Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Heck! Just the other day we got the UN Security Council to nail Syria's ass with a resolution demanding their full cooperationwith a U.N. investigation and warning of possible "further action" if it doesn't.

I'll bet you can figure out what "further action" might mean, eh? And we all know how tough it is to define "full cooperation". Heh!

Anyhoo, to give you a little taste of what's to come, you should remember such classics as this (And be sure to note how my WHIG buddies have been setting up to take out your stupid-ass countries right from the beginning.

It's no secret that the Iraq liberation was merely a stepping stone toward the greater neoconservative objective of reshaping the Middle East, so I won't harp on that. And yes, I know that the whole 'WMD' thing is a bunch of bullshit, but hey! People just fall so easily for it. Heh! Don't expect us to drop that one any time soon;)

So here we go...

Some time ago, my boy, John R. Bolton, Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was asked about speculation that Syria and Iran could be America's next targets after the war in Iraq. He responded:

"We are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest."

He called the pursuit of WMD programs a terrorist threat (well... except for the US's of course) and said it "will remain our priority to achieve a peaceful elimination of these programs so that supporters of terrorism cannot use them against innocent people." He continued by slipping a little warning to Syria:

"This is a wonderful opportunity for Syria to forswear the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and, as with other governments in the region, to see if there are not new possibilities in the Middle East peace process."

And then there was this lovely letter from some neocon powerhouses including Administration darling Richard "Dicky" Perle:

"On Sept. 20, forty neoconservatives sent an open letter to the White House instructing Bush on how the war on terror must be conducted. Signed by Bennett, Podhoretz, Kirkpatrick, Perle, Kristol, and Krauthammer, the letter was an ultimatum. To retain the signers' support, Bush was told, he must target Hezbollah for destruction, retaliate against Syria and Iran if they refuse to sever ties to Hezbollah, and overthrow Saddam. Any failure to attack Iraq, the signers warned Bush, 'will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.'"

But that wasn't Dick Perle's most famous document. Nope. That claim goes to his 1996 paper arguing that (http://www.salon.com/...) Israel should scrap the peace process, work to subdue its neighbors by force, and overthrow the Iraqi government in order to reshape the region's dynamics."

This paper, of which Perle was the architect, was titled "'A Clean Break, a New Strategy for the Realm' and it made the argument that the best way to secure Israeli security is through the changing of some of these regimes beginning with Iraq and also including Syria. And that's since been expanded to include Iran."

And then there was Johnny Bolton during a visit to Israel saying he has "no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards." (Scroll down to story below the EU article),

Fellow neocon and former CIA Director James Woolsey, said:

"...the US is engaged in World War IV (WWIII having been the Cold War), and that it could continue for years... He said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the 'fascists' of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda... that all three enemies have waged war against the US for several years but the US has just 'finally noticed.'"

Despite what we might say in press conferences, our intentions are clear. Iraq was but the first step in a long list of conquests. Heck, we began laying the groundwork for "Operation Syria and Iran Freedom" long ago.

We should also recall that Donald Rumsfeld was quick to chime in with the first <strike>blatant lie</strike&gt... uh... explanation, hastily attempting to tie Syria to Saddam, in much the same way as he so effectively tied Saddam to Osama suggesting that Syria was responsible for the shipment to Iraq of defense-related goods, including night vision goggles, and warned that the US considered "such trafficking as hostile acts and would hold the Syrian government accountable." So what if the CIA said they have no evidence to support Rumsfeld's claim.

Colin Powell further laid the groundwork for Syrian invasion citing Rumsfeld's claim, accusing Syria of providing "direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein? Syria bears the responsibility for its choices, and for the consequences."

Rummy then doubled up with unsubstantiated charges that "hundreds" of armed Iraqi Shiite Muslim from Iran are now in Iraq and would be viewed as "combatants."

Anyway, the Administration's campaign is incomplete without a little provocation to stoke the flames. Nothing a few "errant" cruise missiles can't take care of. Whoooooa... incoming!!! Hehe.

The first provocation was purposely conspicuous. Three missiles fired by U.S. jets taking part in attacks in Iraq landed over the border in southwestern Iran. U.S. and British military jets violated the Islamic Republic's airspace several times [over a two day period] during operations against targets in southern Iraq. In two cases, rockets from American planes hit the area of Maniuhi, close to the border with Iraq. Another rocket hit an oil refinery depot in the city of Abadan, about 30 miles east of the southern Iraqi city of Basra. Just for a bit of perspective, accidentally hitting an oil refinery in Iran with a missile is about as likely as accidentally smacking a hole-in-one on a par 5. But nobody noticed. (Heh!)

Provocation in Syria? You bet. US cluster bombs annihilated a passenger bus entering Syria from Iraq. Sure, maybe coalition forces speculated that enemy forces were on board. Regardless, the bus was an official civilian target and the bombing was in direct violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention related to the protection of civilians during war time. In any event, an unmistakable message was sent.

So the intent has been established, plans have been made, fabrications and propaganda began long ago. What's next?

Well, using Iraq once again as the model (It's worked so well:), tossing out a few threats would be the next obvious step. And what do you know. The threats came rolling right from the top. The NY Times reports:

"Shortly after Donald H. Rumsfeld issued a stark warning to Iran and Syria last week, declaring that any 'hostile acts' they committed on behalf of Iraq might prompt severe consequences, one of Bush's closest aides stepped into the Oval Office to warn him that his unpredictable defense secretary had just raised the specter of a broader confrontation. Mr. Bush smiled a moment at the latest example of Mr. Rumsfeld's brazenness, recalled the aide. Then he said one word - 'Good' - and went back to work."

In the same article, Administration political mastermind Karl Rove was quoted as saying:

"Iraq is not just about Iraq."

Does that surprise anyone? Nah! of Course not, and as a bonus, it answers the long-standing question, "Why does the Administration seem so unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq after the toppling of Saddam?"

Answer: "Because we won't be leaving." Hahahahaha oh, I love it.

I know. you're thinking, "Iraq was such a disaster. There is NO way the American people will fall for another of the neocon's escapades!"

Yeah, sure. Bwaaaaah ha ha ha ha!

Love, shits n' giggles,

Condi :)