Saturday, July 5,
Some of you have pointed out how
the picture below is a fake. Upon investigation, it
turns up it is. Some of you want me to take it down.
Or change what I wrote about it. Well, I'm not going
to do either, although I will admit I was duped. Why?
Because it's what the US military and the Bush administration
think of the Iraqis. Bush recently invited the Iraqis
to kill US soldiers, thusly demonstrating that anyone
who joins the military from this point forward is not
only a moron, but entertains a death wish. Obviously
there are thousands of "red blooded" Americans
who entertain such self-debasing thoughts, and this
is obvious now over the July Fourth holiday as we celebrate
I am taking a hiatus from the site for a few days. It's
simply too depressing. I will work on photographs instead.
Check back in a week or so and maybe there will be some
new stuff up to read. Maybe not. Right now I don't want
to think about the stupidity of my fellow citizens --
large numbers who admire and support this vindictive
and unelected frat boy with a mean streak a Texan mile
Friday, June 27, 2003
Photo: This is what the US Navy thinks of the
people of Iraq. If Iraq had an aircraft carrier (of course they
don't have any) parked off Washington with sailors lined up in formation
spelling out the words "Fuck America," what do you think
the result would be? Iraqis would be swinging from lamp posts all
across the country. Bush would have a pre-nuclear spazz. So when
Iraqis kill American soldiers -- one here, three or four there every
few days -- we should realize this is a natural and expected result
of US hostility and occupation.
"Former regime sympathizers and criminals are behind the attacks
on coalition forces in Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
said on Capitol Hill," reports the American
Forces Press Service. "The secretary also said he does
not believe the activity in Iraq rises to the level of a guerrilla
war." But then he's not out there presenting himself as a target
for pissed of Iraqis -- or does he have a kid in the military. "Rumsfeld
was specifically asked if he believed the coalition was engaged
in a guerrilla war. 'I don't know that I would use the word,' he
said. In many cases, the attackers are common criminals. Saddam
Hussein released about 100,000 common criminals from the Iraqi prison
system. 'Those people are out there; they're doing things that are
unhelpful to the Iraqi people,' he said." But then resistance
fighters are always characterized as criminals.
"How could they do this to us when we came to liberate them?" writes Robert
Fisk. "That will become an inevitable theme in the aftermath
attack. Guerrilla warfare, as the British know all too well,
is a brutal form of conflict. It does not distinguish between 'good'
occupiers and 'bad' occupiers, between Americans who shoot down
the innocent and Tommy Atkins in his soft beret and his knowledge
-- doesnāt it go back to our own Bloody Sunday in 1972? -- that
when you kill the innocent, you will suffer for it."
Reading the news is like reoccurring bad dream -- every day it seems
something outrageous happens in the realm of American politics.
The American people are either generally oblivious or don't care
what is happening to their government. Polls now indicate they support
an attack on Iran. "By 56 to 38 percent,
Americans approve the use of US military to block Iran from developing
nuclear arms, said a Washington
Post-ABC poll... More than six in 10 Americans polled said
the decision to go to war was justified even if the United States
does not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." In
other words, it doesn't matter if Bush is a liar, if there are no
WMD in Iraq. Most Americans don't care if Bush uses the same flaccid
excuse to invade another country. In short, 6 in 10 Americans are
complicit in mass murder. Every day the analogy between the US public
and the people of Nazi Germany grow more and more obvious.
And like all totalitarian states, the Bush junta expects everybody
to toe the fascist line. "Before launching any new foreign
adventures, the Bush gang has some homeland housekeeping to take
care of: it is going to sweep up those pesky non-governmental organizations
that are helping to turn world opinion against US bombs and brands," writes Naomi
Klein. "The war on NGOs is being fought on two clear fronts.
One buys the silence and complicity of mainstream humanitarian and
religious groups by offering lucrative reconstruction contracts.
The other marginalizes and criminalizes more independent-minded
NGOs by claiming that their work is a threat to democracy. The US
Agency for International Development (USaid) is in charge of handing
out the carrots, while the American Enterprise Institute, the most
powerful think-tank in Washington, is wielding the sticks."
I don't recall voting for the American Enterprise Institute back
in 2000, when Bush hijacked the US government. But there it is --
a neo-fascist "think-tank" is essentially running US foreign
policy. "The American Enterprise Institute is an NGO itself and
it is supported by the most powerful corporations on the planet," Raj Patel, a policy analyst at the California-based NGO Food First,
points out. "They are accountable only to their board, which
includes Motorola, American Express and ExxonMobil." AEI is "Bush's
The Bush neocons "would have us trade in our democracy for
a corporatocracy, a form of feudal government most recently reinvented
by Benito Mussolini when he recommended a 'merger of business and
state interests' as a way of creating a government that would be
invincibly strong. Mussolini called it fascism," writes Thom
Hartmann. "In their brave new world, corporations are more
suited to governance than are the unpredictable rabble called citizens.
Corporations should control politics, control the commons, control
health care, control our airwaves, control the 'free' market, and
even control our schools."
Bush puppetmaster Karl Rove gets his political ideas from the most
reprehensible elements over at AEI. "When The Washington Post
published a list of the people whom Karl Rove, President George
W Bush's closest advisor, regularly consults for advice outside
the administration, foreign policy veterans were shocked when Michael
Ledeen popped up as the only full-time international affairs analyst," writes Jim
Lobe. "Michael A Ledeen, resident scholar in the Freedom
Chair at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he works
closely with the better-known former chairman of the Defense Policy
Board, Richard Perle, has been a fixture of Washington's neo-conservative
community for more than 20 years... He is also close to key figures
in the administration, particularly Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, Douglas Feith, whose pro-Likud politics he largely shares;
Vice President Dick Cheney's powerful chief of staff, I Lewis Libby;
and Elliott Abrams, the director for the Near East on the National
Security Council. To that list can now apparently be added Rove,
who is as close to Bush as it is possible to get... Throughout his
career, Ledeen has insisted that war and violence are integral
parts of human nature and derided the notion that peace can be negotiated
between two nations."
"As long-term observers of Michael Ledeen know, he has a history
of sinister connections -- both American and Israeli," notes
White. "In 1985, Ledeen, then a 'private consultant' to
the National Security Council, acted as a go between for the Israeli
and American intelligence communities, facilitating Israel's role
in the Iran-Contra arms scandal. Later on, it was Ledeen who got
Israeli spy Johnathan Pollard his job with the Department of the
Navy. And in Ledeen's 1998 book 'Universal Fascism', he admired
the dictatorial methods of Benito Mussolini's predecessors. To Ledeen, the Constitution, America, and the law is not important.
Ledeen is a 'new' or 'neo-' conservative -- a conservative in the
pay of Israel -- and his mission to keep America as a milk cow for
the Jewish state." Or, as Lyndon
LaRouche told Hussein al-Nadeem last year, the AEI-influenced
"policy is what Kissinger crony Michael Ledeen has aptly described
as 'universal fascism': a revival, in principle, of the goals
of the Nazi Waffen-SS, as Sharon's policies toward the Palestinians
copy exactly the SS practices against the Warsaw Ghetto. Their
strategic policies are parodies of those of the ancient Roman Empire
and its legions; that is the meaning of the attack on Afghanistan
and the threat to Iraq."
But these guys seem to be pikers when compared to the aforementioned
Roman legions. "America's two 'great victories' since 11 September
2001 are unraveling," writes John
Pilger. "In Afghanistan, the regime of Hamid Karzai has
virtually no authority and no money, and would collapse without
American guns. Al-Qaeda has not been defeated, and the Taliban are
re-emerging... In Iraq, scene of the second 'great victory', there
are two open secrets. The first is that the 'terrorists' now besieging
the American occupation force represent an armed resistance that
is almost certainly supported by the majority of Iraqis who, contrary
to pre-war propaganda, opposed their enforced 'liberation.' The
second secret is that there is emerging evidence of the true scale
of the Anglo-American killing, pointing to the bloodbath Bush and
Blair have always denied."
"Assailants launched a wave of ambushes against U.S. forces
in Iraq, dropping grenades from an overpass, blowing up a vehicle
with a roadside bomb and destroying a civilian SUV traveling with
U.S. troops, soldiers and Iraqi police said Thursday," reports
Press. "Two U.S. soldiers and two Iraqi civilians were
killed... Recent attacks on U.S. forces near Baghdad have been blamed
on remnants of Saddam's regime or his Sunni followers, but the
Majar al-Kabir attack came in the mostly Shiite south, where resentment
toward Saddam Hussein's government had been strong."
Just so there's no confusion about the Vietnam dimension of Bush's
Iraq occupation, John Abizaid, the Arabic-speaking US general expected
to replace Gen Tommy Franks soon at the head of US Central Command,
told senators on Wednesday that a large US military presence would
be necessary in Iraq "for the foreseeable future," according
to the Financial
Times. "The deaths of dozens of US and UK troops since
the end of 'major combat' has raised the pressure on the US and
the UK to be more specific on the extent of the troop commitment
and costs necessary to stabilize Iraq... 'The number [of troops]
can go up and the number can go down,' Gen Abizaid told the Senate
armed services committee. 'First and foremost, it depends on
the enemy situation.'"
Since virtually all Iraqis are the "enemy" -- that is,
they will resist US and Brit occupation of their country -- the
situation is almost guaranteed not to get any better over time.
In fact, it will get worse. In Vietnam resistance to the presence
of US troops became so fierce and determined that the US was obliged
to exit stage right. Of course, Bush isn't Nixon or Ford -- and
Bush's cabinet makes the Nixon and Ford's advisors look like peaceniks
by way of comparison -- and there's no telling what cataclysmic
act the unelected one will attempt before being ejected from Iraq
(and Afghanistan and, down the road, Iran). Bush's determination
to make nukes appear as garden variety military munitions hangs
over the situation like Damocles' sword.
Friday, June 20, 2003
"An Iraqi man shouts slogans against U.S. troops
while holding a Kalashnikov during the funeral procession
of Tariq Hussein Mohammed in Baghdad, Thursday, June
19, 2003. Hussein Mohammed was killed by US soldiers
during a protest Wednesday by former Iraqi soldiers
demanding their three months backpay. (AP Photo/Victor
"You can shoot anyone," an Alpha Company commander
boasting recently in the Baghdad suburb of Adhamiya,
"and no one can touch you."
"Incidents pitting American soldiers against Iraqis,
armed or unarmed, are now daily occurrences," reports
Monde. "And they often turn deadly. Out of
51 soldiers who have died in Iraq since George W. Bush
officially declared the end of the war on May 1, 16
have been killed during confrontations with the population
or have been shot down by fedayeen. One hour after the
shooting at the Republican Palace, one GI was killed
and another wounded while posted in front of a service
station in the southern Dora district. A car slowly
drove up behind the Americans with the windows open,
and someone gunned them down, then fled."
More will unfortunately die in the months ahead as Iraqis
increase their hit-and-run ambushes against the US military.
How long before US soldiers are completely demoralized
like the Soviets were in Afghanistan and GIs in Vietnam?
"What we are seeing here is a fundamental reassessment
of the situation in Iraq in terms of political and military
stability," Daniel Goure, a Pentagon adviser at the
Washington-based Lexington Institute, recently told
Lobe. "We have been operating on two assumptions:
that once the war was over the Iraqis would rapidly
move into peaceful mode, and second, that there would
be a new political and economic spirit in the country.
We discovered neither of these assumptions is true."
Meanwhile, the Bushite neocons are plotting against
Iran with a little help from the CIA.
"CIA Officers and dissident Iranian agents have
expended millions of dollars in recent weeks to foment
trouble throughout Iran and indeed have had some success
in Tehran and a number of other cities," writes
"In a re-run of the classic CIA-SIS campaign that
successfully overthrew the regime of Prime Minister
Musadeqq in 1953 and which resulted in the return of
the Shah, American intelligence operations have been
focused mainly on the protesting students, the police
and those troops used for internal security... However,
judging by the failure to complete the victories won
on the battlefield in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the
portents for the coming War with Iran are ominous. Both
Afghanistan and Iraq now have developing major insurgencies
which the US forces are showing few signs of coming
to terms with and without doubt Iran will be a much
harder nut to crack. The drain on US resources and lives
will almost certainly be that much greater."
"Wide-ranging powers to enable the police to run
the Internet and the rest of Britain's information superhighway
in the event of a terrorist attack will be unveiled
this week," writes the Times
Online. "The Civil Contingencies Bill will
seek to modernize Britain's response to national emergencies
by protecting the country from attacks on the infrastructure
including the 'electronic network' and the water, electricity
and telephone systems... Airlines, the transport network,
town halls and the postal service could also come under
police direction in the event of a national disaster...
