30,000 Detainees Still Held Without Trial & Tortured in Iraq

One of the almost completely unreported negative consequences of the American misadventure in Iraq, and current handover of control to Iraqi Forces, is exactly how that nation's sadly dysfunctional government has been handling the tens of thousands of suspected insurgents, al Qeada wannabes and political dissidents that we've delivered on their doorstep as the U.S. gradually slide out through the side door.

And the prognosis is not pleasant as detailed in a new Amnesty International Report - "New Iraq, Same Old Abuses".



From Democracy Now

MALCOLM SMART (Amnesty International) : Well, I think part of the problem is really a problem of impunity. This has been going on for all too long, and there’s a culture of abuse that has taken root. It was certainly there during the days of Saddam Hussein, but what we wanted to see from 2003 was a turning of the page, and that hasn’t happened. So we see secret prisons, people being tortured and ill-treated, being forced to make confessions. And the courts, although routinely detainees claim that they were made to sign false confessions, the courts are really not investigating those and coming to grips with them. And the perpetrators are not being held to account. They’re not being identified. On a number of occasions, the government has reacted by saying it will appoint inquiries after secret prisons have been disclosed and their locations have been found and prisoners in them have been found to be in a very severely ill-treated position. But the outcomes of those investigations have not been made known.

AMY GOODMAN: Deaths in custody?

MALCOLM SMART: Likewise with deaths in custody. We have in our report details of several cases where deaths are alleged to have occurred as a result of torture or ill treatment. Now, the standard practice of any authority in that situation, required by national law and required by international law, is to carry out an independent investigation. What were the causes, what was the circumstances, of the death? Now, this hasn’t happened. And again, we’re calling attention to the need for the government to show the political will to take measures against the torturers.

AMY GOODMAN: Malcolm, there were 10,000 prisoners, in your Amnesty report, transferred from US custody in Iraq to Iraqi custody—US basically transferring prisoners to a system that tortures them, unclear what happened to them in US custody.

MALCOLM SMART: Well, part of the problem with the situation has been that the US forces have been detaining people. And, of course, we know from the days of Abu Ghraib and so on, their record has not been a good one. It’s been improved in recent times, but at least—so there was some control over the prisons exercised by the US.

Since the beginning of 2009, under what’s called the Status of Forces Agreement, the two governments agreed to transfer custody of the prisons and prisoners to the Iraqi forces. Now, many of those detainees held by the US forces had been held without charge or trial for years without any means to challenge their detention. We’ve not made the claim that all those people are innocent of crimes. If they are accused of crimes, they should be held to account in accordance with international fair trial standards. But many detainees say they’ve been arrested for reasons that they don’t know, on the basis of information from secret informants who themselves may have been tortured or brutalized and named names of people. So, there’s not been an independent process. And here, we saw this Status of Forces Agreement at the end of 2008 making the way for the transfer, with no human rights safeguards written into that, although, quite clearly, US forces know that the record of Iraqi forces is a very grim one.

Now, President Bush started this mess when he tossed the Army Field Manual in the trash heap and pried open pandora's box for military and consultant abuses to begin, but now as more and more prisoners have been leaving U.S. custody and movin into Iraqi custody exactly what rules and management is being maintained to protect the rights of the accused in this country remains unclear, and not likely to improve in the near future, just like the lack of consistent electricity or sewage handling through many of the cities.

As of now the U.S. has only about 200 in it's custody.

Here's video an interview with the wife and mother of two Iraqi victims who describes the torture her husband has endured, including suffocation, electro-shock and a threat to sign a confession of his "crimes" or else be forced to rape his 13 year-old own grandson.



This is an ongoing human rights catastrophe of our own making, and again - as we continue to give up power and place responsibility for this in the hands of an Iraqi Government that has been completely unable to function or form some type of governing coalition - the odds of correcting this remain slim.

Why was it that we deposed and executed Saddam again exactly?

Vyan

How Conservatives Ignore Bush 85% Failure Record on Military Tribunals and Torture

We've heard a whole lot of blather over the last few weeks about how the Fruit-of-the-Boom Attacker should've been dragged by Air Marshals off a U.S. Airplane in Detriot straight to Gitmo, Do not pass "Go" - do not collect your Miranda.

We've been told that we should do it the way Bush did it.

But the facts are that the Bush Administration had an 88% success rate prosecuting terrorists in civilian court while in military tribunals the FAILURE rate so far has been ... 85%.

Yeah, that's some FAIL we need more of.

Via the U.K. Guardian.

The Bush administration -- in which Liz Cheney's papa held a fairly high position, you might recall -- prosecuted, after 9-11, 828 people on terrorism charges in civilian courts. At the time of publication of this excellent report from the Center on Law and Security, NYU School of Law last year, trials were still pending against 235 of those folks. That leaves 593 resolved indictments, of which 523 were convicted of some crime, for a conviction rate of 88%.

With regard to military tribunals, the Bush administration inaugurated 20 such cases. So far just three convictions have been won. The highest-profile is the conviction of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver. The Hamdan legal saga, rehearsed here, doesn't exactly suggest that military tribunals provide swifter and surer and tougher justice. In the end, he was convicted all right, but sentenced -- not by a bunch of New York City Democrats, but by a military jury! -- to five and half years.

Then, the tribunal judge, a US Navy captain, gave Hamdan credit for time served, which was five years. So he served six months after conviction. Today he's back in -- guess where? -- Yemen.

Typical Conservative Opposite World Logic - rather than do what works, reaches justice and protects the nation 88% of time, they'd rather do what hasn't worked in 85% of the attempted cases, and even when it has worked the suspect was ultimately released for time served after only SIX MONTHS.

But let's not dance around the sad ugly truth here - the real reason that Conservatives want to have the Military handle these cases is because they believe that Only The Military can "Sweat those Terrorist Secrets Out of Them" - like Jack Bauer in a badly thought out scene for "24".

Just listen to Giu-Liar-ani talk about how "We should still be interrogating" abdulMuttalab with the military even though from all indications he's already talking to us.

Guiliiani: They only talked to him for 30 Hours? My question is why would you ever stop it? In the Military they wouldn't have a time limit to talk to him.

