Well, that’s that… Stick a fork in the Iraq war

From 2011-12 (Dec)

Well, not that it was a “war.”  We haven’t fought a “war” since WWII. 

But yeah, it was a war.  It always seemed silly to me when I was a kid that a lot of people made a big deal about Vietnam not being a war.  Sure looked like a war to me.

And the Iraq conflict, apparently, for now, has entered a new phase where we have no boots on the ground except for those tied to the embassy in Baghdad.  Does that mean it is over?  God knows.  I suspect it is not over for the Iraqis but we can all hope for the best.

I wonder how this will go down in the win/loss/tie column?  The Ba’ath Regime definitely lost.  However, when you hear American military personnel talking about the logistical nightmare of pulling out the forces while still under fire from enemy combatants, it seems problematic to call it one in the win column for the United States.

Obama mail in my inbox this A.M…

Friend --

Early this morning, the last of our troops left Iraq.

As we honor and reflect on the sacrifices that millions of men and women made for this war, I wanted to make sure you heard the news.

Bringing this war to a responsible end was a cause that sparked many Americans to get involved in the political process for the first time. Today's outcome is a reminder that we all have a stake in our country's future, and a say in the direction we choose.

Thank you.

Barack

Nine years, nearly a trillion dollars later, with perhaps an additional trillion to go over the next 30 years when it comes to taking care of the veterans (figures from NPR), and, well, I just do not know….

It all just leaves me feeling pretty hollow at this point. 

Last U.S. Troops Make Quiet Exit Out Of Iraq : NPR:

Gen. Lloyd Austin, who commanded all U.S. troops in Iraq, says he was also worried about roadside attacks as the troops pulled out. He flew down to COB Adder for the last casing of the colors, when the army division's flag is put into its case and sent back home to the U.S.

This war is not like other wars that have ended with the signing of treaties or an exit from friendly territory, Austin says. One American base not far from COB Adder recently had 47 rocket attacks in a single day. Pulling tens of thousands of troops out in this kind of environment is a logistical marvel, he says.

"You're reposturing while people are still trying to cause you harm," Austin says. "That means that every element that moves has to be protected. It is the most difficult undertaking in our lifetime, in our military career."

Deadly Iraq war ends with exit of last U.S. troops - CNN.com:

Early Sunday, as the sun ascended to the winter sky, the very last American convoy made its way down the main highway that connects Iraq and Kuwait.

The military called it its final "tactical road march." A series of 110 heavily armored, hulking trucks and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles carrying about 500 soldiers streamed slowly but steadily out of the combat zone.

A few minutes before 8 a.m., the metal gate behind the last MRAP closed. With it came to an end a deadly and divisive war that lasted almost nine years, its enormous cost calculated in blood and billions.

Iraq, lost in the fog of war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English:

War draws combatants, their societies and politics, into its vortex and forever changes them. It does so not just once, but over and over again, until people forget who they were before the guns started firing.

War has a tendency to generate uncertainties and ambiguities of the most fundamental kind, about who is winning, about what has happened, and about just who we are.

At a moment of supreme - if relative - world power, the US invaded Iraq in March 2003 to prevent Saddam Hussein from rising from the ashes of the sanctions regime of the 1990s. The US sought also to supplant a hostile Iraq with a friendly American client. Iraq would be a base from which to exercise US influence and a replacement for the pliant Gulf monarchies, whose stability in the face of al-Qaeda was then far from assured.

For political consumption, and for gullible idealists, these goals were packaged as the threat of WMD and the spread of democracy.

A mere three years later, the most powerful armed forces in human history were facing defeat at the hands of a many-sided ragtag insurgency. Each pinprick attack in Iraq bled popular support from the war in the US, and made the dream of a stable, democratic Iraq seem fantastical. Meanwhile, around the world, US legitimacy lay in tatters: stained with the WMD that never were, the chains of Abu Ghraib and the blood of Fallujah.

Most of all, the US' reputation as the unquestioned superpower was destroyed. The war in Iraq brought an end to the American century.

The goals shifted. Now the problem was to find some way for the US to exit Iraq "with honour". This was the same problem that the US faced in Vietnam after the Tet Offensive of 1968.

A video by Softbox : Federal Government Deficit & War: What Eats Up 53 Cents Of Every Tax Dollar?

I post this coming from neither a pro nor anti war angle, but when both sides in Washington sit around and start pointing fingers at each other about who caused the deficit and wailing about how their party is not to blame, there is one gorilla in the room everyone tends to ignore...

I'm just saying, you know...  The Republicans were in office when we went in.  Still, someone should have thought about how we were going to pay for this back in the day...

