jonny10

maddog56 writes :"The number of innocents murdered by the U.S. since WWII is in the 100s of millions of people."

care to back this up ?

It is incumbent on Congress...

Some Americans believe that under certain circumstances it is understandable that the President cannot always be forthright with the American public, particularly with sensitive information that pertains to the nation's national security. But how about to Congress, particularly to those Congressional Committees that are already in place and that have oversight, why hasn't the President been forthright? More and more the truth has begun to trickle out, with regard to the real reasons for the American mission to Iraq.

I believe that it is time for the new Congress to step up, and to correct a serious glitch that will not only correct the problem that we are currently experiencing with President Bush and Iraq, but their actions can also prevent future Presidents from even considering engaging in similar behaviors as the 'misleading' past President Mr. Bush has done.

When Congress approved funding four years ago (and in-between) for the Iraq mission, Congress did so as a result of being misled by the President. Today, both Congress and the American public know that the stated reasons that were given were flatly untrue.

And if you argue that we were not misled, and we were, the fact is there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that is another reason why Congress should have stopped funding the invasion and occupation a long time ago.

To continue to fund a fraudulent and unconscionable war would be uncivilized. If Congress elects to fund the new mission in Iraq, they should do so only after receiving full disclosure from the President's office as to what the mission really is, then funding should only continue only after Congress has received a full explanation of how the money is to be used; and Congress must approve of the said reasons for the new mission and declare war on somebody!

Otherwise, Congress should step up and shut down the fraudulent mission to Iraq that is currently responsible for the loss of thousands of lives and a wrecked nation!

The additional money that would be spent to do any more damage in Iraq or to destroy any more innocent Iraqi lives and the Iraqi (created by Great Britain homeland), should instead be approved by Congress in order to begin paying reparations to the nation of Iraq.

And as for Bush who is guilty of all of that he has accused Saddam of in the M-E, as well as fraud and Contempt-of-Congress in America, he should share the same fate as Saddam, that is if Saddam were to be hanged!

It is incumbent on Congress...

Some Americans believe that under certain circumstances it is understandable that the President cannot always be forthright with the American public, particularly with sensitive information that pertains to the nation's national security. But how about to Congress, particularly to those Congressional Committees that are already in place and that have oversight, why hasn't the President been forthright? More and more the truth has begun to trickle out, with regard to the real reasons for the American mission to Iraq.

I believe that it is time for the new Congress to step up, and to correct a serious glitch that will not only correct the problem that we are currently experiencing with President Bush and Iraq, but their actions can also prevent future Presidents from even considering engaging in similar behaviors as the 'misleading' past President Mr. Bush has done.

When Congress approved funding four years ago (and in-between) for the Iraq mission, Congress did so as a result of being misled by the President. Today, both Congress and the American public know that the stated reasons that were given were flatly untrue.

And if you argue that we were not misled, and we were, the fact is there were no weapons of mass destruction, and that is another reason why Congress should have stopped funding the invasion and occupation a long time ago.

To continue to fund a fraudulent and unconscionable war would be uncivilized. If Congress elects to fund the new mission in Iraq, they should do so only after receiving full disclosure from the President's office as to what the mission really is, then funding should only continue only after Congress has received a full explanation of how the money is to be used; and Congress must approve of the said reasons for the new mission and declare war on somebody!

Otherwise, Congress should step up and shut down the fraudulent mission to Iraq that is currently responsible for the loss of thousands of lives and a wrecked nation!

The additional money that would be spent to do any more damage in Iraq or to destroy any more innocent Iraqi lives and the Iraqi (created by Great Britain homeland), should instead be approved by Congress in order to begin paying reparations to the nation of Iraq.

And as for Bush who is guilty of all of what he has accused of and fraud and Contempt-of-Congress, he should share the same fate as Saddam, that is if Saddam were to be hanged!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaim.info

Bush administration preparing to boost US troop strength in Iraq

By Joe Kay
15 December 2006

During the past week, the Bush administration has given clear signs that it is preparing to increase the number of US troops in Iraq, as part of a bloody offensive against the Iraqi resistance. Such a move would be taken in direct opposition to the overwhelming and growing popular sentiment in the US against the Iraq war.

The political establishment, while uniformly supportive of continuing the Iraq occupation, is deeply divided over what actions are required to extricate itself from the current military and political debacle. The Iraq Study Group report, released last week, expressed the widespread view within US ruling circles that salvaging Washington's position in Iraq and throughout the Middle East requires negotiations with Iran and Syria, together with a plan to reduce the presence of American combat troops in Iraq by 2008.

Political initiative in Washington, however, has clearly shifted to those who are advocating a significant increase of US troops, accompanied by a violent assault on the Iraqi population.

The drive toward increasing the number of occupation forces was highlighted by an article in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday ("Pentagon's Plan: More US Troops in Iraq," by Julian Barnes). The Times reported that within the military there is "strong support" for a plan to "double down" in Iraq, which would include "a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr," the leader of a Shia militia associated with opposition to the American occupation.

On Thursday, Senator John McCain reiterated his calls for bolstering the occupation forces with 15,000 to 30,000 more troops. McCain made his remarks in Baghdad during a visit with several other Congressmen, including Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman, who has supported McCain's position.

According to the Times, the proposals being floated in the Pentagon also include a plan for permanently increasing the size of the US Army and Marine Corps. One of the main hurdles the military has faced to increasing the size of the occupation forces is that the military is already severely strained. A planned increase in the military's overall permanent troop strength, a move that has been long advocated by the Democratic Party leadership, would be intended to address this problem.

"Military officials are taking a close look at a proposal advanced by Frederick W. Kagan, a former West Point Military Academy historian, to combine a surge with a quick buildup of the Marines and the Army," the Times reported.

An article in the Washington Post on Wednesday ("Army, Marine Corps To Ask for More Troops" by Scott Tyson) confirmed that the Army and Marine Corps are preparing to ask incoming Defense Secretary Robert Gates to support permanent increases in personnel by several thousand troops, along with fewer restriction on the use of reserve troops.

The article in the Times was clearly the product of deliberate leaks orchestrated by the White House as part of its push for a new military assault in Iraq. John King, chief national correspondent for CNN, reported in an interview on CNN's "Situation Room" Tuesday that, according to senior administration officials and others involved in White House negotiations, "the president is planning to do something big." Citing one of the sources he spoke with, Bush "is very seriously considering . . . increasing US troop levels in the short term and also resisting the recommendations of the Iraq Survey Group."

For the rest of this article please go to:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/dec2006/iraq-d15.shtml

To P.J. Casey:

You only need large Armed Forces if you absolutely insist on _creating_ enemies. Creating enemies seems to be the American way, perhaps the only thing that binds us as a country. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II and countless other military interventions since WWII. Read "Rogue State:..." by William Blum. The number of innocents murdered by the U.S. since WWII is in the 100s of millions of people. Our government demonizes another country/leader and we're off on another campaign to destroy another country. In the U.S., people never learn. As for Iraq II, it was not only unnecessary--virrtually everything critics of the war said might happen has happened: massive insurgency training ground for terrorists where none existed before, civil war. It's not sufficiant for the U.S. to simply withdraw, which was never our intention anyway. We owe both Afghanistan and Iraq $100 of billions in reparations. Muslims/Arabs don't hate us; they hate U.S. policies towards them. Our main reasons for invading Afghanistan and Iraq was to install puppet governments (done, but not very well) and create permanent military bases for ourselves. Yes, the U.S. is hellbent on world domination in every way possible.

If America ever loses its capacity for laughing at itself, WE ARE LOST. Thanks Bill, for keeping hope alive.****As for WAxman roasting Rumsfeld's chestnuts on CSpan--the higher temp and the sooner the better.

The article referenced below explores recent comments of Sen. John McCain: "There's only one thing worse than an overstressed Army and Marine Corps, and that's a defeated Army and Marine Corps."

In the case of the Iraq invasion and occupation, any defeat is the responsibility of those who launched this disastrous misadventure through deception and executed it with incompetence.

- - -

Army and Marine Corps will retain strength and honor after Iraq occupation ends

American Chronicle
December 14, 2006

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=18005

(to the tune of Silent Night)

Stuff happens,
When you're yappin'.
My plan was great,
Don't be irate.
Who could have known
We'd still be over there?
Though chaos I've sown
Has fruit yet to bear.
I'm leaving, my finger's done pokin'.
Iraq is just broken.

Force doesn't work, and that will be Bush, Cheney's and Rummy's legacy....

these folks believed and believe that you have to use force, and make other people see and behave in the manner that Americans wanted them to!

I'm not so sure that we should all begin singing, Silent Night, however, given Rummy's departure.

When we consider Mr. Bush's meeting earlier this week, we can all see that Mr. Bush is in the process of regrouping and surrounding himself with other sycophants.

And in light of his actions last week, let us remember that that two parts of the triumvirate, I almost said the Axis of American evil are still in place in Washington.

And they have one thing in mind, that is doing what they have in mind, in deference to what the American people have said.

Scrooge is still around!

Four years and one month passed my 4th Birthday, Pearl Harbor occured. It is the first current event I can remember. The chief lesson they kept repeating during and after the war was that we were not prepared for war. After every war, everybody thinks there will be a peace dividend, and we can quit spending on the military services. However, when you are the big dog on the block, every few years there is going to be some conflict, and you have to be ready for it.
There is no one size fits all anwser to every military campaign. Different situations, enviorments, and people require different responses. Depending on the situation, multiple armies, divisons, brigades, and so on down to a squad may be the anwser.
With our position in the world, a large armed forces is required. A voluntary army will not cut it. We need the draft to maintain the size of the forces we need. I opposed the Iraq war, because it was unnecessary and stupid. But Iraq or no Iraq, we need a big armed forces and we need to be ready for anything
We also need the industrial might, in this country, behind the armed forces to support them. Alexander Hamilton plan for America calling for an industrial base and a self sustaining internal market was, in part, to support our national defense and our independence. We therefore need trade barriers to keep or grow new industries in America for jobs and national defense.
This is how we became a world power.
Anyone who has taken a high school America History or Civics course should know these facts.

Well done, Mr. Arkin. All you need now is a way to get Tony Bennett to record it for you.

I for one will be singing it throughout the season in anticipation of the New Year - when Henry Waxman starts roasting Rumsfeld's chestnuts on an open fire.

Clearly, Bill, you could drive WaPo's traffic way up if you Vlog'd yourself singing this.