Found a Reuters clip online at YouTube where Paul Chapman looks back at some of the key moments of the past four years in Iraq. Notably uncontroversial in the speech, very unbiased. Except for one thing: when exactly did everyone begin to call the ordeal an "invasion"? Now that I've noticed it, every bit of news I read refers to the last four years as the "invasion of Iraq", or the "U.S.-led invasion".
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Reuters: A Look Back After 4 Years Of Iraq Invasion
The Saints Are Coming
You've probably seen this video before, but I just have to post it. U2 and Green Day really hit the spot with this (anti-war) music video. Any responsible government should ALWAYS first take care of its own before anything else. Lessons to be learned here for the Bush Administration... The President should ask himself this one question: who matters more, the Iraqi people or the Americans in New Orleans. Hurricane season comes every year. Last year was a quiet one, let's see this coming summer if the White House has learned anything...
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
4 Years In Iraq And Going Weak
Today, Tuesday 20th March marks the 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War. All over the world, people have been celebrating the anniversary, albeit with very little festive mood. Surprisingly enough, there weren't any balloons, confetti or even cake... (I apologize for the sarcastic tone...)
In the United States, thousands marched to the Pentagon over the weekend, some calling for withdrawal from Iraq, some for the impeachment of President George W. Bush, some even for closing down the Pentagon. In Los Angeles, some 6,000 people rallied with flag-draped coffins through the streets of Hollywood. Bush warned the American people of "dire consequences" in Iraq were the U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq prematurely. With his approval rating nearing his personal low, Bush called for patience, more time for 30,000 extra troops for his plan on Iraq, mainly to stabilize Baghdad. Several counter demonstrations in support of the war also took place in the States.
"It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home. That may be satisfying in the short run, but I believe the consequences for American security would be devastating." Bush remarked in his speech. Nevermind the fact that having a substantial slice of the American infantry tied down in a relentless battlefield has decreased America's rapid deployment readiness to bare bones. There's only so much that the Navy and the Air Force can do in the instance of a crisis breaking out somewhere in the world right now (think Iran, North Korea, etc...).
The latest polls are showing that only 32% of the American public think the war in Iraq is going well, while 63% oppose the war. (Wait, what? 32% of Americans think things are fine and dandy in Iraq? Have these people been living under a rock for the last 4 years?) Another poll showed that four out of five Iraqis have little or no trust in U.S. led forces. So why are the troops still there, "protecting" people who don't even trust them?
How did the Iraqis celebrate the anniversary? By hanging Saddam Hussein's former Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan for crimes against humanity and with a few more car bombs and clashes with insurgents.
And let's not forget the rest of the world. In Spain, an estimated 100,000 people took to the streets, denouncing Bush for war crimes. Demonstrations took place in Madrid, Seville, Cadiz and Granada. In Istanbul, Turkey, more than 3,000 took part in protests, carrying placards saying "Bush Go Home" (?) and "We Are All Iraqis". Demonstrations also place, among other places, in Athens, Copenhagen, Rome, Helsinki, Sydney and Melbourne.
Oh, and as a final note, a study has found that the war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the globe seven-fold...
So, anyone for four more years of the same? I didn't think so...
Sources:
BBC NEWS Americas Protesters march against Iraq war
Saddam VP hanged on 4th anniversary of invasion - Yahoo! News
Iraq 101: The Iraq Effect - The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism
Lockheed Martin's $27 Million Oops!
Lockheed Martin finally admitted that their almost $30 million unmanned prototype aerial vehicle (UAV) P-175 Polecat crashed at the Nevade Test and Training Range in December. And they only had one prototype...
Lockheed Martin disclosed that the cause of the crash was "an irreversable unintentional failure in the flight termination ground equipment, which caused the aircraft's automatic fail-safe flight termination mode to activate." Translated (loosely) into layman's terms: "some jackass on the ground pressed the wrong button. Oops!" Lockheed Martin also said that the flight termination system performed exactly as expected, causing the crash. Um, really, Captain Obvious?
So it's back to square one for the Polecat program...
[Check out the Danger Room post for their hilarious take on the matter...]
Sources:
WIRED Blogs: Danger Room [Oops! I Blew up the Secret Drone!]
Aviation Week: Polecat Crash Sets Back LM UAV efforts
Terrorist Bananas
Chiquita has admitted in court paying terrorist organizations in Colombia to protect one of their most profitable banana-growing operations. Between 1997-2004 Chiquita paid the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC) $1.7 million for protection.
Representatives of Chiquita told the court that the company was forced to make the payments and was acting only to ensure the safety of its workers. Sure, yet between 2001 (when the U.S. Government designated AUC as a terrorist organization) and 2004 (when Chiquita sold the plantation for $43.5 million), Chiquita paid $825,000 in illegal protection payments, whilst earning $49.4 million in profits from the operation, making it the company's most profitable unit.
Chiquita also paid the National Liberation Army (ELN) and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), as control of the company's banana-growing area shifted. Both groups have also been designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S..
Chiquita looks to get away from the ordeal with a fine of $25 million in a plea deal with prosecutors.
No word on the possibility of Chiquita working with terrorist organizations to build Banana Bombs, as of yet...
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070319/ap_on_bi_ge/terrorism_bananas
Monday, March 19, 2007
Impeaching President Bush and Co.
United States Constitution, Article II, Section 4
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The movement to impeach President George W. Bush has been around for a while now, but this is the beginning of the end, as prominent lawmakers and politicians are taking an interest in the issue.
Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, before a Washington state Senate panel, called on Congress to restore the country's moral standing and commitment to democracy by ousting President Bush. Anderson spoke on the issue by saying "never before has there been such a compelling case for impeachment and removal from office of the President of the United States."Anderson was one of four people invited to testify for an impeachment resolution sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Eric Oemig. The nestse calls for Congress to investigate whether Bush and Vice President Dick Agendy should be removed from office. Democrats in Congress have said they are not interested in pursuing impeachment. U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) commented on the issue by saying "I have two words for anyone who want to impeach the President: Dick Cheney."
According to a new report in Esquire Magazine, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has suggested that Congress may consider the impeachment of President Bush before his term ends. Hagel stated that the President is "not accountable anymore". Hagel is not the first Senator to call for or suggest Bush's impeachment, but this is coming from a conservative Republican from a safe Senate seat in a reddish state.
In his speech, Rocky Anderson listed some of Bush's alleged crimes, such as lying about the nuclear threat posed by Iraq; misleading Americans into believing Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa; falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein bought aluminum tubes to gain weapons-grade uranium; launching an illegal was against Iraq; violating human rights, committing was crimes and undercutting U.S. Moral standing by condoning torture, kidnapping and incarceration without charges; authorizing unconditional warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens.
It has thoroughly been noted that the single biggest disadvantage of impeaching Bush is his successor, Vice President Dick Cheney. Thus, it would make sense to impeach both of the for the same crimes, possibly throwing in a few other prominent White House officials, notably Karl Rove. One must keep in mind that Dick Cheney might actually be the biggest evil of all the White House officials. If Bush were to be impeached before his term is over, the Order of Presidential Succession decrees that The Vice President (Dick Cheney) is next in line, followed by The Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi),
The President pro tempore of the Senate (Robert Byrd),
The Secretary of State (Condoleezza Rice),
The Secretary of the Treasury (Henry Paulson),
The Secretary of Defence (Robert Gates),
The Attorney General (Alberto Gonzales).
This scenario would bring the United States to an unprecedented situation where the United States would see it's first female Head of State, even before the possibility of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic frontrunner in the 2008 Presidential Elections: Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, a Democrat.
ImpeachForPeace.org lists a comprehensive list of President George W. Bush's crimes and abuses of the law.
ILLEGAL WAR
Bush intentionally misled the Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war against Iraq, intentionally conspired with others to defraud the United States in connection with the was against Iraq in violation of title 18 United States Code, Section 371 [EVIDENCE]
ILLEGAL SPYING
Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805. [EVIDENCE]
GENEVA CONVENTION VIOLATIONS
Bush comprised to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the supreme Law of the Land.Bush also comprised to deny due process to prisoners of war, indiscriminantly bomb cities, transfer prisoners of war from an occupied territory, and planned, prepared, initiated and waged a war of aggression in violation of U.S. military Code Section 2441, Geneva Convention (I Article 3, II Article 18, Article 19, III Article 13, Article 17, Article 33, Article 34, Article 49, VI Article 3), and the 1945 Nuremberg Principles Articles 6(a) and (b). [EVIDENCE]
ILLEGAL DETENTION
Bush acted to strip Americans of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention of citizens, without access to legal counsel, without charge and without opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the Presiden of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant", all in subversion of law. [EVIDENCE]
ILLEGAL RELEASE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Bush authorized the leaking of classified national secrets to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U.S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter. [EVIDENCE]
