Blue Collar Politics

[BREAK] Well, the nukes will fly now. If Rove/Cheney think that there is a 1% chance that the blubbering idiot in Chief would EVER be forced to speak, aloud, about important policy in a debate with a smart, albeit crazy, opponent, they'd rather have the Chimp in Chief grab the nuclear football and make the biggest Hail Mary pass in history. A nuclear war just might leave a few Bushies surviving. A debate with Ahmadinejad would have GW dissolve into a puddle the minute the US staged [and Teddy Roosevelt's grandson, Kermit, led "Operation Ajax"] "revolt" against democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and the puppet Shah who was his "replacement" came up. [/BREAK]

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Ahmadinejad condemns UN and challenges Bush to debate Robert Tait in Tehran Wednesday August 30, 2006 The Guardian Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Photograph: Abedin Taherkenareh/EPA President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran brushed off a looming UN deadline to suspend a key part of his country's nuclear programme by dismissing the international body as an illegitimate tool of Britain and America. In a press conference in Tehran yesterday, Mr Ahmadinejad restated his determination to continue Iran's nuclear activities, which the west suspects is aimed at producing an atomic bomb. "The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path ... no one can prevent it," he said. More Here

[BREAK] So, we illegaly strip searched and subjected the Venezuelan Foreign Minister to a rough interrogation First, you must remember that the US does not submit to any International Law. Hell, we've reneged on a passel of signed treaties since Bush took over, never mind something as hampering as International Law. Acting like a "good neighbor" is something for lesser [wimp] countries. Second, Bush is trying to constantly goad Chavez, so Bush will have red-meat, provocative" quotes to hide behind when we either assassinate Hugo or invade Venezuela, our #1 supplier of imported oil. Of course, as with every policy decision made since the Bush regime coup in 2000, the first reaction was to spout lies:

Chavez: U.S. Detained Foreign Minister - washingtonpost.com By NATALIE OBIKO PEARSON The Associated Press Saturday, September 23, 2006; 10:09 PM CARACAS, Venezuela -- Venezuela's foreign minister was detained by U.S. authorities at a New York airport for more than hour Saturday as he tried to return to the South American country, President Hugo Chavez said. U.S. and U.N. officials called the incident regrettable but said Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro had been identified for "secondary screening," a security check that can kick in when a passenger arrives without a ticket.

So, as of 10:09 PM last night, we said the Ambassodor was only subjected to a "secondary screening that can kick in when a passenger arrives without a ticket." Well, if a strip search, threats and rough interrogation awaits everyone who arrives at JFK without their ticket, I'd advise you to MAKE DAMN SURE YOUR TICKET IS STAPLED TO YOUR BODY! Of course, this morning the Bushies realized that about the only area where America has improved security is at the airports, which seems to mean there is at least one, if not many, security cameras covering every square inch of the terminals. And, I'm guessing that they then realized that unlike mythical WMD, the Foreign Ministers story would only take minutes to verify. Hence, this morning's about face, with the Bush regime suddenly issuing an apology for an incident it, and the UN, denied ever happened. Now, put on your thinking caps. Try to imagine Bush's reaction had Condi Rice been forced through a strip search and rough interrogation on an official UN business trip in Venezuela. (Never mind telling me that Laura Bush would be amuzed. I meant "Try to imagine GW Bush's reaction . . . ") [/BREAK] =====

[BREAK] This morning's Washington Post has a must read article by David Brown, that is derived from an AP report on a study conducted by a team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists. The article is titled Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 .

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government.

While polls seem to indicate that somewhere around 30% to 35% of Americans will read the horrible results of the study and come away smiling and praising the military genius of the Bush crime family (see: White House Briefing -- News on President George W Bush and the Bush Administration - washingtonpost.com), the other two thirds of the saner folk will walk a little more slowly, bow their heads a bit more lowly, this morning. (And, with recent revelations about Republica's running in Congressional and State elections, the "Values Voters" are beginning to wake up. And it's doubtful that "Staff" will be able to deflect heat from the high level Republican cover-up in the Foley affair(s). Surprise, surprise! When you use all the horrendous weapons of conventional war, from pretty colored, toy looking cluster bombs through depleted uranium munitions that throw radioactive dust all over the environment of the country you claim to love so much you'll waste thousands of our own soldier's lives and the taxes of many future generations . . . all sorts of SHIT HAPPENS! And if there's anything Amerika has become expert at in the past 5 years, it's turning shouted good intentions into works resembling the most evil whispers of demons. On the other hand, if you read the unadorned AP report in today's NY Times, the chilling figures of death are given short shrift as early as the second paragraph: NY Times:

The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

The whole damn Attack, Invasion, Occupation thing is nothing but politics, so how could a body count be not?! Just yesterday McCain blamed North Korea's nuke ambitions on Bill Clinton, 6 years into Bush's grabbing of the wheel of the good ship US. Was McCain's attempt to look good to the Repugnant, anti-Clinton base political. Of course it was. Yet, if a Democrat points out that the Bush administration is In Search of a North Korea Policy - washingtonpost.com, that person would be pilloried with "You're just playing politics!" As the US has a Congressional election every 2 years, and campaigning for the next one often starts before the votes have been counted in a current one, just when the Hell is it convenient to hang out the Repugnant's dirty laundry without being accused of playing politics? With the Repugnants damaging the fabric of America daily, and the corporate media laying back and counting the money left on the dresser (FCC "deregulation" bucks!), getting any facts on what is going on is a blessing. Be it the day before, the day after or the day elections are deemed unpatriotic. And that last wasn't meant as exaggeration to make a point. It was fearful, sorrowful prognostication, if anything. For redacting and shredding the Constitution has become the raison de être of this Administration, and it has had willing accomplices in the Republican AND Democratic parties. As Keith Olbermann pointed out last night, only the 3rd Amendment is still in effect. We don't have the King's soldiers in our living rooms nor his horses/tanks in our stables/carports. All other Amendments are no longer in effect, according to Bills passed by our fearful, spineless AND treasonous officials.

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort that it values more, it will lose that too. -- W. Somerset Maugham

Invading non-aggressor nations, abrogating treaties and other agreements made under the bond of "America's bond", dissing all of our allies while enraging and empowering our enemies and, last but far from least, treating our troops as if they were literal cannon fodder, to be sent into battle for longer than they were prepared to fight, with insufficient munitions and supplies (including rationing their food and water, while Halliburton ran up huge and uncontested contract overages), then cast aside as an insignificant waste necessary in the pursuit of empire. That's ALL POLITICS . . . and shining a light on any of it, INCLUDING THE PRICE PAID IN BLOOD BY THE VERY PEOPLE WE CLAIM WE CAME TO HELP! Let's remember a very relevant and timely quote:

Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering, before committing suicide at the Nuremberg Trials, appeared to be advising the future neo-cons: Goering: "Why, of course, the people don't want war. why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in American, nor for that matter in Germany. that is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship." (interviewer) Gilbert: "There is one difference. in a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." —Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed by Gustave Gilbert during the Easter recess of the Nuremberg trials, 1946 April 18, quoted in Gilbert's book, Nuremberg Diary

Controlling the media, especially by using the old dodge "We're at war, and even if the printed facts are true they hurt our country now.", or the present one which combines our War-time need for self censorship with the plea that bad news could influence an upcoming election, makes Goering's message all the more chilling. One must realize that the Bushies, lacking much intellectual initiative for innovation, has been clinging to playbooks from the past. They know how the country rallied behind Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor and gave him powers that allowed him to take on a war against 2 major powers. And how, after WW II, Roosevelt used that good will to push through policies not thought possible. From Social Security through a Marshall Plan that set up working social democracies in Europe and proved to the world that by taking care of the poor and cultivating a secure middle-class you can have a healthy economic engine the likes of which was thought impractical by most Republicans and fiscal insanity by many. So the Bush regime, fully aware of the philosophy expressed by Goerring, saw the opportunity handed them by 19 young fanatics who really did little more than hijack 4 American domestic airplanes (hardly as mighty an attack as Pearl Harbor). The Bushies stoked and stirred the cauldron of fear until it was boiling over. Once the people were so blinded by irrational fear, which was "politically" fueled by the ingenious misuse of color coded charts inspiring timely fear, they forgot the original American heroes who took on the mightiest army on Earth (the Brits) in 1776 to garner certain inalienable rights and desired freedoms for future generations, the Bushies began stripping those rights and freedoms with more skill than any of America's past enemies had ever dared believed possible. Some have taken notice:

"I think this is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history. It has engaged in extraordinarily irresponsible policies not only in foreign policy and economics but also in social and environmental policy." "This is not normal government policy. now is the time for (American) people to engage in civil disobedience. I think it's time to protest - as much as possible." American 2001 Nobel Prize Laureate for Economics George A. Akerlof, who teaches economics at the University of California in Berkeley. The 61-year-old scholar's areas of expertise include macro-economics, monetary policy and poverty.

Of course, had Hitler stated, out loud, that, with the consent of a majority of both his people and the government officials of both his and the opposition's officials, he would destroy our Constitution, that he'd lock up Americans on a whim, with no regard for evidence (Habeas Corpus), that he'd torture those he arbitrarily chose . . . Japan might not have earned the dubious distinction of being the first nation to see only a mushroom cloud where a city once stood. Yet, here in Amerika, we allowed an elected leadership to turn America into something resembling the pre-Revolution colony of Royal subjects whose abuse in the name of the unjust regent was stirring the seeds of a glorious revolt. We, the silent citizenry who are turning our backs on the Washington's, Jefferson's and Lincoln's had both an Authorization For Force and a Patriot Act passed near unanimously, turning America into war-mongering freedom hating land. A further step back was the recent bill on Military Commissions that allows Bush to lock up Laura, if he likes, and she'd have absolutely no rights other than those King George would allow. (Thanks for your courage in opposition, Russ Feingold. May my nightmare of Hillary using you as her running mate to deflect the criticism of her jingoistic cheerleading for the illegal Iraq occupation, be something that scares me alone, and is never visited on the rest of our nation.) How then can we be told that any report that shows us exactly what we have become should be dismissed as "political?" Just because inconvenient truths are popping up all over now does NOT mean those truths were rushed, nor that they were held, just to harm the Republicans or help Democrats. Hell, I'd argue that most Democrats should carry those deaths over their heads as well. The harm those truths bring should have been front page news since prior to March of 2003, but should certainly be brought to light at whatever time the mainstream media finds itself with surplus testosterone . . . which, be it immediately prior to an election, may seem to be Divine justice for those who aided in the deaths so reported here. Remember:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." -- International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, 1946

Should a country not hold those who began an illegal war responsible for that action? Or is it deemed only a fair election if the electorate goes into the booth wholly ignorant of the abominations performed by their elected officials in their names? ===== [/BREAK]

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000 - washingtonpost.com A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government. It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group. The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

More Here

[BREAK] Great news for America! Even better news for our military!! Devastating news for the already faltering world domination plans of the current Evil Empire administration!!! Britain's top military man, General Sir Richard Dannatt, delivered a broadside against the handling of the Iraq occupation, and pulled no punches as to the devastating effect it is having on the British military AND on Christian values in his homeland.

- - - SNIP His comments come after an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, where Sir Richard warned that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq and added that a "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life." The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain and that continuing to fight in Iraq will only make the situation worse. - - - End of SNIPPET.

Here's the DC take on this:

UK Troops Worsen Problems in Iraq: Army Chief - washingtonpost.com By Deborah Haynes and Peter Graff Reuters Friday, October 13, 2006; 5:42 AM LONDON - Britain's top army commander said the presence of British troops in Iraq was exacerbating security problems on the ground and they should be withdrawn soon. In an interview with the Daily Mail newspaper, General Richard Dannatt criticized post-war planning for the 2003 U.S.-led invasion and said the British presence in Iraq also hurt British security interests abroad, which British Prime Minister Tony Blair has repeatedly denied. More Here

Here's the Brits take, from the Daily Mail:

Army could be broken by Iraq, warns chief officer | the Daily Mail The Army could 'break' if it is kept too long in Iraq and British troops should be withdrawn 'soon', the head of the Army has said today. In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt said: "I want an Army in five years time and 10 years time. Don't let's break it on this one. Let's keep an eye on time."

And, from this same Daily Mail article, we discover that the Gods of politics seem to love some irony. Check out the name of the British "Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman"!

- - - SNIP Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is the frankest assessment we have had about Iraq. It illustrates that the government has no clear strategy." - - - End of SNIPPET More Here

As Repugnants keep using the long ago pictures of the "purple fingers" of Iraqi voters as their proof that attacking, invading and occupying Iraq was a good thing, they always fail to mention that the government the Iraqis voted for was overturned by American puppets, and that more changes to the UNELECTED Iraqi government continue. More Here [/BREAK]

[BREAK] We finally know where River has been. Now, the more important questions are "Where are you? What are you doing?" I run a dinky little mailing list/service that pushes out news stories, articles and links to blog posts daily, for a bunch of activists, reporters, friends and relatives. (Okay, my wife gets hit with the full 50 to 75+ news articles I forward a day, while my daughter, whose boss believes she should read at home, can only suffer through a minimal list of about a dozen or so of the most important pieces.) I'd venture that everyone on the list is a Liberal, although some might seek the camouflage of the "Progressive" labeling. They all view the Bush admin as an enemy of all that was once good about America, and see through the Bushie use of fear as a political power enhancer.
They were well read, including reports in the international media.
Therefore, they were all against our attacking, invading and occupying Iraq. They are all good people, who work hard to leave the planet/country in as good a shape, if not better, than when they began helping to steer the ship of state. So, being that they are good people, I will unfairly use them as a sample for all the good people who complain about Bush, who think the Iraq war is farce - bloody, death dealing farce, but farce all the same - and who worry that future generations - including their own kids - will be deprived of the experience of knowing one lives in one of the most wonderful countries on the planet. While I fear this may look as a way of saying "I'm better than you", I mean nothing of the sort. For I believe that until I find a way to be part of something that stops our collective fall into a well of self-defeating insanity, I'm as much, if not more, guilty as anyone. If you've fought in an illegal war, as I have, you have a greater duty to prevent future illegal wars by your country. If you have children, your duty geometrically increases. If you possess any informational tools, such as my single typing finger or you have access to the much more powerful bullhorn of the Town Crier, mainstream media, and you waste such power in other, less worthy pursuits, guilt has to be your burden. (Not meaning to single out NOW, but this arrived in my mailbox, just as I finished reading the new Baghdad Burning entry. If, when studying the rise of . . . here it comes! . . . Hitler, we discovered that a major organization of opposition to Hitler's policies was sending out drivel like this instead of spending EVERY moment battling for the rights it stands for, we would be shaking our heads and wondering where the sanity of that group had gone. Come on, admit it! "LOVE YOUR BODY DAY!" It sounds like something from a Foley email that Hastert thought was just cute and friendly.) Here are some conclusions, based on my small sampling of good, compassionate people: Many "good people" avoid demonstrations/protests. for what I'm sure they view as legitimate reasons. Some have shared their reasons with me. Kids; fear of being seen by someone from work and, the number 1 reason, the organizers support other causes with which I disagree. The most recent protest I attended, a couple of weeks ago, was called for by The World Can't Wait. I was the ONLY member from my mailing list to attend.

Seems that:

• 1) it was held during working hours (though it continued until well after business hours.)
• 2) The organizers had some connection to either socialist or communist organizations.

# 2 was, by far, the most common excuse for avoiding the protest. Ironically, many of these folk would cheer those who battled against McCarthy, and would likely idolize those who provided help to the unfortunate souls who were blacklisted during the 50's. But to march in protest with folks who might have been on that list, or whose parents were on it, well, that would be just too much. On April 29, 2006 of this year there was a larger demonstration. Again, I was alone of my sample. (I should mention that my wife, on my right and holding the Military Families banner) also marches. I somehow think of her as someone more than a member of my sample.) Again, I found none of my associates there.

By August 16, 2005, attendance at protests were at a low. But a few of my list members did attend the candlelight marches in their neighborhoods.
Earlier on, there was more of a showing at marches. At the Republican Convention in NYC, the crowd was huge. And more than few of my mailing list members were there on August 29, 2001.

Barb and I at the Repugnant National Convention demonstration.
Of course, what should have been the most important demonstration of American sentiment of all, the February 15, 2003 (photo below) pre-attack march, was attended by the largest number of my sample. And, of course, it was when many of us discovered that the media had gone from biased propagandists to full out sycophantic whores for the Bush administration. Suddenly, a demonstration that could paralyze NYC on a weekend day was only attended by "thousands" of protesters, according to the NY Times. We, who were there, knew that the Times must have only counted people on one of the alternate/overflow avenues . . . and they must have only counted the "thousands" of crowd control cops there. But, the Times either wouldn't report, or couldn't conceive, that even after all of its front page lies about Iraq, and the barge loads of BS Judy Miller was transcribing Karl Rove's take on Ahmad Chalabi's fantasies, people, MILES AND MILES OF INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, still believed we had no business attacking Iraq.

February 15, 2003. A month prior to our illegal attack on Iraq. Why do I bore/chastise you with all of this? Quite simply, I'm looking for a way to do more to stop our country's decline into history's Hell. More Here [/BREAK]

[BREAK] No matter your politics, Doonesbury's War in today's Washington Post is a must read. [/BREAK] ==========

Doonesbury's War - washingtonpost.com By Gene Weingarten Sunday, October 22, 2006; Page W14 IN THE BANQUET ROOM WERE MEN WHO WERE BLIND, men with burns, men with gouges, men missing an arm, men missing a leg, men missing an arm and a leg, men missing an arm and both legs, men missing parts of their faces, and a cartoonist from the funny pages. We were just a few blocks from the White House, at Fran O'Brien's Steak House. Fran's was hosting a night out for casualties of the current war, visiting from their hospital wards. It's hard to know what to say to a grievously injured person, and it's easy to be wrong . You could do what I did, for example. Scrounging for the positive, I cheerfully informed a young man who had lost both legs and his left forearm that at least he's lucky he's a righty. Then he wordlessly showed me his right hand, which is missing fingertips and has limited motion -- an articulated claw. That shut things right up, for both of us, and it would have stayed that way, except the cartoonist showed up. - - - SNIP This was April 25. On the comics pages that day, Dagwood fixed himself an absolutely ENORMOUS sandwich; Garfield kicked Odie off the table again; and in Beetle Bailey, the only military-themed comic strip, Lt. Fuzz accidentally dropped a glass of water and cussed in funny cartoon hieroglyphics. In Doonesbury, this was the story: B.D., the football coach and Vietnam vet who went to Iraq with the National Guard and lost a leg in a rocket-grenade attack near Fallujah, has been shamed into entering therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder because he overheard his little girl, Sam, tell a friend that she'd become afraid of her daddy. On this day, B.D. will begin to relive the battlefield event he has repressed, the one that made him a moody, alcoholic paranoiac and that torments him with guilt and shame that he does not understand. Through the rest of the week, B.D. will retell what happened when his armored vehicle came under attack from insurgents and -- desperate to escape and save himself and his men -- he gave the order to flee through a crowded marketplace, mowing down civilians. Not many of the injured vets in Fran O'Brien's were where B.D. was yet. Their deepest wounds, like the dots, had not yet surfaced. On that day they were jovial, mostly, and indomitable, all of them, stolid and impervious, more so than the moms, wives and girlfriends who hovered at their elbows, lovingly kneading shoulders, patting thighs, holding on, looking bravely upbeat and just a little overwhelmed. Trudeau bellied up to another vet. "So, when were you hit?" - - - End of SNIPPET

Read more from Doonesbury's War here!

[BREAK] Politics has become much more savvy, both media wise and in psychological terms, to allow what they now consider a major mistake to occur again. The granting of any credit to war protesters for bringing eventual sense to a nation whose people swallowed whole easily refutable lies ended with the Vietnam War. Even today, much is written about how the protests had little or no real effect on ending the war, with hawks saying the American public just "lost its will" or "ran out of patience." We dinosaurs who lived during the period, and, most especially, we who had the soil of Vietnam on our boots and jungle rot . . . in odd places, know better. We left Vietnam for, at least, two reasons, one military and one civilian. The lack of morale was often spoken of by the military leadership in the latter 1960's, and the protests had much to do with that. Not any spitting on returning troops or other horror stories. But the points the protests highlighted. Between moments of Hell, there were times of boredom. During those times, troops read. The read letters, newspapers and books. In Vietnam, we read about the protests, and heard facts we were never taught in Basic, AIT or OCS. There were too many "facts" to list here, but they pointed to reasons we might be fighting, how much money was being generated by the blood of our dead friends and the foibles of the politicians who, even then, lied of gifting "liberty" but led us, and the Vietnamese, down a primrose path to perdition. The protesters had no "gifts" of "liberty" to promise anyone, but the knowledge they highlighted led many of us serving in Vietnam to realize that while patriotism and/or a Draft might place your ass in Vietnam, the reasons for fighting and chancing death and mutilation might have been rather flimsy. And when doubt, especially doubt based on fact, creeps under your tent, your leaders soon realize that its getting to be time to leave. Back home, the protests educated the parents of the protesters. They highlighted the deaths of our relatives, friends and neighbors. While the media had not yet surrendered to the forces of Corporatism, and therefore was reporting much more info on Vietnam than we get today on Iraq, the protests fanned the sparks of outrage that were flaring all over America. And those fires put so much heat on the once war-happy politicians (Republican AND Democratic), that support for the war collapsed. Once enough politicians began marching to the drums of "War, What Is It Good For?", the Congress began cutting the funds that allowed the Vietnam War to continue long after most sane folk realized it was . . . say it with me now . . . A QUAGMIRE! So, the protests were, at minimum, a catalyst that considerably pushed up the end date for that war, saved many American and Vietnamese lives and stopped a financial drain on our treasury that could have led to a true depression. For the reasons above, today's hawks are trying to negate any acknowledgment that those who were, early on, against the illegal attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq might have been right. And that the protests had the same effect as they did in the 60's. That they educated both the troops and the American civilians/electorate of facts with which they were unaware (and that our subservient media was not about to publish.) And, I believe, that's why the pundits and politicians who have finally woken up and smelt the odor of burning American troops and Iraqi civilians in a no-win war are suddenly finding post-invasion reasons for withdrawing today. And they will either say that the early protesters were wrong and that Saddam had to go, or they'll conflate the protesters into their camp and try to make it seem as though the protests were against not the "Why?" of our unwarranted attack on a non-aggressor nation but against the "How" of the ensuing failed strategy that now has us being compared unfavorably to Saddam when it comes to torture and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. Andrew Sullivan has been a great example of these "Get out of Iraq" Johnny come lately's. He's quoted in a story titled After President Meets Reporters, Sullivan -- Once a Bush Backer -- Now Suggests He May Have 'Lost His Mind' by the staff at Editor & Publisher.

No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that it has been done well. It's a disaster. "For him to say it's a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it, I'm sorry, there's no other way to say it.....These people must be held accountable."

Don't let Sullivan put those who "were for it, as I was" into the same tent as those who were "against it". To place all together in a camp complaining about the failed strategy in Iraq would appear to imply that:

• 1) there was a "winning" strategy for an attack against what was a highly nationalistic AND a 3 way militantly religious country.
• 2) if we did "win" in Iraq it would have somehow made the attack legitimate and might have caused to protesters to then embrace the original illegal attack in Bush's Baghdad Blunder.

I can't, of course, speak for other protesters. But I believe that even had we sent the "several hundred thousand troops" that General Shinseki estimated we'd need to take and hold secure Iraq, we would have still needed to retain a huge (200,000?) military force in Iraq for the unseeable future, as the granting of "freedom" from Saddam's secular rule would still have allowed the same tribal/religious battles of today to begin. Unlike the dream of easy victory that Sullivan and his ilk pushed for years (and held through the 2004 election, granting us a second term of Bushies), I and many of the protesters with whom I spoke believed that attacking Iraq should have occurred only in one circumstance: Iraq launching an attack against American interests. Being down on Rumsfeld, Cheney or Bush today is easy. You're now in the majority . . . and you know it. (Though, sadly, pundits predict little change in Iraq regrdless of next wee's election's outcomes.) Sullivan changed stripes years and many deaths too late. While I welcome him to the right side of the road, and hope more former Bush cheerleaders will join him, I am not about to grant some form of post-dated heroism onto the people who took so long to open their eyes. Blood is on their hands, and even calling Bush an idiot (Sullivan on Bush's current optimism in the face of stark reality: ""It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind.")and calling for Rumsfeld's resignation will not cause the stained palms to come clear. Those who helped push us into a war they now wish to disassociate from need to perform some form of penance before I allow them to peacock around as peace-loving sages, so shortly after being warmongering dunces. Let Andrew volunteer at Walter Reed. Or, better still, let him work in one of the "hospitals" the US taxpayer gave billions to Bushie corps to build in Iraq. Helping those he once pushed to kill/maim might make me want to shake Andrew's hand. For now, as crude as it may sound, I could only spit in it. And I'll be damned if I'd allow him to try and form any public coalition between his neo-con con men who used lies and deceit to push us into Iraq and those who protested early and suffered the brickbats thrown in his columns and in those of other recent-day withdrawal worshipers. Too much blood, from 19 year-old American troops and 3 year-old innocent Iraqi children cloud my windshield for me to see clearly to a place where these former cheerleaders sit in places of honor! ========== [/BREAK]

After President Meets Reporters, Sullivan -- Once a Bush Backer -- Now Suggests He May Have 'Lost His Mind' By E&P Staff Published: November 01, 2006 10:00 PM ET NEW YORK In a move that no doubt sent a shiver through several candidates in his own party, President Bush, in a special interview with wire service reporters in the White House, today guaranteed a job for his Pentagon chief for two more years, adding that both Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney "are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them." But it wasn't only endangered Republicans who have been calling for Rumsfeld's ouster who may have blanched. Andrew Sullivan, the conservative writer who was once a key media supporter for the Iraq war, denounced the latest Bush statement on CNN on Wednesday night, stating that the president is so delusional, "This is not an election anymore, it's an intervention." Sullivan said the president was "so in denial," comparing the Rumsfeld endorsement to applauding the job FEMA's Michael Brown did on Katrina: "It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that it has been done well. It's a disaster. "For him to say it's a fantastic job suggests the president has lost it, I'm sorry, there's no other way to say it.....These people must be held accountable." He added that today, Richard Perle, a leading neocon and Iraq war backer, had today called the administration "dysfunctional."

More Here!

[BREAK] From today's NY Times:

Pakistan Link Seen in Afghan Suicide Attacks - New York Times By CARLOTTA GALL Published: November 14, 2006 PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Nov. 13 — Afghan and NATO security forces have recently rounded up several men like Hafiz Daoud Shah, a 21-year-old unemployed Afghan refugee who says he drove across the border to Afghanistan in September in a taxi with three other would-be suicide bombers. Every case, Afghan security officials say, is similar to that of Mr. Shah, who repeated his story in a rare jailhouse interview with a reporter in Kabul, the Afghan capital. The trail of organizing, financing and recruiting the bombers who have carried out a rising number of suicide attacks in Afghanistan traces back to Pakistan, they say. “Every single bomber or I.E.D. in one way or another is linked to Pakistan,” a senior Afghan intelligence official said, referring to improvised explosive devices like roadside bombs. “Their reasons are to keep Afghanistan destabilized, to make us fail, and to keep us fragmented.” He would speak on the subject only if not identified. A senior United States military official based in Afghanistan agreed for the most part. “The strong belief is that recruiting, training and provision of technical equipment for I.E.D.’s in the main takes place outside Afghanistan,” he said. By I.E.D.’s he meant suicide bombers as well. He, too, did not want his name used because he knew his remarks were likely to offend Pakistani leaders. Story continues here.

While I don't give much credence to the theory that the Bushies actually were involved in the planning of 9/11 (I mean, the attack worked, right?) or knew of the date/time in advance, it sure is interesting that the country we suddenly became best friends with post-9/11 has sold nuclear bomb making secrets to "terrorist states" [North Korea for one] provides a hiding place for Osama Bin Laden and followers and, as seen below, aids those who fight against us in Afghanistan. Bush sends his "ally" General/Dictator Pervez Musharraf billions in aid, and, in turn, Pakistan helps terrorists gift wrap/body bag young Americans to send home to their families. Sure makes one wonder about those conspiracy theories. . . [/BREAK]

[BREAK] Well, after a half-century of American pressure/involvement, in an area that has long been friendly to America, we MIGHT have a chance to work out an agreement between people/neighbors who speak our language and are of the same country/background/history in Ireland. I see this as boding not so well for our successful involvement with people who despise us, have no common ancestry [unless we go back to a monkey's uncle somewhere near the garden of Eden? . . . and that would only count to those, on all sides, who believe in Darwin!], don't share our views/God/tastes/culture and whom almost all have lost loved ones [or had some tortured] by us. I'm guessing that sometime around the first ship lands from our farms on Mars America might begin withdrawing her last troops from Baghdad! JB ===== [/BREAK]

Days of Decision in Ulster - New York Times Editorial Days of Decision in Ulster Published: January 26, 2007 The militant Irish republican Gerry Adams and the fire-breathing unionist preacher Ian Paisley have long symbolized the irreconcilable extremes of Ulster politics. But over the next few days, they have the chance to lead the province into a new era of democratic self-rule.

More here

[BREAK] If you regularly watch Tim Russert on Meet The Press, you already know at least 3 things: 1) Tim used his guest list and his questions in a manner that helped push for the war 2) Tim implicitly mocked the anti-war demonstrations/demonstrators as often as possible. 3) Tim lauded the Bushies as often as he could. (Damn near rolls over and presents his belly to Cheney!) 4) Tim hates most Dems, even though it was with the Democratic Party that he cut his teeth. (He seems cozy with Lieberman, and friendly to Biden and James Carville.) If you've been watching the Scooter Libby trial, you now know: 5) The White House was well aware of Tim's bias, and used MTP to help counter criticism of the war! By now you've learned another thing about NBC's high paid on-air personality: 6) If you're a candidate prone to speak about the obvious class war being waged in America, Tim ain't prone to treating you too well. Edwards has apologized for his vote authorizing Bush to pressure Iraq, up to invading, if necessary, unless Saddam gave up the WMD Bush swore Iraq held. Edwards was the FIRST of the Dems to admit being wrong, way back in 2005. Yet Tim went OVER AND OVER the fact that Edwards had voted for the authorization. Tim said, numerous times, that Edwards was WRONG to vote that way. Funny thing is, Tim has NEVER pushed the liars that used deception to get Congress, AND THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, to support America's worst war crime EVER! Why Edwards is, in Tim's view, the only one who should carry blame FOR BUSH'S LIES, I don't know. (Ironically, the other thing that caught Tim's ire was Edwards truth telling on his plan for health care. Edwards made the sin of allowing that in order to tackle something as huge as health care, you have to be willing to use tax revenue to pay for it! Edwards will soon learn why Bush's lies have little consequence. Telling hard truths is something the mainstream press will crucify you for.) I do know, much like Dennis Kucinich in 2004, Tim and other MSM members will be spending much time trying to insure that the 2008 race comes down to a Dem and a Rep who can only be distinguished by which of the two bends over the furthest for corporate interests, and which cares the least about those earning somewhat less than millions per annum! JB ===== [/BREAK]

Edwards Again Says He Was Wrong to Vote for War - washingtonpost.com Edwards Again Says He Was Wrong to Vote for War By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A04 Of the 2008 Democratic presidential contenders who voted to give President Bush authority to wage war in Iraq, only one will have no chance to make a very public U-turn when resolutions opposing the president's new war plan come before Congress in the coming days. That one is John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator who showed again yesterday that he will find other venues to parlay his Senate vote into an extended mea culpa.

More here

[BREAK] As if there weren't enough similarities between the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Kennedy's "Whiz Kids", who were often referred to as "The Best and the Brightest", were likely the most educated groups of advisers ever to aid a President in the conduct of a guerrilla war. While it is always good to have intelligent advisers, people working under a President often conform their advice into something palatable to the Commander in Chief. Asking them for advice on how best to escalate, when that can only move you deeper into a quagmire, is, as Vietnam proved, just a way to lose more young American lives so the tough decisions are left to future administrations. JB ===== [/BREAK]

Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort - washingtonpost.com Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort By Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A01 Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, is assembling a small band of warrior-intellectuals -- including a quirky Australian anthropologist, a Princeton economist who is the son of a former U.S. attorney general and a military expert on the Vietnam War sharply critical of its top commanders -- in an eleventh-hour effort to reverse the downward trend in the Iraq war.

More here

[BREAK] Of course the US didn't sign on to a long-negotiated treaty prohibiting governments from holding people in secret detention. The other 57 civilized nations who thought secret detention was an abomination did not have the same baggage as we do.

The United States declined to endorse the document, saying its text did not meet U.S. expectations.

Of course it didn't meet our expectations. When it comes to restrictions, ANY restrictions, of actions by sovereign powers, the Bushies expect the final sentence to read: "The US, under GW Bush, is hereby exempted from any and all restrictions contained herein." The Repugnants cringe when they read:

Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said the treaty was "a message to all modern-day authorities committed to the fight against terrorism" that some practices are "not acceptable."

You see, as with the many Geneva Conventions, International Courts/law, UN resolutions and all other treaties and agreements the US joined, once Emperor Bush was elected/selected, things changed. We are now the class bully, and God help any other/weaker country that tries to stop us from committing (what those wimpy countries refer to as) crimes against humanity! JB ---

U.S. Declines to Join Accord on Secret Detentions - washingtonpost.com U.S. Declines to Join Accord on Secret Detentions 58 Nations Sign Separate Pact On Child Soldiers By Molly Moore Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, February 7, 2007; Page A14 PARIS, Feb. 6 -- Representatives from 57 countries on Tuesday signed a long-negotiated treaty prohibiting governments from holding people in secret detention. The United States declined to endorse the document, saying its text did not meet U.S. expectations. Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said the treaty was "a message to all modern-day authorities committed to the fight against terrorism" that some practices are "not acceptable."

More here [/BREAK]

[BREAK] There is one difference between the attack on Iraq and the coming attack on Iran. The time span between demonstration and attack this time will probably be shorter . . . say 2-3 weeks. In February 2003, many of us marched in the huge anti-war demonstration in NYC while others marched around our nation and around the globe. Bush (and the media) paid little attention, and the US illegally attacked Iraq approximately 5 weeks later. We violated international law and UN regulations, killed over a half-million innocent Iraqis (Bush would say we liberated them?), lost over 3000 of our most precious young warriors and misspent/lost.gave away hundreds of billion$ that our future generations will need to make up. We've performed so poorly, even Bush's Russian pal (Pooty Poot) Putin is now chastising us for making the world less safe.

Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted the United States today for acting in a unilateral, militaristic fashion that he said "overstepped" its role and made the world a more dangerous place than during the Cold War. "Nobody feels secure anymore, because nobody can take safety behind the stone wall of international law," he told an international security conference here attended by dozens of foreign and defense ministers and other officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and a congressional delegation.

And, the reasons given for attacking Iraq, though now known to be lies and exaggerations, seem to mirror the reasons we now hear for attacking Iran. Just this week, in a much delayed report, we were told:

. . . a Defense Department inspector general's conclusion that a Pentagon policy office produced and gave senior policymakers "alternative intelligence assessments on Iraq and Al Qaida relations" that were "inconsistent" with the intelligence community's consensus view in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

On March 18, there will be a similar march in NYC, and other environs. If you live in an area where a demonstration is being held, and you find you have other things to do on that day (things beside having open heart surgery, birthing your child, heading into danger in Iraq etc.), washing the blood of the future dead innocents from your hands may become a 24/7 job. And, if this demonstration has as little effect as its predecessor(s), I hope that some truly courageous leader (which really lets out the top contenders for the Presidential race in '08, sans Chuck Hagel and, just maybe, an Edwards, Gore or even Vilsack) will use the term "General Strike" in an upcoming speech. For when a war is called not as a vital national security interest, but to appease corporate interests by throwing fiscal sanity to the winds (when it comes to humongous contracts) and to guarantee a short term boost in fossil fuel for the victors, thereby stalling renewed efforts to find a desperately needed alternative source(s) of energy, the best way to get the corporate leaders attention is to hit them in the pocketbook. (Yes, you offer up a days pay. But, as any corporate leader can tell you, a day spent on a general strike takes more than a day from the corporate finances.) WE HAVE TO TAKE DEMOCRACY BACK! Impeach the Cheerleader (Bush),
Save The World! [/BREAK] =====

Target Iran: US able to strike in the spring | Iran | Guardian Unlimited Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced Ewen MacAskill in Washington Saturday February 10, 2007 The Guardian
A second battle group has been ordered to the Gulf and extra missiles have already been sent out. Meanwhile oil is being stockpiled. Photograph: Reuters US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington. The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr Bush leaves office.

More here