Concluding his final meeting with world leaders at the G8 summit, U.S. President George W. Bush pumped his fist into the air and boldly announced, “Goodbye from the world’s biggest polluter.”

Probably thinking he was being amusing, Bush got no props from the other world leaders who stood by with looks of shock on their faces.

It’s well known around the world that Bush cares little for the environmental well being of this (or probably any other) planet. He unilaterally withdrew the US from any kind of climate action treaties upon taking office and spent the first 6 years denying that the world faced any real threat from manmade pollution. He purposfully degraded the EPA and made attempts to politicize its findings. And when the EPA sent the president an e-mail report decrying the problems with greenhouse gas pollutants, Bush just ignored them altogether. He didn’t even open the report. 

As if to punctuate his public “Fuck Off World” message he left the G8 leaders with, US lawmakers announced today that no efforts to tackle greenhouse emissions will occur until AFTER Bush leaves office. This is a tacit acceptance by the EPA that Bush will only delay or deny efforts to reduce greenhouse pollution while still at the helm.

Here’s to hoping that all of Bush’s future progeny are born with extra limbs and deformed gonads.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Bush, ever the tough guy, took little time in labeling North Korea as a terrorist state, blacklisting them from international trade and aid and further isolating the reclusive regime-all in an effort to force the hand of Kim Jong-Il to give up his nukes. Yet instead of capitulating after admitting they had been ignoring the 1994 agreement, North Korea put their nuclear program on the fast track and out in the open, and finalized the process by detonating a nuclear device during the reign of George W. Bush. Arguably, while Clinton may have had the wool pulled over his eyes to North Korea’s true intent regarding its nuclear program, Bush watched whit eyes wide open as they advanced from a nuclear wannabe to a nuclear power. Indeed, it is perhaps the openly belligerent attitude of Bush that may have increased the North Korean nuclear timeline.

Yet now that North Korea has returned to the table to continue talks about their program, Bush has done a complete 180 degree turnabout, removed them from a US list of terrorist states, and approved aid to that country. And what has North Korea done to deserve this reward? Turns out that they haven’t done much at all. They’ve released details on some of their nuclear activities and programs and they blew up a building. And this after stalling for years. But the evidence that they intend to stop their nuclear program is no stronger now than it was after the 1994 agreement was signed, and yet Team Bush acts like its solved a major crisis in Asia.

The Clinton agreement was based on trust, and it turned out that trusting the regime in North Korea was not a wise choice. Without verification, that trust was misplaced and North Korea continued to work on their nuclear program while accepting the gifts that came with the agreement to stop those actions. The Bush doctrine in North Korea has been to end all US aid and brand the nation a rogue terror state. Remember that under Clinton, North Korea was still a fledgling nuclear hopeful working at a slow pace. Under Bush, their nuclear efforts were expanded and accelerated and they finally got a working nuclear bomb. Under Bush, North Korea got the power they wanted. And under Bush, they have used this power to get what they wanted-US aid, removal from the list of terrorist states. In return, they have provided relatively little and we have no evidence they have stopped anything.

Bush may claim that his “tough guy” approach actually got North Korea to come back to the table for talks. I dismiss this. Bush’s “tough guy” mentality just gave North Korea the push to finish their bomb project. Now that they have a nuclear weapon, they hold more cards than ever before, and Bush, trying to eke some success out of his mangled tenure somewhere, is ready to call it a day and claim Mission Accomplished.  But when it comes to North Korea, or any reclusive regime, what we know and what we think we know are always going to be very different things. And what they say and what they do will be too.

Clinton’s path of engagement didn’t stop the North Korean nuclear program, but it slowed it up while trying to open the country through humanitarian assistance. Bush’s path of belligerence brought to the world an uptick in North Korean nuclear program development and a nuclear armed North Korea, and now he is giving them humanitarian aid too. Pretending that his agreement is more valid, more enforceable, and more effective than the 1994 agreement is laughable at best.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Most of the world has known, and accepted, that the Bush Administration “cooked the intel” with regards to Iraq and forced the United States into a war of choice that has cost far more in money and lives than we were expected to accept. In proving that they are only several years behind the curve, the U.S. Senate today issued a report that blames the Bush Administration of leading the nation into war under false pretenses.

The long-delayed Senate study supported previous reports and findings that the administration’s main cases for war — that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was spreading them to terrorists — were inaccurate and deeply flawed.

“The president and his advisors undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the (September 11) attacks to use the war against al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” said Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia in written commentary on the report.

At the same time, a British newspaper is today reporting on a secret deal between the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government that, if agreed to and signed, would keep the United States in Iraq indefinitely with more than 50 military bases, allow the US to conduct military campaigns against “terrorists” without Iraqi authority, keep control of Iraqi airspace, and offer immunity from Iraqi law for all Americans working in that country, whether employed by the US government directly or through one of its mercenary 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.

Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

Of course, immediately on the heels of the article in The Independent, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq comes out with the denials. Which is why we know that this “secret plan” as revealed is more truth than not.

“I’m very comfortable saying to you, to the Iraqis, to anyone who asks, that, no indeed, we are not seeking permanent bases, either explicitly or implicitly,” Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker said at a State Department news briefing.

Translation: Yes, this is exactly what we’re trying to do, and if it weren’t for you darn kids and your stupid dog we’d have gotten away with it.

Iraqi politicians and Iraqi’s in general seem to be opposed to any such deal, and US officials fear that if the plan is put to a general referrendum it will fail.

Public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Iraqis also widely view the U.S. insistence that American troops continue to enjoy immunity under Iraqi law as an infringement on national sovereignty. (msnbc.com)

Which could explain why the Iraqi government is being put under great pressure to finalize this deal in the coming months. With a signed accord in hand, Bush could not only claim (once again) Mission Accomplished, but he could tie the hands of the next president by agreeing to a long term treaty.

Or would he?

Although almost every precedent Bush has engaged in has been unsavory at best and un-American at worst, he has initiated a precedent for ignoring treaties signed by past US administrations that could be useful in this case. Clearly, following the lead set by Bush, our next President could duly bypass any Bush-signed treaties that would bind us to Iraq for several generations. We already know what McCain thinks-he’s happy to keep us embroiled in Iraq for another 100 years. But a President Obama might just decide that any Iraq treaty engineered by Team Bush and coerced through a reluctant Iraqi government isn’t worth the toilet paper its written on. He’d be right too.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

Even Republicans, who for at least the last 8 years have operated under a “shoot first, negotiate never” policy, are starting to come around to the old adage we’re taught on the schoolyard- try to solve your problems first with words and not fists.

And it’s not as if a president who talks with America’s stated foes is a new concept here. Kennedy and Khrushchev. Nixon and Mao. Reagan and Gorbachev. Hell, two of those guys were Republicans! Yet once the GOP got a frat boy into the Oval Office, we don’t talk to enemies? Better to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran than to have a sit down? Again, most Americans don’t think so…

If anything, this poll indicates that Americans are tiring of the “cowboy diplomacy” employed by the Bush Administration and being co-opted by the McCain campaign as the best way to move America forward in the world. Even Hillary Clinton has towed the Bush-McCain doctrine in this arena. Americans are ready to move on to a more cooperative, more adult-oriented, more reality based foreign policy, and clearly McCain isn’t on the same page.

But Barack Obama has already said that talking to our enemies is the best first step towards solving our problems. And Americans agree with him.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

“Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without
passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former
President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that
America is open for business and cooperation again,” Clinton said.

Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America’s reputation by the current president — Bush’s son, George W. Bush. – CNN Political Ticker

Now you’d think that Bill Clinton, the consumate campaigner, would know better than to say something like this unless he knew it to be true. And since he’s the husband of the candidate, we can assume that he’s not just shooting from the hip. Further consider that Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush have previously teamed up in recent years to provide help to victims of the tsunami in SE Asia in 2005 and to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina. It’s not a far stretch to think that if asked by the next president to go forth and reverse the disaster marked course laid out by W, that these two elder statesmen would do just that.

But the real zinger here is the fact that Bush the elder hasn’t come forth and quieted the not-so-subliminal message that he’s less than pleased with the work of his progeny. In fact, the only statement of any kind from the GOP is this from the RNC:

“In 2009, a Republican president will be working with our friends and allies
abroad to continue to keep our nation safe,” said RNC spokesman Danny Diaz. “The
American people expect our leaders — both current and former — to present
serious solutions to the very real challenges confronting our nation.”

Some may look at this statement and say, “What? They are expecting a republican to win the election.” Perhaps. But this statement could also be construed to reflect the message from Bill Clinton. Indeed, a former republican president could be working with friends and allies…

For the Clinton campaign, such a move could be a clear sign that she is worried about a general election run, where she has few fans in the GOP electorate, and not a stellar reputation among DEMs either. By offering to send her famously popular husband, former president Bill Clinton and a famously experienced former GOP president abroad to help fix the mess that W made, she is telling both sides that her administration would seek to bring balanced sanity back into the White House.

It’s a bold ploy for sure, inviting the father of the current president into her camp. It’s surreal that this “invitation” hasn’t been refused.

Then again, maybe Bush Sr. is just trying to find a way to salvage the family image…..

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

“I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action
against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,” Lieberman
told Bob Schieffer. “And to me, that would include a strike into… over the
border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which
they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers.”

If the U.S. does not act against Iran, “they’ll take that as a sign of
weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region
and ultimately right here at home,” Lieberman said.

He said that he has seen evidence that the Iranians are supplying
insurgents and foreign fighters in Iraq.

“We can tell them we want them to stop that, but if there’s any hope of
the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for
instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,”
Lieberman said. “If they don’t play by the rules, we’ve got to use our force,
and to me that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what
they’re doing.”

And Joe wonders why he couldn’t keep the support of the Democratic party in his state. Here’s a clue Joe…America doesn’t want the war to expand. We want it to end. This whole business of attacking nations to stop gangs of terrorists really isn’t the best way to go. More cells and plots have been disrupted through police work Joe. And fewer civiliains die that way too. Oh, and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.

And to think that if Al Gore had won (I mean been declared the winner) in the 2000 election, America’s Vice-President would still be Dick Cheney, albeit with a different name. If that little realization isn’t a wake-up call to what a complete farce this whole two-party system pretends to be, I don’t know what is. In American politics, there is only one party that rules the roost-the fund-raising party. And whomever gives the most money to help keep the politicians in office (i.e. – power) gets to mold the rules of the game. And make no mistake- the loss of over 3500 US service people is just a part of the game to them. Pieces on the board so to speak. An expected and acceptable cost of imperialism, I mean corporatocracy, I mean exporting democracy, I mean fighting terror.

Hawkish Joe. The People’s Man. The Independent.

It may well be that Iran (or elements within Iran) is training or supplying insurgents who then come across the border into Iraq to fight against American troops there. To pretend though that this is something that the US, nor any ‘civilized’ nation, would undertake to do is ludicrous. In fact, the US is doing just that right now. According to this New York Times article, America is now arming more and more Sunni Arab groups (who also are know to us as insurgents, sectarian rebels, or former Saddam Baathist bastards) to fight against suspected al-Qaeda terror cells in Iraq. Unfortunately, the vast majority of violence in Iraq, aside from the targeting of US troops from both sides of the sectarian clash, is Iraq Sunni fighting Iraq Shia. In that light, the odds of US arms being used against US troops is pretty good. That chance that they will be used by the Sunnis against the Shia (and remember-most of Iran is Shia) may serve to inflame Iranian concerns about this war at their back fence. Hell, by arming the Sunni groups, Iran may well have credible claim that the US ” has a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iran to kill our soldiers.”