ILLEGAL FREEZING OF ACCOUNTS AND RESTRICTION TO FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
Bush ordered the freezing of financial accounts without limit to how groups were chosen to be on such a list, and also ordered himself the power to create blacklists of any indivi he felt was associated with the aforementioned groups. Thereby creating a system of "guilt by association." [EVIDENCE]
ILLEGAL USE OF SIGNING STATEMENTS
Bush attached signing statements to more that one hundred bills before signing them, within which he has made over eleven hundre challenges to provisions of laws passed by Congress, a figure that exceeds the total number of such challenges by all previous presidents combined, and has used this practice to exempt himself, as President of the United States, from enforcing or from being held accountable to provisions of said laws. By declining to veto even bills, and instead attaching signing statements challenging hundreds of laws passed by Congress, he has sought to exempt the executive branch from accountability to said laws, thereby violating Article I, Section 7 and Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. There articles of the Constitution dictate that the President has the option of signing or vetoing a bill, and upon signing the bill to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." [EVIDENCE]
Which brings up to the million-dollar question: why has America waited this long, and why is Bush still in office? Bill Clinton was impeached by the House (but acquitted by the Senate) for perjury and obstruction of justice arising from the Lewinsky scandal; Richard Nixon left office (while still pardonable) after the House Judiciary Committee had reported articles of impeachment to the floor, as a result of the Watergate scandal which would have led to him being impeachment and conviction. Even a casual glance at Bush's and the Administration's growing list of infractions, offences, and other abuses of the law committed since taking office clearly brings to light the massive injustices of the Bush Administration. (I'll get to that soon...) And let's not forget the gross mistakes and bad political decisions, such as the Abu Ghraib, the handling of the aftermath of Katrina, the horrible treatment of injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical, and the purging of U.S. Attorneys who wouldn't play ball, among many many others. (Let's not forget about the federal deficit which stands at 221 trillion, or making life worse for the poor in America by cutting funding for Medicare...)
Compare Nixon, Clinton, and Bush. Which one has done more harm for the United States, better yet, the world? Nixon had his Vietnam, Clinton had Kosovo, and Bush has Afghanistan, Iraq, and the whole War on Terror, which may possibly include Iran and North Korea. Right now, the economy is in a bad state, the average American is witnessing a decline in services and even personal rights, domestic catastrophies such as Katrina are being left behind foreign policy agendas, Bush has brought Iraq to the brink of a civil war (you might as well argue that the situation in Iraq is already a fullblown civil war), and to top it off, think about the American troops who are probably the ones getting the short end of the shrinking stick. They are doing their jobs, to the best of their abilities, yet they are overstretched and underpaid, forced to fight for a political (failing) agenda. Instead of defending a nation or even a principle, there men and women in uniform are sent straight to a place with thousands of insurgents who are only there to do one thing: kill Americans. The Bush Administration has made the U.S. Armed Forces a mere political tool. They aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan to protect America. They're there to manifest Bush's grandiose political plans and pursue an unachievable goal. All this while risking their lifes, not for Bush, but for America. See the conflicting ideals? And how does the Administration and Bush show their appreciation and support for these troops? By sending the injured to roach-infested hospital wards, and deploying the injured back to Iraq.
George W. Bush has repeatedly proved himself to be incapable of leading a nation. His actions have exposed his abuses of power and gross infractions of U.S. and International laws. Bush is unfit to lead
The can only be one conclusion: the American citizens and Congress must exercise their constitutional right to impeach and convict each and every incompetent member of the Bush Administration, while the people still possess some rights.
Sources:
Salt Lake Tribune - Send Bush packing, says Rocky
Think Progress » Hagel Suggests Possibility Of Bush Impeachment: 'He's Not Accountable Anymore'
Impeach Bush for Peace
Impeach Bush
Impeachment in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Order of Presidential Succession - Infoplease.com
Constitutional Basis For Impeachment
Charges and Evidence regarding the Impeachment
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Inside Walter Reed Hospital: A Patient's View
We've heard about the conditions and neglect at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in the news lately. The media has only so and so dug into the issue and what it's like to be a patient there. Now, here is a personal blog from within, written by a patient. The blog is really worth reading.
Enlisting Bugs To The War On Terror
First it was dolphins and sea lions protecting the United States, now it's bugs.
The Pentagon and its Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), as well as several other companies, are planning to employ the help of bees, fish and cockroaches to sniff out chemical toxins and biohazards in buildings and subways, to decrease the risk to humans doing the same job. This is because nature's sensors and tools are more finely tuned than anything humans have engineered. I wonder what kind of work benefits there bugs will get? Oh, and the next time you step on a cockroach in the subways, you might be killing an employee of the Department of Homeland Security.
