Excellent Review of “Dead Certain”

November 5, 2007 at 10:22 pm | Posted in Bush Administration, Iraq | 1 Comment

New York Times Book Reviews are generally among the best reviews you can find, and this one does not disappoint, a review of “Dead Certain” about George W. Bush and his presidency.


(courtesy of Doug Mills/The New York Times)

The reviewer ends with a quote from James Madison, who wrote:

“In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. … War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. … It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venial love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”

Sacrificing Pakistan

November 5, 2007 at 8:54 pm | Posted in Bush Administration, Pakistan | Leave a comment


(courtesy of Arif Ali/Agence France-Presse–Getty Images)

The lawyers are protesting Musharraf, and it’s not looking good. The Bush administration is fairly silent (imagine if this was Iran, for example, or remember what they said about Burma), because they are caught red handed propping up this military dictator, a complete slap in the face to their own soaring rhetoric on democracy. Their hypocrisy has not known a bigger target than Pakistan.

Who knows in what direction this will go. You generally can’t tell with civil wars, revolutions, and clampdowns by totalitarian regimes.

How long the lawyers could keep up their revolt without the support of opposition political parties, which so far have been lying low, remained in question.

That is indeed a great question. The military is highly pervasive in Pakistani culture and life. Just how could someone overthrow Musharraf unless they come from within the military? Pakistan has been unstable throughout its young history, and will likely remain so for a long while. One has to wonder, with all the lawyers protesting, just what is the relation between lawyers and the military? I’ve seen that retired military officers go on to do business. I’m curious how many lawyers used to be in the military…

A Supreme Court justice, Rana Bhagwandas, who is also under house arrest, said in a telephone interview that the United States should press for the restoration of democracy in Pakistan.

“The United States is a democratic government and democratic governments should work for democratic values across the globe,” Mr. Bhagwandas said. “Pakistan is no exception.”

Unfortunately for Pakistan (and the rest of the world), the Bush administration will do no such thing, because they’ve never had at their heart the movement of democracy. They have sacrificed democracy on the altar of the war on terrorism before (think Lebanon in the summer of 2006) and they will do it again in Pakistan. The irony, of course, is that Bush’s administration is so inept and so clumsy that if they really did have terrorism as their top priority, Pakistan would never have come to this.

Bush’s priority has always been, and always will be, the furthering of the Republican party domestically. It doesn’t matter who else loses as long as they win.

Will Bush Follow Musharraf’s Lead?

November 5, 2007 at 5:31 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, conservatives, corruption, liberals, neo-conservatives, Republicans, secret combinations | 14 Comments

Juan Cole wonders:

If Bush and Cheney are ever tempted into extreme measures in the United States, Musharraf has provided a template for how it would unfold. Maintain you are moving against terrorists and extremists, but actually move against the rule of law. Rubin has accepted the suggested term of “lawfare” to describe this kind of warfare by executive order.

Realistically, how many conservatives would actually be upset if, say, Bush were to keep power and go around arresting liberals…

Musharraf, Bush’s Man in Pakistan Declares Martial Law

November 3, 2007 at 2:58 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, Pakistan | 6 Comments

This must be talked about. I’ve warned before that Pakistan is our most dangerous situation in the world right now. Not Iraq. And certainly not Iran. Both Bush and Bin Laden have the same exact strategy, “fight them in Iraq so we don’t fight them here.” For Bush it is so we don’t fight them in America. For Bin Laden, it is so we don’t fight them in Pakistan.

Today, General Musharraf, our dictator in Pakistan, who has several nukes in his arsenal, has declared martial law in Pakistan. This is of course very significant. The reason he declared martial law is because his position is weakening. So instead of bowing out (which is what happens in democracies) he holds on to his power by tightening his grip. This is going to end badly for Pakistan. Nothing good will come of this. And who knows, mayhap in the not too distant future, we might have to get involved. After all, if Musharraf falls and Pakistan goes to the Islamic fundamentalists…well, what is the stated goal of our GWOT (Global War on Terror)? One wonders then if part of the deal we gave to India in exchange for providing them nuclear technology back in 2005, was not also that they would be our proxy in Pakistan should Musharraf fall.

Our dear leader really is doing what he can to exacerbate another world war.

