Blogstream   -   Create a Blog!   -   Login Chat   -   Options   -   Clean   -   Flag   -   Family Filter: Off   -   Recent   -   Rndm >>    

Blogstream  >  News  >  Blog  >  Page #57
 
ENEMY OF THE STATE


 TORTURE UPDATE: Condi's Trail of Lies By Sidney Blumenthal PLUS 5 MORE TAKES
 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/12/08/condi/

-

Condi's trail of lies

Condoleezza Rice's contradictory, misleading and outright false statements about the U.S. and torture have taken America's moral standing -- and her own -- to new depths.

By Sidney Blumenthal



Dec. 08, 2005 | The metamorphosis of Condoleezza Rice from the chrysalis of the protégé into the butterfly of the State Department has not been a natural evolution but has demanded self-discipline. She has burnished an image of the ultimate loyalist, yet betrayed her mentor, George H.W. Bush's national security advisor Brent Scowcroft. She is the team player, yet carefully inserted knives in the back of her predecessor, Colin Powell, climbing up them like a ladder of success. She is the person most trusted on foreign policy by the president, yet was an enabler for Vice President Cheney and the neoconservatives. Now her public relations team at the State Department depicts her as a restorer of realism, builder of alliances and maker of peace.

On her first trip to Europe early this year she left the sensation of being fresh by listening rather than lecturing. The flirtation of power appeared to have a more seductive effect than arrogance. So the old face became a new face. But on this week's trip the iron butterfly emerged.

Rice arrived as the enforcer of the Bush administration's torture policy. She reminded the queasy Europeans that their intelligence services, one way or another, are involved in the rendition of hundreds of suspected terrorists transported through their airports for harsh interrogation in countries like Jordan and Egypt or secret CIA prisons known as "black sites." With her warnings, Rice recast the Western alliance as a partnership in complicity. In her attempt to impose silence, she spread guilt. Everybody is unclean in the dirty war and nobody has any right to complain. "What I would hope that our allies would acknowledge," she said, "is that we are all in this together."

For the European leaders, facing publics hostile to U.S. policy in Iraq and torture, Rice's visit was disquieting. In Italy, prosecutors have issued indictments of 22 current and former CIA operatives for their "extraordinary rendition" of an Egyptian suspect; among those indicted is the former Rome CIA station chief, whom an Italian judge has ruled has no immunity from prosecution. Italian Foreign Minister Gianfranco Fini, asked about renditions, said, "We know absolutely nothing. We have not one single piece of knowledge." If the Italian government knew the facts, it would investigate, he added.

In Britain, the Foreign Office released a diplomatic disclaimer that it has "no evidence to corroborate media allegations about the use of UK territory in rendition operations." But upset members of the House of Commons have launched a parliamentary inquiry into whether the U.K. has violated the European Convention on Human Rights and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Foreign Minister Jack Straw sent Rice a letter requesting any "clarification the U.S. can give about these reports in the hope that this will allay parliamentary and public concerns."

When the Washington Post reported on the eve of Rice's trip that CIA prisons holding U.S. detainees exist in Romania, Poland and other Eastern European nations, it triggered an explosion. Even though Romania and Poland denied the report, the European Commission and the Council of Europe began investigations. The E.C. declared that for any member state to harbor a CIA prison would be "extremely serious" and bring down sanctions upon it.

In Germany, Rice was greeted by the new chancellor, Angela Merkel, eager to repair relations with the Bush administration made awkward by former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq war. Rice's visit was supposed to smooth over the conflicts of the past, but instead it surfaced new ones that indicated that the divisions between Germany -- and Europe -- and the U.S. are rooted in the Bush administration's fundamental policies.

Rice arrived in Berlin on the heels of a Washington Post report about the rendition, to a secret CIA jail in Afghanistan called the Salt Pit, of a German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, who was tortured and imprisoned for five months in a case of mistaken identity. After meeting with Rice, Merkel announced that Rice had acknowledged that the U.S. had made a "mistake" in the case. But Rice countered with a statement denying she had said that at all. The reconciliation with Germany was botched; Merkel was embarrassed; and Rice's credibility, at least in the German press, was left in tatters.

Rice had hoped to quell the controversy before she landed. On Monday, as she boarded her plane at Andrews Air Force Base in Washington, she delivered a lengthy statement on torture. Her speech was remarkable for its defensive, dense and evasive tone. It was replete with half-truths, outright falsehoods, distortions and subterfuges.

Her remarks can never sway or convince any European leader, foreign ministry or intelligence service, which have the means to make their own judgments. In her effort to persuade world opinion and reassure the American public, she raised the debate over torture to greater prominence and virtually invited inspection of her claims.

Rice has made memorable statements in the past. There was her appearance before the 9/11 Commission, in which she had trouble recalling the CIA's Presidential Daily Briefing of Aug. 6, 2001, titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US," and dismissed its significance. There were her many assertions about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons: "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." There was her attack on Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism chief on the National Security Council, for his disclosure that both she and the president did not regard al-Qaida as an urgent threat before Sept. 11, 2001, as a "scurrilous allegation." But her remarks on torture may turn out to be her most unforgettable full-length speech, tainting her tenure as secretary of state as indelibly as Colin Powell's speech making the case for the Iraq war before the United Nations blotted him.

"Torture is a term that is defined by law," said Rice. "We rely on our law to govern our operations." She neglected to explain that "torture" as she used it has been defined by presidential findings to include universally defined methods of torture, such as waterboarding, for which U.S. soldiers were court-martialed in 1902 and 1968 specifically on the basis of having engaged in torture.

But the Bush administration has rejected adherence to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint," in the term of then White House legal counsel and now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales; rejects torture as it is defined in the United Nations Convention Against Torture (although the U.S. is a signatory); and rejects torture as it is interpreted by other international expert bodies, including the European Human Rights Court, whose judgments are binding on the nations of the Council of Europe.

"The United States does not permit, tolerate or condone torture under any circumstances," Rice insisted in her statement. "Moreover, in accordance with the policy of this administration: The United States has respected -- and will continue to respect -- the sovereignty of other countries." But was the kidnapping of the Egyptian suspect in Italy that has resulted in the 22 indictments of CIA operatives a fiction? Have the Italian prosecutors been made aware that the event was a figment of their imaginations? Was holding el-Masri, the innocent German, not a violation of the sovereignty of another country?

Rice continued: "The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture. The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured." But the German government was reported to have a list of 400 flights over European airspace for the purpose of renditions. And Amnesty International reports that there have been 800 such flights. Once again, Rice relies upon her own definition of "torture" to deny it.

She went on: "The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured." In fact, the U.S. receives assurances from those countries that it would be unlikely that the suspects will be tortured, a technical loophole that provides for a washing of hands. Everybody on all sides understands that there will be torture, as there has been.

Rice's legal interpretations were authoritative, bland and bogus. It is hard to say whether they should be called Orwellian for their intentional falsity or Kafkaesque for their unintentional absurdity.

"International law allows a state to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities," she said. But the administration has vitiated international law with its presidential findings. The "global war on terror" is a conflict without end; its time limit extends into perpetuity. So long as terror is used as a tactic, or the threat of terror exists, which it always does, a state of war, such as it is, justifies indefinite detention.

Then, Rice presented as the administration's position precisely the position it opposes: "Detainees may only be held for an extended period if the intelligence or other evidence against them has been carefully evaluated and supports a determination that detention is lawful. The U.S. does not seek to hold anyone for a period beyond what is necessary to evaluate the intelligence or other evidence against them, prevent further acts of terrorism, or hold them for legal proceedings." But the Bush administration has refused to place detainees within the criminal justice system. Instead, they have been kept in a legal limbo, denied the protections of both the U.S. justice system and the Geneva Conventions. The administration has hid "ghost detainees" from the International Red Cross. If the suspects are criminals, they have not been tried as criminals.

Rice cited two cases to make her point: Carlos the Jackal, the international terrorist captured in Sudan in 1994, and Ramzi Youssef, the 1993 World Trade Center bomber. But, unlike current detainees, both were put on public trial, Carlos in France, Youssef in the United States. And the European Commission on Human Rights issued a report that Carlos' rights were not violated. Both cases refuted in their particulars the larger argument Rice was making.

