Bacterial marketing: the other Oskar Schindler in light of jj’s recent post.

Upon the Nazi invasion of Poland, pediatrician Eugeniusz Łazowski and his friend Stanisław Matulewicz fabricated a fake typhus epidemic to save Polish Jews from the Nazis. Knowing that typhus-infected Jews would be summarily executed, non-Jews were injected with the harmless Proteus OX19, which would generate false positives for typhus.
Anglicising his name to “Eugene Lazowski”, the doctor moved to the United States after the war. He lived and worked in Chicago from 1958, and passed away in late 2006 at the vernerable age of 92, in Eugene (!), Oregon.
Oddly little is written about Lazowski and Matulewicz on the web; although apparently there has been work on a documentary titled “A Private War” by a filmmaker named Ryan Bank.

see original article for embedded links …
Also see, Nuclear warheads: unprecedented string of procedural errors

Military Explains Nuclear Weapon Mistake
By PAULINE JELINEK – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — In its first explicit confirmation that six nuclear-armed missiles were erroneously flown from an air base in North Dakota to a base in Louisiana in late August, the Air Force on Friday called the episode an “unacceptable mistake” — of a sort that had never happened before.
“We are making all appropriate changes to ensure this has a minimal chance of ever happening again,” Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne told reporters.
He spoke at a Pentagon news conference after Defense Secretary Robert Gates was briefed on the results of the Air Force’s investigation into the Aug. 29-30 incident — one of the worst known breaches of nuclear weapons handling procedures in decades.
Appearing with Wynne was Maj. Gen. Richard Newton, the Air Force deputy chief of staff for operations, who attributed the episode to an “unprecedented string of procedural errors” beginning with a failure by airmen to conduct a required inspection of the missiles before they were loaded aboard the B-52 bomber that flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La.
“This was a failure to follow procedures — procedures that have proven to be sound,” Newton said.
A six-week Air Force investigation found fault with several officers, who have been relieved of duty, Newton said. He said the 5th Bomb Group commander at Minot was relieved of command, among others. Newton did not name them.
Newton said the 5th Bomb Wing, which operates the B-52 has been “decertified from its wartime mission.”
[Does anyone know what this means?]
He added that the August incident was isolated but a result of a problem at those two air bases.
“There has been an erosion of adherence to weapons handling standards at Minot Air Force Base and Barksdale Air Force Base,” Newton said.
After arriving at Barksdale, the B-52 sat on a runway for hours with the missiles before the breach was known — meaning a total of 36 hours passed before the missiles were properly secured, officials have said.
The Air Combat Command ordered a command-wide stand-down — instituted base by base and completed Sept. 14 — to set aside time for personnel to review procedures, officials said.
The incident was so serious that it required President Bush and Gates to be quickly informed.
Wynne prefaced his remarks about the B-52 incident by saying that in publicly confirming that nuclear weapons were involved he had authorized a one-time exception to U.S. policy, which states that the location of nuclear weapons will never be confirmed publicly. He said he made this exception because of the seriousness of the episode and its importance to the nation.
The weapons involved were the Advanced Cruise Missile, a “stealth” weapon developed in the 1980s with the ability to evade detection by Soviet radars. The Air Force said in March that it had decided to retire the Advanced Cruise Missile fleet soon, and officials said after the breach that the missiles were being flown to Barksdale for decommissioning but were supposed to be disarmed.
On the Net:
* Air Combat Command

This has got to have a lot military people taking notice. They know this was no mistake. By painting the Air Force as a bunch of bozos, they may actually create a more diligent bunch of service personnel, which is exactly what we need. Those three airmen who reported this story to the Military Times (instead of a CO) probably threw huge wrench in Cheney’s plans and averted something terrible for the time being..
However, when it does come, it will be the same make and model as last time. In other words, a catastrophic event followed immediately by another, say, like a one, two, punch to the head. I suspect, ‘nuke& biological’ was in the plans. And still may be. Just like the anthrax mailing, and beltway Manchurian candidates snipers. ‘Damn the torpedo’s’..

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 20 2007 12:38 utc | 4

Or maybe not…. Plan B?
As Preparedness Is Criticized, Bush Works on a Plan IEDs Seen As Rising Threat in The U.S.
Are they telling us what’s coming? Plan b
When the first IED blows away some family on their way to Wally World, I predict we will be thrust into the comforting bosom of a police state. We won’t need a nuke like Tommy Franks suggested. Just mess with our driving.
I predict it will be a Homeland Security production.
They’ve done it before…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Oct 20 2007 13:04 utc | 6

For those interested in the upcoming Israeli-Palestinian “peace” conference slated to occur in November in Annapolis, here are a number of pieces that give a good in-depth analysis of where things stand from both an Israeli and a Palestinian perspective.
Haaretz: Back to the Iranian Arena – This piece nicely summarizes the various positions of Israeli and American players in this game, and updates us on some important diplomatic activity that took place in Israel and Washington during the past week. It now says the conference will “apparently be convened in December” (this would represent the second postponement, since the first was from a rumored “mid-November” to “late November.” The paragraph at the end says to me that the conference will be a disaster:

Rice promised the worried Israelis that the Annapolis declaration will contain three provisions that are important to Israel. First of all, it will cite Bush’s letter of April 14, 2004, to Sharon, which recognized the existence of “Israeli population centers” in the territories, and stated that the refugees would be able to return, but not to Israel. Rice took pride in having formulated that letter in her previous capacity as national security advisor, and noted that it was a valuable achievement for Israel. Second, the Annapolis declaration will cite the road map, which makes all progress toward a Palestinian state contingent on the curbing of terror. And third, it will reiterate Bush’s statement at the Aqaba summit in 2003, to the effect that Israel is a “Jewish state.” That was her reply to the fear that the Jewish and democratic state is in danger.

