Blogs for justyforya.

Have to wait a few more weeks to ride the Sierras

08-MAR-13

A few days ago I did the Auburn, Forest Hill, Iown Hill, Colfax run. It was cold and just a few hours away from the last storm that rolled in. This winter I've done a lot of ride in the Sierra's. It has been unusually dry.

On 12/11/12, I actually rode up to Loon Lake [CA]. Although Ice House road was wet, there was no visible snow on the shoulder. It was late, about 20:00, but I though I would get one last ride in before the area became snow-bound with the pending storm that arrived later that night.

The prior snow event occur on Halloween.

It did snow in early January, but since then it has been dry, until this latest storm that rolled in on Tuesday.

Snow level dropped to about 3,500 feet, so my favorite roads will have to wait.

Hi Junie2006

06-JAN-11

Enjoying politics now-a-days…. Nope, I feel Obama sold us liberals out. He is just another Bush light. Torturing, we are still doing it; Guantanamo Bay, still open for biz; Killing Afghanis, no problem for the Obama. No one said life is fair, and it’s not.

Moral of Drill Baby Drill

28-MAY-10

It's best if you read the prior entry first, 'Drill Baby Drill'. That way you'll pickup the complete fairytale or is that fairy-tail and not just the conclusion... and the moral of the Story kiddies... All this [the BP Gulf Coast BS] works out to be one of the biggest cluster f in America’s History. Perhaps some of you Greed Over People sheep can NOW understand that multi-national corporations in Capitalist societies require Government regulations and honest Politicians and Regulators to keep them inline and accountable. I can only hope, (but deep in my heart I know), that you can’t teach the unbelievably ignorant [stupid] one f-ing thing if they choose not to learn. That is why they are called stupid. Yeah, Drill Baby Drill.

Drill Baby Drill

28-MAY-10

BK clipped original (Cleaned version) Drill Baby Drill It has been less than 8 months since the GOP Drones, (Greed Over People) were chatting their rhythmic monotonous utterance ‘Drill Baby Drill’. At the time, that scene reminded me of something I saw in a late 30’s Nazi Film clip. The clip panned among the brain-washed masses; hypnotized by the delusions of a truly insanely evil man; feverously they chanting some nonsense over and over again until the entire crowd worked themselves to a point of hysteria. Well, like then as today, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree; meaning, I don’t hear either set of sheep chanting their idiotic nonsense now. In fact, the queen of stupidity a.k.a. Sarah actually stated that the ‘Drill Baby Drill’ was never ‘their’ slogan… sheeezzz… At times I really wonder what kind of idiots buy into the stuff? I’m sure ‘those idiots’ are out there; probably lots of them. All we have to do is open a history book and read about how an entire Nation, filled with a different set of idiots, followed and created a World at war. Earlier this week I hear the Governor of Louisiana, Gov Jingles asking the Feds to come down and spend untold sums of money to clean up the mess created by BP. Wasn’t that Jingles the one that spewed the stuff about less Federal government, no Taxes, and State’s separatism? Funny how NOW he wants the entire country to pay for the cleanup of 'HIS' state. What a hypocrite, but the Greed Over People party was never short on the multitudes of hypocrites contained in their ranks. It’s a pity we have about 30 percent of Americans buying into their stuff Baahhhh Now don’t misunderstand me because the other party look no better. I would not have believed it, but the Obama reacted just like the Bush during Bush’s best Katrina moments. It’s been over one month and the Obama is finally lighting the torch under BP... or so he sezs. I would not have been surprised if Obama [on his way to some party's fund raiser] jumped into a jet and while flying over the 23 mile wide oil slick, a photographer snapped a picture of him peering across the devastation with the same stupid expression on his face that Bush had when Bush [just prior to his departure to McInsane’s Birthday bash] flew over the destruction left by Katrina….Only in America. Obama held a Press Prop meeting today to feed the sheep his version of stuff. During his little chat he mentioned some stuff about his daughter asking when he would do something about the environmental damage, a.k.a the complete destruction of America’s Southern Gulf Eco system… sssshhhezzz… He should have just told the sheep what he probably told his daughter, ‘Well honey, daddy really can’t do anything because daddy, (just like all American politicians), is bought and owned by multi-national corporations)… but don’t worry honey, because we will be taking our Family Beach vacations in Hawaii… for the next 30 or so years. The Greed Over People party should make Obama their new Poster boy because he is just another corporatist… but of course, they would never do or admit that because they need to place their ‘registered’ own in office. This country is so messed-up. Yeah, people will always remember this as Obama’s Katrina. Now the Greed Over People party, you know the hypocrites who always spew the stuff about accountability, well yesterday they blocked a Bill in the Senate to hold BP ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL DAMAGES. This is the third time the Greed Over People party blocked the Bill. Seems like the Greed Over People, the small Government, no Taxes hypocrites want American Tax Payers to pay for the majority of the cleanup. A Senator from Oklahoma blocked the Bill for a second time. He spewed out some nonsense that holding Oil Companies accountable, for all the damages they may create, would drive the small Oil Producer out of business. What don’t they know or understand about the principles of insurance in Oklahoma; and what small Oil Producer is he referring to, Shell? What a bunch of stuff. Oklahoma may be OK, but not that Senator. I bet he gets a nice campaign gift from BP during his next election cycle. Current US law limits BP responsibility to 75 million. The total cost of all this will probably be 100’s of billions, if not trillions. These estimated do not include the lost of animal and plant life. Finally we get to BP. Yepper, a few days ago the CEO actually stated that the Oil leaking out in the Gulf is ‘insignificant’. After little over one month, this insignificant amount of Oil spans an area larger than most New England states. It also seems like BP lied about the actual amount of oil ‘leaking’. Now why am I not surprised? BP initially reported 1,000 barrels per day. It seems like the actual amount is between 12,000 to 20,000 BARRELs PER DAY. The 12-20 are government figures so I would bet two dozen sheep that the actual amount is more like 30,000 BARRELs PER DAY. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out. The government representatives have estimated that 500,000 BARRELs have ‘leaked’ out so far. There have been 33 days of this stuff. 500,000/33 = 15,000 BARRELS PER DAY. So what, some days leak more than others? Or what, more Well pressure on every third day? I don’t think so. And that our government at work.…sssshhhezz… Now we get to BP ‘solutions’. They are spaying a very, very toxic brew of chemicals to push the oil below the surface of the water. That way the oil can be nicely deposited on the floor of the ocean. You know out of sight out of mind. The stuff they are spraying is so toxic England has banned its use….but I'm sure some argue that the Brits have banned Mikey Savage so what do they know? While the oil is ‘floating’, it can be recovered; but it’s almost impossible to reclaim on the bottom on the ocean’s floor. Besides, not much live on the bottom of the ocean right? BP second ‘solution’ is ‘the mud in the hole stuff’. Now any sheep that thinks that will work, well they really must be drinking the Kool-Aid, or have their head so far up ... they cannot see the light of day. After ‘the mud in the hole stuff’ fails BP will implement ’the throw stuff into the hole stuff’. I wish I was, but I’m not making this stuff up! That ‘solution’ will be just as successful as the prior. All one has to do is open a history book and read about the last time this happen in the gulf. Turn to the major United States screw-ups during the 70’s section. It should be just after the chapters about Vietnam. The only ‘possible’ way to stop this is by utilizing a Relief Well to remove the pressure, which means at least two more months this stuff. Let’s see, two more months equal another 1,000,000 BARRELs, if you believe the government’s underestimates, which I don’t. Total amount in the gulf will be at least 1,500,000 BARRELs. One last note, there are no guaranties that the Relief Well will stop the ‘leak’. There has never been one drilled at that depth on the floor of the ocean. I guess next year, the spring breakers in Florida will not need tanning lotion. They can just take a dip in the water and get the proper coating they require to avoid a naughty sunburn. I hate to state this, and no disrespects to the 11 individuals who died on the platform, but their deaths are the smallest part of this tragedy.

SC to determine right of Prosecutors to 'FRAME' citizens

08-NOV-09

Article from Times on-line In July 1977, retired police captain John Schweer was shot and killed while working as a night watchman at an Oldsmobile dealership in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Two teenagers, Curtis McGhee and Terry Harrington, were convicted of the murder based on evidence they allege was knowingly fabricated by prosecutors. Pottawattamie County prosecutors David Richter and Joseph Hrvol presented a case that rested almost entirely on the testimony of a 16-year-old kid who was caught stealing cars and offered a $5,000 reward if he provided information about the murder. The witness misidentified the murder weapon, changed his story multiple times and fingered two other men before naming McGhee and Harrington in the crime. He even had to be coached by prosecutors about what to say during the trial so that his story matched the evidence. Richter and Hrvol revealed none of this at trial, nor the fact that they had previously suspected another man ? one who had been positively identified by an eyewitness and had failed a polygraph test. On Nov. 4, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments not over whether Richter and Hrvol had framed two men for murder, but whether they could be sued for it. In 2003, Iowa's supreme court overturned Harrington's conviction, while McGhee pled guilty to lesser charges and was released. Now both men are suing the Pottawattamie County prosecutors, claiming they coerced and coached witnesses, fabricated evidence and arrested them without probable cause. But according to federal law supported by numerous legal precedents, prosecutors have immunity for anything they do during a trial. Richter and Hrvol say they were just doing their job. "If a prosecutor knowingly introduces false evidence at trial, that prosecutor is absolutely immune from lawsuit," explains Stephen Sanders, an attorney representing Richter and Hrvol. The rationale is that if prosecutors could be blamed for errors in a trial, they would become vulnerable targets for any litigious convict with an ax to grind. "This means that some people who are genuinely wronged by a prosecutor [are not] able to recover," Sanders concedes. "But better that, the court says, than have prosecutors plagued by endless nuisance litigation or have them make decisions about whether or not to bring someone to trial based on whether they think they're going to get sued." Sanders has a point: prosecutors build cases around eyewitnesses and uncooperative informants; holding them accountable for others' attempts to impede justice would hamper the entire judicial system. And yet, what of Harrington and McGhee? They were only 17 years old when they were convicted, and their story reads like something out of a John Grisham novel. Theirs was a small town still reeling from the shock of a murder. Richter, the county attorney, was up for election the following year. The authorities' first suspect ? a white man married to the daughter of the fire chief ? failed a lie-detector test and was identified by more than one witness; his case was inexplicably dropped. Instead, Hrvol and Richter targeted two black teenagers whose only connection to the murder came from the testimony of a teenage boy who was arrested for stealing a car. The boy gave three alternate versions of the murder, admitted to lying on multiple occasions, and was allegedly pressured by Hrvol and Richter into naming Harrington and McGhee. Hrvol and Richter cannot be tried for knowingly putting a dishonest witness on the stand. They don't have to own up to the fact that they presented false evidence or coerced a witness's testimony. But fortunately for McGhee and Harrington, they did something on which the law is not completely clear ? they didn't just present the evidence at trial, but also helped gather it. In an unusual move, the prosecutors aided detectives by canvassing the neighborhood and interviewing witnesses, and so their actions may not be covered by absolute immunity. That is what the Supreme Court will decide. "Usually when there's a case of fabricating evidence, it's done by the police officers because they're the ones investigating the crime. Like with Mark Furman allegedly planting a bloody glove on O.J. Simpson's property," says Todd Pettys, a law professor at the University of Iowa. Police officers don't have absolute immunity and can be sued when their actions are egregious enough. Framing someone for murder definitely falls into that category. "But if the prosecutors do it," says Pettys, "then what do you do?" Sanders says his clients have not admitted to any wrongdoing. They haven't admitted or denied that they framed two men for murder. Instead, they are claiming that their guilt doesn't matter, that it was legal either way. But to McGhee and Harrington, it does matter. They spent 25 years behind bars for a crime that they almost certainly did not commit. And now the men have gone to the Supreme Court not for justice but for the simple right to seek it. "If the court doesn't protect an American from being framed for murder, if there isn't a remedy for being put in prison for something he didn't do based on evidence falsified against him," says McGhee's layer, Steve Davis, "then I'm going to move." Now let's see how all those rightwing judges Bush appointed to the Supreme Court will rule. I sure as Hell know how a liberal judge would rule.

What is a Teabagger?

08-NOV-09

What is a Teabagger? A Teabagger is one who practices Teabagging. So you may ask ... what is Teabagging? Googling Teabagging I came up with the following definition - Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumation. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea. So is that what these rightwingnut calling themselves. How appropriate. Perhaps they long to be on the receiving end? Seriously heheheh if you want to see the some typical Teabaggers google 'Tea Party Express II: Rise of the Tea Bags' and watch the 10 minute video. Part 1 is really funny.

Put a fork into it.. I think it's dead.

25-OCT-09

Amazing how the more things change the more it stays the same. I was listening to the idiot-War-Criminal Cheney spew out his crap the other day. God can't you do the world a favor-right? Geez, do people still pay to listen to that fool? War-criminal Rummy was there too. Seems like the remaining Neocons were give each other awards; kind of like Hitler giving awards to all the good SS Camp leaders. At least the Bush wasn't there. Seems like even the Bush realized how f-uped thing got 'under his watch'. Now he's giving motivational chats (as far way from his Neocon pals as possible). Lordie, lordie, lordie I see the good old boys at BlackWater decided all that negative 'news' was bad for the biz, so a new name was in order - Xe...I guess the 'X' is like a cross twisted and rotated on it's ... Kind of like the company itself. Speaking of which, did you see those pics of the BlackWater dudes drinking Vodka out of each other's ...? mmm Xe - where have I heard that before? Xe-Xenon yeah... A noble gas.. Noble????? BlackWater.... yeah right..... WTF

Passing of true American hero - Earl P. Hopper

31-JUL-08

From USVETDSP - Author POWSMIA Earl P. Hopper, Sr. - Obituary Colonel Earl P. Hopper, Sr., US Army (Ret), 86, a native of Glendale, AZ passed away on July 11, 2008. He attended Washington Elementary School and Glendale Union High School where he graduated in 1940 where he excelled in both football and baseball. Earl enlisted in military service with the Arizona National Guard, the 158th Infantry known as the Bushmasters on May 1, 1940. Late in 1942 he returned from Panama to attend OCS at Ft. Benning, GA. Earl served with distinction in WWII with the 101st Airborne Division; during the Korean War with Military Intelligence and as an adviser to a South Vietnamese Brigade during the Vietnam War. His 30-year military career also included 2 peace time tours of duty in Germany and 1 in Korea as well as 3 peace time tours with the 11th Airborne Division and 2 tours as an adviser to the Arizona National Guard. He also served as the Executive Officer of the Student Brigade and later the Deputy Commander of the Officer Candidate School at Ft. Benning, GA. In addition to many peacetime awards and decorations including the Legion of Merit and the Good Conduct Medal, his combat awards and decorations include the Silver Star, 4 Bronze Stars, Presidential Unit Emblem (101st Airborne, Battle of the Bulge), Combat Infantry Badge, Purple Heart, the Belgian Fourragere and Master Parachutist Badge. He attended a wide variety of military schools including Officer Candidate School (1943), Infantry Officer?s Advanced Course (1943), Airborne Jump School (1944), Intelligence Officers Course (1952), Command and General Staff College (1956), and the US Army?s Special Warfare School (1964). In 1968 Earl was inducted into the Infantry Officers Hall of Fame, Ft Benning, GA. After his oldest son, LTC Earl P. Hopper Jr., US Air Force, was lost over North Vietnam on 10 January 1968 and retiring from military service, Earl began his ?second career? becoming a nationally and internationally recognized leader in the Prisoner Of War/Missing In Action issue. In addition to meeting with Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush on this most vital issue, over these many years he met with numerous Senators, Congressmen and other US Government officials. In 1985-86, Earl worked as a Special adviser to Congressman Billy Hendon (R-NC). As a leading expert, he testified before many Congressional hearings on behalf of our missing countrymen. He also felt honored to have been 1 of 10 people chosen to officially break ground for the Vietnam Veteran?s Memorial in Washington, DC. In addition to being a member of many veterans? organizations, Earl was a charter member of the National League of Families and one of the founders of Task Force Omega, Inc. Earl was well known for his dedication to his family, country and God; and was truly one of the finest of ?The Greatest Generation? that ever served our nation. He is preceded in death by his parents, first wife, 1 daughter and 5 brothers and 2 sisters. He is survived by his wife, Patricia B. Hopper, sister-in-law Nadine Hopper of Marysville, CA; brother-in-law David S. Reed of Glendale; sons Michael B. Hopper and wife Barbara of Phoenix, Larry D. Hopper and wife Kelly of Las Vegas, NV; Daniel W. Hopper and wife Leanne of Phoenix; David ?Buck? Hopper and wife Rhonda of Wittmann, AZ; stepdaughter Tracy B. Hopkins and husband Seth of Phoenix along with 14 grandchildren and 8 great grand children as well as numerous nieces and nephews, great nieces and nephews, and great grand nieces and nephews. Donations in Earl's name may be sent to Task Force Omega, Inc, 14043 N. 64th Dr., Glendale, AZ 85306, a non-profit organization in which he was extremely active. Oh Great Spirit, Whose voice I hear in the wind, Whose breath gives life to the world, Hear me! I come to you as one of your many children. I am small and weak. I need your strength and wisdom. May I walk in beauty. Make my eyes behold the red and purple sunset. Make my hands respect the things that you have made, And my ears sharp to hear your voice. Make me wise so that I may know the things That you have taught your children-- The lessons that you have hidden in every leaf and rock. Make me strong, not to be superior to my brothers, but to be able to fight my greatest enemy: myself. Make me ever ready to come to you with straight eyes, so that When life fades as the faded sunset My spirit will come to you without shame. John Yellow Lark Be with God Great Navajo Warrior...

McInsane

26-JUL-08

I get a kick when I see this picture. It just shows what a Kiss-ass some people are.

The truth about refineries

28-JUN-08

The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of companies with large control over our nation?s gas markets that is directly causing these high prices. "Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits. Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S.From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) RECEIVED ONLY ONE PERMIT REQUEST for a new refinery." ... "oil companies are regularly applying for 'and receiving' permits to modify and expand their existing refineries." "Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive. Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector. The largest five oil refiners in the United States (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell) now control over half (56.3%) of domestic oil refinery capacity; the top ten refiners control 83%. Only ten years ago, these top five oil companies only controlled about one-third (34.5%) of domestic refinery capacity; the top ten controlled 55.6%. This dramatic increase in the control of just the top five companies makes it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies in order to drive up prices. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices all as a 'profit-maximizing strategy.' A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report also found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher prices and this report did not even include the large mergers after the year 2000, such as ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. Yet, just one week after Hurricane Katrina, the FTC approved yet another merger of refinery giants Valero Energy and Premcor giving Valero 13% of the national market share. These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been challenged by the U.S. government. Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability. Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today's reformulated gasoline blend needs. Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was $228 billion." Source buzzflashcom/articles/analysis/310

Time to Nationalize OIL Companies - Part 3

12-JUN-08

Over the last first weeks Heil Hannity, Druggie-Limp-Dick Rush and complete case of rightwing mouthpieces for the RepubliCONs have been lying and trying to blame the US Congress for not allowing Big Oil to drill and thus creating the current gas price escalation. Like THE JUSTY [bearer of truth and justice] has been telling ya for years, "all the RepubliCONs have left are lies and liars". Today, I ran across this little article, 'The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and Pockets Profits' by the US House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Nick J Rahall II, date June 12, 2008. Google it if you wish to read the complete report of about half dozen pages. Here are a few facts just for ya: Introduction "While the oil industry and some Members of Congress argue that opening more federal lands and waters would lead to lower gasoline prices, the facts prove otherwise". Facts: 1) "Since the 1990's the amount of drilling on federal lands has steadily increased during this time. The number of drilling permits has exploded in recent years, going from 3,802 five years ago to 7,561 in 2007." That is 11,363 NEW DRILLING PERMITS DURING THE LAST 10 YEARS for the mathematical impaired! 2) "Between 1999 and 2007, the number of drilling permits issued for development of public lands increased by more than 361%." 3) "Energy Companies [are] NOT Using Federal Lands Already Open to Energy Development. Even if increased domestic drilling activity could affect the price of gasoline, there is yet NO JUSTIFICATION TO OPEN ADDITIONAL FEDERAL LANDS BECAUSE OIL AND GAS COMPANIES HAVE NOT shown that they cannot keep pace with the rate of drilling permits that the federal government is handing out. In the last four years, the Bureau of Land Management HAS ISSUED 28,776 PERMITS TO DRILL ON PUBLIC LAND; yet, in that same time, 18,954 wells were actually drilled. That means that COMPANIES HAVE STOCKPILED NEARLY 10,000 EXTRA PERMITS that they are not using to increase domestic production." 4) "Combined, oil and gas companies hold leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land and waters that they are NOT PRODUCING OIL AND GAS. Oil and gas companies would not buy leases to this land without believing oil and gas can be produced there, yet THESE SAME COMPANIES ARE NOT PRODUCING OIL OR GAS FROM THESE AREAS ALREADY UNDER THEIR CONTROL." 5) "If we extrapolate from today's production rates on federal land and waters, we can estimate that the 68 MILLION ACRES OF LEASED BUT CURRENTLY INACTIVE FEDERAL LAND AND WATERS COULD PRODUCE AN ADDITIONAL 4.8 MILLION BARRELS OF OIL and 44.7 BILLION CUBIC FEET OF NATURAL GAS EACH DAY." "THAT WOULD NEARLY DOUBLE TOTAL U.S. OIL PRODUCTION, and INCREASE NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION BY 75%." "It would also CUT U.S. OIL IMPORTS BY MORE THAN A THIRD, and be more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)." 6) "Proponents of opening additional lands to oil and gas leasing assert that vast quantities of oil and gas are closed to energy development. In fact, according to the Minerals Management Service, OF ALL THE OIL AND GAS BELIEVED TO EXIST ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF, 82% OF THE NATURAL GAS AND 79% OF THE OIL IS LOCATED IN AREAS THAT ARE IN AREAS CURRENTLY OPEN FOR LEASING." 7) "The Department of the Interior recently released a report2 that the Administration is using to delude Americans into believing that vast tracts of federal land with large concentrations of oil and gas are off-limits to oil and gas development. In actuality, the report shows that only 38% of the oil and 16% of the natural gas are excluded from leasing B largely because those resources are underneath National Parks and wilderness areas that have significant scenic, recreational, and wildlife values. The rest is either fully accessible under standard lease stipulations designed to protect lands and wildlife, or will be accessible pending the completion of land-use planning or environmental reviews. " 8) "Proponents of drilling in Alaska are most often focused on a 1.5 million acre area in the 19.2 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Established in 1960 and expanded in 1980, ANWR includes a 1.5 million acre area of the coastal plain known as the A1002 area which requires Congressional authorization before oil drilling may proceed there." "However, in addition to ANWR, THERE ARE ANOTHER NEARLY 91 MILLION ACRES CURRENTLY OPEN TO LEASING IN THE ARCTIC REGION OF ALASKA, including onshore and offshore lands. Oil and gas companies have leased only 11.8 million of the 91 million acres. Within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), oil companies have leased 3 million acres of 22.6 million acres available to lease. No production has occurred on any of those lands and industry has drilled only 25 exploratory wells there since 2000." "The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that it will require 8 to 10 years after opening ANWR before oil is produced from any new leases. Furthermore, it would be 20 years after opening ANWR before oil production reached its peak of only 780,000 barrels per day. Production at that level would start to drop within a short time. According to the EIA, opening ANWR would reduce U.S. crude oil imports, but not until 2022-2026 and only by a few percentage points. Further, it would not significantly increase total world oil production, nor would it significantly affect world oil prices." Google the report and read it your self. Like THE JUSTY has been telling ya for years now, all the GOPs have left are lies and liars. That is why Liberals call them CONS.. like RepubliCONs. These liars are pulling the wool over your eyes. STOP BEING FOOLS AND WISE-UP! JUSTY CAN'T WATCH YOUR BACKS FOREVER.

