lmao

I have been traveling from coast to coast, sorry for the delay in getting back with you. Well, I suppose that old adage, 'east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet', fits our circumstances.

The fact is that many individuals in the groups that you referenced, actually do support the troops, and particularly the effort in Afghanistan. So we are not altogether the Benedict Arnold's that you seem to believe that we are.

I cannot understand why in a representative republic, we continue to be denied the right to hold those men and women who represent all of us accountable?

Why do you insist on denying us our voice?

Rev...and then there is the hypocrisy of groups like moveon.org (and who knows...blog posters) intoning so caringly about how they "support the troops".

and...speaking of "fair share"...where...exactly...does that come into play for national defense? let's forget about neocon opportunists (who are no worse than their political dem/lib counterparts)....where are the sacrifices of the libs when it comes to national defense? I can relay based on personal experience that it aint in the military. They are not there...and haven't been for 30 yrs.

yes....burden sharing. a very interesting concept indeed. why...volunteer forces or not...one might be tempted to think that these people truly are something less than citizens "in equal standing."

Hello, nice site :)

To: rss & twpc &lmao

You folks have, to put it simply, taken a position!

And your positions, overlook what I wrote about those 501C3 organizations that enjoy tax exemptions, while at the same time they are outspoken advocates of the war effort in Iraq, if not the unrest in the entire ME.

Those groups, in my opinion, quasi-religous fronts for politcal organizations, should contribute their fair share to the war effort.

We obviously disagree! Thanks for reading my threads, and keep laughing!

To: rss & twpc &lmao

You folks have, to put it simply, taken a position!

And your positions, overlook what I wrote about those 501C3 organizations that enjoy tax exemptions, while at the same time they are outspoken advocates of the war effort in Iraq, if not the unrest in the entire ME.

Those groups, in my opinion, quasi-religous fronts for politcal organizations, should contribute their fair share to the war effort.

We obviously disagree! Thanks for reading my threads, and keep laughing!

Hello, nice site :)

"Having said that, I am pleased to be able to provide you with some comic relief, albeit, I cannot understand why you continue to read what I write, given your disdain for it and me."

He reads your comments because he finds them funny! I have to agree with lmao. They're always good for comic relief!

"I mean everything that I say (this is not a game)"

Obviously, lmao doesn't take you as seriously as you do yourself. For that matter, either do I. I don't doubt the sincerity of your intentions. Just your ability to think unbiasedly and in an fully informed way.

-- My objective in writing was to point out the hypocrisy of those quasi-religious groups, that advocate war, without contributing commensurately, to the war effort. --

And yet I've read in your many comments, Rev, where you have advocated increased federal government spending on social programs here in the US. Considering you also take the religious income tax exemption, it strikes me that you are equally hypocritical in the same manner as those you accuse. Specifically, in advocating federal spending on social programs without contributing commensurately to those social programs.

concerned citizen writes:

"The waste of military funds via Blackwater and other military industry representatives is criminal."

Actually, of the more than $1 Billion in contracts awarded by the federal government to Blackwater USA since 2000, $834 Million (or 83.5%) was contracted by the Department of State, NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

Another 10% was contracted by the Deparment of Immigration anc Customs. Less than 8% of all federal government contracts awarded to Blackwater USA since 2000 were with the Pentagon.

(www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?parent_id=38113&sortby=u&detail=-1&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&fiscal_year=&submit=GO)

I sympathize with your sentiment that there is waste in the Pentagon acquisition process. But please. Get the facts straight. Don't attribute spending occurring within other branches and agencies of the government to DoD.

Fair is fair. A rule should apply to all citizens. Not just a select few.

rss

Factually, the Rev Jesse and I do not see eye to eye on everything. My objective in writing was to point out the hypocrisy of those quasi-religious groups, that advocate war, without contributing commensurately, to the war effort.

Jesse is not the leader of a mega religious organization - he doesn't even pastor a church; and he certainly has not been an advocate for war.
--------------------------------

rss...don't bother....the Rev is a wack job bigot who has no idea what is going on. he sends these little missiles out to provoke people. he's not a part of the process and has no real clue what is going on behind the scenes. he's more or less stuck with what the Wash Post, NYT, Internet, etc., pass his way...second or third hand....verified or not.

he's clueless...but fun in a harmless way!

lmao
I would prefer to be called the Rev wack job bigot if you please!

Having said that, I am pleased to be able to provide you with some comic relief, albeit, I cannot understand why you continue to read what I write, given your disdain for it and me.

The fact is lmao, I mean everything that I say (this is not a game), and ultimately, I hope that by doing so, that in some way I will be able to help save the lives of the innocent!

Now what is your motive for being so caustic, abrasive and sophomoric? Is it your hope, that by calling people names (who don't agree with your positions), that somehow you are helping anything or anybody?

It would appear that you are the one who uses the Washington Post in order to ventilate, your vitriol, venom and hatred of another individual's viewpoint(s).

Get in the real world lmao, if you can - innocent people are caught up in this middle of this quagmire - they are being needlessly slaughtered!

The Pentagon would not be running out of funds if they had prevented corruption, bribes, etc. The waste of military funds via Blackwater and other military industry representatives is criminal. They knew they could spend like "drunken sailors" and get away with it.

Am I sympathetic to their plight? No, this country has mortgaged its future and the future of my children and grandchildren to make war on a country that did not attack us. The military industrial complex has made enough profit during this Bush Administration.

The Pentagon would not be running out of funds if they had prevented corruption, bribes, etc. The waste of military funds via Blackwater and other military industry representatives is criminal. They knew they could spend like "drunken sailors" and get away with it.

Am I sympathetic to their plight? No, this country has mortgaged its future and the future of my children and grandchildren to make war on a country that did not attack us. The military industrial complex has made enough profit during the Bush Administration.

lmao writes:

"the singular bent of mind to lay blame in the form of single individuals is appalling at times....and gives one pause to consider real motives."

I too find that troubling. And of course, that propensity to blame a single individual is what Congress relies on to deflect criticism for specific issues.

Finally, your analysis of the Pentagon institution is spot on. Serving myself for nearly 30 years in uniform, including two tours in the Puzzle Palace, has provided a perspective and insight beyond the comprehension of most commenters here. No offense intended. But asking the uninitiated to understand the Pentagon is like asking a person blind from birth to describe the color blue. Appalling as that sounds, it's a fact of life. And applies not just to DoD, but the other branches and agencies of federal government as well.

ceflynline...you have no idea what you are talking about. landwarnet, future combat system...a hole smattering of programs and supporting procurements...and morre importantly....concept structures...had their genesis in studies and transformational thought processes that long ante-dated RUMSFELD. Rumsfeld had other weaknesses...strategic and as a leader...but he did attempt to knock the proverbial "mil/industrial" complex off the stick and in the direction of change. He failed for a number of reasons.....but some of his initiatives are in place and evolving to eventual process "standardization".

the singular bent of mind to lay blame in the form of single individuals is appalling at times....and gives one pause to consider real motives. The Pentagon in many ways is like a corporation - it survives its leadership; it has its own internal dynamics; it has its own perceptions about its "survival" requiremenst; it has its own culture and internal institional turf wars...these all persist beyond any temporary occupant of the White House (and his cabinet/army of SESs).

frank...nice post. don't forget that many who served full careers are having the rules of the road changed (i.e., promises rescinded) on issues like medical insurance (e.g., TRICARE Supplement).

- that the law of unintended consequences has surfaced with a vengeance: an example being Blackwater. The effort to reduce long-term active-duty manpower cost burdens (e.g., health care, pensions, etc.) following the fall of the Wall did not have complementary reductions in missions. This has led to "factor substitution" of a sort in which civilian contractors like Blackwater (or counter drug activities) were hired to handle missions previously executed by professional military.

- in another "you get what you pay for" line item...across the board in many military disignators there are simply fewer officers/enlisted to manage and oversee acquisition, procurement, operational, maintenance, etc., activities. it is no wonder then...that one is witness to some egregious/costly scandals (look at what's going with some programs in Army and Navy right now).

rss...don't bother....the Rev is a wack job bigot who has no idea what is going on. he sends these little missiles out to provoke people. he's not a part of the process and has no real clue what is going on behind the scenes. he's more or less stuck with what the Wash Post, NYT, Internet, etc., pass his way...second or third hand....verified or not.

he's clueless...but fun in a harmless way!

Rev,

You write: "Approach quasi-religious type organizations and their leaders, in particular the ones that are affiliated with the religious right and the moral majority."

Why just the religious groups on the right? Why not include the Rev Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Or the Nation of Islam? And yourself for that matter; don't you also take advantage of the tax-exemption?

Or does your idea only apply to those religious groups who don't have the same political ideas as you?

Fair is fair. A rule should apply to all citizens. Not just a select few.

Arkin asks the questions:

"How tight is military spending right now? Do we need to invest more? Or should the Pentagon go on a financial diet?"

Before answering those questions, its important to understand what the $489B in the DoD budget is being spent on. The FY07 President's Budget (www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/ap_cd_rom/27_1.pdf) breakdowns outlays as follows:

- 23% to pay military personnel
- 31% to operations and maintenance. Approximately 70% of that is civilian government employee salaries. Remainder is cost-of-doing business items such as fuel, utilities, food, spare parts, contractor support, etc.
- 11.5% is "Global War on Terrorism" funds
- 17% is procurement (buying equipment and systems)
- 14% is research and development (developing new equipment and systems)
- 2.5% is Military Construction
- 1% is new Military Housing

Some ground rules for budget trimming:
- Increases in military pay, allowances, spouse and dependent medical and dental care, retiree pension, housing, and other "people programs" usually come as unfunded mandates from Congress; e.g., Congress say pay for the increases, but don't provide additional funds to pay for them. So DoD must find the funds to pay for those increases from operations and maintenance and procurement accounts. For example, the Congressionally mandated increases in Army and Marine Corps end strength are unfunded mandates.
- Don't touch Congressional high-interest procurement projects; e.g., you have to build so many ships and submarines a year to keep the 25,000 people at the nation's few remaining shipyards employeed. Can say the same for military aircraft and vehicle manufacturing.
- Don't close any bases in order to reduce operations and maintenance costs. You can't do that without Congressional approval.
- don't layoff any civilian employees. Can't do that without going through a Congressionally scrutinized A76 process.
- For the most part since 1991 (the fall of the Berlin Wall), military budget has been shrinking or, at best, remained flatlined. The careers of the vast majority of today's military Officers has been all about finding efficiencies and "doing more with less" or, at best, "more with the same". Eroding annual budgets has created a professional military officer corps where the principle day-to-day challenge is insufficient funding to operate at optimum capability.

Now. With the ground rules in mind, go ahead and find your financial diet.

Arkin. You're so smart. Where do you suggest the Pentagon begin?

The PNACers wanted a 40 percent increase from Clinton42 era spending. I think they got it.

What does the DOD really need? What should it look like? All you strong on defense Republicans don't want to know, because the cost alone would stop your selfish little hearts.

Just to start with, we ought to form up the Army by required skills, and not by percieved need. The ROAD divisions of the Vietnam era were the results of lessons learned in WWII and Korea. Then the primary unit for force projection was the Triangular division, three brigades plus its endemic support. Endemic support was all of the finance, transportation, medical, logistical, intelligence, artillery, chemical..... battalions and regiments that a division needed to operate in the field effectively. Divisions themselves, however, were homogenous. An armor division had three brigades of tank units. An infantry division had three leg infantry brigades. In a mechanized division all of the brigades had enough transport to carry all of the brigade at once.

These divisions apparently bothered Don Rumsfield, (a carrier pilot, and therefore NOT a particularly qualified military expert to make this judgment.) because he muddled up what he left of the army into chimeras of mechanized, airmobile, stryker, etc units that in essence tried to do Corps or army level work at the brigade level, and without the corps and army level support they needed.

Just to start with, we need to get back to homogeneous divisions, with one requirement: If we don't need at least three specialized divisions, we really don't need one of that specialization. The best example of this is the Tenth (Mountain) Division. This Division was something of a Hollywood stunt, based on the ski troops in Finland that held off the Soviets through out one winter. Trained in Colorado, British Colombia, and else where, they were withheld from some campaigns in WWII because they might be needed more, elsewhere, than where they could have been committed. Eventually they were committed to Italy, where they did great service late in the war. Had we formed three such divisions, two might have been very useful in Burma, Germany, or on several of the more mountainous islands in the Pacific Campaign. If we need at least one mountain division, we need at least three, especially since we seem to want to get into fights where the high ground is REALLY high, like the Hindu Kush. There, just getting acclimated to constant work in extreme high altitude is a severe handicap to military operations. If the Army had, say, the Tenth, Twentieth, and Thirtieth Divisions, at least some part of one of those divisions ought to be rented a home on the Altiplano. [The U. S. Marathon team for the Olympics could be drawn from that division, thereby producing runners with some chance of taking on runners who grew up in the Kenyan and Ethiopian Highlands in Africa]. Similarly we need the Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth, and Americal Divisions (Tropical/Jungle Warfare) on Hawaii and Guam and Saipan, to be acclimated for Jungle warfare were things to go berserk along the South China Sea.

Under that theory, we need Airmobile (First, Second, and Ninth Cavalry), Mechanized (Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth) Airborn (Eleventh, Eighty-second, and One Hundredfirst) plus perhaps three armord divisions, and six standard infantry divisions. That is twenty-four active duty divisions. About what we had in 1967. Basically a Cold War Army. For those divisions we need most of the main bases we closed since Viet Nam. We especially need service bases, like Presidio of San Francisco, Fitzsimmons Hospital, Valley Forge Hospital... There goes your peace dividend, FOREVER.

I am a true sixties liberal. Were I in Congress I would vote for those troops, and their Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps equivalent components without hesitation, the draft to support them, and THE TAXES TO PAY FOR THEM.

Find me one "Strong on Defense Republican" who would say that in any Congress since the Civil War. You won't be able to.

We can actually afford such a Military, would be able to find a plethora of peace time missions to keep the garrisons busy and out of trouble, and would profit as a nation from the improved citizens we would discharge to the Guard and reserve every year after they completed their active service.

Again, find me one Republican who will vote to raise, train, and pay for such an Army. So just who is really strong on defense?

The Pentagon and The Fed should:

Approach quasi-religious type organizations and their leaders, in particular the ones that are affiliated with the religious right and the moral majority.

Pat Robertson for example rejected, outright, The Road Map to peace in the Middle-East some years ago. Pat insisted that the carnage and pillage of areas in Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank continue.

Both Pat personally, and his organization could contribute a lot more money in order to help America and Israel continue to fight internecine wars.

How? Pat and other religous moguls like him have become rich as a result of the government's largese (tax exempt status), they have used this loophole to acquire wealth for themselves, as they encourage other young men and women to go off and fight in questionable wars that these religious types support.

Now about the fighting men and women, what kind of breaks are they getting with respect to the tax code, certainly not enough to buy personal airplanes, or to drive luxury automobiles, along with other extravagances?

Many of these organizations encouraged the war in Iraq in the first place, so put the money where your mouth is, I say and help to pay for it. Sacrifice your next Lear or Corsair, and give to the cause!

Having said that, since many of these organizations are actually political organizations in disguise (who use religion in order to fleece God fearing people); their tax exemption status should be remvoke. Senator Grassley, where are you baby on that?

The revenue gained from military-political-religious groups and organizations of this sort would easily make up for any real, imagined or threatened deficit by #43, and, it would in turn more than help to replenish the military/Pentagon cofers.

This added revenue program could be called The Faith-based Initiative for War, Giveback!

Amen

Has the Bush/Cheney Clearinghouse of Crime moved from the White House to the Pentagon after Abramoff's demise? Certainly seems so!

Dump those private contractors and have the military take care of it's own logistics and security. End corporate welfare in the government, and it will save the taxpayers a bundle of money!

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.onlinejournal.com
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.globalresearch.ca

Another CIA sponsored Coup D'Etat? Venezuela's D-Day: Democratic Socialism or Imperial Counter-Revolution
The December 2, 2007 Constituent Referendum

by Prof James Petras

Global Research, November 28, 2007

On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday (December 2, 2007).

The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled 'Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer' and updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym 'HUMINT' (Human Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government. The Embassy-CIA's polls concede that 57% of the voters approved of the constitutional amendments proposed by Chavez but also predicted a 60% abstention.

The US operatives emphasized their capacity to recruit former Chavez supporters among the social democrats (PODEMOS) and the former Minister of Defense Baduel, claiming to have reduced the 'yes' vote by 6% from its original margin. Nevertheless the Embassy operatives concede that they have reached their ceiling, recognizing they cannot defeat the amendments via the electoral route.

The memo then recommends that Operation Pincer (OP) [Operación Tenaza] be operationalized. OP involves a two-pronged strategy of impeding the referendum, rejecting the outcome at the same time as calling for a 'no' vote. The run up to the referendum includes running phony polls, attacking electoral officials and running propaganda through the private media accusing the government of fraud and calling for a 'no' vote. Contradictions, the report cynically emphasizes, are of no matter.

The CIA-Embassy reports internal division and recriminations among the opponents of the amendments including several defections from their 'umbrella group'. The key and most dangerous threats to democracy raised by the Embassy memo point to their success in mobilizing the private university students (backed by top administrators) to attack key government buildings including the Presidential Palace, Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council. The Embassy is especially praiseworthy of the ex-Maoist 'Red Flag' group for its violent street fighting activity. Ironically, small Trotskyist sects and their trade unionists join the ex-Maoists in opposing the constitutional amendments. The Embassy, while discarding their 'Marxist rhetoric', perceives their opposition as fitting in with their overall strategy.

The ultimate objective of 'Operation Pincer' is to seize a territorial or institutional base with the 'massive support' of the defeated electoral minority within three or four days (before or after the elections - is not clear. JP) backed by an uprising by oppositionist military officers principally in the National Guard. The Embassy operative concede that the military plotters have run into serous problems as key intelligence operatives were detected, stores of arms were decommissioned and several plotters are under tight surveillance.

For the rest please go to:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7470

wait, wait...doesn't some of that money go to pay for Arkin's "mercenaries"? You know, the ones who make sure he and the remainder of the sub-moronic moonbats of the left can post their drivel?

Once again it comes down to money. The CEOs in Iraq need to buy more protection. They only own 90% of Iraq and they want that other 10%. Another 50,000 corporate Nazis should allow them to keep the profits flowing in. (Blackwater is eating this up with a spoon!) As always, congress will send the money. "We have to support our troops." Right! What they will not tell the American people is which "troops" they're supporting. No receipts. No accounting. So pay up America. You don't get anything for your money, but without it these thieves are out of business. They might even, (banish the thought!), have to give Iraq back to the Iraqis. Like that's going to happen!

Harry Truman won recognition by scrutinizing military spending and rooting out war profiteers. John Murtha, on the other hand, was a co-architect with the then-majority Republicans on the House Armed services committee -- in developing a process to bundle military spending into single bills, concealing vast 'earmarks' lawmakers can dole out -- and increasingly this spending is classified.

Our military is becoming increasingly bloated with vast, politically-directed spending - meanwhile troops in the field appeal to their families for body armor and sunscreen.

We need transparency in military spending, and an end to pork-barrel, militarily useless technology spending.