11.4.07

3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'

What a freaking idiot.
Last summer he read a book about a czar, now he wants to have one.

Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; Page A01

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

(We have a war going no where, that serves only the Bush regime's agenda)

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.

The administration's interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.

The highest-ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the wars is deputy national security adviser Meghan O'Sullivan, who reports to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and does not have power to issue orders to agencies. O'Sullivan plans to step down soon, giving the White House the opportunity to rethink how it organizes the war effort.

Unlike O'Sullivan, the new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Besides Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested. Ralston declined to comment; Keane confirmed he declined the offer, adding: "It was discussed weeks ago."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?"

All three generals who declined the job have been to varying degrees administration insiders. Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, was one of the primary proponents of sending more troops to Iraq and presented Bush with his plan for a major force increase during an Oval Office meeting in December. The president adopted the concept in January, although he did not dispatch as many troops as Keane proposed.

Ralston, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was named by Rice last August to serve as her special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Sheehan, a 35-year Marine, served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration and at one point was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East.


CONTINUED 1 2 Next

2.4.07

Why George Bush is Insane

I Love this guy!

Why George Bush is Insane

By Harold Pinter

03/30/07 "Assassinated Press "

"Earlier this year I had a major operation for cancer. The operation and its after-effects were something of a nightmare. I felt I was a man unable to swim bobbing about under water in a deep dark endless ocean. But I did not drown and I am very glad to be alive. However, I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and belligerence; the most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world. "If you are not with us you are against us" President Bush has said. He has also said "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you.

The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke.

The United States believes that the three thousand deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence.

The three thousand deaths in Afghanistan are never referred to.

The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead through US and British sanctions which have deprived them of essential medicines are never referred to.

The effect of depleted uranium, used by America in the Gulf War, is never referred to. Radiation levels in Iraq are appallingly high. Babies are born with no brain, no eyes, no genitals. Where they do have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is blood.

The two hundred thousand deaths in East Timor in 1975 brought about by the Indonesian government but inspired and supported by the United States are never referred to.

The half a million deaths in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Argentina and Haiti, in actions supported and subsidised by the United States are never referred to.

The millions of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are no longer referred to.

The desperate plight of the Palestinian people, the central factor in world unrest, is hardly referred to.

But what a misjudgment of the present and what a misreading of history this is.

People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget. They strike back.

The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of the United States over many years, in all parts of the world.

In Britain the public is now being warned to be "vigilant" in preparation for potential terrorist acts. The language is in itself preposterous.

How will - or can - public vigilance be embodied? Wearing a scarf over your mouth to keep out poison gas? However, terrorist attacks are quite likely, the inevitable result of our Prime Minister's contemptible and shameful subservience to the United States. Apparently a terrorist poison gas attack on the London Underground system was recently prevented. But such an act may indeed take place. Thousands of school children travel on the London Underground every day. If there is a poison gas attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister. Needless to say, the Prime Minister does not travel on the underground himself.

The planned war against Iraq is in fact a plan for premeditated murder of thousands of civilians in order, apparently, to rescue them from their dictator.

The United States and Britain are pursuing a course which can lead only to an escalation of violence throughout the world and finally to catastrophe.

It is obvious, however, that the United States is bursting at the seams to attack Iraq. I believe that it will do this - not just to take control of Iraqi oil - but because the US administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government but seem to be helpless.

Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist US power Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herten's definition (as quoted in the Guardian newspaper in London recently) "We are not the doctors. We are the disease".

Harold Pinter

The Assassinated Press

25.3.07

A Day Of Death; Every Day

For every soldier or Marine who dies in Iraq, at least 20 Iraqis are killed. Some of their stories.

