Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts

Sunday, December 16, 2007

The Other War- Afghanistan


In the infamous 'War on Terror', Afghanistan is almost a sad footnote. Troop levels were never adequate, poor planning and coordination, soaring drug production and the incompetence of Karzai and the government in Kabul have all contributed to a sense that this war could be lost. The New York Times has a good editorial this morning which looks at this issue.

One of the biggest problems is that when NATO took command in Afghanistan, many members expected that most of the fighting would be over and their troops would focus on development and stabilization. Instead, they are increasingly taking casualties, and European leaders have still failed to tell their citizens why Afghanistan matters — and why a major effort must be made to deny the Taliban and Al Qaeda a safe haven.

We understand Mr. Gates’s frustration. He might do better with the Europeans if he told another truth: Before NATO got involved, Washington never had enough troops in Afghanistan, nor did it have a coherent strategy for stabilizing and developing the country. Its decision to invade Iraq ended up shortchanging the effort even more. Too few ground troops, meanwhile, meant too much reliance on airstrikes, leading to too many civilian casualties, which fanned popular anger and resistance.

By the end of last week, Mr. Gates and European officials agreed that instead of trading blame they would begin a much needed top-to-bottom review of their strategy. Better late than never. The review must look at everything: politics, development, counternarcotics and security. It must find ways to improve coordination between NATO, Washington and Kabul. It must acknowledge that European and American troops will most likely have to remain there for many years. And it must be done quickly, before Afghanistan unravels even more.


Before urging that the military go forth on new and more exciting adventures (i.e. Iran), it would be wise to step back and see the results of our recent actions in this fight against 'terrorism'.

Thursday, December 6, 2007

Naomi Klein- The Shock Doctrine

I have written about this before, but thought that this recent interview was worth a look.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Shock Doctrine- US in Iraq for Years?


I read with interest bit no surprise yesterday that Bush and Iraqi PM al-Maliki had signed a long term 'agreement' committing American forces in Iraq for years. The stated purpose was to protect the government in Baghdad from internal coup plots and foreign enemies. The corrupt Iraqi government, no matter how unpopular, will be protected by its puppet masters in Washington for years to come.

Iraq's government, seeking protection against foreign threats and internal coups, will offer the U.S. a long-term troop presence in Iraq in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership, two Iraqi officials said Monday.

The proposal, described to The Associated Press by two senior Iraqi officials familiar with the issue, is one of the first indications that the United States and Iraq are beginning to explore what their relationship might look like once the U.S. significantly draws down its troop presence.

In Washington, President Bush's adviser on the Iraqi war, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, confirmed the proposal, calling it "a set of principles from which to begin formal negotiations."


What really caught my attention in the whole story was this little detail:

U.S. troops and other foreign forces operate in Iraq under a U.N. Security Council mandate, which has been renewed annually since 2003. Iraqi officials have said they want that next renewal — which must be approved by the U.N. Security Council by the end of this year — to be the last.

The two senior Iraqi officials said Iraqi authorities had discussed the broad outlines of the proposal with U.S. military and diplomatic representatives. The Americans appeared generally favorable subject to negotiations on the details, which include preferential treatment for American investments, according to the Iraqi officials involved in the discussions.
That is the real story here. We are going to prop up a puppet government in Iraq, commit our armed forces for years and continue to pay taxpayer subsidized private armies all to make Iraq safe for U.S. companies in Iraq. Was this the intention all along? Grab a foothold in the Middle East to project U.S. power through the region and have access to the many resources that are there?

As a side, I am reminded once again of Naomi Klein, author of Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Take a look at this video and how it relates to what we see today.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Noam Chomsky on Iran

Iraq, Iran.....Groundhog Day

Obey, Murtha Say Bush Can Get Iraq Money


I am so tired of hearing Republican shrieks that Democrats are somehow tying the Pentagon's hands by not passing a war spending bill. The troops will do without, they cry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) and Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the Defense subcommittee on Appropriations, said President Bush can receive all $200 billion in new funding he wants to pay for the Iraq war next year, as long as he agrees to their demands to set a non-binding "goal" for withdrawing most U.S. combat troops by Dec. 2008.

The two senior Democrats also repeatedly slammed Pentagon officials for claiming that the Defense Department may have to shut down some military depots, and lay off civilian employees, if the Iraq funding bill is not enacted soon. Murtha called the charge "despicable," and he angrily yelled at a reporter at one point during today's press conference, asking "Do you believe the Pentagon?"

Obey said the "bridge fund" passed by the House before it left for a two-week recess includes "three simple requests" that must be met before he agrees to any release any of Iraq funding - more training and better equipment for troops before they are deployed to Iraq; adoption of the Army Field Manual's prohibition on torture by all U.S. government agencies; and "the president produce a plan to end our military involvement in Iraq by the end, not this year, but next year. That is another 14 months. That is more than 400 days. That is hardly a precipitous withdrawal."

There you go. The money is there but it doesn't pass the Republican 100% approval test. Last week, the House passed a $50 billion bill that would keep operations afloat for several more months, but sets a goal of bringing most troops home by December 2008. After Bush threatened to veto the measure, Senate Republicans blocked it.

Just who is obstructing here? The Democrats who passed a funding bill with non-binding measures attached, or the Republicans, who perceive any challenge to Bush as somehow akin to treason?

Sunday, November 18, 2007

The War Profiteers- Enough is Enough

There is a must read article in this months Vanity Fair entitled The People vs. the Profiteers. The story told is an amazing look inside the world of the for-profit war machine and the often horrific actions taken by some of the largest defense contractors in Iraq. Here is but one example that the article makes note of:

Consider the case of Grayson's client Bud Conyers, a big, bearded 43-year-old who lives with his ex-wife and her nine children, four of them his, in Enid, Oklahoma. Conyers worked in Iraq as a driver for Kellogg, Brown & Root. Spun off by Halliburton as an independent concern in April, KBR is the world's fifth-largest construction company. Before the war started, the Pentagon awarded it two huge contracts: one, now terminated, to restore the Iraqi oil industry, and another, still in effect, to provide a wide array of logistical-support services to the U.S. military.

In the midday heat of June 16, 2003, Conyers was summoned to fix a broken refrigerated truck—a "reefer," in contractor parlance—at Log Base Seitz, on the edge of Baghdad's airport. He and his colleagues had barely begun to inspect the sealed trailer when they found themselves reeling from a nauseating stench. The freezer was powered by the engine, and only after they got it running again, several hours later, did they dare open the doors.

The trailer, unit number R-89, had been lying idle for two weeks, Conyers says, in temperatures that daily reached 120 degrees. "Inside, there were 15 human bodies," he recalls. "A lot of liquid stuff had just seeped out. There were body parts on the floor: eyes, fingers. The goo started seeping toward us. Boom! We shut the doors again." The corpses were Iraqis, who had been placed in the truck by a U.S. Army mortuary unit that was operating in the area. That evening, Conyers's colleague Wallace R. Wynia filed an official report: "On account of the heat the bodies were decomposing rapidly.… The inside of the trailer was awful."

It is not unheard of for trucks in a war zone to perform hearse duty. But both civilian and U.S.-military regulations state that once a trailer has been used to store corpses it can never again be loaded with food or drink intended for human consumption. According to the U.S. Army's Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, "Contact with whole or part human remains carries potential risks associated with pathogenic microbiological organisms that may be present in human blood and tissue." The diseases that may be communicated include aids,hepatitis, tuberculosis, septicemia, meningitis, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human variant of mad cow.

It only gets worse...

But when Bud Conyers next caught sight of trailer R-89, about a month later, it was packed not with human casualties but with bags of ice—ice that was going into drinks served to American troops. He took photographs, showing the ice bags, the trailer number, and the wooden decking, which appeared to be stained red. Another former KBR employee, James Logsdon, who now works as a police officer near Enid, says he first saw R-89 about a week after Conyers's grisly discovery. "You could still see a little bit of matter from the bodies, stuff that looked kind of pearly, and blood from the stomachs. It hadn't even been hosed down. Afterwards, I saw that truck in the P.W.C.—the public warehouse center—several times. There's nothing there except food and ice. It was backed up to a dock, being loaded."

As late as August 31, 11 weeks after trailer R-89 was emptied of the putrefying bodies, a KBR convoy commander named Jeff Allen filed a mission log stating that it had carried 5,000 pounds of ice that day. This ice, Allen wrote, was "bio-contaminated." But to his horror, on that day alone, "approx 1,800 pounds [were] used."

This is but one example of many of how the privatization of war has been nothing short of a disaster. Slogans that echo from the past such as "Duty, Honor, Country" have been replaced with "Profit, Profit and More Profit". It is the height of insanity for a country to depend on the actions of a private company unrestrained by any type of law to do its war bidding. Private mercenaries have no oath other than to their company. The company has no oath other than to its shareholders.

Americans from all sides of the political divide should be against such the privatization of our armed forces and we owe it to our men and women in uniform to speak out against it. Our military, once the greatest and well run in the world, is slowly dying the death of a thousand cuts.

Sunday Matinee- Iraq For Sale


This for all of you 'fiscal conservatives' who care about the 'people's money'...

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Bush Repeats Third World War Warning


This madness can't end soon enough...

German TV interview:
US president repeats “Third World War” warning
by Ulrich Rippert

Shortly before the arrival on Saturday of German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas, George W. Bush declared, “We definitely need Germany’s help on issues like Iran.”

He thus made it clear that the visit of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) chancellor, which came immediately after the Washington talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, should be seen in direct connection with US threats of war against Iran.

In an interview with the German news channel n-tv, Bush reaffirmed that Iran must put an immediate halt to its uranium enrichment program and repeated his warning of a Third World War. “You know,” he said, “if you want to have a Third World War, you need only drop a nuclear bomb on Israel.” He added that this was “neither a prediction nor a wish.”

Prior to her departure from Berlin, the German chancellor said she would deliver “a clear message” in Texas. She would make “every effort to convince the American president of the need for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute with Iran.” The Financial Times Germany quoted Merkel saying that a military strike “simply cannot be allowed to take place.”

These words were addressed less to Washington than to the German population. The chancellor’s advisers had already stressed to Merkel the need to maintain a certain outward distance from the American president and not make too obvious an adaptation during her visit to the Bush ranch. Her trip should be perceived “as a counterweight” to the visit of Sarkozy, who had just completed “an emotionally-charged ‘reconciliation and hug’ tour through the US capital,” wrote Spiegel Online.

Should she act otherwise, Merkel could expect an adverse reaction from the German public. Her predecessor as chancellor, Social Democratic Party (SPD) leader Gerhard Schröder, had assured his re-election in 2002 with rhetoric directed against the Bush administration and the Iraq war, against a background of strong anti-war sentiment among the German people.

But the real attitude of the head of the German government was made clear in her support for tougher sanctions against Teheran. Commenting to the Berliner Zeitung, Merkel said she was banking on “the determination of the international community, including Russia and China.” She added, “If the current talks are not successful, then Germany will also be willing to implement further, tougher sanctions.”

In her remarks to the newspaper, Merkel once again sought to portray sanctions as instruments of a negotiated solution. But this is pure eyewash.

In the Berlin chancellery, everyone is well aware that the strengthening of economic and political pressure against the Iranian government is part of an escalation strategy for a military attack against Iran that has been set in motion by the most aggressive sections of the US administration. Five years ago this was precisely the strategy advanced against Iraq.

In fact, the die in the chancellery had been cast long before. The Berlin government would like to avoid a further military escalation in the Middle East and fears an uncontrollable conflagration with unforeseeable consequences. But if the American war preparations against Tehran are put into effect, the chancellor and her Social Democratic foreign minister will line up with Washington. This is the real message Merkel took to Crawford.

Behind the warm images of friendly hugs and congenial walks in the woods by Merkel and Bush lies the complicity of imperialist regimes on the eve of a new military adventure which will have devastating consequences.

There are several reasons for the shift in foreign policy in Paris and Berlin. It is not predominantly a result of a change of government in both countries. Rather, the Iraq war and the military and economic disaster it has produced have permanently changed relations between the major powers.

For months, Berlin government circles have been discussing how best, in the words of former foreign minister and Green Party leader Joschka Fischer, to respond “to the self-imposed decline of the United States.” Bush’s repeated declaration, “We need the Germans,” was registered with satisfaction in Berlin. The German government is once again ambitiously seeking to increase its sphere of influence as a world power and believes that, at least at this stage, it is preferable to pursue its own imperialist interests as a junior partner of Washington.

The chancellor’s own position with regard to relations with Washington is in line with her past policy. She uncritically endorsed Bush’s war policy from the very outset.

Like many leading figures in Eastern European politics, Merkel was politicized during the collapse of the Stalinist regime. Her anti-communism and her enthusiasm for capitalism are closely linked to a fascination with the unrestrained enrichment of the corporate elite that has taken place in the United States, as well as its claim to global political supremacy.

By giving support to Bush, the German as well as the French governments are complicit in the preparation of a wider war in the Middle East, which, given the growing tensions with Russia and China, will have far graver consequences than the Iraq war and could easily escalate into a global confrontation. In this context, Bush’s warnings of a Third World War must be taken very seriously.

The friendly hugs and mutual praise between Bush and Merkel should not be mistaken for a resolution of growing transatlantic tensions. The United States on its side had been closely observing the growing aggressiveness of German foreign policy.

According to the latest edition of the monthly Iran Report, published by the Heinrich Böll Foundation, fierce confrontations have taken place between government representatives from the United States, France and Germany over their respective economic activities in Iran.

According to the report, German Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier (SPD) accused the American government of being hypocritical. He charged the US government with imposing sanctions to curb the expansion of the German economy in its major market of Iran while facilitating the operations of American firms through front companies operating from Dubai.

Under the headline “Germany No Longer Iran’s Leading Trading Partner,” the report declares that “after nearly three decades” the German economy will have to cede to China its role as leading trade partner with Iran.

Working people must be on guard and draw their own conclusions. Support for Washington’s war policy means a return to imperialist politics in its most aggressive and brutal form.

This trend is not limited just to German foreign policy. In the past, “stability” in terms of foreign and domestic policy was closely bound up with so-called “social partnership” and the maintenance of a degree of social harmony in Germany and other European countries. A return to imperialist militarism means a new stage in the assault on social and democratic rights.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

2007 Deadliest Year for Troops in Iraq

We've really turned the corner....it's safer now....we won..... Oh, and CNN reports that 2007 was the deadliest year for troops in Iraq....

Cancer in Iraq Vets


We've been down this road before. Veterans falling ill to exposure to a host of chemicals and toxic substances during wartime. During Vietnam it was 'Agent Orange', back in the early 90's it was 'Gulf War Syndrome', and today it now appears that Iraq Vets are suffering from symptoms of exposure due to depleted uranium. Although this is a very serious issue, little mention is made by our traditional media. I came across this article which sheds light on this topic:

Cancer in Iraq vets raises possibility of toxic exposure


After serving in Vietnam nearly 40 years ago — and receiving the Bronze Star for it — the Tucson soldier was called back to active duty in Iraq.

While there, he awoke one morning with a sore throat. Eighteen months later, Army Sgt. James Lauderdale was dead, of a bizarrely aggressive cancer rarely seen by the doctors who tried to treat it.

As a result, his stunned and heartbroken family has joined growing ranks of sickened and dying Iraq war vets and their families who believe exposures to toxic poisons in the war zone are behind their illnesses — mostly cancers, striking the young, taking them down with alarming speed.
The number of these cancers remains undisclosed, with military officials citing patient privacy issues, as well as lack of evidence the cases are linked to conditions in the war zone. The U.S. Congress has ordered a probe of suspect toxins and may soon begin widespread testing of our armed forces.

"He got so sick, so fast"

Jim Lauderdale was 58 when his National Guard unit was deployed to the Iraq-Kuwait border, where he helped transport arriving soldiers and Marines into combat areas.

He was a strong man, say relatives, who can't remember him ever missing a day of work for illness. And he developed a cancer of the mouth, which overwhelmingly strikes smokers, drinkers and tobacco chewers. He was none of those.

"Jim's doctors didn't know why he would get this kind of cancer — they had no answers for us," said his wife, Dixie.

"He got so sick, so fast. We really think it had to be something he was exposed to over there. So many of the soldiers we met with cancer at Walter Reed (Army Medical Center) complained about the polluted air they lived in, the brown water they had to use, the dust they breathed from exploded munitions. It was very toxic."

As a mining engineer, Lauderdale knew exactly what it meant when he saw the thick black smoke pouring nonstop out of the smokestacks that line the Iraq/Kuwait border area where he was stationed for three months in 2005.

"He wrote to me that everyone was complaining about their stinging eyes and sore throats and headaches," Dixie said. "For Jim to say something like that, to complain, was very unusual.

"One of the mothers on the cancer ward had pictures of her son bathing in the brown water," she said. "He died of kidney cancer."

Stationed in roughly the same area as Lauderdale, yet another soldier — now fighting terminal colon cancer — described the scene there, of oil refineries, a cement factory, a chlorine factory and a sulfuric acid factory, all spewing unfiltered and uncontrolled substances into the air.

"One day, we were walking toward the port and they had sulfuric acid exploding out of the stacks. We were covered with it, everything was burning on us, and we had to turn around and get to the medics," said Army Staff Sgt. Frank Valentin, 35.

Not long after, he developed intense rectal pain, which doctors told him for months was hemorrhoids. Finally diagnosed with aggressive colorectal cancer — requiring extensive surgery, resulting in a colostomy bag — he was given fewer than two years to live by his Walter Reed physicians.
He is now a couple of months past that death sentence, but his chemo drugs are starting to fail, and the cancer is eating into his liver and lungs. He spends his days with his wife and three children at their Florida home.

"I don't know how much time I have," he said.

Suspect: depleted uranium

None of these soldiers know for sure what's killing them. But they suspect it's a cascade of multiple toxic exposures, coupled with the intense stress of daily life in a war zone weakening their immune systems.

"There's so much pollution from so many sources, your body can't fight what's coming at it," Valentin said. "And you don't eat well or sleep well, ever. That weakens you, too. There's no chance to gather your strength. These are kids 19, 20 and 21 getting all kinds of cancers. The Walter Reed cancer ward is packed full with them."

The prime suspect in all this, in the minds of many victims — and some scientists — is what's known as depleted uranium — the radioactive chemical prized by the military for its ability to penetrate armored vehicles. When munitions explode, the substance hits the air as fine dust, easily inhaled.
Last month, the Iraqi environment minister blamed the tons of the chemical dropped during the war's "shock and awe" campaign for a surge of cancer cases across the country.

However, the Pentagon and U.S. State Department strongly deny this, citing four studies, including one by the World Health Organization, that found levels in war zones not harmful to civilians or soldiers. A U.N. Environmental Program study concurs, but only if spent munitions are cleared away.
Returning solders have said that isn't happening.

"When tanks exploded, I would handle those tanks, and there was DU everywhere," said Valentin. "This is a big issue."

The fierce Iraq winds carry desert sand and dust for miles, said Dixie Lauderdale, who suspects her husband was exposed to at least some depleted uranium. Many vets from the Gulf War blame the chemical used in that conflict for their Gulf War syndrome illnesses.
Congress orders study

As the controversy rages, Congress has ordered a comprehensive independent study, due in October, of the health effects of depleted uranium exposure on U.S. soldiers and their children. And a "DU bill" — ordering all members of the U.S. military exposed to it be identified and tested — is working its way through Congress.

"Basically, we want to get ahead of this curve, and not go through the years of painful denial we went through with Agent Orange that was the legacy of Vietnam," said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., a co-sponsor of the bill.

"We want an independent agency to do independent testing of our soldiers, and find out what's really going on. These incidents of cancer and illness that all of us are hearing about back in our districts are not just anecdotal — there is a pattern here. And yes, I do suspect DU may be at the bottom of it."
What's happening today — growing numbers of sickened soldiers who say they were exposed to it amid firm denials of harm from military brass — almost mirrors the early stages of the Agent Orange aftermath. It took the U.S. military almost two decades to admit the powerful chemical defoliant killed and disabled U.S. troops in the jungles of Vietnam, and to begin compensating them for it.

Doctors flabbergasted

Whatever it was that struck Jim Lauderdale did a terrifying job of it.

Sent to Walter Reed with oral cancer in April 2005, he underwent his first extensive and disfiguring surgery, removing half his tongue to get to tumors in the mouth and throat. A second surgery followed a month later to clear out more of those areas.

Five months later, another surgery removed a new neck tumor. Then came heavy chemotherapy and radiation.

Shortly after, he had a massive heart attack, undergoing another surgery to place stents in his arteries. Two weeks later, the cancer was back and growing rapidly, forcing a fourth surgery in January 2006.

By this time, much of his neck and shoulder tissue was gone, and doctors tried to reconstruct a tongue, using tissue from his wrist. He couldn't swallow, so was fed through a tube into his stomach.

Just weeks later, four external tumors appeared on his neck — "literally overnight," his wife said.

Suffering severe complications from the chemo drugs, Lauderdale endured 39 radiation treatments, waking up one night bleeding profusely through his burned skin. The day after his radiation ended, new external tumors erupted at the edge of the radiation field, flabbergasting his doctors.

"As this aggressive disease grew though chemoradiation, it was determined at this point there was no chance for cure," his oncologist wrote then.
By then, the cancer had spread to his lungs and spine and, most frightening of all, "hundreds and thousands" of tumors were erupting all over his upper body, his wife said.

"The doctors said they'd never seen anything like it — that this happens in only 1 percent of cases," she said.

Efforts to contact his doctors at Walter Reed were unsuccessful, but a leading head-and-neck cancer specialist at the Arizona Cancer Center reviewed the course of Lauderdale's disease.

"This a a very wrenching case," said Dr. Harinder Garewal. "This is unusually aggressive behavior for an oral cancer. I would agree it happens in only 1 percent of cases."

When oral cancer occurs in nonsmokers and non-drinkers, it tends to be more aggressive, he said.

"My feeling is the immune system for some reason can't handle the cancer," he said.

Jim Lauderdale died on July 14, 2006, and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Dixie and their two grown children still feel the raw grief of loss, but not anger, she said.

"But I am convinced something very wrong is happening over there. Is anyone paying attention to this? Is the cancer ward still full?" she asked. "I would hate to see another whole generation affected like this, but I'm very afraid it will be."

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Countdown to Iraq- or is it Iran?


Listening to the news this morning, one thing became crystal clear. The calls for action in regards to Iran are growing more with each passing day. The media, who were all dead wrong about Iraq, seems to have no collective memory of the mistakes that were made before that disaster and are ready for the next adventure.

I had planned to write extensively about this but instead would like to share this movie with you which shows the many deceptions and outright falsehoods in the buildup to the war in Iraq. We must be careful not to repeat the same mistakes again.

Friday, October 5, 2007

Bush: US Does Not Torture


Bush held a press conference today in which he stated that his administration's interrogation tactics and techniques were both "successful" and "lawful". In his speech he stated, "When we find somebody who may have information regarding a potential attack on America, you bet we're going to detain them, and you bet we're going to question them. The American people expect us to find out information, actionable intelligence so we can help protect them. That's our job."

He was defending the policies of his administration following the publication in the New York Times which detailed the decision by the Justice Department to endorse some of the most harsh treatment methods that were employed by the CIA.

'We don't torture', the standard line that always comes from the White House is almost laughable where it not so sad.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The Hypocrisy of the GOP

An issue ad. A single issue ad in the New York Times. A single issue ad in the New York Times that ran for one day. A single issue ad in the New York Times that ran for one day that many people would have never seen.

But wait.....the single issue ad in the New York Times that ran for one day was destined to become one that everyone would see or hear about. Thanks to the 'manufactured outrage' that so characterizes the right wing noise machine, the ad became the topic of discussion. Not the war, not the results of the 'surge', but an ad in the New York Times.

The Republicans have propped up General Petraeus as the 'Savior of Iraq' for a while now. For months were told that no decisions regarding funding or troop levels in Iraq could be made until the famous September Petraeus Reports made the scene. Well, MoveOn changed that.

The conversation has turned from the ad to the substance of the ad. Did the General 'cook the books', as MoveOn puts it? Is the current strategy really working? Talk of the ad throughout the media keeps the attention on the one thing Republicans would rather not be focusing on--Iraq. In this aspect, I believe that the ad has been very effective. The nation needs a serious dialogue in regards to Iraq.

Oh--take a look at Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) as she discusses her 'outrage' at MoveOn. It is a simple lesson in the meaning of hypocrisy.

Saturday, September 15, 2007

John Edwards Speaks Out

Is Edwards the only Dem candidate willing to forcefully speak out on Iraq?

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Jet Set Lifestyle of Iraq Ambassador to U.N.

I'm speechless...

"IRAQ'S ambassador to the United Nations, Hamid al Bayati, likes the high life. Bayati, who's been on the job for just over a year, is said to be living in a $22,000-a-month apartment at Trump World Tower on First Avenue. He's renting while the Iraqi U.N. Mission and official ambassador's residence on East 79th Street undergo a $40 million renovation. Where did the Iraqis get the cash? Newsmax.com reports the U.N. Security Council is paying with funds it once used to finance the now-terminated U.N. Iraq arms inspectors. When asked about the lavish use of the cash, Bayati refused comment. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Zalmay Khalilzad shrugged off the Iraqis' lush lifestyle by telling reporters, "$40 million is not a lot of money." According to U.N. documents, the U.S. delegation approved the transfer of the cash from the Security Council to Iraq. All of this comes as the federal Government Accounting Office reported the war in Iraq is costing American taxpayers $12 billion monthly."

What's Up With Leash Girl- Lynndie England?

Remember her? The infamous ex- Abu Ghraib guard known for her love of leashes and asspiles? She's got a new life and a new job! As the Guardian explains:

"KEYSER, W.Va. (AP) Lynndie England, one of the most recognizable figures of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, has a new role as a volunteer member of this Eastern Panhandle city's recreation board.

England, 24, contributed her knowledge of computers, electronics and graphics for Keyser's Strawberry Festival, which helped her land the unpaid position, said Roy Hardy, the England family's attorney.

``When (council members) saw how hard she worked for the festival, they didn't hesitate to put her on the board,'' said Hardy, who is also a board member. ``If it wasn't for her, we wouldn't have been able to pull off (the Strawberry Festival). She was an absolute asset.''

England, who now works in Hardy's law firm as a legal assistant, was released in March from a military prison in San Diego after serving half her 36-month sentence. She was convicted of six counts involving prisoner mistreatment. Eleven U.S. soldiers have been convicted of crimes at the prison near Baghdad.

England was in several images taken in late 2003 by U.S. guards at Abu Ghraib. One shows her holding a naked prisoner on a leash, while in others she posed with a pyramid of naked detainees and pointed at the genitals of a prisoner while a cigarette hung from the corner of her mouth.

The photos were among several that sparked outrage and severely damaged America's image in the Muslim world.

England blamed the abuse on reputed ringleader Pvt. Charles Graner Jr., whom she said took advantage of her love and trust while deployed in Iraq. Graner received the harshest sentence, a 10-year prison term.

England and Graner were members of the 372nd Military Police Company based in western Maryland. She is from Fort Ashby, near Keyser."

