The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

(Iran and Bush Regime's Pretext to War.) <!--break--> The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face. (Iran and Bush Regime's Pretext to War.) By Lloyd Hart Monday Febuary 16th. 2004 I had written last year that the reason the Bush regime allowed the Shiite population of Baghdad to loot Baghdad and allowed Shiite lawlessness in other parts of the country immediately after the Hussain regime retreated was simply because the Bush regime wanted to give an advantage to the consolidation and growth of a Shiite political bubble that would at some point begin to interfere with the Bush regime’s publicly stated plans for the reconstruction and the bringing of democracy to Iraq. I also wrote that the Bush regime would then blame Iran for the interference. With the Ayatollah Sistani emerging as the key political and spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shiite (who is leading the charge against U.S. plans to hand power in Iraq to the U.S. puppet government of Ahmed Chalabi) and being an Iranian Shiite at the same time, the bubble I wrote about last year has become increasingly pregnant and ready to give birth. This interference I predicted, would become a pretext for an invasion of Iran in the middle of the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.. With the Bush regime in the middle of moving the forces based in Saudi Arabia to Qatar nicely situated on the Persian Gulf the N.Y. Times writer Dexter Filkins in his New York Times article this week has finally used the incriminating words: "Iranian agents" The sentence Mr. Filkins used these two words in, went like this: "If proved the presence of Iranian agents inside Iraq would be potentially explosive here." Filkins's article which landed on the front page of The Sunday New York Times this weekend was a bizarre set of counterintuitive assertions that seemed to state that the Sunni Muslims would be more pissed off about Iranian agents in Iraq than the Bush regime would pretend to be. The article in the Times was about the raid on a police station in Falluja on Saturday in which over 70 supposed common criminals escaped (no insurgents of course) and in which 25 individuals were killed including one Lebanese and two Iranians who were part of the group that attacked the police station. The bizarre twist in the article is that "the Americans said the attack appeared to have been an attempt by supporters of Saddam Hussein's former government with the help of foreigners to free a group of four insurgents who were captured attacking a busload of Iraqi defense forces last week." First this article asserts that foreign Iranians and Lebanese are helping former members of Saddam Hussein's government. Then the article asserts that these foreign fighters were really trying to free four Iranians captured (the number four linking them to the individuals "captured while attacking Iraqi defense forces") then the article asserts that "The presence of Iranian agents" would piss off the Sunni Muslims in Faluja, Faluja being the area where former regime members put up the toughest fight against the U.S. occupation of Iraq. This article is really just silly meandering designed strictly to place the words "Iranian agents" in context to the present day Shi'ite resistance to the continued U.S. occupation and rule and imposition of the puppet government of Ahmed Chalabi in Baghdad. Now that the U.S. has its pretext to war in Iran, ("Iranian agents") coupled with the National Security Strategy or the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military action, when will it, the invasion that is, come? In the spring, the summer or maybe in October along with the capture of Osama bin ladin and the discovery of a small cache of U.S. planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That would be the final load WMDs on the long list the Reagan/Bush regimes sold to Iraq (thanks to Donald Rumsfeld's Saddam hand shake) but just forgot to deliver on time for the George. H. W. Bush encouraged Iraqi invaision of Kuwait, another well known set up for a pretext to war. If you think me paranoid then why has no one from the Bush regime resigned in shame or at least to appease the public and the screaming from the rooftop critics who have clearly pointed out the many laws broken by this regime. I suppose you could say that they all have a dirt on each other so therefore if one goes they all go. But if one were to apply classic criminology to the Criminal gang in the White House and in the Pentagon you would see that a gang that holds tightly together is a gamg that has not yet fulfilled all of its plans. From the Joint Chiefs through to the White House this criminal gang is completely confident and holding tight. After all their plans have already bore the fruit in the billions of dollars in Iraqi reconstruction contracts and the siphoning off of oil profits in the unaccountable sales of defacto privatized Iraqi oil on the open world market. Just think of all the election officials back home you can bribe with all that money. It is my analysis that, with all the cash gushing out of Iraq into the hands of Bush regime loyalists it will be almost impossible to stop the momentum the Bush regime has set up for the invasion of Iran. What did Bush say to Tim Russert "I am the war president". The Smirk has not been wiped from the chimp's face. The Bush regime and its loyalists are completely happy with the ongoing war in Iraq and the potential of expanding the war across the entire region. Do you feel a "Draft" in here? What did Bush call for, a "Global revolution to bring democracy to the world" presuming of course that the American public (The few that still vote) will not vote in large enough numbers against a wartime president while so many soldiers are on the battlefield, making for an election close enough to steal, just like the last one. Close enough to steal, that is! And just like the last one, the corporate media primarily owned by conservatives and a few pissing in their pants Liberals will shred Senator John Kerry a new poop shoot (just like they did to Al Gore) so big the Teamsters will be able to drive all those NAFTA and WTO work place poisoned child labor manufactured toys straight from the border through the Senator to all those Wal-Marts with their locked in illegal labor that Senator Hillary Clinton helped to create, when she worked for Sam Walden's Walmart in Arkansas while her husband was boinking Jennifer flowers on the desk in the governor's office in Little Rock. And if you're a corporate media journalist like Dexter Filkins, damn straight you'd better help the Bush regime create a pretext to war. Because they will find somebody to frag your ass, "Over there."  http://dadapop.com

<p>(Iran and Bush Regime's Pretext to War.) </p> <!--break--><p>The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.<br /> (Iran and Bush Regime's Pretext to War.) </p> <p>By Lloyd Hart<br /> Monday Febuary 16th. 2004 </p> <p>I had written last year that the reason the Bush regime allowed the Shiite population of Baghdad to loot Baghdad and allowed Shiite lawlessness in other parts of the country immediately after the Hussain regime retreated was simply because the Bush regime wanted to give an advantage to the consolidation and growth of a Shiite political bubble that would at some point begin to interfere with the Bush regime’s publicly stated plans for the reconstruction and the bringing of democracy to Iraq. I also wrote that the Bush regime would then blame Iran for the interference. With the Ayatollah Sistani emerging as the key political and spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shiite (who is leading the charge against U.S. plans to hand power in Iraq to the U.S. puppet government of Ahmed Chalabi) and being an Iranian Shiite at the same time, the bubble I wrote about last year has become increasingly pregnant and ready to give birth. </p> <p>This interference I predicted, would become a pretext for an invasion of Iran in the middle of the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.. With the Bush regime in the middle of moving the forces based in Saudi Arabia to Qatar nicely situated on the Persian Gulf the N.Y. Times writer Dexter Filkins in his New York Times article this week has finally used the incriminating words: </p> <p>"Iranian agents" </p> <p>The sentence Mr. Filkins used these two words in, went like this: "If proved the presence of Iranian agents inside Iraq would be potentially explosive here." Filkins's article which landed on the front page of The Sunday New York Times this weekend was a bizarre set of counterintuitive assertions that seemed to state that the Sunni Muslims would be more pissed off about Iranian agents in Iraq than the Bush regime would pretend to be. </p> <p>The article in the Times was about the raid on a police station in Falluja on Saturday in which over 70 supposed common criminals escaped (no insurgents of course) and in which 25 individuals were killed including one Lebanese and two Iranians who were part of the group that attacked the police station. The bizarre twist in the article is that "the Americans said the attack appeared to have been an attempt by supporters of Saddam Hussein's former government with the help of foreigners to free a group of four insurgents who were captured attacking a busload of Iraqi defense forces last week." First this article asserts that foreign Iranians and Lebanese are helping former members of Saddam Hussein's government. Then the article asserts that these foreign fighters were really trying to free four Iranians captured (the number four linking them to the individuals "captured while attacking Iraqi defense forces") then the article asserts that "The presence of Iranian agents" would piss off the Sunni Muslims in Faluja, Faluja being the area where former regime members put up the toughest fight against the U.S. occupation of Iraq. </p> <p>This article is really just silly meandering designed strictly to place the words "Iranian agents" in context to the present day Shi'ite resistance to the continued U.S. occupation and rule and imposition of the puppet government of Ahmed Chalabi in Baghdad. </p> <p>Now that the U.S. has its pretext to war in Iran, ("Iranian agents") coupled with the National Security Strategy or the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive military action, when will it, the invasion that is, come? In the spring, the summer or maybe in October along with the capture of Osama bin ladin and the discovery of a small cache of U.S. planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That would be the final load WMDs on the long list the Reagan/Bush regimes sold to Iraq (thanks to Donald Rumsfeld's Saddam hand shake) but just forgot to deliver on time for the George. H. W. Bush encouraged Iraqi invaision of Kuwait, another well known set up for a pretext to war. </p> <p>If you think me paranoid then why has no one from the Bush regime resigned in shame or at least to appease the public and the screaming from the rooftop critics who have clearly pointed out the many laws broken by this regime. I suppose you could say that they all have a dirt on each other so therefore if one goes they all go. But if one were to apply classic criminology to the Criminal gang in the White House and in the Pentagon you would see that a gang that holds tightly together is a gamg that has not yet fulfilled all of its plans. From the Joint Chiefs through to the White House this criminal gang is completely confident and holding tight. After all their plans have already bore the fruit in the billions of dollars in Iraqi reconstruction contracts and the siphoning off of oil profits in the unaccountable sales of defacto privatized Iraqi oil on the open world market. Just think of all the election officials back home you can bribe with all that money. </p> <p>It is my analysis that, with all the cash gushing out of Iraq into the hands of Bush regime loyalists it will be almost impossible to stop the momentum the Bush regime has set up for the invasion of Iran. What did Bush say to Tim Russert "I am the war president". The Smirk has not been wiped from the chimp's face. The Bush regime and its loyalists are completely happy with the ongoing war in Iraq and the potential of expanding the war across the entire region. Do you feel a "Draft" in here? What did Bush call for, a "Global revolution to bring democracy to the world" presuming of course that the American public (The few that still vote) will not vote in large enough numbers against a wartime president while so many soldiers are on the battlefield, making for an election close enough to steal, just like the last one. Close enough to steal, that is! </p> <p>And just like the last one, the corporate media primarily owned by conservatives and a few pissing in their pants Liberals will shred Senator John Kerry a new poop shoot (just like they did to Al Gore) so big the Teamsters will be able to drive all those NAFTA and WTO work place poisoned child labor manufactured toys straight from the border through the Senator to all those Wal-Marts with their locked in illegal labor that Senator Hillary Clinton helped to create, when she worked for Sam Walden's Walmart in Arkansas while her husband was boinking Jennifer flowers on the desk in the governor's office in Little Rock. </p> <p>And if you're a corporate media journalist like Dexter Filkins, damn straight you'd better help the Bush regime create a pretext to war. Because they will find somebody to frag your ass, "Over there." </p> <p> <a href="http://dadapop.com">http://dadapop.com</a> </p>

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face. http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/1437

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face. http://rochester.indymedia.org/node/1437

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.

The Smirk Has Not Been Wiped From the Chimp's Face.