Canada expels US woman deserter

Via the BBC:

Canada has ordered the deportation of the first woman US soldier to have sought asylum in the country to avoid being deployed to Iraq.

Kimberly Rivera, a mother of three, had requested permission to remain in Canada on humanitarian grounds but her appeal was rejected.

She could face up to five years in prison when she returns to the US.

Some 200 deserters from the US military are believed to have fled to Canada, some living incognito.

I have a feeling that the Bush mini-me, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (for now but , likely, not much longer after he done cut and run from the Canadian economic meltdown), is probably driving this foolish policy.

According to reports and after having served a tour in Iraq, Riviera said:

"The war was immoral and that she could not participate in it"

Considering the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the USA, Riviera is 100% correct and is standing on the higher moral ground, for certain, and the legal higher ground if bush and his fellow neoconservative criminals were rightfully prosecuted for their war crimes and other criminal enterprises and activities both here at home and around the world.

Some BBC related and suggested links:

SEE ALSO

Head-to-head: Refuge for deserters?
11 Jun 08 | Americas

Canada deports US army deserter
16 Jul 08 | Americas

RELATED INTERNET LINKS

War Resisters Support Campaign

The Begining of the End of the Iraq Occupation

The NY Times and CNN are reporting that the Iraqi Cabinet has approved a timeline for withdrawal:

The agreement sets June 30, 2009, as the deadline for U.S. troops to withdraw from all Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

The date for all troops to leave Iraq will be December 31, 2011, he said.

These dates are "set and fixed" and are "not subject to the circumstances on the ground," he said.

It has yet to be voted on in the Iraqi Parliament:

The decision of the 37-member cabinet, essentially a microcosm of the Parliament, is expected to be a good indicator of whether the agreement will pass. The assembly has not yet announced the date of its vote, but it is scheduled to go into recess on Nov. 24.

The draft approved Sunday requires coalition forces to withdraw from Iraqi cities and towns by the summer of 2009 and from the country by the end of 2011. An earlier version had language giving some flexibility to that deadline, with both sides discussing timetables and timelines for withdrawal, but the Iraqis managed to have the deadline set in stone, a significant negotiating victory. The United States has around 150,000 troops in Iraq.

This timeline pretty much mirrors Barack Obama's statements concerning the direction he had hoped to take the occupation during the presidential campaign. Though, Obama had stated that his policy would have been contingent to conditions on the ground - something that the Iraqis, obviously, disagree with.

The reality is that as we get closer to pulling out there is a huge potential for all hell to break loose. But it would be the same problem five, ten or even fifteen years from now. No matter when the power vacuum presents itself there will be, very likely, a power struggle to fill that vacuum by the Iraqis. We can only hope that they struggle for that power through political means and not with bullets and bombs.

Most of the people of Iraq that are still standing after the illegal invasion and occupation have already seen enough of the bullets and bombs through no fault of their own.

If I were a bankrupt Neoconservative

Not just morally bankrupt, but having lost all reigns of power...

Staring down the likelihood of losing my last well placed chickenhawk, Liebercon, at a point in time when all of my pitiful warmongering ideals were being shunned by anyone that wanted to be viewed as respectable...

Desperate to keep the fear alive for the sake of power...

What if Syria never had any nuclear program? What if my bestest warmongering friends forever gave me an ace in the hole to pull out at just the right time?

If I were a bankrupt Neoconservative I would never let the fear end. Because that would be the end of my reign of terror. I want you to think about this:

Lynching is sometimes justified by its supporters as the administration of justice (in a social-moral sense, not in law) without the delays and inefficiencies inherent to the legal system; in this way it echoes the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was justified by the claim:

"Terror is nothing other than
prompt, severe, inflexible justice."

Hey! It's not like anyone in our government would ever encourage this kind of terrorizing behavior with its own actions. Especially during an election... Right? And it is not like anyone in our government would find ways to demonize impotent pawns in order to create their own wars of choice... Right?

Fear has always been their tool. Lies and deception are their only game. These modern day Jacobins, the Neoconservatives, know no other way.

The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins

are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)

Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that

Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).

Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel:

"They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."

I, for one, do not trust the media to be a fair arbiter of this kind of information. They have been prone to do the bidding of these Neoconservatives time and time again. The Neoconservatives have known this day was coming. The day when they would be cornered with nothing left to do but lash out at anyone and everyone.

So... If I were a bankrupt Neoconservative, would I ask my Likudnik brothers in everlasting wars to deliver a dirty bomb, one that would leave uranium traces on a target of my choice, to an impotent enemy in order to keep the fear alive?

Deep down you already know my answer!

And I would be laughing at you as you coward in fear, yet again, and were lead like lambs to the slaughter in my newest, greatest war for freedumb.

Lost $2,300,000,000,000.00? Bush Loose Change

Questions from September 10th, 2001 that nobody ever got around to answering:

How did the Pentagon lose 2.3 TRILLION dollars?



Those 911 truthers out there sometimes make some really good points beyond just conspiracy theories. Think about it:



$2,300,000,000,000.00
lost by the Pentagon in 1 year alone and neither Donald Rumsfeld nor George Bush have ever accounted for that money. And that was before Congress started handing over even more money to these lying, corrupt, incompetent and criminal fools in the Bush administration to fund never-ending illegal invasions and occupations.

And not only does John McCain want to continue on this failed path... John McCain wants to draft your kids into this fiscally irresponsible, militarily disastrous, warmongering cluster fuck.

Today at a townhall meeting, an audience member praised Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for his vow to “follow bin Laden to the gates of hell.” After a long question about veterans’ care, the questioner said she believed we needed to reinstate the draft, to which McCain seemed to readily agree:

QUESTIONER: If we don’t reenact the draft, I don’t think we’ll have anyone to chase Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

[Appaluse]

MCCAIN: Ma’am, let me say that I don’t disagree with anything you said.

Let us be clear on what John McCain says:

• “there’s gonna be other wars”
• Wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years
• "Bomb, Bomb Iran"
  

And , now, for the second time he has said he would like to draft your kids for his continued neocon warmongering administration.

• "I might consider it if you could design a draft where everybody equally could serve.”

Iraq Fails to Set Election Date

While bush had been dreaming of an election date to be set for before he left office in the hopes of shining up his tarnished legacy just a little, it looks more like another chapter of failure can be added to his biography:

Iraqi parliament adjourns without setting elections
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD — After weeks of late-night negotiations and under intense U.S. pressure, Iraqi lawmakers failed to pass a much-debated provincial elections law Wednesday before adjourning for the month.

The failure to pass the law, which would govern elections in provinces across the country, may push the elections into next year. If elections don't happen by the end of this year, it could be July before the balloting could be carried out, U.N. spokesman Said Arikat said.

Elections originally were scheduled for October of this year.

Things turned violent over the passage of earlier legislation pertaining to the elections, and the potential is there for even more violence because we all know what this illegal invasion and occupation was never about and, apparently, so do the Iraqis struggling for their share of power in the different regions:

The most recent impasse came over the issue of Kirkuk, which sits atop rich oil fields in the north of the country.

The NY Times has more on how dysfunctional the Iraq government has become and how Iraqis attribute it to outside influences like the American and British embassies:

Iraqis Fail to Agree on Provincial Election Law
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

The fissures in the Parliament dispute reflected the larger fractures in Iraq: Shiite politicians blamed Sunni parties for the breakdown; Sunnis accused Kurds and their Shiite allies of recklessness in their demands; Sadrists pointed fingers at politicians in the dominant Shiite parties. Still others attributed lack of progress to improper intervention by outside forces.

“This period enables us get rid of the pressure of the American Embassy, the British Embassy, the United Nations and the Parliament blocs,” said Abdullah Iskander, a Sunni politician. “Now we can think clearly.”

But while lawmakers continued to cast blame, political leaders on the fringes of power saw the breakdown as an intentional tactic on the part of the politically entrenched. “I am sure there are many groups working hard to prevent an election,” said Baha al-Araji, a Sadrist member of Parliament, mentioning specifically the Dawa Party and the Islamic Supreme Council.

You can be certain that entrenched Iraqi politicians and power brokers learned many lessons well, on how to cause government breakdown and failure, from the entrenched politicians and power brokers in the GOP currently working hard to give their hand picked successor, John McCain, a shot at continuing bush failures on into the future.

