Video: Ron Paul Asks the War Twins the Tough Questions

 

Random News & Views Roundup

- Did you know that Pakistan tested a medium range missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead just a few days ago? If, like me, you wonder why this happened now - in the midst of political chaos in that country - you'll find this Asia Times piece quite interesting.

- And, while you're at the Asia Times, check out this article by Tom Englehardt: Bombs away over Iraq: Who cares?. It's an eye-opening look at the increased use of air power in Iraq and the tens of thousands of pounds of bombs being dropped.

- Speaking of bombs: U.S. Says It Accidentally Killed 9 Iraqi Civilians (again) and Editor & Publisher takes on the claim that mentally disabled women (which the Times of London has labeled "Down's Syndrome Bombers") were used as suicide bombers in the latest Baghdad market attack.

- Omar Khadr's lawyers are back in the so-called "court" at Gitmo on Monday:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - A U.S. military tribunal will hear arguments Monday on whether it has the right to try Omar Khadr, a Canadian captured as a 15-year-old while fighting against American forces in Afghanistan in 2002.

Lawyers for Khadr, now 21, argue in a challenge on the hearings' agenda that the judge would be the first in western history to preside over a trial for alleged war crimes committed by a child.
[...]
Khadr's trial is scheduled for May and is on track to be the first for a detainee at the U.S. naval base in southeast Cuba, where the Pentagon's efforts to hold the first war-crimes trials since the Second World War era have been stalled by legal setbacks.

A Pentagon spokesman, navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said that Khadr's age may be considered during the sentencing phase if he is convicted - but it does not affect the trial.

While the deck is stacked against Khadr, pressure from international human rights group is mounting - urging Canada's heartless government to do the right thing. This weekend, UNICEF released a statement in support of Khadr's rights as well.

If in contact with a justice system, persons under 18 at the time of the alleged offense must be treated in accordance with international juvenile justice standards which provide them with special protection.

- The IAEA's Mohammed ElBaradei reports that Iran is cooperating with his agency's inquiry into Iran's nuclear facilities and that his report will be released later this month. The clock is ticking. Will Bush start one more war before he leaves office? Could the fact that Iran is without internet access right now be related? Here's more on that.

- Finally, this news in Afghanistan is reportedly causing strains between the Brits and Karzai: Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan
 

Bush in the ME: Iran, Iran, Iran

The question that needed to be asked about George Bush's first visit of his presidency to Israel last week was: why now? I suppose it was easy to write it off as Bush trying to salvage some sort of legacy when it comes to making any inroads in the Middle East peace process since his administration basically abandoned any effort towards real change via its' much ballyhooed 'road map' but the broader events in the region, most particularly the ongoing escalation of rhetoric and sanctions towards Iran, seemed to me to be the real reason for his sudden Middle East adventures and now the White House has confirmed that suspicion:

In a speech described by the White House as the centerpiece of his eight-day trip to the Middle East, Bush tried to speak directly to the people of Iran as he urged nations to help the United States "confront this danger before it is too late."

And it would be nice to think that the MSM wasn't playing along with neocon fantasies this time around like they did in the run up to the Iraq war, wouldn't it? It's obvious that when they write statements like this, their pandering to Bush administration policies and rhetoric has hardly diminished:

The comments Sunday were part of a Bush speech devoted to advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

(my emphasis)

No they weren't. They were 'devoted' to Bush pursuing more warmongering against Iran.

When the administration released its' questionable video this past week of supposed Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats 'threatening' a US ship in the Straits of Hormuz, more warning bells went off for those with saner heads. The American version of the audio that accompanied the situation didn't match the Iranians. Add to that the 'Filipino Monkey' theory posted by the Navy Times and it seemed Bushco was crying wolf yet again. Since the administration's 'evidence' of Iranian provocation seemed to fall flat on its face, the Pentagon then revealed that during a December confrontation with Iranian Guard boats, the US had fired 'warning shots'. You'd think, if that was true, the Pentagon would have made that public immediately following the incident since the use of warning shots in that incident would seem to provide more ammo (pun intended) to Bushco's assertion that Iran is such a huge threat that action needs to be taken against it ASAP. That didn't happen. Why? Could it simply be that Bush needed to trot out more 'evidence' to convince those he met with in the ME to go along with his aggressiveness towards Iran? It seems like pretty handy timing to me.

Last week, The Asia Times published a piece about the possibility that Iran may be needed as a new ally in the GWOT as a result of the instability in Pakistan and the growing concern about the fate of the war in Afghanistan. As always, the Bush administration also has to tread very carefully when it comes to dealing with Iran because of its dealings with Russia and China - two very formidable forces which would not stand by idly if the US attacked on Iranian soil. So, the geopolitics of the broader situation trump the simplistic Bush-style rhetoric of justifying bombing Iran for its own good - this 'freedom and democracy' bullshit excuse that the neocons have used the past 8 years as a rationale for their illegal war in Iraq.

And, while Bush has been focusing on Iran, al Qaeda has been threatening the Saudis who would need US military help if attacked on such a scale that the Saudis could not deal with it themselves. Bush visits the kingdom on Monday and Tuesday of this week - when the public can expect an announcement by the administration about the status of US arms sales to the country - to the tune of $20 billion. As for the Saudis and the Iranians, witness this uncomfortable exchange between a member of the press and some unnamed 'Senior Administration Official' at the latest press briefing:

Q King Abdallah has also formed a relationship with the President of Iran, and has invited him personally to come to the Hajj.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's what we are told, interestingly enough. We are told that Ahmadinejad, as he has done from time to time, invited himself. And one of the things about the Hajj is that it is -- the Saudi Arabian government makes it very much open to all Muslims to come. So if someone asks to come, the Saudis' view is, it's very difficult for them as the custodian of the two holy mosques, which is the whole point of the Hajj, for them to say no. So I think the Saudis would tell you they did not invite him, he invited himself, and they let him come, as they do generally when Muslims come and want to participate in the Hajj.

Q They were photographed arm in arm at the GCC.

Whoops.

So, as much as Bush and the neocons are itching to go after Iran militarily while Israeli hawks like Benjamin Netanyahu are pushing him down that road, the political calculations are much more messy and complex than the administration would like the American public to believe. Such a move could have major consequences, even beyond the ramifications of the decision to invade Iraq, which could set back America's international relations to a point where the resulting political instability could well be far more devastating than what Bushco has already wrought in the world.

While the rest of us are waiting to find out what Bush's final act in the Middle East will be, only he knows how his term will end and what sort of legacy he'll choose to leave for the next president. And that is probably the scariest thing in all of this, given his track record of death and destruction.
 

Sunday Food for Thought: The Economy of Fear

It was just a quick news blurb on CNN this past Friday morning: following Thursday's announcement by the former head of Chevron's public policy committee, Condi Rice, of tougher US sanctions against Iran - the freezing of bank assets and the delegation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist entity, the price of oil had risen to a 30-something year high of $92/barrel.

There's no doubt that Rice is an intelligent woman but when you add manipulation and a staunch right-wing ideological bent to that equation, as we've seen for years now, the sum is dangerous. And while conservatives and Republicans say they won't raise your taxes, they always find a way to make you pay in the end. Rising oil prices = increased taxes for the government. Rising oil prices = increased transportation costs = higher food and goods prices. Rising oil prices = increased heating costs. Pretty simple. Taxed to death by stealth while the top wage earners and biggest corporations get the tax cuts and business booms for the military-industrial complex. An ever increasing debt - well, you get the picture. And while Bush claims that the economy is supposedly doing "great", the average Joe and Jane sure aren't feeling it. Quite the scam they have going.

Anyway, back to Condi. When she appeared before the House Foreign Affairs committee last week, they really should have handed out bibs for all of the drooling that went on about the fact that she was actually there. One starstruck/dumbstruck congressperson was quite amazed that, having seen her on his teevee a couple of days prior in another country, she was there - right in front of him! I guess he's never heard of "airplanes".

