aRealPatriot

2007-01-25T08:09:00.000-08:00

UNBELIEVABLE NEWS REGARDING THE EXPOSURE OF OUR NATIONAL ASSETS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION!!!

MAN, this is INCREDIBLE, from think progress

In the Scooter Libby trial yesterday, former Associate CIA Deputy Director Robert Grenier testified that — pursuant to a request — he told Libby that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA in June 2003, a month before Libby claimed to have learned that information from NBC’s Tim Russert. Another CIA employee said he delivered a stark warning that the Bush administration’s leak “could lead to the deaths of people who aided American intelligence gathering abroad.”

2007-01-25T04:42:00.000-08:00

THE TRIAL OF SCOOTER LIBBY

Man, lots going on in politics lately now that their is some over site back in our government the way our forefathers envisioned.

Anyway, Scooter's on trial for lying to the special prosecute, (Patrick Fitzgerald}.

Patrick was tasked with finding out who uncovered one of our covert assets and if it was deliberate, according to Patrick, scooter lied and prevented discovery.

Now, this is a breach of national security in itself, if we don't find out who exposed our assets, that person is free to continue, if there are people that want to hide the facts, it makes it impossible to file the charges that need to be filed to protect America.

The entire progressive community watching this trial visit foredoglake to get information and to give their own input. There is live blogging from attendees at the trial and their is exert analysis.

Those of you interested in the progress, visit the lake, that's the place to go

more;

I want everyone to do some searches, find and watch senator web's response to the state of the union. This was incredible, hit all the right points that need to be made un doing the damage that has been done To America in the past 6 years, points out the need to get back to the war on terrorism, the need to rebuild our military forces which have been dangerously depleted by some pretty depraved decisions,

Web is too new to run for president in 08, but he will be president one day.

I also want everyone to do another search and find all the recent videos you can of republican senator chuck hagel...hagel gets it right, the neo cons have commandeered the republican party and he wants his party back

Do the same thing with scarbourough...a very strong republican, he also gets it, realizes the damage done to our country by people making believe they are republicans...scarbourough gets it also and he wants his party back as well.

more later

2007-01-12T07:49:00.000-08:00

Republicans Abandon Their President

CLEARLY, the only people still supporting the president are the members of the sick fraternity trying to put our treasure in their pockets at the expense of our children's lives, the fraternity known as the PNAC

tee hee...I put this up on MY BLOG

HOW TO PRONOUNCE THE PNAC

Most people involved in today's political envirnment know about the "Project for a New American Century"

Those of you that don't, this is a fraternity that has campaigned politicions to occupy Iraq long before we were attacked on 9/11.

They abbreciate their fraternity with the initials "PNAC"

This abbreviation has become so common we should pronounce it as a word instead of initials.

The proper pronuncuation would obviously follow the emphasis of the entire phrase, this project for a new American centuy...will be on the "p" and the "c", however the "c" is pronounced as an "s"

therefore, the proper pronunciation of the PNAC as a word would be [phonetically];

PEEnass.

I would like to see this proper pronunciation whenever someone is refering to the PNAC from now on

2007-01-04T05:30:00.000-08:00

AND THE LORD SAID "LET THERE BE GAY"

Today in the new york times;

Bagemihl had scoured every scientific journal and paper he could lay his hands on for references to homosexuality in animals. Tucked away at the end of long and erudite texts, or consigned to footnotes and appendices, he found that homosexuality had been observed in no fewer than 1,500 species, and well documented in 500 of them. The earliest mention of animal homosexuality probably came 2,300 years ago when Aristotle described two female hyenas cavorting with each other.

The article goes further, documenting anal sex with ejaculation, lesbionism and mutual masterbation.

Pretty obvious, sex is not for procreation exclusively, unless of course you want to believe God got it wrong.

2007-01-03T05:22:00.000-08:00

THE PRESIDENT WRITES AN OP ED FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

It is disappointing that the Department of Justice and the White House have squandered another opportunity to work cooperatively with Congress. The Department's decision to brush off my request for information about the Administration's troubling interrogation policies is not the constructive step toward bipartisanship that I had hoped for, given President Bush’s promise to work with us.

I requested two documents concerning CIA interrogation methods, which the Administration recently acknowledged in a lawsuit, and other relevant information. The Administration's refusal to provide any of this information other than forwarding a couple of public documents suggests that the President's offer to work with us may have been only political lip service.

2007-01-03T05:01:00.000-08:00

PESIDENT REFUSES BIPARTISAN PARTISIPATION

Well, to be honest, nobody really expected the president to act bipartisant, what he meant was "now that the democrats are in controll I want them to go along with everything I say just as the republicans did"

In performing the requirmments of his position, senator lehey requested information that is vital for oversite, obviously the administration doesn't want oversite, they want to do whatever they want to do and they refused the documents required by the seenate;

It is disappointing that the Department of Justice and the White House have squandered another opportunity to work cooperatively with Congress. The Department's decision to brush off my request for information about the Administration's troubling interrogation policies is not the constructive step toward bipartisanship that I had hoped for, given President Bush’s promise to work with us.

I requested two documents concerning CIA interrogation methods, which the Administration recently acknowledged in a lawsuit, and other relevant information. The Administration's refusal to provide any of this information other than forwarding a couple of public documents suggests that the President's offer to work with us may have been only political lip service.

let's hope the senator shows some balls and presses every tool at his disposal to force the president into following his oath of office, protect our constituion and provide the information he'sn required to proivide for oversite to take place

good luck senator leahy, bring back the constitution to our government and revoke the notions of a unutary executive

2007-01-02T10:12:00.000-08:00

DOES THE PRESIDENT MAKE IT UP FROM HIS OWN HEAD?

From the New York Times

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. … It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.

Where the hell does this president get his "military advice" from, it's CERTAINLY not the military

The UNANIMOUS and COMBINED joint chiefs of staff are AGAINST the actions this president is proposing, they tell us just like general Casey that the suggestion of more troops will harm our national security

So is the president just making it up in his own head?

2006-12-21T08:30:00.000-08:00

REPUBLICANS HAVE FINALLY COME TO REASLIZE THE PREDICAMENT

logged in, saw this thread, couldn't resist posting this videoas far as more troops, 20,000 troops means absolutely nothing, with shifts, eating, sleeping, it increases the fighting force by about 4000 bodies

in addition, a "surge" is only redirecting existing troops there are no additional troops to support any "surge"

a surge is taking troops from other areas which are already too thin, and it's forcing more tours from soldiers that are there too long already

getting more troops involves recruitment, training, constriction and a three year window

20,000 troops will do nothing and will pressure the other arenas that are sorley under too much presuure already, 40,000 troops is worse for America

we need an actual increase in manpower of at least 200,000 troops to overcome how badly our armed forces have been conducted and continue in Iraq with any prayer of stabalizing this country

you must watch this entire video,...this is scarborough, a republican, was a fierce supporter of Bush in both elections, and a strong supporter of this war, he hit's the nail right on the head...please watch beginning to end

VIDEO from crooks and liars

We have in office a man that makes it up as he goes along, if he has any philosophy he discards all information that discounts his philosophy, he fires anyone that dissagrees with it and he goes on a "listening tour" until he finds someone who agrees with what he wants them to agree with

2006-12-19T07:10:00.000-08:00

THE PRESIDENT'S OWN COMBINED AND UNANIMOUS JOINT CHEIFS OF STAFF TELL THE PRESIDENT DO NOT SEND MORE TROOPS

The washingtom post

...The Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

2006-12-19T06:05:00.000-08:00

WHY THERE IS CIVIL WAR IN IRAQ

My post below is a summery of Trex's excellant post over at firedoglake

Most Americans, have no idea why there is a civil war in Iraq. This is because we have no knowledge or learning of the history of this country. Now that is not a criticism, very few people study the history of countries outside their own.

To be as brief as possible, the Sunni's and Shiite simply represent two basic philosophical differences;

The religious leaders of the Shiia have to follow a direct bloodline from Muhammad, the Sunni's follow the direct writing in the Koran and do not believe a blood connection to Muhammad is required for their religious leaders.

The Shia claim an inherited right to leadership and wanted to exclude non family members from the clergy, the Sunni's would have none of that.

This has been the basis for civil war between the two since a few centuries after the profit's death and from that time forward there has been bloody civil war.

Shiite's are the majority in Iraq and a few other countries, Sunni's are the majority in the world

Through the 19th and 20th centuries the two sects lived in relative harmony, when we destabilized Iraq the two sects needed to vie for the religious and therefore political influence they want over the country.

Very simple stuff here and obvious why there is a civil war.

Here's the scary part;

The ambassador to Croatia (Peter Galbraith) tells us Bush was totally unaware that there were two major sects of Islam.

He knew nothing about it and this was as recent as two months before he initiated his unprovoked attack...this is from an interview with the ambassador;

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam–to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

The argument the politicains are trying to make that the unrest in Iraq is not a civil war is redlculous, of course it's a civil war, and it's a bloody one

professor Cole in an interview at npr;

JC: The degree of rancor and hatred and sheer brutal violence that's going on in Iraq right now between Sunnis and Shiites is, I mean, I think you have to go back to the 1500's to find another period in which it was this bad.

NPR: So, it sounds like the political aspirations of different powers within the region are exacerbating these theological and cultural differences between people, as is often the case in ethnic violence.

JC: Yeah, I don't think that people in Iraq are ultimately fighting over Sunnism and Shiism very much, now. One prays with their hands at their side. Another prays with their hands folded in front. I don't think that people are killing each other over those kinds of minor differences. They're killing each other because these religious ideologies are being marshalled in a quest for power.

so there's the history of what's going on in Iraq.

2006-12-15T04:38:00.000-08:00

THE PRESIDENT'S OWN GENERALS; IRAQ IS BREAKING OUR MILITARY

FROM CNN;

WASHINGTON (AP) -- As President Bush weighs new strategies for Iraq, the Army's top general warned Thursday that his force "will break" without thousands more active duty troops and greater use of the reserves.

