Dan Lyons

BLAIR BLAMED: 64% of Brits think Blair bears 'some /or/a lot of' the blame for the London Bombings.
Only 28% think he was totally blameless.

Blair denounced that idea, saying "We mustn't adopt the perverted logic of the terrorists!" WTNH

In other words, the claim 'Blair is to blame' is false just because the awful terrorists say so ?

This is one of the commonest logical fallacies: "This claim is false because a bad person advanced it." [AD HOMINEM]

Most people, if a claim reminds them of something good, like that claim (psych. law of association). If the claim reminds them of something bad (e.g., the bad person who asserted it) then they dislike the claim. So far, there's no logical fallacy.

But then most people choose to believe claims they like, and to disbelieve claims they dislike--e.g., claims asserted by someone they dislike. (e.g., the claim that I have cancer, asserted by an unpleasant and arrogant doctor).

But a claim is NEVER FALSIFIED by knowing a bad or dumb person asserted it, even if it is asserted by the Devil ! After all, the Devil can quote Scripture--so he could falsify the whole Bible by reading it aloud? Hardly!

Even though the terrorists would agree, it's still obvious that Blair was partly responsible for the London bombings, by his poodle-like following of Bush into war!

(Also, present-day Afghanistan, under 'allied' control, is now a top producer of opium,providing cheap heroin to Britons.The Taliban actually cut opium-production. But now we've handed Afgh. over to the drug-lords .)

When we're attacked again by terrorists, will Americans have the good sense most Britons show, and blame Bush (especially for grossly underfunding HomelandDefense)?

Or will most Americans cuddle closer to 'Daddy' after the attack? I think the Bushies are counting on the latter response; that's why they're not taking the expensive precautions needed to mitigate terrorist threats against our Homeland--e.g., inspecting the 25,000 huge ship-containers entering our ports each DAY, each of which could contain a nuclear bomb! These inspections are now NOT taking place!

JIHAD TRIGGERED BY IRAQ INVASION, found a study by Saudi govt. and an Israeli thinktank.

The jihadists captured or known about were NOT jihadists before Bush invaded Iraq !

Another motivation is hatred Sunnis have for Shiites.
Boston.com

All this seems to call for Shiites to forget about any 'all/Iraq' govt., to pull back into their Southern region, taking in millions of Shiite refugees from the middle Sunni/Arab region, and defend their own ministate.

Leave middle region to the guerillas; let the Saddamites fight the Zarquiites for control. The main help U.S. could give is to block a conventional invasion of the Sunnis into Shialand--which they were able to do BEFORE the invasion!

Shiites should be able to support these millions of refugees eventually. (American should bear the financial burden for now.) The Southern Shiite region is said to have EIGHTY PERCENT of Iraq oil!

JOB PARADOX: The official unemployment rate is pretty low, at 5%. But only 36% of the people think the economy is 'good or excellent'. Also, wages haven't risen, as we'd expect if firms were competing for scarce workers.

Possible explanation: the official rate counts only those who are NOW LOOKING for jobs, but can't find them.
But suppose a lot of workers have GIVEN UP LOOKING. That would explain the paradox.

And one study says there are 1 to 5 million people who WOULD seek jobs IF they were available.

Good news: economy could expand a lot without triggering inflation.
Bad news: Greenspan, et al, have been trying for some time to 'prime the pump' to goose up the economy.
That hasn't worked, as far as jobs go--so what would work? [Krugman in NYTIMES]
-------------
Another NYT opinion-offerer says that globalism is simply not working for U.S. workers (only for transnational corporations, which are not really American--money has no national loyalty). But optimistic chatter about globalism is so entrenched in our media that, just like the Soviet, we won't change before disaster strikes. NYTIMES

WHAT A WEEKEND! 17 bombings just in Baghdad in 72 hours. Over 400 casualties. Interior Dept. (supposed to guarantee security) denounced in parliament as infested with Saddamites and pawns of the Americans. IrishTimes,18Jy.

SISTANI DENOUNCES 'GENOCIDAL' ATTACKS ON SHIITES. 'Pope' Sistani has till now restrained Shiites from wholesale retaliation vs. random Sunnis.
But it sounds as if this restraint may end--resulting in civil war and slaughter of Sunnis (outnumbered 3 to 1 by Shiites).

SADR (rival leader of Shiites) blames the attacks, of course, on the presence of U.S. troops. CanadianTV

For more on threat of full civil war, see LondonTimes

IRAQIS GO FOR VIGILANTES: No longer trusting in the 'national militia' or U.S. troops, people in Baghdad are blocking neigborhood streets (from car-bombers) and patrolling on foot.."We'll recognize strangers."

Of course that will disrupt Baghdad even more.

Americans don't think about the BANDITS as a threat separate from the guerillas. Baghdad people say they keep their children inside all the time, with the doors barricaded, to minimize chance of kidnapping. REUTERS

THE FOOL HEARD ROUND THE WORLD: Rep. Tancredo just said that to retaliate against a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S., we should 'take out' Muslim Holy Places like Mecca. )[RMtnNews, 18July]

He loves publicity; you can bet his pronouncement will be quoted all over the world, enraging even more of the 1500 million Muslims worldwide so they'll sign up as terrorists.

BLAIRITE REJECTS THINK-TANK FINDING that Blair's poodle-following of Bush into Iraq war did increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks on Britain.

"I'm astonished that they'd suggest we should not stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our long-time allies!' said Jack Straw.

The think-tank just made the obvious point that the Iraq invasion helped world terrorists with recruitment and fund-raising. TELEGRAPH

CHERTOFF wants to allocate HomelandDefense funds according to RISK; that seems sensible--but the GOP Senate refused that request, allocating only 60% of the
(pathetically inadeqate) funds by risk--the other 40%, as usual, will be PORK, allocated according to political clout!

Bushies have allocated only $5.6 billion (less than 5 days of Pentagon money) for developing vaccines vs. war-germs (one very likely form of terrorist attack). In fact, HARDLY ANY OF THAT MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT ! ABC/NEWS

Chertoff has said nothing about upping the TOTAL spent on HomelandDefense. That means that he is no more serious than the other Bushies about this vital matter.

Follow the money.
-------------
RISKY COLORADO CHEMICAL PLANTS:
Till now, chemical plants have been allowed to arrange anti-terrorist precautions in any way they chose. Now Bush's Homeland Defense Dept. has recognized that voluntary compliance is not working; government regulation is needed.

However, lobbyists for that industry, surprisingly, oppose government regulation. They say the possibility of such attacks is 'minimal'.

Humans have much trouble adjusting prudently to a very small chance of a very big disaster--the lobbyists are counting on that human foible.

There are 60 plants at risk in Colorado, each of which could kill over 1000 people in an attack. A terrorist attack upwind from Denver could kill 10,000 people and injure 40,000.

Gov. Owens' new 'security' adviser, will administer a handsome federal grant for this security of $1.4 million (that's $23,000 for each risky plant). She says that the State of Colorado prefers to work in voluntary partnership with chemical plants, NOT insisting on govt. regulation. DenverPost,17July

Odd how right-wingers insist on 'accountability' for professors and public radio, but trust in 'voluntary partnerships' with big corporations.

No surprise that Gov.Owens would reject sensible precautions to prevent attacks on chemical plants. In early '03 he was reproached for Colorado's lacking anti-terrorist precautions. He responded: "The way to protect Coloradoans from terrorists is to invade Iraq."

CALL FOR MILITIAS: After a nightmare weekend when suicide bombers slaughtered Shia, many Shiites called for open role for their MILITIA. The 'Badr' militia has 7000 troops (whom the Sunnis blame for torture/killings of Sunnis). I believe SADR (the 2d most prestigious Shiite leader) also has a private militia, in Baghdad.

The point is that the 'central government' has just failed to stop the suicide-bombers. ChristSciMonitor
Also, of course, the U.S. army has failed similarly.
They're seen as irrelevant or worse.

As Allawi (our former puppet) said (from safely outside the country) this may be stage one of an open civil war between Sunnis and Shiites. So far, the Shiites have not retaliated much against random Sunnis--but this can't go on forever.

The least bad solution would be for the millions of Shia living in the middle Sunni/Arab region to flee to the Southern, Shia region. Then the Shiites could set up a defensible perimeter. The ultimate outcome will be a separate Shiite 'ministate', ignoring Baghdad. They'll have much oil, a seaport, and a loyal friend in Shiite Iran.

U.S. & WORLD NOT READY FOR AVIAN-FLU PANDEMIC. Surprise ! There is no provision for mass-produced VACCINES. NYTIMES

Of course,then, the Bushies are not prepared to deal with any pandemic that is deliberately inflicted on us by terrorists. And this is considered one of the most likely forms of attack.

Already, we have a crucial shortage of nurses. (In Colorado, one hospital was offering $20,000 to lure a nurse from another hospital.)There aren't enough nurse-training programs.

The Bushies have not even discussed this problem, let alone made an emergency effort to solve it.

GOVERNORS WORRY ABOUT 'STRETCHED-THIN' NATIONAL GUARD. "Does it make sense to take our 'first-responders' [in case of terrorist attack] and set them guarding an airbase in SaudiArabia?" NYTIMES,17Jy.

People didn't join NatlGuard to go to war in Iraq!
If you remember, Bush joined the Guard to get out of going to Vietnam!

Once youths saw that a real, ugly war was involved, enlistments and reenlistments plummeted!

Another index of the jaunty unconcern Bushies display about defending our Homeland from terrorist attack.

DID BUSHIES GIVE COVERT AID TO RIVALS OF SHIITES? The story is that they were ready to, to stop allies of Iran from taking over Iraq. They finally decided not to help individual candidates..but perhaps parties?
NYTIMES

In any case, Shiite parties won (why not, with 60% of population? It would have been a dead giveaway if they HADN'T won). And the party of ALLAWI, obvious U.S. puppet, got trounced--in spite of expensive TV propaganda (financed by Bushies?)

There'll be another election in a few months. All this will come up again.
-----------
Iraq's new PrimeMinister Ja'afri hid out in Iran from Saddam. Now he's leading a team of Iraqi honchos in a friendship visit with Iranian leaders. WashPost, cited by TRUTHOUT

Imagine the tooth-grinding going on among neo-con, Sharonista Bushies!

GIs COURT SADDAMITES, cutting their casualties.
In a town near Mosul GIs are working with people they know were Saddamite guerillas, getting them to turn on their fanatic allies. NYTIMES

This may work on a broader scale; but our Shiite allies & puppets may fiercely resent this collaboration, especially when they are now being slaughtered by Sunni-based suicide-bombers, and when they remember how Shiites were slaughtered by Saddam's forces.

Blairite honcho John Reid says Brits may begin pullout within 12 months. "Britain has no long-term imperialist ambitions" in Iraq (hinting that U.S.does?) ThisIsLondon

Iraqis would be forgiven for wondering. Last time Brits came in (in 1918) they stayed in power till 1958, taking lots of oil. This time they're getting out because they have to.

HEN CACKLES AGAIN:
DenverPost printed my letter debunking 'productivity'.

(I get a lot of letters printed. But that's a small percentage of the HUGE number of letters I submit! That's why, for my morale, I must cackle at the letters printed.)

NEARLY 200 CASUALTIES ON FRIDAY,SATURDAY--mostly in Baghdad, after U.S. general bragged that his 'Operation Lightning' had cut car bombings in half in Baghdad. REUTERS

Over 90 Shiites killed by one bomb on Saturday evening.
CBS (150 WOUNDED).

41 CASUALTIES ON SUNDAY. USATODAY

ARCHBISHOP WILL DENY BAPTISM TO CHILDREN OF 2 GAYS.

The Archbishop of Quebec says the baptismal certificate has to be signed by a father and a mother.
LATIMES,16JULY

But surely single mothers have had their children baptized, with only one signature.

Besides, any layman can validly baptize a child. (So the gay couple could baptize their child.)
This point was made clear by a famous, strange incident in the 19th-century. The maid of a Jewish couple in Italy, on her own, baptized wrongly (illicitly) their baby.(Babies are not supposed to be baptized Catholic unless their parents agree to raise them Catholic...and of course,unless there's danger of death, a priest is supposed to baptize.)

However, once the baby was baptized, he counted as a Catholic (the baptism was valid). Now Pope Pius IX (who then was king of the Papal States) couldn't allow a Catholic child to be raised by Jews! So he took the baby away from them, raised the kid as his own ward..he ended up a priest. Wikepedia

I think this Pope was the model for the maxim: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I believe Pius IX was just beatified.
----------
Tacky Archbishop ! Tacky Beatus!

BRIT/IRAQ MUSLIM 'DEFENDS' BOMBING as VENGEANCE, NOT HATE. He admits it's crazy, but says it's understandable, given the slaughter of Muslims by Blairite/Bushies. /

He's a refugee from Saddam who now heads an 'anti-occupation' group. GUARDIAN

A FORMER SECY OF DEFENSE, JOHN DEUTCH, has an astringent analysis of our Iraq adventure:

--It was basically a mistake to think we could plant democracy in MiddleEast by using military power. [Lyons: an insane mistake]. This repeated Clinton's mistake in trying to establish a peaceful, multi-ethnic regime in Bosnia, home of hating ethnic groups.
[Lyons: Bushies learned nothing from Vietnam, and nothing from Clinton's blunders.]

--Deutch says we're making no progress in Iraq./ We're spending resources there (military and financial) that we might need elsewhere./ The longer we stay in Iraq without success, the more we'll be discredited internationally.

So Deutsch thinks we should begin pulling out this December.
-------------
NYTIMES 15July (to read this article, you'll have to register with the TIMES. It's free.)

IRAQ CORRUPTION--> 'GHOST ARMY'.

Often 'commanders' take funds for a unit that doesn't exist.

Americans won't give new weapons to our native militia, for fear they'll end up with insurgents. "But the insurgents already have better weapons than we do!"

Americans say there are 150,000 native militia; an Iraqi honcho says probably no more than 40,000.
INDEPENDENT

Americans, Brits talk about being able to 'stand down' as native militia 'stand up'. (This mantra is repeated over and over.) Perhaps they believe their own propaganda; or perhaps (as in Vietnam) they plan to bug out soon, so they pretend to think the native militia can take over vs. guerillas (even though right now the militia can't even protect itself; even though the militia PLUS 140,000 U.S. troops can't beat the guerillas!)

INTERVENTIONIST CREED: A columnist in FinTimes presents what sounds at first like a balanced view of disagreements between 'interventionists' "We must remake internatl. landscape"and their opponents: "We must find shelter behind national fortress walls."

He says the roots of the conflict with terrorists are 'deeper' than conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, or than the Iraq war. (Maybe--but these are major aggravators of the conflict.)

