Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

The legality of execution by executive decree without due process

glenn...
The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights this morning filed a lawsuit in federal court against several Obama officials, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and CIA Director David Petraeus. The suit is brought on behalf of the survivors of three American citizens killed in Yemen by the U.S. Government — killed specifically by the CIA and the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command — with no due process and far from any battlefield: Anwar Awlaki and Samir Khan (killed together in a drone strike) and Awlaki’s teenaged son Abdulrahman (killed two weeks later).

The suit alleges that the killing of these Americans violates their Constitutional rights (including their Fifth Amendment right to due process) because “the United States was not engaged in an armed conflict with or within Yemen” and “these killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.”

by all means, go read the rest...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Same circus, same clowns, different costumes

changing up the defense, CIA and afghan teams...
Administration sources say President Barack Obama plans this week to name CIA Director Leon Panetta to replace Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Gen. David Petraeus, now running the war in Afghanistan, would take the CIA chief's job.

The officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because the changes are not final.

The changes would probably take effect this summer. Gates has already said he will leave this year.

The officials say Obama is expected to also announce that Lt. Gen. John Allen would replace Petraeus as Afghanistan commander, and that diplomat Ryan Crocker will be the next U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan.

The changes are expected to be announced Thursday at the White House.

anybody see any real change here...? hmmmmm... didn't think so...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 1 comments

Friday, March 26, 2010

Iceland may become investigative journalism haven spurred by surveillance campaign against Wikileaks

if this can be pulled off, it would be major cool...

here's some of the scoop... read more at raw story...

In an extraordinary editorial, the whistleblower site WikiLeaks has demanded that the United States "stop spying" on its operations.

"Over the last few years, WikiLeaks has been the subject of hostile acts by security organizations," founder Julian Assange writes. "We've become used to the level of security service interest in us and have established procedures to ignore that interest. But the increase in surveillance activities this last month, in a time when we are barely publishing due to fundraising, are excessive."

On Tuesday evening, followers of the WikiLeaks Twitter feed were startled to read, "WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation." This was followed a few minutes later by "If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible." A succeeding message warned, "We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks."

Friday's editorial finally fills in the background of those cryptic messages. Assange apparently believes that his group is under close surveillance by US intelligence because of its planned release of "a classified U.S. military video showing civilian kills by U.S. pilots" under the command of General David Petraeus.

Most of the incidents that he cites, however, have occurred in Iceland, where WikiLeaks representatives have been holding discussions with members of the Icelandic parliament about the possibility of turning that nation into a haven for investigative journalism.

we need more people like assange out there, particularly as our super-rich elites and their government stooges move to grab more and more control over information flow...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Pepe Escobar wonders what Israel REALLY bombed in Syria and I wonder what the hell's going on in D.C.

pepe's up first...



now, HERE'S some questions and concerns even MORE troubling...

ips' jim lobe via alternet...

Are the latest accusations and tough language leveled against Iran, Syria, and North Korea evidence of a resurgence by the remaining hawks in the administration of President George W. Bush hoping for a final confrontation against one or more members of the revised 'axis of evil' before his term next January?

That's the big question here this week, particularly following Thursday's long-awaited intelligence briefings to Congress about alleged North Korean involvement in the construction of a 'covert nuclear reactor' in Syria that was destroyed in a raid by Israeli warplanes in September last year.

According to some interpretations, the briefing's timing and content appeared deliberately designed to raise tensions between Washington, on the one hand, and Pyongyang and Damascus, on the other, potentially derailing ongoing long-running negotiations between the State Department and North Korea and Turkish-mediated peace feelers between Israel and Syria.

That Vice President Dick Cheney, whose opposition to engaging both North Korea and Syria and support for 'regime change' in both countries is both well known and of long standing, had pushed hard for the briefing to take place has added to speculation that a major power play by the hawks to reverse the diplomacy that has dominated Bush's second term is underway.

Rumours that the State Department's point man on North Korea, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill -- whose latest accord with Pyongyang negotiated in Singapore earlier this month has been the target of fierce right-wing attacks led by Cheney chum, former U.N. Amb. John Bolton -- has told associates that he will resign next month have added to concerns that the hawks have regained the initiative, at least on that front.

Add the promotion of Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq who has overseen the past year's 'surge' of U.S. troops, to take over the U.S. Central Command (Centcom) this summer, as well as the increasingly harsh charges against Iran's alleged interference in Iraq that have been coming out of the Pentagon in recent days.

All these developments are seen by some as an answer to the prayers of neo-conservatives, in particular, who had largely given up hopes that Bush could be persuaded to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.

speaking entirely for my un-connected, barely-informed self, i have NEVER figured that bush and his criminal compadres had given up on attacking iran...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Why are we not surprised that Bush would nominate a toady like Petraeus to replace Fallon?

as gagging as it is to see, could anyone possibly have doubted that george bush would replace an honest-to-god, professional, integrity-filled military man with a propaganda-spewing shill whose lips are permanently attached to his ass...?
Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has commanded United States troops in Iraq for the past year, will be nominated to head the United States Central Command, which oversees military operations across a wide swath of the Middle East, Africa and Asia, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced on Wednesday.

