Shlonkom Bakazay?

Thank you, Dr. Fink, for that very kind introduction.

It is a great honor to be back at the Commonwealth Club.

When I decided to give a speech about Iraq, I knew I wanted to give it here. That’s because of the pivotal role the Commonwealth Club has played for more than 100 years, fostering real dialogue on the critical challenges that define the times in which we live.

Today, those challenges are vast, from the Supreme Court vacancy to the attack on Social Security. But the war in Iraq is the most daunting because the status quo—of Americans dying, of Iraqis dying, of young soldiers coming home by the thousands with injuries to mind and body—weighs so heavily on all Americans.

As a policy maker, I must push as hard as I can for a strategy that can succeed in Iraq and bring our brave men and women home. That will only happen if we immediately bring credibility, accountability, and responsibility to a war that has been lacking in all three.

Last week, President Bush had a chance to regain credibility when it comes to Iraq. In my opinion, he did not.

He mentioned 9/11 five times in 30 minutes, despite the fact that there is absolutely no connection between Iraq and that tragic day.

Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity. The war of necessity was the war against Osama bin Laden that we launched after 9/11…the war that every single Senator voted for…the war that was a clear response to the vicious attack of that day.

That’s why I was incredulous when Karl Rove said: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war”

Therapy? By rewriting history, President Bush’s chief advisor is either trying to divide our nation, or divert attention from what is happening in Iraq.

Let me read you directly from my speech on the Senate floor on September 12th.

“We are resolved to hold those who planned these attacks and who harbor these people absolutely 100 percent accountable. They must pay because this is the test of a civilized nation…We will not back down. I stand proudly with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and with our President. We will be resolved to do everything—and do it well and do it right—to bring justice…”

After 9/11, the Congress was determined to dedicate as many resources as necessary to find the people who planned the attack. We knew they were in Afghanistan. We knew the Taliban was complicit. And, very important, we knew that the entire world was standing with us.

Instead, the Administration took its eye off the ball and focused on Iraq.

On September 12, the same day that I spoke on the Senate floor, the top terrorism expert at the White House, Richard Clarke, sat down with the president and a few colleagues in the Situation Room. He describes this scene in his book. I quote:

“`Look,’ [the President] told us, `I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he’s linked in any way.’

“I was once again taken back, incredulous, and it showed,’ Clarke wrote. ‘But, Mr. President, al Qaeda did this.’

`I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred.’

`Absolutely, we will look…again.’ I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. `But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen.’

`Look into Iraq, Saddam,’ the President said testily and left us.”

No link was found. And yet, according to Bob Woodward, two months later, the President took Rumsfeld aside and asked, “What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.”

Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill says that going after Saddam was raised at a meeting just 10 days after the first inauguration.

And then there’s the now-famous Downing Street memo. In July, 2002, months before Bush asked Congress for authority to wage war in Iraq, the head of British intelligence reported that, and I quote: “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and [Weapons of Mass Destruction]. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

So, what happened to the President’s aides who misled the public about the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, those who falsely claimed that this war was about terrorism, and that it wouldn’t cost us much—in lives, troops, or dollars?

Condi Rice, who said “We do know that there have been shipments going…into…Iraq…of aluminum tubes that…are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs,” was promoted to be our Secretary of State.

Paul Wolfowitz, who said, “Like the people in France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator,” got the top job at the World Bank.

George Tenet, who called the WMD claims a “slam dunk” was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

And the President? He had to know al Qaeda was not in Iraq before the war. [SHOW CHART]. His own State Department issued a report right after 9/11. It lists 45 countries in which al Qaeda operated. Guess who was not on that list? Iraq.

Now, there were some who tried to speak the truth. But they didn’t last long in the Bush Administration.

Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill are both gone.

Army Vice Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki estimated that it could take “several hundred thousand” soldiers to successfully stabilize Iraq, Wolfowitz called that number “wildly off the mark.” Shinseki retired early.

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey said that a U.S. intervention in Iraq could cost between $100 and $200 billion. He was disputed, and ultimately left. We’ve now surpassed $200 billion.

The rest of us were told we had no right to criticize the President in a time of war.

Twenty six months ago, President Bush told us our mission was accomplished. It wasn’t. And do you know why? The Administration knew how to win phase one—the military invasion—but had absolutely no plan to win phase two—the peace. As former NSC Advisor Brzezinski said, “This war has been conducted with “tactical and strategic incompetence.”

So, where we are now? We have already lost 1,746 Americans in Iraq, 13,190 have been wounded. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, up to 17 percent of Iraq veterans suffer from major depression, generalized anxiety or post traumatic stress disorder. Divorces for active duty and enlisted personnel has nearly doubled and 8,000 Iraqis have been killed.

Here is the unvarnished truth. The Bush Administration’s failures thus far have left us with no good choices. If you went to the doctor with a diseased kidney and he took out the wrong one, you would feel distressed, angry, and frustrated about your options.

And that’s how many Americans feel now—distressed, angry and frustrated at the difficult situation facing our country and troops. All Americans love, support, and pray for our soldiers. The point is that our troops deserve far more than the status quo.

So, we must, as I have said, start being credible, truthful, if we want to succeed.

But it is also long past time for accountability, and that is my second point.

Last month, I co-sponsored Senator Feingold’s resolution asking the President to submit to Congress the remaining mission in Iraq, the time frame needed to achieve that mission, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of our troops. Why?

Because after two and a half years at war, the American people finally need to hear what our mission is and a detailed plan to accomplish it. That will give our soldiers and citizens hope and confidence.

It is difficult to keep track of all the missions we’ve had so far in Iraq. There was the weapons of mass destruction mission. Then the regime change mission. Then the rebuilding mission. Then the democracy mission.

And finally, terrorism, which the president mentioned more than 30 times in his speech. “Our mission in Iraq is clear,” he said. “We will hunt down the terrorists.”

That mission is a guarantee of a never-ending cycle of violence because our open-ended presence in Iraq is itself fueling the recruitment of terrorists. With that as a mission, we will find ourselves on a treadmill that never stops. We stay there to hunt down the terrorists and more terrorists are recruited, so we fight them and more terrorists are recruited and so the cycle goes.

Let’s be clear: “What we have done in Iraq,” terrorism expert Peter Bergen explained, “is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams…It’s hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terrorism.”

A report issued by the CIA’s think tank found that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists. But, the tragic irony is, terrorism was the result of the war, not a reason for waging it and so we are in greater danger.

I believe our mission in Iraq is this: Security for Iraqis provided by Iraqis. We need a Manhattan project to train the Iraqi soldiers and a successful plan to tighten the borders, which should include troops from around the world.

And what about our democratic goals? Yes, we must help the Iraqis create a government in which everyone has a stake, including the Sunnis. But, while we will likely continue to play an advisory role if asked, we cannot tie current troop levels to the goal of a well-functioning democracy, which, even under the best circumstances, takes generations to perfect. Ours certainly did.

And that brings me to this point. The Administration continually compares Iraq’s struggle for democracy to our country’s struggle for democracy. Fine. But we fought for it with our own people. That’s what countries do. Others helped us, sure. But the people power was American.

If there is to be a free Iraq, and I certainly hope there will be, then the Iraqis must want that freedom—and be willing to defend it—as much as we want it for them.

We need to hear from the Administration exactly how many Iraqi forces are needed; how to meet that goal; and by when. And the current pace will not cut it.

In March, I went to Iraq with six other Senators of both parties. You can read or hear about it. But nothing can prepare you for seeing the security challenges we face there.

