Basra Council Refuses Maliki Order to dissolve. By Definition, This is Civil War.

As posted on Azzman.com's English language website, the local government of Basra has refused to step aside under orders from Prime Minister Maliki. The local government, supported by well armed Shia Militias, including the Mahdi Army, defied the order to turn over power to an emergency committee appointed by the Prime Minister. Furthure confirmation of Maliki's order can be found on Al-Rafidayn (note: this is a Google translation).


Security worsens in Basra as council rejects PM's decision

By Nidhal Al-Laithi

Azzaman, August 10, 2006

The provincial council in the southern city of Basra has turned down an order by Prime Minister Noouri al-Maliki to dissolve and pass its responsibilities to an emergency committee.

Following a meeting, the council issued a defiant statement saying it would not abide by Maliki's order.

The council is backed by powerful militias who wield immense power in the province.

The provincal security forces and the 10th army division deployed in Basra have declared allegiance to Maliki.

However, it is not clear whether the city's police forces and army would move against the council if asked by Maliki, who is also the commander-in-chief.

If they do they will risk clashing with the heavily armed militias and causing bloodshed in the city, home to more than 2 million people.

Maliki had dissolved the council and stripped it of its powers.

He formed a new committee to run Basra's affairs particularly the security forces.

The committee says it has the support of the city's police and the army division stationed there.

Basra, where most of Iraq's oil output and exports originate, is now one of the most violent places in the country.

Militias of religious parties control the city and government offices in it.

They are reported to have most of the 18,000 workers at the Southern Oil Company on their side and they frequently have threatened to halt oil production and exports if the government tries to limit their influence.


As pointed out by blogger "Dems Will Win" at Democratic Underground this story has yet to be covered by the MSM.

Thru out the rise of sectarian violence in Iraq, the White House has rebuked any attempt to describe it as a "Civil War", claiming that the techincal definition has not been met. This, as many will find it hard to deny, meets the technical definition.

According to Newsweek,the White House has been planning to pull the troops out of Iraq in the event of a civil war. It looks like the time has come.

We need to pull back and fix our broken forces. This misconcieved war has degraded our ability to defend ourselves against future attacks. And with all the new enemies Bush and Company have made for us, we need to prepare for a long fight for our very existance.


Tags: Iraq, Basra, Bush, Civil War, Troops, Shia, Militia, All Tags

Gen. Clark, your time has come.

2 Little, 2 Late.Why the Bush Administration Does Not Deserve Credit for the Death of Another Al-Qaeda No.2.

In the wee hours of the morning, while our nation slept, the US military dropped the bomb heard ‘round the world. As the sun came up we learned why the Bush administration decided to cancel yesterday’s briefing by Zalmay Khalilzad to the Senate regarding progress in Iraq. They wanted to wait till they finally had some progress to report.

In recent months, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the man who ran Al-Qaeda In Iraq, and who Don Rumsfeld calls the man with the bloodiest hands in the world (his closest competition), had turned up the heat. In his attempts to foment a civil war in Iraq between the Shia and the Sunni, thousands of innocent Iraqis have died, as well as our own men and women in uniform. Today, their deaths have been avenged by a cooperative of American and Iraqi forces, assisted by Jordanian intelligence. These men and women deserve the fruits of their labor; peace, rest, and the gratitude of three grateful nations. That said, in our attempt to show our thanks to these brave people, we must not forget how Al-Zarqawi became Al-Qaeda’s top killer and Osama’s No.2.

As my friends at SoapBox4Truth.org know, I have long chastised the Bush administration for their handling of Iraq, and in particular, the whole “Saddam/Osama” connection. It never added up to me. It always made more sense to me that Osama would rather overthrow Saddam than work with him. Though many believe that Al-Zarqawi’s role in Iraq was to make ricin and cyanide for use in ops in Europe, I have since expanded my ideas about his presence. To understand what the hell I’m talking about, I’ll have to let you in on what I was thinking in the early post invasion.

This is probably one of my earliest rants on Al-Zarqawi. I’m not sure of the date but I know that it was written in late ’04.

