"When Australian Prime Minister John Howard openly hoped that Senator Barack Obama would never become our president for fear that he would hurt the war on terrorism, Obama fired back by demanding that Howard either send 20,000 more troops to Iraq or shut his mouth . . ."We need more of that from democratic candidates! The New York Press, unfortunately, spends the rest of the article dissembling and missing Obama's point entirely.
In the last few days we've been subject to a p.r. campaign by the administration and their allies in the media focused on supposed Iranian funding of the Shiite faction in the Iraqi civil war. But at the same time, Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni side. Once again, Saudi Arabia gets a pass.
Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.
But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.
A total of 100 HS50 Steyr-Mannlicher rifles were discovered during raids in Baghdad, the British Daily Telegraph reported Tuesday quoting US military sources. The guns come from a batch of 800 of the 50-calibre rifles sold by Steyr-Mannlicher to the Iranian security forces in 2005. A representative of Steyr-Mannlicher said the matter would be investigated.
The 12-kilogramme Steyr-Mannlicher HS50 is a large-calibre precision gun which can be easily assembled and disassembled, the manufacturer said. It can pierce body armour or armoured troop transporters from a distance of up to 1,500 metres.
Each gun costs around 15,000 euros (19,500 dollars).
After five years of fart-offs, the Bush Administration has pretty much gotten the North Koreans to agree to the same deal (Oil for shutting down reactors) that the Clinton Administration got -- the deal they decried as a horrid sell-out.
...
WARNING to political candidates: the Internet isn't always your friend. Ask John Edwards, Democratic presidential contender.
He had hired a pair of progressive women bloggers, thinking they'd help buff his street cred as the plain-talking advocate of liberal policies.
But past writings by the pair were never fully vetted and contained insulting posts on Catholic leaders and policies. After two days of cogitating, Edwards tried to finesse things: He was offended by the writings, but wouldn't fire either one.
Bloggers, hired or not, are creeping ever closer to the center of the political ring. They bring huge followings, unfiltered views and plenty of swagger. Edwards, struggling for oxygen in a crowded political tank, can't be blamed for trying them out.
Watch out, candidates. Bloggers don't submit their work to campaign central. They do their own homework and write it up their way. They're fun, fascinating and completely untamable. The blogosphere confers a definite hip factor, but needs a buyer-beware label, too.
It may be the first cyber-dust-up of the 2008 campaign. But given the growing role of the Internet in fundraising, direct messages and hired blog commentators, candidates and voters may be in for different campaign season.
One of the chief campaign bloggers for Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards quit Monday after conservative critics raised questions about her history of provocative online messages.
Amanda Marcotte posted on her personal blog, Pandagon, that the criticism "was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign." Marcotte said she resigned from her position Monday, and that her resignation was accepted by the campaign.
"No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won't do it," Marcotte wrote Monday night.
The top American military officer, General Peter Pace, declined Monday to endorse the conclusions of U.S. military officers in Baghdad, who told reporters on Sunday that the Iranian government is providing high-powered roadside bombs to insurgents in Iraq. General Pace made his comments during a visit to Australia, and VOA's Al Pessin reports from Canberra.
General Pace said he was not aware of the Baghdad briefing, and that he could not, from his own knowledge, repeat the assertion made there that the elite Quds brigade of Iran's Republican Guard force is providing bomb-making kits to Iraqi Shiite insurgents.
...
1). Reporters met with experts and analysts who would not provide their names, background, or any identifying information - even off the record. There is no way to know who these unnamed experts were, what made them experts, or anything that could be used to confirm or debunk their allegations. In other words, the sources were not vetted and unknown.
...
3). The White House led officials present at the briefing would not give their names either, despite this presentation being cleared by the White House. In other words, despite this not being a leak, no one would stand by the story. [my ems]
...
"As tragic as it will be to have tens of thousands of innocent Iranian citizens slaughtered, IF the administration is AGAIN able to make war based on fabrications, manipulations, deceit, and lies; if the media AGAIN, fails to expose the White House's fictionalized narrative; and the will of the people is ignored...the bigger tragedy will be that America's democracy ceases to exist."And that is exactly why they have to be stopped and stopped now. To follow-up on Fixer and Gordon's earlier post today. If Congress isn't going to do it, it is time for the citizens to take this into their own hands. Shut the country down if necessary, but they must be stopped.
Only 13% of Congressional Republicans Believe Global Warming Manmade
Vast majority cite other reasons.
Defense Budget Calls for $600 Billion
In unmarked bills.
More Candidates Decline Public Funding
Don't want to be beholden to public.
Rove: "I Don't Want My 17-Year-Old Son To Have to Pick Tomatoes or Make Beds in Las Vegas"
Or "go to Iraq," he adds later.
