So begins the war against Iran...?

In Background material for the second Gulf "War" and Is Syria (or Iran) next? and Next: Iran? and Er... What's this about threatening Syria? I long ago noted that the launch of the Iraq invasion was exactly in line with the strategy outlined by the Project for a New American Century way back in the mid 1990's. All through the invasion of Iraq the administration has been demonizing both Syria and Iran, making not-so-idle threats, etc. The pattern of the administration in the past has, before launching a war, to demonize the designated target so that by the time you're ready to launch the war your populace already has a dim view of the target.

This: US to target anti-Iraq activity: "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq." ..and.. War With Syria and Iran = Peace With Iraq?

Paired with: U.S. forces raid Iranian office in Iraq ..and.. Iranians detained in raid on consulate in Iraq ..and.. U.S.-Led Forces Detain 6 Iranian Workers

Well, that makes for a dangerous combination. Attacking a consulate? Don't consulates get diplomatic immunity? In any case this warning shot of smacking at Iranian presence in Iraq, while on the same day raising the threats against Iran even further, just strikes me as being the opening salvo to a full attack or war against Iran.

Don’t Get Too Excited about the President’s Warning to Iran and Syria has Andrew McCarthy saying don't worry, "he"'s not saying we're getting ready to attack Iran for real. It's only about shoring up the territorial integrity of Iraq.

Hmmmph... Maybe so, but this administration has proved over and over that their statements have hidden agenda's drawn from the NeoCon plan proposed during the 1990's. The essence of the plan was to reestablish western supremacy over the Middle East and to do so by "installing" moderate democracies beginning with Iraq. Phase two was to be an invasion of either Iran or Syria. The supposed plan was that the effect of moderate democracies in the middle of the Middle East would influence neighboring countries away from radical Islamic thinking.

But we've seen so far in Iraq that it's done the opposite. That our very presence there has led the people to rise up against the intruders, namely us, filling the ranks of the forces that are fighting against the West. The war we launched to squash this movement towards radical Islam has turned into the biggest recruiting tool for those radical Islamic forces.

Blood borders

Blood borders offers an interesting take on the conflicts in the Middle East. Essentially we're seeing regional ethnic conflicts between ancient tribal areas .. for example Kurdistan is the home of the Kurdish peoples and spreads between Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Iran and whatever the country is to the north. The Kurds in Iraq have managed to create for themselves an semi-autonomous region and at the same time the Turkish government has been squashing their Kurdish minority.

The borders in the Middle East, and in Africa, were drawn by outsiders during the Colonial times. In the case of the Middle East the borders were created following World War I when the Ottoman Empire crumbled to dust. The outsiders didn't have in mind the interests of the locals, but instead their interests was the most effective control of the region from the outside.

But the conflicts going on are trying to unravel the artificial borders, and let ethnic groups who clearly occupy given areas to have their own homelands. Except that there is this system of existing national borders which are being maintained.

A few years ago I had a map showing a similar situation in Europe. The European countries were made by gluing together formerly independent principalities or kingdoms or whatnot. The ETA separatist movement is sponsored by Basques who want their own homeland. There are dozens of other movements around Europe having the same idea, that old cultures in specific areas of Europe are being eclipsed by national identities they probably see as occupiers of their lands. That's the thinking which led to the Balkan Wars following the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Eery big brother sign seen in London

This was posted on signs-of-the-times.org and is eerily like it's directly lifted from this little book by George Orwell.

The poster links to the Transport For London web site and uses their logo.

Re: The government is reading your mail

The government is reading your mail concerns a signing statement perpetrated by Pres Bush along with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. I haven't read the act but it's apparently a general, across the board, enactment of changes that cover a broad range of issues. At issue is one section of the President's Statement on H.R. 6407, the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act". A section which deals with the opening of first class mail.

Back in May 2005 the administration attempted to Expand the "PATRIOT" act and beef up the governments powers to snoop on first class mail. First class mail is the regular stamped envelope mail that we used to use to send letters to one another (before E-Mail).

There is a long-standing power the government has to record "mail covers". The mail cover is the outside of the envelope, things like names and addresses, etc. The government has long had the power to record this information, effectively to take a picture of every piece of mail going through the post office. And if you ponder it for a moment, clearly that much information can be of use to investigators to establish links between individuals.

The signing statement includes this paragraph:

The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

So.. the President is now asserting a new power, a power to open mail. The justifications are for hazardous materials inspection or to protect human life, noble causes no doubt, but also include "foreign intelligence collection". This is the administration who is already illegally wiretapping U.S. citizens and who knows what other illegal spying they're doing.

18 Secret Armies Of The CIA

18 Secret Armies Of The CIA is an interesting rundown of 18 different CIA-backed armies.

The sliming of Barak Obama (Pt. 2)

It's time for another dip into The sliming of Barak Obama. This is a series of articles tracking efforts to slander and slime Sen. Barak Obama.

A couple days ago CNN showed a picture of Osama bin Laden with the caption saying "Where's Obama". This occurred on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, which coincidentally is the same program on which other slimings occurred.

CNN apology over Obama name slip at least CNN has issued an apology.

Malice in the Middle: Barack Hussein Obama and the history of bad middle names in politics explains how it's unfortunate, image wise, that Sen. Obama has a middle name of Hussein and a last name that sounds much like U.S. Enemy #1's name. I say this is silly, that people should pay better attention.

Dennis Miller’s Insensitive Message For Obama: Being Vice President Worse Than Racial Disenfranchisement is from News Hounds, the project started by Robert Greenwald, the director of OutFoxed the documentary revealing how Fox News is largely a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Apparently this Dennis Miller fellow is infamous for slanderous opinion pieces, and this one lays it on really thick slamming both Obama and Sen. Clinton.

Bill O'Reilly Uses Mike Tyson To Smear Barack Obama And the News Hounds also report on Bill O'Reilly joining in the smearing. Mike Tyson was arrested with some drugs, and was let free without even having to post bail. That was then used by Bill O'Reilly as pretext for launching into attacking Sen Obama.

Fox News Battering Obama Over Book's Admissions And the News Hounds are yet again discussing another slander piece on Fox News. During this bit of video someone calls Obama a dope addict. Fox News Alert: George W. Bush Admits Cocaine Habit Covers the same video clip with a different angle. Coverage on FoxNews Obama Admissions on Drug Use Could Signal New Era in Politics. And as a result currently this particular story is making the rounds.

Could Candor About Drug Use Hurt Obama? isn't a slanderous attack, but instead an insightful analysis of the political weight that Sen. Obama is carrying. Clearly the politically active Americans tend to be heavily anti-Drug because there's several decades of anti-Drug propagandizing and hype in this countries recent history. And any admission of Drug use tends to be a kiss of death, affirmed by Pres. Clinton's admission regarding Marijuana. Supposedly he tried it, but did not inhale, and didn't like it. Hmm... I don't know anybody who can believe that story, and in any case drug usage is extremely common among youth in America. The quotes from Sen. Obama's book sound very honest, said truthfully, and accurately portrays the youth culture of any time during the past 40 years. I applaud his honesty.

CNN Puts Obama In Split-Screen With Bin Laden and Hussein shows screen captures of from CNN showing Sen. Obama on the same screen as Osama bin Laden and Iraqi former Pres Saddam Hussein. The question CNN is asking us, what's in a name and I'm wondering why are they making a big deal of the name?

CNN’s Obama Infomercial This is also not a slanderous attack, but it's a strange article nonetheless. Most of the article is a history of racism and civil rights in America, pointing out that it was the Democratic Party who, in 1872, founded the Ku Klux Klan, and the Democratic Party that was very racist through most of its history. He also points out the Texas Republican Party was founded by Black people. Hmm, very interesting, and ought to be worth researching the history of this issue a little more deeply. But what's strange is he describes CNN as running an "infomercial" for Obama, fawning all over him, etc .. is he watching the same CNN the rest of us are watching? If CNN is throwing its hat into the Obama ring, then why is Wolf Blitzer multiple times sliming Obama?

White Guilt, Obamania, And The Reality Of Race is an interesting blog entry examining how Black is Obama. Does that matter? In any case the piece discusses how his upbringing is completely divorced from the typical African-American experience. He is described as a wigger, a word I did not know but which the Wikipedia defines as "a white person who emulates mannerisms, slangs and fashions stereotypically associated with urban African Americans". Obama's parentage is half-white, his father was a Kenyan, not an African-American, so he wasn't exposed to the lineage of Slavery, and he was raised in Indonesia and an area of Hawaii that's extremely culturally diverse. Clearly Obama has little real connection with the culture that, say, Jesse Jackson comes from.

Clinton-Obama Differences Clear In Senate Votes is a refreshing analysis of the issues and policy stances taken by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The typical political article just looks at polling data, political strategies, and the current one-up-man-ship. This article discusses the voting history of these two Presidential race front runners.

Olbermann on Newt Gingrich's call to destroy freedom of speech

First they came for the fourth amendment, then they came for Habeas Corpus, and then they came for Freedom of Speech but there was no-one allowed to speak up. This is Olbermann dissecting a recent speech by Newt Gingrich in which he spins a terror tale, and uses that fictional tale to justify eroding freedom of speech and freedom of association. Newt Gingrich describes Destroying Dangerous Free Speech

The Gingrich terror tale is told at 1:00 minute into the video. He proposes "they" want to destroy an American city, and that they're using freedom of speech, freedom of association, and especially the freedom of association over the Internet, as a cover under which to plot their nefarious schemes.

But, consider, what proof does Newt have that this danger even exists? We know from recent years that the Republican party, and most especially the Bush Administration, has been making a lot of hay by selling us on terror. That we are in danger of vague threats from the Islamics lurking behind every corner with a dirty bomb or worse ready to blow us up. Once they've scared us good and well, they spring on us an answer ... a solution to the danger ... Generally these solutions have made for a step-by-step destruction of our civil liberties and what makes America great.