Letter Never Sent Tell me when to go.

The Mormons are really making the other American Christian sects look bad. They’ve done what Jesus would’ve done and have made their opposition to war pretty clear. Where are the other so-called Christians on this?

AP: Mormon Church Takes Anti-War Stance:

“As a church, we must renounce war and proclaim peace,” said Russell M. Nelson, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which acts under the direction of church President Gordon B. Hinckley.

Nelson never directly referred to Iraq or current moves toward war, but he mentioned the conflict in the Middle East and said “resolution of present political problems will require much patience and negotiation.”

The Golden Rule’s prohibition of one interfering with the rights of others was equally binding on nations and associations and left no room for retaliatory reactions, Nelson said at the meeting Saturday.

Descendants of Abraham — Christians, Jews and Muslims — “are in a pivotal position to emerge as peacemakers,” he said.

But, hey this Iraq war has nothing at all to do with oil. We’re just trying to bring peace and freedom. *wink wink*
Reuters: Iraq opposition to discuss oil at U.S. meeting:

WASHINGTON, Oct 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. State Department will host a group of Iraqi opposition members later this month to discuss expanding Iraq’s oil and natural gas sector after the fall of Saddam Hussein, a department official said on Tuesday.

Iraq has the world’s second biggest crude oil reserves, and the money brought in from more oil exports could restore the country’s economy if the United States attacks Iraq and removes Saddam from power.

“Oil and gas are the natural engine for rebuilding Iraq,” the State Department official told Reuters. …

Between 12 and 30 Iraqi opposition members will take part in the State Department meeting, which should last about two days. In addition to oil and natural gas, there will be working group discussions on Iraqi education, defense, refugees, economy and infrastructure.

U.S. officials will take part in the discussions, but there will be no commercial or trade group representatives.

Nonetheless, the United States is interested in making sure American oil firms don’t miss out on investment opportunities in a post-Saddam government to develop Iraq’s oil field and upgrade its energy facilities.

“Naturally, U.S. policy generally across the board is to maximize U.S. economic and commercial influence,” the official said.

Iraq has oil reserves of 112 billion barrels and the country also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

“Iraq’s true resource potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions,” the EIA said in its latest country brief on Iraq.

Okay, I don’t know when the US will try to drop the hammer on Iraq, but we all know it’s going to happen unless some new situation develops. Such is the sad state of democracy these days. Our representatives no longer even try to pretend they represent us. Most Americans do not want this war, but congress has become the president’s rubber stamp. That’s some 400-500 people minus a few here and there with an actual spine.

Jerusalem Post: Ben-Eliezer: US will attack Iraq in November:

Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said last night that he expects an American attack on Iraq by late November. “It’s possible it will begin toward the end of November,” Ben-Eliezer told Labor Party ministers in Tel Aviv.

Ben-Eliezer stressed that Israel is ready for any eventuality.
He spoke after military sources told Israel Radio they now do not expect Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to launch Scud missiles carrying non-conventional warheads at Israel because this would prove to the world that the Americans are right in claiming he has such weapons.

Or, how about something more likely: that Iraq does not possess nor intend to use these weapons. So basically, Hussein is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. If he doesn’t use chemical weapons war-mongers will say it was because he was sufficiently cowed by their aggressive rhetoric not because he doesn’t have any.

Bush Jr. gets no respect. To be honest, his speech wasn’t worth watching anyway. Although, I do have to give Bush credit for getting his speech delivery skills down. He’s just like one of those animatronic robots now. You could put anything in front of him and, by golly, I bet he could sound sincere as hell. I wonder how long he had to practice for it.

Sometimes I do actually feel sorry for Bush. He seems to be in way over his head. He doesn’t seem to possess the same sort of calculated evilness and ruthlessness as his father. He never appears to me to be particularly crafty or intentionally deceitful. I honestly think he believes the ridiculous things he says while I’m certain that the same is not true of the more machiavellian members of the Bush administration, namely Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al.

3 Networks Skip Bush’s Talk, Citing Absence of Request:

Other White House officials said privately that if they had asked for coverage, that would have unduly heightened expectations for a speech that had no particularly new or dramatic details. Still, some White House officials indicated that they had hoped the networks would cover the address anyway.

Some network executives said the White House’s decision to leave the choice to the networks put the onus on them — and left them possibly facing negative publicity for choosing not to take a prime-time presidential speech in the face of possible action against Iraq. One executive said the White House approach was “passive aggressive.”

Still, executives at the major networks said they were comfortable with their choices, especially because they had established that the president was planning to generally restate his case against Iraq and was not expected to provide any staggering disclosures. Complicating matters, executives at all of the networks said, was the fact that the president was not speaking from the Oval Office, but from a lectern before a large audience likely to applaud — sure to give his speech the feel of a political event.

I did find it strange that Bush chose to give such a speech at a Republican rally. Did they calculate for the effect of a cheering crowd during the Bush war pitch? Maybe they expected viewers at home to be compelled by cheering from Bush supporters.

Lew Rockwell: Give Dueling a Chance:

The duel suggestion underscores the great unspoken truth of our time and anytime as regards war: war is brought about by governments and for governments. Nations do not start and fight wars; only governments do. A duel between heads of state only brings the conduct of war in line with its cause. Even Bush has said “we have no argument with the Iraqi people.” Good, then leave them, and the American people as well, out of it. The duel is the surest means.

Under the new duel system, Bush would be free to be as belligerent as he wants to be, and call any foreign head of state any name he finds appropriate. He clearly has an appetite for conflict, and under this system he would be free to indulge that as much as he likes, provided that it is he and not others who bear the risk associated with violent conflict.

The stipulation that they use the same weapons is also very valuable. This is how it was done under the old system of duels. The weapons were the same and the participants could chose either/or. In short, it approximated the playground ideal of a “fair fight.” After all, with a military budget that is more than twice as large as the second largest military power (Russia), it seems rather unsporting to go around threatening people with death and destruction.

There is even something to say for the suggestion that the United Nations serve as an overseer in the duel. Though I have never been a fan of the UN, this does seem to be one useful role for the thing, so long as it does exist. The UN in this case would actually become an instrument of peace.

The mouth of Sauron was on television tonight with a short prepared speech to exhort Americans to support military action against Iraq. While our rubber stamp congress has almost completely fallen in behind the president to ‘speak with one voice’ he has continued to suffer from a lack of public support for his administration’s takeover attempt, so this message tonight on television, a speech in front of a friendly crowd Republicans in Ohio did nothing to provide additional evidence supporting the Bush line that Iraq is a threat to the United States. In fact during the entire speech I was struck by how Bush simply attempted to sway the emotions of the audience rather to prevent any argument supported by reason or evidence. He persisted in referring to Saddam Hussein simply as Saddam. I cannot imagine another world leader with a beef against another using their first name. Can you imagine Hussein using the same language: “George is a threat to the Iraqi people. George is a threat to the world.” It is puzzling. I can only guess that he wishes to reduce the image of Hussein to that of some swarthy, mideast Stalin. Maybe the repeated use of the Iraqi dictator’s first name is some attempt to imply some linguistic connection of Saddam to Sodom. I can’t imagine why else. In short, this speech to me shows two things: that the Bush administration is desperate to secure the support of the American public, and that the Bush administration is further desperate to win what could be a potential black eye for American foreign policy.

I guess this means our government doesn’t know anything after all and that you can’t believe anything they say. It might be good news in a way since it might make it harder to put the so-called ‘War on Terror’ on the back burner to muscle in on Iraq and rain death on some poor Iraqis. Although, maybe Big Brother has something else in store with this piece of timely information (disinformation?).

From the Guardian Observer:

Osama bin Laden is alive and regularly meeting Mullah Omar, the fugitive leader of the Taliban, according to a telephone call intercepted by American spy satellites.

In the conversation, recorded less than a month ago, Omar and a senior aide were discussing the American-led hunt to track them down. The two men, using a mobile Thuraya satellite phone, spoke about tactics for several minutes. Omar then turned to a third person who was within a few yards of him, voice analysis has revealed. After exchanging a few words, Omar said that ‘the sheikh sends his salaams [greetings]’. Senior Taliban figures habitually refer to bin Laden as ‘the sheikh’.

Voice analysis appears to corroborate the identification of bin Laden. ‘It shows he was alive recently at least,’ said a senior Afghan intelligence officer. ‘Some people might like to think he is dead, but that’s just wishful thinking.’

A French oil super-tanker has caught fire and is sinking. It appears most likely to be the result of a sabotage attack although this is coming from the captain of the tanker who might have some interest in removing responsibility from himself or the corporation which owns the tanker. If this was indeed a ‘terrorist’ attack it could signal a new strategy…attacking the enemy where it hurts, in their addiction to cheap oil, destroying business infrastructure. Business is the invisible hand behind government, especially the American and European governments. I look forward to see what the future will hold. It’s always surprising.

From Stratfor.com:

However, the most significant aspect of the latest attack is that U.S. intelligence missed it.

Despite the U.S. and allied military presence throughout the region — and intelligence-sharing by many Middle Eastern governments, particularly that in Yemen — Washington did not anticipate the supertanker attack. Indeed, in U.S. President George W. Bush scaled back the terrorism assessment alert status in late September from “high” to “elevated,” saying the al Qaeda network had been disrupted.

The implication is clear: The United States is flying blind in the Middle East.

From here:

After weeks of media blitz and diplomatic efforts the United States is all set to launch attack on the beleaguered Iraq on October 9, highly credible diplomatic sources disclosed to The Frontier Post here Wednesday. …

Special US emissaries have already taken rulers of governments of Middle East region in confidence by sharing the intended date of US attack on their isolated neighbour. While their stationed diplomatic staff is doing hectic diplomatic lobbying to tone down the general public anger against the naked US aggression against Iraq, they added. The main agenda of US attack is to eliminate President Saddam Hussain and to install a pro US regime in Baghdad.

The first sorties of US Air Force flying from their near by stationed aircraft carriers would go for bombing the presidential palace and other safe houses of Saddam Hussain. If their initial plan, some how failed then intense bombing of the military and other strategic installations would be done leading to an internal revolt would be staged by US loyal people for the ouster of Saddam loyal regime they said.

The ‘war’ news is really strange. For example, from an article in the NY Times:

Washington, on the other hand, is trying to resolve the issue of Iraq’s compliance with inspections as quickly as possible so that if it comes to war, military action can be taken this winter. If the inspections are stymied, as the White House expects, the United States would be able to attack when the cooler temperatures make it easier for American troops to operate in bulky chemical gear and the longer nights enable them to take advantage of their night vision equipment.

It just points out how this is more like a gang dispute rather than a ‘war’. Bush and the rest of Hell’s choir spout slogans and belligerence against Iraq, but yet they engage in this invasion as if it were part of their business plan. Isn’t the nature of war that something presents itself as an immediate danger to your people and you fight that threat? As Clausewitz wrote, “War is politics by other means.” It is all power politics and economics.

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. – George Orwell, 1984