It's official, McCain has completely lost it.
McCain, campaigning Wednesday in South Carolina, answered a question about military action against Iran with the chorus of the surf-rocker classic "Barbara Ann."
"That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran," he said. "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ..."
His audience laughed, but MoveOn.org called the comment dangerous.
"America has lived through six years of a reckless foreign policy," an announcer says in the ad. "We're stuck in Iraq. More than 3,000 Americans are dead. And thousands more wounded.
"Now comes John McCain with his answer to what we should do about Iran. John McCain? We can't afford another reckless president."
The head of MoveOn said McCain displayed "more out-of-control bravado."
"The point is, a presidential candidate just doesn't kid around about bombing other countries, especially countries with high tensions, and especially where a diplomatic solution is our only hope," Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said Friday.
McCain's comments, posted on YouTube.com, had been viewed at least 118,056 times as of Friday morning.
I honestly believe that the power and warmongering of these insane GOPers has gone straight to their heads.
His "joke" is not funny. It is a slap in the face to every single American GI and every single family member. Granted diplomacy is not one of the strong points of this administration, hell, with these "people" it isn't a point at all.
So, what's funny McClueless? That all the "brown" people aren't dead yet? Exxon doesn't control all the worlds oil? Fragments of the Constitution still remain? Pictures of Iraqi children -dead or worse? Your lack of respect for our troops? Their families? Our Fallen? Our disabled? What?
I have a great sense of humor. I really do. In fact, when you are laughed right out of this and any future campaigns, you worthless hack, I'll be laughing the loudest!
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Friday, April 20, 2007
John McCain bomb bomb Iran song beach boys style
Friday, April 6, 2007
Appropriate Behavior?
British sailors and marines freed by
Iran said Friday they were blindfolded, isolated in cold stone cells and tricked into fearing execution while being coerced into falsely saying they had entered Iranian waters.
They said there was no doubt the 15 crew members were in Iraq's territorial waters when they were seized by heavily armed boats of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. They also said their jailers had singled out the only woman among the captives for use in propaganda.
Iran, which has been celebrating the incident as a victory, quickly rejected the charges, dismissing a news conference held by six of the freed personnel as "propaganda" and "a show." Iranian state TV accused British leaders of "dictating" the crews statements.
Appearing a day after being flown home to reunions with their families, the eight sailors and seven marines reported undergoing constant psychological pressure and being threatened with seven years in prison if they did not say they intruded into Iranian waters.
They said their captors also lined them up against a wall one night to the ominous sound of weapons cocking behind their heads.
"At some points I did have fears that we would not survive," Operator Maintainer Arthur Batchelor, 20, the youngest sailor among the captives, told The Associated Press in an interview.
Speaking at the news conference with five colleagues, the boat team's commander, Royal Navy Lt. Felix Carman, said the prisoners were harshly interrogated during 13 days in custody and slept in stone cells on piles of blankets.
"All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options: If we admitted that we'd strayed, we'd be on a plane to (Britain) pretty soon. If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison," he said.
You'll forgive my sarcasm but, "oh poor baby!" Life must have been hell at the hands of the evil Iranians. Isolation? Coerced confession! Dear God! Water boarding? Nope. How were these confessions "coerced"?
"We were interrogated most nights and given two options. If we admitted that we had strayed, we would be back on a plane to the UK pretty soon. If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison," the statement said.
Yes, those poor Brits were ill treated, pulled out of Iraqi waters and held captive for days!
"If what they described is accurate, then that would not seem to be appropriate behavior and action," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "It's unfortunate that the Iranians ever detained the sailors to begin with."
Appropriate behavior? What is that exactly? Plucking nobodys off the streets of foreign countries, holding them, without charge, for years? What about this?
Did the British sustain these injuries?
Yes, that's a human being covered in feces.
Make no mistake, I feel for them. I feel for their families, the not knowing, the wondering, the fear... But, as a country that advocates this type of behavior, who the hell are we to tell the Iranians what is and is not acceptable behavior?
The right loves throwing the "slippery slope" in my face as bullshit liberal propaganda. So, I guess this is just my turn to throw it back with a little, "Told you so jackass!"
This isn't a slippery slope, this isn't "propaganda" this isn't "keeping America safe". This is white washing. This is the typical "do as I say .." crap from this administration.
Now, spin it. What if, we treated our prisoners in the same fashion as the Iranians treated them? BUT The Iranians treated the British as we treated our "POW's"? Outrage? oh, you betchya! Now, our government wants us to hate these evil Iranians. They want us to be outraged and angry and demand justice.
I can't. I may be a lot of things, but a hypocrite just isn't one of them.
Iran said Friday they were blindfolded, isolated in cold stone cells and tricked into fearing execution while being coerced into falsely saying they had entered Iranian waters.
They said there was no doubt the 15 crew members were in Iraq's territorial waters when they were seized by heavily armed boats of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. They also said their jailers had singled out the only woman among the captives for use in propaganda.
Iran, which has been celebrating the incident as a victory, quickly rejected the charges, dismissing a news conference held by six of the freed personnel as "propaganda" and "a show." Iranian state TV accused British leaders of "dictating" the crews statements.
Appearing a day after being flown home to reunions with their families, the eight sailors and seven marines reported undergoing constant psychological pressure and being threatened with seven years in prison if they did not say they intruded into Iranian waters.
They said their captors also lined them up against a wall one night to the ominous sound of weapons cocking behind their heads.
"At some points I did have fears that we would not survive," Operator Maintainer Arthur Batchelor, 20, the youngest sailor among the captives, told The Associated Press in an interview.
Speaking at the news conference with five colleagues, the boat team's commander, Royal Navy Lt. Felix Carman, said the prisoners were harshly interrogated during 13 days in custody and slept in stone cells on piles of blankets.
"All of us were kept in isolation. We were interrogated most nights and presented with two options: If we admitted that we'd strayed, we'd be on a plane to (Britain) pretty soon. If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison," he said.
You'll forgive my sarcasm but, "oh poor baby!" Life must have been hell at the hands of the evil Iranians. Isolation? Coerced confession! Dear God! Water boarding? Nope. How were these confessions "coerced"?
