Yes, the article you cite does lead to a bit of whiplash. I started getting concerned when the refugee numbers he listed were approximately half those most people accept. Here's an excerpt from an article of his in the same journal in November, 2004:

The most telling thing about the decision to reveal these plans is the evolution in the name of the proposed party. The Al-Mahdi party, with its connotations of wild eyes and Kalashnikovs, is now out. The Patriotic Alliance is in. It is a masterful name - inclusive, positive and entirely unobjectionable. It is not the sort of name that would emerge naturally from Muqtada's dirty back alley in Najaf. It bears the imprint of Iraq's most intelligent politician and the emerging leader of the entire Shia political current: Ahmed Chalabi.

Chalabi's comeback is no surprise. The flux and chaos of Iraqi politics sail straight into his sweet spot. The yogi-like Sistani in the Najaf alley he never leaves, dozy old SCIRI, earnest Da'wa, the pimply Mahdi army, a dozen frenetic little sub-groups, all floundering with a new system called constitutional democracy that has not been quite settled yet and that none of them has ever really had to understand - it is all Karbala clay in the hands of a master sculptor.

Iraqis know that Chalabi is the one man alive without whom Saddam would still be their ruler. And from the moment of Saddam's fall, just as leading up to it, Chalabi has done everything right. He has publicly (if not necessarily privately) fallen out with Washington over a featherweight intelligence stink involving Iran. The world has watched the Allawi government vandalise his house and issue a ludicrous arrest warrant accusing him of counterfeiting Iraq's worthless old currency. Shortly before I last spoke to Chalabi, he had survived an ambush that killed two of his guards at Mahmudiya in the Bermuda triangle.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6515

In short, the pronouncement of victory in Iraq is from the same person who wanted us believe Chalabi is Iraq's George Washington. The article made it clear he was on very close and familiar terms with Chalabi, putting him clearly within the inner circle of Neocon Central. As I think you might point out, we should consider the source, read it in light of other sources of information and make our own conclusions.

The only bright spot I find in this is that if what Bull says is true, then we can bring home all the troops now. Since it was this kind of bull that got us there, why not use it to get out?

The ad should reproduce the the portion of the Kyl-Liberman resolution declaring the IRG a terrorist organization along with the wording mentioned upthread that demonstrates how this is a de facto declaration of war. Then in bold 36 point type should be a list of the Democrats who supported the resolution. There simply is no other description for these votes than betrayal. I'd get the checkbook out big-time for that one.

It's time to hit the streets. I hope ANSWER organizes something big quickly. I know they have a contingency plan for a demonstration after our first attack on Iran, but it would be good to get one more try before the bombs fall.

Defense Stocks Hit New Highs

Wednesday September 26, 3:46 pm ET

By Donna Borak, AP Business Writer

Defense Stocks Hit New Highs As Pentagon Seeks $42 Billion in Extra Funding for 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense stocks on Wednesday hit new highs as Defense Secretary Robert Gates requested an extra $42 billion in funding from Congress to cover military costs in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008.

The AMEX Defense Index, which tracks 14 major defense company stocks, rose 14.25 to a high of 1,686.72 in afternoon trading. Since last year, the index has risen roughly 47 percent, outperforming the broader S&P 500 index, which has climbed nearly 15 percent over the same period.

/snip/

Wall Street and industry executives have sought to assure investors there will be little disturbance in military spending over the next several years -- regardless of who succeeds President Bush in the White House or the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq as proposed by Gen. David Petraeus.

Link:http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070926/defense_sector_snap.html?.v=5

Surely, even though they are mentioning it, Iran is figured into this bull market.

-- Lee Bollinger on NPR's All Things Considered today, speaking about what he wanted out of MA's appearance at Columbia.

Link:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14742209

What I find disturbing, is that in all the coverage on MA's visit and on the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, we have endless recitation of the outlaw nature of Iran and its leaders, founded on the all too real evidence of Holocaust denial, failure to recognize Israel's right to exist, sponsorship of terrorism in various locations and internal repression. However, I've seen no discussion on Iran's cooperation in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and, even after being rewarded for that by being named a charter member of the "Axis of Evil", the apparently genuine approach in the spring of 2003 to negotiate an end to terrorism and a recognition of Israel. Despite being rebuffed again on that overture, isn't there at least a chance that the desire to place a wreath at Ground Zero might have contained the seed of a new attempt at negotiation?

If the Columbia event were truly a scholarly discussion, it seems some of these points should have diffused out into the coverage. Alas, however, only the "serious" side was presented, and the war drums become ever louder.