Mr. Gates said that he and President Bush and settled on the four-star general for the post because he is best suited to oversee American operations, not just in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and other areas where the United States is engaged in “assymetric” warfare, a euphemism for battling terrorists and non-uniformed combatants.

“I am absolutely convinced he is the best man for the job,” Mr. Gates said.

The necessary paperwork to make General Petraeus’s new assignment a reality will be speeded to the White House, and from there to the Senate, where the Secretary said he is confident of quick confirmation.

and in the 13th paragraph of a 13-paragraph story, the nyt reluctantly reminds us of petraeus' successor and why he was unexpectedly and unceremoniously cashiered...
The previous Central Command chief, Adm. William J. Fallon, was ushered into retirement in March after rankling the Bush administration with public comments that seemed to suggest an emphasis on diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran.

george bush is such a flaming asshole...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Early Sunday a.m. WTF: HRC handing out "I'm not bitter" stickers and Iraqi boys dream of being U.S. soldiers???

for some reason, since i've arrived here in kabul, i've been getting up extra early, usually around 5:45... partly it's because the muezzin chanting prayers from the local mosque wakes me up at 4:35 a.m. and, after snoozing for another hour, i'm wide awake, but also i like to get on the 'puter and catch up on the day's goings-on on the other side of the world before i go to work...

i don't necessarily equate "catching up" with "getting pissed off," but that's been my experience this morning... after watching cnn eviscerate the small-minded and semi-hysterical attack on obama by hillary and mccain and obama's response (see previous post), reading ap's spin-enshrouded crap just grinds my ass...

A political tempest over Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that she must win to keep her presidential campaign alive.

Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly.

"If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that," Obama said in an interview with the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal.

But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well.

Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates. Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping so.

They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."

god-rotten-dammit... obama doesn't have ANYTHING to apologize for... "bitter" is an entirely accurate description... i don't live in pa. but i'm bitter... i'm bitter about a lot of things, not the least of which is that my government has totally abdicated its sworn obligation to defend and uphold the united states constitution... i'm bitter that my those running my country are enriching themselves and their cronies at my expense and at the expense of billions of poor saps like me around the world who are having their money, their livelihoods, and often their lives taken from them by brute force... tell me those aren't things to be bitter about...

then, to make it worse, i read the headline of this wsj opinion piece...

Let's 'Surge' Some More

followed by this jaw-dropping piece of journalistic shit...
I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."

first of all, being the reporter who has been embedded with u.s. combat units in iraq the longest is absolutely NOT a claim to credibility... it is, rather, a claim to being the journalist who has been exposed to the side of the story that his handlers have decreed he should see for the longest... if there had been even the slightest mention of time spent in iraq as a NON-EMBEDDED journalist, i might be tempted to back off a little...

secondly, iraqi boys, like boys everywhere, are fascinated by action heroes... the guns, the equipment, the humvees, the swagger, the raw demonstration of power - all of that captures boys' attention like nothing else can... but seeing that and transforming it into a solid demonstration that u.s. soldiers are "winning hearts and minds" is nothing more than journalistic obscenity... (take a moment to re-visit two of my previous posts, "Just another day in Iraq," and "Scenes from an Iraki childhood," and then talk to me about "hearts and minds...") and if all that isn't obscene enough, check this next part out...

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.

the outrages of abu ghraib "FADING" in memory and "PALING" in comparison to al qaeda brutalities...? is yon saying that we should be happy that "OUR OUTRAGES" aren't as bad as "THEIR OUTRAGES"...? even worse, he conveniently and totally ignores all the recent revelations that those abu ghraib "outrages" are linked directly to the orders given by the president of the united states and his criminal accomplices... reading yon's unadulterated crap, I'M OUTRAGED...

finally, if i ever again see u.s. soldiers called "warriors," i will have to puke... my country is not sparta... we don't nurture a "warrior" caste... we don't breed people to wage endless war... we don't live to honor those who fight and kill... and, moreover, i don't want to live in or be a citizen of a country that does those things...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, April 12, 2008

The WaPo catapults the Bush administration Iran propaganda on page 1

what kind of hidden perks and bennies do you suppose the wapo reaps for splashing bush administration spin and talking points all over its front page...? there simply HAVE to be some, wouldn't you agree...?
Last week's violence in Basra and Baghdad has convinced the Bush administration that actions by Iran, and not al-Qaeda, are the primary threat inside Iraq, and has sparked a broad reassessment of policy in the region, according to senior U.S. officials.

Evidence of an increase in Iranian weapons, training and direction for the Shiite militias that battled U.S. and Iraqi security forces in those two cities has fixed new U.S. attention on what Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates yesterday called Tehran's "malign" influence, the officials said.

The intensified focus on Iran coincides with diminished emphasis on al-Qaeda in Iraq as the leading justification for an ongoing U.S. military presence in Iraq.

she-e-e-e-eeeit, vern, you don't think they just GOTTA manufacture reasons to stay in iraq and to attack iran, do ya...? huh...? do ya...?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, April 11, 2008

If the Bush criminals have their way, the U.S. WILL attack Iran and NEVER leave Iraq

while most of the attention the past week has been focused on iraq, just LOOK at the intense push that the bush criminal cabal has been quietly putting on justifying its psychotic obsession with attacking iran...

from think progress...

