GEORGE BUSH TRIES TO BLAME OTHERS FOR WAR IN IRAQ

Now George Bush is trying to go on record, "bemoaning" the faulty intelligence that "led him" to start the War in Iraq. The BBC reports:

"President George W Bush has said he was disappointed in "flawed intelligence" in the run-up to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"Mr Bush said analysis of the material by many intelligence agencies had led to the "wrong conclusion" on weapons of mass destruction."

Talk about revisionism! Bush was anxious from the start to pin the 9/11 catastrophe on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. He specifically asked his intelligence people to dig up any and all connections tying Saddam with 9/11. Even the British Foreign Secretary commented on how Bush was fitting the intelligence to go around the policy.

Now Bush tries to absolve himself and Cheney and Rice of ordering the Iraqi invasion by claiming he just relied on faulty intelligence.

Bush will say or do anything to pin the blame on everyone else other than himself.

REAL PURPOSE OF BUSH'S TRIP TO PURSUE ATTACK WITH ISRAEL AGAINST IRAN

Bush's arrival in Israel seems to be all about threatening statements against Iran. Olmert and Perez appear to be inciting Bush to move one step closer toward U.S. military action against Iran.

Bush's ostensible purpose of encouraging Israel and the Palestinians to reach a peace accord appears then to be mere window dressing to the real purpose of forming a coalition against Iran. I thought that Bush's march towards war with Iran was defused upon the publication of the report from the National Intelligence group that Iran was NOT developing nuclear weapons. However, once again, after reading about Bush's trip, I cannot help but think that the neocons in both the U.S. and Israel think of nothing else than mounting a military assault against Iran and Iranians.

BUSH/CHENEY INVENT NAVAL CONFRONTATION WITH IRAN

This is all so predictable. Bush and Cheney have been blindsided by the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran does not have any program for the development of nuclear weapons. This removes their reason to mount a military attack against Iran and the Iranians.

So now they have the U.S. Navy come out with a story that Iran has been threatening U.S. naval ships in waters off the coast of Iran. And the U.S. Navy claims that the Iranians said that some U.S. ships would "blow up."

Come on! This is all total spin and smoke. If Iran has no nuclear weapons program, then Bush and Cheney must make up something else to constitute a casus belli. Anything to demonize Iran and the Iranians. Cause to bomb Teheran and start a military action to topple the Iranian government.

I say to Bush and Cheney: stop this war mongering against Iran. Instead of dropping bombs and killing Iranians, sit down with the Iranians and talk about how governments in countries like the U.S. and Iran can live and work without shooting missiles and dropping bombs.

KISSINGER CONTRADICTS N.I.E REPORT ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS

Now comes Henry Kissinger and says the NIE report on Iran means just the opposite of what it says. It says Iran has ceased its nuclear weapons program back in 2003 but Kissinger, writing in today's The Washington Post, says it really means Iran has not ceased its nuclear weapons development.

Kissinger's op-ed is rife with innuendo and double speak, all leading to his dubious conclusion:

"In short, if my analysis is correct, we could be witnessing not a halt of the Iranian weapons program -- as the NIE asserts -- but a subtle, ultimately more dangerous, version of it that will phase in the warhead when fissile material production has matured."

Kissinger asks where the supporting evidence is for the NIE's conclusions. Yet he presents very little himself. All we get from Kissinger is his "theory," his doubts, his questions, his feelings, such as "we could be witnessing . . . ." (emphasis added.)

I for one am left with the feeling that Kissinger knows very little about what he speaks. Rather I suspect that he comes to this op-ed with his already-set antagonistic feelings and suspicions towards Iran. I also suspect that he would be much happier with a more confrontational stance, like that of Cheney, Olmert and the other war-mongering neo-cons who continually beat the drums for war against Iran.

NIE'S COMMENTS ON IRAN SAY VERY LITTLE

I want to do some "statutory interpretation" on the plain meaning of the words contained in one paragraph on Iran in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released several days ago. Here's the paragraph:

"Over the next year Tehran, concerned about a Sunni reemergence in Iraq and US efforts
to limit Iranian influence, will continue to provide funding, weaponry, and training to
Iraqi Shia militants. Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select
groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM, since at least the beginning of 2006.
Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically."

First, the use of "Tehran." Are we talking here about the government of Iran? If so, why not specifically state that's who is meant? Is this an attempt by the U.S. intelligence agencies to imply something that they don't want to say outright? Or an attempt to cover their backs if accused of loosely accusing the government of Iran? "Oh, we did not say the Iranian government, we just implied it was forces based in Tehran."

Second, the futuristic verb "will continue." This implies someone has provided "funding, weaponry and training to Iraqi Shia militants." Well, where is the evidence for such "providing." Why has there not been any proof presented in the past? All we have are charges by Bush and the U.S. military that the government of Iran is providing arms and training. Where is proof? So far, no proof, just accusations.

Third, the word "weaponry." Do we mean pistols or rifles? Do we mean explosive devices? Do we mean RPGs? And if any of these meanings is meant, how many weapons? Ten, 100, 1,000 or 10,000? Again, the word "weaponry" is so broad, it means nothing.

Fourth, the word "training." Has anybody been captured in Iraq who confesses to have been in a training camp run by Iranians? If so, where is that person? How long was the training? What did it consist of? Who exactly were the Iranians? Were they clan members, relatives or official Iranian government employees?

Fifth, the sentence, "Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants . . ." What does the word "intensifying" mean? It implies that the government of Iran has been stepping up supplying weapons and training to Shiite militants, but its premise rests on the same unsubstantiated charges discussed above.

Sixth, "lethal support." Again, where are the weapons and other lethal devices supplied by Iran?To date, all we ever see are explosive devices that could have just as well been manufactured in Egypt, Jordan or even in some basement in Baghdad.

Seventh, the sentence, "Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically." This would appear to be true given the increasing number of U.S. casualties from road-side bombs and other explosive devices. Note however, that this sentence is tacked right at the end of the paragraph on Iranian influence. Is the NIE saying here that the government of Iran is increasing its supply of EFPs? Again, it gives the intelligence agencies an aspect of deniability if someone challenges them as to whether they mean the Iranian government is responsible. Analyzed carefully as to what these words say, they don't say that the government of Iran has provided an increased supply of EFPs, merely that EFP attacks have risen dramatically.

This paragraph of the NIE tells us nothing. All it does is repeat the unsubstantiated charges and innuendo that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been putting out over the past several years, as a prelude to justifying initiating military action against Iran.

INTELLIGENCE REPORT TELLS LITTLE UNKNOWN BEFORE

Here is the National Intelligence Estimate released yesterday in its abbreviated non-classified form. In its two brief pages, the NIE says that Al Qaeda will remain a threat, as if this was breaking news.

"We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland
through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida
will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its
most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack
the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to
energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and
indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks."

However, note what the NIE says about Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) - that it is the "only . . . known [affiliate] to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland." Where has AQI ever expressed a desire to "follow us home," as Bush likes to say?

Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus write in The Washington Post today:

"Although the NIE described al-Qaeda in Iraq as the only al-Qaeda affiliate "known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland," administration and intelligence officials yesterday cited only one such reference to that threat -- an audio statement posted in November on the Web site of a British-based Saudi dissident group. In the statement, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, the al-Qaeda in Iraq leader, threatened to "blow up the filthiest house, which is called the White House."


"The Bush administration has long described al-Qaeda in Iraq as an operational subsidiary to the main al-Qaeda group, though intelligence officials have said the main al-Qaeda organization exercises little control over the Iraq group. Yesterday's NIE suggested that al-Qaeda derives stature from al-Qaeda in Iraq's activities, rather than the other way around."

So the NIE is basing its judgment that Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) wants to attack the U.S. based upon one audio statement, not even video, posted on some Saudi dissident group in the U.K.

Furthermore, note DeYoung and Pincus report that intelligence officials have said that Qaeda's bin Laden and Zawahiri exercise little control over AQI. As a matter of fact, it is AQI that is leading bin Laden by organizing and conducting its insurgency in Iraq, an insurgency that would have never been born if Bush had not first foolishly invaded and occupied a Muslim country.