More WARRING from bush??!!!:-(

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Bush intends to widen the war.

By Paul Craig Roberts

10/06/05 "ICH" -- -- Not content with the terrorist-breeding instability he caused by invading Iraq, President Bush is plotting with Israel to repeat the disaster in Syria.

The diplomatic editor of the London Telegraph reports (Oct. 5) that the US is aiming at Syrian "regime change." The British newspaper quotes Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz as saying that a report blaming Syria for the assassination of a former Lebanese government official will be the catalyst that starts the ball rolling. Mofaz says the report will be the pretext for Bush to impose sanctions on Syria, "beginning with economic sanctions and moving on to others."

The Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reports (Oct. 3) that the Bush administration has asked Israel's government to recommend a successor for Syrian president Bashar al Assad. No doubt, the Bush administration will describe Israel's selection of Syria's new president as the workings of democracy.

The Stratfor Intelligence Brief reports (Oct. 5) that Bush's National Security Council is deciding whether to bomb Syrian villages along what are thought to be "the infiltration routes used by jihadists" and to have US special forces conduct operations inside Syrian territory.

Obviously, far from heeding demands from US generals and congressional members of his own political party for a plan to withdraw from Iraq, Bush intends to widen the war.

How can Bush, his National Security Council, and Israel be so blind to the consequences of destabilizing Syria? A CIA report concluded that the US invasion of Iraq created a training ground for al Qaeda. Doesn't Bush understand that creating chaos in Syria will have the same result?

The National Security Council needs to quickly consult some real Middle East experts before Bush's reckless policies in the face of seething anti-American sentiment cause the overthrow of US puppet rulers in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan, and dethrone the princes ruling the American oil protectorates in the Middle East.

If the Bush administration cannot defeat insurgency in Iraq, how can it defeat insurgency in Iraq and Syria? In Iraq, Syria, and Iran? The Bush administration is fanatical, divorced from reality.

Last week Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, said that Bush's invasion of Iraq was "the greatest strategic disaster in US history." This is quite a distinction for Bush and his government. Are the morons now going to double the distinction by attacking Syria and quadruple it by attacking Iran?

Why don't Congress and the American public understand that the US cannot afford to worsen the disaster in which it finds itself?

Nothing better illustrates the reality-denying capability of the Bush administration than its secretary of state Condi Rice's speech at Princeton University on September 30. It is a fantasy speech, devoid of awareness that "regime change" in Iraq substituted Shi'ite clergy for a secular ruler. The US secretary of state has no inkling of the conflict generated between Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurd by the US imposed attempt to produce and to adopt a constitution?

The Bush administration's Middle East policy is the triumph of ideology over reality. Something must be done to stop Bush before he mimics in the MIddle East Hitler's invasion of Russia. The American people cannot afford the blood and treasure that the fanatical Bush administration is willing to squander in the Middle East.

What can be done about a president who is immune to reason? A bill of impeachment is a good start.

The Bush administration has already done more damage to Americans than the September 11 attacks. The American people and their congressional representatives must hold Bush accountable before it is too late. The Bush administration has no intention of stopping with Iraq. At Princeton, Condi Rice again declared the administration's intention to use US military force to transform the societies in the Middle East. "Now is not the time to falter or fade," declared the US secretary of state.

Such total oblivion to the "greatest strategic disaster in US history" is far more scary than Muslim terrorists.


this bloke is bloody DANGEROUS....... (and insane)
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: More WARRING from bus

I don't think he'll get the political support for it outside of his narrow little group. That leaves him pulling a Nixon on those Syrian villages and bombing them secretly. Those are civilian targets and bombing them is an act of terrorism.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Re: RE: More WARRING from bus

Reverend Blair said:
I don't think he'll get the political support for it outside of his narrow little group. That leaves him pulling a Nixon on those Syrian villages and bombing them secretly. Those are civilian targets and bombing them is an act of terrorism.

indeed........and his terrorism will simply beget more international terrorism......targeting the US and its "interests" , "friends", "allies" or "bribed partners in US crimes"...

His so called "war on terrorism" is one giant FARCE. ......as he is the only fascilitating terrorism with each decision. word. deed. Another sad consequence of his disasters is that many very fine , decent Americans will be swept up in the generalization of negativity.

