Global Warming - A New Dawn!

It would seem that President Bush has decided that the world is not doing enough to fight global warming. He has urged countries to set long-term goals and has set a target of 2050 for cutting global emissions.

Is he having a laugh!

What he appears to be advocating is very similar to a something that was agreed back at the turn of the century ripped apart by the then American administration headed by someone, funnily enough, also called Bush. That was the Kyoto agreement, and, for many countries, it remains a fundamental cornerstone of their environmental policies. Mind you, that agreement set more urgent targets than Bush. Unfortunately, the good work of the majority of the world has been shafted by the dirt and pollution pumped indiscriminately into the air by the US over the past 6 years, - a similar amount of time that a certain President has been significantly playing down global warming and its effects.

Mind you, I was almost deafened yesterday by the non-us world falling off their chairs in hysterics, when Bush said "The US takes this issue seriously."

Will They Ever Learn?

The inability to learn from past mistakes and a lack of understanding of the consequences of action are to of the main characteristics of the psychopathic personality.

It now seems that the White House has embarked on a path of "educating" the American people on the need to invade Iran. The evil of Iran has been a mantra for the US for some time now, but the time has now come to ratchet up the fear.

With similarities that are both laughable and chill the blood to the build up to the Iraq war, the US military has decided to present "evidence" of Iran's involvement with the militias in Iraq. A number of "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs were displayed to which three nameless (of course) "experts" confirmed were manufactured in Iraq.

The display appeared to be part of the White House drive that has empowered U.S. forces in Iraq to use all means to curb Iranian influence in the country, including killing Iranian agents. All means includes invasion!

It is clear to me that Bush wants to invade Iran and exercise the same principle of "regime change" that has been such a success in Iraq, - oh, and of course, knock out a nuclear complex or two.

It will be interesting to see if the American people will allow themselves to be suckered again and swallow the nonsense pedaled by this regime. Certainly I expect my government to resist this latest bit of adventurism to the hilt and not cravenly fall in line as they did last time.

I am sure that Iran is stirring the pot, but the place for that to be aired is in open at the UN, not behind closed doors in the White House. Can the American troops, their families and people afford to open up a third front, baring in mind the lack of success in Afganistan and Iraq. Moreover, can they afford it in cash!

As one of the "experts" said; "We know more than we can show," said one of the senior officials, when pressed for tangible evidence that the EFPs were made in Iran. Of course they do, and I'm living in Groundhog Day.

Drip, Drip, Drip

"From the perspective of the White House, it was smart to blur the lines about what was acceptable and what was not in the war on terrorism. It meant that whenever someone was overzealous in some dark interrogation cell, President (George W.) Bush and his entourage could blame someone else. The rendition teams are drawn from paramilitary officers who are brave and colorful. They are the men who went into Baghdad before the bombs and into Afghanistan before the army. If they didn't do paramilitary actions for a living, they would probably be robbing banks. Perhaps the Bush Administration deliberately created a gray area on renditions." This quote was made by Tyler Drumheller, the former chief of the CIA's European division during an interview with the German current affairs magazine Der Spiegel in responce to a question about extraordinary rendition.

On how the White House viewed Europe after 9/11 he had this to say: "Elements of the Bush administration developed the view that European personal privacy laws were somehow to blame, that the Europeans are too slow. We can be very frustrating to work with. I always said, 'Stop preaching to them.' The Europeans have been dealing with terrorism for years, we can learn from their successes and failures. Its not a good spy story, but it's actually how you do this."

When asked how much the CIA was to blame for the amount of wrong information about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, he responded: "The agency is not blameless and no president on my watch has had a spotless record when it comes to the CIA. But never before have I seen the manipulation of intelligence that has played out since Bush took office. As chief of Europe I had a front-row seat from which to observe the unprecedented drive for intelligence justifying the Iraq war."

He was then asked about the critics in Washington who claim that the Germans, because of Curveball, an Iraqi dissident who gave information about supposed Iraqi biological and chemical weapons development, bear a large part of the repsonsibility for the intelligence mess. His reply: "There was no effort by the Germans to influence anybody from the beginning. Very senior officials in the BND expressed their doubts, that there may be problems with this guy. They were very professional. I know that there are people at the CIA who think the Germans could have set stronger caveats. But nobody says: "Here's a great intel report, but we don't believe it." .... The administration wanted to make the case for war with Iraq. They needed a tangible thing, they needed the German stuff. They couldn't go to war based just on the fact that they wanted to change the Middle East. They needed to have something threatening to which they were reacting."

At the time of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations, Drumheller said: "I had assured my German friends that it wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: 'Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that.'"