Senior officers will have powers to enlist any member
of the public to help civil defense staff. They will
be able to commandeer equipment and buildings, for which
the owners will receive financial compensation... However,
in a move designed to allay fears that the bill could
pave the way for regional police states, ministers have
decided against giving the police powers to run the
Gee, that's big of them.
The Nazis used the Reichstag fire to do basically the
same thing. In America, we're working up to the same
thing. Of course, Bush doesn't have to take over the
press since it already operates as the Bush Ministry
of Disinformation. Of course, there's a lot of press
freedom over the Internet -- and that's why the fascists
in Britain are targeting it. Sooner or later Bush and
Ashcroft will get around to doing the same here.
Meanwhile, speaking of the Reichstag fire...
"This unelected regime -- Hitler also came to power
with a minority of votes -- has used the terrible tragedies
of September 11 in much the way the Nazis jumped on
the Reichstag fire," writes Harvey
Wasserman. "Bush has failed to capture or try
9/11's alleged perpetrators. But he's used the tragedy
to push an extreme rightist agenda aimed at crushing
civil liberties, silencing all opposition, fattening
a war machine, and arrogating the right to unilaterally
attack other countries without tangible provocation."
"The Reichstag Fire Syndrome occurs whenever a
democracy is destroyed by creating a law-and-order crisis
and offering as a 'solution' the abdication of civil
liberties and state's rights to a powerful but unaccountable
central dictator," writes Norman
D. Livergood. "The men of wealth who put the
tyrant into power are then able to reap obscene war
"But even given the pathetic cowards that comprise
our Congress, a body of law as unconstitutional as PATRIOT
II will need a boost to be enacted," warns Lee
Robinson. "That boost will most likely come
in the form of another Reichstag Fire-World Trade
Center attack taking place on American soil. To
serve its political purpose this one should have strong
overtones of domestic 'terrorists' working in consort
with international 'terrorists'. Frightened people will
then allow themselves to be the subjects of frightening
new laws. And the rest will be history. Again."
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Bush wants you to believe these Iranians have gone in the
street because they want the freedom to cruise McDonalds and
watch MTV. The reality of the situation is quite different
than Bush and his cabal of neocon cannibals would have you
believe. In fact, these students are opposed to the multinational/globalist
future Bush has in mind for them -- and, in fact, that's
why they went into the street.
"British and American intelligence and special forces
have been put on alert for a conflict with Iran within the
next 12 months, as fears grow that Tehran is building a nuclear
weapons program," reports the Evening
Let's see... that would put us toward the end of the election
campaign next year. Considering the economy, Bush may need
to be a "war president" in order to win the election,
although the bankrupt Democrats have absolutely no ideas or
prospects of capturing the Oval Office next year. Moreover,
the neocons realize they have to move fast in order to complete
their fascistic objectives before they are sent packing back
to their warmongering "think tanks" and foundations
in the unlikely event Bush is defeated or impeached (admittedly
a remote prospect).
"Growing protests against the clerical regime of the
ayatollahs has suddenly made Iran more unstable in the past
few weeks. President Bush has welcomed the protests, though
some fear they will make the country even more unmanageable.
But one of the Pentagon's most hardline advisers, Richard
Perle, has said that the demonstrations could undermine the
rule of the clerics, which would be the best way of disarming
Iran. Michael Ledeen, his colleague at the American Enterprise
Institute, a think tank close to the White House, has gone
Apparently, the arrogance of these demented Straussian neo-fascists
knows no bounds (Ledeen is well-known for his advocacy of
"universal fascism" and Machiavellian politics).
Imagine the result if Iran sent agents to rabble-rouse Muslims
in the United States and organized them to overthrow the US
"Washington also blames the ayatollahs in Tehran for
giving financial backing and training to a hardline organization,
the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI),
founded by Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al Hakim. He has just returned
to Iraq. The ayatollah is blamed for the Shi'ite violence
against British and American forces in Basra and in the Shi'ite
heartlands of central and southern Iraq."
No mention here of the US State Department courting SCIRI
last year. "In June, the State Department held the first
official talks in Washington with the Shiite-based
Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
SCIRI, which is just one of a number of organizations based
among Iraq’s Shiite majority, has connections to Iran
where its leader Muhammad Baqir Hakim resides," writes
Symonds. According to Marc
Perleman, Ahmed al-Bayati, a SCIRI representative, "met
not only with the State Department but also with White
House and Pentagon officials and possibly with intelligence
Of course, the Bush Ministry of Propaganda -- aka Fox News
-- will never mention this little curious bit of information
to the American people... or should I call them "sheeple" since they are so easily fooled by this nearly transparent
"A British intelligence official said that any campaign
against Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq.
The Americans will use different tactics, said the intelligence
officer. 'It is getting quite scary.'"
No doubt, in the weeks ahead, we will find how exactly how
"scary" these unexplained tactics are.
The BBC recently ran an international poll indicating what nations
hold the most bellicose attitudes when it comes to invading
other countries and killing their people: the United States,
Britain, and Israel.
"Thirty-seven per cent thought it right to invade [Iraq]
-- including 54% of the UK response, 74% of the US response
and 79% of the Israeli sample."
According to other nations outside the sway of the demented
warlord neocons and the psycho Likudites, the US is more dangerous
than the terrorists it rallies against. "Asked who is
the more dangerous to world peace and stability, the United
States was rated higher than al-Qaeda by respondents in both
Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%). America was also rated more
dangerous than two countries considered as 'rogue states'
by Washington... It was rated more dangerous than Iran, by
people in Jordan, Indonesia, Russia, South Korea and Brazil,
and more dangerous than Syria by respondents all the countries,
except for Australia, Israel and the United States."
Apparently, the Bushites believe Lugar's idea to kill Palestinians
is a good idea with promise.
"White House chief of staff Andrew Card yesterday said
'it is too early' to rule out the use of U.S. troops as peacekeepers
in Israel and a future Palestinian state, the Manchester Union
Leader reported on Wednesday," says Drudge.
"Card was in New Hampshire yesterday to speak to Republican
activists and to receive a distinguished citizens award from
the Daniel Webster Council of the Boy Scouts of America. Card's
remarks come as Israeli and Palestinian leaders try to rescue
President Bush's road map to peace from a deadly week last
week. On Sunday, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said American
participation in a peacekeeping force is possible... 'I don't
want to prejudge as to what kind of a solution will be best,'
Card said when asked about Lugar's remarks. The administration,
he said, is committed to the peace process. 'It's too early
to say,' he said when pressed if the administration has ruled
out U.S. troops as peacekeepers. 'You have to let the process
work, you have to get to a situation where there's a climate
of security without attack so the partners can truly negotiate.'"
If the Bushites were "committed to the peace process," they would demand Israel dismantle its settlements in the
occupied territories, stop killing Palestinian children, stop
economically strangulating the Palestinian people, and agree
on the right of return. As it now stands, Lugar simply wants
to unleash American soldiers to kill Hamas -- the terrorist
organization funded by Israel -- and other Palestinian radicals.
You can bet they won't be shooting crazed settlers who routinely
murder Palestinians and destroy their property (or steal their
"The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
[Lugar] said that U.S. forces may have to help root out terrorism
in the Middle East conflict between Israel and the Palestinians," says rightwing nut case Rush
Limbaugh. "He singled out Hamas. Everybody knew this
was going to happen. When this Road Map to Peace meeting took
place -- with Israel, Egypt, America, Jordan and the new Palestinian
PM saying 'yes' to peace -- these Hamas guys balked. They
don't want 'peace.' They want every last Jew dead or pushed
into the sea."
Limbaugh, of course, is a Stepford zombie for the Zionists
who not only control Congress, but drive Bushite foreign policy.
The Likudites will never allow a Palestinian state to exist
-- maybe an impoverished series of disconnected Bantustans but never a state. In fact, Hamas was nurtured by Israel for
the express purpose of wrecking any sincere movement toward
peace and a two state solution to the conflict.
"The objectives of Hamas dovetail with those of the Likud,
no settlement at all costs," writes Paul
Joseph Watson. "Whenever the prospect of a workable
peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians arises,
Hamas or one of their offshoots blows a bus, restaurant or
a hotel to pieces. This gives Israel the justification needed
to scupper any agreement and further entrench their occupation
of disputed lands. All the outsider sees is carnage, death
and a mainstream media that spins the issue so that these
atrocities somehow represent the wishes of the Palestinian
"Israel and Hamas may currently be locked in deadly combat,
but, according to several current and former U.S. intelligence
officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct
and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years," notes Richard
Bush and crew are attempting to pull
a fast one over on us in regard to the Iranian demonstrations.
According to Payvand's
Iran News, the demonstrations held last week in Tehran
were in opposition to privatization. "Demonstrations
were held at Tehran University dormitory on Tuesday and Wednesday
nights in protest against a plan to privatize the universities...
Minister of Science and Technology unveiled a plan to privatize
universities requiring the students to pay tuition fees causing
dismay among the students who could not afford to. The Constitution
has envisaged free education for the public and the government
is responsible for running the administration of universities
and provide fund for them in addition to benefits for the
"Our policy is to encourage people to demonstrate for
their views," Secretary of State Colin
Powell told reporters during a visit to Cambodia.
Oh, I see. Collin Powell is against the privatization of Iranian
"I appreciate those courageous souls who speak out for freedom
in Iran," said Dubya recently. "They need to know America
stands squarely by their side. And I would urge the Iranian
administration to treat them with the utmost of respect."
"If multinational interests are served, then no amount
of popular unrest, nor vote rigging -- not even civil war
-- will serve as credible evidence that a 'democracy' is a
sham. If corporate interests aren't served, no amount of civil
accord, prosperity, and popular support qualifies the government
as 'democratic,'" writes Richard
"A serious and explicit purpose of our foreign policy [is]
the encouragement of a hospitable climate for investment in
foreign nations," Dwight Eisenhower noted a few decades
Monday, June 16, 2003
"A helicopter patrols as a U.S. soldier mans a machine gun
during a raid at Khaldiyah, 70 kms (40 miles) west of Baghdad, Iraq
(news - web sites), Monday June 16, 2003. Hundreds of U.S. troops
backed by tanks and helicopters raided several cities and villages
on the second day of 'Operation Desert Scorpion', arresting suspected
militia leaders and seizing illegal weapons. (AP Photo/Saurabh Das)"
More like "Operation Futile," since the Iraqis will never
give up resisting the presence of American soldiers in their country.
Vietnam revisited, anyone?
Spent five days hiking and relaxing in southern Utah and Taos, New
Mexico. I only tuned in the news twice. Of course, there's a whole
lot of catching up to do...
As the unelected one vacationed with the rich in Kennebunkport,
Operation Destabilize Iran moved forward. As "pro-democracy" protestors went in the streets in Tehran, Bush
said, "This is the beginning of people expressing themselves
toward a free Iran which I think is positive." Of course, when
protestors went in the streets in America in opposition to Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq, he termed millions of Americans as little
more than a "focus group."
"Well, a regime change that comes through the democratic processes
of Iran, through the students and the young people taking charge
-- now, how all that comes about, I don't know," Sen. Richard Lugar,
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the Bush
Ministry of Disinformation, otherwise known as Fox News, on Sunday.
I guess Lugar doesn't know a whole lot about the CIA and the long
and sordid history of US involvement in over-throwing governments,
even democratically elected governments, as it did in Iran back
in the early 50s.
Lugar also told Fox the US should attack Hamas, the Israeli funded
terrorists organization. If we are to believe Lugar, the Israelis
are incapable of dealing with Hamas themselves, even though they
receive billions in military aid from the US every year.
"Lugar said such a force could be used to quell Israeli and
Palestinian disputes, 'and, maybe even more important, to root out
the terrorism that is at the heart of the problem,'" Fox
reported. In other words, Lugar wants to help Israel attack
the Palestinians, many of who see no alternative to Israeli occupation
of their land and the systematic destruction of their culture and
political organizations than armed resistance. Obviously, Lugar
believes US soldiers should help the Zionist state kill rock throwing
pre-teens. "It may not be just Hamas but clearly Hamas is right
in the gunsights," Lugar said. Clearly, it's the entire Palestinian
people in the gunsights. "But clearly, if force is required ultimately
to root out terrorism, it is possible there would be American participation."
In other words, killing Iraqis is not enough for these rabid rightwing
nut cases and supporters of Zionist murder schemes -- now US soldiers
must kill Palestinians as well.
"It is not clear how many Iraqis were killed [in Operation
Peninsula Strike in central Iraq]. On Friday a US spokesman said
27 Iraqis had been killed after a group of fighters fired rocket-propelled
grenades at a tank, although officers on the ground gave a much
lower figure. The Americans counter-attacked with Bradley fighting
vehicles and Apache helicopters. Although there have been very
few guerrilla attacks, US troops are responding to any perceived
threat by immediate use of their overwhelming firepower," writes Patrick
Cockburn for the UK Independent.
Sounds like Vietnam.
"The official American reports of the search operation chillingly
resemble those issued at the height of the Vietnam war, with all
the dead described as enemy combatants."
And for those who live through the Bush version of "liberation," there's the neocon plan for Iraq. "Rather than rebuilding,
the country is treated as a blank slate on which the Washington's
neo-liberals can design their dream economy: fully privatized, foreign-owned
and open for business," writes M
Abdul Hafiz. "The United States' Agency for International
Development has already invited US multi-nationals to bid on anything
from rebuilding roads and bridges to distributing textbooks. The
length of time these contracts will last remains unspecified. So
pervasive is its scope. There is a real chance that the reconstruction
turn into privatization in disguise."
Of course, this is hardly anything new -- it's what multinational
corporations have done for years in the Third World with the assistance
of the US government, the IMF, and the World Bank. "Wealthy
countries and the World Bank are forcing the privatization of public
services and natural resources in Africa and elsewhere as a condition
for development assistance," notes the Halifax
Initiative. "Impoverished countries are required to turn
their public services and natural resources over to private owners.
If they want the aid money, they have to sell off their oil, gas,
mining, electricity, telecommunications, transportation and water
Not long ago, these international "supply-side" gangsters
got their way through bribery and corruption. "If corruption
is growing throughout the world, it is largely a result of the rapid
privatization (and associated practices of contracting-out and concessions)
of public enterprises worldwide," Sue
Hawley wrote in 2000. "This process has been pushed by
western creditors and governments and carried out in such as way
as to allow multinational companies to operate with increased impunity."
Now the idea seems to be that a "blank slate" must be
created -- i.e., bomb 'em back to a pre-industrial condition --
and the Third World must be rebuilt from scratch for the benefit
of western investors and multinational corporations. "The investors
are already openly predicting that once privatization takes root
in Iraq -- Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait will all be forced to
compete by privatizing their oil," Hafiz notes. "Pretty
soon US may have bombed its way in a whole new free trade zone...
A people starved and sickened by sanction, then pulverized by war
is going to emerge from the trauma to find that their country had
been sold out from under them. They will also discover that their
new-found 'freedom' -- for which so many of their loved ones perished
-- comes pre-shackled by irreversible economic decision that were
made in board rooms while the bombs were still falling."
Finally, Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that
it will not allow "tougher, short-notice inspections of suspected
nuclear sites," according to the BBC.
Bush yes man, ElBaradei, "said Tehran's co-operation would
enable the IAEA 'to provide credible assurances regarding the peaceful
nature' of the country's nuclear program."
In other words, anybody who develops a nuclear program -- except
the US, Europeans, and Israel -- will use slap together a passel
of nukes and start killing people en masse. This is hypocrisy with
a capital "H" of course, since the US is the only nation
to have nuked anybody, mostly innocent civilians.
Iran has all the right in the world to develop nukes considering
Israel has about 400 of them and Bush is not calling for Israel
to give them up, let alone declare them.
Sunday, June 8, 2003
Here's what happens when you violate a traffic
law in Baghdad. Imagine this happening in America.
How long would it be before you called for the
overthrow of the government if soldiers pointed
automatic weapons in your face for making an illegal
turn? How long do you think the Iraqis will put
up with this before they begin resistance in earnest?
"Officials of the U.S.-led coalition authority
said yesterday they expect the drafting of a new
Iraqi constitution to get under way within weeks,
even as they cautioned that Iraq is not yet ready
for a full-scale democracy," reports the
Times. "Aspiring Iraqi political leaders
have disagreed with the coalition approach with
increasing vehemence, saying that Iraqis are indeed
ready to begin producing a constitution and a
government of their own. They would like to see
American troops and U.S. and British civilian
overseers withdraw as quickly as possible."
No chance. The Bushite "creative" destructionists never intended to "liberate" the Iraqis and allow them to set up their own
government. It was simply a facade designed for
PR purposes, another Bush administration lie.
These folks don't believe in democracy -- not
in Iraq or anywhere else.
"If Bush really cared about Mideast democracy,
he's had two years to do something about U.S.-sponsored
dictatorships like Egypt and Pakistan, or medieval autocracies such as Morocco, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia and America's Gulf protectorates," writes Eric
Margolis. "Bush's war is not about democracy,
weapons of mass destruction, human rights, or
terrorism. It has two main motivations. First,
the Manifest Destiny crowd in Washington, led
by VP Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld... Their intention is perfectly clear:
1) prevent any nation ever challenging U.S. global
hegemony; 2) dominate oil. The aggression against
Iraq is not about oil per se, it is about control
of oil... The second driving force is Israel's
far-right Likud government, many of whose ideas
have come to dominate Bush administration policy
and US media commentary on the Mideast."
Iraq was a warm-up, a test run for the real target
of the Bush Likudites -- Iran. "But for all
the propaganda about wicked Saddam, Iraq is not
the main objective for the small but powerful
coterie of Pentagon hardliners driving the Bush
administration's national security policy," writes Margolis elsewhere. "Nor is it for their intellectual
and emotional peers in Israel's right-wing Likud
party. The real target of the coming war is
Iran, which Israel views as its principal and
most dangerous enemy. Iraq merely serves as
a pretext to whip America into a war frenzy and
to justify insertion of large numbers of US troops
"Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donnie Rumsfeld,
Richard Armitage, Elliot Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad
and other up and coming War Criminals are anxious
to set things right with Iran," writes John
Stanton. "It is Iran's turn to be subjected
to the 21st Century version of Nazi Germany's
Blitzkrieg, that being the murderous American
Shock and Awe campaign created by leading War
Ullman... Between April of 2003 and November
2004, the US, UK and Israel will accelerate instability
operations in Iran and engage in global disinformation
campaigns to belittle the political and military
leadership there... Iran now finds itself pinned
on all sides by pro-US, UK forces. Operation Liberate
Iran will take place using the same strategy and
tactics employed in the Massacre of Iraq. Iran
has few options. One, is the acceleration of
their nuclear program and a successful test or
demonstration of a nuclear device."
This is why the Bushites are hot to trot on the
Mujahideen e Khalq (MEK) terrorists. "Senior
Pentagon officials are proposing widespread covert
operations against the government in Iran, hoping
that dissident groups will mount a coup before
the regime acquires a nuclear weapon," the
Telegraph reports. "There are some who see
the overthrow of the regime as the only way to
deal with the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear
weapon," said one government official with close
links to the White House. "But there's not going
to be another war. The idea is to destabilize
from inside. No one's talking about invading anywhere."
Not yet, anyway.
"After Saddam Husseinās regime has been toppled,
do not expect the current administration to make
any serious attempt at establishing a democratic
government," predicts John
Griffiths. "Democratic governments are
far too difficult to control by foreign interests.
The uncertainties of the democratic process are
very often not compatible with corporate timetables.
As has been done in Afghanistan, in Iraq (and
later in Iran) the Bush administration will
encourage a state of controllable semi-chaos in
each country. Ethnic minorities must never
be given independence because they would be far
too cohesive. Rival factions and even some factions
overtly hostile to the occupation will be allowed
to remain at large. This serves the dual purpose
of preventing the establishment of a popular democratic
government and provides on-going justification
for an American military presence. Minor firefights
and skirmishes in the countryside will also divert
media attention from corporate activities."
But that imposed chaos will not be easy in Iran.
"Iranians are more nationalistic than Iraqis
and less divided along ethnic and religious lines," writes Cameron
Kamran. "Moreover, they have a long history,
stretching back to the Tobacco Revolt of 1890,
of uniting to oppose foreign intervention. We
must remember the Iranian revolution was waged
by a coalition of opposition groups united not
by religious devotion but by their intense opposition
to the autocracy of the shah."
Iran will not be a cakewalk. On the domestic front,
Bush is coming under increasingly intense fire
for the obvious lies he spun as a pretext for
the invasion of Iraq. The not so covert war against
the government of Iran by the MEK will be a failure
and direct US military intervention will be required
-- and chances are Congress will not write another
blank check for invasion, that is not without
the appropriate excuse. Iran's attempts to build
a nuclear weapons program will probably not scare
Congress into backing another invasion, nor will
the illusory threat of al-Qaeda cozying up to
the mullahs. Something more ominous will need
to emerge in the weeks ahead.
Saturday, June 7, 2003
now clear the International Atomic Energy Agency
is a whore and its pimp is the Bushite neocons.
On June 6 the IAEA released a report indicated
the evil Iranians are building nuclear facilities
"that could give it a variety of technological
options for the production of nuclear weapons," warns the Gray Lady of Propaganda, otherwise known
as the ethically challenged New
York Times. " The disclosure of plans
for the reactor -- a type often associated with
production of plutonium for nuclear weapons programs
-- could compound existing worries in Western
capitals about Iranian intentions." In other
words, the diabolical mullahs of Iran want nukes
and they can't be trusted not to use them. Never
mind that the only nuclear power in the Middle
East is Israel and the Iranians have good reason
to fear the Israelis, who make no secret of their
desire to get rid of the present government and
install one of their liking in Teheran.
"With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons
and a sophisticated delivery system, Israel has
quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 5th
Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival
France and China in the size and sophistication
of its nuclear arsenal," notes John
Steinbach. "Possessing chemical and biological
weapons, an extremely sophisticated nuclear arsenal,
and an aggressive strategy for their actual
use, Israel provides the major regional impetus
for the development of weapons of mass destruction
and represents an acute threat to peace and stability
in the Middle East."
Of course, you will never read about this in the
New York Times.
The IAEA General Conference has placed Israeli
nuclear capabilities and threat on its agenda
since at least 1998. "Whereas all Arab States
have acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, Israel continues to defy the
international community by refusing to become
a party to the Treaty or to place all its installations
under the Agency's comprehensive safeguards, thus
upsetting the balance needed to achieve peace
in the region and exposing the region to nuclear
danger," writes the IAEA.
"Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is
likely to lead to a destructive nuclear arms race
in the region, especially when Israel's nuclear
installations remain outside any international
"The report by the IAEA follows a visit by
senior officials of the U.N. agency, including
Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, in February
to two facilities in central Iran, identified
last year by an Iranian exile group as being part
of a nuclear weapons effort," reports VOA.
"We think the report, and Iran's programs themselves,
are deeply troubling, and need to be studied carefully
by all members, and then we need to look at it
seriously together," said the State Department's
Richard Boucher. "Iran's clandestine nuclear program
represents a serious challenge to regional stability,
the entire international community, and to the
global non-proliferation regime."
In other words, the US will ignore what the IAEA
said about Israel's nukes and concentrate on Iran,
the next target on the Bush hit list. Moreover,
for the following reasons, the US does not want
any discussion of Israel's nukes.
"One other purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons,
not often stated, but obvious, is their 'use'
on the United States. America does not want Israel's
nuclear profile raised," writes Warner
D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army. "They have been
used in the past to ensure America does not desert
Israel under increased Arab, or oil embargo, pressure
and have forced the United States to support Israel
diplomatically against the Soviet Union. Israel
used their existence to guarantee a continuing
supply of American conventional weapons, a
policy likely to continue."
ćOur armed forces are not the thirtieth strongest
in the world, but rather the second or third," writes Martin
Van Crevel. "Israel has the capability
of hitting most European capitals with nuclear
weapons. We have the capability to take the world
down with us. And I can assure you that this will
happen before Israel goes under."
"Perhaps with a dedicated and credible deterrence,
the Europeans selling weapons [to the Arabs] will
make some effort, along with American Arabists,
to have the Arab nations stand down their plans
which call for the destruction of Israel and its
replacement by an Islamic State," notes Masada2000.
"Perhaps the supplying nations, in their
greed for future sales and the protection of the
oil fields, will make an effort to dampen the
Jihad (Holy War) enthusiasms of their Arab clients.
However, should the Arabs decide to launch their
final Jihad against the Jewish State, it's only
fair that these weapons' supplying nations also
'Share the Pain.'" In other words, Israel
will nuke them.
Not mentioned here is the fact Israel wanted to
sell AWACS to the Chinese. "The sale had
been in the works since 1996 and proceeded smoothly
until fall 1999, when reports surfaced that the
Pentagon objected to the sale of such sophisticated
technology to China," FAS reported. "Israeli officials at first refused
consider the American request to cancel the sale.
It took more than half a year of intense pressure,
including unofficial sanctions and threats to
further withhold certain types of U.S. technology,
before Israel was forced to abandon the sale."
"The Pentagon has claimed since the mid-1980's
that Israel simply copies or reverse engineers
secret US defense technology and then exports
it -- even on occasion, its is whispered, to Russia," observes Eric
S. Margolis. "Until now, Israel's influential
friends on Capitol Hill managed to downplay or
cover up these serious charges."
Israel also sold arms to Iran. "Although
secrecy is the first principle in the netherworld
of arms trading, details of several subsequent
major Israeli arms sales to Iran have come to
light," reports Jane
Hunter. "In 1981, Ya'acov Nimrodi, an
intimate of leaders across the Israeli political
spectrum, sold the Iranian defense ministry $135,842,000
worth of Hawk anti-aircraft missiles, 155 mm.
mortars, ammunition, and other weapons through
his Tel Aviv-based company, International Desalination
Equipment, Ltd... The US government has avoided
dealing head-on in public with the Israeli government
over this issue."
So when will Martin Van Crevel demand Tel Aviv
Incidentally, tomorrow is the 36th anniversary
of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. Do you
think the New York Times will be running a front
page article to remind us how the Israelis are
Meanwhile, the Bushites are stepping up their
efforts to destabilize Iran.
"According to the Washington
Times, Pentagon officials have been meeting
quietly with Mahmud Ali Chehregani, who heads
the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakeness Movement
(SANAM, also known by the acronym GAMOH). SANAM
operates inside Iran, in the Iranian province
of Azerbaijan -- a region separate from the country
of Azerbaijan, the former Soviet republic on Iran's
northern border. Defense officials emphasized
their meetings were not aimed at supporting or
encouraging a change in Iran's government, according
to the Times. It is hard to believe such an assertion."
It sure is.
Moreover, the Bushites are courting some pretty
unsavory types in their effort to overturn the
government of Iran. "Iranian opposition groups
seeking Washington's help to oust the country's
Islamic theocracy could be as dangerous as the
regime they want overturned, say Middle East experts
who urge lawmakers to think twice before funding
exiles in the United States," reports Fox.
"In fact, one opposition group busy lobbying
Capitol Hill serves as an umbrella to an organization
listed on the State Departmentās list of terrorist
groups, and until Operation Iraqi Freedom began,
was sheltered by none other than ousted Iraqi
dictator Saddam Hussein."
But then Fox should know Saddam was Uncle Sham's
boy -- brought to power by the CIA -- and al-Qaeda
was organized and funded by the CIA in the 1980s.
"Some lawmakers have suggested aiding the
National Council of Resistance of Iran, which
has been lobbying intensely on and off Capitol
Hill for support in overthrowing the fundamentalist
regime in Iran. But NCRI faces serious questions
about its legitimacy. One of its member groups
is the People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran,
also known as the Mujahedin e-Khalq. MEK is listed
on the State Departmentās official list of terrorist
organizations, and has been blamed for supporting
the U.S. embassy takeover and overthrow of the
Shah in 1979."
Wednesday, June 4, 2003
"US Army combat engineers using
bulldozers, backhoes and loaders dug through a rubble-filled
crater on Tuesday in an effort to determine whether
Saddam Hussein died in an airstrike on the house where
he was believed to be hiding," writes the Sydney
Morning Herald. "It was not immediately clear
what sparked the sudden new interest in finding his
Let's see... they either have nothing better to do or
they want to demonstrate to the Iraqis that Saddam is
dead and resistance is futile. Believe it or not, there's
a lot of Iraqis who think Saddam will mount attacks
on the US and Brits and take back the country.
"An intelligence report received by the American
Central Intelligence Agency has disclosed on the authority
of their secret sources that the deposed Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein is still alive and has formed a new secret
leadership in preparation for waging a Vietnam-style
guerrilla war against American forces to be launched
next 17 July with 40,000 fighters," the Free
Arab Voice reported late last month. "The UAE
newspaper 'al-Bayan' reported on the authority of information
that has reached 'al-Watan al-'Arabi' that Saddam Hussein
has designated 17 July of this year as the date on which
the great jihad will begin. In addition to the symbolic
significance of this date, preparations should be completed
by that time."
"We're [in Iraq] to kick ass and we don't want folks
to think they can get away with murder, so let them
think the Marines are prepared to top 'em all if they
step out of line," Lt. Col Erik Grobowski of the Marines
told the Telegraph.
Ah, yes. Hearts and minds.
"Lt Col Zangas [civil affairs officer with the
Marines], 43, who studied journalism at college, would
rather his underlings exercise their new-found freedom
on rather more simple and helpful items such as an amnesty
call for arms to be handed into the military, an
edited version of the Koran, an information bulletin
on the harvest season and a warning that the military
will be destroying unexploded ordnance at the airfield
Oh, I'm sure the Muslims in Iraq are tickled about the
idea of "editing" their holy book. Imagine
Muslims traveling to the so-called Bible-belt in the
US and demanding the New Testament be edited. They'd
be run out of town on a rail -- or killed outright and
dumped in a ravine somewhere.
"By next Monday, if we don't have results [concerning
the joblessness of Iraqi military officers], we will
form a new Iraqi army, called the Armed Front Against
the Occupation," Maj. Assam Hussein Il Naem, who said
he represents about 160 officer, told the Christian
Science Monitor. "New attacks against the occupiers
will be governed by us. We know we will have the approval
of the Iraqi people."
"We are demonstrating now because the Americans didn't
fulfill what they promised in the pamphlets they dropped
on the ground before the war," said Brig. Amer Abdul
Ameer, "I will be the first to carry out military attacks
on the Americans."
Bush's occupation is crumbling by the day. How long
before outraged Iraqis take to the streets in numbers
and begin challenging the Americans? How long would
you wait if foreigners invaded your town, you didn't
or clean drinking water, and your kids were suffering
"The domestic repercussions of [the bogus WMD claims
of Bush and Blair] continue in London and Washington,
but the reaction in Iraq is far more ominous," writes Robert
Fisk. "New graffiti on the wall of the slums
of Baghdad's Sadr City (formerly Saddam City) which
I saw on Wednesday tells its own story. 'Threaten the
Americans with suicide killings,' it said bleakly."
Photo: Sean Hannity. Somebody should
tell him it's time to start telling the truth about
Radio talkshow host and propaganda miester for the Ministry
of Bush Disinformation, Sean Hannity, likes to tell
his devoted listeners that the invasion of Iraq was
all about freedom and liberation. In July, he will host
an event at Six Flags Great Adventure theme park in
Jackson, New Jersey, for "the Hannity Scholarship
Fund, benefiting the children of those military men
and women to those that gave the ultimate sacrifice
for their country and to those also wounded during the
call of duty," according to his website.
"It features a live broadcast of Sean's show followed
by a concert with country stars Sara Evans and the Charlie
Daniels Band, Darryl Worley and with special guest,
I suppose it's appropriate for Hannity to have Iran-Contra
criminals and rednecks who sling mud at antiwar demonstrators
at his gig. Even so, Hannity should start telling the
truth about the Iraq invasion -- it was about oil, stupid.
"Oil was the main reason for military action against
Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming
the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war," reports the Guardian.
"The US deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz...
has now gone further by claiming the real motive was
that Iraq is 'swimming' in oil... Asked why a nuclear
power such as North Korea was being treated differently
from Iraq, where hardly any weapons of mass destruction
had been found, the deputy defense minister said: 'Let's
look at it simply. The most important difference between
North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had
no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil'...
Mr Wolfowitz's frank assessment of the importance of
oil could not come at a worse time for the US and UK
governments, which are both facing fierce criticism
at home and abroad over allegations that they exaggerated
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to justify
Of course, he only admitted to half of it -- the other
half is Israel. But we shouldn't expect any speeches
fessing up to Wolfie's dual allegiance any time soon.
In regard to the oil admission, millions of antiwar
demonstrators were right on the money in their assessments.
Hannity and Limbaugh and all the other Bush apologists
and lie spinners were dead wrong -- the Iraq invasion
had nothing to do with WMD, or freedom and "liberation," and it had everything to do with stealing oil and mercenary
work for Israel.
Martha Stewart. Yawn. Are you distracted yet?
As news of Bush's desire to declare war -- or rather
invasion -- on substantial parts of the world unfolds,
the Neocon Propaganda Ministry (a.k.a. Fox News) wastes
bandwidth and the public airwaves (well, the public
once owned them, now megacorps do, even more so, thanks
to Colin Powell's son) babbling about a spoiled and
essentially washed up television prima donna, Martha
Stewart. It appears the "domestic taste-maker" will be "indicted in an insider-trading scandal
that grew from her close relationship with the disgraced
head of biotech firm ImClone Systems Inc." Really,
who cares? If anybody should be standing in the docket,
it's Bush's buddy and Enron master criminal, Kenny Boy
Lay. In fact, Bush should be answering more than a few
hard questions about his own shady dealings and stock
irregularities. In the old days (say when Slick Willie
was president), Congress would get up in arms over a
little oral sex in the Oval Office. Now? You can bomb
a country into a pre-industrial condition and people
want to kiss your feet.
"The United States is said to be developing new
plans for a war in North Korean that would bypass the
demilitarized zone dividing the two Koreas and target
the leadership in Pyongyang," reports the Sydney
Morning Herald. "The plan is based on the success
of US-led forces in Iraq in quickly reaching the capital,
Oh, I see. So Bush will attempt to bribe the Korean
military the same way he bribed the Republican Guard?
Sorry, Dubya. I don't think it will work. If the demented
neocons try to attack North Korea, there will be hell
to pay -- North Korea has an estimated 11,000 pieces
of artillery aimed at the South Korean capital, Seoul,
only 50 kilometers from the demilitarized zone. Kim
Jung-il is crazed enough to use them, too. But then,
really, Bush and Crew don't care about the death of
thousands of Koreans anymore than they cared about the
death of average Iraqis -- or, for that matter, the
duped kids of America who joined the military and will
now have to pay with Gulf War Syndrome II.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, "battle-hardened troops of
the US army's 3rd Infantry Division will be sent into
Falluja and Habaniya, west of Baghdad. The troops, who
led the invasion of Iraq and the capture of Baghdad,
will be backed up by 88 Abrams tanks and 44 Bradley
fighting vehicles," according to the Guardian.
"They will saturate the area with checkpoints and
conduct search operations, targeting Ba'ath party supporters
and other militias from the towns."
Translation: everybody who lives in and around Falluja
and Habaniya will be subjected to having their doors
kicked in and Israeli-like checkpoints set up. How long
before the suicide bombers come out of the woodwork?
How many US soldiers and Iraqis will have to die before
the Bushites realize the obvious -- this occupation
is a disaster.
"Military intelligence officers now say they do
not think the opposition is centrally coordinated [in
Falluja], so they are opting for a softer 'carrot-and-stick'
approach that seeks to undercut support for the guerrillas," the LA
Regrettably, these idiots didn't learn a thing in Vietnam
-- it's impossible to defeat an enemy motivated by hatred
for foreigners who occupy their land. They will fight
As if to make sure there's more than enough pissed off
Iraqis, the Bushites will soon "hand out pink slips
to nearly half a million Iraqi military and civilian
personnel, exacerbating an unemployment crisis that
experts say could slow the pace of postwar reconstruction," writes the LA
Times. " The layoffs will mean the loss of
a government paycheck for roughly 1 in 10 Iraqi workers.
The Bush administration hopes to soften the blow by
making cash "termination payments" to members of Saddam
Hussein's armed forces, Information Ministry employees
and other government workers whose services are no longer
wanted. The amount of the payments had not been announced."
That's because the amount will be squat.
Do you think that will be another half million people
who will fill the streets demanding the US go home?
Or maybe the Bushites expect them to stay home and watch
TV -- that is if they have electricity.
"Where will those people be working? Where will they
go? To the grave? To the street to live?" asked Saad
Hamdani, soon to be former head of the foreign affairs
branch of the Information Ministry's international department.
No, a whole lot of them will fight the Americans.