Bush lies about surge

Bush's surge is really a major escalation of the war. Bush cannot tell the truth about anything. His war regime and the Iraq puppet government are suppressing reporting in the official state media on the level of violence in Baghdad. The numbers of corpses turning up at the Baghdad morgue is being systemtically underreported according the Lourdis Garcia-Navarro's interview with a morgue worker reported on NPR's "All Things Considered" on Friday 23 March 2007.

In another effort to make it look like Bush's decision to surge troops into Iraq is working, U.S. Generals on the ground in Iraq are claiming that significant numbers of displaced Baghdad residents are returning to their homes. According to Rod Norland of Newsweek, this does not appear to be the case.

Bush is also lying to the American people about the full scale of the escalation of this war and the total number of U.S. troops deployed to the Iraq theater of war according to Rod Nordland of Newsweek. Both Newweeks stories are linked below, and Lourdis Garcia-Navarro's report is availble from the NPR archives.

03/24/07 Newsweek: The Missing Returnees

quote:

---

The Baghdad Security Plan is going so well that Iraqis displaced by sectarian violence are flocking back to their homes in Baghdad, so a number of officials are telling us. The only problem with that: it's probably not true.

---

Deployments: The Real Numbers [Newsweek]

quote:

---

By Rod Nordland

Baghdad, March 22, 2007: There will soon be more American soldiers in Iraq than at any point in the war so far. The incoming surge of 21,500 troops is only part of that picture; in addition, the U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has asked for an additional Army aviation brigade, as well as a couple thousand military police. Other support troops will be coming in to Iraq as well, and they weren't all included in the original 21,500 estimate announced by President Bush last month. When all this is complete, sometime in July, the grand total of U.S. troops in Iraq will be 173,000, U.S. military officials here confirmed on background, apparently because of the sensitivity of these details. And it's likely that U.S. troop numbers will stay at that level for months more, perhaps even into 2008. That's only part of the picture, however; the total number of U.S. troops deployed into the war theater, that is, Iraq and neighboring countries, may be as much as 100,000 more than that. Last August, for instance, the Congressional Research Service, quoting the Department of Defense's Contingency Tracking System, put the total deployment at 260,000, while the number actually in Iraq was at 140,000 to 160,000. (Other estimates by government-oversight bodies have put the total deployed in the theater at 202,000 to 207,000.)

~~~cont'd~~~

---

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

Iraq 16 March 2007 - 4th report

At 1 pm EDT Guy Raz of NPR News reported that a spokesman for Gen. David Petraeus said the request for more combat aviation troops was made more than a month ago. That begs the question of why our civilian leaders, including the Commander-on-Chief, have not told the American people the full extent of the "surge" in Iraq which clearly is not temporary. This is a major escalation not only of the ground war but also an escalation of the air war which inevitably leads to more civilian casualties from airstrikes.

Pentagon to deploy aviation unit to Iraq

By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer
12:57 pm EDT Friday 16 March 2007

Some 2,600 soldiers from a combat aviation unit will go to Iraq ahead of schedule, part of the support troops the Pentagon has said are needed to back the extra combat units President Bush is sending there.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates approved the deployment of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division combat aviation brigade 45 days earlier than planned, meaning they will go around May, a Defense Department official said Friday.

The approval will mean roughly 30,000 troops eventually will go to Baghdad and Anbar Province in the Bush administration's buildup to crack down on rising sectarian violence and insurgents, said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the information.

The new aviation unit will provide transport helicopters and gunships to assist ground brigades already flowing in for the buildup. Officials said that Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted the buildup to move as quickly as possible.

"This was requested over a month ago as part of the surge," said Col. Steven Boylan, public affairs officer for Petraeus. "These are what we call the enablers."

Two months ago, Bush ordered 21,500 additional American troops to Iraq to help calm the violence. He did not initially mention that support units would also be needed.

Officials later said that the number of support troops needed for the influx could be around 7,000. So far, these have included 2,400 combat support troops and 2,200 military police to help with an anticipated increase in detainees picked up during the crackdown.

Asked what he would say to critics of the steady additions to the original number, the Defense Department official said some of the requests came after Petraeus arrived in Iraq and assessed what he needed. He said Gates wants to give commanders what they believe they need to do the job as long as the requests are justified.

In an AP Radio interview, Canadian Army Major General Peter Devlin, deputy commanding general of coalition forces in Iraq, said of the extra troops, "What was always asked for was, beyond the combat formation, were the typical enablers that go along with combat formations."

Asked whether there are likely to be more such requests, he said, "Yes. It is exactly something that you would expect, is that there is a need for support troops to do what they do."

There are now roughly 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. About 60,000 are combat forces, the rest are support troops.

The Boston Globe reported on its Web site Thursday night that Petraeus had asked for an Army combat aviation unit with 2,500 to 3,000 troops, which were likely to come from the Army's 3rd Infantry, citing unidentified senior Pentagon officials.

No crackdown in Baquba?

Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush is ordering 17,500 additional U.S. troops to surge into Baghdad and another 4,000 to surge into Anbar province. (BTW, support personnel are going to push total U.S. deployment of troops WAY beyond 21,500).

Baghdad and Anbar make up roughly 25% (maybe slightly more) of the population of Iraq. What about the burgeoning violence in the ethnically divided city of Kirkuk and the surrounding oil rich region? What about Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi, Takrit, Samarra, Najaf, Kerbala, and the rest of the cities, towns, and villages of Iraq that are not experiencing a surge of U.S. and Iraqi troops? Why won't violence just pop up in classic "whack-a-mole" fashion there instead of in Baghdad?

Baquba is a perfect example of why the current surge in Iraq will not save George W. Bush's and the Republic War Party's failed war in Iraq. We are throwing good money after bad and sending more U.S. troops to their deaths after wasting the lives of 3133 Americans in an unjust and unwinnable war.

Lawlessness turns Baquba into ghost town

quote:

---

POSTED: 1731 GMT (0131 HKT), February 16, 2007

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• City of 300,000 nearly shut down because of violence
• Residents live in fear of being kidnapped, tortured and killed
• Resident: "I can't tell you who they are. They will kill me."

By Arwa Damon
CNN

Editor's note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events. Here, CNN's Arwa Damon describes a recent tour of the Iraqi city of Baquba.

BAQUBA, Iraq (CNN) -- "Watch out for snipers," one of the soldiers said as I stepped out of the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle and stared at the deserted street.

Shops were shuttered, and mountains of trash were piled everywhere. I felt a wave of shock.

When I had walked these streets less than a year ago, the air was filled with the buzz of shoppers, vendors screaming prices and blaring car horns. Rows of stalls were filled with everything from fruits and vegetables to women's lingerie, electronic equipment and music. It was a bustling marketplace.

But now, everything is different in this city of 300,000. Baquba is a virtual ghost town where most residents stay inside most of the day for fear of being kidnapped and tortured or killed. (Watch the desolate scenes of a city living in fear Video)

As I toured the area, down one of the alleys, there was a cluster of people.

"It's been like this for about four months now. Everything just shuts down after 11 [a.m.] because that's when they come and they kidnap and murder," one Iraqi said.

"But I can't tell you who they are. They will kill me. No one can say who they are."

"They" are extremist groups -- Sunni and Shia -- and criminal gangs.

At a minimum, it costs $10,000 to buy freedom from the kidnappers, and that's still no guarantee they won't kill you.

I pressed on. Four women peered down from a balcony and waved, a man rode by on a bicycle, and an empty bus rumbled down the street.

Baquba is the provincial capital of Diyala, an ethnic microcosm of Iraq. It is plagued with a variety of Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists.

It was always volatile -- one of the so-called "trouble spots" -- yet it still had a local government that functioned. It also had some of the better trained Iraqi Security Forces.

