George Bush Wants your Mail Read

[Moon.]

Wow George Bush can actually read? lol [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[SouthwestRanger]

Media Misleading Americans By Using ?Surge' To Describe Bush Policy




Think Progress | January 11, 2007

Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when ?surge? was first adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was specifically defined as a ?temporary,? ?short-term? increase in U.S. forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces lasting at least 18 months.

The media, in other words, has continued to use the term ?surge? even though its definition has fundamentally changed.

The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a ?short-term troop increase,? the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval).

Every time the media repeats the word ?surge,? they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush's policy.

Details below:

?SURGE' ORIGINALLY DEFINED AS ?TEMPORARY,' ?SHORT-TERM' INCREASE IN TROOP LEVELS:

NOVEMBER 20: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS MCCAIN WANTS ?SHORT-TERM SURGE': ?In Washington, a leading Republican supporter of the war, Senator John McCain of Arizona, said American troops in Iraq were ?fighting and dying for a failed policy.' But Mr. McCain continued to argue vigorously for a short-term surge in American forces, and he gained a vocal ally in Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina?? [New York Times, Brian Knowlton, 11/19/06]

NOVEMBER 20: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR REPORTS ON ?TEMPORARY SURGE': ?Speculation over a temporary surge in troops has been fueled in part by sources close to administration deliberations on Iraq strategy.? [Christian Science Monitor, Howard LaFranchi, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 20: WASHINGTON POST REPORTS ON ?SHORT' ?TEMPORARY' TROOP INCREASE: ?Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said. The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold?? [Washington Post, Thomas Ricks, 11/20/06]

NOVEMBER 21: NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS SENIOR BUSH OFFICIALS BACK ?SHORT-TERM' ?TEMPORARY' SURGE: ?Pentagon officials conducting a review of Iraq strategy are considering a substantial but temporary increase in American troop levels and the addition of several thousand more trainers to work with Iraqi forces, a senior Defense Department official said Monday. The idea, dubbed the 'surge option' by some officials, would involve increasing American forces by 20,000 troops or more for several months? ?There are people who believe that a short-term surge would have a beneficial impact, but there isn't universal agreement on that yet,' said the senior official.? [New York Times, David Cloud, 11/21/06]

NOVEMBER 21: NBC NEWS REPORTS ON ?SHORT-TERM SURGE' OPTION: Let's talk a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly considering. First of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a short-term surge in an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. [Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC, 11/21/06]

NOVEMBER 22: FOX NEWS REPORTS ON ?TEMPORARY' SURGE: ?The new Marine Corps commandant General James Conway?said the idea some people are now suggesting of creating a temporary surge of U.S. forces in Iraq could be accomplished with the current force of about 180,000 Marines, but would have an undesirable impact later on.? [Brit Hume, Fox News, 11/22/06, available on Lexis]

NOVEMBER 22: ABC NEWS REPORTS ON ?TEMPORARY' SURGE: ?A temporary increase in US force levels in Iraq. And what General Conway said is that the Marine Corps could facilitate a temporary surge of no more than 60 days, really. He said that's about the limit.? [ABC News, Jonathan Karl, 11/22/06, available on Lexis]

IN FACT, WHITE HOUSE IS PLANNING LONG-TERM ESCALATION OF U.S. FORCES:

TIME REPORTS BUSH PLANNING ESCALATION FOR ?UP TO TWO YEARS': ?Sometime next week the President is expected to propose a surge in the number of U.S. forces in Iraq for a period of up to two years.? [Time, 1/4/07]

DECEMBER 27: ARCHITECTS OF THE ESCALATION PLAN ADMIT IT WILL NOT BE SHORT-TERM: In a joint Washington Post op-ed, retired Gen. Jack Keane and right-wing scholar Fred Kagan said they needed to ?cut through the confusion? and admitted a troop increase would require ?at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.? [Washington Post joint op-ed, 12/27/06]

JANUARY 8: NEW U.S. GROUND COMMANDER IN IRAQ ANTICIPATES ESCALATION FOR ?TWO OR THREE YEARS': The New York Times reported on Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno. ?The new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush's new war strategy it might take another ?two or three years' for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war. [New York Times, 1/8/07]

JANUARY 9: MCCAIN SAYS 6 MONTHS IS TOO SHORT & ?THE WORST OF ALL WORLDS WOULD BE A SMALL, SHORT SURGE': ?There are two keys to any increase in U.S. force levels: It must be substantial, and it must be sustained?The worst of all worlds would be a small, short surge of U.S. forces.? [Sen. John McCain, Sacramento Bee op-ed, 1/9/07]

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ira...surge_term.htm

[gus danger]

Originally posted by IrishMick:
We do still have the first amendment, right?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So long as we have the second ammendment we do!

