noworldsystem.com


Huge Explosions in Baghdad Possible Inside Job

UPDATE: Former Police Chief of Saddam Hussein Confesses to Finance Ministry Attack

CNN
August 24, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaVm1F-LFOI

Iraqi officials Sunday released what they called a confession from a man identified as a former Baathist police official, who says he helped organize one of last week’s attacks on government buildings in Baghdad.

In the videotaped statement, the man identified himself as Wissam Ali Kadhim Ibrahim, a former police chief in executed dictator Saddam Hussein’s government. Ibrahim said he received orders for the bombing of the Finance Ministry building from a member of Hussein’s Baath Party now living in Syria.

The release of the confession came as Iraqi authorities investigate whether members of the country’s security forces collaborated in Wednesday’s attacks. Iraq’s security forces have come under sharp criticism for failing to prevent the bombings, which have raised doubts about the capabilities and allegiances of Iraq’s army and police.

Wednesday’s suicide truck bombings at the Finance Ministry and the Foreign Ministry, as well as three other blasts, killed at least 100 people and wounded hundreds of others. It was the bloodiest day in the Iraqi capital since U.S. troops withdrew from Iraqi cities at the end of June.

Ibrahim’s statement did not mention the use of trucks or the bombing at the Foreign Ministry, Wednesday’s other major attack. In his statement, which was played for reporters and aired on Iraqi television, the well-dressed 57-year-old said he received orders from Sattam Farhan, who he said was a Baath Party leader in Syria. The goal of the attack was “to destabilize the regime,” Ibrahim said.

Some midlevel and senior members of the Baath Party sought refuge in Syria following the U.S. invasion that ousted Hussein in 2003. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki asked for the handover of some of those ex-officials during a visit to Damascus last week, Iraqi officials said.

Ibrahim spoke calmly and conversationally as he described his involvement in one the deadliest bombings in Iraq this year. He said the vehicle used in the bombing was put together in the town of Khalis, northeast of Baghdad, and said $10,000 was paid to a man who facilitated the passage of the vehicle through checkpoints from Diyala province — where Ibrahim was once a town police chief, officials said — to Baghdad.

Read Full Article Here

 

Iraqi FM: Baghdad bombings possible inside job

AP
August 22, 2009

Iraq’s foreign minister says those who carried out bombings that targeted government buildings got help to pull off the attacks, possibly from members of Iraqi security forces.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari also says he regrets allowing the removal of a checkpoint and concrete blast barriers from near the ministry building.

The building was among two that were targeted Wednesday by truck bombs that killed at least 101 and wounded more than 500.

Zebari told reporters Saturday during a press conference in Baghdad that the attacks were well planned and executed.

He says the ministry is also looking into how the trucks carrying the bombs were allowed to pass into areas where they are banned from traveling.

 



International Coalition Forces “bomb Afghan police”

International Coalition Forces “bomb Afghan police”

BBC
July 20, 2008

At least 13 Afghan police and civilians have died in two incidents involving international forces, officials say.

Four Afghan police and five civilians died in an apparently mistaken air strike by international coalition forces in Farah province.

Separately, the Nato-led Isaf said it had “accidentally” killed at least four civilians in Paktika province.

The incidents are the latest in a series of controversial clashes involving foreign troops.

They come as US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Afghanistan as part of an overseas tour.

Mr Obama, who wants to increase US troop levels in Afghanistan, was due to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday.

Mr Karzai has said no civilian casualty is acceptable.

Read Full Article Here

Iraq PM did not back Obama troop exit plan: government
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1932883920080720

Blackwater expands its fleet of airships
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2..ater_main_071908/

Iraqi Leader: US Should Leave as Soon as Possible
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/20/10482/

Afghanistan Hit by Record Number of US and NATO Bombs
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/07/airforce_bomb_oef_071708/

 



Iraq ready to kick U.S. out of green zone

Iraq ready to kick U.S. out of green zone

Times Online
July 13, 2008

The green zone of Baghdad, a highly fortified slice of American suburbia on the banks of the Tigris river, may soon be handed over to Iraqi control if the increasingly assertive government of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, gets its way.

A senior Iraqi government official said this weekend the enclave should revert to Iraqi control by the end of the year. “We think that by the end of 2008 all the zones in Baghdad should be integrated into the city,” said Ali Dabbagh, the government’s spokesman.

“The American soldiers should be based in agreed camps outside the cities and population areas.

“By the end of the year, there will be no green zone,” he added. “The separation by huge walls makes people feel angry.” Dabbagh acknowledged that getting rid of the green zone would be a huge undertaking, given the thousands of American soldiers, private contractors and foreign workers who live inside. He said the concrete walls that divide it from the rest of the city would be taken down slowly, “depending on the threat and circumstances”.

Read Full Article Here

 

British government ‘to pull troops out of Iraq by mid-2009’

Michael Smith
London Times
July 13, 2008

The government is aiming to pull the vast majority of British troops out of Iraq by the middle of next year, defence sources have revealed.

While there are no plans to withdraw before George W Bush hands over to the new American president at the turn of the year, the decision is now expected to be made “in the first half of 2009”.

Only troops training Iraqi military or police and special forces are likely to stay, unless there is a sharp change for the worse.

Read Full Article Here

UK Troops ’feel like quitting’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7498904.stm

Spending Bill Suggests Long Stay in Afghanistan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy../07/13/AR2008071301644_pf.html

Maliki hands out money to Iraqis
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/ap/200807..weapon-d3b07b8.html?printer=1

U.S. Considers Increasing Pace of Iraq Pullout
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/13/america/13military.php

 



Iraq Looking At U.S. Timetable For Withdrawal

Iraq Looking At U.S. Timetable For Withdrawal

Reuters
July 7, 2008

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki raised the prospect on Monday of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of negotiations over a new security agreement with Washington.

It was the first time the U.S.-backed Shi’ite-led government has floated the idea of a timetable for the removal of American forces from Iraq. The Bush administration has always opposed such a move, saying it would give militant groups an advantage.

The security deal under negotiation will replace a U.N. mandate for the presence of U.S. troops that expires on December 31.

“Today, we are looking at the necessity of terminating the foreign presence on Iraqi lands and restoring full sovereignty,” Maliki told Arab ambassadors in blunt remarks during an official visit to Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates.

“One of the two basic topics is either to have a memorandum of understanding for the departure of forces or a memorandum of understanding to set a timetable for the presence of the forces, so that we know (their presence) will end in a specific time.”

Read Full Article Here

 

How You Ended The War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frR0qklU1_o

Opposition to Iraq War Hits 68% in U.S.
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/31178

Kucinich To Introduce One Article Of Impeachment
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Kucinich_to_bring_single_article_of_0708.html

‘No plans for early Afghanistan pullout’
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page..7�8story_8-7-2008_pg7_52

Soldier found dead in Texas apartment after shootout with police
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/long..121.story?page=1

Canadian court rules Iraq war illegal
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/ne..b3-9bbc-bb4687684d5f

Panel urges new law on government war powers
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0826563920080708

Injured Iraq War Veterans Pay More for Health Care, Report Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/..N6Dgs3JM&refer=us

 



U.S. Special Forces Kill Maliki Relative
U.S. Special Forces Kill Maliki Relative in a Raid

McClatchy Newspapers
June 28, 2008

Senior Iraqi government officials said Saturday that a U.S. Special Forces counterterrorism unit conducted the raid that reportedly killed a relative of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki , touching off a high-stakes diplomatic crisis between the United States and Iraq .

U.S. military officials in Baghdad had no comment for the second day in a row, an unusual position for a command that typically releases information on combat operations within 24 hours.

The raid occurred at dawn Friday in the town of Janaja near Maliki’s birthplace in the southern, mostly Shiite Muslim province of Karbala . Ali Abdulhussein Razak al Maliki , who was killed in the raid, was related to the prime minister and had close ties to his personal security detail, according to authorities in Karbala .

The incident puts an added strain on U.S.-Iraqi negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement, a long-term security pact that will govern the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq . Members of the Iraqi government and security forces said the raid only deepened their reluctance to sign any agreement that did not leave Iraqis with the biggest say on when and how combat operations are conducted.

The U.S. military handed Iraqi forces control of Karbala security in October 2007 . By the end of 2007 the U.S. military had transferred nine of the country’s 18 provinces to Iraqi control.

“We are afraid now of signing the long-term pact between Iraq and America because of such unjustified violations by the troops. Handing over security in provinces doesn’t mean anything to the American troops,” said Mohamed Hussein al Musawi , a senior Najaf-based member of the prime minister’s Dawa Party . “We condemn these barbaric actions not only when they target a relative of Maliki’s, but when any Iraqi is targeted in the same way.”

Outrage over the mysterious operation has spread to the highest levels of the Iraqi government, which is demanding an explanation for how such a raid occurred in a province ostensibly under full Iraqi command.

“This is a Special Forces operation, an antiterrorism unit that operates almost independently so there’s been no coordination with the local forces on the ground,” said a high-ranking member of the Iraqi government who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the extreme sensitivity of the issue. “That’s why it’s so important to have a Status of Forces Agreement to regulate this relationship. As long as it’s vague and open, these incidents will continue to happen.”

U.S. and Iraqi officials have been in difficult negotiations to draft a Status of Forces Agreement. Among the main sticking points are whether the U.S. military can stage combat operations without the consent of the Iraqi government and whether to grant immunity to American troops and security contractors.

Kurdish legislator Mahmoud Othman called Friday’s operation “unacceptable” and had strained relations between the countries.

“This is a big embarrassment for Prime Minister Maliki because he was in that area two days before the incident, telling his people that we are the masters in our country and the decisions were ours to make,” Othman said. “This is why we are afraid of agreements and immunity. … If there are wanted people in any area, why not send an Iraqi force to do the job?”

Iraqi officials in Karbala said the operation began at dawn Friday with U.S. aircraft delivering dozens of American troops to the rural Shiite Muslim town of Janaja, which is populated mostly by members of the Maliki tribe. Authorities said the raid apparently was aimed at capturing what the military calls a “high-value target,” often a reference to the leader of a militant cell.

Raed Shakir Jowdet, the Iraqi military commander of Karbala operations, told journalists Friday that the Americans had acted on faulty intelligence. He said four U.S. military helicopters and a jet fighter soared over the area that morning. About 60 U.S. ground forces then stormed the town, “terrifying the families,” Jowdet said. At least one man was detained, though some Iraqi authorities said more were taken into custody.

 

Bush Signs $162 Billion War Funding Bill

USA Today
June 30, 2008

President Bush on Monday signed a $162 billion war funding bill that includes doubling college benefits for troops and veterans and provides a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits.

The spending plan also provides $2.7 billion “to help ensure that any state facing a disaster like the recent flooding and tornadoes in the Midwest has access to needed resources.”

“With this legislation we send a clear message to all who are serving on the front lines that the nation continues its support,” Bush said of troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read Full Article Here

Iraq Fails To Ink Deals With Global Oil Majors
http://www.breitbart.com/article.p..v5pos49w&show_article=1

Labour MP Admits US/UK Stealing the Oil and Fomenting Civil War in Iraq
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3016

Afghanistan deadlier for troops than Iraq
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nat..Afghanistan_deadlier_than_Iraq.html

Deadliest Month In Afghanistan For NATO
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/NAT..r_deadliest_mon_07012008.html

 



Witnesses link chemical to ill US soldiers

Witnesses link chemical to ill US soldiers

Farah Stockman
Boston Globe
June 23, 2008

US soldiers assigned to guard a crucial part of Iraq’s oil infrastructure became ill after exposure to a highly toxic chemical at the plant, witnesses testified at a Democratic Policy Committee hearing yesterday on Capitol Hill.

“These soldiers were bleeding from the nose, spitting blood,” said Danny Langford, an equipment technician from Texas brought to work at the Qarmat Ali Water treatment plant in 2003. “They were sick.”

“Hundreds of American soldiers at this site were contaminated” while guarding the plant, Langford said, including members of the Indiana National Guard.

Langford is one of nine Americans who accuse KBR, the lead contractor on the Qarmat Ali project and one of the largest defense contractors in Iraq, of knowingly exposing them to sodium dichromate, an orange, sandlike chemical that is a potentially lethal carcinogen. Specialists say even short-term exposure to the chemical can cause cancer, depress an individual’s immune system, attack the liver, and cause other ailments.

Yesterday’s hearing – one among several organized to hold contractors accountable for alleged malfeasance in Iraq – was chaired by Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat. “Hundreds of US troops, who may not even know of their exposure to sodium dichromate that could one day result in a horrible disease, cancers, and death,” he said.

Roughly 250 American soldiers were believed to have come in contact with the chemical, according to Defense Department documents. Sodium dichromate is the same substance that poisoned residents in Hinkley, Calif., an incident made famous by the movie “Erin Brockovich” in 2000.

In Iraq, the chemical was used as an antirust coating for pipes that supply water to the oil fields. After the 2003 US-led invasion, looters raided the Qarmat Ali facility; afterward, the chemical was found strewn around the facility and its grounds.

Langford and his former colleagues have said KBR supervisors initially told them the chemical was a “mild irritant.” The company, however, eventually acknowledged that sodium dichromate was a potentially deadly substance and moved to clean up the site.

KBR has denied any wrongdoing in the matter. The company has insisted the safety of its workers and the troops they work with are its “highest priority.”

 

Anti-US protest surges in Iraq

Press TV
June 20, 2008

Hundreds of Iraqis loyal to senior cleric Moqtada al-Sadr stage a rally to protest plans for a long-term security pact with the US.

Following the weekly Friday prayers, hundreds of Iraqis took to streets in protest to the proposed security pact which has strongly been opposed by Iraqi officials and lawmakers.

The pact would provide a legal footing for the presence of US forces in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires later this year, raising fears that it would impair Iraq’s independence and sovereignty

Sheik Assad al-Nassiri warned the agreement, awaiting completion by July 31, will ’humiliate Iraqis, rob the Iraqi government of its sovereignty and give the occupier the upper hand’.

During a sermon in Kufa, Nassiri described the US presence as the main reason behind all of Iraq’s crises, expressing dismay at some government officials to call on ’the occupation forces’ to stay.

