Political Junkie

by Ken Rudin

Q: Why won’t you say anything about Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s (D-OH) effort to impeach President Bush? - Susan Lawrence, St. Paul, Minn.

A: There’s not much to say, at least not at the moment, other than the fact that Kucinich has introduced the bill and spent five hours on the House floor the other day spelling out his 35 articles of impeachment, charging President Bush with war crimes, endangering civil liberties and lying to the public. An earlier effort by Kucinich to impeach Vice President Cheney went nowhere, as Democrats for the most part hid from the attempt. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeated her position that impeachment was “off the table.” If the Judiciary Committee, under chairman John Conyers (D-MI), plans to hold hearings on the bill, you will certainly hear more of Kucinich’s effort.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91383280

Technorati : dennis kucinich, impeach bush, john conyers, nancy pelosi

BBC uncovers lost Iraq billions

By Jane Corbin
BBC News

A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.

For the first time, the extent to which some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding has been researched by the BBC’s Panorama using US and Iraqi government sources.

A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.

The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.

War profiteering

While George Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.

To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.

The president’s Democrat opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.

Henry Waxman who chairs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said: “The money that’s gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, its egregious.

“It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history.”

In the run-up to the invasion one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth seven billion that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company, which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.

Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.

Missing billions

The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in West London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.

He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2 billion out of the ministry.

They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top class weapons.

Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.

Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq’s Commission for Public Integrity investigated.

He said: “I believe these people are criminals.

“They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence , and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility.”

Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.

He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.

There is an Interpol arrest out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.

He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.

Published: 2008/06/10 17:25:48 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

What is the Iraqi war?

The Iraqi war is likely the DUMBEST WAR America has ever fought.

When will the Iraqi war end?

The Iraqi war will end when the last barrel of Iraqi oil is sold OR when the last American soldier standing in Iraq - falls

How did the Bush team Reward the Auditors Who Discovered the 190,000 Missing Iraqi Weapons?

The funds to continue their auditing operations were cut by the old Congress and signed off by Mr. Bush

However, the incoming Democratic Congress restored funds to the auditors.

While the Bush team was up to its neck in Iraq Chaos, it still refused any help from “outsiders” - Why?

Good question!

Mr. Bush is currently badgering Congress for “MO” money for the Iraqi war. He wants ALL THE MONEY to go into the Iraqi war account and nothing for anything else. Why?

Good question!

Technorati : bbc, bush, lost iraq billions, private contractors

Paul Reynolds Said:

Bush bids farewell but issues remain

By Paul Reynolds

World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

With the US presidential election now moving into high gear, the visit by President George W Bush to the major capitals of western Europe this week, expected to be his valedictory trip, has become something of a sideshow.

The eyes of many peoples and governments in Europe will be on Senators Obama and McCain, as Europe hopes for better things from the next US president.

A poll by the UK’s Daily Telegraph website in late May showed that in Britain, France, Germany and Russia, more people regarded the United States as a force for evil than for good. Only in Italy did the US fare better.

And Senator Barack Obama was the clear preference (52%) across the five countries to be the next US president.

This indicates that the mood in Europe is one for change, though it remains true that countries of the former Soviet bloc have much more positive views of the Bush administration than those in Western Europe.

Lame-duck phase

This trip is largely about the Western capitals, though Mr Bush will start off at the annual EU/US summit, being held this year in Slovenia.

He will then visit Berlin, Rome (including the Holy See to meet the Pope again), Paris and London, with a stop in Belfast on his way home.

Presidents in their lame-duck phase tend to travel around to say goodbye and polite hosts tend not to dwell on differences but on historic ties.

There will much of that in this visit, with a look-back at the warm feelings engendered by the Berlin airlift in 1948 and the Marshall Plan that put Western Europe back on its feet after the war.

Looking back is easy. The problems come with looking forward.

Iraq was a stake driven into the heart of both transatlantic ties and relations between European governments. It remains, if no longer a stake, then a thorn.

President Bush’s own standing has been further damaged by the memoirs of his former press secretary Scott McClellan, who said that the Bush administration had misled the world over Iraq with a “political propaganda campaign”.

Iraq is regarded in many, but not all, European capitals as a historic mistake, though there is a willingness now to accept that something might be salvaged from it. As Iraq has improved, so has the transatlantic mood.

European leaders would like to hear that the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is to be closed and that the US will not engage in anything that could be called torture, but this will have to wait for the next president.

There will be some important issues to be discussed, though, as always on a presidential visit. These include a US push for more sanctions against Iran over the nuclear issue and a call by Mr Bush for Europe to match US spending on world health problems.

