Analyzing the new "WMD's found in Iraq" storyline:

By C. William Boyer

I think these sudden (and bogus) revelations of WMD's being found in Iraq are cause for GREAT concern. What it appears to me, in touting pre-'91 weapons that were unusable, is the administration is 'fixing' it's earlier claims for invading Iraq, the ones subsequently proven false. Why is that important, beyond simple political points? Because it's NECESSARY for invading Iran. They are heading off the critics at the past, saying, "See, see, we were right all along. That's why, despite everyone's claims to the contrary, you've got to believe us when we say Iran's about to get a nuke and we must stop them." Of course, the VAST majority of world intelligence organizations believe Iran is 5-10 years away, whereas North Korea has multiple nukes and is testing a delivery system to reach America. There are no reports of Iran having a delivery system, though there is some speculation they could buy systems from North Korea.

Why Iran and not North Korea?

Bush and Co. desperately want to invade/attack Iran because they want better control/access of the Caspian Sea Basin, home of some the biggest and most unrealized oil reserves in the world (get out a map and check Iran's location in relation to the CSB and you'll see). And the administration believes if the Iranian regime is struck, it will topple like a house of cards due to the popular sentiment against the regime. But given this administration's record for getting predictions correct (rarely/never), I'd be hard-pressed to believe them. In fact, if past is prologue, we will get VERY SERIOUS blowback from an Iran attack, implications firmly plunging us into a bold, dark new chapter of world history.

Watch it unfold. This is SERIOUS stuff.

PS An aside is how the 'NEWLY FOUND WMD' story is being released: they're letting Republican talking heads like Rick Santorum (who desperately needs re-election help in PA) and Pete Hoekstra release the info on FoxNews and such, these guys coming out and saying, "Look at what we found, WMD." Then, in order to 'vet' the info and make the sudden revelations believable, they're saying, 'We want to know why the Administration kept this secret.' A classic diversionary tactic. If the issue can be framed, "Why was it kept secret?" rather than "Are the WMD revelations valid?" the administration may get what it needs to justify an Iranian attack.

AMERICA DESIGNATES 5 POWERFUL NEW SENATORS-FOR-LIFE

What, you haven't heard the news? Five more politicians were added to the ones we already have, the 500+ in the House and 100+ in the Senate. These five partisan, political hacks have far more power than the entire House of Representatives and US Senate combined. Why, these five cronies can trump any piece of legislation made by the two "upper" houses in addition to the legal judgements of any court in the land. In fact, the only entity stronger than these five members of the Imperial Star Chamber is King George W. Bush himself.

The Star Chamber Hacks:

John Roberts
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
Sammy Alito
Anthony Kennedy

You know. The Supreme Court INjustices.

Used to be, bad politics, partisan politics, politics created by the hurly-burly of the moment would be tempered by the wisdom of men and women whose entire lives were grounded in The Law, not in Politics. You know, check your politics at the door. Now, it's just more political football decided by party lines [SEE: 2000 Elections]. And with five Republican Justices, the score's pretty well set.

5-4, Republicans WIN!

So why not just cut to the chase, from here on out, then, and simply ELECT the Justices. Isn't that what it's become? Just another political process to appoint more politicians, currently by selection-for-life rather than election-for-life because currently it's a selection of the Powers-that-Be(Republicans) to appoint some more Powers-that-Be(Republicans) to watch over the Powers-that-Be(Republicans)? For Life.

Don't you just love the beautiful symmetry(Republicans) of it all?

Here are a few recent 5-4 Rulings decided by The Five Most Powerful Senators-for-Life:

No Knock Law: In a turn-around of 90 years of tradition, Law Enforcement no longer needs to knock and inform of their presence serving a warrant; just ATTACK!

CleanWater Act: The 30-year-old Clean Water act was overturned in a Michigan case so that a Mall and Condos could be built on protected wetlands. And no, I am not making this up.

WhistleBlower Law- Overturned, meaning that government employees who report on government wrong-doing are no longer protected from reprisals.

That's just a few. Notice any trends?

It's funny, because Chief INjustice Roberts recently commented that the Supreme Court was running out of cases.

Is that any surprise? If you were a party wronged, would you really go to the US Supreme Court seeking justice? Because you'd lose, every time.

Hope I never get tried as a Warlock there. 5-4, and it's throw another Dem on the barbie.

Newest Terrorist Rankings Out

Zarqawi out and Masri on top in latest Terror Polls.

It seems the US military, following the termination of the beheading terrorist Abu al-Zarqawi, has identified the new number one terrorist in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri.

Kinda like the NCAA college polls, as soon as No.1 gets knocked off, somebody takes their place.

It's been less than a week since Zarqawi bit the bullet and his body is barely cold and the stories filed, but already we need somebody new. "Call Central Casting", say the Powerful People, "we're in need of a new villain!"

But why? Why tell us, the public? If Abu Ayyub al-Masri really is number one---- and I'm not disputing he may indeed be deserving of his ranking---- shouldn't we hide the fact he's been identified as such so he's not so paranoid and hence protecting himself quite so zealously? That way we can take him out and defeat the insurgency (like this million-headed hydra can ever trully be defeated by the simple method of killing).

Why do we do it, proclaim the new #1? Why does the public need to know? Simple: it gives the military-political complex something to talk about, something to feed the propaganda machine. Because it feeds fear and gives us a face to hang our hate upon, like the made-up revolutionary, Emmanuel Goldstein, in the novel 1984, the subject of the daily 'Two Minutes Hate'. And we are told of Abu Ayyub al-Masri because, when we kill him, we can say, See? See, we're killing their leaders and winning the global war on terror.

It all seems so pointlessly cynical, this propaganda.

