02 February 2007

Third Carrier deploys/Iraq Surge costs/Clinton bends over for the Israeli Lobby

According to The Fresno Bee, the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan "will set sail to the western Pacific Ocean today, U.S. Navy spokesman Dennis McGrath said. About 40 F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter jets from four squadrons are scheduled to leave Lemoore on Sunday and fly onto the Reagan, McGrath said."

The USS Reagan is deploying "earlier than scheduled as part of a worldwide redeployment of forces resulting from the president's decision"..."for a troop surge in Iraq".

Why is it deploying so suddenly? According to The Fresno Bee, The USS Reagan ended its last deployment in July 2006 and "Usually, sailors have months to prepare for a deployment and spend more than a year at home before being asked to go to sea again".

The paper continues: "The Reagan's rapid deployment is part of the Fleet Response Plan, which the Navy says will provide the military with the ability to respond to any global commitment on short notice. "

"While the Reagan is scheduled to tour the western Pacific, destinations for aircraft carriers can change rapidly, McGrath said. The Stennis is headed to the Persian Gulf and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower is near the African coast, he said. "They go wherever they're needed," McGrath said. "The world situation could change. He said deployments usually last about six months."

The US is moving its pieces...

...meanwhile, the Army Times informs us that that the "Iraq surge could actually total 50,000" trops, not the 21,500 Bush declared.

"A new congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region.
The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bases that projection on the fact that the Bush plan is unclear about whether the 21,500 troops needed to quell violence are all combat troops or if that number already includes support forces."

Not only would the number of troops increase, but so too the amount of money Bush is asking, as Reuters informs: "President George W. Bush will request slightly more than $100 billion to cover war operations in Iraq & Afghanistan for the rest of this year and an even larger amount for fiscal 2008 that begins on October 1, congressional sources said on Thursday. "

The "surge" is looking more and more ominous as the propaganda war hots up in the western press.

Meanwhile, back in New York, the Associated Press (AP) informs us via the International Herald Tribune (IHT) that the woman who drove Bill Clinton into the mouth of a chubby intern, has herself, well and truly bent over for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC):

"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation. "U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

When will the Americans understand that the aims of both the Democrats and Republicans are the same, as this amply demonstrates. Time for a new American revolution, methinks.

The IHT continues with the discredited Israeli propaganda "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and its Jews returned to Europe."

Have you noticed how recently the phrase is repeated day in, day out? Demonise the bastard and then kill him seems to be the tactic. First one then another leading to "The Age of Perpetual Conflict".

Some thoughts from Gabriel Kolko:

"America has power without wisdom, and cannot, despite its repeated experiences, recognize the limits of its ultra-sophisticated military technology."

"That the U.S. end its self-appointed global mission of regulating all problems, wherever, whenever, or however it wishes to do so, is an essential precondition of stemming, much less reversing, the accumulated deterioration of world affairs and wars."

"Ultimately, there will not be peace in the world unless all nations relinquish war as an instrument of policy, not only because of ethical or moral reasoning but because wars have become deadlier and more destructive of social institutions. A precondition of peace is for nations not to attempt to impose their visions on others, adjudicate their differences, and never to assume that their need for the economic or strategic resources of another country warrants interference of any sort in its internal affairs."

"The world will be safer to the extent that the U.S.’ alliances are dissolved and it is isolated"

No comments: