Friday, April 30, 2004

Wolfowitz didn't just underestimate the number of US military deaths in Iraq

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief architects of the Iraq war, grossly underestimated the number of US military deaths in Iraq yesterday, during testimony before a House committee. He said 500, with approximately 350 from combat. He was off by more than 200. But what's worse is the complete flippancy with which he answered. He seemed annoyed by the question.

Gee, Paul, sorry to bother you. Maybe you need to get back to the cave, to plan your next invasion. But before you do, you murdering scumbag, you should watch Nightline tonight, while Ted Koppel reads the list of all the US Soldiers who have died in Iraq. Maybe you should send a card to all the families, apologizing for all the lies you told to get everyone to believe sending them over there would be a cakewalk, and was necessary.

Thursday, April 29, 2004

PNAC's Call for a New Pearl Harbor

I'm reading Amy Goodman's new book, The Exception to the Rulers. She pointed out something that really bothered me, that I hadn't heard before.

The Project for a New American Century, a posse of neo-con hawks, wrote a report (Rebuilding America's Defenses) in September, 2000, that they sent to Bill Clinton. Out of the 18 people who signed the letter, 10 are currently in the Bush Administration. They include Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad. Dick Cheney was one of the PNAC's founders. The urged Clinton to attack Iraq and take out Saddam.

So what's the big deal here? Well, these war mongers (most of them chicken hawks who never saw service) actually said that a shift toward a more aggressive policy in the middle east would happen slowly, absent "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."

Now if that doesn't send a chill up your spine, you must paralyzed with the fear the people have been injecting us with. Or just stupid. Because when the most influential members of the current administration actually wrote that they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to speed up American Military aggression in the Middle East, it sure gives fuel to the conspiracy theorists I've argued with. And even if they didn't actually say, hey, old buddy Osama, you know we trained you and funded you all those years, now we need a little favor, this little nugget certainly gives some credence to the possible motive behind Operation Ignore, as Al Franken calls the now well documented Bush Administration lack of enthusiasm for anti-terrorism efforts.

When you hear Paul O'Neill say they ignored it, and Richard Clarke says they ignored it, and John O'Neill says they wouldn't let him investigate Bush's oil buddies, like Bandar Bush, who fund terrorism through their Wassabi "charities," it certainly looks like the Bushies didn't want to do anything that might prevent the "new Pearl Harbor" they needed to advance the American Empire.

This story was reported on Nightline in March, 2003. This is worth looking back on as Bush sits on Cheney's knee while "testifying" before the 9/11 commission. Especially the bit about John O'Neill, who I've never heard the mainstream media mention. That's why I'm going to start watching Amy Goodman on Democracy Now more often!

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Response to and Editorial in The News Harold, Panama City, Florida

RE: Up Against Fanaticism By Phil Lucas, Executive Editor, Panama City New Herald

What a shame it is, then, that instead of attacking the fanatics who attacked us, in Saudi Arabia, or instead of putting a lot more force in Afghanistan (several US Commanders in Afghanistan, including Tommy Franks, were really pissed when he got orders to send men and equipment to Iraq that we needed to find Bin Laden), Bush and his Cabal kept insisting that we attack a relatively secular regime which the US had installed because he was best of bad choices. We kept saying he had weapons, which he did not, and had ties to Al Qaeda, which he actually hated. Iraq was not a threat. And yet, here we are, bogged down, fighting a bunch of fanatics who had nothing to do with the attack on us. Meanwhile, Bin Laden keeps making tapes encouraging all his stateless buddies to attack us.

My question is, are we going to go around attacking all the bad guys, or not? Are these wars of liberation going to liberate the North Koreans? The Iranians? The Saudi Arabians terrorized by the Wassabi sect that the Saudi Royal Family (and Bush's lifelong oil buddies) has been funding for years? When will we step into African countries where the WMDs are hundreds of thousands of machetes?

