Shlonkom Bakazay?

And get even worse...

It is undeniable that the Iraq war is a debacle of immense proportions. Every time I try to write something, I simply can't. And after all the blank spots have been filled in with vivid color by my family members with whom I was re-united with during the winter break, I do not have the words to express anything...much less my disgust for the situation.

But, Eric Haney, the founder of the infamous American Delta Force does not have the same such problem.

Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside Delta Force" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against "American Idol," "The Unit" shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.
Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.

We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of "The Unit."

Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Q: What is the cost to our country?

A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.

Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.

The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed ñ which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.

THE UNIT

What: Action-adventure about special-ops unit.
Where: CBS (Channel 2).
When: 9 p.m. Tuesdays.

You might be asking this just about now. And I don't blame you. I've been MIA quite some time...and for a number of reasons. First, every time I actually try to sit and write about the current situation and all that's happened to me in the past couple months I'm met face to face with some serious questions that concern my identity and my changing priorities in life and I'd just rather avoid such questions for the meantime in order to gain focus. I've become more pragmatic and see how little affect I've actually got on the whole ball of wax which melts, runs, and withers in every which way at the whims of the flaming sharameeet on all sides who bi' ya'khrab for sport. That sport is making money and grabbing power. Over the course of one's life, we each dabble in this sport at various degrees. But the degree in which current leaders and former leaders in the new and "democratic" and American/Irani Iraq (and this includes leaders of the occupation as well) partake in such sport is beyond any sane person's wildest imaginations. We can safely say at this point that nobody wants Iraq to be a success, even anti-war Europeans and Americans. I realize I'm citing FF in this link, but he makes some damn prescient points in today's Guardian. And he makes the point I've made over and over about how Democrats and Republicans are essentially a different face leading to the same bullshit. But I think FF is being a bit too much of an apologist for the GOP in this article, because I do not believe Al Gore would have necessarily taken this country into such an ill-advised war. But we're already here, so no need to harp on about the past, right? Wrong!

What's another reason why nobody wants Iraq to be a success?

If Iraq had some securtiy and essential services, the theives are were there before the elections and the theives who are there now could not steal as efficiently as they do. Add a chalabi or two and you have expert Theive Trainers spreading around the cash...because there's tons to go around. Unfortunately, there isn't enough power to spread around to all the terminally corrupt and inept asswipes who think they have some control over the current situation. The situation is out of control, but the president tells you to look past the bloodshed and not lose your nerve. On the other hand, the Iranian Iraqis tell you that they want the US out soon because there's no need for them there because the current Iraqi "government" has everything under control. And if we were to believe the rosy outlook the White House continues to take on Iraq, we might even begin to believe the Iranians and withdraw, right? WRONG!

And with this, the true Iraqi's delemmna is thus presented...And I guess I can only speak from the Iraqi Christian perspective when I point the following out. The troops cannot stay and they cannot go.

But I firmly believe that this is America's dilemma now. Every American's dilemma actually. And America won't leave Iraq...and they won't interfere with all-out civil war, according to Squire Rumsfeldio. But I bet you a bottom dollar Americans side with Sunnis and Saddamites in the coming months and years and try to grab back some of the power that the Shiites have taken. Not interfering in an all-out civil war reeks of some of the reality that quite literally gushes out so often onto our television sets and web browsers...meaning, the occupation has come to protect America's oil underneath Iraq's soil, even if innocent Iraqis continue to die because of the American and Iranian presence. The 51st state indeed. How many states get a 500 billion dollar budget over three years?

So, we know what they won't do...but what will they do to stay in Iraq?

I'm sure they don't even know what the long-run has in store. But lying to the American people is a pre-req of seemingly everything the cabal on the hill do. It's important to note that there are other cabals in other places who are also meddling with Iraq's fate. And knowing this makes me the saddest. It is truly an arena for other people to fight their wars. I need not mention Lebanon's or Algeria's similarities any longer. This is a much more formadable monster. And it will be Bush's legacy whether he likes it or not.

Personally, I hope he succeeds. But I know he won't because of his miserably poor performance to date. Success is something you build one brick at a time, not something you imagine.

First, my apologies...

I was supposed to do so much, but for over a week now my internet has been down. Good news is that it works again. Bad news is that I don't have the time now to get to anything. I just wanted to say hello and let people know that I will return to the fold shortly.

I've got a thing for elephants.

