With only the one source, I can't quote a lot in this diary. Writing it mainly to keep the information alive. I'll take it down if I see it is superseded with more info.

The Washington Post has a story with a headline about Sadr Recalibrating his strategy.

And if you call announcing full-out war with America within the next week to month a "recalibration," it's an appropriate, but half-assed, headline.

Formally, Sadr has announced that he will not participate in the upcoming elections, because they are illegitimate while Iraq is occupied, and that some members of his following will form a military force, with the aim of driving the occupation out.

According to Chris Floyd at Empire Burlesque,

... the Saudi government is now preparing plans to deal with "any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards" that may arise from an attack on Iran's nuclear reactors. This was reported by a top Saudi newspaper, Okaz, and relayed by a leading German news service, dpa -- one day after Dick Cheney paid a visit to the kingdom. As we noted, no one knows exactly what was said at that confab of allied authoritarians -- but something sure lit a fire under the Saudis, and convinced them that urgent action is needed to brace for the lethal overspill from a strike on Iran.

Can we now reasonably say that the entire War on Terror is a propaganda ploy masking dark-side intentions?

A long article, here are excerpts:

Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror

The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers
Nick Fielding and Sarah Baxter, Washington

...Yet wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks.

...Saudi religious scholars have caused consternation in Iraq and Iran by issuing fatwas calling for the destruction of the great Shi’ite shrines in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, some of which have already been bombed. ...leading figures within the kingdom who advocate extremism are tolerated.

More:

Okay. I'm paying less and less attention to politics these days because every time I do I just feel... let's just say, extremely disappointed with the reality of the Democratic Congress. A heated, shouting, teeth-gnashing, kind of disappointed.

This b.s. about they aren't in charge...? Well, does anyone think that if the numbers and situations were reversed--with Republicans in by the skin of their teeth, and a Democratic President--that Democratic bills, or symbolic statements, would be passed? And that Republican offerings wouldn't? (Oddly, the Republicans control the media megaphone regardlss of whether they are in the majority or not. I count that a Dem failing.)

Well, being a proud member of the Reality-based community, which trumps any other factional interest in my life, I've got to account for the de facto victory of the Republicans in the only aspects of politics that counts: the actual execution of power, and actual setting of agendas.

Here's what I come up with:

Actually, I don't give a shit what word you think is appropriate. As if words fucking mattered, when it's the reality of millions of innocents being murdered, tortured, and harrassed out of existence that counts.

Here's an item "Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy" via Digby, that appeared at the Family Security Matters' website on Aug 3. The original link has since been scrubbed, as has the cached version, but quite a few caught it at the time, including Blacklisted News)

I'm quoting the whole thing, since Digby did it, Blacklisted News did it, and it seems FSM is carefully making sure it appears nowhere––they slipped up in letting us know what a certain segment of the powerful really wishes--and therefore, it cannot be copyrighted material. (Remember William Kristol called for dictatorship a couple of months ago--and he's still employed as a pundit!!!)

At the end, lest you think Philip Atkinson is a lonely looney, there's a listing of the high-powered Board of Directors behind Family Security Matters. Here's what Philip Atkinson called for:

Here's the quick cure for Bill O'Reilly: Put him in a room with 100 ordinary Americans, sitting just like all of them in a circular auditorium, no special platform, no desk, just in the room like anyone. And let him try his tv spiel there.

Within minutes, most everyone would pick up that this guy is off-kilter. Some would point out the lies, and he'd look like a bullying, blustering, hysterical con man to almost everyone. He'd be thought closer to schizophrenia than to helpful. Either pitied or scorned. People would laugh, hoot, and shout him down before long.

Well, Fox isn't going to let "BS Bill" be surrounded with ordinary people trying to have a serious discussion. Same with the whole rancid gang of them, Kristol, Snow, Broder, Limbaugh, Brooks, Yoo, ... Nor will any other corporate media outlet. Radicals like these could not survive as public figures without a completely artificial and falsified setting. Their whole scam depends on no authentic contact with the general public.

Come to think of it, how often do we see 100 ordinary Americans just sitting around and discussing real things? All the Economic shows have Wall Street types, exclusively, on them. You never see Union people, you never see the pushcarters, you never see office workers.