Source:
Bugging Out on Homeland Security - Popular Science
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/243434a70e131110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
Tolerance Takes A Step Back: Gays In The Military
At a time when the U.S. Armed Forces needs every soldier in its inventory fit to fight, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace said on Monday that he considers homosexuality to be immoral and that the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly.
This comes as the Bush Administration is searching the thinning ranks of the military for extra troops to send into Iraq and Afghanistan.
Gen. Pace stated that "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way", referring to the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy which allows for homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private.
Regardless of the policy, a 2005 government audit found that some 10,000 troops, including 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.
If the military needs more men and women in service, what's the point of discharging or banning thousands solely on grounds of their sexuality? No, they'd rather send in injured troops, because that's not immoral...
Gen. Pace calls homosexuality immoral - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_gays
Running Out Of Troops, The Army Is Ordering Injured Troops To Iraq
It's bad enough that American troops returning home injured face neglect and horrid conditions at Walter Reed, now the U.S. Army is ordering injured troops to deploy to Iraq with their unit. Does the Bush Administration really support the troops, or are they merely an expendable resource?
A unit of the Army's 3rd Division stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia, is slated to be deployed to Iraq this as we speak, serving their third tour in a steady stream. Of the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade, 75 soldiers have been previously deemed unfit to deploy, yet are now being deployed regardless.
The injuries of the soldiers to be redeployed root from injuries sustained during previous combat tours, training accidents and fatigue. Some have back injuries which makes it impossible for them to carry full gear or move effectively while under fire. Some can't wear protective armor due to its weight, while others have difficulty operating weapons.
The true scandal here is not the actual deployment of there injured troops, but the fact that there 75 soldiers were ushered into a meeting with an army surgeon on February 15th, and saw their medical profiles systematically downgraded to deem them fit to deploy. Even soldiers with degenerative back problems which root from injuries sustained on the last tour and are at a great risk of reinjury if sent to a war zone were told to pack and prepare to deploy.
(Author's note: I feel for there soldiers because two days ago I was exempted from mandatory military service in Finland due to back problems. I've had this problem for years, yet 2 years ago I entered the service only to reinjure my back and was unable to perform training exercises, nor could I carry gear on my back. I was heavily medicated which impaired my ability to fire a weapon and my ability to operate in the field. I was discharged for 2 years after 45 days of service, and was now deemed unfit to serve in times of peace.)
Sending these troops to a war zone is a great risk to themselves and to those they serve with. The Bush Administration's wars are stretching to U.S. Military to bare bones, putting their lives at unnecessary risk, merely to satisfy a political need. This has gone too far. Soldiers are one most important resources the United States has, and right now they are being treated like dirt. The men and women in uniform have made America the superpower it is today, not the politicians. Instead of spending billions to send more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to fix the Administration's policy catastrophies, how's about spending some money to ensure these soldiers fair treatment and care, as well as the respect they deserve?
Source:
The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq | Salon News
http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/11/fort_benning/
The Bush Administration Is Beginning To Crumble
The Bush Administration has been rattled by three scandals lately; the I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial, ill-treatment of returning wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital, and the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. All three cases have been in the news lately, and continue to be, so I'll just touch upon them ever so slightly, in an effort to side light on what is going on and what it means for the Bush Administration.
Covering Up Lies In The White House: United States vs. Lewis Libby
The Scooter Libby Trial, or Plame Affair as it's also known as, is a long and arduous case. Long story cut short: Members of the Bush Administration leaked the covert identity of a CIA operative, an act which is allegedly a political retribution to the agent's husband's (Joseph Wilson) criticisms of the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq. Namely, Wilson declared the Administration's evidence, connecting Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction, fraudulent.
Before resigning from office as a result of being indicted, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was the Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, assistant to the VP on national security affairs, and an assistant to President Bush between 2001 and 2005.
The crucial issue in the Libby conviction in relation to the Bush Administration is not what he did, but rather why he did it.
Originally, Libby was indicted not only for perjury, obstruction and lying, but also for the act he was covering up.
Libby confirmed the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative to a reporter, Robert Novak, then denied it, proceeding to cover up the leak.
Several months before the start of the Libby trial, Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State, admitted to being the source of the leak. He wasn't charged with anything. He wasn't even tried in court.
Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were originally both be indicted and prosecuted for the cover up. Rove managed to avoid the same fate as Libby by changing his grand jury testimony. He walked and is free to continue his job as senior policy advisor to Bush. Karl Rove has also admitted his involvement in the leak, having spread the word about former Ambassador Joseph Wilson being sent by his CIA wife on a mission to Africa. He hasn't been indicted on the matter.
On March 6th, 2007, Libby was convicted on two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction, and one false statement count. He was acquitted on a second false statement count. Libby is the highest-ranking white house official convicted in a government scandal since the Iran-Contra Affair.
The issue continues as Valerie Plame, the CIA operative who's identity was outed, has filed a civil lawsuit against Dick Cheney, stating that he allegedly "illegally conspired to reveal her identity". Also named in the lawsuit are Lewis Libby, Karl Rove and ten yet unnamed administration officials.
When The Support Ends: The Walter Reed Hospital Scandal
As the verdict in the Liaby trial was being read, reports of squalid conditions and ill-treatment of returning soldiers began to emerge from Walter Reed Hospital.
Injured soldiers returning from duty in Afghanistan and Iraq have stated many problems at the hospital. These include: cockroach and rodent infestations, mold-covered walls, neglect of soldiers, bureaucratic delays, stained carpets, cheap mattresses, no heat or water, even reports of drug dealers at the hospital entrance, among other problems. In addition, some injured soldiers tell of been forced to pull guard duty to better the law security present at the hospital. Democratic congressmen have been quick to point the finger directly at the Bush Administration, stating "catastrophic failure of leadership". It has also come out that reports of outpatient neglect have been reported as early as 2004.
The poor treatment of injured soldier is reported to be due to poor training, lack of staff, underfunding, and conflicting policies among the Army, the Veterans Affairs, and the Defence Department.
Since the initial reports, three high-level Pentagon officials have been forced to step down over the poor treatment and horrid conditions. All three have at a time overseen Walter Reed Hospital, and must have been aware of the situations within.
Responding to the reports coming from Walter Reed, Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson is ordering all 1,400 hospitals and clinics under the supervision of the VA to report on the quality of their facilities in order to determine whether conditions similar to those at Walter Reed exist elsewhere.
Margaret Carlson at Bloomberg (via Huffington Post) summarized the sentiment with the scandal:
"Say a word about bringing them home and you're a traitor who wants to abandon the troop. Send them off without training or armor, and bring them back to poorly staffed, decrepit and vermin-infested Walter Reed Hospital, the brown jewel of the military, and you're a patriot."
The President Doesn't Like You Anymore: The Purging Of U.S. Attorneys
In the past few months, eight U.S. Attorneys have been fired. The roots of the removals extend all the way to the White House.
According to the Congressional Research Service, there have been a mere five instances in the past 25 years in which U.S. Attorneys were fired by the President or resigned following reports of questionable conduct. This figure doesn't include U.S. Attorneys fired by an incoming president, such as in the case of Bill Clinton firing all republican Attorneys upon taking office.
As the firings began in December, it seemed that Bush's Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the Bush Administration was getting off with simply explaining that it was time for a change. Nevertheless, once the number of fired U.S. Attorneys reached eight, questions had been raised. Possibly feeling pressured, Justice Department officials began to to blame the attorneys, stating poor performance as grounds for dismissal. Never mind that all of the pushed attorneys had previously received very favorable reviews and performance reviews. Fact of the matter is, there attorneys were fired surely for political reasons, because of their unwillingness to go along with the abuse of the judicial system being imposed from the top. Keep in mind that Bush wasn't firing people appointed by someone else as Clinton did. U.S. Attorneys serve for up to 4 years at a time, meaning that each of the fired attorneys were actually appointed by Bush himself.
Karl Rove, upon being asked for the reasons for the firings, stated that the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and that there eight were removed for cause, over performance issues. Six of the lawyers told House and Senate committees they were dismissed without explanation.
From Libby to Walter to Attorney, these three cases are a mere continuation of the scandals that have happened, are happening and are itching to happen under the watch of the Bush Administration. Several heads have fallen already, unimportant enough to save the Administration from crumbling by sacrificing their careers. With the exception of Libby, no other White House official has been dragged to the chopping block as of yet, even though evidence is piling up on the crimes of the Bush Administration. There are many people in seats of power, walking free, "immune" to the scandals. Or is this just the beginning of the end for the Bush Administration? Guess we'll find out soon enough... Did someone say "impeachment"?
Sources:
The Blog Margaret Carlson: Libby Is Guilty, Yet Bush's Lies Are Exposed The Huffington Post
Lewis Libby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plame affair - Wikipedia, the free
Plame v. Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Army surgeon general ousted amid Walter Reed scandal - CNN.com
Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Q&A: Hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys - Yahoo! News
Sunday, March 11, 2007
100 Things We Didn't Know This Time Last Year
Here's a link to an interesting list of 100 things we didn't know this time last year, from BBC.co.uk
BBC NEWS UK Magazine 100 things we didn't know this time last year
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4566526.stm
Bush Stresses Quiet Diplomacy in Latin America, Bombs Other Parts Of The World
In Uruguay, the second stop of his five-nation tour of Latin America, George W. Bush ignored the anti-American protests and remarks by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, personal jabs at Bush. Instead, Bush made some interesting remarks himself.
The whole tour of Latin America is characterized by soft, generous and understanding mood by Bush, coming bearing promises of gifts. Bush said that he was conducting "quiet and effective diplomacy". He also remarked that Americans "care about the human condition and that we believe the human condition can be improved in a variety of ways, [such as] investment." "And so the question is, how can we have constructive dialogue with our neighbors as to how to spread the benefits of investment." In addition, Bush said that "I happen to believe a world that trades freely and fairly is a world that is more likely to be able to address poverty."
Sure, these remarks were in the spirit of goodwill towards a region which is experiencing a rise of leftist leaders and anti-American sentiment. Yet, these traits are present in numerous other parts of the world, and instead of goodwill and aid, Bush bombs these countries. There's poverty in a lot of parts of the world, many which the Bush Administration completely avoids. Soft diplomacy is really not Bush's number one method of engaging countries. Are there words merely because the Latin American countries are just south of the United States and are big economic partners? This might be the case, seeing as a large portion of the tour deals with economic relationship and trade. Then why the talk of "the human condition" and poverty which Americans apparently care so much about? The Bush Administration doesn't seem to care so much about the human condition in Iraq.
Which brings us to the conclusion. Let's see now...
Diplomacy is the way to go when people close to you make bad remarks about you, whilst sending in troops and bombs works better when the people who insult you are far away. The price of human condition depends on where you are, and who your leader is. In one part of the world the US will send you aid, in another they'll send you bombs. And believing in a world that trades freely? Everything Bush has said in Latin America is just words. You can't have a double standard. In one part of the world you act generous and friendly, talking of good things for the world, using so-called soft diplomacy, all the while you threaten and bomb other countries, not really caring about the human condition, the state of which you have directly contributed to.
This is a Public Relations tour. It's a simple case of say one thing, do another. There would be bombs raining on Latin America if the rest of the world cared as little about the region as they do about Iraq.
Source:
In Uruguay Bush ignores Chavez, stresses quiet diplomacy - Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070310/wl_afp/uslatambush
Saturday, March 10, 2007
New Theme To My Opera Blog
Initially, I planned for my Opera Community blog (http://my.opera.com/janihelle/blog) to be merely photos and links to interesting things. These things happen when you have 5 different blogs, covering 5 different themes. I have practically forgotten about all my other blogs, and focused on HellBroadCast (http://hellbroadcast.blogspot.com), covering news articles, politics, and human interest issues. With this in mind, I am transforming my Opera blog into a duplicate of HellBroadCast, posting all articles on both blogs, mainly to attain a larger reader base, having realized that the Opera Community is expanding daily. So stay posted, because I have a lot of material in the works...
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Transportation Problems in Indonesia
Note to self: avoid travel to Indonesia. Can't fly a plane there because they either go missing, crash into the sea or mountains, or burst into flames on landing. Can't travel by boat because they sink or burst into flames, nevermind the overcrowding... How else does one travel to and around country composed of thousands of islands?
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
US Intelligence Hot On Bin Laden's Trail, Again/Still...
Armed with fresh intelligence, the CIA is moving additional troops and equipment into Afghanistan and Pakistan in an effort to find Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, playing down doubts that the trail for bin Laden has gone cold.
Wait, haven't they been "hot" on his trail for over 5 years now?
It seems that concerning Bush's War on Terror, a bin Laden, alive and well, taunting the United States from some cave in a far off land is more beneficial to the terror doctrine than a bin Laden rotting in jail or six feet under. It's the classic comic book superhero/archnemesis scenario: On one hand you have the superhero, protecting society from evil; on the other hand you have the supervillain, the superhero's archnemesis, who the superhero persistantly engages in battle, fending off his minions all the time; at times the archnemesis sits back to plan his next move, whilst the superhero spends everyday fighting evil, be it small crooks or other supervillains; the archnemesis strikes at those closest to the superhero, which makes the public beg for the superhero to come and save the day; before the final battle, the public loses love for the superhero for his methods and behavior; the superhero can't attain victory over his archnemesis and the public until the very end of the saga.
