So who did get away?
Back to Main
June 29, 2005
Open Barndoor
Comments
Revolution, geopolitics and pipelines
A geopolitical pattern has become clear over the past months. One-by-one, with documented overt and covert Washington backing and financing, new US-friendly regimes have been put in place in former Soviet states which are in a strategic relation to possible pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea.
…
The current Washington strategy targets many Eurasian former Soviet republics which per se have no known oil or gas reserves. What they do have, however, is strategic military or geopolitical significance for the Washington policy of dominating the future of Eurasia.
That policy has China as its geopolitical, economic and military fulcrum. A look at the Eurasian map and at the target countries for various US-sponsored color revolutions makes this unmistakably clear. To the east of the Caspian Sea, Washington in one degree or another today controls Pakistan, Afghanistan, potentially Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. These serve as a potential US-controlled barrier or buffer zone between China and Russian, Caspian and Iranian energy sources. Washington is out to deny China easy land access to either Russia, the Middle East or to the oil and gas fields of the Caspian Sea. ..
So where is he ?
And how much has it cost to find him ? .. $180,000,000,000
Posted by: DM | Jun 29 2005 12:50 utc | 3
Both the WSJ and the WaPo carried stories yesterday on the DSM
Link WSJ
Link WaPo
You can scan both and you will search in vain for the word “minutes”.
Now the WSJ is supposed to be THE business paper. The WaPo is supposed to be THE politics paper. And they “don’t understand” the significance of the document category called minutes???
I’m png so would somebody suitably qualified (Billmon?) please explain to the great unwashed WHY the media conspirators are hiding this word?
Posted by: John | Jun 29 2005 13:06 utc | 4
Perhaps I should move the following request towards Outraged into this thread, with the original one soon receding from sight.
I was intrigued by your direct personal knowledge of the matters. When, back in the run-up to the Iraq war, I was doing my research for all this legal mess, one thing I couldn’t find on the web was a verbatim quote of the Safwan Accords. I was curious about (1) the exact wording of this air traffic limitation, (2) what the document says about how long it is valid, (3) on who are the parties (UN/Iraq, USA/Iraq, Coalition/Iraq, coalition members/Iraq etc.). Can you direct me to a source, or give your own account?
Jeesus H, John, words mean whatever anybody wants them to mean, and whatever is legal, or sovereign, or whatever the hell, is a matter of power, which, as you know, stems from the barrel of a gun. Memo? Minutes? We know they are liars, but they will get away with it for as long as it suits the Fourth Estate. I doubt that any nuanced differences between a memo and a minute is going to make a big impact on New York Times or Washington Post readers.
Posted by: DM | Jun 29 2005 13:59 utc | 7
Well, Bernhard, nursing his pimple undoubtedly, has missed the real story of last night and this morning:
Senators McCain, Kerry, and Biden(D,MBNA), urge more troops for Iraq:
LINK
If you’ve got a barf bag in your medical kit there b, I’ll take one, please.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 29 2005 15:29 utc | 9
@FlashHarry
Posted previously in more detail that we are in a Vietnam ’65 situ … strategically, they got three options:
1) withraw
2) stay the course but destroy the Army and Marines for a decade to come if current or higher level of intensity of Ops continues beyond 12-24 months
3) Escalate, more ruthless/brutal and more troops (draft), in hopes of ‘forcing’ a possible ‘win’ or at least an interim ‘suppression’ of the insurgency
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 15:51 utc | 11
Well, it’ll be funny if China buys Unocal. All these glorious plans of world domination are soon gonna come crashing down, and it won’t be pretty.
And if W thinks he can take on N Korea, he’s welcome to it. In fact, he should do both Iran and Korea at the same time, to show he’s a manly man with chutzpah. Come on, Georgie boy, we know you’re *that* good 🙂
Posted by: Clueless Joe | Jun 29 2005 15:53 utc | 12
outraged
3)
The consequences of retreat will be catastrophic policy-wise. right? also, not to repeat political betrayal of military as happened in vietnam. right? and iran. iran simply must be confronted. anything less is abandonment of israel. right?
no way to turn this bus around. right?
I know so little, but the inertia of this ME catastrophy seems to obviate imagination to turn the clock back in any way.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2005 16:05 utc | 13
outraged
there is a 4) make it thoroughly clear to Iraq and world US will not maintain enduring military presence, not liberalize/raid Iraqi economy, not meddle in resource extraction. really walk the walk of “democratization.” shoulda, cloulda.
Posted by: slothrop | Jun 29 2005 16:12 utc | 14
DM, you’re correct. Next the Pentagon will distribute more “food aid” BSE-tainted beef to the Iraqis, and more smallpox-infested blankets, exactly what the Custer-era colonialists did to the American Indians.
The White Settlers called it Pacification. The Nazis called it the Final Solution. Our feckless leader calls it “preserving our freedom.”
Posted by: tante aime | Jun 29 2005 16:17 utc | 15
@Slothrop
Ok, if Afghanistan’79-’89 was the Soviet Unions ‘Vietnam’, then comparitively Iraq is America’s ‘Soviet Afghanistan’ equivalent.
Withdraw means they abandon thier entire policy of exceptional expansive empire to secure strategic territory to contain Chinese-Russian-Iranian spheres of influence and as a secondary issue the access to and effective control of the ME and Central Asian energy resources, now and into the future.
On another level the whole point of ‘pre-emptive war’ (Aggressive War re Nuremberg) and ‘Regime Change’ is to demonstrate the power and ability of the remaining superpower to act unilaterally and with contempt/disdain for the ‘legacy’ of international Law, etc. If they withdraw, then it was all a bluff and Amerika is proven a ‘paper Tiger’ re geo-political nation state affairs.
What moral, military and diplomatic authority do they, the neocons, percieve they will have to maintain and secure Amerikan dominance if they withdraw ?
This is compounded by thier isolation in thier own reality/policy/advice ‘bubble’ of thier own creation.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 16:24 utc | 16
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who met with Bush last week, was quoted as saying in Wednesday’s edition of the London-based Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat that he discussed the issue of troop withdrawal with the U.S. president:
“We want the foreign troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible,” al-Jaafari was quoted as telling the newspaper in an interview. “No country accepts having foreign troops on its lands because this indicates our inability to defend our country and our acknowledgment that there is a security problem.”
and
“Over the weekend, I met with members of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafaris delegation and Iraqi Americans who had recently spent time in Iraq. Many of them expressed concern regarding the failure of U.S. and Iraqi forces to secure Iraqs borders, prevent repeated suicide attacks, and protect civilians. According to them, the popular perception in cities like Baghdad is that such failures are deliberate: a way to justify Americas ongoing military presence.”
Erik K. Gustafson
Executive Director
Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC)
28 June 2005
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 16:30 utc | 17
Outraged: Ok, if Afghanistan’79-’89 was the Soviet Unions ‘Vietnam’, then comparitively Iraq is America’s ‘Soviet Afghanistan’ equivalent.