Tonight, Senator Enver Baig, a leading member of Ms. Bhutto’s party, stood in front of the country’s Supreme Court building and called on the United States and its allies to rein in General Musharraf.

“The only answer to all these problems is a fair election and a civilian government,” he said, as police cordoned off the court building. “It’s a very sad day for Pakistan.”

Indeed it is.

It is November…

November 3, 2007 at 10:42 am | Posted in Bush Administration, Iraq | 1 Comment

…where is the Iraqi government to take control of Iraq as Bush promised in January?

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.

None of this has been accomplished. As such, the surge is a failure. Because in the end, no matter how much you stop the violence, if there is no political reconciliation, there is no peace and prosperity in Iraq.

We’re Becoming the Enemy

October 27, 2007 at 8:34 am | Posted in Bush Administration, corruption, King George, secret combinations, Torture, War | 2 Comments

We’ve ‘disappeared’ many people since Bush took power. This is the kind of thing we used to use as an excuse to attack other nations. Now we do it ourselves.

On the Surge, Airstrikes, Fewer American Deaths, but More Innocent Iraqis Killed

October 26, 2007 at 10:21 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, General Petraeus, Iraq, Military | 3 Comments

So the Glorious Surge is supposed to REDUCE violence and death. It has succeeded in reducing Americans killed, but not for the reasons one would think. It’s not as if our enemies have stopped fighting us. It’s actually because our military has gone against their own counterinsurgency principles and are using airstrikes to kill “bad guys” which inevitably also kill numerous civilians. But using those airstrikes ensures fewer Americans killed.

Continue Reading On the Surge, Airstrikes, Fewer American Deaths, but More Innocent Iraqis Killed…

New Steps Toward War With Iran

October 25, 2007 at 5:43 am | Posted in Bush Administration, Iran, Republicans, secret combinations, War | 11 Comments

Keep an eye on this administration, everybody. They are slowly setting the stage for what will be called a “no-brainer” in Cheney’s words: war with Iran. We talk about it so much it will soon become an inexorable inevitability.

The Bush administration will announce a long-debated policy of new sanctions against Iran on Thursday, accusing the elite Quds division of the Revolutionary Guard Corps of supporting terrorism, administration officials said Wednesday night.

The administration also plans to accuse the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction, the officials said. While the United States has long labeled Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, the decision to single out the Guard reflects increased frustration in the administration with the slow pace of diplomatic negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Both designations will put into play unilateral sanctions intended to impede the Revolutionary Guard and those who do business with it. This is the first time that the United States has taken such steps against the armed forces of any sovereign government.

The action against the Revolutionary Guard, first reported by The Washington Post, would set in motion a series of automatic sanctions that would make it easier for the United States to block financial accounts and other assets controlled by the Guard. In particular, the action would freeze any assets the Guard has in the United States, although it is unlikely that the Guard maintains much in the way of assets in American banks or other institutions.

The decision will be announced jointly on Thursday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the administration officials said. “This is going to be a broad and wide-ranging effort,” a senior administration official said. “We will be freezing assets, and there will be ripple effects of where we can go from there.”

And that is EXACTLY the point of this move. Where do you think they can go from here? The more the Bush administration takes these steps, the easier it will be for them to argue with Americans that that secret attack on Iranians they will be taking in a few months was absolutely necessary for your safety, America, even though it had nothing to do with your safety.

You are being bamboozled again.

Kurdish Terrorists Kill Turkish Soldiers

October 22, 2007 at 12:41 pm | Posted in Bush Administration, corruption, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, Terrorism, Turkey, War | 4 Comments

So Turkey wants to invade Iraq to kill or capture those who killed its soldiers. Sounds like a fairly reasonable demand, seeing that Kurdish terrorists are killing Turks. I mean, don’t we find any excuse possible to want to attack Iran?

But no, the Bush administration is urging Turkey to restrain its activities:

The United States continued efforts today to steer Turkey away from a military incursion into northern Iraq, after a cross-border raid by Kurdish rebels on Sunday killed 17 Turkish soldiers and raised the prospect of an escalating conflict.

The State Department is great at highlighting our own hypocrisy and I’ll let Mr. McCormack do the talking:

As tension increased in Turkey and scattered groups of protesters gathered to demand retaliation, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. had opened what he called a “full-court press” to keep the situation from deteriorating.

“We want to see an outcome where you have the Turks and the Iraqis working together, and we will do what we can to resolve the issue without a Turkish cross-border incursion,” McCormack said.

Huh, let’s change those words just slightly and see if it makes any sense:

“We want to see an outcome where you have the Turks Americans and the Iraqis Iranians working together, and we will do what we can to resolve the issue without a Turkish American cross-border incursion [into Iran],” McCormack said.

Makes good sense to me. Doesn’t it to you?

George Bush, Iran, and World War Three

October 18, 2007 at 12:11 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, corruption, Foreign Policy, George W Bush, Iran, King George, Middle East, secret combinations, Terrorism, violence, War, War on Terror, World Events | 3 Comments

What in the heck did George W. Bush mean when he warned that if Iran progresses further in their nuclear technology that there would be World War III? Let’s read the account first:

Q [Putin] said — well, at least the quote said that — and he also said, “He sees no evidence to suggest Iran wants to build a nuclear bomb.” Were you disappointed with that message? And does that indicate possibly that international pressure is not as great as you once thought against Iran abandoning its nuclear program?

THE PRESIDENT: I — as I said, I look forward to — if those are, in fact, his comments, I look forward to having him clarify those, because when I visited with him, he understands that it’s in the world’s interest to make sure that Iran does not have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon. And that’s why, on — in the first round at the U.N., he joined us, and second round, we joined together to send a message. I mean, if he wasn’t concerned about it, Bret, then why did we have such good progress at the United Nations in round one and round two?

And so I will visit with him about it. I have not yet been briefed yet by Condi or Bob Gates about, you know, their visit with Vladimir Putin.

Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long — until they suspend and/or make it clear that they — that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. And I know it’s in the world’s interest to prevent them from doing so. I believe that the Iranian — if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be a dangerous threat to world peace.

But this — we got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously. And we’ll continue to work with all nations about the seriousness of this threat.

Note the threat there. If we supposedly want to avoid World War III, we need to prevent Iran from having “the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.” It’s no longer even a matter of them having nuclear weapons, but they can’t even go on track to have them.

So let’s get into Bush’s insane and childish logic here. First of all, Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which specifically allows countries to proceed with nuclear technology. (note importantly that India is NOT, yet Bush signed a massive deal with them to share our nuclear technology—but hey we were never fair in terms of following international law, so why start now, right?). The NPT specifically, and most importantly, legally allows a country like Iran to have a nuclear energy program. George W. Bush would have the United States of America violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty by taking away from Iran what is rightfully and legally theirs: access to nuclear energy. Now, if George W. Bush feels the NPT is not a good treaty, he can order the United States to relinquish its terms to the treaty (as he did with the ABM treaty so long ago). After all, we’re already violating the spirit of the NPT by signing the deal with India, who does NOT belong to the NPT and probably never will.

Secondly, why would George W. Bush think that if Iran would gain nuclear technology and knowledge it would lead to a WORLD war? When you talk about World Wars, you’re talking about something along the lines of what we saw in the 1910s and 1940s. Is George W. Bush saying that multiple countries will be involved in a prolonged conflict that will lead to the deaths of millions of people?

Think about this, if Iran merely has the knowledge of nuclear technology, they can’t USE that knowledge to start wars. Knowledge in and of itself is practically useless. It must be put into PRACTICE in order for it to become forceful. So how could the KNOWLEDGE of nuclear technology lead Iran to START a world war? It couldn’t. So who would be STARTING that next World War?

Just follow George W. Bush’s own logic, guys. He is basically telling you that HE AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will be STARTING THE NEXT WORLD WAR. We will be the instigators of WORLD WAR THREE.

Blackwater Guards May Be Unlawful Combatants

October 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm | Posted in blackwater, Bush Administration, Iraq, Terrorism | 1 Comment

Bush administration lawyers are actually considering if Blackwater security guards may not actually end up being unlawful combatants. Steve Benen quotes from this LA Times report which has some very interesting nuggets:

For a guard who is only allowed to use defensive force, killing civilians violates the law of war, said Michael N. Schmitt, a professor of international law at the Naval War College and a former Air Force lawyer. “It is a war crime to kill civilians unlawfully in an armed conflict,” he said.

