Susan Nieman had an Op-Ed in the New York Times, of all places (what us be sycophants?), telling the REAL deal in her piece, “Change Germans Can’t Believe In.”

In her very good piece Ms. Nieman had this to say:

Barack Obama’s speech in Independence, Mo. (6/30/08)WITH gestures that ranged from a wink to a sneer, most anyone you met here this week volunteered the view that Barack Obama’s visit to Europe caused unprecedented frenzy. But it’s been hard for me to find a European, aside from two Harvard-educated friends in Paris, who confessed to excitement — not just about the visit, but the prospect of an Obama presidency.

It is true that Der Spiegel, the German newsweekly, featured Mr. Obama on its cover, topped by the words “Germany Meets the Superstar” — but the cover was satire, and nasty satire at that. The editors managed to find the ugliest photograph of Mr. Obama ever taken. It caught the senator at a moment that might be exhaustion but looks like conceited smirking. When Der Spiegel featured Mr. Obama on its cover in March, the cover line was “The Messiah Factor.” Must one add that this, too, was not meant to be taken at face value?

Europeans will be as relieved as 72 percent of Americans to see the end of the Bush administration, but their attitudes toward the Democratic candidate are far from being the same as the ones he arouses at home. Mr. Obama makes Europeans uncomfortable.

Well, yes - of course Europeans, and the REST Of the planet, will be relieved when Bush is out of office. One little problem with that - Congress. Most of those Bush Enablers will still be IN office once he is gone. And heaven knows, they have done BLESSED little to rein him in. Nope - rather, they have gone along with just about every single thing he has requested, including shredding the Constitution, and I don’t just mean with the recent FISA debacle. Anywho, more than Bush need to leave office before there is REAL change: Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, Dodd, Kerry, Leahy, to name just a very, very few, but I digress…

From our media, would you have ever gotten that the Berliners were anything less than thrilled, or that the Der Spiegel cover was a SATIRE?? Um, no. No, you wouldn’t. I don’t know about you, but I am pretty damn sick and tired of the media manipulating us to promote Obama. Sick of it. And I am not overstating the Berlin case. Here’s a little more:

In Germany, politicians in front of large, shouting crowds evoke images that nobody wants to see repeated. But genuine worries about demagoguery are not all that’s at issue. The mocking undertone that accompanies most descriptions of Mr. Obama in the European news media signifies a trans-Atlantic divide. George W. Bush made matters far worse than they ever were, but the neoconservatives who advised him were right about one thing: Europe is gripped by a world-weariness that resists American dreams.

There’s more, particularly about Obama’s speech and from where he drew his “inspiration, ” but you can go read about it if you wish. The point is that it was not all a bed of roses for Obama, despite the attempts to paint it otherwise (remember how when Obama went to Iraq, all of the newspapers were blaring how the Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki supported his plan?? Then come to find out, not so much, but they did not blare THAT correction, oh no…).

And to address this whole US Military Hospital in Landstuhl that Obama did not visit, since I am talking about Germany. He is now claiming that it was the Department of Defense that derailed his big plan to go visit our wounded soldiers there. I guess in a sense, they did - they said that he could go as a SENATOR, but not as a CANDIDATE. He could take a few of his staff, but not his entire entourage of staff and press. That is to say, he could not use a visit to the wounded warriors as a freakin’ PHOTO OP for his campaign. How DARE they!!! So, instead of going to see them, as a US Senator, he went and worked out in the Ritz Carlton hotel where he was staying. Oh, if I was in the military, that would sure make ME want him as my Commander in Chief - NOT!!!!

And now, for more smoke and mirrors. By now, you have probably heard that Obama is considering yet another Republican to be his running mate. Before I get to that, allow me to digress - again - by bringing up Chuck Hagel, whose name was ALSO floated as a potential Obama VP choice. Hagel, the one who accompanied Obama on his “fact-finding” tour and demurred to him all along the way, even though HAGEL has actually been in the Senate for a while. But wait, there’s more - Hagel is one of the owners of Diebold. You know, as in the Diebold VOTING MACHINES. As in he won re-election in 2002 with a whopping 83% of the vote. It was unprecedented. Care to take a guess what kinds of voting machines they use in Nebraska?? Well, I imagine it came as a surprise to Ol’ Chuck that the Obama people are looking at another Republican, this time, a woman. Someone who served in BUSH’S administration. Ann Veneman, the Secretary of Agriculture, is the person at whom they are currently looking. Amie Parnes and Ben Smith have written a comprehensive article on her, and the Democrats reaction to this news, in this article, “Obama Considers GOP Running Mate“. Thanks to my buddy, Diamond Tiger, for sending this to me this morning. She warned me to not be drinking anything when I read it - I suggest that to you as well. (There will be more posts on this, to be sure!)

See, here’s the thing. I have long thought that Obama was more Republican than Democratic anyway. When he started praising Ronald Reagan as a “transformative” president, a president who did VERY little for the African American community, and DISSED Bill Clinton’s two-term presidency, I became very suspicious indeed. When he went further and said that he wanted to return to the Foreign Policy of George H.W. Bush, i.e., Donald Rumsfeld’s policies, I knew, just KNEW, that he was a closet Republican (and if rumors can be believed, that is not the ONLY thing about which he is in the closet, if you know what I mean!). And of course, choosing a WOMAN is supposed to both appease all of us Hillary supporters (as if that is the ONLY reason we want her - it’s all about her being a woman, not that she is far more qualified) and to prove that they aren’t a bunch of misogynistic pigs. Oh, yes - choosing a Republican woman just covers ALL of those bases - they get cross over votes, and appease all of us PUMA people mad that the woman in the race was treated like pure-T crap. Yes, we ARE mad that Senator Clinton, and by extension, all women were treated horribly in this election season by the DNC and the MSM, but just picking any ol’ woman, especially a REPUBLICAN woman, is not going to change the fact that they trashed the most qualified candidate in the field. And it does not give Obama any more experience, or integrity, or honesty.

