Article: W won't escape the treatment his poodle is now undergoing.

W is incompetent so consequentially his central piece of work, GWOT, with its associated "Operation Iraqi Freedom" suffered from his lack of ability. W illogical thinking jumbles up all kinds of conflicts into GWOT and brands those vastly different actors into "those who are against us". Obviously the Shiites in Iraq have different aims, potential benefactors and supporters than the Sunni Baathist dead-enders, yet W assumes that the US populace happily accepts the whole lot as being extremist jihadists.

If he actually can't distinguish between one group of terrorists and another then he's too stupid to be commander-in-chief. If his infamous lack of intellectual curiosity can spout propaganda about Islamo-fascists, which can be lumped together as Islamic countries with policies that run counter to those of the US, then why aren't Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia at the head of the list, instead of being trusted allies?

Lately we have been hearing how the Sunnis in the region-which most of the Middle East is, won't allow the Iranian aided Iraqi Shiites to commit genocide against the Iraqi Sunnis. The notion that Iraq will eventually become a proxy war between the Sunnis and Shiite played out in Iraq has been leaking out. So has the 80% solution, which can be summed up as the US doesn't care how many of the 5.2 million Iraqi Sunnis get tortured to death, as long as the US is out of Iraq by the 2008 US election.

The failure of planning has resulted in unintended consequences. Now that the US is the only part of the coalition of the willing that is remaining in Iraq, W's surge is looking dumber by the second. W is heading for a salvage of shouted rebukes from the US 4th estate. It won't be pretty, but he has Cheney out there accusing anyone who disagrees with W of being in league with bin laden. That worked well enough in 2004, but it is getting lame now. How can anyone take Cheney seriously when on February 27th 2007 while trying to get Pakistan to cooperate with W's GWOT he gets a bomb within hearing distance.

In an interview on February 22nd 2007 Blair was the brunt of verbal attacks regarding Iraq such as:
Being blamed for the "very grim" situation in that country that was the result of a fatal lack of pre-war planning by himself and George Bush, or the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in the first place."

Blair had to deny he was involved in any sort of "crusade" and that "he had tailored intelligence to suit the policy before the war, or that he and the President had decided to go to war come what may, even before they pursued the UN route."

He had remarks such as those of former British envoy to Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock who said "Mr Blair had taken his "eye off the ball" in the aftermath of the war and that no one in those early days had focused on the security of Iraq. There was a vacuum from the beginning into which looters, saboteurs, the criminals, the insurgents moved very quickly."
Lord Butler, who chaired an inquiry into the intelligence behind the decision to go to war in Iraq, said in a House of Lords debate "The prime minister's centrist and informal approach to running the government prevented all the resources available in departments on this aspect from being brought into play.

We know that the International Development Secretary at the time, Clare Short, tried repeatedly to get the Cabinet to focus on post-war Iraq and got short shrift for it."

The BBC's John Humphrys literally yelled at Blair that forcing the entire Iraq Army to leave, thus making them both unemployed and armed was wrong, which forced Blair to whine "The Iraqi police force then was "an instrument of Saddam's dictatorship" and it would always have been the case that it and the army had to be rebuilt "from scratch," which didn't answer the question and therefore isn't acceptable to the general public.

The article "No Iraq doubts from Blair" puts it as "Time and again he refused to apologize for the current situation in Iraq or accept claims the war had made the world and the UK more dangerous places."

No one knows how the "Pandora Box" that W opened up in Iraq will play out, but Seymour Hersh has been one of the most accurate prognosticators and he assumes that W is planning to invade Iran. Maybe that was his plan from the beginning but he got the letter n screwed up with the q. It could happen. How many red staters thought that they were voting for W's poppy, or even Jeb, in
2000?

We are now propping up a weak, thuggish lout, Maliki. Iraq needs a strong, thuggish lout, someone like Hussein, to keep the sects from attacking each other. With Hussein, his Baathist dead-enders had the advantage over the Shiites and Kurds-and committed atrocities, but not to the degree that is happening every day in Iraq now.

Who is the winner? Iran is holding all of the cards now and probably will be in an even better spot soon. Cheney and Rumsfeld always were dead set against Iraq being run by the same theocratic Shiites clerics as Iran is, but in W's incompetently bungled Middle East, the worst of all options is the most likely outcome.

"Mission Accomplished" means total failure and the March 31, 2003-just days after the war begun, article "REAL MEN GO TO TEHRAN" stated "Wimps go to Baghdad", they say in neo-conservative circles in Washington, "real men go to Tehran."

The article has the same opinion as Hersh does as "SCIRI's leaders are moving back into Iraq right now. Two years from now, they will either be ruling Iraq or struggling to break away from it (and take most of the oil with them)."

The US promised to help them back in 41's 1991 Iraq War, but didn't so "Thousands of Iraqi Shia fled across the frontier into Iran, where the Supreme
Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) took responsibility for their lives."

Neither the Kurds or the Shiite have any reason to trust the US, all they can remember was being deserted by 41 in 1991, so whatever the Shiite leaders say is not the truth, its just a ploy to maximize their gains-which is identical to the methods of the US GOP.

On February 27th 2007 al-Sadr said "Here we are, watching car bombs continue to explode to harvest thousands of innocent lives from our beloved people in the middle of a security plan controlled by an occupier."
He also said "To my Shiite and Sunni brothers, I say, "Let us scorn sectarianism and hoist the banner of unity," which is as transparent a lie as the boldest W whoppers.