Old certainties gone

Another disappointment is that a state of Palestine, which Mr Bush became the first American president to support, has not yet come about.

Mr Bush said in January: “I am confident that with proper help, the state of Palestine will emerge”, and further: “I believe it’s possible - not only possible, I believe it’s going to happen, that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office.” He leaves office on 20 January 2009.

But beyond Iraq and the Middle East, where Mr Bush’s central policy hope of greater democracy seems to have stalled, there remains the wider issue of where the US and Europe are heading.

The answer seems to be into still deep, if rather calmer, waters.

The old certainties of the Cold War have gone. And new ones have arisen, especially the antagonism of Russia, a subject Mr Bush will raise.

Dimitri K Simes, president of the Nixon Center in Washington, wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine last December: “Misguided and arrogant US policies since the end of the Cold War have fuelled resentment in Russia, and Vladimir Putin’s increasing defiance is inflaming the West… Both sides must act soon to avert renewed confrontation.”

This will be a major task for the new US president and for Europe.

The deterioration of relations with Russia must go down as a blot on the pages of both US and European policy makers, though of course Russia has played its own full part.

Future of EU and Nato

The European Union itself, like a lumbering behemoth, does not seem to know where it is going.

The fact is that EU governments retain the right to formulate their own foreign policies. The corollary of that is that, diplomatically, Europe as a whole punches below its economic weight. This gives the US a much freer hand as Europe is often divided.

At the end of the day, the US and Europe are still tied together by global interests, among them economics and international terrorism. Nato seems to be enduring, perhaps under the new uncertainties about Russia, though in an ideal Europe, there would be no need for it.

In the long run, a greater emphasis on a European defence policy is likely to emerge (the French will push this process during their EU presidency from July).

All this, too, will be on the new president’s agenda.

Paul.Reynolds-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7427439.stm

Published: 2008/06/08 17:30:00 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

JoeJolly Said:

The Post Bush Team Years Approach - It will be a Time of Great Relief!

Great relief shall be the reward for some who have been under the Bush team’s management.

Relief for themselves, relief for the country, relief for the world. Saying goodbye to the Bush team is going to cause a bigger celebration than the neo-cons celebration for the impeachment of Ex-President Bill Clinton for failing to tell the truth about improper touching.

The celebration will be widespread but not necessarily loud. Some will be thankful that America got another chance. Some will be thankful that WWIII did not get triggered…

http://joejolly.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/the-post-bush-team-years-approach-it-will-be-a-time-of-great-relief/

Technorati : , bush, force for evil, iraq, lamd-duck, mccain, obama, polls, us presidential election

By JoAnne AllenMon Jun 9, 10:13 PM ET

Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich defied his party leadership on Monday by calling for the impeachment of U.S. President George W. Bush for launching the Iraq war — but his move was not expected to go anywhere.

The Ohio representative outlined his intention to propose more than two dozen charges against Bush on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Kucinich, a former presidential candidate, accused Bush executing a “calculated and wide-ranging strategy” to deceive citizens and Congress into believing that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she opposes trying to remove the Republican president who leaves office next January because such an attempt would be divisive and most likely unsuccessful.

Kucinich, an outspoken Iraq war critic who has consistently voted against funding the war and led anti-war efforts in Congress, offered a resolution to impeach Vice president Dick Cheney in April 2007. That also failed to move forward.

Many Democrats and civil liberties groups have accused the Bush administration of providing misleading information before the 2003 Iraq invasion as well as violating the rights of U.S. citizens with its warrantless surveillance program. The White House denies the charges.

(Editing by Alan Elsner)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080610/pl_nm/usa_politics_impeachment_dc;_ylt=AjPkjAEQYZbd83PZNEHV7His0NUE

Impeachment Concerns of the Leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives:

(1) Will The Impeachment Be Divisive?

(2) Will The Impeachment Be Successful?

Impeachment Concerns of the Electorate and ImpeachBush.Org:

We did it!
We reached a million!
1005612
the number of people
who have already voted
in the referendum
to Impeach Bush!
(figure updated daily)

Top of Form 1

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

Impeachment Concerns of GOOD GOVERNMENT:

Good government demands that no “DOUBLE STANDARDS” be applied to the law. Double standards should have died with “JIM CROW”. Democrats must “toe the mark” while Republicans are free to wander? America needs an ombudsman. High Ranking Politician’s behavior can be unpredictable in areas where prediction should prevail.

