From the Git Go, going into Iraq was a very very bad idea. I still don't know or understand the REAL reason we went in there.
They had nothing to do with 9-11. They hadn't any WMD's (not even the ones we gave them in the 80's). No Nuke weapons program. As for chemical weapons, anyone can make those (their the poor mans nukes) even high school chemistry kids.
Then it changed to a mission of Democracy. Great, in a region where they didn't have Roman Law (to begin with) nor the desire for that form of government (if they got to vote to have that form of government they wouldn't vote for it).
We've killed god only know's how many innocent civilians. We've lost over 3000 troops in the country itself (rumor has it if you are being medivacted out and die after clearning the Iraqi air space it doesn't go on that tally), well over 22,000 wounded and disabled, and keep sending more in.
As for money. Well the guys who said we'd be "Greeted with sweets and flowers!" cleaned out the government tills. And then left. (Hummmm how do I get in on something like that....hummmmm wonder if it's multi-level....)
Well, as we use to say in the military, this is a "cluster-f**k". Or short version, a "Cluster".
I mean you can only send someone so many times before they've had enough. A friend who found out he may be called up, yet again, feels sold out by the US Government and the so called Republican Party. Can't blame him. These guys lied like a dog to him.
So as for Bush heading to fun sunny Ft. Benning, GA (yes, I was stationed there, red Georgia clay and Pine trees too) it'll make a good show...but that's about all.

thats just my opinion though...

your write like there is a thong way to far up your butt

poopy...

you are a good write my friend

Good site! Good stuff, i found lots of intresting things here. Many thanks. free ringtone
free ringtone

>>"A modest proposal" presented ideas that were so outlandish that it became obvious to any reader that the proposal was satirical,<<

Wrong bucko.
Look it up. At that time, what he wrote was all too well believed by most. Potato anyone?

Remember the final conclusion of the 911 Commision; "They're at war with us, we're not at war with them"

BTW I'm a WTC Survivor, perhaps it colours my views, or maybe it's all those funerals I've been to, y'know?
As to "Fierce", you don't know the meaning of the word.
Hoo-Ahh!
-------------------------------------------------------
I think you should have plenty of canned goods on hand:

London Braces for Attack;
'Miracle' If There Isn't One

December 21, 2006 10:42 AM
ABCNews
Brian Ross and Richard Esposito Report:

London police, British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, "It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.

British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active "plots" tied to what they call "al Qaeda of England."

Officials said they could not cite any specific date or target but said al Qaeda had planned previous operations during the Christmas holidays that had been disrupted.

"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.

Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.

"A modest proposal" presented ideas that were so outlandish that it became obvious to any reader that the proposal was satirical, and not the actual beliefs of the author. Unfortunately, your proposal fails the comparison to "A modest proposal" in both ways:

Your proposals were not obviously satirical. As you said, your comments were only, "somewhat tongue and cheek."

The ideas you proposed are most likely very close to your own beliefs, otherwise you would not have defended them so fiercely in your second posting.

Will the first "sophisticate" here who has heard of Johnathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" please remove their finger from their nose long enough to raise their hand. Geez.
Talk about testaments to the erstwhile American Educational System!

Wow. Army Football, all I can say is THANK GOD you are retired. The idea of having such an imbecilic fool working in our armed forces at a rank of Colonel is one of the most frightening things I have ever heard.

"Put the aforementioned weapons through the windows of the Palatial Royals"

Your idea of assassinating heads of state as a means of foreign policy is a brilliant. Nothing bad could ever come from that.

Endorsing assassination of heads of state would also endorse the assassination of our head of state. Additionally it would earn us international condemnation on an order of magnitude not seen since World War II.

Murdering the leader of a country would also cause every citizen of that country to actively hate us, and actively fight against us. It would inspire every ally and neighbor of that country to also actively fight against us. Maybe it would even be enough to motivate some of these people to use their ultimate trump card; smuggling an atomic weapon into NY.

I guess the 500K-2 million dead americans and the global recession caused by the destruction of New York would be a small price to pay to defend your adolescent machismo beliefs, and compensate for your obvious shortcomings.

Young Euclid: Please remember that things equal to the same thing are also equal to one another.
As well, please note that my previous post that has you in such high dungeon does NOT at all mention the use of nuclear weapons of any sort. Nay, our conventional weapons in the somewhat tongue & cheek scenario I put forth would do quite fine, thank you.
So you would have Mrs Smith's 22 year old son from Iowa continue walking down a road somewhere in Anbar until an IED in a cow carcass explodes taking his legs & eyesight if not his life. Am I correct?
Would you allow artillery fire rolled ahead of poor Pvt Smith as doctrine calls for in the hope of exploding the Iranian furnished IED mentioned above? Det cord, perhaps? Please advise soonest, The Army War College eagerly awaits your divine insights, such that they are.
Oh, when exactly was this "peace" in the 60's 70's & 80's you speak of ?
I'm going to see if Rambo's on the satellite.

AF, Col., Infantry (ret)
USMA
1975

Surge? Cheney just wants more troops there to get massacred so he has a bloody shirt to wave to 'justify' his intention to attack Iran with nuclear 'bunker busters.' If I were Gen. Abizaid I would retire too. If I were a congressman I would introduce a double impeachment resolution before these kooks set the world on fire for a couple generations with their harebrained British Empire-type manipulations.

ArmyFootball, it's a shame more men like you aren't in the military hierarchy; we could have ended this pitiful world long ago. Just think of all those possibilities missed in the 60s, 70s, and 80s during the cold war, when instead of peace we could have easily cultivated nuclear winter. No more people, no more modern problems, right?

sarcasm aside, I can't believe some people still believe in this sort of drivel; go back to watching Rambo and leave the affairs of the world to the grown-ups, OK?

Why isn't anyone pointing out that Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq till he gets what he came for--Iraqi oil? How long are the American people going to accept his ludicrous lies and excuses for mass murder in a foreign country that did us no harm until we invaded? Doesn't he realize the Iraqis are wise to his aims, and are going to keep killing Americans until we are gone? And when is someone going to bring out the truth about 911, which was orchestrated by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush to take us to war in the first place? Doesn't anyone care how heinous these criminals are? Come on, people! Stand up and be counted!

Why isn't anyone pointing out that Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq till he gets what he came for--Iraqi oil? How long are the American people going to accept his ludicrous lies and excuses for mass murder in a foreign country that did us no harm until we invaded? Doesn't he realize the Iraqis are wise to his aims, and are going to keep killing Americans until we are gone? And when is someone going to bring out the truth about 911, which was orchestrated by Rumsfeld and Cheney and Bush to take us to war in the first place? Doesn't anyone care how heinous these criminals are? Come on, people! Stand up and be counted!

felicity wrote:
--Can Mr. Bush, disregarding the advice of the military, the consent of Congress, the consent of the American people do whatever his whim tells him to do? Can he "save" face and sacrifice our Republic in the process? Apparently so.--

Here's a link for you felicity:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html
Its called the Constitution and it says the president does not have all the powers you claim, at least in an absolute sense.

First of all, Congress allowed this war by voting to give Bush the ability to attack Iraq (H.J. Res 114: http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml). Its also the legislation Bush points to that he says allows him to break any law, violate any constitutional provision and basically do whatever he wants to "protect the American people".

Second, the American people elected this president a SECOND time after all his flaws, mistakes, lies and ineptitude were well established in the fall of 2004. But gay marriage and tax cuts were more important to the majority of people than correcting their mistake and voting Bush out.

Third, Congress can stop this war tomorrow. They can deny funding to the war forcing Bush to pull troops out of Iraq. Congress can do a lot of things to change the direction of this war but the republican majority which has been voted into place by the People has allowed Bush a free hand.

So you can blame Bush all you want but his actions were not the actions of a dictator. They were executed with the consent of Congress and after he and Congress made those blunders in 2003/2004 the People in 2004 voted him in for a scond term and maintained a republican majority in Congrsss. That is where the blame lies. The direction of this country is not in the hands of one person or even one party, its in the American people's hands and they allowed this to happen and worse, continue by reelecting Bush and maintaining a republican majority. Until the People admit their mistake, little will change. Americans demand accountability of their elected representatives, well, its time they accounted for their votes in 2004. Did YOU vote for a republican in 2004? If so then you are part of the problem. If not then you have a right to complain.

It's so simple, it's painful.
OK, so we don't have the troops, the proverbial "boots on the whatever".
But boy do we have FIREPOWER!!!
How 'bout them 2 billion dollar a copy attack subs?
Those Carrier Battle Groups?
B-1, B-2, F-117, the venerable B-52 still a great standoff platform, the F-22 now coming on-line.
Cruise Missles & Drones aplenty.
I can go on and on.
And we keep buying this hardware, never to be used, or so it seems.
But imagine a LEADER with the Testicular Fortitude to use this extraordinary power........wow!
We now stand naked before our enemies, who's numbers are legion, having revealed exactly the limits of our ground forces. Scary, huh?
But just think.........pick a couple of dozen or three fat ripe targets in say, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, the Bekka, NK......the unusual suspects, dig?
Nothing fancy.......a palace here, a summer get-away there, the odd WMD facility, whatever you like.
Put the aforementioned weapons through the windows of the Palatial Royals (geez, it's 2007 & you schmucks still have Kings!) & on targets otherwise and then just deny we did it. Plausible deniability.
They'll all know who did it. And they will once again fear us.
We'll say it was probably one of those gas explosions.......happens here in Joisey all the time, y'know?
Shame that when Testicular Fortitude is needed, the most we can muster are girly men awash in Estrogen at the National Command.

When are we going to face the fact that the American president has beyond too much power? The Commander in Chief by definition means that he has the full military, all the weaponry at his command. No single individual - especially in our so-called democracy - should have that much power.

Can Mr. Bush, disregarding the advice of the military, the consent of Congress, the consent of the American people do whatever his whim tells him to do? Can he "save" face and sacrifice our Republic in the process? Apparently so.

The Rev wrote:
--Unfortunately it might be too late by then--

Oh its never to late and I think its already begun. The kids I know are very angry with Bush and its not just Iraq. They also watched New Orleans sink below the water and while the news media could get there, the picture were of quiet skys with no governmental help. My daughter was furious and erupted when she say NO a few days after the hurriccane on TV. Why isn't the government doing anything she screamed. Her friends and kids I know through our church are saying the same things. When my daughter heard that Jim Webb snubbed Bush at the white house she cheered "about time!".

Now this isn't something we instilled in her. This is her and others forming their own opinions based on what they saw happening. Maybe they expect too much. Just watch any Bond movie or other thriller and see the government leap into action. But I definitely see this anger in the young that America is not doing what it can and what it should. The anger is starting to appear in the music and you know what that means. I expect to see demonstrations at the republican convention in 2008 no matter who is running. Its 1966 all over again. I guess what they say about history repeating itself is true.

Well WW3 has already started. The fighting is worldwide. There IS an Islamic extremist agenda and they consider it a worldwide war. The bombs are smaller and fewer but still worldwide and a war, a terrorist war. Bush says he understands the nature of this war yet wants missle defense and new bunker busting nukes but no diplomacy. Iraq is nothing compared to what will come if this war is not fought on our terms. Bush seems totally incompetent at figuring out how this war should be fought or how diplomacy should be applied. It seems his only concern is who will profit off the military decisions he makes.

We've said it before ... we'll just have to wait two years for someone, anyone, to take this ship on the right course.

I think it will be up to today's kids to change what has been built into this society, an acceptance of telling lies as a normal part of daily life in America.

Sully,

Unfortunately it might be too late by then, Bush seems to be intent on instigating WWIII. We need Americans to stand up now and to demand the truth and nothing but the truth from our employed government officials.

While he has been so busy agonizing over how to stop the M-E nations from ever having any power, the rest of the world, including China and Russia, I am certain, are trying to figure out how to stop American power and interference.

It is so dissapointing to hear those Americans who want to persist in degrading Iraq ignore all of the reasons that we were told that we should go into Iraq.

That says to me that some people simply do not care, let's just get 'er done, they would say; America must win. I can recall when not so long ago Mr. Bush was asked, if you knew then what you know now, would you still have invaded Iraq? He answered resolutely, yes. Why? He had another agenda for going into Iraq in the first place and it was not about WMDs.

And that explains why he had to order the U.N. Weapons Inspectors out of Iraq before they completed their work. Why? Because they were destroying the pretext that he was using to convince Congress and some of the American people that invading Iraq, to protect America, was the right thing to do.

Congress knows this now and they should stand up and do the right thing, that is to end the war, bring the kids home and impeach Bush!

==Maybe lies are now accepted as part of governing.==

--They are and everyone in the media accepts it - it is not news.--

This is why we fail. Its why the Soviets failed, at least part of the reason. I remember Kruschev telling Nixon that they were ahead of the U.S. in everything. When Nixon pointed out the new color TVs America was producing Kruschev said they were ahead in that too. It was so bold faced a lie that Nixon froze, unable to believe what he had just heard.

America has migrated from a nation that faces the truth to a nation that relies on lies to get by. Its not just Bush. Its become part of our society which accepts Bush's lies as part of normal governance. Its always been there, but its now such a large part of our society that it is being accepted and in many cases expected. The evidence is everywhere, at Enron, at Fannie Mae, at the White House where no lie is too big or too embarassing, at Congress where Congressional republicans claimed no knowlege of Foley's actions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, with Foley himself who says his lies were caused not by himself but by alcoholism, with Oliver North, whose lies lead to Iran-Contra but is now considered a respectable person, with Clinton, who lied to the American people and when it was exposed it was excused by those who supported him.

Where lies are accepted as normal there cannot be any accountability. Our problems are not just in the White House, the problem is within our society. Democrats excuse the lies of democrats and republicans excuse the lies of republicans and Americans excuse lies that are "understandable". This allows a failed policy to be accepted by society when lies tell us its a good policy even though the evidence is to the contrary.

Rev, you have a lot of work to do... Until American can see a lie and call it a lie and bring the liar to account, we will continue to fail. We will continue to hear we are winning when the evidence shows we are losing. We will continue to hear the economy is doing well while our debt approaches $9 trillion. We will hear we just need a "surge" to win this thing when it was tried just 6 months ago and failed miserably. And the sad part is we may see these lies for what they are but we will shrug our shoulders and accept them as part of how government works and the best we can expect from our elected leaders.

Its time to face up to our shortcomings and time to acknowledge that we no longer consider a lie as wrong and this is why America is failing in its many efforts. 1984 has come and gone so we should not be surprised that today we accept that war is peace (attack them there before they attack us here), freedom is slavery (allow the government to bug your phones so we can remain "free") and ignorance is strength (our president considers not reading newpapers to be a good quality).

In the story of the emperor having no clothes it was a child, who had not yet been conditioned by the society to accept the emperor's lies, who exposed the lie the emperor was telling and society was happily accepting. I think it will be up to today's kids to change what has been built into this society, an acceptance of telling lies as a normal part of daily life in America.

Sure there are a lot of loyalists and dreamers out there who still think American can "win," but mostly those in the military...

And the problem with this small segment of dubious Americans and the limited Mr. Bush is that what they hope to accomplish is immoral and has always had more to do with other factors than just Iraq itself! For what would really constitute a win in Iraq that would satisfy Bush and his crowd? The short and simple answer is, to BEAT INTO SUBMISSION all who opposes American hegemony in Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world. It was never about a war on terrorism or finding WMDs., that excuse only gave Bush and his boyz cover, to carry out their nefarious scheme!

Bush and the other nitwits, have by breaking Iraq in the first place, irretrievably shifted the balance of power in the Middle-East in a direction that he and his consorts had not intended it go, given their lack of foresight, dubious arrogance, immorality, gross incompetence and lack of respect for both domestic and international law. And now they want to salvage what every one in the world knows was a mistake from the onset by further degrading Iraq, by sending in more troops.

Folks, this is not what Congress approved of when it agreed to support the President's mission to Iraq four years ago; the President always has been conducting a fraudulent campaign, and he has been doing with the loss of American human and monetary capital!.

And to add insult to injury what did our lame-duck President say a day or two ago? Mr. Bush said that he is going to listen to those 'who matter'? News flash, that is all that you have been doing since you took office, listening to those 'who matter' to you. What was he saying to the American public given this double entendre? He was saying that the opinions of the majority of the American people simply do not matter, in other words I am Hitler, I mean President!

George has made it clear that he plans to end his time in office just as he began it, by listening only to those sycophants and ideologues who agree with his limited judgments. and opinions, and by being a fool. And listening in this context goes beyond merely hearing a point of view, listening in Bush's context infers that he will hear those who agree with me and do what they want!

It is time for the American people to put King George into check. He is an employee/servant of the America people. Given that he is no longer interested in serving the will of the American people, if he ever intended to, he must be stopped! Why, for here is a man who neither respects the rule of Law nor the will of the majority of the American people. He has committed illegal acts, and usurped his Presidential authority for which he has been rebuffed and rebuked by both The Supreme Court and a District Court. This man has not only ignored the will of the majority of the American people and Congress, he even ignored those voices of reason and dissent that were once a part of his Administration.

Congress must take the first step in ending the Bush debacle by refusing to further fund his crusade in the Middle East. Remember folks, this whole debacle was based upon fraud and deception from the onset by the soon to be former disgraced President of the United States of America, I hope. And fraud negates any contract!

And for those of you who wonder, I do respect the office of the President. But I have zero respect for the murderous nitwit ho currently holds the office of President of the United States. This murderer needs to be at the Hague, that's where he really needs to be. Not one more life should be lost because of another misguided 'American mafioso style pimp daddy President' who is out of control; the world world needs not suffer any longer because of him!

sm writes :"The advantage possibly could be great, US control of the oil resources of Iran would help mitigate China's threat to the US as an economic power."

how in the world does the US get control of Iranian oil ? the concept is ludicrous.

Don't get fooled again. The surge new code word really means--- 30,000 troops to kill Iraqi es by the thousands and the training part is a rouse ( big FKN lie )
For the posters that wrote that the US media is asleep---no-no, they are behind and supporting the killings--cause they are Jewish and Bush team is on Israel side.
Sad part is both USi parties are Jewish along with our media.

Colonel Powell has repeatedly stated on Sunday that a 'surge' would be ineffective and unsustainable - pretty much like the Baghdad-surge of August 2006. So what's the deal about this new 'surge'??? A 'surge' would only embolden the Iraqi Resistance.

Bush lied,
They died.

And Rummy knows this far too well.

When Clinton turned it over in 2001 the United States Army had twelve divisions with 36 active combat brigades . The first thing that Bush and Rumsfeld did was to cut two divisions.

They did it for the same reason why they appointed Air Force general Richard Myers joined chief of staff. The Bushies wanted missile defense. They plundered the budget of the Army to pay for a technology that does not work and will never work.

In spite of the facts, the guys at the AEI are blaming "cuts in the nineties," read Clinton, for American shortages of groundtroops. That only reveals that they are involved in propaganda rather than analysis.

Other Bush apologists point out that the Army's and Marine Corps's share of budget is just as high under Bush as under Clinton. That argument fails to consider that the ground forces are bearing a disproportionate share of the war's burden. If their share of the budget has not increased then that means that the ratio of dollar per output has been cut.

Besides, a lot of the war's costs are only coming due in the future when we have to replace consumed equipment, most of which is coming out of the Army's and the Marine Corps' hide.

The fact is that five years after September 11, Bush and Rumsfeld have not properly provided for the Army. It's time to abandon the pipe dreams in procurement such as "missile defense" and the crony contracts to Bush's buddies and make the mission and the soldiers the administration's priority.

I would love to have a meaningful "surge" of groundtroops in Baghdad. In light of similar experiences with peace keeping, we need one soldier for every fifty Iraqis. That means that thirty or fifty thousand troops will not cut it. It takes 130,000 men.

And my daughter wants a unique horn . . . with wings and a paddock.

We are spread so thin that we cannot define the center of gravity any longer. That's why our enemies have the initiative. Unless we retreat and concentrate troops, we cannot regain the initiative in the world nor the region.

A message to Tucker Carlsen,

Mr. Carlsen, tonight on MSNBC, you referred to Colin Powell's remarks from yesterday's 'Face The Nation' TV show, as being stupid.

I am not an apologist for Colin Powell, albeit he usually makes more sense than anyone in the Bush Administration and you, however, if he is guilty of anything, it is for conducting himself in the same manner that you often did on the 'Crossfire' TV show.

You sat on that show, year after year, representing the Right, where you defended the policies of the Bush Administration. I know, because I sat in the audience on the front row, right in front of your satiricl and conniving little face; the make-up helped.

And you have the never to criticize Colin Powell for representing the positions of his Commander-in-Chief which he apparently did not believe in and you yourself did the same?

Colin Powell was stupid for allowing himself to be used by the lesser equipped Bush in order to help him to get elected, and look how he has ruined himself.

Now what is your excuse Mr. Carlsen? Besides Colin is right, we do not need to keep sending in more troops to be sitting ducks in Iraq. We need to get on with resolving this problem that Mr. Bush created, and you argued for albeit you did not believe in it either.

Or did you really?

When Donald Rumsfeld says he has helped to transform the military into a more agile and expeditionary force, one would think that surges would be the natural byproduct:

Well, in a sense what Mr. Rumsfield stated was true. In both theaters the American expeditionary army/forces went in and quickly did their damage and claimed victory. On one occasion Bush even declared that the mission had been accomplished.

And with respect to Afghanistan he gave the impression that the Afghani theater had been under control.

The only problem seems to be that both men lack the requisite understanding of how war works. In other words, just because you win a battle or two, it does not mean that you have won the war!

Many of our Iraqi servicemen have openly complained that they have been called upon to conduct the same kind of operations that the Vietnam-era veterans were called upon to perform on Pigs Hill, et al in Vietnam.

The quick expeditionary mobile troops sweeps in and takes the high ground (low ground in Iraq); and once the area is secure what do the commanders tell American troops to do? Well, they tell them to hurry up and leave! And of course the enemy returns.

Given the Rumsfield style tactics that Americans servicemen have been taught, they have learned, America's agile expeditionary military should have little trouble in hurrying up and getting out of Iraq.

The question is, which country will be the recipients of America's next hit and run/drive by?

"This is how the system works: No one actually is ever making a firm request for an increase and no one is taking a stand to say 'no.' In this way, Rumsfeld can claim that he has never turned down a combatant commander's request for more troops."

This sounds a lot like the traditional Western view of decisionmaking in the Japanese government. Perhaps some day an enterprising think tanker will write a book about it: The Enigma of Pentagon Power.

==Maybe lies are now accepted as part of governing.==

They are and everyone in the media accepts it - it is not news. Before the elections, WH has perpetrated a blatant lie that the President, who has boasted of not even reading newspapers, is in some kind of polyglot reading contest with Rove, with the President leading something like 50 books to 35 for that year alone! A wide-ranging book list ostensibly "read" by the President was provided. No one in the media has chosen to challenge this silly lie. There is simply no story in this for the American public. Nobody givea a ... manure.

Here's the kind of truthful administration we have and the unbelievable ability they have to lie and obfuscate openly:

1) November 8, 2006: Bush fires Rumsfeld.
2) December 15, 2006: Cheney says of Rumsfeld that he was the "finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had."

Now, why would the president, during a war, fire the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had? Cheney's praise of Rumsfeld implies Bush was an idiot for firing Rummy! Anyone in the news media going to ask Cheney about that? Anyone going to ask Bush why he fired the finest Secretary of Defense this nation has ever had? Cheney and Bush get away with this type of blatent lying and truth twisting because the media is worthless at keeping them honest. Come on Arkin, WaPo, NYT and the rest of the lazy media, wake up and do your job! As Kennedy said when the then president of France, DeGaul, asked Kennedy how he could allow a free press in America, Kennedy responded that he couldn't imagine a free democracy without one. Well, right now we don't have a working free press but a mollified bunch of reporters waiting for the WH to give them their columns and headlines on a silver platter. I know, I'm ranting and what I'm saying is not true everywhere, but its true enough in many places. How else can you explain the media ignoring the vice president implying the president made a mistake? Maybe they know Cheney was lying, but that in itself is news, which as usual goes unreported. Maybe lies are now accepted as part of governing. I'm not sure, but something is broken somewhere.

---To what degree is a broader military conflict, outside the boundaries of the currently constituted Iraq, advisable and advantageous for either the United States OR its current political leadership?

The advantage possibly could be great, US control of the oil resources of Iran would help mitigate China's threat to the US as an economic power. It is in the American elite's interest to be the preeminent and unchallenged economic and financial power in the world. Use of military force to consolidate that position seems natural to the American elites. A possible drawback is that the US would have to expend a great deal of its financial resources in an expensive war to control Iranian oil, is it worth it? Yeah, I know, I am very cynical.

==4 - To what degree is it advisable or advantageous for the US political leadership to conjure an Iranian-Saudi conflict in Iraq and in the greater region?==

I guess that would depend if the US political leadership wants the three countries with the world's combined largest oil reserves and production to duke it out on their own territories. I suppose it IS possible that they would want to do that, to "democratize" the region, or to give birth to the "new middle east", but it seems unlikely even for the them. I could be wrong. I thought they wouldn't invade Iraq... I stand corrected.

A few questions for anyone who can answer:

1 - How are the foreign fighters and their supplies getting into Iraq? Are there interdiction efforts to stop/control those foreign agents at the border? Are the former Iraqi Army's arms stockpiles being blown up/melted down in order to decrease the availability of arms & explosives available to insurgents, sectarian militias and various gangsters? If not, why not?

2 - Assuming that some supplies are coming from porous borders with Syria and/or Iran (and also assuming the White House political leadership sees some advantage in not closing those borders), what kinds of war-game scenarios has the US performed related to drawing Iran into an open cross-border incursion in Iraq, which might allow the US to attack first those supply lines and then Iran's nuclear program? To what degree is a broader military conflict, outside the boundaries of the currently constituted Iraq, advisable and advantageous for either the United States OR its current political leadership?

3 - How many billions of private Saudi petrodollars go to support the non-state militant actors in the broader middle east? How many Saudi state petrodollars? To what degree are Saudis directly or indirectly controlling the conflict in Iraq?

4 - To what degree is it advisable or advantageous for the US political leadership to conjure an Iranian-Saudi conflict in Iraq and in the greater region?

5 - When, and to what degree, will the US military begin educating its service members in Arabic and Persian?

A few questions for anyone who can answer:

1 - How are the foreign fighters and their supplies getting into Iraq? Are there interdiction efforts to stop/control those foreign agents at the border? Are the former Iraqi Army's arms stockpiles being blown up/melted down in order to decrease the availability of arms & explosives available to insurgents, sectarian militias and various gangsters? If not, why not?

2 - Assuming that some supplies are coming from porous borders with Syria and/or Iran (and also assuming the White House political leadership sees some advantage in not closing those borders), what kinds of war-game scenarios has the US performed related to drawing Iran into an open cross-border incursion in Iraq, which might allow the US to attack first those supply lines and then Iran's nuclear program? To what degree is a broader military conflict, outside the boundaries of the currently constituted Iraq, advisable and advantageous for either the United States OR its current political leadership?

3 - How many billions of private Saudi petrodollars go to support the non-state militant actors in the broader middle east? How many Saudi state petrodollars? To what degree are Saudis directly or indirectly controlling the conflict in Iraq?

4 - To what degree is it advisable or advantageous for the US political leadership to conjure an Iranian-Saudi conflict in Iraq and in the greater region?

5 - When, and to what degree, will the US military begin educating its service members in Arabic and Persian?

President Bush has repeatedly told the American people that we are in a war that will last for generations; however the President, Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Congress have failed our country to save their "Political Hides". If this country is in a war that will last for generations then from the very beginning we should have re-instituted the draft. There is no other way that we can raise the forces we need to win. The only sacrifices made in this war are the sacrifices made by the fighting men and women and their families. I recently heard the following quote, "You don't take an Army to war...you take a country to war". Not one American has given up their large SUV, oversized truck or gas-guzzling vehicle to lessen the country's dependency on mid-east oil. Politicians who support the war on terror have led the American people to believe that we can fight this war without making sacrifices. And the American people voted them into office because they believe them. The Republican-leaning cable pundits at the cable news channels, some of the most ardent supporters of the war and Bush continue to drive their gas-guzzlers and have even gone so far to say, "if we change our lives in this country the terrorists have won", what a self-centered, don't ask me to sacrifice anything attitude. Even our military personnel who serve in Iraq buy and drive the largest, gas-guzzling vehicles they can afford, talk about a disconnect. The all-volunteer army Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs are so proud of costs us substantially more because of the huge incentives that have to dangled in front of enlistees to get them to sign. Meanwhile the Haliburon's, and private contractors that Cheney and Bush support are over-charging and making huge profits while congress is making cuts to the uniform services and in some cases cannot afford to pay the utility bills at some of our U.S. military bases, yeah they are making sacrifices. We will lose this war unless fundamental changes in our thinking are made and I'm afraid our congress, the administration, and the Joint Chiefs lack the guts to tell the American people the truth and the American people are not willing to make the necessary sacrifices, the terrorists are because they have nothing to lose. Not only are we in danger of losing this war but we are bankrupting our economy, our leaders have failed this country and the American people and the result will be a weaker and poorer America.

Look under "Clean Break" on the web, and you will see the war plans by Richard Perle & Co. There is the origins of this war.
Bush is crazy if he thinks that he is going to keep the same number of troops in Iraq for several years. Even with the "surge", they won't secure Bagdad or al-Anbar province. As soon as the "surge" recedes, the insurgents will come back. The casualties will increase when we go on the offensive, and, if we hit militias or groups on both sides of the Shia/Sunni, we will be hit from both sides. We may unite them against us. This is their religious war and none of our business.
The unintended consequences will be an increased recruitment of terrorists for al-Qaida like organizations all over the world. Combine with our troops tied down in Iraq, along with the Europeans being stupid enough to insist on a dress code for Muslims, and there will be hell to pay because of our presumptuous foreign policies. How about Afghanistan going down the tubes because we wasted our time in Iraq. Afghanistan is where we should be now. What about 9/11!
Our military forces should have been out of Iraq yesterday. We need to dump that stupid missile defense system, and those greedy multinationals out of our military's logistics chain. Commanders on the ground should contol their own logistics staffed by military personnel. We are in for a long term war with terror organizations, and we don't know if a Taliban like state will, in the future, really support terrorists. We need the draft for a big Army and Marines, with appropriate equipment.
We do need to impeach Bush and Cheney, because they violated the law and the Constitution. However, the most immediate reason to get rid of them is they are incompetent, and more people will die because of their stupidity.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

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

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1540.shtml

Election fraud in Georgia
The Cox legacy: Who "owns" our votes?
By Denis Wright

Online Journal Contributing Writer
"A temporary restraining order is necessary and proper under the facts presented to the Court since release of the CD-ROM today at 5:00 p.m. will significantly and permanently impair the rights and interests of the public and the Secretary of State as the custodian of those rights and interests." --Motion and Supporting Authority for a Temporary Restraining Order, filed in DeKalb Superior Court, State of Georgia on behalf of Cathy Cox, Secretary of State

Two months prior to leaving office Cathy Cox, Georgia's outgoing secretary of state and the subject of much controversy, felt compelled to stop an effort to perform a citizen audit of the state's primary and run-off elections of July and August 2006.

Georgia's elections, like some 38 other states, are conducted on DRE or direct record electronic voting machines which are manufactured, upgraded and serviced by various private corporations that claim they are unaccountable to any outside scrutiny. In Georgia's case that corporation is Diebold Election Systems, and Diebold supplies not only the machines but the ballots, the training, and the "proprietary" software that counts the votes.

The most recent legal battle in Georgia began after Atlanta attorney Mike Raffauf filed an Open Records request for a copy of the CD-ROM "which contains a copy of the information on each memory card (PCMCIA Card) which shall include all ballot images and ballot styles as well as vote totals and a copy of the consolidated returns from the election management system" for DeKalb County.

Linda Latimore, director of elections for DeKalb, responded thus on November 3: " . . . by copy of this letter we are putting all interested parties on notice of our intent to provide you with a copy of the requested CD-ROM by 5:00 p.m. on November 9, 2006."

Ms. Cox and her legal representatives felt that it was improper for the very citizens who cast the votes to audit the results; results that exist only in the inner workings of an electronic voting system that is itself mired in controvery and shrouded in great secrecy. Ms. Cox apparently felt very strongly that Georgians be kept in the dark about their votes: She had the request to deny the release of the CD records filed with the court 25 minutes before the disk was due to be handed to the public, without notifying Mike Raffauf she was racing to beat the deadline.

Cox and her staff contend that release of the files would constitute a "threat to public security or property if released." One of her staff members, Kathy Rogers, felt it necessary to send an email to county election supervisors equating release of the data to "criminal or terrorist acts" after Georgia citizens requested it in 2004. Also enlisted was Ray Cobb, director of the Center for Election Systems at Kennesaw State University, who filed a supporting affidavit with the court.

While Ms. Cox claims in her request for the restraining order that she and her office "fully support and indeed have advocated" for the Open Records Act, the record shows a different reality. Numerous Open Records requests have been filed by citizens for information regarding the voting process which have been denied or never answered.

To bolster his case, Mr. Raffauf enlisted industry expert Yobie Benjamin to rebut the claims by Ray Cobb and Cathy Cox. Mr. Benjamin describes his experience and expertise in his affidavit, "I have 20 years experience with information systems management technologies . . . I am an internationally recognized expert in computer information security and have served in this capacity with several notable companies". Mr. Benjamin inspected and analyzed the Diebold election system for former California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley.

According to Mr. Benjamin, "Release of election data that was recently publicly available should not cause this level of security risk. There is clearly something deficient with this election system."

Benjamin continued, "Regarding the claims made by Mr. Cobb's affidavit that the files 'contain encryption codes that could be used in an attempt to modify, 'spoof', 'crack' or 'hack' the GEMS [Global Election Management System] software or the receipt or tabulation of votes using the GEMS software.' It is common practice in commercial and government industry to regularly change security codes and points of access as part of a prudent security program."

In fact, the certification test of the Diebold Election System prepared by KSU for the office of the Secretary of State in July 2006 states that the dynamic password on a Poll Manager Card "has a six digit password and allows this password to be changed as often as desired." Similarly, the password on Voter Access Cards can be changed to ensure security. Surely this most basic of security tenets would be followed in elections and this information would be changed as often as deemed necessary. Had industry standards been applied in the voting system and passwords and other security related information been changed after the election, Mr. Cobb's assertion is a red herring. If not, security concerns move well beyond the release of records regarding a closed election and speak to the apparent incompetence of those entrusted to protect the votes.

Furthermore, in response to Cobb's claim that the CD data cannot be reproduced without copying security information, Benjamin calls this an "ignorant assertion" as any bit or byte of data in any computer system can be isolated securely by any competent computer professional.

Concludes Mr. Benjamin, "Election results and ballots should be made public irrespective of its form or format. It is up to the public to decide how they utilize this information."

Why is the release of this information so vital to the citizens of Georgia? First there is the question of "who owns the votes." Diebold and other manufacturers have consistently insisted that the vote tabulation software is private company property and have fought vehemently to stop any independent scrutiny. There are other concerns and issues as well which are specific to this election and merit in-depth study: In almost 50 percent of DeKalb County precincts, the number of cast ballots did not match the number of signed voter certificates; undervotes were unusually high, exceeding 40 percent in some races; 106,000 ballots statewide (14 percent of the voters) did not record a choice for the U.S. Senate, the "top of the ticket" race.

According to Cathy Cox, it seems, the interests of a private corporation take precedent over the rights of the state's citizens to know how their votes are tallied in state elections. As the official "protector" of our votes, just who is Ms. Cox protecting? One has to ask why Ms. Cox would feel the need to halt the release of information that, in fact, already belongs to each and every voter in Georgia. Why rush in just minutes before the deadline in a secret and faulty court filing? Just who are the "interested parties" in our elections, Diebold or the citizenry? And just how do the results of a public election "significantly and permanently impair the rights and interests of the public" as Cox claims?

These and other lingering questions should be asked and answered under oath by Cathy Cox prior to leaving office. It seems likely, however, that the ever-expanding voting scandal will be inherited by incoming Secretary of State Karen Handel.

In her position papers prior to election, Ms. Handel claimed that our voting system is both insecure and outdated and promised to replace it with one that provides a Voter Verified Paper Ballot. But will any new system continue the history of secrecy and subterfuge exhibited by Diebold and their apologists or herald a new era of openness and transparency so desperately needed in this arena so critical to our democracy?
The fact remains that we already have the capability to provide a Voter Verified Paper Ballot utilizing Optical Scan technology. Not only would this solution be much preferable than would pouring millions more dollars down the Diebold money pit, it would provide something that DRE voting can never attain: clear voter intent. If Ms. Handel hopes to regain public confidence in elections her office should explore and pursue any options that put the votes back where they belong: in the hands of the people.

There is a strategic near vacuum at the center of our Middle East policy. The reason for it is that the original strategy was based on a severely flawed philosophic view, one that has been repudiated by history in the 20th century quite conclusively.

In a nutshell, the evolutionary view of human history posits that human social constructs are evolving entities that respond to a set of identifiable historical laws that make a certain end result a logical conclusion of this process. While this view certainly has existed in the 18th and early 19th centuries, it has really come into its own after Darwin's seminal work. This view misapplies Darwin's argument on evolution of species to the essentially unrelated topic of societal change. The ideological system which developed this view into a workable political platform and utilized it for actual sociological programs is certainly Marxism. However, the philosophical basis from which this view springs forth isn't tied to Marxist ideology in any binding way. That is why, our own neoconservatives have been able to take this evolutionary philosophy and deftly change the attached ideology from communism to capitalism (it helped that many of the founding fathers of the neocons where Trotskyites).

Undeterred by communism's patent inability to build a "new soviet man" and hence its resultant inability to build the communist society, the neocons simply postulated that it wasn't the grand idea that was wrong, but the details! If only the system the evolutionists (by means of a revolution) were trying to install was the "true" system, the end result of history, than of course they would have been successful in building the "new world"! The resulting militant "permanent capitalist revolution abroad" and "end of history" messianism has all the faulty philosophical foundations of communism combined with the inherent contradictions of the "free market" neo-colonialism. Just like communism, this ridiculous pastiche of discredited patches of historical wrongs was, of coarse, destined to fail. To most Americans, innocent of world history, this analysis would sound very foreign and unknown. Most "opinion makers" writing today can't even cogently describe the philosophical underpinnings of communism. No wonder, Leo Strauss' following neocons could successfully construct a political strategy based on past mistakes and current lies and sell it to the "duh" American public.

Unfortunately for the world, the double crash of communism and neocon capitalism promises to be a very rough ride. And in addition, the lack of depth in the movers and shakes of the current American government, combined with the inherent exceptionalism of the American political thought, makes any chance of a realistic reassessment quite unlikely. Hence the "surge" and other follies.

'Get 'er done',

Mr. Rumsfield is only acknowledging his strategic and tactical failures in planning the original take-down of Iraq.

Did he underestimate the number of troops that it would take to topple the Saddam government? No, but on the other hand,he grossly underestimated what it would take to dominate a country of 26 million people.

What's happening now in American foreignpolicy planning is what I call, 'the get 'er done', before the Democrats take over policy. Why? Not because Mr. Bush has any respect or fear of the Democratic Party. Bush simply does not want his continued obstructionist policy, to appear to be at odds with the American voters. The new Congress will be sure to raise the latter as an issue.

I still say, however, that if Bush does not come clean with the next Congress, they must step up and cut off the funds to a war that was based on deceit and fraud in the first place.

Congress, force the President to tell you what his real aims are in Iraq. And if you are not satisfied with those aims, for the sake of the American people and the world, cut off all future funding, get America out of Iraq, and use the funds for reparations to Iraq!

Thn impeach Bush!

Jaxas wrote:
--It is all directed now toward redeeming the worthless reputation of an incompetent delusional President who is so megalomaniacal in his self righteousness that he cannot entertain the slightest suggestion that he could be wrong about anything.--

Its more than that. Its an effort to redeem the reputation of the republican party. They lost the last election based on their support for Bush's incompetence in Iraq and they want to change that before 2008. Bush is a lame duck and doesn't seem to care much about his reputation or what republicans are saying and even less about what democrats are saying. Just what God tells him in his dilusions.

The republicans are pressing for this "surge" out of political despiration and really there are few other political options. But a "surge" has already happened back in July. Troops were moved from various provences to Baghdad in an attempt to stem the rising violence and it was met with an increase in violence. I'd like to see some numbers on how they expect the new surge to be effective, whether American casulaties will go up or down, etc... I also wonder whether they are looking at those types of numbers or just crossing their fingers, like they have done from the beginning.

This is a brillant post William, one of your best. As a soldier who was extended in Iraq, deployed there twice, and then called back on active-duty one month before his service obligation ended and then stop-lossed for a year and half for another Iraq deployment, I can honestly say that our generals lack the moral courage to do what is right, to speak to truth to power, and to take care of their soliders. The irony is that the officer corps is suppossed to be one of the most respected institutions in the nation, and yet this is the behavior we receive. The generals are liars and sycophants, and the Tommy Franks, John Abizaid, George Casey, Richard "El Diablo" Sanchez, and all the rest are nothing more than Westmorelands. Even a guy like H.R. McMaster, who wrote a book on the Joint Staff's dereliction of duty, plays the game. As someone with over ten years in, I can tell you I don't trust my senior leaders any more and don't encourage family members or young people I meet to join the service anymore.

If you fire everyone who tells you what they really think when you don't want to hear it, then of course you end up with incompetent suckups.

As a draftee from 69-71, in spite of never being in combat or even in Viet Nam, I still feel a kinship to the "grunts" being jerked around from the top. Sorry, "WarFighters" is just too Orwellian for me.

The injustice of starting what we can't finish, dithering while innocent people die and then ultimately walking away because it's too expensive for us will always make me ashamed.

We tolerate almost without comment people, (Bremer, Wolfowitz) who should be ashamed to show their faces in public, and they still offer their naive, fatuous insights. What ever happened to shunning?

Look. This isn't about Iraq anymore. It isn't about democracy or winning or losing. It isn't about the American people who have made it abundantly clear what they want. It isn't even about our troops over there.

Its all about Bush now. Bush and that 20% or so of brain dead dolts who still envision some sort of triumphal military victory allong the lines of VE Day after the end of WWII. It is now an urgent rescue mission. Not for our troops or our national pride or for the Iraqis. It is a mission to rescue Bush's crappy reputation.

No matter the costs in lives or dollars or lost prestige. It is all directed now toward redeeming the worthless reputation of an incompetent delusional President who is so megalomaniacal in his self righteousness that he cannot entertain the slightest suggestion that he could be wrong about anything.