Osama Side-lined?

Osama bin Laden 'sidelined' within Al-Qaida: Report

timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Osama_sidelined_within_Al-Qaida/...

Consider the source and take it for what it's worth

Citing information gathered by Pakistani intelligence, Bruce Hoffman, a member of the US Military Academy's Combating Terrorism Center, said "Bin Laden is the brand name but Al-Zawahiri is the grand-strategist.

According to US and UK officials, Osama bin Laden has been sidelined by his followers and has no longer any control over the Al Qaeda terror network and that he hasn't "chaired a meeting of Al-Qaida's ruling shura or council in more than two years."

So, maybe he's content with just doing commercials or maybe he is making speeches for big bucks like America's ex-presidents.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

French Foreign Minister: Prepare For War

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme.

"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.

Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world".

Iran has consistently denied it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons but intends to carry on enriching uranium.

Mr Kouchner also said a number of large French companies had been asked not to tender for business in Iran.

EU sanctions

Iran says its nuclear programme is peaceful

"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies."

"But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."

He said France wanted the European Union to prepare sanctions against Iran.

"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.

Until now the Security Council of the United Nations has imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but did not allow for military action.

The United States has not ruled out a military attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Albright: :I've Never Seen The World in Such A Mess

Albright: Bush ‘must think we’re all idiots.’

Yesterday in Iowa, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Iraq will “go down in history as the greatest disaster in American foreign policy. That means that I am acknowledging it is worse than Vietnam.” She added, “I don’t think I have ever seen the world in such a mess.”

(Well, that makes to of us, Madam Secretary.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

We are, basically, going to be in Iraq forever.

Gates urges veto of troop-rest measure

By HOPE YEN,

Associated Press Writer

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday he would recommend a veto of a Senate proposal that would give troops more rest between deployments in Iraq, branding it a dangerous "backdoor way" to draw down forces.

Democrats pledged to push ahead with the plan by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., and expressed confidence they could round up the votes to pass it, although perhaps not by the margin to override a veto.

"The operational tempo that our forces are under is excruciatingly difficult for our soldiers, Marines, all of our personnel and their families," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "They deserve the same amount of time back home as they stay in the field."

The comments represented the latest political clash over the future course of the war. Last week, President Bush announced plans for a limited drawdown but indicated that combat forces would stay in Iraq well past 2008.

With the Senate expected to resume debate this week on anti-war legislation, Gates sharpened his criticism of Webb's proposal. It would require troops get as much time at their home station as their deployments to the war front.

Gates was asked in broadcast interviews about recommending a veto to Bush should the proposal pass. "Yes I would," the Pentagon chief said.

"If it were enacted, we would have force management problems that would be extremely difficult and, in fact, affect combat effectiveness and perhaps pose greater risk to our troops," he said.

Supporters of Webb's proposal say it has at least 57 of the 60 votes needed for passage. It would need 67 votes to override a veto.

A separate proposal by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., seeks to restrict the mission of troops to fighting terrorist and training the Iraqi security force.

"The president has dangled a carrot in front of the American people talking about troop reductions," Levin said. "But, again, it is an illusion of a change of course and the American people are not buying it. My colleagues are not buying it."

"I think we have a good chance of getting to the 60 votes to call for a change in policy. I hope we get there in the next couple of weeks," he said.

If Webb's amendment were enacted, Gates said it would force him to consider again extending tours in Iraq. He explained that the military commanders would be constrained in the use of available forces, creating gaps and forcing greater use of an already strained National Guard and Reserve.

"It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a backdoor way to try and force the president to accelerate the drawdown," Gates said. "Again, the drawdowns have to be based on the conditions on the ground."

"We would have to be looking at gapping units where there would — a unit pulling out would not be immediately replaced by another," he added. "So you'd have an area of combat operations where no U.S. forces would be present for a period, and the troops coming in would then face a much more difficult situation."

Active-duty Army units today are on 15-month deployments with a promise of no more than 12 months rest. Marines who spend seven or more months at war sometimes get six months or less at home.

"We're having difficulty trying to keep to my policy of 15 months deployed, 12 months at home, for the active force and a full-year mobilization limit on the Guard and Reserve. We're having enough trouble trying to make that work, without the strictures of legislation," Gates said.

Bush said last week that he had approved a plan by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, to withdraw 5,700 troops from Iraq by the holidays and reduce the force from 20 combat brigades to 15 brigades by next July.

The president has ordered Petraeus to make a further assessment and fresh recommendations in March. There are about 169,000 U.S. troops in Iraq today.

Gates on Friday raised the possibility of cutting troop levels to 100,000 or so by the end of next year, well beyond the cuts Bush announced, in what appeared to be a conciliatory gesture to anti-war Democrats and some wary Republicans who are pushing for troop reductions and an end to the war.

But on Sunday, Gates said he could not say how large the force would be in the coming years, stressing that it would depend on conditions on the ground and whether the security situation in Iraq had improved dramatically.

In the long term, Gates said, U.S. forces would focus on border security, fighting terrorists and training and equipping Iraqi security forces.

"The idea is that we would have a much more limited role in Iraq for some protracted period of time, a stabilizing force, a force that would be a fraction of the size of what we have there now," Gates said.

Bush has compared America's future in Iraq to the peacekeeping role U.S. troops play in South Korea, where they have been stationed for some five decades.

Gates, meanwhile, said he disagreed with assertions by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan in his new book that the Iraq war "is largely about oil."

"I've known him a long time and I disagree with that," Gates said. "I wasn't here for the decision-making process that initiated it, that started the war. I know the same allegation was made about the Gulf War in 1991 and I just don't believe it's true," he said.

"It's really about stability in the Gulf. It's about rogue regimes trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. It's about aggressive dictators," Gates said. "After all, Saddam Hussein launched wars against several of his neighbors. He was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction, certainly when we went in, in 1991."

Gates spoke on "Fox News Sunday" and "This Week" on ABC. Reed was on ABC and Levin appeared on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

"Swear Him In." Is that so difficult?

What good is non-sworn testimony? Does anyone believe our court system would work at all if there was not a threat of perjury charges hanging over a witnesses's heads like the sword of Damocles?

Why not simply make it law that anyone testifying before Congress must be sworn to tell the truth? That way no big-wig will get his/her feelings hurt when they have to stand and raise their right hand. Everyone should have to swear to tell Congress, and therefore the American people the unvarnished truth, just like the rest of us mere mortals must do so if we are testifying in a court of law.

Jeebus, it isn't as if anyone in their right mind doesn't know by now that politicians, citizens with a personal agenda and, yes, generals have and will lie their asses off if the situation calls for it.

'Swear Him In' Provokes Expulsion

By Ray McGovern
September 10, 2007

“Swear him in.” That’s all I said in the unusual silence this afternoon as first aid was being administered to Gen. David Petraeus’s microphone at the hearing before the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs Committees.

It had dawned on me that when House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Missouri, invited Gen. Petraeus to make his presentation, Skelton forgot to ask him to take the customary oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I had no idea that would be enough to get me thrown out of the hearing.

I had a flashback to a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early 2006, when Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, reminded chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, that Specter had forgotten to swear in the witness, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; and how Specter insisted that that would not be necessary.

Now that may, or may not, be an invidious comparison. But Petraeus and Gonzales work for the same boss, who has a rather unusual relationship with the truth. How many of his senior staff could readily be convicted, as was the hapless-and-now-commuted Scooter Libby, of perjury?

So I didn’t think twice about it. I really thought that Skelton perhaps forgot, and that the 10-minute interlude of silence while they fixed the microphone was a good chance to raise this seemingly innocent question.

The more so since the ranking Republican representatives had been protesting too much. In the obverse of “killing the messenger,” they had been canonizing the messenger with protective fire.

Ranking Armed Services Committee member Duncan Hunter, R-California, began what amounted to a SWAT-team attack on the credibility of those who dared attack the truthfulness of the sainted Petraeus, and issued a special press release decrying a full-pager in the New York Times equating Petraeus with “Betray-us.”

Hunter served notice on any potential doubters, insisting that Petraeus’s “capability, integrity, intelligence...are without question.” And Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, echoed that theme, unwittingly choosing another infelicitous almost-homonym for the charges against Petraeus—“outrageous.”

Indeed, Hunter’s prepared statement, which he circulated before the hearing, amounted to little more than a full-scale “duty-honor-country” panegyric for the general.

On the chance we did not hear him the first time, Hunter kept repeating how “independent” Petraeus is, how candid and full of integrity, and compared him to famous generals who testified to Congress in the past—Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Schwarzkopf. Advisedly, Hunter avoided any mention of Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, who fell tragically short on those traits. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Is Petraeus Today’s Westmoreland.”]

If memory serves, the aforementioned generals and Westmoreland were required to testify under oath. And this was one of the main sticking points when CBS aired a program showing that Westmoreland had deliberately dissembled on the strength of Communist forces and U.S. “progress” in the war.

