Article: W is on every group's side –-

Which means he's against everyone.

Back in 41's Irag war 41 urged the Kurds and Shiites to rise up against Hussein.
When they did he watched Hussein kill them. Remember big bro 43 warning us
against Hussein because he used WMD against his own people? That was as a result
of 41 spurring them on then abandoning them--and the carnage was captured by CNN
and shown in our TVs. Now 43 is making nice with Turkey, which wants to massacre
Kurds in Iraq. Meanwhile Iran doesn't like the PKK because they have been
attacking in Iran, and the Iranians have been helping the Shiite power brokers
in Iraq, as well as with the Kurdish leadership in Iraq. 41's permission of
Hussein's massacre of Shiites drove them to their Iranian brethren in SCIRI and
this relationship has thrived since the early 1990s.

Who's on first? No matter what happens Iraqis will be abandoned by the Bush
aristocracy again!

Rice is piously prattling that she will get al-Maliki to control the PKK. That is so ignorant! It demeans us. As a result of Hussein massacring Kurdish back in the early 1990s Iraq had a northern no-fly-zone which effectively prevented Hussein from killing Kurds. It also made that area autonomous from Baghdad. Back when Cheney was saying Abu Musab Al Zaquari was in Iraq he was in the Kurdish part of Iraq so as far as the world and Hussein was concerned he might as well have been on the moon. Hussein had no contact with him. Now, almost 18 years later, that area is even more independent.

The article "Iraq Asks for Iran's Help in Calming Kurdish Crisis" at
click here
states "Iraqi officials asked for Iran's help on Wednesday in negotiating a diplomatic solution to the standoff with Turkey over Kurdish guerrillas who have been using northern Iraq as a base to stage raids on Turkish troops across the border.
Tensions between Iraq and Turkey over the issue threaten to overshadow other topics at a regional meeting that starts Thursday in Istanbul, which Iraq hoped would focus on its internal security.
The United States, which will participate in the meeting, said Wednesday that it has stepped up the amount of intelligence it shares with Turkey on the Kurdish rebels, known as the P.K.K. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq met with the Iranian foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, on Wednesday and asked him to intervene on Iraq's behalf at the meeting....
Turkey has threatened to invade Iraq in pursuit of the rebels but has so far refrained.
Iran has been sympathetic to Turkey's position, because Kurdish guerrillas have also been attacking Iran, but it has loyalties to Iraq which, like Iran, has a Shiite-majority government. Iran has also worked closely with the Kurdish leadership in Iraq.
In comments at a news conference on Wednesday, the Iraqi foreign minister,
Hoshyar Zebari, said that he had discussed the situation with Mr. Mottaki and that he had warned of "serious consequences" if Turkey were to invade Iraq.
"It will have consequences for the entire region," he said he told Mr. Mottaki.
However, Mr. Zebari also said Iraq needed help from its neighbors on many other issues, such as border security, refugees and economic investment. "The Istanbul meeting should not be hijacked by the P.K.K. terrorist activities in Turkey," he said.
The issue is a thorny one for most of the meeting's participants. The United
States, which will be represented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has close relations with Turkey and the Kurdish regional government in Iraq, and is eager not to antagonize either one. Turkey, Iran and Syria, all of which are sending representatives, have Kurdish minorities....
Although the Kurdish regional government is part of Iraq, the central government has little control over its policies. The Kurdish area functions as a semiautonomous state with its own military force that is only nominally under the control of Iraq's Defense Ministry. That means that for Iraq to oust the Kurdish guerrillas, it would need the Kurdish government's support.
Traditionally, Kurds have been reluctant to take on fellow Kurds....
American troops detained five Iranian officials in Irbil in January; they have yet to be released. The Americans said the five had links to Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards. The Iranians said they were diplomats.
In August, American troops detained a delegation of six Iranian Energy Ministry officials, but they were released a day later. The Iraqi government has asked the United States to release the Iranians still being held.
"The arresting of Iranian consular officials is a very big strategic mistake," said Mr. Mottaki, who also objected to a comment by General David H. Petraeus that the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad was a member of the Quds Force, the elite Revolutionary Guard unit."

Other than the prospect that the one tranquil area in Iraq, the Kurdish part, might stumble into a quagmire where the entire Middle East falls apart--has there been any progress anywhere in Iraq?

The article "GAO: Reduction In Violence Due To 'Ethnically Cleansed Neighborhoods' In Iraq" at
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/30/sigir-report-oct07/
emphatically declines this view as "Looking for signs of progress in Iraq, the Bush administration has been quick to jump on reports of reduced violence in Iraq. The "violence is thankfully coming down," said White House spokesperson Dana Perino. Violence is "down significantly from last year," declared President Bush.
In a hearing before the House Appropriations Committee today, Joe Christoff of the Government Accountability Office stated that this recent reduction in violence should be taken with a grain of salt, as it coincides with increased sectarian cleansing and a massive refugee displacement:
I think that's [ethnic cleansing] an important consideration in even assessing the overall security situation in Iraq. You know, we look at the attack data going down, but it's not taking into consideration that there might be fewer attacks because you have ethnically cleansed neighborhoods, particularly in the Baghdad area. [...]
It's produced 2.2. million refugees that have left, it's produced two million internally displaced persons within the country as well.
Christoff's conclusions echo that of ret. Gen. James Jones last month, who observed "progress" in a Shi'a-led ethnic cleansing campaign.
Also in attendance at the hearing was Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) Stuart Bowen. In his quarterly report to Congress released today, Bowen acknowledged the reduction in violence but stated that it has not been accompanied by tangible political reconciliation, a finding that was neglected by the traditional media in its reporting today. In Baghdad, for example, Provincial Reconstruction Team officials note:
Despite reduced violence, officials are pessimistic that lasting reconciliation is occurring. ... In Diyala, there is a desire to work toward reconciliation, but it will take years to overcome ill-will between tribes.
Earlier this month, Gen. David Petraeus confidently declared, "There's a local reconciliation" in Diyala province."

With W's crew you can't believe a "flying expletive deleted" that they say.

How does big bro 43 do it? The article "It's Mukasey or no one, Bush warns" at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/NATION/111020074/1001
describes how "President Bush yesterday warned Democrats that if they do not confirm his attorney general nominee, Michael B. Mukasey, the U.S. might have no attorney general for the remainder of his term.

The president painted the nomination as a key part of the war on terror during two talks in a day during which two of the Democratic Party's most prominent senators publicly announced their opposition to the Mukasey nomination based on his unwillingness to declare an interrogation technique called "waterboarding" to be torture and thus illegal....

"It's wrong for congressional leaders to make Judge Mukasey's confirmation dependent on his willingness to go on the record about the details of a classified program he has not been briefed on," big bro 43 said in a speech in front of his bubble of supporters.

"When it comes to funding our troops, some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters," Mr. Bush said.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is often cited as one of the most sympathetic to left-wing groups, did not directly respond to the president's charge but did say his remarks were "beneath the dignity of the office that he holds."

"And I don't want to go there with him," the California Democrat said.

Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin shot back later in the day that her group represents "the majority of Americans" and that Mr. Bush has always surrounded himself in a "bubble of true believers" to avoid reality."

The pattern is this. W lies and the 4th estate sends it out as unchallenged propaganda and broadcasts it continually. Then the US MSM gives a Democrat a minute to rebut W and sticks the truth somewhere were no one can see it.

And who is making out? The article "Cashing In on Terror" at
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071112/truthdig
reminds us of Eisenhower's warnings about the military/industrial complex as it states "Not to stoke any of the inane conspiracy theories running wild on the Internet, but if Osama bin Laden wasn't on the payroll of Lockheed Martin or some other large defense contractor, he deserves to have been. What a boondoggle 9/11 has been for the merchants of war, who this week announced yet another quarter of whopping profits made possible by George Bush's pretending to fight terrorism by throwing money at outdated cold war-style weapons systems."

We have no reason to be throwing away this money on a foe that doesn't exist.

"Sadly for the military-industrial complex, Hussein's army collapsed all too suddenly. But the insurgency, much of it fueled by the Shiites, who were ostensibly on our side, provided the occasion for pretending that we are in a war against a conventionally armed and imposing military enemy.
Of course, we are in nothing of the sort with this so-called war on terror, a propaganda farce that draws resources away from serious efforts to counter terrorism to reward the corporations that profit from high-tech weaponry that has little if anything to do with the problem at hand. As Columbia professor Richard K. Betts points out in Foreign Affairs magazine: "With rare exceptions, the war against terrorists cannot be fought with army tank battalions, air force wings, or naval fleets--the large conventional forces that drive the defense budget. The main challenge is not killing the terrorists but finding them, and the capabilities most applicable to this task are intelligence and special operations forces.... It does not require half a trillion dollars worth of conventional and nuclear forces."
That half a trillion only covers the Pentagon budget for expenses beyond the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars or the Department of Homeland Security.
Those last three items total more than $240 billion in Bush's 2008 budget requests. Add to that the $50 billion spent on intelligence agencies and an equal amount of State Department-directed efforts and you can understand how we manage to spend more fighting a gang of mujahedeen terrorists, once our "freedom fighters" in that earlier Afghan war against the Soviets, than we did at the height of the cold war.
"The Pentagon currently absorbs more than half of the federal government's discretionary budget," writes Lawrence J. Korb, "surpassing the heights reached when I was President Reagan's assistant secretary of defense. ... And, much like the 1980s, we are spending billions of dollars on weapons systems designed to fight the Soviet superpower."
Thanks to bin Laden and Bush's exploitation of "war on terror" hysteria, the taxpayers have been hoodwinked into paying for a sophisticated military arsenal to fight a Soviet enemy that no longer exists. The Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11; they should give bin Laden his cut."

Who knows more about Iraq-our State Department, or us?

The article "Crocker defends Iraq embassy decision" at
click here
states "The U.S. ambassador to Iraq defended Washington's recent decision to force foreign service officers to work in the wartorn nation, saying Friday that diplomats have a responsibility to prioritize the nation's interest over their personal safety.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker made it clear that diplomats who put their safety before that of the U.S. were "in the wrong line of business."

Crocker's comments followed a week of uproar by diplomats over the policy, including a contentious town hall meeting Wednesday where angry foreign service officers raised concern about the "potential death sentence" of being ordered to work in Iraq....

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to send a cable to all U.S. embassies and missions abroad explaining the decision to launch the largest diplomatic call-up since Vietnam, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters soon after Wednesday's meeting.
Rice was making clear in the cable that foreign service officers have an obligation to uphold the oaths they took to carry out the policies of the U.S. government and be available to serve anywhere in the world, McCormack added.
Under the new order, 200 to 300 diplomats have been identified as "prime candidates" to fill 48 vacancies that will open next year at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and in Iraqi provinces. Those notified have 10 days to accept or reject the offer. If not enough say yes, some will be ordered to go."

Can we remember just a decade ago? Clinton was gaining some momentum so the GOP impeached him. Clinton's efforts had to be devoted to fight the lies. We have to impeach W so he can't concentrate on his evil impulses.

The article "Growing Fears of a US Attack on Iran, and an Easy Way to Stop It" at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/opedne_dave_lin_071102_growing_fears_of_a_u.htm
makes that point as "This is no time for members of Congress to write letters to the president.
It's time for them to revoke the 2001 AUMF and to tell the president that an attack on Iran would be an impeachable offense."

Suppose the US ignored history and tried to slap-dash a fourth generation warfare tactic against Iran? What could happen? "And if the Iranians respond to a US attack with asymetrical warfare by attacking targets in the US, we could see military rule at home."

The Pandora 's Box that Iraq has become is falling apart in every area. Every grade school student knows about the dangers of the Middle East, yet we are to believe that W's expensive, experienced cabinet didn't. W counted on the 4th estate to cheerlead his Iraq war and they did. W is ruining our government as his main policy-GWOT, is causing every aspect of W's government to decay. He's desperate and we have seen how he acts when he's backed into a corner.

What would prevent W from declaring military rule in the US? Big bro 43 doesn't possess ethics. He only is interested in gaining a permanent partisan advantage-he cares nothing about the plight of the common masses of the world.