Demonstrators in Kufa as well as Baghdad’s Sadr City chanted “No, no to America, No, no to the agreement,” carrying banners reading “we will not accept Iraq to be an American colony.’’

Tensions rose high on Thursday when Iraqi troops arrested Amarah mayor, Rafia Abdul-Jabbar, and 16 others for alleged involvement with militias.

The ’random detentions’ by US-backed Iraqi security forces in the southern city drew strong criticism from Sadrists, who believe the arrests are being carried out ’without warrants and in contrary to what Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says’.

Critics say Washington has failed to offer a firm commitment to defend the country from any invasion, denouncing a demand for immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts for all American personnel in Iraq.

There is also controversy over the number of bases the US would maintain in the country and whether its military will retain the power to arrest Iraqi civilians and keep them in its detention facilities.

DynCorp Used Amored Car To Transport Hookers
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/05/1..-amored-car-to-transport-hookers/

U.S. Troops in Iraq Sickened By Water from Cheney-Linked Firm
http://noworldsystem.com/2008/03/10/kbr-water-in-iraq-makes-troops-sick/

Iraq To Award Contracts To Foreign Oil Firms
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php..&show_article=1

Baghdad insists on right to veto US operations
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/18/iraq.usforeignpolicy

Bush ’war crimes conference’ to convene in Mass., plan prosecution of admin. officials
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Bush..convene_0622.html

House Votes To Continue Funding Iraq War
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200..qVdEV2EMdW2MwfIE

Big Oil Returns To Iraq For Big Contracts
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19iraq.php

Kucinich: Major General Taguba’s Comments Add Weight to articles of impeachment
http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/..-to-articles-of-impeachment/

Survey: 500,000 Iraqis fled fighting in 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Sur..ting_in_0619.html

Four British Soldiers Killed
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skyne..british-soldiers-killed-45dbed5.html

 



Iraq war costs may reach $2.7 trillion

Iraq war costs may reach $2.7 trillion

Press TV
June 13, 2008

The costs on American taxpayers may reach $2.7 trillion by the time the Iraq war ends, according to a Congressional testimony.

In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of the Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.

At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. However, the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected.

William Beach, director of the Center for Data Analysis, told the Congress that the Iraq war has already cost taxpayers $646 billion.

That’s only accounting for five years, and with the conflict expected to drag on for another five years, the figure is expected to more than quadruple, Beach added.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the war costs taxpayers about $430 million per day.

“It is long past time for the administration to come clean and account for the real costs of the war in Iraq,” said Schumer. “If they want to disagree with our estimates or with other experts … fine – they should come and explain why.”

The Bush administration, which was invited to give testimony, declined to participate.

The Pentagon has previously said that the war costs approximately $9.5 billion a month, but some economists say the figure is closer to $25 billion a month when long-term health care for veterans and interest are factored in.

 

Iraqi PM suggests US might be asked to leave

Raw Story
June 13, 2008

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki suggested that US forces might be asked to leave if the two countries cannot agree on the new status of forces agreement, McClatchy reported Friday.

Maliki, seen above, made the comment after pressure from Shiite lawmakers who feel that Iraq’s sovereignty is threatened by US forces and after talks over the status of forces agreement “reached an impasse,” according to McClatchy.

“Iraq has another option that it may use,” Maliki said during a visit to Amman, Jordan. “The Iraqi government, if it wants, has the right to demand that the U.N. terminate the presence of international forces on Iraqi sovereign soil.”

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said that although talks over the security pact are struggling, Baghdad and Maliki are committed to concluding the agreement, Reuters reported Friday.

“I think it’s too early really to judge this agreement that it is dead or there is no way out,” he said after attending a U.N. Security Council meeting on Iraq.

The U.N. mandate for a US presence in Iraq expires at the end of the year, McClatchy reported.

An excerpt from the McClatchy story details the nations’ conflict over the status of forces agreement:

“Maliki acknowledged that talks with the U.S. on a status of forces agreement “reached an impasse” after the American negotiators presented a draft that would have given the U.S. access to 58 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and immunity from prosecution for both U.S. soldiers and private contractors.

The Iraqis rejected those demands, and U.S. diplomats have submitted a second draft, which Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih told McClatchy included several major concessions. Among those would be allowing Iraq to prosecute private contractors for violations of Iraqi law and requiring U.S. forces to turn over to Iraqi authorities Iraqis that the Americans detain.”

Iraq says talks with U.S. on pact reach “dead end”
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSCOL33273620080613

Blackwater’s Private CIA
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/87200/?page=entire

4 Afghan civilians killed in US raid
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=59546&sectionid=351020403

US Napalm Iraqi Children (Warning-Graphic)
http://thingsimportanttoharry.blogspot.c..ldren-warning.html

Doctors To Study Iraq Birth Defects
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1318608,00.html

GAO: Military Fails To Examine Troops Properly
http://www.usatoday.com/ne..-deploy-report_N.htm?csp=1

 



New Agreement Lets US Strike Any Country From Inside Iraq

New Agreement Lets US Strike Any Country From Inside Iraq

Gulf News
June 3, 2008

A proposed Iraqi-American security agreement will include permanent American bases in the country, and the right for the United States to strike, from within Iraqi territory, any country it considers a threat to its national security, Gulf News has learned.

Senior Iraqi military sources have told Gulf News that the long-term controversial agreement is likely to include three major items.

Under the agreement, Iraqi security institutions such as Defence, Interior and National Security ministries, as well as armament contracts, will be under American supervision for ten years.

The agreement is also likely to give American forces permanent military bases in the country, as well as the right to move against any country considered to be a threat against world stability or acting against Iraqi or American interests.

The military source added, “According to this agreement, the American forces will keep permanent military bases on Iraqi territory, and these will include Al Asad Military base in the Baghdadi area close to the Syrian border, Balad military base in northern Baghdad close to Iran, Habbaniyah base close to the town of Fallujah and the Ali Bin Abi Talib military base in the southern province of Nasiriyah close to the Iranian border.”

The sources confirmed that the American army is in the process of completing the building of the military facilities and runways for the permanent bases.

He added that the American air bases in Kirkuk and Mosul will be kept for no longer than three years. However, he said there were efforts by the Americans to include the Kirkuk base in the list of permanent bases.

The sources also said that a British brigade was expected to remain at the international airport in Basra for ten years as long as the American troops stayed in the permanent bases in Iraq.

Iraqi analysts said that the second item of the controversial agreement which permits American forces on Iraqi territories to launch military attacks against any country it considers a threat is addressed primarily to Iran and Syria.

Iran has raised serious concerns in the past few days over the Iraqi-American security agreement and followed it with issuing religious fatwas and called for demonstrations, mainly by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada Al Sadr movement, who is close to Iran, against the agreement.

 

Revealed: Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors

Randall Mikkelsen
London Independent
June 5, 2008

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq’s position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

The timing of the agreement would also boost the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has claimed the United States is on the verge of victory in Iraq – a victory that he says Mr Obama would throw away by a premature military withdrawal.

America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military “surge” began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government.

The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. “It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty,” said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.

The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: “This is just a tactical subterfuge.” Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its “war on terror” in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called “strategic alliance” without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create “a permanent occupation”. He added: “The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.”

Iraq’s Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US backing.

