The Heretik

BLUES NIGHT AT LEFTY'S

Betty Blogger welcomes you to Blues Night at Lefty's, a celebration of all artist blue and otherwise, of all genres special and general., The Heretik welcomes you as well. Good things to follow soon . . . .let's go down below . . .onward marching . . . shocking . . . we get letters . . . in the garden . . .new network forms  . . .

Franz K. will be pouring for all who let free comments flow.  Sharks blue and otherwise circle under a lbeautiful clear night on the Bay of Confusion.  Welcome.

BUSH: STICK A FORK IN HIM

IMPEACHMENT: DOWNING STREET STORY HAS LEGS
And Apparently Arms, Hands, and a Body of Disgust.  Plus Eyes on Numbers Read Falling Numbers for Bush on . . . . Impeachment Today’s Zogby Poll has startling numbers for Bush apologists to stomach.  Maybe now the mainstream media will take note. 42% of voters nationwide say they would favor bringing impeachment charges against the servant of  sovereign people of the United States, President George Bush if it is found he misled the country about reasons for going to war with Iraq

[ZOGBY POLL]
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

NOTE ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS: That’s without any mainstream media coverage to speak of about Downing Street. That’s without any Congressional hearings. Bush will be the last to know. Stick a fork in him. He’s dead.  Everybody who is coming on to this late can jump on the bandwagon now.  It's headed to Bush's plot on the political cemetary.

RELATED HERETIK POSTS:
[BUSH: SORRY AND SORRIER]
[A WHOLE LOT OF NOTHING]
[THE BULLHORN]
[F*CK SADDAM! WE'RE TAKING HIM OUT]

HAT TIP:[MIMUS PAULY/SKIPPY]
MORE ON THIS : [ECHIDNE] [SISTER]

[D. Street Minutes]
[Bonifaz to Conyers]
[Sunday Times Summary]
[Basic Summary]
[Source of documents]
[RawStory Article]
[Cabinet Office Paper]
[Legal Background]
[David Manning Memo]
[(image of original)]
[Christopher Meyer]
[Iraq Options Paper]
[P F Ricketts Memo]
[Jack Straw Memo]
[image of original]
[Telegraph article 1]
[Telgraph article 2]
[Time magazine]
[Ray McGovern Book]
[Timeline One]
[Timeline Two]
[Blair Impeachment]
[BBC Transcript]
[June 16 Testimony]
[Perle: War Illegal.]
[BBC Documentary]
[Plans for Iraq's Oil]
[Senators' Letter]

CHECK BACK FOR UPDATES LATER TODAY.

 

ANARCHY USA

RENDITION: ANARCHY USA The Secret is Out. The extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar gets to the heart of whether the United States respects the rule of law, the first principle of democracy. If not law first, criminals rule us in the end.  By what means do we come to this end?  Secrecy is a greater threat to our nation than any outside agents. What our agents do in our name is covered by a sheet of covert necessity. Pull that sheet off and we find ourselves in bed with chaos loosed upon the world.
Even more than a story about warring intelligence agencies and laws broken in Italy, the extraordinary rendition of Abu Omar is reveals the turf of amoral anarchy on which the war on terror is fought. American exceptionalism has never played well to other nations. With every new detail that comes out in extraordinary rendition cases like Abu Omar’s, the CIA’s  poker face  cannot hide cards played far too quickly in a losing game for law.  If we allow our cops to act like criminals for national security, from what are we secure?