If “failing to tell the truth about improper touching” is impeachable, how can “failing to COME CLEAN about the Iraq war” not be? Maybe “plantation politics” IS a good description of the impeachment function in the House of Representatives.

Technorati : bush, dennis kucinich, dick cheney, impeachment, iraq war, nancy pelosi

In 1973 there was, apparently, an imbalance between the price of gasoline in America and the price of gasoline in Europe.

Europe was paying $1.00 a gallon and downsizing their automobiles. America was paying $0.35 a gallon and buying “gas guzzlers”.

Somebody must have thought that the Europe/America gasoline price differential was too much. No, they did not intend to bring Europe’s price down - but to take America’s price up. News sources reminded America that gasoline sold for $1.00 a gallon in Europe.

Since “supply and demand” controls the oil market - it must have kicked in BIG TIME. All of a sudden the SUPPLY of $.35 a gallon gasoline became inadequate. Motorist filled long lines at the gas pumps for the $.35 a gallon gasoline.

So the solution to the long lines at America’s gas pumps was to raise the price of the $.35 a gallon gasoline. And that fixed the problem! A higher price for gasoline fixed the problem! THERE WAS NO LONGER A GASOLINE SHORTAGE!

As the price of gasoline approached $1.00 a gallon, Americans could buy all the gasoline they could afford. There were no more long lines at the gas pumps. And there haven’t been long lines since then. Even today, no more long lines at the gas pumps. Even if you have a gas guzzler - no problem. You may need $100.00 to fill your gas guzzler’s tank but if you’ve got the $100.00 pump away! The gasoline is there - no problem

Is oil now supplying two different kinds of markets? Are speculators now a big part of the price of oil? Is oil better for speculators than anything else. Oil is critical to America. Get the “corner” on oil - and you got ‘em. Oil is not something America can “take or leave”. And “we are addicted to oil” does not help the situation at all. As priorities go, many Americans might opt for managing oil resources before trying to “manage” world wide terrorism.

Technorati : 1.00 a gallon, 1973 price of gasoline, 35 cents a gallon, europe, speculators, we are addicted to oil

Obliteration, Assassination and WWIII are all “tools” that World Leaders seem ready to use. And using these tools, It may be possible to better the record of Attila the Hun.

Who can bring sanity back to the negotiating table?

Neocons called Ex-President Jimmy Carter - IRRELEVANT. They may have a point. Trying to NEGOTIATE differences in today’s world is “HARD”. And with all those nice nuclear weapons at hand, there may be a temptation to use them.

Why try to PLACATE when you can ELIMINATE.

After you obliterate, assassinate or use the WWIII tool, you should be able to live happily ever-after. The only problem you might experience is “LONG LINES AT THE GAS PUMP”.

Modern weapons, of the nuclear class, have built in “INCINERATION” power. You would not likely have to be concerned about diseased dead bodies strewn about. Nuclear weapons might make a perfect disinfectant.

Ex-President, Jimmy Carter, would not be “chomping at the bit” to obliterate, assassinate or WWIII them. In that sense, he might just be irrelevant.

Actually World Leaders may have to deal with another “foe”. Mother Nature seems to be restless now. SHE is causing world leaders some pain and grief. And SHE can’t be obliterated, assassinated or WWIII’d even though the damage she can do far exceeds what World Leaders can do by obliterating, assassinating and WWIII-ing. Maybe SHE, better than any human brain, can stop the man - made squabbling. If SHE could “take down” dinosaurs, maybe SHE can take down man. If man can’t use HER earth as SHE intended, maybe SHE will intervene.

Technorati : assassination, attila the Hun, jimmy carter, mother nature, negotiating, obliteration, wwiii

While searching for information on a possible “Statue of Limitations” on WAR CRIMES, I found a related post. The related post entitled: “Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act” would be an “end around” punishment for WAR CRIMES. But, there is no “Statue of Limitations” on WAR CRIMES.

Published on Saturday, September 23, 2006 by the Chicago

Sun-Times

Bush Seeks Immunity for Violating War Crimes Act

by Elizabeth Holtzman

Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate — and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.

The ”pardon” is buried in Bush’s proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ”pardon” provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.

Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.

Avoiding prosecution under the War Crimes Act has been an obsession of this administration since shortly after 9/11. In a January 2002 memorandum to the president, then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales pointed out the problem of prosecution for detainee mistreatment under the War Crimes Act. He notes that given the vague language of the statute, no one could predict what future ”prosecutors and independent counsels” might do if they decided to bring charges under the act. As an author of the 1978 special prosecutor statute, I know that independent counsels (who used to be called ‘’special prosecutors” prior to the statute’s reauthorization in 1994) aren’t for low-level government officials such as CIA interrogators, but for the president and his Cabinet. It is clear that Gonzales was concerned about top administration officials.