P ea C e

Lebanon, Food Poisoned, Amman, Reunion with Family, back to school...

That's the order of things that happened. A particularly nasty case of food poisoning as well...5 days of fever etc et

Sorry I couldn't fulfill my plan to blog. Too much has happened, but I'll try to catch up this week.

Peace to the peoples with both brain and heart.

ALLLLLLLLLLLLoooooooooooooooooooo,

I'm going to try my best to steer a bit clear from politics in the coming days and weeks because I notice how it just gives me a big headache. I'm far too concerned about things out of my control and I wish to just live my life with a modicum of peace. I know this is the recipe for apathy that many governments implement in order to muzzle their populations from complaining about real problems that may have real solutions if only people organized and spoke-out against things such as injustice and inequality. As you see... my problem is I'm really political by nature...can't help myself. In a way, this blog serves as a manner by which I release all the political coodies I catch while going about my day. Instead I wanna catch some culture coodies and spread em around to ya. Anyway, I'll try my best to turn my attention to things more pleasant while in Lebanon. Because I know I'll only get into trouble if I really speak my mind.

PEACE OUT !

LIM

Here comes the big irony...

It doesn't help Bush and his agenda in the ME for a moderate anything to exist. Because that would mean he'd have to do what our founding-fathers did so well...COMPROMISE. So, I along with many others believe that Bush is in cahoots with extremists stretching all along region. Many in Leb. believe this, too, as I've had this conversation with several already. And these are the Christians that Georgey claims to represent in his religio-pulpit at the WH. You cannot fool most Lebanese. They're extremely agile political beings(at least the ones i know)...the complete opposite of the average apathetic SUV-driving American.

So the Bushites wanted Middle Eastern democracy and coupled with his illegal war in Iraq which radicalized populations across the board, they sure-well got it fanatic-style. What they themselves know best... I don't want this to sound like an "I told you so", but it's the frickin truth. We saw this coming miles and miles away. The morons with power in Washington have successfully fucked up the world. Because their designs will never ever work. And I'm sure in the next year or two we'll begin to see exactly why.

OUT,
LIMmmmmmmmm

I got here and didn't realize how bent out of shape I was. It's true, I hadn't been sleeping well for months and I was emaciated from the lack thereof good zaytoon and leban among other delectables of the Lebanese variety. Oh, it's been too long...

My body was broken by the time I arrived a week ago. One of my little cousins was a little under the weather, so I caught a bit of it. But after being fed and getting some real rest, today I've completely recovered and I'm ready for some Lebanon...The weather has been a downer the past couple days here in Beirut, but I'm sure the mountains have lots of snow. I can't wait to go skiing!!!

Sorry I was gone so long. I'm going to be blogging heavily in the next few weeks. So check back in often.

Now, some general commentary as I have been gone since all what happened during the past year. I sincerely thought things would get better here...people would become more united and so on. But now that I've taken in things a bit, it just looks to me as if things are more divided and becoming more divided than ever. All the political dinosaurs/warlords are still welding power in Lebanon...no new faces (really) to date. Why are Lebanon's youth so complacent? Are traditions spoiling the political ambitions of our generation? Should we remain on the yoke of the archaic?

I say no. Lets get together and figure out how to make a principled-stand instead of continuing the zombie-walk to oblivion that is occuring in so many other neighboring nations.

Peace out my brothers and sisters...it's great to be back!

Bush while in Buffalo, New York, for his reelection campaign in April 2004:

There are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

And a seemingly ever-prescient question posed to Bee Dubya Diddy in a recent news conference where he's defending his NSA program,

I wonder if you can tell us today, sir, what, if any, limits you believe there are or should be on the powers of a President during a war, at wartime? And if the global war on terror is going to last for decades, as has been forecast, does that mean that we're going to see, therefore, a more or less permanent expansion of the unchecked power of the executive in American society?

link

It's all very poetic, even though crazy. I mean, you're 16 dude. Chill.

Maybe it was the time the taxi dumped him at the Iraq-Kuwait border, leaving him alone in the middle of the desert. Or when he drew a crowd at a Baghdad food stand after using an Arabic phrase book to order. Or the moment a Kuwaiti cab driver almost punched him in the face when he balked at the $100 fare. But at some point, Farris Hassan, a 16-year-old from Florida, realized that traveling to Iraq by himself was not the safest thing he could have done with his Christmas vacation.

And he didn't even tell his parents.

Yale geopolitical guru, Immanuel Wallerstein, registered this opinion back in August of this year. I missed it completely, so I'm posting it in its entirety now. Following his August opinion is another short commentary piece from a couple weeks ago.

Commentary No. 167, Aug. 15, 2005

"The U.S. Has Lost the Iraq War"

It's over. For the U.S. to win the Iraq war requires three things: defeating the Iraqi resistance; establishing a stable government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S.; maintaining the support of the American people while the first two are being done. None of these three seem any longer possible. First, the U.S. military itself no longer believes it can defeat the resistance. Secondly, the likelihood that the Iraqi politicians can agree on a constitution is almost nil, and therefore the likelihood of a minimally stable central government is almost nil. Thirdly, the U.S. public is turning against the war because it sees no "light at the end of the tunnel."

As a result, the Bush regime is in an impossible position. It would like to withdraw in a dignified manner, asserting some semblance of victory. But, if it tries to do this, it will face ferocious anger and deception on the part of the war party at home. And if it does not, it will face ferocious anger on the part of the withdrawal party. It will end up satisfying neither, lose face precipitously, and be remembered in ignominy.

Let us see what is happening. This month, Gen. George Casey, the U.S. commanding general in Iraq, suggested that it may be possible to reduce U.S. troops in Iraq next year by 30,000, given improvements in the ability of the Iraqi government's armed forces to handle the situation. Almost immediately, this position came under attack from the war party, and the Pentagon amended this statement to suggest that maybe this wouldn't happen, since maybe the Iraqi forces were not yet ready to handle the situation, which is surely so. At the same time, stories appeared in the leading newspapers suggesting that the level of military sophistication of the insurgent forces has been growing steadily and remarkably. And the increased rate of killings of U.S. soldiers certainly bears this out.

In the debate on the Iraqi constitution, there are two major problems. One is the degree to which the constitution will institutionalize Islamic law. It is conceivable that, given enough time and trust, there could be a compromise on this issue that would more or less satisfy most sides. But the second issue is more intractable. The Kurds, who still really want an independent state, will not settle for less than a federal structure that will guarantee their autonomy, the maintenance of their militia, and control of Kirkuk as their capital and its oil resources as their booty. The Shiites are currently divided between those who feel like the Kurds and want a federal structure, and those who prefer a strong central government provided they can control it and its resources, and provided that it will have an Islamic flavor. And the Sunnis are desperate to maintain a united state, one in which they will minimally get their fair share, and certainly don't want a state governed by Shia interpretations of Islam.

The U.S. has been trying to encourage some compromise, but it is hard to see what this might be. So, two possibilities are before us right now. The Iraqis paper over the differences in some way that will not last long. Or there is a more immediate breakdown in negotiations. Neither of these meets the needs of the U.S. Of course, there is one solution that might end the deadlock. The Iraqi politicians could join the resisters in a nationalist anti-American thrust, and thereby unite at least the non-Kurd part of the population. This development is not to be ruled out, and of course is a nightmare from the U.S. point of view.

But, for the Bush regime, the worst picture of all is on the home front. Approval rating of Bush for the conduct of the Iraqi war has gone down to 36 percent. The figures have been going steadily down for some time and should continue to do so. For poor George Bush is now faced with the vigil of Cindy Sheehan. She is a 48-year-old mother of a soldier who was killed in Iraq a year ago. Incensed by Bush's statement that the U.S. soldiers died in a "noble cause," she decided to go to Crawford, Texas, and ask to see the president so that he could explain to her for what "noble cause" her son died.

Of course, George W. Bush hasn't had the courage to see her. He sent out emissaries. She said this wasn't enough, that she wanted to see Bush personally. She has now said that she will maintain a vigil outside Bush's home until either he sees her or she is arrested. At first, the press ignored her. But now, other mothers of soldiers in Iraq have come to join her. She is getting moral support from more and more people who had previously supported the war. And the national press now has turned her into a major celebrity, some comparing her to Rosa Parks, the Black woman whose refusal to move to the back of the bus in Montgomery, Alabama a half-century ago was the spark that transformed the struggle for Black rights into a mainstream cause.

Bush won't see her because he knows there is nothing that he can say to her. Seeing her is a losing proposition. But so is not seeing her. The pressure to withdraw from Iraq is now becoming mainstream. It is not because the U.S. public shares the view that the U.S. is an imperialist power in Iraq. It is because there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Or rather there is a light, the light an acerbic Canadian cartoonist for the Calgary Sun drew recently. He shows a U.S. soldier in a dark tunnel approaching someone to whose body is attached an array of explosives. The light comes from the match he is holding to the wick that will cause them to explode. In the month following the attacks in London and the high level of U.S. deaths in Iraq, this is the light that the U.S. public is beginning to see. They want out. Bush is caught in an insoluble dilemma. The war is lost.

by Immanuel Wallerstein

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu; fax: 1-203-432-6976.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

Here's the more recent commentary from Wallerstein. You can find many other short pieces written by him in the last 7 years right here. They are translated into 31, yes thirty one, languages.

Commentary No. 175, Dec. 15, 2005

"Losing One's Nerve in Iraq"



In response to the ever-growing sense that the United States is doing poorly in Iraq, indeed in the view of many is actually losing the war, the U.S. government has launched a campaign to persuade everyone that this is not so. In November, 2005, the U.S. National Security Council published, with great fanfare, a document entitled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." And President Bush has been pushing its line vociferously in public speeches.

What this document argues is that victory is occurring, but occurring in stages, that victory is a vital U.S. interest, that the U.S. has a quite clear strategy for victory, but that this victory will take time. The key sentence in this wordy document, which evades all concrete analysis of what is actually going on, is a quote from President Bush's speech on Oct. 6, 2005: "In Iraq, there is no peace without victory. We will keep our nerve, and we will win that victory."

We will keep our nerve, says Bush. But his Rasputin, Vice-President Cheney, is not so sure, since he constantly asserts that U.S. critics of the Bush administration, however mild their criticism, are undermining this "nerve" and risk making the U.S. lose its resolve. The number of Republican Congressmen and Senators who are worried that the voters have already lost their "nerve" and might vote against them seems to be increasing at a very rapid pace, and seems to be having a great impact on the "nerve" of these Republican politicians.


When Rep. John Murtha, ex-Marine and longtime stalwart hawk, called for pulling out of Iraq, most commentators felt he was the unofficial voice of large numbers of senior military officers who were unable to voice their concerns publicly. Is this loss of their nerve? Neither Murtha nor the hidden senior military officers would define it this way. They see a situation in which the U.S. will not at all be able to win the kind of victory Bush is talking about, and by staying in Iraq they believe that the U.S. armed forces are being weakened as a military force able to do its work elsewhere in the world. They want to cut their losses before the U.S. armed forces lose even more.

It seems clear now that virtually every member of the U.S. coalition that has military forces in Iraq intends to reduce its number, if not fully withdraw them, in 2006. It seems fairly clear that the U.S. itself will do this. Nobody of course admits to losing their nerve, but public opinion at home and impending elections are taking their toll.


What about the Iraqis? There are two main groups of Iraqis - those who are energetically fighting the U.S. forces and any Iraqis thought to be cooperating with them, and the others. Those who are energetically fighting the U.S. are said, in this U.S. document, to be composed of three groups: rejectionists (Sunni Arabs who have not "embraced" the changes); Saddamists (who wish to restore the old regime), and terrorists affiliated with or inspired by Al Qaeda. The U.S., according to this document, has more or less given up on the latter two categories but hopes to persuade "many" of the first group to reduce their opposition. There does not however seem to be much evidence that this is happening. In short, those whom the U.S. calls its "enemies" do not seem to have lost their nerve, or their competence in fighting.

But what about the other Iraqis? Here the U.S. seems to be counting on the new Iraqi security forces, presumably under the authority of the new Iraqi government. I say presumably because it is obvious that these security forces are deeply infiltrated both by the "enemies" of the U.S. and by various militias - two kinds of Kurdish militias, and at least three kinds of Shi'a militias - who are pursuing their own objectives under the cover of being the national army. The U.S. says it is counting on these security forces to take over its task of fighting the "enemy" - that is, those who reject all legitimacy to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But is the objective of those who control various parts of the new security forces really the same as those of the Bush regime? Do they intend to be "a full partner in the global war on terrorism" - the longer-term goal of the U.S. according to this document? Is this credible over the longer run? Even if those who are in the new government now are still there two years from now (itself a dubious proposition), why would they want to play this role when it can only make it more difficult to create even a moderately stable political situation in Iraq?


And finally, among winners and losers, more attention is being paid by observers today to the possibility that the big winner will be Iran. It is not that even a Shia-dominated government in Iraq will be in any sense a stooge of the Iranians. It is simply that they will not in any way want to play a role of being hostile to Iran, and therefore could not, will not, be sympathetic to U.S. objectives vis-a-vis Iran.

Do not ask for whom the bell tolls in Iraq. They toll for George W. Bush, and the United States. Bush claimed the U.S. went into Iraq so that it would not have to fight this "war" on U.S. soil. But the contrary is happening. The turmoil is coming to U.S. soil with a vengeance. One of the claims as to why the U.S. should not immediately withdraw from Iraq is that it might result in an Iraqi civil war. But no one discusses what kind of civil war might be in the process of developing in the United States.

by Immanuel Wallerstein




[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

Merry Christmas to you!

IF you celebrate it for the right reasons! Some of the wrong reasons are illustrated in this video quite eloquently. I left town and forgot my charger, so I couldn't send my well wishes on time.

Not that I'm an authority on anything religious, but I think there needs to be a movement to focus Christianity on the humanity of Jesus. This is the essence of the Nestorian faith, which my family follows. And on that note, sometimes I wish even members of my family would re-calibrate their focus on this exact thing...so I'm not just complaining aboutsome lunatic evangelicals.

Hallelujah Links:

Wizard of Oil: a short play-spoof with pictures
Best of the Chappelle Show & another place to find the videos.
Black Bush: my favorite Chappelle Show skit
Shock, awe and Hobbes have backfired on America's neocons

The alarm is sounding. The game is over. Iraq is disintegrating.

Iraq a religious state...or for you'z who are caught up in details, Iraq as a state run by de facto religious edict. Iraq has become ironically like America. And America more like Iraq, one could argue.

So, Iraq as a religious state...for a while at least. How depressing.

And imagine, I was hoping Allawi the Unjust would win. But King George has indeed lost his grip on Iraq...which is why he has renounced defeating nationalist Iraqis having nothing to do with terrorists. What he's done is become a self-fulfilling prophecy by making Iraq into this hellish fundamentalist nightmare. And that's all he seems to know, fundamentalism. Like I said many times before...these two groups supposidly fighting each other, are really just helping one another radicalize their respective populations.

Bush will only be remembered in history for creating the second Islamic republic in the region. The Islamic Republic of Iraq.

That's right. In America I voted for Charles Darwin and in Iraq's election I did the same.

Why? Because here's a list of the Iraqi academics murdered in frigid blood since the war began.

Who said it? "Darwin was the most important person to live on earth."

Who said it? "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier...just as long as I'm the dictator."

Who said it? "I take an oath of office to the Constitution. I don't take an oath of office to the vice president, a president or a political party. My obligation and responsibility are to the people I represent and the country I serve. I do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve." [user id/password= dailykos/dailykos]

Who wrote it?

"While U.S. President George W. Bush continued to claim a strategy for "victory" in Iraq in recent speeches, his administration has quietly renounced the goal of defeating the non-al Qaeda Sunni armed organisations there.

The administration is evidently preparing for serious negotiations with the Sunni insurgents, whom it has started referring to as "nationalists", emphasising their opposition to al Qaeda's objectives.

The new policy has thus far gone unnoticed in the media, partly because it has only been articulated by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the spokesman for the U.S. command in Baghdad.

The White House clearly recognises that the shift could cause serious political problems if and when it becomes widely understood. The Republican Party has just unveiled a new television ad attacking Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean for suggesting that the war in Iraq cannot be won.

Renouncing victory over the Sunni insurgents therefore undercuts the president's political strategy of portraying his policy as one of "staying the course" and attacking the democrats for "cutting and running".

good website: http://www.infidels.org/

read charles darwin online now

and vote for him in your next election.

darwin help us all.

We thought you had changed for a split second by admitting the Iraq war was based on faulty intelligence (well, not really). But you hadn't. What's more, you summoned the editor and publisher of the NY Times (pictured below) to the Oval Office to try to talk them out of running the NSA spying program story! And why oh why were those punks at the Times holding on to this story for a whole year?



How can you claim to be establishing a constitutional democracy in Iraq when you do not even respect the constitutional democracy of which you are supposidly the commander-in-chief of?

Why do you reject the fact you have circumvented the constitution and claimed such supreme authority over all Americans by virtue of your NSA spying program?

You are operating above the lawKing George. This is why Arlen Specter and I want some congressional hearings. You cannot camoflauge this any longer with your script writers at the Times and the Post. BTW have you ever even read 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act? Get somebody to make you an mp3 and stick it in your rotation of the Geneva Convention and the Bill of Rights...right there on your iPOD.

Update: Now there are reports that a member of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court resigns amid worry that Bush-authorized domestic surveillance program would taint court's efforts. I bet you anything he's immensely pissed off.

Listen to this in an article just published by the Post (by a journalist who is presumably not a Woodward. Because Bobby "Big Bucks" would never write hurtfully about our Great King).

Two associates familiar with his decision said yesterday that Robertson privately expressed deep concern that the warrantless surveillance program authorized by the president in 2001 was legally questionable and may have tainted the FISA court's work.

Ok, any person with at least, and i mean at least, three brain cells would know that"...privately expressed deep concern..." are code words for "furious with the rage of everything that is holy"...or something to that effect. If you have only two, I'm afraid this will make no sense to you.

A very good way to spend an hour receiving a reality-check.

...on the quest to control the world's energy sources.

Iraq on the Record is exactly the starting point one needs to bring greater perspective on most (if not all) the bald-faced lies told by members of the current administration to America and the world.

Thanks to Keld and LBird for the link.

oh ok sure so you say something which is historic fact, that one and a half million armenians and thousands of others from various ethnic groups were killed and dont forget scores of thousands more persecuted out of modern turkey into various periphery areas (including northern iraq), and you're told you're going to jail. animals. this by a turkish government whose human rights record rivals the worst of modern man...and this by a turkish government who wants to enter the EU. GRRRRR, free up your speech and make us think you really want it baby. get fit with the right to say whatever you like you bloody wankers. speech crime in the EU? what are we in frickin saddam's iraq? mubarak's egypt? america circa 2003?

this is a future nobel peace prize winner to boot. yea, go for the gold ottoman kumquats for brains.

It's hard to believe, but Dick Cheney and his underlings have been soundly defeated as John McCain's torture legislation banning the use of torture passed in the US Congress. Bush obviously can't afford to thumb his nose at the world any more. He ran out of that specific sort of "political capital" a while back.

What I don't like is when they had the press conference to confirm its passage, McCain was behaving as if the ban was in place since the war on a concept (which is terror) began. So lets be clear as McCain says:

We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists

Ok. If we believe Senator McCain, before today the United States was precisely like the terrorists because they did, in fact, torture people. Don't get me wrong, though, this is a necessary step and I commend Mr. Captured and Tortured in Vietnam While Bush and Cheney Chickened-out for forcing the Cheney hand. Thankfully the political climate allowed for an easy passage of the measure.

You GOT, No where to run to...No where to hide....lalala

On a more collectively locked-down note, the elections appear to be going swimmingly. And people have been able to walk down their street for the first time since the last couple votes. But seriously, I suggest we have one election per week to give Iraqis one sorely deserved break per week while living-in and dealing-with the daily violence. Also, I'll find out how my family voted, but I suspect they have laid it down for Allawi or some secular party that won't win. You know, an Iraqi Ralph Nader I guess. I wonder who the equivalent would be. I've been unable to read up on the more obscure candidates because of my studies.

I will have a longer post on the elections l8r on.

PEACE OUT
Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

...the Bush version, the rich again provide the cash and religious conservatives provide the votes. The wealthy have been rewarded with tax cuts, the evangelicals with hard-line conservative policies on abortion, gay rights and a school prayer.

Because the universe of Bush the younger would not be possible without evangelicals. Then we may conclude the fact that some people are so ignorant and narrow-minded in America is the reason why Bush/Cheney are still in power. How everybody, the rich industrialist and the usually poor evangelical, thinks they are really being rewarded in this is beyond me.

This is why I am suspect as to whether it is indeed true that Bush is left in a separate religious world as some people associated with the white house have claimed. But if the previous conclusion is true, then Bush gets the best of both worlds. He gets to be ignorant and make money.

And that's simply unacceptable for any commander in chief to use his clout to enrich himself and his friends while spreading ignorance. Is that what the so inextricably honorable office of the White House is for? And Bush wanted to bring values back into the WH? All he's brought is an unhealthy dose of CRAZY to the world while proving the White House is only a mechanism by which to make his friends richer and the poor poorer through spreading intolerance and ignorance.

Here are some others' thoughts about his first 5 years.