AmericanTraitor Revealed....

30-MAY-08

This morning 05/30/08, on the Today show, during an interview with Scott McLellan [ex Whitehouse pressman] McLellan made the following disclosure: While on Air Force One he and the president were in a conversation about the leak of classified information that revealed Valerie Plame's name as a CIA undercover operative. A member of the press yelled over to the President a question, upon which McLellan asked the following question directly to president Bush, "Did you authorize the leak of the classified information?" [leak of Valerie Plame's name] Bush's direct response, according to McLellan was, "Yeah, I did." Now it don't take a brain surgeon to figure out Bush ADMITTED that HE committed TREASON. OUTING A CIA WMD SPY IS TREASON TO THE GREATEST EXTENT. SUPPORT BUSH YOU SUPPORT A TRAITOR.

Nationalizing the Oil companies

05-JUN-08

61PanRider- you must either work for a oil company or own Petro stock. OK, let's review the arguments you posted on Demo's blog: 1) "a 42 gallon barrel of oil will yield approximately 20 gallons gasoline (plus numerous bi-products like heating oil, paint, glue, etc.). This calculates to approximately $6.50 per gallon (mitigated somewhat by the bi-products)". What a joke: the 'mitigating somewhat by the bi-product' part. Only 40% of a barrel of oil will be fractionally distilled into gasoline. A Google search yields the following by-products produced by cracking oil: o Petroleum gas - used for heating, cooking, making plastics (commonly known by the names methane, ethane, propane, and butane). Often liquefied under pressure to create LPG (liquefied petroleum gas). o Naphtha or Ligroin - intermediates that will be further processed to make gasoline o Gasoline - motor fuel o Kerosene - fuel for jet engines and tractors; starting material for making other products o Gas oil or Diesel distillate - used for diesel fuel and heating oil; starting material for making other products o Lubricating oil - used for motor oil, grease, other lubricants o Heavy gas or Fuel oil - used for industrial fuel; starting material for making other products o Residuals - coke, asphalt, tar, waxes; starting material for making other products There is not one oz of oil that is not utilized for profit! So where did you get your so-called numbers and facts? Try Googling, "howstuffworks oil refinery". 2) "The real drivers for the current costs though have more to do with institutional traders speculating on oil than on actual supply and demand". Yeah, if you nationalize petro you can take the greed out of the equation. 3) "The reduced refining capacity in the US". Correct you called that right. The refineries have been and will continue to cut back product to max profits. Google, "refinery production cut", and start reading. For example, date Jan 2008, "San Antonio-based Tesoro said" ... "Total output from its seven refineries will average 545,000 to 595,000 barrels per day during the quarter, down from a capacity of 660,000 bpd". (Reporting by Erwin Seba, Rebekah Kebede, Haitham Haddadin, and Richard Valdmanis; Editing by John Picinich) 4) blah blah blah "pandering liberal go unchallenged" blah blah blah "Has there ever been a government bureaucracy that ever operated with even a modicum of efficiency". First the liberal thing. George Washington called himself a liberal and so did Thomas Jefferson. Without Liberals black would still be slaves, woman would not have voting rights, and America would still be a colony of England. Yeah, I'm a Liberal and I'm F-ING PROUD OF IT! So who or what do the conservatives have to be proud of - druggie-limp-dick Rush Limbaugh? Why do you think conservative start with con? It seems like the people who follow the reiche-wingers are following a bunch of con-artist making billions while spewing their crap and animosity about Liberals. You really need to look at what they [and Americans] in general have to gain with the unbridled greed of leis-a-faire capitalism. FDR didn't allow war manufactures to reap untold profits during WWII. Perhaps that is why druggie-limp-dick hates FDR so much. Second point, "Has there ever been a government bureaucracy that ever operated with even a modicum of efficiency" Yeah, the US military. For example, base pay for a private who served between three and four years is between $1,528 and $1,824 a month. A captain serving up to six years could get paid up to $4,069 a month. Generals serving 20 years get paid $11,847 a month. Of course, GIs receive a housing allowance, which depends on where they live. They also get paid a basic allowance for subsistence of $242 a month. Soldiers in Iraq do not get this, as food is outsourced by Cheney's KBR [which costs billions and billions of US dollars- Google "kbr outsource iraq mess" and read the Chicago tribune story]. Yeah, a $45 dollar can of soda utilizing KBR's leis-a-faire greed. So what did this administration do about that? NOTHING! A GI back from Iraq told me that KBR was charging $22 for each tray and those trays were being throw away after one use. And Blackwater's Soldier Of Fortune- they are getting [on average] 10,000 per month. The same friend also told me he was offered a non combat job for over 120,000 per year. He was making national guard base pay. He also has PSD, which he is slowly coming to terms with, and Bush's mil is trying to f him over on benefits [but that has nothing to due with an gov agency being more cost efficient than private industry]. That is just one example. Seem like you bit hard into the cons bad government BS. 4) "Our government is already oversized and severely inflated and now you want to add to it?" Nope, I want to flush the Neocon War Profiteers out of it and into prison. Let us start with war criminal Bush and Cheney; oh, and we need to take back all the billions they personally made since their illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. 5) "And when was the last time you ever heard of a government worker being fired for incompetence?" Lets see, today - the pentagon fired a one star General, a two star General, 10 Colonels and an undisclosed number of field officers [from the air force] for f-ing over the security of America's Nuke weapons. 6) "The only thing harder to get rid of than an unproductive union worker is an unproductive government worker". Yeah right, we see what side of the bread you butter. Unions made America great. Without the men and women who fought and died for workers rights Americans would still have Coal Company towns, no child labor laws, 14 and 16 hour work days, and dangerous working conditions. Perhaps you need to read a history book about 19th century working condition. It's the cons today that distort and twist the truth about Unions. Remember the great BSer Reagan. He broke the Air Controllers union. You should read how he f-ed over the Screen Actors Guild after that Union voted him in as their Union President. 7) "Where does it end? Maybe the airlines and all hospitals should be government owned and operated as well". I will clue you in. Medicare and Medicaid is government run. Even the cons state that the administration cost of an HMO is between 8.9%-16% and those same cons state that the administration cost of Medicare between 2%-5% [if you can believe a con]. I heard stats for HMO as high as 23%. So, what is more expensive to run? Let's see, 2%-5% verses 8.9%-23%. 8) "If I'm busting my ass to provide and my neighbor enjoys the same standard of living for being a government drone what's the point of my effort?". Well, you see all government jobs are on a pay scale so government workers (believe it if you can) are not communism. They get paid for their worth. For example, a Private makes less than a General. And if you don't want to work for the gov no one is hold a gun to your head making you. Lots of things in the past have been Nationalized for the good of the society as a whole. Remember what Spock said, "logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Spock's statement is something that a true con will never understand, but Liberals and military members do and that is why we have a great America. If you have an oil job I'm sure the gov will pay you market value for your work. Isn't that what a capitalist society is all about? 9) "Why Russia collapsed and the social medicine programs in Europe are so far behind in quality of care". Well, FYIs... Russia went bankrupt because of their involvement in Afghanistan. It wasn't Reagan standing by a wall yelling, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall"! Russia bankrupt itself with its' excessive mil spending and currently America is on the same track with its' involvement in Iraq. Your health care statement, here you go: The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems. Source: WHO World Health Report, Google it. Rank/Country- 1) France 2) Italy 3) San Marino 4) Andorra 5) Malta 6) Singapore 7) Spain 8) Oman 9) Austria 10) Japan 11) Norway 12) Portugal 13) Monaco 14) Greece 15) Iceland 16) Luxembourg 17) Netherlands 18) United Kingdom 19 ) Ireland 20) Switzerland 21) Belgium 22) Colombia 23) Sweden 24) Cyprus 25) Germany 26) Saudi Arabia 27) United Arab Emirates 28) Israel 29) Morocco 30) Canada 31) Finland 32) Australia 33) Chile 34) Denmark 35) Dominica 36) Costa Rica and then 37) United States of America Hey, don't you see a lot of European Socialist nations in the list above? I do. The average Joe/Jill American is so f-ing ignorant/stupid; sadly, we are the laughing joke for the rest of the world, except in Iraq where no Iraqi is laughing at any AMERICAN [to their face]. Lets' see, oh yeah, I almost forgot; perhaps it time to review the benefits of nationalizing the Oil companies! I believe I made my point.

Iraq veterans banned from DC VD Parade

23-MAY-08

Yep, Iraqi Vets are being ban from VD Parades all across America. From Long Beach Press-Telegraph "Iraq veteran Jason Lemieux might not be marching in the 11th annual Long Beach Veterans Day Parade on Saturday. The Marine, who served THREE TOURS OF DUTY IN IRAQ and is now against the war, was hoping to march as a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, a national organization that calls for immediate withdrawal of troops in Iraq. The group's application, however, was rejected last month because of its political views, parade coordinators said. "I WANTED TO MARCH LIKE THE REST OF THE IRAQ VETERANS" said Lemieux, a 24-year-old Anaheim resident. "I SERVED MY COUNTRY. I'M A VETERAN OF A FOREIGN WAR. I THINK I DESERVE THAT RESPECT". Iraq Veterans, along with the groups Veterans for Peace and Military Families Speak Out, applied to march together in the parade this year under the entry "Military Patriots." After reviewing each group's mission statement, the Veterans Day Parade Committee, a non-profit group that organizes the event, voted unanimously to reject the application, said parade coordinator Martha Thuente. "They do not fit the spirit of the parade," she said. "The spirit being one of gratitude for what the veterans have done. We do not want groups of a political nature, advocating the troops' withdrawal from Iraq." Parade coordinators work hard to keep the event free from politics, Thuente said. "We're not allowed to take a political stance." BULLSHIT! SO LET ME GET THIS RIGHT. IF YOU SUPPORT THE ILLEGAL INVASION AND ILLEGAL OCCUPATION YOU CAN BE HONORED AS A VET, AND IF YOU ARE A THREE TOUR US VET WHO PUT IT ON THE LINE IN IRAQ [FOR AMERICA, FREEDOM AND BLAH BLAH BLAH] AND DON'T BELIEVE IN THE "MISSION/LIE" YOU CAN GO F-OFF. DID I GET THAT ONE RIGHT? THAT MUST BE ALL THOSE FREEDOMS ALL THE US GIS WHO SERVED AND WERE FIGHTING AND DIEING FOR DURING THE LAST 200+ YEARS ARE ALL ABOUT. Look around, I bet you will find lots of VD Parades that will ban US IRAQ Vets [who HONORABLE served] only because of their beliefs.

Longshoremen figured it out - Mission Accomplished

01-MAY-08

Today, May 1, 2008, on Bush's notorious 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED DAY' approximately 10,000 longshoremen stayed away from work for a one-day protest against the debacle in Iraq. The walkout was observed at the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and other US west coast ports. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union reported that at these ports traffic had virtually come to a halt during the morning shift. Union officials stated that many of the big shipping companies are profiting off the war. Job well done! If more people got involved and protested we would have been out of Iraq years ago.

Try finding this in the main stream media.

17-APR-08

I'm sure all you great GOP Patriots are too busy to read the DoD's Instiute for National Strategic Report. It was released on April 5, 2008. It contains 60 pages of truth [of which, I'm sure you probable couldn't handle]; so, here is a three minute abstract writen by Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott - McClatchy Newspapers. "WASHINGTON - The war in Iraq has become "a major debacle" and the outcome "is in doubt" despite improvements in security from the buildup in U.S. forces, according to a highly critical study published Thursday by the Pentagon's premier military educational institute. The report released by the National Defense University raises fresh doubts about President Bush's projections of a U.S. victory in Iraq just a week after Bush announced that he was suspending U.S. troop reductions. The report carries considerable weight because it was written by Joseph Collins, a former senior Pentagon official, and was based in part on interviews with other former senior defense and intelligence officials who played roles in prewar preparations. It was published by the university's National Institute for Strategic Studies, a Defense Department research center. "Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle," says the report's opening line. At the time the report was written last fall, more than 4,000 U.S. and foreign troops, more than 7,500 Iraqi security forces and as many as 82,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed and tens of thousands of others wounded, while the cost of the war since March 2003 was estimated at $450 billion. "No one as yet has calculated the costs of long-term veterans' benefits or the total impact on service personnel and materiel," wrote Collins, who was involved in planning post-invasion humanitarian operations. The report said that the United States has suffered serious political costs, with its standing in the world seriously diminished. Moreover, operations in Iraq have diverted "manpower, materiel and the attention of decision-makers" from "all other efforts in the war on terror" and severely strained the U.S. armed forces. "Compounding all of these problems, our efforts there (in Iraq) were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East," the report continued. The addition of 30,000 U.S. troops to Iraq last year to halt the country's descent into all-out civil war has improved security, but not enough to ensure that the country emerges as a stable democracy at peace with its neighbors, the report said. "Despite impressive progress in security, the outcome of the war is in doubt," said the report. "Strong majorities of both Iraqis and Americans favor some sort of U.S. withdrawal. Intelligence analysts, however, remind us that the only thing worse than an Iraq with an American army may be an Iraq after a rapid withdrawal of that army." "For many analysts (including this one), Iraq remains a 'must win,' but for many others, despite obvious progress under General David Petraeus and the surge, it now looks like a 'can't win.'" The report lays much of the blame for what went wrong in Iraq after the initial U.S. victory at the feet of then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. It says that in November 2001, before the war in Afghanistan was over, President Bush asked Rumsfeld "to begin planning in secret for potential military operations against Iraq." Rumsfeld, who was closely allied with Vice President Dick Cheney, bypassed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the report says, and became "the direct supervisor of the combatant commanders." " ... the aggressive, hands-on Rumsfeld," it continues, "cajoled and pushed his way toward a small force and a lightning fast operation." Later, he shut down the military's computerized deployment system, "questioning, delaying or deleting units on the numerous deployment orders that came across his desk." In part because "long, costly, manpower-intensive post-combat operations were anathema to Rumsfeld," the report says, the U.S. was unprepared to fight what Collins calls "War B," the battle against insurgents and sectarian violence that began in mid-2003, shortly after "War A," the fight against Saddam Hussein's forces, ended. Compounding the problem was a series of faulty assumptions made by Bush's top aides, among them an expectation fed by Iraqi exiles that Iraqis would be grateful to America for liberating them from Saddam's dictatorship. The administration also expected that "Iraq without Saddam could manage and fund its own reconstruction." The report also singles out the Bush administration's national security apparatus and implicitly President Bush and both of his national security advisers, Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley, saying that "senior national security officials exhibited in many instances an imperious attitude, exerting power and pressure where diplomacy and bargaining might have had a better effect." Collins ends his report by quoting Winston Churchill, who said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. ... Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance." Now my comments: seems like everything this administration a.k.a the GOP touched turned to shit. Oh yeah, how's the economy NOW. The estimated cost of Bush's illegal invasion and occupation is now 3 trillon dollars [if one can disregard the cost of US GIs KIA or forever mentally or physically crippled]. How anyone can support a GOP is beyond my understanding, but go ahead and vote GOP (cuz they wear US flag pins and as any 'real biker' knows that makes them real American and Patriots). I imagine congratulations are in order. It appears your war profiteering and personal greed [tax cuts], out-weigh the cost of destroyed lifes and human suffering.

five yrs later - Bush can go f himself today

19-MAR-08

Captain Kimberly Nicole Hampton was the first female military pilot to be shot down and killed in United States history. Hampton grew up in Easley, South Carolina, where she graduated Easley High School as the student body president, and captain of the tennis team. She went on to be an honors graduate of Presbyterian College. In college, she was a champion tennis player, leading the school team, the Blue Hose, to three consecutive South Atlantic Conference women's tennis tournament titles. She was undefeated in three years of singles play. She won the SAC awards for Women's Tennis Player of the Year in 1997 and 1998, and Female Athlete of the Year in 1998. Hampton joined the U.S. Army ROTC in college, and was the school?s second female to be a ROTC battalion commander as a senior. After graduation, she was an honor graduate of the U.S. Army Helicopter Flight School and Officer Basic Course. She was a Captain in the U.S. Army, Commander of Delta Troop, 1st Squadron, 17th Cavalry Regiment, 82nd Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division. She served 2 years in South Korea, in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom, and was deployed to Iraq as part of the Iraq War in September 2003. Hampton died when the Kiowa Warrior OH58-D armed observation helicopter she was flying was shot down near Fallujah, on January 2, 2004. Captain Hampton was the first female military pilot to be shot down and killed by enemy fire in US history. She was also the first female combat casualty from South Carolina in Iraq. Captain Hampton's resting place is located in the cemetary section just east of the bell tower at Robinson Memorial Gardens on Powdersville Road near her hometown of Easley, South Carolina. Hampton was posthumously awarded a Bronze Star, an Air Medal, and a Purple Heart. On June 10, 2004, she was inducted into the South Atlantic Conference hall of fame. In 2005, the "Captain Kimberly Hampton Memorial Library" public library and the "Kimberly Hampton Memorial Highway" in her hometown of Easley were named in her honor. The annual Presbyterian College Capt. Kimberly Hampton Scholarship has been presented to an ROTC student since 2006.

It should have been felon North.

19-MAR-08

Major Megan M. McClung (April 14, 1972 December 6, 2006) was the first female United States Marine Corps officer killed in combat during the Iraq War. Maj McClung was serving as a public affairs officer in Al Anbar Province, Iraq when she was killed. McClung, of Couperville, Washington, was born and raised in Orange County, California, graduating from Mission Viejo High School before going on to attend the U.S. Naval Academy where she received her officer's commission in 1995. McClung competed as a gymnast in high school and in college. She was a triathlete (having competed in six Ironman competitions) and a marathoner. In October 2006, she organized and ran in the Marine Corps Marathon's satellite competition in Iraq. In January 2006, McClung was deployed to Iraq as a public affairs officer with the I Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF). In December 2006, she was in the final month of a yearlong deployment to Iraq. On December 6, 2006, McClung was serving with the I Marine Expeditionary Force as the Marine Corps head of public affairs for Al Anbar Province, in charge of embedded journalists. Earlier in the day, she had been accompanying Oliver North with his Fox News camera crew in Ramadi. She subsequently was escorting Newsweek journalists into downtown Ramadi. A massive improvised explosive device (IED) destroyed McClung's Humvee, instantly killing McClung and the other two occupants. The Newsweek journalists were not injured. Major McClung was the first female graduate of the United States Naval Academy to be killed in action since the school's foundation in 1845. Major McClung graduated with her Masters in Criminology from Boston University several months prior to her death, and was posthumously honored at Boston Universities Metropolitan College 2007 commencement ceremonies with the 2006 Excellence in Graduate Study in Criminal Justice, which was presented by Dr. Daniel LeClair. Her Parents, Drs. Re and Michael extended their daughters memory by honoring her by establishing the 'Major Megan M. McClung' Scholarship award. Major McClung was buried with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery on December 27, 2006.

Five years later.

19-MAR-08

This morning I found the time to ponder America's fallen soldiers. I perused photo after photo and read the brief excerpts which accompanied each. Although each photo represented its' own unique tragedy there were several which marked America's firsts. Army Quartermaster Corps soldier killed during the same Iraqi Army attack in which her friend Jessica Lynch was injured. A member of the Hopi tribe, Piestewa was the first woman in the U.S. armed forces killed in the 2003 Iraq war and is the first Native American woman to die in combat while serving with the U.S. military. Piestewa was born and raised in Tuba City, Arizona, a town with more than a 50% unemployment rate, the daughter of Terry Piestewa and Priscilla "Percy" Baca Piestewa. Lori Piestewa's father is Hopi and her mother is of Mexican ancestry. They met in 1964 and married in November 1968. Her family had a long military tradition, with both Piestewa's father and grandfather having served in the U.S. Army. (Her father was drafted and served in Vietnam in 1965, and returned home in March 1967.) Neighbors described her as, while generally supportive of the army, having joined primarily to provide a secure income for her and her two children, Brandon and Carla Whiterock. As a child, she was given the Hopi name K'cha-Hon-Mana (also spelled Qotsa-hon-mana, meaning White Bear Girl). Her surname, Piestewa, is derived from a Hopi language root meaning "water pooled on the desert by a hard rain"; thus, Piestewa translates loosely as "the people who live by the water." Piestewa was awarded the Purple Heart and Prisoner of War Medal. The army posthumously promoted her from Private First Class to Specialist. Jessica Lynch has repeatedly said that Piestewa is the true hero of the ambush and named her daughter Dakota Ann in honor of her fallen comrade. In addition, many entities have honored her memory with memorials. Arizona's state government renamed Squaw Peak in the Phoenix Mountains near Phoenix as Piestewa Peak; the freeway that passes near this mountain was also re-named in her honor. In addition, Senator Tom Daschle honored her, as did Indian Nations across America. Since her death, the Grand Canyon Games organizers have held an annual Lori Piestewa National Native American Games, which brings participants from across the country. A plaque bearing her name is also located at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. Her death led to a rare joint prayer gathering between members of the Hopi and Navajo tribes, which have had a centuries-old rivalry. In May 2005, Lori's parents and children had a brand-new home built by Ty Pennington and his crew on ABC's Extreme Makeover: Home Edition accompanied by Jessica Lynch. They also built a new veterans' center on the Navajo reservation.

The Face of a Future Terrorist

10-OCT-07

Dated 10/10/07 - 2 Iraqi Women Killed in Shooting by Security Convoy The crime - according to the shooters, who are employed by Unity Resources Group, an Australian-run company, a car approached the convoy "at speed" and failed to stop in response to hand signals and a warning flare. Oh, OK driving while being stupid, but wait... according to a witnesses, the convoy of white S.U.V.'s was stopped at an intersection and the victim's Oldsmobile approached the convoy from behind. The witness stated, he heard no warnings. "They shot from the back door," he said. "The door opened and they fired". [That witness must be a terrorist too.] A priest at the scene ID'ed the KIA as Maruni Uhanees, 59, and her dead passenger as Jeniva Jalal, 30. He stated that all of the people in the car [a woman and a boy in the back seat survived] were Armenian Christians, which make up a small minority group in Iraq. Wow, I thought only the muslims were terrorist. I guess we can send the surviving kid and women to Guantanamo [with all the other terrorist]. I wonder why those Christians became terrorist? Hey DD or Hereatic, can you help me out on that one? A brother-in-law of one of the women said that Ms. Uhanees was the mother of three grown daughters. As he spoke, one daughter arrived and looked at the blood stains, crying softly. I'm glad we are keeping the Iraqis safe, and killing off those terrorist- aren't you? Mission accomplished.

GIs limited combat tour legislation failed....

19-SEP-07

Falcon stated a few weeks back something like, well if the Dems wanted the occupation to end why don't they pass a bill. The answer is simple; each time a bill is brought into the senate, the GOPs either block the vote [filibuster] or vote against it. The latest GOP victory, Webb Amdt. No. 2909: which specifies minimum periods between deployment of units and members of the Armed Forces deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. All but 6 GOPs voted for indefinite tours of duty. The 6 GOPs who really support the troops: Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), Coleman (R-MN), Hagel (R-NE), Sununu (R-NH), Smith (R-OR). Not one Dem voted against limiting CONTINOUS tours. Hagel, [R-NE], said the White House also "has been very effective at making this a loyalty test for the Republican Party." Now that is the GOP party's verse of supporting the troops. I see the NEW nation pledge should go something like, "I pledge Allegiance to the Bush and the GOP National Party". You got to love those hypocrites.

