AmeriPundit

RE: "Good War Planning" and "Caring for the Troops"

2006-03-13T09:30:00.000-08:00

Perhaps we have become so used to the ineptitude, lies, and theft of both life and loot by this bunch of "leaders" that we will not be moved by the following.

One can only hope that is not so however, the "yawning" when the mention of reducing casualties is made seems like it's expected of us. Hell, why not? We seem to have delivered for these sons of Soprano so far and, yes, it's acceptable to use fictional characters in an opinion when you have fictional leaders.

The following are excerpts from Dash to Baghdad Left Top US Generals Divided:

The war was barely a week old when Gen. Tommy R. Franks threatened to fire the Army's field commander...

In an extraordinary improvisation, Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile leader who was a Pentagon favorite, was flown to southern Iraq with hundreds of his fighters as General Franks's command sought to put an "Iraqi face" on the invasion; the plan was set in motion without the knowledge of top administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence...

General Wallace had said to The New York Times and The Washington Post. "We knew they were here, but we did not know how they would fight." Asked whether the fighting increased the chances of a longer war than forecast by some military planners, he responded, "It's beginning to look that way"...

To General Franks, those remarks apparently were tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in his war plan. It relied on speed, and he had told Mr. Rumsfeld that his forces might take Baghdad in just a few weeks. In Washington, General Wallace's comments were seized on by critics as evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld had not sent enough troops. More than a year earlier, he had ridiculed the initial war plan that called for at least 380,000 troops and had pushed the military's Central Command to use fewer soldiers and deploy them more quickly. At a Pentagon news conference, the defense secretary denied that he had any role in shaping the war plan. "It was not my plan," he said. "It was General Franks's plan, and it was a plan that evolved over a sustained period of time"...

One of the most critical moments of the meeting came when General Franks indicated he did not want to be slowed by overly cautious generals concerned about holding casualties to a minimum, though no one had raised the issue of casualties. To dramatize his point, according to one participant, General Franks put his hand to his mouth and made a yawning motion....

After the session, General McKiernan approached Maj. Gen. Albert Whitley, his top British deputy. "That conversation never happened," General McKiernan said, according to military officials who learned of the exchange...

Same Old Tune, Same Old Words

2006-03-10T17:50:00.000-08:00

See Joshua Brown's other works at "Life During Wartime".

Oh, For "FOX'S" Sake!!

2006-03-02T09:17:00.000-08:00

Compare to post below this and go to Media Matters for transcripts and video.

Good Civil Wars

2006-02-26T10:31:00.000-08:00

Once again, the spin machine is on "full cycle". The groundwork is being laid for a discussion wherein the Administration can blame Iraqis for our ill- advised, needless, sophomoric desire to appease those whose interests collided, and produced "Iraqula"- that which is the offspring of geeks (thinktankers) and dollars (corporate, of course).

And, once again, FOX leads the way. Why not? They made up the stories that led the charge into war. They can certainly make up the stories to mask the shame behind the inevitable ignoble retreat that leaves nothing but destruction (and some permanent bases) behind.

Don't pity the dead. They don't have to be subjected to this crap anymore. Actually, just say a prayer or think of them once in a while while solemnly promising never to forget them.

One would think that since "obscenity is in the eye of the beholder" any American, worth his or her salt, would be so outraged that they would, at least, report that broadcast to the FCC on the grounds of "obscenity".

Distress

2006-02-22T09:58:00.000-08:00

Distressing times indeed. For great articles, news, op-ed's, and mulitmedia resources visit Truthout.org.

February 17, 2006 | A Capitol staffer noticed that the Senate was in session at 10 a.m. Friday and that it was flying an upside down US flag - the universal symbol of distress.
(Photo: AP)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. AmeriPundit has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is AmeriPundit endorsed or sponsored by the originator.

Exhaustion

2006-02-14T16:35:00.000-08:00

It's only February and the exhaustion is already setting in. It's becoming more evident with every passing day that 6 year olds are running the country.

Only their toys are bullets and bombs- and their candy is the treasury.

Many things have been written about the various issues confronting us, including the ones on the main AmeriPundit site (link above), but humor seems to be the best medicine for what ails the country (until there is no one left to laugh).

Luckily, our valued contributor, Joshua Brown (link on the right), has shared his views with us (below). So let's review the year (in reverse order) and let's try to have a few laughs- if it's at all possible and while we still can.

February

The real target (U.S. public- in case it's hard to read).

The new "Don't ask me 'cause I won't tell you" policy.

It's mourning in America, indeed!

January

9-11, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat...

The Nation

2006-02-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

These are dangerous times. The picture below, as well as the one on the right, show what is happening.

Support (not necessarily monetary) should be given to those that fight for every letter in that sacred document. This is being posted by way of supporting "The Nation". This site is not affiliated with The Nation magazine, nor does it have any financial interest in, or with, the magazine. However, this site is a strong supporter of the work it does on behalf of the American people.

The following is from their site and a link is provided both in this post and to the right.

"If the Bill of Rights were written today, would it look like this? With Bush and Cheney chanting their mantras of "executive privilege" and "national security," it just might. Fueled by their Far Right benefactors, they're leading one of the most repressive -- and dangerous -- secrecy campaigns in American history. Help fight it, and them, by becoming a Nation Associate, 22,000 concerned individuals who support The Nation in its commitment to uncovering and printing the truth." The Nation

Pictures are worth more than words...

2006-01-15T19:57:00.000-08:00

There are times that too many words are spoken and written. We are living in such times.

The last 6 years seem to be one of those times. Far too much has been written about nothing and everything and we are now simply at a point where nothing makes sense.

Thanks to Josh Brown, and others like him, we may be able to simply see things straight again.

Thank you- Boxer, Dean, and Josh Brown...

2005-12-19T20:00:00.000-08:00

BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues,including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Reprehensible?

2005-11-23T14:39:00.000-08:00

"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history..." From Dick Cheney

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal

"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda...

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers...

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004... Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists..."

(If there are problems with the National Journal link, go to truthout which carries a reprint.)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

The Business of Alito

2005-11-05T14:27:00.000-08:00

While the debate over Samuel Alito revolves, once again, over the issue(?) of abortion (a decision that has been so eviscerated by various state legislatures that it is no longer recognizable) and social conservatives rally to his side on this non-issue- the true breadth of the thievery that he will bring to the Supreme Court goes undiscussed- namely, his love of, and fidelity to, big business to the detriment of individuals.

One need not go far to see the smokescreen that has become so popular with the radical right and the manner in which they deal with their "socially conservative" brethren when the choice becomes one of "Morals" vs. "Money".

The New York Times in "Court Nominee Has Paper Trail Businesses Like" (registration may be required, quotes are contained herein, and additional links to other sources regarding this point are set out below) reports:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has reliably favored big-business litigants as he has pushed the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in a conservative direction... His extensive paper trail of 15 years of opinions reveals a jurist deeply skeptical of claims against large corporations. A review of dozens of business cases in which Judge Alito has written majority or dissenting opinions or cast the decisive vote shows that, with few exceptions, he has sided with employers over employees in discrimination lawsuits and in favor of corporations over investors in securities fraud cases... The judge's reputation over the last 15 years was such that corporate lawyers relished the prospect of his participation in cases, while plaintiff's lawyers hoped to avoid him...

Backs it up with nice quotes:

"We're always happy to see Judge Alito on the panel," said Robert C. Heim, the head of the litigation department at Dechert, a large law firm based in Philadelphia that represents some of the nation's largest corporations, typically facing accusations of antitrust, securities or corporate law violations..."

And guides the reader to other sources to prove the point:

Officials at the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce said that as they combed through his record, they had been favorably impressed with what they had learned...

The Times also offers the other side of the coin (so to speak):

Lawyers for organizations often on the other end of lawsuits involving businesses are alarmed about Judge Alito's record... "We're concerned, based on his record, about what his appointment would mean for access to the courts by the people we represent," said Glenn Sugameli, senior litigation counsel at Earthjustice, a law firm that represents environmental groups and individuals seeking enforcement of environmental laws. "We're also concerned, based on his record, that his interpretation of the Commerce Clause threatens the enforcement of such laws as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act."