Huntsman outlines foreign policy views - AP

Just because I've decided to web log everything I see on Huntsman...

Associated Press - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper:

Republican presidential contender Jon Huntsman says the United States cannot show its strength on the international stage when it is weak domestically.

The former diplomat and Utah governor on Monday told a New Hampshire audience that the United States needs to scale back its role in Afghanistan and to focus on rebuilding the U.S. economy. He is highlighting his foreign policy experience that, so far, hasn't been a deciding factor in the race.

The campaign has been dominated by domestic issues, especially jobs and the economy. Huntsman says a shifted U.S. foreign policy could help put Americans back to work.

...

In a speech planned for Monday in this early nominating state, he called for a scaled-back U.S. role in international engagements, such as Afghanistan, and called for spending cuts at the Pentagon.

"Simply put, we are risking American blood and treasure in parts of the world where our strategy needs to be rethought," Huntsman said in remarks prepared for delivery.

'via Blog this'

Live blogging the Texas Debate...

Originally posted elsewhere, Feb 21, 08


Okay, so I've got the CNN up on the computer. I've got the peppermint mocha ready for consumption.I am ready to fill up the screen with a hundred typos and dangling participles...

The word is the Hillary is going to go hard and ugly on Obama. The sense is that this could backfire, that she should leave this to McCain, who seems more than willing to blast away at him, and to primarily focus on being likable, on being competent, and on fleshing out her policy issues.

Obama really just needs to hang in there. He needs to look presidential and not look like an idiot. This is his to lose. This is not the time for him to try and focus on policy and to try to look like a hard core policy wonk, Hillary will crush him if he tries this.

Instead, he needs to look pretty, have a couple sharp comebacks ready to fire of if needed, and just look confident.

This one should be a beauty contest, and if it is, it will be boring. They both need boring here. If it is interesting, someone is in trouble. Probably both of them dragging each other down.

My two-cents.

5:07-
Hil. Talking. Talking. Sometimes when she talks, I feel like I am one if the kids in a Peanuts cartoon listening to a grown-up…

At least she did not talk about the three months she lived in Austin. Yesterday she said that, it sounded weak, desperate and awful. She did point out the work she was doing here at the time, which is much better.

5:11-
Obama throws out the real life stories, showing that he is in touch with the common folks problems. I hate this tactic. Bill Clinton was the master at this. Everyone since looks like they are trying to be Bill Clinton.

5:12-
Obama - "Washington is a place where good ideas go to die" because of the lobbyists. Take that McCain.

5:14-
Clinton will "stand ready to work with" with the new president of Cuba, if they refocus on democracy... Kind of dodged the sit down with the new president question. Well, on challenge, she said no, not right away.

Obama would meet "without preconditions," but there must be "preparation," including the release of political prisoners. So, is this really... Well, Hillary is "No, until..." Obama is "Yes, but..." They are really pretty much trying to tow a similar line but trying to sound a little different as they outline it.

Hillary agrees absolutely with negotiations with anyone, but she is pointing out that she differs with Obama on when presidential level meetings should happen, especially with nations we do not currently have diplomatic relations with.

She actually is clarifying Obama's words for him. Nice touch, Hil. And throwing in some nice bashing of Bush foreign policy too. I've got the "real-time reaction" graph running and she was up in the 80s for this, the highest so far of the evening.

5:23-
Let's talk about the "recession..."

Obama- the economy is in trouble. People know this, he says. Restore fairness and balance to the economy, stop the tax breaks for companies outsourcing American jobs, and killing the Bush tax cuts. Killing the Bush tax cuts got him up into the 80s for the first time tonight.

Notice how to get the positive reaction? Don't talk about yourself. Bash Bush.

He's talking about economic hope, staying in the 70s.

Clinton- Agrees alot with what Obama just said. Get the tax code adjusted to be fair for middle class. Bash Bush. 80s, briefly.

We need to enforce trade agreements. Enfoce safety standards. Foreclosures: crack down on abusive practices of lenders. Throwing statistics and real life stories around fast and furious. 90 day moratorium on foreclosures. Five year freeze on interest rates. 70s. Clean green jobs. Invest in infrastructure. rebuild america and put people to work. End Bush's war on science. Spike into 80s. We need to be the innovation Nation. That was a great School House Rock song, wasn't it?

Immigration Issues:
Clinton- Deportation is against American values and an admission of defeat of current policies. Hovering just below 70. Need to help Mexico create more jobs. Would introduce path to legalization in first 100 days.