Iraqi kick-out Soldiers of Forture.. but

17-SEP-07

Yahoo News 09/17/07 "BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government announced Monday it was ordering Blackwater USA, the security firm [soldiers of forture] that protects U.S. diplomats, to leave the country after what it said was the fatal shooting of eight Iraqi civilians following a car bomb attack against a State Department convoy. The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country. Sunday's shooting was the latest in a series of incidents in which Blackwater and other foreign contractors have been accused of shooting to death Iraqi citizens. None has faced charges or prosecution." And none will if the Scrub gets his way. "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki late Monday and the two agreed to conduct a "fair and transparent investigation" and hold any wrongdoers accountable, said Yassin Majid, an adviser to the prime minister. Rice was expected to visit the Mideast on Tuesday." Yeah, Bush will take care of Blackwater like he took care of the people that outted Plames [the CIA WMD Agent who spent 20 years of her life developing covert contacts in Iran and Iraq] who Libby outted on orders from Cheney. Mission accomplished.

Justice for All?

19-SEP-07

Today, the GOPs in the US Senate filibuster a bill that would return habeas corpus rights to "terrorism suspects". For those who may not know, a filibuster means that the senate body will not allow a vote on a pending bill. The US courts have stated that the Shrub's removal of Habeas Corpus is unconstitutional. Just to remind people the following words from the United State pledge of Allegiance: "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all." Funny, but it seems 'justice for all' is no longer valid. Who stated, "they [the terrorist] hate US for are freedoms"? Remember that lie? Here is the real issue: why shouldn't anyone who is arrested/detained be notified of the reason(s) of their detainment, and why should not they be allowed civil or military court proceeding(s)? I'm sure many at this site can 'relate' to being arrested. So, how would you like it if you were held indefinitely without being given the right to have your arrest and detainment contested in a court of law? Bye bye to Justice for all eh? You got to love the GOP verson of the US constitution.

John Bruhns, US Army Infantry Sergeant

06-SEP-07

Original post date: 09/05/07 By John Bruhns Former US Army Infantry Sergeant "I served in Baghdad as an army sergeant for the first year of the war. Within my first days there, I realized that so much of what I had been told?about weapons of mass destruction, connections to 9/11?was just White House spin to sell the war. I'm seeing the same thing all over again now. Even with this being the bloodiest summer for US troops in Iraq, even with Iraqi casualties running at twice the pace of last year, and even with 15 of 18 of President Bush's own benchmarks unmet, the White House is at it again. They're telling us that black is white, up is down, and things in Iraq are going just great thanks to the troop "surge." This month Congress is going to vote on war policy for the next year?and Bush is hoping all this "progress" talk will scare Congress away from voting for withdrawal. We can't let that happen. Almost 4,000 US troops have died. We've spent half a trillion dollars in Iraq. Every day you turn on the news and more people are killed. We need Congress to stand up and fight to bring our troops home this fall. I need your help to make sure that happens. Can you sign this petition demanding that Congress begin a fully funded redeployment and start bringing our troops home from Iraq immediately? I'll deliver your comments to Congress myself next week. Clicking below will add your name: (Google it) I left Iraq on February 27, 2004 and from what I hear from my friends who are still there?many on their third or fourth deployments?it's worse now than ever before. The "surge" was a failure and it's time to draw down our troops. This president can't be trusted, his policy is reckless and it's more and more dangerous every day." Another crazy Peace-nik?

The war as we saw it #5/5

05-SEP-07

The war as we saw it #5/5 from newyorktimes 08/19/07 By Army Specialist Sergeant Buddhika Jayamaha, Sergeant Wesley D. Smith, Sergeant Jeremy Roebuck, Ssergeant Omar Mora, Sergeant dward Sandmeier, Sergeant Yance T. Gray, Staff Sergeant Jeremy A. Murphy Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal. In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food." In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal. Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities. We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through. My Comments: Now don't that make the majority of you chickhawks look like fools? Stay tuned fools m...

The War As We Saw It #4/5

07-SEP-07

The war as we saw it #4/5 New York Times - 08/19/07 The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment. Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made - de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government - places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support. Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict - as we do now - will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run. At the same time, the most important front in the Counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums.

The War As We Saw It #3/5

07-SEP-07

The war as we saw it #3/5 New York Times - 08/19/07 By Army Specialist Sergeant Buddhika Jayamaha, Sergeant Wesley D. Smith, Sergeant Jeremy Roebuck, Ssergeant Omar Mora, Sergeant dward Sandmeier, Sergeant Yance T. Gray, Staff Sergeant Jeremy A. Murphy (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a "time-sensitive target acquisition mission" on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse - namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force. Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side. Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The War As We Saw It #1/5

07-SEP-07

The war as we saw it #1/5 New York Times - 08/19/07 By Army Specialist Sergeant Buddhika Jayamaha, Sergeant Wesley D. Smith, Sergeant Jeremy Roebuck, Ssergeant Omar Mora, Sergeant dward Sandmeier, Sergeant Yance T. Gray, Staff Sergeant Jeremy A. Murphy Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.) The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the "battle space" remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense. A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a po...

The war as we saw it #2/5

05-SEP-07

The war as we saw it #2/5 By Army Specialist Sergeant Buddhika Jayamaha, Sergeant Wesley D. Smith, Sergeant Jeremy Roebuck, Ssergeant Omar Mora, Sergeant dward Sandmeier, Sergeant Yance T. Gray, Staff Sergeant Jeremy A. Murphy Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families. As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias. Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda. However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave. In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear.

Sorry, but I ain't leaving

04-SEP-07

For all my wonderful supporters I just wanted to let you know I have not stopped blogging, I just didn't want to take over someone else blog. Yep, you will still have an opportunity to view me bad sp3lling and piss pour grammor, as I will have an opportunity to see how the cowed reiche-wing continue to twist the facts and scare their supported into the terrorist are coming BS. The laugh of the week is how one bk member thinks CNN is left wing. Honorible dis-mention are the bk members using the fear card of terrorism. You scared cats need to get some balls or buy a gun to protect yourselves from all them there terrorist.

7 out of 18...

04-SEP-07

That little know agency the non-partisan Government Accountability Office GAO, stated today that there has been no political progress by the Iraqi government. In a draft version of the GAO. report obtained last week by reporters, the agency found that the Iraqi government had failed to meet 13 of 18 military and political objectives agreed to by President Bush not 11, as the final version states. I guess someone made some changes eh? Well 7 of 18 ain't bad no?

The ethics of many ....

15-AUG-07

Can you believe this BS, quoted from Erin Burnett on MSNBC's Hardball, dated 08/10/07: "..or China is to start making, say, toys that don't have lead in them or food that isn't poisonous, their costs of production are going to go up and that means prices at Walmart here in the United States are going to go up too. So I would say China is our greatest friend right now. They're keeping prices low. " Nothing like the corporate run media eh? I would say it's time to stop watching crap like Hardball.

Petraeus's GI support via AK-47 give-away.

13-AUG-07

The Pentagon has "lost track" of about 190,000 AK47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to the Washington Post which refers to a new government report. The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by General David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq. The report is raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq. One senior Pentagon official acknowledged that some of the weapons probably are being used against U.S. forces. He cited the Iraqi brigade created at Fallujah that quickly dissolved in September 2004 and turned its weapons against the Americans. Petraeus just another bushtard-f-up. Mission accomplished...

bye bye Rove.

13-AUG-07

So now what does he do?

Iraqi women rights (now)

12-JUN-07

After the invasion I enrolled in an Islamic studies class so I may better understand the mind set of the people we were fighting. I'm not stating I'm an expert, but I do know more than the average American about Islam. Saddam government was secular. Women had more rights under Saddam than they now current enjoy. I believe David Shucosky's article dated, April 13, 2006 best states these facts; "Women in Iraq had better quality of life and received more respect for their rights under Saddam Hussein's regime than the current system, according to a survey conducted by the Baghdad-based Woman Freedom Organization [advocacy website]. According to the group, women's rights were guaranteed in the constitution under Saddam, and women held important government positions. Now, however, security concerns have forced many women to remain at home, and the Islamic law making up the foundations of the new constitution [JURIST news archive] has been applied so as to suppress women [advocacy op-ed], the group complains". This article can be found at "jurist law pitt edu". Here is an interesting article I found from IRIN, Integrated Regional Information Networks, which is part of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. According to its website, IRIN services are editorially independent. BAGHDAD, 30 May 2007 (IRIN) - When Suha Abdel-Azim, 38, received a letter from her boss saying she had to stop working for security reasons, she couldn't believe it. After three years as an engineer for a local company, she was fired without compensation. "I was shocked when they told me I was being fired. I was an excellent worker and had done many fantastic and profitable projects but they didn't want a woman with them any more. They tried to explain, saying it was too dangerous for the company to employ women: the company had received threats", Suha said. "I tried to convince them that I could work from home. I have two children to bring up, and have been alone since my husband was killed by insurgents in 2004 for working for a foreign company, but in vain. They just sent me home", she said. "In about 14 percent of families in Iraq women are the main breadwinners, and often they care for a large number of children. The increase in unemployment among them just means more children without support", said Sarah Muthulak, a spokeswoman for the Baghdad-based Women's Rights Association (WRA). "Discrimination against women today is unprecedented. They are being sacked because of their gender; that is unacceptable", she added. Women say they are being threatened for working outside their homes and in places which are mostly patronised [sic] by men. "Insurgents and militias want us out of the work environment for many reasons: Some because they believe that women were born to stay at home - cooking and cleaning - and others because they say it is against Islam to share the same space with men who are not close relatives", Nuha Salim, spokeswoman for the Baghdad-based NGO, Women's Freedom, said. For other women in Iraq the problem goes beyond unemployment. With spiraling sectarian violence, they are being forced to marry men from their own sect even if they were in love for years with a man from a different sect. "I was in love with a colleague in [sic] my college for more than three years. My family were [sic] going to accept our marriage but last year when my cousin was killed by [Shia] militants, my parents prohibited me from marrying him," said Nur Abdel-Amir, 23, a Baghdad resident. "For two months now I have been in a forced marriage. He is from my own sect but I don't like him and nor does he love me but we don't have a choice. If I refuse I would die and so I will have to live the rest of my life with a man whom I cannot imagine sleeping with", Nur added. [Note, under Shari'a, the current Islamic Law which Iraq is now ruled by, the only duty/ obligation a women has is to render sex with her husband. Talk about women's rights eh?] Nuha from Women's Freedom said the problem is serious and getting worse. What is happening now in Iraq is a far cry from in the days of Saddam Hussein's regime when it was safe to marry across the sectarian divide. Women have also been prohibited by Shia militias from teaching other women. The threat has become real after two teachers - one in the mostly Shia Sadr City district and one in Kadhmiyah neighbourhood - were killed after giving lessons to illiterate women near their homes. In many villages, girls have been taken out of school and forced to stay at home without education. "Girls and women don't need to read. They should be good mothers and housewives. The schools are just imbuing them with new and modern ideas that are inconsistent with Muslim women's duties", said Khalid Hassan, a Mahdi Army officer in Muthana Governorate. "We have threatened all teachers near our villages, telling them to stop teaching, especially teaching women and girls", Hassan said. WRA's Muthulak said many women activists "organizations in Iraq are developing projects to offer free education to women, but most of them have been threatened recently and will probably be forced to stop working for security reasons". Here is another one.. BAGHDAD, 31 May 2007 (IRIN) - Adeela Harith, a 39-year-old widow and mother of three, says she misses the days when her husband was daily bringing them food and when they used to sleep in a safe house in comfort. As a recently-widowed displaced person, she has no support and is now collecting left-overs from rubbish bins to feed her children. Adeela - who is the mother of Ahmed, 14, Zaineb, 12 and Yasser, 8, - said she had tried to get a job as a housekeeper but did not succeed as most families cannot afford maids or do not trust strangers in their homes. Without an education, she was left with no choice but to look for food in rubbish bins. "I have to scrounge around rubbish bins to feed my children. They no longer attend school. The oldest two are street beggars and the youngest, Youssef, is with me looking for food in rubbish bins". You can Google "women right under saddam" and see article after article stating these facts. Now, I'm not stating that Saddam was not evil, he was; but Iraq was a sovereign Nation and it was up to the Iraqi people to remove Saddam from power. Remember the original lies stating why we invaded Iraq? Hell, 50 percent of Americans still believe Saddam was responsible for 911. We destroy Iraq's power grid, water supply, and sewer system. 10% of Iraqis fled their country. The last estimate states 1 million Iraqis have been killed since our illegal invasion. So why aren't more Americans standup up for justice? You asked where my loyalties? lie: 1) Truth 2) Justice 3) The US Constitution Note, my brand of Justice applies to all people, not just Americans. I can relate to a mother, or daughter, or son being blown up, and the act labeled as collateral damage. Perhaps if more Americans could personalize these acts, more of these so-call good Christian would give a $@+#.

Army Major General Taguba Story Part 1 of 4

23-JUN-07

How Antonio Taguba, who investigated the Abu Ghraib scandal, became one of its casualties. The General's Report by Seymour M. Hersh (NewYorker June 25, 2007) On the afternoon of May 6, 2004, Army Major General Antonio M. Taguba was summoned to meet, for the first time, with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in his Pentagon conference room. Rumsfeld and his senior staff were to testify the next day, in televised hearings before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees, about abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq. The previous week, revelations about Abu Ghraib, including photographs showing prisoners stripped, abused, and sexually humiliated, had appeared on CBS and in The New Yorker. In response, Administration officials had insisted that only a few low-ranking soldiers were involved and that America did not torture prisoners. They emphasized that the Army itself had uncovered the scandal. If there was a redeeming aspect to the affair, it was in the thoroughness and the passion of the Army's initial investigation. The inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In it he found: Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees... systemic and illegal abuse. Taguba was met at the door of the conference room by an old friend, Lieutenant General Bantz J. Craddock, who was Rumsfeld's senior military assistant. Craddock's daughter had been a babysitter for Taguba's two children when the officers served together years earlier at Fort Stewart, Georgia. But that afternoon, Taguba recalled, "Craddock just said, very coldly, 'Wait here.'" In a series of interviews early this year, the first he has given, Taguba told me that he understood when he began the inquiry that it could damage his career; early on, a senior general in Iraq had pointed out to him that the abused detainees were "only Iraqis." Even so, he was not prepared for the greeting he received when he was finally ushered in. "Here... comes... that famous General Taguba -of the Taguba report!" Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, "I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting." In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. "Could you tell us what happened?" Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, "Is it abuse or torture?" At that point, Taguba recalled, "I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, 'That's not abuse. That's torture.' There was quiet." Rumsfeld was particularly concerned about how the classified report had become public. "General," he asked, "who do you think leaked the report?" Taguba responded that perhaps a senior military leader who knew about the investigation had done so. "It was just my speculation," he recalled. "Rumsfeld didn't say anything." (I did not meet Taguba until mid-2006 and obtained his report elsewhere.) Rumsfeld also complained about not being given the information he needed. "Here I am," Taguba recalled Rumsfeld saying, "just a Secretary of Defense, and we have not seen a copy of your report. I have not seen the photographs, and I have to testify to Congress tomorrow and talk about this." As Rumsfeld spoke, Taguba said, "He's looking at me. It was a statement." At best, Taguba said, "Rumsfeld was in denial." Taguba had submitted more than a dozen copies of his report through several channels at the Pentagon and to the Central Command headquarters, in Tampa, Florida, which ran the war in Iraq. By the time he walked into Rumsfeld's conference room, he had spent weeks briefing senior military leaders on the report, but he received no indication that any of them, with the exception of General Schoomaker, had actually read it. (Schoomaker later sent Taguba a note praising his honesty and leadership.) When Taguba urged one lieutenant general to look at the photographs, he rebuffed him, saying, "I don't want to get involved by looking, because what do you do with that information, once you know what they show?" Taguba also knew that senior officials in Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere in the Pentagon had been given a graphic account of the pictures from Abu Ghraib, and told of their potential strategic significance, within days of the first complaint. On January 13, 2004, a military policeman named Joseph Darby gave the Army's Criminal Investigation Division (C.I.D.) a CD full of images of abuse. Two days later, General Craddock and Vice-Admiral Timothy Keating, the director of the Joint Staff of the J.C.S., were e-mailed a summary of the abuses depicted on the CD. It said that approximately ten soldiers were shown, involved in acts that included: "Having male detainees pose nude while female guards pointed at their genitals; having female detainees exposing themselves to the guards; having detainees perform indecent acts with each other; and guards physically assaulting detainees by beating and dragging them with choker chains." Taguba said, "You didn't need to 'see' anything -just take the secure e-mail traffic at face value." I learned from Taguba that the first wave of materials included descriptions of the sexual humiliation of a father with his son, who were both detainees. Several of these images, including one of an Iraqi woman detainee baring her breasts, have since surfaced; others have not. (Taguba's report noted that photographs and videos were being held by the C.I.D. because of ongoing criminal investigations and their "extremely sensitive nature.") Taguba said that he saw a ?video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee." The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it. Such images would have added an even more inflammatory element to the outcry over Abu Ghraib. "It's bad enough that there were photographs of Arab men wearing women's panties," Taguba said. On January 20th, the chief of staff at Central Command sent another e-mail to Admiral Keating, copied to General Craddock and Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the Army commander in Iraq. The chief of staff wrote, "Sir: update on alleged detainee abuse per our discussion. DID IT REALLY HAPPEN? Yes, currently have 4 confessions implicating perhaps 10 soldiers. DO PHOTOS EXIST? Yes. A CD with approx 100 photos and a video -CID has these in their possession." In subsequent testimony, General Myers, the J.C.S. chairman, acknowledged, without mentioning the e-mails, that in January information about the photographs had been given "to me and the Secretary up through the chain of command... And the general nature of the photos, about nudity, some mock sexual acts and other abuse, was described." Nevertheless, Rumsfeld, in his appearances before the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees on May 7th, claimed to have had no idea of the extensive abuse. "It breaks our hearts that in fact someone didn't say, 'Wait, look, this is terrible. We need to do something,'" Rumsfeld told the congressmen. "I wish we had known more, sooner, and been able to tell you more sooner, but we didn't." Rumsfeld told the legislators that, when stories about the Taguba report appeared, "it was not yet in the Pentagon, to my knowledge." As for the photographs, Rumsfeld told the senators, "I say no one in the Pentagon had seen them"; at the House hearing, he said, "I didn't see them until last night at 7:30." Asked specifically when he had been made aware of the photographs, Rumsfeld said: There were rumors of photographs in a criminal prosecution chain back sometime after January 13th... I don't remember precisely when, but sometime in that period of January, February, March... The legal part of it was proceeding along fine. What wasn't proceeding along fine is the fact that the President didn't know, and you didn't know, and I didn't know. "And, as a result, somebody just sent a secret report to the press, and there they are," Rumsfeld said. Taguba, watching the hearings, was appalled. He believed that Rumsfeld's testimony was simply not true. "The photographs were available to him -if he wanted to see them," Taguba said. Rumsfeld's lack of knowledge was hard to credit. Taguba later wondered if perhaps Cambone had the photographs and kept them from Rumsfeld because he was reluctant to give his notoriously difficult boss bad news. But Taguba also recalled thinking, "Rumsfeld is very perceptive and has a mind like a steel trap. There's no way he's suffering from C.R.S. -Can't Remember Shit. He's trying to acquit himself, and a lot of people are lying to protect themselves." It distressed Taguba that Rumsfeld was accompanied in his Senate and House appearances by senior military officers who concurred with his denials. "The whole idea that Rumsfeld projects -'We're here to protect the nation from terrorism'- is an oxymoron," Taguba said. "He and his aides have abused their offices and have no idea of the values and high standards that are expected of them. And they've dragged a lot of officers with them." In response to detailed queries about this article, Colonel Gary Keck, a Pentagon spokesman, said in an e-mail, "The department did not promulgate interrogation policies or guidelines that directed, sanctioned, or encouraged abuse." He added, "When there have been abuses, those violations are taken seriously, acted upon promptly, investigated thoroughly, and the wrongdoers are held accountable." Regarding early warnings about Abu Ghraib, Colonel Keck said, "Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has stated publicly under oath that he and other senior leaders were not provided pictures from Abu Ghraib until shortly before their release." (Rumsfeld, through an aide, declined to answer questions, as did General Craddock. Other senior commanders did not respond to requests for comment.) During the next two years, Taguba assiduously avoided the press, telling his relatives not to talk about his work. Friends and family had been inundated with telephone calls and visitors, and, Taguba said, "I didn't want them to be involved." Taguba retired in January, 2007, after thirty-four years of active service, and finally agreed to talk to me about his investigation of Abu Ghraib and what he believed were the serious misrepresentations by officials that followed. "From what I knew, troops just don't take it upon themselves to initiate what they did without any form of knowledge of the higher-ups," Taguba told me. His orders were clear, however: he was to investigate only the military police at Abu Ghraib, and not those above them in the chain of command. "These M.P. troops were not that creative," he said. "Somebody was giving them guidance, but I was legally prevented from further investigation into higher authority. I was limited to a box." General Taguba is a slight man with a friendly demeanor and an unfailingly polite correctness. "I came from a poor family and had to work hard," he said. "It was always shine the shoes on Saturday morning for church, and wash the car on Saturday for church. And Saturday also for mowing the lawn and doing yard jobs for church." His father, Tomas, was born in the Philippines and was drafted into the Philippine Scouts in early 1942, at the height of the Japanese attack on the joint American-Filipino force led by General Douglas MacArthur. Tomas was captured by the Japanese on the Bataan peninsula in April, 1942, and endured the Bataan Death March, which took thousands of American and Filipino lives. Tomas escaped and joined the underground resistance to the Japanese before returning to the American Army, in July, 1945. Taguba's mother, Maria, spent much of the Second World War living across the street from a Japanese-run prisoner-of-war camp in Manila. Taguba remembers her vivid accounts of prisoners who were bayonetted arbitrarily or whose fingernails were pulled out. Antonio, the eldest son (he has six siblings), was born in Manila in 1950. Maria and Tomas were devout Catholics, and their children were taught respect and, Taguba recalls, "above all, integrity in how you lived your life and practiced your religion." In 1961, the family moved to Hawaii, where Tomas retired from the military and took a civilian job in logistics, preparing units for deployment to Vietnam. A year after they arrived, Antonio became a U.S. citizen. By then, as a sixth grader, he was delivering newspapers, serving as an altar boy, and doing well in school. He went to Idaho State University, in Pocatello, with help from the Army R.O.T.C., and graduated in 1972. As a newly commissioned second lieutenant, he was five feet six inches tall and weighed a hundred and twenty pounds. His Army service began immediately: he led troops at the platoon, company, battalion, and brigade levels at bases in South Korea, Germany, and across America. (He married in 1981, and has two grown children.) In 1986, Taguba, then a major, was selected to attend the College of Naval Command and Staff at the Naval War College, in Newport, Rhode Island. While there, he wrote an analysis of Soviet ground-attack planning that became required reading at the school. He was promoted, ahead of his peers, to become a colonel and then a general. On the way, Taguba earned three master's degrees -in public administration, international relations, and national-security studies. "I'll talk to you about discrimination," he said one morning, while discussing, without bitterness, his early years as an Army officer. "Let's talk about being refused to be served at a restaurant in public. Let's talk about having to do things two times, and being accused of not speaking English well, and having to pay myself for my three master's degrees because the Army didn't think I was smart enough. So what? Just work your ass off. So what? The hard work paid off." Taguba had joined the Army knowing little about his father's military experience. "He saw the ravages and brutality of war, but he wasn't about to brag about his exploits," Taguba said. "He didn't say anything until 1997, and it took me two years to rebuild his records and show that he was authorized for an award." On Tomas's eightieth birthday, he was awarded the Bronze Star and a prisoner-of-war medal in a ceremony at Schofield Barracks, in Hawaii. "My father never laughed," Taguba said. But the day he got his medal "he smiled" he had a big-ass smile on his face. I'd never seen him look so proud. He was a bent man with carpal-tunnel syndrome, but at the end of the medal ceremony he stood himself up and saluted. I cried, and everyone in my family burst into tears." Richard Armitage, a former Navy counter-insurgency officer who served as Deputy Secretary of State in the first Bush term, recalled meeting Taguba, then a lieutenant colonel, in South Korea in the early nineteen-nineties. "I was told to keep an eye on this young guy -'He's going to be a general,'" Armitage said. "Taguba was discreet and low key -not a sprinter but a marathoner." At the time, Taguba was working for Major General Mike Myatt, a marine who was the officer in charge of strategic talks with the South Koreans, on behalf of the American military. "I needed an executive assistant with brains and integrity," Myatt, who is now retired and living in San Francisco, told me. After interviewing a number of young officers, he chose Taguba. "He was ethical and he knew his stuff," Myatt said. "We really became close, and I'd trust him with my life. We talked about military strategy and policy, and the moral aspect of war -the importance of not losing the moral high ground." Myatt followed Taguba's involvement in the Abu Ghraib inquiry, and said, "I was so proud of him. I told him, 'Tony, you've maintained yourself, and your integrity.'" Taguba got a different message, however, from other officers, among them General John Abizaid, then the head of Central Command. A few weeks after his report became public, Taguba, who was still in Kuwait, was in the back seat of a Mercedes sedan with Abizaid. Abizaid's driver and his interpreter, who also served as a bodyguard, were in front. Abizaid turned to Taguba and issued a quiet warning: "You and your report will be investigated." "I wasn't angry about what he said but disappointed that he would say that to me," Taguba said. "I'd been in the Army thirty-two years by then, and it was the first time that I thought I was in the Mafia."