And what of the messOpotamia we've made? Iraq is arguably more of a terrorist state now than it was under Saddam. And the argument that it's better to fight them there with our forces than here with the FBI? What the hell makes you think they're going to stay there now? This ain't the middle ages. Globalization allows Bin Laden's buddies to ship old Russian nukes from Uzbekistan to the US in shipping containers that we don't even scan.... Just think what 12 terrorist with assault rifles and a few 18 wheelers of ANFO can do. Every day a huge train full of chlorine gas goes right through the heart of Washington DC, and the company that runs it, which used to be run by Treasury secretary John Snow, has not been forced to go around town, because they say that would cost too much.

Meanwhile, we cut funds for first responders and sent $50 billion to Iraq. Then we sent another $87 billion to Iraq, while running up the biggest deficits in history. Now our kids will have to pay for this misdirected, bogged down, un-planned for occupation and rebuilding, while our Social Security goes broke, bridges are collapsing, school ceilings are falling in on kids' heads, and Halliburton is spending most of the money earmarked for rebuilding on security. Paid mercenaries making plenty of taxpayer money protecting convoys of over-priced fuel for troops with big targets on their backs.

Crusade? Indeed. And anyone who thinks killing more of them will scare them into stopping is dead wrong. Most of the insurgent recruits are Iraqis who were happy we "liberated" them. Now they're just mad that the great power that toppled Saddam in two weeks can't get the water and electricity working in one year.

If we want to win the hearts and minds of Arab moderates, I suggest we stop killing their children first.

Kerry Campaign: Key Unanswered Questions on Bush's Record In National Guard

Tue Apr 27, 1:33 PM ET

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Stephanie Cutter or Chad Clanton, 202-712-3000, both of John Kerry (news - web sites) for President;

WASHINGTON, April 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Kerry campaign today released the following "Key Unanswered Questions: Bush's Record in the National Guard":

Key Unanswered Questions: Bush's Record in the National Guard

"If George Bush wants to ask me questions about that through his surrogates, he owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it. That's what we ought to have. I'm not going to stand around and let them play games." -- John Kerry, NBC News, 4/26/04

-- Bush Has Said He Used No Special Treatment To Get Into The Guard. How Does He Explain The Fact That He Jumped Ahead Of 150 Applicants Despite Low Pilot Aptitude Scores?

-- Col. Albert Lloyd Said A Report From Alabama To Ellington Should Have Been Filed. Where Is That Report?

-- Why Did Bush Miss His Medical Exam In 1972?

-- Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush's Absence From The Exam?

-- Why Did Bush Specifically Request To NOT Be Sent Overseas For Duty?

-- Why Does The White House Say Bush Was On Base When Bush's Superiors Had Filed A Report Saying He Was Gone For A Whole Year?

-- Why Is The Pentagon (news - web sites) Under Orders To Not Discuss Bush's Record With Reporters?

-- Where Are Bush's Flight Logs?

-- Why Hasn't Bush Himself Demonstrated That He Showed Up For Service in Alabama?

Bush Has Said He Used No Special Treatment To Get Into The Guard. How Does He Explain The Fact That He Jumped Ahead Of 150 Applicants Despite Low Pilot Aptitude Scores?

"There was no special treatment." -- Then-Gov. George W. Bush (Dallas Morning News, 7/4/99)

-- FACT: With Family Connection, Bush Got Coveted Slot in Texas Guard Shortly After Graduating from College. A family friend of Bush's father pulled strings to secure Bush's spot; Bush joined the Texas Air National Guard after his student deferment ran out when he graduated from Yale in 1968. Before he graduated, Bush personally visited Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt -- the commander of the Texas Air National Guard -- to talk about the Guard. After Bush met with Staudt, he applied and was quickly accepted -- despite a waiting list of over 150 applicants. Staudt recommended Bush for a direct appointment, which allowed Bush to become a second lieutenant right out of basic training without having to go though officer candidate school. The direct appointment also cleared the way for a position in pilot training school. (New York Times, 9/27/99; Houston Chronicle, 10/10/92; Los Angeles Times, 7/4/99)

