Good morning, Scarecrow…

-MS

Madness, madness, madness.

And war crimes, too.

It just boggles my mind that anyone any human being can defend war as the proper way to meet a goal or get an outcome. (unless the outcome is to save more lives than is lost). I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can condone war in the middle east the way it has been conducted by our military. There is no worse sin a human being can make than murder.

War boggles the mind…and they dress it up in logic and a lack of emotion to increase it’s credibility but folks, that’s a trick. Remember the serial killer does not express remorse through emotion or behavior.

God help us for not stopping Bushco.

From the congressional research service 2002

http://fpc.state.gov/documents…..n/9662.pdf

collateral damage in afghanistan is just the cost of doing business.

And it bears noting that lots of these air strikes probably wouldn’t be necessary, if the US had kept their eye on the ball – instead of launching the immoral war in Iraq, they should have concentrated on going in on the ground into Afghanistan, where they probably could have mopped up Al Qaeda early in 2003.

Oh well, I guess that’s just a different kind of calculus…

-MS

Good morning, Scarecrow. Somber essay. Why again are we doing this? And to be more hated there than the Russians…that’s really an accomplishment.

a defining moment. Mukasey, mukasey, mukasey!
The name should never get out of the committee! Never!

sadly, this had been the calculus of our war in afghanistan from the very begining. i’m glad it’s finally being openly discussed.

and to be fair, it was that way before our invasion – for example, when no thought was given to the afghan people when we decided to use them as pawns in our proxy war against the soviet union.

I watched 9/11: Press for Truth last night. After all we’ve been through for the last six years…outrage after outrage…I’d forgotten some of the facts. This film is a good reminder that finding Osama was never on their “to-do” list.

Cue the right wing New Spartans, who will find some way to rationalize these deaths as the result of unfortunate choices to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

If only they’d made the same choices as their wise selves, they could be warm and safe and sucking down wingnut welfare in some cozy think tank.

Good morning Scarecrow and Firepups.

Scarecrow said:

One Afghani interviewed by 60 Minutes summed up the situation, noting that they used to hate the Russians far more than the Americans, but no more; now the Americans are seen as worse. Scott Pelley, the CBS correspondent noted that couldn’t be true, since the Soviets are believed to have killed a millions Afghanis. But it’s not just numbers that count; it’s perceptions and memories — and it appears we’re creating the same kinds that eventually forced the Soviets to leave in bitter defeat.

And of course, recency has a lot to do with perceptions of horrors such as this. Normally, over time, the bad fades away and people tend to remember the good. So, this perception is not particularly surprising.

Excellent point, Jane. That makes all the rest of us unwise too. Unfortunate of us to choose to be born in America at this time

“It’s still hard for me to understand how men like Giuliani and Mukasey — men without honor — are considered even remotely qualified to be in charge of upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, but I guess for some Senators it’s all relative.”

The whole concept of honor, conscience, and morality went the way of truth telling.

reminds me also of the justifications that were given for some of the serbian bombing targets.

Lindy @ 9

I watched 9/11: Press for Truth last night. After all we’ve been through for the last six years…outrage after outrage…I’d forgotten some of the facts. This film is a good reminder that finding Osama was never on their “to-do” list.

And of course when they DO find bin Laden, they let him be. Recent story I saw on Buzzflash, and when I clicked the link, it said the source was Fox News of all places. Perhaps it was just a pundit-retired general’s rant, but it still goes to your point. Greg Palast made the same point in Chicago the other night: Bush needs bin Laden too much to kill him. So we kill everybody else.

Macabre Calculus indeed!

Good morning Scarecrow!

As I read this I started thinking about all the anquish about having to shoot down Flight 93 on 9-11. Yet these Afghani civilians mean nothing.

Bilbo @ 11

Good morning Scarecrow and Firepups.

Scarecrow said:

One Afghani interviewed by 60 Minutes summed up the situation, noting that they used to hate the Russians far more than the Americans, but no more; now the Americans are seen as worse. Scott Pelley, the CBS correspondent noted that couldn’t be true, since the Soviets are believed to have killed a millions Afghanis. But it’s not just numbers that count; it’s perceptions and memories — and it appears we’re creating the same kinds that eventually forced the Soviets to leave in bitter defeat.

And of course, recency has a lot to do with perceptions of horrors such as this. Normally, over time, the bad fades away and people tend to remember the good. So, this perception is not particularly surprising.

is it possible that they also know of our role in provoking the soviet invasion?

Well Bilbo…I would love to agree with you here, but research shows that our memories are more vivid (not accurate…but vivid) in regard to negative emotions and memories. You’d think this would prevent war, but I have a theory about that having to do with denial. Which is triggered by cognitive dissonance when the negative feelings become overwhelming or in conflict with something else more important.

The bad news is that this makes our war a perfect recipe for the recruitment and creation of more terrorists. America’s bad behavior will be remembered by many for years to come. We are going to have to work hard to make amends to the world if we ever hope to get our reputation back. And usually that means we need to make the situation better than it was before.

So instead of me arguing the points of this article that we will probably will not agree on, what do you all propose we do with the events of 9/11? Meaning, it is 9/12, we are looking at news feed of 2 downed buildings. What do we do?

To take it a step further, how do you deal with someone that has called for the extermination of an entire race of people (ie, IRAN)? The destruction to a nation that supports those people?

The WaPo’s Sebatian Mallaby has an op ed criticizing all the “bush haters” — that would be me, I guess — for not understanding the threat Saddam Hussein posed to US interests.

Clinton’s rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don’t trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein’s regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer “in his box,” to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Based on this view of history, he claims, Hillary was right to vote for the AUMF against Iraq, and right to vote for the Lieberman/Kyl terror designation against Iran, while Edwards and Obama are wrong for not undertanding you need these interim steps to avoid war. The best way to avoid war is through “confrontation.”

Apparently, all the evidence that the Bush regime was already committed to invaded Iraq and toppling Saddam is irrelvant. None of the lies about links to 9/11 or WMD mattered, and the IAEA reports that Iraq had no such programs never happened.

Mr. Mallaby also argues that Bush already had all the authority he needs to attack Iran, even before the vote on Lieberman/Kyl.

It’s started.

