With the pleas for non-partisanship and peace still ringing over Washington, Bush aides announce today that he will completely ignore the will of Congress and the American People and send more troops to violence-ridden Iraq.

Bush decision also come on the wake of a Democratic Congress announcing they want to vote on a troop increase.  Bush’s need for more troops is not based on any rationality, but on Bush’s desire for revenge and control until the very end of his failed administration.  He sees the stance of Nancy Pelosi ("We will not be swiftboated on these issues") and Ted Kennedy (introducing legislation to block funding of additional troops) and Bush refuses to yeild to common sense.

Bush’s claim that he is responsive to what his generals in the field want is a farce.  Because General George Casey disagreed with Bush’s military wishes, he went shopping for another General that holds his point of view.  Insightfully Bush went to the person who was in charge of the failed mission to train the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, Lt. General David Petraeus.  Desirous of a promotion Petraeus agreed to support Bush’s position.  In return Bush promptly promoted him to General and put him in charge of Iraq.  Now when Bush pulls his string, Petraeus says, "More troops.  More troops.". 

You’re doing a hell of a job, Petraeus. 

After four years of a floundering war, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of young American and innocent Iraqi lives lost, Bush is going on television tonight to try to convince the American People that more troops thrown on top of a bad war is a good thing.  It should be an interesting show.

It’s hard to believe.  Just when we need an additional 30,000 troops in Iraq, Bush bombs Somalia today in an effort to kill 3 suspected Al-Aqada men.  In the mean time he killed about 22 to 27 people.

Canada reports that Bush’s hasty strike may have killed 3 Canadians. Good job, B.

 Italy is not too thrilled with the hasty air strikes, either.  According to the BBC:

But Italy - the former colonial power in central and southern Somalia - condemned the US strikes.

Italian Foreign minister Massimo d’Alema said Rome opposed "unilateral initiatives that could spark new tensions".

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed "concern" that the air strikes could lead to an escalation of hostilities.

 Most of the European community has condemed Bush’s strike and claims it could lead to the destabilization of Somalia.  Usually when you bomb the crap out of a country, that’s what happens.

The evil, fork-tongued Robert Novak of the Chicago Sun Times reported today:

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who has gone public with criticism of President Bush’s Iraq policy, is caustic in private about the proposed ‘’surge'’ of 30,000 additional U.S. troops.

Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops.

‘’The colonels will always say they need more troops,'’ the retired general says. ‘’That’s why we have generals.'’

A footnote: Senior Republican senators are trying to get word to the president that any troop surge would be dead on arrival in Congress.

When the breeze blows another way, Novak is there with the wind in his face. 

Do you ever wonder how the US Army is going to come up with the 30,000 surge in troops that Bush wants to send to Iraq?  The draft?  No, this is our crack military’s answer to increasing the number of troops:  send letters to 275 officers killed or wounded in action urging them to return to active duty.  CNN reported:

"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers’ families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.

The Army did not say how or when the mistake was discovered. It said the database normally used for such correspondence with former officers had been "thoroughly reviewed" to remove the names of wounded or dead soldiers.

 Did they forget that soldiers die and are wounded on a regular basis?  Let’s rotate the recruiters out there for a tour.

President Bush want to put in a "surge" of 9,000 to 30,000 troops into Iraq in order to increase his chances of controlling Baghdad and Anbar provinces.  Bush’s objective is to win the war at any cost.  What does a win mean to America?  Absolutely nothing, but Bush gets his vindication (but I digress to the obvious).

The Dems have told Bush in a letter Friday that they oppose a surge in troops under any circumstances.   They want any increase in troop levels to be approved by Congress.  What a concept in democracy, eh?  The Dems say that any increase in troops would lessen the time Iraqi leaders will take to actually control the country themselves.  Common sense and bi-partisian debate…how refreshing.

While all this posturing is well and good for America, lets reveal the escape plan for the Bush Crime Family.  When the Dems force the US out of a war started by a selfish wanna-be dictator, they will claim they could have won if it were not for the Dems stopping the fight.    Bush has no real plan on what the military will to do with this "surge" - he just want to set up his own exit strategy.

Last week in a hasty mannor, Saddam Hussein was executed by hanging.  There has been very little said about the fact that the US appointed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, made a political promise to execute Saddam before the end of the year.  It does smack of a conspiracy to cover up the fact that Saddam gassed the Kurds with weapons supplied by a US Republican Administration.  The following is from a Pakistani news paper, the PakTribune.com: 

The stupidity of the Baghdad puppets beggars belief. First, they commission a kangaroo court which refuses to consider charges relating to the invasion of Iran in 1980, or the gassing of the Kurds or any other event in which the Western powers were complicit.

The farcical trial itself allowed Saddam, in the eyes of the mass of people in the Middle East, to replace the humiliating image of his capture with him as the confident accuser from the dock. The perfunctory dismissal of the appeal and the dossier of complaints from international jurists only added to the perception of justice.