He then adds: "I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it." ..."The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy. Right before the war, I said to a very senior CIA officer: "You guys must have something else," because you always think it's the CIA. "There is some secret thing I don`t know." He said: "No. But when we get to Baghdad, we are going to find warehouses full of stuff. Nobody is going to remember all of this.""

The full interview transcript can be found here, but it is yet just another piece of evidence of the White House's comfort with using lies. When is impeachment going to be started?

Silver Balls And Mirrors

George Bush has gone green! He now recognises that there are issues to be tackled and action to be taken to counter-act the effects of climate change.

The demand appears in a recent US memo to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It describes "modifying solar radiance" as "important insurance" against the threat of climate change. A more accurate description might be important insurance against the need to cut emissions.

The idea is to either put large solar reflectors out into space or clouds of reflective small particles into the upper atmosphere. The technology for the first idea is, at least, 50 years into the future, and the second idea would have the side effect of killing off the ozone layer for good.

Other ideas include spraying sea-water into the air (ensuring that any country downwind is likely to suffer crop failure and drought). Another idea would be to inject sulphate particles into the atmosphere with the likelihood of disrupted rainfall patterns. All these fixes appear more expensive than cutting the amount of energy we consume. None reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which threatens to acidify the oceans, with grave consequences for the food chain.

The demand that money and research be diverted into these quixotic solutions is another indication that Bush's avowed conversion to the cause of cutting emissions is illusory. He is simply drumming up new business for his chums. In his State Of The Union, he called for raising the government's mandatory target for alternative transport fuels fivefold. This is wonderful news for the grain barons of the red states, who will grow the maize and rapeseed that will be turned into biofuel. It's a catastrophe for everyone else. With only 5% of Europe and the US's requirement for fuel comeing from biofuels, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation reports that using land and crops to feed cars has, already, raised world food prices, with serious consequences for the poor. Biofuels fall into the same category as atmospheric smoke and mirrors - a means of avoiding difficult decisions.

However, credit (no matter how small) where it is due. At least president Bush has publicly acknowledged the problem unlike Wag TV in the UK who are completeing a 90 minute 'documentary' for Channel Four entitles "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Its basic thesis is summed up in a statement from the company that man-made climate change is "...a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times. The truth is that global warming is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media ... The fact is that CO2 has no proven link to global temperatures ... solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit."

The director, Martin Durkin, had previously made a 'documentary' series for Channel Four in 1999, in which he peddled very similar arguments and therories. When the series was concluded, Channel Four was forced to make one of its more humiliating public apologies for the way scientists had been mis-represented in the series.

But with Bush's defection, the band of quacks making these claims is diminishing fast. Now the oil and coal companies that support such people have changed their target. Instead of trying to persuade us that man-made global warming is a myth, they are seeking to divert us into doing everything except the one thing that has to happen: reducing our consumption of fuel. It is another species of denial.

George Bush's purpose - to insulate these companies from the need to cut production - is unchanged. He has simply found a new way of framing the argument.

Well, That Went Down Well!

When asked about President Bush's plan to send even more American troops to be killed in the Iraqi civil war, Tony Blair said it "made sense"!

What an ever-present comfort our glorious Prime Minister has been to Bush! What a wazzock!

In a poll yesterday for the Washington Post and ABC, 61% opposed the plan, while just 36% backed it. In another poll by Associated Press and Ipsos, 70% of Americans said they were against sending more troops.

Interestingly and more significantly for the Middle East, there is now some real confusion and concern over Bush's intentions with the apparent threat to escalate the conflict to include Syria and Iran. Mr Bush, in his speech, warned that the US would "seek out and destroy networks" of insurgents moving into Iraq or based in these neighbouring countries. While US commanders insisted yesterday that this did not signal an intention to go into Iran or Syria, Ms Rice confirmed that all options were open.

Meanwhile, increased bi-partisanship in congress is increasingly making Bush appear more and more isolated. What a pity those Republicans had had the courage to denounce the White House idiot before now.

Barack Obama, the senator from Illinois and a long-term opponent of the war said: "We are not going to babysit a civil war."Even Hillary Clinton, the other Democrat frontrunner, who has been careful so far not to be too critical of the war, said Mr Bush "will continue to take us down the wrong road - only faster". Now there's someone who has been steadfast on her principles!

In my experience, military engagements only have a chance of succeeding if there is, at least, the perception of unanimity in the action and goal, but a fringe plan such as this stands very little chance with the present level of opposition.

Mr Bush, think (if that is at all possible) again, and this time listen to people who don't have a vested interest in perpetual war, but who offer seasoned and experienced advice such as those who made up the Iraq Study group and in particular, listen to those who have had direct experience of war.

Mr Blair - just shut up and leave. You are now becoming a major embarrassment to the UK.