Actually the fact is they don't have to stop it. Even with Miranda in place or a lawyer present they can ask him all kinds of things about al Qeada's functioning as long as it's not about his own case, or going to be used in court against him. (That's what the Fifth Amendment from that Pesky Constitution is all about)

His attorney's only requirement is to protect his client, not to protect al Qeada. In fact, it's because of what abdulMuttalab has told us - without the Military - that we even know that former Gitmo detainees were involved in his training in Yemen.

Guiliani is a former Assistant Attorney General and Federal Prosecutor - he should know better than this. He really should. But for the sake of Partisan Politics he pretends he doesn't know that law or how our Justice system works. It's pathetic.

Anyone who'se ever sat halfway though an episode of Mattlock should know this stuff.

Let also point out the kind of "extended interrogations" that Ghouliani is talking about - something which is far beyond what would be allowed for any P.O.W. under Geneva (ie Name, Rank, Serial Number)- are likely to be thrown out even in a Military Tribunal setting and not admissible, ending in a ruined case just as it did in the case one living accused 9-11 Hijacker Mohommad al-Qhatani.

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case" for prosecution. [...]

Oh, and one more thing -- according to FBI (Ali Soufan) and Military (Matthew Alexander) Interrogators who did get us actionable information after 9-11 and in Iraq Torture Doesn't Work at giving us accurate information, besides the fact it's inadmissible in ANY court.



From Salon.com

WASHINGTON -- The testimony of a key witness at a Senate hearing Wednesday raised serious questions about the truthfulness of former President George W. Bush's own personal defense of the CIA's brutal interrogation program. Former FBI agent Ali Soufan also indicated that the harsh interrogation techniques may actually have hindered the collection of intelligence, causing a high-value prisoner to stop cooperating.

In the first congressional hearing on torture since the release of Bush administration memos that provided the legal justification for torture, Soufan told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the CIA's abusive techniques were "ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaida." According to Soufan, his own nonviolent interrogation of an al-Qaida suspect was quickly yielding valuable, actionable intelligence -- until the CIA intervened.

This is NOT the road we need to be running blindly back down. As has been posted in another diary - Obama's Approval Rating on his handling of the attempted Detroit Plane Bombing is 57% favorable.

What Obama's doing isn't broke, so don't fix it.

Vysn

Rudolph Giu-Liar-ani is Still Full Of It on Terrorism

After his inserted his foot up to his back molar on Good Morning America by claiming "Bush had No Domestic Attacks" - Rudy Gui-9/11-iani decided to do some damaged control on CNN, and managed to steer right into the high weeds.



Via Crooks and Liars

Rudy Giuliani came on The Situation Room to attempt to clarify his remarks on Good Morning America and still has his facts wrong. John's right. The media needs to give this liar a time out. Rudy now wants us to believe that he meant to say we weren't attacked since Sept. 11th on George Bush's watch. When asked about the anthrax attacks, Giuliani claims that wasn't a terrorist attack because the FBI didn't ever figure out who did it, and it "was not done in the name of Islamic terrorism".

Of course Blitzer didn't point out how utterly ridiculous that statement is, or some of the other domestic terrorist attacks that happened on Bush's watch as well, so he didn't do much better than George Stephanopoulos' bit of stenography on Good Morning America.

The FBI doesn't know who did the Anthrax Attack? Not according to WSJ

WASHINGTON -- In a series of court documents that were at turns chilling and bizarre, federal investigators said U.S. Army microbiologist Bruce E. Ivins misled government agents investigating the 2001 anthrax mailings, sent emails with language closely matching the handwritten letters sent to victims and had access to the strain of anthrax used in the crime.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation says the evidence, including hundreds of pages of unsealed documents, proves that Dr. Ivins was the sole person responsible for the 2001 anthrax mailings. Many of the documents contain previously unknown details and shed fresh light on the seven-year investigation, one of the most complex and controversial undertaken by federal law enforcement.

The only reason this suspect hasn't been brought to Justice is because he committed suicide as soon as it was announced that he was the chief suspect.

Guiliani's arguement is that we didn't have another Islamic Terrorist Attack since since 9-11, except for Fort Hood - and his evidence that Maj Hasan was a "islamic terrorist" is simply the fact he (allegedly) spoke in arabic during the attack - an allegation which has been disputed.

This he claims despite the fact that the FBI had already investigated and cleared Maj. Hasan of any terrorist affiliation.

Guiliani also goes on to say that Obama is making a mistake by calling it a "War on Al Qaeada" becasue there are other terrorist organizations out there such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and there are individuals who may be inspired by Islamic extremism besides those specifically allied with al Qeada.

If your going to include people "inspired" by al Qeada (which is clearly an attempt to pull Maj Hasan into the mix) you would then have to include things like the DC Sniper, the SUV attack on campus of UNC, the attack at LAX, the shooting of Army Recruiters in Little Rock and the planned attack on Ft. Dix - all of which occurred on Bush's watch as pointed out here by Lawrence O'Donnell on Countdown.



If that doesn't work for you here's a chart showing the number of terrorist attacks during the last three Presidents via Bob Cesca.





So much for "Bush Kept us Safe" - either before or after 9-11.

And if you really look into the numbers it seems we have a lot more to worry about from Domestic Terrorists affiliated with groups like the Army of God such as Scott Reoder or wack-jobs like the Holocaust Museum Shooter than al Qeada.

The other argument the Guiliani makes which is equally ridiculous and frankly for more dangerous, is the idea that U.S. Intelligence Offices can't talk to abdulMuttalab because he's been arranged in Federal Court. The fact is they absolutely CAN talk to him all they want to, especially if what their asking him about has nothing to do with presenting any evidence against him in court.

Yes, it might be necessary to have his attorney in the room during questioning if he requests it - but the FBI or CIA can talk to him all they want - they simply can't use what he says against him in his own case. What he says about other people is all fair game.

Giuliani is arguing that Miranda and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments shouldn't apply to this guy and that he should be treated as a Military Prisoner of War - but if he were a P.O.W. the only things that you could ask him, "Under the Laws Of War" (as Joe Lieberman recently claimed we should be using) - would NAME, RANK and SERIAL NUMBER.

The "Laws of War" are the Geneva Conventions.

It's really disappointing that Giuliani, who is a former Federal Prosecutor, seems to have lost all faith in the American Justice System - for a Partisan Jack Bauer Wet-Dream.

Vyan

Repubs Discover that Obama is at War

In recent days, Dick Cheney and his Republican buddies have been claiming that President Obama not only refuses to say we are at war with terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, but won’t even talk about terrorism at all. Their claim, however, has no basis in reality. In fact, as this brief compilation of video clips from 27 different Presidential speeches shows, the exact opposite is true.

Keep in mind that while this video features snippets from over two dozen different speeches (including at least one from each month of Obama’s presidency), it represents only a small fraction of what the President has said about terrorism and national security. In other words, Dick Cheney’s claim that President Obama poses a threat to American security is every bit as accurate as his claim that Iraqi WMD posed a threat to the entire world.

Yeah, like he hasn't mentioned it - RIGHT! Are Republicans just Stupid or Deluded?

Vyan

Counter-Terrorism Chief Brennan Smacks Cheney on Terrorism

It's about time a grown-up finally appeared in the room... This is National Security Counter-Terrorism Chief John Brennan (who now holds Richard Clarke's former post) responding to issues raised by former Vice-President (And Unindited War Criminal) Dick Cheney.

BRENNAN: It’s disappointing to me that either the vice president or others have willfully mischaracterized President Obama’s position and actions or they’re just ignorant of the facts.

He's being gentlemanly here but there are only two choices; Either Cheney is Ignorant (and thereby irresponsible to speak without the facts) or A LIAR (Willful Mischaracterizer!)

Brennan via Thinkprogress.

BRENNAN: It’s disappointing to me that either the vice president or others have willfully mischaracterized President Obama’s position and actions or they’re just ignorant of the facts. I think in either case, it doesn’t speak well to sort of the reasons why they sort of went out and said these things. I came back into government for the express purpose of making sure that we can make this country safer than its ever been in the past. I have worked with the president over the past 12 months now and he is as determined as anybody I’ve worked with. I’m neither Republican nor Democrat. I’ve worked with the previous five administrations and this president is determined. And I think he has demonstrated in his language. He says we’re at war with al Qaeda. Were going to destroy al Qaeda the organization and we’re going to demonstrate through our actions, whether it be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and other places that al Qaeda might be able to run, but they’re not going to be able to hide.

More Brennan from Meet The Press

MR. GREGORY: Republicans have been very critical of this president and accuse him of returning to a pre-9/11 mentality, of becoming lax in the face of terror, of essentially letting America's guard down. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said this to Politico this past week. Let me put his comment up on the screen. "As I've watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won't be at war. ... He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of September 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core al-Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won't be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, `war on terror,' we won't be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." How do you respond to that?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm very disappointed in the vice president's comments. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I've worked for the past five administrations. And either the vice president is willfully mischaracterizing this president's position, both in terms of the language he uses and the actions he taken--he's taken, or he's ignorant of the facts. And in either case, it doesn't speak well of what the vice president's doing. The clear evidence is that this president has been very, very strong. In his inaugural address, he said, "We're at war with this international network of terrorists." We continue to say that we're at war with al-Qaeda. We're trying to give it some clarity. And we have taken the fight to them. We've continued, in fact, many of the, of the activities of the previous administration. I would not have come back into this government if I felt that this president was not committed to prosecuting this war against al-Qaeda. And every day I see it in the president's face, I see it in the actions he's taken, and so I'm confident that this country is, in fact, protected by this president's position on al-Qaeda and against terrorist activities. We're going to continue to do this, we're going to do it hard, we're going to do it constantly.

Watching the entire program Brennan slapped back hard at any suggestion that President Obama was in any way unserious about doing the rest thing and the best things to protect this nation from future attacks and to seek justice against those who perpetrate such attacks.

The Yemeni/Al Qeada strongholds which are most likely to have spawned the Christmas Day Attack have already been bombed into dust with many of the leaders of that faction of AQ being killed and rendered "on the run" by Yemeni forces. Brennan spoke extensively about how the Administration has already been focusing heavily on Yemen and making great progress there.

This is how a professional behaves - this is non-partisanship - as contrasted by the horrible performance by the top politicos from the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees, who for the record happen to be Joe Lieberman (Senate-Chairman), Susan Collins (Senate-Ranking Members), Jane Harmon (House-Chair) and Pete Hoekstra (House-Ranking Member).

Let's start with Lieberman:

Sen. Joe Lieberman believes that Guantanamo Bay's bad reputation isn't deserved. "You could not find a better, more humane facility for a detention center in the world," Lieberman told ABC's Terry Moran Sunday.

Lieberman thinks it's a mistake to close the detention center. "The president is in charge of what happens there now so some of the abuses of the past are not going to happen [in the future]," said Lieberman.

So Lieberman thinks Gitmo is fine and dandy - and further during this program he stated that Christmas Bomber AdulMuttabu shouldn't be tried in court but instead as a Prisoner of War by a Military Commission so that he can be mined for Intelligence Resources without the protection of Miranda.

One problem with that, he wasn't captured on a "Battlefield" - he was captured on U.S. Soil on an American Airplane by U.S. Air Marshals, not the U.S. Military. He's being handled by the Department of Justice because that's who has custody of him - is Lieberman really suggesting that we should have U.S. Troops patrolling our Airports and Airplans?

Posse Commitatus Much?

Have none of these people ever paid attention to how the U.S. Justice System has been taking down organized crime for decades? They didn't "sweat it out of them" - very often they cut them deal for a lesser or reduced sentence in exchange for valuable verifiable information.

Why is it that the only thing these people seem to be able to conceive is some kind of Jack Bauer/24 Non-Justice - don't they ever watch programs like CSI where it's not the suspect or witnesses statements that count as much as the physical and trace evidence?

All of the Congress-Critters present seemed to think that the warning offered by Muttalab's father was more than credible and sufficient to have his already valid Visa revoked and his named moved to the No-Fly List - Even without anyone checking to see if this Claim was Correct!

A claim and an allegation is not "EVIDENCE*.

This ridiculous suggestion is how people like Cat Stevens (Yusef Islam), former Vice-President Al Gore and Nelson Mandela wound up on the Watch and No-Fly List. A panicked Chicken-Little response is more likely to alienate those who might want to come forward and help us, just as the likelihood that his son would wind up detained indefinitely without charges in a Black Site or GITMO would deter future father's and family members from coming forward with tips about their relatives extremist allegiances.

And then you had Hoekstra the Jokestra attempting to defend his attempts to use an attempted terrorist attacks as an opportunity to raise funds.