One case Rice did not cite was that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a captured al-Qaida operative, whose claims about Saddam Hussein's possession of WMD were used by the administration to build the case for the Iraq war. "We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," President Bush said on Oct. 7, 2002, drawing on al-Libi's information. Al-Libi also provided the basis for a dramatic high point of Secretary of State Powell's U.N. speech: "the story of a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons to Al Qaeda. Fortunately, this operative is now detained, and he has told his story. I will relate to you now, as he himself, described it." But al-Libi had been tortured and repeated to his interrogators what they had suggested to him. The Defense Intelligence Agency reported in February 2002 that al-Libi's information was dubious, and the CIA also questioned its credibility in a report in January 2003 -- both reports made before the war. Rice's various statements created a pandemonium across Europe that she tried to quiet with a clarification Wednesday in Ukraine. The policy she had just declared we did not follow she announced we would no longer pursue. "As a matter of U.S. policy, the United States' obligations under the CAT [U.N. Convention Against Torture], which prohibits cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment -- those obligations extend to U.S. personnel wherever they are, whether they are in the United States or outside of the United States," Rice said at a press conference with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko.

Rice's erratic journey also raises the question of her own part in the policy. The Washington Post story on el-Masri reports that Rice intervened on the side of informing the German government, a disclosure that resulted in el-Masri's release. This fact suggests that Rice has a degree of authority and knowledge in the realm of detainees and "black sites."

Since 2003, Rice has repeatedly told representatives of Human Rights Watch and other similar organizations that the U.S. does not torture. There is no trail of memos tracing her involvement in the titanic struggle over U.S. torture policy between Powell and the senior military on one side and Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Ashcroft's Justice Department on the other. Was the national security advisor completely out of the loop? On Nov. 19., ABC News reported, "Current and former CIA officers tell ABC News there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, approving the [harsh interrogation] techniques, including waterboarding."

That technique has its origin in the Spanish Inquisition. Indeed, in 1490, a baptized Christian who was a secret Jew, a converso named Benito Garcia, was subjected to water torture. The process drew out of him a confession of the ritual murder of a Christian child by crucifixion to get his blood for a magic ceremony to halt the Inquisition and bring about Jewish control. The incident greatly helped whip up the fear that led to the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, as described by James Reston Jr. in his new book, "Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors."

Since the Inquisition, the method of waterboarding has been little refined. But Rice, like Bush, says we did not and will not torture anymore.

-- By Sidney Blumenthal

-

MORE...

-

Many Words, Little Clarity From Rice
http://lnk.nu/washingtonpost.com/6uw.html

Rice's Tortured Logic on Torture By Haroon Siddiqui
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1208-27.htm

Pentagon Memo on Torture-Motivated Transfer Cited By Ken Silverstein
http://lnk.nu/latimes.com/6uv.story

Conspiracy to Torture
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051226/editors

Ban Torture or Protect Torturers?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051219/brecher

Posted by ENEMY OF THE STATE at 7:45 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 IRAQ DIGEST: Perspectives on Iraq, Iraq & More Iraq
 

Robert Fisk tells all By Sonia Nettnin
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_315.shtml

Bush’s Iraq PR Campaign Falling Flat
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/08/pr-falls-flat/

Wolfowitz: No WMD, No War
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/08/no-wmd-no-war/

Rumsfeld's Handshake Deal with Saddam: History out of Media Bounds By Norman Solomon
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120805C.shtml

Biopiracy and GMOs: Fate of Iraq's agriculture By Ghali Hassan
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_318.shtml

Iraq and the Democrats By William Rivers Pitt t r u t h o u t | Perspective
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/120805Y.shtml

DNC Fact Check: Bush Said We Can't Win In Iraq. No Need to Clarify, Howard Dean. Bush Said It First. - BuzzFlsh.com
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57832



The DRUDGE REPORT has learned from a top GOP operative that the Republican National Committee will provide state parties with a web video prior to release tomorrow afternoon that shows a white flag waving over images of Democrat leaders making anti-war remarks.
http://lnk.nu/huffingtonpost.com/6uu.html

Posted by ENEMY OF THE STATE at 7:30 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 Reclaiming America: Toward a Realistic Antiwar Strategy
 

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_317.shtml

-

Reclaiming America

Toward a Realistic Antiwar Strategy

By Tom Crumpacker

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Dec 9, 2005, 01:15

-

Sunday's New York Times reports that the use of the word "victory" 15 times in President Bush's brief address at Annapolis last week was due to the influence of his National Security Council special advisor "Dr. Weaver," a scientist whose research on public opinion about the Iraq war has established that Americans will support such a war with mounting casualties on condition they believe it will ultimately succeed.

As always, the administration is selling snake oil. In its history so far, the American people have never agreed on anything controversial, and any so-called science which purports to prove otherwise is not science. The oil now being sold assumes that justice and morality play no part in what Americans will support, only self-interest.

There are two different kinds of wars being fought in Iraq. One is for military dominance, in which the Americans have and will continue to have victory. The other is to obstruct it -- a resistance using suicide bombing, land mines, snipers, small surprise attacks to defeat a brutal exploitation by occupation. This war the resistance is winning and will continue to win, especially so long as their support in Iraq and US continues to increase. As Representative John Murtha recently observed, Iraq polls are showing that over 80 percent of Iraqis want the US to leave now.

Polls here indicate that over 65 percent of Americans want the US to leave.

Neither side has any ability to end the other's continuing "victory."

The real question is whether the majority of Americans, who realize this, have the ability to stop their government from continuing the nightmare as it gets worse.

Our rulers are saying that they will withdraw when the Iraqi army has enough "training" to make Iraq secure. This obviously will never happen. Basic training for soldiers who are willing to fight normally takes six to eight months at most. The reason the Iraqi army doesn't fight is that its soldiers don't want to kill and injure fellow Iraqi citizens, or be killed and injured by them.

Rather than rhetoric, the realist looks at what rulers do or fail to do in order to discern their true intent. At the time the puppet government was installed in Iraq, it was agreed between the puppets and the US–UK that Iraq's oil reserves would be developed by US and UK companies, that the proceeds would be used to pay for the cost of regime change and subsequent "security," and any constitution subsequently adopted could not change this. Since this agreement deprives the Iraqi people of the benefit of their primary resource, it's hard to see how its implementation would make the occupation more popular there.

Moreover, the puppets are now signing 30 year contracts with US–UK companies, the US is building permanent bases and other facilities to exploit, remove and market the oil, and there are almost as many privately hired US people in Iraq as soldiers.

Obviously our government is planning on staying permanently, whether the American people acquiesce or not, and whether the resistance increases or not. If Congress were serious about ending this war it would cut off the funding for it before the Iraqi people start paying. This is not being discussed, has never been discussed, and never will be.

Presently, a few Democratic Party politicians like the Black Caucus, Murtha and some others want to get the US out of Iraq soon. The majority of Democrats in and out of Congress want to continue the war but with some kind of timetable. Most of the Democratic leadership, including the frontrunners for president, want to continue the war to final "victory." It's clear that if a Democrat wins the presidency in 2008, the war will continue. Ditto for a Republican.

Realistic antiwar activists understand that, regarding this war, the American people (and to some extent the Iraqis) have been and are being subjected to the most pervasive, intrusive, and massive marketing-propaganda campaign in the history of the world. Nothing which appears in the mainstream media about the war is worthy of belief. Some things reported may be true, but intelligent belief in such must be conditioned on independent verification.

Whichever party has power, all important public decisions are made in secret and public acquiescence is obtained by manipulation through the mainstream media by our national so-called representatives and other public and private officials chosen to have media access. Of course some national politicians like the Black Caucus and a few others are actually representing their constituents, but the vast majority in both parties are moved primarily by self-interest (the "invisible hand" of late, unlimited, unregulated capitalism) and respond primarily to the needs of those who fund them. This war is good for big business, which says that what's good for big business is good for America.

Realistic antiwar activists understand that we are not living in a democracy as advertised. Our present political system can only be accurately described as a commercial or corporate oligarchy.

It's no longer possible to elect more than a handful of antiwar candidates to Congress or work through the system to bring about progressive change. Because of funding and gerrymandering, in the last election over 97 percent of the seats in our House of so-called Representatives were either uncontested or not seriously contested. The system is so far gone it's beyond the point of no return. Trying to work within it implies a belief that it's functional. While conceivable a century ago, now, because of the winner-take-all elections, funding, media situations, and many other reasons, alternative parties, viewpoints and candidates are not viable on a national scale.

A mass social movement of progressives must be organized outside the political system, at least until it is big enough to wield substantial power. Its primary goal must be to reorganize the political institutions so as to allow people power to overcome or at least equalize the power of capital.

At this point the truth about the war must be brought forth in the alternative media and to the extent possible, the mainstream media. Now is the time for more risky but well thought out antiwar actions, such as boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience, direct action, military obstruction-sabotage, and pinpoint demonstrations with specific goals. Mass demonstrations with no specific purpose are of little use. Demonstrators are legally kept away from the area of protest by courts and crowd-control techniques, and new equipment and practices allow police to herd protesters at will and erode constitutional rights without responsibility. Media pay little attention, and the rule of law itself is disappearing.

In the Miami FTAA protests, for example, the police were allowed to control everything and even keep protesters out of the city.