Joe has determined that talking just isn’t going to work with the Iranians. After all, “if there’s any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can’t just talk to them,” said Joe on CBS. Again, it’s conceivable that others around the world feel the same way about the American government under George W. Bush. Hell, it’s not only conceivable, it’s the fact Jack! Er, Joe. For all this talk about “living according to internation rule of law” give me about a minute and I can pull up hundreds of reminders of America’s own high standards of the past half decade. Do these words ring a bell? Torture. International kidnappings (arrests/detentions/disappearances) by covert US operatives on foreign sovereign land. Here’s a tip Senator. Don’t preach the talk if you can’t (and demonstrably haven’t) walked the walk. Especially you, Joe “My Ego Is More Important Than The Will Of The People” Lieberman. Especially from you.

But what’s scarier than hearing former Demcorat-turned faux-Independent Joe Lieberman call for the bombing of Iran? The certainty that Joe’s appearance this Sunday morning was not so much the rantings of a man who longs for face time and relevance but rather a carefully pre-planned event from the bowels of the Bush Administration to start spreading the lubricant for sliding into Iran. After at least a year of denial that the US would seek to engage Iran militarily, despite leaks about prepared war plans and increasingly hostile rhetoric between the two countries, Team Bush may finally be letting the cat out of the bag, via good old Joe Lieberman, a man who (if you are a neo-con or party loyalist republican) you can almost trust since he left the Democrats (who are a bunch of wimps), or (if you are a democrat or anti-war American) a man you most certainly despise for his glad-handing with Bush. In either case, the Bushite’s can simply remain silent on Joe’s performance, leaving the general public to mull over what may come next. And seeing how the American people aren’t too supportive of a military showdown with Iran, even over it’s nuclear activities, perhaps the only way Cheney’s former corporate boardroom buddies can get into Iran is by relying on less spectacular half truths and building inuendo to push war to the next level.

I’m not dovish on Iran as a matter of absolute principal. Under certain conditions, I could well see the US engaged in some kind of legitimate military actions in the Middle East. But those conditions do not include conflating situations already out of hand with those that need not become so.

We may not trust Iran enough to hold face to face talks at high levels. They surely don’t trust us. Neither party has given the other any reason to do so. But trust, and therefore a more amicable (or at least non-confrontational) relationship, isn’t likely to sprout out of a bombing campaign either. />
(cross posted at Bring It On!)

So we’re in the nation building game, and since we’re the ones who blew the hell out of the place, I suppose that we have some responsibility to at least get the place fixed up a bit before we go home. Or do we? I mean, if the nation we are helping build is supposed to be a democracy (of sorts) then it seems only right that our presence should be limited to the extent that the majority of that country’s citizens (or elected officials as the proxy of the citizens) wish us to remain. Once the balance tips from one side of the scale to the other, we need to acknowledge that decision, pack our bags, and promise to stay in touch.

Guess what? We’ve been asked, more or less, to start packing our bags. According to a story that isn’t getting any play in the American MSM, an Iraqi parliamentary vote on Tuesday had more than half of Iraq’s elected lawmakers signed onto a legislative petition calling on the United States to set a timetable for withdrawal. The non-binding petition will be presented to the speaker of parliament with the request for a vote on a formal binding resolution that adopts the petition’s demand for a withdrawal timetable.Hey- we asked for a democracy, and we’re getting one. Can’t cry foul when it doesn’t go your way.

Unless, of course, you are George Bush or Dick Cheney. The White House Wonder Twins seem to have an almost superhero ability to ignore reality. (And their ability to lie is almost as powerful, but that’s another story altogether.) See, the administration is taking a somewhat different approach than the Iraqi’s seem to want. Rather than prepare to disengage, they keep sending in more US troops. Instead of listening to what the Iraqi’s are saying, they are telling the Iraqi’s how it should be. I guess that 6 years of telling the American public what to do and how to feel, they think that everyone is as gullible. Sorry Dubya- the folks in Iraq live with the bombs of your nation building every day. They don’t seem too keen to wait for you to act anymore.

The Alternet article goes into some detail about the factional problems in Iraq and the barriers that are keeping them apart. Chief among them is the future of Iraq itself- specifically whether Iraq should remain as a strong single entity or as three separate and somewhat autonomous regions under nominal federal controls. Increasingly, Iraqi’s seem to be choosing the strong single entity model over the tripartite solution now favored by the US backed Iraqi government. One sticking point in that discussion has been the sharing of oil resources under each plan. Under the tripartite plan (favored by Team Bush remember), oil controls would be privatized and decentralized, leaving the door open for all sorts of great deals for Big Oil. Under the strong state model, the Iraqi oil fields become state property, meaning other nations will have to play nice to get access.

No matter how many times we go around the bend it always comes back to who gets the oil. With the oil comes the money. With the money comes the power. You know the drill.
The thing is, no matter how (or if) Iraqi lawmakers vote on demanding a timetable from the Bush Administration, they’re never going to get one. Not from Dubya at least. As far as he’s concerned, the U S of A ain’t going nowhere on his watch. And if the Iraqi’s have a problem with that, then they may just find themselves on a watchlist too. Iraq is a really dangerous place these days, despite what John McCain thinks. Dissidents of US desires may find themselves at risk, if you get my drift.

Even though many in Baghdad acknowledge that when US troops leave, the violence will likely get worse before it gets better, a majority of all ethnic groups want the US to get out. And the sad thing is that just about everybody knows it’s time to hand Iraqi’s the keys to their new house and let them get busy with the unpacking.

(Oh, and for those of you who decide to turn the comments section into a debate about “Yes there are terrorists in Iraq you idiot” I suggest you get a grip on reality. There are terrorists in America too but we haven’t bombed the hell out of our own towns. Anyone here think the Pocono’s need a good bombing? )

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

I’m nowhere near the radical religion or borrowed money chapters yet- Phillips begins by talking about the oil, or more specifically he begins by taking a short walk back in history by looking at two other global giants of their time, Holland and England. He makes note of the fact that the periods of time in which each of these nations became global powers coincided with their access and innovation with the great energy resources of their times. In Holland, it was command of wind and water. With England it was coal. And in both cases, once an energy source was depleted or replaced by another energy source, those countries fell off their perches among the world’s nations and became former superpowers. Phillips notes that the same dynamics have occurred (are occurring) in the US, and predictably, the same fall awaits us- unless we do something about it.

It is no big surprise that US dominance has mirrored the dominance of oil and petroleum as the main energy source on Earth. Our nation lives and breathes oil. It is our lifeblood. Our entire society is based on the concept of cheap and plentiful oil. As such, it should be no big surprise that American government and corporate mentality is focused on maintaining as much control as possible over all the oil it can, including sending men and women abroad to die for access to oil. But what happens when the oil is no longer cheap or plentiful, as is rapidly becoming the case? For Holland, coal surpassed wind and water and left that nation with an infrastructure not ready to move forward. The coming of coal should have been the writing on the wall, but Hollander’s couldn’t or wouldn’t read it. For England, the same happened with coal, only more so, pushing England into dire straits as oil came online and their infrastructure was too totally coal based to convert. They were forced to play catch-up and lost their edge in world status.

America has had at least 30 years or more to prepare for the end of oil as a dominant energy source, but like Holland and England, the government, corporations, and general public are doing nothing, assuming that the oil will be there for us whenever we need it despite all indications to the contrary. And for 30+ years nothing has changed in any real way. We are still beholden to oil, we’ve made scant effort to find other sources of energy, and we’ve demonized some of the best practical alternatives available to us now-nuclear, solar, and hydro power- as too expensive, impractical, or tapped out. That’s not just myopic thinking, it’s a recipe for disaster.

America may still have a chance to keep hold of some of her world power, but only if we move aggressively into new exploration and development of energy. Regardless, our entire society and infrastructure, our power dominance and our financial prowess will soon end or at the very least suffer serious degradation, due to our continued reliance on oil and oil alone. And while this book isn’t about the use of oil and it’s affects on global climate, there are several lessons to be learned in correlation there as well.

Sadly, the other aspects of the book that I’ve not read will almost certainly show how the religious factions in this country have undermined our scientific-technological capability for at least a generation, further assuring our loss of dominance. I will also read more on how our financial policies (again centered around oil) have trapped us into a spiraling whirlpool of debt that will make any real transformations that much more difficult.

The bottom line is simple- America as a superpower will one day come to an end. Of that there can be no uncertainty. What remains then is to position ourselves in such a way as to benefit most from international cooperations and new discoveries and to turn inward and prepare our society for a massive retooling based not on an oil economy.

In the business world they say to be nice to people on your way up because eventually you may see them again on your way down, and maybe as your boss. Well, our government should take that to heart- we’ll not always be on top of the heap, globally speaking, so we’d better stop pissing so many people off.

More on this book as I read it.

The first pieces of the puzzle came from the president’s speech last week when the president announced that he was sending (more) Patriot missle batteries to the Middle East. In itself, this is a curious thing to do, since the only militaries over there with missle capabilities to worry about are in Israel and Iran. I doubted that Bush was planning to defend Arab countries from Israeli missle attacks, so the conclusion would be that we needed protection from Iranian missles. Why though when we are not militarily engaged with Iran and neither are any other countries directly engaged in war with Iran? What reason would we need to build up missle defenses other than to bolster up areas that Iran could attack if a war occurred? The president also said in that speech that

“We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.”

and

“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.”

In my response to the presidents speech, I noted that “these words, when combined with his calls for an increase in the military in general, seem clearly to point out where the tanks and planes are headed next. Make no mistake—Bush has every desire to extend the Iraqi War into these countries. He has been simply waiting for an opportunity. His rhetoric about Iranian nuclear intentions and capability have been consistently rebuffed by experts who say that Iraq is at least seven years or more away froma viable nuclear weapon. If he goes forth as intended, expect to see border incursions and firefights at both the Syrian-Iraq and Iran-Iraq borders, with an eventual crossing of one or both by U.S. troops. Such an escalation would only make matters far worse as nations divide and join sides.”

These were the first real pieces to the emerging puzzle. The next came yesterday in a post here which quoted a Raw Story report that a major investment bank was warning against an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The report claims that Israel, backed by the US, may well be planning an attack while Bush is still in office, since they could rely on US support (at least US administation support) for such an attack. It further notes that Bush’s reshuffling of generals in the Middle East from those who advised against such an escalation with Iran with those more pliable to the Decider’s terrible decisions. With this news, it became more plausible that an attack on Iran, either by the US directly or through the Israeli proxy, may well be forthcoming.

Today, two new reports come forth to reveal even more US military affairs in the region.

In the first, according to a former Russian Fleet Admiral, US submarines currently located in the Persian Gulf are positioning themselves to block the Gulf of Oman, the persian Gulf and parts of the Arabian Sea. Such moves would have the effect of blockading the Iranian coast as well as moving these subs into position for missle strikes against Iranian nuclear and oil targets within Iran. Since the US submarines are not vital in any of the efforts in Iraq, except perhaps for some kinds of intelligence monitoring, their existence in the region brings cause for alarm.

And the second report, filtered through a Kuwaiti news source, says that the US may be preparing an attack against Iran as soon as April. This report is perhaps the least reliable, to me anyhow, because it claims to get its information from an unnamed source who are privy to details of a secret White House meeting between Bush, Cheney, Rice and Gates.

Taken together, even unsubstiantiated, these reports, coming in from all over the place, lead to conclusions one doesn’t particularly like to make. Add to this the recent extensions of US forces in Iraq (perhaps a pre-staging for an Iran attack instead of an effort to quell violence in Baghdad?) and a call to increase military strength permanently, and the emerging puzzle looks even more bleak.

There may well be nothing that can be done to stop this escalation if it does in fact materialize. Even with an opposition Congress to content with, Bush has already proven that he values no other judgement than his own, presumably because that is what God has instructed of him. And history is filled with many monsters who believed they had a red phone to God and look at the damage they have wrought on humanity.

The issue is bigger than just attacking Iran or increasing the level of Middle East disaster. An attack against Iran will be much more polarizing than Iraq has been. Nations that heretofore have only condemned our actions may well take steps to marginalize us. The US may be the worlds biggest economy; we may have the most technologically advanced military; we may be vital to nations increasing wealth creation. None of that will matter. Most of the emerging nations that rely on US buyers to increase their own wealth and standing have a history of repression against their people. The can clamp down on economic reforms and advancements to stymie the US if they think we are out of control. After all, their people are used to harsh conditions and repressive economies. The US is not.

China and Russia both have many dealings with Iran, and they have pretty big militaries too. And the Muslim world would likely not take kindly to an invasion of Iran.

But in fact, I would be surprised if US forces weren’t already operating in Iran, ala Cambodia years ago.

Not content with being merely the worst president in US history, Bush seems determined to be the last as well.
Can anyone say WWIII?

(cross posted on Bring It On!)

For a while now, we’ve heard Team Bush lubricate the public with the notion that more troops in Iraq are inevitable, this despite comments from top military folks who don’t think that sending more U.S. soldiers into a civil war is such a bright idea. Now, all of a sudden, those top brass are getting their wrists measured for that golden TImex, because they are out.

(from the link)

Bush will replace Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, in the coming weeks, according to media reports Thursday.

Abizaid and Casey have at times sounded skeptical about increasing the size of the U.S. force in Iraq.

In November, Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee that boosting the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by 20,000 would have a temporary impact, but he warned that the military’s ability to maintain in increase of that size “is simply not something that we have right now.”

Casey told reporters in Iraq last month that he is “not necessarily opposed to the idea” of sending in more troops, but said any increase would have to “help us progress to our strategic objectives.”

Shuffling in are two men who appear more inclined towards bending to the president’s foul wind. So part one of the plan is to toss out those who question and insert compliant tools.

More shuffling is happening with and old Bush family confidante, John Negroponte. His move from NID to 2nd at State is questionable, at least in terms of an “Iraq Policy” move. I’m no fan of Big John here…he has a history of being in just out in front of sectarian death squads in war torn third world countries…so don’t shed any tears at his leaving what should be an unbiased position. (A National Intelligence Director should tell a president what is real instead of fueling his boss’s fantasy filled worldviews.) This move smells more like political manuevering than anything else, tossed into the the “Iraq Plan” so as to not make waves of its own. Some are postulating that Negroponte move to State is a precursor to setting up Secretary Rice as a possible presidential candidate, the thinking going (I guess) that she could give Hillary a good run for the money. But I digress…

The President also wants to loosen the binds on descretionary funds “for reconstruction” that military commanders have control of. As if there hasn’t been enough misappropriations of funds so far. Other financial incentives Bush is pushing to convince Iraqi’s to “all just get along” include setting up a small business loan program. Perhaps that will be included in the new Balanced Budget Bush presents. (As an aside, I wonder what the budget has allotted for American small business assistance?) I guess this war just needs a little less accountability and ready cash to fix the problem.

Oh, and let’s not forget the sanest part of the plan- send in more troops! After all, if we don’t keep fighting them there (and making lots more of them by the way) they’ll be clammoring to our shores and attacking us here. Despite the fact that Bush told you he’s beefed up security around the borders and spending all that money on all that ‘security stuff.’ Funny, if we’re so much safer now, how could they even get here to fight us here? Kind of a paradox if you think about it. Oops…forgot…no thinking in the War Room.

Of course, all of this, though widely reported, is still speculative to a degree. And what the new Democratic Congress can do about any of it is still up in the air.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is a grand new plan for ‘success’ folks. It’s just another shell game.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)