~~~snip~~~

Police among those being slaughtered

~~~cont'd~~~

---

US don't know diddly about Iraq

The United States authors of its war on Iraq hardly knew Shiite from Sunni before President George W. Bush ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I read there are no fewer than 24 armed factions in Iraq taking part in what the National Intelligence Estimate terms a civil war and much more.

Did we know about the Mehdi Army before the invasion? How about the Soldiers of Heaven who were killed in Najaf last week? The MEK is an anti-Iranian terrorist organization based in Iraq.

I had heard about the Kurdish PKK. There are also the rival groups, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which have been at loggerheads for much of the last decade.

I knew there are Kurdish separatists fighting for a Kurdish homeland in Turkey who find sanctuary in Iraqi Kurdistan, but I had not heard about the PJAK until today.

The United States has reretrievably broken Iraq, but any partition of Iraq - soft or otherwise - which creates an independent Kurdistan is unacceptable to Turkey, Iran, and Syria. Any partition of Iraq that leads to an independent Kurdistan is a formula for a regional war involving our ally Turkey (which is one of our few allies in the region and in the Muslim world). Bush has really mucked up bigtime in Iraq.

Hastening the Apocalypse by soj [Booman Tribune] Mon Feb 5th, 2007 at 07:33:12 AM EST

Bush, Iran, soft power, compromise

The following headline sounds ominous. Is it really? Note that Reuters is using unnamed "diplomats" as its sources, and the IAEA has neither reported, commented, nor recommended a course of action. AFAIK Iran has the right to enrich uranium for use as fuel in nuclear power plants. They have signed no treaty or agreement that precludes them from doing this.

Of course Bush could dialog with Iran. Iran has requested talks with the U.S., but Bush has refused. Bush prefers the hard power tactics of villifying, entrenching, stonewalling, coersion, threats, sanctions, intimidation, namecalling, and war to the soft power diplomatic tactics of negotiation and compromise.

If Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons down the road there is time to negotiate, offer incentives (including trade concessions, international recognition, a non-aggression treaty, and soliciting Iran's help in calming Iraq so the U.S. can and does leave Iraq) in exchange for on-site IAEA verification that no nuclear weapons are being produced.

This seems like a fair exchange to me. Why won't Bush negotiate such a mutually beneficial agreement with Iran? Trust but verify. If Bush can get verification then that should mollify his valid concerns unless Bush's ulterior motive is war.

Iran installs 328 centrifuges at atomic site: sources

quote:

---

Reuters 7:11 am EST Monday 05 February 2007

Iran has installed two cascades of 164 centrifuges each in its underground Natanz nuclear plant, laying a basis for "industrial-scale" enrichment of uranium for atomic fuel, European diplomatic sources said on Monday.

The cascades were to be test-run shortly, without uranium feedstock inside, and fuel material would then be added if the tests were successful, they said. The 328 centrifuges would be the vanguard of 3,000 planned for installation in coming months.

Iran completed infrastructure preparations to launch the vast subterranean plant, which is fortified and flanked by anti-aircraft guns, over the past several weeks.

Firing up the cascades would dramatically sharpen Iran's confrontation with Western powers that pushed through limited U.N. sanctions on Tehran in December to try to curb its nuclear activity over fears it is secretly trying to build atom bombs.

The Islamic Republic, the world's No. 4 oil producer, says it wants solely civilian atomic energy from uranium enrichment.

Diplomats said the installation of the first two cascades was likely to be the gist of Iran's planned announcement of significant progress in uranium enrichment on or before the February 11 completion of Islamic Revolution anniversary celebrations.

"Two cascades have been installed in the underground plant, but they are not yet being run with gas," said a European Union diplomat in Vienna, headquarters of the watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has inspectors at Natanz.

"Their plan is to start dry-spinning the cascades within days and then start feeding them with UF6 (uranium feedstock gas)," the diplomat told Reuters, alluding to findings during recent visits by IAEA inspectors.

"The Iranians appear to intend to have about six cascades (roughly 1,000 centrifuges) installed by the spring, and the rest of the 3,000 by around June."

A diplomat from another EU state had identical information.

There was no immediate comment from the IAEA.

IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei will report to the U.N. Security Council on February 21 on whether Iran has heeded a demand to stop enriching uranium. If not, broader sanctions could loom.