Come to think of it, ... (more)

If you are a Dem leader, or if you know a Dem leader, or if you know where a Dem leader can be found, please tell them this for us:

When Republicans accuse you of not supporting the troops, you say

That's bull! Bush has gotten everything he's asked for, and all he does is mess up and promise a better future. Check the public record.

When you hear criticism of Democrats being partisan, you say

You got that right! There's the pot calling the kettle black. They've been rabidly partisan for years.  Here's the difference: Republicans are partisan for a handfull of people. They claim automatic superiority to almost every American. We're partisan for the rule of law, and the American way. They have to say something to distract everyone from reality. Which is something they don't like to go near.

Now, mind you, these aren't "say this word for word" suggestions. There's a certain approach we're trying to get down. Dem leaders should be prepared for the 6-second soundbite, the op-ed piece, the 5 minute Newshour segment and every other venue.

As a matter of fact, when a Dem hears any Republican attack at all, you can say (across the jump)

I don't know the sources rep, but the claim should be easily checkable. And this is how Bushboyz avoid a Constitutional Struggle. From Tuesday...

Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister: US will back Israeli strike on Iran
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/...

...Avigdor Lieberman said on Tuesday that he received the tacit blessing of Europe and the United States for an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

“If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the US will support us,” Lieberman told Army Radio following a meeting earlier in the week with NATO and European Union officials.

Now this is what I'm talkin' about:

I first came across Firedoglake's Siun's Time to De-Authorize

Says Presidential candidate and perhaps actual leader Gov. Bill Richardson:

Article 1 of the US Constitution gives the Congress, not the President, the right to declare war. And the War Powers Act specifies that the President may not continue a war without Congressional authorization. ...If Congress passes a resolution de-authorizing the war, the President has no legal authority to continue. De-authorization cannot be vetoed, and it would legally require Bush to begin bringing the troops home.If the President stalled on redeployment, Congress could pass funding legislation requiring him to withdraw. If Congress de-authorizes the war before the summer recess, our troops could be home in six months.

The time for waiting is over. ....It is time to stand up to Bush. No more waiting, no more compromises. De-authorize the Iraq war before you leave for summer break.

I've stayed out of supporting any Democratic presidential candidate to date. To me, Hillary is loyal to Hillary's status and membership in the global corporate elite. Obama's not much different. Edwards' populism I suspect is largely genuine, but I doubt he'd be pushing it if he were still in the Senate.

Dodd has said some real things, Kucinich has the right ideals but I just don't see him as a tough player. This isn't to say I'd have any choice but to vote for any of them against the Republican ego-maniac they'd put up. (And vanity is the only thing any of the Repubs have to offer, excepting, maybe, Ron Paul.)

So I've said all along that the first candidate who starts talking plainly about America's actual condition gets my vote. Even though he's not a candidate, I'm voting for Gore. Hell, I might write him in if I have to.

To wit, this Guardian piece

Two news items. One says the Pentagon, according to Bush's faithful servant General Pace's testimony to Congress, has made no plans in the event Congress votes for withdrawal. Guess they feel sure Congress ain't going to.

NPR investigated Pace’s statements and found one scenario being considered within the Pentagon would maintain a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq for several decades into the future.

The other story has it that, come this summer, US forces can expect big casualties. Not because they have hit on the brilliant strategy of getting our troops surrounded on all sides by enemies, but because Iran is teaming up with al qaeda and Sunni insurgents to hit the US hard. So as to take advantage of the opposition in Congress.

We know it's so, because "an official" said so. I'm not shittin' you.

This is a short diary, mainly here in the hopes this major story will be followed as it develops. You might remember Lt. Col. Hackworth, who, when he passed away was America's most-decorated fighter, and a mainstay as a right-wing talker on the Tube. But he parted ways with Bush on the war, and the shoddy use of soldiers very early on. I can't find the Brian Williams report from tonight the article references.

Short version is contained in the headlines and the subheadlines:

Soldiers for the Truth Foundation Exposes Second-Rate Body Armor: U.S. Soldiers Die Unnecessarily

Questionable Department of Defense Procurement Causes Higher Fatalities, More Severe Casualties in Frontline Troops

Better Body Armor Available for Nearly a Decade

All our politicians seem to imagine that we can afford another few thousand American lives, another trillion or so dollars, and innumerable acts of violence against ordinary people who never did anything to us.

