Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditDid General David Petraeus today suggest that the war in Iraq may not make the United States safer?
During his second day of appearances on Capitol Hill, Petraeus this afternoon appeared before the Senate armed services committee. Fortified with charts and graphs, he presented the same we're-on-the-right-course pitch he delivered to the House armed services and foreign affairs committees (on Monday) and to the Senate foreign relations committee (this morning). During the Q&A round at the armed services committee, Senator John Warner, the Virginia Republican who used to chair the committee and who has called for beginning a disengagement in Iraq, took a few sharp (albeit respectful) jabs at Petraeus, noting that one intelligence report after another has said that political reconciliation in Iraq could be a bridge too far. He then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?
Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
That was, of course, a non-answer. And Warner wasn't going to let the general dodge the bullet. He repeated the question: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"
Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
Don't know? Is it possible that the war is not making the United States safer? Petraeus went on to note that he has "taken into account" the war's impact on the U.S. military and that it's his job to recommend to the president the best course for reaching "the objectives of the policy" in Iraq. Yet he did not say that the Iraq war is essential to the national security of the United States. Warner did not press the general any further on this point. The senator's time was up.
That was quite a statement from the fellow who is supposed to save Bush's war. He advocates pursuing Bush's course of action in Iraq but he cannot attest that this effort is crucial for America's safety. Is that being a good soldier?
******
CHECK OUT David Corn's recent interview with the anticorruption chief of the Iraqi government who was forced out of his job by Prime Minister Maliki and who claims the Maliki regime is so corrupt it ought to be abolished. Click here.
OUT IN PAPERBACK: 
"I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
well mr general, sir. you'd better give that salary back then because you are ripping off the taxpayer
you haven't thought about it!
i'm a friggin' canadian and i think about it everyday.
and crab, and ibble, and hammer, and jor, and jr, and mask, and dd, and and and and think about it every god damn day
even rio, and lvlib, and franksh, and and and and think about it every day.
what the hell are you made of? rubber.
i think i'm going to cry in my vomit
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 4:19pm
CORN: He then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?
Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
Maybe others can track down when the General was confirmed by the Senate...was he charged with "making America safer" or just Iraq? If I was the General, I maybe inclined to render my own opinion even knowing no matter what my opinion is, it will be politicized!
Come to think of it, Gen. P's non-answer is exactly the right answer......now, folks like David can speculate till kingdom come! LOL!
Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 4:20pm
"Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"
Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
Again, I just come back to that little theory of mine as to why the Right is pissed off so much on what SHOULD be their chance at gleefulness and apparent victory.
Did Petraeus...betray them? As noted by Mr Corn, he just gave a definitive "I don't know" as to the idea of us being safer because we went into Iraq and are there. That's a KEY TALKING POINT of the neo-cons/Right for years now....and the General just said "he doesn't know"...meaning there's room for it NOT to be true.
Throw in his call for removal of the Surge troops...the FIRST official Bush Administration/Pentagon call for ANY troop withdrawals....again, something that the Right has said will cause massive chaos and that even the HINT of any withdrawal will "signal we are ready to surrender".
Sure it's JUST the Surge Troops...but if the Surge was working...why not KEEP them in Iraq and "finish the job" "assure TOTAL victory", etc.????
No...they're being pulled because Bush HAS TO acede to SOME political realities and give the nervous Repubs something to run on in 2008. Which means the pull-out of the Surge troops is a POLITICAL calculation, not "strategery"....exactly what the Right has accused the Left (or any against the occupation) of when they call for a pull-out.
And now...Petreaus...hailed as the conquering hero...just said being in Iraq is "iffy" on whether it makes us safer or not.
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 4:25pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 4:20pm
HAPP, do you KNOW if us being in Iraq has made us safer?
Have you ever said so definitively?
If so, fair warning....
you're disagreeing with Petraeus and "attacking our military".
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
well he's not too safe in the house of credit cards this fiasco has created.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 4:33pm
Happy-The entire military is charged with making America safer.That is the only job they have.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/11/2007 @ 4:33pm
you're disagreeing with Petraeus and "attacking our military".
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
did you even read what I posted.....the General doesn't know or don't want to say....thus, Corn + MASK can speculate "till kingdom come"!
I havee my opinion and it's a "YES"! AQ has to spend an enormous amount of energy and focus on Iraq....it IS the cradle of Arab civilization and in terms of the ME, "location, location, location" can't be beat!
Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 4:35pm
Patreaus is an unpatriotic traitor. If I wasn't so blitzed on vicodins I'd get back on the radio and garble some more gibberish.
Posted by rushlimb at 09/11/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 4:35pm
Well, that's weird, HAPP. An novice, non-military man such as yourself is absolutely sure that "we're safer because we're in Iraq" and the man that is touted as "the best expert on Iraq"...."doesn't know"?!?!?!?
Hmm...so the two competing theories are "He can't say for certain, because it would be politicizing things"---HAPPY.
But he CAN say that Iraq is safer and that the Surge has worked and that he doesn't support a full withdrawal for years because....????
How about THIS for a theory---MASK- He can't say, because he'd either have to lie or DEFINITIVELY undercut the White House position by saying that we are NOT safer because we're in Iraq.
Mind you...mine's more simple and logical. Yours...???
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 4:50pm
It's the same as Gonzales' endless "I don't remember" but while wearing a far less tasteful suit. General Petraeus seems to be a good soldier and an honorable man. Nevertheless he is in fact participating in the circular finger-pointing game which does nothing but stall until Bush is out of office. And the answer to "who lost Iraq" becomes his Democrat successor. What a disgusting spectacle to watch.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/11/2007 @ 5:08pm
...yourself is absolutely sure that "we're safer because we're in Iraq"...
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 4:50pm
I can be very simple on things beyond my control...right now, today, I am exactly "6 years absolutely sure" and it is quite an easy connect-the-dots exercise that includes Iraq `dot'!
Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 5:13pm
it is quite an easy connect-the-dots exercise that includes Iraq `dot'!
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 5:13pm
And I'll bet you can pound a square peg into a round hole with your dick.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/11/2007 @ 5:34pm
With enough Viagra, of course.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/11/2007 @ 5:35pm
And the answer to "who lost Iraq" becomes his Democrat successor. What a disgusting spectacle to watch.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 09/11/2007 @ 5:08pm |
I think the dems are hoping to get credit for the ones who got us out of Iraq which is why they've been so complacent for the most part. There will be no question of who negligently got us there, who mismanaged things once we were there, and who ultimately lost the "war".
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/11/2007 @ 6:26pm
Ouch, Hillary is all over Betrayus-- with all the bad stats, he'll be hard pressed he says-- "in a year" to continue, but the situation is already where we are worse 'now' than 'last year', why is his answer 180 now? He's totally disingenuous, big time-- not to be believed. The whole hsuB/cHeney/Betrayus BS report is begging to be put down.
Sad day to commemorate 9/11 with yet more lies on top of the past lies and with only promises of future lies.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2007 @ 6:28pm
Ha, only 1-2% of the fighting being done is by al Qaeda in Iraq, that's al Qaeda created in Iraq after 2005, which means all the al Qaeda created elsewhere after 2003 are free to attack us here or Europe or wherever they are sans Iraq.
The only reason al Qaeda aren't here is the deal hsuB made to let him and and his family go and get out of Saudi Arabia.
Still no reason to be in Iraq except to make Haliburton/cHeney rich.
HA, use your head, people are dying for your stupidity.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2007 @ 6:42pm
Soldiers don't think about the right and wrong of things. They follow orders, period. I could not be a soldier because I could not go out and kill people just because I was told to. I would not drop bombs on houses, cities , schools etc. Gen. Petraeus is not paid to think about whether or not the war makes us safer, if generals thought about that sort of thing we wouldn't have one tenth of the wars that we have.
Posted by bansidh at 09/11/2007 @ 7:01pm
I vass only followink orderss.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/11/2007 @ 7:56pm
2-5 years from now, after he retires or the occupation is ove....I wonder if Petraeus will say something (as Gen. Batiste, Colin Powell, etc.) and suddenly the neo-cons/Right will think he's stupid or even a "traitor"?
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 8:26pm
uh... his JOB is to WIN the Iraq campaign--NOT the entire GWOT!! This question should be directed at the SOD or the Chairman of the JC--not Gen Petraeus. Isn't this obious?? Does David Corn DETERMINE what his publishers' agenda are??
