Bush escalates the conflict-With Iran!
The real news in Bush’s speech last night was not his declaration, against all reason, that he will escalate his war in Iraq. The real news is that Bush is going to push on the fault lines with Iran and Syria. From the speech;
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
President Bush has a point. It is true that terrorists are coming into Iraq from Syria, including Al Qaeda operatives. You have to note that Mr. Bush does not say Syria is enabling terrorists to come into Iran. He used the word “allowing” which might be an exaggeration since Syria claims to have scaled up patrols on this mostly desert border. The US Military in November had also declared that there was no evidence that Syria was enabling terrorist movements into Iraq.
The claim against Iran is a bit more curious. It is also based on a basic truth. the truth is that there are many indicators that many of the Shiite Militias in Iraq are allied with Iran. What is curious is that these same militias are the backbone of the Al Mailiki government which Mr. Bush wants to send 21,500 more young blood to “aid”. If you are going to demonise Iran for these activities you have to demonise its allies too, don’t you. This is not to argue that Iran should support or not support militancy in Iraq. However, as we know Saudi Arabia is also aiding the Sunnis which are also attacking US troops.
It makes it seem like Mr. Bush has thrown the Syria-Iran angle into his “plan” for another reason. In the speech he also talked about working “with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region”. It seems clear then that he is again resorting to the methods used for pushing America into war in Iraq. In the previous paragraph he talks about an intention to “(address) Syria and Iran”. This was in the context of border policing and the movement of material to fighters in Iraq. In the next he ties it to nuclear weapons.
Shold Bush Senior hang for long-standing support for Sadadm?
I read this article on newsvine and I thought I should share it with you guys.
There is an interesting timeline ofevents for you to consider in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s execution:
March 16, 1988: Saddam Hussein carries out the worst of several recent chemical attacks on his own countrymen, Kurds residing in the city of Halabja. Thousands are killed. (Source: US State Dept)
October 1989: President George Bush, in a top-secret National Security Decision says the following:
“Normal relations between the U.S. and Iraq would serve our long-term interests and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East. The U.S. should propose economic and political incentives for Iraq to moderate its behavior and increase our influence with Iraq … We should pursue, and seek to facilitate, opportunities for U.S. firms to participate in the reconstruction of the Iraqi economy.” (Source: Discovery Times)
October 6, 2005: President George W. Bush, speaking at the National Endowment for Democracy says:
“Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account.” (Source: The White House )
Being that Saddam’s atrocities were no secret in 1989, when then-President Bush reinforced the United States’ long-standing support for Saddam Hussein, and given his son’s dualistic approach to the War on Terror (“Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”), should George W. Bush not prosecute his own father for his support of terrorist activities?
Or, perhaps more appropriately, should not the Iraqi government, run by Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani — who felt firsthand the sting of Saddam’s chemical weapons — prosecute former President Bush and other US officials for their support of Hussein during his reign of terror? Considering our president has established that the War on Terror will not merely focus on al-Qaeda but also its catalysts, should the Iraqi government not take a similar approach in seeking justice for the crimes committed under Hussein?
FYI:
Deal with the devil: The right hands of Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein, seen here clasped. The year was 1983. The American government supported Hussein’s savage rule and barbaric tactics in the 1980s. Their support stopped when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.
Important News Event: Israel welcomes UN resolution; Iran calls sanctions ‘illegal’
Iran on Saturday condemned the United Nations Security Council unanimous vote earlier in the day to pass a resolution imposing sanctions on its nuclear program, calling it an illegal measure outside the council’s jurisdiction.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told state-run television the resolution “cannot affect or limit Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities but will discredit the decisions of the Security Council, whose power is deteriorating.”
Israeli leaders meanwhile welcomed the Security Council’s decision, while the United States administration said the sanctions aren’t enough, and it hopes that the international community will enact further measures.
FLASHBACK: Bush Said Kerry Proposal to Increase Size of Military Would Make The Country ‘Less Safe’
Yesterday, President Bush announced his intention to increase the “overall size” of the Army, acknowledging that the current forces were “stressed.” The Washington Post reports he’s considering an increase of 50,000-70,000 troops.
