| | | Page 1, 2 | lotta Bullshit
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
LaRouche Says ´Georgie Porgie And Hitler´ Running Government And Leading World Into Global
Disaster
Former Democratic nominee for President and Labor Party Presidential candidate, Lyndon
LaRouche, claims martial law is right around the corner if Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons
aren´t removed from their stranglehold on government.
August 26, 2005
By Greg Szymanski
He likes to call President Bush “Georgie Porgie” and Vice President Cheney “Hitler in a
bunker.” He considers Bush a half-wit and a “nominal President” while classifying Cheney,
actually in control of the country, as trigger-happy and a Hitler-type mad-hatter.
And put “Georgie Porgie” and Hitler together in the same Oval Office and according to Lyndon
LaRouche, former Labor Party presidential candidate and controversial international
political figure, it’s the perfect recipe for global disaster, economic chaos and martial
law, the likes of which are unimaginable to most Americans clinging to the last remnants of
prosperity, democracy and freedom.
But LaRouche, 84, using his vast economic and political experience as a guide, claims Bush
and Cheney aren’t the real problem, but just willing mouthpieces for a syndicate of wealthy
international bankers pulling the strings and controlling the White House.
“These guys are not important. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are just the willing stooges,” said
LaRouche this week in a telephone conversation from his Vermont headquarters where he
operates his latest political organization called LaRouche Political Action Committee (PAC). |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
The Bolton Civil Wars in the State Department may have just re-started.
For those who followed the Bolton battle from early March through August, one of the real
issues with John Bolton is that he was constantly attempting to undermine Colin Powell,
Advertisement
Richard Armitage and others but did so with Dick Cheney´s blessing.
There is evidence bubbling to the surface -- not altogether clear -- but pointing to the
possibility that Bolton has already stepped out of his holding pen and is undermining Condi
Rice and Bob Zoellick -- again with Dick Cheney´s blessing.
A short while ago, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nick Burns met with NGO
representatives regarding the upcoming U.N. Millennium Summit and U.S. objectives.
A reader of The Washington Note and TPM pressed some key questions Burns´ way --
particularly why any reference to Millennium Development Goals was completely cut out of the
recently leaked Bolton-edited Millennium Summit draft document.
Remember, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are not firm targets and in the past, the
U.S. has for the most part robustly supported these goals. The MDGs were agreed to by 190
nations in 2000 and reaffirmed in the Monterrey Consensus and referred to in the Gleneagles
Declaration this summer.
When pressed -- several times -- on why these are apparently being knocked out by the United
States in the Millennium Summit document, Nick Burns and subsequently Philo Dibble ducked
the question and stated that they opposed the target of 0.7% of gross national income for
official development assistance as an example of an old paradigm. They stated that that
those kinds of numeric targets yielded poor results and stale discussion.
The bottom line though is that the 0.7% for development campaign is not an explicit part of
the MDGs. When pressed further, they refused to say more.
In other areas of inquiry about the leaked Bolton document and U.S. intentions, Burns and
Dibble were quick to defend the "perceived" U.S. position.
But when it came to the MDGs, it seems as if Burns and Dibble were coached to respond to any
MDG issue by referring to the U.S. objection to the 0.7% target.
Reading between the lines -- Burns and Dibble refused to stand up for Bolton or say more in
support of this stance. They refused to say anything.
One hypothesis is that Bolton went riding off alone again -- and doesn´t want to support the
Millennium Development Goals but has failed to consult with anyone.
Dropping the MDGs without consultations with the NGO community, other nations, or other
stakeholders in the Bush administration (there is shock through parts of the administration
about this) is huge news.
Burns and Dibble were apparently not prepared to support Bolton´s line on this. Otherwise,
they would have been defending him.
The insubordination may have just begun. Maybe they´ll give him a pass this first time --
and try and teach him a lesson about coordination and communication. But my guess is that
Bolton is drawing his energy and position from Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and only flirts
part time with Bob Zoellick and Condi Rice.
We´ll see. This picture I´ve painted could be wrong, but something is amiss between Turtle
Bay and Foggy Bottom.
-- Steve Clemons
(August 25, 2005 -- 02:49 PM EDT // link // print)
Recess-appointed U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is doing exactly what his critics
expected of him. He is sticking it to the world. . .hard and nasty.
I received this morning a leaked copy of U.S. comments on the draft document for the
Millennium Summit in September. I have been informed that these are John Bolton´s personal
draft modification suggestions that appear on the document.
Here is the document, adobe format, but it is a very large file. (Dial-up readers be
careful.)
These suggested revisions are leaps and bounds more offensive, regressive, short-sighted,
and dismissive of others than America´s "bad guy" role in the 2002 World Summit on
Sustainable Development.
In short, the document does the following:
~ knocks out entirely the Millennium Development Goals
~ continues to undermine collective efforts against climate change
~ knocks out targets and timetables for all goals and objectives
~ guts any efforts toward further disarmament objectives and focuses exclusively on
non-proliferation, while both had always been important objectives in the past
~ strikes the section that states that countries will use force only as last resort
~ and oddly, strikes out the need to establish a legal definition of terrorism, which
the Bush administration has previously stated is a requirement before proceeding towards a
U.N. Convention on Terorrism.
The John Bolton we came to know (and not love) is back.
Condi -- When does the "supervision" promised to Senators Voinovich, Hagel, and Chafee
begin?
-- Steve Clemons |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
New Law slated to install Police State in Canada
by Connie Fogal
August 24, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Connie Fogal, Leader of CAP, says " ´NO´ to an impending federal law to give police and national security agencies new powers to eavesdrop on cellphone calls and monitor the Internet activities of Canadians".
"This law is another destruction of Canadian freedom,"insists Fogal. "It moves Canada even further into the realm of a police state. This is an adjunct to our nefarious anti terrorism laws imposed on an uninformed citizenry by our Parliament and Senate. It is another elimination of some of our sovereign rights that were supposed to be guaranteed to us under our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is an act of stealth imposed under the guise of national security."
Fogal asks? "Why is this being done? Canada is mirroring recent U.S legislation because our government has committed Canada by stealth and backroom deals to a North American Union: US, Canada, and Mexico under US command and control. Information on this year´s meeting by the three national leaders at Bush´s ranch in Texas on North American Union has been revealed even in mainstream media."
"This latest piece of liberty stripping legislation is but one more incremental step of stealth because Canadians would not tolerate this if we were allowed to have full information of what is going on. This is an incredible situation," reported Fogal.
She continued, "Many Canadians fought and died in WW2 to stop this very kind of police state activity. What we are witnessing now with these types of laws is an exact pattern of liberty -stripping imposed by Hitler on Germans under the guise of ´National Security´. Good people there who turned a blind eye or failed to resist later discovered it was too late.Their liberty was completely eliminated . Eventually it reached a stage where even Germany´s highest court judges were committing crimes by convicting innocent people. See the Nuremburg Trials. Even Judges are corruptible in such regimes. As Harry Rankin, Vancouver´s renowned 25 year alderman and criminal lawyer, used to say, ´If you want justice, go to church,not to the courts. The courts are there to apply the law created by politicians.´ "
"Fogal, a lawyer, said, "Canada along with many countries has been participating for years in an eavesdropping program called Echelon. That is illegal. What government is trying to do is make it legal. It is illegal because our system as a democracy had built in protections for the good and innocent. Police have to justify any invasion of privacy before a court of law. If the court did not accept the reason for the invasion, it was not allowed. This protection is core to civil liberties. We should not abandon it. We must not abandon it, if we are to be a free and democratic people."
"It is such hypocrisy for Canada to be supporting the US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq as deliverers of "freedom" when new local draconian laws at home are stripping Canadians and Americans of our liberty. It is time for a reality check," insisted Fogal.
"At a crucial point in ´the tide of the affairs of men´ human beings have to take a stand and be counted. Better sooner than later when to do so means imprisonment or death, as happened in Germany. I, for one, say "NO" to another deceitful and wrongful law. I also speak as the leader of a small federal party voicing the view of thousands of Canadians who feel betrayed by the existing Parliamentarians,"said Fogal.
Connie Fogal, lawyer, Director Defence of Canadian Liberty Committee and Leader of Canadian Action Party/parti action Canadienne |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to Camp Casey, the anti-war protest site where hundreds have camped out for three weeks now next to President Bush´s property in Crawford, Texas. Mothers, wives, other family members are gathering there after Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Casey, a soldier killed in Iraq last year, began camping near the estate earlier this month. She´s vowed to stay until President Bush meets with her. Cindy Sheehan left the camp late last week to go to Los Angeles to care for her ailing mother. She returned Wednesday and held a news conference Thursday morning with other members of Gold Star Families for Peace. The news conference began with the mothers and wives from around the country speaking about their opposition to war and to President Bush´s policies in Iraq. They also asked to meet with Bush and demanded troops be brought home.
MONA PARSONS: I´m Mona Parsons, and I’m from Mt. Vernon, Ohio. And my son deploys for Iraq on our peace march day in Washington, September 24. And I basically am here because Cindy liberated me, as well as everyone else that’s here today.
CARONHi, I´m Caron from Ohio, and this is my third day here. My son is a Marine in training. He will be going to overseas in November. And I´m here with hundreds of families and mothers who are supporting Cindy and supporting our cause to bring our troops home as soon as possible. Thank you.
CATHERINE BONNEY: Hi, my name’s Catherine Bonney, and I’m from Port Angeles, Washington. My daughter is in the army, my son-in-law just got out, and they were in the 101st Airborne in Iraq in that first push, and they left three kids at home. The baby was three months old, and I came down here when I first heard about Cindy and what she was doing for her support, as well as giving her my support, and I have just met the most wonderful families who are in horrible situations. And I want some answers from President Bush, as well. The Downing Street memo would be a good one to start with.
DEB HAGERMAN: My name is Deb Hagerman. I’m from Dayton, Ohio. My husband is a reservist who was deployed overseas at the start of the war. He’s facing possible redeployment, and I´m here because of a quote by Martin Luther King: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
BETH LERMAN: My name is Beth Lerman. I’m from Dayton, Ohio. I’m the mother of a Gulf War vet, and I have a son who is active duty in the Coast Guard right now. I´m here because Cindy has given me hope for the first time in a very long time, and I want to answer a question that’s been asked a lot, which is, “How does your son feel about you speaking out?” And I talked to him on the phone last night, and he said, “Ma, I´m entitled to the mother I have.”
THERESA DAWSON: I´m Theresa from Ohio. My 20-year-old son is an Ohio National Guard reservist who is currently stationed in Iraq. Today Cindy and other numerous military families have come to Crawford seeking answers, because we have new information that we did not have in the lead-up to the war in Iraq. In light of this new information, Cindy and many other families have questions and would like the courtesy of truthful answers. Yet we are told we must kill to honor those who have died. We see this in Crawford today as the beginning of the end of the occupation of Iraq. And we support Cindy and her bravery and her efforts to bring the nation´s attention to this situation. We want our families home.
KAREN MEREDITH: My name is Karen Meredith. I’m from Mountain View, California. 1,873 soldiers have been killed in Iraq, American soldiers. My son, Lieutenant Ken Ballard, was one them. The reason that I came to Crawford was to hopefully have a chance to meet with the President. He has told Cindy that he will not meet with her because he already has. He met with other family members in Idaho, and I believe they were handpicked by this administration so that he would hear everything that he wanted to hear that will enable him to go out and continue preaching that the war is going well. The numbers don´t support that.
We need to have a conversation with the President. What Cindy did here is she opened this up to dialogue to everyone in the country, and she gave permission for people to come out and speak their minds. My message to the President is please tell me what the noble cause that my son died for. Please tell me that you will never, ever, ever again say we must honor the troops by continuing the mission. You do not honor my son by having one more child taken from their family. Please, President Bush, honor my child with the truth. Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Gold Star Families for Peace yesterday in Crawford, Texas. This is what some of Cindy Sheehan had to say.
CINDY SHEEHAN: So it was really nice to be here and nice to see, you know, what Casey sacrificed, what Ken sacrificed, what John sacrificed has started in this country, that we are making it stand for peace and not for more killing. I know my son. I know him better than anybody else. And he wasn´t married. We were very close. He called me every day when he was at Fort Hood. We talked about all of his life, all of my life, and I lost my best friend when I lost my son. But I know my son, and I know he would say, “I don´t want any more of my buddies killed just because I´m dead. I want my buddies to come home alive.” And I know when I get up to greet him, when it is my time, he is going to say, “Good job, Mom.” He´s not going to accuse me of dishonoring his memory. And anybody who knows my son better than me would like to come forward and tell me something different, I will be glad to hear their voices.
Also, my mom. My mom was moved to a private room, and she is doing physical therapy now. Her right side was paralyzed. She had a major stroke, but it wasn’t a hemorrhagic stroke, so they are expecting her to at least partially recover, and I want to thank everybody in America for all of their thoughts and prayers. As a matter of fact, everybody from all over the world was praying for my mom. I told my mom she was the most famous stroke victim, you know, at this time. So, she smiled about that. She tried to tell me that she loved me when I left.
And one good thing about Camp Casey and what we started here is that when I left it didn´t end. When I left it thrived and it grew. And it’s because I am not alone. I´m not the only one that wants the answers to these questions. There’s the people standing behind me here, but there’s thousands of military families, hundreds of Gold Star families who want the same answers to the questions. You know, and I never, ever got up here and said, “I speak for every single Gold Star family, I speak for every single military family.” I’ve never said that. But I know I speak for thousands of them. I know we speak for thousands of them when we want to know what is the noble cause our children died for, what is the noble cause they are still fighting for and dying for every day. And that is what we want the answers to the questions. And there’s millions of Americans here with us, thousands here actually in Crawford who want the same answers. They don´t have what I like to call skin in the game, but we are all affected. Humanity is affected when one country wages an illegal and immoral war on another country. It affects our entire humanity. And that’s why America is behind us, saying we want the answers to those questions, too.
And there’s other people who disagree with our position who have lost their children. And I know with Karen here and Melanie and Susan, we respect their rights to their opinions, because at the end of the day or at the beginning of this quest, we started in the same way, with our loved one coming home in a flag-draped coffin. And if there is any family who says that they believe their child died for a noble cause, I say that is your right if that helps you get through the day, if that helps you in your pain because we all -- we might not have the same politics, but trust me, we have the same pain. And we do what we have to do to get through our pain, and we hope they respect us for that, and we respect them in any way they have to do to get through their pain.
AMY GOODMAN: Cindy Sheehan, speaking with other mothers and families who have lost loved ones in Iraq or have them deployed in Iraq or the veterans themselves who have returned.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877. |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
The Iraqi constitution: DOA?
Angry and marginalized, Sunnis are threatening to torpedo Iraq´s constitution. Disaster looms, and the Bush administration´s blunders are largely to blame.
By Juan Cole
08/26/05 "Salon" -- -- On Thursday, the third deadline for finishing Iraq´s new constitution passed without agreement, as Sunni leaders balked at Shiite and Kurdish demands for federalism and regional control of oil wealth. In response, Shiite leaders threatened -- yet again -- to bypass the Sunnis, use their majority to approve it in Parliament, and take it to the Iraqi people for a national referendum.
Whether the constitution is sent to the Iraqi people without Sunni approval or is once again returned to the election committee for negotiations is almost irrelevant. The divisions are so intractable that the Sunnis are going to be marginalized, and enraged, in any event. The upshot: America´s political vision for Iraq lies in tatters, and the Bush administration has largely itself to blame.
On Tuesday, President George W. Bush issued what could be seen as a threat against Sunni Arab political leaders in Iraq who threatened to launch an uprising (intifada) against the new constitution. Bush said, "This talk about Sunnis rising up, I mean the Sunnis have got to make a choice. Do they want to live in a society that´s free, or do they want to live in violence?" Mind you, the politicians who spoke of uprisings and streets aflame were the very ones who participated in the drafting of a new constitution, risking their lives to do so because the guerrillas see this participation as a form of collaboration with the occupiers. They had been frustrated by their marginalization on the drafting committee, and by the high-handed way that Shiites and Kurds have implemented their vision of an Iraq that looks more like the European Union than like a sovereign nation-state.
Bush´s bluster is especially ironic since his administration´s missteps contributed mightily to the crisis. The United States pursued the policy, now almost universally acknowledged to have been disastrous, of dissolving the Iraqi army and banning former Baath members from government jobs, a policy that hurt middle-class Sunni Arabs badly and helped push them into supporting the guerrilla movement. The United States signed off on the United Nations plan to have a proportional election system, which ended up working to exclude the Sunni Arabs. (In a district-based system, Sunni Arabs would have been represented even in case of a low turnout.) Bush´s massive assault on Fallujah in November 2004, threw the entire Sunni Arab heartland into chaos -- even previously quiet cities such as Mosul -- and so embittered the Sunnis as to discourage their participation. In Bush´s rush to ally with the victors of the Jan. 30 elections, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and the Dawa Party, both Shiite fundamentalist groups, he gave them the impression of strong backing from Washington and made them less willing to compromise. After the disaster of the Jan. 30 election results, which left the Sunni Arabs with little representation in the government, the Bush administration did, to its credit, finally step in to push for proper Sunni Arab representation on the constitution-drafting committee. But by then it may have been too late.
More than anything else, the Sunnis oppose the plans of the Kurdistan Provincial Confederation and the mooted Shiite Provincial Confederation ("Sumer") to keep substantial amounts of the petroleum profits in the regions rather than sharing them. The constitution even leaves open the possibility that regional confederations could claim 100 percent of the oil fields developed in the future. The Sunni Arabs have no petroleum resources in the region at the moment, and although geologists think there may be a big field near Fallujah, such speculation has often not panned out. In the short and medium term at least, the Sunni Arabs would get much less than their fair share of the nation´s oil patrimony. The Sunni Arab street in Iraq feels that the moral economy of the oil state has been violated, and it will never accept such second-class citizenship -- contrary to the sunny views of David Brooks, whose New York Times column Thursday cited Peter Galbraith as saying that ordinary Sunnis would come to see that the constitution was good for them.
This is the background that allows us to understand how even the cooperative Sunni Arab figures are now threatening an intifada. In the balance hangs Iraq´s new constitution, waiting for the approval of which has become rather like waiting for Godot. Even if it is approved by the National Assembly, the constitution faces an Oct. 15 national referendum. Iraqis in every one of the 18 provinces will be able to vote yes or no on the document, which allows substantial decentralization but requires that Parliament pass no civil legislation that contradicts Islamic law. Because the Kurds feared a tyranny of the Shiite majority, they inserted a clause into the interim constitution that allows any three provinces to reject the constitution by a margin of two-thirds. The Sunnis are gearing up to hoist the Kurds on their own petard, by using this clause to reject a constitution that the Kurds like but the Sunni Arabs dread.
The problem began with the Jan. 30 elections, which were held on a proportional basis. Because the Sunni Arabs of Iraq either boycotted the elections or could not vote because their areas were too violent and insecure, they ended up with only 17 seats in a Parliament of 275. Sunni Arabs are probably around 20 percent of the population, and they have been for centuries the elite and the decision makers. The main charge of the transitional Parliament was to write a constitution, but it looked as though Sunni Arabs would have little say in the new charter. Since many Sunnis were already engaged in a guerrilla war against the new order, the danger existed that if a constitution were put through that pleased the majority Shiites and the Kurds, but that Sunni Arabs rejected, it would prolong the guerrilla war and perhaps even contribute to the breakup of the country.
On March 28, Sunni Arabs held a convention in Baghdad to discuss whether and how they should join in helping to draft the permanent constitution. One can only imagine the sea of men with Saddam moustaches or white turbans, or perhaps a few ski masks, interspersed among a handful of smart, politically ambitious professionals in tailored suits. A notion of the kind of opposition faced by those seeking a belated entry into the parliamentary process may be gained from tribal chieftain Mazin Jabir Nima´s insistence on shouting "Long live the resistance!" in the midst of the otherwise serious deliberations. Others worried that the Sunni Arabs faced a bleak future unless they got involved in the political process.
The religious Shiites and the Kurdish nationalists who had captured Parliament smashed any hope that they would prove generous in victory. They set up a 55-man parliamentary committee to draft the constitution in accordance with how many seats a party list had in the Legislature. Thus, the majority of members came from the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance coalition. The Sunni Arabs, with their measly 17 seats in Parliament, were given only two seats on the committee. Not noticing that it hadn´t been invited to the party in the first place, the hard-line Sunni clerical group, the Association of Muslim Scholars, sniffed that it did not even want to be involved in writing the constitution unless the U.S. agreed to set a timetable for withdrawal of its troops from Iraq. This was rather as though you had been snubbed by the hostess of the best party of the season and then called her and said you refused to come unless she uninvited her best friend.
Hajim al-Hasani, the Sunni speaker of Parliament, was understandably alarmed, and he urged that the parliamentary drafting committee be opened to members from outside the Legislature. With the long delay in forming the government and then the drafting committee, the guerrilla movement took the initiative and launched a brutal and effective wave of bombings that shook Baghdad to the core. The Sunni Arabs may not have had many seats in Parliament, but they clearly could not be ignored.
