Be Careful 'Bout Cryin' Wolf . . . .

With today's release of 400,000+ Department of Defense documents on the Iraq war by WikiLeaks, once again the MSM is playing the Pentagon's mouthpiece quite well.

Reuters: (Lead paragraph.) The Pentagon said on Friday it does not expect big surprises from an imminent release of up to 500,000 Iraq war files by WikiLeaks, but warned that U.S. troops and Iraqis could be endangered by the file dump.

CBC: (Hillary Clinton) "We should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure of any classified information by individuals and organizations which puts the lives of United States and partner service members and civilians at risk," she said in Washington, D.C.

CNN: "This is all classified secret information never designed to be exposed to the public," Morrell told CNN. "Our greatest fear is that it puts our troops in even greater danger than they inherently are on these battlefields. "

Hmmmmm.

Didn't we hear the same dire warnings back when Wikileaks released the 70,000+ documents on the Afghan war?

Yes, we did.

How'd that come out, you may ask?

Well, to CNN and FoxNoise's (fer krise sake!) credit, buried down in their stories we read this:

CNN: Friday, Lapan said they know of no case where anyone in Afghanistan had been harmed because their name was in the leaked documents, but he made clear that doesn't mean such people couldn't be killed in the future.

FoxNoise: Lapan said that so far no Afghans have been killed as a direct result of WikiLeaks releasing the same type of information over the summer, but he characterized the leak as deplorable.

The Pentagon and State Department crowd might start stocking up on wolf spray and protective gear. Perhaps one day their dire warnings will go unheeded and ignored.

We'll probably have to clue the MSM in, though. It appears they're still drinking the Kool-aid and asking for refills . . . .

Need a Job? Here 'Ya Go . . . .

Times are tough all over, and folks are in need of gainful employment.

How 'bout a job with lots of pluses?:

Travel opportunities;

Paid benefits;

Stress reduction techniques;

Multiple skill categories.

What more could you ask for?





Well, maybe not having to support the military-industrial-congressional complex for one thing . . . .

Gays in the Military, Redux . . . .

Courtesy of the New York Times yesterday:

Go.

Read.

Watch the video.

Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, does it ? ? ? ?



H/T Olde Goat Patrick.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" - Rachel's on the Case . . . .

We love Rachel:

IF, (and that's a big "if") Mr. Obama puts an end to this ridiculous policy, it is Rachel Maddow's efforts that should be credited . . . .

(H/T "Olde Goat Patrick)

MOTS (More of the Same) . . . .

Somehow, this is not too surprising, is it?

Per CBS News and others:

Gates: No Change Soon On `Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
Gates Doesn't Expect Any Change Soon On `don't Ask, Don't Tell' Military Policy On Gays

WASHINGTON, Mar. 29, 2009

Don't expect any change soon to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy about gays in the military.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates says both he and President Barack Obama have "a lot on our plates right now." As Gates puts it, "let's push that one down the road a little bit."

The White House has said Obama has begun consulting with Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to lift the ban. Gates says that dialogue has not really progressed very far at this point in the administration.

The Pentagon policy was put in place after President Bill Clinton tried to lift the ban on gay service members in 1993.

The policy refers to the military practice of not asking recruits their sexual orientation. In turn, service members are banned from saying they are gay or bisexual, engaging in homosexual activity or trying to marry a member of the same sex.

The more things "Change We Can (wait to) Believe In" . . . .

H/T "drf"

Blood Pressure Rising . . . .

If this doesn't get you pissed off, I don't know what will:



Undoubtedly, everyone on that panel has had extensive military service, don't you think? Giving credibility to them on military matters is like believing me when I discuss nuclear fusion. Knowledge on subject matter = 0.

Now, how do you feel about the US/Canadian relationship from the FoxNoise perspective ? ? ? ?

H/T Unrepentant Old Hippie

Update March 23: Now even Peter Mackay and the Canadian MSM are up in arms over FoxNoise. Hell, the Bill Good show on CKNW even had a segment of outrage over it this morning. Funny thought, though: Does anyone doubt if Rupert Murdoch wanted to start up a Canadian operation that the current government would not give him the keys to the building?

Seriously . . . .

"Hi Ho, Hi Ho, It's off to War We Go!" . . . .

Per Reuters today:

Up to 30,000 new U.S. troops in Afghanistan by summer
Sat Dec 20, 2008 - By Golnar Motevalli

KABUL (Reuters) - The United States is aiming to send 20,000 to 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan by the beginning of next summer, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Saturday.

Washington is already sending some 3,000 extra troops in January and another 2,800 by spring, but officials previously have said the number would be made up to 20,000 in the next 12 to 18 months, once approved by the U.S. administration.

"Some 20 to 30,000 is the window of overall increase from where we are right now. I don't have an exact number," Admiral Mike Mullen told reporters in Kabul.

_______________


U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has pledged a renewed focus on Afghanistan, where U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in late 2001 after the September 11 attacks.

The United States now has some 31,000 troops in Afghanistan.

______________


Mullen said beefing up U.S. forces in Afghanistan was linked to winding down in Iraq.

