2005 December 28

The priorities of Congress
What with the financial needs of the places damaged by Katrina, the need to cut Medicare and Medicaid, the still-deficient equipment needs of our troops in Iraq, Israel was given an extra $8 billion -- $1 million per Jewish man, woman and child repatriated from Gaza. Maybe it is to pay for more bogus intelligence about the mythical Iranian nuclear weapons program. That brings the openly acknowledged total so far this year up to $11.5 billion.

Free the convicted
Weak terrorist cases in the first place are being challenged if evidence was acquired via Bush's illegal wiretaps. Please someone give Bush a blow-job so we can impeach him.

2005 December 27

Iran soon to have nuke weapons
The same lying animals from the country whose national anthem is Onward Christian Soldiers, the same country that whined about Iraq, is repeating the same lies about Iran. Which is the tail? Which is the dog? Can't know because the Bush administration and the neo-cons and AIPAC -- American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- (no surprise there) are also piling on Iran.

The same people saying the same thing about Iran as said about Iraq. Bushites don't want to remember the US supported Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Bushites don't want to remember the US started Iran nuclear program.

Does Bush have the authority to make war on either Iran or Syria where he had no such authority for war on Iraq?

President is not above the law
No power comes from a title regardless of what it is. If that were not true why does this exist?

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 last paragraph
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And if the president is above the law by virtue of a title, who else is? Why is not everyone else above the law by virtue of title?

So does Bush have the power to attack Syria or Iran?
Of course not. They had no connection to 9/11 therefore there is no authority for such attacks under 9/11 terrorism. Neither did Iraq so additional attacks will be additional impeachable offenses.

2005 December 26

Troop withdrawal hot air
Surprise. No date has been set.

Head of US forces in Iraq speaks
And says Iraqis was foreign troops out as soon as possible. This is what we call two year old news although it will come as a surprise to people who only read all the news they are fit to know.

2005 December 25

Merry Christmas World
The US has been warning countries in the Middle East to expect a US attack on Iran. It made the news around the world but not in the US because the US has a free press which keeps Americans informed.

2005 December 24

George "I am the Law" Bush
Today it comes out President Dredd has been intercepting damned near anything and everything without a warrant.

2005 December 23

Call it escalation
That is what it was called in Vietnam. About six months about the US had 140,000 troops in Iraq. That number was increased by 18,000 to assure order for the elections. I said it would be a permanent increase. When I am wrong I admit it. We are told there will be a troop reduction of 7,000 early next year leaving only 11,000 as the permanent increase.

Don't be disappointed 50,000 are promised to come home shortly before the November elections IF everything gets better. Promises worked for Nixon for years. They got him re-elected without delivering on a one of them.

2005 December 22

What limits upon his power does Bush accept?
So far none, not a single limitation. He has said repeatedly every short of he can do anything that he thinks will keep Americans safe. Whose idea of safe? Only his. Just as he has held Jose Padilla for years without charges on the absurd idea that a high school dropout street punk could make a dirty bomb he can come up with any absurdity to disappear any American off the street.

He acknowledges no limits. He will do anything he wants based upon the most absurd thing he can imagine. It is not good to have delusional and unlimited power in the same person. Unlimited power is what he is claiming.

One of his delusions is that people with blowtorches or cutting torches or any other kind of torches were going to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.

The move to censure Bush
Sounds like something negative and might gain some support. The problem is it is meaningless. It is not in the constitution. It might be some nasty sounding but polite words but it cannot have any effect beyond appearing to something while avoiding impeachment and trial.

2005 December 21.5

Odd problem noted here
Everyone I can corner who has read my commentaries on Iraq and get an opinion has said there is nothing to argue with. That what I say is unarguable even if they support Bush 110%.

So why is it I am the only person saying the things no one disagrees with? I have found no one saying anything like what I say. What if find is people saying arguable things. No one argues with what I say. I have yet to find one person self-righteous enough to say I should not be saying it.

Am I the only one with the cajones? Am I once again in forbidden territory?

There is no peace treaty between Iraq and the US. We are still at war. What does Bush expect? What do Americans expect?

2005 December 21

The Sunday Speech of 18 December 2005
After the president admits committing crimes -- if he thinks he acted within the law he can use that as his defense in his Senate trial -- he goes on TV on Sunday the 19th to ask for patience in Iraq.

His example of progress is the maudlin report of the man who said "I am an Iraqi" after voting. If you believe there was a camera rolling for a random Iraq being asked the lead question who happened to speak good English and gave the right answer then you have not heard of the US paying for good news from Iraq.

He falls back on his childlike simplicity that the only choices are victory or defeat much as you are with us or with the terrorists. As expected he defined neither victory of defeat. He continued to confuse foreign agitators with Iraqis with the lawful right to kill off foreign invaders and local collaborators. In fact Bush has never admitted the lawful right of Iraqis to kill foreign armies and their mercenaries in Iraq.