On May 16, a frantic U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice flew to Baghdad and insisted that Sunni Arabs be included in the constitution-drafting committee. The Bush administration was terrified that if the Sunnis felt excluded from the drafting process or deeply disliked the resulting document, they might torpedo the new constitution in the national referendum scheduled for Oct. 15. She told the new government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari that despite its "de-Baathification" process, the Jaafari government must ´´respect the fact that there now needs to be an inclusive Iraqi process and an inclusive Iraqi government.´´ Behind the scenes, the United States pressed relentlessly for Sunni Arab inclusion.
The dominance of the drafting process by the religious Shiites was underlined on May 24 when Sheik Humam Hammoudi, a cleric, was appointed chairman of the committee. He is a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite religious party that admires the Iranian model of governance. With his white turban, austere face, graying beard and brown robes, he is a ringer for the mullahs who run Iran, against whom Iraqis fought a bitter eight-year war. Nevertheless, SCIRI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim voiced his support for greater Sunni Arab participation in the drafting of the document. A week later, with the issue still unresolved, the committee began its work.
In early June, the Jaafari government launched Operation Lightning, a concerted sweep of Sunni Arab neighborhoods in Baghdad, aimed at increasing security in the bomb-scarred capital. The three major Sunni Arab political groupings strenuously denounced the random searches of homes and the arrest of hundreds, often on slim evidence. Despite the tensions generated by the operation, the negotiations continued. The Shiites at length offered to add 13 Sunni Arab members to the committee, bringing the total to 15. They were not prepared to give these 13 voting rights, since they were not members of Parliament, but promised that all decisions would be made by consensus. (It was an empty promise, as the Sunni Arabs had suspected all along.) The Sunnis, who still had not gotten the message that they weren´t actually wanted, threatened to boycott the deliberations unless they were given at least 25 seats on the drafting committee. In the end, the Sunnis were finessed. On June 16, they were given 15 new seats, bringing their total to 17, but another 10 "counselors" were recognized who were no more than observers. The Shiites warned them that if they did not accept this deal, the constitution would just be written without them.
Choosing the Sunni Arab members of the committee was in turn no easy task. The Sunni Arabs had no umbrella organization, their leadership having been fragmented by the collapse of the Baath Party. Adnan Dulaimi, a religious hardliner who headed the Sunni Board of Pious Endowments, submitted his own list of 25, without consulting anyone else. (His organization oversees the country´s Sunni mosques and other religious properties. He was later summarily fired by the Shiite prime minister.) Other Sunnis formed a new organization, the National Dialogue Council, to represent their interests and put forward nominees. The disdain in which the Sunni Arab leadership continued to be held, and the suspicions that attached to it of supporting the guerrilla war and terrorist actions, were underlined when U.S. troops arrested and briefly held Muhsin Abdul Hamid, a former president of the interim governing council and venerable head of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which had generally cooperated with the United States.
It was now mid-June, and the deadline for finishing the draft of the permanent constitution and having it adopted by Parliament was Aug. 15. Salih Mutlak, of the National Dialogue Council, told the New York Times on June 15 that the deadline would have to be extended, saying, ´´I don´t want to put my name on a constitution that will be written in two weeks."
The path to nominating the 15 new full members of the drafting committee was strewn with land mines. First there was a controversy over whether the list of 15, which a small group of political leaders had come up with, should be approved by a big Sunni Arab political congress. That suggestion was shot down by the Sunni elders, who complained that it would just complicate things and delay the process. Grass-roots democracy has not been a strong suit in Sunni Iraqi political culture in the past few decades. Then a further controversy erupted when it was alleged that two of the 15 had been members of the Baath Party. One of the two denied the charge; the other admitted it but said he had not been high ranking and anyway had never committed any crimes. Others were less apologetic. Mutlak opined to the New York Times on July 1, ´´I still see the Baath Party as the best party we have seen. If you compare them, they are much better than the parties that are governing the country now.´´ The new group of 15 Sunni Arabs was finally added to the committee officially on July 6, though Shiite parliamentarians hinted darkly that some of them were still under investigation for possible past Baath Party activities.
The deadline for finishing the permanent constitution was now only five weeks away. It is not clear that most local garden societies could draft by-laws in five weeks, much less a country the size of California with a similar population. Then disaster struck. Or rather, yet another, worse, disaster struck. On July 19, guerrillas killed two members of the 15-member Sunni Arab team. The remaining members could see the writing on the wall if they did not get better protection, since many in the Sunni guerrilla movement saw them as Benedict Arnolds working for the colonial power while pretending to be loyal patriots. They were all strolling around the capital with big red targets painted on them. They angrily staged a walkout and refused to go back to work without bodyguards. Adnan al-Janabi, a parliamentarian and member of the drafting committee, grandiosely announced that he held the Iraqi government and Parliament and the United Nations responsible. "Despite these parties´ announcement they would back the process of writing the constitution, they did not provide security for Sunni members," al-Janabi told the wire services.
Mutlak and three other members of the committee from the National Dialogue Council demanded an international investigation. Mutlak told the Boston Globe, "We cannot be part of this." Shiite parliamentarian Saad Jawad Qandil (SCIRI), also a member of the drafting committee, pointed out that the Shiite parties could always just pass a constitution, but preferred to have Sunni support in hopes of reducing future strife. The Shiite refrain to the Sunni Arabs anytime the latter became obstreperous was always that the Shiites did not need them but wouldn´t mind if they wanted to come along.
It was not until July 25 that the Sunni Arab members agreed to drop their boycott, in return for the Jaafari government (and presumably the United States) undertaking to provide them with security and to establish a commission with Sunni Arab membership to investigate the killings. Another week had been lost, and now only three weeks remained until the deadline.
On July 31, Sunni Arab parliamentarian Mishaan al-Juburi gave an interview with the London Arabic-language daily, al-Hayat, in which he warned of civil war if the three major Sunni Arab reservations about the constitution are ignored. The Shiites and Kurds on the drafting committee had made up a list of Iraqi minorities, and the Shiites wished to include Iranian-Iraqis, those of Persian ancestry, among the minorities. There certainly is an Iranian-Iraqi minority, which suffered persecution and deportation under Saddam. But Sunni Arabs fear that bestowing formal recognition on it will prove a back door whereby Iranians could flood into the country and gain citizenship. Al-Juburi said that Sunni Arabs also reject turning Iraq into a loose federal union, and reject the injection of Shiite religion into the constitution.
The drafting committee members by this time faced a momentous choice. The interim constitution drafted under American rule allowed them to notify Parliament on Aug. 1 that they would be unable to produce a final document by Aug. 15. In that case, they would be granted a six-month delay. The Sunni Arabs wanted such a delay. The Shiites and Kurds and their American patrons, in contrast, were deathly afraid that any such postponement would halt their political momentum and give encouragement to the largely Sunni Arab guerrilla movement. The guerrillas were launching more attacks every day in summer of 2005 than they had the previous summer, and they had more influence in the Sunni Arab heartland than they had had a year before. The Bush administration was convinced that only completing the constitution and holding new elections in which, this time, the Sunnis took part, would set Iraq on the path to stability and allow a drawdown of US troops. In fact, it would have been better for the constitution-writing process to take the extra six months, since attempting to draft a constitution in less than two months is clearly absurd, as the Sunni Arabs charged.
On Friday, Aug. 12, Sunni clerics preached in their mosques against the call of SCIRI leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim for a Shiite confederation of nine provinces in the south, which would retain much of the region´s oil wealth rather than sharing all of it with the rest of the country. Clergymen in Baghdad, Tikrit, and other Sunni areas urged Sunni Arabs to register to vote in the Oct. 15 referendum, so as to vote down the constitution if it recognized this form of federalism. Mutlak revealed that the Americans were urging Sunni Arabs to accept vague language about federalism for now, and to postpone specifics until a permanent Parliament was elected in December. Mutlak told the Associated Press, "We reject that."
Despite enormous American pressure, the committee failed to complete its work by the deadline of Aug. 15. The issue was not really drafting a constitution. It gradually became clear that the Shiites, the Kurds, even the Americans, had all developed drafts some time before. The difficulty was in reconciling these various proposed texts. The Shiites and the Kurds had many disagreements, but were generally willing to compromise with each other in the end. Even they had not reached complete agreement by Aug. 15. But the Sunni Arabs, with their stubborn rejection of federalism, proved a third wheel, impossible to placate given the aspirations of the other groups. By Sunday, Aug. 14, Shiites leaked a threat to the New York Times that they would just go ahead and pass a constitution without the Sunnis if the latter continued to be so uncooperative. The bluff did not work, and Parliament was constrained to amend the Transitional Administrative Law to allow a delay of a week, until Aug. 22, for passage of the constitution.
The profound political divisions among the Sunni Arabs were illuminated gruesomely once again on Aug. 18, when party workers from the Iraqi Islamic Party in Mosul were killed by guerrillas for urging Sunnis to register to vote. The IIP was registering them so that they could defeat the constitution in the Oct. 15 referendum, but even this degree of cooperation with the American-installed order was unacceptable to the rejectionist guerrilla movement. Increasingly, the politics that gripped the Sunni Arabs did not have to do with shaping the constitution. Rather, they were divided on how exactly to defeat it, whether by force of arms alone or by ensuring a three-province veto in the referendum. On Aug. 20, al-Qaida in Mesopotamia threatened to kill anyone with any link at all to the constitution (that is, even if the person just registered to vote so as to reject it). Since the requirement is that two-thirds of those who vote in the referendum reject the constitution in three provinces, however, the strategy of voting it down could succeed even with a light Sunni Arab turnout. Salih Mutlak, one of those under the death sentence, told the London Times that he thought the Aug. 22 deadline would be met, but "criticized the Americans and British for rushing the process."
In fact, the parliamentary drafting committee appears no longer to have been meeting by that weekend. Rather, the negotiations were among major political and community leaders. Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq, doubled as the representative of Kurdish interests. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite cleric who led the dominant party in Parliament, doubled as a representative of the interests of the religious Shiites. For the most part, the Sunni Arabs were not even invited to the meetings. The Shiites made a final push to have Islamic law recognized in the constitution, and this time the Americans relented. Loose federalism was a quid pro quo for the Kurds. Two of Mishaan al-Juburi´s three deal-breakers were now in the text.
The Aug. 22 deadline was not met, either, though an almost-finished draft was presented to Parliament moments before midnight, for all the world like Cinderella hurrying disheveled from the ball. To the extent there was an agreement on it, it was the agreement of Kurds with Shiites. This time, the Shiite prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, and other high officials did not even bother to amend the interim constitution again. They simply announced a three-day delay, during which they would attempt to get the agreement of all three major groups to the almost-finished draft. This move was clearly unconstitutional, it and signaled the impatience of the new political elite of Shiites and Kurds with Sunni Arab foot dragging (as they see it). Parliament did not even meet on the third day, and no later session was scheduled, throwing the process again into limbo.
The Sunni Arabs in the street were furious that their representatives had been virtually sidelined. Sunni Arab politicians speaking to the Arabic press warned that they would launch an intifada against the new constitution and said that the streets would be in flames. (They should have looked out the window; they might have found that the guerrillas had made such threats redundant.) We have already seen Bush´s ominous response to the Sunnis: The Arab press correctly interpreted his bluster as a threat of more American Fallujah campaigns against the Sunni Arabs. But the Sunnis were not impressed. Even in Fallujah, which the Americans had bombed into submission, Sunni Arab families flocked to the voter registration sites to sign up to vote on Oct. 15, with the intention of defeating the constitution.
On Aug. 25, even as Parliament failed to meet its new deadline, the Sunni Arab members of the drafting committee had not altogether given in to despair. Mutlak suggested that compromise was still possible. After all, the Shiites had originally insisted that Islam be recognized as "the" source of Iraqi law, but had finally agreed, in the face of Kurdish opposition, that it would be "a fundamental" source. The Kurds had originally demanded an explicit right to secession, but ultimately gave up on its inclusion in the text. If religious Shiites and Kurds could find compromise language, President Talabani insisted, there was no reason in principle that the Sunni Arabs could not, as well.
The problem, however, is that the Kurds and Shiites could compromise in part because they both saw the benefits of regional confederations with claims on local resources, given that both have petroleum. The Sunni Arabs fear that such a system will leave them only with "the drifting sands of Anbar province." A system like Alaska´s, in which oil profits are shared as royalties with all citizens equally, might have sidestepped some of the disputes over the prerogatives of provincial confederations, but the American Coalition Provisional Authority that ruled Iraq for a year did not institute that system when it had the chance. The Americans were still dreaming then of privatizing everything in Iraq for the sake of U.S. corporate profits (including the air Iraqis breathed, if possible.) Moreover, the long string of Bush administration mistakes in Iraq, along with the rejectionism of many in the Sunni leadership strata, had so alienated most Sunni Arabs that their negotiators -- unlike the populist Kurdish and Shiite leaders -- lacked much of a base of popular support, fatally weakening the Sunni bargaining position.
Parliament can clearly ram the draft constitution through at will, since the Shiites and the Kurds dominate it. In fact, the Kurdistan regional Parliament approved the federal constitution on Aug. 24, even before the federal Parliament had. But the real question now is whether the constitution can survive the referendum. The Sunni Arabs dominate Anbar and Salah al-Din provinces, and almost certainly can muster a two-thirds "no" vote on Oct. 15 in both. They may also be able to pull off a rejection in Ninevah province. In that case, Parliament would dissolve, new elections for Parliament would be held in December, and the entire process would begin all over again -- a nightmarish prospect. Meanwhile, the Sunni Arab guerrillas continue their macabre war against a new order that cannot seem to get its act together.
About the writer
Juan Cole is a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan and the author of "Sacred Space and Holy War" (IB Tauris, 2002). www.juancole.com
Copyright 2005 Salon.com |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Is Bush al-Qaeda´s ´Useful Idiot´?
By Robert Parry
August 26, 2005
If Western intelligence agencies are right – that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the two-year-plus military occupation have been recruiting boons for Islamic terrorism – why is it logical to commit American troops to an indefinite deployment there? Won’t that just create more terrorists?
Put differently, has George W. Bush’s Iraq policy done more to help than hurt al-Qaeda, from Bush’s hasty decision to redirect U.S. military assets from Afghanistan to Iraq while Osama bin-Laden was still at large, to the loose talks about an American “crusade,” to supplanting Iraq’s secular government with one favoring Islamic fundamentalism?
In the 1980s, when I was covering the wars in Central America, neoconservative theorists liked to call U.S. peace activists “useful idiots” because their opposition to the hard-line Reagan administration was seen as unwittingly aiding and abetting communists and other leftist enemies. In that vein, is Bush now al-Qaeda’s “useful idiot”?
These questions are relevant today because Bush is again making clear his determination to “stay the course” in Iraq. He is rejecting the advice of some military strategists and a few political leaders that a wiser course might be for the United States to begin a phased withdrawal from the war-ravaged country.
In a speech in Idaho on Aug. 24, Bush rejected that idea, saying it would play into the hands of Islamic terrorists who “want us to retreat.”
“An immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, or the broader Middle East, as some have called for, would only embolden the terrorists and create a staging ground to launch more attacks against America and free nations,” Bush said. “So long as I’m the president, we will stay, we will fight, and we will win the war on terror.”
Dubious Claims
Bush also repeated some of his dubious assertions about the cause of Islamic terrorism. For instance, Bush said, “our enemies murder because they despise our freedom and our way of life,” though intelligence experts have long concluded that the dominant goal of al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists is to drive Western forces and influence out of the Middle East.
It’s not hatred of “our way of life” that motivates most Islamic extremists, but rather a perception that the West is threatening “their way of life.” While there have been violent strikes against the West, such as the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, Islamic fundamentalists generally see their struggle as defensive.
So, when Bush prescribes an offensive strategy – “to go after the terrorists where they live … until the terrorists have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide” – his projection of U.S. power into the Islamic world not only portends a virtually endless war but has the detrimental effect of reinforcing the arguments that Islamic extremists use to recruit impressionable young people to terrorism.
For that reason, some observers see the current dynamic as a vicious cycle – an escalating pattern of tit-for-tat violence with both sides nursing grievances bathed in blood. More cynical analysts go further, seeing a symbiotic relationship in which Bush and bin-Laden – whether wittingly or not – serve each other’s political needs.
At home, Bush and his right-wing allies have used the American fear of Islamic terrorism to consolidate political control. Among Muslims, bin-Laden and al-Qaeda have exploited their battle against the world’s superpower to transform themselves from a marginal – albeit dangerous – organization into an international force attracting thousands of recruits in the defense of Islam.
For their part, al-Qaeda’s leaders get international standing as warriors for the faith – rather than their deserved notoriety as thugs killing innocents – while the Bush administration gets to reorganize the United States along the authoritarian lines of a nation at war. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush’s Grimmer Vision.”]
‘Godfather’ Scene
Soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Bush recognized that a targeted assault on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan would be too remote and too limited for his elevation to the pedestal of heroic “war president.” Bush quickly turned his gaze toward Iraq, according to accounts by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke and author Bob Woodward.
So, even though Iraq’s Saddam Hussein wasn’t tied to Sept. 11, Bush and his neoconservative advisers perceived the political advantage of expanding the fight against al-Qaeda into a broader war against U.S. adversaries in the Middle East.
Like a climatic scene from a “Godfather” movie, Bush and his neocon capos seized on the Sept. 11 attacks as an excuse to settle the Bush “family accounts,” which included eliminating Hussein, whom Bush once called “the guy who tried to kill my dad.”
But Bush’s revenge-driven invasion didn’t achieve the finality that some expected. Though Saddam Hussein was captured and his two sons were slain, the invasion of Iraq wasn’t the “cakewalk” among grateful Iraqis that some on Bush’s foreign-policy team had predicted.
Rather than accept U.S. occupation, thousands of Iraqis – especially from the nation’s Sunni minority – picked up guns and began making bombs to kill Americans. Thousands of foreign jihadists also slipped into Iraq to battle the Western invaders, often by becoming suicide bombers.
Soon, a full-fledged insurgency was underway with hundreds of American soldiers dying along with thousands of Iraqis, both civilians and combatants. Amid the chaos, American diplomats were caught up in the kind of complex “nation-building” that candidate Bush had vowed to avoid when he was seeking the presidency in 2000.
Yet, even as events in Iraq spun out of control, Bush and his political advisers found the “war on terror” a useful device for restructuring the U.S. government, redirecting tax money to friendly corporations, and reframing the American concept of civil liberties to give Bush the unbridled power to imprison anyone he deems an “enemy combatant.”
Bush also could count on legions of right-wing supporters to denounce domestic critics as “traitors,” obsessed with “blaming America” and guilty of violating the edict to “support the troops.” In this poisonous climate, most Democratic politicians and mainstream pundits shied away from any sustained criticism of Bush’s war policies.
Hart’s Advice
Former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., observed this phenomenon in an Aug. 24 op-ed column for the Washington Post, entitled “Who Will Say ‘No More’?”
Hart urged Democratic leaders to admit they were deceived by Bush into supporting the Iraq War and ask forgiveness from the military families that have suffered. Then, the Democrats should give speeches explaining why the conflict is hurting American security, how the nation must move toward energy independence, and “what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists’ swamp,” Hart wrote.
“The real defeatists today are not those protesting the war,” Hart continued. “The real defeatists are those in power and their silent supporters in the opposition party who are reduced to repeating ‘Stay the course’ even when the course, whatever it now is, is light years away from the one originally undertaken.
“The truth is we’re way off course. We’ve stumbled into a hornet’s nest. We’ve weakened ourselves at home and in the world. We are less secure today than before this war began. Who now has the courage to say this?” [Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2005]
As Hart noted, many Democratic leaders either have chosen to finesse the Iraq War by quietly supporting Bush’s policies or they have tried to outflank him from the Right by demanding that he send more troops and fight to win.
Only a few senior Democrats, such as Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, have ventured so far as to suggest a phased withdrawal by the end of next year.
A commonly heard Democratic mantra on Iraq is that “failure is not an option.” But no one in Washington has made a convincing case that failure is not at least a strong possibility. Simply declaring that success must occur doesn’t mean it will. [For more on this wishful thinking, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Iraq War’s Two Constants.”]
Enduring Paradox
The enduring paradox of the Iraq War is that Bush and other U.S. leaders insist that the presence of U.S. troops is necessary to bring political stability to Iraq, yet it is the presence of those U.S. troops that has become the driving force for both foreign jihadists and Iraqi insurgents to continue inflicting havoc across Iraq.
There might have been a way out of the paradox if Sen. John Kerry had won the White House in November 2004 and had enlisted some non-Western surrogate forces to fill the void as U.S. and British troops left. But Bush’s second term precluded that possibility.
Since then, Bush has been able to sustain an anti-withdrawal consensus in Washington by arguing that U.S. troops are needed to keep Iraq from turning into a “failed state” – like Afghanistan – and thus a potential base for Islamic terrorists to strike against the United States and its allies.
“We will not allow the terrorists to establish new places of refuge in failed states from which they can recruit and train and plan new attacks on our citizens,” Bush said in his Idaho speech.
But that prediction about Iraq may be just another of Bush’s worst-case scenarios, not a likely danger. Another scenario could be that a U.S. withdrawal might improve Iraq’s chances for stability by removing the chief rallying point for Islamic extremists.