Hoeksta didn't back off one iota, and claims to be "fully substantiated" in his Security claims - yet Hoekstra, along with Rick (Man-on-Dog) Santorum - formerly claimed that we really *DID* find WMD's in Iraq!




I am so glad that the person making the decisions on these issues are people like Brennan and not grand-standing ass-clowns like Lieberman and Hoeksta.

Vyan

Why do Republicans Hate the Constitution?

Here on Hardball you have Ron Christie beating the Republican Drum that the problem with Obama is that he's trying to Use the Constitution to fight Terrorism?



This just aired today and trascript is not up yet - but please watch to see how Joan Walsh put this little Golem wannabe in his place.

Cheney:

As I’ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won’t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of 9/11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won’t be at war.

Yeah, That would be just like the Lawyer and Trial the Bush Administration gave to Richard Reid the last person to use PETN to try and blow up an American Plane? Or how about Jose Padilla? Or how about the other 200 plus terrorism suspects who're were succesfully tried and convicted - yes, even during the Bush Administration?

Meanwhile it seems that the "Masterminds" behind the Underwear-Bomb Plot were released form Gitmo by Bush against the advice of the Military that they represented a continued threat?

Brian Ross of ABC News reports that two of the four men behind the plot to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day were actually prisoners of the United States and that, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, were released into a Saudi art rehabilitation program.

According to Defense Department records, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi (now known as Muhamad al-Awfi) and Said Ali Shari were released from detention at Guantanamo Bay in 2007 despite allegations of material support for military operations in Afghanistan. Naturally, they were never tried on those charges and al-Awfi reportedly was refused access to his own passport to refute allegations made against him. Shari was reportedly killed in an airstrike on Christmas Eve, and is suspected in the murder of 6 Christian missionaries in Yemen.

Both the families of al-Awfi and Shari attribute their radicalization to their years in detention at Guantanamo Bay.

Let's repeat this point - these guys were NOT terrorist before they were detained at Gitmo as quite a bit of evidence has shown many of those held there are completely innocent, but the experience of being unlawfully detained (and very likely mistreated) was itself the Spark that radicalized these men and led to the Christmas attack.

And Cheney thinks this is what we need to keep doing?

Also Abdul Muttalab received his Visa and Passport and traveled to the U.S. TWICE under the Bush/Cheney Administration.

Sadly this lunacy is not just coming from Cheney, there's also Gingrinch.

In the Obama Administration, protecting the rights of terrorists has been more important than protecting the lives of Americans. That must now change decisively. It is time to know more about would-be terrorists, to profile for terrorists and to actively discriminate based on suspicious terrorist information.

And there's Karl (Unsanctified Marriage Quitter) Rove.

CARLSON: This President was not notified until three hours after this incident became known. Is that a long time? It seems like a long time.

ROVE: Look, they woke him up immediately to tell him he won the Nobel Prize but couldn’t bother to interrupt his vacation for three hours to tell him a terrorist tried to bring down a plane on Christmas Day. And the President waits 72 hours before we hear from him, and it’s over 72 hours from the time of the incident to the time that the President spoke today, and then the President said some things that are simply not true.

President Bush didn't respond to the Richard Reid Shoe Bomber attack until 6 days later, and only because he was asked about it by a reporter at the end of a press conference - he never made Any kind of formal statement on it.

This bull is what we get from the people behind the President who didn't come off his vacation when he received the August 6th PDB that said "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack the U.S."

They got some nerve.

Eric Massa on Ed Responds to Cheney and Christie.

Massa: I'm sick and tired of the former Vice President taking shots at this administration for the creation of problems he was largely responsible for. It's like he has Political Tourettes!

Again despite what Matthew's claims Massa isn't the only one pushing back on this hard - The White House has Slammed Back.

To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

Bellicose Attack is all the have, particularly when it's Republican Senator Jim Demint who is currently blocking the confirmation of the new TSA Head. It's been Republicans in Congress who've blocked funding and deployment for bomb sniffing equipment and full body scanners - yet they think they have credibility on "Fighting Terror"?

What's their solution : Call Jack Bauer?

The repeated whine coming from all of these Neo-cons is that Foreign Fighters shouldn't be subject to the protections of the Constitution - because if they get "Miranda Rights" and the ability to "Remain Silent" to cross examine witness and present evidence in their defense - it's BAD FOR AMERICA?

Really?

When people like Cheney and Gingrich and even Rove were sworn in to their government jobs they didn't swear to protect the American people, they didn't swear to protect American buildings, they didn't swear to protect Aircraft - THEY SWORE TO PROTECT THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION.

Yet repeatedly the first thing they want to jettison in the face of each and every threat - no matter how incompetently executed - is run screaming from the Constitution at the highest speed possible.

And here's an example of Alan Colmes handing a serious Smack-Down to Wingnut Talking Points on Terrorism. Nice Job Alan.

Tantaros: But the point now is that we cannot discount this, we cannot use terms like 'manmade disaster' and go after -- it seems like this administration is more interested in going after Republicans, and going after the previous administration, than going after our real enemies. When you say, 'Don't blame Barack Obama' --

Colmes: That is an outrageous smear, an outrageous smear against an administration that's trying to do the right thing, that cares about this country. The implication that this administration or Democrats don't love America, don't want to protect America, don't want to protect the American people -- that's an outrageous smear against Democrats.

Tantaros: Alan, I don't blame just Barack Obama, like you said, Alan. I blame you, I blame Nancy Pelosi, and I blame the left and the liberals who are trying to weaken our country.

"Weaken the Country?" by having the country not just TALK TOUGH but actually Be Tough enough to live up to it's ideals and values instead of cowering in fear?

Republicans and Republicans ONLY want to pretend this is a debatable point, but it's not - not since the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision which determined that even "Enemy Combatants" were indeed protected by the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions.

The Supreme Court announced its decision on 29 June 2006. The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President George W. Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Conventions.

I think that tells everything we really need to know about these Patriotic Pimps.

Vyan

Interview with Innocent Former Gitmo Detainee

Released by order of a Federal Judge last November, Lakhdar Boumediene, whose case went all the way to the Supreme Court and re-established Habeas Protection for Foreign Combatants was interviewed by ABC after seven years of unlawful and unjustified detainee at GITMO.