All of these are non-starters for the Palestinian side. Here’s some background context as to why from an earlier Haaretz piece (with annotations and links added by me):

There are significant gaps between the two sides’ starting positions, and a particularly bitter dispute revolves around the essence and substance of the joint declaration they are expected to draft.
Olmert is now rejecting titles such as “declaration of principles” or “agreement of principles.” Instead, he is proposing a general “declaration of interests” – a term that did not exist in previous negotiations – that would serve as a starting point for detailed negotiations to begin following the summit, which is scheduled to take place in Annapolis.
He is also demanding that the declaration include a reference to two previous documents: President George W. Bush’s letter to prime minister Ariel Sharon on April 14, 2004, and the road map for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Bush letter to Sharon stated that the border between Israel and the future Palestinian state could not be identical to the 1949 armistice line, due to the presence of “Israeli population concentrations” in the West Bank. Israel interprets this as referring to the large West Bank settlement blocs. The letter also says the final border will be established by agreement, which Israel interprets as referring to territorial exchanges [ie, exchanging territory from the West Bank side of the 1967 border with territory from the Israeli side]. [Note: This is known to experts in the history of these negotiations as a major departure–in Israel’s favor– from the long-standing principle that UN Resolution 242 should serve as the starting point, the basis, for negotiations over final borders. The greatest significance of UN Resolution 242 is that it emphasizes that acquisition of territory by force is unacceptable, and that the border should therefore revert to where it lay when Israel attacked in 1967, conquering the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Bush’s letter completely ignores or invalidates this long-held bedrock principle and says basically that Israel can retain whatever military and civilian installations it needs/likes in the occupied territories after a settlement, and that the U.S. “understands that after Israel withdraws pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue.” In other words, Israel can continue to control all entry and exit to Palestinian areas, and keep the Separation Wall in place.Also in Israeli parlance, “exchange of territory” is code for a proposal to offer land with heavy demographic concentrations of Arab citizens that falls on its side of the 1967 border in exchange for land with concentrations of Jewish citizens that Israel has illegally settled on illegally seized or stolen lands–all in the service of ensuring a permanent and ethnically pure Jewish state within their borders. And reducing or removing forever the possibility that power might have to be shared with the Arab minority, who currently make up about 18% of Israel’s population and have lately been finding their independent voice in a variety of ways that Israel has openly declared it views as a “strategic threat.”]
The road map lays out a three-stage program for establishing a Palestinian state, and states that in the first stage, the Palestinian Authority must wage war on terrorism and reform PA institutions, while Israel must remove all illegal outposts established in the West Bank since 2001. [Note that this formula is also a recipe for disaster, as neither one of these things is likely to occur in the absence of a peace agreement, and setting them as a pre-condition gives both sides (or elements on both sides) the power to permanently stall all progress in a number of ways should they so choose.]
Abbas and his supporters in the Palestinian leadership fear that the United States has adopted Israel’s position on the issue of the declaration [From the report on Rice’s commitments to Israel cited above, which is later than this one, it would appear their fears were well-founded], and would prefer a general statement. The Palestinians are demanding a detailed document that includes clear references to all the “core issues” of a permanent settlement – borders, Jerusalem and refugees. The Palestinians would also like to see a clear timetable for implementing such a settlement.

Here are some recent Palestinian pieces about the prospects for the upcoming conference to succeed:
Annapolis Conference Looking Precarious

Rice held several meeting with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. However, as Israel refused to commit itself to a timetable for the implementation of a possible agreement, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas threatened to boycott the conference, saying that “we will not go to Annapolis at any price.”
“It is impossible to go to the conference at any price. We told Secretary Rice we don’t have much time, that we must make use of every minute….These actions are hindering the endeavor to reach a document with substance, to go to the conference,” said Abbas referring to recent Israeli army incursions in Palestinian towns and recent Israeli decisions to resume excavations near the Alaqsa mosque compound.
PA frustration became even more apparent after the second meeting Rice had with Abbas in Ramallah on Wednesday during which she reportedly asked the Palestinian leader to “show flexibility” on the core issues and to “take into account” the internal political problems facing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Abbas reportedly refused the request, saying, in an exasperated tone, that “why is it that the Palestinians are supposed to always accommodate Israeli problems. Don’t we have problems of our own, don’t you know that there are some Palestinians who call me names because I want to reach peace with Israel?”
Following the meeting, a clearly exasperated Abbas refused to hold a joint conference with Rice. He told reporters that “we can’t waste more time, we can’t go to the conference at any price. This is unacceptable.”
One Palestinian official was quoted as describing Rice’s latest visit as “a complete failure,” saying that she failed to persuade Israel to change its intransigent position on practically all outstanding issues.
“I doubt if we will go to the conference. The Americans and Israelis are not serious. We don’t want to make fools out of ourselves,” the unnamed official was quoted as saying.
Abbas’s own spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeina, also sounded pessimistic, saying that “the gap between the two parties remains very wide.”

Just Talk

During her brief visit to Ramallah, Rice was urged by Abbas to see to it that there be a “timetable” for the implementation of any final-status agreement with Israel. Israel vehemently rejects the idea, arguing that any agreement reached would require confidence-building measures, which would take time. The Americans are surely well acquainted with Israel’s prevarications but refuse to impose anything on Israel, especially in light of the proximity of the American presidential elections.
In addition to the timetable issue, Abbas told Rice that unless there was a general understanding on core issues, including Jerusalem, the refugees and borders, the upcoming conference would be a failure.
Meanwhile, Palestinian officials have accused Israel of seeking to abort the peace conference but without appearing to be responsible for its failure. Ahmed Qurei, former prime minister who has been appointed chief Palestinian negotiator, this week warned that unless the upcoming peace conference yielded results, a third Intifada would be in the offing.
Similarly, Palestinian Information and Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki, remarked that, “without a document to resolve this conflict, we can’t go to the conference next month.” He added: “Olmert is looking for a public relations conference and one that will allow normalisation with Arab countries. We will not help him in this.”
It is not only the words of Israeli leaders that make Palestinians sceptical of Israeli intentions. Israel has been working hard to undermine any atmosphere conducive to a successful conference. Israel’s occupation army continues to invade Palestinian towns, nearly on a daily basis, inflicting death and havoc on innocent civilians.

For those who think Rice thinks she can redeem her tainted legacy with her diplomatic efforts in this arena, I would say, “not likely.”
I will try and write more on this issue in the coming weeks as it’s fascinating to watch the jockeying for position leading up to the conference (if, that is, it takes place at all).

Posted by: Bea | Oct 20 2007 13:41 utc | 8

Thanks Bea for all that info. I notice also that quisling Blair is very silent these days. Isn’t he supposed be building Palestinian Institutions?