He knows how good Americans are even as foreign invaders. Americans are good foreign invaders and America's mercenaries are even gooder foreign invaders. As a minimum all the hired "security services" are mercenaries. The folks from Halliburton and other companies are either Carpetbaggers or Scalawags, in any event war profiteers who hired their own mercenaries.

and then the Poll
The day after ABC announces a poll showing Bush's approval has risen 8 to 10 points but it does not tell you the poll ended before the Sunday speech. There are push polls and there are pushes by polls which leave out important details. Did anyone who heard the speech think is was impressive enough for that kind of bounce?

And if you heard the ABC report bouncing up to only 53% negative was worth being presented in gushing words and extra smiles. History as usual will tell lies. Who was happy with the bounce? It could have been presented as very soberly that Bush nears 50% approval after months in the toilet or whatever ABC would politely call it.

Preliminary results from the Iraq election
Bush gushed over the election having happened. So far it looks like a Shi'ite dominated government allied with Iran will rule Iraq.

Speaking of allies for Iran
Pakistan announced it will support Iran against any diplomatic or military attack. Now Bush can claim both Pakistan and Israel as allies both for and against Iran. Bush's heart is in the right place but his head is still on a cocaine high.

For those who forgot, before 9/11 the post 9/11 lawful president of Pakistan was the evil leader of a military coup and Pakistan was under an arms embargo and economic sanctions. This nuclear weapon possessing ally in the war on terrorism will attack the US and/or Israel if Iran is attacked. Compared to Bush, Musharrif is principled. of course anyone compared to Bush is principled.

What defense of Bush?
The greatest silence from Capitol Hill is defense of Bush. The only defense so far has been from his handpicked advisers. No Republican had defended him. The closest has been discussion which walks a fine line just short of condemnation even from Colin Powell who is "retired."

Why? There is no defense. Bush cited no law which permitted his actions therefore there is no legal defense. No one yet has been dumb enough to say all laws can be ignored for a war on drugs or a war on cancer or a war on terrorism. They are all the same kind of wars. There is as yet no imperial presidency. But if we remain silent Bush becomes emperor answerable only to himself.

Answerable only to himself is the essence of his assertion. He made no argument. It was mere assertion. His interpretation of the law is all that matters. Advisers are called advisers because they are only advisers. The person they advise is responsible for the decisions. Advisers never bear any blame for their advice until the president has them executed for bad advice.

So we have a man who is not satisfied with being president within a constitution which says the congress and the judiciary are co-equal with him. He chooses to interpret the law to his favor to do things which he does not need to do which are in violation of the law. Why bother? Being a mere president is not enough for him.

What excuse?
Urgency is not an excuse as eavesdropping can be done immediately with three days for the warrant to be approved by any one of eleven judges who have only rejected four warrants in the last thirty years. As there is no conceivable urgency we are left with either they would have been rejected as illegal or this is a deliberate and considered pattern of criminal behavior.

Enlightenment for retards
With the collapse of the Soviet Union there was no longer a free world for the US president to be the leader of. There is no way to recover past glories. The game is long over.

This fanciful ploy to lead the world against the abstract noun "terrorism" when clearly the US still has its favorite terrorists and damned freedom fighters resonates no place in the world and at most ever for a short time among maybe 60% of Americans. Outside the US it never rose above 40% even in countries of the sham "coalition of the willing" who conquered Iraq.

Speaking of support
Congressional resolutions are meaningless. They do not have the force of law and never have. As such they are tools of political tyranny. A congressional resolution created Black History Month. Just last week another resolution created Jewish History Month. And in late 2002 a resolution authorized war on countries which were involved in 9/11. They all have equal meaning in law which is no standing whatsoever.

So when I see these retards talking about Congressional resolutions as though they mean something I have to ask how they could all have failed high school civics. But if they did not fail it, why are they deliberately lying to us? Lying by the implication resolutions means anything more than a declaration of National Pickle Week. Drop $10,000 on a congressrat and get a week proclaimed by congressional resolution. Who dropped $10,000 for war without end?

Bush has said the war will not be over in the lives of our grandchildren and that we must give up some civil rights for the duration. I did not sign off on that. I did not agree to that. I do not agree to that. No American agrees to that.

Bush is not a king. Bush is not an Emperor.

Bush cannot take away what is not within his power to take away. If he thinks it is in his power and impeachment does not occur we have the right to revolt for the rights of Englishmen. We did it before and we can do it again.

2005 December 17

Bush admits criminal acts
You gotta love it when Bush lets his temper rule. He made a TV speech instead of a radio address on Saturday. He openly admitted breaking the law regarding wiretaps. Impeach him.

He said Congress had been fully briefed on breaking the law. The first senator to speak of the briefing, Bob Graham of Florida, said no such thing was discussed. One or the other is lying and Bush has the track record for lying.

But what does it matter? The briefing was supposedly by VP Cheney to a small number of people. All the rest of Congress was ignorant of the briefing which admitted criminal activity. There is nothing in the Constitution or the law saying 'if Congress is briefed the law can be broken.'

But Bush invoked his powers as commander in chief did he not? Here is his power as commander in chief.

US Constitution, Article 2
Sect. 2. The president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States;

I do not see any power over any civilian or civilian organization or government agency other than the army and navy. Perhaps I need new glasses. His criminal activities involved civilian agencies within the government.

For a fact the law he violated specifically creates a special court to authorize warrants. He said there was often not enough time to obtain a warrant. The process of obtaining a warrant is briefing a judge. Perhaps at times there may have been an urgency but no warrants were ever obtained which is a clear violation of the law, not an appeal to urgency.

2005 December 16

The pretext for Fallujah
At this late date after three attacks on the "terrorists" of Fallujah it is curious people do not remember what started it. Way back when four armed foreign mercenaries were attacked and killed in Fallujah. The people of Fallujah did exactly what Americans would do armed foreign mercenaries caught in the US. For that the people of Fallujah were labeled terrorists when in fact they did what comes naturally.

Why have Americans forgotten this? Did they ever know it? Did they take it as a sign of Iraqi barbarity? Why do Americans find it impossible to see Iraqis as normal human beings just like themselves? Because they dress funny?

Did the Iraqis have a reason beyond the simple policy matter of killing foreigners? From the beginning reports have come out of Iraq of these mercenaries indiscriminately firing on unarmed civilians. Now that video evidence of this has been produced (as usual ignored by the US mainstream media) we can see for themselves the Iraqis likely had good cause beyond simple recreation.

2005 December 9

Israel continues whining about nuclear threat
Three years ago Israelis were whining about an Iraqi nuclear threat. Today they are whining about an Iranian nuclear threat. First they lied about Iraq and now they lie about Iran. Not only lying but the same lies. Iran is only months away from just as Iraq was (NOT) months away from enriching Uranium.

And as with Iraq in 1990 and 2002, Israel is threatening to deal with Iran militarily. As any honest assessment of Israeli military capability concludes Israel could not have dealt with Iraq with conventional weapons and cannot deal with Iran with conventional weapons, Israel is threatening Iran with a nuclear attack.

As the Israeli saying goes, They have the oil but we have the matches. The implication is Israel controls the world's oil supply and uses this as blackmail against the rest of the world to extort its support of Israel.

Is Iran a nuclear threat?
Russia is selling Iran nuclear power plants and a defensive missile system. Russia is in range of all of Iran's missiles. Russia has said it will veto any UN resolution against Iran. China has also said it will veto a UN resolution and China is also in range of all of Iran's missiles. If Iran were planning nuclear weapons one would expect Russia and China to be leading the charge.

None of the other countries in range of Iran's missiles are warning of a threat except Israel and the Israel Firsters in the US government. So why is the US so interested?

2005 December 4

Ramadi back in Iraqi control
The day after Bush gave his bullshit speech at the Annapolis Naval Academy Iraqis took control of the city of Ramadi. This was a remarkable event as the US has liberated the city four times since 2003. Ramadi already holds the record for being the most liberated city in Iraq.

2005 November 30

The grand strategy to fail miserably
Today Bush revealed a non-strategy for continuing the war in Iraq. If you haven't ignored it yet this will give you some reasons to ignore it.

Keep in mind over 70% of Americans, the vast majority of Americans, have realized he lied to get us into Iraq. I hope over 70% realize he will lie to keep us there. This pitiful thing he calls a strategy is an obvious example.

Bush claims he wants a strong Iraqi military. Does anyone really believe the US wants a strong Iraqi military run by people who have a very serious grudge against the US?

2005 November 23

Republican lies become fact
Representative Murtha did not call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, period. The Republicans created a motion calling for immediate withdrawal and it was voted down. And now they claim that is what Murtha proposed. That is a lie and all the Republicans are saying it. Lying for war. Lying to keep Americans dying for an insane and illegal war.

Read the previous and see what I predicted.

Speaking of predictions
In previous entries I said that when troops were added for special reasons like elections they would stay. I first said that when the US troop strength was a bit under 140,000. Today it stands at 158,000.

Jose Padilla finally charged
This is the man unlawfully held by the US without charges for more than three years. What he is charged with is intended to commit crimes overseas rather than the dirty bomb charge on which he was held. That he is charged with a different crime demonstrates beyond question he was unlawfully imprisoned on a false allegation.

2005 November 19

Fake vote on the Iraq war
A prominent Democrat and decorated war veteran in the House demanded the US leave Iraq in a short time frame of around six months. Republicans then created a resolution calling for the US to leave immediately and it was defeated. The talking heads on Sunday will claim the House supports Bush. Clearly it does not. Nor do 60% of the voters.