On June 3, 2004, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) — campaigning for the presidency — proposed expanding the Army by 40,000 troops. Bush quickly slammed the proposal as unnecessary and counter-productive:
Bush’s campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld already has authorized 30,000 more troops through extended tours and new recruitment. He said the country would be “less safe” under Kerry’s approach.
In a news release, Kerry explained the problem with the Bush approach:
The Bush administration is relying on temporary solutions including “Stop Loss” orders, recalling the Individual Ready Reserve and extending tours to meet our commitments. These temporary measures have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the underlying reality: we need more troops.
As recently as six months ago, President Bush was sticking to his guns. From a June 14, 2006, “Statement of Administration Policy“:
The Administration opposes increases in minimum active Army and Marine Corps end strengths in Title IV, because they could require DoD to maintain a higher personnel level than is needed. The restructuring of the Army and the Marine Corps, plus other initiatives, is enabling our military to get more warfighting capability from current end strength.
This “restructuring” was a central part of Rumsfeld’s efforts to make the military a “more modern force.” Bush cited those efforts as a key reason why he believed Rumsfeld was “one of the finest defense secretaries” in history.
Source: ThinkProgress.org
فلم مفبرك لرامسفيلد يرفض الاستقاله
donaldrumsfeldleavesthewhitehouse.wmv
فلسطيني فلسطيني فلسطيني
This is what the world has turned us to. And this is what our children going through. I will always be proud to be one!
Can also be found at:
video.google
youtube
Hat-tip: Sabbah.biz
Think Progress » Rice Falsely Claims That Iraqis Don’t Believe They Are In A Civil War
Here is an interesting blog post I read on “Think Progressive” indicating of how and why did Condoleezza deny there is a civil war or such in Iraq and that Iraqi’s don’t think of it that way. I will let you come up with the conclusion regarding it but here it is:
Last night on CBS, Katie Couric asked Condoleezza Rice if she believes “the civil war in Iraq is likely to deteriorate significantly over the next few months.” Rice responded that Iraq is not a civil war because “the Iraqis don’t see it that way.” Rice added, “it really doesn’t help to speak about their circumstance as a civil war, in terms that they don’t speak about their circumstances.” Watch the interview:
Actually, top Iraqi military officials believe Iraq is in a civil war. From McClatchy, 8/04/06:
“This is a civil war,” said a senior adviser to the commander of the Iraqi Army’s 6th Division, which oversees much of Baghdad.
“The problem between Sunnis and Shiites is a religious one, and it gets worse every time they attack each other’s mosques,” said the adviser, who gave only his rank and first name, Col. Ahmed, because of security concerns. “Iraq is now caught in hell.”
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi says Iraq is in a civil war. From the BBC, 3/19/06:
It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.
If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.
Average Iraqis appear to share this view:
The top U.S. military commander for the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, told Congress on Thursday that the violence in Baghdad “is probably as bad as I have ever seen it,” and went on to say that the country could be headed toward civil war.
Nearly all of the dozen Iraqis who work for McClatchy Newspapers’ Baghdad bureau — evenly split between Shiite and Sunni Muslims — reached that conclusion long ago.
Their observations have trickled out day by day in the scores of conversations colleagues have with one another about their lives and difficulties. Their experiences of the last month reveal a capital city that’s disintegrating into chaos.
Prime Minister Maliki, of course, agrees with the administration that Iraq is not in a civil war. But his beliefs should not be conflated with the entire Iraqi people.
Transcript:
COURIC: According to a study released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the civil war in Iraq is likely to deteriorate significantly over the next few months regardless of the actions the Bush Administration may pursue.
RICE: Well, with all due respect to the CSIS, which is a great institution, the Iraqis don’t see it that way and we don’t see it that way. This — the Iraqis see that they have extraordinarily difficult problems. They see that they have sectarian violence. They see that they have to deal with those who are operating outside the law and killing innocent people. But it really doesn’t help to speak about their circumstance as a civil war, in terms that they don’t speak about their circumstances.
Source: Think Progress » Rice Falsely Claims That Iraqis Don’t Believe They Are In A Civil War