So how much does it cost to send up an airplane and launch a missle?
How many terrorist and how much is the equipment/guns destroyed by your average airstrike?
Where are the metrics about bang for buck? How fast is the terrorist replacement rate for men and equipment?
Given that the war was suppose to be over after “Mission Accomplished ” can we trust the army to provide accurate measurements of succes?
So far none of their estimates has proven accurate. I remember when Colin Powel and the US military had no problem standing up to a popular U.S president and telling him the truth. Bill they said no gays in the military to which Bill comprimised and said don’t ask don’t tell.
But the second Bush got the job Colin and all the Generals except Shinski rolled over. Now several Generals are regreting being so easy on Bush about the war as Defeat grows in the belly of the military and blushing Generals all cry in shame.
I thought that General Petraeus studied the reasons why we lost in Viet Nam if anything history is repeating itself.

egregious @ 6

Good morning, Scarecrow. Somber essay. Why again are we doing this? And to be more hated there than the Russians…that’s really an accomplishment.

Yep – do you think that we are hated more than the Russians because the Afghans somehow thought the American military was somehow “nicer” than the Russian military – so they had higher expectations of us and so have a greater sense of disappointment?

Is this all just to prove that we are powerful because we are willing to kill people? Sounds primitive, but I’m having a difficult time coming up with a better explanation.

I asked my Russian colleagues why did Stalin kill and imprison so many of his own people? “Because he could; to frighten everybody else into submission; and to get free/slave labor.”

Bush was never elected president and this is exactly what living a lie feels like.Remove Thomas and Scalia who had a conflict of interest because their famliy members worked in the bush campaign.But we would rather not cause a stir and upset the decider so on we go.

“VIctory has a thousand fathers, Defeat is an orphan ” and Bush not paying for his war is a deadbeat dad!

I don’t understand why we attacked Afghanistan with bombing. If we thought that AQ was there why not drop in the seals and special forces, surround him and starve them out a worst… or go in after them?

Since when was Afghanistan our enemy? Yea the Taliban were a bunch or whacko fundies, but THEY didn’t attack us. Oh right, they harbored OBL so we had to destroy the country. Logic?

Scarecrow @ 19

Mr. Mallaby also argues that Bush already had all the authority he needs to attack Iran, even before the vote on Lieberman/Kyl.

it doesn’t help that the house of representatives has, this year, voted against telling bush he has to go to congress before attacking iran.

selise @ 14

reminds me also of the justifications that were given for some of the serbian bombing targets.

Very well observed, selise! But not even then this Kill-them-all-who-cares-attitude was new. The saturation bombing of Germany cost the lives of 1 million civilians. (I know, I know- all of them dangerous Nazis, especially those 10 years and younger). And of course, then there were 1 million Vietnamese killed, mostly by bombing and shelling, those were all Vietkong- sure, sure. And what happens in Afghanistan is just the same horror that kills Iraqis by the thousands. Sure, terrorist all of them, I know. And the bombs fall right from the “moral highground”, of course…

SanderO @ 25

I don’t understand why we attacked Afghanistan with bombing. If we thought that AQ was there why not drop in the seals and special forces, surround him and starve them out a worst… or go in after them?

Since when was Afghanistan our enemy? Yea the Taliban were a bunch or whacko fundies, but THEY didn’t attack us. Oh right, they harbored OBL so we had to destroy the country. Logic?

1) there’s no money to be made by bomb manufacturers if the bombs aren’t used.
2) most americans were pissed and wanted to kill somebody – and as far as i saw, there wasn’t much concern about who it was, so long as they were muslim.

Mallaby must be writing speeches for Hucksterbee –and where are Hucksterbee’s sons and wife?

Our bombing has INCREASED in Iraq over the recent term.

It’s cowardly to drop bombs the way we do.

Rainer Vogel @ 27

But not even then this Kill-them-all-who-cares-attitude was new. The saturation bombing of Germany cost the lives of 1 million civilians. (I know, I know- all of them dangerous Nazis, especially those 10 years and younger). And of course, then there were 1 million Vietnamese killed, mostly by bombing and shelling, those were all Vietkong- sure, sure. And what happens in Afghanistan is just the same horror that kills Iraqis by the thousands. Sure, terrorist all of them, I know. And the bombs fall right from the “moral highground”, of course…

no. i guess the wingnuts have a point when they say, “this is what war is.”

but that is the point. whenever we choose war – this is exactly what we are choosing.

ought to make us think twice about choosing war.

another reason to be grateful for everyone who protested against war on saturday. blessings and thanks to all.

Future post suggestion, Scarecrow:

You might take a look at Richard Betts’ article in the November/December Foreign Affairs.

If Rip Van Winkle had fallen asleep in the Pentagon’s budgeting office 20 years ago and awoke today, his first reaction would be that nothing had changed. President George W. Bush has asked for $505 billion for the peacetime U.S. military establishment in 2008 — almost exactly the amount, in real dollars, that President Ronald Reagan sought in 1988. Rip would start scratching his head, however, when he discovered that the Soviet empire and the Soviet Union itself had imploded more than 15 years ago and that Washington now spends almost as much on its military power as the rest of the world combined and five times more than all its potential enemies together. Told that Pentagon planners were nonetheless worried about overstretch and presidential candidates were vying to pledge even higher budgets and even larger forces, Rip’s head might just explode.

The current strains on resources and forces are due, of course, to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the costs of those wars are not included in the half-trillion-dollar “baseline” figure noted above. A supplemental request for an extra $142 billion covers them, bringing the total 2008 military budget request to a whopping $647 billion — a budget more than 25 percent larger, in real terms, than the one for 1968, at the height of combat in Vietnam, a bigger and bloodier conflict than any the United States has seen since. And even that total figure does not include the $46 billion budget of the Department of Homeland Security, whose functions would be handled by the Defense Ministry in many other countries.

How would one answer Rip’s inevitable questions about what is going on? One might note that everything costs more these days. And one might argue that even so, military spending takes up less of GDP today than it did during the Cold War — 4.2 percent today compared with 5.8 percent in 1988 and 9.4 percent in 1968. But when pressed, one would have to concede that Washington spends so much and yet feels so insecure because U.S. policymakers have lost the ability to think clearly about defense policy.

In recent years, U.S. national security policy has responded to a visceral sense of threat spawned by the frightening intentions of the country’s enemies rather than to a sober estimate of those enemies’ capabilities and what it would take to counter them effectively. The United States faces very real dangers today and potentially bigger ones in the future, but these are not threats that can be tamed by current spending on the most expensive components of military power.

U.S. political leaders, meanwhile, have forgotten the craft of balancing commitments and resources responsibly. Nobody younger than 80 can remember a peacetime United States without vast standing armed forces, even though that was the norm for the first 150 years of the republic. So the post-Cold War situation does not seem as odd as it should. Contractors who live off the defense budget have also become more adept at engineering political support by spreading subcontracts around the maximum number of congressional districts. And the traditional constituencies for restrained spending in both major political parties have evaporated, leaving the field free for advocates of excess.

The notion that the US still must remain on a wartime footing is increasingly difficult to support. The claims that we are living in “dangerous times” become more and more hollow every day. Krugman riffs on this today, as well. I do think we need to introduce the possibility that we may be able to stand down from the Cold War sometime before the generation born after the Wall fell start having children of their own.

This is a point I make here in the South – I ask my fellow rebels, “Do you remember how our grandparents taught us how much their parents and grandparents hated federal occupation after the Civil War?”

So much so, that “damYankees” was the only acceptable swear word for young-uns? My grandmother had a way of slurring a three-syllable ‘yah-yun-kee’ that was her vilest epithet.

Given that, how the hell should we expect Iraqis and Afghans to act?

To expect them not to hate us is insane. And when you add this kind of atrocity to it, well, we’re just stoking the coals.

I think this has to do with the fact that we are cornered and overwhelmed. We are not “winning” in Afghanistan and haven’t been since we withdrew forces to invade Iraq. We don’t know how to win or even, at this point, what constitutes “winning,” so we just ratchet up the bombing, hoping we kill more Taliban and AQ.

Also, now the pressure of the media is off of Afghanistan and, mostly, Iraq, the tactics do not need to be as “friendly.” Got to focus on how much money Hillary and the rest have raised, you know.

Scarecrow @ 20

The WaPo’s Sebatian Mallaby has an op ed criticizing all the “bush haters” — that would be me, I guess — for not understanding the threat Saddam Hussein posed to US interests.

Clinton’s rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don’t trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein’s regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer “in his box,” to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Based on this view of history, he claims, Hillary was right to vote for the AUMF against Iraq, and right to vote for the Lieberman/Kyl terror designation against Iran, while Edwards and Obama are wrong for not undertanding you need these interim steps to avoid war. The best way to avoid war is through “confrontation.”

Apparently, all the evidence that the Bush regime was already committed to invaded Iraq and toppling Saddam is irrelvant. None of the lies about links to 9/11 or WMD mattered, and the IAEA reports that Iraq had no such programs never happened.

Mr. Mallaby also argues that Bush already had all the authority he needs to attack Iran, even before the vote on Lieberman/Kyl.

It’s started.

Digby remarked yesterday that the republicans, and their beltway media representatives, are engaging in a shift to run against Clinton as an incumbent–relegating Bush completely out of the picture. Mallaby is prefiguring that strategy in this piece.

Aaahhhh! The downside counterproductivity of fighting a 4th generation war with 2nd generation war tactics!

How much of this is the result of the USAF fly-boy generals clamoring to get in on the action for fear that the irrelevance of their humongously expensive toys (F-22s at $200M a pop anyone?) in today’s world will otherwise soon begin cutting in to their lions’ share of the Pentagon procurement budgets?

OT – weekly congressional hearings update:

The big hearings for the week are Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Civil Rights division of the DOJ with John Tanner, and Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on FISA. Here’s the day and time for a few hearings:

Tuesday, 10 am – House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Oversight Hearing on the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. DOJ. Witness: John Tanner

Tuesday, 10 am – House Oversight and Government Reform
Hearing on Iran: Reality, Options, and Consequences. Part 1 — Iranian People and Attitudes

Tuesday, 12 pm – House Judiciary
Hearing on Straightening Out the Mortgage Mess: How Can We Protect Home Ownership and Provide Relief to Consumers in Financial Distress? – Part II

Wednesday, 10 am – Senate Environment and Public Works
To hold hearings to examine the licensing process for the Yucca Mountain Repository.

Wednesday, 10 am – Senate Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendments, focusing on ways to protect Americans’ security and privacy while preserving the rule of law and government accountability. Witnesses: Kenneth L. Wainstein, Edward Black, Patrick F. Philbin, Morton H. Halperin

Thursday, 11:30 am – House Budget
Counting the Change: Accounting for the Fiscal Impacts of Controlling Carbon Emissions

Friday, 10 am – House Financial Services
Progress in Administration and Other Efforts to Coordinate and Enhance Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention

see the list for details and links for these and over 60 more hearings.

Minnesotachuck @ 38

Aaahhhh! The downside counterproductivity of fighting a 4th generation war with 2nd generation war tactics!

How much of this is the result of the USAF fly-boy generals clamoring to get in on the action for fear that the irrelevance of their humongously expensive toys (F-22s at $200M a pop anyone?) in today’s world will otherwise soon begin cutting in to their lions’ share of the Pentagon procurement budgets?

See the FA article I linked above. It’s really hard to see why the US is building stealth weaponry and faster fighters. The two together make no sense whatsoever; if they’re stealthed, they don’t need an escort. If they need an escort, then the stealth isn’t working. And, IAC, there are no other fighter forces out there to run escorts against.

If they were building more and slower A-10s, the better to mow down “enemies” on foot, at least that would make some sense. But the F-22 is just craaazy.

diogenes @ 35

This is a point I make here in the South – I ask my fellow rebels, “Do you remember how our grandparents taught us how much their parents and grandparents hated federal occupation after the Civil War?”

So much so, that “damYankees” was the only acceptable swear word for young-uns? My grandmother had a way of slurring a three-syllable ‘yah-yun-kee’ that was her vilest epithet.

Given that, how the hell should we expect Iraqis and Afghans to act?

To expect them not to hate us is insane. And when you add this kind of atrocity to it, well, we’re just stoking the coals.

Ironic that the folks here in the south continue to champion “lost causes”.

jayackroyd -

The notion that the US still must remain on a wartime footing is increasingly difficult to support. The claims that we are living in “dangerous times” become more and more hollow every day. Krugman riffs on this today, as well. I do think we need to introduce the possibility that we may be able to stand down from the Cold War sometime before the generation born after the Wall fell start having children of their own.

I think that possibility was foreclosed very quickly after 9/11, when “islamic terrorism” replaced “communism.” It happened within weeks, and now is firmly embedded in the right — listen to most of the Republican candidates, who argue that the Democrats simply don’t understand the existential threat posed by the radical islamists. And so far, except for Edwards’ effort to delegitimize the “war on terror,” there’s been very little push back.

The fact is, there isn’t a single Islamic country, or alliance of them, that poses anything remotely approaching an existential threat to the United States. And yet we are constantly threatening one or the other with war, and adopting resolutions threatening them with sanctions, etc, if they cross some line in the sand.

selise @ 39

OT – weekly congressional hearings update:

Wednesday, 10 am – Senate Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendments, focusing on ways to protect Americans’ security and privacy while preserving the rule of law and government accountability. Witnesses: Kenneth L. Wainstein, Edward Black, Patrick F. Philbin, Morton H. Halperin

see the list for details and links for these and over 60 more hearings.

Oh – Patrick Philbin speaking about FISA. Is that the same Philbin who was with Comey in Ascroft’s hospital room and who, according to Comey, later was denied a promotion because of it?

Helen @ 42

Oh – Patrick Philbin speaking about FISA. Is that the same Philbin who was with Comey in Ascroft’s hospital room and who, according to Comey, later was denied a promotion because of it?

yes.

Thank you for the hearings list, selise. Gonna be an interesting week. I have got to learn how to do tivo.

Selise,

I hear you about the reasons for bombing and it seems that someone with a brain my stop the madness inside the pentagon.

It doesn’t give one much confidence in our military brass and the civilian leadership. I believe that those are reasons that we bomb(ed) but it’s just insane.

From Paul Krugman today:

Beyond that, the claim that Iran is on the path to global domination is beyond ludicrous. Yes, the Iranian regime is a nasty piece of work in many ways, and it would be a bad thing if that regime acquired nuclear weapons. But let’s have some perspective, please: we’re talking about a country with roughly the G.D.P. of Connecticut, and a government whose military budget is roughly the same as Sweden’s.

Meanwhile, the idea that bombing will bring the Iranian regime to its knees — and bombing is the only option, since we’ve run out of troops — is pure wishful thinking. Last year Israel tried to cripple Hezbollah with an air campaign, and ended up strengthening it instead. There’s every reason to believe that an attack on Iran would produce the same result, with the added effects of endangering U.S. forces in Iraq and driving oil prices well into triple digits.

Mr. Podhoretz, in short, is engaging in what my relatives call crazy talk. Yet he is being treated with respect by the front-runner for the G.O.P. nomination. And Mr. Podhoretz’s rants are, if anything, saner than some of what we’ve been hearing from some of Mr. Giuliani’s rivals.

Thus, in a recent campaign ad Mitt Romney asserted that America is in a struggle with people who aim “to unite the world under a single jihadist Caliphate. To do that they must collapse freedom-loving nations. Like us.” He doesn’t say exactly who these jihadists are, but presumably he’s referring to Al Qaeda — an organization that has certainly demonstrated its willingness and ability to kill innocent people, but has no chance of collapsing the United States, let alone taking over the world.

And Mike Huckabee, whom reporters like to portray as a nice, reasonable guy, says that if Hillary Clinton is elected, “I’m not sure we’ll have the courage and the will and the resolve to fight the greatest threat this country’s ever faced in Islamofascism.” Yep, a bunch of lightly armed terrorists and a fourth-rate military power — which aren’t even allies — pose a greater danger than Hitler’s panzers or the Soviet nuclear arsenal ever did.

All of this would be funny if it weren’t so serious.

selise @ 43

Helen @ 42

Oh – Patrick Philbin speaking about FISA. Is that the same Philbin who was with Comey in Ascroft’s hospital room and who, according to Comey, later was denied a promotion because of it?

yes.

Totally OT, but you know, Selise, when I see your name, in my head I’m saying it to that song from (ahem) the 50’s or early 60’s, that was called “Denise” (Denise, Denise..I’m so in love with you…).
What would we do without your hearings schedules?

Toby Wollin @ 47

What would we do without your hearings schedules?

thanks go to scarecrow too – it was his idea that i do it.

p.s. thank you for the kind words *g*

OT, but fascinating.

Did y’all know that Lieberman’s political predecessor, i.e., a prior Independent Democrat, was Lyndon LaRouche? Find out all about it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG6MUBAkFQg
and here http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…..klein.html
It would make a fun post for a slow day, dontcha think?

Scarecrow @ 20

The WaPo’s Sebatian Mallaby has an op ed criticizing all the “bush haters” — that would be me, I guess — for not understanding the threat Saddam Hussein posed to US interests.

Clinton’s rivals are contemplating history and deriving only a narrow lesson about Bush: Don’t trust him when he confronts a Muslim country. But the larger, more durable lesson from Iraq is that wars can be caused by a lack of confrontation. The Iraq invasion happened partly because the world had lost the stomach to confront Saddam Hussein by other means. By 2002, the sanctions on Hussein’s regime had been diluted, and there was pressure to weaken them further. Hussein was no longer “in his box,” to use the language of the time: If you believed that a resurgent Saddam Hussein presented an intolerable threat, it was worth taking the risk of unseating him by force, sooner rather than later.

Based on this view of history, he claims, Hillary was right to vote for the AUMF against Iraq, and right to vote for the Lieberman/Kyl terror designation against Iran, while Edwards and Obama are wrong for not undertanding you need these interim steps to avoid war. The best way to avoid war is through “confrontation.”

Apparently, all the evidence that the Bush regime was already committed to invaded Iraq and toppling Saddam is irrelvant. None of the lies about links to 9/11 or WMD mattered, and the IAEA reports that Iraq had no such programs never happened.

Mr. Mallaby also argues that Bush already had all the authority he needs to attack Iran, even before the vote on Lieberman/Kyl.

It’s started.

Acck! Mallaby is just a Neo-Con with a minor in Corporate Banking Economics…A Neo-Econ! He was all in favor of the Emerging American Imperialist State back in 2002. Now he’s cheerleading the beach-heads into Iran?

And he asserts that Bush can completely ignore that the Constitution states that Bush needs a Congressional Resolution to declare war…or undertake any non-defensive action. An attack into Iran would not be one that would require immediate action. Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon and is not an immediate threat, and, even if they had an interest in making a nuke, wouldn’t be for 5-10 years. There is simply no reason that such an issue could NOT be debated with due caution before Congress, with all the reasons why yet another pre-emptive attack is essential for protecting the United States.

Mallaby has long argued in favor of unregulated Hedge Funds, but he’s suddenly started saying that similar “sharing of risks” in the mortgage loan situation should have been more carefully regulated. The only difference I can see is that in the latter case Wallaby has the opportunity of hindsight.

Jhttp://www.cfr.org/bios/4452/?page=1

AQ doesn’t have the capability to “take over” a little village. Let’s get real. Krugman provides a sense of scale to these “threats”.

But that doesn’t stop them from calling them islamofascists and raise the specter of a world class army of jack booted hooded crazies.

diogenes @ 35

This is a point I make here in the South – I ask my fellow rebels, “Do you remember how our grandparents taught us how much their parents and grandparents hated federal occupation after the Civil War?”

So much so, that “damYankees” was the only acceptable swear word for young-uns? My grandmother had a way of slurring a three-syllable ‘yah-yun-kee’ that was her vilest epithet.

Given that, how the hell should we expect Iraqis and Afghans to act?

To expect them not to hate us is insane. And when you add this kind of atrocity to it, well, we’re just stoking the coals.

Yes, I think people might understand it a little better if they occasionally had a 19 year-old frisking their respected grandparents or breaking into their house. Occupiers are not likely to be well liked, under the best of circumstances.

selise @ 49

Toby Wollin @ 47

What would we do without your hearings schedules?

thanks go to scarecrow too – it was his idea that i do it.

p.s. thank you for the kind words *g*

Yes, I deserve all the credit. I spent 8 seconds asking if she’d like to do this, and she spends hours doing the research, culling what’s important, watching/listening to/taping the hearings, and summarizing for our benefit. The little stuff.

Thanks again, Selise.

Scarecrow @ 54

selise @ 49

thanks go to scarecrow too – it was his idea that i do it.

p.s. thank you for the kind words *g*

Yes, I deserve all the credit. I spent 8 seconds asking if she’d like to do this, and she spends hours doing the research, culling what’s important, watching/listening to/taping the hearings, and summarizing for our benefit. The little stuff.

Thanks again, Selise.

all that and she takes requests, too

Good work!

Can we get congress critters to read some god stuff? Seriously… I think they live in a fog of mis information or willful denial of the facts.

The fact is, there isn’t a single Islamic country, or alliance of them, that poses anything remotely approaching an existential threat to the United States. And yet we are constantly threatening one or the other with war, and adopting resolutions threatening them with sanctions, etc, if they cross some line in the sand.

Yes, Scarecrow. The thing is that the establishment foreign policy folks are finally starting to say this. I saw a Bill Maher clip over the weekend where he said “You know, I think we can hold Charleston.” Krugman, as you’ve noted, is pointing out that there is no there there. (Cohen looks particularly stupid in his placement in the dead tree edition, above Krugman, sounding like a loon nostaligic for the Soviets and VW microbuses named after dead Dead members.)

There’s a narrative shift in the air, one that would be nice to get into the campaign rhetoric of at least one of the presidential candidates. Edwards was on his way there with his ‘bumper sticker” remark. Could be he is still fighting the fear tactics, and I am just not hearing it. But I think that we need to keep saying “WTF?” when someone trots out the “Caliphate” BS,

Wolf should be getting mail when he lets people like Huckabee and Romney spout nonsense like this.

Scarecrow @ 54

selise @ 49

thanks go to scarecrow too – it was his idea that i do it.

p.s. thank you for the kind words *g*

Yes, I deserve all the credit. I spent 8 seconds asking if she’d like to do this, and she spends hours doing the research, culling what’s important, watching/listening to/taping the hearings, and summarizing for our benefit. The little stuff.

Thanks again, Selise.

It takes a community to nail these bastards and the FDL is the best community

Funny that the US military has stated that they don’t keep track of civilian casualties and deaths in these conflicts. One would thnk that such record-keeping would be essential if they were actually concerned about

a) Assessing whether their military operations were causing so much collateral damage that the civilian population would be turned against the US. A responsible military would be developing tactics to reduce the civilian cost while increasing success against the enemy.

b) Understanding whether the insurgents were still successfully operating in a sector, and what methods they were using to impact the populace. Stopping attacks against civilians is the best indicator that an area is “pacified”.

Any responsible military would be collecting and evaluating such information. So I simply find it ludicrous that the Pentagon DOESN’T keep such figures. Of course they DO…except they know that if they reveal this data it will not be a pretty sight. It will demonstrate precisely what Karzai has pointed out.

The Pentagon and Bush Administration operates from the view that “You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, the bigger the omelette the more eggs”…which isn’t very far from “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”

Bush knows what the stats actually are…but he has repeatedly said that “nobody is keeping that information”. But every time they want to make a statement in their favor they march out the “we’ve reduced civilian casualties in Anbar by 40% since 2005″…which means that they HAVE been keeping the data all along.

Oh, and I did send Mallaby a note with a link to the Betts FA piece. Figured if he was gonna use a cfr.org address, he should be reminded about the Serious Articles that are appearing under that rubric.

And, of course, all hail the Red Sox. It’s been great watching them get younger and keep winning. It gives the old, formerly painful fan’s phrase, “Wait’ll next year.” a whole different flavor.

jayackroyd @ 57

Wolf should be getting mail when he lets people like Huckabee and Romney spout nonsense like this.

Wolfie was, and still may well be, the mouthpiece of the AIP*C. He is just loving all the hate against Muslim countries. Pig.

cinnamonape

Bush knows what the stats actually are…but he has repeatedly said that “nobody is keeping that information”. But every time they want to make a statement in their favor they march out the “we’ve reduced civilian casualties in Anbar by 40% since 2005″…which means that they HAVE been keeping the data all along.

Good catch.
[egr bold]

National Ban on Death Penalty discussion up on CSPAN

nomolos @ 57

It takes a community to nail these bastards and the FDL is the best community

amen. we are smarter (at least i know i am) when we work together.

selise @ 64

nomolos @ 57

It takes a community to nail these bastards and the FDL is the best community

amen. we are smarter (at least i know i am) when we work together.

Brilliant me… I forgot to say a great big thanks to selise

Let’s go to the Bush rhetoric for this:

What kind of cowards kill innocent civilians in order to obtain political objectives?

-GSD

cinnamonape @ 58

Any responsible military would be collecting and evaluating such information. So I simply find it ludicrous that the Pentagon DOESN’T keep such figures.

yep.

either they’re lying to us when they say that they are working hard to minimize civilian casualites (how can one do that without counting them?)

… or they’re lying to us that they aren’t counting.

Lindy @ 9

I watched 9/11: Press for Truth last night. After all we’ve been through for the last six years…outrage after outrage…I’d forgotten some of the facts. This film is a good reminder that finding Osama was never on their “to-do” list.

Going after Osama was never part of the plan because Bush was never going to go after a crony. Can’t you just hear Bush saying “I understand that you don’t bite the hands of those who feed you”? Above all else, Bush must keep funds flowing to the Bush family.

This in conjunction with the post about torturing children yesterday is simply depressing. Also, aren’t we bombing Afghanistan, at least some of the time, with depleted uranium?

Good morning, all.

Elliott @ 63

National Ban on Death Penalty discussion up on CSPAN

If the death penalty had an effect on on crime, Texas would be a crime free paradise.

Yes, the evil Islamo-fascists are roughly 170 nations away from their ultimate goal of world domination.

Give or take a province or two in Afhganistan and Pakistan.

-GSD

Badwater @ 70

Elliott @ 63

National Ban on Death Penalty discussion up on CSPAN

If the death penalty had an effect on on crime, Texas would be a crime free paradise.

lol!

cinnamonape @ 59

Funny that the US military has stated that they don’t keep track of civilian casualties and deaths in these conflicts. One would thnk that such record-keeping would be essential if they were actually concerned about

a) Assessing whether their military operations were causing so much collateral damage that the civilian population would be turned against the US. A responsible military would be developing tactics to reduce the civilian cost while increasing success against the enemy.

b) Understanding whether the insurgents were still successfully operating in a sector, and what methods they were using to impact the populace. Stopping attacks against civilians is the best indicator that an area is “pacified”.

Any responsible military would be collecting and evaluating such information. So I simply find it ludicrous that the Pentagon DOESN’T keep such figures. Of course they DO…except they know that if they reveal this data it will not be a pretty sight. It will demonstrate precisely what Karzai has pointed out.

The Pentagon and Bush Administration operates from the view that “You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, the bigger the omelette the more eggs”…which isn’t very far from “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”

Bush knows what the stats actually are…but he has repeatedly said that “nobody is keeping that information”. But every time they want to make a statement in their favor they march out the “we’ve reduced civilian casualties in Anbar by 40% since 2005″…which means that they HAVE been keeping the data all along.

Still I think they puff up the numbers they like and ignore or don’t count the numbers they don’t like.
Lying to yourself is something people in power have to watch out for especialy if nobody is holding them accountable for results.
Bush had no desire to admit he made a mistake, now its too late to change his plan and fix things so he stays in Iraq because to admit that he was wrong now means that we get out of Iraq because its too late to fix things.

OT: Tandredo won’t run for re-election

America has reached the point where it is merely running on fumes. A nation that is held together by it’s own myths and it’s xenophobic sense of exceptionalism. A rotting carcass that is unaware of it’s own stench. Ozymandias of the West.

you guys are going to make me go hide out of embarrassment.

let’s see… like scarecrow spent 8 seconds putting together this post – and all the other wonderful posts he writes…. *g*

Ya know, we rag on our Dems for being wusses and they vote the right way most of the time. But ‘maverick’ McCain always, ALWAYS friggin’ votes the BushCo line where it counts. ALWAYS.

God, what a tool.

selise @ 66

cinnamonape @ 58

Any responsible military would be collecting and evaluating such information. So I simply find it ludicrous that the Pentagon DOESN’T keep such figures.

yep.

either they’re lying to us when they say that they are working hard to minimize civilian casualites (how can one do that without counting them?)

… or they’re lying to us that they aren’t counting.

They “don’t keep track of casualties” today because it is far too easy to fall into the Vietnam trap that anyone killed, no matter what age or sex, is an enemy. It was called “body counts.”

egregious @ 74

OT: Tandredo won’t run for re-election

And what lovely news it is! (Especially if it means he might be trying to pull a Ron Paul and take the bigot vote from Giuliani.)

egregious @ 74

OT: Tandredo won’t run for re-election

where’s my hanky?

GSD @ 66

Let’s go to the Bush rhetoric for this:

What kind of cowards kill innocent civilians in order to obtain political objectives?

-GSD

But but but it’s different when we’re doing it! Besides, they’re all brown people who talk funny and worship that Allah guy, so they don’t count. Just get them away from our oil! No Oil For Pacifists!

peanutbutter @ 69

This in conjunction with the post about torturing children yesterday is simply depressing. Also, aren’t we bombing Afghanistan, at least some of the time, with depleted uranium?

Good morning, all.

Link? I can’t think of a reason why. DU is used in anti-armor munitions but it has to be fired at high velocities to work.

The human issue of our causing the deaths of innocent men, women, and children is painful. The political question of whether this actually does us any strategic (as opposed to tactical) good needs to be discussed. But this has always been the case in war, and unless you are a pacifist it’s one of the things you’re endorsing if you endorse the notion that some wars are just. So either you’re arguing that no wars are just or that this war isn’t. And to complicate matters further, as you allude to (but don’t spell out) civilian casualties can always be reduced at the cost of increased American casualties. So that’s part of this macabre “equation” as well. So I’m not sure what you’re arguing here: That we should never put ourselves in a position like this? That we’re doing it stupidly? That we should be willing to accept more US casualties in exchange for fewer civilian casualties?

OT–

Heckuva job:

FEMA director of external affairs John P. “Pat” Philbin is really, really sorry that he participated in last week’s fake FEMA press conference. “It was absolutely a bad decision. I regret it happened. Certainly … I should have stopped it,” Philbin tells the Washington Post. “I hope readers understand we’re working very hard to establish credibility and integrity, and I would hope this does not undermine it.”

(snip)

So, was Philbin fired?

Well, not exactly.

He has been appointed to serve as the new public affairs chief for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a place where fake news isn’t anything new.

ot – wow, this is big, huge, ginormous!

from lukery’s dkos diary:

Former FBI translator and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has promised to tell us everything she knows about treason at the highest level of the US government – with one proviso:

“Here’s my promise to the American Public: If anyone of the major networks — ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, FOX — promise to air the entire segment, without editing, I promise to tell them everything that I know.”

Edmonds, “the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America,” has been trying to expose criminal activity, treason, at the highest levels of the US Government – Congress, Pentagon and State Dept – since she became aware of the crimes in 2001 and 2002.

Edmonds has exhausted every conceivable channel in the courts, Congress, and elsewhere, and is now willing to risk criminal charges to ensure that the American people learn how their government really ‘works.’

waxman was her last hope and he has refused to do anything.

I find it very informative that Mr. Pelley doesn’t believe the Afghans know who they hate the most. They say they hate Americans and he says they are wrong, they hate the Soviets more.
It is kind of like when Karzai said that Iran has been helpful to Afghanistan. Bush said Karzai doesn’t know what he’s talking about. We know better than the Afghanis who is helping them. And Iran is evil because we say so. Anyone who says they are not is a big fat liar.

This is huge, I expect. Iraq is included.

new thread

I wish people would stop saying “calculus” when they mean “calculation”.

I should add, since I forgot to include, that the lying to the press is the main finding in this story, for sure.

larry birnbaum @ 83

The human issue of our causing the deaths of innocent men, women, and children is painful. The political question of whether this actually does us any strategic (as opposed to tactical) good needs to be discussed. But this has always been the case in war, and unless you are a pacifist it’s one of the things you’re endorsing if you endorse the notion that some wars are just. So either you’re arguing that no wars are just or that this war isn’t. And to complicate matters further, as you allude to (but don’t spell out) civilian casualties can always be reduced at the cost of increased American casualties. So that’s part of this macabre “equation” as well. So I’m not sure what you’re arguing here: That we should never put ourselves in a position like this? That we’re doing it stupidly? That we should be willing to accept more US casualties in exchange for fewer civilian casualties?

How about applying the same rules of engagement in Afghanistan that our law enforcement authorities would apply (and justify to our courts) if this were happening to US citizens in a US city. Then you’re last question, which implies that humans wearing US uniforms are intrinsically more valuable than humans who happen to be Afghanis does not enter into the “calculation.” And yes, those who would commit us to “war” should think through these calculations before they take us to war.

Helen @ 43

selise @ 39

OT – weekly congressional hearings update:

Wednesday, 10 am – Senate Judiciary
To hold hearings to examine Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendments, focusing on ways to protect Americans’ security and privacy while preserving the rule of law and government accountability. Witnesses: Kenneth L. Wainstein, Edward Black, Patrick F. Philbin, Morton H. Halperin

see the list for details and links for these and over 60 more hearings.

Oh – Patrick Philbin speaking about FISA. Is that the same Philbin who was with Comey in Ascroft’s hospital room and who, according to Comey, later was denied a promotion because of it?

But not to be confused with FEMA’s John Patrick Philbin who was just fired….although he also goes by the name “Pat”.

US Attorney Ken Wainstein was Chief of Staff to FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, from March 2003 to May 2004 and General Counsel of the FBI from July 2002 to March 2003.

Apparently he’s argued for granting immunity because without it the lawsuits will bankrupt the Telecoms. Sounds like they must have done a sh*tload of illegal actions for this to be a risk. I seriously doubt that known terrorists would be filing these actions in court.

Hows about a compromise…limit damages to $50,000 a person; $100,000 if more than phone calling records were provided by the Telecom.

Maybe we could start getting some idea of the scale of these actions when they start begging to negotiate because there would be too many plaintiffs!

raven@41,

In most places here, the North/South thing is relegated to something akin to a sports rivalry – you needle the other guys a little, and then leave the bar together. A few generations back, the dislike was palpable.

My point was, federal occupation of the South was totally justified, but that didn’t make folks like it any better. We just naturally don’t like being made to do something against our wills, and it can take decades for the hate to fade away. The shit we’re doing in the ME will breed terrorists beyond our lifetimes.

Southerners should understand that better than most, but too many totally accept the otherness Bush/Cheney have created (and the ME being full of brown people helps facilitate that).

That’s why I like to put them in Joe Arab’s shoes for a minute and get them to actually think.

selise @ 39

OT – weekly congressional hearings update:

The big hearings for the week are Tuesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Civil Rights division of the DOJ with John Tanner, and Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on FISA. Here’s the day and time for a few hearings:

Tuesday, 10 am – House Judiciary
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties
Oversight Hearing on the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. DOJ. Witness: John Tanner

see the list for details and links for these and over 60 more hearings.

The Tanner testimony could be incindiery. Tanner was the guy in the DOJ who the DOJ attempted to embargo from testimony about the Civil Rights Division actions that actually encouraged discrimination against minorities…arguing that White voters would be disadvantaged with the enforcement of certain Civil Rights laws.

Expect the questions to be “hot”!

Toby Wollin @ 48

selise @ 43

yes.

Totally OT, but you know, Selise, when I see your name, in my head I’m saying it to that song from (ahem) the 50’s or early 60’s, that was called “Denise” (Denise, Denise..I’m so in love with you…).
What would we do without your hearings schedules?

Wasn’t there a Blondie song?

selise @ 67

cinnamonape @ 58

Any responsible military would be collecting and evaluating such information. So I simply find it ludicrous that the Pentagon DOESN’T keep such figures.

yep.

either they’re lying to us when they say that they are working hard to minimize civilian casualites (how can one do that without counting them?)

… or they’re lying to us that they aren’t counting.

I think it’s both. They have statisticians collecting every bit of data they can obtain…it’s an information war as well.

I’d like to find some of the troops who do follow up and count corpses. I bet 100 to 1 that they send data on the age, sex, proximity of weapons, etc. Remember those guys charged with murdering that civilian in Baquba. They had to make up something about the guy having a weapon before they put him in the hole and shot him. So of course they are reporting this information.

I also bet they know just how many civilians flow through the hospitals…after all, they sometimes “raid” these and get “militants” being treted in them. So how do they know those militants are there. They access the hospital databases and records. It’s not perfect data-collection, by any means, the miloitary is always complaining about the fact that the Iraqis are still relying on paper record keeping…which makes it a lot morelaborious to quickly access and tabulate the data in ways they want. But that just impresses upon us that they ARE doing it!

Scarecrow @ 91

How about applying the same rules of engagement in Afghanistan that our law enforcement authorities would apply (and justify to our courts) if this were happening to US citizens in a US city.

amen!

I really respect and admire Sibel Edmonds.

Why is she not listened to?

She would blow it all up? All the lies and coverups… she knows it and they don’t want her pulling the curtain up and making them ALL look like a bunch of kabuki players, ALL of them.

The brutality of our bombing campaign during the invasion of Iraq has been known for some time. Here’s a post at Enemy Of The People from Aug. 13, 2004 that lays it all out: http://eop.blogspot.com/2004/0…..me_13.html

Quite simply, we never learned the limits of the Pentagon’s tolerance for loss of innocent life. Every “high fatality” missions was approved. Every “high value target” raid was approved as well, despite the utter futility of the program – ZERO for fifty.

I don’t know if you guys caught Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on “Face the Nation” this weekend, but he came out strongly against waterboarding and on the failure of Mukasey to admit that it is torture. From the CBS website:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_102807.pdf

“SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you quickly about the chances of Mr. Mukasey, the administration’s
nominee to be attorney general. It looked like he was off to a pretty good start with the Judiciary Committee, but he ran into a little bit of a roadblock this week over whether or not he believes waterboarding is torture.

Sen. GRAHAM: Right.

SCHIEFFER: What’s going to happen on that, Senator? Can you continue to support him,
Senator Graham?

Sen. GRAHAM: Well, I’m on the committee. I thought he did a good job explaining himself,
generally speaking. But he was asked a specific question about an interrogation technique called waterboarding. I am convinced, as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding, the technique that was described to Judge Mukasey does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute and is clearly illegal under domestic and international law, and I think it would serve the attorney general nominee well to embrace that concept. He’s talked around it. But you know, I want to win this war. And the way we win this war is to adhere to our values, don’t adopt the enemies’ values. The rule of law is something…

SCHIEFFER: Well…

Sen. GRAHAM: …that we embrace, and so I hope he will give a direct answer to that question.

SCHIEFFER: Well, would you vote against him if he doesn’t?

Sen. GRAHAM: I am urging him that he needs to come forward. If he does not believe that
waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind because I don’t think you have to be very–have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention Common Article III, the war crimes statute, and many other statutes that are in place.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

Sen. GRAHAM: So I do hope he will embrace that. “

I think that’s a positive sign that there are members of Judiciary on both sides of the aisle, that are uncomfortable with Mukasey’s answers and that they’re ready to hold his feet to the fire on this one.

Bush will have him killed.

Scarecrow @ 91

larry birnbaum @ 83

… So I’m not sure what you’re arguing here: That we should never put ourselves in a position like this? That we’re doing it stupidly? That we should be willing to accept more US casualties in exchange for fewer civilian casualties?

How about applying the same rules of engagement in Afghanistan that our law enforcement authorities would apply (and justify to our courts) if this were happening to US citizens in a US city. Then you’re last question, which implies that humans wearing US uniforms are intrinsically more valuable than humans who happen to be Afghanis does not enter into the “calculation.” And yes, those who would commit us to “war” should think through these calculations before they take us to war.

I think you’re overly optimistic about what would be deemed legal and appropriate government action in the case of, say, a domestic insurrection. Certainly we’d hope that it wouldn’t include wholesale destruction on the model of Russia’s actions in Chechnya. But look at what happened at Waco. It’s true that afterwards there were a lot of recriminations. But I don’t believe anyone was held legally accountable.

one official described as a “macabre kind of calculus” about whether the “target” was “worth” the likely number of civilian deaths.

Ah yes…..shades of the Ford Pinto case logic.

Given that Bush is a rednecked, bigoted, hater of Muslims and Arabs, he considers every dead Afghani as a good Afghani and wants to see more of them die. The commanders know that count every civilian citizen death as one more dead enemy, report the death counts to Bush as such. It is untrue that our military does not keep track of how many civilians are killed, they damn well know because Bush gloats over every single death and not only in Afghanistan but also Iraq. Long, long past time when we got rid of this bloodthirsty monster who killed more people than the vampires in Buffy.

Kurt @ 19

So instead of me arguing the points of this article that we will probably will not agree on, what do you all propose we do with the events of 9/11? Meaning, it is 9/12, we are looking at news feed of 2 downed buildings. What do we do?

To take it a step further, how do you deal with someone that has called for the extermination of an entire race of people (ie, IRAN)? The destruction to a nation that supports those people?

Citing these two things together in one paragraph doesn’t actually mean there’s any connection. We’ve already heard Cheney et al do the same with 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. It’s meaningless — like saying bananas and sunrise.

What we had to do was determine who attacked us on 9/11. From what I’ve heard it took about 30 seconds for our administration to “know” it was al Qaeda and that we had to attack Afghanistan. How they knew so quickly isn’t clear and how certain they were is far from clear. Why they began to talk about Iraq in the next minute is also unclear except that George W. Bush had talked about attacking Iraq for years.

Clearly there is more secret information about al Qaeda we the public just haven’t heard.

Still, after all this time, the fact we haven’t yet tracked down and captured or killed our arch-enemy Osama bin Laden indicates we really don’t want to catch him and THAT indicates maybe it wasn’t al Qaeda who was the real culprit behind 9/11.

Even if there were Muslims involved on 9/11 it doesn’t necessarily mean al Qaeda ordered them into that position. Even if al Qaeda people were there doesn’t mean our people didn’t know it and manipulate events around the attack.

Until the public knows a lot more of what happened we will be held at the mercy of Bushies, Neocons and anyone else who claim everything is National Security. It was used during the Cold War and is being used again (see Sibel Edmonds).

We have to break that evil spell. We have to let the sunlight in and dare to look at all the facts. Simple as that.