Just another reminder as to whom we have to applaud for the Iraq distraction - ya know? The illegal invasion and occupation - and the ensuing quagmire and continued failure there:

Outside the administration, there is still a lobby pressing for a move against Iraq, but it is President Bush's strong political standing as a wartime commander in chief that will be essential in preparing the country and its allies for an Iraq campaign, foreign diplomats and administration officials say.

On Dec. 5, Congressional leaders sought to frame the justification for attacking Mr. Hussein in a letter to the president.

''For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them,'' said the letter, signed by Senators Trent Lott, Joseph I. Lieberman and John McCain, among others. ''We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.''

Any particular names jump out at you up there?

7 Years Ago Today

Via The Progress Report:

SEVEN YEARS AGO TODAY, BUSH RECEIVED
'BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.' MEMO:

Today marks the seventh anniversary of the day President Bush received a President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." (See the memo here.) At the time, Bush was vacationing at his ranch in Crawford, TX; he stayed on vacation for the rest of August 2001. According to the 9/11 Commission report, Bush "did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General" and there was "no indication" that there was "any further discussion before Sept. 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" after Bush received the memo. The day after he received the memo, "Bush seemed carefree as he spoke about the books he was reading, the work he was doing on his nearby ranch, his love of hot-weather jogging, his golf game and his 55th birthday," the Washington Post noted. The President has since admitted that he "didn't feel that sense of urgency, and my blood was not nearly as boiling" in the months before 9/11. Today -- 2,557 days later -- bin Laden still remains free and "determined to strike in U.S."

And the bush version of the "Where's Waldo?" game continues.

Meanwhile, Admiral Mullen had this to say about Afghanistan last month:

"It is urgent. It is one where the violence is growing."
-- Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, 7/22/08

But not to fear! In less than a month everything is now all hunky dory in bush land:

"I would take issue with the characterization that there's anything desperate about the situation in Afghanistan, anything urgent or precarious about the situation in Afghanistan." -- Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, 8/5/08

See... All is well because they waved a magic wand and say it is so!

And here is a peek back at December of 2001... Just a reminder as to whom we have to applaud for the Iraq distraction - ya know? The illegal invasion and occupation - from the real battlefront in Afghanistan:

Outside the administration, there is still a lobby pressing for a move against Iraq, but it is President Bush's strong political standing as a wartime commander in chief that will be essential in preparing the country and its allies for an Iraq campaign, foreign diplomats and administration officials say.

On Dec. 5, Congressional leaders sought to frame the justification for attacking Mr. Hussein in a letter to the president.

''For as long as Saddam Hussein is in power in Baghdad, he will seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them,'' said the letter, signed by Senators Trent Lott, Joseph I. Lieberman and John McCain, among others. ''We have no doubt that these deadly weapons are intended for use against the United States and its allies. Consequently, we believe we must directly confront Saddam, sooner rather than later.''

Any particular names jump out at you up there?

Two US Soldiers Charged With Murder

Details of various charges and the accused:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | US troops on Iraqi murder charge
Two American soldiers have been charged with the murder of an Iraqi prisoner, US military officials have said.

Staff Sgt Hal Warner and 1st Lt Michael Behenna are accused of the premeditated murder of Ali Mansour Mohammed.

They have also been charged with assault, making a false official statement and obstructing justice.

In other prison abuse news, further revelations on renditions and the prison at Diego Garcia continue to spin British politics:

Just three days after David Miliband's last attempt to draw a line under the story, the British Foreign Affairs Select Committee published its latest report on the British Overseas Territories (PDF), and was scathing about Diego Garcia, declaring that "it is deplorable that previous U.S. assurances about rendition flights have turned out to be false. The failure of the United States Administration to tell the truth resulted in the UK Government inadvertently misleading our Select Committee and the House of Commons. We intend to examine further the extent of UK supervision of U.S. activities on Diego Garcia, including all flights and ships serviced from Diego Garcia."

These new revelations, of course, leave the U.S. administration looking like bald-faced liars and the British government looking like myopic dupes. Whether Michael Hayden was also duped is not known, but his strenuous denial, just five months ago, that a secret prison existed, which was manned by his own employees, will do nothing for the credibility of the U.S. administration, which likes to pretend that it does not torture and has nothing to conceal, but is persistently discovered not only being economical with the truth, but also behaving exactly as though it has guilty secrets to hide.