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 20 2007 14:52 utc | 10

fran
moi aussi completely horrific possibility

Posted by: r’giap | Oct 20 2007 15:57 utc | 12

bea,
One Palestinian official was quoted as describing Rice’s latest visit as “a complete failure,” saying that she failed to persuade Israel to change its intransigent position on practically all outstanding issues.
failed to persuade?? what has rice tried to persuade israel to do? compromise?
Israel refused to commit itself to a timetable for the implementation of a possible agreement,
why should israel commit? what repercussions if it doesn’t? sanctions? no. cutting off the billions from US taxpayers? no. how about some fly by bombings to motivate them? some little incursions of our own to give them a taste of their own medicine? yeah right. . this is a total scam job photo op event. it isn’t related to peace, just PR. abbas is right to refuse attendance.
thatnks for keeping us posted.

Posted by: annie | Oct 20 2007 16:24 utc | 14

Iranian chief nuclear negotiator resigns

Teheran, 20 October – Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, has resigned from his post as chief negotiator of the Iranian nuclear energy delegation. No reasons were given officially, but Iranian news sources put Larijani’s resignation in context with his failure to obtain from Vladimir Putin a commitment to a time-line for the completion of the Busher nuclear energy plant.

Posted by: Alamet | Oct 20 2007 16:39 utc | 16

i imagine the cruelest place to be is in blair’s brain or what is left of it

Posted by: r’giap | Oct 20 2007 16:47 utc | 18

dan of steele
what’s a couple of warheads between friends

Posted by: r’giap | Oct 20 2007 17:55 utc | 20

not sure what you mean by that r’giap but the safety record of the US Air Force wrt to nuclear weapons is pretty good. it needs to be perfect of course and that again is the reason this is such big news.
consider that the technicians working on and transporting those weapons are regular folks, just like you and me, and capable of making mistakes. the procedures are air tight and foolproof. as with with every other thing it is extremely difficult to make something foolproof as fools can be really ingenius at times. in other words, a very rarefied version of Murphy’s Law showed its dreaded face.

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 20 2007 18:05 utc | 22

Yes, the air base story has touched off a furor in Lebanon this week; I was going to write a post about that tomorrow but since Alamet has already introduced the story, let me follow up with some additional details. It is very very interesting.
Uruknet has a (unfortunately fairly poor) translation of the infamous As-Safir article here.

Al-Safir detailed the full scenario of what the American administration presented to the Lebanese government, in these meetings although it is a top secret:
The visit by undersecretary of the American Department of Defense Policy Edelman headed a delegation from the Pentagon, a direct request from President George Bush.
The delegation met with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and the Defense Minister Elias Murr and Army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman, the talks focused on four main topics: the military situation in Lebanon, the intelligence situation, and the reality of the Lebanese army and the policy of the Lebanese state.
The American delegation joined by the American ambassador in Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman, introduced the draft Lebanese-American military contract dealing with military, security and strategy themes, and also relates the future of the Lebanese army and its national loyalty, as well as the United States demands from Lebanon in the next phase.
It is worth mentioning that such agreement could be signed with the government and inform the cabinet on some items without the need to approve it in the House of Representatives.
During the talks Edelman paved the way for signing the agreement, referring to the desire of the United States to increase its military and security aid of Lebanon, which rose up from 50$ to 270$ million in 2007 and that there is a tendency to be a 1/2 billion dollars in future. But Washington examines very closely the reality of the Lebanese army and its relations (with others), in particular the relations prevailed during the past decades….
The delegation stressed that the presence of the Russians In northern Syria now threatens the American presence in the region … The delegation made some remarks about the cold Russian-American war, and the Russian movements in the region and the necessitate to change the American strategy, since Lebanon is the country closest to the Russian base Latakia on the Syrian coast, Hence, Lebanon’s small size is an important strategic location for the Washington.
In this issue the United States believes that any assistance to the Lebanese Army and the security forces must be accompanied with checks on the future of this army and the equipment to be submitted to the army, it is feared that the fall of these weapons and ammunition in the hands of groups stronger than the army.
While we are waiting to hear from the Lebanese government the truth about what happened in the meetings, we will not publish further details.
This is our call to the government, and they can consider this as a warning, or we will publish the secret documents.

The Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star had this response to the as-Safir piece:

According to a report in Beirut’s As-Safir on Thursday, Edelman – who met with Siniora, Defense Minister Elias Murr and Lebanese Army Commander General Michel Suleiman during his visit – not only discussed the Lebanese Army’s training and equipment needs but also put forward a draft agreement that would see US naval, air and land bases set up on Lebanese territory….
Suleiman told the Naharnet Web site Thursday that the purported request for basing rights “has not been discussed with the Lebanese Army.”
US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman described the As-Safir article as a fabrication and an insult to the Lebanese Army.
“The purpose of the visit was very clear … What he discussed was our commitment to help Lebanon to build a strong state and a strong army, especially after the great sacrifices this army has made in Nahr al-Bared,” Feltman told reporters after visiting Beirut Maronite Bishop Boulos Matar Thursday.
“We are working hand in hand with the army commander and the minister of defense to strengthen Lebanon’s defensive capabilities,” Feltman said. “The Lebanese people, at all levels, expressed a desire to establish a strong state and a strong army capable of defending Lebanon as happened in Nahr al-Bared.”

and the Daily Star then has a better summary of the As-Safir article:

The As-Safir article, which quoted “reliable sources,” said the Americans are also pushing to change the Lebanese Army’s doctrine, specifically articles five and eight of the Army Guidebook, which point to the “brotherly ties and special relationship” the Lebanese Army has with Syria and which stress support for the resistance.
The paper also said US financial aid to the army would nearly double to $500 million. Currently the US has earmarked $270 million in military assistance to Lebanon.
The article said the bases for US land forces include the mountainous Bsharri area in the North, Baalbek and Hermel and the plains of Damour south of Beirut. The airstrip in Qoleiat would be used by the US Air Force, while the US Navy would operate from two facilities near Tripoli. The pact would also entail setting up radar stations in Qornet Sawda, Barouk and Dahr al-Baidar, As-Safir said.

The International Herald Tribune ran a story confirming much of the As-Safir article and citing an interview with Edelman, who apparently subsequently went on Lebanese TV to confirm much of the As-Safir piece after Ambassador Feltman had vociferously denied it:

Under the blueprint of the alleged treaty, the United States will provide the Lebanese army with assistance and training and intelligence while Beirut would allow the establishment bases, radar stations and other facilities.
The report added that the Americans wanted the Lebanese army’s current doctrine, which describes Syria as a friendly state, Israel an enemy and Hezbollah as the “resistance” to the Israeli occupation, changed.
In his interview, however, Edelman maintained the United States was not putting conditions on Lebanon for assistance, saying it was up to the Lebanese to decide what strategy and military doctrine to adopt.
But in a remark that is certain to anger the opposition, particularly Hezbollah which Washington brands as a terrorist organization, Edelman added: “I don’t see any reason why Israel and Lebanon have to be enemies. Israel has peace treaties with two of its neighbors. I think in time there is no reason why there shouldn’t be one between Lebanon and Israel as well.”

On another note, Robert Fisk had a piece this week noting the ominous growth of private armies in Lebanon, and the influx of weapons into the country. He speculates that the US may plan a fate for Lebanon similar to that of Iraq.
In retrospect, it seems that Nahr al-Bared was an even more important event than even we who paid attention to it were aware of. It is to be used as the pretext or foundation for changing the entire Lebanese internal security/military/political balance.
More to come…

Posted by: Bea | Oct 20 2007 19:08 utc | 24

Meanwhile, it seems that Turkey and Syria have decided they have shared common interests that should be elevated to a closer relationship.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his wife have just concluded an official state visit to Turkey and they have made a great impact.
The two countries have signed a new memo of understanding that will greatly increase investment and free trade between them.
Assad has backed Turkey in its struggle against the PKK in Iraq.

Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States but Ankara fears U.S. policy in Iraq is leading inexorably to the creation of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
It fears this could reignite separatism among Turkey’s own large ethnic Kurdish population in the southeast.
Opposition to a Kurdish state has pushed Turkey closer to Syria and Iran, arch-foes of the United States which are also both home to large Kurdish communities.

In short, this is yet more evidence that yet another major regional realignment is in the works to counterbalance the reverbating impact of the US invasion of Iraq and the total mess that Bush’s “shock and awe” Middle Eastern policy has created.
h/t Syria Comment

Posted by: Bea | Oct 20 2007 20:09 utc | 26

Fran at 11, the end of the world as we know it, mankind beats global warming

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Oct 20 2007 22:37 utc | 28

Bea, thank you for the additional info on the Lebanon base story (and my apologies for getting in the way of a post). I had been coming across mentions of it in the last two days, but the talk only involved a single air base. The rundown of multiple bases in your Daily Star link @ 24 prompted me to look around a bit more, and I find this:
US bases for Lebanon?

(snip)
Apparently the US want a string of bases: one in the Christian region of Bsharri; one in the Bekaa (to cover Baalbek and the Hermel); and one in the plains of Damour south of Beirut.
Futhermore the US Air Force want to use the airstrip at Qoleiat, and two naval bases near Tripoli.
Al-Safir notes that the Americans also want radar stations in Qornet Sawda, Barouk and Dahr al-Baidar.
Apart from the fact that the area around Tripoli is “Salafi central”—and no doubt will become a protracted Iraq-like battleground between US troops and Lebanese/Palestinians— all the bases are less about the Russian Bear and more about encircling Hizbollah areas.
(snip)

This is getting surreal! A total of six bases, not to mention several radar stations, in tiny Lebanon?! If Lebanon agrees to it, it might as well go ahead and formally change its name to Diego Garcia on the Mediterranean.
(And who in the world would believe an arrangement of this scale is meant for Syria alone?)

Posted by: Alamet | Oct 20 2007 22:59 utc | 30

Please watch:
The residents of Nahr al-Bared speak — in videotapes they made themselves.
Nahr al-Bared Camp: Tragedy Without Borders, Part 1
Nahr al-Bared Camp: Tragedy Without Borders, Part 2
This really helps put a human face on this tragedy that we have been following for so long.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 0:27 utc | 32

Here is an article from Electronic Lebanon that provides a lot of very interesting background context about US military and economic aid to Lebanon, past and present. Well worth reading as a companion piece to the others linked to above in several posts.
U.S. Aid Dependency: The Road to Ruin
~Snip

Protecting Lebanon according to the Bush administration is achieved by undermining its ability to fight Israel, the biggest source of threat to Lebanon’s security, and the entity which attempted to invade it in the same year those aid packages were pledged.
Some might argue that America’s above-stated goal is meant to prevent any non-sate organization (Hizballah) from monopolizing the duty of defending Lebanon. But the conditions attached to the aid leaves no doubt that building any force, legitimate or otherwise, is impossible under constraints placed by the US. According to these conditions, any support to Lebanon’s army should be intended for “expanded personal training by private US contractors or provision of spare parts and ammunition for Lebanese forces,” as well as vehicles employed for logistical or patrol purposes. As for equipment and weapons normally used to defend any country’s territory, such as anti-aircraft missiles or tanks or even technologically primitive missiles such as Katyushas, such weapons are out of bounds according to the aid provisions. The administration calls it “non-lethal” assistance. In contrast, permitting Israel to invest a portion of US aid in domestic military research since 1977 was instrumental in the development of the Merkava tank, the primary weapon used for Israel’s land invasion of Lebanon last summer.
Counting on US military aid means transforming the Lebanese army at best to a peacekeeping or patrolling force and at worst an internally oppressive security force. This suggests that the only way to disarm Hizballah without stripping the people of southern Lebanon of the only effective defense force on their land is for the Lebanese government to seek assistance from US adversaries, the same ones possibly Hizballah is allied with.

~Snip

The [economic] aid is ostensibly earmarked for post-war reconstruction, declared Washington. But the release of the funds is conditional on the the Siniora government successfully implementing a bundle of economic “reforms.” Indeed, even before Congress approved the aid package, Siniora declared his government’s intention to cut social security programs, privatize the electricity and telecommunications sectors, increase value added tax by two percent, and implement other measures he claimed were aimed to reduce Lebanon’s $40 billion national debt. Siniora’s effort to push through these measures however were met with strong popular resistance inside Lebanon that led him to reconsider the timing and strategy of implementing the “reforms.”

Emphasis added.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 0:43 utc | 34

Bea, U$ and DoS:
When the US wants to “decommission cruise missiles as part of
an international treaty” (if that’s a pretext), they don’t fly
them live and mounted on launch pods on a B-52 attack bomber!
I don’t care what story USAF throws out, in decommissioning
ordinance, they break them down, warhead, missile and fuel,
they store the warhead in a bunker, store the fuel in another
bunker, then crate the bare missiles, and ship them on a C-17
Globemaster under USAF Materials Command, not SAC! Jebeezus!
Heck, a couple airmen and a 16-wheeler could drive them down!
I’ve worked civ-def-con around enough installations to know
this story stinks on ice. Here’s my “conspiracy theory”:
US wants to bomb Iran, because Israel wants to bomb Iran.
US can’t nuke Iran, because USAF would refuse the mission.
Israel can’t nuke Iran, because the world would retaliate,
also if you recall, “Israel has no nuclear weapons!”
But Israel would certainly nuke Iran using US ordinance
that would leave a uniquely US signature, and BushCo could
take credit, as the bully pulpit Goopers grasp for a win!
Everyone gets what they need. Cheney finds his Guido-berg.
So how to get US nuke cruise missiles into Israeli hands?
You can’t just write a procurement order out of inventory.
There are set procedures, and there’s a command for nukes.
So they come up with this “decommissioning treaty” pretext,
they pretend there aren’t enough cargo planes left in CONUS,
because that would involve USAF Materials Command, and key
signatures, and a paper trail leading to the White House.
So Cheney gets SAC to lend him a B-52, mounts live missiles
on the launch pods, so there won’t be a cargo papertrail.
There are plenty of fundie x-tian USAF’s who would do this.
The B-52 sets down at Barksdale and is directed to park away
from the action until dark, as a freighter somewhere in the
Gulf of Mexico pulls into the Port of Louisiana, bound for the
Mediterranean. 9 hours later, nightfall, an unmarked truck
pulls up to the B-52 … but something went horribly wrong.
Someone in Minot blew the whistle! USAF SAC Command has MP’s lock down the site, as the unmarked truck pulls away, empty.
WW3 averted. Cheney (former Sec-Def!!) wicked mad, chokes the monkey. Trial of the usual suspects, then white-wash report.
Forget Occam’s Razor, live cruise missiles are never, repeat
never, transported for decommissioning on B-52 launch pods!!
Wrong procedure, wrong command. E.g. The official story is a total fabrication, another 9/11 Report in a long line of ’em.
As for Olmert visiting Russia, Putin has already stopped the construction of RU-Iranian nuclear power plant. They’re not gonna throw $B down the rathole of US:IS aerospace offense.
So Olmert says, here’s $B, sorry to blow up your plant, but you are made whole, you come off as the defender of former breakaway muslim republics, then you can drive south and mop
up after we blow up Iran’s defenses. Deal, or no deal?
If I were Putin, and someone handed me $B, I would look away.
I might even give the payer a shipment of six RU nuke cruise missiles, just to keep strategic plans moving along lock-step.
Who wants to wait until Hillary is in office to break-up Iran?
It’s just a business deal. They have managers for all this.
And if you’ve been following the flow of hot alpha surging like lava around the credit-cons and market-tops, all that mullah, sorry, moolah is pushing up the price of oil, but to keep their shorts out of the fire, someone must kill supply.
Ergo, nuke Iran. The Neo-Zi’s win, a Thousand Year Reich.
Ain’t it beautiful!?

Posted by: Bruce | Oct 21 2007 1:14 utc | 36

who knows?
(a) I do grow weary of the conspiracy theories surrounding this incident. that is just silliness.
(b) Forget Occam’s Razor, live cruise missiles are never, repeat
never, transported for decommissioning on B-52 launch pods!!
This mushroom votes for (b).

Posted by: DM | Oct 21 2007 2:34 utc | 38

If anyone had any doubt at all that the amerikan invasion of Iraq was a declaration of war against all Iraqis, the conviction and imprisonment of ‘Saddams gaoler’ Colonel William Steele should remove any lingering uncertainties. Steele has been convicted of refusing to obey an order and behavior unbecoming an officer as well as possesion of some documents including aerial photographs of Kandahar airbase and Bagram airfield in Afghanistan. Yet it is pretty obvious his real crime was that he was alleged to be having an affair with his Iraqi interpreter.
The allegations were never shown to be more than that and in fact Steele’s wife doesn’t believe the affair was consumated. As for the documents – 12,000+ pages, well the prosecution never showed this was anything more than an employee taking his work home with him.
Like the attempted prosecution of Captain Yee, this prosecution was a demonstration by the amerikan military that consorting with Arabs especially Iraqis is regarded treason and will be punished.
This reveals a whole new level of racist conflict. It goes much deeper than the implicit racism of the Indochina invasion, where amerikan forces were unhindered in their sexual colonisation of Vietnamese and Cambodian women, a fact of war that has existed for as long as war.
It seems all Iraqis are regarded as potential carriers of some deadly jihadist infection that can be caught merely by having a personal relationship wiyh an Iraqi, even those with security clearances who are ostensibly working on the side of the amerikans.
It wouldn’t surprise that the prohibition extends to all Arabs and possibly all Muslims, since in Israel the nation amerika is proxy for; vehement, vituperative racism against Arabs is all too common.
ps an awful lot of colonels seem to be in the gun lately. Is this just coincidence or has a schism between upper middle management and senior management developed in amerika’s military?
Colonels are fairly high ranking fellows in any branch of the armed services and it is unusual too see so many put on trial, one would have thought that the normal way of dealing with miscreants who have been around as much as the average colonel has would be to quietly show them the door.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 21 2007 3:33 utc | 40

For everyone’s enjoyment – or those who love New Orleans music – check out my link on pachyderm thread to a GREAT radio station down there (non-comm. of course) avail. online.
Following link above to Larry Johnson’s discussion of the supposed FUBAR event @Minot AFB that sent live nukes to Barksdale, I found this link buried down in the comments. Interesting stuff. “Leaks” in the military aren’t even remotely related to what they are in civilian realm. This so-called “leak” was printed in the Military Times. This art. analyzes who had to approve the story in advance & what that means for “unit cohesion” in top ranks of the military. Basically, as author says, it implies a mutiny by top level generals.
But I’m still confused about something. Has anyone seen anything other than that 6 nukes were sent to Barksdale, but only 5 arrived? Was the missing one used by Israel in Syria – see Johnson’s analysis – or could it have been? In light of the mutiny analysis above, it’s possible that’s being played down ‘cuz Mutineers have no problems w/that use. Thoughts anyone?

