This Won’t Pass, But…

At least it’s good to know that someone in government cares about our nation’s best interests.

Two congressional lawmakers have announced legislation that would effectively remove military contractors from war zones.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced the "Stop Outsourcing Security Act" on Tuesday. If passed, the act would force the United States to phase out its controversial use of private security contractors in war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The legislation would restore the responsibility of the American military to train troops and police, guard convoys, repair weapons, administer military prisons, and perform military intelligence," the lawmakers' offices said.

"The bill also would require that all diplomatic security be undertaken by US government personnel," they added.

While the bill is likely to meet stiff opposition from the Pentagon and the defense industry, it's certain to be well received among progressives and peace activists, who have watched with alarm as the use of private contractors in war zones has skyrocketed in recent years.

Last month, a report (PDF) from the Congressional Research Service found that one-fifth of the US armed forces in Iraq consists of private contractors, while in Afghanistan that number reached one-third by September of 2009.

The report found that there were some 22,000 "armed private security contractors" in the two war zones, and that the number in Afghanistan is likely to keep growing.

While "[m]any analysts and government officials believe that DOD would be unable to execute its mission without PSCs," the report stated that the "use of armed contractors has raised a number of issues for Congress, including concerns over transparency and accountability."

"It is inexcusable that as much as one-third of our military’s armed force in Afghanistan may be contractors," Schakowsky wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, following the report's release. "These men and women are not part of the US military or government. They do not wear the uniform of the United States, though their behavior has, on numerous occasions, severely damaged the credibility and security of our military and harmed our relationship with other governments."

This is not the first time that Schakowsky has attempted to end the growing tradition of private contractors fighting public wars. In 2007, she introduced a bill, with the same name as the new one, which would have phased out the use of contractors over a number of years. The bill never made it out of committee...

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Our fine military personnel are the best suited to do these jobs.  They perform far better.  They are accountable.  They cost far less than mercenary thugs accountable only to corporate criminals.  While this bill will never see the light of day, I thank Senator Sanders and Representative Schakowsky for introducing it.

Powell Debunks Cheney’s National Security Claims

Most of us are thoroughly fed up with the ChickenHawk and the Lizard.

Today on Face the Nation, former Secretary of Sate Colin Powell dismissed former Vice President Cheney’s claim that President Obama has made the nation less safe. Saying, “I don’t know where the claim comes [from],” Powell ticked off Obama’s national security accomplishments, gave a full-throated defense of using civilian courts to process terrorists, and said Cheney’s attacks “are not borne out by the facts”:

SCHIEFFER: Let’s talk a little bit about national security. The former vice president, you just saw him there, he has almost on a weekly basis, it says something about the president is putting the nation’s security at risk. … Has Barack Obama made this country less safe?

POWELL: Well, let me lay out a few positions and facts. … I don’t know where the claim comes that we are less safe. … In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial. Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail. Meanwhile the federal courts, our Article 3 regular legal court system has put dozens of terrorists in jail. They’re fully capable of doing it. So the suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn’t borne out by the history of the military commission. [...]

SCHIEFFER: Your bottom line answer is no?

POWELL: The bottom line answer is the nation is still at risk. Terrorists are out there. They’re trying to get through. But to suggest that somehow we have become much less safer because of the actions of the administration, I don’t think that’s borne out by the facts.

Watch it:

 

For weeks, Republicans have been hammering Obama over his handling of the Christmas Day terror attempt, especially the decision to try Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in civilian court rather than a military commission. Many whined that Abdulmutallab had not been properly interrogated because he was read his Miranda rights. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell even tried to score political points by insulting counterterrorism field agents. Of course, they ignored that President Bush treated shoe bomber Richard Reid in almost exactly the same way in 2001. And Obama’s rejection of torture has actually aided Abdulmutallab’s cooperation, not hurt it.

Later in the interview, Powell said that he has “no problem” with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being tried in federal court, though he would prefer the trial to be held some place other than New York City. Powell also reaffirmed his commitment to closing the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, saying it “has cost us a lot over the years in terms of our standing in the world and the way in which despots have hidden behind what we have done at Guantanamo to justify their own positions.”... [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Here’s the bottom line.  Ever since the US withdrawal from Vietnam, National Security has been the GOP’s exclusive domain.  They have used it ever since to portray Democrats as week, attack our patriotism, and strike fear into the hearts of uninformed voters.  It boggles me that they have kept up this deception for so long, especially considering that the most significant contribution the GOP has made to national security in recent years is allowing 9/11 to happen on their watch through their incompetence.  Suddenly that is changing.  Under the Democrats, more terrorists are being killed.  High lever terrorist leaders are being captured.  Interrogations without torture are discovering better actionable intelligence than anything ChickenHawk and his sidekick, Texas Torquemada, ever got through their war crimes.  The GOP is so desperate that they are telling even more absurd lies in a pathetic attempt ho hang onto national security preeminence.  It isn’t working.

I still cannot think of Colin Powell without visualizing him standing before the United Nations, parroting Bush/GOP lies to justify their war for oil and conquest that led to the waste of US lives and treasure and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents.  Nevertheless, it pleases me to see him trying to rehabilitate himself and thank him for his honesty.

Haliburton/KBR Slime Jamie

This is a story I keep coming back to revisit, because it keeps getting worse.  The last time I talked about Jamie was here.

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. The attack occurred while she was out with a “small group of Halliburton firefighters,” just four days after her arrival in Iraq. After taking a few sips of her drink, she later woke up in the barracks, “naked” and “severely beaten.” Her “breasts were so badly mauled that she is permanently disfigured.”

In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter.

Jones tried to sue the company for failing to protect her, but KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract — created for the company under the tenure of then-CEO Dick Cheney — warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration, without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. Basically, KBR argued that Jones’ brutal rape was a workplace injury — nothing more. But in September, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jones. “Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract,” wrote the court.

KBR is now petitioning the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling. The contractor is personally going after Jones’ integrity to argue that she shouldn’t have a fair and open hearing. Stephanie Mencimer from Mother Jones reports:

On Jan. 19, it petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing Jones to press her case in a civil court rather than in arbitration. Among its many arguments in favor of a high court hearing: that Jones is a relentless self-promoter who has “sensationalize[d] her allegations against the KBR Defendants in the media, before the courts, and before Congress.” … KBR also suggests that much of Jones’ story is fabricated. The company says in a footnote, “Many, if not all, of her allegations against the KBR Defenandants are demonstrably false. The KBR Defendants intend to vigorously contest Jones’s allegations and show that her claims against the KBR Defendants are factually and legally untenable.”

The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 signed into law by President Obama in December contained an amendment by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) — inspired by Jones’ story — that prohibits defense contractors from restricting their employees’ abilities to take workplace discrimination, battery, and sexual assault cases to court… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

I’m not going to vent my anger over this case at you today.  You’ve seen it several times before.  But I want you to consider something.  Given Al Franken’s heroic role in this affair, how good a chance do you think he will have in 2014 when ChickenHawk Cheney’s corporate criminal cronies are allowed to take vengeance against him by pouring $millions into ads against him?

The Supply-side Jesus Guns

The arms contract in question here is another hangover from the Bush/GOP regime.

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious "Crusade" in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents.

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions "have always been there" and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian." The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.

'It violates the Constitution'

The company's vision is described on its Web site: "Guided by our values, we endeavor to have our products used wherever precision aiming solutions are required to protect individual freedom."

"We believe that America is great when its people are good," says the Web site. "This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history, and we will strive to follow those morals."

Spokespeople for the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both said their services were unaware of the biblical markings. They said officials were discussing what steps, if any, to take in the wake of the ABCNews.com report. It is not known how many Trijicon sights are currently in use by the U.S. military.

The biblical references appear in the same type font and size as the model numbers on the company's Advanced Combat Optical Guides, called the ACOG.

A photo on a Department of Defense Web site shows Iraqi soldiers being trained by U.S. troops with a rifle equipped with the bible-coded sights.

"It's wrong, it violates the Constitution, it violates a number of federal laws," said Michael "Mikey" Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group that seeks to preserve the separation of church and state in the military.

'Firearms of Jesus Christ'

"It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they're being shot by Jesus rifles," he said.

Weinstein, an attorney and former Air Force officer, said many members of his group who currently serve in the military have complained about the markings on the sights. He also claims they've told him that commanders have referred to weapons with the sights as "spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ."

He said coded biblical inscriptions play into the hands of "those who are calling this a Crusade."…

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

As a Christian, I find this practice highly offensive and remind you that the gospel of fear, greed and intolerance comes from Supply-side Jesus, the invention of the GOP and the American Taliban, and has nothing to do with the real Jesus’ teachings or practices.

From a practical perspective, this is a great recruiting tool for Muslim extremists, their hateful equivalent to our religious right.  In my opinion, all these scopes should be recalled, and the offending inscriptions removed at company expense.  Their contract should be cancelled, and they should be banned from further government contracting.

That the Army and Marine Corps were unaware of this is an obvious lie that reemphasized the need for Obama to clean house at Defense to remove the Bush/GOP ideologues, starting with Robert Gates.

Editorials on the GOP from Charles Blow and Me

Amid all the wailing and gnashing of teeth coursing through the media and the blogosphere forecasting the imminent demise of the Democratic party, we need to recognize that the other side is worse off than we are.

The first editorial is from Charles Blow:

The attack on the Republican establishment by the tea party folks grabs the gaze like a really bad horror flick — some version of “Hee Haw” meets “28 Days Later.” It’s fascinating. But it also raises a serious question: Are these the desperate thrashings of a dying movement or the labor pains of a new one?

My money is on the former. Anyone who says that this is the dawn of a new age of conservatism is engaging in wishful thinking on a delusional scale.

There is no doubt that the number of people who say that they are conservative has inched up. According to a report from Gallup on Thursday, conservatives finished 2009 as the No. 1 ideological group. But ideological identification is no predictor of electoral outcomes. According to polls by The New York Times, conservative identification was slightly higher on the verge of Bill Clinton’s first-term election and Barack Obama’s election than it was on the verge of George W. Bush’s first-term election.

It is likely that Republicans will pick up Congressional seats in November partly because of the enthusiasm of this conservative fringe, democratic apathy and historical trends. But make no mistake: This is not 1994.

This is a limited, emotional reaction. It’s a response to the trauma that is the Great Recession, the uncertainty and creeping suspicion about the risks being taken in Washington, a visceral reaction to Obama and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and loss.

Simply put, it’s about fear-fueled anger. But anger is not an idea. It’s not a plan. And it’s not a vision for the future. It is, however, the second stage of grief, right after denial and before bargaining.

The right is on the wrong side of history. The demographics of the country are rapidly changing, young people are becoming increasingly liberal on social issues, and rigid, dogmatic religious stricture is loosening its grip on the throat of our culture.

The right has seen the enemy, and he is the future.

According to a Gallup report issued this week, Republicans were more than twice as likely as Democrats and a third more likely as independents to have a pessimistic outlook for the country over the next 20 years. That might be the fourth stage of grief: depression.

So what’s their battle plan to fight back from the precipice of irrelevance? Moderation? A stab at modernity? A slate of innovative ideas? No, their plan is to purge the party’s moderates and march farther down the road to oblivion... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

The second editorial is from me:

I consider the retaking of America a two step process.  First get rid of the alligators.  Then drain the swamp.

Get rid of the alligators.  The alligators are the GOP.  They are divided into four segments:

Neocons: They believe that the US should rule the world by force.  They brought us wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They also planned to conquer Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Iran, but could not proceed because the GOP botched the first two.  They also believe in ruling our nation by fear, and if that does not work, by force.  In the event of a civil disturbance in which US troops refused to fire on our citizens, Bush and the GOP had Blackwater storm troopers poised to cut us down.  The US public is tired of war.  The GOP has played the fear card so many times that only the most delusional Faux Noise sheeple believe it.  And we are reasonably safe from the threat of force from our government, as long as the GOP is never allowed back in power.  They cannot win over the public, unless a major terrorist attack, on the scale of 9/11, succeeds.

Theocons:  They believe in establishing a theocracy through which they can mandate observance of their piety codes on those who do not share their beliefs.  They would overturn a woman’s right to control her own body, muzzle science, criminalize the LGBT community, enforce abstinence only education, and require the teaching of the Genesis creation account in schools.  They cannot win over the public, because the majority opposes their repressive policies, and because the numerous scandals from Pastor Ted to John Ensign exposes them as the hypocrites they are.

Corporocons: They believe in No Millionaire Left Behind, the only successful Bush/GOP policy.  Because of them, the bottom 40% of Americans own only 0.2% of the wealth.  The banksters are a subset of the corporocons.  They cannot win over the public by themselves, although they have worked in close concert with the GOP, they are equally happy to buy Democrats.  They have been successful enough in that endeavor that eliminating them will have to wait until the second step of the process.

Insanocons:  This is the teabagger set.  They believe only what they see on Faux Noise.  Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Michelle Malkin are their demigods.  The think what they’re told, say what they’re told, go where they’re told and do what they’re told, happy to goose-step into insignificance.  They are dangerous because of their passion, but there are few enough in numbers, and so far off the deep end, that they cannot win over the public.

There is also a fifth segment of the GOP:  the authentic intellectual conservative.  I did not include them, because the other four segments have turned on them, marginalized them, and driven them out of the party to such an extent that they are virtually extinct.  That is a sad thing, because without them, the GOP has no redeeming value.

So this is what we’re up against.  The only way we can fail is to form a circular firing squad.  Though the Democrats are far from perfect, supporting them is a necessary step toward reclaiming our nation, and we need to be just as passionate in that support as the insanocans are in theirs.

Then drain the swamp.  The swamp is the Democratic Party.  But that’s another editorial.

Obama Confirms AQ Behind Crotch Bomber

Although this is not news, here it is.

President Barack Obama on Saturday blamed an al Qaida affiliate for training and equipping the man who allegedly smuggled explosives aboard a Detroit-bound airliner in a failed bombing plot on Christmas Day.

The president gave his most detailed comments to date on the bombing attempt. A 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, allegedly boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 carrying explosives. Quick action by other passengers thwarted his alleged attempt to detonate them.

Obama said Abdulmutallab traveled to Yemen, where "it appears that he joined an affiliate of al Qaida, and that this group, al Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, trained him, equipped him with those explosives and directed him to attack that plane headed for America."

The same group killed one American in a bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in 2008, Obama said. It also has bombed Yemeni government facilities, Western hotels, restaurants and other embassies in recent years, he said.

Obama said the U.S. would strengthen its cooperation with the government of Yemen to train and equip Yemeni security forces and share intelligence in a fight against al Qaida terrorists…

Inserted from <McClatchy DC>

Despite calls from idiots, teabaggers and GOP legislators to invade Yemen, Obama is doing the right thing here.  Why invade a country that is and has been cooperating?  Claims from idiots, teabaggers, and GOP legislators that Obama is somehow at fault for this are equally ludicrous.

These are the facts in this case.  The TSA policies that failed were set up during the Bush/GOP regime.  Any changes to improve them that the Obama administration might have made have been delayed, because Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) put a hold on Erroll Southers, Obama’s appointee to head the TSA.  The crotch bomber received his US visa during the Bush/GOP regime.  The crotch bomber was allowed to visit the US on two previous occasions during the Bush/GOP regime.  At the Saudis’ request, in order to garner their support for the Iraq war, the Bush/GOP regime released several Yemini AQ operatives from the GOP Gitmo Gulag, ignoring objections from both the military and the CIA that these men were terrorists who had expressed their determination to attack the US.  These may have been the very men who trained and equipped the crotch bomber.  These are the facts in this case.  When idiots, teabaggers, and GOP minions tell you the big lie that Obama is at fault for this, remember and repeat them.

And when they say that the Democrats’ policies are responsible for 9/11 early in the Bush/GOP regime, remember and repeat this:  When, less than a month before 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet sent a CIA agent all the way to Crawford to brief Bush that AQ intended an imminent attack against the US using airplanes, Bush brushed him off dismissively, “OK you covered your butt.”

Blackwater Thugs Get Away With Murder

Those of you who followed the previous incarnation of Politics Plus may remember that at the time of  this incident, I accused Rice and the Bush/GOP regime of intentionally tainting the evidence so that these murderers would never come to trial.

In a rebuke to government prosecutors, a federal judge dismissed criminal charges against five Blackwater security guards accused of fatally shooting 14 people in Baghdad in September 2007.

Judge Ricardo Urbina said on Thursday prosecutors violated the defendants' rights by using incriminating statements they had made under immunity during a State Department probe to build their case.

"The government used the defendants' compelled statements to guide its charging decisions, to formulate its theory of the case, to develop investigatory leads, and ultimately to obtain the indictment in the case," Urbina ruled.

"In short, the government had utterly failed to prove that it made no impermissible use of the defendants' statements, or that such use was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."

The security guards had been "compelled" to provide the incriminating evidence during a Justice Department probe, the court said, but the US Constitution bars the prosecutors from using "statements compelled under threat of a job loss" in any subsequent criminal prosecution.

The case was among the most sensational that sought to hold Blackwater employees accountable for what was seen as a culture of lawlessness and a lack of accountability as it carried out its duties in Iraq.

The five guards, who had been part of a convoy of armored vehicles, had been charged with killing 14 unarmed Iraqi civilians and wounding 18 others during an unprovoked attack at a busy Baghdad traffic circle using gunfire and grenades.

The men had faced firearms charges, and up to 10 years in jail on each of 14 manslaughter counts.