Gonzales also understood that the specter of prosecution could hang over top administration officials involved in detainee mistreatment throughout their lives. Because there is no statute of limitations in cases where death resulted from the mistreatment, prosecutors far into the future, not appointed by Bush or beholden to him, would be making the decisions whether to prosecute.

To ”reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act,” Gonzales recommended that Bush not apply the Geneva Conventions to al-Qaida and the Taliban. Since the War Crimes Act carried out the Geneva Conventions, Gonzales reasoned that if the Conventions didn’t apply, neither did the War Crimes Act. Bush implemented the recommendation on Feb. 7, 2002.

When the Supreme Court recently decided that the Conventions did apply to al-Qaida and Taliban detainees, the possibility of criminal liability for high-level administration officials reared its ugly head again.

What to do? The administration has apparently decided to secure immunity from prosecution through legislation. Under cover of the controversy involving the military tribunals and whether they could use hearsay or coerced evidence, the administration is trying to pardon itself, hoping that no one will notice. The urgent timetable has to do more than anything with the possibility that the next Congress may be controlled by Democrats, who will not permit such a provision to be adopted.

Creating immunity retroactively for violating the law sets a terrible precedent. The president takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution; that document requires him to obey the laws, not violate them. A president who knowingly and deliberately violates U.S. criminal laws should not be able to use stealth tactics to immunize himself from liability, and Congress should not go along.

Elizabeth Holtzman, a former New York congresswoman, is co-author with Cynthia L. Cooper of The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens.

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0923-22.htm

Technorati : 9/11, al-qaida, alberto gonzales, bush, detainees, geneva convention, pardon, war crimes act, war crimes act of 1996

News: Information about recent and important events

Propaganda: Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause

Senate Panel Accuses Bush of Iraq Exaggerations

By

SCOTT SHANE

Published: June 5, 2008

WASHINGTON - In a report long delayed by partisan squabbling, the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday accused President Bush and Vice President Cheney of taking the country to war in Iraq by exaggerating evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

“The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein,” Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, the committee’s Democratic chairman, said in a statement accompanying the 171-page report.

The committee’s report cited some instances in which public statements by senior administration officials were not supported by the intelligence available at the time, such as suggestions that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda were operating in a kind of partnership, that the Baghdad regime had provided the terrorist network with weapons training, and that one of the Sept. 11 hijackers had met an Iraqi intelligence operative in Prague in 2001.

But the report found that on several key issues, including Iraq’s alleged nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other top officials before the war were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates of the intelligence agencies, though the statements did not always reflect the agencies’ uncertainty about the evidence. All the weapons claims were disproved after invading troops found no unconventional arsenal and little effort to build one…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Technorati : al qaeda, bush, cheney, iraq, news, propaganda, saddam hussein

Senator McCain Commenting on the Answers:

On Tuesday, hours before Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, McCain, signaling the start of the general election, told a crowd in New Orleans, “Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he’s ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang.”

This article was written by FRED KAPLAN. The complete article, along with a “neoconnified” picture of Senator Obama can be seen at :

http://www.slate.com/id/2192940/

How does Mr. McCain mean his word tyrant? Is it the standard Webster’s meaning or the neocon meaning? Neocons take great liberty with the meaning of English words.

Tyrants: As Possibly Seen Through the Eyes of a Neocon:

From: Frontline’s the Age of ‘neocons’

Tyrant:

For the neocon, a “tyrant” is someone who does not adopt capitalist democracy. The desire to remove Saddam Hussein - then the other “rogue states” and those that belong in the “axis of evil” - comes from this impulse as much as from the corporate elites within the Bush administration who want to secure markets and privatise the delivery of services. The ideological justification for Bush’s evangelical imperialism is driven by such neocon assumptions.

And the neocons seems to look at negotiation in a different way:

In the foreign policy field, concepts like detente, containment and negotiation make little sense to the neocons who are more interested in an outright war against all their enemies. In this sense, the neocons draw much from an unlikely source, someone who influenced many of them in their youth: Leon Trotsky. Many prominent acolytes of Trotsky within the U.S. took to the path of conservatism, most dramatically, James Burnham, who wrote the 1964 anti-liberal screed `Suicide of the West’ and then won the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Ronald Reagan. Irving Kristol began his political life at the City University of New York in the 1930s as a follower of Trotsky, whose own critique of the USSR allowed Kristol to abandon an early flirtation with Marxism.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2102/stories/20040130000506400.htm

This article can be read at the above link.