Outside a meeting room I sat in, located in the safe green zone, two people had recently been killed. In the building where the Assembly gathers, the security was even more intense. Two guards with machine guns had to stand beside each of us everywhere we went.

We watched the dynamic U.S. Army Lieutenant General, David Petraeus, train the Iraqi security forces. He told us he has enormous confidence in the ability of the Iraqis to take over their own security soon.

Yet when we talked to the Prime Minister, Ibrahim Jafari, he was in no rush at all, emphasizing that you can’t build an army overnight.

So how many Iraqi troops do we have right now? The answers are all over the map. Recently, the Pentagon said they have 107 battalions, totaling 169,000 men.

But of those 107 battalions, military commanders consider that only about 5,000 Iraqi soldiers are capable of carrying out missions on their own. That’s especially troubling when you consider the size of the insurgency, which has been estimated at anything from 12,000 to 50,000 with many more supporters.

We must enlist all the countries willing to train Iraqi security forces outside of Iraq. France has offered. Egyptians have offered. The Jordanians have offered. Yet, Senator Biden says that none of these offers has been taken up. It’s time. It’s past time.

When the Administration said that our allies who opposed the war need not apply for reconstruction contracts, the message was clear and counterproductive. What a mistake. Leadership is now needed to turn this around, and make reconstruction truly the world’s responsibility.

Because inside Iraq, water, electricity, and fuel are in short supply. Sewage still runs through the streets. The situation in Baghdad is so bad that the Mayor has threatened to resign in protest.

Despite all those claims that Iraqi oil would pay for its reconstruction, we are still paying most of it. I believe more of the reconstruction money now going to Halliburton—who just over-billed our government by $1 billion—should go to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own country.

So, where is the Congress in all of this? In every other war, Congress has played an oversight role. We are the voice of the American people. And the American people, who are fighting in and paying for this war, deserve to know the truth about everything. The truth about how we are measuring up to our highest ideals, including what happened at Abu Ghraib, a scandal that sickened everyone who saw those photos and has placed our brave troops in more danger.

And they deserve to know the truth about whether we are meeting our clearly-stated goals in Iraq—and, if not, why?

The Administration should come to the Hill often to report on specific progress. And the president himself should meet with the Senate in private sessions. Quite frankly, there are Senators of both parties—including Inouye, Warner, Lautenberg, McCain, Kerry, and Hagel—who have seen far more battles than the President and his core national security team. It would be wise to listen to these Senators.

We have no idea—none—how long the Administration plans to be in Iraq. Is it two years, ten, twenty? Condi Rice now calls it“a generational commitment.” The President’s message of `as long as it takes’ is counterproductive.

Retired General Gregory Newbold, who was one of the central planners of phase one of the war, told us: “We have to understand that the fundamental reason for the insurgency, the thing that ties all the various groups together, is their view that we are an occupying power.”

It is time for the President to send a clear message that we do not intend to remain in Iraq indefinitely or maintain permanent bases there. That doesn’t mean we should set an exact date for withdrawal. But it does mean we need a general timeframe to complete the mission.

And that brings me to my third and final point—responsibility. Responsibility to our troops and to the next generation.

In his speech, the President told us how important it was to honor the courageous young men and women of the military on the 4th of July. And I couldn’t have agreed more.

But, to me, we need to do more than that. We must also honor our soldiers every day by giving them the equipment they need while they are deployed and the health care they deserve when they come home.

Many of us have heard the heartbreaking stories about the soldiers sent to Iraq without proper armor to protect their bodies or vehicles. One wrote: “My mother, an elementary school teacher, shipped the bullet-proof ceramic plates to me from the states. Other soldiers weren’t so lucky, having to raid buildings and patrol dangerous streets while wearing inferior Vietnam-era flak jackets.”

Another wrote: “I was driving a high-back humvee with no armor…I lost three fingers on my left hand and took shrapnel in my legs and chest. Would an uparmor kit have kept my fingers from being blown off? No one will ever know for sure, but I think so.”

When roadside bombs are now the weapon of choice for insurgents, how can we fail to give our soldiers the jamming devices they need to protect themselves?

But, in April, I had to fight—too hard—for an amendment to provide $60 million for jamming devices. And, we had to fight—too hard—to get the Administration to finally admit that it was $1 billion short of funds to provide health care for soldiers returning from war.

It’s also no secret that we are facing a serious recruiting crisis, which the chief of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command called “the toughest recruiting climate ever faced by the all-volunteer army.”

More pressure on recruiters is making some so desperate they are encouraging recruits to lie about their education and fitness to serve. And new aggressive ways of gathering data on high school students is angering parents, and not respecting family values.

But those who are bearing the brunt of this recruiting crisis are our soldiers and their families. Many are forced to serve on multiple tours in Iraq, missing birthdays, wedding anniversaries, and the small moments that make up our life stories. National Guard and reserves are being kept away from both their families and their jobs.

And what about those who make the ultimate sacrifice? Shouldn’t we honor, not hide, them? We should see photos of their flag-draped coffins. We should see the President or his personally appointed representatives meeting the coffins when they arrive—every single one.

But we must do far more. We owe it to the fallen, to all those who serve bravely now, and those who will do so in the future, to get this war right. We cannot rewrite the history of the last three years, but we can write a new chapter in this war.

On December 11, Bob Woodward had just finished his second interview with President Bush. They stood by the glass doors looking out on the Rose Garden. And Woodward asked him, “Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war?”

“And he said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if to say this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”

Imagine if our forefathers fighting for independence had thought that way? Or those who fought in the Civil War? Or in the World Wars? Or those who risked their lives—like Martin Luther King Jr.—for civil rights? Or suffragists who almost died in a hunger strike for the right of women to vote.

When Americans dedicate, and even sacrifice, their lives for what is right, we do it because we have a sacred responsibility to those who come after us to leave behind a world that is better, not worse, than the one we found.

Because, 20, 50, even 100 years from now, another group will gather in this spot to discuss issues of war and peace. And, when they do, I hope they look back and say that the summer of 2005 is when Americans, brought credibility, accountability, and responsibility to a very tough situation.

I hope they say that we finally began to level with the American people. That we articulated a winnable mission and a detailed plan to fulfill it. And that we gave our troops the support they needed and deserved in Iraq and upon their return to our beloved shores.

We owe it to our soldiers, to the American people, to Iraqis, and, yes, to history, to do nothing less.

Another leaked memo from the UK shows possible pull-out plans of the US, UK, and possibly others. [Independent, Daily Mail (original source)]

Almost two thirds of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq will have been pulled out by the end of next year, under plans drawn up in Whitehall to hand over two provinces to Iraqi control.

The plan set out in a leaked memo written by the Defence Secretary John Reid, hints that the Government is keen to cut the heavy cost of patrolling southern Iraq.

The memo calculates that the current cost of the British presence in Iraq, around £1bn a year, could be halved if the number of troops were reduced to 3,000 during 2006. The memo implies that the British would formally hand over control to the Iraqis of the four provinces currently under British control by April 2006, but that it take another eight months before what the memo calls the "UK military drawdown" has been completed - and 18 months before the money comes through.

Revealingly, it hints at tension between the Pentagon and US Central Command, which want a rapid troop reduction, and commanders on the ground in Iraq.

The memo also warns that Japan may insist on pulling out the 550 Japanese engineers if they left with the only the Iraq army to protect them from insurgents. There will be a question mark, too, over the 1,400 Australian soldiers in Iraq.

The memo, entitled Options for future UK force posture in Iraq and headed "Secret - UK eyes only", was leaked to The Mail on Sunday, apparently by someone connected with the Defence department who suspected that Britain was preparing to get out quick as an economy measure, leaving the Iraqis to fend for themselves.

The defence department said it that various options were being considered for reducing the British presence in Iraq, and stressed that nothing has been finally decided.

The memo, sent to Tony Blair, said that the US government is also trying to scale down its military commitment to Iraq. "Emerging US plans assume 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction from 176,000 (allied troops) down to 66,000.

I've been trying to wrap my mind around how it feels to now have family in danger in both Iraq and London. But lets be honest with one another...we knew full-well that Britain's involvement in Iraq increased the chances of an attack on London. So it's hardly a surprise. I'm just very thankful my sister and all my loved ones in London were not physically hurt. Anyway, it's been about as slippery a feeling as any I've had in recent years. I want the people who planned and staged the attacks in London behind bars as much as I want the people responsible for Abu Ghraib and the entire illegal Iraq war behind bars. Besides the now added complexities of having a sister who was extremely lucky, here are a few things that are clear to me. The Iraq war has made everybody less safe. And, still to many, it seems an Iraqi's life is not worth as much as a Brit's or American's life. With this leaked memo we have the first signs of a possible timeline for a draw-down of troops. The Brits could force the American hand by turning over the provinces currently under their control to Iraqis. I suggest the British government go through with this plan of a draw-down while insisting (even privately) for Bush Co. to issue a timetable of withdrawal. We need a light at the end of the tunnel. And we need it now.

Memo in Full

Options for future UK force posture in Iraq

Paper by Secretary of State SECRET - UK EYES ONLY

1. ISSUE

We will need to reach decisions later this year on likely future UK force structure and disposition in Iraq into 2006.

This paper sets out some of the key contextual considerations; identifies areas of uncertainty; sets out what we know of US planning and possible expectations on the UK contribution; and assesses the potential impact on UK decision making.

2. Decisions on coalition, and within that, UK force levels will be governed by four factors, all of which are subject to a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty:
* Internal Iraqi pressure for further force posture changes.
* Successful progress in the potential process and extension/renewal of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. (Mail on Sunday footnote 1)
* The continued development of the capability of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF).
* The security situation.

3. None of this, however, undermines the Multinational Force Iraq (MNF-I) (Mail on Sunday footnote 2)broad security strategy of:
a) Working with the Iraqis to contain and restrain the insurgency.
b) Assisting and encouraging the development of Iraqi security forces and structures which can progressively assume responsibility for all aspects of security including dealing with the insurgency, and thereby:
c) Enable MNF-I force reductions and eventual withdrawal.

4. US POSITION

US political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong US military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall US commitment levels.

Emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006, allowing a reduction in overall MNF-I from 176,000 down to 66,000.

There is, however, a debate between the Pentagon/Centcom (Mail on Sunday footnote 3) who favour a relatively bold reduction in force numbers, and MNF-I whose approach is more cautious.

The next MNF-I review of campaign progress due in late June may help clarify thinking and provide an agreed framework for the way ahead.

5. (Technical details)

6. UK POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

The current ministerially endorsed policy position is that the UK should not:
a) Agree to any changes to the UK area of responsibility.
b) Agree to any specific deployments outside Multinational Division South East. (Mail on Sunday footnote 4)
c) Agree to any specific increases in the roughly 8,500 UK service personnel currently deployed in Iraq.

7. Looking further ahead, we have a clear UK military aspiration to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces (Mail on Sunday footnote 5) in October 2005 and in the other two Multinational Division South East provinces, Dhi Qar and Basra (Mail on Sunday footnote 6) in April 2006.

This in turn should lead to a reduction in the total level of UK commitment in Iraq to around 3,000 personnel, ie small scale, by mid 2006.

This should lead to an estimated halving in the costs which fall to the reserve, (Mail on Sunday footnote 7) around £1 billion per annum currently. Though it is not clear exactly when this reduction might manifest itself, it would not be before around the end of 2006.

8. None of this however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan. There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way. We will need to consider handling of other MND SE allies.

The Japanese reconstruction battalion (Mail on Sunday footnote 8)will for example be reluctant to stay in Al Muthanna if force protection is solely provided by the Iraqis. The Australian position, which is highly influenced by the Japanese presence, may also be uncertain. (Mail on Sunday footnote 9)

NOTE

I will bring further and more specific proposals to DOP-I (Mail on Sunday footnote 10) for the future UK force posture in Iraq, including handover to Iraqi control and subsequent UK military drawdown.

John Reid.

Mail on Sunday footnotes

Footnote 1:(UN resolution authorising allied troops presence in Iraq)
Footnote 2: (The Multinational Force of Allied troops in Iraq)
Footnote 3: (Centcom is the US military command centre in the US)
Footnote 4: (Not get involved in operations outside area around Basra under UK control)
Footnote 5: (two of the four provinces around Basra in UK control)
Footnote 6: (the other two UK run provinces)
Footnote 7: (The UK Treasury Reserve)
Footnote 8: (Japan has 550 engineers in UK area of Iraq)
Footnote 9: (Australia has 1,400 troops in Iraq ,whose main job is to protect the Japanese)
Footnote 10: (The Defence and Overseas Policy, Iraq sub committee of the Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister)

Fisk on the money again.

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us think insurgency won't come to us?

"If you bomb our cities," Osama bin Laden said in one of his recent video tapes, "we will bomb yours." There you go, as they say. It was crystal clear Britain would be a target ever since Tony Blair decided to join George Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. We had, as they say, been warned. The G8 summit was obviously chosen, well in advance, as Attack Day.

And it's no use Mr Blair telling us yesterday that "they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear". "They" are not trying to destroy "what we hold dear". They are trying to get public opinion to force Blair to withdraw from Iraq, from his alliance with the United States, and from his adherence to Bush's policies in the Middle East. The Spanish paid the price for their support for Bush - and Spain's subsequent retreat from Iraq proved that the Madrid bombings achieved their objectives - while the Australians were made to suffer in Bali.

It is easy for Tony Blair to call yesterday's bombings "barbaric" - of course they were - but what were the civilian deaths of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the children torn apart by cluster bombs, the countless innocent Iraqis gunned down at American military checkpoints? When they die, it is "collateral damage"; when "we" die, it is "barbaric terrorism".

If we are fighting insurgency in Iraq, what makes us believe insurgency won't come to us? One thing is certain: if Tony Blair really believes that by "fighting terrorism" in Iraq we could more efficiently protect Britain - fight them there rather than let them come here, as Bush constantly says - this argument is no longer valid.

To time these bombs with the G8 summit, when the world was concentrating on Britain, was not a stroke of genius. You don't need a PhD to choose another Bush-Blair handshake to close down a capital city with explosives and massacre more than 30 of its citizens. The G8 summit was announced so far in advance as to give the bombers all the time they needed to prepare.

A co-ordinated system of attacks of the kind we saw yesterday would have taken months to plan - to choose safe houses, prepare explosives, identify targets, ensure security, choose the bombers, the hour, the minute, to plan the communications (mobile phones are giveaways). Co-ordination and sophisticated planning - and the usual utter ruthlessness with regard to the lives of the innocent- are characteristic of al-Qa'ida. And let us not use - as our television colleagues did yesterday - "hallmarks", a word identified with quality silver rather than base metal.

And now let us reflect on the fact that yesterday, the opening of the G8, so critical a day, so bloody a day, represented a total failure of our security services - the same intelligence "experts"who claim there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when there were none, but who utterly failed to uncover a months-long plot to kill Londoners.

Trains, planes, buses, cars, metros. Transportation appears to be the science of al-Qa'ida's dark arts. No one can search three million London commuters every day. No one can stop every tourist. Some thought the Eurostar might have been an al-Qa'ida target - be sure they have studied it - but why go for prestige when your common or garden bus and Tube train are there for the taking.

And then come the Muslims of Britain, who have long been awaiting this nightmare. Now every one of our Muslims becomes the "usual suspect", the man or woman with brown eyes, the man with the beard, the woman in the scarf, the boy with the worry beads, the girl who says she's been racially abused.

I remember, crossing the Atlantic on 11 September 2001 - my plane turned round off Ireland when the US closed its airspace - how the aircraft purser and I toured the cabins to see if we could identify any suspicious passengers. I found about a dozen, of course, totally innocent men who had brown eyes or long beards or who looked at me with "hostility". And sure enough, in just a few seconds, Osama bin Laden turned nice, liberal, friendly Robert into an anti-Arab racist.

And this is part of the point of yesterday's bombings: to divide British Muslims from British non-Muslims (let us not mention the name Christians), to encourage the very kind of racism that Tony Blair claims to resent.

But here's the problem. To go on pretending that Britain's enemies want to destroy "what we hold dear" encourages racism; what we are confronting here is a specific, direct, centralised attack on London as a result of a "war on terror" which Lord Blair of Kutal-Amara has locked us into. Just before the US presidential elections, Bin Laden asked: "Why do we not attack Sweden?"

Lucky Sweden. No Osama bin Laden there. And no Tony Blair.

Booop Booop Booop... Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehp... (the beeb countdown)

You expect me to slump into depression, to lash out in some fit of rage, to crush you with the density of mercurial verbosity...yet no, I am held back by the poetry of piping hot Asian BBC World reporters. Forget Nancy Ajram and Haifa Wehbe. I'm talking class and intelligence...I'm talking almost 75% as fine as female Al Jazeera reporters.

Due to the marvels of satellite technology I have been indulging in BBC World trying to keep up to speed on all developments of the insanity by which my Londoner sister has confronted along with many many others. Once some more details emerge, I will respond more seriously. In the meantime, I want to speak of the hot asian BBC reporters that have calmed my nerves while the pressure has risen. Only if you watch BBC World would you actually understand what I'm speaking of here.

Michelle Hussein: Perhaps the kindest on the eyes. Yes, she has the same name as the tyrant...but she's oh so fine. My lord! What could I possibly say about Michelle Hussein? You can't find photographs of Michelle H. on the net because she's too hot for photographs. Get a satellite and get BBC World.

Zeinab Badawi: She's Sudanese. And while not technically Asian, I say close enough. Need I say more? [relevant mp3]









And just so you don't think I'm racist, do you remember the Annie Lennox/Sinead O'Connor of BBC McBabes? Anita McNaught-y! Rawwwrrrr beby rawwwr!








So here's to London and all their hot BBC reporters doing overtime by looking sexy on satellite. Am I out of line? Good.

more later...

My sister was very lucky today. She was in the tube and only a block or two away from one of the blasts when it happened. THANK GOD, SHE IS FINE, but I am very angry. More happened, but I am going to go smoke a ciggarette or something. I don't believe how close it was. You wouldn't believe me if I told you the whole thing, but it's one of those if she wasn't lazy she could have been right in the middle of it stories.

I chatted with her just now and we came to the conclusion that bush and blair are frickin' bastards and have made the world less safe because of their idiocy. ...that almost goes without saying, along with the fact that whatever bastards did this deserve to meet a painful death.

AND ANOTHER THING: When it happens in IRAQ, it's NO DIFFERENT! Grrrrrr...

My words'll expose George Bush and Bin Laden
As two separate parts of the same seven headed dragon

Remember this song? Download it here and the other, The Cause of Death, here.

UPDATE:

I'm going to collate some links here soon.

Foreign Policy

Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation

Executing Minors

Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice

Pop Culture

Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it

Self-image

Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints

God

Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone

Stem Cell Research

Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone

Use of Force

Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort

Bush's War in Iraq

Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster

Press

Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press

Free Speech

Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion

Individuals

Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity

Cooperation

Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together

Tolerance

Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live

Conscience

Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection

Origins

Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more

Leaders

Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government

Fear

Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently moral

Women

Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be

Marriage

Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other

via dKos

In what could be a matter of real confrontation, China & Russia have asked America to set a timetable to withdraw from Central Asia. Brzenzski's Grand Chessboard is now charged with electricity.

CS reports,

A six-nation security bloc comprised of China, Russia, and four former Soviet states has urged the US-led coalition in Afghanistan to set a deadline for withdrawing troops from member states, reports BBC. Meeting in the Kazakh capital of Astana, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) - which includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Russia - issued a joint statement saying the active military phase of the Afghan operation was coming to an end and calling on the US-led coalition to agree to a deadline for ending the temporary use of bases and air space in member countries.

We shall see what comes of this in the following days and weeks. Make no mistake, this is heavy-hitting geopolitics.

Billmon makes an important point about the information wars and how extremists help one another make a bad situation worse.

It looks like the Cheney administration is finally getting serious about losing the war in Iraq -- it's sending in the radio talk show hosts:

A contingent of conservatives talk radio hosts is headed to Iraq this month on a mission to report "the truth" about the war: American troops are winning, despite headlines to the contrary.

The "Truth Tour" has been pulled together by the conservative Web cast radio group Rightalk.com and Move America Forward, a non-profit conservative group backed by a Republican-linked public relations firm in California.

If the Iraqi insurgents are smart -- and most of them are fucking geniuses compared to your average right-wing talk show host -- they'll spread the word: Leave these particular dumb ass infidels alone. (Not that any of them are likely to poke their porcine snouts outside the green zone without a brigade-strength escort. But you never know where the odd mortar round is going to land.)

Why? Because collectively, these guys are an enormously valuable asset to America's enemies -- both because of their utterly brainless support for Al Qaeda's strategy of turning the war against terrorism into a crusade against Islam, and because they've done such a splendid job of setting up the American people to be demoralized and disillusioned by the truth.

Obfuscating the truth for more delusional visions of victory won't be helpful. And I'm sure extremists in the region will welcome the wing nuts to town with open arms. Another sick twist...

I was just speaking with my cousin who recently fled Iraq because of the terrible instability and he makes two points about why it was dangerous for him specifically. 1) Because he worked for a foreign company. "It put a stamp on our forehead." 2) Because he's Christian. "We're targeted by the fanatics." Then he went on to describe the violence committed by Iraqis in more detail, saying that 90 percent of the violence is perpitrated by ruthless gangs and other unsavory asswipes, while the other 10% honestly fight the occupation. That was his abstract estimate. He says Iraq is by and large lawless because of how these gangs operate. And now Iraq is flooded with them. I'm sure I'll have more from him in the future, but I just wanted to put a first impression of his thoughts up here now.

All I can say is that it seems from my cousin's estimate that the criminals are operating at an endemic level. He later on went to say, "maybe we can all go back and live in Iraq in 10 or 20 years." Other comments I recall include, "There is no light at the end of the tunnel. Because the tunnel is so long and dark." and "We would like to see hope, but there is none." and "Each day is worse than the day before."

When you hear this, it gets very depressing. In the end he said, "We still have hope. We lived like this during the war and we live like this now. We always have hope."

