Theodore's World

No One Is Focusing on Winning in Iraq;
It’s “Get Out, and Turn It Over to Our Enemies”
by Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: They continue to leak data from the upcoming Baker Report (it’s being called): the Iraq Study Group. It’s fascinating what’s happening on this. Nobody any longer is talking about winning. Everybody is now talking about how to “get out.” These leaks obviously are having their intended purpose. The intended purpose is to set the stage for when the real report comes out. The real report is probably going to exactly or equal what the leaks have been, and that is, we gotta get out of there, and we gotta let Syria and Iran go ahead and assume control over this and get their assistance with all this. Meanwhile, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, once again now, saying that the United States, Israel, and the UK are doomed, that it’s only a matter of time. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela says he’s going to take us down. Nobody seems to notice or care.
It’s amazing.
I left here on Tuesday, get back now, and not much has changed. The tenor of the news is still pretty much the same. I’ve got the requisite number of stories on what the Democrats are and aren’t going to do, and how they’re going to be liberal and not liberal, and how they’re going to investigate and how they’re not going to investigate. The pope is in Turkey. We have bombing threats, bomb attacks on Wal-Mart now, and there’s probably an explanation for this, but everybody is all hepped up now about the situation in Iraq with the Baker report. Here’s a little blurb on it from the Associated Press:
“The Bush administration is stepping up diplomatic efforts to stabilize Iraq, even as key congressional figures say their confidence in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government is waning.” You know, I would love if the Baker report said: “Just put Saddam Hussein back in charge.” I know there’s a columnist in the LA Times, a guy who wrote the “Why I Hate Bush” column named Jonathan Chait. Do it, he says. Do it now. Yeah, he mass murders people, but the guy kept order. The guy knew how to keep order. Maybe that’s the thing we should do. (Laughing.) It’s getting so absurd that I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody besides a columnist makes that suggestion. “The New York Times reported today that a draft report by the Iraq study group led by James Baker recommends aggressive regional diplomacy, including talks with Iran and Syria.”
This is no different than what has been leaked on prior occasions. “Anonymous officials who have seen the draft report…” I wonder who they are. Could they be members of the commission, I wonder? By the way, Vernon Jordan is on the commission (I wonder what he thinks we ought to do about Iraq) and Sandra Day O’Connor, great Supreme Court justice, she’s on the commission. I wonder what she thinks we ought to do about Iraq. Why are these people any better than anybody else on this commission? Ed Meese is on the commission. He makes a lot of sense, a lot of times, but Vernon Jordan is a rainmaker. Sandra Day O’Connor was a justice who doesn’t think the judiciary should be criticized. The best and the brightest in these “blue ribbon” commissions, they get appointed — and I’m looking at all this, and nowhere is anybody suggesting that we win it.
Nobody is! We could do the Limbaugh Plan. The Limbaugh Plan is win in Iraq and get out. The Limbaugh Plan would consist of many things which many say are impossible. Stop the politics. Have both parties line up for US victory. Of course, it’s a pipe dream because the fact of the matter is, as I said. Have you heard all the calls over the weekend, “We’ve gotta send troops into Darfur!” That started before we left on Tuesday and that’s there now. What the case is as I mentioned brilliantly to a caller last week, the left in this country will send our military anywhere where we do not have our own national interests at stake. They’ll send ’em on Meals on Wheels programs. They’ll send them to stop a bloody civil war in Africa.
They’ll do it to feed people or what have you, but where our interests are at stake, no way! They’re not going to send our troops and our military anywhere where our interests are at stake, because it’s not fair, and they don’t like the military being used. All of this is a setup. This whole policy on Iraq is a setup now to see to it that we don’t have the guts or courage to deploy forces anywhere around the world the next time we need to defend ourselves. That’s the danger that lurks behind all of this. With the kind of political leaders we’re breeding, who’s going to have the guts to do it if it’s necessary to do anyway, given what no doubt will happen to him as has happened to George W. Bush?
Oh, by the way, “anonymous officials who have seen the report say it does not specify any timetables for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq although the commissioners are expected to debate the feasibility of such timetables. Appearing Monday on Good Morning America, Jimmy…” I think we’ve got the audio of this at some point. I’m not sure I want to listen to it. Carter thinks that Bush “will take their advice as much as he possibly can. Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, potential presidential contender,” Ha-ha! Don’t make me laugh, “in 2008 said, ‘It’s not too late for the United States to extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq, and as for Bush some of the harshest criticism is coming from his own party, we have misunderstood we have misread we have mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam,’ said Hagel.”
Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. “Senator Dick Durban of Illinois, now the number two Senate Democrat called Iraq ‘the worst US foreign policy decision since Vietnam.’ He said Democrats do not have a quick answer, and any solution might be bipartisan.” They don’t have an answer? They don’t? All of a sudden now they don’t have an answer! Well, they did have an answer prior to the election! That was cut-and-run, redeploy, whatever. You know, redeploy is another one of these twisting and turning of words that just means quit, but it softens the message of cut-and-run or quit and leave. We’ll “redeploy.” We’ll put our troops somewhere where there’s really no need for them to be under the pretense if something really bad happens we can mobilize them quickly and get ’em back in there.
Let me try to explain it. The Iraq war, to the vast majority of people in this country, is no more than a 20-second or 30-second television show every night on the Nightly News — and they’re uncomfortable. They’re fed up. They don’t want to watch it anymore. “Just end it. Figure it out! Just end it, because I don’t want to see it anymore.” To them it’s not about the country being threatened. It is not about a worldwide conflict in which we find ourselves. It’s just something inconvenient. The American people don’t want to be inconvenienced; they don’t want to see that stuff. We got a story out there now: We’ve been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. So what? When did World War II become the official timeline of wars? It doesn’t matter. The objective doesn’t matter. “However long it takes to win this,” that’s no longer the objective. Get out, because the American people don’t want to see it anymore. They’re going to continue to watch the news, and they don’t want to see this. It’s no more complicated than that.
CALLER: I was calling because, to be honest, I’m actually starting to get afraid of what’s going to happen with the new direction we’re going in, pulling out and speaking to the terrorist countries? It honestly makes me afraid.
RUSH: Be very afraid, sir.
CALLER: You know, I know people that died in the World Trade, and I really don’t — you know, I love my country, and I love all my fellow Americans, and for another tragic thing like that to happen again, I feel it’s coming in the direction that we’re going.
RUSH: Yeah. I think you’re right. I think it’s going to take at least one or more of those kind of events to get people revved up. They’ve forgotten about it because they want to forget about it and because you live in America you can forget about it because there are enough diversions, there’s tranquility and there’s peace for the most part. Everybody has their problems, but there’s economic opportunity, economic performance. Why do we want to jeopardize all that with a war on terror when there hasn’t been another attack here? Plus with the political divisions on this, the whole subject has become a sort of a negative for people. They don’t even want to hear about it, much less support it.
RUSH: We went in there on the basis of intelligence reports there were weapons of mass destruction plus Saddam. Let’s not refight that. Yeah, that’s why we went.
RUSH: Well, look, the president built this stuff up for a year and a half, two years talking about this in speech after speech after speech, and he did often reference the horrors committed against the population of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. He talked about the rape rooms and the torture rooms and so forth, and the mass murders. You can’t rewind life like a TiVo, but I look back on it. If we’d have just gone in there after the Gulf War, we had 500,000 troops over there. Do you people remember this? We had 500,000 troops just to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and it took, what, three days? Then the highway to hell, the road to Baghdad was paved with so much death and mayhem and the pictures on the nightly newscasts were upsetting and so we stopped. If we’d gotten rid of Saddam back then, but you can’t play the IFgame. I know where you’re going with this.
You heard me say earlier today nobody is talking about winning, and you want to know what winning it is. At this stage of the game, I’m going to be accused of playing 20/20 hindsight, but it’s not too late to change this. Our objective right now is establishing and building a government and a democracy. That’s all fine and dandy, and it’s all well and good.
But to me, the focus needs to be on achieving a military victory whatever it takes. If that means wiping out these leaders of the resistance and the insurgents, the terrorists wherever they are… The other day there was a story about some guy in Iraq who was disguised as a woman nursing a baby who was launching attacks against our troops. Wipe ’em out. This is war. If you have to blow up some buildings, blow ’em up. If you have to level some infrastructure, do it. Of course, we’ve really built the country up in a marvelous way, and nobody is reporting that very much. Anyway, that’s military victory as it’s always been defined.