If the contractors were the aggressors in an incident, they could be deemed to be unlawfully using offensive force, said Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force lawyer and now a professor at Duke University. He said they could claim self-defense only if they had been fired on.

“The only force they can use is defensive force,” Silliman said. “But we may be seeing some instances where contractors are using offensive force, which in my judgment would be unlawful.”

And

“We are going to be hard-pressed to draw a distinction between the guys in Blackwater carrying automatic weapons and the bad guys setting bombs along the side of the road,” said Hutson, now dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire.

U.S. officials have described many of the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliates it holds at Guantanamo Bay as unlawful combatants either for taking part in hostilities against the United States or by supporting the hostilities while not part of a nation’s military.

By that standard, some of the private guards in Iraq and Afghanistan also could be seen as unlawful combatants, particularly if they have taken offensive action against unarmed civilians, experts said.

“If we hire people and direct them to perform activities that are direct participation in hostilities, then at least by the Guantanamo standard, that is a war crime,” Schmitt said.

The 2004 immunity measure prevents Iraq from prosecuting private guards under Iraqi law. But some international law experts think Iraq could use international treaties to try contractors for killing civilians.

Let’s see,

Extra-national non-military guys with guns? Check.
Killing civilians? Check.
No state-sponsored uniform? Check.

Shouldn’t Blackwater guards be in the same cells as all those guys languishing in Guantanamo Bay Camp X-Ray?

Your Government Doesn’t Trust You

October 15, 2007 at 1:19 pm | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, corruption, George W Bush, NSA Warrantless Tapping, secret combinations, warrantless wiretapping | 4 Comments

Your government doesn’t trust you. Why should you trust it?

On Blackwater, Real Justice Would Be…

October 14, 2007 at 7:53 pm | Posted in blackwater, Bush Administration, Iraq | Leave a comment

to expel the company from Iraq, to cancel all taxpayer funded contracts with the company, to file lawsuits that end up crippling the company into bankruptcy, to charge the guards who fired on civilians in Iraq with murder, and to try them for their crimes. That is justice for such a company.

Under the Bush administration, we won’t get justice, but maybe we’ll at least get them expelled from Iraq. It seems the Bush administration has run out of options, and they will indeed acquiesce to Iraqi non-negotiable demands:

The Iraqi investigators issued five recommendations to the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, which has since sent them to the U.S. Embassy as demands for action. Point No. 2 in the report says: “The Iraqi government should demand that the United States stops using the services of Blackwater in Iraq within six months and replace it with a new, more disciplined organization that would be answerable to Iraqi laws.”

Sami al-Askari, a top aide to al-Maliki, said that point in the Iraqi list of demands was nonnegotiable.

“I believe the government has been clear. There have been attacks on the lives of Iraqi citizens on the part of that company (Blackwater). It must be expelled. The government has given six months for its expulsion and it’s left to the U.S. Embassy to determine with Blackwater when to terminate the contract. The American administration must find another company,” he told AP.

Ms. Rice Makes It Too Easy

October 13, 2007 at 6:23 pm | Posted in America, American politics, Bush Administration, condoleezza rice, Congress, corruption, Russia | Leave a comment

she says, about Russia:

“In any country, if you don’t have countervailing institutions, the power of any one president is problematic for democratic development,” Rice told reporters after meeting with human-rights activists.

“I think there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin White House. I have told the Russians Americans that. Everybody has doubts about the full independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of the electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma Congress,” said Rice, referring to the Russian American parliament.

Who disagrees?

Some More Thoughts on Al Gore Winning the Nobel Peace Prize

October 13, 2007 at 9:01 am | Posted in Al Gore, American politics, Bush Administration, corruption, George W Bush, Iran, Iraq, King George, Military, Nobel Prize, NSA Warrantless Tapping, Peace, secret combinations, Torture, violence, War, War on Terror, warrantless wiretapping, wmd, World Events | Leave a comment

I was one of those who was highly disappointed with the 2000 election. There were so many factors that took away the presidency from the rightful person and put it in the hands of a childish, boy emperor, a petulant, self-serving, babbling idiot, who has left the blackest mark on our country…since, well, I can’t honestly think of a worst president.

I can’t say how angry I have been these past seven years at Ralph Nader, siphoning votes away from Al Gore (Ralph Nader got like 70,000 votes in Florida in 2000, plenty to defeat Bush). Republicans have seen the power of a third party candidate taking votes away from the likely winner (they faced a similar situation in 1992 with Ross Perot giving the victory to Bill Clinton), and some Republican candidates have tried to mimic that for a Senate seat.

George Bush was given the presidency and the world (with the exception of a few) mourned his administration. 9/11 occurred on his watch. He began expanding warrantless wiretapping right from the beginning of his administration in February 2001 (according to QWest CEO). He ordered the CIA and the military to torture suspects a practice previously we abhorred and usually denounced when we heard other countries practice. He used politics of division rather than union and immediately angered half of his own country. He rightfully went after Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan after we were attacked, but instead of focusing on our real enemy, he chose to go after Saddam, with no really good reason to do so. He contracted out security to lawless men who murder innocent Iraqis. He continues to bamboozle America into further war, increasingly raising the specter of war with Iran.

Al Gore went away from the spotlight during this time, but in 2002, as the country was seeing red and Iraq was its target, he spoke out prophetically against the war, and made us who felt he was our real president, long for his leadership instead of the idiot we got.

For Al Gore, winning the Nobel Peace Prize today is the latest twist in a remarkable decade of soaring highs and painful lows. In the span of the last decade he went from being the vice president to being the presumptive Democratic nominee for president to winning the popular vote for president only to lose in the Electoral College — after an intervention by the Supreme Court made his 537-vote loss in Florida official.

Mr. Gore’s decision to give up the fight after the Supreme Court decision left some of his more die-hard supporters bitter, and he by and large retreated from public view for several years. He rarely inserted himself in the public debate, though he did venture out to speak against the invasion of Iraq before it happened. But, associates have said, it was during that quasi-exile that Mr. Gore broke free of the political consultancy that had come to surround him to find his true voice, returning to the environmental issues to which he had devoted his early political career.

Even before Mr. Gore’s so-called “user generated” cable television network, Current, won an Emmy, or the film on climate change in which he starred, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Oscar, he was growing in stature for another reason: his early opposition to the Iraq war.

He had initially voiced it in 2002 in an address that his newly galvanized supporters now describe as uncannily prescient and unfairly dismissed, though it was seen as a politically off-kilter at a time of great popularity for President George W. Bush.

The Prize certainly comes as vindication to Mr. Gore, whose early dedication to environmental issues had earned him the derisive nickname “Ozone Man” — “Ozone,” for short — from President George H.W. Bush during the 1992 presidential campaign.

Al Gore went private and became a true leader of the world. He created a TV network, he created a documentary that won him the Oscar for Best Documentary, and he went around the world and raised awareness, enough so that blogs like this write a post with well over 300 comments on global warming. This is raising awareness. And because of this Al Gore won the Nobel Prize for Peace.

Conservatives hate this, because they think they see a hypocrite (they of course never look in the mirror—if they did they might have a Dorian Gray moment). They try to downplay the importance of the Nobel Prize, claiming it is political, blah blah blah.

But in the world of power and influence, Al Gore has shown that striving for peace is more powerful and more influential than creating war.

As Noam Scheiber writes:

Watching Al Gore take a well-deserved victory lap this afternoon, I couldn’t help wondering what George W. Bush must be thinking. I mean, I know the guy still believes history will vindicate him and all, but, really, this has got to be pretty painful. Bush, according to various accounts of the 2000 campaign, absolutely despised Gore. He regarded him as a preening, self-righteous phony.

So Bush somehow manages to avenge his father’s defeat and vanquish the vice president of the United States. And yet, seven years later, it’s Gore who’s being hailed around the world as a prophet and a savior and Bush who, if he’s still being discussed at all, is mentioned only as the punchline to some joke, or when his poll numbers reach some new historic low. It must eat him up.

I don’t know if it eats up Mr. Bush, who never cared much of what others thought of him (at least publicly), but it sure brings satisfaction to those of us who wonder why Bush ever became our president.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, He Must Be A Phony Soldier

October 13, 2007 at 7:55 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, corruption, Foreign Policy, Iraq, War, War on Terror | 1 Comment

After all, he is speaking out against the war calling it a “nightmare” and all. Must be phony.

