Iran vs Epstein

 

Israel vs Palestine

One way to get the focus off impeachment

Maybe even make sure he gets a second term?  Who votes out a president while he's fighting a war?

And there's more:

But that was then, and this is now, right?

Fire and Fury?

More like Bluster and Blow...

Just wondering...

With all the neocons coming into the White House, which country do you think will be bombed when one of Trump's hotels is attacked?

Lions and Chemicals and Iran, oh my!

700 different chemicals used to frack.  Yummy!

How many different things are made.

More ways to humiliate the poor.  Being poor is very expensive.  When will the rich millionaires in Congress realize that? Never?

Tom Cotton thinks a nice little war with Iran would only take a few days.  Kinda like what we did in Iraq.  Only better!

And for Caturday, a photographer lives to tell the tale about nearly being eaten:

We were close to war with Iran during President Cheney's reign

But I didn't realize how close.  If this is true, it was going to happen.

Susie Madrak introduces us: This is Gwyneth Todd, former member of President Clinton’s National Security Council and top Middle East advisor. (articles date from 2012.)

Military command of this invasion, to be done without consultation of congress or the United Nations was left to Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff and Admiral Will J. Fallon, both career opportunists with extremist political views, willing to do anything for promotion and the curry favor from the powerful criminal figures in US government. 

Their “cover story” was to sale a frigate up the Shatt al Arab, a disputed waterway between Iraq and Iran, hoping to stimulate a “response” from Iran. 

Their real plan was to create the response themselves, as was done by the Navy during the Tonkin Gulf Incident in 1964 when America “invented” an attack by North Vietnam as a prelude to a 10 year war America eventually lost. 

Their plans were to create phony radio traffic simulating an Iranian attack in order to push America into authorizing hostilities that they, themselves, had perpetrated in as part of a conspiracy.

Apparently there were attempts to follow Gwyneth Todd to Australia.  Juan Cole discusses events.

I'll say it now. If Romney becomes president, we will be at war with Iran within two years.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If cats reported the news

Stripes says everything looks great from his perspective...

Scale of the universe.

Admission by Walker that it was all about union busting. And questions mount over the supreme court vote in Wisconsin.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1.

Bashing teachers is as much fun as hippie punching. Or tasering kids.

Obama's budget cuts

Refighting the Civil War

This is what a decade of war looks like.

Roger Ebert remembers Sydney Lumet

France bans the burqa

Tracking Japanese radiation around the world and the US. And apparently sea salt and baking soda will fight radiation exposure.... (I suggest buying stock)

Firing the entire city management of Benton Harbor, Michigan. You know these guys wanted to do this like forever....

Women for peace

Can change the world.

Bill Moyers:

The JOURNAL profiles Leymah Gbowee, a woman who led her fellow countrywomen to fight for and win peace in war-torn Liberia, and Abigail Disney, who produced the documentary of their struggle and triumph in the award-winning film PRAY THE DEVIL BACK TO HELL.

Shouldn't this be a huge red alert?

You know: Hair on fire, claxon alarms, shrieks, the clattering of hundreds of shoes as diplomats rush to planes to talk these two countries down?

Pakistan Moves Thousands Of Troops Toward Indian Border

Because... you know... both countries have nukes? Hello Bush administration? The article continues:

The troops headed to the Indian border were being diverted away from tribal areas near Afghanistan, officials said, and the move was expected to frustrate the United States, which has been pushing Pakistan to step up its fight against al-Qaida and Taliban militants near the Afghan border.

Two intelligence officials said the army's 14th Division was being redeployed to the towns of Kasur and Sialkot, close to the Indian border. They said some 20,000 troops were on the move. Earlier Friday, a security official said all troop leave had been canceled.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.

Both countries have said they want to avoid military conflict over the attacks. But India has not ruled out the use of force as it presses its neighbor to crack down on the Pakistani-based terrorist group it blames for the attack.

Wait ... surely Bush must be on it!

The United States has urged India and Pakistan to avoid unnecessarily raising tension amid reports of troop movements to the border.

[snip]

Air strikes against militants in the restive Swat and Bajaur regions had been scaled down as some of the airpower had to be redeployed to the country's eastern border, a senior Pakistani military official told Asif Farooqi, the Islamabad-based correspondent of the BBC Urdu service.

There have been reports of possible forthcoming "surgical" strikes by India on the headquarters and camps of Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group India blames for the Mumbai attacks.

The group and Pakistan's government deny any involvement.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: "We hope that both sides will avoid taking steps that will unnecessarily raise tensions during these already tense times."

He said the US remained "in close contact with both countries to urge closer co-operation in investigating the Mumbai attacks and in fighting terrorism generally".

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Islamabad says the troop movements do not appear to be greatly significant and that both countries have said they want to avoid military conflict. However they warn they will act if provoked.

But our correspondent says any significant cut in the Pakistani military presence along the Afghan border would worry Washington, which relies on Islamabad to stem cross-border Taleban attacks on Nato forces.

What? This standoff could start WWIII (or is it IV?). Do we have anyone going over there? Like... you know... Rice? Anybody? Did Bush fire the entire diplomatic corps? And what does it mean: the US is in close contact? What does that mean? On the phone? IMing? Email? Why do I think nobody's home .....?

President-elect Obama?

Dec. 12, 2008 | A consensus is emerging among intelligence analysts and pundits that Pakistan may be President-elect Barack Obama's greatest policy challenge. A base for terrorist groups, the country has a fragile new civilian government and a long history of military coups. The dramatic attack on Mumbai by members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e Tayiba, the continued Taliban insurgency on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, the frailty of the new civilian government, and the country's status as a nuclear-armed state have all put Islamabad on the incoming administration's front burner.

