It would be entirely appropriate if lame-brain duck President George W. Bush, now on his final "surprise visit" to Iraq, should remain there for the rest of his days, basking in the eternal gratitude of the Iraqi people.

A "surprise visit", of course means that he is still not brave enough, Iraq is still too bloody and chaotic, for anything like an announced head-of-state visit, unless you are the head of state of Iran.

Sneak in, take some pictures ("You guys still have that plastic turkey around here?"), sneak the hell out and never to return. That is the plan.

One last photo-op with W and the grateful Iraqi people. No. Can't do that. Might get blown up.

OK, one last photo op in a bunker deep in fortress "Green Zone" with the democratically-elected representatives of the grateful Iraqi people. Thank us for putting the Shia back in power over the Sunni, and opening the door for the Iranians to run the place.

Nice work, W. Nice job.

We destroyed the infrastructure of an entire country, killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens, drove 4 million more into exile, and then threw $100 billion American tax dollars at a totally bungled and corrupt reconstruction effort.

Heck'ova job, Bushie.

Do us all a favor; check yourself into Abu Grebe, and save us the cost of a trial.

[UPDATE]

Obviously, the Iraqis don't want the SOB either.

[UPDATE]

And then, on to Afghanistan.

From the NYT:

“This is a country significantly larger than Iraq, and significantly poorer; the infrastructure is difficult,” he said. ”Nevertheless, the mission is essential. We cannot, you know, achieve our objective — of removing the safe havens, kicking out Taliban — and say, ‘O.K., now let’s leave.’ ”

"We want to do the hard work now," he said.

And then - he left.

It appears as though the nations of Iraq and the United States are very close to finalizing a Status of Forces Agreement that would take effect when the U.N. mandate authorizing the U.S. occupation of Iraq expires at the end of this year.

The agreement still needs to be approved by several parties in Iraq, but this is certainly good news. Now in it's sixth year, the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. 4183 military lives and nearly 30,000 wounded. The accumulated financial cost to support the estimated 140,000 troops in Iraq is estimated at close to three trillion dollars. The continuous rotations into combat there have severely strained our military and our reserves.

When to leave Iraq has been a furiously debated issue, with the administration and candidate John McCain rejecting the idea of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. They have argued that to do so is tantamount to surrender.

Democrat Barack Obama, who opposed the invasion before it occurred, has argued that our military occupation of Iraq, which contains several of Islam's holiest cities, actually contributes to the currents of Islamic hostility towards the U.S., and proposed that our troops should be drawn down gradually and safely, leaving only a "residual" force in place by 2010.

When Senator Obama traveled to Iraq last summer, and met with Prime Minister Noori al-Maliki, the Prime Minister embraced Obama's timeline, saying that it reflected a solid understanding of the complex issues involved. Senator McCain still maintains that a timeline for withdrawal represents a defeat. It's not clear how he will respond to an Iraqi-imposed timetable.

The timeline about to be agreed upon is a few months longer than Obama's proposal. But the point is, there will be a timely withdrawal of most U.S. forces over the next 1-2 years.

Senator Obama's understanding of the situation not just in Iraq, but the Middle East, and his leadership on this issue have been a very significant force in bringing this costly and unnecessary war to an end.

Obama offers precisely the kind of rational and insightful thinking needed in a President, along with the courage to stand independently when necessary. He deserves great credit for his role in working to get our troops out of Iraq.

What will become of Iraq?

Frankly, it seems that further violent struggle for power and resources between the Shia, the Sunnis and the Kurds is inevitable. And, certainly, the fact that we installed the Shia into power will increase Iranian influence not just in Iraq, but in the region.

These are some of the many unfortunate effects of our ill-conceived invasion. Along with hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

But ultimately, what becomes of Iraq is up to the Iraqis. As it should be.

History will record that the war on Iraq ended this week. And Barack Hussein Obama is probably the only man who could have done it.

Obama made resistance to the war a legitimate, mainstream position. In fact, he made it the centerpiece of his candidacy for President of the United States.

Obama gave a recognizable face and a powerful voice to the struggle against this war which had been demonized by the right and ignored by the media.

He stood up to his own party's certain nominee, based on his conviction that the war was wrong from the start.

His stood up to every attempt by the right-wing to paint him as naive or even unpatriotic. His personal courage, and the growing movement he has come to represent, have spurred the Democrats in Congress, who had been intimidated by the demagoguery of the Bush loyalists, and his cool presentation and reasoned manner have soothed much of the pain that has surrounded the war and divided the country.