US prosecutors had alleged that the guards "specifically intended to kill or seriously injure Iraqi civilians," and according to court documents alleged that one of the guards told another that he wanted to kill Iraqis as "payback for 9/11," bragging about the number of Iraqis he had shot.

Urbina explained in his opinion that federal prosecutors were offered an opportunity during a three-week hearing that began in mid-October 2009 to prove that they had not made use of the defendants' statements in building its case and were unable to do so.

"The explanations offered by the prosecutors and investigators in an attempt to justify their actions... were all too often contradictory, unbelievable and lacking in credibility," Urbina wrote.

He added: "The court must dismiss the indictments against all of the defendants."

The five defendants were security guards employed by Blackwater Worldwide, which since has been renamed a Xe Corporation… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

As I said at the time, once these GOP SS murderers were given immunity for the State Dept. investigation, there would be no way to separate the evidence garnered there from admissible evidence.  In that way, the Bush/GOP regime protected their mercenary army from prosecution.  As a rule, I like to be right, but this is one of those times that I feel sp pissed off over being right that I’d like to scream!

On Politicizing An Attack

The Republican response to the underpants bomber attack has been nothing short of obscene.  Rachel Maddow put together a wonderful presentation on this.  Although I covered a mot of this Tuesday and Yesterday, she does such a wonderful job of connecting the dots that it’s well worth the time to watch

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In addition, Rachel also called out Democratic leaders for their failure to challenge these GOP lies.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On a more positive note, she must have prepared the second piece, before the White House released this statement:

There has been a lot of discussion online and in the mainstream media about our response to various critics of the President, specifically former Vice President Cheney, who have been coming out of the woodwork since the incident on Christmas Day.  I think we all agree that there should be honest debate about these issues, but it is telling that Vice President Cheney and others seem to be more focused on criticizing the Administration than condemning the attackers. Unfortunately too many are engaged in the typical Washington game of pointing fingers and making political hay, instead of working together to find solutions to make our country safer.

First, it’s important that the substantive context be clear: for seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq – a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion – Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda's leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda – more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia.  And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Second, the former Vice President makes the clearly untrue claim that the President – who is this nation’s Commander-in-Chief – needs to realize we are at War. I don’t think anyone realizes this very hard reality more than President Obama. In his inaugural, the President said “our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” In a recent speech, Assistant to the President for Terrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan said “Instead, as the president has made clear, we are at war with al-Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 people. We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al-Qaida’s murderous agenda. These are the terrorists we will destroy; these are the extremists we will defeat.” At West Point, the President told the nation why it was “in our vital national interest” to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, adding that as Commander in Chief, “I see firsthand the terrible wages of war.” And at Oslo, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the President said, “We are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.”

There are numerous other such public statements that explicitly state we are at war. The difference is this: President Obama doesn’t need to beat his chest to prove it, and – unlike the last Administration – we are not at war with a tactic (“terrorism”), we at war with something that is tangible: al Qaeda and its violent extremist allies. And we will prosecute that war as long as the American people are endangered.

Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The White House>

Normally, this is where I run off at the mouth, but I have nothing else to say, except that’s it’s about time the Obama administration started to fight back against these horrid Republicans.

Editorial on Detroit Terror Attack

Another day brings more details about what happened and what our country is trying to do about it.  We’re on the wrong track.

Flying has become much more difficult.

By now, everyone knows the airport drill, its inconveniences offset by its clarity: take off your shoes, pop your laptop in a tray, have your driver’s license at the ready. But in the three days since the attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, the beleaguered traveler has once again been beset by a confusing and inconsistent set of rules.

Could you keep your blanket, as on Continental, or would it be snatched at the end of the flight, as it was on Lufthansa? Would security measures be visibly unchanged, as they were at the Houston airport, or would passengers be surprised by a careful swabbing of their hands and purses, like those in South Carolina? Would this week resemble Sunday, when JetBlue’s entertainment system was shut down on international flights, or Monday, when the movies began flowing on that airline once more?

“I just wish they’d have something, a list of rules, and stick to it,” said Sherri Hemmer, who made a point of using the bathroom early on her Monday flight from Phoenix to Pittsburgh and was then annoyed to learn that a prohibition against moving around the cabin in the last hour of flight did not seem to apply to her flight.

The Transportation Security Administration has been deliberately vague — and even a little random — about the security measures it has imposed in the last few days, in part to make certain that potential attackers do not know what to expect. Many passengers welcome this.

“It’s no problem,” said Eleonora Gomarasca, who traveled to New York from Milan on Monday. “It’s more control.”

But that careful unpredictability has made life far more confusing and inconvenient for thousands of travelers. After Sept. 11, 2001, stark fears were met with complicity and acceptance, but now many people seem to feel that the government measures are more about reaction than protection.

“I think the security checks on the ground are the ones that make the most difference for safety,” said Daniel Kim, 36, who arrived at Los Angeles International Airport three hours early for his flight to Frankfurt with his wife, Catherine, and their 20-month-old. “The whole one hour before thing, no getting up, what is that going to help, really? Will it get to a point when we can’t get up at all during the flight, or have to raise our hands to go to the bathroom? Where does it end?”

While the new T.S.A. restrictions seem largely confined to international travelers bound for the United States, confusion, delays and the ensuing angst seemed to spread across the nation in the wake of the thwarted attack on a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day.

The slowdown appeared to be particularly intense on flights coming from Canada. Dianne Duncan’s trip to Los Angeles from Toronto, for one, involved a 10-hour security wait, four lost bags, a missed flight and rerouting, a thorough search of her belongings, and a full-body pat-down of her and her 5-year-old daughter.

“It was extremely strict,” said Ms. Duncan, who arrived at the Toronto airport at 9:30 a.m. Sunday morning and did not reach the screening area until nearly seven hours later.

“Take note: there was no toilet, no water and no food for purchase,” she said. “There was one man to screen the men, and one woman to screen the women. There was a full pat-down. It was as if they were specifically searching for something.”...

Inserted from <NY Times>

While it is clear that our transportation safety procedures leak like a sieve, banning passengers from relieving themselves for the last hour of flights is ludicrous.  Anyone wishing to avoid that can go to the can to bomb-up ninety minutes before the flight lands.  I’m not saying that we should not make flights as safe as possible, but no matter what we do, those who wish to circumvent our security will simply adapt their tactics to take advantage of whatever we don’t do.  The way to stop this attack was quite simple.  Abdulmutallab should never have been allowed on the plane.  The Bush/GOP system still in use was designed more to create the illusion of security for propaganda purposes than to provide actual security.  The focus for in flight security needs to shift from dealing with terrorists on planes to keeping them from getting on planes in the first place.  It might help to have an executive in charge of the TSA, but we do not.  Obama’s appointee, Erroll Summers, has not been approved, because GOP Senator DeMint has placed a hold on him.  Perhaps DeMint considers unions a greater terrorist threat than Al Qaeda, because DeMint claims that he fears Summers would allow baggage handlers to unionize.

I’ve been listening to pundits debate Afghanistan/Pakistan/Somalia/Yemen center of terrorism.  The GOP seems to want to attack Yemen.  How absurd!  Yemen’s government is cooperating with the US, bit they have no control over large swaths of their own territory, much like Afghanistan.  We lack the troops to invade and occupy the country.  Our last reserves, the Brownie Scouts, are already committed to defense against Iran.  Here’s the problem.  We’re fighting a 21st century conflict using 20th century tactics.  If we could actually take control of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda would move (as they have) to Pakistan.  If the Pakistanis get control of their territory, they will move to Yemen.  If we occupy Yemen, they will move to Somalia, or Indonesia, or anywhere that we have not conquered.  And we aren’t even talking about the center of Wahhabism, the extreme right wing beliefs AQ uses to justify their existence, Saudi Arabia.  To defeat AQ using conventional means, we need to conquer the entire world.  Going after the leadership won’t work.  AQ is not organized top-down.  They are cellular.  They are not a snake we can decapitate.  They are a hydra.  The only way we will defeat them is to compromise their ability to recruit.  At present we are enhancing it every time a drone takes out innocent civilians with or without the targeted AQ operative.  We enhance their ability to recruit even more in this manner:

I don't know what to say. The United States not only permits this, we subsidize it - at great personal cost to our country. After all, why were we an Al Qaeda target in the first place?

Yes, we'll tie ourselves in knots to keep a taxpayer dollar from getting anywhere near an abortion, yet we continue to fund the slow starvation of the Palestinians.

Very sad:

One year after Israel launched its three-week offensive in Gaza that killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and damaged or destroyed over 50,000 homes in a campaign aimed at stopping Hamas rocket fire, the survivors are still living in rubble. And it is not for want of money that thousands of residents of the coastal enclave remain homeless this winter: Moved by the plight of Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians who were already reeling from a two-and-a-half year economic siege imposed by Israel with help from Egypt and the U.S. even before Israel's air and ground assault had begun, international donors earlier this year pledged over $4.5 billion to repair war damages. But that aid has failed to reach Gaza, according to Palestinians and relief agencies who accuse Israel of imposing Kafkaesque rules that bar entry to vital reconstruction materials and items as bizarre as glass, most schoolbooks, honey and family-sized tubs of margarine.

Says Chris Gunness, spokesman for the United Nations' Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), "Because the Israelis are not allowing in any reconstruction material, that $4.5 billion is just a paper figure." With over 80% of Gazans now surviving on humanitarian handouts from UNRWA, Gunness adds, "Palestinians are becoming more desperate and more extreme."

Relief officials estimate that Gaza needs 40,000 tons of cement and 25,000 tons of iron to start repairing the homes, hospitals, schools and shops destroyed during Israel's offensive. But so far, according to GISHA, an Israeli legal rights group, the Israelis have allowed only 19 trucks carrying construction material into Gaza since the war ended last January. "You could say that Israel has bombed Gaza back into the mud age," says UNRWA's Gunness, "because that's what they're building their houses out of now — mud."

Without parts to replace machinery damaged in the war, 97% of Gaza's factories have shut down, raising unemployment to over 43%. With scarce sources of income, many Gazans would probably starve if not for food handouts from the U.N. and other agencies. Over 40,000 Gazans have no electricity, 10,000 have no running water in their homes, and because Israel bans entry of the spare parts needed to run its sewage treatment plant, every day 87 million liters of sewage is dumped into the Mediterranean (which washes up on Israel's beaches, too.)

Although the international community occasionally protests Gaza's ongoing tragedy, so far no real pressure has been applied on Israel to loosen its stranglehold... [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

As long as the US remains a party to Israeli atrocities in the region, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a War on Islam.  As long as the US kills innocent civilians while attacking terrorists, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a war on Islam.  As long as the US attacks and occupies Muslim countries, attempting to control their energy resources, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a war on Islam.  As long as Republicans keep spewing hate speech, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a war on Islam.

Are we?  In my opinion we are not, but we were while the Bush/GOP regime was in power.  However, as long as our strategy appears unchanged, how are Muslims to tell the difference?  Until we can convince Muslims by our actions that we are not still conducting the Bush/GOP war on Islam, they will be able to recruit Muslim teabagger types to become terrorists.

Follow up on Detroit Plane Attack

If nothing else, this attack should teach us that we have been wrong, if we thought of Afghanistan and Pakistan as the center of terror for Islam’s religious right extremists.

Regardless of whether or not the Nigerian who tried to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas Day was instructed in Yemen by Al-Qaeda, the White House insists it is not slacking in its anti-terror battle.

"Airline passengers walk into a security checkpoint inside Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, VA, near Washington, DC. Regardless of whether or not the Nigerian who tried to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas Day was instructed in Yemen by Al-Qaeda, the White House insists it is not slacking in its anti-terror battle."

In early December as he ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, US President Barack Obama warned of the "violent extremism practiced by Al-Qaeda," and stressed that "this is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat.

"Where Al-Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships," Obama said.

His spokesman Robert Gibbs hit the talkshows Sunday to assure Americans after the latest botched attack that there was no let up against Al-Qaeda, and to counter vehement criticism Obama was a soft touch.

"The president certainly has taken steps in his time in office to reorient our priorities as it comes to fighting that war on terror," Gibbs told NBC.

"We're drawing down in Iraq and focusing... on Pakistan and Afghanistan, the place where the attacks of 9/11 originated and where people sit in caves and in houses today planning more attacks in this country, using all elements of American power in places not just like Pakistan, but throughout the world in places like Yemen and Somalia.

"File photo of Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos. US authorities have charged Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet, using explosives and chemicals he sneaked past security checkpoints in Lagos and then Amsterdam."

"And you've seen already leaders from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia that have been targeted and eliminated."

Experts and US lawmakers warned that even if no conclusive Al-Qaeda thumbprint is found on Friday's attempt to bring down a plane as it landed in Detroit, the group's radicalized ideology has "metastasized" well beyond traditional safe havens.

US authorities have charged Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet, using explosives and chemicals he sneaked past security checkpoints in Lagos and then Amsterdam.

According to US media citing unnamed US officials, Abdulmutallab confessed once in custody that he had received specific training for the attack from an Al-Qaeda bombmaker in Yemen... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

As expected, the US right is trying to blame this incident on Obama.  One ChickenHawk came out of hiding long enough to confirm such an assertion on Faux Noise.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday that it is "fair" to hold the Obama administration responsible for the a failure to detect an attempted terror attack. Friday, Hoekstra told the Detroit Free Press that the Obama administration needed to "connect the dots."

"You were quoted in the Detroit Free Press [de-linked] this morning as saying that, you know, the key is to connect the dots and maybe the Obama administration will now realize that. Is it really fair to hold the Obama administration responsible here?" asked Wallace.

"Yeah, I think it really is," replied Hoekstra. "Connecting the dots here is not really on this particular case. It's connecting the dots that we've seen over the last 11 months, over the last eight years."…

Inserted from <Raw Story>

This is pure bull.  It took several years to set up the Department of Homeland Security, under complete Bush/GOP control.  It will take several more years to reorganize it in a manner that will actually provide security, not just GOP propaganda.  If Obama has been a little slow in embarking on that task, we must remember that there is no aspect of American life that Bush and the GOP did not leave in chaotic shambles.  Obama is not at fault because the system left in place by his predecessor failed.

As if this is not bad enough, one Republican Senator (even if he calls himself an independent Democrat) has called for war.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Senator Joeseph Lieberman (R-CT) [party affiliation corrected], who leads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has a vision of "tomorrow's war."

"Somebody in our government said to me in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, Iraq was yesterday’s war," Lieberman explained. "Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war. That’s the danger we face."

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), also appearing on the program, seemed to agree, calling an attack against Yemen "something we should consider."

"Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- the Army officer who killed 13 people in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in November -- was linked to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric now based in Yemen," The Hill noted.

Unnamed administration officials told US media in the aftermath of the thwarted attack that their suspect had confessed to traveling to Yemen and receiving training by Al-Qaeda…

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Let us not forget that LIEberman campaigned for McConJob and Mooseolini.  He supported their war policy.  That was nothing more than an extension of Bush’s war polity.  Some do not remember it. Most never knew it, because the regime tried to keep it secret.  Those of you who were with me during the previous incarnation of this blog, may remember this video by General Wesley Clark that explains the GOP’s imperialist intent to conquer several nations.  The subsequent attacks did not occur only because the GOP is so incompetent that they botched the first two wars.

 

Now if you are unhappy with how Obama is handling US security and foreign policy, consider the alternative.  Need I say more?

Iran Withdrawing Troops from Iraq

By the time the news of the invasion surfaced yesterday, I had already completed my daily research so I missed the initial report of the invasion.

"The Iranian flag has been lowered. The Iranian troops have pulled back 50 meters, but they have not gone back to where they were before. The Iraqi government asked for the troops to go back to where they were," Dabbagh said.

The border flare-up kicked off a storm of emergency meetings and bilateral phone calls, with Baghdad calling for an immediate withdrawal yet also seeking to contain damage to its important relationship with neighboring Iran.

In a phone conversation on Saturday evening, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and his Iraqi counterpart Hoshiyar Zebari underlined the need for a meeting of officials "with the intention of enforcing bilateral border agreements," Iranian state broadcaster IRIB reported.

On Friday, global oil prices climbed following media reports that the Iranian troops had commandeered a well at the field southeast of Baghdad.

The two countries have a long history of border feuds, including one that escalated into a bloody eight-year war in the 1980s. The relationship warmed after 2003, when fellow Shi'ite Muslims took over in Baghdad and the countries' trade and religious tourism ties began to deepen… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Reuters>

Fortunately the incursion was not as severe as I had originally read.  I thought Iran had taken over an oil field, not just a single well.  Nevertheless, there is still reason for concern here, because any instability could delay the further withdrawal of US troops in Iraq who desperately need to come home.

Military Intelligence?

Please don’t misunderstand me.  Our troops are great.  They are possibly the best educated, best trained, and brightest troops in the world today.  I am not, and would not, demean their intelligence.  There leadership is, however, a completely different matter.

Siobhan Gorman, Yochi J. Dreazen and August Cole at The Wall Street Journal report:

Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.

Senior defense and intelligence officials said Iranian-backed insurgents intercepted the video feeds by taking advantage of an unprotected communications link in some of the remotely flown planes' systems. Shiite fighters in Iraq used software programs such as SkyGrabber -- available for as little as $25.95 on the Internet -- to regularly capture drone video feeds, according to a person familiar with reports on the matter.

The potential drone vulnerability lies in an unencrypted downlink between the unmanned craft and ground control. The U.S. government has known about the flaw since the U.S. campaign in Bosnia in the 1990s, current and former officials said. But the Pentagon assumed local adversaries wouldn't know how to exploit it, the officials said. ...