For all the readers who despise the Times as a "left-leaning, liberal mouthpiece", BusinessWeek Online offers:

But one group is breathing a big sigh of relief: Corporate America. Of the dozen or so names on Bush's rumored short list of high court candidates, Alito ranked near the top for the boardroom set...In the 800-plus opinions he has penned during his 15 years as a federal judge, Alito consistently has come down on the side of limiting corporate liability, limiting employee rights, and limiting federal regulation.

To get a further understanding of the dance between the "conservatives" in Washington, their voting base (social conservatives), and the ultimate winners (big business), "Bankruptcy, Business, and Christians" (AmeriPundit-contains links) offers up a view. One can also link directly to "Business, Christian groups pose dilemma for DeLay" (The Hill), and "Christian lawyers say bill, Bible don't mesh" (the Des Moines Register).

In this time of video over reading, to obtain a better understanding of what is going on, please refer to "Troy" (the DVD can be rented, purchased, and comes with many subscriptions to cable). Have a party and play games as it is being shown. A good game is, "Who Are You?"

Participants only need to identify with the shining city, the wooden horse, or the army contained within the horse. At the end, the only winners are those that haven't died during the party AND have enslaved the survivors of the battle. The King(s) sitting far away from the bloody battles are the ultimate winners and take everything.

The only problem with the game is that we all know that if you're reading this, you're not a King.

Kings have servants for that task.

Senator Boxer Speaks on the CIA leak and Alito nomination

2005-11-01T19:11:00.000-08:00

Statement by Senator Barbara Boxer

The most disturbing part of this White House leak scandal is that it involves a personal, vicious attack on an undercover CIA agent because her husband exposed the lies behind the Bush Administration’s premise for the Iraq war.

This despicable incident brings back echoes of the worst political scandals, when political “enemies” were targeted for personal destruction. This isn’t the first time this Administration has tried to discredit or punish those who disagreed with them or stood up to them on the Iraq war and other Bush priorities.

But, this CIA outing case, where an indictment has been issued against the Vice President’s top man, is particularly egregious because a deep undercover agent’s career was completely destroyed, putting her life and the lives of others in extreme jeopardy.

The first President Bush said, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.”

Now his son should show the same outrage and moral disgust with those who were involved in this treasonous activity. President Bush should act immediately to fire anyone in his Administration who played any role in harming our national security by outing an undercover agent in order to punish her husband.

President George W. Bush said in 2001, “We must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right.” This case is a matter of right and wrong, and there is no gray area. President Bush needs to apologize for the actions of his Administration and rid his White House of anyone connected to this scandal.

Statement of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer on the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court

I believe this nomination is aimed at appeasing the most right wing elements of the President's political base, and in so doing the President turns his back on the hopes and dreams, and the rights and freedoms of the majority of the American People.

Judge Alito may be soft spoken but if many of his opinions had prevailed the hard reality of his views would have hurt our families.

Judge Alito has a record which includes opinions that would have undermined the rights of the American People, especially the rights of women, minorities and families.

Had the President simply asked Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to finish this term on the Court, he could have avoided a bruising battle and united the country, instead of once again dividing it.

It is especially ironic that at a time when all of America is honoring Rosa Parks that the President would send us a nominee whose decisions could jeopardize the principle of equality for all Americans.

"Surreality" shows and deadly "Comedies"

2005-10-29T19:15:00.000-07:00

For those too engrossed (during the last week) by the latest hit "surreality" show, "Harriet and Scooter", directed by those entertainment wizards, the Compassionate Conservatives, the following is a listing of some other shows that aired (but went largely unnoticed) during the week obtained from C-SPAN's CapitalNews. It's a partial compilation of the work of the main subsidiary of the Compassionate Conservatives- the Congress, which never fails to produce short shows, generally unseen but with a lasting impact, while the audience is tuned to the "sexy" productions.

Episodes (patial list) produced during the period of 10- 25 and ending with 10- 29:

Senate Majority leader Frist Says Senate Won't Probe CIA Leak
(See also, "Frist says Frist won't investigate self...)

Fmr. FDA Head Held Shares in Regulated Firms as Late as '04
(See Frist...)

Rep. DeLay Admits He Failed to Fully Report Contributions
("The Hammer doth protest too much, methinks"- a comedy...)

Lawmakers Express Concern Over Civil Liberty Curbs in Hong Kong
(A twist on the "Living in Glass Houses" plotline..."

Bush says military action against Syria "last resort"
(A sequel to Iraq I, and Iraq II...)

WHouse seeks to shield CIA from detainee rules
21 Detainees Killed in U.S. Custody in Iraq, Afghanistan
White House List of Disrupted Terror Plots Questioned
U.S. Building New Iraq Prisons to Close Abu Ghraib
Pres. Bush Says Iraq War Will Require "More Sacrifice"
U.S. Might Pull Some Troops From Iraq Within Year
U.S. Troops in Iraq at 161,000, Highest Level Since War's Start
Military Spokesman Says 2,000 Soldiers Killed "Not a Milestone"
Bush Says Progress Is Being Made in Iraq
Sunni Leaders Reject Iraq Charter as "Fraudulent"
(Strong language, nudity, violent content...)

Texas Oilman Pleads Not Guilty in U.N. Oil-for-Food Probe
State Dept Says Oil-For-Food Scam Signals Need for U.N. Reform
(Hilarious...)

Bill Will Punish Lawyers in Frivolous Suit
(Lawyer jokes.... this episode, along with the "Cheeseburger" Bill episode earlier this month, the Bill that barred suits against gun manufacturers- also earlier this month, the class action tort reform- earlier this year, and other tort reform laws under current consideration are sure to bring laughs! Since the average person only had a limited key to the courthouse in the past, watching "Joe Average" and his wife and kids run around a courthouse trying to get in with all of these laws in place is "Priceless"...)

Sup. Ct. Justice Scalia Turns Away TV Reporters at D.C. Event
(A retrospective as one of the stars of "W- the First Four Years" can't find the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment [No State shall...deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws] for detainess [regardless of citizenship] that he and his friends loaned "W" in 2000. Looks to "W" to return it but is talked out of the effort by Cheney during a private hunting trip discussing the Energy Task Force...)

House GOP Leaders: Oil Companies Should Build U.S. Refineries
(Hilarity abounds as, after forcing through two pieces of legislation with significant [around $14.5 billion in taxpayer funds] benefits for the oil industry this year, House Republican leaders call for oil companies to return the favor by building new refineries and taking other steps to increase fuel supply and lower gas prices. Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute [with money already in hand, responds] "What we are trying to say is, tell us what you want, not how to make it happen...")

Louisiana's Unemployment Rate Reaches 11.5 Percent
Labor Dept. Reports Hurricane-Related Job Losses Top 500,000
Homeland Security Sec. Chertoff Asks for Floridians' Patience
Miami-Dade Mayor Says FEMA Supplies Dwindling
FEMA to Keep Former Director on Payroll for 30 More Days
(Side-splitting comedy as Homeland Security Sec. Chertoff says, "We don't want to sacrifice the real ability to get a full picture of Mike's experiences; we don't want to sacrifice that ability simply in order to make an image point...")

Republicans Cut Several Programs in Budget
(Comedy that brings tears to the eyes as House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts. Minority Democrats opposed virtually everything that was done, saying Wednesday's actions are part of a broader GOP budget blueprint that also calls for $106 billion in new tax cuts over the next five years.)

House Panel Passes $11-Billion Medicaid Cuts
House Committee Cuts $844 Million From Food Stamp Program
(Another great comedy as, on a party-line vote, after slashing Medicaid, the Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new government report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.)

Senate Panel Approves $10 Billion Cut in Medicare, Medicaid
Senate Rejects Bid to Boost School Aid by $5 Billion
Senate Votes Against Increased Funding for Home Heating Program
(The Senate, getting in on the hijinks, caps off a sterling performance of taking from the poor as it, for the second time this month, voted against putting more money into a program that helps low-income families meet home heating costs. Citing budget restraints, not mentioning the oil company subsidies nor the tax cuts favoring the top 1% of the population, nor the upcoming attempt to repeal the estate tax...)

Bush, Party Faithful Gather for Fundraiser
(Great "party" scenes as President Bush gathered with his party faithful Tuesday night for a $15,000-a-couple dinner that the Republican National Committee reported raised at least $1 million. The dinner was a 30th anniversary celebration for the Republican Eagles — donors who raise at least $15,000 a year. For their contributions, the 260 attendees dined on seared mignon of beef, received a commemorative paperweight and heard a speech from the commander in chief...)

Oh, and... Rosa Parks died, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy sighed, Martin Luther King and Jesus cried.

Sergeant Benderman: Serving Time for Having a Conscience

2005-10-22T17:29:00.000-07:00

The following e-mails are presented in their original form with the permission of the author, Monica Benderman- wife of Sergeant Kevin Benderman.

The decision to publish them was made because no attempt at a narrative was able to capture the matter-of-fact anger of the first e-mail, nor the frustrated anger of the second.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Briefly, Kevin Benderman had served as an army mechanic for 10 years when he developed moral and religious objections to the war in Iraq and, after serving there in 2003, he refused to deploy there again. He filed an application for conscientious objector status on 28 December 2004.

His application was denied and he continued to refuse to serve. Subsequently he was tried and was acquitted of desertion but was convicted of the lesser charge of missing movement, meaning he skipped his Jan. 8 deployment flight. He was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, a loss of pay, and dishonorable discharge at the court martial. He is still in prison.

It should be pointed out that the wheels had fallen off the WMD argument by the time of his trial and that Sec. Rumsfeld said in a little covered DOD Press Conference that but for WMD's, there would have been no war, much to the astonishment of a reporter who asked about "all the other reasons" for the war.

To find out more about Sgt. Benderman, His military record, his writing expressing his reasons for not going back to Iraq after serving there, Sec. Rumsfeld's statement, and/or if the reader wishes to help (with even a simple note of support), sites, links, and an e-mail address are provided below.

One should note the discrepancies for violations (note 45 days for a Captain selling body armor on E-Bay vs. 15 months for Sgt. Benderman, etc.) and the conditions of the prisons.

The first e-mail was in response to a query as to the status of some submitted questions for Sgt. Benderman and when the answers could be anticipated. The second e-mail was in response to a query as to the first e-mail being published. Subsequent e-mails clarified the second as an affirmative response.
________________

Monica Benderman's e-mail on status of Kevin Benderman's responses to submitted questions:

To give you some background into the last 2 weeks - because I don't remember if I have already -

Kevin still has not been in contact with any attorneys. He requested contact with the Trial Defense Services here at Ft. Stewart, as they are still responsible for his post trial procedures, but the prison said that he could not contact them, that he would have to wait for someone from their office to contact Kevin. He has been at Ft. Lewis for 2 months, now, and still nothing, and put the initial request in during the first week he was there.

I was to have received official info from Ft. Lewis during his first week there as well. We waited and waited.. I finally complained about that through Amnesty, and appeals were sent to the installation from Sept. 9 - 12th. Interestingly enough - I received a letter 2 days ago, from the Lt. Col. in charge of the correct. facility. The letter was postdated to Aug. 29th, one month after Kevin arrived there, and it said that the letter was to notify me that Kevin was had "safely arrived at Ft. Lewis." Stupid people, they postmarked the letter Sept. 15th, so clearly, the only reason they even sent it was because of the Amnesty appeals. Many of the inmates were amazed to hear that I had gotten a letter. Some of them have been there for 10 months or more, and still their families have received no official notification.

We also had to use Amnesty to appeal for Kevin's right to a civilian chaplain. The warden at the facility called Kevin into his office and told Kevin that he felt that I was pushing for a civilian chaplain, but that he wanted to see if Kevin really wanted one. He told Kevin that he would prefer that Kevin use the prison chaplain. Kevin said he would not. He has been trying since he first got there, to get the prison chaplain to address his concerns over his first CO application and the manner in which it was handled. The prison chaplain told him that he would not help because he didn't agree with Kevin's beliefs -- he said that he believed in war.

The prison is an all male facility, but they use female guards. This is a great concern to the inmates. The block guard desk is positioned right in front of the showers. There are no partitions, no shower curtains.. and the toilets are there in the open as well. The female guards watch the inmates taking showers. Big problem, and against Army regs.

There is no heat at the facility. There are only 2 crisis counselors for 225 inmates. There are exposed water and sewer pipes, and the raw sewage leaks from the pipes onto the hallway floors in the living areas of the inmates.

The DOD regs. require 80 sq. ft of living space per inmate, the inmates at Ft. Lewis are given 40 sq. ft.

The DOD regs require 1 shower for every 8 inmates. In Kevin's unit, there are 2 showers for 20 inmates. There is 1 working sink there for 20 inmates, and 2 working toilets.

There is supposed to be rehabilitation classes. Kevin, of all people, is required to take a class in "The Impact of Crimes on Victims." AMAZING!!!!
There are no rehab classes.. the justification is that the war is expensive and they cannot afford to offer them.

Kevin is eligible for parole on Jan. 27th, but first the Convening Authority here must approve his conviction and the sentence. He has not done this to this date. In order to have a parole board hearing, Kevin must have a confirmed place to stay, comfirmed employment, no counseling statements, and I am soliciting letters of reference from as many people as possible, to be mailed to the parole office at Ft. Lewis by the middle of November, with a copy to me as well, so that the prison cannot say that they did not receive them.

There is so much more -- this is just the beginning.

But - we feel that it is very important that this information find its way to the public from as many directions as possible.

Also -- there was a Cpt. here at Ft. Stewart, in Kevin's unit, Cpt. Schenk, S-1, 2-7th infantry. This Cpt. received 45 days confinement for selling Body Armor on EBAY.. each piece was valued at $2000.00. This man was selling it for $4,000 a piece.

There's more... much more.
________________

Monica Benderman's e-mail responding to request for permission to use her e-mail directly:

Would you like to add that the female guards at Ft. Lewis were operating a prostitution ring? They, and a couple of the male guards, at least one of which was discharged for this, arranged for a separate personal bank account, and gave the number to inquiring inmates. These inmates would then transfer funds from their commissary account to the personal bank account. Once the funds transferred.. the final transaction was arranged.

Would you also like to mention that not all inmates are lucky enough to have someone to leave their personal property with? Some have to leave it in the property room. Many leave debit and credit cards. One inmate was willing to give me his name. He was incarcerated at Ft. Lewis all last month, and his debit card was in the property room. Still, someone managed to use his debit card to charge $270.00 at the Ft. Lewis PX. Several other soldiers have reported amounts even greater being charged to their card. They are not in the position to be able to do anything about this.

_________________

To read more about Sgt. Benderman's plight, a brief outline containing the e-mails, his military record (including awards and medals), one of his articles (reflecting his position), and Sec. Rumsfeld's statement are available at Ameripundit.com. More information is available at Kevin Benderman Timeline.

Notes of support can be sent to monica@bendermantimeline.com or through the Kevin Benderman Timeline site above.

Rotting From the Head Down

2005-10-20T18:07:00.000-07:00

With all due apologies to fellow citizens, but we, the body of America, are starting to smell. By now most who are capable of reading and/or watching television know of the burning of dead Taliban fighter's bodies and the accompanying taunts to other Taliban members by what has been called an American "psychological operations" or "PSYOPS" unit in Afghanistan.

We can place it on the mantle next to the Naked Human Pyramid and the Dog Attacking Naked Prisoner trophies (to name a few).

For those unfamiliar with the story it can be found at ABC NEWS and the story with the accompanying (edited) video can be seen at CNN.

As usual, a more in depth analysis of the problems posed by that act and actual references to International Law and local customs can be found in overseas media such as The Independent, The Scotsman, and The Guardian.

Even if one is not outraged by these actions, a certain sense of bewilderment must exist. After all, this is nothing more than another "Bring 'em On" moment. First, one needs to go back to when pesky issues such as "torture" were attempted to be discussed only to have those that deigned bring them up (Amnesty International in the illustration) be quickly vanquished by the forces of "good" within the Administration- an Administration that has characterized this fight/war as an entirely "new type of war" thereby setting the stage for these "entirely new kinds of methods".

The truth is that war is war, killing is killing, torture is torture, and desecrating bodies is desecrating bodies. The only "new" thing about any of this is that it apparently has been given a wink and a nod by the highest levels of our Government.

Blaming these events on a "few bad apples" or on those who are not "upholding American standards of decency" is a pig that simply doesn't fly anymore. The American spirit and the American sense of decency cannot be hijacked by those who condone these tactics while clutching the flag and the cross in their hands- thereby desecrating both.

More importantly, what this proves is that we are now wallowing not only in the stench of passing the bounds of an oxymoron, namely, "acceptable warfare", we are now trying to wash the smell away with a stupidity shower.

Heeding the Administration's caution against "the bigotry of lowered expectations", why not discuss stupidity? The fact is that this was a "PSYOPS" operation. Presumably, these individuals have some training in psychological warfare. This act could not have possibly been in any valid work on the subject. The chances of "smoking out" other Taliban fighters with this act was close to nill and even if 1 or 2 did, then that would just be a culling of the herd that would probably be welcomed by other Taliban fighters as the "hotheads" would ultimately prove a larger risk to them than our own forces.

If this had anything to do with psychology, then it must have dealt with "projection" with a strong hint of Hollywood influence. Too bad the Taliban don't watch Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris movies. If they did, they'd fall right into our trap.

There was, and is, only one outcome to this "event"- many more recruits for either suicide bombers or fighters. The sheer folly of it is an indication of warped leadership in a warped fight that may be the right fight, but has not been characterized and framed properly in the interests of political expediency that is sure to lead to an ultimate defeat.

Far from being a statement for gentility in a fight, this is a plea for the leadership in this country to get their collective heads out of their collective fundraisers and see that we are doing nothing but planting seeds for a field that we will, one day, become too weak to cut back or control from simple exhaustion of both manpower and treasure.

The time has come for this Administration to rise above the pride of making it to the top as "C" students with portfolios consisting of a lack of military service and failed businesses (but for connections). Lives are at stake.

Making Friends...

2005-10-16T15:23:00.000-07:00

George Bush's plans to spread "good" through "bringing democracy" to countries with the use of the "pre-emptive" war tool around the world seem to be working- if one listens to the Administration (Fox, and Clear Channel included).

In fact, to survey the damage, err.., progress, he sent Karen Hughes on a "fact-finding" mission to determine whether or not the plans were working:

She returned looking perplexed but encouraged. Anybody willing to follow in her footsteps without a phalanx of military and "private security" personnel might want to look at the State Department's Current Travel Warnings.

Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country. The following is a sample of some of the countries that we've "liberated", are our "friends", are helping in the "war on terror", or just all around "good guys" - in no particular order except importance. (Note the conspicuous absence of Iran and Syria - just to pick a large geographic area at random):

Iraq

The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous. Remnants of the former Baath regime, transnational terrorists, and criminal elements remain active. Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or "Green") Zone. Targets include hotels, restaurants, police stations, checkpoints, foreign diplomatic missions, and international organizations and other locations with expatriate personnel.

Israel

The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Israel in light of the risks noted below. The Department also urges U.S. citizens to defer unnecessary travel to the West Bank and avoid all travel to Gaza.

Afghanistan

The Department of State strongly warns U.S. citizens against travel to Afghanistan. There is an ongoing threat to kidnap and assassinate U.S. citizens and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) workers throughout the country. The ability of Afghan authorities to maintain order and ensure the security of citizens and visitors is limited.

Saudi Arabia

Due to concerns about the possibility of additional terrorist activity directed against American citizens and interests, the Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan

Due to on-going concerns about the possibility of terrorist activity directed against American citizens and interests, the Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Pakistan.

Iran

Tensions generated by the current situation in Iraq have increased the potential threat to U.S. citizens and interests abroad posed by those who oppose U.S. policy.

Kuwait

The Department continues to remind all U.S. citizens in Kuwait to exercise caution, maintain a low profile, and avoid areas where westerners are known to congregate.

Egypt

The U.S. Government continues to strongly urge all Americans resident in or traveling to Egypt to exercise caution. Furthermore, Americans should avoid travel to the Sinai.

Indonesia

This Travel Warning is being issued to update security information in Indonesia and to note that the Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens to defer all non-essential travel to the country.

Lebanon

The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Lebanon in light of the risks noted below.

Yemen

The Department of State warns U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Yemen. The security threat to all U.S. citizens in Yemen remains high due to terrorist activities in Yemen.

Anybody packed their bags yet?

Senator Boxer's Statement on "No" vote on Roberts

2005-10-07T13:38:00.000-07:00

BOXER TO VOTE NO ON ROBERTS

Says Nominee Has Not Clearly Committed To Defending the Rights and Freedoms of All Americans

Washington, DC – The following are U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer’s remarks as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor:

When a seat on the Supreme Court opened in July, I made a promise to the people of California. I promised that I would only support a nominee whom I believed would protect their rights and freedoms.

After much thought, I have concluded that I cannot, in good conscience, give my constituents that assurance with the nominee before us, Judge John Roberts.

In fact, I am very worried that, with Judge Roberts on the bench, the rights and freedoms that have made America a light to the rest of the world could be in serious jeopardy.

The question before us as Senators is not whether Judge Roberts is a brilliant lawyer, and not whether he is well-qualified or well spoken, affable or unflappable. He is certainly all of those things.

But examining his credentials is where our analysis should begin, not end. In poll after poll, the American people say that before we vote, it is important for us to know where Judge Roberts stands on key issues that define who we are as Americans, and what kind of country we will leave behind for our children.

The next Chief Justice will have the opportunity to steer a deeply-divided Court and influence our lives for generations.

In recent years, the court has issued 5-4 decisions to protect our air, to safeguard women’s reproductive health and the rights of the disabled, to give HMO patients the right to a second opinion, to allow universities to use affirmative action, and to guarantee government neutrality towards religion.

With so many of our fundamental rights hanging in the balance, it is not good enough to simply roll the dice, hoping a nominee has changed his past views. It’s not good enough to think, “This is the best we can expect from this President.”

And, no, it’s not good enough to say, “Let’s support this nominee because the next one might be worse.”

At least that rationale won’t work for me, as long as the Constitution gives me and my colleagues an equal role in the process.

It fails the bar that I set—the bar that says that I must be able to look into the eyes of my constituents and assure them that I feel confident in this choice.

We must demand far more, because the people we represent deserve no less.

I will vote “no” on this nomination because of what we know and what we don’t know about Judge Roberts.

Long before President Bush made this nomination, we knew that his model judges were Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Now, President Bush isn’t known for changing his mind, so that doesn’t leave us in a good place if we’re hoping for a moderate. Nor does a reading of Judge Roberts’s record while he served in the Reagan Administration 20 years ago.

In fact, some of Judge Roberts’s writings raised serious concerns about whether he understands the ugly history of discrimination and injustice in our country, or the proper role of government in combating them.

Of course, we were told “Don’t pay attention to those memos. They were written long ago when he was just a young and lowly staff attorney.”

But Judge Roberts never backed away from those memos. When given the chance, he just said over and over that they were written for someone else. Well, someone else is not up for the Supreme Court. For me, Judge Roberts needed to do better.

Then we tried to examine Judge Roberts’s tenure years later as a top political appointee under the first President Bush. That was when he worked as Deputy Solicitor General for Ken Starr.

Again and again, Senator Leahy and the Democratic Caucus asked for documents relating to 16 cases that would have shed light on the way Judge Roberts approaches civil rights, reproductive health, the separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

The Democratic women Senators asked too.

But, again and again, the Administration refused to turn over the documents and Judge Roberts refused to help.

The President had access to that information when he nominated Judge Roberts. Why should this Senate—a full partner in choosing the next Justice—have anything less?

I also looked for some assurance in the decisions Judge Roberts wrote during his two years on the DC Court of Appeals. But, again, nothing.

In fact, some cases raised serious concerns about his commitment to protect the environment and his support of an all powerful executive branch.

Judge Roberts had three days to tell the Senate and the American people what he really believes today. He had the chance repeatedly to distance himself from the controversial positions he once advocated. He did not.

Let’s face it: Judge Roberts was specific only when it mattered least and evasive when it mattered most.

Just last year, I ran a commercial in my campaign promising the people of my state that I would do everything in my power to ensure that we never go back to those dark days of back alley abortions when thousands of women died or were rendered infertile.

We know that Judge Roberts signed a brief calling for Roe to be overturned. It was one of the 16 cases that the Administration won’t release. And it concerned one of the many important topics about which Judge Roberts refused to answer questions.

To simply say Roe is a precedent, is stating the obvious and does not give us a real inkling of his views.

We deserved an answer to Senator Feinstein’s questions about privacy: Does the right to privacy extend to the beginning of life and the end of life? We still don’t know what Judge Roberts believes.

We deserved an answer to Senator Biden’s question about gender discrimination: Does Judge Roberts stand by an interpretation of Title IX that would have denied all remedies to a girl who was repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted by her teacher? We still don’t know.

We deserved an answer to Senator Kennedy’s questions about civil rights? Does Judge Roberts have any concerns about the constitutionality of landmark civil rights laws? We still don’t know.

How could he be silent on those laws? They stand out in history as landmark moments that changed the course of human events in America forever, that finally spoke to all of our citizens and told them that they were equal and the government would make sure that they were safe.

We deserved an answer to Senator Leahy’s questions about Congressional War Powers. If Congress passed a law requiring the withdrawal of troops during wartime, does Judge Roberts believe the President needs to honor the will of Congress? We still don’t know.

Judge Roberts says as a Justice, he will “just” be an umpire calling balls and strikes.

Of course, balls and strikes look a lot different depending upon where you stand. And umpires have a lot of power to decide who wins and who loses.

Who will be the winners if we confirm Judge Roberts next week?

Will it be the families of America?

The children of America?

The victims of violence?

The poor and the powerless?

The environment?

Will it be freedom?

Liberty?

Justice?

Will it be our Constitution?

Or will the winners be those who want to stop the national government from acting to protect and defend our people and their rights and freedoms?

I can’t tell my people that Judge Roberts will continue the steady march of progress that has defined our country’s proud history.

So I will vote “No.”

And because I believe the Senate deserves those 16 cases and answers to our questions, I will vote “No.”

I hope and pray my doubts about Judge Roberts are misplaced and he will join the moderate wing of the court to protect the constitution of this country that I love so much and the deserving people of my great state who will be counting on him to protect their rights and freedoms.

Interview with Dave Ewing (VVAW)

2005-10-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

“It all started in 1967, with six Vietnam veterans marching together in a peace demonstration. Now, thirty-eight years later, VVAW is still going strong-- continuing its fight for peace, justice, and the rights of all veterans.”

That’s how the VVAW site introduces the organization and it seems to be true. The VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) is still going strong. They are fighting for veteran’s rights, fighting to keep appropriate health care funding for injured, both physically and psychologically, service members, and reaching out to keep vets in touch through support groups. They have not stopped their unsung battles for each of those things, and more, long after the homecoming parades have stopped and the propaganda value of soldiers has lost its appeal to our leaders.

To those only familiar with the group through the prism of Swift Boat Veterans and Republican attacks on John Kerry’s service during the 2004 Presidential election, please refer to the VVAW site where questions about the “Winter Soldiers” are answered with references and to the Pulitzer Prize winning report/series on “Tiger Force” called “Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths” by the Toledo Blade which ran in 2004. That series, relying on previously (and some currently) classified documents as well as interviews, backs up that what the returning soldiers from Vietnam were saying at the time of their return was true, despite all “spin” to the contrary.

The following is an interview VVAW’s Dave Ewing of the Northern California Branch. Links are provided below for VVAW, their upcoming events, and for the IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Interview with Mr. David Ewing, VVAW

Could you tell us a little about your organization?

All vets, and those that aren’t vets but are supporters, are welcome to join VVAW. The group was formed in 1967 when Vietnam Vets that had returned from the war met others at a N.Y. City anti-war rally.

How does your organization accommodate service members who are objecting to the current war?

We encourage their resistance. There is an “Iraq Veterans Against the War” (IVAW) that is loosely modeled on our group and we let the veterans know about them so that they can focus their efforts with one group, the other, or both.

Do you coordinate with them?

Yes, we coordinate with IVAW and we do our own draft and military counseling in N.Y. City and Chicago.

Are the Iraq Veterans Against the War a part of your group?

No, IVAW has its own organization. We just help as needed. Because of our coordination and mutual goals, some Iraq vets and active duty soldiers have joined VVAW.

What is the VVAW position on the current Iraq war?

VVAW opposed the Iraq war before it began and continues to oppose it.

What has the organization done in opposition to the war?

We are sponsors, along with many others, of peace coalition demonstrations. We also speak at schools and do anti-militarization organizing.

What is your answer to those who say that questioning the war is undermining our troops?

Questioning the war, and ultimately ending it, will save their lives. That’s how to really support the troops- and that’s the support that they want. Most serving soldiers would come home at once if offered that option.

One often hears how the troops are behind this war 100% and that therefore civilians should be as well. Could you address the issue of how messages from the front are managed by the military?

Some T.V. interviews have been staged- remember George Bush’s surprise Thanksgiving visit with the rubber turkey? But many real messages of protest are getting out via e-mail, letters, and returning soldiers. The anti-war Iraq Veterans group is growing quickly. Public support for the war is below 50%. That reflects, somewhat, the disaffection for the war. Of course, there is no doubt that some serving soldiers strongly support the war. Others support some aspects of the war. But, in general, we think troop support for the war is declining based on the outreach we have seen from the troops.

Do you see any parallels between this conflict and Vietnam? Any differences?

This war is more like Chechnya than Vietnam. The confessional violence gives it a no-quarter dimension that is much nastier than the civil war in Vietnam which was led by a secular communist leadership.

We rarely hear about those refusing to serve or those who are AWOL. Do you have some numbers on this?

We don’t track those kinds of numbers. Having said that, there have been some notable cases recognizing some brave and celebrated resisters recently that have made it to the headlines but, for the most part, they are below the radar and that’s how the military wants to keep them.

How hard have the ‘stop-loss’ orders hit the reserves?

The stop-loss orders hurt morale. That cannot be denied. They’re also used as a means of coercing re-enlistments. Non-re-enlisting personnel are promised frontline jobs. The threat of stop-loss orders taken in conjunction with promises of safer jobs are used to either deceive or force people into signing up again.

What is your view on this administration’s funding of veteran’s needs and benefits?

The costs of treating the injured were unplanned for and higher than the Administration thought. That has a lot to do with how poorly this whole thin was planned out and how little the powers involved know about war. Our military hospitals are filled. When soldiers are discharged, they only get VA care, which is incapable of handling so many new cases. It’s a mess. Care, across the board, is under-funded. There are already reports of homeless Iraqi war vets and a large number of Iraqi PTSD cases are showing up at the VA.

How do you deal with critics who say you are against all war and that you are betraying the country?

Bringing the soldiers home is the only sure way to support them. It’s what they want us to do. As I said, if given a chance, VVAW thinks most of those in Iraq would leave today if given that option. So who really supports what the soldiers want- the Administration, the military, or the VVAW?

One of the biggest critics of the current war has been Scott Ritter. He has been ridiculed and dismissed even though his credentials are impeccable. Is this a common risk to people in your positions? How do you fight this attack?

Mr. Ritter was right. For that he paid, and is paying, a price. Generally, I think people listen to the VVAW. The biggest problem we face is there are so few forums for people to hear us. There is also a certain Vietnam Vet element that opposes us from time to time and runs interference for various Administrations, but they have little public credibility. On the subject, the silence of the VFW and the American legion on the war should not go unnoticed. I think they fear it’s going badly and they want to distance themselves from Bush if he and the Republicans take a fall over the war.

Virtually every news station, cable and regular, has ‘experts” on giving a play by play of the war. The majority of them are employed as consultants by the station and also work for companies that profit from war. Have you tried to bring this to light?

The network news seems to be controlled by their marketing departments whose mission, aside from sales, is never to challenge a public prejudice. Since such challenges are the essence of good reporting, we, the country –that is, are getting bad reporting.

How often have you or your organization been asked to appear on television?

About once a week in different parts of the country.

How do you get your message out?

Demonstrations, speaking engagements, our newspaper, and the occasional good reporting of some brave enough to challenge the status quo.

How do you feel about leadership that started a war having done everything they could to stay out of fighting in Vietnam?

Bush and Rove were smart to stay out of Vietnam. They were protected by class and privilege. They simply used their status, something the working class, which is the cannon fodder for wars, doesn’t have access to. That’s why the VVAW is against any draft. Conscription cannot overcome class and privilege.

What do you think of Dick Cheney’s statement that he had “other priorities” when asked about Vietnam?

It’s just one of the things that class and privilege allows a person to say- and to mean. The Repercussions of the average guy saying the same thing would be quite different. He wouldn’t get away with it and he’d be jailed if he tried.

How clearly is the military’s role defined in the Iraq conflict? Are our troops in a position, through training and otherwise, to oversee and guide the building of a democracy?

The military cannot rebuild Iraq. But I don’t think that Bush is saying that. His most often repeated statement is that the “terrorists” must be defeated first and then we can rebuild the country. Since the resistance to our presence won’t be defeated, there’s no point in talking about rebuilding.

Often one hears that we must stay in Iraq because to leave would mean that those who died did so for nothing. It is characterized as showing disrespect for the dead. How do you respond?

Who, today, would sacrifice their son, daughter, husband, or wife to fight for such a silly principle? The weight of the death and suffering should fall on the bipartisan political leadership that launched the wars.

What is your organization’s position on our dead being flown back in secret, often under the cover of night, and the public not being allowed to see the caskets?

The press, no matter what is said by the Administration, has a responsibility to the country to cover these newsworthy events.

Does the argument of ‘protecting family privacy’ pass muster with you?

I would respect such a sentiment if it came from a military family. But more often than not, it doesn’t. It’s a protection established by the Administration to avoid any coverage, particularly visual, of bad news.

What do you make of the Bush’s non-appearance at any funerals?

Smart move on his part. If he went, grieving relatives would confront him. Nick Berg’s family is not exceptional in its condemnation of the war and of the Administration- there are many more. Unfortunately, aside from Cindy Sheehan, they aren’t covered by the media which is too easily distracted and generally consumed by the sensationalism of a Michael Jackson trial or an occasional shark bite.

What about Rumsfeld’s use of the automatic signature machine for condolence letters?

In my opinion, it was a purely symbolic mistake. A lot worse has been done that people aren’t being held accountable for.

What do you think of recruiters using the “No Child Left Behind Act” and its provisions to target high school youth for recruitment, particularly in poorer neighborhoods?

That’s a perfect example of the opposite side of the class privilege coin. Those in charge prey on us- the working class- to “flesh” out the army.

What plans do you have for future demonstrations of opposition to the war?

We’ll be at the large, coordinated demonstrations this month.

Can anybody join your group?

Yes! If they agree with our principles, they are more than welcome to join.

How can those who don’t have time but want to help you assist you in your efforts?

Please donate to our counseling project via the VVAW website.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

In 2004, both candidates and both parties supported the war. Despite all kinds of factional infighting against Bush, the Democrats still supported the war. I object to the way this war has been personalized as “George Bush’s War”. There was a wide consensus for this war in the U.S. and the British ruling classes. Take, for instance, Nancy Pelosi, the Congressional leader of the Democrats. She has voted for every war measure for the Patriot Act, and for every war spending bill that’s come up. So where’s the debate? Where’s the opposition? Who should people rally around? The differences between the parties in this matter are so small that it’s hard to tell them apart. Another thing to keep in mind is that, while it may not be popular or politically correct to say this, the liberal Democrats who oppose Bush are unquestioning supporters of all Israeli policy. One cannot understand the conflicts and hatreds in the Middle East if one only looks at one side of the story. Bush, the father, was more circumspect and more adept at reigning in some of the most extremist elements in Israel. Now the pretense of a balanced U.S. policy is disappearing.

What will the lesson of Iraq be?

The lesson of Iraq, for the world, will be that skillful, irregular warfare can defeat the U.S. Super-Power.

What do you think the solution is?

I believe we need a third party to challenge both the Republicans and the Democrats. Both parties are captive to corporate interests that now pretty openly determine tax and social policy. As a result, I voted for the Peace and Freedom Party in the last election.

Suggested Links for further information:

VVAW- Vietnam Veterans Against The War

Upcoming Events- Including the main demonstration at the White House Anti- Middle East Wars Demonstration on September 24, 2005 at 12:00 PM.

IVAW- Iraq Veterans Against The War

The $300 billion kiss

2005-10-01T22:06:00.000-07:00

The Administration's style of concocted crisis management leaves little time for taking stock of policy results. Any attempts to raise concerns are generally met with bumper sticker responses and sound-bites devoid of content.

Luckily, at times, results just speak for themselves. Sometimes, those results are actually recorded and presented to the public. The following excerpt is worth a glance:

BAGHDAD: When Army Brig. Gen. Karl Horst fought during the invasion of Iraq two years ago, he didn't bother to learn the names of Saddam Hussein's Generals.

"I didn't care who they were- we were going to kill them." he said

Last week, during a parade-ground ceremony at the Baghdad airport, Horst kissed the cheek of a whiskered Iraqi general who had once been awarded the country's highest military honor by Hussein.

(Los Angeles Times March 21,2005)

Considering the death, carnage, and $300 billion dollars spent on the Iraq adventure, it would seem that our Generals would have someone other than an Iraqi General who received Iraq's highest military honor by Saddam Hussein to kiss.

What is it that we're winning?

2005-10-01T21:48:00.000-07:00

According to the Administration, 'freedom' is on the march in the Middle East and elections (that have already beeen held or will be held in that area) will usher in a new era of peace.

We have been told that, due to our invasion of Iraq, the citizens and politicians of Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq are well on their way to establishing democracies and the Israelis and the Palestinians are forging ahead to a peaceful co-existence. Furthermore, according to the Administration, Pakistan and Uzbekistan have been a key allies and friends in our search for stability in that region.

All thanks to George Bush's far- sighted foreign policy, unique vision, and steely resolve.

Before embarking on a vacation to one of those countries, it's a good idea to check newspaper headlines and take a peek at the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs International Travel Sheets.

As for headlines, heavy fighting is reported in Iraq and even Afghanistan. The Uzbeks have just suffered through a riot leaving hundreds, if not thousands, dead. Fighting beween Israel and Hezbollah has reached its highest level in some time. Pakistan has had protests in the streets, a round-up and imprisonment of journalists, fundamentalists have beaten women for taking part in a foot race (traditionally an activity only engaged in by men), and Pakistani fighters have been found in Iraq. Lebanon, and even Indonesia, have held anti-U.S. rallies due to an unfortunate incident between a marine, a secretive prison, an Afghan prisoner, a toilet, and the Koran.