On his radio show this morning, Bill Bennett told the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol — who had a personal meeting with President Bush yesterday — that a “conclusion” he drew was that the hearing was “less an argument for getting out of Iraq than going into Iran.” After suggesting that Iran may “have to pay some price at some point on their own soil,” Kristol said that President Bush authorizing an attack of some kind before he leaves office is not “out of the question”:

BENNETT: Do you think there’s any chance that, and we won’t ask you to reveal anything confidential, do you think there’s any chance that we might take some action against some aspect of the Ira…against Iran, let’s put it that way, before the president leaves office?

KRISTOL: We didn’t really talk about that, in all honesty, directly. I don’t think it’s out of the question. I think people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is.


but bill kristol is just a propaganda sock puppet, repeating the talking points of his masters... for that matter, so is petraeus...
The top U.S. commander has shifted the focus from al-Qaida to Iranian-backed "special groups" as the main threat to a democratic Iraq — a significant change that reflects both the complexity of the war and its changing nature.

The shift was articulated this week in Washington by Gen. David Petraeus, who told Congress that "unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

and, i suppose one could make the argument, as so many already have, that george is merely a sock puppet of dick cheney...
President George W. Bush issued a stark warning to Iran to stop interfering in Iraq on Thursday and characterized Iran and al Qaeda as "two of the greatest threats to America."

In a speech at the White House, Bush, who has accused Iran of backing militant groups in southern Iraq and providing explosives to extremists in the country, said Tehran had a choice in its relations with Iraq.

"(It) can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran," Bush said.

"If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners."

i would, however, challenge anyone who called the state-owned china daily newspaper a sock puppet of the bush cabal...
As the Bush administration draws closer to the end of its tenure in office, the prospect of a US military strike against Iran is increasing, partly caused by the serious misjudgment of each other's strategies.

The Bush administration, which calibrated its rhetoric about military strikes against Iran in recent months, is getting more agitated about the Iran issue.

The administration considered Iran would be the biggest beneficiary of its toppling of the Saddam government in Iraq and had expected it to behave.

However, contrary to its expectations, Iran, Washington alleges, has tried every means to enhance its influence in Iraq, therefore becoming the biggest obstacle to improving the security situation of that country.

And the US is increasingly concerned about Iran's role in the Israel-Palestine conflict, Lebanon, Afghanistan and even in the Muslim world where Iran is seen as the leader of the Shi'ites.

Such developments, undoubtedly, has set the stage for conflict between the two countries.

btw, i suddenly realized why the bush criminals are so obsessed with iraq and iran and don't place that much emphasis on afghanistan... it's simple... iraq and iran = oil... afghanistan = only a pipeline route...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, April 10, 2008

How do you get to 100 years in Iraq? Six months at a time.

from moveon...



sad but true...

Labels: , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Petraeus, the Iraq circus ringmaster, leads the chorus in indicting Iran

yeah, it's not only about making goddam sure the u.s. stays in iraq for the next 10,000 years, it's also about making goddam sure that every possible piece of groundwork is laid for our NEXT war against iran... bastard sons-of-bitches...
Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate , barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad.

then we have THE SUPREME GRAND EXALTED BASTARD SON-OF-A-BITCH, JOE LIEBERMAN...
"[A]s I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there's a kind of 'hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq' and most of all 'speak of no progress' in Iraq.

[...]

Hey, let's be honest about this. The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we've got to give some credit for that."

[...]

Naturally, Lieberman was quick to inject Iran into these proceedings, dutifully asking the leading question, "Let me ask you first, are the Iranians still training and equipping Iraqi extremists who are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers?"

then there's the voice of reason...
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

[...]

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.

talk...? why, THAT'S only for WUSSIES... REAL AMERICANS go to war...
Obama has taken fire from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican presumptive nominee John McCain for his offer to talk, if elected president, with the leaders of several US foes including Iran.

talking is free, easy to do, and might actually accomplish something, but since it doesn't feed the giant, gaping maw of the government-military-industrial corporatocracy, why the hell would we want to TALK, fercryinoutloud...?

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Petraeus comes to town... Where are the clowns...? Send in the clowns...*

* Stephen Sondheim from "A little night music"

But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns.
Don't bother, they're here.

the petraeus circus is coming to town and, golly gee, everybody is SO excited...!

karen deyoung at the wapo may not be a total clown, but she's pretty damn close...

In a reprise of their testimony last September, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker plan to tell Congress today and tomorrow that security has improved in Iraq and that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has taken steps toward political reconciliation and economic stability.

[...]

Despite considerable U.S. expenditures on oil and electricity infrastructure, oil exports and the supply of electricity and other services have not risen significantly since 2004. In early April, according to State Department statistics, the electricity supply met 58 percent of demand, compared with 66 percent a year earlier. The International Committee of the Red Cross reported last month that "millions of Iraqis have insufficient access to clean water, sanitation and health care."