Now let's translate that into today's world: Bush is the superhero, Osama is Bush's archnemesis; The War on Terror drags on relentlesly; The United States and Bush battles Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups all the time; Osama has been in hiding for years; The Bush Administration engages in battle everyday against insurgents, terrorists, as well as rogue states and their leaders such as Iran and Ahmadijaned, and North Korea and Kim Il Jon; Osama attacks American soil, American troops around the world as well as American targets, not forgetting Bush's allies; the public rallies behind Bush, sending his approval rating up after the 9/11 terrorist attacks; the ensuing and faltering wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pull Bush's approval rating way down; the hunt for Osama bin Laden continues as time begins to run out before Bush's tenure in office is over.
With Bush's second and final term in the White House drawing to an end, it's time for the superhero to catch his archnemesis. With the known capabilities of the US intelligence agencies and military forces (in addition to the capabilities the public isn't aware of), one would have thought that finding one man wouldn't be too difficult. Maybe it's not time to find him yet. Maybe the Bush Administration has a really good, solid idea of where Osama is at any given moment. Catching Osama right before the 2008 Presidential Elections would be a giant victory for the Republicans, rallying more support and votes, as well as saving Bush's legacy, making him forever the man who caught Osama bin Laden, the devil himself. If Osama is caught by US forces within the next few years, especially around the summer of 2008, the long and arduous hunt for Osama bin Laden will have been a mere political game. Think about it. It makes sense.
By the way, although Osama bin Laden might really be a supervillain, Bush's archnemesis, I am not suggesting George W Bush is a superhero in any sense of the term.
Sources:
CIA Rushing Resources to Bin Laden Hunt - The Blotter
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/03/cia_rushing_res.html (via Digg)
Bush Announces New Aid To Latin America - What About America?
Just days prior to his five-nation tour of Latin America, US President George W Bush announced that the United States will expand U.S. aid for education, health care and housing in the region. His "message is simple: the United States has not forgotten its neighbours to the south." Bush said that "the working poor of Latin America need change and the United States is committed to that change."
If you've been following the news in the past weeks, these issues have truly been in the news lately. Not concerning Latin America, but in the United States.
A great percentage of the American public want change in the American health care system, many wishing for universal health care. Medicare and Medicaid saw their budgets cut for the 2008 fiscal year. Wounded soldiers returning from overseas duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have been ill-treated, poorly compensated for injuries suffered in the line of duty protecting the nation and patriotically following the Bush Administration's agenda in Iraq. The poor received a break from the Democrat-led Congress in the form of higher minimum wage, which sceptics say will possibly lead to more layoffs and unemployment, as small businesses see their profits fall. The American education system needs more funding to educate to future of the United States to the best of their abilities. All this while the United States spends some $100 million every 12 hours in Iraq. (Newsweek) On top of it all, the surge on Baghdad isn't producing results, but rather more American casualties (9 US soldiers killed today in Baghdad).
At the very least the Bush Administration and the republicans are showing a humanitarian side, although one could argue that this is mainly concerning the legacy of the dwindling Administration, as it seems almost certain the next Administration will be led by the Democrats.
One would think that issues at home would be more important in securing America's stance in the world's eyes in the coming years, as the current administration's foreign policies have significantly increased the anti-American sentiment all over the world.
Bush's trip to Latin America comes at a time when Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is stirring up more anti-American sentiment in the region. So is Bush's announcement and trip to Latin America merely a PR stunt, trying to keep key allies favourable to the U.S.? Do keep in mind that many of these nations Bush plans to visit are oil-producing nations, as well as hosts to many American corporations and vital economic partners.
PR, legacy, oil, money and such aside, the aid to Latin America, although a relatively noble thing for the world's wealthiest nation (a gesture which should be taken for granted), the announcement comes at a time when there are numerous other problems at home and in other parts of the world where the United States continues to battle. I am not saying the US should shun it's neighbours to the south, but rather also, in addition to extending a helping hand to those less prosperous in other countries, the United States should shift its primary aid focus on its own people, making the lifes of those who the President represents easier and more align with the image of American prosperity. Keep in mind that this is the man who the rest of the world considers America's representative. What he does, people think this is the mood and beliefs of the entire nation. There's still a long time until November 2008...
Source:
VOA News - Bush Announces New Aid for Latin America
http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-03-05-voa51.cfm
Congress To-Do List, Courtesity of New York Times
- Restore Habeas Corpus
- Stop Illegal Spying
- Ban Torture, Really
- Close the C.I.A. Prisons
- Account for ‘Ghost Prisoners’
- Ban Extraordinary Rendition
- Tighten the Definition of Combatant
- Screen Prisoners Fairly and Effectively
- Ban Tainted Evidence
- Ban Secret Evidence
- Better Define ‘Classified’ Evidence
- Respect the Right to Counsel
- Close the Guantánamo camp
Sources:
New York Times Editorial: The Must-Do List (March 4, 2007) [via Digg]
Test Your Geography Knowledge
The first site has the well known test where one must name all 50 States in 10 minutes.
http://www.ironicsans.com
The second site is map based. The objective is to find the country/state in question by clicking on the correct part of the map. (Unless you're Russian, don't even attempt to do the Russian map quiz...)
http://www.lizardpoint.com/fun/geoquiz/
George The Jaguar And His Mean Twin Osama
You might have heard of the sad events at the Denver Zoo in Colorado last week, where a zookeeper was killed by a jaguar at the zoo. But it was an article on Yahoo! News which caught my eye.
The article was titled 'Killer jaguar had mean twin named Osama', which I though was somewhat entertaining that someone would name a jaguar after Osama Bin Laden. Reading on I noticed that the killer jaguar in this case was called Jorge, or George in spanish, and was actually named after President George W Bush.
Here are some quotes about the jaguars from the article:
"...[Jorge] was well-behaved as a young cat but his twin was so mean that his handlers named him Osama..."
"A zoo employee shot and killed Jorge when he approached emergency workers..."
"Jorge — Spanish for George — had been named after President Bush"
"Osama was always the more dominant of the two. He was always rough with Jorge. That was the relationship we saw between them."
"Jorge wasn't bad, really... I don't know what could have happened. Perhaps because he was so well-behaved, the trainer thought she could trust him. But you never know with wild animals."Can you see the similarities between these jaguars and the human world? Osama is mean-spirited, rough with George and dominant, whilst George is well-behaved, submissive, and the one the zookeeper seemed to trust. With these descriptions in mind, which would you expect to kill someone, George or Osama? And which one did actually kill someone?
Source:
Killer jaguar had mean twin named Osama - Yahoo! News
Beer Consumption Rankings
Found this list of countries organized by beer consumption per capita on Wikipedia. I'm actually surprised that Finland is as low as number 9 on the list...
This is a list of countries ordered by annual per capita consumption of beer, as of 2004.
| Rank | Country | Consumption (L/yr) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Czech Republic | 156.9 |
| 2 |  Ireland | 131.1 |
| 3 |  Germany | 115.8 |
| 4 |  Australia | 109.9 |
| 5 |  Austria | 108.3 |
| 6 |  United Kingdom | 99.0 |
| 7 |  Belgium | 93.0 |
| 8 |  Denmark | 89.9 |
| 9 |  Finland | 85.0 |
| 10 |  Luxembourg | 84.4 |
| 11 |  Slovakia | 84.1 |
| 12 |  Spain | 83.8 |
| 13 |  United States | 81.6 |
| 14 |  Croatia | 81.2 |
| 15 |  Netherlands | 79.0 |
| 16 |  New Zealand | 77.0 |
| 17 |  Hungary | 75.3 |
| 18 |  Poland | 69.1 |
| 19 |  Canada | 68.3 |
| 20 |  Portugal | 59.6 |
| 21 |  Bulgaria | 59.5 |
| 22 |  South Africa | 59.2 |
| 23 |  Russia | 58.9 |
| 24 |  Venezuela | 58.6 |
| 25 |  Romania | 58.2 |
| 26 |  Cyprus | 58.1 |
| 27 |  Switzerland | 57.3 |
| 28 |  Gabon | 55.8 |
| 29 |  Norway | 55.5 |
| 30 |  Mexico | 51.8 |
| 31 |  Sweden | 51.5 |
| 32 |  Japan | 51.3 |
| 33 |  Brazil | 47.6 |
| 34 |  South Korea | 38.5 |
| 35 |  Colombia | 36.8 |
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_consumption_by_country
http://www.kirin.co.jp/english/ir/news_release051215_4.html
Switzerland Accidently Invades Liechtenstein
Were countries involved something like China and India, Russia and Finland or maybe even Germany and France (again...), we'd possibly have a huge political and diplomatic crisis on our hands. But, alas, it's just a two small countries, one which is neutral all the way and the other which doesn't have an army.
On a routine training exercise, a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein. (Oops!) According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers wandered just over a mile across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.
A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion. Liechtenstein, which has about 34,000 inhabitants and is slightly smaller than Washington DC, doesn't have an army.
Both parties played down the event and let it slip. Shit happens...
Friday, March 2, 2007
Military Ebay
Ebay has a militaristic competitor: eDisposals. 
The British Ministry of Defense is auctoning off its surplus and replaced equiptment. This includes boats, truck, Land Rovers, boots, camouflage gear, etcetera, etcetera. Guns and ammo aren't for sale yet...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)