As one who hasn't put much stock in all of these news reports about how Condi is on the outs with Cheney over his warmongering against Iran - that she acts as some sort of balance to keep him from going over the edge - I listened carefully to her answer to one question: what did she think of his "escalating rhetoric". Now, being the diplomat she is (that's where her intelligence comes in very handy - she's a master of blathering on without saying much of anything, obviously in love with her ideas and the sound of her own voice), she craftily said nothing against Cheney. She did say, however, exactly what I've thought all along: that she believes in "diplomacy with teeth". In other words, she and Cheney play good cop/bad cop to get what they want and she serves as a glorified messenger girl - delivering Cheney's "teeth" with a faux smile wherever she goes. This is important: she's obviously very much on side with Cheney's plans for Iran.

The White House has obviously gotten the opposite message out in an attempt to pretend that Condi is doing what a US secretary of state is supposed to do ie. encouraging intelligent discourse as opposed to bombing the hell out of a country. They've carefully constructed the illusion that Condi has reformed since her Iraq/smoking gun/mushroom cloud talking point days. There's still smoke coming from her these days though: smoke and mirrors. The only thing that's changed is her job title.

Let's take a look at a bit of a reality check from the IAEA's Mohammed ElBaradei about what's going on in Iran. (Rice didn't mention the IAEA once in her testimony this past week that I recall. No need to wonder why.)

Via the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.

"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."

"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran this month of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program. She said there is no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the IAEA about its intentions.
[...]
ElBaradei said he was worried about the growing rhetoric from the U.S., which he noted focused on Iran's alleged intentions to build a nuclear weapon rather than evidence the country was actively doing so. If there is actual evidence, ElBaradei said he would welcome seeing it.

"I'm very much concerned about confrontation, building confrontation, because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiation and inspection," he said.

"My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we will end up into a precipice, we will end up into an abyss. As I said, the Middle East is in a total mess, to say the least. And we cannot add fuel to the fire," ElBaradei added.

Meanwhile, Condi makes the slide into that abyss - Bush's WW3 - sound like a Sunday afternoon picnic at grandma's. They're on top of it. No big deal. Enjoy the popcorn. As an added bonus, all of this abyss talk excites those folks who anxiously await the rapture ie. Bush's base. They're pretty disillusioned with him and his party right now since they didn't get Roe v Wade reversed or a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. They need something to make them get out to the polls in '08, as do the wealthy industrialists and the big guns in the oil patch.

Ordinary Americans have already been screwed over six ways from Sunday and, since they haven't started a revolution in the streets to take down the government yet (when both major parties are being absolutely useless), what's another war? I don't even know what "American values" are anymore. Sitting around and watching the tube while your country is being destroyed before your very eyes? That's all I can come up with. As for so-called concerned congresspeople, I can count those on less than ten toes and the Pelosi "impeachment is off the table" caucus is a disgrace to democracy - unless you believe that democratic principles consist of running away and hiding whenever the nasty Republicans call you "weak on terror".

It's been predicted that $100/barrel oil might be a psychological breaking point. Really? It inches ever closer to that mark with every threat Cheney/Rice/Bush make towards Iran and I'm not seeing any inkling of panic on the streets yet. I imagine, when that news blurb comes, the majority of Americans will just once again grit their teeth and put up with it. I guess that's what happens when you don't live in an open democracy anymore. You just give up. For a while, at least.

Related:

Target Iran part 1
Yet More Condi Rice Diplomacy
Condi Rice, Imperial Cheerleader
Iran Adapts to Economic Pressure - Oil Market Could Help It Weather U.S. Sanctions (ah...the irony)

Update: This is encouraging but what will the follow up look like? Thousands in US anti-war protests
 
 

America's Need for Enemies

America has a pathological need to have enemies - to play the hero. And when it doesn't have real ones, it creates them.

It's a paranoid way to exist in a world where it has been proven, time and time again, that differences and over-exaggerated threats serve only one purpose: to inflate the importance of America's power. And it's the love of that power that allows so many Americans to buy into the propaganda foisted upon them by successive governments that the idea of "America" must be protected at all costs. It breeds an insecurity so rabid in its citizens that they willingly surrender their own rights in the furtherance of that goal because they are not "the enemy", after all. Or so they think as they fail to acknowledge that their government sees them as exactly that.

Since the country's inception, when native peoples were considered a wholesale threat who had to slaughtered or Americanized in order to be brought into line, when slaves were held as chattel because their un-Americanism made them less than people, when power that women sought by being allowed to vote was seen as a threat to the very fabric of democracy to the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2 followed by the communist witch hunt led by McCarthy, to the need of the powers that be to infiltrate the anti-Vietnam war movement and feel threatened by the civil rights movement to the renewed fear of communists and now the new "terrorists" lurking behind every dark-skinned person who looks at someone differently - Americans have been conditioned to live in fear of the other when, in fact, their friends and family members actually constitute more of an actual threat to them on any given day. Crime perpetrated by strangers ought to be the least of their worries. But that doesn't jibe with the myth that outside forces or from other countries or people who are "different" hold the key to whether or not they will actually live or die.

The Bush administration's successful use of psyops to keep the population living in perpetual fear is still effective - despite the fact that their claims of things like those of Saddam Hussein having WMD or a connection to 9/11 have been proven to be false. And now, the demonization of someone like Iran's president Ahmadenijad and the hysterical reaction it has created in yet another example of how manipulated people will choose to be fooled by a government that has absolutely no track record of credibility.

But, America needs its enemies. Because, when America has enemies, there's power to be grasped and money to be made by those whose business it is to "defend" against those "threats". What ordinary people who refuse to look at why they're being manipulated fail to grasp is that there's a system being fed by their fear and it's not a system that benefits them in any way. It benefits the powermongers, the military-industrial complex, the political operatives, the lobbyists, the arms dealers, the countries the US claims it needs to protect in order to be the keeper of its "interests".

Those interests are power and money that come via the pillaging of the world's resources and the cost of those exploits is the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in foreign lands along with those who willingly sacrifice their lives in the name of the myth. Those sacrifices are the trade off that those in power are willing to make to secure their treasure. Those sacrifices are nothing but names and numbers to people like Bush, Cheney and the neocons. They're expendable people who only serve to keep the oppressive system functioning. The Iraq war is nothing but a modern act of piracy with more sophisticated weaponry.

And Ahmadenijad? The Iranian president who actually has very little power beyond his words and whose government is cooperating with the IAEA's inspections while asserting it his country's right to have nuclear energy and weaponry? He's the new Saddam, according to the Bush administration and leaders of other countries like France and Canada who are acting like nothing more than puppets in order to whip up the same hysteria about him that Bush and his cadre did about Hussein and Iraq. We've been here before. Once again, we have the same warnings from Mohammed elBarardei to let the process work. Once again, we have a compliant world press more than eager to sell an attack on Iran as being justifiable.

This time, however, having been there, we know that the Bush administration can and will do whatever it wants to about Iran because it has proven that it has absolutely no regard for the consequences it foists upon the world as a result of implementing its neocon policies or world dominance and influence.

So we wait.

There's no point in discussing whether or when an attack might happen. What needs to be discussed is the pathology, the history ie. how America has reached this point - because that's the only way it can begin to be changed. That change won't come with a new president in the White House in 2009. The pathological need for an American belief in its own power is ingrained in every single candidate running for office (except perhaps for Dennis Kucinich - but he won't win anyway.)

America is sorely in need of a paradigm shift. Will that come from within or will a country like China finally call in the debt America owes it to actually force a change? Just how much more does American democracy need to self-destruct before the people actually stand up strongly and take notice? More importantly, are they willing to really defend America by insisting that the power games are over - that America is about them - not some stuffed egos in suits in DC who are only in it for themselves?

Perhaps the bottom line is this: do they even care? Or have they been so beaten into submission that the idea of "America" no longer matters any more when all they can muster is enough energy to survive as they flip on the tv everyday to see if this is the day that America has, once again, attacked another country in their name that is no threat to their security? And if it has, what then?

