yaksheemesh

some thoughts on the current narrative on the iraq fiasco after seeing an interview on lateline the other night with New York Times bureau chief there, John Burns.

JOHN F. BURNS: Well, of course, as you can imagine, reading the al Qaeda pronouncement on the Internet, and they're pretty media savvy these days, they've mocked it. Just as President Bush has feared they would, they see this fractiousness in Washington as being a sign that victory is ever closer for them. The more they see disarray amongst the Americans, disarray in the government in Baghdad, the more reason they have to think that they only have to hang on and that they will inherit the kingdom.

Victory for Al queda? Who imagines that al queda or bin laden will be in government after the inevitable fall of the coalition of the vapors, no one. After the americans, the british and us have vacated the premise's and the civil war begins in earnest or the Iraqis sort their own troubles out, they will fall on the foriegn fighters like vultures on a discarded ham sandwich if they try to interfere with whoever manages to strongarm themselves into power. At the moment they are tolerated by both sides because their attacks are focused on the americans, things will not be so rosey once they have gone. Its just a republican talking point left over from the last few wasted years.

I can't progress more than 200 yards from where I'm now standing without cladding myself in armour, with body guards. The capital is not safe. There is no city in the country that's safe.

but victory is only months away, according to John Mccain. If we follow his directions.

To the east, we have Iran backing the Shiites. To the west, you have Syria, and, much more quietly, a number of other Sunni Arab countries backing the Sunnis.

the most interesting line in this is the one that is not spoken, naming the Sunni arab countries, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, yemen, algeria. From most scources the majority of the foriegn fighters are coming from these countries, but we must not mention them, only syria and iran, why, you would need to ask a journalist of some repute why he would self-censor. If the iranians were sending hordes across the border, wouldnt the americans have proof of this in the shape of the passports they find on the bodies of the fallen, yet the only passports they display are of citzens of the above four countries. The Iranians dont need to send anyone across the border, they already have dear and very close freinds at the very top of the elected Iraqi parliament, from chalabi to illaywi to maliki, all have close ties to Iran.

We only have to look at what happened yesterday in Basra. We don't know yet how those four British soldiers died but we do know that a principal concern for the British military in Basra has been this flow of highly sophisticated explosive devices and weapons that’s coming from Iran.

funny, another US talking point, when one D. "sorry bout that" Rumsfeld said the same thing journalists asked "do you have any proof of that?" The supreme commander in Iraq standing right next to him, stepped instantly to the microphone and said "No. No we have no proof of that at all." Doesnt stop our soft, liberal, we are with the terrorists and democrats, media pusing the exact same disinformation as fact.

Is Iran going to stop that in support of the Shi'ites? I don't think so. Is Syria going to stop, after three and a half years, the flow of Sunni Arab militants into the country? I don't think so.

let me try and get this right, I am so confused I fear I must have fallen over and struck my head on something very hard indeed. During the recent invasion of Lebanon, syria was backing hezzbollah, along with Iran, now they are opposed to hezzbollah? So what happened to all the lebanese hezzbollites waving syrian flags and photos of bashir asad? Its backing the sunnis? The flow of funding for the sunnis comes from the Saudis and their friends, but dont mention that to anyone. Someone needs to get the narrative straight for more than three weeks in a row, otherwise you just get to look a bit silly.

If you talk to Iraqis who do not like the occupation – but if you ask them – the really central question is, “Would you like them to go and go now?”, you find an overwhelming majority of Iraqis will oppose that.

perhaps he needs "progress more than 200 yards from where I'm now" to get his stats, over 60% of iraqis support attacks on coalition troops and around the same number when asked by the state department wanted the troops out, with no timelimit on how fast, just out.

you had the Prime Minister, two weeks ago, saying, “The Americans have failed, the Americans are responsible for the breakdown in security. I want control of the armed forces, I want control of the war.” Illusory completely, because, without the Americans here, Mr Malaki and all of those around him, across the river, in the government compound, would be swept away, in fact, they’d be back where they started, which, I’m afraid to say, which is in exile in Tehran and in London and in Paris and in New York.

I think that these are the "overwhelming majority of iraqis" he did so speak off. I have a great deal of respect for the times journo, he faces a near impossible job in impossible circumstances, but even so, he does need a little fact checking before he opens his mouth. Then again so do I most of the time, thats where the beauty of alcohol comes in, its has its own built in fact checker.

.......... quid pro quo muthafuckers

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article1981732.ece
............................

lets see, the blockade of cuba is pushing 50 years, the sanctions on Iran are getting close to 30, Nth korea over 50, the sanctions on vietnam is just a wee bit under 30 and will continue. Remember that the sanctions on vietnam have only a little bit to do with the actual war america lost, they were imposed because the vietnamese overthrew the Pol Pot regime. Also the world seems to have completely forgotten the american promise to pay reparations for the damage caused by the USof A. Meanwhile in Iraq the USof A are forcing the Iraqi's to pay over $20billion (greenbacks) for their invasion of kuwait and a further $40 billion for bills run up by Saddam. As a side light, the french when they left thier beloved Indochine after getting their arses whupped, paid reparations to the nth vietnamese, and in return, all their POW's were returned, the Nixon administration promised to pay, immediatlly reneged, and had next to none of their POW's returned. Kissinger kills more americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/14/world/main2179580.shtml

.............
from the "where are they now" files, Tony Bullimore is missing, again...told you we should have shipped the bitch off to Naru as an illegal immigrant. Its for his own bloody good. Still its better than having a firecracker blow up in his arse.

............................
from big daddy B, a quick blowjob for the little un':

Bush revealed that he enjoys using “the email” but lamented that his son, President George W. Bush, cannot for fear that the emails would get subpoenaed. Bush worried that presidents who used email would be forced to prove “that you were telling the truth and all this stuff.”
.................
yaksheemesh, moneky see, moneky do...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2650382&page=1

lets see them find kazakstan (sick) on the map. or canada. a look behind the war on terror, it aint pretty.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/etc/synopsis.html