Without the American presence to incite young Muslims to strap on suicide belts, the foreign terrorist operations in Iraq might shrivel. Even the Iraqi Sunnis, whose anti-American interests now overlap with those of the foreign jihadists, might have little stomach for the civilian-butchering jihadists if the Americans were gone. The Sunnis might well revert to Hussein’s approach of ruthlessly repressing Islamic extremists.
In other words, as odd as it might seem, an American withdrawal could actually contribute to the precise result that is now the chief U.S. policy goal, preventing Iraq from becoming a haven for terrorists.
That does not mean, of course, the future of Iraq will be peaceful. The blood shed over the past two-plus years will almost certainly fuel new rounds of revenge. A civil war among the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds also remains a distinct possibility.
But the United States may have to recognize that – having opened the door to this chaos – it is the wrong party to set matters right. Sometimes, the best course of action is to step back and provide encouragement, but leave well enough alone. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Iraq & the Logic of Withdrawal.”]
Ironically, the key to resolving the Iraqi paradox might be what many families of American soldiers desperately long for already, the return of their loved ones safe and sound.
The tragedy of Iraq, however, may be that George W. Bush will insist on “staying the course,” Democratic leaders won’t dare contradict him – and the killing will go on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His new book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It´s also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ´Project Truth.´ |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
U.S. commander foresees worse Iraq bloodshed
By Associated Press
08/26/05 -- -- WASHINGTON (AP) — A senior U.S. commander in Iraq predicted Friday that insurgent violence will increase in the Sunni-dominated areas he commands north of Baghdad, but he also said there is a growing confidence among Iraqis that the insurgents will fail to stop planned elections in October and December.
Army Maj. Gen. Joseph Taluto, commander of the 22,000-soldier Task Force Liberty, also said that while his election security plan does not require any additional U.S. troops, he could use extra help if it were offered by Gen. George Casey, the top overall commander in Iraq, who is assessing election security needs.
Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that 1,500 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, N.C., would be sent to Iraq for election security duty, but it did not say where in Iraq they would operate.
"If my boss offered up additional forces I would use them in certain places, but they are not 100% required," Taluto said in a two-way video link with reporters at the Pentagon. He spoke from his headquarters at Tikrit, the Tigris River city that is the home town of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Iraqis are to vote in mid-October in a national referendum on a constitution, and if that is approved it would form the basis for the election of a new government in mid-December. That political process is widely viewed as a key to stabilizing the country and permitting U.S. troops to begin withdrawing.
Taluto described the insurgency in north-central Iraq, where his troops are operating along with five brigades of U.S.-trained Iraqi soldiers, as resilient but not increasing the volume of its attacks in recent weeks.
"We expect that the enemies will increase their attacks, particularly as we run up to the referendum," he said. "The divergent groups all have their own strategies and they select a time for these attacks. But they go up and then we´ll have a week or two where the attacks will go down, and they seem to rearm themselves and then re- attack."
Asked why the U.S. military has been unable thus far to defeat the insurgents, Taluto said progress is being made and it is not widely recognized that U.S. troops stop many attacks before they can be executed. On the other hand, he said, it also is true that the insurgents have become part of the fabric of Iraqi life.
"They are intrinsic, and so it seems like they can act with impunity," Taluto said. "And then they do escalate their activities, so they surge and so on and so forth." |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
There´s something happening here´ By Joseph L. Galloway, Knight Ridder Newspapers
Wed Aug 24,12:44 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Old-timers could be forgiven this week if they hummed a few bars of "For What It´s Worth," Buffalo Springfield´s 1966 anti-war tune. The one that begins, "There´s something happening here. What it is ain´t exactly clear. ..."
ADVERTISEMENT
The air of unreality only seemed to thicken as George W. Bush, dogged by opponents of his war in Iraq at the gates of his beloved Texas ranch, hit the road for a pair of speeches aimed at bolstering support for that war and shoring up his sagging poll numbers.
There was a time when August brought a blissful if hot and humid peace to the nation and its capital. Congress stayed home until after Labor Day, and the republic was safe for a brief spell. Presidents went golfing or drove their speedboats off Maine or even walked around Key West in coat and tie and Panama hat.
Not this week. Not during these Dog Days. A heretofore confident if not cocky White House is on the defensive and the spin patrol has been deployed in force to tell America that this is no time to think about quitting the fight against the evildoers in Iraq. No time to think about getting our troops out of the quicksand that´s taken the lives of 1,873 young Americans.
Bush stopped in Salt Lake City to speak to a friendly VFW convention, but he sounded for all the world as if he were talking directly to Cindy Sheehan, an anti-war mother whose son was killed in Iraq whom he refuses to see and whom some of his acolytes on talk radio and cable TV have trashed. Bush did meet Sheehan once soon after her son was killed.
The president expressed sympathy for the families of those killed in the two and a half years of a war that the majority of Americans no longer think he´s managing well.
For those who wonder how much longer the war might continue, Army chief of staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said he´s now planning rotations of soldiers and Marines four years out - 2007 to 2009, should they still be needed then.
Even amateur practitioners of the art of public relations said that if the president had just invited Sheehan in for a sympathetic talk, a cup of coffee and a hug all of this might have been postponed, at least for a while.
Where was his spinmeister Karl Rove? What were they thinking? When the White House did react, it was to set in motion a counter-demonstration of pro-war Republicans assigned to show the flag in Crawford and the ranch, and another group to patrol Sheehan´s home state of California.
After a Republican maverick, Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, said it was time to begin thinking about how to get out of Iraq, Bush counselor Dan Bartlett was dispatched to make the rounds of network and cable talk shows to say that Bush did, too, have a strategy, and it was a sound one. Even Fox News was skeptical.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld pooh-poohed any thought that civil war was imminent in Iraq while Iraqi Shiite Muslims and Kurds drafted a new constitution over the objections of the Sunni minority who´ve fueled and manned the insurgency from the beginning.
The defense czar, who earlier was caught using a machine to sign his name to letters of condolence to the families of service members who died in Iraq, declared that anyone in his position "has to feel a great deal of empathy" for those who´ve lost loved ones in the war.
Those of us who are old enough have seen this movie before were reminded of other presidents, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon, who were haunted by another war and dogged by war protesters and a nation that lost confidence in their leadership and wound up divided against itself.
Will history remember this week as the tipping point for George W. Bush and the Republicans who control Congress? Can they stay the course as they head into mid-term elections next year?
One more question: Will our children and grandchildren and their children harvest a bitter crop of budget deficits, higher oil prices, Islamic militancy and a broken Army and Marine Corps that was seeded in Iraq by this president, his vice president and his secretary of defense?
Will that bitter harvest, not a cakewalk, a mission accomplished and a Mesopotamian march of democracy, be Bush´s legacy?
---
ABOUT THE WRITER
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at: Knight Ridder Washington Bureau, 700 12th St. N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, D.C. 20005-3994. |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Just a thought Here´s this women (Cindy) who lost her son, lost her husband, lost her relationship with former family members,her mother had a stroke, maligned by corp media plus internet low brows, camps out in 100 deg + temp.
you certainly earned my respect. Good Luck in your quest. Love=1 |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
GEORGE BUSH’S SOLDIERS OF FORTUNE
With no public debate, to compensate for inadequate troop strength in Iraq, the Bush Administration has contracted with tens of thousands of mercenaries, who operate outside U.S. control and undermine military morale.
by Richard A. McCartan
[link to www.opednews.com]
One of the most underreported – and disturbing – aspects of the Iraq War is the United States reliance on so-called “private security companies” to perform traditional military functions in battling enemy insurgents.
A cover-story in the August 14 New York Times Magazine reports that, while the Department of Defense will not disclose figures, one rough estimate is that 60 to 80 companies, operating under DOD contract, have provided at least 25,000 armed soldiers to assist the U.S. military in Iraq. These private soldiers offer protection from enemy insurgents to both U.S. military installations and to American companies carrying out reconstruction protects.
The Times article reports that the private companies and the U.S. government bristle at the “mercenary” label to describe these soldiers because of the unsavory “gun-for-hire” connotation. The soldiers, they counter, are merely providing “protection.” However, according to facts outlined in the article, the mercenary label fits like a glove.
The DOD “private security” contracts run into unknown billions of dollars. The companies are cleared by DOD to stockpile weapons. The companies recruit largely from the ranks of ex-military. They pay their American employees $400 to $700 per day. Many of the soldiers hail from third-world countries (and are paid considerably less). The soldiers interviewed by the Times make no bones about it: they are in Iraq for a hefty payday.
The soldiers are heavily-armed, most often carrying assault rifles and belt-fed light machine guns. Of course, in carrying out their “protective mission”, the soldiers invariably find themselves in fire fights with U.S. enemies. While no officials figure exists, about 160 to 200 of them are believed to have died fighting – more than the total number of all non-U.S. coalition soldiers killed.
How did the policy to use mercenary forces develop? In preparing its article, the Times failed in repeated efforts to obtain an explanation from DOD. One thing though is clear: despite being a departure from established U.S. military policy, the mercenary policy was not subject to any type of public debate. There was no Congressional authorization, nor even an Executive Order. Incredibly, as far as the public knows, the policy just happened.
General Jay Garner, who initially led American forces in Iraq, told the Times that the “genesis” for the private security forces happened in spring 2003 when they were hired to guard him and his staff. Garner candidly went on to say what everyone knows but the government refuses to admit: that when the insurgency exploded, large numbers of private soldiers were needed because the U.S. fighting force on the ground was much too small to handle the job. This issue is touchy for the Bush Administration which continues to reject any criticism that it failed to adequately prepare for the war.
So what are the consequences? Any important policy that is conceived and implemented in secrecy lacks legitimacy, as well as undermining democracy by intentionally depriving the electorate of information it needs to form an informed opinion. Moreover, if the issue was thrown open to healthy democratic debate, many reasons exist for the public to oppose the use of mercenaries. And that is precisely why the Administration has been so reticent on the subject.
According to the Times article, the private security companies, while receiving boatloads of U.S. cash, operate independently; for example, the U.S. does not prescribe training standards or rules of engagement, or require background checks of company employees. The official U.S. line is that the company conduct is regulated by to Iraqi law enforcement, a laughable notion given that Iraq is an essentially lawless country.
The frightening reality, of course, is that these companies simply govern themselves. In a belated attempt to assert some control, a bill was introduced in Congress last year to require DOD to adopt operating regulations for these companies. In response, DOD promised to produce a plan in six months. According to the Times, that was nine months ago, and no plan has yet materalized.
As with many other aspects of the Iraq War, on the mercenary issue, Congress has largely abdicated its oversight role, and continues to simply appropriate large vast of money for the Administration to spend at will.
The bottom line is chilling: private companies – with scary macho names like Blackwater USA and Triple Canopy – are killing people in a military role in Iraq with massive U.S. financing but without the accountability that accompanies being part of the U.S. military. It was one thing in the Nineties for the government to begin outsourcing non-combat military tasks; it is something quite different to outsource the combat mission.
Mercenaries raise other troublesome issues. They better enables a government to conduct a war that lacks popular support. As documented in the Times article, the high pay scale for mercenaries´ pay in Iraq has bred intense resentment within the low-paid military, and in fact the private security companies often lure away top military talent. In short, the Bush Administration has spawned an industry that undermines military recruitment and morale.
Finally, unfortunately, in the future, there is every reason to fear that these flourishing and aggressive new private “security companies” will peddle their services to other governments engaged in armed conflicts elsewhere in the world.
In his book, “Corporate Warriors,” historian P.W. Singer recounts that the long world history of reliance on mercenaries started to fade in the 18th and 19th centuries (the “Age of Enlightenment”) in large part because of new notions of both national pride and the honor of soldiering. “Those who fought for profit rather than patriotism were completely delegitimated,” Singer writes.
It all leaves one to wonder: what ever happened to the Age of Enlightenment?
Mr. McCartan is an attorney and freelance writer living in Olympia, Washington.
com: How many of these hit men are here |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Radioactive Wounds of War
Tests on returning troops suggest serious health consequences of depleted uranium use in Iraq
By Dave Lindorff
Gerard Matthew and his daughter Victoria Claudette Matthew.
Gerard Matthew thought he was lucky. He returned from his Iraq tour a year and a half ago alive and in one piece. But after the New York State National Guardsman got home, he learned that a bunkmate, Sgt. Ray Ramos, and a group of N.Y. Guard members from another unit had accepted an offer by the New York Daily News and reporter Juan Gonzalez to be tested for depleted uranium (DU) contamination, and had tested positive.
Matthew, 31, decided that since he’d spent much of his time in Iraq lugging around DU-damaged equipment, he’d better get tested too. It turned out he was the most contaminated of them all.
Matthew immediately urged his wife to get an ultrasound check of their unborn baby. They discovered the fetus had a condition common to those with radioactive exposure: atypical syndactyly. The right hand had only two digits.
So far Victoria Claudette, now 13 months old, shows no other genetic disorders and is healthy, but Matthew feels guilty for causing her deformity and angry at a government that never warned him about DU’s dangers.
U.S. forces first used DU in the 1991 Gulf War, when some 300 tons of depleted uranium—the waste product of nuclear power plants and weapons facilities—were used in tank shells and shells fired by A-10 jets. A lesser amount was deployed by U.S. and NATO forces during the Balkans conflict. But in the current wars in Afghanistan and, especially, Iraq, DU has become the weapon of choice, with more than 1,000 tons used in Afghanistan and more than 3,000 tons used in Iraq. And while DU was fired mostly in the desert during the Gulf War, in the current war in Iraq, most of DU munitions are exploding in populated urban areas.
The Pentagon has expanded DU beyond tank and A-10 shells, for use in bunker-busting bombs, which can spew out more than half a ton of DU in one explosion, in anti-personnel bomblets, and even in M-16 and pistol shells. The military loves DU for its unique penetration capability—it cuts through steel or concrete like they’re butter.
The problem is that when DU hits its target, it burns at a high temperature, throwing off clouds of microscopic particles that poison a wide area and remain radioactive for billions of years. If inhaled, these particles can lodge in lungs, other organs or bones, irradiating tissue and causing cancers.
Worse yet, uranium is also a highly toxic heavy metal. Indeed, while there is some debate over the risk posed by the element’s radioactive emissions, there is no debate regarding its chemical toxicity. According to Mt. Sinai pathologist Thomas Fasey, who participated in the New York Guard unit testing, the element has an affinity for bonding with DNA, where even trace amounts can cause cancers and fetal abnormalities.
Dr. Doug Rokke, a health physicist at the University of Illinois who headed up a Pentagon study of depleted uranium weapons in the mid ’90s after concerns were raised during the Gulf War, concluded there was no safe way to use the weapons. Rokke says the Pentagon responded by denouncing him, after earlier commending his work.
No one knows how many U.S. soldiers have been contaminated by DU residue. Despite regulations authorizing tests for any military personnel who suspects exposure, the U.S. military is avoiding doing those tests—or delaying them until they are meaningless.
“When we asked to be tested at Ft. Dix, they wrongly told us we didn’t have to worry unless we had DU fragments in our body,” says Matthew. His buddy, Sgt. Ramos, who exhibits symptoms resembling radiation sickness and heavy metal poisoning, adds that at Walter Reed Medical Center he was grilled for hours about why he wanted to be tested and was then branded a troublemaker by his own unit. Matthew says Walter Reed “lost” his sample.
At the war’s start, the United States refused to allow U.N. or other environmental inspectors to test DU levels within Iraq. Now the United Nations won’t even go near Iraq because of security concerns.
“It doesn’t seem right that we are poisoning the places we are supposed to be liberating,” Ramos says.
The Pentagon continues to insist, on the basis of no field evidence, that DU is safe. To date, only some 270 returned troops have been tested for DU contamination by the military and Veterans Affairs. But even those tests, mostly urine samples, are useless 30 days after exposure, because by that time most of the DU has left the body or migrated into bones or organs.
Gonzalez and the Daily News paid for costlier tests for nine Guardsmen—tests that could pinpoint uranium inside the body and identify the special isotope signature of man-made DU. Four of the nine tested positive for DU; all had symptoms of uranium poisoning.
Even harder evidence may soon arrive. Connecticut State Representative Pat Dillon (D-New Haven), a Yale-trained epidemiologist, has crafted state-level legislation that Connecticut and Louisiana have unanimously passed, authorizing returned National Guard troops to request and receive specialized DU contamination tests at the Pentagon’s expense. This approach bypasses the Pentagon’s feet-dragging because National Guard troops fall under state, rather than federal, jurisdiction.
“This was not a Democratic or a Republican issue,” Dillon says. “These are our kids and someone needs to protect them.” She says that since passage of her bill, which takes effect this October, military groups and family organizations, state legislators, and even National Guard unit commanders have contacted her for copies of her bill to promote in their states. Bob Smith, a veteran in Louisiana who got hold of Dillon’s bill and spearheaded a successful effort to pass similar legislation in Louisiana, claims that 14 to 20 other states are considering similar measures.
If enough Guard troops avail themselves of the testing—and start testing positive for contamination—it seems likely that reservists and active duty troops and veterans will demand similar access to rigorous tests, which can cost upwards of $1000 per person.
One way or another, the Pentagon will pay a price. “DU is a war crime. It’s that simple,” Rokke says. “Once you’ve scattered all this stuff around, and then refuse to clean it up, you’ve committed a war crime.”
permalink email to a friend printer friendly subscribe
Reader Comments
‘“When we asked to be tested at Ft. Dix, they wrongly told us we didn’t have to worry unless we had DU fragments in our body,” says Matthew. His buddy, Sgt. Ramos, who exhibits symptoms resembling radiation sickness and heavy metal poisoning, adds that at Walter Reed Medical Center he was grilled for hours about why he wanted to be tested and was then branded a troublemaker by his own unit. Matthew says Walter Reed “lost” his sample.’
Nothing like supporting our troops, is there? If this constitutes support, they’d be better off with the protestors.
Posted by Kuya on August 25, 2005 at 9:10 AM
“ ‘It doesn’t seem right that we are poisoning the places we are supposed to be liberating,’ Ramos says.”
I couldn’t agree more. The use of depleted uranium (DU) and napalm, after it was made illegal, is one of the greatest unreported, unpublicized atrocities of our time. Not since Vietnam forty years ago when the U.S. military used agent orange and white phosphorus have we seen a greater example of our nation’s moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy. Iraqis are free? From what? Certainly not the ability to live in a safe country free from radiocative waste that will haunt their offspring for generations to come. Add the use of DU to the list of atrocities and blatant human rights violations the Bush administration has committed in its quest to “liberate” Iraq.
Even worse is the fact that DU effects our own soldiers as well. That the administration has not sought to rectify the health consequences of the use of DU on its own people is one of the greatest travesties in American history. Supportive of the troops? My foot! Only the left-wing and the peace movement have brought this matter to the public’s attention. I have seen fliers at peace rallies documenting the horrors of DU use and demanding the government stop using it, but not at GOP or “support the troops” rallies. What hypocrisy.
Thank you ITT for being TRULY supportive of the troops by running this story.
Posted by Liberal on August 25, 2005 at 12:17 PM
I thought I was “on top of things”, but I never knew the United States was using Depleted Uranium weapons. Why don’t we just call them dirty bombs, which is exactly what they are. Not only were soldiers affected, but children were, too. This is the culture of life?
So far, this war makes it seem as though the United States:
- Encourages torture
- Disregards our own citizens’ Constitutional rights whenever it’s convenient
- Likes to spread radioactive contamination
- Cares more about oil than women’s rights
- Will destroy anyone (and his CIA-agent wife) who comes out against the war
- Doesn’t give a darn about the U.N.
- Currently has the “W"orst President EVER
This is not the country I thought I lived in. I feel like I’ve been duped my whole life.
Posted by tomgrantusa on August 25, 2005 at 6:17 PM
This is not new. The use of depleted uranium in Iraq goes back to the First Gulf War, and the toll on Iraqi children through death and deformity has been documented by humanitarian groups through the years.
This will play out just as Agent Orange did in Vietnam. The government will conclude that there are no side effects to DU, and that the soldiers and their children are delusional. Such is the price of being a pawn in wars of choice.
My greater concern is with the silence of the Congress. There is not a crime committed by this administration which has been challenged or questioned or even acknowledged by the large majority of inactive men and women in Washington.
If you are concerned about the apathy, intimidation, and/or lemming behavior of your own person in Congress, read this editorial through. Then print it out and mail it to your personal Washington Wimp if the shoe fits. It probably will.
The article, from TvNewsLIES.org begins like this:
“What shameful toads you are! Yes you, our elected lawmakers. Yes you, the folks we sent to Washington in our names. Yes you, the most spineless, cowardly and craven Congress people in history. Yes you, the most bullied, gutless and shameful herd of legislators ever elected. And you know exactly who you are.”
To read it all
CLICK HERE
Posted by skipper7 on August 25, 2005 at 6:30 PM
Question: Why aren’t stories like this plastered all over the mainstream media? 2nd question:Why is it that the only really positive opinions about Cindy Sheehan are posted in the “letters to the editor section of your daily newspaper? Our beloved country has been taken over by evil nazis,and it seems that nobody cares.
Posted by Dr.D on August 25, 2005 at 7:20 PM
For more info:
Health Physics is the radiation safety group.
[link to www.hps.org]
Also, if something can “remain radioactive for billions of years” then it must not be putting out much radiation; otherwise it would decay away.
The most you have here is the chemical toxicity danger, not much traction on the radioactivity line.
Posted by jsong123 on August 25, 2005 at 9:33 PM
‘The most you have is the chemical toxicity, not much traction on the radioactivity line’
Are you dismissing the implications of heavy metal poisoning? DU does has radioactive properties but it is also a heavy metal. Very heavy. Its particulate properties - (nanoparticles)- are also disturbing but the chemical effects are quite toxic.
The reported symptoms seem more complex than straightforward radiation poisoning. Most likely the radioactive, particulate, and chemical properties in DU exacerbate each other.
These symptoms in young, previously healthy ‘warriors’ points to exposure to several toxins, not only DU (chemical fires etc.)so it is true that DU is one of many exposures, but it is still deadly. This suggests we should be conducting post theater surveillance for symptoms over time. We may not learn everything they’ve been exposed to, but at the very least we can help them get the benefits they deserve.
Posted by reppatdillon on August 25, 2005 at 10:24 PM
Some other reports on the subject:
Seattle PI
Rolling Stone
Scott Peterson reported the following in the 1999 Middle East Journal:
“How likely, then, is DU to cause health problems? The answer depends on who you ask. Atomic scientists calculate that each alpha particle can break hundreds of thousands of molecular bonds. There is no shortage of this energy: Every gram of DU produces 12,000 alpha particles per second.”
In the same article, Ron Kathren, academic and radiation expert cited on the issue at jsong123’s [link to www.hps.org] tries to downplay the theoretical health risks posed by DU but is contradicted by other experts who emphasize the volume of particularized DU released in battlefield situations.
Posted by pocketmouth on August 26, 2005 at 12:54 AM
Another great article
Posted by pocketmouth on August 26, 2005 at 2:30 AM
Hello Dr. D,
Answer to both questions 1 & 2: they’re either afraid or complicitous. The mainstream networks and publications are afraid they’ll get tagged as traitors by shrill pro-Bush pundits, or they’re in agreement with the idea that criticism of the government’s policies, even fair and reasonable criticism, is unpatriotic or anti-American.
As for radioactivity v. metallic toxicity, when it comes to taking care of those who have risked their lives and health in war, it doesn’t matter. The government and the entire country is morally obligated not to shirk, not to short-change on this issue. They owe medical care to these people regardless of the health problems that arise from wartime injury or illness. By the way, I submit that the supposed debatability about the properties and risks of DU weapons is a sham; they’ve been used and studied for years. skipper7 hit the nail on the head with the Agent Orange comparison. Disgusting.
Something in me wants to say that health care provision for militars should go without saying, but of course I already know better than that.
Posted by Kuya on August 26, 2005 at 2:38 AM
The cost of this war will go way beyond the casualties in Iraq . They will permeate our culture for years in the same way Viet Nam did and even more so. PTSD is already surfacing. How ill our mental health system bear that burden? How about domestic violence? Medical costs for the wounded that even ten years ago may not have survived..and of course, genetic defects.
And mostly, the psyche of this country ahs been destroyed.
See you all at the demo in September!
Posted by robin on August 26, 2005 at 3:54 AM
Jsong who are you trying to fool? The background radiation levels in Baghdad today are the equivelant of having a chest x-ray every two hours. Day and night, seven days a week that is sunshine. You might also note how much radiation has been released in Iraq, “this time around” the amount corresponds to the same amount of radiation released from 40, 000 Nagasaki size atom bombs!
By the way Jong didn’t you read the article? The soldiers tested positive and the Baby is deformed. So much for your hopeful theorising.
To read the truth about this war crime see:
[link to www.thetruthseeker.co.uk]
Posted by Rabbitvoz on August 26, 2005 at 4:45 AM
“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger as quoted in the book “Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam.”
The U.S. govt. like any historical empire excites nationalism within the governed to serve their purposes, its easy for them to do, just throw out the key phrases like “Defending freedom” , “Spreading democracy”, Liberating victims” Orwell proclaimed that the English language is so suitable for propaganda, when an American hears or thinks about freedom what stirs in their mind? This is a powerful source used by the elite ruling class to recruit people to serve their interest which is the natural resources of other people’s countries. The elite do not care for the poor who fight the wars, hey over 300,000 vets are homeless in this country while yellow ribbons and flags fill the streets. Until people understand history as a struggle of classes in which the oligarchs suppress the masses then the youth will be stirred by the ruling powers to fight their deceitful wars. If the people understand that their own government is not on their side as is so obvious by the use of illegal Depleted Uranium weapons in which over 270,000 91gulf war vets are on permanent disability and over 12,000 dead and 67% deformed or diseased births then how much more clearer can this fact be? I have started a website www.DU4U.com to bring the reality of DU to schools and end this useless empires war machine.
Posted by DU4U on August 26, 2005 at 8:21 AM
Trained, armed, hyper-patriotic young men who know they have been tricked pose the greatest threat to tyranny.
Posted by SourDove on August 26, 2005 at 10:43 AM
Hypocrites. Motherfucking, evil, base hypocrites. Pardon my language, I just can’t think of any better way to describe these vipers.
Where to begin? Remember how bad Hussein was, he gassed his own people, used bio/chem weapons in the Iraq/Iran war? And we’re supposed to be so much BETTER than that? By spewing this venomous filth into populated areas?
I’m proud to be a citizen and part of this country, warts and all. But I can’t fathom anyone reading stories like this and not feeling the sting and burn of utter, abject shame.
Posted by g-love on August 26, 2005 at 10:46 AM
Dr. Jawad Al-Ali head oncologist of the largest hospital in Basra reported over sixty cases of multiple cancers within one family, with some individuals having multiple cancers, all due to DU exposure. Just the small tip of a huge iceberg. As for birth defects, they are averaging 1-2 per day, in one hospital in Iraq. Mothers no longer ask, “Is it a boy or a girl,” but, “is it normal doctor?” We have poisoned two entire countries
Posted by truthcat on August 26, 2005 at 11:20 AM
[link to www.google.com] +moretAMP14TX903DVGHY4QWbtnmeta=search=search=Search h+the+Web
[link to johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com]
You won’t find this material on MSM.
Thank God for the Internet.
Bests,
John
vpocv@comcast.net
Posted by johnmccarthy on August 26, 2005 at 12:10 PM
Here’s an idea. Let’s everyone send this article on DU damage to our troops to Bill OReily at Fox News. If enough of us clog his in-box maybe he’ll take time to read it. It might also help some if we were to drop some GOP names…
SD Jayne
Posted by stanleyjayne on August 26, 2005 at 12:21 PM
A chilling flash animation on DU by BushFlash.com: [link to www.bushflash.com]
Posted by Vision4America on August 26, 2005 at 12:28 PM
This quote from another thread on ITT is so apt I had to repeat it:
“The U.S. never was bothered by Saddam’s atrocities when he was a pawn in America’s MidEast strategy, but when he took an independent course, that is when all the rhetoric about his atrocities and suppression began to surface. The U.S. took Saddam out because he was no longer serving America’s interests. The Bush administration acted out of its own selfishness, the rhetoric about freedom and democracy was just the conveneient cover story to give to the American people. “
Posted by Liberal on August 24, 2005 at 1:33 PM
[link to www.inthesetimes.com]
What is shameful is the fate of all who suffer, and who will suffer, from warfare poison. It is shameful for military authorities to willfully use these poisons anywhere on God’s green earth. Children of the future are already paying a terrible price.
Posted by pick of the litter on August 26, 2005 at 1:44 PM
Thank you ITT for covering this story. I watched a segment recently about recent Iraq veterans and the treatment (or lack of treatment) they receive is appalling. The media needs to be covering the atrocious effects of the war, on U.S. service veterans and Iraqis alike, more thoroughly and graphically instead of playing cheerleaders for death.
Posted by pick of the litter on August 26, 2005 at 1:54 PM
Somehow or other the “evidence” of Saddam gassing his own people has met the same standards as him having WMD. The Pix of dead woman and children DOES NOT SHOW HOW THEY DIED.
Saddam was no where near as bad as Idi Amin and Pinochet, and Negroponte for that matter.
Bests,
John McCarthy
vpocv@comcast.net
[link to johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com]
Update link in left colum at top of home page.
Posted by johnmccarthy on August 26, 2005 at 2:08 PM
Many, many people care about the horror of war and the horror perpetrated by the Bush administration. They talk to us when we demonstrate against the war. Rage, grieve, reason, but do not despair. Above all act!
Posted by ninaklooster on August 26, 2005 at 3:01 PM
There is no forseeable end to US policy, domestic as well as international. We’ve intervened and used depleted uranium liberally in former Yugoslavia and Iraq, and we’re now looking down our sights at Iran and Syria.
You’ll find some clues as to why Iran is our next target, here:
Killing the dollar in Iran
[link to tinyurl.com]
The US is a cornered nation. The Administration is scared. Israel acts as our alarm clock, since it depends on our support for its survival. Our economy is virtually on the brink.
If we the aware and vigilant do not voice our opinions as never before, we will bear reponsible for having been accomplices to war crimes.
Posted by aleanor on August 26, 2005 at 4:14 PM
Countless website forums point out the crimes against peace and crimes against humanity, all established as WAR CRIMES by the US led International War Crimes Trial held in Nuremberg in 1946. We hanged folks for the same crimes Bush is perping on the Arab Nations. How much more can those 55 million people take before they sucker us in for the final treatment. We have ruined their civilization in Iraq. DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years. hooray for Bush, Cheney and the rogue bunch of Constitutional rapers.
Bests,
John
[link to johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com]
vpocv@comcast.net
Posted by johnmccarthy on August 26, 2005 at 4:39 PM
Dear Gerard Matthew,
Why don’t you go down to Crawford, Texas, and stand with Cindy Sheehan--and demand answers from bush about WHY DU is being used in Iraq? And why veteran’s babies are being born deformed? And why vetran’s wives are coming down with mysterious ailments after their precious husbands come home from the war zone? And WHY is Iraq being transformed into a genocidal wasteland, with a slow radiation-poisoning death being decreed for a vast number of civilians? (As well as for our own troops??)
You have standing, and the right to demand answers, especially with your adorable daughter’s health problems.
It is appalling how the mass media ignores DU, and how few Americans understand DU, or the atrocitites that are being perpetrated in our names, with everlasting consequences…
YOU have the chance to stand up now, and be a hero by helping to end this dreadful war.
Cassandra
Posted by Cassandra on August 26, 2005 at 6:09 PM
What is really appalling is how many lies have been spread about DU munitions. If you want to learn more about this .. go to the seven article series by a long time investigative reporter Bob Evans of the Newport News Daily Press.
From the second article of the series .. Of Rodents and Radiation - Ch 2 - From the Nose to the Brain
[link to www.dailypress.com] ory?coll=dp-special-news
“The issue is chemical, not radiologic, risk,” says Melissa A. McDiarmid of the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the VA hospital in Baltimore. McDiarmid directs the government’s monitoring of Gulf War veterans with shrapnel in their bodies and has participated in other government-financed research.
McDiarmid says the tiny amount of black depleted uranium dust that a soldier could inhale several hundred feet away from an explosion is inconsequential. Even if particles are inhaled in that scenario, they wouldn’t constitute a big enough dose of radiation or toxic chemical to change lives, she says. Fifty years of research based on the experiences of workers in the uranium mining, milling and processing industries prove that scientists have good models to use to compute what is - and isn’t - a harmful dose of inhaled uranium, whether it’s depleted or not, she says.
McDiarmid thinks that we do know enough to reach the conclusion that inhaled depleted uranium isn’t a significant radiological danger. And she thinks that the failure to acknowledge this might be hurting ill veterans from the Persian Gulf War.
“What we have here is a witch hunt for an explanation,” she says, fed by the public’s fear of radiation and fanned by opponents of the weapon and ignorance of the actual science.
“The thing I’m worried about with everybody chasing depleted uranium is that we’re missing the boat,” she insists.
With so much attention on depleted uranium, other possible causes for the veterans’ illnesses go unexplored and the veterans aren’t helped.
Her most recent research paper about the veterans with shrapnel in their bodies also points to another risk of pursuing this line of inquiry into depleted uranium, known by scientists and others as “DU.”
For facts about DU from genuine experts not people who are cheerleaders against nuclear power and the war, go to the Health Physics Society www.hps.org and to their DU Fact Sheet at [link to hps.org]
Roger
Posted by Ramjet on August 26, 2005 at 7:49 PM
“Dr. Doug Rokke, a health physicist at the University of Illinois who headed up a Pentagon study of depleted uranium weapons in the mid ’90s after concerns were raised during the Gulf War, concluded there was no safe way to use the weapons. Rokke says the Pentagon responded by denouncing him, after earlier commending his work.”
The article makes the above claim about Douglas Lind Rokke, Phd, Education, with regards to his qualifications to claim expertise on DU. As a Lieutenant in the Army Reserve, Rokke was activated for Desert Storm and in that role was a member of a team which observed some sites with Iraqi tanks that had been hit with DU munitions. Rokke claims to have led that team, but he did not. He was not qualified. He is not a Health Physicist. He does have a Phd, but it is in Education and his dissertation was not on laboratory experiments or research on radiation or DU, but is titled “Perceived physics concepts needed to teach secondary technology
education as general education” and is on file in the University of Illinois library.
Rokke was subsequently employed as a civilian at the Army Radiation Laboratory at Fort McClellan, Alabama. He was fired from that position for failure to perform. He did not head up a study which concluded that there is no safe way to use DU munitions.
Rokke can not support the claims made on behalf of his own experience, let alone the wild claims that he has made about DU.
Roger
Posted by Ramjet on August 26, 2005 at 8:01 PM
Dear Roger:
Here is what it has come to: I don’t believe a single thing that you posted. I will not bother to check your links or the articles you referred to. I assume that they are all lies.
At this point, I automatically assume that anyone supporting the Bush administration and their policies is either a moron, a useful idiot, or a shill. I would categorize you as somewhere between useful idiot and shill, with the proponderance of evidence toward shill.
There has been no truth forthcoming from the Bush administration or the Pentagon. Zero. All lies and spin. Possibly you are bamboozled by it? I doubt that, which is why I gravitate towards shill in my estimate of you.
This is what happens, eventually, to liars and their supporters. Intelligent and informed people start to assume that everything they say is a lie, based on past experience. Do you like being automatically placed in the rank of liars? Get used to it.
By the way, no one who knows me or reads my writing would dream of calling me a liberal. Although I do get called other things, liberal isn’t one of them.
Posted by m_astera on August 26, 2005 at 11:50 PM |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
And What Did They Die For Once Again?
By Daniel Ruth
08/19/05 "Tampa Tribune" -- -- This may come as something of a shock to some of those yahoos down in Crawford, Texas, who are so upset with antiwar Gold Star mother Cindy Sheehan´s vigil outside the president´s Godforsaken ranch, but if they were to look real close they´d discover she is committing first-degree, premeditated citizenship.
You see, we have this nagging, irritating, troublesome document called the U.S. Constitution. It´s all the rage - or at least those dead bodies in Arlington National Cemetery thought so.
There, right at the top of the Constitution, there´s this thing called the First Amendment.
Stop Drooling And Read
And if some of you goobers who have been shooting shotguns in the air to intimidate Sheehan and trampling white crosses in the ground honoring the dead troops who have sacrificed their lives for George W. Bush´s war in Iraq could stop drooling for just a moment, here´s what the First Amendment states:
``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the RIGHT OF PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.´´
Sheehan has a grievance - her son Casey died in Bush´s war and thus she has petitioned the Clausewitz of Skull and Bones to explain why, especially since the administration´s alibis for invading Iraq turned out to be more bogus than Burt Reynolds´ hair, more than 1,800 American families had to lose a loved one.
Alas, the MacArthur of Arbusto has been busy, busy, busy on his vacation, riding his bike with Lance Armstrong, attending chi-chi big-ticket fundraisers with silk-stocking GOP types and chopping brush.
We´re talking way big fun.
At any rate, with that kind of breakneck pace of relaxation, the Wellington of Waco simply has been unable to find a few moments to spend with a grieving mother.
Great Country
The problem, obviously, in meeting with Sheehan is that the Commander-In-Sleep might possibly be exposed to someone who disagrees with his policies, an occurrence even more rare with this president than a Texas Air National Guard flight physical.
Irony abounds.
As annoying as Sheehan´s presence may be to the Patton of Kennebunkport, what is going on down there on that desolate ranch 40 miles west of where Moses lost his knickers is precisely what makes this such a great country.
Average citizens are still free to embarrass their president.
Cindy Sheehan has proved that dissent, protest, loud loyal opposition can still happen under an administration with a reputation as a bigger control freak than Joan Crawford.
The bickering factions in Iraq could learn a thing or two from Cindy Sheehan, were she not one of those second-class citizens - a mere lowly woman.
Were the Robert E. Lee of the Beltway to meet with Sheehan, perhaps he might be asked to explain this comment about the role of women under a new Iraqi constitution: ``Hopefully the drafters of the constitution will understand our strong belief that women ought to be treated equally in the Iraq society.´´
``Hopefully´´!?!?!
Maybe he might have to explain why 15 percent of the women serving in the U.S. military in Iraq, as well as the nearly 50 American women who have died in combat, put their lives on the line defending a country where they would not have the same rights as men.
And that may explain why clearing brush is preferable to looking into the eyes of a grieving mother and discovering more than 1,800 souls staring back at him.
Reach Daniel Ruth at (813) 259-7599. You can hear him from 9 a.m. to noon Saturdays on WFLA, 970 AM.
©2005, Media General Inc. All rights reserved |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Supporting American Troops:
What It Means and What It Entails
By Charles Mercieca, Ph.D.
08/26/05 "ICH" -- -- Throughout the streets of America one may notice yellow stickers on cars stating: Support Our Troops. There is nothing wrong in that but we need to specify what this formulated slogan means and what it entails. These American troops are generally young men and women who joined the military primarily to get their college and university education expenses paid for them afterwards by the government. Needless to say, they are trained then to fight for and to defend their country if necessary. Up till now everything is fine.
Handling of American Troops
However, the way American troops were handled and used has raised legitimate questions, which cannot be ignored. To our knowledge, there is not one single American that does not support US troops wherever they happen to be. Judged from the way US troops have been handled by US politicians, has instigated millions of Americans to come out with a strong and determined response to the above formulated slogan. This response runs as follows: Supporting American troops, yes – Supporting the “abuse” of American troops, no.
The majority of US politicians have received a lot of money from big corporations to be elected to the office they hold. Once elected, they then feel the obligation to defend by all means the interests of such corporations. Hence, they spend most of their time in planning and plotting the implementation of strategies that are presented to them by the officials of such corporations. A brief study of US governmental behavior since World War II ended in 1945, some 60 years earlier, gives us a perfect view of a same pattern of behavior.
The ultimate goal of US big corporations is to control the economy of the whole world. Hence, when politicians fail to get what such corporations want by diplomatic means then they will resort to the military to get for corporations what they want by force. To this end, US troops are shipped like a piece of furniture from one global area to the other to use brutal force that always results in the ruthless massacre and maiming of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
American troops are ordered to bomb cities day and night until they literally destroy the total infrastructure of such cities. Thousands of people become homeless, food becomes scarce, and children become orphans, not to mention those thousands who lost an arm or a leg or got blind for life. When the US government takes the initiative to invade a country for reasons that were all proved to be false, then here we are not dealing simply with American troops but with the “abuse” of American troops. Such abuse is immoral and must be condemned by every responsible group or organization.
Viewing Iraq in True Perspective
The car stickers that were mentioned earlier refer in particular to the American troops in Iraq. Under the explained circumstances, the shipping of US troops to Iraq had ulterior motives. There was never the motive of “bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people,” like we were told. This formulated slogan was used literally to hypnotize the American people and to bring their emotions under full control in favor of such brutal actions. It would be nice and appropriate to have a referendum conducted by the United Nations among the Iraqi people from 7 to 97 years of age asking them one simple question:
“Would you rather had Saddam Hussein in power and, at the same time, your dear parents, your adorable children, and your good friends would have still been alive and your houses that were destroyed would have been still there?
Or, would you rather have now the Americans occupying Iraq at the cost of the most cherished life of your parents, children and friends along with the destruction of the infrastructure of your cities with no houses where to stay?” Let us see what the Iraqis have to say in this regard. They surely can speak for themselves. The US philosophy of “might is right” is wrong. The Machiavellian philosophy of “the end justifies the means,” is both unethical and immoral.
Jesus of Nazareth made it clear that the one who pleases God is not the one who says to God “Father” and then does the opposite that God wants, but rather the one that performs “acts that are pleasing to Him.” What was the use for the US President to meet with the Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II, who insisted that the US should not wage a war against Iraq and saying that “such a move would be a grave mistake for it will instigate more terrorism in the long range?” The US President ignored the admonition of the Vicar of Christ and everything negative that the Pope predicted had now come to pass. Thousands of Americans and Iraqis died, were maimed, or put in a state of depression for life as a result. It is never late to remedy the situation by having US troops brought home from Iraq, the sooner the better.
Since all Americans want to support the US troops by all means, what is the best way to support American troops in Iraq under the circumstances explained? Former US presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich, as well as a couple of other US presidential candidates, gave us a very clear answer: “Bring all US troops out of Iraq without further delay.” In fact, Kucinich promised that, if elected president, he would bring all American troops out of Iraq within 90 days he takes office and pass the Iraqi problem to the United Nations. The Kucinich exit strategy seems to be the best one available and there seems to be no better approach.
Solution of World Conflicts
Those that advocate that the best way to help our American troops in Iraq is to send more troops, like former Presidential candidate John Kerry and other US politicians stated, is fallacious to say the least and tragic to say the most. Considering that most of the US politicians were at one time or another in the military who even fought in South Korea and in Vietnam, the United States seems to have a military government in mufti. Like the leading politician of Germany Schroeder said recently: “In the solution of world problems, the military should not be put on table not even as a last option.” He knows well that military involvement always ends up making things worse in the long range.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States emerged as the only world super-power. The world then took a sigh of relief because people everywhere felt that under the leadership of this nation wars now were going to become obsolete. In fact, in the United States people everywhere were talking of the “peace dividend,” which referred to military money that would now be going for humanitarian constructive purposes instead of going for destructive purposes through the waging of wars. The vast majorities of nations in the world were expecting the United States to take the initiative to promote an international program of disarmament and arms control.
To the surprise of everyone, the United States, instead, embarked on a program of rearmament consisting of the developing of more powerful weapons of destruction. Besides, this nation began to provide numerous nations, friends and enemies alike, with military aid that consisted of every kind of war ammunition one can possibly imagine. It was obvious that in this capitalistic nation, the waging of future wars would become perhaps a highly lucrative business. Those that worked in the weapons industry often stated that they were making a lot of money! The truthfulness of this statement may be verified in the fact that Americans may buy lethal weapons at the right price with no problem whatsoever. They say it’s their constitutional right: the right to bear arms!
When people work in the manufacture of weapons because they do believe sincerely that in this manner they are contributing for the defense of their nation in the event this nation is attacked is one thing. However, when the managers and investors of the weapons industry make a fortune from the selling of more and more weapons for the waging of more wars, we have here a different story. We are confronted here with organized crime of the mafia type where money is made through the infliction of endless suffering on millions of people. In the sphere of morality, this is purely blood money which is cursed money.
Blood Money in Perspective
We all recall what happened to Judas Iscariot when he felt remorse for having betrayed his Master for 30 pieces of silver. He returned the money to the Pharisees, threw the money on the floor in front of them saying: “I have betrayed an innocent man.” Their reply was quick: “That’s your problem not ours.” Then in picking up the money from the floor they said to each other: “Let us not put this money back in the treasury for this is blood money.” They all realized that this was cursed money that should bring with it not a blessing but rather a curse. The owners, manager and investors of the weapons industry and war machinery should repent and ask God for forgiveness.
They should feel obligated to put all the money they made from this lethal industry into a general fund that would be used to alleviate the suffering of the poor and the needy across every continent. They should provide the needy everywhere with medical assistance, with food, and with all other vital necessities. They should provide prefabricated homes to all the homeless in the world across every continent. Above all, they should proceed to change their lethal product by making tractors for farmers instead of tanks for soldiers, and by making commercial planes for the development of the civilian economy instead of making war planes to bombard and destroy human lives.
This way, our troops could be given a new purpose that is both positive and constructive. Instead of using airplanes to bomb cities they should use airplanes to bring food to people who are living in remote global areas with hardly anything to eat. Instead of using the air craft carriers to carry military planes for purpose of attacking other nations from the sea, they could use such air craft carriers as floating hospitals where the sick and dying across Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia in particular could be given all needed assistance. This way, our American troops will be welcomed everywhere with love and kindness because they would be giving life instead of taking it away. They would be making people happy a result instead of desolate and sad.
As the only super power in the world, the USA is obligated to change the role of the military from one that promotes war to one that promotes peace, from one that furnishes nations with weapons of destruction and military machinery to one that furnishes nations with medicine, food, shelter and educational material. This is the best and most constructive way to use and help our troops whose safety would be thoroughly assured. But when our troops are dragged into a war that was viewed as illegal and immoral, there is not much that we can do for our troops except for bringing them home, the sooner the better.
Listening to Intuitive US Politicians
In the words of former US presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich: “We love our troops, we are concerned about our troops, we want to bring our troops home without further delay.” No matter how much we love our young men and women in Iraq, they were not sent there to perform the work of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, helping the poorest of the poor, bringing food to the hungry and medicine to the sick while trying to save the life of every dying person. They were sent there to destroy the infrastructure of several Iraqi cities and they killed, as a result, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi children, women, the elderly and the sick, even if this was not their initial intention.
What is the difference for our young men and women who die from Iraqi gun shots or from American gun shots that are referred to as “friendly fire?” As far as they are concerned they are dead and gone for all eternity just the same. Unfortunately, we do not hear much news about the thousands of Americans that were maimed with legs and arms amputated. It is incomprehensible for Americans to believe that the best way to support our troops is to send more troops. The vast majority of Americans proclaim to be Christians. Are they not aware of what the Master Teacher told us? He said: “What you do to others it will be done to you.” This means we go there to kill and in return we are killed.
If we disagree with Christ, let us at least have the courage to disassociate ourselves from Him. Proclaiming belief in Jesus Christ while observing His teachings only selectively, reveals ignorance to say the least and hypocrisy to say the most. We are all familiar with the saying: “Prevention is better than cure.” The best way to support our American troops in the future is never again to send them to wage wars, for as Pope Pius XII remarked on the eve of World War II: “In a war everyone is a loser, no one is a winner.” The Germans lost the war and their economy collapsed. The British won the war and their economy equally collapsed. It is quite obvious that bringing all American troops out of Iraq as soon as possible would be the best way in support of our troops.
Charles Mercieca, Ph.D. President, International Association of Educators for World Peace. NGO, United Nations (ECOSOC), UNDPI, UNICEF, UNCED & UNESCO. Professor Emeritus. Alabama A&M University
Translate this page |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Tommy Franks Invades Logan Street Elementary School
The Militarization of Our Children
By ELISA SALASIN
As Labor Day draws near and children head back to school, much important attention is being focused on recruitment tactics (sanctioned by No Child Left Behind) in our country´s public secondary schools and colleges. However, this hounding and seduction is not just happening in our high schools. Rather, it reaches down to children as young as 8 years old. Here, though, it is packaged as leadership, character, and discipline development, or as top-secret motivational presentations by so-called medal of freedom recipients
On April 19, 2005 Tommy Franks visited Logan Street Elementary school in Los Angeles to do what was billed as a "motivational presentation" for the school´s students. The "non-profit, pro-military" organization that sponsored Franks´ secret (without family consent or knowledge) presentation to the school´s fifth graders was actually U.S. Trust, a private investment firm with $102 billion dollars in assets. Logan Street school is 89% Latino, and 93% of the students receive free or reduced lunch. This is exactly the population that is heavily targeted by NCLB-related recruitment efforts. I suppose that US Trust and Franks were there to encourage the students to be all they can be?
We don´t know what actually went on during Franks´ performance/presentation for the fifth grade students, because apparently the video of the event has been destroyed by the school district. However, one parent speculated: "Rumor is that he took pictures with our community youth to be used in a future run for office bid on the republican ticket."
Or, perhaps, Franks was priming these ten year old students for the military programs that they may soon encounter in their middle schools: Middle School Cadet Corps, or Junior Officer Reserves Training Corps.
An article from In These Times describes how many of these programs have eleven year old students learning how to stand, march and salute in synchronization while carrying fake guns and doing push-ups for disobeying orders. Here´s a bit from the In These Times piece that puts this kind of militarization-in-the-name-of-education into perspective:
"Proponents of the programs tout leadership training and character development. But critics quote former Defense Secretary Gen. William Cohen, who described JROTC as ´one of the best recruiting services that we could have.´"
In an effort to further deepen our understanding, here´s a bit of an interview with Nina Shokraii Rees, Assistant Deputy Secretary, Office of Innovation and Improvement, United States Department of Education:
Do you consider art and music "frills," or would you say they are necessary to a good elementary education?
Nina Shokraii Rees: It depends. If a student is attending an affluent school that has the budget to invest in such things, then I see many benefits to adding art and music courses. What I object to is focusing the attention of poor school systems on these activities. Schools should be in the business of teaching students the basics. If they fail to teach students how to read and write, it makes no sense to ask them to offer music! In a perfect world, these are decisions that I wish parents could make and pay for.
So there you have it --affluent schools get art and music. Schools lower on the socio-economic ladder get military training (and top-secret visits from Tommy Franks). Countering the overt and more insidious recruitment tactics sanctioned by NCLB is certainly necessary. However, as both educators and humans, we must also be honest and upfront about ways in which our structures of schooling, and the system´s unmarked (default) language of control, also contribute to our militarized culture.
God forbid that we might focus the attention of poorer school systems on activities which might, as Paul Street wrote, help our children to evaluate and resist the endless reactionary propaganda that is foisted upon them. Nope, that kind of leadership and discipline development might, just might, wreck one of the best recruiting services we´ve got.
Elisa Salasin is an educator in Berkeley, California, and can be contacted at elisasalasin@gmail.com. Many of her writings can be found on her blog, Two Feet In ( [link to twofeetin.typepad.com] |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Tomgram: Greenberg on Why U.S. Military Lawyers Opposed Torture
Extraordinary renditions, torture, abuse, humiliation, detention without charge or end, an obsession with protecting American officials (and military men) from future foreign or domestic criminal charges for their acts -- these are the cornerstones of foreign policy under George Bush, and they have produced horror stories galore. His is a presidency that has made the beautiful speech about the spreading of freedom and human rights just the sunny-side up version of the infliction of pain, the double standard, and the detention center.
There is, not surprisingly, no accurate count of those held by this administration without charge or recourse. Perhaps 15,000 prisoners are at present incarcerated by the American military in Iraq; 505 in Guantanamo; untold numbers are shuttled in and out of various forward military bases and detention centers in Afghanistan (which has become something like a giant Central Asian Guantanamo for detainees from all over the world); scores of "ghost detainees" are in ghost prisons at unknown places around the globe (including, possibly, on U.S. Navy warships, on the American-controlled island of Diego Garcia, and in the prisons of various allies, especially those known to have a propensity for using torture themselves); and a few are in military brigs here in the U.S. Of this large group of detainees, most without rights of any sort, many beyond the reach of the world or of anyone who has ever known or cared for them, significant numbers are -- as has been seen in case after case -- innocent men (or women, or, in some cases, children) who were simply swept up in the hysteria of the Bush administration´s "war on terror" and the actual wars and occupations that followed.
To take but one example, at Camp Bucca in Iraq, where prisoners are kept by the U.S. military for a year on average, Steve Fainaru and Anthony Shadid of the Washington Post reported the following:
"Many of the freed detainees express bewilderment at why they were held; even the U.S. commander who oversees Bucca, Col. Austin Schmidt, 55, of Fairfax, estimated that one in four prisoners ‘perhaps were just snagged in a dragnet-type operation´ or were victims of personal vendettas. ‘This is like Chicago in the ´30s: You don´t like somebody, you drop a dime on them,´ Schmidt said. ‘And by the time the Iraqi court system figures it out, they go home. But it takes a while.´"
Others have offered far higher estimates of the numbers of such detainees; but whatever the number, multiplied globally, it adds up to a lot of angry, resentful people (and families and friends and associates). Alienating the world has, however, been something of a sub-specialty of the Bush administration. Almost alone among those they did not alienate were, until recently, a bare majority of the American people -- all they needed to do what they wanted to do. With that support, they have been unfazed not just by moral arguments against the use of torture and detention without end, but by practical arguments against them as well. As Karen J. Greenberg, co-editor of The Torture Papers, indicates below, we now know that such arguments were made quite forcefully by a range of military lawyers back in 2003 when the details of administration torture policies were just being hammered out. These lawyers pointed out (though to no purpose at the time) that torture is a surefire way, in the long run, to create the very atmosphere within which terrorist groups can recruit and thrive.
Some thought has, at least, been given to the tortured in the last couple of years; little, however, has been given to the torturers. It is often argued, for instance, that torture produces unreliable information for all the obvious reasons; mostly because sooner or later people will say what´s necessary to make it stop. No one ever mentions that torturers are unlikely themselves to be reliable or that their sense of the world and its boundaries is simply not to be trusted. After all, one of the hallmarks of torture is that it takes not just the tortured but the torturer beyond all normal bounds and into another psychic universe where perverse fantasies of every sort are likely to run wild. The very position of interrogator in a situation where a prisoner is without rights and in a detention without end is likely to lead to mirror-fantasies of power beyond all bounds.
Here, for instance, is a description offered by Benyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian who was kidnapped in a CIA extraordinary-rendition operation, passed through the prisons of Pakistan, Morocco, and our Afghan detention centers (and claimed he was tortured in all three places) before landing in Guantanamo. According to his lawyer, "he is being held without charges. Mohammed´s remarks to the lawyer do not allege physical torture there. But he said one interrogator, who said his name was Matthew, screamed in his ear: ‘I am GOD here! I can do whatever I want with you. Don´t think you´re safe here.´"
Though the threat was undoubtedly made to terrify the prisoner, it also reflects a potential psychological reality for anyone under such boundary-less conditions. But who would trust a man who believes himself in any sense to be God to offer reliable or well considered information? Who would want a corps of such disturbed human beings, trained in the ghost world of our mini-gulag abroad, to return home -– as they certainly will?
The hallmarks of the Bush administration have been lack of accountability, lack of responsibility, lack of shame, and an urge for destruction. Unfortunately, when it comes to torture, pundits and public alike, largely through fear and the feeling of being in a new and unknown situation after September 11, 2001, have generally gone along for the ride. Tom
The Achilles Heel of Torture
What the JAG Memos Tell us
Karen J. Greenberg
Last month, Americans were given a new and persuasive reason for objecting to the use of torture as a tool in administration policy; namely, its potentially harmful impact on any viable counterterrorism strategy that values information as essential in combating Islamic fundamentalist terror. This strategic concern was raised in a set of memos released by the government in its latest "dump" of documents into the public arena.
Since the spring of 2004, the government has been making public previously classified documents nearly weekly, often in response to Freedom of Information Act law suits (though the numbers of newly classified documents are increasing at a rate that more than nullifies any sense of transparency such releases might suggest). Many of these memos have been about torture -- whether to use it; how to use it; and, most of all, how to protect government agents and agencies against prosecution for using it. Among these documents have been memos from the Judge Advocate General´s Corps (or JAG), written by military lawyers from the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, and these constitute a welcome oasis of sanity in a desert of compliance with the government´s decision to use torture as a weapon in its "war on terror."
First brought to public attention in Senate debate on July 25, 2005, these JAG memos have seen the light thanks to a request from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. They were written in February 2003 as recommendations to a Pentagon working group on "interrogation policy." Collectively, they express a clear opposition to the use of the sorts of harsh interrogation techniques that White House lawyers had not only recommended but declared legally viable. Indeed, by August of 2002, lawyers for the administration had infamously suggested, as a basis for reducing legal culpability for the mistreatment of detainees, that the definition of torture itself be narrowed to include only ""[p]hysical pain …equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
The JAG memos, on the other hand, warned that abusive interrogation techniques -- contrary to the advice administration lawyers were generating – might well be found illegal in courts of law: As one put it, "Our domestic courts may well disagree with [the administration´s lawyers´] interpretation of the law." The courts, the JAG memos warned, might find that the use of torture, however redefined by the administration, violated not just international law, but domestic criminal law and the laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well.
These memos have earned praise from critics of the Bush administration and its war on terror, who have been pleased to discover strong organizational resistance to administration policy within the military. But the terms of the disagreement have been little explored. It´s not just the fact of the dissent that is noteworthy, but its nature; for these documents provide us with something other than the usual notes of protest against torture that critics of the administration are wont to express. The JAG criticism is not so much moral as strategic. What the JAG lawyers suggest -- and it is a position no less significant today than when it was shaped in 2003 -- is that a policy of torture is sure to constitute a fatal flaw in any war against jihadi terror.
Prior to the release of these JAG memos, what opposition to torture we knew about within the administration almost invariably stood upon a concern for rights and legality. Secretary of State Colin Powell, William Taft IV, the Legal Advisor to the Department of State, and others reasoned, without much success, against policies which could lay the groundwork for abusive treatment. They cited the possible illegality of such acts under domestic law; the importance of maintaining the high moral ground as a mark of American national identity; the protection of human rights worldwide; the potentially dangerous repercussions that might come from alienating our allies; and the endangerment of our citizens and our troops in a world in which reciprocity in the decent treatment of prisoners might no longer be honored.
The JAG memos restate these arguments, but they also plunge into new critical territory. In a February 27, 2003 memo summarizing the problems the JAG lawyers had with the Pentagon´s working group proposal, for instance, Kevin M. Sandkuhler, Brigadier General for the Marine Corps, wrote the following: "The authorization of aggressive counter-resistance techniques by service members will adversely impact …Human Intelligence Exploitation and Surrender of Foreign Enemy Forces, and Cooperation and Support of Friendly Nations." Put simply, Sandkuhler was saying that the systematic practice of torture threatened to impede the collection of useful information and so had the potential to deliver a harmful blow to the U.S. war against jihadi terrorism.
If, as both administration officials and their critics agree, information is crucial in preventing terrorist attacks, then the practice of torture needs rethinking on purely strategic grounds. There are two reasons for this. The first, cited commonly by critics as well as in the JAG memos, is simply that, on an individual level, torture is "of questionable practical value in obtaining reliable information." The "ticking bomb" scenario -- you have two hours to foil a plot to blow up part of New York City and a single man with crucial information in your hands -- has yet to find its way into reality (though Fox Broadcasting´s show "24" may have convinced the television-watching population otherwise); nor has the government ever made the claim that they have gathered crucial or even valuable, otherwise unknown or unattainable evidence, from the detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib by such methods. And information obtained through torture is notorious for its unreliability.
Prior to the release of these memos, the second reason has been absent from official documents and most public consideration of the use of torture as policy. As the JAG memos make clear, sooner or later torture seems invariably to become a matter of the public record and, when it does, as with the release of the photos from Abu Ghraib or accounts of torture at Guantanamo, it understandably alienates a rich and unsurpassable source of information -- Muslim communities around the world. As the police in Great Britain and various other European countries will tell you, the apprehension of jihadi terrorists relies heavily not on coercion, but on informants who willingly provide information either for political, ideological, or personal reasons.
Connections to Muslim communities must be based on trust, and such trust is obviously less likely to exist if the threat of detention with torture and without trial is a cornerstone of U.S. policy. It is not a question of Muslims around the world hating Americans, but of Muslims wanting to work with an administration whose policies are built on torture and detention without end or recourse. Underlying any policy of torture in present circumstances, as the writers of the JAG memos recognized even in 2003, is the assumption that it is not worth our while to build real bridges to Muslims (rather than the cosmetic ones envisioned by Karen Hughes, the President´s favorite advisor and new undersecretary of state for public diplomacy). As the military lawyers realized two years ago, the Bush administration´s recourse to torture policies was a sign that its officials neither trusted, nor put much faith in what once would have been considered basic American values; nor believed our policies to be attractive when compared to the hatred that bonds Islamic fundamentalists together. Just as the JAGs sensed it would, this has proved a losing assumption -- and torture the Achilles heel of administration policy -- based on an exceedingly short-sighted concept of national security.
The inverse relationship between success in fighting terrorist enemies and the practice of torture has yet to be sufficiently appreciated either by critics of the administration´s torture policy or by counterterrorist policymakers. Those who defend torture policies insist that opposition to torture, the preference for human rights instead of what they see as realpolitik, is but another example of weak-kneed liberals clinging to straws as compatriots are beheaded, of amnesia over the almost 3,000 who died on September 11th, 2001, and of an overall lack of respect for fighting an effective war against enemies who refuse to play by civilized rules. But they are mistaken, as the Sandkuhler memo -- which opposed torture as much on strategic grounds as moral or constitutional ones --- made clear two years ago.
After the bloody, cruel and dehumanizing events of World War Two, General Dwight D. Eisenhower surveyed the plusses and minuses of America´s engagement with evil. According to Eisenhower, the fact that the US military was known not to abuse prisoners contributed greatly to hastening the end of the war in the European theater; Nazis were willing to turn themselves in to the Allied forces and brought with them information that played an important role in ending the war.
Washington should take note. If their "war on terror" will indeed last decades, as many administration members and supporters claim, then wouldn´t it be better not to shut the door on those Muslims who know that terrorism in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists will harm us all?
Karen J. Greenberg is the Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law and the co-editor of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib as well as editor of two forthcoming books, Al Qaeda Now, Understanding Today´s Terrorists and The Torture Debate in America.
Copyright 2005 Karen J. Greenberg |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
 Sheethead |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Venezuela opens fields to Chinese oil corporation
Venezuela and China signed a "preliminary agreement" for a joint company to drill for light and heavy crude in eastern Venezuela, reported the government owned Petroleos de Venezuela, or PDVSA.
Beijing and Caracas also signed an agreement to quantify and certify oil reserves in an area of the Orinoco Strip, in southeast Venezuela.
The deals were closed in Beijing by the minister in charge of China´s State Development and Reform Commission, Ma Kai, and Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez, who also heads PDVSA.
The mixed company formed by PDVSA and China National Petroleum Corporation, or CNPC, will drill in oilfields in the area of Zumano, site of an estimated 400 million barrels of light and heavy crude oil and 4 trillion cubic feet (some 113 billion cubic meters) of gas, according to Venezuelan data.
The companies also agreed to conduct a study of area Junin 4, a 640-square-kilometer block in the Orinoco Strip, for the purpose of quantifying and certifying oil reserves, estimated at 20 billion barrels, PDVSA said.
After the preliminary study, "we will proceed to discuss a joint project for the production and upgrading of crude, combined with a project to refine in China" indicated the official joint release.
According to PDVSA, Brazil’s Petrobras; China’s CNCP; Spain’s Repsol; India’s ONGC; Iran’s Petropcs and Russia’s Lukoil and Gazprom, all government owned will join in the project.
Venezuela is the world´s fifth exporter of crude and the United States´ fourth main supplier which represents 70% of all the country’s oil exports.
China is the world´ second top oil importer and seeks "to broaden its pool of suppliers to meet its growing demand for energy", concludes the PDVSA release.
Send this article to a friend |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Uzbek Senate Backs U.S. Eviction From Base By AZIZ NURITOV, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 26, 7:34 AM ET
TASHKENT, Uzbekistan - The Uzbek Senate on Friday endorsed the government´s decision to evict U.S. troops from an airbase that has been an important hub for American military operations in Afghanistan.
Uzbekistan´s ties with Washington have deteriorated since the Bush administration joined other nations in urging an international investigation into the suppression of a May uprising in the eastern Uzbek city of Andijan.
Uzbekistan´s president, Islam Karimov, who has ruled the Central Asian nation for 16 years and tolerates no dissent, blamed the violence on Islamic militants.
He has rejected the demands for an outside inquiry, and, facing Western criticism, has found a strong support in Russia and China. Both of them are wary about the U.S. military presence in the strategic and resource-rich region.
The 93 Senators present at the session voted unanimously to support the July 29 order from Karimov´s government giving the United States six months to vacate Karshi-Khanabad, an airbase in the southern Kashkadarya region.
No further action is necessary from the lower chamber, as the government-loyal, 100-seat upper chamber has the final say on parliamentary decisions.
The vote was not necessary to confirm the government´s order. Rather it was seen as an attempt to give that ruling a symbolic show of popular support and legitimize it in the eyes of the international community.
"We know that fundamentalist moods arise wherever U.S. bases appear. Enemies of the United States appear wherever there is a U.S. military presence, and we don´t want to be caught in-between," Kashkadarya governor Nuritdin Zainiyev said before the vote.
The head of the Senate´s foreign relations committee and the country´s former foreign minister, Sadyk Safayev, said the people of Kashkadarya had demanded the troops leave, alleging they had caused environmental damage. He also questioned the need for the troops in Afghanistan.
Uzbekistan issued the demand for the U.S. withdrawal just hours after hundreds of Uzbeks who had fled to Kyrgyzstan after the Andijan uprising were relocated to Romania, a staunch U.S. ally, by the United Nations refugee agency.
"If the U.S. is a friendly country ... how could they prevent the return of Uzbek refugees from Kyrgyzstan?" Senator Surayo Abdukhojayeva demanded.
The United States and other Western countries harshly criticized Uzbekistan for using force against mostly unarmed civilians in Andijan on May 13. Rights groups said up to 750 people died in the crackdown. The government put the death toll at 187.
Zainiyev also complained that Uzbekistan had spent $160 million to maintain the infrastructure of the Karshi-Khanabad base since the arrival of U.S. troops, and the U.S. "didn´t pay anything."
The base has been an important staging point for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan since the earliest days of the war, which began in October 2001. More recently, the base has been used to move supplies, including humanitarian aid, into northern Afghanistan. It also is a refueling point for transport planes. |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Posted by : ilyana on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 01:34 PM CET
Sing to the tune of: "Do you know the Muffin Man?":
Do you know the Carlyle Group?
The Carlyle Group, The Carlyle Group?
Do you know the Carlyle Group,
that invests in military gain?"
Do you know that Tony Blair?
That Tony Blair, That Tony Blair?
Do you know that Tony Blair
has a job offer with same?...
Okay, that´s enough nursery rhyme singing. This isn´t a nursery subject, neither is Blair´s relationship with the Bush Family Financial Tree, their connections with the Saudis, and the equity investment company that nurses the Tree..
War is no child´s play. WAR is The Carlyle Group´s primary business. WAR and that which enhances it´s operations... They own companies that build weapons, telecommunication systems, and aviation support. In fact, even our current president, Dubyah, had a position in 1991 with one of their properties (1a). The Carlyle Group, now 18 years old, is one of the main ´tree keepers´ of the Bush Family Financial Tree.
To Cindy Sheehan, and all who have lost from WAR, (which is just about everyone), if you want to know why you´ve lost, look into the development and practices of the Carlyle Group. If you are unfamilar with them, here´s a general starter...from the incredible news hound, Tom Feeley, and his Information Clearing House:
[link to www.informationclearinghouse.info]
There´s actually two articles listed in that link. The Red Herring article (1b) is particularly brow raising (and the links at the bottom of that article also tell of Carlyle´s involvements in Asia) Here´s a short list of a fraction of the men who have in the past and/or present been involved, either in the administration or as clients of Carlyle:
James Baker III (former US Secretary of State under Bush Senior, recently served on the 2004 election investigation commission with Jimmy Carter),
Frank Carlucci (former US Secretary of Defence and former Deputy director of the CIA, good friend with Donald Rumsfeld and his former wrestling partner at Princeton),
George Herbert Walker Bush (former US president, former director of the CIA),
The Bin Laden Family (the family of Osama, himself),
John Major(previous Prime Minister of Great Britian),
Fidel Ramos (ex-president of the Philippines),
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal (of Saudi Arabia. In various positions of the TOP richest men in the world between 1999 and 2005, see (2),
George Soros (another billionarie),
and many more. While most equity firms have only 10 or 12 employees, Carlyle has 240 (see Red herring article), all over the world.
On 09/11/01, there was a Carlyle group meeting in progress in the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, DC, including the Bin Laden Family, Carlucci and Baker. They watched the images of the twin towers falling on television news. A couple of days later, the Bin Ladens hopped on a jet, unobstructed and flew back to Saudi Arabia. Since the turn of the millenium, the Carlyle Group has added 6 billion dollars to it´s financial worth, in no small part due to the wars that followed 9/11, in Afganistan and Iraq.
They have a system of recycling ´retired´ politicians. The politicians come to the Carlyle Group from positions of authority (partly via political campaign funding?), where they influenced the laws that govern corporate enterprise and/or decisions about who gets government contracts (another example of this ´human resources´ recycling method is Richard Cheney and Halliburton)Then, to further support the corporation, they return to political positions. It is not really ´illegal´, but if you make laws or policies, you can ensure that these relationships are not officially limited by law. Conflict of interests laws and ethics guidelines have been gutted by such politicians, under the guise of "deregulation."
For most people, genuine ethics are not based on legalities, but on an intrinsic sense of right and wrong, fomented by early relationships with family and community.. The practices these politicians and corporations engage in, finagle around the heart of ethic´s laws, to be able to avoid ´legal´ ramifications. It doesn´t make their subsequent actions right. A great deal of rationalization goes into the structure of war mentalities. Of all the sins of man, killing is the one that requires the most "justification".
Now, we have another politician being offered a roost with his backers in the private corporate sector. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been offered a position with the Carlyle Group... And none too soon either... The real estate bubble in Britian is bursting, and good old Tony has lost 700,000 pounds from the value of his estate, but he still has to pay the mortgage at the inflated value.. When he leaves office in 2007 or so, he´ll be able to make 500,000 pounds a year, for a few hours of work per month, stroking the political relationships he has formed during his term of office.(4) Do you think he´ll take it?
Or is he going to be leaving office a little sooner, before his term expires? That´s up to the people of Britain. As far as the rest of the War Mongers and their activities, that is a complex problem that requires a world wide response, beginning with people becoming knowledgable about these persons, practices, and system manipulations. We have to know what is going on, before anything can be done. Cindy Sheehan is one of many emerging, who are leading the way in demanding this information. Then we need the courage, and mutual support to do what needs to be done. Which is to remove these people from positions of power they hold. The biggest challenge is to do so peacefully and not fall into the pit of hypocrisy around which the jagged wheel of war turns.
(1a) [link to www.redherring.com]
excerpt:
"Perhaps even more disconcerting than Carlyle´s ties to the Pentagon are its connections within the White House itself. Aside from signing up George Bush Sr. shortly after his presidential term ended, Carlyle gave George W. Bush a job on the board of Texas-based airline food caterer Caterair International back in 1991. Since Bush the younger took office this year, a number of events have raised eyebrows.
Shortly after George W. Bush was sworn in as president, he broke off talks with North Korea regarding long-range ballistic missiles, claiming there was no way to ensure North Korea would comply with any guidelines that were developed. The news came as a shock to South Korean officials, who had spent years negotiating with the North, assisted by the Clinton administration. By June, Mr. Bush had reopened negotiations with North Korea, but only at the urging of his own father. According to reports, the former president sent his son a memo persuasively arguing the need to work with the North Korean government. It was the first time the nation had seen the influence of the father on the son in office"
(1b)same article linked above: [link to www.redherring.com]
(2) [link to www.forbes.com]
(3) [link to www.informationclearinghouse.info]
excerpt:
"EXHIBIT C: The Carlyle Group, The Bush Family, The War Party, And World
Leaders.
For at least the last twelve years, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush have been engaging in war-profiteering through the CARLYLE GROUP ("CG"). CG is a consortium of wealthy conservatives who operate worldwide as a merchant banking firm. CG is also a major player in the defense and telecommunications industries. CG has been averaging a whopping 34% return for its investors over the past 15 years, and its current estimated worth is $18 billion. Largely through war-profiteering, CG´s worth soared from $12 billion to $18 billion between 2000 and 2005."
(4) [link to www.sundaymirror.co.uk]
excerpt:
"But sources in the City have revealed that he is "seriously considering" a high-profile role with Carlyle - which manages $30billion (£20million) of investments worldwide.
The job could net Mr Blair up to £500,000 a year for only a few days work a month giving speeches and making "networking" trips on behalf of the company."
Copyright Auguust 23, 2005
by
M.K. Meadows
aka ilyana on
[link to www.choicechanges.com]
Please share this information, but do so in it´s entirety, including active links to this original article and the ones referenced.
thank you,
ilyana |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
The US vs The UN
American ambassador seeks to scupper UN´s global strategy with 750 amendments after just three weeks in the job
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 26 August 2005
America´s controversial new ambassador to the United Nations is seeking to shred an agreement on strengthening the world body and fighting poverty intended to be the highlight of a 60th anniversary summit next month. In the extraordinary intervention, John Bolton has sought to roll back proposed UN commitments on aid to developing countries, combating global warming and nuclear disarmament.
Mr Bolton has demanded no fewer than 750 amendments to the blueprint restating the ideals of the international body, which was originally drafted by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.
The amendments are spelt out in a 32-page US version, first reported by the Washington Post and acquired yesterday by The Independent. The document is littered with deletions and exclusions. Most strikingly, the changes eliminate all specific reference to the so-called Millennium Development Goals, accepted by all countries at the last major UN summit in 2000, including the United States.
The Americans are also seeking virtually to remove all references to the Kyoto treaty and the battle against global warming. They are striking out mention of the disputed International Criminal Court and drawing a red line through any suggestion that the nuclear powers should dismantle their arsenals. Instead, the US is seeking to add emphasis to passages on fighting terrorism and spreading democracy.
Very quickly, Mr Bolton has given the answer to anyone still wondering whether his long and difficult journey to New York - President George Bush confirmed him to the post after the US Senate was unable to - would render him coy or cautious. Far from that, he seems intent on taking the UN by the collar and plainly saying to its face what America expects - and does not expect - from it.
To the dismay of many other delegations, the US has even scored out pledges that would have asked nations to "achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015". All references to the date or the percentage level are gone in the Bolton version.
Passages that look forward to a larger role for the General Assembly are gone. Rejected also is a promise to create a standing military capacity for UN peacekeeping.
This show of contempt from Washington and its new envoy comes at a time when Mr Annan has been severely weakened by allegations of widespread corruption, fraud and nepotism. The White House is aware, for example, that Mr Annan himself could be further undermined when investigators into corruption in the oil-for-food programme in Iraq issue their final report, probably just days before the summit itself, due to be held from 14 to 16 September.
The move by MrBolton has thrown preparations for the summit into turmoil, prompting some to question whether there will be anything for the leaders to put their pens to in New York. "We can´t be entirely sure there will be an agreement," one senior United Nations aide admitted last night. Failure to reach an agreement could embarrass Tony Blair, who is believed to have given broad backing to Mr Annan´s original draft.
"It is not great news," said one Western diplomat of the American paper, which had been distributed only to a select group of UN ambassadors by yesterday. "What they are proposing is quite radical. If we start negotiating now the way the Americans want, it is going to make for a very difficult process."
Some UN insiders concede that at 29 pages the proposed text was probably far too long for many of the world´s presidents and prime ministers to accept. They all also see that in its present form it would ask the US to promise to uphold treaties and conventions it has already rejected, including the Kyoto pact.
The president of the General Assembly, Jean Ping of Gambia, must now try to save the summit from disaster. He will bring together a core group of 20 to 30 countries in the days ahead, with Britain and the US included, to see what, if anything, can be found to overcome so many American objections. There is no doubt in the corridors of New York that something must be stitched together before the summit, even if it ends up being very short.
"The purpose of the summit," said Shashi Tharoor, a senior aide to Mr Annan, "is to rekindle the idealism with which the UN was created 60 years ago and to use the birthday to renew the organisation for the purposes of the 21st century. The rest is process and details."
The problem is that the summit is less than three weeks away. "Time is short," Mr Bolton warned in a letter to other UN envoys earlier this week. "In order to maximise our chances of success, I suggest we begin the negotiations immediately."
Guide to the differences in approach
Millennium goals
What the UN wants
Specific references to the UN Millennium Development Goals which set targets to be achieved by 2015 on issues such as poverty, education, disease, trade and aid
What the US wants
References to the Millennium Development Goals systematically removed and replaced by vague references to the reduction of poverty, and a promise to reinforce the trend
The likely outcome
Unlikely to reach agreement. Developing countries will fight hard to keep references to Millennium Development Goals which were agreed by all UN members in 2000
Foreign aid
What the UN wants
To re-state development goals calling for wealthy countries, including the US, to contribute 0.7 per cent of their gross national product to aid
What the US wants
Deletion of all references to 0.7 per cent figure. Wants to link further increases to good housekeeping - and further liberalisation of markets
The likely outcome
Hard to see how there can be a compromise
Climate change
What the UN wants
Concerted global action to address climate change. Further negotiations to look beyond 2012 by broadening Kyoto agreement to include greater participation by developing and developed nations
What the US wants
Stresses energy efficiency and development of new technologies, and rejects global action plan. Rejects assertion that climate change is a long-term challenge that could potentially affect every part of the world
The likely outcome
Could be compromise, as US is prepared to recommit to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Nuclear disarmament
What the UN wants
An appeal to the five nuclear powers - Britain, US, France, China and Russia - to take concrete steps towards nuclear disarmament
What the US wants
To shift focus to halting the spread of the world´s deadliest weapons. Will not specifically recommit to working towards nuclear disarmament, although will recommit to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
The likely outcome
Difficult to envisage agreement after negotiations on a five-year review of the NPT broke up in May without a result
International Criminal Court
What the UN wants
Commitment to end impunity for the most serious violations of international humanitarian law, including genocide, by co-operating with the International Criminal Court
What the US wants
No reference to International Criminal Court, whose statutes the Bush administration controversially withdrew from in 2002
The likely outcome
No agreement. America is out in the cold on this one, although the commitment of a number of other states to the court has been wavering under US pressure
Trade
What the UN wants
Help for developing countries to join the World Trade Organisation
What the US wants
Insistence that countries seeking to join the WTO must be willing and able to undertake WTO commitments. Baulks at "facilitating" entry of developing countries
The likely outcome
Big fight, with developing countries clamouring for access to markets. Probably no agreement
America´s controversial new ambassador to the United Nations is seeking to shred an agreement on strengthening the world body and fighting poverty intended to be the highlight of a 60th anniversary summit next month. In the extraordinary intervention, John Bolton has sought to roll back proposed UN commitments on aid to developing countries, combating global warming and nuclear disarmament.
Mr Bolton has demanded no fewer than 750 amendments to the blueprint restating the ideals of the international body, which was originally drafted by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan.
The amendments are spelt out in a 32-page US version, first reported by the Washington Post and acquired yesterday by The Independent. The document is littered with deletions and exclusions. Most strikingly, the changes eliminate all specific reference to the so-called Millennium Development Goals, accepted by all countries at the last major UN summit in 2000, including the United States.
The Americans are also seeking virtually to remove all references to the Kyoto treaty and the battle against global warming. They are striking out mention of the disputed International Criminal Court and drawing a red line through any suggestion that the nuclear powers should dismantle their arsenals. Instead, the US is seeking to add emphasis to passages on fighting terrorism and spreading democracy.
Very quickly, Mr Bolton has given the answer to anyone still wondering whether his long and difficult journey to New York - President George Bush confirmed him to the post after the US Senate was unable to - would render him coy or cautious. Far from that, he seems intent on taking the UN by the collar and plainly saying to its face what America expects - and does not expect - from it.
To the dismay of many other delegations, the US has even scored out pledges that would have asked nations to "achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance by no later than 2015". All references to the date or the percentage level are gone in the Bolton version.
Passages that look forward to a larger role for the General Assembly are gone. Rejected also is a promise to create a standing military capacity for UN peacekeeping.
This show of contempt from Washington and its new envoy comes at a time when Mr Annan has been severely weakened by allegations of widespread corruption, fraud and nepotism. The White House is aware, for example, that Mr Annan himself could be further undermined when investigators into corruption in the oil-for-food programme in Iraq issue their final report, probably just days before the summit itself, due to be held from 14 to 16 September.
The move by MrBolton has thrown preparations for the summit into turmoil, prompting some to question whether there will be anything for the leaders to put their pens to in New York. "We can´t be entirely sure there will be an agreement," one senior United Nations aide admitted last night. Failure to reach an agreement could embarrass Tony Blair, who is believed to have given broad backing to Mr Annan´s original draft.
"It is not great news," said one Western diplomat of the American paper, which had been distributed only to a select group of UN ambassadors by yesterday. "What they are proposing is quite radical. If we start negotiating now the way the Americans want, it is going to make for a very difficult process."
Some UN insiders concede that at 29 pages the proposed text was probably far too long for many of the world´s presidents and prime ministers to accept. They all also see that in its present form it would ask the US to promise to uphold treaties and conventions it has already rejected, including the Kyoto pact.
The president of the General Assembly, Jean Ping of Gambia, must now try to save the summit from disaster. He will bring together a core group of 20 to 30 countries in the days ahead, with Britain and the US included, to see what, if anything, can be found to overcome so many American objections. There is no doubt in the corridors of New York that something must be stitched together before the summit, even if it ends up being very short.
"The purpose of the summit," said Shashi Tharoor, a senior aide to Mr Annan, "is to rekindle the idealism with which the UN was created 60 years ago and to use the birthday to renew the organisation for the purposes of the 21st century. The rest is process and details." |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Scrap the ideals, Bolton tells UN :
In an extraordinary intervention, United States appointee John Bolton has
sought to roll back proposed UN commitments on aid to developing countries,
combating global warming and nuclear disarmament.
[link to www.informationclearinghouse.info]
This is getting to depressing. These guys got thier hands in everything, now don´t throw your fork b |
| Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Uh... rrick, I read ONE sentence.
When I read the phrase "dried dog shit" in the very first sentence, that was it for me.
Are you kidding me?
Please post a source link before you quote anything - put it as the first line of your post - that way I´ll hopefully know whether to bother even reading one sentence or not. |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
A Nurse´s Perspective on Iraq
By Gray Television
08/26/05 "Gray Television" -- -- First Lutentant Rachel Grover has been serving as a nurse in Iraq since the beginning of December. On leave for two weeks Rachel is relaxing with family and friends. But she talks about how the injuries to soldiers have gone from bullet wounds to something worse.
“IED Injuries...shrapnel wounds a lot of burns and amputations stuff like that”
Both bullets and IED’s can take a soldiers life but Rachel says IED’s leave a deeper scar in her psyche than do bullet wounds.
“These poor young boys most of them 18, 19, 20 years old out there getting blown up. And they come in and you see pictures of their families falling out of there wallet...it just makes you angry.”
Something that doesn´t make her angry about her time in Iraq, is that she met her boyfriend their. Also serving as a nurse in the 86th Combat support unit Scott explains how having each other during such a difficult time in their lives, makes things more tolerable.
“To be there with her she sees it first hand so when we had a full day when we saw some pretty traumatic things we don’t have to talk about it, we can just relax.”
Rachel and Scott both look forward to coming home for good. But until then they will continue to do their jobs-which they consider to be an honor.
“I just want every one to know if they have a family member over there they are going to get the best medical treatment possible we save a lot of lives.”
Copyright © 2002-2005 - Gray Television Group, Inc. |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Acts of hate: full list of ´deportation´ acts
By Times Online
The Home Office today published a list of "unacceptable behaviours" which will lead to the deportation or exclusion of any foreign national who commits them from the UK.
According to the Home Secretary the list is indicative rather than exhaustive and covers any non-UK citizen whether in the UK or abroad.
Terrorist violence
Cannot foment, justify, glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
Terrorist acts
Cannot seek to provoke others to terrorist acts
Criminal acts
Cannot foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts
Inter-community violence
Cannot foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.
Method
Individuals who do the above by any means or medium are caught by the legislation, including:
- writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;
- public speaking including preaching
- running a website
- using a position of responsibility such as teacher, community or youth leader
The warrants have been issued the groups anylysing war crimes are working 18 hrs a day, without the people looks like |
| Lord Cornwallis, Redux
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Singing this song will once again be treason as it invokes an act of terror & stirs the peasantry
BOOLAVOGUE
At Boolavogue, as the sun was setting
O´er the bright May meadows of Shelmalier,
A rebel hand set the heather blazing
And brought the neighbours from far and near.
Then Father Murphy, from old Kilcormack,
Spurred up the rocks with a warning cry;
"Arm! Arm!" he cried, "for I´ve come to lead you,
For Ireland´s freedom we fight or die."
He led us on ´gainst the coming soldiers,
And the cowardly Yeomen we put to flight;
´Twas at the Harrow the boys of Wexford
Showed Bookey´s Regiment how men could fight
Look out for hirelings, King George of England,
Search ev´ry kingdom where breathes a slave,
For Father Murphy of the County Wexford
Sweeps o´er the land like a mighty wave.
We took Camolin and Enniscorthy,
And Wexford storming drove out our foes;
´Twas at Sliabh Coillte our pikes were reeking
With the crimson stream of the beaten Yeos.
At Tubberneering and Ballyellis
Full many a Hessian lay in his gore;
Ah, Father Murphy, had aid come over
The green flag floated from shore to shore!
At Vinegar Hill, o´er the pleasant Slaney,
Our heroes vainly stood back to back,
And the Yeos at Tullow took Father Murphy
And burned his body upon the rack.
God grant you glory, brave Father Murphy
And open heaven to all your men;
The cause that called you, may call tomorrow
In another fight for the Green again.
Father John Murphy of Boolavogue (in Wexford) led his parishioners in routing the Camolin Cavalry on May 26, 1798. The Wexford insurgents were eventually defeated at Vinegar Hill on June 21. Father Murphy and the other rebel leaders were hanged.
PJ McCall, 1861-1919
For more background, a timeline:
[link to homepages.iol.ie] |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Anonymous Coward
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Busy arent we |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
Wakeup Call Message
August 26, 2005
Hatonn
My dear ones, this is a day of fun and relaxation. This is a day to rejoice that you are
alive. It is a day to get out into the sunshine and to find the way that you have of
bringing sense into the world that you inhabit.
I AM Hatonn, and I come to you today with some news of import for all of you. This news is
that there is coming an envoy of messengers that will be carrying the load for many of you,
in as far as the changes that you have been undergoing are concerned.
As these ones come from the Federation and various other groups of the galaxy, they do so
with the intent to satisfy as many tremblings of events that are taking place. In that we
see that though many of you have the knowledge that there is no need to worry, that all will
be fine at the end of this tryst that the illuminati are carrying out, there is still the
concern for the families of those who have lost their lives and for those who are in the
line of fire right now.
I see that with these envoys there is coming a release and relieving of the anxiety with
which you approach these events. This is understandable, for it sorrows us to see the
anguish. That is why we have sent these ones to lighten your load, while at the same time to
remind you of your sovereignty and the power of your thoughts.
So, that is why I say, get out there and play, relieve the tension that you are under, and
know that you are not being disloyal to those who are in despair. Know that as you relax and
play you lend an air of relief to them as well. You hold them in your heart as surely as you
do anyone who is dear to you.
They feel it, for as you direct your thoughts to them while in the midst of
lightheartedness, that reflects to them and gives them a feeling that they can get through
this, and that at the end of the nightmare comes the dream of love and unity. Then they will
loose the feeling of despair and welcome in the healing energy of the love and compassion
that is being held for them all around the globe. The more of you who do that, the stronger
they feel it.
Do you see why it is important for you to hold the light and the feeling of joy for them? Do
you realize that as they go off into battle and experience the pangs of war, you remain at
home in dedication to their lives and their choices, just as surely as you do so for
yourself and anyone else?
That is the unitedness that you are living, my dear ones. That is the way that the light
becomes infused in all that is experienced around the globe. That is what keeps humanity
strong and able to see the truth when they reach deep inside for the wisdom that helps them
to make sense of all of this.
As you go out into your world and change the things you can change, you also bring a
potential of change to everyone else. Through you thoughts of people like Cindy Sheehan and
all the others who are banded in a tight love knot with her, you only need to give thoughts
of love to them and the situation they are involved with, and they are strengthened as are
you. This is a time when so many are stepping up and declaring their truth, and that is that
they are peace and they demonstrate that as they give their all to their cause.
We are all heartened by the events as we see them unfold. We see a great cloud of love in
glorious colors of gold, violet, pink and chartreuse hovering over all who are standing in
peace. We see those same colors emitted forth from each one of you who direct your thoughts
to them. That is how powerful you all are.
Another thing that we see as this is taking place in the US is that over the Middle East
there are gathering in pockets the very same colors, shining forth and affecting the
soldiers and the civilians as well. We see some of them pausing in their battle and putting
down their weapon, as they weep for the deed they have just done.
We see children assimilating the colors and energies and shining forth their own to join
those of the world. These children then smile and touch the hearts of the soldiers who
gather and pause in their flight through the villages. They pause and give a moment’s
thanks, for they know that in those children they see God.
With these words I close this transmission. For everyone who gives a thought to peace, there
is one more person on the other side of the globe who responds and allows their light to
shine a little more. For every time that light shines forth into the stratosphere there is a
message that goes directly to the heart and soul of all who are involved in bringing the
reason for the vigil.
This has great power in the transformation of the darkness into light. Believe it when I say
to you that there is nothing that cannot be done when the likes of all of you are in the
soup of love and thanksgiving, for anything less than your love and compassion coupled with
the intent for peace
would be as mere broth. You have added much to this pot and have brought a creation of
superb glory to the supper upon which all of mankind can feast and bring peace, freedom, and
joy to all of mankind.
Thank you dear Commander Hatonn,
Love, Nancy Tate |
| rrick
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
MATTHEW: Mother, thank you on behalf of the host of souls in whose company I am. Once
again I have been requested by light beings at this universal viewing station to speak for
us all. We are here to inform you of potential events and urge you to stay steadfast in the
light—do not give in to fear!
In my last message I spoke of the Illuminati’s desperation as they keep seeing their power
ebbing and the madness that has permeated them to such extent that despite all logic, they
are determined to wage war on still another front. I also said that in the field of
potential, energy momentum toward an invasion of Iran had moved from “possibility” status to
“probability.” As devoutly as we wish we could tell you that that status has reversed
course, or even remained steady, we now can see that neither is a likely outcome.
We are NOT saying that invading Iran is cast in stone! We are saying that it will take a
monumental light effort to prevent it, and it is within your power to do this! Due to the
successful fright tactics of mainstream media particularly in the United States, the former
intensity of light being generated by peace-loving peoples around the world has been dimmed
by the ever encroaching fear. At the same time some headlines blare Iran’s proceeding with
nuclear development programs and the possibility that the US government will counter that
with its nuclear power, other headlines are revisiting the terror of “9/11” and reporting
“intelligence” information about imminent terrorist threats in mainland United States.
It is recognized there that fear paralyzes, and the Illuminati media controllers—willing
puppets of the off-planet dark entities—are promulgating fear-filled news. The off-planet
dark ones know that the energy of fear establishes a barrier between souls and light, and
even more than before, alienating you from the light is their thrust. The light has dimmed
even in you who are praying for and working toward peace but have become fearful about a new
warfront and catastrophic terrorism, and accordingly you cannot absorb the light being
beamed to you by your space family.
It was the former brilliance of light on your planet that kept the field of potential war
status at “possibility”—the status of thought forms about any and every kind of condition or
situation—and it was the amount of light reduction that moved that status to “probability.”
At this point, the energy momentum of the dark has progressed to where attacks upon Iran can
be avoided only by prompt elimination of the powerful fear that has infiltrated peoples
around the world. The energy attachments of fear are fuel for the dark ones—at the same
time that light loss from fear is debilitating you, it is empowering them.
This intensive fear-producing effort was not necessary prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Opposition to that was present, yes, but once the fear of global terrorism initiated by
“9/11” subsided, there came a complacency that released the fear energy. That long-intended
invasion—planned years before “9/11,” which itself was part of the plan—proceeded with the
support of those who were beguiled into believing the fraudulent reasons relentlessly put
forth by the leaders of the US and British governments.
Growing awareness about the deceit underlying that war and the unanticipated strength of
Iraqi opposition to occupation, which has produced many more troop deaths and injuries and
much greater loss of fighting equipment and supplies than estimated, make war expansion
raving lunacy. Lunacy is the state of mind of those who are determined to press forward.
Growing awareness on another front is impelling their continuance of a world control plan
gone terribly awry: the still unpublicized indictments with undeniable evidence that
President Bush, Vice President Cheney and others lied about the reasons for needing to
invade Iraq. Because their efforts to date have been futile in squashing the legal
proceedings, regardless of the obvious risks in spreading so thinly the available fighting
forces, the Bush camp is obsessed with moving into Iran before the indictment documents
become public knowledge. They are convinced that soon they will control most of the world’s
oil, which will assure victory in obtaining all else they desire, and neither their nation’s
laws nor world opinion will matter.
That conviction in itself shows how far lunacy has overtaken Bush and his endorsers because
they know that a military move into Iran would be met by serious opposition. Whereas once
the powerful Illuminati was unified in intent to proceed steadily toward global domination,
the egos that arose split the force into two factions that have been waging an internal
struggle for that prize, as they see it. Both have CIA “black ops” agents within their
camps, and terrorist acts have been committed by both. These have aided both factions
insofar as the resultant fear and other negativity, but at this point, it is all-out
internal war, and that is why an invasion of Iran would bring into the fray an opposing
force that the conquest of Iraq did not. The non-Bush faction was quite content to let
their opponent faction rush into Iraq and become continually weaker as that non-Bush faction
supplied willing Iraqis with weapons and their CIA terrorists’ acts contributed to keeping
the battles going. Thus, what only appears to be US aggression is actually Illuminati
infighting for the same goal.
It is logical to think: Does it matter which faction is dominant if both have the same
intention? It does only in the very short term as to what may ensue in the Mideast. With
all of their strongholds crumbling beyond repair, particularly in banking and economic areas
and their influence in governments, the once-all powerful Illuminati is steadily
disintegrating. Many within its ranks have defected and become light warriors. It is only
those at the peak who are orchestrating the Mideast situation.
Strategically publicizing this as leading to World War III, and possibly a nuclear war at
that, is the most successful of the fear factors. We tell you: There will be NO nuclear
war! There will be no Third World War! At most there would be a very temporary clash of
the military forces commanded by the two Illuminati factions—anything beyond that would fall
within God’s honoring Earth’s free will choice that no more acts of death and destruction on
the scale of “9/11” shall occur. If that clash does take place, you will see troops on both
sides refusing to fight in such numbers that further combat is doomed. They will see
weapons failing to function, vehicles that won’t move, missiles that fizzle—do not doubt
that the technology of our space family can achieve this!—and even the Illuminati commanders
will see the futility of continuing.
Now I shall digress a moment to reply to a question in some minds. Readers familiar with my
messages and the books know that often I have stated, there will be no nuclear detonations
in space, and in my last message I explained why Creator made this exception to Its law of
free will. It is not an arbitrary decision that this does not apply equally to free will
choices to use nuclear weaponry at ground level or the lower skies, where bodies but NOT
souls can be destroyed by the explosions. Regardless of how bodies die, and as tragic as
the deaths are to the people who love those whose physical lives are lost, the souls are not
damaged. This is due to the difference in energy densities. The lower density of Earth
“muffles” the effects of nuclear matter and thus can protect the souls in near space or on
the planet; it is in the frequencies of the higher, or lighter, densities where souls living
as free spirits or those in astral travels have been damaged by nuclear explosions. Any
attempts at detonations beyond the “cut-off” line will be neutralized by the technology of
our space light warriors who, in all attempt instances, have successfully accomplished this.
Now then, there also is much fear arising from speculation that the Bush administration will
need a major terrorist act within US borders as the reason to invade Iran. To the growing
numbers who believe that “9/11” was the excuse for declaring war on Iraq, this is a logical
fear. We are aware of both the “intelligence” reports about those heavily populated cities
as likely targets and the plans to take certain actions but not necessarily in line with the
reports. When Earth declared that she and her life forms never again would experience
terrorist acts on that scale, God authorized members of our space family to intervene in any
such attempts. Intervention may not prevent all of the deaths and destruction, but it would
dramatically reduce the intended scope.
Again we emphasize that a prompt turnaround from fearing these potential happenings can
prevent them! The power of the light is incalculable! We ask that you stop focusing on the
mainstream news that keeps fear building. The same with the Internet reports being
circulated—some are thoughtful assessments of viable information and others are deliberate
scare tactics. Yes, be truthfully informed, but do not be fearful!
It is the light intensity to which you contributed that reached the Illuminati members who
embraced it and became effective light warriors. They had been captive of their own
fear—fear of the light—and it was the constant beaming to them that penetrated that. The
same can happen with the remaining dark ones! If need be to regain your steadfastness in
sending forth love-light to those lacking it, send it to Earth herself! To you who never
have wavered, we ask that you intensify your beaming!
We understand that you may regard our plea as “easy for us to say” because we don’t know
what it is like to be “in your shoes.” Not only have many of us at this station experienced
multiple physical lifetimes in fearful circumstances in the universe, but our love energy
bonding with you lets us feel exactly what you are feeling. It is true that in these higher
vibrations those feelings cannot last as they do on Earth, but our love for you does not
permit the absence of empathy.
In these troubled hours on Earth, we can see from our vantage point what you cannot from
yours: the bright dawn of peace and love at your doorstep. Stay the course toward this
world on your near horizon, our beloved family, knowing that light beings throughout the
universe are helping to speed your journey. |
| article99ucmj
12/8/2005 10:09 AM | | Re: lotta Bullshit | Quote |
We Were Soldiers is FICTION
From: Russell L Ross
Date: 2/24/2003
Time: 8:25:06 PM
Remote Name: 205.188.209.39
Comments
Well you see I was there
in the movie the only thing true is Moore being the first one on X-Ray and the Bugle being picked up at X-Ray and no he was not the last to leave X-Ray he left on the 3rd lift out and came back. the rest is Fiction as was the story X-Ray part.
Moore didnt see Galloway save Nakayama
Mr. JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY HAD NO MILITARY SERVICE, Training AT ALL.
Who am I? lzalbany65@aol.com Russell L. Ross 1741 Maysong ct. San Jose, Ca 95131-2727 ph 408 926-9336
Sept 1965-66 SP/4 Russell L. Ross RA17630469 D company 2nd Battalion 7th Cavalry Recon Platoon ( LoneRanger call sign ) 1st Cavalry Division Airmobile An Khe Vietnam.
1964 B company 1st Battalion 511 Infantry ( Airborne ) 11 Air Assualt ( test ) FT. Benning, Georgia.
1965 B company 1/511 became B company 2nd Battalion 8th Cavalry ( Airborne ) 1st Cavalry Division Airmobile FT. Benning, Georgia.
And in July 1965 I was sent to the 2nd Battalion 7th Cavalry 1st Cavalry Division Airmobile.
JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY ( Rambo The Reporter ) IS NOW SELLING HIS COMBAT PICTURES FROM LANDING ZONE X-RAY. Joseph L. Galloway The Walter Mitty of the war, Rambo the Reporter, A Plagiarist, Fiction writer, and now add fraud.
Galloway brandishes a Swedish K submachinegun at Danang in August 1965. day battle. Joe prior to Xray battle
He is the only civilian to receive a medal from the U.S. Army for valor during the Vietnam War—a Bronze Star with Combat V for rescuing wounded soldiers under fire in the Ia Drang Valley in November 1965.
( Even though Moore didnt see him do this he wrote him up for it .added by me )
A veteran of 42 years in journalism with United Press International and U.S. News & World Report, he is coauthor with retired Army Lieutenant General Harold G. Moore of We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young (New York: Random House, 1992).
Galloway—the award-winning newsman and current special consultant to Secretary of State General Colin Powell spoke recently with Fred L. Schultz at U.S. Naval Institute headquarters. STEVE NORTHUP [link to www.usni.org]
Why is Joseph L. Galloway altering his combat pictures of Landing Zone X-Ray?? is it becouse they show the truth and not the lies written by Galloway and Moore in their Book We Were Soldiers Once and Young ( The X-Ray part ).
Joseph L. Galloway is altering some of his combat pictures to match the story line in the book, as he now has the equipement to change them.
!!!!!WARNING!!!!! if you buy these pictures, be warned, some of the pictures you see at this web site isnt the orignal pictures.
The photographs offered are from the personal collection of Joe Galloway ( Rambo the Reporter ) and were taken at LZ X-Ray during and after the action in the Ia Drang Valley, November 14-16, 1965. The images reflect the savagery of the combat, a feel for the emotions of the soldiers involved and a sense for the terrain in which the battle was fought.
The photographs have never before been published and most have been seen only by a handful of participants in the action. ( Actually some pictures have been published and seen by over 26 million people ) These images will help put a real face on the people, places and events in the upcoming movie, "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young", starring Mel Gibson. A film based on the book of the same name by Lt. Gen. Hal Mooore and Joe.
Ia Drang Scholarship Fund.... As a lasting tribute to the men of the 1st of the 7th Cavalry who gave so much in the Ia Drang, a permanent scholarship fund was established for the children and grandchildren of those who died in action in this heroic event. To honor that commitment, 10% of the purchase price of every Joe Galloway at the Ia Drang photo will be donated to the fund.
Stories Part Fiction he embelished for them. U.S. NEWS and World Report Oct 29,1990 Pg 32 Fatal Victory Pg 36 Vietnam Story.
ARTICLES Galloway Plagarized. U.S. News and World Report Oct 25, 93 Page 45 Step by Step into a Quagmire SOURCE: Stanley Karnows Vietnam a History Pages 479-485.
U.S. News and World Report Feb 4,1991 Page 49 "Who´s Afraid of the truth" SOURCE: Solnding Zone X-Ray?? is it becouse they show the truth and not the lies written by Galloway and Moore in their Book We Were Soldiers Once and Young ( The X-Ray part ).
Joseph L. Galloway is altering some of his combat pictures to match the story line in the book, as he now has the equipement to change them.
!!!!!WARNING!!!!! if you buy these pictures, be warned, some of the pictures you see at this web site isnt the orignal pictures.
The photographs offered are from the personal collection of Joe Galloway ( Rambo the Reporter ) and were taken at LZ X-Ray during and after the action in the Ia Drang Valley, November 14-16, 1965. The images reflect the savagery of the combat, a feel for the emotions of the soldiers involved and a sense for the terrain in which the battle was fought.
The photographs have never before been published and most have been seen only by a handful of participants in the action. ( Actually some pictures have been published and seen by over 26 million people ) These images will help put a real face on the people, places and events in the upcoming movie, "We Were Soldiers Once...And Young", starring Mel Gibson. A film based on the book of the same name by Lt. Gen. Hal Mooore and Joe.
Ia Drang Scholarship Fund.... As a lasting tribute to the men of the 1st of the 7th Cavalry who gave so much in the Ia Drang, a permanent scholarship fund was established for the children and grandchildren of those who died in action in this heroic event. To honor that commitment, 10% of the purchase price of every Joe Galloway at the Ia Drang photo will be donated to the fund.
Stories Part Fiction he embelished for them. U.S. NEWS and World Report Oct 29,1990 Pg 32 Fatal Victory Pg 36 Vietnam Story.
ARTICLES Galloway Plagarized. U.S. News and World Report Oct 25, 93 Page 45 Step by Step into a Quagmire SOURCE: Stanley Karnows Vietnam a History Pages 479-485.
U.S. News and World Report Feb 4,1991 Page 49 "Who´s Afraid of the truth" SOURCE: Soldier of Fortune Dec 84 Pg 104 Press Escorts by Fred Tucker. ( TUCKERS GORRILLAS ).
In the movie Gibson portray Galloway as a Reporter who pick´s up a weapon only to protect the wounded. BUT!!! Galloway was the most heavely armed Reporter in Vietnam.
Page 32 Joseph L. Galloway Had wrangled a ride in to the Plie Me camp while it was under siege, and becouse of the shortages of fighters found him self assigned to a .30 cal light machine gun. With two other reporters After the battle was over Major Charles Beckwith hands Galloway an M-16 rifle, Galloway told Beckwith, Strictly speaking, under the Geneva Convention he was "A civilian noncombatant." As you see there is no logic. Galloway has just spent 3 days maning a .30 cal machine gun killing PAVN troops and after the battle is over decides he is a civilian noncombatant?
