Meet Lori Perdue

Brava, Lori! This born Hoosier appreciates your efforts and energy. I really hope you're offered the opportunity to sitdown and talk with Senator Lugar. Good luck!

She was born in Indianapolis entered the military right out of high school. The Air Force promised her college and in those days, you actually got what you negotiated for.
**************************************

Just to be clear, everyone who signs up for any branch of the military, today as since 1985, and pays $100/mo for the first 12 months ($1200 total) is eligible for the GI Bill, provided you serve at least 2 years, have a high school diploma, and receive an honorable discharge. This is a bit of a simplification but I don't want anyone thinking that the military is trying to short people the GI Bill.

Congress wants to do non-binding resolutions, Karen. How's that going to help? They have to know they can't stop there. If that's practice for something, that's great. But they really need to come back with something that has some teeth. ...
And as the Commander-in-Chief, he deserves our loyalty.

Posted by Karen at February 1, 2007 11:43 PM

Right ON!!! :-)

Military oaths of loyalty are NOT sworn to the CIC!!! If the CIC decided to jump off a cliff, would the soldiers follow him?!? That, in essence, is what Bush is demanding of our military personnel in the commission of his war crime: the invasion and occupation of Iraq, per the Nuremberg judgment and the Geneva Conventions. There is no war to "win" and there is no "victory" to be had in the commission of a war crime.

The total of American troops who have died for lies and oil in the commission of the Bush/Cheney (et al.) war crime is fast-approaching 3100, and the total civilian casualties in Iraq may never be known, but we know the estimate as of a few months ago was at least over 600,000 (likely more, but this installed administration is not counting).

Who will be the last to die for the Bush/Cheney war crimes?!?

WHEN will Congress hold them accountable for their war crimes?!? WHEN will Lamestream Media start reporting FACTS, not propaganda and hyperbole?!?

We need to continue contacting our legislators, and we need to hold Lamestream Media accountable for their participation in the Bush/Cheney war crimes and the lies they've continued to repeat.

Surge Protection Group, banging pots and pans in front of Portland recruiting center in honor of Molly Ivins today.

Bubba, "For Molly" is a phrase I'll happily adopt.

Well, that and: "This is what Molly's legacy look like!" @;-)

Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207K.shtml
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobbying group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate-change report due to be published today.

Florida Shifting to Voting System With Paper Trail
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207L.shtml
Governor Charlie Crist announced plans on Thursday to abandon the touch-screen voting machines that many of Florida's counties installed after the disputed 2000 presidential election. The state will instead adopt a system of casting paper ballots counted by scanning machines in time for the 2008 presidential election.
{Note: This is not a done deal. It's what's proposed 'to the greatest extent possible.'}

Robert Dreyfuss | Bush's Trash Talk About Iran
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207N.shtml
Robert Dreyfuss writes: "Since President Bush's State of the Union address last Tuesday, the White House has manufactured a crisis that pits the United States against Iran. In what looks like the military and diplomatic equivalent of a full court press, Washington has unleashed a barrage of threats, maneuvers and limited military actions that seem calculated to set the United States on a collision course with Iran in Iraq and the Persian Gulf."

Public Pushes Back Against Planned Test on Old Nuke Site
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207P.shtml
Suspicious of government assurances that a planned desert explosion will not rekindle the radioactive fallout that caused illness and death in past testing, Westerners, Native Americans, "downwinders" and others want the plan halted.

Iraq Surge Could Total 50,000
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207J.shtml
A new Congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region.
{This article is a reprint from the Army Times.}

Excerpt:

Under the administration's plan, the force increase - already under way - will reach its peak in May. The plan calls for a three-month buildup with a similarly gradual decline when the mission is done. The report does not try to estimate how long the mission might last, looking at only the cost to sustain it for various lengths of time.

{{{Notice: same ol' Bush/Cheney propaganda: "when the mission is done." Notice, the "mission" is NEVER defined, has never been defined in anything but lies. No timetable, no cost estimate, et cetera.... The rest of the article talks about congressional members worrying about "support services" (I'm assuming this is Halliburton's DynCorp and/or KBR, and/or Blackwater mercenaries, et al.) and costs involved. Don't congressional members realize that financing all this keeps the war going, and does not stop the unconstitutional and illegal war?!?}}}

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070202/pl_nm/iraq_usa_report_dc

U.S. intelligence sees elements of Iraq "civil war"

Excerpts:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence has concluded key elements of Iraq's violence could be described as "civil war," a term Bush administration officials have been reluctant to use, a new report said on Friday.
~~~~~
"The intelligence community judges that the term 'civil war' does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq," according to the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report, parts of which were obtained by Reuters.

"Nonetheless, the term 'civil war' accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence and population displacements."

At a news conference Defense Secretary Robert Gates, a former director of central intelligence, said he had yet to read the report but rejected the term, saying it was an oversimplification of events in Iraq.

"It's not, I think, just a matter of politics or semantics. I think it oversimplifies ... It's a bumper sticker answer to what's going on in Iraq," Gates said.

{{{Gee, what would you call it when a country's citizens are killing their fellow citizens...?!? And, do you believe it's moral and ethical to ask our troops to risk their lives and/or be killed in the crossfire of those same citizens killing each other in this same civil war?!? Haven't enough people died already for lies and oil??? Isn't that elementary enough??? Hmmm...?}}}

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates_iran

Gates says U.S. not planning Iran war

Excerpt:

At his news conference, Gates also said that the decision announced in January to send a second U.S. aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region does not mean the United States is planning for a war with Iran. He said the purpose was to underscore to U.S. allies as well as potential adversaries that the Gulf is a vital interest to the United States.

"Nobody is planning, we are not planning for a war with Iran," Gates said.

{{{Uh huh. And where have we heard lies like that before?!? My brain is about to go mad from the repeated echoes from years ago.... Didn't anyone ever tell DimWit that repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results is insanity? Worse, it seems Lamestream Media and the rightwingnuts are swallowing the same old lies, hook, line and sinker - again. When will they ever learn? They need to read Molly Ivins' work to discover that BushCo has lied and lied and lied and lied.....}}}

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/02/02/how_to_end_the_war.php
How to End the War
Russ Feingold
Excerpts (more on link):
The Constitution gives Congress the explicit power “[to] declare War,” “[t]o raise and support Armies,” “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy” and “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” In addition, under Article I, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” These are direct quotes from the Constitution of the United States. Yet to hear some in the Administration talk, it is as if these powers were written in invisible ink. They were not. These powers are a clear and direct statement from the founders of our republic that Congress has authority to declare, to define and, ultimately, to end a war.

If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers—defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a president whose policies are weakening our nation.

There is plenty of precedent for Congress exercising its constitutional authority to stop U.S. involvement in armed conflict.

~~~~~

Congress has the power to end military engagements, and there is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed to end U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation—during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy—the president has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: “Frankly, that’s not their responsibility.”

Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the president from escalating the war. He replied: “It’s not going to stop us.”

In the United States of America, the people are sovereign, not the president. It is Congress’ responsibility to challenge an administration that persists in a war that is misguided and that the nation opposes. We cannot simply wring our hands and complain about the administration’s policy. We cannot just pass resolutions saying “your policy is mistaken.” And we can’t stand idly by and tell ourselves that it’s the president’s job to fix the mess he made. It’s our job to fix the mess, too, and if we don’t do so we are abdicating our responsibilities.

Yesterday, I introduced legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the president to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way.

~~~~~

As the hearing I chaired in the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear, this legislation is fully consistent with the Constitution of the United States. Since the president is adamant about pursuing his failed policies in Iraq, Congress has the duty to stand up and use its constitutional power to stop him. If Congress doesn’t stop this war, it’s not because it doesn’t have the power. It’s because it doesn’t have the will.

{{{Okay. Feingold 'gets' it! This deserves an email to declare my support. I'd prefer a three month deadline, but I'll compromise with six and hope the bill is passed SOON (not a year from now!) and that not too many are killed during that entire time between when the bill is voted on and when the troops can come home from that misbegotten farce....}}}

Online NOW poll (PBS):

Do you feel a military conflict between the United States and Iran is inevitable?

http://www.pbs.org/now

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6322721.stm

Chavez sets May oil takeover date

Venezuela's president has said he will nationalise a series of oil projects in the Orinoco river belt within months.

Hugo Chavez was speaking as he signed a law granting him the authority to rule by decree for the next 18 months.

Mr Chavez said the government the operations, run with five international oil firms, would be state-owned by the beginning of May.

~~~~~

The decision affects the oil firms Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Conoco Phillips, Statoil and BP.

The White House has said that it hopes that US firms will be treated "in accordance with international regulations".

The Venezuelan leader also lashed out at his arch-enemy US President George W Bush, who said on Wednesday that the concentration of political power could damage democracy in the country.

"The president of the United States should resign, if he had the least dignity ... if only the United States had a democracy like what we have here. If only the American people could call a recall referendum."

"For Molly" works for me, too.

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was."

Molly knew.

As US Power Fades, It Can't Find Friends To Take on Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2004223,00.html
The comments are not to be missed.

Military oaths of loyalty are NOT sworn to the CIC!!!

Posted by: NonnyO at February 2, 2007 11:26 AM

Well, yes and no. The Oath of Allegiance that military officers take upon commissioning reads as follows:

I, {insert name here}, do solemnly swear, (or affirm), that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

So that only talks about the Constitution. HOWEVER, the Oath of Enlistment that all enlisted members (and many officers) take upon signing up for the service reads as follows:
"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States{{, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

And that one DOES specifically say that they swear to obey the orders of the CINC. Now, according to the UCMJ, military members only have to obey lawful orders, and as stated in the UCMJ (as recently amended/emphasized by executive order), only a military judge can determine definitively whether or not a specific order was lawful. But there are some general guidelines:

(i) Inference of lawfulness. An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

(ii) Authority of issuing officer. The commissioned officer issuing the order must have authority to give such an order. Authorization may be based on law, regulation, or custom of the service.

(iii) Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order. Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of in-creasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article.

(iv) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order.

***************
So the real question is, in the context of a war or armed conflict, what is considered to be an order directing "commission of a crime"? IMHO, any act that violates the Geneva Conventions would constitute commission of a crime, but in a battle with no front lines, where your enemies may be civilians by day and soldiers by night (as were our own Revolutionaries) or vice versa, then how can one distinguish between civilians and legitimate military targets?

Sorry for veering off track here, but I think an interesting thread could be dedicated to cases such as LT Watada's...I would be interested to hear not so much whether people "support" or "are against" his disobedience, but to explore the various legal issues his case raises.

Bush administration seeks $245B for wars
Includes additional funding for 2007, $145B for 2008

Updated: 8 minutes ago
AP

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will ask for another $100 billion for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year and seek $145 billion for 2008, a senior administration official said Friday.

The requests Monday, to accompany President Bush's budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, would bring the total appropriations for 2007 to about $170 billion, with a slight decline the following year.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16944672/

The Bucks Stop Where?

The Bucks Stop Where?
Posted by: monkey at February 2, 2007 03:09 PM

Not at this generation...

Demise of GOP just took turn for the worse
Scarborough: Bush willing to take his party over a cliff to prove his point

COMMENTARY
By Joe Scarborough
Host, ‘Scarborough Country’
MSNBC
Feb 2, 2007

The slow demise of the national Republican Party just took a turn for the worse. Hard to believe that the GOP’s prospects could actually become more bleak after two years of unrelenting bad news, but it has.

Republican senators are now turning their rhetorical guns away from Democrats and toward one another. A few conservative Republican senators, whose votes usually cheer me up during bleak political times, are actually accusing Virginia’s senior senator, John Warner, of providing comfort to terrorists.

The White House even got involved in the name calling when Tony Snow suggested Warner’s actions could embolden the likes of Osama Bin Laden.

The message from the Bush administration seems to be this: “Thanks for carrying our water on this miserable war for four years. Now we’re going accuse you of helping terrorists.”

How pathetic.

Didn’t Dick Cheney just cite Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment about Republicans not attacking one another?

My how things have changed in a few days.

It’s one more reason I have grown increasingly distraught over the GOP’s direction in recent months. The president is prepared to take his administration and his party over the cliff to prove that he right about Iraq—even if most of his generals and the majority of Americans disagree.

The question now is how long will Republicans stand by this war that has cost over 3,000 lives? Is it worth the $1 trillion dollars that will be added to our national debt? Is it worth undercutting our ability to strike at Iran and North Korea? I would say “yes” to all three questions if there were the slightest chance victory was around the corner. But it is not. If you don’t believe me, ask any general to tell you about the Bush surge. They will roll their eyes.

Even if you agree with me that this war was worth fighting as long as we believed Saddam Hussein had WMD’s aimed at America, at some point you have to face the facts: the Bush administration was wrong about those weapons, wrong about the nuclear program, wrong about their refusal to quell rioting early, wrong about Bremer’s gutting of the Iraqi army and police force, wrong about refusing to kill or capture al Sadr in 2003, wrong to tell the generals not speak of the coming insurgency, wrong to stubbornly refuse to give generals the troops they needed to win this war, wrong to make the “Mission Accomplished” declaration, wrong for the VP to claim that the insurgency was in its death throes and wrong to push a surge plan that the president’s top generals opposed.

The list could continue for pages but I will be generous to the White House and leave it at that.

At some point, GOP senators and congressmen need to understand that this war is no longer a battle between Republican war heroes and Democratic 60s hippie freaks. The lines have now been blurred by Bush’s bungling war strategy. Now we find ourselves in a fight between war heroes and war heroes. Former secretaries of Navy and former Vietnam POWs. Conservative Republicans and protectors of the president.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16942296/

Posted by: V at February 2, 2007 02:47 PM

The invasion of Iraq was a war crime under the Geneva Conventions which arose out of the Nuremberg judgment (and it is illegal under UN rules, too). The prison camp at Gitmo is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and US law (specifically Title 18), as is the torture being committed there, just as the torture at Abu Ghraib and the destinations of the renditions is also illegal. The two authorizations to use military force that Congress was seemingly suckered into passing (based on lies) did not grant Bush war powers, which still only belong to Congress. (How Congress was suckered into all of that when most people with an IQ above a rock knew they were lying from the get-go is still unfathomable to me. I would think that since the two AUMF were gained under lies and coercion that they would be rendered invalid.)

US military personnel following any orders regarding the Iraq invasion (a war crime in itself), and following any orders given regarding torture and detainees at Gitmo (another war crime in itself), then becomes participation in a war crime initiated by the current CIC, amd forces US military personnel to be accessories to this administration's war crimes (Bush, Cheney, et al.), as well as high crimes and misdemeanors. That, as I understand the gist of Lt. Watada's refusal to serve in this particular 'war.' He doesn't wish to participate in any war crimes. If this war were constitutional and legal, he would be willing to serve without question (and he has volunteered to serve elsewhere, just not in Iraq, since that particular war IS a war crime, unconstitutional, and illegal).

Given that war crimes are involved, how can any order given by the current CIC then be regarded as legal, moral, ethical, or honorable? What laws apply on US military bases?

I agree. This debate needs to be brought out into the open, and furthermore it needs to be discussed in Congress (preferably as a prelude to impeachment proceedings, IMHO), and in conjunction with repealing MCA '06, the so-called Patriot Acts and amendments, and the FISA laws regarding privacy that have been violated, since those particular statutes infringe on all kinds of rights and privileges, not to mention taking away habeas corpus which has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in June, 1215, and decimated all the documents we have held dear for over 200 years.

First, Congress needs to repeal all the bad laws shoved through Congress since 2000 to restore our rights and privileges and habeas corpus AND Congress needs to jointly stop the illegal and unconstitutional war and illegal detention of people who have not been charged with any crimes at the same time. Then there needs to be a national debate about which laws and treaties have been broken, which would hopefully result in the top criminals being impeached.

I don't know how the majority of US military personnel feel about it, but my loyalty and patriotic feelings are owed to this country first of all as long as we stay true to the Constitutional ideals as set forth by the Founding Fathers. My loyalty does not extend to any people in our government who commit war crimes or sanction war crimes or tell people to commit war crimes on their behalf, so my loyalty to the "leaders" of this country is conditional. If they want my loyalty or respect, they must earn it by first of all not lying to us or committing war crimes.

Lee Hamilton states Iraq war budget to exceed $1 billion and a total of 48,000 troops for escalation, now including support forces.

Lee Hamilton states Iraq war budget to exceed $1 billion and a total of 48,000 troops for escalation, now including support forces.

Lee Hamilton states that total cost of war to exceed 1 Trillion Dollars, just think of all the healthcare we could have bought for that sum, and troop escalation with support troops now to exceed 48,000, not the 21,500 we were told. Did we hear either of those statistics in the SOTU last week?

sorry for double post

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" -- including job losses -- that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

He and other administration officials at a news conference praised the report Friday by a United Nations-sponsored panel of top climate scientist who said there is little doubt the planet is warming as a result of man-made emissions.

But Bodman said technology advancements that will cut the amount of carbon emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels can address the problem.

"We have aggressive but practical solutions," added Stephen Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

More than a half-dozen bills have been introduced, mostly by Democrats, calling for some form of mandatory carbon controls in the United States, which emits a quarter of the earth's carbon dioxide releases into the atmosphere.

Democrats newly in control of Congress and other critics of President George W. Bush's environmental policies pounced on the long-awaited United Nations report as if it were fresh meat.

"Although President Bush just noticed that the earth is heating up, the American public, every reputable scientist and other world leaders have long recognized that global warming is real and it's serious. The time to act is now," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who with GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine crafted one of a half-dozen competing bills to address global warming.

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/02/us.climate.reax.ap/index.html

US Congress Debates Rebuke for Bush on Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207D.shtml
US lawmakers are thrashing out the wording of a draft resolution condemning President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq ahead of the release of a pivotal US intelligence report on the war-ravaged country.

Charley James | I Remember Molly
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207C.shtml
"A few things still stand tall in my mind about that first encounter with Molly: Her Texas twang - the first time I'd ever heard one for real and not in a Western TV show or movie - and her sharp, yet humane, witty observations that later became her hallmark," writes Charley James. "She drank ferociously, yet never once teetered on the bar stool or stumbled when she politely excused herself to use the john - Molly didn't use "powder room" or any other euphemism that proper ladies were expected to utter in those days. And she was already beginning to hone her irascible view of politics and politicians."

Swanson and Schwarz | The Bush Investigations
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207E.shtml
David Swanson and Jonathan Schwarz write: "Beyond the lies and manipulations that took us to war, and the corruption that has dominated the war, there is a third broad area that needs to be investigated - but much of which won't be without serious public pressure on Congress. This is the area of war crimes: the targeting of civilians, hospitals, ambulances, and journalists; the use of illegal weapons; the detentions, extraordinary renditions, abuse, torture, ghost prisoners; the setting up of a global network of secret CIA prisons; and murder."

{"Must Read."}

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/02/is-bush-surging-21500-or-as-many-as-48000/
Is Bush “surging” 21,500 or as many as 48,000?
Keith Olbermann (Oh, wow! You gotta hear Olbermann's tone of voice...!)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/02/daily-show-was-wolfie-out-of-line/
Daily Show: Was Wolfie Out of Line?
Jon Stewart

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/02/us-news-reports-dems-might-support-iran-warfare-out-of-political-fear/

US News Reports: Dems’ Might Support Iran Warfare Out of Political Fear
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070201.htm
Scroll down to this excerpt:
Wag-The-Dog Iran Attack Worries Democrats
The US News Political Bulletin has learned Democrats on Capitol Hill are increasingly concerned that President Bush will order air strikes against targets in Iran in the next few months or even weeks. They cite as evidence the tough warnings from senior Administration officials, including the Commander in Chief, that Iranian help for insurgents in Iraq is leading to the deaths of US troops and Iraqi civilians. Democratic insiders tell the Political Bulletin that they suspect Bush will order the bombing of Iranian supply routes, camps, training facilities, and other sites that Administration officials say contribute to American losses in Iraq. Under this scenario, Bush would not invade Iran with ground forces or zero in on Iranian nuclear facilities. But under the limited-bombing scenario, Bush could ask for a congressional vote of support, Democratic insiders predict, which many Democrats would feel obliged to endorse or risk looking like they weren't supportive of the troops. Bombing Iran would also take attention away from the troubled situation in Iraq and cause a rally-round-the-president reaction among Americans, at least for a while. But Democrats add that an attack on Iran would probably be condemned around the world and would precipitate an Iranian response that could dramatically worsen Mideast turmoil and have unforeseen consequences that could be extremely damaging to the United States.

{{{Again with this "support the troops" bullcrap!!! How can we hypocritically "support the troops" if we know in advance it will only get some of them killed or injured (and based on MORE LIES ...?!?!? If the Dems fall for this one - again - then they will have gone completely over to the dark side and there is no hope for this country.}}}

Then there was this little snippet further down the page on the same link (if this is true, given the source, this will reflect badly on the ethics of Democrats from the top down):

Pelosi Wants Military Plane Use
The Washington Times reports Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office "is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district." Sources say Pelosi is "seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request 'carte blanche for an aircraft any time.'" Sources "said Mrs. Pelosi's request goes beyond what" former Speaker Dennis Hastert "received."

just think of all the healthcare we could have bought for that sum

Posted by: Bubba at February 2, 2007 03:58 PM

Thank you!

If anyone needs proof that the US thrives on the death industry (denied healthcare, lucrative war contracts), this is it. This needs to change, and change can't come soon enough.

Thanks, V, for keeping us honest here. Lori would agree with you on all points. But the reality of the situation is pretty difficult. Have you watched "The Ground Truth" yet? My heart just aches for those young men and women. Many signed up because of the GI Bill (and Howard Zinn points out the, in fact, he would not have become a college professor were it not for the GI Bill), but a number of people we have spoken with will not go to college, due to injuries they are still recovering from, including PTSD.

What Lori was referring to in her interview was the fact that she got to study and be trained in the field of her choice; unlike so many enlisting now. I have been talking with a friend whose 17-year old son is being wooed by the military and told he will not go to Iraq and he will be trained as an engineer. Both Carlos Arredondo and Juan Torres, who have been doing some counter-recruitment, say that the recruiters will say whatever they have to say in order to meet their quotas.

As for Ehren Watada, I agree that the legalities are interesting, as they are in the case of Augustin Aguayo. What do you think about Augustin's case?

http://www.aguayodefense.org/

Excellent thread header, Karen. I've passed it on to our Four Corners team at the A(ustralian)BC. I hope they'll get in touch with Lori at some stage.

The heroes of this time aren't just soldiers and civilians who have died or been maimed. The heroes include the living - the people without and within the military and the US who are raising awareness and speaking the truth, despite the consequences.

Lori Perdue is another to join a very, very long list which includes Cindy Sheehan, Lt Watada, Jesselyn Radack, the father whose military son was reported to have shot himself in the head whilst naked in the shower in Afghanistan, after revealing concerns about his senior officers and illegal activity (apologies for not knowing his name).

I'm grateful to all of these people plus thousands of others who make it their goal to educate, energise and empower the apathetic and disenfranchised. It will be through them - not the governments - through the ordinary heroes - that America's integrity, decency, fairness and humanity will be restored. With all the people named above as well as the thousands not named, I have no doubts at all. I just hope the destruction of the planet won't be too much greater than it is now.

Ally,
I'm with you on Health Care. Perhaps all of Bush's requests for military spending should be matched $ for $. For every $ approved for the Bush Brigade's War Games, $1 should be set aside for Health Care and matched with yet another $1 for Education - we need to educate for peace. It's been cheap and easy to feed paranoia and hysteria. I'm sure we could all come up with equally deserving issues to get their matching $. Why on earth would Congress not agree to this? Because there's no money? Well then ..... ? I guess there's no money. We all know where that will lead us, don't we?

Home.

Senate vote on troop surge may not happen

Friday, February 02, 2007 4:31 PM
From NBC's Ken Strickland

Senate Republican leaders are now saying they will block next week's Iraq debate with a procedural vote on Monday afternoon. Unless an agreement is reached between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell before Monday at 5:30 pm, it's unlikely that there will be any votes on any resolutions.

Republican leaders say Democrats have yet to give them assurances that they'll be able to have votes on resolutions they prefer which support the President's Iraq strategy. Democratic leaders say they've made various offers. Obviously the two sides can't reach an agreement.

The Monday vote, called the "motion to proceed to the bill," will require 60 votes to pass. And McConnell's declaration that all 49 Republicans will vote AGAINST it would kill any votes on the measures. McConnell made a point of saying that even Sen. John Warner (R), who opposes the troop increase, will vote with his party.

Democrats quickly accused Republicans of filibustering. "They have already rejected three compromises that would permit the Senate to vote on the President's plan," Reid said today in a written statement. "This obstruction is an abdication of their responsibility to the American people on the most important issue facing our nation today." But McConnell said today at a news conference that his caucus is "using procedure to ensure a fair process."

Stay tuned, as negotiations will continue into the weekend.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48706.aspx

the legalities are interesting, as they are in the case of Augustin Aguayo. What do you think about Augustin's case?

Posted by: karen at February 2, 2007 07:46 PM

Thanks Karen - I think we just had a little meeting of minds in the cosmos - I was writing and posting here as you were there.

A disturbing news from Texas...

Governor Rick Perry has issued an executive order requiring all girls 11-12 years old to be vaccinated against STDs.

Big government at its worst. And the Texas Republicans constantly parrot about how government must be small?!?

And why not vaccinate the boys too, while at it?

This is a special interest giveaway to a pharmaceutical company, the article says.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948093/wid/11915773?GT1=9033

the legalities are interesting, as they are in the case of Augustin Aguayo. What do you think about Augustin's case?

Posted by: karen at February 2, 2007 07:46 PM

Conscientious objector (CO) cases are tough. I am no military lawyer, but for me it comes down to this: are you really and truly morally opposed to war in every form or are you just trying to get out of dying? Because at the root of it, nobody really wants to die.

Here's how the Selective Service states it: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims." In the US, this applies to primary claims, that is, those filed on initial SSS registration. On the other hand, those who apply after either having registered without filing, and/or having attempted or effected a deferral, are specifically required to demonstrate a discrete and documented change in belief, including a precipitant, that converted a non-CO to a CO.

Because if you are successful at being designated a CO, it does not reduce the number of troops in harm's way, it just means that someone else has to go in your place. And if you are truly opposed to war, how can you morally sanction taking the responsibility for sending someone else to do what you cannot ethically allow? For me, this is like hiring someone who is not of your faith to work on your holy day for you. It defeats the purpose. So especially once someone has *voluntarily* signed up for the military and served a tour of duty in a war zone, I find it very hard to believe that the individual simply does not want to put himself back in harm's way, or perhaps does not support *this specific* war. And in Gillette v. the United States in 1971, the Supreme Court rightly said that CO status can be based on beliefs other than strictly religious beliefs, but cannot be based simply on opposition to a specific war (i.e. it must be based on opposition to all wars, or all military service, or all combat service).

At any rate, CO's who voluntarily enlisted in the military (or those who were drafted during a draft) should have to serve out the remainder of their time in a non-combatant role. If necessary, out of a war zone, but only if their unarmed presence there means that others are taking a greater risk (e.g. by an armed person having to defend both himself and the unarmed CO). And, only during a draft, if necessary in a non-military governmental role, wherever help is needed and based on the skill set of the individual. At any rate, again only if they volunteered for service, they should be subjected to an intense screening/board process and have to serve a longer enlistment...this generally will help weed out some of the folks who are just too scared to die and want to send someone else in their place.

But again, I'm no military lawyer...

Posted by: monkey at February 2, 2007 08:19 PM

The neoCons have blackmailed and bullied and rushed every piece of ill-conceived and downright illegal legislation they've wanted passed through Congress since 2000. Clearly, they are not listening to the will of the people as expressed by their votes on election day, 2006, nor have they listened to the anti-war demonstrators. We The People know perfectly well that domestic programs are nice, but that there won't be enough money to fund them if this misbegotton war for lies and oil continues. (And, with all the pork attached to just the minimum wage bill alone that have nothing whatsoever to do with the minimum wage, not counting the pork that will be attached to the next bills that the House already passed, they continue to blackmail the Dems in Congress.)

What part of "No More War, No Escalation" do the neoCons not understand?!? Are they even speaking the same language any longer? Or has money from the oil corporations and the military-industrial complex spoken louder than the voters?

We need to get corporations OUT of our government!!! We need Bush & Cheney impeached for their war crimes and high crimes and misdemeanors!

And, it sounds like there needs to be anti-war demonstrations and pro-impeachment demonstrations taking place every week and every week-end until both Congress Critters and Lamestream Media figure out that We The People do NOT want more war under any circumstances...! Period.

http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2007/02/020207_molly.html
Remembering Molly Ivins

Yes, Molly knows....

Posted by: NonnyO at February 2, 2007 03:24 PM

From what I gather, the "orders" that LT Watada disobeyed were orders to report at a specific time to a specific place, for example TDY (temporary duty) or PCS (permanent change of station) orders telling him to report to, say, Fort X at a certain time for further deployment to another location in or near Iraq. (Since he didn't show up, they probably are also charging him with missing movement and being AWOL).

Now in and of itself, an order to show up at a certain place is not an illegal order, even if the person believes that the end result of reporting for duty at that place will be harming someone innocent. It is much more clear-cut if someone refuses to carry out a specific attack, say. So I am not quite sure that this case will have the intended effect, which I assume is not just to get Mr. Watada out of Iraq, but to push up the question to a higher court of whether or not this is a "lawful" war. I think in order to put that question on the table, an order more specific to the conflict itself would have to be questioned.

V
Watada is accused of "missing movement."
Charges of "conduct unbecoming to an officer" were dropped - that's more like writing bad checks than being interviewed by progressive press.

He could have been a conscientious objector and questioned the morality of the war, but yes, he went a step beyond and questioned the legality of the war. They don't know what to do with that & he isn't allowed to introduce evidence pertaining to legality of the war.

He'll probably get 4 years instead of 6. The Seattle Times wrote a rather unsympathetic editorial about it but they're the more conservative newspaper here - endorsed Lieberman, went to bat for the "death tax" greedy folks.

V
As far as I know, a person can be a "conscientious objector" at any stage - they can have a change of heart. There is alot involved in collecting evidence to support this though (such as letters). I started helping people do this when I was only 15 years old.

You can oppose all wars or a certain war.

If you are 1AO - you are willing to serve in the mliitary but won't take part in war (won't use weapons). If you are 1), you won't accept military service so seek discharge. 1AOs can be deployed to a combat zone or ship but can't be required to use weapons. If so though, you are indirectly supporting the military's mission of fighting wars. By the way, I am still willing to help with draft counselling, going on 40 years of doing so.

By the way, I keep reading "surge" - everything is a "surge" now - it's the latest fad.

Anyway, I also keep reading that Bush's 21,000 may actually be more like 50,000 - because of "support personnel."

Then on NPR I heard that the Government Accounting Office thinks it will cost twice as much as the Pentagon thinks it will cost, and twice as much as Bush is asking for.

This is a recipe for disaster.

Conscientious objector (CO) cases are tough. I am no military lawyer, but for me it comes down to this: are you really and truly morally opposed to war in every form or are you just trying to get out of dying? Because at the root of it, nobody really wants to die.

Posted by: V at February 2, 2007 10:04 PM

V, I think you have made the two questions in your premise, identical to your cic's 2 questions - are you with us? or are you with the terrorists? You can answer no to both when the particular circumstances of invading and occupying are specified.

Your two questions: "are you really and truly morally opposed to war in every form?" Answer can easily be "no".
Or:
"are you just trying to get out of dying?" Again, a "no" response is correct. After all, you've signed on as a volunteer, knowing you might die. Dying in defence and protection for home and hearth is noble. Dying to defend the interests of corporations and greed is a totally different request from your country. The first offer to defend to the death is noble. The second was never volunteered in the first place.

Had the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, been given to volunteers before swearing and signing - the forces may have been somewhat diminished.

OR ..... as in Vietnam, it's not until you (in the military) get there that you realise this is not your war. You have absolutely nothing to gain. But there's a very real possibility that you may lose your life for someone else's paranoid delusions.

It's the same in Iraq, you learn the truth late and it is certainly far more noble to conscientiously object to the slaughter of innocents than to fight on to protect the ego of the insane CiC and his deluded and dwindling followers.

In the simplest of all situations it's like sending the army in to your neighbours' house to judge which of their five children is actually in the right - the one who wants to share with 3, the bully who wants to control the other 4, the one who wants peace without sharing, the one who wants ownership of all family possessions, or the physically and intellectually disabled child in the corner? You have to Decide. Which child lives and which 4 die? Which 4 would you choose to kill, V?

You cannot ask those 2 absolute questions in an inappropriate presence and occupation.

Who is the enemy of our young soldiers in Iraq? Sadly, it seems to be the US Government?

Augustin did not receive CO status, but his case was mishandled. He was sent to Iraq as a medic, but then given a weapon and told to shoot people.

I think there is an issue here beyond the issue of following orders and we have touched on it here. In Vietnam, soldiers fought the war, as opposed to fighting IN the war (See Sir, No Sir: http://www.sirnosir.com/ ). In Iraq similar responses are happening--soldiers go AWOL, or refuse to fight, or sign Redresses. Resisting duty is considered worthy of court-martial, but the question does come up: duty to what? The Constitution or THIS President?

There is such a disconnect between the behaviors that are demanded vs. the behaviors that are modeled by the administration. I think that is why there is resistance.

I don't have any answers; only the concern in my heart for the struggle of these young men and women; each of whom are having to figure out where their moral compass is pointing. Certainly, no one is showing them the way. Watada, Aguayo and the others have a lonely path indeed.

http://www.sirnosir.com/home_filmtrailers.html

Watch the trailer...

Woz, I phrased the question as I did because I believe that in a volunteer military such as we have, a pacifist should not sign up, because the whole point of a military is to fight.

The way that the Supreme Court has thus far judged CO status is that a CO is a pacifist of one sort or another, rather than someone who objects to a specific war.

So, what if you had a change of heart upon participating in a war and after that, became a true pacifist and opposed war entirely? Then I could see that person, though having a tough case to prove, making a case for CO status.

But what if you joined and, whether you were sent to the front lines or not, opposed a specific war? That is trickier, because again, you volunteered, and you can see from not-so-distant history that our military is used to further personal and possibly illegal ends, or at the very least, actions with which you don't agree. There was a large contingent of the military who didn't like where Clinton was sending them or the missions he wanted them to do. That is part of what you are accepting when you sign up.

Then you have various options: you can disobey orders and attempt to prove them unlawful, you can serve your time and get into the IRR and hope like hell nobody calls you up, you can go AWOL, you can attempt to change your MOS or rating to something non-combat, you can try to switch services, you can try to get into a position by which you can influence policy or tactics or your command (and no, you do not inherently have to be high-ranking for this), you can carry out your orders and swallow hard...etc.

While I think LT Watada had the right idea for attempting to get the ball rolling to prove the war illegal, unfortunately, he picked the wrong way to go about it. There's little doubt that he missed movement and there are specific penalties outlined for that.

The hardest argument for me to get by is that if one person doesn't serve, or even one hundred or one thousand, it just means that other people have to serve in their places, and that is a terrible moral burden to carry around, IMHO.

Thanks for the film preview Karen, maybe it's come to that in Iraq. "The only thing to stop war - any war, actually - is for soldiers to stop fighting it."

I phrased the question as I did because I believe that in a volunteer military such as we have, a pacifist should not sign up, because the whole point of a military is to fight.

Posted by: V at February 2, 2007 11:17 PM

But you don't have to be a pacifist to object morally and ethically to the particular fight you are engaged in. Hence, the Vietnam marines of the Sir! No Sir! documentary movie preview above.

And, this is why it is our solemn and gravely important burden as citizens to ensure that our soldiers never have to face such a dilemma...

The hardest argument for me to get by is that if one person doesn't serve, or even one hundred or one thousand, it just means that other people have to serve in their places, and that is a terrible moral burden to carry around, IMHO.

Posted by: V at February 2, 2007 11:17 PM

In an ideal world, wouldn't it be wonderful, if from all countries, only 3 individuals turned up for each conflict! Provided those 3 individuals were the instigators of the conflict in the first place - we don't need them in the world, their deaths would be tolerable.

And, this is why it is our solemn and gravely important burden as citizens to ensure that our soldiers never have to face such a dilemma...

Posted by: V at February 2, 2007 11:31 PM

Hear! Hear!

Posted by: karen at February 2, 2007 07:46 PM

On the surface, Aguayo doesn't have as much of a case as Watada. The home page of the web site doesn't say when he enlisted. If he enlisted right after 9/11, caught up in Bu$hCo's warmongering lies, then he doesn't have much of a defense, because it implies he approved of the war and was willing to kill for it. A person who is truly a conscientious objector would not have enlisted, even in a justified war. They oppose wars on every level all the time, no matter what, and they do not volunteer to kill their fellow human beings. (Being drafted as a conscientious objector is another thing entirely, and we do not currently have a conscripted military.)

Conscientious Objectors know (from personal conviction based on study and knowledge and/or from their religious background, such as Quakers) that killing and war are inherently wrong, and they base their entire lives on pacifism; they never volunteer to kill other people, or support killing other people. (Did you ever see a very old movie entitled "Friendly Persuasion"? I think it's from the late '50s or early '60s. That is a fictitious example of what I'm talking about - I have Quakers among some of my ancestors, and the movie has a ring of truth to it.)

One does not wake up one morning and 'suddenly' decide to be a conscientious objector, in other words, after first enlisting to go kill people or support those who are killing people. If Aguayo had refused to follow illegal and immoral orders to participate in a war crime (which the invasion of Iraq quite clearly is), like Watada, he would have a stronger case (IMHO). But, like with V, I'm not a military lawyer. I only base my personal opinion on what is written in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Conventions (based on the judgment of Nuremberg) and US law. (Ever notice how the best laws are the most clearly written in the briefest, most unambiguous, elementary language?) I'm certainly not an expert, but in trying to imagine my way into the boots of the average enlisted person, I understand the refusal to participate in Bu$hCo's war crimes, because the judgment of Nuremberg clearly states 'I was only following orders' is not a just defense for committing war crimes, and it also quite clearly states that wars of aggression are war crimes.

Most people don't object to fighting in constitutionally-sanctioned legal wars to defend one's country (most of us would defend this country in a genuine attack on our own soil, in a justified legally-declared war, even throwing rocks and sticks or wielding pots and pans, if we don't personally own weapons). But Bush's Iraq war is patently illegal, unconstitutional, and a war crime, as is the prison camp and torture at Gitmo. That is where people of conscience draw the line, whether they are in or out of the military. They don't want to be accused of participating in war crimes and be left without any legal defense after the fact if they are brought up on war crimes charges after the war, and the rest of us non-military people who have a conscience most certainly do not sanction war crimes or support war crimes in any way. Refusing to participate in war crimes I understand. Who, in their right mind, would want to shame themselves and/or their family and friends by being convicted of participating in a war crime? (No, I don't understand the mercenaries who fight for money, nor the military personnel who, even in the face of evidence of war crimes perpetrated by this administration, still believe in fighting a war of aggression for false reasons. I question whether or not they have a conscience, and if they do have a conscience, then I have to wonder if they have Type A thrill-seeking personality quirks; they should go climb mountains or become racecar drivers if they need thrills that badly. What they are doing is still unjustified, illegal, immoral, unethical, and dishonorable, since the Iraq war itself and illegally detaining innocent people and torture are war crimes and unconstitutional and illegal.)

If Lamestream Media had done it's job and questioned The Cretin and the Vice Cretin and their evil minions about why they wanted to have the first AUMF, why they need the second AUMF to divert troops from Afghanistan and the search for OBL, and journalists had done their jobs and asked questions and not just blindly broadcast war propaganda, it's doubtful there would have been any people volunteering for military service, and it's doubtful this war would have gone forward, even with a neoCon Congress. Now Congress (especially the 109th, many of whom were not re-elected) has gotten us into a FUBAR situation because they've given the executive branch dictatorial powers, particularly with MCA '06, and it's going to be more difficult to extricate us from an untenable situation until/unless MCA '06 and the bad legislation passed (shoved, coerced, through Congress in rushed up or down votes, little or no debate, many bills not even read before passing, such as the first Patriot Act) is all repealed, en masse. NO president of this country needs dictatorial powers, regardless of the political party that president belongs to, and NO president has the constitutional or legal authority to take us into undeclared wars of aggression per the treaties we've signed which are part and parcel of the Constitution.

For a few years now Congress Critters have been conditioned like Pavlov's dogs to salivate and give Bu$hCo everything they want, when they want it, as soon as they want it, accepting praise and pats on the head from the dictator wannabes for their bandwagon patriotism. I think Congress Critters need to be re-conditioned to salivate at the idea of peace and doing what We The People want.... Presidents come and go, but We The People remain (or, we will remain if Bush/Cheney don't get us blown to smithereens by inviting someone to bomb us all to bits by playing patronizing patriarchs who think they know what's best for the rest of the world while they rob everyone blind and try to control the world's oil reserves - at the base level, it's economic blackmail and warfare, and they're using our public armies for their personal gain).

This is a recipe for disaster.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 2, 2007 10:48 PM

Yes, on a grand, international scale.

See my above post:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/02/is-bush-surging-21500-or-as-many-as-48000/
Is Bush “surging” 21,500 or as many as 48,000?
Keith Olbermann (Oh, wow! You gotta hear Olbermann's tone of voice...!)

The new Intelligence report describing the situation in Iraq as "dire" is now being spun by Stephen Hadley as the REASON the "surge" is timely and correct.

& now we have FOUR Black Hawks down in less than TWO weeks, I think.

There are 4 wars in Iraq. Even Republicans are admitting that "Civil War" is too mild a description.

Intelligence report describes "unravelling" of Iraq

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-intel3feb03,0,6120471.story?coll=la-home-headlines

There is nothing wrong with refusing to support a venture that should never have been embarked on, within or outside the military.

Just heard Obama's DNC speech replayed on C-SPAN
Awesome

Posted by: DiAnne at February 3, 2007 12:18 AM

Yes, four helicopters in less than a week (there's a yahoo story about it). Three from the US military, one that belonged to Blackwater (mercenaries).

re: February 3, 2007 01:14 AM

John Edwards awesome, too

"It's time to be patriotic about something besides war"

There is nothing wrong with refusing to support a venture that should never have been embarked on, within or outside the military.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 3, 2007 12:21 AM

True.

Also, there is not a good logical, ethical or moral reason to send MORE people to be killed for lies and oil while trying to tell us that getting more people killed is somehow "supporting the troops." That whole premise is false, ergo, illogical.

The best that can be said at the present moment is that getting our troops out NOW is a rescue mission to avoid getting more killed in someone else's civil war and/or for the sake of more BushCo lies for oil.

Since we now have war ships in the Persian Gulf, why not rescue the troops from certain disaster instead of planning yet another invasion of another country, which would be yet another war crime? Rescuing our current military personnel in the region would be an ethical and moral mission....

Have our Congress Critters thought of that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070202/us_nm/globalwarming_film_dc
Al Gore climate film to be sent to English schools

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_go_co/minimum_wage
Minimum wage still faces hurdles
{The neoCons just could not pass up the chance to screw up one simple piece of legislation and approve it without adding tons of pork and more tax breaks for the already-wealthy - and you can't convince me that a business raking in millions, even billions, in profits can in any way be construed as a "small business"....}

Thomas D. Williams | Report Says Bush Downplays Costs of Troop Increase
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020207S.shtml
A report released on Thursday reveals that President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq could include sending an additional 27,500 in support troops.

Excerpt:
"Thus far," says the Congressional Budget Office, "the Department of Defense (DOD) has identified only combat units for deployment. However, US military operations also require substantial support forces, including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services. Over the past few years, DOD's practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 personnel per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops. DOD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved."

{I notice this also does not explicitly state whether the "support troops" will be Halliburton's DynCorp or KBR, or Blackwater, or any other kind of mercenary 'support' personnel whose salaries are astronomical in proportion to what the average US military person makes.}

The rude pundit's farewell to Molly Ivins (including some of her quotes from before 2000)
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2007/02/goddamnit-molly-ivins.html

ACLU Mourns Passing of Molly Ivins
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0202-05.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0202-01.htm
Eighteen Years On, Exxon Valdiz Oil Still Pours Into Alaskan Waters
Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades
Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/student-tapes-teachers-s_b_40221.html
Student Tapes Teacher's Sermon, School Says 'No More Taping'
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/nyregion/01tape.html
Student tapes teacher preaching to class; school "solves" problem by banning taping; teacher has not been fired, but is getting counseling on separation of church and state, but still the latest from the same teacher is statements bout global warming being false.... {banging head on keyboard....} As one of the commenters noted on the HuffPo blog, the government's first response to Abu Ghraib was to ban cameras in prisons....

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0202-04.htm
War Opponents Follow The Money
Dems Indicate They Will Do Little to Stop Bush Troop Surge

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0202-27.htm
Changing the Subject: From Bush’s Mess in Mesopotamia to the Peril in Persia
Mentions of Halliburton, Cheney's deferred profits from same, Halliburton doing business in Iran, etc.
Excerpt:
Let’s change the subject to oil and war profiteering and hold Bush/Cheney accountable.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16909438/
Did Iraq contractor fleece American taxpayers?
Government report says flagship project was turned into a hall of horrors
Excerpt:
The report places some blame on the Army Corps of Engineers, which was supposed to oversee the project.

"They actually awarded Parsons merit increases despite widespread evidence of deficient work," says Rep. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

Parsons' contract was terminated last spring. However, the company insists problems at the academy occurred after it was turned over to the U.S. government. Parsons also says it's done good work on 1,000 projects in Iraq under hazardous conditions.

Bowen disputes this, saying he's found serious deficiencies at almost every Parsons project inspected.

TASMANIA!! Oh no!! Cheney's planning to come to Tasmania to go "fly-fishing". Oh - Please No! Maybe I'll have to put my trip to North Queensland forward a little. Tell Cheney we don't need him. Please.

Sorry - I was listening to the news.

Posted by: woz at February 3, 2007 03:17 AM

Are you serious, or are you joking?

Cheney has this habit of disappearing from the Lamestream Media snooze radar for days, sometimes weeks. I kinda doubt if anyone would know if he was anywhere other than the continental US unless it was reported in media outside of this country.

On the other hand, if he was outside the continental US, he couldn't be served with a subpoena to testify in Libby's trial, if it ever came to that....

This is an excellent article. I wish I'd written it. Those of us who are not John Howard or his cronies or his "sheeples" can put this up as our view on why we're enmeshed in Iraq with our small troop contingent. And why the government is too scared to leave.

Living in the empire
Shaun Carney
February 3, 2007

AS THE 2000 United States presidential campaign got into full swing, the New Yorker magazine ran a mock-up of a front cover of the fictitious magazine George W., a riff on the short-lived American political periodical George. Styling itself as "The Magazine That, Uh, Who's Up For Golf?", George W. ran a series of story teasers on its cover, all satirising the Republican candidate's apparent lack of knowledge about the world beyond America's shores.

Boasting an "Exclusive 14-Continent World Survey" and stories such as "The Top 50 Global Hot Spots & The Babes Who Make 'Em Sizzle" and "New Solution For the Rainforest: Umbrellas", George W. promised a story headed: "Iran, Iraq — Hey, You Arab Guys, Which One Is It?" It did seem genuinely and harmlessly funny at the time.

Sorry, forgot the link. Again.
Cont ....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/living-in-the-empire/2007/02/02/1169919530414.html

Posted by: woz at February 3, 2007 04:42 AM

Wish we had some on-the-ball journalists like that who call 'em as they see 'em....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran3feb03,0,2695314.story
U.S. can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife
Despite pledges to show evidence, officials have repeatedly put off presenting their case.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-budget3feb03,0,3271417.story
Bush budget to seek cuts for Medicare, Medicaid
His effort to balance the books in five years includes new spending on education, energy initiatives, farmers and the wars.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-youtube3feb03,0,4800270.story
Viacom wants its content taken off YouTube
The company wants to be paid when its videos are posted on YouTube, calling into question the ties between big media and new media.

http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/nq/
Non Sequitur

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/opinion/03swartz.html
Lone Starlets
THE last few months have provided hard times for iconic Texas women and the Texans — and others — who worshipped them. Last September, we lost both a former governor, Ann Richards, and a former state first lady, Nellie Connally. When the columnist Molly Ivins died on Wednesday, it seemed that a certain kind of Texas woman might be gone forever.
{{{More on link.}}}

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/us/politics/03candidates.html
Democratic Hopefuls Split Over the Best Path to Peace

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/opinion/03sat3.html
A Rare Bill in Congress

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/us/03texas.html
Texas Is First to Require Cancer Shots for Schoolgirls
Excerpt:
Averting a potentially divisive debate in the Legislature, Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, signed an executive order mandating shots of the Merck vaccine Gardasil as protection against the human papillomavirus, or HPV, starting in September 2008.
~~~~~
The governor did not put a price on the effort. But, extrapolating from school figures, vaccinations for about 170,000 sixth-grade girls would come to about $60 million, with insurance covering many families’ costs, and the federal government assisting the state in subsidizing shots for needy schoolgirls and women.
The governor’s executive order directing his Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules mandating the HPV inoculations along with others required for schoolchildren saved legislators from having to go on record for or against a bill involving child sexuality.

{{{Perry's former chief of staff is now a lobbyist for Merck in Austin.....}}}

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_re_us/salty_highways

AP: N.D.'s de-icing practice under fire

BISMARCK, N.D. - For about 40 years, state workers have been dumping saltwater left over from oil production on some North Dakota roads. That's news to the health department, which wants the practice stopped.

The Transportation Department claims oil well wastewater — up to 10 times saltier than sea water — is a safe, effective and cheap de-icer.

Environmentalists are stunned that workers have been dumping tens of thousands of gallons of the potentially contaminated stuff on roads every year, causing unknown harm to wetlands, streams and water supplies.

"I can't imagine anybody would sign off on this," said Wayde Schafer, a North Dakota spokesman for the Sierra Club.

"When it leaves the well site and is in an oil company truck it's considered toxic material," Schafer said. "If they have just one drip from the truck, they're fined. But when it's transferred to a state truck, it's spread wholesale along the interstate. It definitely makes one wonder."

Transportation spokeswoman Peggy Anderson said the state Health Department had approved the use of the salty wastewater for de-icing. But the health department's water quality director, Dennis Fewless, said he hadn't even heard about the practice until asked about it this week by The Associated Press.

"In our opinion, we did not give them our blessing on this practice," Fewless said Friday.

Fewless said the wastewater pulled from oil wells may contain oil and chemicals from drilling operations.
~~~~~
A year ago, a saltwater disposal pipeline owned by Zenergy Inc. of Tulsa, Okla., ruptured, spilling nearly 1 million gallons of salty water in northwestern North Dakota. Fewless said it could take years to clean up the spill, which killed creek life and forced ranchers to move their cattle.
{More on link.}

Stay warm wherever you are, peeps. It's -16F below here with a wind chill factor of -36F at the moment. Some places in the state are expected to have wind chill factors to -60F today and/or tonight.

Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........

My electric bedwarmer is cranked. Guess where I'll be...? (Even with the furnace running it's still cold.)

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at February 2, 2007 10:03 PM
Posted by: NonnyO at February 3, 2007 07:12 AM

Ally: Article about Texas requiring girls between 11 and 12 to be vaccinated against STDs.

NonnyO: Article about cancer shots for schoolgirls.

Is this the same vaccination? Does it prevent cancer and STDs in young girls for life?

And the boys? They don't get cancer or STDs? Are they expendable? Keep the girls alive and let the boys die?

I think I'm confused.

woz,

The shot for the girls is actually a good thing, IMO. As far as I know there is not an equivalent for the boys. Many right-wingers have fought the vaccinations for girls (misogynistic? head-in-the-sand?), apparently believing that sexual development in young women ought to be ignored.

NonnyO--keep warm! It's cold here too, but nothing like what you have!!

Our friend Sam Park sent this link along for a Beatles-scored Julie Taymor film about the antiwar movement of the Vietnam era, Looks really interesting!

http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1552760&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300

just found this quote, which resonated with my aging grumpier self:

"It's a bit embarrassing to have been concerned with the human problem all one's life and find at the end that one has no more to offer by way of advice than 'Try to be a little kinder.'"
--Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)

Posted by: woz at February 3, 2007 07:29 AM

Same series of shots (think the article mentioned series of three over several months; it's good for about five years). It only works on something like four different variants of HPV, not all of them.

Like Karen, I think they are a good idea, since they are a sexually transmitted disease.
~~~~~~~~~~``

NonnyO--keep warm! It's cold here too, but nothing like what you have!!
Posted by: karen at February 3, 2007 09:01 AM

I'm trying to stay warm. Worst of all, it seems the pilot light has gone out on both the furnace and the hot water heater within the last three hours, so I'm without heat or hot water. Called the landlord, so hopefully there will be heat soon, since he knows this is an emergency and I'm sure the other tenants will call him shortly if they haven't already. I'm going back to bed, since the electric bedwarmer keeps the whole bed warm, but the cold air makes me shiver. Indoor temp is only about 62 right now, and my arthritis just can't take the cold, and since I'm still at the tail end of this cold-flu-bronchial thing, this cold isn't good.

Stay warm! I'll get back to you later. I plan to sleep soon....

Oh, I forgot to post this, which is why I came back online....

Bush Seeks $250 Billion to Continue Fighting Iraq War
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020307Z.shtml
Keeping troops in Iraq for anot