Whether this scandal will awaken much indignation in the American public remains to be seen, but it is hugely damaging to the British government, which is legally responsible for the activities that take place on its territory, however much it likes to hide behind "assurances" from its leaseholders that they have done nothing wrong.

It scarcely seems possible, but Diego Garcia's dark history has suddenly grown even darker.

Once upon a time, the United States of America was a nation of laws.

Is Violence Poised to Explode in Iraq?

Contrary to Joe neocon Lieberman's statements and John McBush McSame McCain's claims of the surge succeeding... Violence in Iraq may be getting ready to explode AGAIN, and this will likely happen regardless of whether or not we follow last week's John McCain idea of "100 years in Iraq" or this week's John McCain flip-flopping to follow Obama's 16 month schedule for withdrawal which was recently endorsed by Maliki. A position that Maliki has been pretty consistent on even before he met with Obama. This is not to say that there will not be violence in Iraq when we pull out. The violence will be horrific. But delaying the day of withdrawal only continues the slow bleed of ethnic cleansing and infighting among power hungry Iraqis until further on up the road and until the shit really hits the fan.

Only a fool would be advocating that occupiers wait for parades with roses thrown at their feet in Iraq before they pull out. Never let it be said that Joe Lieberman and John McCain "ain't no fools!" Because they clearly are among the most foolish (and dishonest) politicians in this country. At the very least, these warmongers should have the basic decency to actually define "victory in Iraq" before they continue to advocate for or claim it.

"Declare Victory and Don't Go Home

The Bush administration and its stepchild John McCain have opted for a bold new strategy to counter the overwhelming success of Barack Obama's whirlwind foreign policy world tour: they've declared victory in Iraq.

This could preserve the neocons' aim of establishing a permanent military footprint in the geographic heart of the Middle East. Their only problem will come when the American public starts believing we've won and begins to expect the administration to draw down the troop presence in Iraq for real."

Via The Real News Network, this report is offered here for you to think really hard about and without further comment by myself:

"Three female suicide bombers and a roadside bomb struck Shiite pilgrims taking part in a massive religious procession in Baghdad on Monday. Police said at least 32 people were killed and 102 wounded. The attacks occurred in quick succession in the early morning in the mainly Shiite Karradah district, as tens of thousands of Shiite worshippers streamed toward the pilgrimage site in Kazimiyah, northern Baghdad. Meanwhile at a Kurdish rally in the northern city of Kirkuk, A bomb blast killed at least 15 people and wounded 170 others. The attack occurred while demonstrators gathered to protest a provincial elections law being debated in Parliament. The law would limit the Kurds ability to control oil-rich Kirkuk which they consider to be part of their historical land. Last week Kurdish parties walked out of the Iraqi parliament in protest over the proposed law. Though the law was passed 127 to 13 it was later vetoed by President Jalal Talibani, who is also a Kurd. Though many reports claim violence in Iraq to be at its lowest point in three years, the political situation is still very volatile."

Buzz this!

U.S. army study says Iraq occupation was understaffed

No Kidding?

U.S. army study says Iraq occupation was understaffed
DENVER - A nearly 700-page study released Sunday by the army found that "in the euphoria of early 2003," U.S.-based commanders prematurely believed their goals in Iraq had been reached and did not send enough troops to handle the occupation.

FULL STORY

While bush was claiming that major combat operations had ended:

Planners in the Iraq headquarters said 300,000 troops would be needed for the occupation. Even before the invasion, some planners had called for 300,000 troops to be sent for the invasion and occupation.

...snip...

Some commanders told the authors they asked about plans for making the country stable and got no answers.

...snip...

Its writers said it was clear in January 2005 that the Army would remain in Iraq for some time, the writers concluded.

That was only about 7 Friedman units ago.
Take heart, dear reader, that our fearless leader took his military commanders advice on troop levels and... Oh wait! he ignored the military, never sent in the 300,000 troops they wanted and lied about the Friedmans too.

I would feel used if I didn't know this since the day they sacked General Shinseki for telling them, and us, the truth about needed troop levels.

Retired generals speak out to oppose Rumsfeld:
"In this, Powell echoed former Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who told Congress just weeks before the 2003 invasion that several hundred thousand US troops would be necessary to secure Iraq after the invasion. For this he was publicly contradicted by then Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Rumsfeld named General Shinseki's replacement a year before he was to retire and broke custom by not attending his retirement ceremony."
--- csmonitor.com

In case you don't remember exactly what Shinseki said to get pushed out the door by the bush administration:

McCain makes a good point with his "whackamole" comment, but clearly the only other thing that McCain is correct in when he talks about sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq is at the end of the video where he says, "I don't know where the troops are going to come from."

He hasn't a clue that it would take a draft to get enough troops. Firstly, because we already don't have the troops to spare. And, secondly, because you need to be looking at the several hundred thousand pairs of boots on the ground deemed neccessary by General Shinseki, before he was chased out of the military by the neocons for being honest, if you really want to secure Iraq and you get the idea of how wrong McCain is.

“Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We’re talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that’s fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.” [Sen. Armed Services Committee testimony, 2/25/03]

Now, of course, several years later we have a bush flack in charge named Petraeus. Nothing more than a yes man for the neocons and eternal war. He took over from a reasonable Admiral that stood in the neocons way when it came to attacking Iran.

All they need is to get their warmongering McCain in to the White House and we can be sure to be playing whackamole in Iran for a hundred years too!

4000 Dead American Soldiers In Iraq

4000 Dead American Soldiers In Iraq...

The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year.

The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

As reported in the Seattle times article, Overall US Death Toll in Iraq Hits 4,000, for which the title seems to ignore the hundreds (thousands?) of mercenaries that have died, as well.



One soldier was wounded in the attack:

The four soldiers died when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb while on patrol late Sunday in southern Baghdad, bringing the overall toll to 4,000, according to an AFP tally based on independent website www.icasualties.org.

Another soldier was wounded in the attack, a military statement said.

The chaotic and brutal conflict which is now in its sixth year has also wounded more than 29,000 American soldiers, according to icasualties.org.

At least 97 percent of the deaths occurred after US President George W. Bush announced the end of "major combat" in Iraq on May 1, 2003, as the military became caught between a raging anti-American insurgency and brutal sectarian strife unleashed since the toppling of Saddam.

Bear in mind the reality that over one million Iraqis have died since "shock and awe" began indiscriminately killing Iraqis.



And all of this over a pack of lies sold to you by the criminal bush administration...

I know, we went to Iraq to bring the Democracy, to stop the terrorists over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here, and all that other nonsense.

Fortunately, there are some (not the corporate media) who will keep history alive and accurate.

Please, if you have an hour and feel the need to "purge", take the time to review the case for war as made by the Bush Administration in all of its glory.

I only wish this was required viewing for every candidate running for office today, and after viewing it, each candidate were to have to address their vote (if they voted) or their public stands.

Why Are "Serious People" The Last To Know?

Reading this entire piece by Anne-Marie Slaughter is as painful as watching a one armed boxer that does not realize they are too punch drunk to enter the ring ever again... And not understanding "why?" they should never have taken up the sport to begin with.

It is not just that the Joe Kleins, Bill Kristols, and every other punch drunk hawk pundit wannabe on both the right and the left has been so wrong on so many important topics... But every metric they have used to come to their failed decisions has been equally as wrong as well. When it came to Iraq, the bell hadn't even wrung yet and they were all out cold on the mat.

To put it simply? No, we will never trust any of your suggestions, ideas or your reasoning ever again. No, we will not ask you for your opinions. And No! Don't bother to offer them. Not from any of you "Serious People" going through life ignorant of your own serious deficiencies when it comes to critical thinking.

Stop Gotcha Politics on Iraq?

Try this one on:

Stop thinking we take any of you seriously...

I was going to tear some of this piece up later.
But... Ding! Ding! Ding!
Don't bother putting your gloves on...
The knockout punch has already landed.

Iraq War Blogswarm Tomorrow

I meant to write about this a few days ago but here is a little advance notice as the Iraq War Blogswarm is tomorrow, according to Rocky at Alien Trucker:

March 19 will be the last day of the first five years of the invasion of Iraq. Numerous bloggers will be swarming the internets about this subject. I will be one of them.

I don’t know much about getting images and adding links and all of that simple techy stuff so I am not able (at this moment) to put the supplied graphic/link in my side bar. I have, however, figured out how to put images as well as links in my posts so here is the link to the March 19 blogswarm site.

There are 271 Blogs signed on to this so far but the reality is that many Blogs will be covering the sad fact that we will have been occupying an illegally invaded nation, Iraq, for five years as of tomorrow, whether as part of the Blogswarm or not. Just in case you hadn't noticed because the news stopped covering Iraq... Not like it is an election issue or anything, eh?

The Report the Government Didn't Want You to Read

The "Iraqi Perspectives Project - Phase II" is up for your reading pleasure:

ABC News has requested and obtained a copy of the Pentagon study which shows Saddam Hussein had no links to Al Qaeda.

(READ THE FULL REPORT HERE.)

It's government report the White House didn't want you to read: yesterday the Pentagon canceled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's availability and didn't make the report available via email or online.

Based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion and thousands of hours of interrogations of former officials in Saddam's government now in US custody, the government report is the first official acknowledgment from the US military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.

Meanwhile... The right wing is grasping at straws (and strawman arguments) to try and justify the criminal bush administration's illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Go figure?

I am glad they posted it because I didn't like waiting for my copy in the mail. You can find the "Iraqi Perspectives Project - Phase I" over here. Both of the reports are some pretty heavy reading and won't make as much sense if you aren't familiar with the background of the many organizations mentioned (which would explain the right wings confusion, since they never understood any of it from the beginning as evidenced by their screwing it all up) and they are not exactly written in an entertaining style.

Does John McCain Support the Troops?

clammyc at ePluribusMedia thinks McCain has a clear track record of dumping on the troops:

Since everyone is at least a bit familiar with John McCain’s record when it comes to strolling through a market in Baghdad with hundreds of his closest guards, or how he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years (except when he flip flops on that).

But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.

This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the “Double Talk Express”. But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.

In mid 2007, Senator Reid noted that McCain missed 10 of the past 14 votes on Iraq. However, here is a summary of a dozen votes (two that he missed and ten that he voted against) with respect to Iraq, funding for veterans or for troops, including equipment and armor. I have also included other snippets related to the time period when the vote occurred.

Go check out just how John McCain is no friend of the soldiers... It is truly disgusting how McCain has turned his back on the troops time and time again.

Here is just a taste of what clammyc is talking about:

April 2003: McCain urged other Senate members to table a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve equipment in Iraq related to a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests.

The vote to table it by the Republican controlled Senate basically broke down by party line (52-47) and effectively killed it... McCain and the Republicans do not give a damn about the soldiers, especially considering their promise of endless war. To this day the National Guard and Reserves are still short on beans, bullets and other supplies.

Suicides in the U.S. Army increased 20 percent in 2007 from the previous year; that word came today in reports on internal Army documents. They showed as many as 121 suicides in the ranks in 2007. More than a quarter of those -- about 34 -- happened in Iraq. Army officials have said the troops are under increased stress, partly due to long overseas deployments.

An independent commission warned today the National Guard is even less combat-ready than it was a year ago. The commission on the National Guard and Reserves reported to Congress. It said the two forces do not have the equipment or training they need.

All thanks to the way John McCain and other Republicans treat the troops... Republicans kill anything in congress that tries to force bush to honestly support the troops. ABC's Political Punch knocks out the highly partisan far right wingnuts that screeched over Obama's statements in the debate the other night:

Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.

I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.

Meanwhile, John McCain has made clear his support for bush's continued failed policies. I have asked this question over and over again:

Do you really support the troops?

Do you even know what kind of support they really need?

Apparently Barrack Obama does know what the troops really need, according General Casey's assessment of the truth behind what the right wingnuts were screeching about after the debate:

Today Gen. George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee with a very different take on the story. From the AP ...

Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons.

But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Casey said the incident would have occurred in 2003 and 2004 following the Iraq invasion. He said he remembers it as a "difficult time" trying to rush armor and other equipment to the troops.

He didn't endorse what Obama said, which there's no need for him to do. And he was frank about the supply difficulties that were widely reported at the time and which few people who follow these matters question. But mostly, if the AP report is an accurate guide, Casey sought to answer the question to the extent possible without engaging the politics of it.

This is not some partisan nit to pick. The Bush administration has had a dangerous and corrosive tendency to partisanize the Pentagon and use it to game domestic political controversies and campaigns.

According to General Casey the situation is still getting worse for the military:

"The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future."

John McCain can take his partisan campaign and incompetent support of bush failure and go sit in the right wingnut corner and rotate on it. America has no more room for continued GOP failures.

Right Wingnut Frenzy Over Soldier's Assertions

Right wingnuts were hysterical over this story:

In last week’s Democratic debate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said he was told by an Army captain that his platoon’s resources in Afghanistan were shortchanged because of the Iraq war. Seeking to turn Obama’s remarks into a political attack, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) immediately questioned the authenticity of the statement. But ABC News contacted the Army captain, who backed up Obama’s story. And now the New York Times reports that soldiers in Afghanistan are still strapped for resources:

And they felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”

Jon Soltz and VetVoice have more.

Crooks and Liars has more on this as well:

During the Austin debate last week, Barack Obama made this comment:

“You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,” he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”

Well, you had to know that a statement like that–insinuating that life is not all wine and roses for our troops being sent for their third, fourth and fifth rotation into the Gulf–was just going to make the wingnuts crazy. (I won’t link them, but you’ll find links here)

ABC's Political Punch knocks out the highly partisan far right wingnuts that screeched over Obama's statements:

Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.

I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.

I have asked this question over and over again:

Do you really support the troops?

Do you even know what kind of support they really need? I could tell you but you politically partisan right wingnuts will not like the answers. You never did like the truth...

I wonder if these peace songs will get played on the radio?

Via Think Progress:

“Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young and Pearl Jam have contributed tunes to the anti-war soundtrack for a documentary about a U.S. soldier paralyzed in Iraq. The 30-song, two-disc album ‘Body of War: Songs That Inspired an Iraq War Veteran’ will be released March 18 via Warner Music’s Sire Records label. All proceeds from the sale of the album will benefit Iraq Veterans Against the War.”

Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder is behind the effort to support Iraq Veterans Against the War and the album will include songs like "No war" - "Masters of War" - "Devils & Dust" - The Restless Consumer" - "Yo George" - "Son of a Bush" - "Bushonomics" - and a bunch of other inspiring tunes.

A little bit on who and what makes up the Iraq Veterans Against the War taken from their "about" page:

Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent.

From its inception, IVAW has called for:

• Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq;
• Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and
• Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.

Our membership includes recent veterans and active duty servicemen and women from all branches of military service, National Guard members, and reservists who have served in the United States military since September 11, 2001.

IVAW’s strategy is to mobilize the military community to withdraw its support for the war and occupation in Iraq. Therefore, IVAW is leading the movement of veterans and GIs who are working to bring the troops home now.

Today, IVAW members are in 48 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and on numerous bases overseas, including Iraq. IVAW has chapters around the country and in Canada. IVAW members educate the public about the realities of the Iraq war by speaking in communities and to the media about their experiences. Members also dialogue with youth in classrooms about the realities of military service. IVAW supports all those resisting the war, including Conscientious Objectors and others facing military prosecution for their refusal to fight. IVAW advocates for full funding for the Veterans Administration, and full quality health treatment (including mental health) and benefits for veterans when they return from duty.

To learn more about IVAW's strategy to end the war and bring the troops home now, you can download our strategy pamphlet in PDF format here.

I am a veteran for peace and wholeheartedly support their efforts. I also look forward to every informational Newsletter I get from them in my Email inbox.

Bill O'Reilly on Lynching Michelle Obama

Via Crooks and Liars, where they have the video up:

Keith Olbermann brings on Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson to discuss the horrific history behind Bill O’Reilly’s casual and callous use of the phrase “lynching party” in reference to Michelle Obama’s quote about being really proud of this country and the implications one may draw from it.

You know what lynching was? Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crow south. It wasn’t…the idea of course, wasn’t to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people…not a few, by lynching some black people to demonstrate to other African Americans that this could happen to you, that you have no power, that we have all the power, and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life. There’s nothing funny about lynching. There’s certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama. And the word “unless” followed by “we’ll track it down,” is way beyond the pale.

I have written on this subject before, and I agree with Eugene Robinson on this topic, but I also think that it goes beyond just the racial issues:

Is Racism on the Rise in the USA?

I am sadly leaning towards a "yes" considering the reports of things that are going on locally in Connecticut and, via Man Eegee, around the rest of the country:

I'm sure race has nothing to with the recent surge of nooses in the news since we are soooo over bigotry in the U.S.

