1. In order to foil a terrorist plot, you must first find a terrorist plot. This is not easy.

2. Not just anyone can find and then foil a terrorist plot. You must have an incentive. The best incentive is to be an accused felon, looking at a long prison term. Under such circumstances, your lawyer will explain to you, you may be able to reduce your sentence by acting as an informant in a criminal case, preferably one involving terrorists.

3. The fact that you do not know any actual terrorists should not in any way deter you. Necessity is the mother of invention: if you can find the right raw material -- a sad, sick, lonely, drunk, deranged, disgruntled or just plain anti-American Muslim somewhere in the United States -- you can make your very own terrorist.

4. Now the good part begins. Money! The FBI will give you lots of money to take your very own terrorist out to lots of dinners where you, wearing a wire, can record yourself making recommendations to him about possible targets and weapons that might be used in the impending terrorist attack that your very own terrorist is going to mastermind, with your help. It will even buy you a computer so you can go to Google Earth in order to show your very own terrorist a "top secret" aerial image of the target you have suggested.

5. More money!! The FBI will give you even more money to travel to foreign countries with your very own terrorist, and it will make suggestions about terrorist groups you can meet while in said foreign countries.

6. Months and even years will pass in this fashion, while you essentially get the FBI to pay for everything you do. (Incidentally, be sure your lawyer negotiates your expense account well in advance, or you may be forced -- as the informant was in the Buffalo terrorist case -- to protest your inadequate remuneration by setting yourself on fire in front of the White House.)

7. At a certain point, something will go wrong. You may have trouble recruiting other people to collaborate with your very own terrorist, who is, as you yourself know, just an ordinary guy in a really bad mood. Or, alternatively, the terrorist cell you have carefully cobbled together may malfunction and fail to move forward -- probably as a result of sheer incompetence or of simply not having been genuinely serious about the acts of terrorism you were urging it to commit. At this point, you may worry that the FBI is going to realize that there isn't much of a terrorist plot going on here at all, just a case of entrapment. Do not despair: the FBI is way ahead of you. The FBI knows perfectly well what's going on. The FBI has as much at stake as you do. So before it can be obvious to the world that there's no case, the FBI will arrest your very own terrorist, hold a press conference and announce that a huge terrorist plot has been foiled. It will of course be forced to admit that this plot did not proceed beyond the pre-planning stage, that no actual weapons or money were involved, and that the plot itself was "not technically feasible," but that will not stop the story from becoming a front-page episode all over America and, within hours, boilerplate for all the Republican politicians who believe that you need to arrest a "homegrown" terrorist now and then to justify the continuing war in Iraq. Everyone will be happy, except for the schmuck you shmikeled into becoming a terrorist, and no one really cares about him anyway.

So congratulations. You have foiled a terrorist plot. Way to go.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

You are being lied to about pirates

By Johann Hari February 4, 2009

Somali pirate “ships” are small, but the ships they seize are huge. They held one gigantic tanker for months until ransom was paid.

Who imagined that in 2009, the world’s governments would be declaring a new War on Pirates? As you read this, the British Royal Navy - backed by the ships of more than two dozen nations, from the U.S. to China - is sailing into Somalian waters to take on men we still picture as parrot-on-the-shoulder pantomime villains. They will soon be fighting Somalian ships and even chasing the pirates onto land, into one of the most broken countries on earth. But behind the arrr-me-hearties oddness of this tale, there is an untold scandal. The people our governments are labeling as “one of the great menaces of our times” have an extraordinary story to tell - and some justice on their side.

Pirates have never been quite who we think they are. In the “golden age of piracy” - from 1650 to 1730 - the idea of the pirate as the senseless, savage thief that lingers today was created by the British government in a great propaganda heave. Many ordinary people believed it was false: Pirates were often rescued from the gallows by supportive crowds. Why? What did they see that we can’t?

In his book “Villains of All Nations,” the historian Marcus Rediker pores through the evidence to find out. If you became a merchant or navy sailor then - plucked from the docks of London’s East End, young and hungry - you ended up in a floating wooden Hell. You worked all hours on a cramped, half-starved ship, and if you slacked off for a second, the all-powerful captain would whip you with the cat o’ nine tails. If you slacked consistently, you could be thrown overboard. And at the end of months or years of this, you were often cheated of your wages.

Pirates were the first people to rebel against this world. They mutinied against their tyrannical captains - and created a different way of working on the seas. Once they had a ship, the pirates elected their captains, and made all their decisions collectively. They shared their bounty out in what Rediker calls “one of the most egalitarian plans for the disposition of resources to be found anywhere in the 18th century.”

They even took in escaped African slaves and lived with them as equals. The pirates showed “quite clearly - and subversively - that ships did not have to be run in the brutal and oppressive ways of the merchant service and the Royal navy.” This is why they were popular, despite being unproductive thieves.

The words of one pirate from that lost age - a young British man called William Scott - should echo into this new age of piracy. Just before he was hanged in Charleston, South Carolina, he said: “What I did was to keep me from perishing. I was forced to go a-pirating to live.”
In 1991, the government of Somalia - in the Horn of Africa - collapsed. Its 9 million people have been teetering on starvation ever since - and many of the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country’s food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the U.N. envoy to Somalia, tells me: “Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury - you name it.” Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to “dispose” of cheaply. When I asked Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: “Nothing. There has been no cleanup, no compensation and no prevention.”

At the same time, other European ships have been looting Somalia’s seas of their greatest resource: seafood. We have destroyed our own fish stocks by over-exploitation - and now we have moved on to theirs. More than $300 million worth of tuna, shrimp, lobster and other sea life is being stolen every year by vast trawlers illegally sailing into Somalia’s unprotected seas.

The local fishermen have suddenly lost their livelihoods, and they are starving. Mohammed Hussein, a fisherman in the town of Marka 100km south of Mogadishu, told Reuters: “If nothing is done, there soon won’t be much fish left in our coastal waters.”

This is the context in which the men we are calling “pirates” have emerged. Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somalian fishermen who at first took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a “tax” on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia - and it’s not hard to see why.

In a surreal telephone interview, one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was “to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters … We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas.” William Scott would understand those words.

No, this doesn’t make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters - especially those who have held up World Food Program supplies. But the “pirates” have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalian news site WardherNews conducted the best research we have into what ordinary Somalis are thinking - and it found 70 percent “strongly supported the piracy as a form of national defense of the country’s territorial waters.”

One of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was “to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters … We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas.”

During the revolutionary war in America, George Washington and America’s founding fathers paid pirates to protect America’s territorial waters, because they had no navy or coast guard of their own. Most Americans supported them. Is this so different?

Did we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn’t act on those crimes - but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about “evil.” If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause - our crimes - before we send in the gunboats to root out Somalia’s criminals.

The story of the 2009 war on piracy was best summarized by another pirate, who lived and died in the fourth century BC. He was captured and brought to Alexander the Great, who demanded to know “what he meant by keeping possession of the sea.” The pirate smiled and responded: “What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you, who do it with a great fleet, are called emperor.”

Once again, our great imperial fleets sail in today - but who is the robber?

Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent newspaper. He has reported from Iraq, Israel/ Palestine, the Congo, the Central African Republic, Venezuela, Peru and the U.S., and his journalism has appeared in publications all over the world. To contact him, email johann@johannhari.com or visit his website at JohannHari.com. This column previously appeared in the Independent and Huffington Post, where the following postscript was added:
Postscript: Some commentators seem bemused by the fact that both toxic dumping and the theft of fish are happening in the same place - wouldn’t this make the fish contaminated? In fact, Somalia’s coastline is vast, stretching 3,300km (over 2,000 miles). Imagine how easy it would be - without any coast guard or army - to steal fish from Florida and dump nuclear waste on California, and you get the idea. These events are happening in different places but with the same horrible effect: death for the locals and stirred-up piracy. There’s no contradiction.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Slide Show of September 15, 2007 March and Die-in in DC

An Iraq war veteran reflects on the Sept. 15 march

‘The first time I put on that uniform I hoped I would wear it with honor. On Sept. 15, I finally did.’

By Michael Prysner

The writer is an Iraq war veteran.

On the morning of Sept. 15, I held in my hands a uniform that was issued to me nearly five years ago.

I remembered the first time I held it, wondering if I would ever wear it home, wondering if it would be stained by blood or shredded by bullets. It looks much different now than the first time I put it on—it is faded from 12 months of desert sand and sun. The elbows and knees are worn from lying in the street. The boots are tattered from kicking down doors and walking over cities of rubble. As I put it on for the first time since I returned from Iraq, I finally felt as if I was putting it on for a purpose.

For so many years, that uniform has not stood for justice and freedom. It is the uniform that the Iraqi people saw stomp through their towns. It is the uniform that drove humvees and manned machine guns. It is the uniform that dragged people from their homes and interrogated them in prison camps. But on the streets of Washington, D.C., the uniform took on new meaning.

It was no longer worn with the intention of fighting for the government, but fighting against it. For me, and for my brothers and sisters in Iraq Veterans Against the War, the uniform that once symbolized fear and destruction would now be worn in the spirit of justice and resistance.

In March of 2003, our government ordered us to put on that uniform, march into a foreign land and take it from those who lived there. On Sept. 15, we put on that same uniform to march to the Capitol and face those who sent us to war.

A significant factor in ending the war in Vietnam was the ability of protesters and GIs to strike fear in the heart of the government. Countless citizens and soldiers threw their bodies into the gears of the war machine, and made the ruling class realize that instead of fighting their war, we would fight them.

This war will end when the government begins to fear the masses—when the army they sent to spread imperialism becomes the army that marches to their offices and charges through the police barricades.

The first time I put on that uniform, I hoped I would wear it with honor. On Sept. 15, I finally did. I could finally do something right while wearing it. The nearly 200 people arrested on that day—many of whom were Iraq war veterans—showed the government that we will do more than just march.

We will defy them at every turn; we will not fade away, but only grow in numbers and intensity. The longer this war rages on, the more we will resist and the more we will sacrifice.

Wearing that uniform at the steps of the Capitol, I knew that the most important action that I could do was to advance towards the barricade, and help light the spark that will empower people to stop this government.

For the first time, that uniform was worn fighting a just war. When I emerged from jail that night, I saw hundreds of cheering supporters outside. Then, I knew that sooner or later we will win this war against imperialism. And I have never felt prouder wearing that uniform.

(1) The writer was arrested at the Capitol on Sept. 15 along with 195 others. Photo: Stanley Rogouski
(2) Sept15DC Photo: Bill Hackwell

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Oil Grab in Iraq

By Antonia Juhasz and Raed Jarrar      Foreign Policy In Focus

02/22/07 "FPIF" -- --- While debate rages in the United States about the military in Iraq, an equally important decision is being made inside of Iraq--the future of Iraq’s oil. A new Iraqi law proposes to open the country’s currently nationalized oil system to foreign corporate control. But emblematic of the flawed promotion of “democracy” by the Bush administration, this new law is news to most Iraqi politicians.

A leaked copy of the proposed hydrocarbon law appeared on the Internet last week at the same time that it was introduced to the Iraqi Council of Ministers. The law is expected to go to the Iraqi Council of Representatives within weeks. Yet the Internet version was the first look that most members of Iraq’s parliament had of the new law.

Many Iraqi oil experts, like Fouad Al-Ameer who was responsible for the leak, think that this law is not an urgent item on the country's agenda. Other observers and analysis share Al-Ameer's views and believe the Bush administration, foreign oil companies, and the International Monetary Fund are rushing the Iraqi government to pass the law.

Not every aspect of the law is harmful to Iraq. However, the current language favors the interests of foreign oil corporations over the economic security and development of Iraq. The law’s key negative components harm Iraq’s national sovereignty, financial security, territorial integrity, and democracy.

National Sovereignty and Financial Security
The new oil law gives foreign corporations access to almost every sector of Iraq’s oil and natural gas industry. This includes service contracts on existing fields that are already being developed and that are managed and operated by the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC). For fields that have already been discovered, but not yet developed, the proposed law stipulates that INOC will have to be a partner on these contracts. But for as-yet-undiscovered fields, neither INOC nor private Iraqi companies receive preference in new exploration and development. Foreign companies have full access to these contracts.

The exploration and production contracts give firms exclusive control of fields for up to 35 years including contracts that guarantee profits for 25-years. A foreign company, if hired, is not required to partner with an Iraqi company or reinvest any of its money in the Iraqi economy. It’s not obligated to hire Iraqi workers train Iraqi workers, or transfer technology.
The current law remains silent on the type of contracts that the Iraqi government can use. The law establishes a new Iraqi Federal Oil and Gas Council with ultimate decision-making authority over the types of contracts that will be employed. This Council will include, among others, “executive managers of from important related petroleum companies.” Thus, it is possible that foreign oil company executives could sit on the Council. It would be unprecedented for a sovereign country to have, for instance, an executive of ExxonMobil on the board of its key oil and gas decision-making body.

The law also does not appear to restrict foreign corporate executives from making decisions on their own contracts. Nor does there appear to be a “quorum” requirement. Thus, if only five members of the Federal Oil and Gas Council met--one from ExxonMobil, Shell, ChevronTexaco, and two Iraqis--the foreign company representatives would apparently be permitted to approve contacts for themselves.

Under the proposed law, the Council has the ultimate power and authority to approve and re-write any contract using whichever model it prefers if a "2/3 majority of the members in attendance" agree. Early drafts of the bill, and the proposed model by the U.S. advocate very unfair, and unconventional for Iraq, models such as Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) which would set long term contracts with unfair conditions that may lead to the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars of the Iraqi oil money as profits to foreign companies.
The Council will also decide the fate of the existing exploration and production contracts already signed with the French, Chinese, and Russians, among others.

The law does not clarify who ultimately controls production levels. The contractee--the INOC, foreign, or domestic firms--appears to have the right to determine levels of production. However, a clause reads, “In the event that, for national policy considerations, there is a need to introduce limitations on the national level of Petroleum Production, such limitations shall be applied in a fair and equitable manner and on a pro-rata basis for each Contract Area on the basis of approved Field Development Plans.” The clause does not indicate who makes this decision, what a “fair and equitable manner” means, or how it is enforced. If foreign companies, rather than the Iraqi government, ultimately have control over production levels, then Iraq’s relationship to OPEC and other similar organizations would be deeply threatened.

Democracy and Territorial Integrity
Many Iraqi oil experts are already referring to the draft law as the "Split Iraq Fund," arguing that it facilitates plans for splitting Iraq into three ethnic/religious regions. The experts believe the law undermines the central government and shifts important decision-making and responsibilities to the regional entities. This shift could serve as the foundation for establishing three new independent states, which is the goal of a number of separatist leaders.

The law opens the possibility of the regions taking control of Iraq’s oil, but it also maintains the possibility of the central government retaining control. In fact, the law was written in a vague manner to help ensure passage, a ploy reminiscent of the passage of the Iraqi constitution. There is a significant conflict between the Bush administration and others in Iraq who would like ultimate authority for Iraq’s oil to rest with the central government and those who would like to see the nation split in three. Both groups are powerful in Iraq. Both groups have been mollified, for now, to ensure the law's passage.

But two very different outcomes are possible. If the central government remains the ultimate decision-making authority in Iraq, then the Iraq Federal Oil and Gas Council will exercise power over the regions. And if the regions emerge as the strongest power in Iraq, then the Council could simply become a silent rubber stamp, enforcing the will of the regions. The same lack of clarity exists in Iraq's constitution.

The daily lives of most people in Iraq are overwhelmed with meeting basic needs. They are unaware of the details and full nature of the oil law shortly to be considered in parliament. Their parliamentarians, in turn, have not been included in the debate over the law and were unable to even read the draft until it was leaked on the Internet. Those Iraqis able to make their voices heard on the oil law want more time. They urge postponing a decision until Iraqis have their own sovereign state without a foreign occupation.

Passing this oil law while the political future of Iraq is unclear can only further the existing schisms in the Iraqi government. Forcing its passage will achieve nothing more than an increase in the levels of violence, anger, and instability in Iraq and a prolongation of the U.S. occupation.

Raed Jarrar Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. He is an Iraqi blogger and architect. He runs a blog called "Raed in the Middle." Antonia Juhasz is the Ida Tarbell Fellow at Oil Change International, a Visiting Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (HarperCollins, April 2006).

For More Information
For more information and steps to take action visit: http://www.priceofoil.org. Detailed background information can be found at: http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com, http://www.TheBushAgenda.net, and http://www.globalexchange.org.

New Oil Law Seen as Cover for Privatization,
Emad Mekay, Electronic Iraq, 28 February 2007

"According to local [Iraqi] labor leaders, transferring ownership to the foreign companies would give a further pretext to continue the U.S. occupation on the grounds that those companies will need protection . . .

"[Ewa Jasiewicz, a researcher at PLATFORM, a British human rights and environmental group that monitors the oil industry] said the law can be regarded as the economic goal of the war and occupation and that "it will be viewed by most Iraqis as not just illegitimate, but a war crime."

"'The hydrocarbon law reflects the process of readying Iraq's oil for privatization,' said Jasiewicz. 'Drafted in secret, shaped by foreign powers, untransparent, undemocratic and forced through under military occupation.'"

    Bush Has Gone AWOL

By General William Odom

04/28/07 "ICH" -- -- The following is a transcript of the Democratic Radio Address delivered by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) on Saturday April 28, 2007:

“Good morning, this is Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army, retired.

“I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself, as a non-partisan retired military officer who is a former Director of the National Security Agency. I do so because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, asked me.

“In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.

“Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

“To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is ‘absent without leave.’ He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.

“Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President’s management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.

“We cannot ‘win’ a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.

04/28/07 "ICH" -- -- Transcript of the Democratic Radio Address delivered by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) on Saturday April 28, 2007:

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Target Tehran:

Washington Sets Stage for a New Confrontation

By Patrick Cockburn The Independent UK Monday 12 February 2007

The United States is moving closer to war with Iran by accusing the "highest levels" of the Iranian government of supplying sophisticated roadside bombs that have killed 170 US troops and wounded 620.