He wants to CONTROL so much......so badly......he is heading right into chaos ...... and is too fecking blind/stupid to see that. Either he and his merry band of terrorists have blinders on......as in obsessed........or actually "believe" in their cause..... but either way .....they are a criminally insane/ dangerous gang..
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
They won't do nothing inSyria theres no oil nothing there to take I just can't see it :? If theres nothing in it for his Corporate buddys they'll say no
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Re: RE: More WARRING from bus

no1important said:
The longer "W" is in power the more I realize he is the real #1 Terrorist on the planet.


absolutely !!

What is really scary is that as the pressure on him builds....and things start to really fray........ he just might do something really irratic /insane.

It is AMAZING that the US media is not seeing /reporting this......and that the US public cannot or REFUSES to see it. What does it have to take......for them to fecking well wake up to the diaster in sheep's clothing that took up house at Pennsylvania
Ave.???
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
65
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
:twisted: Bush :twisted: ratings now at their lowest point:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/ polls/main924485.shtml


Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low

NEW YORK, Oct. 6, 2005
The President's approval ratings are at their lowest point ever. (CBS)

Quote

President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has reached the lowest ever measured in this poll, and evaluations of his handling of Iraq, the economy and even his signature issue, terrorism, are also at all-time lows.

(CBS) This CBS News Poll finds an American public increasingly pessimistic about the economy, the war in Iraq, the overall direction of the country, and the President. Americans' outlook for the economy is the worst it has been in four years. Most expect the price of gas to rise even further in the next few months.

A growing number of Americans want U.S. troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible, rather than stay the course, and the highest percentage ever thinks the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq. When given a set of options for paying for rebuilding the hurricane-racked Gulf Coast, only one — taking money from the Iraq War — gets majority support.

President George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has reached the lowest ever measured in this poll, and evaluations of his handling of Iraq, the economy and even his signature issue, terrorism, are also at all-time lows. More Americans than at any time since he took office think he does not share their priorities.

The public's concerns affect their view of the state of the country. 69 percent of Americans say things in the U.S. are pretty seriously off on the wrong track — the highest number since CBS News started asking the question in 1983. Today, just 26 percent say things are going in the right direction.

DIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY

Right direction
Now
26%
9/2005
31%
5/2004
30%
3/2003
52%
11/1994
30%

Wrong track
Now
69%
9/2005
63%
5/2004
65%
3/2003
41%
11/1994
65%

Majorities of the public have consistently said the U.S. is off on the wrong track since January 2004. In May 2004, shortly after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal came to light, 65 percent were negative. In November 1994, just as Republicans took control of both houses of Congress for the first time in decades, 6 percent of Americans said the country was off on the wrong track.

PRESIDENT BUSH

President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to his lowest rating ever. 37 percent now approve of the job he is doing as president, while 58 percent disapprove. Those in his own party are still overwhelmingly positive about his performance (nearly 80 percent approve), but the president receives little support from either Democrats or Independents. And while views of President Bush have lately not changed much among Republicans or Democrats, his approval rating among Independents has dropped 11 points since just last month, from 40 percent to 29 percent now.

PRESIDENT BUSH'S JOB APPROVAL
Approve
All
37%
Reps.
79%
Dems.
14%
Inds.
29%

Disapprove
All
58%
Reps.
13%
Dems.
84%
Inds.
64%


President Bush also receives his lowest ratings ever on his handling of the economy and Iraq, with only a third approving of either. Here as well, there has been a drop in approval among Independents since last month in both of those areas, although his ratings among Independents were low last month as well.

PRES. BUSH JOB APPROVALS

Overall
Now
37%
9/2005
41%
8/2005
41%

Terrorism
Now
46%
9/2005
50%
8/2005
54%


Iraq
Now
32%
9/2005
36%
8/2005
38%

Economy
Now
32%
9/2005
35%
8/2005
37%

Hurricane Katrina
Now
45%
9/2005
44%
8/2005
54%

Recent hurricanes
Now
46%
9/2005
n/a
8/2005
n/a

And for the first time in this poll, fewer than half the public approves of the way he is handling the campaign against terrorism. 46 percent now approve, but 46 percent disapprove.

Approval of Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina is about the same as last month, and now stands at 45 percent. Overall evaluation of how he has managed all the recent hurricanes in the Gulf Coast is 46 percent.

Since earlier this year, the President has been viewed as out of touch with Americans. Only 32 percent now think he shares their priorities for the country, while twice as many think he does not. At earlier points in his presidency, more Americans felt he shared their goals.

