After The War Comes The Opportunity

It is no surprise to learn that the American government is lining up potential investors in Georgia:

The US Department of Commerce is working with two private American-Georgian business associations to stage a trade summit in Tbilisi in late October. The initiative is part of a general effort to bolster investor confidence in Georgia.

The Bush administration has been a leading backer of Georgia as the Caucasus country rebuilds following Russia’s August invasion. The US Congress has already approved an administration-sponsored aid package worth as much as $1 billion. The idea for the business summit reportedly came from the "highest level" in Washington, and it is seen as a means to stimulate private-sector interest in Georgia’s economic recovery.

While the guest list for the summit has not been publicly released, organizers note that some Fortune 500 companies, as well as large private equity firms, have expressed an intention to attend. According to a partial list of confirmed companies made available to EurasiaNet, investors are considering multi-million dollar projects in several sectors including hydro-power production, power transmission, wind energy, hospitals and wine. The summit will be chaired by Deputy Commerce Secretary John Sullivan. In addition to organizing the Tbilisi summit, the US Trade Office is pushing Congress to expand Georgia’s eligibility for duty-free imports to the United States.

According to Tamara Koziridze, a deputy economic minister, the Georgian government is "hoping" that summit will bring new investment into the country. "We hope very much it will be productive in the sense that companies with a real interest in Georgia will participate and will have sufficient follow up," Kovziridze said.

What a fantastic opportunity for corporate America. Multi-million dollar contracts will be signed, huge swathes of the Georgian economy will be handed over to American companies and American hegemony in the region will be confirmed. It's almost like the US wanted Georgia (one of the fastest growing ecnomies in the region) to start a war it was bound to lose if only to pick up the pieces and have a tasty slice of future growth with the aid of a neo-conservative, anti-democratic Georgian leader. Good work chaps.

President Musharraf, John Bolton and Shit Eating Fuck Monkeys

Like a dingbat, I didn't pick up on this first time, but luckily the letters page in today's Guardian was gave me a handy pointer. As a result of the emergency powers invoked by Musharraf in Pakistan, Bush is reported to have told him:

“you can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time.”

Now, you are all intelligent people and you don't need me to explain the irony behind that remark.

While we are on the subject of Pakistan, there seems to be a split in the neo-conservatives. Just last night, Douglas 'ladies and gentlemen' Murray spoke of the need for Musharraf to stand down and allow a democratic process to proceed (a rare nod of agreement from yours truly). John 'I am the walrus, goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, goo goo g'joob, goo goo goo g'joob, goo goo' Bolton is reported as saying the following:

"I think for the moment the answer to that is support for Musharraf. And I think in fact the United States has contributed to some of the instability by implying less than robust support of Musharraf."

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't these neo-cons claim that democracy is always preferable to dictatorship in the run-up to the war in Iraq? D'you think they are a bit confused?? Or are they just simply opportunistic, murdering, intellectually bankrupt, morally deficient, humourless, fascist, soul destroying, shit eating fuck monkeys?? Just a thought.

John Edwards To Speak Out Against Blackwater

Now, I'm no big fan of the Democrats in the US. As far as I am concerned, they are virtually indistinguishable from the GOP. Having said that, I have to admit I was quite impressed by John Edwards during the last Presidential campaign. After Howard Dean lost a lot of momentum, Edwards seemed like the next best bet (if you can deal with his car salesman look). I have to say that this campaign looks no different. Again, I have to reinforce the point, I would not vote for either party in the US, but Edwards comes closer than any other Democrat ever could (sadly, my opinion counts for nothing as I do not have a say in the outcome of the election).

With this in mind, it was good to see that Edwards was planning to speak out against the prevalence of unaccountable security firms being employed to do the military's dirty work. From the Associated Press:

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. (AP) — Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards wants to limit the role of security contractors working in Iraq and elsewhere, joining the growing criticism of a shootout that left 11 Iraqi civilians dead.

Edwards' remarks, planned for Wednesday, targeted Blackwater USA, a private security firm under investigation for its role in the Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad. The confrontation has become fodder for congressional hearings and outcry from war critics.

"We must put the democracy back in our military and prevent a disaster like the continuation of the Iraq War from ever occurring again," Edwards says in remarks provided to The Associated Press. "As commander in chief, I will transfer most security missions currently performed by contractors back to military command, where they belong."

Edwards' speech also takes a swipe at chief Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has refused to make a pledges to end all military operations in Iraq, citing the need to stay on offense against terrorism.

"Come on. If you're not ending combat operations, you're not ending the war," Edwards says.

Edwards wants to end all combat missions in Iraq and have a full exit of troops within 10 months, except those needed to protect diplomatic efforts including the U.S. Embassy.

Edwards said there is no federal oversight for contractors working in Iraq and called for a centralized budget for contractors who work across U.S. agencies, including the State Department and Pentagon.

"There should never be any mystery about when a contractor can use force and the consequences for improper action," he says. "We also must make sure not only that we have laws, but that we use them ... to ensure alleged crimes by contractors are always investigated and prosecuted."