Illegal Warrantless Wiretapping Began Before 9/11

October 13, 2007 at 7:52 am | Posted in Bush Administration, corruption, secret combinations, warrantless wiretapping | 1 Comment

So says QWest CEO who refused to join in and illegally spy on Americans BEFORE 9/11.

Do you hear this Congress? Don’t you dare give these companies ANY immunity!

Army Needs THREE TO FOUR YEARS to Recover From the War in Iraq

October 11, 2007 at 7:12 pm | Posted in Bush Administration, corruption, Iraq, War | Leave a comment

Boy, with the army needing so much time to recover from all the work in Iraq, we just hope that we haven’t so weakened our national security to give other nations the advantage to position themselves in a stronger point vis a vis us.

The Bush Administration really felt that they would only need to be in Iraq for a few months, all in the summer of 2003. They were (and are) really THAT dumb, that they thought wholly removing one type of government would take mere months. They were not ready for an occupation that would take years. Therefore they never prepared the military and Americans for a prolonged occupation. Now, because they never prepared for a prolonged occupation, they never prepared for the Army running out of fresh soldiers. Now the Army will require a very long time to recover. This is very bad for us.

General Petraeus Gets Political

October 8, 2007 at 4:26 am | Posted in American politics, Bush Administration, General Petraeus, Iraq | Leave a comment

No surprise of course but the good general continues to delves into politics instead of sticking to fixing Iraq.

The accusation was made by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American military commander, who made the remarks to CNN while he was traveling with a small group of reporters to a military base on the Iranian border. He said, “We have absolute assurance” that a number of Iranians detained by the Americans in Iraq were members of the Quds Force.

“The Quds Force controls the policy for Iraq; there should be no confusion about that either,” General Petraeus said. “The ambassador is a Quds Force member. Now he has diplomatic immunity and therefore he is obviously not subject — and he is acting as a diplomat.

General Petraeus did not provide details on how he knew that the ambassador, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, who has held talks with the American ambassador, Ryan C. Crocker, belonged to the Quds Force. Iranian Embassy officials could not be reached Sunday night to comment on the general’s assertions.

Absolute assurance? i.e. General Petraeus has no actual evidence so he has to play up the bamboozlement to its utmost extreme.

Note how he accuses a diplomat of being, essentially, a terrorist. What a way to slowly break down the held norms. I’m sure conservatives are going to start asking, “Why do we give immunity to a terrorist? Who gives a damn if he is a diplomat.” Way to go General. Sure will make your tenure as President in 2012 pretty damn hard if you consider diplomats terrorists. Keep this in mind, everybody, when Petraeus makes his run for president in 2012.

Finally, note the most significant part, General Petraeus did NOT provide any details for quite an incendiary charge. Why make the charge then? What audience is General Petraeus directing his bile to? Why the Republican base, of course. The rest of the world has already concluded General Petraeus is no different than his boss, George Bush, a liar and bamboozler, who would rather increase the violence in the Middle East than create a land of peace. Yes, I am calling General Petraeus a liar. Generally speaking, when you purposefully deceive and distort, you are a liar, because you are not doing your best to pass along the truth.

In a normal situation, General Petraeus should be fired from his job, but unfortunately, he is EXACTLY the person George W. Bush wants over Iraq right now. So sad.

UPDATED: Via Informed Comment, forewarned is forearmed:

Watch the Slow Shift From Al-Qaeda to Iran As Our Enemies

October 5, 2007 at 4:59 am | Posted in Bush Administration, corruption, Iran, Iraq, secret combinations, War, War on Terror | 1 Comment

Read this piece from CNN about a “firefight” in Baquba. Note the shift at work. It is slowly changing from Al-Qaeda being our big enemy in Iraq to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard being our main enemy.

U.S.-led coalition forces launched an airstrike west of Baquba on Friday morning, killing about 25 insurgents after a “heavy firefight” with troops, a U.S. military statement said.

The firefight involved assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, the statement said.

The forces’ operation was targeting a commander with suspected links to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force. According to the U.S. military, he was “involved in the movement of various weapons from Iran to Baghdad.”

Do you see it? In a few months, they won’t be as cautious with their words against Iran, and Al-Qaeda will completely be removed from their lexicon in Iraq. This is the work of men who have a strategy in mind to deceive and convert Americans into fundamentalist supporters of war with Iran. Note that nothing really has changed in reality, just in how they REPORT reality.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.