I suspect America’s ‘Soviet Afghanistan’ is Iraq and Afghanistan combined. While even less news comes out of the latter than the former, it is just as big, or, from the viewpoint of controlling the country, an even bigger fuckup. (And the signs of that are visible since December 2001 already.)
Those are good questions outraged. I’m left with the neocons’ only option being to stay the course and avoid the shame of failure.
So the question is, can they do that? I think not, not even with escalation as proposed by dems Biden and Kerry, or with nukes. Nothing will work (I am hopefully suggesting)…They done gone a couple of bridges too far and there is no way out but failure.
I see desperation peeking out everywhere. Perle and Wolfy have already sneaked away to safer sinecures from which to watch the collapse of their dream creation.
I agree with Lupin that the Rovians along with WaPo and NYT have effectively neutralised the (domestic)opposition, so there is nobody with leadership skills to step in and save what is left after the collapse. That leaves us with a mortally wounded sole superpower flopping helplessly on the ground. This may well have been the objective from the beginning.
What would we have done with a victory anyway except continue to gobble up resources to live high off the hog til they are gone?
BTW my suggestion some time ago that Kerry was a plant, a stooge in the dem nominee slot, seems more credible as we see this thing play out. Isn’t he a Bonesman?
Posted by: rapt | Jun 29 2005 16:56 utc | 20
Further Lupinian reflections on Da Speech:
We have already been fucked, now they’re just rubbing that shit in.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 29 2005 17:03 utc | 21
Of course the end game will be a catastrophe, which is why people like Rove are already starting to blame the “liberals.”
Posted by: Brian Boru | Jun 29 2005 17:13 utc | 22
They done gone a couple of bridges too far and there is no way out but failure.
From thier perspective it’s a ‘stay the course’ or escalate as LBJ did in ’65 …
That leaves us with a mortally wounded sole superpower flopping helplessly on the ground. This may well have been the objective from the beginning
It’s not what they intended but its what the world is seeing and what they may well reap.
Because they desire to mainatin thier personal positions of power they can’t consider total withdrawal, just like LBJ and Nixon they’ve trapped themselves in a lose now or lose later (worse) situ … of course none of this considers the ongoing Afghan insurgency that on a troop ratio basis is even more lethal than Iraq … with growing indications of possible previously uninvolved nations now contributing to the US dilemna there …
In the meantime there’s Venezuela and North Korea to consider while this lot is busy breaking the Army and Marines whilst contributing to the ruin of the US economy. Not to mention the inevitable blowback of an invigorated, emboldened and hardened fundamentalist terror threat WHEN we finally withdraw …
And they dare mouth insincere and cynical exhortations to ‘Support the Troops’ ?!
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 17:21 utc | 23
Well, Kerry and co could call for withdrawal. How would that play in the media? If you pretend for a moment that there is some chance of getting a slightly normal government in place in the US next year then they need to avoid giving the republicans a chance to paint them as calling or defeat. The Democrats aren’t much better than the Republicans, but they don’t appear to be quite as batshit crazy as the current admin.
Politically, calling for more troops is smart, and depending on your view of whether or not the US has any chance of stabilising Iraq, morally correct. They know Bush isn’t going to send more troops: he can’t. Not without a draft, and that would destroy the chances for the next election. Maybe they think if the troops were available they could stablise Iraq.
If the US wasn’t being run by shower of arrogant fools sending more troops would have been the smart thing to do two years ago. It’s probably too late now, and the forces just don’t exist, but if there was any chance the number of Iraqi dead could be decreased by sending more American troops into the grinder, then that would be – sadly – the moral thing to do. As it stands, the regime has no intention of rebuilding Iraq, no interest in saving Iraqi lives and couldn’t do so if it wanted to.
@Outrage – In the meantime there’s Venezuela and North Korea to consider while this lot is busy breaking the Army and Marines whilst contributing to the ruin of the US economy.
WTF is there to consider on Venezuela, Outrage? Chavez, elected and confirmed in a referendum has some 70% positive responses in polls and he takes care for the poor of his country with using the natural resources to their advantage.
MAy I please ask what there is to “consider” about Venezuela?
THE SOVIET WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: HISTORY AND HARBINGER OF FUTURE WAR?
General (Ret) Mohammad Yahya Nawroz, Army of Afghanistan
and Mr. Lester W. Grau
Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
1995
Lessons learned
Modern, mechanized forces are still in peril when committed to fight guerrillas …
The Soviet-Afghanistan war demonstrated that:
A guerrilla war is not a war of technology versus peasantry. Rather, it is a contest of endurance and national will. The side with the greatest moral commitment (ideological, religious or patriotic) will hold the ground at the end of the conflict. Battlefield victory can be almost irrelevant, since victory is often determined by morale, obstinacy and survival.
Secure logistics and secure lines of communication are essential for the guerrilla and non-guerrilla force. Security missions, however, can tie up most of a conventional force.
Tactics for conventional war will not work against guerrillas. Forces need to be reequipped, restructured and retrained for fighting guerrillas or for fighting as guerrillas. The most effective combatants are light infantry.
Tanks have a limited utility for the counter-guerrilla force, but can serve as an effective reserve on the right terrain. Infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters can play an important role in mobility and fire support. Mechanized forces usually fight effectively only when dismounted and when using their carriers for support or as a maneuver reserve. Ample engineer troops are essential for both side.
Journalists and television cameramen are key players in guerrilla warfare. The successful struggle can be effectively aided when championed by a significant portion of the world’s press.
Logistics determines the scope of activity and size of force either side can field.
Unity of command is very important, yet sometimes impossible to achieve.
Domination of the air is irrelevant unless airpower can be precisely targetted. Seizure of terrain can be advantageous, but is usually only of temporary value. Control of the cities can be a plus, but can also prove a detriment. Support of the population is essential for the winning side.
And in the end:
According to General Nawroz, the Afghan-Soviet War was a rare confrontation in history as it helped trigger the collapse of the greatest empire of modern times. Lessons learned from this conflict were gathered by both sides. Whatever else these lessons may show, the most fundamental of them is that no army, however sophisticated, well trained, materially rich, numerically overwhelming and ruthless, can succeed on the battlefield if it is not psychologically fit and motivated for the fight. The force, however destitute in material advantages and numbers, which can rely on the moral qualities of a strong faith, stubborn determination, individualism and unending patience will always be the winner. These may not be the optimum qualities always found in the armies of western democracies.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 18:09 utc | 27
@b
WTF is there to consider on Venezuela, Outrage
The US is dependent on imported petroleum from Venezuela. The current administration has directly interfered in Venezuela politics by assisting/directing the attempted coup and financing the ‘end-runs’ around the law to oust Chavez.
As Americas international position weakens, or is even percieved to, along with its military, then the more likely nations like Venezuela will cease to play the subordinate to the ‘superpower’ game as the lieklihood of intervention is dramaticlly diminished especially if the US is faced by multiple concurrent crisis amidst flagging international support.
Personally, more power to the Venezeulans to control thier own resources for the benefit of thier own people. They and the better part of latin America have been exploited for far too long by corporate capital.
If any of the current suppliers of petroluem to the US thought they could get away with redirecting thier exports or not using US petro dollars, the current concerns re $60 an oil barrel would be a memory … and the effect on the US ?
The Domino theory works both ways … If Rome is no longer seen as unbeatable/unchallengeable (?) then the vassal states and provinces of the empire go thier own way …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 18:24 utc | 28
@Outraged – oil is sold on markets. If oil gets scarce or demands increases above supply the price goes up. If Venezuela sells to China, China will not have to buy elsewhere and the US can buy that chunk. As long as markets work its free for all.
The problem with the US elite is that they don´t believe in markets and therefore think they have to have direct control of the goods. The Sowjets tried that too – it didn´t work.
I think Colman is right about the Dems, and while I dont agree with the tactic, it does force Bush deeper into the corner by seeming to be more aggressive (allbeit rhetorically). For the reasons stated, Bush can’t escalate troop #s without a draft (political suicide) and he can’t get tougher on the ground without inflaming the resistance, I think they call this leaving him to “twist in the wind” with the descisions as already made and now locked into.
It is all with a mighty curiosity I watch all the pundents, after the “speech”, dance around with the same old veiled rhetoric like being forced to watch an old vaudville act over and over and still find some humor in the path of thinking now worn into a ditch. Still they all manage to avoid uttering a single word on the motives on part of the administration, why they are building 14 enduring bases, why they shattered the socio-economic infrastructure of the country and fleeced it of billions of dollars of its own money, or exactly what do they mean when they say “so we can bring our troops home”. It’s always about our ideas, our freedom, our security, our military, or our notion of mission acomplished — It’s NEVER about what the Iraqi people want, what they see as happening to their country, their culture, their economy, or their dreams. It is a supreme irony that the whole sordid lie is grounded in whats best for them. And nobody (in the American) media ever bothers to ponder this gaping disconnect.
Posted by: anna missed | Jun 29 2005 19:06 utc | 31
All 17 US troops in Afghan crash believed dead
By David Brunnstrom. KABUL (Reuters) – All 17 US troops aboard an American helicopter that crashed after being hit by ground fire …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 29 2005 19:11 utc | 32
@Anna Missed:
My reading of McCain, Kerry, and Biden’s remarks, as well as of Clark’s remarks on Faux last night is that these guys are deadly serious.
Fits in well with Outraged’s ’65 escalation scenario.
Had they wanted to twist Bush, I think they could have found another way.
Posted by: FlashHarry | Jun 29 2005 19:32 utc | 33
DM@9:59am
You could well be right. I find myself questioning my own judgement on so many levels these days. For my own peace of mind let me lay out what I thought, and leave it at that.
Here is what happens at formal (minuted) meetings.
The designated note taker does not participate. Once the meeting is over he pulls together a rough draft and runs through it with the chairman. He incorporates the chairman’s comments and circulates the resulting first draft to those named therein. Once they are satisfied with the accuracy with respect to themselves, he takes what have become draft minutes back to the chairman.
When the chairman signs they become minutes. And only then.
The chairman in this case was Tony Blair.
The fact that these are the real minutes means that Tony Blair himself signed at the foot of the page.
Not a bureacrat, nor a senior official, nor even a minister. But the man who wields the royal prerogative.
Posted by: John | Jun 29 2005 21:02 utc | 34
Conspiracy JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT.
Bush Family Links to the Third Reich
Independent Journalist, John Buchanan discovered these documents at The National Archives, declassified in September 2003. Included are references to Prescott Bush, Sr.’s involvement in post WW II flight capital programs. They are available, along with Mr. Buchanan’s introductions here.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 29 2005 22:44 utc | 35
“The problem with the US elite is that they don´t believe in markets and therefore think they have to have direct control of the goods. The Sowjets tried that too – it didn´t work.”
Right on.
Nobody ever asks how much oil could have been bought with the dollars spent in attacking Iraq.
Posted by: sm | Jun 29 2005 23:01 utc | 36
The force, however destitute in material advantages and numbers, which can rely on the moral qualities of a strong faith, stubborn determination, individualism and unending patience will always be the winner. These may not be the optimum qualities always found in the armies of western democracies.
This statement implies that armies from democracies may not be as effective as armies from other states, as though faith, stubborness, individualism and patience is stronger in armies from non-democracies. I think it is much simpler than that. An army that knows why it is fighting and believes in that cause is far more motivated to fight than one that does not. The Iraqis are fighting against US domination and for their way of life. Most American soldiers don’t feel a real connection to their way of life back home and their mission in Iraq. For Iraqi fighters, it is personal and connected to a larger purpose; for Americans it is much harder to feel personal connection to the slogans offered as the war’s justification and, when the real motivations are understood, natural to feel bitter resentment over the way they are being used. There will always be the super patriots, but their motivations are far more abstract than personal.
In short, I don’t believe soldiers are any more or less motivated just because they come from a particular form of government. The allied soldiers fought well in WWI and WWII and the Soviet soldiers were beaten in Afghanistan. The cause for which a soldier fights is what motivates him, and the Iraqis have a decided advantage in that department in this fight.
Posted by: lonesomeG | Jun 29 2005 23:09 utc | 37
lol…..like anyone actually listens to kerry and dems. bushco will make things worse and worse. then he’ll pass on power to the dems. when the shit hits the fan, the corpmedia will blame the dems.
the fix is in. another lame-duck dem whitehouse in ’08.
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | Jun 30 2005 0:12 utc | 38
A (10 second) NPR report just said there was another Redcon air Whitehouse evacuation today, I searched the internets but found nothing, anybody hear anything?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 30 2005 0:50 utc | 39
My reading of McCain, Kerry, and Biden’s remarks, as well as of Clark’s remarks on Faux last night is that these guys are deadly serious.
Yes, they’re deadly serious — emphasis on the deadly. They know failure in Iraq is an option, and I’ve no doubt they’re willing to walk over the dead bodies of an awful lot of Iraqis to try to stave off an outright Vietnam-style defeat.
It’s useful to remember what happened after Clinton went into Kosoovo and Milosovic and the Serbs didn’t fold right away. We escalated the bombing. And when that didn’t work we took it right into downtown Belgrade.
In his book American Empire, Bacevich described just how far the Clintonites were willing to go to salvage American prestige:
Samuel R. Berger summoned a group of “wise men” to the White House. To counter the perception that the president lacked the mettle to see things through, Berger outlined for his listeners “four irreducible facts.”
“One, we will win. Period. Full stop. There is no alternative. Second, winning means what we said it means. Third, the air campaign is having a serious impact. Four, the president has said he has not ruled out any option. So go back to one. We will win.”
I’m not really being judgemental about this. You could argue that it was better to kill 500 Serbian civilians (roughly the death toll for the Belgrade bombing) than to allow Milosovic to repeat the Bosnian genocide in Kosovo. Not the kind of argument I would want to make, but there it is. War is hell.
But I’m also not going to sugarcoat what Clinton did. It was terror bombing, pure and simple — the deliberate targeting of civilian installations and the civilian population in order to force the political leadership of a country to obey. It’s what Nixon did to Hanoi, what the US did to Hiroshima and what Hitler did to Rotterdam.
“Go back to one: We will win.”
The kicker, though, is Berger’s hint that Clinton “had not ruled out any option.” God knows what that meant. I’m glad we never had to find out.
I’m not sure how far the “moderates” are willing to go to avoid (or at least stave off) defeat in Iraq. These guys might just convince themselves that the enemy is so evil, and the consequences for American prestige so catastrophic (and so empowering for Al Qaeda) that almost anything can be justified — terror bombing, strategic hamlets (i.e. concentration camps), death squads. Shit, they’re already using napalm.
The fact that Kerry is part of the gang is depressing, although not particularly surprising. I guess he’s decided he’s on same side as the Swift Boat liars after all: He must also believe his Vietnam testimony to Congress and at the Winter Soldier hearings was complete bullshit. How else can he justify what he’s proposing now?
Neocon numbskulls on the right. Neolib hypocrites on the left.
It’s getting awfully dark around here.
Posted by: billmon | Jun 30 2005 1:08 utc | 40
Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 30 2005 1:09 utc | 41
It might be a joke, but this is an approach I think could be very valuable.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 30 2005 2:29 utc | 42
A Joke? Hope not. He could raise the money in a flash simply by putting up a website & it’d be an instant liberal & conservative shrine. Further, if they don’t ok it, why couldn’t the people in New London sue for discrimination? Obviously the sad part is that it wouldn’t devastate Souter’s life – he could magnanimously let the city have it for a song with no ill effect.
Here’s a clip of story Monolycus posted:
A businessman has asked the town of Weare, N.H., to seize the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter in order to build a hotel and museum on the property.
…
Mr. Clements, CEO of Freestar Media LLC, said the town would gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Justice Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called the Lost Liberty Hotel, would feature the Just Desserts Cafe and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America, Mr. Clements said. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible, each guest would receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
Mr. Clements said the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site, being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
Story was picked up by WashTimes. Beyond Iraq, this is a rare instance where “left” & right agree.
Posted by: jj | Jun 30 2005 4:17 utc | 43
Chavez warns U.S. on ties in Caribbean summit
PUERTO LA CRUZ, Venezuela (Reuters) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday accused the United States of meddling in his efforts to create an energy alliance with Caribbean neighbors and said he may one day have to cut ties with Washington.
The left-wing leader made the warning after reading a letter critical of his rule which he said was sent by the State Department to some of the 15 Caribbean nations attending an energy summit that he hosted in eastern Venezuela.
“We would have reasons to break relations with this (U.S.) government, out of dignity … Maybe we will one day, I don’t know,” said Chavez angrily brandishing the letter.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 30 2005 4:30 utc | 44
Weren’t the other options using the forbidden ground troops?
Posted by: razor | Jun 30 2005 4:32 utc | 45
OT: Is this the most efficient Airport security can get?
The High Cost of a Rush to Security – TSA Lost Control of Over $300 Million Spent by Contractor to Hire Airport Screeners After 9/11
The money was spent in the name of improving security at the nation’s airports:
· $526.95 for one phone call from the Hyatt Regency O’Hare in Chicago to Iowa City.
· $1,180 for 20 gallons of Starbucks Coffee — $3.69 a cup — at the Santa Clara Marriott in California.
· $1,540 to rent 14 extension cords at $5 each per day for three weeks at the Wyndham Peaks Resort and Golden Door Spa in Telluride, Colo.
· $8,100 for elevator operators at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan.
· $5.4 million claimed for nine months’ salary for the chief executive of an “event logistics” firm that received a contract before it was incorporated and went out of business after the contract ended.
There is more…
Posted by: Fran | Jun 30 2005 6:24 utc | 46
A prediction.
The Fascist Beast is going to opportunistically start turning on Bush, sort of (too soft, too tired, too persecuted by the nasty liberal-traitors), any time soon.
Do not celebrate when you see the WSJ editorials or Senator Goering (N-Ala) say mildly bad things about Bush.
(I can already envision the snarky I told you sos on DKos who’ll interpret this as a measure of victory. It’s not.)
It will be all part of Der Plan to install his successor, Jeb or whoever, as the New Improved Puppet Fuhrer.
A New Fresher Cleaner Bush-Mk II can still easily steal the 2008 elections.
(And much impotent woe will be felt on liberal blogs throughout the Land.)
Bush Mk I is dispensable. The Reich is not. Long live the Reich.
Only a craptacular collapse will create change in America.
Posted by: Lupin | Jun 30 2005 6:28 utc | 47
There have been reports that King Fahd died. Then someone said that wouldn’t be announced til the battle of succession was over. Big news from IHT is that Bandar Bush is 2nd in line to the throne – he’s the Crown Prince’s chosen successor, and the Crown Prince is in his 80’s – and he’s pulled up stakes in DC & returned to S.A. link
Both BBC News and the Financial Times quoted unidentified Saudi officials as saying the prince had resigned.
The reports raised speculation that Bandar – whose father, Prince Sultan, is defense minister – might have returned home to prepare for a possible succession battle.
Posted by: jj | Jun 30 2005 6:46 utc | 48
From Raed in the Middle:US War Crime in Baqouba
I found the following story through a site called cryptome eyeball series. It was published originally on Insomnia – The Journal of Mark Kraft
A while back, a U.S. citizen working in Iraq sent me several photographs he obtained from a soldier in Iraq. Apparently, they had been passed along between several sources before reaching me. I felt that the pictures were particularly controversial and newsworthy, in that they appear to show U.S. soldiers planting weapons on Iraqi teenagers
Posted by: Fran | Jun 30 2005 7:27 utc | 49
Reporter shot to death in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Yasser Salihee, an Iraqi special correspondent for Knight Ridder, was shot to death in Baghdad last Friday.
The shot appears to have been fired by a U.S. military sniper, though there were Iraqi soldiers in the area who also may have been shooting at the time.
Salihee, 30, had the day off and was driving alone near his home in the western Baghdad neighborhood of Amariyah when a single bullet pierced his windshield and then his skull.
He was shot as his car neared a joint patrol of American and Iraqi troops who’d stopped to search a building for snipers.
No, Wiliam, I disagree on that point.
Foremost, the pity is that Dean has to hold up the left flank.
He would really need “Spockears” constantly nagging at him, to divert and help the common cause. [What was his face? Kuchinsky…sorry- I loved the guy, merely a social-democrat]
Second, “The Downfall” (was that it’s US release title?), as in we have reached bunker-syndrome (Because, unidentical to the us-group – the commentators writing to the Editor of Moonofalabama – the other they, they do know how little Steiner really has to work with. The Rovians are still one step ahead of the news cycle – as in, now we know, Rove was merely trying to preopt immanent cesession from the gods when assumed to be attacking Dean – knowing that many a common “conservative” rats don’t like to drown with the ship, and are speking up, ready to abandon to save their skin)
[that required a double reading, niet?]
Third: Hence – they are not even defending Iraq anymore, they are already drawn back to defend the homefront!!
Häuserkampf!
Goldarn, we need to attack!
Dems to the the frontline, will somebody please start to poke a fork into them?
Attack! Poke! Now!
Lets take the spoils of war right fom them, and do the right thing as an added bonus!
They are toast! Shredded Pork! Dead as a doornail!
You heard it from me first!
I expect a right wing coup-d’etat any moment!
We, progessives, better not stare into the light like deers caught in the the headlight! Don’t look there! Obey your Mojo!
Let me, once again, make my point! The hollow Hindenburg is coming unglued. is coming down fast at Lakehurst!
Be ready! Do not allow the Junkers to take the spoils of war!
To Nürnberg with them!
Posted by: Werner Dieter Thomas | Jun 30 2005 9:28 utc | 51
Halliburton Iraq deals described as contract abuse
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) – A top U.S. Army procurement official said on Monday Halliburton’sdeals in Iraq were the worst example of contract abuse she had seen as Pentagon auditors flagged over $1 billion of potential overcharges by the Texas-based firm.
Bunny Greenhouse, the Army Corps of Engineers’ top contracting official-turned whistle-blower, said in testimony at a hearing by Democrats on Capitol Hill that “every aspect” of Halliburton’s oil contract in Iraq had been under the control of the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
“I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR (Kellogg Brown and Root) represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career,” said Greenhouse, a procurement veteran of more than 20 years.
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 30 2005 10:21 utc | 52
Did anyone catch this?
Venezuela sets up ‘CNN rival’
Become the media? Indeed,
…the Roving Halliburtonians are really, really going to hate this.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 30 2005 10:25 utc | 53
Juan Cole wrote Thursday, June 30, 2005
Another US Helicopter Downed, This Time in Afghanistan, 17 Dead
Taliban used some sort of rocket to shoot down a US helicopter in Afghanistan, killing all 17 servicemen aboard.
This is the second US helicopter lost this week. Earlier in the week, Iraqi guerrillas north of Baghdad downed one, killing two US soldiers.
It is not clear if these are rocket propelled grenade strikes, which are difficult to pull off and therefore rare, or if Taliban and Iraqi guerrillas are getting hold of shoulder-fired missiles, which would be more dangerous to the US in both places …
The following links explain what these systems are and how they are used by guerilla forces, especially the RPG-7 reference for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. It is worth noting that due to the elevated risk re MANPADS in Afghanistan, Coalition forces are now largely restricted to using Helos only at night in many locales … this may yet become the case in parts of Iraq:
Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS)
(SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18, US Stingers etc)
The Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) missile is a highly effective weapon proliferated worldwide. Typically containing an IR seeker, the missile offers little opportunity for a warning before impact. Impacts are often lethal. Examples of lethality include 1) the Afghan mujahedeen killing of 269 Soviet aircraft with 340 such missiles, 2) Desert Storm evidence that IR missiles produced 56% of the kills and 79% of the Allied aircraft damaged, and 3) civil aircraft experiencing a 70% probability of kill given a MANPADS hit. Such high kill ratios are unacceptable and require immediate solutions. Recent military engagements, such as Desert Fox, demonstrate curtailment of daytime operations as a result of the MANPADS threat.
The RPG-7 On the Battlefields of Today and Tomorrow
by Mr. Lester W. Grau
Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
The RPG-7 anti-tank grenade launcher is one of the most common and most effective infantry weapons in contemporary conflicts. It is rugged, simple and carries a lethal punch. Whether downing US Blackhawk helicopters in Somalia, blasting Russian tanks in Chechnya, or attacking government strong points in Angola, the RPG-7 is the weapon of choice for many infantrymen and guerrillas around the world …
Posted by: Outraged | Jun 30 2005 12:06 utc | 54
not really relevant to anything here, but this google 3D map is way cool
http://earth.google.com/
Posted by: b real | Jun 30 2005 15:10 utc | 55
Holy Shit…Talk about a nation committing suicide…
It is a great irony that on the day President Bush called for a thorough review of China’s proposed acquisition of a California-based oil company, Unocal, the United States Senate voted 85-12 to send an energy bill to conference that would allow China to own local US public utilities, without a murmur from the administration, lawmakers or the media. link
Posted by: jj | Jun 30 2005 22:01 utc | 56
Al-Timimi is seeking $1.5 billion for Baghdad in 2005 but so far has received only $85 million, said his spokesman, Ameer Ali Hasson.
Posted by: DM | Jul 1 2005 3:54 utc | 57
eva golinger points out that u.s. psyops is looking south toward venezuela:
Despite repeated denials from the U.S. Government regarding a campaign against Venezuela, a recent Pentagon restructuring authorized the deployment of “counterpropaganda teams” to Latin America, set to neutralize points of “potential terrorist activity and regional destabilization,” amongst them, Venezuela and Bolivia. According to a report from the June 13, 2005 edition of Time Magazine, referred to in La Nación Exterior (June 19, 2005, “EEUU lanza una Guerra de propaganda en la region”), during the last six months, the Pentagon has deployed teams of 2 to 4 military specialists in psychological operations to develop publicity campaigns that promote Washington’s interests in the Middle East, Latin America and other strategic parts of the world. The new unit, called the Joint Psyops Support Element (JPSE), nicknamed “gypsy” is based at the U.S. Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, FL. Considered “psychological warriors”, the Pentagon has been sending these specialists to its overseas commands, armed with “plans for pro-U.S. advertising campaigns to counter propaganda from enemies.”
According to the Time Magazine article, “JPSE director Jim Treadwell told Time he eventually wants to send those units into Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, where they would produce commercial-quality television ads, radio spots, websites and printed material to burnish the U.S.’s image in those regions.”
The JPSE team has a budget of US$77.5 million for the next seven years, in addition to extra funds available to counterattack accusations from “terrorist groups” in any nation. According to La Nacion, a SOUTHCOM spokesperson confirmed that the JPSE team will operate in Latin America, though specifics could not be provided. The JPSE team plans to contract four public relations agencies in the US during the next few weeks for US$250,000 each, in order to design the basic structures of the propaganda campaigns.
Director Treadwell, who headed the 4th Psychological Operations Group during the Irak invasion, confirmed that the idea is to “be as creative as possible.” Such creativity could include the use of “black propaganda”, information purporting to originate from the “enemy” to confuse and discredit society. According to Treadwell, “usually, we don’t use black propaganda. And if we did, I couldn’t tell you.”
treadwell 2001 interview quoted in the La Nacion article
JIM TREADWELL: We don’t ordinarily do black propaganda.
MIKE PESCA: Are you doing any black operations in Afghanistan?
JIM TREADWELL: If I was I couldn’t tell you about ’em.
here’s an article from WaPo june 11 on some broader psyops budgeting
The Pentagon awarded three contracts this week, potentially worth up to $300 million over five years, to companies it hopes will inject more creativity into its psychological operations efforts to improve foreign public opinion about the United States, particularly the military.
Posted by: b real | Jul 1 2005 4:06 utc | 58
I Hope I Die Before The Next Refill
By Greg Palast
07/01/05 “ICH” – – I was in the drug store today out here in Podunk. Some old guy in front of me was picking up his little paper bag of prescription medicine. The lady behind the counter handed him a credit card slip and said, “I’m sorry.”
She was sorry because the bill was over $1,200. The old man stared at the charge card receipt and stared at it some more. Hesitating, he signed, then said, “I hope I die before I have to pay for the next re-fill.”
He wasn’t joking. The lady behind the counter said, “Oh, don’t ever say that.” And she said it in such a way that it was clear she’d heard the same thought before, in different words, from too many of the old folk that come by.
And I was thinking, “I wonder if he voted for Bush?”
I mean, did he vote for the man who would stop boys from kissing boys, who would allow big stone icons of the Ten Commandments in the Podunk courthouse, who would get Saddam before he got us? In other words, was he a blind soldier in Karl Rove’s army of the angry who would rather vote against themselves, for deadly high drug prices dictated by Big Pharma, for no national health insurance, in return for a promise from George Bush that he will be the malicious defender of their prejudices?
The polls tell us that Americans are in an ugly mood: too many jobs leaving for China, too many body bags returning from Iraq, and a bad feeling about a President grabbing for grandma’s social security check.
America is hurting. But what really hurts is that the wounds are self-inflicted.
Happy Fourth of July, compadres. And stay healthy.
Copyright: Greg Palast
http://www.gregpalast.com
This is obscene. Compare this (and some of the other horror stories with the cost of prescription medicine to the elderly) – with the Australian PBS scheme. The US is government of the rich, for the rich .. and you keep voting them in !
Posted by: DM | Jul 1 2005 5:14 utc | 59
Riverbend on the Bush speech: Unbelievable…
Bush said:
“Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. … The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, “We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us.”
He speaks of ‘abroad’ as if it is a vague desert-land filled with heavily-bearded men and possibly camels. ‘Abroad’ in his speech seems to indicate a land of inferior people- less deserving of peace, prosperity and even life.
Don’t Americans know that this vast wasteland of terror and terrorists otherwise known as ‘Abroad’ was home to the first civilizations and is home now to some of the most sophisticated, educated people in the region?
Don’t Americans realize that ‘abroad’ is a country full of people- men, women and children who are dying hourly? ‘Abroad’ is home for millions of us. It’s the place we were raised and the place we hope to raise our children- your field of war and terror.
The war was brought to us here, and now we have to watch the country disintegrate before our very eyes. We watch as towns are bombed and gunned down and evacuated of their people. We watch as friends and loved ones are detained, or killed or pressured out of the country with fear and intimidation.
…
“We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while a country is at war is even harder.”
Three decades of tyranny isn’t what bombed and burned buildings to the ground. It isn’t three decades of tyranny that destroyed the infrastructure with such things as “Shock and Awe” and various other tactics. Though he fails to mention it, prior to the war, we didn’t have sewage overflowing in the streets like we do now, and water cut off for days and days at a time. We certainly had more than the 8 hours of electricity daily. In several areas they aren’t even getting that much.
…
Do the Americans continue to believe such speeches? I couldn’t help but wonder.
“They’ll believe anything.” E. sighed. “No matter what sort of absurdity they are fed, they’ll believe it. Think up the most outrageous lie… They have people who’ll believe it.”
The cousin sat up at this, his interest piqued. “The most outrageous lie? How about that Iraq was amassing aliens from Mareekh [Mars] and training them in the battle art of kung-fu to attack America in 2010!”
“They’d believe it.” E. nodded in the affirmative. “Or that Iraq was developing a mutant breed of rabid, man-eating bunnies to unleash upon the Western world. They’d believe that too.”
There’s more…
Posted by: Fran | Jul 1 2005 5:43 utc | 60
Letters To The Editor
Army Times
7.4.05
If the commanding general of the Army Recruiting Command thinks a one-day standdown will help recruiting, he needs to take a urine test.
The problem is the command itself.
Recruiters hear a couple of lines from their superiors every day:
I want that body on the floor now, and I dont care how you do it or else.
Ill ruin your career if you dont get that body to the floor.
I spent 10 years in the command and my wife spent 15, so I know what I am talking about.
USAReC commands by threat, coercion and intimidation.
Company commanders and first sergeants hand out Article 15s for not making mission even though the regulations say a soldier cant be given one for not making mission, but for not prospecting.
Sgt. 1st Class Craig A. Baker (ret.)
Sioux City, Iowa
Posted by: Outraged | Jul 1 2005 14:15 utc | 61
From The Dimplomatic Times Review
Who Lost Iraq?
Andrew J. Bacevich, who teaches international relations at Boston University, asks in a June 28, 2005 article in The Washington Post: “Who “lost” Iraq?”
“With blame for the unhappy course of events since U.S. forces occupied Baghdad in April 2003 routinely heaped on civilian officials, the military itself has gotten a pass,” he wrote. “In fact, senior U.S. commanders have botched the war. Acknowledging that fact is an essential first step toward improving the quality of U.S. generalship.”
Mr. Bacevich said, “For this reason, reported plans to promote Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez deserve particular attention. According to media reports, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld intends to nominate Sanchez for a fourth star. But the general does not merit promotion; he can best serve his country by retiring forthwith,” the scholar said.
See “Command Responsibility” for more of Mr. Bacevich’s analysis. It’s worth reading.
and here’s a June 2005 update on how NOT to win ‘Hearts and Minds’. The bankrupt, self-defeating, doctrine of “You’re with us, or you’re our Enemy” …
Clan Chief Caught Between U.S. & Insurgents
By HAMZA HENDAWI
Associated Press Writer
MAHMOUDIYA, Iraq (AP) — For weeks, Sheik Adnan Fahd had been avoiding meeting U.S. Army Lt. Col. Ross A. Brown. Going to see the officer at his base would be extremely dangerous, given the intelligence network of Iraqi insurgents. To invite him to his home would be courting death.
Finally, Brown came north, traveling six miles in a heavily armed convoy of four Humvees for a June 21 meeting in the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad – a strained get-together that summed up the conundrum facing the U.S. military and Sunni Arabs in Iraq.
For the American officer, the objective was to win Fahd’s cooperation in the fight against insurgents in Mahmoudiya in an area south of the capital known as “The Triangle of Death.”
But for Fahd, a Sunni tribal leader heading a clan of 30,000, the meeting highlighted his double dilemma: He must keep at bay both the insurgents who watch his every move, and the U.S. military that wants his help in persuading militants to lay down their arms.
Posted by: Outraged | Jul 1 2005 14:32 utc | 62
WaPo OpEd: The Stain of Torture
Having served as a doctor in the Army Medical Corps early in my career and as presidential physician to George H.W. Bush for four years, I might be expected to bring a skeptical and partisan perspective to allegations of torture and abuse by U.S. forces. I might even be expected to join those who, on the one hand, deny that U.S. personnel have engaged in systematic use of torture while, on the other, claiming that such abuse is justified. But I cannot do so.
It’s precisely because of my devotion to country, respect for our military and commitment to the ethics of the medical profession that I speak out against systematic, government-sanctioned torture and excessive abuse of prisoners during our war on terrorism. I am also deeply disturbed by the reported complicity in these abuses of military medical personnel. This extraordinary shift in policy and values is alien to my concept of modern-day America and of my government and profession.
…
Discipline and order in the military ranks depend to a large extent on compliance with the prohibition of torture — indeed, weak or damaged psyches inclined toward torture or abuse have generally been weeded out of the military, or at the very least given less responsibility. In addition, military leaders have long been aware that torture inflicts lasting damage on both the victim and the torturer. The systematic infliction of torture engenders deep hatred and hostility that transcends generations. And it perverts the role of medical personnel from healers to instruments of abuse.
Today, however, it seems as though our government and the military have slipped into Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness.” The widespread reports of torture and ill-treatment — frequently based on military and government documents — defy the claim that this abusive behavior is limited to a few noncommissioned officers at Abu Ghraib or isolated incidents at Guantanamo Bay. When it comes to torture, the military’s traditional leadership and discipline have been severely compromised up and down the chain of command. Why? I fear it is because the military has bowed to errant civilian leadership.
…
Reports of torture by U.S. forces have been accompanied by evidence that military medical personnel have played a role in this abuse and by new military ethical guidelines that in effect authorize complicity by health professionals in ill-treatment of detainees. These new guidelines distort traditional ethical rules beyond recognition to serve the interests of interrogators, not doctors and detainees.
I urge my fellow health professionals to join me and many others in reaffirming our ethical commitment to prevent torture; to clearly state that systematic torture, sanctioned by the government and aided and abetted by our own profession, is not acceptable. As health professionals, we should support the growing calls for an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, and demand restoration of ethical standards that protect physicians, nurses, medics and psychologists from becoming facilitators of abuse.
America cannot continue down this road. Torture demonstrates weakness, not strength. It does not show understanding, power or magnanimity. It is not leadership. It is a reaction of government officials overwhelmed by fear who succumb to conduct unworthy of them and of the citizens of the United States.
From B’s link to the WaPo’s OpEd piece (above):
“When it comes to torture, the military’s traditional leadership and discipline have been severely compromised up and down the chain of command. Why? I fear it is because the military has bowed to errant civilian leadership.
What began as an ethical human rights statement took another hard right turn towards placing the blame squarely where it doesn’t belong. It is not the “civilian leadership” that has implemented the policy of torture (unless one is inclined to lean towards the “industrial” side of Eisenhower’s dreaded “military/industrial complex”); this policy was explicitly condoned by both the Pentagon and the Oval Office.
While Burton J. Lee III, the accredited author of the piece, must be commended for making a first step towards acknowledging that atrocities have occured, the disconnect is still evident. The latest tactic by the romanticists to suppress an increasingly pervasive reality seems to run as follows: “All right, all right… it’s no longer deniable that bad things have been done by my beloved American government. But my beloved America does not do bad things, therefore it must be the fault of some less-than- beloved minority (liberals, traitors, “civilians”) within my beloved America.”
In psychological terms, we are moving from repression to projection (except in cases like Karl Rove’s or Dick Cheney’s scapegoating of people who oppose the party line… I do not believe for a second that their “observations” are not cynically calculated beforehand).
I am sorry, but I do not see this as an improvement.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 1 2005 21:11 utc | 66
The invincable Taliban are taking over Afghanistan – again:
WaPo: U.S. Searches for Troops In NE Afghan Mountains
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 1 — U.S. forces continued a massive hunt Friday for a missing military team in the mountains of northeastern Afghanistan, three days after a Special Operations helicopter bringing troops to rescue the men crashed amid enemy fire, killing all 16 service members aboard.
A man claiming to speak for the Taliban militia called news organizations Friday to say that Taliban fighters had captured one of the men and killed seven others. But U.S. military officials said there was no evidence to support the claim. The missing team was made up of fewer than 10 soldiers, one officer in Washington said.
…
The incident in Konar province began Wednesday, when a small team of Special Operations forces were hiking through the region as part of Operation Red Wing, a mission against al Qaeda fighters, according to the military officer in Washington. The officer said none of the team members had been found, nor was it known whether any had been killed or captured.
“They could be hiding under a rock, waiting,” the officer said. “There’s an ongoing operation searching for them.”
According to O’Hara, U.S. commanders last heard from the team on Tuesday afternoon after it started taking fire. The downed Chinook helicopter, a Special Operations aircraft, was one of at least two sent to extract the team, O’Hara said.
…
At the same time, an increase in street crime, gang violence, kidnappings of foreign aid workers, murders of Afghans who support the U.S.-backed government and continued high levels of drug crop cultivation and trafficking have added to a sense of insecurity in the country.
…
International aid organizations have pulled out of large swathes of the country, and in the capital, many foreign workers are largely confined to their compounds and offices.
…
Among all of the country’s problems, the most serious appears to be the re-emergence of armed guerrillas. In the past three months, there have been dozens of attacks and clashes in several provinces. More than 400 suspected insurgents have been killed, along with several hundred Afghan civilians and soldiers. The U.S. military has suffered 45 deaths, including the 16 killed in the helicopter crash.
…
On Thursday armed fighters kidnapped and killed a group of tribal elders in central Uruzgan province, then sent a boy to offer to exchange the bodies for those of dead militiamen who had been killed Wednesday while attacking a police station.
In other recent incidents, an Afghan election worker was shot in the face; six anti-drug workers were killed while driving the body of a slain colleague to Kabul; a prominent moderate Islamic cleric was assassinated; and, a suicide bomber killed 20 people at the cleric’s funeral.
@Monolycus – It is not the “civilian leadership” that has implemented the policy of torture .. this policy was explicitly condoned by both the Pentagon and the Oval Office.
In military language that exactly is the “civilian leadership”. But it was implemented by the military leaders against the law the ethos they should have.
Know your friends:
U.S. Marines Accused of Killing Iraq Man
Iraq’s U.N. ambassador accused U.S. Marines of killing his unarmed young cousin in what appeared to be “cold blood” and demanded an investigation and punishment for the perpetrators.
In an e-mail to friends obtained Friday by The Associated Press, Ambassador Samir Sumaidaie said the killing took place in his ancestral village in western Anbar province, where U.S.-led forces have been conducting a counterinsurgency sweep aimed at disrupting the flow of foreign militants into Iraq.
His cousin Mohammed Al-Sumaidaie, 21, a university student, was killed June 25 when he took Marines doing house-to-house searches to a bedroom to show them where a rifle which had no live ammuntion was kept, the ambassador said. When the Marines left, he was found in the bedroom with a bullet in his neck.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2005 5:28 utc | 69
Bush administration to keep control of internet’s central computers
The Bush administration has decided to retain control over the principal computers which control internet traffic in a move likely to prompt global opposition, it was claimed yesterday.
The US had pledged to turn control of the 13 computers known as root servers – which inform web browsers and email programs how to direct internet traffic – over to a private, international body.
But on Thursday the US reversed its position, announcing that it will maintain control of the computers because of growing security threats and the increased reliance on the internet for global communications. A Japanese government official yesterday criticised the move, claiming it will lend momentum to the debate about who controls the information flow online.
I hope that there really be a uproar and that an alternative will be build outside of the US.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2005 5:51 utc | 70
Ooops, that was me again. I don’t know why it doesn’t remember my name anymore.
Posted by: Fran | Jul 2 2005 5:53 utc | 71
b,
Yes, that’s the helicopter that had 17 men, no 16, and now its 10. I wonder which has erased more coalition soldiers, Iraqi fighters or military records.
Posted by: citizen | Jul 2 2005 6:02 utc | 72
@b
“In military language that exactly is the “civilian leadership”. But it was implemented by the military leaders against the law the ethos they should have.”
Thanks for clearing that up for me… I had presumed that since “Commander-In-Chief” and “Secretary of Defense” were specifically military titles, the author was blaming defense contractors and lobbyists for policy failures. Of course, when the Commander-In-Chief holds press conferences in his flight suit on board a military vessel, it does muddy up the waters a bit.
Posted by: Monolycus | Jul 2 2005 6:54 utc | 73
A new Bureau of Reconstruction and Stabilization in the State Department is charged with organizing the reconstruction of countries where the United States has deemed it necessary to intervene in order to make them into market democracies. The bureau has 25 countries under surveillance as possible candidates for Defense Department deconstruction and State Department reconstruction. The bureau’s director is recruiting “rapid-reaction forces” of official, nongovernmental, and corporate business specialists. He hopes to develop the capacity for three full-scale, simultaneous reconstruction operations in different countries.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2005 12:03 utc | 74
There is a story on Spanish teletext today. A rough translation
US military commanders have told the Spanish Ministry of Defence of their immediate intention to retire special forces from the base at Rota.
The pentagon announcement refers to a unit which specialises in clandestine commando operations.
Put this, together with the arrest warrant put out by the Italian judge against the CIA, alongside the Daily Kos post. Something REALLY BIG has been uncovered in Italy, and the Americans are pulling out just the people that could be responsible.
Link to Daily Kos
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 2 2005 15:19 utc | 76
@Fran, et al
Speaking of control and secrecy, how many here are aware that it was none other than Alberto R. (Geneva Convention) Gonzales among others who were central to the heated dispute of the private vs. public control of Whitehouse records. While the quaint Mr. Gonzales may have recused himself from CIA Leak Inquires, he was the consigliere/enforcer whom called US Archivist, John W. Carlin by telephone to fire him and replace him with a very controversial Bush Cheney appointee /stand-up guy, Allen Weinstein. Democrat, (DINO?) historian Allen Weinstein, was on Reagan’s transition team in the eighties, and was rumored to be the compare/leaker whom gave the tip off to Nixons lawyer that the US National Archives & Records Administration (NARA) intended to release everything.Once installed Weinstein first major act in his new post, was to make a deal with John H. Taylor, the director of the Richard M. Nixon Library that made public most of Nixon’s papers and tapes.
According to informed sources, the administration wanted to (and did) short-circuit the normal confirmation process to see Weinstein confirmed through an “expedited” process, even though he had no experince as a head archivist; a process that had never been done before. Their goal — was to place Weinstein in the position prior to the then November election.” NCH (National Coalition for History) reported that the hurried action was linked to forthcoming scheduled opening by NARA of records from the George H. W. Bush administration and the transfer of 9/11 commission records to the Archives. I found most of this stuff out while search gov docs on campus, but much of it can be confirmed online too. Finally,Gonzales never gave a reason as to why Carlin was to be replaced which was very much out of the norm. During the hearings when asked for the reason none was forth coming. Disclosure of the odd circumstances surrounding Carlin being asked to step down was never settled.Democrats on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee said it amounted to a forced removal, and Bush should be required to give his reasons for it. The White House had no immediate comment when asked why the president wanted to replace Carlin. White House spokeswoman Erin Healey said only that “Mr. Carlin has submitted a letter stating his intention to resign, and Mr. Bush has a responsibility to appoint someone to fill that position.” He never got a reason.
How’s that for Billmon-esque Orwellian juxtaposition?
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 2 2005 15:48 utc | 77
Goddamn it, the links worked in preview. Anyway,
http://tinyurl.com/2t7y2 and Archivist of the U.S.: Questionable Bush appointment slips under the radar grrrr..
Posted by: Uncle | Jul 2 2005 16:01 utc | 78
John Dean.at FindLaw’s Legal Commentary (October 10, 2003):
The White House Need Not Have Leaked to Have Committed a Crime Bush’s press secretary Scott McClellan has chosen his words carefully in denying that anyone at the White House was involved with the leak. To remain credible, a press secretary cannot be caught in either a lie, or a serious misstatement based on ignorance.
McClellan’s response reminded me of the Nixon Administration. Nixon’s press secretary, Ron Zeigler, took the line that no one presently employed in his administration was involved in the Watergate break-in. That was technically correct, but only technically.
It is entirely possible that no one at the Bush “White House” or on the President’s personal staff, was involved in the initial leak to Novak. It could have been someone at the National Security Council, which is related to the Bush White House but not part of it.
In fact, Novak wrote in one of his later columns, that the leak came from a person who was “no partisan gunslinger.” That sounds like an NSC staffer to me. And as Newsweek also reported (you can count on Michael Isikoff to dig this stuff out), Valerie Plame’s CIA identity was likely known to senior intelligence people on the NSC staff, for apparently one of them had worked with Ms. Plame at the CIA.
But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute.
Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here
This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.
Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud – for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the “faithful and honest services of its employee.” It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so – or helped another to do so – was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.
What counts as “fraud” under the statute? Simply put, “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.” (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.
If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson “fair game,” then he should make sure he’s got a good criminal lawyer, for he made need one. I’ve only suggested the most obvious criminal statute that might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a CIA asset’s identity. There are others.
Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jul 3 2005 9:39 utc | 79