Their boast "You can beat the rap but not the trip" turned out to be true. Of 240 arrested only five were convicted, but the others lost a lot of time and money defending themselves.

Militarization must be attacked at its most vulnerable points. At present, the obvious one is military recruitment. Remembering how the draft aroused antiwar sentiment in the Vietnam era (because middle class youngsters had to serve), our government this time is shamefully restricting its recruitment to very poor people who are susceptible to its propaganda.

Twenty-thousand dollar signing bonuses are being offered, which is more than many of these young people have ever seen.

This is similar to but worse than leading children into prostitution, and should be so stigmatized. No school, organization, shopping center, business or public place should allow this shameful type of recruitment on its premises, and it should have to pay an increasing penalty if it does. The poor-youth pool of death-injury cannon fodder can be dried up.

US private contractors can be penalized by boycott and direct action for hiring people to work in Iraq. Without manpower, our rulers can't continue the occupation.

-

Tom Crumpacker is a member of the Miami Coalition to End the US Embargo of Cuba.

Copyright © 1998-2005 Online Journal
Posted by ENEMY OF THE STATE at 7:15 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 McCann Erickson wins $1.35bn US Army advertising account
 

http://lnk.nu/brandrepublic.com/6ui/

-

McCann Erickson wins $1.35bn US Army advertising account

by Staff Brand Republic 8 Dec 2005

-


US Army: McCanns
wins recruitment task

NEW YORK - The US Army has awarded McCann Erickson its $1.35bn (£775m) advertising contract in a welcome triumph for the Interpublic agency, following account losses in the last year.

The account win comes after months of speculation over the Army's review, which, after being originally delayed by six months with six agencies battling it out, was then dropped altogether in April.

In August, the Army made the decision that the review would be restarted from scratch with WPP Group's Ogilvy & Mather in New York and Omnicom Group's BBDO in Atlanta shortlisted along with McCann Erickson and Publicis Groupe's Leo Burnett.

McCann Erickson will take over from Leo Burnett , which has handled the account since July 2000. The account will be run by McCann Erickson in New York.

McCann Erickson has won the contract based on a five-year performance-related basis, with a base period of two years and three optional one-year renewals.

The contract will involve McCann Erickson coming up with an ad strategy and a campaign comprising television, print, radio, online, direct marketing, promotions and events for the US Army and US Army Reserves.

The new campaign is looking to make up for poor numbers of recruits signing up to the US military. At the end of September the Army was 7,000 short of its target of 80,000 new recruits to start basic training.

Last month, Interpublic Group, which owns McCann Erickson and Lowe Worldwide, posted a quarterly net loss of $101.5m.
McCann Erickson lost the $315m Lowe DIY store account to Omnicom Group's BBDO, and OMD and Interpublic lost the €1.5bn L'Oreal account, which has moved to ZenithOptimedia, as well as the $3.2bn General Motors account.
Posted by ENEMY OF THE STATE at 7:10 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 How Many Lives Should Be Spent To Keep America From Economic and Social Collapse?
 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11250.htm

-

How Many Lives Should Be Spent To Keep America From Economic and Social Collapse?

By Nolan K. Anderson

-

12/08/05 "ICH" -- -- "(I)t will take much more than the death of a few thousand soldiers and the addition of a few hundred billion to the U.S. government debt (200B adds 2.5% to America's debt load) to make them walk away from access to the hundreds of trillions of dollars, at current prices, worth of hydrocarbons that the region will extract over the next 50 years. (likely thousands of trillions at future prices)

Their financial if not moral calculus becomes even more understandable when you consider that even this amount is literally tiny when you compare it to the economic multiplier effect that having oil and gas allows to the industrialized world. The money multiplier is nothing to it. Consider. By some calculations every barrel of oil carries the equivalent of 23,200 man-hours of work in the physics sense of the term. Oil and natural gas are like air, water or soil, in that they are easy to take for granted until you lack them. (1) . . . Jeff Berg, Canadian political and peak oil analyst.

Using this thought provoking analysis for George’s motivations, it is easy to see why George relegated Afghanistan to second place in “The War on Terror”. Raising poppies for illegal heroin production, as profitable as it may be, is no match for the long-term profitability of Middle Eastern Oil. So, while we are counting bodies in the thousands, George, Dick and Donald may be preparing for body bags in the tens of thousands and may be in the process of reducing the Iraqi ownership of this oil using genocide. With fortunes this size at stake, it is no wonder the Iraqis needed a “good dose of democracy”. It is no wonder Iran and Syria are suddenly found to be in the sights of our “democratic” leader. It is no wonder George doesn’t appear to feel much remorse over the loss of a relatively small number of American soldiers nor pangs of guilt in asking Congress for relatively modest sums to maintain his war machine – and pay off campaign debts.

The reader may well ask, “Where will the military come up with the manpower necessary to maintain and/or supplement our present military force since recruitment is down to perilous levels for even the Pentagon’s present comparatively modest troop requirements - to say nothing of expanding or prolonging our manpower requirements? Of course the obvious answer is another military draft. However, that avenue is not without its perils to the Administration if one considers the rebellion of the American people toward the draft during Viet Nam and their actually having stopped the Viet Nam War partly because of the draft. Today, there is a vast difference in the American environment. Today, thanks to George’s war effort and its hysteria, America has set in place an atmosphere of “security” or suppression of freedom that was unknown during Viet Nam. George has now set in motion a precedent for suppressing dissent unparalleled in our American history.

Another expanding source of manpower might be the use of mercenaries – even considering their cost. If money is no object and monies spent on war are to be considered a long-term investment, then American and third world mercenaries present a virtually limitless supply of fighting personnel.

It has been calculated that our present American economic life style involves importing 6.36 million barrels of oil per day at a cost to our GNP of $426 million dollars per day – calculated on $67 per barrel oil. If oil goes to $100 per barrel, soldiers’ lives become even cheaper. We see how cheap life becomes if we consider:

”Its (Iraq’s) oil reserves were equal to those of Saudi Arabia; its reconstruction was estimated to be worth tens of billions of dollars to American firms; while its strategic position made it an ideal place from which to project U.S. military power to the oil-rich Gulf and to a vast region beyond”.( 2)

This is the view that drove the Bush Administration to “retaliate” against Iraq for its non-existent participation in the 9/11 attacks on the US. However, it is unlikely that this is the view that allowed the Pentagon to send our troops into Iraq without body armor or proper vehicle armor. This unpreparedness of our troops for battle points to a much deeper weakness (or sickness) within our country’s defense establishment. One wonders if even corruption is sufficiently comprehensive to describe what should surely be considered a national disgrace, a national tragedy and a war crime. One wonders if even “politics” is a sufficiently offensive word to describe these “oversights”. If “stupidity” is the proper descriptive for what we have seen, we Americans are in even worse trouble than we thought.

If we Americans continue to place such emphasis on technology that we lose sight of the basics of survival in battle, then considering a possible conflict with a foe such as China becomes unthinkable. We have already seen that our total reliance on technology such as spy satellites to replace on the ground, human spies has placed us in the position of a having a $40 billion per year CIA intelligence organization that was completely useless in interpreting the true war capabilities of Iraq and its potential menace to our country. (And, the CIA will prove to be increasingly useless in the future even considering its use of “in-house” torture and extraordinary rendition).

Conclusion:

If we consider honestly the possibly cynical – but true – analysis of the reasons for and the stakes in this “War on Terror” we can better understand that the thin patina of credibility the Administration is trying to paint on its war effort is well past the laughable stage. Associating the word “democracy” with this war effort is an affront to the mental awareness of even the most retarded. However, if we associate economic and social survival with this Administration’s war effort and the means it will use to reach its goals, we are much better off in finding a means of personal survival.

-

References:
(1)(2) Neoreality: Peak Oil and Iraq
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11213.htm
By Bill Henderson
December 5, 2005

-

Nolan K. Anderson is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea who was once a “conservative” until he found there was nothing left to conserve...
Posted by ENEMY OF THE STATE at 7:07 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
Pages:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144
   
  About Me
Author: ENEMY OF THE STATE
From USA
 
This blog is about...
"Liberty can not be preserved without general knowledge among people." ~ John Adams, August 1765
 
My: Profile  Gallery  Bio 
 
Bookmark   History

  Blogstream Sponsors
15% OFF all Board Games & Baby Items at
Board Games Plus and Everything Mommy
for Blogstream members. Enter coupon code:
BSTREAM08 at checkout.
 

Send Free Season's
Greetings
, Christmas & Hanukkah cards

at Greeting Cards.com


Winter Wonderland


The Christmas Tree
English or Spanish


The Miracle


Light the Menorah!
(Interactive)


  Recent Posts

  Blogs I Like

  Sites I Like

  Archives

13770 Visitors