Wild Thing’s comment…….
I know it is long, but it is well worth the read.Yes I like Rush and listen to him as often as I can. I also think for myself and don’t just follow lock step with what he says on every single topic. But when he is right on target he can be awesome. This transcript from Nov. 27th, 2006 is excellent and I wanted to share it with you.
Our troops are wiinning and the left can’t stand it. They never can when they see positive things happening. But our troops also need to know they can fight this war in a military way and not in a PC way. Not with having to get permission for every shot fired, every building taken out. This is wrong in more then words can say. I beleive in supporting our military NOT in weakening it, attacking it and making it folllow some kind of mish mosh PC agenda bent on disabeling it at every turn.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani gestures as he speaks with his Iranian counterpart Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Tehran

TEHRAN
Washington Times
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Iran would do whatever it could to help provide security to Iraq amid warnings the country was on the brink of civil war.
Mr. Ahmadinejad made the pledge at the start of a visit to Iran by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, whose trip was delayed for two days because of a curfew imposed after bombings Thursday that killed 202 persons in a Shi’ite Muslim stronghold. The curfew was lifted yesterday.
The United States is facing calls to engage Tehran in direct talks to help end the bloodshed, which U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said had pushed Iraq closer to civil war.

“The Iranian nation and government will definitely stand beside their brother, Iraq, and any help the government and nation of Iran can give to strengthen security in Iraq will be given,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said, Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA) reported.

“We have no limitation for cooperation in any field,” he said.

Mr. Ahmadinejad was speaking shortly after Mr. Talabani’s arrival and just before the two presidents held formal talks. Mr. Talabani said he would discuss improving ties between the neighbors, which fought an eight-year war in the 1980s.

“In this trip, we will also talk about Iraq’s security file because Iraq needs the comprehensive assistance of Iran to fight terrorism and create stability,” ISNA quoted Mr. Talabani as saying.

Political analysts said Iran might try to use talks with Mr. Talabani to show off its influence to the United States and bolster its position ahead of any talks with its old enemy. They also said Iran’s ability to stem the bloodshed was limited.
U.S. officials have said the violence is being spurred by Iran’s backing for Shi’ite groups and its weapons exports. Iran dismisses the charges.
Mr. Annan, making a rare comment on the Iraq situation, said he thought the country was nearly in civil war — something Iraqi and U.S. politicians have refused to say despite mounting deaths.

“Given the developments on the ground, unless something is done drastically and urgently to arrest the deteriorating situation, we could be there. In fact, we are almost there,” Mr. Annan told reporters in response to a civil war question.

Earlier, King Abdullah II of Jordan, who will host a summit in Amman between Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush this week, said “something dramatic” must come out of it because Iraq was “beginning to spiral out of control.”

The New York Times said a draft report to be debated by the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, would urge an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative to include direct talks with Iran and Syria.
The group’s recommendations will be sent to the White House, which is considering a change in strategy in Iraq to allow the U.S. to start pulling out some of its 140,000 troops.
Britain, the United States’ main ally in Iraq, said yesterday it hoped to withdraw thousands of troops by December 2007, while Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi said the last Italian troops would leave next month.
But Poland appeared to push back the deadline for withdrawal of its 900 troops from Iraq, saying the force would leave by the end of 2007, not by mid-2007 as previously stated.

Wild Thing’s comment…….
Oh sure send in the fox to “help” guard the henhouse. The word insane comes to mind.

America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
Townhall
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so — not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism — my culture trumps America’s culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” the Nazis’ bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison’s right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Of course, Ellison’s defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of “Dianetics” by L. Ron Hubbard.
So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done — choose his own most revered book for his oath?
The answer is obvious — Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison’s doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal — the Islamicization of America.
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.

Wild Thing’s comment……
OK, I have checked around the internet to see if there is an actual quote by Keith Ellison (aka Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison Muhammad) saying he will use the Koran and all I could find was an article saying that the Arab press is saying that is what he will do. So I will just say this, I was against Ellison from day one. He is part of the Islam agenda for America and no good thing will come from having him in any office. Hell I would rather send him packing right out of our wonderful country. Ellison is my enemy in every way!!
The write up by Prager is excellent nontheless, and perhaps saying something about it now, ahead of time will get the word out as to how vile this would be. I hope so!!

Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day and you’ll love his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.
You gotta love this!!!!
It is a portion of National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We’re going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That’s a bit irresponsible, isn’t it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don’t see why, they’ll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don’t you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don’t see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you’re equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, Ma’am, you’re equipped to be a prostitute, but you’re not one, are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended. You gotta love the Marines!

Wild Thing’s comment……
I got this in my email from a Vietnam Vet I have known for many years and I thought it was a good one so I wanted to share it with you all.

“If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”

Rep. Rangel: Lack Of Options Makes Soldiers Enlist
(CBS) NEW YORK Congressman Charles Rangel said most enlisted soldiers join the military because they do not have the “option of having a decent career.”
Speaking with Fox News reporter Chris Wallace on Sunday, Representative Rangel voiced his belief that soldiers in America’s armed forces join only for lack of a better choice.
He said:

“I want to make it abundantly clear: if there’s anyone who believes that these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No young, bright individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits.”

Rangel also said of American soldiers:

“And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment. If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.”

The Congressman also continued to press for the return of the draft, saying:

“I have been advocating a draft ever since the President’s been talking about war.”

Last month Senator Kerry told students at Pasadena City College that, “you know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

His words were seen by Democrats and Republicans as demeaning to enlisted men and women, implying that they enlist because they do not “make an effort to be smart.” However, the senator later apologized, calling his statement a “botched joke” on President Bush.

Wild Thing’s comment……..
Seperatted at birth Rangel and Kerry sure love to bash our fine mimlitary. Rangel is making no bones about the fact he knows so little, other than being racially ignorant and demeaning those in the military and the state of Mississippi.
Rangel and Kerry both are not worth the air they breath. Patriotism is a concept they do not understand.
I really wish the GOP would stand up and denounce idiots like Rangel point blank. Oh well. I guess being a eunuch is so much better. Funny how the only person who had the guts to call the Democrats out was another Democrat, Zell Miller.
Hey you POS Rangel, how about this……Earth to Charlie: Boys only join Congress if they can’t have a decent career and ends up being a freeloading politician. One would be hard pressed to find a greater collection of mediocrity than the US Congress. The vast majority are of average intelligence at best. Most people of accomplishment stay in the private sector as politics in this country drives away the best and the brightest.

Bolton in extraordinary outburst against United Nations
Calcutta News
The U.S. Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, launched a scathing attack on the United Nations Friday.
Bolton was furious over the adoption by the General Assembly of a resolution which said the assembly regretted the deaths of 19 civilians in an attack by the Israeli military in the town of Beit Hanoun last week.
Despite the resolution being significantly watered down at the behest of the United States, and being passing by 156 votes to seven, Bolton launched a blistering attack on the UN, and many of its members.

“Many of the sponsors of that resolution are notorious abusers of human rights themselves, and were seeking to deflect criticism of their own policies,” he said.

“This type of resolution serves only to exacerbate tensions by serving the interests of elements hostile to Israel’s inalienable and recognized right to exist.”

“This deepens suspicions about the United Nations that will lead many to conclude that the organization is incapable of playing a helpful role in the region,” Bolton continued.

“In a larger sense, the United Nations must confront a more significant question, that of its relevance and utility in confronting the challenges of the 21st century. We believe that the United Nations is ill served when its members seek to transform the organization into a forum that is a little more than a self-serving and a polemical attack against Israel or the United States,” he said.

“The Human Rights Council has quickly fallen into the same trap and de-legitimized itself by focusing attention exclusively on Israel. Meanwhile, it has failed to address real human rights abuses in Burma, Darfur, the DPRK, and other countries,” Bolton charged.

“The problem of anti-Israel bias is not unique to the Human Rights Council. It is endemic to the culture of the United Nations. It is a decades-old, systematic problem that transcends the whole panoply of the UN organizations and agencies,” he continued.

The United States, and Australia joined Israel in voting against the motion, together with four small Pacific island nations. All countries in Europe, including Britain, voted to support the resolution.
The original text condemned Israel over the Beit Hanoun attack and its operations in Gaza, however the adopted resolution had the General Assembly expressing, “regret.”
Rather than an outright investigation of the incident the assembly resolved to form a committee, “to look into the facts.” The resolution also carried a demand that the Palestinian Authority take action to stop rocket attacks on Israel.
Bolton launched his attack despite gaining these concessions.
Equally critical was Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman who stormed out of the session after telling members:

“I caution everyone who will support this resolution. By doing so, you will be an accomplice to terror. The blood of more innocents will be on your hands.”

The resolution was taken to the General Assembly after the United States used its veto to squash a similar motion in the Security Council. It was the 31st time the U.S. had used its veto at the UN to stop resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinians.

Wild Thing’s comment……
I hope Congress gets Bolton confirmed before the Democrats take over next year. sigh Well I am hoping anyway. And I am so totally impressed with Dan Gillerman.

There are excellent Autostrada, excellent Autobahns, and the Interstate highways in the USA, then there’s this Russian highway.
This is the Russian Federal highway, Moscow city to Yakutsk City.
The road doesn’t have asphalt surface, though it is a vital Federal highway.
Everytime it rains, the traffic flow gets paralized; these shots were made a few days before the traffic jam of 600 cars got stuck there. Hunger and lack of the fuel followed, according to the witnesses. One woman gave birth to a child right in the public bus she was riding on.
Construction teams were afraid to appear on site because during their previous visit they were beaten by people who were stuck for a few days. People were breaking the locks on the trucks, in search of food and warm clothes.
Fuel, food, firearms and steel tow-line are the things that are needed most these days on this Federal highway.
More photo’s HERE

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr delivers a speech during prayers in Kufa, 160 kilometers (100 miles) south of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, Nov. 24, 2006. Followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr warned Friday they will suspend their membership in parliament and the Cabinet if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meets U.S. President George W. Bush in Jordan next week. (AP Photo)

Al-Sadr loyalists take over Iraqi television station
Mercury News
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Followers of the militant Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took over state-run television Saturday to denounce the Iraqi government, label Sunnis “terrorists” and issue what appeared to many viewers as a call to arms.
The two-hour broadcast from a community gathering in the heart of the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City included three members of al-Sadr’s parliamentary bloc, who took questions from outraged residents demanding revenge for a series of car bombings that killed some 200 people Thursday.
With Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relegated to the sidelines, brazen Sunni-Shiite attacks continue unchecked despite a 24-hour curfew over Baghdad. Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia now controls wide swaths of the capital, his politicians are the backbone of the Cabinet, and his followers deeply entrenched in the Iraqi security forces. Sectarian violence has spun so rapidly out of control since the Sadr City blasts, however, that it’s not clear whether even al-Sadr has the authority – or the will – to stop the cycle of bloodshed.

“This is live and, God willing, everyone will hear me: We are not interested in sidewalks, water services or anything else. We want safety,” an unidentified Sadr City resident said as the televised crowd cheered. “We want the officials. They say there is no sectarian war. No, it is sectarian war, and that’s the truth.”

Militia leaders told supporters Saturday to prepare for a fresh wave of incursions into Sunni neighborhoods that would begin as soon as the curfew ends Monday, according to Sadr City residents. Several members of the Mahdi Army boasted they were distributing police uniforms throughout Shiite neighborhoods to allow greater freedom of movement. The government announced it would partially lift the curfew Sunday to allow for pedestrian traffic.
In the Diyala province north of Baghdad, Sunni insurgents stormed into two Shiite homes, lined up 21 men and shot them to death in front of women and children, police there said. Later in the day, a Shiite television station showed footage of the victims’ burials.
And in the western province of Anbar, a suicide bombing at a checkpoint in Fallujah killed a U.S. serviceman and three Iraqi civilians, according to a U.S. military statement. Another American and nine Iraqis were injured.
Also Saturday, Iraq’s most prominent Sunni cleric made an appeal in Cairo, Egypt, for Arab nations to withdraw recognition of Iraq’s Shiite-led government and said U.S.-led troops were complicit in Iraq’s sectarian crisis. Hareth al-Dhari, leader of the militant Association of Muslim Scholars, declared Iraqi efforts toward a unity government “dead” and said the current violence is political rather than theological.