Vyan

Former Gitmo Prosecutor Quits in Disgust

For all the Bushies who think that Gitmo should remain open - this former Military Prosecutor explains that the case files are a shambles and that there IS NO EVIDENCE against many who've been held there and mistreated for years - including some who are children.

Vyan

Caribou Barbie Thinks we owe Bush our Thanks...

Today at the Republican Governors Association Sarahcuda Palin, the VP loser who just won't get the Hell off the TV, after stating repeatedly in her exclusive interview wtih Greta Van Susteren, and her exclusive interview with Matt Lauer, and her other exclusive interview with Larry King that's it's hard to win when people want CHANGE and you're in the same party as President Bush...

she now says that we owe Bush our THANKS FOR PROTECTING AMERICA. Oh Really?

PALIN: In politics, people sometimes go to great lengths to avoid stating the obvious, but I think it’s about time that we all remembered that the greatest measure of a president is whether he protected and defended this great country. America’s 43rd president took that foremost responsibility, that most important charge, seriously. He poured his life into it. He succeeded in keeping America safe from another attack.

I’m thankful he is my soldier son’s commander in chief and for that, I say God bless George W. Bush, and I thank you, Mr. President.

Ok, even if you ignore the obvious fact that Track Palin would not be in Iraq right now if it weren't for George Bush's HUNDREDS OF LIES to the American people about Saddam Hussein - the truth is that George Bush Failed to protect America.

After the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1992, President Clinton tracked down and captured the bomber, Ramzi Yousef. Bush didn't catch bin Laden. Besides catching Yousef, Clinton then thwarted multiple plans against the U.S., including the bombing of multiple planes over the pacific ocean, the bombing of the Holland Tunnel and the bombing of LAX during the Millenium Celebration. And they didn't illegally kidnap or torture *anyone* in order to do it. America was NOT attacked for 9 years after the first WTC bomb, so the person we should thank is Bill Clinton - but that doesn't mean they weren't *planning* another attack - they were. Bush knew it, he was repeatedly warned by both Richard Clark and George Tenet - but he DIDN"T DO JACK SHIT about it.

August 6, PDB: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America." :

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] service at the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning hisown U.S. attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

AI Qaeda members -- including same who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains asupport structure that could aid attacks.

Two Al Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

(This is quoted in it's entirety because a) people really do need to see the entire thing considering how long we've been lied to about it and b) it's been declassified, publically released and is a now a public domain document)

This is the document that Condoleeza Rice claimed was "Historical" and didn't indicate any future attacks - but LOOK AT IT. It specifically says that Bin Laden wants to Repeat Yousef's Attack on the World Trade Center, that they had operatives inside the U.S., that they planned to hijack U.S. planes -- that they planned to attack Washington -- they had everything but the date of the attack right in front of them.

If "protecting the nation" (instead of the Constitution which is what the Presidential oath states) is a President's foremost responsibility - then George W. Bush competely and utterly failed on both counts. He didn't protect the nation, and he didn't protect the Constitution.

Vyan

Wherein the Appeasement-Gate Canard is Smashed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHliQNZcmi8



The argument that simply speaking with the leaders of countries we disagree with being "appeasment", some type of surrender or traitorous behavior is simply ridiculous on it's face. It's false bravado, bully diplomacy done at the barrel of a gun and the dull plodding thoughlessness of a charging Rhino.

Most High School students, those with a better knowledge of Presidential History than Dana Perino, understand that Kennedy talked to Kruschev. Nixon talked to Mao, Reagan talked to Gorbachev, George H.W. Bush (via Rumsfeld) talked to Saddam, Bill Clinton's people talked to Jerry Adams and Milosevic, and George W. Bush's Administration has talked to both Qaddafi, Lil Kim Jong Il and the leaders of the Sunni Awakening.

Yet somehow - Obama is the misguided one here?

It's just so wrong and inaccurate it's galling to the point of rage.

The definition of "Appeasment" via Dictionary.com

ap·pease – verb (used with object), - peased, - peas·ing.
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease an angry king.
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage: The fruit appeased his hunger.
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.

A discussion is not a concession to some belligerent demand. It's a discussion. It's communication. How can you make any progress in any direction at all unless you discuss the issues at hand?

Standing back while loudly bellowing "Give Up, Or I'll say GIVE UP again..." is not a ration foriegn policy.

Former G. H. W. Bush Secretary of State James Baker understands this fully - From Hannity and Colmes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYC3jVaDDEg

Baker: My view is that you don't just talk to your friends, you talk to your enemies as well and that Diplomacy requires talking to your enemies. You don't reward them. Talking is not appeasement. I made 15 trips to Syria in 1990-1991 ...at a time when they were listed as a terrorist state. On the 16 trip Syria changed 25 years of policy and sat with the table with Israel, effectively recognizing their right to exist.

Maybe that is what Barack Obama want to discuss with Iran, Mr. McCain?

Fortunately though, Barack Obama himself knows how to seperate fact from their distructive inane fiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm-VduN-FVc



In this speech Barack makes it clear that the failure to engage is not a sign of strength, it is a travesty of disastrous proportions. Since Bush and his ilk like to use a retroactive rewriting of history to suit their own rhetorical needs, lets suppose this had always been our policy and as a result we had have lost the Cold War?

If we hadn't negotiated with the Soviet Union...

There would still be Nuclear Missles in Cuba pointed right at Florida. East and West Germany would not have been reunited. There would still be a wall across the center of Berlin.

It's well past time we relearned something that we seemed to have always known before the reign of President George W. Bush.

Diplomacy Works.

Vyan

Playing the 'Traitor' Card

In the last week Moveon.org has made the reich-wing of the Republican Party practically apoplectic with outrage that they would intimate "betrayal" on the part of General Patreaus.

In response to these attacks most Democratic leaders did what they seem to be best in response to the GOP and backed away from these comments so rapidly they practically left behind skid marks. Most that is, except for Hillary Clinton, who choose not to distance herself from Moveon, and instead dramatically said nothing. In turn this prompted a scathing attack from Rudy Giuliani which alleged that Hillary's non-Democratic non-Reaction was somehow an endorsement of attacking our troops.

Yesterday, Moveon decided it wasn't going to wait for any prominent Democrat to come their rescue (Snort). They punched back on their own - hard - with a new ad called "Betrayal of Trust".

