20051214
Whenever someone speaks the truth, there will be those who feel threatened by it, and they will ask for silence, claiming that the truth is traitorous, hateful, or blasphemous. So, the truth-teller goes silent on this matter, so as not to offend certain quarters, then having made that compromise is more likely to go silent on another matter to not offend another vested interest, then goes silent again and again and again so that this group and that group and the other group will not be offended, and then we are back where we started, with everyone knowing the evils around us, but constrained from speaking out. I won;t go there. This is not a popularity contest here. Everything I say pisses someone off. Do I speak blasphemy? Fluently!www.whatreallyhappened.com/
It’s a measure of the imperial nature of the modern American presidency that George W. Bush misstates the truth even as he defends himself against the charge that he misstates the truth.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0512d.asp
Facts be damned; the president is not giving up on convincing the American people, contrary to the evidence, that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. He insists on ignoring the self-fulfilling character of his war: it has made Iraq a hotbed of anti-American violence because it has made the U.S. forces an army of occupation. None of this confirms Bush’s position that “they” hate “us” because of our way of life. “They” hated “us” because of a long history of U.S. intervention in the Middle East, and Bush has only given “them” more reason to hate “us” now.
It has been the strangest war. A thousand days ago the US and British armies started a campaign which ended a few weeks later with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick12132005.html
There is no sign yet of the thousand-day war ending. Every month up to a thousand fresh corpses arrive at the mortuary in Baghdad. A new Iraq is emerging but it is already drenched in blood.
Israel Troubled by Bush's Priorities !
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8257
The Israelis and their supporters in the U.S. fear that Washington's need for Tehran's cooperation in stabilizing Iraq and thus permitting most U.S. forces there to withdraw over the next year has weakened the administration's leverage to push for stronger action against Iran on the nuclear issue, even as it continues to insist that Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability is "unacceptable."
Should Israel give up its nukes?
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes968.html
IN A SUDDEN ATTACK of common sense, a Pentagon-commissioned study released in mid-November suggests an approach to nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East that might actually be accepted by the people of the region. What is this breakthrough idea? That U.S. policies begin not with a country that currently lacks nuclear weapons — Iran — but rather with the one that by virtually all accounts already has them — Israel.
Bush calls on UN to step up Syria pressure
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c8480052-6c04-11da-bb53-0000779e2340.html
Syria was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon in April after street demonstrations in Beirut.
I'm surprised those stupid Iraqis' haven't thought of that?
The Pentagon is in the early stages of drafting a wartime request for up to $100 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers say, a figure that would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051213/ap_on_go_co/iraq_war_costs
Analysts say they expect the services to seek a large chunk of money to replace equipment severely battered in Iraq. And, they say, even if large numbers of U.S. troops start returning home, as some administration officials have hinted, a lot of money still would be needed to relocate personnel and equipment.
An Increasingly Aerial Occupation
The political climate at home may force a decrease in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, but the compensatory upswing in air power meant to offset this will be inevitable and will inevitably lead to unexpected problems. Why? Because the Bush administration will still be committed to permanently hanging onto a crucial group of four or five mega-military bases (into which billions of construction and communications dollars have already been poured) along with a massive embassy, directing political and military "traffic" from the heart of Baghdad's Green Zone – and that means an unending occupation of Iraq, something that, air power or no, can only mean endless strife.
A self-described conservative, Bacevich argues that Americans have fallen prey to a "military metaphysic." By that he means all international problems are seen as military problems and the likelihood for finding a solution except through military means is discounted. The result is war as a permanent condition with the only acceptable plan for peace a loaded pistol. One has only to consider the relative weight given to the Pentagon and the State Department to get the point.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/251384_tony09.html
As the debate on the Iraq war enters a new phase, those who foisted a crusade theory of warfare on Americans, and those who bought it, have much to answer for. Such a mentality encourages an overreliance on the nation's military, a rush to war, the failure of careful analysis and the erosion of proscriptions against torture and abuse. In moving from a just war ethic to a crusade theory of warfare Americans have lost their way, and some Christian leaders have betrayed their faith. Christian faith ought always to be a check on war's excesses and a challenge to an overreliance on the military, not a cheerleader in war's camp. As a Christian and a soldier, Andrew Bacevich is arguing exactly that. ¶ 14.12.05