Noting the strain put on the force by operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the global war on terrorism, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said he wants to grow his half-million-member Army beyond the 30,000 troops already added in recent years

everyone knows we are already having trrouble meeting the current recruit demnands, and now in order to keep our military from brfeaking under the insane policies of an administration that actually thinks initiating war against countries that pose no threat and house no terrorists is a good idea, we must find a way to reman a military for a commander in cheif the country believes has proven himself inept, irresponsible, and incapable.

If there were a play book written by bin laden, it looks like the man in charge of this country is following that play book to the detriment of our national security

2006-12-05T02:24:00.000-08:00

RUMSFELD ANSWERS IN U.S. COURT FOR ORDERING TORTURE

we hear about it in a Press release from the ACLU today, they've filed with the "Human Rights First" organization and the courts hear their briefs Friday "to argue that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is directly responsible for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody

if this one goes forward with the first judge watch a fast track straight to the supreme court

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First charged today in the first federal court lawsuit to name a top U.S. official in the ongoing torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan that has tarnished America's reputation.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Illinois on behalf of eight men who were subject to torture and abuse at the hands of U.S. forces under Secretary Rumsfeld's command. The parties are seeking a court order declaring that Secretary Rumsfeld's actions violated the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes and international law.

"Secretary Rumsfeld bears direct and ultimate responsibility for this descent into horror by personally authorizing unlawful interrogation techniques and by abdicating his legal duty to stop torture," said Lucas Guttentag, lead counsel in the lawsuit and director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "He gives lip service to being responsible but has not been held accountable for his actions. This lawsuit puts the blame where it belongs, on the Secretary of Defense."

The groups are joined as co-counsel in the lawsuit by Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA), former Chief Judge (IMA) of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals; and Bill Lann Lee, Chair of the Human Rights Practice Group at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the Department of Justice. Admiral Hutson and General Cullen are "of counsel" to Human Rights First.

"Since Abu Ghraib, we have vigorously campaigned for an independent commission to investigate U.S. policies that have led to torture and cruel treatment of detainees. These calls have gone unanswered by the administration and Congress, and today many of the illegal policies remain in place," said Michael Posner, Executive Director of Human Rights First. "We believed the United States could correct its policy without resort to the courts. In bringing this action today, we reluctantly conclude that we were wrong."

The men represented in the lawsuit were incarcerated in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were subjected to torture and other cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions, death threats, and restraint in contorted and excruciating positions. None of the men were ever charged with a crime. All have been released.

"One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. military throughout our history has been strong civilian leadership at the top of the chain of command," said Admiral Hutson. "Unfortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld has failed to live up to that tradition. In the end, that imperils our troops and undermines the war effort. It is critical that we return to another military tradition: accountability."

In legal papers, the groups charged Secretary Rumsfeld with violations of the U.S. Constitution and international law prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment. The lawsuit also seeks compensatory damages for the harms suffered as a result of torture and other abuse.

According to the complaint, Secretary Rumsfeld "authorized an abandonment of our nation's inviolable and deep-rooted prohibition against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees in U.S. military custody." The complaint further charges that brutal and illegal interrogation techniques were personally approved by Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002. Those techniques included the use of "stress positions," 20-hour interrogations, the removal of clothing, the use of dogs, isolation, and sensory deprivation.

full text here

This is MUCH more important then the rights of these individuals.

It is PROVEN the Geneva protocol protects OUR soldiers against torture, our won military IMPLORE the administration to protect our soldiers by FOLLOWING THE LAW.

There is LESS infornation gathered through torure not more, our own intelligence agencies, THE VERY PEOPLE PERFORMING TORUTRE ON THE ADMINISTRATION'S BEHALF tell ius they started getting LESS quality information when they were instructed to use torture in their methodology.

IMMEDIATELY after the president "reddefined" torture to make it look as if he didn't break the law, other countries employed similar tactics to justify their torture as well.

It is MIND BOGGLING anyone who calls themself an American wants to argue in favor of torture, yet the neo cons do

In Iraq, we were SUPPOSED to be "winning the hearts and minds" of this nation,,,this was the message, that we would have friends and kindred spirits in the middle east and such a state would stabalize the region and the world

It's IMPOSSIBLE to "win the hearts and minds" of ANY country you occupy when you condone torture...it UNDERMINES the goal and makes your objective impossilbe to achieve,

You create MORE vile against America, MORE terrorists, MORE terrorism, MORE insurgents, MORE insurgency.

Worse then all of that;

The geneva protocols are portions of a treaty America is a signator.

The ability to broker treaties and appear as honest brokers is VITAL to our national security.

Once we demonstrate a treaty means nothing to us, no other treaty will ever be regarded as substantial by any other country.

The president is NOT allowed to unilaterally void a treaty America is signator, he violates the integrity of previous administrations, he violates Amercian law...not can he redefine paragraphs or tenets of that treaty, and he CANNOT add caveats that broaden the scope of acceptable behavior.

He is NOT "the decider" of the treaty, he's not " the definer" of the treaty, those abilities are left to the supreme court and the other signators of the treaty.

NOT THE PRESIDENT NOR HIS ADMINISTRATION, he is BOUND by our law.

Every single American needs to watch this case and argue on the side of our law, no administration is above our law, that would make him king, no official is above our law at behest of any administration.

If Rumsfeld broke no law then he has nothing to fear at trial and I don't want to see ANYONE argue that this case should not go forward.

2006-12-04T16:33:00.000-08:00

MY CONVERSATION WITH AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON

well, not just me, Joe stopped by firedoglake and was gracuous enough to feild our questions concerning the issues that might arise when we try to leave Iraq.

Quite a man, he tried to answer everyone's question and spent a couple of hours with us..Jane does an nice synopsis before the questions begin, make sure you read what she has to say before you go to the comments

the comments are INCREDIBLE, everyone was very nicely informed and Joe was quite a gentleman staying with us as long as possible;

[Amb. Joe Wilson joins us for discussion in the comments. As always, with guests at FDL, please be polite and stay on topic for the course of the discussion herein. Please join me in giving Amb. Wilson a big FDL welcome. — CHS]

Amb. Joseph Wilson has graciously agreed to join in on a discussion here today regarding the mess that is Iraq, diplomacy, regional difficulties, the potential for American soliders having to fight their way out if and when we finally do leave Iraq and a whole host of other issues surrounding the chaotic failure in which the Bush Administration has mired us. (My words, not Joe's — I'll let him characterize this on his own in the comments.)

From Amb. Wilson's Book The Politics of Truth, we find his long record of service to this nation as a diplomat:

1976-1978: General Services Officer, Niamey, Niger
1978-1979: Administrative Office, Lomé, Togo
1979-1981: Administrative Officer, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C.
1981-1982: Administrative Officer, Pretoria, South Africa
1982-1985: Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM), Bujumbura, Burundi
1985-1986: Congressional Fellow, offices of Senator Al Gore and Representative Tom Foley
1986-1988: DCM, Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo
1988-1991: DCM, Baghdad, Iraq
1992-1995: Ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe
1995-1997: Political Adviser to Commander in Chief U.S. Armed Forces, Europe EUCOM, Stuttgart, Germany
1997-1998: Special Assistant to President Bill Clinton and Senior Director for African Affairs, National Security Council, Washington, D.C. (p. 451)

While Amb. Wilson was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq, he was put to the test by none other than Saddam himself:

As acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, he was the last US diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, in 1991.
He very publicly defied the Iraqi strongman by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens at the embassy and in the homes of US diplomats - at a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute anyone who harboured foreigners.

He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie.

He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."

It is this background that Amb. Wilson brings to the table for today's discussion — a long history of serving this nation in the field as a diplomat in the center of any number of ethnic, regional and substantial conflicts across the continent of Africa and within Iraq itself, and as an advisor to both military and Presidential national security considerations and to Congressional offices charged with providing sorely needed oversight.

With that in mind, let's look back at some historical context provided by Steve Gilliard in a post last night regarding US retreat from combat operations in the past — and what lessons we should take from those retreats for the current situation in Iraq. As Steve concludes:

One of the things Americans have to get over is their belief in American superiority. An American army can be decimated in a retreat, even by an enemy without airpower. The problem for the US Army in any retreat from Iraq will be the thousands of Iraqis who will want to flee with them and the thousands of POG's (people other than grunts), who will be in that convoy. They might not do so well when they're attacked.

Looking at the roads of Iraq, there are only a few routes south, and they can be blocked and fought over. Which makes leaving in a fighting retreat difficult.

Which makes whatever considerations are being given to such an exit all the more critical — this cannot be done without careful and adequate planning for the worst case scenarios, something that the Bush Administration so clearly failed at doing in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq for the extended period of occupation in which we have been mired the past three years and counting.

On NPR this morning, there was a surprisingly candid and insightful interview with Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam will Shape the Future and a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School. During the course of the interview, he says:

"We are not able to control events that keep escalating," Nasr tells Steve Inskeep. "We might be able to control the tempo of it, but we cannot easily stop it at this juncture."

A civil war isn't necessary, Nasr says, "but it is necessary to finalize the distribution of power in Iraq. And without a viable political road map, one that the various factions are willing to sit down and negotiate around, increasingly it's evident that the fate of the country is going to be decided by gunmen on the street, and that's what we're increasingly seeing…."

What would happen if the U.S. stepped out of the way?

"There would be a big battle for power in Baghdad and also there would be a big battle between the Shiites and Sunnis and ultimately between the Sunnis and the Kurds over who gets what and where does each stand once the dust settles," Nasr says.

It would be a "much more severe conflict — which then we can actually call a civil war — over who gets Baghdad, who gets Kirkuk, who gets Mosul, and where… the ultimate lines between these constituent parts of Iraq will lay."

While this is a single perspective on this mess, the thing that reverberated for me in this interview was that there has been — and continues to be — no political roadmap. It is simply a "git er done" fiat from the Bush Administration to a nation that was cobbled together by colonial powers back in the heyday of imperialism, and an expectation that they will somehow be able to figure out for themselves, after years and years of conflict and oppression, how to be "democratic" while staring down the barrel of yet another gun. It is madness, and it is a set-up for failure from the start. And the Bush Administration ought to have known this, and planned for contingency interventions along the way — but their failed approach to some sort of "hands off style of diplomacy" has not allowed them to do so. And we are all reaping the costs of it as a result.

With headlines like the recent one in the LATimes "Mideast Allies Near A State Of Panic" and in Australia's The Age "Mideast Too Complex For America," and even a late-planted stiletto from Bob Novak in today's WaPo entitled "Bush's Shrinking Options," it is no secret that expectations for the Bush Administration's handling of this mess are abysmally low.

But that leaves our military personnel, our diplomatic staff and the countless aid workers and infrastructure builders in an untenable position. And these folks all deserve far better from all of us than that.

With the ISG's report put off until likely some time in January, we felt that it was high time some serious discussion took place publicly about the potential for increasing chaos, the problems inherent in the current situtation and in any of the possible solutions that have been discussed thus far in the public arena. And Amb. Joseph Wilson joins us today in the comments to do just that. I look forward to some good debate, some in-depth questions and a lot of frank discussion.

Please join me in welcoming Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

UPDATE: As reader Hugh points out, the ISG site now lists Dec. 6th, 2006 as the release date for the report.

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

This entry is filed under BushCo., Iraq, Foreign policy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Spotlight
No Trackbacks to “No Easy Calls On Iraq“
You may leave a trackback from your own site.

please visit firedog lake for the incredible interview that followed

2006-12-04T11:40:00.000-08:00

THE ART OF WAR

the following quotes were posted by the incredible intellects over at

firedoglake

When doing battle, seek a quick victory.

A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation’s resources will not suffice.

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

Sun Tzu, the art of war

how prescient is THAT?

it comes from the oldest military treatice on the entire planet

add to that some contemporaries if you don't mind;

“We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace-business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionism, war profiteering. They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. Never before in history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hatred for me - and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.

- President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Speech at Madison Square Garden”

let's do one more if you don't mind

“I feel that if our constitutional system ever fails, it will be because people got scared
and turned hysterical and someone in power will demagogue them right into a police state of some kind. That’s what I’ve always worried about. And still do.”

Harry S Truman

2006-12-04T07:40:00.000-08:00

BOLTON RESIGNS AFTER BEING FIRED

how bizzare

what kind of morons are in this administration?...what kind of 'resignation" is it when the man is literaly thrown out of his position for being as inept in his job as anyone can imagine and he claims he's "resigning"

WASHINGTON -- Unable to win Senate confirmation, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton will step down when his temporary appointment expires within weeks, the White House said Monday.

so, bolton "resigns" immediately afther the officisals elected to office tell him he's fired

2006-12-02T15:47:00.000-08:00

SO RUMSFELD AGREES WITH MURTHA

what a friggin moron

so, it only takes this idiot about 9 months to realize what Murtha told him was correct...how many dead in that time?...how many?

“In my view it is time for a major adjustment,” wrote Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a symbol of a dogged stay-the-course policy. “Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.”

hey genius!!!! umm...it;s not working at all idiot, what the frig does "not well enough or fast enough" mean?

IT'S A FAILURE, IT WAS A FAILURE FROM THE START, YOUR IDIOTIC "STRATEGY" HAS DESTABILIZED THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST AND BROUGHT RUIN TO THE REPUTATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

now TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO THIS NATION, and STOP blaming others

“Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis,” he wrote. “This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not ‘lose.’ ”

“Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist,” he added. Mr. Rumsfeld’s memo suggests frustration with the pace of turning over responsibility to the Iraqi authorities; in fact, the memo calls for examination of ideas that roughly parallel troop withdrawal proposals presented by some of the White House’s sharpest Democratic critics

this is a failure, there is nothing else to call it, "going minimalistic" doesn't change the FACT that YOU have brought ruin to this country

Instead, the memo puts on the table several ideas for troop redeployments or withdrawals that appear to conflict with recent public pronouncements from commanders in Iraq emphasizing the need to maintain troop levels.

now, apologize to Murtha for calling HIM cut and run, apologize to America for not heeding the advice of people who (unlike yourself) have a military clue, and start getting on board IN PUBLIC with the repair of this nation that must take place for the sake of our children and our grandchildren

2006-11-30T03:06:00.000-08:00

PRESIDENT'S OWN REPORT; GET OUT IF IRAQ AS SOON AS POSSILBE

you're gonna read something to that effect on the from page of the new york times, possibly sometime today, maybe tomorrow, it'll read;

"The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that would call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stopped short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal," write David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud, citing sources close to the group.

The report by the panel, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, will be given next week to the President. Sanger and Cloud indicate that the report avoids "a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Bush, but [makes] it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended."

that's right too, the baker group is going to tell the president "get the frig out"...they will try to save face for him a little bit and "not recomend a definate timetable", but they WILL say something like 'as soon as possilble"

so NOBODY will EVER claim this is a "democratic initiative", this is a republican initiated pull out, endorsed by the republicans and forced through by the republicans.

...

As described by the people involved in the deliberations, the bulk of the report by the Baker-Hamilton group focused on a recommendation that the United States devise a far more aggressive diplomatic initiative in the Middle East than Bush has been willing to attempt so far, including direct engagement with Iran and Syria. Initially, those contacts might take place as part of a regional conference on Iraq or broader Middle East peace issues like the Israeli-Palestinian situation, but they would ultimately involve direct, high-level talks with Iran and Syria.

Bush has rejected such contacts until now, and he has also rejected withdrawal, declaring in Riga, Latvia, on Tuesday that while he will show flexibility, "there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull the troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete."

2006-11-30T02:32:00.000-08:00

THIS IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE TO THE INFLUENCE OF AMERICAN

full transcript of the president's deputy press secretary is at salon

Bartlett: There was going to be a trilateral meeting, and then the dinner with the King. Now, since they already had a bilateral themselves, the King of Jordan and the Prime Minister, everybody felt, well, there's no reason for them to do a trilateral meeting beforehand, because matters had been discussed.

do you beleive this?

first cheney is "summoned by the suadi's" and like a litte puppet he runs down there to listen to what they tell him they are going to do, and now the president of the United
states of America is actually stood up, left to twiddle his toes, a high level meeting HE requested is cancelled at the whim of a brand spankin new Iraqi politician

how long will it take for America, her reputation, her integrity take to recover from this administration?

will we ever recover?

2006-11-29T14:11:00.000-08:00

TEH NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

you know what?

I’ve been saying this ever since the hybrid cars first made news;

our auto industry is supposed to be enjoying the most profitable years in their history right now.

there is NO reason we are not ENTIRELY hybrid RIGHT NOW.

that would make every single person still driving a gasoline car to be ITCHING for a hybrid

there are FUHRIGGIN waiting lines for foreign hybrids and THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT.

it’s sickening

if REAGAN hadn’t repealed the programs that were intended to make us energy independent, gasoline would be PENNIES right now…that’s right, pennies, supply and demand and NOBODY would be demanding gasoline.

there’s wind, tide, there’s solar, there’s liquid coal, AND THERE’S RENEWABLE sources like corn.

vegetable fuel would make the heartland of America centrally important, our farmers would be RICH

we’d be SELLING our abundant supply of petroleum overseas because WE WOULDN’T NEED NEARLY ALL OF IT

this is NOT fantasy, take a look at Venezuela

now, you take my post, you make it a foundation to run your presidential campaign and YOU ARE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

2006-11-29T04:21:00.001-08:00

SUPPORT THE BRAD BLOG

Alaska Is At Again: Refuses to Release 2006 Election Database Despite Court Order
State Which Fought Release of Diebold Data Showing 200+ Percent Turnout in 2004 is Again Fighting Against Transparency
The state of Alaska which, as avid BRAD BLOG readers will recall, had been fighting tooth and nail to keep from releasing their database of how voters voted back in 2004, is at it again. Now, despite a court order, the state is refusing to release the new 2006 database, according to a press release just issued by the state Democratic Party. (Press release posted in full at the bottom of this item.)

Previously, the outgoing Governor Murkowski went so far as to have his top security man issue a memo saying release of the 2004 database would be a "security risk." The state had argued prior to that that they could not release the database because it was a "company secret" of Diebold's, according to their contract with the Anti-American Voting Company. All of that after Democrats had discovered a 200% voter turnout in some jurisdications across the state.

Murkowski's daughter Lisa, whom Frank had appointed to fill his seat in the Senate when he ascended to Governor, was in a very close race for that seat in 2004. In fact, most polls showed her trailing against her opponent prior to Election Day.

A court eventually forced the state to release the 2004 database but it was found to contain hundreds of edits since the 2004 election, including as late as July of 2006, prior to the release of the data.

See all of the stories in our Alaska category for the bizarre roller-coaster ride on this issue in the state.

Now it appears that Alaska is at it again, fighting to not release the database from the 2006 election in the only state that we know of where the Democratic Party themselves are actually fighting for complete transparency.

Please go to his site and give your support...without him the democrats probably wouldn't have shown their win in the mid term elections

2006-11-28T09:35:00.000-08:00

why it matters we call it a civil war as soon as possilble;

We refused to call it an insurgency and therefore didn't prepare for insurgents.

if we refuse to call it a civil war we will not be addressing the issue the way it needs to be addressed

2006-11-28T07:47:00.000-08:00

MARINES SAY THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO TO SECURE AL-ANBARThis gets worse and worse

By Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page A01

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

2006-11-28T05:12:00.000-08:00

NEW TEE SHIRTS, NEW BUMPER STICKERS, NEW MUGS

my proposal for the comming elections, everyone needs to get on board with some of these;

this is one great idea, (redo from the the nixon days)

if you remmeber when Nixon was thrown out of office for criminal activity, there were a bunch of “don’t blame me, I voted for mcgovern” bumper stickers and slogans

that served a real subliminal purpose and it villainized the republcan party

the republiican party has visited much more harm to America and her national securiy then Nixon could have ever done and yet they manage to convince Americans they are the party of national security

time to villainize the republican party becuase of how inept bush has been and their rubber stamping of anything and everything that was done to us

Anyone can use this without credit...we need to start a similar campaign

since very few people like pumper stickers nowadays, removasble window signs are probably the way to go…tee shirts, firedog coffe mugs would be good too

sayings like “don’t blame security failure on me, I vote democratic”

“don’t blame 9/11 on me, I voted for gore”

“don’t blame under equipping torture on me, I vote with the democrats”

and the best one;

“DON’T BLAME LACK OF TROOP SUPPORT ON ME, I’M NOT A REPUBLICAN, I VOTE FOR TROOPS SUPPORT, THAT’S DEMOCRATIC”

that last one is a killer

2006-11-27T14:45:00.000-08:00

THEY SAY IT ISN'T A CIVIL WAR

">

you must watch this video.

the problem with what has happened is that this is no surprise, the president was told he'd be bringing caos into Iraq by attacking and here we are today

this has been a civil war for two years and the president insists on calling it something else so the people here in America don't follow what he's done to the middle east;

Harvard professor Monica Toft

she tells us there are six criteria calling a conflict a "civil war"...errr...Iraq met all six since 2004.

I don't think anyone wants to accept this presidents understanding of linquistics over a harvard professor

some might though

2006-11-25T18:10:00.000-08:00

SO HERE WE GO

THE PRESIDENT HAS CREATED A SELF FINANCING FORCE OF TERRORISTS

it is INCOCEIVABLE the damage this man has done to our national security

BAGHDAD, Nov. 25 — The insurgency in Iraq is now self-sustaining financially, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its American patrons have been largely unable to prevent, a classified United States government report has concluded.

Bilal Hussein/Associated Press
Suspected insurgents fighting on the streets of Ramadi in a 2005 photo. An American study offers little hope that much can be done to choke off revenues to the armed groups battling the government in Iraq.
The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says $25 million to $100 million of that comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry, aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials.

man oh man oh man, what the HELL is going on here?...AMERICA NEEDS THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS PERFORMING OVERSITE AS SOON AS POSSILBE

I have no idea if this kind of damage can possibly be reversed, I do know we need to start ASAP

2006-11-25T06:48:00.000-08:00

REPUBLICANS FINALLY FIND REALITY>

so, they are finally getting it...here is republican Hagel;

By Chuck Hagel
Sunday, November 26, 2006; Page B07

There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined by the Iraqis -- not the Americans.

Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost. It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism. There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.

The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose.

We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam. Honorable intentions are not policies and plans. Iraq belongs to the 25 million Iraqis who live there. They will decide their fate and form of government

look, even if you think we need to stay in Iraq, where do you suppose we are going to get the troops we need

We need no less then 400,000 soldiers and even with that number, most experts think the campaign will still fail

so to get enough men and women in Iraq, we obviously need a draft, unless the republicans are willing to recomend a draft, they absolutely have to advocate for abandoning the initiative undertaken by the most inept administration in America's history

2006-11-24T13:40:00.000-08:00
GLEN GREENWALD IS INCREDIBLE

look at what he put together here;

Friday, November 24, 2006

Why I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement

(updated below)

Dick Cheney, October 24, 2006

Q. Are the terrorists trying to influence our election in your view?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think they're very much aware of our political calendar here, I really do. . . . So I think they are very conscious of the electoral timetable in the United States.

I can't say that they make a specific decision for a particular act, but there's no doubt in my mind that it's a factor that enters into their thinking.

Q I have a Pentagon source that tells me there are websites out there that they've just recently translated that actually refer to the election and ask for an up-tick in violence to try and influence the election, is that accurate?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't be surprised. It sounds right to me.

UPI, October 23, 2006

Senior U.S. government officials and military officers have suggested that Iraqi insurgents are trying to influence the U.S. midterm elections. A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote.

His comments Thursday echoed those made by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney two days earlier on conservative pundit Rush Limbaugh's radio show, which is carried on the Armed Force Radio network in Iraq.

George Bush, October 18, 2006

There’s certainly a stepped up level of violence, and we’re heading into an election.

Don Rumsfeld, October 26, 2006

Here they are, getting up every day saying, “We’ve got an election in two weeks in America, gang, and we want to change horses over there because we don’t like the folks we’re having to deal with now; they’re a little tough on us. So let’s get out there and let’s make some noise.“

John Hinderaker, November 10

I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. See, for example, this article by Aaron Klein. And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates.

New York Times, today

In the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion, explosions from five powerful car bombs and a mortar shell tore through crowded intersections and marketplaces in the teeming Shiite district of Sadr City on Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 206, the police said. . . .The attacks were the worst in an intensifying series of revenge killings in recent months, in a cycle that has increasingly paralyzed the political process and segregated the capital into Sunni and Shiite enclaves, and threatened to drag Iraq into an all-out civil war.

Boston Globe, yesterday

Yesterday was no different: About 100 people were killed in the country. Among them was a bodyguard to the speaker of Iraq's parliament, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who himself escaped an apparent assassination attempt the day before. A journalist for the state-run al-Sabah newspaper was also killed, gunned down as he drove through the capital.

Washington Post, today

More than 1,000 Iraqis a day are being displaced by the sectarian violence that began on Feb. 22 with the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra, according to a report released this week by the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-associated group.

This increasing movement of Iraqi families, caused by the lack of security and by the growth of armed local militias and criminal gangs, is adding to the already chaotic governmental situation in Baghdad, according to U.N., U.S. and non-governmental reports released over the past weeks.

Everything they accuse others of doing -- exploiting national security for domestic political gain, being 'unserious' about war matters, playing games with the mission of the troops -- is what they do as transparently as possible. And note how they used a senior military official to make the disgusting claim that the violence in Iraq was related to a desire to help Democrats win the midterm election: "A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq last week attributed the increase in violence at least partly to terrorists who want to influence the American vote."

The idea that the sectarian violence in Iraq, which has been spiraling out of control since the beginning of the year, had anything to do with trying to make Democrats win the election was always as transparently false -- stupid even -- as it was repugnant. Yet they say anything, and the media largely lets them get away with it.

And now the incontrovertible proof is here that what they said was a lie designed to manipulate Americans into voting Republican out of a desire to punish the Democrat-favoring terrorists in Iraq, and what are the consequences? They lie and manipulate like this not only because they lack any shred of integrity and character -- although that's true -- but also because they know they can do so with impunity.

Ponder how corrupt and misleading their coordinated pre-election claim was: All the increased violence in Iraq was just about the midterm election, not a sign of a spiraling civil war. It was just The Terrorists who hate Bush, because he is so tough with them, trying to help the Democrats. Nothing was really that bad in Iraq. Once the elections are over, it will all subside, because it's only about that.

The only thing worse than government leaders lying to their citizens so blatantly about a war is lying in order to benefit themselves politically for cheap electoral gain, so that's exactly what Bush officials and Bush followers do.

UPDATE: Nobody glorifies the power of the Islamic Terrorists more than Bush followers do. As The Heretik says in comments: "What's so impressive about the terrorists and the insurgents and the Shiites and the Sunnis who yearn so for the inevitable caliphate that will stretch from Spain to Pluto and beyond is that even as they fight amongst themselves, they have time to sit down and figure out how to influence our politics here."

And he says over at his own blog: "Our midterm elections are over and the violence that was raised to influence those results has spiked even higher" (The Heretik also has an extremely satisfying illustration of what Pat Leahy is doing to the White House). And as James Raven notes, some Bush followers are blaming Nancy Pelosi for this increased violence (because her desire to withdraw from Iraq is galvanizing The Terrorists).

So, to recap: when insurgents engage in violence before the elections, that's the fault of Democrats because it's done to help them win (and credit to Republicans because it shows how tough they are on The Terrorists). When the insurgents engage in violence after the elections, that's also the fault of Democrats because they are excited by the Democrats' success (and credit to Republicans because Republicans want to stay forever, which makes the insurgents sad and listless). And when there is no violence, all credit to Republicans because it shows how great their war plan is.

Put another way, no matter what happens in Iraq (violence increases, violence decreases), and no matter when it happens (before the election, after the election), it is the fault of Democrats and it reflects well on the Republicans. Isn't it fair to say that that's the very definition of the mindset of a cultist?

posted by Glenn Greenwald | 11:47 AM

2006-11-24T13:31:00.000-08:00
IRAQ...???....OUT OF CONTROLL, THAT'S WHAT

man oh man !!!

WHAT THE FRIG HAS THIS PRESIDENT DONE TO THE WORLD?

Shiites torch Sunni people, mosques, houses BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Enraged Shiites burned people to death, torched mosques and denounced Sunni leaders and the United States a day after a bloody assault on Sadr City, the Iraq capital's Shiite bastion.

That coordinated strike, which killed more than 200 and wounded more 250 Thursday, is considered the worst of the Iraq war, and Sunni militants are widely assumed to have carried it out.

Witnesses said Shiite gunmen on Friday attacked two mosques with rocket-propelled grenades and burned two other Sunni mosques in the largely Shiite area of Hurriya in northwestern Baghdad. (Watch as all-out civil war threatens to overtake Iraq )

They reported people attacking Sunni houses with hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades. Shiite militiamen are also said to have doused Sunnis with kerosene and burned them, and shot at other people.

One witness reported at least five people were killed. An official with the Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group, said many more were killed and wounded but could not confirm numbers.

Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said clashes erupted between two groups in Hurriya. U.S. and Iraqi troops then arrived at the scene, set up checkpoints and restored control.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm the reports of people and mosques being torched.

In Sadr City itself, two people were hurt when U.S. helicopters fired on tents set up for funerals, police said. (Location of Sadr City)

Mourners said they were shooting weapons in the air to commemorate the dead -- not firing at the helicopters.

But the U.S. military said troops destroyed rocket launchers that had fired six rockets.

Two Sunni Arab neighborhoods -- Ghazaliya and Adhamiya -- also withstood a barrage of mortar fire that wounded 10 people earlier.

The new attacks and counterattacks threaten to bring Iraq to the brink of all-out civil war, a process that has escalated since the February bombing of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra, north of Baghdad. Since then, thousands have fled their homes for other neighborhoods and countries in the face of Sunni-Shiite vendettas. (Watch for the divisions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims )

Thousands more have been slain. Sectarian violence has left its imprint with the daily discovery of tortured bodies around the capital despite U.S. and Iraqi military efforts to stem the brutality.

I don't think "worst president in hostory" goes quite far enough, what this administration has wrought upon the middle easat, the world, and America will not be told for generations untold as the repurcussions unfold in our life times, in our children's lifetimes, in our grandchildren's life times

2006-11-23T09:24:00.000-08:00
FOR ALL THOSE IDIOTS THAT KEEP SAYING THERE THE "LIBERAL MEDIA" ONLY REPORTS THE BAD IN IRAQ
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- In the deadliest attack on a sectarian enclave since the beginning of the Iraq war, suspected Sunni-Arab militants used three suicide car bombs and two mortar rounds on the capital's Shiite Sadr City slum to kill at least 150 people and wound 238 on Thursday, police said.

The Shiites responded almost immediately, firing 10 mortar rounds at the Abu Hanifa Sunni mosque in Azamiya, killing one person and wounding 14 people in an attack on the holiest Sunni shrine in Baghdad.

you know, you see morons on the "internets" actually claiming things are going better in Iraq then the "liberal media" reports"

what a bunch of idiots, news flash;

the media, once owned by over 50 entities is now completely controlled by about 5 corporations, they are corporate owned, corporate controlled with a corporate agenda.

the strife in Iraq has been UNDER reported, NOT over reported...it gets worse exponentially every single month.

we need to get the inept people who have caused the problem to stop making decisions they are clearly unequipped to make

2006-11-22T15:06:00.000-08:00
PALOSI SHOWS THE REPUBLICANS HOW IT'S DONE

PALOSI IS IN THE HOUSE!!!

in her press release today...if you want to enter politucs and serve AMERICA instead of your pocket book, Palosi is right now righting the script on effective governance

FROM RAW STORY

"Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi announced today that House Democrats will hold a forum to discuss the war in Iraq on Tuesday, December 5," the statement begins. "Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and Major General John Batiste will join current and new members of the Democratic Caucus in discussing options for a way forward in Iraq."

Brzezinski is former National Security Advisor to President Carter; Holbrooke is former Assistant Secretary of State under Carter and President Clinton; and Batiste is a retired U.S. Army division commander and a vociferous critic of outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Pelosi continues in the statement, "The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq.

"We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq."

2006-11-22T07:14:00.000-08:00
THE BRAD BLOG

diebold can't be trusted

hehe...that's actually a news scoop as far as the republican propaganda machine is concerned, old news to people that have better sourses then corporate owned media

anyway, head out to the brad blog;
BLOGGED BY Brad ON 11/21/2006 4:54PM
EXCLUSIVE: Whistleblower Stephen Heller Says 'Diebold Cannot be Trusted to Run Elections in America'
Plea Deal for 'Wobbly Felony' Conviction, 3-Years Probation, May be Reduced to Misdemeanor after One Year of Good Behavior
In an exclusive statement sent to The BRAD BLOG earlier today excoriating the privatization of America's voting system, whistleblower Stephen Heller says, "Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America."

He oughta know.

As we reported last night, Heller pled guilty yesterday in an agreement with Los Angeles prosecutors, after his arrest earlier this year on felony charges related to his release of attorney-client privileged documents he obtained while working as a temporary word-processor at Diebold's law firm, Jones Day.

The agreement, which required him to sign an apology, pay $10,000 in restitution, and not discuss the documents he released, may also allow Heller's felony conviction to be reduced to a misdemeanor charge after one year of "good behavior."

As well, in exchange for Heller's signed apology and commitment not to discuss the documents themselves (which are already publicly available since he released them originally to both the media and Election Integrity activists), Jones Day signed an agreement that they would not sue him in civil court in the matter.

In a phone call this afternoon, Heller explained Diebold's enormously powerful law firm — where he had worked at night while pursuing an acting career by day — had informed him that they'd planned to convert any criminal felony conviction in the case into a civil suit. Had the case gone to trial, he explained, and been successful, Jones Day had promised a lawsuit claiming losses of "well over a million dollars." Such a suit "would have left my wife and I impoverished for the rest of our lives," Heller says.

He went on to tell us that the plea deal conviction was characterized by his attorneys as a "wobbly felony" — one that will likely be reduced to a misdemeanor after a year, as long as he "doesn't do anything bad." He quickly added, "which I have no intention of doing."

A court date of Nov. 15th, 2007, has been set to review the case in order to determine if the sentence will be reduced and, among other things, allow Heller to have his right to vote in California restored!

"Yes, I am now a disenfranchised voter as a convicted felon," he told us today with no small amount of irony in his voice.

Despite California having decertified Diebold voting systems in 2004 after Heller's release of documents showing the voting machine company had violated state law and that they may have been planning to lie about it to state officials — and even after the state and election watchdog BlackBoxVoting.org eventually agreed to settle a fraud complaint with Diebold for $2.8 million dollars in the bargain — Heller is, for the moment, unable to vote in the Golden State due to his conviction.

All of this, of course, despite those who've denounced the arrest of Heller on the grounds that they believe, as we do, that he is an heroic whistleblower who exposed important information — illegally or otherwise — because it was in the best public interest of the country.

California does have a "Whistleblower Law," which prevents employers from exacting retribution against an employee who "has reasonable cause to believe that the information [being released] discloses a violation of state or federal statute." That law, unfortunately, doesn't seem to apply to apparently over-zealous County Prosecutors such as Los Angeles's Steve Cooley.

Heller has promised that he will share "the whole story" with us in a Guest Blog special to The BRAD BLOG after the holidays.

In the meantime, however, his agreement at least does not keep him from speaking his mind about Diebold, electronic voting, or the private corporatization of our public democracy. Earlier today, Heller followed up on his promise of last night and emailed us the following statement with his opinions of the current state of our electoral system in America:

In my view, Diebold has shown they cannot be trusted to run elections in America. We must not allow a private corporation to run our elections for us in secret, using secret machines and secret software. The only thing secret about our elections should be the secret ballot.

I urge all Americans to insist Congress enact Federal legislation requiring that all voting machines must have a voter verifiable paper ballot, be run on open source software code, be subject to inspection by independent computer experts, and that each election have a random sample ballot recount. Only then will we have a chance of restoring true integrity to American elections.

The BRAD BLOG wishes to express our deepest and most heart-felt gratitude to Heller for his courageous and selfless act of civil disobedience. As bad as our electoral system is now…and make no mistake, it is in tatters…we shudder to ponder the state we'd currently be in without patriots like Heller who continue to fight for free, fair, honest, and transparent elections in America — at no small cost to either themselves or their families.

On behalf of The BRAD BLOG and likely millions of democracy-lovin' Americans: Thank you, Mr. Heller.

UPDATE 8:48pm PT: Oakland Tribune's Ian Hoffman is the first MSM'er out of the box to pick up on this story. Hoffman first reported on Heller when when the Trib ran the Diebold documents given to them while Jones Day sued to stop them. His coverage tonight is quite good and worth the read.

2006-11-22T06:03:00.001-08:00
when you see a commenter on firedog lake, they are usually incredibly informed and very well versed

check this out, bookmark firdoglake and visit a few times a day

Prof says:

November 22nd, 2006 at 6:08 am *

And the failures can also be measured in Iraqi blood, as the Associate Press report:

Iraqi civilian deaths at new high

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq’s sectarian bloodbath.

Didn’t see figures this high in your daily newspaper?

The U.N. tally was more than three times higher than the total The Associated Press had tabulated for the month, and far more than the 2,866 U.S. service members who have died during all of the war.

And who are the killers?

“Hundreds of bodies continued to appear in different areas of Baghdad handcuffed, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing,” the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq report said. “Many witnesses reported that perpetrators wear militia attire and even police or army uniforms.”

and the victims?

The report painted a grim picture across the board, from attacks on journalists, judges and lawyers and the worsening situation of women to displacement, violence against religious minorities and the targeting of schools.

Of course, it’s just the United-f***ing-Nations writing this stuff, not some body with credibility:

Asked about the U.N. report, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh called it “inaccurate and exaggerated” because “it is not based on official government reports.”

Those would be the official government reports that keep careful track of such things.

When asked if there is a government report, al-Dabbagh said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that one “is not available yet but it will be published later.”

And why isn’t this kind of information readily available for the public and policymakers to consider?

Access to the U.N. news conference in the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad was blocked for many because the main entrance was closed as U.S. forces were checking for unexploded ordinance in the area, a U.S. military official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

There’s a word for such disinformation, right? I just can’t remember quite what the word is

2006-11-22T06:03:00.000-08:00
WHAT KIND OF MORON IS RUMSFELD?

That link goes to a wapo article, have a read through the entire thing, it's dumbfounding...here a snippet;

Iraqis also had some complaints about their U.S. advisers, most notably that junior U.S. officers who had never seen combat were counseling senior Iraqi officers who had fought in several wars.

ya, incredible right?

In dozens of official interviews compiled by the Army for its oral history archives, officers who had been involved in training and advising Iraqis bluntly criticized almost every aspect of the effort.

THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE;
ot only does the U.S. military not have enough service members devoted to advising and training, but as Ricks's piece indicates, many of the people we've assigned to advise Iraqi forces don't have the right skills or experience to do the job.

OK, can someone finally say "oversight please"

thank you America for voting in the party that has some kind of military clue...hopefully, as every tine the republicans have screwed up our national security, the democrats will once again get our military back to the strength, ability, integrity and international integrity once again.

2006-11-22T03:57:00.000-08:00
THE GOVERNMENT DECLARES ANYONE TEHY WANT TO STEAL FROM "TERRORISTS"

here's the reason we have to make sure the idiots in charge get looked at when they're invading our privacy.

Given that kind of power, they will steal, this is a fact, they will steal our company secrets, our personal secrets, if they think someone is critical of their poslices, if they think someone might be on to their stealing, they will simply steal their information to find it out

here are peace demonstrators...PEACE DEMONSTRATORS, and these theives in office actually put them on the terrorist list so they can have an excuse to steal from them

from the press club;

Sacramento peace protesters were targeted by a widespread domestic spying operation in which the Pentagon monitored anti-war groups across the country, newly released government documents show.

The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and made public Tuesday, detail entries made into the Pentagon's Threat and Local Observation Notice database dating back to November 2004, when two local groups protested at the Military Entrance Processing Station on Rosin Court in North Sacramento.

The revelation adds more fuel to the ongoing debate over governmental spying on citizens critical of the war in Iraq. It is the latest in a series of cases that includes the California National Guard's spying on anti-war grandmothers and secret wiretapping by the National Security Agency.

2006-11-21T12:34:00.000-08:00
JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS

remember when the president had the nerve to say; "when the Iraqi's want us to leave we'll leave"?

well, they want us to leave

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/sep06/Iraq_Sep06_rpt.pdf

to sum it up for you so you don't have to read it;

Seven out of ten Iraqis want us out

period

time to get the frig out of that country

2006-11-21T10:17:00.000-08:00
REPUBLICAN, CHUCK HAGELHagel: ‘The Time For More Troops Is Past,’ McCain’s Plan Is ‘Not Realistic,’ ‘The Wrong Approach’

THE REPUBLICANS ALL OF A SUDDEN AGREE WITH MURTHA

Sadly, far too late...if they had recognized that Murtha was telling us what the generals in the field were telling him, then we could have possibly come up with better solutions then we are faced with today;

MITCHELL: Let’s talk a bit about some of the plans that the Pentagon is supposedly considering, first of all, sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq, a short-term surge, an effort to try to stabilize Baghdad. Is that realistic? And is that cover for more quickly phasing out and withdrawing?

HAGEL: Andrea, it is not realistic. General Abizaid noted that when he was here last week before the Senate Armed Services Committee. We don’t have the troops. That’s number one.

Number two, even if we did, it’s the wrong approach. The time for more troops is past.

We’ve been in Iraq now almost four years. We went in completely undermanned, under-managed. We didn’t understand what we were getting into. We didn’t have the plans. We should have gone in with three times the troops that we had.

Those days are over. We’re not going to recapture that and go back and unwind those bad decisions.

We don’t want to put more troops in now. Even if we had them, that’s the wrong approach.

There’s not going to be a military resolution that decides the outcome of Iraq. It will be a political solution. It will include the Iraqi people, countries like Iran, Syria, Jordan and other countries around it.

Our options there are very limited right now. I hope that the president will be able to use the Baker-Hamilton commission to build a new bipartisan foundation in order to start moving this country, the United States, out of Iraq.

you know what?

whoever is on the republican side of the aisle that even thought disparage the military knowledge of Murtha needs to get grovel and post a public opology.

In addition, who ever thinks the republicans in office have any kind of military clue and has even the slightest ability when compared to the democrats needs to just wake up.

2006-11-19T15:39:00.000-08:00

MCCAIN FINALLY SPEAKS WITH THE GENERALS AND RECANTS

so, he's finally had a chance to talk with the generals in the field, as Murtha was doing a year ago;

'McCain: Sending More Troops Would ‘Absolutely…Be Terrible’ For Military, Risks ‘Broken Army’'">McCain: Sending More Troops Would ‘Absolutely…Be Terrible’ For Military, Risks ‘Broken Army"

and he admits his "plan" for "20,000 more troops for one last push" is rediculous

look, before I post transcripts, let's make it crystal clear;

20,000 troops translates into only about a 5000 man increase in actualy force, the 20,000 have to sleep, eat, and there will be shifts of course, 20,000 soldiers means absolutely nothing even if an increase in manpower would do something, that figure is way too low

now on to ABC'S inerview;

[his plan to escalate the Iraq war by sending at least 20,000 more troops] “would it put a terrible strain on the Army and Marine Corps.” “Absolutely, it would be terrible,”.... “we’re going to be asking people to go back again and again, maybe even extend their tours.”.... “I see a broken Army in 1973″ and didn’t want to see another. Watch it:

here are a couple of the reasons;

1) No troops to send. “Sending more troops to Iraq would, at the moment, it's gonna break our army Army lay to waste our ability to recruit soldiers,

2) it would create even more insurgents, and it would risk making it much much worse
from teh transcript:

MCCAIN: I notice that several retired generals, Gen. Zinni recently, Gen. Batiste, many others have said the same thing I said.

he's only JUST listening to the generals that retired en mass to raise the alarm, putting their carreers behind them becuase they love their country more

mccain, you need to buy a program, you are living without one

2006-11-19T07:34:00.000-08:00

GOOD NEWS!!!

mccain has done an about face, what the puppets of Rove call a flip flop) and is now trying to reverse roe vs wade

this makes him unelectable

SWEET;

here's the history;
back in 1999, when he was trying to look like the great uniter, this mariontte made it clear Roe-Wade is dangerous to women, he said CLEARLY he would NOT try to overturn or support overturning the landmark decision

wahsington post:

I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.

ahem

now, today in inteview

since he wants support from the Falwell, the thocratic moron

he does his back flip, bends over, no k-y, and claims with no douby he wants to overturning Roe-Wade

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

ahem, he's now a "federalist"?

the federalists were for a two class, robber baron society, so there you have it.

this man is now unelectable

I hope he's their standard bearer in 08

2006-11-19T05:35:00.000-08:00

SUNDAY POLITICS ON T.V.

not too much for me to say is must see, I wouldn't miss these though

Meet the Press (NBC): Senators-elect Jon Tester and Jim Webb; Ted Koppel and Robin Wright on Iraq.

This Week (ABC): Sen. John McCain; Rep. Steny Hoyer

Late Edition (CNN): Sen. Carl Levin: Armed Services Committee, D-Michigan; Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison: Veterans Affairs Committee, R-Texas; Samir Sumaidaie: Iraqi Ambassador to United States; Rep. James Clyburn: Majority whip-elect, D-South Carolina; Rep. Roy Blunt: Minority whip-elect, R-Missouri; Ken Adelman: Former assistant secretary of defense; David Frum: Former speechwriter for President Bush and author of "The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush"; Michael Rubin: Resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute.

Fox News Sunday: Sen. John Kerry and Newt Gingrich.

I've got some tennis today, feel free to comment on the programs as they air

2006-11-18T06:04:00.000-08:00

sunday roundup

just found out from a radio interview santorum isn't going to be running for president in 08 and man, I was kind of counting in that.

"Absolutely, positively not. Absolutely not....My wife would throw me out of the house if I do anything in '08."

too bad

also heard cheney actually said "America must not retreat for Iraq"

check this out;

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney insisted on Friday that America must not turn its back on Iraq, even as the Bush administration considers a course change in the war after voters vented anger over it in this month's elections.

"Some in our country may believe in good faith that retreating from Iraq would make America safer. Recent experience teaches the opposite lesson," Cheney said in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group.

you know, cheney has been wrong on everything he's said..everything, from [paraphrased}"the insurgency is in it's last throws", to "we know saddam had links to al qaeda"

so now he says "recent experience teaches us the opposite lesson"

excuse me, recent experience teaches us when cheney says something he's absolutely wrong, for instance, the president himself gave a speach in vietnam, where we in fact did pull out.

2006-11-17T05:21:00.000-08:00

FROM THE OFFICE OF SENATOR CHRIS DODD

Dodd Introduces Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act; Brings Terrorists to Justice, Honors America's Good Name

Washington- Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), an outspoken opponent of the Military Commission Act of 2006, today introduced legislation which would amend existing law in order to have an effective process for bringing terrorists to justice. This is currently not the case under the Military Commission Act, which will be the subject of endless legal challenges. As important, the bill would also seek to ensure that U.S. servicemen and women are afforded the maximum protection of a strong international legal framework guaranteed by respect for such provisions as the Geneva Conventions and other international standards, and to restore America’s moral authority as the leader in the world in advancing the rule of law.

“I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting this country from terrorists,” Sen. Dodd said. “But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. It’s clear the people who perpetrated these horrendous crimes against our country and our people have no moral compass and deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But in taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country’s Constitution, we’re taking away our own moral compass, as well.”

The Effective Terrorists Prosecution Act:

Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions

“We in Congress have our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair the damage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, to preserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanism to improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,” Dodd said.

you know what?

the republican base are morons and this has to be spelled out for them;

Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees

“if a person can prove they are innocent they are going to be able to do it, we are trying to win the hearts and minds of these people so they become allies

WE DO NOT WANT TO DETAIN ANYONE THAT CAN SHOW US THEY ARE INNOCENT”

add to that;

“WE CANNOT MAKE UP A LAW THAT DIDN’T EXIST UNTIL WE ARRESTED SOMEONE IN A TRANSPARENT ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY DETENTION FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME”, how could we possibly win allies otherwise

Narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawful combatants

the following addendum;

“it would not be possible to acheive success, creating allies if we were to allow any person the ability to declare someone an enemy combatant at for whatever suits their fancy, we don’t have dictators in America”

Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials

“I can get anyone to bare false witness against anyone I want with coersion and to allow it is to allow depravity and false imprisonment against people who have never done or wanted to do harm to America”, and allowing coerced testimony would make it impossible to succeed in this country

Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable

this doesn’t go far enough, we cannot allow a person to give testimony of what someone else said they saw, the information cannot be reliable and a person’s guilt could never be established allowing this type of worthless testimony”

Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions

all jurisdictions need oversite so no office abuses their power indiscriminantly, this is obvious”

Limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject to congressional and judicial oversight

‘as the heads of our armed forces tell us in no uncertain terms, the geneva convention protects our soldiers, it is a treaty that we deliberately brokered through passed administrations.

it is a threat of national security for any president who presumes to unilaterally overule treaties that we are signators, the very notion makes it impossible to broker treaties in the future and great harm is done to our nations security and her international integrity when a president presumes to be the interperator of treaties signed by previous administrations”

this is great harm and we need to reverse the damage that has been done to our national security, we mustdo whatever it takes to regain the reputation of honest broker that has been squandered by ill advised decisions”

Provides for expedited judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionality of its provisions

we are the guardians of our constitution, we must insure constitutional integrity is maintained for the future of the country our forefathers risked their lives to leave behind”

2006-11-15T05:11:00.000-08:00

THE TORTURE PRESIDENT

He does it agian, this idiot is actually insisting he can hold whoever he wants for however long he likes, and even if they can prove they are innocent, he won't allow them to do it.
What exactly does this persident thing America stands for?
How on earth are we going to be able to regain the international respect this president has torn to shreds?
Have a look
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainees_lawsuits

Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may not challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts, the Bush administration said Monday, opening a new legal front in the fight over the rights of detainees.

We have a madman in office who thinks he is a dictator and a king.

2006-11-15T04:52:00.000-08:00

Fox...Fair and Ballanced...(not)

Even in their memos they openly discuss how to undermine the democratic side of the aisle, they have the nerve to even suggest the democrats won't be better stemming the tidle wave of terrorism this administration has created.

FOX NEWS INTERNAL MEMO: "Be On The Lookout For Any Statements From The Iraqi Insurgents...Thrilled At The Prospect Of A Dem Controlled Congress"...

Anything they can do to try to cast dispursion on the democratic party, they will even destroy the process of rebuilding our military forces, our national security, and the process of rebuiling the integrety of America just to spin the results of these midterm elections.

These people are insane

You can read the entire aticle at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/14/fox-news-internal-memo-_n_34128.html the Huffington Post

2006-11-15T04:38:00.000-08:00

WHO'S THE PRESIDENT NOW?

We all know immediately apon finding out the democrats won majority in both houses, President G.W. bush fired Donald Rumsfleld.

Rumsfeld is the most inept secretary of defense in my lifetime and probably the history of America, this was known almost immediately after the war, and according to somepundit, when the president first appointed him there were a few republicans that actually said "Bush is makiing me miss Clinton already"

There's no proof to that story, but we do know the generals retired en masse so they can raise the alarm concerning national security , they insist our military is broken and they want someone who knows how to conduct the armed forces of the United States of America in charge.

Bacck on point;

The president has nominated Bob Gates who is a former daddy aid, the president will be taking advice from people outside his PNAC, and the decisions are now being made by Bush sr.

Just a quick post without links to get myself back in the swing of this blog thing

Sorry about the short post, future posts will hopefully be better composed

2006-03-20T17:10:00.000-08:00

great writing from the general PAUL D. EATON

from the very go it was apparent to anyone with any kind of military backround or knowledge that rumsfeld was incompetant in his position, way above his head, and inept.
now you can hear it first hand from one of the generals rumsfeld and the president respects for his military knowledge, highlights within quote tags are mine

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is not competent to lead our armed forces. First, his failure to build coalitions with our allies from what he dismissively called "old Europe" has imposed far greater demands and risks on our soldiers in Iraq than necessary. Second, he alienated his allies in our own military, ignoring the advice of seasoned officers and denying subordinates any chance for input.
In sum, he has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone else responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq. Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.

a GREAT read from someone who knows a thing or two about how to conduct the military forces of the United States of America.
you're going to find things like the following, which I reported before however those people that support the decisions we've made in Iraq thought I was just a liberal with unfounded critisism.

Last, you don't expect a secretary of defense to be criticized for tactical ineptness. Normally, tactics are the domain of the soldier on the ground. But in this case we all felt what L. Paul Bremer, the former viceroy in Iraq, has called the "8,000-mile screwdriver" reaching from the Pentagon. Commanders in the field had their discretionary financing for things like rebuilding hospitals and providing police uniforms randomly cut; money to pay Iraqi construction firms to build barracks was withheld; contracts we made for purchasing military equipment for the new Iraqi Army were rewritten back in Washington.

how could anyone think we could win the war of ideas when we deliberately undermine the effort to help the Iraqi's "stand up so we can stand down"...this certainly looks deliberate doesn't it, these people STILL have less electricity, less water, less gasoline then before our invasion...who doesn't know we had to reubuild the infrastructure if we were to win the hearts of the Iraqi's?...I'll tell you who, rumsfeld, that's who.
please read the entire writing, it is well worth the trouble, while I may or may not agree with the generals politics, I certainly respect his military knowledge.
Rumsfeld tendered his resignation twice, but was refused (is involuntary servitude is part of the President's appointment power?).
once a resignation is refused, every single error from that point forward becomes imputed to the person that insisted refused the resignation.
we need a new secretary of defense, we need someone that knows something about conductiing our military forces and someone who can come up with some kind of plan for success, to which this secretary of defense has none.
the longer rumsfeld remains in a position he is sadly unqualified, the longer and the harder our mission becomes, and the longer fought will there be success

First, President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once, and hire a man who will listen to and support the magnificent soldiers on the ground

amen

2006-02-25T15:27:00.000-08:00

The Judas Sheep

There is something known as a Judas sheep

These are sheep that lead their own brothers and sisters to their doom and slaughter, when the time comes, they escape before the slaughter is apon themselves.

The rest of the sheep follow the "Judas" to their own doom, even through the slaughtered screams of their kin before them.

Clearly, there are not only "Judas sheep" among beasts, there are those among men that would lead their own to slaughter as well.

The question arises;

Do Judas sheep know what they are doing and what will become of their brothers and their sisters?

I would think most of these "Judas sheep" both sheep and men, probably not, for these sheep and and these men have been conditioned to do what they do.

They don't exactly see or understand where they lead those behind them, they think it's their calling in life

However, among men there ARE Judas sheep that DO know what they are doing

They are part of the very plot.

I don't believe most people that support this administration even through the legislation that flies in the face of their own best interest, or most people that try to convince others that these are good policies actually know that they have become Judas sheep

Supporting these policies that attack the fiber of the middle class demonstrates how effective the corporate propaganda machine really is.

I believe most of the middle class in America who vote republican are just sheep, they are the victims of the corporate propaganda machine, they are shallow and lazy, and they are hypnotized by the marketing strategies of corporate enterprise

HOWEVER;

The politicians and the media personalities who repeat things like "talking points" do know what they are doing.

People that manage to convince the American public in behalf of policies that fly in the face of reason.

People that protect and defend those who forged data and initiated unprovoked war against countries that they know pose no threat to our country.

And people that protect or defend policies that would actually siphon vital resources FROM our fight against terrorism, and take the equipment and funding FROM the boys and girls that desperately need those resources if they are to succeed.

And people that protect or defend policies that create terrorism in countries where none existed before, and policies like those that deliberately destroy the infrastructure of the country we overthrow.

And those policies that make believe we are rebuilding a country we have overthrown...to which we have invaderd and over thrown with forged data as our excuse

And leaving the people we overthrow with less electricity, less water, even LESS GASOLINE in an oil rich land!

Policies like those that would dismiss the military forces of a country we overthrow, let loose men who hate America with passion, and actually let them go WITH their weapons!

Policies that deliberately allow government grade cache of arms and weapons to be stolen by those that would do us harm.

And those policies that deliberately dilute the military, the might and ability of the armed forces of America, making her less capable of self defense

Policies that give control of American ports in the heart of the American infrastructure to companies we know support terrorists like Bin Laden, and worse, terrorist organizations like A Qaeda

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Policies that deliberately underfund programs that are absolutely necessary for national security.

People that defend the head of state who would sit around and play guitar when he's been told an American city would be under water, told two days before it would happen.

Policies that would give free money, free land, and free reign to corporations that have the largest profit in the history of planet earth.

Policies that would tell these corporations they wouldn't have to follow the health regulations that keep people safe from accidents...like the mining industry.

Policies that would take our very own money which we have been investing for generations, and give those assets to the richest people on the planet, people who will never ever spend it...our hard earned money which we earmarked for our retirement, which we earmarked for our parents health and drug care, and most important, investments we earmarked for our children's college education.

Even your kids future is not a sacrifice too great to these Judas sheep.

It's mind boggling the damage that can be done to this country before the people that enable it realize what's happening.
__________________

2006-02-20T12:58:00.000-08:00

Let's Have a War

wow, redd from firedog lake gets it right;