He says that 9/11 shows that 'we can't leave failed states to their own devices'. But our meddling in Afghanistan leaves it still a failed state, run by drug-lords, still susceptible to Taliban attacks.

He says the London bombs show that 'national borders are no defence vs. evil ideologies.' But it doesn't follow that attacks on other nations will do any good; the threat is from hundreds or thousands of INDIVIDUAL terrorists from all around the world.

He admits that our Iraq project is a fiasco--but 'we can't allow tyrants like Saddam to prosper.' But of course tyrants everywhere will go on prospering--many backed (AS SADDAM WAS!) by U.S.

He piously says that effective intervention requires the legitimacy given by the rule of law. (A prominent Bushie, Richard Perle, admits casually that our invasion violated international law--but that's OK, if it was demanded by the Bushie super-sensitive morality.)

The intervention this columnist ends up endorsing will be 'messy, imperfect, and hugely costly."But, like democracy, 'it's better than the alternatives."

BULLSHIT! The better alternative is that we spend our fortune on making our borders as fortress-like as possible. Some attacks will get through; we must spend whatever we need--NOT on bombers, aircraft carriers and tanks--but to get ready to repair/heal after such attacks.

We should not meddle with the outside world, when typical Americans don't care enough about that world to learn about it. (Fewer than 1 in 30 Americans even have passsports!)

CHINESE GENERAL THREATENS NUKES:
'Speaking only for myself', general admits they couldn't fight a conventional war with U.S. So, if U.S. intervenes militarily in a fight over Taiwan, he says they're ready to lose many cities--but U.S. will lose many cities also.
REUTERS

This is a standard move of 'playing the crazy card'. China would like us to think they're willing to commit (mutual) suicide in order to prevent Taiwan independence.

And of course they might be that crazy! The real effect of this nutty statement is to remind Americans that the Chinese do have plenty of nuclear bombs, and that they could deliver them to our shores (in some of the 25,000 huge ship-containers that enter our ports UNINSPECTED each day--or they could fire short-range missiles from freighters (or submarines) in mid-ocean. (They don't need intercontinental missiles--the type Bushies pretend they need to guard against with billions wasted on 'anti-missile missiles'.)

Chinese have 2d-strike-deterrent; they can say, "You can destroy our cities; but our survivors can make you regret it." Let's hope Bushies are not too nutty to be deterred!

BOMB-CAR HITS BRIDGE NEAR PRESIDENT'S HOUSE FRIDAY, KILLING 3 GUARDS. Boston.com
----------------------------
Seventy-One casualties on Friday (Iraqis & GIs).
(Many in, around Baghdad--despite U.S. brag about success of our raids on guerillas in Baghdad area.)

A 'moderate' & influential Sunni cleric blamed U.S. (!) for the slaughter of the children by a suicide bomber a couple of days ago (a crowd of kids gathered around GIs handing out candy).
GUARDIAN

In Internatl.law, occupying power is responsible for 'law'nOrder' in the occupied country. We're no longer technically occupying Iraq--but we are responsible for dismissing Saddamite police-forces, and not being able to replace them--producing anarchy.

(It's not just the guerillas; gangsters also kidnap children,etc.)

HURRIED CONSTITUTION IS FATAL:
An expert on 'failed states' says there's little chance that Iraqi commission can come up by 15 Aug. with a constitution that would be approved in the following referendum. (2/3 of Kurds, and/or 2/3 of Sunni/Muslims could veto the draft.)

He says they should grab the '6-month extension' available and consult with all the native sheiks and authorities, (Kurds, Shiites, and Sunni/Arabs) in order to get an acceptable document. NYTIMES

The dream of any such compromise, even in 6 months, is utopian, considering the rising tit-for-tat killings among Sunni/Arabs and Shiites. (Allawi says they may be in Stage One of civil war.)

The best outcome would be the '3-ministates' situation.

BIN LADEN'S SPEECH: Al Jazeera has made available the full transcript, translated, of binLaden's speech:

Amid much bullshit, there are some shrewd remarks:

--the extra opportunity they had to crash the 2d plane into the tower, because Bush, paralyzed, sat there for extra minutes staring at the children.

--the point that , if their motivation was, as Bushies claim, the hatred of our free institutions, then why didn't they attack SWEDEN, which is at least as free as U.S. ?

[AlJazeera, cited by InformationClearinghouse]

NEWEST POLLS: Some thought that Bush's earnest TV appearances after London bombings would up his popularity.

On the contrary, now only forty-one percent think he is honest & straightforward.That's down nine percent since January.

49% disapprove of him generally; 47% approve.

Iraq is now the #1 issue in America, even ahead of jobs.

60% want Bush to appoint a Justice who would leave Roe-vs.-Wade alone.
[polls by NBC & WallSt.Journal.]

"DEGRADED, NOT TORTURED"The commander of Guantanamo prison was to have been reprimanded, not just replaced--because he allowed prisoners to be grossly humiliated in various ways.But the commanding general refused to reprimand him, saying that these humiliations didn't count as illegal tortures.
LATimes
Americans pretend that humiliation doesn't count for much. But U.S. males, humiliated at being dumped by their women, often commit murder, then suicide.

Arabs are even more hyper-sensitive to humiliation, often preferring death.

U.S. can announce that this mistreatment was 'merely degrading'; but Muslims all over the world will quickly get news of these new U.S. atrocities ; more terrorists will be recruited--perhaps even more than would have reacted to murder of prisoners !

Bushies are as stupid as they are ruthless.

THREE SUICIDE BOMBERS TRY FOR ONE TARGET: They attacked a checkpoint outside the 'Green Zone' (palatial HQ for U.S. honchos and the honchos of our latest puppet govt.). CanadianTV
---------
REUTERS said there were at least TEN suicide bombers JUST IN BAGHDAD on Friday 15th, causing over ONE HUNDRED CASUALTIES.
--------
What's upsetting is that guerillas seem to have suicide volunteers to spare!

Suicide attacks have numbered at least one a day since the end of April . FinTimes

And of course there were 4 British-born suicide volunteers who committed the bombings in London.
-----------
It wasn't very bright of American governments (Dem & GOP) to get involved in a quarrel with Muslims numbering 1500 millions, a group that includes a large number (though a small percentage) of people who don't seem to take death seriously--their own or others'.

We got thus involved because of our automatic backing of every crazy Israeli activity..and because we were dumb enough to station 'infidel' U.S. troops on the soil of 'Sacred Arabia'.

It was things we did that brought this curse on us, NOT Muslim hatred of our free institutions. As binLaden said, "If we hated freedom, we'd have attacked Sweden !"

An Iraqi interviewed by REUTERS said, "We didn't agree with AlQaeda before. But now I'm ready to blow myself up, because the Americans killed my brother."
---------------
As things are now, we can't appease those hundreds or thousands of Muslims who hate us enough to become terrorists. We must just try to ward off inevitable attacks on our Homeland--and repair/heal after those attacks that get through. (But Bushies think this project is just too expensive!)

Terrrorists can't destroy America; but just as some germs rouse excessive immune reactions, so the host organism destroys itself--so a few terrrorists might very well push unstable Americans into fascism. Then they'd match the 'Islamo-fascists'.
--------------
We could stop enraging MORE Muslims!

"GIs COULD SOON WITHDRAW FROM SOME IRAQ CITIES", SAYS Pr.Min.Ja'afri," into places at the edge of town." (They once tried that in Fallujah, with disastrous results.)

But cities in Shiite & Kurdish areas are often quite peaceful. In Basra, Brit soldiers are seldom seen.
InternatlHeraldTribune

You can see why pulling trigger-happy GIs out of cities might be helpful. A U.S. marine just shot into the car of one of our police captains, by mistake.

Ja'afri just had to assure parliamentarians that he would investigate reports of misconduct by U.S. troops.
(Such 'misconduct' may recruit new terrorists.)

Such cautious moves might test the abilities of our native militia.
--------------
BRIT DIPLOMAT strengthens possibility of early Brit withdrawal, with native militia replacing them, in certain peaceful Shiite cities. FinTimes

If Shiites would give up dream of controlling All of Iraq, and withdraw into their own region, then U.S. & UK forces would have less role, because Shiite forces could perhaps pacify their own region.

Also, Shiite militia wouldn't be tempted to torture and kill Sunnis (thus risking full civil war) as they are now, in retaliation. Sunni/Arab middle region would basically be left to the guerillas, with a supremacy struggle between the Saddamites and the Zarquawi gang of religious fanatics. (Kurdland in the North is already deFacto independent--but the oil-soaked Kirkuk region would still be in contention, between the Kurds and the Sunni/Arabs.)
-------
Millions of Shiites living in Sunni/Arab region would have to relocate in South.

Then the problem would be how to get the Saddamites to stop sabotaging the oil pipelines..less oil was exported from Iraq this year than last year!

Bushies wouldn't be very happy over oil-rich, independent
Shia ministate, closely allied with our old enemy Iran!
===========
Alexander Cockburn, of INDEPENDENT, says U.S. talks about training native militia, but won't trust them with modern weapons. (They may fear they'd be sold to guerillas.)
--------
Former puppet-honcho Allawi (now safely out of the country) just warned that Iraq may already be in 'Stage One' of a civil war.

POOR WINNERS! For 350 years, Irish Protestants have marched in July to commemorate the victory of William of Orange over King James I, which guaranteed Protestant supremacy in England and Ireland.

(They used to march along the walls of Derry City and throw insulting pennies down on the Catholics inside the city.)

They just marched again, and enraged Catholic youths attacked the restraining police with fire-bombs.
[GUARDIAN,13Jy]
Granted, this is a goofy and vicious reaction on the part of the Catholic youth; but the Protestant marchers are marked as the WORLD'S POOREST WINNERS.

(In fact, the victory--350 years ago!--was basically by one English faction over another English faction.)

DOZENS OF SHIITE CHILDREN KILLED OR WOUNDED: GIs were handing out candy and toys to a crowd of children, when a suicide-car crashed into the humvee, slaughtering children and GIs alike. GUARDIAN

Wicked of the guerillas? Of course. But this has happened before. GIs must be pretty dumb to attract a crowd of children!

And how the hell did the guerillas know about the crowd, to get a bomb-loaded car over there so fast? Or were the GIs REALLY stupid, gathering a crowd of children for a long time?

LIMITED INTEREST IN HOME PROTECTION: Chertoff, the new Home Security honcho, says we want Homeland Security, but not at any price. (NYTIMES) Later he says we must figure how to allocate our 'finite' resources.

We're now spending for Pentagon toys 'at any price'. Any foreigner who heard that we were shovelling $1200 millions each day to the Pentagon would say that the Bush regime was acting as if it had INFINITE resources.

In discussing his reforms, Chertoff didn't mention any increase in the total funding allocated to this vital project. Of course not; our funds are dedicated to luscious tax breaks for billionaires and hundreds of billions for the Pentagon (whose fancy bombers and tanks are pretty useless for countering individual terrorists.)
----------
Chertoff announced that funding will fall on the states and cities, not on feds, for protecting public transit systems from terrorists. GUARDIAN

States and cities are practically bankrupt already. If Bushies just cut Pentagon slush-fund in half, that would provide an extra $600 millions EACH DAY for helping states and cities to defend themselves.

Feds complain that anti-terrorist funds for states & cities are often not spent! That may be because these funds are allocated, as pork, to GOP states/cities not much threatened, rather than to Dem states/cities at high risk. Shameless. NYTIMES

WHY IRAQ HAS MADE US LESS SAFE:
(a column in TIME/MAG,13Jy by DanielBenjamin)

"The best recruiting sergeant for alQaeda is Geo.Bush, said the Brit ambass. to Italy--"if anyone is ready to celebrate his re-election, it is A.Q.!"

The guys who blew up the train in Spain started work the day after they heard an audiotape of binLaden calling for attacks on 'all those participating in this unjust [Iraq] war...England, Spain..."

Our own CIA said that European jihadists go to Iraq for better on-the-job training than was available in bL's training camps in Afghanistan.

"America has shown that it's good at hunting terrorists. Unfortunately, by occupying Iraq, it has become even better at creating them."

(By the way: to see a connection between Iraq and the London bombings is NOT an attempt to absolve the bombers; it is to note how they got roused up to attack.)

WHOSE QUAGMIRE? M. Polk (Ft.C.Wkly,Jy 13-19) recalls the Democratic quagmire in Vietnam. He says (without evidence) that most Viet vets say we lost a worthy war there because of a loss of 'political will'. He's right that after ten years of pointless, bloody war, Americans had enough. (The treasonous LyndonJohnson and Robt.McNamara said later that they knew all along the Viet war couldn't be won!)

Veterans of a conflict often resist any thought that their sacrifices were for an unjust, foolish war. But many Viet vets (VietVetsAgainstWar) saw the truth.

Polk complains that the liberals didn't protest the Viet war. Many of us in Ft.Collins did, loudly; but I remember only 2 Republicans joining us. And I don't think any GOP leaders opposed that war, not until Pres.Ford had to preside over the ignominious bugout.

What's awful about the Bushies is that THEY LEARNED NOTHING from the Viet fiasco; they didn't learn (as we could have learned from previous French defeats in Algeria and Vietnam) that enraged natives can push out hi-tech invaders.

By the way, the Viet war was not our only 'bugout'. We pulled out without victory also from our war vs. China in Korea, from Somalia, from Lebanon,etc. The only wars we've 'won' have been vs. pygmies like Panama and Grenada.

The shameful thing is NOT our finally pulling out of wars in which we had no real stake. The shame is our government's habit (Dem or GOP) of stumbling into such foolish, winless conflicts.

TERRORISTS DESPERATE?
One R.Peters (USATODAY) asks, "If Iraq doesn't matter, why are Islamic terrorists so desperate to dislodge us?" (This in answer to sensible claims that our [unlikely] victory there would not mitigate the terrorist threat to our Homeland.)

World terrorists have devoted awesome resources to the Iraq conflict (in terms of men and money) without showing that they're at all desperate. In terms of money, they have all those oil riches available. (The terrorists are funded, ultimately, by profligate oil-users like the Pentagon and GOP SUV drivers!)

Most world Muslims disapprove of Bush's America, with varying degrees of intensity. If only 1 in 10,000 of them get recruited as terrorists, that would make 100,000 terrorists around the world, of different races, colors, and nationalities--with a horrifying minority willing to volunteer as suicide bombers.

It looks as if four British Muslims, using 40 pounds of explosives, could wreak temporary havoc in London.

Iraq is for terrorists a sideshow--except that they are using this foolish conflict to train neophyte terrorists in handling bombs, etc. And the 'misconduct' of U.S. troops in Iraq serves as a handy tool for recruiting new terrorists worldwide. (Also, the longer we flail around in Iraq, the more the world sees that the U.S. is now run by ruthless, lying incompetents.)