Related:

"Petty and Cruel Dictator" by Cindy Sheehan (h/t Madman in the Marketplace)

A Feeling I'm Being Had by Scott Adams at The Dilbert Blog

Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1 by Juan Cole
 

Hamas: The Israeli government's sanctions are a "declaration of war"

Ehud Olmert announced on Wednesday that his government has decided to cut off fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip - only allowing the flow of water to continue. In response to this contravention of the Fourth Geneva Conventions that address collective punishment, a Hamas spokesman said they considered this move a "declaration of war".

The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, wasted no time in coming out and insisting that this move by the Israeli government violates international law but, considering the scores of UN resolutions that Israel has defied for decades, it's doubtful that it will suffer any consequences as a result.

Barak also said that Israel is moving closer to a large-scale military operation in Gaza. "Every day that passes brings us closer to an operation in Gaza," Barak was quoted as saying. He said an array of options would be considered before a major invasion.

The PMO statement also said that there would be restrictions on "the passage of various goods to the Gaza Strip," but stressed that all steps "will be enacted following a legal examination, while taking into account both the humanitarian aspects relevant to the Gaza Strip and the intention to avoid a humanitarian crisis."

The thing is that there is already a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. To state that you intend to look at your legal standing in imposing such crushing sanctions in order to avoid one is absolutely ludicrous.

Meanhwile, Condi Rice is in Israel for a 24-hour drive-by visit - no doubt to bring the White House's support for Olmert's actions while pretending to be concerned about the fate of the Palestinian people as the US government keeps funneling money to Abbas in the West Bank.

Israeli officials are promoting a proposal that the West Bank and Gaza be viewed as separate entities, and that Israel act more forcefully in Gaza to crack down on Hamas militants.

Senior Bush administration officials said no decision had been made. Some State Department officials argue that the administration could only support such a separation if Israel agreed to make political concessions to Mr. Abbas in the West Bank, with the goal of undermining Hamas in the eyes of Palestinians by improving life in the West Bank.

But it would be diplomatically perilous for the United States to be seen as turning its back on Gaza. Almost half of the Palestinian population lives on the teeming strip of land. A more desperate Gaza could become a breeding ground for Al Qaeda.

“Nobody wants to abandon the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in the Gaza Strip to the mercies of a terrorist organization,” said the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack. “We’re certainly not going to participate in extinguishing the hopes of a whole swath of the Palestinian population to live in a Palestinian state.”

The administration has led international efforts to isolate the Hamas-dominated government, demanding that it renounce violence, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by existing agreements between the Palestinians and Israel.

So, while state department spokespuppets like Sean McCormack say one thing, the Bush administration is doing the opposite by backing Olmert in this latest move. They are already actively participating in extinguishing those hopes by giving financial and military aid to the Israeli government.

Hollow words.

Needless to say, this is not the way to promote any kind of peace process, especially in the broader volatilities going on in the region with respect to Israel's relationships with Syria and Iran. Egypt also joined Syria today in calling for an IAEA resolution to have Israel's nuclear facilities inspected - a proposal, as the article states, that is brought up regularly by Arab states which has often been put off but which, this time, seems to be receiving more of push from those 2 countries. And Syria has every reason to be concerned after Israeli air strikes occurred within its borders just 2 weeks ago - a move finally confirmed by Netanyahu on Wednesday (although no reason for the strike has yet been given).

It seems Condi's cherished November "peace conference" meeting is in jeopardy as Abbas is now under pressure from Fatah not to attend if other Arab states like Syria are shut out of the meeting. The Saudis are also threatening to boycott the conference is it isn't expected to offer anything of substance. By the time November rolls around, it may just be Rice and Olmert playing footsies at the table while everyone else stays home.

They're even fighting over what to call the damn thing:

White House: Int'l Mideast meeting is not a big peace conference

By Aluf Benn, Barak Ravid and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents and The Associated Press

The White House said Tuesday the international meeting on the Middle East proposed by U.S. President George W. Bush should not be viewed as a big peace conference and it is too early to say where or when it will be.

However, the U.S. State Department said Tuesday that the meeting would most likely be held in the United States but the participants are still to be worked out.

White House spokesman Tony Snow at first described the meeting as an international conference, but several hours later he backed away from that portrayal as being too ambitious.

And let's play spot the contradiction yet again:

"This is a meeting," Snow said. "I think a lot of people are inclined to try to treat this as a big peace conference. It's not."

Announcing the meeting in a major policy speech Monday, Bush said it would be chaired by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and attended by envoys from Israel, the Palestinians and Arab nations. He framed the meeting in the context that the world can do more to build the conditions for peace.

Is it any wonder the Bush administration has been completely AWOL on the ME peace process? Let's face it: Bush's agenda is just to coast until he's done his term while passing this situation, along with Iraq and Afghanistan, to whoever wins the WH in '08. Neocons only know how to start wars, not end them. "Peace" is just a word in the dictionary between "paranoia" and "profits".

And it's clear that the Israeli government wants nothing to do with this talk of "peace":

On Tuesday, Israeli officials welcomed Bush's initiative for an international summit, but Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokeswoman Miri Eisin said that "this is not the time to discuss the key issues."

Eisin said the meeting would provide an opportunity to bring together all those who are truly interested in peace in the Middle East. However, she said it is too early to talk about full-fledged peace talks as long as Palestinian violence against Israel continues. A peace settlement would require agreement on such contentious issues as borders, the fate of millions of Palestinian refugees and the status of Israel's disputed capital Jerusalem.

"Israel has been very clear. We don't think at this stage you can talk about final status issues, but such a meeting would certainly add to the capability of arriving at the core issues," she said.

Around and around it goes as tensions between the countries in the region grow as a result of the neglect of any viable path to peace.

And I haven't even mentioned Iran, which has reportedly announced retaliation against Israel should its government attack or the assassination of an anti-Syrian lawmaker in Lebanon today.
 

9/11 - 6 Years Later

This man - this incompetent, criminal opportunist - is set to speak to Americans again on Thursday. And who would have guessed that, 6 full years after the attacks of 9/11, the topic of his speech would be war with Iraq? Certainly not the neocons who seized on the horrors of 9/11 as an excuse to illegally wage war on that country. They thought it would be a cakewalk. Many of them are now tremendously frustrated that their dreams of pillaging Iraq's oil have not yet been fully realized. "Blood and treasure" was a phrase used throughout the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker the past two days. Why was I reminded of pirates?

And what of the Afghanistan war - the so-called just war waged after the 9/11 attacks? It's been quietly forgotten. When Petraeus was asked how his plans for Iraq might impact the GWOT, he basically said that figuring that out was not his department - that it was his job to focus solely on the Iraq war. He couldn't (or wouldn't) answer how the concentration of American troops might affect the US military's inability to deal with conflicts in the rest of the world and at home. His responses reminded me of the warnings given before and after 9/11 about US intelligence agencies not working together to deal with possible threats. And we all know what the result of that failure was.

Ryan Crocker, acting like a CEO addressing concerned corporate shareholders about their investments in Iraq (and that's really what his testimony was about, wasn't it?) could only parrot Petraeus by admitting he was "frustrated". He spoke with a chilling, distant, business-like indifference about the plight of the actual people - the Iraqis - whose fate is in his hands. No "timelines, dates or guarantees". Nothing.

And neither man could admit that the counter-insurgency strategy that's been implemented has also been practiced (most likely by accident since the official Petraeus manual hadn't been written yet) in Afghanistan - that of working with the locals while not making the much-needed connections to the federal government. The result? War lords back in power. The Taliban continuing its oppression. Karzai crying crocodile tears over all of the civilians NATO and the US military keep killing in air strikes - air power being used because there are not, and never were, enough troops on the ground. Opium once again the number one cash crop driving Afghanistan's economy. But, on this anniversary of 9/11, Iraq was the focus.

Petraeus, claiming he didn't have any sort of political agenda, was basically a two-trick pony: the problems in Iraq are being caused by al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran - convenient targets considering the Bush administration's fearmongering of late. And, as was pointed out to Petraeus, the fact that the Sunnis are rebelling against AQI in al Anbar is not so much about the fact that they've suddenly been won over (in the "hearts and minds" game). The opposition to AQI came about because their people were being raped and slaughtered. The US military seems to have no problem with supporting the Sunnis, especially since they can execute whomever they like without following the rules of war. And while Petraeus heralds this so-called triumph, the political reality of supporting the Sunnis is actually counter-productive to the concept of "national reconciliation" that both Petraeus and Crocker admit has not moved along as expected. Well, what do they expect when neither of them said one thing about the absolutely rampant corruption in al Maliki's government along with his dictatorial actions to shut down any investigations about the wrongdoing?

Shades of Afghanistan once again.

And while Petraeus hopes that touting so-called progress at the micro level is reason enough to convince congress, Americans and the world that the occupation should continue, the Bush administration is placing serious roadblocks to dealing with players in the region, like Iran and Syria, at the macro level - using threats, intimidation and sanctions as a macho form of cowboy diplomacy. How has that worked out so far?

Meanwhile, Karzai is once again trying to negotiate with the Taliban while they refuse to do so with foreign troops in the country and Musharraf pulled out of attending an Afghanistan peace conference in August. As a result of Musharraf's continual inability or reluctance to deal with insurgents in Waziristan, the US government is now placing its hopes in the return of the corrupt Benazir Bhutto. (The NYT has more on Pakistan's current political situation.)

On all of these fronts, there is no coherent and comprehensive policy except the continued push by the White House to assert its executive powers (made up as they go along while shredding the constitution in the process) against the American people.

“Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.”

-James Harvey Robinson, Amercian historian (1863-1936)

The dangerous fawning of the Republicans who place their party and president before their country is still on display this week, despite the mountains of evidence that have proven that the choice to invade Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that execution of that and the Afghanistan war are massive failures. And they, along with corporatist Democrats who believe they owe their fealty to members of the military industrial complex - including lobbyists for foreign governments like Israel which is now under an even greater threat as a result of the regional destabilization - have sold out their constituents; doomed them to more funerals and the human and financial costs of dealing with the wounded coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan while still creating a hell overseas that they cannot even bring themselves to honestly imagine. Token visits to safe areas like the green zone or tours outside those boundaries under extremely heavy guard do not provide them with an adequate sense of reality. They'd do well to spend time with some of the 2 million refugees, within and outside of Iraq, to really understand exactly what they have wrought. Maybe then they wouldn't keep fiddling while Baghdad and Helmund province in Afghanistan burn as a result of their rash decisions.

So, on this day while America and the world once again mourns for those killed on 9/11, who is mourning for the hundreds of thousands who have died due to the need for revenge that followed that day 6 years ago?

And the question that once again hangs in the air is simple: Was it all worth it?

And who has been held accountable? Keith Olbermann offers "No truth, no consequences":


Where is the mass rebellion?

Update: The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

And so it begins...
 

Saddam's WMD Found - in NYC

Is America safer, as Bush says? You decide.

Exhibit A: Chemical weapon scare causes U.N. evacuation

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- A U.N. office was evacuated after workers found vials that may have contained the poison gas phosgene Thursday.

U.N. archivists unexpectedly turned up samples of material from an Iraqi chemical weapons plant in weapons inspectors' files dating back to the 1990s, but the substance is not believed to pose any immediate danger, U.N. officials said Thursday.

The material was taken from al-Muthanna chemical weapons plant north of Baghdad. The samples are sealed and have been there since 1996, U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe said.

Whoops.

Exhibit B: Audit finds U.S. nuclear weapons parts misplaced

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Some facilities that handle the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile misplaced classified bomb components under their care, according to an Energy Department audit.

The department's Inspector General also found there was confusion at the facilities over who was responsible for keeping track of weapons parts and recommended changes in how to better safeguard the parts.

John Broehm, a spokesman for the department's National Nuclear Security Administration that oversees the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal, said his agency disagreed with the recommendations.

He said the parts, which he declined to identify, were later found.

Right. What's the point of agreeing with recommendations to tighten things up? Heckuva job there, Mr Broehm. It's not like they've had that many security concerns there, after all.

Exhibit C: Meanwhile, these actual acts of domestic terrorism are getting very little press, FBI Investigates String of Store Threats. If this was happening in my country, I think I'd like to know about it.

NEWPORT, R.I. (AP) -- Large grocery and discount stores across the country have been targeted by a caller who threatens to blow up shoppers and workers with a bomb if employees fail to wire money to an account overseas, authorities said.

Frightened workers have wired thousands of dollars - and in one case took off their clothes - to placate a caller who said he was watching them but may have been thousands of miles away. The FBI and police said Wednesday they are investigating similar bomb threats at more than 15 stores in at least 11 states - all in the past week.

"At this point, there's enough similarities that we think it's potentially one person or one group," FBI spokesman Rich Kolko said from Washington.

No one has been arrested, no bombs have been found, and no one has been hurt, though the calls have triggered store evacuations and prompted lengthy sweeps by police and bomb squads.
[...]
Separately, the FBI is looking into bomb threats on college campuses, including two in Ohio - the University of Akron and Kenyon College. No explosive devices have been found. Law enforcement officials said there was no evidence at this time linking the college bomb threats with those at grocery and discount stores.

Kenyon, in Gambier in central Ohio, received six separate bomb threats in a general admissions e-mail account between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. Wednesday, college spokesman Shawn Presley said. Local and federal authorities determined the threats to be a hoax and the school was not evacuated as officials swept buildings searching for the bomb, he said.

Of course, the lesson in all of this is obviously that Iran should be your number one security concern because Bush says so. Just ignore all of the rest of this trivial stuff. Nothing to see there, folks.

Oh, and speaking of Iran: Iran atom work at slow pace and not significant: IAEA.

Priorities people. Priorities.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- When the going gets tough, the weak run to Baghdad for a photo op. Although, Bush and Cheney may just be hoping that Abu Gonzales runs into one of those pesky IEDs. Then they can literally kill two annoying birds with one stone: the Gonzales problem - gone - and they can blame Iran on top of it. Oh no, I'm starting to think like them...must be a virus...I'd better take some medication. There is medication, right?

- Mitt "Ken Doll™" Romney won the Iowa straw pall on Saturday. What a manly man:

AMES, Iowa (Reuters) - Republican Mitt Romney won the first test of the 2008 White House race on Saturday, using a big wallet and broad organization to muscle aside a field of second-tier rivals in a low-turnout Iowa straw poll.

Hell, that description's almost porn film worthy. Show me your big wallet and your broad shoulders, muscle man. (Not that I've ever actually seen a porn film. *cough*)

- Some kind of beam was installed on the space station today. I think they may be planning to make the Canadian astronaut walk the plank. I hear he's been telling a lot of Bush jokes up there.

- Yasser Arafat was poisoned?

- The Bush administration is nervous about Musharraf's future - so much so that it's assessing Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Not only that:

Musharraf controls the loyalty of the commanders and senior officials in charge of the nuclear program, but those loyalties could shift at any point, officials say.

The United States is not certain who might start controlling nuclear launch codes and weapons if that shift in power were to happen.

That's comforting, isn't it? Musharraf tried his best to provide reassurance on Saturday, which might actually mean something if he wasn't in the middle of huge political mess (of his own creation).

- Gordon Prather: Challenging Bush’s Reality (on Iran).

- Ben Tripp: On Fleeing the Country (a good read)
 

Bush Crawls Back to the UN

The Bush administration has so utterly failed in its handling of the Iraq war and the resulting, growing tensions in the region, that it has decided to cede diplomatic control to the UN.

