Sunday, April 18, 2004

Posted here Sunday, April 18, 2004 at 10:01:27 PM     I need to quote www.billmon.org An Eye for an Eye "When the fighting is over in Fallujah, I will sell everything I have, even my home," said a resistance fighter who gave his name as Abu Taif Mashhadani. He wept as he recalled his 8-year-old daughter, who he said was killed by a U.S. sniper in Fallujah a week ago. "I will send my brothers north to kill the Kurds, and I will go to America and target the civilians. Only the civilians. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. And the one who started it will be the one to be blamed." Washington Post Revolts in Iraq Deepen Crisis In Occupation April 18, 2004 For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. Book of Hosea Chapter 8; Verse 7  ********

Posted here Sunday, April 18, 2004 at 10:34:24 AM     Good to read back a year to see what was being said. I mised this, in the newly emerging blog world. What is suggests is that Bush went to war to beef up military contracting to support key constituent states. It vert well written. http://www.bopnews.com/archives/000583.html excerpt Conclusion Thus for these three reasons: the need to borrow, the need to burrow and the need to engage in targeted spending, the current executive branch must first create war hysteria among their core of supporters - with warnings of dirty bombs, with proposals for "Homeland Security", with dark warnings about how a state of emergency is in effect, with raw muscle to show that the constitution has been suspended. Then it must target an enemy. Clearly the hope is that by announcing a secret war, Saddam will be prompted to act precipitously. But if Saddam doesn't act, the new "first strike" doctrine will be used to initiate hostilities. And when would the war go "hot"? Current projections on replenishing cruise missiles and other consumables of war indicate that the military will be armed by October or November. However, because of the bulk and heat of chemical protection gear for soldiers - it is highly likely that the actual offensive will be run starting in December or January. Politically, if the new Congress is more pliant than this one is, they can wait until January to get a formal declaration of war. If not, they can use the new "first strike" doctrine under the old Congress, and then present the new one with a hot war, 90% "approval" ratings, and a fait accomplis. But one thing is certain, unless some other force intervenes dramatically: There Will Be War     ********

Posted here Sunday, April 18, 2004 at 10:28:39 AM     This summary of a Washongtn Post article  on the Woodward book, from Slate http://slate.msn.com/?id=2099096&;notification_id=21161977&message_id=0 The Post runs another excerpt from Bob Woodward's forthcoming book. Today's installment details White House war deliberations from about December 2002 to early 2003. Over the holidays, President Bush told Karl Rove to push off campaign fund-raisers by several months because "we got a war coming." After the New Year, he solicited advice from Condi Rice and former communications director Karen Hughes, both of whom supported war with qualifications. He knew Cheney's opinion and elected not to ask Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell. Powell was the last to know of Bush's decision: Not until after reviewing attack plans with the Saudi ambassador did the president invite the secretary of state to the Oval Office, where he told him the die had been cast. "Time to put your war uniform on," Bush said. Whatis most revealing erhe is the almost complete lack of collegiality among any of the players. This is not a cabinet, nor a government. the lack of sociability is quite symptomatic of low quality relationships. ********

Posted here Sunday, April 18, 2004 at 9:39:03 AM     Very hard to tell what is going on. Reporting from Iraq is thin, and trying to understand the impact of eents on the electorate impossible. The relationship of a democracy/republic to its media is vague and confusing, we do not have god feedback. Also, Iraq may be a distraction from the real issues that face us, though Bush's style pushes the world to define itself in terms of Iraq, which seems to me unltimately really stupid.  So, still trying to make hoiurly sense of it all, ee have this report from Southern Iraq, whoch I asume is a reflection of reality. Violence in Iraq will get even worse, says Blair By Melissa Kite in Washington and Alex Thomson in Basra (Filed: 18/04/2004) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/18/wirq18.xml&;sSheet=/portal/2004/04/18/ixportaltop.html Tony Blair will tell MPs tomorrow that Britain should be prepared for worse violence in Iraq in the coming weeks. The Prime Minister believes that British and American troops must brace themselves for "acts of desperation" by anti-Coalition rebels as the June 30 deadline for the handover of sovereignty in Iraq draws closer, senior advisers to Mr Blair said yesterday. Brig Nick Carter says Coalition is in Basra only as long as local Shia leader accepts their presence The warnings came as the commander of British troops in southern Iraq, Brig Nick Carter, admitted that he would be powerless to prevent the overthrow of Coalition forces if the Shia majority in Basra rose up in rebellion. Brig Carter, of the 20 Armoured Brigade, who has been in Iraq for four months, said British forces would stay in Basra with the consent of local Shia leaders, or not at all. Last month, 14 British soldiers were injured in Basra, at least three seriously, when they came under attack from demonstrators armed with petrol bombs, rocks and a grenade. "A crowd of 150,000 people at the gates of this barracks would be the end of this, as far as I'm concerned," Brig Carter said. "There would be absolutely nothing I could do about that." ********