Posted by marbiol at 09/11/2007 @ 9:13pm
GWOT!!
Posted by MARBIOL 09/11/2007 @ 9:13pm
i think it's about time for a global war on global wars on.*
"war and fight for less equality" -- WAFFLE
"campaign on ridiculous republican underhanded political tactics" -- CORRUPT
"fight over orbiting lasers" -- FOOL
GWOT the fuck has happened to people?
GWERE are we going?
GWEN will people wake up?
GWY do people think war will bring peace?
*never end a sentence a preposition with.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 10:02pm
General Petraeus knows damn well that the Iraq war is not making America safer. He knows that it's quite the contrary. I would be very disappointed in ANY General who couldn't understand that. Petraeus is no dummy but he's not a man of principle either.
A man of principle would say to the Congress, "We cannot win this war by military means alone, not even if we put another 200,000 troops on theground there. The war is not making America safer. It is making America and it's allies less safe because the terrorists are using it as a mass recruiting tool and are very successful in that regard. Also, this bit about fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here is also a crock. My CIC hasn't got a clue and we are losing precious lives because my CIC is an incompetent idiot. However if I speak out against him and his policy I will be on the outside looking in and my career will be sacrificed so I shut my mouth and answer questions by not really answering and hope to run the clock out. I'm real sad about the guys losing there lives."
Nothing short of that candid reply would gain my respect for General Petraeus.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/11/2007 @ 11:59pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/11/2007 @ 11:59pm
since when does congress listen to people of principle?
if you want their ear, go on down to k-street and start writing checks.
hey, i've got an idea. let's find one super-quintillionaire who actually wants peace. we convince him to start spreading cash around k-streetville until every last soldier is eating breakfast with her/his family.
yep, you want peace, buy it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 12:08am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/12/2007 @ 12:08am
Yeah, silly me. Doesn't anyone care about our troops lives anymore. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could enlist under this President anymore. He doesn't care about them and he prooves it every day.
Posted by frankgrits at 09/12/2007 @ 12:15am
I second the observation of what a sad sight this was on 9/11. The General hardly bothered to pause at disingenuousness, and went right straight on to bald-faced lies (Anbar province, anyone?). All to keep the war machines crunching onward. Meantime, the Democrats work for a "compromise" bill that gives Bush everything he wants.
And are we safer? If you were the commander of the primary forces in the Global War on Terror, do you suppose this question would ever cross your mind? And if it didn't, would you question what you were doing there in the first place?
Of course, it doesn't matter whether we're safer. Iraq was never a threat; I was sure of it, and it appears even Bush knew it. Iraq has something to do with us being safer? Please.
It wasn't even a relevant question. Maybe that's why the General couldn't answer. He'd forgotten about that whole "safer" thing.
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/12/2007 @ 02:40am
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 4:20pm
Happy
Just watching a replay of Petraeus on NPR here. Think with you and Ibbie that Petraeus gave the only answer that should have been given. He was perhaps both honest and a good negotiator of verbal minefields.
I liked his comprehensive data and the coherent way in which he draws his conclusions. He really is quite impressive and is not the usual run of the mill US general we are more accustomed to. There is little doubt that the Surge or a better use of the troops has resulted in substantial improvements in the military situation in Iraq. That information has been in the media for several months now from various sources, with different political orientations but it is much better to see it confirmed in the objective way Petraeus has done.
One can't help wondering how much better the situation in Iraq may have been if the same approach had been adopted from 2003. That would have meant sacking Rumsfeld right after the invasion. He was good at the war part but hopeless at dealing with the insurgency. An insurgency that may have been less debilitating for the US and Iraq had different strategies been adopted then.
As far as his opponents go it is the usual tactic of shooting the messenger when they don't like the message. A classic case of character assassination which is a lot easier than an intelligent rebuttal of the way he uses the data to draw his conclusions. They are the real threat to the American democratic system because, in cases like this, they not only debase the language with wild-eyed fanatical epithets but substitute slogans for valid reasons.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 04:15am
I liked Senator Byrd's question Did Iraq have anything to do with 911
Answer No
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 06:58am
THe Plans to Invade were drawn up BEFORE 9/11
The surge must go on, Petraeus to tell Congress
Naomi Klein on the age of disaster capitalism
Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'
Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse
Julian Borger in Washington Monday January 12, 2004 The Guardian
In the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a class of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too many uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for the president, the nerd is having his revenge. Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers led by vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit their political agenda.
Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification. As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings, describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'." The surge must go on, Petraeus to tell Congress
Naomi Klein on the age of disaster capitalism
Bush decided to remove Saddam 'on day one'
Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse
Julian Borger in Washington Monday January 12, 2004 The Guardian
In the Bush White House, Paul O'Neill was the bespectacled swot in a class of ideological bullies who eventually kicked him out for raising too many uncomfortable questions. Now, 13 months later at a critical moment for the president, the nerd is having his revenge. Mr O'Neill's account of his two years as Treasury secretary, told in a book published tomorrow and in a series of interviews over the weekend, is a startling tale of an administration nominally led by a disengaged figurehead president but driven by a "praetorian guard" of hardline rightwingers led by vice president Dick Cheney, ready to bend circumstances and facts to fit their political agenda.
Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification. As Mr O'Neill, who sat in countless national security council meetings, describes the mood: "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'."
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:06am
THEY MADE 9/11 happen to get the American people's Support
Now they're making the case to get support to attack Iran
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/09/07/01751.html
Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak?
Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.
Critically exploring whether or not there was a covert attempt to instigate a catastrophic nuclear war against Iran is illuminated through an introduction using the recent B-52 Incident. On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles travelled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana, in the United States. Each missile had an adjustable yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the lower end of the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13 kilotons, while the Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of 15,000 kilotons. The B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on 5 September after the nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen. LINK
What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world for servicing or positioning.
The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had been allowed to fly in the U.S. LINK. Since 1968, after a SAC bomber crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed aircraft have been grounded but were kept on a constant state of alert. After the end of the Cold War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991 that nuclear weapons were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in nearby facilities.
Recently, the Air Force began decommissioning its stockpile of Advanced Cruise missiles. The five nuclear weapons on the B-52 were to be decommissioned, and were to be taken to another Air Force base. An Air Force press statement issued on 6 September 2007, claimed that there "was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases."
Furthermore, the statement declared: "The Air Force maintains the highest standards of safety and precision so any deviation from these well established munitions procedures is considered very serious." The issue concerning how a nuclear armed B-52 bomber was allowed to take off and fly in U.S. air space after an 'error' in a routine transfer process, is now subject to an official Air Force inquiry which is due to be completed by September 14.
Three key questions emerge over the B-52 incident. First, did Air Force personnel at Minot AFB not spot the 'error' earlier given the elaborate security procedures in place to prevent such mistakes from occurring? Many military analysts have commented on the stringent security procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from occurring. Multiple officers are routinely involved in the transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of 'error' that allegedly occurred in the B-52 incident.
According to the U.S. Air Force statement, the commanding officer in charge of military munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen were relieved of duties pending the completion of the investigation. According to Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing the Advanced Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no conventional form exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been easily able to spot the mistake. Other routine procedures were violated which suggests a rather obvious explanation for the error. The military munitions personnel were acting under direct orders, though not through the regular chain of military command. This takes me to the second question
Who was in Charge of the B-52 Incident?
Who ordered the loading of Advanced Cruise missiles on to a B-52 in violation of Air Force regulations? The quick reaction of the Air Force and the issuing of a public statement describing the seriousness of the issue and the launch of an immediate investigation, suggests that whatever occurred, was outside the regular chain of military command. If the regular chain of command was violated, then we have to inquire as to whether the B-52 incident was part of a covert project whose classification level exceeded that held by officers in charge of nuclear weapons at Minot AFB.
The most obvious governmental entity that may have ordered the nuclear arming of the B-52 outside the regular chain of military command is the last remaining bastion of neo-conservative activism in the Bush administration.
Vice President Cheney has taken a very prominent role in covert military operations and training exercises designed for the "seamless integration" of different national security and military authorities to possible terrorist attacks. On May 8, 2001, President Bush placed Mr. Cheney in charge of "[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction, consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies". LINK. Mr. Cheney subsequently played a direct role in supervising training exercises that simultaneously occurred during the 911 attacks.