Army Major General Taguba Story Part 2 of 3

23-JUN-07

The General's Report by Seymour M. Hersh (NewYorker June 25, 2007) THE INVESTIGATION Taguba was given the job of investigating Abu Ghraib because of circumstance: the senior officer of the 800th Military Police Brigade, to which the soldiers in the photographs belonged, was a one-star general; Army regulations required that the head of the inquiry be senior to the commander of the unit being investigated, and Taguba, a two-star general, was available. "It was as simple as that," he said. He vividly remembers his first thought upon seeing the photographs in late January of 2004: "Unbelievable! What were these people doing?" There was an immediate second thought: "This is big." Taguba decided to keep the photographs from most of the interrogators and researchers on his staff of twenty-three officers. "I didn't want them to prejudge the soldiers they were investigating, so I put the photos in a safe," he told me. "Anyone who wanted to see them had to have a need-to-know and go through me." His decision to keep the staff in the background was also intended to insure that none of them suffered damage to his or her career because of involvement in the inquiry. "I knew it was going to be very sensitive because of the gravity of what was in front of us," he said. The team spent much of February, 2004, in Iraq. Taguba was overwhelmed by the scale of the wrongdoing. "These were people who were taken off the streets and put in jail -teen-agers and old men and women," he said. "I kept on asking these questions of the officers I interviewed: 'You knew what was going on. Why didn't you do something to stop it?'" Taguba's assignment was limited to investigating the 800th M.P.s, but he quickly found signs of the involvement of military intelligence -both the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, commanded by Colonel Thomas Pappas, which worked closely with the M.P.s, and what were called "other government agencies," or O.G.A.s, a euphemism for the C.I.A. and special-operations units operating undercover in Iraq. Some of the earliest evidence involved Lieutenant Colonel Steven L. Jordan, whose name was mentioned in interviews with several M.P.s. For the first three weeks of the investigation, Jordan was nowhere to be found, despite repeated requests. When the investigators finally located him, he asked whether he needed to shave his beard before being interviewed- Taguba suspected that he had been dressing as a civilian. "When I asked him about his assignment, he says, 'I'm a liaison officer for intelligence from Army headquarters in Iraq.'" But in the course of three or four interviews with Jordan, Taguba said, he began to suspect that the lieutenant colonel had been more intimately involved in the interrogation process -some of it brutal- for "high value" detainees. "Jordan denied everything, and yet he had the authority to enter the prison's 'hard site'" -where the most important detainees were held- "carrying a carbine and an M9 pistol, which is against regulations," Taguba said. Jordan had also led a squad of military policemen in a shoot-out inside the hard site with a detainee from Syria who had managed to obtain a gun. (A lawyer for Jordan disputed these allegations; in the shoot-out, he said, Jordan was "just another gun on the extraction team" and not the leader. He noted that Jordan was not a trained interrogator.) Taguba said that Jordan's "record reflected an extensive intelligence background." He also had reason to believe that Jordan was not reporting through the chain of command. But Taguba's narrowly focussed mission constrained the questions he could ask. "I suspected that somebody was giving them guidance, but I could not print that," Taguba said. "After all Jordan's evasiveness and misleading responses, his rights were read to him," Taguba went on. Jordan subsequently became the only officer facing trial on criminal charges in connection with Abu Ghraib and is scheduled to be court-martialled in late August. (Seven M.P.s were convicted of charges that included dereliction of duty, maltreatment, and assault; one defendant, Specialist Charles Graner, was sentenced to ten years in prison.) Last month, a military judge ruled that Jordan, who is still assigned to the Army's Intelligence and Security Command, had not been appropriately advised of his rights during his interviews with Taguba, undermining the Army's allegation that he lied during the Taguba inquiry. Six other charges remain, including failure to obey an order or regulation; cruelty and maltreatment; and false swearing and obstruction of justice. (His lawyer said, "The evidence clearly shows that he is innocent.") Taguba came to believe that Lieutenant General Sanchez, the Army commander in Iraq, and some of the generals assigned to the military headquarters in Baghdad had extensive knowledge of the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib even before Joseph Darby came forward with the CD. Taguba was aware that in the fall of 2003 -when much of the abuse took place-Sanchez routinely visited the prison, and witnessed at least one interrogation. According to Taguba, "Sanchez knew exactly what was going on." Taguba learned that in August, 2003, as the Sunni insurgency in Iraq was gaining force, the Pentagon had ordered Major General Geoffrey Miller, the commander at Guantanamo, to Iraq. His mission was to survey the prison system there and to find ways to improve the flow of intelligence. The core of Miller's recommendations, as summarized in the Taguba report, was that the military police at Abu Ghraib should become part of the interrogation process: they should work closely with interrogators and intelligence officers in "setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees." Taguba concluded that Miller's approach was not consistent with Army doctrine, which gave military police the overriding mission of making sure that the prisons were secure and orderly. His report cited testimony that interrogators and other intelligence personnel were encouraging the abuse of detainees. "Loosen this guy up for us," one M.P. said he was told by a member of military intelligence. "Make sure he has a bad night." The M.P.s, Taguba said, "were being literally exploited by the military interrogators. My view is that those kids" -even the soldiers in the photographs- "were poorly led, not trained, and had not been given any standard operating procedures on how they should guard the detainees." Surprisingly, given Taguba's findings, Miller was the officer chosen to restore order at Abu Ghraib. In April, 2004, a month after the report was filed, he was reassigned there as the deputy commander for detainee operations. "Miller called in the spring and asked to meet with me to discuss Abu Ghraib, but I waited for him and we never did meet," Taguba recounted. Miller later told Taguba that he'd been ordered to Washington to meet with Rumsfeld before travelling to Iraq, but he never attempted to reschedule the meeting. If they had spoken, Taguba said, he would have reminded Miller that at Abu Ghraib, unlike at Guantanamo, very few prisoners were affiliated with any terrorist group. Taguba had seen classified documents revealing that there were only "one or two" suspected Al Qaeda prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Most of the detainees had nothing to do with the insurgency. A few of them were common criminals. Taguba had known Miller for years. "We served together in Korea and in the Pentagon, and his wife and mine used to go shopping together," Taguba said. But, after his report became public, "Miller didn't talk to me. He didn't say a word when I passed him in the hallway." Despite the subsequent public furor over Abu Ghraib, neither the House nor the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings led to a serious effort to determine whether the scandal was a result of a high-level interrogation policy that encouraged abuse. At the House Committee hearing on May 7, 2004, a freshman Democratic congressman, Kendrick Meek, of Florida, asked Rumsfeld if it was time for him to resign. Rumsfeld replied, "I would resign in a minute if I thought that I couldn't be effective.... I have to wrestle with that." But, he added, "I'm certainly not going to resign because some people are trying to make a political issue out of it." (Rumsfeld stayed in office for the next two and a half years, until the day after the 2006 congressional elections.) When I spoke to Meek recently, he said, "There was no way Rumsfeld didn't know what was going on. He's a guy who wants to know everything, and what he was giving us was hard to believe." Later that month, Rumsfeld appeared before a closed hearing of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, which votes on the funds for all secret operations in the military. Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat at the hearing, told me that he had been angry when a fellow subcommittee member "made the comment that 'Abu Ghraib was the price of defending democracy.' I said that wasn't the way I saw it, and that I didn't want to see some corporal made into a scapegoat. This could not have happened without people in the upper echelon of the Administration giving signals. I just didn't see how this was not systemic." Obey asked Rumsfeld a series of pointed questions. Taguba attended the closed hearing with Rumsfeld and recalled him bristling at Obey's inquiries. "I don't know what happened!" Rumsfeld told Obey. "Maybe you want to ask General Taguba." Taguba got a chance to answer questions on May 11th, when he was summoned to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Under-Secretary Stephen Cambone sat beside him. (Cambone was Rumsfeld's point man on interrogation policy.) Cambone, too, told the committee that he hadn't known about the specific abuses at Abu Ghraib until he saw Taguba?s report, "when I was exposed to some of those photographs." Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, tried to focus on whether Abu Ghraib was the consequence of a larger detainee policy. "These acts of abuse were not the spontaneous actions of lower-ranking enlisted personnel," Levin said. "These attempts to extract information from prisoners by abusive and degrading methods were clearly planned and suggested by others." The senators repeatedly asked about General Miller's trip to Iraq in 2003. Did the "Gitmo-izing" of Abu Ghraib -especially the model of using the M.P.s in " setting the conditions" for interrogations- lead to the abuses? Cambone confirmed that Miller had been sent to Iraq with his approval, but insisted that the senators were "misreading General Miller's intent." Questioned on that point by Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, Cambone said, "I don't know that I was being told, and I don't know that General Miller said that there should be that kind of activity that you are ascribing to his recommendation." Reed then asked Taguba, "Was it clear from your reading of the [Miller] report that one of the major recommendations was to use guards to condition these prisoners?:" Taguba replied, "Yes, sir. That was recommended on the report." At another point, after Taguba confirmed that military intelligence had taken control of the M.P.s following Miller's visit, Levin questioned Cambone: Levin: Do you disagree with what the general just said? Cambone: Yes, sir. Levin: Pardon? Cambone: I do. Taguba, looking back on his testimony, said, "That's the reason I wasn't in their camp" because I kept on contradicting them. I wasn't about to lie to the committee. I knew I was already in a losing proposition. If I lie, I lose. And, if I tell the truth, I lose." Taguba had been scheduled to rotate to the Third Army's headquarters, at Fort McPherson, Georgia, in June of 2004. He was instead ordered back to the Pentagon, to work in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. "It was a lateral assignment," Taguba said, with a smile and a shrug. "I didn't quibble. If you're going to do that to me, well, O.K. We all serve at the pleasure of the President." A retired four-star Army general later told Taguba that he had been sent to the job in the Pentagon so that he could "be watched." Taguba realized that his career was at a dead end. Later in 2004, Taguba encountered Rumsfeld and one of his senior press aides, Lawrence Di Rita, in the Pentagon Athletic Center. Taguba was getting dressed after a workout. "I was tying my shoes," Taguba recalled. "I looked up, and there they were." Rumsfeld, who was putting his clothes into a locker, recognized Taguba and said, "Hello, General." Di Rita, who was standing beside Rumsfeld, said sarcastically, "See what you started, General? See what you started?" Di Rita, who is now an official with Bank of America, recalled running into Taguba in the locker room but not his words. "Sounds like my brand of humor," he said, in an e-mail. "A comment like that would have been in an attempt to lighten the mood for General Taguba." (Di Rita added that Taguba had "my personal respect and admiration" and that of Rumsfeld. "He did a terrific job under difficult circumstances.") However, Taguba was troubled by the encounter, and later told a colleague, "I'm now the problem."

Army Major General Taguba Story Part 4 of 4

23-JUN-07

The General's Report by Seymour M. Hersh (NewYorker June 25, 2007) THE TASK FORCES Abu Ghraib had opened the door on the issue of the treatment of detainees, and from the beginning the Administration feared that the publicity would expose more secret operations and practices. Shortly after September 11th, Rumsfeld, with the support of President Bush, had set up military task forces whose main target was the senior leadership of Al Qaeda. Their essential tactic was seizing and interrogating terrorists and suspected terrorists; they also had authority from the President to kill certain high-value targets on sight. The most secret task-force operations were categorized as Special Access Programs, or S.A.P.s. The military task forces were under the control of the Joint Special Operations Command, the branch of the Special Operations Command that is responsible for counterterrorism. One of Miller's unacknowledged missions had been to bring the J.S.O.C.'s "strategic interrogation" techniques to Abu Ghraib. In special cases, the task forces could bypass the chain of command and deal directly with Rumsfeld's office. A former senior intelligence official told me that the White House was also briefed on task-force operations. The former senior intelligence official said that when the images of Abu Ghraib were published, there were some in the Pentagon and the White House who "didn't think the photographs were that bad" -in that they put the focus on enlisted soldiers, rather than on secret task-force operations. Referring to the task-force members, he said, "Guys on the inside ask me, 'What's the difference between shooting a guy on the street, or in his bed, or in a prison?'" A Pentagon consultant on the war on terror also said that the "basic strategy was 'prosecute the kids in the photographs but protect the big picture.'" A recently retired C.I.A. officer, who served more than fifteen years in the clandestine service, told me that the task-force teams "had full authority to whack -to go in and conduct 'executive action,'" the phrase for political assassination. "It was surrealistic what these guys were doing," the retired operative added. "They were running around the world without clearing their operations with the ambassador or the chief of station." J.S.O.C.'s special status undermined military discipline. Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State, told me that, on his visits to Iraq, he increasingly found that "the commanders would say one thing and the guys in the field would say, 'I don't care what he says. I'm going to do what I want.' We've sacrificed the chain of command to the notion of Special Operations and GWOT" -the global war on terrorism. "You're painting on a canvas so big that it's hard to comprehend," Armitage said. Thomas W. O'Connell, who resigned this spring after nearly four years as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, defended the task forces. He blamed the criticisms on the resentment of the rest of the military: "From my observation, the operations run by Special Ops units are extraordinarily open in terms of interagency visibility to embassies and C.I.A. stations -even to the point where there's been a question of security." O'Connell said that he dropped in unannounced to Special Operations interrogation centers in Iraq, "and the treatment of detainees was aboveboard." He added, "If people want to say we've got a serious problem with Special Operations, let them say it on the record." Representative Obey told me that he had been troubled, before the Iraq war, by the Administration's decision to run clandestine operations from the Pentagon, saying that he "found some of the things they were doing to be disquieting." At the time, his Republican colleagues blocked his attempts to have the House Appropriations Committee investigate these activities. "One of the things that bugs me is that Congress has failed in its oversight abilities," Obey said. Early last year, at his urging, his subcommittee began demanding a classified quarterly report on the operations, but Obey said that he has no reason to believe that the reports are complete. A former high-level Defense Department official said that, when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Senator John Warner, then the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, was warned "to back off" on the investigation, because "it would spill over to more important things." A spokesman for Warner acknowledged that there had been pressure on the Senator, but said that Warner had stood up to it -insisting on putting Rumsfeld under oath for his May 7th testimony, for example, to the Secretary's great displeasure. An aggressive congressional inquiry into Abu Ghraib could have provoked unwanted questions about what the Pentagon was doing, in Iraq and elsewhere, and under what authority. By law, the President must make a formal finding authorizing a C.I.A. covert operation, and inform the senior leadership of the House and the Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the Bush Administration unilaterally determined after 9/11 that intelligence operations conducted by the military -including the Pentagon's covert task forces- for the purposes of "preparing the battlefield" could be authorized by the President, as Commander-in-Chief, without telling Congress. There was coordination between the C.I.A. and the task forces, but also tension. The C.I.A. officers, who were under pressure to produce better intelligence in the field, wanted explicit legal authority before aggressively interrogating high-value targets. A finding would give operatives some legal protection for questionable actions, but the White House was reluctant to put what it wanted in writing. A recently retired high-level C.I.A. official, who served during this period and was involved in the drafting of findings, described to me the bitter disagreements between the White House and the agency over the issue. "The problem is what constituted approval," the retired C.I.A. official said. "My people fought about this all the time. Why should we put our people on the firing line somewhere down the road? If you want me to kill Joe Smith, just tell me to kill Joe Smith. If I was the Vice-President or the President, I'd say, 'This guy Smith is a bad guy and it's in the interest of the United States for this guy to be killed.' They don't say that. Instead, George" -George Tenet, the director of the C.I.A. until mid-2004- "goes to the White House and is told, 'You guys are professionals. You know how important it is. We know you'll get the intelligence.' George would come back and say to us, 'Do what you gotta do.'" Bill Harlow, a spokesman for Tenet, depicted as "absurd" the notion that the C.I.A. director told his agents to operate outside official guidelines. He added, in an e-mailed statement, "The intelligence community insists that its officers not exceed the very explicit authorities granted." In his recently published memoir, however, Tenet acknowledged that there had been a struggle "to get clear guidance" in terms of how far to go during high-value-detainee interrogations. The Pentagon consultant said in an interview late last year that "the C.I.A. never got the exact language it wanted." The findings, when promulgated by the White House, were "very calibrated" to minimize political risk, and limited to a few countries; later, they were expanded, turning several nations in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia into free-fire zones with regard to high-value targets. I was told by the former senior intelligence official and a government consultant that after the existence of secret C.I.A. prisons in Europe was revealed, in the Washington Post, in late 2005, the Administration responded with a new detainee center in Mauritania. After a new government friendly to the U.S. took power, in a bloodless coup d'etat in August, 2005, they said, it was much easier for the intelligence community to mask secret flights there. "The dirt and secrets are in the back channel," the former senior intelligence officer noted. "All this open business -sitting in staff meetings, etc., etc.- is the Potemkin Village stuff. And the good guys -like Taguba- are gone." In some cases, the secret operations remained unaccountable. In an April, 2005, memorandum, a C.I.D. officer -his name was redacted- complained to C.I.D. headquarters, at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, about the impossibility of investigating military members of a Special Access Program suspected of prisoner abuse: [C.I.D] has been unable to thoroughly investigate... due to the suspects and witnesses involvement in Special Access Programs (SAP) and/or the security classification of the unit they were assigned to during the offense under investigation. Attempts by Special Agents to be "read on" to these programs has [sic] been unsuccessful. The C.I.D. officer wrote that "fake names were used" by members of the task force; he also told investigators that the unit had a "major computer malfunction which resulted in them losing 70 per cent of their files; therefore, they can't find the cases we need to review." The officer concluded that the investigation "does not need to be reopened. Hell, even if we reopened it we wouldn't get any more information than we already have." CONSEQUENCES Rumsfeld was vague, in his appearances before Congress, about when he had informed the President about Abu Ghraib, saying that it could have been late January or early February. He explained that he routinely met with the President "once or twice a week ... and I don't keep notes about what I do." He did remember that in mid-March he and General Myers were "meeting with the President and discussed the reports that we had obviously heard" about Abu Ghraib. Whether the President was told about Abu Ghraib in January (when e-mails informed the Pentagon of the seriousness of the abuses and of the existence of photographs) or in March (when Taguba filed his report), Bush made no known effort to forcefully address the treatment of prisoners before the scandal became public, or to reevaluate the training of military police and interrogators, or the practices of the task forces that he had authorized. Instead, Bush acquiesced in the prosecution of a few lower-level soldiers. The President's failure to act decisively resonated through the military chain of command: aggressive prosecution of crimes against detainees was not conducive to a successful career. In January of 2006, Taguba received a telephone call from General Richard Cody, the Army's Vice-Chief of Staff. "This is your Vice," he told Taguba. "I need you to retire by January of 2007." No pleasantries were exchanged, although the two generals had known each other for years, and, Taguba said, "He offered no reason." (A spokesperson for Cody said, "Conversations regarding general officer management are considered private personnel discussions. General Cody has great respect for Major General Taguba as an officer, leader, and American patriot.") "They always shoot the messenger," Taguba told me. "To be accused of being overzealous and disloyal -that cuts deep into me. I was being ostracized for doing what I was asked to do." Taguba went on, "There was no doubt in my mind that this stuff" -the explicit images- "was gravitating upward. It was standard operating procedure to assume that this had to go higher. The President had to be aware of this." He said that Rumsfeld, his senior aides, and the high-ranking generals and admirals who stood with him as he misrepresented what he knew about Abu Ghraib had failed the nation. "From the moment a soldier enlists, we inculcate loyalty, duty, honor, integrity, and selfless service," Taguba said. "And yet when we get to the senior-officer level we forget those values. I know that my peers in the Army will be mad at me for speaking out, but the fact is that we violated the laws of land warfare in Abu Ghraib. We violated the tenets of the Geneva Convention. We violated our own principles and we violated the core of our military values. The stress of combat is not an excuse, and I believe, even today, that those civilian and military leaders responsible should be held accountable."

Army Major General Taguba Story Part 3 of 4

23-JUN-07

The General's Report by Seymour M. Hersh (NewYorker June 25, 2007) DENIABILITY A dozen government investigations have been conducted into Abu Ghraib and detainee abuse. A few of them picked up on matters raised by Taguba's report, but none followed through on the question of ultimate responsibility. Military investigators were precluded from looking into the role of Rumsfeld and other civilian leaders in the Pentagon; the result was that none found any high-level intelligence involvement in the abuse. An independent panel headed by James R. Schlesinger, a former Secretary of Defense, did conclude that there was "institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels" for Abu Ghraib, but cleared Rumsfeld of any direct responsibility. In an August, 2004, report, the Schlesinger panel endorsed Rumsfeld's complaints, citing "the reluctance to move bad news up the chain of command" as the most important factor in Washington's failure to understand the significance of Abu Ghraib. "Given the magnitude of this problem, the Secretary of Defense and other senior DoD officials need a more effective information pipeline to inform them of high-profile incidents," the report said. Schlesinger and his colleagues apparently were unaware of the early e-mail messages that had informed the Pentagon of Abu Ghraib. The official inquiries consistently provided the public with less information about abuses than outside studies conducted by human-rights groups. In one case, in November, 2004, an Army investigation, by Brigadier General Richard Formica, into the treatment of detainees at Camp Nama, a Special Forces detention center at Baghdad International Airport, concluded that detainees who reported being sodomized or beaten were seeking sympathy and better treatment, and thus were not credible. For example, Army doctors had initially noted that a complaining detainee's wounds were "consistent with the history [of abuse] he provided.... The doctor did find scars on his wrists and noted what he believed to be an anal fissure." Formica had the detainee reexamined two days later, by another doctor, who found "no fissure, and no scarring.... As a result, I did not find medical evidence of the sodomy." In the case of a detainee who died in custody, Formica noted that there had been bruising to the "shoulders, chest, hip, and knees" but added, "It is not unusual for detainees to have minor bruising, cuts and scrapes." In July, 2006, however, Human Rights Watch issued a fifty-three-page report on the "serious mistreatment" of detainees at Camp Nama and two other sites, largely based on witness accounts from Special Forces interrogators and others who served there. Formica, asked to comment, wrote in an e-mail, "I conducted a thorough investigation... and stand by my report." He said that "several issues" he discovered "were corrected." His assignment, Formica noted, was to investigate a unit, and not to conduct "a systematic analysis of Special Operations activities." The Army also protected General Miller. Since 2002, F.B.I. agents at Guantanamo had been telling their superiors that their military counterparts were abusing detainees. The F.B.I. complaints were ignored until after Abu Ghraib. When an investigation was opened, in December, 2004, General Craddock, Rumsfeld's former military aide, was in charge of the Army's Southern Command, with jurisdiction over Guantanamo -he had been promoted a few months after Taguba's visit to Rumsfeld's office. Craddock appointed Air Force Lieutenant General Randall M. Schmidt, a straight-talking fighter pilot, to investigate the charges, which included alleged abuses during Miller's tenure. "I followed the bread-crumb trail," Schmidt, who retired last year, told me. "I found some things that didn't seem right. For lack of a camera, you could have seen in Guantanamo what was seen at Abu Ghraib." Schmidt found that Miller, with the encouragement of Rumsfeld, had focussed great attention on the interrogation of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi who was believed to be the so-called "twentieth hijacker." Qahtani was interrogated "for twenty hours a day for at least fifty-four days," Schmidt told investigators from the Army Inspector General's office, who were reviewing his findings. "I mean, here's this guy manacled, chained down, dogs brought in, put in his face, told to growl, show teeth, and that kind of stuff. And you can imagine the fear." At Guantanamo, Schmidt told the investigators, Miller "was responsible for the conduct of interrogations that I found to be abusive and degrading. The intent of those might have been to be abusive and degrading to get the information they needed.... Did the means justify the ends? That' fine.... He was responsible." Schmidt formally recommended that Miller be "held accountable" and "admonished." Craddock rejected this recommendation and absolved Miller of any responsibility for the mistreatment of the prisoners. The Inspector General inquiry endorsed Craddock's action. "I was open with them," Schmidt told me, referring to the I.G. investigators. "I told them, 'I'll do anything to help you get the truth.'" But when he read their final report, he said, "I didn't recognize the five hours of interviews with me." Schmidt learned of Craddock's reversal the day before they were to meet with Rumsfeld, in July, 2005. Rumsfeld was in frequent contact with Miller about the progress of Qahtani's interrogation, and personally approved the most severe interrogation tactics. ("This wasn't just daily business, when the Secretary of Defense is personally involved," Schmidt told the Army investigators.) Nonetheless, Schmidt was impressed by Rumsfeld's demonstrative surprise, dismay, and concern upon being told of the abuse. "He was going, 'My God! Did I authorize putting a bra and underwear on this guy's head and telling him all his buddies knew he was a homosexual?'" Schmidt was convinced. "I got to tell you that I never got the feeling that Secretary Rumsfeld was trying to hide anythianything," he told me. "He got very frustrated. He's a control guy, and this had gotten out of control. He got pissed." Rumsfeld's response to Schmidt was similar to his expressed surprise over Taguba's Abu Ghraib report. "Rummy did what we called 'case law' policy -verbal and not in writing," Taguba said. "What he's really saying is that if this decision comes back to haunt me I'll deny it." Taguba eventually concluded that there was a reason for the evasions and stonewalling by Rumsfeld and his aides. At the time he filed his report, in March of 2004, Taguba said, "I knew there was C.I.A. involvement, but I was oblivious of what else was happening" in terms of covert military-intelligence operations. Later that summer, however, he learned that the C.I.A. had serious concerns about the abusive interrogation techniques that military-intelligence operatives were using on high-value detainees. In one secret memorandum, dated June 2, 2003, General George Casey, Jr., then the director of the Joint Staff in the Pentagon, issued a warning to General Michael DeLong, at the Central Command: CIA has advised that the techniques the military forces are using to interrogate high value detainees (HVDs)... are more aggressive than the techniques used by CIA who is [sic] interviewing the same HVDs. DeLong replied to Casey that the techniques in use were "doctrinally appropriate techniques," in accordance with Army regulations and Rumsfeld's direction.

for Bill34whatever....

13-JUN-07

Bill Bill Bill, Where do I begin? Is this how you debate? 1) "This is not only a war it's a clash of civilizations...But the main reason they hate us is because all Americans are free". Wow! And you know this because/how? Let me guess, Druggie-Limp-Dick Rush, or was it Sean Heil Hannity? Yeah right "they hate us for our freedoms". Would you like to cite any Al Qaeda or Islamic website, newspaper article, or any other Muslim source to back up your 'opinion'? I would love to see that. 2) Berg...Ah yes, I had a few unanswered questions about Berg. Where do I begin? How about the known facts? That is always a good start. Berg arrived in Iraq for the first time in December 2003. In mid March, Berg was held by the U.S. military in the northern city of Mosul for no apparent reason, prompting his father to file a lawsuit in a federal court in Philadelphia, (British daily The Independent). He was released by the Americans on April 6 and disappeared around April 9 in unknown circumstances. His father Michael lashed out at the U.S. military and the Bush administration saying his son might still be alive had he not been detained by U.S. officials in Iraq. Berg was held without being charged and without access to a lawyer. My questions, so why was Berg held by the US military and how many or which Iraqis had access to Berg, his ID and resides in Baghdad? There are lots of unanswered questions about that. I imagine in your mind if a small group of so-called Muslims torture and murder Berg they all should pay. My only question to you is all 2 billion Muslims, or perhaps just the 19 million Muslims in Iraq? Good logic Billy. Have you read the what the Islamic Committee stated about the murder of Berg? I bet you haven't. Let me clue you in. Dr Muthana Harith al-Dhari, Secretary General of Muslim Scholars Association, strongly denounced the killing, saying it runs counter to the teachings of Islam and "does disservice to our religion and our cause." The Sunni scholar stressed this is a condemned operation whether carried out by Iraqis or non-Iraqis and whether the slain was a civilian or a military personnel. "Even if he was a military personnel he should be treated as a prisoner who, according to Shari'ah, must not be killed". Deputy Head of the Islamic Party Iyaad Samarrai said the abhorrent treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers should never give an excuse for treating U.S. prisoners the same way. Samarrai said such acts harm the interest of the Iraqi people and their cause to end the U.S.-led occupation. Al-Dawa Party, led by Shiite Interim Governing Council member Ibrahim Al-Jafari, also condemned the decapitation of the American citizen in the strongest possible terms. "Undoubtedly, we reject these acts, which run counter to the true essence of Islam and are totally unjustified", said Jawad Al-Malki, a member of the party's politburo. He said such acts tarnish the image of Islam and play into the hands of subjective media. "The beheading of Berg is shocking, grisly, unjustified violence and an act of terrorism. By the same token, we condemn the barbaric and terrorist practices of U.S. soldiers against Iraqi prisoners, but as we don't want this to befall our people, we don't want it to befall others as well". Learn anything Bill? 3) Billy those so-called Iraqi women rights have been curtailed ever since the illegal US invasion. Perhaps you need to do a bit more reading one that one. 4) I like this one, "You are from the crowd of the Blame America first group". Nope, I in the blame Bush, the Neocons, the 2002/2003 GOP controlled Senate and House of Representatives, the US corporate controlled media for not asking the hard questions, and people just like you for not looking for the truth and who are currently perpetuating the lies under the clock of patriotism or the flag, and who are spinning right-wing bull shit. 5) I love this load of crap, "America isn't perfect and we have made mistakes in our past...It makes this country better because we have the God given right to make right our wrongs". Wow, a God given right? So how do you make right all the Iraqis who died because of our actions? How do you make right all the US GIs murdered for an oil war based on lies? How do you make right all the US GIs who will live the rest of their life crippled? It would be interesting to see how you weasel out a justification for those issues. I bet you can't. 6) I love your WWII analogy. Yeah, we invaded Iraq and now you compare our actions to events in WWII. I would stop drinking the right-wing Kool-Aid and be very careful with that analogy. Perhaps you missed this little charm of a news article: President Vladimir Putin of Russia obliquely compared the foreign policy of the United States to the Third Reich in a speech Wednesday commemorating the 62nd anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, in an apparent escalation of anti-American rhetoric within the Russian government (International Herald Tribune May 9, 2007). 7) "When war hits we fight to end tyranny. We help to stabilize the country". Yeah, I see your Idiot and Chief is doing a wonderful job in Iraq, and now the Shrub and the Neocons want to take the fight to Iran. Wonderful... 8) I'm confused on this one Bill, "We have the statue of Liberty standing tall in New York harbor. It was a gift from the French". Don't you Neocon and Shrub supporters hate the French? Oh a flippy-floppy eh? Bill now since you gave me some advise about how I should spend my free time, I will offer you some advise. Here is the address of the VA Hospital in Sacramento, 10535 Hospital Way, Mather, CA 95655 We can always use the help of a clear thinking American like you. Why do you get off your ass and volunteer? Now any time you wish to really debate the issue I presented or have presented in a past Blog you come back here and I will be happy to discuss them with you. Here are the current topics: 1) Why did bush ignore all the 911 warnings? 2) Why are we fighting in the middle of a civil war? Remember Bush stated Ameria will leave if Iraq fell into a civil war? So why are we there? Note, last poll of Iraqi Nationals stated over 80% of them want the US out. 3) Why hasn't Bush gone into Pakistan and stop Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents there? 4) Why hasn't Bush got the Master Mind of 911 (Bin Laden)? 5) Why was daddy Bush watching 911 happen with the brother of Bin Laden? 6) Why did Bush allow all the Bin Ladens to leave the US after 911 without being questioned by the FBI and over the objections of the FBI? 7) Why did the Bush administration out a CIA WMD spy? Her assignment was Iran. Now all her Iranian contacts are dead or MIA. So now where is the Chimp getting the Iran WMD Intel? I bet he is pulling it out of his ass like the 'Saddam's immediate threat to America'. Remember that lie? 8) Why did Bush state he would fire anyone who outted Plames the CIA WDM spy, and then quietly stopped the investigation? I leave you with the words of Jefferson to Madison, "And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain, and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." You see Billy, the Bushtards and Neocons love people that don't question their mandates. Until you are ready to come back and debate any of the above issues please keep your bull shit off my blog. I don't need a lesson in patriotism, but I really believe you do!

Neocon Threat by Paul Craig Roberts

13-JUN-07

The Neocon Threat to World Peace and American Freedom by Paul Craig Roberts The Bush/Cheney White House, which told the American people in 2003 that the Iraqi invasion would be a three-to-six-week affair, now tells us that the U.S. occupation is permanent. Forever. Attentive Americans, of which, alas, there are so few, had already concluded that the occupation was permanent. Permanence is the obvious message from the massive and fortified U.S. embassy under construction in Iraq and from the large permanent military bases that the Bush regime is building in Iraq. Bush regime propagandists have created a false analogy with "the Korean model" in their effort to sell the permanent occupation of Iraq as necessary for Iraq's security. More than one half century after the close of the Korean war, U.S. troops continue to be based in Korea, as they are in Germany more than six decades after the end of World War II. The rationale for the U.S. troops in South Korea is to remind North Korea that an attack on South Korea is an attack on the U.S. itself. The rationale for U.S. troops in Germany disappeared when Reagan and Gorbachev brought the Cold War to an end. There is, of course, no similarity between Iraq and Korea. There was no insurgency in Korea and no attacks on U.S. troops based in South Korea once the fighting stopped. The presence of U.S. troops in South Korea has produced many protest demonstrations by South Koreans, but the U.S. troops in South Korea have had no exposure to combat since the war ended in 1953. In contrast, the insurgency in Iraq continues to rage and could expand dramatically if Shi'ites were to join the Sunnis in attacks on U.S. forces. Most American military leaders no longer believe the insurgency can be defeated. Permanent occupation means permanent insurgency. Indeed, an attempt at permanent occupation could possibly unify the Arabs in a joint effort to expel the Americans. The absurd analogy with Korea is so far-fetched that it raises the question whether the Bush/Cheney regime has entered a new, higher level of delusion. Bush cannot keep troops in Iraq permanently unless he intends to remain permanently in the White House. Even some Republicans in Congress are talking about beginning withdrawals of U.S. troops in September. Republicans believe that if withdrawals do not begin, their party will be wiped out in the 2008 election. The wild card is the neoconservatives' long-standing alliance with Israeli Zionists. The neoconservatives still have a death grip on the discredited Bush regime. Jim Lobe describes the extensive international organization that the neoconservatives have put into place for the purpose of orchestrating an attack on Iran. A sane reader might wonder why neoconservatives would want to expand a conflict in which the U.S. has failed. Surely, even delusional "cakewalk" neoconservatives must realize that attacking Iran would greatly increase the threat to U.S. troops in Iraq and perhaps bring missile attacks on oil facilities and U.S. bases throughout the Middle East. An attack on Iran would further radicalize Muslims and further undermine U.S. puppets in the Middle East. It could bring war to the entire region. The point is that the neoconservatives do realize this. Their defeat in Iraq and Israel's defeat in Lebanon have taught the neoconservatives that the U.S. cannot prevail in the Middle East by conventional military means. As I have previously explained, the neoconservatives' plan is to escape the failure of their Iraq plan by orchestrating a war with Iran in which the U.S. can prevail only by using nuclear weapons. As previously reported, the neoconservatives believe that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran will convince Muslims that they must accept U.S. hegemony. The neoconservatives have put the elements of their plan in place. They have powerful naval forces on station off Iran's coast. They have convinced President Bush that only by attacking Iran can he prevail in Iraq. The neoconservatives have rewritten U.S. war doctrine to permit preemptive U.S. nuclear attacks on non-nuclear countries. They have demonized Iran as the greatest threat since Hitler. Neoconservatives have invented "Islamofascism," something that exists only in the neoconservative propaganda used to instill in Americans hatred of Muslims. The neoconservatives have dehumanized Muslims as monsters who must be destroyed at all costs. Recent statements by neoconservative leaders such as Norman Podhoretz read like the ravings of ignorant lunatics. Podhoretz has written Muslims out of the human race. He demands that their culture be deracinated. Neoconservatives, convinced that a nuclear attack will bring Muslims to heel, are ignoring the likely blowback and unintended consequences of an attack on Iran, just as they ignored the likely consequences of their attack on Iraq. If the neoconservatives are mistaken in their assumption that nuclear weapons will cause Muslims to submit to the U.S., the consequences will be unmanageable. The neoconservative Bush regime has got away with more than I thought possible, perhaps because most of Congress and the American public cannot imagine the degree of insanity that lies behind the Bush administration. Most Americans who have turned against the regime think that the administration is incompetent, that it jumped to wrong conclusions about Iraq, and that it mismanaged the war and will not admit its mistakes. As every reason Bush gave for the war has proven to be false, people see no point in continuing the struggle. If Americans understood the enormity of the deception behind the invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan) and the pending attack on Iran, Bush and Cheney would be impeached and turned over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, and AIPAC would be forced to register as a foreign agent. Just as Goebbels said, some lies are too big to be disbelieved. It is this disbelief that is so dangerous. The inability of Americans to see through the Big Lie to the secret agenda allows the neoconservatives to escape accountability and continue with their plot. The neoconservatives also believe that nuclear attack on Iran will isolate America in the world and thereby give the government control over the American people. The denunciations that will be hurled at Americans from every quarter will force the country to wrap itself in the flag and treat domestic critics as foreign enemies. Not only free speech but also truth itself will disappear along with every civil liberty.

Flag or Constitution

04-JUN-07

I posted the current military oath taking by both enlisted and commissioned officers for all the idiots that don't get it... "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." Now idiots, perhaps your brains are too drug ridden or drugged destroyed to understand what America is all about. A clue just for you; America is not about a piece of cloth hanging in the air but the words and ideas comprised in the US Constitution. Oh now I understand ... if it's not a picture or a cartoon you can't related. Perhaps [if there are any surviving brain cells remaining in your drugged up or boozed out skull(s)] you might try learning how to successfully comprehend the big words and radical ideas contained in the constitution. Here is the final thought for all you geniuses... Presidential Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." How do you serve a president that has violated and is currently violating our Constitution and believes he is above the law? Now open your dictionary and read IMPEACHMENT. I bet all you idiots would be calling for the Shrub's IMPEACHMENT if he disrespected the US flag; but it's OK that the Chimp called our US Constitution, "just a GODDAMNED piece of paper". Have a nice day idiots.

IVAW - Iraq Vets Against the War

12-JUN-07

TTT, Just incase you wanted a different spin of the Iraqi thing. Iraq Vets Against the War -

Torture-boy's happy face.

11-JUN-07

Isn't nice to see torture-boy Gonzale's happy face in the news? Yep, those GOP in the Senate don't mind that the #1 law enforcement officer in America is a proven liar in addition to his accomplishments of authorizing illegally wiretaps, utilizing the internet to data-mine and spy on Americans, removal of due process, removal of Habeas Corpus and using the GOP political party as a criterion for hiring even janitors in the justice department. Once again these GOP Senators proved they are GOPs first and patriots when they can turn a buck. You got to love it. We are currently witnessing the American Republic destroying itself from the inside. But torture-boy is happy about it....

Picture of a Felon

05-JUN-07

Crime convicted of lying during a C.I.A. leak investigation. Real crime TREASON...outing a CIA WDM SPY. OK flag wavers, let's chat about the Constitution and treason. I bet the cat got your tongue on that one. Miller time eh, or should I say pass the bud? Anyone want to take the bet the Shrub pardons the traitor? Of course now Libby can join the HAs. Correction.. Of course now Libby can APPLY to join the HAs, but I'm sure you'll don't want a felon who is an American traitor... I apology to the HA?s for my orginal statement implying Libby met membership requirements.

Bush spreading terror.. going bunker insane

01-JUN-07

Georgie Anne Geyer: A spreading terror Iraq now set up as a school for insurgents ready to be exported 11:44 AM CDT on Thursday, May 31, 2007 Anyone who knows anything about cancer knows that the danger point comes when the cancer suddenly and unexpectedly appears in another supposedly "clean" part of the body. As when, say, breast cancer, an implacable traveler, reappears in the bloodstream or the bones. The Fatah al-Islam terrorists in Lebanon were recent transplants who showed up one day with new weapons, ready to fight. That there are stunning similarities between what happens medically in the body of man and what occurs sociologically and militarily in the societies of men is far less noticed ? but just as frightening and dangerous. Think of what has happened in only the last week in the Middle East. In northern Lebanon, in the long-established Nahr el-Bared Palestinian refugee camp, out of the blue arose a new al Qaeda-related insurgent group, Fatah al-Islam. Within days and even hours, the recurring hell of the Middle East was loosed, and refugees poured out of the camp in terror. There had been none of this kind of terror networking in these northern camps. Indeed, since this camp was established in 1949 to accommodate refugees from northern Palestine after the creation of Israel, it has housed one of the more formal and conservative of peoples. But it was soon established that these new "insurgents" or "terrorists" ? or whatever they really are ? had arrived at the camp only recently, that they marched in one day with brand-new weapons, ready to fight. Two points grip you: ?The first is found in the words of French scholar Bernard Rougier, author of Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam Among Palestinians in Lebanon. "The main point is that these camps are no longer part of Palestinian society," he told The Washington Post . "They are only spaces ? now open to all of the influences running through the Muslim world." ?The second is that Iraq, where we were supposed to be "containing terrorism," is now clearly exporting insurgents to other regions ? to Lebanon, to Syria, to Gaza, to Bangladesh, to Kurdistan. And so, on the one hand, you have weakened societies vulnerable to the "new answers" of "new insurgencies," and on the other hand, you have Iraq set up as a school for terrorists with American troops and policy providing the constant inspiration for their fight. This, of course, is not the way the Bush administration sees it. The White House sees terrorists as born, not created by history, bearing the mark of Cain, not the mark of circumstance. There is a scarlet "T" written on their foreheads at birth and the only answer is to destroy them. This kind of thinking, of course, relieves the thinker of any responsibility for the presence of the insurgent-terrorist-whatever in our innocent midst. What's more, there is not much real give in the administration's policies. True, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other American diplomats met Memorial Day weekend with the Iranians in Baghdad (a good first move but limited, since the Iranians have most of the power because of our incredible stupidity in Iraq). But by all reports, President Bush is more convinced than ever of his righteousness. Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny." The truth of the steadily deteriorating situation in the Middle East is, of course, quite different. The Palestinian people of 40 and even 30 years ago were formal, conservative people who remained closely tied to their families, clans and religious groups. Theirs was a highly stratified society, which has now been shattered. In the institutional vacuum that is a camp like Nahr el-Bared, a few hundred men trained and tempered in Iraq can make a huge difference. At the same time, the Turkish military is ready to go into northern Kurdistan, al-Qaeda operatives from Iraq are popping up in hitherto untouched places, and the American military's advice to its troops is, "Get down with the people ? listen to them!" Only four years and thousands of bombs and night missions too late.

Why tell the decider-guy?

24-MAY-07

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. intelligence agencies warned the Bush administration in early 2003 that invading Iraq could create internal conflict that would give Iran and al Qaeda new opportunities to expand their influence, according to an upcoming Senate report. Officials familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation also say analysts warned against U.S. domination in the region, which could increase extremist recruiting. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the report's declassification is not finished. It could be made public as soon as this week. The committee also found that the warnings predicting what would happen after the U.S.-led invasion were circulated widely in government, including to the Defense Department and the Office of the Vice President. It wasn't clear whether President Bush was briefed. Asked to comment on Wednesday evening, the White House's National Security Council did not directly respond to the report's findings that intelligence analysts predicted many of the troubles ahead in Iraq before the invasion. Spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Iran must stop providing training and weapons to fighters there. "We also continue to take the fight to al Qaeda, who are trying to destabilize Iraq and create a safe haven to plan attacks on the U.S. and our allies," he added. The report comes as the administration is facing renewed criticism for failing to execute adequate post-invasion plans to stabilize Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled. Meanwhile, the White House has been trying to make the case that Iraq cannot be abandoned. The committee's findings are the latest chapter in its four-year investigation into the prewar intelligence assessments on Iraq. An earlier volume, completed and released in 2004, was highly critical of the intelligence community and then-CIA Director George Tenet. That 511-page document found widespread problems throughout U.S. spy agencies and said the intelligence community engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Senators also found that analysts failed to explain their uncertainties to policymakers. Yet, in predicting the effects of the U.S. invasion, the committee now finds that U.S. analysts appear to have largely been on the mark. A former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the decision to go to war had been made months before the 2003 papers were drafted and analysts had no delusions that they were going to head off military action. Rather, the official said, they hoped their warnings would be considered in the planning. Since the release of his memoir several weeks ago, Tenet has been criticized anew for not doing more to warn Bush about the shaky Iraq intelligence and the consequences of invading. (Read about one ex-CIA officer's criticism of Tenet) Yet his book provided a glimpse of some of the prewar warnings about the consequences of invading Iraq. For instance, he discusses a paper prepared for a Camp David meeting with the president in September 2002 entitled, "The Perfect Storm: The Negative Consequences for Invading Iraq." Tenet called the paper a list of "worst-case scenarios," which included anarchy and territorial breakup of Iraq and a surge of global terrorism against U.S. interests, fueled by deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States. He also notes that, in an early 2003 intelligence paper, analysts warned that "a post-Saddam authority would face a deeply divided society with a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other, unless an occupying force prevented them from doing so." The paper, which is believed to figure in the Senate investigation, also noted that Iraq's long history of foreign occupation means that it has a deep dislike of occupying forces. Since 2003, the Senate committee -- led by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, and now Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia -- has been trudging through its investigation of what went wrong, frequently slowed by politics. Last fall, the committee released new chapters on what was learned after the invasion about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its links to terrorism and how information from an advocacy group, the Iraqi National Congress, crept into U.S. intelligence reporting. While the first phase of its report was supported unanimously just before the 2004 presidential elections, the newer findings on the intelligence community's predictions about postwar Iraq have drawn dissent from Republicans. Details on the committee's vote have not yet been released.

US Senators that knew the truth about Iraq in 2002

11-MAY-07

US Senators that knew the truth about Iraq in 2002 107th Congress (2001-2002) Members of U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence These Senators (by rank and party) knew the truth about Bush lying about Saddam?s threat. Democrats Bob Graham, Florida Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia Dianne Feinstein, California Ron Wyden, Oregon Richard Durbin, Illinois Evan Bayh, Indiana John Edwards, North Carolina Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Republicans Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Vice Chairman Jon Kyl, Arizona James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Pat Roberts , Kansas Mike DeWine, Ohio Fred Thompson, Tennessee Richard G. Lugar, Indiana These Senators voted against R.S. 114 (Use of force in Iraq): Senator with Honor List? Richard Durbin, Illinois Bob Graham, Florida Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland Ron Wyden, Oregon These other Senators knew the truth that War Criminal Bush was lying and voted for use of force against Iraq. These Senators sold out America and our Military! Evan Bayh, Indiana Mike DeWine, Ohio John Edwards, North Carolina Dianne Feinstein, California Jon Kyl, Arizona James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Richard G. Lugar, Indiana Pat Roberts , Kansas John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Fred Thompson, Tennessee

Durbin says public was lied to about Iraq

09-MAY-07

WASHINGTON, April 27 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., said on the floor of the Senate that he knew the American public was being misled in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Durbin said he kept quiet because of his position on the Senate Intelligence Committee, The Washington Times reported. "The information we had in the Intelligence Committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Durbin said Wednesday. "I was angry about it. (But) frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the Intelligence Committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress." The White House said the Congress voted to go to war based on the same intelligence the president had. "We all understand today that there were intelligence failures but there was no effort to mislead either members of Congress or the American people," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told the Times reported. A congressional official familiar with Iraq intelligence presented to the committee said it was no different than what was said publicly, the Times said. HAVE WE HAD ENOUGH YET? HOW MANY MORE LIES? HOW MANY MORE MUST DIE? IMPEACH THAT BASTARD NOW!

1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable

01-MAY-07

In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war. George W. Bush, 4/9/99: "Victory means exit strategy, and it?s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.? And on the specific need for a timetable, here?s what Bush said then and what he says now: George W. Bush, 6/5/99: ?I think it?s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.? HYPOCRITE... LIAR....

Patriot Guard not needed here.

20-APR-07

Funny thing but in the lib state where I live - CA and the semi-lib area that I live in - east of SFO, I have not heard of any of these nut cases picketing any fallen soldier's funeral. I guess that is a thing that the so-called 'christ-tin reiche-wing nuts cases' do in the Middle America; or perhaps they are afraid of the rabid left libs beating the crap out of them? Yeah, we don't need the HAs to keep those idiots away; the libs got that issue under control. One other thing: how many funerals has Bush, Rice, or Cheney attended? I see the shrub running down to VA tech the day after, and the chimp ordering all Fed flags and half mask... so why didn't he do that for each fallen US GI? Can anyone define hypocrite? Seems like the shrubs picture is a great start.

congrad Svtwin you earned a blog entry

29-APR-07

You are not too bright are you spirtvtwin? Instead of blaming libs and congress for trying to save young Americans, why don't you listens to all those Generals and military men who stated Iraq is just like nam and is a lost cause. Ok, I will try to limit the name calling. For one, most of the soldier [that I know of] who are in Iraq were ordered there. Perhaps all of your friends are there, as you stated "by their own choice". Interesting, I guess your friends there are SOF. I heard Blackwater pays 200,000/yr. Nothing like killing for a living and the living is good eh? One quest for you Spirit, how do you win an occupation? I don't have any clue do you? I would love to hear that answer. I bet you have not heard that our present mil strategy is, 'we will no longer stand down when the Iraqis stand up'. Yep, the chimp's plans now are endless occupation but, we all knew that from the beginning: aka the 12 perm mil bases. If you like, I will post General after General testimony that Iraq is lost. My past blog entries contain lots of their opinions about Iraq. I left all those old blog entries just so I have something to point to for people like you. Read 'Army Maj General Batiste testimony before Sen. Policy Comm', or the recent Petraeus blog Geez. Hey google 'military men stating iraq lost cause'. The first hit I got was Petraeus stating "Iraq can not be won militarily". It's funny how you quote the Bible to justify killing or being killed. Well not so funny, but then, all those religious nuts who believe our soldiers are dieing because all 'them there 'queers'' existing in America are also quoting the bible too. Are you'll reading the same Bible? I guess you have a lot more in common with them than you might think. Let's see, those religious nuts protesting at US soldier's funerals so the patriot guard can come out and protest them. Hey kind-of like Bush invading and occupying a country [to steal Iraqi oil] and in the process creating more terrorist so the military and 'defense' contractors [and I use that term lightly] can make more money creating weapons to kill the endless supply of terrorist. Bingo, it's win/win except for the poor boots on their third, fourth and endless tours of duties, and the remaining [living] Iraqis- who's country we more than less f-ed over. But, then again Saddam was an evil man, yeah right.. Freedom on the march goose-stepping to an oil rich country near ya. You got to love it. Spirit one question, which I asked a lot in here but NEVER get an answer. Perhaps you can help? Why did all those Americans die in Vietnam? Feel free to come into my blog anytime to express how the remaining [twisted] 25% of Bush and occupation supporters think, if you can call it that. Have a nice day, cuz I know your day will be better than the countless boots in VA hospitals across the nation and the families burying there love ones for a lost cause called 'steal the Iraqi oil'..

Petraeus Eyes Long Commitment in Iraq

26-APR-07

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States. Speaking as the Senate debated veto-threatened legislation to start bringing home U.S. forces in October, Petraeus called the war there "the most complex and challenging I have ever seen." The four-star general, named by President Bush to oversee the recent buildup of American forces, cited some progress in the two months since the troop increase began. Still, he said, "there is vastly more work to be done across the board. ... We are just getting started with the new effort." He avoided commenting directly on the legislation before the Senate, which passed the House Wednesday night. "I have tried to stay clear of the political minefields of various legislative proposals," he said. But his comments made it clear that his war plan did not include a significant reduction of U.S. forces anytime soon. "This effort may get harder before it gets easier," Petraeus told reporters at a Pentagon briefing, depicting the situation as ''exceedingly complex and very tough.'' He said that the increasing use of roadside bombs and suicide attacks, plus the greater concentration of U.S. troops among the population, has ''led to greater U.S. losses'' as well as increased Iraqi military casualties. Asked how many troops he thought would have to remain in Iraq -- and for how long -- to finish the job, Petraeus said, ''I wouldn't try to truly anticipate what level might be some years down the road.'' However, he noted historical precedents to long U.S. peacekeeping missions. "It is an endeavor that clearly is going to require enormous commitment and commitment over time, but beyond that time I don't want to get into try to postulate how many brigades or when we would start to do something," he said. Petraeus said matters were made worse by "exceedingly unhelpful activities by Iran and Syria, especially those by Iran." Asked whether senior officials in the Iranian government were sanctioning sending weapons and technology to insurgents in Iraq, the U.S. general said it was hard to say. "We do not have a direct link of Iranian involvement," in attacks, he said. Petraeus also said that, while the fledgling Iraqi government is often billed as a unity government among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, it actually is not. "It is not a government of national unity. Rather, it is one comprised of political leaders from different parties that often default to narrow agendas and a zero-sum approach to legislation," the general said. He said that was one reason why progress has been so slow on deciding how to divide up oil revenues and pass budget and emergency powers laws. Despite the disappointing pace, Petraeus said he believes that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other leaders "are committed to achieving more in this area in the months ahead." Petraeus cited slowly improving conditions in turbulent Anbar province in western Iraq, noting it had been "assessed as lost six months ago." He said the increased U.S. presence in various outposts has enabled Iraqis "to stitch together the fabric of society that was so torn." But he said improvements, such as the reopening of shops and the return by some residents to their homes, are "often eclipsed by sensational attacks that overshadow our daily accomplishments." "Iraq is in fact the central front of al-Qaida's global campaign," he said. "Al-Qaida-Iraq remains a formidable foe with considerable resilience and a capability to produce horrific attacks." "This group's activities must be significantly disrupted at the least for the new Iraq to succeed," he added. "The key to success is disrupting their attacks.'' Now my two cent: The Iraqi constitution states the Kurd?s [northern section of Iraq] can pull out of a unified in 3 years. The oil deal Petraeus is quoting gives 70% of oil profits to the oil companies, something most Iraqis will not allow for any length of time. So, how do you win an occupation?

Sport bike define for Bdel

24-APR-07

Don't worry about Bdel not understanding the term ?sport bike?, I recall a reply he sent off to my Blob entry titled ?Reply to Lieut General Spunket?. Bdel didn?t know about all the generals that stated Rummy was a f-ing joke and was destroying f-ing over the mil, along with other statement of facts. It does seem like Bdel gets out very often. Bdel, I will define ?sport bike riding? in terms you might understand. An analogy of sport hunting may be utilized to allegorize the term sport bike riding. Sport hunting - where you go out, track and kill something only for the joy of the process. It?s not like you would require the kill for food or clothing. Sport bike riding - pushing the envelope of speed and control just for the sake/rush of doing it. It's not like you need to go some where in a hurry. So Bdel how do you feel about Rummy now? In your opinion is he still a great mil leader? And the Shrub? Speaking of Spunket, I wonder how he feels about our great leader the shrub now? It takes a man with 'character/honor' to admit when he is wrong and to CORRECT his mistake... I recall Spunket debating if the shrub outted a cia wmd spy and Spunket stating Plames was not a covert. Seems like the dem house investigation got the the truth about that issue, during Plames sworn testimony. The 4 hours video can be seen on cspan. Note, also Bush never allowed the justice department to conduct an investigation of HIS treason. Bush's father stated the worst crime in the nation was the outting an cia agent. Of course Bush's dad was the director of the CIA and was not a traitor like his idiot son is.

Halberstam dies in auto accident

23-APR-07

Author David Halberstam killed in crash near Dumbarton Bridge By Connie Skipitares and S.L. Wykes Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and author David Halberstam was killed in a three-car accident this morning in Menlo Park near the Dumbarton Bridge, the San Mateo County Coroner's Office announced. Halberstam, author of 15 bestsellers, died at the scene after the car in which he was a front-seat passenger was broadsided by another vehicle. The coroner's office said he died of massive internal injuries. Halberstam, 73, was a passenger in a red Toyota Camry driven by UC-Berkeley student Kevin Jones. There were no other passengers in the vehicle. According to Harold Schappelhouman, chief of the Menlo Park Fire Protection District, the car was apparently struck at a high rate of speed by a green late-model Infiniti, with Halberstam's side of the car bearing the brunt of the hit. Jones was attempting to make a left-hand turn at the intersection of Bayfront Expressway and Willow Road when his car was broadsided. The impact of the crash forced the two cars into a third vehicle. The fire chief, who assisted at the scene, said the force of the crash caused a 2-foot indentation on Halberstam's side of the car, pinning his legs. As firefighters tried to free him, the car's engine began to smoke, then caught fire. Rescuers extricated Halberstam, who was wearing a seat belt, then tried to rescusitate him, but they could not find a pulse, Schappelhouman said. Jones was able to exit the driver's side of the car, the chief said. Jones and the driver of one of the cars were taken by ambulance to Stanford Hospital. Both drivers are in good condition, said Nicole Acker, spokeswoman for the Menlo Park Police Department. The third driver was not injured. Acker would not release further details of the accident. She said it has not been determined if any of the drivers will be cited. Halberstam had spoken Saturday night at UC-Berkeley on "Turning Journalism into History." Orville Schell, the dean of Berkeley's graduate school of journalism, said in an e-mail this afternoon that Halberstam was on his way to an interview for his next book at the time of the accident. Jean Halberstam told the Associated Press that her husband was being driven to an interview he had scheduled with Hall of Fame quarterback Y.A. Tittle. Halberstam was working on a new book, "The Game," about the 1958 NFL championship game between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Giants, often called the greatest game ever played, she said. "I have spoken with David's wife in New York City, extended the condolences of the whole school and have offered to do everything that we can in this difficult time for her and their family," Schell said in his e-mail. Schell said he told Halberstam's wife that he "had given a truly inspired talk here at Berkeley." In an interview, Schell said that after the Berkeley speech, he, his wife, Liu Baifang; "New Yorker" staff writer Mark Danner; and NPR documentarian Sandy Tolan, joined Halberstam at Chez Panisse, where the five closed down the restaurant discussing the similarities between the Vietnam War and the current quagmire in Iraq. "No one wanted to leave," Schell recalled late this afternoon. `It was kind of like the last supper." When asked how he felt about Halberstam's sudden death, Schell replied, "What can one say? The fragility of life sometimes just intrudes with a kind of savageness that we normally don't pay much attention to." A first-year graduate student, Kevin Jones, was in the car with Halberstam and sustained a punctured lung in the accident and was taken to the Stanford Medical Center, Schell said. Jones is believed to have been the driver. Halberstam graduated from Harvard University, where he excelled as editor of the school newspaper, the Crimsom. But in a 1993 interview with the Mercury News, he admitted he didn't do nearly as well in the classroom. "I was a terrible student," Halberstam said to former Mercury News columnist Murry Frymer. "Sometimes when I talk to students now, I ask, `Who here is in the bottom third of the class?' When they raise their hands, I say, `Well, you are being addressed by another one.'" Halberstam began his journalism career at the Daily Times Leader in West Point, Miss., at a time when race was the major story in the South. His first employer was "the smallest daily in Mississippi" at the time, with a circulation of 4,000. He was a one-person reporting staff for an editor who didn't like the well-bred Jewish kid from Harvard, according to the Frymer story. "But I was the most productive reporter he had ever had. Still, after I wrote a piece for the (now-defunct) Reporter magazine on the civil rights sit-ins in Yazoo City, instead of praise, I got fired. He told me, `It's time for you to go. Go spread your wings somewhere else.'" Halberstam moved to the Nashville Tennessean and then the New York Times in 1960. Within three years, Halberstam was reporting on the Vietnam War. His reporting on the war angered President Kennedy, who asked the New York Times to transfer him to another bureau. Halberstam would win a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of Vietnam. Halberstam also covered Poland, where he was expelled after problems with censorship in the communist country. After six years at the Times, Halberstam said he felt stifled. But he embarked as an equally distinguished career as an author. Halberstam wrote 15 bestsellers, including "The Best and the Brightest" on the Vietnam War, "Summer of `49" on the 1949 pennant race between the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Box and his latest book, "The Education of a Coach" on New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick. His next book "The Coldest Winter" was to be an account of a battle of the Korean War. Halberstam lived in New York next a fire station. He wrote another bestseller, "Firehouse," on that local fire station, which lost 12 men in the Sept. 11, 2001 attack. In his 1993 interview with the Mercury News, Halberstam expressed his worries about journalism. "The public perceives us as being too powerful and too arrogant. We give a jarring perception of reality to people," Halberstam said. "I think the press is more predatory now, maybe because we have gone into celebrity journalism in a big way. That leads to more gossip and a press corps that is more interested in extraneous things, maybe a disproportion of coverage of things that are titillating." But Halberstam had no complaints about his own career. "It's been a wonderful life," he said. "Actually, when I think about my career I am sometimes stunned. I'm stunned by the richness of it. It gave me all the things I ever wanted. I loved being a reporter."

Support Kucinich's articles of Impeachment

22-APR-07

The rumor is this Wednesday Ohio Representative Kucinich will introduce articles of Impeachment for the war criminals and constitutional terrorist Bush and Cheney. Please spend a moment to write your house member (US congressional representive) to support this effort. If you need a form statement you may cut and paste the following text: Honorable {your representative}, I heard the honorable representative from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich will introduce articles of impeachment next week. Please support this effort to introduce these articles of impeachment for the war criminals and constitutional terrorists Bush and Cheney. Americans had enough of these two! Keep up the excellent work! Sincerely, {your name} I been sending out letters to Murtha, Pelosi, and other leaders in the house. Time real patriots to act!

Answer- Why send in the young men

13-APR-07

I was reading a blog entry and the related reply from Zek. Instead of thrashing on someone else's blog, I will put my reply here. I welcome to all responses on this subject. Hopefully, Zek can step up to the plate and support his viewpoint because I would love to hear his logic or 'lack of it'. It is important for people to discuss this issue and understand what is really happening. Zek, don't make generalization about what the majority of US GIs think about this so call war on terror. I would bet you have not spoken to more than 1000 Iraqi vets. I heard many vets call Iraq one big cluster f. Yesterday, I listened to one ex mil Intel officer. He was stationed in Germany before 911. He stated, ?BEFORE 911 he was assigned in planning the Iraq invasion?. NOTE, BEFORE 911. Geez, didn?t Clark state that during his first cabinet meeting with Bush [Jan 2000], Bush stated that we needed to find a reason to "go into Iraq"? A few weeks back I heard a sniper talk about his Iraqi service. He ended up taking a bullet and was kicked out in spite of his honorable service and sacrifice to America. The important comment that he stated and which stuck in my mind, was that the mil never psychological prepared him for his mission. It was quite apparent that he is now seriously 'damaged?. We ain't making Iraq safer. We ain't creating democracy. We are creating more terrorists and each day we are f-ing over more and more Iraqis and US GIs. If you think the Iraq invasion was anything but stealing Iraqi oil you need to put the pipe down, stop drinking the Kool-Aid, and start looking around. Or perhaps that spin help in the justication for making a buck of the slaughter? We have one of two choices to fix the cluster f in Iraq. 1) Start a draft and put about one million soldiers in Iraq to stop the violence, which I believe would be the most honorible solution, but I'm sorry to say, most American will never go for because it?s not their war and their family is not involved nor do they plan on getting involved... or 2) We get the f-out and let Iraqis and Iraq's neighbors deal with fixing Iraq; but that would mean we lose the oil, which this admin will never go for. So Zek, wave the flag, bury the dead, and chat about how we helped Iraq by removing the evil Saddam, or how the KIA and permanently wound and damaged GIs are making us safe, or how those fallen for a lost cause are protecting our freedoms. All of which are lies, and is what Bush and his band of war criminals are masters of. In the end, Iraq will fall just like Nam. Then you and your ilk can blame every one else but the people responsible for the Iraqi cluster f.

Andy Clueless

07-APR-07

Funny how one greedy old white man [who sold his D-ed soul for a few million corporate bucks] can determine what is like like being a young black woman living in generational poverty. You got to love America: its bigots and stupidity. Happy Easter

Listening Lib

07-APR-07

1240 has a different but successful format?. broadcasting SAC state sports, UCD sports, Giants games, Raiders games [I think], and Sharks games will allow 1240 to obtain a larger audience and greater opportunities of future successes by acquiring new listeners. People that leave a ?tuned? station on a car?s radio, often channel check - change channels while driving. Perhaps then, while listening to the radio and a sport game is not currently broadcasting, they will be exposed to one of the many great lib programs offered by 1240talkcity. I listen to Big Ed M-F 9am-12am and listen all the time on the web. Mike M [since he was axes from Air] can now be heard M-F at 6pm on 1240 AM or the web 1240talkcity. Yeah I miss Randi, but remember, she has a website and you can listen to her on net. Remember don?t kill the hen cuz the roster died. The roster was a bit lame to begin with, because of the war on lib broadcasting corps. Blame Reagan and then Clinton for the complete destruction of the once ?free? and great news press in America. Now it?s all about making a buck. The hen is exposing lots of other people to something besides Drug Limp Dick Rush! From a listening lib.

NAN VETS TIME TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE

02-FEB-07

Seems like one or two of you NAM Vets replied back to my blog requarding our Generals opinions on the Shrubs failed occupation and his lack of an occupation plan. Well it seems like the liar and thief came up with another winner idea. Let me clue ya in just in case you missed it... The chimp in charge now wants to EMBED US TROUPS INTO 19 IRAQI BATTALIONS AT POLICE STATION OUTSIDE OF THE GREEN ZONE. NOW ALL YOU NAM VETS COME ON STEP-UP TO THE PLATE... HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO OF HAD YOU PLATOON EMBED INTO A COMPANY SVA? THE PURPOSE OF THE SHRUB'S IDEA IS JUST TO PASS BLAME ON HIS FAILED OCCUPATION TO THE IRAQIS. IRAQ IS JUST LIKE NAM and the Shrub's LATEST brain fart will just put OUR US GIS in greater danger and cost more of our MIL their lifes. If anyone with any Mil experiences wishes to explain to me why the Shrub's plan is good you are welcome to enlighten me. If you see it my way, it's time to E-mail your house and senator members.