The allegations against Iran are similar in tone and credibility to those made four years ago by the US government about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the invasion of 2003.

Senior US defense officials in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they believed the bombs were manufactured in Iran and smuggled across the border to Shia militants in Iraq. The weapons, identified as "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs) are said to be capable of destroying an Abrams tank.

The officials speaking in Baghdad used aggressive rhetoric suggesting that Washington wants to ratchet up its confrontation with Tehran. It has not ruled out using armed force and has sent a second carrier task force to the Gulf.

"We assess that these activities are coming from senior levels of the Iranian government," said an official in Baghdad, charging that the explosive devices come from the al-Quds Brigade and noting that it answers to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader. This is the first time the US has openly accused the Iranian government of being involved in sending weapons that kill Americans to Iraq.

The allegations by senior but unnamed US officials in Baghdad and Washington are bizarre. The US has been fighting a Sunni insurgency in Iraq since 2003 that is deeply hostile to Iran.

The insurgent groups have repeatedly denounced the democratically elected Iraqi government as pawns of Iran. It is unlikely that the Sunni guerrillas have received significant quantities of military equipment from Tehran. Some 1,190 US soldiers have been killed by so-called improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But most of them consist of heavy artillery shells (often 120mm or 155mm) taken from the arsenals of the former regime and detonated by blasting caps wired to a small battery. The current is switched on either by a command wire or a simple device such as the remote control used for children's toys or to open garage doors.

Such bombs were used by guerrillas during the Irish war of independence in 1919-21 against British patrols and convoys. They were commonly used in the Second World War, when "shaped charges", similar in purpose to the EFPs of which the US is now complaining, were employed by all armies. The very name - explosive formed penetrators - may have been chosen to imply that a menacing new weapon has been developed.

At the end of last year the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraq crisis. Instead, President Bush has taken a precisely opposite line, blaming Iran and Syria for US losses in Iraq.

In the past month Washington has arrested five Iranian officials in a long-established office in Arbil, the Kurdish capital. An Iranian diplomat was kidnapped in Baghdad, allegedly by members of an Iraqi military unit under US influence. President George Bush had earlier said that Iranians deemed to be targeting US forces could be killed, which seemed to be opening the door to assassinations.

The statements from Washington give the impression that the US has been at war with Shia militias for the past three-and-a-half years while almost all the fighting has been with the Sunni insurgents. These are often led by highly trained former officers and men from Saddam Hussein's elite military and intelligence units. During the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, the Iraqi leader, backed by the US and the Soviet Union, was able to obtain training in advanced weapons for his forces.

The US stance on the military capabilities of Iraqis today is the exact opposite of its position in four years ago. Then President Bush and Tony Blair claimed that Iraqis were technically advanced enough to produce long-range missiles and to be close to producing a nuclear device. Washington is now saying that Iraqis are too backward to produce an effective roadside bomb and must seek Iranian help.

The White House may have decided that, in the run up to the 2008 presidential election, it would be much to its political advantage in the US to divert attention from its failure in Iraq by blaming Iran for being the hidden hand supporting its opponents.

It is likely that Shia militias have received weapons and money from Iran and possible that the Sunni insurgents have received some aid. But most Iraqi men possess weapons. Many millions of them received military training under Saddam Hussein. His well-supplied arsenals were all looted after his fall. No specialist on Iraq believes that Iran has ever been a serious promoter of the Sunni insurgency.

The evidence against Iran is even more insubstantial than the faked or mistaken evidence for Iraqi WMDs disseminated by the US and Britain in 2002 and 2003. The allegations appear to be full of exaggerations. Few Abrams tanks have been destroyed. It implies the Shias have been at war with the US while in fact they are controlled by parties which make up the Iraqi government.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Pentagon Caught Red Handed in an Attempt to Frame Iran:
Iran Does Not Manufacture 81MM Mortar Shells

By Kurt Nimmo Global Research Tuesday 13 February 2007

Pentagon carelessness fabricating bogus "evidence" against Iran is really quite stupendous. As I wrote here yesterday, the 81mm mortar shell offered up to the complaisant corporate media as "evidence" Iran is supplying weaponry to the Shi'a of Iraq is an obvious ruse, as the date on the proffered shell does not follow the Muslim calendar and other markings are in English when it only makes sense they would appear in Persian script.

But it gets worse.

As a recent email points out, Iran does not manufacture 81mm mortar shells. According to a report offered by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, connected to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the neocon Brookings Institute, the smallest mortar produced by Iran is the 107mm M-30. This information is included in the JCSS's "Middle East Military Balance," updated last February. It can be read in this PDF file on page 15. According to JCSS, "The Middle East Military Balance has been the most authoritative source on Middle Eastern Armies since 1983." It is quite fortunate for us the hubris-filled neocons care not to double check their engineered lies-erroneously described as a "machining process"-before unleashing them on an unwitting public.

As Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told the Associated Press, the "United States has a long history in fabricating evidence," an undisputed fact more than underscored by the lead-up to the Iraq invasion when the neocons claimed Iraqi weather balloon trailers doubled as biological weapon labs and clumsily recycled a student's homework as evidence Saddam was dabbling in weapons of mass destruction.

Considering the shoddiness of the mortar ruse, it makes perfect sense so-called "experts" involved in the scam told "a large gathering of reporters" (more accurately described as script readers and errand boys) "they not be further identified," lest blame be delivered to their doorstep.

"Why are US officials hiding behind the cloak of anonymity when presenting the most detailed evidence yet that Iran is supplying anti-US forces in Iraq with weaponry?" muses Eason Jordan. "After weeks, if not months, of US official planning to present a damning 'dossier' of incriminating evidence against Iran, and after this same US administration presented us with lopsided, erroneous information about the capability and evil intentions of the Saddam Hussein regime, the best the US government can give us today is incendiary evidence presented at a Baghdad news conference by three US officials who refuse to be quoted by name?.... The American people deserve straight talk from identified US officials."

Of course, such "straight talk" will not be forthcoming-not now or after Iran is destroyed, as Iraq was destroyed before it.

Maybe, if we are lucky, at some point in the future, the names of these "experts" will emerge in the course of a new Nuremberg trial.

Addendum

Iran does not manufacture 81mm mortars-but Pakistan does. Compare the photo on this death merchant catalog page with the one offered up as "evidence" against the Iranians. Minus the nosecone and fins at the bottom, it is almost a dead ringer, excuse the metaphor (see enlargement here).

Is it possible the Pentagon neocons, in their zeal to finger the Iranians and thus kick start World War Four, as they fondly call it, are using a Pakistani mortar and attributing it to Iran? Considering the long and sordid history of collaboration between the CIA, Pentagon, and Pakistan's nefarious ISI, this is likely the case

Escalation Against Iran

The Pieces Are Being Put in Place

http://www.counterpunch.org/

By COL. SAM GARDINER January 16, 2007

The pieces are moving. They'll be in place by the end of February. The United States will be able to escalate military operations against Iran.

The second carrier strike group leaves the U.S. west coast on January 16. It will be joined by naval mine clearing assets from both the United States and the UK. Patriot missile defense systems have also been ordered to deploy to the Gulf.

Maybe as a guard against North Korea seeing operations focused on Iran as a chance to be aggressive, a squadron of F-117 stealth fighters has just been deployed to Korea.

This has to be called escalation. We have to remind ourselves, just as Iran is supporting groups inside Iraq, the United States is supporting groups inside Iran. Just as Iran has special operations troops operating inside Iraq, we've read the United States has special operations troops operating inside Iran.

Just as Iran is supporting Hamas, two weeks ago we found out the United States is supporting arms for Abbas. Just as Iran and Syria are supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon we're now learning the White House has approved a finding to allow the CIA to support opposition groups inside Lebanon. Just as Iran is supporting Syria, we've learned recently that the United States is going to fund Syrian opposition groups.

We learned this week the President authorized an attack on the Iranian liaison office in Irbil.

The White House keeps saying there are no plans to attack Iran. Obviously, the facts suggest otherwise. Equally as clear, the Iranians will read what the Administrations is doing not what it is saying.

It is possible the White House strategy is just implementing a strategy to put pressure on Iran on a number of fronts, and this will never amount to anything. On the other hand, if the White House is on a path to strike Iran, we'll see a few more steps unfold.

First, we know there is a National Security Council staff-led group whose mission is to create outrage in the world against Iran. Just like before Gulf II, this media group will begin to release stories to sell a strike against Iran. Watch for the outrage stuff. The Patriot missiles going to the GCC states are only part of the missile defense assets. I would expect to see the deployment of some of the European-based missile defense assets to Israel, just as they were before Gulf II.

I would expect deployment of additional USAF fighters into the bases in Iraq, maybe some into Afghanistan.

I think we will read about the deployment of some of the newly arriving Army brigades going into Iraq being deployed to the border with Iran. Their mission will be to guard against any Iranian movements into Iraq.

As one of the last steps before a strike, we'll see USAF tankers moved to unusual places, like Bulgaria. These will be used to refuel the US-based B-2 bombers on their strike missions into Iran. When that happens, we'll only be days away from a strike.

The White House could be telling the truth. Maybe there are no plans to take Iran to the next level. The fuel for a fire is in place, however. All we need is a spark. The danger is that we have created conditions that could lead to a Greater Middle East War.

Sam Gardiner is a retired colonel of the US Air Force. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, Air War College and Naval War College.

************************************************

The expanding chain reaction,
its nature self igniting, self fueling, self propelling,
forges ahead new links.
The event horizon, where was cast the stone of violent aggression in this crusade
has itself been cast through the mirror,
reflecting a mirage of bedeviled time,
*~shimmering~*
surging ripples, casting distortions
At one and the same time, cast and still casting, and yet to be cast,
At once emerging, rolling outward from the center, circumnavigating,
Circumscribing, circumcised,
While at once and the same in this bedeviled time, hitting ALL from behind.

(-:G

**********************************************

January 17, 2007
Woolsey Takes up President’s Challenge on Iraq

Introduces H. R. 508 -- comprehensive alternative to escalation:
plan would bring all US troops home within 6-months

Washington, DC - Joined by Congresswoman Barbara Lee (CA), and Maxine Waters (CA), Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (Petaluma) today introduced the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act of 2007, sweeping legislation, which would establish a 6-month timeframe for withdrawal for all US military forces from Iraq, provide a framework for bringing stability back to Iraq, and fully fund the VA health care system. The proposal is a direct response to President Bush’s challenge over the weekend for those who oppose his planned escalation to put forth a plan of their own. Woolsey introduced the bill during a press conference held this afternoon in the Capitol. Below are her remarks, as prepared for delivery:

“Today Congresswomen Waters and Lee and I are introducing a bill that would bring our troops home from Iraq within a six month timeframe.

“The Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act is the first comprehensive legislative proposal to end the occupation and provide a framework to help bring stability back to Iraq.

“Last Wednesday night, President Bush demonstrated to the world that he continues to deny the realities on the ground in Iraq. Instead of putting forth a plan that would withdraw our troops, the President is increasing our military presence, by escalating the number of troops by over twenty thousand. What the President fails to grasp is that our military presence is only fueling the insurgency, plunging Iraq further into chaos and civil war.

“The results of November 7th showed just how fed up the American public is with the President’s failed Iraq policy. It is time to honor that mandate. It is now up to the Congress to catch up with the will of the American public.

“During his weekly radio address on Saturday, the President challenged those of us who disagree with him to offer a plan of our own. Today, we stand before you, and the American public, to take up his challenge.

“The Congress has already appropriated funding that will support our troops and keep this occupation going for at least another six months. That funding instead should be used to finance an aggressive withdrawal plan that brings our troops home to their families. Our bill would do exactly that.

“Our plan will also…

1. Withdraw all U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq within six months from date of enactment.

2. Prohibit any further funding to deploy, or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq. The bill does, however, allow for funding to be used, as needed, to ensure a safe withdrawal of all US military personnel and contractors, diplomatic consultations. Funding may also be used for the increased training and equipping of Iraqi and international security forces.

3. Accelerate, during the six month transition, training of a permanent Iraqi security force.

4. Authorize, if requested by the Iraqi government, U.S. support for an international stabilization force. Such a force would be funded for no longer than two years, and be combined with economic and humanitarian assistance.

5. Guarantee full health care funding, including mental health, for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts.

“In addition the bill would:

6. Rescind the Congressional Authorization for the War in Iraq.

7. Prohibit the construction of permanent US military bases in the country.

8. Finally, we believe that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqis. Once the oil is in the international market, the U.S. will certainly have access to our share. That’s why our bill ensures that the U.S. has no long-term control over Iraqi oil.

“Our plan, with the exception of Veterans’ benefits, will cost the American people pennies on the dollar as compared to continuing the occupation for two more years. It will save lives, bodies, and minds, and it will give Iraq back to the Iraqis. It is an important step in regaining our credibility in the region and throughout the world, and provides the President, and this Congress, with a comprehensive way to respond to the majority of Americans who want our troops to come home.”

This bill is co-sponsored by: Barbara Lee (CA), Maxine Waters (CA), Diane Watson (CA), James McGovern (MA), Barney Frank (MA), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Chaka Fattah (PA), Jerrold Nadler (NY), John Conyers Jr. (MI), Wm. Lacy Clay (MO), Steve Cohen (TN), Maurice Hinchey (NY), Bob Filner (CA), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Donald Payne (NJ) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX).

HR 508 -- PDF File
http://woolsey.house.gov/SupportingFiles/documents/WOOLSE_008_xml.pdf

Speaker Pelosi: Finally, A Plan to End the War - Support HR508

Major New “End the War” Bill Introduced Click Here.

"After weeks of public posturing and behind-the-scenes maneuvering, Democrats in the House of Representatives secured passage Friday of an emergency spending bill that grants the Bush administration’s request for over $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In what amounts to a colossal political fraud, they presented their “Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act” as a measure to force an end to the war in Iraq by September 1, 2008.

"It does nothing of the kind. Even if a similar Democratic measure were to be passed in the Senate—and it will not—and the final bill were to survive a presidential veto—a political impossibility—the resulting law would do nothing to halt the current military escalation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would allow upwards of 75,000 US troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely."

Barry Grey 3-24-07

**********************************************

OUT OF IRAQ!

The Kucinich Plan:

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

2. US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government.

Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government, with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to US contractors, should be investigated by congressional committees and federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars, while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice.

It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablished electricity within three months, despite sanctions. Four years into the US occupation there is no water, nor reliable electricity in Baghdad, despite massive funding from the US and from the Madrid conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

A shift in US policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The UN is the appropriate place to convene, through the office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the US occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the US creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an ever-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

The UN is the place to develop the process, to build the political consensus, to craft a political agreement, to prepare the ground for the peacekeeping mission, to implement the basis of an agreement that will end the occupation and begin the transition to international peacekeepers. This process will take at least three months from the time the US announces the intention to end the occupation.

The US will necessarily have to fund a peacekeeping mission, which, by definition will not require as many troops. Fifty percent of the peacekeeping troops must come from nations with large Muslim populations. The international security force, under UN direction, will remain in place until the Iraqi government is capable of handling its own security. The UN can field an international security and peacekeeping mission, but such an initiative will not take shape unless there is a peace to keep, and that will be dependent upon a political process which reaches agreement between all the Iraqi parties. Such an agreement means fewer troops will be needed.

According to UN sources, the UN the peacekeeping mission in the Congo, which is four times larger in area than Iraq, required about twenty thousand troops. Finally the UN does not mobilize quickly because they depend upon governments to supply the troops, and governments are slow. The ambition of the UN is to deploy in less than ninety days. However, without an agreement of parties the UN is not likely to approve a mission to Iraq, because countries will not give them troops.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

For example, Kurds need to be assured that their own autonomy will be regarded and therefore obviate the need for the Kurds to align with religious Shia for the purposes of self-protection. The problem in Iraq is that every community is living in fear. The Shia, who are the majority, fear they will not be allowed to govern even though they are a majority. The Kurds are afraid they will lose the autonomy they have gained. The Sunnis think they will continue to be made to pay for the sins of Saddam.

A reconciliation process which brings people together is the only way to overcome their fears and reconcile their differences. It is essential to create a minimum of understanding and mutual confidence between the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

But how can a reconciliation process be constructed in Iraq when there is such mistrust: Ethnic cleansing is rampant. The police get their money from the US and their ideas from Tehran. They function as religious militia, fighting for supremacy, while the Interior Ministry collaborates. Two or three million people have been displaced. When someone loses a family member, a loved one, a friend, the first response is likely to be that there is no reconciliation.

It is also difficult to move toward reconciliation when one or several parties engaged in the conflict think they can win outright. The Shia, some of whom are out for revenge, think they can win because they have the defacto support of the US. The end of the US occupation will enhance the opportunity for the Shia to come to an accommodation with the Sunnis. They have the oil, the weapons, and support from Iran. They have little interest in reconciling with those who are seen as Baathists.

The Sunnis think they have experience, as the former army of Saddam, boasting half a million people able to be insurgents. The Sunnis have so much more experience and motivation that as soon as the Americans leave they believe they can defeat the Shia government. Any Sunni revenge impulses can be held in check by international peacekeepers. The only sure path toward reconciliation is through the political process. All factions and all insurgents not with al Queda must be brought together in a relentless process which involves Saudis, Turks and Iranians.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

Any attempt to sell Iraqi oil assets during the US occupation will be a significant stumbling block to peaceful resolution. The current Iraqi constitution gives oil proceeds to the regions and the central government gets nothing. There must be fairness in the distribution of oil resources in Iraq. An Iraqi National Oil Trust should be established to guarantee the oil assets will be used to create a fully functioning infrastructure with financial mechanisms established to -protect the oil wealth for the use of the people of Iraq.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

12. International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq. In 2002, I led the effort in the House of Representatives challenging the Bush Administration's plans to go to war in Iraq. I organized 125 Democrats to vote against the Iraq war resolution. The analysis I offered at that time stands out in bold relief for its foresight when compared to the assessments of many who today aspire to national leadership. Just as the caution I urged four years ago was well-placed, so the plan I am presenting today is workable, and it responds to the will of the American people, expressed this past November. This is a moment for clarity and foresight. This is a moment to take a new direction in Iraq. One with honor and dignity. One which protects our troops and rescues Iraqi civilians. One which repairs our relationship with Iraqis and with the world.

