OPERATION IRAQI (AND AMERICAN) ENSLAVEMENT

An Iranian leader, referring to Bush's plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, spoke the truth about the plan:

"The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."

Bush is trying to force the Iraqi government to agree to the following terms by the end of next month:

-allow US troops occupy permanent bases
-allow US troops to conduct military operations without consulting Iraqi government
-allow US troops to arrest Iraqis without consulting Iraqi government
-allow US troops to have immunity from Iraqi law
-allow US control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet

And so on.

Does that sound like "freedom" to anyone? Isn't that what our war was euphemistically named--"Operation Iraqi Freedom?" Oh, but we have long since learned that politicians in general and neocons in particular are well-versed in what I call "oppositism," i.e., saying the opposite of what they mean.

Do the terms that Bush wants Iraqis to agree to sound any different than what Saddam Hussein did? No, they don't. Bush obviously isn't interested in "victory" in Iraq. Making Iraq agree to such odious terms is a surefire way to ensure defeat and a prolonged conflict.

Because that's what the neocons really want--war all the time. That's so they can always say that we're "in a time of war" and they can use that excuse to continue taking our civil liberties. The war in Iraq and the wider "war on terror" are really an excuse to wage war on US.

If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

PHASE II: BUSH LIED ABOUT IRAQ. BIG SURPRISE.

From the Huffington Post report on the Senate's long-delayed "Phase II" report on the misuse of "intelligence" in making a case for our illegal and immoral invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq:

"The 'Phase II' report states -- in terms clearer than any previous government publication -- that there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta -- a claim that was nevertheless publicly repeated."

Wow. Thanks to things like the NY Times report on the Pentagon analyst scandal, Scott McClellan's new book, this Phase II report and other sources, the truth is finally being officially admitted, here in the middle of Bush's last year in office when it's too late to do much about it. Oh, he could still be impeached, I suppose. But that was taken "off the table" long ago.

And so the war will go on into the next presidency. And the presidency after that. And the presidency after that. And so on. But at least we got a quiet official admission that it was all based on lies. That's something, at least, right?

No. It isn't. They got away with it. And they'll get away with the next one. And they'll admit to lying about the next one, too. And I guess we'll just say that impeachment is "off the table" then, too. I guess it just goes to show you that THE SYSTEM WORKS (for the bad guys)! Hooray!

IMPEACH THE LYING CORPORATE GREEDHEADS PART TWO

Went to an antiwar “candlelight vigil” today. Met up with my friend Scott Tyner, pictured below with the green “Support our troops” sign. Saw William McLean (the creator of the unforgettable “Impeach the Lying Corporate Greedheads” sign), about whom I wrote both a blog entry and letter to the editor over two years ago.









Scott told me that William was arrested for disturbing the peace during their most recent protest. Apparently a cop pulled up and cited some nonexistent ordinance and took William to jail. He had to pay a $100 fine to get out. At least they didn’t Tase him.

How can anyone say William is/was “disturbing the peace?” There’s no peace to disturb–after all, as Bush and Cheney and their neocon followers love to say, “This is a time of war.” And William and the rest of us would like to see that time pass, so that we can use “this is a time of peace” as an excuse to say no when they want to build more weapons and kill more people. In other words, use their strategy on them, but for positive purposes.

Not much to say but this–this is not a just war, this is just war. End it. Now.

PAID $3.04 FOR GAS TODAY...

...and a place down the street was selling it for $3.06. These prices have sparked some discussion on the Hattiesburg American forum, and I reproduce one of my posts there below:

All I'm saying is that the previous inflation-adjusted record average gas price was in 1981, when Reagan was in office and there was a war going on in Iraq. That same month, this is what happened:

"...U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by "the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area." The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks."

The declassified memorandum that details all this is here.



Reagan was also shot that month.

The new inflation-adjusted record average gas price has now been achieved during Bush's term. And strangely enough, there's a war going on in Iraq.


Coincidence? Not bloody likely.

I'm not at all saying that Democratic presidents haven't had their share of foibles--LBJ lying us into Vietnam, Truman using the atom bomb even though he knew Japan wanted and was trying to surrender, etc.

But I'm saying that when wars in Iraq converge with Republican presidents, we seem to get record average gas prices. And interestingly, in the case of both records, in '81 and '07, men named George Bush were either president or vice-president.

Also, not exactly sure what 1977 gas lines kenjutsu is referring to. The first Arab oil embargo was in 1973, when Nixon, yet another Republican, was in office.

There was of course the energy crisis of 1979, due to the effects of the Iranian revolution, and there were gas lines then.

"Back in the 1973-1974 period and in 1979, folks waited for an hour or more on gasoline lines that at times stretched for miles, and people could only buy gas on alternate days, depending upon whether their license plate ended with an odd or even number. The federal government even printed gas-rationing coupons, although they were never used."

Gas prices "climbed throughout the 90's?"

Gas prices, according to kenjutsu, began to "climb throughout the 90's." He notes that this started in approximately 1992, the last year Bush I was in office.

As ol' Ronnie Raygun said--"Trust, but verify":

All prices listed are for U.S. regular grade gasoline:

1/6/92: $1.04
12/28/92: $1.06
1/25/93: $1.05
12/27/93: $0.99

Point taken? No? OK, let’s skip ahead a few years...

5/26/97: $1.20
7/28/97: $1.16
1/5/98: $1.08
3/23/98: $0.99
1/4/99: $0.91
12/27/99: $1.26

I think we can conclude that the price of gas didn’t ONLY “climb throughout the 90's.” The price FLUCTUATED.

Gas prices under Bush

Lowest gas price of Bush admin.:
12/17/01:$1.04

Lowest price since beginning of Iraq war:
5/12/03: $1.42

The price of regular has not been that low since then. And since March 14, 2005, gas has never been less than $2.

Where’s the data come from? From the Energy Information Administration in good ol’ Washington, D.C.


Under “Area,” click on “United States.” You have to have Excel or an Excel viewer to see the chart. All data above was taken from the first column.

FIRST TIME I'VE EVER PAID OVER $3 FOR REGULAR GAS
















This was on New Year's Day, just outside Gulfport, MS...and whaddya know, oil hit $100/barrel today!


Very interesting info from Americans Against Escalation In Iraq:

WHAT THE WHITE HOUSE CLAIMED THEN VS. WHAT THE FACTS ARE OF OIL AND IRAQ TODAY

Wolfowitz: “[Iraq] will finance itself relatively soon” with oil
revenues

“The oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100
billion over the course of the next two or three years. Now, there are a lot of
claims on that money, but… We are dealing with a country that can really finance
its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” [Institute for Policy Studies, Paul
Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

US Spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, But in 2003 Gov Officials
Insisted Iraq Will Not Require Sustained Aid

“The White House projected yesterday that postwar Iraq will not require
long-term U.S. aid, in part because of oil reserves that the Bush administration
contends will offset many of the costs of reconstruction. "The United States is
committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require
sustained aid," said a report from President Bush's Office of Management and
Budget.”” [WP, 3/29/2003]

Colin Powell “Iraq will not require the sorts of foreign assistance
that Afghanistan will”

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made a similar point Wednesday on
Capitol Hill. "Iraq will not require the sorts of foreign assistance Afghanistan
will continue to require for some time to come," Powell said, explaining that
Iraq's talent and resources will be "put to productive uses, instead of buying
and manning weapons and palaces for Saddam Hussein." [WP, 3/29/2003]

Let's remember our lesson: (War + Iraq)Republican President=Record Gas Prices!

Oh, and apparently, it turns out that the more troops we send in to this quagmire, the more we lose as it now turns out that 2007 was the deadliest year for American troops.