While news regarding Israel's successful air raid in Syria remains somewhat murky (it is widely believed that the bombing served the purpose of destroying nuclear material that had been acquired by North Korea), it has recently come to light that on July 23, 15 Syrians and several dozen Iranians were killed in a explosion involving a disastrous chemical weapons experiment.

According to The Jerusalem Post, the accident occurred when a warhead containing chemical weapons materials was being mounted on a SCUD missile. This, of course, raises a number of questions regarding the recent allegations of North Korea allegedly supplying Syria with nuclear material. If the allegations are true, was Syria in the process of acquiring a nuclear warhead or material that could be used to construct a "dirty bomb" of radio active material?

This disaster shows a clear collaboration between Iran and Syria regarding a weapons of mass destruction program that, in light of Iran's current nuclear program, the situation in the Middle East to escalating even further. It is no secret that Dick Cheney has been pushing President Bush for military action in Iran and incidents like this do not exactly calm anyone's nerves about Iran and Syria's threat to U.S. troops or allies.

I'm writing this while sitting in Philadelphia International Airport (yes, I'm flying on 9/11) and it seems that the airport is not as full as the myriad other times I've flown out. The girl at the Continental counter says it's been light but of course this is anecdotal evidence.

I was sitting here thinking back to that early September day in 2001 when the most beautiful, crystal clear day was stained by two planes flying into two New York City landmarks. I watched most of it happen from a mile or two away. I was heading to Long Island to meet with a client and was traveling on the 440 just before the Staten Island Expressway exit when the first plane hit. The initial word was that it was a small commuter plane, yet I didn't quite believe it as it was such a clear day.

I exited onto the SIE headed toward the Verrazano Narrows Bridge when the second plane hit. To get an idea of the distance from the bridge to to the WTC, click here. I watched the second plane hit and saw the fireball as clear as one can from a couple of miles away, the plane came in low over Jersey City/Hoboken/Bayonne and hit with dramatic force. I was talking with my dad on the phone and he just cursed when it hit, the radio was set to Imus and he pretty much did the same, I don't recall. Traffic on the bridge stopped and outbound from Brooklyn was halted to allow rescue squads from Perth Amboy and Old Bridge in Jersey to gain access. I spent what seemed an eternity on that bridge inching along until I finally hit the exit for the Belt Parkway. It was soon after that the towers fell and, to be honest, it never crossed my mind that they'd come down. I thought of all the people and rescue personnel and what they were experiencing.

There will be no links or photos in this post. This is just a bunch of predictions and thoughts. We'll see how they come out:

- We're in Iraq for 2-5 more years. Even if we started withdrawing tomorrow it would take at least a year to get out. Still that's better than General Petraeus's ten years or the neo-cons century. What President Bush started he certainly will not finish.

- A third party candidate will enter the race (probably next year). I think Chuck Hagel will be a part of it and Michael Bloomsberg will either run or bankroll it. Altho the country is pretty receptive to change, it will not go third party in this time.

- I'm still amazed by the lack of focus on how corrupt and inefficient this administration is. With the combined wars we have over $750 Billion in defense with little results and we're seriously in huge debt. Yet, our obsession with entertainment and sports goes on and on.

- Every time I hear another in the endless talking points on why we can't leave Iraq and then I hear a report of more American or Iraqi deaths, my heart sinks. This war has gone on for more than we were in WW2 and for far less noble a cause.

- I wish any of the leading current Republicans running would tell the truth. Something like: 'The American people are right. This war is a quagmire, there's no solution and the longer we stay the worse it gets. i can't say that because the current President is from my party.'

- At the current rate, Democrats will have a veto proof majority in Congress and no matter who is president, the war will draw to a close faster rather than sooner.

The latest reports from Iraq indicate the president's latest strategy seems to be working and if we just give it a little more time (and probably try another prime minister) it will work out. It's just the American public has little stomach for the long haul. If they only had a little faith. In what? More of the same? We've heard all this before.

Remember when we would be greeted as liberators, when there would be no need to have a large force because the Iraqis would be so happy to have us occupy their country. Remember when the insurgency was in its last throes according to VP Dick Cheney? When the symbol of the purple thumbs would bring unity and hope? And who was among the cheerleaders? That so-called liberal media the Washington Post and NY Times:

"Could it be that the neocons were right and that the invasion of Iraq, the toppling of Hussein and the holding of elections will trigger a political chain reaction throughout the Arab world?" marveled Post columnist Richard Cohen. [Washington Post, March 1, 2005]

and then there were the Friedman Units at the Times.

hailed the Iraqi election as one of several "tipping points" foreshadowing "incredible" changes in the Middle East. [NYT, Feb. 27, 2005] A lead editorial in the New York Times expanded on Friedman's thesis. "The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances," the editorial said. [NYT, March 1, 2005]

I think the reason blogs and the internet have become a leading source of news and opinions is that between vapid TV news and outright Faux News and newspapers that simply repeat the latest White House spin people want the truth.

There has been much speculation regarding the rather abrupt departure of Karl Rove. Most centers around the possibility of his indictment because he was involved in the CIA leak. Or the dismissal of the U.S. Attorney Generals. Or spying on Americans. Or rigging elections or (I could go on a bit, you know)

But there may be another reason. For starters, the stated reason (to spend more time with family) when his son is going away to college is an obvious red flag. But could there be a more altruistic reason? Could it be that Rove has lost the internal battle with Dick Cheney and chose not to stay?

According to VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) Cheney may be directing a military attack on Iran. The reason? His belief that Iran may have a nuclear weapon in a few months. The truth? Not even likely. According to the latest National Intelligence Estimate Iran will not have capability for several years at best but the current version

The latest National Intelligence Estimate regarding if and when Iran is likely to have the bomb has been ready since February. It has been sent back four times -- no doubt because its conclusions do not support what Cheney and Woolsey are telling the president and, through the domesticated press, telling the rest of us as well.

With American forces at a very low state of readiness wouldn't it be insane to attack Iran? Sure, but that hasn't stopped Cheney/Bush before has it? Wouldn't the American public and Congress deny the Bush administration the authority? Wouldn't the public outcry be overwhelming? Once again, history may repeat itself. Follow on the flip...

From CNN.com: First Sen. Patrick Leahy told the Cheney team that they had until July 18 to produce documents. Team Cheney requested and was granted an extension to August 1. Then another extension to August 20.

The White House contends it never said senators could have the documents by then.

And now they're offering to have talks about what documents Leahy might get sometime after labor day. Anyone else get the idea that the Cheney team is playing games with Patrick Leahy and not taking this seriously?

Heh. If there weren't serious stakes involved the Leahy subpoenas would be a farce. Oh wait, this is about whether listening and spying on terrorists is constitutional. Yep, it's a farce.

Stumbled across a video by someone who foresaw with great accuracy what would likely happen if we were to invade Iraq:

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off -- part of it the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it eastern Iraq the Iranian would like to claim, fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

In other words, we'll have a mess on our hands, a quagmire, and that's what we've got (and then some). A darn pity then that Dick Cheney ignored his own advice. Gosh, if we'd only known then what we know now. They knew exactly what they were doing when they invaded. That's what makes Cheney more than wrong. When will more people realize that we, the people, have been lied to (repeatedly). When is enough enough? How many more dead and maimed Americans is this war worth? Now he wants to go to war with Iran. I'm so disgusted and angry with these so-called leaders, I'm not going to write more. They make me sick.

It would seem things are starting to fall into place (but don't expect traditional media to get there in time to catch the train). First, it's relevant to understand how things unfold in D.C. and Congress. As you know, there has been a fair amount of attention directed at the meeting which took place in former Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room. Who visited? What was said, and what they were trying to get him to approve? Congress asked FBI Director Mueller what he knew of the matter, and boy did he ever respond.

Read what he sent Congress. It's important to follow the sequence of events and understand that the VP has been involved in this from the beginning, and that there is more news to come. Former Acting AG Comey and FBI Director Mueller could well end up as the people willing to stand up and tell the truth. Importantly, Mueller did not have to reveal the other meetings not involving Comey or Ashcroft, and to have done so here generates many more questions than it answers.

Will Congress follow the trail Mueller has left? One would hope so. They have a constitutional duty to fulfill. This whole administration boils down to 'Take Us at Our Word' and 'If You Question Our Story, You are Unpatriotic'. Congress is supposed to question, supposed to provide oversight and accountability to the process. It's their job, it's why we have the 'balance of powers.' For the first six years of George Bush's rule there was only a rubber stamp Congress. The American people deserve the truth. Has the Constitution been compromised? Is there a vast eavesdropping, wiretapping, data mining program that is being used to spy on political opponents and activists? Do we understand that an unfettered, free to do whatever they dream of Administration is not how a democracy works?

Tucked inside an article in the Los Angeles Times today was a little bombshell of information that is going to shake up a lot of people. It turns out that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker's report will actually be written by the White House. So much for any credibility that report will have -- and so much for all the Republican politicians and some Democrats who have been saying, "Wait for the Petraeus report in September, let's give him a chance."

It wasn't too long ago when a group of Republican congressional office holders met "secretly" with the president and one of their key messages was that the only one with any credibility, the only one whom people would trust to tell them the truth, was General Petraeus. NOT THE WHITE HOUSE OR PRESIDENT BUSH.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Why am I not surprised?