Peters reminds me of the hawks in the '70s warning us foolishly that if the Vietnam 'domino' fell, all Asia would be taken over by 'Red China'. Instead, the new Communist regime in Vietnam shortly went to war with Communist China.
==========
MORE on this goofy member of 'USATODAY contributors' (writing by someone on this prestigious board deserves close analysis)--they devoted half a page to his nonsense:

Peters says tens of thousands of guerillas or allies have been killed or captured. But we don't know how many of the people we kill or capture are true guerillas! Our aggression is pretty indiscriminate; many of our innocent victims leave relatives eager for revenge, being recruited as new terrorists. Our top general there said ruefully, "I kill one guerilla and thus generate 3 more."

Peters fantasizes: "If the [Kurds, Sunni/Arabs, and Shiites] build an equitable democracy, respecting human rights..." Yeah, and IF the RAPTURE happens soon...

Peters admits [to demonstrate his objectivity] (a) that the Bushies' invasion/occupation was implemented with 'astonishing ineptitude', and (b) that the Bushies 'lied' about their own incompetence. But he doesn't note that these incompetent liars have now been re-appointed or even promoted, that they are still mismanaging our feckless Iraq adventure.
---------------
Then he warms up to his real project: denouncing the war-critics 'on the left'. (The No.Carolina Congressman who long ago demanded that we re-label 'French Fries' as 'Freedom fries', to punish France for not supporting our invasion--this right-wing legislator now recognizes (a) that the invasion was 'justified' by lies, and (b) that his right-wing constituents have turned against the war.

P. sounds a familiar note: that 'liberal' distaste for Bush has led them into siding with the terrorists. On the contrary, this goofy,bloody,winless war has turned most Americans against Bush ! And war-critics worry that the money spent on the Pentagon for pointless wars overseas has drained our shrinking treasury of money needed for expensive anti-terrorist precautions at home.

P. says that calls to 'bring'emhome' usually come from nonveterans. Of course, almost all Americans are non-veterans !-- including most of the hawks who lied us into this war. [However, 'Bring'emHome Lyons' IS a veteran (a clerk in the combat zone of Korea.) I saw enough of the sordid back-side of war that I have protested every war since.]

P.says that setting a timetable for withdrawal is effectively a surrender. Well, the newly-leaked Brit memo says that Blair and Bush are secretly planning to bug out in '06.
So we have already effectively surrendered..except that the pointless slaughter of GIs and civilians goes on.

P. refers to the 'price we'd pay for quitting Iraq..the newly confident terrorists will strike at our homeland again."
The terrorists are confident right now; they WILL strike at our Homeland again, just as they struck at London--whether we bug out of Iraq or not! (The only difference would be the diversion of more billions to these wars --Afghanistan too, remember?--billions that should go instead for warding off Homeland attacks and repairing/healing after those that get through.)

Some French journalists were held hostage for weeks by the guerillas in '03, then released. They were told that the guerillas wanted Bush to win re-election, so the U.S. troops would stay in Iraq, continuing to recruit new terrorists by their 'misconduct'.
--------------------------------------
One has the feeling that the people who run USATODAY have seen the folly of continuing this dismal war.
But they print pieces by these hawk nincompoops just to show 'balance'.

By the way, P.'s new book is called, "NEW GLORY: EXPANDING AMERICA'S GLOBAL SUPREMACY."
This position involves more fantasy than Harry Potter.

Fareed Zakaria brags that Londoners' plucky reaction to the bombing shows that terrorists can't disrupt economic activity. KaleejTimes

But consider the millions of dollars that it will cost to rebuild the tube system (after they get out the bodies). Consider the possible drop in tourists coming to Britain (tourism is a major industry). And finally, consider the small cost to the terrorists: 40 lb. of explosives.

Consider the billions of dollars we lost in the 9/11 attack--an attack using 19 men armed with box-cutters.

Of course if people keep their heads, a few terrorists can't disrupt a modern society--unless perhaps by germ warfare. Zakariah notes the defects in American public health systems: we neglect poor regions.

Smart terrorists have likely figured that they could spread viruses, say along the Greyhound busroutes in our impoverished Southern states. By the time these were recognized, the pandemic would have spread to the well-to-do--who, in their selfish disregard for the poor, would perhaps deserve it.
=============
Bushies have made no real efforts (in the 4 years after 9/11) to motivate the wealthy pharmaceutical corporations to develop & mass-produce vaccines against likely war-germs like anthrax, ebola, small-pox.

When attacked we'll have to rely on QUARANTINES, just like any primitive nation. (People will hide their sick rather than have them hauled off to 'leper camps' to die.)

Hobbes said that all men are equal, because they're equally killable.We've felt safe because of our wealth, our H-bombs--but in this crisis (partly from Bushie negligence) we're as helpless as Africans.

Smug Superman just hasn't noticed the KRYPTONITE lieing around.

GOP WANTS THIRTY-ONE BILLION FOR HOME DEFENSE IN'06.
(=one month of Pentagon money). That's one billion LESS than for last year !

Bush bragged that they've given $14 billion for 'first responders' OVER 4 YEARS. That's 3 billion a year, about THREE DAYS of Pentagon spending.

When Dems complained of spending all the money for irrelevant wars overseas, GOP responded, "Best way to protect Homeland is to get INTELLIGENCE from the breeding grounds of terrorism, from Iraq and Afghanistan."
[ REUTERS ]
Our 'intelligence' agencies, said the outgoing head of CIA, will be useless for at least 5 years. We have hardly any speakers of Arabic (those we have are tied up as translators in the Iraq war ! ). And of course we don't have speakers of Afghan languages! So far, our fun tortures of prisoners has not yielded useful information.

The Brits are fighting also in Iraq; but they had no advance warning about the London bombings. And their Intelligence Svcs. are far better than ours.

This silly rationale for funding wars overseas instead of Homeland Security shows how desperate the hawks are!

GLOBALISM THREATENED BY AL QAEDA?

A fan of globalism worries that terrorist threats will have the same effect as protectionism: it may increase risk aversion, and hamper 'capital/labor mobility' worldwide.
INDEPENDENT,11Jy
(He points out that since 9/11, foreigners coming to U.S. have shrunk markedly in numbers.)

Would this be bad? This loony has to go back to 'protectionism' in CHINA IN THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY to find a clear example of the economic platitude that protectionism must mean economic decline.

It seems sure that the ordinary Russian is WORSE OFF since Russia opened up to globalist penetration. (In fact, the Russ population has shrunk in a historically unique way!)

Certainly ordinary American workers are worse off since globalism: almost no pay raises, much more joblessness, and huge increases in medical costs.

BLAIR NOT THREATENED--SO FAR!
Though Galloway & Cook have explicitly tied the London bombings to Blair's folly in joining in the Iraq invasion, most English seem to be 'rallying round the leader', says columnist in FinTimes

He points out that binLaden was aiming at U.S. before the invasion. (binLaden has said that what set him off was U.S. blind endorsement of all Israel's actions, and the STUPID stationing of infidel GIs on sacred Arabian soil. )But that doesn't show that binLaden & buddies aren't USING the foolish invasion to recruit and train more terrorists.

Of course this columnist says piously that the whole first world must rally round and help defeat the Iraq insurgents. However, it seems still true that 'we broke it, we bought it.'

Other countries would never cooperate fully with the arrogant, stupid Bushies. Even if the Iraq guerillas were defeated, thousands of other terrorists would still be on the ground around the world.

Each nation will concentrate instead on trying to minimize threats to their own homeland--a project in which the Bushies show little interest.

OIL-SULTANS moving reserve riches from dollar to euro?

There's some evidence of this. REUTERS

If there were a big move, then the dollar would lose support it has as 'reserve currency', and Bushie financial vultures would come home to roost.

PR.MIN.JA'AFRI DEFENDS U.S.PRESENCE IN IRAQ:
He says the new Iraq govt. will decide when GIs leave, not the guerillas. In answer to heated questions, he said his govt. will investigate reports of GI misconduct.
REUTERS

Of course the Bushies, not Ja'afri, will decide when to pull out. Heeding the leaked Brit memo saying that Brits &Americans will begin pulling out in '06, Ja'afri might be smart to give up dream of 'all/Iraq' govt. controlled by Shiites, and pull his forces back into defensible Southern Shiite region (providing for Shiite refugees forced out of Sunni/Arab areas.

This problem is already here: a Shiite woman and her 9 children were just slaughtered. Some Sunnis have been killed by Shiite commandos, giving an excuse for murdering more Shiites.)

Zarqawi fanatics have reason to fear that their Saddamite allies in insurgency might sell them out. So they're trying to provoke a civil war between Sunnis & Shiites (with the Sunnis outnumbered 3 to 1). But they needn't succeed in this.

All they have to do is to enrage the elected Shiites enough so they won't offer big enough bribes to the secularist Saddamites for turning on their 'Zarquawi' allies.

POLL RESPONSE TO LONDON BOMBS: [USATODAY]

Americans worried about possible terrorist attacks, in the next few weeks, on our Homeland have risen from 35% to 55%.

Only 34% (down from 36%) think we're winning the 'war on terrorism'.

But paradoxically (given the shameless Bushie negligence in funding anti-terrorist precautions), Bush's popularity inched upward! Any time a leader can appear on TV expressing grave concern and resolve, he'll benefit.
However, this time his approval rate went up only to 49%, with 48% still disapproving.

That small margin, under the best conditions, should worry KarlRove & the other Bush handlers.

Democrats aren't doing very well in trying to warn Americans about underfunding of Homeland Security.

BUSH CANNOT MOURN./An essay by E.L Doctorow
[ Edgar Lawrence Doctorow occupies a central position in the history ofAmerican literature.]

I fault this president (George W. Bush) for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be what they could be.

On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it.You see him joking with the press,peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousand dead young men and women who wanted be what they could be.

They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life.... They come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.

So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.
This president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing --- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children.

He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead; he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty; he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance; he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills---it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneously aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nationis conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul.He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figureof such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.
E.L. Doctorow

TOTAL BUSHIES SPEND ON HOME DEFENSE IS MINIMAL; only a small % of that is spent on transport threats; only a small % of that is budgeted for trains & buses (vs. glamorous airlines); AND ONLY 7% OF THAT TINY AMOUNT BUDGETED HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SPENT TO PROTECT RAILROADS ! Boston.com

It gets more and more obvious that the Bushies just don't give a damn about terrorist threats vs. our Homeland.

NUMBER SHRINKS OF NATL.GUARD/ARMY RESERVISTS ON ACTIVE DUTY: from 220,000 before Iraq invasion to 140,000 now. And experts say this number will keep shrinking. NYTIMES

We'd need these 'citizen-soldiers' after a terrorist attack.
Bushies have wrecked our military forces by their foolish project.

BUSHIES SAY THAT A TIMETABLE FOR PULLING OUT WOULD RAISE GUERILLAS' MORALE--
but now a leaked Brit memo reveals that Blair & Bush ARE planning to 'declare victory' and bug out in '06 (prudently, before our Congressional elections)
[letter to NYTIMES ]

The leaked memo referred to a 'partial' pullout. But that would be really stupid, leaving the remaining troops at even greater peril than before.

The expressed hope is that our native militia can take on the guerillas; so far they can't even defend themselves!
No expert thinks that in just a year our militia will be ready: Blair/Bush are saying, "Ready or not, THERE WE GO!"

The Blairites haven't denied the accuracy of the memo--they & Bushies just keep repeating that they'll pull out only when our native militia can take over. GUARDIAN
That will be one week after the Messiah returns.

So the guerilla morale-boost has already happened. No further harm could come from reassuring Americans and Brits that there is a realistic exit strategy. (Never mind that this pullout will count as a BUGOUT--a pullout without victory. This bugout is inevitable; the sooner the better, the later the worse.)
------------------
"They can't beat us on the battlefield", says Bush (who himself is virginaly naive about war). REUTERS
The poor soul hasn't figured out yet that in this new kind of conflict, there ISN'T any battlefield (where our tanks and bombers would certainly prevail.) Every city is liable to devastating attacks by individual terrorists.

Bush says the London bombing was an attack on the 'civilized world'. That word applies dubiously to the U.S. & Britain: consider the atrocities in our prisons, or our use of napalm (designed to stick to the skin to burn better into the body), and cluster-bombs (with cute little unexploded bomblets to be picked up by doomed children), and depleted uranium (causing thousands of defective births).
-----------
Anonymous people in Pentagon are saying we want to 'draw down' our troops partly because they aggravate Iraqi resentment, thus helping to recruit more guerillas! Boston.com

U.S. general said, "I kill one insurgent and thus generate 3 more!"

But Pentagon desk jockeys are more optimistic about quick readiness of our native militia to take over partially than are our generals in the field.

Presumably the plan is to plug in natives in less-crucial roles; problem is that natives will be coming close to remaining GIs, and that some of them might be guerilla infiltrators.

(An infiltrating mess-hall worker killed dozens of GIs a few months ago.)

MURDERED SEALS 'TOO CLOSE TO OSAMA?"
Predictable FoxNews tries to see the bright side of the slaughter by Taliban of 2 dozen U.S.Navy seals. "They may have come too close to Osama!"

Of course! If not, the Taliban would never have taken that opportunity to kill several seals on land and shoot down the helicopter that tried to rescue them!

There's apparently no limit to the folly Fox News will sell to their foolish clients.

USELESS PENTAGON (ltr to USATODAY):
Gen. Wesley Clark [11July] underemphasized his most important point: in countering individual, decentralized guerillas, Pentagon bombers and tanks are pretty useless. (Brit Ministry of Defence had little role in responding to the London bombs.)

Attacks can't be prevented by the administration's preference for taking out state sponsors of terrorism. After all, Britain obviously 'harbored' terrorists; wouldn't they love it if we bombed London?

Then Gen.Clark lists various counter-terrorist measures that might work, e.g., enrolling a volunteer 'civil-defense' corps to warn of possible attacks and to help heal and repair after the attacks that get through.

The Bush administration is like the dumb leopard who vainly tried to counter a stirred-up horde of hornets with its awesome teeth and claws. We're foolish to count on the Pentagon in this new kind of crisis.

Trouble is, we can't afford adequate Homeland Defense precautions when we shovel $1200 millions EACH DAY to the irrelevant Pentagon.

IRAQ INVASION CAUSED LONDON BOMBS?
Blair denied forcefully any idea that the invasion enraged some Brit Muslims so they could be recruited as terrorists.
But a leaked memo from Brit intelligence sources said that the invasion DOES recruit terrorists. LondonTimes

How does this work? We know from the IRA history in Ulster that there are 3 rings of sympathizers: the inner ring of 'hard men', willing to die and kill for the cause; the middle ring of active helpers, who will finance and hide the actual terrorists--without taking much risk themselves; and then the much larger outside ring of people who approve in theory of the terrorist project, but are too lazy and self-concerned to offer much help.