"We were interrogated most nights and given two options. If we admitted that we had strayed, we would be back on a plane to the UK pretty soon. If we didn't, we faced up to seven years in prison," the statement said.
Yes, those poor Brits were ill treated, pulled out of Iraqi waters and held captive for days!
"If what they described is accurate, then that would not seem to be appropriate behavior and action," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "It's unfortunate that the Iranians ever detained the sailors to begin with."
Appropriate behavior? What is that exactly? Plucking nobodys off the streets of foreign countries, holding them, without charge, for years? What about this?
Did the British sustain these injuries?
Yes, that's a human being covered in feces.
Make no mistake, I feel for them. I feel for their families, the not knowing, the wondering, the fear... But, as a country that advocates this type of behavior, who the hell are we to tell the Iranians what is and is not acceptable behavior?
The right loves throwing the "slippery slope" in my face as bullshit liberal propaganda. So, I guess this is just my turn to throw it back with a little, "Told you so jackass!"
This isn't a slippery slope, this isn't "propaganda" this isn't "keeping America safe". This is white washing. This is the typical "do as I say .." crap from this administration.
Now, spin it. What if, we treated our prisoners in the same fashion as the Iranians treated them? BUT The Iranians treated the British as we treated our "POW's"? Outrage? oh, you betchya! Now, our government wants us to hate these evil Iranians. They want us to be outraged and angry and demand justice.
I can't. I may be a lot of things, but a hypocrite just isn't one of them.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Accountability
WASHINGTON - President Bush denounced "irresponsible" Democrats on Tuesday for going on spring break without approving money for the Iraq war with no strings. He condemned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, too, accusing her of encouraging a terrorism sponsor.
I spent yesterday sitting in the sun at a place called Cuppers, drinking coffee with my son. During my several double shots of espresso with a shot of hazelnut, we had an interesting, and long conversation about accountability.
If we pick apart that one statement my by the clueless wonder, we can see that he has absolutely no idea what the word means.
He states that those irresponsible democrats went on spring break.
In truth, the new congress has done more in the first 100 days than the old congress has done in years.
He wants approved money for his Iraq war with no strings.
We'd like a president without them too... but...
He needs to be accountable for the disaster Iraq is in, not be spoon fed more ammo to continue. He needs to be accountable for the deaths and maiming of thousands of American soldiers. It was HE who put them into harms way without just cause. It was HE who sent them into a war with no plan and no exit strategy. It was HE who, even after all of these errors, sent them there without body armor or proper armor for their vehicles. Now, he is, again, demanding "his way or else." Accountability.
He is accountable for the destruction of a nation. Ours. He has destroyed our good name and our good standing within the world. He has spent our great grandchildren into bankruptcy. He has lowered the middle class to borderline poverty. He has allowed gas costs to skyrocket and Exxons profits to be in the billions.
He has chastised Pelosi for talking to Syria. Something he refused to do. He called them all terrorists and axis of evil people. How can you claim this, without ever sitting down with them? Stupidity does not eliminate accountability. Neither does arrogance.
He has lost a great city, then never bothered to care about it or it's people. Almost three years later there is little progress in the city of New Orleans. Yet the money fraud is still continuing to rise.
He has lost two twin towers, three airliners, over three thousand American citizens. Using that as his excuse, he waged a war of aggression, an illegal war, never once caring about the families of the 9/11 victims, never caring about the where or how's of Osama.
While I believe the Congress needs their break, I don't see how responsible it could have been to flop a file on your desk and head out AGAIN on vacation. Especially when that file proclaims, "Osama BinLadan said to strike within the U.S." Accountability.
He has lost the backing of this country. He has lost the faith of damn near 80% of all Americans. Yet, there he stands, believing he's on some mission from God, and proclaiming for all the world to here, "It's my way, or else!"
With Congress out of town, Bush tried to take the upper hand over Democrats who are making increasing forays into foreign policy as his term dwindles and his approval ratings remain low.
Speaking a day before he heads out of town for six days for events in the West and an Easter break at his ranch, the president said Democrats are failing their responsibility to the troops and the nation's security by leaving for their own recess after passing bills to fund the war that contain time lines for American withdrawal.
Given his promised veto of anything containing a deadline — and the likelihood that his veto would be sustained on Capitol Hill — Bush said Democrats are merely engaging in games that "undercut the troops."
"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."
Wait! Did that just say he was heading... where...? Vacation AGAIN!!?? Let us all hope and pray this time, he didn't leave behind any discarded files.
Accountability.
"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."
Nearly two months ago, Bush asked for more than $100 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Congress has approved the money, but the Senate added a provision also calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. The House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal.
These bills still must be reconciled before legislation can be sent to the president.
"They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it," the president said. "And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done."
Not so fast, Democrats responded.
"Americans want compromise, not a cowboy-style showdown," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn D-S.C.
It is time we hold him and his buddies accountable. They did this. They reap the profits of death, we pay the price. We must make them accountable.
I spent yesterday sitting in the sun at a place called Cuppers, drinking coffee with my son. During my several double shots of espresso with a shot of hazelnut, we had an interesting, and long conversation about accountability.
If we pick apart that one statement my by the clueless wonder, we can see that he has absolutely no idea what the word means.
He states that those irresponsible democrats went on spring break.
In truth, the new congress has done more in the first 100 days than the old congress has done in years.
He wants approved money for his Iraq war with no strings.
We'd like a president without them too... but...
He needs to be accountable for the disaster Iraq is in, not be spoon fed more ammo to continue. He needs to be accountable for the deaths and maiming of thousands of American soldiers. It was HE who put them into harms way without just cause. It was HE who sent them into a war with no plan and no exit strategy. It was HE who, even after all of these errors, sent them there without body armor or proper armor for their vehicles. Now, he is, again, demanding "his way or else." Accountability.
He is accountable for the destruction of a nation. Ours. He has destroyed our good name and our good standing within the world. He has spent our great grandchildren into bankruptcy. He has lowered the middle class to borderline poverty. He has allowed gas costs to skyrocket and Exxons profits to be in the billions.