Wathiq Khuzaie / Getty Images for Newsweek
An Accident of War The family of Iraqi journalist Suhad Shakir Fadhil display a picture of her with candles after she was likely mistaken for a bomber by Western security and shot dead

April 2, 2007 issue - Describing Jalal Mustafa to a reporter, the first thing his family mentions is "that long love story of his." The young mechanic's dream was to wed his fiancée, Laila, and "have as many kids as they could." But running a small auto-repair shop, it took Mustafa a long time to save up enough for the wedding, let alone a house. On Feb. 4, he finally went to the courthouse to apply for a marriage license. As he was walking through the gates, a car pulled up next to the building. Before the vehicle came to a full stop, the driver detonated a suicide bomb. Four bystanders died, including Mustafa: burned over much of his body, a piece of shrapnel lodged in his head. The bombing didn't even make the news; it was an ordinary day in Baghdad.

For each U.S. service member killed in Iraq, at least 20 Iraqis die violently. Feb. 4 was no exception. That day in Baghdad, roadside bombs killed four Iraqi policemen in one incident and two soldiers in another, and an Army colonel lost his life to assassins in the southern suburbs. But most of the day's 81 victims of violent deaths—about the usual daily toll this past winter—were civilians like Mustafa, the softest of soft targets. Forty-two of them were gunned down execution style, many of their corpses bearing signs of torture: hallmarks of Shia death squads. Most of the other deaths appeared to be the work of Sunni and Al Qaeda extremists. NEWSWEEK talked to the families of four of the Feb. 4 victims. Among them were a street vendor, a former TV journalist and a truck-parts dealer. Two were Shia, and two were Sunni. And in each case their families lost not only loved ones but breadwinners. None of their killers has been identified:

Jawad Jasem, 44, was serving a customer at his pushcart outside the courthouse when the bomb exploded. The son of a poor Shia farmer, Jasem had wanted to be an engineer. When he was 18, family friends got him into the Air Force, where he earned good money working on jets—until the Army, desperate for infantrymen in the war with Iran, sent him to the front. He was wounded four times. He was not allowed to return to civilian life after the war, even though he had a wife and five children. "He used to tell everyone that the last day of his military service would be the happiest day of his life," says his younger brother, Kareem, a shopkeeper. "He said he'd celebrate with a great party in which he would make a feast for the entire city."

It didn't turn out that way. His last day of duty was April 8, 2003, when U.S. troops entered Baghdad. Jawad was among thousands of Iraqi soldiers who stripped off their uniforms and fled.

He started over, buying his pushcart and setting up in front of the courthouse. He built a good business. It was a predominantly Shia neighborhood, but the bomber killed members of both sects indiscriminately. "Evil has no eyes," says Kareem Jasem. "Jawad's shop had turned into just a big hole ... and his body was smashed into a wall."

Abdul Salam, 47, was a pious Sunni who believed in sectarian harmony. The father of six, he had refused to join Saddam's Army, and worked instead in defense factories. After the invasion, he started a truck-parts business; he hired two Shia apprentices and set up shop in Al Yousifiyah, a mostly Sunni suburb. Driving home from work one night with his two assistants, Salam stopped at a police checkpoint. A van full of gunmen pulled up and abducted all three. Shia friends tried to intercede for Salam at the local Mahdi Army office, but on Feb. 4, Salam's corpse was found dumped in a field a few miles from his home, shot repeatedly in the head and chest. His Shia apprentices were freed. "He was beloved by his friends, colleagues and all of his neighbors, most of them Shiites," says Salam's brother, Naser Zaidan. "He used to say Islam is the unifier of Iraqis."

For Suhad Shakir, 36, her new job was a dream come true. She had always wanted to work with Americans, and she loved helping people. Last September she quit her post as a journalist at state-owned TV and jumped at an opening with the Iraqi Assistance Center, a Coalition-run office in the Green Zone that works with U.S. and Iraqi agencies to provide social services. It seemed safer than reporting, and it paid better.

On Feb. 4 she was on her way to work, waiting in the queue at a checkpoint near an entrance to the Green Zone which is often targeted by suicide bombers. Shakir was in the slow lane, for Iraqi cars that are subject to careful searches. A convoy of armored vehicles came roaring up and got stuck at the checkpoint. One of the bodyguards in the first vehicle threw a bottle of water at the driver in front of Shakir to signal him to move. The driver panicked and backed into Shakir's car. She tried to get out of the way but backed into the car behind her. Someone aboard the fourth vehicle in the convoy, seeing Shakir's sudden move, opened fire, hitting her once. The vehicle slowed and a goateed Westerner in khaki leaned out his window and shot her again in the face at close range. Then the convoy raced off into the Green Zone.

Iraqi cops think Shakir's killer mistook her for a suicide bomber, but they say they're continuing to investigate. "It is very important I know why she is killed and who killed her," said Shakir's mother, Salima Kadhim, dressed in black a month after her daughter's death. Like many Iraqis, she still waits.

With Salih Mehdi and Ahmed Obeidi in Baghdad

24.3.07

Bush criticizes Democrats after vote on Iraq

Bush has NO ROOM to talk about wasting money! This fool is actually clueless.

WASHINGTON - President Bush accused the Democratic-led Congress of wasting taxpayers’ time picking fights with the White House instead of resolving disputes over money for U.S. troops and the firings of the U.S. attorneys.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Bush called on Democratic leaders in Congress to move beyond political discord and take bipartisan action on both issues that have driven a wedge between the Bush administration and Capitol Hill.

He urged them to accept his offer to allow lawmakers to interview his advisers about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors ­— but not under oath — and provide documents detailing communications they had about the firings with outside parties.


Democrats, armed with subpoenas for Bush’s top political adviser Karl Rove and other top aides, are pressing the White House to allow the advisers to answer questions under oath about the firing of eight federal prosecutors. Bush says the Democrats are simply playing politics, trying to create a media spectacle.

“Members of Congress now face a choice: whether they will waste time and provoke an unnecessary confrontation, or whether they will join us in working to do the people’s business,” Bush said. “We have many important issues before us. So we need to put partisan politics aside and come together to enact important legislation for the American people.”

The president also accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote on Friday for a war spending bill that requires combat operations to cease before September 2008.

Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.

‘The clock is running’
Bush said the emergency spending bill the House narrowly passed, 218-212, would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need and set an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

“By choosing to make a political statement and passing a bill they know will never become law, the Democrats in Congress have only delayed the delivery of the vital funds and resources our troops need,” Bush said. “The clock is running. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April 15, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions — and so will their families.”

The $124 billion House legislation would pay for war operations this year but would require that combat troops come home before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

Bush said that to get the votes needed to pass the bill, House Democrats included billions of dollars in domestic and pork barrel spending for local congressional districts, including $74 million for peanut storage and $25 million for spinach growers, that has nothing to do with the war.

“Even with all this extra spending tacked on, the vote in the House was very close,” Bush said. “This means that the Democrats do not have enough votes to override my veto.”

He obviously wants to go to war with Iran.


22.3.07

Iran Warns It May Ignore Nuclear Rules

Is anyone surprised??


TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's supreme leader said Wednesday that Tehran will pursue nuclear activities outside international regulations if the U.N. Security Council insists it stop uranium enrichment. "Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

Khamenei did not elaborate on what "illegal actions" could be pursued by Tehran, which faces new Security Council sanctions over its refusal to halt enrichment.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - the agreement under which U.N. inspections are held.

Khamenei warned the United States that Iran will "use all its capacities to strike" if his country is attacked.

"If they want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack," Khamenei told the nation in an address marking the first day of Nowruz, or the Persian New Year.

Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France - have drawn up new sanctions to punish Iran for rejecting U.N. demands to halt enrichment - a process that can produce fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a nuclear warhead.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of intending to build nuclear weapons. Tehran says its nuclear program is purely for generating electricity.

Ambassadors from the 15 Security Council nations held informal discussions at Britain's U.N. Mission in New York ahead of a meeting to discuss possible changes to the draft sanctions resolution.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, meanwhile, said his country "will not support excessive sanctions against Iran," and added that the draft resolution has been softened at Moscow's behest.