Wow - they must really think we are stupid.

One last little smoke and mirror for your entertainment. And by entertainment, I mean another way a SD was arm-twisted to support Obama. That would be John Edwards. Yes, this is about John, his mistress, and his love child. Apparently, this has been known for some time in DC circles. Had it been anyone else (whose name happened to be Bill or Hillary), it would have been screamed all over the media 24/7/365. But the Obama/R/DNC could use this to their advantage, and boy, did they ever!! I trust that now the cat’s out of the bag, it might make it to the MSM, but there again, I’m not holding my breath on that. You know we cannot cast any aspersions on Obamessiah, without being damned for all eternity, that is. I always liked Elizabeth way more than John anyway, but especially now - it makes her disappearance from the public eye that much more telling. I guess she knew this was coming down the pike. I hate it for her, though. She doesn’t deserve this. Frankly, John was lucky to have her. She was what made him seem more believable. Well, that mirror is broken, and the smoke cleared now.

Holy cow - talk about your hoodwinking bamboozling. Please, please, PLEASE tell me why all of these so-called progressives (and I consider myself very progressive - and I make my own cappuccinos every single day. Oh, and I am highly “educated” too!) are supporting this Republican Lite?!?! I sure don’t get it. His version of “change” is looking more and more like the Same-o Same-O to me, especially if you are a REPUBLICAN. Way to go R/DNC!! We now have ONE party in this country (nod to you, WorkingClassArtist and rosieriter)!! Wait, that isn’t a good thing, is it?? Yikes.

Except, this time, there is no legal pretense, just his own blind ambition and ego that demands a 76,000 seat stadium and a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in Germany before he’s even the official nominee, much less the president.

Here are his minions, including the infamous Donna Brazile, trying to explain how following Party legalities and requirements would be too much of a blow to Obama’s ego [H/T to Riverdaughter]:

The problem is “there’s a strong feeling” that Sen. Clinton’s delegates need the chance to vote for her, Mr. Devine said. Many are still angry with a party decision that they feel deprived her of delegates from Michigan and Florida. “You don’t want a situation where anybody feels they’ve been cheated,” he said.

A second option would be for Sen. Clinton to be nominated, complete with laudatory speeches and happy floor demonstrations. By prearrangement, Sen. Clinton then would take her name out of consideration and endorse Sen. Obama’s nomination.

“There’s nothing symbolically wrong to putting her name in,” followed by a scripted withdrawal, said Ms. Brazile. But the spectacle of a rapturous welcome for Sen. Clinton would be irresistible to television and could embarrass Sen. Obama.

~snip~

The Obama campaign said Monday that the Illinois senator would accept the nomination at the 76,000-seat stadium where the Denver Broncos football team plays so that thousands of nondelegates could attend. But the campaign hasn’t settled other key questions about the convention, including whether Sen. Clinton’s name will be put into nomination, said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

Sen. Clinton’s campaign office didn’t answer emails seeking comment. Under party rules, Sen. Clinton’s huge delegate count gives her the right to put her name into nomination. “But do you do it?” asked Ms. Brazile. ”Politically, does it heighten tensions?” [emphasis added]

First and foremost, the “problem” isn’t that we, Senator Clinton’s delegates and her over 18 million supporters, want and deserve the opportunity to vote for her, the problem is that you all see it as a problem. And you’re damn right that if we don’t get the chance to vote for her, we will not only “feel cheated” we will have been cheated. And trust me, if we are cheated in this way, compiled with the other numerous injustices of the primary, there will be no unity. Not now, not in November, not ever.

Second, under no circumstances will we accept some sort of “prearranged” condition under which Hillary is forced to remove her name from consideration so that the Chosen One may be exalted. Democracy isn’t a damn dog and pony show! Both names should be put into nomination. Hell, throw Edwards in there too. Speeches should be given and all delegates, automatic (super) and pledged, should be allowed to cast their ballot. Anything less is not Democracy. After all, Shirley Chisholm, the first African American and the first woman to run for the top spot of a major party received 152 votes on the first ballot and during the roll call in 1972 and she did not even win a primary state! For Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her delegates to not be given their earned opportunity and voice is unthinkable.

And as for you, Donna, I don’t give a rat’s a** what does or does not embarrass Obama. Frankly, his unbridled ambition, and inability to form a sentence without the aid of a TelePrompTer should already be embarrassing.

Embarrassment is one thing and injustice is another.

It is inconceivable that there is even discussion of not placing Hillary’s name into nomination. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first woman to ever win a presidential primary or caucus contest. Beyond that, she is the winner of the popular vote and boasts a significant delegate count. Indeed, she would be the pledged delegate leader but for unscrupulous and undemocratic happenings at the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting.

Moreover, I thought we were against “changing the rules in the middle of the game” Donna?!?! So why are there even questions when clearly, “under party rules” Senator Clinton has a right to put her name into nomination? If he’s won, then he’s won. Why the need to fix the convention and subvert Democracy (AGAIN) because the Almighty Obama won’t be fully and unequivocally worshipped? No need to answer, Donna, we already know the answer: BECAUSE HE HASN’T WON DIDDLY, FRIGGIN SQUAT!

And just in case you didn’t know, 76,000 chanting sycophants on constant kool-aid IV drip will not be enough to silence the millions of Hillary supporters. We can smell what you’re cooking from here Donna, and it stinks to high heaven.

Now more than ever, we all need to be working with The Denver Group to ensure that there is an open, free and truly democratic convention.

The goals of The Denver Group are simple:

1) An open convention.

2) Senator Clinton’s name placed in nomination. No symbolic roll call vote.

3) Speeches allowed by supporters of Senator Clinton on
behalf of her candidacy.

4) A genuine roll call vote with Senator Clinton as a legitimate candidate.

5) No coronation.

It’s a damn shame that grassroots organizations have to formed to ensure that the Democratic Party is indeed democratic.

As the threats and the insults continue, we are getting a glimpse of the intent to subjugate America’s blue collar workers, Senior Citizens, Jews, Latinos, White Women, and other groups that are no longer “of use” to the intended Marxist society. Donna Brazile proclaimed on National Television that the Democratic Party doesn’t need these voters any longer and they “can all stay home”. I am sure that is what she would like us all to do, but it is not what were are going to do. All the more reason to make certain that everyone who has been insulted, threatened or demeaned by the horror show we have witnessed in this Primary Fix votes against Barack Obama on November 4.
Much like the fear generated by the McGovern and Dukakis maniacs, only with the internet as a stark, recordable addition, the deliberate provocation of anyone who does not support Barack Obama is a good thing in the end. It ensures that the Incensed do not stay home on Election Day as Donna Brazile wishes. Being incensed, harassed and in fear always results in a healthy resistance vote.

In November, there will be no caucuses with busloads of threatening college kids terrorizing the opposition and deciding what the numbers will be. There will be no threats at the polls. Nobody will be able to stand next to you while you vote. There will be no taunting and fear. And vote you will. Just like the last times the whackjob fringe of the Democratic Party tried to threaten Americans into submission and chaos. I am grateful I have seen this play out before, because it confirms my resolve that the answer to Marxism in America will always be NO.
We can expect more harassment, insults and threats, and worse, once Hillary is forced to give her speech of “support” for Barack Obama today, for these are truly malicious followers. But in his typical delusionary Narcissist manner, Barack Obama imagines we will all fall into place. He imagines that women, for example, or Jews, or Latinos, or The Elderly do not recognize dangers to their freedom when they see it. Very well.
Savage says it all so well. So well, I really feel his work needs to be printed here in its entirety:

This entire election has been a sham. An almost comical farce in which the Mainstream Media, along with the ideological Left fringes within the Democratic Party have decided AHEAD OF TIME, who should become President of the United States. In this manner, and with full knowledge and intent, they have decided to re-write history, dismiss entire demographics, and besmirch the reputation of countless individuals, for the sake of political power and the ‘almighty dollar’. They have courted and laid with the ugly specter of sexism and anti-White racism, insulting the very same people who have literally fed them over the years, with their vast economic and moral support.As many of you may already know, Hillary Clinton has officially declared, via a letter to her supporters and to the Media, that she will suspend her campaign and endorse Barack Hussein Obama. This may seem like a very sad moment for a lot of her supporters, but it was nonetheless expected by many others (some even see it as a ’strategy for eventual victory’). The legacy of her husband’s Democratic presidency may simply be too large to casually overlook for the sake of a general election that she could probably never win as an independent. Will she serve better by running again in 4 years, after the hustler of Obama is defeated this November? The probability of this may be high, and for the sake of our Country, we should all pray that she only supports Obama with minimal effort if she wishes to somehow sustain her reputation among millions of her supporters. But this election is NOT about the Clintons’, it is about AMERICA. It is about SELF RESPECT.

ALL Americans must understand that the Media and the Democratic Party did not insult Hillary Clinton as a person, they insulted what she REPRESENTED to all of her supporters. They insulted her ‘CLASS’: White Women (and men) in particular, and Latinos in general. These two important groups were told by countless pundits that their power was minimal, that they did not matter in the “grand scheme of things”, that Latinos and Whites were being “racists” when they voted for a White woman by 60%, while they simultaneously characterized other groups (AA) who voted for Obama by 90% as “informed and motivated by the issues”. Many democratic insiders (Brazile et al) wrote columns in which they made the ridiculous case that Latinos and Whites were not as important as young and Black voters, and that “they can stay home” in November if they wish. Unfortunately for them, they seem to have overplayed their hand too far.

But African Americans were NOT spared from this lunacy either. They have been utilized by both entities (Media and Dems) as a hook and line joke, all aimed to besmirch their reputations as uninformed racists who only support Obama because of his pigmentation. They have done this by slowly convincing said community that they were somehow being attacked by White Clintonistas (soon to be McCainiacs!), who rabidly wanted to “take away” the nomination/presidency from the “Black man”. In response, they were easily duped into confirming what many White Americans suspected; that this election was going to be a referendum on race and not on policy. In other words, the Media has brought out the worst in African Americans to the surface for all to see, and have thus also encouraged the worst in the rest of America in response to them. All of it, in the name of “unity”, “change” and “hope”.

Today, we find that the Media’s objective has been realized, and that the utter marginalization of the real base of the Democratic Party has been firmly shoved aside. In return, said base is being offered the scraps of condescension and blind loyalty. After being spat upon by the countless sycophantic maniacs within the Barack Hussein Obama Campaign, they now want to visit and offer ‘roses and candy’. Almost paying homage to the Abused Wife Syndrome”, they wish to convince their counterparts that they will “never do it again” and even bluntly present the old fashioned “I can change” line, thinking that many of those who were the object of all of their hatred and scorn should now get on their knees and submit to their will. But I suggest that this time everything will be quite different.

The heart of this matter has been stabbed once to many times by the unscrupulous corporations that manhandle our populace. They now bluntly offer their victims a chance to accept their abusers back, all in the name of “the kids” or “the family”. What about the larger family (America)? What about dignity? What about honor? What about integrity? These things have always been alien to them, so don’t expect a straight answer.

Barack Hussein Obama is not a horrendous candidate BECAUSE of his skin color (some might say he is in spite of it), but race WAS and IS a factor in this election. Obama has become one of the most corrupting influences in our political/public life, exactly because of his race-baiting and dishonesty. The Media and the Democratic Party have basically insulted hundreds of years of struggle for racial solidarity and equality, by purposefully choosing the least capable Black man that they could have found within their own ranks, and have vested him with a credibility he never earned.

And now the last of the Democratic elites, the ones who had endorsed and supported Hillary Clinton all this time, are now ready to somehow pitch new arguments of why everyone should jump into Obama’s ship, even if they all disagree with his capacity and decency as a candidate (and even while it is slowly sinking). Does anyone else notice the stench of submission and servility fuming out of these individuals? If we ALL know that Obama is a bold faced liar, a thief, a sexist and a racist; does it really matter if he sells the idea of democratic policies which were not only thought out by someone else, but of which he has no power to enforce?

The anger of most Democrats who supported Clinton should be palpable today, and I submit that it will last until November. In stark contrast with Obama, McCain’s more than 30 year-long record of service to our Country has never accumulated so many ’stains’ as Obama’s own after a few years in the public eye. Of course, we all know that McCain is not the most honest man in public life (no politician is!), but in contrast with the Democrat’s now “presumptive” nominee, he is a saint. And that is the true travesty of this election, in which a mainstream party and their corporate Media have decided to pick a candidate that represents the worst that this Nation has to offer, all for the sake of “saving face”, and we are all expected to follow the cheese until we get snapped.

This election IS crucial, and it will deal with the heart and soul of this Nation. The error of following the party line behind an incompetent fool without any credentials has led us to 8 years of George W. Bush. Today, a minority of the Democratic base, along with their elite puppet masters, have chosen their own Politically Correct version of Bush and want everyone to fall in line so that he get elected. Ironically, I believe that it will indeed be the Democratic base (and independents) who will truly save this Country from the recent ignominious years of Presidential inexperience and arrogance. After all, it will be the newly formed coalition of Reagan (McCain?) Democrats who will thankfully negate the presidency to a man who truly represents 4 more years of foolishness and Bush-like egocentrics: Barack Hussein Obama.

Republicans did not listen to McCain’s pleads in the year 2000, when he told his supporters (and his party) that Bush’s rhetoric was complete nonsense and dangerously naive. But they FOOLISHLY did listen to his suggestions after he was defeated by Bush and was forced to concede and endorse him. Now, in an almost eerie similarity, many Democrats did not listen to Hillary Clinton when she warned them about Obama’s dangerous inexperience, and now they might be tempted to foolishly listen to her when she does her ‘walk of shame’ towards endorsing Obama. But history can not only change, IT HAS TO CHANGE.

Americans can not and will not follow the corrupting leadership of the Democrat’s Pied Piper. We are now at war, and I am not only referring to the one that we are engaging around the world against foreign enemies, but the one that we must all wage today to protect our homeland from those who wish to harm it from within. This reality cannot be escaped by any of us, and we have a responsibility and duty to fight it until the end. Barack Obama can not win the Presidency of the United States, unless we wish our Nation harm. The line has been drawn in the sand, and we are definitely staring into the heart of darkness that the radical left wing of the Democratic Party has in store for all of those who do not conform. They have already proven that their main objective is to bring a new era of anti-White racism, institutionalized sexism, self inflicted ignorance, reality-show messianic pretensions, and utter submission to corporate interests. For these reasons, I will NOT allow these people to achieve victory, for in their success we will all find our doom, and I expect many of you to follow my lead.

This is NOT about revenge, since most of us have no personal affinity towards Hillary Clinton, this is about HONOR. This election was NEVER about one politician over another, it has always been about symbolism. Barack Obama has proven, and our modern history has confirmed, that every single policy proposal that a politician makes while campaigning is in all true estimation IRRELEVANT to what he/she can actually achieve once he comes into office (don’t forget about the other two branches of government!). Therefore, the presidency is primarily a symbol of who we are as Americans and what values we hold dear. Obama OPENLY sells the glorification of empty change, false hopes, blatant inexperience (as if it were a virtue!), arrogance, and cultural elitism. John McCain OPENLY sells honor, patriotism, dignity, respect, humility, service, strength, and sacrifice (in his case LITERALLY). Even if we didn’t have a right to look “under the hood” of these candidacies, the RIGHT choice should be quite OBVIOUS.

In all of these issues the Democratic Party has failed it’s own members, and now it is time to teach the world a strong lesson about how true democracy works. The line HAS been drawn, and this war MUST be fought by all of us. Barack Hussein Obama, his corrupt Democratic lackeys, and their corporate media stooges CAN NOT be allowed to take control of our elections and freely choose our symbols. This November, we will save ALL of our citizens from making an even bigger mistake than the one made in the year 2000. This November, they will know the TRUE meaning of strength and dignity.

©2008 J.Cifre, J.D., of SAVAGEPOLITICS.com. All Rights Reserved.

I’m very upset by recent statements you have made about funding education by “postponing” elements of the space program. Let me tell you why this is a very ill-advised position.

1. It makes you look like an idiot.

If you do indeed postpone Orion by five years, you have effectively killed it. The project will lose its knowledgeable personnel, its production schedule will be canceled and there will then be no replacement for the 40 year old shuttle fleet. The Russians (and perhaps by then, the Chinese) will be the only nations with manned access to the ISS and to space.

2. It makes you look like an idiot.

The entire space program soaks up about 0.15 % of the federal budget, the DoD currently consumes about 31% of the federal budget (when you include the costs of our several wars). As president you could extract the entire NASA budget from the DoD budget and they wouldn’t even know it was gone, it’s a rounding error. In addition, the space program is the only government program in our nation’s history which can be shown to have paid for itself – in terms of fiscal and medical benefits derived from cutting edge technology which NASA either invented or sponsored.

3. It makes you look like an idiot.

Every self-serving, tub-thumping, ill-informed, moronic, blowhard political hack in the past fifty years has attacked NASA to herd the ‘proles’ to his side. By pandering to the Luddite, anti-intellectualism rampant in American society, they hope to send a message to the masses: “I’m one of you, I hate smart people too.” This is certainly not hopeful, nor audacious, it’s just old-time political quackery.

4. It makes you look like an idiot.

American education isn’t just about “readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmetic” so you can go out and make great gobs of money. There must be goals – great ones, dreams far larger than rolling up a nice, fat 401K. In order to meld us together as a nation, we need aspirations that demand greatness from us. Young people need to see that there is opportunity to actually accomplish their dreams and a purpose larger than earning a living.

Fools and madmen use our fear to conjure threats, precipitate useless wars and make cowards of us all. Do not be this kind of politician, we have more than enough already.

Leaders address the best that is in us, qualities we didn’t know we had and demand that we rise to meet those expectations because we can rise and we can create something new, beautiful and bold.

The space program represents those qualities of aspiration, expectation and accomplishment that we must embrace as a nation if we are to prosper and live long.

The choice you currently espouse leads, inevitably, downward, stifling creativity and handing the future to others. It is also intellectually lazy and can easily be shown to be massively counterproductive both economically and scientifically - and, it makes you look like an idiot.

You still have the chance to reverse yourself and reject the foolish counsel that proposes to cut off our future in order to make political points with fools.

It’s your choice as to what company you will keep – what will you do?

Cordially,

From: Military-Analysts List [mailto:MILITARY-ANALYSTS-L@DTIC.MIL]On
Behalf Of Murphy, Margaret, OASD-PA
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 6:05 PM
To: MILITARY-ANALYSTS-L@DTIC.MIL
Subject: DoD Talking Points - SecDef Interviews GWOT, Iraq

Attached are talking points from the Department of Defense Office of Public Affairs and two news articles.

< >

< >

< >

Following are highlights from recent media interviews of Secretary Rumsfeld.

Measuring Progress in the Global War on Terror
* The Coalition is making progress in the Global War on Terror.
* More than 80 nations have joined the Global War on Terror.

These Coalition nations are putting pressure on the terrorists by:
* Sharing intelligence.
* Putting pressure on bank accounts and making it more difficult to move money.
* Making it harder for terrorists to recruit people and retain them.
* Complicating terrorists’ ability to communicate with each other and move between countries.
* The Coalition has brought down the Abdul Qadeer Khan network.
* The network was trading in nuclear materials and technologies.
* Khan was the father of Pakistan’s gas centrifuge program. He was removed from his post as advisor to Pakistan’s prime minister for providing nuclear technology, components and equipment to Iran,
Libya and North Korea.
* Libya has come forward and decided to forego weapons of mass destruction.

America Is Safer
* America is safer today than it was on Sept. 11, 2001.
* Terrorists have been captured and killed and their cells have been disrupted.
* Forty-six of the 55 most wanted in Iraq - including Saddam Hussein and his sons Uday and Qusay — have been captured or killed.
* Close to two-thirds of known senior al-Qaeda operatives have been captured or killed.
* Thousands of terrorists and regime remnants in Iraq and Afghanistan have been hunted down, and terrorist cells on most continents have been disrupted.
* Even before Sept. 11, plans were underway to transform the Department of Defense from a post-Cold War department to a 21st century department to better face new threats.
* The Department has moved from a “threat-based” to a “capabilities-based” approach to defense planning. This means not just focusing on who might threaten the United States and where and when, but
also how we might be threatened and what capabilities are needed to deter and defend against those threats.
* The attacks on Sept. 11 prove the urgent need to transform the Department so it is better arranged for the threats and difficulties of the new century.

Troop Strength and Length of Stay in Iraq
* The date for bringing home U.S. forces is not calibrated to a calendar, it is calibrated to the circumstances on the ground and what the security situation is.
* If the situation in Iraq deteriorates because the Ba’athists and former Saddam elements become more desperate to stop representative government before the elections in Iraq, the Department will react
appropriately.
* If the situation in Iraq improves and the number of forces could be reduced, the Department will also consider that alternative.

To read transcripts of the Secretary’s July 16 interviews, go to transcript
section of Defenselink.mil (link)

Finally, the truth is seeping out. Contrary to how President George W. Bush has tried to justify the Iraq war in the past, he has now clumsily—if inadvertently—admitted that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was aimed primarily at seizing predominant influence over its oil by establishing permanent (the administration favors “enduring”) military bases.

He made this transparently clear by adding a signing statement to the defense appropriation bill, indicating that he would not be bound by the law’s prohibition against expending funds:

“(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq,” or

“(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

But, if you have been asleep for the past five years, you may ask, what about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and its ties to al-Qaeda? A recent study by the Center for Public Integrity found that Bush made 260 false claims about these in the two years following 9/11. He was followed closely by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell with 254. Nor can they any longer pretend they were deceived by faulty intelligence, since hard evidence that continues to accumulate shows they knew exactly what they were doing.