In this context we have Cheney's recent visit to Baghdad. Martin Sieff writes about why this has failed. More importantly, the very assumptions of his article, taken with some other reports, shows why the "surge" is suicidal. It is America's very military that is at stake.

But to Sieff:

The 2005 elections dealt a death blow to [Iraq's] fragile structures ...confirmed and strengthened the primacy of the Sunni and Shiite militias, as well as the Sunni insurgents, throughout the country. It is the militias that are the basic building blocks of what remains of Iraqi society. Therefore, the Iraqi national army and police remain ineffectual against them.

The short version of why Cheney couldn't get the Parliament to stay and get the oil deal done comes down to:

As he left office, George Washington wrote his Farewell Address giving this new nation his parting advice on how to maintain our Republic. And what methods and circumstances would-be tyrants shall use to gain power.

He writes that

One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what can not be directly overthrown.

He makes plain the prerequisite to a successful government by the people.

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists til changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

By which he means the government established by the "authentic act of the whole people." This is where we get to Bush.

There's no open thread. Going meta-ish for a second we really need a perpetual "headlines" open thread or something.

Josh Marshall tells us why getting Tim Griffin as USA, Arkansas, was so important. Can anyone say "High Crimes?"

When I say "tells us," I mean, you look at his face while he tells you the story. Intercut with relevant documents and highlighting--just like official news!

Better, it's on YouTube as well. (Though I can't figure how to get the link there.)

I'll delete this soon, once enough people see it to get their socks knocked off and start buzzing about it.

Are We, the People, Sovereign of America, or is someone else usurping Our Sovereignty for themselves?

Because, the President can be our servant, or our master, but not both. So this question of who exactly is in which station needs to be made very clear in no uncertain terms, right here and right now. And I have no doubt as to who is in charge.

We all know it's Congress' job to make sure our Sovereignty is protected and nourished. We also know that we can't count on other people we don't know personally to get it right. They might, but....

So, two duties have devolved to us.

1. Tell our Congress that we demand they fulfill their oaths and vigorously defend the Constitution  (And why not publicly reaffirm their oath on the Capitol steps together one fine day? Even invite the Republicans to participate in the oath-taking.)

2. Tell everyone we know, everyone we can reach, what we have told Congress, and if needed, why. And then exhort them to do the same

If you know your zip code you can immediately get full contact information for your Congressionals

It's been 4 months since the Democrats won a majority in the House and came within striking distance of a functioning majority in the Senate--needing to pry a handful of votes from the despised Party of Bush. Yet the Dem's elite has failed to take advantage of Republican chaos and unpopularity. They have failed to clearly align themselves with positions that about two of three Americans support. And only Clarke and Kucinich so far have acknowledged the grievous danger that looms.

Some say "lighten up, they've hardly been in office." This is a serious and honest point. But, first, admit that they've been way too ready to cede way too much to Bush, and have been largely stymied by the Republitic Party, both as regards legislation and in the public's eyes.

If this were a time when the very basis of our nation is not being threatened, you might say "well, let's give them some time to get it together." America does not have this time, nor do the Democrats give evidence they are aware of this. Apparently, they are trying to not offend the people (meaning the 30% who like what's going on), not be seen to lose in struggles with Bush, and to more or less let things ride until '08.

More or less.

Current usage names him K'ung-fu-tzu, and he said:

When things are not called by their true name, confusion abounds in the land.

In this land, in this time, confusion abounds, and in the public sphere, almost nothing is called by it's true name. Fear is called courage, liars are called leaders, foolishness is called policy, politicians call empty symbolic gestures "action," and so on.

K'ung-fu-tzu didn't define "true name." I figure he figured anyone who cared to know what he was saying would pretty much get the drift. So, no sense in defining "true name." Anyone's best guess is probably close enough for the purpose.

But we can describe instances of false names. Given the various confusions our "leadership" suffers and inflicts, maybe just saying the true names, out where anyone can hear them, can bring some light through the fog. Can dis-spell the entrancements of modern agit/prop.

I'm going to offer an example or three of what I think is true naming. I'm hoping you will add what strikes you as the accurate way of saying things. That you will feel free to comment and rate.