DOES PRES. BUSH SHARE YOUR PRIORITIES FOR THE COUNTRY?

Yes
Now
32%
5/2005
34%
4/2003
48%
1/2002
59%

No
Now
65%
5/2005
61%
4/2003
46%
1/2002
32%

On this question too, the President maintains the support of Republicans (69 percent of them feel he shares their priorities), but finds little among either Democrats or Independents.

President Bush receives less credit for empathy than he has in previous polls. 52 percent of Americans think he cares about people like them at least somewhat, the lowest figure ever.

There are continued questions about his leadership abilities: 52 percent now say they have a lot or some confidence in the President's ability to handle a crisis, and 45 percent see him as a strong leader, down significantly from views at previous points in his presidency, and the lowest number ever in this poll.

DOES PRESIDENT BUSH HAVE STRONG QUALITIES OF LEADERSHIP?

Yes
Now
45%
9/2005
53%
9/2004*
64%
9/2001
83%

No
Now
52%
9/2005
45%
9/2004*
34%
9/2001
14%

*among registered voters

A sizable number of Americans express skepticism about whether President Bush has chosen qualified people for positions in his administration. 52 percent have at least some confidence in his choices, but almost as many, 47 percent, have little or no confidence.

CONFIDENCE IN BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION APPOINTEES?

A lot
All
22%
Reps.
50%
Dems.
6%
Inds.
17%

Some
All
30%
Reps.
37%
Dems.
27%
Inds.
28%

A little/none
All
47%
Reps.
13%
Dems.
66%
Inds.
53%

Half of Republicans express a lot of confidence in President Bush's choices, while most Democrats and Independents have little or no confidence.

THE ECONOMY AND PERSONAL FINANCES

The public continues to hold negative views of the nation's economy; and the percentage saying the condition of the economy is good is the lowest since September 2003, more than two years ago. Now, 43 percent say the economy is in good shape, and 55 percent say it is fairly or very bad.

VIEWS OF THE ECONOMY

Good
Now
43%
9/2005
49%
10/2004
55%
9/2003
43%

Bad
Now
55%
9/2005
50%
10/2004
45%
9/2003
56%

In addition, the outlook for the economy is even more pessimistic than it was last month. More than half — 54 percent — think the economy is getting worse — the highest figure since September 2001, just after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Only one in ten says the economy is getting better.


ECONOMY IS GETTING:

Better
Now
10%
9/2005
13%
1/2005
25%
9/2001
8%

Worse
Now
54%
9/2005
47%
1/2005
29%
9/2001
55%

Same
Now
34%
9/2005
38%
1/2005
45%
9/2001
35%

Even Americans' evaluations of their own financial situation are not very positive. Few say they are better off than they were a year ago. One in three says their family's financial situation is worse today, and half say it is about the same. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say their financial situation is worse today than it was a year ago.

Looking ahead, the public is a little more hopeful as to what the future holds. 30 percent think their family's financial situation will be better a year from now, and 42 percent think it will not change much. 23 percent think their financial situation may be worse a year from now.

FAMILY'S FINANCIAL SITUATION

Compared to a year ago
Better
18%
Worse
32%
Same
50%

A year from now
Better
30%
Worse
23%
Same
42%

The economy remains one of the most important issues Americans want the government to address, outranked only by the war with Iraq. These two issues are followed by gas and oil prices, specific critical mentions of George W. Bush, and terrorism.

U.S. MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM

War in Iraq
Now
18%
9/2005
13%

Economy and jobs
Now
16%
9/2005
14%

Gas/oil crisis
Now
5%
9/2005
9%

President Bush
Now
5%
9/2005
5%

Terrorism
Now
4%
9/2005
6%

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Recently, President Bush asked Americans to conserve gasoline by driving less and car-pooling. Despite his announcement, the public is skeptical. 50 percent say President Bush thinks the government's priority is not encouraging conservation but increasing the production of petroleum, coal and natural gas. 36 percent think his view of the government's priority is encouraging conservation.

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES FOR ENERGY

Increase production
Bush's view
50%
Your view
37%

Encourage conservation
Bush's view
36%
Your view
49%

Americans' own views on this issue are slightly different. 49 percent think the priority for the government should be to encourage people to conserve energy, while 37 percent think the priority should be to increase the production of petroleum, coal and natural gas.

