I eat alone in the desert, With skulls for my pets

Aw, crap. Sy Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, says that:

Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership.

. . .Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.

. . . Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.

God dammit to Hell! I'm not going to ask any more what's wrong with GWBushCo and his advisors. Clearly they're hell-bent on attempting regime change and world domination, regardless of whether that's immoral or even feasible.

But what's wrong with the House & Senate Democratic leadership? As Feingold said just the other day, "It is a capitulation".

But it turns out that there is dissent within the administration. Hersh continues:

A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.”

I'm not sure what that means, except that it may be Gates telling the Democrats to grow a pair, and stop his idiot boss and his bloodthirsty gang of advisers.

We'll see how that works out. I'm not optimistic. Meanwhile, read the whole article. It's 7 pretty depressing pages.

Won't get fooled again?

Quick! Everybody panic!!1!

Blueprint for nuclear warhead found on smugglers' computers

Ex-weapons inspector fears rogue states bought plan

Keep panicking!

Does Iran have blueprints for a miniature nuclear warhead?

"Why did these smugglers associated with the notorious Pakistani nuclear engineer A. Q. Khan have these designs, unless they had sold or intended to sell them for Khan?" [David] Albright [a former inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency asked.

Now panic some MMoooooorrre!

Pakistani May Have Delivered Advanced Nuclear Designs

Evidence Suggests Iran, North Korea Might Possess Plans

Woooo, scary monsters!

Until you look at the facts:
1) They've known about the plans for 4 years. Completely known about them for over 2 years. (ibid)

2) David Albright, the ONLY person to be quoted on record in ALL of these articles hasn't been in the IAEA since 1997.

3) 1/2brite founded a NON-governmental think tank called Institute for Science and International Security, AKA ISIS, in 1993. (Sheesh, Isis!? Maybe his lack of imagination is why he never qualified for any doctorate!) (ibid)

His own bio on ISIS, (I'm still giggling), says "He directs the project work of ISIS, heads its fundraising efforts, and chairs its board of directors. "

Well by golly, since he hasn't actually had access to IAEA materials since '97, and works as a fund raiser for the organization he started in '93, I'm sure we can take his word for it. Gosh knows he doesn't have any financial stake in this!

4) The only other US sources trumpeting this 'panic, PANIC NOW!' viewpoint are unnamed government sources. e.g.

"That's a question to be studied," a senior U.S. official said. But he said he had little information beyond the public accounts of the report, issued by the Institute for Science and International Security.

...

Top U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized that design work could be quickly resumed and the real obstacle to nuclear weapons capacity was a sufficient supply of nuclear fuel.

...

"We don't know for certain if Khan gave the designs to Iran or North Korea," said a U.S. counterproliferation official who worked extensively on the Libya case. "But why would you give them to the Libyans and not the North Koreans?"

And my favorite:

U.S. diplomats said Iran's rejection of the deal would force Washington to develop a new round of sanctions against Tehran, both unilaterally and through the United Nations.

Ummm, so none of these sources actually knows whether Iran has these materials. Is it just me or is anyone else wondering why the MSM is quoting allegations by anonymous sources in the Bush government as fact?

Haven't these reporters been lied to enough by Bush et al about WMDs, aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, etc, etc, etc ... that they won't show the slightest bit of skepticism about this latest bull$hit?

I mean, c'mon!? Where's the 'alleged', where's the 'but other sources say', where's the OUTING THE ACTUAL NAMES of people who've lied to you before!?

Don't they see any similarities between this PR push and the one they mounted against Iraq!?

Forever and a day

The good news:

Iraq Lawmakers Want US Forces Out As Part of Deal

A majority of the Iraqi parliament has written to Congress rejecting a long-term security deal with Washington if it is not linked to a requirement that U.S. forces leave, a U.S. lawmaker said on Wednesday.
[...]
“What are the threats that require U.S. forces to be there?” asked Nadeem Al-Jaberi, a co-founder of the al-Fadhila Shi’ite political party, speaking through a translator.
[...]
A Sunni Iraqi lawmaker, Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, founder of the National Dialogue Council, said bilateral talks on a long-term security deal should be shelved until American troops leave — and until there is a new government in Washington.
[...]
A senior U.S. official said in Baghdad earlier this week that the United States still hopes to reach a new security agreement with Iraq by July,

Now the bad news:

Revealed: Secret Plan to Keep Iraq Under US Control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
[...]
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain

And the worse news:

US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

BTW, the "$20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq" is part of the exact same money that

the Bush "administration lawyers have argued that Iraqi assets frozen in bank accounts in the United States are needed for Iraqi reconstruction

In a related case, a federal judge in New York ruled in September that the families of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks could not claim any part of about $1.7 billion in frozen Iraqi assets in the United States.

The judge noted that President Bush had signed an executive order in March, on the eve of the American invasion of Iraq, that confiscated Iraqi assets and converted them into assets of the United States government. "

Does anyone else remember when Bush said:

"We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave."

Bush previously said it was 'up to the Iraqi people.' (I couldn't find the link to that. The first commenter who does gets a free year's supply of SteveAudio and VidiotSpeak!)

It's a fact that the majority of Iraqis have wanted us out at least since 2004.

So apparently Shi’ite's and Sunni's do agree on some things. And what they and 68% of Americans agree on is that US troops should not be in Iraq.

McCain and Bush think we should be there as long as Bush/McCain want us to be there, which is either 50 years, 100 years, or 10,000 years. It just depends on which day you ask.

As much as McCain tries to distance himself from Bush, including hiding joint fundraising events away from the press and the people, the fact is McCain has voted with Bush 95% to 100% of the time in the past 2 years.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

I'm a F-A-N-A-T-I-C, Fanatic; I rep Christ till I D-I-E, Fanatic

George Santayana- "Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim."

Via Think Progress:

Condoleezza Rice mocks Sadr as a coward.

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice mocked anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr as a coward on Sunday, hours after the radical leader threatened to declare war unless U.S. and Iraqi forces end a military crackdown on his followers.”[...] VetVoice’s Brandon Friedman notes that this echoes Bush’s “Bring ‘em on.”

That's rich coming from Rice who has to sneak into Baghdad unannounced for a six hour tour and still has to duck and cover several times in the Green Zone during her stealth visit.

Just like her boss has to sneak in and out, and her boss's boss has to sneak in and out of Iraq.

Oddly enough, the Iranian president announces his visit ahead of time and is actually greeted with hearts, flowers and a Red Carpet and speaks inside and outside of the Green Zone.

And in related news:

U.S. and Iran find common ground in Iraq's Shiite conflict

It's hardly an original thought, but CondiLiar's challenge to the second most powerful faction in Iraq smacks of Bush stating "Bring 'em on"

And we all know how that turned out when he made that speech in July 2003.


Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

The Drumbeats of War ... again

US President George W. Bush yesterday warned Iran that if it refused to stop arming and training Shia militia in Iraq then "America will act to protect our interests and our troops".

Iran Top Threat To Iraq, U.S. Says

Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, US Envoy Says

U.S. patrol craft fires flare over Iranian boat

Do satellite photos show Iran ballistic missile facility?

I guess Cheney didn't get the memo

Cheney: If U.S. Withdraws From Iraq, Al Qaeda Would ‘Acquire Control’ Of Country’s Oil Resources

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Let's See a Show of Hans

A war of utter folly

Responsibility for this spectacular tragedy must lie with those who ignored the facts five years ago

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a tragedy - for Iraq, for the US, for the UN, for truth and human dignity.
[...]
The elimination of weapons of mass destruction was the declared main aim of the war. It is improbable that the governments of the alliance could have sold the war to their parliaments on any other grounds. [...]
Responsibility for the war must rest, though, on what those launching it knew by March 2003.

By then, Unmovic inspectors had carried out some 700 inspections at 500 sites without finding prohibited weapons. The contract that George Bush held up before Congress to show that Iraq was purchasing uranium oxide was proved to be a forgery.
[...]
They could not succeed in eliminating WMDs because they did not exist. Nor could they succeed in the declared aim to eliminate al-Qaida operators, because they were not in Iraq. They came later, attracted by the occupants. A third declared aim was to bring democracy to Iraq, hopefully becoming an example for the region. Let us hope for the future; but five years of occupation has clearly brought more anarchy than democracy.
[...]
In 1945 the US helped to write into the UN charter a prohibition of the use of armed force against states. Exceptions were made only for self-defence against armed attacks and for armed force authorised by the security council. In 2003, Iraq was not a real or imminent threat to anybody.
[...]
Washington and Moscow must begin nuclear disarmament. So long as these nuclear states maintain that these weapons are indispensable to their security, it is not surprising that others may think they are useful. What, really, is the alternative: invasion and occupation, as in Iraq?

'nuff said.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Libera te tutemet ex infernis ... or ... liberate me ex infernis

The Self Fulfilling Prophecy of Doom:

Pre-Emptive Nuclear Strike a Key Option, NATO Told

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists.
[...]
"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."
[...]
The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them.

This is the scariest, most insane thing I've ever read.

And not only do these idjits have nukes, they even have bullet points:

The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.

· The "dark side" of globalisation, meaning international terrorism, organised crime and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

· Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale.

· The weakening of the nation state as well as of organisations such as the UN, Nato and the EU.

The hypocrisy astounds! George Bush and the GOP also preach 'Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism.' They've brayed to the world about 'the axis of evil' and called the Iraq invasion a crusade!

And the 'dark side of globalization'!? Of course there is a 'dark side' to globalization! Countries that don't respect human rights or the environment can always make a product cheaper! Not to mention we also sold their governments arms, WMD chemicals and gave them nuke weapons technology. (See Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan.)

And since Bush has 'unsigned' the Kyoto protocol and refused to reduce emissions or even to seriously acknowledge climate change the 'migrate or drown' is forced upon low lying areas in the world due to the greenhouse gasses we refuse to curtail.

And The UN is weak because the US weakened it! We don't even pay our dues. This is like killing your parents and asking mercy from the court because you are an orphan!

To prevail, the generals call for an overhaul of Nato decision-taking methods, a new "directorate" of US, European and Nato leaders to respond rapidly to crises, and an end to EU "obstruction" of and rivalry with Nato. Among the most radical changes demanded are:

· A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes.

· The abolition of national caveats in Nato operations of the kind that plague the Afghan campaign.

· No role in decision-taking on Nato operations for alliance members who are not taking part in the operations.

· The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings".

The Bush Doctrine of preemptive war against folks you just don't like is now supposed to be a NATO strategy ... with the generals in charge ... and nuclear hell is the opening gambit.




Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Am I in my cabin dreaming, or are you really scheming,

The current greatest threat to the US
Fiction: The Pentagon released an audio clip of a radio transmission received on the bridge of one of the US ships during the incident in which a voice is heard to say in accented English: "I am coming at you ... You will explode in a few minutes."

Fact: But Pentagon officials now say they do not know the source of the radio transmission, backing off a previous claim that it came from one of the boats.

Additional (sort of) fact: Pentagon officials insist that they never claimed Iran made the threat. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats. [Cough, bull$hit, cough]


Fiction: It appears from the video tape that the Iranians ignored repeated requests by radio from the American ship to identify themselves, to state their intentions and to stay clear of the ship's path.


Fact: Iran yesterday released what it asserted was an abridged video of the same incident, which shows a calm exchange. "Slowly get a little closer . . . can't make out the ship number,"
[...]
The Iranian commander is heard to say, "Coalition warship 73, this is Iranian navy patrol boat." He then requests the "side numbers" of the U.S. warships.
[...]
The Pentagon said it does not dispute anything in the Iranian video.


Fiction: The U.S. ships were within seconds of opening fire on the Iranian speedboats when the boats turned and headed toward Iran, Pentagon officials said.

Fact: "I didn't get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats," said [Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, Commander of the 5th Fleet].


Fiction: Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman described the Iranian boats as "highly maneuverable patrol craft" that were "visibly armed,"

Fact: The Pentagon released the full 36-minute video of the encounter yesterday.
[...]
None of the boats appears to have any mounted weapons.


Fiction: yes, it's more serious than we have seen," Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, head of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said at a briefing on Monday.

Fact: The U.S. Navy says 1 of its ships fired warning shots at a small Iranian boat in 1 of 2 serious encounters last month.


Fiction: ""When you get a bridge-to-bridge call, you have no way of knowing where it came from," [Rear Adm. Frank Thorp IV,] said.

Fact: Ship-to-ship Channel 16 is in the VHF band which is short range and line of sight. The US Navy ships are equipped with Common High Bandwidth Data Link which would allow instantaneous triangulation of any radio signal. Even simple radio direction finding equipment would easily confirm if the signals were coming from the boats.


Fiction: U.S. officials said the Iranians dropped objects in the water around the American ships and threatened to blow them up.


Fact: Objects From Iranian Boats Posed No Threat, Navy Says


Opinion: Nothing in the original accounts of the Navy, Pentagon or US Gov't has proven to be true. This was just another example of bush's clumsy, reckless attempt to manufacture a casus belli to justify yet another war. And they are stilltrying to spin it that way!

Bush, et al, keep trying to connect it to the USS Cole bombing. But that occurred while a US naval vessel was at dock in a 'friendly' port.

This manufactured incident happened when sailing, with air cover, and during war time, just outside of Iran's home waters.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

People say I'm crazy, doing what I'm doing.

As our Tonstant Weaders know, I frequently cross-post between here and VidiotSpeak.

But this is the first time I've ever quoted and linked to a VS post I was not the soul (sic) author on.

And it's because I and my co-bloggers over there all contributed to creating this and I, in my egocentric way, think it's important to share with SteveAudio's crowd:

Let's not muddy the waters…
posted by Bill Arnett

Updates below

This latest "incident" involving, allegedly, five Iranian patrol boats almost being fired upon by the U.S. Navy begs the question: If the American ships were in international waters available for passage by all ships, why aren't the Iranians allowed to be in international waters just like anyone else?

Why should the Navy have fired on boats in international waters just because they didn't like fellow boaters from Iran tailing their ships?

And, lastly, if the U.S. Navy HAD fired on the Iranian boats would they not themselves be in violation of international law, the laws of the sea, treaty and have, once more, taken aggressive, provocative action against a peaceful nation in order to provoke a defensive reaction as a prelude to another illegal American war?

So, again, we hear all this bellicosity from bushco's navy about boats being where they were lawfully entitled to be and we're supposed to take bushco's representation that the Iranians somehow violated any treaties or obligations by being lawfully within international waters?

Sailor, you probably know more about this than I, but aren't international waters open to all, without regard to political affiliation or country? Hence the name, "International waters?"

Why can't the MSM figure stuff like this out on their own?

Update by The Sailor:The encounter lasted 20 minutes and the US edited it to 4 minutes. The audio and video were recorded separately, edited, allegedly 'synched' and released by the Pentagon.Here's a link to to the heavily edited video.

From the original reports I thought the navy was talking about fast attack boats, (AKA Swiftboats or PT boats), but the Iranian's boats are no bigger than speedboats on my lake. So we're talking about a boat maybe 30 feet long vs a ship 500 feet long that has guns, torpedoes and helicopters!

International waters are open to all, but that doesn't mean you can harass anyone and 200 yards is harassment to a naval warship in international waters, (in addition to all of the Right Of Way Rules that I teach my students is the unlisted 'Law of Tonnage', especially if they have guns;-).

OTOH, according to the Navy, according to the AP

The confrontation with the Iranian boats happened at the eastern end of the Straits, about three miles outside Iran's territorial waters, according to the Navy.

Now that's harassment!

Just think if a hostile country put 3 of the most advanced warships in the world 15 miles from America? And all we responded with were 5 speedboats without armor or heavy weapons.

Jeebus, look at the boat, it's 2 guys sitting in a glorified bassboat with an outboard! And they're not 'dressed in orange' as the AP article says, they're wearing PFDs (life preservers.) As every motor boater should according to the US Coast Guard.

The AP article also states that the US Navy 'faced down' the Iranians.
Pfft. I can 'face down' anyone who shows up to a gunfight with a knife.

So who has the most to gain from this 'confrontation?'

Iran, who could only respond with 5 unarmed speedboats to 3 heavily armed US warships within striking distance of their shores?

Or bush, about to embark on a Middle East 'mission' who insists, despite all evidence, that Iran is a nukular (sic) threat?

Bump & Update II by The Sailor: Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?

The list of those who are less than fully confident in the Pentagon’s video/audio mashup of aggressive maneuvers by Iranian boats near American warships in the Strait of Hormuz now includes the Pentagon itself.

Read the whole thing, seriously, even the comments are interesting.

And The Vidiot noted something I missed on a letter board she reads:

The voice from the 'speedboat' does not appear to include background engine or wind noise - WHY? Outboards are noisy, fast moving craft on open sea have wind noise and what about the crashing sound when a small craft hits a wave? FAKE"

The letter writer is absolutely correct and as a sailor and former sound engineer I should have caught it.

HeadLyings!

Intel Chief Blasts 'Cherry Picked' Intel

WASHINGTON -- National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell said Tuesday he would resign if administration officials mischaracterized or "cherry-picked" intelligence to support their own political agenda.

"If it were cherry-picked in an inappropriate way, then for me, that's a professional obligation to object, and I would submit my resignation," McConnell told reporters.

In the first place I'm not willing to trust a guy who says he doesn't know if water boarding is torture, and his excuse of 'not being briefed on it' is lame considering it's already been classified and prosecuted as torture by the US, but one also has to wonder at his integrity when he implied it was OK to cherry-pick the data resulting in National Intelligence Estimates if it wasn't used "in an inappropriate way."

What appropriate way is there to lie, whether by commission or omission, about data that lead/leads our country to war?

But wait, there's more!

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
[...]
The draft NIE first completed a year ago, which had included the dissenting views, was not acceptable to the White House, according to the former intelligence officer. "They refused to come out with a version that had dissenting views in it," he says.

More here.



Cross posted at VidiotSpeak