SUNNIS REJECT CALLS FOR FEDERAL IRAQ

This was originally published in The Guardian and reprinted by Guerrilla News Network.


Sunni Arab Leaders Reject Shia Calls For A Federal Iraq

Sunni Arab leaders today rejected Shia calls for a federal Iraq, saying the proposal would fracture the country along religious and ethnic lines.

The minority Sunnis, who were dominant under former president Saddam Hussein, condemned proposals for an autonomous southern region which would raise the prospect of an oil-rich fiefdom dominated by Muslim clerics.

With politicians battling to beat Monday’s deadline for agreeing to a new national constitution, Sunnis said plans to give the south a similar level of autonomy as that planned for northern Kurdish regions were unacceptable.

“We reject it wherever it is, whether in the north or in the south, but we accept the Kurdish region as it was before the war,” said Kamal Hamdoun, a Sunni member of the committee drafting the constitution. “The aim of federalism is to divide Iraq into ethnic and sectarian areas. We will cling to our stance of rejecting this.”

Sunni Arabs fear they will lose out on oil revenues if the country is split into federal zones, leaving them with the “sands of Anbar”, a vast, barren central province.

Sunni clerics used Friday prayers to urge followers to vote against any constitution likely to lead to Iraq’s break-up.

“We, in this country, don’t want federalism because we are a unified nation in this country and we feel that Iraq with all it’s elements is for all [of us],” Sheik Mahmoud al-Sumaidaie, of the influential Association of Muslim Scholars, told worshippers at Baghdad’s Umm al-Qura mosque.

Yesterday, the head of the Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), one of the main ruling parties, called for a “Shiastan” encompassing the Gulf oilfields and almost half of Iraq’s 26 million population.

“Regarding federalism, we think it is necessary to form one entire region in the south,” Abdul Aziz al-Hakim told a rally in the Shia holy city of Najaf.

The Sciri’s cleric leaders have strong ties to Iran’s theocracy and dominate the Shia bloc, which rules in coalition with the largely secular Kurds. Some analysts suggested the call for southern autonomy was a negotiating ploy to gain leverage for making Islam the main source of legislation.

“We were surprised with Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim’s declarations,” said Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni member of the commission drafting the constitution. “Time is running out and such declarations should be much more calm. We don’t have time for such manoeuvres.”

Mr Mutlaq and other Sunnis had suggested that a decision on federalism should be delayed until a new parliament is elected in December. That parliament is expected to have more Sunni Arab members than the current one because many Sunnis boycotted last January’s election.

The incorporation of Sunni Arabs into the political process is seen as central to undermining the insurgency.

Some leading Shias today appeared to reject the notion of southern autonomy being written into the constitution.

“The idea is for federal regions in the centre and in the south, but it will not be decided until after the constitution is done,” said a Sciri member of the drafting panel, Saad Qindeel.

The Kurds have demanded federalism to maintain control over three northern provinces and also want authority over Kirkuk, from which thousands of Kurds were expelled by Saddam.

Government officials urged compromise after Mr Hakim’s speech. “Every group is saying that they have stands that they cannot abandon because they are ‘red lines’, but in the end everyone is going to make some concessions,” presidential spokesman Kamran Qaradaghi said last night.

US pressure to produce a constitution on time and rein in the extent of any Islamic identity of the state has been strong, with the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, a prominent figure on the sidelines of the talks.

Just think, this country that the Emperor Chimp wanted to save from the evil Saddam and give democracy, actually used to run fairly smoothly and work.

STAR SPANGLED LIES OF WAR

I found this at Guerrilla News Network and thought it would be a good companion to the previous post.

Big Star-Spangled Lies for War

Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:11:30 -0700

Flying the flag in Vietnam

By Norman Solomon

They haven't changed

A lot of people want to believe that the current war on Iraq is some kind of aberration—a radical departure from the previous baseline of U.S. foreign policy. That’s a comforting illusion.

Yes, the current administration in Washington is notable for the extreme mendacity and calculated idiocy of its claims. But—decade after decade—the propaganda fuel for one U.S. war after another has flowed from a standard set of lies.

Some of the boilerplate lies are implicit assumptions about Uncle Sam’s benign and even noble intent. Other deceptions rely on more specific whoppers, endlessly whirling through the news media’s spin cycle. From one war to the next, certain themes are played up more than others—but the process always involves building an agenda to start a war, trying to justify the war while it’s underway, and then claiming that the war must continue as long as the man in the Oval Office says so.

Sometimes a war begins suddenly, filling the national horizon with a huge insistent flash. At other times, over a period of months or years, a low distant rumble gradually turns into a roar. But in any event, the democratic role of citizens is not simply to observe and obey. In the United States, what we think is supposed to matter. And for practical reasons, top officials in Washington don’t want to seem too far out of step with voters.

The president leads a siege of public opinion on the home front—a battleground where media spin is the main weapon. A media campaign for hearts and minds at home means going all-out to persuade us that the latest war is as good as a war can be—necessary, justified, righteous and worth any sorrows to be left in its wake.

Along the way, media outlets routinely march to the drumbeat of key themes:

America Is a Fair and Noble Superpower

Our Leaders Will Do Everything They Can to Avoid War

Our Leaders Would Never Tell Us Outright Lies

This Guy Is a Modern-Day Hitler

This Is About Human Rights

This Is Not at All About Oil or Corporate Profits

They Are the Aggressors, Not Us

If This War Is Wrong, Congress Will Stop It

If This War Is Wrong, the Media Will Tell Us

Media Coverage Brings War Into Our Living Rooms

Opposing the War Means Siding With the Enemy

This Is a Necessary Battle in the War on Terrorism

What the U.S. Government Needs Most Is Better PR

The Pentagon Fights Wars as Humanely as Possible

Our Soldiers Are Heroes, Theirs Are Inhuman

America Needs the Resolve to Kick the “Vietnam Syndrome”

Withdrawal Would Cripple U.S. Credibility

In a society with significant aspects of democracy, persistent spin is necessary to gain and retain public support for war. The war-makers rely on “perception management” techniques that effectively promote certain themes; the better we understand those ongoing themes, the more clearly we’ll be able to see through them. Such understanding can blow away the fog of media war and enhance democratic participation in decisions that are truly matters of life and death.

This article is adapted from the prologue of GNN contributor Norman Solomon’s new book “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com.

Once again people, I love my country and it's flag. What I hate is an administration, and government, that wraps itself in the flag and either ends or destroys lives because of it's LIES.

IS OLD GLORY NOT SO GLORIOUS?

I wish to start by saying that I, in no way, wish to dishonor my country or my flag. I love my country and hold my flag dear, not as an idol as some would, but as a symbol of freedom and liberty.

I do not like the direction that my country is being led in by a bunch of ruthless, greedy fools. I do not like many things this country has done in the past. Ido wish to see my country return to what it was intended to be.

With that said, and with the hope that you understand what I am saying, I present you with the following column by someone who, at this time, will not fly their flag.

The flag won't protect you; it's in the wrong hands

By Luciana Bohne

08/13/05 "ICH" -- -- Across my lawn, I can see an American flag waving in my neighbor's backyard. Mr. Smith (not his name, of course) is a nice man but he's 95 years old, and I can't take issue with him. I can't tell him that the sporting of the flag, at this time, is tantamount to saying, "I am a fool. Traitors run the country in our name. They are taking our money from the treasury and spending it on a shortcut to world domination through war.

The one in Iraq costs something like $200 million a day. Our troops come back in coffins no one is allowed to see. The president does not attend their funerals. He mocks their death with a jest, amusing the press by pretending to look for elusive weapons of mass destruction (WMD) under his Oval Office desk. The vice president is planning to nuke Iran should there be another 9/11. Meanwhile, Iraqis, living and dead, swim in a river of boiling blood. If I fly the flag, I'm saying all this is all right by me. Poor flag, to be raised in a time like this! Wouldn't it be more respectful to tuck it away for more honorable service in better times?

Better times? Time to stop fooling myself. The idiocy is contagious.

When were there better times? Since the birth of this nation, it has engaged in more than 200 armed interventions around the globe.

Since 1945, a conservative death count for US adventures abroad can easily tally up to 6 million. Easily! Circa 3 million in Vietnam alone; then there's Indonesia, Haiti, Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, just off the top of my head. Plenty of torture, too: Argentina, Brazil, Egypt. Oh, you know the sad litany.

And not just abroad. There was slavery, reputed to have cost forty million lives and the bloodiest conflict in history up until then, although freeing slaves was merely the hypocritical pretext for one industrial power block to crush the inefficient slave-agrarian one. A different slave system was born—imitated throughout the world, and now in its imperialist, full-spectrum, warpath phase. There was one of the most brutal and cynical genocides in history—against the native population—to reckon with. There was the crime of being the first and only nation to have used the atomic bomb . . . TWICE—without many scruples or visible residual guilt. In fact, today 50 percent of Americans say they would have no trouble using it again.

And yet, these Americans are convinced they are the emissaries of peace and good will. Pretty staggering delusion all things considered—pathological, one might say. What is the cause of this megalomania? Perhaps it's that radical branch of Protestantism called Puritanism? A kind of Anglo equivalent of Wahabbism? I mean, that weird theology that grants Americans the status of Elect, All-Good, Ever-Just. Certainly the New England writers of the 19th century thought so.

And wasn't it that Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, who, 50 years after the American Revolution, thought the good pilgrims were infected with intolerable arrogance for starting the only or first—or however they put it—democracy in the world. Some democracy. For the few, of course—mostly propertied, white, Anglo-Saxon males. A slave democracy! And it hasn't changed. Oh, there's a black Secretary of State, but she is only black on the outside. Her heart is white, male, and propertied. Besides, she rubber-stamps the fiction of racial equality. Very useful cookie, ideologically speaking, is Condi Rice. And, anyway, she is only a servant, merely the means by which the social order of the truly Elect—the rich folks—reproduces itself. Ditto for Colin Powell and that fool on the Supreme Court—that black judge with the ethics and sense of humor of a guttersnipe. But it's not like the white-skinned servants are any less revolting. Just look at the president's "advisors." Hypocrites.

"What have you got against Puritans?" says I to my newly-wed, American professor-of-literature husband some 30 years ago. "Hypocrites," says he, laconically. And cryptically, I thought until now. But he's gone. And I can't share his wisdom with a conspiratorial smile. This God of theirs is indeed a God of Hypocrisy, for He bestows on their remarkable aggression and love of war a unique affection. You could call Him Mars—but then we know we make our gods in our own image.

On this feeling of being this weird God's Elect trade those economic interests of the commercial oligarchy which represent 5 percent of the population who own 50 percent of the national wealth. Their names are hidden in the shadows behind the names we know so well—the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, the Wolfowitzes, the Roves (the Bushes are both shadow and act, a special category at the moment, their interests hidden in plain sight). To these people, we are nothing. We are the people who will die in bogus terrorist attacks—in New York, in Madrid, in London. At 9 o'clock in the morning, when we are going to work. Or we are shoppers—indebted unto the third generation, as they like us to be. Or we live in those parts of the world where we can look forward to their exported democracy, which means exploitation of our natural resources and of our labor. It's a self-serving and highly technical definition of democracy—the abuse of people for profit. Democracy for them; slavery for us.

Is it so difficult to understand that the US wants to own the world, not to govern it but to exploit it? Is this why the political philosopher, Karl Marx, is so reviled in this land? Because he dared to name the unnameable? "Capitalism has no homeland." Imagine if we had to face the truth of that? Imagine if they taught us that proven truth in school?

But let me get to the point. My neighbor's flag is flying. Cheney is planning to nuke Iran (because it is too militarily strong to take in any other way), and Tony Blair has refused an investigation into how the London attacks could have been prevented. What connects these three points?

First, the flag. We are being duped. Period. Iran? Well, if we are to do Iran, we need to free up some troops, now bogged down in Iraq. NATO's would come in handy. But European constitutions mostly forbid aggressive wars, and the European populations positively abhor war. If you go back to the Madrid "terrorist" attacks, you will note that the Bush gang at that time was very eager to get NATO involved. The attacks on Madrid were supposed to scare Europeans into agreeing to NATO deployment. It didn't work.

Now Blair is supposed to be heading the EU for the next six months. It's an opportunity he means to exploit. He's been talking about NATO and threatening Iran. He's locked in a fierce conflict with French President Jacques Chirac. For who shall lead the EU, Britain or France, (the only two nations in the EU to be armed with nuclear weapons)? If Britain, then the EU will be guided by US hands, and NATO will be brought under US command. If France, then EU policy will be guided by France, in competition against the US. Blair's task is to neutralize the "non" of the French referendum on the EU constitution—which, some say, Chirac covertly expected. For Chirac, either the European Union will be guided by France, or it will not happen at all.

In the midst of this conflict between Britain and France, there is an alleged terrorist attack in the London tubes. And Blair doesn't want an investigation. What he wants is to terrorize the EU members into compliance with Washington's fiction of "the war on terror"—a.k.a. as the Plan for the New American Century of World Domination.

So, cui prodest? Well, the Blair/Bush team bet it's going to be their "values," their "way of life." I believe they are sincere in this because without war for world domination and exploitation how can they hope to stave off the impending implosion of the US economy and the crash of Britain's credit economy which supports a personal debt per person of 110 percent? They are sincere: their backs are against the wall. It's just that they don't tell us that their values and way of life don't exactly coincide with ours. They let our naivete interpret those words: we see Western Civilization (those of us who are devoted to the Telebible) clashing with Islam! That's how they spin it after each convenient terror attack. Besides, it's not just the crisis of the moment that impels them. There's a lot at stake when you decide to take over the world: gold, diamonds, oil, water, uranium, copper, etc., etc.

The one entity certain not to benefit from the London "terror" attacks is first of all us, the world's people, and, second, Iran—as Afghanistan and Iraq didn't benefit after 9/11. In fact, quite the contrary. It didn't help that the Iranians voted in a leader the West didn't like; Rafshanjani could have been bought; he was their choice.

No, I wouldn't put out more flags. Because, Dick Cheney is planning a nuke attack on Iran if 9/11, Part Two, happens. What are the chances, do you think, for both happening? Do you see why I say this is no time to waste on flying flags? We live in dangerous times. And the danger is state-grown, here at home. Under the cover of our flag.

Luciana Bohne teaches film and literature at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. She can be reached at lbohne@edinboro.edu.

WORLD WAR III MAY BE HERE SOONER THAN WE THINK

Our dear war idiot...er, I mean president...is at it again. He has told Iran that he has not ruled out force as an option to prevent Iran from enriching uranium.

The Iranian government said they need to for an alternative source for power for electricity. Emperor Chimp thinks all they want to do is build bombs.

The following is the article I found through the BBC.

Bush warns Iran on nuclear plans

Work restarted at Isfahan this week

US President George W Bush says he still has not ruled out the option of using force against Iran, after it resumed work on its nuclear programme.

He said he was working on a diplomatic solution, but was sceptical that one could be found.

The UN's atomic watchdog has called on Iran to halt nuclear fuel development.

Iran, which denies it is secretly trying to develop nuclear arms, restarted work at its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan on Monday.

"All options are on the table," said Mr Bush, when asked about the possible use of force during an interview for Israeli TV.

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F) Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons In depth: Nuclear fuel cycle Iran's press defiant

The BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says the president wants to send a clear warning to Tehran, although in reality the US already has its hands full in neighbouring Iraq.

'Cost them dearly'

The former Iranian President, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has expressed surprise at Thursday's call by the UN nuclear agency, the IAEA, for Iran to suspend its nuclear activities.

The IAEA asked its chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, to report on Iran's compliance by 3 September.

Speaking at Friday prayers in Tehran, Mr Rafsanjani said western opposition to Iran's decision to resume its nuclear programme would, as he put it, cost them dearly.

"Our people are not going to allow their nuclear rights to be seized," Mr Rafsanjani said. He said he was astonished that no country opposed the European Union-sponsored resolution, adopted by the IAEA, that urged Iran to stop any work on processing uranium for enrichment.

He emphasised that Iran's decision to resume its nuclear programme was irreversible, and said his country could not be treated like Iraq or Libya. The IAEA's 35-member governing body met in emergency session this week after Iran ended a nine-month suspension of work at Isfahan.

Iran insists it needs nuclear power as an alternative energy source, but Western nations fear it has plans to produce nuclear weapons.

HENRY KISSINGER IS STILL TWISTING THE TRUTH

Henry Kissinger has a column in today's Washington Post comparing the pull-out from Vietnam with a pull-out from Iraq.

The following is a column written by Aaron Kinney disecting Kissinger's column in the Post.

Please be sure to read Kissinger's column. For those who remember 'Nam you'll see where he has tried to re-write history.

Kissinger's revisionist history lesson

Salon editorial fellow Aaron Kinney weighs the benefits of a history lesson from Henry Kissinger.

Henry Kissinger, the granddaddy of quagmire extraction, weighed in on the Iraq war in today's Washington Post, in an instructive column titled "Lessons for an Exit Strategy." But while Nixon's secretary of state raises a number of strategic concerns you won't hear about on television news broadcasts, he also finds room to offer some self-serving interpretations of the Vietnam War. And it reminds us why he remains such a polarizing figure in this country.

Using his own experience as an architect of the American withdrawal from Vietnam, Kissinger writes that, since a partial drawdown of 30,000 troops by next spring will depend on whether there is "progress" and "improvement" in the conditions and security there, it would be useful to define those terms.

"In a war without front lines, does a lull indicate success or a strategic decision by the adversary?" Kissinger asks. "Is a decline in enemy attacks due to attrition or to a deliberate enemy strategy of conserving forces to encourage American withdrawal?"

Kissinger calls the decision to withdraw a significant number of troops during an ongoing campaign a "potentially fateful event." He warns that such a decision "affects the calculations of insurgents and government forces alike, so that the definition of progress becomes nearly as much a psychological as a military judgment." Kissinger also cautions that, once a withdrawal begins, "it runs the risk of operating by momentum rather than by strategic analysis, and that process is increasingly difficult to reverse."

But don't go thinking that any such pitfalls befell the U.S. in Vietnam. Kissinger spins the end of the Vietnam War as an American success, and twice he refers to the Tet Offensive of 1968 as a failure for the North Vietnamese. His take on Tet strikes us as revisionist, since conventional wisdom holds that, though the invasion was a loss for the North Vietnamese on a purely military level, its success as propaganda, by turning the American public against the war, ultimately led to the United States' withdrawal. Kissinger ought to understand that a war is not won with troops alone, because that's precisely what he's writing about in this article.

Further on in his lesson, Kissinger cites a Vietnam-era principle that hawks may soon be using to talk about Iraq: "Military success is difficult to sustain unless buttressed by domestic support." True enough, but that won't be any excuse for failure in the current campaign. Indeed, one of the many lessons from Vietnam that the Bush administration ignored is that domestic support has to be factored into the prospective costs of war. A president is less likely to maintain public support for a military campaign if he deceives Congress and the American public about the reasons for waging it. If the cause isn't noble and the war is unnecessary, the public's tolerance for violence and bloodshed will swiftly dissipate.

One other Kissinger assertion stands out. "The war in Iraq," he writes, "is less about geopolitics than about the clash of ideologies, cultures and religious beliefs." This disavowal of geopolitical concerns is odd coming from the maestro of realpolitik. Maybe Kissinger's just acknowledging that, these days, politicians talk more about defending freedom than about the domino theory when they're trying to sell a war. But it's difficult to imagine that strategic interests weren't involved in the decision to hop into and then out of Afghanistan, where al-Qaida was and still is, before hustling over to Iraq, where al-Qaida wasn't but now is. That decision seems less about culture clash and more about geography; Iraq is centrally located within the Middle East, while Afghanistan is on the periphery. And a reading of "Rebuilding America's Defenses," the 2000 tract from the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, makes clear that its authors believed it was of the utmost importance to establish forward-based forces in the strategically vital region of the Middle East. In case anyone has forgotten, among the 25 people who signed the Project for a New American Century's Statement of Principles in 1997, four became key players in the Bush administration: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby. And we can be sure that, outside of determining to censor and coopt the media, none of this bunch learned anything from Vietnam.

-- Aaron Kinney

This administration is doomed to repeat history for it has not learned one single thing from the mistakes of past administrations. Of course anything that they screw up will just be re-written later so it looks like they did the right thing.

SMEARING CINDY SHEEHAN

Here's an article I found this morning at Salon.com. Smearing Cindy Sheehan

It's interesting how the right-wingers want to portray Cindy as just some dupe of the left. I guess it's just easier for them to try to make her look bad than it is for them to actually talk to her. It's such a shame that they are afraid of one mother of a dead soldier. Or are they afraid that the truth about the war and Bush's policies will come out for all to see?

CINDY SHEEHAN: AMERICAN MOM, AMERICAN HERO

Why is it that the only democrats that are willing to stand up to the Emperor Chimp and the bastards that follow him...or is that lead him...are the ones that no longer hold office or never did?

I found the following at the Huffington Post via Buzz Flash. Gary Hart speaks the truth.

Hey Joe Lieberman, go fuck yourself!

Gary Hart

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

If democracy only works when there is open discussion of opposing ideas and policies, and if the opposition party, in this case the Democrats, has hand-cuffed, blind-folded, gagged, and hog-tied itself to a failed invasion and occupation in the Middle East, where will the expanding majority of Americans look for a representative, a spokesperson, a voice for their anger, frustration, and distrust at being misled?

The circumstances suggest it should be a Senate or House Democratic leader, a recognized authority on foreign policy constantly seen on the Sunday talk shows, certainly one of the many “leaders” lining up to seek the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2008.

Strangely, no one in any of those categories comes to mind. Their voices are silent. Thus, both they and the party they claim or presume to represent look dumbstruck, awkward, pitiful, and timid. Where the single greatest issue of the day, and one of the most potent issues of our time, is concerned, there is no courageous opposition.

Meanwhile, the caskets keep coming home…with no public official to greet them or to respect them. They are the forgotten dead and they represent thousands more of the even more forgotten wounded.

But wait. There is someone to hold the emperor to account. There is someone willing to look ridiculous, to be mocked and made a fool of, to challenge the conventional wisdom of the court.

She, unfortunately, is not a Senator. She is not a party leader. She is not in the regular establishment Rolodex of the Sunday talk producers. Yet, she holds the highest office available in a republic, that of citizen.

And to the embarrassment of both Republican and Democratic establishments, she takes that office more seriously than they—the silent “leaders”—do theirs. When the last Marine leaves Iraq, dead or alive, she can claim more credit than them all. Because of the courage of one brave woman, she quite possible will have had more to do with finally bringing this great nation back to its senses... and to its principles.

Remember her name. It is Cindy Sheehan.

Now ain't that the truth. We've got all these so-called democrats in Congress that don't have the balls to stand up to that bastard Bush, but are willing to come to all of us with hands out for donations at election time.

Hillary Clinton of all people should be right next to Cindy in Crawford. But she's not, she's out stumping for votes for 2008. Bitch, you ain't no caring democrat.

Joe Lieberman, where the fuck are you? You say you care about people? Bullshit! All you care about is looking tough so you can get votes for 2008.

Hey Joe, kiss my everlovin' ass and then GO FUCK YOURSELF you lyin' piece of shit!
Hey Hillary, the same to you, too!

For those who read this and think I'm pissed, you are goddamn right I'm fuckin' pissed at damn near every fuckin' so called democrat out there!

CINDY SHEEHAN....NATIONAL SECURITY RISK?

This by way of Daily Kos from David Swanson:

"Cindy Sheehan phoned me from Texas a few minutes ago to say that she's been informed that beginning Thursday, she and her companions will be considered a threat to national security and will be arrested. Coincidentally, Thursday is the day that Rice and Rumsfeld visit the ranch, and Friday is a fundraiser event for the haves and the have mores. Cindy said that she and others plan to be arrested."
http://www.meetwithcindy.org

Can you believe Bush and his fascist asshole sidekicks are going to do this? Well, I sure can! Looks like they've all turned into a bunch of fuckin' paranoid crackheads.

Let's get real here. I think we all know that the only national security threat in Texas, or anywhere else in this country for that matter, is the Emperor Chimp...none other than George "I'm A Fucking Moronic Idiot" Bush Jr. himself.

The chimp and his fascist-theocratic gutless friends are too afraid to face this woman whose son's life they wasted in an unwanted illegal war. They'll do anything to get Cindy and the rest of the protesters with her out of the way before Friday.

Why before Friday? Because that's the day Bush is going to have a fundraiser for all his big-wig rich bastard friends.

Now they can't have a bunch of commoners with protest signs hangin' around when the Emperor's fat-cat friends show up. Hell no, that would be embarassing for the chimp and the rest of the fascist pigs. So the easiest thing to do is say Cindy and everyone else with her are national security threats. This way it's a whole lot easier to arrest them and get them out of the way.

Fuckin' candy-ass chicken-shit low-life pond-scum bastard assholes!

BUSH ON COURSE TO START WORLD WAR III

The following is an article I recieved in an email from the Information Clearinghouse. Very informative, very scary, and I do believe very true.