[...]

Although the administration has put a positive face on the offensive -- describing it as evidence that Maliki's government and the Iraqi military are capable of independent, decisive action -- U.S. military and administration officials privately draw a more mixed picture. They judge Iraqi forces, despite five years of U.S. training, as ill prepared for the mission, which lacked cohesive planning and ultimately ended in a draw, at best, with the Sadrists. U.S. air power was called in to back flailing government forces three days into the operation.

A senior U.S. officer in Iraq described Maliki's action as "both bold and impulsive/hasty." While some Iraqi troops "fought well," he wrote in an e-mail, others were "largely ineffective." Up to 1,000 army and police personnel reportedly either deserted or refused to fight. In the National Police, which is known to be sympathetic to Sadr, "hundreds" of officers were fired, one administration official said.

reuters isn't totally in clown territory either, but they're pretty damn close too...
The top U.S. commander in Iraq presents a long-awaited progress report to Congress on Tuesday but will offer little hope for improved security before a new American president takes over in January.

All three contenders for the U.S. presidency will be among the senators questioning Gen. David Petraeus, who is expected to say he will interrupt a series of troop withdrawals in July to evaluate security conditions.

That decision, made as rising violence threatens to unwind gains made last year, could leave more than 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq though to the end of President George W. Bush's term.

In testimony over two days, Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker will assess the uneven progress made in a year-long "surge" of force meant to create the calm for Iraqi politicians to advance legislation and factions to reconcile.

The upturn in violence has thrust Iraq back to the forefront of campaigns for the November presidential election.

i watched cnn's michael ware interviewing ryan crocker this morning (tuesday morning in afghanistan, monday evening in the u.s.) and, even though i happen to have a lot of respect for michael ware, i was terribly disappointed in the softball questions he lobbed to the ambassador... (you can watch here...)

tom engelhardt at the nation is certainly not a clown...

[A]fter years of intensive training by American advisors and an investment of $22 billion dollars, US military spokesmen are once again left trying to put the best face on a strategic disaster (from which they were rescued thanks to negotiations between Muqtada al-Sadr and advisors to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, brokered in Iran by General Qassem Suleimani, a man on the U.S. Treasury Department's terrorist watch list). Think irony. "From what we understand," goes the lame American explanation, "the bulk of these [deserters] were from fairly fresh troops who had only just gotten out of basic training and were probably pushed into the fight too soon."

This week, with surge commander General David Petraeus back from Baghdad's ever redder, ever more dangerous "Green Zone," here are a few realities to keep in mind as he testifies before Congress:

1. The situation in Iraq is getting worse
2. The Bush administration has no learning curve.
3. The "success" of the surge was always an expensive illusion, essentially a Ponzi scheme, for which payment will someday come due.
4. A second hidden surge, not likely to be discussed in the hearings this week, is now under way.
5. A reasonably undertaken but speedy total withdrawal from Iraq is the only way out of this morass.

juan cole is DEFINITELY not a clown...
I am always astounded at the combination of unrealistic optimism and foolish gullibility that marks political discourse on the Right in Washington. We were being told by Glen Lowry at the National Review that Sadr was on the ropes and on the verge of disbanding the Mahdi Army because the other political factions had turned on him, and that the others had had their militias join the regular security forces.

So let us get this straight. Sayyid Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fought off thousands of regular Iraqi army troops in Basra and Baghdad, and perhaps thousands of those troops deserted rather than fight. So the Mahdi Army won big and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki lost. Also the US military trainers of the Iraqi troops lost face.

So the next thing we hear is that al-Maliki is talking big and demanding that the Mahdi Army be dissolved. Usually you get to talk big if you win the military battle, not if you lose.

[...]

The Baghdad fighting is the worst in about a year.

imho, judy collins has the best rendition of "send in the clowns" ever recorded by anyone...


Judy Collins sings "Send in the Clowns"

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, April 07, 2008

The drums pushing war with Iran continue to thunder

the madmen who dare to call themselves our "leaders" will stop at nothing to achieve their dark aims... reality and truth play no part... meanwhile, we are purposefully distracted by the staged dramas of the presidential campaign and transsexuals having babies... what a world...!
The Bush regime will tell any lie and orchestrate any event in order to “finish the job” in the Middle East.

“Finishing the job” means to destroy the ability of Iraq, Iran, and Syria to provide support for the Palestinians and for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Syria might simply give up and become another American client state. With Iraq and Iran in turmoil, Israel can steal the rest of the West Bank along with the water resources in southern Lebanon. That is what “the war on terror” is really about.

The entire world knows this. Consequently, the US and Israel are essentially isolated. The US can only count on the support that it can bribe and pay for.

At the NATO-Russian summit in Bucharest, Romania, on April 4, Russian President Putin said: “No one can seriously think that Iran would dare attack the U.S. Instead of pushing Iran into a corner, it would be far more sensible to think together how to help Iran become more predictable and transparent.”