The deal also risks exacerbating the proxy war being fought between Iran and the United States over who should be more influential in Iraq.

 

US issues threat to Iraq’s $50bn foreign reserves in military deal

Patrick Cockburn
London Independent
June 6, 2008

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely, according to information leaked to The Independent.

US negotiators are using the existence of $20bn in outstanding court judgments against Iraq in the US, to pressure their Iraqi counterparts into accepting the terms of the military deal, details of which were reported for the first time in this newspaper yesterday.

Iraq’s foreign reserves are currently protected by a presidential order giving them immunity from judicial attachment but the US side in the talks has suggested that if the UN mandate, under which the money is held, lapses and is not replaced by the new agreement, then Iraq’s funds would lose this immunity. The cost to Iraq of this happening would be the immediate loss of $20bn. The US is able to threaten Iraq with the loss of 40 per cent of its foreign exchange reserves because Iraq’s independence is still limited by the legacy of UN sanctions and restrictions imposed on Iraq since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in the 1990s. This means that Iraq is still considered a threat to international security and stability under Chapter Seven of the UN charter. The US negotiators say the price of Iraq escaping Chapter Seven is to sign up to a new “strategic alliance” with the United States.

The threat by the American side underlines the personal commitment of President George Bush to pushing the new pact through by 31 July. Although it is in reality a treaty between Iraq and the US, Mr Bush is describing it as an alliance so he does not have to submit it for approval to the US Senate.

Iraqi critics of the agreement say that it means Iraq will be a client state in which the US will keep more than 50 military bases. American forces will be able to carry out arrests of Iraqi citizens and conduct military campaigns without consultation with the Iraqi government. American soldiers and contractors will enjoy legal immunity.

Read Full Article Here

Recent News:

Iran: ’US security pact will enslave Iraqis’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=58683&sectionid=351020101

’Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=57198&sectionid=351020201

Secret Security Pact Will Ensure Permanent Iraq Occupation
http://www.infowars.net/articles/june2008/050608Iraq.htm

Shell-shocked Iraq veterans housed next to firing range
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/..-housed-next-to-firing-range-in-US.html

Nearly 20% Of Army In Afghanistan Is On Prozac
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1811858,00.html

Analysis: May marks most violent month in Afghanistan since 2001
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/03/..fghanistan-since-2001/

Iraqi Parliamentarian: 70 Percent Of Iraqis Want Withdrawal
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/04/iraq-parliament/

Report: Bush Misused Iraq Intelligence
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

Iraq At Odds With U.S. Over Troop Presence
O’Reilly gets angry while interviewing Scott McClellan
Canada May Give Asylum To U.S. War Resisters

 



US Airstrikes Kill Civilians In Iraq As Civil War Looms

Shiite leader al-Sadr defies Iraq gov’t

AP
March 29, 2008

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a4s458mDMs

Anti-American Shiite militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his followers Saturday to defy government orders to surrender their weapons, as U.S. jets struck Shiite extremists near Basra to bolster a faltering Iraqi offensive against gunmen in the city.Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki acknowledged he may have miscalculated by failing to foresee the strong backlash that his offensive, which began Tuesday, provoked in areas of Baghdad and other cities where Shiite militias wield power.Government television said the round-the-clock curfew imposed two days ago on the capital and due to expire Sunday would be extended indefinitely. Gunfire and explosions were heard late Saturday in Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia.The U.S. Embassy tightened its security measures, ordering all staff to use armored vehicles for all travel in the Green Zone and to sleep in reinforced buildings until further notice after six days of rocket and mortar attacks that left two Americans dead.Despite the mounting crisis, al-Maliki, himself a Shiite, vowed to remain in Basra until government forces wrest control from militias, including the Mahdi Army. He called the fight for control of Basra “a decisive and final battle.”British ground troops, who controlled the city until handing it over to the Iraqis last December, also joined the battle for Basra, firing artillery Saturday for the first time in support of Iraqi forces.

Iraqi authorities have given Basra extremists until April 8 to surrender heavy and medium weapons after an initial 72-hour ultimatum to hand them over was widely ignored.

But a defiant al-Sadr called on his followers Saturday to ignore the order, saying that his Mahdi Army would turn in its weapons only to a government that can “get the occupier out of Iraq,” referring to the Americans.

The order was made public by Haidar al-Jabiri, a member of the influential political commission of the Sadrist movement.

Al-Sadr, in an interview aired Saturday by Al-Jazeera television, said his Mahdi Army was capable of “liberating Iraq” and maintained al-Maliki’s government was as “distant” from the people as Saddam Hussein’s.

Residents of Basra contacted by telephone said Mahdi militiamen were manning checkpoints Saturday in their neighborhood strongholds. The sound of intermittent mortar and machine gun fire rang out across the city, as the military headquarters at a downtown hotel came under repeated fire.

An Iraqi army battalion commander and two of his bodyguards were killed Saturday night by a roadside bomb in central Basra, military spokesman Col. Karim al-Zaidi said.

The fight for Basra is crucial for al-Maliki, who flew to Basra earlier this week and is staking his credibility on gaining control of Iraq’s second-largest city, which has essentially been held by armed groups for nearly three years.

In a speech Saturday to tribal leaders in Basra, al-Maliki promised to “stand up to these gangs” not only in the south but throughout Iraq.

Iraqi officials and their American partners have long insisted that the crackdown was not directed at al-Sadr’s movement but against criminals and renegade factions — some of whom are allegedly tied to Iran.

Al-Maliki told tribal leaders that the offensive in Basra “was only to deal with these gangs” — some of which he said “are worse than al-Qaida.”

Without mentioning the Sadrists by name, al-Maliki said he was “surprised to see that party emerge with all the weapons available to it and strike at everything — institutions, people, departments, police stations and the army.”

Al-Sadr’s followers have accused rival Shiite parties in the national government of trying to crush their movement before provincial elections this fall. The young cleric’s lieutenants had warned repeatedly that any move to dislodge them from Basra would provoke bloodshed.

But al-Maliki’s comments appeared to reinforce suspicions that his government failed to foresee the backlash, including a sharp upsurge in violence throughout the Shiite south and shelling of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, the nerve center of the Iraqi leadership and the U.S. mission.

Two American soldiers were killed Saturday when their vehicle was struck by a roadside bomb in mostly Shiite east Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

The growing turmoil threatens to undermine White House efforts to convince a skeptical Congress and the American public that the Iraqis are making progress toward managing their own security without the presence of U.S. troops.

Read Full Article Here

 


Iraqi police in Basra shed their uniforms, kept their rifles and switched sides

Uruknet
March 28, 2008

Abu Iman barely flinched when the Iraqi Government ordered his unit of special police to move against al-Mahdi Army fighters in Basra.

His response, while swift, was not what British and US military trainers who have spent the past five years schooling the Iraqi security forces would have hoped for. He and 15 of his comrades took off their uniforms, kept their government-issued rifles and went over to the other side without a second thought.

Such turncoats are the thread that could unravel the British Army’s policy in southern Iraq. The military hoped that local forces would be able to combat extremists and allow the Army to withdraw gradually from the battle-scarred and untamed oil city that has fallen under the sway of Islamic fundamentalists, oil smugglers and petty tribal warlords. But if the British taught the police to shoot straight, they failed to instil a sense of unwavering loyalty to the State.

“We know the outcome of the fighting in advance because we already defeated the British in the streets of Basra and forced them to withdraw to their base,” Abu Iman told The Times.

“If we go back a bit, everyone remembers the fight with the US in Najaf and the damage and defeat we inflicted on them. Do you think the Iraqi Army is better than those armies? We are right and the Government is wrong. [Nouri al] Maliki [the Iraqi Prime Minister] is driving his Government into the ground.”

The reason for his apparent switch of sides was simple: the 36-year-old was already a member of the al-Mahdi Army which, like other militias, has massively infiltrated the British-trained police force in the southern oil city. He claimed that hundreds of others from the 16,000-strong force have also defected to the rebels’ ranks.Abu Iman joined the new Iraqi police force after the invasion, joining the Mugawil, a special police unit infamous for brutality, kidnapping and sectarian murders.

“We already heard two weeks ago that we were going to attack the Mahdi Army, so we were ready,” he said. “I decided to take off my uniform and join my brothers and friends in the Mahdi Army. All these years, we were like a scream in the face of the dictator and the occupation.” He said: “I joined the police because I believed we have to protect Basra and save it with our own hands. You can see we were the first fighters to take on Sadd-am and his regime, the best example being the Shabaniya uprising.”

Abu Iman said that the fighting raging in Basra yesterday was intense because the al-Mahdi Army was operating on its own turf. He was confident that the Shia militia would prevail because its cause was just.

“The Iraqi Army is already defeated from within. They come to Basra with fear in their hearts, knowing they have to fight their brothers, the sons of Iraq, because of an order from Bush and his friends in the Iraq Government. For this reason, all of the battles are going in the Mahdi Army’s favour.”

Major-General Abdelaziz Moham-med Jassim, the director of operations at the Ministry of Defence, played down reports of defections in the Basra police force. “The problem of one policeman doesn’t make up for the whole of the force,” he said.

In recent months Major-General Abdul Jalil Khalaf, Basra’s police chief, has tried to shake up the force and drive out militia infiltrators, who have wrought havoc in the past, often turning police stations into torture cells in which factions settled vendettas and power struggles with murder and abuse. But he only narrowly escaped an assassination attempt yesterday when a suicide car bomb attack in Basra killed three of his policemen. A local tribal leader said the police directorate building was later gutted by fire.

 

Mahdi Army holds firm as Iraqi PM risks all in battle of Basra

The Sunday Times
March 30, 2008

THE arrival of the Iraqi army supported by US warplanes did little to dent the defiance of Abu Sajad and his 22 comrades in a Shi’ite militia cell holed up in a mosque in Basra.

Alerted by a mobile phone call to the arrival of US military reinforcements, Abu Sajad calmly selected eight fighters and dispatched them to plant roadside bombs packed into red plastic fruit crates.

“We are to plant them throughout the Qaziza neighbourhood to welcome the army when they try to enter the area,” he told his men. He sent the bombers away on scooters and motorcycles which, he explained, were “quicker to move and less conspicuous . . . We have a great surprise for the army”.

As night fell after a fifth day of heavy fighting around Basra yesterday, Iraqi forces controlled by Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, were still struggling to subdue renegade Shi’ite fighters whose shifting loyalties and challenges to Baghdad rule have begun to pose a serious threat to American and British strategy.

Ragtag members of the Mahdi Army, a heavily armed militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shi’ite cleric with close links to Iran, vowed to fight to the death to prevent Maliki from imposing government control on the southern port at the heart of Iraq’s potentially hugely profitable oil industry.

“We have received a shipment of Strela antiaircraft rockets,” Abu Sajad boasted to a Sunday Times reporter.

“We intend to use them to prove to the world that the Mahdi Army will not allow Basra to be turned into a second Falluja [the former centre of anticoalition resistance that was crushed by US-led assaults].” President George W Bush praised Maliki and described the clashes as a “defining moment” for the Baghdad government’s attempts to curb Sadr’s influence and assert its own authority. But despite Bush’s approval, American officials are concerned that Maliki’s military gamble may cause serious embarrassment for the coalition forces.

US officials said the Iraqi prime minister had launched the assault on Tuesday without consulting Washington, but yesterday it was the Americans under fire again after claims that eight civilians had been killed in a US bombing raid.

The SAS was in Basra alongside Iraqi commanders, calling in attacks from RAF and US aircraft on “enemy combatants” as the death toll from five days of fighting across Iraq rose above 300, with hundreds wounded.

British artillery units destroyed a militia mortar position in support of Iraqi forces yesterday, a spokesman said. The mortar, in the al-Hala district of northern Basra, was positively identified by the British before they opened fire from their base at Basra international airport.

Basra’s hospitals filled with civilian casualties and the violence continued to spread through other cities, including the suburbs of Baghdad. The coalition’s five-year effort to bolster Iraqi democracy was under threat from factional strife on a difficult urban battlefield where rebel gunmen have long held sway on streets too narrow for armoured vehicles.

Maliki had flown to Basra to take personal control of the military operation. But instead of sweeping to a decisive victory with American guns at his side, he was stumbling into something that looked dangerously like stalemate yesterday.

Having originally imposed a 72-hour deadline for rebels to hand in their weapons, he was forced to extend it until April 8. Yesterday he vowed to remain in Basra until the resistance was crushed. “This is a decisive and final battle,” he said.

Sadr issued an equally robust directive, ordering his fighters to ignore Maliki’s ultimatum.

At stake in Basra was not just the prime minister’s reputation, his prospects for provincial elections this autumn and control of the Iraqi oil fields, but also an entire coalition strategy of reduced troop levels, steady withdrawal and the turning over of Iraqi security to local troops.

If Maliki’s crackdown fails, both London and Washington may have to reassess Iraqi army capabilities and the risk of future disaster if coalition forces continue to withdraw. “This is a precarious situation,” one US official said yesterday. “There’s a lot to be gained and a lot to lose.”

Already this weekend there were reports that police officers and soldiers had left their posts, changed their uniforms and joined the Mahdi Army.

When a local journalist left his home in Basra this weekend to visit the city’s main hospital, he found the streets deserted except for cruising police vehicles whose occupants were randomly firing in the air.

He eventually hitched a ride with an ambulance carrying a 14-year-old boy whose leg had nearly been severed by a burst of machinegun fire. “Most of the injured are being hurt by gunshots and rocket shrapnel that hits their homes,” the driver said.

Inside the hospital, blood-stained bandages were scattered across the floor. A 50-year-old woman was sobbing. Doctors said she had been told three hours earlier that her daughter had died from gunshot wounds and she had not stopped crying.

In a ward on the first floor, patients were groaning in pain. Doctors had run out of pain-killers and many pharmacies in the city were closed.

“The stench was awful in the wards and corridors,” the journalist said. “Patients and family members were cursing the government in both Basra and Baghdad and some were even lamenting the ‘good old days’ of Saddam Hussein.”

The situation at another hospital was so dire that Leith Chasseb, a 36-year-old civil servant, could not find a doctor to treat his father, who had a shrapnel wound to his leg.

