US Targets Iranian Agents in Iraq

It appears a reason has been found to instigate encroachment #2 Incursion into Iran.

Hardball's coverage

This is one reason why the Iraq incursion has a weak premise. The actions that were going on goes to show the Iraq encroachment was based on manipulation.

A New Foreign Policy

The U.S. leadership should not continue to blame the Iraqis for not stepping up to control the out of control violence that is occurring in their country. They continue to hold the Iraqis responsible for not producing a political solution to the crisis in their country as if the U.S. did not greatly contribute to the situation if not solely responsible. Every time U.S. leadership proclaims it is the Iraqis responsibility to get control of their security situation U.S. leadership speaks as if it is blameless. It is very duplicitous of the U.S. leadership to take the position that Iraq is not doing its part. If the voices that tried to repeatedly say there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the voices that said there is no link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda had been heeded none of this would be happening today.

The fact of the matter is we entered Iraq without a true cause. When the U.S. entered Iraq and changed the regime it destabilized that country. By not having in place a solid transition government to replace the fallen regime in Iraq prior to the invasion a vacuum was created. There should be no surprise that PM al-Maliki is frustrated and trying to distance himself from the U.S. leadership. He is undoubtedly under tremendous pressure from both his Shiite allegiance and U.S. demands that he take steps toward a political solution that will solve the crisis in his country for which U.S. foreign policy is largely responsible.

When U.S. leadership takes responsibility of the part they played to contributed to the chaos in Iraq via bad foreign policy then the argument can be made that Iraqis need to step up to the plate and control the crisis in their country. U.S. leadership should send a formal envoy to Iraq to attempt to negotiate a cease fire between the Shiite and Sunni insurgents. All parties should be invited to come express their concerns and negotiate what they desire to see happen in their country, how they want to develop their government and how they want their country to evolve. These would be positive steps to bring stabilization to the Iraqis. U.S foreign policy will suffer a major blow over the chaos in Iraq if U.S. leadership does not involve itself more intimately with the political solution for Iraq.

Mumbo jumbo...

What a difference a democratic congress makes

If the U.S wants to go to war with Iran they will, as I stated previously, be headed for a clash with Russia and China seeing these two countries have national interests there. Russia is selling arms to Iran and China is flexing its muscles by testing missiles with the capability of shooting down satellites (that is my perception). It probably would not be any precipitous actions on their part but going to war with Iran has the potential of escalating beyond control if China and Russia were to indeed align themselves with Iran. This is more than likely U.S. foreign policy fallout.

Congress on the move on both sides of the aisle

Congress' Move

Now that the president has made it clear that he has no concern about what congress has to say or what congress does concerning his decision to send more troops to Iraq, the ball is now in congress’ court. It will be interesting for sure to see how they respond in the coming weeks. The president has dared them in so many words to try and stop him. He has completely disregarded the ISG report on Iraq. It will be interesting to see how the Iraqi government responds to this policy whether they will cooperate or not. We are already finding out that it is not getting off to a welcome start there. If things go badly as a result of this troop increase, then the will be running for cover since he is putting himself out as the fall guy for his policy.

Previously I had been willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt that since he was taking the time to consult with those who have expertise in foreign policy and who are knowledgeable concerning the conditions in Iraq. I was hopeful that he was showing signs of being willing to work with those who had other ideas on how to solve the Iraq crisis. The Wednesday night speech let us know differently. It occurs to me then why the elder Bush was in tears during a speech he gave on behalf of his son then governor of Florida. I believe he knew then that his eldest was not going to follow the lead of the ISG because a father knows his children. A father knows his child’s personality he knows his child’s character and I for one believe that was why he broke down in tears. I am not a mind reader though but that episode looked to have come from deep within his torn soul trying to save his son from political disaster.

So what will happen next? What could happen, there will most likely be a wait and see approach by the congress to see how things will go in Iraq as a result of the troop level increase that is already in progress. This may be the motive behind why we are hearing early on from commanders that it will take time for the troop increase to show signs of success possibly in hopes of keeping congress from making any sudden moves against the surge. If things go badly congress will pull support of the troop increase. Or what could happen is those with ties to his father’s administration may if not already move against him privately paving the way for his removal. The president is clearly riding on the government in Iraq to go along with his policy. He has put himself out as the scapegoat for this policy if it fails and it maybe a fate that he has sealed for himself

Mumbo jumbo...