I have so many issues with this story. First, how can a 'woman' who essentially helped destroy America's image abroad serve just 18 months in jail? That is an outrage. Second, she's working as a legal assistant? What! And finally, in her new role on the city's recreation board, what kind of 'games' do you think good ol' Lynndie will come up with?

Strawberries, anyone? Sometimes truth is indeed stranger than fiction!

It's August- Time For A Vacation!


On the heels of the interim report which gave the Iraqi government failing marks in showing progress, the Iraqi Parliament proceeds with plans to take a vacation the whole month of August. A whole month! Predictably, there is silence from the White House on this issue.

Add to this the recent Webb Amendment, shot down by Senate Republicans, which would have given our own soldiers much needed rest in between deployments and you don't have to be a genius to realize that all this talk of 'Support The Troops' is utter garbage (unless there is a nice photo-op, of course!). Our men and women in uniform, sent into the meatgrinder that is Iraq, have been neglected, and deserve this country's support.

Bob Schieffer of CBS News wrote a great column entitled "Baghdad Is Too Hot For Its Leaders?' offering a great perspective on this issue. He writes:

"I am still not sure that I believe it: The Iraqi parliament is going on vacation during the month of August.

The White House offers the lame excuse that, after all, Baghdad is hot in August – sometimes 130 degrees.

May I ask a follow-up?

How much hotter do you suppose it is if you are a wearing a helmet, full body armor, carrying ammunition and walking foot patrols through Baghdad?

The last I heard, that is how American troops are spending their August in Iraq.

For me, this does it.

God help the Iraqi people because there is not much America can do to help a government that leaves Americans dying in the streets while the parliament escapes to cooler climes.

Does this mean we should pull out immediately?

No. A sudden withdrawal could set the entire region aflame. The truth is there are no good options left. But from here on, we need to put aside the dream of building a democracy in Iraq and focus solely on what is in our national interest.

It won't be pretty, but for all our good intentions, about all we can do now is try to contain this mess, pull our troops back from the middle of this civil war, and concentrate instead on the terrorist threat that this country faces around the world.

As for what kind of government Iraq needs, let their parliament figure it out. They can get right on it when the Baghdad weather turns cooler."

Take a look at the response from Tony Snow on this issue- it's pathetic!

Thursday, July 12, 2007

The Politics of Fear


Appearing on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Rick Santorum, the former Republican Senator speaks of "unfortunate events" that will occur in the United States within a year and will alter Americans perception of the current war. In this interview, he stated "Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public’s going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we’re seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public’s going to have a very different view".

Unfortunately, this tactic has become quite commonplace today. It was just last month that the new head of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan, had this to say:

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on Sept. 11, 2001. And the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

I often think back to the days when our leaders, both former and current, spoke of America's great strength and determination in fighting its' enemies. Hope, strength and courage were hallmarks of the American way. Now, politicians have turned the tables and use the tactics of fear and terror to push their political agendas. Don't like my policies- face a terror attack. It's about as simple as that.

Think fear mongering politics aren't successful? Take a look at where we are today- Afghanistan the forgotten war, the disaster that is Iraq is getting worse by the day, America's reputation is in tatters and now the clouds of war are brewing on the horizon with Iran. War, War, and more War. That seems to be the order of the day.

After the billions spent in this 'War on Terror', there is not much to show for it. Recent reports show Al-Qaeda stronger than ever. Terrorists attacks and bombings have become everyday events and more and more innocent civilians caught up in this violence are killed. The military is broken and the troops that politicians so bravely hid behind are just pawns in this global chess game. Yet, we are told that we must 'stay the course', 'remain resolute' or whatever the catch phrase of the day happens to be.

So when is enough really enough? What is it going to take to make people realize that we are the car speeding along soon to go off the cliff ahead? Oh hell- let's tell them we must go a little faster because, you know, we could be attacked...

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”
FDR’s First Inaugural Address

Monday, July 9, 2007

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Dick Cheney and Impeachment


There is a movement out there...take a look.