"Available forces are directly tied to forces in Iraq. As we look to the possibility of reducing forces in Iraq over the course of the next year, the availability of forces to come here in Afghanistan will increase," Mullen said.

INDIA-PAKISTAN

Mullen said the attacks by Islamist militants in Mumbai last month showed the need to reduce Indian tensions with Pakistan and that would help bring stability to Afghanistan.

"That's another big piece of the strategy, what I would call regional focus to include Pakistan, Afghanistan and India ... leadership in all three of those countries to figure out a way to decrease tensions, not increase tensions," Mullen said.

Well, yes, that's perfectly clear.

We'll just pump MORE troops into a volatile area. THAT should "decrease tensions", huh?

Is there an end to this lunacy in sight ? ? ? ?

"Goodbye George" from McClatchy . . . .

McClatchy's Washington Bureau bids an early farewell to george bush today.

Commentary: Bush makes a farewell tour. Good riddance

Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers

December 18, 2008

We've been treated to a real spectacle this week as President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney limped into the home stretch of their Magical History Tour, employing distortions, half-truths and untruths in a final, desperate attempt to pervert or somehow prevent history from judging them accurately.

_______________

The great gray eminence himself, Dick Cheney, of no known address, went on national television pleading guilty to committing a war crime. Yes, Cheney said, he participated in the White House discussions on the use of torture in the interrogations of suspected terrorists. Yes, he said proudly, he approved the use of such outlawed practices as water-boarding, the simulated drowning of bound and helpless prisoners to make them talk. So what?

Photo credit: Kevin Seirs of the Charlotte Observer

_______________

Over in the White House, the president was busy signing a flood of executive orders opening the gates to oil drilling on massive chunks of previously protected public lands in the West; protecting big corporations from lawsuits in state courts when their products harm or kill innocent Americans, and generally giving his fat cat friends one last shot at looting a national Treasury of any remaining table scraps.

The president and his spinmeisters keep talking about how, with the passage of time, historians will come to judge his presidency a huge success, much as history has come to judge the administration of Harry S. Truman.

Balderdash. Or as I much prefer to say in situations like this: Bullshit!

_______________


Bush told his War College audience that of all the things he loved about the job, he was proudest of all of his role as their commander-in-chief.

Why then did he and his minions oppose virtually every attempt to reinforce their numbers and shorten the time they spent in Hell? Why did they oppose virtually every attempt to increase their pay and their benefits, and those of millions of American veterans of these and other wars?

How could so proud a commander sit idly by while soldiers and Marines were sent off to war without the armored vehicles and body armor they so desperately needed in this new kind of war?

How could his administration pinch pennies when it came to funding and manning the military hospitals that treat the thousands of wounded troops flowing home from his wars?

How can this man talk about making the world a safer and freer place by his actions when so much innocent blood has been shed by civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan? When millions have been turned into homeless refugees inside and outside Iraq? When America is left with far fewer friends and allies among the nations of the world?

The only good news left to us this gloomy, cold December is that we only have to put up with this wretched spectacle for another 30 days or so.

George W. Bush should make a hurry-up call to his architect and see if it's not too late to substitute firing slits for the ground floor windows in his new Presidential Library in Dallas.

Good-bye George, and good riddance.

Well done, Mr. Galloway.

Well done . . . .

Damn ! ! ! !

From Reuters today:

U.S. rejects Canadian's "child soldier" defense
Fri May 2, 2008 3:44pm EDT - By Jane Sutton

MIAMI (Reuters) - A Canadian captured in Afghanistan at age 15 can be tried for murder in the Guantanamo war crimes court, a U.S. military judge ruled in rejecting claims that he was a child soldier who should be rehabilitated rather than prosecuted.

Canadian prisoner Omar Khadr, now 21, is charged in the Guantanamo court with throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier during a firefight at a suspected al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in 2002.

His military lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, had argued in February hearings at the Guantanamo naval base that Khadr was a child soldier illegally conscripted by his father, an al Qaeda financier. He urged the judge to drop the charges, which carry a maximum penalty of life in prison.

The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, issued a ruling on Wednesday agreeing with prosecutors' position that the law authorizing the Guantanamo trials contained no minimum age.

Brownback's ruling clears the way for Khadr to be tried in the special tribunals created by the Bush administration to try non-U.S. captives it considers "unlawful enemy combatants" outside the regular civilian and military courts.

Kuebler called the ruling "an embarrassment to the United States" and said Canada would share in the embarrassment if it allows its citizen to be tried at Guantanamo. He said Khadr would be the first child soldier tried for war crimes in modern history.

What is the chance that members of bushco will face war crimes charges?

Not as good as Khadr being found guilty in this kangaroo court is my bet . . . .

Sunday Morning War Worship . . . .

The MSM is at it again. Ratchet up the War Machine and watch the ratings soar.

When are we gonna put a stop to this crap?

As Carl Levin says at the end: "Lotsa luck!"





How much longer 'til we're out of here?

Counting the days, counting the days . . . .

Iraq Moratorium.org . . . .

Thanks to L-Girl of WMTC for pointing out this organization:

The THIRD FRIDAY of every month beginning Friday September 21st

Join with millions to:

• Wear and distribute black ribbons and armbands
• Buy no gas on Moratorium days
• Pressure politicians and the media
• Hold vigils, pickets, rallies, and teach-ins
• Hold special religious services
• Coordinate events in music, art, and culture
• Host film showings, talks, and educational events
• Organize student actions: Teach-ins, school closings, etc.

Myself and others of like-mind keep looking for anything we can do to express our displeasure with this fiasco.

I'm adding the third Friday of each month to my Palm Pilot as a reminder to actively oppose the occupation of Iraq.

Won't you do the same ? ? ? ?

Gays in the Military - The Truth Finally Told . . . .

Now we know.


'Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat,' Says General


Feel better now ? ? ? ?

Russ Rules . . . .

At least Russ Feingold gets it:




Too bad most of the rest of our elected "representatives" don't . . . .

Are the Dems Up to the Task ? ? ? ?

From AlterNet today:

Five Things for Dems to Keep in Mind When Gen. Petraeus Testifies on Iraq

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times - Posted on September 7, 2007

Here's what will definitely happen when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress next week: he'll assert that the surge has reduced violence in Iraq -- as long as you don't count Sunnis killed by Sunnis, Shiites killed by Shiites, Iraqis killed by car bombs and people shot in the front of the head.

Here's what I'm afraid will happen: Democrats will look at Gen. Petraeus's uniform and medals and fall into their usual cringe. They won't ask hard questions out of fear that someone might accuse them of attacking the military. After the testimony, they'll desperately try to get Republicans to agree to a resolution that politely asks President Bush to maybe, possibly, withdraw some troops, if he feels like it.

There are five things I hope Democrats in Congress will remember.

First, no independent assessment has concluded that violence in Iraq is down. On the contrary, estimates based on morgue, hospital and police records suggest that the daily number of civilian deaths is almost twice its average pace from last year. And a recent assessment by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found no decline in the average number of daily attacks.

So how can the military be claiming otherwise? Apparently, the Pentagon has a double super secret formula that it uses to distinguish sectarian killings (bad) from other deaths (not important); according to press reports, all deaths from car bombs are excluded, and one intelligence analyst told The Washington Post that "if a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian. If it went through the front, it's criminal." So the number of dead is down, as long as you only count certain kinds of dead people.

_______________

In light of all this, you have to wonder what Democrats, who according to The New York Times are considering a compromise that sets a "goal" for withdrawal rather than a timetable, are thinking. All such a compromise would accomplish would be to give Republicans who like to sound moderate -- but who always vote with the Bush administration when it matters -- political cover.

And six or seven months from now it will be the same thing all over again. Mr. Bush will stage another photo op at Camp Cupcake, the Marine nickname for the giant air base he never left .on his recent visit to Iraq. The administration will move the goal posts again, and the military will come up with new ways to cook the books and claim success.

One thing is for sure: like 2004, 2008 will be a "khaki election" in which Republicans insist that a vote for the Democrats is a vote against the troops. The only question is whether they can also, once again, claim that the Democrats are flip-floppers who can't make up their minds.

The other four points Krugman makes are here.

My bet is the Dems will fold - as usual - and bushco will continue the clusterf_ck in Iraq until they can hand it off to another administration to "lose".

The odds are in my favour.

Any takers ? ? ? ?

How Convenient . . . .

The White House has announced when General Petraeus will present testimony before Congress on the Iraq war escalation.


The date is September 11.




Coincidence?




I think not . . . .

"Gitmo" and Canuck . . . .

From Reuters this morning:

Guantanamo judge rejects charges for Canadian
Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:27AM EDT

MIAMI (Reuters) - A U.S. military judge for the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals has refused to reinstate the charges against a Canadian prisoner accused of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

The ruling in the case of Canadian captive Omar Khadr was released late on Friday, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear a challenge of the law that established the war crimes tribunals and stripped Guantanamo prisoners of their right to court review of their indefinite confinement.

Khadr, 21, is accused of killing one U.S. soldier with a grenade and wounding another during a firefight at a suspected al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in 2002.

A tribunal judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, dismissed the murder and conspiracy charges against Khadr on June 4. He said he lacked jurisdiction to try him because Khadr had not been designated an "unlawful enemy combatant," as required under the 2006 law that authorized military tribunals for foreign terrorism suspects.

So, I'm guessing this is because of peter and "condescending"'s tireless efforts on Khadr's behalf.

Right . . . .

Dump "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" . . . .

Don't Ask, Don't Bomb . . . .

This is (almost) unbelievable.

Now that I think of it, there's not too much that is unbelievable in today's militaristic world.

Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'
Jun 8, 2007 9:03 pm US/Pacific

A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

"The notion was that a chemical that would probably be pleasant in the human body in low quantities could be identified, and by virtue of either breathing or having their skin exposed to this chemical, the notion was that soliders would become gay," explained Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project.

Questions arise:

#1) What would be the results of "bombing" the female soldiers, if any?

#2) This proposal was being considered in 1994. The Clinton/Pentagon instituted "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in July of 1993. Coincidence or coordinated?

Inquiring minds want to know . . . .

UPDATE: Video link here