Article: W's lies defy reality.

The Kurdish segment is in Iraq's geographical boundaries, but it is not under the control of Baghdad--therefore it is hard to consider as being part of Iraq.

The Kurdish segment is in Iraq's geographical boundaries, but it isn't part of Iraq. Since the no-fly zones were instituted over 17 years ago to protect the Northern Kurdish segment from Hussein, that 20% of the population has been autonomous.

So when big bro 43 helps Turkey attack that area, of the country that it allegedly is a part of--but isn't, the central government--al-Maliki's crew, doesn't care.

Still, big bro 43 is helping an enemy of Iraq attack within its geographical boundaries! Everything is confused in this dangerous part of the world and an experienced, sane, sober commander-in-chief who never have put in this weakened position.

The article "Bush steps up US aid to Turkey against PKK" at
click here
contains W's quote "Turkey is a strategic partner and strong ally of America," the president told reporters, sitting next to Erdogan in the White House Oval Office.
"(The) PKK is a terrorist organization. They're an enemy of Turkey. They're an enemy of Iraq. And they're an enemy of the United States."

What has the PKK ever done against Iraq or the US?

Every segment of the Middle East, except the non-Arab Kurdish areas, have enmity towards the PKK and even some Iraq Kurds don't even support the PKK as "Iraqi Kurdish regional prime minister Nechirvan Barzani proposed four-party talks to end the PKK incursions -- with his administration as one of the participants along with Ankara, Baghdad and Washington.
"This is a transnational issue, complicated by ethnic ties, and no party can find a solution on its own," Barzani wrote in Monday's Washington Post.
But PKK leader Murat Karayilan called on the Iraqi Kurdish leadership to stand by its ethnic kin.
"No action (against the PKK) can be successful ... as long as we, the Kurds, preserve our unity," he told the Firat news agency, considered to be a mouthpiece of the PKK."

Of course the 4th estate in the region can't be impartial.

The article "Turkey to move against Kurdish rebels" at
http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10165524.html
states "Turkey's president said on Tuesday that his country "has decided" on how to proceed against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq and had informed the United States."

Sound ominous doesn't it but it isn't as "President Abdullah Gul did not specify what decision had been made regarding an attack, but made clear that Turkey feels that the PKK is leading instability in the region."

The article "Maliki's action plan depends on Kurds' decision" at
http://www.dawn.com/2007/11/06/int14.htm
tries to describe all of the internecine conflicts, but you need a scorecard and a misinformation meter to keep track of them as "Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's vow to track down and arrest PKK rebel leaders in northern Iraq will fail unless the region's Kurdish leaders decide it is in their interest to help him appease Turkey....But he has little sway over the semi-autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). He is also dependent on the Kurds for political support, while two Kurdish brigades, some 6,000 soldiers, are helping to keep the peace in Baghdad.

"There is no way the government is going to force the Kurds to do anything. They could use coercive measures, but then the Kurds can bring down the government," said Joost Hiltermann, an Istanbul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group. Kurdistan's government has no stomach for a fight with the PKK, which successfully resisted Turkish incursions in 1995 and 1997 and fought Iraqi Kurdish parties in the 1990s.
Kurdish President Masoud Barzani, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and other Kurd leaders are also reluctant to be seen to be fighting fellow Kurds, a non-Arab minority living in a mountainous area straddling Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey.
"Barzani and Talabani have become the figureheads of a pan-Kurdish movement.
They are seen as the success stories of getting autonomy, a de facto state in Iraq," said Gareth Stansfield, a Kurdish expert and professor of Middle East politics at the University of Exeter in England.
"Because of that they have a lot of credibility that they don't necessarily want to damage."

Keeping the PKK in the mountains is also a useful bargaining chip for the Kurds in any future negotiations with Turkey.

"They are going to need to get Turkey to compromise over a number of issues, including Kirkuk and their political future," said Soner Cagaptay, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy's Turkish Research Programme."

It always comes down to "economic determinism" or as big bro 43 says, "the oil bidness" as "Kurds want to incorporate the Iraqi oil-producing city of Kirkuk into Kurdistan, while Turkey fears this will help fund an independent Kurdish state and fuel Kurdish separatism."

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" allegedly was to bring democracy to the Middle East and hypothetically it would be such an amazing example of people living cooperatively that the entire region would follow suit. What a pile of propaganda that was.

Anyway the article "Hitting the Mute Button on the Freedom Agenda" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110501735_pf.html
illustrates how "Mission Accomplished" not only wasn't, but diverted us from the area bin laden was and now we have an extremist Islamic country with nuclear WMDs that actually exists unlike W's phantom "imminent threat Iraqi WMD"! it states "Just last Thursday, President Bush spoke of his Freedom Agenda spreading democracy across the globe: "We are standing with those who yearn for liberty."
Yesterday, the Bush administration unveiled a pragmatic new foreign policy: The Stand by Your Man Agenda.
In the intervening period, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, a U.S. ally, had suspended his country's constitution, arrested Supreme Court judges, closed media outlets, and beat or imprisoned demonstrators by the hundreds -- using some of his billions of dollars in American military aid to impose martial law.
Bush's Freedom Agenda frowns upon these activities -- and yet Bush and his aides acted yesterday as if Musharraf had made an illegal right on red, or perhaps parked in a handicapped space....
So would there be consequences for Musharraf's misbehavior? "That's going to depend heavily on what we hear, obviously, from the Pakistani government," he said, making sure to add: "And that is not a threat in any way."
It didn't even rise to a diplomatic slap on the wrist -- and Bush aides must have realized this was not something to be proud of. Before the official briefed reporters from behind the microphone, an aide removed the oval White House seal from the lectern. And the White House ordered that the official, though he has appeared on the Sunday television talk shows, speak anonymously.
"Can we make it on the record?" the Associated Press's Terry Hunt asked at the start of the briefing.
"No," replied White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe. "The president has spoken on the record."
Indeed he had -- no more forcefully than Mr. Anonymous."

It's propaganda-everything is falling apart.

"With respect to Pakistan, it is also our desire to see a return to democracy in the shortest time possible," Bush announced in the Oval Office. "I hope now that he hurry back to elections," he added.
And what happens if Musharraf ignores Bush's hopes and desires? "Hypothetical question," Bush replied.
Did Bush misjudge Musharraf? No answer."
Elaine Quijano of CNN asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's charge that Bush had sacrificed democracy for Musharraf's help against terrorists.
The official replied that Pakistan was "emblematic of the president's strategy generally."
USA Today's David Jackson asked if this might be termed "a setback for the Freedom Agenda."
"We don't know, because we don't know how this story comes out," Mr. Anonymous said.
Cox News's Ken Herman asked if Bush was giving Musharraf a deadline for action.
"No," the official replied.
Steven Myers of the New York Times said that the administration seemed "to have had very little influence" on Musharraf."
"We have a lot of influence," the official replied, "but we don't dictate."
Speak softly and carry a slender reed: It's a key component of the Stand by Your Man Agenda."

Why is it that big bro 43 is getting pummeled by banana-republic tyrants and has such immense power in US politics? Could it be that the 4th estate blares his lies on page 1 and the Democrats response hidden? Could it be that big bro 43 doesn't offer retractions no matter how dismally a failure his policies are?

The article "Final Warning for Administration -- House, Seeking Documents on
Firings, Nears Contempt Vote" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500524_pf.html
illustrates how W is just flipping us all off and the 4th estate isn't calling him on it!

It states "The House Judiciary Committee sent a final warning to the White House yesterday to provide Democrats with access to disputed documents and testimony, pushing the House closer to a vote on contempt citations for two administration officials.
In a letter to White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), gave the Bush administration until Friday to work out a deal on documents and testimony relating to last year's controversial removal of nine U.S. attorneys. If Fielding refuses the latest request, the House could vote as early as next week on the contempt charges,
Democratic aides said."

Democrats are planning better and their plots might work as "House Democratic leaders have spent the past 10 days trying to round up enough votes to secure a majority on the House floor for a contempt citation, aware that some Democrats from moderate to conservative districts may be wary of such a high-profile vote against President Bush.
Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that "Congress has a stake and an interest in challenging that kind of unilateral action."
A contempt citation from the House would be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia for prosecution. But Mukasey has made clear that he believes pursuing such a case would be improper, because it would require a U.S. attorney to argue against an executive privilege claim that the Justice Department has found to be valid."

Democrats are trying to cooperate also as "In his letter, Conyers proposed a compromise in which the House Judiciary Committee would get access to communications between the White House and outside parties and would be allowed to review internal White House records on a confidential basis. The committee would then identify a subset of the internal records to be produced publicly, he wrote.
Finally, Conyers suggested, the panel would identify witnesses to be interviewed privately, in the same manner that Justice Department officials were made available as part of the congressional probe into the prosecutor firings and related issues."

Sure the Democrats don't have the "bully pulpit" and some could call them lame, but they don't have the votes to override W's vetoes and they don't equal play in the media.

We have to get these GOP ghouls out though before it is too late as the article "Self-Inflicted Wounds" at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/05/AR2007110500524_pf.html
states "The question of whether waterboarding constitutes torture is a no brainer. Our nation and many others have recognized for decades that it does. One doesn't have to have been "read into" the details of a classified program, as President Bush has suggested, to reach a judgment about this interrogation technique. Common sense is the only tool needed to understand that inducing the sensation of drowning -- i.e., of dying -- is torture.
Remarkably, in his recent confirmation hearing to be attorney general, Judge Michael Mukasey declined to say whether waterboarding is torture. There are two explanations for this. Mukasey himself stated that he was without enough information to make the call. But some believe his unwillingness to do so may also be based on a concern that it could increase the potential liability for those who have engaged in this practice or authorized it."

It matters why Mukasey feels he has to protect big bro 43 from his crimes against detainees, but it also is important to realize that "The promotion of democracy and human rights is a key element of U.S. foreign policy and fosters a rules-based international system anchored in the protection of human dignity. But our ability to achieve this goal -- indeed, even our adherence to this strategic objective -- is severely compromised when our own conduct is widely perceived to violate human rights.
As bad as the damage to our foreign policy has been, the damage to our national security may be even worse. Because the application of cruelty is a crime under the laws of many of our allies, our ability to build and maintain the broad alliance needed to efficiently fight the war on terrorism has been crippled."

Isn't big bro 43's big claim to fame his ability to protect us from the undefined "those who are against us" in his everlasting war against terrorism? Well, his failed Iraq war, part 2, of the Bush aristocracy attacks against Hussein, has been a recruiting bonanza for bin laden. By rescinding the Geneva Convention protections for detainees he has ruined the US' moral high ground position. We are as bad as the evilest "Axis of Evil" country thanks to W! A sane person doesn't run around saying that it is mandatory for the US to protect itself against the "evildoers" when we are just as vile!