Cost of War

Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush don't seem to bothered by the deaths of America's soldiers (what with statments like Bush "Bring it on" and Rumsfeld's "will soldiers die - you bet."). So let's talk their language: money.

While I'm writing this the cost is $70,301,595,000 and rising.

But this was a war on terrorism! Well, that is being bebated, but it isn't debated that oil money aids terrorists, so think of this: That above sum of money could have converted 17,575,440 cars to natural gas use. Think of all the things you can do with that money, choose any charity, give to the poor (tim rice, JC superstar).

Cost of War is a great little site. Check it out (thanks michael jay).

- rob 5:25 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

George Bush brings out the best in everyone. He is a gift to democracies world wide.


Opposition lawmakers swarm to a chairman to stop the passage of the Iraq bill forced by the ruling party lawmakers at the upper house in Tokyo Friday, July 25, 2003. The ruling party plans to approve the Iraq bill which enables for the Japanese government to dispatch Self-Defense Forces to Iraq to help reconstructing the war-torn country. (AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye)

- rob 4:45 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Navy secretary nominee found dead

Now now... I'm not going to say Bush did it.

McMillian had run Permian Exploration Corp. in Roswell, chaired President Bush's New Mexico presidential campaign in 2000 and served as an assistant defense secretary under Bush's father. The son nominated McMillan in May for the Navy post, which had been vacant since Gordon England left in January to become deputy secretary of the new Homeland Security Department.

(emphasis mine). Roswell! Don't you see. He couldn't live with the knowledge of the Bush family's blood pact with the aliens any longer... or maybe the aliens couldn't....

(sorry... its Friday... maybe my research on this is a little slim)

- rob 3:06 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Q: If you were the President of the United States who would you appoint to The United States Institute of Peace?

A: You'd appoint a warmonger!

Of course. Why hasn't anyone else thought of that?

Daniel Pipes, Peacemaker?

His [Pipes] solution [to the Isreali / Palestinian conflict] is simple: The Israeli military must force what Pipes describes as a "change of heart" by the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza -- a sapping of the Palestinian will to fight which can lead to a complete surrender. "How is a change of heart achieved? It is achieved by an Israeli victory and a Palestinian defeat," Pipes continued. "The Palestinians need to be defeated even more than Israel needs to defeat them."

- rob 3:02 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Well, the REPORT OF THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO THE TERRORIST ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 –
BY THE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE is out. And besides the knowledge that our government has a way with pithy titles and a love for ALL CAPS it also contains a lot of blanked out words. I understand the need for a document this sensitive to have words edited out (don’t want to give away the name or work of a spy do you… unless you’re a "senior white house official"). But word is that some of the edits were politically motivated. Some parts might have been too embarrassing for Bush (like all the stuff on Saudi Arabia) so they were kept Top Secret. Now in high school when your friend whispered in your ear “you know Sammy ain’t your friend, he says all kind of bad things about you when you are out of the room.” Well, that is embarrassing, but also good to know. Well Congress told Bush the same thing (sorta like “you know that prince you had breakfast with in Crawford, well guess who he writes checks to”) but Bush doesn’t want us to know. Is he okay with that?

Anyway, the report can be found here and as I am paranoid I also kept a copy on this site, and it can be found here. It is an acrobat file so you’ll need Adobe Acrobat Reader (free at Adobe’s web site), and for evil editing fun if you have Adobe Acrobat you can just randomly change around the text but make it look like you didn’t.

It is long. I haven’t read it all, and never will. But I did skim it an itsy bitsy tiny weeny bit. And here are two interesting bits:

On page 269/270 it talks about the transition from Clinton to Bush:

Transitions between administrations always take considerable time. For some high level positions, such as National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, it is difficult if not impossible to maintain continuity or an intense daily focus on an issue, if the status of the person holding the position is unclear. Mr. Berger explained that the Clinton Administration did not respond to the October 2000 attack on USS Cole, in part, because it believed that the incoming Bush Administration should handle the matter. However, Bush Administration officials testified that they did not begin their major counterterrorism policy review until April 2001. Thus, it appears that significant slippage in counterterrorism policy may have taken place in late 2000 and early 2001. At least part of this was due to the unresolved status of Mr. [Richard] Clarke as National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and his uncertain mandate to coordinate Bush Administration policy on terrorism and specifically on Bin Ladin.

Now the transition was already a difficult one because it was shortened so dramatically (because Jeb screwed up and didn’t fix the vote in Florida as well as he thought he did). And it was made more difficult because the Clinton administration was busy taking the W key off all executive office computer keyboards. Oh, there is the possibility that part of the reason why the Bush administration didn’t take terrorism seriously at first was because the Clinton administration did. There was a belief that everything Clinton did or thought important was wrong. This is all detailed in an amazing article: They Had A Plan. Unfortunately you’ll need to pay to read the article, but if you haven’t read it yet, you really should, it is an important part of history. Here’s the cover of the issue that contained the article:


NINE MONTHS BEFORE 9/11 the U.S. had a bold plan to attack al-Qaeda. It wasn’t carried out until the towers fell.

Here’s another interesting part of the report (page 447 of the pdf).

[It was not the task of this Joint Inquiry to conduct the kind of extensive investigation that would be required to determine the true significance of such alleged support to the hijackers. On the one hand, it is possible that these kinds of connections could suggest, as indicated in a CIA memorandum, “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for _________________________.” On the other hand, it is also possible that further investigation of these allegations could reveal legitimate, and innocent, explanations for these associations].

Now it might have said, “al-Qaeda in Iraq” there, but if it did, I pretty sure we’d see it. Its pretty well public knowledge that that bit (and the dozen or so blanked out pages after it) was about Saudi Arabia. I like that they say “further investigation” about these allegations. We know that is not going to happen.

Oh, if you were wondering, Iraq is mentioned a few times, but nothing earth shattering. Not much there there as we heard in yesterday’s post about the UPI article. Iraq and 9/11 don’t have many connections, save for the ’91 Gulf War being one of the reasons Al-Qa’ida (that’s how they spell it in the report. Who knew?) hates us so much.

- rob 2:51 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Hey, just to let you all know, on 3:43:47 pm yesterday this web site was visited by a web surfer from the House.gov domain. If suddenly this site start posting pro-bush articles... you'll know why.

Just Kidding... we hope.

- rob 2:40 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

The New York Post, famous for its big headlines, and... its big headlines, supports Bush, but bad news for Bush, they support the troops more.

STRAIGHT TALK FOR GI JOE

(they learned the importance of ALL CAPS from their print edition I guess.)

Our troops are doing a magnificent job in a miserable environment — despite the lack of support from Pentagon civilians who never paid any dues except to their country clubs. The Rummycrats who insisted we could occupy Iraq with two Boy Scout troops and a repainted pickup truck would not listen to any common-sense warnings from those in uniform, or in the intelligence agencies, or in the State Department, or anywhere else.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's button-down hit men, each a champion of arrogance, saw what they wanted to see. And they paid far more attention to working political spin and handing out reconstruction contracts to favored corporations than they did to assessing what our soldiers might really need in the aftermath of war — or how many soldiers might be needed.

Now, their cherished contractors are lagging badly — to the outrage of our military in Baghdad. Underpaid, overworked soldiers are picking up the slack for Bechtel, Halliburton and the rest of the corporate vultures.
...

Want to know how far off the rails things have slid at the Pentagon? Recently, the Army wanted to tally up how much money it had been forced to divert to private contractors as part of Rumsfeld's rush to privatize military tasks. The Rummycrats forbid it. They refused to let the Army balance its own books — because the privatization mafia knew what they would find: Contractors cost more, not less, than soldiers.

When honest budget managers in the services calculate the transition of any uniformed job to a private contractor, their working assumption is that the contract employee will cost the Pentagon $100,000 a year. A sergeant barely makes a quarter of that, and a private hardly a fifth — including benefits.

You, the taxpayer, are being cheated outrageously in the name of an ideologically driven crusade to reduce the size of government. This is corporate welfare that has nothing to do with the welfare of our troops. And guess what? Most of those contractors disappear when the bullets start flying.

- rob 1:44 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

If the "sending us to war for fictitious reasons" scandal (to quote Michael Moore's oscar speech) isn't enough to really rattle America's "trust" in bush: How about having his people outing CIA spies.

I'm not a fan of CIA (Chile anyone), but really, you gotta know that's not a nice thing to do. To quote the spouse of the "outed" spy:

Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career.

Basically some "senior White House officials" just struck a blow against our war against terror. Gee thanks.

Here's more from the editorial, which gives some good background on this growing scandal: The ambassador's wife

In a White House that is notoriously protective of those things it considers official secrets, there has been not a word of reprimand for the officials involved in the growing scandal over former ambassador Joseph Wilson IV.

Wilson is the official sent by the CIA to look into allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium for a nuclear weapons program from the African nation of Niger. Two White House officials recently revealed that Wilson's wife, whom they identified as a CIA operative, was instrumental in his being selected for this delicate mission.

It is appalling, at best, that the president should allow anyone on his staff to reveal the identity of a covert CIA agent. Even worse, some speculate that Wilson's wife was "outed" because the former ambassador had recently revealed that, after going to Niger for the CIA in February, 2002, he had reported that the allegations of an Iraqi uranium deal were "highly doubtful."
...

This is an issue that cries out for investigation. The White House no doubt will dismiss the issue as a ploy to discredit Bush for political gain. But that's far too facile a justification for failing to pursue the matter.

- rob 1:38 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

And suddenly, the fog clears away. Oh, so that's why Bush fought against the 9/11 report coming out. And I thought it was just all the bits about the Saudis.

United Press International: 9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-Qaida

WASHINGTON, July 23 (UPI) -- The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida, United Press International has learned.

"The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida," said a government official who has seen the report.
...

"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said [former Senator] Cleland. "What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."
...

Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by interminable wrangles between the committees and the administration over which parts of it could be declassified.

Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.

"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.

"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."

In this day and age sometime one really does need to state the obvious I guess.

When this report comes out, the State of the Union lies fiasco will still be in the American consciousness. Americans want to believe in it's government. No fault in that, and Bush has been cynically taking advantage of this, but when Americans wake up (and they well) to the fact that Bush has been cynical about 9/11 they won't let it slip by like so many other things. On this they will get angry. Very angry. If the report gets any press over the next few weeks look for the anger to grow through the summer.

Bush should be worried. He isn't of course (no one has told him about this), but Rove is.

Americans would probably be even more angry if they read the 28 page (blacked out) section on Bush's pals over in Saudi Arabia:

Overall, the report will reveal very little, at least in its public version, about what blame Saudi Arabia deserves. Blacked out is a 28-page section that the officials say criticizes Saudi Arabia's government and details its lack of interest in tackling Muslim extremism.

The U.S. government has frequently criticized the Saudi government for not doing more to curb terrorism and, especially, to cut off terrorist groups' financial sources.

- rob 1:20 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Flash fun:

Exterminator

- rob 1:06 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

A Chart of Bush Lies about Iraq

Handy little chart to read if anyone says the uranium statement was just one mistake, actually its the only mistake they've admitted. Read the chart for a more complete list of "mistakes."

Protestors of the war had to stand up to various accusations from being a friend of Saddam to being a traitor. How does this sound:

* You weaken America's miliary readiness
* You weaken America's international standing
* You weaken our war against terror (before the Iraqi war Syria was a great source of anti-al-Qaida terrorist intelligence, believe it or not [they've got their own terrorists to watch over]. It isn't now).

America has a tradition of an empeachment every century (except for the 18th century, but that doesn't count as we weren't a country for most of that little ol' century). Why not get this century's empeachment overwith early? Oh, but to be safe, have Cheney resign first.

Just asking.

- rob 1:04 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Yahoo! News - White House Does Damage-Control on Iraq

This is just funny:

WASHINGTON - The White House has teamed with GOP congressional leaders in an aggressive damage-control campaign to counter embarrassing questions about prewar intelligence and lapses by President Bush's national security team.

But the effort is being hampered by an ever-changing White House story — from first blaming the CIA and then the British to new revelations by Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley that contradict earlier statements by his boss, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Morality, integrity, and ethics aside: It's just easier to tell the truth. If you lie you have to remember the exact lie, you have to coordinate with other liars. Telling a lie is a huge effort that requires deligence and organization, supposedly something that Bush administration is good at, but that doesn't seem to be as true any more, and soon the lies will all start unraveling. Tell the truth and you're done. Its easy. It doesn't require a good memory. (and its also the right thing to do).

- rob 11:24 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Computer Voting Is Open to Easy Fraud, Experts Say

Is this the beginning of people waking up to a very terrifying reality: Our democracy rests its future upon a poorly written piece of spaghetti code sitting on top of an Micro$oft Access database?

"We found some stunning, stunning flaws," said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines operating in the United States.

The systems, in which voters are given computer-chip-bearing smart cards to operate the machines, could be tricked by anyone with $100 worth of computer equipment, said Adam Stubblefield, a co-author of the paper.

Oh and to our dear Maryland readers. Don't be surprised when bush takes Maryland in 2004:

Diebold is one of the most successful companies in this field. Georgia and Maryland are among its clients, as are many counties around the country. The Maryland contract, announced this month, is worth $56 million.

- rob 11:20 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

400,000 Letters to Congress Seek War Evidence Probe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than 400,000 letters have been sent to members of the U.S. Congress backing a call for an independent investigation into intelligence used by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq war, organizers of an online campaign said on Tuesday

That is great. Just 100,000 more and we've got the same number Gore won by.

If you haven't already, go to: Distortion of Evidence at MoveOn.

- rob 11:03 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Newsday.com - Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer

You don't mess with Bushs's re-election chances Buddy! If you do we'll risk national security, break federal law, and maybe even skip lunch to get back at you:

Washington - Democrats yesterday denounced the alleged disclosure by administration officials of the identity of an undercover CIA officer, and members of both parties indicated a congressional investigation is likely.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), an Intelligence Committee member, said it plans to investigate who revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, who is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. In a move that sparked the current controversy over allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger, Wilson revealed two weeks ago that he had warned the Bush administration the reports were unfounded.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the intelligence panel, called the disclosure of Plame's identity "vile" and "a highly dishonorable thing to do; highly, highly dishonorable." He, too, said a probe is probably necessary and accused the White House of strong-arm tactics aimed at those who question their policies. "To go after him [Wilson] is one thing, but to go after his wife is another thing," Rockefeller said.

Former intelligence officials joined in denouncing the release of Plame's name by "two senior administration officials" to conservative columnist Robert Novak.

- rob 2:09 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Weapons of Mass Redaction

This correspondence from the Office of the Vice President to the XXXXXXXXX ambassador to the U.S. was redacted by the Office of the Vice President for national and electoral security reasons:

- rob 12:09 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

From Eschaton, an update on that DNC commercial mentioned yesterday.

Washington DC-- The following is a statement released today by Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee:

"As if Americans needed any more evidence of its political bias, Fox became the only network in Wisconsin to reject a new Democratic National Committee ad that calls for an investigation of President Bush's misleading statements in the State of the Union address. Apparently Fox has changed its slogan from 'We Report, You Decide' to 'We let Bush decide what we air.'

We don't report, you can't decide. The Faux News motto.

- rob 12:05 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Open microphone catches California Democrats talking about prolonging budget crisis

Proving that idiots sit on both sides.

- rob 12:02 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

CNN.com - Dental records confirm sons' deaths - Jul. 23, 2003

Not a supporter of the war (obviously), but this is definitely good news.

- rob 12:01 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Krugman asks: Who's Unpatriotic Now?

Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.

The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.
...

And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him — it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.

Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.

So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.

And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.

- rob 2:11 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

This article sums up Bush's "intelligence": Follow the Yellowcake Road

[The Niger documents] A bombshell in the war on terrorism? More like an exploding cigar. The documents, a series of letters dated from July to October 2000, were actually crude forgeries. They referred to Niger agencies that no longer existed and bore the signature of a foreign minister who had not served in the post for more than a decade. Italian investigators, who only last week reopened the case, have theorized that the thieves who broke into the Niger Embassy had come looking for letterhead stationery and official seals that could be copied to create bogus documents.

It was the sort of flimsy scam that could have been exposed by a two-hour Google search (and eventually was). Somewhat implausibly, however, the break-in at a small African embassy in Rome has set off a chain reaction that has erupted into a full-fledged Washington summer scandal, serious enough to shake President George W. Bush’s poll ratings. Democrats and much of the press are in full cry, accusing the White House of hyping, if not outright fabricating, intelligence in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. With American soldiers dying at the rate of about one a day in Iraq, a growing number of Americans are beginning to wonder if the war was worth the cost.

Now who do you think made these forgeries in the first place?

- rob 2:07 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Click photos for some immature fun:





These were made by someone named: SuburbanCowboy

- rob 1:59 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

DNC petition: www.democrats.org/truth

The American people deserve to know the truth about why President Bush used false information in his State of the Union address.

We, the undersigned, demand a full, independent, bipartisan investigation that will answer the American people's questions about Bush's statements and hold Bush and his administration accountable for all fabrications.

I added: There is no better way to show our support to our troops than by defending democracy at home by making sure that they and their friends and family at home know without a doubt the reasons and motivations for a war.

They are putting their lives on the line. If you aren't willing to put your career for the fight for truth and democracy on the line than you are a coward.

I'm not a big fan of the Democratic Party, especially now, they have failed America with their inaction. But as Republicans seems to want to destroy America these days, I will strongly support the Democrats.

The DNC though has a new ad out (see the link above). It goes like this:

In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush told us of an imminent threat.

BUSH: Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

America took him at his word. But now we find out that it wasn't true.

The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it. [New York Times, 7/6/03; NBC News, 6/26/03]

It's time to tell the truth. Hold President Bush accountable with an independent, bipartisan investigation. Go to www.democrats.org/truth to sign the petition. Because America deserves the truth.

Not very hard hitting stuff really, but this is how the Republican party is responding: They are sending out the letter via its lawyer to all TV stations from which the DNC has purchased air time:

Dear Station Manager:

It has come to our attention that your station will begin airing false and misleading advertisements on July 21, 2003, paid for by the Democratic National Committee. The advertisement in question misrepresents President George W. Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address. The advertisement states that President Bush said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, President Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." By selectively quoting President Bush, the advertisement is deliberately false and misleading. Furthermore, the British government continues to stand by its intelligence and asserts that it believes the intelligence is genuine.

The Democratic National Committee certainly has a legitimate First Amendment right to participate in political debate, but it has no right to willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. These advertisements will not be run by legally qualified candidates; therefore, your station is under no legal obligation to air them. On the contrary, as an FCC licensee you have the responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to not only oversee and protect the American marketplace of ideas, essential for the health of our democracy, but also to avoid deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously.

This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.

Respectfully,
Caroline C. Hunter
Counsel

It seems that the strength of the Republican argument is that Bush had said “The British governement has learned.” Thus clearing Bush of any responsibility of his own mouth. Kind of like when Clinton said “I didn’t have sexual relations with that woman,” meaning he didn’t have intercourse. Thus clearing Clinton of any responsibility of Monica’s mouth.

- rob 11:04 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Yahoo! News - Wolfowitz Warns Iraq's Neighbors Not to Interfere

I guess Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz wants US out of Iraq. Or is he just being sarcastic:

"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs of Iraq," said Wolfowitz, who is touring the country to meet U.S. troops and Iraqi officials.

"Those who want to come and help are welcome," he said. "Those who come to interfere and destroy are not."

- rob 2:53 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

It's Monday: Top Ten Conservative Idiots.

10. So-Called "Support The Troops" Protesters
And finally: back before the invasion of Iraq began, the anti-war movement held various huge peace protests around the globe. In response, the pro-war movement gathered their forces and held counter-protests. But these were not "pro-war" rallies, oh no. Nothing so crude. These were "support the troops" rallies, which just by pure coincidence happened to be pro-war. And if you weren't faithfully attending "support the troops" rallies, well then hell, you obviously didn't support the troops. Except anti-war protesters have always supported the troops - by trying to ensure that they aren't needlessly sent to die in, say, some trumped-up imperial war for oil. But anyway, it appears that ever since soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division appeared on TV last week calling for Rumsfeld's resignation, the so-called "support the troops" folks have been showing their true colors. I personally heard radio talk-show host Lars Larson (filling in for Laura Ingraham last week) say that these soldiers were giving "aid and comfort to the enemy" (way to support the troops, Lars - call them traitors) and suggest that the soldiers' complaints that they didn't know their mission were unfounded. See, Lars said that from where he was sitting the mission looked perfectly clear. Freepers are also rushing into this new "criticize the troops" role, suggesting that the troops they used to admire now need to "shut up," stop "whining," and perhaps any soldier whose morale has hit rock bottom should be sent home "with a pacifier in his mouth and a thermometer up his @ss." So this is how you're supposed to support the troops! I get it! See you next week...

- rob 1:33 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

What's more dangerous than Saddam Hussein in power?

Well according to documents the White House was dealing with in October '02, the only thing more dangerous was Saddam Hussein out of power:

"Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists," President Bush said in Cincinnati on Oct. 7. "Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

But declassified portions of a still-secret National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) released Friday by the White House show that at the time of the president's speech the U.S. intelligence community judged that possibility to be unlikely. In fact, the NIE, which began circulating Oct. 2, shows the intelligence services were much more worried that Hussein might give weapons to al Qaeda terrorists if he were facing death or capture and his government was collapsing after a military attack by the United States.

"Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al Qaeda, . . . already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States, could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct," one key judgment of the estimate said.

It went on to say that Hussein might decide to take the "extreme step" of assisting al Qaeda in a terrorist attack against the United States if it "would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

(emphasis mine)

from: Oct. Report Said Defeated Hussein Would Be Threat

- rob 1:17 PM - [PermaLink] -

----

Earlier this week I posted about how Young Republicans train themselves for democracy:

The actual people and what they are depating doesn't matter, just listen to the tactics:

Birmingham called for a 15 minute break at this point. Recognizing the extent to which they dominated the delegates on the floor, Flory supporters took the opportunity to map out a new and aggressive strategy to immediately pass the regional changes. Some delegates took out copies of Robert's Rules of Order to ensure that Birmingham was not misleading them, while others discussed the motions they would next propose.

Following the recess, it became clear that Mack supporters had taken advantage of the 15 minute break to alert Mack delegates in other part of the hotel that Flory delegates were in control of the meeting and were passing pro-Flory rule changes. Mack supporters began entering the room, lowering Flory's supportive margin, and Flory supporters immediately moved to remove Birmingham as convention chairman and to seal the doors during the motion's debate.

Birmingham ordered the Sergeant at Arms to seal the doors, and began taking votes on the motion. The Sergeant at Arms was apparently unable or unwilling to carry out his duties, however, and Mack supporters continued to enter the room.

Anyway, if you don't think this is representative of the modern Republican party, let's read about the grown ups:

House Divided

A clerk obligingly began reading it line by line, pausing only when Thomas [Chairman, R-Calif.], interrupted to announce: “In the House, the minority can delay. They cannot deny.”

As the reading resumed, the Democrats departed to a library just off the main hearing room, leaving only Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-Calif.) to prevent the Republicans from obtaining unanimous consent to skip the reading. After a few minutes, Thomas asked again for the unanimous consent, and instantly brought down his gavel. Stark told reporters he had objected, but Thomas had replied, “You’re too late.”

Even before Thomas gaveled the reading to an end, he had dispatched the Capitol Police to remove the Democrats from the ornate library. Two officers arrived and, realizing they wanted no part of arresting House members for milling in a library, called a watch commander.

Are we soon to be Taiwan? Where we can watch the Congressional fist fights every night on the news instead of watching wrestling?

- rob 11:27 AM - [PermaLink] -

----

Subscribe to the TCS Feed

Having trouble with some of the poor English on this site?
Imagine what it looks like when translated by a machine:

Search TCS

Archive

Archive Index Page

What is this?

This is a "team" blog.  We are a bunch of Americans, whose rising distress in our leader's decisions brought us together to make this site.  As Bush said, he's a "uniter."  Many of us have never even met.
That's the internet for you.

This Century Sucks Store

Buy our cool stuff.
And tell everyone what you feel.  

We have a little Store you can visit.  

Our store's selection of items is constantly growing. Come see what we have.

 

We're also Amazon Associates, so if you want to buy something from Amazon, please search for it below, and we will get a few bucks from the sale.

Search Now:

Sites we often like:

Tin Foil Caps

The Free Speech Zone

The office of the independent blogger

Buzzflash

Tom The Dancing Bug

VerifiedVoting.org

Get Your War On

This Modern World

Eschaton / Atrios

Daily Kos

Contribute to America's Future

It is now more important then ever.

Donate to the Democractic Congressional Campaign Committee

Donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

Some More Site Mottos

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."
- Teddy Roosevelt



"Government has a final responsibility for the well-being of its citizenship. If private cooperative endeavor fails to provide work for willing hands and relief for the unfortunate, those suffering hardship from no fault of their own have a right to call upon the Government for aid; and a government worthy of its name must make fitting response."
 - Franklin Delano Roosevelt



"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions, but laws must and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson



"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."
- James Madison



"I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves."
- John F. Kennedy



"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

More Sites we often like:

more coming...

"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.