Yesterday I linked an article by Tom Engelhardt, Welcome to Bushworld. He goes through a series of issues with links to the interesting parts. I will not go through the whole article here, just a few areas. I highly recommend reading the article.

Were you aware of this? Iran in bombsights? I wasn't!

A U.S. House of Representatives resolution last May 6 authorized "all appropriate means" to end Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Senate is yet to vote on the resolution. But it leaves no doubt it is a green light for offensive military strikes against Iran's three nuclear facilities.

Makes you wonder what "all appropriate means" means, doesn't it. I had thought early in the Iraq debate, before I realized that there were no Nukes there, that the reason Saddam would want Nuclear weapons was to keep the US from attacking him. Like North Korea. I would assume that is why Iran is trying to get them and why the US and it's partner Isreal want to make sure this doesn't happen. Therefore the need for speed on both sides. Iran to get them and the US and Israel to bomb them before they do. But back to the main part here. Did you know that your Congress and Congressperson - unless it is Kucinich, Paul or Conyers, - didn't vote against it. Congress gave your President permission to bomb Iran and the press didn't say a word!

Folks we've been through this before. Why does Iran want Nukes? To keep the US and Israel from attacking them. Not to bomb the US! Did anyone ever stop to think that these people just want us to leave them alone? Which takes us to the next point. If we went into Iraq to bring them freedom why are we still there? Why are we building military bases and intend on being there for a decade or so. There is one thing to keep in mind. They, meaning the Neo-cons and the like, don't want a government of by and for the people of Iraq. They want a pro-Western democracy friendly to the United States. See the difference? The only way to insure that is to keep our military there for a long time to make sure they have the kind of democracy we want them to have and not the kind that they want.

And the last point in his article is the fact that as far as the press is concerned the war in Iraq is over. Papers, NPR, the national news are no longer reporting US casualties like they did before the "handover".

Casualties off the front pages: Remember when American deaths in Iraq were front-page news? Well, has anyone noticed that, during and after the "transition to Iraqi rule" period, American casualties have largely dropped off the front pages of our papers? Picking up your morning rag, you may well have a sense that things have quieted down since an "Iraqi government" took control. Actually, based on the figures kept daily by the Antiwar.com website, quite the opposite has been the case -- at least for American troops. Fewer car bombs may have gone off (at least until yesterday - LH), but more Americans are dying. In the thirteen days before the surprise early "transition" non-ceremonies, there were 19 American military deaths in Iraq. In the thirteen days since, there have been 31.

The thing to understand about this is that an impression is trying to be made that all is well in Iraq now that they have their country back. Once again your media is just too eager to go along. We are rapidly approaching 900 dead in Iraq and I'm sure it will go higher before we leave in 2019, at the earliest.

- posted by Mom/Dad @ 8:09 AM