The question is why didnt Galloway join the service? He was always to busy playing Soldier instead of being a Reporter. He wanted to be at any battle he could get to, to record it, But when he get´s there at the battle. He start´s to play Soldier. You cant write or record History, While you busy playing soldier.
Of all the reporters in Vietnam, Galloway was the most danegerous to the Americian troops, in His Walter Mitty and Rambo persona. He had no idea what the soldier´s job was, He as a reporter and could do what he wanted and go where he wanted to at any time. Joseph L. Galloway( Rambo the Reporter ) ROAMED all over VIETNAM, Killing as he pleased.
Page 35 November 13,1965 Galloway hitched a ride from Pleiku to Catecha the 3 Brigade headquaters Galloway " I dug a foxhole out on the perimeter with B company 1/7, Under one of those $50.00 tea bushes, set out some spare! magazines ( M-16 ).
Galloway playing Soldier, It would have been better if he said I set out some spare film rolls. to record events, his mind set is playing soldier.
Page 32 Galloway writes: " At first lite I pinched of a small piece of C-4 explosive from the emergency supply in my pack and used it to boil up a canteen cup of water for coffee.
Walter Mitty part: If you lit C-4 very carefully you could be drinking hot coffee in maybe 30 secounds. If you were careless it blew your arm off.
If Galloway was so eager to receive the Bronze Star, Then he should be ready to pay the price for violating the UCMJ. Conspiring to take a $500,000 Helicopter and receiving Military equipement, 1 M16 Rifle, 1 Carl Gustaf,
I had to sign for all my equipement as all soldiers did and had to turn it in when I left, Who did Galloway leave the M-16 with, Does he have papers saying he turned it in? The same with the Carl Gustaf, Where did he get it? Did he buy it, Pick it up on the Battlefield? Did he sell it when he left? If he turned it in, Does he have the paper work to show it?
Galloway conspired with a friend ( A Huey Pilot )into flying into Plei Me camp. There were orders for all aircraft to stay out of the area, The friend went AWOL, He and Galloway took the Huey and flew into Plei Me, Beckwith needed, medical, and ammo.
At Plei Me Major Charles Beckwith had put Galloway and 2 other Reporters on a machinegun. and had given Galloway an M-16 Rifle.
MYTH´s: Page 156-157 Vincent Cantu and Galloway meet during fierce attack on D and C company´s. Galloway was taking pictures. Vincent Cantu braved the fire and sprinted to where Galloway was.
TRUTH: Soldier of Fortune Sept 83 Page 28 Galloway writes "During a ( LULL!!)." I met Vincent Cantu this was before the(skyhawk) naplmed the Command post.
MYTH´s: Page 35 Galloway The plantation billed the U.S. $50 for each tea bush and $250 for each rubber tree.
TRUTH: Soldier of Fortune Sept 83 Page 25 Galloway They billed U.S.$25 for each tea bush $125 for each rubber tree.
Galloway only left the saftey of the Command Post During " LULL´s " in the Battle, As soon as the firing started up, He would headed right back to the Command post, He only took pictures of the dead and wounded. Where are his action pictures?
Fiction We Were Soldiers Once and Young X-Ray part. page references are from the hardback.
FICTION: Fabarication applies particulary to a false but carefully invented statement or a series of statements, in which some truth is sometimes interwoven, the whole usually intended to deceive.
The Greatest Hero "People everywhere are smitten- With a tale that is written. Once a hero´s deeds are known- They´re as good as etched in stone. Every word, folks take to heart- And think this makes them very smart. Amazing how the very wise- Never stop to realize- That what they read may not be true. Groo
Moral: Even when the words are true the may not speak the truth Groo
Can you make Col. Klink ( Moore ) and Rambo the Reporter (Galloway ) into hero´s pages from the hardback
Lt. Col. Moore was the Col. Klink of the war? He knew nothing, nothing
Page 17 Moore´s new concepts & techniques were written in the 1950´s FM 57-35 Army Transport Avation-Combat Operations, 1963 FM 57-35 Airmobile Operations. by Officers he worked with? in 1957. Moore in 1957 "I was in on the concept of Airmobility with Gavin, Norton, Seneff Williams". With 2 1/2 years writing, 1 1/2 years training in Airmobile tatics in the 11Air Assault Division Test, for a total of 4 years and yet he retained nothing about Airmobile tatics.
Page 37 Crandall "Moore wanted Aviation present, to be part of his Staff".
Moore, Crandall or his ALO had to coordinate the flight time from Plei Me to X-Ray, flight routes, fire support, resuppy, Medevac Huey.
Moore couldnt plan the operation with out Crandall ( aviation ) present.
Page 60 As Crandall flared the huey to land at Landing Zone X-Ray Moore & his troops starts firing their weapons.
FM 57-35 There is no firing from the helicopter during flight, landing or any other time.
Pity the troop to their right a face full of hot brass, left ear drums ringing, brass on floor or getting caught in the Huey´s controls
Moore who had been listening to the battle of Landing Zone Albany on the radio voluntered for the 1st Battalion 7th Cavalry to go to Columbus to guard the artillary, So the 2nd Battalion 5th Cavalry could go and reinforce ALBANY.
MYTHS of The Ia Drang Valley Some Officers even Kinnard stated that Moore voluntered to go into ALBANY but he didn’t. and from Persons in the book That Moore and Galloway write good about give in return and adds to the MYTHS about the 1/7 and Moore.
One Reporter Bob Poos of Soldier of Fortune writes that Moore and the 1st Battalion 7th Cavalry was the ones who relived the Plie me camp,
Soldier of Fortune March 83 page 29-30 ARVN AMBUSH 3rd column last 2 paragraphs.
Plie Me did get relief- with a vengeance- from the 1st Cavalry Division. Through a strange coincidance, the camp commander, Capt Harold Moore, Learned later that much of the relief force was commanded by a name sake, Lt. Col. Harold Moore commander of the 1st Battalion 7th Cavalry.
When in fact it was my old unit the 2nd Battalion 8th Cavalry.
Capt George Forrest when he spoke to the Old Guard said Lt. Col. Moore was there in the 11AAD in 1963.
So starts the myths about Lt. Col. Moore and the 1st Battalion 7th Cavalry.
Moore idea would cost time becouse the 1st Battalion 7th Cavalry would have to be to Columbus 4 hours, Then the 2nd Battalion 5th Cavalry would have to be flown to Albany another 4 hours. 8 hours to renforce Albany?
So why didn’t Kinnard send the 1st Battalion 7th Cavalry to reinforce ALBANY?
They were probally to drunk? they had spent the day of the 17 in the Bars of Pleiku
The most outrageous LIE Page 287 At Landing Zone Albany. There on the dying enemy soldier something shiny. A big battered old French army Bugle.
FACT: This Bugle was captured at Landing Zone X-Ray and brought into Landing Zone Albany by the reinforcements.
Leadership Principle 1 Be Technically and Tactically Proficent To know you job thoroughly, you must posses not only specific knowledge of its details but also a broad general knowledge concerning its area of intrest. you should be competent in combat operations and training as well as in the technical and admimistrative aspects of your duties. If you demonstrate deficincies in these functions,your subordinates will lose confidance in you as a leader.
Moore is under the delusion he has come up with a new Air Assault tatic for the 1st lift would doom his men. for the want of a nail, The 2nd Battalion 7th Cavalry. As the Battle of Landing Zone X-Ray would grind up, The Troops, Helicopters and Artillary. Making them unavalible for other units.
Leading to the walk to Landing Zone Albany by the 2/7.
What happend. It would appear Moore would be the first one chosen by Kinnard for the 11 AIr Assault test, When it started up in 1963 but he wasnt.
He had To write a letter to Major General Kinnard ( His Old Boss ) begging for a Infantry Battalion in the 11 air Assault Division.
It wasent till 1964, 1 year after it started he got the call. He didnt get one with the 11 Air Assault but instead was given a Infantry Battalion in the 2 infantry Division. The 2nd Battalion 23rd Infantry.
Moore Had never commanded a Infantry Battalion before.
But one of the hand picked officers by Kinnard in 1963 was Lt. Col McDade, He was chosen for the G-1 spot, He would be given command of the 2nd Battilion 7th Cavalry around November 7,1965 aproximately 10 days before the battle of Landing Zone Albany.
McDade Had never Commanded a Infantry Battalion before.
THERE WAS ANOTHER FACTOR, MOORE AND MCDADE WERE HAVING A POWER STRUGGLE.
Keep abreast of current military devolopements. Moore "I thought up a new technique for the inital lift." There are only two types of Air assaults.
Moore under the delusion he had come up with a new technique.
The ground Commander ( Moore ) must concider two general types of Airmobile assault when preparing the ground tatical plan. These types of assaults differ primarily in the proximity of the LZ to the assault objective
The first and preferred type is the landing of the assault ehelons immediately on, or adjacent to, the objective
The secound type of assault involves landing a distance from the objective in a secure LZ, and requires assembly, reorganization, and movement to an attack position prior to the assault on the objective.
What happend to Moore´s H-hour.
Moore Get´s his H-hour confused with the Attack time in the mission order.
H-hour in air assault terms is difined as the time the lead helicopter touches down on the Landing Zone.
Moore puts the H-hour at H-1030.
He then gets word the Artillary cant fire until H-1017. H-hour get delayed. 1 incremint? ( usually 15 minutes ).
So that should make H-hour, H-1045.
But Moore ( who is in the lead Huey ) dosent set foot on LZ X-Ray until H-1048,
3 minutes late.
Lt. Col. Moore and Joseph L. Galloway´s part.( the enlisted mens,Officers, Junior Officers and the 2/5, Bco 2/7 and 2/7 Battalion stories cannot be disputed.)
Moore couldnt READ a MAP? Page 30 November 9, 1965 Moore "What does the RED STAR that is on the intelligence map mean?"
The Red Star is not a military symbol its explanation should have been on the lower right side ( margin ) of the map.
Moore " I had no doubt the 1/7 my Battalion would be chosen to mount the attack into the Ia Drang as the 2/7 had a new commander.
Fact!! " the 1/7 was closer to the objective then the 2/7 " and had nothing to do with the readiness of the Battalions. (Gen.John J Tolson).
Page 17 Moore´s new concepts & techniques were written in the 1950´s FM 57-35 Army Transport Avation-Combat Operations.1960´s FM 57-35 Airmobile Operations.
By Officers he worked with?
Page 17 1957 Moore "I was in on the concept of Airmobility with Pentagon Reasearch and developement group. Moore "I was the 1st man in the Airborne Branch". 4 years writing and training in Airmobile tatics.
Yet Moore retained nothing about Airmobile tatics.
Page 41 Moore "I thought up a new technique for the inital lift".
There are only 2 types of Air assaults This is the 2 one.
Page 37 Crandall "Moore wanted Aviation to be present, to be part of his Staff"
FM 57-35>Both the Ground Commander ( Moore ) and Aviation Commander ( Crandall ) or his ALO had to coordinate>flight time from Plei Me to X-Ray, flight routes,resuppy. Moore couldnt plan the operation with out Avation present.
FM 57-35 Key personnel are distributed among the aircraft of the lift so the loss of one aircraft does not destroy the command structure.
Page 58 Moore and Crandall in the same Huey.
Page 59 The lift is flying at 110 knots.
FM 57-35 When diffrent types of aircraft fly in a single lift, cruising speed of the slower aircraft must be the controlling speed of the lift.
UH-1B´s are Gunships fly at 80 knots
UH-1D´s are Slicks 110 knots.
I ask Bco´s 1/7 3rd Platoon Leader Dennis Deal, why didnt Moore lay on water for his men ( B co would be on the LZ for over 4 hours ) and why he said it was not the Aviations job to haul out Wounded Troops?
B co´s 1/7 3rd Platoon Leader Dennis Deal "dont ask me I knew nothing about Airmobile tatics."
Page 106 Moore we needed water, medical supplies and ammo.
Page 107 Bco 1/7 3rd Platoon Leader Dennis Deal by 3pm we ran out of water, the wounded kept begging for water.
Page 145 November 15, 1965 at 6:20am Jemison shared his last drops of water.
Page 112 November 14, 1965 While all day long the Battalion Supply Officer was riding in and out of X-Ray & Galloway came. 240# of water, medical, ammo not coming in, 1 Wounded troop not going out.
Page 106 Moore "hauling Wounded was not the slick crews job" ( Aviation )
FM 7-20 the Battalion Commanders hanbook, Hauling wounded is the secoundary mission of all military aircraft.
Page 63 Moore used his command Huey to haul out a non wounded POW.
Page 167 but none his wounded troops, Lt Franklin terribly wounded was set aside to die.
FM 1-100 Army Aviation The Command and Control Huey is to be used for Command and Control ONLY it shouldnt be used for anyother purpose, like RESUPPLY. .
a Medevac Huey was suppose to fly with the assault echelon ( 1st Lift )
Page 105 a wounded troop was stumbling toward the aid station, Galloway " stay away go back" what was this 17 year old´s thoughts 50 feet from the aid station and treatment and told to stay away?
FM 57-35 page 12 paragraph 24 supply 6 miscellaneous. a. probable water supply points are predesingnated. and comes in with the fowllowing echelon.
FM 7-20 page 271 paragraph 313 returning aircraft may be used for the evacuation of casualities.
Galloway had no military service.
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY no one expects the battalion commander to act as a rifleman no matter how proficient he is.
As he does so.
who commands his battalion?
Who gives guidance to his Company Commanders, he is taking responsibility away from his men and not meeting his own.
Page 34 Moore "I went to school on the Division Commander, authority must be pushed down to the man on the spot.
Page 40 Moore "I personally to influence the action would be in the 1st Huey to land on X-Ray."
Page 60 Moore leading his command group clear a sector of X-Ray, on the way back to the LZ, meet the troops who were suppose to clear that sector.
Page 73 Moore "I was tempted to join A co or C co´s company´s men"
Page 108 Moore "My operations Officer`& the Avaition Liason Officer had controlled all flights into X-Ray, I then took control, every Huey coming to X-Ray must radio me for landing instructions.
Page 109 Crandall Moore was now a signalman at the far end of the LZ was standing up, directing us where to land.
Page 109 The Brigade Commander had given Moore pathfinders.
Page 195 Moore "I personally lead the final counterattack to make certian that the Company Commander of Bco 2/7 & his men did a safe, clean, job & to look for my Missing Troops.
Moore didnt bring in his execuitive Officer( 2nd in command ) to help run the battalion command post.
Page 39 Moore "we had never maneuvered in combat as a battalion"
Page 28 Moore the Battalion made 2 sweeps near An Khe.
Page 31 nov 9 Moore "We shuttled the Battalion in 16 Hueys"
Page 32 nov 9 Galloway "My first time out with Moores 1/7 Battalion"
Original story Solider of Fortune November 83 Page 25 Nov 9 Galloway "before nitefall Moore waved his battalion across a stream"
Each Huey could carry 10 Troops. 10 troops X 16 Hueys=160 Troops per lift.
Page 30 a enemy base camp
Page 55 a radio transmision intercepted, estamated a N V regiment was near X-Ray
Page 57 commo wire was seen.
Page 39 Moore puts only 80 men (5 per Huey) in the inital lift.
Page 57 riflemen extra ammo all they could carry.
Air Assault tatics emphasize maximum inital lift, to get maximum lift each huey carries minimum amount of fuel + 30 min reserve, with refueling & ammo Points near the Pickup Zone.
Troops only basic load of ammo and web gear (intrenching tool, 2 canteens, bayonet and poncho and 1st aid pack )
Page 40 Moore "later lifts could carry more men 100 as fuel burned off".
Page 198 Rear area Operation Officer Dick Merchant "the Huey could carry 10 men"
Page 111 Winkle"I had a total of 16 men in my Huey".
Fourner "it was left up to each pilot how many men he carried" on later lifts I was carring 9-12 troops.
How it should have happend according to Air Assault Tatics FM 57-35
With only 16 Hueys weight is a factor, so the inital lift ( the assault echelon ) must contain sufficant Troops to secure the Landing Zone. The Alowable Cargo Load the ( ACL ) of each UH-1D for this mission should have been 3,000 pounds as its under 50 nautical miles ( only 14.3 miles to the objective )
using the Space method a space is defined as the weight of a fully combat equiped troop ( 240 pounds ) 10 Troops = 2,400 pounds per Huey.
Page 39 B co 114 troops, A co 40 troops, Ground Commanders command group 6 for a total of 160 troops in the 1st lift.
Moore was a Pilot?
Page 58 Crandall ( The Aviation Commander ) is starting the Huey from the left seat the co-pilot seat, There is no starter on that side.
Page 58 Moore as they load the Hueys "what is the flying time from Plei Me to Landing Zone X-Ray"? 14.3 miles.
Page 37 Moore and Crandall plan an Air Assault.
Page 40 with a time table & failed to put down the flying time from Plei Me to Landing Zone X-Ray, with out this information, How did they plan the Assault???
Page 58 Mills 13 min 15 sec. Page 59 Speed ( rate ) 110 knots this time will take them 25 miles away.
The correct time is 8 min.
Formula for Time is Distance X 60 divide by Rate ( Speed ) 14.3 X 60 = 858 divide by 110 = 7.8 min = 8 min time is rounded up to the nearest min.
Formula for Distance is rate ( Speed ) X time divided by 60 110 X 8 = 880 divide by 60 = 14.6miles = 15miles miles is rounded up to the nearest 1/2 mile.
using 7.8 min for time for the distance 110 X 7.8 = 858 divide by 60 = 14.3 miles The distance from Plei Me to Landing Zone X-Ray.
Page 188 A blazing flare under an unopened parachute hit the ammo dump, the Sgt.Major grabbed it with his bare hands, it burns at 4,000 degrees, it needs the parachute to lite the candle.
Letter from Randy Wallace, the Screenwriter and Director, about the film:
The Wheelhouse 15464 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-3002
Randall Wallace 7 February 2001
To all men who fought in the Ia Drang Valley, November 1965, and their families.
Gentlemen,
As many of you have already heard, we are preparing to make a film version of Hal Moore and Joe Galloway´s book WE WERE SOLDIERS ONCE...AND YOUNG.
As you can imagine, this is an enormously ambitious undertaking.
As the prologue of Hal and Joe´s landmark book states,
"Hollywood has gotten the story of the Vietnam veteran wrong every damn time, whetting the knives of twisted politics on the bones of our dead brothers."
Well this time we mean to get it right.
This is not to say that any of us making the film are unconcerned with accuracy.
The Disclamer> ( It is not meant to tell the story ) of each individual, ( or to capture the same kind of truth ) a documentary would.
I salute you.
Best regards,
Randall Wallace
1st Cavalry Division as the Division Commander Kinnard had to use the whole of the division resorces to keep Lt. Col. Moore from losing Landing Zone X-Ray.
Kinnard "I violated a lot of priniples about how hard you work your guy´s and how many hour´s you fly your helicopters."
"I literally flew the Blades off the choppers."
Things wrong with the trailer
Why is Moore shown stepping out of the Huey on the right side at X-Ray? When he was on the left behind Crandall, who was in the co-pilots seat. Page 58 hardback, Page 67 paperback
Moore as they land at X-Ray. as Crandall flared the Huey to land I FIRED burst into the brush to the LEFT, toward the mountian. page 60 hardback, page 69 paperback
Why are there 5 Hueys flying in the formation, when there is supposed to be only 4, in the over head shot there are 6 Hueys.
As they land at X-Ray they are in some type of formation that dosent exist. Page 59 Hardback, Page 68 paperback
The Hueys as they fly to X-Ray are suppose to be in a Heavy left formation, But they are eather in a column, trail formation< left are both are the same formation or an echelon right page 59, page 68 paperback.
COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY No one expects the battalion commander to act as a rifleman no matter how proficient he is, as he does so, who commands his battalion? Who gives guidance to his Company Commanders, he is taking responsibility away from his men and not meeting his own.
"What the hell is the is the colonel doing up here?" Sergeant Thompson ask. page 195 hardback, page 228 paperback
Moore as the battle started " I was tempted to join Nadal´s or Edwards men; But I might get pined down and simply become another rifleman." "My duty was to LEAD riflemen." page 73 hardback, page 85 paperback.
Why is Moore shown leading the troops from the 1/7 in the battle for X-Ray, when he didnt, he was in the command post during combat, and only came out during Lull´s in the battle. Moore " For almost 8 hours I had been involved in the mimute-to-minute DIRECTION of the battle. Now I wanted to personally walk the perimeter. Just befor dark Sergeant Major Plumley and I broke away from the command post and set out to check the perimeter." page 131 hardback, page 155
the only troops He lead were troops from the B co 2/7 and only the last counter attack on the 16th around noon.
Moore "I personally lead the final counterattack to make certian that the Company Commander Diduryk of Bco 2/7 & his men did a safe, clean, job & to look for my Missing Troops. We killed 27 more and crushed all resistance." Page 195 hardback, page 228 paperback
Moore calles for illumination, and his mortars fire. Moore "No morter fire would be permited especially illumination rounds. I wanted the morters to hold back their illumination rounds for our last light in the sky in case the air and artillery folk used up all of their flares". page 184 hardback, page 216 paperback
Moore didnt call in the broken arrow code Hasting the FAC did page 149 hardback, page175 paperback
What other troops did Moore gets credit for doing it |
| | Page 1, 2 | |
|