Has the Pentagon never heard the old saw about how "assume" makes an ass out of u and me? In this case, for the price of a movie date with popcorn, insurgents may well be able to compromise the mission of a $4.5-million piece of high-tech hardware that is a key element of U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet the Pentagon has known about this possible compromise for a very long time. Who was it who claimed the adults were in charge? Because it's not clear that the video from the new Reaper drone, at $10 million apiece, will be encrypted to overcome this major deficit. Aerial drones comprise a third of the Air Force's acquisition budget for 2010… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Daily Kos>

If the Shiite fighters in Iraq have this $26 software, you’d better believe that the AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan have it as well.  Duh!!  Is there a better way to illustrate how big a mistake it was to keep the Defense officials and Generals from the Bush/GOP regime?  These folks achieved their elevated status because of their willingness to goose-step behind the Fuhrer, while those who chose competence over blind obedience were thrown under the bus.

Did the Bush/GOP Regime Intentionally Let Osama Get Away?

One Democratic lawmaker is saying yes.

The Bush administration permitted the world's most notorious terrorist mastermind to escape because it needed additional justification to invade Iraq, according to a Democratic lawmaker from New York.

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) leveled the allegation during an interview with MSNBC host David Shuster on Monday afternoon.

"Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away," he said. "How we intentionally did not follow the Taliban and al-Qaeda as they were escaping. That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al-Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq."

"They deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away?" asked an incredulous Shuster. "They deliberately let the head of al-Qaeda get away right after he, right after the 9/11 attacks? You really believe that?"

"Yes, I do," Hinchey replied. "There's no question about that. The leader of the military operation in the United States called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al-Qaeda because there was a sense that they didn't want to capture him."

"...To suggest that they deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away so they could invade Iraq, that will strike a lot of people as crazy," Shuster countered.

"I don't think it will strike a lot of people as crazy," Hinchey said. "I think it will strike a lot of people as very accurate and all you have to do is look at the facts of that set of circumstances and you can see that's exactly what happened. When we went in there, when our military went in there, we could have captured them. We could have captured most of the Taliban and we could have captured the al-Qaeda. But we didn't, and we didn't because of the need felt by the previous administration and the previous head of the military -- that need to attack Iraq, which is completely unjustified."

Hinchy apparently based his allegations on a recently released Senate report that found then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rejected calls for reinforcements in December 2001, when the military allegedly had bin Laden trapped in Afghanistan.

"The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the marine corps and the army, was kept on the sidelines," the report says.

"Instead, the US command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack Bin Laden and on Pakistan's loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes."

Entitled "Tora Bora revisited: how we failed to get Bin Laden and why it matters today," the report -- commissioned by Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- says Bin Laden expected to die and had even written a will.

"But the Al-Qaeda leader would live to fight another day. Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected.

"Requests were also turned down for US troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan.

"The decision not to deploy American forces to go after Bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, General Tommy Franks," the report says... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Considering that Rumsfeld’s ethical standards are so low that he was not only the person who brokered the deal whereby Saddam first acquired chemical weapons, but also the point man for torture at US military installations, I would not put it past him.  And since the Bush/GOP regime started planning the Iraq invasion before the 9/11 /2001 attack, Hinchey has a point that killing or capturing Osama would have stifled those plans.  What’s your take on this?

UK Documents Reveal Iraq War Conspiracy

Over a year before the Bush/GOP Regime launched their War for Oil and Conquest in Iraq, GW ChickenHawk and his British poodle, Tony Blair, had already cemented the plan to invade.

Leaked British government documents call into question ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair's public statements on the buildup to the Iraq war and show plans for the U.S.-led 2003 invasion were being made more than a year earlier, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Britain's Sunday Telegraph published details of private statements made by senior British military figures claiming plans were in place months before the March 2003 invasion, but were so badly drafted they left troops poorly equipped and ill-prepared for the conflict.

The documents - transcripts of interviews from an internal defense ministry review of the conflict - disclose that some planning for the Iraq war had begun in February 2002. Maj. Gen. Graeme Lamb, then head of Britain's special forces, was quoted as saying he had been "working the war up since early 2002," according to the newspaper.

In July 2002, Blair told lawmakers at a House of Commons committee session that there were no preparations to invade Iraq.

Critics of the war have long insisted that Blair offered then-President George W. Bush an assurance as early as mid-2002 - before British lawmakers voted in 2003 to approve U.K. involvement - that Britain would join the war.

The leaked documents are likely to be supplied to a public inquiry established by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to scrutinize prewar intelligence and postwar planning, and which will hold its first evidence sessions later this week.

Brown appointed ex-civil servant John Chilcot to lead the panel, which will call Blair and the current and former heads of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency - John Sawers and John Scarlett - to give testimony in person… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

At least the British are investigating their war criminals.  The time is long past due for the US to stop ignoring US law and follow suit.

Army Suicides to Set New Record

The suicide rate among our troops is more than double the national average.  Something is clearly wrong with the mental health services we are providing our troops.

Suicides in the U.S. Army will hit a new high this year, a top general said on Tuesday in a disclosure likely to increase concerns about stress on U.S. forces ahead of an expected buildup in Afghanistan.

The findings, released as President Barack Obama inches toward a decision to send up to 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, show the number of active-duty suicides so far in 2009 has already matched last year's record of 140 deaths.

"We are almost certainly going to end the year higher than last year," General Peter Chiarelli, the Army's vice chief of staff, told a Pentagon briefing.

"This is horrible, and I do not want to downplay the significance of these numbers in any way."

Another 71 soldiers committed suicide after being taken off active duty in 2009 -- nearly 25 percent more than the end-year total for 2008. Some had returned home only weeks before taking their own lives.

The figures applied only to the U.S. Army. Data from other branches of the armed services was not immediately available.

Chiarelli cautioned against generalizing about the causes of the suicides, or assuming links to combat stress on forces stretched thin by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said the causes were still unclear and noted that roughly a third of the soldiers who took their own lives had never been deployed abroad.

The Army recently revealed that about one in five lower rank soldiers suffered mental health problems like depression.

The latest data and this month's shooting spree at a base in Fort Hood, Texas attributed to an Army psychiatrist have raised new questions about the effects of combat stress and the state of the military's mental health system… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Reuters>

If the General releasing the news says not to link the suicide rate to combat stress or forces stretched this, that virtually guarantees that is the first place we should look.  If one third of the cases had never been deployed, would not stress over seeing comrades return as basket cases and knowing they were next raise stress levels?  Morale stinks, largely because our soldiers have been overused in wars of aggression without letup.  They could not even feel safe in the shower.  Furthermore, any health care system that could continue to employ Major Hasan as a psychiatrist as long as they did id broken.  Our troops are too valuable not to fix it, and if the GOP keeps getting in the way, roll over them.

Happy Veterans Day and Thank You

Many are inclined to assume that when people opposes a war, they also oppose the troops serving in it.  During the Vietnam War, a small minority of protestors, mostly on the West Coast fixed that notion in the public’s perception by throwing blood at returning troops.  To this day I feel angry over that.  Most of us in the peace movement took a completely different attitude.  We accepted returning troops and listened to what they had to say.  They were a window for us, through which we could see the truth about what was happening there.  Once returning vets saw that we accepted them and did not condemn their service, more often then not they joined us in opposition to the war.

Our troops do not make policy.  They do not start wars.  They serve under oath to obey the legal orders given them.  Most perform their duties with pride and honor.  When they become involved in illegal, immoral wars such as Vietnam and Iraq, they are victims of the politicians that place them in harm’s way without just cause.  They deserve our thanks, our loyalty and our love.  They deserve the best care and benefits we can provide them because of the extreme sacrifices they have made on our behalf.

With that in mind, I considered the ongoing GOP claim that Democrats do not support our troops, but Republicans do.  I visited Project Vote Smart to learn what our veterans have to say about just who it is that has their backs.  The Disabled American Veterans gave 200 national politicians a 100% perfect rating.  All 200 are Democrats.  They gave 32 national politicians a rating of 50% or less.  All 32 are Republicans.  The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave 85 national politicians an A+, A or A- rating.  All 85 are Democrats.  They gave 49 national politicians a D, D- or F rating.  All 49 are Republicans.  It seems that Republicans call it supporting the troops whenever they vote for a measure to funnel billions into the pockets of war profiteers, but when it calls to actually taking care of our vets, they almost invariably complain about the costs and oppose it.  So I encourage you all to do remove Republicans from office.

And to those among you who have served our nation in the military, thank you for your sacrifice.

Dead-eye Resurrected the Fredo Defense

Do you remember Alfredo Gonzales testifying before Congress?  I might.  I’m not sure.  I don’t recall.  CREW has posted the redacted notes from Cheney’s FBI interview.  It will make you sick.

When President Ronald Reagan was asked about Iran-Contra, he replied that he did not remember whether he had authorized two illegal arms sales to Iran in 1985. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated "I don't recall" or similar phrases 64 times in one memorable day of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee -- a performance so memorable that it has since been set to music as a cantata.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney may now have joined their illustrious company, with the release of a redacted summary (pdf) of his May 8, 2004 interview by the FBI concerning the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame in July 2003.

The summary was released on Friday afternoon in response to a Freedom of Information request from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. It consists, however, almost entirely of things that Cheney asserted he either did not know or could not recall.

Cheney advised the FBI, for example, "that he has no idea who may have made the unauthorized disclosure" of Plame's identity, that he did not know of any other reporters besides Robert Novak who might have received the information, and that no one had ever confided to him that they had passed information about Plame to reporters. Cheney also claimed that to the best of his knowledge no one had ever told him about discussing the issue with reporters, even after Novak's column outing Plame appeared on July 14, 2003.

In fact, by his own testimony, Cheney took almost no interest in either Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger in 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to purchase uranium there or the outing of Wilson's wife in 2003. Cheney said the first he knew of Wilson's trip was when he read about it in a New York Times by Nicholas Kristof in May 2003 -- and that he took almost no interest in the matter even after that point.

Cheney also said he "could not remember any reaction he had to the Kristof article at the time it was published," did not follow subsequent newspaper coverage of Wilson's claims, was not aware of whether reporters were asking his office about the trip, and only discussed the matter with Central Intelligence Director George Tenet once by phone.

When asked about Wilson's New York Times editorial of July 6, 2003, Cheney stated that he was "relatively certain he spoke to someone about the article, but he cannot recall exactly who it was." Even when shown a copy of the editorial with notes in his own handwriting in the margin, he indicated "he has no specific recollection of when he wrote the notes" and that "he cannot recall if he discussed the underlined portions of the editorial with any one."

When Cheney was asked about specific members of the Bush administration with whom he might have discussed Wilson or Plame, he consistently replied that he did not have, was not aware of having had, or did not recall any such discussions. At one point, Cheney "stated that the identity of Valerie Wilson and her employment was not high on his radar screen and her employment with the CIA and relationship with Joe Wilson did not figure prominently in his thinking."

Even when Cheney was shown a document with Joseph Wilson's name written in his handwriting in the margin in his own handwriting, he insisted that "he has no specific memory of this document, and recalls no reason why he kept it... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Never before have I heard such a clear case of dissembling.  The man is clearly guilty of treason.  He outed the identity of a CIA agent.  In the process, he exposed the company for which she claimed to work as her cover.  Thus, Cheney effectively outed a network of CIA agents, whose cover was based on the same front company.  Cheney also outed all the people who dealt with Plame and those other CIA agents, while using that cover.  This surely included several foreigners who had become CIA assets.  To minimize the damage, we will never know how severe the damage the loss of an entire network has been to our intelligence gathering capability.  Nor will we know how many foreign assets died as a result of Cheney’s treason.  The price to fix the intelligence around the policy in order justify the failed GOP war for oil and conquest in Iraq was higher that we will ever know.