However, these reports are from 'liberal-elite' newspapers (from all around the world), which act, per Administration cautions, as 'filters' for those unhappy with the stunning success of the Bush Doctrine and all other Bush policies.

That's why it's best to go to the State Department for the information. The State Department is currently being run by Secretary Rice, a close friend and confidant of George Bush who will, no doubt, only allow the unvarnished truth on State Department websites.

A quick review shows the following advice offered by the State Department to travelers:

Afghanistan- "The security threat to all American citizens in Afghanistan remains critical...The Department of State strongly warns U.S. citizens against travel to Afghanistan. There is an ongoing threat to kidnap and assassinate U.S. citizens and non- Governmental organization (NGO) workers throughout the country..."

Iraq- "The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous."

Lebanon- "The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Lebanon in light of the risks noted below...Americans have been the targets of numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon. The perpetrators of many of these attacks are still present and retain the ability to act."

Libya- "The United States Department of State warns U.S. citizens traveling to Libya to exercise caution...any American citizen who decides to travel to Libya should maintain a strong security posture by being aware of surroundings, avoiding crowds and demonstrations, keeping a low profile, and varying times and routes for all required travel."

Uzbekistan- "The United States Government has received information that terrorist groups may be planning attacks against U.S. interests in Uzbekistan in the near future...The Department of State urges Americans in Uzbekistan to exercise extreme caution, including avoiding large crowds, celebrations, and places where Westerners generally congregate."

Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza- "The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Israel in light of the risks noted below. The Department also urges U.S. citizens to defer unnecessary travel to the West Bank and avoid all travel to Gaza...Resentment against efforts to promote peace, and ongoing Israeli military operations in the Occupied Territories could incite further violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories."

What is interesting is that the travel advisories say nothing about dangers in Syria or North Korea (but do describe the latter as 'poor') and as for Iran, the warnings are couched in terms of "may" language rather than the explicit danger warnings regarding the "marching" towards 'freedom' countries.

The result is, if one were to believe everyone but the Administration, that the "Axis of Evil" seems pretty safe to travel to while the countries we're taking credit for 'liberating' seem downright deadly.

But that conclusion would require a temporary suspension of belief in the Administration- something a true 'patriotic' American would never do.

Feel free to visit the countries that "need" our presence- but first, make sure your affairs are in order.

2 Moms and a War

2005-10-01T21:23:00.000-07:00

"No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology."
Ronald Reagan

One would think that Reagan's remarks left little room for a mother to tolerate the death of her son in a "war of choice". Furthermore, based upon his words, one would think that he would wholeheartedly support the inquiries and protest of the mother of a soldier who died in a war based on malleable and questionable rationales.

One would think so... that is, if one chose to think.

Reprinted with permission.

For Reagan's alleged "conservative" disciples, the opposite seems to be true. Because Cindy Sheehan has not accepted an illusory WMD threat, Bin Laden links, spreading freedom and an emancipation of women (Islamic fundamentalist style on both), or any of the other multiple reasons given her, and the country, for her son's death in Iraq, they seem to feel that she has forfeited her right to speak and/or protest on the matter. It seems to be a clash of values between the "neo- cons" (new cons) and the old cons [Emphasis added by law enforcement's and the street meaning of the word "con"].

In support of their position, today's "conservatives", among other things, have said that she is/has:

"... hurting our troops and endangering our troops; an anti-Semite; hateful; in bed with the radical left; aligned herself with people who hate this country, hate this government; shamed her son by her comments; trying to pull a little bit of a swindle and been totally co-opted by the whole Michael Moore leftist mentality; exploiting death; engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch; supported by hysterical paranoid ideologist[s] who have turned the "Camp Casey" protest into "Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag."

And, as one of FOX's Sans-A-Belt(way) Boys said, she's "a crackpot".

Such are the comments and "keen insight" offered by the most well-known and visible members of modern conservatism who believe in, among other things, "family values", Christianity, Intelligent Design, Pat Robertson, the flag, prayer in schools, privatization of Social Security, Abu Ghraib style "hazing", a $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska funded by the Transportation Bill, Supplemental (offline- therefore not counted in the budget) spending for an ongoing war, and are against, among other things, the obscenity that is a peek at Janet Jackson's breast, the immorality of "Will and Grace", and the "Communism/Socialism/Liberalism" of those that want to implement a living wage and Universal Health Care.

It seems, according to the media and highly paid pundits who know a thing or two about war (having successfully evaded it in their youth), she's the only mother truly questioning the war. Since they insist that her opinion has been proven worthless through the widely accepted methods of demonizing, guilt by association, and rumor, all of which were subsequently verified by relentless repetition, perhaps one should turn to the one mother painted with the "conservative" brush of all that is good about America- Barbara Bush.

She has not only raised one son who occupies the Oval Office, she is married to a man who once occupied the Oval Office himself. She also has another son who is Governor of a large state that helped get her son George into the position he currently occupies and from which the Iraq war was started. Just a "typical" mom. As such, surely her opinion on casualties is worth taking note of when discussing the war her son started and Cindy Sheehan's son died in:

"But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, Good Morning America - March 18, 2003

So it's the opinion of a "beautiful mind" that it should not be wasted on thoughts about body bags and deaths against the opinion of a tortured mind that answers are required for the body bags and deaths. "What... me worry?" versus "What is the reason?"

Since Cindy Sheehan's voice is in direct competition with a phalanx of paid for professional barkers attempting to drown her out and consign her to irrelevancy, in the interests of fairness, one ahould take a look at what the sons say about the war and its casualties. George Bush's own words on the subject are:

"...I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy... and part of my being is to be outside exercising."
- George Bush, vacationing in Crawford, Texas - August 13, 2005

Unfortunately, Casey Sheehan could not be reached for comment.

So it's exercise and "getting on with life" against no exercise possible as there is no more life. "What.. me worry?" versus deathly silence.

The Bushes. Caring. Compassionate. "Real" Americans. Just "down home folks" (be it in Crawford, Kennebunkport, Camp David, or some Saudi King's or Prince's grand estate). The type of people worth having a beer with - after undergoing a thorough backgound check and subject to Secret Service approval.

As to the assault on Cindy Sheehan and her right to voice her opinion in any non-violent manner she chooses, the Administration and its backers seem to be attempting to prevail using their tired WWF-like verbal "smackdowns" in order to silence opposition and/or manufacture consent.

It is highly doubtful that either Casey or the "Gipper" would stand for the silencing of anyone's right to voice their opposition to this war. Especially the voice of a mother.

Integrity and White House = WMD and Iraq

2005-10-01T21:20:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove may have been right when he gave his speech about the difference in how conservatives and liberals reacted to 9-11. After all, one would be hard pressed to find a liberal whose immediate reaction would be to "out" a CIA agent, proceed to hide behind the parsing of words for a period of two years, and watch reporters go to jail because they felt honor bound by "super-secret double chocolate nutty crunch topping" promises.

There is much more to be written about this and a micro and macro analysis of it will soon be posted. For now, consider Joshua Brown's (see credits and works below) view of "dignity" being brought back to the White House by the current Administration:

Joshua Brown is a man of many talents and we are honored to have his contributions to AmeriPundit. You can find some of his work online at Life During Wartime and Historians Against The War.

Briefly, for we cannot do him justice here, Joshua Brown is currently:

Executive Director, Center for Media and Learning/American Social History Project, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York.

Professor, Ph.D. Program in History, The Graduate Center, CUNY.

Professor, Certificate Program in Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, The Graduate Center, CUNY.

Co-director, New Media Lab, The Graduate Center, CUNY.

His work in progress includes:

Principal investigator, Young America: Experiences of Youth in U.S. History, a Web site focusing on perspectives and experiences of children and youth to enhance the U.S. history survey (funded by NEH).

Co-principal investigator, The 911 Digital Archive, a Web site devoted to collecting and preserving the history of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania and the public responses to them.

Other works, contributions, and recognition:

He has appeared in various print publications, interactive/multimedia publications, has been a contributor to various exhibitions and performances, video, film, television and he has numerous art credits. His work has been recognized through an array of grants and awards.

His professional service includes serving on advisory boards, editorial boards, presenting papers, and participating in panels and presentations. International activities include being a 2004 Member of a delegation of the Association of American Publishers International Freedom to Publish Committee, Istanbul, Turkey. In his capacity, he interviewed publishers, journalists, writers, broadcasters, scholars, and human rights activists about censorship and free expression.

A complete listing of all his qualifications and accomplishments, along with links is available at his primary site.

"Limitless Possibilities..."

2005-10-01T20:58:00.000-07:00

Hurricane Katrina pulled the curtain back to show the nation's long- ignored blacks, whites, single mothers, destitute children, and poor families, among others, who simply didn't have the means to flee danger...

Now...

To allay fears over his nomination to the post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the last venue of relief for the ones "left behind", Roberts referred to his youth. He said:

"I think all of us retain from our youth certain enduring images. For me those images are of endless fields of Indiana stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or barn. And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land..."

Inner city minorities must be breathing a sigh of relief. After all, they also have "enduring images" and therefore, something in common. Certainly, the substance of the images might be different. The "endless fields of Indiana puctuated only by an isolated silo or barn" might not be "endless nights of fear and hunger" nor might they be "endless days of attending run-down schools". They may not even be the same as "endless harassment by authorities".

Furthermore, the images minorities have might not translate into "the limitless possibilities of our great land" and are more than likely to be the awareness of the "limitless possibility of incarceration", guilty or not, that inner city youth face.

But, at least they both have "endless" and "limitless" in common.

Poor women must also be somewhat assured. After all, they too share "endless" and "limitless" images. For those old enough, it is the image of a back alley abortion. For most women, it is the "endless" and "limitless" assault on their right to choose by detached white men who spout the name of God as they loot the Treasury while using pictures of embryos as a distraction.

The recent history of poor blacks and hispanics is also replete with images of "endless fields"... of cotton, grapes, lettuce, strawberries. These images are "punctuated only" by an occasional hard fought for right that the detached white men immediately attack as being "anti-American" and "anti-commerce" and then work feverishly to set aside.

Maybe the soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts can further soothe all of their fears by regaling them with additional stories of "endless fields" and "limitless possibilities" that he has embedded images of.

However, that would have to wait until after he considers the Voting Rights Act, Roe v. Wade, heck, maybe even Brown v. Board of Education. Certainly after he sets the country straight by returning inconvenient rights back to the states- especially progressive rights to those states now run by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their ilk, and to the "right to work states" so ably run by selected corporations.

Social Security and Half-Truths

2005-10-01T20:44:00.000-07:00

The natural reaction to anyone basing a sale on an outright lie is to dismiss them and not make the purchase. That's why the best salesmen selling a defective product rely on half-truths.

They make representations that allow the listener to draw parallels and to convince themselves of the value of a product without the salesman having to face repercussions when the product ultimately fails to perform properly.

One such half-truth is contained in the current debate over what to do with Social Security. The statement that's been made to convince the general public is that federal employees have a privatized program therefore, one should be made available to the general public.

That statement exploits the disdain the public has been fed for federal employees by the "anti-big government" crowd and also strikes at the concept of fundamental fairness.

The only problem is that the two examples, the federal employees plan and the plan to privatize Social Security, are as different as apples and oranges held together only by the commonality that they are a fruit- hence the half-truth.

The federal employees have a program under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) that simply allows them to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) which is on top of Social Security and is much like a 401(k) that an individual can open. Nothing is taken from the social security part of the federal employees contributions.

The Thrift Savings Plan is funded through any extra savings the employees have at the end of the contribution cycle.

Furthermore, if one sets aside that false argument, extending a plan like the Thrift Savings Plan to Social Security is fraught with problems as pointed out by Francis X. Cavanaugh who served as the first executive director of the TSP from 1986 to 1994.

Finally, the privatization of Social Security is nothing more than the continuation of a policy of fundamental unfairness towards the working poor. There are many minor adjustments that could be made to ensure Social Security's soundness (e.g. ending the withdrawl of benefits for the wealthy and/or lifting the prohibition of collecting social security contributions after they pass a certain amount of income).

There is truth to the fact that Social Security does face some danger. A truthful analysis would show that the danger is not with the system but rather the unsustainable debt incurred as a result of the Administration's fiscal policies.

It's "Your Money"

2005-10-01T20:39:00.000-07:00

The numbers for how the average Americans' tax dollars were spent in 2004 have been released. Since it's often referred to as "your money" by the Administration, perhaps a review of how "your money" is being spent is in order.

The average household paid $6,296 in taxes. The funds (rounded off) were distributed as follows:

Military and Defense- $1,887
Health- $1,276
Interest on Military Debt- $555
Interest on non-Military Debt- $616
Income Security- $414
Education- $231
Veteran's Benefits- $216
Nutrition- $169
Housing- $135
Natural Resources- $109
Job Training- $ 25
Other- $662

That means that the average household paid $6,296 in taxes of which $2,342 was directly related to military expenditures leaving only $3,954 for everything else. If the health costs are taken out (which exist despite, or because of, 40 million + individuals uninsured or underinsured), that means that the entire rest of the government was funded by the average person by an amount of approximately $2,678.

That means job training, education, housing, nutrition programs, veteran's benefits, income security, maintaining our natural resources, etc. combined barely equals our expenditures on the military (particularly under this "finding monsters abroad" loving Administration).

Then again, safety first. That's what George Bush ran on. That's why we had commercials with wolves in forests. That's why Dick Cheney and other Administration spokespeople floated the cloud of imminent attack were anybody but George Bush elected.

So, how safe are we with all this money being spent on defense and with this Administration in charge?

Aside from what a couple of lost pilots forcing the evacuation of Congress, The White House, and the Supreme Court proved, the General Accounting Office (GAO), a non-partisan government investigative arm of Congress found:

"...inefficiencies and inadequate transparency and accountability across DOD's major business areas, resulting in billions of dollars of wasted resources. Senior leaders have shown commitment to business transformation through individual initiatives in acquisition reform, business modernization, and financial management, among others, but little tangible evidence of actual improvement has been seen in DOD's business operations to date"...read full Abstract/Summary or PDF file (2005-High Risk Series).

Or, if not too distracted by the fancy threats beamed at the television audience nationwide, one might look at how the Administration has ignored threats that, if carried out, would make 9-11 look like amateur hour in terms of cost to human life. It should be noted that the following GAO report comes on the heels of dozens, if not hundreds of other reports given to the Administration calling for action to secure the sites in question.

The GAO report found:

"...experts agree that the nation's chemical facilities are attractive targets for terrorists. The theft or release of certain chemicals could disrupt the local economy, impact other critical infrastructures that rely on chemicals, or impact the health and safety of millions of Americans"...read full Abstract/Summary or PDF file (Homeland Security April 27, 2005).

If Chemical plants aren't that much of a bother, consider what the GAO found the Administration WASN'T doing when it came to our Nuclear plants:

"...first, with respect to its security mission, GAO found that NRC needs to improve security measures for sealed sources of radioactive materials---radioactive material encapsulated in stainless steel or other metal used in medicine, industry, and research--which could be used to make a "dirty bomb'"...read full Abstract/Summary or PDF file (Nuclear Regulatory Commission May, 26, 2005).

In sum, the Administration sent a very large chunk of "your money" to the military- which was found to be wasting a lot of it and the Administration has done nothing to ensure improved performance. The Administration has left millions of Americans exposed to the hazards of chemical plants that have security even more lax than was present on the airlines prior to 9-11, and if those two items weren't enough, the Administration has refused to impose standards on facilities that have material that could be used for a "dirty bomb".

It's probably a pretty good bet that a junior high school hall monitor could budget and enforce security better than this.