The responsible and realistic timetable Obama put forward to bring our troops home was embraced and welcomed by the Iraqis, which forced Bush to accept it as well.

As if this historic achievement weren't enough, Obama's leadership and the growing power of his supporters have diffused any American talk of military action against Iran. Incredibly, his influence has forced both Iran and the United States to the negotiating table, something both sides adamantly refused to do just weeks ago.

Obama's message of change and hope have been scorned and mocked by the dwindling messengers of the pro-war right, but as Obama breaks down the walls, those voices grow weaker and sound ever less relevant.

The world is watching, and listening to Barack Obama. And yes, they are hoping.

 

 

- UPDATE below -

[Apologies to all you Fox News types for such a long post. Some subjects actually require of a bit of thought and analysis.]

John McCain, desperate Republicans, and apparently right-wing radio think they have found an issue that works for them - Did you support "The Surge"?

Except it's not an issue.

This pseudo-argument about "The Surge" - Were you behind it or not? - like everything about this war except the lives of those destroyed by it, is phony. The question - accusation - is based on the false assumption that The Surge is responsible for the decline in violence in Iraq.

The right is positing that the military genius displayed by Bush/McCain in calling for "The Surge" demonstrates, as McCain brags, "I know how to win wars." (Do we need another "Bring 'em on!" president?)

The obvious question is: If all it took to stabilize Iraq was a few thousand more troops, why did we wait five years to send them?

Before we invaded Iraq, then U.S. Army General Eric K. Shinseki stated that a successful occupation of Iraq would require several hundred thousand American troops. This was recognized by the Bush White House as being politically unacceptable, and Shinseki was dismissed, both figuratively and literally.

Donald Rumsfeld, who fantasized himself a brilliant, next-generation military strategist, had convinced the clueless Bush and the panting *** Cheney that he could overrun the Iraqi defenses with 100,000 troops. He was right. American forces reached Baghdad with relative ease, and chaos ensued immediately.

What General Shinsheki knew, but Rummsfeld ignored, was that taking Baghdad would not be the end of the war. ("Mission Accomplished")

Shinsecki understood that protecting the Iraqi infrastructure - the electrical grid, the sanitation system, the financial and cultural institutions and the petroleum industry - even simply maintaining law and order in a hostile sectarian population - could never be accomplished with 100,000 American troops.

Many experts predicted that without a strong hand - enough troops to maintain order - Iraq would descend into civil war. Which is exactly what happened. They also predicted that unless there were enough troops to seal the country's borders that sectarian partisans would flow in from Shite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia to provide the spark. Which is exactly what happened. All the while Bush/Cheney/McCain remained defiant of the facts on the ground.

Even as Iraqi cities descended into utter lawlessness, Shite death squads blockading the streets and beheading Sunnis in broad daylight, Al-Queda-inspired terrorists teaming with the Sunnis to create anarchy, and millions of Iraqis abandoning or being forced to flee their homes with just the clothes on their backs, Bush balked at making the politically unpopular call to send in more troops. Bush, Cheney, and, yes, John McCain continued to assert that victory was just around the corner, that al-Queda was on the run. While they tried to score politcial points, the slaughter and mayhem continued.

This unwillingness or inability to provide for basic security for the Iraqi population, which is required of an occupying force by international conventions, is the real war crime of the Bush administration. The American people chose to close their eyes to the evidence and stand behind the invasion of Iraq. The million dead Iraqis were given no choice - their eyes were closed for them.

With the American public becoming disillusioned about the length and cost of their war, and the midterm elections coming, Bush had no choice but to abandon his asinine "Stay the Course" slogan, and change American military strategy, as experts had been calling for continuously since the invasion. "The Surge" was not born of a flash of military brilliance but of naked political desperation following four+ years of failure, death and chaos.

Military groupies and John McCain imagine "The Surge" as a singularity, like man's stepping onto the moon - a great achievement surrounded only by a vacuum.

The addition of American reinforcements was actually only one ingredient in the bubbling stew that is the history of the Iraqi people. It was not the cause of the reduction of violence in the last year.

The fact is that the Iraqi civil war burned itself out. It ran out of fuel - people who were willing and able to continue the killing.

With as many as a million dead, and 4-5 million Iraqis displaced and segregated by sect, the stresses on the sectarian fault lines have been, at least temporarily, relieved.

The ability of the foreign terrorists to create terror faded out because the Iraqi people had reached the limits of their terror. They can no longer be terrorized. It was the strength and courage of the Iraqi people that made Al-Queda irrelevant, not American military force.

The so-called "Surge" came just as the Iraqis had decided that they had had enough death, and stopped killing one another.

It was no ingenious military strategy, but a political expedient, and simply the latest chapter in the sorry record of the unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the United States.

If that's John McCain's evidence of his brilliant military mind, it is pathetic indeed. He can be predicted to follow the same path that Bush and Cheney have been taking us down for eight years, a path of unnecessary and gratuitous military conflict and destructive unilateralism.

If you liked the surge in Iraq, you'll love the surge in Iran.
 

- UPDATE -

In an interview with Katie Couric yesterday, which CBS News did not air on the evening news, John McCain demonstrated a complete misunderstanding of the so-called "surge". Or he forgot. Or he lied.

Couric cited Barack Obama's statement that besides the additional American troops, in fact before they arrived, there were other factors driving down the level of violence in Iraq. McCain, obviously flustered and angry, stated "Colonel MacFarland was contacted by one of the major Sunni sheiks. Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. And it began the Anbar awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

McCain's time-line is reversed. The rejection of foreign fighters by the sheiks, and the so-called awakening councils began before the so-called surge plan was even conceived. In fact, McCain himself, in arguing for the surge, cited the Anbar Awakening as a reason to support the surge.

McFarland's own reports show that his unit actually left Anbar before most of the surge troops arrived; his success in the region came between June 2006 and February 2007.

Either McCain has lost his memory of the events, he has reconstructed events in his mind to match his policy, or he lied, assuming that no one would call him on it. CBS decided not to air the footage.

Since this exchange, and CBS's decision not to air became known, the McCain camp issued an attack on Obama, saying that he was refusing to give credit to the generals and the troops for their hard work.

This seems like a likely line of attack, and I expect to see it echoed here.
 

The endorsement by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Senator Barack Obama's proposed 16-month timeline for the withdrawal of the bulk of American troops has significance well beyond its positive effect on his campaign. Obviously, it demonstrates that Obama's instincts and advisers are more than a match for the vaunted foreign policy expertise of John McCain.

The call by the Iraqi Prime Minister for a specific timeline for American troop withdrawal was more than a huge blow to the credibility of George Bush and McCain - it may be the last nail in the coffin of the neo-conservative movement, headed up by Vice President *** Cheney.

The plan, of course - as articulated in a rare moment of candor by John McCain - was to stay in Iraq indefinitely. In the negotiations of a Status of Forces agreement, the U.S. had originally demanded more than 50 permanent bases on Iraqi soil, immunity for all U.S. soldiers and contractors, and the ability to use those forces unilaterally against Iraqi citizens. (And presumably, against Iran.)

This permanent occupation of Iraq was the primary objective of the war, and now it has turned to sand. A "free and democratic" Iraq was to be the home base for American military power in the Mid East. From Iraq, we could control the flow of oil, assuring that American companies would receive royalties for every gallon.

The Iraqis may be divided by religion, but the one thing that they all agree on is that they want their country back.

The endorsement of Obama's proposal blows wide open the Bush/McCain illusion that American occupation was at the request of a free Iraq. Both have said in the past that if the Iraqi government asked us to leave, we would.

Well, we have been asked.

Now, how we will reconcile our further occupation? Will McCain now advocate staying in Iraq against the will of the Iraqis? Assuming that we cannot simply walk away from our "investment" in Iraqi oil and strategic control of their forces, how long will the Iraqis tolerate our presence?

This conundrum proves the bankruptcy of the neo-conservative dream of American empire, and exposes the myth of McCain's so-called expertise in foreign policy.

 

A recent comment deserves a comprehensive response.

From SG 134:

Do you believe terrorist want to destroy us and our great country? Especially Jews and Christians? Do you believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to make nukes and then use them to destroy Israel?

SG134,

Your questions demonstrate a critical lack of understanding of the world around you.

“Terrorism” is the tactical use of violence against civilians to achieve a strategic goal, whether political, economic, religious or ideological. A terrorist is someone who practices terrorism or advocates that practice.

No terrorist believes that they can literally destroy an entire country. The psychological effect – terror – is the real goal. If the act of terrorism provokes a violent response, then the mission has been successful. If there is not a violent response, the mission has failed.

Perpetuating a cycle of violence is a tactic that is designed to ultimately provoke a military response. This military response depletes the resources of the victim state, costs many lives, and is doomed to fail, because the original perpetrators are replaced by recruits motivated by the military action itself.

You are a victim, and at the same time a perpetrator of terrorism. Intellectually, you may understand that your chances of being killed in an act of terror are minuscule, yet you are obviously terrified. By being terrified and responding by supporting state sanctioned violence, and by virally spreading fear and hate, people like you are aiding in the mission of the terrorist.

Does that make you a terrorist? If you actively support a military solution, then you are playing into the hands of the terrorist. Without the reaction of terrified people like you, the tactic of terror is useless.

I frequently use the word “terrorism” in a somewhat broader sense. I believe that when a government uses propaganda to raise the same kind of fear, hate and nationalism that terrorist violence breeds, in order to manipulate the behavior and attitudes of its citizens, that is also terrorism. The psychological effect is the same – the acceptance of violence as a tool of policy.

There really should be a name for people who are the unwitting accomplices of terrorists, and one for state-sponsored, psychological terrorists.

I assume, SG134, that when you use the word “terrorists” you mean Islamic fundamentalists. The fact is that fundamentalists of all faiths, including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have used terror to “defend” their faith.

There certainly are Muslim fundamentalists who believe that our way of life is decadent and immoral. (This is a legitimate argument, if you follow the Christian doctrine, or the Jewish one.) Fortunately, the percentage of religious fundamentalists of any faith is very small. The absolute numbers of those willing to use violence is tiny.

Let’s also acknowledge that not all terrorism is religiously motivated.

The Muslim fundamentalists willing to use violence may think that they are fighting a religious war, but we are not. Although it is sometimes portrayed in cultural terms for the propaganda value, the so-called “War on Terror” is about politics and economics.

As for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I fully understand his obsession with obtaining nuclear weapons.  The United States has made no attempt to disguise our aggressive intentions toward that nation. The unprovoked invasion of their neighbor Iraq has terrorized a large percentage of their population and inflamed the Mullahs. They want a nuke to keep us out.

The only way out of the box we are in is to elect a President who does not see a military resolution to every international issue.

A perpetual state of war is what Bush has achieved, and John McCain is exactly the right man to keep that cycle of violence turning.

In the last two days, George Bush has, by his own definition, surrendered on two fronts in his “War on Terror”.

When Bush spoke before the Israeli Knesset a few weeks ago, he compared Barack Obama’s call for unconditional talks with Iran to Nazi appeasers:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

After Iran fired several medium and long-range missiles in a show of its willingness and ability to return force if attacked, Bush caved. Now, we will sit down and talk.

Until the missile launch, the administration had insisted it would not speak with the Iranians until they ended their nuclear enrichment program. Iran has made no such commitment, in fact has been vehement in its refusal to do so.

Today, Bush has agreed in principle with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to set a “time horizon” for the withdrawal of American troops, because the Iraqis want their country back.

When Obama or others have called for such a timeline, they were labeled as surrender monkeys. John McCain, up until today was ridiculing Obama for suggesting such an approach.

What it amounts to is that Bush and McCain have no clue what to do now that American military forces, by their heroic efforts, have exposed the fact that the “War on Terror” is unwinnable.

After the slaughter of as many as a million Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans, the forces of fundamentalist Islam are stronger than they were on 9/11. After our invasion, they came to Iraq, tied down the greatest military in the history of the world, and then snuck out the back door.

They are now re-taking Afghanistan, and when we “surge” there, they will go somewhere else, perhaps even back to Iraq.

They will never be defeated by force. Barrack Obama knows this.

John McCain wants to keep on fighting, slaughtering innocent civilians, glorifying the extremists and wasting U.S. lives and dollars.

It is time to admit that the “War on Terror” was nothing more than a cover for *** Cheney to deface the Constitution, and to hold the members of this administration accountable for their crimes.

 

 

It’s the Fourth of July! Hooray! We’ve won the War on Iraq! Big Oil is moving in to pump more oil our way. Mission Accomplished! Light up those fireworks!

So maybe things are not going so well in Afghanistan, with violence up, the Taliban running the country outside of Kabul, and even the neocons afraid of accidentally toppling Musharraf by venturing into Pakistan to get Bin Laden.

Get ready for this Summer’s blockbuster! The War on Iran is showing trailers on TV screens nationwide. You’ve seen it! Now buy it!

(Why wouldn’t we attack Iran? What, do we have to wait for the Israelis to do it?)

OK, this time it's REALLY not about oil (they don't have any.) This is about… saving you from nuclear attack!

They hate us because we’re free!

Oh hell, believe whatever you want, but we ARE going to fight. In fact, it's already happening.

All of you big-time supporters of the War on Iraq, please prepare your eligible sons and daughters to attempt what a million Iraqis and Saddam’s WMDs couldn’t do.

And this is going to hurt a bit, but in the spirit of making the world safe for democracy, get ready for a little bit more expensive gasoline.

But do NOT worry about increases in your taxes! We’ll pay for this war the same way we’re paying for the other ones. Saudi Arabia has agreed to loan us the cash at a very reasonable rate.

Providing you vote Republican.

Charlie Black, a top aide to John McCain, has apologized for telling the truth.

McCain has emphatically distanced himself from Black's comments, saying he "strenuously disagree[d]" with him. Mr. Black, a senior adviser to McCain, later told reporters that he "deeply regretted his comments".

What Mr. Black said, in an interview with Fortune magazine, is that terrorist attacks are are good news for Republicans. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto upon her return to Pakistan had 'helped' Mr. McCain win the nomination. (Black did allow that the timely murder of Bhutto was "unfortunate".)

Black went on to tell Fortune that a terrorist attack on the United States would be helpful to McCain's chances in the general election this fall. "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

So would an attack on Iran, although Black was not honest enough to say that.

So, death, destruction and terror are the friends of the Republicans. Is that news to anyone?

McCain's disagreement with Black is totally disingenuous. It demonstrates that he is willing to use fear as a tactic, but deny it's a strategy.

How low can you get, John?


 

It’s obvious that Republican candidate John McCain either does not have a good grasp of the facts from moment to moment, or he simply chooses to ignore them.

Last week the Republican’s campaign theme was energy, and he was on the road trying to capitalize on Americans’ pain at the pump.

(Meanwhile McCain stands shoulder-to-shoulder with George Bush in threatening military action against Iran, which would be another windfall for the major oil companies.)

McCain also demonstrated in his speeches that he has learned the lessons of Karl Rove, and freely misstated the positions of Barack Obama’s energy proposals. It just doesn’t seem to matter what the facts are to McCain, and the press rarely calls him on it.

Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, yesterday published a report titled “McCain's Power Outage - Contradictions and misstatements short-circuit McCain's energy policy pronouncements.”

Follow the link for the details, but a here are the highlights:

• He said that ending a moratorium on offshore oil drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis." But according to a government report, offshore oil wouldn't have much of an impact on supply or prices until 2030.
• McCain tried to paint Obama as an opponent of nuclear power, yet Obama has said he is open to nuclear energy being part of the solution and has supported bills that contained nuclear subsidies.
• He has soft-pedaled the "cap" portion of his cap-and-trade proposal for greenhouse gases, even denying that it would be a mandate. The cap is a mandatory limit, however, and McCain even says so on his Web site.
• McCain's new ad, running this week, rightly says that he bucked his party in supporting action on climate change years ago. But its images of windmills and solar panels are misleading in that he supports subsidies for nuclear power, which isn't pictured, and opposes them for wind and solar energy.
• McCain continues to say that a suspension of the federal gas tax will lower prices for consumers, though hundreds of economists say he is wrong.

John McCain apparently has little use for the facts, which is a disturbing trait in a man who would be president.

Rep. Dennis Kucinch of Ohio introduced a bill containing thirty-five articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives late Monday evening.

 

It is no surprise that there has been virtually no corporate media coverage of this historic event.

 

The only thing more disgraceful than the media silence is the near-complete failure of Democrats in the House of Representatives to co-sponsor the bill. For the record, the exception is Congressman Robert Wexler (District 19, FL), who stated “The Articles present a stunning narrative of offenses that go well beyond previous crimes committed by any U.S. chief executive.  In fact, no President or Vice President in history has done more to undermine our constitution.”

 

The crimes of this administration, specifically President George Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney, in spite of their conspiracy to avoid documentation and considerable efforts to destroy the evidence, are well documented.

 

The lack of will to prosecute the crimes of these men can be traced back to the massive campaign of misinformation that was flooded into the media after the attacks of 9-11. Millions of Americans still believe that Saddam was a planner of those attacks. Millions of Americans also believe that we attacked Iraq based on “bad intelligence” regarding their weapons capability.

 

The facts are clear, and were clear, that Iraq had no role in 9-11, had no significant relationship with the people who did, and had obliterated their nuclear weapons program several years before our invasion.

 

The administration suppressed, obfuscated, and outright lied in order to start this war, and then launched a straw man “war on terror” to justify illegal activities across the board, ranging from unconstitutional spying on American citizens to sweetheart contracts giving multi-billion dollar payoffs to their business associates.

 

The media, having pumped up the hysterical 9-11 rhetoric, having served as the propaganda arm of the administration in the “run-up” to the Iraq war, and having marketed the “war on terror” as a brand, is of course burying the truth rather than acknowledge that war and terror are good for their business.

 

The Democrats, having utterly failed to execute their duty to represent the interests of their constituents, want to see Bush and Cheney slither out of office, perpetuating  the myth that they themselves were innocent victims, rather than passive participants in this shameful era of American history.

 

In time, it is inevitable that the facts will overwhelm the myths, and no one will be able to deny that these wars were unnecessary – that as many as a million Iraqis were murdered, that 4-5 million were turned into refugees, thousands of Americans died, that the economy of our country was mortgaged and wasted, and that the motive for the “war on terror” was profit, pure and simple.

 

Bush and Cheney should be held accountable for their crimes before they leave office.

 

This may be the only way to prevent them from covering their tracks by starting another war.

 

[UPDATE] from rawstory.com:

 

"The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to send articles of impeachment against President Bush to the Judiciary Committee for review.

The impeachment resolution’s sponsor, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, requested a recorded vote on the motion around 3 p.m. Wednesday, and 24 Republicans joined nearly all Democrats in voting to send the impeachment measure to the committee.

The motion passed 251-166."

It has long been obvious that the U.S. is not fighting Al Queda on Iraqi soil, but the Iraqis themselves, at the cost of as many as a million of their citizens and of course, control of their government and their economy.

We are about to see the confiscation of Iraq's national sovereignty by the Bush neocons formalized in a "security agreement" between the Bush/Cheney cabal and their puppet Iraq regime.

The details of the the so-called "strategic alliance", which have been leaked to Patrick Cockburn of the British newspaper The Independent, essentially sign control of the nation of Iraq over to the United States.

This quasi-legal and open-ended occupation of Iraq will, quite predictably be sold to the U.S. citizens as a "victory" over the forces of terror, and a vindication of the Bush/Cheney doctrine of preventative warfare.

From The Independent; "Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government."

"Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation."

This "agreement " will not be put to a referendum of the Iraqi people for obvious reasons. It will subjugate them to American rule indefinitely and condemn them to an ongoing violent struggle to regain their status as an independent nation, and turn their country into a U.S. base for a war with Iran.

Now you know what we have been fighting for.

President George W. Bush, speaking before the Israeli Knesset on May 15, 2008:

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

John McCain, Columbus Ohio, May 15, 2008

“I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’

 

---

Headlines from May 21, 2009:

Agreement Struck in Lebanon to End Political Crisis
New York Times

The Hezbollah-led Shiite opposition and the Lebanese government backed by the West and Saudi Arabia, reached an agreement on Wednesday to resolve an 18-month political crisis that has crippled the country and recently triggered the worst fighting since the 1975-1990 civil war.

Full article

Israel-Syria confirm peace talks
BBC News

Israel and Syria have said they are holding indirect talks to reach a comprehensive peace agreement. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said both sides were talking "in good faith and openly". The Syrian foreign ministry also confirmed the Turkish-mediated talks, the first since 2000.

Full article

UN's Ban says will meet Myanmar junta leader
AFP

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday he would meet Myanmar's reclusive junta leader during a high-profile trip to convince the country to accept a full-scale cyclone relief operation. Before leaving New York on Tuesday, Ban said the junta had agreed to let nine UN helicopters work in remote regions hit hard by the storm.

Full article

 
New Troops in Iraq Will Keep Number at 140,000
Washington Post

Seven active-duty Army brigades have been scheduled to deploy to Iraq later this year, the Defense Department announced yesterday, a plan that would allow U.S. commanders to keep troop levels at about 140,000 through the end of the Bush administration and into the next president's term.

Full article

 

 

A report on Israeli Army Radio claimed that George Bush and Vice President Cheney disclosed to the Israeli government last week that they are planning to attack Iran before they leave office next January.

 

Of course, the White House denies the report.

 

According to the unidentified source, described as a “top official in Jerusalem”, a “senior member” of the Bush Administration (a label frequently used to describe the Vice President) stated in a closed meeting that military action against Iran is forthcoming.