He has chastised Pelosi for talking to Syria. Something he refused to do. He called them all terrorists and axis of evil people. How can you claim this, without ever sitting down with them? Stupidity does not eliminate accountability. Neither does arrogance.
He has lost a great city, then never bothered to care about it or it's people. Almost three years later there is little progress in the city of New Orleans. Yet the money fraud is still continuing to rise.
He has lost two twin towers, three airliners, over three thousand American citizens. Using that as his excuse, he waged a war of aggression, an illegal war, never once caring about the families of the 9/11 victims, never caring about the where or how's of Osama.
While I believe the Congress needs their break, I don't see how responsible it could have been to flop a file on your desk and head out AGAIN on vacation. Especially when that file proclaims, "Osama BinLadan said to strike within the U.S." Accountability.
He has lost the backing of this country. He has lost the faith of damn near 80% of all Americans. Yet, there he stands, believing he's on some mission from God, and proclaiming for all the world to here, "It's my way, or else!"
With Congress out of town, Bush tried to take the upper hand over Democrats who are making increasing forays into foreign policy as his term dwindles and his approval ratings remain low.
Speaking a day before he heads out of town for six days for events in the West and an Easter break at his ranch, the president said Democrats are failing their responsibility to the troops and the nation's security by leaving for their own recess after passing bills to fund the war that contain time lines for American withdrawal.
Given his promised veto of anything containing a deadline — and the likelihood that his veto would be sustained on Capitol Hill — Bush said Democrats are merely engaging in games that "undercut the troops."
"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."
Wait! Did that just say he was heading... where...? Vacation AGAIN!!?? Let us all hope and pray this time, he didn't leave behind any discarded files.
Accountability.
"Democrat leaders in Congress seem more interested in fighting political battles in Washington than in providing our troops what they need to fight the battles in Iraq," Bush said. "In a time of war, it's irresponsible for the Democrat leadership — Democratic leadership in Congress to delay for months on end while our troops in combat are waiting for the funds."
Nearly two months ago, Bush asked for more than $100 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Congress has approved the money, but the Senate added a provision also calling for most U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. The House version demands a September 2008 withdrawal.
These bills still must be reconciled before legislation can be sent to the president.
"They need to come off their vacation, get a bill to my desk, and if it's got strings and mandates and withdrawals and pork I'll veto it," the president said. "And then we can get down to the business of getting this thing done."
Not so fast, Democrats responded.
"Americans want compromise, not a cowboy-style showdown," said House Majority Whip James Clyburn D-S.C.
It is time we hold him and his buddies accountable. They did this. They reap the profits of death, we pay the price. We must make them accountable.
Those Bad Iranians!
It looks as if the axis of evil is actually more civilized than our childish dictator.
Iran intercepted and took into custody fifteen trespassers. I know, it sounds like they did a bad, bad thing. However, if you look at what we have done to their neighbor, would you blame them for being cautious?
Iranian state television said the 14 men and one woman, who were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian gulf on March 23, would leave Iran on Thursday. An Iranian official in London said they would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran.
Ahmadinejad's surprise announcement came at a news conference shortly after he pinned a medal on the chest of the Iranian coast guard commander who intercepted the sailors and marines.
The Iranians did not hold these people in secret prisons, did not torture them. The kept them safe and well and are releasing them. I could get rather sarcastic here, but I won't. I just hope that every American out there learns a lesson from this. We are not as great and moral and civilized as we pretend to be.
Iran intercepted and took into custody fifteen trespassers. I know, it sounds like they did a bad, bad thing. However, if you look at what we have done to their neighbor, would you blame them for being cautious?
Iranian state television said the 14 men and one woman, who were seized while on patrol in the northern Persian gulf on March 23, would leave Iran on Thursday. An Iranian official in London said they would be handed over to British diplomats in Tehran.
Ahmadinejad's surprise announcement came at a news conference shortly after he pinned a medal on the chest of the Iranian coast guard commander who intercepted the sailors and marines.
The Iranians did not hold these people in secret prisons, did not torture them. The kept them safe and well and are releasing them. I could get rather sarcastic here, but I won't. I just hope that every American out there learns a lesson from this. We are not as great and moral and civilized as we pretend to be.
Monday, April 2, 2007
The SOB is at it Again!
I wrote this back in January, before my little blog was a month old. I haven't heard anything much about it since. That is, until now.
Sad as it may seem, I did not find this on a U.S. television station, nor did I find it on a U.S. web site (CNN, Fox...) I found it at the BBC, a Canadian news web site. I hit that often, I'm a hockey fan living in Arizona. If it doesn't concern the Coyotes... anyway, off track there for a minute....
Has anyone heard this yet?
State department spokesman Sean McCormack rejected suggestions that a swap could be made.
The five, believed to be members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, were seized in January in the Iraqi city of Irbil.
Britain denies Iran's claims that the UK crew was in its waters when seized on 23 March.
The five Iranians were captured in a raid along with equipment which the Americans say shows clear Iranian links to networks supplying Iraqi insurgents with technology and weapons.
US officials have condemned Iran's actions and publicly supported the UK.
Let me see if I have this right. We went into an Iranian consulate on Iraqi soil and pulled out five Iranians and are holding them somewhere? We are also, refusing to let them go? We are refusing to exchange them for the lives of fifteen British ... well Grunts. They are not officers, they are the people who put their lives on the line for oil.... I mean Iraqi freedom... or is it our liberties this week? Oh hell! I can't keep up!
Okay shrub, I get it. You are orchestrating another war by pointing and blaming and lying (again). I get it. Now, you get this. NO! Nope, we the people have had enough. Our troops are tired. Many are on tour numbers three and four. They miss their families and they miss sleeping without fear. The Iraqi's miss their home and their way of life. We will not allow you to lead us into another lie, another war. No way in fucking hell! Can we impeach these bastards now? Please?
Sad as it may seem, I did not find this on a U.S. television station, nor did I find it on a U.S. web site (CNN, Fox...) I found it at the BBC, a Canadian news web site. I hit that often, I'm a hockey fan living in Arizona. If it doesn't concern the Coyotes... anyway, off track there for a minute....
Has anyone heard this yet?
State department spokesman Sean McCormack rejected suggestions that a swap could be made.
The five, believed to be members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, were seized in January in the Iraqi city of Irbil.
Britain denies Iran's claims that the UK crew was in its waters when seized on 23 March.
The five Iranians were captured in a raid along with equipment which the Americans say shows clear Iranian links to networks supplying Iraqi insurgents with technology and weapons.
US officials have condemned Iran's actions and publicly supported the UK.
Let me see if I have this right. We went into an Iranian consulate on Iraqi soil and pulled out five Iranians and are holding them somewhere? We are also, refusing to let them go? We are refusing to exchange them for the lives of fifteen British ... well Grunts. They are not officers, they are the people who put their lives on the line for oil.... I mean Iraqi freedom... or is it our liberties this week? Oh hell! I can't keep up!
Okay shrub, I get it. You are orchestrating another war by pointing and blaming and lying (again). I get it. Now, you get this. NO! Nope, we the people have had enough. Our troops are tired. Many are on tour numbers three and four. They miss their families and they miss sleeping without fear. The Iraqi's miss their home and their way of life. We will not allow you to lead us into another lie, another war. No way in fucking hell! Can we impeach these bastards now? Please?
We, the People
I am not sure what's wrong with the Iranians. Don't they know we are a civilized nation and will not stand for mistreatment, let alone holding prisoners against their will? Making that poor woman wear a black scarf over her head, how dare they! We would never do or even think about such things! Or.. would we?
A British resident released from Guantanamo Bay after being held for more than four years has said that the US failed to observe fair legal processes at the detention camp.
Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi national and British resident, had been held at the US military base in Cuba since 2002, but was reunited with his family this weekend in England.
"Allegations are made against you that are laughably untrue, but you have no chance to prove them wrong. There is no trial, no fair legal process," al-Rawi said in a statement on Sunday.
(snip)
"[Al-Rawi] has been held in Guantanamo Bay in total isolation – lights on, 24 hours a day, in a six-foot by eight-foot cell," he said.
Al-Rawi said in his statement issued through Reprieve that he wanted to advocate for the remaining British citizens held in Guantanamo Bay.
"I hope everyone who believes in justice and the rule of law will join with me to work for the release of Jamil and the other British residents," he said.
Britain has secured the release of all nine of its citizens who were held at Guantanamo but says the release of nine others who were resident in Britain but not nationals is not it's responsibility.
Responsabitity. Now, there's a word bushco doesn't understand. Accountability is another.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration’s legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.
A victory? Fight against terrorism?
A federal appeals court in Washington in February upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges.
At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.
We demand the Iranians release the fifteen prisoners they have. Yet, we do not. Some at Gitmo have been held for five years.
We call the Iranians terrorists. Yet it is we who terrorize nations.
We celebrated the hanging of Saddam. Yet bush & co. has more blood on their hands than Saddam did.
We wave a flag and swear to God. Yet, we advocate torture. We murder, we lie, we judge, we hate. We allow spying on American citizens without just cause, without warrants. We do not care about others less fortunate, if it means using our money to care, yet we have no objection to using billions of our future children's tax dollars to murder in the middle east.
We are 28% of a country. We are the last remaining sheep of the bush administration. We care not. We are afraid. We are told to be afraid, therefore we are. We are told people want to kill us. Therefore they do. We do not bother to look back at the days leading up to 9/11. We place blame on the Clinton administration, because we are told to. We do not learn from past leaders mistakes and knowledge. We are afraid. We are civilized.
A British resident released from Guantanamo Bay after being held for more than four years has said that the US failed to observe fair legal processes at the detention camp.
Bisher al-Rawi, an Iraqi national and British resident, had been held at the US military base in Cuba since 2002, but was reunited with his family this weekend in England.
"Allegations are made against you that are laughably untrue, but you have no chance to prove them wrong. There is no trial, no fair legal process," al-Rawi said in a statement on Sunday.
(snip)
"[Al-Rawi] has been held in Guantanamo Bay in total isolation – lights on, 24 hours a day, in a six-foot by eight-foot cell," he said.
Al-Rawi said in his statement issued through Reprieve that he wanted to advocate for the remaining British citizens held in Guantanamo Bay.
"I hope everyone who believes in justice and the rule of law will join with me to work for the release of Jamil and the other British residents," he said.
Britain has secured the release of all nine of its citizens who were held at Guantanamo but says the release of nine others who were resident in Britain but not nationals is not it's responsibility.
Responsabitity. Now, there's a word bushco doesn't understand. Accountability is another.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday from Guantanamo detainees who want challenge their five-year-long confinement in court, a victory for the Bush administration’s legal strategy in its fight against terrorism.
A victory? Fight against terrorism?
A federal appeals court in Washington in February upheld a key provision of a law enacted last year that strips federal courts of their ability to hear such challenges.
At issue is whether prisoners held at Guantanamo have a right to habeas corpus review, a basic tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment.
We demand the Iranians release the fifteen prisoners they have. Yet, we do not. Some at Gitmo have been held for five years.
We call the Iranians terrorists. Yet it is we who terrorize nations.
We celebrated the hanging of Saddam. Yet bush & co. has more blood on their hands than Saddam did.
We wave a flag and swear to God. Yet, we advocate torture. We murder, we lie, we judge, we hate. We allow spying on American citizens without just cause, without warrants. We do not care about others less fortunate, if it means using our money to care, yet we have no objection to using billions of our future children's tax dollars to murder in the middle east.
We are 28% of a country. We are the last remaining sheep of the bush administration. We care not. We are afraid. We are told to be afraid, therefore we are. We are told people want to kill us. Therefore they do. We do not bother to look back at the days leading up to 9/11. We place blame on the Clinton administration, because we are told to. We do not learn from past leaders mistakes and knowledge. We are afraid. We are civilized.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Bush Has No Right To Demand Anything!
CAMP DAVID, Md. - President Bush on Saturday called for the release of 15 British sailors and marines being held by Iran, calling their capture by Tehran "inexcusable behavior."
"Iran must give back the hostages," Bush said. "They're innocent, they did nothing wrong, and they were summarily plucked out of waters."
Who exactly is bush to lecture anyone? The same man gathered farmers and laborers off the streets and tossed them into secret CIA prisons and Gitmo. Many have been there for years. They have been tortured, held without charges and now may face a military trial. At one point Gitmo housed over 700 inmates. Many were finally released, many more took their places.
We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture." - President Bush (Nov. 7, 2005).
A high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on "the battlefield in Afghanistan" (as Bush asserted) while "trying to kill American forces" (as McClellan claimed).
Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members.
Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists. They were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants with no intention of joining the Qaeda campaign to murder Americans.
The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.
Now, think about Iran. Their neighbor is being occupied my military forces, which had no legal right to be there in the first place. They have watched as photos of humiliated detainees graced the internets. They have watched as their neighboring country was torn in two by a civil war, watched the carnage and the viciousness. Watched as hundreds of thousands fled their homeland for distant boarders. They have been called an "axis of evil" by the occupiers. The president of said occupiers refuses to talk to you, refuses to listen. Instead, he calls them names and accuses and plans to invade them next.
Imagine, Canada is the occupied country. What would bush do? What would you want him to do?
I'm not saying that the Iranian government is without sin. It is, however, an elected government. Isn't it democracy bush says he's spreading? Note "says" we have yet to see a single sign of this.
Mr. Bush has, IMHO, absolutely no right to cast stones. By the definition of a terrorist, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, he is one. By the terms layed out by the Nuremberg principles:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
He has committed them.
So who is he to make demands on another country? Who is he to insist on spreading his version of morality? And who are we to stand by and allow it again?
"Iran must give back the hostages," Bush said. "They're innocent, they did nothing wrong, and they were summarily plucked out of waters."
Who exactly is bush to lecture anyone? The same man gathered farmers and laborers off the streets and tossed them into secret CIA prisons and Gitmo. Many have been there for years. They have been tortured, held without charges and now may face a military trial. At one point Gitmo housed over 700 inmates. Many were finally released, many more took their places.
We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture." - President Bush (Nov. 7, 2005).
A high percentage, perhaps the majority, of the 500-odd men now held at Guantanamo were not captured on any battlefield, let alone on "the battlefield in Afghanistan" (as Bush asserted) while "trying to kill American forces" (as McClellan claimed).
Fewer than 20 percent of the Guantanamo detainees, the best available evidence suggests, have ever been Qaeda members.
Many scores, and perhaps hundreds, of the detainees were not even Taliban foot soldiers, let alone Qaeda terrorists. They were innocent, wrongly seized noncombatants with no intention of joining the Qaeda campaign to murder Americans.
The majority were not captured by U.S. forces but rather handed over by reward-seeking Pakistanis and Afghan warlords and by villagers of highly doubtful reliability.
Now, think about Iran. Their neighbor is being occupied my military forces, which had no legal right to be there in the first place. They have watched as photos of humiliated detainees graced the internets. They have watched as their neighboring country was torn in two by a civil war, watched the carnage and the viciousness. Watched as hundreds of thousands fled their homeland for distant boarders. They have been called an "axis of evil" by the occupiers. The president of said occupiers refuses to talk to you, refuses to listen. Instead, he calls them names and accuses and plans to invade them next.
Imagine, Canada is the occupied country. What would bush do? What would you want him to do?
I'm not saying that the Iranian government is without sin. It is, however, an elected government. Isn't it democracy bush says he's spreading? Note "says" we have yet to see a single sign of this.
Mr. Bush has, IMHO, absolutely no right to cast stones. By the definition of a terrorist, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion, he is one. By the terms layed out by the Nuremberg principles:
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War Crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation of slave labor or for any other purpose of the civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
He has committed them.
So who is he to make demands on another country? Who is he to insist on spreading his version of morality? And who are we to stand by and allow it again?
Friday, March 30, 2007
Letters From Iran
First Letter
Dear Mum & Dad,
I am writing to you from Iran where I am being held. I will try to explain to you the best what has happened. We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn't be here now if we hadn't. I want you all to know that I am well and safe. I am being well looked after. I am fed three meals a day and have a constant supply of fluids.
The people are friendly and hospitable, very compassionate and warm. I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering into their waters. Please don't worry about me, I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from the Iranian people.
Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly.
I love you all more than you will ever know.
All my love,
Faye
Second Letter:
Representative of the House of Commons.
I am writing to inform you of my situation. I am a British Serviceperson currently being held in Iran.
I would like you to know of the treatment I have received whilst here.
The Iranian people are kind, considerate, warm, compassionate and very hospitable. They have brought me no harm, but have looked after me well. I have been fed, clothed and well cared for.
Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered into Iranian waters. Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, which I am and always will be eternally grateful.
I ask the representatives of the House of Commons after the government had promised that this type of incident would not happen again why have they let this occur and why has the government not been questioned over this? Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?
Faye Turney
27/3/07
Third Letter:
To British People,
I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraqi, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments.
We were arrested after entering Iranian waters by the Iranian forces. For this I am deeply sorry. I understand that this has caused even more distrust for the people of Iran, and the whole area in the British.
The Iranian people have treated me well and have proved themselves to be caring, compassionate, hospitable and friendly. For this I am thankful.
I believe that for our countries to move forward we need to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and leave the people of Iraq to start re building their lives.
I have written a letter to the people of Iran apologising for our actions.
Whereas we hear and see on the news the way prisoners were treated in Abo-Ghrayb and other Iraqi jails by British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm.
It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behaviour towards other people.
Faye Turney 27/3/07.
I don't even know what to say here. I keep getting the feeling that these kids were served up as sacrificial lambs to the big oil gods.