"Iran is heading in the opposite direction from that sought by the Security Council," said the first EU diplomat.

---

Augusta Chronicle vs NY Times on the Iraq war

Damn what The Augusta Chronicle says about the Iraq war in its dumb-downed yellow journalism editorials. Who are their Iraq experts anyway? What embedded or non-embedded journalists does the AC have in Iraq?

The New York Times has reporters in Iraq, has military analysts on its staff, has an editorial board that can think, and has writers who can write intelligently. Political agendas aside, the NY Times makes its case with facts, reason, and logic. It is the right wing reactionary AC Chronicle that uses fear and anti-intellectualism to appeal to base emotions, crude reasoning, and meaness.

Below is a reasoned editorial which is truthful and shines an objective light on the situation in Iraq - like it's conclusions or not. (BTW, I don't agree with all of the NY Times' military analyst Michael Gordon's conclusions in his pieces).

President Bush wants to sends thousands of more U.S. troops (still far too few to prevail) into the caldron, quagmire, meat grinder (pick your metaphor) of Iraq and spend hundreds of billions more money (we don't have) over the final two years of his Presidency. Bush projects a budget surplus 3 years after he leaves office. That speak directly to what a joke of a man we have for a President. Americans are fools to put their sons and daughters at this man's disposal in his vain, wasteful, corrupt, stupid, expensive, unwinnable little war.

A Bleak Assessment on Iraq

quote:

---

February 5, 2007
New York Times Editorial

There isn’t much encouraging news in the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Ethnic and sectarian identities are hardening and violence is spiraling, as shown again in Saturday’s horrific Baghdad market bombing. Iraq’s new governing institutions are weak and leading politicians have a “winner-take-all attitude” that can only make matters even worse.

The intelligence agencies see “real improvements” in Iraqi security forces. But those gains are strictly relative and the report still finds those forces unlikely to be able to successfully battle Shiite militias in the next 12 to 18 months.

A good example of this problem can be found in the accounts of last week’s battle between the Iraqi Army and a mysterious group of armed religious extremists outside the Shiite shrine city of Najaf. Najaf is supposed to be a showcase province for the American-trained Iraqi Army. The Pentagon chose it in December for the first symbolic handover of security responsibilities.

Barely a month later, in their first major battle, the Iraqis had to be bailed out by American air and ground forces. Hundreds of armed zealots had managed to set up a fortified encampment, complete with tunnels, trenches, blockades, 40 heavy machine guns and at least two antiaircraft weapons.

This happened just 10 miles northeast of the city at a time when hundreds of thousands of religious pilgrims and Iraq’s leading Shiite clerics were headed there for annual holiday observances. A successful attack on top clerics and pilgrims in Najaf would have been disastrous.

The Iraqis’ next mistake was sending only one army battalion and some police to raid this armed camp after its belated discovery. Government forces were quickly surrounded and called in American air support. Still pinned down, the Iraqis had to summon American ground support as well before they could advance on the camp.

This less-than-impressive performance by a supposedly top-of-the-line Iraqi Army division has grave implications for President Bush’s new Baghdad security drive, in which an additional 17,000 or so American troops are supposed to work in tandem with a much larger Iraqi force.

Perhaps the Iraqi security forces will improve over the next 18 months. But as the intelligence estimate also makes clear, the only real hope for Iraq lies in a bold reversal of course by Iraqi politicians that puts national reconciliation ahead of sectarian advantage. Mr. Bush needs to get serious about demanding such a change, including enforceable deadlines for overdue steps like eliminating militia supporters from the police, ending vengeful anti-Baathist measures targeting the Sunni middle class, and guaranteeing the fair allocation of oil revenues.

Otherwise, Iraq seems headed over the cliff.

---

Bush's "new" strategy in Iraq won't work

Nothing George W. Bush has done in Iraq has made things better. Not even hanging Saddam (or allowing Saddam to be hung by the U.S.-puppet government in Iraq while G.W. claimed he was asleep in Crawford) has helped any Iraqi in any way whatsoever. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has not helped the Kurds because they were living in virtually their own country under the U.S. no fly zone and under U.S. protection since 1991. Bush's neoconservative strategery has resulted in a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. Bush stupidly denies Iraq is in a civil war but the newly released National Intelligence Estimate says Iraq is in civil war and worse.

