The Nether-World

More On That Bush Protest

2008-06-17T00:51:00.011+01:00

This was a very different demonstration to others I've attended over the last five years. It was considerably smaller than the kind of protests unusually associated with the Stop The War Coalition. There are several obvious reasons for this: Firstly, Bush is a lame duck and the spectacle of him limping and quacking into the sunset was never going to attract the huge crowds which assembled earlier in his reign of terror when he first put a torch to the Middle East and when Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib were fresh issues. Secondly, people are weary; after years of protests which have been largely ignored by those in power and with numbers always revised down by the media, the large bulk of of the more genteel protesters have fallen away leaving just a core of people angry enough to continue the effort. More prosaically, it was a Sunday afternoon, not a good day to hold a demonstration. The planned march down Whitehall had been banned by our democracy meaning the protesters were limited to hanging around in Parliament Square with an inadequate sound system for speeches and no platform for the speakers.

Nevertheless, according to media reports there were about 2,500 people (I actually think it was a bit less than that). Confined as we were to the Square, the atmosphere was very relaxed at this time in the afternoon. The speeches were, on the whole, very good. The crowd was addressed by Tony Benn, Walter Wolfgang, George Galloway, Moazzam Begg, Brian Haw, Bianca Jagger and Brian Eno among others. It was during Brian Eno's speech that the sound system gave up the ghost leaving about 2,000 people with less to focus on and attention was inevitably diverted towards the fleet of police vans and barricaded blocking Whitehall. We made the token march from Parliament Square to the barricades and that is when the atmosphere changed from something akin to a village fate to something a little more menacing.

Now, if the authorities had allowed us to march down Whitehall, we would have made a lot of noise shouting our displeasure at the warmonger in Downing Street and the cowardly Prime Minister entertaining him. Then it would have been over, the crowd would have dispersed and everyone would have gone home happy. The decision to ban the march merely to spare the world's top terrorist a bit of embarrassment was idiotic in the extreme and a recipe for a confrontation which is, of course what happened. It wasn't a riot by any means, just a lot of angry and frustrated protestors lined up against against the police barrier trading insults with those charged with sparing the two lame ducks the humiliation of seeing the true state of their popularity. There were tussles and, in the centre of the crush; some metal barriers were moved, some banners were thrown, some arrests were made and a few police officers suffered some very minor injuries.

While all this was going on, the fleet of parked police vans manoeuvred to span the width of Whitehall. Mounted police appeared and a short wall hastily constructed. The sea of yellow florescent-clad police men was joined then replaced by the riot squad in dark blue armour and crash helmets. It could have gotten very ugly and for a while I really thought it would. After about an hour of this stand off I thought my energies would be better spent in the pub with Tim, Sim-O, and Gareth so I made myself scarce safe in the knowledge that an event which was unlikely to be reported was now going to get full media coverage. Well done Gordon, you moron! It is a shame however, that all the focus was on these minor scuffles and not on the message being given by the speakers who were preaching to the converted, but alas, that's always the way with these events. By the way, if anyone reading this did record the speeches and put them on on-line, I'll be happy to link to them.

I've got a few more images left to add which I'll do later.

More from Tim and Sim-O

All Images protected by Creative Commons License

Tags: Bush, Protest

That Bush Protest

2008-06-16T01:07:00.005+01:00

I'll write more on the protest later after work and after processing about 80 photos. Anyway the warmonger is is still in town and will meet his favourite poodle tomorrow. So this is a sort of holding post. For now you can read a MSM report here (with video) and see some more pictures from Lenin's Tomb and Indymedia (via).

Tags: Bush, Protest

Top Terrorist Leader To Visit London

2008-06-14T22:01:00.008+01:00

Well, the Nether-World is resembling a bus service today, no posts for ages then several at once (a couple anyway). While I am managing to do a little blogging, I thought I'd mention this (The following is a message from the Stop The War Coalition):

Protest at Bush visit - 5pm, Parliament Square, 15 June

War criminal George Bush will visit London during his European tour this month. He is expected on 15 June.

Stop the War is planning a protest in London on that day against Bush and his war policies, and against the British government's continuing support for his wars. Watch this space for more details.

Anti-Bush demonstration banned from Whitehall.

The Stop the War Coalition has been informed by the Metropolitan Police that a proposed march, co-organised with CND and the British Muslim Initiative, to protest George Bush's visit will not be allowed. The Coalition has organised scores of marches on this route, including during Bush's last visit in 2003.

It seems that when George W Bush visits this country traditional rights of assembly are to be removed from the people. This would be unacceptable for the visit of any foreign leader, but for George Bush, a man many regard as a war criminal, it is particularly deplorable.

We are calling on those who care for our democratic rights to come to Parliament Square at 5.0 pm on Sunday 15 June. Some of those who signed statements accusing Bush of war crimes will be leading this protest, and delivering them to no.10 Downing Street as the march progresses up Whitehall"

George Bush has been dictating British foreign policy for many years. Now it appears his security services are determining our rights of protest. This is a disgrace and we will challenge the ban" Lindsey German, Convenor Stop the War Coalition.

"The ban on the Stop The War Coalition march in protest at the visit of President Bush to this country is a totalitarian act. In what is supposed to be a free country the Coalition has every right to express its views peacefully and openly. This ban is outrageous and makes the term 'democracy' laughable".
HAROLD PINTER

Windsor Protest!

George Bush has been invited to tea with the Queen. This war criminal should not be feted by royalty, he should be explaining his actions to an international criminal court. Protest his visit at 1.30pm at Windsor and Eton Riverside Rail station for a march to Windsor Castle.

End of Message

-----------------------

The bastard has a nerve showing either of his two faces here after the reception he got last time.

Reuters

But Dubya is on a mission. Not content with the chaos he's already caused, he wants to leave his successor with another intractable mess. He's in Europe trying to drum up support for an attack on Iran and is pretending that it's all about diplomacy. He's unlikely to succeed but he should be given the message that he and his neocon cabal are as welcome here as a turd in a swimming pool.

Restrictions on demonstrating are already in place but thankfully his plan to prevent mobile phone 's from being used seems to have failed. Last time the Toxic Texan was here much fun and games were had chasing him around London as he tried to avoid demonstrators. It seems something similar might be on the cards this time round too.

I'm hoping I'm not too late to join Operation Manticore. If I am then I shall try to demonstrate at Parliament Square. If you're at a loose end this Sunday, why not join me?

Tags: Bush, Protest

Leader of Banana Republic Criticises Cuba

2007-10-25T04:02:00.000+01:00

I realise no one is going to fall off their chair at the news that George Bush is a hypocrite, but it is worth noting every instance of his hypocrisy. The latest episode took the form of his ramblings over Cuba.

George Bush, the US president, has urged Cubans to push for democratic change, insisting Fidel Castro’s government was a "disgraced and dying order".

Well, look who's talking! Time to bring out the old 'Pots & Kettles' cliché again. He goes on...

"America will have no part in giving oxygen to a criminal regime victimising its own people,"

Really? Does this mean that America is withdrawing its support for Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, Israel and Colombia? No, of course it doesn't. The difference is that Cuba has an oppressive government that has a different ideology to the oppressive governments America likes to support. And worse still, Cuba has had the audacity to survive despite America's 45 year embargo on the country and numerous botched attempts to destabilise it.

Bush also described Cuba as "a tropical gulag". Well, here is is at least partially correct. There's an area of Cuba called Guantanamo Bay 'leased' by America. That can certainly be called a gulag.

Bush's rhetoric could also be used to describe his own country. Take a look at this list:

Spying without court warrants on Americans in violation of both the US Constitution and the FISA statute.

The denial of habeas corpus, attorney-client privilege, due process, and Geneva Conventions protections to those, American or foreign, designated without evidence as terrorists or enemy combatants.

The justification and use of torture to coerce confessions and the kidnapping of foreign nationals who are sent to be tortured in foreign prisons.

The initiation of military aggression against states based on intentional deception by the Bush administration of the US public and the United Nations, and the intentional fabrication of "evidence" to justify unprovoked aggression against sovereign states, which is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the US.

Violation of the oath of office to defend the US Constitution by practically every member of the Bush administration and Congress.

Bush has assaulted the separation of powers and the rule of law with "signing statements" and "executive orders" that President Nixon’s White House Counsel John Dean says are commands that treat the co-equal branches of government and the electorate as subservient to executive authority. In April 2006, Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage listed 750 laws "challenged" by the Bush administration. Not even the demonized president of Iran claims to be above the law.

Genocide against the people of Iraq where one million Iraqis have died as a result of Bush’s invasion and several million Iraqis are displaced persons.

Massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan, which is a form of genocide in which military force is routinely applied to unarmed noncombatants.

Massive corruption in which no-bid contracts are issued to Republican corporations in exchange for kickbacks to political campaigns.

The theft of two national elections as documented in books by Mark Crispin Miller and Greg Palast.

And this is without going into any great detail about America's international atrocities before Bush came to power. There is a lot wrong with the Cuban regime. It certainly can't be called a democracy and it's no bastion of liberty, but when Cuba's failings are compared with the crimes committed by the good old US of A, we get a sense of perspective. And Bush's hypocrisy isn't lost on those Cubans who are wondering why America is harbouring a known terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, who is allowed to roam free in the USA despite all of Dubya's anti-terrorist rhetoric. You don't suppose it's because he's an ex CIA operative who has consistently targeted Cubans and even tried to assassinate Castro? No, surely not. It is apparently because America is concerned that his extradition might lead to him being tortured. You couldn't make this up could you?

*UPDATE*

More on this topic from Mask of Anarchy.

Tags: Cuba, Castro, George Bush, Guantanamo, Democracy, Torture, US Politics

Crocodile Tears From The First Lady

2007-04-29T13:40:00.000+01:00

What an utterly stupid thing to say! The Raw Story (via Agitprop) has a report of an interview with Laura Bush conducted by NBC's Ann Curry. The interview was about Malaria Awareness Day but Ann Curry asked about other things and that led to a question about Iraq:

MS. CURRY: I also asked Mrs. Bush about other challenges her husband is facing.
(To Mrs. Bush.) You know the American people are suffering watching --
MRS. BUSH: Oh, I know that very much. And believe me, no one suffers more than their president and I do when we watch this, and certainly the commander in chief, who has asked our military to go into harm's way.

Yup, that's right, the suffering of the Iraqis in their ruined country or of the families of dead and maimed coalition soldiers pales into insignificance when compared with the suffering of Dubya and his Stepford wife who agonize over every casualty. Can you picture them in the residential part of the White House or on their Crawford ranch in front of the TV sobbing at the news of death of yet another American soldier the way his parents would? No, somehow I can't either.

Tags: Dubya, Iraq, Laura Bush

Bush Tells It Like It Is

2007-04-13T02:10:00.000+01:00

There isn't a lot you can say about the recent bombing of the Iraqi Parliament that hasn't been said before. Despite more troops in Baghdad with the so-called surge, things just keep getting worse, as indeed, those against this tactic warned. Now even the most secure parts of the city can be attacked. It must be having the same effect on American morale as the Tet Offensive did in the Vietnam war, especially when coupled with the complete destruction of a well guarded bridge on the same day.

The thing that struck me about this bombing (apart from the sheer audacity of it) was Bush's inane ramblings about it. If Bush was left speechless about the attacks, he really shouldn't have tried speaking. It wasn't just the Iraqi MPs who were out to lunch.

Tags: Bush, Iraq

The February Stop The War Protest In London

2007-02-25T02:59:00.000Z

All in all, the Stop The War protest was a fun day out as well as a serious exercise in democracy and (it seems) the only way to get heard these days. I emerged from Hyde Park Corner tube station into pouring rain thinking that it would be as miserable an experience as the tube journey (no Northern or Victoria lines so the Piccadilly line was very overcrowded). Anyway the weather cleared up shortly after I met up with Rachel and the rest of the day was very pleasant.

It was obvious from the beginning that this was going to be a very large demonstration, there were hoards of people at Speakers Corner and the march didn't get started until about 1:30 PM and people were still arriving. We positioned ourselves close to some excellent drummers to keep our energy up and we were entertained by some performers dressed in funky day-glow skeleton costumes, a bit like a 21st Century Danse Macabre I thought, only funnier.

The route the march took was down Park Lane then down Piccadilly into Haymarket and finally into Trafalgar Square for the rally. That short distance took over two hours which should help give an idea of how many people there were. Sky News was apparently reporting 'several hundred people', I heard that the police said there were 10,000 protesters while the organisers claimed 60,000 (George Galloway said it was 100,000). From the ground it was impossible to tell but based on previous demonstrations I guessed (and this is just a guess) between 40,000 and 50,000 people turned up. Both Rachel and I had the foresight to take our hip flasks with us. Mine had Cognac and Rachel's had whiskey and when you're shuffling along a few swigs definitely helps. We also had whistles so we could contribute to the drumming and chanting.

Meanwhile, back at Blairwatch H.Q., Tom had the good idea of live blogging the event, the plan being that I'd send pictures from my camera phone and he'd put them on-line. So I put away my digital camera and tried taking pictures on the mobile. I then spent what seemed like the best part of an hour fiddling with the settings in previously unseen menus because although my phone has a nice 1.3 mega pixel camera, you can't send any picture via MMS which is more than 100 kb in size. Luckily Rachel came to the rescue and sent a steady stream of photos to Blairwatch with her phone until I sorted mine out.

Trafalgar Square was totally packed when we arrived and it was very difficult to move about. However, we did eventually manage to find a way to the top of some steps where we watched some of the speeches. The best speech by far was that of Mark Thomas.

Mark Thomas

George Galloway too made a rousing speech. The organisers had erected a large video screen so even at the distance we were at, we could see whoever was speaking. The sound was very clear too, so well done to the organisers for that.

George Galloway

When Yvonne Riddley started speaking we took that as our hint to call it a day and locate a nice cosy pub for some refreshment (after a bit of a search we settled on Le Garrick and very nice it was too). After that it was time to brave the tube again and it was even more crowded than before.

I didn't watch any news reports on television about the event but you can see the BBC report on-line here. You can also see more photos on my Flickr site. Hopefully the demonstration succeeded in showing the Government just how much opposition there is to the Iraq war and to the renewal of Trident. I hope it also sent a warning to Blair about involving himself in the coming war in Iran. The people are no longer buying the bullshit he's been peddling and they are sick of the continuous wars that will be his legacy.

Anyway it was a fun way to make the point, all the more so by having such good company.

More Bloggage and some nice pictures over at Lenin's Tomb. There are also good reports from The Disillusioned Kid, The Heathlander and Devises Melting Pot. If I find any more reports I'll post the links. Feel free to let me know in the comments of any more reports.

Tags: Stop The War, Protest, Iraq, Blair, Bush, 24 February 2007, London

Bush: Give War A Chance - Fisking The State of The Union Speech

2007-01-25T06:51:00.000Z

Tags: Bush, US Politics, State of The Union, Iraq, Iran

George Bush's State of The Union speech smacked of desperation. He had to plead with congress to support his plans to escalate the war in Iraq. Right from the start of his speech there were references to Iraq and Iran. I'm not going to fisk the whole speech, that would take too long (easy though it is). No, I'm just going to fisk the part that deals with the escalation of his war, and that happens to be most of his speech. The much-heralded change of direction on the environment and global warming was about three short paragraphs inserted to throw a bone to the new Democrat congress. From environmental issues Bush went on to "stable supply of energy" which inevitably led him into his favourite subject, war.

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

He might just as well have said "And this dependence leaves foreign regimes more vulnerable to the hostile USA". In the end his new energy policy was nothing of the sort, just some non-specific statements of his plans to cut the use of petroleum by 20 percent in ten years, encourage more use of ethanol and bio diesels and rely on technology to get him out of the mess he's in. It also probably means redoubled efforts to destroy the pristine environment in Alaska.

Once again Bush invoked the memory of 9/11 before launching into the main thrust of his speech. In fact he referred to September 11 no less than six times.

With the distance of time, we find ourselves debating the causes of conflict and the course we have followed. Such debates are essential when a great democracy faces great questions. Yet one question has surely been settled: that to win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

I don't recall that issue being settled Mr Bush. Taking the fight to the enemy, as you put it, has devastated a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and filled it with terrorists when previously there were none.

From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

Life has never been the same for most of the people Iraq since its destruction. As for protecting your people, well the families of over 3,000 soldiers might not agree.

Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen [like victory]. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them. (Applause.)

Those successes of course cannot be attributed to the war in Iraq. In fact they can't all even be properly verified. To mention the alleged plot to blow up planes with baby milk, shampoo and hair gel is ridiculous. That so-called plot is looking like a bit of a damp squib and shameless fear-mongering.

Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that's the case, America is still a nation at war.

This might be a good time to remind ourselves that 15 of the 19 hijackers of the 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia and the plot was launched from Afghanistan which was ignored by you after its invasion so you could focus on Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. I can't help noticing that you haven't caught Bin Laden yet.

In the mind of the terrorist, this war began well before September the 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats, instruct with bullets and bombs, and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.

"In the mind of the terrorist"? Which terrorist? Are you suggesting that disparate factions in Iraq think that the war began before September 11? Okay another reality check. Al Qaeda is about three percent of the insurgency in Iraq. Perhaps it might be an idea to focus a bit more on the other 97 percent of your enemy.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions. They want to overthrow moderate governments, and establish safe havens from which to plan and carry out new attacks on our country. By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty. They would then be free to impose their will and spread their totalitarian ideology. Listen to this warning from the late terrorist Zarqawi: "We will sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams, and what is coming is even worse." Osama bin Laden declared: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Some, of course, just want you and your forces out of their country. Overthrowing moderate governments is something the USA has been doing for decades; Chile and Iran (with Britain) spring instantly to mind. Saddam's regime can hardly be described a moderate but Iraq was in much better shape before it was visited by "the cause of liberty". Zarqawi's notoriety was, as we know, a product of the invasion. Before that he was just a common al Qaeda thug.

These men are not given to idle words, and they are just one camp in the Islamist radical movement. In recent times, it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East. Many are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorists like Hezbollah -- a group second only to al Qaeda in the American lives it has taken.

So was Iran this powerful before the destruction of Iraq, or is this phenomenon too a result of your invasion? As for Hezbollah, well its not universally recognised as a terrorist group. It holds seats in the Lebanese Parliament

The Shia and Sunni extremists are different faces of the same totalitarian threat. Whatever slogans they chant, when they slaughter the innocent they have the same wicked purposes. They want to kill Americans, kill democracy in the Middle East, and gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale.

What Shia and Sunni resistance groups share is a desire to get Americans and their allies out of their country where they have no right to be. Whether or not they want democracy or dictatorship is no business of America and the sectarian violence between these factions is again the result of the invasion. And a real democracy cannot flourish under occupation anyway. If you hadn't invaded innocents wouldn't be slaughtered on this scale. Before going on about weapons yet again wouldn't it be better to get at least some credible evidence. This situation in Iraq is much more complicated than a simple Sunni Shia divide.

In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people. (Applause.)

And every unlawful and improper tool as well. This strategy will only create more extremists. It's a vicious circle that is being exacerbated.

This war is more than a clash of arms -- it is a decisive ideological struggle, and the security of our nation is in the balance. To prevail, we must remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred, and drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us. What every terrorist fears most is human freedom.

If you really wanted to "remove the conditions that inspire blind hatred", you'd get out of the region or at least be a balanced broker in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

-- societies where men and women make their own choices, answer to their own conscience, and live by their hopes instead of their resentments. Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies -- and most will choose a better way when they're given a chance. So we advance our own security interests by helping moderates and reformers and brave voices for democracy. The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security, we must. (Applause.)

This seems like a false argument to me. In fact the same statement could be used to argue the case for America's withdrawal. Newsflash - America is not helping, its making matters far worse for the inhabitants of the region and for American security. When you say "Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies", how do you explain the neo con ideology which is steeped in blood?

In the last two years, we've seen the desire for liberty in the broader Middle East -- and we have been sobered by the enemy's fierce reaction. In 2005, the world watched as the citizens of Lebanon raised the banner of the Cedar Revolution, they drove out the Syrian occupiers and chose new leaders in free elections. In 2005, the people of Afghanistan defied the terrorists and elected a democratic legislature. And in 2005, the Iraqi people held three national elections, choosing a transitional government, adopting the most progressive, democratic constitution in the Arab world, and then electing a government under that constitution. Despite endless threats from the killers in their midst, nearly 12 million Iraqi citizens came out to vote in a show of hope and solidarity that we should never forget. (Applause.)

As soon as the Syrians left Lebanon, the Israelis moved in... funny that. Now Lebanon is on the brink of civil war as well, largely thanks to your refusal to swiftly end last Summer's war. The elections in Iraq were fought on sectarian lines resulting in the current increase in violence. We've recently seen the new democratic Iraq lynching, torturing and murdering in the same way Saddam did. Women are more oppressed than ever. Way to go Bush. Remind me again why we invaded.

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon's legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia -- and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

So you are implying that the Taliban, Syrians, Iranians, al Qaeda, Hezbollah and other assorted Shia and Sunni groups in Iraq are in fact all the same enemy with the same objectives and motivations. It stretches credibility somewhat. Another newsflash; the new democratic Iraqi government that you installed also has death squads. You seem to be blaming the region-wide chaos on everyone but yourself. Of course the killers bear much of the responsibility but don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that when America interferes with a state chaos invariably ensues?

This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. Yet it would not be like us to leave our promises unkept, our friends abandoned, and our own security at risk. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen: On this day, at this hour, it is still within our power to shape the outcome of this battle. Let us find our resolve, and turn events toward victory. (Applause.)

The fight you're in is the one everyone with any sense predicted you'd be in. I'm afraid it would be like you to leave your promises unkept and your friends abandoned. That's what happens when you lose wars... remember Vietnam? Oh yes, you avoided that conflict. And don't kid yourself, you lost this war a long time ago. The sooner you recognise that the more lives will be saved.

We're carrying out a new strategy in Iraq -- a plan that demands more from Iraq's elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law, respects the rights of its people, provides them security, and is an ally in the war on terror.

No you're, not your carrying on with the same failed strategy of before and making impossible demands on a weak puppet government to disguise your own ineptitude. Your stated goal is absolutely unrealistic and unobtainable. The best you could manage at this stage is an exit with a modicum of dignity. Iraq is wrecked and I doubt it can be fixed with any strategy let alone one that's already proved to be a failure.

In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. (Applause.) We didn't drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

20'000 new troops will make little or no difference. This terrorist hunt is a fools errand, you may get one or two but they will be replaced and the rest will melt away only to reappear again later. That's the problem with this kind of asymmetrical war, you can't win it in the conventional way. All you're going to achieve is more resentment and more violence.

The people of Iraq want to live in peace, and now it's time for their government to act. Iraq's leaders know that our commitment is not open-ended. They have promised to deploy more of their own troops to secure Baghdad -- and they must do so. They pledged that they will confront violent radicals of any faction or political party -- and they need to follow through, and lift needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces, so these troops can achieve their mission of bringing security to all of the people of Baghdad. Iraq's leaders have committed themselves to a series of benchmarks -- to achieve reconciliation, to share oil revenues among all of Iraq's citizens, to put the wealth of Iraq into the rebuilding of Iraq, to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's civic life, to hold local elections, and to take responsibility for security in every Iraqi province. But for all of this to happen, Baghdad must be secure. And our plan will help the Iraqi government take back its capital and make good on its commitments.

Yes, the people of Iraq do want to live in peace so why not let them. Their weak puppet government will collapse. You might delay the collapse but you can't prevent it. The pledges this government has given you are pledges they have given before and failed to deliver on. It is incapable of performing in the way you want it to. A sectarian government will behave in a sectarian way. And as for oil revenues, well, we know where they're going don't we?

My fellow citizens, our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success. Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq, because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching.

No George, you replaced the military commanders who (like most people it seems) disagreed with your plan. You chose this course of action because you want to retain control of Iraq and either you are so deluded that you have convinced yourself that you know better than the experts or you are so arrogant that you cannot admit that you are utterly wrong (it's probably both). America has already failed in Iraq, the country is utterly wrecked and likely to fragment along ethnic, tribal and religious lines. If you haven't already, you will soon be seeing the "grievous and far-reaching consequences" of your failure.

If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill out across the country -- and in time, the entire region could be drawn into the conflict.

This is what is happening now. Many people predicted this would happen but they were sidelined just as the people warning you about the current escalation have been sidelined. The presence of American troops in Iraq is only making matters worse. It can't be fixed, that's the tragedy and that's why you shouldn't have invaded.

For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective. Chaos is the greatest ally -- their greatest ally in this struggle. And out of chaos in Iraq would emerge an emboldened enemy with new safe havens, new recruits, new resources, and an even greater determination to harm America. To allow this to happen would be to ignore the lessons of September the 11th and invite tragedy. Ladies and gentlemen, nothing is more important at this moment in our history than for America to succeed in the Middle East, to succeed in Iraq and to spare the American people from this danger. (Applause.)

And who caused this chaos? If chaos is the greatest ally of your enemies, why create it? What evidence do you have to support your assertion that Iraq had any intention or capability of harming America before the invasion? If one of the lessons of September 11 was not to allow failed states to emerge, you have shown how much you have learned from 9/11 by turning Iraq into a failed state when before it was merely another brutal dictatorship supported by America.

This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you've made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way. (Applause.)

You are not pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, you are pursuing the same failed strategy as before and ignoring the findings of the Baker Hamilton report which at least offered a more sensible alternative. You ask to be given a chance for your plan to work... you've had four years to make it work and the situation in Iraq gets worse every day. The best way to support your troops is to bring them home rather than sending in any more.

The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. It's why I propose to establish a special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties. We will share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us. We'll show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.

Hang on a minute, at the beginning of your speech you said: "...To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations...". Now you're saying that future generations will have to clear up the mess you've made. It doesn't matter what new advisory councils you create, we've already seen that you ignore advice that doesn't fit in with your world view. If one thing out of all this should be clear to you it is that America is deeply divided and if it does come together it will unite against you and your agenda if it hasn't already.

And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. (Applause.) Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Applause.) A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them. It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time.

How long before you are forced to re-introduce the Draft? People aren't exactly falling over themselves to join the military these days are they? Your plans to hire non-military citizens to join in your "crusade" seems pretty close to a draft of sorts, or if not a draft then a mercenary army. What if they decline your generous offer to "serve in the defining struggle of our time"?

Americans can have confidence in the outcome of this struggle because we're not in this struggle alone. We have a diplomatic strategy that is rallying the world to join in the fight against extremism. In Iraq, multinational forces are operating under a mandate from the United Nations. We're working with Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States to increase support for Iraq's government.

America is increasingly isolated and everyone knows that. Even the British are trying to extricate themselves from this quagmire. Your "coalition of the willing" is dwindling to the point where it will consist of just the USA. The United Nations, which you ignored in order to launch this illegal war, does give a limited mandate for occupation thanks to the bullying of member states and a desire to try and sort out the appalling mess. Soon it too will come to the conclusion that America is part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are all worried about sectarian violence spilling over into their territories and the marginalisation of Sunnis. Their support is qualified to say the least.

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran, and made it clear that the world will not allow the regime in Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons. (Applause.) With the other members of the Quartet -- the U.N., the European Union, and Russia -- we're pursuing diplomacy to help bring peace to the Holy Land, and pursuing the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. (Applause.) In Afghanistan, NATO has taken the lead in turning back the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive -- the first time the Alliance has deployed forces outside the North Atlantic area. Together with our partners in China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea, we're pursuing intensive diplomacy to achieve a Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons. (Applause.)

The CIA has found no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Are you going to launch another war on faulty intelligence and lies? It certainly looks that way at the moment. You have done nothing so far to help the creation of a Palestinian state. What you have done is allow Israel to continue to build illegal settlements on Palestinian land. You have also starved the Palestinian people, a collective punishment on them for democratically electing a government that you (and Israel) don't like. Until that is put right there is no chance of security for Palestinians and Israelis. In Afghanistan the Taliban is resurging and looking impossible to completely defeat. By attacking Iraq you took your eyes off the ball. And as for your efforts to achieve a "Korean Peninsula free of nuclear weapons", well, I seem to remember North Korea testing a nuclear bomb not too long ago... yet another miserable failure Mr Bush.

Spot the obstacle to peace

2007-01-21T10:03:00.000Z

Tags: Bush, Syria, Israel, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, US Politics

Amidst all the turmoil in the Middle East, there are some attempts being made in certain diplomatic circles to try and stabilise the region. One country however seems to be doing its level best to scupper these small efforts. No prizes for guessing who it is.

DUBAI (AFP) - Iraqi President Jalal Talabani is urging the United States to talk with Syria, claiming in an interview that Damascus "supports" Iraq in fighting the insurgency.
Source

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria on Saturday condemned insurgent attacks on the U.S.-backed Iraqi army and security forces, describing them as "terrorism", in another shift in the Damascus government's position toward its neighbour.
Source

BERLIN (AFP) - US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has reiterated Washington's opposition to talking to Syria or Iran to get their help in easing unrest in Iraq.
Source

Here's some other examples that I referred to obliquely in a previous post.

Israeli officials have confirmed that the Foreign Ministry knew about a series of peace talks that have taken place in Europe between Syrians and an Israeli team headed by a former senior diplomat. The teams discussed Israel handing back the Golan Heights, which it has occupied since the Six Day War in 1967, to Syria under a formula providing for President Bashar Assad to stop giving support to Hamas and Hizbollah and to distance his regime from Iran.
Source

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The White House denied media reports that Israelis and Syrians reached understandings for a peace treaty in secret unofficial talks over the past two years.
Source

Oh, and there's this:

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme.

Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.
Source

And these are just examples of what has been happening on various diplomatic fronts. Only a lunatic would want the various wars in the Middle East to continue, only a lunatic could think that a disastrous policy can be put right by repeating it, and only a lunatic would want to start yet another war in the region. Unfortunately, a lunatic is running the United States of America.

Did Israel Try To Carry Out Its Plan To Nuke Iran?

2007-01-20T08:27:00.000Z

Tags: Bush, Iran, Israel, US Politics

I posed the title of this post as a question because I have no idea if this is true or not and I don't know how to verify it. It seems so outrageous that I can hardly believe it but with everything else going on around Iran at the moment and the recently revealed Israeli plans for a nuclear attack on Iran (since denied), maybe there is some truth in this.

Israeli Nuclear Strike On Iran Turned Back
A recent strike by nuclear-armed Israeli Air Force fighter-bombers bound for targets in Iran was turned back after being intercepted by U.S. fighters over Iraq, this reporter has learned.
Two sources have independently confirmed the encounter, which took place on January 7, 2007. Though the first informant offered few details beyond an initial tip, a second source long-known by this reporter to have well-placed U.S. and “non-U.S.” military and government contacts provided specific information regarding the raid, which was aimed at the radical religious ayatollahs holding ultimate power in Iran.
Israeli nuclear strikes are not unprecedented. Soon after Desert Storm, U.S. Navy pilots told this reporter in Kuwait how in late 1990 Israel made good on its pledge to respond in kind to WMD attacks by launching nuclear-armed aircraft against Baghdad following a lethal assault on Tel Aviv by Scud missiles tipped with chemical warheads. That air strike was called off when the Americans refused to provide the vital IFF codes needed to fly through U.S.-controlled airspace.
Read on

As I said, I can't verify the source and I don't know much about American and Israeli military protocols, but it's certainly a scary article. There are however plenty of other reports about Iran which suggest that war could break out very soon indeed.