Posted by: jj | Oct 21 2007 10:12 utc | 42

some weekend comic relief, not a dancing cockatoo but almost. Sure do miss you Frank

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 21 2007 11:58 utc | 44

Olmert: Nothing to See Here in Annapolis, Nothing will Happen, No Worries

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Sunday a U.S.-sponsored conference on Palestinian statehood would not result in a major breakthrough in peacemaking.
Olmert has sought to lower expectations for the conference to deflect pressure from right-wing coalition partners who are opposed to dividing Jerusalem and taking other sweeping steps as part of any deal with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
Olmert said before a cabinet meeting that the conference, expected to be held in late November or early December, “is not meant to be an event on its own or an event for an agreement or a historic breakthrough.”
Olmert said the conference in Annapolis, Maryland, should instead be viewed as a chance for the international community to support statehood negotiations, expected to formally begin following the gathering.

The primary Israeli goal now would appear to be Leaving Annapolis Unscathed.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 14:23 utc | 46

No More Surgery for Gaza

The Palestinian Health Ministry in the de facto government in Gaza on Sunday announced the closure of surgery rooms in all hospitals in the Strip, due to the depletion of nitrous oxide used in anesthetization.
Health Ministry spokesperson Khalid Radi said that reports from the company responsible for importing the gas have revealed that the Israeli authorities prohibit the entry of nitrous oxide into the Gaza Strip.
Radi said that the nitrous oxide reserve in the Gaza Strip was 44 balloons and 42 have been used. The remaining two balloons are also almost completely depleted.
The Health Ministry appealed for help to several international organisations, including the WHO, said Radi.
Radi said that the policies of the Israeli occupation are leading to the deaths of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 15:31 utc | 48

Brief but informative background piece on the Warming of the Syrian-Turkish Relationship and its regional implications.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 15:56 utc | 50

I’m here – who crashed a wedding? the link doesn’t work

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 21 2007 16:31 utc | 52

Sorry about that lousy link — Here is a replacement link to the Crash a Foreign Wedding story.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 16:38 utc | 54

More despicable US war crimes in Iraq.

Posted by: ran | Oct 21 2007 16:40 utc | 56

Palestinian activist (and co-founder of Electronic Intifada) Ali Abunimah on the theatre of the absurd that the Middle East Peace Process has become: The Show Goes On… and On and, why, according to Abunimah, it is destined to fail.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 16:42 utc | 58

@Tangerine et al:
I recently saw the film In the Valley of Elah which deals with US troops’ de-humanization of Iraqis–and its inevitable blowback–in a powerful and moving way. I highly recommend it.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 16:47 utc | 60

Top Lebanese Muslim Cleric: U.S. is Presenting Us with a Diktat: Either We Get the Air Base or Else Lebanon Will Be Made to Regret It (a variation on the theme of “you’re either with us, or you’re against us…”)

The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush wants the Lebanese to choose between having their country turn into an American military base or face a new strife, Lebanon’s top Shiite Muslim cleric alleged Sunday.
The allegation by Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah came three days after a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. military would like to see a “strategic partnership” with Lebanon’s army to strengthen the country’s forces so that the militant Hezbollah group would have no excuse to bear arms.
“We warn that the U.S. administration is offering the Lebanese a choice either to accept their country being turned into a (U.S.) military, security and political base, or to expect a new strife,” Fadlallah said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press….
Fadlallah, the top religious authority for Lebanon’s 1.2 million Shiites, said the Lebanese army was aware of attempts to link U.S. military aid to Lebanon to confronting the guerrilla group and was determined in “rejecting strife and rejecting any restrictions on its armament.”
Since last year’s war between the Shiite militant group Hezbollah and Israel, the United States has sharply increased its military assistance to Lebanon to US$270 million in 2007 — more than five times the amount provided a year ago — in a show of support to Saniora’s government.
Fadlallah was skeptical about U.S. military aid to the Lebanese army.
“The Lebanese, who have seen the American failure in Iraq and felt the American involvement with Israel in last year’s war against Lebanon … must be aware that what the administration of President Bush is aiming at is something else other than supporting the Lebanese army,” Fadlallah said.
“It (U.S. Administration) is working to make Lebanon a new base for chaos and another position for NATO in order to exert pressure on regional and international powers which disobeyed its decisions and policies,” the cleric added in a clear reference to Iran and Syria.
Also Sunday, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, Sheik Naim Kassem, warned that the establishment of a U.S. military base would amount to “a hostile act” against Lebanon.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 17:43 utc | 62

Here we go… this feels to me like the match that might finally light the fire that some are apparently so desirous of: 12 Turkish Soldiers Killed by Kurdish Militants

(NYT) ISTANBUL, Oct. 21 — At least 12 Turkish soldiers were killed in an ambush by Kurdish militants shortly after midnight on Sunday, in an audacious attack that sharply increased the pressure on Turkey’s government to send troops into northern Iraq.
A group of Kurdish fighters moved into Turkey from northern Iraq, the Turkish military said, and attacked Turkish soldiers based near the town of Hakkari, about 25 miles from the border, in three different locations, killing 12 and injuring another 16. Turkish soldiers then struck back, firing from helicopters and from the ground, killing at least 23 militants, according to the military, which provided its account in a statement.
In a statement on a Kurdish website, the militants said they captured eight Turkish soldiers, but the claim could not be substantiated.
The attack came just four days after Turkey’s parliament voted to give the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan full authority to send troops into northern Iraq to strike at Kurdish militants who hide there.
At the time, Turkish officials emphasized that they would not immediately apply the authority, and security experts said the resolution would be used mainly as political leverage to press the United States and its Iraqi Kurdish allies to act against the Kurdish militants, the Kurdistan Workers Party, known by its initials, the P.K.K.
But Sunday’s attack was one of the worst in recent memory, and the government, which has been skeptical of an offensive in the past, will be under intense pressure to act.
“With this incident, the arrow left the bow, and no room is left for the government to hesitate, postpone or fail to launch a cross border operation,” said Armagan Kuloglu, a retired Turkish major general, in a telephone interview. “If the government resists ordering a military operation, such a step would endanger its existence and credibility.”
In Ankara, Turkey’s capital, Mr. Erdogan called an emergency security meeting among Turkey’s top political and military officials for 8 p.m.
“Our anger is great,” Mr. Erdogan said on national television in Istanbul, where he was casting his vote in a national referendum.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 17:58 utc | 64