According to former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppert, Mr. Cheney had a parallel chain of command that he used to override Air Force objections to stand down orders that grounded the USAF during the 911 attacks, LINK.
Mr. Ruppert learned that the Secret Service had the authority to directly communicate presidential and vice presidential orders to fighter pilots in the air thereby circumventing the normal chain of command. (Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 428 - 429). Furthermore: "It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these are designated "National Special Security Events".LINK.
Mr. Ruppert and others have subsequently claimed that 911 was an "inside job;" and alleges Mr. Cheney through the Secret Service, played a direct leadership role in what occurred over 911. Consequently, it is very possible that Mr. Cheney could have played a similar role in circumventing the regular chain of military command in ordering the B-52 incident. The B-52 incident could be part of a contrived "National Special Security Event" directly controlled by Cheney by virtue of the alleged authority granted to him by President Bush, and through the Secret Service which at least theoretically, has the technological means to by pass the regular chain of military command. I now move to my third key question.
Why was the nuclear armed B-52 sent to Barksdale AFB?
If initial reports that the weapons were being decommissioned, but were mistakenly transported by a B-52 bomber, then the weapons should have been taken to Kirtland Air Force Base. According to Kristensen, this is "where the warheads are separated from the rest of the weapon and shipped to the Energy Department's Pantex dismantlement facility near Amarillo, Texas". LINK.
However, it has been revealed that Barksdale AFB is used as a staging base for operations in the Middle East, LINK.
This is circumstantial evidence that the weapons were being deployed for possible use in the Middle East.
There has been recent speculation concerning a possible attack against Iran given reports that the Pentagon has completed plans for a three day bombing blitz of Iran according to a Sunday Times report, LINK. The Report claims that 1200 targets have been selected and this will destroy much of Iran's military infrastructure. Such an attack will devastate Iran's economy, create greater political instability in the region, and stop the oil supply. A disruption of the oil supply from the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to the collapse of financial markets.
In a rather disturbing synchronistic development, there have been reports of billion dollar investments in high risk stock options in both Europe and the U.S. that would only be profitable if a dramatic collapse of the stock market were to occur before September 21. Similar stock options were purchased weeks before the 911 attack in 2001, and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible insider trading. The combination of the Sunday Times report and the Stock market option purchases is circumstantial evidence that plans for a concerted military attack against Iran have been secretly approved and covert operations have begun, LINK.
Seymour Hersh in May 2006 reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. .. "Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them.
Then the world came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.' LINK.
Given earlier opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is likely that the present attack plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon don't involve the use of nuclear weapons. In order to circumvent the regular chain of command, opposed to a nuclear attack, it is very likely that Vice President Cheney contrived a "National Special Security Event" that involved a nuclear armed B-52. This would have given him the legal authority to place orders directly through the Secret Service to the Air Force officers responsible for the B-52 incident.
Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident
Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of an apparent covert operation, outside the regular chain of constitutional military command. The alleged authority responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He very likely used the Secret Service to take charge of a contrived National Special Security Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that would be flown from Minot AFB. The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air Force base where it would have conducted a covert mission to the Middle East involving the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons most likely in or in the vicinity of Iran. This could either have occurred during a conventional military strike against Iran, or a False Flag operation in the Persian Gulf region.
Apparently, the leaking and discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 at Barksdale was not part of the script. According to a confidential source of Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official from the State Department and CIA, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was leaked. Johnson concludes: "Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking." LINK.
While the general public is likely to be given a watered down declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result in a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle East. The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President.
It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident will lead to an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given uncertainty whether other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned for use in the Middle East. Significantly, public officials briefed about the true circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly place enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign if it is found that he played the role identified above. It is therefore anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn that Cheney has resigned for health resigns.
The forthcoming September 14 U.S. Air Force report will likely describe the B-52 incident as an "error" and an "isolated incident" as foreshadowed in the September 6 Press Statement. This will create some difficulty in exposing the actual role played by Cheney and any other government figures that supported him. There will be a need for continued public awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident in order to expose the actual role of Mr. Cheney. Only in that way can Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and other government figures that supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed. Regardless of whether Cheney's role as the prime architect of the B-52 incident is exposed to the public, the official backlash against his covert operation should force his resignation. In either case, a very dangerous public official would be removed from a powerful position of influence. More importantly, the world has been spared a devastating nuclear war by courageous American airmen who revealed the true contents of an otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed for a covert nuclear mission to the Middle East.
Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.
About the author:
Michael E. Salla, M.A. Ph.D., is a former Assistant Professor in the School of International Service, American University, Washington D.C. He is the author of five books and founder of the Exopolitics Institute, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in Kona, Hawaii.
Further Reading
Michael Kane, "Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney," LINK
Larry Johnson, "Staging Nuke for Iran?", LINK
Michael Hoffman, "B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard," LINK
Michael Salla, Ph.D. "Will the U.S. Attack Iran Before September 21? - Are CIA Front Companies Investing $4.5 Billion to Profit from attacking Iran?", LINK
Edward Thomas, Lt. Col., "U.S. Air Force Statement on B-52 Nuclear Incident at Minot," PDF LINK
Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon (New Society Publishers, 2004).
Greg Webb, "US Bomber Mistakenly Flies with Nuclear Weapons", LINK
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:11am
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/09/07/01751.html
Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? [agoracosmopolitan.com]
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:13am
copy into microsoft box. Get full article with links.
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/09/07/01751.html
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:23am
http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-57.htm
Site navigation: · About this site · Papers by Dr. Salla · Initiatives · Courses / Certification · Calendar / Events · Shop · Media · Founder · Support our cause · Recommended Reading · Links
NEW DVD of the Extraterrestrial Civilisations and World Peace Conference.
Also recommended
Book information. Will the U.S. Attack Iran Before September 21? - Are CIA Front Companies Investing $4.5 Billion to Profit from attacking Iran?
There has been much recent speculation that the Bush administration is about to authorize a massive preemptive aerial assault against Iran. According to Alexis Debat, a national security expert, the Pentagon has prepared for airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran that would in three days destroy Iran's military infrastructure (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece ). Such an assault has been long in preparation and was recently fully completed according to a Navy whistleblower currently serving on a U.S. aircraft carrier. The whistleblower, a female officer, said that "all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth" (see: http://rense.com/general78/we.htm ). Asked why she would risk her career to disclose such sensitive information, she replied that most Naval officers are opposed to the strike but are ignored by more senior officials and the Bush administration.
What gives these reports of an imminent attack against Iran greater credibility is an August 2007 series of purchases of up to 4.5 billion dollars in particular type of stock called 'put options' and 'call options' which are based on a dramatic shift in the U.S. stock market (see: http://tinyurl.com/yw8q4f & http://tinyurl.com/ys2gcj ). Essentially, a "put option" is where an investor speculates that the market will drop dramatically, say 30-50%, whereas a "call option" is where the investor bets particular stocks will rise just as dramatically. If the stock fails to dramatically shift either up or down by September 21, then the investors stand to lose much from their investment. Such an investment is very unusual and has many market analysts puzzled as to why someone would risk such a large sum unless they had some insider information.
A similar stock market event happened in the weeks before 911 when anonymous investors made great profits when they successfully 'predicted' a dramatic drop in airline and insurances stocks, while also 'predicting' dramatic increases in stocks of corporations producing military armaments (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html ). The investments were so suspicious that they became subject to an insider trading investigation by U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) but the no one was ever identified or charged. This was despite a determined effort by the SEC to find who was behind the mysterious investments.
The parallels with 'put" and "call option" purchases just before 911 has led to much speculation that the recent $4.5 billion investment is based on insider knowledge of another 911 event before September 21. This has led to speculation that a catastrophic event is about to occur in the U.S. Another explanation for a dramatic shift in the stock market is that China will desert the US currency leading to a collapse in the US dollar. Both explanations would essentially lead to a collapse in some U.S. stocks, while other stocks would rise.
A more plausible explanation for the mysterious billion dollar investments is that hidden investors have insider knowledge that an attack against Iran will occur before September 21. If an attack occurred along the scale described by emerging reports, then the U.S. stock market would collapse as oil prices escalated dramatically. This would spark a global recession, and cause great hardship to many Americans who would find their investments and jobs at risk.