Now: if an atrocity from the opponents happens, (e.g., the BloodySunday atrocity by Brit troops in Derry), then some of the far-out, uncommitted ring may get committed, moving to the middle ring--now willing to hide and finance the terrorists. Meanwhile, some of the half-active people in the middle ring might get enraged enough so they can be recruited into the ranks of the 'hard/men', those killing and dieing in the inside ring.

The problem is that the 'outer ring' here might include MILLIONS of Muslims, among the one thousand millions of Muslims scattered around the world. (Almost all Egyptians and Saudis disapprove of America.)

When the grisly prison photos from our Iraq prisons were circulated worldwide, this double process (outer to middle, middle to inner ring) certainly occured; the Iraq invasion itself was seen as an atrocity. Atrocities of course are committed by both sides in any war--especially when one side wears no uniforms! But you can bet the world's Muslims pay attention mainly to U.S. & Brit atrocities!

So of course this goofy invasion has recruited terrorists. More, it has provided a training ground where neophyte terrorists learn about bombs and bomb-planting.

A clear plurality of Americans now see that the goofy war is making us MORE vulnerable to terrorism at home--especially after the dramatic bombings in London.
Small wonder that the Blair/Bush camp is already 'secretly' planning to 'declare victory' and bug out next year, before the Nov.'06 elections. Few will be fooled.

POLLS BEFORE LONDON BOMBS:
re: War on Terror: 41% say neither side is winning. 21%:"Terrorists are winning." (Given the axiom that terrorists win all ties...)

36% (2/3ds of them GOP) say that we're winning.

50% (vs. 37%) now say Iraq war is DISTINCT from war on Terror generally. (Same % say Ir.war has made us LESS safe.)

53% say Iraq invasion was mistake. InterpressSvc, cited by TRUTHOUT

The London bombs could help or hurt Bush. After Bali explosion, he went down.

FOURTH U.S.OFFENSIVE NEAR FALLUJAH IN A MONTH. That may show that the first three were not very effective.
On insurgency rising again in Fallujah, see NYTIMES
---------------------------
However, U.S. general says car-bombs in Baghdad have dropped to half their former number since the U.S. offensive in Baghdad. But he admits he doesn't know if attacks will stay this low. INDEPENDENT

(He did well to hesitate: on 15July, guerillas launched TEN suicide car-bombs IN BAGHDAD, causing over 100 casualties.)

"NOBODY'S PERFECT!" says Bushie 'HomeSecurity' honcho. He notes correctly that there's no way the govt. can guarantee perfect safety on U.S. public transit. And he notes that they're constantly improving their precautions.
GUARDIAN
Yes, but are these precautions improving as much as they could and should? The Bushies spend only $1 on Home Security for every $10 they shovel to the Pentagon, whose bombers and tanks are irrelevant to the danger from individual terrorists.

What's more, of the little money spent for transportation safety, practically all of it goes to protect airplane travel, NOT travel by trains or buses.

Nobody's perfect--but when it comes to Homeland Security, history will record that the Bushies were CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT.

BRIT,U.S. BUGOUT? A leaked memo in London says that Britain & U.S. plan to halve the number of their troops in Iraq by mid-2006 ! Of course they say that presupposes the readiness of Iraqi militia to take over in many parts of the country. Boston.com,9July

Of course that would be nice timing to mitigate the anti-Iraq-war pressure on Congressmen & Senators running in Nov.'06.

But if all hell breaks loose between July '06 and Nov.'06, that will NOT help the GOP candidates.
-------------
So far, our Iraqi militia CAN'T EVEN DEFEND THEMSELVES, let alone take on the guerillas.
OVER ONE HUNDRED CASUALTIES ON SUNDAY, 10 July.

Young people keep showing up to enlist (some of them guerilla-infiltrators!) because of the relatively high wages offered. But how competent and trainable are they?

Sunnis claim that most recruits are Shia or Kurds, that they're harrassing Sunnis. REUTERS

That makes sense, if leaders are worried about guerilla-infiltrators. But it increases the chance for a civil war.

TO HELL WITH PRODUCTIVITY: Tracy Mott (DenverPost) laments that the ordinary American is not getting better off. But then he diagnoses this problem as coming from a lag in 'productivity'.

Productivity is simply the figure from dividing value- added by the number of worker-hours. An increase in this figure can come from automation, from outsourcing, or from squeezing more production from workers by forcing more work,etc.

Given a fixed amount of demand, an increase in productivity means simply that firms can produce the desired amount of goods or services, using fewer hours of worker-input, with lower 'labor-costs'.

Mott says that with productivity increases, firms 'can grant wage raises without cutting into profits'. Sure they can, but why would they, if they don't have to? By restricting labor costs, firms can and will RAISE their profits--indeed, U.S. profits have soared recently while ordinary workers are, if anything, worse off (getting same wages while paying far more for medical care).

Mott notes that when workers' pay rises or falls collectively, aggregate demand usually rises and falls with it--eventually ; but the individual firm very sensibly cares more about its immediate profits than about remote changes in collective demand. (Recently aggregate demand has risen domestically while wages/salaries stayed stagnant.)
---------------------------
A tip for ordinary people and thinkers who care about their welfare: ignore all data about 'the health of the economy'; ask only about the wages/salaries and working conditions of the workers (vs. the owners).

"In America," say some,"workers are also owners!"
True, his pension plan may give each worker a tiny toehold in the stockMarket; but this never balances out low pay and awful working conditions--or even joblessness. And the worker may never collect on his pension!

"NO IDEA, HOWEVER LEGIT, CAN BE AN ALIBI FOR MURDER," says Spanish honcho. FinTimes

That's very true; the mass murders by terrorists around the world should be condemned by everyone, Muslims included.

Also, we should recognize that the fine-sounding ideas of the Bushies about 'extending democracy into the MiddleEast' in NO way gives absolution for the mass slaughter involved in the unjust invasion of Iraq by America and Britain.
--------------------------------
'HIRED HIT-MEN DID THE BOMBS?' London police raised the possibility that the terrorists perhaps hired Caucasian 'hit men' to put the timed bombs in place,then bug out. USATODAY

That possibility raises to a new height the difficulty of catching these guys or preventing new attacks.

"SHIITES OUT!" 22 Shiite homes in Sunni/Arab region had pamphlets shoved under their doors warning them to get out or get killed.

On the other hand, Shiite leader SADR, (2d only to Sistani in influence) said he would soon issue a fatwa ordering all his millions of followers to sign a petition demanding that U.S. & other foreign troops get out of Iraq. GUARDIAN

AMERICA HOPED that Bushies' 'counterterrorism' efforts had weakened AlQuaeda. Not so, says a prof who has studied the pattern of suicide attacks. NTTIMES

A.Q. has been involved in more attacks, with more victims, than in all the years before 9/11 combined.

He thinks that Islamic fundamentalism is NOT so much of a factor as the straightforward intent to drive the combat troops of U.S.& allies out of Muslim countries.

Huge majority of suicide bombers are from SaudiArabia & other countries where GIs have been stationed since 1990. (Besides these: Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia (!) and Morocco. )

These terrorists have NOT come from IRAN, LIBYA, or SYRIA! Afghanistan produced them only AFTER our invasion.
---------
In Dec.03 an AQ planning document was found saying they wouldn't waste time attacking U.S. Instead they'd hit at our allies who sent troops to Iraq, STARTING WITH SPAIN..which they surely did !