2005 November 18

Force a vote on the war
But first change the wording and meaning of the resolution which was proposed. Claim victory. Get an earful at home during the two week recess. Come back and vote again on the original, rather innocuous resolution.

Lord Conrad Black indicted by US for $83M Fraud
As he is Jewish expect him to run to Israel which is the haven for all Jewish criminals.

2005 November 16

Congress gets late blooming balls
So Congress had decided to finally make a kitten's paw attempt to make Bush accountable. It has been more than two years since we should have left Iraq but now that the Reps made such a poor showing in Iraq it is time to put distance between themselves and Iraq and therefore Bush.

The point of interest here is that the Iraq war is purely political and this kitten's paw swipe at Bush is a molehill to be made into a political mountain. Why? Because of the 2005 election results of course. It looks politically good to be distanced from Bush. And the nerfbrains will buy into it.

2005 November 15

Not lies just spin
Lets look at some spin.

Monday, November 14, 2005; Posted: 4:05 a.m. EST (09:05 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's national security adviser defended the administration Sunday against accusations that it misled the nation about the need for war with Iraq as Democrats stepped up their attacks on the president's candor.

Stephen Hadley told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that those claims were "flat wrong."

"We need to put this debate behind us," he said. "It's unfair to the country. It's unfair to the men and women in uniform risking their lives to make this country safe."

Excuse me but the entire issue of lied or just stupid may be the substance of the issue but whichever is true the last sentence is false. They are not making this country safe because, lie or just stupid, there was no threat to the country from Iraq.

So lets keep the lie/stupid debate hot so the troops can stay in Iraq.

Everyone saw the same evidence and agreed
That is another variant on the spin. Fact is, it is not true. Intelligence is never certain. Bush only spread the intel which supported the war and often doctored that as with the Niger forgeries.

For example it turns out there is a difference between the original crude Niger forgeries and the transcript that was circulated. The crude errors making it an obvious forgery had been corrected in the transcript. The CIA had the originals and Bush circulated the transcript. People were shown only the doctored "corrected" intelligence.

2005 November 14

The government is avoiding the obvious
Finally there appears to be some movement to find out the real reasons we got ourselves into the quagmire in Iraq. Sound good? Sound like fun looking for scapegoats with six months of Congressional hearings? Sound something better to do than think about the number of Americans dying in Iraq? Follow the magician's misdirection not what he is really doing.

We can point fingers, hold trials and prepare the gallows after the troops are home. The only real priority right now is to get them home as soon as possible. When a bus runs into a ditch the first thing you do it get it out and then fire the driver.

Congress is clearly unwillingly to tackle getting out of Iraq. The best our glorious Congress seems to be on the verge of offering are sterile, sanitized and highly political hearings on how we got into this find mess. And that will be a great distraction from the real problem of getting out. Already Iraq is being framed as a political issue as though over 2000 dead Americans are concerned about politics. It is for we, the living, to give a damn and stop this slaughter of both Americans and Iraqis.

Fact is staying the course for more than two and a half years has made things worse in Iraq. Insanity is doing more of the same and expecting a different outcome.

Speaking of torture techniques used in Iraq
The main stream media does not want to address the very well known. Every method used in Iraq was first used by Israel's military against the Palestinians. Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, Maariv and others have documented these methods when the Israeli Supreme Court banned them the first time. And documented them again when reiterating their previous decision when the military did nearly the same thing exploiting a loophole in the ruling.

And now we read a first hand report from a grunt at Abu Ghraib from the beginning. No problems at all at first. People volunteered. There were people who walked to give information. But then a group of foreigners arrived (read Israelis) who started the torture spree. And the information dried up.

Yes, I know. Israel has more experience with terror than any country in the world. Except that Israel's experience is in making it worse over the course of half a century. See the meaning of insanity above. Israel's methods made things worse. The US methods have made things worse. If things start to improve, stay that course even more to make things worse again.

If there are any questions this photo from abu Ghraib

Where do these insurgents get their training?
Look at the desertion rate in the Iraqi army. It is nearly as high as the enlistment rate. They are trained by the US and then desert to fight the US. Is this really so hard to understand? Why would they travel to Syria or Iran when they can be paid to learn in their own hometown?

And of course there is the entire disbanded army of Iraq which was already trained, thrown out of work and without pensions after years of service. The can do all the theoretical training after the US does the practical training. Not to mention the US teaches all the latest US methods so the insurgents know what to expect.

One of the prides of the US military is independent thinking and taking the initiative. That has always been the Arab way.

Speaking of the cause of Mideast problems
Palestine finally appears to be doing something right. It finally got around to declaring Israel is not a partner in peace. The right thing is acting like a government.

Years ago it should have done mundane things like issuing property tax assessments on all property outside the legal borders of Israel along with laws saying non-payment is grounds for foreclosure. It should be preparing retroactive bills for all water taken and everything else a normal, mundane, boring government does.

2005 November 12

Stupid Congress
Nothing new but the Senate voted to suspend Habeas Corpus for suspected terrorists. The last time that was tried was by dishonest Abe Lincoln and, although he was dead, the Supreme Court said he had no such authority. Does Congress imagine it can change the Constitution when the Executive cannot? Of course not. But it relies upon the years it will take for a case to be heard by the Supreme Court to harm an untold number of innocent people.

Speaking of stupid
The Senate just demanded an investigation of the leak of secret US prisons around the world. Without that the story could have been denied. Now it has been confirmed.

Bombings in Jordan
If Israel did not have a long history of false-flag attacks on other countries, attacks designed to implicate another country, then people would not think it was behind the recent bombings in Jordan. Two of the three hotels were owned by Palestinians. The head Palestine's security was killed and Israelis in the hotels received and early warning and were evacuated before the bombings (as reported by Haaretz.com) it would be simply curious rather than indicative of a false flag operation. And if the Israeli company Odigo had not received warnings of the 911 attack hours before it occurred that could also be written off.

We either have an country better at false flag operations than Israel or we have Israel as responsible.

Not one Israeli is reported injured or any place near the bombings even though it is a popular vacation spot for Israelis.

2005 November 11

Syria and Iran agree, US increases demands
Iran made an agreement with Russia which would deal with all previous objections regarding handling uranium processing. The US made new demands. Syria agreed to cooperate with the Hariri investigation and the UN was satisfied. The US made new demands.

Iran and Syria will eventually agree and then the US will add new demands. This will continue until the demands are so outrageous the country cannot agree and the US will accuse them of being uncooperative.

This is exactly what we saw in Iraq.

2005 November 6

Lied into the Vietnam war?
Only 41 years too late to do any good it has been revealed doctored, i.e. forged, faked, whatever the rubes will believe, intelligence was used to get the US into the Vietnam War and over 50,000 unnecessary dead Americans. Yes, I know Iraq is no Vietnam. Iraq has no jungles.

2005 November 4

Welcome to war on Syria and Iran
In case no one has been paying attention the US has been doing to Iran and Syria exactly what it did to Iraq. There has been a long series of unfounded accusations. There have been impossible demands. There was a demand for a UN Security Counsel resolution against Syria. The US got the resolution demanding Syria fully cooperate with the UN investigation of the death of Hariri but could not get specified penalties included but just as with the one on Iraq on cooperating with weapons inspectors it threatens serious consequences.

It was passed under article 7 which permits a military response as was the one on Iraq. Leading up to the war the US made unfounded and knowingly false accusations about Iraq weapons programs. Leading up to the war on Syria the US is making unfounded and knowingly false claims that Syria is supporting the so-called terrorists in Iraq.

When the US made demands that Iraq fully cooperate with US weapons inspectors and the weapons inspectors said there was full cooperation the US falsely said Iraq was not cooperating. The Secretary of State has started saying Syria is not cooperating.

The weapons charges against Iraq came from a convicted bank embezzler, Ahmed Chalabi. The charges against Syria are coming from a man convicted of fraud.

Before the Iraq war Israel was the loudest supporter of invading Iraq. Today Israel is the loudest supporter of invading Syria. Israel is the loudest lying claimant that Iran has a nuclear weapons program as it was about Iraq. The US echoes this lie about Iran. The nuclear weapons inspectors say Iran is fully cooperating as it said Iraq fully cooperated in response to the same false charge. Israel and the US continue to lie that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

The US was making air strikes on Iraq before the war started. The US is attacking targets in Syria.

And my prediction. Just as with Iraq US demands will increase and be impossible to fulfill and will have only a tenuous connection with the resolution. And no matter who says Syria is complying the US will claim Syria is not complying.

All of this is a near duplicate of the public relations exercise against Iraq. Do we let them get away with this again? Is the public bright enough to see it is the same thing all over again?

2005 October 3

Bush is going to give a speech on Iraq: a Prediction
Bush is going to tell us there are severe penalties for early withdrawal. I had a girlfriend tell me that once. Just to show I do not only pick nits after the fact ...

In the speech Bush is going to claim there are risks to the US if we leave Iraq too soon. He will name some risks, likely terrorist attacks in the US. He will not give any explanation as to why this is credible or how this can happen. Further the talking heads will not mention he gave no explanation giving him a free pass. There will be nothing other than unsubstantiated assertions.

If have been following this commentary you realize Iraqis are doing just what we Americans would do if we were occupied. There is no way to distinguish what is happening in Iraq from what Americans would do. There is certainly no way to show they are doing other than fighting to drive out the foreigners, in this case the mostly American foreigners.

Which means there is no connection between people fighting to kick out the occupation forces and terrorist attacks in the US. But Bush will say it and he will be repeated and the talking heads will not call him on it.

How do I know this? Consider his recent mindless catchphrase "as Iraqis stand up we will stand down". He did not explain it. He did not say the Iraqi army. He did not say what to stand up for. Stand down has a military meaning, going off of alert status. It does not mean ceasing to fight. It does not mean ceasing to kill Iraqis. It does not mean ending the occupation. It does not mean leaving Iraq.

None of the talking heads called him on it. All pretended it meant something. In fact none of the talking heads have pointed out the optimistic estimate of three battle-ready divisions has been reduced to one. So if we make Bush look good and assume 'stand up' means ready to fight, Iraqis are not doing that but the opposite. So if Bush meant something by 'stand down' we will not be standing down. The statement was no more than a slogan.

Who are they supposed to fight? People who are trying to kick out the Americans. So the purpose of this exercise is to train Iraqis to protect American troops from Iraqis trying to end the occupation. The stupidity of that should be obvious.

Where did we last see this? The Army of South Vietnam of course. If Iraq is not another Vietnam why is everything the same? There was even grudging respect for the Viet Cong as there is for the fighters in Iraq. Improvised munitions and planted bombs were a specialty of the Vietnamese insurgents as they are for Iraqi insurgents.

Can there be any truth to what he will say? Yes, a little bit, as Iraq is the place for gaining hand's on experience with car bombs and improvised explosives. So while true, the longer we stay in Iraq the more gain experience and the more skilled they become. Staying is what will make attacks in the US more likely.

Everything he said to justify the war is a lie. Anyone naming something that was not a lie is agreeing everything else was lies. The one thing remaining which is maybe true is getting rid of Hussein which happened 2 1/2 years ago. Iraq was a democracy at that time, just a non-functioning one so forcing democracy at gunpoint was not a credible reason even if it were a legal reason for war which it is not. It is certainly not a reason which would have caused many Americans to support the war. Neo-cons would have but their first loyalty is to Israel not America.

2005 September 22

British terrorists in Iraq
Three days ago, 19 September in Iraq, two British soldiers, members of the elite SAS, were arrested in Iraq. They were out of uniform and wearing the colors of the Mahdi Militia making them spies for which the penalty is death. Prior to being captured they were in a gun fight with the police and killed one of them making them murderers for which the penalty is death. The car they were driving was filled with guns, explosives and a remote detonator which makes them terrorists for which the penalty is years of torture.

The ever diplomatic Brits staged a jail break with tanks and gunships. In the process they destroy the jail releasing 150 ordinary criminal prisoners. I am not quite certain what kind of crime that is rather either a long list of crimes with many counts of some such as releasing 152 prisoners or a simple act of war.

Dutifully the news covers the Brits as heroes saving their own from an angry mob leaving out the out of uniform, the murder, and the explosives. A mob did form and attacked the rescuers setting one tank on fire.

There is the answer to who is doing the bombing. Brits disguised as Iraqis. There is nothing more to discuss.

Evil Syria and the open border
Here is a newsflash for the US. The border between Iraq and Syria is an arbitrary line drawn by the British and French eighty years ago. It is not drawn through a barren desert. In the north it borders the Tigris and the Euphrates passes through Syria.

Between the rivers the land is dry but not barren. People have always lived there and long before the imaginary border was drawn. The people never developed any interest the border. They have always freely moved across it. Clans live on both sides of it. Neither Iraq nor Syria guarded it or ever closed it.

Comes the US with demands Syria seal the border. The US knew the border was no more than a line on a map which does give them credit for more knowledge of the region than they may have possessed considering they slaughtered a wedding party. If the US wanted the border sealed it should have sent the troops needed to do the job.

Instead these clowns posture demands that Syria should close the border. They blame Syria for leaving the border the way it has been since the day it was drawn.

Either we assume they are ignorant of the region which is inexcusable or plain stupid which is a popular theory or they are trying to get public support for invading Syria. This last would be like the string of lies told about Iraq before the invasion.

What would it entail to seal the border? A string of guard towers in sight of each other. Eyeballing the map, the border is 380 miles long. That is a lot of towers and a lot of fence. And as so many have perfectly legitimate normal reasons for freely crossing this border a lot of bureaucrats to piss them off demanding the reasons.

As usual the US accuses Syria of sponsoring terrorism. Against who? Israel. Who else? The fact is a state of war exists between Syria and Israel and part of Syria is occupied by Israel. This is the part Israel stole during the 1967 war, according to Israeli general Moshe Dayan, Israel provoked fighting with Syria as an excuse to steal the Syrian Heights, called the Golan Heights by Israel. Dayan said the reason was to steal the land and water resources.

The terrorism Syria is accused of sponsoring is the Hezbollah. That is the organizations which eventually drove Israel out of Lebanon ending that occupation. IF Syria is in fact sponsoring Hezbollah then it looks like they are smart enough to back a winner and it is in their interest to do so.

America won't leave Iraq until there is victory over terror.

But then how does one tell a terrorist from an ordinary, pissed-off Iraqi?

2005 August 22

Congress in recess, Bush doing something
This is the time of year when Congressrats actually meet and talk to their constituents. It is when they hear what they want to hear and start saying in Congress what they think their constituents want to hear. Back in the Vietnam days Nixon talked to people back at San Clemente that people were tired of the war dragging on so long. He escalated the war instead of ending it.

If there is an antiwar movement is has to give its views so that there is no misunderstanding. Constantly talking about the deaths does not say leave Iraq. Stopping the deaths does not mean stopping the war. If you like war it means sending more troops. It is a "strong" response. It is a macho response. It is the kind of thing a wimp like Bush really wants to do.

2005 August 10

44 American dead in Iraq in ten days
The cakewalk gets better every day. The last throes get laster every day.

2005 July 22

Iraqi insurgents have new things to fight against
A quick look at the draft constitution shows they can be fighting against the imposition of an Islamic republic. This is also fighting against an Islamic theocracy imposed by law and roving gangs of volunteer morals police. Americans should be supporting them in their efforts to prevent this from happening.

They can also be fighting against an alliance with Iran. Iran appears to be the model for the new, improved and oh so liberated Iraq. Again Americans should be supporting them not killing them.

We Americans are paying for this. Americans are dying protecting their government while it turns back the clock on the entire country. Hussein never tolerated morals police. Hussein guaranteed equal rights for women. Hussein did not apply Islamic law.

Don't forget to thank Bush for all of it. You are reading it here because it will not be reported in the newspapers or on TV. Americans are not mature enough to know the truth about Iraq.

2005 July 20

Israeli uprising
All the fun isn't in Iraq these days. If you have not kept up Israel is planning to remove its squatters from the Gaza. The squatters and their leaders are not happy about it. It supposed to start 15 August. There have been increasing confrontations with the police and military. So far it has remained largely peaceful but their demonstrations number in the thousands occasionally in the tens of thousands.

I have often noted Israel is only one election away from their kind of fanatics getting control of Israel's nuclear arsenal. As things are shaping up Israel is now of the verge of civil war. That can result in these same fanatics coming to control that same arsenal.

Not to be too blunt about it, the civilized world will not permit that to happen. The job will fall to the US. Over the last month several pictures of a major US base in Israel have been in the internet. It is not a conspiracy theory, the flags of both countries fly at the main gate as shown in the pictures. Also the base personnel make no secret of being Americans although nothing is said of what the base is for. So the US is already in place to take control of the weapons. Given the largely underground bunkers they may already be there.

One could reasonably suggest both the US and Israel expect a civil war and are prepared for it.

Another I told you so in Iraq
I mentioned the consequence of a free Iraq would be another Islamic republic. The current draft of the constitution requires Islamic law meaning no more equal rights for women among other things. Iraq has also signed a security agreement with Iran.

And don't forget the hundreds of billions we have spent to create an Iraq that makes a military alliance with Iran.

2005 July 16

Fallujah back to normal
The New York Times reports Fallajah is finally getting back to normal with the return of insurgency to the city.

2005 July 14

Reasons for Terrorism
Why does Bush keep inventing nonsense reasons?

Rules:

1. The entire point of terrorism is to achieve a political objective.
2. Terrorism is worthless unless the political objective is announced.
3. Therefore, the reasons the terrorists give are the real reasons.

Who would trust a terrorist to tell the truth? Re-read the rules. They have to be truthful about their reasons else there is no point to the terrorism.

2005 July 13

Axis of Evil shooting first?
Bush announced Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the axis of evil. Although pitifully melodramatic and devoid of semantic content he then proceeded to take over Iraq. In addition his fellow idiots have openly and publicly announced Syria is on the hit list.

Any rational person would expect Iran and Syria to act in their own self-interest and "fight them in Iraq" instead of in their own countries. It is the same dumb idea Bush has legitimized. Americans have the childlike idea that whatever their country does is good because of good intentions. These simple people condemn other countries who would do the same thing.

For example, Bush regularly threatens Syria for letting terrorists cross their border with Iraq. What is the point? Bush has previously said he will force regime change on Syria. That is what he did in Iraq. So if Syria is on the hit list already is not the wisest policy for Syria to deal with the US while bogged down in Iraq? Why let Bush attack Syria on his own schedule?

What is obvious for Syria should be doubly obvious to Iran. As a charter member of that axis of evil crap it is obvious a stable Iraq will a base for attack them. Better fight America in Iraq and in Iran. It is Bush's reasoning.

Like most people American's believe words rather than actions. They believed Bush's words when he said he did not want war with Iraq. They ignored Bush's actions. The actions were staging troops for the invasion and bombing every military and some civilian targets in Iraq. The bombing campaign was in fact war. But as long as Bush did not say the word war Americans ignored the fact of war.

One can even say it is worse than just the named countries. Change in the entire region has been announced. The change is to force democracy and market driven economies on all the nations in the region. Sounds good to Americans.

But how does it appear to them? They can read America's own assessment of its owned political system and learn it is controlled by the rich. Campaign contributions lead to political support and laws. Again Americans believe the words about their government rather than its actions.

Do they really want market driven economies? Sounds good in principle but the practice means foreign corporations can openly compete in their countries. It means rich foreign corporations can buy out their domestic companies.

Every so often the Aggie-in-Chief talks about teaching them western values. Every day Iraqis see western values exercised by western troops. One can forgive them if they see no value in western values.

Were this not bad enough the loose lips openly talk about bringing western culture to the region. Americans wonder what it wrong with that while the region sees a crime-ridden culture. They have to take the bad with the good? Why do they have to? Who is going to force them to take the bad with the good? Don't they have a say in the matter?

According to Bush they have no say in the matter because the American army is going to force it on them. The troops will kill anyone who does not use "democratic" means to resist. Note the catch? They have to accept democracy and western culture before they can object to western culture. This is the Catch-22 that Americans thinks is nifty. Very clever. Got 'em!

Bin Laden again
"If you bomb out cities we will bomb your cities."

Bush says this is war. What do Americans expect but to be attacked?

"They attacked us first! Remember 9/11!" But no nation attacked the US. A handful of people attacked America. In return America attacked countries. Certainly the people of those countries have an absolute moral right to counter-attack. Who would say otherwise?

And as the entire region is under threat of conquest and forced westernization, it is again reasonable for the entire region to attack America.

Putting it all together
Thus Bush's wars are the best way to support and encourage attacks on America.

One has to ask why Bush wants America to be attacked.

Militantly dumb Americans
Anything negative about American behavior in Iraq is attacked as anti-american. Whether it is true or false is not the issue for them. Bush spoke for all Americans when he said he did not understand how anyone could think badly of America, "I know how good we are." Iraqis see every day what Americans are like.

But for the sake of argument let us assume none of it is true. The only thing that matters is if Iraqis believe it. It does not matter what Americans think of themselves. It matters only what Iraqis think of Americans. Given the condition of their country, the state of water and electricity, the terrorists, the constant fighting, none of which existed before the good Americans invaded most of the stories about Americans are milder than the reality they live with. It should surprise no one if the stories are believed.

Militant Americans blamed the fighting on non-Iraqis and wash their hands of guilt. But Bush says it is better to fight terrorists in Iraq than to fight them in America. Bush also made his famous "Bring 'em on" challenge to encourage fighting in Iraq. And it is anti-american to say people have done was Bush challenged them to do.

No matter what the facts, Americans are blameless. Thus say the amoral militant Americans.

2005 July 08

London bombings
At first the explosions in the subway were reported as a power surge causing power transformers to explode. After an hour it became clear the explosions were bombs.

Shades of Odiga
As the Israeli company in the World Trade Center received an Instant Mail warning before the planes hit the building so too the Israeli embassy was warned a hour before the explosions as reported by the AP and Israel's Army Radio. This caused visiting Israeli Finance Minister and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to remain in his hotel and miss delivering a speech. Later the AP story was corrected to "a few minutes before" the first first bombings.

Within hours MI5, Scotland Yard, every organization that could possibly have given such a warning denied doing so. The plot thickened. Finally Israel denied receiving any warning but has not explained why Netanyahu chose to miss the opportunity to deliver his speech.

How strange the Israeli embassy would be warned either an hour or even a few minutes before a coming power surge in the subway system. Equally strange is it could possibly have been warned minutes after the transformer blew up that it was bomb which was not known until an hour later. How are such things possible?

Background

• Britain announced it was reducing it troops in Iraq
• Britain cut a deal with Palestine to buy natural gas and exploration for more to the surprise of Israel
• Britain has in fact bombed itself before in order to blame the IRA
  • The FBI essentially let the 1993 bombing of the WTC happen

I am not particularly concerned that it points to Israel rather it is the irrational defense of Israel despite the facts and the irrational attacks on people innocent until found guilty in a court of law.

collection of first day articles

Unmentionable
What we can't ask is, what did they expect? Britain (and the US) used the UN to keep killing sanctions on Iraq for more than a decade. As confirmed by Madelyn Albright while Secretary of State over a million people died because of those sanctions. In 2003 this was topped off by an aggressive, unprovoked invasion that murdered an unknown number of Iraq's military personnel and civilians in the process. For more than two years the foreign troops have run roughshod over the country murdering an unknown number of people. Civilian deaths have been credibly estimated on the order of one hundred thousand.

Payback's a bitch.

Did they expect no counterattack? Did they expect docile Iraqis and their sympathizers to limit their efforts to Iraq? Is it not the first rule to take the battle to the enemy's own country? Was not that the rationale for the Doolittle raid on Japan?

Older commentary

Page reads: 4476