It is very likely that the planned massive aerial attack against Iran's military infrastructure and underground nuclear facilities will use bunker busting nuclear weapons. The question is, what can be done to prevent a preemptive military attack on Iran that may use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy its nuclear facilities?
In 2006, a similar effort to stage a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran was prevented by a revolt of the generals. According to Seymour Hersh:
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. …. "Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.' http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact .
It may be significant that General Peter Pace was not reappointed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pace was opposed to a nuclear strike against Iran. Was he not reappointed in order to clear the decks for a more permissive environment within the Joint Chiefs of Staff for an attack that could use tactical nuclear weapons? It appears so given the coincidence of reports of an imminent attack and purchase of $4.5 billion in stock options predicting a collapse in the US stock market.
The current military plans available to the public mention only conventional munitions but it is more likely that some tactical nuclear weapons will be used to take out Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities. The effect of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities would be devastating. Radioactive contamination would disperse widely affecting the health of many. At the same time, Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure would be destroyed by conventional munitions. This would restrict Iran's abilities to cope with the health and humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons, and destruction of nuclear facilities.
The question to be asked is "who are the hidden investors with insider knowledge that can gain them billions in short term profits?" This answer will give an important clue to the long term agenda being played out, and the actors involved. In the case of 911, similar investors were able to evade detection from an official investigation by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC launched an unprecedented investigation that deputized "hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector" (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html ). According to a former Los Angeles Police Officer, Michael Ruppert, what effectively happens when individuals are deputized is that they are sworn to secrecy on national security grounds. This was a very effective way of keeping secret what was discovered in the SEC investigation. What kind of investor would have the power to subvert an SEC investigation in this manner? The most likely answer is the CIA.
CIA front companies annually supply funds for a black budget used to fund covert national security projects . The black budget has been estimated to range between 1.0 to 1.7 trillion dollars annually which is funneled through the CIA to various military-corporate entities fulfilling such projects (see: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0401/S00151.htm ). The massive size of the black budget is needed to fund a second Manhattan Project - projects related to technologies so advanced that many claim them to be extraterrestrial in origin. Credible whistleblowers have come forward to claim the existence of such technologies and of a high level government cover up of extraterrestrial life (see: www.disclosureproject.com ). They claim that most Congressional officials are not briefed on extraterrestrial related projects due to national security concerns. Consequently, Congress is not aware of or permit appropriations for a second Manhattan Project, funds therefore need to be generated in alternative ways.
The CIA is able to perform this function of secretly raising revenue through the 1949 CIA Act which authorizes the CIA to expend funds "without regard to any provisions of law". The CIA therefore does not have to follow any legal requirements for the funds it procures from various sources, and funnels to military-corporate entities directly responsible for the second Manhattan project.
There needs to be public opposition to a preemptive military attack against Iran, and exposure of the underlying agenda behind it and those intending to profit from it. An informed public is the best safeguard against unwarranted abuses of executive power such as a preemptive attack against Iran that does not have the support of the American people or Congress. In addition to raising public awareness, it will be very helpful for individuals to project thoughts of peace and goodwill to the Middle East, and especially to Iran. The Princeton Project on Global Conscious Project at Princeton University has demonstrated the effect of large numbers of people placing their attention in ways that can impact on global events (see: http://noosphere.princeton.edu/ ). If millions of people could project a positive vision of peace and harmony to Iran and U.S. military forces in the region, then such a preemptive attack may be prevented.
The period leading up to September 21 will be critical for the whole planet as the signs are all too evident that a preemptive attack against Iran, almost certainly involving nuclear weapons, is imminent. The humanitarian cost in terms of possible radioactive fallout, and casualties from the destruction of Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure may be catastrophic for the Persian Gulf region. Furthermore, the U.S. and global economy will go into a deep free fall in the event of dramatic increases in oil prices and further instability in the Middle East. Out of this looming tragedy, investors with possible CIA connections and insider knowledge, plan to profit in ways that may be used to secretly fund a second Manhattan Project.
Michael E. Salla, Ph.D Kona, Hawaii 09/04/07 www.Exopolitics.Org
***
Forward as you wish. Permission is granted to circulate among private individuals and groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in full in all not-for-profit publications. Contact author for all other rights, which are reserved.
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:23am
http://rense.com/general78/we.htm http://rense.com/general78/we.htm
'We Are Going To Hit Iran...Bigtime' Maccabee 9-2-7
I have a friend who is an LSO on a carrier attack group that is planning and staging a strike group deployment into the Gulf of Hormuz. (LSO: Landing Signal Officer- she directs carrier aircraft while landing) She told me we are going to attack Iran. She said that all the Air Operation Planning and Asset Tasking are finished. That means that all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth. I asked her why she is telling me this. Her answer was really amazing... She started in the Marines and after 8 years her term was up. She had served on a smaller Marine carrier, and found out through a friend knew there was an opening for a junior grade LSO in a training position on a supercarrier. She used the reference and the information and applied for a transfer to the United States Navy. Since she had experience landing F-18Cs and Cobra Gunships, and an unblemished combat record, she was ratcheted into the job, successfully changing from the Marines to the Navy. Her role is still aligned with the Marines since she generally is assigned to liason with the Marine units deploying off her carrier group. Like most Marines and former Marines, she is largely apolitical. The fact is, most Marines are trigger pullers and most trigger pullers could care less who the President is. They simply want to be the tip of the sword when it comes to defending the country. She voted once in her life and otherwise was always in some forward post on the water during election season. Something is wrong with the Navy and the Marines in her view. Always ready to go in harms way, Marines rarely ever question unless it's a matter of tactics or honor. But something seems awry. Junior and senior officers are starting to grumble, roll their eyes in the hallways. The strain of deployments is beginning to hit every jot and tittle of the Marines and it's beginning to seep into the daily conversation of Marines and Naval officers in command decision. "I know this will sound crazy coming from a Naval officer", she said. "But we're all just waiting for this administration to end. Things that happen at the senior officer level seem more and more to happen outside of the purview of XOs and other officers who typically have a say-so in daily combat and flight operations. Today, orders just come down from the mountaintop and there's no questioning. In fact, there is no discussing it. I have seen more than one senior commander disappear and then three weeks later we find out that he has been replaced. That's really weird. It's also really weird because everyone who has disappeared has questioned whether or not we should be staging a massive attack on Iran." "We're not stupid. Most of the members of the fleet read well enough to know what is going on world-wise. We also realize that anyone who has any doubts is in danger of having a long military career yanked out from under them. Keep in mind that most of the people I serve with are happy to be a part of the global war on terror. It's just that the touch points are what we see since we are the ones out here who are supposedly implementing this grand strategy. But when you liason with administration officials who don't know that Iranians don't speak Arabic and have no idea what Iranians live like, then you start having second thoughts about whether these Administration officials are even competent." I asked her about the attack, how limited and so forth. "I don't think it's limited at all. We are shipping in and assigning every damn Tomahawk we have in inventory. I think this is going to be massive and sudden, like thousands of targets. I believe that no American will know when it happens until after it happens. And the consequences...whatever the consequences...they will have to be lived with. I am sure if my father knew I was telling someone in a news organization that we were about to launch a supposedly secret attack that it would be treason. But something inside me tells me to tell it anyway." I asked her why she was suddenly so cynical. "I have become cynical only recently. I also don't believe anyone will be able to stop this. Bush has become something of an Emperor. He will give the command, and cruise missiles will fly and aircraft will fly and people will die, and yet few of us here are really able to cobble together a great explanation of why this is a good idea. Of course many of us can give you the 4H Club lecture on democracy in the Mid East. But if you asked any of the flight officers whether they have a clear idea of what the goal of this strike is, your answer would sound like something out of a think tank policy paper. But it's not like Kosovo or when we relieved the tsunami victims. There everyone could tell you in a sentence what we were here doing." "That's what's missing. A real sense of purpose. What's missing is the answer to what the hell are we doing out here threatening this country with all this power? Last night in the galley, an ensign asked what right do we have to tell a sovereign nation that they can't build a nuke. I mean the table got EF Hutton quiet. Not so much because the man was asking a question that was off culture. But that he was asking a good question. In fact, the discussion actually followed afterwards topside where someone in our group had to smoke a cigarette. The discussion was intelligent but also in lowered voices. It's like we aren't allowed to ask the questions that we always ask before combat. It's almost as if the average seaman or soldier is doing all the policy work." She had to hang up. She left by telling me that she believes the attack is a done deal. "It's only a matter of time before their orders come and they will be sent to station and told to go to Red Alert. She said they were already practicing traps, FARP and FAST." (Trapping is the act of catching the tension wires when landing on the carrier, FARP is Fleet Air Combat Maneuvering Readiness Program- practice dogfighting- and FAST is Fleet Air Superiority Training). She seemed lost. The first time in my life I have ever heard her sound off rhythm, or unsure of why she is doing something. She knows that there is something rotten in the Naval Command and she, like many of her associates are just hoping that the election brings in someone new, some new situation, or something. "Yes. We're gong to hit Iran, bigtime. Whatever political discussions that are going on is window dressing and perhaps even a red herring. I see what's going on below deck here in the hangars and weapons bays. And I have a sick feeling about how it's all going to turn out." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/1/183018/1527
http://rense.com/disclaimer.htm
Disclaimer and Fair Use
The idea of a free press in America is one that we hold in the highest regard. We believe in bringing our site visitors and program listeners the widest possible array of information that comes to our attention. We have great trust and respect for the American people, and our worldwide audience, and believe them to be fully-capable of making their own decisions and discerning their own realities. Among the thousands of articles posted here for your consideration, there will doubtless be some that you find useless, and possibly offensive, but we believe you will be perceptive enough to realize that even the stories you disagree with have some value in terms of promoting your own further self-definition and insight. Our site is a smorgasbord of material...take what you wish and click or scroll right past that which doesn't interest you. We suggest you don't make 'assumptions' about our official position on issues that are discussed here. That is not what this site is about. We believe it to be unwise to sweep controversy under the carpet. We also firmly believe people should not only read material which they agree with. The opinions expressed through the thousands of stories here do not necessarily represent those of Mr. Rense, his radio program, his website, or his webmaster, Mr. James Neff. We are not going to censor the news and information here. That is for you to do. We strongly recommend not 'assuming' anything. Read, consider, and make your own informed decisions. People 'assumed' the Warren Commission report was accurate. It was not. People 'assumed' the Federal Government would never conduct biochemical experiments on the general populace. But it did, by the score. People 'assumed' the world was once flat.
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:26am
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0907/glick091207.php3
Where America and Iraq converge
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | General David Petreaus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker's long anticipated Congressional testimonies this week were edifying on two levels.
First they told us a lot about the complex and challenging nature of the war in Iraq today. In their presentations, the two men did not simply inform the Congress of the estimable, indeed amazing progress that coalition and Iraqi forces have made over the past several months since the new counter-insurgency surge strategy was adopted. They also highlighted the enormity of the challenges facing the US, and their coalition and Iraqi allies as they look to the future of the country.
The two men did not deliver their remarks in isolation. Their appearances on Capitol Hill came against the backdrop of shrill denunciations of Petreaus specifically and the war in Iraq in general. Those denunciations were orchestrated by deep pocketed left-wing anti-war activists and Democratic politicians who apparently march to the beat of activists' drummers (and bankrollers).
The Left's preemptive condemnations of Petreaus, and the Democratic politicians' continuation of the Left's attacks inside the committee chambers exposed the troubling direction that American politics have taken in the six years that have passed since legislators from both parties stood shoulder to should outside the Capitol building on September 11, 2001 and sang "G-d Bless America." And as Petreaus and Crocker's reports on the situation in Iraq today and the prospects for Iraq in the future make clear, the Democratic Party's embrace of radicalism has strategic repercussions for the prospects of the war in Iraq and for the future of global security as a whole.
As Ambassador Crocker explained, after 40 years of Ba'athist tyranny, Iraq emerged in 2003 as a traumatized and fractured society that still today is grappling with seemingly basic questions regarding its identity and its aspirations. Its ability to come up with reasonable answers to these basic, existential questions is limited by the war now besetting it. The forces battling in Iraq, of course seek through force to provide answers to those basic questions -- and their answers, obviously will not be good ones for Iraq, for the Middle East or for the world as a whole.
Petreaus and Crocker explained that in general, the US and its allies face two distinct enemy forces in Iraq today -- al Qaida in Iraq and Iranian-backed Shiite forces. As the stunning reversal of the security situation in the al Qaida infested Anbar province over the past several months shows, US forces have made great progress against the first enemy. The US wisely capitalized on tribal leaders' disaffection with al Qaida barbarism and worked with them to launch an offensive against al Qaida forces and bring the Sunni tribes into the political processes in Iraq. As a result of this cooperation, terror and insurgent attacks in Anbar, which as recently as last December was considered "lost" have gone down some 80 percent. Tribal warriors have joined the Iraqi security forces by the thousands. And for its part, the Shiite-dominated central government in Iraq, has embraced the Sunni reversal and is providing monetary and other assistance to the Sunni leaders in Anbar province.
On the other hand, there has been no decrease, indeed according to Crocker and Petreaus there has been an increase of Iranian-directed attacks in recent months. Characterizing Iran's role Petreaus said, "It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups [Shiite militias] into a Hizbullah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalitions forces in Iraq."
The disparity between al Qaida's defeats and Iran's Shiite counter-surge tells us something important about the difference between state-controlled operations and operations by non-state belligerents. It is true that al Qaida in Iraq has direct ties to Syria and Iran. Its leaders have ties to Syrian intelligence; its commanders in Iraq are largely directed by al Qaida's Shura Council in Iran; and it receives arms and funding from Teheran and Damascus.
But still there is a major difference between Iranian and Syrian sponsorship of al Qaida in Iraq and Iranian support for the Shiite militias in Iraq. Iran and Syria view al Qaida as a proxy of convenience. Although its war in Iraq serves their goal of preventing a post-Saddam Iraq from developing into a coherent, multi-ethnic, stable state governed by the rule of law, al Qaida is not an Iranian (or Syrian) organization. From their perspective, its contribution to the war effort against the US and its Iraqi allies is good for as long as it lasts.
In contrast, Muqtada el-Sadr's Mahdi Army, the Dawa Party and Badr Brigades are agents of the Iranian regime. And of course Hizbullah and the Iraqi Special Groups are part of the Iranian regime.
Petreaus noted that both the US and the Iraqis were surprised by the depth of Iran's involvement in the war. But they needn't have been. Iraq and Iran, with their historic competition for primacy in the Persian Gulf and in Shiite Islam have always been integrally and competitively linked. In the 1980s, recognizing the hostility of both countries to US national security interests, the Reagan administration wisely adopted a policy of dual containment towards them.
Unfortunately, in 2003, the US ignored the interconnectedness of the fates of the two countries and so it adopted divergent policies towards them. While Iraq was confronted, Iran was ignored. Over time, the US policy of neglecting Iran eventually was replaced by a policy of appeasement. This divergence in US policy towards the two countries enabled Iran to renew its traditional bid for control over Iraq just as it was making moves towards regional domination through its nuclear weapons program, its cooptation of the Syrian regime, the expansion of its military and political influence over Lebanon through Hizbullah, and its sponsorship of the Palestinian war against Israel.
Iran's offensive moves in Iraq point to one of the most basic strategic complexities of the entire battle in Iraq. Specifically, Iraq does not exist in isolation. It is part of the Arab and Islamic worlds. The pathologies plaguing post-Saddam Iraq are not merely the consequence of his brutal totalitarianism. There are also consequences of the pathologies that have taken hold of the Arab and Muslim world since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire 90 years ago. As a result, the American goal of shepherding the development of a democratic, stable post-Saddam Iraq governed by the rule of law, while the rule of the jackboot, the mullah and the imam remain the order of the day in neighboring countries has always been problematic.
With Petreaus and Crocker's openness in acknowledging Iran's central role in the war in Iraq, we are seeing for the first time a strategic admission that it is counterproductive to view Iraq in isolation from its neighbors. And this acceptance of the regional nature of the war in Iraq exposes one of the central risks inherent in the US's current counter-insurgency strategy in Iraq.
Perhaps the central component of the US strategy for stabilizing Iraq is its organization and training of the Iraqi army and police forces. While the majority of Iraq's security forces are loyal to their commanders and to the central government, and support coalition forces they fight with, many of the Iraqi units have been infiltrated by enemy forces -- most prominently, by members of Iranian-sponsored Shiite militias.
As Petreaus and Crocker warned this week, if the US Congress or the next administration decides to pull the plug on US-led efforts in Iraq, the results will be horrendous. Both men warned that a rapid withdrawal of US forces will likely cause the disintegration of the country, and Iran can be trusted to snatch key pieces of Iraq for itself. But beyond that, a USwithdrawal would also set adrift nearly half a million US-trained and armed forces who will undoubtedly seek out new sponsors.
The implications of the disintegration of the Iraqi forces for regional and indeed global security are terrifying to imagine and the policy ramifications of such an eventuality are clear. If the US plans on a quick exit from the country, the best thing it could do is stop training and arming the Iraqi army.
This brings us to the strategic danger implicit in the raw hostility and strategic irrationality of the American Left towards everything related to the Iraq campaign, which was expressed so openly in Congress and in the liberal US media this week. When a formerly responsible Congressional leader like the Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos prefers to belittle Petreaus and call for speedy withdrawal of US forces and a "diplomatic surge" involving negotiations with Syria and Iran, to accepting the responsibilities of US global leadership in time of global war, it is clear that something horrible has happened to the Democratic Party.
As the Wall Street Journal put it on Tuesday, the hard Left, which seems to have been catapulted to the leadership of the Democratic Party, "sees politics as not so much an ongoing struggle but a final competition." The Journal continued, "Under these new terms, public policy is no longer subject to debate, discussion and disagreement over competing views and interpretations. Instead, the opposition is reduced to the status of liar. Now the opposition is not merely wrong, but lacks legitimacy and political standing. The goal here is not to debate, but to destroy."
Much criticism has properly been heaped on the lap of the Maliki government in Iraq for failing to make critical political progress that could improve the long-term prospects for post-Saddam Iraq. Governmental competence is imperative because as Petreaus explained, "the fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power at resources." Petreaus continued, "The question is whether the competition takes place more -- or less -- violently."
What is notable about Petreaus's statement is that it can be equally applied to all countries. Politics and warfare are both about the relative distribution of power. What separates democracies from tyrannies and failed states is that democracies determine power's distribution through deliberation and debate while tyrannies and failed states are governed by the rule of the gun and the laws of the jungle.
That the political party now in control over both houses of Congress, and well-positioned to form the next administration seems to have discarded this basic truth is far more dangerous for Iraq, the Middle East and indeed the entire world, than the chronic weakness, incompetence, double dealing and corruption of the Maliki government or any successor government.
The strategy that the US has adopted in Iraq, that has met with such success even in the brief time it has been operative is a long-term strategy. Unless the Democrats regain their senses, it will be difficult for anyone to trust that the US won't simply abandon Iraq and with it, its responsibility as the leader of the Free World in the midst of a global war.
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:27am
Israeli security has been adapted by the Vice President as a cover for control of oil and drugs.
His officials wrote this in Rebuilding America's Defense:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
"... the art of warfare ... will be vastly different than it is today ... "combat" likely will take place in new dimensions ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
From 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' the leading policy "white paper" of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which has essentially dictated Bush regime "defense" policies since early 2001:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Strange: Genocide is against international law, yet there it is in American policy!
http://www.peace.ca/racetargetablebioweapons.htm
On Race-Targetable Biological Weaponry by John Wilmerding 10 August 2003 15:51 UTC
------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------
You may have wondered about the recent suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly, a microbiologist in the UK with connections high in the Tony Blair administration.
What did he know? What did he say .... when, and to whom? Was he killed because he 'knew too much'?
"... former member of the Knesset (Israeli parliament), Dedi Zucker, caused a storm ... when he claimed that the institute (the Institute for Biological Research, one of the most secret places in Israel).was "trying to create an ethnic specific weapon" in which Arabs could be targeted by Israeli weapons."
A suspicious pattern of deaths of prominent microbiologists has emerged around the world, but especially highly-advanced researchers connected with the USA, the UK, Russia, and Israel, and who were known to be familiar with this arcane branch of germ weapons research.
Are these people being killed in order to hush a scandalous, monstrous fact of recent research in this field -- that secret services in major countries are investigating how to kill off whole races of people with germ weapons -- even developing the means to do that?
What accounts for the appearance of AIDS (HIV), and now SARS, which have predominantly victimized people of other than European ancestry? That may not really apply, but what of the facts in this matter? Do people high up in Israeli and US government really intend to develop germ weapons that will selectively attack or kill off certain races of people?
The fake presidency -- the Bush regime -- is known to be influenced by individuals who advocate this kind of research ... in fact, specifically calling for the "political usefulness" of gene-targetable bio-weapons (see the quote and reference below). Several of these individuals have strong links to Israel; possibly even dual citizenship:
Here is a quote from their most important policy document:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
"... the art of warfare ... will be vastly different than it is today ... "combat" likely will take place in new dimensions ... advanced forms of biological warfare that can "target" specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool."
From 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' the leading policy "white paper" of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), which has essentially dictated Bush regime "defense" policies since early 2001:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
This is why I call them PNACzi's.
they even also pointed out funding for war would not be forthcoming unless there be a "New Pearl Harbor"
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:37am
Jim Fetzer's Scholarsfor911/truth
has this interesting series of articles for your viewing:
http://911scholars.org/
New Studies Purdue 9/11 Animation: Politics, not Science 23 June 2007, Nick Irving, Scholars for 9/11 Truth
POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF 9/11 TV FAKERY:
"SEPTEMBER CLUES" (video) in six parts:
SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 1 "THE 911 NEWSWMEDIA COVERAGE" http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/6F393F4DE41C4CF798CBB438E63 78129/september-clues-part1.aspx
SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 2 "THE FLYING TELEPHANTS" http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/2CE2112F00F24F4182C73582D0F 89949/september-clues-part2.aspx
SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 3 "OF MISSILES AND MEN" http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/E0E8DC73928D42D4A01CF664B22 E16B5/september-clues-part3.aspx
SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 4 "THE DENSE COINCIDENCE DANCE" http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/3F706266A8524D6AA3CCC4CFC2F 0F257/september-clues-part4.aspx
SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 5 "17 SECONDS" http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/0A68FD7C73F8440E9CDCAE38D86 C5129/september-clues-part5.aspx
SEPTEMBER CLUES, Part 6 "FORGERIES INC." http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/C69E733A247346FE94FCA7A0EC0 1945F/september-clues-part6.aspx
3 September 2007 Interview: Jim Fetzer and Yvonne Wachter are the special guests of Meria Heller on "The Meria Show," discussing the air strike that killed Saddam Hussein archived mp3 (transcript)
11 April 2007 Interview: Yvonne Wachter will be the guest of Jim Fetzer on "The Dynamic Duo" (transcript) 3-5 PM/CT, GCN: gcnlive.com
Capt. Chris Wachter, B-1 Pilot Telephone Interviews 8 April 2003, 405th Air Expeditionary Wing, Pentagon Briefing http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2324
Saddam Hussein 'May' Be Dead or Severely Injured, Bush Says 25 April 2003, American Forces Press Service, Kathleen T. Rhem http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030425-afp s01.htm
Cheney says he believes Hussein is dead 8 May 2003, baltimoresun.com http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-te.hussein08.0.439 1237.story?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil
Capt. Wachter at the Crystal Cathedral, The Hour of Power 25 May 2003, recorded and broadcast on 6 July 2003 (video 1 , video 2 ) http://www.hourofpower.org/video/archive/various2003.html
Mrs Saddam says Saddam is not Saddam 18 June 2004, prisonplanet.com, Joe Vialls http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/june2004/061804saddamnotsaddam.htm
Shaddam Shaddam's New Vaudeville Scam! 3 July 2004, subliminalsuggestion, Joe Vialls http://www.vialls.com/subliminalsuggestion/saddamscam.html http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/05-16-05/discussion.cgi.50.html http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=104&contentid=4034
When is Saddam not Saddam? 15 July 2004, Reader Weekly, Jim Fetzer http://www.assassinationscience.com/When_is_Saddam_not_Saddam.pdf
Who's That Man? 20 October 2005, thetruthseeker.co.uk, Rixon Stewart http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3717
Braggadocio 29 September 2006, military.com, Oliver North http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,115181,00.html
World's Worst: Tony Snow Spins "Mission Accomplished"? 9 January 2007, Press Briefing and Comment by Keith Olbermann http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070109-2.html http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/10/worlds-worst-tony-snow-spins-mi ssion-accomplished/
Happy "Mission Accomplished" Anniversary 2 May 2007, LewRockwell.copm, James Boyard http://www.lewrockwell.com/bovard/bovard44.html
From Turkey questioning the identity of "Saddam" http://www.uslanmam.com/89620-post1.html
3 September 2007 Interview: Jim Fetzer and Yvonne Wachter are the special guests of Meria Heller on "The Maria Show," discussing the air strike that killed Saddam Hussein archived mp3
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:46am
....."Yet all those, including Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, who reject the surge strategy and advocate staged withdrawal are wilfully ignoring the fact that coalition forces remain in Iraq because of their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) to ensure the security of Iraqis until the Iraqi Government is capable of taking over. This has been mandated by a succession of unanimously passed Security Council resolutions, most recently resolution 1723 of November last year. However much Australians might wish that we could just walk away from Iraq, for both strategic and moral reasons we are obliged to stabilise the country before we leave."
The above is an excerpt from The Australian editorial, 12th Sept, "The West Must Stand by Iraq" that editorial excerpt claims the US (Coalition) has UN treaty obligations to stay in Iraq until it is stabilised? Who's for supporting the UN on this issue?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/ 0,25197,22402965-16741,00.html
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 07:47am
I don't want to defend Patraeus for his lack of statement, but it is not the policy of military personnel to dictate U.S. international policy. The military folks are supposed to provide military solutions to problems thrown at them from their bosses. They don't really have a choice once the decision over their head has been made. Remember, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the U.S. so of course the general isn't going to step on the president's feet.
Having said that, the president keeps sidestepping the issues by saying that people in D.C. shouldn't be making decisions about what is going on in Iraq where that is exactly what he is doing on a daily basis. If the generals under Bush don't fall in line, they are fired pronto. Even if the generals fall in line, and Bush doesn't like the outcome, or needs a scapegoat, they are fired. That is why nobody wanted to be in command over there.
This is Bush and Cheney's war folks. Patraeus didn't start this thing and probably won't be in the position when it ends either. This is just more of the Bush administrations song and dance routine.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 07:48am
Even a non intellectual person could see the faking going on
http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2007/09/261469.shtml
9/11 The lie Bush used for endless war
author: community effort Sep 01, 2007 07:33
Much is made of Senator Craig's hypocrisy. What of the Press hypocrisy in not examining the facts of 9/11? What about the Congressional hypocrisy of acting to impeach these criminals?
Hands up
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/allcomments?pid=228800#pid228927
Consensual sex among adults is not criminal.
No crime was committed. hypocrisy obvious though.
The press hypocrisy is worse. It is complicit in a crime of helping
cover-up the Crimes of the Bush administration !
http://www.assassinationscience.com/When_is_Saddam_not_Saddam.pdf
Judge for yourself.A Picture tells a thousand words, we are getting some very good pictures here of how TV is influencing America to believe the totalitarian lies of Big Brother, the New World Order! [assassinationscience.com]
C ompare preinvasion photos of Sadamn with the double who was tried and hung. [assassinationscience.com]
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 07:50am
How has occupying a country that was no threat to us, at a cost of 4000 lives and almost 1/2 trillion dollars, made us safer?
Still don't make any sense. None. Zero, zip.
So, Petraeus cannot answer in the affirmative. Unlike many of his predecessors, and most members of ChimpCo, at least he did not bald face lie.
I am once again amused at the war mongers desire to kiss ass to anything in a uniform. This is Petraeus' Plan. Of course it is working, do you think he would come back and say "Sorry, I was wrong, my bad."? Not only is he not bloody likely to do that, ChimpCo does not EVER allow that kind of talk.
And, once again, IF everything goes right and IF we pray hard enough, MAYBE troop levels will return to spring 2007 levels in the summer of 2008. This is progress?
What a crock-O- Stimpy!!
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 07:53am
What the military will need in 2008 is more recruits.
I nominate:
LRJONES, HAPPYCWARD, RIOCOWARDO, DAVEB, LUVSDESPOTS WOODYEE and his Tickle me Elmo doll, HONESTLIBERAL, PONTIFICUS and LENMOSSE.
That should help. But, we need a squadron name. That is the class assignment today, come up with a good name for our heros to use as they go into battle so their grandkids won't have to.
Show me what you got, Nation bloggers. Lots of room for fun here.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
THis leaves the question Where is the real Sadamn?
Probably in South America with all the other nazis.
Maybe on Bush's 17000 acres he recently purchased there.
They could bring him back to lead Iraq and let him fight Iran.
Posted by Rese at 09/12/2007 @ 08:00am
how u doing, jr?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/11/2007 @ 8:07pm | ignore this person
I am well, thank you. I have turned my freshly painted dinette and foyer in my apartment into an art gallery, where I am showing my latest pictures. I wish I could invite all my friends here to stop by.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 08:06am
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
I sincerely wish I could re-enlist and go. It would be an honor.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/12/2007 @ 08:51am
JR....have you tried either of these sites to show off your work??
www.photosig.com
or
www.artsig.com
Posted by Sliver at 09/12/2007 @ 08:59am
What I am about to say is so obvious that I am almost embarrassed to say it. Should not the Iraqi people be allowed to vote on a referendum to decide whether the US should stay or go? Our government made such a big deal about free elections in Iraq, and we saw so many images of smiling Iraqi citizens proudly extending their ink stained thumbs after their elections that it warmed nearly all American's hearts. I suggest we repeat that happy picture. From my perspective, expressions of either support for or discontent with the American occupation have been largely anecdotal. We ought to employ our military to ensure the fairest vote possible, and let the people of Iraq express their opinion about whether or not the United States should continue to occupy their country. If the majority truly want us to stay, the administration and its supporters will be vindicated, otherwise we should make a quick and orderly exit from their country. I think the war was wrong from the outset, and our forces should leave Iraq, but it should not be up to me or other Americans to decide the fate of the Iraqis. I think an Iraqi referendum on our continued occupation would be great for both Iraq and the United States. Iraq would get what its majority truly wants, and the United States can save face, since we would either stay with the endorsement of the occupied people or we could abide by the Iraqi people's wishes and leave without appearing to have suffered defeat at the hands of the insurgents.
Posted by raaustin at 09/12/2007 @ 09:27am
Show me what you got, Nation bloggers. Lots of room for fun here.
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
"FINGERTIP FIGHTING FORCE"
the FFF (apologies to FREI, just coincidence)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 09:29am
Posted by RAAUSTIN 09/12/2007 @ 09:27am |
yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes.
BTW excellent idea
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 09:31am
thanks, Sliv.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 09:44am
Crabster, I think I have a good one. How about the Chair Bourne Rangers Unit. We used to call the administrative people in the Air Force that, but in this case, I think the name is somewhat fitting. The sit at their computers and wage war at a very very long distance.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 09:44am
yes. yes. yes. yes.
BTW excellent idea
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/12/2007 @ 09:31am
Frosty, I agree with your enthusiasm, but dude, your post reads like you are about to hit the finish tape.
I would point out that the idea is great, and obvious which is why nobody Washington has pointed it out. They wish to make the outcome of the Iraqi people dependent upon what they decide. I've wondered the same thing, but keep coming to the same conclusion every time.
So, either we have the biggest idiots running this country, or they or so full of their own power grabbing mindsets to let a simple choice like this fall into the hands of those really involved in the situation.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 09:56am
Posted by RAAUSTIN 09/12/2007 @ 09:27am
Sorry, RAAUS, but the Iraqi Parliament and al-Maliki would never allow such a referendum. They know how it'd go....atleast a majority, if not a STRONG majority for pull-out.
But right now, what keeps those parliamentarians safe in the Green Zone and from either being killed or having to take up a rifle themselves and fight their own fight in the civil war are....our troops.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:12am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/12/2007 @ 09:56am
i never thought it would happen.
i'm optimistic, but not naïve. i know that this has been planned in war rooms and board rooms for a long, long, time.
it's just that here, in this wonderful "place", people of all political stripes say "america, american, and america"
which has some logic given the nationality of the posters, but it lacks compassion for those that are really* (i mean REALLY) living this.
i've always tried to express the idea that "iraq, iraqi, iraq" was a much better place to start, but have had little response.
*not to diminish the danger u.s. troops face. but when their tour is over they still have a home to go to (for a while).
thanks
FZ
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 10:14am
I don't blame Petraeus for being confused by the question. After all, Iraq has nothing to do with American safety. It wasn't undertaken to make us safer or to combat terrorism. It was undertaken to further American hegemony in the Middle East. So the general's answer is, technically, the correct one: his job is to impose Bush's will onto Iraq, and that is what he was reporting on.
That said, it is my opinion that the Iraq war has either not changed our level of safety, whatever that means, or has made us less safe. Either means that the war, alas, was a waste of hundreds of billions of tax dollars and an unnecessary sacrifice of many, many lives. And we may have installed a government in Baghdad that is MORE likely than Saddam was to cooperate with or provide aid to international terrorist organizations.
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/12/2007 @ 10:33am
Posted by BLUESPARK 09/12/2007 @ 10:33am
He couldn't answer "yes" or "no", if he wanted to.
Say "yes" and he boosts the Right's argument, but then has to explain exactly HOW being in Iraq has made us safer.
Say "no" and he undercuts a prime Administration and neo-con argument. Even saying "It's not certain one way or the other" and he undercuts their argument by painting it as "up for debate", something they're not able to to.
So...he HAS to say "I don't know" and only dent that argument slightly.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:37am
That is the class assignment today, come up with a good name for our heros to use as they go into battle so their grandkids won't have to.
You mean so their grandkids WILL have to, right? After all, continual war is the Bush doctrine.
My entry: The Very Special Forces
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/12/2007 @ 10:37am
CRAB,
are we allowed multiple entries?
how's "TEAM AMERICA" [teamamerica.com]
after all, there just puppets
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007 @ 08:06am
Post some pictures for us somewhere.
Posted by drhammer at 09/12/2007 @ 11:04am
Hammer, thank you for your interest. the show is up for two more mondays, and will be followed by a posting.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 11:31am
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
How's business Crabs? A bit of a diversion like your latest effort may temporally cheer up the spirits of your flagging troop, which has been more or less Petra-derailed. Whether that will last for a year or two or a decade or two, we're not saying as we intend to follow the Petraeus/Crocker approach of not prematurely spilling the beans. But stay tuned, for like all good soldiers, we wont be backward in coming forward when the "circumstances on the ground" require such a tactic.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 11:44am
As far as his opponents go it is the usual tactic of shooting the messenger when they don't like the message. A classic case of character assassination which is a lot easier than an intelligent rebuttal of the way he uses the data to draw his conclusions.
Posted by LRJONES4 09/12/2007 @ 04:15am
We'll be sure to keep this thought in mind when the topic is the environment and the messenger is Al Gore.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/12/2007 @ 11:59am
i've often thought that the nation should throw a party for the blog response pit fiends (being careful, of course, to assure none of us got any personal information on any of them, of course...lol
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/12/2007 @ 11:43am
i've thought about it, too.
we could do it like speed-dating.
no names allowed, everybody gets a #
five minutes with each poster, face to face, no personal questions, just politics.
after everybody has talked to everybody, we could vote on who is who.
for ex. :
17 votes say #12 is Frosty Zoom
3 votes say #12 is Rio Bravo
etc.,
let's see if we are what we speak.
BTW we could all meet in one of these places:
The geographical center of the lower 48 states lies outside of Lebanon, Kansas, in the middle of a hog farm.
The geographical center of all 50 states is located 17 miles west of Castle Rock, South Dakota.
The geodetic center of the U.S. is found approximately 42 miles south of Lebanon, Kansas. (Note: A geodetic survey makes corrections to account for the curvature of the Earth.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 12:20pm
We'll be sure to keep this thought in mind when the topic is the environment and the messenger is Al Gore.
Posted by HMAN23 09/12/2007 @ 11:59am
ka-ching!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 12:21pm
Posted by HMAN23 09/12/2007 @ 11:59am
Slight difference, HMAN. Petraeus isn't saying "the Surge is working"...but putting his money on oil prices going up or spending his time in Kuwait or someplace safe. (analogy not the best, but you get it).
Gore is talking the "Inconvenient" talk...while walking the limousine and Gulfstream private jet and "carbon credit" walk.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 1:03pm
ever read franken's liars book? there's a part with all the original gangsta neocons in a unit in vietnam thats a hoot.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007
JR, Yes, I've read that book and found that part pretty damn funny. I like where (I think it's Rush) Rush Limbaugh is crapping all over himself. That whole book was dead on target with these jackasses. Franken should win just on those merits.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 1:34pm
i've never read mr franken's books (didn't even know they existed).
i found these four in my local library's catalogue:
The truth (with jokes)
Lies : (and the lying liars who tell them) : a fair and balanced look at the right
Oh, the things I know! : a guide to success, or, failing that, happiness
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot and other observations
THIS is why i pay taxes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 1:54pm
Ok, if this were the mission to the moon, Betrayus would be doing the hsuB argument of why we needed to to send yet another mission to the moon because the last 38 are still there and we might be able to figure out how to get them back next year...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:00pm
And you're asking him if he thinks it's safe!?!?!?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
Mask -
It's still shooting the messenger rather than the message, which was my point.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
ever read franken's liars book? there's a part with all the original gangsta neocons in a unit in vietnam thats a hoot.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007
JR, Yes, I've read that book and found that part pretty damn funny. I like where (I think it's Rush) Rush Limbaugh is crapping all over himself. That whole book was dead on target with these jackasses. Franken should win just on those merits.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/12/2007 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person
this is a mistake. I did not post this. I have never read any of Franken's books.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 2:18pm
Posted by HMAN23 09/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
See, I don't know if I buy that cop-out...and I think it is one.
You would surely go after some "draft age" neo-con saying we all need to support the war, but who "has other plans" and won't join up....why not Gore?
Think he's not got a laundry list of things THE REST OF US "need to do" to help cut back on CO2 that he rattles off in his speeches....do we just ignore the fact that he's taking a 8 mpg limo to the airport, to board his private jet burning a couple hundred gallons of fuel between speeches....when there's plenty of hybrid SUVs and AMTRAK that he could use?
If the messenger is a hypocrite...shoot the sumbitch, I say.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 2:31pm
I was driving back and forth from Austin to Bostin a few years back and was lent Franken's Liars audio book. He actually tells it well too. It was the winter with lots of ice and snow and I almost went into a skid drive over the Appalachians when he explained Limppaws excuse of a pilonidal cyst. Talk about two skids for the price of one...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:44pm
If the messenger is a hypocrite...shoot the sumbitch, I say.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 2:31pm
So you're suggesting assasination of Betrayus and the hsuB/cHeney admin?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:46pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SxOXndrw0yE
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 3:05pm
If the messenger is a hypocrite...shoot the sumbitch, I say.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person
This is the arguement that makes virtually no sense to me.
On the one hand, we have folks like Gore and even Ah'nold, who are actually DOING something, writing legislation, research, books, movies, lectures, etc. But, still own and drive multiple Hummers, take jets, etc. and only seek 'carbon credits' as an offset.
On the other hand, we have Fred Thompson who openly macks the entire body of science on the subject, denigrates those who express concern, openly opposes doing anything of substance, etc. But is consistant in his opposition.
And you think it's people like Gore who need get the "...shoot the sumbitch" treatment...while Fred and the rest get a complete pass?
Seriously, do you think that makes sense?
Posted by Lillian at 09/12/2007 @ 3:10pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/12/2007 @ 2:46pm
Have you missed me, HSUB? I wasn't ignoring you, just didn't feel like saying...
49 days to go.....
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 3:19pm
LRJONES
There is little doubt that the Surge or a better use of the troops has resulted in substantial improvements in the military situation in Iraq.
On the contrary, there is very considerable doubt. The NYTimes did an pi ece [nytimes.com] highlighting the different takes on this subject.
From Gen. Jones's commission "Violence has sharply declined in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province -- the former stronghold of the insurgency. But attacks have risen in Diyala, Balad, Basra and Amara. Violence remains endemic in Baghdad, despite measurable gains made since February."
From th