In the al-Tamimiyeh district, Um Hiba, a 38-year-old mother of three, was standing with two of her daughters in the garden when a mortar exploded nearby, injuring all three of them. “We called the ambulance but they couldn’t get to us,” she said. “The neighbours supplied us with bandages.”

Dr Salah Amad, director of the city’s medical operations, said hospitals were about to collapse because of exhausted doctors and a lack of supplies. “Ambulances are unable to distribute medical supplies stocked in warehouses,” he said.

There were conflicting accounts of the incident in Basra’s Hananiyah district, where two women and a child were reportedly among eight civilians killed by an air strike. Iraqi police claimed that a US aircraft had carried out the strike, but British planes were also seen in the area.

There was no immediate comment from either British or US military spokesmen. American aircraft carried out further raids yesterday, dropping two precision-guided bombs on a suspected militia stronghold north of Basra.

In a separate raid, Iraqi special forces were said to have stormed a house in Basra, killing a father and his three sons, the youngest aged 13, in front his wife.

Maliki’s decision to crack down on Basra followed at least three years of rebel subversion that British troops had quelled for long periods but never eradicated. US officers often criticised their British counterparts for their hands-off approach in Basra, but nobody in Washington was inclined last week to blame London for a crisis rooted in internal Shi’ite rivalries and almost certainly beyond any coalition-imposed solution.

Yet the British withdrawal from Basra – leaving the city effectively in the hands of Maliki’s opponents – presented the prime minister with a difficult challenge. He could ill afford to allow Iraq’s second city to remain in the hands of extremist factions. “Basra has been a mess for a long time,” one US official in Baghdad told The Washington Post yesterday, “and everyone has said to Maliki, ‘What are you doing about it?’ ” With provincial elections looming in October and his authority on the line, Maliki took advantage of the security lull spawned by the so-called “surge” – the increased US military presence directed by General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq. Under pressure to demonstrate that Iraqi forces were capable of operating without US officers holding their hands, he sent his army into battle.

Some national and local officials complained that the offensive had come as an unpleasant surprise. “Maliki did not consult the president, he did not consult the cabinet, he did not consult the parliament,” said a senior member of the government. “Nobody is happy with what’s happening.”

It was not long before US aircraft were reported to be mounting air strikes on Basra and US troops in armoured vehicles appeared to be taking the lead against Mahdi Army fighters in their vast Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City.

As rockets fell on Baghdad’s Green Zone, the comparative calm that had enveloped the city for weeks – allowing residents to sit in street cafes – was shattered. US officials insisted that this was not their fight and their only role was to provide Maliki with back-up if he needed it.

Some officials even suggested that the Basra operation would prove a model for future cooperation, with Iraqis taking the leading role and American troops adopting what Petraeus once described as “overwatch” mode.

Yet as the week wore on the American unease was palpable, not least because nobody seemed entirely sure who was fighting whom and what was the ultimate prize.

While some officials interpreted the offensive as Maliki’s “first salvo in upcoming elections”, others saw a simple power grab for oil. The intricate differences between rival Shi’ite groups in Basra and their presumed links to Iran were all minutely examined by intelligence officers. Yet on Friday one administration official admitted: “We can’t quite decipher what’s going on.”

If Maliki can somehow crush the resistance of the Mahdi Army, he may well prove to be the answer to America’s prayers for a leader with the muscle and authority to keep a lid on Sunni-Shi’ite rivalries and ultimately to allow the US military to withdraw.

Yet Mahdi warriors such as Haidar Abdul Abbas did not look too worried about defeat last week. A 24-year-old expert at firing rocket-propelled grenades, Abbas was wearing funeral shrouds, signalling his willingness to die in combat.

“The Maliki government is now fighting on behalf of the [coalition] occupiers, forgetting that history is never kind to those who oppress,” he said. “Their fate will be the same as that of Saddam.

Bush: Iraq is returning to normal
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/whitehouse/story/31825.html

Police refuse to support Iraqi PM’s attacks on Mehdi Army
http://www.independent..cks-on-mehdi-army-802361.html

British warplanes fire on Basra as civil war looms with Shia militia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3642863.ece

Basra militants ’worse than al-Qa’eda’, says Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/m..2008/03/29/wirq229.xml

Occupations are not won. They are ended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGY6txzM14

Fresh US airstrike kills 8 Iraqis
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=49422&sectionid=351020201

Iraq’s Maliki backs off ultimatum to militants
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080329/wl_csm/osadr

Bush: Iraq violence is a ’very positive moment’
http://rawstory.com/news/200..positive_development_0327.html

Yesterday, 225 Iraqis, 4 Americans Were Killed; 538 Iraqis Hurt, Yet “Surge” Creator Says ’The Civil War in Iraq Is Over’
http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=12591

97% Of Deaths Came After Mission Accomplished
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/97_percent_of_US_death_toll_0324.html

Baghdad under 24-hour curfew as US is drawn into the violence
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/m..s/2008/03/28/wirq128.xml

Iraqi army suspected of committing mass executions
http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/dozen..lashes-mahdi-army.html

Troops To Stay In Afghanistan Until 2012
http://www.canada.com/news/story.html?id=401682

 



Iran slams US for supporting terror

Iran slams US for supporting terror

Press TV
March 20, 2008

Iran has sharply criticized the United States policies on terrorism, saying Washington supports Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO).

An Iranian envoy to the UN Security Council said while both Washington and the EU have banned MKO as a terrorist organization, its members ’continue to enjoy support and receive safe haven’ in the US and some EU member states, Reuters reported.

MKO, which has also been present in Iraq, assisted Saddam Hussein in the massacre of thousands of Iraqis.

The group is also responsible for several acts of terror in Iran including the 1994 bombing of Imam Reza’s Shrine in Mashhad.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki reassured the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an early March meeting that Baghdad would take necessary steps to expel MKO from Iraq.



U.S. Has “Ethnically Cleansed Most of Baghdad”

Congressman: ‘Sure, there’s less violence, but that’s because we’ve ethnically cleansed most of Baghdad’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poCp59v5HLw

 

‘The President Has Accepted Ethnic Cleansing’

Spiegel Online
September 28, 2007

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just in New York (more…) for the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, he said that he is only interested in civilian nuclear power instead of atomic weapons. How much does the West really know about the nuclear program in Iran?

Seymour Hersh: A lot. And it’s been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows. If you follow what (IAEA head Mohamed) ElBaradei (more…) and the various reports have been saying, the Iranians have claimed to be enriching uranium to higher than a 4 percent purity, which is the amount you need to run a peaceful nuclear reactor. But the IAEA’s best guess is that they are at 3.67 percent or something. The Iranians are not even doing what they claim to be doing. The IAEA has been saying all along that they’ve been making progress but basically, Iran is nowhere. Of course the US and Israel are going to say you have to look at the worst case scenario, but there isn’t enough evidence to justify a bombing raid.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?

Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we’ve had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he’s not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?

Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That’s just their game.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What interest does the White House have in moving us to the brink with Tehran?

Hersh: You have to ask yourself what interest we had 40 years ago for going to war in Vietnam. You’d think that in this country with so many smart people, that we can’t possibly do the same dumb thing again. I have this theory in life that there is no learning. There is no learning curve. Everything is tabula rasa. Everybody has to discover things for themselves.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Even after Iraq? Aren’t there strategic reasons for getting so deeply involved in the Middle East?

Hersh: Oh no. We’re going to build democracy. The real thing in the mind of this president is he wants to reshape the Middle East and make it a model. He absolutely believes it. I always thought Henry Kissinger was a disaster because he lies like most people breathe and you can’t have that in public life. But if it were Kissinger this time around, I’d actually be relieved because I’d know that the madness would be tied to some oil deal. But in this case, what you see is what you get. This guy believes he’s doing God’s work.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So what are the options in Iraq?

Hersh: There are two very clear options: Option A) Get everybody out by midnight tonight. Option B) Get everybody out by midnight tomorrow. The fuel that keeps the war going is us.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: A lot of people have been saying that the US presence there is a big part of the problem. Is anyone in the White House listening?

Hersh: No. The president is still talking about the “Surge” (eds. The “Surge” refers to President Bush’s commitment of 20,000 additional troops to Iraq in the spring of 2007 in an attempt to improve security in the country.) as if it’s going to unite the country. But the Surge was a con game of putting additional troops in there. We’ve basically Balkanized the place, building walls and walling off Sunnis from Shiites. And in Anbar Province, where there has been success, all of the Shiites are gone. They’ve simply split.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is that why there has been a drop in violence there?

Hersh: I think that’s a much better reason than the fact that there are a couple more soldiers on the ground.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:So what are the lessons of the Surge (more…)?

Hersh: The Surge means basically that, in some way, the president has accepted ethnic cleansing, whether he’s talking about it or not. When he first announced the Surge in January, he described it as a way to bring the parties together. He’s not saying that any more. I think he now understands that ethnic cleansing is what is going to happen. You’re going to have a Kurdistan. You’re going to have a Sunni area that we’re going to have to support forever. And you’re going to have the Shiites in the South.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So the US is over four years into a war that is likely going to end in a disaster. How valid are the comparisons with Vietnam?

Hersh:The validity is that the US is fighting a guerrilla war and doesn’t know the culture. But the difference is that at a certain point, because of Congressional and public opposition, the Vietnam War was no longer tenable. But these guys now don’t care. They see it but they don’t care.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: If the Iraq war does end up as a defeat for the US, will it leave as deep a wound as the Vietnam War did?

Hersh: Much worse. Vietnam was a tactical mistake. This is strategic. How do you repair damages with whole cultures? On the home front, though, we’ll rationalize it away. Don’t worry about that. Again, there’s no learning curve. No learning curve at all. We’ll be ready to fight another stupid war in another two decades.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Of course, preventing that is partially the job of the media. Have reporters been doing a better job recently than they did in the run-up to the Iraq War?

Hersh: Oh yeah. They’ve done a better job since. But back then, they blew it. When you have a guy like Bush who’s going to move the infamous Doomsday Clock forward, and he’s going to put everybody in jeopardy and he’s secretive and he doesn’t tell Congress anything and he’s inured to what we write. In such a case, we (journalists) become more important. The First Amendment failed and the American press failed the Constitution. We were jingoistic. And that was a terrible failing. I’m asked the question all the time: What happened to my old paper, the New York Times? And I now say, they stink. They missed it. They missed the biggest story of the time and they’re going to have to live with it.

Video: Thousands surrendered but still killed by US
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=699_1198279617

All Iraqis Agree U.S. Occupation Causes Violence
http://www.washington…2/18/AR2007121802262_pf.html

Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew U.N. Mandate for Occupation
http://www.alternet.org/story/71144/

Iraq Vet War Critics Detained at Bragg
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,158521,00.html?wh=wh

Mobile Labs to Target Iraqis for Death
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/121307.html

 



Bush Declares Iraq To Join The New World Order

Bush Declares Iraq To Join The New World Order

Lee Rogers
Rogue Government
November 29, 2007

On November 26th, 2007 George W. Bush issued a joint statement with Nouri Kamel Al-Maliki which essentially declares that Iraq will be permanently occupied by the United States for many years to come. The statement called the Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America, as blogger Damian Lataan notes, effectively makes Iraq a permanently occupied colony of the United States.

The document is filled with all sorts of Orwellian double speak. Take for example the opening statement of the document_

As Iraqi leaders confirmed in their Communiqué signed on August 26, 2007, and endorsed by President Bush, the Governments of Iraq and the United States are committed to developing a long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship as two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests. This relationship will serve the interest of coming generations based on the heroic sacrifices made by the Iraqi people and the American people for the sake of a free, democratic, pluralistic, federal, and unified Iraq.

It declares that the long-term relationship will consist of cooperation and friendship as two fully sovereign and independent states with common interests. Later in the document, it states that the United States will support Iraq in political, diplomatic, cultural, economic and security spheres. How is Iraq a fully sovereign and free independent state if Iraq is going to be occupied by a foreign military whose government is going to support them in almost every aspect of governance in this long term declaration?

This statement is really nothing more than a declaration from George W. Bush and Iraq’s puppet government that the United States is fully committed towards bringing Iraq into the New World Order.

To summarize the key points, the statement declares that the United States will continue on a long term basis to help defend the Iraqi government against internal and external threats. So the U.S. military will continue to serve as an internal police force in Iraq for many years to come. It specifically states that the U.S. will continue to provide security assurances and commitments to deter foreign aggression against Iraq. It also states that it will help Iraq in its efforts to combat all terrorist groups, Saddamists and other outlaw groups. So basically, anybody who doesn’t like the U.S. occupation of Iraq could be considered an outlaw group and the U.S. will assist the Iraq government in defeating them.

It also declares that it will support Iraq in enhancing its position in regional and international organizations including the World Trade Organization and various international financial and economic organizations.

Perhaps most disturbing is that it also states in the declaration that they will facilitate and encourage foreign investment in Iraq, especially American investments to contribute to the reconstruction efforts. It is hard to say what this means, but considering the amount of money that has been funneled into the military industrial complex with these military adventures in Iraq, it seems obvious that they are looking to sell out Iraq’s infrastructure to private interests.

The details of this declaration are slated to be agreed upon before July 31st, 2008. If this goes forward, there appears little doubt that the Iraqi government has sold out the nation to be a full fledged colony of the United States and part of the New World Order. This madness must stop. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008, so we can end this insane quest of empire building that these madmen in Washington have embarked on.

Bush just made Iraq an American colony
http://lataan.blogspot.com/2007/11/president-signs-document-effectively.html

 



UK On Board For U.S. Iran Strike

UK On Board For U.S. Iran Strike

Telegraph
October 07, 2007

British defence officials have held talks with their Pentagon counterparts about how they could help out if America chose to bomb Iran.

Washington sources say that America has shelved plans for an all-out assault, drawn up to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities and take out the Islamist regime.

The Sunday Telegraph has learned that President Bush’s White House national security council is discussing instead a plan to launch pinpoint attacks on bases operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds force, blamed for training Iraqi militants.

Pentagon officials have revealed that President Bush won an understanding with Gordon Brown in July that Britain would support air strikes if they could be justified as a counter-terrorist operation.

Since then discussions about what Britain might contribute militarily, to combat Iranian retaliation that would follow US air strikes, have been held between ministers and officials in the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence.