“The occupying forces have been giving cover to the militias and criminal gangs,” al-Dhari said. “The government has been seen setting the atmosphere for them with the curfews to aid them in catching the victims and carrying out their attacks.”

Al-Maliki’s administration acknowledged it was powerless to interrupt the pro-Sadr program on the official Iraqiya channel, during which Sadr City residents shouted, “There is no government! There is no state!” Several speakers described neighborhoods and well-known Sunni politicians as “terrorists” and threatened them with reprisal.

“We’ll obviously try to control them as much as we can, but when they (kill) more than 150 people in bombings, they have the right to speak,” said Bassam al Husseini, one of Maliki’s top advisers. “What are we going to do? We can’t stop this. It’s too hot right now.”

Sunni politicians vowed to file complaints against the channel for inciting sectarian violence. Ordinary Sunnis were shocked to hear their neighborhoods singled out for attack on the government’s station.

“I got four phone calls from friends telling me to change the channel to Iraqiya and see what’s happening,” said Mohamed Othman, 27, a Sunni resident of Ameriya, one of the districts mentioned in the program. “I think this is an official declaration of civil war against Sunnis. They’re going to push us to join al-Qaida to protect ourselves.”

Al-Husseini, the government adviser, also affirmed that a meeting between al-Maliki and President Bush would continue as scheduled next week in neighboring Jordan, despite the threats of al-Sadr’s allies to withdraw from the government if it occurs. The Cabinet met for more than an hour to hash out an agenda for the trip, he said.

“The meeting will take place. That’s the plan,” al-Husseini said. “We need to straighten things up.”

Al-Husseini said the top two items of discussion would be a report from the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that will make recommendations for U.S. policy in Iraq, and a timetable for a withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

“We want to talk about it,” al-Husseini said, “to ask, `How long are they going to stick around?”

Wild Thing’s comment….
7 – 730am: “Good Morning to Death to America”, hosted by Mookie and Dirka Dirka Mohammed Jihad.
But wait, there’s more! In addition to the suicide explosives belt, the luxurious leather bound Koran personally signed in blood by al-Sadr, the two twin goats for your personal use, the lovely “I Hate Jews” coaster set, and the “Muqtada Rules” Turban, if you call in the next 12 minutes, you’ll receive, absolutely free, al-Sadr’s new DVD, “Pleasuring 72 Virgins”.
I am not making light of how scary it is there. But I know with all that is in me, that if our military was given the OK, they would blow this al-Sadr to the hell hole that awaits him in 10 seconds. Maybe when Bush is there they can discuss sending Muqtada al-Sadr to his death. I would vote for that. I mean Al-Sadr IS a WMD.

Massive rally backs Chavez opponent
Seattle Times
CARACAS, Venezuela — Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans packed a major highway Saturday in a rally for opposition presidential candidate Manuel Rosales, one of the largest demonstrations against President Hugo Chavez in years.
Shouts of “Dare to change!” rose up from the dense crowd filling the highway for several miles and spilling into nearby overpasses and streets in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas. The rally came eight days before the country’s presidential election on Dec. 3.

Rosales, speaking from a stage, promised democracy for a country he said was sinking into Cuba-style authoritarianism under Chavez.

“I don’t want to be a president who controls all the branches of government,” Rosales shouted to thundering applause. “Let there be true democracy in Venezuela!”

He denounced the government for prohibiting television crews from using helicopters to film the march, saying:

“They don’t want the people to see this multitude.”

“They are scared,” he shouted, pumping his fists. “We are going to win on Dec. 3.”

The crowd appeared to number in the hundreds of thousands. Organizers claimed more than 1 million people attended.
Rosales, the governor of the oil-rich western state of Zulia who favors a free-market economy over Chavez’s brand of socialism, trailed the Venezuelan president by a wide margin in an AP-Ipsos poll conducted earlier this month.
However, his candidacy has managed to galvanize Venezuela’s fractured opposition, reviving a movement that had struggled to recover from a crushing defeat in a 2004 recall referendum against Chavez.
Rosales said the vast crowd on Saturday was proof he would defeat Chavez.
They danced to Venezuelan folk music booming from loudspeakers and chanted anti-Chavez slogans.

“After seeing this, nobody should have any doubts about Rosales’ chances,” 43-year-old accountant Franklin Salas said.

More than 3,000 police were deployed along the march route to prevent clashes with Chavez supporters who gathered on several street corners, shouting “Viva Chavez!” as marchers passed. There were no reports of violence.
Despite the revived opposition movement, Chavez remains hugely popular among the poor, especially those who see benefits from oil-funded social programs ranging from free health care to heavily subsidized government grocery stores.
Rosales lashed out at Chavez for wanting to be “president all his life, until he dies like Fidel Castro – indefinite re-election.”

“This country doesn’t want that. It wants modernity,” he said.

Chavez, first elected in 1998, has said he wants to continue governing Venezuela until 2021 or longer. He said he plans to ask Venezuelans in a referendum if they support changing the constitution to allow indefinite re-election. It currently allows two consecutive presidential terms.
Rosales accused the Chavez administration of having no respect for private property and giving away the country’s oil wealth to leftist allies overseas while neglecting the poor at home. He said Chavez wants “a new rich and more poor people … an elite that runs everything.”
Rosales, who temporarily stepped down as Zulia governor to run for president, is one of the few opposition politicians to hold on to office as Chavez’s allies have gained control of the National Assembly, state offices and the courts.
Rosales accused the Chavez government of imprisoning people for political reasons and said he would free them if elected. The government says Venezuela has no political prisoners, only people legitimately convicted of crimes.
Ernesto Galindez, a 58-year-old butcher who backs Chavez, said he was surprised by the size of Saturday’s march, but predicted Rosales would lose.

“They are going to have to wait six more years because Chavez is still very strong, and he’s not going anywhere,” said Galindez, grinning.

Wild Thing’s comment……
I wonder if our traitor Jimmy Carter will show up to give his support to his commie friend Hugo Chavez?

Russian rocket deliveries to Iran started
Breitbart.com
Russia has begun deliveries of the Tor-M1 air defence rocket system to Iran, Russian news agencies quoted military industry sources as saying, in the latest sign of a Russian-US rift over Iran.

“Deliveries of the Tor-M1 have begun. The first systems have already been delivered to Tehran,” ITAR-TASS quoted an unnamed, high-ranking source as saying Friday.

The United States has pressed Russia to halt military sales to Iran, which Washington accuses of harbouring secret plans to build a nuclear weapon.
Moscow has consistently defended its weapons trade with Iran. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said the contract for 29 rocket systems, signed in December last year, was legitimate because the Tor-M1 has a purely defensive role.
ITAR-TASS reported that the rockets were to be deployed around Iran’s nuclear sites, including the still incomplete, Russian-built atomic power station at Bushehr.
In August, Washington announced sanctions against several companies, including Russian arms exporter Rosoboronexport, for supplying technology to Iran that could allegedly be used to develop missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.
Under the sanctions no US company can deal with foreign companies on the sanctions list for two years.
A spokesman for Rosoboronexport contacted by AFP would not confirm or deny the reports about the Tor-M1 delivery, which were also issued by the Interfax news agency.
The Tor-M1 is a low to medium-altitude missile fired from a tracked vehicle against airplanes, helicopters and other airborne targets.
The news came as the UN Security Council continued to consider possible sanctions against Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity in response to the Islamic republic’s suspect nuclear programme.
The major powers have been debating a draft resolution drawn up by Britain, France and Germany that would impose limited sanctions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile sectors for Tehran’s failure to comply with an earlier UN resolution on halting enrichment.
China and Russia, both close economic partners with Iran, argue the measures are too extensive, while Washington has pressed for tougher action.

Wild Thing’s comment…….
Putin is playing with fire, the Muslims who destroyed a theater and murdered children care not one whit who supplies them with arms, they will attack the Russians just as quickly as they attack their fellow muslims.
Putin is a dangerous little man, killing one of his KGB agents in London, turning on Poland and continuing to arm the most dangerous people on the planet. What’s next for Pootie, murdering anyone who seems a danger to his agenda of hate America, freedom and fair elections. Russia is falling down a rathole with this punk as their great leader. Wake up, and smell the corruption coming from Moscow, we are the enemy to Putin and it is time we stop enabling this little monster.