunni they find - and still the Shiites would not love Americans or want a U.S. style western corporate democracy in their country.

The U.S. stragetic option of "picking sides" in the Iraqi civil war will not succeed in bringing a U.S. victory or in pacifying Iraq. Maliki will never disarm or annihilate the Mehdi Army or cut his ties with Iran. Like that bearded old hippy Congressman from Hawaii said to Secretary of State Dr. Condoleezza Rice's face, "This is the stupidest plan I've ever heard in my life!"

For the real Plan B see link at foot of this post.



Hat tip David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo

quote:

---

(January 14, 2007 -- 12:42 AM EDT)

Condi Rice channeling Donald Rumsfeld:

Aboard her plane, Rice also told reporters that the United States would not abandon Iraq even if Bush's latest plan fails.

"We're not pulling the plug on Iraq," she said. "I think we'll worry about making Plan A work for now. And obviously, if it doesn't, then you know, we're not going to say, oh my goodness, that didn't work, there's nothing that can be done."

Oh my goodness.

-- David Kurtz

---

Rice says U.S. will defend its interest in the Persian Gulf

quote:

---

Posted on Sat, Jan. 13, 2007

By Warren P. Strobel
McClatchy Newspapers

JERUSALEM - U.S. military moves in the Persian Gulf and raids against Iranian installations in Iraq are meant to demonstrate that the United States will defend its interests against an increasingly aggressive Iran, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday.

Rice made her comments as she began a Middle East tour in which she will try to bolster moderate Arab leaders who increasingly are under threat from both Shiite and Sunni Muslim extremists.

The focus of her diplomacy this week shows how far the United States has been forced to change its aims in the region because the war in Iraq has turned out differently than planned.

President Bush, Rice and others predicted the Iraq invasion would spread democracy throughout the Arab world. Instead, Rice now appears to be playing defense against Iran's emboldened leaders.

Following a new policy laid down by President Bush, U.S. military forces this week detained Iranians in two raids in northern Iraq. Washington says it has evidence that Iranian agents are destabilizing Iraq by constructing a deadly class of roadside bombs and backing Shiite militias.

Bush, who issued fresh warnings to Iran in his Wednesday speech outlining his new Iraq plan, has also ordered a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and dispatched Patriot anti-missile batteries to American allies in the Gulf.

Some senators have expressed alarm that the moves could represent a widening of U.S. war aims in the strategic Gulf region.

But Rice said the moves were merely a response to Iranian actions.

"The United States has long, historic interests in the Persian Gulf," Rice said at an appearance with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. "We have always-president after president after president-sought to have a force posture that makes clear we can defend those interests."

~~~snip~~~

Aboard her plane, Rice also told reporters that the United States would not abandon Iraq even if Bush's latest plan fails.

"We're not pulling the plug on Iraq," she said. "I think we'll worry about making Plan A work for now. And obviously, if it doesn't, then you know, we're not going to say, oh my goodness, that didn't work, there's nothing that can be done."

---

Next stop, Iran:

Would You Believe Iranians Arrested Are Linked To Revolutionary Guard? by HL Mungo [Daily Kos diary] Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 02:25:32 AM PST

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

My best MSOC-style RANT

posted January 13, 2007 11:16 PM EST

Not only is my heart in the right place, I am absolutely right about this fucking war. George W. Bush is a serial pathological liar who is leading this country to its destruction. Bush admits tactical mistakes but not his gigantic strategic mistake of going to war against a country that never attacked or theatened us. Today Bush finally admits that HIS actions helped destabilize Iraq, but Bush STILL defends his actions "because he toppled Saddam".

Was "toppling Saddam" worth 655,000 Iraqi lives, worth 3,019 American lives, worth $500 billion dollars more added to the U.S. national debt, and worth destabilizing the whole Middle East region? Heck, why not get an arrest warrant or a 2nd U.N. resolution specifically authorizing action against Saddam before taking such a precipitous and STUPID action as invading and occupying a predominantly Arab and overwhelmingly Muslim nation at the heart of the Arab and Muslim world WHICH NEVER ATTACKED OR THREATED US!

You damn straight I'm rude. You think this situation calls for civil debate? Fuck that!

I listened to the am radio this evening. I am smarter than George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, some fool right wing radio talk show host named Alan on am 1230 who claimed to be a moderate but was really a right wing fanatic who had David Horowitz on his program. I am smarter than the right wing host on WBZ Boston this evening.

I am not smarter than Barbara Boxer, but I am damn sight smarter than John McCain and I don't give a goddamn about his military service at this juncture because it has no bearing. I am smarter than Lindsey Graham about this war and about torture.

I am not smarter than Cindy Sheehan or Medea Benjamin or Dennis Kucinich or Nancy Pelosi. I am not smarter than John Murtha, a veteran, who has an alternative plan to President Bush's plan THAT WILL WORK. I am not smarter than Harry Reid. I am smarter than Joe Biden, Joe Liberman, and Robert Gates. I am not smarter than Democratic Representative Tim Walz (Minn.) who is a retired Sargent Major and opposes Bush's decision to surge more troops into Iraq.

I am smarter than FOX news and all the idiots who watch that shit and get sidetracked on stupid issues like what Barbara Boxer said to Condoleezza Rice.

I predicted a long time ago that this war will divide Americans much more than the Vietnam war did. I am proud to take my stand. Screw all of you who continue to support this stupid war that will only kill more of our "beautiful young men and women" (Barbara Boxer's phrase).

Walz Hits Air Waves on Iraq

quote:

---

KTTC.com

ROCHESTER, MN -- Minnesota Congressman Tim Walz is giving the thumbs down to President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq.

In the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, Walz says he wants to know what the benchmarks are for success and how long Bush believes it will take to accomplish them.

He says diplomatic and political solutions are needed in Iraq, not more U-S troops.

"I believe, along with most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans, that the escalation announced by the President will compound a bad situation and make matters worse, not better. It will make us less secure, not more," said Walz.

Updated: January 13, 2007, 7:12 pm

~~~snip~~~

---

Bush concedes U.S. decisions made Iraq unstable

quote:

---

Reuters Sat Jan 13, 5:26 PM ET

President George W. Bush acknowledged on Saturday that some of his administration's decisions during the Iraq war had contributed to instability there but he still believed he was right to topple Saddam Hussein.

Insisting it was crucial to U.S. interests to get the sectarian violence in Iraq under control, Bush told CBS in an interview that the strife there was a destabilizing force in the Middle East that "could lead to attacks here in America."

Pressed on whether actions by his administration had created further instability in Iraq, Bush said, "Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable."

But he added, "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the correct decision in my judgment."

~~~snip~~~

---

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

Our beautiful young men and women

The following is the latest entry in a thread I started on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled Calling out Sargebaby:

Another thought for Sargebaby and all the salute-snapping, flag-waving follow the Commander-in-Chief wherever he leads without questioning crowd. It is tempting - very tempting - to just wash my hands of this ongoing FIASCO and say "American Idiots, you deserve what's coming". But I can't do that. Barbara Boxer put it well when she said that the price for this debable is too high. It is the price paid by "our beautiful young men and women" who are serving in the armed forces and are getting thrown into a meat grinder.

Whether Commander-in-Chief Bush is sending our "beautiful young men and women" to stand between warring Shiites and Sunnis who are fighting a civil war in Iraq (which the President refuses to acknowledge) or whether Bush is now using our "beautiful young men and women" as pawns in his proxy war chess game with Iran - IT IS A WASTE OF PRECIOUS AMERICAN LIVES TOWARD NO GOOD ENDS.

The anti-war/pro-peace community has been saying this for nearly 4 years now. We have been right. We cannot quit trying to end this war because the lives of our beautiful men and women depend on us. Bush will only use them up playing geostrategery. Bush will lose him game. Our beautiful young men and women will lose their lives.

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

Kirkuk will be flashpoint

The following is the latest entry in a thread I started on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled Kirkuk will be flashpoint :

United States President and Commander-in-Chief of U.S. military forces George W. Bush told the American people in a speech on January 10, 2007 that he was responsible for mistakes that had been made in the U.S. war in Iraq. Against the advice of the Iraq Study Group and the longstanding positions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his top military commanders including Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, Mr. Bush has ordered, after nearly 3 years and 10 months of a failed war, an increase in U.S. military forces in Iraq with the primary objective of bringing security to the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, a city of over 6 million inhabitants.

Iraq has a total population at least 4 times that of Baghdad. Anbar province is restive as is Diyala province. Even the British forces in southern Iraq have experienced increasing sectarian violence as well as violence directed at them.

Why does President Bush, who accepts responsibility for overall command of U.S. forces in Iraq, not think or plan for violence to break out in Kirkuk, Mosul, Tall Afar, Baquoba, Ramadi, Fallujah, Samarra, Takrit, Najaf, Basra, and many other Iraqi cities, towns, and villages as he focuses to bring security to Baghdad? That is plenty of evidence already on the record to indicate that this will be the case. President Bush's latest plan is only a prescription for continued and escalating violence leading to catastrophic failure. What will Bush's move be when that happens? What is Plan B? Will Bush attack Iran and/or Syria?

Iraq oil city rocked by attacks

quote:

---

AFP 4:40 am EST Sat 13 Jan 2007

Iraq's northern oil hub of Kirkuk has been rocked by attacks as insurgents shot dead two contractors and blew up a Shiite mosque under construction.

Gunmen planted explosives in the mosque in the Nida neighbourhood of eastern Kirkuk and flattened the building site, Captain Imad Jassim said Saturday.

Seventy-five percent of the mosque had been built before it was pancaked in the explosion.

In central Kirkuk, gunmen shot dead two contractors tasked with building access lanes and wounded another two workers.

The assailants opened fire on the men while they were working next to the main highway that runs through Kirkuk from Baghdad before fleeing, Jassim said.

Another three people were wounded and a house partly damaged when mortar rounds slammed into Kirkuk's Nasir neighbourhood, Colonel Anwar Qadir said.

Further south, in the flashpoint city of Samarra, a Sunni prayer leader and member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, Yunis Wuhaib, was assassinated outside his home in the southern Sikak neighbourhood, police Captain Hashim Ahmed said.

---

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

Kiss of death for Maiki

The following is the lastest post in a thread I started on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled Kiss of death for Maliki

Here's the sequence of events. An internal Bush administration memo trashed Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al Mailki before Bush held a summit in November 2006 with the man Bush had previously tagged "an interesting cat". When Bush emerged from that summit pronoucing al-Maliki "the right man for the job" I knew that was the same kiss of death given "Brownie" at FEMA and "Rummy" at DoD.

Subsequent developments are bearing out my pronouncemet of Maliki's pending fall from grace and power (such as he has). We waited until after the Nov 7, 2006 U.S. midterm elections for the Iraq Study Group to release its recommendations, and we waited until Jan 10, 2007 for The Decider-in-Chief to announce he had decided to escalate the war.

On Jan 11, 2007 Pentagon briefers told reporters that it was Maliki's idea for Bush to send more troops. Actually, Maliki wants U.S. troops out of Baghdad and to be allowed to conduct internal affairs in his sovereign country as he sees fit. Bush will have none of that.

John Burns of the NY Times has reported on Maliki's objections to and resentment of Bush sending more U.S. troops. Maliki doesn't want U.S. commanders looking over his shoulder, and he doesn't relish "giving them the green light" to go wherever they want and to do whatever they choose.

So Maliki's days are numbered. Secretary of State Rice was overheard on a microphone that she didn't know was open saying “I Don't Want To…Look Like We…Just Sort Of Beat Their Brains Out”…. As we know from his track record, it is Bush's way or the highway.

Rice has since said that Maliki's time is running out to curb the sectarian violence. That is also an implied threat against Maliki IMO.

Look for Maliki's government to fall and for him to be replaced by a "strongman" - an "unSaddam" - someone like CIA asset Iyad Allawi. Intrigue? Indeed!

U.S. says Maliki knows time is running out

quote:

---

By Claudia Parsons
Reuters Fri Jan 12, 6:09 AM ET

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said some Iraqi leaders had miscalculated before thinking U.S. support would go on unconditionally but now they realize the patience of the American people is running out.

In an interview with CNN broadcast on Friday, Khalilzad echoed comments by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who said Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government was living "on borrowed time." Khalilzad said Maliki realized diplomacy had not succeeded in dismantling militias and it was time for action.

President Bush said he planned to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq as part of a new direction in Iraq that also involved putting more pressure on Iraqis to solve their political differences and take over their own security.

U.S. lawmakers in the Democrat-controlled Congress hammered Bush's plan to send more troops, and many in Iraq questioned how much difference they can make. But Khalilzad said this time the Iraqi government was ready to take decisive action.

"The president has been very resolute from the get go (from the start) and some people here have miscalculated perhaps, thinking no matter what they do or do not do support will go on because of the rock solid stand the president has taken," Khalilzad told CNN.

"The president has sent a very good strong message that the patience of the American people is running out," he said.

Khalilzad said Maliki, a Shi'ite Islamist, had pledged his commitment to crack down on Shi'ite militias -- a key demand of Washington and the Sunni Arab minority who blame the militias for operating death squads.

NO SANCTUARY

Washington has identified the Mehdi Army, a militia loyal to radical Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, as the greatest threat to security in Iraq. Maliki, who depends on Sadr's political movement for support in parliament and government, has struggled to rein in the Mehdi Army, despite numerous pledges to allow nobody but the armed forces to carry weapons.

Asked if this time Maliki would really go after the Mehdi Army, Khalilzad said: "He has pledged this to the president of the United States, there will be no sanctuary. He has said to me that he has given diplomacy a chance with the militias, now we have to do whatever is necessary to get the job done."

"This is the best chance they have to move and if they don't move they know that there's a lot at risk for them as well."

