Iraq War In Focus

Here we are in the middle of another election cycle and once again, the issues surrounding the Iraq war are once again being whitewashed by the great PR firm, also known as the U.S. mainstream media. Unlike the 2004 elections when the decision was sold to us as a vital part of homeland security, however, the war has hardly been brought up at all this year. So called “Iraq fatigue” is pointed to as the main reason for the lack of coverage but according to poll numbers leading up to the primaries, the Iraq war was second only to the economy in importance for the majority of those who voted for Obama and in the same range of concerns for Hillary Clinton supporters. So the question has to be asked, if the American people are still so concerned with the war, why has it not been a major issue during the race? Perhaps the details behind current events in the war-torn country could provide some clues. Here’s a hint: it has nothing to do with US troop build ups.

The most recent round of fallacies concerning the dip in violence over the past several months is that the surge of US troops has lead to many gains and suddenly the hit and run tactics of the Iraqi rebel fighters were no longer as successful in causing havoc. As George W Bush likes to point out, however, “the devil is in the details.” For starters, several reports coming out of Iraq, show that one fifth of the country is currently living as refugees, all of whom were forced out of their neighborhoods due to violence or the threat of violence. More than a million of those refugees have fled to Syria, Turkey or Jordan until they were forced to close their borders when it became obvious they would not receive support from NATO countries. By comparison, only 466 Iraqis have been allowed into the United States.

According to the Lancet Report a million Iraqis have been killed since the beginning of the war five years ago. Unlike Iraq-Body-Count-Dot-Org, which uses the official Pentagon count and news wire reports, the Lancet report actually involved face to face interviews, along with patterns of violence in given regions and morgue records to come up with this much higher number. The Pentagon numbers include only those Iraqis killed by bombings, shootings and other forms of violence but ignore the deaths caused by the disease due to the lack of sanitation and clean drinking water.

In a move that can only be described as an act of genocide, several reports have surfaced which suggest U.S. forces deliberately targeted Iraq’s sanitation works, bombing out their sewage systems leading to contamination of drinking water with human waste. As of 2007 there were 5000 cases of cholera in the Northern regions according to Patrick Cockburn of the online journal “Counter Punch.” The suddenness of the outbreak and lack of medicine has already forced 60,000 Kurds out of their homes, even in areas where there as been little to no fighting. In the regions of Sulaimaniyah and Kirkuk, 42% of the populations have no access to clean drinking water due to sewage.

According to an article by Stephen Gowans, the US command knowingly violated “Article 54 of the Geneva Convention which prohibits any country from undermining objects indispensable to the survival of (another country’s) civilian population.” According to Gowans, the Pentagon was well aware of the dangers that would be caused by destroying the country’s water supply.

If one reviews US involvement in Iraq dating back to the early 1990s, starting with our sanctions on Saddam Hussein’s Government, through today, you would see a body count of over 2 million, roughly half of which are children under the age of 18. In fact, the death toll, until recently, was headed towards that of the Congo under British and Dutch rule.

But while the great red, white and blue, along with the insurgents, have turned Iraq into a massive grave yard, most villages have now organized their own militias in reaction to the bloodshed caused by the so-called terrorists. This is the story of Najaf where the local “Mehdi Army” forced out the death squads targeting the villagers. Listening to CNN, however, one would think that the City was rapt awaiting the new great Conquistador of the west. But we here in the US are little more than babes in the wilderness, with no idea what is going around us. So when the US started their massive and sorely unnecessary bombing raid on Najaf, those who paid the heaviest price were the hundreds of innocent locals that were killed.

And finally, let us not forget about Al Sadr’s call for a cease fire in the middle of 2007, just prior to the US surge of troops. The rate of violence went down remarkably before the increase of our presence a year go. But all these facts mean little to John McCain who still believes we had a chance to get some sort of victory in Vietnam.

Until next time…

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6668.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110700977_pf.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/model05212008.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNWOj_dFSR4

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18765.htm

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/739/38228

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6777.shtml

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0pgv072_90p.html

http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june07/iraq_3-26.pdf

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/SAandUSWC.html

The Media’s White Wash Of The Winter Solider Conference

Winter Soldier Conference

If one were to task the man or woman on the street if they knew that a Winter Soldier conference was held just a few months ago, chances are you would be met with a blank stare or asked what you were talking about. Former winter soldier John Kerry was asked if he was going to attend the gathering but instated that he knew nothing of the event, which is not surprising considering only one media source even mentioned it. The Washington Post had buried the conference deep in “local events” column. So it is little surprise that the great PR firm which calls itself “the media” can keep the argument of the Iraq war going under the rather superficial banner of supporting the troops or supporting a withdraw. To do so they continue to use similar propaganda campaigns to those that were unearthed by the New York Times a week ago, which by the way bordered on a jail able offence which violates laws first passed in 1951 and have been repassed every since. Further more, by white washing this conference, the “support our troop” argument becomes a little hollow considering that not one TV channel nor radio station outside of WBAI and the other Pacifica outlets even mentioned the testimony of troops who spoke so patiently about their regrets and long term disabilities due to the war. So instead of me writing, I urge you to click or cut and past the links below. The words of those who were their say more than I could possibly type.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Winter+Soldier+2008&search_type=