I was listening to Nora O’Donnell interview a former CIA agent yesterday saying that there is intelligence pointing a desire and plans of Al- Qaeda to attack the U.S. again. If our intelligence knows there are plans by al Qaeda to attack again then what is intelligence doing to prevent if from taking place? Why are they reporting on it instead of doing something about it to prevent if from becoming a reality? They should not just say we know they are planning. If you know they are planning then intelligence should be intervening at this point not just reporting that it is happening and sitting back and letting it happen so there can be this I told you so euphoria that you can use to prop up this war.

Foreign Policy Credibility

Russia is doing it, now Venezuela is doing it and Iran is trying to do it if not already. They are nationalizing their energy resources. What that means is the U.S. is being turned against by countries using their energy resources. They are not using manpower to fight against the U.S. they are using the natural resources that lie within their sovereign borders to fight against the U.S. They are using what the U.S. relies on the most, oil. What a shame. What this means is the U.S. in the future will definitely have to start dealing with a shortage of oil and a downturn in the economy which is bound to happen no matter how much lipstick they try to put on this and present it to the public that it is not going to hurt. If it was not going to hurt these countries would not have moved to nationalize their oil resources (not to mention the potential of China’s impact on our economy). What will happen is the price of will climb and there will probably be a stock market sell off. There will be some of effort to try to keep the economy from sliding but will it be enough.

And then the president is ordering more troops to Iraq with the possibility of heading into Iran which no doubt the international community sees as a signal that the U.S. is not changing its foreign policy and they will probably take up defensive posturing in their foreign policy. What undoubtedly is about to unfold is the US having to back track on its ambitions because of external economic forces.

And as usual none of the news media outlets have reported on this news and with good reason I suppose. All weekend long they have been reporting on back burner news stories when there is plenty of pertinent front burner news stories to report on, which in earlier days would have made blockbuster headlines.

It is not the pulling out of our troops from Iraq that will discredit the U.S., it is the U.S. foreign policy and the unwillingness of congress to forcefully challenging that foreign policy that has already and will discredit the U.S. in the international community. The only way to regain U.S. credibility in the international community will be to send the greatest signal that can be sent: congress must act against the executive branch with a bold hand. They must put aside what happened in times pass because there is no comparison. What has been done to this country both internally and externally, its’ standing in the international community, far out weighs the actions of the previous president of which proceedings were brought against him and considered a political statement which the misdemeanor he was charged for justifies it as that, a political statement. The current congress claims that in the name of bipartisanship and that those proceedings are just a political statement and not an enforcement of law as the reason preventing them from acting. It would be a dereliction of duty for congress not to act in this instance.

If the congress does not act it will send a message to the international community that we all are in complete complicity with the foreign policy of the executive branch. The U.S’ credibility in the international community will unfortunately be damaged beyond repair. As a result of congress allowing the executive branch under this administration to continue to carry out its foreign policy, any individual who leads and occupies the executive branch in the future would not enjoy the trust and respect that the U.S. could once claim. Future U.S. leaders will always be greeted with skepticism from the international community and an unwillingness to cooperate. The U.S. will be greeted with the difficulty of accessing the natural resources that is vital to the economics of this country. Congress owes it to the founders of this nation to preserve the integrity of the principles this country was founded on. Congress owes it to the future of the United States.

Fear of the Unknown

There has been a lot of discussion concerning the president’s decision to send some 20,000 + soldiers into Iraq in order to crack down on the insurgency. This is obviously an about face to the Iraq Study Group’s position on the war in Iraq. There has been criticism concerning the outcry from the democratic leadership concerning the president’s unwillingness to heed the voice of the people and to at least give more information concerning the objective of the surge in troops. To be fair to the president I will say this if the idea behind the troop surge is to take out Moqtada al-Sadr and he does not want to reveal this as to not spoil the element of surprise then so be it. Let us hope that with this surge will come results that will contain the insurgency in Iraq. If not, it will be on the president’s watch and he may very well be made accountable.

Now on the other end of this hope is the fear of the unknown. Let us examine the elements. If it is the mission to route al-Sadr and the Mehdi Army and al-Sadr is the least bit aware that there is a plan of attack against him then either he will take flight or stay and fight. The thing is if he stays and fights he may call on help from Iran. Remember they both are of the Shiite faction. Then there will be no doubt more blood shed of our troops. And let’s look at this element: Nouri al-Maliki. He basically has an allegiance to al-Sadr and is being asked by the U.S. to betray that loyalty. So if you are al-Sadr and you know that you are responsible for this man being the prime minister and he turns against you then what would you do? Of course try to knock him off. What a precarious position the prime minister is in. And we could take this unknown to another level. If things escalate above and beyond the fight between the Iran/Mahdi group and the U.S. troops the Iran/Mahdi group could further call for assistance from others say China and Russia who are generally slow about going along with any sanctions against Iran that are introduced at the U.N. Then it would turn out to be a regional war with the U.S. versus China, Russia, and Iran. It makes you wonder about the story that was leaked that Israel was preparing to go after Iran’s nuclear facilities.

As the president said defeat would be a disaster for the U.S. But not for the obvious reasons that we are told of. It would be disastrous because of the oil that is in the region and the desire of the U.S. to lay claim on it. It would be disastrous if the U.S. dollar gets rejected in favor of the euro. For America to pull out of Iraq without securing the oil and the dollar would indeed be unfortunate. But why not have a new way of thinking or should I say why not show respect. The oil is in another sovereign country. It is theirs by right. If we could be more diplomatic about our intentions we may achieve more. Then all parties would benefit. Using force just creates more animosity and increases the violence that we witness day after day.

Crying Wolf

Remember the story of the boy that cried wolf? He cried wolf one too many times and nobody listened and it was when he really needed some help. Yesterday’s events and the events in Miami and all these breaking news stories of coke can bombs being found are falling on numb ears. I for one believe it is used to keep us all in fear that we may never be able to escape the trauma/drama of September 11 which is such a shame. I believe the government can do a better job of tracking and checking out these minor incidents before we the public have to know anything about them especially when they more than likely will turn out to be empty threats. Foreigners and for that matter anyone living inside the US will likely know better to try and pull off such an event like September 11 2001 again. How it happened the first time is beyond me.

Every time you hear one of these breaking news bits concerning a suspicious package being found the diminishing effects of it increases. The reason being is these types of events like September 11 probably take major planning. Not only major planning, but major time to plan. During that time of planning I am quite sure someone gets wind of it and it is reported to who it needs to be reported to (for a small fee of course) or government agencies who keep their ear to the ground check for unusual activity that point to threats to national security . This being the case there is no need for the public to hear about these behind the scenes activities seeing they can block such cataclysmic events from being launched before it has a chance to be executed. If there is the possibility that something or someone slipped through the cracks and there was no prospect of capturing those planning attacks against the US, then a warning should be sent out over the airwaves to alert the public. Otherwise we will continue to be blackmailed by empty threats

My Prediction.....

Gore-Obama 2008

Economic Ramblings

I had an epiphany of sorts. It goes like this: Market conditions and CEO decisions go hand in hand. Some CEO chooses to wait and wait and take their time in making certain moves that would benefit their company. Timing is everything and like the saying goes good things come to those who wait but not to those who hesitate… Bill Withers Just the two of Us. If the CEO waits and waits to make a decision that would profit the company and then he finally makes the move and market conditions are such that it will weigh on stock price regardless of what that move may be then it is not going to help the company or the stockholders.

In other economic ramblings, look at this story. I know corporations had to see this coming.

Bush going his own way

It appears the report from the Iraq Study Group is going by the wayside. It is being reported that the administration plans increase troop levels instead of working on an exit strategy and bringing stability to the region. Recently it was being reported that a top advisor of Moqtada al-Sadr had been killed in attack by US troops. Previously written in this blog was the opinion there would probably be a push to go after Al-Sadr as he is a thorn in the side of Prime Minister al-Maliki government thus the increase in troops. But the administration is going to face an up hill battle when they present this plan. The democrats and some republicans appear to be circling the wagons. But if the reason for the decision to increase the troop size in Iraq is to go after al-Sadr and his followers then the democrats will probably go along with it for a limited time. We shall see. But they have already played a pre emptive move by sending a letter to Bush letting him know they are not supporting a surge in troops in Iraq.

Watch out for Iran in all of this. Remember al-Sadr and his followers are of the Shiite persuasion and so is the population that make up Iran. If they need support against this attack from the US they could surely ask Iran for help and it could escalate into an already simmering powder keg. And not to mention the report that circled this weekend concerning Israel’s planned attack. which speculation is the plan may have been leaked to prevent it from happening. But you cannot help but wonder if Israel was going to be to the US what Iran would be to al-Sadr. All in all it would be what the administration wants and that is to go after Iran for obvious reasons for obvious reasons.