After reviewing its Iraq policy last winter, the White House committed to boosting diplomatic efforts in the region. But Washington has failed to win significant new cooperation from any of the countries bordering Iraq -- Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Turkey. In Egypt last week, Rice met with the "six plus two" nations, an informal alliance of the six sheikdoms in the Gulf Cooperation Council plus Egypt and Jordan, but the only tangible result was a Saudi offer to explore opening an embassy in Baghdad.

"Regional diplomacy has turned out to be only lip service," said Chas Freeman, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "We have failed to create circumstances for political reconciliation and unity in Iraq. And we have not taken the next step to engage with Iraq's neighbors to support a process that produces that result."

U.S. efforts to directly enlist Iranian support in Iraq have also suffered setbacks. Since May, Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, has twice held formal talks with Iranian ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi in Baghdad, but State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Thursday that this new dialogue -- the first public contact between the two nations in 28 years -- has so far yielded no positive results.

The new resolution passed on Thursday would see the UN not only taking on a larger humanitarian presence in Iraq but would have that body try to clean up the diplomatic mess that Bushco has made due to its view of itself as the prime architect of reshaping the region in its own image:

After the 2003 invasion, many of Iraq's neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, called for a regional forum under U.S. or U.N. auspices. But Washington did not want to legitimize Tehran and Damascus by engaging in diplomatic talks, Arab officials said. More recently, the Bush administration has sought to tap regional assistance and resources, they added, but with too little credibility and limited time left in Bush's term to meet critical goals.

The Bush administration took the same stubborn, non-negotiating course with North Korea until that country finally retaliated by testing a long range missile last summer to get some attention. Then suddenly, US/North Korean talks were back on. This is a clan of neocons that seems to prefer crises to steady and direct diplomacy. That's "hard work", apparently.

After sending Colin Powell to lie to the UN Security Council about Iraq's so-called WMD and the ridiculous notion that unleashing John "bull in a china shop" Bolton to the UN to try to strong arm the institution to do what the neocons wanted both failed, it's quite something to see Bushco finally surrendering to the UN. However, there are always at least two sides to situations like this. Bushco may see this handover of power to the UN negotiators as a way to escape ultimate responsibility for what does happen in Iraq, Iran and beyond - which to me is the more likely reason for relinquishing control.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

I didn't have internet access most of the day. (Yikes.) Time to catch up on what I missed:

- What if you screamed for your life and no one helped you? Get involved.

- Columnist Paul Jackson provides comic relief. Rob Anders = "rock star"? What else can you expect from a man who believes this:

I've contended for some time if Harper can win a majority, and he will, he will become a beloved PM of our nation, and will be able to hold the job for as long as he wants.

- With rumblings that Harper will soon shuffle his cabinet (code words for finally dumping the useless Gordon O'Connor) Steve at Far and Wide claims to have an exclusive on what the new cabinet will look like. (h/t penlan)

- Can someone please tell me why Canada cannot secure the release of Omar Khadr - the only known Canadian known to be held in Gitmo? Via The Independent:

The families of five former British residents incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for up to five years were celebrating after learning the men could finally be coming home within months.

The end of their ordeal was in sight after the Government formally requested the release of the five men, who had been living legally in the UK before they were picked up abroad by the American authorities.

All nine British nationals held in the notorious military base in Cuba were returned to this country by 2005, but Tony Blair had refused to intervene on behalf of another group of men legally resident in this country before their detention. Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, announced a change of heart and raised the subject in talks last week with President George Bush. He was encouraged by signs that the White House is moving towards closing the camp. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, have written to Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, to ask for the men's release.

Our gutless, heartless Conservative government refuses to do absolutely anything to help Khadr as other countries' detainees are going home. Write to your MP and demand action. This has gone on long enough.

- Michael Ignatieff performs some intellectual masturbation about intellectual masturbation and, somewhere in there, admits he was wrong to support the Iraq war. I may have missed it - because I passed out from boredom after he mentioned Machiavelli - but I don't suppose he's given that much thought to his vote to extend Canada's Afghanistan mission last year, has he? Maybe we'll have to wait a few more years until his next mea culpa NYT editorial to see that happen.

- Newsflash: Bush is a lying warmonger.

US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.

"It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to a destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon," he said during a joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

But Iran has repeatedly said that its nuclear program, which is widely believed in the West to be cover for an effort to develop atomic weapons, is for civilian purposes.

Asked to provide examples of Tehran openly declaring that it seeks atomic weapons, White House officials contacted by AFP said that Bush was referring to Iran's defiance of international calls to freeze sensitive nuclear work.

Looks like they'll have to cook up a newly forged Niger yellowcake letter to make that one fly.

- Meanwhile, some young Iranian cyclists have been very busy riding across Europe, the UK and the US as part of their "Miles For Peace" campaign. Perhaps if warmongering westerners actually saw real-life Iranian people besides Ahmadinejad, they might think about the repercussions of possibly bombing Iran. Then again...history has proven otherwise, hasn't it?

- The Asia Times offers an in depth look at tensions within Iran from insurgent groups and possible US involvement in supporting those activities.

- Uri Avnery on White Elephants.
 

Turkey Threatens to Invade Iraq, Again

Following the recent re-election of Turkey's prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan , (dubbed by the Jerusalem Post as being "Turkey's Boring Elections"), it was thought that perhaps all of his saber-rattling and military buildup of a reported 140,000 troops along Iraq's northern border (which the US military denied, of course) lining up to go after the PKK in that country might subside - that Erdogan had just used the macho military stance as an election ploy. That assumption, however, may have proven to be a huge misjudgment (and who knows? It may have already started).

(Sidebar: Let's just take note of what WH press sockpuppet Tony Snow had to say about that in early July:

In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the US shared Turkey's concerns but that it was "important, we think, to recognise the territorial sovereignty of Iraq".

Laugh. I'll wait.)

Alrighty then...on we go...

According to the Washington Post:

CAIRO -- Turkish leaders this week will give visiting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki what Turkish military commanders and analysts said could be a final warning to act against anti-Turkey Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq -- or to stand by while Turkish forces go after the rebels themselves, risking a new front in Iraq's war.

Leaders of Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party appear to be in agreement with Turkey's generals that the time has come to move against the Kurdistan Workers' Party, known by its Kurdish initials, PKK, in its bases in the mountains of northern Iraq, former generals and a military expert close to the Turkish military's general staff said.
[...]
Turkey accuses Iraq's Kurds -- who have built a nearly autonomous Kurdish state in northern Iraq under protection of the U.S. military since the early 1990s -- of giving the Kurdish rebels a haven and allowing them free passage back and forth across the Iraqi border into Turkey.

And if that sounds exactly like the rhetoric the US is using about going after al Qaeda in northern Pakistan, whether Pakistan agrees or not, it's because it is.

As the WaPo article notes:

Robert D. Novak wrote in a syndicated column that appeared July 30 in The Washington Post that Eric S. Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey and now an undersecretary of defense policy, had secretly briefed U.S. lawmakers that the United States was planning a covert action with the Turkish army against the PKK in northern Iraq. Edelman added that "the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied," according to Novak.

The leak of the alleged plans for a U.S.-Turkish operation makes a fully covert mission now impossible, noted Strategic Forecasting, a private intelligence-analysis agency based in Austin.

But it was one of those "handy" leaks for the US government as well:

With the alleged planning made public, "the United States is betting that the Iraqi Kurdish leadership will succumb to pressure to act against the PKK itself, and thus preclude the need for a major Turkish incursion -- which would be an extremely messy situation considering the bloody result of having two NATO allies, PKK rebels and battle-hardened pesh merga forces fighting it out in mountainous terrain," the group wrote, using the Kurdish term for fighters.

And to complicate matters:

Iran, also combating Kurdish rebels on its soil, has used the situation to court an alliance with Turkey. Last month, the two countries signed a major gas line proposal, and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan invited Maliki to the Turkish capital, after Erdogan's party triumphed in the elections. The prime minister accompanied his invitation with a new public warning that Turkey's military would strike the PKK in northern Iraq if the United States and their Iraqi allies failed to do so. Maliki is due in Ankara on Tuesday.