In all the hew and cry over the recent FISA vote to give expedited surveillance powers to the discredited AG Alberto Gonzales (so he could authorize wiretaps, etc without having to go to a FISA court), something important has been missed. In fact, it's possible the vote was designed to split the Dems and create a false scenario that Dems don't want to protect this country as a bonus. But the real reason was to distract attention from the "rest of the story."

This administration has been spying extensively on Americans collecting all kinds of information most of which has nothing to do with overseas communication or the 'war on terror' and much more to do with expanding the unitary executive (aka dictator). How do we know this?

Recall former acting AG Comey's testimony We heard about the hospital scene but what else is in that testimony? Recall Comey testifying that the administration was involved in something so illegal that Comey and at least eight other high-ranking Administration officials were prepared to resign had the activity continued. Let's think about that. High level career Justice Department officials don't threaten to resign over nothing.

Do President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney deserve impeachment? Is their direction of the Iraq war mere bungling, or something more sinister, and does it warrant action by Congress? Susannah and Bob discuss in the latest episode of "Running Gags"!

...who tell them. This edition? Vice President Dick Cheney. In an interview with Larry King, the man trotted out the old, "I don't recall" defense to the question of whether he was the person who personally dispensed Alberto Gonzales and Andy Card to John Ashcroft's hospital bed in order to pressure him to sign off on the spying of Americans.

More amusing is his assertion that such a decision is the kind of thing that he would remember considering that he was such a big supporter of the wiretapping of American phones, but, hey, he's drawing a blank on the specifics. Perhaps now that his pacemaker battery has been replaced, the docs should think about a memory upgrade.

There's an issue that, if Congress would do their assigned job, will dominate the election cycle. It's impeachment.

I've been undecided on the subject for some time but I'm now convinced. Some people may read no further than the title but most Americans (and most in Congress) know this president and administration have not upheld the Constitution, and have lied repeatedly and with impunity. Truly, George W. Bush is a "unitary executive," one who governs without accepting or following oversight. Under the constitution, Congress is supposed to exercise oversight. Bush, with his 1,000-plus signing statements has directly said that he is above the law of the land. I do not want any president to have the power this one has usurped.

The Constitution's framers were brilliant and prescient. They thought things through. They gave senators six years instead of two so they could take more political risks. They gave the power to declare war to the Congress not the president. The president proposes and Congress disposes. The checks and balances in the Constitution are strong but our system is no longer in balance.

President Bush has claimed more and more power, and the former compliant Republican Congress gave it to him. He acts more like a king than a president.

There's been a trend of late for cities and municipalities to pass resolutions supporting the impeachment of President Bush. These, of course, mean absolutely nothing and carry zero weight. I guess they are taking their cues from from the Nancy Pelosi-led U.S. Congress that has passed numerous resolutions that mean nothing as well.

Just in the last month we've seen West Hollywood, Takoma Park, MD and Telluride, CO pass these inane resolutions that serve no other purpose than to take up the tax payers time.

It now seems that the resolution passed in Telluride, Colo. is going to have an effect -- not exactly the type they welcome or counted on:

TELLURIDE - A backlash quickly emerged after the Telluride Town Council adopted a resolution last week calling for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"It's huge, unbelievable," said Telluride Mayor John Pryor. "Ski groups are canceling for the winter. Hundreds of people are bailing. The (town) Web site is flooded with people saying they're canceling their vacations here."

Unintended consequences, you've got to love them. The council, by all accounts, didn't even debate the issue and passed it without a second thought. I guess they figured that everybody in the country feels as they do and they can do what they want without fear of backlash. I call that the NY Times Living in a Bubble Syndrome.

Folks, we really need to cross our fingers that the mad mullahs in Iran see reason sometime soon. If they keep up with their attempt to get a nuke it's going to go very badly for us and them. Apparently Vice President Dick Cheney is not at all happy with the progress of talks with Iran and the ineffectiveness of the sanctions currently in place. He's pushing for taking care of the problem before the Bush administration runs out of time:

"Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.

"The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action," Mr Cronin said. "The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself."

Israel can't sit around and do nothing. They're sitting in a country the size of a postage stamp. One nuke in Tel Aviv and they are done. Even the threat of a nuclear attack may lead to mass emigration. But the risks of attacking Iran are great as well, their people may rise up and support their government, the government may be angling for this attack so they have an excuse for retaliatory attacks of their own all across the globe and including in our own country. This is one of those situations where all the choices are bad. We may be forced to choose the least worst option.

The one ray of hope is within Iran. It's not a single entity dictatorship, it's an oligarchy, ruled by a religious elite. They can crack, they can be split, they can fight each other. We can only hope that they back down or can be forced to back down by an uprising of their own people.