FROM IL CORIERRE
The victim was tailed on a street in Milan, immobilized with a chemical spray, kidnapped, sent in secret to the US air base at Aviano, and from there to the fastnesses of the Mubarak regime, with no legal guarantees whatsoever. Now the Abu Omar case threatens to widen the split between the United States and Italy, following the regrettable aftermath of the Sgrena case and the death of Nicola Calipari. Abu Omar’s abduction took place on the territory of a friendly sovereign state, and ally of Washington, which has courageously supported the postwar peace process in Iraq by sending troops to Nassiriya, thus exposing itself to Madrid-style terrorist reprisals. The fact that, in between dallyings in luxury hotels and expenses James Bond would have baulked at, the CIA chose to act without informing the Italian authorities confirms that the US administration has yet to grasp the scale of the damage wreaked on America’s image by the chains at Guantanamo, the photos of Abu Ghraib, and the covert actions of the CIA, whose strategic aims were explained yesterday to the Corriere della Sera by Robert Baer, a former member of the Directorate of Operations. What is the point of the forthright speech by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice urging America’s Egyptian and Saudi allies to at last open their societies to democracy if the CIA then sends Abu Omar, illegally abducted in Italy, to Cairo, to be unceremoniously interrogated without lawyers, transparency, or legal process, all considered superfluous luxuries in time of war by Washington hardliners? [MORE]

The United States  currently engages in serious damage control on public relations here. On the United States side, no one has yet explained how and why its agents felt the need to totally discount respect for Italian sovereignty and law.  When quick results are paramount, bad results are the consequence. When policy is not well thought out, thoughtless offense is inevitable

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST
The CIA "told a tiny number of people" about the [Abu Omar] action, said one intelligence veteran in the management chain of the operation when it took place. "Certainly not the magistrate, not the Milan police."
--snip--
The Italian court case offers an accidental glimpse into how U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies coordinate and communicate on sensitive counterterrorism matters in ways that are expressly kept secret, even from other parts of their governments. This bifurcation between stated policies and secret practices has become more common since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, as the CIA has sought cooperation from other governments to covertly apprehend and transport suspected terrorists to undisclosed locations without legal hearings.
--snip—
The Italian operation was highly unusual even in the context of 100 renditions.

In most, if not all, other post-Sept. 11 renditions, the security service of the foreign country has apprehended the suspect, then transferred him into CIA custody. In the Italian case, operatives from the CIA's paramilitary branch, the Special Activities Division, were dispatched, making the risk of disclosure much higher.

Two of the CIA veterans said the operatives became directly involved because, by 2003, counterterrorism operations had become the main thing the agency's leadership and the White House cared about. "Everyone wanted into the game," a CIA officer said. "The CIA chief in Italy wanted to have a notch in his belt."
[MORE]


The Italian press thus far has a far better understanding of how the Omar Abu case impacts our society than anyone in the American media and our as yet unknowing citizens

The finest moments in American history, from Lincoln to Roosevelt, show that despite all the gray areas, it is possible to defend democracy by force without distorting its spirit.  . . . .  Was this an unauthorized operation by the CIA? Did the White House know? Was the Pentagon informed? How far up did that knowledge filter? Did the Italian authorities give the green light? Or was the light yellow? Did any Italians attend the notification briefings, and if they did, why did they say yes?
[MORE]

The letter of the law, the spirit of the law.  If we do not see the letters of the law that are written on the wall of Omar Abu’s secret prison cell, the spirit of law and the best spirit of our nation will be lost. We will be left then in the care of monsters, in the wasteland of anarchy.

BUSH LISTENS TO NOBODY BUT . . .

BUSH LISTENS TO NOBODY BUT . . .
He Might Want to Listen to  Talabani, the President of Iraq, whom Bush most likely would call by his first name Jalal.  Unlike George Bush who won’t even go to a fallen soldier’s funeral, Iraq’s Jalal Talabani is a true war time president. The reality of war drops all around him. In a Spiegel German newspaper interview Talabani offered several insights into Iraq the mainstream press here will likely ignore: where the terrorists come from, who should be in charge of Iraqi security, and what the nature of the Iraqi government will be. 

In speaking frankly on these subjects, Talabani points out what Bush does not.  First and perhaps foremost Talabani point to Saudi Arabia and its state support of the intolerant Wahabi sect of Islam as the spring from which terrorism flows.  At some point the United States is going to have to deal with this honestly as the entire security of the Middle East depends upon it.  Wahabi brooks no moderation. For all Bush speaks about freedom on the march, no freedom or democracy will exist without a moderate center anywhere in the Middle East.

Here’s more:

SPIEGEL: Do you have any more specific information about where the foreign mujahedeen are coming from?

Talabani: It's difficult to give you numbers, but we have arrested people from various countries, including Pakistan and Egypt, Palestine and Algeria. Many come from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia's extreme Wahhabism is a major source of terrorism.
--snip--
SPIEGEL: There's also been a great deal of debate over how much longer US troops should remain in the country. General John Vines has said that 20,000 soldiers could be withdrawn after the election, while some politicians in Washington favor increasing troop strength.

Talabani: I'm in favor of reducing the number of American troops. In return, we should build up the Iraqi army. If the Americans want to stay longer, they could withdraw to individual bases -- the way it is in Germany. Security in the country is the Iraqis' business.
--snip--
SPIEGEL: Hairdressers, artists and musicians are being killed in Baghdad these days -- just because Islamists see their work as frivolous. Do you understand the concerns of many of your fellow Iraqis that a religious government could establish Islamic law, or Sharia?

Talabani: Iraq will never be an Islamist state. Far from all Iraqi women wear headscarves, and alcohol is served in Baghdad's bars and cafés. On the other hand, we will not have a secular state, because that would mean a strict separation of state and religion. We recognize Islam as our state religion and see Sharia as a source of our jurisprudence.
[SPIEGEL]

GETTING AWAY WITH IT

Dear Quasi:
While I would tell anybody that you agnostics are scum in public, I need to ask you a question in private. I don't know who else to turn to at this point in my life.  I am on quite a roll, but am starting to doubt whether it might possibly be heading downhill. Short of murder, I have gotten away with everything in my life. Will this continue forever?

Sincerely,
Karl R.

Karl, thank you for your question. We agnostics are undecided on whether we take being called scum from the likes of you a compliment or not. The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, a man without a conscience can get away it forever.  But in the end what he gets away with is not worth having if what matters most is lost.  While we are undecided on whether there is a hell or not, we hope you enjoy your time for all eternity there.

The Quasi have spoken.

 
Do you have a problem with love, life or work?  The Quasi Deist Agnostics are here to help.  Leave question in the comments.  Think the Quasi got it wrong or want to suck up?  You can do that to. 

BUSH: SORRY AND SORRIER

THE BEGINNING OF THE BEGINNING OF THE END
Somebody Should Tell Bush He’s Done.  Stick A Fork in Him.  It’s Over.
It is just a matter of time.  The man behind the curtain we were not supposed to pay any attention to has been found out.  The fraud is revealed.  What an inspiring a sorry performance by the President in front of the troops at Fort Bragg and the entire nation Tuesday night.  The only thing more inspiring sorrier was Scott McClellan’s bold new insights even sorrier regurgitations at Wednesday’s White House Press Briefing Court Stenography Session.  Somebody should tell Scott McClellan it is time for a raise new job. 

McClellan opened with a PR announcement on the President’s website dedicated to supporting the troops Bush himself does not support.  Then McClellan turned thing over to Frances Townsend.  Fran Townsend continued what was supposed to be another White House Press Briefing Court Stenography Session with a brilliantly an oddly timed appearance to talk about the Silberman Robb Commission Report on Terror, WMD and whatever else can distract us from the president’s sinking performance the night before on national television.  McClellan made the mistake of then taking questions. HIGHLIGHTS are mine, the lowlights are all Scott.

Q Q So what do you make of all of the Democratic criticism of the President's speech last night, particularly the very harsh words that Senator Rockefeller had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I didn't see exactly what he said. You might want to refresh me on what he said.

Q -- perpetrating a fraud on the American people.

MR. McCLELLAN: I would just say that I don't think politics and pessimism help us complete the mission. The President is focused on completing the mission. And last night he outlined a very clear strategy for the way forward that the American people heard. That strategy is to stand up Iraqi security forces, and as we do that, to stand down American forces. And that's the way forward in Iraq. And it's important that we all focus on completing the mission so that our troops can return home as soon as possible.
 [WHITE HOUSE]

Mission, mission, strategy, strategy, mission.  If the strategy now is to remind people of a mission yet unaccomplished, these geniuses in the White House are making a big mistake.  Somebody should tell Scott reminding people about the mission that isn’t a accomplished only reminds them that the mission is . . . not accomplished.  