Moreover, it has become abundantly clear that the “surge” of 30,000 troops into Iraq was aimed—pure and simple—at staving off definitive defeat until Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are safely out of office. Some, but not all, of those 30,000 troops are slated for withdrawal, but those who still expect more sizable withdrawals have not been reading the tea leaves. It is altogether likely there will still be 150,000 U.S. troops, and even more than that number of contractors, in Iraq a year from now.

In the administration’s view, the oil-and-bases prize is well worth the indignity of refereeing a civil war and additional troop casualties. That view was reflected recently in the words of a well-heeled suburbanite, who suggested to me, “You must concede that a few GIs killed every week is a small price to pay for the oil we need. Many more died in Vietnam, and there wasn’t even any oil there.”

That person was unusually blunt, but I believe his thinking may be widely shared, at least subconsciously, by those Americans who are not directly affected by the war—which is to say he vast majority. It is easier to assimilate and parrot the administration’s dishonesty than to confront the reality that these are consequential lies. They bring untold death and destruction—and not only in Iraq, where several hundred thousand civilians are dead and one out of six families have been displaced—but to thousands of our fellow citizens as well.

The Human Cost

Not only have almost 4,000 American troops been killed, but another 30,000 have been wounded in action. Veterans Administration documents obtained by Veterans for Common Sense show that nearly 264,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans already have been treated at VA hospitals, including more than 100,000 for mental health conditions.

According to a Harvard University report, the VA is projected to spend up to $700 billion over the next 40 years for medical care and disability payments for veterans of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Add the billions sunk every week into the quagmire of Iraq—it is madness.

We are approaching a trillion-dollar war, while our Treasury is bankrupt, our economy is in shambles, and our infrastructure crumbles. The only things on an upward swing are the profits of oil companies…and suicides in the military.

For a fraction of the money wasted on an un-winnable occupation-cum-armed-referee-duty in Iraq, premium health care could be provided to every American, including veterans, whom we owe big time, and the almost 50 million of our brothers and sisters who lack health insurance.

The iniquities of war have widened the inequities in our society, stretching the gap between the haves and the have-nots. It is not right for me, one of the haves, to have so disproportionate a share of the nation’s wealth and opportunity. Nowhere is this more obvious than the access to excellent health care to which privilege has “entitled” me. A recently discovered challenge to my health brought this home to me like a ton of bricks.

Why Me?

The doctors said they needed more tissue from what they called the “mass” in my lower abdomen, so they could determine what kind of cancer had set up shop there. There was some sense of urgency, so just days later a surgeon made room for me at the end of a very busy New Year’s Eve.

The cutting was over; the stitches were in; the pain was slight; and there I was, wide awake in a comfortable hospital room, welcoming 2008 with painful questions.

For the hundredth time I found myself asking, Why me?

But wait—it may not be what you’re thinking.

The troubling question was why was I privileged to have prompt access to the best in medical care, when such is not available to most of our veterans and some 50 million other Americans. We are called to be concerned about our brothers and sisters. It did not seem fair.

Why was it that I could expect excellent doctors to plan a therapy regime that would probably shrink the grapefruit-sized cancerous “mass” and add still more years to my 68? What about the others? Without access to good doctors and advanced medical technology, is it likely that they would not become of their “mass” until it was the size of a melon—and perhaps too late?

Waking Up

The anesthesia had worn off, and the only real discomfort came from the dangling questions. December had brought surprise and new awareness. I needed some quiet time to process it all, and the turn of the year seemed appropriate. So I turned off the TV and scribbled what follows.

To hear I had been invaded by cancer was a bummer. But from the very start that unwelcome surprise was softened by awareness that I was one of the lucky ones. No, not “lucky”—privileged.

A health insurance card lay in the white knapsack full of privilege that I carry around with me, usually without much awareness on my part. The voice of conscience was whispering that it is not right to be unaware. One out of six Americans have no insurance card in their knapsack or in the plastic bag that serves as their chest of drawers. Is that the America of which we were once so proud?

It started with my swollen right leg. No big deal, I thought; I had simply sprained that ankle too many times playing basketball. And besides, varicose veins run in my family. Small wonder my blood was having trouble circulating down that way.

But at my annual physical my doctor saw it differently. We needed to find out what was causing the swelling. Sclerotherapy, a sophisticated, expensive procedure seemed indicated, but would my insurance cover it? It would, so we went ahead.

But the swelling got worse, suggesting some kind of blockage higher up. Enter the world of multimillion-dollar technology—CT-scan, PET-scan, and pinpointing of the mass, followed quickly by a needle biopsy. All covered by insurance.

It looked like lymphoma. But the oncologist wanted to be sure of exactly what variety of lymphoma it was before he decided what the optimum treatment regime might be. Hence, the New Year’s Eve surgery and extraction of tissue immediately dispatched to the Mayo Clinic for a thorough pathology report. See what I mean about privileged?

Stress Tests…

My thoughts went back to the thallium stress test before the surgery. The nurses injected some dye and measured my heart on an accelerating treadmill to induce stress. They encouraged me, and stood ready to catch me if I fell off. I found myself thinking of less benign ways to induce stress—stress positions, sensory deprivation, and what President Bush calls “an alternative set of procedures.” And my thoughts went to Guantanamo and the hundreds of prisoners flown there in shackles with no assurance they would survive the kind of deliberately induced stress they would encounter there.