The Giuiliani ad dares to point out that when Rudy had a chance to do something about Iraq and Al Qeada by being a part of the Iraq Survey Group he skipped out on the meetings to go make Millions at lucrative speaking engagements.

Hm - Patriotism and Service or Cold Hard Cash, which would a traitor choose?

Rudy's clear problem with this ad is the fact that it's absolutely true as opposed to repeated claims by Conservatives of Democratic and Liberal cowardice and betrayal - which aren't.

Not long ago in debate with Cheney Biographer Stephan Haynes John Stewart stated that those who oppose the war aren't calling the warmongers "traitors".

STEWART: No. They keep saying we don't understand the nature of this war. And critics keep saying, we understand the nature of it. You've been doing it wrong.

HAYES: Right, so why is that -- what's the, what's the quality of difference there?

STEWART: Well, no the, the difference there is, we're not calling them traitors.

With these new ads MoveOn.org seems to have now irrevocably changed that fact. NOW we're calling them "Traitors".

Amazingly Haynes denied that the administration and it's supports have regularly engaged in this type of character assassination against Democrats for years. At the time of his statement I myself compiled this list of examples.

First from Administration Supporters.

• Ann Coulter : Barack Obama's Lead in the Polls is "Good for Al-Qeada"
• Townhall : Liberals hate fellow Americans more than terrorists.
• Fox News: Let's find the Happy Insurgents now that Democrats have taken over Congress.
• Bill Kristol : Obama's anti-war stance shows that he would have been pro-slavery.
• Right-Wing Radio Pundit Buzz Patterson : "Democrat politicians, big media, academia, popular culture, and nongovernmental organizations" of forming "a Fifth Column" that is "facilitating defeat against Islamo-fascism" and that Most Liberals are Traitors.
• Radio Host Mike Gallagher on Fox News: the U.S. government should "round up" actor Matt Damon, "The View" host Joy Behar, and MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann and "put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they’re a bunch of traitors."
• Fox News Host : Wall Street Won’t Let A ‘Puny Little Traitor (who leaked the NSA Story)...Take Down Our Market’
• Bill O'Reilly on Cindy Sheehan : I think Mrs. Sheehan bears some responsibility for this [publicity] and also for the responsibility for the other American families who lost sons and daughters in Iraq who feel this kind of behavior borders on treasonous.
• Tom Delay : Pelosi and Reid are getting "very, very close to treason" by opposing the Iraq war.
• Neil Cavuto : "Did Americans who took Hugo Chavez’s oil today commit treason?"
• Melanie Morgan : New York Times editor Bill Keller is guilty of treason and that "Keller and his associates" should be thrown "in prison for 20 years.
• Michael Reagan : Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason."
• Coulter : It is simply a fact that Democrats like Murtha are encouraging the Iraqi insurgents when they say the war is going badly and it’s time to bring the troops home... They fill the airwaves with treason...These people are not only traitors, they are gutless traitors.
• Dennis Hastert : liberals want to take "the 130 most treacherous people, probably in the world...and release them out in the public eventually."
• CNN host Chuck Roberts: Ned Lamont is the Al Qeada Candidate.
• Cal Thomas : The Taliban wing of the Democratic Party cannot countenance any "heretics" who do not toe their line.
• South Carolina GOP chairman Katon Dawson : "Which one of the Democrat [sic] contenders are going to take [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-NV] to task about giving aid and comfort to the enemies by claiming the global war on terror is lost?"
• Dean Esmay on New York Times reporters: "Exposing such a secret program is not whistle-blowing -- it is high treason. When I say 'treason' I don't mean it in an insulting or hyperbolic way. I mean in a literal way: we need to find these 21st century Julius Rosenbergs, these modern day reincarnations of Alger Hiss, put them on trial before a jury of their peers, with defense counsel. When they are found guilty, we should then hang them by the neck until the [sic] are dead, dead, dead."
• Michael Savage : former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright "should be tried for treason, and when she is found guilty, she should be hung."
• Coulter on the Hamdan Decision : [Y]ou just expect Democrats to side with Al Qaeda." Coulter also stated that she couldn't "imagine that this country could have won World War II if this is the way one of the parties was behaving."
• Rush Limbaugh : "Did (Joe) Wilson lie about Niger? Did Wilson commit treason?"

And then members of the Administration itself (who've been less direct but have still made the same point).

• Donald Rumsfeld : War Critics are like Hitler Appeasers
• George Bush : "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."
• Dick Cheney : "It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2nd, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again,"
• George Bush : "I asked Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time so we can better assure America we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." [Bush remarks in Trenton, New Jersey, 9/23/02, emphasis added]
• John Ashcroft : "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends." [Washington Post, 12/7/01;]
• Karl Rove : "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

This past Sunday on Meet the Press John McCain made the following accusation against Democrats.

McCain .I hope that we will have the patience and the understanding on the part of the American people that they’ve made great sacrifice and all of us are saddened by it. But I hope we can also point out the consequences of failure, which is what the Democrats are proposing now.

Fortunately John Kerry was sitting beside him and (having learned from bitter previous experience) refused to take that accusation lying down.

SEN. KERRY: Listen to that. You just said the Democrats are proposing failure. We’ve had...

SEN. McCAIN: Yeah. (Unintelligible)...failure.

SEN. KERRY: ...four and a half years of failure. The Republicans stood up and cheered for Rumsfeld, who had a policy of not enough troops. To his credit, John at least said he needs more troops. But the fact is they’ve supported every step of this president, misleading America about the course of this war. Last January the president stood up to Americans. You know what he said, Tim? He said, "We will hold them accountable to their benchmarks." They’re not holding them accountable. They have no means of holding them accountable because they’ve said we’re going to stay there with 130,000 troops into next summer. They have no leverage.

We are not proposing failure, as John loves to assert and Republicans loves to assert. We are proposing a way to strengthen America in the region. We’re proposing a way to, in fact, make Iraq successful to the degree that it can be by playing to the real undercurrents of their, of their cultural and historical divisions. Nothing in the surge addresses the question of Shia, Sunni divide. Nothing in the surge is going to resolve the fundamental reluctance of Iraqi politicians to make a decision, Tim.

Now, we’re not talking about abandoning the place. Why do the Republicans have a complete inability to envision a foreign policy, as we used to have, Republican and Democrat alike, which plays to our strengths and builds alliances with other countries? Bring the United Nations back in. Bring the neighbors into this. Have a standing summit in a standing conference where we resolve these differences as best as can be. The United States can’t do it alone. And we have to change the equation so we regain leverage and initiative. That’s not walking away, that’s walking forward and putting us in a stronger posture.

The Truth, which Kerry put so well, is that Democrats have been the ones standing up and pointing out Bush and the Republicans repeated failure, after failure after failure - and as a reward they've been repeatedly attacked as traitors, appeasers, cowards, cut-and-runners and surrender-monkeys.

Frankly hurting the troops delicate little feelings (with the truth, ugly though it may be), as if they were Tinkerbell in desperate need of applause - does not make anyone a "traitor".

The truth is that Bush and his supporters are the traitors, and it's well past time we began saying so regularly as MOveon.org has finally started to do.

Anyone who...

• Willfully ignored warning after warning (from Richard Clarke, George Tenet to Condi, August 6th PDB, George Tenet in Crawford, 52 FAA hijack alerts) that the U.S. was under threat of imminent terrorist attack in 2001 - is a traitor.
• Failed to respond to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole once al Qeada was confirmed at the culprit - is a traitor.
• Falsified intelligence information (Niger Forgeries, Yellowcake, Curveball, al-Libi, Aluminum tubes, mobile labs) to support starting a war on false pretenses, is a traitor
• Blew the cover of a covert CIA operative for political gain, is a traitor.
• Engages in Torture in direct violation of U.S. and international Law - is a traitor.
• Spied on the American Public without a warrant in violation of the Law and the Constitution - is a Traitor.
• Failed to ensure that our troops have adequate training and oversight (abu Grhaib), bullets, (not so hillbilly) armor, vehicles, helmets, clean water (KBR), health care (Walter reed) and treatment for PTSD, depression and suicide is a traitor.
• Ignores a drowning American City for nearly a week and lets it SINK INTO OBLIVION then leaves it that way for two years (and counting) while letting the rest of our infrastructure slowly crumble into dust - is a traitor.
• Failed to protect our national interests by engaging in diplomacy, even with our so-called enemies (as every previous administration has done) is a traitor
• Failed to even try to kill or capture Bil Laden because we are an "ally" of Pakistan which has a non-aggression treaty with the Taliban and has merged with Al Qeada - is a traitor!
• Tries to use the American Justice System to FIX ELECTIONS - is a traitor.
• Violates National Security Rules and Guidelines by pretending to be in some mysterious Fourth Branch Of Government - is a Traitor.
• Has Falsified and distorted current intelligence on the ground in Iraq, ignoring the GAO, the NIE, troops in the 82nd Airborne and 71% of the Iraq Public to proclaim that the "Surge is a Success" simply to keep our troops in harms way for political reasons - no matter how many ribbons are on his chest - IS A TRAITOR!

All of these people have betrayed their oath of office to uphold the Constitution and abide by the laws of this nation, all of these people have repeatedly abused and betrayed the trust of the American public time and time again.

But guess what? Most of those people Aren't Democrats!.

We've all been well aware of this for years now, it's well past time we weren't afraid to say so out loud.

I understand why prominent Democrats back away from such language, so do prominent Republicans (in public). They openly use Coulter-geist and Limp-baugh as the mouth pieces for their dirty work while trying to keep their own hands "clean". But it's also clear that they're working in concert - tag team style - Good GOPer/Bad GOPer.

It high time that we learned and began to employ that trick. We are the solders, the grunts, we make sure the dirty jobs get done. Sure Pelosi might not use the same fiery language we do - but that doesn't mean she isn't on the same team.

Fact is: A Spade is a spade and a Traitor is a Traitor. Say it Loud. Say it Proud.

Vyan

Was Pat Tillman Murdered for being Anti-Bush?

Friday on Countdown Keith Olbermann reported the new information the Army Ranger and Former NFL Star Pat Tillman was not only killed via "Fratricide" (Friendly Fire) but that it might also have been a deliberate act of murder due the close grouping of three M-16 shots in his forehead.

But not only that, could Tillman have been killed for his political views?

From Thinkprogress.

"Was the man the White House used to promote the war ordered to be killed because he was becoming increasingly critical of the war in Iraq?"

Watch Video from Countdown

Could it be that Tillman was fragged for bad mouthing Bush?

The idea of fragging a war critic may seem an extreme proposition, unless of course you happen to be a darling of the Right-wing like Ann Coulter.

On June 20 and 21, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter refused to explain -- and even expanded upon -- her recent claim that Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) is "the reason soldiers invented fragging,"

On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Coulter further expanded upon her statement, asserting that if Murtha "did get fragged, he'd finally deserve one of those Purple Hearts."

So it's not like what is being suggested here is entirely "unthinkable"- it's already been thought of in regards to those who have the temerity to dare question and criticize the Wars of Georege W. Bush.

Thinkprogress Continued...

Last night on MSNBC’s Countdown, host Keith Olbermann noted that "Corporal Tillman held a number of personal views that were unpopular within the context of the Bush administration, perhaps also within the Army." Tillman reportedly favored John Kerry in the presidential election, opposed the invasion of Iraq, and had plans to meet with Noam Chomsky.

Speaking on Countdown Jon Stolz of VoteVets.org posed the question.

We know he was a free thinker. But it leads you to think was this guy killed possibly by people that didn’t like his political views or was he killed accidentally? We had a time in the war when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April 2004 in Iraq; we had basically the Iraqi Tet offensive where the Shiite militias rose up and the contractors were burned at the stake; the President was facing the election and he decided not to go into Fallujah for six months. Did they use him to justify, politically, bad policy in Iraq?

It may be a bit premature to neccesarily assign motives to what was clearly a tragic occurance - but the odd intensity of secrecy the Bush Administration has shown in exerting executive priviledge to block congresstional inquiries concerning this incident may be illustrative.

We already know that Tillman was shot by a fellow soldier, isn't that bad enough - what more could there be to hide?

Maybe the possibility that it wasn't an accident.

The Associated Press reported that in the last moments before Tillman died, another soldier was hugging the ground at Tillman’s side, and Tillman said, "Would you shut your [expletive] mouth? God’s not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling –"

I've never served, or been involved in a situation with comrades whose lives depend on me as much as I depend on them, but it seems to me that there were some serious personal issues at play between Tillman and the person he was speaking too. Comments such as those clearly have History.

