The CIA has a terrible history in some parts of the world, the Middle East included. But whatever their sins of the past, they know their stuff when it comes to the complexities of the politics, intrigues, and relationships of Iraq and its neighbors.

CIA folk have said all along that attacking Iraq was unjustifiable - that they had no evidence of an active WMD program, no evidence of Al Queda ties to Saddam. Yet they were ignored. They told Bush that the head of the Iraqi national congress Dr. Ahmed Chalabi's info. on how easy it would be to invade Iraq should not be trusted. Yet they were ignored.

Anyone with a third-grade level of insight (or possibly even a bright kindergartener) would be able to see that Chalabi is going to be strongly motivated by the clear possibility of returning to Iraq a Washington-backed bigshot with all sorts of power and money at his disposal. If he thus thought Bush would only invade and remove Saddam if he thought the invasion would be a "cakewalk", then you can bet that this is just what he'd tell the not-so-bright Dubya, who only seems to hear what he wants to hear, anyway. But, after being duped, what does Bush do? He REWARDS Chalabi with a reassurance of his post-war prominentce in Iraq's government. He also apparently managed to get a "60-Minutes " segment pulled together with Leslie Stahl that allowed Chalabi to give his side of the story, slamming the CIA and blaming them - while NOT giving the CIA a chance to respond and defend themselves.

However, Chalabi had better watch his back: Remember how Karzai, shortly after being put back into play in Afghanistan, ostensibly to become an interim leader, was nearly killed in an "unfortunate" friendly fire accident? Many observers doubted that this was an accident - it was probably an attempted assassination by US operatives. So, Chalabi had best watch out for "friendly fire" and other "accidents" now that he's back in Iraq...there aren't many who will be happy to see him coming.

J.A.G. Decides Status of Irregular Iraqi Combatants

The army J.A.G. office this AM announced its ruling re: Iraqi combatants this AM - they are all to be considered POWs - regardless of the irregularity of their combat activities. This is totally fair. However, JAG also indicated that those irregulars who engaged in activities that violated the Geneva Code article 5 could then be tried later for war crimes. This is not necessarily fair. Some of these "irregular combatants" are desperately poor men defending their homes in any way they can - even if that means using deception or suicide missions. A high percentage are illiterate and have never even heard of the Geneva Convention, let alone article 5. All they are doing is reacting from the primal instinct to defense home and community from invaders.

Here in the US, the law bends dramatically for people who are defending their homes from invaders. If you shoot an unarmed guy who just broke into your home dead, in most states this is considered justifiable because by the very act of invading your home he posed a real and present danger. Women at anti-rape workshops are taught to "fight with everything you've got" - gouge the attackers eyeballs out with your fingernail file if you have to, etc. Yet when a desperate Iraqi man uses unconventional desperate means to combat what he sees as a real and imminent threat to himself, family, and community, he will be tried as a "war criminal"? This would be slightly more understandable if the American soldiers, all schooled in article 5, were likely to be held to the same standard. But by Bush's refusal to accept the International Criminal Court or the Geneva Protocols, it is clear that this is not likely to happen

Idiot Mainstream Media Quote of the Week

Los Angeles Times columnist Johanna Neuman, a corporate rrightwinger who poses as an "unbiased" newswoman, is making the rounds of radio talk shows to plug the Bush W-ar while appearing to discuss "media issues." On C-SPAN's Washington Journal, Neuman offered this prescription to Americans wishing to get a "balance" war news diet: "It is important to get you news not just from Rush Limbaugh but from CNN." What a hoot!! That's like saying, "It is important to get your nutrition not just from french fries, but also from tater tots."

Challenged Gene Pool: Pro-war Stable Stretched Thin

C-SPAN call ins demonstrate clearly that the pro-war and anti-war folks contain distinct groups:: PRO-WAR - Aging drunks -- young drunks - people who cannot put a grammatically correct sentence together - nasty name callers --fundamentalist Christians -- "Vietnam era" veterans -- corporate people who sound like drones -- people who should be on some sort of anti-psychotic medication --Pseudointellectuals who throw in three-syllabylk words whether they are appropriate or not --Freepers reading from scripts --White People ANTI-WAR --people with IQs above 100 --well-read people with appropriately used three-syllabyl words and historical references --Real Vietnam Veterans --People of various racial backgrounds --People of many different religious persuasions - though it's hard to tell, as they do not drag religion into the issue the way the PRO folks do - People who do not need scripts

Of course, to be fair, the poor quality of the PRO War stable at C-SPAN is probably due to the fact that the radio screeners have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to keep up the 50-50 phony breakdown When the real pro-anti breakdown is about 1 pro to 5 antis, and you insist on the 50-50 (one anti call for every pro call) then you are going to really have to stretch the altready challenged Pro-war gene pool pretty far!