Italy is starting to pull out troops this year, as is Britain, as have Poland and Spain.

The AQ strategy is to isolate Bushies' America & make it bear the full burden of its imperial policies. (U.S. is practically bankrupt already.)

The question is when the billionaires who really run the GOP will turn on Bush & force him to liquidate this failed enterprise.

EGYPT AND SAUDI ARABIA: The governments of these countries are closely allied to the Bushies. (Egypt gets more money from U.S. than any country except Israel.)

But the PEOPLE see U.S. unfavorably: 98% of the Egyptians and 94% of the Saudis. FinTimes

SUPER-EXPLOSIVE: Incredible that less than 10 pounds of explosive could tear apart that London bus.
Four guys with 4 backpacks have disrupted London and caused almost 1000 casualties--(the 'merely wounded' often lost arms, legs, eyes, faces.)

Right after we took Baghdad, GIs (undermanned because of Rummy's stupid blunder) had to watch while truckloads of super-high explosives (350 tons) were looted.

This stuff used in London ( which will be used again) might very well be some of that super-explosive looted from Iraq.
==========
NOTE that the Brit military was USELESS for warding off individual terrorists who target buses, trains,etc.
Similarly, our Pentagon (getting $1200 millions each DAY)is useless for warding off this new kind of threat.

Bombers, tanks and soldiers will not ward off INDIVIDUAL terrorists. What are needed: policemen, firemen, medics etc. We need hundreds or thousands of plain-clothes observers on public transit to note suspicious parcels or heavy coats( perhaps on a suicide bomber).

Yet Bushies give $10 to useless Pentagon for every $1 going to Homeland Defense.
-------------------------
Bush says the London bombings show we 'must stay on the OFFENSIVE'. Every event 'shows' HIM that we must continue to attack other nations (bombing is the Pentagon's main talent!)--even though experts say our silly war in Iraq is a training-place for neophyte terrrorists worldwide to learn guerilla techniques--e.g., coordinating devastating bomb attacks like those in London.
==========
The London bombings might result in a surge of support for their 'war-leader' Blair. But observers say that Britons seem to be tieing the attacks to Blair's war-alliance with Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq. Let's hope Britons prove that sensible. NYTIMES

If the Labor Party finally dumps Blair (as the Spaniards, after their train attack, dumped their premier who had allied himself with Bush & sent troops to Iraq) that might wake up Americans who foolishly say that "Bush has promoted our security".

We have bragged about the successful Iraq election.

But now 123 of those elected have demanded that U.S. set a timetable to get out. JuanCole (a respected scholar on Iraq), cited in InformationClearinghouse,8 July

This is pretty courageous, because if we did pull out, these parliamentarians would be on a short list for assassinations. (Of course they probably are now!)

SHEEP FOLLOW LEADER OVER CLIFF: In Turkey, 450 sheep cheerfully followed their leader over a cliff.
ABC,8Jy

This possibility is why I responded (to the pro-Bush signs saying "UNITED WE STAND") with a sign that said,
UNITED WE FALL.

TERRORISTS PLAN FROM IRAQ: The top spokesman for our puppet-govt. in Iraq said that world terrorists, having lost their Afghan base, now use Iraq as base to plan their attacks worldwide (e.g., in London). Boston.com,8Jy

There's no reason to think Iraq was a base before we invaded. Obviously--for this and other reasons--this goofy invasion has made us LESS safe from terrorist attacks.

OVER-THE-COUNTER 'MORNING-AFTER' PILL
doesn't change the frequency of use of regular contraceptives or of 'M.A.' pills, says Brit study.

However, a large proportion of women preferred to get the pills from a pharmacist, rather than from a doctor--even though doctors are 'free' in Britain. REUTERS

Of course the Bushies, appeasing their loony-fundamentalist backers (Catholic & Protestant) won't make the pill available here without a prescription! (The doctors here, who are NOT free, wouldn't like this either.)

If I were the parent of a teen-aged girl whom I suspected of being sexually active, I'd hesitate to put her regularly on contraceptive pills (which over the years have bad effects).
Instead, I'd keep M.A. pills in the medicine cabinet, so that if she had unprotected sex, she could remedy that.
(Of course no pill will help prevent SexDiseases. Only condoms can do that.)

If I had a son in the same situation,I'd make these pills available to him, suggesting that he persuade any girl having unprotected sex with him to take the pill afterward--to avoid 18 years of paying for child-support!

This is truly a magic pill; the only problem is that poor young girls often don't KNOW about it!

GEORGE GALLOWAY SPEAKS UP AGAIN:
He has always opposed the Iraq invasion. He sued (successfully) a Brit tabloid that claimed he took money from Saddam. Now he has reminded Brits that it was Blair's puppet-backing of Bush's invasion that provoked the bombs in London.

Naughty! Brits are supposed to unite now under their leader--even though he is guilty of bringing on the bombing!

FEDS WON'T BUDGE FROM POT! Local law-enforcement officers agree that home-made METH is biggest drug problem in U.S. But Bushies' feds insist on spending all the money on POT! WashPost

Granted,there are 15 pot-users for every 1 meth-user (say Feds). But meth is so much more harmful and destructive, and dangerous to make!

And of course the U.S. military campaign in Colombia against opium is pretty silly. Americans who want to fry their brain will make the drugs at home, or use prescription drugs available at home.

SECURITY ON TRAINS/BUSES: After the London attack, TV showed troops armed with ferocious long weapons on trains, in depots etc.

That's a pretty nutty way to prevent terrorist attacks on public transit. I'd think, "My worst danger is to get shot by that loony soldier! I'm going to take my car."

We need hundreds of plain-clothes operatives, to help note abandoned parcels and people wearing heavy coats in summertime.

That would cost lots of money; but there are plenty of unemployed people who would welcome this role.

Never mind: U.S. officals always think of the image, not the reality.

HUNDREDS OF LONDON BOMB CASUALTIES
BBC

This will likely INCREASE support for Blair--even though he provoked this attack, by helping Bush invade Iraq & Afghanistan.

People foolishly back a 'war-leader', even if HE PROVOKED THE WAR!
--------------------
THE DUMB LEOPARD: (letter to DenverPost):
'PENTAGONS' USELESS VS. INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS:
The Brit MinistryOfDefense (busy fighting Bush's wars in Iraq & Afghanistan) was useless for warding off the recent London bombings.And our Pentagon, with its bombs and missiles, will be pretty useless in warding off terrorist attacks here.

We need to spend hundreds of billions on Homeland Defense. But the Bushies think they can't afford this: not while they shovel luscious tax-breaks to billionaires, and shovel $1200 millions EACH DAY to the useless Pentagon.

We're like the dumb leopard who stirred up a huge hive of hornets, and tried vainly to counter them using his awesome teeth and claws (i.e., our airpower).
----------
One wonders if prowar Brits said (as their U.S. mates do) "Better to fight them there than here!" Of course, with the hundreds of thousands of enraged Muslims around the world (still a small minority of world Muslims!) 'THEY' can fight us there and here and everywhere!

Bushie wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in no way increase our security at home! Instead, these wars recruit more terrorists around the world--and TRAIN more terrorists on the spot.

The only way we could mitigate (not remove) the dangers is by expensive HomeSecurity precautions here. The Bushies won't pay for these safeguards.
==========
Meanwhile, in Iraq, 55 casualties on Thursday,7 June.
Nearly 1500 killed in May and June. MercuryNews