MSNBC's Hubris - About the LIES that got us into Iraq

President Obama and Mrs. Obama Welcome Home The Troops

hat tips-The Obama Diary, 3CHICSPOLITICO:

The President and First Lady welcome home the troops at Ft. Bragg.





President Obama and the First Lady Speak to Troops at Fort Bragg

Read more »

President Obama Says 'America's War in Iraq will be over' by end of year

From Washington Monthly:

October 21, 2011 1:35 PM
By year’s end, ‘America’s war in Iraq will be over’
By Steve Benen


When it comes to the U.S. presence in Iraq, there’s been question a lingering question as to how many American servicemen and women would remain in the country in 2012. Even as U.S. combat troops returned home, there was an expectation among many that thousands of American servicemen and women would continue to serve in Iraq to assist the country with special operations and training.

That’s not going to happen. This afternoon, President Obama announced that all U.S. forces will be entirely out of Iraq by the end of this year.

In his remarks in the White House briefing room, the president noted that, as a candidate, he “pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.” It’s a commitment he’s been able to keep.

“I can report that as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” Obama said. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over.

Over the next two months our troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of them, will pack up their gear, and board convoys for the journey home. The last American soldier will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops. That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end… Today I can say that troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Wounded Platoon - New Documentary on Mental Casualties of War

PBS Documentary on the often forgotten and often hidden casualties of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.



On November 30, 2007, 24-year-old Kevin Shields went out drinking with three Army buddies from Fort Carson, Colo., a base on the outskirts of Colorado Springs. A few hours later, he was dead -- shot twice in the head at close range and left by the side of the road by his fellow soldiers. Shields' murder punctuated a string of violent attacks committed by the three, who are now serving time in prison for this and other crimes, and it contributed to a startling statistic: Since the Iraq war began, a total of 17 soldiers from Fort Carson have been charged with or convicted of murder, manslaughter or attempted murder committed at home in the United States, and 36 have committed suicide.

Read more

Obama Speech About Withdrawing Troops From Iraq

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Hillary, It is Time to be Great!

Eight years ago, when many in the US thought that it really didn't matter who was president and that the country could run on automatic pilot, George Bush was elected. At the time, he was thought to have had the greatest foreign-policy team of all time. Colin Powell. Dick Cheney. Condoleezza Rice. Incredible credentials. Yet, after the last eight years, to describe President Bush's foreign-policy as being a disaster is simply being kind. He's made little or no progress in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, some may suggest at this point that his administration has actually taken the peace process backwards five or ten years.

On January 20th, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have to hit the ground running. The lack of American leadership is palpable around the world. Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip for the last four days. They did this in retaliation to multiple rocket attacks into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip. This is a typical scenario. Israel takes a pounding and then retaliates disproportionately. The retaliation inevitably causes an international outcry. Sometime soon thereafter, Israel stops the offensive and we go back to square one. Soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must break this cycle.



Personally, I think it is important that we support Israel. The Palestinians, though, are living in abhorrent conditions. Their standard of living must be raised. If you have something to live for, then you are less likely to want to turn yourself into a human bomb. Hillary Clinton must find the balance that has escaped George H. W. Bush, Jimmy Carter and her husband, Bill Clinton. She must find a way to get all the parties involved to begin the discussion and to find a solution to the problem. This means including Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. (Some of these Arab countries have treated the Palestinians like unwanted stepchildren.)

From a political standpoint, this is a huge time bomb. If Barack Obama spends a lot of political capital early in his presidency on trying to fix the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and can't find a solution, that will hurt some of his domestic agenda. On the other hand, we have seen what eight years of neglect does. On the surface, this seems to be a lose-lose proposition. But, as an optimist, I think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will need to (and, with luck, will be able to) balance this with the many other crises around the world. We do need to defeat Al Qaeda. We do need to do better in Afghanistan and make it a functioning nation. We also need to help Pakistan, not only with its relationship to India, but also with its relationship to Afghanistan. We need to get out of Iraq and develop a presence in Africa. We need to bolster Africa's attempt to control some of its violence within its own continent (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Darfur for come to mind). As a nation, we cannot ignore the problems of South and Central America. In addition, the growing challenges of Asia, which include the vulnerability of some Asian countries to Al Qaeda, may be as daunting as any challenge that I've yet mentioned. I have to make a special mention of North Korea, of course, since it was an original member of the Axis of Evil.