As Bush gets his lilly-white, Texas ass spanked by the Iraqi insurgents, he has found himself within a rock and a hard place.  In an attempt to quell the Iraqi civil war, Bush must kiss the ring of the "axis of evil" leaders.  The BBC reported today that there is a much-rumoured leak that the US needs to engage with Iraqi neighbours Iran and Syria to enlist their support for ending the insurgency.

The Iraq Study Group (ISG) co-chair,James A. Baker, III, said last October (before the elections….):

(Baker) expected the panel would depart from Mr. Bush’s repeated calls to “stay the course,” and he strongly suggested that the White House enter direct talks with countries it had so far kept at arm’s length, including Iran and Syria.

“I believe in talking to your enemies,” he said in an interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” noting that he made 15 trips to Damascus, the Syrian capital, while serving Mr. Bush’s father as secretary of state.

“It’s got to be hard-nosed, it’s got to be determined,” Mr. Baker said. “You don’t give away anything, but in my view, it’s not appeasement to talk to your enemies.”

 Bush is not prepared to do the right thing.  He still insists that the US can win and that he has been chosen by God to lead the greatest country on earth.

In a bold move by Matt Lauer of ABC’s Today Show, ABC has announced, before God and the world, that Iraq is in a "Civil War".  This break in the press from using terms such as "approaching Civil War" has had an orgasmic effect that has rippled through the press world.  Jaws are dropping across American and even across the pond.

Pundits across the nation are stunned, not only at the obviousness of the announcement,  but at their own abstinence in formally recognizing the true situation in Iraq.  It’s as if the scales have been lifted from their eyes.  Clarence Page of the Chicago tribute wrote:

With that (announcement by Matt Lauer), in my view, NBC showed a keen grasp of the obvious. A civil war is a fight between factions or regions within the same culture, society or nationality for political power or control of an area. Iraq appears to have fit that description for much of the past two years.

Welcome to the World of the Real. (Morphius, The Matrix, 1999). 

In rebuttle to the common sense of most Americans, Bush has stayed the course on his position that Iraq is not actually in Civil War, but the culprit behind it all is Al Qaeda.  In a press conference in Estonia on Monday, Bush has the following words of wisdom to offer on the subject:

No question, it’s tough.  No question about it. There’s a lot of sectarian violence taking place — fomented, in my opinion, because of these attacks by al-Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal.

Sooner or later the Press will realize the jig is up.  Hopefully it’s sooner. 

While inept President Bush is blaming the recent heightened violence on Al Queda, BBC has reported that Iraqi President Talabani has met with Iranian President Ahmadinejad to ask for help in quelling the violence (you won’t see this in the American press).

Mr Talabani was given a red-carpet welcome by Mr Ahmadinejad at Iran’s presidential palace and inspected a guard of honour.

Iranian television quoted the Iraqi president as saying: "We are in dire need of Iran’s help in establishing security and stability in Iraq."

The US and UK have repeatedly accused Iran of impeding efforts to stabilise Iraq.

But Mr Ahmadinejad said a secure, progressive and powerful Iraq was in the interests of Iran and the whole region.

He said the situation inflicted on Iraq by its enemies pained all Iranians and Muslims.

"Any help the government and nation of Iran can give to strengthen security in Iraq will be given," he said. "We have no limitation for co-operation in any field."

Iranian officials said Iran had been trying to organise a summit including Mr Ahmadinejad, Mr Talabani and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but that Damascus had not responded to the invitation.

The BBC’s Frances Harrison in Tehran says some have suggested Iran wants to keep the US bogged down in Iraq to prevent it attacking Iran in the future over its nuclear programme.

But she says it seems Iran is increasingly concerned about the uncontrollable level of violence in Iraq.

Mr Ahmadinejad has previously said Iran is willing to help but only if the US changes its approach and abandons what it calls its "bullying" of Iran.

This follows the most violent sectarian attacks yet.  For those of you unfamiliar with Bush propaganda, sectarian violence is the same as Civil War, however none of the press has been able to bring themselves to admit this.   

Reuters reported today  that the Islamist Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) from Algeria has announce it has joined al-Queda and proclaimed allegiance to Osama bin Laden after nearly a year of negotiations between the two groups. Abd al-Malek Droudkel, leader of the GSPC, also urged other Islamist groups around the world to join forces to defeat the US. 

Their targets seem to be the US and France.  al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawarhiri urged the GSPC to punish the "Crusader nation" France.  According the GSPC, "The United States can be overcome only by the Islamic United States….We advise our brothers in other jihadist movements to join this unity." 

"We’re not talking about large numbers of terrorists, like Iraq or Afghanistan, or fixed training bases," one U.S. counterterrorism official in Washington told Reuters.

"We’re talking about relatively small numbers of moving targets who are difficult to fix and destroy but who represent an increasing threat … It’s not the biggest threat in the world, but it’s a significant emerging one."

These terrorists have a few common threads:  they are all out of poor countries and they all hate the US for their policy in Iraq.