Sierra Ski Resorts Report Fewer Visitors
Blame lack of snow.
So, you see? This case is DIFFERENT. This time we can TRUST the "intelligence" sources. Because, last time, we'd merely had crews of trained inspectors swarming the country for years, and they denied that there were any WMD there. This time, we have amateurs observing the situation in the middle of guerrilla warfare, and they say they've got the goods but can't reveal them. So, you see, it's DIFFERENT.
Here's a collection of the growing list of Iran War Lies: http://www.democrats.com/iran-war-lies
Add it to the endless list of Iraq War Lies: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/keydocuments
But let's keep one thing in mind as we demand a thorough investigation of both sets of lies – lies made by the same set of people: In neither case, even were every single claim 100 percent true and accurate, would anyone have established a legal case for war. If a nation's possession of WMDs were grounds for launching a war against it, the United States would be subject to legal invasion immediately. So, while debunking the fanciful claims of Bush, Cheney, and Gates may be entertaining, we may actually do more good if we brush them aside and point out that it does not matter whether their claims are true or not. Aiding a nation in repelling a foreign occupation is not grounds for war. The U.S. still brags about having done this in France 50 years ago. If Iran were doing it in Iraq now, which no evidence yet suggests, the crime would lie in the foreign invaders' refusal to leave, not in the aid supplied by the Iranians.
Forget about any other legislation. Kill Bush's ability to make war with Iran, with any other country.
Bush and company are using the same tactics to drum up war with Iran-- lying about their intentions, using unethical, partisan reporters to raise the stakes with claims of Iranian abuses and dangers to America and American interests.
Just as they lied about their intentions about attacking Iraq, then lied about the dangers of WMDs, they are at it again.
If the democrats don't do something very, very soon, very tough, clear and decisive, then the US will be attacking Iran. It will have thrown itself and we the people into an insane, dangerous devastatingly expensive and unaffordable conflict that will change the world and our lifestyles.
There is only one solution-- the congress must pass binding legislation that absolutely forbids Bush from launching any kind of weapon or attack on Iran. They must explicitly state that any past authorization does not included Iran. They must make it clear that if Bush does order any action against Iran that drastic consequences will apply. They must make it a criminal act.
There's no other more important legislation to be dealing with. This should be a no-brainer. Will the right wingers in congress oppose it? Maybe. If they do, they will be sealing the end of the Republican party in any leadership role.
This can't wait. They need to do it now.
By the dark moon period of April, all the pieces will be in place.
Before we get to the apparent war-mongering, let's talk about the basics. Are there people in Iran providing aid to factions in Iraq, factions that sometimes kill Americans as well as other Iraqis? Yes, probably. But you can say the same about Saudi Arabia, which is believed to be a major source of financial support for Sunni insurgents - and Sunnis, not Iranian-backed Shiites, are still responsible for most American combat deaths.
The Bush administration, however, with its close personal and financial ties to the Saudis, has always downplayed Saudi connections to America's enemies. Iran, on the other hand, which had no connection to 9/11, and was actually quite helpful to the United States in the months after the terrorist attack, somehow found itself linked with its bitter enemy Saddam Hussein as part of the "axis of evil."
So the administration has always had it in for the Iranian regime. Now, let's do an O. J. Simpson: if you were determined to start a war with Iran, how would you do it?
But you have to wonder about the other stuff. Why would the Pentagon put someone who got everything wrong on Iraq in charge of intelligence on Iran? Why wasn't any official willing to take personal responsibility for the reliability of alleged evidence of Iranian mischief, as opposed to being an anonymous source? If the evidence is solid enough to bear close scrutiny, why were all cameras and recording devices, including cellphones, banned from yesterday's Baghdad briefing?
It's still hard to believe that they're really planning to attack Iran, when it's so obvious that another war would be a recipe for even bigger disaster. But remember who's calling the shots: Dick Cheney thinks we've had "enormous successes" in Iraq.
It took a long time for Samuel Adams to come to the surface of Boston politics, even though his father was a powerful figure in the caucuses and the General Court. One reason for the delayed "arrival" is that Adams is almost alone in history as a man who sincerely desired anonymity.
...
An engineering marvel or a colossal eyesore, depending on who is describing it, the horseshoe-shaped glass walkway will jut out 70 feet beyond the canyon's edge on the Hualapai Indian Reservation just west of Grand Canyon Village. Buttressed by 1 million pounds of steel and supporting 90 tons of tempered glass, the see-through deck will give visitors a breathtaking view of the canyon.
"For some reason, the military seems more afraid of gay people than they are against terrorists. They're very brave with the terrorists, and if the terrorists ever got ahold of this information, they get a platoon of lesbians to chase us out of Baghdad," - Democratic U. S. Representative Gary Ackerman, NYC.During questioning of Condoleeza Rice. More here