Withdrawal timeline = national reconciliation = Iraq solution

Both General Pettraus in his closed session address to congress today and former Iraq interim Prime Minister has said in Doha this week that the solution in Iraq is a political solution.

The keys to this political solution according to Iyad Allawi and many who follow the Iraq issue lies in national reconciliation but it is the very lack of a withdrawal time line that has seen every effort to gain real consensus and commitment to National Reconciliation fail. More pointedly the lack of a withdrawal time line was the primary cause for the departure of the Sadrist block from government and a still looming threat of Sunni members to abandon government also.

It's time for George and Cheney to abandon the tired message discipline of "stay the course" and demonstrate they have a genuine interest in the welfare of their own troops and that of Iraqi's in general and announce a withdrawal time line.

U.S. backed terrorists arrested

In a major set-back to U.S. efforts to undermine the Iranian government Iran Press TV reports the arrest of 90 members of the terrorist group Jundallah a terrorist group who has committed car bombings, abductions and executions of citizens in both Iran and Israel.

In a recent ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran U.S. officials, in an act of unprecedented ass covering were reported as saying that

"...the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight."

However, Doug Lorimer's article CIA funds terrorist operations against Iran quotes former US State Department counter-terrorism agent Fred Burton as saying:

"The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime."

Earlier this month, Voice of America radio gave an interview with Iranian branch leader Abd el Malik Regi during which he admitted to having personally executed Iranian hostages abducted by Jundallah.

In 2005, Abu Abdallah al-Khattab, identified as the spokesman for Jundallah in Gaza as originally reported in the Jerusalem Post and quoted by scotsman.com stated:

"Our people will not remain idle in the face of American crimes in Muslim countries."

By having a "relationship with Jundullah" the United States government is, by any sane definition legitimizing terrorism and stands as the very antithesis to a "war on terror." By extension it stands as a betrayal of the American people and their trust that their government is acting in good faith.

For some I imagine, the knowledge that their government is admittedly supporting an identified enemy of the American people is an act of betrayal bordering on treason.

If 9/11 proved anything it was that there is a price for everything and in light of that sacrifice the American people have a right to know what their government is buying them into.

Bush: Who will help Caesar?

According to ThinkProgress Bush has invited Congress to the White House for non-negotiations and the Washington Post reports that Bush has criticized Democrats for the Delay in Iraq Spending Bill. The POTUS is said to have retorted

"They need to do it quickly and get it to my desk so I can veto it, and then Congress can get down to the business of funding our troops without strings and without further delay."

Frankly I don't see what the rush is as the POTUS waited until June 16 to sign the supplemental last year. In the same article the Washington Post continued reporting President Bush as saying

...that the Pentagon would soon have to transfer $1.6 billion from other military accounts 'to cover the shortfall' caused by the lack of a bill.

Why? Bearing in mind that the Congressional Research Service reported to Congress last year that with funds already appropriated they won't run out of funding until July 2007.

So, what's all the hulla balaoo about? The sticking point as everyone knows by now is the controversy of announcing a withdrawal date. Honestly, setting in place a plan for staging a withdrawal has never had to be set in concrete it just needs to be an aiming point. Additionally, far from being a catalyst for more violence it actually stands to neutralize a primary propaganda weapon of nationalist insurgents which is that the U.S. are in Iraq for good.

I say, announce a date and see what happens. You don't physically have to do anything and you can observe what transpires and if violence increases then the POTUS can take the date away. I think it makes for an excellent stick and carrot approach that will motivate everyone with a genuine interest in seeing a stable Iraq to be pulling in the same direction to achieve it.

Unfortunately I'm of the growing opinion that the POTUS has slowly but surely dug himself a hole as "the Decider" that his brains trust have so far not been able to help him out of.

They need to work much harder!

Iraq Withdrawal: A Feith saving exercise?

In today's Whitehouse press briefing Dana Perino tried to justify President Bush’s escalation in Iraq by stating,

“The terrorists that are seeking a safe haven in Iraq, if we were to leave, would find one, just like they had one in Afghanistan.”