Mentioning the letter to Bush from democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid, I listed to analyst on MSNBC be critical of the fact the letter was sent and it is not known what will be the result of Mr. Bush’s consultations and evaluations of the situation in Iraq. They seem to see it as they are over reacting without knowing what is going to be the final analysis. Well who is to say if the letter from the democratic leaders may influence his decision if indeed his decision will be on the vein of troop withdrawal?

Sheehan, protesters interrupt Dem press conference

It will be interesting to see what the democrats will do.

How unpatriotic

You know there is an element in the population who are salivating for something to happen so they can say I told you so. How unpatriotic is that? People of the religous faith should be praying for the well being of the country even if they do get a premonitionn of something evil about to happen. If you get warning you should ask God to prevent it from happening not promote it.

Bits and pieces

It appears the report from the Iraq Study Group is going by the wayside. It is being reported that the administration plans increase troop levels instead of working on an exit strategy and bringing stability to the region. Recently it was being reported that a top advisor of Moqtada al-Sadr had been killed in attack by US troops. Previously written in this blog was the opinion there would probably be a push to go after Al-Sadr as he is a thorn in the side of Prime Minister al-Maliki government thus the increase in troops. But the administration is going to face an up hill battle when they present this plan. The democrats and some republicans appear to be circling the wagons. But if the reason for the decision to increase the troop size in Iraq is to go after al-Sadr and his followers then the democrats will probably go along with for a limited time. We shall see. Watch out for Iran in all of this. Remember al-Sadr and his followers are of the Shiite persuasion and so is the population that make up Iran. If they need support against this attack from the US they could ask for it from Iran and it could escalate into an already simmering powder keg.

Mentioning circling the wagons >>>lets get ready to rumble. This is going to need a blow by blow I will bring it as much as I possibly can. As much as there is blows thrown. It's going to be crucial. And if there is any indication of that it would be evident with the message to the democrats in the Wall Street Journal Op Ed This looks like a head them off type of message.

By the way reflecting on when I first started this blog I mentioned doing something like a word for the day that would sum up the daily political current events. I strayed but I will try to get back on that track...

This has got to hurt

The day that should have never happened

It is the most shunned topic ever. But can it be explained how September 11 2001 could have ever happened and since that time it has not happened? I don’t believe this country is that vulnerable to outside attacks of that magnitude. There are too many layers of law enforcement in this country for something on that scale to have happened. This country has too much technical knowledge and too wide of a reach into many places around the world (which could be in jeopardy now) for something like 9/11/2001 to have occurred. It could have only happened by someone who turned a blind eye. But it is unspeakable and unthinkable that someone did turn a blind eye on information that could have saved lives.

But let us take a moment to think about what was going on at the time when this event occurred. The election outcome was determined by the Supreme Court in favor of an unfavorable candidate and our currency was being given the boot by Saddam An event was needed that would take care of both of these problems. Al Qaeda via September 11 2001 was the launching pad for an invasion into Iraq unrelated as they were. The unfavorable candidate now becomes the most favored, the protector, the decider. Everyone now rallies around the fearless leader who by the way deferred military service along with the rest of his posse. He now becomes the chosen one of God. Jesus Christ said to be wary of those who say they come in his name and I am wary for sure.

This creates the opportunity to usurp authority unheard of by any other leader during past wars. This creates the opportunity to profit in untold amounts of money. This creates the opportunity to inhibit those who would dare oppose decisions that are made in the name of the war on terrorism. It creates the opportunity to be seen as the protector. And that is all it is just an appearance.

There are those who say it was a conspiracy what happened on September 11 2001. It was no conspiracy. It was more like malfeasance. How come there has not been another attack on this country since that time? If there was the ability to infiltrate the US then surely we would still be easily breached. And you mean that everything that is being done now to prevent terrorists’ attacks on our soil was not done prior to September 11 2001? We have the same resources we had before, and they were discussions about cutting back on those resources. Go figure. There was no difference then and no difference now in the ability of those in power to prevent the events on September 11 2001. The only difference is that we had just came out of an ugly election where the unpopular guy was handed the win and there was the need to have some sort diversion that would erase the memory of the election’s outcome and move forward with a self serving agenda. But since that time we have been protected. September 11 2001 was too easy. Almost as if it was anticipated. And it does not make sense that no one thinks about that fact and we just go along with the program hook line and sinker. This country is too big for events like September 11 2001 to take place on our soil.