BUSH SEEMS INTENT ON DEMONIZING IRAN AS GROUNDWORK FOR ATTACK

George Bush and Dick Cheney seem intent on creating a bogeyman out of Iran so that they can have "justification" to attack.

Yesterday, Juan Cole points out, when Iraqi prime minister Al-Maliki was visiting Teheran, the U.S. generals in Iran staged a raid against Al Sadr Shiite militia within Sadr City, during which the U.S. generals asserted over 30 Shiite fighters were killed. The generals claimed they were going after Iranian-backed insurgents. Residents claimed the killed and injured included civilians, women and children.

Additionally, Bush gave a TV interview to Neil Cavuto of Fox News saying that Iranians aiding insurgents would be brought to justice, and giving a non-committal answer to Cavuto's question on whether Bush was planning an attack on Iran.

And just today at a news conference before beginning his month-long vacation, Bush again tried to cast Iran as the troublemaker in Iraq. According to this AP story appearing in the NY Times web page, Bush spoke with hostility.

"The president described Iran as ''a destabilizing influence in the Middle East.''

"Noting that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was in Iran Thursday, Bush said he hoped his message would be the same as the United States' -- that Tehran should halt the export of sophisticated explosive devices into Iraq or ''there will be consequences.''"

Wait! Bush says Iran is exporting "sophisticated explosive devices into Iraq." The U.S. government has never given any proof for this assertion. There has been no evidence that Iran is doing this. All we have is the word of George W. Bush. Why is Bush saying this? Why is he threatening Iran with "consequences"?

For some reason, Bush & Co. want a military confrontation with Iran. Americans must not allow him to do this. Don't let George W. Bush start a war with Iran.

DELUSIONAL BUSH THINKS FIGHT IN IRAQ CAN BE "WON"

Al Jazeera reports today that Nuri Al-Maliki is upset with human rights violations of U.S. troops. Al-Maliki is also reported at odds with Gen. David Petraeus who he accuses of taking an American point of view with regard to the problems in Iraq.

"An adviser to Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq's prime minister, has accused US forces of committing human rights violations and arming "gangs of killers."

"Hassan al-Suneid, a member of parliament, on Saturday also told The Associated Press that al-Maliki has problems with General David Petraeus, the chief US commander in Iraq.

"He said US troops have embarrassed the Iraqi government and that General Petraeus was working along a "purely American vision."

"Al-Suneid said the US military strategy is to "arm whoever is against al-Qaeda at a time when there are gangs against al-Qaeda that kill. These are gangs of killers."


"He was referring to US overtures to groups in Anbar and Diyala, encouraging former anti-government fighters to join the fight against al-Qaeda in Iraq."

So how does this square with Bush's vision that "we are making progress in Iraq"? No matter how bad the situation in Iraq gets, no matter how many people are killed in car bombings, no matter how many human rights violations occur, Bush remains upbeat and optimistic. Either Bush is a consummate liar or else he is like the boy in the Dutch fairy tale who tries to keep out the North Sea by plugging his finger in the ocean dike.

Here's Deb Reichmann in The Washington Post on Bush's Saturday radio speech:

"Bush acknowledged the Iraqis received "unsatisfactory" marks on eight benchmarks, including failure to prepare for local elections or to pass a law to share oil revenues among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. But the president said "satisfactory" grades the Iraqis received in eight other areas - like providing three Iraqi brigades for the military offensive under way and providing $10 billion of their money for reconstruction - were cause for optimism.


"Our strategy is built on the premise that progress on security will pave the way for political progress," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This report shows that conditions can change, progress can be made, and the fight in Iraq can be won.""

So Bush believes there is "cause for optimism." Has he talked to Al-Maliki today about "human rights violations" committed by U.S. troops? Has he discussed with both Al-Maliki and Petraeus why they don't seem to be getting along? If Al-Maliki is not on the same page as that erstwhile saviour Petraeus, what hope is there for anyone including Bush thinking that "the fight in Iraq can be won"?

Oh, by the way, what in the wide world can Bush mean by "winning the fight in Iraq"?