Obama- Has worked on this in the past, but it was "used as a political football" and "died in the house." Agrees with Clinton, but adds that "we need to tone down the rhetoric." Calls for comprehensive reform, cracking down on abusive employers without discriminating against legal citizens. Pay back taxes, pay fine on the way to legalization. Need to fix legal immigration as well as work on illegal immigration, making it easier to immigrate legally. I like. Hovering around 70, just like Hillary. Need to work with Mexico, echoing Hil, calling for investment in Mexican economy, creating jobs there. Bashing Bush policies, calling Iraq the distraction, but he didn't break 70 here.

Finishing the border fence:

Clinton- "there is a smart way to protect our borders and there is a dumb way to protect our borders," examples of absurd actions of current administration. Wants to review the need for physical barrier and where they are appropriate, saying that the Bush administration has "gone off the deep end" on this issure. Near 80.

Technology and "smart fencing"? "Deploying more technology and personel" Clinton won't defend her past voting on this issue.

Obama- Says that he "almost entirely agrees" with Hillary. Echo. Echo. "people want fairness, want justice..." Deporting everyone is "ridiculous..." we need "order in the process" Getting people out of shadows. He is trying to say the same thing, but trying to use pretty words.

5:45 - What I am noticing here, it is not good when he follows Hillary for him. He does sound like he is saying me to with prettier words. It's also not great when she follows him, she crams 14 policy points in per breath and doesn't even break a sweat. He needs to stay out of these debates with this woman.

He does come across as the pretty talker, but it almost feels like he is struggling to make his pretty words fit the situation where Hillary has, like I said, 14 policy points to match each situation.

I need a smoke. BRB (How modern of me!)


5:50-
I came back in and the screen was dark? Did Hil jump up and chair Obama? No. Just a commercial. I guess I didn't miss much.

Its being pointed out that they are being much more polite together than when they are talking about each other seperately. They have been very polite. John King is trying to get them going.

Hillary is not taking the bait, and turning it against Bush, pointing out they her and Obama both have a lot in common. Exactly. She is trying to find differences, but honestly, very few are coming out tonight. She is talking about offering soultions, but if Obama is not offering solutions, but is essentially offering the same ideas as she is, does this mean that she is not offering solutions either?

She is saying it really is about experience and record and resume. Small spike around 65.

Obama - Pointing out some of his record, some his work in the Senate. He's "engaged not just in talk, but in action." Fundamental difference between them in how they want to bring change about. Pretty flat, no spikes. Pointing out that he has been endorsed by every major paper in Texas. He's going for the idea that his approach will be less confrontational and will be more likely to actually bring about change. Flat. Flat. Hillary is smirking. Can she see the line too? Small bump up to 70 at the end.

Campbell Brown is bringing up the Obama plagairism accusations.

Pointing out that the line was given to him. This is an example of "the silly season in politics." People want issues, not distractions, he is saying. Patting himself on the back for making good speeches, people like the joke.

I still say it was a silly mistake on his part that he didn't throw a few sylables into that speech attributing the line, no biggie. Either way. He is turning away from the question and throwing out a few policy points.

Clinton - "If your campaign is going to be about words then they should be your own words." A good line about Xeroxing... Plunging approval, down towards 30. Boos in the live audience. Turns towards health care, and attacking him on the gaps in his plan, not covering everyone. She is saying that he, essentially, does not have the imagination to go the distance with his plans to do what really needs to be done. She even threw in a bit where she claimed that even Bush could see what he couldn't see.

These are the lines we'll be seeing for a week. Hillary looked like a bitch and may have gone a bit too far on the attack. You know she has been dying to say it. She shouldn't have, at least not like this. She was pulling it off. She may have just lost it. Everything. Those 30 seconds may have just cost her the presidency.

Obama is talking- I agree. Health care stuff I was writing about. People do not have insurance because they do not want it, but because they cannot afford it. Trying to point out that he is more in tune with the people than she is. Patting her on the back for her old plan as first lady in 93. Saying she went about it in the wrong way, behind closed doors, and alienated her party, congress, and everyone. Really, that old debacle is one of her weak points, and I am surprised that it does not come up among the Democrats more often, though the Republicans act as though it is the only thing she has ever done. Probably why.

6:11-
Back from commercial. Back from my smoke...
Univision guy bringing up Hil's comments that Obama is not ready for CinC job, she drags it back to health care, upset that she did not have a chance to respond. She feels that there are substatitive differences in their plans. Swinging John Edwards words at him, saying that they have real differences. Pretty flat. Campbell Brown trying to move it on, Hil's breaking the rules, so is Obama in responding. He's pointing out that she is going to force people to buy insurance, comparing it to Mass. where people are fined, so they not only lack health insurance, but also are saddled with fines. An evil plan. I do not know if she has the same details in her plan. Hil won't let go, small bumps over 50 when Obama was talking, long droop down into the 40s when Hil started. Pointing out that she wants real Universal Health Care, up into the mid-50s.

That was a bad sign for her. When she started talking, the approval line dropped. When she said the magic words that all of us liberal types love, the words got the approval, not her.

Again, back to Obama not being ready to lead the country in the world, lacking the foreign policy experience.

Hillary is rattling off her experience and a couple of the current foreign policy issues (Cuba, Kosovo, Embassy riot in Serbia, etc...) Rapid fire of points showing her ease with and grasp of the issues, line hovering a little over 50. Drops a little when she is talking about being ready for the job.

Obama starts talking, it rises before he says anything real. Up near 70. Dropping back down a bit. Talking about overextension of US forces. Hitting Hillary on the old war vote. Afghanastan versus Iraq. I like him here, he is right. One is the war we need to win, the other is the war we never needed to fight. "Who is going to show the judgment to lead?" Awsome way for him to rephrase this debate, being the least experienced in the ring. Judgment versus experience.

John King is taking us on a little tour of Iraq- "Is Iraq today better off ... because of the surge?"

Interesting, it used to be if America was better off today than we were four years ago, not it is if Iraq is better off than it was four years ago.

Hillary- Formulate plan to start drawing down troops within 60 day, one to two brigades a month, probably. Approval up near 70.

Obama- Violence has been reduced in Iraq, and this is due to the efforts of our soldier and "we honor their service" Pointing out the surge is a fix to "a huge strategic blunder." Saying that we'll pound McCain on the war. Approval hovering up near 70. He is moving on into the economic cost of the war, and pointing out that Iran has benefitted from the war more than any other nation. Again, "the incredible burden placed on the American people," not doing right by our veterans , over 70 on the line.

Point to Obama. He is getting the better response on the war, because he is making it an issue about American, not about Iraq. Remember this.

Commercial break. Smoke break... Strange sounds coming out of the dark and into my earphones... Back in a moment.

More coffee, no smoke, Obama is talking about "Google for Government" to help track government budgets, etc. Arguing for more transperancy, more disclosure. Projects funded through earmarks are not inherantly bad, but that there needs to be transparancy.

I was distracted by email. Hil was saying something that got her spiked up to 70, staying pretty high. Tax cuts for the middle class. Ah. It's a good thing. Some Bush bashing too. Give people money, bash Bush, that approval line stays high.

I love it, she is ready to fight McCain on "the fisical irresponsibility of the Republican Party." I love it.

Talk about super delegates. Approval for unified party moving into the general. Hillary threw out some pretty words and got the approval spike, Obama is over talking this and hovering around 60, significantly lower than Hillary here.

Final question-
Describe when your judgment was tested under the pressure of a crisis?

Obama- My personal life was a trainwreck in my youth. Learning responsibility for his actions and how to work with others. Choosing to work for principles over cash in law. Giving the people "a government worthy of their decency and generosity."

Hil - Veiled nod towards her past public turmoils (spike in approval). Her challenges have been nothing compared to the challenges faced by so many regular American folk these days... Good. Nicely done. But it does kind of indicate that Obama remembers what it was like out there, she may not. But I like her humility here. This is one of the area she needed to work on tonight, humility, and this is a great moment for her here, and her approval line is way up towards 80. She is "absolutely honored to be here with Barak Obama... What ever happens we'll be fine." Big hand shake for Obama. Standing ovation.

She closed huge, if this is it. Thanks, thanks, standing clapping... I am smoking.

Stick a fork in it, it's done.

Pasted from <http://aflitt.livejournal.com/40220.html>

Republican Press Secretary Serving in Iraq Discusses Rumsfeld and Armor

I am always a fan of "primary source" material. To me, this is one of the best things about blogging: It gives people who would be normally overlooked by the mainstream media a readily accessible pipeline to the masses. Because of this, I don't have to go to Iraq to hear a first person story about life there. I don't have to rely on catching a few stories on life in Iraq squeezed into the slow news gap between the Peterson Sentence and the Kidnapped Fetus.

One of the worst things about blogging? Being stuck in an apartment in the suburbs with no access to primary material and writing about news and information recycled from other media sources. Using blogs for research isn't much better. It still isn't the same as being there, talking to a live human, but at least it feels one step closer...

There was an article this morning calling Lance In Iraq, by Second Lt. Lance Frizzell, the first blog out of Iraq by a US soldier from Tennessee. I do know know if it is true that this is the first blog from a Tennessee soldier in Iraq or not, but it is the first blog I have noticed from any US soldier in Iraq.

It is an interesting read. It is written by a National Guardsman who's civilian job is being "the Press Secretary for the House Republican Caucus in the Tennessee Legislature."

There is bias here, obviously, but I have no problem with bias as long as it is not claiming to be "Fair and Balanced."

I get laid off from my job and decide to kill time by writing about life and politics on my blogs, this man gets sent to war and decides to kill time by passing "on some of the things the 278th[Armored Cavalry Regiment (now Regimental Combat Team)] is doing in country as well as talk a little politics and media analysis. "

I can respect that, regardless of his political affiliation.

The 278th is the same unit that Spc. Thomas Wilson is from. He is the soldier who asked the Secretary of Defense why the US Military had to "dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles." To make hillbilly armor, as they call it.

Obviously, I am interested to see what a Republican press secretary who is in a combat zone has to say about this...

...what would happen if the 278th hung out in Kuwait for an extended period of time waiting for official up-armor kits. Here is the answer:

The units we are scheduled to replace would be stuck in Iraq waiting to be relieved. A lot of these units are National Guardsman like ourselves who rolled in last year when things were dicier than they are now. I'd hate to be languishing here in country because some members of the U.S. Army are too prissy to pick up a welding torch and put steel on a vehicle. It's time for these guys to go home. It's time for us to take their place. Period.

If we are delayed a year from now because the next rotation is scared of angry family members and Congressional inquiries I (and everyone else in the 278th - especially those complaining about armor) will be highly pissed.

Frizzell writes that he is more concerned about the troop rotations, getting soldiers who are due to leave Iraq out, than having adequate armor. That is very noble. I would guess this is how most soldiers going into this situation feel. This is because we have good people serving over there. They deserve all the protection they can be given while they are doing their jobs over there.

The point here isn't quite on target, unfortunately. The debate isn't about delaying your arrival in the combat zone. You are going with or without the proper equipment. The debate is about making sure that going in unarmored stops.

In a different post from the same day, Frizzell talks about Clinton's secretary of Defense Les Aspin turning down a request for "tanks and armored vehicles for his forces" during the Somalia deployments.

He quotes the following from a DOD web site profile of Aspin:

In September General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks and armored vehicles for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot.

In his post, the Republican press secretary/soldier writes, "Liberals and lefty media types using the armor issue to take down Rumsfeld were no where to be found during the Aspin debacle. "

The sentence immediately following the DOD quote above is:

In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops.

Aspin ended up resigning a short time later.

I would use this example not so much to complain about differences in the media coverage between events a over a decade ago in Somalia and current events in Iraq, but to illustrate the difference between an administration that can admit its mistakes and one that cannot, no matter how bad they are.

Especially when considering... Aspin's mistake, apparently, did not cost those soldiers serving in Somalia their lives.

According to one of the comments posted on Frizzell's blog, "But of course having the armor wouldn't have prevented either the attack, or the deaths -- the armor was requested by the 10th Mountain Division, not the Ranger detachment, and the Rangers were based on the opposite side of the city than the 10th Mountain Division."

As far as the media coverage goes, I cannot remember if the media latched onto this Aspin controversy or not, but I do know that very little was said in the mainstream media about the lack of properly armored vehicles in Iraq until Rumsfeld was confronted by one of his own soldiers about the issue.

Body armor was discussed to some degree before then, mostly during the presidential campaign, but the discussion was focused mostly on congressional voting records, not if the soldiers ever actually received armor or other materiel that was supposedly being voted on at the time.

What was that money for? One of our left-liberal stars, Rep. Jim McDermott from Washington, outlined some of it on the House floor...

We have got no jobs in this country. But we are printing money. The presses are running like mad printing this money to send over to Iraq.

Now, what are we going to send it there for? You heard from one of my colleagues a little bit of it. We are going to send over a guard system for public property, $15 million. That is just for training and administration.

We are going to send them 80 pickup trucks at $2.6 million. That is $33,000 apiece. That is a pretty good pickup truck. You can get a pickup truck for under $20,000 right now. But, no, we have to send them the $33,000 brand.

We are going to send over a communications system of handheld radios, 400 of them, and 200 satellite telephones, for $6 million. How many of your police departments have that kind of equipment? And yet we can send it over to Iraq.

Or we can go and give security for the judges at $200 million. Four hundred judges. We are going to provide security details constantly for $200 million.

These phony dollars that they got us into, they got us into a war on a fraudulent basis. The President stood right here and said things which he now says, ``My, it wasn't true.'' But we are going to pay for it.

We are going to pay for a witness protection program. If any Iraqis come forward, we promise them that we will take them to the United States and set them up someplace in Florida or wherever, I do not know, and spend $100 million on them, like they were crime fighters in the Mafia in the United States. That is what your money is going for.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of things in this country that ought to happen before that happens.

We are going to buy them 200 tanker trucks. We are going to buy them 250 natural gas trucks. More of these dollars. They are going out. They are going out to the people, and they are going to be spent over there, and the Iraqis themselves say, ``Give us 10 cents on the dollar, and we can do it ourselves.'' But this is an American occupation headed by Viceroy Bremer, and there is no intention in this list of turning over control to them.

We are going to set them up an army. We have decided they need a 40,000-man army. They had an army before. Where is it? Why do we have to buy new weapons for all of them?

Four hundred thirty-five Members are going to come in here with their rubber stamp, and they are going to say, ``Mr. President, you want it. I close my eyes, it is yours.'' And we are going to send them $87 billion , with no discussion. It is wrong. Keep your eye on them.

$87 Billion in October 2003, $25 billion on August 2004, another $70 Billion in the works; all in addition to the initial " $78.5 billion measure that included $62.4 billion for combat and $7.5 billion for foreign assistance..."

This is why the lefties get a little upset and confused when US troops still seem to be unprepared two years into this phase of the Global War on Terror.

This is what inspires "lefty" Congressmen, like Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., to demand accountability from the Secretary of Defense.

Dodd sent a letter to the Secretary "and called the secretary's answer to Spc. Wilson's question 'unacceptable.'"

"Your response -- 'You go to war with the Army you have' -- is utterly unacceptable," Sen. Dodd wrote. "Mr. Secretary, our troops go to war with the Army that our nation's leaders provide."

I can spin in Oregon. Frizzell can spin in Iraq. That is the beauty of blogs.

Welcome to the conversation, Lance.

A Green Light For Abuse? You Better Dance!

U.S. Marines fired a pistol in a mock execution involving four young Iraqi looters and shocked another Iraqi detainee with an electric transformer until he "danced," a document made public on Tuesday showed..

And the beat goes on… I mean beatings. There is not even anything really left to say about this issue any more. It makes me proud to be an American.

"The Defense Department has insisted from the outset that abuse, to the extent that it occurs at all, is aberrational," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU lawyer. "I think we now have overwhelming evidence that that's not true, but that abuse was widespread and that it was systemic in the sense that it was the result of policies adopted by the Defense Department."

It does make it easy for me to come up with content for these pages. Just open up the BBC [this one actually made it to the AP wire] and link to a couple articles, add sarcastic comment, link to the Message Boards, and move on to the next item.

Document Reveals More U.S. Detainee Abuse in Iraq

Presidential Medal of Freedom Awarded…

Retired General Tommy Franks, former CIA Director George Tenent and former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer were awarded the Medal of Freedom by Bush today.

Bush said Franks "led the forces that fought and won two wars in the defense of the world's security and helped liberate more than 50 million people from two of the worst tyrannies in the world."

Yes, I’ll never forget the tears of joy we, as a nation, shared when the troops came home victorious from Iraq and Afghanistan and freedom reigned in the two brightest Democracies in the Middle East.

Or, as Sidney Blumenthal just said on Air America, “What would they have got if they succeeded?”

The Medal of Freedom, established by President Truman in 1945 to recognize civilians for their efforts during World War II, was reinstated by President Kennedy in 1963 to honor distinguished service.

This sounds like a worthy crew to join this club.

Bush Awards Medal of Freedom to Three

Karl Rove: Bush's Goebbels?

I wanted to take a moment and explain why I mentioned Karl Rove in the headline yesterday. These sorts of dirty tricks are what Mr. Rove seems to be all about. In fact, when I searched Google on his name, the first sentence of the first article that came up was, “He's America's Joseph Goebbels.”

While I would like to stay away from the Bush Administration/NAZI comparisons, when one of the most influential people in the White House started their political career by sabotaging the opening of a campaign office of a Democratic candidate there is definite cause for concern.

In 1970 when he was a protege of Donald Segretti (a convicted Watergate conspirator), Rove snuck into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead. He printed fliers on the letterhead promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing" and distributed the fliers at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank."

It’s The Simpsons “Boys will be Boys” defense. From there he went on to such heights as the 1986 bugging incident in the Texas govenors race.

[J]ust before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. There was no proof, and it was later alleged he had bugged his own phone for the media coverage that the incident generated, but there was no proof of that, either, and no charges were ever filed.



This is a man that defines the concept of the ends justifying the means, and to him, the ends are the political success of his canidate. Now that his canidate is going into the 5th year of his presidancy, it would seem that there would no longer be a role for this Senior Advisor to the President. But the Bush Administration sees their leadership role from the perspective of being in a permanent campaign. Having to constantly defend their record, this makes sense. Unfortunarely, “Rove, running a permanent campaign, doesn't grasp his limitations, and at the very least this means a greater risk to American lives.”

What this means to me is that when a CIA agent who does not tow the party line is suddenly investigated on “allegations that he had sex with a female informer and stole money used to pay informers,” I start getting really nervous. As I said yesterday, an anonymous plaintif in a wrongful termination lawsuit against the CIA has more credibility than the Bush Administration does with me at this point. Much of my confidence in the Administration is eroded by the high profile of Rove in the White House.

And when Bush starts talking about spending political capital, I start wondering what Rove has in mind.

Rove’s tactics get really scary if the Administration dares use such measures when it comes to foreign policy. Especially when we are at war.

Today, I noticed this nice headline, “White House mum on El Baradei eavesdropping report.” It seems that there are allegations that “the United States has monitored telephone calls between El Baradei and Iranian diplomats, seeking ammunition to oust him.”

There is a big difference between bugging your own office in a gubernatorial race and using similar tactics to take out the head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency. These are the sorts of actions that, if they are happening often enough and severely enough, tend to get Coalitions of the Willing riled up for a military intervention.

If the www.counterpunch.org essay is correct that Rove’s mentor was a Watergate conspirator who went to jail for distributing illegal campaign material, could we see Karl taking a long look at his shower options in the future? I would guess not. I doubt that we’ll see a Republican Congress take on the president. I doubt that any investigation would carry enough weight to make the GOP turn against the Administration. For Clinton, it took lying about receiving oral sex to get an impeachment trial rolling. However, for a Chief Executive of their own party, Bush would probably need to be caught red handed drowning Christian Orphans from Mississippi in the Lincoln Bedroom to even be investigated by the Republicans in Congress. Since it would be hard to take down Rove without taking down the President, he is probably safe.

For more information on this gentleman, who was once heard shouting "We will fuck him like he's never been fucked before," a man who even GWB calls a “turd blossom,” please explore the following articles. The above quotes came from them, though I cannot say that I have read each one in depth.

White House mum on El Baradei eavesdropping report

Exposing Karl Rove

The brains behind Bush

Karl Rove: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

And Rove Gets to Keep His Job… A Green Light For Abuse?

Homeless Iraq Vets... This is Going to Get Ugly

Homeless Iraq vets showing up at shelters

Data from the Department of Veterans Affairs shows that as of last July, nearly 28,000 veterans from Iraq sought health care from the VA. One out of every five was diagnosed with a mental disorder, according to the VA. An Army study in the New England Journal of Medicine in July showed that 17 percent of service members returning from Iraq met screening criteria for major depression, generalized anxiety disorder or PTSD.

I first started hearing about this a couple days ago and have been meaning to look into it. I don't know if it was that I was too busy or that I just can bring myself to look, but I found this link on the 3WA message board tonight, and this article is the first one I've actually read on this subject.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised by this. I am surprised that it does catch me so off guard.

Maybe I bought more of the Bush Campaign rhetoric than I realized. Or I was just hoping against all hope that they wouldn't fuck these kids over.

And Rumsfeld Gets to Keep His Job… A Green Light For Abuse?

The New York-based campaign group Human Rights Watch says it has uncovered evidence that three more prisoners have died in US detention in Afghanistan.

In a damning open letter to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, it says the US is continuing to fail to investigate abuses or punish the guilty.

And the beat goes on… I mean beatings. There is not even anything really left to say about this issue any more. It makes me proud to be an American.

What it calls the "government's failure to hold its personnel accountable for serious abuses has spawned a culture of impunity among some personnel".

Its letter to Donald Rumsfeld says there are fewer complaints now relating to the main US detention centre at Bagram airbase north of Kabul.

However, allegations of "abuse and arbitrary detention" continue to emerge from what are known as "forward operating bases" - smaller posts normally in frontline areas.

It does make it easy for me to come up with content for these pages. Just open up the BBC and link to a couple articles, add sarcastic comment, link to the Message Boards, and move on to the next item.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4092073.stm

And Rove Gets to Keep His Job… A Green Light For Abuse?

A former CIA officer is suing his employers for retaliating against him for his alleged refusal to falsify reports on weapons of mass destruction.

In a complaint published on Wednesday, the unnamed operative said he was warned by a colleague that management wanted to "get him" for his actions.
And the beat goes on… I mean the lies and deceit and fraud. There is not even anything really left to say about this issue any more. It makes me proud to be an American.

The plaintiff maintains that he had attempted to report intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in 2001 and 2002, but was thwarted by his superiors who then insisted on his falsifying his reports.