We're been reading for months about going to war with Iran in April '07 and we've read about ways this administration was going to do it. Funny, it all had to do with Iranian water.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I've become a conspiracy theorist, it just seems to me that something could have been done. Was this like the "OBL said to attack in the U.S." file? Was it read and disregarded? Will this help with the war mongering goal of this administration? Or, is this the evil Iranians we've been warned about?
Thoughts? I'd certainly like to understand this - beyond the realm of the biased U.S. media.
Dear Mum & Dad,
I am writing to you from Iran where I am being held. I will try to explain to you the best what has happened. We were out in the boats when we were arrested by Iranian forces as we had apparently gone into Iranian waters. I wish we hadn't because then I'd be home with you all right now. I am so sorry we did, because I know we wouldn't be here now if we hadn't. I want you all to know that I am well and safe. I am being well looked after. I am fed three meals a day and have a constant supply of fluids.
The people are friendly and hospitable, very compassionate and warm. I have written a letter to the Iranian people to apologize for us entering into their waters. Please don't worry about me, I am staying strong. Hopefully it won't be long until I am home to get ready for Molly's birthday party with a present from the Iranian people.
Look after everyone for me, especially Adam and Molly.
I love you all more than you will ever know.
All my love,
Faye
Second Letter:
Representative of the House of Commons.
I am writing to inform you of my situation. I am a British Serviceperson currently being held in Iran.
I would like you to know of the treatment I have received whilst here.
The Iranian people are kind, considerate, warm, compassionate and very hospitable. They have brought me no harm, but have looked after me well. I have been fed, clothed and well cared for.
Unfortunately during the course of our mission we entered into Iranian waters. Even through our wrongdoing, they have still treated us well and humanely, which I am and always will be eternally grateful.
I ask the representatives of the House of Commons after the government had promised that this type of incident would not happen again why have they let this occur and why has the government not been questioned over this? Isn't it time for us to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and let them determine their own future?
Faye Turney
27/3/07
Third Letter:
To British People,
I am writing to you as a British service person who has been sent to Iraqi, sacrificed due to the intervening policies of the Bush and Blair governments.
We were arrested after entering Iranian waters by the Iranian forces. For this I am deeply sorry. I understand that this has caused even more distrust for the people of Iran, and the whole area in the British.
The Iranian people have treated me well and have proved themselves to be caring, compassionate, hospitable and friendly. For this I am thankful.
I believe that for our countries to move forward we need to start withdrawing our forces from Iraq and leave the people of Iraq to start re building their lives.
I have written a letter to the people of Iran apologising for our actions.
Whereas we hear and see on the news the way prisoners were treated in Abo-Ghrayb and other Iraqi jails by British and American personnel, I have received total respect and faced no harm.
It is now our time to ask our government to make a change to its oppressive behaviour towards other people.
Faye Turney 27/3/07.
I don't even know what to say here. I keep getting the feeling that these kids were served up as sacrificial lambs to the big oil gods.
We're been reading for months about going to war with Iran in April '07 and we've read about ways this administration was going to do it. Funny, it all had to do with Iranian water.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I've become a conspiracy theorist, it just seems to me that something could have been done. Was this like the "OBL said to attack in the U.S." file? Was it read and disregarded? Will this help with the war mongering goal of this administration? Or, is this the evil Iranians we've been warned about?
Thoughts? I'd certainly like to understand this - beyond the realm of the biased U.S. media.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Happy Liberty Day!
March 23, 2007. Aside from my sisters birthday, it's also known as "Liberty Day". It is a day set aside to commemorate Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or give me death" speech.
*"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
*Patrick Henry at the Virginia Convention, 1788, as quoted by Thomas M. Moneure, Jr., in "Virginia's Great Dissenters", printed in the March, 1999, issue of American Guardian,:
"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."
*Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
*I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past.
*Caesar had his Brutus-Charles the First, his Cromwell-and George the Third-('Treason,' cried the Speaker) . . . may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.
Patrick Henry was born in 1736 and died in 1799. His words of over 200 years ago should be ringing from the mountain tops today. People should be listening. They are not. They have not headed his warnings. They have gladly given up liberties for the illusion of security. They have forged ahead, lead by fear and greed.
Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said if Western countries "want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."
In February, President Bush said: "The Iranian people are good, honest, decent people and they've got a government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening — a government which is in defiance of the rest of the world and says, 'We want a nuclear weapon.'"
On a day that our government has set aside to honor and remember Patrick Henry and his "give me liberty..." speech, we once again have been slapped in the face by a man and an administration that would dearly love to remove them all and wage more illegal wars of aggression.
*"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
*Patrick Henry at the Virginia Convention, 1788, as quoted by Thomas M. Moneure, Jr., in "Virginia's Great Dissenters", printed in the March, 1999, issue of American Guardian,:
"You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to be the direct end of your government."
*Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!
*I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know no way of judging of the future but by the past.
*Caesar had his Brutus-Charles the First, his Cromwell-and George the Third-('Treason,' cried the Speaker) . . . may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.
Patrick Henry was born in 1736 and died in 1799. His words of over 200 years ago should be ringing from the mountain tops today. People should be listening. They are not. They have not headed his warnings. They have gladly given up liberties for the illusion of security. They have forged ahead, lead by fear and greed.
Earlier this week, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said if Western countries "want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack."
In February, President Bush said: "The Iranian people are good, honest, decent people and they've got a government that is belligerent, loud, noisy, threatening — a government which is in defiance of the rest of the world and says, 'We want a nuclear weapon.'"
On a day that our government has set aside to honor and remember Patrick Henry and his "give me liberty..." speech, we once again have been slapped in the face by a man and an administration that would dearly love to remove them all and wage more illegal wars of aggression.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Same Old Song and Dance
When I first saw this I was angered, then, four lines later I started to yawn. This so called speach is nothing more than the one shrub gave four years ago, only the names have changed. He again, "outlined a threat" with his fear mongering and threatening and deciding.
Tell me, does any of this BS sound familiar?
Bush: Iran is source of deadly weapons
Feburary 2007
1. Challenged on the accuracy of U.S. intelligence, President Bush said Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq
2. ...conflicting statements about U.S. intelligence in Iran and recurring speculation that Bush is looking for an excuse to attack the Islamic republic, which is believed by Washington and its allies to be seeking nuclear weapons.
3. Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."
4. Bush said the Quds Force was instrumental in supplying the weapons — "we know that," he said — and that the Quds Force was part of the Iranian government. "That's a known," he said. "What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did."
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio 2002
1. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
2. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
3. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism.
4.I hope this will not require military action, but it may. (snip) we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.
Are we really willing to do this again? Are we truly, once again, going to be blinded by lies? Isn't it time that we stood up and in one voice declaired the decider is no longer decinding in our name?
Tell me, does any of this BS sound familiar?
Bush: Iran is source of deadly weapons
Feburary 2007
1. Challenged on the accuracy of U.S. intelligence, President Bush said Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq
2. ...conflicting statements about U.S. intelligence in Iran and recurring speculation that Bush is looking for an excuse to attack the Islamic republic, which is believed by Washington and its allies to be seeking nuclear weapons.
3. Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."
4. Bush said the Quds Force was instrumental in supplying the weapons — "we know that," he said — and that the Quds Force was part of the Iranian government. "That's a known," he said. "What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did."
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio 2002
1. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.
2. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
3. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism.
4.I hope this will not require military action, but it may. (snip) we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.
Are we really willing to do this again? Are we truly, once again, going to be blinded by lies? Isn't it time that we stood up and in one voice declaired the decider is no longer decinding in our name?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Warn Out Excuses
Iran rejects US arms allegations
This is worthy of repeating. It seems to me that if the world sees it, liberals see it, American Generals see it, republicans are beginning to see it, then why in the hell can't congress!?
The Iranian embassy in Baghdad has dismissed US charges that its agents had smuggled bombs to Shia fighters in Iraq.
"It's not true. It's not fair. Iran did not supply those weapons. It is like America's former statements against Saddam Hussein about the weapons of mass destruction," an Iranian diplomat told AFP on Monday.
Before their invasion of Iraq in 2003, US officials accused the then Iraqi president of stockpiling chemical weapons. These claims were later disproved and American officials now admit they were mistaken.
On Sunday, an anonymous group of senior US officials showed journalists what they said was proof that Iranian agents had smuggled weapons to Iraq, including "explosively formed penetrators", a form of roadside booby-trap.
These bombs, they said, have killed 170 American and allied troops and wounded 620 more since May 2004.
US defence officials refused to allow reporters to name them or record their briefing, but released pictures of reported Iranian arms.
Am I the only one who sees the BS and the loopholes here?
This is worthy of repeating. It seems to me that if the world sees it, liberals see it, American Generals see it, republicans are beginning to see it, then why in the hell can't congress!?
The Iranian embassy in Baghdad has dismissed US charges that its agents had smuggled bombs to Shia fighters in Iraq.
"It's not true. It's not fair. Iran did not supply those weapons. It is like America's former statements against Saddam Hussein about the weapons of mass destruction," an Iranian diplomat told AFP on Monday.
Before their invasion of Iraq in 2003, US officials accused the then Iraqi president of stockpiling chemical weapons. These claims were later disproved and American officials now admit they were mistaken.
On Sunday, an anonymous group of senior US officials showed journalists what they said was proof that Iranian agents had smuggled weapons to Iraq, including "explosively formed penetrators", a form of roadside booby-trap.
These bombs, they said, have killed 170 American and allied troops and wounded 620 more since May 2004.
US defence officials refused to allow reporters to name them or record their briefing, but released pictures of reported Iranian arms.
Am I the only one who sees the BS and the loopholes here?
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
1.) Our strategy is succeeding . . . [Iraq] is on the path to democracy and freedom.” (2004 UN address]
Bush knew otherwise, since a July 2004 CIA report outlines three possibilities for Iraq ranging from “an Iraq whose stability would remain tenous” to “civil war”.
Republicans in Congress, such as Senator Chuck Hagel, claim “the worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we’re winning. Right now, we’re not winning. Things are getting worse.”
2.)When asked during his October 28, 2003 press conference about the recent donor’s conference which produced only $13 billion in pledges - $23 billion short of expectations, Bush claimed “Iraqi oil revenues...coupled with private investments should make up the difference.”
Paul Bremer, the head of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, has said that in the near-term oil industry revenues will cover only the industry's own costs. The administration has conceded that Iraqi oil revenues will be zero in 2003 and only $12.1 billion in 2004.
Secretary Rumsfeld proclaimed the war coalition “is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.”
“It’s a bald-faced lie” according to Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institute. Gulf War I had a 34-nation military force with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics, plus Japan which provided $4 billion in funding.
Operation Iraqi Freedom consists of only US and British troops with only Australia providing any military contribution, the rest are providing moral support. Rumsfeld’s coalition includes such military powers as the Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Honduras and Rwanda as well as countries such as Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands which do not even have a military.
Rumsfeld listed a number of countries who either opposed to the war, unaware of their inclusion or requested to be removed form the list including Angola, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia and the Solomon Islands.
Only seven percent of the coalition solders in Iraq are from outside the US.
3.) On December 16th, the President stated that “[w]e’re doing everything we can to protect the troops and it’s important for their loved ones to understand that.”
Approx. 30,000 soldiers lack body armor and are using Vietnam-era flack jackets that provide insufficient protection from shrapnel and bullets. The Bush administration refused to provide adequate funding in its last budget. The Senate Armed Services Chairman found this to be “totally unacceptable” and Congress provided funding to address this need. New armor was expected to reach Iraq by late December.
Yes, I could go on with the lies. We all could.
My point here is, can we really trust these self-serving liars with intel on Iran? Gen. Pace doesn't think so.
Bush knew otherwise, since a July 2004 CIA report outlines three possibilities for Iraq ranging from “an Iraq whose stability would remain tenous” to “civil war”.
Republicans in Congress, such as Senator Chuck Hagel, claim “the worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we’re winning. Right now, we’re not winning. Things are getting worse.”
2.)When asked during his October 28, 2003 press conference about the recent donor’s conference which produced only $13 billion in pledges - $23 billion short of expectations, Bush claimed “Iraqi oil revenues...coupled with private investments should make up the difference.”
Paul Bremer, the head of the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq, has said that in the near-term oil industry revenues will cover only the industry's own costs. The administration has conceded that Iraqi oil revenues will be zero in 2003 and only $12.1 billion in 2004.
Secretary Rumsfeld proclaimed the war coalition “is larger than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991.”
“It’s a bald-faced lie” according to Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institute. Gulf War I had a 34-nation military force with each nation listed in the coalition contributing troops on the ground, aircraft, ships or medics, plus Japan which provided $4 billion in funding.
Operation Iraqi Freedom consists of only US and British troops with only Australia providing any military contribution, the rest are providing moral support. Rumsfeld’s coalition includes such military powers as the Dominican Republic, Eritrea, Honduras and Rwanda as well as countries such as Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands which do not even have a military.
Rumsfeld listed a number of countries who either opposed to the war, unaware of their inclusion or requested to be removed form the list including Angola, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovenia and the Solomon Islands.
Only seven percent of the coalition solders in Iraq are from outside the US.
3.) On December 16th, the President stated that “[w]e’re doing everything we can to protect the troops and it’s important for their loved ones to understand that.”
Approx. 30,000 soldiers lack body armor and are using Vietnam-era flack jackets that provide insufficient protection from shrapnel and bullets. The Bush administration refused to provide adequate funding in its last budget. The Senate Armed Services Chairman found this to be “totally unacceptable” and Congress provided funding to address this need. New armor was expected to reach Iraq by late December.
Yes, I could go on with the lies. We all could.
My point here is, can we really trust these self-serving liars with intel on Iran? Gen. Pace doesn't think so.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Congress - Draw the Line
Where Congress Can Draw the Line
No war with Iran
If we could trust the Administration’s ability to judge America’s rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its threatening gestures toward Iran. Everyone would understand that this was part of the negotiation process; no one would worry that the Administration would finally take a step as self-destructive as beginning or inviting a war.
This is an article written by James Fallows. I agree with him. He has somw great ideas and great insight.
What the Congress can do is draw the line. It can say that war with Iran is anathema to the interests of the United States and contrary to the will of its elected representatives. And it should do that now.
No war with Iran
If we could trust the Administration’s ability to judge America’s rational self-interest, there would be no need to constrain its threatening gestures toward Iran. Everyone would understand that this was part of the negotiation process; no one would worry that the Administration would finally take a step as self-destructive as beginning or inviting a war.
This is an article written by James Fallows. I agree with him. He has somw great ideas and great insight.
What the Congress can do is draw the line. It can say that war with Iran is anathema to the interests of the United States and contrary to the will of its elected representatives. And it should do that now.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Fear and Loathing in the U.S.
For years I have been saying that this administration is using fear to control the masses. For this, I have been called names and laughed at by the neocons. Isn't it the fear of terrorists that allows our government to spy on our own people? Isn't it fear that caused a country to sit idly by while bushco re-wrote the Geneva Convention to allow torture? Isn't it the fear of terror and WMD's that this country watched with mouths shut, as these war mongers turned away from al-Qaeda and bombed and innocent Iraq?
Now, here we are at a threshold of another aggressive war. This administration is at it again. Fear mongering to serve their own greedy needs.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush warned that if the United States fails in Iraq, al-Qaeda will gain a safe haven from which to launch attacks against America. It is an argument that the president, other members of the administration, and neoconservative hawks have been using for years.
In late 2005, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that al-Qaeda leaders “would turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was before 9/11 – a haven for terrorist recruitment and training and a launching pad for attacks against U.S. interests and our fellow citizens.”
Despite such scare mongering, it is highly improbable that al-Qaeda could use Iraq as the kind of safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan. There, the organization had the protection of an entrenched, friendly government, which it would not have in Iraq. Al-Qaeda also had a much larger force in Afghanistan – an estimated 18,000 fighters. Even the U.S. government concedes that there are fewer than 2,000 al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq, and the Iraq Study Group put the figure at only 1,300.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, has it right. “I have never been persuaded to believe that whether we stay there six months, a year, or two years, that if we would leave, that somehow Iraq would turn into a haven for terrorists.”
His skepticism is well placed.
The notion of al-Qaeda using Iraq as a sanctuary is a specter – a canard that the perpetrators of the current catastrophe use to frighten people into supporting a fatally flawed, and seemingly endless, nation-building debacle.
Are we ready to open our minds now? Are we ready to think on our own? Are we ready to stop the fear mongering and the waging of illegal wars? Have we had enough yet?
Now, here we are at a threshold of another aggressive war. This administration is at it again. Fear mongering to serve their own greedy needs.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Bush warned that if the United States fails in Iraq, al-Qaeda will gain a safe haven from which to launch attacks against America. It is an argument that the president, other members of the administration, and neoconservative hawks have been using for years.
In late 2005, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that al-Qaeda leaders “would turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was before 9/11 – a haven for terrorist recruitment and training and a launching pad for attacks against U.S. interests and our fellow citizens.”
Despite such scare mongering, it is highly improbable that al-Qaeda could use Iraq as the kind of safe haven it enjoyed in Afghanistan. There, the organization had the protection of an entrenched, friendly government, which it would not have in Iraq. Al-Qaeda also had a much larger force in Afghanistan – an estimated 18,000 fighters. Even the U.S. government concedes that there are fewer than 2,000 al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq, and the Iraq Study Group put the figure at only 1,300.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska, has it right. “I have never been persuaded to believe that whether we stay there six months, a year, or two years, that if we would leave, that somehow Iraq would turn into a haven for terrorists.”
His skepticism is well placed.
The notion of al-Qaeda using Iraq as a sanctuary is a specter – a canard that the perpetrators of the current catastrophe use to frighten people into supporting a fatally flawed, and seemingly endless, nation-building debacle.
Are we ready to open our minds now? Are we ready to think on our own? Are we ready to stop the fear mongering and the waging of illegal wars? Have we had enough yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