Jenin II? Over 2,000 Iraqis Dead after US Tank Raid - How Many were Crushed to Death like Rachel Corrie?

The Bush push is beginning to seem more and more like the opening scenes of "The Empire Strikes Back," with Darth Vader's massive armored assault on the rebels. Now Centcom Studios proudly reports that as many as 3,000 Iraqis have been slaughtered in a "brief" raid into Baghdad with "armored vehiciles" - i.e., tanks. Notice how the media is avoiding using the term, so as to separate the US's use of brutal force from the horrific images of Jenin and Rachel Corrie. But the reality is, back in Gulf WarI, vets say that as many as 6,000 Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by US "armored vehicles." The Pentagon justifies this thru a dehumanization campaign. Here is a quote from Gen. Peter Pace: "If IT moves on the ground and IT takes aggressive action, IT'S going to get killed." So Iraqis have become objects, not human beings. Pace, by the way, was making the rounds of TV talk shows this weekend as Paul Wolfowitz's side kick. Frankenstein and Igor.

http://start.earthlink.net/newsarticle?cat=0&aid=406075036_breakingnews_story

ISRAELI-STYLE Urban Warfare Is Neither Urban Nor Warfare

LIE: The US troops are prepared for urban warfare in Baghdad because they were trained by Israeli "experts in urban warfare."

TRUTH: What the Israelis taught the US troops is neither "urban" nor "warfare." What they are teaching is small-town terrorism. Look at REALITY. The "urban" warfare of the Israelis has been conducted in small towns - Jenin has a population of well under 20,000 - about the same size as Umm Qusar - the only town the US has successfully managed to subdue so far in Iraq. Baghdad, by contrast, has a population of FIVE MILLION. The population of the ENTIRE country of Israel is not much more than that! So how on God's Green Earth can rolling tanks through small towns be considered "adequate preparation" for real fighting in a city?

What Sharon uses is not "fighting" - fighting implies some kind of resistance. Rolling your tanks over civilians or soldiers armed with rifles is not fighting anymore than slaughtering a cow in a pen the same thing as "hunting." The world watched in total horror as Jenin's homes, many containing civilian families, were bulldozed to the ground - no chance of resistance possible. "So what does Bush plan to do? Bulldoze down a city that covers over 30 square miles, building by building, crushing "everything that moves" (to use Gen. Pace's own image) beneath tank treads? Have Americans - especially its media puppets - become so totally numbed to all suffering but their own that they can sit back and witness this and still call it anything but a butchery, let along "liberation"? Pace brags that every conflict so far "has been totally onesided," meaning we are simply advancing and killing, advancing and killing, taking few casualties ourselves. Is this something to be PROUD OF?

IRISH FURIOUS AT BUSH/BLAIR VISIT

The Irish are so angered by having Bush and Blair hold their "war council" in Belfast that they started protesting Friday, with bigger demonstrations planned for Monday. The two are being called "The Butchers." Yet Tony Blair imagined that the visit could double as a "good will" mission to embattled northern Ireland! Incredible! If you want to see just how popular Bush and Blair are in the Emerald Ise, go to http://www.ireland.indymedia.org

Aznar's Support of Bush Has Proven a National Disaster for Spain

"Aznar sought to use the Iraq crisis to turn Spain into a global player, but he has failed to gain any tangible benefits from his hawkish stance.," reports the UK Observer. Now anger at Aznar has erupted into violence, with fire bombs being hurled into a government building in recent days. "There are no more Bush-Blair photo-opportunities for Aznar. And Aznar's Popular Party is losing young voters. Students and schoolchildren are holding anti-war protests almost daily, while the PP's youth wing has virtually disappeared. 'Aznar does not understand the young generation of Spaniards - they really mistrust politicians,' said Mariano Aguirre, of the Peace Research Centre in Madrid. 'These people are not impressed by Aznar going to the Azores with Blair and Bush. They are emotionally opposed to the war.' " Bush's supporters - here and abroad - will likely long regret climbing on board the G.W. Titantic.

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,930571,00.html