Political pressures on George W. Bush make the first few months of 2007 a very dangerous time for an escalation of war in the Middle East.

Intelligence sources say Bush - along with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair - are weighing the possibility of Israeli-led attacks on Syria and Iran, with the United States providing logistical back-up.

In this view, the proposed “surge” of U.S. troops to Iraq and the dispatch of a second aircraft carrier task force to Iranian waters are part of the plan.

For the full story on these troubling developments, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

The appointment of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary was widely viewed as a sign that George W. Bush was prepared to accept more realism on the Iraq War and possibly agree to a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

That wishful thinking led Democrats to treat Gates as a closet ally and to support his nomination unanimously. But the new Defense Secretary now is signaling that he’s onboard with Bush’s determination to press ahead in Iraq until “victory.”

For the full story on the worsening Iraq debacle, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

“Saving the world is only a hobby. Most of the time I do nothing.”
- Edward Abbey

Connecting the Dots
by Glynn Wilson

Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president is doomed before it ever has a real chance of getting started.

Here’s why.

Two New York Times columnists made the rounds of television news shows Sunday morning and both pushed Obama’s candidacy. That’s like the kiss of death these days.

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert, Thomas Friedman and David Brooks both said Obama is the “exciting” new candidate who can really, really rally the country in a bipartisan way.

Friedman has been wrong about so many things I quit reading him three years ago well before I quit reading the rest of the New York Times, so he’s not even worth listening to at all.

I’ve never thought David Brooks was qualified to be a New York Times columnist anyway, so why is anyone on TV listening to him?

The Times had a chance to get it right before the Iraq war, as I’ve written in the past, because I tried to get them the information about the secret think tank dream plan on the Democratization of Iraq and the Middle East, the play book Rumsfeld and Cheney were working on well before 9/11.

But they didn’t listen to me. They listened to Judith Miller, who reported over and over again in acquiescence to the Bush administration that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and plans to aim them at New York.

Putting all that aside, however, there are two other things neither Freidman nor Brooks know anything about. One is the American South, where Obama couldn’t carry a single state simply because of his race. Sorry to say it is still true in the year 2006, but…

And let’s say that’s not even in play.

Apparently they forgot to read the Washington Post today, which carried this story showing Obama’s past dealings with Mafioso Antoin “Tony” Rezko in land deals reminiscent of White Water, which is another reason people in the South won’t vote for Hillary either.

Obama On Defensive Over Land Deal

I will bet anyone from the New York Times right now a 12-pack of Yuengling that Obama will not be the next president of the United States. I will bet a six pack he won’t be the Democratic Party’s nominee. And I’ll bet one beer that when all is said and done, he won’t even run this time.

That will destroy the entire punditry’s argument that Obama and Hillary are the two front runners.

When Edwards makes his announcement in New Orleans and goes onto win the Iowa caucus, remember you heard it here first and that the Locust Fork Journal got it right when all the TV pundits - and the New York Times’ highly paid columnists - got it wrong.

Edwards to Announce Run in New Orleans

Then maybe you will understand why Time magazine named us, collectively, the person of the year for 2006. The New York Times didn’t know this was coming either, apparently. The Washington Post did have a story about it Saturday night.

Time Magazine Person of the Year? We Who Create Online!

The “Great Man” theory of history is usually attributed to the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.” He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species.

“That theory took a serious beating this year,” according to Time.

The big story of 2006 was about community and collaboration on a scale “never seen before.”

“It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.”

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web.

“It’s a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter . . . it’s really a revolution.”

“This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It’s a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who’s out there looking back at them.”

Thank you Time magazine for finally being the first big media outlet to recognize this. You are forgiven for stealing my Bush AWOL story.

Now will you listen to me when I try to tell you that the Cumberland Mountains are not part of Appalachia?

Will the New York Times begin to listen? Will the Newhouse newspapers, which control most of the media in Alabama?

Don’t hold your breath. Just keep reading the Locust Fork News and Journal.

If you missed the first column on the subject, here’s the permalink . . . dot dot dot.

Krystal Ball: Who Looks Presidential For 2008? Presidential Tip Sheet: Early Bet on Edwards

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was honored with a standing ovation and marching bands as if he were leaving office a hero today, not a disgrace.

Rumsfeld Honored at Pentagon Ceremony

At least President George W. Bush didn’t award him the Medal of Freedom as he did former CIA Director George Tenet.

Bush Gives Medal of Freedom to 10 People

But the key question ahead is: What will Bush “the decider” do about Iraq?

The speculation in Washington is that he will stay the course, but not call it “staying the course,” and he will propose sending more troops to Iraq and throw more money into the quagmire - only delaying the inevitable end to the debacle into the 2008 presidential election season and beyond.

Bush Weighing Options for Iraq

Anyone who still thinks Bush is some kind of a Christian needs to re-read the Book of Revelations. Remember, “he who has an ear let him hear?”

Bush can’t hear anything but the voices echoing in his head that make him say, over and over, that he “believes” this and he “believes” that. He “believes” we can “win” in Iraq. He “believes” he is doing the right thing.

What he didn’t learn in school while he was cheating his way through was that what he “believes” is not what matters. What matters is what the EVIDENCE shows.

That’s the difference between the “reality-based” community and the “faith-based” community.

Either this is a nation of laws where justice rules based on the facts, or it is not. The evidence leads me to believe and have hope and faith that the American people believe that “justice” should be done and that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deserve to be punished for their crimes against nature and humanity - not awarded medals and cheered with marching bands.