Why Iran will lead to World War 3

"As President Bush scans the world's horizon there is no greater potential flashpoint than Iran, the President and his Foreign Policy team believe the Islamic regime in Tehran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons." Chris Wallace, FOX News

by Mike Whitney

08/08/05 "ICH" -- -- The facts about Iran's "alleged" nuclear weapons program have never been in dispute. There is no such program and no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to the contrary. That hasn't stopped the Bush administration from making spurious accusations and threats; nor has it deterred America's "imbedded" media from implying that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program from the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). In fact, the media routinely features the unconfirmed claims of members of terrorist organizations, like the Mujahedin Klaq, (which is on the State Depts. list of terrorist organizations) to make it appear that Iran is secretively developing nuclear arms. These claims have proved to be entirely baseless and should be dismissed as just another part of Washington's propaganda war.

Sound familiar?

Iran has no nuclear weapons program. This is the conclusion of Mohammed el-Baradei the respected chief of the IAEA. The agency has conducted a thorough and nearly-continuous investigation on all suspected sites for the last two years and has come up with the very same result every time; nothing. If we can't trust the findings of these comprehensive investigations by nuclear experts than the agency should be shut down and the NPT (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty) should be abandoned. It is just that simple.

That, of course, is exactly what the US and Israel would prefer since they have no intention of complying with international standards or treaties and are entirely committed to a military confrontation with Iran. It now looks as though they may have the pretext for carrying out such an attack.

Two days ago, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman formally rejected a plan submitted by the EU members that would have barred Iran from "enrichment-related activities". Foreign Minister Hamid Reza Asefi said, "The Europeans' submitted proposals regarding the nuclear case are not acceptable for Iran."

Asefi did the right thing; the offer was conspicuously hypocritical. The United States doesn't allow any intrusive inspections on its nuclear weapons sites even though it is the only nation that has ever used nukes in battle and even though it is developing a whole new regime of tactical "bunker-buster" bombs for destroying heavily-fortified weapons sites buried beneath the ground.

The US is also the only nation that claims the right to use nukes in a "first-strike" capacity if it feels that its national security interests are at stake.

The NPT is entirely designed to harass the countries that have not yet developed nuclear weapons and force them to observe rules designed by the more powerful states. It was intended to maintain the existing power-structure not to keep the peace.

Even so, Iran is not "violating" the treaty by moving ahead with a program for "enriching uranium". They don't even have the centrifuges for conducting such a process. The re-opening of their facility at Isfahan signals that they will continue the "conversion" process to produce the nuclear fuel that is required in nuclear power plants. This is all permitted under the terms of the NPT. They temporarily suspended that right, and accepted other confidence-building measures, to show the EU their willingness to find a reasonable solution to mutual concerns. But, now, under pressure from the Bush administration, the EU is trying to renege on its part of the deal and change the terms of the treaty itself.

No way.

So far, Iran has played entirely by the rules and deserves the same considerations as the other signatories of the treaty. The EU members
(England, Germany, and France) are simply back-pedaling in a futile effort to mollify Washington and Tel Aviv. Besides, when Iran re-opens its plant and begins work, the UN "watchdog" agency (IAEA) will be present to set up the necessary surveillance cameras and will resume monitoring everything that goes on during the sensitive fuel-cycle process.

Iran has shown an unwillingness to be bullied by Washington. The Bush administration has co-opted the EU to enforce its double-standards by threatening military action, but that doesn't' conceal the duplicity of their demands. Why should Iran forgo the processing of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes if it is written right into the treaty? Would Israel or Pakistan accept a similar proposal?

Of course, not. Both countries ignored the treaty altogether and built their own nuclear weapons behind the back of the international community. Only Iran has been singled out and punished for COMPLYING with the treaty. This demonstrates the power of Washington to dictate the international agenda.

Iran's refusal puts the EU in a position to refer the case to the IAEA, where the board members will make their determination and decide whether the case should be sent to the UN Security Council. Whether the IAEA passes the case along or not makes little difference. Bush, Sharon and the western media will exploit the details in a way that condemns Iran and paves the way for a preemptive attack. The drive to war will not be derailed by mere facts.

Iran has weathered the media criticism and the specious claims of the Bush administration admirably. They have responded with caution and discipline seeking reasonable solutions to thorny issues. Never the less, they have been unwavering in defending their rights under the NPT. This consistency in behavior suggests that they will be equally unswerving if they are the targets of an unprovoked attack. We should expect that they will respond with full force; ignoring the threats of nuclear retaliation. And, so they should. One only has to look at Iraq to see what happens if one does not defend oneself. Nothing is worth that.

The Iranian people should be confident that their government will do whatever is their power to defend their borders, their national sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the threat of foreign intervention. That, of course, will entail attacking both Israel and US forces in Iraq. Whether or not the US actually takes part in the initial air raids is immaterial; by Mr. Bush's own standards, the allies of "those who would do us harm" are just as culpable as those who conduct the attacks. In this case, the US has provided the long-range aircraft as well as the "bunker-busting" munitions for the planned assault. The administration's responsibility is not in doubt.

We should anticipate that the Iranian government has a long-range strategy for "asymmetrical" warfare that will disrupt the flow of oil and challenge American interests around the world. Certainly, if one is facing an implacable enemy that is committed to "regime change" there is no reason to hold back on doing what is necessary to defeat that adversary. So far, none of the terrorist bombings in London, Spain, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia or the US have implicated even one Iranian national. That will certainly change. Iranian Intelligence has probably already planned covert operations that will be carried out in the event of an unprovoked attack on their facilities. Iran is also likely to become an active supporter of international terrorist groups; enlisting more recruits in the war against American interests. After all, any attack on Iran can only be construed as a declaration of all-out war.

Isn't that so?

If Iran retaliates against Israel or the US in Iraq, then both nations will proceed with a plan that is already in place to destroy all of Iran's biological, chemical and conventional weapons sites. In fact, this is the ultimate US strategy anyway; not the elimination of the "imaginary" nuclear weapons facilities. Both the US and Israel want to "de-fang" the Mullah-regime so that they can control critical resources and eliminate the possibility of a regional rival in the future.

In the short term, however, the plan is fraught with difficulties. At present, there is no wiggle room in the world's oil supply for massive disruptions and most experts are predicting shortages in the 4th quarter of this year. If the administration's war on Iran goes forward we will see a shock to the world's oil supplies and economies that could be catastrophic. That being the case, a report that was leaked last week that Dick Cheney had STRATCOM (Strategic Command) draw up "contingency plans for a tactical nuclear war against Iran", is probably a bit of brinksmanship intended to dissuade Iran from striking back and escalating the conflict.

It makes no difference. If Iran is attacked they will retaliate; that much is certain.