But does Obama understand what he's getting into? In his "Meet the Press" interview with Tom Brokaw on Sunday, Obama said, "We need a strategic partnership with all the parties in the region -- Pakistan and India and the Afghan government -- to stamp out the kind of militant, violent, terrorist extremists that have set up base camps and that are operating in ways that threaten the security of everybody in the international community." Obama's scenario assumes that the Pakistani government is a single, undifferentiated thing, and that all parts of the government would be willing to "stamp out" terrorists. Both of those assumptions are incorrect.

Pakistan's government has a profound internal division between the military and the civilian, which have alternated in power since the country was born from the partition of British India in 1947. It is this military insubordination that creates most of the country's serious political problems. Washington worries too much about other things in Pakistan and too little about the sheer power of the military. United States analysts often express fears about an internal fundamentalist challenge to the chiefs of staff. The main issue, however, is not that Pakistan's military is too weak, but that it is too strong. And that is complicated by the fact that elements within the military are at odds, not just with the civilian government, but also with each other.

[snip]

The United States, going back to the Cold War, has long viewed the Pakistani army as a geopolitical ally, and Washington tends to prefer that the military be in power. Since Gen. Musharraf was forced out, U.S. intelligence circles have been lamenting the country's "instability," as though it were less unstable under an unpopular dictatorship. If Pakistan -- and Pakistani-American relations -- are to have a chance, it will lie in the incoming Obama administration doing everything it can to strengthen the civilian political establishment and ensure that the military remains permanently in its barracks. The military needs to be excluded from political power, and it needs to learn to take orders from a civilian president. At the same time, Obama should follow through on his commitment to commit serious diplomatic resources to helping resolve the long-festering Kashmir issue.

OoOoohhhhhhHHh boy.... January 20th can't come fast enough...

Fallon resigns

Does this mean Bush and Cheney intend to attack Iran before the elections?

Admiral William Fallon is out as CENTCOM commander.

Fallon has resigned, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in a press conference at the Pentagon.

Just as advisers, right?

Because the last time we did this, it didn't turn out so well:

The United States will send dozens of military advisers to Pakistan to train soldiers who are fighting extremist groups in the country's restive tribal areas, it emerged today, the first meaningful deployment of American troops in the country.

After weeks of negotiations between the US and Pakistan's new army chief of staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, a squad of American trainers will arrive later this year to teach soldiers how to handle counter insurgency operations, rather than a conventional land war against India.

The trainers will focus on the Frontier Corps, a force of about 8,500 soldiers, drawn from tribal groups along the Afghan border. The majority of the Pakistani army comes from Punjab and is often regarded as a "foreign force" in the border region, which is dominated by Pashtuns.

Although the original plan sees a deployment that stretches until 2015, the current forecast is that the trainers will be in Pakistan for up to two years. Initially the US military advisers would not be allowed out of their training camps. However, a widely discussed 40-page memo circulating in Washington eventually sees US troops accompanying Pakistani soldiers on missions against the militants.

US troops accompanying Pakistani soldiers on missions? .... What could go wrong?

crossposted at American Street

IAVA

Founded in June 2004, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is the nation's first and largest group dedicated to the Troops and Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the civilian supporters of those Troops and Veterans.

From the people who were there.

(Update 2/22. Found where I got the link: Madison Guy at Letter From Here. A nice story goes with it.)

Soldiers videotaping themselves fighting

In Iraq:

We've been here before

The NIE report hasn't knocked Fox News off the war drums.



Are we going to fall for this the second time around?

Talk about breaking into a sweat

Poor guy. Someone should take away his shovel...

The list of actions against the war

Max Obuszewski via David Swanson of the Democratic Underground keeps track of our citizens protesting the war:

I am of the opinion that there has never been a movement in U.S. history with the number of arrests which have taken place in opposition to the Iraq War. This list of appeals, arrests and legal cases is not all-inclusive. Please send additions, corrections and updates to mobuszewski at verizon.net.

Read the list and be proud of America.

Just how deep is that bunker you've been digging?

Because you might want it a little deeper...

Sorghum Crow of Sorghum Crow's General Store picked up this article:

U.S. Navy steps up fuel deliveries to Gulf forces

LONDON, Nov 23 (Reuters) - The U.S. military has stepped up chartering of tankers and requests for extra fuel in the U.S. Central Command area, which includes the Gulf, shipping and oil industry sources say.

A Gulf oil industry source said the charters suggested there would be high naval activity, possibly including a demonstration to Iran that the U.S. Navy will protect the Strait of Hormuz oil shipping route during tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme.

The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) has tendered for four tankers in November to move at least one million barrels of jet and ship fuel between Gulf ports, from Asia to the Gulf and to the Diego Garcia base, tenders seen by Reuters show.

It usually tenders for one or two tankers a month to supply Gulf operations, which include missions in Iraq.

The MSC, asked for comment, confirmed the tenders and said there was nothing abnormal about current requirements in the Gulf, where it has a large military presence and which is home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.

A fifth hire request was recently cancelled, it said.

Fuels specified to be moved between Gulf ports include JP5, high flashpoint jet fuel, used to power F18 fighters aboard aircraft carriers.

"They have been very active," said a ship industry source, familiar with the MSC tender process, who asked not to be named.

"Out of the multiple charter requirements they issue, they usually do maybe one or two (tankers) a month in the Gulf. They were quiet over the summer months," he said.

Is this Cheney and his drive to attack Iran before his term is out? What is going on?