Vincent Cannistraro — who served as intelligence chief on Ronald Reagan’s National Security Council and then as head of operations for the CIA’s counter-terrorist centre — said: “What’s on the table right now is tactical strikes.”

Last night, Downing Street declined to comment on the suggestion. But Mr Cannistraro has talked about the preparations to senior Pentagon officials and with military and intelligence contacts in the UK. He said: “The British Government is in accord with plans to launch limited strikes on facilities inside Iran, on the basis of counter-terrorism.” While the US Air Force and naval jets could carry out raids without help from the RAF, the Pentagon is keen to have the Royal Navy’s cooperation in the event of an attack, to prevent Iran from sowing mines in the Gulf to block oil exports in retaliation.

Mr Cannistraro said: “The British have to be a major auxiliary to this plan. It’s not just for political reasons: the US doesn’t have a lot of mine clearing capability in the Gulf. The Dutch and the British do.

“There will be renewed discussions with British defence officials about what role Britain would perform in the naval sphere. If there was a retaliatory response by the Iranians, they might close the Straits of Hormuz and that would affect the entire West.”

The White House and Downing Street would justify such an attack as a defensive move to protect allied troops in Iraq. But moderates in the US government are concerned that the counter-terrorist argument may be used by hawks as a figleaf for military action that could escalate into all out war with Iran.

A US intelligence source said that Revolutionary Guard bases, supply depots and command and control facilities “have been programmed” into military computers but stressed that President Bush has not given any “execute order” for military action.

Further details of the US plans for Iran were divulged to Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter with the New Yorker magazine who has unveiled Pentagon secrets for more than three decades.

American officials told the New Yorker: “During a secure video conference earlier this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British ‘were on board’.”

The magazine added: “The bombing plan has had its most positive reception from the new government of Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown.”

A recently retired American four-star general, told the magazine last week that the bombing campaign would only attract support from the Prime Minister “if it’s in response to an Iranian attack” like the kidnapping of British sailors in March.

The general said the US officials want to strike “if the Iranians stage a cross-border attack inside Iraq” of a significant kind, for example the one that produced “10 dead American soldiers and four burned trucks”.

Britain and America have complained for months about Iranian support for Iraqi militants but Pentagon officials claim that Iran has been told that a line has now been drawn in the sand — a move that has actually helped to stabilise the situation. Details of the US plans were passed to Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iranian diplomats by Mr Crocker and Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, during bilateral talks this summer.

Since then, US officials say there appears to have been a reduction in some of the arms shipments and support to militia elements in Iraq.

Some British military and intelligence figures fear that any endorsement of US plans, however hypothetical, will only embolden the White House faction, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney, which wants major bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to former President Carter, said last week the Bush plan was to depict any air strike on Iran as “responding to what is an intolerable situation. This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we’re going to play the victim.”

 

Fineman: Intel Community To Release ‘Three Iran Reports’ To ‘Slow Down’ Bush’s Warmongering

Think Progress
October 08, 2007

On the Chris Matthews Show today, NBC’s Howard Fineman revealed that the intelligence community will release “three different reports” in upcoming weeks to “slow down” the administration’s current drumbeat for war with Iran:

The intelligence community over the next few months is going to come out with three different reports on Iran about internal political problems of Iran, about the economy, and about their nuclear capability.

Those are going to be key to decide what the Bush administration is going to do, and it’s the intelligence community I think trying to slow down what the president, most particularly the vice president, want to do in Iran.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mluky7X04y4

The intelligence community’s warning against war with Iran echo its warnings prior to the invasion of Iraq. Pre-war intelligence forewarned that occupying Iraq could be a “long, difficult and probably turbulent challenge” and would “accelerate” regional terrorism.

Similarly, the administration “ignore[d] the intelligence community’s belief that the militant Islamist al-Qaida and Saddam’s secular dictatorship were unlikely allies,” instead setting up an “alternative intelligence” shop to disseminate false information about Hussein. Mohamad El Baradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency has also warned that pre-Iraq failures are being repeated with respect to Iran.

Related News:

Gordon Brown ‘will back air strikes on Iran’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessi..T….07/wiran107.xml

Bush says possible US Iran attack ’empty propaganda’
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_says_possible_US_Iran_attack_1007.html

Iran says oilfields ‘too attractive’ for France to quit
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071006162022.ietmid6j.html

Petraeus steps up accusations against Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO….?pageNumber=3

Iran warns France over nuclear stance
http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071007105959.j5fyosiu.html

Who Wants to Bomb Iran? Democrats, Not Republicans, Says Seymour Hersh
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/….b_67229.html

FBI offered me $4m: Lockerbie bomb witness
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1597732007

Bush determined to confront Iran’s nuclear ambitions
Israeli raid caused electronic disruption over wide areas of Syria
We have no plans to attack Iran: Bush
Brown accused of backing U.S. plans for bombing raids on Iran
The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating
Iraq Redux: Bush Thinks God is Telling Him to Invade Iran
Prominent Americans Ask Military To Refuse To Attack Iran
US ‘must break Iran and Syria regimes’
Byrd: Senate’s ‘Saber-Rattling’ Is ‘Sleep-Walking’ America To War With Iran
War With Iran? Who Decides?
Bush’s Agenda in Iran
Fake Al-Qaeda Tape Says Bin Laden Alive
Australia: We Won’t Follow US Into Iran
Mike Gravel Says AIPAC Is Pushing Confrontation With Iran
Mottaki says U.S. can’t start war against Iran
US gearing up for war with Iran, despite denials
More Disasterous Iran Legislation On Its Way
Israel admits air strike on Syria
Neocons Told to Look for Reasons to Attack Iran
U.S. Trains Gulf Air Force For War With Iran
Bolton: Attack Iran, ‘remove’ its leader
Hersh: Bush, Cheney ‘really want’ Iran war
Israel Foreign Min Calls For Urgent UN Action Against Iran
Bolton: We Should Carry Out Regime Change In Iran Because ‘It Did Work In Iraq’
Bolton calls for bombing of Iran
I hate all Iranians, Bush aide tells MPs
Israeli airstrike hit military site, Syria confirms
Neocon “Freedom’s Watch” Spends Big Bucks to Push Attack Iran Agenda
Hersh: ‘War with Iran will be about protecting the troops in Iraq’
Syrian ‘research station’ says shocked to hear of attack on its facility
Mike Gravel Grills Hillary for Supporting Iran War Amendment
Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran
Right-Wing New York Sun Declares: ‘Attack On Iran Said To Be Imminent’
‘Combat Outpost Shocker:’ The base that could spark Iran conflict
Debunking the Neocons’ Iran War Measure
Fox Pushes Attacking Iran While its “Business News” Anchor Lies About a Surge in Oil Prices Due to That Very Fear
BREAKING: Lieberman-Kyl’s Iran amendment passes
Durbin: Lieberman-Kyl Amendment Is ‘Dangerous,’ ‘Puts Us On Record’ In Support Of Iran War
CFR’s Hart Suggests False Flag Event For Iran War
Clinton supports Israeli ‘strike’ on Syria
Military Opens Camp on Iranian Border
Newt Gingrich: Bush Should Blow Up Iran’s Natural Gas Insfrastructure
Ex-Cheney Adviser Denies Trying To Stir War With Iran