~~~snip~~~

---

Further evidence that the Maliki government isn't doing what Bush wants - even the Kurds. They are talking to Syria. That is something that the Iraq Study Group recommended but Bush has nixed. Stay tuned for more intrigue, more accusations of Iranian meddling in Iraq, and covert or overt U.S. attacks on Iran. That is Bush's only strategy. The Texas Gambler is rolling the dice for high stakes. He is gambling with American soldiers' lives and American taxpayers' hard earned money. Easy come, easy go, eh George?

Iraqi president to visit Syria

quote:

---

AFP Fri Jan 12, 5:44 AM ET

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani will fly to Damascus for talks with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad, an official at Talabani's office told AFP.

"On Sunday the president will go to Damascus with a big delegation," he said, adding that Talabani was the first Iraqi president to visit Damascus in three decades.

The spokesman said the two leaders are expected to sign a range of "security and commercial agreements between the two countries."

Iraq and Syria restored diplomatic ties in November after a 26-year break, during visit by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem who pledged to help in securing Iraq.

Washington has repeatedly accused Syria of turning a blind eye towards foreign fighters using its territory for entering Iraq to participate in a raging anti-US insurgency, but Baghdad has insisted on building ties.

---

Bush's rush to war with Iran

This may be the topic of a previous post. Bush has been intent on taking military action against Iran for quite some time now.

Bush is blaming Iran for everything that is happening in Iraq. Bush does not recognize the national basis of the Sunni insurgency. The United States is losing in Iraq not because of what Iran is doing but because George W. Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of a predominantly Arab and overwhelmingly Muslim nation that did not attack or threaten us. Bush only wants to expand his glorious failed war. TWO news articles below:

U.S. detains 6 Iranians in Irbil raid

quote:

---

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
1:35 pm EST Thu 11 Jan 2007

U.S.-led multinational forces detained six Iranians Thursday at an Iranian government office in the northern city of Irbil, Iraqi officials said, as President Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding militants and promised to "interrupt" the flow of support as part of his new war strategy.

The U.S. military said it had taken six people into custody in the Irbil region but made no mention of a raid on the Iranian government office.

The forces entered the building about 3 a.m., detaining the Iranians and confiscating computers and documents, two senior local Kurdish officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information. Irbil is a city in the Kurdish-controlled northern part of Iraq, 220 miles from Baghdad.

A resident living near the building said the troops used stun bombs and brought down an Iranian flag from the roof. As the operation went on, two helicopters flew overhead, the resident said on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

At the Pentagon, a senior U.S. military official said the building was not a consulate and did not have any diplomatic status. The six Iranians were taken in a "cordon-and-knock" operation, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Baghdad was seeking clarification from the U.S. and Iran "about these people and what they were doing there and whether they were employees."

The regional Kurdish government condemned the arrests and called for the immediate release of the Iranians. It added that the government "was not aware in advance of the raid."

Iran's Foreign Ministry summoned the Iraqi and Swiss ambassadors in Tehran and "demanded an explanation" about the incident. Switzerland represents American interests in Iran, where there is no U.S. embassy.

~~~snip~~~

---

Rice warns Iran against aggression after US reportedly nabs more Iranians in Iraq

quote:

---

by David Millikin
AFP 2:00 pm EST Thu 11 Jan 2007

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran that the United States won't "stand idly by" if Tehran tries to disrupt Washington's renewed effort to stabilize Iraq.

Speaking hours after US troops reportedly arrested five Iranians in a raid in northern Iraq, Rice said Washington was determined to crack down on Iran's "regional aggression."

Rice declined to comment specifically on the operation in the northern city of Arbil, which came shortly after President George W. Bush announced a new US strategy to end the violence in Iraq that included stepped up moves to counter Iranian and Syrian involvement in the country.

In a spate of television interviews and testimony in Congress to defend the new Bush plan for Iraq, Rice declined repeatedly to rule out US military action against Iran -- accused by the administration of supporting anti-US insurgents and Shiite radicals in Iraq and of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

"I don't want to speculate on what operations the United States may be engaged in, but you will see that the United States is not going to simply stand idly by and let these activities continue," she said in one interview.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have soared since Bush in 2002 branded Iran part of an "axis of evil" alongside Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

~~~snip~~~

---

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

Update #1 Bush's war pony express

Anyone who sensed that United States President George Walker Bush was calling for a wider war in his war rally speech on 10 January 2007 is right on the mark. I hope the world's worst fears about a regional or perhaps world war are not realized. I am concerned that Bush is fixin' to get us into something far beyond the quagmire in Iraq, something nobody will be able to stop once it is started or get us out of. It is imperative to put a halter on Bush's war pony express.

Bush Warns Iran: ‘I Recently Ordered The Deployment Of An Additional Carrier Strike Group To The Region’ [Think Progress] 2007/01/10

What is the difference between what the U.S. is doing to Iranian diplomats in Iraq and what Iran Revolutionary Guards did to American diplomats in Tehran in 1979?

The bottom line question is Bush trying to goad Iran into some sort of action that he can use as a pretext to attack their nuclear facilities and attempt to effect "regime change" in Iran?

US forces storm Iranian consulate

quote:

---

Last Updated: Thursday, 11 January 2007, 10:25 GMT - BBC News

US forces have stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil and seized five members of staff.