So, if US forces joined in the fight against the PKK, they'd ironically be on the same side as the Iranians. Maybe there was a bit more to the meeting on Monday between the US ambassador and his Iranian counterpart than we know about.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi Kurdish party passed its own oil law on Monday (which invites foreign-based oil companies in to pillage for profit) as a signal to al Maliki's government that it will proceed regardless of his parliamentary problems. Nothing like creating even more tension in Iraq:

While the Kurds view their petroleum law as a mark of their self-governing powers, other Iraqi observers say the Kurdish parliament's actions today could further inflame tensions with Iraq's Shiite and Sunni populations.

"Oil is politics in Iraq and I think this will fuel to the fire and upset more people in Baghdad," said former Iraqi oil minister Issam Al-Chalabi, who is now an independent energy consultant. "I think the Kurds should have waited to get a federal deal first before passing their own oil law."

The Guardian notes:

The operations at Taq Taq and Tawke are based on controversial production-sharing agreements signed with the Kurdistan regional government, under which the private companies get between 10%-20% of the profit. The rest goes into government hands.

Such production-sharing agreements are anathema to much of Iraq's oil establishment, as well as to the country's oil unions. The unions, which are strongest in the southern oilfields around Basra, have also rounded on the Iraqi oil minister, Hussein Shahristani, threatening to disrupt production and exports if foreign oil companies are granted too much access to Iraqi oil. In response, Mr Shahristani has ordered his ministry's agencies and departments not to deal with the unions.

And those union members have been very busy protesting and striking , despite the violence on the streets all around them.

Let's face it: war for oil is a messy business.

Oh...and let's throw Karzai saying nice things about Iran in the mix just to show how absolutely screwed the clueless, incompetent neocons really are.

This war won't be over for a very long time.
 

Obama: The Audacity of Hope?

That's what Barack Obama said he was running on. He even wrote a book about it.

But this is not what "hope" looks like:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

I thought (naively, I suppose) that America would be done with infringing on other countries' sovereignty once dubya was gone. Instead, Obama supports the Bush Doctrine:

According to the Bush Doctrine, grave threats require a military response regardless of other countries' views. The Bush doctrine includes making reasonable efforts to include other nations in military or diplomatic actions, however in the absence of coalition partners, unilateral military action is taken against perceived threats. The policy document states that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower.

And then there's Hillary the Hawk, who still hasn't apologized for her support of the AUMF against Iraq:

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

And how did that work out for him, Hillary?

John Edwards has the right idea, sort of:

Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda."

(But they won't, of course, since Pakistan and SA are their allies - no matter what those countries do.)

And that doesn't make up for the fact that he's in there like a dirty shirt warmongering against Iran to show his support for Israel.

Hawks - all of them. Don't expect US foreign policy to change any time soon, no matter who's elected president in '08. The wars must go on.
 

The New Cold War

Two newspaper articles from different continents on Sunday analyzed the new "cold war". In Haaretz, Aluf Benn follows on the news of US arms sales to the Saudis and the increase in military aid (which also consists of $150 million for a ballistic missile defence system) to Israel.

The massive sale of arms to Saudi Arabia and its neighbors in the Gulf and the increase in military aid to Israel are the U.S. response to the Iranian threat, and the flow of arms from Russia to Iran and Syria. Each arms-supplying power has its own interests: the Russians want to deter the U.S. and Israel from bombing the Iranian nuclear facility - therefore, they have supplied the Iranians with advanced air defense. Such systems will also be supplied to Syria in the coming year. The Americans like to talk about democracy in the Arab world, but they believe that strengthening armies is the most efficient way to protect stability and maintain pro-Western regimes in the face of extremist Islam.

That is definitely the crux of the matter and it's also the reason why, in the midst of these crises, all Condi Rice is doing is talking about some sort of vague upcoming meeting to address the ME peace process. The Bush administration firmly believes in the use of force, not diplomacy or democracy, as was most recently evident in its funneling of money to Mahmoud Abbas in an attempt to get rid of Hamas and its military aid to Israel during the failed 2006 Israel/Lebanon war.

The ME road map died a long time ago, and while Tony Blair is the latest in a string of envoys who is supposed to make sense of the situation, it seems he may have to start by addressing the problem of stray cats in Jerusalem first before he moves on to the bigger picture. (No, I'm not kidding.)

Meanwhile, back at the cold war ranch, some members of the US congress have said they'll try to block the arms sale to Saudi Arabia but they will obviously need to walk a fine line since the sales are included in the bill that increases aid to Israel as well. The majority of Republicans and Democrats would not risk alienating the Israel lobby or its supporters and if the bill is amended, Bush will probably veto it or create yet another signing statement to get what he ultimately wants anyway. In other words, Saudi Arabia will get the arms. It's basically a done deal.

Robin Wright, writing for the Washington Post in, U.S. vs. Iran: Cold War, Too, suggests a "Green Curtain" in the ME as opposed to the old Soviet-style "Iron Curtain", but the implications are the same.

When the first Cold War began, in 1946, Winston Churchill famously spoke of an Iron Curtain that had divided Europe. As Cold War II begins half a century later, the Bush administration is trying to drape a kind of Green Curtain dividing the Middle East between Iran's friends and foes. The new showdown may well prove to be the most enduring legacy of the Iraq conflict. The outcome will certainly shape the future of the Middle East -- not least because the administration's strategy seems so unlikely to work.

And this analyst's points simplify the current situation: the Bush administration has created a monster:

"The difference now is that Iran is feeling its oats because of the increase in oil prices, Iraq's weakness since the fall of Saddam, and the successes of Hezbollah and Hamas," noted Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who ran the State Department's policy planning shop during Bush's first term. "In contrast, the U.S. is feeling stretched by the very same high oil prices and its difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan."

The roots of Cold War II lie in the Bush administration's decision to remove regimes it considered enemies after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The first two targets were the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- coincidentally, both foes of Iran that had served as important checks on Tehran's power. The United States has now taken on the role traditionally played by Iraq as the regional counterweight to Iran.

And by doing so it has also weakened Israel's tenuous position in the ME, thus the need to ride in and pour even more arms into that country.

The neocon philosophy seems to be just arm everybody and let them sort it out. That attitude was also reflected in the recent US nuclear deal with India meant to be a buffer against China and a weakened Pakistani political position where Musharraf's (nuclear-armed) government has been the target of numerous attacks and protests - not to mention its ongoing failure to deal with the Taliban in the northern provinces, where the US military has threatened to intervene.

Keep in mind that behind of all this Iran has been cooperating with the IAEA and, more importantly, does not have nuclear weapons - unlike Israel, Pakistan and India. Mohamed ElBaradei must be banging his head against the wall as he watches the US follow the same strategy it did in the run up to the Iraq war - blustering, lies and fearmongering to justify a future military "intervention". Will we witness yet another Colin Powell-like moment at the UN? Time will tell. But this time, the world is that much wiser - or so we hope.

No matter what happens, one thing is certain: Smedley Butler must be rolling over in his grave because the modern day war profiteers - arms dealers, oil men, military-industrial complex businesses - will all walk away that much wealthier for Bush and Cheney having been in control of the American Empire.

And the wars will go on. And people will continue to die.

Related:
Putin threatens to target Europe
Israel declines to criticize U.S. weapons sales to Gulf Arab states
Armageddon - Bring It On
 

Quote du Jour: Lieberman's Denial

In the midst of this warmongering editorial about scary Iran, AIPAC shill Joe Lieberman (who's not ruling out backing a Republican for president in '08) writes:

Iran's actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today.

Memo to Joe: you misspelled the United States'.

The United States' actions in Iraq fit a larger pattern of expansionist, extremist behavior across the Middle East today.

And did someone ask for a side order of fearmongering? Coming right up:

Our objective here is deterrence. The fanatical regime in Tehran has concluded that it can use proxies to strike at us and our friends in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine without fear of retaliation. It is time to restore that fear, and to inject greater doubt into the decision-making of Iranian leaders about the risks they are now running.
[...]
The threat posed by Iran to our soldiers' lives, our security as a nation and our allies in the Middle East is a truth that cannot be wished or waved away.