I have one big problem with Bush and the way he took the U.S. to Iraq. Many Bush Administration officials (and private think tanks that contribute to the formation of Bush administration policy), are well documented facilitators of the now defunked government of Saddam Hussein. I do believe that it was the responsibility of the U.S. government to "clean up our mess" so to speak. The problem is not that we went TO Iraq, it's WHO went, and the bullshit reasons they gave for doing it.

In Afghanistan, the CIA, many, who just returned to the job after helping Reagan to defeat President Carter (October surprise) who fired them, trained, funded, and equipped bin Laden's Mujahadeen. At the same time they were arming both sides of the Iran/Iraq war. When Saddam found out that the U.S. was secretly allowing the arming of Iran, He began to distrust his U.S. contacts (Rumsfeld was the most visible). Latter, he decided to take Kuwait, sighting that they were angle drilling to tap oil in Southern Iraq. Fearing, some think, that Saddam would move on Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden offered his army of Mujahadeen fighters to the Saudi royal family. He explained that his forces could infiltrate the Baath party hierarchy with ease, and take Iraq before Saddam could even give the order to invade the Kingdom. The Saudi royal family refused and called in the U.S. who, with an oil man sitting in the White House, saw it coming and jumped at the chance to have a permanent military presence so close to the world’s largest fully operational oil fields. This is when Osama turned his rage against America. If it wasn't for the U.S., he could have been the man in charge of Iraq. Not only did it still have a working infrastructure, unlike Afghanistan, which was destroyed during it's war with the Soviet Union, it also had one of the biggest stockpiles of military hardware in the Middle-East (at least until we pulled up next door).

Let's get one thing strait, fuck Saddam, and double fuck Osama. They can eat goat balls with Tabasco in Hell for all I care. The problem is, bin Laden never took his eyes off Iraq. As soon as Saddam got wary of the U.S., it became impossible for Osama to get to him. That whole thing about Ansar-al Islam and Abu Mussab Al Zarqawi in the north, If Bush was so worried about it, We could have taken care of it with a small Spec-Ops force backed by the Kirdish Peshmerga. It wouldn’t be that difficult, it was in Kurdish controlled territory inside the British/U.S. no-fly zone. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq to work with Saddam, if any thing they were still trying to get Saddam, and take over Iraq and co-opt the country for use as a base similar to Afghanistan. The big difference, It came with a standing army of well over 7 million troops, it was armed to the teeth, and the population would have loved him for getting rid of the Baath party. Besides, according to Cooperative Research, Zarqawi’s group, originally al-Tawhid, was in competition with al-Qaeda for funding and recruits.

The Bush Administration fucked this war up from top to bottom. Fuck weapons of mass destruction, all he had to say to the world was, "Either we take Iraq, or Al-Qaeda does. It's our mess and of course it's our job to fix it, but the more force that we can bring to bare, the more innocent Iraqi's we can save." So, what did he do? He went in on the cheap, failed to secure the world’s largest stockpile of unsecured weapons in the world, and effectively handed 1/3 of Iraq over to Al-Qaeda by failing to have the boots on the ground to secure the borders. Then (and you have to question this) he personally invited Al-Qaeda to fight us in Iraq. Now, the only way to achieve a political victory in Iraq against the Al-Qaeda funded insurgency is to show the world how many Muslims the insurgents are killing. These are the lives we could have saved if we had a President who was less of a simpleton (whether by nature or design), and more of a man willing to except responsibility.

Since then, we have learned much about the mind set of the Bush administration during the lead up to the war. We have learned that they were promoting faked intelligence in the form of the Niger Documents, outing CIA operators, and basically conducting the war from the time they took office. They even tracked down Abu Nidal in Baghdad who was later found with a full clip from an AK-47 in his chest. But today, as it seems to many people, including many retired Generals, CIA and Intelligence officers, and the troops on the ground, and many up and coming Fighting Dems running for Congress this fall, the deceptions of the Bush administration go far beyond covering for a few disastrous mistakes. In my view, they had something like this in mind all along, but their was one problem. Bin Laden knew it was coming, because he saw it all before.