It is always the mistake of extremists to misjudge the behavior of reasonable men; just as it is always the mistake of reasonable men to mistake the behavior of extremists.

We should not expect the Bush administration to make a rational choice; that would be a dramatic departure from every preceding decision of consequence.

The President of the United States always has the option of unleashing Armageddon if he so chooses. Normally, however, sanity prevails.

When the bombs hit the bunkers in Iran; World War 3 will be underway.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

WHY THEY HATE US

"Why do they hate us? President George Bush posed this question to the American public shortly after 9/11. It is a strong affirmation of the power of propaganda that some Americans still pose this as a serious question, and are legitimately dumb-founded that such antipathy exists toward the United States. Our government, media and schools start burnishing the false notion of American moral superiority into our brains at a very young age. However, beneath the thin veneer of their white-washed accounts of history and current events, abundant sources of information reveal the true malevolence of the moneyed elite who rule America . There is a great body of evidence which obliterates the inane notion that the United States is a benevolent world leader. Despite the ready availability of contrary evidence, many Americans remain blind to the truth about our despised nation, and choose to believe the fairy tale version of “truth, justice and the American Way ”. The sad reality is that America is an imperialistic, avaricious war machine ruled by the wealthy. Yes, much of the world despises this nation. Our leaders have virtually assured abhorrence of America, and what’s more, they do not care!"

This is the first part of an article I found at the Information Clearinghouse website. I think you'll find this very interesting as well as informative. Suggested reading for any concerned citizen.

Here's the link to the article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9696.htm

You will probably have to cut and paste this seeing as how I haven't figured out how to transfer a link to make it clickable. Sorry about the inconveniance folks.

HEAVY HEARTS IN OHIO

This week the State of Ohio suffered a great loss. In two separate incidences, twenty-two Marines from one unit were killed in action in the war in Iraq. This appears to be the largest loss of life for any one state at one time.

More precious young blood spilled in a war that is unjust and illegal. More young blood on the hands of George W. Bush, The Lying Asshole in Chief.

Hey, Bush, what are you going to tell these Marine's mothers? What are you going to tell their fathers, sisters, and brothers? Pray tell, you fascist jerk, just how are you going to explain to their children why they will never see their daddys again.

Listen up, Chimpy, you once said you wanted to get Saddam because he tried to have your dad killed. With over 1800 dead by the DOD's count...which by the way I believe is short by about 9000...there are alot of kids in this country without a mommy or daddy.

You wanted Saddam, now we want you out of office for treason. You bastard, you lied to get us into this illegal war. You have lied to cover up lies. You have put our national security at risk all for the benifit of your rich friends and Cheney's.

Ohio suffered way too much this week. This country has suffered way too much since you started with your lying. It is time for you and your entire administration to step down. We all are fed-up with your lies.

It's time to bring down the house, the White House that is. It's time to write to our Senators and Representatives and tell them that we want impeachment proceedings to begin. In fact, go find them and tell them in person, they're all on recess this entire month. If they didn't come home during this recess that just means that they really don't care about their constituants, and it's time to replace them. Remember, elections are in 2006 and again in 2008.

My heart goes out to the State of Ohio, especially to those who have lost loved this week. My thoughts and prayers are with all of you.
May God bless you.

ANOTHER BUSH SCREW-UP: BOLTON AT THE UN

I really don't know how everyone else feels about "mondays"; you know, that wonderful first day of the work week for most of the working population. Personally, I'm not real fond of them. Usually, how Monday goes can tell alot about how the week will go.

Well, this Monday, 1 August 2005, really sucked! Bush, in all his fucked-up wisdom, appointed John The Temper Tantrum Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. Because the Senate was out on a month long recess the chimp bypassed it and made the appointment after a testy five-month standoff with Democrats who argued that the tough-talking conservative was unfit for the job. Which he is.

At a White House ceremony with Bolton and Condi Rice, Bush said that"this post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform."

Well of course it is, but that arrogent idiotic jackass isn't the right person and he sure the hell isn't going to help. This fool is only going to make the United States look like a bigger bunch of self- serving bastards than the fucking chimp already has.

From the White House, Butt-head Bolton went directly to the State Department where he was sworn in. He arrived at the U.S. Mission in New York to begin work within five hours of his appointment. Five hours to go from White House to State Department to New York...hmmm...traffic must have sucked.

Citing the large number of recess appointments made by presidents, the Bush administration said there is nothing extraordinary about the appointment. But most recess appointments have involved lower-level government positions and do not represent such direct defiance of the opposition party. "It is highly unusual to use it at this level," said Paul C. Light, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who specializes in executive-branch staffing.

In the 19th century, the constitutional power to make recess appointments was frequently used out of necessity to keep the government staffed and running when lawmakers were away for long periods. In recent decades, they have increasingly become a convenient way for president to circumvent Senate opposition to controversial picks.

Under the Constitution, Bolton's appointment will last until a newly elected Congress takes office in January 2007. There could be a good chance of him loosing the position if we can get enough Progressives or REAL Democrats elected in the fall of 2006.

Until at least January, 2007, we're stuck with this jackass as our Ambassador to the United Nations. I guess we have one of two choices we can make at this point...leave him alone and let him prove us right or prove us wrong, or be pissed off and watch his every move and jump all over his and Bush's shit everytime he fucks up. Me personally, I'm pissed off so I can't wait for him to fuck up so I can blast both him and that stupid chimp.

LETTER FROM AN IRAQ VET

While I was going through my email from earlier in the week, which I didn't have a chance to get to when it came in, I came across an item from Salon. The item is a letter written by an Iraq War Vet that explains just how the chimp's administration has lied in the past about the reasons for war and what they're still lying about now.

Here's the link to the site where the letter is. Letter from an Iraq vet

You may have to watch a brief commercial from the History Channel if you are not a Salon Member. Watch the commercial, the letter is well worth the time.

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD ON JOHN BOLTON AT UN

I found the following statement from Sen. Russ Feingold, D., WI, on one of the loacl station's web site. It will explain itself.

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold on the President's Recess Appointment of John Bolton

August 1, 2005

I am disappointed in the President's decision to bypass the Senate and use a recess appointment to make John Bolton the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Mr. Bolton is fundamentally unsuited for the job, and his record reveals a truly disturbing intolerance of dissent. Mr. Bolton did not win the support of a majority of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the Senate refused to make a final decision on this nomination pending review of documents that the Administration declined to provide in blatant disregard for the Senate's constitutional rights and responsibilities. But despite all of the warning signs and all of the red flags, the President has taken this extraordinary step to send a polarizing figure with tattered credibility to represent us at the United Nations. At a time when we need to be doing our very best to mend frayed relationships, encourage real burden-sharing, and nurture a rock-solid international coalition to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the American people deserve better than John Bolton.