And then they strapped me onto a narrow gurney where I had to remain still for twenty minutes while another million-dollar machine hovered low over my chest and took pictures. There were two technicians and nurses there to ensure my comfort and allay my concerns. And I thought of the gurneys of Guantanamo and the strapped-in prisoners surrounded by other kinds of folks, including physicians and psychologists who, in a mockery of the Hippocratic oath, do their best to inflict, not alleviate pain.

…and Suicide

I also thought of the two dozen Guantanamo detainees who tried to starve themselves to death two and a half years ago. They, too, were strapped onto gurneys, while thick plastic tubes were forced through their noses to force-feed enough nourishment to keep them alive, lest the Bush administration be embarrassed. On June 10, 2006 three detainees did succeed in hanging themselves, the first successful suicides after 41attempts by some 25 individual detainees.

Those detainees’ hope was for the release that comes with death; I could hope for healing.

The three who killed themselves incurred the wrath of Guantanamo commander, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., who announced that the suicides were “not an act of desperation, but an act of asymmetrical warfare against us.” In similar spirit, Colleen Graffy, deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, told the BBC that the suicides “certainly (are) a good PR move to draw attention.”

I wonder how Graffy would describe the actions of those U.S. veterans experiencing such suffering that they, too, commit suicide. A CBS study showed that in 2005 alone, 6,256 veterans of Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan took their own lives, many of them after experiencing very long waiting lines for medical treatment. That is an average of 17 suicides a day. Shame on us!

As for those on active duty, “Soldier Suicide at Record Level,” a report by the Washington Post’s Dana Priest on Jan. 31, shows that in 2007 suicides among active duty soldiers reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980.

Army 1st Lt. Elizabeth Whiteside, 25, made the most recent known suicide attempt. On Monday evening, as the president gave his State-of-the-Union address, Whiteside swallowed dozens of antidepressants and other pills, after leaving a note expressing the hope that “this will help other soldiers.” Thanks to a Good Samaritan neighbor, who quickly called Walter Reed Army Medical Center authorities, Whiteside’s survived. She has now been transferred from the intensive care unit to the psychiatric ward.

Lt. Whiteside is a high achieving graduate of the University of Virginia and had been given high ratings by her Army superiors. She decided to talk to Dana Priest late last year, after a soldier Whiteside had befriended at the psychiatric ward of Walter Reed Army Medical Center hanged herself after being discharged without benefits.

Blame

Many U.S. servicemen and women can blame their cancer on contamination from the depleted uranium used in artillery and other shells and toxic chemicals that have saturated regions of Iraq, including populated areas, leading to a spurt of cancer illnesses.

Against this background, I reflected on how fortunate I was that the cause of the cancer that had invaded me would probably remain a mystery. I wondered how it would feel to be able to trace a fatal disease to the instruments of war; how it would feel to be an Iraqi parent watching a child die of cancer, or living in fear that a new child might be born with serious birth defects.

No, I cannot blame my illness on someone’s negligence, or cavalier disregard of the consequences of highly toxic weaponry. But thousands of Iraqis can. And so, too, can those U.S. troops who have served in Afghanistan and Iraq—including in the virtually “casualty-less” Gulf War in 1991. How many Americans are aware that, of the almost 700,000 deployed to theater during the 1991 Gulf War, roughly one in three has sought medical care from the VA?

You didn’t know that? Please ask yourself why.

Higher Powers and Favorite Philosophers

President Bush has recently taken to talking again about his “higher power” and redemption.

The higher power with whom I try to stay in touch is concerned first and foremost with justice and then (only then) peace. In the biblical sense, peace is no more nor less than the experience of justice.

I would guess the Bush’s higher power was appalled at the Coliseum-type spectacle Monday evening, as the President of the United States played cheerleader for Team America killing still more people—to standing ovations from his supporters in Congress.

Nor would the person President Bush has called his “favorite political philosopher,” Jesus of Nazareth, be likely to endorse the spectacle, much less join in. He had a pretty clear take on all this.

As we reflect on the growing inequality in this country, manifested so clearly in whether or not one has access to quality health care, we might remind the president of what his favorite philosopher had to say about goats—not as in “My Pet Goat,” but goats portrayed as lining up for a serious, long-term “alternative set of procedures.”

And the goats will turn and ask: ‘Lord, when did we see you…ill…and not attend to your needs?’
And he will answer: ‘As often as you neglected to do it for the least of these, you neglected to do it for me.’ (Matthew 25)
————————————————
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the Sixties and then a CIA analyst for 27 years. In Jan. 2003, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

A shorter version of this article was posted Thursday on Consortiumnews.com.

Doug Hoschek sells the Army’s elite Special Forces a T-shirt that resists burning — a feature that can save the lives of soldiers under fire.

He wanted to sell his creation to the Marines, as well. Working out of his Sammamish home, the seasoned garment maker toiled for months preparing to bid.

But Hoschek was stunned to learn recently that another company, InSport International, snagged the T-shirt contracts without having to compete. [...]

The lobbying worked, despite a flaw with InSport’s synthetic T-shirt. It melts to the skin under intense heat, causing serious burns. As a result, Marines are forbidden from wearing the shirts in combat.

More from the story:

Earmarks, he said, cheat businesses that play by the rules. They not only deprive the military of getting the best price, he said, but can saddle soldiers with inferior products that politicians handpick.

It’s not supposed to work that way. Federal law requires that all military contracts, even earmarks, be offered through competitive bidding. Exceptions are allowed in those few cases in which the military has an urgent need or the product is unique.

But in case after case, The Seattle Times found, earmark contracts were awarded without competition.

Agency officials often believe they have no choice. Congress controls the size and makeup of their budgets. So government agencies have a stake in keeping lawmakers happy and in keeping their pork-barrel projects intact.

Federal workers who do try to follow federal procurement laws can come under pressure if, in going by the book, they anger members of Congress, said Sandra Sieber, former director of the Army Contracting Agency.

“It’s a difficult choice,” she said.

Such was the case of a top Pentagon officer, Cheryl Roby, who didn’t give a $2 million earmark to a company selected by former California Congressman Randall “Duke” Cunningham.

Cunningham summoned her to his office, scolded her for “not executing my vision,” and later tried to get her fired.

As a result of Cunningham’s threats, a Roby underling began routinely asking congressional appropriations staffers which company was supposed to be rewarded with each earmark, according to court documents. … (Read all.)

What else is on your minds? What else have you read today?

Larry C Johnson

Keith Olbermann, once again, demonstrates why he is our Edward Murrow. A voice of reason, truth, and conscience. The execrable letter that Under Secretary of Defense Eric Edelman sent to Senator Clinton accusing her of helping “enemy” propagandists by merely asking about withdrawal contingency plans. Well fuck you very much Eric Edelman. He has forfeited his right to serve as the Under Secretary of Defense. If the Congress allows this cretin to remain in office then we must seriously ask why Democrats can be entrusted to govern. Hillary is not turning the other cheek. She’s hitting back and hitting hard.  Senator Kerry also manned up and defended Hillary.  Where the hell are the rest of the Democrats?
Check out Keith’s comment.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMfw65WY4Ug[/youtube]

McCaskill, Webb call for war profiteering investigations

Senators Claire McCaskill and James Webb have called for the formation of an independent commission to investigate war profiteering in this country. The effort would be similar to one that was formed by Harry Truman during World War II, whose work on that issue was instrumental in preventing it from ever being a serious problem.

And, if you reacted like I did to the news of NFL quarterback Michael Vicks’ active participation in a major, “grisly” dog-fighting operation, let the NFL know what you think.

Check out the blog of HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle for all the details (warning: it is difficult to read about).

Larry C Johnson

Today’s release of the unclassified summary of the National Intelligence Estimate, Terrorist Threat to the US Homeland, is a black eye for the Bush Administration propaganda campaign that Iraq is making America safer. Despite White House efforts to persuade the public that we are vanquishing Al Qaeda, the intelligence community sees things differently. It is the equivalent of George Bush trying to pass off a pig wearing lipstick as a foxy debutante, but frantic spin notwithstanding the naked critter is still a pig.

Here are the two critical key judgments from the estimate:

We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. We assess that al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups.

Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the Homeland. In addition, we assess that its association with AQI helps al-Qa’ida to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources, and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks.

It is important to understand that work on this NIE started in November 2006 and circulated in April/May 2007 for comment; so it is not reflecting new, startling intelligence. The Senators and Representatives with access to the classified portions of the NIE need to ask some tough questions. For starters, what is the evidence that Al Qaeda has “regenerated” its ability to attack the continental United States? I am skeptical of this claim because we have witnessed a marked decline in mass casualty terrorist attacks outside of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006.

Set aside the Bush Administration rhetoric on terrorism and look at its actions. In November 2001, when Osama Bin Laden was surrounded in Tora Bora, the CIA officer leading the charge, Gary Berntsen, called for reinforcements to finish off the Al Qaeda Chief. General Tommy Franks and General Dell Dailey turned him down. Bin Laden escaped.

Several recent books, including Woodward’s State of Denial, document that George Bush directed Secretary of Defense to start planning the invasion of Iraq in October of 2001. The focus on Iraq took Al Qaeda off of the hook.

George Bush and his apologists keep insisting that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. While there are individuals in Iraq who would consider themselves affiliated in some fashion with Bin Laden, the fact is that most of the violence is sectarian in nature and has little to do with Al Qaeda. I was in Iraq a year ago with the U.S. military forces who are devoting their energies to tracking down and killing AQ operatives. Despite a steady body count and capture of suspects, the overall level of violence in Iraq has continued to rise. In other words, success in killing and capturing suspected AQ operatives is having no effect on stemming the rise in violence.

Why is Bin Laden and his number two, Ayman Zawahair, still running free? The answer is pretty simple–the Bush Administration has not made their capture or elimination a priority. Here we are approaching the six year anniversary of the 9-11 attacks and there still is no one in charge of hunting down the Al Qaeda leaders. CIA is working the issue as are U.S. special operations forces. But the full panoply of the U.S. Government’s resources have not been marshaled nor organized. If you are going to have a Czar in the White House then for my money it ought to be a “Where in the World is Osama” Czar.

The folks ostensibly responsible for coordinating the counter terrorism effort–Fran Townsend and her clumsy deputy, Juan Zarate–are over their heads and incapable of swimming in deep water. I have no personal animus against either, but good friends throughout the national security bureaucracy describe the two of them as incompetent. Someone is supposed to harness the energy of the CIA, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State and create a coherent strategy. But they have failed to do so and no one else has stepped into the void. Therefore we should not be surprised that Al Qaeda reportedly is thriving in the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan.

Check out whitehouse.gov. Terrorism is not listed as one of the key focus issues on the left side of the page. That speaks volumes. George Bush does not get briefed every morning on the status of the hunt for Bin Laden. Knowledgeable friends still on the inside tell me that he is not demanding progress reports. Finding Bin Laden is not a priority issue for Bush.

Perhaps George Bush needs to go back and review his notes from Harvard Business School. Set a goal, organize the necessary resources to accomplish the goal, and make it a priority. But as Al Qaeda regenerates what is President Bush going to do? He has his August vacation in Crawford to worry about. That is his true priority.