When Westmoreland sued CBS for libel, several of his subordinates came clean, and Westmoreland quickly dropped the suit. The analogy with Westmoreland—justifying a White House wish to persist in an unwinnable war —is the apt one here.

If Petraeus is so honest and full of integrity, what possible objection could he have to being sworn in?

I had not the slightest hesitation being sworn in when testifying before the committee assembled by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, on June 16, 2005. Should generals be immune? Or did his masters wish to give him a little more assurance that he could play fast and loose with the truth without the consequences encountered by Scooter Libby.

With the microphone finally fixed, it quickly became clear. Petraeus tried to square a circle in his very first two paragraphs.

In the first, he thanks the committees for the opportunity to “discuss the recommendations I recently provided to my chain of command for the way forward.” Then he stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point—at least for me:

“At the outset, I would like to note that this is my testimony. Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House, or Congress.”

Is not the Commander-in-Chief in Petraeus’s chain of command?

As Harry Truman, D-Missouri, would have said, “Does he think we were born yesterday?”

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the early sixties and then a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990. He had a front-seat for the charades orchestrated by Westmoreland in Vietnam. His e-mail is RRMcGovern@aol.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers..

Osama W, bush Laden

Bush-Bin Laden Symbiosis Reborn

By Robert Parry
September 8, 2007

Just as Sylvester and Tweety Bird achieved lasting Hollywood fame from their comical cartoon chases, the less amusing duo of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to benefit each other by reviving their long-distance rivalry, one posturing against the other in a way that helps them both.

(They both seem to want the same things, not the least of which is bankrupting the U.S. treasury and sending the U.S. into economic chaos.)

In a new video, al-Qaeda leader bin Laden again taunts Bush, the United States – and then the Democrats for not forcing an American withdrawal from Iraq, which should help guarantee that the Democrats won’t dare press for a withdrawal from Iraq.

(Funny how that always happens, is it not? Election 2004, Osama-in-the-box pops up to ridicule Junior with the pet goat embarrassment just three days before election day and it has the desired effect. Americans run to the polls to vote for poor George, apparently in enough numbers to make the election close enough to steal)

At a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Sydney, Australia, President Bush then did his part, highlighting bin Laden’s Iraq comments:

“I found it interesting that on the tape Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is part of the war against extremists. If al-Qaeda bothers to mention Iraq, it’s because they want to achieve their objectives in Iraq, which is to drive us out.”

(I think it's "interesting" that Junior is always finding things "interesting." Apparently none of those things he finds so "interesting" are interesting enough for him to delve into in any depth at all. Oh well, I guess we are all taking our marching orders from Al Qaeda. If they think Iraq is important, we must think so as well. Problem is, Al Qaeda didn't think of Iraq as important at all, until Junior invaded the place, pissing off every Muslim in the Arab world, not to mention a whole lot of people living in nations that were once our allies.)

Except that U.S. intelligence has long concluded that al-Qaeda really wants the opposite: to bog the United States down in a hopeless, bloody war in Iraq that has been a boon for recruiting young jihadists, raising money and protecting al-Qaeda’s leadership holed up in base camps inside Pakistan.

Bin Laden continues to play the role of another cartoon character, Walt Disney’s Brer Rabbit, who escaped one famously tight spot by begging not to be thrown into the briar patch when that was exactly where he wanted to go. [For more details on this Bush-bin Laden symbiosis, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

Cole Attack

At least since the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, al-Qaeda’s strategy has been to draw the United States militarily into the Middle East as a way both to enhance al-Qaeda’s status in the Muslim world and to weaken the Americans by draining their resources and damaging their army.

However, the Clinton administration couldn't verify that al-Qaeda was behind the Cole attack until January 2001 and then turned over the evidence to the incoming Bush team, which didn’t act because it had other priorities.

(Or maybe they just needed a "new Pearl Harbor," like the PNAC manifesto said they did, so NeoCon imperial dreams could be realized far sooner than without such a "catalyzing event.")

By summer 2001, U.S. intelligence was picking up chatter indicating that al-Qaeda was disappointed by the lack of a response to the Cole provocation but was confident that the next blow would force Washington’s hand.

That next attack on Sept. 11, 2001, did compel an American military reaction, but al-Qaeda may have miscalculated as an effective U.S. counter-attack ousted al-Qaeda’s Taliban allies in Afghanistan and cornered bin Laden and other top leaders at Tora Bora.

At that crucial point, however, Bush failed to dispatch sufficient U.S. troops to seal off bin Laden’s escape routes, allowing many of al-Qaeda’s top leaders to flee into the rugged tribal region of Pakistan.

To al-Qaeda’s relief and amazement, Bush also began diverting key U.S. military resources away from Afghanistan toward Iraq, whose secular Sunni leader Saddam Hussein was an enemy of al-Qaeda’s Sunni fundamentalists.

Bush’s invasion of Iraq not only eliminated a key Sunni rival in Hussein but rallied thousands of angry Muslims to al-Qaeda’s banner. Soon, al-Qaeda even had an affiliate in Iraq led by Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

As al-Qaeda gained strength in the Islamic world, bin Laden came to see Bush as something of a strategic ally. When Bush found himself in a tight battle with Democratic Sen. John Kerry, bin Laden issued a videotape denouncing Bush on the Friday before Election 2004.

The tape had the predictable effect of giving Bush a last-minute boost in the polls, which CIA analysts concluded was precisely bin Laden’s intent. Bin Laden wanted to keep Bush around as a foil for another four years. [See Neck Deep for details.]

Prolonged War

Also, contrary to Bush’s repeated assertions that al-Qaeda wants U.S. troops to leave Iraq so it can establish a safe haven there, the terrorist group’s internal messages, which have been intercepted by U.S. intelligence, reveal that al-Qaeda fears most the impact of a sudden American withdrawal.

A July 9, 2005, letter attributed to al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri warned that a rapid U.S. pullout could cause al-Qaeda’s new recruits, who traveled to Iraq to wage war on the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.

“The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal,” wrote Zawahiri, who worried that a premature departure of the Americans also might leave the depleted ranks of al-Qaeda foreign fighters at the mercy of angry Iraqis.

Another internal communiqué revealed that al-Qaeda’s real wish was for the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely, so the terrorist group could continue recruiting and training young jihadists while buying time to overcome the hostility of Iraqis toward outsiders.

In a letter to Zarqawi, dated Dec. 11, 2005, “Atiyah,” another top aide to bin Laden, described the hard work needed to overcome the animosity of Sunni tribal leaders. In that context, Atiyah said the continued American presence was crucial.

“Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote in a letter captured when Zarqawi was killed in June 2006. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]

So, the interests of President Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to dovetail perfectly. The open-ended “war on terror” has allowed Bush to consolidate previously unimaginable powers for a U.S. chief executive. Simultaneously, bin Laden has emerged as a hero to many Muslims offended by the American occupation of Arab lands.

Now, as Bush faces another Democratic challenge to his plans for continuing the Iraq War, bin Laden shows up again, essentially berating the Democrats for not forcing U.S. troop withdrawals.

“The vast majority of you [Americans] want it [the Iraq War] stopped,” bin Laden said. “Thus you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven't made a move worth mentioning.”

That means if the Democrats do renew their efforts toward forcing American troop withdrawals, Bush and his supporters can simply accuse the Democrats of following bin Laden’s orders or playing into bin Laden’s hands.

The reality may be the opposite, but a few Republican floor speeches and a couple of well-placed op-eds should be enough to spook the already nervous Democrats.

Fox News commentator Sean Hannity offered a taste of how the new bin Laden tape will be used against both Democrats and the American Left.

“One of the things that also struck me is the language specifically that he [bin Laden] used,” Hannity said. “He seemed to adopt the very same language that is being used by the hard Left in this country, as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a ‘civil war’; he actually used the word ‘neocons’; he talked about global warming; he denounces capitalism and corporations.”

(I wonder if there really is an Arabic word for NeoCons. But beyond that, can anyone seriously imagine that the American left would want anything to do with Islam's religious nut-jobs when they have no use for our own? I doubt that America has ever had an enemy more despicable to liberals and progressives than bin Laden, except Hitler. The truth is that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda nor did Saddam have anything to do with 9/11 and Iraq is now is in a civil war brought on my BushCo's invasion of that country, which they planned to do long before 9/11. Even the administration admits that from time to time and civil war was predicted before Bush ever invaded. It doesn't take a mental giant to figure out what will happen when a brutal dictator from the minority sectarian group in a country is removed from power. Shia rage has been building for decades. What the hell did Bush and Cheney expect? Especially given the fact that they were warned by various Intel. agencies. So, what's Osama got against corporations? Where does he think he got all his money to wage Jihad? Capitalism on steroids is what keeps his world going 'round, just as it does Junior's and the RNC. Hapless Americans are supporting Bush's War, the GOP and Jihad every time they pay their taxes or fill up their gas guzzlers. Just off hand, I would bet my last dollar that Hannity drives one of the biggest cars available; "my car is bigger than your car, and all that." He just looks like the type who would be concerned about that sort of thing.)

In other words, any similarity in language between bin Laden and what many Americans say in common conversations will be used to discredit them. They will become bin Laden’s fellow travelers.

(When hell freezes over and Cheney goes ice skating! I can only speak for myself, but I can say that I find Junior and Osama to both be despicable people who will say or do just about anything to get what they want, including sending others to their deaths while they stay very much alive in their respective safe havens. Amazingly, what they want seems to be remarkably the same.)

All the better to get Bush and bin Laden what they both really want: a prolonged war in Iraq – and possibly a U.S. attack on the Shiite government of Iran.

(Let's not forget economic collapse in the U.S.)

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Greenspan: Iraq War Is About Oil

Who the hell doesn't know this? This is no great revelation. Bush has all but admitted it.

However, when one hears that the Iraq War is about oil, they may assume that Bush and Cheney wanted more cheap oil. WRONG! What they wanted was to control the oil in Iraq. No oil man wants cheap oil flooding the market.

Nevertheless, the Iraq war wasn't only about controlling the oil supply. It was also about the accrual of tyrannical powers at home and a corporate imperialism abroad. We forget that at our own peril.

AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.

Related Links

• Fed veteran Greenspan lambasts George W Bush on economy

• Power, not oil, Mr Greenspan

Britain and America have always insisted the war had nothing to do with oil. Bush said the aim was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and end Saddam’s support for terrorism.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Protests Hit D.C., but not very hard

I guess few can afford the gas it would take to get to D.C.......

Let's face it, people. Until there are millions, instead of thousands, until the goal is to shut down the city instead of sending a message to a deaf government, until Americans realize that the crisis we face is not only in Iraq and won't only involve the children of Americans on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, protesting in nice, organized ways with permission from the powers that be is irrelevant and a waste of energy.

Thousands of protestors gathered in a park outside the White House Saturday demanding an end to the war in Iraq, the return of US troops, and the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

The crowd of protesters, numbering between 4,000 and 6,000, then marched under a clear sky toward the US Capitol building. Many waved placards that read "Support our troops, stop the war," and "Impeach Bush."

Phil Aliff, 21, marched wearing his camouflage uniform jacket as part of a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War. Aliff first arrived in Iraq in July 2006.

"I stayed there for a year, in Abu Ghraib and outside Fallujah. When we arrived, we were told we were here to bring stabilization to the country," said Aliff.

"But we were not rebuilding anything. The Iraqis had only two hours of electricity. And I saw the atrocities committed by the Americans there."

Aliff spoke days after the top US general in Iraq, David Petraeus, testified before Congress, giving an optimistic report on conditions in Iraq and the effectiveness of the US president's "surge" strategy of adding more US troops to the fight.

"General Petraeus's report is incredibly far from the reality on the ground," said Aliff.

Another marcher, Diane Santoriello, held a photograph of her 25-year-old son Neil, lost in Iraq on August 13, 2004. "I am here to get Congress to defund the war," she said.

"The vast majority of Iraqi people want the US and other foreign forces out of the country," said Brian Becker with the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War End Racism) coalition, the group organizing the march.

"The vast majority of the people in the US want the war ended and the troops brought home now," he added.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Hagel: GOP Hijacked By Incompetence

Chuck Hagel, among others, is a prime example of why we need a third political party in this country.

Hagel is a good, decent, smart man. It's a shame for America to lose him simply because he doesn't fit in either of the major parties we have today, neither of which truly represents the principles, values and dreams of most Americans.

Bill Maher recently sat down with outgoing Nebraska GOP Senator Chuck Hagel to discuss Iraq, his departure and the fate of the Republican Party.

Maher asks: "Did you decide not to run for President because you just saw that a (sic) anti-war Republican could never get the nomination?"

"No," responds Hagel, "I was actually looking for some honest work."

The Republicans, says Hagel, are a party going through a time of "transformation" during a time when the country is struggling with the situation in Iraq. On the subject of GOP candidates continuing to support what Maher considers to be an unwinnable war, Sen. John McCain in particular, Hagel cites McCain's "charm."

"The difference between John McCain and I on the war is very clear: We disagree on that point."

On the prospect of the United States winding down from Iraq, Hagel predicts a "very high toll" taken on the country for a long time ahead.

Adds Hagel, "And I think that's wrong."

Maher segues into Iran: "In the speech President Bush gave last night, I noticed that he slipped Iran into the middle of it. He said 'we have to defeat al Qaeda, counter Iran, and help the Afghan government.'"

Citing a Times of London article that shows preliminary plans to attack over a thousand targets in Iran, Maher implores the Senator: "Please tell me that Congress does have the power to stop President Godzilla if he decides to stomp on one more country, and that he could not get away with that."

"As you all know we are at war in two countries, and not doing particularly well in either war, and I'm not sure the American people are about ready to go to a third war."

"If the President is inching toward a military confrontation with Iran, then I do think that is where the Congress of the United States draws the line."

The Middle East is too volatile for a purely military offensive, says Hagel. Iran is a threat, he says, but it needs to be dealt with strategically and diplomatically.

"I've heard a lot of Republicans in the last year or so say 'I want my party back,'" says Maher. "I imagine you're somewhat in the same camp. Do you think the Republican party has been hijacked by incompetents and religious fanatics?"

"Oh, I think it's been hijacked by incompetency," Hagel concedes. "I think that's what has driven the Republican Party right off the cliff, and we are not who we say we are."

"We've run up the biggest budget debt since FDR, and he had an excuse, and that was the World War and a depression."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

GOP Corruption File: Senator Stevens Family of Alaska

COME ON DOWN!

Former VECO Corp. CEO Bill Allen testified in the federal trial of former Alaska House Speaker Pete Kott Thursday that he bribed three lawmakers, including the son of GOP Senator Ted Stevens, the Washington Post reports.

Former state Senate president Ben Stevens, son of U.S. Senator Ted Stevens, was implicated along with Kott and state Rep. Vic Kohring.

Allen and former VECO vice president Rick Smith have already entered guilty pleas and are awaiting sentencing.

EXCERPTS:

"Mr. Stevens has consistently said he's not engaged in any of the illegal activity that is alleged by Mr. Allen. He denies it," John Wolfe, Stevens' attorney, told The Associated Press.

The FBI also is investigating remodeling done to the elder Stevens' home in Girdwood. According to at least one contractor, invoices were first sent to VECO. Ted Stevens has said he paid all bills on the home that he received.

[Kott] is accused of turning in a $7,993 invoice, purportedly for flooring work done on Allen's home, when in fact the money was used to hire his son as his re-election campaign manager.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

What We Didn't Hear About Iraq This Week...

The Nightmare Is Here
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times

Saturday 15 September 2007

We've heard from General Petraeus, from Ambassador Crocker, and on Thursday night from President Bush. What we haven't heard this week is anything about the tragic reality on the ground for the ordinary citizens of Iraq, which is in the throes of a catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

President Bush may not be aware of this. In his televised address to the nation he warned that a pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq could cause a "humanitarian nightmare."

A trusted aide should take the president aside and quietly inform him that this nightmare arrived a good while ago.

When the U.S. launched its "shock and awe" invasion in March 2003, the population of Iraq was about 26 million. The flaming horror unleashed by the invasion has since forced 2.2 million of those Iraqis, nearly a tenth of the population, to flee the country. Many of those who left were professionals marked for death - doctors, lawyers, academics, the very people with the skills necessary to build a viable society.

The Iraq Ministry of Health reported that 102 doctors and 164 nurses were killed from April 2003 to May 2006. It is believed that nearly half of Iraq's doctors have fled. The exodus of health care professionals in a country hemorrhaging from the worst kinds of violence pretty much qualifies as nightmarish.

While more than two million Iraqis have fled to other countries, another two million have been displaced internally. According to the Global Policy Forum, a group that monitors international developments:

"Most of these internally displaced persons, or I.D.P.'s, have sought refuge with relatives, or in mosques, empty public buildings, or tent camps.... I.D.P.'s live in very poor conditions. Public buildings are particularly unsanitary, often overcrowded, without access to clean water, proper sanitation and basic services, in conditions especially conducive to infectious diseases."

Iraqis are enduring most of their suffering out of the sight of the rest of the world. International relief organizations and most of the news media are largely kept at a distance by the insane levels of violence.

Access to safe drinking water is a problem in much of the country. (The World Health Organization was asked to help with a recent outbreak of cholera in parts of Kurdistan that is believed to have been caused by polluted water.) Sanitation facilities are routinely crippled by violence and sabotage. The economy, like the country's infrastructure, is in shambles.

The worst aspect of the nightmare, of course, is the rain of death that has descended on Iraq since the U.S. invasion. Controversy has surrounded virtually all attempts to estimate the number of civilian casualties, but no one disputes that the toll is staggering.

The U.S. government has behaved as though these dead Iraqis were not even worth counting. In December 2005, President Bush casually mentioned "30,000, more or less" as the number of Iraqis killed in the war. The White House later said there were no official estimates of Iraqi deaths.

We shouldn't be so cavalier. Based on all available evidence, it seems unreasonable to believe that fewer than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed thus far. Many very serious scholars believe the total is much higher.

As for the number of wounded and disabled Iraqis - men, women and children who have lost limbs, or been paralyzed or otherwise maimed in air, rocket and bomb attacks - no one has a real grasp of the size of the problem.

"Just considering the number of the dead and the number of displaced, this is probably the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world," said James Paul, the executive director of Global Policy Forum, which recently compiled an extensive report on the war and occupation. "This is the biggest displacement of people in the Middle East in a very long time."

The effect on children of the carnage, the dislocations and the deteriorating quality of daily life has been profound. Conditions in Iraq were dire for children even before the war. One in eight died before the age of 5, many from the effects of malnutrition, polluted water and unsanitary conditions.

Now, more than four years after the invasion, huge numbers of Iraqi children are finding themselves orphaned, homeless, malnourished, and worse.

According to Unicef, the U.N.'s children's agency: "Many children are separated from their families or on the streets, where they are extremely vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Most children have experienced trauma but few receive the care and support they need to help them cope with so much chaos, anxiety and loss."

These are just a few of the things you won't hear much about from the American officials in Washington who profess to care so deeply about the people of Iraq.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Is Administration's Strategy in Iraq Making The U.S. Safer?

The very fact that General Petraeus could not answer that question is all Congress should need to know.

Will the Democrats Betray Us?

By FRANK RICH

The fact that America's surrogate commander in chief, David Petraeus, could not say whether the war in Iraq is making America safer was all you needed to take away from last week's festivities in Washington. Everything else was a verbal quagmire, as administration spin and senatorial preening fought to a numbing standoff.

Not that many Americans were watching. The country knew going in that the White House would win its latest campaign to stay its course of indefinitely shoveling our troops and treasure into the bottomless pit of Iraq. The only troops coming home alive or with their limbs intact in President Bush's troop "reduction" are those who were scheduled to be withdrawn by April anyway. Otherwise the president would have had to extend combat tours yet again, mobilize more reserves or bring back the draft.

On the sixth anniversary of the day that did not change everything, General Petraeus couldn't say we are safer because he knows we are not. Last Sunday, Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the C.I.A.'s Osama bin Laden unit, explained why. He wrote in The Daily News that Al Qaeda, under the de facto protection of Pervez Musharraf, is "on balance" more threatening today that it was on 9/11. And as goes Pakistan, so goes Afghanistan. On Tuesday, just as the Senate hearings began, Lisa Myers of NBC News reported on a Taliban camp near Kabul in an area nominally controlled by the Afghan government we installed. It is training bomb makers to attack America.

Little of this registered in or beyond the Beltway. New bin Laden tapes and the latest 9/11 memorial rites notwithstanding, we're back in a 9/10 mind-set. Bin Laden, said Frances Townsend, the top White House homeland security official, "is virtually impotent." Karen Hughes, the Bush crony in charge of America's P.R. in the jihadists' world, recently held a press conference anointing Cal Ripken Jr. our international "special sports envoy." We are once more sleepwalking through history, fiddling while the Qaeda not in Iraq prepares to burn.

This is why the parallels between Vietnam and Iraq, including those more accurate than Mr. Bush's recent false analogies, can take us only so far. Our situation is graver than it was during Vietnam.

Certainly there were some eerie symmetries between General Petraeus's sales pitch last week and its often-noted historical antecedent: Gen. William Westmoreland's similar mission for L.B.J. before Congress on April 28, 1967. Westmoreland, too, refused to acknowledge that our troops were caught in a civil war. He spoke as well of the "repeated successes" of the American-trained South Vietnamese military and ticked off its growing number of combat-ready battalions. "The strategy we're following at this time is the proper one," the general assured America, and "is producing results."

Those fabulous results delayed our final departure from Vietnam for another eight years — just short of the nine to 10 years General Petraeus has said may be needed for a counterinsurgency in Iraq. But there's a crucial difference between the Westmoreland show of 1967 and the 2007 revival by General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Westmoreland played to a full and largely enthusiastic house. Most Americans still supported the war in Vietnam and trusted him; so did all but a few members of Congress, regardless of party. All three networks pre-empted their midday programming for Westmoreland's Congressional appearance.

Our Iraq commander, by contrast, appeared before a divided and stalemated Congress just as an ABC News-Washington Post poll found that most Americans believed he would overhype progress in Iraq. No network interrupted a soap opera for his testimony. On cable the hearings fought for coverage with Britney Spears's latest self-immolation and the fate of Madeleine McCann, our latest JonBenet Ramsey stand-in.

General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker could grab an hour of prime television time only by slinking into the safe foxhole of Fox News, where Brit Hume chaperoned them on a gloomy, bunkerlike set before an audience of merely 1.5 million true believers. Their "Briefing for America," as Fox titled it, was all too fittingly interrupted early on for a commercial promising pharmaceutical relief from erectile dysfunction.

Even if military "victory" were achievable in Iraq, America could not win a war abandoned by its own citizens. The evaporation of that support was ratified by voters last November. For that, they were rewarded with the "surge." Now their mood has turned darker. Americans have not merely abandoned the war; they don't want to hear anything that might remind them of it, or of war in general. Katie Couric's much-promoted weeklong visit to the front produced ratings matching the CBS newscast's all-time low. Angelina Jolie's movie about Daniel Pearl sank without a trace. Even Clint Eastwood's wildly acclaimed movies about World War II went begging. Over its latest season, "24" lost a third of its viewers, just as Mr. Bush did between January's prime-time address and last week's.

You can't blame the public for changing the channel. People realize that the president's real "plan for victory" is to let his successor clean up the mess. They don't want to see American troops dying for that cause, but what can be done? Americans voted the G.O.P. out of power in Congress; a clear majority consistently tell pollsters they want out of Iraq. And still every day is Groundhog Day. Our America, unlike Vietnam-era America, is more often resigned than angry. Though the latest New York Times-CBS News poll finds that only 5 percent trust the president to wrap up the war, the figure for the (barely) Democratic-controlled Congress, 21 percent, is an almost-as-resounding vote of no confidence.

Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood — are we safer? — was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate.

Americans are looking for leadership, somewhere, anywhere. At least one of the Democratic presidential contenders might have shown the guts to soundly slap the "General Betray-Us" headline on the ad placed by MoveOn.org in The Times, if only to deflate a counterproductive distraction. This left-wing brand of juvenile name-calling is as witless as the "Defeatocrats" and "cut and run" McCarthyism from the right; it at once undermined the serious charges against the data in the Petraeus progress report (including those charges in the same MoveOn ad) and allowed the war's cheerleaders to hyperventilate about a sideshow. "General Betray-Us" gave Republicans a furlough to avoid ownership of an Iraq policy that now has us supporting both sides of the Shiite-vs.-Sunni blood bath while simultaneously shutting America's doors on the millions of Iraqi refugees the blood bath has so far created.

It's also past time for the Democratic presidential candidates to stop getting bogged down in bickering about who has the faster timeline for withdrawal or the more enforceable deadline. Every one of these plans is academic anyway as long as Mr. Bush has a veto pen. The security of America is more important — dare one say it? — than trying to outpander one another in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate need all the unity and focus they can muster to move this story forward, and that starts with the two marquee draws, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's essential to turn up the heat full time in Washington for any and every legislative roadblock to administration policy that they and their peers can induce principled or frightened Republicans to endorse.

They should summon the new chief of central command (and General Petraeus's boss), Adm. William Fallon, for tough questioning; he is reportedly concerned about our lapsed military readiness should trouble strike beyond Iraq. And why not grill the Joint Chiefs and those half-dozen or so generals who turned down the White House post of "war czar" last fall? The war should be front and center in Congress every day.

Mr. Bush, confident that he got away with repackaging the same bankrupt policies with a nonsensical new slogan ("Return on Success") Thursday night, is counting on the public's continued apathy as he kicks the can down the road and bides his time until Jan. 20, 2009; he, after all, has nothing more to lose. The job for real leaders is to wake up America to the urgent reality. We can't afford to punt until Inauguration Day in a war that each day drains America of resources and will. Our national security can't be held hostage indefinitely to a president's narcissistic need to compound his errors rather than admit them.

The enemy votes, too. Cataclysmic events on the ground in Iraq, including Thursday's murder of the Sunni tribal leader Mr. Bush embraced two weeks ago as a symbol of hope, have never arrived according to this administration's optimistic timetable. Nor have major Qaeda attacks in the West. It's national suicide to entertain the daydream that they will start doing so now.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.