-- FACT: Bush Scored in 25th Percentile on Pilot Aptitude Test. When Bush applied for the Guard, his score on the Air Force pilot aptitude section, one of five on the test, was in the 25th percentile, the lowest allowed for would-be fliers. (Dallas Morning News, 7/4/99)

-- FACT: No Shortage of Pilots in Texas Guard. Although a Bush spokesman claimed Bush was fast-tracked because the Guard needed pilots, Charles C. Shoemake, a chief of personnel in the Texas Guard from 1972 to 1980 remembered no such shortage. "We had so many people coming in who were super-qualified," Shoemake said Texas Guard Historian Tom Hail said there was no apparent need to fast-track applicants. "I've never heard of that," he said. "Generally they did that for doctors only, mostly because we needed extra flight surgeons." (Los Angeles Times, 7/4/99)

Col. Albert Lloyd Said A Report From Alabama To Ellington Should Have Been Filed. Where Is That Report?

-- FACT: Col. Lloyd: Guard Records Should Include Evidence Of Alabama Service. Lloyd also said he did not know whether Bush performed duty in Alabama. "If he did, his drill attendance should have been certified and sent to Ellington, and there would have been a record." (Boston Globe, 5/23/00; AP, 6/24/00)

-- FACT: White House's Own Expert Said Bush Should Have Done More. According to the Globe, "the White House included with the documents a memorandum from a Texas Air National Guard personnel specialist stating that the documents prove that Bush had a 'satisfactory year' for 'retirement/retention' purposes between May 27, 1972, and May 26, 1973. But that specialist, retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., acknowledged in an interview last night that he evaluated Bush using the lower of two measures for rating Guard service. Guardsmen, he said, needed to serve more days to meet minimum-training requirements than to meet the lower threshold to receive retirement credit for the year. 'Should he have done more? Yes, he should have,' Lloyd said of Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot. 'Did he have to? No.'" (Boston Globe, 2/11/04)

Why Did Bush Miss His Medical Exam In 1972?

-- FACT: Bush Was Suspended From Flight Duty For Failing To Take Mandated Medical Exam.

On September 29, 1972, Bush was officially suspended from flying for missing his annual medical examination. The orders note that Bush's suspension is authorized under the guidelines presented in Air Force Manual 35-12 Para 2-29m, which reads that Bush's local commander "will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." (Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 Sept 72; AFM 35-13, Para 2-29m)

Where Are The Complete Results Of The Required Investigation Into Bush's Absence From The Exam?

-- FACT: The order suspending Bush from flight duty stated: "Verbal orders of the Comdr on 1 Aug 72 suspending 1STLT George W. Bush from flying status are confirmed Reason for Suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination. Off will comply with para 2-10, AFM 35-13. Authority: Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13. (Aeronautical Orders, Number 87, 29 September 1972)

-- Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13: "When a Rated Officer Fails To Accomplish a Medical Examination Prescribed by AFM 160-1.... (1)The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination. After reviewing the findings of the investigation, the local commander may convene a Flying Evaluation Board or forward through command channels a detailed report of the circumstances which resulted in the officer's failure to accomplish a medical examination, along with a recommendation that the suspension be removed. (2) The individual's major command will forward the report along with the command recommendation to USAFMPC/DPMAJD, Randolph AFB TX 78148 for final determination." (Para 2-29m, AFM 35-13)

Why Did Bush Specifically Request NOT To Be Sent Overseas For Duty?

-- FACT: Bush's Application Indicated Bush Did Not Volunteer for Overseas Duty. On Bush's application to the 147th Fighter Group at Ellington Air Force Base in Texas, Bush was asked what his "Area Assignment Preferences" were. Bush checked the box beside "Do Not Volunteer" for overseas duty. (Application for Extended Duty With The United States Air Force, 5/27/68)

Why Does The White House Say Bush Was On Base When Bush's Superiors Had Filed A Report Saying He Was Gone For A Whole Year?

-- FACT: Bush's Superiors Were Unable to Evaluate Him for a Full Year, Saying he "Has Not Been Observed at This Unit...."

May 2, 1973: Bush's superior officers William D. Harris Jr. and Jerry B. Killian, wrote on his yearly evaluation form, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report," and that a "civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has been performing equivalent training in a non flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dannelly ANG Base, Alabama." (AF-77, 2 May 73)

...But the White House Claims Bush was on Base the Same Day Superiors Filed Report.

o White House release says Bush paid on May 2, 1973, the very day his superiors reported, "Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of report." (2nd Q 1973 pay record)

-- FACT: Bush's Superior Officer Says He Would Have Known If Bush Had Reported for Duty.

November 12, 1973: Rufus G. Martin signed a report on Bush's evaluation, saying Bush was "Not rated for the period 1 May 72 through 30 April 73." (AF-77a, 12 Nov 73)

Boston Globe: "But retired colonel Martin, the unit's former administrative officer, said he too thought Bush had been in Alabama for that entire year. Harris and Killian, he said, would have known if Bush returned to duty at Ellington." (Boston Globe, 5/23/00)

Why Is The Pentagon Under Orders Not To Discuss Bush's Record With Reporters?

-- FACT: Freedom of Information Officers Under Orders From Senior Pentagon Officials To Ignore Requests on Bush Files. According to the Spokane Spokesman-Review, "at the National Guard Bureau, now headed by a Bush appointee from Texas, officials last week said they were under orders not to answer questions. The bureau's chief historian said he couldn't discuss questions about Bush's military service on orders from the Pentagon. 'If it has to do with George W. Bush, the Texas Air National Guard or the Vietnam War, I can't talk with you,' said Charles Gross, chief historian for the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C. Rose Bird, Freedom of Information Act officer for the bureau, said her office stopped taking records requests on Bush's military service in mid-February and is directing all inquiries to the Pentagon. She would not provide a reason. Air Force and Texas Air National Guard officials did not respond to written questions about the issue. James Hogan, a records coordinator at the Pentagon, said senior Defense Department officials had directed the National Guard Bureau not to respond to questions about Bush's military records." (Spokane Spokesman-Review, 3/14/04)

Al Franken's Blog

The great thing about Al Franken is his research staff. If you've read his book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, you'll realize he has a great staff of people working for him. In the book, it's a sharp group of Harvard students. On his blog and radio show, the research director is J.R. Norton. His post today, 04.27.2004, is really well researched. He proves that Cheney is lying about Kerry's record on defense. In typical right-wing-nut fashion, it turns out it was actually Cheney who wanted to make the cuts he was blaming Kerry for!

Friday, April 23, 2004

Post from my friend, Jon Cupp

Here is the link to the 361 photos that the bush people don't want you to see. The bush people are trying to make the argument that these photos are an invasion into the privacy of the family members of military casualties in Iraq. These are photos of coffins. There is nothing in these photos to personally identify those killed in Iraq or their familiy members.

Rather, these photos are an invasion of truth into the lies of the bush people and the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

You may get an error page. I think this site is getting a lot of hits.

Thursday, April 22, 2004

What the Bush administration doesn't want you to see

Prohibited image of coffins of US soldiers returning from Iraq - CLICK FOR BIG PICTURETAMI SILICIO gave this picture to the Seattle Times. She was fired by Maytag Aircraft for that violation of US Government and Company regulations. The Bush administration has prohibited photographs of returning caskets of US service personel, continuing a policy started by George HW Bush in 1991.

Friday, April 16, 2004

Air America

While liberal radio breaks streaming audio records, I'm amazed at how many people are buying our Bush magnets! They're great if you're on a diet! Put these Bush quotes on your fridge and you'll lose your appetite... Oh, and check out the Dead Soldier Bush picture.