Repost of Delete Blog.. 911 WARNING BUSH IGGIED

03-NOV-06

Someone from here mentioned "It is the Presidents' and administrations job to protect the American people and American interests". I replied so how many times was Bush warned about 911? Don't know; let me help you out. I posted the source and dates for you to research. If you, or anyone else wishes the links to these citing, email me and I will supply them to you. 1) Spring 2001: Military and government documents are released that seek to legitimize the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil. One article advocates presidential subterfuge in the promotion of conflict and "explicitly urge[s] painting over the US's actual reasons for warfare as a necessity for mobilizing public support for a conflict." (Sydney Morning Herald, 12/26/02) Note, this is not a 911 warning more of a motivation of letting 911 happen.. 2) May 2001: Black told Rice that the seriousness of the al-Qaida threat was a 7 on a scale of 10 (Woodard's book). 3) July 5, 2001: Tenet gave Ashcroft a briefing - at Rice's behest - called "The Osama Bin Laden Terrorist Threat," ( 9-11 commission). 4) June 13, 2001: Egyptian President Mubarak through his intelligence services warns the US that bin Laden's Islamic terrorist network is threatening to kill Bush and other G8 leaders at their July economic summit meeting in Italy. The terrorists plan to use a plane stuffed with explosives (NY Times, 09/26/01). Note, the G8 security was at a record level. 5) July 10, 2001: A Phoenix FBI agent sends a memorandum warning about Middle Eastern men taking flight lessons. He suspects bin Laden's followers and recommends a national program to check visas of suspicious flight-school students. The memo is sent to two FBI counter-terrorism offices, but no action is taken (NY Times, 05/21/02). Cheney says in May 2002 that he opposes releasing this memo to congressional leaders or to the media and public (CNN, 05/20/02). 6) July 26, 2001: Attorney General Ashcroft stops flying commercial airlines due to a threat assessment (CBS, 07/26/01). He later walks out of his office rather than answer questions about this (AP 05/16/02). 7) Late July 2001: The US and UN ignore warnings from the Taliban foreign minister that bin Laden is planning an imminent huge attack on US soil. The FBI and CIA also fail to take seriously warnings that Islamic fundamentalists have enrolled in flight schools across the US (Independent, 09/07/02). 8) July 10, 2001: Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, "felt the brushoff" by Rice after telling her about al-Qaida (Woodward?s Book). 9) June 28 and July 10, 2001: Senior U.S. officials "were advised by the intelligence community, that ... `attack preparations have been made; attack will occur with little or no warning (9-11 commission report). 10) June 28, 2001, memo to Rice from Clarke said al-Qaida chatter "has reached a crescendo." Two days later, she got a CIA memo: "Bin Laden Threats Are Real." (9-11 commission report). 11) Summer 2001: Intelligence officials know that al Qaeda both hopes to use planes as weapons and seeks to strike a violent blow within the US, despite government claims following 9/11 that the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks came "like bolts from the blue". (Wall Street Journal, 09/19/02) (CNN, 09/12/02). 12) Summer 2001: Russian President Putin later says publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US of suicide pilots training for attacks on US targets (Fox, 05/17/02). 13) Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence agents go to Washington to warn that a major attack is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan later backs away from it (CS Monitor 05/23/02). 14) Aug 5-11, 2001: Israel warns US of an imminent Al Qaeda attack (Fox News, 05/17/02). 15) Augt 6, 2001: President Bush receives classified intelligence briefings at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The memo read to him is titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", and the entire memo focuses on the possibility of terrorist attacks inside the US. National Security Advisor Rice later claims the memo was "fuzzy and thin" and only 1 and a half pages long (his normal daily security briefings run two or three pages) but other accounts state it was 11 pages long (Newsweek, 5/27/02, New York Times, 5/15/02, Die Zeit, 10/1/02). The contents have never been made public. However, a Congressional report later describes what is likely this memo (they call it "a closely held intelligence report for senior government officials" presented in early August 2001): it mentions "that members of al-Qaeda, including some US citizens, had resided in or traveled to the US for years and that the group apparently maintained a support structure here. The report cited uncorroborated information obtained in 1998 that Osama bin Laden wanted to hijack airplanes to gain the release of US-held extremists; FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks and the number of bin Laden-related investigations underway; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the US with explosives." (Senate Intelligence Committee, 9/18/02) Incredibly, the New York Times later reports that Bush "broke off from work early and spent most of the day fishing". (New York Times, 5/25/02) The existence of this memo is kept secret until May 2002 16) Aug 6, 2001: President Bush is warned by US intelligence that bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. The White House waits eight months after 9/11 to reveal this fact (NY Times, 05/16/02). Titled ?Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the intelligence briefing specifically mentions the World Trade Center. Yet Bush later states the briefing "said nothing about an attack on America." (Washing Post (04/12/04). (White House 04/11/04 Intelligence Briefing 08/06/01). Your serial liar Bush at work. 17) Aug 22, 2001: Top counter-terrorism expert John O'Neill quits the FBI due to repeated obstruction of his al-Qaeda investigations and a power play against him. He was the government's "most committed tracker of bin Laden and al-Qaeda." The next day he starts a new job as head of security at the WTC. He is killed weeks later in the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attack (New Yorker, 01/14/02). 18) Aug 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gives the CIA a list of terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the 19 9/11 hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, four names on the list are known and are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. (Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02) The Mossad appears to have learned about this through its "art student" spy ring. Yet apparently this warning and list are not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also not passed on to the FBI. It's not clear if this warning influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar to a terrorism watch list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. (Der Spiegel, 10/1/02) Israel has denied that there were any Mossad agents in the US. (Haaretz, 10/3/02) The US has denied knowing about Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports to the contrary. 19) Aug 24, 2001: Frustrated with lack of response from FBI headquarters about detained suspect Moussaoui, the Minnesota FBI begins working with the CIA. The CIA sends alerts calling him a "suspect 747 airline suicide hijacker." Three days later an FBI Minnesota supervisor says he is trying keep Moussaoui from "taking control of a plane and fly it into the WTC." (Senate Intelligence Committee 10/17/02). FBI headquarters chastises Minnesota FBI for notifying the CIA (time 05/21/02). FBI Director Mueller will later say "there was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the [9/11] attacks." (Senate Intelligence Committee 09/18/02). Note, can you say cover-up? 20) Sept 10, 2001: A particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. "Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill." (Newsweek 09/13/01). "A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." (Newsweek 09/24/01). AND THIS ONE. The analytical arm of CIA was in kind of a "panic mode" during the month of August 2001 and CIA officials "flew to Crawford [Texas] to personally brief the President -- to intrude on his vacation with face-to-face alerts." At the end of one such briefing, Bush reportedly responded to the CIA briefer, "All right ... You've covered your ass, now." (Suskind) More and more details of the Bush's 911 warning what he did not do and are appearing each day. I got tried of Googling and posting them.

Yep things a changing - Kevin Tillman goes Cindy Sheehan

24-OCT-06

Kevin Tillman joined the Army with his brother Pat in 2002, and they served together in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pat was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004. Kevin, was discharged in 2005. "It is Pat's birthday on November 6, and elections are the day after. It gets me thinking about a conversation I had with Pat before we joined the military. He spoke about the risks with signing the papers. How once we committed, we were at the mercy of the American leadership and the American people. How we could be thrown in a direction not of our volition. How fighting as a soldier would leave us without a voice until we get out. Much has happened since we handed over our voice: Somehow we were sent to invade a nation because it was a direct threat to the American people, or to the world, or harbored terrorists, or was involved in the September 11 attacks, or received weapons-grade uranium from Niger, or had mobile weapons labs, or WMD, or had a need to be liberated, or we needed to establish a democracy, or stop an insurgency, or stop a civil war we created that can't be called a civil war even though it is. Something like that. Somehow our elected leaders were subverting international law and humanity by setting up secret prisons around the world, secretly kidnapping people, secretly holding them indefinitely, secretly not charging them with anything, secretly torturing them. Somehow that overt policy of torture became the fault of a few 'bad apples' in the military. Somehow back at home, support for the soldiers meant having a five-year-old kindergartener scribble a picture with crayons and send it overseas, or slapping stickers on cars, or lobbying Congress for an extra pad in a helmet. It's interesting that a soldier on his third or fourth tour should care about a drawing from a five-year-old; or a faded sticker on a car as his friends die around him; or an extra pad in a helmet, as if it will protect him when an IED throws his vehicle 50 feet into the air as his body comes apart and his skin melts to the seat. Somehow the more soldiers that die, the more legitimate the illegal invasion becomes. Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground. Somehow those afraid to fight an illegal invasion decades ago are allowed to send soldiers to die for an illegal invasion they started. Somehow faking character, virtue and strength is tolerated. Somehow profiting from tragedy and horror is tolerated. Somehow the death of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people is tolerated. Somehow subversion of the Bill of Rights and The Constitution is tolerated. Somehow suspension of Habeas Corpus is supposed to keep this country safe. Somehow torture is tolerated. Somehow lying is tolerated. Somehow reason is being discarded for faith, dogma, and nonsense. Somehow American leadership managed to create a more dangerous world. Somehow a narrative is more important than reality. Somehow America has become a country that projects everything that it is not and condemns everything that it is. Somehow the most reasonable, trusted and respected country in the world has become one of the most irrational, belligerent, feared, and distrusted countries in the world. Somehow being politically informed, diligent, and skeptical has been replaced by apathy through active ignorance. Somehow the same incompetent, narcissistic, virtueless, vacuous, malicious criminals are still in charge of this country. Somehow this is tolerated. Somehow nobody is accountable for this. In a democracy, the policy of the leaders is the policy of the people. So don't be shocked when our grandkids bury much of this generation as traitors to the nation, to the world and to humanity. Most likely, they will come to know that 'somehow' was nurtured by fear, insecurity and indifference, leaving the country vulnerable to unchecked, unchallenged parasites. Luckily this country is still a democracy. People still have a voice. People still can take action. It can start after Pat's birthday." Brother and Friend of Pat Tillman, Kevin Tillman

Today, Oct. 17, 2006 Americans Congressional guarantees died

17-OCT-06

Today, Tuesday, Oct. 17, 2006, President Bush signs the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the freedoms, legal protections, and constitutional guarantees of Americans died. America's democracy today was signed away by the Congress, the President and fear. I am so ashamed of this generation of Americans. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS BLOG ENTRY. THIS BLOG ENTRY IS MINE AND MINE ALONE. ALL REPLIES ON THIS ENTRY WILL BE DELETED.

Army Maj General Batiste testimony before Sen. Policy Comm

16-OCT-06

September 25, 2006 Sidebar notes, "Today's hearing is an election-year smokescreen aimed at obscuring the Democrats dismal record on national security," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in a statement released more than two hours before the hearing began. USA: Maj. General John Batiste's testimony before Sen. Democratic Policy Committee "My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and a life-long Republican. Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense's leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities. This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan. Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except how to win. He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build his plan, which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today. Our great military lost a critical window of opportunity to secure Iraq because of inadequate troop levels and capability required to impose security, crush a budding insurgency, and set the conditions for the rule of law in Iraq. We were undermanned from the beginning, lost an early opportunity to secure the country, and have yet to regain the initiative. To compensate for the shortage of troops, commanders are routinely forced to manage shortages and shift coalition and Iraqi security forces from one contentious area to another in places like Baghdad, An Najaf, Tal Afar, Samarra, Ramadi, Fallujah, and many others. This shifting of forces is generally successful in the short term, but the minute a mission is complete and troops are redeployed back to the region where they came from, insurgents reoccupy the vacuum and the cycle repeats itself. Troops returning to familiar territory find themselves fighting to reoccupy ground which was once secure. We are all witnessing this in Baghdad and the Al Anbar Province today. I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. This is no way to fight a counter-insurgency. Secretary Rumsfeld's plan did not set our military up for success. Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort. He does not comprehend the human dimension of warfare. The mission in Iraq is all about breaking the cycle of violence and the hard work to change attitudes and give the Iraqi people alternatives to the insurgency. You cannot do this with precision bombs from 30,000 feet. This is tough, dangerous, and very personal work. Numbers of boots on the ground and hard-won relationships matter. What should have been a deliberate victory is now an uncertain and protracted challenge. Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with his plan and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy. At critical junctures, commanders were forced to focus on managing shortages rather than leading, planning, and anticipating opportunity. Through all of this, our Congressional oversight committees were all but silent and not asking the tough questions, as was done routinely during both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Our Congress shares responsibility for what is and is not happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our nation's treasure in blood and dollars continues to be squandered under Secretary Rumsfeld's leadership. Losing one American life due to incompetent war planning and preparation is absolutely unacceptable. The work to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime was a challenge, but it pales in comparison to the hard work required to build the peace. The detailed deliberate planning to finish the job in Iraq was not considered as Secretary Rumsfeld forbade military planners from developing plans for securing a post-war Iraq. At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan. Our country and incredible military were not set up for success. Our country has yet to mobilize for a protracted, long war. I believe that Secretary Rumsfeld and others in the Administration did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld failed to address the full range of requirements for this effort, and the result is one percent of the population shouldering the burdens, continued hemorrhaging of our national treasure in terms of blood and dollars, an Army and Marine Corps that will require tens of billions of dollars to reset after we withdraw from Iraq, the majority of our National Guard brigades no longer combat-ready, a Veterans Administration which is underfunded by over $3 billion, and America arguably less safe now than it was on September 11, 2001. If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents. What do we do now? We are where we are, plagued by the mistakes of the past. Thankfully, we are Americans and with the right leadership, we can do anything. First, the American people need to take charge through their elected officials. Secretary Rumsfeld and the Administration are fighting a war in secret that threatens our democratic values. This needs to stop right now, today. Second, we must replace Secretary Rumsfeld and his entire inner circle. We deserve leaders whose judgment and instinct we can all trust. Third, we must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge, which must include conveying the what, why, and how long to every American, rationing to finance the totality of what we are doing, and gearing up our industrial base in a serious manner. Mortgaging our future at the rate of $1.5 billion a week and financing our great Army and Marine Corps with supplemental legislation must stop. Americans will rally behind this important cause when the rationale is properly laid out. Fourth, we must rethink our Iraq strategy. More of the same is not a strategy, nor is it working. This new strategy must include serious consideration of federalizing the country, other forms of Iraqi national conscription and incentives to modify behavior, and a clear focus on training and equipping the Iraqi security forces as America's main effort. Fifth, we must fix our inter-agency process to completely engage and synchronize all elements of America?s national power. Unity of effort is fundamental and we need one person in charge in Iraq who pulls the levers with all U.S. Government agencies responding with 110 percent effort. Finally, we need to get serious about mending our relationships with allies and getting closer to our friends and enemies. America can not go this alone. All of this is possible, but we need leadership and responsible Congressional oversight to pull this off. I challenge the American people to get informed and speak out. Remember that the Congress represents and works for the people. Congressional oversight committees have been strangely silent for too long, and our elected officials must step up to their responsibilities or be replaced. This is not about partisan politics, but rather what is good for our country. Our November elections are crucial. Every American needs to understand the issues and cast his or her vote. I believe that one needs to vote for the candidate who understands the issues and who has the moral courage to do the harder right rather than the easier wrong. I for one will continue to speak out until there is accountability, until the American people establish momentum, and until our Congressional oversight committees kick into action. Victory in Iraq is fundamental and we cannot move forward until accountability is achieved. Thank you." And after the testimony... Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.)threaten to punish Democrats for using an Appropriations Committee room for an unofficial hearing on Iraq oversight if it happens again. "They better stop this," the Mississippi Republican said. "This will be the last one or there will be retribution." But the mostly Democratic panel was not without Republican representation. Jones awoke at 5:45 a.m. in North Carolina, got in his car at 6:30 a.m. and made a nearly five-hour drive to the Capitol to participate in the hearing. Jones, who represents Camp Lejeune, voted to authorize the Iraq war but has criticized its execution. "To me this is not politics, this is policy issues," he said. "The party that demands the truth is the party that the public respects." In his opening statement, Jones quoted Rudyard Kipling: "If any question why we died, tell them, because our fathers lied."

Another mia blog.. this should be an addtion to Bobmac

17-OCT-06

Bobmac, Nope, I didn't delete your reply intentionally, but you can believe what you want. You may call me a liar, but note, an honorable man would not label another person a liar without proof. When I delete replies intentionally, I will let people know that I have, and the reasons why. Again you can believe what you want, America is currently free, [but it appears that is something this current administration is working on changing]. Yep, no question about it, Iran has stated that it would like to eliminate Israel from the world map; and America's support of Israel is why some Muslims attacked the US. I read that since the mid 70's, the US has given Israel about 1.6 trillion dollars in aid, note the word GIVEN. This actual amount is in question, but our own government admits about 700 billion in free aid has been given to Israel. I image the majority of this 'aid' was in the form of 'defense' military supplies. You original stated that Israel was not able to defend itself. I now see you dropped that ridiculous assumption. Seems like you have lots of rhetoric to share. Now I hope you don't miss this point, because it is very important. THOSE MUSLIMS THAT ATTACKED AMERICA ARE INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST. THEY NEEDED TO BE DEALT WITH IN A SWIFT AND JUST MANNER. BUT INVADE IRAQ DID NOT BRING THOSE TERRORIST TO JUSTICE. WE ONLY CREATED HATE FROM PEOPLE THAT ONCE RESPECTED US. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. You mention Bush used of Diplomacy. More rhetoric? When has Bush used Diplomacy? Bush never used Diplomacy. Powell is a typical example on how this administration uses Diplomacy and people. Remember Powell's famous Iraq has WMDs Speech at the UN? Bush fed Powell a crock of crap to sell to the UN to convince the UN to support the US invasion of Iraq. When the UN didn't go along, Bush decided to invade anyway. UN inspectors were on the ground since late 2002. UN weapons inspector Blix, on January 23, 2003, requested that the Bush administration give the locations of those so-called WMDs site the Bush was drumming into the ears of Americans. Powell speech in front of the UN unquestionably destroyed his career. Lots of people's lifes have been destroyed by Bush, and each day more and more people fall into that category. I glad you brought up suit case bombs. That was where I was heading next. Do you realize how much of the ex-Soviet's UR is unaccounted for? That is the real threat to America. Because of the efforts of our country's best intelligence officers and patriots working to protect America, we have intercepted the attempted sells of some of this UR to terrorist. We also are trying to buy all of ex-Soviets UR, to remove it from the future terrorist market, but all intelligent agencies warn this critical service is ill-funded under the current administration. Again is that Bush keeping America safe? The number one Bush mistake was not to increasing the number of law enforcement agents to track down the criminal Terrorist and to utilize existing US and International counter-terrorist agencies to deal with these criminals. Seems like Bush has that 'I'm in charge now, and I know best' mindset. Most dictators also have that mind. Now ask yourself, why wouldn't Bush use the US and International law enforcement to track down these criminals? The answer is simple, money. There is more money to be made by creating and selling the 'WAR ON TERRORISM'. Do stock analysis on CICA, HALLIBURTON, KBR, and BLACKWATER since Bush's 'WAR ON TERROR' began. Someone is making a killing off, of dead US GIs and Iraqis. I wonder who? Follow the money. It is that simple. Bobmac, I don't believe one can be called a young man at 50. I respect everyone until they prove they have no honor [by their own actions] and thus deserve none. I posted a lot about what Bush has and have not done to protect Americans, and how he screwed over America. The things I posted are all documented and factual. I did not post these things for support or acceptance. I did it so people can make up their own minds about these important matters and without the rhetoric of going along or being labeled a terrorist. I have no respect for Bush, but for respect of others in this room I will not no longer call Bush: Chimp or little Hitler. It amazing how quickly you bring up a point to support Bush, and after I clarify your rhetoric with facts, you readily drop it. I'm sorry but it's not that easy to escape the truth after you open the Pandora's Box. YOU stated it was Bush's job was to keep Americans safe. I replied back with 20 documented warnings bush got before 911 and how he ignored all of them, and did nothing. Perhaps the most telling fact I brought up was the 911 WARNING #20 LATE AUGUST 2006 The CIA was screaming at all their administration contacts about the pending 911 attack with no results. Finally, a team of CIA agents flew down to Crawford to personally brief the president. During the briefing Bush did not ask one question. After the briefing BUSH GLARED AT THE CIA AGENTS AND SNAPPED, "ALL RIGHT, YOU'VE COVERED YOUR ASS". BUSH WENT BACK TO HIS VACATION WITHOUT ORDERING ANY SPECIAL RESPONSE. So now you want to dismiss your assumption that Bush is keeping us safe? He didn't do much before 911? I wonder why? Who is profiting off this war? Not the young men and women fighting and dieing in Iraq. And who sent them there? I imagine you are now retired military, so there is no reason for your blind allegiance to Bush. If you unquestionably support Bush, that is your choice, but the intelligence man would look back at history and learn what evils blind allegiance to any man, can accomplish. We civilian Americans need to keep our politicians on course, ask questions, learn the facts. Power corrupts, and I see lots of corruption now. Bobmac if you are ex-mil you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. Bush also took a similar oath which he violated. Again I have no respect for Bush. The real question Bobmac, after reading all the facts I posted, why would have any respect for Bush? Bush is not worthy of the high office he holds.

Pvt Spunket last chance.

16-OCT-06

Spunket Real simple for you, since you like to spin off; one question at a time. Why did 16 U.S intelligent agencies state that there are more terrorist [today after Bush's invasion/occupation of IRAQ] than existed before 911? I guess in your mind that is Bush's policies working. You can call me anything you wish, but that doesn't change that fact. And just so others will know, [in my mind, you Spunket are a Bush apologist that will lead America to ruins]; I don't work for the DNC, I don't get paid for the time I spent blogging. I do it to let people know the truth, which is not covered in the main stream media, before the NOVEMBER 7, 2006 elections. Except for Bush's coddling the Rich, none of Bush's policies are working. I have noticed apples don't fall far from the tree, so perhaps people need to ask the same questions to you Spunket, "Are you an annoying GOP NEOCON operative parroting Bush's propaganda on my blog; one that coddles and works to enable endless war, welfare [looting the US Treasury] for rich Americans and the so-called Christian Rapture that James Watt so claimed during the Reagan days? To quote your own self proclaimed title 'Know it all', Answer one question. WHY DID 16 US INTELLIGENT AGENCIES STATE THERE ARE MORE TERRORIST TODAY [AFTER BUSH?S INVASION/OCCUPATION OF IRAN] THAN EXISTED BEFORE 911? Got any ideas Mr. Know-it-all? Using your logic, I guess Bush will need to fire a lot more people. Using my logic this NOVEMBER 7, 2006 we can fired Bush. If you can offer a logical answer to the above question, we can move forward to the next issue, wire taps data mining, rendering and hold people without trials and torturing. If you don't offer a response to that simple question, I will not waste any more time with your BS. To answer your question about Iran, Bush needs to go before the Congress before any military action occurs against Iran. Just like the LAW STATES IN THE CONSTITUTION. Both houses of Congress voted Congressional Resolution 114: The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against IRAQ. That doesn't cover IRAN, Mr. KNOW-IT-ALL! Of course you knew that, but would rather lie and spin crap.

Words of advise I should heed

14-OCT-06

yeah that is funny.. but the blog went AWOL.. Perhaps its' doing coke and booze in AL like an ex-tex gov?

Tractordriver - answer to your question about Bush

14-OCT-06

Keep your powder dry people justforya is stating the facts and the writing is on the wall!! Take care,Mike

Ladies you can help out the injured US iraq Vets & families

14-OCT-06

Ladies, Regardless of partisan or political views, there is something you can do to help the injured US Iraq Vets and their families. America's heros, the US Reconnaissance Marines, put together a "2007 Stud Calendar". Some "tastefully" pictured Reconn Marine are presented. 100% of the proceeds will go to our wounded heroes and the families of our heros that have served in Iraq and have been awarded the Purple Heart. You can help by Googling "FREEDOMISNOTFREE". You old dudes, buy one for (all) your wife(s), and/or girlfriend(s), and/or old-ladies. Perhaps it will spark up your love life. There is also a donation button, if you don't want the Calendar.