Yes Dana, that's the foothold they grabbed whilst he U.S. was too busy establishing a "beachhead" in Iraq to tackle Iran!?

I'm just wondering what part of the recent Senate Intelligence Committee findings regarding Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Dana Perino missed?

Are we being asked to have Feith or save Feith?

India 123 Agreement: Stupid is stupid does

Indian protestations from some quarters that under the new nuclear technology sharing agreement with the United States that they only have to abide by the 123 agreement and not the Hyde Act enacted by both Congress and the U.S. Senate is wishful thinking and at complete odds with developing rhetoric.

Specifically, I refer to how quickly both parties to the agreement have engaged in public hyperbole in their own circles downplaying the extent of obligation that each has under the agreement and followed more recently by U.S. claims that India was not meeting its obligations fast enough. I can only surmise that an impending IAEA meeting on Iran must be close at hand. :)

I am of course alluding to both the 123 Agreement and the specific clauses in the U.S legislation that demands

"India’s full and active participation in United States efforts to dissuade, isolate, and, if necessary, sanction and contain Iran for its efforts to ...enrich uranium"

in direct contravention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Specifically, the NPT precludes "hampering the economic development of the Parties" and protects the

"inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

I know what you're going to say: "India is not a member of the NPT" and you'd be correct. Except that both the United States and Iran are. In this sense the 123 Agreement has allowed the U.S. to leverage sanctions against the Iranians by Indian proxy. Something, that they were expressly prohibited from doing under the NPT.

The U.S. gets to have a double laugh at India because it's partnership has been responsible for Iran raising the price of gas in retaliation under the joint India-Pakistan-Iran pipeline agreement to the point of being uneconomical. In that sense then, India has also offended and lost a key containment ally of India against Pakistan.

Oh.. and I hear that America says thanks for the heavy water shipments too.

Actually India, can you remind me again what exactly did you get out of this?

Joe Klein drops a clanger at Time

Man! When are journalists going to learn to read! Seriously, I'm sick and tired of every Tom Dick and now Joe writing about the Baker Hamilton report without ever having read the bloody thing.

Joe writes in his article An Administration's Epic Collapse:

"...never was Bush's adolescent petulance more obvious than in his decision to ignore the Baker-Hamilton report and move in the exact opposite direction: adding troops..."

Joe, the Baker-Hamilton report reports states:

"...a short-term ...surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad ...if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."

Whilst he may not have made a song and dance about it, The POTUS has actually implemented a raft of the BHR recommendations and you can read what I wrote about this months ago in my post Bush may have been listening after-all.

The Iranians have done it!

Hotair at Hotair.com. Well they got that right! Talk about hysterical it's embarrassing. Bryan dribbles the following in his post Iran: 3,000 centrifuges installed:

"I guess what I’m saying is that the international community is a giant waste of time, and will soon be a ginormous waste of life. And the international community is very likely to blame it all on us when the mushroom cloud lights the sky ...bah blah blah"

Here are the facts Bryan:

Iran has had the 3000 centrifuge farm under construction for over 12 months. The IAEA has known about it all this time. Only one centrifuge has ever been found to have a level of enrichment beyond 5% and the Iranians made full explanation that they purchased it off of Dr. Khan in Pakistan as did the Libyans a decade ago.

The IAEA admits in their reports that there is NO EVIDENCE of Iranians engaging in enrichment for weapons purposes. The IAEA's major concern is and has always been about the safety of the facilities for undertaking that enrichment.

Here are some facts from the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

"The safeguards required by this Article shall be implemented in a manner designed to comply with Article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid hampering the economic development of the Parties"

"IV.1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty."

The State Department is on record saying:

"The United States believes noncompliance judgments ...should be made on the basis of the facts, not based upon political calculation or the mere use (or avoidance) of specific trigger words."

So, let's just stick with the facts Bryan before gratuitously wetting our pants over nothing in public.

What's wrong with competitive analysis of intelligence?

Remember Team B? They were the cabal approved under President Reagan to undertake competitive analysis of intelligence on the then Soviet threat. Historically, their results have been variously described as being everything from "completely wrong" to "fantasy". Even CIA Director, George H. W. Bush finally concluded that the Team B approach set "in motion a process that lends itself to manipulation for purposes other than estimative accuracy." Team B was shut-down.

So, fast forward to 2002 and the formation of the Office of Special Plans whose task was ...you guessed it "competitive analysis of intelligence". These are the guys who said Saddam had WMD's, was buying Uranium from Niger and had links with al Qaeda. All of these assertions as with their Team B forebears have been proven through courts and various senate and congressional committees to be anywhere from simply "misleading" to complete fabrications. The OSP was also shut-down amidst the Valerie Plame Affair and with one of its former members, Lawrence Franklin jailed for passing classified intelligence to foreign officials.

So here we are today and Bush Jnr. has assembled much of the same crew yet again for his Iranian Directorate whose role is rumored to be ...yep "competitive analysis of intelligence". Remember the fake Iranian IED photographs from a few months back? No, these guys are not stupid, but they are persistent.

In my mind, the Bush administration, sees intelligence analysis as a drunkard views a lamppost--as a means of support rather than illumination--nothing surprising there. The question then is what is a country to do when its most senior members of democratic government are actively involved in undermining their own country's national security by subverting intelligence to achieve the private objectives of God only knows who?

What are the potential impacts of foreign policy decisions that bear little or no relationship to actual circumstances? In my mind I see this type or partisan manipulation of intelligence as the single largest threat to any and all countries national securities worldwide.

What do you think?

Iran attack imminent--apparently.

Affectionately known as Operation Bite it frankly is not really the kind of mission name we’re used to from the U.S. Military which would normally be something like Operation Crushing Freedom. Maybe it’s a working title.

Now, I won’t vow for the credibility of sources but apparently a high level Kremlin leak based around Russian satellite intelligence suggests that the U.S is going to spring a surprise attack on the Iranians in the beginning of April.

I don’t want to get too specific but other sources have suggested that it will be a 12 Hour Bombing Run On Iran Scheduled For Good Friday starting 4 AM on April 6. The story’s been floating the blogs for about 3 days now but has yet to head in to mainstream media?

Anyone heard anything concrete? I’ll try and find out more.

Iraq Oil: Storm in a teacup?

Based on all the scaremongering reports I've seen written about this upcoming final draft it appears it has all been a storm in a tea cup.

Far from being restricted to existing fields INOC is permitted to create subsidiary companies, take shares in foreign companies and participate in exploration and production of future resources in accordance with article 6 and appendix 2--which is missing. Exxon Mobil is said to have more seismic data on Iraq than on Houston real estate and my guess is that appendix 2 contains only a sub-set of identified oil reserves if you get my drift :)

Additionally, contrary to Raed's claim, this draft specifically states that all oil revenues are to be deposited with the Iraq Central Bank whose board is made up of national and regional ministers with distribution of these monies to be in accordance with the constitution. In other words, I can find nothing in here that speaks to dividing-up Iraq.

The Royalty fee of 12.5% appears to be within industry standards and if INOC is able to negotiate partnerships with oil companies than it should profit accordingly. I use the term "should" advisedly as I don't know if it's clear what their capacity is to buy in to these joint partnerships and under what terms.

This is the rub, in that pre and post production profit margins etc are all negotiated in individual production contracts. These are subject to public bidding but I imagine the details will remain confidential to all except the parties involved and government.

The maximum period of production agreements is 20 years with renegotiation to 25. If INOC is unable to buy-in to foreign partnerships on favorable terms then these periods could become a pita for Iraq down the track.

As background, one of the main points of concern I read previously concerned an alleged 20% post production cost profit margin for foreign oil companies. The concern was that normally these would be negotiated at around 10-12% post production margin. Oil industry pundits suggested that this was due to the risk involved in conducting oil operations in Iraq. However, with the ability to sign PSA's for periods of up to 20 years this stands as a massive profit margin equivalent to the signing of most standard agreements with a forty year term. One can only hope that the National Oil Council of Iraq will bear this in mind when negotiating the contract periods.

Sally Neighbour: Inside the mind of a terrorist

Sally Neighbour's article in The Australian titled Inside the mind of a terrorist dated 19 February 2007 amongst other things identifies the bonding between disaffected young adults who turn to terrorism but are we still missing something?

In one part I'm glad that Sally acknowledged that Bin Laden is/was driven more by politics than religion. This is key to combating the myth of his motives as being purely religious. However, I feel we need to make more room in the overall discussion to explore some of the other myths surrounding our understanding of terrorism and terrorists. To examine issues that fall outside of what I call the symptoms of terrorism such as disaffected young adults and their need to bond. we need to do more than simply relate the personality traits that are present in one form or another throughout mainstream society.

Critically, I think we need to be aware that our burgeoning terrorists come from all walks of life, ideologies, religions and economic backgrounds. Thus, the one thing this broad demographic denotes is the overwhelming futility of attempting to "profile" would-be terrorists.

What it does identify however, is that as individuals, we often participate in collective actions at times for widely differing reasons. This ranges from our rebels without a clue all the way to intellectuals who have a broad understanding of the complexities of geopolitical dynamics. They may rally under the same banner but their respective raison d'êtres may differ markedly.

In this sense then, trying to understand the behaviour of individual terrorists (the foot soldiers) is tantamount to confusing a private soldier's reasons for joining his country's army as definitive insight into why his country is at war.

My point is that we need to look more broadly at the collective or organisational motives of these organisations as key indicators for their actions. This is more politically difficult for governments to do as this means treating the illness rather than it's symptoms.

Issues form the core of all disputes and by that I mean issues real or imagined. Some of these issues will be concrete such as specific economic, political, territorial issues etc. or may be abstract such as values, culture and belief based issues or a combination of the two such as historical.

I'm not suggesting that all issues can be legitimized just that they need to be heard. The argument that we will not legitimise terrorist activity by sitting down and talking with them is a straw man argument.

By this I mean that it is not enough for governments to rail against a terrorist organisation one moment and support them covertly the next (Hamas, Fatah, MEK and others). It is not enough for governments to demonize acts of terrorism but continue to support those same acts to meet their own short term goals. We must act consistently with our core policies if we expect others to believe we act in good conscience.

If we are unable to behave consistently with our core values and policies then we cannot hold ourselves to be any different from our claimed enemies. We need to understand that no matter what we do as a society we set an example--like it or not. We can choose to set a good example i.e. behave consistently with our core values providing the space for our enemies to follow or we can behave inconsistently and have our people wear the cost when our enemies do the same. However we choose to behave, consistently or inconsistently, behaviour in our society is guaranteed to reflect that.

Bush may have been listening afterall

Contrary to the politics of the media and the hysterics of Hagel the Baker Hamilton Report (BHR) actually recommended "...a short-term ...surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad ...if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective."

Additionally, it appears that Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to the Middle East whilst not establishing an 'Iraq International Support Group' as recommended by the BHR canvassed widely amongst various Arab countries and groups on what I imagine were issues recommended by the BHR.

George's recent State of the Union address also contains additional recommendations from the BHR which include the establishment of a Civilian Corps and additions to the ranks of depleted Marine and Army ranks.

I didn't agree with the Baker Report recommendation that "The President should restate that the United States does not seek to control Iraq’s oil." I think the less he has to say publicly the less likely it is to come back and bite the Administration on the ass. Bearing in mind that the Iraqi's have been under enormous pressure to sign the Petroleum Legislation framed around a PSA as opposed to royalties and with terms that make the Sakhalin II PSA look like a lotto win for the Russian's and we all know what happened there :))

If he follows the recommendations of the BHR and various milestones relating to that are achieved the BHR indicates that a withdrawal could commence in time before the next elections ....sorry I mean first quarter 2008 :)

There's only one major sticking point and that is that (at least publicly ) the Bush Administration has not modified it's regime change tune on Iran but blind Freddy can see that any plan is dead in the water without doing this. We can only hope that efforts are being made behind the scenes.

Perhaps this also explains why there has been little public admission by the Whitehouse of the Baker Hamilton Report letting the President save face with his original course of action. It may also explain why Congress elected to levy a non-sanctioned resolution at the President whilst still publicly appearing tell him off--avoiding any constituent backlash.

Iraq Surge: What if Congress says "No"

Well there appears to be a couple of resolutions doing the rounds at the moment and none of them look promising for the Bush Administration so where is this going to leave Bush, the United States and more importantly the Iraqis?

I wonder if there is any benefit in sounding out the U.N. for involvement as peace keepers deployed in the less conflicted areas of Iraq. If the U.N appeared agreeable in principle then Bush could re-lobby congress for an advance of 20,000 troops as a sign of good faith until the Blue Helmets can get on the ground. For Congress this would be their light at the end of the tunnel.

Feeding Blue Helmets into the low or non-conflict areas of Iraq would allow the relieved U.S. troops to be withdrawn and re-deployed for the calming of Baghdad as well as the start of overall withdrawal of some of these troops if U.N. replacement numbers permitted. Again a light at the end of the tunnel for both American's and the people of Iraq and the peninsula in general as well as an opportunity for Petraeus to work his magic.

Troops withdrawals don't have to be huge it just has to be a start-- a PR goodwill gesture to let everyone concerned know that the end of the tunnel is in sight. Headlines read: "Our troops coming home" --ticker tape parade stuff. Everyone heaves a sigh of relief.

The deployment of the U.N. peace keepers combined with the start of U.S. withdrawal may be the type of conciliatory gesture needed to coax Iran back to the table for talks on stemming the Iraqi insurgency. I think they'd want to keep these talks under the counter and simple by leaving the whole nuclear thing off the table until the changing of the guard in Washington and a new centrist govt. Democrat or Republican can openly negotiate a new way forward with Iran.

The problems with the U.N. solution is largely how does this get spun in such a way that the President doesn't look like he's having to eat crow. This is no small matter and is of prime concern to many on the Hill as they try and decide the best course of action on Bush's latest plan. Unfortunately, there is no way to embarrass the President without embarrassing the presidency and the U.S as a whole so any solution has to take this into account.

Another problem is that Iran would be unhappy about having to sit with U.N. sanctions for the next 18 months waiting for guard change in Washington and the start of meaningful talks so perhaps Washington, Iran and the U.N could agree to having the Russians run a "hear no evil see no evil" monitoring team on the ground in Iran permitting a slackening of the sanction's noose.

The other problem of course is making sure that Israel doesn't run any interference on the process by doing something rash or preemptive against Iran.

Of course the hardest part would be convincing everyone that this was the President's plan all along.

Bush: when your only tool is a hammer

For the Bush Administration stirring the pot so to speak is central to their interventionist foreign policy. In terms of the state-military connection it is critical to maintaining their power base, influence and political relevance. In foreign policy terms however, the problem is that when your only tool is a hammer every problem starts to look like a nail.

Bush and Cheney know that when you thrust a stick into a hornets nest you will stir a lot of angry hornets. But this is necessary in order to galvanise the American military machine into action and fire-up a stagnant economy. The economic effects of this strategy appears to be working according to some economists who predict that the American budget will move into balance just in time for the 2008 elections. To underline their commitment to the "Hammer" model of foreign relations I understand that Bush will be seeking an overall increase of Army and Marines Corps by 100,000 troops over the next 5 years.

I imagine privately that the Bush and Cheney camp feel quite irked that an ungrateful congress have failed to see their bigger picture which guarantees the role of the military and its associated industry for the foreseeable future and that their current six year investment has only cost them a paltry 3000 troops. To placate them I hear he will announce at his State of the Union address the creation of a new special advisory council on the war on terror made up of leaders in congress. I imagine this will both neutralise dissent and keep them out of his hair for the remainder of his term.

Iran: Double or Nothing!

The problem with the recent UN Security Council resolution taken in December 2006 was that it, like the August resolution preceding it, is effectively toothless. My thoughts are that if Iran ignored the previous UN NSC resolutions they probably think they are so close that they can ride out whatever non-military sanctions that are in place long enough to complete their enrichment program.

Subsequently, whatever action the U.S. may want to take it cannot do it under the NSC resolution auspices which are strictly non-military sanctions. Remember, the U.N.'s primary concern is nuclear enrichment. The U.S.'s primary concern now appears to me to be regime change. So, in this regard the U.N.'s aims are too narrow for the Bush Administration. On reflection this makes sense as to why the U.S. have been reluctant to engage in "real" talks with Iran. What this means is that contrary to my previous armchair analysis; the U.S. will not be able to leverage the U.N. to achieve their regime change objective.

They need another "in". They will need to demonstrate that the Iranian Executive are deliberately orchestrating the insurgency in Iraq. What they need is a "Polish" incident to galvanize Iraqi opinion against Iran and provide an opening for a U.S. retaliation on Iraq's behalf.

Ground forces are already at their limit so, I imagine their retaliation will comprise a precision attack who's covert aim will be to decapitate the Iranian Executive Govt; facilitating a regime change to a willing moderate insider who can step in immediately and maintain order. This is a tremendous gamble but the rewards if affected correctly would be immediate and decisive.

For "Hearts and Minds" reasons then I imagine the U.S. would be consider it imperative to affect a regime change without transitioning any U.S. GI's to Iranian soil. And considering the air power brought into the gulf I imagine they will try to remove the executive and knock-out C&C systems in hours rather than days. Of course a consequential side effect of this is that Iran's nuclear enrichment will have also been sidelined probably without having to bomb a single enrichment facility--lest they be accused of breaching the U.N. NSC resolution.

I can see that Bush might see this as his "Winston Churchill" moment--his destiny. If he can pull this off he can change the regime in Iran to a more favourable one, sideline it's nuclear enrichment program and stem the supply of Iraqi insurgents in a single manoeuvre.

What could possibly go wrong?

Iran owes the U.S. a debt of thanks

The U.S. did Iran a big favour by removing not one but two regimes that had been a constant security threat to Iran. Iran never had to lift a finger whilst the U.S. did their work for them--beautiful!

I imagine that Iran's policy of supporting the insurgency will parallel that of their support of Kurds in Northern Iraq over decades. That is simply to act as a distracting thorn in the side of Iraq and now more importantly, the U.S.

Specifically, I believe Iran will carefully regulate the flow of support to Iraq insurgents so that neither ever obtains a clear advantage and by doing so keep the U.S. and Iraq trapped in sectarian violence as long as possible. It's not in Iran's strategic interest to see this resolved quickly--distraction is key.

In that sense perhaps there is a strategic advantage to the U.S. engineering a withdrawal as soon as practical and in the process drawing the Iranians into openly broadening their support for the insurgency in Iraq. This could facilitate U.N. support as Iran's intentions to control the peninsula would be in public evidence and likely pave the way for U.N. approval for "proactive" measures against Iran rather than the toothless resolutions currently in place.

This would remove the U.S. from the spotlight whilst providing it with a cloak of authenticity. Additionally, it would act as a denial of service attack on both Russia and China's investment interests in Iran.

At best it could aid Iranian public opinion for regime softening in Iran because it will be seen as a U.N. action rather than a U.S. action. In other words it neutralizes one of Iran's primary propaganda weapons--anti-Americanism.

In reality it could be enough to bring the Iranians back to the table for "real" talks which this time would occur under UN auspices and an opportunity for Iran to try to broaden the diplomatic agenda to address mutual security concerns rather than the piecemeal diplomacy that has occurred so far. This is to Iran's advantage more than the current Bush administration's advantage but I believe is better for U.S. interests in the long run.

As far as Iraq is concerned well it's already a basket case. In that regard the U.S. should make efforts to be there when Iraq decides it's sick of the bloodshed and ready to re-join the world.

Strategically, then perhaps Iran is the better containment option for the peninsula than Iraq in both the short term and the long.

In conclusion, Bush's Plan B may just be a short-term containment option paving the way for a withdrawal. An "augmentation" of troops in Baghdad may permit the U.S. to create the perception of law and order just long enough to withdraw their troops and sucker Iran into broadening it's involvement in Iraq.

Perhaps this is the U.S. plan after-all.

Bush's new plan: more petrol...

George, planning is what you do BEFORE you take action. I think it was the Chinese General Sun Tzu who said “Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night...” Bush sure has the impenetrable bit down pat--sheesh.

I had to laugh at Condi Rice today having to channel the finer points of the English language with Senator Chuck Hagel who carelessly interpreted the increased number of troops to be an "escalation". Condi quickly informed him that it was really just an "augmentation". Yes Condi, and women have their breasts escalated.

In truth she probably didn't need to engage in this pointless wordsmithing with Chuck as she could easily have explained it as simply replacing the 22,000 troops wounded to date. Trust me, this is not a miracle of coincidence.

I'm also unconvinced that stationing more troops in Baghdad is going to help him reduce the alleged stream of arms crossing the Iran and Syrian borders in Iraq. Not even Saddam with the fourth largest army in the world was able to prevent Iranians from supplying weapons and support to the Kurds in the North until the Algiers Agreement in 1975 and he WAS in control of the country.

Personally, I believe he's been praying that Congress is going to say "no" so he can blame them for not giving him the support needed to finish the job. And if they do give him the money and he fails to deliver well he can blame them anyway because if they're too stupid to stop him then it's their own fault.

See, here's your real problem and it's not Bush or the shadowy executive skulking the corridors of the white House. The problem lies in the U.S system of a “unitary executive” or at least the current Republican administration’s interpretation of it anyway. Congress is denied any real debate and left to negotiate at the periphery of issues after they have already been decided ex parte by a small influential executive and an already isolated President. I think a court challenge is needed to clear this up once and for all.

Addressing comments to his detractors George Bush recently said: “Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.”

That "path" George is diplomacy. It is the path every person in the free world was telling you to take but you were not listening then in 2003 and you're not listening still.

Oliver Kamm's Chomsky "source" claim dismantled

In Oliver Kamm's blog post titled "Chomsky and source material" he asserts that Emeritus Professor Noam Chomsky has misquoted retired UN Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan alleging that Chomsky "doesn’t appear to have read the book he claims to be quoting from." I note this as a very serious insinuation of research fraud against a distinguished Emeritus Professor of world renown which on those grounds alone warranted closer inspection of Kamm's claims.

I repeat Moynihan's quote below from his book "A Dangerous Place" for reference which for ease of illustration I have identified as two consecutive parts #1 and #2.

UN Ambassador Moynihan (retired) wrote:

Part #1 "In both instances the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook." Part #2 "This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

Chomsky's own writing paraphrases Part #1 of Moynihan's text:

"Referring to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, [Moynihan] says that the United States wanted things to turn out as they did and that he had the assignment of making sure that the United Nations could not act in any constructive way to terminate or reverse the Indonesian aggression."

Chomsky immediately continues with his own observation of Moynihan that: "He carried out that task with remarkable success." Note: This sentence is Chomsky's observation not Moynihan's and is clear from Chomsky's use of the word "He".

Chomsky, continues paraphrasing Moynihan saying that: "He then in the next sentence goes on to say that he’s aware of the nature of that success." When Chomsky writes "next sentence" he is obviously referring to the sentence identified as Part #2 above i.e. Part #2 is the "next sentence" following on from Part #1 of Moynihan's quote.

Oliver Kamm, in a masterful stroke of conceit ignores this simple truth instead fabricating that Chomsky's "next sentence" points to ...you guessed it, a completely unrelated sentence on Luanda. Rather than suspect his own close reading ability Kamm has instead attempted a clumsy coup de grâce, stumbling upon his own sword in the process and in doing so rendered himself as the one that "doesn’t appear to have read the book he claims to be quoting from."