About 50,000 private contractors currently work in Iraq and in most cases operate outside the military chain of command and without legal oversight.

Edwards blames the Bush administration's outsourcing of security tasks to "political cronies." Poor management led directly to the Blackwater incident, along with a separate shooting of an Iraqi security agent by an allegedly drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party, he maintained.

In testimony before a House committee Tuesday, Blackwater chairman Erik Prince rejected suggestions that his employees were cowboys immune from prosecutions. "I believe we acted appropriately at all times," he said.

The underlined incident is a particularly worrying example of the dangerous nature of these private security groups. From The Guardian:

But a memo by congressional staff said Blackwater has been involved in an average of 1.4 shootings a week. The memo detailed various incidents, including one on December 24 when a 26-year-old Blackwater staffer killed a 32-year-old guard to Adil Abd al-Mahdi, the Iraqi vice-president, provoking an angry response from the Iraqi government.

The memo said that documents it had obtained say "the Blackwater contractor, who worked as an armourer, had attended a party on the evening of December 24, had consumed several alcoholic beverages and was described as drunk by witnesses who encountered him that evening".

Armed with a Glock 9mm pistol he passed through a gate near the compound of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, when he was confronted by the Iraqi security guard. He opened fire with his pistol, hitting one of the guards, Raheem Khalif, three times. Khalif, 32, later died at a US military hospital.

The Blackwater employee fled to a guard post, where he said he had been in a gunfight with Iraqis who were chasing him and shooting at him. But the guards had not heard any shots.

And the following sums up exactly why these groups should have no business running security in war zones:

Mr Prince said the employee had been sacked and fined. Asked why he had been whisked out of Iraq within two days without being charged, Mr Prince said the company had no power to detain anyone. "We can't flog him, we can't incarcerate him," he said.

Rogue elements do not face the same justice that members of the military have to face up to (theoretically, the army always seem to wiggle out of their obligations too). These men aren't even obliged to adhere to the Geneva conventions (much like their leaders it would appear). Companies like Blackwater should be dissolved with immediate effect and its directors imprisoned. They are just as guilty of war crimes as their superiors. Justice must be served.

Attack on Syria A 'Dry Run' For Assault on Iran?

That's the question in today's Observer. Despite Israel's refusal to comment on the incursion last week, Peter Beaumont claims that this was a 'major' incursion. According to Beaumont:

Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.

Beaumont also claims that the action by the Israeli air force was part of an attempt to address neo-conservative foreign policy concerns. Unsurprisingly, certified evil bastard, John Bolton, has been one of the key men pushing the propaganda for this raid. From the same article:

According to an intelligence expert quoted in the Washington Post who spoke to aircrew involved in the raid, the target of the attack, revealed only to the pilots while they were in the air, was a northern Syrian facility that was labelled as an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river, close to the Turkish border.

According to this version of events, a North Korean ship, officially carrying a cargo of cement, docked three days before the raid in the Syrian port of Tartus. That ship was also alleged to be carrying nuclear equipment.

It is an angle that has been pushed hardest by the neoconservative hawk and former US ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton. But others have entered the fray, among them the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, who, without mentioning Syria by name, suggested to Fox television that the raid was linked to stopping unconventional weapons proliferation.

As time goes on, this story is becoming more and more interesting. It would appear that this was part of a concerted strategy between the White House and Tel Aviv to flex a few muscles and send a warning to Syria (in terms of its activities in Lebanon) as well as Iran. It seems fairly obvious that at some point in the not too distant future, the Israeli airforce will conduct some military operation in Iran. After all, Cheney is already trying to drum up support for military intervention, any claims that this issue will be dealt through official channels (UN/IAEA) is nothing more than fantasy. Military action is clearly the preferred option for the US and her key franchise state in the region. The question is, how do we stop this folly.

Shepard Smith: Just Another Moron at Fox News

Caught this astounding cock-up by Shepard Smith on Fox News, do these guys know anything about the country in which they live?

"'......[quoting latest Osama Bin Laden video] neo-conservatives such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle.....'[Smith interjects] You remember Richard Perle, the Wall Street Journal journalist who was killed over there."

And people rely on this man to bring them news???? He can't even tell the difference between Richard Perle (one of the architects of current American forien policy) and Daniel Pearl (a journalist who was beheaded by a bunch of fanatics). No wonder the average Fox News viewer is about as smart as the average Big Brother viewer.

Warning: You will have the irresistable urge to punch the screen......

In case you don't know who this is, it is the 'writer' Douglas Murray. Appearing on Question Time last night, his choice quotes include:

'It's all very well you sitting here in Oxford and telling the Iraqis what to do.'

Murray was supporting the efforts to build a wall in Baghdad, started under cover of darkness by the US army. Despite the objections of the elected (as Murray's friends like to remind us) Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. Oh yeah, and he was sitting in Oxford at the time. I'll say no more.

UPDATE: Ok, just one more word on Murray. He once wrote an article entitled Spain's Shame about the Spanish elections after the bombings in Madrid. I nearly vomited over my monitor when I read it. This really is a vile, disgusting man. You can read the true story of the aftermath of Madrid here.

Hope For Guantanamo?

An official has claimed that, if Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is forced to step down due to the ongoing scandal over fired US attorneys, the administration might be forced to rethink Guantanamo Bay. This is certainly encouraging news for those that wish to see an end to this injustice, but it remains to be seen how true this actually is.

The New York Times reported today that Robert Gates, the current defence secretary, argued that Guantanamo should be closed and any trials should be held in America to make them more credible. He was joined by Condoleezza Rice in urging Bush to close Guantanamo as soon as possible. However, Bush put an end to any discussion by taking the advice of Gonzales and Dick Cheney, that detainees should not be brought to America to face trial. However, the recent furore over the US attorneys could see a shift in the balance of power over this issue.

If the Democrats can successfully force Gonzales to step down, there is a reasonable chance that Guantanamo might finally be closed and a degree of justice might be applied to those held there. With a powerful advocate of Guantanamo removed (following on from the loss of Rumsfeld), Bush would be under real pressure to close the camp. While that would not necessarily guarantee justice, it would be a welcome step in the right direction. Gonzales' removal would be a vital step down the road of respecting human rights. Men like David Hicks would finally have a chance of a fair trial (not to mention the minors that were thrown into the camp). Although, at the moment it is just that: a chance.

This revelation also goes to show how isolated Bush is becoming in the White House. He has already lost Rumsfeld and now it looks likely that Gonzales will be next. Republicans around the country are eager to distance themselves from Bush as his popularity sinks to ever lower levels. It is virtually guaranteed that the next Republican candidate will take a different approach to Bush to a certain degree, and any association with Bush is a nail in the coffin of their political careers. One can only hope that the Democrats ensure that Gonzales is forced to step down and the fight for human rights can be won. That is they challenge they need to grasp. Failure to do so would only confirm that the Democrats are just watered down Republicans.

Satan's Little Helper

Could not believe this evil fuckwit on Question Time last night. When attacked over the war in Iraq, Bolton's standard response:

'I bet you wouldn't have liked to live under Saddam'.

Wow, you cut me down with that one John. Even better was the standard:

'Iraq attacked two of her neighbours.'

Mmm, two you say. Now, one was Kuwait, right? I remember that. Saddam rolled into town and we heroically stepped in. That's right isn't it?? Now, what was the other one? Mmmmmm. Oh yeah, hang on, it was Iran. But didn't we back that war? Yes, I think we did didn't we? And isn't that the country that we are now threatening to invade? But that's ok because we are like the good guys, yeah? So that's ok. And this thing about gassing the Kurds, didn't we play a part in that too? Weren't chemicals sold to Iraq by the West? But, I guess we didn't know what he would use them for. I mean, he seemed so friendly back then. Not like those nasty Iranians. These neo-cons certainly seemed to have mastered the art of double-speak, or talking bollocks if you prefer.

This guy just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. On last night's QT he came across as an intellectual lightweight, which is probably unsurprising given the current resident at the White House. These Republicans sure do crumble when they are faced with an English audience (although for the record I did wish that a few more people would take apart his weak arguments. Actually, I was screaming at the TV with incredulity, again). And as for his response to Tony Benn:

'It isn't worth replying to Mr Benn.'

Is that perhaps because you are unable to justify the actions of a criminal cabal who have contrived to fuck the planet up for a very long time? Cunt.

Mad Mel Advocates Invasion of Iran

Under the frankly bizarre headline of 'He Gets It', Phillips clearly proves that she does not. From her website:

Mmmm, I think someone has an incurable case of blood lust. Clearly, Phillips is as clueless as many on the right about the dynamic in the Middle East. Thankfully, not everyone is as clueless as Phillips. Writing in today's Guardian, Ali Ansari gets it pretty much spot on. He writes (under the headline 'Only the US hawks can save the Iranian president now'):

Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world.

There can be little doubt that US hawks will interpret recent events as proof that pressure works, and that any more pressure will encourage the hawks further. Yet the reality is that while Ahmadinejad has been his own worst enemy, the US hawks are his best friends. Ahmadinejad's demise, if it comes, will have less to do with the international environment and more with his own political incompetence. There is little doubt that it will take more than a cosmetic change to get Washington to listen to Iran. But the real question mark, as the Baker-Hamilton commission found to its cost, is whether Washington is inclined to listen at all.

Clearly it is Ansari who 'gets it'. Ahmadinejad is in a pretty weak position in Iran at the moment. Even the conservatives are concerned by recent developments. The paradox is that, in fact, Iran currently holds more influence in the region than ever before. It is paramount, therefore, that they do not lose this influence. The Iranian elites recognise this all too well, and Ahmadinejad's posturing is in danger of costing them this influence. However, any attempt to increase the pressure on Iran would only lead to Ahmadinejad gaining popularity and uniting the Iranian people (nothing unites a country more than external threat). Phillips and others, such as Bolton, either fail to understand the situation or are deliberately mis-representing it to feed their blood lust. Either way, they certainly do not 'get it'.