 

The report also said that Bush and Cheney were only holding fire due to "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice". One can imagine that Secretary Gates actually gives a damn about his troops. Who knows what the hell Condi is thinking?

 

The White House responded, saying, “…Our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."

 

That’s a little difficult to imagine. Because even talking about talking to the Iranians is a sign of naiveté, according John McCain, or worse, appeasement according to the Commander in Chief. I think we all know what Cheney is thinking.

 

It seems certain that the attack will be an air strike of suspected nuclear facilities, rather than a ground invasion. (The exhausted state of our military makes that impossible.) In effect, it won’t matter, as the Iranians can be depended upon to launch a spirited defense of their homeland, and will send human waves of troops across the border into Iraq. (During their almost nine year war with Sadaam Hussein they took millions of casualties.)

 

Any large-scale movement of Iranian troops would of course expose them to highly efficient aerial attacks, with horrific loss of life. One can only imagine the carnage of an all-out Iranian invasion of Iraq, with 140,000 U.S. troops caught between the Iranian army and the Sunni insurgency.

 

I am guessing that the bombs will not fly before November 2, so Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Get ready for a whole new war.

 

It has always been clear that George Bush has had little interest in the difficult work of his job.  Now that the expectations of the American people have been reduced to essentially zero, Bush seems fine with being rid of all that responsibility, and riding out the rest of his term blithely following the orders of his neocon handlers.

The Mideast, with its many factions and tangled relationships, has clearly been too much for the incurious Bush to deal with, and he's been happy to just use the labels they slapped on the parties involved; "good guys", "bad guys".

Bush's farewell tour of the region last week may have dealt the death blow to the withered peace process, which apparently was one of his assignments.

It appears his handlers gave Bush two objectives for the trip. First, to pour fuel on the smoldering Iranian situation and preemptively blow up possible negotiations, providing a pretext for a military strike.

While speaking in Israel, Bush not only managed to submerge the prospects of a peaceful resolution of the longstanding issues with the Palestinians and poison any attempt to negotiate with the Iranians, but was so effusive in his simple-minded praise of Israel, that nothing he said on the remainder of his trip even mattered.

Playing directly into the strategy of the terrorists and the neocons - those anxious to shed blood - or send someone else to do it for them - Bush did his best to insure their success.

Not surprisingly, except apparently to Bush, he was shunned during the rest of his trip by those whom he had so glibly associated with Hitler. It actually appeared that his feelings were hurt.

The second part of Bush's assignment didn't go as well as the first.

His family's personal benefactors, the Royal Saudis, just chuckled when he implored them to increase oil production to help the Republicans in the elections.

Bush came home with his tail between his legs and his legacy as a self-absorbed fool secured.

As was predicted by Middle East experts prior to the Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq, Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars we have wasted there.

For decades Sadaam Hussein, whose ambitions had nothing to do with religion, acted as a foil and a target for Iranian nationalists and Shiite Mullahs. The bitter conflict between Iran and Iraq soaked up the arms, money and attention of both oppressive regimes, to the detriment of their citizens, but the benefit of their neighbors and the West.

By invading Iraq and effectively turning it into a failed state, we opened the door for Iran to move in.

The Sunni and Shiite sectarian extremism that Hussein so brutally suppressed is now in full eruption, and has only recently abated, sated by the gruesome deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands, and the displacement of over 4,000,000 Iraqis. (“The surge” gets the credit, which is Pentagon propaganda.)

Iran, is of course, intervening in this chaos in an attempt to gain control of Iraq’s vast oil reserves, and humiliate the Sunnis. With Iran playing an increasingly influential role in Iraq, it’s becoming clear even to the Bush administration that the genie is out of the bottle.

Their solution, of course, is more mayhem. The Pentagon is planning for war on Iran, which is the prudent thing to do, because the Republicans’ chances in the upcoming presidential elections would be improved dramatically if they had a fresh war to sell.

John McCain has famously sung his “bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran” song, and has argued that it's fine with HIM if we're in Iraq for "a thousand years"  (why don’t we see those clips repeated in an endless loop on the “liberal” media?) and if Bush/Cheney don’t start this war, he certainly will.

The sad fact is, that because of the illegal war on Iraq by Bush/Cheney, and it’s “unexpected” (but predicted) empowering of the terrorists and religious fundamentalists across the border, the next president, regardless of who it is, will be in a corner with regard to Iran. Hillary Clinton, on the eve of her Pennsylvania primary victory, threatened to “obliterate” the entire nation, presumably including it’s 60-70 million inhabitants, already victims of religious tyranny.

The Bush/Cheney(McCain) marshal mentality will almost certainly lead to an attack on Iran, probably prior to the election. After Iran, we can expect to see the war spread to its Sunni neighbors, which will require yet a further escalation of U.S. military involvement. (Not to mention the potential collapse of the oil-based world economic structure.)

If you have children in the Middle School, I am afraid they will be drafted to fight and die in the deserts of the Middle East unless we take a more enlightened direction in our foreign policy.

 

News flash for John McCain:

The Pentagon’s own National Institute for Strategic Studies issued a report last fall, prior to the flare-up of the Shia civil war, and released yesterday, and opens the report with the following: "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle."

My heart goes out to those families whose loved ones have been killed, injured or are still fighting Bush’s war.

The following are quotes from a McClatchy Newspaper article by Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcot, quoting from the report.

"No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations.

The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces.

"Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued.”

Keep this in mind when John McCain is talking like John Wayne.

 

More good news follows closely on the encouraging signs that the Iraqi government is now fully willing and (somewhat) able to use deadly force against its own citizens!

As you may remember from last week (if you’re still paying attention) the civil war in Iraq got a big shot in the arm when (apparently at *** Cheney’s urging), the Iraqi Prime Minister (“Yes sir, Mr. Vice President! Sir!) Nuri al-Maliki launched a disastrous attack on the Madhi Army of al-Sadr down there in Basra, which quickly spread across Iraq.

One of the hotspots in this intra-Shia conflict is Sadr City  - affectionately referred to as a “massive Shia slum” - on the outskirts of Baghdad. Apparently this home to hundreds of thousands of desperately poor Shiites is within mortar and rocket range of the “massively fortified” Green Zone, from which somebody (evildoers!) rained said projectiles for several days, pinning American residents down and killing several people.

As a gentle reminder of who now runs Iraq, American pilots launched numerous missiles into the residential neighborhoods of Sadr City, regardless of the fact that uninvolved citizens were bound to be killed and maimed. On each of these occasions the military reported, as is their custom, that “X number of insurgents were eliminated” as though everyone killed is, by definition, an insurgent. (It’s the same logic that leads to the conclusion that every one of the tens of thousands of prisoners of the United States in Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan and elsewhere (only God knows where) around the world is an “unlawful combatant” who has the information that could lead to the saving of thousands of American lives if only we can find just… the… right… interrogation technique to make them spill their guts.) (“Do you have a daughter?”)

Anyway - if you remember, the militia of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq – sorry – the Iraqi Army - rolled into Basra fully confident that their five years of training by the United States would stand them in good stead against the “dead-enders” of the al-Sadr militia, obviously in “the last throes” of resistance. (“They might even throw us flowers!”)

Turns out – not so much.

President Bush, as only he can do, looked at the sunny side of this bloodbath.

"Normalcy," President Bush announced, "is returning back to Iraq." (From where? Hell?)

In praise of al-Maliki, the President said, “His bold decision -- and it was a bold decision – (I love his BOLDness!) to go after the evildoers in Basra shows his leadership."

OK, then. As it went, the Iraqi government, one of our strongest allies in the “war on terror”, had to send emissaries to Tehran (Yes, THAT Tehran) to ask Iran (Yes, THAT Iran - were they in that “Axis of Terror” thing?) to pull their butts out of the fire. Please.

President Bush may or may not have thought that this development was good news. He didn’t say, but we can assume so.

But I am sure that he will be delighted by today’s good news!

Apparently, those Iraqi soldiers and national policeman - (What’s the difference between a soldier and a national policeman?) – the ones who ran away? – And those other ones that took off their uniforms and switched sides in the heat of battle? Well, they got fired today!

That’s right, in yet another sign of the strength and determination of our guys running the so-called Iraqi government; those guys all lost their jobs. “If you’re going fight for THEM, then you don’t get the uniforms! So give ’em back! Right now! (Keep your weapons... it's dangerous out there.")

Oh, and the really, really good news? General Petraeus came to Washington last week, and he and Commander-in-Chief Bush agreed; as of next January, “Bush’s War in Iraq” will have a new name!

We can’t tell you what it is yet, but it will be the very first American war named after a woman or a black man!

 

PS. The Associated Press reports that at least 19 American soldiers died in Iraq last week, the highest weekly death toll of this year. A figure for Iraqi deaths was not available.