And just how are you going to "restore that fear", Joe? By bomb, bomb, bombing Iran? Also, perhaps you could explain to me in 25 words or less how Iran is a threat to your "security as a nation"? I assume you're talking about the US there, right? Sometimes I get confused because you seem to advocate on behalf on your adopted country of Israel more than your actual country of birth (not unlike the neocons, I'd add).

You see Joe, Iran is not a threat to the security of the United States any more than Saddam was. Then again, you were a big cheerleader for that war too (and still are, obviously), so I guess your delusions are too firmly entrenched to change at this point. Fearmonger away. Just don't expect it to work this time.
 

They're Just More Dead Civilians

The stories about the unending deaths of Afghan civilians, mainly as the result of "air strikes" (which is just a PC way of saying bombings), eat away at me.

Note the latest news:

More than 100 people, nearly half of them Afghan civilians, were killed in Nato air strikes against the Taliban this weekend, an investigation by local officials in Helmand province has concluded.

This, on the heels of repeated outcries for NATO to be more damn responsible while NATO spokespuppets issue the standard, meaningless apologies. It's just insulting. And although Karzai is trying to wrest control of the situation, he is virtually powerless to do anything to stop the killings while NATO's chief just wants to pay off the families and move on. (And what's the big topic of the day at that conference about Afghanistan? How much judges get paid. Get real.)

He [Karzai] has repeatedly called on US, Nato and Taliban forces to do more to prevent civilian casualties, warning that "Afghan life is not cheap and it should not be treated as such". And he has ordered foreign forces to co-ordinate military operations with the Afghan government. "From now on, they have to work the way we ask them to work in here."

Good luck with that. It's not going to happen.

And the military always uses the same excuse:

Major John Thomas, an Isaf spokesman told the Associated Press: "We don't mean to trivialise any of those who died but we want to make it clear that we believe the numbers are a dozen or less."

He blamed the Taliban for the civilian deaths, saying: "It's the enemy fighters who willingly fire when civilians are right next to them."

Now tell me, if London had decided to launch "air strikes" on Belfast to root out IRA terrorists, does anyone think this "human shield" line would have passed muster? Are you kidding me?

We are taught that "civilian casualties" are acceptable during war time but, while some may be absolutely unavoidable, when you have a situation like the one in Afghanistan where more ordinary people are being killed by the allied forces than by insurgents, isn't it time to rethink the military strategy - a strategy, by the way, which everyone has agreed will not even end the war there? Britain's government officials expect to be there for decades.

The US military is now also expanding attacks into Pakistan. How many more civilians will they kill there while their military pretends that fewer are dead than the real counts show?

Now, read this carefully:

Operations inside Pakistan might be carried out independently by the United States, probably with air power, by Pakistani forces acting alone or as joint offensives. In all cases, though, the US will pull the strings, for instance by providing the Pakistanis with information on targets to hit.

Musharraf has apparently already told his military commanders, the National Security Council and decision-makers in government of the development.

Officially, both NATO and Pakistan deny any agreement on hot-pursuit activities. Major John Thomas, spokesman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force, told Asia Times Online, "The ISAF would not strike any targets across the border. That is not part of our mission. We work with the Pakistani government closely on cross-border issues. The ISAF does not have a counter-terrorism mission that I know of."

NATO is supposed to be in charge of military operations in Afghanistan, yet US forces are still free to do whatever they want to? Is it any wonder the place is still such a mess? And if the ISAF's mission does not include counter-terrorism, what is it still doing in Afghanistan?

This statement is from NATO's web site:

NATO is contributing to the fight against terrorism through military operations in Afghanistan, the Balkans and the Mediterranean and by taking steps to protect its populations and territory against terrorist attacks.

And this:

ISAF’s key military tasks include assisting the Afghan government in extending its authority across the country, conducting stability and security operations in co-ordination with the Afghan national security forces; mentoring and supporting the Afghan national army; and supporting Afghan government programmes to disarm illegally armed groups.

No counter-terrorism mission for ISAF? You're kidding, right?

In addition to that, as far as NATO involvement in attacks inside Pakistan go:

Islamabad on June 25 urged NATO-led forces to exercise “restraint” while conducting operations against Taliban fighters in Afghanistan along its border, days after scores of civilians were killed in air strikes by coalition planes and helicopter gunships inside Pakistan.

NATO forces reportedly fired several missiles on June 22 at two villages, leaving at least 33 people dead and more than 70 wounded in North and South Waziristan.

“This incident underscores the need for better coordination, care and restraint by NATO forces, especially when they are operating close to the border,” foreign office spokeswoman Tasneem Aslam told reporters in Islamabad. “We have protested against this incident and we condemn the killing of civilians,” she added.

And I have to mention that the NATO leadership looked incredibly stupid after that:

NATO-led forces admitted June 25 that during an anti-insurgent operation near the shared border, their forces had mistakenly tracked rebels into Pakistani territory and killed up to 10 civilians.

“We regret two things: one that we mistakenly operated inside the Pakistani border, and secondly we regret the loss of civilians in our operation,” an International Security Assistance Force spokesman, Major John Thomas, said in Kabul.

Trained military personnel who don't know how to read maps or use a freaking compass or GPS system? Who are they trying to kid?

And meanwhile, on the Pakistan front, guess who's running the show for those operations?

Senior US officials, including John Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Richard Boucher, the assistant secretary of state, recently visited Pakistan to spell out to opposition leaders that the US is still behind Musharraf, although it will support the participation of secular, democratic political parties in government.

This development occurred even as Washington voiced its dissatisfaction over Musharraf's performance with regard to the Taliban: it pointed to Pakistan's clear involvement in supporting the insurgency in Helmand province since last year.

Indeed, the US was even prepared to withdraw its support of Musharraf, who seized power in 1999, but after a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney to Pakistan, the general remains in favor. Cheney's office is believed to run the United States' Pakistan policy.

What Dick wants, Dick gets. I'll bet he's even counting on flowers and candy.

The reasons are probably twofold: the US needs Pakistan's support should it attack Iran (covert operations into Iran are reportedly already taking place from Pakistan), and the US is concerned over the revival of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan

I think we all know that reason number #1 is the prime motivator for Bushco's continued support of Musharraf - to the tune of $1 billion per year. And Pakistan does have nukes, after all. The US administration knows that Musharraf is between a rock and a hard place politically, so he needs to be propped up in order to survive. Yes, another one of those flourishing "democracies" where Bushco actually runs the place. They're like franchises.

And because Dick just hasn't been able to come up with enough credible evidence to launch his war on Iran now, the newest meme is that there are Iranian weapons in Afghanistan. Karzai denies that charge.

Karzai has said there is no proof the Iranian-marked weapons are provided by Tehran.

"Iran and Afghanistan have never been as friendly as they are today," he said earlier this month.

But a defence ministry general said the government had "evidence", including documents, to prove the weapons were coming into the country for the Taliban, with Tehran's knowledge.

The official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, would not give further details.

Of course he wouldn't. It's spin.

Ratchet up that rhetoric, boys:

"Iran is giving the option to the US that if it does not give Iran a green light on the nuclear issue and its role in the region, Iran can turn Afghanistan into a second Iraq or Vietnam for them," the general said.

Another military general who asked not to be named agreed, saying, "Iran is baring its teeth to the US at this stage" -- but is also capable of destabilising Afghanistan.

I guess since the "hey, there are Iranian-made weapons in Iraq" thing didn't quite cut it, Buscho now has to figure out other ways to convince the world that bombing Iran is an absolute, imminent necessity.

So meanwhile, as these warmongering fools try to stir up even more trouble, they are doing absolutely nothing to make sure that they stop killing innocent people who are obviously just getting in the way of the glorious day when they will win the war on terror - which, by definition, is impossible.

It's a geopolitical game played on the backs of innocents. War for war's sake. War for profiteering. War for oil. Why should they care about dead men, women and children?

It's infuriating and it needs to end. What the hell is my country doing over there?

Related: Wiki's count of civilian deaths in Afghanistan since 2001
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- There's a good article in Adbusters about North American integration aka the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) – a plan critics have called “NAFTA on steroids.”" Check it out.

- If you're a fan of Dahr Jamil's MidEast Dispatches - real, unembedded reporting from Iraq - or even if you've never heard of him, you should listen to his interview on antiwar.com radio. Describing Baghdad as "hell" really is an understatement considering what's really going on there.

- Rice insists that Cheney backs diplomacy with Iran.

Rice was responding to remarks by Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. ElBaradei had told BBC Radio that the world risked a war in Iran because of "new crazies who say, 'Let's go and bomb Iran.' "

Asked who the "new crazies" were, ElBaradei replied, "Those who have extreme views and say the only solution is to impose your will by force."

Cheney, a major advocate of war with Iraq, is regarded as a hawk on Iran and recently made a tough speech denouncing the Islamic republic from the deck of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.

Who do you trust? Rice or ElBaradei?

Here's Cheney's definition of "diplomacy":

BRUSSELS, May 11 — Vice President Dick Cheney used the deck of an American aircraft carrier just 150 miles off Iran’s coast as the backdrop today to warn the country that the United States was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”

By the way, Dahr Jamail also addresses the US policy towards Iran in the above linked radio interview.

- The video of heavy artillery fire and tanks storming the Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon on Friday is extremely depressing.

NAHR AL-BARED, Lebanon (Reuters) - Advancing under a blanket of artillery and tank fire, Lebanese troops overran positions held by al Qaeda-inspired militants at a Palestinian refugee camp on Friday and 19 people were killed.

Artillery and machinegun fire shook Nahr al-Bared camp in north Lebanon from early morning to well into the night. At times shells exploded at a rate of 10 a minute.

Security sources said at least 16 people were killed inside the camp, as well as three soldiers, after the fiercest fighting in two weeks.
[...]
At least 84 people -- 35 soldiers, 29 militants and 20 civilians -- had been killed before Friday.
[...]
More than 25,000 of Nahr al-Bared's 40,000 Palestinians have fled to the smaller Beddawi camp nearby.

Isn't there already enough death and destruction? Those Lebanese weapons are, of course, happily provided by the US government in this proxy war against Syria.

- Whose bright idea was this?"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. architectural firm posted drawings of the new U.S. Embassy being built in Baghdad on its Web site, prompting complaints from U.S. officials on Friday that their release could endanger U.S. personnel.

- How is Iraq's oil money, which is supposed to benefit the Iraqi people, being spent?

UNITED NATIONS -- More than four years after the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations is spending millions of dollars in Iraqi oil money to continue the hunt for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I should add that while the Bush administration is critical of the work this UN team is doing, it (obviously) has no moral high ground to stand on whatsoever (about anything) when it comes to complaining about money being wasted in Iraq. After all, they've sent billions of dollars in cash to Iraq via pallets on airplanes and lost some $8.8 billion in the process. It just really is all quite insane, isn't it?

- Canada is so special that it shouldn't have to do what other G8 countries do when it comes to dealing with that global warming stuff.

Liberal MP David McGuinty called Harper's plea for special consideration "theatre of the absurd."

"I've been doing this for 20 years and I have never heard anything as absurd – on the international diplomatic level, on this international environmental issue – anything as absurd as this. Ever.

"(Other countries) tell us they're paying the price and biting the bullet, and working feverishly hard to achieve their Kyoto targets. But they're not going out to the world and saying, 'We're special! We're sooo special!' "

Be prepared to be ridiculed by your government at yet another international meeting. You can start cringing and hiding under your desks now.
 

Iran: Arming Everybody and Their Dog, Apparently

Oh, come on now. Really.

BAGHDAD, April 11 — Arms that American military officials say appear to have been manufactured in Iran as recently as last year have turned up in the past week in a Sunni-majority area, the chief spokesman for the American military command in Iraq said Wednesday in a news conference.

The spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, [ed. the guy who held that faux Baghdad news conference about the EFPs] said that detainees in American custody had indicated that Iranian intelligence operatives had given support to Sunni insurgents and that surrogates for the Iranian intelligence service were training Shiite extremists in Iran. He gave no further description of the detainees and did not say why they would have that information.

Simple. One word: torture.

So now Iran is supplying Shiites and Sunnis? How enterprising of them.

“We have in fact found some cases recently where Iranian intelligence sources have provided to Sunni insurgent groups some support,” said General Caldwell, who sat near a table crowded with weapons that he said the military contended were largely of Iranian manufacture.

Caldwell luvs showing off teh weaponz.

The weapons were found in a mostly Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad, he said, a rare instance of the American military suggesting any link between Iran and the Sunni insurgency. They have recently suggested a link with Shiite militants in Iraq.

The accusation of a link between the Iranian intelligence service and Sunni Arab insurgents is new.

Well, yes because Iran is 89% Shiite. (It's also interesting to note that the CIA Factbook page on Iran reads: "Known as Persia until 1935, Iran became an Islamic republic in 1979 after the ruling monarchy was overthrown and the shah was forced into exile." Gee, no mention of Operation Ajax, the 1953 US-backed, oil-driven coup against PM Mohammed Mossadegh? Nothing like erasing history.)

Anyway, what's next? Will Iran be blamed for the US civil war once Caldwell magically unearths some musket shells in N Carolina that have Iranian markings on them too? Stay tuned. You just never know.

Bush should hire Caldwell as his war czar. No doubt the guy is delusional enough to take the job.
 

Iran: The Truth is in the Details

When it comes to media reporting on what's supposedly going on in Iran, it's been proven time and time again that you have to read beyond the headlines to find out what's really going on.

Take this story in the Independent, for example, (which is disappointing, since that newspaper is usually a top notch source of information):

Iran defies UN to join nuclear club

Iran announced yesterday that it has taken a step forward in its nuclear programme by moving to industrial scale enrichment, thereby defying three United Nations resolutions and setting itself on a collision course with the United States.

Case closed, right?

Wrong.

The reporter relied on rantings by President Ahmadinejad on Sunday in which he announced, "With great honour, I declare that as of today our dear country has joined the nuclear club of nations and can produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale."

And that might just be believable if the IAEA had actually confirmed those claims, but it hasn't:

The UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, still has to verify the move. In the past, announcements of some advances have proved premature - and the programme is believed to be fraught with technical problems.

And then there's this faulty logic:

Later Iranian officials refused to specify to journalists the number of centrifuges they've begun operating, a key indicator of how far their nuclear weapons programme has progressed, leading some diplomats to query whether the claim might be at least partly a bluff.

That's not a key indicator of anything and if the author of that article had any journalistic principles, he would avoid such hasty conclusions while listening to those diplomats.

Even the White House bought Ahmadinejad's proclamations without any proof - not that they've ever been concerned about proof before.

"We are very concerned about Iran's announcement that they entered an industrial stage of nuclear fuel production," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. "Iran continues to defy the international community and further isolate itself by expanding its nuclear program, rather than suspending uranium enrichment."

If Iran is indeed violating UN resolutions, there's a diplomatic way to deal with that which involves a process that begins with verification. People may have been fooled by Condi's warnings about Iraq's "mushroom cloud" and her so-called "smoking gun" before. They're not going to be fooled again.

Fool me once, shame on you Fool me--can't get fooled again ...
- The Decider

Related: According to Angus-Reid:

Many adults in the United States believe a military conflict with Iran could develop within the next year, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 55 per cent of respondents think it is likely that the U.S. will be at war with Iran.

And just how,exactly, are they going to make sure that doesn't happen, especially since the Democrats backed down from their demand last month that Bush seek congressional approval before he decides to attack Iran? No wonder congress's approval ratings are currently lower than Bush's.