Q Can I follow on that? Part of what Senator Rockefeller said was that by using the references to 9/11, that the President was trying to click a patriotic button that would make people more patient. He called it "amazing." He further said that there was no connection between Osama bin Laden, Iraq and 9/11, and effectively was saying the President was using that national tragedy. How do you respond to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: And who made any suggestion of a link to the attacks? What the President was talking about was that September 11th taught us important lessons. It taught us that we must confront threats before they full materialize, before they reach our shores. That's why the President decided we were going to take the fight to the enemy. We are taking the fight to the enemy abroad so that we don't have to fight them here at home. We are on the offense, not defense. And that's the way you fight and wage and win the war on terrorism.
 [WHITE HOUSE]

September 11th, threats, enemy, home, terrorism.  And who made any suggestion of a link to the attacks?  Here we have the beginning of the beginning of the end. People will only play the fool for so long. Soon people will say they are not fools.  In time they will say they never were fooled.  Then they will say there is only one fool.  The fool in the White House.  Who does that fool think he is fooling?  Stick  a fork in him.  He’s dead.  Bush just doesn’t know it yet.

 

Q I guess the question Democrats have is, is the enemy in Iraq the same enemy that struck the United States on September 11th, 2001?

MR. McCLELLAN: Actually, the President talked about it last night. He said the terrorists have chosen to make Iraq a central front in the war on terrorism. They are the same -- they have the same hatred and -- let me back up -- they have the same ideology of hatred and oppression that the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th held. These are the same kind of people. They are terrorists who seek to dominate the Middle East. The Middle East is a dangerous region of the world, and the President made the decision that we could no longer ignore these emerging threat that were building in the Middle East. The Middle East was a breeding ground for terrorism for decades; we looked the other way or tolerated dictators for the sake of peace and stability in the Middle East. We got neither. Threats were emerging and the terrorists thought that history was on their side. They attacked us at the World Trade Center in 1993; they -- you saw the attacks on our troops in Somalia and the attack on our Marines in Lebanon. They launched attacks in other civilized countries, as well.

Then September 11th came. War was brought to our shores. And the President made a decision that the terrorists were going to be the ones that were going to be on the defensive. We were going to take the fight to them. And when you engage the enemy abroad, this is what happens. The enemy recognizes that a free Iraq is going to go right to the heart of their survival because it will help send a powerful message to the rest of the Middle East and help transform that region to bring about freedom and democracy, which is the way to defeat the ideology that they espouse.
[WHITE HOUSE]

Danger, enemy, threats, attacks, September 11, Iraq. The President made a decision. We were going to take the fight to  . . .Iraq.  Every word the President say, everything McClellan says in support of his illegal war . . .  supports the truth in the Downing Street Memos.  Bush sticks the fork in himself.  He just doesn’t know it.

Q So while the President isn't arguing that Saddam Hussein and his regime were behind 9/11, he's saying that essentially they're the same kind of people?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, remember, we talked about how his regime was a sworn enemy of the United States. And what the terrorists did was choose to make Iraq a central front in the war on terrorism. No matter where you stood on the decision to go into Iraq -- we talked about the decision about why we went into Iraq -- I think all of us can recognize that the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism. The President quoted Osama bin Laden last night. The President has heard from his commanders, General Abizaid, who oversees that theater. And General Abizaid has talked about the importance of succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan, and talked to the President about how when we succeed in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be the beginning of the end for the terrorists and their ideology.

If we were to lose in Iraq, it would simply be the beginning of the beginning.
[WHITE HOUSE]

Paranoia strikes three.  Sworn enemy, terrorists , we all recognize. We do all recognize something now.  The White House is repeating things that worked in the past that will work against them now and in the future.  You can only wave a bloody flag so long and then people see the blood has dripped down to where it always belonged. On Bush.  Stick a fork in him. He's done.  Bush just doesn’t know it..