What George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq has done is create unending, unmitgated chaos in Iraq and in the region around Iraq. The Japanese are calling Bush's strategy "naive" which is code for stupid! Everybody knows the so-called surge doesn't have a chance in hell of working. The Nouri al-Maliki government is a joke as far as any kind of "unity" government in Iraq. Iraq has been irretrievably broken and cannot be put back together again.

The United States should call a regional summit in Iraq, invite international attendance, establish a fund for the reconstruction of Iraq, and get its troops the hell out of this hell-hole which Bush has dug. Nothing the U.S. can do sort of those measures will help the situation one iota.

Japan calls US policy in Iraq 'naive' AFP 4:47 am EST Sunday 04 February 2007

Doubts Run Deep on Reforms Crucial to Bush's Iraq Strategy Even Plan's Authors Say Political, Economic Changes May Fail - By Karen DeYoung - Washington Post Staff Writer - Sunday, February 4, 2007; A16 "The success of the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy depends on a series of rapid and dramatic political and economic reforms that even the plan's authors have little confidence will work."

Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause By Tom Lasseter - McClatchy Newspapers - Posted on Sat, Feb. 03, 2007

Bush-Osama symbiosis

It seems that Al Qa'ida certainly isn't on the run. It is no surprise that Osama bin Laden is still on the lam. George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden are the best promoters of each other's interests. By directing the attacks on 9/11 (Osama got the idea for the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centers from seeing U.S.-supplied Israeli jets bomb tall building in Beirut in 1982 which left them burning) Osama gave George W. a just reason to invade Afghanistan and a sufficient pretense to invade Iraq much to Osama's glee. Bush played into his hands perfectly! The U.S. invasion of Iraq gave Al Qa'ida a just cause.

Now the continuing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere against "Muslim extremists" are apparently bigger threats to the U.S. than international communism ever was if you judge it by the size of our "defense" spending. Of course the Bush-Cheney war regime and their corporate war economy love the excuse to spend more money! This is the "perfect storm" if I ever did see one. Count on even MORE spending next year with a failed surge and more "threats" for the Commander-in-Chief and U.S. strongman George W. Bush to muscle up to.

Remember how Afghanistan and "defense" spending helped cause the implosion of the Soviet Union. We are foolishly following in the same footsteps of that folly. George W. Bush will retire to Crawford and fuggedabout the struggle of ordinary Americans who used to be middle class but will become just more of the worlds working poor. The Decider has been allowed to decide their fate. Oh foolish Americans. Faux patriotism is folly. Bush and his super rich friends in the moneyed deciding class are laughing all the way to the bank.

Addendum: I wonder if 13% of GDP spending on the military during the Korean War was all off budget and financed by borrowing from foreign countries? I think not! All of the current spending on the war in Iraq is kep off budget and is being financed by borrowing from China and others - even if military spending is "only" 4% of our GDP.

Record $622 Billion Budget Requested for the Pentagon

quote:

---

By DAVID S. CLOUD
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Feb. 2 — The Bush administration is seeking a record military budget of $622 billion for the 2008 fiscal year, Pentagon officials have said. The sum includes more than $140 billion for war-related costs.

The administration is also seeking $93 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, to pay for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the officials said.

The requests are part of the annual budget request to Congress for all federal spending programs. The budget is to be made public on Monday, and Congress will revise it in the coming months.

Together with money for combat operations this year already approved by Congress, the new request would push spending related to Iraq and Afghanistan to $163 billion.

“It is the highest level of spending since the height of the Korean War,” said Steven Kosiak, a military budget expert with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a policy analysis organization here.

Mr. Kosiak said that in 1952 the United States spent the equivalent of $645 billion in today’s dollars, factoring in inflation, and that in the Korean War military spending exceeded 13 percent of the gross national product. The figure is now 4 percent.