Now the Story:

U.S. identifies al-Zarqawi's successor
Associated Press

The U.S. military said Thursday the man claiming to be the new al-Qaida in Iraq leader is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian with ties to Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said al-Masri apparently is the same person that al-Qaida in Iraq identified in a Web posting last week as its new leader — Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, a nom de guerre. Al-Muhajer claimed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a June 7 U.S. airstrike, and vowed to avenge him in threatening Web statements in recent days.
The military showed a picture of al-Masri wearing a traditional white Arab headdress at a Baghdad news conference.
The Afghanistan-trained explosives expert is a key figure in the al-Qaida in Iraq network with responsibility for facilitating the movement of foreign fighters from Syria into Baghdad, Caldwell said.
He has been a terrorist since 1982, "beginning with his involvement in the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was led by al-Zawahri," Caldwell said.
The spokesman added that raids in April and May in southern Baghdad recovered material confirming his high-level involvement in the facilitation of foreign fighters.
"Al-Masri's intimate knowledge of al-Qaida in Iraq and his close relationship with (al-Zarqawi's) operations will undoubtedly help facilitate and enable them to regain some momentum if, in fact, he is the one that assumes the leadership role," Caldwell said.
He said, however, that al-Masri's ability to exert leadership over al-Qaida cells remained unclear and there were other "al-Qaida senior leadership members and Sunni terrorists" who might try to take over the operations.
Caldwell singled out Abu Abdul-Rahman al-Iraqi, who in the past had been identified as al-Qaida in Iraq's deputy leader in statements by the group, and Abdullah bin Rashid al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Mujahedeen Shura Council — five allied groups in the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency

HAS AMERICA JUMPED THE SHARK?

By C. William Boyer

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."

Ann Coulter's got me wondering if we as a nation and a people haven't crossed some event horizon into a new world because I've gotta say, it's getting harder to understand my fellow Americans. Why must we hate the other so much?

It seems to me that these last few years, the country has begun to divide into two tribes with two distinctly different perceptions of the world, hostile each to the other. The Ann Coulter drama has put this into perspective.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands deaths so much."

To me, that's an ill-considered, repugnant and vicious statement. Imagine yourself, just imagine, being the person on the receiving end. The shock you'd feel at the words themselves, the deep hurt, the revisiting of all the pain you felt when it happened, and the shock you'd feel that someone would have the insensitive audacity to utter such.

"How do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies?"

This sort of the thing is FAR outside the bounds of proper political discourse. It is corrosive to America itself. And yet, it's important to note that a considerable number of Republicans are defending it. (On a personal note, I talked with several Republican friends of mine about this in the last three days, and it's tracking 2 in 3 they support Coulter.)

On the June 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Sandy Rios stated that Coulter's "words are laser-focused on the truth," comparing them to "Holocaust pictures" that "we have to see ... to understand what happened." Rios also compared Coulter's words to a "clarion wake-up call," and "cold water" that -- in O'Reilly's words -- "wakes you up." Rios further praised Coulter's "gift of words and imagery," calling her "unique" and "frank" and adding that "she plays an important role."

Coulter's words are laser focused on the truth? That's a problem I have with so much of the Right, the fact that they're FACTUALLY wrong. First of all, in Truth-Busting, these women weren't happy they're husbands died. The "harpies and witches" weren't about to be divorced. Liberals aren't Godless--- blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and blacks are overwhelmingly the most religious ethnic group in America--- followed by Hispanics, the second most religious and who also vote significantly more often for Dems than Republicans.

Factually incorrect and outright lies creating Hate-Myth.

Rios echoed Coulter's attacks on 9-11 widows, claiming incomprehensibly that just because they "lost their husbands in an accidental bombing [emphasis added]" that "does not give them license to then criticize the commander in chief." Rios also stated that "we're living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones" and that "people are making a lot of money off the death of their loved ones," calling this "a culture that probably needs to be exposed."

If people who have genuinely suffered a loss like the 9-11 widows cannot criticize the "commander in chief", then who can? I think, for people like Coulter and Rios, the answer is that No One can criticize. I really don't think I'm inaccurate saying people like these two endorse the notion of a Republican dictatorship or shackled press, feeble Congress and co-opted Supreme Court and where subversive groups like the New England Quakers for Peace are surveilled (true story).

On the June 7 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Republican strategist Jack Burkman defended Coulter's statements "[a]ll the way," asserting that Coulter "understates the point" and is "telling the truth." Burkman added that the 9-11 widows -- whom he compared to anti-war protestor Cindy Sheehan -- "exploited commercially" the deaths of their loved ones, that they had "breathlessly ... stepped just into the fame thing," and that "before the bodies are cold, they're out selling and trying to make money."

People, if one side really thinks another likes their loved ones dying, if one side really DID like it's loved ones dying, if one side believes the other gleefully made money off their loved ones burning alive, then we have got a major problem as a country. If things keep up like this, if we can't even establish a common bond of common decency by saying SOME THINGS are beyond the pale of politics, then it's time to divide the country along Red and Blue lines. Because, quite frankly, I don't want to live in a land of people like Ann Coulter. Her people may feel quite comfy living in HateLand, but I do not. And I WILL do what it takes to avoid that, be it Civil War or the Highway. And it we don't watch it, things might just evolve along the lines of the former.

I leave you with a question of mine and with one last quote by departing Republican House Majority Leader Tom Delay.

How long can this country survive when one half hates other half so much?

And the quote:
"Departing Congressmen like to reminisce about the 'good old days' of political harmony and across-the-aisle camaraderie. I can't do that. For all its faults, it is partisanship - based on core principles - that clarifies our debates, that prevents one party from straying too far from the mainstream and that constantly refreshes our politics with new ideas and new leaders . . . . It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle."