Another Bono accomplishment

Brad & Angelina
We admire you sooooooo much!

Bono
And I you!

B & A
Oh, stop! You're such a fantastic guy!

B
And you're such a beautiful couple!

B & A
Oh, stop! You're a great singer!

B
I'm blessed to have a personal relationship with two of my favorite actors.... ever!

B & A
Oh, Bono, you just stop it now!

etc etc etc

Pitt and Jolie have asked U2 star Bono to be the godfather of their newborn twins, according to reports.

Real Reportage vs. Bright Shiny Objects

US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost - AP analysis

I'm quoting the analysis in sentences in bold.


...there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

I guess "hope is in the air" was too strong a phrase.


[The Sunnis] now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Are those suitcases of money sent weekly or monthly?


...the combat phase finally is ending...

Interesting phraseology -not-
...the combat phase may soon be ending...
or
...the combat phase is finally probably ending...
or
...the combat phase could end soon...

No. According to the reporters it's unequivocal. It's happening and it's happening now.


EDITOR'S NOTE Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.

I'm the writers meet with 100% US military approval.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Maybe the combat phase is actually ending. The problem is that this war has been different from other US wars. The US military-slash-government - from the very beginning - decided to tightly control everything they could about Iraq.

Nobody is covering the war in Iraq that the US doesn't approve of.

The New York Times: By a recent count, only half a dozen Western photographers were covering a war in which 150,000 American troops are engaged.

I'm sure there are at least fifteen times as many photographers hiding in the woods near Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie's house with their cams are the ready. Everybody wants to see pics of the babies.

Why aren't there songs, movies, tv shows and poems about it?

I've been told that the following information was hacked off a laptop belonging to an aid of John Bolton. I neither confirm nor deny.

===

Plan of action is a two step process.

First
Denial must run deep, must be thorough and must be complete. All salient facts must be ignored:

• That in the 1953 Iranian coup d'état the CIA put the Shah into power.
• That there is significant US military presence on both of Iran's borders and there are US warships nearby.
• That added to all that American military hardware - the power of the Israeli military hasn't taken a holiday and Israel's nuclear arsenal is at least 150 nuclear weapons.
• That attacking Iran will do little more than delay it's development of a (supposed) nuclear weapon program.
• That attacking Iran guarantees that the Iran nuclear weapons problem will go from "supposed" to a real and full bore program to develop as great a nuclear arsenal in as short a time as possible.
• That attacking Iran will lead to Iran fighting asymmetrically - which means terrorist attacks in the cities of nations felt by the Iranians to be its enemies or friends of its enemies. Cities like London will become targets.
• That attack on Iran could lead to a gigantic recruiting boon to all sorts of terrorist groups.
• That an attack on Iran might force the US to reinstate the draft.
• That an attack on Iran could damage the diplomatic relationship of the US to nearly every country on the globe. The Japanese won't go so far as to burn the American flag - but it could be the first baby step towards Chinese being the preferred second language in Japan.
• That an attack on Iran will have disastrous consequences for the American economy.
• That an attack on Iran could lead to a bit of global economic chaos.
• That an attack on Iran will (at least) cost the lives of a few thousand more American soldiers.
• That an attack on Iran will probably result in the combined military expenditure for Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan to approach 14 digits: 10 trillion dollars.
• That an attack on Iran could herald the beginning of the end of the American empire.
  

Second
The second step proves to be quite the challenge! Try to stick the camel through the eye of the needle.

1. Make the assumption that diplomacy has failed in the past and the present and will fail in the future.
2. Make the assumption that the certain failure of diplomacy - past, present and future - necessitates an attack.
3. An attack cannot be explained logically. Hide the monstrous stupidity of an attack by appealing to the base and primal fears of the public. Example - create hysteria vis-à-vis what was used during the Cold War: 'they' want to kill 'us'. "Iran could hit Southern Europe", "Iran could hit the US by 2015", "Iran is a danger even without nukes", etc.

Note to self - Rent Dr. Strangeglove and look for clues to why the liberals like it so much. Perhaps humor can be used to promote an attack.

===

Why aren't there songs, movies, tv shows and poems about denial?

[video clip] a real ad for a law firm of "air crash chasers"

Attorney Jonathan Reiter talks about several devastating airline disaster cases his firm has handled. The Law Firm of Jonathan C. Reiter has been committed to providing competent, caring representation to clients in the New York area and throughout the United States who have been seriously injured or killed as a result of airline crashes, mass disasters, medical malpractice, defective products, construction accidents, and a variety of other types of negligence. [email] [phone number]

I happened on that video and I thought to myself "I've heard of 'ambulance chasers' - but what could this be called? 'Air crash chasers'?" It's like something out of movie - yet it's real.

Good grief.

Iran - Blame Canada?

Iran's missiles may target Canadians

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates

...Iran may target NATO forces in Afghanistan, which include several thousand Canadian troops stationed in the province of Kandahar, with short-range missiles... the Canadian battle group [is] stationed less than 400 kilometres away from Tehran's eastern frontier.

source: nationalpost.com

The focus in the media is that if an Iran war starts - Iran will do something to the west. Adding a sort of bad spy novel patina to the drama - Southern Europe has even been hinted to be in danger.

I have to admit that when I saw the headline and before I clicked the link I had the ridiculous notion in my head that Iran might send missiles pointed at Canada. Canada, now that's really west of Iran.

It seems some countries are waking up to the true meaning of Iran using "asymmetrical warfare". And what it means if it's used it on them.

Just a few days ago I read an article in a British newspaper about an Iran responding to war by using Hezbollah to commit terrorist attacks in the UK.

What could be on Iran's list of asymmetrical targets? The first two are the list are certainties.

1. The biggest plum is the Strait of Hormuz. There will be fighting soon after the war starts. Iran will try to block it since it's "the most vital link in the global energy supply system". The US will be forced to keep it open. At any cost. The biblical saying "blood is thicker than water" has a cousin "oil is thicker than blood".
2. In Iraq, US troops and the ten or eleven coalition forces guys there will be targeted.
3. In Afghanistan, coalition forces could be targeted.
4. Iran will might launch terrorist attacks on its enemies homelands. Obviously the targets won't be soldiers. Iran will consider its enemies to be Israel, the US and allied nations. The UK is certainly on the shortlist.

Here's a thought exercise for you to consider about Iran's possible use of terrorism if war starts. Will the Iranian try to commit terrorist attacks on the level of horror of 9/11? And if they do - how many will they carry out? Or will they decide to do smaller scale attacks and kill dozens or hundreds of people at a time? And if they choose that path - how many attacks will there be?

The clock is ticking down. Do not underestimate Bush's stupidity. An Israeli attack, a US attack, an Israeli attack with or without "official" US involvement are all possible anytime before Bush leaves the White House. The danger doesn't end with the Novemeber presidential election. Bush will (technically) be president until mid January 2009.

Starting today I'm going to look for a widget like the one I have that counts US Military deaths. The widget I want - counts down how many days Bush has in office.

Israel, Iran & Occam's razor (aka 5 minutes)

Occam's razor is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

Occam's razor - Wikipedia

On May 28 and June 12 the Israel air force practiced an operation code named Glorious Spartan 08. It was a "dry run" for a possible attack on Iran.

The air force flew their attack planes, refueling planes and support aircraft to Greece. The distance going west was about the same distance as their possible targets are in Iran to the east.

It's possible that the Israeli government leaked the news to the media. In whatever manner the news came to light - once the story became public - the media did what it always does - it dutifully pretended it was a hound and chased the hare.

The churning media cycle demands "ink" on hot topics and at the same time the media is obsessed with output and rapidity. But it doesn't know much of anything about what might happen about Iran.

And this topic is unlike Britney Spears - "gossip" can't masquerade as "news".

I must have read 400+ articles about Iran and situation between it, Israel and the US. I probably read at least a dozen articles every day. I usually grab the articles off google news to get a wide range of opinion.

It's usually depressing that whatever the source - be it a small ultra-liberal site or The Wall Street Journal - the vast majority of the articles contain writing where editorializing pretends to be reportage or dry data is given without analysis or op-ed pieces are made with shrill histrionics or the reporter simply rephrases old news to pad his article.

The titles are amusing in an absurd way. They tend to be a sort of fill-in-the-blank.

__1__ __2__ __3__ __4__

1. Israel / The US / Israel & The US / Iran
2. Could / Cannot / Might / Might Not / Will / Will Not / Should / Should Not
3. Attack / Strike
4. Iran / Israel / Southern Europe

A few hours ago I finally read something worth mentioning. A single line at the end of a wire service dispatch grabbed by attention. I was riveted. It made me think that Glorious Spartan 08 might be nothing more than planted misinformation.

Perhaps all the brouhaha about Israel facing all sorts of operational challenges to attack are irrelevant. That all the current and voluminous musings in the media about an Israeli attack needing US "permission" and that there are serious complications and complexities about overflights and airspace are actually non-issues.

The article is the first mention I've seen of how easy and simple it would be if Israel launched an attack from American bases in Iraq. Occam's razor - indeed.

Israeli jets use Iraqi airspace to practice Iran strike: website

BAGHDAD

An Iraqi website has claimed that Israeli warplanes have been using Iraqi airspace to practice for possible bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities.

The report said its sources estimated that should the Israeli jets take off from the American bases in Iraq it would take them no more than five minutes to reach Iran's nuclear reactor in Bushehr.

source: afp.google.com