WHAT THE PRESS IS SAYING ABOUT BUSH

BLURRING THE LINE BETWEEN FACT AND PROPAGANDA
Critics were quick to point out that several of those links were more a consequence of the Iraq invasion than a justification for it.
The connections described by Mr Bush at Fort Bragg were more conceptual than the close relationship described by the White House before the war.
The prewar rhetoric portrayed that relationship as long and deep. Dick Cheney, the vice-president, who took the lead in making the claims described evidence of the relationship as "overwhelming".
Mr Cheney said in late 2001 it had been "pretty well confirmed" that the lead September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2000.
Mr Bush said in October 2002: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gases."
He also pointed to the alleged presence of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian Islamist militant in Baghdad, and of a radical Sunni group, Ansar al-Islam, in Kurdistan as further proof of the connection.
Those alleged connections crumbled under postwar scrutiny.
--snip--
Despite the dearth of evidence of a solid link since the war, the picture of the relationship remains muddy in the US.
Mr Cheney, in particular, has refused to retract his war claims and has continued to hint at hidden connections between Saddam and Bin Laden.
Robin Hayes, a Republican congressman from North Carolina, appeared on television yesterday claiming to have seen secret evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks which he could not share.
Such cryptic claims were widely rejected as groundless yesterday, but Mr Bush's more subtle rendering of the alleged Iraq-Bin Laden axis will serve to blur the hard lines between fact and propaganda.
[GUARDIAN UK]

The New York Times says Bush couldn't resist temptation.

President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come.
--snip--
We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.
 [NY TIMES]

MORE OF WHAT THE PRESS HAD TO SAY ABOUT BUSH, GOOD AND BAD
 

USA Today
Editorial, June 29

"Two years ago, an ebullient George Bush flew to an aircraft carrier ... to celebrate the supposed end of major combat in Iraq ... Mr Bush on Tuesday again appeared before hundreds of US troops, this time to respond to questions and growing concerns about the mission ...

"Mr Bush's half-hour speech outlined a sound, steadfast approach to dealing with the mess that Iraq has become. But whether it can stem erosion in support for the war remains to be seen. There was no acknowledgment of the misjudgments that many Americans now see plainly, but Mr Bush seems unable or unwilling to recognise. The administration is reaping the backlash from its rosy predictions that invading Iraq - and getting out - would be quick and relatively painless."

Cragg Hines
Houston Chronicle, June 29

"Mr Bush's setting may have been Fort Bragg, the big, war-ready base in North Carolina, and his audience may have been assembled troops, but the president's target, however, as it has been throughout much of his tenure, was his political base, which he needs to rally ...

"The [latest] Washington Post-ABC survey could point to increased trouble ahead for Mr Bush. For the first time in this survey, a majority (52%-48%) believe the administration intentionally misled the American public in the run-up to the war ... This is a dangerous shift in public perception for a 'values' politician such as Mr Bush. Hence, the speech."

John Podhoretz
New York Post, June 29

"Mr Bush was compelled to ... make the case yet again for the war in Iraq at a time of mounting insurgent attacks on Americans and Iraqis - something he might not have needed to do if he had maintained a laser-like focus on the war on terror at the outset of his second term ...

"The speech marked ... a return to the war presidency ... It was a strong speech ... because it took the criticisms of the war and the war effort seriously and sought to advance better arguments than those offered by the critics ... Thus, the president made clear, the story of Iraq isn't just the daily use of ... car bombs. It's a story of political progress that is threatened only by a loss of resolve on our part - a loss of resolve that will result in a major victory for terrorism."

Washington Post
Editorial, June 29

"Clearly Iraq is now a prime battlefield for Islamic extremists ... But Mr Bush didn't explain how a war meant to remove a tyrant believed to wield weapons of mass destruction turned into a fight against Muslim militants, a transformation caused in part by his administration's many errors since Saddam Hussein's defeat more than two years ago.

"The president also didn't speak candidly enough about the primary mission the US now has in Iraq, which is ... constructing a stable government in spite of Iraq's sectarian divisions and violent resistance from the former ruling elite. It's harder to explain why Americans should die in such a complex and ambitious enterprise than in a fight with international terrorists, but that is the case Mr Bush most needs to make."