If history shows us anything, it is two definitive paths which have not yet led to the settlement of this long conflict. The first path was taken by President Clinton, which was to wait to the end of his presidency then throw his whole weight behind the peace process. He, like Bush, was a lame duck and, because of that, could not get an agreement. Then there is President Bush's way... ignore the problem and hope it will go away, which doesn't work either. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton must choose a different path. It is time for Hillary Clinton to be great.

Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoe At Bush

How Much Is The War In Iraq Costing Your Area?

See an excellent website for the National Priorities Project, which explains (in plain terms) how Federal tax dollars are used. They have a great tool that tells you how much local communities have theoretically spent on the War in Iraq.

Our County Executive almost blew his top when he saw the cost for St. Louis County.

Deal would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2012

From CNN.com:

Deal would have U.S. troops out of Iraq by 2012

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have reached agreement on a proposal calling for a complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by 2012, the head Iraqi negotiator said Friday.


The deal still must be approved by both sides, said Mohammed al-Haj Hamoud, deputy foreign minister and head of the Iraqi negotiating team.

Hamoud said Thursday's meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was helpful in reaching the tentative agreement.

Hamoud said the proposal also says the last date for the presence of U.S. troops in cities and towns will be June 30, 2009.

There are clear caveats, however. Watch for details on the plan »

If the Iraqi government sees the necessity of keeping the American forces in cities and towns or in Iraq past December 31, 2011, it would ask that the Americans stay. A joint Iraqi-U.S. committee would help define the duration and number of forces that would be needed and regularly assess the security situation on the ground.

Regarding the issue of troop immunity from Iraqi law and American authority over military operations, American authorities would have jurisdiction over their troops. Hamoud also said that in case of a major crime such as murder, the case would be reviewed by a U.S.-Iraqi joint committee.

Rest of article at link above.

------------------------------------------------
Now, here are some questions:

1. Wasn't this the crux of BARACK OBAMA'S argument about Iraq?
2. Why isn't this leading every other news story for the day?
3. Does this mean that John McCain is the last person who wants to keep up the Iraq War?

All Senator Straight Talk has is ' Foreign Policy'. What can be said when his own President undercuts the only poll strength he has?

That's why you need to keep your eye on this mess with Russia, which is nothing but another scam on Dubya's part to help McCain. They know Iraq is played out, so here comes another ' crisis'.

Ron Suskind Reveals More Lies From Bush & Co.

Author and Journalist Ron Suskind shows just how far the Bush Administration was willing to go to deceive the American people on Iraq. We know now that the stories leading up to the Iraq war were part of a misinformation campaign to shape public opinion in the United States....that the decision to go to war had already been made. The Downing Street Memo, along with other revelations and documentaries in the aftermath of the invasion told us as much.

But Suskind's book, “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism”, is one of the few providing specifics about the Bush Administrations war on the American people... the War behind the War so to speak. In the book, Suskind describes an effort by Bush & Co. to push a forged letter, purporting to connect Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission, the U.S. Intelligence Community, as well as several Congressional investigations have since dispelled the myth that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda at the time of 9/11 and that Iraq was somehow behind the attacks. Despite this, millions of Americans, including many American soldiers, still believe that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, even after 7 years- the propaganda was just that good. Ron Suskind provides some insight into just how maniacal the Bush Administration was (and continues to be). There seemed to be no limits on how low the Bush Administration went in their criminality.

Hear/Watch an Interview with Suskind

This reminds me of all the things that we don't know about Bush & Co. We may never find out about half of all the bull that came from this White House. But one thing is for sure, a government that is willing to go to these lengths to deceive its own people and to harm their best interests is one that cannot be trusted.

And if the Suskind revelations had come during the 60's or 70's, they (alone) would probably have been enough to start impeachment proceedings in Congress. But the last few Presidencies, along with Congressional corruption scandals over the last decade or so have desensitized the public. Washington is so rotten that the American public can no longer tell the difference between Watergate and business as usual.

Read Excerpts from The Book "The Way of the World"

Official Site for Book

Today show: McCain states that Obama doesn't understand Iraq

I do not need to go to Iraq to understand that Kurds, Sunnis and Shia don't like sharing the region. Just as you don't have to go to Watts (Los Angeles) to know that it is an extremely dangerous neighborhood. I also don't need to go to Iraq to understand that it was a mistake to invade that country in the first place. So, I really don't follow John McCain's reasoning. He has been arguing for months that Obama has to go to Iraq to understand the situation. Briefings and newspaper reports are worthless in John McCain's world.

So, Barack Obama goes to Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears that Senator Obama does know what he is talking about after all. Maliki has clearly stated that the position of the Iraqi government is to have US troops out of their country by 2010. Wow. 2010. That sounds a lot like what Barack Obama has said. John McCain is now stuck. He has taken Bush's position which never made any sense to anyone who wasn't an insecure neocon.

From HuffPost: "Prime Minister Maliki is the leader of a country and I'm confident he will act as the President and the Foreign Minister both told me in the last several days," said the presumptive Republican nominee. "It will be directly related to the situation on the ground -- just as they have always said. And since we are succeeding, I am convinced, as I have said before, we will withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable."

McCain has only a couple of positions as I see it -
1) He can state that the Iraqis really don't know what's going on. The US, like a protective mother, knows best. I just don't see this going over with anybody.
2) McCain can try and play this with a little body-English and say that the US wants to withdraw as soon as possible. We agree that the end of 2010 is a goal if conditions on the ground support that goal. This is somewhat transparent but it may be the best option that McCain has.
3) Senator McCain can pressure Admiral Mullen and General David Petraeus to say that conditions on the ground have improved enough to push a complete and total withdraw by the end of 2010. This is almost laughable since Petraeus hasn't come close to saying anything like this but it may have merit since McCain and Bush have held up Petraeus as all knowledgeable.

Actually, all 3 of those positions are very lame but that is the best that John McCain can do. He has painted himself into this corner. It is hard to see any easy way out.

Watch John McCain struggle through this interview on Iraq policy on the Today Show.

Do You Doubt MSM Bias? This Maliki Statement Should Settle That

Just in case you didn't know, the Iraqi PRIME MINISTER - Nouri al-Maliki - has, in essence, given his stamp of approval to Senator Barack Obama's Iraqi Withdrawal Timetable.

I will repeat, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq, has stated, by name, his support of Senator Barack Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Timetable.

From Daily Dish:

What Maliki Said
20 Jul 2008 10:34 pm
By Patrick Appel
The NYT gets ahold of the audio:

The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.”

He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.”

Does it get more clear than that?

Now, riddle me this, Ladies and Gentlemen, considering that this war has cost the USA:
1. Nearly 1 TRILLION dollars
2. Over 4,000 lives
3. Tens of thousands permanently maimed
4. Our status in the world community
5. ANY leg to stand on in the Arab World

Wouldn't the statement of the head of the government of Iraq supporting, CLEARLY, the plan of ONE of the U.S. Presidential Candidates...

BE
a) FRONT PAGE NEWS
b) LEADING EVERY NEWSCAST?

Or, is it just me?

There are those who say that the tinfoil hat wearers just are 'too sensitive'.....

But, is this news, or is it my imagination that this is MAJOR news?

Oh rikyrah, you mean like,
a) John McCain flip flopping on his stance in Afghanistan and basically agreeing to Barack Obama's position
b) After being mocked and ridiculed for being 'naive' and ' dangerous', the United States taking up BARACK OBAMA'S POSITION and entering into meetings with IRAN?
c) That, for the first time, after it was labeled ' cut and run', and ' losing the war', the Bush Administration has agreed to a timeframe for withdrawal..

Silly me...I thought these were HUGE stories, seeing as it's a sea change for the GOP, and, what, oh yes, basically validates everything Senator Barack Obama has been saying in the foreign policy realm for YEARS.

But, I thought Obama was the 'gamble' when it comes to foreign policy, yet, everyone seems to be coming around to HIS positions? What does that say?

And, why isn't this getting the play in the media that it should?

I dunno readers, could it be that the ONLY area in which John McCain has a discernable edge over Obama is the ' foreign policy', ' Commander-In-Chief' Threshhold...and, if these stories were reported in say, the way that BITTERGATE, REV. WRIGHT, were reported, then the last hope for John McCain would go by the wayside?

What, rikyrah, are you saying that the MSM is being complicit in UNDER/NOT reporting these major stories because they would benefit Senator Obama?

My answer to that would be - the Democratic Party Pledged Delegate race was OVER the night of the WISCONSIN PRIMARY - yet, was it my imagination, or were they complicit in the smoke and mirrors of Camp Hillpatine until MAY?

I'm not alone in this tinfoil hat observation. From Politicalinaction.com:

Media Withholding Favorable Obama Polls:

ABC withheld information favorable to Barack Obama last week when it released its latest poll. They withheld the actual results of the poll which had Obama winning 50-42 over McCain if the election was held tomorrow. The did however release the number we have been hearing about for a week....that 70% of people see McCain as commander and chief like while only 50% see Obama that way.

The Commander and Chief Test....ABC Cheated

Remember, all the moronic finance teams that budgeted for 2008, and predicted Clinton-McCain or Guiliani battle, expected HUGE fall revenues from advertisements from the intense political interest. They expected a bloodbath which would in turn mean higher revenues. If it is a blowout, they don't get paid and their companies lose a lot of money. THEY CAN'T, FINANCIALLY, LET OBAMA WIN THIS IN A WALK, and they will do everything they can to prevent it.

And, if you want analysis of what the Maliki statement means for McCain, they explain it well over at Daily Dish...

Here's further explanation from Chuck Todd on Meet The Press (notice how useless shill David Gregory tries to parrot GOP talking points).

Though my favorite reaction is from a GOP strategist:

We're fucked.

Congress Will Soon Pass An Iran War Resolution

You may have heard about the massive Isreali wargames conducted earlier this month that were aimed at Iran. But you may not be aware of the Iran War Resolution that is close to a vote in Congress. The Resolution (#362) will ask President Bush to impose a full Naval Blockade on Iran, including the blocking of gasoline imports. Now imagine if a Country decided that it would block imports of gasoline into the U.S.

Sure, Iran has plenty of oil, but it actually imports much of its gasoline, because the country does not refine enough oil for its own domestic fuel needs. Such a blockade would not be backed by the UN Security Council and would be an act of war. It would practically destroy the Iranian economy, and impact its Trade with other Countries. This (by design) would force the Iranian military to take action in response- exactly what the U.S. wants.

This idiotic legislation is being pushed by AIPAC, Israels most powerful lobbying group. This is probably the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. The Bill is supported by both the House and Senate, and appears to be bi-partisan. Barack Obama was quick to throw in his support. He jumped on the bandwagon long ago, promising AIPAC that he would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the United States. This is one of the main problems with the Democratic Party - it's foreign policy, especially as it relates to Israel. The Democrats are essentially as hawkish as the Republicans. Foreign policy is one of the areas where Democrats and Republicans read from the same script. This is why I often refer to members of Congress as the "Republicrats". It is also one of the main reasons why I cannot fully endorse a candidate like Barack Obama. I can never fully embrace him as a real change candidate- NEVER. The way that he so eagerly co-signs with the imperialist pro-war U.S. policies of the past puts his change platform in doubt. On one hand he criticizes Bush for warmongering, then he reveals that he pretty much believes in the same kind of "Truman Doctrine" imperialism that has shaped U.S. Foreign policy for the past 50+ years; the same imperialism that drives the Bush Administration.

A few weeks ago I wrote about how ridiculous an attack on Iran would be. If the U.S. and Israel wanted to strengthen the Iranian government, they would launch an attack. An attack would be a gift to the Iranian regime. And such an attack would not even destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. So instead of solving a problem, the U.S. and Israel will only make matters far worse.

The U.S. and Israel are moving in the same familiar pattern here as they did leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They are both listening to Iranian exile groups who have a political agenda, just like they did before the Iraq disaster. The Iraqi exile groups turned out to be frauds, who admitted that they provided false information about Iraq's non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. But here we are yet again.

An attack on Iran would be a disaster, and would accomplish nothing. Even the IAEA Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that an attack would be a disaster for the region and would threaten World Peace and would impede his work. An attack on Iran could easily drag other nations into a much wider confrontation. Russia, for example, has invested quite a lot in Iran over the past few years, and has not only built one nuclear facility, but is in the process of building more. The two Countries also have several other military and business Trade links.

The U.S. wants the World to believe that Iran is doing something that is against international law with its nuclear research. That is a lie! The NPT agreement allows for peaceful civilian use of nuclear technology. That includes research of various kinds. What is tricky is that some of the activities have both civilian or military applications. Not even the IAEA is close to saying that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. And even if they were, that would not be illegal, although it would violate their previous NPT agreement. The NPT, however, is a voluntary agreement, not a compulsory agreement. There is no UN mandate that says anything about a country being attacked if they violate NPT or CTBT agreements. When the NPT was created, there were specific provisions included that allowed signatory States the right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The real issue behind this nonsensical game that the U.S. is playing is the fact that Iran is a Muslim State and it does not want it to even have the technology or the ability to possibly make a bomb. Iran doesn't have to be close to actually making a nuclear weapon in order to be targeted. It is being targeted simply for doing research and for developing its own nuclear technology, peaceful or not (all legal under international law).

I am now more convinced than ever that the U.S. (or through its proxy & 51st State Israel) is headed for a military confrontation with Iran - an event that could lead to regional war. While I don't think anything will take place in the immediate future (within the next few weeks or months), everything is pointing towards a military conflict in the longterm. The constant hawkish tone of Barack Obama gives me the feeling that he will be a lapdog for AIPAC and will allow Israel to make his foreign policy decisions, even if those decisions are not in my best interests as an American. If Bush doesn't launch this idiotic war, the next President likely will, no matter who wins in November. The major candidates are like two apples from the same poisonous tree, both heavily influenced by the Israel lobby.

You think gas prices are high right now? Wait until the war with Iran begins. You will be looking at gas prices of $6.00 - $7.00 per gallon or more. And that's not the only thing that you will need to worry about.

U.S. Seeking 58 Bases In Iraq

....And an indefinite U.S. military presence, as part of a proposed "Status of Forces Agreement". See report from McClatchy.

Luckily Iraqi lawmakers are vehemently opposed to such a deal.

This shows that the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has been caught lying. He told NPR that the U.S. was not seeking a long-term presence. The McClatchy report contradicts Mr. Crocker. The Bush Administration also seems to be attempting to tie the hands of the next President.

____________________

Previous Post on Permanent Bases in Iraq

McCain Admits Iraq War Was for OIL?

Hat tip - DailyKos.

From First Read:

McCain: Iraq war was for oil? Posted: Friday, May 02, 2008 2:07 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, McCain
From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy

At the conclusion of a town hall held this morning outside in Denver, McCain decided to toss in a plug for his upcoming energy policy rollout. But in the midst of decrying the dangers of Americans reliance on foreign oil, McCain seemed to suggest that this reliance caused the current struggle in Iraq.

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East,” McCain said.

Um....folks.....is this an admission from the Republican Nominee that this debacle, which has cost us 4,000 Precious Lives, Permanently maimed tens of thousands more, is fast approaching 1 TRILLION DOLLARS IN COSTS...

Was all about OIL?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........................................

Well, I agree, but it's something else to hear it from a Republican.

The Latest War Profiteer is 22-Years-Old. 22!

Hat tip: HuffingtonPost.com

Supplier Under Scrutiny on Arms for Afghans
By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: March 27, 2008
This article was reported by C. J. Chivers, Eric Schmitt and Nicholas Wood and written by Mr. Chivers.
Since 2006, when the insurgency in Afghanistan sharply intensified, the Afghan government has been dependent on American logistics and military support in the war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

But to arm the Afghan forces that it hopes will lead this fight, the American military has relied since early last year on a fledgling company led by a 22-year-old man whose vice president was a licensed masseur.

With the award last January of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.

Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging, according to an examination of the munitions by The New York Times and interviews with American and Afghan officials. Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.

In purchasing munitions, the contractor has also worked with middlemen and a shell company on a federal list of entities suspected of illegal arms trafficking.

Moreover, tens of millions of the rifle and machine-gun cartridges were manufactured in China, making their procurement a possible violation of American law. The company’s president, Efraim E. Diveroli, was also secretly recorded in a conversation that suggested corruption in his company’s purchase of more than 100 million aging rounds in Albania, according to audio files of the conversation.

This week, after repeated inquiries about AEY’s performance by The Times, the Army suspended the company from any future federal contracting, citing shipments of Chinese ammunition and claiming that Mr. Diveroli misled the Army by saying the munitions were Hungarian.

Mr. Diveroli, reached by telephone, said he was unaware of the action. The Army planned to notify his company by certified mail on Thursday, according to internal correspondence provided by a military official.

But problems with the ammunition were evident last fall in places like Nawa, Afghanistan, an outpost near the Pakistani border, where an Afghan lieutenant colonel surveyed the rifle cartridges on his police station’s dirty floor. Soon after arriving there, the cardboard boxes had split open and their contents spilled out, revealing ammunition manufactured in China in 1966.

“This is what they give us for the fighting,” said the colonel, Amanuddin, who like many Afghans has only one name. “It makes us worried, because too much of it is junk.” Ammunition as it ages over decades often becomes less powerful, reliable and accurate.

AEY is one of many previously unknown defense companies to have thrived since 2003, when the Pentagon began dispensing billions of dollars to train and equip indigenous forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its rise from obscurity once seemed to make it a successful example of the Bush administration’s promotion of private contractors as integral elements of war-fighting strategy.

But an examination of AEY’s background, through interviews in several countries, reviews of confidential government documents and the examination of some of the ammunition, suggests that Army contracting officials, under pressure to arm Afghan troops, allowed an immature company to enter the murky world of international arms dealing on the Pentagon’s behalf — and did so with minimal vetting and through a vaguely written contract with few restrictions.

In addition to this week’s suspension, AEY is under investigation by the Department of Defense’s inspector general and by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, prompted by complaints about the quality and origins of ammunition it provided, and allegations of corruption.

Rest of article is HERE.

As we move past 4,000 soldiers dead.................
Tens of thousands permanently maimed.....................
A TRILLION DOLLARS in costs................

ALL based on LIES.....

Reading stories about war profiteers like this just makes the blood boil.

Crooks all.

U.S. Death Toll In Iraq Hits 4,000

U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000
White House calls milestone 'a sober moment'


updated 2 hours, 43 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - U.S. officials said Monday they will press forward in the fight against extremists in Iraq a day after the overall U.S. death toll in the five-year conflict rose to 4,000.

The White House called the grim milestone “a sober moment” and said President Bush spends time every day thinking about those who have lost their lives in battle.

“He bears the responsibility for the decisions that he made,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said. “He also bears the responsibility to continue to focus on succeeding.”

The American deaths came Sunday, the same day rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

No group claimed responsibility for the Green Zone attacks, but suspicion fell on Shiite extremists based on the location of the launching sites.

The deaths of four U.S. soldiers in a roadside bombing about 10 p.m. Sunday in southern Baghdad pushed to 4,000 the number of American service members killed as the war enters its sixth year. Another soldier was wounded in the attack, the military said.

The Associated Press count of 4,000 deaths is based on U.S. military reports and includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.

Rest of article is HERE.


*************************************

I just wanted to note this moment. A war costing 1 Trillion Dollars; begun on a lie; making war profiteers rich, costing 4,000 lives, permanently injuring tens of thousands more, not to mention the Iraqi lives lost.

And, the Evil One's response this week when asked about the anxiety of the American People?

" So."

From a soulless rat bastard who ' had better things to do' than to serve in Vietnam when his country called him to service.

They have no conscience. Not an ounce worth between the entire cabal.

Political Cartoon Roundup

John McCain Wants You To Be Prepared for More Wars

John McCain recently warned supporters that there would be more wars, and that there would be a continuation of the Bush Administrations Iraq policy under a McCain administration.

This comes a few months after his "Bomb Iran" joke (although he wasn't joking at all). A vote for John McCain- the biggest war hawk in Congress- would almost certainly be a vote for more military disasters, particularly in the Middle East.

McCain also made provacative statements regarding Russia within the past few days. It is true that the U.S. should take another look at Russia, but this must be done by skilled diplomats. In fact, it is because of U.S. arrogance and neglect, under both the Clinton and G.W. Bush administrations, that the U.S. - Russia relationship has deteriorated to where it is today. I'm just bothered by the idea of a clumsy guy like McCain handling U.S. - Russia relations. Having macho military idiots on both sides, with each one trying to upstage the other... it could just lead to all sorts of problems. This is also a time when Russia has resumed its Cold War military posture...flying near U.S. and NATO territory, often without notifying U.S. authorities of what they are doing. An idiot like McCain could easily overreact to something...and shoot down a Russian plane, sink a Russian ship...etc.

McCain is one of the "Old Guard" foreign policy thinkers, who would love to bring back the Cold War past. He has expressed an interest in doing so numerous times. Is that really what we want to go back to?

Unfortunately, having Hillary Clinton has the Dumbacratic Party's nominee, McCain will have a real shot at winning the White House. Several Head to Head matchups already show McCain beating both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama....and the Republican machine has not even been plugged in yet. The McCain vs. anybody scenario was the one that I was most worried about. I predicted that he would get the Republican nomination back in 2005. Back then, most expected McCain and Clinton to be the nominees... If you look back into the Mirror on America archives (2006) you will see that I pretty much expected McCain to win.

The nightmare scenarios on both sides seem to be materializing.

God Help Us.

There Was More To Dr. King Than "I Have A Dream"

This is an update of my 2007 MLK Day Post. I Couldn't top my post from last year, so I just decided on the update.

There was much more to Dr. King than I Have A Dream. Americans will be bombarded today (and in February) with loops of the famous I Have A Dream speech being played 10,000 times. But you won't see or hear the speech here. The U.S. uses that speech as a way to disarm Kings message. It has been ironic to watch the U.S. government "honor" King over the last few years, particularly while the U.S. has been at war, yet they avoid mentioning anything about his well known moral and political position on War....and the War in Vietnam in particular. Just take out the word Vietnam and replace it with Iraq, and it sounds like King is talking in the year 2007.

It's a shame that his Holiday is not truly celebrated in this country. Most people see it as just another day. Most White Americans barely recognize the day. It's a shame and very ironic that a man who spoke against segregation has a national Holiday that is segregated in terms of how people recognize it.

Below, I have included 5 great speeches from Dr King, some of them dealing with his feelings about war.

What Would MLK Say About The World Today?

What Would Dr. King Think About What Was Going On In The World Today?

He basically told us 4 decades ago.... we were just a little late arriving to the show.
If we would just listen to these Prophets when they are here sounding the alarm, maybe we could avoid more disasters. Many of the things that King spoke of 4 decades ago, we see today. It is a combination of things not changing, and King being way ahead of his time, foretelling issues and threats decades ago that we are now seeing develop today in our lifetimes.

Listen to the speech The Drum Major Instinct, given in February of 1968. This is one of my favorite speeches, and one that never gets old. It is so relevant for today. It's also one of Kings great messages. However, his greatest & most powerful speech, in my opinion, has to be a speech titled "A Knock At Midnight". Scary speech. Unfortunately I don’t have A Knock At Midnight in a digital format. But Drum Major Instinct is also one of his great messages….one of my top 3 favorites.

I Have a Dream is a great speech but it is not his greatest work. But America often uses I Have a Dream to try to sanitize King, and box him into being a Civil Rights/Racial Equality leader. The fact is, between 1965 & 1968, King was the leading anti-war voice and leading voice for economic equality in the country. I think that is part of the reason that he was gunned down. This is the part of Kings history that is hardly ever told. It's the part of his history that America tries to smother every year when the nation goes through its so called "remembrance". If they really wanted to honor King they would rewrite the school books to tell the true story about his efforts. He was not just a civil rights leader. If they wanted to honor him, they would try to live up to his vision....a vision that went beyond race and civil rights. Peace was at the heart of his struggle. He was just as passionate as an anti-war advocate as he was as a civil rights advocate....and perhaps maybe even more so as a Peace advocate.

Other Great Speeches

Sticking Together

Beyond Vietnam (Speaking Out Against The Vietnam War in front of a national group of Clergy in New York, April 4, 1967; exactly one year before he died. )

See Text of Beyond Vietnam Speech

Related Article

Why I Oppose The War In Vietnam RIGHT CLICK AND SAVE FOR EASIER PLAYBACK (similar speech given in front of his own congregation at the Ebenezer Baptist Church)

But If Not

I've Been To The Mountain Top - His Final Speech, April 3, 1968, given in Memphis Tennessee. Under an unusually high number of death threats, and feeling ill, King went to speak anyway, braving the assassins and the bad weather.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

A video Interview with Rev. Lowery from a couple of years ago. Link To Webpage.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Isaac Hayes Talks About Working and Living During the 60's Civil Rights Struggle
Listen Here

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Democracy Now Covers MLK

Great Story About Kings Last Hours In Memphis Helping the Sanitation Workers

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Great Article

Reclaiming King: Beyond “I Have A Dream” Read Here.