[Ninong]

Going Down?

American Research Group's new poll conducted Aug. 18-21, shows the downward trend in Bush's approval continues unabated:

36% of Americans approve of the way he is doing his job overall compared to 42% who approved last month.

33% of Americans approve of the way he is handling the economy compared to 38% who approved last month.

[schrocat]

Oh isn't this just peachy.

"TONY Blair is expected to join one of the most exclusive groups of businessmen in the world after he leaves Downing Street.

The PM is being lined up for a highly lucrative position with the Carlyle Group - an American-based investment giant with strong links to the White House and the defence industry."






It's a small world after all.
It's a small world after all. (cmon! I can't hear you!)
It's a small world after all...it's a small, small world!

[Ninong]

The job could net Mr Blair up to £500,000 a year for only a few days work a month giving speeches and making "networking" trips on behalf of the company.

It's beginning to look...

[Ninong]

It is "unfortunate" that we have these 15 detainees. That's the official explanation. Five of them were "in the wrong place at the wrong time," some of them were sold to us by Pakistani bounty hunters and the rest were engaged in activities against the communist government of China. Two years ago we determined that all were innocent of any activity against the United States or its coalition partners in Afghanistan. They were ordered released.

The U.S. says they can't be released back to their homeland, China, because they might be imprisoned and mistreated there. We can't find any other country to take them either. So they're still at Guantanamo. Where they are shackled to the floor and denied legal representation but this is better than releasing them to a country where they might be imprisoned and mistreated.

The administration says their situation is "unfortunate."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9056630/

[Ninong]

The Pentagon claims that they conducted a broad and deep investigation into this entire matter and that there is nothing to it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...201299_pf.html

Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott is not really a new source, he was one of Tony Shaffer's two original sources. The other, according to Shaffer, was a female civilian employee. Shaffer was reporting what they told him.

One of the things they supposedly told him is that Mohammed Atta was the head of an al-Qaida cell located in Brooklyn. They claim that they made that determination in January-February 2000. One problem with that assertion is that Mohammed Atta first came to the United States in June 2000, several months after Phillpott claims that Able Danger identified him as being in Brooklyn running an al-Qaida cell there.

One of the Republican members of the 9/11 Commission, former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), told Bill O'Reilly on-air yesterday that the civilian employee in question does not corroborate what Shaffer and Phillpott are saying. http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230009

P.S. -- Senator Gorton also told O'Reilly: "Nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence." http://mediamatters.org/items/200508230008

[Ninong]

President Bush on March 12, 2004, celebrating "Global Women's Human Rights."

PRESIDENT BUSH: I want to thank my friend, Dr. Raja Khuzai, who's with us today. This is the third time we have met. The first time we met, she walked into the Oval Office -- let's see, was it the first time? It was the first time. The door opened up. She said, "My liberator," and burst out in tears -- (laughter) -- and so did I. (Applause.)

Dr. Khuzai also was there to have Thanksgiving dinner with our troops. And it turned out to be me, as well. Of course, I didn't tell her I was coming. (Laughter.) But I appreciate that, and now she's here again. I want to thank you, Doctor, for your hard work on the writing of the basic law for your people. You have stood fast, you have stood strong. Like me, you've got liberty etched in your heart, and you're not going to yield. And you are doing a great job and we're proud to have you back. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)


Dr. Raja Kuzai yesterday:

"This is the future of the new Iraqi government - it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."

"I am not going to stay here," said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women's leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.

P.S. -- We seem to be running out of rationales for the war: No WMD, no link to 9/11 and now no democracy.

[Ninong]

... and writing a book that is due out in November: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/082405Z.shtml

That's a rather long interview but it contains some extremely interesting accusations concerning exactly what she was told by Gen. Sanchez before, during and after Abu Ghraib became public knowledge. Don't miss Rumsfeld's handwritten comments in the margin of the memo he sent telling them exactly what interrogation techniques he expected them to use on the detainees.

[schrocat]

Fun with math!

[Ninong]

...amend their interim constitution to extend the deadline for submitting a new constitution? Nobody knows. They've extended it twice already. They didn't even bother to extend it this last time, meaning yesterday after the second extension expired.

The White House says they are making "real and meaningful progress," whatever that means. President Bush called the top Shiite honcho personally last night to offer "suggestions." Somehow I think this is like Ted Kennedy calling Donald Rumsfeld to offer "suggestions" on how to conduct our military operations in Iraq.

The Shiite leadership is in the same position in Iraq that the Republicans are in over here. In fact, they're in an even stronger position because they not only control the current government, they represent a strong majority in a very sectarian society.

So anyway, Bush called Abdul Aziz Hakim, a cleric who is the leader of The Supreme Council for The Islamic Revolution in Iraq (gotta love that name, so Iranian). Mr. Hakim is insisting on a Shiite-controlled autonomous region that would comprise nine of Iraq's 18 provinces, nearly half the nation's population and its richest oil fields. And, of course, the Kurds already have an autonomous region in the north and they will certainly retain that in the new constitution. Their only beef is that they are insisting on the return of oil-rich Kirkuk.

The Sunnis don't seem to like this idea. Gosh, I wonder why. Maybe they're afraid that the Kurds will leave the new federation and form Kurdistan and the oil-rich central and southern provinces will leave and form a confederation with Iran? But why would Mr. Hakim do something like that? Maybe it's because he and many of the senior members of the Supreme Council lived for many years in Iran and even fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's. Maybe it's because the Supreme Council is receiving large amounts of aid from the Iranian government. Maybe it's because they have already signed secret pacts with the Iranians for military training and support.

I'm relieved to know that the White House is convinced that they are making "real and meaningful progress." That statement was issued after Bush's personal call to Hakim. That's a relief. I was beginning to think that maybe their new constitution wouldn't guarantee equal rights for women or that it may even set up a Shiite clerical review committee with veto power over new legislation to ensure that the laws were in conformity with Sharia law, which calls for the execution of gay people and denies women the right to divorce. Little things like that. Maybe Bush just called to make sure they weren't going to approve same-sex marriage?

[Ninong]

...the Iraqis will agree on their new constitution. Any day except today, that is. Maybe tomorrow. Tomorrow is another day. At least they're making "real and meaningful progress."

I don't understand why they're having so much trouble agreeing on this thing. After all, there is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, which is why a much smaller coalition and peacekeeping force than Gen. Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq.

Those reassuring words were spoken by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Dr. Paul D. Wolfowitz, in a congressional hearing on Feb. 28, 2003. Dr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the cost of the war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high.

That whacky Gen. Shinseki, the highest ranking officer in the Army, had estimated that it would require "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" to accomplish the mission. Gen. Shinseki retired soon after his "wildly off the mark" (Wolfowitz's words) estimate in that congressional hearing. It was absolutely stunning that he would give his honest estimate after all the discussions he and Rummy and Wolfie had already had on this topic. In fact, it was totally unacceptable that someone with his background should not see the wisdom of deferring to someone like Dr. Wolfowitz, who, although he avoided military service himself, was a recognized expert in political science and international affairs. Which is why he was put in charge of planning the war in Iraq and the post-war reconstruction. Something as important as that should not be entrusted to the military.

So please explain again why the Iraqis, who have no history of ethnic strife, are having such a difficult time agreeing on a new constitution? Could Dr. Wolfowitz have been wrong? Don't they require you to take a certain number of history courses in order to get a doctorate in political science? Maybe not.

[Ninong]

Not exactly, but some people seem to think they do: http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/new...p?storyid=3493

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

The job could net Mr Blair up to £500,000 a year for only a few days work a month giving speeches and making "networking" trips on behalf of the company.

It's beginning to look...

Looks like Tony Blair may be putting his Carlyle Group job prospects at risk: http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...html?gusrc=rss