Sure he contradicts what he says about there being no hope, but I think that shows a lot about the general Iraqi feeling these days. Teetering between hope and hopelessness. It's certainly how I've felt, though now I have less hope than ever before...exactly because each day the situation gets worse.

About the 90/10 split...of course it's hard to say what this estimate really is, but there must be truth to this feeling he has. Still, what can be done about it when it benefits them to keep things as unstable as possible? Why would these bastards mind if some foreign jihadi went and blew up a bunch of innocent Iraqis or if American troops made more grave errors by putting more innocent Iraqis in graves. It only helps these criminal thugs. Of course, these are the Iraqis involved that we spoke of...my cousin also was saying that each and every day the amount of foreign "single-wash brainwashed fanatics" (as he calls them) and other fighters coming into Iraq is more and more. This was his feeling at least. And, it sure does look like that from afar. If this was America's strategy for fighting the so-called war on terror...to make Iraq into a training center similar as how Afghanistan was when America was sponsoring Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, well doesn't that sound the alarm bell that such a place only makes the world less safe?

Just because the new sponsors are rich Saudis, doesn't make the situation any different today. In fact, I'd argue it is worse because we know less and less about how these sort of terror groups operate now. Of course, in the case of Afghanistan in the 80s, America created those groups to fight the Soviet Union. So now, essentially, America has helped created another incubator for terrorism...and that was a part of the strategy?

They couldn't tie Iraq and Al Qaeda together then, but they sure can now. Imagine, then...that was a goal of the Cheney administration. How sick and twisted can a foreign policy get?

I want to be completely clear about my position regarding American troops in Iraq. There absolutely needs to be a timetable for withdrawal. The notion the insurgents need some sort of reason to "wait it out" is absurd. Let's be serious, the insurgency doesn't need a reason to be encouraged to fight. They are only getting stronger and more sophisticated as time passes, while American forces continue to kill and alienate innocent Iraqis. These Iraqis are the lot made to suffer most. They are stuck between the insurgency and the occupation. This favors the insurgency in the long run of course. And I believe more and more honest Iraqis are dreaming to be rid of the occupation. And that spells a nightmare for the American wish to have a strategic foothold in the region. In short, it will be impossible for America to have bases in Iraq and for Iraqis to live in peace simultaneously. bases/occupation = chaos - Simple as that. Anyway, at this rate, I believe in one to two years such a timetable will be presented. Now it doesn't seem to be in the cards for whatever reason, but believe me it will.

Is this a solution? Of course not. I'm describing not prescribing. If somebody tells you they have a solution, they'd be lying through their teeth. Let's just say we know what is not a solution. It is not a solution to continue the occupation indefinitely. It is not a solution to not hold people accountable and operate above international law. It is not a solution for people to treat Iraqis like they don't matter in all this. Iraq is for Iraqis, not for America. I'm sick of how people don't ask Iraqis living inside Iraq how they feel about being occupied, how they feel about being humiliated daily, how they feel about being treated like strangers in their own land, how they feel about not being able to go for a walk down the street, how they feel about not having drinking water, how they feel about not having petrol for their cars while having the world's second largest reserves of the stuff, how they feel about being the real victim in all this chaos.

Who gives anybody the right to not include Iraqis in the reconstruction process...to be suspicious of them getting involved in such projects just by the virtue that they are Iraqis? I mean, isn't that completely insane? Exiles going back to help is wonderful, but when they are the only ones running the ship from an isolated cocoon, the ship is bound to go down.

Exiles should be serving a support role, not as the Emperor's servants. When the Iraqi that has lived through all the wars and sanctions is put under the thumb of exiles coming from their plush lives (and able to leave whenever they like, mind you) from Australia, Europe, and N. America...it just sets up the entire situation for animosity to incubate.

Sure, Iraqis need to learn about certain things...and exiles will offer that help. But by no means should they patronize the Iraqi who has lived and suffered through the past hell to be presented with a new and even worse hell that they don't even have ownership of now. Talk about adding insult to injury. If the "injury" was a gaping flesh wound...it's more like adding urine, spit, and a little doo doo to that injury...rubbing it all in, then adding a little salt and terpintine to the wound. And then saying, "you don't live here, it's my house now, get out and pay for the doo doo too."

Whether or not that makes sense, I could hardly care less. I'm so exhausted as today felt over 40 degrees until the sun went down. My body aches and I'd like to shower, but I can't because my towels are washing.

That's all for now. Blaaa.

You know, if Houston, Texas, was held to the same standard as Iraq is held to, nobody'd go to Houston, because all this reporting coming out of the local press in Houston is violence, murders, robberies, deaths on the highways. -Tom Delay

Billmon has written an excellent post entitled Democracy or Empire?

Rove needs to be visited by the FBI Ferry and locked up.

Screw democrats and let them give birth to gremlins for being so weak in the knees on a woman's right to choose.

The current Iraqi "government" learned a lot from Saddam and then they upgraded their torture chambers to "torture camps" thanks to America's help at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq.

Remember to get your war on every once and a while.

And Tom Tomorrow cuts through the crap as usual. Check this one:

When you thought the Cheney administration couldn't get more hostile:

The Bush administration has decided to retain control over the principal computers which control internet traffic in a move likely to prompt global opposition, it was claimed yesterday.

The US had pledged to turn control of the 13 computers known as root servers - which inform web browsers and email programs how to direct internet traffic - over to a private, international body.

But on Thursday the US reversed its position, announcing that it will maintain control of the computers because of growing security threats and the increased reliance on the internet for global communications. A Japanese government official yesterday criticised the move, claiming it will lend momentum to the debate about who controls the information flow online.

Can anybody say, unilateral take-over of the internet? I mean, they didn't even go to the UN for this one.

"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th attacks."

George W. Bush -- September 17, 2003

To the extend that George Bush had retained the slightest shred of dignity through the whole ugly Iraq imbroglio, it was found in his refusal to fully embrace the biggest of the Big Lies told by his aides: The claim that the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein had played a role in the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
...

The point here is not to defend Hussein. The point is to recognize reality: The invasion and occupation of Iraq did not control the spread of terrorist activity in the Middle East. It handed the terrorists new opportunities for recruitment, and it gave them new territory in which to operate. Until the president acknowledges these fundamental realities -- and his own responsibility for making things worse -- it will be impossible to undo the damage.

George Bush set out to deceive to the American people Tuesday. That was morally wrong, and tactically foolish.

But George Bush also deceived himself, by engaging in the fantasy that some new spin will allow him to avoid taking responsibility for making the world a more dangerous place. Ultimately, that is the bigger, and far more dangerous lie.

Complete piece here.

But I wouldn't expect anything less from the puppets and their masters.

President Jalal Talabani denied that Iraq had a role in US talks with insurgent leaders, insisting they were strictly a US affair despite Washington's claims it was acting only as a facilitator.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld confirmed Sunday that US officials had held talks with insurgent groups, but insisted Washington's role was limited to that of broker for the Iraqi government.

"The Iraqis have a sovereign government," Rumsfeld said. "They will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be. We facilitate those from time to time."

Please visit here. Encourage the Iraqi voice.

"To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban - a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends."

(Righhhhht...it won't be a safe haven. Instead, it'll be dangerous for everyone. A breeding (as in, training) ground and recruitment device for terrorists. That'll show em. In other words, we will turn Iraq into Afghanistan--circa the 1980s--when the Mujahadeen you were funding (ie, Osama Bin Laden) with billions of dollars were fighting the Soviets. Yes, indeed. America funded, thus created Osama Bin Laden.) (That's me speaking...now, back to the article.)