Raw Story has reposted an old MSNBC piece on Al-Zarqawi incase a refresher is needed.
I hope that one day we can finally put all of the pieces together. I still believe that shutting down both Al-Qaeda and the Neo-Cons is the only way to win the true war on terror. The death of Al-Zarqawi will save lives, but it won’t end the war. This all could have been avoided years ago if Bush would have just waxed him before the invasion.

Who knows why he was in Iraq? It could have been Bin Laden’s attempt to get rid of a rival by putting him in the US cross hairs, or a back up plan incase Bush got cold feet on Iraq, or it was his attempt to lure Bush into Iraq. What ever the reason, Bush and his war cabinet dropped the ball.

After reading the latest Vanity fair piece, The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed, one point jumped out at me. The whole time that Bush and Co. have been crying “Failure of Intelligence”, it may have been a black propaganda success. But I have a slightly different view. Their black op may have succeeded in getting them their war with Iraq, but it left us open on our flank, and al-Qaeda took advantage with a gut shot named Al-Zarqawi.

Don’t let Bush claim this as his victory. Keep in mind that he was basically handed to us by his own organization. Al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden never really saw eye to eye in the first place. Al-Zarqawi basically muscled his way into the position he had in the first place. I just hope that Cheney and his buddies don’t inhibit our abilities to exploit all of the new pocket litter by planting fake docs tying Iran to some Communist Russian plot to raise Karl Marx from the grave to cover for DeLay and Abramoff.

Long live America,
and long remember our heros.

HURRICANE COLBERT BREACHES THE ROVIAN LEVEES (satire)

HURRICANE COLBERT BREACHES THE ROVIAN LEVEES

By Rusty
SoapBox4Truth.org

Packing devastating 150 MPH satire, Hurricane Colbert slammed into Washington D.C. last weekend, laying waste to thousands of expensive egos and careers and leaving behind torrential whining.

One of the hardest hit areas was the White House Stenographer's Dinner, where according to anthropologists, Beltway inhabitants gather together on an annual basis to worship themselves and display their presence so the progressive peons out in the vast wasteland beyond the Beltway levees will know who is important and who isn't.

Despite the efforts of The Immaculate Decider and the High Priests of the Holy Corporate Temple to conceal the destruction wrought by Hurricane Colbert, video evidence of the carnage is spreading all over the Internets, and has been monitored with great interest at Soapbox4Truth.

This video footage confirms initial reports from the scene by Helen Thomas that Hurricane Colbert struck with little advance warning, leaving no time for President Bush to put down his guitar in the middle of his rendition of "The Yellow Elephant of Texas" and order an emergency evacuation.

Video evidence also indicates that Ken Mehlman and Jeff Gannon/Guckert left the White House Stenographer's Dinner early and spent most of the evening in the back seat of Mehlman's Ford Explorer, which began rocking even before the full force of Hurricane Colbert struck the area.

For those of us at Soapbox4Truth reluctant to dwell on the gory details of Mehlman's and Guckert's impassioned struggle over who got to drill in whose wildlife refuge first and for how long, immediate relief is available from C-Span sentinels Alma and Sylv, who reported today that if you play the video backwards, you can clearly hear Bush, Cheney, Frist, and Santorum rapping alternate lyrics of the National Anthem in Spanish.

It is no surprise to any of us here at Soapbox4Truth that FEMA was unable to coordinate relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Colbert for several days. Recently excommunicated White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan explained this morning that this was due to the massive logistical problems involved in transporting relief supplies from the United Arab Emirates through Halliburton suppliers to the undocumented immigrant drivers of repossessed EnRon limousines who boycotted the relief effort because they hate America.

This left dazed survivors of the White House Stenographer's Dinner no choice but to try walking across the 14th Street Bridge to safety, where they were shot at by Arlington County deputies, who hadn't seen so many criminals in one place at one time since the State of the Union Address.

In response to the crisis unleashed by Hurricane Colbert, President Bush conducted a photo op on Friday at the Richard M. Nixon Elementary School in Rockville, Maryland, where he read the entire Book of Revelation to a class of first graders.

