yes Gus, & more bad news for the great bushit & our core besider  …..

‘An intelligence report showing an upsurge in Islamic militancy put the White House on the defensive on Wednesday in an election-year debate over whether President George W. Bush has made America safer.

In a second blow to the president, a new U.N. report said the Iraq war was providing al Qaeda with a training center and fresh recruits, and was inspiring a Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan hundreds of miles away.

Bush ordered the release of parts of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Tuesday to try to stamp out a political fire after a leaked portion said the Iraq war had increased Islamic extremism.

But a key judgment in the declassified version that could backfire on Bush said intelligence experts believed activists identifying themselves as jihadists "are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion."

The report, prepared in April, also said the Iraq war had become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

The U.N. report released on Wednesday jibed with the NEI's conclusions.

"New explosive devices are now used in Afghanistan within a month of their first appearing in Iraq," it said. "And while the Taliban have not been found fighting outside Afghanistan/Pakistan, there have been reports of them training in both Iraq and Somalia."

The U.N. report was prepared by terrorism experts for the Security Council.’

Bush Contends With 2 Reports Refuting Iraq Gains

and even more from the other liar’s lair …..

‘A report from the UK Ministry of Defense says the Iraq war has acted as a “recruiting sergeant” for Islamic extremists, and describes the west as being "in a fix."’

Yes, John...

An uneasy alliance goes thus reported by the BBC

Leak highlights a complex relationship
By Mark Urban
Diplomatic editor, BBC Newsnight

How much more difficult could a relationship be?
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5390742.stm|British troops] are being killed in Afghanistan and the Pakistani army could make a difference.
The head of the Pakistani military is also the president, by virtue of a coup. Both Britain and the United States, however, wish to foster democracy rather than having a general in charge.
Add to this conundrum the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Islamic militancy is surging and anything resembling a collapse of order could trigger regional meltdown, and the picture is complete.

From our ABC

Costello dismisses Iraq war poll
Treasurer Peter Costello has dismissed a new poll showing Australians doubt that the Iraq war has reduced the threat of terrorism.

The Lowy Institute for International Policy survey has found 84 per cent of people surveyed believe the war has done nothing to deter terrorists.

The poll shows 91 per cent of those surveyed believe the war has damaged the United States' reputation in the Muslim world.

It also finds the majority of people surveyed do not believe the war will lead to the spread of democracy in the Middle East.

A total of 85 per cent of respondents believe the experience in Iraq should make nations more cautious about using military force to deal with rogue states.

But Mr Costello says it is important Australia's presence in Iraq continues so the transition to democracy is successful.

"It's important the situation is stabilised, that law and order is maintained, so that that democratic government can survive and Australia is making a contribution to that," he said.

Labor's foreign affairs spokesman, Kevin Rudd, says the poll reflects a commonsense view of the situation.

"It also backs up what security policy analysts have been saying for a long time," Mr Rudd said.

etc.
------------------

Our Costello is stuck in dreamland... waste land, really... Finish the job of transition to democracy? Does he know that at least 60 per cent of the Iraqi population is Shia? That these people more or less (55%) support an Iranian style of democratic government? Does he realise that democracy is based on what the majority of people want... End of story... Sure, most of the people, (99.9 per cent) want peace and security but some may decide to forgo this, until they get what they want... Insurgents, terrorists, resistance, call it what you will... All they want is coalition troops out and a strong religious government... The US is resisting this but this is creating all the trouble possible... Then the Sunnis resent the US for having thrown them out of power, then Al Qeda is recruiting at a hundred mile an hour then...

From the ABC

Iraq war poll questions skewed, Downer says
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has criticised the choice of questions asked in a poll that shows an overwhelming majority of Australians have a negative view of the war in Iraq.

The Lowy Institute for International Policy has found 84 per cent of those surveyed believe the war has not reduced the threat from terrorism.

Mr Downer says if Australia and the US withdrew from Iraq, it would be a triumph for terrorists, who would take over the country and use it as a base to launch attacks.

He says the poll has failed to canvass that issue.

"The Lowy Institute chose not to ask the central question and the central question is, should we now - whatever people think about the past - should we now and the Americans now surrender to the terrorists in Iraq, or should we stay the course?" he said.

"The answer to that I think, you will find that most Australians think that [Opposition Leader Kim] Mr Beazley's policy of surrender in Iraq and of hauling up the white flag, that is a policy of defeatism."

-------------------

Gus: Crap to clowner. If what is says is right that would mean that the entire country (Iraq) would fall under the spell of terrorists, with all its population joining the ranks of Al Qaeda... I would say not. Iraq presently is not coping with anything, within its own structure because the "coalition of the fiddling" is stopping it to become what it could, a fundamentalist democracy, because we may not like that. I am sure that soon enough after the US, the UK and Australia pull their troops out, the Iraqi themselves would find a way to live together and minimise terrorism within — despite a short unsettled period of trouble which would not be worse from what Iraq is experiencing now. But somehow, the presence of foreign troops in any capacity, whether protection, liberation or control, eventually becomes the problem rather than the solution. And believe me I know that from experience... It is nearly three and a half years since the little Bushit claimed "mission accomplished". In fact it would have been accomplished if within six month of this false claim, the coalition troops had withdrawn... The more the troops stay, the more trouble is being generated. at present 75 per cent of Iraqis resent the presence of the troops. At the moment attacks on the coalition forces are increasing to more than 100 a day, the possibility of a "cold" civil war is real, yet would not be as strong if the foreign troops were not there, kicking doors and terrorising people in the process trying to find elusive terrorists... every one caught means ten new ones being created from former middle class and many other people who have been disenfranchise by US administration arbitrary policies. The list is long...

And for Cheney to listen to the crappy advice of a failed Kissinger takes the cake if one is to believe the rumours... Kissinger's claims that Vietnam had been won in 1972 but was lost due to public opinion is ludicrous...

Yes Gus, but just what you'd expect from our political warriors, safe & sound in their 5 star, leather-padded parliamentary asylum ....

Of course, the real reason bushit & our little besider can't "cut & run" is they are terrified that their political futures would instantly disappear down the crapper, just like that of their fellow war criminal, "aussie tony".

The great irony of it all is that bushit has grabbed a tiger by the tail, conned by Israel & his own looney neo-con old men, all arm chair heros, into squandering US$2 billion a week; wasting the lives of tens of thousands of British & American servicemen & women & destroying 200,000 inncocent Iraqis, whilst, along the way, strengthening the influence of Iran in the region.

The US$ 64 billion dollar question is whether the torturer-in-chief is willing to gamble everything & use his weapons of mass destruction to try & bring down Iran whilst jumping back into his fake flying suit to try & capture the upcoming Congressional elections.

Having destroyed Iraq, it may be that the great deciderarian thinks he has no choice ..... he can't pull out because that would leave Iran & Syria strengthened & in control of Iraq's oil reserves & Israel  exposed .... not to forget that Usama is still running around & the boy warrior would have absolutely nothing to show for the US$300 billion he has blown on his lunatic play in the middle east.

But even worse, the scary little lunatic believes he has a mandate to do just that from his phoney God.

I hate to say it, but I think the odds are getting stronger by the minute that we'll see mushroom clouds over Tehran in the next few weeks.

And if we think things are bad in Iraq, just watch the real shit spread if that happens.

I reckon the rodent, fishnets & co must be rueing the day they hitched our chuck waggon to crazy george's team ....... nowhere to go ...... just hang-on like the dude riding the nucular bomb to earth in Dr Stangelove.

Not looking good at all.
 

the central question is, should the people who created the iraq quagmire be running australia?

the answer in my book can only be an unequivocal "no" Al.

The US and its coalition of the fiddling is doing to Iraq (and a few other countries mind you) what the Russians were doing to Eastern Europe, except, they are using a lot more money and corruption to energise it.

It's the "we want you to be free to do what we want you to do, not free to be what you want to be" syndrome. Very confusing proposition when one throws a lot of shrapnel-dollars to foster greed, which in that "fragile" country creates death very quickly. Faith based bushit politics is trying to undermine the local faith-base politics using all the lies and weaponry in the book and the result is an unavoidable mess of resistance, terrorism, insurgency, acceptance, resentment, sectarian reinforcement, fundamentalism hardening of the arteries, you name it... And the con-artist who started all this crap wants our grocer to carry on to immerse us in it some more...

I must admit that there is not much difference between our Johnnee and Mr Magoo, that bubbling myopic cartoon bloke who always escapes falling off the train while opening the wrong doors... There is also something uncannily Maxwell-Smartish about our PM... you know, bending over to collect a useless clue, and by sheer relentless good luck, just avoiding the Kaos bullet that would terminate the series...

Yes Australia is led by Mr Magoo and Maxwell Smart combined... with a dash of Ronnie Barker's character in "Open All Hours". Lovely. History will remember that.

‘Award-winning investigative reporter and journalist Dave Lindorff has written -

[Retired] Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College [of the United States], says that the [U.S. Navy] carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 [2006] is “very important evidence” of war planning. He says, “I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders’ [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1 [2006]. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the [Persian] Gulf region, that looks about like the date” of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date—in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, “You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it’s not done as a training exercise.” This point was also made in the Time article.

(…)

"I think the plan’s been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says [Colonel] Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against U.S. law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we [the United States] do.

(…)

Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian anti-ship weapons, against which the [U.S.] Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush [Administration] MO [tactic] to date.¹³

The March To War: Naval Build-Up In The Persian Gulf & The Eastern Mediterranean

[http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C520CFCA-3BD4-4744-99AC-3E7D8646C33F.htm|Calls for debate fall on deaf ears]

By Laith Saud

Tuesday 03 October 2006, 14:49 Makka Time, 11:49 GMT

The level of Western polemic directed against Islam and Muslims has reached an alarming pitch and the rhetoric is no longer limited to small circles of ignorant bigots.
George Bush, the president of the United States, continually links Islam with fascism and Pope Benedict recently infuriated Muslims when he quoted an historical text decrying Islam as an inhumane faith spread by the sword.
These comments came as memories of the Danish cartoons which insulted Muhammad, the Prophet and Islam, persist in the Muslim world.
Some Western figures argue that Muslims should not be so sensitive; it is this sort of position that is used to justify Wesern policy towards the Muslim world.
When we look at some statements made by Western figures regarding Islam, we must note the underlying cultural logic.
Cardinal George Pell of Australia said that many Muslims could not "respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence". [Reuters, September 19, 2006] Pell's statement was a follow-up to Benedict's speech at a German university earlier this month.
The pope invoked the observations of a 14th-century Byzantine ruler who claimed that Islam was "evil and inhumane" and "spread by the sword".
For many Western journalists, Benedict was highlighting a significant truth. For example Jeff Israely wrote in Time magazine that the speech "could turn out to be the most important step forward for interfaith dialogue". William Rees-Mogg wrote in The Time news paper in London that the pope "will have done Islam a service if he has started a debate within Islam and between Islam and its critics".
In other words, Benedict's recent speech has done the world a favour by provoking a conversation with those violent Muslims who are somehow dismissed as too irrational to sense their own irrationality and so unable to take part in reasoned, logical debate.
But, in my opinion, there is a further implication in the views cited by Israely and Rees-Mogg. It is that Muslims, because they are assumed incapable of debate, must be dealt with forcefully.
This condescending logic is not limited to academic discussions. It also characterises Bush's foreign policy. It suggests that Muslims are somehow the problem of world affairs and need to explain themselves.

read more... [http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C520CFCA-3BD4-4744-99AC-3E7D8646C33F.htm|Calls for debate fall on deaf ears]

‘From the squaddies on the front line to the retired generals in their armchairs, the British military yesterday united in support of General Sir Richard Dannatt, the British Army chief, and his devastating analysis of the government's defence and foreign policies.

Gen Dannatt, the Chief of General Staff, has rocked Downing Street by publicly warning that unless Britain begins a major withdrawal from Iraq within the year, the overstretched British Army could end up "broken".

He also openly questioned whether it was still feasible to turn Iraq into a functioning democracy.

Both suggestions run directly contrary to repeated assurances by the government that the military is not overstretched and that Iraq remains on the path to peace and prosperity.’

Military Lines Up To Back General On Iraq