Consider. Three years ago, when the Bush administration started ramping up the case for invading Iraq, Afghanistan had recently been liberated from both the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorists who had attacked the US. There was still a vast amount to be done to make Afghanistan a safe place. Iraq, meanwhile, was a hideous dictatorship under Saddam Hussein. But, as the United States' own September 11 commission subsequently concluded, Saddam's regime had no connection with the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was not then a recruiting sergeant or training ground for jihadist terrorists. Now it is. The US-led invasion, and Washington's grievous mishandling of the subsequent occupation, have made it so. General Wesley Clark puts it plainly: "We are creating enemies." And the president observes: our great achievement will be to prevent Iraq becoming another Taliban-style, al-Qaida-harbouring Afghanistan! This is like a man who shoots himself in the foot and then says: "We must prevent it turning gangrenous, then you'll understand why I was right to shoot myself in the foot."

If I wasn't surprised or so wet and rageless last night, this is what I would have said. For Iraqis, what Bush said is like peeing in the wind or trying to make water wetter. I wish to see a glimmer of hope in something regarding Iraq these days, but the feeling in my gut alarms me. I regret agreeing with this. What is the solution? Especially since my friends and family in Iraq that might read this. I've always had this feeling, like...what right is it of mine to tell others of my truest outrage while I'm not inside Iraq toiling away trying to make a better future in more concrete ways. I simply don't see any sweetness and light in the situation. Of course, I haven't held myself back too much...but I have held my worst fears close to me because of my concerns in offending family and friends who have to suffer daily because of this illegal war and occupation. How will the insurgency end if each time foolish people (ie, US troops & jihadis) continue to kill innocent people? How will you win if you make new enemies each day through direct or indirect humiliating practices? And when the general opinion in Iraq is that troops will not be held to account for anything and that an Iraqi's life is worth less than an American's, well...why would anybody want to submit to such auto-somatic subalternism? Come on people...I'm sure Iraqis inside Iraq are going to be like..."I'm not worth what you're worth and please continue occupying my country indefinitely." What utter BS. If the Cheney administration does not have the presence of mind to accept some blame, correct it in an honest manner, and try to move forward without committing more terrible mistakes...the violence will continue indefinitely.

I don't know what else to say anymore. I just hope and pray my family and friends stay safe in Iraq during this difficult time. The only way we will get through it is to believe in and care for each other. Of course, saying there is no solution in sight is not the nicest thing to do. There is always hope, though. Counting on American troops for the hope of safety, though, is not an option. They are only making things worse, while building the psychological facade in the minds of many from left to right that the only way forward is for the occupation to continue indefinitely. When, in fact, the solution is nowhere in sight.

The best we may do now is to create the conditions for a solution to be possible. Even doing this will be difficult. But to go in front of the world and say such a thing (see top of post) proves that the Cheney administration couldn't care less about the Iraqi people or American sons and daughters that are dying and risking their lives for such folly.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has no right to speak about the case of three jailed activists whose cause she took up during a recent visit here, Saudi Interior Minister Nayef bin Abdel Aziz said.

"It's an internal matter, nobody has the right to speak about it," the minister was quoted as saying, by the official SPA news agency, in response to questions on Rice's comments on the three reformers.

Doesn't that poor fool of a took know that the reason why he's got any power in S.A. is because of America. I mean, please, have a little more respect for your masters.

So, I was seriously thinking about slowing down the blogging because of a number of new things going on in my life and some minor inconveniences with regard to blogspot. Instead, I'm going to add some new features. I was doing the podcast thing for a little while. What a kingdom of fun that was. I may pick that back up again when I get some new ideas. Unfortunately, I don't have my records or sound gear any where near me. So, while I find an alternative, I'm going to put some songs up for your enjoyment. Anyway, yada yada...

I was walking around in the rain today. It's hot outside. Really humid too. Listening to T Rex and Tears for Fears in my ears' phones. Lots of people...so many many people. Shocked. Ran some erands. Tried to imagine what my life will be like in even a few weeks. So much is new. I'm trying to manage my excitement, my nervousness. What will happen next?

Came home in the pouring rain. My clothes were soaked. I mean soaked. My new converses were too. Oh well, can't wear those pants tomorrow. They'll be too wet. Got dry and ate my dinner while I checked my email. Simplicity is kind to my outlook on things. But I must get out of the house and be alone in the anonymity of the metropolis. Staying inside is not an option. Rain or shine. Heat or humidity. There's a time and place for everything.

Started listening to music while I got some things in order. First Abdel Halim Hafez...bit'lemooni lehy...bit'lemooni lehy! Then Adult...lost love....contagious...yeaaaa.

That's what I'm talkin' bout. I saw Adult live my junior year of Uni. I was front and center and the place was packed. My my my...what a show. I went to school in a town filled with indie rock kids that didn't dance. At a concert they would pretty much fold their arms and nod their heads at the most. It was truly annoying. Maybe they thought dancing was for freaks, er I dunno. But certainly it was because they were lame as hell.

Anyhow, everybody danced that night. I was completely amazed. What the eff...incredible. Front to back. There wasn't a body in the house that wasn't shaking.

Good memories.

If you want to hear Lost Love or Contagious, you'll probably have to use iTunes. It's in the more efficient .m4a format. I'm not sure if there's another player that plays this format. (I use iTunes.) When I put up audio, it will stay for a week or two for your sampling purposes. Then I'll put different songs up as they become relevant to my mind's wandering. Here's a review or two for Adult's album Resuscitation where you'll find these tracks. Go buy it here. Check out Insound...it's one of the flyest labels out there.

Oh, also...somebody gave a speech. But there was nothing in it that was important. Complete Bullshit.

From time to time an article comes along in a respected journal like Harper's Magazine (the oldest periodical publication in the U.S.), which is not digital yet deserves to be. I've had the time recently to type an excerpt of one such article written by Karl E. Meyer called Forty Years in the Sand: What happened the last time freedom marched on Iraq. It was published in the June 2005 issue of Harper's. I only wish people could learn from history. This is especially prescient in the case of Iraq. Enjoy.

Update: Found entire version online.

In March 1917, Anglo-Indian forces finally captured Baghdad, a triumph greeted with energetic huzzahs in London but that posed a fresh quandary. How was Mesopotamia to be governed? Baghdad's conqueror, Major Genereal Stanley Maude, cabled an answer: "Local conditions do not permit of employing in responsible positions any but British officers competent to deal with Military authorities and with poeple of the country. Before any truly Arab facade can be applied to edifice it seems essential that foundation of law and order should be well and truly laid."

This understanding of the local politicsf was disputed by the Foreign Office's Sire Mark Sykes, who cautioned the cabinet that "if you work from India you have all the old traditions of black and white, and you can not run the Arabs on black and white lines." And so from London came the now famous proclamation, composed by Sykes, affirming that "Our armies have not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators." Additionally, he invited the people of occupied Mesopotamia to share in shaping the new government and urged the rapid withdrawal of Anglo-Indian administrators.

In reality, the British were uncertain about how much power they were willing to accord to Mesopotamia's diverse peoples. For all his rhetorical devotion to Arab rights, the same Mark Sykes had also negotiated the pact with FFrance divvyfing Ottoman lands like chattel in a divorce suit. When Londonf found few competent replacements for British administrators in Mesopotamia it decided simply to retain them at their posts. As the American historian David Fromkinff remarks in A Peace to End All Peace, General Maude was placed in the difficult position of preaching self-rule while discouraging its practice: "The compromise formula at which the British had arrived might have been expressly designedf to arouse dissatisfaction and unrest: Havingf volunteered what sounded like a pledge of independencefffffffff to an area that had not asked for it, the military and civil authorities of the occupying power then proceeded to withhold it."

Gertrude Bell, resettled in a river-bank bungalow, was given the grand if ambiguous title of oriental secretary to Major Percy Cox, who was made civil commissioner of all Mesopotamia. When Cox was summoned to London and Teheran for extended consultation, in April 1918, Wilson was named acting civil commissioner with the rank of lieutenant colonel. "I can scarcely realize that I am at present responsible to Government for the administration and political frelations of the whole of this vast area," the marveling colonel reported to his family.

Three days before the November 11 armistice, Britain and France released a bold and surprising joint declaration promising peoples "long oppressed by the Turks" fa free choice of future governments. Referring to Syria and Iraq, the declaration vowed that the Allies had "no other care" but to support the governments that oppressed peoples "shall have adopted of their free will."

The declaration was an obvious response to Woodrow Wilson's idealistic Fourteen Points, proclaimed earlier that year. The twelfth point affirmed that all nationalities under Turkish rule were owed "an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development." One might deride the Fourteen Points (France's Premier Georges Clemenceau complained that God was content with Ten), but with Wilson about to make a triumphant entry into Allied capitals, they were impossible to ignore. The subsequent perceived failure of Britain and France to honor this politically expedient pledge sowed an enduring sense of betrayel.

In Baghdad, Colonel Wilson conveyed a different sense of betrayal to Sir Arthur Hirtzel, the permanent under-secretary of the India Office in London:

The Declaration incolves us here on the spot in diplomatic insincerities which we have hitherto successfully avoided and places a potent weapon in the hands of those least fitted to control a nation's destinies.... The average Arab, as opposed to the handful of amateur politicians in Baghdad, sees the future as one of fair dealing and material and moral progress under the aegis of Great Britain.... Our best course is to declare Mesopotamia to be a British Protectorate under which all races and classes will be given forthwith the maximum degree of liberty and self-rule compatible with good and safe government.

Bell for the moment agreed with much of this. She supported WIlson's campaign to unite dissimilar Ottoman provinces, and also believed the Franco-British declaration ill-advised. Yet she did not think Iraq should become a protectorate, and was dismayed by the ignorance of senior policymakers, who shrugged off as inconsequential the rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Bell's understanding of the situation in Iraq was shaped to a large degree by Colonel T.E. Lawrence, a friend from her days at the Arab Bureau in Cairo. Known to Bell as "Imp" or "Dear Boy" and to the world as Lawrence of Arabia, he began his wartime service with a bizarre mission in 1916 to free Andlo-Indian troops beseiged by Turkish forces north of Basra by offering one million poinds to the Turksih commander to let them go. Even though Lawrences's misssion failed, it became routine British practice to offfer cash "subsidies" to Arab chieftains. The essential cynicism of this approach was confirmed when long-classified official records became public in the 1960s. Here is how Lawrence himself justified supporting Hussein and his son, the Emir Faisal:

[Hussein's] activity seems beneficial to us, because it marches with our immediate aims, the break-up of the Islamic "bloc" and the defeat and disruption of the Ottoman Empire, and because the states he would set up to succeed the Turks would be as harmless to ourselves as Turkey was before she became a tool in German hands. The Arabs are even less stable than the Turks. If properly handled they would remain in a state of political mosaic, a tissue of small jealous principalities incapable of cohesion, and yet always ready to combine against an outside force.

This statement is difficult to reconcile with Lawrence fame as a gallant champion of the Arabs. In Seven Pillars of Wisdom, he tried to square an ethical circle that confronts intelligence officers in the field: "I could see that if we wond the war the promises to the Arabs were dead paper. Had I been an honourable adviser, I would have sent my men home, and not let them risk their lives for such stuff." Yet Arab help was necessary to a "cheap and speedy" British victory in the East. Better to win and betray than lose.

After The War to End Wars, the victors convened in Paris from January until July 1919 to negotiate a peace settlement. The Big Three--Woodrow WIlson, British Prime MInister David Lloyd George, and French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau--conferred regularly to discuss peace terms, address the claims of stateless peoples, and parcel the spoils of defeated empires. Yet the distracted potentates and their aides would frequently forget what they had already decided, or promised.

In the territorial horse-trading, Wilson won his campaign to bind the three unlike provinces of Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul into the single new nation of Iraq. The British had favored a state for Kurdistan, T.E. Lawrence sought separate emirates for Basra and Baghdad, the Emire Faisal wanted a federation of Syria and Iraq, and the French tried to attach the oil-rich Mosul to Syria.

As the Paris conference ended, only the outlines of the new Middle East had been agreed upon. Having initially talked of an independent state for Armenians and Kurds, the Americans began to pull back from active involvement in the region. The Notion of a Jewish national home in Palestine was still so nebulous that even the Emir Faisal, nudged by Lawrence, gave it qualified approval.

France readied for its ostensibly transitional mandatory authority in Syria and Lebanon, while Britain prepared for a similar oversight role in Iraq and Palestine. In a letter to Aubrey Herbert, a friend and diplomatic insider, Gertrude Bell lamented: "O my dear they are making such a horrible muddle of the Near East. I confidently anticipate that it will be much worse than it was before the war--except Mesopotamia which we may manage to hold up out of the general chaos."

In the even, Bell was mistaken. By June 1920, armed insurrection had erupted along the upper Euphrates, allegedly fueled by bribes from Faisal's agents. But gold alone could not explain the rebellion's spread down the Euphrates to Najaf and Karbala, then to the muddy alleys of Basra and the slums encircling Baghdad. A worried Gertrude Bell noted that the Sunni and Shiite faithful were closing ranks in shared hostility to the British occupation. An embattled Baghdad command rushed reinforcements from town to town. Colonel Wilson appealed urgently for an increase in the 80,000 occupation force, but at a time when London was contending with a deepening recession, postwar debts, and riots or terrorism in Egypt, Ireland, and India. More injudiciously, Wilson posed a quasi-ultimatum: either send more troops or withdraw entirely. Then, as the Iraqi rebellion peaked in August, France deposed of Faisal from his Syrian throne.

In a letter to The Times, Lawrence found it unsurprising that the occupation regime had collapsed, since its manager were 450 British officers and not a single Mesopotamian. He wondered, "Why should Englishmen (or Indians) have to be killed to make the Arab Government in Mesopotamia, which is [our] considered intention?. . . Of course, there is oil in Mesopotamia, but we are no nearer that while the Middle East remains at war." He followed with another salvo in the London Sunday Times

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.

How long, he asked in conclusion, "will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of a form of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?"

How many last throes do you rip on the daily? You say many money. You say many many many.

12-year-long last throes? Oh yea. Welcome to the imperfect science of Contextual Oxymoronics. You know by now VP Evile, the power behind the scourge of the neocon hypocritical wave of delusion, asserted and reasserted the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes". He found his heart ailing him recently. Could it be the cold stone shell of denial is cracking to bits under the pressure of recent polling (i.e. the silent majority, aka American popular will & Mr. McFreedom-Fries Republican Walter Jones' deep-south fried withdrawal demands, oh & that other minor Republican Senator, what's his name, Bagel or Hagel is it)? And now, we get the first ever frank assertion coming out of this administration from none other than DR. Torture himself. Namely, that the insurgency could last a dozen years. A dozen years? A dozen years. Dozen. Years. All this while he admits to negotiating with terrorists, which is against official American policy. What a bloody mess.

I don't know about you, but a dozen years doesn't seem like "last throes" to me. Can we be real for a minute and think about how this proves that neoconservatives are delusional? And that this is the most important point we can draw from the charade they've played on the American people and the world?

They're liars. Just because they come with one frank admission doesn't mean we should let everything else slide. Hell no. And this whole sympathy card is going to continue tomorrow night when the George gives his speech. He's going to beg and grovel. There'll be no "bring em' ons" or "either you're with us or against us"...because frankly he's up shit-creek. He's a lame duck president. Lame & something that rhymes with duck is a better way to put what he is at this point. And Cheney...well, this is what he sowed. This is what all those eff-tard neocons have sowed upon America and the world. And now, after thumbing their nose at the UN so they could have their war, they're going to go crawling back to the global community for help. Will they really relinquish control of this "project"...as if Iraq is some workshop to the world. I hate it when I hear this crap. "Project"...as if, say, we cut off some man's legs and see if we can grow the damn things back with suicide bombings and the razing of complete towns.

The logic...

Sorry, what logic?

All for the neocon dream. After bringing so much hell on earth, these neocons need to be kicked out on the curb for good. If you ask me, Neoconservative thought on the Hill is in its last throes. And those throes aren't going to take a dozen years.

You lying SOBs. Take your hell back and then go rot in it. Who are Americans to think that freedom is theirs to spread?

It's a saying that's been around for a long time. Still true.

Even when our libraries are being destroyed by bombs, we still read.

For more direct emphasis, make sure you visit Francis Deblauwe's blog courtesy of Baghdad Museum.

All I can say is, meow Mona meow. Kifaya indeed. Never enough. Seldom am I afforded the opportunity to express my libido's cravings here. So, here's to Mona in all her hotness.

Read her latest article, The increasing Frustration of Egypt’s Youth

Are they frustrated because they can't be enamoured in all your heavenliness?

After I did Abu Ghraib, I got a bunch of digital pictures emailed me, and -- was a lot of work on it, and I decided, well, we can talk about it later. You never know why you do things. You have some general rules, but in this case, a bunch of kids were going along in three vehicles. One of them got blown up. The other two units -- soldiers ran out, saw some people running, opened up fire. It was a bunch of boys playing soccer. And in the digital videos you see everybody standing around, they pull the bodies together. This is last summer. They pull the bodies together. You see the body parts, the legs and boots of the Americans pulling bodies together. Young kids, I don't know how old, 13, 15, I guess. And then you see soldiers dropping R.P.G.'s, which are rocket-launched grenades around them. And then they're called in as an insurgent kill. [one, two, three, four, five, six]

Body language is remarkable, ain't it?

This is just a heads-up post about the legality of bombing raids on Iraq in 2002. Thing is, they weren't legal in any stretch of the term. I didn't really have the chance to put much up about it, but I think we'll need to look at this in more detail in the near future. It's Downing Street Memos related and passed-up in the current storm over the memos in the US because it shows American and British culpability. Don't have much time now to comment, but I'll put some links to a few stories. From this story.

A spike in British and U.S. 2002 bombing raids on Iraq, reportedly designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating, was illegal under international law, according to British Foreign Office legal advice leaked to the UK’s Sunday Times. The advice indicated that the goal of the bombing was to provoke Hussein, thus providing a pretext for war.

British Ministry of Defense records show that the spike began in May 2002.

Then there's this.

These "spikes of activity" were aimed at provoking Saddam into action that might justify war. Other documents confirm that Blair had agreed to back regime change in the spring of 2002, that he was warned it was illegal and that ministers were told to "create the conditions" that would make it legal. Other gems include the admission that the threat from Saddam and WMD had not increased and that US attempts to link Baghdad to al-Qaida were "frankly unconvincing".

Indeed. And Michael Smith (the reporter that first broke the Downing Street Memos on the scene), expounds upon this in a recent story.

American media coverage of the Downing Street memo has largely focused on the assertion by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, that war was seen as inevitable in Washington, where "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

But another part of the memo is arguably more important. It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B.

Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war.

The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.

Another hard-hitting editorial by Krugman on the DSM.

Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.

Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.

The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.

And then there's the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.

Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do now. But they're wrong: it's crucial that those responsible for the war be held to account.

Let me explain.

What I don't understand is that Baloney Tony could have Bush mushed and left out to dry if he so pleased. And people would love him for it. There must be other DSMemos out there.

Imagine the year 2056...

MECCA—The 14 democratic member nations of the Middle Eastern Union unanimously voted to declare war on the U.S. Monday, calling the North American country a "dangerous rogue state that must be contained."

"The United States of America has repeatedly violated international law and committed human-rights abuses at home and abroad," MEU President Mohamed Rajib said at a Monday security-council meeting. "MEU weapons inspectors have confirmed that the U.S. continues to pursue their illegal ununhexium-weapons program. Our attempts to bring about change through diplomatic means have repeatedly failed. Now, we are forced to take military action."

The MEU, formed in the wake of the 2042 Saudi Arabian revolution, is modeled on the Enlightenment ideal of the democratic republic and makes every attempt to avoid war even as it pursues an agenda of encouraging self-rule throughout the world. The decision to invade America marks the first military action of the MEU.

Rajib said that, unless the U.S. ends its "unlawful and tyrannical" occupation of northern Africa in seven days, the governments of Iraq, Iran, Jordan, and Muhammad Arabia will begin deploying aero-troops to international tropospace over America's Brand-New England region. [to continue story]

Jon Leyne speaks to Iraqis inside Iraq and reports on the utter failures that prove America is losing the war. So, Rumsfeld is wrong. Rumsfeld is in denial. Winning the war is winning the peace. And there are now so many Iraqis that are so hostile to the US if only by the virtue of their complete incompetence in trying to even make essential services reach pre-war levels in this Fatoush Republic.

Speaking to Iraqis is a rare event for most reporters these days. But if people could hear them now, they'd hear that there is no water or contaminated water where there is water.

The water situation is very real and very critical in the major population centers at the moment. How can you win hearts and minds if you cannot even make sure people have safe water to drink in the midst of a hellish Iraqi summer?

'We've been affected badly,' complained one man in the area. 'We don't have any water to drink. What are we supposed to do? Sometimes they cut the power as well. It's all the fault of the Americans.'

I meant to post this a long long time ago, but I haven't really been around a scanner for a while. Somebody in my family brought the March 20, 2005 issue of the Sunday Times to me when we got together for Easter. If you aren't familiar with this date, it's the second anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. We tend to celebrate Easter twice in my family for schedule flexibity. The more usual one and Assyrian Orthodox one. Sometimes we get together for one, sometimes for another. Why did I mention that? Anyway...this article mentions both Sir Richard Dearlove (head of MI6 at the time of the lead-up to the war) and the intelligence being "fixed". Obviously the first time around it didn't stick. I believe the leak of the actual document of the minutes is very interesting. Don't you? Click on the picture, or this link here, for the first page, here for the second part, and here for the third part. You have to go back to the first part to finish the article. All I can say is get hold of the documentary about this PreDowning Street Memo moment. I know I'd like to see it.

Here are all the links to the scans of the story:

PreDowningStreetMemo.jpg
PreDowningStreetMemoForPost.jpg
PreDowningStreetMemo2.jpg
PreDowningStreetMemo3.jpg

I got the latest Punk Planet in today and lookie what I found.