Tensions between the USA and Iran have been mounting alarmingly since the recent kidnapping of Iranian diplomats and consular workers and the raid on a consular office in northern Iraq. Some of this has been widely reported, the sending of another American aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf, National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley refusing rule out the possibility of US forces striking across the border or the Russian delivery of state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles to Iran for example. Other news items are appearing on less well known news sources. For example, in recent days, there have been reports that Iran shot down an American pilotless spy drone. America has also denied that there was an Iranian missile strike on a US warship in the Gulf.

Whether these stories are true or not, one thing seems certain and that is that the crisis is escalating to a point where any small incident could kick off a huge conflict. In other words a war could soon be unstoppable even if America and Iran did try to row back, something neither party is showing any signs of doing. There have been several reports saying that America will have all its pieces in place some time in February and that there is a plan to attack Iran from the sea as early as April this year.

KUWAIT CITY: Washington will launch a military strike on Iran before April 2007, say sources. The attack will be launched from the sea and Patriot missiles will guard all oil-producing countries in the region, they add. Recent statements emanating from the United States indicate the Bush administration’s new strategy for Iraq doesn't’t include any proposal to make a compromise or negotiate with Syria or Iran. A reliable source said President Bush recently held a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Dr Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House where they discussed the plan to attack Iran in minute detail.

When you couple news like this with news of America's rejection of Iranian concessions as far back as 2003, and ofAmerica's dismissal of the widespread reports of possible peace talks between Israel and Syria which would do much to ease the tensions in the region, you have to wonder what bush is planning. It looks like the planned attacks are not going to be "surgical strikes" as was previously suggested, but a whole scale war which would devastate the region.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. contingency planning for military action against
Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former U.S. intelligence analyst said on Friday.
"I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.
"You're talking about a war against Iran" that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

When you put all these different reports together, a very frightening picture emerges. What we are hearing far less of are diplomatic moves in the UN or effective restraining of Bush and his insane neo con agenda from the Democrat dominated Congress. The US Congress seems like the only force able to prevent the coming devastation, but have the saner voices in both parties got the strength, courage and will to do what is necessary?

Another Roundup of Middle East Turmoil

2007-01-15T08:11:00.000Z

Condoleezza Rice's latest trip to the Middle East cannot be described a peace-making mission. The motives for her trip appear to be to drum up support for the destabilisation force Bush is sending to Iraq, and to poison the minds of Arab leaders even more against Iran in preparation for what is looking ever more likely to be another Middle East war. However, some Arab leaders have had the temerity to impose conditions on the USA in exchange for their support. The price is US engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And so once again Condoleezza has to pretend that she wants to see a Palestinian state and is able to win meaningful concessions from the Israelis.

"I have heard loud and clear the call for deeper American engagement," she said after talks in Ramallah with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

So far she has met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and King Abdullah of Jordan. Today she will meet Ehud Olmert and then go on to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to promote war. It won't escape the attention of these Arab leaders that she has absolutely nothing new to offer. What she will try to gain is unconditional support for more chaos in Iraq and new Chaos in Iran and beyond by telling them that all this is in their interest.

In advance of her visit, the secretary of state said she was not bringing new proposals but would be listening, talking and looking for creative solutions.

At a press conference she had to deny that USA was too distracted by concerns about Iraq and Iran to have effect on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"The Palestinian people have waited a long time for their own state... and if there is anything that I can do and that the president can do to finally realise that day, why wouldn't we want to do that?"

The answer to that of course is that the Bush administration is so pro-Israel and controlled by Zionist lobby groups like AIPAC that it cannot possibly be considered as a fair arbiter in any negotiations and is responsible along with Israel for the appalling conditions in which the Palestinians are forced to live. America has had plenty of opportunities to restrain the worst excesses of Israel and has failed to do so every time.

Still, Condi should be able to drum up enough support for Bush's nefarious plans in the region. Iran is disliked and feared by many Arab countries, and by spreading the fear of Iranian influence over Iraq (even though it was America's invasion that created this problem) as well as pretending that sending another 20,000 troops into the quagmire will somehow make the situation more secure for the region she'll probably get enough support to give a veneer of legitimacy to her plans. Bush needs this support because it certainly doesn't exist back home where even the Republicans are in open revolt over the "surge" plans.

Bush has finally been forced to acknowledge that the invasion has made Iraq more unstable, but he still maintains that despite some mistakes he did the right thing.

But pressed on the issue, and told by a Fox News interviewer that Iraq was “much more unstable now, Mr President,”, Mr Bush replied: “Well, no question, decisions have made things unstable.”
He added: “I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better. No question about it.” But toppling Saddam was not a mistake. “We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude and I believe most Iraqis express that.”

Yes, that's right, he actually thinks Iraqis should be grateful for the murder and mayhem that that has engulfed their country because of the invasion. I don't know which Iraqis he's been talking to but 90 percent of them seem to think they were better off under Saddam Hussein.

Not content with wrecking one country, the Bush administration is now working flat out to try and wreck another. The recent incidents in Northern Iraq (authorised by Bush) where Iranian diplomats have been arrested and a consular office raided have increased tensions between the US and Iran. These diplomatic incidents look like being the first moves in an attempt to provoke a conflict. America is now threatening to "deal with" Iran and Syria over their alleged support of insurgents while Iran is demanding the release of its kidnapped diplomats. The White House is emphatically refusing to rule out an attack on Iran.

The attack could take the form of air strikes or cross-border raids, most likely it will be both. The legality of such action hasn't been discussed; the last time the UN was mentioned vis-à-vis Iran was last month when limited sanctions were imposed. Whether or not the US Congress can prevent its commander in chief make another even more catastrophic foreign policy blunder is unknown, but we have already seen how much respect Bush has for legal processes.

Tags: Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Iran, Syria, US Politics, Bush, Condoleezza Rice

The Madness of King George

2007-01-12T05:58:00.000Z

I have been trying to think of something to say about President Bush's decision to send 22,000 new troops to Iraq. It's turning out to be harder than I expected, partly because it has already been covered very well by others, partly because there were no surprises in Bush's address to the nation - we all knew what was going to be announced, but mainly because the plan is so spectacularly stupid that I can't really avoid stating the obvious. For once I find myself agreeing with the majority of US military officers and politicians of both parties who oppose this plan. Still, something as important as this does need to be commented on.

First, let's get these really obvious points out of the way. It won't work. It hasn't worked so far and more of the same is just as likely to fail. It also failed in Vietnam. Most intelligent humans when realising that their actions are not achieving the desired results, and are in fact counterproductive either try something else or give up, especially when they have been warned by so many others beforehand. Not Dubya. It's like watching a demented retard slam his head into a wall, shout out "Ouch, that hurt!" and then slam his head into the wall again in the hope of getting a different result. The world is now waiting for the next inevitable "Ouch, that hurt!".

Telling the American people and the wider world that this troop reinforcement is coming at the request of the Iraqi government won't wash either. The Bush administration had to convince al Maliki's government of the need for more troops and agreement was reached by focussing on the Sunni extremists and al Qaeda (al Qaeda is about two or three percent of the insurgency). In other words this plan will add to the sectarian divisions. And let's not forget that to 90 percent of Iraqis the Americans are personae non gratae. Having the largely Shi'ite army and police force (already infiltrated by extremist elements) smash their way into peoples' houses with the Americans is only going to make matters far worse. And there is no way that 20,000 troops are anywhere near enough to hold the areas they clear so it will be exactly as before once they inevitably leave.

It's easy to pass this folly off as mere hubris from a president trying to salvage something from the disaster he's created and to a large extent it is, but there's more to it than that. Bush's reputation cannot be salvaged and there were more hints of a wider war in Bush's speech.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

Yes, Iran again. While Bush is outwardly supporting the Shi'ite Iraqi government which is on friendly terms with Iran, he is doing his utmost to provoke the Iranian regime to respond. Arresting Iranian officials invited by al Maliki's administration, and now storming an Iranian consulate and arresting employees. When these diplomatic incidents are coupled with the sabre rattling coming from Bush, Blair and of course Israel, and with the naval build up in the Persian Gulf, a frightening and familiar pattern emerges.

The British government is still hinting at troop withdrawals from the region this Summer but hasn't explicitly stated that it will withdraw troops. Basra may be less violent than Baghdad, but the coming "surge" in troops and the expected crack-down on extremists will also affect the Shia who could decide to retaliate in the south of the country. The British held zone is strategically important to the American occupation; it's a supply line and an entry and exit point. It's also on the Iranian border. The coy game that Blair seems to be playing is rather typical of him. Remember him saying that no decision had been made to invade Iraq right up until the moment troops went in? I wonder if he isn't doing the same thing again. If a wider war explodes, or if the Basra area is targeted by insurgents then the plans to withdraw British troops will either have to be accelerated or dropped completely. There is little doubt that Blair would like to be involved in another adventure with his buddy but he knows there isn't the stomach for it in the UK even with Tory support. It would take a serious and 'unexpected' crisis to turn public opinion in his favour and it's not just American warships that are in the Persian Gulf.

Blair's government seems happy to go along with any idea that is suggested in America. When the Iraq Study Group (ISG) reported its findings, Margaret Beckett said "We get the impression that their thinking was broadly in line with our own". And yet the same government supports the 'surge' (the complete opposite to the recommendations of the ISG) despite the announcement of the intention to withdraw British troops from Iraq. If the troop withdrawal is a genuine intention of the Government, then this could be seen as a sign of a split between London and Washington but great care will be taken to smooth over any cracks in the alliance. Of course we don't know (nor are we likely to know) if the Bush administration asked Britain to supply more troops or maintain the current numbers for longer.

Peace and stability in the region seem further away than ever.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Bush, Blair, US Politics

More on the Saddam Lynching

2007-01-04T15:22:00.000Z

The Lynching of Saddam Hussein is, unsurprisingly, still dominating the news. The deeply disturbing images from both the official video and the cell phone video are causing many to ask questions both about Saddam's execution and the wider issue of the death penalty in general. Perhaps this is one positive development to come out of this saga. More worrying is the precedent this sets for an increase in public executions. It is interesting to watch the protagonists in this sordid business either frantically try to distance themselves from the role they played in this lynching or avoid making any comment on it in the hope that it will be forgotten.

Most dishonest of all is the American position which is an attempt to fool the world into thinking that this was entirely an Iraq affair. It was America that led the invasion of Iraq, toppled Saddam's regime, started the sectarian violence, captured Saddam and held him until he mounted the scaffold, organised and paid for the show trial, loudly called for his execution and finally, an American court dismissed the call for a postponement of the execution which took place in a prison surrounded by American troops with the witnesses and the victim transported by American helicopters. Saddam's corpse was delivered to his family by the Americans too. It was the Americans who were in charge of confiscating mobile phones and therefore the Americans who allowed camera phones to enter the squalid execution chamber.

That of course does not absolve the puppet Iraqi government which was so desperate for revenge that it pushed for an execution as quickly as possible and on a "special day". It was al Maliki's regime that signed the death warrant and finally delivered Saddam into the hands of the extremist Shia lynch mob who were allowed to taunt Saddam before pulling the lever which plunged him to his death as he prayed. Saddam has now been made into a martyr, something he was intent on being as soon as his fate became obvious. But turning a monster into a martyr was foolish in the extreme as well as being very difficult considering the litany of Saddam's crimes for which he was not even tried for.

Now despite their obvious involvement, the Americans are trying to pretend that the execution had nothing to do with them and that they actually tried to postpone it because of the sensitivity of Eid and on the grounds that it may have been illegal, but eventually relented to pressure from the Iraqi government.

As the shock of those scenes reached a new crescendo in Iraq, U.S. officials revealed that they had worked until the last hours of Hussein's life to persuade Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to delay the execution. The officials, who spoke on condition that they not be named, said they appealed to al-Maliki not to proceed with the hanging at dawn Saturday because of the onset of a major Islamic festival and because of unresolved constitutional and legal questions that the Americans believed threw the legitimacy of the execution into doubt.

The US military is also saying that they would have handled the execution differently had it been in charge.

As the storm over the handling of the execution gained strength, Caldwell was among several U.S. officials who suggested displeasure with the conduct of the execution.

``If you are asking me: 'Would we have done things differently?' Yes, we would have. But that's not our decision. That's the government of Iraq's decision,'' Caldwell said.

Perhaps the Americans would have done things differently but America too is known for its botched executions. Also I would have thought more care would have been taken if the Americans were really concerned about the effects of another video of the lynching, seeing as they were responsible for confiscating the phones. Perhaps if this wasn't incompetence, they actually wanted to cause further sectarian conflict or discredit the supporters of Moqtada Sadr. We already know that the Bush administration is losing patience with al Maliki's government. Bush will soon have to justify to the new Democrat Congress the sending of thousands of extra troops into Iraq. Maybe the increased violence over this incident will help.

Britain too is guilty of hypocrisy over this lynching. It's no good stating Britain's opposition to the death penalty and then supporting a kangaroo court that was covened for the sole purpose of providing a semblance of legal cover for a revenge execution. Other than backing the Iraqi inquiry into the botched execution, Blair has still absolutely nothing to say about his involvement in this sordid affair. John Prescott called the filming of the execution "deplorable" but interestingly had no comment on the execution itself. Blair (like his White House masters) wouldn't even go that far. Presumably he has no objections to the conduct of the ~~executioners~~ lynch mob. I wonder if he'd have more to say if it was the image of someone else on the scaffold.

Of course this in no way is meant to encourage the execution of Tony Blair (like Tony I'm opposed to the death penalty, even for mass murderers). Saddam was executed for being responsible for the deaths of Iraqi citizens whereas George Bush and Tony Blair seem to have gotten away with the same crimes on an even larger scale and in a much shorter period of time.

Meanwhile the arguments over who it was who filmed the lynching on a camera phone and put the images on the internet goes on. According to Munkith al-Faroun a prosecutor at the trial and the one who appealed for the taunting of Saddam to stop, two government officials were filming with cell phones. One of them was Iraqi National Security Advisor Mowaffak al-Rubaie. However blame has been laid with one of the guards who were apparantly under al-Faroun's observation. A guard has now been arrested and al-Faroun is now saying that he did not see al-Rubaie taking pictures. Somehow I doubt we'll ever know the truth. There is also confusion as to whether a date has been set for the executions of Barzan Al-Tikriti and Awad Al-Bandar. The fiasco over Saddam's trial may have given them some more time. The UN is trying to halt the executions on the grounds that the trial was flawed. This news comes shortly after the new Secretary General Ban Ki Moon expressed ambivalence over the death penalty unlike his predecessors.

It seems that recent events have proved to be too much for Nuri al-Maliki who has said that he won't be seeking a second term as Prime Minister and wants to step down. I can't say I blame him. Maybe there is room for him too on the lucrative lecture circuit along with Tony Blair. It's got to be better than staying in Iraq.

Blair Ratchets Up The Hate on Iran

2006-12-21T04:32:00.000Z

I've lost count of the number of times I've worried about a possible attack on Iran over this last year. There have been plenty warning signs but my predictions as to when the attack might come have so far been wrong, thankfully. That doesn't mean however, that there is no danger of an attack, all the signs are still there and I still fear that Bush and Blair are actually stupid enough to do such a thing. I'll get to the latest developments shortly, but first let's look at some of the events that cause this speculation.

We have Jack Straw being fired from his post by the Bush administration for suggesting that an attack on Iran would be "inconceivable" and "completely nuts". Then we have a continuing media-driven hate campaign against Iran perpetrated in some cases by neo-conservative stooges. We have Condoleezza Rice saying that security assurances for Iran are not on the table in any talks with the Iranian leadership. And Blair himself had a speech re-written by the White House in which any references to British doubts about attacking Iran were removed. The recent war in Lebanon increased the pressure being put on Iran and further demonised that country leading to the USA conducting provocative military exercises in the Persian Gulf. Iran, predictably, responded with some military exercises of its own.

This week we have heard that Iran is exchanging the Dollar for the Euro in all transactions and assets held abroad, obviously worrying to the Americans. Within hours of that news, we hear of further military maneuvers in the Gulf and some more sabre rattling from America, not from the Bush administration this time but from Democrat Senator and possible Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Blair of course, doesn't want to be left out when it comes to spewing out extremist bile against Iran. Unsurprisingly, he's singing from the same hymn sheet as the Bush administration (and Democrats too apparently). He is stating that all the problems in the region have nothing to do at all with the Anglo-American destruction of Iraq and the punitive, Israeli led policies on the Palestinian people. No, it's all Iran's fault.

"Iran is deliberately causing maximum problems for moderate governments and for ourselves in the region - in Palestine, in Lebanon and in Iraq."

He goes on:

"There is no point in hiding the fact that Iran poses a major strategic threat to the cohesion of the entire region,"

Not only that but Iran is such a problem apparently that it overshadows the "major, major problems" of Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. He tops these asinine statements with an incredibly bellicose piece of rhetoric:

“They seek to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine. Our response should be to expose what they are doing, build the alliances to prevent it and pin them back across the whole of the region,”
Source

Let's get something straight here, the Iranian regime is not very savoury. It oppresses its people and has a bad human rights record. According to Amnesty International, it has the second highest number of executions after China (America has the fourth) and it can be antagonistic to its neighbours and the West. Its President seems to be as religiously driven as Bush and Blair. Iran may or may not be producing nuclear weapons (the CIA has found no proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme). But it is not Iran that is invading Middle East countries or bombing civilians on a daily basis. The chaos and misery in Palestine is caused by Israel with the help of Bush and Blair. In other words Iran is not the "major threat" to the region Blair says it is. If anyone is a threat to the region it is America, Britain and Israel. The last time Iran was a threat to Europe was in 479 BC (the Persian Wars) and the threat was dealt with successfully. The current demonising of Iran is reminiscent of the demonising that occurred during and after that ancient conflict. What Blair is doing here is accusing his enemy of the crimes he himself is committing. Blair is just as much of an extremist (if not more so) as Ahmadinejad.

Attacking Iran will not improve matters any more than the invasion of Iraq improved things in that country. An attack would have catastrophic consequences for the region and beyond and would probably hand Ahmadinejad even more support. It seems incredible that Blair is speaking of an "alliance of moderation" to combat Iran when his actions have done the complete opposite, something recognised by just about everyone except himself and George Bush. The recent Chatham House report is a testament to this.

Hopefully the tensions will ease, or Bush and Blair will be out of office before their terrifying plans can develop any further. There is serious doubt as to whether the British armed forces can undertake another campaign, especially one as massive as an attack on Iran would be. The army is already overstretched to breaking point. But sanity seems to be in short supply in Downing Street and the White House.

Tags: Bush, Blair, Iran

Bush and Blair on Iraq: More of the same

2006-12-08T08:53:00.000Z

Bush and Blair were handed an opportunity to partially extricate themselves from the horror which is Iraq by the Iraq Study Group (ISG). Instead, they pretty much dismissed the report (.pdf) and went back to the same tired old rhetoric and still talked of "victory" in Iraq, thus guaranteeing that the carnage will continue. To be fair, the carnage is likely to continue whatever Bush and Blair decide, but now it will probably continue with British and American troops remaining and without Iranian and Syrian help to end it.

Tony Blair's trip to Washington was heralded as an attempt by him to exert his considerable influence on George Bush and persuade him to accept the main recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (a phased withdrawal of troops and talking to Iran and Syria) and to win support for ending the Palestinian crisis. Predictably, nothing of the sort occurred. The patronising way in which these two leaders praised the ISG and then announced how they intend to cherry pick the bits they like from what is meant to be a comprehensive package is depressing for all those concerned about the situation in the Middle East. That this was going to happen was obvious to anyone who watched the unenthusiastic way Bush greeted the release of the stinging findings of the ISG report. And it is no surprise that the ISG report would be a damning indictment of Bush's Iraq policy. James Baker gave very clear reasons for not invading Iraq after the first Gulf war, and they are the same reasons why the 2003 invasion was doomed to fail.

For years, the question I was most often asked about Desert Storm is why we did not remove Saddam Hussein from power. [The answer is that] A coalition war to liberate Kuwait could then have been portrayed as a US war of conquest. Furthermore, even if Saddam were captured and his regime toppled, American forces would still have been confronted with the spectre of a military occupation of indefinite duration to pacify a country and sustain a new government in power. The ensuing urban warfare would surely have resulted in more casualties to American GIs than the war itself, thus creating a political firestorm at home.
And as much as Saddam’s neighbours wanted to see him gone, they feared Iraq would fragment in unpredictable ways that would play into the hands of the mullahs in Iran, who could export their brand of Islamic fundamentalism with the help of Iraq’s Shias and quickly transform themselves into a dominant regional power.
Finally, the Security Council resolution under which we were operating authorised us to use force only to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, nothing more. As events have amply demonstrated, these concerns were valid. I am no longer asked why we did not remove Saddam in 1991!
Source

Blair's support for talks with Iran and Syria were undermined by Bush's refusal to contemplate such action. Blair has however been given permission to return to the Middle East to try again to achieve a peace deal without having anything to offer. American support is luke warm though, and Israel's support is, of course, non existent. So we can see the beginnings of a split between London and Washington on how to deal with the Iraq crisis. Unfortunately it seems that Blair will go along with whatever Bush decides as usual despite his own feelings. So much for influence.

One amusing moment from the joint press conference is reported by the Daily Mirror. Bush was visibly annoyed by the very good questions put to him and the Prime Minister by the BBC's Nick Robinson.

One explanation for Mr Bush's ill-humour is a perceived lack of courtesy from British journalists at the press conference.
He looked disgusted when the Brits failed to follow the US press corps by standing as the two leaders entered the room.
He later accused the UK contingent of being disrespectful to Mr Blair, when one tried to ask him a supplementary question.
Turning to the PM, he shouted out: "This is a total violation, the press corps are calling you down, man.
"It's the Prime Minister!"

I put it down to the President being insane. After all, it's not the first time he's lost his rag at a press conference.

Tony Blair is already back in Britain and has moved to stifle any possible debate in Parliament on the findings of the ISG report. If we needed any further evidence as to how morally and politically bankrupt Blair is, this refusal to discuss the report is it.

Further Analysis

Obsolete
A Big Stick And A Small Carrot
Blairwatch

Tags: Bush, Blair, Iraq, Iraq Study Group

Has Bush Completely Lost The Plot?

2006-12-04T15:48:00.000Z

Well, I guess many of us would argue that Bush never really had it to lose. But with his refusal to face the glaringly obvious, one has to wonder whether Paul Craig Roberts doesn't have a point when he said:

Millions of other Americans want Bush turned over to the war crimes tribunal at the Hague. The true fate that awaits Bush is psychiatric incarceration.

This wasn't the only article this weekend that questioned the President's sanity. Frank Rich of the New York Times (via Truthout) made similar observations.

As Mr. Bush has ricocheted from Vietnam to Latvia to Jordan in recent weeks, we've witnessed the troubling behavior of a president who isn't merely in a state of denial but is completely untethered from reality. It's not that he can't handle the truth about Iraq. He doesn't know what the truth is.
The most startling example was his insistence that Al Qaeda is primarily responsible for the country's spiraling violence. Only a week before Mr. Bush said this, the American military spokesman on the scene, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, called Al Qaeda "extremely disorganized" in Iraq, adding that "I would question at this point how effective they are at all at the state level." Military intelligence estimates that Al Qaeda makes up only 2 percent to 3 percent of the enemy forces in Iraq, according to Jim Miklaszewski of NBC News. The bottom line: America has a commander in chief who can't even identify some 97 percent to 98 percent of the combatants in a war that has gone on longer than our involvement in World War II.

Bush's continuing delusion that US troops can still finish the mission of creating a stable, democratic Iraq which will be the cause of the democratisation of the whole Middle East coupled with the semantic games being played on whether Iraq is in a state of civil war or not when outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has just said that it is "much worse" than civil war and Iraqis are worse off than under Saddam, should concern us all. Commissioning James Baker to come up with new ideas for dealing with the Iraq mess and then going out of his way to sabotage the anticipated recommendation (talking with Syria and Iran) is also insane.

Bush's problems with alcohol and drugs have been well documented. Less publicised (by the MSM at least) is his alleged erratic behavior, mood-swings, depression and paranoia which is said to be being treated with powerful anti-depressant drugs which impair his remaining mental faculties and his ability to respond to a crisis. This is worrying for everyone. In Britain, Blair won't make a move until he has clear directions from Washington. We've already exploded the myth of Blair's influence on Bush. In the absence of instructions all Blair can do is obfuscate about what British troops will do in Iraq, announcing a withdrawal but admitting that troops will remain in the country.

On a brighter note John Bolton the US ambassador to the UN has quit, realising he was not going to get the necessary Senate support. It looks like the “thumping” received by the Republicans in the recent midterm elections are starting to bear fruit. First Donald Rumsfeld and now Bolton. Reality has this nasty way of intruding on delusions.

Tags: Bush, US Politics, Iraq

Some Choice George Bush Quotes For Future Reference

2006-12-02T05:31:00.000Z

I've always been amused by George W Bush's unique way of mangling the English language. I'm particularly fascinated by the way the truth is often revealed in these linguistic slip-ups. I have a couple of books of the more well known 'Bushisms', but this little article (via) has a few I didn't know about and others which I did know about but which weren't sourced. I'm posting these here for posterity and for future reference as I'm sure many of us will be wanting to quote these words of wisdom. So ladies and gentlemen, without any further ado, allow me to introduce the President of the United States:

"International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me." George W. Bush, December 12, 2003.

"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace." George W.Bush's Address to the United Nations General Assembly, September 21, 2004.

"...for a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times. From that alliance has come an era of peace in the Pacific." Remark made by President George W. Bush to the Diet, Tokyo, Japan. February 18, 2002, even though the U.S. and Japan have been openly at war with each other.

"One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief....My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it....If I have a chance to invade..., if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it." remarks made by Bush to author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz, who met GWB many times in 1999, to write a biography.

"These people are trying to shake the will of the Iraqi citizens, and they want us to leave...I think the world would be better off if we did leave..." This was said by Bush during the presidential debate of September 20, 2004.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." Bush's remarks video clipped in Washington, D.C., as he signed the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, on August 5, 2004.

"Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." Bush's remark during a CNN Online Chat, August 30, 2000.

"I believe God wants me to be president" is a Bush's statement that came during a meeting with Rev. Richard land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, in 1999.

[I was] "chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment", is a Bush's quotation reported by Michael Duffy in Time magazine immediately after 9/11.

"God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them" comes from a remark made by Bush to Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath, made to and reported by BBC News on Thursday, October 6 2005.

"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job" is a Bush's remark to a group of Amish people he met with privately on July 9, 2004, and as published by the Lancaster New Era, July 16, 2004.

"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for 'entrepreneur'" comes from a remark made by Bush during a discussion of the French economy during the 2002 G8 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, as reported in The Times (London), July 9, 2002, [I thought this was a joke. I didn't realise he actually said this.]

'There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.' is taken from a video of Bush's remarks in Nashville, Tennessee, September 17, 2002.

"Ariel Sharon ... is a man of courage and a man of peace" is a quote reported by Glenn Kessler, in the Washington Post of Tuesday, June 3, 2003.

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." comes from remarks Bush made during a Social Security Conversation at the Athena Performing Arts Center in New York on May 24, 2005.

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace" is taken from a Bush's speech at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C., June 18, 2002.

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table" is a widely known remark that Bush made during a press conference, after a meeting with EU leaders, on February 25, 2005.

"Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction" is taken from Bush's speech at the Midwest Airlines Center, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on October 3, 2003.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him" was recorded at a Bush's White House press conference in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 2001.

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority" was recorded at George W. Bush's White House press conference in the James S. Brady Briefing Room, Washington, D.C., on March 13, 2002.

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them" is a statement Bush made in Washington, D.C., on May 29, 2003.

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties [in Iraq]" is a statement made by Bush during a discussion in early 2003 about the Iraq war with Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson in Nashville, Tennessee, and as quoted by Robertson himself.

"Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you" comes from the transcript of a Bush's speech made on March 17, 2003, days before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

"Brownie (Michael Brown of FEMA), you're doing a heck of a job" is still fresh in everybody's memory; it is a public statement made by Bush about Michael D. Brown, head of Fema, following Hurricane Katrina, at Mobile Regional Airport in Mobile, Alabama. on September 2, 2005.

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things" was recorded by journalists aboard Air Force One, on June 4, 2003.

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" is taken from an audio clip of President-elect George W. Bush, at a photo-op with congressional leaders during his first trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000; it was also reported on Online NewsHour, Washington, DC, December 18, 2000.

"I'm the commander — see, I don't need to explain — I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being president." can be found in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

“I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy” can be found in Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial."

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency" is a comment made by George W. Bush, on June 14, 2001, to Göran Persson, unaware he was still on live TV.

"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more trade, there's more commerce" is a Bush's remark made during a meeting of leades of the Americas, in Quebec City, Canada, April 21, 2001.

"I would still invade Iraq even if Iraq never existed" George W. Bush's remark made to the Press-Telegram, Monday, August 21, 2006.

"Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom." George W. Bush's acceptance speech at the Republic National Convention, on September 2, 2004.

I've omitted some of the other unsourced quotes from the Global Research article (funny though they are) because I can't find reliable sources for them. According to Urban Legends they are attributed either to George Bush, John Kerry or Dan Quale. If anyone can clear up the mystery and provide sources for those quotes, or correct any mistakes in those quotes I have included, feel free to let me know in the comments.

Tags: Bush

Bush and Blair's Stable Middle East: Progress or More Despair?

2006-11-28T07:52:00.000Z

The news coming from the Middle East this week, as well as providing us with the usual overdose of despair, is also showing some faint glimmers of change if not exactly hope in some of the hotspots.

In Palestine the tenuous cease fire between the Israelis and the Palestinians seems to be holding... just, and we are finally hearing some more positive language coming from Olmert which may just be the beginnings of a peace initiative, although it is far too early to say for sure and everyone has seen positive developments quickly collapse into renewed violence. However the cease fire, prisoner exchange and possible talks about a viable Palestinian state are developments which are to be welcomed and encouraged. One has to wonder what initiated this change of heart. Is it a realisation that Israel cannot simply murder its way to a peaceful solution (after several months of relentless attacks, massacres, demolitions and assassinations resulting in over 400 Palestinian deaths, most of them civilian, the rocket attacks continued unabated)? Is it pressure from Washington as Bush prepares to visit the region and needs at least something that will play well with the folks back home (it certainly won't be from Iraq)? Perhaps both sides are exhausted and need a pause in order to re arm and prepare for another cycle of violence. Possibly it is a mixture of all these things.

In Iraq of course, it is very difficult to see anything positive as the country crumbles further into anarchy. If it wasn't so tragic, it would be amusing watching the US and British governments try to use any wording they can to describe the situation without uttering those fateful words 'civil war'. However, civil war is exactly what is happening, or to be more precise, civil wars may be a better term because the country is so fractured now. It's now obvious to everyone that the Bush/Blair axis does not have the faintest clue what to do about the catastrophe it has created. Talking to Iran and Syria, previously unthinkable, is now very much on the agenda. While Bush and Blair contemplate this very obvious climb down, the Iraqi leader has gone to Iran to plead for help and has received a promise of assistance. Just what form that assistance will take and how effective it will be remains to be seen, however, it is a change and the closest thing to a positive development happening.

In Britain there has been more talk of troop withdrawals, but again the rhetoric displays the bankruptcy of ideas. It has been more or less acknowledged that troops in the region are contributing to the violence, and also acknowledged that withdrawing them is likely to increase the violence in the short term. The decision seems to be to announce a withdrawal of some (possibly most) British troops by the end of next year while admitting that some troops will be in Iraq for many years to come (probably confined to bases and under siege). Hardly a clear strategy. Of course, the remainder of the so-called coalition of the willing will be out of Iraq much sooner. America is not making any such announcement. The USA is still deliberating on whether to send even more troops into the quagmire as if that would improve matters.

Another hotspot in the news again is Lebanon which also looks close to descending into chaos again. Hizbollah's threat to leave the government unless it was given greater representation could be a body blow to the pro Western administration. The assassination of Pierre Gemayel, Lebanon's anti-Syrian industry minister has obviously added to the pressure on Lebanon and also Syria, which has been accused of the murder without a shred of evidence. It is interesting that the killing took place just as Syria was making positive noises about coming in from the cold and helping ease the tension in Iraq. For Syria to murder a Lebanese Cabinet Minister at this time is hardly in its best interests, so we have to ask ourselves who would benefit most from the renewed chaos in Lebanon and and more pressure on Syria as well as who is best placed to carry out such an assassination. Hopefully the tension in the Levant will be allowed to calm down in order for all parties to focus on the far more dangerous situation in Iraq.

Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon are the three civil wars (potential or already started) that Jordan's King Abdullah warned that we could be facing next year. Not exactly "the advance of freedom and hope in the greater Middle East" promised by Bush and Blair when they lied their way into the Iraq war and now try to lie their way out of it. But there is also the quagmire in Afghanistan to consider. That conflict is not going well either and America and Britain are having trouble finding other NATO allies to join them in their mission. Far from rushing to join in the fun, NATO countries are looking for a way out of that mess.

While there is very little to get exited about in terms of stability in the region, there is a noticeable change in the air. America's stranglehold on the Middle East might well be coming to an end. An attack on Iran now looks less likely as the US realises that it needs Iranian cooperation and that Iran seems to be holding the best cards and knows how to play them. Also it will be much harder to attack Iran now that the CIA has said that it has found no proof that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. This with the possibility of a peace initiative in Palestine and Iranian and Syrian cooperation in Iraq does give us some reason to hope, however small that hope is.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Bush, Afghanistan, Blair

Bechtel Cuts and Runs

2006-11-10T11:10:00.000Z

President Bush is fond of saying that America will stay in Iraq and "finish the job". Here's an example:

"When America says we'll do something," the president declared, "we are going to do it -- and finish the job."
Source

He also liked saying (until recently) that America will "stay the course" in Iraq. Obviously these statements only applied to the military presence in the country because staying the course and finishing the job is the last thing Bechtel intends to do. Bechtel is one of the giant American companies (along with Halliburton) with ties to the Bush administration given the job of reconstruction in Iraq. Far from finishing the job, they barely started it despite receiving 2.3 billion dollars in US tax payers money to do just that. Here is Dahr Jamail's latest report:

BAGHDAD, Nov 9 (IPS) - The decision of the giant engineering company Bechtel to withdraw from Iraq has left many Iraqis feeling betrayed. In its departure they see the end of remaining hopes for the reconstruction of Iraq.
"It is much worse than in the time of Saddam Hussein," Communist Party member Nayif Jassim told IPS. "Most Iraqis wish Saddam would be back in power now that they lived out the hardships of the occupation. The Americans did nothing but loot our oil and kill our people."
[...]
On every level of infrastructure measurable, the situation in Iraq is worse now than under the rule of Saddam Hussein. That includes the 12 years of economic sanctions since the first Gulf War in 1991, a period that former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Dennis Halliday described as "genocidal" for Iraqis.
The average household in Iraq now gets two hours of electricity a day. There is 70 percent unemployment, 68 percent of Iraqis have no access to safe drinking water, and only 19 percent have sewage access. Not even oil production has matched pre-invasion levels.
[...]
The group Medact recently said that easily treatable conditions such as diarrhoea and respiratory illness are causing 70 percent of all child deaths, and that "of the 180 health clinics the U.S. hoped to build by the end of 2005, only four have been completed -- and none opened."
A proposed 200 million dollar project to build 142 primary care centres ran out of cash after building just 20 clinics, a performance that the World Health Organisation described as "shocking."
Iraqis are complaining louder now than under the sanctions. Lack of electricity has led to increasing demand for gasoline to run generators. And gasoline is among the most scarce commodities in this oil-rich country.
"We inherited an exhausted electricity system in generating stations and distributing nets, but we were able to supply 50 percent of consumer demand during heavy load periods, and more than that during ordinary days," an engineer with the Ministry of Electricity told IPS.
"The situation now is much worse and it seems not to be improving despite the huge contracts signed with American companies. It is strange how billions of dollars spent on electricity brought no improvement whatsoever, but in fact worsened the situation."
The engineer said "we in the ministry have not received any real equipment for our senior stations, and the small transformers for the distributing nets were of very low standard."
Bechtel's contract included reconstruction of water treatment systems, electricity plants, sewage systems, airports and roads.
Read the whole article

This lamentable record has not stopped the Bush administration painting a completely different picture of progress in Iraq:

10 SIGNS OF BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE & BASIC SERVICES
Electricity: Electricity is now more equitably distributed and more stable, instead of, as during Saddam Hussein's rule, being supplied to Baghdad at the expense of the rest of the country. For the rest of 2003, $294 million is budgeted to improve electrical systems.

Water Systems: Water supply in many areas is now at pre-conflict levels. Over 2000 repairs have been made to 143 water networks, and water quality sampling has restarted. There are plans to add 450 million liters of capacity to Baghdad's system.

Healthcare: Iraqi hospitals are up and running, and healthcare, previously available only for Ba'athist elite, is now available to all Iraqis. Drugs are being supplied to hospitals and clinics, and medical worker salaries are being paid regularly, ensuring employees attend work. Vaccinations are available across the country, and anti-malarial spraying will take place this autumn.

Returning Refugees: Refugees began returning from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. UNHCR and the Coalition are working together to ensure that groups of refugees in Jordan and Iran can return to Iraq safely and comfortably in the near future.

Revitalizing Oil Production and Distribution: Repairs and modernizations are being made to the antiquated and neglected oil production and distribution systems. Oil will provide the future wealth of the country but was severely misappropriated by the former regime.

Police: There are 6,000 police on the streets of Baghdad and 34 out of 60 police stations are currently operational. Throughout Iraq, there are some 30,000 police patrolling the streets.

Road Repairs: Emergency road repairs, underway throughout Iraq now, will employ even more Iraqis in the coming weeks.

Airports: The Baghdad and Basra airports are ready to open, and the airport in Basra is expected to begin commercial operations in August. Several airlines are likely to start regular air service to Iraq.

Major Bridges: $4.3 million has been provided to repair the Tikrit Bridge; $4.4 million to rebuild the Al Mat Bridge; and $3.2 million to rebuild the Khazir Bridge.

Port at Umm Qasr: The port at Umm Qasr is open and functioning again, and customs and port authority agents are being trained.
Source

So which picture of Iraqi reconstruction is the more accurate? Not having been to Iraq, I have no way of knowing for sure. But the rosy picture painted by the White House doesn't exactly fit with what we see in the news every day. And as the American people have just shown, the Bush administration does have a slight credibility problem. Bush hit the nail on the head when he said, "Shows what I know".

Tags: Iraq, Bush, US Politics

A Week of Changes?

2006-11-09T09:14:00.000Z

Well what a week it's been, and it's only Thursday. We have the neo-con wipe out at the American midterm elections where the Democrats took the House of Representatives and seem likely now to take the Senate too as news comes in that Virginia has gone Democrat with Jim Webb narrowly beating Republican incumbent Sen. George Allen, who may concede very soon. And this despite Bush using the suspiciously timely sentencing to death of Saddam Hussein to try and boost his chances. We also have the fall-out of that election starting early with the 'resignation' of Donald Rumsfeld, a move which seems to have widespread approval, quite understandably. His replacement, Robert Gates however doesn't look like being a vast improvement although he might have a more sensible attitude regarding Iran. And that is possibly the best news about this election, hopefully, plans to attack Iran have been shelved (provided, of course, that the Democrats don't decide to pursue that reckless policy).

Just how much things will change with the Democrats in control of both Houses of congress remains to be seen. We know that they originally supported the Iraq war and are unlikely to pull the plug on Bush's pet project straight away. They can be just as hawkish about Iran, and we know also that whoever is in power in the USA will support Israel but there is a chance they will work harder to find a solution. However despite the failings of the democrats there is an undeniable change in the air which is a cause for celebration.

One aspect of the Democrat victory which promises to be interesting is the possibility of a series of inquiries into such things as the Iraq war and Guantanamo etc. We've already seen here in the UK, our leaders decide that an inquiry into the Iraq war wouldn't be in ~~our~~ their best interests, but what will happen if a full inquiry is called across the pond? There is no way that Blair's role in this fiasco could be ignored and information that Blair wants to remain hidden would inevitably come into the public arena and make the case for an inquiry here in the UK all the stronger. And let's not forget Blair's denials and non-answers over issues like extraordinary rendition, torture etc. If the Democrats start digging, I expect Blair will become increasingly nervous. Another wobble for Blair's nerves will be the possibility that as Bush becomes more unpopular in the Unites States, so will Blair. Who knows maybe they won't want to buy his memoirs or pay top dollar to listen to him and his wife talk when they join the usually lucrative lecture circuit.

Not that our Prime Minister's nerves were that tranquil before the midterm elections. This week has produced some interesting nuggets of news over here too. I'm referring of course to the cash for honours investigation which seems to have gone onto over-drive and is progressing steadily towards Number Ten Downing Street. This week it was revealed that Gordon Brown and John Prescott had been contacted by the police and was asked to tell them what they knew about the scandal. Later it turned out the whole cabinet have been asked to supply information. This makes the eventual questioning of Tony Blair a near certainty. There is still a possibility that Blair will escape any criminal charges, at least until he has left office, but that is not a given. We have heard rumours of a 'killer e-mail' which spells bad news for Blair and Lord Levy. Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff has been interviewed and may face further questions under caution. We were also treated to the spectacle of Blair's best hope, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith (a close friend of the Prime Minister who had donated money to Labour and who had been ennobled by Blair) being in a position to decide if a prosecution should go ahead, evaporate.

So two stories of comeuppance, one on each side of the Atlantic, in the same week. Perhaps there really is a change happening and some cause for optimism. But if that is the case, it is only a beginning. Iraq is still a disaster and will remain so whatever happens here or in America. Bush and Blair are still in power although both are badly damaged lame ducks limping towards their exit from the world stage. Still it's a start.

Tags: Bush, Blair, Sleaze, UK Politics, US Politics

Iran's Response to American-Led 'War Games' in the Persian Gulf'

2006-11-02T11:06:00.000Z

I have been posting recently about the covert build-up of American and allied war ships in the Persian Gulf for the purpose of military exercises organised by the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative. The stated objective of these exercises is to practice maneuvers to stop ships bound for Iran that might contain nuclear materials. The unstated objective is to intimidate the Iranian regime although the Americans are saying that they want Iran to take notice of their fire power.

"From Iranian news reports we know the exercise got the attention of Iran," Robert Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said Friday.
Source

Well, how could the Iranians fail to pay attention to a hostile foreign armada off their coastline? Needless to say the Iranian regime criticised the exercises.

Iran called the two-day maneuvers "adventurist," but the Foreign Ministry said the Islamic Republic's response would be "rational and wise."
"We are watching their movements very carefully," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said in Tehran, adding that the exercises would not improve security in the gulf, through which about 20 percent of the world's oil transits.
Source

The Iranians have also said that they are unconcerned as they have the ships under close observation.

"US warships move regularly in the Persian Gulf and in the Sea of Oman, and we have them under surveillance," said the navy's commander Sajad Kouchaki, quoted by the Iranian press on Sunday.
"The presence of two US warships shows the aggressive and dominating character of the Americans," he added.
"If they want to threaten the Islamic republic of Iran we are capable of keeping them under control. The Iranian navy does not believe in such a threat and has the enemy completely under control," he said.
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters that "Iran does not believe that these maneuvers constitute a threat".

Despite their nonchalance, the Iranians have responded to this provocation with some exercises of their own. This was a fairly predictable move and demonstrates that the regime is as defiant as ever, and while Iran's statements of being unconcerned with the war games in the Gulf may be a bluff, its determination to protect itself is not.

TEHRAN, Iran: Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired dozen of missiles, including the long-range Shahab-3, during the first hours of new military maneuvers, Iranian state-run television said Thursday.
The report said several kinds of short-range missiles were also fired in a central desert area of Iran during the maneuvers, which came two days after U.S.-led warships finished an exercise in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist."
"We want to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message of the maneuvers," said the head of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, in an apparent reference to the US and other western powers.
The general said the 10-day maneuvers, named "Great Prophet," would take place in the Gulf, the Sea of Oman and several provinces of the country. He did not specify how many troops were involved.
Source

This was the sort of escalation I was concerned about when I wrote this post. Now we will have to see what America (under the guise of the 'international community') will do about this latest development. If the Bush administration continues to escalate the situation, it could develop into a crisis very quickly. We already know that Bush and his government are in desperate trouble at home and about to lose an election, a fact that the Iranians are also well aware of.

America has also been threatening Syria again too, accusing the Assad regime of trying to topple the Lebanese government. This at a time when Blair is trying to build bridges with the Syrians in order to do something to try and rectify the terrible mess he and Bush have created in the Middle East. It doesn't seem to be an initiative the Bush administration or Israel approve of. I think it would be naive to think all these events are unrelated.

Tags: Iran, Syria, Israel, Bush, Blair, US Politics

Provoking a New War

2006-10-28T05:42:00.000+01:00

In 1964 President Lyndon B. Johnson lied to the world by saying that North Vietnamese forces had attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin and used the incident as a legal justification to bring American troops into the Vietnam War. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a pretext to escalate a war. Six weeks before the Iraq War, President George W Bush revealed to Tony Blair a plan to lure Saddam Hussein into war by flying a U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq and hoping he would shoot it down. In order to start a war these days it is necessary to appear to be attacked so as to claim the moral high-ground, and if the enemy does not oblige then warmongers resort to deception.

Recently there has been a covert naval build-up in the Persian Gulf. There has been almost no coverage of this build-up at all in the mainstream media leading to speculation that America may now be attempting a new deception in order to trick Iran into 'starting' a new war. The build-up has been continuing with with the USS Boxer now joining USS Enterprise and USS Iwo Jima off the Iranian coastline. The reason given for the presence of all this fire-power in the region is military exercises or 'war games'.

The exercise, set for Oct. 31, is the 25th to be organized under the U.S.-led 66-member Proliferation Security Initiative and the first to be based in the Gulf near Bahrain, across from Iran, the officials said.
A senior U.S. official insisted the exercise is not aimed specifically at Iran, although it reinforces a U.S. strategy aimed at strengthening America’s ties with states in the Gulf, where Tehran and Washington are competing for influence
Source

Iran is justifiably nervous about having this military might off its shore, especially with the American military presence in Iraq on one side and in Afghanistan on the other and with numerous bases within air strike distance in Eastern Europe. With tensions in the region as high as they are, a small incident could escalate into something more serious very quickly. This is known throughout the region which is why we are hearing stories like this:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Coalition naval forces in the Persian Gulf are on watch for possible terror threats to oil facilities in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, Western naval officials said Friday.
A British navy official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press, said a threat from al-Qaida last month to target gulf oil terminals had resulted in stepped-up security and vigilance at Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura terminal, as well as a refinery in Bahrain.
Read on

There has been speculation in some blogs about an 'October Surprise' before the American mid-term elections which take place in early November in which the Republicans are expected to do badly. If Bush looses control of the House of Representatives, waging new wars will be that much harder for him... unless of course American forces appear to be attacked. And for Bush war with Iran might be his only option as he is unlikely to get from the UN the kind of sanctions he wants imposed on Iran. This might not be the 'October Surprise', but the potential for an incident to occur will be greatly increased by these war games. And let's not forget that there is also a significant military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Lebanon. German warships have already been threatened by Israeli aircraft. And French UNIFIL troops have complained of the continuous violations of Lebanese airspace by Israel.

Of course this could all be coincidence, there have been rumours of war in Iran for some time now. But the underlying causes for conflict are not going away. This is a fight for the world's oil resources. I doubt we'll know for sure what the true intentions of the USA are in the region unless we suddenly hear of an attack on a warship or something similar, but with all the military might in the Gulf firing off rounds in such a tense area, it's worth being alert.

Tags: Iran, Bush, US Politics

George Bush Delays the Second Coming of Christ

2006-10-27T18:12:00.000+01:00

Some (but not all) Republican evengelicals and end-timers are not pleased. It seems that George Bush's foreign policy, as well as being a total failure, has incurred the wrath of God.

Voters should oust congressional Republican leaders because U.S. foreign policy is delaying the second coming of Jesus Christ, according to a evangelical preacher trying to influence closely contested political races.
K.A. Paul railed against the war in Iraq on Sunday before a crowd of 1,000 at the New Spirit Revival Center in Cleveland Heights, his first stop on what he hopes is a 30-city campaign.
The Houston-based preacher said he believes that the Bush administration has delayed the second coming because U.S. foreign policy has blocked Christian missionaries from working in Iraq, Iran and Syria.
"Somebody needs to say enough is enough," he said to worshippers who stood, waved and called out in support.
At just over 5 feet tall, the charismatic man in a beige three-piece suit trimmed with sparkles is the latest - and perhaps the most flamboyant - voice in the debate this fall over religion and politics in Ohio.
Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell has rallied many of the state's religious conservatives. His Democratic opponent, Ted Strickland, is an ordained minister. And a group of clergy members formed We Believe Ohio to counter what they consider threats to the separation of church and state.
Paul, who claimed to support conservative political leaders in the past, is launching "a crusade to save America from the wrath of God and Republicans abusing their power," according to his press materials.
His focus on Sunday was on national races, and he didn't single out any Ohio candidates.
"God is mad at this country," Paul told the congregation. He described the war in Iraq as "unnecessary genocide."
Source

What a change from a couple of years ago when a vote for Bush was a vote for Jesus and Democrats were expelled from churches. Has God gone off-message or is He no longer talking to Bush?

Tags: Bush, US Politics, Religion

Guess Who Are Still Running The World!

2006-10-13T08:47:00.000+01:00

Click here to find out

From Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads who has had an attack of cynicism and is taking a short break from blogging to work on a new project. I hope we don't have to wait too long to find out about it. You can see some of his other Flash Animations here.

Tags: Blogging, Blair, Bush

Military pressure on Iran continues

2006-10-10T07:42:00.000+01:00

Last week I posted here and on Blairwatch about a covert naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean under the pretext of U.N. peacekeeping. There has been little mention of these developments elsewhere in the mainstream media, but the build-up is continuing. Now it seems that the Eisenhower carrier group has set sail for Iran.

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Eisenhower and its accompanying strike force of cruiser, destroyer and attack submarine slipped their moorings and headed off for the Persian Gulf region on Oct. 2, as I had predicted in a piece in The Nation magazine a few weeks back.

The Eisenhower strike force, according to my sources, is scheduled to arrive in the vicinity of Iran around October 21, at the same time as a second flotilla of minesweepers and other ships.

This build-up of naval power around the coast of Iran, according to some military sources, is in preparation for an air attack on Iran that would target not just Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, but its entire military command and control system.
Source

Could these really be the preparations for the wider Middle East war that so many people have been speculating about? If they are then the mainstream media should hang their collective heads in shame for not reporting this. George Bush's foreign policy has been exposed as disastrous, not just in Iraq where this is obvious but now with regards to North Korea too where as just about everyone must know by now a nuclear test has been conducted despite Bush's threats and warnings. Even with all the international condemnation, it is possible that North Korea may be preparing a second nuclear test. In a month from now America will have its Mid-Term elections where it is expected that the Republicans may lose control of the House of Representatives, and maybe even the Senate. If that happens Bush will be even more of a lame duck than he already is, unable to do very much at all. So he has a very small window of opportunity to carry out his dangerous policies.

It looks like the summer of diplomacy is over.

Tags: Iran, US Politics, North Korea