~~~snip~~~

---

Bush seeks $130 billion for U.S. Army

quote:

---

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 59 minutes ago

The U.S. Army, which has borne much of the weight of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, would get $130 billion under President Bush's 2008 budget — a sizable increase that would help ease the strain and meet equipment needs.

The proposal represents a 16 percent hike over this year, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. When coupled with additional tens of billions of dollars in emergency war funding, it "should go a long ways toward making the Army better," said Steven Kosiak, an analyst with the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

~~~snip~~~

---

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

Mindless intertia, groupthink, mass psychosis

Only mindless inertia keeps the U.S. ship of state on its course towards disaster. It is possible to turn on a dime. There is no reason whatsoever to allow the failed U.S. war in Iraq to drag on and on and on just like the Vietnam war.

President Bush as Commander-in-Chief used his power of office to order more U.S. troops into harm's way in the face of a National Intelligence Estimate which says that the U.S. has little control over an increasingly perilous situation in Iraq. How smart and how responsible is that? Bush knew this delayed NIE report was about to be released and he knew its findinging before he ordered his stupid surge. Bush is throwing a snowball at an avalanche, and Brad thinks it has a possibility of working and must be given a chance to succeed. Played for a sucker again. Some people never learn. Americans are guilty of group think and mass psychosis when they buy anything that Bush says and continue to believe the disasterous U.S. war in Iraq is reversible or salvagable.

Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns

quote:

---

By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 2, 2007; A01

A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.

In a discussion of whether Iraq has reached a state of civil war, the 90-page classified NIE comes to no conclusion and holds out prospects of improvement. But it couches glimmers of optimism in deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption.

The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus.

~~~snip~~~

---

No Public Iraq NIE? By Spencer Ackerman [TPMmuckraker] February 1, 2007, 6:11 PM

US to make public key judgements of Iraq intel assessment

quote:

---

AFP 5:00 am EST Friday 02 February 2007

US intelligence plans to make public "key judgements" of its first national assessment on Iraq in two and a half years, which reportedly warns of a strong chance the situation on the ground will grow worse.

---

The sober conclusion:

In the face of a National Intelligence Estimate warning of an increasingly perilous situation in Iraq, Commander-in-Chief Bush decides to throw more U.S. troops into the breech. That is NOT "supporting the troops". Bush is again acting in a self-serving impetuous selfish manner. Bush and his policy in Iraq have failed and the deaths of more U.S. soldiers can't save Bush's reputation or his lost war.

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)

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~~~

---

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

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

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