The Bush administration's use of intelligence on Iraq did not just blur this distinction; it turned the entire model upside down. The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made. It went to war without requesting -- and evidently without being influenced by -- any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq. (The military made extensive use of intelligence in its war planning, although much of it was of a more tactical nature.) Congress, not the administration, asked for the now-infamous October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's unconventional weapons programs, although few members of Congress actually read it. (According to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material, no more than six senators and only a handful of House members got beyond the five-page executive summary.) As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq; the first request I received from any administration policymaker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war. (emphasis mine)I highlight this specific passage because it is a theme that we have seen time and again with the Bush Administration. From Paul O'Neill to Richard Clark to Lawrence Wilkerson and now to Pillar: the Administration had a desired outcome -- war with Saddam Hussein -- and was willing to bend whatever rules, information, and planning that was necessary to achieve that outcome. Ends justifies the means.There has been a substantial amount of discussion in the last week regarding this Administration's lack of support for candor -- and the President and his staff's repudiation of criticism, even from within their circle of supporters. (The most recent article on the subject was raised by none other than GOP mouthpiece Bob Novak, highlighted here last night.) Without some mechanism for internal criticism, some check and balance on the inside of the process wherein important decisions are made, how is it that mistaken decisions are to be refined or poor judgments to be called for what they are? Glenn Greenwald has a couple of superb posts up regarding the Administration's illegal NSA domestic spying and foreign policy concerns that deserve a read and some thought on the Democratic end of things. If I have any quibble with Glenn it is this: on the NSA domestic spying issue, the reason that Republicans keep bringing up having a new law when there is a perfecvtly good one on the books is that, logically, if they admit that FISA is workable as it is, then they must admit that the Administration has been breaking the law all along. The thought that a new law is necessary to fix things is the red herring that the Administration apologists in Congress must keep bringing up -- otherwise, they must admit, both to themselves and publicly, that the President has repeatedly broken the law. Which brings up an entire mess of legal and impeachment issues that none of them want to touch -- it's the third rail for them -- and thus the straw man of a need for a new law to fix the non-broken system.What I want to emphasize, though, is the importance of continuing pressure on your members in both the House and Senate on this issue. Laura Rozen caught an interesting piece in Pat Roberts' hometown newspaper that may explain, more than anything else, his shifting public statements about oversight or not from the Senate Intelligence Committee. And Olympia Snowe's and Chuck Hegel's and a whole mess of other shifting perspectives over the weekend.Republican politicos have perfected the art of base mobilization on message in hometown newspapers and on small town talk radio. Progressives need to use this more and more -- to point out that not only is there a counter-argument, but that these sentiments are alive and well in every home town in America. Why not take the apparatus they've set up and use it against them?That feeling of community that each of us gets from coming to this blog or to other progressive blogs, that feeling that "you are not alone" is a temporary fix -- but the fact of the matter is that you are NOT alone, that there are more of us out there than the media ever lets on, and that if we all stood up and spoke our minds, there would be a sea change in the local opinion pages and on the talk radio shows in all our towns.Just imagine it. And contemplate the pressure we could all, individually and collectively, bring to bear on issues like:-- Pat Roberts' doing the President's dirty work by once again blocking any investigation of illegal activity by the Administration. (NYTimes)-- White House effectively bribing members of COngress not to investigate their illegal domestic spying programs. (WaPo)-- White House hasn't bothered to staff the commission established to safeguard inidividual rights and liberties because they don't acre enough about them to even make the effort. (LATimes)-- Senior military officials warned that Administration policies would lead to torture and worse, and the Pentagon and WH ignored their assessments. (WaPo and NYTimes)And those are only a few examples in the foreign policy arena. Imagine how effective this could be on a whole host of economic, domestic and other issues across the broad spectrum of Adminsitration incompetence and lies and Orwellian spin? If everyone who reads here every day was responsible for one letter every couple of weeks -- that is reaching a whole host of people in a whole lot of towns all across America.Most people I know here in my town don't read the major national newspapers. They read our local paper. And every day in that paper, some wingnut writes in a nonsensical rant. Isn't it about time we start pushing back? One letter, one phone call, one day at a time. Talking about things from our own perspective, how poor decisions from this Administration have badly impacted our own lives, in our own towns. Hitting people where they live, with facts and information they can understand...and discuss around the watercooler or in the break room.

2006-02-17T04:36:00.000-08:00

Saddam Warned U.S. Of Terrorism From Al Qaeda

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1711844,00.html

so, according to these video tapes in the mid 90's, Saddam went out of his way to tell us about terrorism knocking at our door.

In another development, ABC television on Wednesday night aired audio tapes of Saddam Hussein's cabinet meetings during the mid-1990s, including a segment in which he says he warned Washington of a terror attack. "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans," Saddam is heard saying, adding that he "told the British as well". However, he adds: "This story is coming, but not from Iraq."

2006-02-16T16:30:00.000-08:00

No Inquiry Concerning Our 4th Amendment Getting Trashed

The new strategy the administration will use to avoid exposing themselves for the crimes they've committed against the constitution of the United States of America will be to "compromise" with congress and "change existing law so there is no concern"

They will make believe they are giving something up in order to avoid the inquiry into what they have been doing behind the back of congress.

Will this strategy fool just about everybody?

yup

2006-02-16T08:05:00.000-08:00

We Are Getting Played

As far as the big media blitz concerning Cheney's shooting accident, I am telling you we are getting played

There is no question about it. in the new York area there is talk radio 77 wabc they have NEVER to my knowledge criticized a republican, ESPECIALLY this administration yet all over the station this morning they were punishing Cheney for how he handled this...even they were mentioning possible alcoholism we're getting played, let's make sure we don't play right into their hands

2006-02-15T15:35:00.000-08:00

Senator seeks NSA probe in fiery speech

text courtesy of raw story

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Vice_President_Cheney_tells_Fox_about_0215.html

now this is the patriots talk, this is what the people that founded this country are waiting for, someone to make SURE the vision of this republic is not lost under the sun
just a snippet, but this is POWERFUL stuff, please read in entirety
while not the beginning of his speech, I took the snippet from here, please pay special attention to what the fourth amendment of our sacred constitution actually says

The Fourth Amendment reads clearly, "The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The Congress has
already granted the Executive Branch rather extraordinary authority with changes
in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allow the government 72 hours
after surveillance has begun to apply for a warrant. If this surveillance
program is what the President says it is, a program to eavesdrop upon known
terrorists in other countries who are conversing with Americans, then there
should be no difficulty in obtaining a warrant within 72 hours. One might be
tempted to suspect that the real reason that the President authorized
warrant less surveillance is because there is no need to have to bother with the
inconveniences of probable cause. Without probable cause as a condition of
spying on American citizens, the National Security Agency could and can, under
this President's direction, spy on anyone and for any reason. We have only the
President's word, his "trust me", to protect the privacy of the law-abiding
citizens of this country. And one must be especially wary of an Administration
that seems to feel that what it judges to be a good end, always justifies any
means. It is, in fact, not only illegal under our system, but morally
reprehensible to spy on citizens without probable cause of wrongdoing. When such
practices are sanctioned by our own President, what is the message we are
sending to other countries which the United States is trying to convince to
adopt our system? It must be painfully obvious to them that a President, who can
spy at will on any citizen, is very unlike the model of democracy that the
Administration is trying to sell abroad.

indeed...what country would welcome the kind of government this one is demonstrating overseas?
does anyone know what a "Judah sheep" is?

these are sheep that lead their brethren to the slaughter and step aside when the time is right to do it again
we are told to vote against our own interest, we are told it is a good idea to export what this administration has exported overseas

we are told it's a great idea to take middle class dollars and give it to rich people

we are told it's a good idea to divert vital resources needed from the fight against the people that attacked us in Afghanistan in order to create a war on an undefended country

and we are told it's a great idea to forsake our constitution

and most of us follow these Judah sheep as if we have no mind

where are we today, what will we be in the very near future?

2006-02-14T06:20:00.000-08:00

More On Cheney's Quick Draw

thinkprogress.org has did some excellent research, Cheney was actually hunting illegally when he shot the near geezer

A check of TPWD license records indicated that while the Vice President had purchased a valid non-resident hunting license, he had not purchased the required upland game bird stamp.
In other words, Cheney was hunting illegally. Here’s Sec. 43.652 of the code he broke, according to the official accident report pictured above:
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person may not hunt a migratory or upland game bird in this state unless the person possesses the appropriate migratory or upland game bird stamp, as applicable, issued to the person by the department
Breaking the law constitutes a Class C violation of Texas Parks and Wildlife

and though corporate media is trying to represent this as a common accident, Texas had under 3 hunting accidents per 100,000 hunting licenses sold in 2005.

oh ya, quite common, eh?

back to Valéry Wilson and the breach of our national security by the offices of the administration

it's kind of lame but defenders of the administration are still trying to claim she wasn't a covert asset

this in spite of the fact that the special prosecute who the president not only hired but endorsed as doing a fine job has published that as a fact she was and some serious harm was done to our national security

anyway, raw story has what Valery was working on in this article;

Outed CIA agent 'was working on Iran'

theyhave found out exactly what her program was working on when the operation was laid to waste.

they were infiltrating Iran and finding out exactly what kind of threat they were.

that asset is lost ...wonderful

the president has made a pledge that if he found out someone was involved in this leak they would no longer work in the administration

he has a pledge to fulfill and an obligation to protect our national secrets from those people that are responsible for this breach of security

when is he going to be the republican he claims to be and hold these people to account for what they have done?

2006-02-12T13:37:00.000-08:00

HOW TO BE A REAL PATRIOT

The first thing you need to do is put your country before your party

Party loyalty will be the ruin of America, when you think something is happening that shouldn't be happening, do your very best to sound an alarm no matter the person doing it is a member of your own party

that's the sermon for the day, my first post is going to be pretty light I guess

check this out;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cheney_hunting_accident

Hehe...pretty inept, our vice president actually shot a 78 year old man on a hunting trip this weekend.

Anyway, here's something I've been waiting to happen for a long time as a republican who is disgusted with what the republican politicians are doing to this government;

Both democrats and republicans are livid about the breach of our national security and Cheney is FINALLY getting republicans to realize he is no friend to the United States of America.

Republican senators have actually asked the special prosecute to include Cheney in the investigation

That will take this investigation in the direction it's supposed to go, Libby is a pawn and a puppet.

If America is to remain regain the image of being the beacon of democracy it she has GOT to hold to account those that have turned her into what she is today.

This is an interesting read, it's hard to believe republicans are finally finding their real party tenets and might actually hold their representatives accountable for damage that they do to this country

I'm going to stay tuned, the Rove machine is pretty efficient and will probably be able to reel these patriots back in line

A quote from George Allen;

I don't think anybody should be releasing classified information, period, whether in the Congress, executive branch or some underling in some bureaucracy.

It doesn't really matter what we think though, the worse the infringement, the more this administration defends their action

Here's basic information on how to handle classified information;

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html

Now, here's something that EVERYBODY needs to sit up and take notice of;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2036182,00.html

One of our operatives has been "retired" because he thinks his orders to torture people in his charge are illegal and would cause harm to this country.

I agree, but he is going to pay a price now for challenging those that ordered him to break the law.

I have to go for now, stay tuned