When he refused to do this, investigations were allegedly made against him into allegations that he had sex with a female informer and stole money used to pay informers.

It does make it easy for me to come up with content for these pages. Just open up the BBC and link to a couple articles, add sarcastic comment, link to the Message Boards, and move on to the next item.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4086361.stm

Seriously, though. Somehow after the last four years I find myself in a position where an anonymous plaintif in a case claiming that he was fired for refusing to claim that Iraq posessed WMD is more credible than the Bush Administration.

What has been going on over at the CIA is just plain scary, unfortunately it is barely covered by the mainstream media. And really, why should it be when there are real life, important issues like Scott Peterson and Jacko demanding attention?

If CNN reported this story this morning, I did not notice. But I could not help but to notice a large percentage of their air time this morning was spent on Michael Jackson’s porno mags. I wanted not to notice this. I wanted not to hear the debate on the fingerprints on these magazines. I did not want to hear someone on my TV saying that having Jacko’s prints and a 12 year old boys prints on the same magazine proves nothing, since it does not prove that they were looking at the magazine at the same time. Wrong on so many levels.

Oh MY GOSH-DARN! I just devoted nearly 50% of my air time to Jacko.

I am going to hell.

Many, Many, Many Things...

Okay, then...

I'll start with some words on the whole Rumsfeld "You go to war.." deal that I posted in response to another blog.

I totally agree that it is a crime that the soldiers feel that the government is not doing all that they can to protect them in the war. And I do believe that a large number of them feel that way... My proof, none. Just my gut. But I haven't seen numbers on either side of this issue.

However, it turns out that the soldier who asked the question about armor that is getting all of this attention was there guarding a reporter who prompted him to ask this question.

Is it still a valid question? Of course.

Were the audience's enthusiastic cheers when the question was asked legitimate? Sounded like it to me.

But I am afraid that the conservative elements in the media will use this as an excuse to invalidate the question itself. And that is sad. If there is no issue, then prove it. If there is, then something needs to be done. I am tired of everyone avoiding the debate of real issues because they do not like who asked the question, etc.

So, that is out of the way...

Next... There are two issues I've decided just to stay the hell away from... The Ukraine and the Terror Bill. These are very complicated things that are potentially world changing in their long term effects and I just don't feel that any brief babble I would post about them would be worth anything.

Then... The Bush Cabinet, V 2.0

Okay, this is an issue that I want to get into. I want to make snarky comments about Condi. I want to run through the old faces and the new names and turn in my two cents. But every time I am about to get started, another turnover occurs.

I read somewhere that the turnover in this cabinet was about par for the second term, but this is starting to seem a little weak to me. I haven't seen the current count, but I know that there was another this morning and it has reached the point where I have lost track.

Anyway, everyone needs to take a look at these people and if you don't like them, scream at your reps in Congress about it. Just because the President wants to give these people jobs doesn't mean that Congress has to give them jobs.

But, more on that later...

I have a list of issues I want to discuss. Unfortunately, it is not with me at the moment, so there is my excuse to move on for the moment.

Washington Needs Your Wome...I mean CASH!

No political ranting and raving this morning.

I came out of my post election media down period that crept up on me and kept me mostly out of the loop for a couple weeks and this week real life got in the way of me doing much on this blog. I did, however, tweak the home page for democracyindistress.com so it is not quite as dull as it was.

Let's see... Bu-bye Mr. Ridge. I thought this had already been announced, but I guess not. It is just not a surprise. I saw that there is a name out already for his replacement, but I do not know anything about this new Director yet.

More troops to Iraq before their election? Another surprise. Uh, not.

Today is the last day for the Democrats in Washington State to file for a recount. They have to pay for this re-count. This morning they were still about $100,000 short for a full, statewide recount.

Remember, this Govenorship may be decided by less than 50 votes, and it seems that there are still a decent number of ballots that may not have been counted. I am not sure of the details, been to busy this morning to do the research, but...

If you read this in time and can donate money: Give! Give! Give!

Give here!

So... That is it for now.

Weapon of Mass Destruction in Fallujah

When I first heard about the discovery of this lab, I shuddered and figured that the Bush Administration would start crowing about how they were right all along about Iraq and WMD.

This morning, however, I woke up to CNN and realized that this lab supposedly belonged to the insurgents, not to the Ba'ath Party. Oh joy.

War in Iraq: Stopping terrorism and removing the threat of WMD. Or the opposite of that. I'll have to check my notes.

Let me see...
Saddam's regime: No WMD; no al-Quada connections.
U. S. occupied Iraq: Overflowing with terrorists who apparently are developing WMD capabilities.

"Mission accomplished."