Los Angeles Times
Editorial, June 29

"Mr Bush's pep talk to the nation ... was a major disappointment. He again rewrote history by lumping together the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 and the need for war in Iraq, when, in fact, Saddam's Iraq had no connection to al-Qaida ... Mr Bush might be right to now put Iraq at< the centre of the 'global war on terror', but it didn't have that status before the invasion ...

"Americans are understandably upset at spending $200bn [£111bn] and so many lives in Iraq, while hearing only rhetoric about staying the course. If more months pass with Iraqi forces leaning on the safety net of US troops, politicians putting tribe and religious community ahead of nation, and the daily havoc of suicide bombers, presidential scrutiny through rose-coloured glasses will fall on ever deafer ears."

New York Times
Editorial, June 29

"If Mr Bush is intent on staying the course, it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own. Most important of all - despite his lofty assurance [on Tuesday] that in the end the insurgents 'cannot stop the advance of freedom' - all those years of effort and suffering could still end with the Iraqis turning on each other, or deciding that the American troops were the ultimate enemy after all ...

"No one wants a disaster in Iraq, and Mr Bush's critics can put aside, at least temporarily, their anger at the administration for its hubris, its terrible planning and its inept conduct of the war in return for a frank discussion of where to go from here."

Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Editorial, June 29

"Despite their growing unease and even distrust, most Americans do understand the potentially dire consequences of failure in Iraq. They don't like how we got into this mess, they don't believe it's being handled well, but they accept - at least for now - the necessity of sticking it out. All in all, they appreciate the seriousness of the situation, and are ready to act accordingly. They deserve an equal seriousness of purpose from the Bush administration." 
ROUNDUP FROM [THE GUARDIAN]

MORE ON THIS LATER TODAY

AMERICAN EVENING

Tonight at Lefty's Lounge The Heretik celebrates all great Americans red, white, or blue. Betty Blogger salutes Americans of every stripe and  even those with spots. There is no cover charge for those who comment freely. If you have an all american favorite, please let us know. Zeit Geist is behind the bar with her brother Paul T.

We salute you all . . . more to follow . . .War of the Worlds is here . . .

GEORGE, THE ZERO KING

UNCIVIL REALITIES
Neither the Warrior Princess Condoleezza Rice nor her would be Zero King George Bush  has the slightest understanding of the uncivil reality of Iraq.  The Zero King has zero idea what he actually faces in Iraq.  The Zero King sees the world as one thing or another. Fractions are not allowed because they would admit a more complex whole reality.  Given a mind set that sees nation states as primes actors, the Warrior Princess sees things as the Zero King George would.  Iraq is a place that would have unity if these pesky outsider terrrorists with their ideology of hate would just give up.  Reality and the Downing Street memos reveal that the King and his court and his warrior princess consort never gave consideration to the real possibility of civil war. To admit that mistake would admit a greater uncivil reality. These gung ho guys and gals don’t have a god damn idea what they are talking about or what they face in opposition.

It’s the Sunnis, stupid, not the terrorists that oppose your government.  Warrior Princess, surely you remember the Sunnis. They were the religious group in power in Iraq before the invasion.  A minority in Iraq, but a majority in the rest of the Arab world, the Sunnis are not to happy to lose power to the Shia, the majority in Iraq, but a minority in the Arab world.  Zero King and Warrior Princess, surely you had a plan that would work for the Sunnis to accept minority status in a new government, right?  Sure there are terrorists now in Iraq fighting against U.S. forces, but Fallujah was not a city filled with terrorists before it was destroyed to save it.  Fallujah was a Sunni city.  The problem in Iraq for the United States is that Sunnis are all over Iraq.  The Zero King must now face the uncivil idea that civil war is already a reality. Talking about freedom on the march against an ideology of hatred shows what a fool and a zero in understanding King George is.

If you look at the Warrior Princess Condoleezza Rice and the Zero King George Bush, it remains sad and tragic that these people were around when September Eleventh 2001 rolled over on the calendar.  After rolling around in the hay down in Crawford, Texas and a month long vacation, the Zero King was refreshed and ready to respond as only he could.  Rice the student of empires Chinese and Russian cannot understand a people Moslem and Arab with some Kurds tossed in.  And if Bush thinks of Kurds, he probably thinks of cheese he might have served by a servant in a summer cottage.  Reality is Iraq is a country broken up into parts Bush cannot comprehend.  Iraq is broken and cannot by us be put together again.  The cruel stability of the madman Saddam was something the Zero King George couldn’t stand. When he saw his chance, the Zero King  stole our future and Iraq’s as well. Iraqis will pay a price for some time as we make our way from hell.

HELPFUL BACKGROUND AND OPINION

NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ON IRAQ
As with most of the nations in that region, the boundaries [of Iraq] are the result of political decisions, mostly arbitrary, by the colonial powers early last century," said James P. Reams, retired Army Artillery Field officer and former West Point geography instructor. "That the boundaries have lasted into the 21st century is more a tribute to the series of local despots that have run these 'countries' since the colonial powers left." 
[MORE]

HOW SOME OF THE BRITISH SEE IT TODAY
The insurgency was born of the American invasion, but it is hard to determine which of three related developments - the US occupation, the transfer of power from Sunnis to Shias, or the rise of fundamentalism - is the most basic cause. The most pertinent facts about the insurgency are that it is a minority movement in Iraq, since it is confined to Sunnis, and yet it appeals to the angry and disaffected within the Arab world as a whole, where Sunnis are a majority. Minority status in Iraq means the insurgency is characterised by a grave weakness, yet the ability to draw on the worldwide Sunni majority gives it strength.

Again and again the administration has proclaimed that the war would be over once some necessary stage was passed, whether it was the formation of a government, the drafting of a constitution or the completion of some phase in the training of Iraqi forces. Yet the bombs keep on going off, the mortars keep on coming in, and the bullets keep on finding their marks, often enough in the bodies of Sunni moderates.
[GUARDIAN UK]

THE ORIGINS OF THE SUNNI/SHIA SPLIT IN ISLAM
The Shia shahadah (declaration of faith) states:
"There is no god but Alláh, Muhammad is the Messenger of Alláh, Alí is the Friend of Alláh. The Successor of the Messenger of Alláh And his first Caliph."
If you are already familiar with standard Sunni beliefs, you will immediately notice the addition to the shahadah regarding Imam Ali (ra), cousin of the Prophet (pbuh), husband of his daughter Fatima, father of Hassan and Hussein and the second person ever to embrace Islam. The term Shia or Shi'ite derives from a shortening of Shiat Ali or partisans of Ali.
[ISLAM TODAY]

PREVIOUS HERETIK POSTS:

[MONSTER POLICY]
[THE MONSTER SADDAM]
[WAKE ME WHEN THE LIBERATION IS OVER]

WHAT OTHER BLOGS ARE SAYING:

LOOK FOR UPDATES HERE LATER TODAY

BURNING DESIRE OF LAURA BUSH

A MESSAGE FROM FIRST LADY LAURA BUSH
As a former teacher and librarian for six months, I can tell you I appreciate the importance of a good book, particularly a good history book.  And as First Lady of the United States and the only woman in your president’s thoughts, I can sincerely tell you  how proud I was of my husband  when it seemed everywhere we went  we were the center of attention in 2001.

As a wife, a historian, as an American with a burning desire for truth, I can tell you my husband was right when he summed up his first year in office and the year of September 11, 2001 thusly: "But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me."

We would not be where we are and we would not face our fabulous future together if my husband did not have such great insights into history. As far as the present goes, never you mind about those Downing Street Memos.  As George likes to say, they were all written in British anyway.

Even after his rather stiff performance  in his speech in front of the troops last night at Fort Bragg, you can count on George to be stiff in his resolve and stiff in all other things as well.  I know I will.

Laura Bush

SUNSET ON THE BAY OF CONFUSION

BUSH TALKED TOUGH IN FRONT OF THE TROOPS AND NOW . . .
there are one or two other stories to share over a good stong um conversation . . .
about Bush Gnomes and other scary stuff . . . the eleventh commandment
. . .how much do you need. . . more to follow . . .

BETTY BLOGGER says she will buy all your drinks if you comment freely.