Of course it would, but that is not what the warmonger Bush regime wants.

these people are certifiably insane...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, January 20, 2008

The failure of the surge and the "REAL" aims of the U.S. in the region

andrew bacevich lost his son in iraq... whether or not that caused him to re-think his conservative republicanism, i don't know because i am not familiar with his perspective on iraq prior to that... even though he still seems to buy the notion that the u.s. was EVER serious about building a functional government in iraq other than through empty rhetoric designed to deceive and delude, at least he can see through the deeply disingenuous attempts to declare "victory..."
Surge to Nowhere
Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, January 20, 2008; Page B01

As the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom nears, the fabulists are again trying to weave their own version of the war. The latest myth is that the "surge" is working.

In President Bush's pithy formulation, the United States is now "kicking ass" in Iraq. The gallant Gen. David Petraeus, having been given the right tools, has performed miracles, redeeming a situation that once appeared hopeless. Sen. John McCain has gone so far as to declare that "we are winning in Iraq." While few others express themselves quite so categorically, McCain's remark captures the essence of the emerging story line: Events have (yet again) reached a turning point. There, at the far end of the tunnel, light flickers. Despite the hand-wringing of the defeatists and naysayers, victory beckons.

[...]

[W]hat exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much.

[...]

The U.S. dilemma remains unchanged: continue to pour lives and money into Iraq with no end in sight, or cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure.

In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won't be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place.

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. His new book, "The Limits of Power," will be published later this year.

the u.s. went in to iraq based on a plan prepared well in advance of 9/11... we went there with the express intention of establishing permanent bases, gaining control of iraq's energy reserves, establishing u.s. hegemony smack in the middle of the largest energy reserves in the world, and extending our control, by force if necessary, up through the 'stans and the caspian basin... and, just like in afghanistan*, which has proudly reclaimed its number one spot as the world's largest opium supplier funneling all that ready cash into the "right" pockets, iraq is also now being converted to a major drug-producing area**... there has never been any serious intent to bring peace to the area, and certainly no real interest in promoting democracy, a concept antithetical to the aims of those who worship the twin deities of money and power...
* Opium production in Afghanistan, which provides more than 90 percent of the world's heroin, broke all records in 2006, reaching a historic high despite ongoing U.S.-sponsored eradication efforts, the Bush administration reported yesterday.

note the disclaimer - "DESPITE" u.s.-sponsored eradication efforts..." HA...!
** The cultivation of opium poppies whose product is turned into heroin is spreading rapidly across Iraq as farmers find they can no longer make a living through growing traditional crops.

Afghans with experience in planting poppies have been helping farmers switch to producing opium in fertile parts of Diyala province, once famous for its oranges and pomegranates, north-east of Baghdad.

does anyone with an interest in pattern recognition see something interesting here...? and, if you add the following piece of history from 2001 to the mix, it becomes much more interesting indeed...
The unexpected success of the Taliban in Afghanistan in eradicating three-quarters of the world's crop of opium poppies in one season is leading experts to ask where production is likely to spring up next.

The director of the United Nations Drug Control Program, Pino Arlacchi, said there was no chance that opium from other sources would compensate this year for the loss of Afghan crops, and the prices of opium and heroin will rise substantially, with opium already worth five to seven times its usual price. His program helped convince the Taliban that opium is a disgrace to Islam.

lemme see if i get this straight... the taliban had ERADICATED THREE-QUARTERS OF THE WORLD'S CROP OF OPIUM POPPIES IN AFGHANISTAN PRIOR TO THE U.S. INVASION IN LATE 2001... in 2006, largely under u.s. control, afghanistan is BACK TO BEING THE WORLD'S NUMBER ONE PRODUCER... now, poppy growers are - pardon the pun - popping up in iraq like mushrooms after a long, soaking rain... gosh... ya THINK...?

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

The NYT offers up op-ed space to another advocate of on-going U.S. militarization

shit... no sooner had i finished my modo rant (see previous post) and gone back to my nyt headline email, than i saw this, the very next op-ed on the list...
We Still Need the Big Guns
By CHARLES J. DUNLAP Jr.

Looking ahead, America needs a military centered not on occupying another country but on denying potential adversaries the ability to attack our interests.

this one got me curious enough to click on to the full piece, only to find that it was as sabre-rattling as the teaser suggests...
Many analysts understandably attribute the success [in Iraq] to our troops’ following the dictums of the Army’s lauded new counterinsurgency manual. While the manual is a vast improvement over its predecessors, it would be a huge mistake to take it as proof — as some in the press, academia and independent policy organizations have — that victory over insurgents is achievable by anything other than traditional military force.

Unfortunately, starry-eyed enthusiasts have misread the manual to say that defeating an insurgency is all about winning hearts and minds with teams of anthropologists, propagandists and civil-affairs officers armed with democracy-in-a-box kits and volleyball nets. They dismiss as passé killing or capturing insurgents.

let's just take a few choice items and look at them for a moment...

  • "our interests" - i always love that one... i hear it all the time, and each time it never fails to strike me as code for "whatever the u.s. corporate, government, and military elites want, wherever in the world it may be, they will get, irrespective of anybody else's 'interests'..."
  • iraq "success" - this neocon, bush administration, david petraeus-spawned talking point not only glosses over the reality of what's happening in iraq, but also serves to distract us from the fact that even administration HINTS that there MIGHT BE in some INDETERMINATE FUTURE the REMOTE POSSIBILITY of TROOP REDUCTION or even, god forbid, TROOP WITHDRAWAL are now OFFICIALLY DEAD...
  • "proof ... that victory over insurgents is achievable by anything other than traditional military force" - zero acknowledgement here that the insurgents just may be fighting to get their country back, and that we are there, fighting to keep that from happening...
  • "starry-eyed enthusiasts ... say that defeating an insurgency is all about winning hearts and minds [and] dismiss as passé killing or capturing insurgents" - need i comment here...? i can only assume that it will be a dark day indeed for the united states when "killing or capturing" is no longer the order of the day...
but, wait...! there's more...
Looking ahead, America needs a military centered not on occupying another country but on denying potential adversaries the ability to attack our interests. This is not a task for counterinsurgents, but rather for an unapologetically high-tech military that substitutes machines for the bodies of young Americans.

revolted yet...? and just so's ya know the source of the revulsion...
Charles J. Dunlap Jr. is an Air Force major general and the author of “Shortchanging the Joint Fight?,” an assessment of the Army’s counterinsurgency manual.

could it be his own "interests" he's advocating for here...? nah... silly me... of COURSE not...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Dana Perino: "It is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room"

so be goddam grateful that we even bother answering your questions at all, you senile old bat...



and here's the ugly guts...
The White House press secretary [Dana Perino] then blasted the reporter for using her "bestowed" front row position in the press room to make "absurd and very offensive statements."

"Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues, to make such statements," Perino said. "This is a -- it is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, at the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive."

Thomas asked Perino about civilian casualties in Iraq: "Do you know how many we have since the start of this war?"

"How many -- we are going after the enemy, Helen," Perino said, ducking the question. "To the extent that any innocent Iraqis have been killed, we have expressed regret for it."

The longtime White House correspondent who has gone after presidents from both political parties responded, "Oh, regret. It doesn't bring back a life."

But Perino refused to get sentimental over civilian casualties.

"Helen, we are in a war zone, and our military works extremely hard to make sure that everyone has the opportunity for liberty and freedom and democracy, and that is exactly what they are doing," Perino said. "I'm going to move on."

is dana perino really such a naïf that she thinks the u.s. ISN'T killing innocent people...? and, yeah, i understand she isn't going to ADMIT to it from the podium of the presidential press briefing room, but, seriously, folks...

(white house transcript here...)

Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, October 15, 2007

"Gasp! Did that child just say HE DOESN'T LIKE THE PRESIDENT?"

tom tomorrow presents our most recent insanity...

Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Sunday, October 07, 2007

AMERICAblog posts a must-read on Iraq from an Iraq war vet

and i'm taking the liberty of re-posting it here... read it...
As the war drums were beating for Iraq I knew something was wrong. I was paying attention to President Bush as he continually accused Saddam Hussein of possessing weapons of mass destruction and being linked to terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. Yet, there was no solid proof that any of Bush's accusations had any validity to them. I guess if you repeat the same lies over and over again they begin to sound true. How else could Bush have tricked the nation into an unjust and unnecessary war in Iraq?

At the time I was stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. It seemed as if the moment I arrived there in June 2002 the only message being sent from the top down was to be ready for war with Iraq. We trained vigorously that summer for war. And in January 2003 my unit deployed to Fort Irwin, California for a month long desert warfare training exercise. Immediately upon returning from Fort Irwin my unit received orders to deploy to Kuwait for the military buildup to topple Saddam Hussein and his government in Iraq.

We scrambled to get our gear and equipment ready for what would be the inevitable war with Iraq. It took a couple weeks to prepare, get medically screened, and write out our wills. Then we were put on standby to deploy at a moments notice.

There was a mixed sentiment among the troops I had served with at the time. For some troops Bush's word was enough for them to go to Iraq to fight and die for what they believed was necessary for our country. There were some who didn't pay attention to the politics. They felt that they were soldiers who had no other option but to go to war and take their chances. In a sense, that is what good soldiers do. I felt alone for the most part because I kept paying attention to what Bush was saying and what the UN weapons inspectors were reporting. To me it just wasn't adding up.

But before I could blink my eyes I was on the border of Kuwait and Iraq ready to invade on day one. It wasn't long before we received our attack orders and pushed into Iraq.

It was a rough ride to Baghdad. Right from the start 150,000 troops were cluttered and stacked upon each other with our vehicles breaking down due to the harsh terrain of the southern Iraqi desert. We were in the middle of nowhere and out in the open. If there were ever a time for Saddam to use his weapons of mass destruction it would have been the perfect opportunity for him. We were in the perfect location for him to attack us -- out in the open desert with no other population. He could have launched the alleged stockpile of WMD directly upon the US military and killed no one but our troops. If Bush really was convinced that Saddam had such a massive WMD arsenal why would he place us in the most vulnerable position for him to use them on us? Probably because Bush knew they did not exist otherwise he never would have allowed such a stupid battle plan to take place.

We pushed into Baghdad facing heavy resistance from the primarily Shiite populated cities in southern Iraq. It was strange being that the Shiites were Saddam's enemies who he had oppressed for decades. To me it was clear that they hated us more than Saddam because we were invaders from the west. Saddam might have been a horrible man, but we were worse in their eyes. It was frightening to realize that the people who Saddam murdered by the thousands actually preferred him to us.

My stay in Baghdad was not much different. It was very confusing because the enemy was so unidentifiable. We didn't know who we were fighting, and that made it extremely difficult to distinguish between the civilian population and the insurgents. As time goes on you stop distinguishing between the two. My perception was that we were fighting the Iraqi people who resented our presence in their country -- not Al-Qaeda as George Bush kept drilling into the minds of the American people.

We were attacked almost on a daily basis by rocket propelled grenades, AK-47 assault rifles, improvised explosive devices, and mortars. This kind of violent activity led to thousands of pre-dawn raids on Iraqi homes. And when you kick in the door you enter the homes as if you are going after Bin Laden himself. In a sense we started to treat the Iraqi people as if they are all terrorists causing them to resent us even more. In the following days of each raid violent activity would double and for some reason no one could understand why.

I participated in the training of the Iraqi Security Forces. Their training cycle was one week long and it was extremely insufficient. There was no trust factor between us and them. During their weapons qualification I can recall being told by my range NCO to stand directly behind the Iraqi soldier just in case he tried to turn the weapon on us. My instructions were to "jump him and kill him." When the training cycle was over we incorporated them into our units to accompany us on missions in order to train them. Prior to the missions we never told them where we were going because we were positive that the insurgency had infiltrated the Iraqi Security Forces. If they knew where the mission would take place they could tip off the larger insurgency element and set us up for an ambush. Almost all of them covered their faces out of fear or shame of being seen with American troops in their communities. As a rifle team leader leading a team of Iraqis wearing hoods and carrying AK-47 assault rifles down a narrow alley in Baghdad it is needless to say that my anxiety level was through the roof.

Before I left Iraq I made a promise to myself that I would do everything in my power to stop this war if I was lucky enough to make it home.

Upon honorable discharge from the US Army in February 2005 I relocated to the Washington, DC area. I immediately became a vocal critic of the war and traveled the halls of Congress going door to door hoping to share my experiences with those who empowered Bush to send us to war. For a few months it fell on deaf ears, but after a while some members of Congress began to listen.

From there on I spoke at rallies, demonstrations, town hall meetings, and on behalf of anti Iraq war candidates running for office. I joined the Democratic leadership in promoting legislation that called for an end to the war.

It's been years now and sometimes I feel out of breath and tired from screaming at the top of my lungs for end to this madness in Iraq. But we are still there and it appears that there is really no end in sight.

Even General Patraeus can't say that we are safer because of the war in Iraq. During our troop surge the Iraqi government fell apart. We have granted amnesty to Sunni militias in Anbar with American blood on their hands, and we are now arming and financing them out of desperation to stop the violence. We are doing the same for Shiite militias loyal to Al Sadr who is a mass murderer of US troops. The Iraqi government, police force, and security forces are rampant with corruption. Is this the Iraq that our troops were sent off to die for? If Bush cared the slightest bit I would love to ask him that question.

Now it has been suggested by General Petraeus that the surge has been such a success that we can bring home 30,000 troops by this summer. Really? That would mean that if there were any gains made by the surge they will evaporate almost immediately into thin air. We will be right back were we started with fewer troops in an extremely hostile environment -- The Rumsfeld Doctrine. What then? Do we have another surge? Is that possible with a broken military? OF COURSE NOT.

Bush and loyalists in Congress won't even allow our troops to rest after mulitple deployments that go above and beyond the call of duty.

During the last Democratic presidential debate the front runners for the nomination could not even guarantee that our troops would be home by the end of their first term in 2013. For me that is just tragic to hear.

The American people want an end to this war so badly. If the politicians will not listen it is our duty as Americans to make them listen. We owe it to our country and our troops to ensure that our members of Congress no longer allow themselves to be bullied by a coward like George W. Bush. If Bush vetoes legislation for our troops and an end to the war Congress must shove it right back in his face. We must act now while there is still a chance to make Congress do their job as a co-equal branch of government and start bringing this war to an end. They need to be equally as defiant as Bush has been for the last 7 years and fight fire with fire when it comes to this President. After all, that is what we elected them to do.

I will fight for an end to this war with my last breath. We all must.


John Bruhns
Iraq Veteran

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, September 20, 2007

The fundamentally dishonest right is now trying to censure MoveOn

robert parry chronicles the false outrage of conservatives...
One would think that from the cries of (feigned) indignation and calls for repentance arising from conservatives regarding Move-On.org's ad in the N.Y. Times that the liberal-leaning group had not simply questioned the insights and intentions of a public servant, promoting, in a public forum, the policy of an illegal and immoral occupation of a sovereign nation; rather, the folks of Move-On.org had committed blasphemy against the holy name of some revered saint -- General Mary Petraeus, Mother of God.

