There were no Eid celebrations in Baghdad as people mourned the death of more than 250 people in the deadliest terrorist attack since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. While the takfiri terrorists claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing, the real perpetrators are the Saudi, Qatari, Turkish regimes that provide support to terrorists. Beyond that, US rulers--Bush, Cheney et al--must be held directly responsible for such crimes.1
Until recently, Bushism referred only to George W. Bush’s infamous malaproprisms, such as “they misunderestimated me,” “make the pie higher.” As Americans gear up for the 2016 presidential elections, it is coming to mean something completely dif-ferent. Two dynasties are competing for the presidency. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush will most likely face off, the former the spouse of the popular Bill Clinton (1992–2000), the latter, the younger brother of the now reviled George Bush junior (2001–2008), herein Bush II — both sons of George H.W. Bush senior (vice presi-dent 1980–1987, president 1988–1991).
International Criminal Court complaint filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Rice and Gonzales. In the wake of the US Senate report into CIA torture, the complaint by respected International Law Professor Francis Boyle against former US officials assumes greater urgency and significance
Neither the Saudi ruler nor King Abdullah are fit to rule the Arabian Peninsula.
During his 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama repeatedly said the war in Iraq was ill-advised and should be ended.
Former US President George Bush canceled a forthcoming trip to Geneva fearing that he might be arrested. Bush was to be keynote speaker at a gala dinner organized by the Jewish group, Keren Hayesod, on February 12.
David Frum, George Bush’s former speechwriter, is not the kind of person one would invite to dinner. Like all Zionists, he is arrogant, pushy and full of himself. He coined the infamous phrase “axis of evil” used in Bush’s State of the Union address...
If paranoia has become the official dogma of US domestic policy, militant unilateralism and hegemonic tendencies born of a sense of raw power have taken hold of Washington’s foreign policies...
Such was the artificiality of the hype surrounding the election of Barack Obama at the beginning of November last year — only two months ago — that the elation has largely dissipated even before he has taken office. For many Americans, the realization that nothing much is likely to change has emerged from his appointment of establishment political figures to all major offices in his administration.
The self-inflicted wounds on American imperialism and Israeli zionism in Iraq and Afghanistan are easily seen. The public memory is blank to the commander-in-chief who claimed the “end of major combat operations” just a few months after initiating the war against Iraq in March 2003.
The US midterm elections in November 2006, in which the Democrats took control of the House of Congress for the first time in twelve years, was perhaps the moment when most commentators in the US realised that the country had turned decisively against Bush and the neo-cons. As analysts dissected the implications of the results, Bush took himself off for a tour of friendly countries in south-east Asia, to generate pictures of himself appearing powerful and statesmanlike and counter the bad political news at home.
George W. Bush’s tour of the Middle East last month was reminiscent of old-style imperialism, when emperors would occasionally tour their vassal states to assert their overlordship and remind their local underlings of their place. George W. Bush concluded his Middle East tour last month by telling Syria, Iran and their allies to “end their interference” in Lebanese politics. This came just a few days after the US president sent “a clear message to the Syrians – that you will continue to be isolated, you will continue to be viewed as a nation that is thwarting the will of the Lebanese people.”
Intense debate has erupted in Washington about why sixteen US intelligence agencies unanimously endorsed the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report on December 3 relating to Iran’s nuclear programme, which has openly contradicted (and therefore embarrassed) US president George Bush. For years Bush has accused Iran of working on building a “nuclear bomb”, despite vigorous denials from Tehran. The NIE report has confirmed what Iran had been saying all along: that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes and that its enrichment activities comply fully with its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) rights and obligations.
Things are not going well for US president George Bush, not only because he is now seen as a lame-duck president or that bad news continues to pour out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the phony war on terror is not yielding results as it did immediately after 911, when frequent “orange alert” warnings kept people frightened enough to agree to whatever the government was demanding, including curtailment of civil liberties. People seen to have seem through these tricks of the government, which is widely distrusted by most Americans today.
For those who spend time observing and analyzing the US’s policy toward Iran objectively, it is commonplace to point out that there always seem to be two entirely different trends to developments, which point in different directions and yet maintain an uneasy co-existence. This understanding is based on both what is happening now with regards to Iran, and parallels with what happened a few years ago, in the build-up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003.
It is not easy to resist a sense of déja vu while watching the components of the US’s new drive to curb the escalating insurgency and extreme inter-communal violence gripping Iraq fall into place. Earlier attempts to shake up the disastrous US military effort inIraq have been failures. All indications are that the new, much-touted drive, which forms the cornerstone of America’s exit strategy from Iraq, is unlikely to fare any better.