The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

Kucinich Introduces HR 1234
To Immediately End the U.S. Occupation of Iraq

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Feb. 28) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) introduced HR 1234, a bill to immediately end the United States occupation of Iraq, in the House of Representatives today.

"This is the plan that will get our troops home the fastest. It is workable and achieves the goals of ending the war and enabling our troops to come home," Kucinich said.

HR 1234 is a plan for the United States to use existing money to bring the troops and necessary equipment home and transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

"I drafted this with expert advice from those involved in international peacekeeping missions, the United Nations and the U.S. military," Kucinich said.

Kucinich first introduced a withdrawal plan from Iraq three years ago when he proposed that the United States hand the United Nations control of Iraq, including its oil resources and contracts for rebuilding.

"I have given more than 140 speeches on the floor of the House of Representatives, speaking out against this war. I have been one of the most active and vocal Members of Congress on this issue," Kucinich said.

Kucinich led the effort to challenge the Administration's war in Iraq in 2002. In advance of the Iraq war resolution in Congress, he organized 126 Democrats, two-thirds of the House Democratic Caucus, to vote against the resolution. He has constantly challenged the Administration's war against Iraq.

Kucinich has been circulating the plan with Members of Congress for two months and recently had it put in legislative form. He will be speaking to Members of Congress to gain support for the bill in the coming weeks and months.

The Kucinich 12-Point Plan For Iraq Download PDF

International Cooperation: US out of Iraq, UN in

Answer to THE NATION's editorial 2/26/07 edition by Steve Miller

What keeps you going?
It’s called heart.

Universal, Single Payer Health Care: House Bill HR 676 IH

*******************************
De-escalate, Investigate, Stop Funding War!

In response to this escalation, Congressional Democrats talk about passing a non-binding resolution to express their disapproval.

We must do better than that. Congress needs to push toward genuine withdrawal. And for that to happen, Congress needs to move toward a cut-off of funding. Please take a moment to email your member of Congress and demand they listen to the will of the voters.

A letter in your own words is so much more powerful than a form letter - feel free to use some of the talking points below and please, change the subject title to increase the likelihood your email will be read.

De-escalate, Investigate, Stop Funding War!

.
This exceptional graphic was created and contributed by the poet Rick Burnley at:
http://www.rickburnley.com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Breaking News: Rep. Jim McGovern to introduce
"The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act"

January 22, 2007, Washington, DC

PDA has learned that this week, our friend and ally Rep. Jim McGovern will introduce new legislation, which replaces HR 4232 “End the War in Iraq Act of 2005”. In the new bill, “The Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act,” the U.S. would begin the safe and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days of enactment to be completed within 180 days. The withdrawal would be paid for by already appropriated funds and all funds for deployment of U.S. troops would be terminated upon completion of the withdrawal.
H.R. 4232 expired when the previous Congressional session ended last year. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) will be reintroducing a new version, the "Safe and Orderly Withdrawal Act," this week, with some modifications. Watch for updates on progress here.Sign the petition! Watch the DVD!

Sign the petition! Bring our troops home!

Read the interview conducted by David Swanson,

Listen to the podcast with Tony Trupiano.

Exclusive PDA interview with Rep. Jim McGovern

By David Swanson, PDA Board Member
January 22, 2007, Washington , DC

In an exclusive interview conducted Jan. 22 for PDA by David Swanson, Rep. McGovern commented on a range of issues, excerpted here.

The urgency of this moment: This war has gone on longer than our involvement in WW II. It is time to, you know, to step it up a notch and to urge Congress to finally live up to its constitutional responsibility.

Upcoming "supplemental" funding bills: I don’t want to be talking about emergency supplementals, you know, in 2008 or 2009. I want this war over! I don’t want the next Presidential election to be about the war in Iraq.

Supporting the troops: If you want to protect our troops, get them out of a situation where they are refereeing a civil war. If you want to protect our troops, make sure they get the health care that they deserve. You know, make sure that their families who have been left behind aren’t living in substandard housing.

What will happen to Iraq if our troops leave: If the United States were to announce that in fact our occupation is coming to an end, that we are no longer going to be involved in a war in Iraq, I think not only within Iraq but around the world there would be this kind of collective sigh of relief. I also think it will be a lot easier to achieve a political solution in Iraq amongst the various factions without the United States running the whole country. You also remove the excuse for Al Qaeda or any other outside group who is now trying to pedal their way into Iraq.

To read the full interview, go to the blog: http://blog.pdamerica.org/?p=960.

Rep. McGovern Introduces HR 746 -

"Safe and Orderly Withdrawal from Iraq Act"

February 1, 2007, Washington , DC

Yesterday, U.S. Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) introduced legislation to cut off funding for the War in Iraq. Rep. McGovern's bill, the "Safe and Orderly Withdrawal From Iraq Act," (H.R. 746) gives the Bush Administration 6 months to complete the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

"In blood and treasure, the costs of the war in Iraq have been high," Rep. McGovern said today on the House floor. "I believe that we must change the dynamic in Iraq. We must end our occupation, engage the countries in the region to help the Iraqis negotiate an end to the sectarian violence tearing their country apart, and let the Iraqi people determine their own destiny."

"I firmly believe there is no military victory to be had in Iraq," Rep. McGovern said. "So, I am convinced that that we must focus our efforts on the uniformed men and women we have put in harm's way and bring them safely home."

"There are no easy answers for the many questions facing Iraq's future," Rep. McGovern said. "There is no 'perfect' legislative answer for the situation in Iraq. But I do know that our troops don't belong in the crossfire of a violent, Iraqi, sectarian war. The American people understand this. They are far ahead of the politicians in Washington. They want us to do what's right. They want us to bring our troops home. And they want that to happen in a safe, orderly and responsible manner."

In the last Congress, Rep. McGovern was among the first members of Congress to advocate using the "power of the purse" to force the Bush Administration to end the war in Iraq. Read the summary of the "Safe and Orderly Withdrawal From Iraq Act".

Take Action Now! Ask your Congressmember to co-sponsor this important legislation.

Sign the petition!

00000000000000000000000000000000000000

FEINGOLD INTRODUCES

IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2007

S 448 IS (Introduced in Senate)

110th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 448

To prohibit the use of funds to continue deployment of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq beyond six months after the date of the enactment of this Act .

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 31, 2007

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To prohibit the use of funds to continue deployment of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq beyond six months after the date of the enactment of this Act .

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representativesofthe United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007"

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO MAINTAIN ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ .

(1) to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations in Iraq ;

(2) to provide security for United States infrastructure and civilian personnel;

(3) to allow a limited number of members of the Armed Forces to conduct specific training for Iraqi security services; This Act may be cited as the "Iraq Redeployment Act of 2007"

(4) to protect members of the Armed Forces who are performing the functions described in paragraphs (1) through (3); or

(5) to provide for the carrying out by any department or agency of the United States Government of political, economic, or general reconstruction activities in Iraq .

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act , the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly submit to Congress a report describing a strategy for the redeploymentof members of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than 180 days after such date of enactment.

(2) CONTENT- The report required under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) an estimate of the number of members of the Armed Forces needed to perform the activities described in paragraphs (1) through (3) of subsection (b);

(B) a strategy for managing the regional implications of the redeploymentofof the Armed Forces from Iraq and a description of the efforts that have been or will be made to ensure a coordinated diplomatic, political, and development strategy to accompany the redeployment ; members

(D) a strategy for repairing and strengthening the Armed Forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=>X[]X<=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=O=

Bring The Troops Home. ALL of Them!

A New Realism in Iraq

by Gov. Bill Richardson

Our military has performed admirably, but it has done all it can do in Iraq. It is time for us to leave - carefully, strategically and soon. Iraq's crisis today is political, not military. It will have a political, not a military solution.

We need a New Realism in our foreign policy. This means understanding the importance of strong alliances. It means respecting international law and human rights. It means basing decisions upon facts, not upon ideology. It means focusing on real dangers, like Al Qaeda and global warming, and replacing unilateralist illusions with solid, strong diplomacy.

Congress has the constitutional authority to force President Bush to change course in Iraq, and they should use it. We should not have to wait until 2009 to get back on the right track. But if these steps have not been taken by then, I promise to take them my first day in office.

Bill Richardson's 7 Point

New Realism Plan for Iraq:

1. Troops Out in 2007: We should get our troops out of Iraq this year. Our continued presence there only enables the Iraqi factions to delay making the hard political choices they need to make to end the civil war.

2. No Residual Forces Left Behind: We must remove ALL of our troops. There should be no residual US forces left in Iraq. Most Iraqis, and most others in the region, believe that we are there for their oil, and this perception is exploited by both Al Qaeda, other insurgents, and anti-American Shia groups. By announcing that we intend to remove all troops, we would deprive them of this propaganda tool.

3. Congressional De-Authorization of War: President Bush has demonstrated neither competence nor honesty nor a sense of reality in his conduct of this war. I support the Feingold-Reid bill to force the President to end the war.

Congress must continue to use the power of the purse without cutting funds for troops on the ground, but we should also go one step further. Congress should assert its constitutional authority and pass a resolution de-authorizing the war under the War Powers Act. Congress can then set a military pull-out date and appropriate funds accordingly for the re-deployment of troops.

4. Promote Iraqi Reconciliation: We should promote an Iraqi Reconciliation Conference to bring the factions together to seek compromises and to begin confidence-building measures, including the end of militia violence. Our redeployment will give us more leverage than we have now, caught in the crossfire, to get the Iraqis to reconcile.

5. Work With All Neighbors and Allies: We should convene a regional conference to secure the cooperation of all of Iraq's neighbors -- including Syria and Iran -- in promoting peace and stability. Among the key objectives of such a conference should be guarantees of non-interference, as well as the creation of a multilateral force of UN peacekeepers, should the Iraqis request one. The US should support such a force, but it should be composed of non-US, primarily Muslim troops.

6. Global Cooperation in Reconstruction: We should convene a donor conference to fund Iraq's reconstruction. The United States needs to show the world that we intend to return to our tradition of being a trusted leader, not a unilateralist loner. The process of disengagement is an opportunity for us to show that we have turned the corner, and that we intend to rebuild our alliances, respect international law, and work with the international community.

7. Redeploy to Address Real Threats: We must redeploy some of our troops to stop the resurgence of the Taliban and to fight the real terrorists who attacked this country on 9-11. While all American troops in Iraq must be removed, we need to maintain a military presence in the region, including in Kuwait and in the Persian Gulf. We must have the regional capacity to use air power, special forces and other means to strike Al Queda anywhere. We do not need American troops in Iraq to perform this essential task.

We also must bring our National Guard home where they are needed for homeland security, and we must focus our energy and resources on real threats, such as nuclear proliferation, Al Qaeda, public health, and global warming.

We need a New Realism in Iraq -- sign on to support Governor Richardson's 7 Point New Realism Plan for Iraq now:

Despite the fact that Congress recently passed a war spending bill that didn't include a timeline for withdrawal, I know that together we can convince them to end this war. I KNOW that you, the people, and the voters are with us. We are sick and tired of waiting for Bush to do the right thing and end this war. We need Congress to come through for us -- before they leave for the summer. If we push Congress hard enough, they'll have to pay attention.

Join the call on Congress to de-authorize now and end this war before their summer break. Sign the petition now.

Why wait? If we wait for fall to do something more people will die and the situation in Iraq will only worsen. We have had a remarkable show of support for the petition we launched earlier this week calling on Congress to de-authorize the war before the summer break. But we need to build this into a grassroots movement Congress can't ignore.

Congress has approximately one month before they leave for the summer -- that is enough time to exercise their Constitutional authority and revoke the 2002 war authorization, stripping Bush of the legal authority to perpetuate this war. If Congress de-authorizes now, Bush would be compelled to bring troops home and we could have most of them out of Iraq this year. And de-authorization is veto-proof.

The time has passed for allowing this President to send more American soldiers to fight for his ill-conceived and incompetently-executed adventure.

Call on Congress to end this war now -- they have the authority and the power to de-authorize before the summer break. It is time to stop deferring to a stubborn President who persists in a failed policy.

It is critical that we end this war as soon as possible so a new diplomatic process can begin. De-authorizing the war would send a strong signal to the warring factions that America will not be a permanent military presence in Iraq. Right now, our troops are doing a great job but they are working in the midst of a civil war they cannot stop. Removing ALL the troops as soon as possible is essential for starting the process of reconciliation.

Governor Bill Richardson

Every Last One <^><^><^><^><^><^>

by Gov. Bill Richardson June 19, 2007

I've been saying it for months. And just this morning, at the Take Back America conference, I made it crystal clear: my position on Iraq is totally different than every other candidate.

I want to start bringing ALL of our troops home right now -- every last one.

While other candidates push plans to get troops out sometime in Spring 2008, I am calling for all troops out in 6 months.

And, perhaps more importantly, while every other major candidate voted for or supported recent legislation with loopholes that allow Bush to leave an indeterminate number of troops indefinitely in Iraq, I want ALL of our troops out -- every last one.

That means no airbases, no embedded soldiers training Iraqi forces, no troops in the Green Zone. Zero troops. I would leave the customary small marine contingent at the embassy, but if that became unsafe, then I'd bring them home too.

I've had my campaign set up a website with the sole purpose of generating the grassroots support needed to get our troops home: www.notroopsleftbehind.com

And I hope you will join me.

Sign the petition calling on Congress to end the war NOW and bring ALL the troops home. www.notroopsleftbehind.com

Here's the deal: over 70% of Iraqis want us out of their country. Over 60% think its okay to kill Americans. At the rate we're losing American lives, over one thousand American troops will be killed this year alone. In a war where our troops are the #1 target, who are the poor souls we'd choose to leave behind?

Every indication is that Iraq is not getting safer -- it's getting more and more dangerous. Waiting until September to act will only lead to more lost American soldiers. We must act now.

That is why I am calling on Congress to de-authorize and end this war BEFORE they leave for their summer break.

The American people are with me -- we want this war over NOW and ALL the troops out.

Now we just have to pressure those in power to do what they've been elected to do. www.notroopsleftbehind.com

I have had it with cautious leadership -- we need bold action. Congress can end this war now -- but they seem dead-set on waiting until the fall to do anything. I see no reason to give George Bush any more time to come up with absurd excuses and stalling tactics to drag out this war any longer.

Thank you for joining me to end this war now, and bring all of our troops home.

Sincerely,
Bill Richardson

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

How We Can End the Occupation of Iraq

By David Swanson t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor Tuesday 23 January 2007

President George Bush deflects criticism of his war plans by claiming that his critics have no plans of their own. Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, asserts that matters of war must be left in the hands of the president (presumably no matter how brilliant your alternative plan).

Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has had an exit plan on his web site for over three years. Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) has held several hearings discussing exit plans over the past year and a half. Peace activists, including Tom Hayden, have published and promoted a variety of exit plans over the past couple of years, and have even gone so far as to meet and discuss them with members of the Iraqi Parliament.

More recently, former senator George McGovern and William Polk have published a detailed exit plan, one that helped shape a bill introduced on January 17th by a dozen Democrats, led by Woolsey. It's a comprehensive bill that lays out a plan to safely bring our troops home, end the war, reconstruct Iraq, and take care of our veterans, for a change. The Woolsey bill is one of several new bills in Congress that would end the war. At least two others, sponsored by Congressmen Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) include, as does Woolsey's, a key component that shatters Cheney's vision of executive power: they cut off the funds for the war. Of course, they do so while providing for the safe return of our troops.

While the US Constitution actually does not give to any branch of our government the authority to launch aggressive and endless wars against other countries, that beleaguered document does give the Congress the authority to declare war. When that authority is neglected by Congress or overrun by the White House, Congress can make use of another constitutional power, the power of the purse. While the president might argue that he has the legal authority to continue or escalate a war once under way, even if opposed by Congress, he cannot do so if Congress denies him the necessary funding.

Of course, Congress must also provide the funding to begin a war or to do anything else whatsoever. Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack reports that in the summer of 2002, Bush took money appropriated by Congress for Afghanistan and other programs and, with no Congressional notification, used it to build airfields in Qatar and secretly begin a war on Iraq. According to Woodward, the amount was $700 million; the Congressional Research Service later found it was actually $2.5 billion.

Meanwhile, Bush was marketing his proposed (and secretly begun) war to Congress and the American public, making claims that have proven false in virtually every detail. Amazingly, four years later, Congress has yet to investigate this apparently fraudulent marketing campaign.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the so-called WMD Commission have both done investigations and produced reports, but both were barred from addressing the central question of whether the Bush administration had presented the intelligence honestly.

There are some Democrats, newly in power, who are proposing to investigate this war, just as there are some proposing to cut off the funding and end it. But both groups are currently small minorities in Congress, even if they speak for the majority of Americans, who oppose this war and want the truth brought to light. The only reason that even these moral leaders in Congress have begun to act on this issue is the intensity of the public pressure they are feeling. We are planning to dramatically increase that pressure on every member of the House and Senate on January 27th and 29th.

On February 15, 2003, we organized with our allies around the world the single largest day of protest in world history, a protest aimed at preventing this war before it began. While we failed to influence President Bush or the Republican Congress, our position won out in nations around the world, which refused to take part in the war, and in the United Nations, which refused to sanction it. Had our government been more democratic, more open to the concerns of its citizens, this war would not have happened.

We now have a Congress controlled by Democrats. Will they be more responsive than the Republicans? There is one way to find out. On January 27th we are organizing a massive march in Washington, DC, followed by a day of organized citizen lobbying for peace on January 29th. We'll find out if the change of party we voted for in November changed something more than the names of committee chairs. (......................?!)

Learn more at www.unitedforpeace.org.
--------

David Swanson is a member of United for Peace and Justice Legislative Working Group and Cofounder of AfterDowningStreet.org

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Forget the Surge -- Violence Is Down in Iraq Because Ethnic Cleansing Was Brutally Effective

By Juan Cole, JuanCole.com. Posted July 29, 2008.

The bloodbath in Baghdad has resulted in fewer ethnically mixed neighborhoods, leading to the recent drop in violence.

Editor's note: John McCain's latest stumble in discussing Iraq -- in which he muddled the timeline of the so-called "surge" -- was treated by most of the press as an unfortunate gaffe, rather than further proof that the aspiring commander in chief does not know what he's talking about when it comes to the war and occupation. (One CNN report actually ran the headline: "McCain Broadens Definition of the Surge.") Meanwhile, the Republican nominee's recent attacks on Barack Obama for failing to admit the success of the "surge" was widely reported by the same members of the media, whose dominant and uncritical narrative has long been that, as McCain and Bush contend, the "surge" has been an unqualified success. "Why can't Obama bring himself to acknowledge the surge worked better than he and other skeptics thought that it would?" a USA Today editorial asked last week.
In the article below, Juan Cole takes a closer look at the "surge," weighing the troop increase alongside the numerous other contributing factors to the decline in violence. At the same time, he reminds us that, regardless of the relative decrease in bloodshed -- and what may be behind it -- the country is still a frightfully unstable place for Iraqis. "Most American commentators are so focused on the relative fall in casualties that they do not stop to consider how high the rates of violence remain," he writes. Few people would consider Afghanistan, where last year an average of 550 people were killed per month, a safe place. Yet, "that is about the rate recently (in Iraq), according to official statistics." -- AlterNet War on Iraq editor Liliana Segura
***
I want to weigh in as a social historian of Iraq on the controversy over whether the "surge" "worked." The New York Times reports:
Mr. McCain bristled in an interview with the CBS Evening News on (July 22) when asked about Mr. Obama's contention that while the added troops had helped reduce violence in Iraq, other factors had helped, including the Sunni Awakening movement, in which thousands of Sunnis were enlisted to patrol neighborhoods and fight the insurgency, and the Iraqi government's crackdown on Shiite militias.

"I don't know how you respond to something that is such a false depiction of what actually happened," Mr. McCain told Katie Couric, noting that the Awakening movement began in Anbar Province when a Sunni sheik teamed up with Sean MacFarland, a colonel who commanded an Army brigade there.

"Because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others," Mr. McCain said. "And it began the Anbar Awakening. I mean, that's just a matter of history."

The Obama campaign was quick to note that the Anbar Awakening began in the fall of 2006, several months before President Bush even announced the troop escalation strategy, which became known as the surge.

And Democrats noted that the sheik who helped form the Awakening, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, was assassinated in September 2007, after the troop escalation began.

But several foreign policy analysts said that if Mr. McCain got the chronology wrong, his broader point -- that the troop escalation was crucial for the Awakening movement to succeed and spread -- was right. "I would say McCain is three-quarters right in this debate," said Michael E. O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

The problem with this debate is that it has few Iraqis in it.

It is also open to charges of logical fallacy. The only evidence presented for the thesis that the "surge" "worked" is that Iraqi deaths from political violence have declined in recent months from all-time highs in the second half of 2006 and the first half of 2007. (That apocalyptic violence was set off by the bombing of the Askariya shrine in Samarra in February 2006, which helped provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war.) What few political achievements are attributed to the troop escalation are too laughable to command real respect.

Proponents are awfully hard to pin down on what the "surge" consisted of or when it began. It seems to me to refer to the troop escalation that began in February 2007. But now the technique of bribing Sunni Arab former insurgents to fight radical Sunni vigilantes is being rolled into the "surge" by politicians such as McCain. But attempts to pay off the Sunnis to quiet down began months before the troop escalation and had a dramatic effect in al-Anbar Province long before any extra U.S. troops were sent to al-Anbar (nor were very many extra troops ever sent there). I will disallow it. The "surge" is the troop escalation that began in the winter of 2007. The bribing of insurgents to come into the cold could have been pursued without a significant troop escalation, and was.

Aside from defining what proponents mean by the "surge," all kinds of things are claimed for it that are not in evidence. The assertion depends on a possible logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. If event X comes after event Y, it is natural to suspect that Y caused X. But it would often be a false assumption. Thus, actress Sharon Stone alleged that the recent earthquake in China was caused by China's crackdown on Tibetan protesters. That is just superstition, and callous superstition at that. It is a good illustration, however, of the very logical fallacy to which I am referring.

For the first six months of the troop escalation, high rates of violence continued unabated. That is suspicious. What exactly were U.S. troops doing differently from September than they were doing in May, such that there was such a big change? The answer to that question is simply not clear. Note that the troop escalation only brought U.S. force strength up to what it had been in late 2005. In a country of 27 million, 30,000 extra U.S. troops are highly unlikely to have had a really major impact, when they had not before.

As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65 percent Shiite to at least 75 percent Shiite and maybe more. My thesis would be that the United States inadvertently allowed the chasing of hundreds of thousands of Sunni Arabs out of Baghdad (and many of them had to go all the way to Syria for refuge). Rates of violence declined once the ethnic cleansing was far advanced, just because there were fewer mixed neighborhoods.

This MNF graph courtesy of Think Progress makes the point:

As Think Progress quoted CNN correspondent Michael Ware:

The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad has been -- albeit tragic -- one of the key elements to the drop in sectarian violence in the capital. It's a very simple concept: Baghdad has been divided; segregated into Sunni and Shia enclaves. The days of mixed neighborhoods are gone. If anyone is telling you that the cleansing of Baghdad has not contributed to the fall in violence, then they either simply do not understand Baghdad or they are lying to you.

Of course, Gen. David Petraeus took courageous and effective steps to try to stop bombings in markets and so forth. But I am skeptical that most of these techniques had macro effects. Big population movements because of militia ethnic cleansing are more likely to account for big changes in social statistics.

The way in which the escalation troops did help establish Awakening Councils is that when they got wise to the Shiite ethnic cleansing program; the United States began supporting these Sunni militias, thus forestalling further expulsions.

The Shiitization of Baghdad was thus a significant cause of falling casualty rates. But it is another war waiting to happen, when the Sunnis come back to find Shiite militiamen in their living rooms.

In al-Anbar Province, among the more violent in Iraq in earlier years, the bribing of former Sunni guerrillas to join U.S.-sponsored Awakening Councils had a big calming effect. This technique could have been used much earlier than 2006; indeed, it could have been deployed from 2003 and might have forestalled large numbers of deaths. Condi Rice forbade U.S. military officers from dealing in this way with the Sunnis for fear of alienating U.S. Shiite allies such as Ahmad Chalabi. The technique was independent of the troop escalation. Indeed, it depended on there not being much of a troop escalation in that province. Had large numbers of U.S. soldiers been committed to simply fight the Sunnis or engage in search-and-destroy missions, they would have stirred up and reinforced the guerrilla movement. There were typically only 10,000 U.S. troops in al-Anbar before 2007, as I recollect. (It has a population of a million and a half or so.) If the number of U.S. troops went up to 14,000, that cannot possibly have made the difference.

The Mahdi Army militia of Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr concluded a cease-fire with U.S. and Iraqi troops in September 2007. Since the United States had inadvertently enabled the transformation of Baghdad into a largely Shiite city, a prime aim of the Mahdi Army, they could afford to stand down. Moreover, they were being beaten militarily by the Badr Corps militia of the pro-Iranian Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and by Iraqi security forces, in Karbala, Diwaniya and elsewhere. It was prudent for them to stand down. Their doing so much reduced civilian deaths.

Badr reassertion in Basra was also important, and ultimately received backing this spring from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. There were few coalition troops in Basra, mainly British, and most were moved out to the airport, so the troop escalation was obviously irrelevant to improvements in Basra. Now British Prime Minister Gordon Brown seems to be signaling that most British troops will come home in 2009.

The vast increase in Iraqi oil revenues in recent years, and the cancellation of much foreign debt, has made the central government more powerful vis-a-vis the society. Al-Maliki can afford to pay, train and equip many more police and soldiers. An Iraq with an unencumbered $75 billion in oil income begins to look more like Kuwait, and to be able to afford to buy off various constituencies. It is a different game than an Iraq with $33 billion in revenues, much of it precommitted to debt servicing.

McCain was wrong to say that U.S. or Iraqi casualty rates were unprecedentedly low in May.

Most American commentators are so focused on the relative fall in casualties that they do not stop to consider how high the rates of violence remain. Kudos to Steve Chapman for telling it like it is.

I'd suggest some comparisons. The Sri Lankan civil war between Sinhalese and Tamils has killed an average of 233 persons a month since 1983 and is considered one of the world's major ongoing trouble spots. That is half the average monthly casualties in Iraq recently. In 2007, the conflict in Afghanistan killed an average of 550 persons a month. That is about the rate recently, according to official statistics, for Iraq. The death rate in 2006-2007 in Somalia was probably about 300 a month, or about half this year's average monthly rate in Iraq. Does anybody think Afghanistan or Somalia is calm? Thirty years of Northern Ireland troubles left about 3,000 dead, a toll still racked up in Iraq every five months on average.

All the talk of casualty rates, of course, is to some extent beside the point. The announced purpose of the troop escalation was to create secure conditions in which political compromises could be achieved.

In spring of 2007, Iraq had a national unity government. Al-Maliki's cabinet had members in it from the Shiite Islamic Virtue Party, the Sadr Movement, the secular Iraqi National list of Iyad Allawi, the Sunni Iraqi Accord Front, the Kurdistan Alliance, and the two Shiite core partners, the Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party and the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq.

Al-Maliki lost his national unity government in the summer of 2007, just as casualties began to decline. The Islamic Virtue Party, the Sadrists and the Iraqi National List are all still in the opposition. The Islamic Mission Party of al-Maliki has split, and he appears to remain in control of the smaller remnant. So although the Sunni IAF has agreed to rejoin the government, al-Maliki's ability to promote national reconciliation is actually much reduced now from 14 months ago.

There has been very little reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite. The new de-Baathification law, which ostensibly was aimed at improving the condition of Sunnis who had worked in the former regime, was loudly denounced by the very ex-Baathists who would be affected by it. In any case, the measure has languished in oblivion and no effort has been made to implement it. Depending on how it is implemented, it could easily lead to large numbers of Sunnis being fired from government ministries and so might make things worse.

An important step was the holding of new provincial elections. Since the Sunni Arabs boycotted the last ones in January 2005, their provinces have not had representative governments; in some, Shiite and Kurdish officials have wielded power over the majority Sunni Arabs. Attempts to hold the provincial elections this fall have so far run aground on the shoals of ethnic conflict. Thus, the Shiite parties wanted to use ayatollahs' pictures in their campaigns, against the wishes of the other parties. It isn't clear what parliament will decide about that. More important is the question of whether provincial elections will be held in the disputed Kirkuk Province, which the Kurds want to annex. That dispute has caused (Kurdish) President Jalal Talabani to veto the enabling legislation for the provincial elections, which may set them back months or indefinitely.

There is also no oil law, essential to allow foreign investment in developing new fields.

So did the "surge" "work"?

The troop escalation in and of itself was probably not that consequential. That the troops were used in new ways by Petraeus was more important. But their main effect was ironic. They calmed Baghdad down by accidentally turning it into a Shiite city, as Shiite as Isfahan or Tehran, and thus a terrain on which the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement could not hope to fight effectively.

It is Obama who has the better argument in this debate, not McCain, who knows almost nothing about Iraq and Iraqis and who overestimates what can be expected of 30,000 U.S. troops in an enormous, complex country.

But the problem for McCain is that it does not matter very much for policy who is right in this debate. Security in Iraq is demonstrably improved, for whatever reason, and the Iraqis want the United States out. If things are better, what is the rationale for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

GET TOUGH WITH THEM!!!!!!! USE NO UNCERTAIN TERMS!!!
LET THEM KNOW THAT WE MEAN BUSINESS!!!
.......WE MEAN, TEND TO BUSINESS, NOW!!!

The 2002 "authorization" for war with Iraq, presented to Congress with wildly trumped up and fancifully falsified "intelligence" to manipulate Congess into fearful submission to the Bush administration's desire to commit an invasion of a sovereign nation was actually presented then to Congress as if it were ONLY a "big stick" side of diplomacy to wield at Saddam Hussein in order to gain HIS submission. It was used, while skipping the diplomacy parts, as an actual authorization for war, instead. Congress so far has continued LETTING it be used so, ever since! This "authorization" of the Bush dishonesty does NOT authorize the Bush administration now, in 2008, to attack Iran, nor even to continue Bush's corporately profitable consumption of the US economy for the failed, falsified, deadly crusade against Iraq. We have been keeping our troops held hostage in Iraq where their very presence is itself a major catalyst inflaming a US provoked and weapons provisioned Iraqi civil war. This is a conflict made necessary to Iraqis by the Bush administration's predatory policies, necessary that is, if Iraq is to survive as a nation of and for the citizens of Iraq. Keeping our troops in Iraq places them into a civil war in which they would come to be obliged to side with and prop up a corrupt puppet government that has been egregiously imposed upon Iraqis by the wrongful design of the occupiers, then kept there, supported as such, by the heavily armed occupying forces. This is a treacherous betrayal of Iraqis personally, of their resources, their rights as a people, wrongfully depriving them of even the most basic of human rights and needs, robbing them of the right to self determination, stripping them as a nation of any even semblance of national sovereignty, and all with no recourse.

As it has been from the beginning of the unwarranted and deadly invasion that began this brutally conducted occupation, any "agreement" constructed to keep the US military in Iraq will, like the rest, be forced upon the people of Iraq in spite of the clearly expressed will of a great majority of Iraqi people and by the concurring majority votes from members of the parliament for what was passed as legally binding but illegally censored legislation calling for US withdrawal from Iraq. An agreement created by shady manouvers (heavily prodded behind the scenes by threat), will soon be pushed forward, again to the detriment of Iraqis now, and set to be imposing intrusively on into their future, as crafted through artifice which on surface appearance seems to provide the necessary "legal" means for the US to STAY in Iraq, with the added and likely widely infuriating betrayal of granting the US its megabases. This would provide the set up so avidly desired by the Bush administration; one with a fortified stranglehold positioning for infusing dictatorial "US" (NWO) control over Iraq and its resources. This is guaranteed by signing up "our troops" to defend Maliki from the majority disapproval of Iraqis. Committing our troops to support a US controlled government that is known by most Iraqis to be corrupt, treasonous, and treacherously betraying the people and their national sovereignty thereby pits those troops against the majority of the Iraqi people, effectively moving the citizens of Iraq over to the column under the label of "enemies". With this set up, the lucrative corporate profit will be but a minor side effect afterall, for this is just the beginning of the larger crusade. They have coveted and plotted hungrily for Iraq to have it for an imperially strategic foothold toward dominance over the Middle East, and Caspian Sea Basin as the means, through that dominance over the world oil supply, to hold the world in thrall by forcing nations into dependent submission and debt slavery for oil, or to do without energy. They are also lusting over and actively pursuing control of the world's fresh water supplies to the same voraciously predatory ends.

Signing up "our troops" to support the Maliki puppet government and defend it against the people of Iraq who have, as human beings, the right to deliberate freely among themselves as a nation without the contrivances of occupational impositions and designs, in order to arrive at their own form of government as they themselves would choose to construct it, as well as how and who they will choose those who will be selected to fill the offices. We must NOT be signing up our military to steal from them the right of self determination. This has already been too long kept from them by continuing to hold them with deadly force under a terribly deprivational, extremely threatening and oppressive military occupation. To set our military up to keep Iraqis under the the neocon design of separatist factionalizing government that has been imposed upon them by the US occupation would be a terribly wrongful and unlawful missuse of military force and corrupted abuse of personnel Such an immoral disregard for the human beings who serve in our military forces most certainly could not in any way be misconstrued to fitting for the mindless mantra to "support our troops". It would be quite the contrary and just another Bush-style oxymoron. Congress must NOT be morons for such dumb-OX oozing oily policy any longer!! Congress must NOW, finally, actually BEGIN to actually support our troops by standing up to JUST SAY NO!!!
--WITH A DIFFERENCE-- SAY NO AND MAKE IT STICK!!!

((We could do that even better here and NOW by simply choosing to make OIL OBSOLETE!! The technology IS quite capable of fully replacing oil, is very renewable, sustainable, more efficient, yet long suppressed by the predatory nature of BigOil, it has been waiting, quite ready to be put into wide-scale use. This would also serve to put Americans back to work while ending dependency upon importing or even using oil. There is an "open source" movement that is already quite active worldwide and rapidly gaining momentum so as to get these new energy technologies into public use, openly, and from so many directions at once that it would no longer be containable by those who have since Tesla, forced it into supression. It could come forward much more quickly and be in large scale production if legislated into the open and provided with strong start-up inducements and incentives.......)) ENERGY TO MAKE OIL OBSOLETE

It is NOT Bush's decision to make, it is OURS, through YOU, our representatives in Congress!

We The People sent you a BIG strong message in November '06 that it is past time to BEGIN supporting our troops by getting them OUT of Iraq! PLEASE!, bring common sense into the Congress now, and be big enough to stand up and do the job we elected you to do! Do NOT be complicit with the Bush administration's newest manuever of destruction by LETTING him ESCALATE his failed and falsified war and destruction of both our military AND Iraq! Though no plan, at this point in the story of Iraq's destruction, is likely to bring on some magically peaceful, hunky-dorey solution, there ARE sensible plans available for dealing with the situation such as it actually IS; plans involving all of Iraq's MidEast neighbors and the UN, a public and actual foregoing of all US "claims" to any Iraqi soil and oil and other resources, as well as contracting to provide the funding for the rebuilding/reconstruction of Iraq by Iraqis that is so desperately needed in Iraq. The Bush administration's catasrophic failure in Iraq has also been a terrible failure in reconstruction. It would be a huge relief to Iraqi's to be allowed to DO the work themselves!

It is TIME, NOW, to put some starch in it and stand up to JUST SAY NO! To stand up and say to the Bush administration plans for escalation that this is NOT his decision to make, it is OURS, and WE SAY NO!!!! Stand up and DEFUND!!!

Stand up TOGETHER, NOW, with a realistic, detailed, viable plan (HR 1234) (HR 508) (HR 746) to get OUT of Iraq! Stop wringing your hands and fumbling and bumbling!!! STOP the fear-factor-machine drive for increasing hostilities with Iran! BAN ALL new Mid East military manouevers, aggressions, and covert operations. BAN any and all military aggressions and actions hostile to Iran. Speak up LOUDLY against any Israeli plans to attack Iran's nuclear sites! SHOUT!!! NO TIME FOR POLITICKING!!! You MUST ACT on these things NOW!! You must NOT wait around in ommission until whatever the most current of the planned-on-the-fly BushCo desires of escalations and aggressions are, each round, each time, "in progress". After 6 years of BushRove tactics, there is no excuse for ANY naivete! BE THE EFFECTIVE ARMS OF ACTION FOR WE THE PEOPLE, and BE IT NOW!
SO BE IT!!!

**************************************************
"Evil Means", Soil & Oil, & The Pottery Barn Rule

It is an evil means that lied us into this war; lies to convince the American people that we "must" violate a sovereign nation with war, mass death and destruction.

Evil means cannot be used for good cause, OR good result. Once upon a time, such deals, generally rationalized as doing only a little evil to gain a "good" result, were termed "selling one's soul to 'the devil'. Those who do such wheeling and dealing generally get caught up in a chain reaction that keeps the action going
and going
and going..................

More troops in Iraq will be more sitting ducks, set up as roadkill, fodder for IED's, while having no way to accomplish anything worthwhile. The politicians and pundits supporting the Bush administration will speak as if there were something worthwhile, but it is their latched-on hold of the real estate, their "Middle East Foothold", Iraq's resources, and an economic coup of anything that might be economically viable for corporate takeovers; it is the "14 permanent bases", gargantuan "embassy", ordering the "privatizing" of Iraqi oil, etc, that would not be "secured" for the BushBunch if we leave things now, where they are, as they are. It is not worthy of our troops to be in this in the first place, certainly not worth sending more troops to die for such ignoble, gluttonous cause.

No realistic "plan" for Iraq can include ANY continuing US presence IN Iraq. The US cannot train Iraq's military and police---they can't even talk to them, just for starters, but there are many more big and very real reasons why this "training" plan is not possible; just one such reason being that our military is not trained to be teachers at all in the first place and has been totally incompetent at doing so in the first 4 years of "trying".

The "Iraq study group", in their first page, recommended "privatizing Iraq's oil", ie., selling it off to corporate interests, ie., for the ownership of the oil men who have been a highly significant controlling factor in the US gov these past 6 years, and their friends --including members of the "Iraq study group".

In Iraq, oil has been a national resource, belonging to the Iraqi people and not a profiteering asset of private corporations for THEIR profit. The ISG appear to have been providing cover for the dirt under the Bushes, terribly disgusted with the JuniorBush for making such a mess of things, but needing to pull his chestnuts out of the fire to save (so they think) their Iraqi soil and oil and other financial assets along with their desire to have a stronghold, with 14 permanent military bases and the gargantuan "embassy" that is bigger by far than any other embassy anywhere in the world. All these "US" real estate holdings being built into feudalistic "independently self sustaining", "hardened" fortresses like the castles of earlier feudal times, and like those, not so "safely impenetrable" as they seem to have let themselves think. The US won't let Iraqis fly. There would have to be a large US military presence in Iraq, forever, to enforce that, but eventually someone else will fly over anyway, or smuggle in missles, perhaps build a large enough catapult to lob in a big enough load of that plastic explosive from the 2 or 3 hundred tons of it the US allowed them to pick up for making roadside bombs and things..........

(With all that plastic explosive, who needs "outside help" to keep building bombs for roadside and suiciders???) --Update: Spring '08 remake of a same-old claim, by the same claim manufacturer (but sans the oversight of a superior officer like Adm. Fallon) presenting something for its "evidence" this time that CERTAINLY could not be "mistaken" for something resourceful Iraqis could have made: a highly machined, remote controlled "roadside" bomb, complete with a sizeable "shaped charge" tip made from DU metal!!! Iran has no DU except for what has come with the dust in the wind from Iraq! The DU, though, penetrates armour with no problem and has, lifting and tossing Abrams tanks in a flash. WHO has DU??? Hmmm, US & MOSAAD! "Coincidentally", there is a counter-claim for having seen something that looks just like that in MOSAAD's arsenal! Maybe Iran gave some to MOSAAD too, in trade for the supply of DU metal??

ENOUGH!! (TOO MUCH ALREADY!!) The considerable problems we have created in Iraq must now be turned over to the Iraqis, with cooperation and aid from a consortium of Arab neighbors, under UN supervision and oversight, while the US provides the funding necessary for Iraqis to rebuild their Iraq. The pottery barn rule must be honored: pay for what you have broken! Moving a mass of people into the pottery barn will not help and even more pottery would be broken! Pay for what the US has broken and use the $billions ever presently available to get our troops OUT of Iraq, NOW! Don't buy Bush's war, its no bargain deal! Don't let the door of approaching history hit your behind any harder than it already will! Get OUT, NOW!.

(-:G

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

.................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Challenging The Dimensionally Challenged

Being at or near 80%, the largely overwhelming majority of registered Democrats want the US occupation of Iraq to end, and wish to support the troops by bringing them home quickly from the debacle that has been made from the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. The chorus of mindless mantric soundbite "answers" to this repeat obsessively. They are taken up and endlessly broadcast by partisanly attached politicians and pundits as well as coloring the great majority of related mainstream media reports and stories, stained with the same taint of limiting bias. These soundbiting phrases posing as "answers" can permit that only two possible alternatives exist. This outlandishly unrealistic artificial limitation is also furthered by the bi-polar manner in which questions are posed in the opinion polls, all continually reinforcing the ridiculously fantastical, exclusive demand that there are only two choices possible for the US concerning Iraq:

1- "Stay the course" --- Was then reframed, like old vinegar'd wine rebottled,
then newly re-labeled, to be hailed as, a "New Way Forward".
2- "Cut and run"

The polls have not been asking if people favor more complex plans, much less plans that include the complete US relinquishment of all Iraqi soil, oil, industry or conrtrolling interests of any kind; ALL things Iraqi, EVERYthing that is of, pertaining to, or related to Iraq or Iraqis, to be actually, and PUBLICLY, with oversight, fully relinquished.

((Other countries cannot enter into this massively, and catastrophically destroyed nation as long as the US is still there, and the US can't be there without "calling the tunes". Bush does not play well with others, though he is quite the dictator, and "others" cannot take the extreme risks involved with GETTING involved as long as Bush's policies or anything related to Bush & his corporate, nation stealing, imperialist designs, his jack boots in the night breaking down doors, disappearing people, torture, special ops death squad actions; not with loose cannons firing at will, killing children, killing whole families, while througout, incessantly manipulating, back stabbing, playing one off another, and ever tenaciously, obsessively, CLINGING to his "spoils of war", --which clinging INSURES that the Sunnis and Seculars, etc., MUST keep blowing it all up to keep it safe............FOR IRAQIS! For other countries to be ABLE to become involved, the US must first get completely OUT. "Our" presence is holding up any better possibility, even clean running water and flushable waste management.))

As with all issues falsely presented as ultimatums with only 2 possible choices, claiming either it is THIS, or it is THAT, neither of these 2 choices is likely to be functionally plausible in actuality, nor would either be more or less likely, for example, to avert an outcome of exponentially escalating disaster. Both of these 2 mindlessly limiting "choices" have been designed, framed and endlessly broadcast by the administration and its co-opted-Republican, end timer, corporate, and other supporters and promoters, including mainstream media, as a means to drown out and prevent any and all viable possibilities from being heard, much less respected or given serious consideration. Too many elected Democrats have bowed down to this, thus limiting themselves as the Republicans have decreed. This political tactic prevents any realistic approach to wider, more constructive, inclusively participatory and sustainable possibilities. It prevents any other ideas or plans at all from being heard, effectively blocking all else from significant exploration, discovery or development. It blocks Senators and Congresspersons from holding any democratically open discussion that contributes to any possibility of action beyond the artificial boundary where only two, flat world, two dimensional possibilities are permitted to exist at a time. And there is only ONE authority, "The Decider" (and handlers). This ONE authority has spent the past six years decreeing to us all his bipolar dysfunctions, unchecked.

This is NOT a two dimensional world! We must turn up the volume, considerably, to be heard over all that static!

(-:G

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Pro-pounding IN "The Sense of Congress"
.

A Resolution introduced (post-11/2006) by Congressman Peter DeFazio, HR 391, expressed "the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran with respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization from Congress." Though certainly well meaning, it was toothless, and fell flat. Bills which express "the sense of Congress" enter meaning into the Congressional Record, but do not compel anything! Surely, it was at least an attempt to prevent the continued MISCONSTRUAL of intent that was used to claim "authorization" for committing war upon Iraq, to "pre-empt" it from being stretched on over into committing war upon Iran, but it did not PROHIBIT it. Some have argued that this is already 'prohibited' Constitutionally by being a power expressly designated to Congress, and not to the executive branch. Yes, that IS the intent, but we need to get real about it; the current executive branch has given us years of recorded evidence that it holds our Constitution in contempt.

In SPITE of all the malevolent threats issued to our legislators behind closed doors, Congress, in both Houses, MUST ACT QUICKLY AND EXPLICITLY REGARDING IRAN, TO PREVENT THE DEBACLE THAT WOULD ENSUE if any such attack as crafted and committed by the administration should occur. Bills like Rep. DeFazio's MUST include ANY military action against Iran, not soley, "with respect to its nuclear program, --and should do so COMPELLINGLY, not as just a toothless "Sense of Congress"'-- and it should be taken up and acted upon IMMEDIATELY.

The administration has obviously seen it needs another tack, that the much ballyhooed creation of a nuclear program for Iran has not caught hold enough either nationally or internationally. This has convinced them that Iran must be much more "personally" and thoroughly demonized to seem to be seen as warranting the attack the administration, with its neoconic beucolia driving it, so desires to commit. We must remember, amidst all the intent to manipulate the public mind and gut as they have previously and repetitively, and through relentlessly driven: demonizing, fear mongering, staging false evidence campaigns, subliminal broadcasts and HAARP-enhanced ELFwave dissonantly ennervating broadcasts, an army of hired and scripted propagandists, propagandized "news clips" and "press releases", gasoline price manuverings, and many other inimical means-- that Iran has not attacked nor threatened ro attack anyone. Even the "nuclear weapons program" claims are dark figments of neocon/neozion/new world odor malware-enhanced delusional imaginations. For more deeply insightful comprehension of the extensive lengths that have been used, are now IN use upon/against us, and are yet in the works to be applied, look into "Project BlueBeam".

The "BLAME THE IRAQIS DODGE"

Several members of our Legislature as well as the Bush administration have been adopting and promoting a "blame the Iraqis" dodge as if it were a "way to deal with the situation in Iraq". Even Obama and Clinton have signed on to this dodge, as if the problem of Iraq were nothing more than an intramural dodge-ball game. I saw and heard them myself, Senator Clinton in interviews immediately following her recent visit to Iraq's "greenzone", and Senator Obama on Sunday Morning appearances.

Strobe Talbott, head of the bipartisan Brookings Institution takes the dodge out of that in a few short, clear words, "The logic on our own side, however, is very clear indeed: having pre-emptively invaded their country, let's pre-emptively blame them for the mess we've made of it." The "Maliki government", of which all these dodge-ball enthusiasts speak, has no such power to change the situations and conditions in Iraq, no such capacities to, for instance, disarm the militias, or to change the dynamics (SO inflamed by the US!) between Shi'ite and Sunni, etc., none even close to any that have been implied by each or any of these unmindful dodges and dodgers. The way the US has set up the "Iraqi government", in fact, Just like Karzai in Kabul, there really isn't any central government power that exists outside the greenzone, PERIOD! That makes it really E-Z to fault them, certainly!!! It is a very good demonstration though of people becoming just another political follicle when a senator or representative adopts such a dodge--- even Obama, but then, that did put Obama and Clinton on a level as political-folly-pundits like most of the nationally posing politicians, now didn't it?!

When anyone adopts such "straw man" rhetorics, it is a good clear indication that they are either too uninformed to know any better, or, it is letting us know that they cannot be counted on to be honest and forthright. It certainly does not demonstrate the integrity of a well informed and honorable "Person of Principle."

(-:G

Expressing the OUTRAGE to "my" Senator, (D) NM

(NOTE: The full text of that which is mentioned in the first
lines can be found at the "Dear Democrats" link above.)

May 27, 2007

Dear Senator,

The following includes the thoughts and feelings of many other people besides myself, and each in their own words. In bringing back a quote from you, one given to Mother Media in March, I am requesting that you help us actually be ABLE to do just what you then said was "having real effect". Because "The Media" does such a poor and sketchy job, if at all, of reporting upon our "public outrcry", we are being blocked, are not being allowed to be heard in anything like the volume, character and numbers from, in and through which our outcry is actually made. In fact, just yesterday on the evening news, our majority outcry was being called "only a small minority", and in tones of voice, body and facial expressions, the underlying message seeking subliminal converyance quite strongly intimated that majority called minority to be so minor that it is really just a passing, inconsequential and meaningless noise. If our majority voice of public outcry cannot get through to be heard, it cannot have the effect that, in a Democratic government, it needs to be having and must be given.

The Senator Cites Public Outcry as Best Chance to Prevent War with Iran and End the Occupation
At the recent Joint Session of the New Mexico Legislature, The US Senator spoke on education, healthcare and global warming. After his address, Mother Media caught up with him in the hall. We gave him several documents regarding the Impeachment Resolution and the threat of a wider regional conflict. We then asked his opinion on the best way to prevent war with Iran. He did not offer a legislative solution, but instead said, "I think the public outcry is having a real effect on the discussion in Washington." So turn up the volume, my friends.

Please have enough copies of the following made for each Democratic Senator and Representative to be given a copy, and then please have these copies delivered to each of them. THIS is that majority voice that was pooh-poohed as if it had been a trifling, and totally inconsequential anyway. This must be remedied. Please do your part in enabling that remedy, especially since it is expressing what is also the majority voice of YOUR constituents, though the ones included below are from a more broadly ranging collection. A collection, I might add, that was not "selective"; it did not leave out ANY "alternate" opinion(s); there were no alternates!

Thank you for caring enough about our Democracy to do, in this way, something that you CAN so readily do to allow the public outcry of the Majority of WeThePeople to be heard!

Very Sincerely,
________________________
..........and THEN, it was discovered what was IN that bill-------

JUMPIN"JIMMINY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS (below) is totally unconscionable!!!! ----and YOU voted for this????!!!!!!!
Its bad enough to have voted to keep funding Bushco's empirical, world energy stealing, death dealing endless warmachine, but for THIS extreme enablement of such evil to have been what was voted for Thursday, 5-24-07, is beyond the pale. I am truly ashamed of all of you who voted for this, truly ashamed that my country would perpetrate such as this! To be complicit with such a gross theft of the national resources of an entire country of 25 million people, and especially after having done what we have already done to them, to people who did us no harm and posed no actual threat to us, and after having DESTROYED so much of their basic infrastructure, basic human-life services (water, sewer, electricity, health support, etc.), the majority of their economy, and this accomplished while killing, maiming, torturing, etc., (as in all of the above!) so many Iraqi citizens, including countless children, BABIES! the elderly!, while leaving the rest with conditions creating chronic malnourishment, DU poisoning, homelessness, joblessness, extreme violence surrounding them, their ability to govern themselves usurped, those most functionally capable of stabilizing, rebuilding, remodeling government as IRAQIS would have, themselves, thus carrying Iraq forward, ie., the professional and middle class, highly educated, mostly secular Iraqis, having been persecuted, chased out of country or killed en masse, AND NOW EVEN THE "DEMOCRATS", BY A HUGE MAJORITY IN SENATE AND HOUSE HAVE VOTED TO BE COMPLICIT IN THIS ADDED ATROCITY???!!!! YOU VOTED FOR FULL ENABLEMENT OF NAILING DOWN FOR CERTAIN, AS A DONE DEAL, SUCH GROSS AND UNCONSCIONABLE THEFT OF IRAQI SOIL AND OIL, THEIR ONLY SUBSTANTIAL NATIONAL RESOURCE???!!!!!

YOU VOTED FOR THIS TWISTED, DISGUSTINGLY CRUEL BLACKMAIL/THEFT THAT WOULD REFUSE TO REPLACE AND REBUILD WHAT THE US DESTROYED UNLESS THEY FORK OVER THEIR OIL/National RESOURCES AND SOVEREIGNTY??? (((Destroyed by attacking a sovereign nation based upon excuses crafted purposefully from LIES which were trumped up soley for the purpose of tricking the American people (and the world, but most of the world were NOT so readily fooled by such cheap trickeries) into believing Iraq was an immanent danger to US safety and security when no such hint of any such danger, much less immanent danger existed, even trumping up outrageously flimsy and false connections to make it seem that Iraqis were responsible for "9/11" [which besides having nothing to do with Iraq or Iraqis, was much more false flag enhanced than "terrorist" induced]---ALL SO THAT THE AMERICAN POPULATION WOULD ACCEPT DEMONIZATION OF THE POOR IRAQI PEOPLE AND BEGIN TO CHEERLEAD THE RUSH TO START KILLING THEM AND DESTROYING THEIR COUNTRY, all while Rove/Cheney/Bushco are following word for word in this deceitful course the PNAC plan, SINCE BEFORE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION EVEN STARTED, CREATING THEIR "NEW PEARL HARBOR" REICHSTAG EVENT to have their excuse to begin the drive for war to capture the MIDEAST OIL SUPPLY...............!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS nation of 300million people out to steal the oil of the world, to be SOLE WORLD HYPERPOWER in control of the dwindling supply of fossile fuel for corporate power and profit that boosts the military industrial complex/robber baron imperialistic, enslaving STRANGLEHOLD on the 6+billion other human beings who share this planet??????)))
You think you're stealing this "fair and square"?????

YOU CHAIR THE ENERGY COMMITTEE---YOU CANNOT PLAY NAIVE OVER SUCH A THING AS THIS!!!!!!!

OH MY GOD!!!! WHAT A BLOT ON YOUR VERY SOUL!!!!

    The only way to remove such a terrible stain upon one's soul is to UNDO THE HARM DONE!!!!
If you are one who has been fooled into thinking you have already "sold your soul", and therefore it is "too late for you" anyway, this is only trickery. One's soul cannot be sold. One can think this is so and therefore begin to believe one is a "lost soul", therefore all is lost anyway, then sink oneself deeper and deeper into darkness that dims down and down the ability to see, self-blocks one's capacity to know and discern better qualities and clearer, harmless realities; but the farther one sinks oneself into this darkness, the longer and harder the Way Home, for every last weary "Pilgrim" WILL self-redeem all harm and wend the way Home, no matter how long and arduous one's harmfulness' have made the course one must follow to Return.

   What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1:
Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies

    By Ann Wright     t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor    Saturday 26 May 2007
    On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.

    This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

    No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

    What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

    With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.

    Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.

    It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?

    Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.

    How much more can our military and their families take?

    Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.

HOW MANY DEATHS PER GALLON?????????!!!!!!!!

In Greatest, Deepest Sincerity,
And May You Come To Let The Will Of All Good Bring All Good Through You!

(-:G

XZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZXZX

Iraqi Lawmakers Pass Resolution That May Force End

of Occupation This Year

Tuesday 05 June 2007
By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland AlterNet

Iraq has always been "South Korea" for the Bush Administration.

While Washington lawmakers play procedural games with an out-of-control executive branch, Iraqi legislators are working to bring an end to the occupation of their country.

While most observers are focused on the U.S. Congress as it continues to issue new rubber stamps to legitimize Bush's permanent designs on Iraq, nationalists in the Iraqi parliament -now representing a majority of the body - continue to make progress toward bringing an end to their country's occupation.

The parliament today passed a binding resolution that will guarantee lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the UN mandate under which coalition troops now remain in Iraq when it comes up for renewal in December. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose cabinet is dominated by Iraqi separatists, may veto the measure.

The law requires that any future extensions of the mandate, which have previously been made by Iraq's Prime Minister, be approved by the parliament. It is an enormous development; lawmakers reached in Baghdad today said that they do in fact plan on blocking the extension of the coalition's mandate when it comes up for renewal six months from now.

Reached today by phone in Baghdad, Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "this new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the UN mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the UN mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "there will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the UN mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal."

Without the cover of the UN mandate, the continued presence of coalition troops in Iraq would become, in law as in fact, an armed occupation, at which point it would no longer be politically tenable to support it. While polls show that most Iraqis consider U.S. forces to be occupiers rather than liberators or peace-keepers - 92 percent of respondents said as much in a 2004 survey by the Independent Institute for Administration and Civil Society Studies - the UN mandate confers an aura of legitimacy on the continuing presence of foreign troops on Iraq's streets, even four years after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The resolution was initiated when a majority of Iraqi lawmakers signed a non-binding legislative petition two weeks ago that called on the Iraqi government to demand a withdrawal of all foreign troops from the country.

While the issue of the Multinational Force's (MNF) mandate has been virtually ignored by the American media, it has been a point of fierce contention in Baghdad. Last fall, just after the mid-term elections in the U.S., a coalition of Iraqi nationalists in the parliament tried to attach conditions to the extension of the mandate.

Iraqi lawmaker Jabir Habib (a Shia closely aligned with the al-Sadrist Movement), said in an interview last fall that the Iraqi Assembly had been poised to vote on the issue: "We spent the last months discussing the conditions we wanted to add to the mandate," he said, "and the majority of the Parliament decided on three major conditions. These conditions included pulling the coalition forces out of the cities and transferring responsibility for security to the Iraqi government, giving Iraqis the right to recruit, train, equip, and command the Iraqi security forces, and requiring that the UN mandate expire and be reviewed every six months instead of every 12 months."

Lawmakers said that while they likely had enough support to require a timetable for withdrawal as a condition of the mandate's renewal last year, they were sidelined by al-Maliki when the Prime Minister sent a letter to the UN Security Council requesting an extension without consulting members of parliament. The move outraged lawmakers.

In a phone interview just after the extension, Hassan al-Shammari, a Shia Parliamentarian representing the al-Fadila party, said: "We had a closed session two days ago, and we were supposed to vote on the mandate in 10 days. I can not believe the mandate was just approved without our knowledge or input." Saleh al-Mutlaq, a secular Sunni lawmaker, was also shocked when we spoke with him last fall. "This is totally unexpected," he said. "It is another example of the Prime Minister dismissing the views of the parliament and monopolizing all power."

Today's resolution means that Maliki will not be able to make that claim this time around. Reached by phone today in Amman, Jordan following the vote, al-Mutlaq said: "the parliament is more powerful now - we can block the renewal of the UN mandate and demand to attach a timetable to it."

Iraq's government faces a crisis of legitimacy, in large part due to its refusal to demand the withdrawal of U.S. forces long favored by as many as four out of five Iraqis. According to a poll last year by the Project on International Policy Attitudes, 80 percent of Iraqis believe the U.S. plans to maintain permanent military bases in the country and three out of four believe that if their government were to demand a timetable for withdrawal, Washington would ignore it (according to the poll's authors, that finding was a major driver of the significant support for attacking coalition troops found among all groups of Iraqis).

It is possible, even probable, that the Maliki regime will veto the resolution passed today. The White House's separatist allies in Baghdad have consistently found ways to bypass the assembly. Al Mutlaq said today that the nationalist bloc probably doesn't have the the two-thirds majority required to override a veto.

He warned, however, that the more the al-Maliki regime does to sideline the Iraqi parliament, the more Iraqis will be compelled to turn to violent resistance to the occupation. He said: "It will lead to many groups withdrawing from the political process and could only make things even worse."

The resolution passed today is only one part of the nationalists' effort to bring about a U.S. withdrawal. Nassar al Rubaie said of the measure's passage: "all of this is just our backup plan, but our other and more specific resolution setting a timetable will come soon." He promised that nationalists in parliament would force debate on a "clean" and binding resolution requiring occupation forces to withdrawal from the country in the immediate future. "We'll start the deliberations next week," he said, promising: "we have enough signatures for that one already."
--------
Raed Jarrar is Iraq Consultant to the American Friends Service Committee. He blogs at Raed in the Middle. Joshua Holland is a Senior Writer with AlterNet.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Depleted Uranium: Pernicious Killer Keeps on Killing

By Craig Etchison, Ph.D.

t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor Monday 19 February 2007

The Questions

    I live a few miles from an ATK (Alliant Tech) plant that produces depleted uranium (DU) tank shells for the military. Tank shells destroy and kill, and they, along with all military hardware, are a constant reminder of our failure as a civilization. But DU weapons and tank shells are only two of many items that raise questions that even our violence prone society needs to address. Since shortly after Gulf War I, soldiers and civilians have been questioning the safety of these weapons which are made of radioactive material. The more questions raised, the more the military-industrial complex has hauled out studies showing the safety of DU munitions. One CEO called DU the "skim milk" of uranium in an article penned for my local paper. An Air Force officer is even stalking the internet, trying to intimidate anyone who suggests DU is anything but benign.

    Yet the numbers suggested that something insidious happens when DU munitions are used. How to explain the exploding rates of cancer, birth defects, and radiation poisoning among Iraqis in the Basra region? How to explain a Department of Veterans Affairs study of 21,000 veterans of the Gulf War that found rates of birth defects were twice as great for male vets and three times as great for female vets who served in the Gulf War compared to vets who did not? How to explain a Washington Post report in January of 2006 that 518,00 of the 580,000 Gulf War veterans were on disability, over half on permanent disability. How to explain over 13,000 dead Gulf War veterans when only 250 were killed and 7,000 injured in the war itself?

    Finally, through the work of internationally recognized research scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, we may have an answer to these questions. The answer has to do with using an analytical methodology appropriate to low level radiation, as opposed to inappropriate methodologies used to date that show DU is harmless, and, equally important, understanding that DU has both a radiological component as well as a heavy metal component, and the two in combination are far more toxic than either is singly.

    What is DU and Why Is It a Problem?

    Depleted Uranium (DU) is the waste left after the isotope uranium-235 (used for bombs and nuclear reactors) has been removed. DU (mostly U-238) makes up the largest amount of radioactive waste other than uranium mining waste worldwide and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. In the United States, DU can only be handled by persons trained in radiation safety procedures. DU must also be isolated from the environment.

    Much of the scientific evaluation of uranium oxide has come from analysis of uranium mining and milling, but this ignores a major fact-that battlefield uranium oxide is very different from uranium oxide produced at normal temperatures. When a DU shell hits a hardened target, it bursts into flame and creates an invisible metal fume, often called an aerosol. (Tests carried out eight to ten years after Gulf War I found that the DU aerosol from the battlefield had been carried to Basra and Baghdad, though no fighting occurred in those areas.)

    Aerosolizing DU involves temperatures between 3,000 and 6,000 degrees centigrade, which turn the oxide into a nano-sized ceramic particle that is insoluble in body fluids. If these nano particles are inhaled, they provide contact radiation and a source of heavy metal poisoning. These high temperatures will also aerosolize other heavy metals in the area such as steel, nickel, aluminum, and iron, which can be inhaled. Nano-sized uranium oxide [along with other metals] is roughly the size of a virus [scientifically: nanometer-sized], invisible, able to penetrate the lung-blood barrier and can be carried throughout the body. Nano particles can reach sensitive targets, including the lymph nodes, spleen, heart, and access to the central nervous system.

    Uranium-238 is an alpha particle emitter. The range of these alpha particles is only about six cells; therefore, it is highly localized. Because DU has less radioactivity than natural uranium, many consider DU to be low-level radiation and not harmful to people. But research does not bear this view out.

    Assessing the Effects of DU

    A major problem with most DU assessment is that many effects of alpha radiation on cell structure, including DNA proteins that release biochemical signals and important cell metabolic enzymes, are ignored by nuclear physicists who use dose estimates based on uranium dust in mines, a completely inappropriate approach for a battlefield aerosol. Many medical professionals believe the protein problem is responsible for various neurodegenerative diseases evidenced by Gulf War veterans.

    As Dr. Bertell writes, "Heavy metal exposure (including uranium) can cause loss of cellular immunity, autoimmune diseases, joint disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, and diseases of the kidneys, circulatory system, and nervous system.... Decline in functional mitochondria is most damaging to the heart, kidney, brain, liver, and skeletal muscle, in that order." Loss of cellular immunity opens an organism up to viral, bacterial, and mycoplasmal invasions connected to a variety of diseases.

    Equally important, scientists have found that tiny amounts of DU too small to be toxic and only mildly radioactive seem to reinforce each other in terms of causing cancers and risk to offspring. The Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute has even admitted that DU can cause cancer.

    Humans are normally exposed to about 1.9 micrograms of uranium a day in food and water, with between one and two percent absorbed. The rest is passed in feces. Humans screen natural uranium quite effectively. But our screening system won't eliminate nano particles that are ceramic and enter through the lungs. These particles won't dissolve and won't lose their radioactivity.

    International Condemnation

    The special investigator of the UN Sub-Committee on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights has declared DU munitions illegal under existing humanitarian law. DU weapons also produce a toxic metal fume that violates the Geneva Protocol on the Use of Gas in War, which the US signed in 1975.

    Why Ignore the Evidence?

    We have enough evidence to suggest with considerable certainty that DU munitions break the four basic laws and customs that govern modern weapons use: that the weapon is confined to the battlefield, that it does not kill after a battle is over, that it doesn't cause inhumane suffering, and that it doesn't have a negative effect on the natural environment. We certainly have enough evidence to stop using these weapons until further research by independent scientists has been done. And yet we continue to produce, sell, and use DU munitions. How can this be justified?

    Perhaps looking at the paradigm of Agent Orange gives insight. Our government ignored veterans affected by Agent Orange for thirty years before admitting Agent Orange was, in fact, the cause of many physical problems endured by Vietnam veterans. By then, the most seriously affected veterans were dead. The government incurred a far smaller financial liability than if the government had owned up to the problems earlier.

    If the government ever admitted what it has done in Iraq-between 1,000 and 2,000 tons of DU ordnance expended according to most estimates-the financial consequences, not to mention the moral outrage engendered, is almost beyond imagination. Cleaning up the DU blanketing Iraq would entail enormous costs. And in a few years, soldiers who have served in the current debacle-many with two or three tours-are going to start coming down with the same diseases that have struck Gulf War I veterans. Some who got good doses of DU have already seen their lives ruined by multiple physical problems.

    We must also consider the real possibility of Iraq as an uninhabitable wasteland, with the residue of the DU aerosol blowing in the wind and flowing in the waters to adjacent lands, a residue with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Is this outlook too bleak?

    Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, director of the Oncology Center at the largest hospital in Basra said the following in 2003. "Two strange phenomena have come about in Basra which I have never seen before. The first is double and triple cancers in one patient.... We have 58 families here with more than one person affected by cancer.... My wife has nine members of her family with cancer." He went on to point out that these were families with no history of cancer. After Gulf War I, the United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority estimated that DU contamination could kill half a million Iraqis.

    Conclusions

    I suspect the military-industrial complex will stonewall admitting the effects of DU for as long as possible to avoid accepting responsibility, not to mention liability, for their reckless actions. When John Hanchette, a founding editor of USA Today tried to publish stories about DU, he received a phone call from the Pentagon asking him to desist. He was later replaced at USA Today. The World Health Organization's chief expert on radiation and health had his report on DU suppressed. Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then a colonel in the U.S. Army, was asked to lie about the risks of DU to humans. So the stonewalling will continue, even as cancers rage among our soldiers and Iraqi civilians, even as our soldiers die, or commit suicide to escape the horrific pain, even as birth defects proliferate across Iraq and among our veterans.

    But what of that? DU is a moneymaker for corporations like ATK. And turning DU into munitions helps the government solve a big problem-what to do with mountains of DU it must store and, by law, keep out of the environment. What better solution than giving it free to the munitions makers, who then sell the munitions back to Uncle Sam at a handsome profit? Everyone wins.

    Unless we continue to fight for the truth, and to cry out for justice, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians will suffer and die in increasing numbers. Estimates of how many may die in Iraq are truly staggering - up to 11% of Iraq's 27 million population. This is a massive crime against humanity that remains in the shadows.

    --------

    For More Information:

    Much of this article is based on the work of Dr. Rosalie Bertell. See her article, "Depleted Uranium: All the Questions About DU and Gulf War Syndrome Are Not Yet Answered," in the International Journal of Health Services, Volume 36, Number 3, pages 503-520, 2006. E-mail requests for a summary of Dr. Bertell's article can be sent to cetchison@allegany.edu.

    Craig Etchison, Ph.D, is from the Center for Nonviolent Alternatives, Fort Ashby, W.Va.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

War of Shadows
By Chris Hedges
Truthdig.com

Sunday 14 January 2007

I have spent most of my adult life as a reporter covering insurgencies, from the five years I covered the wars in El Salvador, Nicaragua and Guatemala to seven years in the Middle East and nearby regions, where I covered the two Palestinian uprisings and the civil wars in Algeria and Sudan, and finally to the three years I reported on the wars in the Balkans, including the rebellion in the Serbian province of Kosovo by the Kosovo Liberation Army. Some of these wars were fought with skill, such as the U.S.-led counterinsurgency campaign in El Salvador and the French-backed counterinsurgency in Algeria; others were not, such as the war in Kosovo, fought by a Serbian government whose stupidity and brutality rivaled our own in Iraq.

The plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq will be accompanied by a subtle, but disastrous, change in the way the war is fought - a change that will almost assuredly increase the monthly tallies of American dead and wounded. The president warned that "deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties." In his version of the war, these losses will allow us to climb from the sinkhole we have dug for ourselves to the sunlight of victory. Unfortunately, for Iraqis and for us, what the president proposes is a mistake of catastrophic proportions. It defies basic counterinsurgency doctrine and will leave American troops more vulnerable, more exposed and in greater danger in this war of shadows.

A counterinsurgency war is, first and foremost, a political war. It requires a deftness, as well as cultural and political sensitivity, that American troops and commanders, most of whom do not even know enough Arabic to read the road signs in Baghdad, do not possess. Military strikes must always be very limited, infrequent and surgical - a tactic foreign to the terrified 19-year-old kids who unleash 1,000 rounds per minute with their M249 SAWS in crowded Iraqi neighborhoods moments after an improvised explosive device goes off. The greatest failure in Iraq - a war I always opposed - was to use American forces to occupy the country and then, after sectarian blood lines had been drawn and American troops had killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, set out to try to build a proxy army of quisling Iraqi nationals. It was doomed from the start. We lost the war, and in Iraqi eyes it was defined as our war by the time our invading forces blasted their way into Baghdad.

Conventional armies, such as ours in Iraq, come equipped with inherent strengths that rebels cannot match. These strengths include massive firepower, air support and an integrated intelligence and communications infrastructure that permits rapid and effective responses, as well as the ability, in a fixed firefight, to usually obliterate a rebel band. But conventional behemoths, especially when they seek to occupy hostile, foreign territory, have serious and often fatal weaknesses, weaknesses that have been deftly exploited in Iraq and especially Baghdad. Most of the new troops will go to Baghdad, doubling the number of combat troops in the Iraqi capital. Four thousand more Marines will go to Iraq's western Anbar province, where U.S. commanders admit that the 30,000 current U.S. troops have lost control to Iraqi resistance fighters. There are now about 140,000 American military personnel in Iraq, of whom about 50,000 are combat troops.

American forces, because they control the country's infrastructure, must often remain in fixed, static positions. And troops in static positions are easily targeted by small, mobile rebel bands. During the war in El Salvador new guerrilla recruits, for their first kill, were often sent at night to attack one of the many small bridges held by government troops. The immobile targets were so vulnerable, the newly minted rebel soldiers were almost always assured of success.

Soldiers and Marines in Iraq are bottled up in heavily fortified and protected compounds, although even these are hit by periodic mortar rounds and suicide bombers. Troops make forays out of these forts in armored convoys that move very swiftly down the middle of city streets in a show of force or to protect supply lines. It is constant and rapid movement that ensures survival. The occupying forces have learned the hazards of remaining in static positions. But now President Bush, who knows as little about warfare as he does about diplomacy, wants to take away this vital mobility.

"In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned," the president said. "This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared...."

"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents," Bush explained. "And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."

But the president and the few generals willing to swallow their pride and probably their integrity to support him have failed to explain or grasp the realities of occupation. The presence of more troops on the streets of Baghdad, troops who only understand how to impose their will by force, will fuel the rage most Iraqis feel toward their American occupiers. It will heighten the tension and increase the strikes on American forces, which, tied down, will be more easily targeted.

The insurgents - Shiite and Sunni - have done what we failed to do. They have built a vast and effective support network within their communities, communities we were never able to reach from Humvees or the fortified walls of the Green Zone. Most of the insurgents are Iraqi. They speak Arabic. They worship in the mosques. They buy vegetables in the local markets. They love their country. And many have paid a terrible price for their patriotism and their faith. These neighborhoods are secure. They are just not secure for us. They will never be. And sending in new batches of Americans from Texas or Ohio or New York to patrol these streets will not make Iraq or America safer. It will ensure that even more mothers and fathers, American and Iraqi, will be ushered by George W. Bush into the long night of bitterness and grief.

Posted on TruthOut Original Posting on TruthDig

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

For every day left drifting by,
another mass of people die.
How many deaths? How many more,
so casually let go by-----
How many deaths are you waiting for,
(-:G to be satisfied?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    .....HOW MANY DEATHS PER GALLON?

Excerpted from:

If Beal Street Could Talk - Part 1
    Bush's Escalation Speech

    By David Swanson    Tuesday 16 January 2007

The Washington Post printed Bush's speech for those who missed it, and then printed some analysis of it. But the analysis was provided by the White House, which published a glossy brochure that so-called reporters could plagiarize.

If you went to online sources like Foreign Policy in Focus, you found analyses of Bush's speech that pointed out the lies. If you turned on your television, you heard how smart Bush was to admit his mistakes. But you did not hear the long list of mistakes that he has not admitted to or gone to prison for. You just heard about his mistake of not having yet done exactly what he now wants to do.

The following is what I would like to have heard on the TV and radio after Bush's speech (and similar reporting on Congressman Dick Durbin's so-called response):

Earlier this evening we aired a speech by President George W. Bush that may have left you with some false impressions. We need to correct these matters of fact. The president's speech did not mention WMDs or Saddam Hussein or attempt to explain why we are occupying the nation of Iraq or what it would mean for that occupation to "win" or "lose." This may have left you with the impression that no justification is required by law to forcibly occupy someone else's country and kill a significant portion of their population. That is not the case.

The president made no reference to the permanent military bases he is illegally constructing in Iraq. This may have left you with the impression that he plans to leave Iraq some day. This, combined with his references to democracy, may have given you a certain idea of his plans for Iraq that does not seem to be suggested by the president's actions.

Bush also expressed support for a number of Middle-Eastern nations allied with the United States, notably Saudi Arabia. This may have given you the idea that these nations are democracies. They are dictatorships.

Bush began his speech by connecting Iraq to 9/11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We apologize to the millions who have lost loved ones because of this lie. When Bush said that al Qaeda was "still" active in Iraq, he failed to add that it had only become active in Iraq as a result of his invasion and occupation of that nation.

Bush said that he would see that the people of Iraq profit from its oil. This statement bears no relationship to actual US policy, and Bush has no legal right to decide what happens to another nation's resources.

Bush suggested that most Iraqis want the occupation to continue. This is false.

Bush suggested that occupying Iraq was making Americans safer. His own intelligence analysts disagree.

Bush implied that he can escalate wars at his own discretion. In fact, Congress can prevent him from doing so if it chooses to. Of course, Bush has escalated this war in the past. We have not reported on that as such because he did not make a big deal of it. The reason he is making a big deal of it this time was not addressed in his speech.

What was new in the speech was a threat to Iran and Syria. Bush claimed that Iran is providing material to Iraqi resisters. There is no evidence of this. Bush said he was sending ships and missile defense systems to the region. These steps have no clear connection to Iraq and may be seen as part of a threat to Iran.

Bush said not one word about all of the Iraqi blood he has spilled. Approximately 655,000 (2006) Iraqis have died as a result of the United States' invasion and occupation of Iraq, thus far. And the death rate is increasing, not diminishing. Here is video showing many of the people killed and injured in this war and their family members. Americans can support or oppose this war by contacting their Congressmembers. There will be a march in opposition to the war in Washington, DC, on January 27th followed by lobbying of Congress on the 29th. For more on that, see www.unitedforpeace.org.

Full Text, Posted on TruthOut

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Special Comment About "Sacrifice"

Video & Text on TruthOut

By Keith Olbermann MSNBC "Countdown" Wednesday 03 January 2007

If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?

Would you at least protest?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?

What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them - and then announced his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?

This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's "new Iraq strategy," and his impending speech to the nation, which, according to a quoted senior American official, will be about troop increases and "sacrifice."

The president has delayed, dawdled and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group.

He has seemingly heard out everybody, and listened to none of them.

If the BBC is right - and we can only pray it is not - he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for "sacrifice."

Sacrifice!

More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.

More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.

More American families will have to bear the unbearable and rationalize the unforgivable - "sacrifice" - sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever.

And more Americans - more even than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, not more - will have to conclude the president does not have any idea what he's doing - and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.

It must now be branded as propaganda - for even the president cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone "the decider."

But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklaszewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called "surge and accelerate" - as many as 20,000 additional troops - for "political purposes" ...

This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.

This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.

If this is your intention - if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be "sacrifice" - sacrifice your intention, not more American lives!

As Senator Joseph Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1."Sacrifice?"

No.

A drop in the bucket.

The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.

They will not be there "short-term," Mr. Bush; for many it will mean a year or more in death's shadow

This is not temporary, Mr. Bush.

For the Americans who will die because of you, it will be as permanent as it gets.

The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen "sacrifice" constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.

The former labor secretary, Robert Reich, says Senator John McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.

If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam ... or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent ... or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.

Then there is the argument that to take any steps toward reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world.

This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.

We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed for no good reason.

We have now shown them that we will continue to do so.

We have shown them our stupidity.

Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq - and now about "sacrifice" - is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.

Your most respected generals see no value in a "surge" - they could not possibly see it in this madness of "sacrifice."

The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.

Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.

And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying "best two out of three - best three out of five - hundredth one counts."

Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and moreover, they do not want you to do this.

Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.

Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!

To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship - those bonded, still, to this president and this administration, and now bonded to this "sacrifice"- proceed at your own peril.

John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds - he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.

That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.

Or, maybe it is obvious to him and he simply no longer cares.

But to the rest of you in the Republican Party:

We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country's most precious assets - the lives of its citizens who are in harm's way.

If you do not, you are not serving this nation's interests - nor your own.

November should have told you this.

The opening of the new Congress on Wednesday and Thursday should tell you this.

Next time, those missing Republicans will be you.

And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.

President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr.Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.

The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.

It wants fewer.

Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.

Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war, Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.

Because that's what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?

That is what this "sacrifice" has been for.

To continue this senseless, endless war.

You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation ... then of regional imperative ... then of oil prices ... and now in these new terms of "sacrifice" - it's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir?

This senseless, endless war.

But - it has not been senseless in two ways.

It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

It has gotten many of us used to the idea - the virtual "white noise" - of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague "sacrifice" for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important-sounding but ultimately meaningless phrase, "the war on terror."

And the war's second accomplishment - your second accomplishment, sir - is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.

Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more until the first thousand have been destroyed.

The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.

This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a $125 million courtroom complex at Gitmo, complete with restaurants.

At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.

And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.

You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don't fight them there we will fight them here - as if the corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.

And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better, on the premise that we need to be ready to "fight them here" anyway, and always.

In point of fact, even if the civil war in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat - not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.

But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.

Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here.

You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.

You have already stoked paranoia.

You have already pitted Americans, one against the other.

We ... will have to live with it.

We ... will have to live with what, of the fabric of our nation, you have already "sacrificed."

The only object still admissible in this debate is the quickest and safest exit for our people there.

But you - and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone - still insist otherwise.

And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, sir, so that you can say you did not "lose in Iraq."

Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable.

But it is all too easily understood now.

First we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.

Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.

If what is reported is true - if your decision is made and the "sacrifice"is ordered - take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning - Gerald Ford:

Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation ahead of some kind of misguided vision.

Atone.

Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?

No, sir, this is not "sacrifice." This has now become " human sacrifice."

And it must stop.

And you can stop it.

Next week, make us all look wrong.

Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.

And you must stop it.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

http://carryabigsticker.com/dans_cartoons.htm

THE WAR BECOMES MORE UNHOLY
~ Dhar Jamail with Ali al-Fadhily ~

FALLUJAH – A stepped up military offensive that targets mosques, religious leaders and Islamic customs is leading many Iraqis to believe that the US-led invasion really was a "holy war."

Photographs are being circulated of black crosses painted on mosque walls and on copies of the Quran, and of soldiers dumping their waste inside mosques. New stories appear frequently of raids on mosques and brutal treatment of Islamic clerics, leading many Iraqis to ask if the invasion and occupation was a war against Islam.

Many Iraqis now recall remarks by US President George W. Bush shortly after the events of Sep. 11, 2001 when he told reporters that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while."

"Bush's tongue 'slipped' more than once when he spoke of 'fascist Islamists' and used other similar expressions that touched the very nerve of Muslims around the world," Sheikh Abdul Salam al-Kubayssi of the Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS), a leading Sunni group, told IPS in Baghdad. "We wish they were just mere slips, but what is going on repeatedly makes one think of crusades over and over."

Occupation forces claim that mosque raids are being conducted because holy places are being used by resistance fighters...

Local people refute these claims made by coalition forces.

"Fighters never used mosques for attacking Americans because they realize the consequences and reactions from the military," a member of the local municipality council of Fallujah told IPS on condition of anonymity. "Nonetheless, US soldiers always targeted our mosques and their minarets."

During Operation Phantom Fury of November 2004, scores of mosques in Fallujah were damaged or destroyed completely. Fallujah is known as the city of mosques because it has so many...

Dr. Rawi, avowedly a secular Sunni, told IPS that the number of Iraqis who believe the occupation is waging a "religious war" increased dramatically after the 2004 attacks on Fallujah.

"Those sieges, along with all the events that followed in Samarra, al-Qa'im, Haditha and now Siniya have led people to think of the crusades," he added. "Americans do hate us for some reason and we do not find any reason but religion."

It is not just Sunni Iraqis who claim that their mosques are not respected by occupation forces. The mostly Shi'ite city of Najaf was exposed to massive US military assaults during August 2004. Many attacks came dangerously close to the sacred Imam Ali shrine, damaging its outer walls.

Other US raids on Shi'ite mosques in Baghdad have infuriated Iraq's Shi'ite population.

On AntiWar.com

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I label this Christian attitude as the Christian Death Wish, and these Islam hating Christians who no decent Jesus would have anything to do with may explain the verse, "many of the first will be last". Iraq is the central focus of the Book of Revelations, and the 200,000 tormenting soldiers described as occupying where the Tigress meets the Euphrates (Baghdad) are described as having breastplates the colors of Fire, sulfer, and Saphire. Those colors happen to be Red, White, and Blue. One problem with supporting a President hell-bent on starting Armageddon, however is that this makes George W. Bush the Anti-Christ. This begs the question, what does that make these so-called Christians?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Claiming the Prize: War Escalation Aimed
at Securing Iraqi Oil

By Chris Floyd, Information Clearing House. Posted January 12, 2007.

The reason that Bush insists that "victory" is close at hand is because Iraqi ministers are likely to approve a new law opening the door to their oil reserves.

I. The Twin Engines of Bush's War

The reason that George W. Bush insists that "victory" is achievable in Iraq is not because he is deluded or isolated or ignorant or detached from reality or ill-advised.

No, it's that his definition of "victory" is different from those bruited about in his own rhetoric and in the ever-earnest disquisitions of the chattering classes in print and on-line. For Bush, victory is indeed at hand. It could come at any moment now, could already have been achieved by the time you read this. And the driving force behind his planned "surge" of American troops is the need to preserve those fruits of victory that are now ripening in his hand.

At any time within the next few days, the Iraqi Council of Ministers is expected to approve a new "hydrocarbon law" essentially drawn up by the Bush Administration and its U.K. lackey, the Independent on Sunday reports.

The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," say the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new law. "It would allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalized in 1972." If the government's parliamentary majority prevails, the law should take effect in March.

As the paper notes, the law will give Exxon, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come.

This law has been in the works since the very beginning of the invasion -- indeed, since months before the invasion, when the Bush Administration brought in Phillip Carroll, former CEO of both Shell and Fluor, the politically-wired oil servicing firm, to devise "contingency plans" for divvying up Iraq's oil after the attack.

Once the deed was done, Carroll was made head of the American "advisory committee" overseeing the oil industry of the conquered land, as Joshua Holland of Alternet.org has chronicled in two remarkable reports on the backroom maneuvering over Iraq's oil: Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil and The U.S. Takeover of Iraqi Oil.

According to senior Bush minions talking up the plan for what is not a surge but a long-term escalation of urban warfare that the U.S. ground commander in Iraq says will likely last for years, Bush's new "stratergery" includes "benchmarks" that the natives must meet to keep in favor with their colonial master. One of the most prominent of these is the demand that Iraq "finalize a long-delayed measure on the distribution of oil revenue." As we can see by the Independent stories quoted here, that benchmark should be done and dusted within weeks.

From those earliest days until now, throughout all the twists and turns, the blood and chaos of the occupation, the Bush Administration has kept its eye on this prize. The new law offers the barrelling buccaneers of the West a juicy set of production-sharing agreements (PSAs) that will maintain a fig leaf of Iraqi ownership of the nation's oil industry -- while letting Bush's Big Oil buddies rake off up to 75 percent of all oil profits for an indefinite period up front, until they decide that their "infrastructure investments" have been repaid. Even then, the agreements will give the Western oil majors an unheard-of 20 percent of Iraq's oil profits -- more than twice the average of standard PSAs, the Independent notes.

Of course, at the moment, the "security situation" -- i.e., the living hell of death and suffering that Bush's "war of choice" has wrought in Iraq -- prevents the Oil Barons from setting up shop in the looted fields. Hence Bush's overwhelming urge to "surge" despite the fierce opposition to his plans from Congress, the Pentagon and some members of his own party.

Bush and his inner circle, including his chief adviser, old oilman Dick Cheney, believe that a bigger dose of blood and iron in Iraq will produce a sufficient level of stability to allow the oil majors to cash in the PSA chips that more than 3,000 American soldiers have purchased for them with their lives.

The American "surge" will be blended into the new draconian effort announced over the weekend by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: an all-out war by the government's Shiite militia-riddled "security forces" on Sunni enclaves in Baghdad, as the Washington Post reports.

American troops will "support" the "pacification effort" with what Maliki says calls "house-to-house" sweeps of Sunni areas. There is of course another phrase for this kind of operation: "ethnic cleansing."

The "surged" troops -- mostly long-serving, overstrained units dragooned into extended duty -- are to be thrown into this maelstrom of urban warfare and ethnic murder, temporarily taking sides with one faction in Iraq's hydra-headed, multi-sided civil war.

As the conflict goes on -- and it will go on and on -- the Bush Administration will continue to side with whatever faction promises uphold the "hydrocarbon law" and those profitable PSAs. If "Al Qaeda in Iraq" vowed to open the nation's oil spigots for Exxon, Fluor and Halliburton, they would suddenly find themselves transformed from "terrorists" into "moderates" -- as indeed has Maliki and his violent, sectarian Dawa Party, which once killed Americans in terrorist actions but are now hailed as freedom's champions.

So Bush will surge with Maliki and his ethnic cleansing for now. If the effort flames out in a disastrous crash that makes the situation worse -- as it almost certainly will -- Bush will simply back another horse. What he seeks in Iraq is not freedom or democracy but "stability" -- a government of any shape or form that will deliver the goods.

As the Independent wryly noted in its Sunday story, Dick Cheney himself revealed the true goal of the war back in 1999, in a speech he gave when he was still CEO of Halliburton. "Where is the oil going to come from" to slake the world's ever-growing thirst, asked Cheney, then answered his own question. "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

And therein lies another hidden layer of the war. For Iraq not only has the world's second largest oil reserves; it also has the world's most easily retrievable oil. As the Independent succinctly notes: "The cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface. This contrasts starkly with the expensive and risky lengths to which the oil industry must go to find new reserves elsewhere -- witness the super-deep offshore drilling and cost-intensive techniques needed to extract oil form Canada's tar sands."

This is precisely what Cheney was getting at in his 1999 talk to the Institute of Petroleum. In a world of dwindling petroleum resources, those who control large reserves of cheaply-produced oil will reap unimaginable profits -- and command the heights of the global economy.

It's not just about profit, of course; control of such resources would offer tremendous strategic advantages to anyone who was interested in "full spectrum domination" of world affairs, which the Bush-Cheney faction and their outriders among the neocons and the "national greatness" fanatics have openly sought for years. With its twin engines of corporate greed and military empire, the war in Iraq is a marriage made in Valhalla.

II. The Win-Win Scenario

And this unholy union is what Bush is really talking about when he talks about "victory." This is the reason for so much of the drift and dithering and chaos and incompetence of the occupation: Bush and his cohorts don't really care what happens on the ground in Iraq -- they care about what comes out of the ground.

The end -- profit and dominion -- justifies any means. What happens to the human beings caught up in the war is of no ultimate importance; the game is worth any number of broken candles.

And in plain point of fact, the Bush-Cheney faction -- and the elite interests they represent -- has already won the war in Iraq. I've touched on this theme before elsewhere, but it is a reality of the war that is very often overlooked, and is worth examining again. This ultimate victory was clear as long ago as June 2004, when I first set down the original version of some of the updated observations below.

Put simply, the Bush Family and their allies and cronies represent the confluence of three long-established power factions in the American elite: oil, arms and investments. These groups equate their own interests, their own wealth and privilege, with the interests of the nation -- indeed, the world -- as a whole. And they pursue these interests with every weapon at their command, including war, torture, deceit and corruption.

Democracy means nothing to them -- not even in their own country, as we saw in the 2000 election. Laws are just whips to keep the common herd in line; they don't apply to the elite, as Bush's own lawyers and minions have openly asserted in the memos, signing statements, court cases and presidential decrees asserting the "inherent power" of the "unitary executive" to override any law he pleases.

The Iraq war has been immensely profitable for these Bush-linked power factions (and their tributary industries, such as construction); billions of dollars in public money have already poured into their coffers. Halliburton has been catapulted from the edge of bankruptcy to the heights of no-bid, open-ended, guaranteed profit.

The Carlyle Group is gorging on war contracts. Individual Bush family members are making out like bandits from war-related investments, while dozens of Bush minions -- like Richard Perle, James Woolsey, and Joe Allbaugh -- have cashed in their insider chips for blood money.

The aftermath of the war promises equal if not greater riches. Even if the new Iraqi government maintains nominal state control of its oil industry, there are still untold billions to be made in PSAs for drilling, refining, distributing, servicing and securing oilfields and pipelines.

Likewise, the new Iraqi military and police forces will require billions more in weapons, equipment and training, bought from the U.S. arms industry -- and from the fast-expanding "private security" industry, the politically hard-wired mercenary forces that are the power elite's latest lucrative spin-off. And as with Saudi Arabia, oil money from the new Iraq will pump untold billions into American banks and investment houses.

But that's not all. For even in the worst-case scenario, if the Americans had to pull out tomorrow, abandoning everything -- their bases, their contracts, their collaborators -- the Bush power factions would still come out ahead. For not only has their already-incalculable wealth been vastly augmented (with any potential losses indemnified by U.S. taxpayers), but their deeply-entrenched sway over American society has also increased by several m!gnitudes.

No matter which party controls the government, the militarization of America is so far gone now it's impossible to imagine any major rollback in the gargantuan U.S. war machine -- 725 bases in 132 countries, annual military budgets topping $500 billion, a planned $1 trillion in new weapons systems already moving through the pipeline. Indeed, the Democratic "opposition" has promised to expand the military.

Nor will either party conceivably challenge the dominance of the energy behemoths -- or stand against the American public's demand for cheap gas, big vehicles and unlimited consumption of a vast disproportion of the world's oil.

As for Wall Street -- both parties have long been the eager courtesans of the investment elite, dispatching armies all over the world to protect their financial interests. The power factions whose influence has been so magnified by Bush's war will maintain their supremacy regardless of the electoral outcome.

[By the way, to think that all of this has happened because a small band of extremist ideologues -- the neocons -- somehow "hijacked" U.S. foreign policy to push their radical dreams of "liberating" the Middle East by force and destroying Israel's enemies is absurd. The Bush power factions were already determined on an aggressive foreign policy; they used the neocons and their bag of tricks -- their inflated rhetoric, their conspiratorial zeal, their murky Middle East contacts, their ideology of brute force in the name of "higher" causes -- as tools (and PR cover) to help bring about a long-planned war that had nothing to do with democracy or security or any coherent ideology whatsoever beyond the remorseless pursuit of wealth and power, the blind urge to be top dog.]

As I noted earlier this year:

Bush and his cohorts have won even if the surge fails and Iraq lapses into perpetual anarchy, or becomes an extremist religious state; they've won even if the whole region goes up in flames, and terrorism flares to unprecedented heights - because this will just mean more war-profiteering, more fear-profiteering.

And yes, they've won even though they've lost their Congressional majority and could well lose the presidency in 2008, because war and fear will continue to fill their coffers, buying them continuing influence and power as they bide their time through another interregnum of a Democratic "centrist" -- who will, at best, only nibble at the edges of the militarist state -- until they are back in the saddle again. The only way they can lose the Iraq War is if they are actually arrested and imprisoned for their war crimes. And we all know that's not going to happen.

So Bush's confident strut, his incessant upbeat pronouncements about the war, his complacent smirks, his callous indifference to the unspeakable horror he has unleashed in Iraq -- these are not the hallmarks of self-delusion, or willful ignorance, or a disassociation from reality. He and his accomplices know full well what the reality is -- and they like it.

Tagged as: war in iraq, bush, oil

Chris Floyd is an American journalist. He is the author of the book, Empire Burlesque: The Secret History of the Bush Regime. He has been a writer and editor for more than 20 years, working in the United States, Great Britain and Russia for various newspapers, magazines, the U.S. government and Oxford University.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

The bombing of the Golden Mosque

By Mike Whitney

01/20/07 "ICHBlog" -- - We’ve heard a lot about the bombing of Samarra’s Golden Mosque lately. Bush has brought it up twice in the last week alone. It’s a critical part of the administration’s rationale for the occupation of Iraq, so we can expect to be reminded of it nearly as often as 9-11.

The destruction of the Golden-dome Mosque took place in February 2005 and has been identified as the “catalyzing event” that plunged the country into sectarian violence. That, at least, is just the official version. No one knows really what happened because the administration refused to conduct an independent investigation and the media excluded any account that didn’t square with the Pentagon’s spin on events.
What we’re left with is mere speculation.

Here's what we know: Less than 4 hours after the explosion, the Bush public relations team cobbled together a statement that the bombing was the work of Sunni extremists or al Qaida terrorists. But, how did they know? They didn’t have witnesses on the ground in Samarra and they’ve never produced a scintilla of evidence to support their claims. It may be that the administration simply saw the bombing as an opportunity to twist the facts to suit their own purposes?

After all, the incident has been a propaganda-bonanza for the Bush team. They’ve used it to support their theory that Iraq is “the central battle in the war on terror” and that “we must fight them there if we don’t want to fight them over here”. It’s become one of the main justifications for the occupation; implying that the US military is needed as a referee to keep the warring factions from killing each other. It’s all just nonsense that’s designed to advance the administration’s political agenda.

If there had been an investigation, it would have shown whether the perpetrators were experts or not by the placement of the explosives. There’s a good chance they would’ve found bomb-residue which could have determined the composition of the material used. Forensics experts could have easily ascertained whether the explosives came from Iraqi munitions-dumps (as suggested) or from outside the country (like the USA, perhaps?)

The incident may well have been a “false flag” operation carried out by US intelligence agencies to provoke sectarian violence and, thus, reduce the number of attacks on American troops.

In any event, as soon as the mosque was destroyed the media swung into action focusing all of its attention on sectarian violence and the prospect of civil war. The media’s incessant “cheerleading” for civil war was suspicious, to say the least.

In the first 30 hours after the blast, more than 1,500 articles appeared on Google News providing the government version of events without deviation and without any corroborating evidence; just fluff that reiterated the Pentagon’s account verbatim and without challenge.

1500! Now that’s a well-oiled propaganda system!

Most of the articles were “cookie cutter-type” stories which used the same buzzwords and talking points as all the others; no interviews, no facts, no second opinions; simple, straightforward stenography---nothing more.

The story was repeated for weeks on end never veering from the same speculative theory. Clearly, a great amount of effort was being exerted to convince the American people that this was a significant event that would reshape the whole context of the war in Iraq. In fact, the media blitz that followed was grander than anything since 9-11; a spectacular display of the media’s power to manipulate public opinion.

There were a few articles that didn’t follow the party-line, but they quickly disappeared into a cyber-“black hole” or were dismissed as conspiracy theories. One report in AFP said that the bombing “was the work of specialists” and the “placing of explosives must have taken at least 12 hours”. The article continued:

“Construction Minister Mohammed Jaafar said, ‘Holes were dug into the mausoleum’s four main pillars and packed with explosives. Then charges were connected together and linked to another charge placed just under the dome. The wires were then linked to another charge placed just under the dome. The wires were then linked to a detonator which was triggered at a distance.”

Of course, what does that prove? Perhaps, al Qaida has skilled explosives experts? But why not investigate? After all, if this was the “catalyzing event” which was thrusting the country towards civil war; why not have the FBI come in and have a look-around?

A professional team of investigators could have quickly determined whether highly-trained saboteurs were operating in the area. (which meant that American troops would be at greater risk) Isn’t that worth checking out?

Nope. The Pentagon did nothing. There was no effort at all to find out who might have been involved. It was an open and shut case; wrapped up before the dust had even settled in Samarra.

Very strange.

Apparently, there was at least one witness who was interviewed shortly after the bombing. He said that he heard cars running outside the mosque “the whole night until morning” but, he was warned “to stay in your shop and don’t leave until morning”.

At 6:30 AM the next morning, the vehicles outside the mosque left. 10 minutes later the bombs exploded.

None of the people living in the vicinity of the mosque were ever questioned. Likewise, the Construction Minister Mohammed Jaafar has never resurfaced in the news again. I expect that his comments in the newspaper may have had something to do with his sudden disappearance, but then maybe not.

The Golden Mosque; truth or psy-ops?

The Bush administration is very serious about controlling information. That’s why they launched the Pentagon’s Dept of Strategic Information. The military is now deeply engaged in “full spectrum dominance” of all information technologies. Consequently, “controlling the narrative” is more important than one might think. Propaganda is the cheapest and most effective way to control public behavior. The growth in public relations illustrates the importance that political leaders put on managing perception in a way that compels the masses to conform to an elite agenda. That’s why the administration has spent zillions on PR campaigns and inserted themselves into every area of human communication. They are forever looking for the right combination of patriotic and religious imagery that will get the public to march along in harmony.

The Bush administration has made some notable contributions to the traditional propaganda-paradigm. In fact, former Counselor at the State Dept, Philip Zelikow, (who was also executive director of the 9-11 Commission and author of the National Security Strategy NSS) is an expert in “the creation and maintenance of ‘public myths’ or ‘public presumptions’, which he defines as beliefs thought to be true although not necessarily known to be true with certainty, shared in common with the relevant political community (sounds like Rumsfeld)….He has taken a special interest in ‘searing’ or ‘molding’ events that take on ‘transcendent’ importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experiencing generation passes from the scene”. (“Thinking about Political History” Miller Center report; winter 1999)

“Searing’ or ‘molding’ events that take on ‘transcendent’ importance”?!? Like 9-11, for example?

“In the Nov-Dec 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs he co-authored an article called ‘Catastrophic Terrorism’ in which he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade center had succeeded ‘the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. ‘It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet bomb test in 1949. The US might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or US counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently”. (Wikipedia)

The previous paragraph is certainly worth rereading 2 or 3 times KEEPING IN MIND THAT ZELIKOW'S ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN 1998!?! 3 YEARS BEFORE 9-11!

Where, one might ask, did Zelikow get his crystal ball?

Zelikow correctly assumed that if a “catastrophic” event were to take place in America, it would trigger a massive revaluation of all our ideological commitments; “civil liberties, surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force”.

History would be divided into "pre 9-11 and post 9-11." And, all the restrictions on presidential power, inalienable rights, and aggressive war could be swept away in an instant.

Isn’t this the exact blueprint for what is taking place right now? What part of Zelikow’s dark-vision has not been actualized?

This theory is the intellectual foundation for the creeping fascism that has infected our country. Its evil-brilliance is that it goes beyond propaganda’s limited ability to shape public opinion and actually creates history by fabricating events that have a “searing” or “molding” effect on the collective psyche.

Zelikow has figured out that the real essence of controlling behavior is not simply “propagating” ideas but understanding how humans process information and, then, corrupting that process so it meets the objectives of the ruling elite.

Both 9-11 and the blowing up of the Golden dome Mosque are examples of how this theory works. 9-11 has been used to erase 200 years of legal precedent and establish a “unitary president” who has absolute power. The destruction of the mosque transforms a brutal colonial occupation into a "humanitarian intervention" which requires the US military to stay on indefinitely to prevent Iraqis from killing each other. In both cases, the “catastrophic” event creates the internal logic for the subsequent response.

Doesn’t this explain why the administration has devoted so much energy to controlling the narrative?

The Salvador Option and the Bush Caliphate

The Defense Department developed its strategy for counterinsurgency in Iraq with the assumption that they were “fighting a new kind of war”. The days of large land-based armies and conventional weapons-systems are over. The coming century will require new skills for overpowering loosely-configured “indigenous” resistance organizations who can undermine the goal of seizing dwindling resources.

The war on terror conceals the fact that the US is presently engaged in a global resource war.

An article by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek magazine, “The Salvador Option” (Jan 2005), summarized the details of the strategy saying:

“Newsweek has learned the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against a leftist guerilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the US government funded or supported ‘nationalist’ forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers.”

The same pattern of terrorizing the public through “the application of extreme violence” has reemerged in Iraq with many of the same US leaders supervising the covert operations. The plan was clearly designed to eliminate the need for more US troops to provide security and, instead, aimed at “pacifying” the resistance through a well-coordinated and fully-funded campaign of terror.

The (predominantly) Shiite militias operating out of the Interior Ministry were armed and trained by the CIA and were used to secretly carry out assassinations and torture of suspected “Sunni insurgents.” In his recent article “The Battle of Baghdad”, Chris Sanders expands on this point:

“Even more important is the fact that it has been the Americans in the form of one Colonel James Steel, who, reporting to then ambassador to Iraq, John Negroponte, oversaw the training of the Shia death squads a.k.a. “security forces” that have been turned loose on the Sunni population, a project called the “Salvador Option”. This is not a civil war…so much as deliberate mayhem incited, aided and abetted by the occupying power with the objective of forcing the disintegration of the country.”

There’s nothing new in Sander’s observations although they are scrupulously omitted in the mainstream press. The Bush administration set out to apply its neoconservative theories in Iraq by deliberately destroying the social fabric of Iraqi society so they could rebuild the country according to their “free market” neoliberal ideology. The neocon principle of “creative destruction” was used with lethal precision and with devastating effects; the country is now in a state of total ruin.

The Pentagon’s counterinsurgency strategy was developed long before the mutilated bodies of Sunni men began showing up daily bobbing along the Euphrates River. It’s part of a broader plan to dominate the entire region through military force. The purpose is to extend the Bush Caliphate--the “new world order”-- throughout the entire Middle East.

Somewhere along the line, things went horribly wrong and the Pentagon warlords lost control of their “brainchild” in the Interior Ministry. Now the Shiite death squads operate independent of their American overlords purging Baghdad of its Sunni population and laying the foundation for a future Islamic state. Events are simply beyond Bush’s control. As author William Lind said recently, “The forces our invasion and destruction of the Iraqi state unleashed, far overpower any army we can deploy to Iraq, surge or no surge.”

The neocon plan to decimate Iraqi society by inciting sectarian violence (divide and conquer) was concocted long before the destruction of the Golden dome Mosque. In fact, the blowing up of the mosque was probably an attempt to disguise US involvement in the random bombings (markets, mosques, busy streets etc.) and death squad activity which soon spread throughout the Sunni heartland.

Consider Bush’s comments in his speech to the nation last week:

Nora Ephron Huffington Post

How to Foil a Terrorist Plot in Seven Simple Steps

One of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, said their motive was “to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters … We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our seas.”

Bush Has Gone AWOL

January 22, 2007, Washington, DC

Sign the petition! Bring our troops home!

Read the interview conducted by David Swanson,

Listen to the podcast with Tony Trupiano.

By David Swanson, PDA Board Member January 22, 2007, Washington , DC

Rep. McGovern Introduces HR 746 -

"Safe and Orderly Withdrawal from Iraq Act"

February 1, 2007, Washington , DC

FEINGOLD INTRODUCES

IRAQ REDEPLOYMENT ACT OF 2007

January 31, 2007

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO MAINTAIN ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ .

A New Realism in Iraq

Bill Richardson's 7 Point

New Realism Plan for Iraq:

By David Swanson, PDA Board Member
January 22, 2007, Washington , DC