In fact, 64 percent of Americans say they have cut down on the amount of driving they do because of the price of gasoline.

Most Americans don't see any relief in sight when it comes to high gas prices. 61 percent expect the price of gas will go up over the next few months.

IN NEXT FEW MONTHS, EXPECT PRICE OF GAS TO:
Go up 61%
Stay the same 21%
Go down 15%

American oil companies get the most blame for rising gas and oil prices, with 44 percent placing a lot of blame on them. Another 35 percent say oil companies share some of the blame.

But many also blame the Iraq war and the hurricanes that recently hit the Gulf Coast region. A quarter places a lot of blame on the war in Iraq, and an additional four in 10 blame the war some. 27 percent place a lot of blame on the recent hurricanes, and another 50% say the hurricanes share some of the blame.

BLAME FOR RISING GAS AND OIL PRICES?

American oil companies
A lot
44%
Some
35%
Not much/none
19%

War in Iraq
A lot
24%
Some
41%
Not much/none
33%

Hurricanes
A lot
27%
Some
50%
Not much/none
20%

HURRICANES KATRINA AND RITA

In addition to perceptions of a worsening economy and higher gas prices, Americans now face the costs of paying for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. When given several possibilities for that, a majority accepts only one option — reducing spending on the war in Iraq. Other proposals, some even now being seriously discussed in Congress, get much less support.

62 percent of Americans say that reducing spending on the war in Iraq would be an acceptable way of paying for recovery and rebuilding on the Gulf Coast. Fewer than half would accept cutbacks in the highway program, and only a third would be willing to increase the federal budget deficit or raise taxes. Even fewer would favor postponing the new Medicare prescription benefits.


ACCEPTABLE WAYS OF PAYING FOR HURRICANE REBUILDING
Cut spending in Iraq 62%
Reduce highway spending 46%
Increase budget deficit 35%
Raise taxes 31%
Postpone Medicare drug benefits 28%

Three in four Democrats and 68 percent of Independents want to cut spending in Iraq, but only a third of Republicans do.

Last month, in the immediate wake of Hurricane Katrina,CBS News and The New York Times asked Americans a different question — whether or not they would personally be willing to pay more in taxes for hurricane relief. A majority then said they would.

The Gulf Coast hurricanes continue to take a toll on confidence in the government's ability to protect Americans from terrorism, although there has been some improvement since September. In August, 72 percent of Americans had confidence in the government's ability to protect the country from terrorism. That dropped to 59 percent in September, and stands at 63 percent today. 37 percent still have little or no confidence.

CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO PROTECT FROM TERRORISM

Great deal
Now
16%
9/2005
19%
8/2005
18%

Fair amount
Now
47%
9/2005
40%
8/2005
54%


Not very much
Now
30%
9/2005
30%
8/2005
21%

None
Now
7%
9/2005
10%
8/2005
5%

Similar percentages express confidence (or lack of it) in the government's ability to deal with natural disasters.

Although it now seems that dealing with the recovery from Katrina and Rita may involve large government programs, there is little public enthusiasm for increased government activity. Just 38 percent now say that government should do more to solve national problems, little different from what has been the case for years.

Hurricane Katrina affected more Americans than just those in the hurricane zones. 27 percent say they personally have a close friend or relative affected by the storm. That figure is even higher in the South, where more than a third knows someone affected.

One thing that has changed is that Americans are more optimistic about the rebuilding of New Orleans than they were last month. One in four now expects that the city will be back as a working city in the next year or two, up from 17 percent last month.

IRAQ

More than half of Americans — 55 percent — think the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (the highest figure to date), while 41 percent think taking military action there was the right thing to do, and a growing number of Americans want U.S. troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. Now, 59 percent want U.S. troops to leave, up from 52 percent last month and 40 percent earlier this year. Only 36 percent think troops should stay as long in Iraq as long it takes for that country to become stable.

U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ SHOULD…

Stay as long as it takes
Now
36%
9/2005
42%
2/2005
55%
6/2004
54%

Leave as soon as possible
Now
59%
9/2005
52%
2/2005
40%
6/2004
40%

CONGRESS AND TOM DELAY

31 percent of Americans now approve of the job Congress is doing, and 57 percent disapprove. Approval of Congress has never been high, but since March it has been especially low, at about a third. And while most Americans view neither the Democrats nor the Republicans positively, Democrats fare slightly better.

Republicans receive more criticism than Democrats when it comes to their ethics. Although a majority of Americans think members of both parties share the honesty and integrity of most people, 37 percent think the Republicans in Congress are less likely to have those qualities, compared to 28 percent who say that about the Democrats. Fewer than one in 10 Americans think members of Congress — of either party — have more honesty than Americans in general.

HONESTY AND INTEGRITY COMPARED TO MOST AMERICANS

Democrats
More
9%
Less
28%
Same
58%

Republicans
More
5%
Less
37%
Same
53%

Republicans may have been hurt by the recent indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Still, most Americans don't have an opinion of DeLay. 7 percent are favorable, and 21 percent are unfavorable, about the same as opinions in May.

VIEWS OF TOM DELAY

Favorable
Now
7%
5/2005
6%

Not favorable
Now
21%
5/2005
18%

Undecided/Haven't heard enough
Now
71%
5/2005
75%

As for other Congressmen and women, 43 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Democrats in Congress, and 46% have an unfavorable opinion of them. Views of the Republicans in Congress are a bit more negative; 37 percent have a favorable opinion, while more than half, 53 percent, have an unfavorable view.


VIEWS OF THE PARTIES IN CONGRESS

Favorable
Democrats
43%
Republicans
37%

Not favorable
Democrats
46%
Republicans
53%

Party loyalty plays a role: Democrats tend to see Democrats in Congress favorably, while Republicans see members from their party that way. Independents see both parties in a negative light, but more hold unfavorable views of Republicans than Democrats.


This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 808 adults, interviewed by telephone October 3-5, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus four percentage points.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


And it's no strange coincidence that when this announcement was made, the terror alert was increased in NYC.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
And it's no strange coincidence that when this announcement was made, the terror alert was increased in NYC.

amazing , isn't it .........that "they " would continue to pull those stunts.

How tragic for the Americans ( sensible ones) as they cannot believe a word from washington now......be it about the presidential intentions. (excuses) or any of their "terror alerts".

when they lost credibility.........they lost everything..... (but they still don't know it or will not admit it .)
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
Think it might have something to do with the Plame affair :? CNN was actualy talking about it before the terror alert was made public 8O
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
Re: RE: More WARRING from bush??!!!:-(

JomZ said:
And we have three years to go. So the question now is: "How low can Bush go?". My bets are on high 20%'s. (on Job Approval)


three yrs (YIKES).......gives the bloke time for at least two more invasions and destructions of two countries. Not sure he will get away with it......

so "we" watch his "ratings " go down...... and nothing is done about it?? Is that how it will work??? Of course we can expect the usual terror threats when it reaches certain numbers. Today is an example. So sad .......not to know for sure , if a terror threat is real or another lie. In my view.......this is the most weakening thing bush'n'goons have done to themselves.

You're betting on high 20s.?....Hmm. Will see your bet.. :wink:
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: More WARRING from bus

I hope we'll be looking at impeachment hearings shortly after the '06 elections. Between the Plame thing and the fact that Bush lied about Iraq, there's lots there to after him with.

His own party is going after him just down the street, and they stand to lose a fair amount of control because of him. This Miers appointment is killing him. Katrina showed both his policies and his staff to be severely lacking. The Bolton appointment has made the US a laughingstock in the international community. Iraq is a mess, and it's going to get worse. If he goes after Syria, the comparisons to Nixon and Cambodia will be inevitable.

Even if they can't impeach him, he's headed into lame-duck land. The GOP is likely to take away every bit of power they can from him as damage control for the next election.
 

Jo Canadian

Council Member
Mar 15, 2005
2,488
1
38
PEI...for now
Re: RE: More WARRING from bus

Reverend Blair said:
His own party is going after him just down the street, and they stand to lose a fair amount of control because of him. This Miers appointment is killing him. Katrina showed both his policies and his staff to be severely lacking. The Bolton appointment has made the US a laughingstock in the international community. Iraq is a mess, and it's going to get worse. If he goes after Syria, the comparisons to Nixon and Cambodia will be inevitable.


:? And yet even after all that he'll still think his Sh*t don't stink.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
October 6, 2005—It's a scam. Who would ever have thought after the Iraq tragedy that the US and its client states would have had the chutzpah to repeat their dismal performance?

When the rumblings from the White House and the Israeli Knesset first began over Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, I thought their accusations would be laughed out of court. I was wrong.

I was wrong because I hadn't realised the depths to which some powerful nations would sink, even to the point of binning international law along with empirical justice, in furthering their own interests.

I was wrong because I failed to realise just how much other countries fear the wrath of the superpower or wish to continue receiving the monetary scraps that fall off its table.

And I was wrong because I had underestimated the lengths to which elements of Western corporate media would go to spin the story in favour of the belligerents.

And neither did I fathom just how deep the UN nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, would bury facts to appease the political agendas of its more powerful masters when it has been accused of doing the same over Iraq with such terrible consequences.

Let's get specific.

Under Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory, Iran not only has the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nuclear powers have an obligation to assist it in furthering this aim. Here's the applicable text:

"Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop, research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination . . ."

Iran has always maintained that its nuclear plants are for the purposes of generating electricity. The US, however, has unilaterally decided that Iran doesn't need nuclear energy because it has large oil reserves. In reality, Iran has long been a target for regime change writ large on the neocon agenda.

But despite Iran having signed an IAEA Safeguards Agreement whereby it agrees to accept invasive inspections and monitoring for the purpose of verifying that nuclear materials are "not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices," it has recently been voted in breach of the treaty by a majority of 22 IAEA member countries.

A year ago, the director-general of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, made this statement as to Iran's compliance with its obligations under the Safeguards Agreement: "All the declared nuclear material in Iran has been accounted for, and, therefore, such material is not diverted to prohibited activities."

Then after a concerted effort by the US to oust him from his job, this was ElBaradei's wishy-washy statement 11 months on: The IAEA is "not yet in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran".

The above is exactly the kind of inconclusive language, both he and former UN chief inspector Hans Blix, were making before the UN Security Council in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, which as we know was entirely WMD-free.

If the Iranian file goes before the UN Security Council, there is a likelihood that Russia and China will use their vetoes to prevent sanctions. But this would be playing right into the Bush administration's hands.

The White House isn't really interested in slapping Iran with a long-drawn out sanction process, which would, in any case, boomerang as oil prices would soar.

Bush doesn't want guarantees that Iran isn't seeking nuclear WMD either. America's real goal is regime change in Iran, just as it was in Iraq, and in the absence of a genuine casus belli, it is desperate for a pretext, even, if it has to resort to that same worn-out canard he used to invade Iraq.

Should the Security Council throw out the Iranian case, the administration's interests would be served when it would have the perfect opening to gather together yet another "coalition of the bribed and the coerced" to launch a preemptive war.

Rattling

Israel, which hasn't ratified the NPT and whose nuclear activities were off the table during the recent IAEA meeting, is already rattling its sabres.

But sticking to its long drawn-up agenda vis-à-vis Iran is no easy task for the Bush administration. Some 140,000 US troops are bogged down in Iraq, there are clamours for the National Guard to remain at home to cope with natural disasters, and recruitment levels are way down. So what can it have up its sleeve?

Writer Paul Craig Roberts, who served in the Reagan administration as assistant secretary of the treasury, puts forward a worrying thesis.

He suggests the US might resort to using nuclear weapons against Iran and cites a Pentagon document, titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which "calls for the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear adversaries in order 'to ensure success of US and multi-national operations.'"

Just imagine! We have here a country that unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and is openly developing smaller tactical nukes against the provisions of the NPT teaming up with another which refuses to sign-up to the NPT at all or even admit it has a nuclear weapons programme.

And they are both pointing fingers at Iran that has played by the rules.

Funny stuff, indeed, but, sadly, nobody's laughing.
 

Ocean Breeze

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 5, 2005
18,362
60
48
How To End The War
by Paul Craig Roberts




George W. Bush is a natural born liar. He lied us into a war, and now he is lying to keep us there. In his October 6 self-congratulatory speech at that neoconservative shrine, the National Endowment for Democracy, the President of the United States said: "Today there are more than 80 Iraqi army battalions fighting the insurgency alongside our forces."

Eighty Iraqi battalions makes it sound like the US is just lending Iraq a helping hand. I wonder what Congress and the US commanders in Iraq thought when they heard there were 80 Iraqi battalions that American troops are helping to fight insurgents? Just a few days prior to Bush’s speech, Generals Casey and Abizaid told Congress that, as a matter of fact, there was only one Iraqi battalion able to undertake operations against insurgents.

I wonder, also, who noticed the great contradiction in Bush’s speech. On the one hand, he claims steady progress toward freedom and democracy in Iraq. On the other hand, he seeks the American public’s support for open-ended war.

In her Princeton speech, Condi Rice made it clear that Iraq is just the beginning: "We have set out to help the people of the Middle East transform their societies. Now is not the time to falter or fade."

On October 5 Vice President Cheney let us know how long this commitment was to last: "Like other great duties in history, it will require decades of patient effort."

Who’s going to pay for these decades of war to which the Bush administration is committing Americans? Already the US is spending $7 billion a month on war in Iraq alone. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says that if the Iraq war goes on another five years, it will cost at least $570 billion by 2010.

Bush’s war has already doubled the price of gasoline and home heating.

With US forces bogged down in Afghanistan (invaded October 7, 2001) and Iraq (invaded March 20, 2003), Bush is plotting regime change in Syria and conspiring to set up Iran for attack.

Is there a single person in the Office of Management and Budget, the US Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, or the Federal Reserve who thinks the US, already drowning in red ink, has the resources to fight wars for decades?

And where will the troops come from? The US cannot replace the losses in Iraq. We know about the 2,000 American troops killed, but we do not hear about the large number of wounded. UPI correspondent Martin Sieff reported on October 7 that US wounded jumped from 16.3 per day at the end of September to 28.5 per day at the beginning of October. Multiply that daily rate by 30 days and you get 855 wounded per month. Approximately half of these are wounded too seriously to return to combat.

Has anyone in the administration pointed out to Bush, Cheney and Condi Rice what decades of casualties at these rates mean?

Insurgents are killing Iraqi security personnel who are collaborating with the US occupation at the rate of two or three hundred per month. The wounded numbers are much higher.

Last month suicide bombers killed 481 Iraqis and wounded 1,074.

Has anyone in the administration put these numbers in a decades long context?

Apparently not. Once these numbers are put on paper, not even Bush administration speech writers can continue to pen rhetorical justifications for war and more war.

The neoconservative Bush administration prides itself on not being "reality based." Facts get in the way of the administration’s illusions and delusions. Bush’s "80 Iraqi battalions" are like Hitler’s secret weapons. They don’t exist.

Iraqis cannot afford to collaborate with the hated Americans or with the puppet government that the US has put in place. Out of desperation, some do, but their heart is not in it. Few Iraqis are willing to die fighting for the United States.

When the 2nd Iraq Battalion graduated from US training camp on January 6, 2004, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and US commander in Iraq, Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, expressed "high expectations" that Iraqi troops, in the general’s words, "would help us bring security and stability back to the country."

Three months later when the 2nd Battalion was brought up to support the US invasion of Fallujah, the battalion refused to fight and returned to its post. "We did not sign up to fight Iraqis," said the troops.

Readers write in frustration: "Tell us what we can do." On the surface it doesn’t look like Bush can be stopped from trashing our country.

The congressional mid-term elections are a year away. Moreover, the Democrats have failed as an opposition party and are compromised by their support for the war. Bush has three more years in which to mire America in wider war. If Bush succeeds in starting wars throughout the Middle East, his successor will be stuck with them.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike have made it clear that they are going to ignore demonstrations and public opinion. The print and TV media have made it clear that there will be no reporting that will hold the Bush administration accountable for its deceit and delusion.

There still is a way to bring reality to the Bush administration. The public has the Internet. Is the antiwar movement well enough organized to collect via the Internet signatures on petitions for impeachment, perhaps one petition for each state? Millions of signatures would embarrass Bush before the world and embarrass our elected Representatives for their failure to act.

If no one in Congress acted on the petitions, all the rhetoric about war for democracy would fall flat. It would be obvious that there is no democracy in America.

If the cloak of democracy is stripped away, Bush’s "wars for democracy" begin to look like the foreign adventures of a megalomaniac. Remove Bush’s rhetorical cover, and tolerance at home and abroad for Bush’s war would evaporate. If Bush persisted, he would become a pariah.

Americans may feel that they cannot undercut a president at war, in which case Americans will become an embattled people consumed by decades of conflict. Americans can boot out Bush or pay dearly in blood and money.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: More WARRING from bus

I think most people realise that assassinating Bush is futile, Mr. Dibs. You'd have to wipe out a good portion of his cabinet before somebody who was competent could be found. After that, you'd still have to deal with their complicity in illegal acts.

The snake that is the Bush regime has no head to cut off.