Police are looking for whoever dangled a 3-foot rope with a small loop at its end from a tree outside a campus cultural center that is home to several black organizations. The incident is being treated as a possible hate crime.

"This is bigger than a noose," Black Student Union President Altmann Pannell told his fellow students, many of whom were wearing "Terps as one" buttons."

"This is bigger than a noose because we as a community know that something else is going on in this country," Pannell said to murmurs of agreement.
linkage

That "something else" is not missed by minority communties, especially when the disparities in justice are blatantly tied to the color of one's skin.

For a year, Jena (pronounced JEEN-uh), a poor mining community of 3,000 people, has been embroiled in racial tensions pitting the black community against white school officials and a white prosecutor. It began last August when a black student asked at an assembly if black students could sit under a tree where white students usually sat. The next day, two nooses hung from the tree.

Black parents were outraged by the symbolism, recalling the mob lynchings of black men. They complained to school officials. District superintendent Roy Breithaupt and the school board gave three-day suspensions to the white students who hung the nooses, overruling the recommendation of then-principal Scott Windham that the students be expelled.

linkage

The case of the Jena Six has been covered extensively by fellow bloggers, such as Hello, Negro with information on how to donate to the defense fund; also My Right Mind! who offers a slew of tips to assist these young teens.

Nooses are more than just complex slip knots in a rope - they are both symbolic and directly representative of torture, murder and racist mob rule.

Man Eegee has some more bad news on this sad reality check...

But before you go there, I want you to think about this:

Lynching is sometimes justified by its supporters as the administration of justice (in a social-moral sense, not in law) without the delays and inefficiencies inherent to the legal system; in this way it echoes the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was justified by the claim:

"Terror is nothing other than
prompt, severe, inflexible justice."

What are some of the possible reasons why racism seems to be on the rise in the Good Ol' USA? Hey! It's not like anyone in our government would ever encourage this kind of terrorizing behavior with its own actions and ideologies...

The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins

are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)

Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that

Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).

Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel:

"They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."

Sheeple see... Sheeple do...
Or some terrorizing thought like that?

His statement makes Bill O'Reilly both racist and a homegrown terrorist, IMHO. The Jacobins used lynching to terrorize the people during the French revolution, and the neoconservatives/Jacobins do it today.

The prospect of even a symbolic press lynching party is a horrible and disgusting message for O'Reilly to send to Michelle Obama and it is meant to go to the entire African American community in the USA... But it is also part of the "Fear Campaign" meant for the consumption and terrorizing of all Americans and to spill over to the rest of the world.

What is this 'Iraq war' charge on my bill?

I had already written on John McCain's obvious campaign platform for the upcoming elections... So this particular new campaign certainly caught my eye:

h/t to Carol at My View of It


From John McCain's Less Jobs. More War.

We laugh, we yell, we worry. But, thankfully, we live in a time and a world where we can do something. While Clinton and Obama are focused on winning the nomination, we have a job to do.

Will you invest a dollar for every year you think John McCain will keep us in Iraq? A dollar now could quite possibly save us from the decades of "more wars" McCain has promised. Make an investment

At a time when all television spots are fundraised around helping a particular candidate win, there is a critically important role for online communications to play. We can reach hundreds of thousands online, instantly. Wired just did an article about this.

Brave New Films was on the case over a year ago with The REAL McCain, and it looked like America was through with him after that. But now he's back and more dangerous than ever. We must act now!

Rethinking Torture Tapes and the 911 Commission

Former Reagan administration Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Paul Craig Roberts, takes a look at the not so obvious concerning the destroyed torture tapes and the 911 commission:

Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al Qaeda's participation in the 9/11 attack and determining the perpetrators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Was the video evidence withheld from the 9/11 Commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al Qaeda, and did not implicate bin Laden?

There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue. The Justice Department's memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to US interrogators who tortured detainees. The Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006 strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: "No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights." Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.

Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA video tapes as a "torture story." It is conceivable that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot. As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth?

Just some food for thought...

$720 million per day for Iraq occupation

$720,000,000.00

It only costs $720 million per day to pay for the occupation of Iraq. Can you think of better ways to spend this money?



"Sign the petition to defund the war, and refund human needs today."