Be back later with more on Bolton.

Grandpa Eddie
Citizen and Patriot

THEY DON'T WANT US THERE ANYMORE

The following is an article by Juan Cole that I found via the "Information Clearinghouse." It seems that the Iraqis don't want the our military in their country any longer. So much for the chimp's stupid "flowers" idea.

Sunnis Demonstrate in Baghdad: 1 Million Iraqis say "US Out"!

By Juan Cole

07/30/05 "ICH" -- -- Maher al-Thanoon of Reuters reports that one thousand Sunni Arabs staged a demonstration outside the Green Zone (barricaded government offices) against the elected Iraqi government, which is dominated by Shiites in coalition with Kurds. They accused the Jaafari government of using torture and death squads on a sectarian basis against their community, which they called "the new Iraq of fire and steel." Al-Thanoon says, "Simulating torture, they dressed up as soldiers and used drills, wooden clubs and electric wires to act out what they said were the techniques used by government forces against them."

The Muqtada al-Sadr followers say they have collected the signatures of one million Iraqis asking that US and other Coalition troops leave the country immediately. In his sermon at an East Baghdad mosque, Shaikh Abdul Zahra al-Suwaidi told the congregation, "We obtained the Iraqi signatures demanding the withdrawal of the occupation troops as asked for by Sayyed Moqtada Sadr . . . The goal of this petition is to show the world the rejection by Iraqis of foreigners in Iraq . . ."

Then on Friday evening in south Baghdad, guerrillas cut down Faisal al-Khaz'ali, a major leader of an important Shiite clan.

Juan Cole is Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Visit his blog at http://www.juancole.com

SENATE APROVES PATRIOT ACT

On Friday, 29 July 2005, the US Senate rushed...again...a late night vote on the renewal of the (un)Patriot Act. This time it recieved unanimous aproval. Not even Sen. Russ Feingold, Dem. Wis., voted against the passage of this Act. I believe there was a good reason why he didn't.

Sen. Pat Roberts, Rep. Kas., who leads the Intelligence Committee, had been pushing for changes that would have expanded the (un)Patriot Act to allow the FBI to demand records in terror investigations through administrative subpoenas, without a judge's order, and to have sole discretion in deciding whether to monitor the mail of terror suspects. But Republican leaders in the Senate had agreed to include additional civil rights safeguards and to forestall any expansion of the government's counterterrorism powers that would give the FBI the ability to do this. Roberts did received assurances though in discussions this week that Republican leaders would back him if and when he decided to bring those issues up again. I'm sure he will.

The bill which the Senate aproved Friday makes permanent 14 of the 16 antiterrorism sections of the Patriot Act that were going to expire at the end of this year. The other two sections...one that allows the government to conduct roving wiretaps and demand records from institutions like libraries and medical facilities...are to expire in four years unless Congress reauthorizes them. I feel that this is the main reason Sen. Feingold voted for passage. The House of Representatives put a ten year expiration on these same two sections.

The legislation puts in place several new restrictions on the government's powers. A higher standard of proof will be required from the government when it demands library and business records. There will also be greater judicial oversight and increased reporting to Congress on antiterrorism operations, secret searches will have time restrictions placed on them, and there will be limits on roving wiretaps. About these secret searches, did you know that these have been done for years prior to 9/11? Nice of them to put restrictions on them now.

In the wee hours of the morning of Friday, 22 July 2005, the House of Representatives passed their own version of the (un)Patriot Act. Their's was pretty much the same as the original with a few additions mostly to do with punishment for crimes connected to terrorism. One amendment, passed 402-26, would require the FBI director to personally approve any request for library or bookstore records. Another amendment calls for a 20-year jail term for an attack against a rail or mass-transit vehicle, a 30-year sentence if the vehicle carries nuclear material, and life imprisonment...with the possibility of the death penalty... if anyone is killed in such an attack.

Congress has now gone into recess for a month. When this month-long "recess" is over and all the Senators and Representatives return to Washington they will begin the process of hammering out all the details of the (un)Patriot Act so they can send it to the chimp for his paw print.

We've got one month to write to our Senators and Representatives to tell them to make sure that the FBI and other government agencies are not given so much power and authority...permanent or not... that they squash our Constitutional Rights.

SO LONG HAPPY HOUR

Once upon a time employers in this country didn't have a big problem their employees talking to each other on the job just as long as everyone got their work done. Many times this was to the benifit of the employer because workers would put their heads together and come up with better, faster, and easier ways to get the job done. As a result production increased, and both employers and employees were happy.

Then came a time when these same employers started to prevent their employees from communicating on the job. This put a strain on employer/employee relations.

Now they have taken this one step further, they don't want their employees to talk, party, have cookouts together, in general gather together outside of the workplace. The security firm Guardsmark had a lawsuit overruled in their favor by the National Labor Relations Board that will allow the firm to prevent their employees from communicating with each other on their own free time away from the job.

The following is the report from the organization American Rights at Work.

Big Brother Nixes Happy Hour
NLRB Green Lights Ban on Off-Duty Fraternizing Among Co-Workers

It is a regular pastime for co-workers to chat during a coffee break, at a union hall, or over a beer about workplace issues, good grilling recipes, and celebrity gossip. Yet a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employers to ban off-duty fraternizing among co-workers, severely weakening the rights of free association and speech, and violating basic standards of privacy for America's workers.

So how did the NLRB decide to weaken fundamental workplace protections? Security firm Guardsmark instituted a rule directing employees not to "fraternize on duty or off duty, date, or become overly friendly with the client's employees or with co-employees." In September 2003, the Service Employees International Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB against Guardsmark, claiming that the company's work rules inhibited its employees' Section 7 rights.

Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act grants workers the right to "self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations…and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection..." While the law allows employers to ban association among co-workers during work hours, Guardsmark's rule was broader in that it applied to the off-duty association of co-workers.

On June 7, 2005, the Board ruled 2 to 1 that Guardmark's fraternization rule was lawful.¹ The Board majority argued that workers would likely interpret the fraternization rule as merely a ban on dating, and not a prohibition of the association among co-workers protected by Section 7. But the dissenting member of the Board pointed out that since the rule already mentions dating, workers would understand fraternization to mean something else. She noted, "the primary meaning of the term 'fraternize…[is] to associate in a brotherly manner'…and that kind of association is the essence of workplace solidarity."

While there are reasons for employers to ban dating among co-workers (namely to prevent sexual harassment), prohibiting off-duty fraternization is something quite different. Such a ban inevitably chills collective action of any sort—be it on a purely social basis or related to employees discussing whether to form a union or not.

Since employers are not obligated to inform employees of their legally-protected right to associate with their co-workers, how can we expect any employee to assume that a rule banning fraternization doesn't interfere with these rights? And why would someone risk violating a no-fraternization rule, given that most employees work 'at will'—meaning they can be fired for no reason?

America's workers need more opportunities to come together to discuss vexing workplace issues, or just to make personal connections with those we spend most of our waking hours with. But the NLRB gives employers the green light to invade our privacy and chip away at our most basic rights in the workplace.

This is total bullshit!
As you can see it's not just those who want to turn this country into a fascist theocracy that want to take more and more of our personal constitutionally guaranteed freedoms away from us but they also have the employers in our country helping them.

KARL ROVE: LIAR AND TRAITOR, PART IV OR THE PLAME-ROVE-LIBBY-GONZALEZ-CARD SCANDAL

Here's a little tid-bit about everybody's favorite reporter Judith Miller, aka jailbird, that I discovered at the Aquarian Conspirators blog which was originally posted at The Huffington Post. This explains alot about just why Judy Miller kept her mouth shut and took the jail time. I thought some of my readers might find this very interesting. It helps to show how much of a cluster-fuck this whole scandal has become. It's gonna get harder for the White House to get out of this one.

Huffington is still on the Miller Case

The more I'm reading about Judy Miller and her actions leading up to and during the early days of the war, and then through the unfolding Plame-Rove-Libby-Gonzalez-Card scandal, the more I’m struck by the special access and relationships she enjoyed with many of the key players in the Iraq debacle (which, at the end of the day, is really what Plamegate is all about).

For starters, of course, we have her still unfolding involvement in the Plame leak. Earlier this month, Howard Kurtz reported that Miller and Libby spoke a few days before Novak outed Plame -- and I’m hearing that the Libby/Miller conversation occurred over breakfast in Washington. Did Valerie Plame come up -- and, if so, who brought her up? There is no question that Miller was angry at Joe Wilson… and continues to be. A social acquaintance of Miller told me that, once, when she spoke of Wilson, it was with “a passionate and heated disgust that went beyond the political and included an irrelevant bit of deeply personal innuendo about him, her mouth twisting in hatred.”

Miller’s special relationships go much further than Scooter Libby, Richard Perle and the rest of the neocon establishment. Take her involvement as an embedded reporter during the war with the Pentagon’s Mobile Exploitation Team (MET) Alpha -- the unit charged with hunting down Saddam’s WMD. As extensively reported by both Kurtz and New York Magazine’s Franklin Foer, Miller’s time with the unit was highly unusual.

First, there was the fact that she landed the plum assignment in the first place. It would give her first dibs on the biggest story of the war… the hoped-for reveal of Saddam’s much-touted WMD (with much of the touting done by Miller herself and her special sources). Was this the reward for her pro-administration prewar reporting?

Foer cites military and New York Times sources as saying that Miller’s assignment was so sensitive that Don Rumsfeld himself signed off on it. Once embedded, Miller acted as much more than a reporter. Kurtz quotes one military officer as saying that the MET Alpha unit became a “Judith Miller team.” Another officer said that Miller “came in with a plan. She was leading them… She ended up almost hijacking the mission.” A third officer, a senior staffer of the 75th Exploitation Task Force, of which MET Alpha was a part, put it this way: “It’s impossible to exaggerate the impact she had on the mission of this unit, and not for the better.”

What did Miller do to create such an impression? According to Kurtz, she wasn’t afraid to throw her weight around, threatening to write critical stories and complain to her friends in very high places if things didn’t go her way. “Judith,” said an Army officer, “was always issuing threats of either going to the New York Times or to the secretary of defense. There was nothing veiled about that threat.”

In one specific instance, she used her friendship with Major General David Petraeus to force a lower ranking officer to reverse an order she was unhappy about. (Can we stop for a moment and take the full measure of how unbelievable this whole thing is?)

Miller also had a special, ten-year relationship with Ahmed Chalabi, which led to the MET Alpha unit, which had no special training in interrogation or intelligence, being given custody of Saddam Hussein’s son-in-law, Sultan. Miller was even allowed to sit in on the initial questioning of Sultan -- a turn of events that didn’t go down well with some Pentagon officials.

Miller apparently ended up developing an especially close relationship with Chief Warrant Officer Richard Gonzalez, the leader of the MET Alpha unit. Along with puffing him up in some of her dispatches -- once describing his “meeting tonight with Mr. Chalabi to discuss nonproliferation issues” -- Miller took the unusual step of taking part in the ceremony where Gonzalez was promoted, actually pinning his new rank to his uniform (has the bizarreness of all this hit you yet?).

Later, when Miller’s reporting came under serious fire, Gonzalez was only too happy to return the favor, writing an impassioned response to the Times’ Iraq reporting mea culpa. “We have been deeply disturbed,” Gonzalez wrote in a letter to the Times that was co-signed by a pair of his colleagues, “by the mischaracterizations of the operation and of [Miller’s] reporting… We were particularly disturbed by the recent New York Times editor’s note apologizing for having been ‘taken in’ by WMD ‘misinformation’ and citing one article she wrote while embedded with our unit… We strongly disagree with that assertion and remain firmly supportive of the accuracy of her accounts of the events she described, as well as other articles she wrote while embedded with our unit.” Wow. I’m kinda surprised he didn’t sign it “JM + MET Alpha, N.A.F (Now and Forever)”.

But Gonzalez and his pals seem to be the only ones standing behind the accuracy of Miller’s reporting. Even the administration is no longer barking up that tree, with top weapons hunter Charles Duelfer closing his investigation this spring saying that the search for WMD “has been exhausted” without finding any -- while at the same time dismissing the Miller-touted claim that WMD had been shipped to Syria just before the U.S. invaded.

So the WMD investigation has ended. But the investigation into Judy Miller’s role -- both in the WMD fiasco and the Plame scandal -- is just beginning.

My thanks to The Huffington Post and Aquarian Conspirators for this information. It is greatly appreciated by myself and I am sure many others.