If these were indeed his last words on earth (and this has been heavily disputed) then the public and his family absolutely deserve to know if he was shot by the person he was yelling at - or someone else not involved in the scuffle. Either way, we're they just plain careless with their weapon, did they perceive Tillman's aggressive words as a threat and the last straw in a long standing arguement, did they simply have a momentary flash of rage and poor judgement or was it something else entirely.

The Tillman shooting occurred fairly early in our campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, after several years of extended deployments, stop-loss, improperly and untreated cases of PTSD since the wars began there have been 116 confirmed cases of Soldier Suicide.

Latest official figures released by the Pentagon reveal at least 116 self-inflicted fatalities in Iraq. But this does not include several dozen still under investigation, nor any of the many cases back in the U.S.

The Star Tribune of Minneapolis reported the latest example today. It revealed that an Iraq war veteran reported missing in northern Minnesota -- and suffering from post-traumatic stress -- had been found dead.

With the tragedies of both Haditha and Moumoudiya now on record, Tillman's shooting just might have been an early warning sign that has gone unheaded.

Vyan

Countdown:Special Comment on Michael Chertoff's Gut

Olbermann and Michael Chertoff's Gut.

Taliban and Al-Qeada announce Merger - Dow Skyrockets!

From Thinkprogress

On May 30, 2005, Vice President Cheney declared that the insurgency in Iraq was in its "last throes" and predicted "the level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline."

And three years later?

Since Cheney’s statement two years ago, 1,799 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq, roughly half of all U.S. fatalities. At least 12,378 U.S. soldiers have been wounded.

Wrong again, shooter!

But y'know what's even worse? According to the Moonie-Times Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have just implement a nice neat new corporate merger.

"The Taliban has merged its propaganda and field operations with those of the global al Qaeda network led by Osama bin Laden," enabling the Taliban to "develop from a xenophobic, home-grown Islamist movement into a more outward looking force that is helping to advance al Qaeda’s global interests."

Oh, Isn't that just fine?

Whatever happened to...

The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Yet last September Pakistan signed a peace treaty with the Taliban which among other things... established a stay-out-of-jail zone for Osama bin Laden.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."

Is that what you call the - "Smoke 'em out!!" Strategy?

Instead of reading Pakistan the Riot Act after this announcement, President Bush invited Presidents Musharraf of Pakistan and Karzai of Afghanistan out for a quiet dinner. Are you fracking kidding me?

The three leaders had a constructive exchange on the common challenges facing our three nations. The leaders agreed on the need for common action to achieve common objectives. They committed to supporting moderation and defeating extremism through greater intelligence sharing, coordinated action against terrorists, and common efforts to enhance the prosperity of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And as result of that "stern jaw-boning" session over some fettucini and veal we have this .

"The Taliban have changed immensely in the last year due to the mentoring they are getting from leading Arab jihadists in Pakistan with al Qaeda, both in the realm of battlefield tactics and media operations," said Lutfullah Mashal, a senior official in Afghanistan's National Security Council.
"They are doing what works in Iraq and often succeeding," said Mr. Mashal, who as director of strategic communications designs media operations to oppose the Taliban.

Now look, I know that Pakistan has got The Bomb and all, but this is just plain ridiculous. America has got to get it's priorities straight.

We are getting Punk'd in Afghanistan.

"Scores of civilian deaths over the past months from heavy American and allied reliance on airstrikes to battle Taliban insurgents are threatening popular support for the Afghan government and creating severe strains within the NATO alliance. ... What angers Afghans are not just the bombings, but also the raids of homes, the shootings of civilians in the streets and at checkpoints, and the failure to address those issues over the five years of war.

NATO, NATO is having it's ass handed to them.

NPR reports, "In Afghanistan, the Taliban insurgency is spreading, even reaching some provinces in the north that had never been its strongholds. Last week, Taliban fighters attacked a district only 45 miles from the capital, Kabul. Afghans increasingly fear that NATO and Afghan forces will lose the war."

Now Pakistan has become a Safe Haven for Terrorism yet were talking all this trash about Bombing Iran?

Why is that subject even on the table when we haven't stopped Bin Laden yet?

Before we invaded Iraq there was NO LINK between Saddam, Iraq and Al-Qeada.

Before we invaded Iraq, President Bush was specifically warned what it would turn into by the CIA and ignored it.

"A stable democratic government in postwar Iraq would be a long, difficult, and probably turbulent challenge."

"Al Qa’ida probably would see an opportunity to accelerate its operational tempo and increase terrorist attacks during and after a U.S.-Iraq war."

"Rogue ex-regime elements could forge an alliance with existing terrorist organizations or act independently to wage guerilla warfare against the new government or Coalition forces."

"A US-led defeat and occupation of Arab Iraq would boost proponents of political Islam and would result in ‘calls for the people of the region to unite and build up defenses against the West.’"

"Funds for terrorist groups probably would increase as a result of Muslim outrage over US action."

That last prediction is the most telling because according to current reports the new number one fund-raising source for Al-Qaeda - is now Iraq!

U.S. officials say that "al-Qaida’s command base in Pakistan increasingly is being funded by cash from Iraq, where the terrorist network’s operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity."

I understand that the world is a complex place, and indeed sometimes you have to make the preverbial "deal with the devil" - but What-The-Fuck is going on here??!

When John the Boner shed his crocodile tears about "When are we gonna stand up and defeat 'em", I thought it was just PR. but now I gotta say - He has got a point, we're not fighting them over there so they don't come here - or even fighting them there so they can kill us there - we're not fighting them at all.

It's just pathetic, it really is.

Everything this President has done since before 9-11 has been completely bass-ackwards. I know I'm preaching to the choir, I know our conservatives fellow Americans aren't listening, they've got their fingers in their ears and are going "LaAa laa laa" whenever anyone has the gall and temerity to dare criticize Lord Bush the Second, because to them Bush is America and Bush IS The Troops ™ - and if we stop clapping for Bush we stop clapping for the troops which according to Bill Maher...

"Will make Tinkerbell's light will go out and she'll die...."

But God-Dammit I have to believe that their are some people besides us "crazy commie liberal democrat scum" who are actually paying attention here.

This has gotta stop. Plain and simple. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican - this has gotta stop.

/rant!

Vyan