The world is slowly “cratering” and McCain is concerned about who would sit down and talk to what he calls tyrants. Neocons are noted for wars - not negotiation. If Senator Obama was as “trigger happy” as the neocons, that would be more to the liking of the neocon:

You can’t MAKE a neocon talk about the elusive yellowcake. You can’t MAKE a neocon talk about why the Iraq war was started. You can’t MAKE a neocon talk about KATRINA. You can’t MAKE a neocon talk about how they “managed” the high price of gasoline. The neocons have been working in the employ of America for eight years and now they campaign on who Obama would talk to if elected.

Why not tell America how the neocons managed to save those “wheel chair bound” American citizens from New Orlean’s floods. Obviously they could not swim.

Why not tell America why the neocons started a war of aggression against Iraq. Human beings are “funny”. If they want to know something that nobody wants to talk about, they will figure it out themselves. Why did the Bush team go to war with Iraq?

Some guessed that the Iraq war was started because Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate the senior bush. No matter how much America wanted to know why its money was being spent and why its children were being killed in Iraq - MUM was the word for the Bush team. Senator McCain would rather TELL AMERICA who Obama would talk to. It is more important to TELL AMERICA why it is fighting a war in Iraq. Only the bush team knows for sure. And apparently Senator McCain feels it is more important to tell America who Obama would talk to than to tell America why its sons and daughters are being killed in Iraq. It’s not about the OIL. the 2003 Secretary of Defense said: “It’s not about the oil”. We all know it’s not about the oil - RIGHT?

Technorati : age of neocons, gasoline, havana, iraq, kaplan, katrina, mccain, pyongyang, slate, tyrants, yellowcake

If attacked by Iran, the Bush team wants to protect Israel with the WWIII tool. Another HIGH RANKING POLITICIAN wants to OBLITERATE Iran.

And what did Iran do?

Iran failed to sign off on the theft of Palestinian land in 1948. And even worse, Iran has spoken publicly of taking that land back.

If the settlers on that land were as weak as some would have the world believe, Syria’s facility never would have been blown apart by non-Iranian F15 Jets with no counter attack from Syria. If the settlers on that land were as weak as some would have the world believe, Hamas would not now be caged. The reference here is to acts - no matter who committed them.

An act of aggression is an act of aggression. Palestinians were forcibly removed from their land. That was an “act of aggression”. The United Nations called its action in Palestine - United Nations Assembly Resolution 181.

Mr. Bush called his action in Iraq - Pre-Emptive Self-Defense. Adolph Hitler just went to Poland.

As the United Nations defines aggression, it fits the definition an American would understand. However, the Bush team’s re-definition(Pre-Emptive Self-Defense) strays from the world’s understanding of the word “aggression”.

There is a grave problem in the Middle East! But Israel does not behave like a country in fear for its existence. Israel has more control over Middle East skies than the other combatants combined.

How weak is a country that has 150 nuclear weapons?

It only took two nuclear weapons to end a war - one was dropped on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki. Two nuclear weapons - likely crude by today’s standards - stopped a war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

With 150 nuclear weapons, a nation might be able to stop as many as seventy-five wars.

Senator McCain is aware, hopefully, that something is wrong in the Middle East. Apparently he sees the problem as “Obama is naive about the Middle East”. Senator McCain may have his own case of “IN-DENIAL” which compares well with the best “IN-DENIAL” the Bush team ever exposed.

Senator McCain has already implied that “naivety” is bad for the Middle East. Since Iraq has had a long-standing description of “BAD” , there may be something other than “naivety” that caused the BAD in the Middle East.

• Poor management?
• Atrocious planning?
• IN-DENIAL?
• Stay the course?
• The timing of “THE SURGE(too little, too late)”?

The Iraq war has been a “work in progress” for over five years. If you had asked, in 2003, if the Iraqi war would still be in a state of CHAOS, five years hence, you would have been laughed at. “Shock and Awe” was going to solve the TERRORIST problem(at that time the Bush team was not vocal about World Terrorism). Perhaps, after wining the war, it would have been NAIVE to think about “winning the peace”.

Technorati : 150 nuclear weapons, 1948, adolph hitler, bush team, haas, iran, obliterate, palestinian, pre-emptive self-defense, un resolution 181, wwiii