http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier/testimony

http://ivaw.org/wintersoldier

http://www.prwatch.org/node/7261

The Talk Of Change Is The Latest Scam

Now that the final hours of the greatest American tragedy, known as the Bush administration, is just around the corner, the call for change is permeating the political winds from both the Democratic and Republican parties and voters have signed on to those calls lock, stock and barrel. The desire for change among the US citizens is evident in impressive showings at this year primaries in both Iowa and New Hampshire and south Carolina along with the influx of new voters. Also apparent is that the hunger for change is leading many to vote blindly for those candidates that speak of a major shake up in Washington.

 

But do any of the candidates really have the intention to bring real change to the White House? According to several reports and a list of each presidential hopeful’s advisors, the answer is an unequivocal no. Here is a list of each of Democratic presidential candidates and their advisors and how they could shape US politics over next four years.

At the head of the “change” chain is Barak Obama. As we have all heard so far from his camp is that he is the only one of the presidential candidates that can deliver change. So far this message is working very well for him but his cabinet choices tell a very different story. Two of Obama’s top advisors are pro-war Hawks .

Zbigniew Brzezinski

War hawk under former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronal Reagan, Brzezinski was notoriously instrumental in the creation of the Mujhadean of Afghanistan, something he brags about in his book “The Grand Chess Board.” During the late 1970s he worked with the CIA to help build up Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the most powerful religious fanatics of Afghanistan at the time. Working through Heckmatyar, Brzezinski was able to overthrow the secular government of the PDPA, Peoples Democratic Part of Afghanistan and, in the process, lure the Soviet Union into invading the country to quell the unrest. What Lawrence Moesha called Operation “Bait The Bear” lead to the creation of Osama Bin Laden. When asked by the French media if the fact that Afghan and Pakistani fundamentalists had taken over the country was worth the resultant bloodshed Brzezinski replied it was “worth a few stirred up Muslims”.

Anthony Lake

Under Bill Clinton, Lake advised the then president to invade Haiti and bring back Aristide under what amounts to political chains. Under Lake’s plan, enacted President Clinton, the rate of malnutrition sky rocketed as did mass destabilization of Haiti. In his earlier days, he worked under Henry Kissinger only to resign in 1970 under the protest of Nixon’s expiation of the Vietnam war. Despite that, Lake is still no where near being a dove as staff of the USIA Paul Malamud, points out, “Lake joined the Foreign Service, and was posted to Vietnam, where became a special assistant to then-ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.
Singled out early for his talent, Lake rose quickly to become an aide to
Secretary of State Kissinger in 1969, accompanying the secretary on his
first secret meeting with North Vietnamese negotiators in Paris.”

David Axelrod (media advisor to Obama)

If it seems somewhat odd that Barak Obama is not playing the race card, you have his main media advisor to thank for that. David Axelrod of the Chicago tribune, who brought in the tag line “yes we can”, has been often praised by the John McCain camp as one of the best in the media business. Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick also used Axelrod in his media campaign to deliver the same uplifting message, as Christopher Hayes of the Nation magazine points out. Both men used roughly the same message when discussing the plight of the country’s problem (black population?) that it was not a deficit of the dollar but “the deficit of leadership.” Most importantly, it is Axelrod the largely keeps Barak Obama’s message away from the issue of race. In fact, one can assume that Obama’s “African Americans have made it 90% of the way” comment most likely came from Axelrod. Far from being considered a hawk, Axelrod has some political connections with Paul Simmon, and former Mayor Harold Washington. He has also praised Martin Luther King’s movement. But in keeping race “off the table” shows that the issues concerning African Americans have little problem of getting addressed.

And then there us Dennis Ross, another former Clinton advisor. He has come out with statements that suggest that the US would take the position that Israel’s needs should come before that of the Palestine’s. Interestingly enough, he has gone after Jimmy Carter on several occasions has been known to attack Jimmy Carter.

HILLARY

Hillary Clinton’s cabinet is not much better. In fact, she is looking to bring in some the most hawkish Bill Clinton’s inner circle. On top of her advisor list is Richard Holbrooke. In 1975 Holborroke spoke with the Indonesian government which was led by general Suharto   about the US’s backing of the plan to invade East Timor. The invasion equaled to nothing less than a genocidal attack on a helpless nation. In all, 200,000 people were killed, 1/3 of the pre-invasion population. He was later placed into the role of advisor to Asian affairs under Jimmy Carter administration. After the invasion, Halborroke led a fraudulent campaign that on the surface would have put a ban on weapons sent to Indonesia. As it turned out, there was no actual ban in place and the fraud was exposed Cornell University professor Benedict Anderson. To read more on him, you can check out the Z magazine link bellow.

Then there is Madeleine Albright, a former close advisor to Bill Clinton and former ambassador to the UN and than later, US Secretary of State. Ms. Albright has a long history in what she calls humanitarian missions in foreign affairs but is in fact, acts humanitarian crisis. She has Oked several horrific acts of violence such as the Somalia where Albright, as well as Wesley Clark supported the use of sulfur shells which rained down on several towns in this poverty torn nation with, to quote a great film “with extreme prejudice.” She was also a main player in the bombing massacre of Kosovo where the Clinton administration supported the KLA, the countries answer to the drug running mob.

Sandy Berger was one of the main architects of some of Clintons most conversion policies which including plans to Yugoslavia and opening trade with China which have lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. But Berger will be most remembered for his theft of terrorist records from the US archives shortly before the 9/11 commission was formed. This scandal created such a fire storm, it lead to his firing from the John Kerry campaign in his presidential of 2004. Clinton’s decision to bring him on board has even raised a few eyebrows of some of her staff.

Despite his message of populism, the funding of John Edwards is well with in the inner circle of murder inc. Expect for a few exceptions, John Edwards is heavily funded my the military industrial complex and as you can see on his own campaign website, he is gearing up to take the advice about our current wars from the same brass that has stood among the rank and file in two wars that could only be described as weapons against US Democracy. For the list, you can check out the link below. Others on his advisory boards are David “Mud Cat” Saunders and Washington insider, former advisor to Howard Dean and fat cat, Joe Trippi.

Next up will be the list of Republican candidates and their band of corporate criminals .

Until Next time.

http://www.johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070523-military-advisory-group/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/sunil.htm

http://www.rense.com/general31/cyc.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/lake1.htm

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070219/hayes

http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2006/12/carters_maps_wo.html

Beating The Drum For A War With Iran

Scott Ritter warned Us about this over a year ago, as did Greg Palast, the Bush administration has placed Iran as the next country to invade. Now Seymour Hersh has also been sounding the bell to what could be the great tactical disaster in the history of any civilization. Such a move against Iran could very well be the complete destabilization of the Middle East and possibly beyond. Unlike Iraq, which was isolated, Iran is a very different animal. They have connections with some of the world’s most powerful nations, one in which has its finger on the pulse of the US economy. And like Iraq, Iran has a leader which the Bush spin machine can paint as another “Hitler.”  A man that the US media has helped paint has a cruel dictator who rules his country with an iron fist and has a major hunger to posses nuclear weapons. Why even the president of Columbia University made such accusations without paying too much attention to details. So here is a closer look at the Iran situation and the potential outcome of to total disaster.

A quick note on the statement made by the  president of Columbia , Mr. Lee Bollinger in which he called  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dictator. The position of of president in Iran carries very little weight. In fact, Ahmadinejad is not able to even select his own cabinet. Most of the country’s policies are made by the counties Supreme leader, the Iatola Komani. The job of president really carries slightly more weight than does the royal family in England, a fact that is rarely covered in the US media. So the position of dictator is quite out of the reach for the US’s new enemy of the State. Because the US media choses to omit this information shows a lack of any real analysis on their part. As a result, many Americana’s really believe that Ahmadinejad is really, “the next Hitler.” What’s more frightening is that, it seems that the usual media suspects are playing very much of role when it comes to beating the drum for war. In fact, many of the same excuses for going to war are being repeated, nuclear weapons, helping Al-queda and so forth. It could be considered humorous, that they are recycling the old excuses which got us in the Iraq, may show a certain contempt for the American intelligence. But even so, most Americans still oppose any war with Iran. But it is important to remember,   like any other war of the modern day, the United States has found it necessary to create a Bogey man whose minions are waiting around every corner to harm an America. The list names are rather long and include, Ho Chi Minn, Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Mao, Manual Noriega, Fidel Castro, Mo-mar Qaddafi and on and on.

The early justification for a war with Iran, like that of Iraq, has been, WMDs. To be more specific with Iran, nuclear war heads was the  fear factor. According to one CIA report, Iran at best would still be 10 to 15 years away from being able to create any meaningful nuclear weapon if their nuclear process was working as hoped, which really is not case. Damnable is the fact that none of the major networks have reported this. Equally disconcerting is the accepted notion that Iran is helping the insurgence. The truth of the matter is that, the last thing Tehran would want would be a destabilized neighbor. The fear of having unrest spill over into their border has been Iran’s position from the start of the rebuilding process. Remember, most reports have Tehran offering support for US troops in stabilizing the country and have even offered help, something that has been denied. To make matters worse, today, Turkey is pushing for a full scale attack on rebel Kurds in Northern Iraq. It is undoubtedly caused alarm not only with Iran but with Syria as well. It is important to note at this time, there are more Saudi fighters in Iraq than any with a connection with Iran. Does this mean we will face Saudi Arabia, not likely since our sweet hearts allow the US to keep oil prices relativly low.

And finally, unlike Iraq of 2003, Iran is not an isolated country. Some of their most powerful allies from an oil stand point has China and surround countries. Russia is one of their major suppliers in military deals. China, which has been the main funder, has been one of the major voices against taking any kind of action against Iran as been as has Russia and Syria. What is so important to remember here is the potential outcome with a war on Iraq’s northern neighbor. For starters, Syria would be forced into the war based on a 2005/06 block agreement. The question here is if this “unholy alliance” would force Israel into the war effort. If so, than arm countries would be forced to take sides and in the end what we would have in the region would be a massive destabilization of the Middle East that to the dismay of Jewish Americans would spill over into Israel as well. Speaking of Israel they still remain the only country in the region that is known to have a nuclear arsenal, 200 war heads which have been acknowledged. But in a disaster situation, having the stock pile would do them no good if they are forced to fight on their borders. Perhaps the president of Columbia should remember this before he makes another comment like the one he made about a month ago.

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191359285829.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191359171921.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191358901965.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1191358617430.wmv

Modern Day Rosenbergs

In a story that has caught my attention over the past several months, not so much that due to its lack of coverage in the news overall but, how it has been reported by  the news. So far the story reverberates of the railroading of activist attorney Lynne Stewart and political activist Jeffery Blank. Like those two cases, this one features easy marks for the Government especially at a time when Muslims are being treated not so differently than Japanese families during WWII.  The story concerns two now former USF students,  Ahmed Mohamed  and  Youssef Megahed who at this point can easily called the modern Rosenburgs, that is to say, victims of a media that has long since become a PR firm for what ever prevailing wisdom that exists at the time.

Ahmed Mohamed  and Youssef Megahed are now being held in a Florida jail after being arrested near a navel base  in North Carolina for what the arresting officer has described as a pipe bomb. He claims that he first stopped the two students for speeding but, he said, he became suspicious of the two when they started acting in away he described as, strange.  He has, however not clarified what exactly they were doing to arouse suspicion. The officer preceded to search the automobile and became alarmed after he found the explosives but the students claim that it was only fire works. An FBI spokesman later confirmed that what was found was indeed material to make  a crafty fire work but was not useful in making a bomb. Despite the agents statement ,Ahmed Mohamed  and Youssef Megahed remained in a South Carolina jail until they were transported back to Florida where they await trial. According to WFLA/NBC Tampa, the homes of both have been searched with some evidence found that the men were involved with any terror plot but that evidence can easily be dismissed as in-material. Taken from one of the men’s home was a computer, a lawn mower gas tank and some pcv pipe. According to reports, videos from you-tube of a radical group launching a rocket was found on  Youssef Megahed’s computer. There were also allegations that Megahed also gave advice on how to use bombs in a way that one could be a “Myrta for another day.”  This supposed revelation flies in the face of early reports.

Both Youssef Megahed of Egypt and Ahmed Mohamed  of Kuwait were Engineering majors at the time of their arrest. According to those who knew the men, neither were terrorists nor were had any real animosity towards the United States. When looking at their middle class back grounds, it would seem highly unlikely that either of the two students had much of a motive to commit any haines act of terrorism, Michael Chertoff has now officially labeled the case as that of a possible attempted of terrorism, something that was not fully known until the hearings began in South Carolina. In fact, once the hearings started, the case from the States position became strange to say the least.  Michael  Chertoff’s Representatives add to the case a code that even the judge had to look up in law books to understand that what he was watching over was a terror case, this was even before the Stratford findings which identified the materials that were in the trunk of the car as potassium nitrate, gas, sugar and PVC pipe. The finds were at best inconclusive of what the police officer actually found since both could be able to be used as either a low grade pipe bomb or fireworks. So with such inconclusive evidence of any terror plot the Government has to decided to still move forward with case.

The FBI has added to the list of materials found in the car, now they say, that a 20 foot fuse was found along with 22 caliber ammunition, passim nitrate, a drill and a lap top. Curiously none of these later materials were mentioned in early in reports. And has one lawyer pointed out, if there was a real threat, it seems odd that this story has yet to make the first page of the “NEW York Times” or the “Washington Post.”  Further more, as mentioned before, there was no mention of terrorism in the original report until the reader reached the back pages of that and even then it was placed in a code that was not commonly known. So taken in the same light as the Lynne Stewart case, along with Jose Padilla  case where the federal Government was forced to drop most of th major charges against him, there does seem to be another white wash in the making concerning Youssef and Mohamed.

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1189030742246.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1189030869561.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1189195800125.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1189195911140.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1189195977749.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1189196102764.wmv

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1189196343824.wmv

Deconstructing The State Of The Union Speech

s has been his custom over the past seven years, George W Bush has once again used the latest “State of the Union” to further a political agenda that by now has grown quite thin with the American people. In his speech, he uses much of the same language he did leading up to the war in March of 2003, while omitting several of his earlier claims and ignoring several facts while in the process recycling old lies. Part one of this series focused on why the Democrats let Bush get this far. Part two is a quick look at some key points.

George Bush started his speech by giving one last farewell to “Lady Bird” Johnson before he went into what he called the “four phases” of the US mission in Iraq. The first phase Bush called the “Liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein.” What is telling here is that he makes no mention of WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction) which he and the rest of the White House used to justify the invasion of Iraq in the first place. John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney and Powell went from network to network claiming that the White house knew that the Iraqi government had weapons of some supposed “great death”. Condoleezza Rice actually referenced a radioactive cloud in the US skies. It is difficult to forget Colin Powell’s speech where he claimed that indistinct photos of trucks were mobile bio-weapons vehicles. They had no evidence for any of these claims and, true to form, the mainstream asked no questions. Finally, there was no discussion of the legality of Bush White House’s actions, or the lack there of. A preemptive strike violates international law since it flies in the face of the Nuremberg tribunals. Nazi generals were hanged for similar violations but reporters paid no attention to this fact.

The next stage of the war in Iraq, Bush claimed, was to “return sovereignty” to Iraq. Such a statement seems odd considering it was Washington who chose the first post-Saddam government along with dismantling the country’s military and police force. Ahmad Chalabi, one of the three early leaders of Iraq had not lived in Iraq for decades and was wanted in Jordan for fraud. He was a White House sweetheart which is why he was one of the first three overseers of Iraq. All construction jobs in the war-torn country were given to American contractors, most notably Halliburton. Early agreements within the first days of the new pre-election years of Iraq prohibited the Iraqi Government from kicking American troops from the country but could request the US leaves. Just recently, a US bill set for introduction in the Iraqi Parliament would give western oil companies ownership rights to the production of the country’s main resource. US Representative Geoffrey Miller still controls Iraq’s prison system. If his name sounds familiar, that is because he was the head of Guantanamo Bay since it opened. He took over for Elliot Abrams who faced the brunt of the fallout for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soliders. Abrams, who made name for himself during the Contra scandals, made the mistake of not keeping 60 minutes from learning of the Abu Graib abuses. None of this was mentioned anywhere in Bush’s speech, of course, nor was the fact that Operation “Shock and Awe” put the country in total collapse.

The third part of this war, Bush continued, was Exculpation. With the increase of US troops came the increase of abuse which despite the Pentagon’s and White House’s attempt to blackout information from Iraq, has become well known and has lead to several arrests among soldiers. There have been new charges against high ranking generals and members of the Bush White house who approved illegal policies in dealing with the residents of each neighborhood. One prime example of this was the fire bombing and not so clean “sweep” of Fallijah. The resultant death toll was so great that bodies had to be buried in a nearby soccer field. The fire bombings later spread to Najaf.

Bush went on to say that the fourth stage of the Iraq war involved deployment and an increase in troop levels. This “stage” has been protested by the vast majority of the American people. There are mixed reports about whether the increase in troop levels is working. Reports from yahoo news states there is evidence of some success pointing to a decrease in violence in Baghdad: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_crocker, but independent news sources question the accuracy of such claims with the following article claiming there is no real surge level: http://www.counterpunch.org/mindshaftgap07132007.html.Missing from the discussion is what good any increase in troops will do when the insurgence enjoys home field advantage. Furthermore, with the increasing hostility that the US presence creates, more Iraqis are now willing to join insurgency. Add in the new US threat against Iran which would expand instability in region and could very well spill over into the borders of neighboring Syria and Saudi Arabia, a situation that no increase of troop levels will be able to curb. The debate over troop levels in Iraq is a flashback to Vietnam when some thought more troops would bring the US victory but history has not been so kind to such notions. But most important, this action goes against the wishes of the American people as indicated in several polls. But, as always, Bush ignored all this and sent a clear message that public opinion means little to him.

The one area of the war that the Bush White house has successfully controlled is the language of the debate. During the early part of the speech, it became evident that Bush was working to reestablish that success. He claimed that the the debate concerning Iraq has been wrongly defined; that the argument was between those who want the troops to come home verses those who want to keep them there and that this was incorrect. Bush stated the “real debate” was between those who think the war is lost and not worth fighting and those who think the war can be won and is worth the price despite how hard it has been for American troops. He then went on to state that he supports the latter. In the history of speeches, this has got to be one of the most asinine arguments ever brought forth. Perhaps Bush forgot about his plan to create permanent military bases throughout Iraq, something the House thankfully has voted against. He could have forgotten the statement he made several months ago that he sees US troops staying in Iraq for the foreseeable future. If one was so naive, we could as easily think that he believes his own rhetoric since to believe such nonsense we would have to forget the past 7 years.

The last thing that I wanted to touch on for this piece was Bush’s comment that those who we are fighting in Iraq are the same ones who attacked us on 911. Here Bush tried to recycle an older lie for which they eventually had to own up to, sort of, since both Osama Bin Laden and the majority of the 911 high jackers came from Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda’s training camp was in Afghanistan, not Iraq and religious fanatic Bin Laden personally despised the secular “westernized” government of Saddam Hussein. The White House went on national TV saying that they did not understand why the American people thought 911 was connected with Iraq when they themselves did everything they could to blur the lines. Bush and his team continues to do their best to instill the great fiction of Iraq and Saddam being behind 9/11. The White House has clearly taken Gurbel’s statement to heart that if you tell a lie often enough, it somehow becomes truth.

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1185284834582.wmv

Iraq Will Continue To Be An Albatross Around Bush’s Neck

Shortly after the elections of 2004 George W Bush gave a speech before an audience of thousands where he claimed that his latest victory gave him “political currency” which he planed on “spending.” Now it seems that those coffers are bare. The Democrats are bull rushing him on his Nixonian wire tape program which very well could put impeachment back on the table. But the biggest problem will he face is the major albatross around his neck which is the Iraq war.   Even members of his own party are jumping off his bandwagon like rats jumping off a sinking ship. The reason is that pesky subject of the Iraq war. Already, more than 10 GOP Republicans have called for the withdraw of US troops. Just today, Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel have come out in favor of a new Democrat bill the would call for US to come home in the next 120 days. And recent polls show from late June that 66% of Americans disapprove of the Iraq war and the overall job Bush is doing as the squatter of the White house.

 

To remind many of you who are reading this, the same Republican Senators who are now supporting the Democrats cause to pass a bill with a time line, allowed earlier bills to pass, knowing that they were going to go down in defeat with a Bush veto. The difference this time around might be the fact that the Senate will have the votes to over come any future vetos that would prevent this bill from passing. But the real question is what will Congress do if Bush refuses to bring US soldiers home should the bill pass in the Senate and the house and survive a veto? Equally important, what will Congress do if Bush puts a signing statement on the bill. Bush has added more signing statements on  bills than any other “president” in the history of the United States. So such a scenario is very likely. For the Democrats, they will have to make the decision of weather to walk away with egg on their face, yet again, with giving Bush what amounts to a blank check after just 4 months of fighting with the White House over the issue of a time line. The most recent polls show that the support for Congress is at a 50 year low, so they can’t afford another defeat without taking serious action that could very well remove Bush from office.

 For the Republicans, the war is dragging down many of their 2008 candidates. There is no better example of this than John McCain whose presidential campaign is coming apart at the seams. Just yesterday, some of his most important advisors have resigned. Much of this is due to the fact that McCain is trying to be George Bush the second and supports the Iraq war without question.  Rudy Giuliani’s fire is also starting to wane but, not to the same degree as McCain.  For Giuliani, he is still running on the farce that paints him as a “hero of 911.”  I say farce because for those of us who live in New York, we know the numerous missteps of the former mayor. For starters, he did little more than pose for pictures and when it came to bringing in federal emergency teams to help clean up ground zero, he refused them in favor of using local crews which lead to a fatal error that has affected more than 10,000 crew members. Further more, it was his administration who claimed the air around ground zero was safe enough for those who work in the area to return to their jobs. Now thousands of New Yorkers are suffering repertory problems. Much of the local media blasted Rudy and those were who involved in the big lie. Mitt Romney has made a minor splash. But for them, along with Fred Thomas the real issue is the Iraq war and no matter how many times the GOP tries to redirect the American attention away from the war and place it on immigration, Iraq seems to keep cropping up.  This does not bold well for Bush whose numbers are still dragging the muck of 29%. That “political capital” he claims to have had despite all the evidence that he stole the 2004 election in a manner similar to those of 2000 has been spent along time to go. A desperate American public removed those who rubber stamped the White House policies for the majority of the past 7 years. This is not to say Bush is the “lame duck president who everyone claimed after the 2006 elections.” Bush still has a lot of pull especially since the Democrats tend to fold at the worst possible time. But the Dems do have support of many Senate republicans this time around who needs this war to end to save their own political lives was much as anyone-else. But again, the Congress will have to decide what they will do if Bush refuses to withdraw US soldiers. Just yesterday he said that the decisions of Generals trump that of the politicians. So in short, both sides of those on capital hill are painted in a corner and now only time will tell how lawmakers will react to the pressure the White house has put on them.  

Until next time     

  

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1184096190957.wmv

 

http://www.groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1184183786736.wmv

Cindy Sheehan Leaves As Public Face And War In Iraq Spirals Further Into Civil War

 

After extended attacks against her by both the right and the Democrat left, Cindy Sheehan has decided to leave the anti-war movement as a public face. This comes a little over a week after the Democrats and the White house passed the Iraq war spending bill that basically gives George Bush a blanch check. But Sheehan the end for came due to the hate mail and death threats that she started to receive after she and those at camp Casey attempted to hold the Democrats under the same level of scrutiny that the Republicans have been under the past two years. Sadly enough, as she stated in her diaries, she will have to live with the fact that her son died for no reason, more accurately though, the death of her son came as a mere stepping stone for those who trade on Wall Street.   

 

As Cindy Sheehan steps down from her post and the left scrambles to find a new face to rally behind, the death toll of Iraqi citizens, insurgence and US troops continues to skyrocket as May proved to be one of the deadliest months for all sides which is a clear sign of how fast the country continues to spiral into a civil war. And the Democrats once again act like a defeated party, handing Bush what amounts to a blank check and at the same time painting themselves into a corner. Of coarse they could have ended the war with three words, no more money. While Bush walks around like the cock of the roost and the Democrats once again break the hearts of their supporters, the number of Iraqis citizens who have been killed since March by military intervention is getting dangerously close to 80,000. This number does not include those who have died from suicide bombers, nor does it take into account those who have died from disease and militia attacks. Those numbers have been reported some where between 400,000 and 700,000+.

For American troops, the number is approaching 4000 which numbers of serious injuries reaching the 10s of thousands. There still is no sign of any mission to secure peace in Iraq but for those who have been following the news over the past several years, this comes as no surprise. In fact have been several reports before the first bomb dropped that warned of a civil war breaking out in the region.

 

For those who are serious about finding about what is irritating the situation beyond the 14 hours of energy a day, the new Iraqi oil bill that would hand the country’s main resource over to US oil companies and the surge in killings since 03, you can Google an article called Carving Up Iraq. The piece paints a clear picture of a US plan to carve up the Iraq in similar fashion to that used in the Middle East by the British. Don’t forget that Bush did propose a plan to do this very thing. His plan would create a Kurdish territory in the North and then split up the rest of the country Shiites and the Sunni’s with no regions set assigned for the Turkish man. Each leader, undoubtedly  would have to be approved by US authorities. One only has to follow the patterns that have been followed for the past 6 years. The plan was rejected of course and the pentagon has been given the green light by the White House to build multi-billion dollar, permanent military bases. Reports of the bases by human rights state these bases have one purpose only, long term occupation. The Bush white house has stated that they see a US presents for the next 50 years, as stated in the Metro.  Perhaps the Democrats would have been well advised to have paid attention to these details before they passed Iraq war spending bill.  

 

So there you have it, as the Democrats blow it, again, Cindy Sheehan  steps down at the worst possible time but, looking at her situation, one could hardly blame her.

 

Until next time

 

 

  

 

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1180705172497.wmv

Iraq War Spending Bill Castrates Antiwar Democrats

When the news came down that the rank and file Democrats decided to grant George Bush his wish to receive a war spending without a timeline, the move suddenly put representatives Dennis Kucinich, Barbra Boxer and Bernie Sanders and several other Democrats along with some moderate Republicans in a position of having to decide their next move in 2008. The fact is that many now are starting to wonder how far an anti-war voice can go with the Democratic Party. While they were pushing for a timeline for a withdraw of US troops from, only to cave in the end, it seems odd that the Congress should feel pressure to pass any bill that does not fit their liking considering that that they have both the majority in Congress and for the most part, the political momentum, depending on the outcome of this ill conceived bill. Further more one must wonder why the Democrats just cut the purse strings to the war if they are serious about ending the
Iraq war.   

The bill is also going to have long effecting on how our Government is run. One of the worst fears of our forefathers is that the one branch of government would gain more power then the other branches. And this is exactly what has happened. Perhaps the most critical part of this bill is that it lets George Bush know that all he has to do is wait the Democrats out and he will get what he wants. Further more the size of the spending bill which doubles the rate of spending in the wars both in Iraq and
Afghanistan, will give funding well beyond September which is the marked month when the Congress and the Bush White house is suppose to re-examine the issue of further of spending. So now the Democrats give Bush the upper hand once again, to allow him to out wait them once again. What is even more troubling is that is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed, along with others in, Congress have fallen in the trap of adopting the language right wing. Those who supported the bill said they did so because they “support the troops.” Of course there was no examination of what that really means. That is to say, they are supporting the death of US troops in a war that has no legitimacy in the eyes of most the world, including the
US outside of the walls of the fortune 500.   Another far reaching aspect about this bill is that it cuts off any voice of the anti-war Democrats that also support the impeachment. Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders along with Maria Cantwell have been some of most outspoken propionates of removing both Bush and Cheney from the White house. Going back to our forefather’s fear of a president without restraint, we are seeing exactly that, a so called president with no oversight what so ever. And even though they are back in power, they rolled over on their backs once again and allowed Bush trip away yet another piece of relevance of the other branches Government. In fact, when we take a look at the crimes of the White house, one most wonder why there was even any dialogue about funding over seas in the first place. In fact, many are now saying that the energy that they put into staring down Bush should have been into a push to pass an article of impeachment both in the House and Senate. Instead, white house walks around with cavalier air that one would not expect from a leader with a 28% approval rating. So the final question is where we go from here. For the first time, there really is no answer. Until next time. http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1180561833174.wmv

The Bush Administrations Aim At War Profiteering

 

It certainly seems the drums of war are being beaten once again and this time, the international steaks maybe far higher than they were for
Iraq. Unlike Iraq, however, Iran is a well connected country whose number one consumer in oil sales just so happens to be the main funder of the Bush administration’s failed policy not only in Iraq but, also in
Afghanistan. But with the recent capture of British soldiers, the White House now has a precursor to going to war with Iran with the support of
England.  The Bush administration certainly has plenty of incentive to going with
Tehran. This ranges from the ever increasing stocks value of such companies like Lockheed Martin, Black Water and Monsanto, Halliburton Exxon Mobile and Southern Energy, to the increased control of the world’s oil resources as a means to prevent the rise of any future super power that can challenge us either militarily or finically. The following is an in depth look at why the Bush White House is pushing so hard for a situation that would force us into war yet again.

 

 

During those dark days leading up to the War in
Iraq in March of 2003, few people noticed that the value of war stocks suddenly went through the roof. In 2001, Lockheed Martin’s sales went up 30% with tens of billions of dollars on the books for future purchases. Between the years of 2000 and 2004, their stock valve went up 300%. Halliburton also enjoyed similar gains.  In 2001, Dick Cheney’s old company was holding 3.2 billion dollars in contracts; in 2004 Halliburton was swimming in 11.1 billion dollars worth of contracts. Black Water’s stock value more than tripled. As the war continues to linger on, the value of these and other companies like Bechtel will undoubtedly continue their upward movement. In fact, as the
Iraq war continues to go “wrong” the more the Black Water’s stock value rises. But they are certainly not the only ones that fall under the privatization of the
US military. In fact, the company, “Shadow Group” has also made out well since the death toll escalated. As the war goes on the more privatized things will become in the war torn country. This brings US to
Iran. These and other companies are looking for similar gains in a possible war with Northern neighbor.  

The problem here is that
Iran is not going to be a push over. Unlike
Iraq, we are talking about a country that has a navy, air force and a well trained army. They have not been under sanctions, unlike
Iraq, for the past 16 years. They also have a network of allies that could very well nullify the US’s dominance in negotiations over
Iran’s nuclear production program. And as mentioned above, one of those countries is China which has been the sole reason for our countries current prosperity since our coffers are in fact bear which would hardly seem to put us position of dictating any situation. So what is the reason for going to war with
Iran? For those who ever read the book “The Grand Chess Board” by Zbigniew  Brzezinski, knows that the reason for such a move. In the book Brzezinski strongly supported the
US’s “control of the tap” of oil to prevent the emergence on any new super power that could challenge our position in the world. And this here is the real reason for the war, more than any other. With countries like China, Russia and
India all quickly becoming financial power houses, they are all in need of oil to keep their economies growing. But, the neo-cons thinking here is that as long we control the flow of oil the more the
US controls the rate of growth in these countries and the more we maintain the upper hand has the sole super power in the world. 

There is a fatal flaw in this plan, however.  China can pull the plug on the hog that we have grown fat on with the two simple actions, First they could unplug their currency from the dollar and plug it into the Euro, forming similar relations with many EU countries as they do with us today, Second, they could call in the debt that we owe them which would implode our entire economy. Remember, Iran is
China’s number one provider of oil and there is no way that they are going silently into that good night. If there is any good news here, as the US citizens cry against the War in Iraq continues to rise the more those in Congress are just starting to listen and with the elections next, it is unlikely going into war with Iran will be has easy as going into the Iraq war, 

Until next week.

 

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1175551299977.wmv

 

http://groundhog.tv/apps/editor/staticplayer.jsp?clip=1175293365086.wmv