The troops raided the building at about 0300, taking away computers and papers, according to Kurdish media and senior local officials.

The US military had no immediate comment on the raid, which comes amid high tension between Iran and the US.

~~~snip~~~

---

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

Followup on Bush's decision to escalate Iraq war

I don't watch Bush. I don't listen to Bush. But I do keep up with what he does. Once he leaves office I could care less about the private George W. Bush, but while Dude is in power and fucking over this country and the world I care a lot.

Yesterday I watched The News Hour on PBS. I listened to John Burns reporting from Iraq. In his report Burns said that U.S. troops actually bring a calming effect where they are deployed. If they can calm Baghdad they might have a chance to pacify regions beyond the 30 mile radius of Baghdad.

Burns went on to make the remarkable claim that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki did not want additional U.S. troops sent to Iraq. Why? The unspoken reason is that the Shiites are doing a pretty good job against the Sunnis all my themselves. Shiites militias (mainly Moqtada al Sadr's Mehdi Army) are driving to create a cordon sanitaire arch from Sadr City in east Baghdad across northern Baghdad. This would cut off Sunnis militants in Baghdad from their homelands in northern Iraq.

Yesterday, the Pentagon went to considerable effort to claim that the idea of sending more U.S. troops originated with Nouri al Maliki. Mark Shields said on The News Hour that he would take John Burns account over what Pentagon briefers were pushing.

Here is John Burns' followup story:

Promising Troops Where They Aren’t Really Wanted

quote:

---

January 11, 2007

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and JOHN F. BURNS
The New York Times

BAGHDAD, Jan. 10 — As President Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more American troops, he is confronted by a paradox: an Iraqi government that does not really want them.

The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has not publicly opposed the American troop increase, but aides to Mr. Maliki have been saying for weeks that the government is wary of the proposal. They fear that an increased American troop presence, particularly in Baghdad, will be accompanied by a more assertive American role that will conflict with the Shiite government’s haste to cut back on American authority and run the war the way it wants. American troops, Shiite leaders say, should stay out of Shiite neighborhoods and focus on fighting Sunni insurgents.

“The government believes there is no need for extra troops from the American side,” Haidar al-Abadi, a Parliament member and close associate of Mr. Maliki, said Wednesday. “The existing troops can do the job.”

It is an opinion that is broadly held among a Shiite political elite that is increasingly impatient, after nearly two years heading the government here, to exercise power without the constraining supervision of the United States. As a long-oppressed majority, the Shiites have a deep-seated fear that the power they won at the polls, after centuries of subjugation by the Sunni minority, will be progressively whittled away as the Americans seek deals with the Sunnis that will help bring American troops home.

These misgivings are broadly shared by Shiite leaders in the government, including some whom Mr. Bush has courted recently in a United States effort to form a bloc of politicians from the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that can break Mr. Maliki’s political dependence on the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. He leads the Mahdi Army, the most powerful of the Shiite militias that are at the heart of sectarian violence in Iraq.

Hadi al-Ameri, the leader of the security committee in Parliament and a close associate of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim — a prominent Shiite leader who met with Mr. Bush last month in Washington, and who has quietly supported the American push to reshape the political landscape in Baghdad — was unequivocal in his opposition to a troop increase. “I’m against any increase in troops,” he said.

Redha Jawad Tahi, another Shiite member of Parliament from Mr. Hakim’s party, took a similar view. “You can’t solve the problem by adding more troops,” he said. “The security should be in the hands of the Iraqis. The U.S. should be in a supporting role.”

The plan sketched out by Mr. Bush went at least part way to meeting these Shiite concerns by ceding greater operational authority over the war in Baghdad to the government. The plan envisages an Iraqi commander with overall control of the new security crackdown in Baghdad, and Iraqi officers working under him who would be in charge of military operations in nine newly demarcated districts in the capital.

~~~snip~~~

---

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