In response to Reed's persistant inquiries regarding the ensuing question and answer session, which became rather heated, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett took several sedatives, and gurdgingly conceded that this first phase in a comprehensive new administration strategy to prepare American schoolchildren for the imminent arrival of the AntiChrist, who can only be defeated by Jesus and His born again younger brother, President Bush, did not impress the first graders, who voted 30-0 for immediate impeachment and walked out in disgust.

Consequently, in his Saturday Radio Address, President Bush declared the Richard M. Nixon Elementary School to be a state sponsor of terrorism, and warned that "all options to deal with the evildoers in Mrs. Wilson's first grade class are still on the table, including playground-busting nukes."

SoapBox4Truth will be interviewing Mrs. Wilson's first graders this week, so don't miss next week's newsletter, which will feature a selection of responses from them regarding this developing confrontation.

NOTE: SoapBox4Truth.org is dedicated to the promotion and protection of the 1st Ammendment, American values, and those who wish to participate in the discussion. We supplied the Soap Box, all YOU have to do is step up!

An Opening for American Victory In Iraq. Why Censure is Not Enough.

Today, I was watching CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interview Time Magazine’s Iraq correspondent Michael Ware. Ware has just posted his latest article on the Iraqi insurgency and is one of the only members of the western press in Iraq to have such access to the major insurgent groups.

During his interview, Wolf asked him about what drove the insurgents’ zealotry and the answer he gave motivated me to write this piece so that what he said would not be left “inaudible” to the rest of America. This is what Michael Ware said; (full transcript from CNN’s Situation Room Aired April 4, 2006 - 17:00 ET)

WARE: All right. Talking about the Sunni insurgents, the mainstream, the main body, by and large, these are former military officers, former Ba'athists, members of the intelligence services, secret police. These are relatively well-trained individuals. Many of them, the U.S.' former allies from the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

These guys are essentially jockeying for some kind of power, some kind of a carve up at the political table. It's very (INAUDIBLE). But then the military action is really just an extension of the politics.

They believe that by putting military pressure on, that gives them a stake that they didn't otherwise have in the military game. Unlike the al Qaeda extremists, unlike the Islamic militants, they are not fighting a global holy war. They are not fighting to create an Islamic state, like these Sunnis on one side and the extremist Shia on the other.

They want largely a secular society. They've said they're prepared to host U.S. bases, akin to Germany and Japan. Let's normalize relations. We share common enemies, Iran and al Qaeda. How did we end up on the wrong side of this?

Three things jumped out at me here (bold), but first I must take on the hidden key. Michael used a word that most people would be hard pressed to pick up on, as a matter of fact, I don’t even think it’s a word that’s been used much outside of a West Point classroom or textbook. The term, transcribed as “INAUDIBLE”, is Clausewitzian, describing the theories of Carl von Clauswitz.

Clausewitz was a Major General in the Prussian Army during their war with Napoleon, and penned one of the leading military philosophies of the 19th and early 20th century, “On War”, published after his death in by his wife in 1832.

One of his main points in his teachings was war as an extension of politics. I learned of Clausewitz while reading John Keegan’s “History of Warfare”. He explained that there were two different types of major warfare, “Total War”, and “True War”. Total War is a political tool, used to gain some monetary or policy victory. Such “acceptable” types of war could lead to compromises and later reductions of tensions between combatants.

True War lies well beyond the state. This is a more personal and destructive type of warfare, the type that rarely leads to treaties or moral victories. More often than not, they lead to genocide and environmental catastrophes. These are usually based on Religion or Ideology. Many blame this philosophy for leading Europe into WW1 and WW2, though I think it was more than just a book.

Second is the breakdown of the different insurgent groups. We know that most of the insurgency has nothing to do with al-Qaeda. We also know that even Saddam didn’t trust al-Qaeda. Now, our biggest problem is Iranian influence in Iraq. This is not just a problem for the US either. The Arab world is worried about Iran as well. The AP just reported today that diplomats from Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Turkey have been meeting in secret over the last few weeks to prepare for any civil upheaval in Iraq.

Their biggest concern is Iranian influence in Iraq. According to the Associated Press, “Arab nations, mostly Sunni and traditionally suspicious of Iran, are deeply concerned about what they see as Iran's growing influence in Iraq”. They went on to quote Jordan's King Abdullah II accusing Iran of trying to influence events in Iraq. He warned that Iran was seeking to create "a Shiite crescent" that would disrupt the balance of power in the region. (Haaretz/AP)

According to Michael Ware, most of the insurgent groups want stability as well. The Sunni’s and secularists don’t want Iran’s influence, or an Islamic Theocracy. Some are even willing to host US military bases in Iraq, just what the Bush administration wanted to do in the first place. But the problem is they don’t trust Bush. They were willing to accept the Americans as liberators at first, but the mishandling of the post-invasion, disbanding of the Iraqi Army and Police (most read the pamphlets dropped over the years by US/UK forces telling them that if they laid down their arms when we invaded that we would take care of them), the disintegration of public services, failure to secure the conventional weapons depots, and later, the treatment of Iraqis at Abu-Girab, lead directly to the strife today, and turned Iraq into a violent free-for-all ripe for an insurgency and teetering on civil war; truly a failed state.

Saddam is gone, so let’s get this right. We need to fix this thing as soon as possible and I think that this is a viable option. We need to identify the insurgent groups that are willing to set aside the missteps of the past and settle Iraq now. By doing so, we will regain a measure of respect from the Arab world and be prepared to deal with the threat from Iran.

As things are today, with Iran’s “Prophet War Games”, our troops bogged down in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, China’s call to divest their US debt holdings, Venezuela’s moves to isolate America from South America, and our slowly crumbling relationship with Russia, we are in a precarious position. If we went to war with Iran under the current world situation, we will have to commit too large a force to wage it. In the opening salvo, we’ll probably loose half of the 5th Fleet, and we will be vulnerable from our flanks, both tacticly on the ground in Iraq and the Gulf, and strategically by China in the Indian Ocean and Asia Minor. Though we could hold off much of this, it will only escalate as others join in the fight against us at other weak points left open when we pull troops and equipment from Europe and South Korea.

I know this sounds grim, but this will only lead to what Clausewitz called a TRUE WAR, one in which our only defense will be nukes.

After considering all of this, I have come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the Censure of President George W. Bush. Nothing short of a full Impeachment of him, Dick Cheney and members of his cabinet wick do. And it must be done sooner rather than later. We can say that the technical reasons for Impeachment are things like spying on Americans (FISA), breaking international treaties (torture and the Geneva Convention), lying to Congress (WMD at the State of the Union), election rigging (Diebold, Florida and Ohio), or breaching national security (outing an entire CIA intel operation), but we must make it clear that the true reason is to stop Bush from starting the war that Einstein predicted. “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones”. The longer they run this country, the more dangerous this world becomes for America and the world. If we sit back and wait for 2008, it may be too late.


Related Tags: Time, CNN, AP, Michael Ware, Wolf Blitzer, Clausewitz, Iraq, Iran, Europe, South Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey, al-Qaeda, Sunni, Shia, Shi'ite, War on Terror, Middle East, insurgent, insurgency, War, Bush, Cheney, Censure, Impeachment

War for Profit, War for Power. How the the Neocons and American Fundamentalists are Instigating a War On Christianity.

In 2005, Fox News anchor John Gibson penned"The War On Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought”. His fellow Fox News blaviator, Bill O'Reilly, joined the chorus going so far as to post a list of retailers like Target for not using “Christmas” in some of their advertisements. From this point on, the perception of a War on all things Christian were seen to be under attack, and the call was out to defend it.

Over the years, especially since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade, the emerging theocratic wing of the Christian community has trumpeted their interpretation of Biblical law in the public square. Since then, they’ve attempted to foist their theoretically a skewed vision of “America as The Promised Land” via school prayer, political proselytizing, and fomentation of End Times fear mongering.

So what is this “War on Christianity” and where does it come from? Well, I have an idea, and it’s not because the Democrats or Liberals are trying to wage one.