Lt General Spunket courtmarsh conduct unbecoming of officer

13-OCT-06

Spunket Try reading my original post. Spunket you wrote, ?Your claim is, that the President was sending a carrier group over to attack Iran, in violation of the Constitution.? No, I didn?t claim that, Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner stated that. Try reading my original post. I see you didn?t contest my claim that Rummy was on the board of the Zurich-based engineering company ABB, which by the way, sold light water nuclear reactors to the government of North Korea. I imagine it?s hard to deny that fact. Now your comment Spunket, ?With regard to Rummy's recall, folks that sit on boards of directors don't run operations. They oversee financial matters.? Come on, a 200 million dollar deal would not be brought up to the board. Isn?t 200 million dollars financial matters? ABB spokesman Bjoern Edlund has told FORTUNE that "board members were informed about this project.? Other ABB officials say there is no way such a large and high-stakes project, involving complex questions of liability, would not have come to the attention of the board. ?A written summary would probably have gone to the board before the deal was signed," says Robert Newman, a former president of ABB's U.S. nuclear division who spearheaded the project. "I'm sure they were aware."? Do you even do research before you spew out your BS, or does it just come out like S### dropping from your a$$? My God boy, you look very stupid. Spunket you avoid commenting on this, "And despite placing North Korea in its 'Axis of Evil,' the Bush administration apparently has fewer concerns about ABB's reactors now that Rummy's running things at the Pentagon. In January, 2006 the president authorized $3.5 million to keep the project going." I got the dates incorrect? My corrections?In April 2002, the Bush administration announced that it would release $95 million TO BEGIN?, NOTE TO BEGIN ?construction of the light water reactors. Bush released even more money in January 2003, as reported by Bloomberg News, ?President George W. Bush is seeking $3.5 million for the international consortium that CONTINUES?, NOTE CONTINUES ?to build two nuclear reactors for North Korea, even as the U.S. confronts the communist regime over nuclear arms.? Your comment Spunket about the Generals revolt against Rummy, ?they are in a rare minority amongst their peers.? How the f do you know? Do you socialize with Generals? Were you in any Mil briefings? If you were post your statements of facts. If not sit down and listen the real PATRIOT THAT HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE GIs IN MIND. Spunket your comments of the Mil?s objectives of ?minimal cost and maximum effectiveness?, does seems to be working under Rummy. The body count of US GIs continue to grow as well as Iraqi Civilians. Since the invasion over 650,000 Iraqis have been killed, and the count of KIA or wounded US GIS is up to 60,000. Perhaps that is why our US Generals are retiring to speak out against Bush?s f?ed up occupation. The number and ranks of these Generals protesting Rummy has never been seen before in US Mil History. Spunket your comment, ?Their major complaints are that they are not in charge of more forces which they would have wielded in Iraq?. That was not their complaint. You put lies in their mouths, and SLAUNDER THESE TRUE PATROIT! Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., COMMANDED the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, COMMANDED the First Infantry Division (the "Big Red One"). Both of these men led combat troops in Iraq. Spunket your comment, ?The same complaints and cries of woe were issued by this minority of generals before Saddam was deposed. They claimed that a 200K troop strength was inadequate. It obviously was not. It was also said they ignored the insurgency. They did not, they expected the terrorist action, since the plan contained the element of taking the fight to them.? Spunket, nice twisting of the facts. Those Generals original complaints were not that they lacked US Boots on the ground for the invasion, but they lacked the forces need to secure the ground we took. In the weeks after the fall of Baghdad, Iraqi looters loaded powerful explosives into pickup trucks and drove the material away. This was reported by a group of U.S. Army reservists and National Guardsmen who said they witnessed the looting. Soldiers with one unit, the 317th Support Center based in Wiesbaden, Germany, said they sent a message to commanders in Baghdad requesting help to secure the site but received no reply. About 380 tons of high-grade explosives had been taken and are now being use as IUDS against our Boots. "We couldn't have been given the assignment to defend a facility unless we were given the troops to do it, and we weren't," said one National Guard officer. Spunket your comment, ?The situation in Iraq is a fight between the terrorists and those who desire a democratic republiic?. Last weeks poll of Iraqis indicated 61% of IRAQIS think it?s OK TO KILL AMERICAN GIs, and about 80% of Iraqis want the US out of Iraq. Is that the democracy you wanted, US GIs WITH TARGETS ON THEIR BACKS? Spunket your comment ?The terrorists lost their major industrial base and safe haven and the ME no longer has to put up with the Baath party threat.? Saddam?s Baath party kept Al Qaeda and the terrorist responsible for 911 OUT OF IRAQ. Perhaps you didn?t read the 911 commission report released on Sept 8, 2006. Let me clue you in, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward al-Qaida, operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.? ?Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden, Tariq Aziz, the Iraqi leader's top aide, told the FBI?. According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." Note Spunkett, since you seem so clueless, these ?Islamic extremists? are the terrorist the Chimp wanted to kill. Still don?t understand? I will make it real clear for you? THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE INVADED IRAQ. The 911 commission report rebuts serial liar Cheney?s assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida and that "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida?. The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents. NOW WHICH OF BUSH CRIMINAL ADMINSTRATION PUSHED OUT THAT REPORT? Seems like retired CIA agents stated it WAS CHENEY. Levin and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, said Tenet told the committee last July that in 2002 he had complied with an administration request "to say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said" in regards to the Chimp?s lie about the Saddam-terrorist link. They said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the same day Bush gave a speech speaking of such a link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States. They said Tenet acknowledged to the committee that his issue of a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint was "the wrong thing to do". Note, the complete 911 Commission Report still has not been released to America. So ask your self, what else are the GOP controlled Senate hiding? So let me recap for you Spunket, Tenet lied for Bush and got a medal for it. Nice, your Chimp and Tenet working to make chumps of Americans. Trust Bush? I?ll tell you what Spunket, you put your son or daughter in Iraq, and see if you trust Bush and Rummy. So Spunket what is your angle? It appears you don?t support the truth or the troops? Is your max 15% fed tax worth the LIFE?S OF OTHER AMERICAN?S SONS AND DAUGHTERS? Perhaps you own stock in KBR, or Halliburton, or CACI, or TITAN, or Blackwater. Look at the performance of these stocks in the last 3 years. See what this war is really about. Yeah, if the Dems don?t retake the Congress in November and bring back sanity ton America, all you future war profiteers should buy those stocks, because the Chimp?s Iraq problem will have to be handled by the next president. Bush has stated that. I don?t support war profiteering, only our US soldiers. So Spunket, what is your angle? Spunket, since you are so good spewing the crap you are assigned to Latrine duty. You are demoted and dismissed Private?

Reply to Lieut General Spunket

12-OCT-06

Spunket 1) No, my comment did not "directly" apply to you, but seems like any questioning of this president's decision is met with, "you are a traitor". I wanted to cut that kind-of a wimpy response off BEFORE it started. Your quote, "Whoever wrote this pro terrorist rubbish doesn't have a clue" ops, I guess it's too late. Name calling and pulling the Clinton card, "Blame Clinton" is what the Bush supporters got down. 2) No, I don't believe my reading "comprension" needs works, but may I suggest you work on you logical reasoning. 3) Your quote, "The fact is that your screed simply advocates allowing them to operate and build their nuclear weapons capability", does that include U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfield? You missed the last point, let me offer clarity to you. Which war profiteer sold North Korea its' ability to manufacture Nukes? "U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld served on the board of a Swiss company that in 2000 sold light water nuclear reactors to the government of North Korea, which critics including Pentagon hardliners say could be used to produce nuclear weapons. Rumsfeld's involvement in the $200 million deal with the Zurich-based engineering company ABB is seen as an embarrassment to the Bush administration, which vehemently opposed the deal during the 2000 presidential campaign, reports the London-based Guardian. 'One could draw the conclusion that economic and personal interests took precedent over non-proliferation,' said Steve LaMontagne of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Rumsfeld sat on the ABB board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration. Asked about the reactor deal, the defense secretary told the Guardian that he 'did not recall it being brought before the board at any time.'" Yeah right "And despite placing North Korea in its 'Axis of Evil,' the Bush administration apparently has fewer concerns about ABB's reactors now that Rummy's running things at the Pentagon. In January, 2006 the president authorized $3.5 million to keep the project going." Craig Cox Your quote, "Now, make sure you tell us that mullahs with nukes are not a threat to humanity and explain why?" Is Rummy a mullah? Seems like he had a lot to do with the North Korean's Nukes. 4) Your quotes, "obvious your hero is Chomsky" nope. 5) Your quote, "Like mentioning the comments some of the extremely few disgruntled, deposed generals, or incompetent former CIA officials?" my, my, my, where do I start? Let's start with two generals who led combat troops in Iraq: Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack Jr., who commanded the 82nd Airborne Division, and Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who led the First Infantry Division (the "Big Red One"). These men recently sacrificed their careers by retiring and joining the public protest. Seems like Batiste has real issues with Rummy. Let me quote a few things Army Major General John R.S. Batiste, had to say on September 26, 2006, during a congressional Policy Committee where NOT ONE GOP house member chose to attend. "My name is John Batiste. I left the military on principle on November 1, 2005, after more than 31 years of service. I walked away from promotion and a promising future serving our country. I hung up my uniform because I came to the gut-wrenching realization that I could do more good for my soldiers and their families out of uniform. I am a West Point graduate, the son and son-in-law of veteran career soldiers, a two-time combat veteran with extensive service in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, AND A LIFE-LONG REPUBLICAN. Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense's leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities. This is all about accountability and setting our nation on the path to victory. There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan. Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. He knows everything, except how to win. He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq, or the human dimension of warfare. Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build 'his plan,' which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace, and set Iraq up for self-reliance. He refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency, which was an absolute certainty. Bottom line, his plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today.?" It gets worst... "Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq. He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency. He violated fundamental principles of war, dismissed deliberate military planning, ignored the hard work to build the peace after the fall of Saddam Hussein, set the conditions for Abu Ghraib and other atrocities that further ignited the insurgency, disbanded Iraqi security force institutions when we needed them most, constrained our commanders with an overly restrictive de-Ba athification policy, and failed to seriously resource the training and equipping of the Iraqi security forces as our main effort." And even worst.. "Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension. America went to war with 'his plan' and to say that he listens to his generals is disingenuous. We are fighting with his strategy. He reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war, and caused delays in the approval of troop requirements and the deployment process, which tied the hands of commanders while our troops were in contact with the enemy." There is more of the same stuff, but I'm sure you don't want to read it. And, Army Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack when asked whether he believes the United States is losing, he said, "I think strategically, we are". Other US generals that oppose Bush's policy of war for profit in Iraq: Gen. George Casey Gen. John Abizaid Lieut. Gen. William Odom Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki Marine Lieut. Gen. Gregory Newbold Gen. Barry McCaffrey Lieut. Gen. William Odom calls the Iraq War "the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States" and draws a grim parallel with the Vietnam War. He says that US strategy in Iraq, as in Vietnam, has served almost exclusively the interests of our enemies." But, I guess you know more than these US General: all of which served in combat and in Iraq. So Lieut General Spunket what is your next Order? Buy GE stock, yes Sir. Work on your logic please.. TRACTOR we are working on it. To quote Army Major General John R.S. Batiste (retired), "I challenge the American people to get informed and speak out. Remember that the Congress represents and works for the people. Congressional oversight committees have been strangely silent for too long, and our elected officials must step up to their responsibilities or be replaced. This is not about partisan politics, but rather what is good for our country." Next American election is NOV 7, 2006. Time for a change. BOBMACK, your next on the queue.

ike deployed to attack iran w/o congressional approval

11-OCT-06

Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21. The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress. "This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.) Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date--in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." So what is the White House planning? Given the President's assertion that the nation is fighting a "global war on terror" and that he is Commander in Chief of that "war," his prominent linking of the Iran regime with terror has to be seen as a deliberate effort to claim his right to carry the fight there. Bush has repeatedly insisted that the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force that preceded the invasion of Afghanistan was also an authorization for an unending "war on terror." Even as Bush was making not-so-veiled threats at the UN, his former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, a sharp critic of any unilateral US attack on Iran, was in Norfolk, not far from the Eisenhower, advocating further diplomatic efforts to deal with Iran's nuclear program--itself tantalizing evidence of the policy struggle over whether to go to war, and that those favoring an attack may be winning that struggle. "I think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran," says Gardiner. "It's a terrible idea, it's against US law and it's against international law, but I think they've decided to do it." Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, "the Iranians have many more options than we do: They can activate Hezbollah; they can organize riots all over the Islamic world, including Pakistan, which could bring down the Musharraf government, putting nuclear weapons into terrorist hands; they can encourage the Shia militias in Iraq to attack US troops; they can blow up oil pipelines and shut the Persian Gulf." Most of the major oil-producing states in the Middle East have substantial Shiite populations, which has long been a concern of their own Sunni leaders and of Washington policy-makers, given the sometimes close connection of Shiite populations to Iran's religious rulers. Of course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm antiship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian antiship weapons, against which the Navy has little reliable defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing been a Bush MO to date. Chomsky has long argued that Washington's leaders aren't crazy, and would not take such a step--though more recently, he has seemed less sanguine about Administration sanity and has suggested that leaks about war plans may be an effort by military leaders--who are almost universally opposed to widening the Mideast war--to arouse opposition to such a move by Bush and war advocates like Cheney. Dreyfuss, meanwhile, in an article for the online journal TomPaine.com, focuses on the talk of diplomacy in Bush's Monday UN speech, not on his threats, and concludes that it means "the realists have won" and that there will be no Iran attack. But all these war skeptics may be whistling past the graveyard. After all, it must be recalled that Bush also talked about seeking diplomatic solutions the whole time he was dead-set on invading Iraq, and the current situation is increasingly looking like a cheap Hollywood sequel. The United States, according to Gardiner and others, already reportedly has special forces operating in Iran, and now major ship movements are looking ominous. Representative Maurice Hinchey, a leading Democratic critic of the Iraq War, informed about the Navy PTDOs and about the orders for the full Eisenhower Strike Group to head out to sea, said, "For some time there has been speculation that there could be an attack on Iran prior to November 7, in order to exacerbate the culture of fear that the Administration has cultivated now for over five or six years. But if they attack Iran it will be a very bad mistake, for the Middle East and for the US. It would only make worse the antagonism and fear people feel towards our country. I hope this Administration is not so foolish and irresponsible." He adds, "Military people are deeply concerned about the overtaxing of the military already." Calls for comment from the White House on Iran war plans and on the order for the Eisenhower Strike Group to deploy were referred to the National Security Council press office, which declined to comment. McGovern, who had first told a group of anti-Iraq War activists Sunday on the National Mall in Washington, DC, during an ongoing action called "Camp Democracy," about his being alerted to the strike group deployment, warned, "We have about seven weeks to try and stop this next war from happening." One solid indication that the dispatch of the Eisenhower is part of a force buildup would be if the carrier Enterprise--currently in the Arabian Sea, where it has been launching bombing runs against the Taliban in Afghanistan, and which is at the end of its normal six-month sea tour--is kept on station instead of sent back to the United States. Arguing against simple rotation of tours is the fact that the Eisenhower's refurbishing and its dispatch were rushed forward by at least a month. A report from the Enterprise on the Navy's official website referred to its ongoing role in the Afghanistan fighting, and gave no indication of plans to head back to port. The Navy itself has no comment on the ship's future orders. Jim Webb, Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration and currently a Democratic candidate for Senate in Virginia, expressed some caution about reports of the carrier deployment, saying, "Remember, carrier groups regularly rotate in and out of that region." But he added, "I do not believe that there should be any elective military action taken against Iran without a separate authorization vote by the Congress. In my view, the 2002 authorization which was used for the invasion of Iraq should not extend to Iran." Seems like the evil chimp needs another invasion to keep his sorry a** from getting impeached.

Politician BS...

05-OCT-06

Can't trust the Democrats.... Anyone that trusts Bush is brain dead... Period It was great of all the voluteers who were at ground zero doing search and rescue. I know they didn't do that for the thanks, but thanks for your unselfish actions. That is what makes Americans great. Now the truth part, and hold on, cuz it ain't pretty. Invading and occupying Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. The justification for Iraq.. well we may as well of invaded Canada. Just think about all the innocent Iraqi 'we' killed with the 'Shock and Awe' because 'Saddam was an evil man'; and Bush bragging to America about the carriage. Perhap next to the 911 rememberance, we should alos place an Iraqi memorial. Bush used patriotism for his PNAC Nation Building. The real truth is coming out now about what Bush knew, and when he was warned about Al Qaeda planned attacks. Don't believe me, google 'PDB aug 6 2001', or 'June 10 2001 Rice Tenet', or 'CIA warned bush Texas Ranch Bin Laden', and see for yourself. And after the CIA briefing, Bush told the CIA agents "All right, you've covered your ass now". Bush let 911 happen for his new Pearl Habor and made chumps out of Americans. Don't believe me, do the research.

Skyline part #2 - Death comes a knocking

08-APR-06

Some time ago, in the mid 80's, two high school friends and I were riding Skyline. I recall I was on my 1976 Yamaha RD400. That was a great bike! We would ride from highway 9 to Alice, stop at the gas station's parking lot across from Alice, BS for a bit, ride back to the just built parking lot at the intersection of highway 9 and Skyline, stop, and then BS there for awhile. Funny, but that is what most of the Bay Area bikers do up there: ride between the two parking lots, stop and then BS. After the second BS session, we started back towards Alice. I was riding in the lead, and as I exited a turn a few miles from the CDF station, I saw a bike wrapped around a telephone pole. No rider or any other bikes were around. I immediately stop, and ran down the hill. Afterwards, one of my friends, who initially didn't see the bike, told me he thought I lost my mind, and wondered what the Hell I was doing. Down the hill, about 150 yards from the pole/bike combo, there was a guy strung up in a barb wire fence. The victim was wearing sneezers, Sweat pants, and a long sleeve shirt. He was not wearing a jacket or gloves. Thank God he had on a full face helmet. He landed parallel into the wire, and his impact broke one post, and bent another post into the ground. Probably that barb wire deaden the impact of his flight/landing and temporaily save his life; but, we all knew he was dieing. His head was tilted up at a 45 degree angle, he was unconscious, and his breathing was becoming impeded by fluids (no doubt blood) entering his lungs. We also knew better than to touch him or move him. After seeing the victim, one friend, without any additional hesitation, said he would go for help. As he was running up the hill, I yelled out for him not to f*** around and if he ran across a cop, to have the cop immediate call for an ambulance. I knew the chances were good that he would come across a cop before he came across a pay phone, because it was about that time when the CHPs and San Mateo Sheriffs increased their patrols on Skyline. In the early and mid 80's, Skyline had become a biker's cemetery with about one biker off-ing themselves each week during the months of summer. My friend was thinking clearly, and he went back to the closest destination for help, the CDF station. Luckily for the guy in the wire, a CHP officer just arrived there. Within 10 minutes both were back. Perhaps the officer just ate lunch, because when he first saw the guy strung up in the barb wire, I though he was going to puke. I immediately asked if the officer called for an ambulance, and when the CHPer said no, I looked directly at my friend who went for help. I must have looked really p***ed, because without me saying a word, my friend blurted out that when he first made contact with the officer, he told the CHPer to call for an ambulance. I then looked at the CHPer, probably looking even more p***ed, and without me saying a word, the officer said he would call for an ambulance and a helo to evac the guy off the mountain. Cool I thought, perhaps the guy will have a chance with the helo. It took another 10 minutes for the paramedics to arrive. During the wait, the CHPer said he was just assigned up there, and for one moment I felt sorry for the guy. Someone else said something like welcome to the circus or something s*** like that, and the officer started asking us questions about the biker scene up at Skyline. The victim's breathing was becoming more and more impaired and less frequent. At one moment he (the dude in the wire) came around, and he tried to remove himself from his self induced prison. I was yelled at him not to move, and screaming help was on the way. He really didn't have the strength to get out of the wire, but I didn't want the guy to be thrashing around and do any more damage to himself. He started, or tried to take his helmet off, while I kept on screaming at him not to move. One friend then told me that he was trying to unlatch his helmet strap, so I did that for the guy. He then black out. We all knew this guy's time on this earth was quickly coming to an end, and sooner than later he would stop breathing and we would have to unravel him from the wire, drain out his lungs and do mouth to mouth. The clear thinking friend [a Berkley Grad] came up with the best plan, that clarified which way to roll the guy, and that my learned friend probably could cut the wire with the pliers he had under his KZ650 seat. The CHPer said he had wire cutters in his vehicle, and just as the he started up the hill, the paramedics came running down. All three of us had more than enough of that scene, and as we started walking up the hill (with the CHPer), the officer asked if we saw the crash. We all said no, and we all arrived after the accident. The office accepted that, and the three of us rode back to Alice. At the parking lot across from Alice, I don't imagine that 50 words were spoken between the three of us. We just stood there in...well in shock. Some guy did pull up and said that there was an accident and the cops closed down Skyline. I don't believe any of us said more than two words, 'we know'. It's very hard to stand around and watch someone die when there is nothing you can do to prevent it from happening. We heard the helo come in, and that was about when I said I had enough, and my other two friends agreed as we all parted ways. The Berkley Grad called Stanford and checked the newspaper during the following week. He told me no biker died on Skyline that weekend, so I assume our victim survived. It took about one month for any of us to made it back up on Skyline for another ride.

Skyline SFO Bay Area.. part #1

07-APR-06

There are so many stories about Skyline (a stretch of asphalt that runs along a ridge top south of San Francisco, California); I know I will not be able to tell it all in one blog, so, I will break my tales up into multiple entries. During the late 70's and 80's there was an unofficial club up there called the 100 Milers. No, I was not a member since entry into the club was, in my opinion, too steep of a price. The cost of entry? Run your bike with the average speed of 100+ miles per hours, from the intersection of highway 9 and highway 35 (Skyline), to the intersection of highway 84 and highway 35. Now don't be confused with the name of those so called highways, cuz those roads are two lane mountain twisties. I recall one day, I was riding with a group of three other guys, and they decided to do the stretch in the required time. After we departed highway 9, I observed after each turn, they were farther and farther in front of me... until they were no longer in sight. Yeah, they all ran the distance in the required club membership time, but I didn't, and I never have. I was never that fast, and today I'm even slower. I don't regret never being able to join that club. It's better to know and respect your limits. All good things must end sooner or later. In the late 80's too many bikers were dieing up there trying to join the club so, the CHPs and San Mateo Sheriffs increased their patrols on that stretch of asphalt. Lots of money can be made off tickets. Today, during the warm summer months, it's almost impossible to do that stretch of highway without see an officer on patrol. At the intersection of highway 84 and skyline is a meeting place for bikers. It's called Alice restaurant. You can check it out on the web if you Google, 'Alice skyline'. There you can see a few pics, and a warning about the cops; believe it.

Missing blog..

06-APR-06

Yeah a blog entry I created disappeared. I've read other peoples comments about bugs at this site. In the missing msg I did mention HD wrenches and bud smoking? Ya think the sites police would iggy a mesage just because of that?

Tasty San Francisco Piece of Asphalt

03-APR-06

As summer draws near I've been thinking about biking one of my favorite roads. Located South/ South East of San Francisco Bay its' a gem of a road that most bikers have yet to discover. If you mapquest Mount Hamilton, CA you will see where I'm chatting about. The road trip starts for the people in the Bay Area in San Jose. Directions - run Highway 680 to Alum Rock Ave and head East (toward the hills) on Alum Rock Ave. Go thru a few stop lights, I don't recall the number, and as you start up the hill turn right on Mt Hamilton Road. Easy eh? At the top of the Hill (the Mountain) there is an observatory that is open to the public during day light hours. It has clean restrooms, a water fountain, and a vending machine or two. Checking out the observatory is worth the trip alone. On a clear day you can see a panoramic view of the Bay Area. This road is very twisty and is mostly a sport bike adventure. Note, there is a local Santa Clara County Sheriff that lives up there, and he patrols the parking lot and the area that is visible from the top of the mountain, so don't speed at the top, and don't go up there with expired tags or if you were just highlighted on America's Most Wanted, because you will be ticketed/arrested. There also is a helo pad up there just in case you need an evac; don't laugh, a friend of mine did utilize that service.... The front side of the route is some what of a job for a big or cruiser bike, but I do it on a liter without too much pain. The ideal tool would be 600 or even a 250. Also note, Santa Clara County Sheriffs run from San Jose to about half way up the Mountain (Grants Park), but after than it's wide open until the top; but, you probably can't go faster than 55 on any section of this part of Mount Hamilton Rd because its' so twisty. The backside of the route, (continuing East) down the other side, will take you to Highway 5 (Patterson) or into Livermore and Highway 580. This section of the road, is called San Antonio Valley Rd. Don't worry about getting lost because there is only one road to the Junction, no s*** it's called the Junction. I've never seen any patrols running this section of asphalt, and once you get down the mountain, 3 digits speeds are not uncommon. At the Junction, there is a small cafe where all type of bikers meet; but mostly keeping to their own kind. If you continue East, the road changes its' name to Del Puerto Canyon Rd, and you will end up intersecting Highway 5 at Diablo Grande Pkwy. A county park is alone this way, just in case you want to camp. If you head North at the Junction, the road changes its' name to Mines. Continue running the road North until you arrive at the only intersection, and then turn right (North), and continue to the next intersection, Tesla Rd, and turn left to get to Highway 580. Going South (left) at Mines road will take you to Del Valle Park, which is also nice, and has camping, and showers, but is a dead-end. Don't do this trip if your bike can not go 90 miles on a tank of gas because there is no gas along the way. If you are on a big bike and don't want to work hard, you can get to Mount Hamilton from 580 or 5. Like I mentioned, most cruiser run the backside of Hamilton. Lots of speed, and even though it's an open cattle range, it's all wired along road, so the cattle are on the right side of life. Also note, at night and early morning deer will be out. Another friend broke both wrists avoiding one. Closer to the summer some friends: racers and ex-racers meet on Wednesday afternoon at the Shell Gas Station on Alum Rock to run up and over to Livermore. I feel the need for speed. Tasty

Beam me up Scotty

01-APR-06

Does anyone remember AMA dirt track miles.... Scott Parker, Chris Carr, Jay Springer, Ricky Graham? Scott retired, Graham died in a house fire, and only Carr is left running the mile. Those were the 'good old days'. Everything changes. It was at the Sac mile [Sacramento Ca] that I first learned about BikerKiss. That was back in the early or mid 90's. Seems like yesterday.