The US surge began on February 14th 2007 and they have been threatening to attack Sadr City forever, but more openly for the last few weeks due to the surge. That is plenty of time for every Mahdi Army member to flee Sadr City.

They also could just ditch their weapons-which are easily replaceable by their Shiite Iranian chums, and rest at their houses. This isn't rocket science W. Just get someone to explain to you how our ancestors during the US War of Independence-the English would have then labeled us insurgents then, practiced the identical ploy of blending into the houses in the surrounding towns while the occupier futilely searched for them.

The article "Ramadi Bombing Kills 18 Boys"
AULT&CTIME=2007-02-27-12-41-12 mentions that "At least 16 people were arrested after U.S.-Iraqi commandos - using concussion grenades - stormed six homes, police said."

16 people for all of the Sunnis that have been victimized since this atrocity started. The few Mahdi Army members who have been captured today most of have been throw-aways, people whose telephone and e-mail didn't worked recently, or were just not informed that they should hide their weapons until the surge calmed down.

The US has been threatening huge strikes against Sadr City for years, but Maliki wouldn't agree with those plans and he got his way again as "The pre-dawn raids appeared to highlight a strategy of pinpoint strikes in Sadr City rather than the flood of soldiers sent into some Sunni districts."

Whenever guerrilla warfare participants use a town as their hiding spot the locals utter the obligatory lines about innocents being swept up and this contained that as "My sons and wife were very terrified," complained Muhand Mihbas, 30, who said his brother and six cousins were taken in the sweeps. "Does the security plan mean arresting innocent people and scaring civilians at night?"

W's plan of surging more US boys and girls into a nightmare of urban warfare won't work. The Iraqis have to settle their differences politically and having a spineless non-entity-such as Maliki, whose every move is dictated by Sadr, ensures that the political compromises will never be achieved.

The article "The Surge That Might Work" states the obvious as "If we continue down the path we're on, the Sunnis in Iraq will throw their lot behind Al Qaeda, and the Sunni majority in the Arab world will believe that we helped in the killing and cleansing of their brethren in Iraq."

We've just been told about how the crates of cash sent to Iraq to fund the reconstruction and how billions of it has been lost to nowhere. What could the US do to come nearer to the reconstruction of Iraq? The article details that the "Coalition Provisional Authority was that-consumed by free-market ideology-it shut down all of Iraq's state-owned enterprises...Of the original 193 state enterprises, 143 could be restarted soon."

Would it cost too much to give people jobs and an alternative to becoming jihadists? The article does the calculations and decides "That's as much money as the American military will spend in Iraq in the next 12 hours."

W's propaganda about Iraq will result in the unwitting segments of the US developing Cognitive Dissonance, which is defined as a state of psychological conflict or anxiety resulting from a contradiction between a person's simultaneously held beliefs or attitudes.

Which set of lies do you want us to believe W? The article "Ally's Timing Is Awkward for Bush" returns us to what the English are doing. They are bailing out of Iraq letting W fight it out alone as "No matter the military merits, the British move, followed by a similar announcement by Denmark, roiled the political debate in Washington at perhaps the worst moment for the White House.

Democrats seized on the news as evidence that Bush's international coalition is collapsing and that the United States is increasingly alone in a losing cause.

Even some Republicans, and, in private, White House aides, agreed that the announcement sent an ill-timed message to the American public.

"What I'm worried about is that the American public will be quite perplexed by the president adding forces while our principal ally is subtracting forces," said Sen. John W. Warner (R- Va.), a longtime war supporter who opposes Bush's troop increase. "That is the burden we are being left with here."

The notion that the British pullback actually signals success sounds like bad spin, added Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). "I think it's Alice in Wonderland looking through the looking glass," he said.

All along they have been lying to us. As the violence in Iraq surged they said that was an indication that the insurgents were desperate and that the insurgency was in its death throes. GOP supporters Warner's and Specter's biting criticism indicates that its W's regime that is in its death throes and they are lashing out blindly.

Democrats are trying to end the wrong approach to a failed policy and one idea is that House Democratic Jack Murtha's plan that would tie war funding in a supplemental spending bill to strict new standards for resting, equipping and training troops. Don't the troops deserve that?

The article continues "But Republicans labeled it a "slow bleed" strategy that would leave troops in harm's way by blocking their reinforcements."

The reality is that Iraq is already embroiled in civil war and genocide of the Sunnis. The US doesn't like the idea that we'd allow 5.2 Iraqi Sunnis fend for themselves, but that is what W's unannounced 80% solution is. They lost the last election and if the Democrats can get them to realize the truth, W won't escape the treatment Blair is now getting.

These are innocent Iraqis and US boys and girls dying for the lies that have been foisted upon us. It is a shame that politics can even be brought into such a matter, but if the Democrats get Lieberman upset enough that he joins the GOP then maybe more lives will be lost, even though two out of three Americans are opposed to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq and 56% say they strongly object. If the GOP gets the Senate we'll see two years of anti-gay marriage and support of the flag legislation, and the chance that W immerses us in a war with Iran increases exponentially.

Related articles:
"No Iraq doubts from Blair"

"REAL MEN GO TO TEHRAN"

"U.S., Iraqi Forces Stage Baghdad Raids"
AULT&CTIME=2007-02-27-12-41-12

"The Surge That Might Work"

"Ally's Timing Is Awkward for Bush"