The latest supposed front in this “War on Christianity” is the “War on Easter” al’la Fox News (video from BradBlog). Though I do agree that bunnies and eggs have little to do with the Christian faith, nor do I care if someone hangs “Happy Easter” signs all over the city, the reactionary cries of a “War on Easter” because someone thought that people of different faiths might feel offended by an expression of a single religion on the door of a public servant is a classic example of how the Right provacates this perception. Something tells me that they would be the first to tare down a picture of the Al Aqsa Mosque or Mecca.

If you googled “War on Christmas” today, you’d find 49,900 entries on the subject. The top search result, the Jeremiah Project outlines the reasons they believe that Christianity is under attack. Two of these reasons they give is the limiting of religious liberty in the area of public and private education, and exclusion of the Bible from school classrooms and from other school property. Now I haven’t heard anything about religious schools being denied the right to proselytize in their classrooms. But public schools, funded by public monies are not allowed to do so. They never were. That’s called state sponsored religion.

Last night, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council was on Hardball with Rev. Al Sharpton and the Bible in schools issue came up (video from Crooks and Liers). Chris Matthews said, “If everyone at school is forced to read the King James Bible they may feel a little bit out of it.” to which Tony replied, “But nobody’s calling for that”. Oh, but they are.

Georgia’s Governer has a bill on his desk today calling to put Bible classes in Georgia’s Public high schools. In an attempt to include the Bible’s historical value in public education, Democratic Alabama Sen. Bill Preuitt, introduced the "Bible Literacy Act" which calls for the use of a book called “The Bible and Its Influence”. Relatively moderate Evangelical leaders embrace the move as “an extraordinarily helpful background-the Bible's impact on literature, the arts, and life. If anyone is looking for a comprehensive academic understanding of the roots of modern civilization, this book is an indispensable resource.” This move to extend an olive branch and include Biblical history in public education was branded by the hard-core fundamentalists as the “Bible Distortion Bill”. Rep. Nick Williams, would later say that Alabama already “provided for an elective in Bible literacy under authorization of the State Board of Education consistent with the U.S. Constitution” He then explained that "a very sound curriculum" by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS), which uses THE HOLY BIBLE itself as the textbook, is already being used in some Alabama public high schools. Tim Howe, executive director of the Alabama Republican Party assailed the book “as highly questionable, evidenced by the fact that it was supported by several liberal groups,” sighting the ACLU. This was later proven to be a lie. (source: About, with links to Christian Wire)

It seems to me that the Neo-Conservative/Fundamentalist alliance is actively stoking a religious war, both here and across the world. Fromer Nixon advisor and author Kevin Philips, in his new book “American Theocracy” wrote, “In its recent practice, the radical side of U.S. religion has embraced cultural antimodernism, war hawkishness, Armageddon prophecy, and in the case of conservative fundamentalists, a demand for governments by literal biblical interpretation. In the 1800s, religious historians generally minimized the sectarian thrust of religious excess, but recent years have brought more candor. The evangelical, fundamentalist, sectarian, and radical threads of American religion are being proclaimed openly and analyzed widely, even though bluntness is frequently muted by a pseudo-tolerance, the polite reluctance to criticize another's religion. However given the wider thrust of religion's claims on public life, this hesitance falls somewhere between unfortunate and dangerous. Charles Kimball, a North Carolina Baptist and professor of religion, speaks very much to the point: "Although many of us have been taught it is not polite to discuss religion and politics in public, we must quickly unlearn that lesson. Our collective failure to challenge presuppositions, think anew, and openly debate central religious concerns affecting society is a recipe for disaster." Considering the past history of Zealot Christian Fundamentalism’s attributions to the decline and fall of the last three great world empires, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Habsburgs, and the British Empire, I fear that fear itself has become the growing catalyst in their self proclaimed “War on Christianity”. Let me explain.

For decades, the American oilgarchy has supported dictators that oppressed the people of the Middle East. And as Yoda always says, “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering". In this case, the oil industry’s fears of the nationalization of Middle Eastern oil fields lead them to interfere in democratic movements and install “protectorates” in Iran and Iraq. This move was compounded by their blind support of the theocratic regime in Saudi Arabia. This lead to anger in the Middle East and eventually hate when the people found out that American interference was what lead to the ascension of such ruthless dictators like Saddam and the Shah. Meanwhile, their support for the fundamentalist Wahabists of the Al Saud family created the atmosphere for the rise of Islamo-fundimentalism, the manifestation of suffering in both the West and the Middle East.

Though it is true that American presidents from both political parties over the years have culled an official strategic relationship between America and Saudi Arabia, I currently don’t know of any Democrats that have had such close business and personal ties to the Wahabists and the bin Laden family as there is between the Neocons and the Bush family. It is my belief that this relationship, which is predicated on the agreement that the US would not gather intelligence within the kingdom, is the main reason we face the threat of terrorist action by zealot Islamists.

All the while, American Evangelical extremism has grown right along side of the Islamists. Starting in Afghanistan, then VP Bush Sr., with his deep connections to the CIA, oversaw the rise of the modern militarization of jihadism. This movement was trained, armed and funded by the Bush/Al Saud alliance. Meanwhile, back here at home, the money that the Bush family made off the Saudi royal family went to building their own, Christian version of militant religiosity.

Touting his connections to high profile Evangelists like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Farwell, George Bush the younger followed his father’s footsteps into the White House. But this time, he would thread everything he said with biblical undertones and overtones. With zingers like proclaiming that Jesus was his favorite philosopher, calling the War on Terror a “Crusade”, and insisting that he don’t talk to his father on political issues, he talks to a “higher father”, he has blurred the lines between church and state, and convinced Americans of faith that he speaks for God. Since then, he and his coalition of Neo-Conservatives, and radical fundamentalists have attempted to exploit every issue that they could dream up in the furtherance of their agenda; absolute power.

I fear that the concerted efforts of the Bush administration and their allies to split America along sectarian v. religious lines has empowered a fundamentalist Christian Evangelical movement that shares more resemblance to Wahabism than many would ever admit. It’s like they are attempting to use religion to reopen the wounds of the Civil War in an attempt to start a religious war against both Islam, and non-believers alike. This co-existent trend of militarization within two major religious groups can no longer be ignored.

I would like to make one point abundantly clear. The more these American fundamentalists cry out that someone is waging a “War on Christianity”, the more nervous and fearful they will make the rest of the country and the world. Fearful of the fall of America under the weight of theocracy, fearful of an emerging American Inquisition following the crumbling of our constitutional rights, fearful of the bleak future for our children in light of the suppression of science, and fearful of a global war instigated by this unholy alliance that will leave our country broke, beleaguered, and scorned throughout the world. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. By their own doing, they may just get their “War on Christianity”. This is my fear. But no matter what happens, I will die an American. I WILL DIE FREE!

Tags: Related Tags: Georgia, Fox News, John Gibson, Bill O'Reilly, Roe v. Wade, Democrats, BradBlog, Tony Perkins, Alabama, The Bible and Its Influence, Education, ACLU, Fundamentalist, American Theocracy, Middle East, Iran, Iraq Saudi Arabia, oilgarchy, Islamo-fundamentalism, Neocons, Evangelical extremism, Evangelists, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Farwell, Bush, Crusade, Crusade Chris Matthews, War on Christmas, War on Christianity, War on Easter, War on Christmas
Bible, religon.

Did Bush Start WW3? Delta Force Founder Says He "May Well Have".

In an interview that RAW STORY wet my whistle for on Friday, Delta Force founding member, and author of the book that inspired the new hit TV series “The Unit”, Eric Haney pulled no punches. The following is what I hope is the first installment of this interview conducted by David Kronke of the LA Daily News.


Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Q: What is the cost to our country?

A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.

Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.

The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed ñ which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.

The Unit airs on CBS Tuesdays at 9:00pm EST.

Link back to the San Bernardino County Sun Article.

Tags: Bush, Iraq, 9/11, Constitution, Terrorism, Middle East, Security, WW3, Delta Force, Cheney, Torture.