Elizabethtown KY News
August 6, 2007

Iraqis drink tea all day.  They use loose leaves.  Those used Iraqi tea leaves are beginning to tell a story.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government is crumbling as you read this article.  Sunnis are abandoning his Shiite-dominated government in droves. 

Recently the U.S. gave billions in arms to Sunni Saudi Arabia.  Shiites are dominant in Iran, a country the U.S. accuses of supplying arms to kill Americans, if not directly killing U.S. troops themselves.

The tea leaves are pointing toward one of two scenarios.  One is a partitioned Iraq, with three distinct states: one Sunni, one Shiite, and one Kurdish.

The second scenario could be an all-out battle between Sunni and Shiite forces, with Saudi Arabia and the U.S. backing the Sunnis, and Iran backing the Shiites.  The Kurds might still survive this battle as a separate state.

News that the U.S. is training and recruiting former Sunni insurgents--forces that may very well have killed U.S. troops in the past-- is another telling sign that the U.S. may have chosen sides, in deference to the Saudis.

The irony of this is that it was predominately Sunni Arabs from Saudi Arabia that carried out 9/11, and Al-Qaida is made up of Sunni radicals.

Somehow, someway, the Bush Administration's policy continues to shift in the quicksand of wrong-headed decision after wrong-headed decision. 

It seems that Bush cares not who his allies are, as long as they give him some chance, no matter how very slight, to overcome his great mistake.

So now, the Iraqi enemies of yesterday become the allies of today; and the Shiites, long tortured by Saddam Hussein himself, may become the enemy.

So say the tea leaves in Iraq today.

July 30, 2007

The Bush Administration's Department of Black Magic (DBM) is in high gear now.

Before the Iraq War, they conjured up a potion of 9/11, WMD's, and the madman Saddam Hussein to mojo the public into wartime hysteria.

Then the spell was broke when no WMD's were found, and the removal of Hussein tailspinned into a civil war within Iraq. 

Now, over four ...   more »

June 16, 2007

Just Wednesday, we reported that there seemed to be a White House rift over how to deal with Iran.

Now comes a New York Times piece today, verifying and deepening how right our piece was.

In the article, it is pointed out that the State Department, led by Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, is working for a diplomatic solution with Iran over the nuclear and other issues.

So now we know that both Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice are resisting the neo-con hawks and Vice-President Dick Cheney.

The NYT piece says Vice-President Cheney's office claims it supports the State Department's position, but statements the Vice-President made aboard the USS Nimitz in the Persian Gulf indicate otherwise.

We may not always know all the inside details out here in the hinterland of America, but those of us who are paying attention to all of the news can certainly discern things like this rift over White House Iran policy.

June 13, 2007

Evidence is mounting there is a crucial struggle going on within the White House between Vice President Dick Cheney and his neoconservative buddies and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates over Iran.

With growing consistency, Cheney and his neo-con buddies like  former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, continue to push the case for attacking Iran; whether it be to protect oil shipping lanes or prevent Iran from creating nuclear weapons.

Now Cheney and his cohorts are pushing the "Iran is providing weapons to the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents" theme almost daily, figuring Americans will support action against a country they claim is directly causing the deaths of American troops.

Meanwhile, Gates is trying to stop the war-selling effort by Cheney, et al, by stating that while Iranian made weapons are in Afghanistan and Iraq there is no direct evidence the Iraqi government is providing them.  Gates is to be commended for inserting reality into the hysteria Cheney and his buddies are attempting to create.

Cheney and his group are employing the same "bugaboo" sales job for an Iranian war that was used to convince America it needed to invade Iraq.  Before the Iraq War they lied about the supposed "yellow cake" nuclear material Iraq supposedly got from Nigeria.  That and the whole WMD claim were two of the major fabrications used to justify the invasion of Iraq. 

With things going so swell in Iraq, can Cheney really be serious about opening up another front on the eastern border of Iraq?

Where is presidential leadership on this issue?  Is George W. Bush going to allow Cheney to have his way again, or will he finally tell Cheney that he, Bush, is the decider like he told the rest of us?

Cooler and saner heads can only hope Gates prevails.  The last thing the U.S. needs now is a second military conflict initiated by war-hawk liars.

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown,KY
May 24, 2007

Listening to George W. Bush answering questions about Iraq from reporters in the Rose Garden today was an incredible experience.  That's because his answers are not credible.

Bush says we are there at "the invitation of the Iraqi government".  Really?  Does anyone remember Saddam Hussein asking us to invade Iraq with approximately 150,000 troops, and overthrow his government?  Didn't we overthrow the previous government of Iraq and help create the government that is now there?

Further, was Al-Qaeda based in Iraq when they attacked New York City?  No.  They were based in Afghanistan.  Is Osama bin Laden in Iraq today?  No.  He is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region by all accounts.  Now Al-Qaeda is stirring up significant trouble in Pakistan, and helping the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan.

Bush says that Hussein deserved to be overthrown because he was a brutal tyrant.  As opposed to what:  daily bombings and daily massacres of Sunnis and Shiites by each other?  Can Bush really say the Iraqi people are living in better conditions today than they were under Hussein, as terrible as he was? 

Bush says we must stay in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda and prevent them from establishing a safe haven there.  Doesn't Bush realize that by invading Iraq, he has created the greatest motivation to--and the strongest magnet for-- terrorists to enter Iraq and fight what they see as the "American infidels" occupying an Arab country?

Bush says if we leave Iraq now, it will cause a catastrophic disaster in Iraq.  Yes, there will probably be an all-out civil war, with the Shiites crushing the Sunni minority.  As opposed to what, the American Civil War , in which there were 10,000 military engagements, 203,000 killed in action, 618,000 total dead, and 412,200 wounded? Did any country intervene in our civil war to put a stop to the killing? No.

Reporters who ask Bush questions never pin him down on such statements.  If they had the guts, they would ask questions like the following:

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that you wanted to avenge threats made against your father by Saddam Hussein?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that you want to control access to oil in the Middle East?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President--as evidenced by the oil "agreements" being pushed on the Iraqis-- that you not only wish to control access to the oil there, you also want our big oil companies to suck up most of the profit from the oil being produced there?

Isn't the truth, Mr. President, that far from hurting the cause of anti-American terrorism in the world, the invasion of Iraq has given more motivation to terrorists, and created a great recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda and other anti-American terrorists?

Isn't it your goal, Mr. President , to establish what will be basically a puppet government in Iraq, under the control of the U.S.?

Didn't you miscalculate terribly, Mr. President, by failing to recognize that the huge Shiite majority in Iraq would feel more comfortable with the Shiite majority in Iran than with us?

Isn't your policy of "pre-emptive" action and "regime change", Mr. President, really just your belief that the United States has the right to dictate the form and nature of other governments around the world?

Would you agree, Mr. President, with any other country--say China or Russia--using its power to invade another country to effect regime change when it disagrees with or dislikes the current rulers and/or governments?

Hasn't history now shown, Mr. President, that you and your administration "cooked" the so-called "evidence" you presented to the American people and the world to "justify" your invasion of Iraq?

Aren't you being disingenuous, Mr. President, by claiming that you are basing your policy on advice from "military commanders on the ground", when everybody knows they work for you, their boss?

President Bush has his answers well-rehearsed.  After all, he has been saying the same things and pursuing the same strategy for five or so years now. 

Bush's rhetoric and reality are far apart.  Unfortunately, most Republicans still reside in the ether of the president's disconnect.

That's why the president is able to continue dragging our country and our troops through the muddled sludge of his great mistake.

The national media has become a flock of sheep, with little courage.  It rarely challenges the Bush administration with any vigor.  It not only accepts Bush's pablum on Iraq, it is remaining strangely quiet on what appears to be a coming war with Iran.

It is bad enough our president is failing us.  Now--as before the Iraq War--a toothless national press is as well.

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown,KY
May 23, 2007

In one of the most disappointing days since Democrats were elected to a majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrats backed down and will send President Bush a war funding bill without an initial withdrawal date for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

Without enough votes in the Senate to override a ...   more »

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 23,2007

ABC News reported last night it has confirmed the White House has authorized covert "black" actions by the CIA within Iran.

This seems to be a two-pronged Iranian strategy on the part of the U.S.  One prong is U.S. claims of Iranian connections to actions against U.S. troops in Iraq.  The other prong is covert actions by the U.S. to subvert the regime in Iran.

Reportedly, Vice-President Cheney still prefers a direct attack on Iran, but others in the White House prefer clandestine efforts to bring down the Islamic regime there.

Both prongs are raising tensions between the U.S. and Iran on a daily basis. 

One has to wonder if  U.S. strategy is to provoke the Iranian regime into doing something rash; something the U.S. can use as a pretext for attacking Iran.

History records that President Lyndon B. Johnson authorized covert actions in North Vietnam waters to provoke North Vietnam into the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The U.S. then used North Vietnam's attack on a U.S. ship in the Gulf of Tonkin as an excuse to attack North Vietnam, thus beginning the Vietnam War.

Iran can not help but be paranoid and nervous with the world's largest superpower having two aircraft carriers within 150 miles of its eastern coast, and a U.S. military force that is increasing daily to its west. Covert actions, openly admitted to by the Bush administration, can only add to the fears of the Iranian regime.

It is fair to ask if the Bush administration is attempting to provoke Iran into doing something Bush and Cheney can use as a justification for bombing Iran's nuclear development facilities.

Will Iran be smart enough to stop its nuclear development in a verifiable manner, and then seek improved relations with the U.S.?  Or will Iran make the mistake of giving the U.S. an excuse to attack?

Elizabethtown, KY News
Elizabethtown, KY
May 22, 2007

It has become clear that Congressional Democrats will drop a timetable for the initiation of troop withdrawals from Iraq in the war funding bill they will send President Bush this week.

Why?  Because there are not enough Democrats in the Senate to override the president's veto of any bill containing a timetable for troop withdrawals.

That means ending the Iraq War, and getting our troops out of the middle of a civil war is up to you and me. 

How do we do that?  Sadly, it may take until the 2008 elections for us to have that power. 

In 2008, we must not only elect a Democrat as president--preferably one who has always been against the war like Barak Obama--we must also elect more Democrats to the Senate.

Any reversal will only strengthen the hand of those who prefer an unended military presence in Iraq.  At a time when some are suggesting that Bush is quietly implementing a second "secret" troop surge, putting Democrats in charge of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives has never been more important.