Abbas to Rice: If Annapolis Fails, I will Resign

Abbas [reportedly] made the threat during his meeting with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Ramallah last Wednesday….
“It was a very tough meeting,” the official said. “President Abbas threatened to resign and to deliver a public speech that would cause the US political difficulties and earthquakes not only in the Palestinian territories, but among US allies throughout the world as well.”
The PA official also quoted Abbas as telling Rice that the absence of his “moderate” policies would force Washington to deal with a “third intifada.”
The US, Abbas added, would also have to face the threat of al-Qaida, whose members, he claimed, had secretly infiltrated the Gaza Strip….
The official told the newspaper that he had never witnessed Abbas in such a mood.
He said Abbas emphasized during the talks that he was not prepared to go the peace conference simply to bolster Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s popularity among the Israeli public.
Abbas also insisted that an agreement on all the “core” issues be reached with Israel ahead of the conference.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 21 2007 18:34 utc | 66

dear, dear
tangerine, this part of the world is getting darker
the swissies in choosing blocher scare the hell out of me

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 21 2007 21:27 utc | 68

Tangerine, not entirely correct – Bu$hCo changed it’s policy. Will admit 12k this yr., up from 1.6k last. link

Posted by: jj | Oct 21 2007 21:54 utc | 70

Where is everyone???? I feel as if I am posting in an echo chamber today or something… come on guys, don’t be shy…
ahh, bea, i am working my way up the thread reading all your excellent links!
and if you scroll a photo of the wild terrorists at the meeting.
Workers World managing editor John Catalinotto participated in interviews in Madrid on Oct. 10 with Abu Muhammed, a spokesperson for both the post-invasion Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party in Iraq and for the Supreme Command of the Front for Struggle [Jihad] and Liberation in Iraq (FSL), whose formation was announced Oct. 2. This front is one of the major coalitions or fronts of organizations that participate in the Iraqi National Resistance (INR) to the U.S. occupation.

Posted by: annie | Oct 22 2007 0:26 utc | 72

I don’t know if anyone else at MoA ever went through a Raymond Chandler phase but I did and am reminded of a scene early on in Farewell, My Lovely, where Marlowe is in a bar (one that is about to be torn apart by Moose Molloy). He is idly waiting for someone (turns out to be Moose) and to pass the time he attempts to count the number of lies contained in a sign over the bar.
Well that was the feeling I had when I read the SF Chronicle article on last night’s bombing of Sadr City by amerikans, which Ran had posted.
I watched aljazeera for a while this am for the first time in a while and noticed that this story there. It hadn’t made it into our local news coverage, so was interested whether the amerikan media had made much of it. They haven’t.
some of the lies:

. . . “during a dawn raid to capture an Iranian-linked militia chief in Baghdad’s Sadr City enclave” . . .
. . . “Iraqi police and hospital officials, who often overstate casualties, reported only 15 deaths including three children.” . . .
. . . “The U.S. military said it was not aware of any civilian casualties, and the discrepancy in the death tolls and accounts of what happened could not be reconciled” . . .
. . . “thousands of followers dissatisfied with being taken out of the fight have formed a loose confederation armed and trained by Iran” . . .
. . .”commanders credit the troop buildup for a sharp drop in the number of attacks and deaths of U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians, particularly in the past two months” . . .

I could go on but why have all the fun? anyone interested will find there are plenty more for everyone.
As time passes I am becoming more and more convinced that a general determination has been made that the amerikan public are over the Iraq invasion and slaughter.
There seems to be a gentleman’s agreement to let it quietly slip from view. oh there will still be a huge swing to Hilary Obama and that band of crooks and liars next farce, but if the conspiracy of silent dunces has it’s way, there will be no pressure on the incoming administration to get the hell out of Iraq.
Of course that reckons without the fiercely independent people of Iraq, who won’t allow this crime to be relegated to page 57, or a weekly sound bite in passing.
Those playing down the atrocity of Iraq are doing amerika a disservice long term. If the normal everyday tales of maimings and murders no longer attract attention and can be passed off with a list of lies by the amerikan media, Iraqis will up the ante to make sure they are heard.
As I’m pretty sure I posted earlier, timing is everything for the Iraqi resistance. When they judge the time is right they will make some huge spectaculars which cannot be downplayed by the media.
The know that just about no one in amerika cares about how many Iraqi lives are snuffed out so they will probably create many, many amerikan corpses.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Oct 22 2007 1:44 utc | 74

r’giap, yes the peoples party made gains, but not as much as they expected. I am very frustrated this morning about the reporting, because there is not a word that the Greens gained as many new seats as the SVP, not a word that a new green-liberal party also gained 3 seats, meaning that the Greens together now have 23 seat instead of 14, and not a word that Ueli Maurer the President of the Swiss People Party didn’t get elected in the first run. It looks like the SVP primarily took seat from other moderate and right parties, so it was as it looks more like a reshuffling with in the right block. And no word either that we now have e green senator. And in the Senat the peoples party actually lost a seat. If you want to see the numbers, here is a link: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2007/10/21/74921/052
However, I would have prefered for them to loose seats instead of gaining any.

Posted by: Fran | Oct 22 2007 5:35 utc | 76

Sorry, a/m comment (77) was from me. Parviz.

Posted by: Parviz | Oct 22 2007 6:20 utc | 78

debs, i had the same reaction to the article. the absurdity of a nightime airstrike killing 49 people, all criminals? please.
Iraqi Police Tied to Attack on U.S. Base
Members of Frank’s personal security detail drove to the al-Amil police station, where they apprehended the occupants of a police vehicle returning to the station and captured another man who was on his way out.
those were the lucky ones i presume. did they waited til the others went home, called in the airstrikes and take out their neihborhood?
The militant members of the Mahdi Army, the powerful Shiite militia led by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, were “definitely” behind the attack,

Posted by: annie | Oct 22 2007 7:49 utc | 80

it is, not ot os..dim light and all that. once again i would like to remind people outside our borders, there are 300 million people here. we don’t all think w/one mind.

Posted by: annie | Oct 22 2007 8:01 utc | 82

since this thread is about dead I would like to point out one of those weird little things about the english language.
lose “looz” = not win
loose “loos” = not tight

Posted by: dan of steele | Oct 22 2007 12:44 utc | 84

Opinion by a not-insignificant Israeli voice:
Call Annapolis Off, It Will Only Make Things Worse

…Why, then, do I remain skeptical, even fearful, regarding the outcome? After all, I have supported a negotiated two-state solution for 20 years.
Nothing about this conference looks right; everything points to a failure foretold. The closer we get to the conference, the worse the outcome looks. The only real issues that remain to be resolved are, first, whether the conference will be held at all and second, regardless of whether or not it eventually takes place, how bad the damage it generates will be.
There are so many negatives to this project that it’s hard to know where to start. All the participants are too weak to qualify for a serious conflict-resolution effort. The Palestinian leadership under Abbas lacks the authority to enforce its writ. It has lost the Gaza Strip and only manages to control the West Bank thanks to Israeli military backing. It is in no position to make constructive concessions on the major issues of territory, refugees, and Jerusalem, let alone deliver on them in terms of public support. It is not significantly reforming its corrupt and inept institutions – the definitive step that must precede progress toward peace.
Abbas’ partner, Olmert, has in the course of some 21 months in power demonstrated little if any strategic understanding of the region and its dynamics. While he perceives the negative role played by Israel’s settlements, he is incapable of dismantling them. If the Winograd commission doesn’t call for his resignation, significant segments of his governing coalition and his own party could abandon him the moment he offers the necessary concessions on borders and Jerusalem. Even his partner on the political left, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is very much a strategic thinker, is openly skeptical regarding Annapolis.
To the weak and ineffective Israeli and Palestinian leaders add a third: President George W. Bush. The American president’s failure in Iraq is complemented by seven years of refusal to commit his administration wholeheartedly to an Israeli-Palestinian solution. That Rice is not shuttling back and forth in the region for weeks on end from now until meeting time in Annapolis says everything: weak president, wrong objective (recruiting moderate Sunni Arab backing in Iraq and trying to contain Iran rather than making peace between Israel and Palestine) and a half-hearted effort.

And totally predictable:
Behind the Scenes, Rapprochement between Hamas and Fatah is in the Works

The Hamas chief in the Gaza Strip, Ismail Haniyeh, may not have been invited to attend the Annapolis peace conference, but the group’s presence there will be felt precisely because of its absence. The low expectations on the outcome of the conference, and its failure, may serve as a platform for renewed negotiations between Fatah and Hamas. Once the summit is over, it will be impossible to continue ignoring Hamas. Hamas and Fatah are still clashing on the ground, but Egypt is preparing for a meeting of representatives of the two Palestinian factions, with Saudi Arabia’s blessing.
Ten days ago, Haniyeh announced that mediation efforts were being carried out by an Arab country he did not specify. That same day, Nabil Amr, political adviser to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, denied the existence of such talks. But behind the scenes, the Yemeni foreign minister won the support of Saudi Arabia and Egypt to try to mediate between the two groups.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 22 2007 13:03 utc | 86

Insiders Talk: The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran That the White House Doesn’t Want You to Know
**Highly recommended.**

Posted by: Bea | Oct 22 2007 13:17 utc | 88

New Riverbend post.
(Annie, thank you for the link to the Iraqi resistance spokesman’s statement at 72.)

Posted by: Alamet | Oct 22 2007 15:21 utc | 90

Plesae, someone shot this son of a bitch now… I’m gonna puke.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Oct 22 2007 15:50 utc | 92

Bea. if i get the chance i will go see valley of elah.
I was surprised to see this vid from the NY Times. It is entitled “Know thine Enemy” – heh ominous title – …
NYT vid
at rgiap at 68, bad news about Switzerland, still, it is made worse in the world press, as Fran said (post 76) UDC or People’s Party gained 7 seats in the National Council (out of tot. 200), others lost and gained, etc. Still, with 28% of the ‘party’ vote they are now party-wise number one, as they in fact have been since 2003, but they have little power. In the Federal council, nothing will change.

Posted by: Tangerine | Oct 22 2007 18:06 utc | 94

Excellent, in-depth piece by Sami Moubayed in the Asia Times on what is at stake for Turkey after the PKK attack, and how this event should be understood within a regional and international context.
Turkey Approaches Its “Finest Hour”
Recommended.

Posted by: Bea | Oct 22 2007 18:23 utc | 96

With Bush’s recent “World War III” remark, Cheney’s verbal attack on Iran in a speech, the U.S. military now seeing Shia Iraqis as the new enemy (see today’s Froomkin column for links) it is obvious that the war drums have accelerated their beating pace.
This Counterpunch piece connects some dots

Over the past several weeks, the United States has gone out of its way to offend, irk and otherwise provoke a select group of leaders and nations. Through a series of deliberate and calculated actions intended to purposefully estrange those most likely to succeed at diplomacy with Iran, its failure has been ordained and the stage for military action set. For those who think the upcoming war will be another Bush-Cheney folly (as they believe Iraq to be), the collusion of the Democrats in the process again belies that assumption.
…

I agree – they want the war on Iran and while people might think that the U.S. military will hold them back but that hope is futile.
Meanwhile in Iran there seems to be some fight between Khamenei and Ahmedinjad. I’d bet on Khamenei with what little I know.

Posted by: b | Oct 22 2007 19:05 utc | 98

Senator Chris Dodd attempting to “hold” the new FISA bill that includes amnesty for complicit telecoms.

Posted by: manonfyre | Oct 22 2007 19:11 utc | 100