The sanctions in the draft resolution would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 additional individuals and organizations involved in the country's nuclear and missile programs - about a third linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, an elite military corps.

The package also calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran, and on new financial assistance or loans to the Iranian government.

Lavrov said broader restrictions on officials' travel, and a ban on "credits" to Iran, had been softened on Russia's advice. He did not specify what type of credits he was discussing.

"We ... have agreed to influence Iran by gradually applying proportionate pressure," Lavrov said.

European and U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks said Tuesday that Moscow had bluntly told Tehran it would not ship fuel for the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power plant in southern Iran until Tehran freezes its uranium enrichment program.

Lavrov denied that.

"It's not the first time that we are seeing such an unscrupulous approach aimed at driving a wedge between us and Iran," he told lawmakers in the lower house of parliament. "There is no link whatsoever between the U.N. resolution ... and the implementation of the Bushehr project."

Russia has said plans to supply fuel for Bushehr this month were called off because of Iranian payment delays that prompted Moscow to indefinitely postpone the reactor's September launch. Russian officials also said that the number of workers at Bushehr had dwindled due to the funding shortage.

Iran angrily denied falling behind in payments and accused Russia of caving in to U.S. pressure to take a tougher line on Tehran.

Iranian state television on Tuesday described Russia as an "unreliable partner," adding: "It is clear that Russia has stopped construction of this plant under pressure and for political reasons."

Associated Press Writer Vladimir Isachenkov contributed to this report from Moscow.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

23.2.07

Cheney's Speech at Vilnius

Cheney's Speech at Vilnius -- You Gotta Love It!

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Dick Cheney can talk the talk. He gets it, he really does. It's just too bad he has to hide out in Lithuania when he speaks the truth. Americans today really need to hear what he has to say, and it is doubtful he'll repeat these words here at home.

Here's some of what he had to say, as he addressed the Eastern European and Baltic attendees:

"This progress [of freedom] would not have been possible without leadership -- from patriots with names like Sakharov, Mindszenty, Walesa, Havel -- who, in decades of striving, challenged dictators, spoke the truth without apology, and refused to compromise their liberty. "

Somehow, I am thinking that Cheney can't imagine mentioning American names like Ray McGovern, Richard Clark, Tony Zinni, Cindy Sheehan, West Point Graduates Against the Iraq War, etc, in a speech like this one.

There was more! Cheney also said:

"Regimes that repress and tyrannize their own people also threaten the peace and the stability of other lands. They feed rivalries and hatreds to obscure their own failings. They seek to impose their will by force, and they make our world more dangerous....Free peoples do not live in endless deprivation, tending old grievances, growing in their resentments, and posing threats to others. Free peoples do not dwell on every disagreement and conflict of the past; rather, they see the possibilities of the future, and turn their creative gifts to building a better tomorrow." We Americans need to hear these words--they ring true in America today.

Cheney then told the crowd at Vilnius:

"Democracy starts with citizens casting their votes, but that is only the beginning. Elections must be fair, and regular, and truly competitive. Men and women must be free to speak their minds -- and here a simple test is proposed by the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky: "Can a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm? If he can, then that person is living in a free society. If not, it's a fear society." Americans familiar with any recent presidential elections in America, this administration's unconstitutional "free-speech zones," those who have been thrown out of public spaces for a political message written on a T-Shirt, or who have been physically or legally threatened or smeared for speaking his or her mind may find it hard to believe that Cheney said these words. Well, to be fair, he didn't say them to us -- he was talking to the folks in Lithuania. Or was that Lilliput?

I couldn't believe he said this!

"Protecting civil society and upholding individual freedom requires the rule of law -- and that is at the very heart of government's reason for being. Government meets this obligation by ensuring an independent judiciary, a professional legal establishment, and honest, competent law enforcement." I imagine that many good people in Congress, the judiciary and the Justice Department can't either.

And you won't believe he said this:

"Leaders must also persevere in fighting the two greatest enemies of economic progress -- bureaucratic roadblocks and official corruption. If the private sector is to thrive and to generate jobs, then entrepreneurs must be free to start companies, to hire workers, and do business without unreasonable interference or favoritism. And the only way for an economy to consistently attract commerce and investment is to root out corruption at every level, and to require openness, transparency, and accountability in the systems of business and government."

Yes, that was Mr. Dick "Halliburton" Cheney, at your service.

Cheney was in fine form, at last, when he lectured Russia. Without a hint of irony, he stated, "In many areas of civil society -- from religion and the news media, to advocacy groups and political parties -- the [Russian] government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of her people. Other actions by the Russian government have been counterproductive, and could begin to affect relations with other countries. No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation. And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."

He said it, folks. And not a reporter in the world will call him on any of it. This speech, full of sound and fury, as Shakespeare noted in another sad time for a government characterized by banality, greed and self-righteousness, was a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

We should not settle for this speech only in Vilnius. Why doesn't Dick Cheney come to St. Louis, or Boston, or Atlanta, or New Orleans, or Los Angeles or Portland or Miami and give this speech? We know the answer. If he did so, while Cheney would still be a corrupt and forgettable Vice President, a speech like this one might mean something. It might even be revolutionary.

10.2.07

...and Rightfully so

Putin Slams US for Making World More Dangerous | Europe | Deutsche Welle | 10.02.2007

Putin Slams US for Making World More Dangerous

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-frontal attack on the United States on Saturday, saying it had made the world a more dangerous place and left successive conflicts unresolved.

Addressing an audience of senior officials and politicians including many from the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Putin said the United States had "overstepped" its borders with disastrous results.

The Russian leader, who spearheaded opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies, accused Washington of operating by "separate norms."

"The United States has overstepped its borders in all spheres -- economic, political and humanitarian and has imposed itself on other states," he told delegates at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy.

"One-sided illegitimate action hasn't solved a single problem and has become a generator of many human tragedies, a source of tension," Putin said. "Local and regional wars didn't get fewer. The number of people who died didn't get less but increased significantly."


US Defense Minister Gates will likely respond to Putin when he speaks at MunichBildunterschrift: GroĂźansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: US Defense Minister Gates will likely respond to Putin when he speaks at Munich

The United States, he said, had gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them."

Putin also took aim at US plans to site a missile defense system close to Russia's border in NATO countries the Czech Republic and Poland, adding that any further enlargement of the alliance would be inappropriate.

"Why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our border? It's hardly connected to today's global threats. What is the threat? Terrorism and fighting it," Putin said.

Analysts say that Russia's relations with the United States have deteriorated significantly under Putin, who has tried to restore Russia's prestige since the economic collapse that followed the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse.


Criticism from US delegates, Human Rights Watch

His speech got a frosty reception from US delegates in a question and answer session that followed his speech at this traditionally pro-Western forum.

US Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harmen charged that Russian experts had helped Iran develop an indigenous missile capability in the 1990s.

Putin denied that claim, saying Russia was "less involved than anyone" in such technology transfers.

He also rebuffed criticism of his country's human rights record by the head of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth.


Roth is the first human rights activist to be invited to the Munich security conferenceBildunterschrift: GroĂźansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Roth is the first human rights activist to be invited to the Munich security conference

Roth said the world was seeing an "increasingly uni-polar government in Russia, where competing centres of influence are being forced to toe the party line."

Putin responded that Russia was taking steps to stop foreign governments clandestinely using Russian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to influence Russian policy.

On the subject of numerous killings of Russian journalists during his presidency, Putin turned the question back to the United States, saying that it was in Iraq that most journalists were killed doing their job.

Putin's comments were likely to be countered by subsequent speakers at the Munich conference, whose traditional theme is the future of NATO. Not least among these is to be US Defense Secretary Robert

Gates, who was due to make his first major speech since taking office.

DW staff / AFP (ncy

Russian Ultranationalist Leader Expects U.S. to Attack Iran in Late March - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM

Russian Ultranationalist Leader Expects U.S. to Attack Iran in Late March - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM

Don't act suprised.

A senior Russian parliamentary official and leader of the ultranationalist Liberal Democratic Vladimir Zhirinovsky believes that a U.S. attack on Iran is inevitable, he has told Ekho Moskvy radio station.

“The war is inevitable because the Americans (AMERICAN LEADERS- NOT CITIZENS) want this war,” he said. “Any country claiming a leading position in the world will need to wage wars. Otherwise it will simply not be able to retain its leading position. The date for the strike is already known — it is the election day in Israel (March 28). It is also known how much that war will cost,” Zhirinovsky said.

He went on to add that the publication of Prophet Muhammad cartoons in the European press was a planned action by the U.S. whose aim is “to provoke a row between Europe and the Islamic world”. “It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and paying, and giving soldiers,” he said. Russia should “choose a position of non-interference and express minimal solidarity with the Islamic world”, Zhirinovsky added. Um, I'm not sure about that one...

For his part, the head of the Centre for Strategic Studies of Religions and Modern World Politics, Maxim Shevchenko, also believes that a U.S. attack on Iran is very likely although he sees no preconditions for this war. “Iran does not threaten anyone, is not pointing its missiles at anyone. No Iranian leader has ever threatened to carry out a strike against the U.S. Therefore preparations for a war against Iran appear to be a global act of provocation,” he said.

In Shevchenko’s opinion, the reason behind “this barefaced promotion of a world war lies not in a conflict between the West and the Islamic World but in a fight for power in the world between US and European elites”. “The fate of humanity will be decided between a saber-rattling America and an allegedly democratic Europe,” Shevchenko concluded.

Whereas a senior research associate of the World Economy and International Relations Institute, Georgy Mirsky, is confident that “there will be no war”.

“The Americans got so very much stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq that they will not start a new war without definite proof of the fact that Iran poses a threat to the world. Besides, the U.S. has mid-term elections this year and the Republicans, who have suffered a severe blow to their trust, will not be able to win these elections if they drag the country into a new hazardous escapade.

”As for Israel, it can carry out a strike against Iran but only when it knows for certain that only one step remains before an Iranian atomic bomb is created. But that time has not come yet,“ Mirsky said.

9.2.07

The Pentagon's not-so-little secret

Feb. 8, 2007
As the president and Republicans continue to hype the surge -- and stifle debate about it -- Bush's own war planners are preparing for failure in Iraq. (hell-o!?)

By Sidney Blumenthal

Deep within the bowels of the Pentagon, policy planners are conducting secret meetings to discuss what to do in the worst-case scenario in Iraq about a year from today if and when President Bush's escalation of more than 20,000 troops fails, a participant in those discussions told me. None of those who are taking part in these exercises, shielded from the public view and the immediate scrutiny of the White House, believes that the so-called surge will succeed. On the contrary, everyone thinks it will not only fail to achieve its aims but also accelerate instability by providing a glaring example of U.S. incapacity and incompetence.

The profoundly pessimistic thinking that permeates the senior military and the intelligence community, however, is forbidden in the sanitized atmosphere of mind-cure boosterism that surrounds Bush. "He's tried this two times -- it's failed twice," Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said on Jan. 24 about the "surge" tactic. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.'" She repeated his words: "'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is."

On Feb. 2, the National Intelligence Council, representing all intelligence agencies, issued a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, as harsh an antidote to wishful thinking as could be imagined. "The Intelligence Community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qaida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements."

The report described an Iraqi government, army and police force that cannot meet these challenges in any foreseeable time frame and a reversal of "the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory" occurring only through a dream sequence in which all the warring sects and factions, in some unexplained way, suddenly make peace with one another. Nor does the NIE suggest that this imaginary scenario might ever come to pass. Instead, it proceeds to describe the potential for "an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and a shift in Iraq's trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences."

Bush justified his invasion on the basis of false intelligence in the now notorious NIE of October 2002 that claimed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now, as the latest NIE forecasts nightmares, he is escalating the war. But almost everything has changed in the nearly four years since the invasion.

A newly elected Congress has been galvanized to debate a bipartisan resolution disapproving of Bush's escalation. Yet in the Senate, where 60 votes are necessary to establish cloture on a filibuster, the Republican minority has blocked a vote. Though many Republicans are keenly aware that continued support for Bush's policy amounts to political suicide in 2008, all but two of them have joined a phalanx to shut down the vote. By mustering behind him, they tie their fate to his policy. Bush, however, will be gone, while they remain exposed to the political elements.

Even Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the Republican cosponsor of the resolution against the escalation along with Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., cast his lot with the Republican martyr brigade, voting to suppress his own measure. In 2002, the Republican right mounted a primary campaign against Warner in retribution for his deviation from their ideological line, but failed feebly. Warner cannot fear a repetition of the right's vengeance. Can he be undermining himself out of deference to the authority of a commander in chief whose course he believes is reckless?

The Republican prevention of a vote on the Warner-Levin resolution reflects an effort to close debate on the war itself. It amounts in effect to a gag rule on Bush's Iraq policy. During the Vietnam War, under President Johnson, neither party attempted to shut down debate. After 1969, President Nixon's Vietnam policy consisted of misdirection, deception, covert action and fait accompli, such as the counterproductive and ultimately catastrophic invasion of Cambodia. The Bush administration's methods can be traced to the Nixon administration, with Dick Cheney as the connecting thread.

The reception of the latest NIE, even more than the NIE itself, indicates again Bush's and Republicans' denial of objective analysis from the professional intelligence community. The October 2002 NIE was produced under intense pressure from the White House, especially Vice President Cheney, to validate its preconceived views. "The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made," Paul Pillar, the national intelligence officer for the Middle East who oversaw the assembling of that NIE, wrote a year ago. In the shadow of this travesty, the new NIE was written with great care; its frightening descriptions, therefore, should be considered to be deliberately guarded and reserved in tone.

Just as Bush and the Republicans rejected the bipartisan wise men of the Baker-Hamilton Commission, they have now rejected the objective assessment of the professionals. By thwarting the bipartisan Warner-Levin resolution, they have declared that they will operate on their own fanciful criteria, even against their own political interests.

As the Senate curdles in frustration over Republican tactics, the trial of Scooter Libby continues to clarify the degree to which the administration covered up its disinformation campaign that led the country into war with another disinformation campaign to cover up the role of the vice president as the prime mover of the smear campaign against former ambassador Joseph Wilson for committing the unforgivable act of revealing the truth. For the Senate Republicans, Scooter Libby is not an object lesson. The lesson they take away, if any, is not the necessity of open government but once again the need to burn the tapes.

Libby's effort to prevent his grand jury tapes from being entered into evidence in his trial resembled nothing so much as Nixon trying to suppress his tapes. Both in the end revealed their respective coverups. Cheney learned from Nixon to burn the tapes at least figuratively; now, his chief of staff, Cheney's Cheney, has tried to protect Cheney by literally and futilely suppressing the tapes. Cheney finds himself back at the beginning. For him, life has come full circle. From the entire history of deception, from the Nixon to the Libby tapes, the Republicans have learned nothing.

The new NIE offers more than "key judgments" on "The Prospects for Iraq's Stability." It is also a template for the short-term future of American politics. The ruthlessly cruel events projected for Iraq will blow back to the United States. The more Bush fights there, the more the embattled Republicans must fight here.

The Senate Republicans' vote to suppress the resolution on the war was the moment when they irrevocably aligned themselves completely with a president who rejects objective analysis. Unable to shield him or themselves from the inevitable consequences, they have made a conscious decision to place the president's delusions above the welfare not only of the Republican Party but also of the troops sent into the deadly labyrinth of Baghdad. Quietly and calmly, as the Republicans hype the "surge," the war planners prepare for the worst.
Photobucket