The false outrage of perpetually offended conservatives serves as cover for the true outrages of our era, including: truncated civil liberties, rising levels of social and economic inequality and injustice, and foreign wars of aggression waged by an insular and secretive executive branch and fought by a permanent underclass.

The outrages keep arriving, because the collective imagination of the citizen/consumers of the US, arbitrated by a careerist media elite, has been, for decades, in the thrall of false narratives that serve the interests of the elite of the corporate/militarist classes.

Concurrently, a sense of unease and despair, due to a sense of personal and collective powerlessness before exploitive power, has created the tone and tenor of the times, and begot the phenomenon of supine liberalism and Viagra conservatism. (In this way, liberals stand fecklessly by, as the public is, time and time again, screwed by the decrepit schemes of the right.)

In this way, liberal paternalism is insufferable; worse, it is dangerous.

This has been the right's craftiest accomplishment: inducing "reasonable" liberals and "sensible" centrists to enable their crimes, from stolen elections to their present preparation for a massive bombing campaign of Iran, by intimidating them with the fear that any protest on their part will cast them among the ranks of America-hating, lefty moonbats, who wish to see the terrorist win, dumpsters piled high with discarded fetuses and metro-sexuality made the official state religion.

all of which has led to this, a TRUE outrage...
Dear MoveOn member,

This morning the Senate is expected to vote on a resolution condemning MoveOn.org. Can you call [your] Senators ... and ask them to vote no?

This is the same Senate that has done nothing to change President Bush's policy on Iraq. Yesterday, they couldn't even pass a bill to give soldiers enough leave with their families before redeploying. But they have plenty of time to crack down on folks who criticize the war. It's ridiculous, it's un-American, and it's wrong.

Call [your Senators]: Tell them this is a right-wing intimidation campaign aimed at all of us who've spoken out on the war—and every honorable Senator should stand up against it.

[...]

Republicans have been on the attack since we ran an ad last week accusing General Petraeus of betraying the public trust by "cooking the books" and presenting politicized facts to Congress.

Why? They're flailing. Last week's Bush Administration PR blitz completely failed—the percentage of Americans favoring withdrawal from Iraq actually increased. Meanwhile, vulnerable Republicans are sinking lower and lower in the polls (or announcing their retirement). Bashing our ad is a way to distract the public—and intimidate war critics.

Sixteen brave Americans died in Iraq in the last week. The whole country is looking to Congress to stand up to Bush and get our troops out of Iraq—and instead, they're spending time on a newspaper ad!

Maybe you liked the ad. Maybe you thought we should have worded it differently.

But at its heart was a painful truth—President Bush is using General Petraeus to mislead the public about how things are going in Iraq, just like he used Colin Powell in 2003. And Republicans are trying to make sure we pay a heavy price for saying so. As strategist George Lakoff says:

MoveOn hit a nerve. In the face of truth, the right-wing has been forced to change the subject—away from the administration's betrayal of trust and the escalating tragedy of the occupation to of all things, an ad! To take the focus off maiming and death and the breaking of our military, they talk about etiquette. The truth has reduced them to whining: MoveOn was impolite. Rather than face the truth, they use character assassination against an organization whose three million members stand for the highest patriotic principles of this country, the first of which is a commitment to truth.

They're trying to use the full force of the U.S. Senate to shut us all up. To send a message that if you speak unpleasant truths about this war, you'll pay.This is what we expect from right-wing bullies like Fox, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity. But the Senate should know better.

Call [your Senators] today: Tell them that in a democracy, we revere the truth—before generals, before presidents.

unbelievable the depths to which my country has sunk...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

The business of America is business - $1.6B in arms sales to Iraq (and $3.5B to Pakistan and $1B to Egypt and...)

it seems i post all too frequently on u.s. arms sales (here, here, here and here just since this past march)... with all the attention going to pakistan, egypt, saudi arabia and india, the 800-lb. gorillas of u.s. arms sales, i had completely neglected to consider the possibility that iraq was now an official member of that club... silly me... but OF COURSE they would be... we didn't invade just for their oil...

from salon...

The Pentagon confirmed that this fiscal year, the United States has finalized $1.6 billion in arms sales to Iraq, placing the country in an elite club of weapons buyers. For example, in recent one-year periods Saudi Arabia bought $800 million and Egypt bought $1 billion in arms from the U.S., while Pakistan spent $3.5 billion, including the purchase of jet fighters. "This would put [Iraq] right up there with the top handful of arms buyers," said William Hartung, a weapons proliferation expert at the New America Foundation.

In fact, the numbers Petraeus presented on Iraq were the tip of the iceberg. According to data obtained by Salon from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency at the Pentagon, which manages the arms sales, the military has alerted Congress to up to $4.3 billion in arms sales that have been under discussion since at least 2006 between the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

gotta keep that military-industrial complex cranking along at full capacity, dontcha know...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, September 17, 2007

Tom Tomorrow on our endless ability to be distracted

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments