Thursday, August 30, 2007

Bush Loses War on Terrorism; Begins War on Iran

Bush pimps a possible nuclear strike on Iran, though a panel of experts claim his "war on terrorism" is all but lost. Meanwhile, Col. Sam Gardiner tells CNN that the US military is already operating inside Iran.

What Bush will not tell you is that the world has become a much more dangerous place because of his administration's incompetent and boneheaded policies.
Foreign-policy experts deem US national-security strategy in disrepair, the war in Iraq alarmingly off course, and the world increasingly more dangerous for Americans. In the third Terrorism Index, more than 100 of America’s most respected foreign-policy experts see a world that is growing more dangerous, a national security strategy in disrepair, and a war in Iraq that is alarmingly off course.

Six years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, just 29 percent of Americans believe the United States is winning the war on terror—the lowest percentage at any point since 9/11. But Americans also consider themselves safe. Six in 10 say that they do not believe another terrorist attack is imminent. Likewise, more than 60 percent of Americans now say that the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake.

US Losing War on Terror, Experts Say in Survey

The fact that world terrorism is always worse under GOP regimes is not a coincidence. It is by design that GOP regimes cause, inspire and aggravate world terrorism. The Iran/Contra scandal is a notable instance in which the GOP terrorists were very nearly brought to justice.

Bush's threats have given nations cause to arm. Secondly, the US has a record of arming nations only to turn on them later for having armed. As nonsensical at that would seem on its face, it has nevertheless been the case, most notably with both Iran and Iraq. Saddam Hussein, for example, was a US puppet, armed and protected by the US until he lowered the price of oil.

If Iran is an armed threat, we have the incompetent, criminal GOP to blame. Sadly, the Iran/Contra "affair" seems all but forgotten. Briefly, the regime of Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy of the US. The proceeds were then funneled to a terrorist organization that decimated Nicaragua in the 1980s. The word for that is high treason. Here's the brief summation of the activities of Ronald Reagan's criminal conspiracy to arm an avowed enemy of the US.
The underlying facts of Iran/contra are that, regardless of criminality, President Reagan, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and the director of central intelligence and their necessary assistants committed themselves, however reluctantly, to two programs contrary to congressional policy and contrary to national policy. They skirted the law, some of them broke the law, and almost all of them tried to cover up the President's willful activities.

--Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters, Lawrence Walsh

The US has a history of financing and encouraging terrorism. Bush, meanwhile, claims to pursue a peaceful resolution with regard to Iran. Hitler made similar statements about Poland before his own SS staged a "Polish attack" on a radio tower inside German territory. The Reichstag Fire was most certainly not Hitler's last and only "false flag" operation, nor 911 Bush's.

Statements by Bush that he prefers to avoid war with Iran are not in character. Bush's thinking reflects that of the radical, right wing ideologues that surround him. Among them --the conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute.
I admire AEI a lot. After all, I have been consistently borrowing some of your best people. More than 20 AEI scholars have worked in my administration.

--George W. Bush, Speech to AEI

One of those scholars wrote an op-ed for the L.A. Times entitled "We Must Bomb Iran, in which he made the absurd case that diplomacy has done nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat. What diplomacy? Only a "show of force", says AEI, is the answer.
We can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it. Former ABC newsman Ted Koppel argues for the former, saying that "if Iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it." We should rely, he says, on the threat of retaliation to keep Iran from using its bomb. Similarly, Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria points out that we have succeeded in deterring other hostile nuclear states, such as the Soviet Union and China.

And in these pages, William Langewiesche summed up the what-me-worry attitude when he wrote that "the spread of nuclear weapons is, and always has been, inevitable," and that the important thing is "learning how to live with it after it occurs."

But that's whistling past the graveyard. The reality is that we cannot live safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. Now, according to a report last week in London's Daily Telegraph, Iran is trying to take over Al Qaeda by positioning its own man, Saif Adel, to become the successor to the ailing Osama bin Laden. How could we possibly trust Iran not to slip nuclear material to terrorists?

--Joshua Muravchik, American Enterprise Institute, November 19, 2006

The same, sorry cast of characters said the same thing about Saddam Hussein. The spectre of a huge mushroom cloud was summoned. But, of course, there were no WMD in Iraq. There was no nuclear threat. Bush is the puppet who cried Wolfowitz!
Saddam's main strength - his ability to control his people through extreme terror - is also his greatest vulnerability. The overwhelming majority of his people, including some of his closest associates, would like to be free of his grasp if only they could safely do so. As the recent account of a defector from Saddam's nuclear program makes clear, even Iraqis who help Saddam build nuclear weapons can't escape from the constant threat of torture and death, for their families as well as themselves.

A strategy for supporting this enormous latent opposition to Saddam requires political and economic as well as military components. It is admittedly more complicated than launching a few cruise missile attacks. Perhaps it is more complicated than this Administration can manage, but it is eminently possible for a country that possesses the overwhelming power that the United States has in the Gulf.

--Paul Wolfowitz, Statement to the House National Security Committee Hearings on Iraq, September 16, 1998

Wolfowitz was wrong! History will prove Bush and company to have been wrong about everything of which they were most certain.

Therein lies the problem. When a real threat presents itself, Bush will not, should not be believed. Bush has squandered his credibility on a gambit, the purpose of which was the seizure of Iraqi oil fields. Oil is central to administration policy with regard to Iraq. Over the years, there have been many dictators throughout the world that were not attacked by the US. But when was the last time the US invaded a nation that did not have vast oil fields?

If Bush never attains credibility, it would make no differences to me. I never believed a word he said anyway. I didn't have any money riding on Bush's "credibility". Rather, the danger is to the American people and the world, where survival depends upon the ability of a people to make intelligent assessments. In an ideological world, the only moral dictum that makes sense goes like this: behave in such a way that what is true can be verified to be so. By contrast, the Bush administration believes truth to be whatever you can sell.

A student of the Reagan regime might have predicted the many failures of the Bush administration. Reagan's "presidency" was very nearly as disastrous but the former movie star had better "press agents". Certainly, "terrorism" grew worse over the course of Reagan's occupation of Lebanon. Indeed, like Iraq today under Bush, Lebanon became a magnet for "terrorists who grew more active during the US occupation. They eventually won. Like Bush today, Reagan's definition of victory was defined with meaningless slogans -- "you can run but you can't hide".

Reagan, in fact, lost his war against "terrorism". He was literally forced to withdraw when the marine barracks was attacked. Terrorism grew worse until the ascension of Bill Clinton. Bush, however, hopes to recoup his losses by playing yet another hand in which the stakes are raised to cover his losses. I don't care how Bush otherwise gambles --but NOT with my future, not with country, NOT with my life, not with the very future of the world. Yes, I do take it personally. Yes, I am personally threatened by Bush and so, too, every other freedom loving American. And, yes I am not objective about proven liars, mass murderers and war criminals. And, yes, I am working to bring his sorry ass to trial for capital crimes in America, war crimes and crimes against humanity abroad.

At some point, those who exploit terrorism will try to have it both ways. These demagogues will say that terrorists are succeeding. They will exploit the "threat" to maintain themselves in power. At last, however, the liars must be held to account. Either the war on terrorism is working or it is not. In Bush's case the war was phony but now threatens to inspire real terrorism, real resistance to an illegitimate American hegemony. In the early days, we are always inclined to believe official accounts. But when no progress is made, it becomes increasingly difficult to believe two conflicting stories that attacks still constitute a threat to national security but, don't worry, we are making progress! Both are lies.

An update

Americans Have Lost Their Country

By Paul Craig Roberts

03/01/07 "ICH" -- -- The Bush-Cheney regime is America’s first neoconservative regime. In a few short years, the regime has destroyed the Bill of Rights, the separation of powers, the Geneva Conventions, and the remains of America’s moral reputation along with the infrastructures of two Muslim countries and countless thousands of Islamic civilians. Plans have been prepared, and forces moved into place, for an attack on a third Islamic country, Iran, and perhaps Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon as well.

This extraordinary aggressiveness toward the US Constitution, international law, and the Islamic world is the work, not of a vast movement, but of a handful of ideologues--principally Vice President Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Philip Zelikow, and Attorney General Gonzales. These are the main operatives who have controlled policy. They have been supported by their media shills at the Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox News, New York Times, CNN, and the Wall Street Journal editorial page and by “scholars” in assorted think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute.

The entirety of their success in miring the United States in what could become permanent conflict in the Middle East is based on the power of propaganda and the big lie. ...
And, on another front, it would appear that all of Bush's lies and all the various cover stories are falling apart. I urge everyone to support efforts to re-open the official investigation of 911 and give it teeth, specifically, the power to subpoena Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et al.
According to Independent Scientist Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre, 9/11 was a False Flag Operation to provide a pretext to engage in Genocidal & Ecocidal Depleted Uranium (DU) bombing of Central Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) in order to secure vast oil and uranium reserves; to roll out a Terror-based National Security state-system world-wide; to implement the final stages of a world Depopulation policy; and to trigger a World War III conflagration.

Since 1945, under the Nuremberg Principles, causing aggressive war constitutes the most serious of War Crimes. The International Citizen’s 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal would be convened under the jurisdiction of the Kuala Lumpur International War Crimes Tribunal, established in February 2007 as a permanent citizen’s Tribunal by The Perdana Global Peace Organization, chaired by Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, former Prime Minister of Malaysia, who is the first prominent world leader to take up the depleted uranium (DU) radiation issue as an instrumentality of the Depopulation policy.

--International Citizens 911 War Crimes Tribunal, Peace in Space

Additional resources Discoveries





Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

9 comments:

Batocchio said...

AEI is far right and full of lunatics. The Iran-Contra crew never got nailed the way they should have - and they're back, in some cases literally (Abrams, their apologist Cheney).

Unknown said...

You are absolutely correct, batocchio

Unknown said...

The only 'truth' I ever remember Bush saying was: "I intend to create chaos out of order."

Unknown said...

Hi Len,

I was thinking to start my own political blog, but actually, you are pretty much saying everything I would say if I did. I had one before, but with music and my dayjob, I kept falling behind on it.

Anyway, the addendum regarding the explosions at the Pentagon and the analysis of the time line, combined with what we know about the handling of the WTC collapses, and the evidence there that points back to White House, is pretty convincing for those who are willing to take the blinders off and just admit that there are people who will do anything to acquire absolute power.

I was watching the History Channel's attempt to rebuke some of the 9-11 theories, and it was pretty bad. Every rebuke was based on a quote from a so-called expert and consisted mainly of liberal-bashing. Whereas the theorists have researched the facts, there were no quoted facts in any of the rebuttals, just emotional screeds against the theorists.

The Bushies thought they could seize control and rewrite history, but I think in the final analysis history is going to trump them.

They are still trying, and the Neocons are now looking for allies among the Democrats since they have pretty much used up the cred of the GOP.

But basically I think their time is over. They depended on a completely blinded public, and the public is not quite as blind now.

On a related note, the staging of a second terrorist attack as a device to persuade Americans to invade Iran is not off the table by any means. It could easily be pulled off by detonating a dirty bomb in a container in one of our famously insecure port cities. Again, loss of life could be minimized, yet such a staged attack would disrupt things enough to declare a "catastrophic emergency" and invoke the new Presidential Directive 51 suspending normal functioning of government and handing the President authority over all three branches of government.

Such a staged attack could be blamed on Iran colluding with Al-Qaeda (unfortunately, most Americans are so uninformed that this would make sense to them).

You can see it already with FOX and other networks constantly blabbing about how Iran might provide a terrorist organization (such as Al-Qaeda) with nukes.

In other words, the stage is being set for a second "catastrophic emergency." Then all the lies, and all the war machinery will kick into gear yet again.

The Neocons have a firm understanding of two principles which they get a lot of mileage out of: 1. peoiple will go to great lengths to deny what they don't want to believe for emotional reasons (the power of denial), and 2. sometimes, to pull off an outrageous crime, the most effective technique is simply to do it in broad daylight, because the crime itself is so unbelievable to most people that they will be unable to respond appropriately.

In other words, the fact that Americans DON'T want to see this stuff is what actually provides the cover for the crime.

Unknown said...

Yogi 's Music World said...

the staging of a second terrorist attack as a device to persuade Americans to invade Iran is not off the table by any means. It could easily be pulled off by detonating a dirty bomb in a container in one of our famously insecure port cities.

That's what makes me livid! No American is safe as long as Bush and his cabal are free.

The History Channel has not learned the lessons of history. The cat is out of the bag. Bush is a mass murderer and, last time I checked, Google returned 2,400,000 links for the query "hang bush"

There has been a sea change over the last three years. Homicidal GOP predators have become the hunted.

Popular Science, as well, has become Popular Psuedo-science. I will never buy another copy. BTW-- until I got off into Philosophy and journalism, science was my strong suit. My father was not only an expert horseman and roper, he was whiz at trig and calculus. Some of it rubbed off.

Unknown said...

See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 2441

It reads:

(a) Offense. - Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described
in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.


A first year law student could make the capital crimes case against George W. Bush himself right now, with evidence in the public record.

The following is from Answer.com:

hang (hăng) pronunciation

v., hung (hŭng), hang·ing, hangs.

v.tr.

1. To fasten from above with no support from below; suspend.
2. To suspend or fasten so as to allow free movement at or about the point of suspension: hang a door.
3. past tense and past participle hanged (hăngd).
1. To execute by suspending by the neck: They hanged the prisoner at dawn.


A President would presumably be impeached and removed before standing trial for capital crimes. Still --the execution of a former US president would be unprecedented and might warrant coverage even by the MSM.

Anonymous said...

Nice stuff Yogi and Len. Let me introduce you to Jerome Hauer and his fascinating 9/11 connections.

He was a managing director of Kroll Associates, the company handling the security for the entire WTC complex.

On 9/11 Hauer was also working as director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness and security advisor with the National Institute of Health. He was the one who advised the White House to begin taking Cipro as a precaution against anthrax. Did he know something no-one else did?

In 1998 Hauer got funding from mayor Giuliani for the study of West Nile virus. The following year the virus appeared in NY, and Jerome Hauer led the fumigation effort. Lucky, eh?

Stephen Hatfill was the prime suspect in the 9/11 anthrax attacks. He is likely innocent. But at one stage he had the dubious honor of working for Jerome Hauer.

John O'Neill was the FBI's expert on Osama bin Laden and a counter-terrorism specialist. He resigned because of obstruction by the Bush administration to take up the job as Head of Security at the WTC and died at his first day at work on 9/11. He had been offered the job by Jerome Hauer.

I'm looking forward to any new 9/11 inquiry. Mr Hauer, come on down...

Anonymous said...

My thanks to Winter Patriot for those details.

Anonymous said...

Fuzz sez...

Great blogging, Comrades. On this thread I can offer nothing save my complete support.
At EC, you never scroll alone.