Great photo Michaela. The only trouble I see is that then we'd have Cheyney in the drivers seat.
God forbid!!!
[img]frown.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]
Gus

[SouthwestRanger]

Soldiers Banned From Talking To Press After Lunch With Bush

Washington Post | January 12, 2007
Peter Baker



The pictures were just what the White House wanted: A teary-eyed President Bush presenting the Medal of Honor posthumously to a slain war hero in the East Room, then flying here to join the chow line with camouflage-clad soldiers as some of them prepare to return to Iraq.

There are few places the president could go for an unreservedly enthusiastic reception the day after unveiling his decision to order 21,500 more troops to Iraq. A military base has usually been a reliable backdrop for the White House, and so Bush aides chose this venerable Army installation in western Georgia to promote his revised strategy to the nation while his Cabinet secretaries tried to sell it on Capitol Hill.

To ensure that there would be no discordant notes here, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, the base commander, prohibited the 300 soldiers who had lunch with the president from talking with reporters. If any of them harbored doubts about heading back to Iraq, many for the third time, they were kept silent.

"It's going to require sacrifice, and I appreciate the sacrifices our troops are willing to make," Bush told the troops. "Some units are going to have to deploy earlier than scheduled as a result of the decision I made. Some will remain deployed longer than originally anticipated."

Among those going early will be members of the 3rd Brigade Combat Team from the 3rd Infantry Division based here. Theirs was the division that spearheaded the invasion into Iraq in March 2003 and captured Baghdad. They returned in 2005 and lost 34 troops. Now, instead of heading back in May or June, they will return to Iraq in March.

Soldiers being soldiers, those who met the commander in chief Thursday saluted smartly and applauded politely. But it was hardly the boisterous, rock-star reception Bush typically gets at military bases. During his lunchtime speech, the soldiers were attentive but quiet. Not counting the introduction of dignitaries, Bush was interrupted by applause just three times in 30 minutes -- once when he talked about a previous Medal of Honor winner from Fort Benning, again when he pledged to win in Iraq and finally when he repeated his intention to expand the Army.

Bush's speech essentially repeated his address to the nation the night before, and he appeared a little listless as he talked. Aides said he was deliberately low-key to reflect the serious situation. Whether the audience was sobered by the new mission or responding to Bush's subdued tone was unclear, because reporters were ushered out as soon as his talk ended.

White House officials had promised reporters they could talk with soldiers. But that was not good enough for Wojdakowski. "The commanding general said he does not want media talking to soldiers today," spokeswoman Tracy Bailey said. "He wants the focus to be on the president's speech." Only hours later, after reporters complained, did the base offer to make selected soldiers available, but the White House plane was nearing departure.

For Bush, it was a day of military events and images. He began at the White House, presenting the Medal of Honor to the parents of a Marine slain in Iraq. Cpl. Jason Dunham, who died after falling on a grenade to save colleagues two years ago, became the second service member in Iraq to receive the nation's highest military decoration.

After flying here, Bush attended a U.S. Army Airborne School training demonstration as troops parachuted out of a helicopter. He also met privately with the families of 25 soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush was impressed by the "warm reception." "The perception is he's coming here to motivate the troops," Bartlett said, "but it has as much of an impact on him."

www.infowars.com

[IrishMick]

[SouthwestRanger]

Fishing in troubled waters

Gareth Porter
Asia Times
Tuesday, January 16, 2007



WASHINGTON - US President George W Bush's seemingly aggressive policy of taking direct action against alleged Iranian "networks" involved in attacks on US troops in Iraq, combined with the deployment of a second aircraft-carrier group off Iran's coast, has triggered speculation that it is related to a plan for an attack.

But the revelation by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the campaign against Iranian officials had already been in effect for several months before Bush's speech last Wednesday indicates that the new rhetoric is aimed at serving the desperate need of the White House to shift the blame for its failure in Iraq to Iran, and to appear to be taking tough action.

Rice told the New York Times in an interview on Friday that Bush had ordered the US military to target Iranian officials in Iraq allegedly linked to attacks on US forces some time last autumn. Bush and Rice had previously created the impression that the US administration had launched a new initiative against Iran in connection with its proposed increase in troop strength in Iraq.

The Bush speech coincided with an attack by an unidentified US military unit on the building used by Iranian consular officials in Irbil and the seizure of six Iranian officials in the compound. But all indications are that the US military has no real intelligence on any Iranian direct involvement in supplying lethal weapons to insurgents.

The statement issued by the US military but clearly written in the White House said the detainees, who were not identified as Iranians, were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraqi and coalition forces". That statement shows that the seizure was not based on any prior evidence of the officials' complicity in insurgent attacks. US troops also seized documents and computers, indicating that the attack was really nothing more than an intelligence operation, launched in the hope of finding some evidence that could be used against Iran.

The only other such US military raid came late last month and targeted four Iranian officials visiting Baghdad at the invitation of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. That operation bore similar evidence of being a fishing expedition against Iranians, based on nothing more than the "suspicion" that they were connected with the Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Contrary to the impression conveyed by the Bush administration, therefore, it is not targeting those it knows to be involved in supplying insurgents with weapons but is still trying to find some evidence to justify its tough rhetoric against Iran.

The initial rhetoric from Bush suggesting a possible intention to expand the Iraq war into Iran or Syria in response to alleged Iranian and Syrian support for anti-coalition insurgents had been followed by clarifications and new details that point to a very carefully calibrated propaganda offensive aimed at rallying his own political base.

Bush's identification in his January 10 speech of Iran and Syria as "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq" and the more specific reference to Iran as "providing material support for attacks on American troops" seemed to hint at such a plan to expand the war into Iran.

Rice seemed to be dropping even more pointed hints of such a plan in television interviews on Thursday. On the National Broadcasting Co's Today show, Rice vowed, on behalf of Bush, "We are going to make certain that we disrupt activities that are endangering and killing our troops and that are destabilizing Iraq." And when asked if that meant that "attacks inside Iran and Syria" were "on the table", she responded that Bush "is not going to take options off the table".

Rice went on to declare, "The Iranians need to know, and the Syrians need to know, that the United States is not finding it acceptable and is not going to simply tolerate their activities to try and harm our forces or to destabilize Iraq."

Asked in an interview with Fox and Friends whether Bush's speech could mean "going over the border to chase down those who are providing the technology and possibly the training", Rice coyly replied, "Well, I don't want to speculate on what kinds of operations the United States may be engaged in," as if to leave that possibility open. Then she added, "But I think you will see that the United States is not going to simply stand idly by and let these activities continue."

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Rice refused to answer a question from chairman Joe Biden on whether the president has the authority to conduct military missions in Iran without congressional approval. That provoked expressions of alarm from both Democratic and Republic senators. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said this ambiguity reminded him of the Richard Nixon administration's policy toward Cambodia in 1970 during the Vietnam War.

Some analysts viewed Rice's rhetoric as evidence of a Bush administration plan to justify an air offensive against Iran on the basis of alleged Iranian complicity in attacks on US forces in Iraq, rather than on the more abstract threat of Iranian progress toward a possible nuclear-weapons capability.

But the careful wording used and the explicit caveats issued by administration officials belied the impression of menace against Iran that Bush and Rice had clearly sought to convey. Bush's reference to the issue in his Wednesday-night speech avoided any actual threat to Iran. Instead, he said, "We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq." That formulation was carefully chosen to limit the scope of US actions.

The next day, even though Rice was provoking congressional fears of a wider war, the whole Bush team was qualifying that rhetoric in remarks to reporters by specifying that US actions to stop the alleged Iranian interference in Iraq will be confined to Iraq itself.

General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is considered a full member of the Bush administration team, limited the threatened aggressive US actions to "those who are physically present trying to do harm to our troops".

He concluded, "We can take care of the security of our troops by doing the business we need to do inside of Iraq."

And National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, after repeating the new line that the administration would "not tolerate outside interference in Iraq", went on to say that the actions would be taken only inside Iraq, not across the border. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also said on Friday that the US had no intention of going into Iranian territory.

The contrast between the general impression of steely resolve toward Iran conveyed by Bush and the unusual clarity about the limited geographical scope of the response points to a sophisticated two-level communications strategy prepared by the White House.

For those who get their news from television, the message conveyed by Rice was one of effective action against the Iranians supposedly causing harm to US troops; for Congress and the media, the message conveyed to reporters was much more cautious.

The two-level communications strategy suggests, in turn, that the White House was acutely aware that a single message of menace toward Iran could have triggered a negative congressional response that would have defeated the purpose of the tough rhetorical line.

Ironically, therefore, the net effect of the new tough line toward Iran may actually have been to force the Bush administration to admit, if only tacitly, that it is not free under present circumstances even to threaten to go to war against Iran.

http://infowars.net/articles/january...107Fishing.htm

[gus danger]

Awesome peace sign Michaela Michaela!
It's amazing what people can do when they organize!
[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]
Gus

[SouthwestRanger]

January 15, 2007, 1:30 pm
Grumbling in the Ranks



Vocal opposition to President?s Bush?s strategy of sending more than 20,000 additional troops to help secure Iraq has grown to include some of the troops themselves.

A group of more than 50 active-duty military officers will deliver a petition to Congress on Tuesday signed by about 1,000 troops calling for an end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. ?Any troop increase over here will just produce more sitting ducks, more targets,? said Sergeant Ronn Cantu, who is serving in Iraq.

Under the 1988 Military Whistleblower Protection Act, active duty military, National Guard, and Reservists may communicate with any member of Congress without fear of reprisal, even if copies of the communication are sent to others.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/0...-in-the-ranks/

[img]cool.gif[/img]

[IrishMick]

Originally posted by gus danger:
Awesome peace sign Michaela Michaela!
It's amazing what people can do when they organize!
[img]graemlins/thumbs_up.gif[/img] [img]cool.gif[/img]
Gus

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thank you sweet GusGus

[SouthwestRanger]

Attacking Iran: What?s Really In It For Bush?

Paul Craig Roberts | January 17, 2007




Initially, the Bush Regime denied that Bush?s surge speech on January 10 signaled that the Regime intends to attack Iran. Now a number of Regime officials have made it clear that Iran, not Iraq, is the focus of the Regime?s war planning. Robert Gates, the new Defense Secretary and member of the Iraq Study Group, was supposedly brought into the Pentagon to de-escalate the war. Gates now says that Iran is the target of US military moves in the Persian Gulf.

Suddenly the media is full of Bush Regime propagandistic assertions designed to make the American public believe that Iran is the enemy that is fighting against our troops in Iraq. To facilitate this deception, the Bush Regime staged a propaganda event by invading an Iranian government liaison office in Northern Iraq, kidnapping the Iranian officials and declaring them to be involved in plans to kill US troops.

The Bush Regime?s latest big lie is that the US is not winning in Iraq because of Iran. "The Iranians are acting in a very negative way," alleges the "moderate" Gates. Iraq, the target for the surge in US troop levels, has dimmed in importance. In the few days since Bush?s "surge" speech, Bush, Cheney, Gates, Rice, and national security advisor Hadley have said far more about Iran than about Iraq. In 2003, the same technique was used by the Bush Regime to shift the public?s attention from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein. The technique succeeded to the extent that even today a significant percentage of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Clearly, the Bush Regime expects that it can again deceive the American public. There is no doubt that Iran will be attacked. The Israeli government and the neoconservatives have been demanding it.

The question is: why is Bush, who is confronted with failure in Iraq, willing to compound his problems by attacking a more powerful Muslim state that the US has no prospect of being able to occupy?

A former member of the National Security Council gave me a possible answer. Bush can bury his defeat in Iraq with a "victory" in Iran.

Here is the victory scenario: Bush and Cheney will claim that their air attack on Iran succeeded in destroying Iran?s (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. The victory claimed by the Bush Regime and the propagandistic US media will "make America safe from nuclear attack." This will restore Bush?s popularity and move the US back to a 50-50 political split in time for Karl Rove to steal the 2008 election with the fraudulent electronic voting machines built and programmed by Republican operatives.

The former national security official believes that Bush will be able to claim victory over Iran, because Iran will avoid responding militarily. Iran will not use its Russian missiles to sink our aircraft carriers, to shut down oil facilities throughout the Middle East, or to destroy US headquarters in the "green zone" in Baghdad. Instead, Iran will adopt the posture of another Muslim victim of US/ Israeli aggression and let the anger seep throughout the Muslim world until no pro-US government is safe in the Middle East.

Bush needs a short-run victory, and Iran will let him have it?in order to gain the long-run victory.

The consequences for the US, Israel, and the US puppet regimes in the Middle East will be catastrophic, but they will not occur in the short-run.

This explanation solves the dilemma of why Bush would get deeper into the quagmire for the sake of the Israel Lobby. A US attack on Iran allows Bush both to satisfy the powerful Israel Lobby and to claim to have destroyed Iran?s (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction.

Some patriotic Americans, who believe it is still possible to save America from war and a police state, see cause for hope in the upcoming trial of "Scooter" Libby, the former chief operative of VP Cheney. Libby is accused of lying about his role in leaking a covert CIA agent?s name to the press in an effort to discredit damaging evidence that Bush had lied about Iraq possessing WMD. The patriots believe that Libby?s trial will damage the Bush Regime and, thereby, reduce the Regime?s danger to freedom and democracy in America.

At this delicate point in time, the Bush Regime would not allow the Libby trial to go forward unless the Regime had arranged with the media shills it uses to control the explanation of the news (with insider leaks) to testify in a manner that lets Libby off the hook.

If Libby is exonerated, expect Cheney and the neocon Nazis to attack Joe Wilson as a terrorist sympathizer who tried to discredit Bush?s invasion of Iraq and war on terror. The attack on Wilson will lead into an all-out-assault on the antiwar movement.

If the Regime overcomes its defeat in Iraq with a "victory" in Iran, "you are with us or against us" will take on new life, and we will find out who are those intended for the Halliburton-built detention camps constructed in the US at great cost with our tax dollars.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3...t_for_bush.htm